Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:572754 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
Introduction
Hawker foods are an important cultural heritage, important source of nourishment/
income for the public and significant contributor to the economy in Malaysia (Yasmeen,
2001; Dunnett, 2003). Moreover, the industry is growing substantially in popularity
(Hassan, 2003; WHO, 1996; Winarno and Allain, 1991) and size (by 548.6 per cent during
the period 1970-2000) (Hassan, 2003).
However, there have been concerns over the food safety of hawker foods, with
studies showing poor hygiene and food safety practices (FSPs) of food hawkers in
Malaysia (Toh and Birchenough, 2000; Toh et al., 2000; Zain and Naing, 2002). These
concerns could potentially develop into a health issue for the Malaysian citizens and
tourists, in regards to food-borne diseases. The WHO has mentioned the popularity of
street food stalls as a contributory factor to food-borne illness globally (WHO, 2002),
and poor sanitation/attitudes of hawkers have been associated with reports of food-
borne illness in Malaysia (Meftahuddin, 2002; Lim, 2001, 2002, 1999).
Studies so far have shown that food safety knowledge, attitude and socio-
demographic factors (educational level and ethnicity) of hawkers affect their FSP (Zain, Nutrition & Food Science
Vol. 38 No. 1, 2008
2002; Toh and Birchenough, 2000; Toh et al., 2000). Food safety strategies for hawkers pp. 41-51
(e.g. food safety regulations, licensing, food safety training and relocation to designated # Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0034-6659
sites) have been implemented in Malaysia (Economic Research Service/USDA, 2002; DOI 10.1108/00346650810848007
NFS Medina Pizzali, 2001; FAO, 1999; Ministry of Health, 1983, 1985), however, no studies so
far have assessed their effectiveness and consistency in controlling hawker FSP across
38,1 all regions of Malaysia.
This study aims to expand on the studies so far by further exploring the socio-
demographic factors affecting food safety knowledge/practice of hawkers and the
effectiveness of food safety strategies in an urban and less urban setting of Malaysia.
42 Methods
Downloaded by Symbiosis International University Pune, Professor Suresh Patil At 06:59 13 May 2019 (PT)
Hawker sample
A random sample of 25 hawkers from Kuala Lumpur (urban setting) and 25 hawkers
from Taiping (less rural setting) were collected for the questionnaire/observation of FSP.
The urban sample was collected from two boroughs of Kuala Lumpur (15 hawkers from
Borough 1 and ten hawkers from Borough 2). Two hawkers from Kuala Lumpur and two
from Taiping were selected for individual in-depth interviews. Samples comprised of a
variety of hawker types (in terms of ethnicity and type of premise operated on) to ensure
they were representative of the hawker industry. Each hawker represented a separate
hawker stall. All hawkers participated voluntarily and were informed beforehand of the
purpose implications of the study before positive consent was obtained.
In-depth interviews
Interview questions were based on the survey questions/results, conducted in either
Malay or Chinese language, tape recorded and transcribed into English.
interviews were that ‘‘the government is not strict enough’’ (Interview 1). Hawkers ‘‘only
wear hats to show the authorities when they come to check’’ (Interview 3) and ‘‘have hats
and aprons kept behind the stall ready to put on when they spot the authorities coming
to check’’ (Interview 4).
Licensing
Nine out of 50 (18 per cent) hawkers sampled for the questionnaire were unlicensed, thus
indicating some ineffectiveness in licensing. The true number may be higher as there is
the possibility that many hawkers may lie for fear of the consequences, saying that they
are licensed when they are not. For example, 66.7 per cent of hawkers said that sharing a
license with the coffee shop they rent from was the reason they had no license of their
own (Figure 1). In these cases, it has been noted that the coffee shop owner is in charge of
the premise and its maintenance and rents out space within the shop to hawkers to
operate on. These hawkers then operate under one license that has been obtained by the
coffee shop owner. The coffee shop owners are often not involved in food preparation,
thus food safety training obtained when applying for a license may only be given to the
coffee shop owner and not the hawkers who are directly handling the food.
