Durian prices in Singapore expected to drop by up to 30% in July at peak harvest period
Sellers across Singapore said they predict prices for the king of fruits will drop by as much as 30 per cent then. But they also warned that this could change if the weather turns bad and affects upcoming harvests.
Sam Ho, owner of Uncle Sam Durian at Clementi Market & Food Centre, said his supply this season looks set to be better than the last.
This is despite the peak harvest period coming a little later this year. The durian season typically runs from June to September, but Mr Ho said it will reach its peak only in July this year – something he attributed to climate change.
The seller specialises in the popular Musang King and Black Thorn varieties. His fruits are from his own farm in Malaysia's Pahang state, which is renowned for Musang King durians.
'Now it's the start of the season, so because the harvest is too little, it will be slightly expensive. In July, the price will drop,' he noted.
UPCOMING PEAK HARVEST
Another durian business, Jiak Durian Mai, said it is officially peak season when harvests from Pahang and Johor come together. The store in Geylang – which also offers delivery – can clear 15 to 18 crates of durians daily then.
'I would say the peak would be July to August. Currently, it's still the start of the season. It's a very small season … for now, supplies are still pretty limited,' said co-founder Shaun Lee.
When asked about the possibility of a price war, Mr Lee said that while his company – which was set up about two years ago – has established a name for itself, he will keep an eye on what rival stores are charging.
'We know what our products are worth, and we know what our services are worth as well, so honestly, we don't really bother much about other competitors,' he said.
'But at the same time, of course, we have to take a look at them to make sure that we match or … stay in the range of the market.'
ONLINE SALES
Meanwhile, Rolling Durian is taking a more unique approach to selling its products by livestreaming on social media app TikTok. The firm then delivers orders directly to customers' doorsteps.
The durian seller, which also has a storefront, specialises in rarer varieties like Xiao Hong and Green Skin.
Employee Austin Quak concurred that this year's season is considered short, compared with the usual June to August peak period.
He said the durian trees at the company's plantation are not in full harvest due to bad weather.
'For example, now it's Penang season, so Penang's durians are considered 'on form'. So, we will (get our goods) from Penang,' he said.
'Then if Penang durians are not nice, you move to JB (Johor Bahru), move to Pahang. So that's how we deal with the low supplies.'
Mr Quak noted that prices are forecast to drop by up to 30 per cent within the next month, but warned it is not guaranteed due to erratic weather conditions.
'All businesses deal with price wars, so we just have to make ourselves unique, make ourselves stand out. One of the ways we can cater to that is we try our best to accommodate (customers') taste preference,' he added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
an hour ago
- CNA
Grab blames 'system error' for very high prices on app, some above S$1,000
SINGAPORE: Riding-hailing platform Grab has blamed a "system error" for unusually high prices wrongly displayed on its app, some of them above S$1,000 (US$778), on Wednesday (Aug 20). The glitch was reported by some users around noon. Users in both Singapore and Malaysia reported these sky-high fares appearing on Grab's app and some users were affected by the errors, even with Grab's safeguards preventing most bookings with incorrect charges from going through Affected users of these prices have already had their refunds processed as of 9pm, Grab said in a statement on Wednesday night. It was not clear earlier if any payments at that price point were charged to any riders. Grab said the system error was an unwelcome surprise due to a misconfigured fee, which it corrected within 20 minutes. "We are doing everything to learn from this so it doesn't happen again," Grab said. In an earlier response to queries from CNA, Grab said its app was functioning as usual after the issue was resolved.
CNA
4 hours ago
- CNA
CNA938 Rewind - Cross-border private hire travel: will Malaysian Transport Minister's comments move things along?
Malaysian Transport Minister Anthony Loke says Malaysia hopes to roll out cross-border ride-hailing services with Singapore. Could this push the idea forward? Daniel Martin and Justine Moss speak with transport analyst Terence Fan, Assistant Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at SMU.
