Sunday, September 22, 2019

Want people to return trays at hawker centres? Reward, educate them

19 July, 2019


Earlier this week, Jamie Tan (letter below) suggested that the authorities forbid cleaners from clearing tables at hawker centres that charge refundable 50-cent or S$1 deposits for trays. This will compel patrons to do it themselves. Ms Tan also proposed that tray deposits, which are optional, be made compulsory at these food centres.

Her letter set off a lively debate online, with some readers saying hawker centres should instead reward patrons for returning trays. Others said going back to the basics, such as educating users, was the way forward.

Stop cleaners from clearing tables at hawker centres that charge deposits for trays

By Jamie Tan 
17 July, 2019


Hawker centres that charge deposits for trays do not appear to be relying less on cleaners.
At these facilities, users pay a 50-cent or S$1 deposit, and receive a refund after returning the trays with their used crockery and cutlery.
When the practice began at two hawker centres last year, the National Environment Agency said the move would allow cleaners to be “better able to focus on table-cleaning, allowing for a faster turnaround of tables”.
I patronise the hawker centre at Block 628 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 4, which has automated tray-return stations, at least twice weekly on average.
I often see patrons carry hot soupy dishes to their tables because they decided against forking out a deposit for a tray.
They would find a table near a stall, and walk back and forth with dishes in hand.
At these hawker centres, cleaners are still seen clearing the tables. This runs counter to the self-service system the authorities want to encourage.
Patrons could easily lapse into the mindset that “it will be cleared anyway and it is just a matter of who does it”.
The leniency shown by the authorities in continuing to hire cleaners has reduced the effectiveness of the system.
They should take a big gamble by stopping cleaners from clearing the crockery. The cleaners should instead focus on centralised dish-washing.
This will leave no room for patrons to take advantage of the notion that cleaners would clear their dishes.
This way, the Government’s objective to raise labour productivity can be met, too.
The authorities should also make it compulsory for all diners to place a deposit for trays at these food centres. This is optional now.
By making it mandatory, we will likely see cleaner tables at the hawker centres, as most Singaporeans do not wish to incur extra costs.
And below are the comments and responses first posted to TODAY’s Facebook page or sent to Voices. TODAY has edited these comments for clarity, accuracy and length. I just cut and paste.

Do it the other way around. Give S$1 for every tray returned. DAVID QI

This is a good policy, but a bad system. We should use incentives: Those who return their trays will be given a 10-cent coupon that can be used to buy food from vendors. Getting consumers to pay a deposit is not helpful at all. DAMIEN TAN
 
The concept is flawed. Hawker centres should make it mandatory for patrons to have a tray if they buy food. They can get their money back when they return the tray with their plates, bowls and utensils. Alternatively, incentivise people to clear the tables by giving them 50 cents, or offer S$1 to those who return two trays and two persons’ bowls, plates and utensils. LAWRENCE SOH 
I do not know who came up with this tray-deposit system. It is so troublesome. And I have seen an elderly person who did not even know he paid 50 cents for a tray until I asked him. JOSH SIM 
In a fast-food outlet during off-peak hours, I see almost 90 per cent of patrons clear their tables before they leave. But the tables are not cleaned. They are soiled with spillage or condensation from cold drinks, ketchup, chilli sauce, and so on. And here you are saying “stop cleaners from clearing tables and concentrate on centralised dishwashing". Then who cleans the tables? LAWRENCE TAN 
No. Hawker centres will become a dump. Also, I wonder where the good habit of returning our utensils, which we cultivated in school, had gone? VINLEON ANG

Cleaners still need to wipe the table for the next patron. TAY YONG HONG
 
Even if a dish is cleared, there is spillage left behind, which has to be cleared. The tables and floors must be sanitised. Cleaners will always be needed unless people follow Japan’s system, where customers not only return trays but clean the tables. ROHAN VINEKAR

There are too many entitled people in Singapore for this to work effectively. Maybe what could change is that, with or without a deposit, cleaners should clean tables only after patrons finish and clear their used crockery and cutlery. There will be no cleaning of tables if this is not done. The authorities need to come down hard to change a habit that is worsening. SG MAVERICK

Some customers choose to hold hot soup instead of using a tray. This happened to me: A kid was running around and bumped into a customer carrying herbal soup. The hot contents spilled on to the boy, then the customer, and splashed on me and others nearby. Some people do not want a tray, as they have to fork out 50 cents or S$1. At times, the tray-return system does not work and the coins do not come out. It really annoys people. EDWINA KOH

Cleaners are still needed. But we can help by being more civic-minded and return trays after use. This minimises the chances of birds scavenging for leftovers and reduces bird droppings. It also lightens the cleaners’ workload, so they can clean the tables for the next user. Everyone has a small part to play, but the outcome can make a big impact. Let us start today. TERENCE TEO
 
For those who said “do not return the tray so that the cleaner has a job", do you leave rubbish on the floor so that you can "create and maintain" more jobs for cleaners? Not returning plates and bowls, and leaving bones on the table, is plain ungracious. This is akin to leaving rubbish on the floor. Hawker tables are public amenities. Keep them clean after you dine. Do not rely on stakeholders or the National Environment Agency, and give all sorts of reasons for not doing it. If there is a tray-return station, walk a few steps and return it. What is so complicated about that? You need to have the right attitude fit for a First World nation. CHEE VIWEN 
My godson clears his trays when I take him to McDonald’s. The reason is education from the start, at age 2. At 10, he still clears. LYNETTE ENOCH

Ironically, there is no such problem at the cookhouses in army camps. When national servicemen go for in-camp training, we even help to separate the plates, bowls, cups and cutlery when we return the trays to the dishwashers. Perhaps the National Environment Agency should learn from this good practice. It is also time to instil good manners at hawker centres. For example, have brand-new banners, posters and stickers on the tray-return racks and tables with simple and soft words such as: “Please return your tray — it brings out good manners in you.” SENG LOON KWEE
 
Why not educate? It may take time. With volunteers — such as from grassroots or student groups — encouraging and educating patrons during mealtimes, the public may understand. Then the day will come when patrons of our food centres return their trays automatically. That would be better than using gimmicks or penalties to encourage good practice. CHEONG FOOK WENG
[I was going to point out that this is a problem that cannot be be solved quickly or easily. It requires slow, long-term socialisation and education, and inculcation of values.

But this is Singapore. We don't do slow. 

We do social engineering, and behaviour modification, and operant conditioning.

It has its limits. ]

Cross Island Line: Besides a direct and skirting route, how about a semi-direct one?

By Chew Seng Yian

21 September, 2019

I refer to the report, “Through nature reserve or around? Residents, nature groups stick to guns on Cross Island Line paths” (Sept 3).

The environmental-impact assessment carried out for Phase 2 of the project is commendable for its extensive coverage of the impact and mitigation for the two alignment options. It also shed more light on the pros and cons for the direct (Option 1) and skirting (Option 2) routes.

While the former would be more economical and efficient with a faster travelling time, nature groups are rightfully concerned about boring a tunnel right under the heart of MacRitchie Reservoir.