What should the Indian rojak man be charged for?
The Geylang Serai mass food poisoning saga appears to be drawing to a close with the charging of the Indian rojak stallholder Sheik Allaudin Mohideen who was taken aback when told that he may wind up in court and rightly so.
Both NEA and the Ministry of Health said investigations into the food poisoning incident, which left two people dead and 152 others ill, have been “completed”. (read report here)
They said they had found “food and environmental hygiene lapses” at the stall, and that they would take Mr Allaudin to court.
The question is: did alleged lapses lead directly to the food poisoning incident and was Mr Sheik Allaudin responsible for the lapses?
Even MOH and NEA admit that they are unclear about the exact steps leading to the contamination of the rojak food items or gravy.
Neither was the bacteria Vibrio parahaemolyticus established as the cause of the two fatalities as their coroners’ reports are yet to be finalized.
I am perturbed that NEA went ahead to prosecute Mr Allaudin with such flimsy evidence at hand anyway.
Are the alleged “lapses in food and environmental hygiene” sufficient grounds to charge Mr Allaudin?
It is still not known if the bacteria originates from the rojak, raw seafood or the gravy itself.
Mr Allaudin might have been negligent in the handling and preparation of his rojak, but that alone does not constitute a criminal offence since it has not been proven that his actions had led to the mass food poisoning.
As for lapses in environment hygiene, should Mr Allaudin be responsible for the spring-cleaning when it has not been called by the management committee?
What about the 100 or more rats which were captured at the market’s premises last week? Who is going to be responsible for the lapse in environmental hygiene?
Since NEA is one of the involved parties, it should not be allowed to conduct any investigations at all.
In fact, an independent panel should be set up to probe the possible lapses by the market’s management committee and NEA itself.
There is obviously a general failure of enforcement here which cannot be attributed solely to the hawkers alone.
While the stallholders of the Geylang Serai temporary market owe a duty to their customers to practise food and environmental hygiene at all times, the maintenance of the market as well as the surveillance process lies solely with the management committee and NEA.
The members of the market’s management committee should be charged in court for gross negligence in discharging their duties. The errant NEA officers who failed to detect the hygiene lapses and the presence of rats should be punished too.
The haste in which Mr Allaudin was charged seemed to give one the impression that he was being made a scapegoat to take the rap for others.
Till today, we have not the slightest idea on the identities of the management committee’s members. Who is in charge of the management committee? Is he a member of the Kampong Ubi CCC too? Why aren’t they taken to task for mismanaging the Geylang Serai temporary market?
Regardless of the verdict passed on Mr Allaudin, the management committee and NEA should be hauled up to courts as well to account for their mistakes which may have played a contributory role to Singapore’s worst food poisoning outbreak.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27608.1
Showing posts with label food poisoning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food poisoning. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
No linking of hygiene ratings to food stall licence
No linking of hygiene ratings to food stall licence
By Hasnita Majid, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 22 April 2009 1818 hrs
 | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
SINGAPORE: The National Environment Agency (NEA) has no plans to link the grading system of food stalls to the renewal of their licence.
It will continue to use the system to gauge the cleanliness and hygiene at hawker centres.
Hygiene at food stalls has been in the spotlight following the recent mass food poisoning case at the Geylang Serai Temporary Market.
The Health Ministry has also suggested that the renewal of food stall tenders at hospitals be linked to their hygiene ratings.
However, Environment Minister Yaacob Ibrahim said that while he welcomed the suggestion, such a measure will not be implemented at hawker centres.
He said: "Mr Khaw has made some very helpful comments about hospital canteens, that's his prerogative and we welcome such a move. If more food establishments want a higher benchmark, then it's their prerogative.
"If we just penalise them just because they are (graded) Cs and Ds, there may be other implications. I think some hawkers have already mentioned... that this may affect their livelihood.
"So, rather than make it a legal requirement, we will work with them. On the part of NEA, we will continue to work with the hawkers and hawkers' association to improve their hygiene standard."
Dr Yaacob said the grading system is a sound and robust one. And because of the system, more food stalls are now graded A or B, compared to 1997 when the scheme was started. Currently, only seven out of 5,000 hawker stalls are graded D.
The environment minister added that consumers also play an important part.
"If the consumers decide that 'I'm not going to patronise a C (graded stall) but I'm going to patronise a B (graded stall)', then the signal sent (to the hawkers) is that 'Hey, at the end of the day, I better improve'," said Dr Yaacob, who is also the Water Resources Minister.
Dr Yaacob said one way of improving hygiene standards is to implement the Hawker's Upgrading Programme. In fact, 99 per cent of all stalls in the programme have received an A or B grade.
"So it shows that as we begin to improve the ambience... better design, better layout, more places for cleaning, they (stallholders) can do a better job in terms of improving their hygiene standard. But whatever we say, lapses can occur whether you are an A or C," he said.
Dr Yaacob said NEA is also finalising enforcement action against the owner of the rojak stall in the Geylang Serai food poisoning case.
The minister was speaking at the launch of an S$8 million 3R Fund, as part of Earth Day. The Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (3R) Fund aims to co-pay up to 80 per cent of the costs of new projects that can lead to waste minimisation and recycling of products.
The Regent Singapore, which already has a recycling programme since 2007, plans to apply for the fund.
The hotel's recycling programme has helped to reduce the amount of waste disposed by more than 40 per cent - from 720 tonnes to 400 tonnes per year.
The Fund is open to all companies and Singapore-registered organisations.
The Regent Singapore's director for engineering, Lee Baharuddin, said: "We are looking for a machinery that can compact all the recycled waste, because currently we are using a lot of waste bins, almost 200 waste bins in the hotel. We are trying to reduce that."
The Regent said recycling has helped to reduce its waste disposal costs by 12 per cent every year. This is because it receives a S$7,000 rebate yearly for the wastes collected.
The government is expected to release soon a blueprint that sets its long-term recycling target.
- CNA/ir
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27636.1
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Not feasible for docs to report every food poisoning case
Not feasible for docs to report every food poisoning case
By Dr Albert Lin
I refer to the proposal by Mr Gerald Giam to implement an Integrated Food Contamination Reporting System in his letter to the Straits Times Forum on 16 April 2009. (read letter here)
Mr Giam wrote that a web-based interface for doctors to report all cases of food poisoning they treat will enable MOH to track outbreaks earlier and faster.
While the concept behind his idea is sound, it is not feasible to implement it on the ground. As a resident physician at the emergency department, I see an average of 10 to 20 cases of gastroenteritis (food poisoning) per shift. Gastroenteritis also form 20 to 30% of the cases seen by GPs.
Given the time constraints doctors face in the course of their work, it is almost impossible for them to take a detailed clinical history to find out what the suspected food was and the stall from the food was taken, let alone to report all cases.
Besides, not all cases of gastroenteritis are caused by food poisoning. It can be due to gastric flu, side effects from common medicines like antibiotics or simply a prodrome of other diseases. All viral infections have the potential to cause diarrhoea including dengue fever and hand-foot-mouth disease.
Hence, the surveillance system mooted by Mr Giam will not work and will be a drain on precious manpower and resources.
The current MOH system of surveillance and reporting of mass food poisoning cases is adequate to deal with most outbreaks.
In the case of the Geylang Serai outbreak, there appears to be delay of 3 days for the first reports of food poisoning from the Indian Rojak stall to surface because there is usually an incubation period of between 24 and 72 hours before the symptoms first appear. It is highly unlikely that the cases are picked up within 24 hours.
While the system may not be able to detect small number of cases, a higher than average number of gastroenteritis will raise suspicions amongst doctors of a possible outbreak.
Under the Infectious Disease Act (CAP 137), all medical doctors are required by law to notify MOH of a list of infectious diseases they diagnose in their clinics through the online CDLENS portal (https://www.cdlens.moh.gov.sg).
Some of the more common notifiable diseases on the list are dengue fever, hand, food and mouth disease, tuberculosis, Salmonellosis, gonorrhoea and genital herpes. Gastroenteritis is a symptom and not a disease which explains its exclusion from the list.
Doctors are also kept updated on the latest epidemics in the world and Singapore. Urgent notifications are sent immediately via SMSes.
Nevertheless, more can be done to get GPs on board the system as most of them do not have PCs or laptops in their clinics.
I would recommend Mr Giam and all readers to visit the MOH website (www.moh.gov.sg) regularly for updates on the food poisoning incident as well as other health-related matters.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27027.2
By Dr Albert Lin
I refer to the proposal by Mr Gerald Giam to implement an Integrated Food Contamination Reporting System in his letter to the Straits Times Forum on 16 April 2009. (read letter here)
Mr Giam wrote that a web-based interface for doctors to report all cases of food poisoning they treat will enable MOH to track outbreaks earlier and faster.
While the concept behind his idea is sound, it is not feasible to implement it on the ground. As a resident physician at the emergency department, I see an average of 10 to 20 cases of gastroenteritis (food poisoning) per shift. Gastroenteritis also form 20 to 30% of the cases seen by GPs.
Given the time constraints doctors face in the course of their work, it is almost impossible for them to take a detailed clinical history to find out what the suspected food was and the stall from the food was taken, let alone to report all cases.
Besides, not all cases of gastroenteritis are caused by food poisoning. It can be due to gastric flu, side effects from common medicines like antibiotics or simply a prodrome of other diseases. All viral infections have the potential to cause diarrhoea including dengue fever and hand-foot-mouth disease.
