NURSING HOMES AND MATERNITY HOMES REGISTRATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.45 a.m.

The Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

There is evidence, Sir, that during recent years an increasing number of private nursing homes, maternity homes and private hospitals are being set up. It is necessary to promote legislation for the registration, control and supervision of institutions used for the reception of the sick and convalescent, and of premises used for the reception of pregnant women or women immediately after child birth, to ensure that these institutions subscribe to standards acceptable and carry on under sanitary conditions.

This Bill follows similar provisions in other countries, particularly the Public Health Act of 1936, and also takes cognizance of provisions under existing Ordinances, namely the Local Government Ordinance, the Singapore Industrial Promotion Board Ordinance, and the Clerks Employment Ordinance.

The Bill has been considered by the Medical Advisory Council and agreed to by the Local Government authorities.

It will be observed, from the definition of Local Authority in clause 2, that the Bill is intended to cover the Southern Islands as well.

In Clause 3, the so-called death houses are exempted from the provisions of this Bill. These houses will continue to be licensed under by-laws made under the Municipal Ordinance or the Local Government Ordinance.

Clause 11 provides that the existing maternity homes and nursing homes, provided they apply within two years of the coming into operation of this Ordinance, shall be registered unconditionally. The effect of the provisions of the Bill are detailed in the explanatory statement. I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat them.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

11.47 a.m.

Mr Lazarous: Sir, in clause 3, the main purpose of this legislation is to ensure that a certain efficient standard is reached and maintained for the care and treatment of the sick.

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member is confining his comments to clause 3, perhaps the appropriate time would be in Committee. But if he is dealing with the general principles of the Bill, then he can speak now.

I do not know what the hon. Member wishes to speak on. If he wishes to speak, as I say, on the general principles of the Bill, he can do so now. But if he wishes to speak on details of the Bill, such as clause 3, then there will be an opportunity in Committee.

Mr Lazarous: I will speak in Committee, Sir.

11.48 a.m.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish the Minister will kindly make clear just one point. Why exclude the dying houses in Sago Lane and-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the remarks I made just a little while ago, in connection with the Member for Farrer Park's attempt to speak, also apply to the hon. Member. If the hon. Member is confining his remarks to clause 3, which deals with "dying" houses or dying persons, then I think the proper time will be in Committee. There will be ample opportunity for him to speak on this in Committee. If the hon. Member is speaking on the general principles, that is, the principle of registration of persons carrying on nursing and maternity homes, and for purposes connected therewith, then he can do so now. But if it is on details, the hon. Member will have an opportunity in Committee.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I intend to speak on general principles. If the Hon. Minister can satisfy me on the points I raise, I will support the Bill in principle. In my opinion, the Bill should have been introduced much earlier.

The tremendous increase in population, the housing shortage and the inadequate health facilities provided by the Government have encouraged private institutions to carry on for such purposes. Why allow private enterprise to get into such important institutions? Legislation to protect public interest is vitally important. Therefore, I heartily support this Bill in principle.

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 A. J. Braga].

Bill considered in Committee.

11.49 a.m.

Clause 1-

The Chairman: There will be an alteration "1958" will now read "1959".

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the bill.

Clause 2-

Mr Braga: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

In page 2, line 4, after "suffering", to insert "or convalescing".

It was represented to me, after publication of the Bill, that there existed some doubt as to whether the Bill was intended to cover convalescent homes as well. As stated in the explanatory statement, it is the intention that convalescent homes are also covered. But to avoid any doubt on the matter, I move that clause 2 be amended by inserting the words "or convalescing" after the word "suffering". I beg to move.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Clause 3-

Question proposed, "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Lazarous: The main purpose of this legislation is to ensure that a certain efficient standard is reached in regard to the maintenance of treatment of sick and pregnant women. Why then should an exemption be granted under clause 3 in regard to the place used for the reception of the sick and the dying, licensed under the by-laws of the Local Government Ordinance, 1957?

Sir, according to the Municipal Ordinance - I quote the Sick House by-laws:

"Clause 12

No sick receiving house shall be licensed as such unless there is a Visiting Medical Practitioner attached to the Staff. The Medical Practitioner shall visit at least once a day.

Clause 13

In addition to the caretaker, the sick receiving house shall have such nursing staff as shall be required by the Health Officer, and stated on the licence."

