The simmering debate over the Pay-It-Forward initiative at Singapore’s Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre has finally reached a resolution, following weeks of public scrutiny, heated social media exchanges, and pointed criticism from food industry insiders. The management of the hawker centre, Canopy Hawkers Group—a subsidiary of Food Canopy—announced on August 15, 2025, that it would scrap contract clauses requiring stallholders to provide free meals when tenancy agreements are renewed in September. This move comes after widespread condemnation of what some dubbed "forced charity," and marks a significant shift in how the centre approaches social responsibility and community support.
The controversy first erupted on August 8, when veteran food critic K.F. Seetoh took to Facebook to spotlight a clause in stallholder contracts that, he said, made hawkers "contractually obligated" to offer 60 free meals each month, in addition to budget meals priced between S$3 and S$3.50. Seetoh’s post, which included a screenshot of the contract, set off a flurry of discussion both online and offline. He wrote, "Hawkers seem to be the ones obliged to help the poor and disadvantaged. Some don’t mind helping; they know what it’s like to struggle, but it’s not just for the poor, even Elon and Gates are entitled to it." According to The Straits Times, Seetoh’s criticism quickly gained traction, with many questioning whether such obligations were fair or sustainable for small business owners already facing tight margins.
Within days, Health Minister Ong Ye Kung, who represents Sembawang Central—where the hawker centre is located—responded to Seetoh’s post. Ong clarified on Facebook that hawkers would not be penalized for failing to provide the free meals. However, a 2022 contract shown to the media, including The Straits Times, indicated that hawkers could accrue demerit points if they did not fulfill the meal provision requirement. This discrepancy fueled further debate about transparency and the actual risks faced by stallholders.
Adding to the complexity, a June 2024 report by The Straits Times revealed that tenants at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre were required to participate in a "Belanja A Meal" program, setting aside 100 meals for the needy at their own expense over their three-year tenancy. This requirement, alongside other responsibilities, led 25 hawkers from socially conscious enterprise hawker centres—including Bukit Canberra—to express concerns about the sustainability of their livelihoods. The hawkers pointed to rising costs and a growing list of obligations, saying these pressures made it increasingly difficult to stay afloat while still supporting vulnerable members of the community.
In its August 15 Facebook post, the management of Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre acknowledged that the Pay-It-Forward initiative had been conceived as a charitable cause, but conceded that participation should be voluntary. "Given the circumstances, we saw the arrangement as one that balanced both the voluntary involvement with the fulfilment of their promises," the operator wrote. Importantly, the management stated that after discussions with tenants, the number of free meals required had been significantly reduced—from 30 meals a month to 100 meals over the entire three-year tenancy period. Yet, even with this adjustment, the initiative never truly got off the ground, as the preparatory work to identify low-income residents and track eligibility was never completed.
The management also highlighted that some hawkers had expressed a desire to help, but admitted they might no longer be able to provide the committed free meals due to financial constraints. "We also learned that in the constituency we are in, the concept of the meal assistance programme is called 'Belanja a Meal', relies on voluntary contributions from patrons, instead of hawkers," the operator explained. This revelation prompted the management to hold back on implementing the Pay-It-Forward initiative and consider not proceeding with it at all.
Crucially, the management made a public commitment: "No hawkers have been penalised for not providing free meals under the tenancy agreements, and we also do not intend to enforce the obligation in the future. This is a commitment we are making publicly." Furthermore, clauses requiring the provision of free meals will be removed when tenancy agreements are renewed in September 2025. This assurance was reiterated multiple times, as the management sought to allay fears among stallholders and the wider public.
Looking ahead, the management said it would work with hawkers to offer "affordable value meals," emphasizing that hawkers are "not expected to make a loss selling value meals." The centre remains committed to fostering a caring community while ensuring fairness for its tenants. "We remain committed to fostering a caring community while ensuring fairness for our hawkers, and will continue to engage openly with tenants and the public as we refine the programme," the management stated in its social media update, as reported by The Straits Times.
The Pay-It-Forward saga has also reignited broader questions about the Socially Conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre (SEHC) model, which was introduced in 2011 when the Singapore government resumed building hawker centres. The SEHC model was designed to support a new generation of hawker centres by ensuring good visitor turnout, a diverse food mix, and long-term viability. However, the approach has faced criticism over the years, with some arguing that it places undue burdens on hawkers in the name of social good. This debate reached Parliament in November 2018, leading the National Environment Agency to introduce changes aimed at easing some of the constraints on hawkers.
Supporters of the original Pay-It-Forward approach argue that hawker centres have a unique place in Singaporean society—a role that goes beyond simply providing affordable food. They see initiatives to support the needy as part of the social contract that makes hawker culture so vibrant and inclusive. On the other hand, critics, including many hawkers themselves, contend that while charity is noble, it should never be forced. They point out that many stallholders are themselves small business owners who face considerable financial pressures, and that making charity a contractual obligation risks undermining both morale and sustainability.
For now, the decision to drop the mandatory free meal clauses appears to have satisfied most parties. Hawkers no longer face the threat of penalties or demerit points for failing to provide free meals, and the management’s commitment to voluntary participation has been welcomed as a step in the right direction. As the centre prepares to renew tenancy agreements next month, all eyes will be on how the new arrangements play out—and whether the balance between community support and business viability can be maintained.
The episode has served as a timely reminder that while good intentions matter, the means of achieving social goals must be fair, transparent, and sustainable. In Singapore’s ever-evolving hawker landscape, the lesson is clear: charity works best when it is given freely, not demanded by contract.