Ex-restaurateur on whether F&B outlets should provide free water: It's about 'sustainability of the business'
An ex-restaurateur shared his perspective on whether F&B outlets should be required to provide free water to customers.
Ex-restaurateur on whether F&B outlets should provide free water: It's about 'sustainability of the business'
Welcome to Stomping Ground - a space where Stompers share reflections, personal essays and social commentaries that spark conversation and insight.
An ex-restaurateur shared his perspective on whether F&B outlets should be required to provide free water to customers.
Stomper Ee Chien, who had previously expressed his disapproval of home-based cafés, alerted Stomp to his LinkedIn post about the debate.
He wrote it in response to Aljunied GRC MP Gerald Giam's support for a petition in favour of free water in all F&B establishments started by Dr Yucai Yee.
Ee Chien's post reads: "As someone who used to run a restaurant and bar, I'd like to offer a perspective that is often left out of the public conversation.
"One of my staff members once strongly disagreed with our decision to stop serving water for free. At the time, I thought it was a small issue. But over time, I realised it was not just about water.
"It was about the sustainability of the business."
He continued: "If someone has 200 customers a day, and charges just $1 per glass, that would add up to nearly $5,000 a month. That could cover two full-time junior staff salaries. In an environment where rents, utility bills, cleaning costs, and wages keep rising, every small stream of revenue counts.
"Water may be inexpensive at the source, but providing it in a restaurant is not. There is cost involved in filtration, chilling, ice, service, glassware, washing, and breakage. It takes real resources and real labour. These are especially significant for smaller operators who are already running on thin margins."
He further explained the issue from an F&B establishment owner's point of view.
"From recent conversations among my peers, most F&B operators are not trying to profiteer.
"One restaurant charges $2 per person for unlimited filtered or sparkling water and waives it without hesitation when a guest objects. Another charges just 50 cents but still receives pushback and frustration. A third offers water for free but finds it difficult to keep up with increasing overheads and customer expectations to give more for less.
"Many operators have also shared that more customers now bring their own water bottles, help themselves to ice and occupy tables for long periods with minimal orders. Some even bring outside food.
"These behaviours, while understandable, put more pressure on already strained operations.
"Some restaurants have considered including the cost of water in menu pricing or offering opt-outs, but these often lead to accusations of being sneaky or dishonest. No approach satisfies everyone."
His post sparked discussions among other LinkedIn users with an F&B industry peer in Bangkok commenting: "If you want water, just pay for a bottle of still or sparkling. It is affordable and very common in restaurants in Europe."
"Customers should stop this 'me first, self-entitled' mentality and start thinking about supporting restaurants.
"Many customers just order a drink and expect to sit for hours despite being informed of a time limit on the table. When the time limit is up, they will look around and say, 'But you are empty, why can't we sit longer?' So why not think differently and say, 'Hey, you guys are empty, let me support you by getting another drink."
In his post, Ee Chien summarised the concerns from F&B owners across Singapore.
"This is not about refusing to serve water. It's more about context and understanding how a business runs before blindly throwing ideas out.
"Perhaps Dr Yee might be open to free medical services as it's a universal right? Most of us want to be hospitable, but we also want to be sustainable. A blanket mandate may unintentionally hurt the very businesses that are already struggling to survive.
"I hope future conversations on this topic will take into account both the customer experience and the operational reality of running a food and beverage business in Singapore."
Have your say on Stomping Ground! Write in to us at stomp@sph.com.sg or WhatsApp 9384 3761.