Hence, the surveillance system mooted by Mr Giam will not work and will be a drain on precious manpower and resources.
The current MOH system of surveillance and reporting of mass food poisoning cases is adequate to deal with most outbreaks.
In the case of the Geylang Serai outbreak, there appears to be delay of 3 days for the first reports of food poisoning from the Indian Rojak stall to surface because there is usually an incubation period of between 24 and 72 hours before the symptoms first appear. It is highly unlikely that the cases are picked up within 24 hours.
While the system may not be able to detect small number of cases, a higher than average number of gastroenteritis will raise suspicions amongst doctors of a possible outbreak.
Under the Infectious Disease Act (CAP 137), all medical doctors are required by law to notify MOH of a list of infectious diseases they diagnose in their clinics through the online CDLENS portal (https://www.cdlens.moh.gov.sg).
Some of the more common notifiable diseases on the list are dengue fever, hand, food and mouth disease, tuberculosis, Salmonellosis, gonorrhoea and genital herpes. Gastroenteritis is a symptom and not a disease which explains its exclusion from the list.
Doctors are also kept updated on the latest epidemics in the world and Singapore. Urgent notifications are sent immediately via SMSes.
Nevertheless, more can be done to get GPs on board the system as most of them do not have PCs or laptops in their clinics.
I would recommend Mr Giam and all readers to visit the MOH website (www.moh.gov.sg) regularly for updates on the food poisoning incident as well as other health-related matters.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27027.2
Friday, April 17, 2009
More than meets the eye behind NEA’s reluctance to take action against Geylang Serai market’s management committee
More than meets the eye behind NEA’s reluctance to take action against Geylang Serai market’s management committee
Based on the media reports so far, one can easily conclude that the Geylang Serai market’s management committee have neglected its duties on at least two counts:
1. Failure to call for spring-cleaning of the premises only until last week in the aftermath of the mass food poisoning.
2. Failure to maintain basic standards of environmental hygiene at the premises which were infested with rats.
NEA has long insisted that it is in charge for the hygiene of permanent markets only.
In the case of temporary markets, ensuring cleanliness and tackling vermin infestations are the responsibility of the centre’s management committee.
Since the management committee of Geylang Serai temporary market has obviously flouted the rules, why are they not taken to task yet now that both MOH and NEA claimed they have “completed their investigations”?
Up to now, we are still kept in the dark over the identities of the members from the management committee.
The state media could have gotten hold of the information easily. Why are their identities being protected?
However, we do know that the Geylang Serai temporary market was a “project” by the Kampong Ubi Citizens Consultative Committee.
According to unverified sources, the CCC was in charge of setting up the market together with the stallholders.
The funds for building and maintaining the market are split between the hawkers themselves and the CCC.
Whether there are any CCC members on board the management committee remains a mystery though it is not inconceivable that the CCC is directly responsible for the maintenance of the market which brings us to the next question: why has NEA been reluctant to take action against the committee?
If the committee is composed entirely of the stallholders themselves, we can be pretty sure their names will be published and its Chairman will probably be charged in court for negligence together with the Indian rojak man.
We can’t expect the management committee to function on its own autonomously without having to answer to any higher authority.
Which organization retains the ultimate control of the temporary market? Is it the CCC itself or some external agencies?
Judging from the response of NEA so far, it is quite obvious that they are afraid of implicating members of the management committee who may have intimate links with PAP MPs in Marine Parade GRC.
Will prosecuting the management committee open up a can of worms with widespread political ramifications for the ruling party?
Does NEA have any power to take action against management committees of temporary markets for failure to maintain an acceptable level of food and environment hygiene at their premises?
We hope to hear from NEA soon on the fate of the Geylang Serai market management committee. Its members have clearly neglected their duties and they must not be let off the hook so easily.
NEA needs to send a strong message to all committees in charge of these temporary markets that dereliction of duty will not be tolerated regardless of their political affliations or positions.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27176.1
Based on the media reports so far, one can easily conclude that the Geylang Serai market’s management committee have neglected its duties on at least two counts:
1. Failure to call for spring-cleaning of the premises only until last week in the aftermath of the mass food poisoning.
2. Failure to maintain basic standards of environmental hygiene at the premises which were infested with rats.
NEA has long insisted that it is in charge for the hygiene of permanent markets only.
In the case of temporary markets, ensuring cleanliness and tackling vermin infestations are the responsibility of the centre’s management committee.
Since the management committee of Geylang Serai temporary market has obviously flouted the rules, why are they not taken to task yet now that both MOH and NEA claimed they have “completed their investigations”?
Up to now, we are still kept in the dark over the identities of the members from the management committee.
The state media could have gotten hold of the information easily. Why are their identities being protected?
However, we do know that the Geylang Serai temporary market was a “project” by the Kampong Ubi Citizens Consultative Committee.
According to unverified sources, the CCC was in charge of setting up the market together with the stallholders.
The funds for building and maintaining the market are split between the hawkers themselves and the CCC.
Whether there are any CCC members on board the management committee remains a mystery though it is not inconceivable that the CCC is directly responsible for the maintenance of the market which brings us to the next question: why has NEA been reluctant to take action against the committee?
If the committee is composed entirely of the stallholders themselves, we can be pretty sure their names will be published and its Chairman will probably be charged in court for negligence together with the Indian rojak man.
We can’t expect the management committee to function on its own autonomously without having to answer to any higher authority.
Which organization retains the ultimate control of the temporary market? Is it the CCC itself or some external agencies?
Judging from the response of NEA so far, it is quite obvious that they are afraid of implicating members of the management committee who may have intimate links with PAP MPs in Marine Parade GRC.
Will prosecuting the management committee open up a can of worms with widespread political ramifications for the ruling party?
Does NEA have any power to take action against management committees of temporary markets for failure to maintain an acceptable level of food and environment hygiene at their premises?
We hope to hear from NEA soon on the fate of the Geylang Serai market management committee. Its members have clearly neglected their duties and they must not be let off the hook so easily.
NEA needs to send a strong message to all committees in charge of these temporary markets that dereliction of duty will not be tolerated regardless of their political affliations or positions.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27176.1
Are we paying too much for too little accountability?
Are we paying too much for too little accountability?
The recent Geylang Serai food poisoning has shown once again the word “accountability” does not exist in the dictionary of the PAP.
In spite of glaring oversights and lapses on the part of NEA and the management committee of the market, none of them have been taken to task as of yet.
Predictably, the brunt of public fury is forced upon the poor Indian Rojak hawker who is conveniently made the fall-guy to cover up the mistakes of others.
Though the exact cause of the food poisoning has not been established, he has been prosecuted by NEA for “lapses in food and environmental hygiene”.
As usual, the mainstream media is always too quick and eager to find a scapegoat in order to whitewash the role of the authorities completely.
This follows the usual pattern of the PAP’s response to major blunders which are too big and obvious to be shielded away from public view by their SPH spin doctors.
In 2003, the SARS outbreak was blamed squarely the few Singaporeans who brought the virus back from China and the poor hygiene standards of the population.
Nothing was mentioned of the fact that our crowded public hospitals with lack of isolation cubicles helped facilitated the transmission and spread of the virus.
It is only after the epic healthcare disaster was over that steps were taken to rectify the problem by building isolation cubicles in each ward.
Last year, the escape of famed terrorist Mas Selamat Kasteri was blamed on the negligence of the lower-ranking officers. MM Lee even had the gall to castigate Singaporeans for being “complacent” as if we let the terrorist escaped.
The Home Affairs Minister did not even sound apologetic over the mistake when speaking about it in Parliament. An “independent” panel filled with ex-establishment figures including one of his subordinates was set up to placate Singaporeans.
The end result: the junior officers were sacked while the top honchos remain secured comfortably in their respective positions to this day.
When GIC lost million of dollars of our hard-earned reserves, the culprit is not its Chairman who invested in ailing U.S banks at the wrong time, but the global financial turmoil not withstanding the fact that some SWFs like China’s have made a profit from the crisis.
There were no questions asked and nobody stepped forward to account for the mistakes made. Singaporeans were given an empty promise that the losses will be recouped in 10, 20 and 30 years time.
If we examine these past incidents in detail, we will realize the PAP will almost always find somebody to take the full blame of their mistakes be it a person or an external event.
The state media will then be called in to clear up the mess up by showing how hard the government is working to resolve the problem while no questions will ever be asked about its culpability.
A few weeks later, the issue will be dead and buried. Singaporeans will move on and continue to pay the PAP top salaries to run the country.
Is this the kind of accountability we should expect and accept from the PAP which regularly touts itself as a “good, clean and transparent” governent? Are we paying too much for too little accountability?
Accountability in public service simply means to explain one’s actions to the people and to assume responsibility for them.
How often are we consulted on important policies affecting our livelihoods? Did the PAP government ever bother to explain them in detail? I don’t mean paying lip service to insult our intelligence like the lame defence of the new Public Order Act by Law Minister K Shan.
There are many ways to show that one is accountable for mistakes made. In most cases, a mere acknowledgement or a simple “sorry” will suffice.
When Barack Obama made an uncharacteristic error over the appointment of his Treasury Secretary, he went to the people and apologize to them on TV - “I am sorry, but I screwed up”. Did the apology make him any less of a leader?
On the contrary, my respect for Obama was multiplied tenfold. He is a humble leader who is accountable to the people he serves and he deserves every single cent of his annual salary which is only one-fifth of our Prime Minister’s.
