[GLGT] Minister Ong Ye Kung Responds to KF Seetoh’s Untrue Claims About Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre

[megaweb]

If i ask will they scold me?

Actually they have yet kicked start the free meal.

 

[priore]

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/20...ns-penalties-for-not-providing-charity-meals/

If this is accurate, then whatever BCHC said are just lies.

"Under the terms, failing to take part in either programme would result in six demerit points and a S$50 breach penalty for each offence."

There's demerit points, there's $50 penalty.

From Zaobao
"这包括如果没参与“把善心传下去”或忠诚计划，将各记六分和缴付50元违约赔偿"

What did BCHC said on their Facebook post again?

"So, there is no obligation on the part of the hawkers, and no penalties to speak of. While hawkers have voluntarily agreed to participate at the point of selection, we also acknowledged the view that charity should not be contractual..."

The management reading "contract_final_v1_draft.pdf" issit? Then they gave the Hawker v2_final_signed.pdf issit??

 

[dxdx999]

Lol the idiot nasi lemak stallowner still say didn't read the contract because English not good. If Oyk say no penalty means no penalty.

OYK is the law now?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It is atrociously and blatantly a pai Kia's doing to put such a clause into the contract. No sane and good hearted person will put such a clause. Really evil....

 

[sky00sky]

Why bother so much about this issue?

The hawkers themselves bade for the stall and agree to follow the contract.

You notice that until now the hawkers have not revealed their profits, or the general daily revenue.

Do business will have high and low, but generally the hawkers are making money I think.

If the hawkers are making good money, why would they complain about giving frees meals to the poor ppl?

Don't understand the hoo-ha on this matter. Is that so big deal? Hawkers know how to calculate better than all of us.

Cos you not following and probably do not understand the few bigger issues underlying this hoo haa .

Red Tape, Systematic governance issues, Morals behind the "social enterprise model", Profiteering by Operators, Unfair contractual terms, and more......

 

[Lemon_gaga]

Actually not wrong. Got penalty but owners can choose not to enforce. Then why in the first place put the terms.

 

[Carnage]

not forgetting why in the first place the hawker is not run by nea directly but by a social enterprise? and also why nea did not put in the contract that the free meal should come from the profit of the social enterprise company who is already earning a layer off the rental?

is the social enterprise company director related to someone higher up?

It's called job creation.

Notice all the PAP IBs keep quiet over night about this issue lately?

 

[Medicated Oil]

Actually not wrong. Got penalty but owners can choose not to enforce. Then why in the first place put the terms.

The operator already mentioned that the terms was agreed between the tenants and them before the agreement is drafted.
Whether it is true or not, the hawkers have to come forward and talk.
Dun hide behind the veil and expect KFST to be their spokeperson.
KFST also dunno the full picture.

 

[qhong61]

Actually they have yet kicked start the free meal.

Meaning Ong is empathetic

 

[AngryBirdBird]

the sagat continues

no pofma

 

[carey]

Contract stated "Hawkers Shall ... " = compulsory for hawkers to do
OYK said "Untrue" = he means it because his said it with "good intent"
Canopy .... diam diam suck thumb eat humble pie admit mistake remove stupid clause move on

Today learn something, SG ministir is never wrong ... what he said is always right, even if the contract stated is opposite. And this exploitation has been going on for years ....

Like that sign contract for fcuk?? Just ask ministir with good intent to right the wrong for you can liao.
If I understand the whole sagat correctly, I mean right.

You forgot their famous "taken out of context" excuse

 

[titusilvering]

Actually they have yet kicked start the free meal.

Zhunbo? I tot they sign the contract long ago

 

[carey]

Because this is no longer a hawker issue. It's about the system, something broke.

why did a minister defend a hawker centre operator?

Moreover, Hawker centre operators are typically paid millions by govt, to keep the hawker centres operational. And they have to contribute a chunk of their revenue back to society. So why are they forcing hawkers to bear the cost of the free meals ? Something clearly doesn't add up.

This is no longer about hawkers being forced to do charity, it's about elites structuring the system for self benefit, while letting the public bear the cost.

It's about conflict of interests.

Follow the money trail

Canopy is part of Timbre and anyone can go google see who's behind that

 

[elloz123]

Jialat... so much bad news
Who dare to go there eat now, knowing all this bloat is baked into the prices

It seems like the stall owners got suckered into setting up stalls, then slowly nickeled and dimed and squeezed the life out of them by "the system"

Anyways, sgunited and cdc vouchers

Can go there and ask for free meals bro some interviewees in CNA nonchalantly say they ok to give out free meals and it’s in the contract.

 

[testart]

If the charity clauses in the lease agreement cannot be met, does that mean the lease will not be renewed or extended?

I have heard before JTC land lease agreements often contain clauses that are not fully met by tenant, yet the leases are still renewed.

 

[Medicated Oil]

As long as the tenants dun unite and get one of them to talk to the operator directly, the clause will remain what it is.
All this commotion is just a waste of time if the clause is not removed.

The top people know very well what will happen.

 

[carey]

Because this is no longer a hawker issue. It's about the system, something broke.

why did a minister defend a hawker centre operator?

Moreover, Hawker centre operators are typically paid millions by govt, to keep the hawker centres operational. And they have to contribute a chunk of their revenue back to society. So why are they forcing hawkers to bear the cost of the free meals ? Something clearly doesn't add up.

This is no longer about hawkers being forced to do charity, it's about elites structuring the system for self benefit, while letting the public bear the cost.

It's about conflict of interests.

Bingo

IIRC, part of the deal is these social enterprises need to provide cheaper meals etc

But from this, it seems like these enterprises pass the burden directly to the hawkers instead

 

[Nickypigu]

NEA should just admit that their dumb idea of outsourcing mgmt of hawker centres to Social Enterprises is a massive failure. Expecting profit seeking companies to do charity work is fool hardy in the first place.

They should terminate the outsourcing contract and re-appoint a new party to manage to void all clauses previously set by this social enterprise.

 

[woshihock]

will end up in court soon

I will donate $2 to watch the show if seetoh raise fund

 

[huihong]

aiyo so easy, ask 1 hawker there to gpgt the whole agreement for every one to see, then we see is it fair or not.

unless inside the agreement got clause saying for hawker and FC operator eyes only.