Click here to contribute a story or submit it to our WhatsApp
Get more of Stomp's latest updates by following us on:
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
3 days ago
- Straits Times
HSBC Asia chairman's son buys Hong Kong homes for $37 million
With the Hong Kong property market mired in a slump, high-profile properties are being let go by distressed sellers at low prices. PHOTO: ST FILE HONG KONG – The son of an HSBC Holdings leader has spent at least HK$231 million (S$37.5 million) buying luxury properties in Hong Kong this year, as the city's home prices hover at an eight-year low. Jeremy Wong Ka Chun bought four flats at Hong Kong Parkview, a prime residential development in the city, through a vehicle in the past three months, according to filings. Mr Wong is the son of Peter Wong, chairman of the UK bank's Asia subsidiary, according to people familiar with the matter. Jeremy also works for HSBC, according to his LinkedIn profile. He purchased two connected units for HK$121.5 million this month, through local company Lion Rock (HK), land registry filings show. Months earlier, he used the same company, of which he is the sole director, to buy adjacent homes at another tower for HK$109 million. The properties were formerly owned by Bain Capital's Asia private equity partner Jonathan Zhu Jia and his wife, filings show. Peter Wong was HSBC's top executive in Asia until he relinquished that role to be non-executive chairman of Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., the bank's Asian entity, in 2021. Mr Wong backed a petition in support of Hong Kong's national security law in 2020, a move that prompted rebukes from UK politicians and investors. The UK lender, which counts Hong Kong as its biggest market, is in a major restructuring under chief executive officer Georges Elhedery, who is seeking to increase efficiency. Hong Kong's housing market is mired in a prolonged downturn, prompting some deep-pocketed investors to buy high-profile assets from distressed sellers at low prices. In 2024, when a local wealthy family tried to offload seven luxury mansions in the Peak area, billionaire Yeung Kin-Man, who made his fortune from mobile phone touch screens, purchased four of them for HK$1.1 billion, according to the South China Morning Post. Another manufacturing entrepreneur, Stephan Horst Pudwill, bought the rest for HK$860 million, the same publication reported. Hong Kong Parkview sits on a hill in Tai Tam, an area in the city's southeast known for its reservoirs and country park. Its developer, Parkview Group, has been strapped for cash as banks became reluctant to extend funds. It sought a loan backed by a collection of artwork from auction house Sotheby's earlier this year, but the talks didn't go through, Bloomberg reported this week. Some of the art has been displayed in a clubhouse at Hong Kong Parkview, according to documents seen by Bloomberg. Parkview Group received a HK$300 million loan from investment firm PAG, and has also been in talks with private credit lenders since late last year for financing of at least HK$2.8 billion, using two residential towers as collateral. BLOOMBERG Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
5 days ago
- Straits Times
Ex-restaurateur on whether F&B outlets should provide free water: It's about 'sustainability of the business'
An ex-restaurateur shared his perspective on whether F&B outlets should be required to provide free water to customers. Ex-restaurateur on whether F&B outlets should provide free water: It's about 'sustainability of the business' Welcome to Stomping Ground - a space where Stompers share reflections, personal essays and social commentaries that spark conversation and insight. An ex-restaurateur shared his perspective on whether F&B outlets should be required to provide free water to customers. Stomper Ee Chien, who had previously expressed his disapproval of home-based cafés, alerted Stomp to his LinkedIn post about the debate. He wrote it in response to Aljunied GRC MP Gerald Giam's support for a petition in favour of free water in all F&B establishments started by Dr Yucai Yee. Ee Chien's post reads: "As someone who used to run a restaurant and bar, I'd like to offer a perspective that is often left out of the public conversation. "One of my staff members once strongly disagreed with our decision to stop serving water for free. At the time, I thought it was a small issue. But over time, I realised it was not just about water. "It was about the sustainability of the business." He continued: "If someone has 200 customers a day, and charges just $1 per glass, that would add up to nearly $5,000 a month. That could cover two full-time junior staff salaries. In an environment where rents, utility bills, cleaning costs, and wages keep rising, every small stream of revenue counts. "Water may be inexpensive at the source, but providing it in a restaurant is not. There is cost involved in filtration, chilling, ice, service, glassware, washing, and breakage. It takes real resources and real labour. These are especially significant for smaller operators who are already running on thin margins." He further explained the issue from an F&B establishment owner's point of view. "From recent conversations among my peers, most F&B operators are not trying to profiteer. "One restaurant charges $2 per person for unlimited filtered or sparkling water and waives it without hesitation when a guest objects. Another charges just 50 cents but still receives pushback and frustration. A third offers water for free but finds it difficult to keep up with increasing overheads and customer expectations to give more for less. "Many operators have also shared that more customers now bring their own water bottles, help themselves to ice and occupy tables for long periods with minimal orders. Some even bring outside food. "These behaviours, while understandable, put more pressure on already strained operations. "Some restaurants have considered including the cost of water in menu pricing or offering opt-outs, but these often lead to accusations of being sneaky or dishonest. No approach satisfies everyone." His post sparked discussions among other LinkedIn users with an F&B industry peer in Bangkok commenting: "If you want water, just pay for a bottle of still or sparkling. It is affordable and very common in restaurants in Europe." "Customers should stop this 'me first, self-entitled' mentality and start thinking about supporting restaurants. "Many