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. ]

Give illegal hawkers a chance to make honest living

[A letter from almost 3 years ago. I sometimes draft blogposts and then feel that they are not good enough, or that I want to write more and I put the post in draft, and never publish them. Sometimes it is because I am trying to be more... critical? nasty? sarcastic? Yeah. One of the above. So here is a "mediocre" post. Not very nasty. Though I do think the letter was not thought through.]

Jan 02, 2015

I SYMPATHISE with the food hawkers who continue to ply their trade despite being fined ("Complaints rising against illegal food hawkers"; Tuesday).

Are there any statistics to show how many people have suffered food poisoning after consuming food from unlicensed hawkers?

If the authorities feel that these hawkers' food is not prepared in accordance with proper hygiene procedures or has not undergone quality control checks, perhaps they could send these hawkers for food hygiene courses or do random quality checks on their food.

[Of course! That is precisely why they should be registered and licensed and... you don't know what you are talking about, do you?]

I propose that the National Environment Agency give such Singaporean hawkers a chance to make an honest living, by giving them a licence to peddle their wares, just like how some seniors are allowed to sell ice cream along Orchard Road and in parks.

I believe some unlicensed hawkers are truly unable to find jobs, for various reasons. It is good that they do not steal or peddle drugs.

[So these were the only two alternatives you can think of? So illegal hawkers other options are to steal or push drugs? I love your perspective. And what you think of the less fortunate.]

I admire their strong determination and perseverance in wanting to make a living on their own, instead of depending on government assistance and handouts.

Instead of playing a cat and mouse game, why not legalise their trade in a way that is acceptable to the public?

Allocating designated spots for them to ply their trade will make routine checks easier.

The smell of fresh and piping hot chestnuts sold by street hawkers reminds me of my childhood days, when my father would buy roasted chestnuts from these hawkers.


[So, only roasted chestnuts? kari-pok? Otah-otah? nasi lemak? kueh-kueh? Or just those that remind you of your childhood?]

They will continue to add colour to our Singapore culture.

Lim Chye Hai

Who's responsible for safety on footpaths?

Feb 24, 2009

I REFER to last Saturday's letter by Ms Amy Loh ('Why Singapore must license bicycles now').

I strongly support any proposal to license bicycles. The point is that licensing bicycles should impose some sense of responsibility on those who own bicycles and those who ride them. This is especially important now that the authorities are considering allowing narrow pedestrian paths to be used by cyclists.

I live in an estate where a pedestrian path (about 1m to 1.2m wide) leads to the MRT station. The side of the path is lined with trees with branches jutting out.

The estate is near an industrial area and it is rare not to see a bicycle - or have one flash past you from behind - while walking on the path. Often they ride fast and give no room to manoeuvre in an emergency.

Even during peak periods, when there are many pedestrians on the path, inconsiderate cyclists still ride there, some at speeds that are unacceptable and dangerous. The situation is an accident waiting to happen.

I wrote to the Land Transport Authority (LTA) about the situation and suggested that the path be widened. The first reply was that widening the path would encourage more cyclists to use it. I then suggested low obstacles such as humps to discourage cyclists. The reply: that would make it difficult for people in wheelchairs to use the path.

So it seems everyone else takes priority over the safety of pedestrians. In my final letter to LTA, I pleaded that something be done about the dangerous situation. LTA said it would refer the matter to the police. To date, the situation is unchanged.

Yik Tze Kong

[I've seen responsible cyclists, but it is the irresponsible ones that stick in the mind. They cycle like they have the right of way on pedestrian walkways. And they cycle way too fast and way too inconsiderately. But licensing and registration is a waste of time and money. There are more efficient and effective use of limited resources. ]

English for maids, but not front-line staff?

Dec 10, 2008

I REFER to the letters on front-line staff who cannot understand or speak even basic English, and would like to give my feedback.

It is surprising that a maid must pass a basic English test before her work permit is approved, but foreign front-line staff need not. Maids usually have to communicate with their employer's family members and do some work outside, such as shopping, whereas front-line staff in shops must understand products and explain them to customers. Moreover, they must be able to do it quickly and to people of various races who share a common language, English.