Figure 1.
Reasons for not being
licensed
The interviews also highlighted that restrictions by the local authority on areas to Hawker food
operate and ineffective reinforcing of licensing were other reasons for unlicensed
hawkers (‘‘many places such as the roadside do not allow hawkers to set up their stalls
industry
but they still want to settle there’’ and the ‘‘the control authority does not try to search
and find them’’ – Interview 1). In addition, poor monitoring of unlicensed hawkers may
also add to the problem (‘‘the control authority does not try to search and find’’
unlicensed hawkers – Interview 1). The above findings may be worrying as it is known
that licensing is one of the main methods used by the control authority to provide food 45
Downloaded by Symbiosis International University Pune, Professor Suresh Patil At 06:59 13 May 2019 (PT)
Training
Only 60 per cent of hawkers sampled for the questionnaire had undergone training, and
the majority of these (93 per cent) had only basic food safety training. No hawkers
sampled underwent HACCP (hazard awareness and critical control point) training,
although it is an internationally recognized system for food safety assurance (WHO,
1996) and has been encouraged by the Malaysian government for the hawker industry
(Merican, 2000). As mentioned previously, an ineffective licensing system maybe a
reason for the limited number of trained hawkers in this study.
Another reason maybe that several of the hawker stalls in this study were run by
families and only one family member (the person who applies for the license) is required to
undergo training in order to open a stall. For example, 25 per cent of the untrained hawkers
said that they did not have training because another family had already undergone
training. Thus, family members who also participate in food preparation maybe untrained.
Also, according to the interviews results, hawkers must pay ‘‘[1]RM60 per training lesson’’,
which may discourage hawkers to go for training. A 6.7 per cent of hawkers answering the
questionnaire mentioned ‘‘paying for training’’ as a disadvantage (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
Disadvantages of training
NFS The average (median) FSK scores did not differ between untrained hawkers and those
38,1 with basic food safety training (majority of trained hawkers in the study). This may be
due to potential weaknesses in the training programme highlighted in the
questionnaire and interview results. For example, 33 per cent of hawkers mentioned
training ‘‘in Malay language only’’ as a disadvantage in which several Chinese hawkers
with little education ‘‘do not understand’’ and instead ‘‘fall asleep’’ during training
46 (Interviews 1 and 4). Moreover, training with Mandarin translation may not be
understood by some hawkers who have no formal education (Interview 4). This may
Downloaded by Symbiosis International University Pune, Professor Suresh Patil At 06:59 13 May 2019 (PT)
Type of premise
Designated Day/night By the Rented
site market roadside Mobile coffee shop
Advantages of premise (n ¼ 22) (n ¼ 2) (n ¼ 7) (n ¼ 7) (n ¼ 12)
Clean/organised 5 0 0 0 2
22.7% 0% 0% 0% 16.7%
Food safety facilities 5 0 0 0 0
22.7% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Near to customers 13 2 6 6 11
59.1% 100% 85.7% 85.7% 91.7%
Near to home 1 0 0 5 2
4.5% 0% 0% 71.4% 16.7%
Cheap rental fee 1 0 0 0 0
4.5% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Many parking spaces for customers 0 0 1 0 0
0% 0% 14.3% 0% 0%
No advantages 2 0 1 1 0
Table I. 9.1% 0% 14.3% 14.3% 0%
Advantage mentioned
by hawkers of each Note: Percentage values denote the percentage of hawkers within the premise type that have
premise type mentioned the advantage
Type of premise Hawker food
Designated Day/night By the Rented coffee industry
site market roadside Mobile shop
Advantages of premise (n ¼ 22) (n ¼ 2) (n ¼ 7) (n ¼ 7) (n ¼ 12)
Limited customers 4 0 0 0 0
18.2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Unhygienic environment 0 2 2 1 0 47
Downloaded by Symbiosis International University Pune, Professor Suresh Patil At 06:59 13 May 2019 (PT)
on this premise type. Amongst all premise types, designated sites had the lowest
percentage of hawkers mentioning ‘‘being near to customers’’ as an advantage (59.1 per
cent), it was the only premise mentioned to have ‘‘limited customers/limited tables for
customers’’ and had by far the most hawkers mentioning ‘‘competition’’ for customers
as a disadvantage (40.9 per cent). The interviews revealed that in some designated sites
‘‘each hawker can only have four eating tables for customers’’ which is ‘‘not good for
business’’, and that competition causes ‘‘many hawkers to quarrel with each other’’
(Interview 3). In addition, designated sites were associated with ‘‘high cost of food
safety facilities’’ and hawkers having ‘‘to pay for maintenance of the site themselves’’
because of ‘‘slow maintenance’’ of the premise (Interview 3).
