Bukit Canberra hawkers contractually bound to provide free meals under pay-it-forward scheme, lawyers say
Despite the operator’s public stance that participation is voluntary, lawyers say contractual obligations may still apply.
www.channelnewsasia.com
That’s one hell of a slap across Ong Ye Kung's face. His face must be damn swollen this week after Seetoh came back with facts and evidence. What I find strange is that gov officials are defending corporations and said gov official did not get the facts right, because of blindly believing what was present to him was all true, or the corporate hid some facts from him. Because we all know when MP shows up, those top management are quick to sweep it under the rug and present a nice picture. In any case, I would say it’s very sloppy of him.
this came up because Seetoh brought it up. i can't help but see a pattern to how many other policies are executed this way. something looks good on paper, they outsource to other companies who bid to get the project. results and reports are fed back and massaged in a way that it fulfills what the aims are, then they post on Straits Times, Facebook, tiktok while on the ground there are so much issues. just look at simplygo, the erp 2.0 also. nothing against the ministers, they may have a good motive to improve things but the way it is executed and fed back, being so far from the ground, i wonder how effective and cost efficient they are.
The problem started all the way back when they came up with the idea of outsourcing hawker centres. Fundamentally flawed idea. Why privatise hawker centres suddenly ? Is it causing nea losses ? Then try to cover up the bad idea by calling it social enterprise and saying they will have affordable meals. But end up hawker is the one doing the social good while operator is privatising profits and socialising costs. Guessing next step is blaming the hawkers for signing the contract and praising the operators for being kind to not enforce it while moving the spotlight away from minister. Also someone apparently looked up the operator and found it was struck off acra. Sus af.
To Canopy Hawkers Group and all other operators, if you do not offer periodically free rents how is it fair to force hawkers to provide free food? Even providing free rent still doesn’t cover the cost that hawker needs to prepare the free food. Rentals are already absurdly high. Providing free meal is a double/ triple whammy to hawkers!
It’s widely known that “shall” in contracts imply “must”. No need lawyers to tell you. So really, what did the staffers of Ong Ye Kung tell him?
Write a comment...