Are we penalising the wrong people here? I can live with a maid, even if she does not speak English, as long we can communicate in another language. However, I do not expect the same from a supermarket cashier and I do not want to have to struggle to understand what he is trying to say.

I hope the authorities can explain this.

Regimon Sebastian

[A sensible, simple letter raising a very pertinent point. ]

Why I should stop reading the ST Forum Page

The Straits Times Forum Page should come with the following warning or parental advisory:

WARNING. Reading these pages may lead to any or all of the following conditions:
- narrow-mindedness
- simple-mindedness
- uncritical thinking
- non-thinking
- emotional reaction disguised as thoughts
- stupidity; and
- cognitive indolence.

Exhibit 1 (for today)

Nov 19, 2008
Time for a review of zoo's safety measures
I REFER to reports regarding the fatal mauling of cleaner Nordin Montong by white tigers on Nov 13. What I find most appalling is the slow response from the licensed shooters and management when bystanders raised the alarm upon seeing the events unfolding.

Merely throwing stones and rocks to distract or scare the tigers was naïve and unprofessional as wild animals are not intimidated by stones.

The shooters should have immediately tranquillised the ferocious cats. [Oh yes. the automatic tranquilliser system should have immediately been activated. Heck! the system should have been on automatic "Detect tigers mauling cleaner" mode!] Instead, after the fatal incident, the zoo spokesman said it was not necessary to sedate the cats. This verbal platitude smacks of inexperience and complacency.

[I think the zoo's reply was that tranquillisers would not have worked immediately, and when the tiger is hit by the dart it tends to strike back instinctively and that would have put the cleaner in even greater danger. This clearly uninformed or misinformed statement smacks of negligence, non-comprehension, and prejudiced pre-conception.]

One must always be on the alert when dealing with wild animals because of their unpredictability, and all zoo staff must know how to respond instantly should a human life be at the mercy of a larger predator. [I am amazed! What clarity of thought from this writer! Yes! Why didn't the zoo think of it first! How can they NOT have considered the possibility of such accidents? What absolute naivete or arrogance on the part of this writer!]

Are existing safety and preventive measures truly adequate and reviewed periodically?

If a human can slip into an animal's lair, then an animal could also escape unknowingly.

[On the face of it, this seems like pretty reasonable statement. But like I said earlier, reading the forum page can lead to uncritical thinking. Take the tiger's exhibit as an example. The cleaner dropped from the ledge into the moat in front of the exhibit and then waded onto dry ground. That was his point of egress. For the tigers to use the same way to exit, it would have to swim or wade into the moat and from there attempt to leap up onto the ledge. The ledge would already be designed such that it would have been clearly beyond the range of a tiger's leap. And even if a super-tiger were able to leap that height, the water would have been an additional drag on any attempt to leap from the moat. Leaping from before the moat would put the ledge too far to be reached as there would be a vertical as well as a horizontal dimension to overcome. The writer should fall (or be pushed) into a deep animal pit-trap and told to make his own way out. After all, if he could get in, he should be able to get out.]

Are zookeepers screened stringently for any physical or mental disorders before coming into contact with wild animals? [Apparently, neither are Forum page letter writers screened stringently for mental adequacy. The criteria apparently is along the lines of, "would Sarah Palin say something like this?" If yes, publish.]

Superiors and wardens should be proactive by conducting regular surveillance around enclosures to ensure that any discrepancies are immediately rectified, and not rely just on the zookeepers. [Where does he come up with these?!?! Another great suggestion that only he could have thought of! Why didn't the zoo think of this?!?!?]

I hope the zoo authorities are analysing the consequences of this unfortunate incident with the view of instituting more safety improvement measures to prevent further recurrences.

Even an isolated occurrence should warrant some soul searching, and if required, corrective action.

[Yes. The zoo will be installing a hotline at the white tigers exhibit that will be connected directly to Samaritans of Singapore. In addition, they will be playing the video of the final minutes of the unfortunate Mr Nordin at the exhibit. Apparently, after he was mauled, he realised that there were less painful ways to kill oneself.]

Glen Lee

-------------
The next letter is actually reasonably well-argued. But the arguments while valid are old. Nothing really new, but probably good to keep in mind. It's here because it's old, and trots out the same old.