Closer to home across the Causeway, former Malaysian Health Minister Dr Chua Soi Lek resigned from his ministerial position last year when video clips showing him having sex with a lady half his age in the hotel were leaked to public and it was not even related to his work.
Real leaders are not afraid of admitting their mistakes because they know they owe their positions in office to those who voted for them and will not hesitate to resign if this is indeed the will of the people.
A good, accountable and transparent government does not need to indulge in self-praise all the time. It prefers to leave the judgement of its work to the people.
Is the PAP government accountable to Singaporeans? Is it transparent and honest with the people? I seriously doubt so.
PAP apologists have always defended the PAP’s “track record” to cover up for their shortcomings, but past achievements do not guarantee future success.
Furthermore, the PAP can only take half the credit at the most. Without a hardworking, docile and intelligent citizenry, it is unlikely they will be able to build Singapore to what it is today.
In fact, Singapore may be a better place to live in now if we have more alternative parties in Parliament to provide input and fine-tune the policies before they are implemented.
Years of one-party rule with literally no challenge to its political hegemony has made the PAP complacent. It doesn’t see the need to account to anybody because they can never be removed from power with the system they put in place and so public opinion counts little for them.
To put it bluntly, Singaporeans can “go and fly kite” if they are not happy with the PAP. That’s the sad reality of life in Singapore: we are totally helpless against a power-hungry regime which is bent on remaining in power at all costs.
An athlete will only achieve his/her peak in the presence of intense rivalry. Consumers will only benefit from lower prices when there is fierce competition between different companies.
The lack of any meaningful political competition will lead eventually to the stagnation and demise of the PAP and Singaporeans are going to pay a dear price for its implosion one day.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27174.1
The recent Geylang Serai food poisoning has shown once again the word “accountability” does not exist in the dictionary of the PAP.
In spite of glaring oversights and lapses on the part of NEA and the management committee of the market, none of them have been taken to task as of yet.
Predictably, the brunt of public fury is forced upon the poor Indian Rojak hawker who is conveniently made the fall-guy to cover up the mistakes of others.
Though the exact cause of the food poisoning has not been established, he has been prosecuted by NEA for “lapses in food and environmental hygiene”.
As usual, the mainstream media is always too quick and eager to find a scapegoat in order to whitewash the role of the authorities completely.
This follows the usual pattern of the PAP’s response to major blunders which are too big and obvious to be shielded away from public view by their SPH spin doctors.
In 2003, the SARS outbreak was blamed squarely the few Singaporeans who brought the virus back from China and the poor hygiene standards of the population.
Nothing was mentioned of the fact that our crowded public hospitals with lack of isolation cubicles helped facilitated the transmission and spread of the virus.
It is only after the epic healthcare disaster was over that steps were taken to rectify the problem by building isolation cubicles in each ward.
Last year, the escape of famed terrorist Mas Selamat Kasteri was blamed on the negligence of the lower-ranking officers. MM Lee even had the gall to castigate Singaporeans for being “complacent” as if we let the terrorist escaped.
The Home Affairs Minister did not even sound apologetic over the mistake when speaking about it in Parliament. An “independent” panel filled with ex-establishment figures including one of his subordinates was set up to placate Singaporeans.
The end result: the junior officers were sacked while the top honchos remain secured comfortably in their respective positions to this day.
When GIC lost million of dollars of our hard-earned reserves, the culprit is not its Chairman who invested in ailing U.S banks at the wrong time, but the global financial turmoil not withstanding the fact that some SWFs like China’s have made a profit from the crisis.
There were no questions asked and nobody stepped forward to account for the mistakes made. Singaporeans were given an empty promise that the losses will be recouped in 10, 20 and 30 years time.
If we examine these past incidents in detail, we will realize the PAP will almost always find somebody to take the full blame of their mistakes be it a person or an external event.
The state media will then be called in to clear up the mess up by showing how hard the government is working to resolve the problem while no questions will ever be asked about its culpability.
A few weeks later, the issue will be dead and buried. Singaporeans will move on and continue to pay the PAP top salaries to run the country.
Is this the kind of accountability we should expect and accept from the PAP which regularly touts itself as a “good, clean and transparent” governent? Are we paying too much for too little accountability?
Accountability in public service simply means to explain one’s actions to the people and to assume responsibility for them.
How often are we consulted on important policies affecting our livelihoods? Did the PAP government ever bother to explain them in detail? I don’t mean paying lip service to insult our intelligence like the lame defence of the new Public Order Act by Law Minister K Shan.
There are many ways to show that one is accountable for mistakes made. In most cases, a mere acknowledgement or a simple “sorry” will suffice.
When Barack Obama made an uncharacteristic error over the appointment of his Treasury Secretary, he went to the people and apologize to them on TV - “I am sorry, but I screwed up”. Did the apology make him any less of a leader?
On the contrary, my respect for Obama was multiplied tenfold. He is a humble leader who is accountable to the people he serves and he deserves every single cent of his annual salary which is only one-fifth of our Prime Minister’s.
Closer to home across the Causeway, former Malaysian Health Minister Dr Chua Soi Lek resigned from his ministerial position last year when video clips showing him having sex with a lady half his age in the hotel were leaked to public and it was not even related to his work.
Real leaders are not afraid of admitting their mistakes because they know they owe their positions in office to those who voted for them and will not hesitate to resign if this is indeed the will of the people.
A good, accountable and transparent government does not need to indulge in self-praise all the time. It prefers to leave the judgement of its work to the people.
Is the PAP government accountable to Singaporeans? Is it transparent and honest with the people? I seriously doubt so.
PAP apologists have always defended the PAP’s “track record” to cover up for their shortcomings, but past achievements do not guarantee future success.
Furthermore, the PAP can only take half the credit at the most. Without a hardworking, docile and intelligent citizenry, it is unlikely they will be able to build Singapore to what it is today.
In fact, Singapore may be a better place to live in now if we have more alternative parties in Parliament to provide input and fine-tune the policies before they are implemented.
Years of one-party rule with literally no challenge to its political hegemony has made the PAP complacent. It doesn’t see the need to account to anybody because they can never be removed from power with the system they put in place and so public opinion counts little for them.
To put it bluntly, Singaporeans can “go and fly kite” if they are not happy with the PAP. That’s the sad reality of life in Singapore: we are totally helpless against a power-hungry regime which is bent on remaining in power at all costs.
An athlete will only achieve his/her peak in the presence of intense rivalry. Consumers will only benefit from lower prices when there is fierce competition between different companies.
The lack of any meaningful political competition will lead eventually to the stagnation and demise of the PAP and Singaporeans are going to pay a dear price for its implosion one day.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27174.1
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Business plummets at Geylang Serai Temporary Market
Business plummets at Geylang Serai Temporary Market
By Neo Chai Chin, TODAY | Posted: 16 April 2009 0857 hrs
SINGAPORE: At meal times on a typical day, diners would swoop in on just-vacated seats at Geylang Serai Temporary Market. But it has hardly been business-as-usual, since the mass food poisoning almost two weeks ago.
Business has dropped by over 50 per cent, and on Wednesday afternoon, about half the food stalls were not even open.
Because of bad business, Mr Nur Muhammad said the hawkers might have felt it was “better don’t sell than to sell”. The 27-year-old helps out at his mother’s cooked food and his aunt’s dessert stalls, which were open.
The hawker responsible, Mr Sheikh Allaudin Mohideen, has had his licence suspended and will be taken to court by the authorities. Two people died after eating his rojak and 154 were sickened.
At his Eunos Road 5 flat on Wednesday, Mr Allaudin, 70, said he could not comment on the charges until he is officially notified. He opened the door to TODAY with a young boy by his side and only spoke on condition that no photos were taken.
His fellow hawkers have voiced sympathy for him. Some felt that pressing charges against him is too harsh. Others said he should be held responsible for improper handling of food, but not for the deaths.
“I don’t think he intended for all this to happen. It could have happened to any one of us,” said drinks stall assistant Abdul Jaffar, 33.
Sundry goods seller Ong Tiong Gheu, 48, said the confiscation of his hawker’s licence is punishment enough.
But the hawkers are more worried about their own dismal takings. Mr Nur said that his aunt’s chendol stall made slightly more than S$200 last weekend, much less than previous takings.
Many are also unhappy with the “C” grade hygiene rating they received last Saturday.
“We cleaned and did housekeeping before the National Environment Agency officers’ checks, but still got a ‘C’. More customers will surely be put off,” said chicken rice stall owner Mr Nor, 45.
- TODAY/yb
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27114.1
By Neo Chai Chin, TODAY | Posted: 16 April 2009 0857 hrs
SINGAPORE: At meal times on a typical day, diners would swoop in on just-vacated seats at Geylang Serai Temporary Market. But it has hardly been business-as-usual, since the mass food poisoning almost two weeks ago.
Business has dropped by over 50 per cent, and on Wednesday afternoon, about half the food stalls were not even open.
Because of bad business, Mr Nur Muhammad said the hawkers might have felt it was “better don’t sell than to sell”. The 27-year-old helps out at his mother’s cooked food and his aunt’s dessert stalls, which were open.
The hawker responsible, Mr Sheikh Allaudin Mohideen, has had his licence suspended and will be taken to court by the authorities. Two people died after eating his rojak and 154 were sickened.
At his Eunos Road 5 flat on Wednesday, Mr Allaudin, 70, said he could not comment on the charges until he is officially notified. He opened the door to TODAY with a young boy by his side and only spoke on condition that no photos were taken.
