ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

8.01 p.m.

The Minister for Health (Mr Chua Sian Chin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The improvement in the quality of our urban environment and the transformation of Singapore into a garden city - a clean and green city - is the declared objective of the Government. In October, a month-long campaign to "Keep Singapore Clean" was launched and carried out successfully; the enthusiastic response and support of the people in all walks of life was tremendous. The message did certainly get down to the people. During the past three years, my Ministry has taken a number of positive measures to cope with and overcome the many problems that have been a severe deterrent to efforts to improve the quality of the environment. The problems associated with indiscipline of labour, overtime rackets and labour-union interference in management matters have been, to a large extent, resolved between 1966 and 1967 -that is past history. It culminated in the abortive daily-rated strike of 1967 which gave the Ministry of Health an effective basis to push ahead with the initial phase of reorganisation. Consequent to the tightening of super vision of the work force, there was some increase in the efficiency and productivity in public cleansing work.

However, real improvement began with the implementation of the reorganisation of the Environmental Health Branch in August this year. This reorganisation involved the division of our whole island into districts which were further sub-divided into sectors and each sector was put in the charge of a public health inspector or a senior public health assistant who is the officer-in-charge of the sector. Under him are a number of public health assistants, the public health overseers, the mandores and the beat labourers. These officers in charge of sectors in turn come under a health officer who is in charge of the whole district. There is, therefore, a clear line of command and responsibility. Thus, the familiar game of "passing the buck" was eliminated. It was also an exercise of integration of the public health inspectorate with the public cleansing department as well as of decentralisation and the giving of more powers to the persons in the field. Improvement was further enhanced by the introduction of round-the-year public cleansing also in August this year. I am glad to say that there is also now a greater awareness and appreciation among the various Government departments of the interaction of facets and sectors of the total environment and of the fact that resultant health problems may originate from other sources. All these efforts have contributed to a Singapore which is visibly cleaner than it was, not only two years ago but ten months ago. Of course, there is still much more to be done. As I have said previously, this war against filth and squalor is a relentless one and requires all the grit, the stamina and the persistence in order to triumph.

Needless to say, good and adequate legislation is one of the principal tools, for the successful execution of any public health programme involving the community as a whole. Members will remember that in the addendum to the President's Speech at the opening of Parliament in April this year, it was stated that the public health legislation was being consolidated into a comprehensive Environmental Health Code, capable of maintaining the highest standards of public health that is required in a modern complex urban society. The Destruction of Disease-Bearing Insects Act, 1968, was passed by Parliament on 1st August, 1968, and brought into force on 1st September, 1968. Today, you have before you the Environmental Public Health Bill in this series of measures to update health legislation and improve our public health standards. Attention will next be directed to the revision and updating of the Quarantine and Prevention of Disease Ordinance, an Ordinance nearly 40 years old in conception; this controls the introduction and spread of infectious diseases both from outside and within the Republic.

As stated earlier, the basic needs and problems faced by the Public Health Division are in the field of environmental health services - public cleansing, anti-mosquito and other vector control, public health nuisances, uncoordinated building development and pockets of sub-standard environment within the urban area. These problems are the result of multiple factors, some of which are within the Public Health Division's sphere of influence and competence to tackle, but others are not. Briefly, we in Singapore are facing the results of rapid urbanisation and socio-political changes.

It has been acutely felt that the health officials were working with outmoded legislation which was formulated for a past colonial era. In order to solve the present and future public health problems on a long-term basis, there is a need for an entirely new dynamic and radical approach, one aspect of which is a thorough and complete revision of all the principal and subsidiary legislation governing matters of public health. In this revision, the changed political and social circumstances, as well as the behaviour patterns and attitudes of our local population, must be taken into account. Besides, there must also be a painstaking reappraisal of what may be called health standards or conditions or requirements. These cannot be viewed in isolation but in the context of the fabric of our local life, and are by the very nature of things relative to the aspirations of the community at a given time. This calls for a realistic and pragmatic approach. But whatever these may be, once decided, these values will have to be clearly spelt out and codified so that their implementation would be uniform and fair. Once agreed, they should be generally applicable and should not be the subject of bargaining or ad hoc modification.

The Environmental Public Health Bill which is before Parliament and the various subsidiary legislation to be made under it have been drafted with the philosophy I have just outlined. The Environmental Public Health Act seeks to replace Part IV of the Local Government Integration Ordinance, 1963, which contained the relevant provisions concerned with the maintenance of environmental health. It would interest Members to know that the old provisions are essentially similar to the Municipal Ordinance (Cap. 133 o the 1936 Edition) which was itself first enacted in 1913. Subsequent amendments to it were made to keep in line with the various administrative changes in the Local Government, but these did not affect or alter the contents and the principles of public health practice as provided for by the said Ordinance and, hence, they have become quite apparently obsolescent. What is more interesting is that the Municipal Ordinance itself was based on the British Public Health Act of 1897 - Members will know that that was the time of Queen Victoria. The British Public Health Act has subsequently been re-enacted three times.