customers just order a drink and expect to sit for hours despite being informed of a time limit on the table. When the time limit is up, they will look around and say, 'But you are empty, why can't we sit longer?' So why not think differently and say, 'Hey, you guys are empty, let me support you by getting another drink." In his post, Ee Chien summarised the concerns from F&B owners across Singapore. "This is not about refusing to serve water. It's more about context and understanding how a business runs before blindly throwing ideas out. "Perhaps Dr Yee might be open to free medical services as it's a universal right? Most of us want to be hospitable, but we also want to be sustainable. A blanket mandate may unintentionally hurt the very businesses that are already struggling to survive. "I hope future conversations on this topic will take into account both the customer experience and the operational reality of running a food and beverage business in Singapore." Have your say on Stomping Ground! Write in to us at stomp@ or WhatsApp 9384 3761. Click here to contribute a story or submit it to our WhatsApp Get more of Stomp's latest updates by following us on:
CNA
21-06-2025
- CNA
I started using corporate lingo ironically – and now I can't stop
I nodded as a coworker listed out a few suggestions on ways her team and mine could collaborate in the next few months. 'Yeah, that sounds like a good way to synergise,' I said. And then we both made a face. Almost a decade ago, when I started my first official 'office job', I made a silent vow to myself that I would never become One of Those. A corporate drone on autopilot, mindlessly regurgitating buzzwords and key phrases day in and day out to no real end until I would one day reach my final form: a glorified LinkedIn bot. I didn't really 'use' corporate lingo so much as make fun of it – in a good-natured, tongue-in-cheek sort of way. It was a quick fix for lightening the mood for everybody, myself included: 'Well, since that project fell through, guess that's one less loop to close, huh?' But these days, I find myself starting to slip into corporate lingo unironically, the same way I started doing years ago with skinny jeans, emojis, and the acronym 'LOL'. LINGO LIMBO More people are expressing annoyance or frustration with it these days, especially on social media, but make no mistake – corporate lingo is nothing new. From the 'value chains' of the 1980s and 1990s to the 'key performance indicators' you hear your own manager wax on about today, such jargon has long been a mainstay of working life. Like with most things that eventually trigger widespread discussions and accusations online of being 'annoying' or 'cringe', there's a legitimately useful element to corporate lingo's villain origin story. Business and work have grown more complex over the last few decades. Thanks to globalisation, the systems we operate in have become more interconnected and as a result, more expansive and intricate. So have the individual roles we play in those systems. We started needing quicker, simpler ways to sum up big or complicated ideas – or ideas that weren't that big or complicated, but were just a mouthful to say. After all, it's definitely easier to say 'outsourcing' than 'farming this out to a peripheral individual, group or organisation so I have more time and energy to focus on more important things'. But over time, something happened to corporate lingo: People started creating buzzwords and phrases for things and situations that didn't seem to require it at all. We stopped postponing or revisiting discussions of an issue and started 'circling back' instead. We eschewed talking to each other and started 'touching base' instead. And then people started 'checking in', but not just any checks, mind you. Temperature checks. Sense checks. Vibe checks. Instead of coining new terms to neatly condense big, complicated ideas, we now seem to be finding overly complex ways to phrase very simple things. WHEN YOU SAY NOTHING AT ALL Again, it's not a bad thing to develop lingo over the course of engaging with other fellow humans in labour. Well before we became office dwellers, plenty of colloquialisms from agricultural work had been leaving the farm to become part of everyday English. For example, "No reason to have a cow about that" or "beat a dead horse". Such jargon of yore does the work it's meant to do, which is to replace a wordy sentiment or thought process with a bite-sized turn of phrase. In comparison, what exactly does the phrase 'moving the needle' accomplish, particularly when in most cases, you immediately have to go on to explain exactly what needle you're hoping to move and in which direction? (Yes, we've done it, we've made shop-talk more efficient – all we had to do was transform our seven-word statement into a 15-word run-on behemoth.) The danger is when we're more concerned about communication for communication's sake, rather than the purposes and objectives for which we're communicating. Are we trying to be in the know, or simply appear so to others? Are we really achieving or improving productivity, or just performing it? MAKE WORK JARGON WORK AGAIN Either way, corporate lingo is here to stay. The exact words and phrases in rotation may come and go, but humans will always want to find a way to jazz up interpersonal communication simply because we're creative, social beings. So is there a way to salvage this? (Or, for the corporate jargon-heads out there: What are the actionable insights and key takeaways to be derived from this?) For my part, I still find myself resisting what I feel are inorganic attempts to shoehorn unnecessary lingo into conversations about work, but I'm trying not to be pedantic about it. If someone says 'Can we align or bridge the gap on this?', I respond, 'Sure, what's unclear right now?' If someone says 'Can I get a sense check on when this might be completed?', I give them a date. (But maybe I'll also have a little rant to a fellow coworker later on about why the question can't simply be 'When will this be done?') Instead of the snark I used to deploy perhaps a little too freely in response to cringey corporate jargon, I try to reach for the same attitude I employ whenever I'm speaking with someone who may not be entirely fluent in English – if I understand what they're saying, maybe how they're saying it doesn't have to matter as much. Still, at the end of the day, there's never any harm in asking, plain and simple: 'What do you mean?'