Nov 19, 2008
GOVERNING SINGAPORE
Two-party system better

I REFER to Monday's report, (''Change must come' to PAP') in which Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong advocated that a single party should dominate governance in Singapore.

PM Lee also raised the issue of countries like Taiwan, which practised the Western definition of democracy but suffered from its ill effects.

He suggested that two-party or multi-party democracy seldom works in Asia. However, a single-party government is also unhealthy as it is susceptible to a group-think mentality. Elected politicians from the same party will not want to raise different viewpoints, especially if he is in the minority, for fear of being branded.

As power is focused on only a few good men at the top, having a single-party government heightens this risk of group-think mentality. This will not benefit the country in the long run.

A two-party system, despite its inherent difficulties, has several advantages. One important fundamental rule within a democratic system is that it has adequate checks and balances within the governance.

This is not to say that the current government is not trustworthy. But to prevent possible abuses, a two-party system will do the job better than a self-checking arrangement.

The public is also reassured, as a two-party system ensures counter-checking measures for the betterment of the country. There is also the issue of transparency, which is lacking now. A two-party political system will plug this loophole.

[The PAP's argument is that there is not enough talent to field a Team A and Team B. If you look at the cabinet, yeah, there are some "Team B" players there by default already because there is not enough Team A players. So yes, a two party system may be better, but we don't have the resources for it.

The other issue is whether a 2-party system really is better. Other than the USA, there are no other persistent 2-party system. Other so-called two party systems are either more than 2, or is more like different regimes from different parties at different eras. And in the case of USA, there are historical reasons for the development of the 2-party system, but the system is in a kind of stasis too. The 2-party system there is locked in a thesis-antithesis-thesis-antithesis cycle without ever really moving onto synthesis. After the Democrats won (this election), the Republicans regroup and rehash themselves but come the next election, they will still stand for the same principles and for the same values and the electorate will be tired of Democrats values and principles and vote for Republican values and principles. The pendulum swings, but it doesn't change.]

Singapore has enjoyed the fruits of the ruling party's successes. There are grave challenges ahead during this financial crisis.

A two-party system can only benefit Singapore as there will be variegated exchanges of ideas, however divergent.

A one-party political power also has the disadvantage of answering to no one at the top and this can be dangerous.

[The danger is not about answering to no-one at the top, but that there are no alternatives if that party fails. So with the failure of Republican values and principles - free market, pro-business, less govt, less regulations - the pendulum now swings the other way and the Democrats take the presidency, and the two houses. However, such swings of the pendulum occurs precisely because there is a dichotomy of values and principles and the schizophrenic electorate has been acculturated to see and believe these dichotomies as political values and political absolutes. Why is the thesis-antithesis of "more govt/less govt" never progressing to the synthesis of "just right govt"? Because there is papa bear and mama bear, but no baby bear. And the two-party system is unlikely to move to that baby bear synthesis because in some sense each party is defined by the other. One is for more govt, one is for less. One pro-choice. One pro-life.

But because Singapore is a single dominant party system, there is no dichotomy and no public pendulum. Baby bear has to make it on its own and be "just right" for the circumstances of the day. PAP politics is not ideological. If it has any ideology, it is the ideology of pragmatism. With pragmatism, there are no (political) absolutes. Stop at 2 became baby bonus because situation changed. No casino became IRC because situation change. No motor sports to the premier motor sports. No organ trading is now being discussed - because situations changed. Such is the politics in Singapore.]

The United States political system has a good check in Congress, whose endorsement is required before the president can act.

[This is fictitious at best. With the swing in voters mood, Democrats have majority in both houses and dominate the govt... at least for the next two years. Any checks on the presidency for the next two years will be token at best.]

[Update 20 Oct 2010: the Republicans have taken to obstructionist tactics, filibustering every bill and significant attempts to move the country forward. This is how a two party system descends into gridlock.]

As Singapore progresses, we must implement changes over how we are governed.

Controlled democracy, which we have had all along, may not be enough to propel us forward.

[Again, I agree in principle, but I have seen Singapore in practice (and the US & Canadian system in a limited fashion) and the truth is, we have a unique situation, a unique system, and a unique approach. It would be a shame to turn what we have into what the US has, or what M'sia has, or what Taiwan has, or what Philippines has, or what Thailand has, or what the UK has, or what the EU has. By no means are we saying that what we have is the best for the world, but it works for us. Would a US system work better? Is the US system working better for them? I don't think so. It works. It's flashy. It's exciting. But is it better?