It took one year to prepare the Environmental Public Health Bill. Every single clause has been carefully considered in terms of present and future health needs. The relevant laws in other countries were looked into, that is, the British Public Health Act, the New Zealand Public Health Act and the New York City Health Code. The Bill covers all fields of environmental health action except for air pollution and water pollution. While it was felt that the pollution of the atmosphere is serious, it has not yet assumed proportions of a major public health problem. The subject of water pollution will be dealt with in a separate Bill. The main purpose of the Bill is to integrate the environmental health functions of the Public Health Division and to consolidate the services of public cleansing, markets, hawkers, food establishments, general health licensing and environ mental sanitation and hygiene into a single co-ordinated and cohesive code to be implemented by a unified authority.

The weaknesses of the present legislation have been tightened, and recent advances and trends in public health practice have been incorporated. Briefly, a realistic approach to the present-day needs of Singapore was followed, that is, bringing the law up-to-date without necessarily discarding such legislative provisions as have been found to be sound, workable and have stood the test of time. However, where existing provisions have been required to be revised, re-drafted and denuded of ambiguity, this has been done so that within the umbrella of one compendious Bill, all necessary provisions relating to environmental health have been systematised.

I am taking this opportunity to highlight some of the notable features and innovations in the Bill:

(a) An important feature of the new Bill is that every effort has been made to systematise and arrange the relevant sections into separate self-contained parts to enable easy reference and imple mentation.

(b) The Public Health Authority and the Commissioner of Public Health shall work subject to the general or special directions of the Minister. A necessary separation of policy and professional functions from operational functions is being achieved as the public health responsibilities of Singapore are now too complex to be combined in one authority. This will enable the separa tion of line and staff functions and improve the day-to-day administration of the Act. These provisions are parallel to those in the recently enacted Destruction of Disease-Bearing Insects Act.

(c) Major changes have been brought in the provisions for public cleansing in Part III of the Bill to tackle the massive public cleansing problems in an urban community.

(d) Part VI provides for the licensing of food establishments and contains provisions which ensure a more effective and rational approach. The existing laws are not very satisfactory as there was overlap between different legislation (e.g., the Food and Drugs Ordinance); moreover, their content was also inadequate.

(e) Part XII seeks to regulate and control swimming pools and public swimming pools (as defined) by licensure: no control now exists and it is felt that if these remain un- checked, they will grow into a serious health hazard in the future. The extent of eye-infection and other infections from such swimming pools is on the increase.

(f) With the increasing and intense urban development of Singapore towards multi-storey structure, funeral parlours will come into more prominence though at present this is only an incipient problem. Hence, provisions have been made to regulate funeral parlours (Part XIII). The fact that funeral parlours come under Part XIII is purely incidental.

(g) Another innovation is the efficacious power given to the Commissioner, the Medical Officer of Health and the Public Health Engineer to execute the necessary works specified in a notice in the event of failure to comply by the persons on whom such notice had been served and, what is more important, the power to recover costs and expenses of such works. Such action can be taken without prejudice to any proceedings that may be instituted against the offender, whether before or after the commencement or conclusion of such proceedings; this is important in the circumstances where the default or omission causes a nuisance or offence to the community at large.

(h) To speed up enforcement action, powers have been given to the Commissioner to compound specified offences committed under this Act or any regulations made there under. Provisions are also made under certain sections for offenders to be ticketed.

(i) For the first time comprehensive provisions with heavy penalties have been included to deal with littering by persons and from moving vehicles in public places.

(j) There has been a general upward revision of penalties so that they are not only commensurate with the offence but also serve as a deterrent.

The following is a more detailed review of the provisions of the new Bill:

Part I (Preliminary) sets out the definitions necessary for purposes of the Bill. In view of the omnibus nature of the Bill, the Minister is empowered to appoint different dates for the coming into operation of the different Parts or the provisions thereof.

Part II (Administration) deals with the manner in which the Act is to be administered. The overall professional direction will be vested in the Public Health Authority consisting of the senior professional health officials of the Ministry. This is provided in clause 3. The Act itself will be administered by a "Commissioner of Public Health", who, under clause 4, will be assisted by such Deputy and Assistant Commis sioner as may be necessary. Provisions have been made in clause 5 for the appointment of one or more public health engineers, in clause 6 for public health auxiliaries and other employees, and in clause 7 for the appointment of committees.

Part III (Public Cleansing) deals with all aspects of public cleansing in an urban setting - cleansing of public streets, private streets, removal of trade refuse and the collection and removal of refuse and nightsoil. The Commissioner is empowered, under clause 12, to make applicable systems for the collection and removal of refuse and nightsoil.