His fellow hawkers have voiced sympathy for him. Some felt that pressing charges against him is too harsh. Others said he should be held responsible for improper handling of food, but not for the deaths.
“I don’t think he intended for all this to happen. It could have happened to any one of us,” said drinks stall assistant Abdul Jaffar, 33.
Sundry goods seller Ong Tiong Gheu, 48, said the confiscation of his hawker’s licence is punishment enough.
But the hawkers are more worried about their own dismal takings. Mr Nur said that his aunt’s chendol stall made slightly more than S$200 last weekend, much less than previous takings.
Many are also unhappy with the “C” grade hygiene rating they received last Saturday.
“We cleaned and did housekeeping before the National Environment Agency officers’ checks, but still got a ‘C’. More customers will surely be put off,” said chicken rice stall owner Mr Nor, 45.
- TODAY/yb
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27114.1
Rojak food poisoning: Stunned he may face court
April 16, 2009
Rojak food poisoning
Stunned he may face court
| By Sujin Thomas | ||
 |  | Sheik Allaudin Mohideen said he now spends his days at home. 'Where can I go? I just stay home and wait for the authorities' decision. I pray for the best,' he said. -- ST PHOTO: MUGILAN RAJASEGERAN |
THE man at the centre of the food poisoning incident at Geylang Serai Temporary Market said on Wednesday he is resigned to having his licence suspended.
However, Indian rojak stallholder Sheik Allaudin Mohideen, 70, was taken aback when told by The Straits Times that he may wind up in court.
Interviewed at his Eunos flat on Wednesday, Mr Allaudin said selling food is the last thing on his mind now.
He said he now spends his days at home. 'Where can I go? I just stay home and wait for the authorities' decision. I pray for the best,' he said.
'I have not heard from the National Environment Agency. They have not called or sent me any letter.
'I don't know what's going to happen to me. If they (the authorities) want to revoke my licence or fine me, then so be it.'
When asked on Wednesday, the NEA said a notice of suspension will be issued to Mr Allaudin shortly.
In a joint statement on Tuesday night, the NEA and the Ministry of Health said investigations into the food poisoning incident, which left two people dead and 152 others ill, have been completed.
They said they had found food and environmental hygiene lapses at the stall, and that they would take Mr Allaudin to court.
When asked if he has visited the families of the two women who died, Mr Allaudin wore a frown and said: 'I really want to visit them, but I don't dare to. I feel very bad about it.'
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27110.1
Fatal rojak: Better feedback system needed
Fatal rojak: Better feedback system needed
IT TOOK almost three days from the first reports of food poisoning from the Geylang Serai rojak stall on April 1 to officials closing the stall on April 4.
According to the report, 'Hospitals and GPs have system to track outbreaks' (April 8), it was only at 10pm on April 3, after doctors at Changi General Hospital had noticed a surge in patients with similar symptoms of food poisoning, that the Ministry of Health (MOH) was informed of this outbreak.
MOH has asserted that there is an 'established system of surveillance and reporting of mass food poisoning cases'.
Unfortunately, it appears this system was neither fast nor effective enough to nip this outbreak in the bud. A major flaw is that it relies on individual doctors to spot trends before reporting to MOH. If 10 patients go to 10 different doctors or hospitals, how can any trends be spotted?
It is possible to develop a system to alert the authorities to food poisoning outbreaks. It will require multi-agency coordination and investment in technology.
An Integrated Food Contamination Reporting System could provide all doctors with a Web-based interface to report all cases of food poisoning they treat. The report could be as simple as stating who was taken ill, what the suspected food was, when the incident took place and where the stall is located. Consumers who fall sick after eating food could also file a similar report. The system will also make it easier for the authorities to contact victims in their investigations.
Once the reports are entered, the system can analyse the data and sound the alarm when a trend is detected. The alerts could be sent to MOH, the National Environment Agency and the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority for coordinated action.
Gerald Giam
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27027.1
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
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
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
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
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
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
4 month delay in food grading label & 61 rats at Geylang Serai market: Has NEA been complacent?
4 month delay in food grading label & 61 rats at Geylang Serai market: Has NEA been complacent?
According to the NEA website here, it is the “leading public organization responsible for improving and sustaining a clean and green environment in Singapore.”
Two of its stated missions are:
1. Public hygiene and cleanliness: Conducts regular checks on food establishments, cooling towers, swimming pools, and public toilets to ensure a high standard of hygiene is maintained.
2. Management of hawker centers: Oversees the licensing, management and regulation of hawkers to maintain and promote good hygiene practices and public health standards in government hawker centres.
It was revealed that the Geylang Serai stalls were told about their new food hygiene grades last December, but had not received their labels until now.
An NEA spokesman said it viewed the four-month delay ’seriously’ and had tightened its operations to prevent a recurrence, adding that the new labels marked a ‘fresh start’ following the market’s two-day spring cleaning and pest control works last week. (read article here)
We are glad NEA has the decency to admit that the four month delay is unacceptable unlike the PAP leaders who have been quick to shift the blame for the disaster to Singaporeans.
On hindsight, the Indian rojak stall should have been failed in the grading and not allowed to operate till it improved on its hygiene standards.
It is a joke that it was still displaying its old “B” grade which might have given its customers a false sense of security. A “B” grade implies a “greater than average” standard of hygiene.
How a stall given this grade turns out to be a culprit for causing the worst food poisoning outbreak in Singapore leading to two deaths is anybody’s guess.
It is clear that NEA has been complacent in the following aspects:
1. Frequency of spot checks on eating outlets is inadequate.
2. Hygiene grading system has failed to reflect the true state of hygiene at the implicated food stalls.
3. Failure to detect the presence of rats at the Geylang Serai market only till now.
To compound matters, while the updated hygiene grade labels were collecting dust in NEA’s office, customers were misled by the old labels to patronize stalls which they would otherwise avoided.
It is not true that most diners are not bothered by the labels as reported by the media. There will be Singaporeans who deliberately avoid those stalls with a “C” grade and below out of hygiene concerns.
As Deputy chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for National Development and the Environment Lee Bee Wah rightly pointed out: ‘By the time the results of the grading are out, conditions at the stalls could have changed’.
The hygiene grading system was put in place to serve two purposes:
1. To increase the standard of public hygiene at food outlets.
2. To enable Singaporeans to make an informed choice.
The unfortunate Geylang Serai food poisoning episode has exposed the flaws of both NEA’s grading system and its enforcement.
How can food stalls infested with rats be given a “B” or even “C” grading? Does NEA consider dining with 61 rats an acceptable standard of hygiene?
Why did NEA take so long to give out the new labels? Surely it defeats the purpose of conducting spot checks and grading the stalls in the first place if the updated labels are not displayed in time. Can we blame the Indian rojak stallholder from displaying the old label when the new one was not sent to him?
As always in the past, a major damage control operation will be instituted only after a terrible blunder has been made. Without the incident being put under intense public scrutiny by the mainstream media, will the new labels been given out and the rats caught in double quick time?
Some stallholders who were downgraded to a C saw the move as a knee-jerk reaction to Singapore’s worst case of mass food poisoning and rightly so.
Instead of reacting immediately to salvage its battered reputation, NEA should wait till its own internal investigations are complete before releasing a report to the public. What are the areas of inadequacies and what have been done to address them?
It is really quite pointless to “show” Singaporeans that they are doing “something” only after two deaths are lost. As a public agency paid for by taxpayers, Singaporeans have the right to demand for the highest degree of accountability and transparency for NEA.
Who is responsible for this delay in the giving out of the new hygiene labels? Who has been conducting checks at the Geylang Serai market? The implicated officers should be sacked or at least demoted to send a warning to others that such sloppy work will not be tolerated in the civil service.
Nothing less than an open and complete report on what went wrong in the process of enforcement can NEA assauge public fury and disappointment over this preventable tragedy.
The Minister of Environment Dr Yaacob, his Permanent Secretary Mr Tan Yong Soon and NEA CEO Andrew Tan owe every Singaporeans, especially the families of the deceased a public apology.
Mr Tan Yong Soon wrote in the Straits Times last December that “Taking five weeks leave from work is not as difficult as one thinks. Most times, when you are at the top, you think you are indispensable. But if you are a good leader who has built up a good team, it is possible to go away for five weeks or even longer.”
This is the result of a “good” leader who has built up a “good” team to cover his duties when he was away for 5 weeks which is more than enough time for NEA to send the updated food hygiene labels to the stallholders.
In all fairness, Singaporeans have not been “complacent” in maintaining public hygiene as insinuated by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan.
It was NEA which had been complacent in the discharge of its duties. They must have assumed that such an outbreak will never happen in a first world country like Singapore. It did and it is time we review the performance of every ministry, statutory board and quasi-government agencies like NEA to ensure that we are paying the right price for the right man to do the right job.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26856.1
According to the NEA website here, it is the “leading public organization responsible for improving and sustaining a clean and green environment in Singapore.”
Two of its stated missions are:
1. Public hygiene and cleanliness: Conducts regular checks on food establishments, cooling towers, swimming pools, and public toilets to ensure a high standard of hygiene is maintained.
2. Management of hawker centers: Oversees the licensing, management and regulation of hawkers to maintain and promote good hygiene practices and public health standards in government hawker centres.
It was revealed that the Geylang Serai stalls were told about their new food hygiene grades last December, but had not received their labels until now.
