MENTAL DISORDERS AND TREATMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL

11.36 a.m.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Attorney-General (Mr E. P. Shanks): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The main purpose of the amendments proposed in this Bill is to facilitate the admission and treatment of patients and to avoid non-essential formalities and publicity which often tend to deter patients and their relatives from seeking help from mental hospitals. Modern opinion, expressed by such authorities as the World Health Organisation, is that in the past legislation has laid too much importance on putting restraint or a check on the mentally ill and the doctors who look after them and has emphasised too little the realisation of the fact that there is no essential difference between the majority of mental patients and the ordinary sick. They are the same as, arid should be treated in a manner comparable with, those who suffer from injuries or other illnesses.

The law provides proper safeguards for the treatment without their consent of persons who are dangerous but the primary aim should be to make it as easy as possible for ordinary mental patients to receive treatment. The need for amending legislation is perhaps most clearly seen in respect of the procedure for admission to and discharge from mental hospitals. It is proposed by this Bill that admission should be made very much easier. In practice, this will mean that the documentation and formalities will be cut to a minimum and brought into line with those required for admission to any other hospital. The discharge of patients will similarly be made very much easier and, if this Bill is brought into force, the Medical Superintendent will be empowered to discharge any patient.

At present, with very few exceptions, patients have to be examined as to their normality by a Board consisting largely of laymen. This examination, coming just before discharge when the patient is well again, is embarrassing and discourages patients and relatives of people who ought to be patients from seeking treatment when their symptoms are still only mild.

The opportunity has been taken of making it easier for persons who have attempted to commit suicide to be given treatment. Such persons are very often in need of mental care, perhaps more than of punishment, and it is thought right that the courts and medical officers in ordinary hospitals should be given the opportunity of ensuring that these people can get proper treatment with a very minimum of formality and administrative procedure.

The amendments proposed by the Bill are all, I think, fully explained in the Explanatory Note and I do not think that hon. Members will want me to go through them in detail again at this stage. The Bill will, I think, be welcomed by all who have the interests of the mentally diseased at heart.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

11.41 am.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Sir, I do indeed welcome this Bill in its present form, particularly as it is stated in the Explanatory Note that this Bill is "to bring the provision of the Ordinance more in line with modern conceptions relating to the treatment of persons suffering from mental disorder".

Sir, so far, persons suffering from mental disorders have been regarded with a certain amount of abhorrence and fear but in the modern world living under the stresses which we do with all the more problems that we have to face, mental unbalance occurs more frequently and it is only right that it should be approached in a different light. It is true that we should make it very difficult - almost impossible - for persons who out of spite or hate would want to commit their relatives into a mental hospital but by making it simple, as this Bill tends to, persons suffering from mild symptoms can be accepted quickly and with understanding be helped to be cured. Sir, I support this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Mr Shanks].

Bill considered in Committee.

11.44 a.m.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 -

Mr Shanks: Sir, on clause 2, may I under the proviso to Standing Order 51 (2) move an amendment of a minor and drafting character?

The Chairman: Will the Attorney-General indicate the nature of the amendment?

Mr Shanks: Sir, at present, section 31 of the Ordinance provides that "no person shall be received into a mental hospital except" in certain specified circumstances. Clause 2 of the Bill, as at present drafted, would remove only a reference to 34. It would not alter the restrictions which apply to section 32, which require that the order should be signed by two registered medical practitioners of whom one shall be a medical officer. By clause 3 of this Bill, it is proposed that under section 32, only the certificate of one medical officer at a mental hospital shall be required and not two registered medical practitioners. That fact was overlooked when various other alterations were made to the Bill after it had been first drafted.

The Chairman: What would be the hon. Member's amendment?

Mr Shanks: May I mention one other minor matter? In the present section 31, there is reference to reception of patients under the provisions of section 37. It is proposed to repeal the existing section 37 by clause 7 of this Bill but by clause 4 of this Bill-I apologise for making this sound very complicated- there is another means of reception now to be given for those persons who are either charged with attempted suicide or are believed to have attempted to commit suicide, so that reference to section 37 could very usefully be altered to read section 34. I have here, Sir, a written amendment that I would propose.

Amendment handed in.

The Chairman: Do I understand, Mr Attorney-General, that these amendments are necessitated by reason of the amendments proposed in the present Bill?

Mr Shanks: Yes, Sir.

The Chairman: Therefore, the Attorney-General considers that they are of a purely drafting character?

Mr Shanks: Yes, Sir.

The Chairman: I do not know whether hon. Members have followed that. The Standing Order reads:

"Any proposed amendments of which notice has not been given shall be handed to the Chairman in writing if the Chairman so requires. Except in the case of urgent Bills, no amendment shall be proposed unless two clear days' notice thereof has been given:

Provided that if the Chairman is of opinion that an amendment is of a minor or purely drafting character, he may, with the general assent of Members present, permit it to be moved without notice."

May I know whether the Attorney-General has the assent of hon. Members present?

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): May we know what in fact the amendment is?

The Chairman: It is a purely drafting amendment which is consequential on the amendments which are proposed in the present Bill. Perhaps the Attorney-General had better read the amendment?

Mr Shanks: If it please you, Sir. The amendment would be, in page 1, to leave out lines 8 and 9, and insert:

"principal Ordinance") is hereby amended -

(a) by deleting paragraph (b) thereof and substituting therefor the following:-

"(b) upon the order under section 32 of this Ordinance of a Medical Officer at a mental hospital; or"; and

(b) by deleting paragraph (d) thereof and substituting therefor the following:-

"(d) upon the order under section 34 of this Ordinance of a Medical Officer at a mental hospital; or"'. Perhaps may I, Sir, have your permission to give a further explanation or would you prefer me to give it later?

The Chairman: Am I correct in saying that the Attorney-General wishes to leave out lines 8, 9 and 10?

Mr Shanks: Yes, 8, 9 and 10.

The Chairman: Has it become a little clearer to the Member for Tanglin?

Mr John Ede: It is a little less clear, but we are willing to take your ruling that it is merely a drafting amendment.

The Chairman: It appears to me to be of a purely drafting character necessitated by the amendments which are proposed to be made by the present Bill. I take it then that the Attorney-General has the assent of hon. Members that these amendments should be made. No dissenting voice? Will the Attorney-General then please proceed?

Mr Shanks: Sir, I move,

In page 1, to leave out lines 8, 9 and 10, and insert- "principal Ordinance") is hereby amended

(a) by deleting paragraph

(b) thereof and substituting therefor the following:-

"(b) upon the order under section 32 of this Ordinance of a Medical Officer at a mental hospital; or"; and

(b) by deleting paragraph (d) thereof and substituting therefor the following: -"(d) upon the order under section 34 of this Ordinance of a Medical Officer at a mental hospital; or"'.

Sir, the first part of this amendment, I think, can be understood by reference to the existing paragraph (b) of the section which refers to receptions upon an order of two registered medical practitioners, one of whom shall be a medical officer. By clause 3 of the Bill, it is proposed to amend section 32 so that the certificate of only one doctor will be required. It becomes therefore, as a matter of drafting, necessary to remove the reference to two doctors in section 31.

Sir, I beg to move

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with an amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker: This is probably an appropriate time to suspend. I will take the Chair again at half-past two.

Sitting accordingly suspended at fifty-nine minutes past Eleven o'clock a.m. to 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.