To facilitate the removal of refuse particularly from blocks of flats, housing estates, industrial complexes and the like, provisions have been made in clause 16 whereby the Commissioner may require any developer (as defined) or owner or owners of any premises or group of premises to provide or construct at their expense dustbins and other convenient receptacles and for refuse bin centres to be constructed at appropriate situations within the property wherein may be placed dustbins and other receptacles.

With the increase in multi-storey developments where removal of refuse is by means of a refuse chute, the responsibility for maintaining such refuse chutes has been placed on the owners of any building or part thereof served by such chute. This is laid down in clause 17.

Clause 19 provides that the occupier of any house or premises who keeps or allows any refuse or filth to be kept for more than 48 hours, causing a nuisance to neighbours, will be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $500, and to a further fine not exceeding $50 for every day during which the offence is continued after conviction.

There is an expressed prohibition in clause 22 against unauthorised collection of nightsoil and against refusal of any service provided by the Commis sioner for the collection and removal of nightsoil. The sale of nightsoil is prohibited in clause 23.

As I have said just now, for the first time, comprehensive provisions against littering and depositing refuse in public places (as defined) and, interalia, against drying of food, spilling earth, throwing or leaving behind any bottle, food container, etc., in public places are contained in clause 26. These offences render a person liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding $500, and in case of a second and subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000. A more severe penalty for a first offence will be imposed on any person who, during building operations, deposits building materials, etc., in public places or fails to take reasonable precautions to prevent the danger to the life or well-being of persons using the public places or from such things as falling dust or fragments. This is laid down in clause 27. For speedy enforcement, any person contravening clause 26 or 27 is liable to be ticketed.

Part IV (Markets) provides for the proper licensing and control of public markets as well as private markets, including the medical examination and immunisation of stall-holders. At the moment, the law for the control of private markets is inadequate. Besides, stall-holders are not permitted under clause 35 to erect any extension or effect any alteration to any stall in any market without the permission of the Commissioner. Clause 36 imposes the responsibility on licensees and stall-holders to keep markets and stalls in a clean and sanitary condition and penalties for failure to take such steps. In case of default the Commissioner can carry out the work and recover costs and expenses.

Part V (Hawkers) contains effective provisions for the control of hawkers. Clause 38 specifically prohibits hawkers from hawking within 50 yards of a market, school, hospital, government dispensary, clinic, place of worship or police station. Food hawkers will be required to be medically examined and immunised against infectious diseases. The provisions with regard to the licensing and control of hawkers operating stalls and itinerant hawkers have been re-enacted with some amendments in clauses 40 and 41.

Part VI (Food Establishments) provides for the licensing of food establishments (as defined) as set out in the First Schedule to the Bill and contains provisions which ensure a more effective and rational approach on this subject. Similar provisions with regard to the employment of persons suffering from infectious diseases and also their medical examination and immunisation against infectious diseases have been incorporated. The Minister is empowered under clause 48 to make regulations covering various matters relating to the control of food establishments like preparation, storage, transport and sale of food and to secure the observance of hygienic conditions and practices in connection therewith.

Part VII (Public Nuisance) generally re-enacts with some amendments and heavier penalties existing provisions relating to public nuisances. Its scope has been widened to include pollution of reservoirs used for the storage of water for public consumption. Where any nuisance arises from any want or defect of structural character, this shall be dealt with by the Chief Building Surveyor under clause 49.

Part VIII (Insanitary buildings and obstructive buildings) confers more efficacious powers to deal with

(a) premises which are in a filthy or unwholesome state or overgrown with rank vegetation or in an insanitary state as to be a danger to the health of the persons in the premises or in the neigh bourhood;

(b) houses or buildings requiring to be cleansed, lime-washed or disinfected for sanitary reasons; and

(c) rat or vermin infested premises constituting a health hazard.

Medical officers of health and public health engineers may in all these cases direct the owner or occupier by notice in writing to take such measures as are considered necessary, and on non - compliance with the notice, to execute the measures specified in the notice and to recover costs and expenses thereby incurred by the person in default. Such action may be taken without prejudice to any proceedings against the offender and whether before or after the commencement or conclusion of such proceedings.

Part IX (Sanitary conveniences, drains, sewers and wells) contains a number of new provisions. Clause 67 provides that before approving plans, the Chief Building Surveyor may consult the Commissioner on the adequacy of sanitary conveniences provided for the new building.

Owners of buildings will now be required under clauses 68 and 69 to make good insufficient and defective sanitary conveniences and to carry out necessary repairs and maintenance. Clause 70 provides that any building which is used as a workplace shall be provided with adequate and satisfactory sanitary conveniences as the Commissioner may deem fit. Clause 72 provides for the proper care of sanitary conve niences that are used in common by members of the public or by the employees or in common by two or more families.

