+- SG Talk (https://sgtalk.net)
+-- Forum: SG Talk (https://sgtalk.net/Forum-SG-Talk)
+--- Forum: Market Talk (https://sgtalk.net/Forum-Market-Talk)
+--- Thread: 为还债日做18小时 肉骨茶摊主过劳猝逝 (/Thread-%E4%B8%BA%E8%BF%98%E5%80%BA%E6%97%A5%E5%81%9A18%E5%B0%8F%E6%97%B6-%E8%82%89%E9%AA%A8%E8%8C%B6%E6%91%8A%E4%B8%BB%E8%BF%87%E5%8A%B3%E7%8C%9D%E9%80%9D)
为还债日做18小时 肉骨茶摊主过劳猝逝 - Bigiron - 07-06-2025
为还债日做18小时 肉骨茶摊主过劳猝逝
https://zb.sg/pFWE
RE: 为还债日做18小时 肉骨茶摊主过劳猝逝 - Bigiron - 07-06-2025
This news article from Zaobao.sg (June 7th, 2025) details the death of a 65-year-old Bak Kut Teh stall owner, Mr. Hong Rongsheng, due to overwork. His death highlights the devastating consequences of long working hours and financial pressure.
Key Details:
- Cause of Death: Mr. Hong died from overwork, his body weakened by three weeks of illness he continued to work through. The doctor attributed his death to excessive workload and compromised immunity.
- Financial Situation: The couple's Bak Kut Teh stall, operated since the 1990s, suffered three consecutive years of losses due to the pandemic, accumulating over $100,000 in debt. Monthly expenses exceeded income, exacerbated by rent ($9000+) and employee salary ($4000).
- Working Hours: To pay off debts, Mr. Hong worked 18-hour days, taking only four days off annually (during Chinese New Year). His workday started at 5 am and ended around 11 pm.
- Impact on Wife: Mrs. Cai Juhua (66), his wife and business partner, is now solely responsible for the stall. She described their partnership as "two hands working together," now reduced to one. She returned to work only two weeks after his funeral, driven by his wish for the stall's continued operation.
- Business History: Mrs. Cai worked for 20 years at a well-known Bak Kut Teh stall before starting their own with her husband.
In essence: The article paints a heartbreaking picture of a small business owner crushed by debt and overwork, tragically illustrating the human cost of economic hardship and the lack of sufficient social safety nets for struggling businesses. The long working hours and financial strain ultimately led to his untimely death, leaving his wife to cope with the loss and the burden of the business alone.
RE: 为还债日做18小时 肉骨茶摊主过劳猝逝 - Ola - 07-06-2025
Well Done, Lazy Dr Koh PK.
Tampines GRC have voted you rightly in to serve them.
RE: 为还债日做18小时 肉骨茶摊主过劳猝逝 - Rainforest - 07-06-2025
朱门酒肉臭外有冻死骨
RE: 为还债日做18小时 肉骨茶摊主过劳猝逝 - RiseofAsia - 07-06-2025
对财殚力竭，终究难逃黄泉lah.
RE: 为还债日做18小时 肉骨茶摊主过劳猝逝 - WhatDoYouThink! - 07-06-2025
当你变成了一摊骨灰被装进瓮里，一张图像被挂在墙上，一切都无所谓了
RE: 为还债日做18小时 肉骨茶摊主过劳猝逝 - red3 - 07-06-2025
Meanwhile record high rental chionging
RE: 为还债日做18小时 肉骨茶摊主过劳猝逝 - Ola - 07-06-2025
PAP thinks people are stupid to be lied and deceived
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/proposals-to-modify-hawker-stall-rental-system-may-lead-to-higher-rents-koh-poh-koon
RE: 为还债日做18小时 肉骨茶摊主过劳猝逝 - Bigiron - 07-06-2025
(07-06-2025, 08:23 PM)Ola Wrote: PAP thinks people are stupid to be lied and deceived
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/proposals-to-modify-hawker-stall-rental-system-may-lead-to-higher-rents-koh-poh-koon
Here's a breakdown of the bullshit (misleading rhetoric) and 忽悠 (intentional spin or distraction) in the Straits Times article quoting Koh Poh Koon on the hawker stall rental system, along with explanations on why each point is problematic.
---
🧻 Bullshit and 忽悠 #1:
“Rental cost is only 10% of hawkers’ total operating cost, so changing the system won't help much.”
