HAWKERS PENALIZED UNDER THE POINTS DEMERIT SYSTEM

Mr Chin Harn Tong asked the Minister for the Environment (a) how many hawkers in food centres have been penalised under the Points Demerit System since its inception up to the latest convenient date; (b) which food centres have the greatest number of offending hawkers; and (c) whether he is satisfied that the scheme has improved the conduct of hawkers.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment (Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng) (for the Minister for the Environment): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister.

Since the implementation of the Points Demerit System on 14th September 1987, a total of 660 hawkers in hawker centres, 121 stallholders in eating houses, 37 snack bar operators and five restaurant managements have been given demerit points.

So far, six hawkers and three snack bar operators have had their licences suspended for two weeks. Another six cases involving hawkers are pending suspension.

The hawker centres with the greatest number of offenders are the Telok Ayer Transit Centre, Cuppage Road Market, Golden Mile Food Centre, Newton Food Centre and Berseh Food Centre.

I am satisfied that the scheme has improved the awareness of food vendors in general. They are more conscious of the need to keep their premises clean and to observe proper food and personal hygiene. Standards of cleanliness and hygiene in food centres have generally improved.

My Ministry takes a serious view against recalcitrant food vendors who are indifferent to hygiene standards. Food vendors must understand their role and responsibilities. The Ministry is currently reviewing the Environmental Public Health (Food Establishment) Regulations and one of the amendments to be made will be to increase the penalties.

Mr Speaker, Sir, stiffer penalties, the risk of losing one's licence or having it suspended, in addition to the adverse publicity generated, would deter restaurant operators and other food vendors from unhygienic practices.

Mr Chin Harn Tong (Aljunied GRC): Sir, will the Senior Parliamentary Secretary list out the names of the five restaurants which have been given demerit points, and also the names of the snack bars whose licences have been suspended? Secondly, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary explain why an established Mayflower Peking Restaurant was given light penalty by the court recently for its food hygiene violation? And the third supplementary question: can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary assure this House that in future, violation of this nature will be given more severe penalty?

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: First, the hon. Mr Chin wants me to list out the five restaurants and the snack bars that have been given demerit points. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid I do not have the names of the restaurants and the snack bars. So I cannot provide him the answers. But if he wants, I can arrange to send them to him.

The other question concerns Mayflower Restaurant. Why was this popular restaurant given such a light punishment, so to speak, by the court? Mr Speaker, Sir, first, we have to realize that we have no jurisdiction over the courts as to what they want to do or not want to do, in terms of meting out punishment. Secondly, I agree with him that, in today's context, the fines may not be a sufficient deterrent. But I would go on to say that we have to look at the whole system of punishment and not only one particular aspect of it. We have the demerit points system, we have the fines, we have adverse publicity. However, I cannot recall the case of Mayflower Restaurant as clearly as I can of the Kelong Restaurant. The Kelong committed certain offences in relation to public health regulations. They caused an outbreak of food poisioning. And what happened after that?

Generally, I would think that only demerit points or stiffer penalties will deter restaurants such as Mayflower or Kelong from repeating offences like that or prevent them from being callous. But I think the important thing is that we realize many managements of such well-known restaurants are afraid of adverse publicity. And here I would compliment the press for doing their bit in terms of providing the type of publicity so that consumers are aware of the status of each restaurant that is serving food to them. If the press had not come out with such publicity, I think Mr Chin would not have read about it. He would not have known about it. The fact that it was publicised gave everybody the knowledge that Mayflower, Kelong, well-known restaurants, were in trouble. In fact, when the Kelong case was publicised, we had calls the next day from various consumers, I suppose patrons of the restaurant, asking about the status with regard to Kelong itself. Why? Perhaps they were going to hold functions there or they wanted to hold birthday parties or wedding parties. "Should I go?" So the very fact that people are aware, and are afraid, is sufficient adverse publicity for the restaurants. I would also inform the Member that on several occasions when such things happen, the restaurants will be the first to come and tell us, "Please, if you can, do not give us adverse publicity."

So I do not think that demerit points alone or a fine is sufficient to deter anybody. I think it is basically the total system that works. And we hope that all the systems that we have will deter restaurants like Kelong, Mayflower, or others who are callous to be more careful with the way they handle food.

The other question is whether I can assure the House that violation of such a nature in future will be more severely punished. Yes, I can assure him. We will certainly ensure that in future we will make sure that people who are callous, and so on and so forth, with food handling practices will be duly punished. At the end of it all, I think the consumers have a part to play. The Government cannot play all this role by itself. Every Singaporean is a consumer, the silent majority. And if every Singaporean makes it a point to demand clean food, good food, then I think that we can together ensure that food sold in Singapore is clean and healthy.