The obstruction, diversion, covering or any interference with any public drain or public water-course without prior approval in writing of the Com missioner is prohibited under clause 75. The construction and maintenance of private drains in a satisfactory state is provided for in clause 76.

Part X (General health requirements for buildings) contains a new measure whereby the Chief Building Surveyor may, under clause 80, consult the Commissioner on the health and sanitary requirements of any new buildings before approving any plans and specifications thereto, and, in so far as is possible, to give effect to any advice that may be tendered by the Commissioner. Clause 81 requires the owner or occupier or the lessee of any building to which the public have access to keep such building or portion thereof in a clean condition. The Commissioner is empowered under clause 82 to require employers to provide for their employees if the conditions or circumstances under which such employees work so warrant, suitable and sufficient facilities by way of mess rooms, rest rooms, canteens or changing rooms or to improve upon the same if the Commissioner considers the existing facilities inadequate. Under clause 83, the Commissioner may also direct the owner, occupier or lessee of any premises to take proper measures to control offensive conditions that may occur within his premises.

Part XI (Offensive trades) re-enacts with amendments existing provisions for the licensing of premises used for purposes of the offensive trades set out in the Second Schedule. This is provided in clause 85. Clause 87 authorises the Commissioner to prohibit the use of any particular place or area for all or any of the purposes set out in the Second Schedule.

Part XII (Swimming pools) provides for the first time for the licensing and control of swimming pools to which the public have access, whether or not admission is gained by payment. Within the ambit of this Part come swimming pools managed by hotels, clubs, associations or other organisations.

The Commissioner may close swimming pools under certain specified circumstances as set out in clause 91. The Minister is empowered to make regulations to provide for standards of cleanliness, purity of water in swimming pools and for regulating the conduct of persons admitted thereto. Swimming pools owned by Government come within the scope of this Part except provisions regarding licensing and penalties.

Part XIII (Funeral parlours, cemeteries and crematoria) introduces new provisions (clauses 95 and 96) with regard to the licensing and control of funeral parlours which are defined as premises where corpses are received fot purposes of preparation for burial or cremation and for carrying out funeral rites and ceremonies prior to burial or cremation. Clause 97 lays down that the corpse of any person who has died of any infectious disease set out in the Third Schedule shall not be received into a funeral parlour. The existing provisions in respect of cemeteries and crematoria have been incorporated with amendments.

Part XIV (Miscellaneous) contains various provisions necessary for effectively carrying out the functions and purposes of this Bill, namely:

(a) powers of entry, as provided in clause 108;

(b) protection of the officers from personal liability for any act or thing done under the Act;

(c) penalties for persons obstructing public officers from carrying out their duties under the Act; these are laid down in clause 111;

(d) obtaining mandatory order, as provided in clause 112;

(e) procedures for recovery of costs and expenses payable by owners; these are set out in clauses 119, 122, 123 and 124;

(f) services of notices, as required in clause 117;

(g) general provisions with regard to licences, as laid down in clause 127;

(h) the Commissioner may compound specified offences;

(i) the power of the Minister to make regulations is provided in clause 141; and

(j) the Commissioner in his discretion may under clause 144 exempt any class of persons or premises from any of the provisions of the Act for specified periods.

The Environmental Public Health Bill will make a major contribution towards improved environmental health practice in Singapore and its enactment is essential for a clean and healthy Singapore. I have every confidence that given the support and co-operation of the people, we shall make Singapore a cleaner and healthier place, not only in Southeast Asia, but comparable to the best in the world - a country of which we can be proud. We shall be establishing better living conditions for an urban community - norms which will make for a healthier, better and more pleasant life for everyone in Singapore. "These standards will keep morale high, the sickness rate low, and so create the necessary social conditions for higher economic growth in industry and in tourism." I have no doubt that this Bill will serve the short- and long, term objectives of Singapore well and enhance the environmental conditions of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

8.39 p.m.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand the necessity for the Minister for Health to introduce the Environmental Public Health Bill. The intention is good because he wants Singapore to become the cleanest city in this part of the world. In October, he launched an island-wide public health campaign which received the general support of people of all walks of life. He has now consolidated all the original laws on public health and has also incorporated new provisions into the Bill before the House. The move to introduce this Bill is worthwhile and will win the support of the people.

The Bill contains some very strict provisions which will affect the livelihood of our people, especially those living in the rural areas. These provisions, if strictly implemented, may cause a lot of inconvenience to them. Clause 24 which prohibits the use of night-soil or human excreta as manure is one such provision. Sir, I think you will agree with me that the rural people are generally poor. Their livelihood depends mainly on agriculture, the rearing of pigs, etc. They use human excreta as manure for the cultivation of vegetables. Those farmers who do not plant vegetables sell the excreta from their domestic animals. This excreta can also be used as fertiliser for vegetable gardening.