Thus, hawkers may prefer to work in other premise types that have access to more
customers, despite the fact that they may not be as hygienic or easy to maintain good
food safety practices. This is supported by the interview results mentioning that
‘‘working on the roadside is better’’ than working on a designated site because ‘‘there is
better business and less competition on the roadside’’ (Interview 3); and yet all the
hawkers sampled from roadside stalls mentioned ‘‘an unhygienic environment’’ as a
disadvantage.
Therefore the results suggest that designated sites may not be an effective method
of improving food safety of hawkers.
NFS Differences in food safety performance and food safety strategies
38,1 The questionnaire results showed significantly better FSK (Mann-Whitney test,
p ¼ 0.044) and FSP (Mann-Whitney test, p ¼ 0.016) of hawkers in Kuala Lumpur
compared to Taiping, suggesting that FSK/FSP varies from urban to less urban
locations. This may be due to hawkers in Taiping having significantly less training
than those in Kuala Lumpur (Chi-squared test, p ¼ 0.004) (Table III).
48 The interview results also suggested that government regulations on training were
more relaxed in Taiping where hawkers ‘‘only need to go once for training’’ or not at all
Downloaded by Symbiosis International University Pune, Professor Suresh Patil At 06:59 13 May 2019 (PT)
before receiving a license (Interviews 3 and 4), compared with Kuala Lumpur where
training is needed before receiving/renewing a license and must be undergone ‘‘once
every three years’’ (Interviews 1 and 2). Variations in the regulations/policies adopted
by different local authorities in different areas may also contribute to the differences in
FSP. Each local authority has its own regulations/policies on hawkers operating within
its boundaries (Jayasuriya, 1994). The interview results suggested that in Taiping, the
food safety regulations are more lenient than those in Kuala Lumpur. In Kuala Lumpur,
the control authority would ‘‘give a warning and close the stall for one month if it is not
hygienic’’ and they would request the hawker to ‘‘make the stall hygienic within this
time or else they won’t give back the license’’ (Interview 1), but in Taiping they are
‘‘quite relaxed’’, ‘‘come and give a warning if you do not follow the regulations but
nothing else’’ and ‘‘give a warning that they are coming’’ before doing a spot-check
(Interview 3).
The questionnaire results also suggested that FSK and FSP differs between
different areas of Kuala Lumpur, with FSK (Mann-Whitney test, p ¼ 0.006) and FSP
(Mann-Whitney test, p ¼ 0.016) being significantly higher in Area 2 of Kuala Lumpur
than for Area 1. This difference is unlikely to be due to variation between food safety
policies/regulations within Kuala Lumpur, because the city is under one local authority
(City Hall) (Medina Pizzali, 2001).
