Khairulanwar Zaini

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.

Editor’s note:

Do you know of pigeon or rat infestations at your favorite eating places? Take a photo and send it in to [email protected]


Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

“We just assumed”: Khaw Boon Wan

In Parliament on Thursday, Workers’ Party (WP) Member of Parliament for Punggol…

Clearing the Haze: Solutions at hand

“Clearing the Haze” is a feature series by The Online Citizen that…

陈振声:2015至2018年 六万新增工作本地公民得八成

贸工部长陈振声指出,2015到2018年之间,平均本地每六份新增工作,五份由本地公民获得,只有一份是永久居民取得。 在上述三年中,有将近6万份新增工作,他指其中公民取得5万份,而永久居民占9000份。 此前,阿裕尼集选区议员毕丹星曾在国会询问,上述三年公民和永久居民就业率的对比。他也提及通常政府把“本地人”都涵括公民和永久居民。 新加坡经济发展局今日召开常年工作检讨说明会,陈振声是在说明会前接受媒体采访时这么表示。 陈振声指出,我国去年吸引的固定资产投资达到152亿元,料将创造逾三万份就业机会。 他强调这些就要特机会不仅惠及年轻一代,也会确保中年或年长员工受益;在来临的预算案,将加大力度,透过再培训协助中年就业人士。 在本月6日的国会交锋,对于毕丹星的提问,陈振声直言“我可以给你数据,但这么问背后意义又是什么?” “本地失业率有提升吗?很明显不是…我们的薪资增长了吗?肯定的,且比起其他国家更快。这都说明我们为国人做的是对的。” 他表示对于“新加坡人和国人”对立的观点保持谨慎,这似乎在暗示国人没有从中受益。 与此同时,国家发展部兼人力部政务部长扎吉哈也揭露,从2015年至2018年,不包括外籍女佣在内,上述领域就业人数增长达1万9500人。 其中新加坡公民增长9300人,而永久居民8600人。至于外籍人士减少2万8500人。

面对四控状 男律师涉非礼偷拍裙底照

知法犯法,年轻男律师在任职的律师事务所内,被指涉及非礼和偷拍年轻女律师三次,面对四项控状。 以优秀成绩毕业于本地大学,在德尊律师事务所(Drew & Napier)任职的年轻男律师,于昨日(11月11日)被控一项非礼罪以及三项侮辱女性尊严罪名。 他全部不认罪。 受害者和被告的名字都在法官的谕令下,不得公布于媒体上,以起到保护受害者作用。 据法庭文件指出,案发时,被告和三名受害者都在同一家律师事务所工作,目前被告已经辞职,到另一家律师事务所就职。 控状指出,被告于2017年4月份,晚上8时许在公司内偷拍受害者的胸口内衣和裙底风光,此为被告首次干案。 在同年10月,被告再次涉及偷拍受害者的裙底照,甚至用其大腿触碰受害者的手臂。 指调查官诱导认罪 昨天在庭上,调查官招供时指出,指被告在去年11月录口供时,承认犯案,但是如今却反指调查官诱导他录口供,因此不承认有关的口供。 法庭因此发起审讯中的审讯,以便确定有关的口供是否能作为呈堂证据。…