Some provisions in the Bill will cause hardship and an additional financial burden - to the farmers. One of the reasons is that they will have to spend money on the construction of a hygienic pond to collect manure and night-soil. This pond needs at least a few hundred dollars to build. Generally, the farmers are unable to shoulder such a burden.In addition to this, after constructing a hygienic pond to collect manure and night-soil, it is necessary for the farmers to engage people to do the collecting. of manure and night-soil. As a result, they will have to incur additional expenses. If they are unable to sell their manure, their income will decrease.

Another point is that if nightsoil or human excreta is not allowed to be used as manure, then the farmers will have to buy chemical fertilisers as a substitute. Chemical fertilisers are expensive and the farmers find it difficult to pay for them. This is an added financial burden on them and they will find it more difficult to make a living.

Sir, I hope that we will not be too strict in the implementation of the provisions of the Bill, otherwise the livelihood of the rural people will be greatly affected. I also hope that the Minister will deal with the problems carefully.

8.45p.m.

Mr Rodrigo: Mr Speaker, Sir, proceeding on the principle that brevity is the soul of wit, I shall try to be as brief as possible. Sir, much as I agree with the Minister that the campaign to get rid of dirt and squalor must be pursued relentlessly. I must express a regret that this Bill is being taken through tonight at this unearthly hour. Frankly speaking, Sir, in trying to go through the Bill last night, I managed to cover about 10 pages only and I came across 18 penalty clauses and about ten forced payment clauses whereby the Ministry officials can undertake construction or work and cause the defaulter to pay the Ministry the cost of that undertaking.

It is a harsh Bill, Sir. Some of the provisions are highly loaded and, in fact, some of them are double-barrelled. If I may refer the Minister, for example, to clause 26 (7) , which, in my opinion, is a provision that can impose excessive hardship. You will note, Sir, that this clause reads:

'Upon a person arrested in pursuance of a warrant issued under subsection (6) of this section being produced before it,..'

In other words, this is the case of the accused not having complied with the summons and therefore a warrant of arrest has been issued and the accused has been apprehended. It continues to read:

'...a Court shall proceed as though he were produced before it in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section and shall at the conclusion of such proceedings...'

That means the proceedings in sub-clause (1) . In other words, the accused shall be tried and, if found convicted, it says:

'... call upon him to show cause why he should not be punished for failing to attend in compliance with the notice delivered to him and if cause be not shown may order him to pay such penalty not exceeding two thousand dollars as the Court thinks fit or may commit him to prison for a term not exceeding two months.'

In other words, if the accused has not complied with the summons, a warrant is issued to arrest him and bring him before the Court. There he is tried for the substantive offence and convicted thereon. Having been convicted, he is also asked to show cause why he did not comply with the original summons in the first place and he is again convicted. Sir, this is what I mean by a double-barrelled provision. I think it is unnecessarily harsh.

Another unhappy clause, if I may refer the Minister to it, is clause 19 (2) which reads:

'Without prejudice to any proceeding& under subsection (1) of this section and whether before or after the commencement or conclusion of such proceedings, the cause of the nuisance may be removed by the Commissioner.'

This is where you might have a case pending, and it continues to say:

'...who may recover the costs and expenses thereby incurred from the occupier or the owner of the house or premises in the manner provided under section 119 of this Act.'

Where the accused is the occupier or owner of the house, there is a case proceeding against him and the nuisance: is removed. In other words, the exhibit of the case is removed and his whole case might depend on that exhibit. So, first of all, he is prejudiced to the extent that the exhibit is removed and,, secondly, he has got to pay the cost of the removal.

I am rather unhappy with such provisions. Perhaps the Minister may have some explanation because, as he said, the preparation of this Bill has taken about a year. But I must express a regret that this is a harsh Bill and, unfortunately, we do not have sufficient time to ponder over it.

8.50 p.m.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin (Jalan Kayu): Mr Speaker, Sir, like the Member for Jurong, I feel compelled to voice my apprehension over the likely adverse effects upon the agricultural sector if certain clauses of the Bill are to be enforced immediately. The Member for Jurong has touched upon clause 24 and other clauses in the Bill where the farming communities are likely to be affected.

I would request that a period of grace be allowed after this Bill has become law, during which time the attention of the communities may be drawn more closely to the changes under the law. In this regard, perhaps some arrangements can be made with the various centres of the Primary Production Department and the community centres in the rural areas whereby they will help in explaining to the farmers the practical implications of the relevant sections under the law. In all cases of offences in the rural areas, warnings should preferably be issued first before any punitive action is taken during the initial period of implementation.

