Connect with us

Current Affairs

The rise and fall of rice

Sze Hian scrutinises the prices of rice at NTUC FairPrice.

Published

on

Leong Sze Hian

Uniquely Singapore

After reading the news reports about FairPrice not allowing customers to buy more than five 10-kg bags of rice, consumers may be flocking to Fairprice, thinking that it has the cheapest rice and stocks may run out.

Restricting consumer purchase may not protect consumer interest, and may have the opposite effect of causing even more buying to hoard rice which in turn would cause rice prices to increase further.

I refer to MP Seah Kian Peng’s reply in the Straits Times, (“FairPrice items still among the cheapest“, May 6) to Mdm Lily Cheong’s letter, “Puzzled over stiff weekly price rises at FairPrice” (ST, May 1).

Mr Seah is the Deputy CEO & COO, NTUC Fairprice Co-operative Ltd. (Parliament)

Mr Seah said:

While global rice prices have increased by more than 100 per cent since March last year, FairPrice has held its rice prices. Our house-brand rice prices have increased by 15 to 25 per cent since March last year …

Due to the low price of FairPrice house-brand rice, sales of our rice more than doubled in March and this has depleted our rice stockpile. To make sure we provide a reliable supply of rice to consumers, we have replenished our stock with rice bought at prevailing market prices.

On 6-7 May, the same day Mr Seah’s letter appeared in the Straits Times, FairPrice was selling its cheapest housebrand, Fairprice Thai Fragrant Rice (5 kg), at $6.60.

Wasn’t its cheapest housebrand fragrant rice $26.80 a week ago and $17.50 about two weeks prior to that?

So, my question is how this is possible at all – given that, as Mr Seah explained, FairPrice “depleted our rice stockpile” in March and that FairPrice had “replenished our stock with rice bought at prevailing market prices”?

Simply put, does it mean that:

Price of FairPrice’s cheapest fragrant rice (10 kg) was:

Original price: $17.50

Later part of April: $26.80.

6-7 May: $13.20 ($6.60 x two 5 kg bags) (After Mdm Lily Cheong’s letter to the Straits Times on May 1.)

Why did the prices vary so much?

Since “global rice prices have increased by more than 100 per cent since March last year”, why is it that Fairprice was selling its cheapest housebrand FairPrice Gold Superior Fragrant Rice (10 kg) at $16.20 in June 2007 (source: Case survey of household items prices, July 2007), compared to $13.20 for its cheapest house-brand fragrant rice now?

Was FairPrice’s rice over-priced by about 23 per cent in Jun 2007 ($16.20 divided by $13.20)?

100 per cent global rice in price – but 23 per cent cheaper at FairPrice?

The statement, “Our house-brand rice prices have increased by 15 to 25 per cent since March last year”, does not seem to make much sense, as it appears to have decreased by 23 per cent now, compared to June 2007.

I am puzzled as to how a 100 per cent increase in global rice prices since March 2007 can translate into rice today which is about 23 per cent cheaper than in June 2007? Was FairPrice’s profit margin higher in June 2007?

In view of this “yo-yo” pricing, I would like to suggest that FairPrice give Singaporeans more detailed information about its pricing policies.

I also refer to the article “Quick buck on rice: FairPrice acts(Today, May 10), and media reports that customers were not allowed to buy more than five 10-kilogramme bags of rice per shopping trip from FairPrice.

Fairprice said they suspected that traders or small businesses were taking advantage of their low pricing, and the restriction is to protect consumer interest.

I was at Giant on 10 May, and it was selling Thai White Rice (5 kg) at $5.29.

On 10 May, Fairprice was selling its house-brand Thai Fragrant Rice (5 kg) at $6.60.

On 11 May, Sheng Siong’s website priced its Happy Family Whole Grain Rice (5 kg) at $5.20.

So, the cheapest rice at Giant and Sheng Siong was actually about 20 and 21 per cent cheaper, respectively, than the cheapest at Fairprice.

(Even though fragrant rice and white rice are different, for lower-income Singaporeans, the cheapest rice that they can buy may be more important to them.)

Golden Phoenix and Golden Peony

With reference to the Case Rice Price Survey released on 15 May, why is it that the entire Straits Times article (“Supermarkets cry foul over Case’s rice survey”, ST, May 16) and the Case press release are focused on the housebrand Golden Phoenix Fragrant Rice?

