We refer to the article “Hawker centres upgraded only when necessary” (Straits Times, Nov 6).
Upgrading is not carried out unnecessarily?
It states that “She told Ms Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon GRC) that the views of stallholders are taken into account and upgrading is not carried out unnecessarily.
We don’t upgrade a centre unnecessarily. We determine only what is required to basically improve the experience of the patrons.”
Upgrading caused food price increase?
Ms Lee said there had been feedback from residents about price increases after hawker centres were refurbished or upgraded, and some even asked if improvement works were necessary.”
Announced that all centres would be upgraded?
- These remarks seem to contradict what was said when the upgrading programme was announced about 13 years ago – that all hawker centres would be graded in the next 10 years.
In this regard – “the Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme (HUP) was launched in February 2001. The entire programme was estimated to cost about S$420m and it was expected to span over a period of 10 years to complete. The upgrading was phased to carry out in 7 batches”.
So, does it mean that there was never any “upgrading is not carried out unnecessarily”, since all were planned at the offset to be upgraded within a decade?
Rent increased by more than 100%?
As to “Subsidised hawkers of cooked food pay a monthly rent of $192 after standard upgrading, while those at centres that underwent major works pay $320 a month.
While she did not state the pre-upgrading rent for subsidised hawkers yesterday, this has been reported as being $160 a month.
For other non-subsidised stallholders, rents are adjusted based on professional valuation, Ms Fu said, adding that the Government does not recover the full cost of upgrading”
- What is the range of the percentage increase in the rent after upgrading?
Scant information on rental increase?
Why is it that the Parliamentary reply did not give sufficient information as to the rental pre and post upgrading?
Based on the Straits Times jourmalist’s “this has been reported as being $160 a month” – does it mean that the rent for subsidised hawkers increased by as much as 100 per cent ($320 diivided by $160)?
What about the increase for non-subsidised hawkers after upgrading?
How much has food prices increased?
Is it any wonder that food and beverage prices have increased substantially since the upgrading programme started.
Without sufficient information on the increase in rentals, as well as we understand it – increases in refuse, cleaning, service and conservancy fees, etc – how can we ascertain the increased costs that may be passed on to consumers.
Govt does not recover full cost?
Or for that matter, the veracity of the statement that “ the Government does not recover the full cost of upgrading”.
By the way, how much of the full cost does the Government recover up-front?
A forum letter on the plight of “upgraded” hawkers and consumers?
In this connection, Tan Chek Wee wrote to the Today newspaper forum on 26 September – “After two months of renovation, the hawker centre at Aljunied Crescent reopened last month. One stallholder said her rent was now S$1,400; it was S$1,000 pre-renovation.
She was aware that many of her customers were elderly and poor, but said she had to increase the prices of some dishes. Wanton noodles that were S$2.50 are now S$3. Half the stalls are still closed.
Surely the town council’s surplus funds could have been used for the renovation to stall the increase in food prices?
No wonder poor residents view the upgrading of hawker centres and wet markets with trepidation. Unnecessary renovation should be stopped.”
S Y Lee and Leong Sze Hian
P.S. Come with your family and friends to the 5th Return Our CPF protest on 29 November 4 pm at Speakers’ Corner https://www.facebook.com/events/796694730417598/