In putting forward this appeal on behalf of the rural folk, I should perhaps mention that in a number of areas in the rural districts there are still inade quate sewerage and drainage systems. The disposal of rubbish is also a headache in the absence of provision for a collection service by the Public Health Department. I fully appreciate that with the process of redevelopment going on continuously it will be wasteful to spend vast sums of money on the improvement of sewers and drains in areas which are scheduled for redevelopment shortly. But in those areas which are unlikely to be redeveloped in the foreseeable future, perhaps something can be done to carry out the necessary improvements which will have a direct bearing on en vironmental health.

On the question of disposal of rubbish in the rural areas, I understand that the matter is being considered by the Minister, and I shall appreciate it if the Minister can advise the House whether any plan has been formulated.

[Mr Lim Cheng Lock temporarily in the Chair]

8.53 p.m.

Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon: (In Mandarin): Sir, after one month of the "Keep Singapore Clean" campaign, we can say that we have achieved some improvements in our public health. In order to ensure a continuation of this high standard, the Minister has tabled in this House a Bill known as the Environmental Public Health Bill.

This Bill is being introduced with all good intentions and deserves our support. But in the enforcement of this Bill there are some technical problems and difficulties which may give rise to public inconvenience and we have some misgivings about it. From November this year, the Ministry of Health has taken action to ensure the observance of a high standard of public health among the people. I have since received several complaints against police officers and public health inspectors for their unreasonableness. According to the law, every hawker is required to provide a receptacle beside his stall and to maintain general hygienic conditions around his stall. The provision does not clearly say whether that has to be complied with during the peak hours of business.

There is one bean-sprouts (tow gay) hawker who is licensed to do business in the morning and when he is kept busy during morning business hours, action is taken against him for not keeping his pitch area clean. There is another place where the unlicensed hawkers customarily congregate. One morning, after the unlicensed hawkers were chased away by the Housing and Development Board staff, there was a heap of rubbish left outside a coffee-shop. Soon after, two policemen came and took down the particulars of the coffee-shop owner for an offence for which he was not responsible. From these instances, we can see that the law enforcement officers did not know what they should do so as not to cause any unhappiness among members of the public.

I hope the Minister will take note of this and give suitable instructions to the officers regarding this matter.

8.57 p.m.

Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng: Sir, I can only speak as the Member for Joo Chiat. Jon Chiat constituency is a relatively clean area compared with many other areas. But there are a number of black spots. These are the kampongs and back-lanes. The properties in the kampongs are mainly privately owned and are not very healthy due to the presence of the cesspools there. A lack of proper drainage has caused these cesspools to be formed. They are thus found in the low-lying areas of these kampongs. Not unnaturally, mosquitoes and flies thrive, leading to a mosquito or fly "population explosion". I am afraid the owners of the properties in these kampongs are not particularly susceptible to verbal or polite requests to construct proper drainage systems for their properties. Sir, clause 76 of the Bill will undoubtediy go far towards improving the hygienic and health standards of the dwellers in these kampongs and also in the surrounding areas when proper drainage is enforced.

Back-lanes are also one of my headaches. Back-lanes were originally used for night-soil collection and perhaps even for fire escape purposes. Today, with the introduction of a modern sewerage system in Joo Chiat, the back-lanes have been neglected by the health authorities and are slowly but surely reverting to miniature lalang jungles. This is not a tribute to Singapore as a garden city. The inhabitants of the houses flanking these back-lanes are also contributing to their deterioration by using them as dumping grounds. Admittedly, Sir, the "Keep Singapore Clean" campaign did help clean up this place a bit. But this is not good enough because nowhere in the Bill, no matter how harsh it is, can I see any constructive proposals to do something to these neglected back-lanes. They have been so neglected that unless some measures are taken to clean them up, none of us will be proud of them. Can some measures be taken to have them cemented so that they will become playgrounds for our thousands of children who live in the houses flanking them?

The Member for Serangoon Gardens says that this Bill is harsh. In my opinion, Sir, the Bill should be harsher. It is only by being harsh that our citizens will realise the necessity for a cleaner and healthier Singapore. I am sure through the efforts of a very determined Minister for Health and also equally determined members of his staff, Singapore will be healthier and cleaner in the years to come.

9.00p.m.

Mr Lee Teck Him: (In Mandarin): Sir, a few moments ago, the Minister for Health moved the Second Reading of a Bill which is fascist in character. This is not correct because ours is a democratic country. The "Keep Singapore Clean" campaign was started about a month ago and overnight Singapore looked different. Why should there be a need for such a Bill now? Singapore was already clean enough before this Bill was brought up. We must use persuasion on the people to cultivate the habit of cleanliness. We must not impose heavy penalties to force them to do so. We can hold competitions in cleanliness among them and encourage them to adopt clean habits. They have been making progress without the imposition of harsh laws. A committee comprising representatives of hawkers, market stallholders and flat-dwellers - in fact, representatives of people from all walks of life - should be set up to look after public health. We do not have to resort to harsh laws being rushed through this Parliament to promote public health. In my opinion, this ~ not a proper way of going about it.

