What We Learn From Santan’s Penang Char Kuey Teow
When a hawker dish moves into airline food, taste isn’t the hardest problem. Identity is.
Santan has put real care into rebuilding confidence around inflight meals, and it shows.
This piece looks only at one dish, Uncle Sai's Char Kuey Teow, and what happens when a Penang hawker reference is asked to travel far beyond the conditions that formed it.
When Santan introduced Sai Char Kuey Teow onboard AirAsia, the conversation quickly moved beyond whether the dish tasted good. Questions around authenticity, halal adaptation, and cultural ownership followed, not because the dish failed, but because it worked well enough to matter.
This is not a review. It is an attempt to understand why this dish carries so much weight.
Char Kuey Teow travels easily as a name, but much less easily as a taste.
Taking a Penang-referenced Char Kuey Teow onto a plane is not trivial. Airline food operates under hard constraints: reheating, holding time, safety, scale, and a diverse passenger base. Santan did not just attempt this. It also publicly paused, adjusted, and relaunched the dish after early feedback when it “wasn’t vibing.” That level of transparency is rare in airline catering, and it earned real goodwill.
The decision to involve Uncle Sai followed the same logic.
Sai was not brought in to modernise or reinvent Char Kuey Teow. He was brought in as a Penang reference point, someone whose role was to anchor the dish to a recognisable hawker standard, even as it moved into an environment where many of the original conditions could no longer hold. From a product and marketing perspective, this made sense. Rather than claiming the whole of Penang, the dish was tied to a named reference.
Execution aside, this is where taste comes in.
Char Kuey Teow did not form as a flexible dish.
It formed as a solution to labour conditions.
In early Penang, Chinese hawkers cooked for workers who needed food that was fast, filling, and cheap. Pork and pork fat were not flavour choices. They were functional ones. Lard was the cooking medium. It tolerated high heat, carried aroma efficiently, and added calories cheaply. Combined with flat rice noodles, egg, soy sauce, and preserved ingredients, it allowed one pan, one fire, and one cook to feed many people quickly.
Proteins varied with circumstance. Cockles were used when affordable, especially in a port town. Prawns and Chinese sausage appeared later, signalling generosity rather than origin. The dish’s core still rested on noodles, lard, and heat.
These choices were not about preference.
They were about function.
This style is shaped less by speed and heat, and more by comfort and generosity. The wok is used to build sauce rather than dryness. Sambal replaces soy as the dominant flavour driver. Kerang provides both protein and briny depth. The dish is expected to be moist, full-bodied, and satisfying over time, not sharp or fleeting.
Culturally, this version sits closer to night markets and after-work suppers than to performance cooking. It is food meant to be eaten slowly, shared casually, and adjusted stall by stall. In that sense, Malay-style Char Kuey Teow developed its own internal logic and did not need to borrow Penang Chinese identity to stand on its own.
This is how food usually evolves.
The tension appears when scale enters the picture.
To serve wider audiences, especially in environments like airline catering, dishes are adjusted. Pork is removed. Cooking fats change. Proteins shift.
Even the most celebrated Wok Hei (the scent of stir-frying), once dependent on speed, heat, and risk, can now be recreated as a flavour.
At that point, the question is no longer whether the dish works.
It usually does.
The question becomes more specific.
If Malay-style Char Kuey Teow, where cockles are central rather than optional, already exists as a complete food culture, what does a halal, Penang-referenced Char Kuey Teow still mean? Is it preserving a taste logic, or preserving a name that helps the dish travel further?
Char Kuey Teow can change. It always has.
What carries weight is which parts are allowed to change freely, and which parts of the identity are expected to stay.
Once that distinction is clear, it becomes easier to understand why some versions feel settled, while others feel unresolved, even when no one says it out loud.
References: Santan, iman, @food_hunter025
Comments