The ST article states that:

The cheapest Golden Phoenix rice: $13.30 for a 5 kg bag at Fairprice and $18.80 for a 10 kg bag at Prime.

Note that the comparison is for a 5 kg bag and a 10 kg bag of the same rice.

Why would anyone buy two 5 kg bags at FairPrice for $26.60, when one can buy a 10 kg bag from Prime for $18.80? The two 5 kg bags cost 41 per cent more than the 10 kg bag!

This brand curiously happens to have the highest price in the price variation range, of all the fragrant rice in the Case survey, with a price range from $13.30 to $15.00 (5 kg bag).

Why wasn’t the cheapest-range rice, Golden Peony Fragrant Rice (price range from $9 to $12.80), highlighted instead?

Wouldn’t consumers be more interested in the cheapest fragrant rice, rather than the costliest?

So, how does FairPrice fair for Golden Peony Fragrant Rice, the cheapest in the range?

The answer:

The Case survey shows “a dash” ( – ) for Golden Peony Fragrant Rice at FairPrice, and the lowest price was $9 for a 5 kg bag at Cold Storage. What does the dash mean? That FairPrice does not sell this brand, or was it out-of-stock on 6-7 May?

Finally, why did the survey not cover White Rice, which is cheaper than Fragrant Rice (which the survey said was selected because it was more popular)?

Even though White Rice may be less popular, it should not mean that we do not cover it at all.

After all, maybe the cheaper White Rice is more popular with lower-income Singaporeans?

Read also:

The Unions, the Press and the People by Leong Sze Hian and Choo Zheng Xi.

CASE’s relationship with NTUC by Leong Sze Hian.

———————–

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Ng Eng Hen: Dust clouds likely caused armoured vehicle collision during Exercise Wallaby

Dust clouds limiting visibility likely contributed to the collision between two Hunter vehicles during Exercise Wallaby, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen explained in his parliamentary reply. 12 servicemen sustained mild injuries, but safety measures prevented more serious outcomes. A formal investigation is ongoing to ensure further safety improvements.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Low visibility caused by dust clouds was identified as the likely cause of the collision between two Hunter armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs) during Exercise Wallaby last month, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said in a written parliamentary response on Tuesday (15 October).

The incident, which occurred in Queensland, Australia, on 24 September 2024, resulted in mild injuries to 12 servicemen.

Dr Ng’s statement was in response to a parliamentary question from Mr Dennis Tan, Workers’ Party Member of Parliament for Hougang SMC.

Mr Tan asked for details on the accident, specifically its cause and whether any lessons could be applied to enhance training and operational safety within the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF).

The collision took place during a night-time movement of Hunter AFVs at the Shoalwater Bay Training Area.

The vehicles were returning to base when one rear-ended another. Dr Ng explained that the dust clouds generated by the AFVs’ movement significantly impaired visibility, might likely contributing to the accident.

The 12 affected servicemen sustained mild injuries and were promptly taken to the nearest medical facility.

None of the injuries required hospitalisation, and all 12 servicemen were able to rejoin their units for training the next day.

According to the minister, adherence to safety protocols—such as wearing seat belts and protective gear—played a crucial role in limiting the injuries to mild ones.

Following the incident, a safety pause was immediately implemented, with all drivers being reminded to maintain proper safety distances, especially when visibility was compromised.

Troops were also reminded to adhere strictly to safety protocols, including the proper use of safety equipment, Dr Ng added.

The safety lessons from the incident were shared not only with the affected units but also with other participating groups in the exercise, as well as units back in Singapore, through dedicated safety briefings.

Mr Tan also asked about the broader implications of the incident. In his response, Dr Ng said that a formal investigation had been launched in accordance with SAF’s safety incident protocol.

The investigation aims to assess the circumstances more thoroughly and identify any further measures that could be taken to enhance safety.

Dr Ng shared that recommendations arising from the investigation will be implemented where necessary.

Exercise Wallaby is SAF’s largest unilateral overseas exercise, and the 2024 edition began on 8 September, running until 3 November.

The exercise involves approximately 6,200 personnel, including 500 operationally ready national servicemen.

