MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES - OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR - 1ST APRIL, 1983 TO 31ST MARCH, 1984
Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first reply to the Member for Whampoa. There are 10,700 public toilets in Singapore. Some of these are well maintained but many are not satisfactorily maintained. It is important for both the management and members of the public to realize their responsibilities in keeping public toilets clean. Whilst the Ministry's health inspectors can and will continue to inspect the public toilets regularly and take enforcement action when necessary, the condition of the toilets can only improve if management pay more attention to the maintenance of public toilets and if members of the public make, a concerted effort to use the toilets with consideration for others. Public health inspectors can easily take action against management for dirty toilets. However, it is difficult to check on the users of the toilets without intruding on their privacy. The Ministry has conducted an intensive survey of all public toilets in Singapore early this year, and subsequently issued notices to the managements and proprietors of commercial buildings, eating establishments and other public places where the public toilets need to be repaired or upgraded. They will be given six months to make the necessary improvements. Thereafter, the Ministry will go out to the public to appeal to them to use public toilets properly. The Ministry realizes that it will not be easy to teach the public how to use public toilets properly as this is a sensitive and personal matter but, nonetheless, every effort will be made to bring the message across. The fullest cooperation from everyone is needed if we want to see the standard of cleanliness of public toilets improved. The Ministry pays close attention to the personal hygiene of food handlers in eating establishments. All hawkers and their assistants, cooks, waiters, waitresses in hotels, restaurants, schools and office canteens are required to be medically screened and inoculated once every three years against typhoid. As for ducks being hung out to dry in the open air, mentioned by the Member for Whampoa, the inspectors of the Ministry will take enforcement action whenever they come across such practices. But generally, the management of the restaurants should take the initial action to ensure that such practices do not take place. It will be difficult for the health inspectors to be present everywhere at all times of the year. Mr Speaker, Sir, the subject of hawkers has always been a hot topic in this House. This is perhaps to be expected as, traditionally, hawking has always been associated with the poor and the under-privileged in our society. I presume this must be the underlying reason that has prompted so many Members of Parliament to take up cudgels on behalf of the hawkers. Viewed in this light, I am glad that in our materialistic society where the philosophy appears to be everyone for himself, as the world does not owe us a living, there are still MPs who have a soft heart for the underdogs. However, this appears to run smack against the constant advocacy of the need to make hard-headed and invariably unpleasant decisions for the long-term good and interest of the society. In their eagerness to take up issues for the hawkers, they should not overlook the many instances of cooked food hawkers who first obtained a cooked food licence on hardship grounds and have since prospered to the extent of owning a Mercedes and also sending their children abroad for further studies. Yet, despite their success in the hawking business, they have shown no desire to give up their hawker stalls which are heavily subsidized by the public. I would be much happier if the very MPs who have spoken up for the poor hawkers will also make a plea to these prosperous hawkers to give up their heavily subsidized stalls to the needy. Mr Speaker, Sir, a study team on the retail distribution system known as STRED was formed to examine the retail distribution trade in Singapore. It recommended, among other things, a fundamental restructuring of the wet market system, including phasing out of wet markets to release precious labour into the industrial sector, the setting up of supermarkets and specialty stores to replace the wet markets, and the charging of market rates, etc. In view of this radical recommendation, a special review committee, chaired by my former Senior Parliamentary Secretary, including the Parliamentary Secretary (Ministry of National Development) and a few other Members of Parliament and officials from the relevant Ministries, was thereafter appointed to look into the social and political implications of the recommendations of STRED. In a chapter entitled "Social and Political Background", the Committee commented: 'Hawkers were a major social and political issue in the '5Os and early '60s when unemployment was high. As hawking provided a way out for the unemployed, Government was, therefore, liberal in issuing hawker licences. By the late '60s, the employment situation improved, To limit the number of hawkers in the Republic and to ensure that the able-bodied men were channelled to more productive sectors of the economy, the register for hawkers was closed in December 1969. The total number of hawkers then was 24,843. For public health reasons and because hawkers were socially disadvantaged people, the Government adopted the policy of subsidizing them by providing food centres and markets for hawkers to conduct their trade under clean and hygienic conditions. Hawkers were charged a nominal sum as licence fee or rental for their stalls. Another reason for subsidizing was that they provided a cheap source of food for the lower and middle income groups. During the years when wages had to be kept low to build up the economy, hawkers helped to lower the cost of living. As the economy strengthened and wages increased, the provision of a cheap source of food by hawkers helped to contain inflation. Hawkers have, therefore, in their own way contributed to the economy. In the '70s the situation changed. With full employment and higher wages, there was a great demand for hawker food as working families often eat out. Hawking became lucrative and was not just a way out for the unemployed. Many able-bodied young men, attracted by the profits of cooked food hawking applied for hawker stalls.' 