🧨 Why it’s Bullshit:
This is a selective framing tactic. For lower-income hawkers, every fixed cost matters. Just because it's 10% doesn't mean it's insignificant. 10% could be the difference between making or losing money every month.
It distracts from the core issue: The tender system creates price distortion and unfair competition, regardless of the percentage it makes up.
This also ignores psychological and practical effects: high upfront rentals deter new entrants and increase turnover.
🎭 Why it’s 忽悠:
The 10% figure is used to downplay legitimate concerns and make critics seem unreasonable, which is classic spin.
It positions the government as “reasonable” while gaslighting hawkers who are struggling.
---
🧻 Bullshit and 忽悠 #2:
“Most stalls are rented below $1,500, and the median is only $1,250.”
🧨 Why it’s Bullshit:
This ignores the spike caused by the top 10% of outlier bids, which pull up general expectations.
A median hides volatility. It's like saying most flats are affordable because some are cheap—while ignoring the gentrification caused by others bidding sky-high.
🎭 Why it’s 忽悠:
It tries to reframe the entire conversation by pointing to "median" as proof the system works, when the actual fear is not the average, but the unregulated outliers driving systemic pressure.
---
🧻 Bullshit and 忽悠 #3:
“The open tender system is fair because anyone can bid.”
🧨 Why it’s Bullshit:
In theory, anyone can bid—but in practice, those with deeper pockets, experience gaming the system, or existing networks have the upper hand.
It ignores information asymmetry, capital inequality, and risk tolerance that disadvantage new hawkers or lower-income applicants.
🎭 Why it’s 忽悠:
This is a textbook meritocracy myth spin. Just because the system is open doesn’t mean it’s fair.
It plays to neoliberal values of “efficiency” and “free market”, ignoring social equity.
---
🧻 Bullshit and 忽悠 #4:
“Balloting would lead to frivolous applications and wasted resources.”
🧨 Why it’s Bullshit:
Balloting can easily be regulated with small fees, background checks, or skill requirements. Other public goods (like BTOs) use balloting successfully.
This is a straw man: they assume no control mechanisms in a ballot system to shoot it down.
🎭 Why it’s 忽悠:
It's an alarmist tactic—pretend the alternative is a free-for-all to scare people back into accepting the status quo.
It makes sensible reforms sound dangerous, which is classic 忽悠.
---
🧻 Bullshit and 忽悠 #5:
“High rental bids are rare and do not reflect the system.”
🧨 Why it’s Bullshit:
Even rare high bids skew market psychology, encouraging kopi tiam landlords and even NEA to push the envelope in future tender assessments.
It also implies that “rare” means “no need to act”, which is negligent policymaking.
🎭 Why it’s 忽悠:
This is minimization spin—highlighting quantity instead of impact.
It ignores systemic knock-on effects and normalizes volatility as something we must tolerate.
---
🧻 Bullshit and 忽悠 #6:
“Some bidders bid high just to get in and hope for rent adjustment later.”
🧨 Why it’s Bullshit:
If true, it’s an acknowledgement that the system is being gamed—yet he treats it as “normal market behavior.”
This suggests the system rewards those who bid recklessly, not sustainably—which is a flaw, not a feature.
🎭 Why it’s 忽悠:
The statement subtly blames the hawkers instead of questioning the policy.
It also gives the illusion of rationality to what is actually speculative behavior.
🧼 Conclusion:
Bullshit / 忽悠 Tactic Why it’s Problematic
“Rental is only 10% of cost” Downplaying impact Ignores real pressures on thin-margin businesses
“Median rent is low” Reframing with cherry-picked stats Hides volatility and rent spikes
“Open tender is fair” Meritocracy myth Ignores capital/information inequality
“Balloting will waste resources” Straw man Alternatives exist with control mechanisms
“High bids are rare” Minimization Dismisses skewed market effects
“Hawkers overbid then hope for reductions” Blame-shifting Acknowledges system is flawed but normalizes it
RE: 为还债日做18小时 肉骨茶摊主过劳猝逝 - Symmetry - 07-06-2025
(07-06-2025, 08:23 PM)Ola Wrote: PAP thinks people are stupid to be lied and deceived
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/proposals-to-modify-hawker-stall-rental-system-may-lead-to-higher-rents-koh-poh-koon
Another heartless PaP Minister. Remember he moved to be Son of Punggol to Step son of Tampines. Just a few months ago, he said to safeguard our Hawker Culture apparantly at the expense of precious human lives. Doctor Hyde **