All the US system offers is a systemic check and balance mechanism. Singapore has the ultimate check and balance. The true test of the Singapore system is, will it work. If it doesn't, it doesn't matter anymore. The US has deep stock. This financial crisis proves it. If it were like Iceland, it would be bankrupt. How does a country become bankrupt?!?!? Instead, it can weather the crisis, dig deep into its stock of wealth and influence, and come back again.

If a similar financial crisis happened to Singapore, it would wipe out our reserves and it would be the end of Singapore as we know it. We wouldn't survive because we don't have deep stock. There isn't a second chance. If the PAP fails, the last thing we want is to give another party a chance at picking up the pieces. In the US, they can change govt and try again. In Singapore, there isn't another party, and this is not an argument for the PAP to let another party try their hand at governing, because we don't have the spread of talent required for a Team B. So yes, we are in a precarious political situation and we have no margin for error. Welcome to the Uniquely Singapore Situation. If you can't stand the uncertainty, feel free to move to the land of the free.

Being a Singaporean is like being married to one spouse (PAP). After a while, you come to resent some of the things your spouse does. Some habits begin to grate on you. You have to make sacrifices. But ultimately that is your spouse. If you go into a marriage with a back-up spouse, you aren't really committed are you? That said, your spouse knows that while you will tolerate some things, there are clear boundaries. You may not have a back-up spouse, but there is divorce.]

Gilbert Goh

Baby's birth cert reverses parental joy

The Forum editor was thinking, "ya! this is obviously an issue of great interests to the nation! Or I can make someone's life at ICA just a little bit more miserable!" :-)

Sep 20, 2008

Baby's birth cert reverses parental joy

THE arrival of my newborn daughter was a source of joy for my wife and myself - until I went to obtain her birth certificate from the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA). To my horror, she was given the number T08-XX444X. As Chinese Singaporeans are aware, the number four suggests death, and implies misfortune.

[So ICA has turned their daughter from a source of joy to a source of horror? Wow. That's one powerful agency. I wanna work there!]

I appealed to the ICA officer, also a Chinese Singaporean who understood my discomfiture. But she firmly rejected my plea because rules were rules, I was told. Subsequently, I appealed to a superior officer and waited an agonising week, making several calls in between, only to be given the same answer. I grant that sticking to a system of rules is important. But so too is crafting exceptions which humanise the system.

[Yes we should humanise the system. But I draw the line at idiocising the system. Just because you are an idiot who thinks the numbers on a birth cert will make a difference in your daughters life instead of your contribution as a parent doesn't mean the system is inhuman. It just means you're an idiot.]

My wife and I took great pains to craft our daughter's name, consulting time-honoured cultural principles, because we wanted an auspicious life for her. Imagine having a birth certificate number like 444 which counters all that.

[You obviously didn't spend enough time or took enough pains. If you did, you would have found an auspicious time to register her birth so that the system generated number would not have been 444X. Did you go to register the birth at 4.44 pm? On Thursday, 4th Sept? ]

A birth certificate is a personal and important life-long document.

[A birth certificate is just a birth certificate. It doesn't make you a better or worse person.]

A system which forces officers to stick rigidly to the rulebook without due regard for cultural sensitivities is not a good one. Rules are made to serve citizens and not the other way round.

[It's good to be culturally sensitive. It's bad to let superstitions run the world. In any case, quatro-phobia is not a cultural thing. It's a homophonic (homonymic?) idiosyncracy at best. Apologies to the homos.]

I'm not giving up. I hope that my daughter can be given a more appropriate birth certificate number and I'm not asking for very auspicious figures.

[Don't want very auspicious figures, so just what is auspicious enough?]

Joseph Tan

[Joe, your daughter will be a great person or a waste of time because of you and your wife's efforts to raise her as a person with strong values and good habits and attitudes. If you truly believe some numbers on a paper will make a great difference in her life, she is already handicapped by having an idiot of a father, and possibly by his self-fulfilling prophecy. She deserves better than that.]