An NEA spokesman said it viewed the four-month delay ’seriously’ and had tightened its operations to prevent a recurrence, adding that the new labels marked a ‘fresh start’ following the market’s two-day spring cleaning and pest control works last week. (read article here)
We are glad NEA has the decency to admit that the four month delay is unacceptable unlike the PAP leaders who have been quick to shift the blame for the disaster to Singaporeans.
On hindsight, the Indian rojak stall should have been failed in the grading and not allowed to operate till it improved on its hygiene standards.
It is a joke that it was still displaying its old “B” grade which might have given its customers a false sense of security. A “B” grade implies a “greater than average” standard of hygiene.
How a stall given this grade turns out to be a culprit for causing the worst food poisoning outbreak in Singapore leading to two deaths is anybody’s guess.
It is clear that NEA has been complacent in the following aspects:
1. Frequency of spot checks on eating outlets is inadequate.
2. Hygiene grading system has failed to reflect the true state of hygiene at the implicated food stalls.
3. Failure to detect the presence of rats at the Geylang Serai market only till now.
To compound matters, while the updated hygiene grade labels were collecting dust in NEA’s office, customers were misled by the old labels to patronize stalls which they would otherwise avoided.
It is not true that most diners are not bothered by the labels as reported by the media. There will be Singaporeans who deliberately avoid those stalls with a “C” grade and below out of hygiene concerns.
As Deputy chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for National Development and the Environment Lee Bee Wah rightly pointed out: ‘By the time the results of the grading are out, conditions at the stalls could have changed’.
The hygiene grading system was put in place to serve two purposes:
1. To increase the standard of public hygiene at food outlets.
2. To enable Singaporeans to make an informed choice.
The unfortunate Geylang Serai food poisoning episode has exposed the flaws of both NEA’s grading system and its enforcement.
How can food stalls infested with rats be given a “B” or even “C” grading? Does NEA consider dining with 61 rats an acceptable standard of hygiene?
Why did NEA take so long to give out the new labels? Surely it defeats the purpose of conducting spot checks and grading the stalls in the first place if the updated labels are not displayed in time. Can we blame the Indian rojak stallholder from displaying the old label when the new one was not sent to him?
As always in the past, a major damage control operation will be instituted only after a terrible blunder has been made. Without the incident being put under intense public scrutiny by the mainstream media, will the new labels been given out and the rats caught in double quick time?
Some stallholders who were downgraded to a C saw the move as a knee-jerk reaction to Singapore’s worst case of mass food poisoning and rightly so.
Instead of reacting immediately to salvage its battered reputation, NEA should wait till its own internal investigations are complete before releasing a report to the public. What are the areas of inadequacies and what have been done to address them?
It is really quite pointless to “show” Singaporeans that they are doing “something” only after two deaths are lost. As a public agency paid for by taxpayers, Singaporeans have the right to demand for the highest degree of accountability and transparency for NEA.
Who is responsible for this delay in the giving out of the new hygiene labels? Who has been conducting checks at the Geylang Serai market? The implicated officers should be sacked or at least demoted to send a warning to others that such sloppy work will not be tolerated in the civil service.
Nothing less than an open and complete report on what went wrong in the process of enforcement can NEA assauge public fury and disappointment over this preventable tragedy.
The Minister of Environment Dr Yaacob, his Permanent Secretary Mr Tan Yong Soon and NEA CEO Andrew Tan owe every Singaporeans, especially the families of the deceased a public apology.
Mr Tan Yong Soon wrote in the Straits Times last December that “Taking five weeks leave from work is not as difficult as one thinks. Most times, when you are at the top, you think you are indispensable. But if you are a good leader who has built up a good team, it is possible to go away for five weeks or even longer.”
This is the result of a “good” leader who has built up a “good” team to cover his duties when he was away for 5 weeks which is more than enough time for NEA to send the updated food hygiene labels to the stallholders.
In all fairness, Singaporeans have not been “complacent” in maintaining public hygiene as insinuated by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan.
It was NEA which had been complacent in the discharge of its duties. They must have assumed that such an outbreak will never happen in a first world country like Singapore. It did and it is time we review the performance of every ministry, statutory board and quasi-government agencies like NEA to ensure that we are paying the right price for the right man to do the right job.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26856.1
FOOD POISONING: More ill from steamboat
April 14, 2009
FOOD POISONING
More ill from steamboat
 | | Business at the popular Ba Shu Ren Jia steamboat restaurant has dropped by close to 50 per cent since reports of food poisoning surfaced. -- ST PHOTO: CHEW SENG KIM |
ANOTHER three patrons who ate at Ba Shu Ren Jia steamboat restaurant last week have come down with food poisoning.
This brings the total number of those affected after eating at the Sichuan restaurant located at 233, Geylang Lorong 9 to 17.
Like the previous batch, the latest three diners to fall ill ate at the restaurant either on Thursday or Friday.
They developed symptoms of food poisoning - vomiting, diarrhoea and abdominal pain - over the long weekend.
Two of the 17 had to be hospitalised but they have been discharged.
A spokesman for the restaurant said that it had assured the two that it would pay their medical charges if it was found to be responsible for the poisoning.
Thirteen food handlers from the steamboat restaurant are undergoing screening at the Communicable Disease Centre.
No update on their condition or the cause of the poisoning is available yet.
Officers from the Ministry of Health and National Environment Agency
had checked the the premises of the restaurant and found no hygiene lapses, said the ministry.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26818.1
Rojak stall owner faces court action over mass food poisoning
Rojak stall owner faces court action over mass food poisoning
By Lynda Hong, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 14 April 2009 2229 hrs
 | ||||||
| ||||||
SINGAPORE: Authorities have decided to prosecute the rojak stall holder at the centre of a food poisoning outbreak in Singapore.
The "Rojak Geylang Serai" stall owner's licence will be suspended pending the outcome of the court action, said a joint statement by the Ministry of Health (MOH) and National Environment Agency (NEA).
The MOH said it has concluded its investigations into the food poisoning cases linked to the stall at Geylang Serai Temporary Market.
"The cause has been identified as a common source outbreak of Vibrio parahaemolyticus traced to the cross-contamination of rojak and raw seafood ingredients harbouring the bacteria," said MOH.
"Laboratory investigation confirmed 13 of the cases to be positive for Vibrio parahaemolyticus, including the first fatal case," it added.
There were altogether 154 cases. Forty-eight of the patients had to be hospitalised, two of whom died. The MOH said death associated with the bacteria is rare, and it is awaiting the coroner's report on the two deaths.
No food remnants were available for microbiological testing because the "Rojak Geylang Serai" stall had been cleared out by the operators and the rojak food items and gravy discarded as soon as they received customer complaints.
Nonetheless, MOH and NEA investigators detected some lapses in food and environmental hygiene.
While the exact steps leading to the contamination of the rojak food items or gravy are still unclear, MOH and NEA said their investigators could draw some insights from a previous case on how this could have occurred.
In 1983, a similar outbreak of food poisoning involving 34 cases was traced to the consumption of Indian Rojak from a market stall, also at Geylang Serai. In this case, the food was prepared at an unlicensed premises at Joo Chiat, where abundant drippings from raw cuttlefish were found to have contaminated the rojak gravy in uncovered containers on the lower shelves of a refrigerator.
As for the food poisoning outbreak at the steamboat restaurant in Geylang, the authorities have been notified of another two cases, bringing the total to 19.
13 food handlers at the steamboat restaurant have also been directed to undergo screening and their results are pending.
The authorities advise the public to take note of personal hygiene and the area's cleanliness, especially when eating out. - CNA /ls
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26884.1
Monday, April 13, 2009
154 casualties. 48 hospitalized. 2 deaths. 122 rats. All the rojak man’s fault?
154 casualties. 48 hospitalized. 2 deaths. 122 rats. All the rojak man’s fault?
Monday, 13 April 2009
While the mass food poisoning may be the fault of an errant individual stall owner, the dirty state of the market reflects a worrying systemic failure on the part of the NEA and the Geylang Serai Temporary Market Management Committee.
As the nation tries to grapple with the physical cost of the tragic mass food poisoning incident, preliminary investigations by the Ministry of Health have revealed that the outbreak is “most likely due to cross-contamination of rojak and raw seafood ingredients harbouring the (Vibrio parahaemolyticus) bacteria”. There have also been questions raised about the hygiene regime of the Geylang Serai temporary market - not least underscored by the discovery of 122 rats during the spring-cleaning efforts recently.
While it is convenient to isolate and attribute this tragedy to Mr Sheik Allaudin Mohideen, the rojak stall owner, this perspective does not sufficiently answer broader concerns of hygiene and cleanliness standards.
An NEA official was reported by the Today newspaper to have berated the stall owners attending a hygiene course conducted last Thursday, while Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, condemned the events as “totally unacceptable” and that it was “outrageous that this has happened”. The minister promised to hold those responsible accountable.
Strong sentiments indeed, but his counterpart in the Health Ministry, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, has raised a more germane concern about the overall cleanliness standard having “dropped to maybe 5/10 or worse”.
This begs the question: doesn’t NEA have a major part to play in maintaining the “overall cleanliness standard?”
Responsibility – Yaacob and 122 rats
There are essentially two separate, albeit overlapping, issues that have been conveniently conflated by the authorities: the hygiene standard of individual stalls, and the cleanliness of the temporary market.
