PATRICK Lei's letter (South China Morning Post, August 30) on the sewage problem at Ma Po Ping Prison, raised several questions that have much wider implications and need to be addressed.
First, Mr Lei states that ''While the legislative provisions do not allow us to take court proceedings against the government-operated facility, the legislation still applies the same control standards to the Government (as the private sector).'' Clearly, if the standards cannot be enforced through court action, they are not applied equally.
This problem is not limited to sewage plants. Government departments that mismanage projects and cause undue environmental damage get away without penalty, and often without repairing the damage done.
Sometimes, this immunity from prosecution extends to their contractors as well. Internal regulations of a stringency equivalent to that inherent in prosecution should be enacted. Secondly, Mr Lei does not answer our question about access to information. Whether or not there are ''possible contractual implications'' in this particular case, we were told that Environmental Protection Department (EDP) policy is to not release the results of any effluent tests, because people may misuse the data.
Trust works on a mutual basis. If EDP officials do not trust the public with their data, it will be difficult for the public to trust them with their monitoring.
It is not enough for us to be told there are treatment plants. We want to know whether they are operating properly. There is a strong link between effective public access to environmental information and effective environmental protection.
