Advertisement
Advertisement

Bad fish, rotten policy

The Hong Kong government's handling of the issue of mainland fish tainted with malachite green has been poor from day one. Worse, officials across the border have made it obvious that they, not Hong Kong, are in charge.

To begin with, the mainland did not inform Hong Kong when Guangdong recalled eel products bound for export. Hong Kong learned about this from the media. And while Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food York Chow Yat-ngok warned the public against eating eel, the government continued to allow it to be sold.

Then, when freshwater fish from the mainland tested positive for malachite green, the government informed the mainland but did not warn the Hong Kong public.

After talks between Dr Chow and mainland officials, it was announced that only fish farms registered on the mainland and approved by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department could supply fish to the city. Last Friday, the government banned malachite green in all food, and Dr Chow told the Legislative Council that mainland freshwater fish were safe to eat.

The next day, the chief executive and several other worthies sat down to a highly publicised 12-course freshwater fish lunch to persuade the public that eating fish was safe. But the effort backfired when it was disclosed that they ate only local fish, not fish imported from the mainland. Worse, it was found on the same day that two additional samples of imported fish had tested positive for malachite green.

Then the mainland released a preliminary list of 18 registered fish farms authorised to export fish to Hong Kong. That list was given to fish traders - who could contact the farms directly to order fish - and Legco's food panel was told on Tuesday by Vivian Ko Wai-kwan, principal assistant secretary of the Health, Welfare and Food Bureau. But when it was pointed out that two samples had tested positive, she belittled the incident, saying it had happened during the 'transitional period'.

However, when asked what the government would do if new imports tested positive, she said that it would 'enforce the law'. Presumably, this means the government will prosecute importers who thought it was safe to import fish from mainland-registered farms.

This was a ridiculous position to take. An exasperated member of the trade, invited to take part in the Legco panel meeting, asked whether the government expected fishmongers to sell fish with a lawyer on one side and a chemist on the other. Instead of putting the onus on Hong Kong importers and fishmongers, the government must put the responsibility where it belongs: on the mainland.

Asked repeatedly if the government could tell which farms had produced the two latest fish that tested positive, Ms Ko avoided answering the question.

It is far more important to track the origin of contaminated fish than to prosecute those in the trade who act in good faith. Yet there is no sign of the government doing this.

Instead, it is still trying to shield the mainland from public criticism. Its attitude is reflected in the way it presents data.

Last Friday, the government announced findings after testing samples of local and imported fish. Instead of simply saying that all local fish tested negative and every positive fish came from the mainland, the government presented the information in this form: 'Summary of results: A total of 62 samples were tested. A total of 13 samples were found to be positive.'

That made it impossible to tell that all the tainted fish had come from over the border. No doubt, that was why the government presented the data in this fashion.

Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator

Post