SINGAPORE: A recent Facebook post by businessman and former Nominated Member of Parliament Calvin Cheng has stirred heated conversation online, after he suggested that rising rents are not the primary cause of Singapore’s F&B crisis—and that the government should resist interfering in the free market, especially by imposing rental controls or mandating support for local entrepreneurs.
Cheng didn’t shy away from admitting that the closures have been heartbreaking—familiar neighbourhood hangouts, late-night bars where friends gathered, even family-run cafes that felt like home, have all folded one after another. Yet he urged us to pause before pointing fingers at landlords. “Most mall spaces are still taken,” he reminded readers, suggesting that behind every lease negotiation is a landlord weighing risks—sometimes betting on higher rents only to discover too late that demand has shifted. In his view, it’s not a matter of landlords callously letting spaces sit empty; it’s a delicate, often agonising decision that can leave both tenant and landlord worse off if the timing or market dynamics don’t line up.
“It is simplistic to just blame rentals,” he wrote. “Most of the time, landlords also take a gamble during renewal… If they make the wrong decision, they may end up with a lower rent.”
Cheng also claimed that many local F&B entrepreneurs overestimate their financial capacity and falter due to inexperience, rather than being unfairly priced out.
Manpower shortages and government policy
While defending the market’s self-regulation on rents, Cheng was more critical of the government’s stance on manpower quotas, especially in the service sector. He asserted that tight restrictions on hiring foreign workers could have led to increased labour costs and service inefficiencies.
“I am often served by young, inexperienced and/or disinterested local service staff who never see F&B as a long-term career,” he said. “If the government really wants to do something, they should relax the quotas on foreign manpower.”
Cheng concluded that excessive government intervention in the market often leads to unintended consequences: “When local entrepreneurs shut down, everyone loses their livelihoods anyway.”
Yet Cheng’s criticism of young local workers in the F&B sector has struck a raw nerve among many Singaporeans, especially youth and their families, who see part-time service jobs not as careers, but as lifelines.
– Advertisement –
In a country where the cost of living continues to rise sharply—from transport fares to food prices and education costs—40% of polytechnic and university students take up part-time work at cafés, fast-food chains, or bubble tea outlets simply to make ends meet. For some, it’s pocket money. For others, it’s helping to pay for tuition fees, rent, or to lighten the financial burden on their families.
To many of these young workers, the implication that they are “disinterested” or “inexperienced” misses the point. The service roles they hold are rarely career pathways—they’re a means of economic and social survival in the city. For every customer served with a weary expression, there may be a backstory of exams, caregiving duties, or savings goals stretched thin by the realities of urban school life.
Backlash from entrepreneurs and advocates
His remarks were met with swift rebuttals from industry figures and local entrepreneurs, many of whom argue that the state has a responsibility to protect small businesses in the face of mounting structural disadvantages.
Wally Tham, owner of the social impact marketing agency Big Red Button, issued one of the most widely resonant rebuttals.
– Advertisement –
“If the government doesn’t protect small local businesses, and Singapore cannot produce large enterprises, we won’t have a local culture of business,” Tham wrote. “Imagine all restaurants only serving Mala offerings and all services imported from the West.”
Tham’s emphasis on preserving space for uniquely Singaporean business voices—both literal and symbolic—was echoed by other commenters who see rental costs as more than just an economic issue.
Cheng, however, dismissed this framing.
“Business is not a culture. Business is about making money,” he replied. “Good service is a business proposition… Culture is just a misnomer.”hmm.
The emotional economics of leasing
In a separate comment, Kina Huang, who identified herself as having three decades of experience working with landlords, shared a more human-centred critique. She called attention to what she described as a growing ruthlessness in commercial leasing practices, even toward long-standing, loyal tenants.
“If a business has been around for more than 15 years, they must have been doing something right. And if they have to close, something external must have gone terribly wrong,” she said.
“Lease renewal should be renamed Lease Increment Exercise,” she concluded her comment.
Huang recounted how only one leasing agent she encountered in 30 years showed genuine empathy toward tenants, suggesting that most decisions in the space are coldly transactional.
A bigger question: What kind of country do we want?
Do we want a country where only the biggest players can afford the rent and survive, or do we want to make sure there’s still breathing room for the smaller spots that give our neighbourhoods personality?
It’s tempting to let free-market forces decide—after all, high-profile brands bring in foreign investments and big leases fuel massive growth. But when a local hawker or startup can’t renew their lease because the rent jumps too much, it isn’t just a business closing: it’s one less place where friends meet for kopi, one less corner of our community. If the sheer cost of business keeps squeezing smaller operators, soon there won’t be any local names left on the storefronts—just global logos.
The real test is whether we can find a way to let big and small businesses coexist, so that big brands, aspiring and small entrepreneurs feel at home here. That balance can shape what Singapore looks and feels like in the years ahead.
– Advertisement –