However, the interview results suggested that some areas in Kuala Lumpur have
cleaner/more hygienic stalls than other areas because some ‘‘are more high class with
more educated people and other areas are more low class’’ and it depends on the
educational level of hawkers and if ‘‘the customer demands more cleaner’’ stalls. Thus,
variations in educational level of hawkers/consumers and customer demands maybe a
more likely reason for any difference in hawker food safety performance within Kuala
Lumpur. This supports prior literature that has suggested that consumer preference
and education could strongly influence food safety standards of hawkers (WHO, 1996;
Ariffin, 1993).
Training
Area Yes No Total
Conclusions
This study has shown that religion and type of hawker premise are socio-demographic
factors that may affect hawker FSK and FSP, along with race and educational level.
The finding that Muslim hawkers (mostly Malays) had better food safety performance
than Buddhists (mostly Chinese hawkers) in this study, may build on previous research
in explaining why Chinese hawkers have been found to have lower food safety
knowledge/practice than Malays (Toh and Birchenough, 2000; Toh et al., 2000).
This study has also revealed potential ineffectiveness of food safety regulations/
guidelines, licensing, training and relocation. It has highlighted possible inadequate
distribution/impracticality of regulations/guidelines for hawkers, potential ambiguities
with government licensing procedures (e.g. hawkers sharing licenses with coffee
shops), weaknesses in training programmes (e.g. using Malay language only in some
cases) and significant complaints of government designated sites by hawkers. The
discovery of poorer food safety performance and training in a less urban setting and
even variations in food safety performance within the same region (of Kuala Lumpur),
suggests further government ineffectiveness in regulating food safety of hawkers
across Malaysia.
Thus, to ensure food safety of hawker foods in Malaysia, government food safety
strategies must be reinforced. This may include distributing food safety guidelines in
training programmes, addressing loop holes in the licensing/training system (e.g. new
regulations to ensure that all hawkers must possess their own license and that all
persons/family members involved in preparation of hawker foods undergo training),
delivering training in a variety of languages, implementing strategies to encourage
more customers to designated hawker sites (e.g. increasing customer parking spaces)
and standardizing food safety polices through out all regions of Malaysia. In addition,
the importance of customer access/satisfaction to hawkers merits the need to
encourage consumer participation in the improvement food safety of the hawker
industry in Malaysia. Implementing an award/grading system for hawkers’ stalls
based on cleanliness/hygiene of the premise (implemented in Singapore) (Ministry of
the Environment, 2000), could attract more customers to clean/hygienic stalls and thus
compel hawkers to improve their food safety standards.
Food safety of hawker foods is needed more now in Malaysia than ever, as this
study has also highlighted the increasing popularity of Malaysian hawker foods
amongst tourists, even in less urban regions of Malaysia (Interview 3 revealed that
‘‘Taiping is quite popular with foreigners’’ with several foreigners eating at hawker
stalls in Taiping).
NFS Note
38,1 1. RM60 £9 Sterling.
References
Ariffin, A. (1993), ‘‘Food control and consumer affairs in developing countries’’, Food, Nutrition
and Agriculture, Vols. 8-9, pp. 24-31, FAO, available at: www.fao.org/docrep/V2890T/
v2890t00.htm#Contents
50
Aronson, J. (1994), ‘‘A pragmatic view of thematic analysis’’, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 2 No. 1,
Downloaded by Symbiosis International University Pune, Professor Suresh Patil At 06:59 13 May 2019 (PT)
WHO (2002), ‘‘Food-borne diseases, emerging’’, WHO Factsheets, available at: www.who.int/
mediacentre/factsheets/fs124/en/
Winarno, F.G. and Allain, A. (1991), ‘‘Street foods in developing countries: lessons from Asia’’,
Food, Nutrition and Agriculture, Vol. 1, FAO, available at: www.fao.org/documents/
show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/U3550t/u3550t00.htm
Yasmeen, G. (2001), ‘‘Workers in the urban informal food sector: innovative organizing
strategies’’, Food, Nutrition and Agriculture, Vol. 29, FAO, available at: www.fao.org/
DOCREP/004/Y1931M/y1931m00.htm#TopOfPage
Zain, M.M. and Naing, N.N. (2002), ‘‘Sociodemographichic characteristics of food handlers and
their knowledge, attitude and practice towards food sanitation: a preliminary report’’,
Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 410-7.