CNA
5 hours ago
- CNA
Hyflux trial: Defence accuses ex-corporate communications head of just forwarding emails, changing answers
SINGAPORE: A defence lawyer in the ongoing trial of the former leaders of defunct water treatment company Hyflux on Wednesday (Aug 20) accused the company's former head of corporate communications of merely forwarding emails and ignoring comments, as well as changing her answers in court. The email chain in question, sent in December 2010, is important because it contained drafts of a news release by Hyflux announcing that the company had been awarded a contract by PUB for the Tuaspring desalination plant. Earlier drafts contained mentions of a new electricity business the project was to engage in, but it was later edited out. Who directed the edit is one of the issues under scrutiny, with the former corporate communications head Ms Winnifred Heap Ah Lan stating that it was following input from then-chief executive officer Olivia Lum Ooi Lin and then-chief financial officer Cho Wee Peng. Lum, 64, and Cho, 56, are on trial along with four former independent directors of Hyflux for omitting details about the electricity sales in the Tuaspring project. The project was pitched to the public as Hyflux's second and largest seawater desalination plant in Tuas. However, the prosecution's case is that Hyflux hid the fact that it would fund the sale of water at a very low price with the business of selling electricity from a power plant it would build. The project suffered heavy losses on the back of weak electricity sales and ultimately resulted in Hyflux's liquidation, with 34,000 investors owed S$900 million (US$700 million). Ms Heap was the prosecution's second witness. Lum's lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, took the full day on Wednesday cross-examining Ms Heap on various presentations she had given in her capacity as head of corporate communications and investor relations. The cross-examination was halting as Ms Heap often took some time to think, or did not answer Mr Singh's questions directly. At a few points, the judge had to intervene to keep proceedings going. At one point, Ms Heap said: "I'm not sure why we are going round and round." Mr Singh accused her of changing her answers, but she objected to this characterisation and said she was being consistent instead. At another point, she said she was "just wondering" why Mr Singh kept repeating that she could not remember some events because it had been 15 years since the meetings or sessions she was being questioned about. Mr Singh replied: "That's not your role. Your role is to answer my question." For a large part of the day, Mr Singh took Ms Heap through various presentation decks she had led and questioned her on what she remembered but much of the time she said she could not remember. COMPARING TWO NEWS RELEASES Towards the end of the day, Mr Singh showed Ms Heap two news releases Hyflux had prepared under her charge - one was a draft news release in December 2010 for the Tuaspring project, another was in January 2011, about Hyflux being awarded three water projects in Chongqing, China. He compared the two news releases and ran Ms Heap through the differences, if any. In disagreeing with a question by Mr Singh, Ms Heap said any announcement would have to include the relevant details, such as size of the plant, revenue drivers, operating cost and location. However, Mr Singh then showed her the Chongqing announcement and said it did not include anything about revenue drivers, which she had just said would have to be included in any announcement. Ms Heap initially had a lengthy back-and-forth with Mr Singh before eventually agreeing that the parts she had said needed to be in announcements were not in the Hyflux draft announcement about the Tuaspring project. "So the evidence you've given about such information needing to be in the announcement is something you just thought of," said Mr Singh. "No," answered Ms Heap. "I was going to say, in a template, you will need ... what's the value of a contract, the location of a contract, the duration of a contract." She had told the court earlier that the draft news release would have been prepared by Ms Seah Mei Kiang, who was part of her corporate communications team. Ms Seah would have obtained input from the relevant personnel in Hyflux to draft the release, Ms Heap said. Mr Singh questioned her on whether she could remember what was in Ms Seah's first draft, which Ms Heap asked to be amended. Ms Heap said she could not remember. "So I'm asking you now, 15 years ago, do you remember the content of the discussion you had with Mei Kiang on her draft? I'm not asking you to guess, or (say) what typically happens, I'm asking you if you remember what you said and what she said and what was discussed," said Mr Singh. "No, I cannot remember," said Ms Heap. In response to an email containing the draft of the news release on the Tuaspring project, finance personnel Nah Tien Liang replied with some comments asking to place the capacity of the power plant at 411MW instead of 350MW. He also corrected an impression in the news release to say that both the power plant and desalination plant would be owned by the same special purpose company (SPC). THE EMAIL FROM CAMILLE HURN Mr Singh then focused on another reply to the email thread on Dec 20, 2010, this time by Ms Camille Hurn, who was senior vice president on energy and infrastructure development and who was the energy expert. In the email, Ms Hurn wrote: "Dear all. Please see my comments marked up in the document. I agree with Tien Liang that the (SPC) for the generation and the desalination is the same and am not sure if we need to go into detail about our energy retailing arm, so have completely deleted that sentence. With regard to the power plant capacity, I think either 411MW or 350MW is okay, as 350MW is our estimate of actual output with local conditions." Mr Singh asked Ms Heap what she did after receiving Ms Hurn's email. Ms Heap said she could not remember. She said she could have walked over to Ms Hurn to discuss it with her as their offices were close to each other, but said she could not remember. "Looking at Camille's email, she was raising a question right, about whether it's necessary to include that detail. Correct?" asked Mr Singh. "Did you consider it your job to engage her on that question? Or did you consider it your job to take the draft as it had come back with amendments and now pass it on?" Ms Heap kept quiet for some time before saying, "I'm hesitating because I'm trying to recall. But typically, I would engage her to ask why." She eventually said she could not remember what she did. "So what appears to have been done was - you used an amended draft and had it sent on. I'm not criticising you, I'm just looking at the process. Correct?" asked Mr Singh. Ms Heap did not answer directly, instead saying she was "not privy to the electricity power generation part of the discussion". She said she could not recall if she discussed Ms Hurn's comment with anyone. She then locked horns with Mr Singh over a question he posed her: "The last thing you would've wanted to do in an announcement is to give the message to the public that what Hyflux was now going to do was get into the utilities business with earnings over a long period of time. Correct?" After the back-and-forth, Principal District Judge Toh Han Li intervened and said his understanding of Ms Heap's evidence was that it never crossed her mind that this whole project involved utilities, so it never crossed her mind that she had to talk about utilities. Mr Singh later accused her of changing her answer, but Ms Heap said she had not. She repeatedly said that it was an integrated project in "all our minds", with Mr Singh correcting her to say he was concerned only with her mind. She later said she wanted to change her evidence, and stated: "I'm saying that when we were preparing this announcement, like I mentioned several times, it didn't cross our minds that we should try to position this as a utility. For us, it's an integrated project that presents growth." Mr Singh then asked Ms Heap again about the email from Ms Hurn. "Here was a senior management person raising a concern which possibly could have been related to utilities and the IR (Investor Relations) strategy, but you did nothing as far as you can remember," he said. "As far as I can remember, yes," said Ms Heap. "And I also believe you didn't communicate the fact that Camille had concerns to anyone else. Correct?" asked Mr Singh. Ms Heap said she "would have", but Mr Singh said he did not ask if she would have but whether she did or did not. She replied that she could not remember. Mr Singh said: "And Ms Heap, based on all your answers, it would appear that at this stage at least, Mei Kiang did the work in the first draft, she gave (it) to you, utilities didn't cross your mind, so it didn't occur to you that that might be what was said, or anything that was said was inconsistent with the IR strategy, you asked her to circulate the draft after discussion, when mark-ups came in with comments, you ignored the comments and just forwarded the mark-ups. Does that sound about right? Yes or no?" Ms Heap said she could not remember. Mr Singh then said: "I suggest to you - when you say you cannot remember discussing with Mei Kiang, what was discussed with Mei Kiang, you cannot remember if you discussed with Camille and based on what you did on the emails, it would appear that you (gave your role away) without drawing attention to issues that might arise on account of your IR strategy." Ms Heap disagreed and said she could not remember, but she would have "done all that". Mr Singh then showed her how she had replied an email in three minutes. "There was no discussion. Correct? Look at the timing," he said. Ms Heap agreed. Mr Singh then repeatedly questioned Ms Heap on whether she failed to discuss the issue with Ms Hurn. "You can't have so many different answers," said Mr Singh at the end of a line of questioning on this. "Three versions. You said - no discussion, then you said I probably did not discuss, and (then) you say, I do not remember. Looking at the time of the emails, there was no discussion," said Mr Singh. "Looking at the time of the email, there was no discussion, yes," Ms Heap said. The judge then asked Mr Singh if he could wrap up. When asked how much longer he would take to cross-examine Ms Heap, Mr Singh said: "To be honest, I'm not sure, given the way evidence has come out. I can't say I will finish tomorrow." Wednesday's cross-examination ended before Mr Singh could get to the drafts of the news releases, where the crucial portions about the electricity business were edited out. This tranche of the trial ends on Thursday, with further dates in September. If convicted of consenting to Hyflux's intentional failure to disclose the electricity sale information to the securities exchange, Lum could be jailed for up to seven years, fined up to S$250,000 or both.
