SINGAPORE: The recent Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre controversy has exposed a fundamental tension in Singapore's approach to social good: Can authentic kindness coexist with contractual obligations?
Hawkers revealed they were contractually required to provide free meals under a "pay-it-forward" scheme, a clause initially presented by the operator as voluntary but which lawyers have since clarified is made binding by contractual language. After the ensuing public backlash, the management said it will remove the clause from renewed tenancy agreements.
At the heart of this unease is the notion of “forced charity”, especially from small businesses like hawkers. This incident opens a broader conversation about the increasingly blurred lines between genuine altruism and performative charity in our society.
But it should also prompt reflection on the various ways we strive to cultivate and sustain compassion in everyday Singapore.
File photo. While the act of returning trays may be enforced, the underlying intent is to foster consideration and responsibility among diners. (File photo: iStock)
At first glance, mandating charitable acts seems contradictory. Philosopher Immanuel Kant would argue that morality and virtue stem from acting with a genuine belief in "the good", rather than from fear of sanctions or the pursuit of rewards.
And yet, Singapore's social fabric is woven with examples of encouraged or governed kindness that have shifted behavioural norms.
Take the practice of returning food trays and crockery in food courts and hawker centres. The National Environment Agency (NEA) and Singapore Food Agency (SFA) started progressively enforcing against table littering from September 2021, to promote good hygiene and encourage social responsibility. The average return rate at hawker centres stood at 93 per cent in April 2024, up from 65 per cent in August 2021.
While the act of returning trays may be enforced, the underlying intent is to foster consideration and responsibility among diners. In this sense, enforced kindness served a dual purpose, maintaining a clean environment and instilling a culture of politeness and community spirit.
Still, there’s an important distinction between making diners take a few extra moments to return their tray and forcing hawkers to provide free meals at a direct cost to their livelihoods.
In evaluating the ethics of enforced charity, it is essential to differentiate between legitimate nudges towards generosity and policies that are performative or even punitive.
Nudges, like incentives or subtle prompts, could encourage positive behaviour without stripping away voluntary choice. The implementation of tray return initiatives is a good example of ethical nudging, as it subtly enforces a positive behaviour that benefits the community without imposing undue hardship.
In contrast, contractual clauses like those initially set in the Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre can feel more performative than voluntary giving – even if the tenants were selected based on their willingness to participate as the operator affirmed.
When contributions are framed as obligations, the focus may shift towards fulfilling requirements and a fear that non-compliance could still carry real costs regardless of assurances given, rather than the personal satisfaction of helping others. This can reduce the sense of personal choice.
It is thus important to draw clear distinctions between encouragement and enforcement. This lends further insight as to how kindness is practised in Singapore.
According to the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC) 2023 Giving Study, Singapore's giving culture remains resilient. Notably, the proportion of people volunteering their time has rebounded to around pre-pandemic levels of 30 per cent, while 62 per cent donated money. Beyond cash giving, respondents also reported participating in some form of giving whether through in-kind donations, micro-volunteering, or buying goods and services from non-profits, charities or social enterprises.
Importantly, the study affirms that people are most motivated to give when they view giving as an altruistic act, volunteering and donating to help others, rather than out of obligation or self-interest. Conversely, the research cautions that when giving becomes a transaction or obligation, it can backfire and ultimately undermine authentic generosity.
These trends urge us to reflect on how such findings should inform both policy and organisational practices in encouraging compassionate citizenship, both in and beyond the workplace.
Values are best nurtured young. In schools, the Values In Action (VIA) programme which replaced the Community Involvement Programme (CIP) in 2012, gives students exposure to hands-on service and reflection, without focusing on fulfilling minimum hours. It creates structure for children to pick up and nurture civic habits.
NVPC’s study found that some youths linked their motivation for giving to early exposure in schools and to seeing direct impact. In this way, VIA lays the groundwork for the motivations that sustain youth participation in giving.
In the corporate sphere, the language has shifted: What was once called Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and typically led to standalone initiatives as a way to “give back” is now framed as Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) as a strategy to ensure sustainability. Yet challenges remain if changes are only in name and not mindset.
Volunteering can also teach youths important life lessons, including patience, empathy, and resilience. (Photo: iStock/hxyume)
Some organisations treat corporate volunteerism as a checkbox exercise, while others grapple with balancing commercial and social objectives. This can create ethical grey areas where the line between obligatory and voluntary charity is blurred.
Still, much like how VIA offers students a starting point for service, corporate platforms for giving and volunteering can provide employees with meaningful entryways to begin their journey of contribution.
The Bukit Canberra episode began with laudable intentions, ensuring vulnerable residents could access affordable meals. But it reveals how well-meaning initiatives can backfire when voluntary goodwill becomes contractual obligation.
Had the tender requirements framed meal contributions as encouraged community partnerships rather than mandatory obligations, hawkers and the public might have reacted differently.
To navigate this terrain, policymakers and organisations must balance encouragement with respect for voluntary participation. Genuine intent and transparent objectives are key. Acts of kindness, whether encouraged or freely chosen should preserve sincerity, thereby sustaining their impact.
Michelle Tay is Executive Director of the Singapore Kindness Movement.
Continue reading...