Mr P. Selvadurai (Bukit Panjang): Sir, I certainly would not like to be accused of approaching this Bill with a pitiless heart as evinced by the Member for J00 Chiat and perhaps even by the Minister for Health.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

9.04 p.m.

Mr P. Selvadurai (Bukit Panjang): But I think it may be proper for me to say that the Bill has come at the right time after the right psychological attitudes have been developed among the people of Singapore as a result of the recent health campaign. The Bill introduces for the first time, under pain of penal sanctions, a complete system of hygiene which is necessary if we are to cash in and see to it that we do not fall back on past misdemeanours after the health campaign that we have gone through. It is true to say that the penal clauses introduced all over the Bill are a bit severe. In fact, as a lawyer trained in the rudiments of humanism, I think the penal clauses go against the grain. It may be difficult for doctors to understand this!

I would like to expand a little bit on Part XIII of the Bill which, as the Minister has said, consolidates existing provisions in so far as a crematorium is concerned. We have an old crematorium in Mount Vernon which, unfortunately, is not being used as effectively as it ought to be. Most people do not know of its existence. I would like to say that, for all these people who are not inhibited by either convictions or religion, some kind of campaign ought to be started by the Ministry of Health to encourage the use of this crematorium so that we can be spared the use of a lot of land which is a very precious commodity in Singa pore. The Ministry could start an educative campaign for people - especially before they die - so that they may be able to convert their respective families to the view that once they die they would want their bodies to be cremated instead of buried. If this kind of transformation can be brought about,, then, of course, a lot of land will be saved and we will not have to go into the problem of exhumation.

In the context of the severe penal clauses, I would also like to refer to clauses 109 and 110. Severe inroads have already been made into the rights of private property. I think these two clauses are a bit too much. They give unnecessary powers to the authorities concerned with regard to the payment of compensation to the owners of property. Clause 109 deals with the power to enter on lands adjacent to works and to take over the lands for specific purposes. Clause 110 exonerates people who take over the lands from whatever misdemeanours they may have committed in the course of their duties. I wonder sometimes whether such provisions are necessary not merely in this particular Bill but also in other Bills which are being brought up in this Parliament by the Government.

Apart from this, I would like to congratulate the Minister on having introduced this Bill. It may be a necessarily painful Bill, but I think many of the penal clauses could have been watered down and made far more humane. Perhaps in the application of the Bill itself, some form of humanism will be shown by the authorities concerned.

9.09 p.m.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the various. Members who spoke in support of or at least agreed in principle with the Bill.

May I reply to certain valid points raised by hon. Members in order to clarify the whole position? The first refers to the prohibition of the sale of night-soil and the prohibition of the use of night-soil as manure. This point was raised by the Member for Jurong and the Member for Jalan Kayu. Mr Speaker, Sir, from the health point of view, night-soil, in fact, is not a suitable manure for vegetables. In April this year, the day after I took office, we had a cholera epidemic. I think common sense will tell us - apart from the advice of doctors that it is very dangerous to use night-soil as manure. There can be a severe epidemic outbreak in Singapore if the night-soil is contaminated. This is definitely not in the interest of the community at large. I do sympathise in the same way as other Members with the plight of the farmers. But I believe that farmers should keep up with the times. After all, we are now living in a technological age. The farmers should switch over to the use of artificial manure or other types of manure than human excreta.

The Member for Jalan Kayu said that a certain period of grace should be given before the provisions in the Bill are implemented. Mr Speaker, Sir, we in the Health Ministry are reasonable people. We always give the required warnings. As I have often said, we only punish the incorrigibles and the recalcitrants. In fact, many of the summonses issued are against those people who are quite incorrigible. But when they come to the "meet-the-people" session, they tell sad stories and make themselves out as very pleasant people and paint the public health officers as devils. I can assure hon. Members that public health officers act with discretion and that action is taken only after warnings have been issued.

The Member for Serangoon Gardens and the Member for Bukit Panjang remarked that this is a harsh Bill. I do realise that both the hon. Members are members of the legal profession. They do have to plead in mitigation when they go to court. So I can well understand the thinking that prompted them to say that the Bill is too harsh. On the other hand, the Member for J00 Chiat is more a realistic person. He said that the Bill does not go far enough. I leave it to Members of the House to judge for themselves. We should not whittle down the clauses of the Bill in such a way as to make it ineffective. If we pass a Bill with no teeth in it, our time here will have been wasted. I would like to inform hon. Members that we in the Health Ministry are reasonable people and that we will use our discretion when we implement the Bill. Contrary to what the Member for Ulu Pandan has said, we are not Fascists in our attitude. Unfortunately, having made the accusation, the Member has left this Chamber. He has not waited for a reply. Incidentally, if he says that we are undemocratic, I cannot see how more democratic we can be than by having this debate on all the provisions of the Bill. Unfortunately, the Member for Ulu Pandan having made the accusation has left the Chamber.

