What financial model is 'social enterprise' hawker centre following?

STRAITS TIMES

Published

Oct 27, 2018, 5:00 am SGT

When I read that social enterprises were running hawker centres, I wondered if someone had confused them with quangos, or Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisations.

According to Britain's national body for social enterprises, a social enterprise makes its money from selling goods and services, covers its own costs in the long-term, puts at least half of any profits back into making a difference and pays reasonable salaries to its staff.

Quangos, on the other hand, are organisations that are funded by taxpayers but not controlled directly by the central government, as defined by the BBC.

There is, thus, no accountability to the taxpayers, because quangos are not controlled by a government body. If things go wrong, it is not the fault of the government.

Thus, I was mystified when I read of hawker centres being run by social enterprises.

Which model of financial governance are they following?

Are at least half the profits ploughed back to the hawkers and associated staff, or directed to other social causes? Or are the profits solely to feed the well-heeled and well-placed owners?

Unlike charities, social enterprises are not required to run annual general meetings, where their finances can be publicly scrutinised.

I have stopped supporting charities whose chief executives are paid salaries several times that of the British Prime Minister. But at least their salaries are published and I can make that choice.

Social enterprises, on their other hand, as privately run companies, are not required to disclose these details.

Will the real social enterprises please stand up?

===

The original here:

What are social enterprises?

According to www.socialenterprise.org.uk , a social enterprise makes its money from selling goods and services, covers its own costs in the long-term, puts at least half of any profits back into making a difference, and pays reasonable salaries to its staff

What it does NOT do is: exist to make profits for shareholders, make its owners very wealthy, and rely on volunteering, grants or donations to stay afloat in the long-term.

When I read of ‘social enterprises’ running hawker centres I wonder if someone (or a group) has confused social enterprises with ‘quangos’.

In the UK quangos stand for Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisations. According to this website (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11405840\ ) they are organisations that are funded by taxpayers, but not controlled directly by central government although the government might appoint (sympathetic) senior directors.

There is thus no accountability to the taxpayers, because quangos are not controlled by a government body. If things go wrong, it is never the fault of the government.

On the other hand, the people who run quangos often see taxpayers as a money tree, and there are no mechanisms to stop quango heads from awarding themselves ever higher salaries, or awarding tenders to whomsoever they please.

So I am a bit confused when I read of hawker centres being run as or by ‘social enterprises’? Which model of financial governance are they following?

Are at least half the profits ploughed back to the hawkers and associated staff, or directed to other ‘social benefits’? Or are the profits solely to feed the well-heeled and well-placed owners?

Unlike charities social enterprises are not required to run AGMs where their finances can be publicly scrutinised.

I have stopped supporting charities where their CEOs are paid salaries several times that of the British PM. But at least their salaries are published and I can make that choice.

Social enterprises on their other hand, as privately-run companies, are not required to disclose these details.

Will the real social enterprises please stand up?

Everyone must play a part to help the disadvantaged

Straits Times 

Published

Oct 22, 2018, 5:00 am SGT

Updated

Oct 22, 2018, 9:56 am

Many years ago, our neighbours discovered an elderly couple living in a ground floor flat in complete darkness, with only a piece of mouldy bread between them.

Their water and electricity supplies had been cut off.

This couple were reported to the relevant authorities. But instead of letting them starve before the system kicked in, neighbours rallied around them.

Some took to providing subsidised hawker food food. My father bought a hosepipe that allowed us to run water from our third-floor bathroom tap to this couple's unit.

We must be careful that discussions on subsidised hawker food do not descend into what is so prevalent these days: virtue-signalling.

Sure, we are concerned for the disadvantaged. When was the last time we, each of us, rich or poor, politician or commoner, did something practical for our neighbour or a stranger, to make his life more bearable?

If we are cooking a meal, does it take that much to cook a little bit more and take it to a neighbour who has nothing to eat?

If a community has identified vulnerable individuals needing proper nutrition regularly, would it not be possible to mobilise volunteers to cook on a rota basis?

I believe in small and minimal government that takes care only of life beyond the means of individuals, such as national defence.

But this is possible only when citizens are willing to do their bit.

==

EMBARRASSMENT! This was written in the context of the continuing discussion on hawker centres. But the words in red were inserted by a junior editor (?) into the fourth paragraph after I requested that they gave some context to the edited letter. Only after the print edition was out did I realise that they had made the mistake. Emailed immediately to request a change. This is the online version (minus the deleted words in red). The following is the original letter.

The Good Samaritan strikes again

Many years ago our neighbours discovered an elderly couple living in a ground floor flat with only a piece of mouldy bread between them, in complete darkness. Their water and electricity had been cut off. Apparently they were going to eat that bread and commit suicide.

This couple was reported to the relevant authorities. But instead of letting them starve before the system kicked in, neighbours rallied round.

Some took to providing food. My father bought a length of hosepipe that allowed us to run water from our third-floor bathroom tap to this couple. My job was to turn on and off the tap when I got the signal.

The Chinese have a saying when inviting someone home to eat on an impulse, “It’s just another pair of chopsticks.”