Hawkers revealed they were contractually required to provide free meals under a "pay-it-forward" scheme, a clause initially presented by the operator as voluntary but which lawyers have since clarified is made binding by contractual language. After the ensuing public backlash, the management said it will remove the clause from renewed tenancy agreements.
At the heart of this unease is the notion of “forced charity”, especially from small businesses like hawkers. This incident opens a broader conversation about the increasingly blurred lines between genuine altruism and performative charity in our society.
But it should also prompt reflection on the various ways we strive to cultivate and sustain compassion in everyday Singapore.
File photo. While the act of returning trays may be enforced, the underlying intent is to foster consideration and responsibility among diners. (File photo: iStock)
PARADOX OF COMPULSORY COMPASSION
At first glance, mandating charitable acts seems contradictory. Philosopher Immanuel Kant would argue that morality and virtue stem from acting with a genuine belief in "the good", rather than from fear of sanctions or the pursuit of rewards.
And yet, Singapore's social fabric is woven with examples of encouraged or governed kindness that have shifted behavioural norms.
Take the practice of returning food trays and crockery in food courts and hawker centres. The National Environment Agency (NEA) and Singapore Food Agency (SFA) started progressively enforcing against table littering from September 2021, to promote good hygiene and encourage social responsibility. The average return rate at hawker centres stood at 93 per cent in April 2024, up from 65 per cent in August 2021.
While the act of returning trays may be enforced, the underlying intent is to foster consideration and responsibility among diners. In this sense, enforced kindness served a dual purpose, maintaining a clean environment and instilling a culture of politeness and community spirit.
Still, there’s an important distinction between making diners take a few extra moments to return their tray and forcing hawkers to provide free meals at a direct cost to their livelihoods.
Related:
ETHICAL NUDGING OR PERFORMATIVE GENEROSITY
In evaluating the ethics of enforced charity, it is essential to differentiate between legitimate nudges towards generosity and policies that are performative or even punitive.
Nudges, like incentives or subtle prompts, could encourage positive behaviour without stripping away voluntary choice. The implementation of tray return initiatives is a good example of ethical nudging, as it subtly enforces a positive behaviour that benefits the community without imposing undue hardship.
In contrast, contractual clauses like those initially set in the Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre can feel more performative than voluntary giving – even if the tenants were selected based on their willingness to participate as the operator affirmed.
When contributions are framed as obligations, the focus may shift towards fulfilling requirements and a fear that non-compliance could still carry real costs regardless of assurances given, rather than the personal satisfaction of helping others. This can reduce the sense of personal choice.
Related:
GIVING IN SINGAPORE
It is thus important to draw clear distinctions between encouragement and enforcement. This lends further insight as to how kindness is practised in Singapore.
According to the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC) 2023 Giving Study, Singapore's giving culture remains resilient. Notably, the proportion of people volunteering their time has rebounded to around pre-pandemic levels of 30 per cent, while 62 per cent donated money. Beyond cash giving, respondents also reported participating in some form of giving whether through in-kind donations, micro-volunteering, or buying goods and services from non-profits, charities or social enterprises.
Importantly, the study affirms that people are most motivated to give when they view giving as an altruistic act, volunteering and donating to help others, rather than out of obligation or self-interest. Conversely, the research cautions that when giving becomes a transaction or obligation, it can backfire and ultimately undermine authentic generosity.
These trends urge us to reflect on how such findings should inform both policy and organisational practices in encouraging compassionate citizenship, both in and beyond the workplace.
Values are best nurtured young. In schools, the Values In Action (VIA) programme which replaced the Community Involvement Programme (CIP) in 2012, gives students exposure to hands-on service and reflection, without focusing on fulfilling minimum hours. It creates structure for children to pick up and nurture civic habits.
NVPC’s study found that some youths linked their motivation for giving to early exposure in schools and to seeing direct impact. In this way, VIA lays the groundwork for the motivations that sustain youth participation in giving.
In the corporate sphere, the language has shifted: What was once called Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and typically led to standalone initiatives as a way to “give back” is now framed as Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) as a strategy to ensure sustainability. Yet challenges remain if changes are only in name and not mindset.
Volunteering can also teach youths important life lessons, including patience, empathy, and resilience. (Photo: iStock/hxyume)
Some organisations treat corporate volunteerism as a checkbox exercise, while others grapple with balancing commercial and social objectives. This can create ethical grey areas where the line between obligatory and voluntary charity is blurred.
Still, much like how VIA offers students a starting point for service, corporate platforms for giving and volunteering can provide employees with meaningful entryways to begin their journey of contribution.
GOOD INTENTIONS CAN BACKFIRE
The Bukit Canberra episode began with laudable intentions, ensuring vulnerable residents could access affordable meals. But it reveals how well-meaning initiatives can backfire when voluntary goodwill becomes contractual obligation.
Had the tender requirements framed meal contributions as encouraged community partnerships rather than mandatory obligations, hawkers and the public might have reacted differently.
To navigate this terrain, policymakers and organisations must balance encouragement with respect for voluntary participation. Genuine intent and transparent objectives are key. Acts of kindness, whether encouraged or freely chosen should preserve sincerity, thereby sustaining their impact.
Michelle Tay is Executive Director of the Singapore Kindness Movement.
Continue reading...