What is 'Professionalisation of Hawker Centres'?

Been wanting to write about this topic for weeks, but I have been distracted.

I remember reading about Minister Vivian's comments on that hawker centres ought to be professionalised some time ago. But he did not give details on what 'professionalisation' meant. It was kept vague.

To me, 'professionalisation of hawker centres' sounds like getting an operator to take over the hawker centre from NEA. If Minister Vivian had meant 'professionalisation of hawkers', then that would take on an entirely different meaning, but he didn't actually say that.

Currently, there are only 2 main parties in the Hawker Centre equation, i.e. NEA and the Hawkers. (Let's not talk about the cleaning subcontractors.) Under the 'new scheme', one could expect that an Operator will come in-between NEA and the Hawkers, probably via a bidding system, where the highest bidding Operator will win the rights to operate the hawker centre for the next X years. It's a different business model for hawker centres.

I've summarised the key milestones in the life-cycle of a hawker centre below. You can easily compare who's doing what before and after the new scheme.

Stage	Milestones	Under NEA	Under ‘New Scheme’
A	Planning	NEA	NEA
B	Building	NEA	NEA or Operator
C	Leasing stalls	NEA	Operator  (Operator may choose to lease stalls to individual hawkers, or employ hawkers.)
D	Cleaning, Maintenance & Upgrading	NEA	Operator

Sounds simple enough. Not too different from a shopping centre operator winning the bid to develop a shopping centre on a parcel of land zoned Commericial for retail purposes, then leasing shop space to individual retailers.

From an efficiency-driven policy perspective, this sounds like the optimal solution to maximise the income revenue per hawker centre, minimise public manpower in terms of hawker centre management etc, while claiming that the 'standards of lowest-rung of foods in Singapore will be improved with institutionalisation (aka professionalisation, modernisation etc)'.

Is that all there is to the picture?

As with all types of policy changes, some parties will lose, and some parties will win. And sometimes, a couple of parties will win BIG, while many others will lose BIG.

See the quick summary of expected pros and cons from the perspectives of the various groups involved in such a change:

	Expected Pros	Expected Cons
For NEA	Devolvement of responsibilities to Operator Focus on planning and regulatory functions only Can claim ‘market forces’ and is likely to extract more revenue from each hawker centre.	Loss of control
For Operator	Solid business opportunities Strengthen brand presence by forming islandwide chain of hawker centres, food courts etc.	-
For Hawker	May be able to operate a stall in cleaner, cooler environment. May be employed by Operator	Faced with increasing rental obligations Loss of impetus to improve/innovate Loss of business ownership Loss of livelihood
For Consumer	Enjoy food in a cleaner, cooler environment	Increase in food prices Decrease in food quality and/or innovation of food
For Others	-	Subcontractors (cleaning, disposable cutlery vendors, food stuff and supplies etc) may be able to cut bigger deals with the Operator, but prices have to be lowered. Hence, smaller suppliers/subcons may go out of business over time. Kopitiam owners/stallholders will be facing direct competition from the new-model hawker centres, forcing them to either upgrade themselves and/or lower their prices. Eventually, the chains may take over to operate at greater 'efficiency'.

3 Inevitable Negative Outcomes:
Loss of Livelihood,
Loss of Food Innovation,
Increase in Food Prices 

Akin to the price-hikes of taxis in Singapore, there is little the government can or will do when the operator decides to raise the rents it charges to the tenants (e.g. the hawkers). It is merely a 'private agreement' between 2 parties.

Rental increases will inevitably and eventually be passed onto consumers as increase in food prices. This is the government giving up control over stall rentals and food prices.

More so than ever, I would be concerned with hawkers losing their livelihood as a result of this new scheme.

If you pay just a little attention, every hawker centre has hawkers selling duplicate foods and drinks. E.g. There will be more than 1 drinks stall, more than 1 chicken rice stall, more than 1 Economy Rice stall etc.

This is competition. It helps to keep the prices of each food and drink low, while encouraging each hawker to innovate and/or ensure that his food is the best he can create. This competition is the reason why Singapore can boast of many different dishes of exceptional taste and quality. This spirit of innovation is not something you can remove, then attempt to replicate later.

This unique characteristic of the hawker centres ecosystem today also allows for more people to become hawkers, make a livelihood, and be their own boss. This is beyond a question of economics. This is a pragmatic question of survival, personal pride and freedom. Pragmatic management of emotions.


Does it matter that 3 out of 4 chicken rice stalls per hawker centre will never become Tian Tian Chicken Rice?
No. The point here is to give people a chance to try.

And when 1,000 people are trying to make Hainanese chicken rice, after 20 years, Singapore will eventually boast of a Tian Tian Chicken Rice.

Now, once the Operator starts to rationalise this creative chaos, there will only be 1 drinks stall, 1 chicken rice stall, 1 prata stall, 1 laksa stall, 1 desserts stall etc in every hawker centre.

Overall stall space will be reduced, while seating areas will be expanded. It becomes a food court. And I don't remember finding any great memorable foods in food courts. Food court offerings are usually plain and ubiquitous.

The Operator could either lease each stall to an individual hawker and charge him a rent (and sometimes also take a cut of the hawker's earnings), or employ its own cooks and workers (e.g. former hawkers and/or foreign workers) for each food stall, and centrally produce/manage the food types/quality/production, probably in a food factory in Woodlands.

The coveted 'efficiency' and 'productivity' will go up, but the total number of jobs created per hawker centre will drop drastically. Majority of the displaced hawkers will become unemployed, even after you exclude those who are employed by the Operator or set up stalls in the new model hawker centres. This loss, to me, is unacceptable.


I am not against the idea of new-model hawker centres per se.
However, this must be carried out selectively.
Certainly, not ALL hawkers centres ought to come under the new scheme.

One way to minimise potential downsides is to only apply the new scheme to NEW hawker centres, and not existing hawker centres.

Ultimately, there must always be a mix and distribution of new-model and organic hawker centres in any estate.