SINGAPORE: Minister for Health Ong Ye Kung has denied claims that stallholders at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre are being charged a monthly storage fee.
His remarks came in response to veteran food critic and Makansutra founder KF Seetoh, who accused the hawker centre’s management of imposing excessive costs and obligations on tenants.
In a series of social media posts, Seetoh alleged that hawkers were billed S$70 per month for using a blue basket to store supplies.
He also claimed that stallholders were contractually obliged to provide 60 free charity meals every month.
Seetoh first raised the issue in a video posted on 4 August, stating that hawkers were charged monthly for the storage space suppliers used to leave daily orders.
He criticised the operator, Canopy Hawkers Group Ltd, for practices he said undermined hawkers’ ability to keep food prices affordable in a publicly funded hawker centre.
On 8 August, Seetoh added in a Facebook post that hawkers were required to provide 30 free meals each month for a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) initiative, and another 30 meals under a “Pay-It-Forward” programme.
According to him, the meals — priced between S$3 and S$3.50 — were not subsidised.
Calling the policy a “ridiculous smash and grab”, he also posted what appeared to be part of a tenancy agreement.
Minister Ong’s Response
On 11 August, Ong took to Facebook to deny the S$70 storage fee allegation, writing: “There is no such practice of charging for the use of the blue baskets at the back of their stalls.”
Regarding the free meals, Ong said the claim “does not present the full picture”.
He explained that when the hawker centre first opened, stallholders agreed to provide 30 meals per month for low-income residents, later revised to 100 meals over the three-year lease term.
“There are no penalties if they do not or are unable to provide the meals,” Ong added, describing it as a “well-intentioned initiative” that has yet to commence.
He said the aim was to encourage hawkers to “Pay-It-Forward” and contribute to the community.
Ong praised Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre as a “lively and welcoming space” that has quickly become a community hub.
He urged patrons, hawkers, operators, and government agencies to work together to sustain hawker culture without “putting down anyone”.
Public Reaction and Calls for Clarity
Ong’s Facebook post sparked varied responses, with many questioning why the free meal requirement remains in the contract despite assurances it would not be enforced.
One commenter wrote: “It’s a bit insincere to say that although it’s in the contract, it is not enforced and there are no penalties for it. Things are written in contracts for good reason, not suka suka.”
Another asked: “Why not write in black and white that these terms are waived? There will be cynical people who say the hawker management backtracked because of ministerial intervention.”
Secretary-General of Red Dot United Ravi Philemon sought further clarification under Ong’s post.
He asked whether hawkers were ever led to believe there was a storage fee, if any money had been collected under this misunderstanding, and whether hawkers had been informed in writing that failure to provide free meals would not affect their lease renewal.
He also questioned whether the ongoing responsibility for feeding low-income residents should fall on hawkers — many of whom face high costs and tight margins — rather than government agencies, with hawkers contributing voluntarily instead.
Calls for Further Investigation
Others called for deeper investigation, urging Ong to speak directly with stallholders rather than management.
One user suggested an MP send someone incognito to verify the situation, while another advised Ong to walk the ground without an entourage to gather genuine feedback rather than risk visits being staged.
A commenter added: “The public deserves the right to know the truth and any wrongdoings by any individual should be taken to task.”
Concerns Over Fairness in Contracts
Some users highlighted broader concerns about rental agreements, arguing it is contradictory to call for preservation of hawker culture while allowing companies to include clauses that impose additional costs on stallholders.
Others stressed that legal agreements, particularly retail rental contracts in Singapore, require thorough review to ensure fairness, noting that current arrangements often favour landlords while leaving retailers with little more than the right to quietly occupy their stall or shop unit.
KF Seetoh presses on alleged unfair policies at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre, urges clear SEHC guidelines
Separately, KF Seetoh continued to challenge alleged unfair policies at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre after Minister Ong dismissed his earlier claims.
On 12 August, he shared an image of what he said was an invoice showing a S$70 monthly charge for a small “Backyard Cluster” space used for delivery drop-offs.
He argued that operators should only charge for actual storage facilities, not temporary holding areas.
Seetoh also criticised contract clauses requiring hawkers to provide 60 free meals monthly, saying the wording made the obligation legally binding even if unenforced.
He urged the government to establish clear, standardised guidelines for all Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHCs) to prevent exploitative practices.
He also warned that unchecked practices could lead to higher operating costs passed on to consumers, deter new hawkers, and even jeopardise Singapore’s UNESCO recognition for hawker culture.
The post Netizens question Bukit Canberra hawker contract terms, challenge Ong Ye Kung’s defence of operator appeared first on The Online Citizen.
