§7.9Ideas for Later

These ideas came up in discussion and are not yet part of the plan. Each needs testing, a partner or both before it earns a line in a ledger.

A voucher bonus at certified heritage stalls. A Makan Voucher dollar would go further at a certified heritage stall, with the bonus paid from gifts, not the Budget. It needs the CDC voucher system to support a stall-specific bonus.
A procurement pledge. Companies commit part of their catering and meal allowances to hawker centres and certified stalls. That is new revenue for hawkers at no public cost, earned by cooking.
Secondments under the Corporate Volunteer Scheme. A company that seconds staff to an IPC (Institution of a Public Character, a charity whose donors get a tax deduction) deducts 250% of the cost, until the end of 2029. Once the Seed Bank is an IPC (the Budget Book, B.6.2), hotel chefs could serve in the Relief-Hawker Corps (§2.7) and accountants could help verify Succession Mortgages (§4.3).
Matched payroll giving. Staff give a small sum each month through payroll, and the employer matches it. This was chosen over an automatic deduction like the Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC) fund's, which would need a change in the law and would read as a tax on every worker.
Pledges from mall landlords and real estate investment trusts (REITs). Landlords that host food courts keep about 26 cents of every dollar a food-court stall takes in the Follow-the-Plate model: the largest landlord's share of any kind of stall, and twice what the hawker keeps (Follow the Plate, D.3). They are natural Founding Plate Partners (the Budget Book, B.6.1).
A Government match on Heritage Plate licence income. Government could match licence income dollar for dollar in the mark's first three years, up to $2M a year: about $1.4M in all at the central case, net of failing licensees (the Budget Book, B.9.5). The money would go to the retirement match, so it is a Government cost, and it only helps if the match is adopted. It is shown as a column in Hawkers and Social Protection, C.8.1 but is not an ask.
A Hawker Apprentice Work Pass. Version 1.2 proposed a restricted pass for one foreign apprentice a stall (§2.8): structured training in a master's documented dish, with the curriculum and sign-offs run through the Seed Bank; pay at or above the Progressive Wage for a stall assistant, $2,220 a month from July 2026 and $2,360 from July 2027, a minimum that would bind any stall that hired a foreign worker; a pilot of 50 passes across the pilot centres; and a stall eligible only after it had looked for a local apprentice. The idea is not mine alone. On 13 November 2024 Leong Mun Wai, then a Non-Constituency MP, proposed one work permit holder per stall, and Dr Koh Poh Koon, the Senior Minister of State, replied that it was "not inconceivable", while warning that full liberalisation "may alter the nature of our hawker centres significantly". Others across the House have asked for versions of it: Louis Chua in the same debate, Dr Tan Yia Swam in 2023, Jessica Tan and Foo Cexiang in 2026, and Jamus Lim on 6 October 2026 (the Record, A.7). On 10 September 2026 the Government left its rules as they are. Kenneth Tiong of the Workers' Party asked why work permit holders may work in coffeeshops and food courts but not in hawker centres; the Minister, Grace Fu, replied that "Hawker centres are a unique part of Singapore's cultural heritage and it is important to preserve the local identity", kept stallholding to citizens and permanent residents who run their own stalls, and said: "We will continue to monitor the situation and review our policies where necessary" (MSE, 10 Sep 2026). MOM had given the rule in February: "To preserve the local identity of our hawker culture and heritage", only citizens and permanent residents may be stallholders (MOM, 25 Feb 2026). Meanwhile the local route is open: since January 2025 stallholders may hire long-term visit pass holders, about 170 of them in the first six months and about 300 at 1 August 2026. Two rules would have to change, not one. NEA would have to let a foreign apprentice work at the pilot stalls, which today only citizens, permanent residents and long-term visit pass holders may do; and MOM would have to create a new kind of work pass outside the quota – a one-person stall cannot qualify for a quota – and set its levy. My answer to the heritage objection would be that an apprentice trained in a master's documented dish carries the heritage rather than diluting it. Still, the position is recent and plain, and the local route is growing. The idea waits until the evaluator can show whether the local channels – the long-term visit pass route, Hawker Boys, Dignity Kitchen, the Yellow Ribbon–NYP route and the apprenticeship (§3.3) – fill the stalls that need hands.
Brand stalls and the foreign-worker rule. I asked whether the rule that keeps hawker stalls local hands the chains an edge; Nigel Chua was the first to raise it (IPS, 2024). MOM's own rules answer it. Inside a hawker centre, it does not: only citizens and permanent residents "are allowed to operate and work in hawker centres managed by the National Environment Agency (NEA) or NEA-appointed operators" (MSE, 21 Apr 2023), and since January 2025 long-term visit pass holders too, so an operator's stall at a socially-conscious enterprise centre is staffed under the same rule as the family stall beside it. Outside the centres the edge is real, but narrow. A stall that holds only a food stall licence, in a coffeeshop or a food court, may not hire a foreign worker. The main operator, which holds the food shop licence, may, for the stalls it runs itself, within the services quota of one foreign worker to two locals (MOM, FAQ, 14 Mar 2024; MOM, 25 Feb 2026). Granted, it is a rule about licences, not brands. Still, two stalls at the same table hire under different rules. The Government was asked about the contrast between coffeeshops and hawker centres on 10 September 2026 and kept its rules (MSE, 10 Sep 2026). I record it here as a fact, not an ask.
Why the endowment alone cannot fund the retirement match. At a 3.5% draw, the base match of up to about $4.1M a year would need a corpus of about $120M, three times the $40M target. The endowment can help at the edges; the match itself is a decision for the Budget (Hawkers and Social Protection, C.8.1).