Stall owners who are diffident towards the hygiene standards of their own stalls face strong financial disincentives in fines that may be imposed, and the loss of potential customers; most stall owners interviewed recognize their “individual responsibility” in maintainng hygiene standards, given that their source of income and livelihood is on the line. Hence, the inevitable few errant stall owners should not tar the efforts of the majority, and NEA also has some responsibility in its checks to detect these instances of non-compliance.
However, the responsibility in ensuring that the overall cleanliness of the market should fall squarely on NEA. Despite Dr Yaacob assurance of a ’sound regime’ to the Straits Times, the fiasco of 122 rats suggests a failure on the part of NEA to intervene and nip an incipient safety threat in the bud.
As much as stall owners should be held responsible for any hygiene lapses, surely NEA is also culpable in its failure to ensure a clean market environment at Geylang Serai.
The temporary market houses both the hawker and wet market stalls in close vicinity, a conducive environment to encourage the prevalence of pests.
These circumstances might be understandable considering the market was meant to be temporary; however there was an appalling lack of effort to mitigate this potential threat to cleanliness: in the entire 3 years since its establishment, there were no spring-cleaning effort held until last Wednesday and Thursday – after the food poisoning happened.
The notable absence of regular clean-up efforts raises questions for the Geylang Serai Temporary Market Management Committee to answer: why was there only one spring-cleaning held after three years of operation, and that taking place only two months before the planned move to the new Geylang Serai market?
Taking into consideration that such clean-up efforts take place once every two months at the old Geylang Serai market, according to a vegetable stall owner who have worked at both locations, it seems that the Management Committee has been astoundingly complacent towards the need to maintain the cleanliness condition of its market.
And more striking is how NEA reacted in the catastrophe’s wake– passing the buck to respective local management committees of each market. Without ensuring these cleanups happen, NEA’s tough stance in maintaining the hygiene and cleanliness standards are nothing but sanctimonious words.
The NEA is the only agency with the mandate to enforce these standards, and adopting a laissez-faire approach and devolving its authority to the discretion of individual management committees without any oversight makes a mockery of the ’sound regime’ that Dr Yaacob has been talking about.
One stallholder told the ST that huge rats run around the market regularly, playing like “Tom and Jerry”. Is NEA playing a Tom and Jerry hide-and-seek game with its responsibility?
A tale of 122 rats
The 122 rats caught in the spring-cleaning effort constitute a significant failure in the hygiene management of the market, and it would be disproportionate to attribute the presence of the rats to the individual stall owners since it concerns the conditions of the entire temporary market. It would only be fair for either the management committee and NEA to answer for the prevalence of these pests, as with any stall owner who has committed hygiene lapses.
A blame game is never prudent, particularly in crises of confidence such as this. The NEA, in its strong reprobations to the stall owners, has pinned the blame of the entire affair on the stall owners - but the lack of oversight and its detachment from the management of the markets points to the agency’s culpability of this episode.
While the mass food poisoning may be the fault of an errant individual stall owner, the dirty state of the market reflects a worrying systemic failure in the part of NEA and the Geylang Serai Temporary Market Management Committee. This incident however should prompt for a soul-searching exercise at the NEA and the respective local management committees of the various markets and food establishments to review the execution and enforcement of safety standards, which has evidently failed at Geylang Serai.
Pinning the guilt alone on the individual lapses of a rojak seller, yet ignoring the systemic lapses that has allowed for 122 rats to fester (and this number are the ones caught - who can safely hazard that no rats have been left behind?) means that the 152 people who endured an uncomfortable week have suffered in vain. Leadership in matters like these are best provided by those in authority, and the public should expect a more stringent regime to ensure the cleanliness of our food establishments.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26715.1
Monday, 13 April 2009
While the mass food poisoning may be the fault of an errant individual stall owner, the dirty state of the market reflects a worrying systemic failure on the part of the NEA and the Geylang Serai Temporary Market Management Committee.
As the nation tries to grapple with the physical cost of the tragic mass food poisoning incident, preliminary investigations by the Ministry of Health have revealed that the outbreak is “most likely due to cross-contamination of rojak and raw seafood ingredients harbouring the (Vibrio parahaemolyticus) bacteria”. There have also been questions raised about the hygiene regime of the Geylang Serai temporary market - not least underscored by the discovery of 122 rats during the spring-cleaning efforts recently.
While it is convenient to isolate and attribute this tragedy to Mr Sheik Allaudin Mohideen, the rojak stall owner, this perspective does not sufficiently answer broader concerns of hygiene and cleanliness standards.
An NEA official was reported by the Today newspaper to have berated the stall owners attending a hygiene course conducted last Thursday, while Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, condemned the events as “totally unacceptable” and that it was “outrageous that this has happened”. The minister promised to hold those responsible accountable.
Strong sentiments indeed, but his counterpart in the Health Ministry, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, has raised a more germane concern about the overall cleanliness standard having “dropped to maybe 5/10 or worse”.
This begs the question: doesn’t NEA have a major part to play in maintaining the “overall cleanliness standard?”
Responsibility – Yaacob and 122 rats
There are essentially two separate, albeit overlapping, issues that have been conveniently conflated by the authorities: the hygiene standard of individual stalls, and the cleanliness of the temporary market.
Stall owners who are diffident towards the hygiene standards of their own stalls face strong financial disincentives in fines that may be imposed, and the loss of potential customers; most stall owners interviewed recognize their “individual responsibility” in maintainng hygiene standards, given that their source of income and livelihood is on the line. Hence, the inevitable few errant stall owners should not tar the efforts of the majority, and NEA also has some responsibility in its checks to detect these instances of non-compliance.
However, the responsibility in ensuring that the overall cleanliness of the market should fall squarely on NEA. Despite Dr Yaacob assurance of a ’sound regime’ to the Straits Times, the fiasco of 122 rats suggests a failure on the part of NEA to intervene and nip an incipient safety threat in the bud.
As much as stall owners should be held responsible for any hygiene lapses, surely NEA is also culpable in its failure to ensure a clean market environment at Geylang Serai.
The temporary market houses both the hawker and wet market stalls in close vicinity, a conducive environment to encourage the prevalence of pests.
These circumstances might be understandable considering the market was meant to be temporary; however there was an appalling lack of effort to mitigate this potential threat to cleanliness: in the entire 3 years since its establishment, there were no spring-cleaning effort held until last Wednesday and Thursday – after the food poisoning happened.
The notable absence of regular clean-up efforts raises questions for the Geylang Serai Temporary Market Management Committee to answer: why was there only one spring-cleaning held after three years of operation, and that taking place only two months before the planned move to the new Geylang Serai market?
Taking into consideration that such clean-up efforts take place once every two months at the old Geylang Serai market, according to a vegetable stall owner who have worked at both locations, it seems that the Management Committee has been astoundingly complacent towards the need to maintain the cleanliness condition of its market.
And more striking is how NEA reacted in the catastrophe’s wake– passing the buck to respective local management committees of each market. Without ensuring these cleanups happen, NEA’s tough stance in maintaining the hygiene and cleanliness standards are nothing but sanctimonious words.
The NEA is the only agency with the mandate to enforce these standards, and adopting a laissez-faire approach and devolving its authority to the discretion of individual management committees without any oversight makes a mockery of the ’sound regime’ that Dr Yaacob has been talking about.
One stallholder told the ST that huge rats run around the market regularly, playing like “Tom and Jerry”. Is NEA playing a Tom and Jerry hide-and-seek game with its responsibility?
A tale of 122 rats
The 122 rats caught in the spring-cleaning effort constitute a significant failure in the hygiene management of the market, and it would be disproportionate to attribute the presence of the rats to the individual stall owners since it concerns the conditions of the entire temporary market. It would only be fair for either the management committee and NEA to answer for the prevalence of these pests, as with any stall owner who has committed hygiene lapses.
A blame game is never prudent, particularly in crises of confidence such as this. The NEA, in its strong reprobations to the stall owners, has pinned the blame of the entire affair on the stall owners - but the lack of oversight and its detachment from the management of the markets points to the agency’s culpability of this episode.
While the mass food poisoning may be the fault of an errant individual stall owner, the dirty state of the market reflects a worrying systemic failure in the part of NEA and the Geylang Serai Temporary Market Management Committee. This incident however should prompt for a soul-searching exercise at the NEA and the respective local management committees of the various markets and food establishments to review the execution and enforcement of safety standards, which has evidently failed at Geylang Serai.
Pinning the guilt alone on the individual lapses of a rojak seller, yet ignoring the systemic lapses that has allowed for 122 rats to fester (and this number are the ones caught - who can safely hazard that no rats have been left behind?) means that the 152 people who endured an uncomfortable week have suffered in vain. Leadership in matters like these are best provided by those in authority, and the public should expect a more stringent regime to ensure the cleanliness of our food establishments.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26715.1
State media’s verdict on Geylang Serai food poisoning disaster: it has NOTHING to do with the government!
State media’s verdict on Geylang Serai food poisoning disaster: it has NOTHING to do with the government!
Even before the investigations into the Geylang Serai food poisoning disaster are complete, the state media has already reached a verdict: it has NOTHING to do with the government!
In the Sunday Times yesterday, there were six reports on the tragedy alone whereas there were only one or two on each day for the last few days.
The gist of the above articles are as follows:
1. Poor public hygiene is a contributory cause to the disaster - Singaporeans are at fault for not paying more attention on their own personal hygiene.
2. There many “dangers” in the environment such as rats - therefore, nobody is to blame for the discovery of rats at the premises.