Corresponding author
Fiona Pang can be contacted at: lingseepoh@yahoo.co.uk, ugm1fp@leeds.ac.uk
1. Joan C. Henderson. Street Food and Tourism: A Southeast Asian Perspective 45-57. [Crossref]
2. Stephen Edem Hiamey, Grace Aba Hiamey. 2018. Street food consumption in a Ghanaian Metropolis:
The concerns determining consumption and non-consumption. Food Control 92, 121-127. [Crossref]
3. Rungsaran Wongprawmas, Maurizio Canavari. 2017. Consumers’ willingness-to-pay for food safety labels
in an emerging market: The case of fresh produce in Thailand. Food Policy 69, 25-34. [Crossref]
4. Buliyaminu Adegbemiro Alimi. 2016. Risk factors in street food practices in developing countries: A
review. Food Science and Human Wellness 5:3, 141-148. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Symbiosis International University Pune, Professor Suresh Patil At 06:59 13 May 2019 (PT)
5. Sharifah Zannierah Syed Marzuki. 2016. Halal Certification: A Viewpoint From Malaysian Restaurant
Managers. Asia Pacific Journal of Business Review 1:1, 23-39. [Crossref]
6. Joan C. Henderson. 2016. Halal food, certification and halal tourism: Insights from Malaysia and
Singapore. Tourism Management Perspectives 19, 160-164. [Crossref]
7. Nor Fyadzillah Mohd Taha. The Perceptions of Malaysians in a Japanese Company: A Case Study in
Shimano Components (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd 177-186. [Crossref]
8. Yudi Fernando, Hooi Huang Ng, Yusliza Yusoff. 2014. Activities, motives and external factors influencing
food safety management system adoption in Malaysia. Food Control 41, 69-75. [Crossref]
9. Angelo Camillo, M. Shahrim Ab. Karim. 2014. Consumer Attitudes and Perceptions towards Western
Cuisine: A Strategic Investigation of the Italian Restaurant Industry in Malaysia. Journal of Foodservice
Business Research 17:2, 103-121. [Crossref]
10. Vloreen Nity Mathew, Ardiana Mazwa Raudah binti Amir Abdullah, Siti Nurazizah binti Mohamad Ismail.
2014. Acceptance on Halal Food among Non-Muslim Consumers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
121, 262-271. [Crossref]
11. Ilaria Proietti, Chiara Frazzoli, Alberto Mantovani. 2014. Identification and management of toxicological
hazards of street foods in developing countries. Food and Chemical Toxicology 63, 143-152. [Crossref]
12. Joan C. Henderson, Ong Si Yun, Priscilla Poon, Xu Biwei. 2012. Hawker centres as tourist attractions:
The case of Singapore. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31:3, 849-855. [Crossref]
13. Sharifah Zannierah Syed Marzuki, Colin Michael Hall, Paul William Ballantine. 2012. Restaurant Manager
and Halal Certification in Malaysia. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 15:2, 195-214. [Crossref]
14. Anja K. Franck. 2012. Factors motivating women's informal micro‐entrepreneurship. International Journal
of Gender and Entrepreneurship 4:1, 65-78. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Sharifah Zannierah Syed Marzuki, Collin Michael Hall, Paul William Ballantine. 2012. Restaurant
managers' perspectives on halal certification. Journal of Islamic Marketing 3:1, 47-58. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
16. Anja K. Franck. 2010. "I am Too Old! Who is Going to Give Me a Job?" Women Hawkers in Teluk
Bahang, Penang, Malaysia. Journal of Workplace Rights 15:1, 111-132. [Crossref]