Another point is this. There was much mention about the costs and expenses to be recovered from work that is undertaken by the Health Ministry. Unless we have such a provision, I am afraid it will not be effective, because if we do not recover the costs and expenses, then everyone will create nuisances and just invite the Health Ministry to do the work. They will get the work done free and this will encourage them to create more nuisances in the future. On the other hand, now that we have the provision to recover costs and expenses, I am quite sure that it will be a deterrent to members of the public not to create such nuisances.

The Member for Tiong Bahru did say something about the rudeness of several Health Ministry officials who implemented the law after 1st November. This is the first time I have heard such a complaint from him. As a matter of fact, we in the Health Ministry welcome such complaints. If there is any specific allegation, we will certainly look into it. We have even set up an "Operations Room" and the Member for Tiong Bahru can just take up the telephone and make his complaint. In other words, the Health Ministry is giving every facility not only to the Member for Tiong Bahru but also to members of the public to lodge their complaints.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chua, the Member for Ulu Pandan has come back!

Mr Chua Sian Chin: I am glad, Mr Speaker, Sir, that he has come back. If there are any complaints of rudeness on the part of Health Ministry officials, I would invite not only the Member for Tiong Bahru but every Member of this House to specify the allegations so that we can look into them and appropriate action can be taken. In fact, we will be extremely grateful to members of the public to come forward with the complaints. As hon. Members know, we are waging a war against filth and squalor. To win such a war, we need sufficient "intelligence" of what is going on outside. In fact, we regard such complaints as "intelligence" information and we can very well use it.

I come now to the point brought up by the Member for Joo Chiat about some black spots in Joo Chiat consti tuency. Here again, the Member for Joo Chiat is quite free to take up the telephone and make his complaints to our Operations Room and they will be attended to. What I wish to point out is this. The question of back-lanes being turned into slums is a general problem which I do not think the Health Ministry alone can solve. It needs a number of Ministries to deal with it. If a person puts up an illegal structure in a back-lane and lives in it, it does need action by way of resettlement. I do not think the Health Ministry alone can deal with the question of resettlement.

I come now to the question of lalang and the cementing of back-lanes. As far as lalang jungle or tertiary or secondary jungle being allowed to grow in back-lanes is concerned, although it is not specifically dealt with in this Bill, there are provisions in the Destruction of Disease-Bearing Insects Act to deal with this problem, if the Member for Joo Chiat remembers. If it does create nuisances or causes the breeding of insects, appropriate action can be taken under the Act. With regard to the cementing of back-lanes, as the Minister for Health, I would be happy to have back-lanes cemented because that would solve my problem. But the Member for Joo Chiat will understand that it does need money to buy the cement and get the work done. As our Finance Minister told us last week, we have to operate within a certain budget. I suggest the Member for Joo Chiat go round with the Citizens' Consultative Committee and collect some money for this job. The work of cementing the back-lanes can then be undertaken.

The Member for Ulu Pandan also said that there was no necessity for this Bill to be passed. He said that what we need do is just to persuade people, hold competitions and give rewards and so on. He said that the success of the campaign which we launched in October indicated that by talking to people, per suading them, holding competitions, we could get a cleaner Singapore. If that were true, I would be very happy. We need not then enforce the law to see that health hazards are not created. I am afraid I do not subscribe to such idealism. Even in the "Keep Singapore Clean" campaign, which was the final effort to put the message across, there was always at the back of the minds of the people the thought that law enforcement would follow as from 1st November, and that did, to some extent, contribute to making Singapore a cleaner place. It was not just the com petitions and persuasion.

Another point brought up by the Member for Ulu Pandan was that, by having a committee consisting of members of the public - hawkers and market stall-holders they would be in a better position to keep Singapore clean. If that could be done, I would gladly relinquish my post as Health Minister and allow this committee to operate. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, my experience of committees is that there is always a lot of talk but very little action.

Finally, a very relevant point was brought up by the Member for Bukit Panjang concerning the Mount Vernon Crematorium. According to him, very few people know about its existence and we should organise a campaign to publicise its existence. I cannot agree with him more that greater use should be made of the crematorium because of the shortage of land for burial. But I believe we have other more urgent public health matters to organise campaigns on than on the use of this crematorium. I believe I have now covered the whole ground of the debate on this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Chua Sian Chin.]

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.