3. Food handling is to blame for the disaster - had the food handlers at both the Indian rojak and the Mee Siam stalls been more vigilant, the outbreak would not have occurred.
4. Singaporeans don’t really care about the hygiene rating system of hawker stalls - therefore it matters little if the Indian rojak stall gets a “C” or “D” rating as Singaporeans will still continue to patronize it.
5. The government has been taking a proactive approach to prevent a similar repeat - yeah, that’s what they always say after a major screw-up, why not they do it earlier and have to wait till the loss of 2 preventable deaths?
Nowhere was it mentioned about NEA’s role in ensuring public hygiene at these eating outlets as if it was not involved at all! The reports were downright biased, one-sided and misleading! Is this the kind of standard we expect of a national English Daily?
While I concur that every Singaporean has a part to play in ensuring public hygiene and food safety, it is not fair to attribute the blame squarely on us.
If we are responsible for everything, then why do we still need to pay million of dollars for a Minister to be in charge of the Environment?
The Straits Times should have adopted a more balanced and objective stance towards the incident instead of rushing in to exonerate the government from any blame.
It could have asked the NEA or the relevant ministry serious questions such as the last time they conducted a check on the implicated stalls, the officers in charge of the check and their reports etc.
Instead, they chose to remain silent on the role of the government and focus solely on the food handlers, diners and even the environment!
It is human to err and lapses are inevitable. That’s why we need NEA to detect these lapses and take action against errant food stalls with poor public hygiene.
Nobody expects the minister or his Permanent Secretary to check the premises themselves, but they should ensure that the stalls were checked on a regular basis especially temporary market stalls which are not owned by NEA.
In one of the reports “Four wrong steps to food poisoning“, the writer Abdul Rahman revealed that he had a diarrhoea frequently after eating food from the Indian rojak stall.
I am unsure if other customers suffer a same fate as him, but by giving the stall a “C” rating, is NEA signaling that such atrocious hygiene standards are acceptable to them?
It is of little relevance if diners are bothered by the hygiene ratings. Any stalls with a rating less than “C” should not be allowed to operate in the first place.
The government needs to account for the following:
1. The deficiency of its present hygiene rating system: I cannot fathom how the food sold by a stall with a “satisfactory” rating can lead to the worst food poisoning outbreak in Singapore with two deaths. Nobody dies from gastroenteritis in a developed country. It is a real shame for us especially when the Singapore government is the highest paid government in the world, all the more it is unacceptable for such a public health disaster to occur here.
2. The 61 rats were found at the temporary market. These rats did not appear overnight from nowhere. They had infested the place for weeks or even months! Without the disaster, would the pest controllers be called in to flush out the rats? Even if most Singaporeans do not care about the hygiene rating of a stall, surely they will mind having their meals together with these uninvited rodents? Why weren’t these rats detected earlier? How could NEA miss them in its spot checks? These are BIG RATS, not small flies and mosquitoes.
3. The failure of its spot checks to detect hygiene problems in the two stalls. The seafood used by the Indian rojak stall was reportedly found to be contaminated with the Vibro parahemolyticus bacteria which causes an explosive form of watery diarrhoea. Did NEA conduct checks on the way food was handled by the stall holder? Or the refrigerator used to store the food?
Can we honestly expect these stall holders to know if their food is contamined with pathogens and if their food handling methods are inadequate to kill them?
Since they have been given a “satisfactory” rating by NEA, they must have assumed there is nothing wrong with the way they handle and cook their food.
It is ridiculous to expect ordinary Singaporeans - diners and hawkers alike to shoulder full responsibility for public hygiene at eating outlets.
SM Goh said: ‘If you have poor hygiene, spitting in public places, littering, food all over the place, rats running around the market, that’s very ungracious behaviour’ (read article here)
To be fair to Singaporeans, while we may not be as gracious as the Japanese, our hygiene standards are much higher than some countries in the region. There will always be people around who spit and litter. As for leaving food all over the place and rats-infested markets, it is more of a maintenance than a hygiene problem.
Are diners responsible for clearing the leftover food and litter? Should we bring rat traps to catch the rats ourselves? Or perhaps NEA should just put a “Eat at your own peril” signboard at every hawker centre in Singapore to make life easier for themselves.
It is undeniable that Singaporeans should be responsible for their own personal hygiene, but at the same time, the government should examine its own role in the incident and lessons to be learnt from it.
If Singaporeans are expected to take the rap and responsibility for every mistake, big and small, then the PAP should cut down the size of their bloated cabinet and take a pay cut.
Given the amount of money Singaporeans are paying to line the pockets of these ministers and permanent secretaries, we have the right to demand that all public eating outlets are kept squeaky clean with good hygiene, no litter and most importantly no rats.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26713.1
Even before the investigations into the Geylang Serai food poisoning disaster are complete, the state media has already reached a verdict: it has NOTHING to do with the government!
In the Sunday Times yesterday, there were six reports on the tragedy alone whereas there were only one or two on each day for the last few days.
The gist of the above articles are as follows:
1. Poor public hygiene is a contributory cause to the disaster - Singaporeans are at fault for not paying more attention on their own personal hygiene.
2. There many “dangers” in the environment such as rats - therefore, nobody is to blame for the discovery of rats at the premises.
3. Food handling is to blame for the disaster - had the food handlers at both the Indian rojak and the Mee Siam stalls been more vigilant, the outbreak would not have occurred.
4. Singaporeans don’t really care about the hygiene rating system of hawker stalls - therefore it matters little if the Indian rojak stall gets a “C” or “D” rating as Singaporeans will still continue to patronize it.
5. The government has been taking a proactive approach to prevent a similar repeat - yeah, that’s what they always say after a major screw-up, why not they do it earlier and have to wait till the loss of 2 preventable deaths?
Nowhere was it mentioned about NEA’s role in ensuring public hygiene at these eating outlets as if it was not involved at all! The reports were downright biased, one-sided and misleading! Is this the kind of standard we expect of a national English Daily?
While I concur that every Singaporean has a part to play in ensuring public hygiene and food safety, it is not fair to attribute the blame squarely on us.
If we are responsible for everything, then why do we still need to pay million of dollars for a Minister to be in charge of the Environment?
The Straits Times should have adopted a more balanced and objective stance towards the incident instead of rushing in to exonerate the government from any blame.
It could have asked the NEA or the relevant ministry serious questions such as the last time they conducted a check on the implicated stalls, the officers in charge of the check and their reports etc.
Instead, they chose to remain silent on the role of the government and focus solely on the food handlers, diners and even the environment!
It is human to err and lapses are inevitable. That’s why we need NEA to detect these lapses and take action against errant food stalls with poor public hygiene.
Nobody expects the minister or his Permanent Secretary to check the premises themselves, but they should ensure that the stalls were checked on a regular basis especially temporary market stalls which are not owned by NEA.
In one of the reports “Four wrong steps to food poisoning“, the writer Abdul Rahman revealed that he had a diarrhoea frequently after eating food from the Indian rojak stall.
I am unsure if other customers suffer a same fate as him, but by giving the stall a “C” rating, is NEA signaling that such atrocious hygiene standards are acceptable to them?
It is of little relevance if diners are bothered by the hygiene ratings. Any stalls with a rating less than “C” should not be allowed to operate in the first place.
The government needs to account for the following:
1. The deficiency of its present hygiene rating system: I cannot fathom how the food sold by a stall with a “satisfactory” rating can lead to the worst food poisoning outbreak in Singapore with two deaths. Nobody dies from gastroenteritis in a developed country. It is a real shame for us especially when the Singapore government is the highest paid government in the world, all the more it is unacceptable for such a public health disaster to occur here.
2. The 61 rats were found at the temporary market. These rats did not appear overnight from nowhere. They had infested the place for weeks or even months! Without the disaster, would the pest controllers be called in to flush out the rats? Even if most Singaporeans do not care about the hygiene rating of a stall, surely they will mind having their meals together with these uninvited rodents? Why weren’t these rats detected earlier? How could NEA miss them in its spot checks? These are BIG RATS, not small flies and mosquitoes.
3. The failure of its spot checks to detect hygiene problems in the two stalls. The seafood used by the Indian rojak stall was reportedly found to be contaminated with the Vibro parahemolyticus bacteria which causes an explosive form of watery diarrhoea. Did NEA conduct checks on the way food was handled by the stall holder? Or the refrigerator used to store the food?
Can we honestly expect these stall holders to know if their food is contamined with pathogens and if their food handling methods are inadequate to kill them?
Since they have been given a “satisfactory” rating by NEA, they must have assumed there is nothing wrong with the way they handle and cook their food.
It is ridiculous to expect ordinary Singaporeans - diners and hawkers alike to shoulder full responsibility for public hygiene at eating outlets.
SM Goh said: ‘If you have poor hygiene, spitting in public places, littering, food all over the place, rats running around the market, that’s very ungracious behaviour’ (read article here)
To be fair to Singaporeans, while we may not be as gracious as the Japanese, our hygiene standards are much higher than some countries in the region. There will always be people around who spit and litter. As for leaving food all over the place and rats-infested markets, it is more of a maintenance than a hygiene problem.
Are diners responsible for clearing the leftover food and litter? Should we bring rat traps to catch the rats ourselves? Or perhaps NEA should just put a “Eat at your own peril” signboard at every hawker centre in Singapore to make life easier for themselves.