The exercise has been conducted at Shoalwater Bay Training Area in Queensland since 1990, and it is a key part of SAF’s overseas training program.

The Hunter AFV, one of the vehicles involved in the collision, is a state-of-the-art platform jointly developed by the Defence Science and Technology Agency, the Singapore Army, and ST Engineering.

It replaced the SAF’s aging fleet of Ultra M113 AFVs in 2019, which had been in service since the 1970s. The Hunter is equipped with advanced features, including a 30mm cannon, a 76mm smoke grenade launcher, and an automatic target detection and

tracking system designed to enhance operational effectiveness. It is also capable of traveling at increased speeds and covering longer distances, making it a versatile asset for the SAF.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Government to “carefully consider” Lee Hsien Yang’s demolition application for 38 Oxley Road

The Singapore Government will “carefully consider” Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY)’s application to demolish the house at 38 Oxley Road. LHY announced his intent on Tuesday morning following the recent death of his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, reaffirming his commitment to honour his parents’ wish for the house’s demolition.

Published

on

The Singapore Government has indicated that it will “carefully consider” Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s (LHY) application to demolish the family home at 38 Oxley Road.

LHY, the youngest son of Singapore’s founding Prime Minister, the late Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), announced his intention to apply for the demolition in a Facebook post on 15 October 2024, following the death of his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, on 9 October.

The announcement marks a significant development in the ongoing saga over the fate of the historically significant property, which has been at the heart of a family dispute since LKY’s passing in 2015.

In his will, executed in December 2013, LKY expressed his desire for the house to be demolished “immediately after” Dr Lee moved out of the property. Dr Lee, a prominent neurologist, had been the last remaining resident of the house.

LHY reaffirmed his commitment to carrying out his father’s wishes, stating, “After my sister’s passing, I am the only living executor of my father’s estate. It is my duty to carry out his wishes to the fullest extent of the law.”

He added that he would seek to build a small private dwelling on the site, which would be “held within the family in perpetuity”.

LHY also referenced his brother, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (LHL) remarks in Parliament in 2015, when he was Prime Minister, stating that upon Dr Lee’s passing, the decision to demolish the house would rest with the “Government of the day.”

In response to media queries regarding LHY’s announcement, a spokesperson for the Ministry of National Development (MND) acknowledged the intended application and emphasised that the Government would “carefully consider issues related to the property in due course”.

The spokesperson also highlighted that any decision would need to balance LKY’s wishes, public interest, and the historical value of the house.

The house at 38 Oxley Road, where key decisions about Singapore’s path to independence were made, has been a focal point of public and political discussion.

The future of the house became contentious in 2017 when LHY and Dr Lee publicly accused their elder brother, LHL, of trying to preserve the house against their father’s wishes for political reasons.

LHL denied the accusations, issuing a Ministerial Statement in Parliament, where he also raised concerns over the preparation of their father’s final will. He clarified that he had recused himself from all decisions regarding the property and affirmed that any government action would be impartial.

In 2018, a “secret” ministerial committee, which was formed in 2016 to study the future of 38 Oxley Road, proposed three options: preserving the property and designating it as a national monument, partially demolishing the house while retaining the historically significant basement dining room, or allowing complete demolition for redevelopment. LHL accepted the committee’s conclusions but stated that no immediate decision was necessary, as Dr Lee was still living in the house.

In a statement conveyed by LHY on behalf of Dr Lee after her passing, she reiterated her strong support for her father’s wish to demolish the house. “My father, Lee Kuan Yew, and my mother, Kwa Geok Choo, had an unwavering and deeply felt wish for their house at 38 Oxley Road to be demolished upon the last parent’s death,” the statement read.

She added, “He had also appealed directly to the people of Singapore. Please honour my father by honouring his wish for his home to be demolished.”

Despite selling the house to LHY at market value in 2015, LHL’s stance regarding the house’s preservation became a public issue, especially after the family disclosed that the Government had raised concerns about reinstating the demolition clause in the 2013 will. The ministerial committee had reviewed the matter, but a final decision was deferred until now.

The fate of 38 Oxley Road remains to be seen, but the Government’s decision will likely have lasting implications for the legacy of the Lee family and the conservation of Singapore’s historical landmarks.

Continue Reading

Trending