5.15 p.m. The studies have established that the existing wet market distribution system is labour-intensive and there is a decline in the demand for wet market stalls. There are currently more than 2,000 vacant stalls in wet markets. However, about 66% of the 20,600 people who are in the trade now are above 40 years of age, and they will find it difficult to find alternative employment if wet markets are phased out completely. Therefore, the alternative retail distribution system in the form of supermarkets and neighbourhood shops as recommended by the STRED and supported by the Review Committee will only be introduced in the new HDB estates. So the Member for Whampoa can rest assured that the market in his constituency will not be phased out yet. I understand the HDB has already started to allocate neighbourhood shops for market produce in some of their new estates. Mr Speaker, Sir, Government subsidy for hawkers takes the following forms: (a) the rental or licence fee for hawker stalls; (b) the cost of maintaining the markets and food centres; (c) the cost of refuse removal services. Hawkers pay for the rent of their stalls and the maintenance of the market through the licence fees. However, the licence fees are below economic rates and do not even cover the construction cost of the market. The Special Review Committee recommended that the economic rates should cover the construction costs and operating costs, including the maintenance of the markets and food centres. The Committee feels that hawkers should no longer be considered as a special group of people to be accorded special privileges and subsidized by Government in their trade. With full employment there should be no need for people to turn to hawking as a means of livelihood. Those who wish to do so must not expect to be protected from market forces by Government subsidies. Some hawkers, Mr Speaker, Sir, in private markets are paying rentals more than double or treble the licence fees of hawkers in Government and statutory boards' markets. Marginal hawkers have survived because of the subsidies and this has resulted in inefficient use of manpower. The Committee therefore recommends that the subsidy for hawkers be removed and that hawkers be treated on an equal footing with people in other trades and be subjected to economic forces in attaining their viability. As a start, the Committee recommends that hawkers should be made to bear the cost of refuse removal services which we have done. Further, hawker licence fees should be increased to economic rates. To ease the impact, however, the subsidy can be removed in stages. With the removal of subsidies in the licence fees pegged at economic rates, any person who wishes to be a hawker may apply for a vacant hawker stall in a market or food centre. The Committee further recommends that in the meantime the existing policy of controlling the hawker population be continued until all street hawkers are relocated to market or cooked food centres. Until then, vacant market produce stalls in existing markets will be given only to Singapore citizens who are unemployed and above 40 years old with the exception of the physically handicapped. Mr Speaker, Sir, arising from these studies, the Government has now decided that hawkers should not continue to be subsidized. This took into consideration the tremendous increase in construction cost of a cooked food stall from $6,000 in 1973 to $40,000 today. Therefore, hawker licence fees will be increased gradually over the next few years, starting from 1st April 1983, to bring it closer to the economic rental which reflects the construction and maintenance cost of markets and food centres. Even with the increases, the fees will still be much lower than the rental paid by stallholders in private food centres and coffee shops. The gradual increase in fees will give hawkers time to adjust to the higher cost of operating their stalls. But they will have to sharpen their culinary and business skills to remain viable. It would prompt many of the hawkers to work harder, raise productivity and work more efficiently. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry's immediate priority is to relocate the remaining 2,300 street hawkers into vacant stalls in existing markets and food centres. These street hawkers are mainly in the central business district where land is limited and too expensive to be allocated for construction of markets and food centres. Vacant market produce stalls will have to be converted to cooked food stalls in view of the large number of cooked food hawkers to be relocated. We will therefore have to accord less priority to those who apply for hawker licences on grounds of financial hardship. They can be considered only after the needs of street hawkers are met. In any case, it will be difficult for them especially if they do not have the necessary skills to make a living from hawking as licence fees will gradually be increased over the next few years to reduce the heavy subsidy. Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1982, some 5,250 applications for hawker licences on grounds of hardship were received by the Hawkers Department. Of these, 299 applications were approved but only 45 in the end took up the stalls offered to them. Generally, the Ministry has found that those who were allocated licences -on grounds of hardship are very choosy. Hence, of the 205 applicants offered cooked food stalls, only 33 took up the offer, and of 77 applicants offered market produce stalls, only 12 took up the offer. None of the 17 who were offered piece and sundry stalls accepted the offer. Many turned down the offer because the stall offered was not in the locality of their choice. Of the total applications received, 4,999 or 93% were for cooked food stalls. Many who were offered market produce or piece and sundry stalls instead of cooked food stalls refused the offer. It appears therefore that most applicants view cooked food as a lucrative trade and not merely as a means of livelihood. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are many factors which contribute to the success and popularity of the market or food centre aside from its location. These include the culinary and business skills of the hawkers, various types of food sold, prices, maintenance of premises, etc. Singaporeans are known to travel long distances, even across the Causeway, to patronize popular food stalls and restaurants. In some of the more popular food centres today, including the Newton Hawker Centre, we have met with great resistance from the hawkers themselves during the relocation process. Therefore, the location of a food centre may not be the best criterion to use in determining the fees to be levied. The success or otherwise of a market or food centre depends ultimately on the hawkers themselves. There is therefore only a very tenuous relationship between the fees paid and the profitability of the hawkers. Sir, I have chosen to reply in general to various Members on this subject as I think it will help them to understand the problem better. The Member for Kaki Bukit has requested that the hawkers who were resettled into the market at Block 630 be exempted from the increase in fees. I am afraid this cannot be done as hawkers' fees even with the increase are still highly subsidized. Markets and food centres are built to meet the needs of residents within a large enough catchment area to ensure its viability. It is up to the hawkers themselves to make the markets and food centres a success. In the case of the hawkers from Lorong Tai Seng who were resettled into Block 630, Bedok Reservoir Road, which is located in the midst of a large HDB housing estate, I understand that the market is reasonably well patronized and the business should pick up after all the residents have moved into their flats.