Amazing speed at which Rojak seller is charged diverts attention away from role of authorities

Amazing speed at which Rojak seller is charged diverts attention away from role of authorities

I am truly astounded by the apparent breath-taking speed in which the owner of the Indian rojak seller is prosecuted by the authorities even though there is no definitive cause for the outbreak.

In a statement on Tuesday night, the Health Ministry and NEA said Mr Sheik Allaudin Mohideen’s licence will be suspended pending court action. (read article here)

The food poisoning outbreak that occured two weeks ago struck 154 people after they ate Indian rojak from his stall located at the Geylang Serai Temporary Market.

The cause: Vibrio parahaemolyticus bacteria, a common cause of food poisoning associated with the consumption of raw or partially cooked seafood which was traced to the rojak stall.

Or is it really the case?

The symptoms suffered by the victims of the outbreak do not quite match with those caused by the implicated bacteria.

According to an account given by the husband of a victim, his wife had bloody diarrhoea after consuming the food. Like all bacteria in the Vibrio family, parahaemolyticus causes an explosive form of watery diarrhoea which seldom leads to death.

The presence of blood in the stools suggest other causative agents such as Salmonella, Shigella and a subtype of E Coli which are more common that Vibrio parahaemolyticus.

While I support the move to suspend his licence, I am somewhat perturbed that action was taken against him before more concrete evidence surfaces.

The link between the Indian rojak stall and the food poisoning outbreak is tenuous at best. It has yet to be established beyond doubt that the owner’s negligence is the cause of the tragedy.

Nonetheless, it was reported that MOH and NEA investigators detected some lapses in food and environmental hygiene, but these are hardly sufficient grounds to prosecute the owner.

By their own admission, the exact steps leading to the contamination of the rojak food items or gravy are still unclear at this stage and they to draw some insights from a previous case on how this could have occurred which means the prima facie evidence they have against him are no more than mere conjectures.

To what extent is the owner culpable for the outbreak? Should he assume full or partial responsibility? Are there any other mitigating factors involved?

Till now, the authorities have yet to answer for possible lapses on their part in maintaining the hygiene of the market in particular the delay in spring-cleaning of the premises, the presence of rats and the delay in the dissemination of updated food hygiene labels to the hawkers.

There is no urgency to charge the Indian rojak owner so soon. In fact, it can be done at a later date after the market management committee and NEA have completed their own internal investigations.

The charge appeared to be timed perfectly to divert attention away from authorities which are facing intense public scrutiny and pressure for failing to prevent the outbreak.

If it is proven that the stallholder had been negligent in food hygiene, appropriate punishment should be meted out to send a strong message to others. However, this does not absolve the authorities from blame altogether.

The government needs to give an answer to the public on how such a preventable tragedy is allowed to happen in a small, developed and clean country like Singapore.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26983.1