We must be careful that the discussion on NTUC/Foodfare does not descend into what is so prevalent these days: virtue-signalling.

Sure, we are concerned for the disadvantaged. When was the last time we, each of us, rich and poor, politician and commoner, did something practical for our neighbour, or a stranger, to make his/her life that much more bearable?

If we are cooking a meal, does it take that much to cook a little bit more and take it to a neighbour who has nothing to eat?

If a community has identified vulnerable individuals needing proper nutrition regularly, would it not be possible to mobilise volunteers to cook on a rota basis?

Perhaps money could be raised and disbursed to a few stay-at-home parents in the neighbourhood to buy fresh ingredients to cook for these people.

This way the stay-at-home parents get something for their input and the vulnerable gets their meals.

Perhaps there are already social enterprises in Singapore where the vulnerable/disadvantaged are themselves trained to cook for others.

I believe in small (minimal) government where the government only takes care of life beyond the means of individuals such as national defence. But this is possible only when citizens are willing to do their bit and not ‘tai-chi’ this to the ‘gahmen’ or someone else.

Oxford Days/Daze

16th August 2018, the third Thursday of August, was when the 'A' Level results were announced. Imagine my excitement when my son sent me a message to confirm that he had got the grades (and better) to get to Oxford to study Classics.

I probably danced a jig and punched the air a few times. I was alone, in postgraduate accommodation at a Russell Group university in the East Midlands, having decided to take up a contract job teaching English. The years of staying at home to give him the best start in life, and subsequently to manage the son's issues ... vindicated at last! Woohoo! 

Son and husband arrived the following afternoon and we had a great time celebrating at a lovely Thai restaurant. Sadly, the following day, the husband was taken ill, but that is a different story.

On 30th September we dropped the son off at Oxford. Almost literally. We were allowed to stop on a narrow one-way street, unload his gear, and the husband drove off to the Park-and-ride. Meanwhile a couple of second-year students, including the president of the JCR, appeared to help him carry his gear to his room.

Within minutes I was told by the son that it was OK for me to leave. But I could not. I had to find out where the husband was to decide the next step. In the end we decided that it was pointless for him to bus back to the college. I crossed the road to a waiting bus and hopped on it to get to the Park-and-ride.

That was it.

Eighteen years of preparing our child for what he wants to do. He decided that he wanted to go to a boarding school; we created opportunities to get him there. He worked out the scholarship system and got himself there.

Then he decided to get to Oxford, and he's there now. OK, so he wants to be a stand-up comic ....

Over the summer he's learned to cook and proved himself when he became nurse, cook and housekeeper when his dad fell ill and I could not get home. Even after I got home he was keen to show off his cookery skills. (I think God's timing was perfect in this: son did not have a choice but step into the breach.)

Officially he's an adult. He signs all his own contracts. I am now officially redundant from my parenting duties. Though I won't stop being a mother. This was why I decided to get a paid job, even if only for the summer, in the hope that it might open doors to other jobs.

Coincidentally I was at Oxford the week before 'drop-off' to present a paper at an anthropology conference. I sat in a number of sessions which were hugely boring. Ironic, as I had just been teaching incoming postgraduate students how to make effective presentations and here I had numerous PhDs/post-PhDs personify the cure to insomnia.

Anyhow, it was from running around the high street at Oxford that I learned precisely how the 'drop-off' was going to happen, having spoken to a porter at son's college.

Feeling vindicated.

Help from NTUC Enterprise can be a way to ease poverty

PUBLISHED in The Straits times

OCT 3, 2018, 5:00 AM SGT

Singaporeans of my generation associate the NTUC with supermarket chain FairPrice, which, as the name suggests, was started to ensure that ordinary citizens do not have to pay over the odds for staples such as rice.

Should NTUC Enterprise acquire food centre operator Kopitiam, I hope it can exercise its not-insignificant economic muscle to scale up social enterprise via the latter.

For those of us who are unaware or have forgotten, getting a licence to sell cooked food was, for many, a dignified way out of poverty.

Many hawkers and canteen stallholders were often disadvantaged people who worked really hard to provide people with cheap food and, this way, feed their own families.

Families who might have, in another economy, become dependent on welfare benefits, have nurtured doctors, lawyers and other professionals through such hard and sweaty work.

This platform for alleviating poverty disappeared when the Housing Board started awarding coffee-shop leases to the highest bidder. I wonder if the same fate has befallen stallholders in school and university canteens.

The NTUC Enterprise can reverse this trend by setting aside a significant portion of future Kopitiam contracts for Singaporeans who are undergoing financial hardship to operate food stalls or provide related services in their food outlets at affordable rents. They could even be given interest-free loans to start up food stalls.

I have read of single parents who have to make the choice between working several jobs and caring for their children. Running a food (or dry goods) stall is a very good alternative. In many developing countries microloans to widows to start small businesses have helped them cut this Gordian knot.

Such help to these families will not happen if financial profit remains the sole objective. I urge the NTUC Enterprise to consider social enterprise as a way to combat poverty and unemployment.

=====

A response:

NTUC has lost sight of original purpose