It is undeniable that Singaporeans should be responsible for their own personal hygiene, but at the same time, the government should examine its own role in the incident and lessons to be learnt from it.
If Singaporeans are expected to take the rap and responsibility for every mistake, big and small, then the PAP should cut down the size of their bloated cabinet and take a pay cut.
Given the amount of money Singaporeans are paying to line the pockets of these ministers and permanent secretaries, we have the right to demand that all public eating outlets are kept squeaky clean with good hygiene, no litter and most importantly no rats.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26713.1
A tale of 2 (kinds of) deaths
A tale of 2 (kinds of) deaths
Mention the name Lo Hwei Yen and nearly everyone will know who she is, and perhaps even have a mental picture of her face. Within Facebook, there are at least 3 groups dedicated to Ms Lo, with one group comprising 15,554 members. Now mention the names Noraini Kasim and Aminah Samijo and what do you get?
Ms Lo was Singapore’s first terror victim so that may explain the media interest and exposure given to her, versus the deaths of Madam Noraini Kasim and Mdm Aminah Samijo who died of food poisoning from eating Indian rojak. That is a story for another day.
For now, I am just amused by how much resources are put into national defence and security, versus public health. I do not know the numbers, but I am sure the total number of Singaporeans who have died from food poisoning is significantly large enough to warrant more and better ministerial oversight and a greater allocation of budget.
As a related point, anti-conscription activists may take issue with the number of servicemen deaths (and women; not forgetting the 4 who served on RSS Courageous) resulting from routine training or peace-time operations despite the huge investments made in perfecting a snazzy ‘3G’ army.
Singaporeans must be discerning on what this top class government ought to be offering its citizens and not be distracted by PAP’s weapons of mass distraction and shadow-play.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26792.1
Mention the name Lo Hwei Yen and nearly everyone will know who she is, and perhaps even have a mental picture of her face. Within Facebook, there are at least 3 groups dedicated to Ms Lo, with one group comprising 15,554 members. Now mention the names Noraini Kasim and Aminah Samijo and what do you get?
Ms Lo was Singapore’s first terror victim so that may explain the media interest and exposure given to her, versus the deaths of Madam Noraini Kasim and Mdm Aminah Samijo who died of food poisoning from eating Indian rojak. That is a story for another day.
For now, I am just amused by how much resources are put into national defence and security, versus public health. I do not know the numbers, but I am sure the total number of Singaporeans who have died from food poisoning is significantly large enough to warrant more and better ministerial oversight and a greater allocation of budget.
As a related point, anti-conscription activists may take issue with the number of servicemen deaths (and women; not forgetting the 4 who served on RSS Courageous) resulting from routine training or peace-time operations despite the huge investments made in perfecting a snazzy ‘3G’ army.
Singaporeans must be discerning on what this top class government ought to be offering its citizens and not be distracted by PAP’s weapons of mass distraction and shadow-play.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26792.1
Sunday, April 12, 2009
12 ill after steamboat meal
April 12, 2009
12 ill after steamboat meal
| By Shuli Sudderuddin | ||
 | | 2 people suffered vomiting, diarrhoea and abdominal pain after eating at the Ba Shu Ren Jia steamboat restaurant last Friday night. -- PHOTO: CHAI HUNG YIN |
YET another case of food poisoning has cropped up, this time in an eatery in Lorong 9 Geylang.
A joint statement from the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) said 12 people suffered vomiting, diarrhoea and abdominal pain after eating at the Ba Shu Ren Jia steamboat restaurant last Friday night.
They were all treated as outpatients and one person, who was supposed to be hospitalised, went home to rest.
When The Sunday Times visited the restaurant last night, it was business as usual and it was half-full.
The supervisor, Mr He Min, 27, said the NEA had sent about four or five officers there in the afternoon and had taken food samples.
'They told me some customers had complained about stomach trouble so they checked the premises and reminded me to be more careful about cleanliness,' he said.
'We had about 300 customers between Friday and now, and only 12 have complained. Ma la steamboat can sometimes cause diarrhoea so that may have been the problem,' he added.
Ma la steamboat uses very spicy soup stock. Mr He said the officers later put up a B grade certificate at the restaurant entrance. Customers last night did not seem bothered by the incident.
Said software engineer Ma Liu Chuan, 24: 'My friends and I come every week because the food is good. People may get sick from steamboat as they don't cook the food properly.'
The MOH and NEA are investigating and advise patrons to seek medical attention if necessary.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26629.1
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Goh Chok Tong: Hygiene is gracious act
April 11, 2009
Hygiene is gracious act
 | | Goh Chok Tong (left) urged Singaporeans to view hygiene as part of gracious behaviour. -- ST PHOTO: SAMUEL HE |
THE recent food poisoning incident at the Geylang Serai market shows how poor hygiene can have a wide impact on public health, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said on Saturday.
He urged Singaporeans to view hygiene as part of gracious behaviour, during a community event to welcome new residents of his Marine Parade GRC.
'If you have poor hygiene in public places, littering, food all over the place, rats running around the market, that's very ungracious behaviour,' he said.
Mr Goh also extended his condolences to the families of the two women who died after eating rojak from a stall in the Geylang Serai temporary market, in what is possibly Singapore's worst case of mass food poisoning. The market is located in Marine Parade GRC.
Some 150 people also fell ill and four are still in hospital. Mr Goh said he hoped they would recover quickly.
He said the incident suggested something was amiss but stressed that Members of Parliament for the area were quick to respond and were not absent, as some rumours had it.
Dr Ong Seh Hong, the MP in charge of the Kampong Ubi-Kembangan ward where the temporary market stands, was at the site 'very early on' after news of the food poisoning broke, Mr Goh said.
'He also visited the family of the deceased, who happened to be a constituent in the GRC,' he said, referring to Madam Aminah Samijo who died on Monday.
'But it's off the news, because you don't expect people to follow you when you pay your respects to the family.'
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26592.1
“Lapses” getting to be common with the PAP
“Lapses” getting to be common with the PAP
SINGAPORE: The National Environment Agency (NEA) will step up its enforcement regime at hawker centres to ensure there are no more lapses in hygiene standards — which the Environment and Water Resources Minister Yaacob Ibrahim says can never be compromised.
“Can never be compromised”, so says the Minister. But it has, and with serious consequences. Seems a very basic expectation, that consumers are safe from food contaminants. It is revolting to read how many rats were caught in the market, which seems to suggest that the market was in a condition of neglect for some time. Is this a result of the leadership of a mediocre minister?
Speaking at a lecture organised by Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs Diplomatic Academy, Minister Mentor said that “a mediocre PM and cabinet will decline our standing with other countries”. Perhaps the better ministers work on foreign policy matters. The mediocre ones work on domestic non-economic issues which consequently decline the government’s standing with the locals.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26613.1
Just admit you screwed up, Yaacob!
Just admit you screwed up, Yaacob!
One week after the mass food poisoning at Geylang Serai first broke out, Minister of Environment and Water Resources Dr Yaacob Ibrahim has finally spoken. (interestingly one day after I slammed him for “missing in action“)
‘What has happened is totally unacceptable. As far as I am concerned, it’s outrageous that this has happened, and we must make sure it doesn’t happen again” he thundered. (read article here)
Strong words indeed, Dr Yaacob, but where were you when the tragedy happened?
As the minister in charge of NEA, Dr Yaacob should be on the ground inspecting the premises and visiting the victims in the hospital on the very day itself if not the day after, but he was nowhere to be seen or heard.
Even if he is not available, the next highest official such as his Permanent Secretary Tan Yong Soon should have stepped forward to fill his shoes. Again, he wasn’t around. (or is he in Paris now for another cooking course?)
Such a delayed lacklustre response is completely unacceptable from the highest paid Environment Minister and Permanent Secretary in the world.
As expected, the state media moved in swiftly to do the damage control work for its political master by describing how on the ball the NEA is by beefing up cleanliness checks on all 109 hawker centres it manages and inspecting 3 other temporary markets.
Why put up a “wayang” now to exonerate itself from any responsibility when this preventable disaster would not have occurred if they had been more viligant on the ground? Has NEA been sleeping on its job?
What’s the point of inspecting the markets now only after two lives have been lost? It is obviously a publicity gimmick to restore public confidence in these eating outlets.
Dr Yaacob said the stepping up will ensure there are no hygiene lapses and that a ’sound regime’ was in place but it will continue to be reviewed.
The result of this “sound regime” is for all to see for themselves. Had it been adequate, how could it fail to detect the hygiene problem with the Indian rojak stall?
How can NEA continue to distance itself from the fiasco as if they are not at fault by shifting the blame to the temporary market’s management committee? How do they account the 61 rats which has been caught at the premises? Did they appear suddenly overnight from nowhere?
I concur with Mr Yaacob that what has happened is totally unacceptable and outrageous. It is unacceptable to have even one mortality from gastroenteritis in a developed country like Singapore and it will even be more outrageous if nobody is held responsible for it.
Sorry to be blunt here, but this is a big screw-up and there is no way Dr Yaacob can escape from it. Just admit it, Yaacob, you SCREWED UP! In other Asian democracies like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, the minister in charge will probably issue a public apology before tendering his resignation. (In Japan, he may even commit harakiri in shame)
Fortunately for Dr Yaacob, he is in Singapore where the threshold for accountability is very much lower. He can take consolation from the example of his fellow colleague Wong Kan Seng who screwed up big time too and is allowed to get away pretty much unscathed.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26535.1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)