Sir, when you have these conditions, naturally these houses come up to the level of ordinary hospitals and clinics. But there is nobody to inspect these sick houses to see whether they really engage nurses, midwives, or whether any medical practitioner really visits the place. According to the Ordinance, they must visit the place, but nobody seems to care whether anyone really visits the place.

What I want to know is why the Government should spend such a lot of money on various medical institutions and leave such a place as a sick house as a blot on the dignity and health services of Singapore. Could we not have one or two wards from any other hospital attached, for the care of the sick and dying? Sir, I have heard that we had about 30 or 33 years ago two wards attached to the Tan Tock Seng Hospital for the care of the sick and dying.

Now there is no more place like that, except that certain people, being given licences for this purpose, are, in fact, running on a commercial basis. According to the Municipal Ordinance, they must have a licence, but they are not under control by the Government.

The City Council seems not worried at all as to what is happening in these sick and death houses. In fact, nobody seems to worry over that. Could we not do something at least for these unfortunate people? Government can give them some other place to build a building for the care of the sick and dying. When people are sick and are really dying, that is the time they need care and comfort more than the ordinary sick people. How does a sick man, who knows he cannot be cured, feel being dumped in a place where no attention is being given, either by the City Council or the Government?

I would suggest - and this is not an amendment - that the Government should at least look into this matter and see that some free land outside the town area be given to those people who manage these sick houses to put up a building which, although it may not be up to medical standards, could at least, to a certain extent, preserve the dignity of our City, and at the same time, give some comfort to the sick and dying.

The Chairman: Mr Lim Cher Kheng? I understand the hon. Member wished to speak.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want the Hon. Minister to explain and I will see if I can accept it. I reserve my speech.

Mr Braga: Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason for excluding death houses is specifically to allow the City Council, which has for many years been doing it, to continue to grant licences for such premises at its own discretion, since it has its own by-laws under the Ordinance. The City Council will be in a position to assess the need for continuing the death houses or to do away with them and licensing them entirely under the Ordinance.

The question of visiting the place is purely within the responsibility of the City Council. If I find that the City Council is not undertaking its work, I will, of course, consider the question.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, regarding the death houses, I wish to add to the objections raised by the hon. Member for Farrer Park. The death houses are now becoming an eye-sore in the eyes of Singapore. It may be a fascinating scene for the tourists, but I would emphasise that it is an eye-sore to the residents who stay near these death houses. The Minister for Health said that these houses have been controlled by the City Council for years, but he should weigh the fact that the population of Singapore, particularly in the so-called Chinatown area, has tripled since the years he referred to. A few death houses are a few death houses. How much profit the proprietors of these houses make I do not know, but at least the facilities could be improved now that these places are visited by tourists. If I am not mistaken, a few days ago the local Press announced that pictures of these death houses will appear on T.V. in America, as they are a centre of attraction for tourists.

12.00 noon.

Therefore I support the suggestion of the Member for Farrer Park that it is time for Government to take a close look to see whether there is any need for any more death houses. You can imagine ten persons living in a small room in the congested area of Chinatown. Then suddenly one of them gets seriously ill and the doctor says that the patient has no chance to recover. What happens if the patient has no money and where will he be put?

I wish the Minister for Health will consider this problem seriously and find a solution. Do not leave this so-called baby in the hands of the City Council.

Mr Braga: Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the Member for Changi and I can assure him that all consideration will be given to the points that he has raised. But on the question of doing away with the death houses or their improvement, this is a matter, of course, for the City Council at the moment. On the question of improvements, I am not aware that the City Council is not doing its duty.

With regard to the question of the death houses being the target for television and so forth, I am sure that this matter will be considered by the Minister responsible for the granting of facilities to tourists.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Is it not proper for the Minister to write a letter to the City Council?

Mr Braga: Legislation is not done by letters.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4-

Mr Braga: Mr Speaker, Sir, on further consideration of representations made to me by certain medical practitioners, age should not be the major consideration in determining whether a person is fit or otherwise to carry on or to be employed at a Home, and I consider that infirmity more than age will affect a person's fitness.

I accordingly move,

In page 3, line 5, to leave out "age" and insert "infirmity".

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5-

Question proposed, "That clause 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Lazarous: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say something on clause 4.

The Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member is too late. We are on clause 5 now.

Mr Lazarous: Can I get some clarification on clause 4 from the Minister?

The Chairman: It has been passed. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to set down a question.

Mr Lazarous: Yes.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 to 15 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.

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

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.10 p.m. until 2.30 p.m Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.