December, 28, 1907.)
The REGISTRAR-GENERAL minuted :-After the opinions of the members of the Board have been obtained this paper might be referred to a mb-committee consisting of Messrs. Fung Wa-chnen, Lau Chu-pak, Dr. Clark and myself. Mr. LAU CHU-PAK wrote as follows in reply to the minute of the Medical Officer of Health-
|
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
409
(e) A modification of the Praya Reclamation Ordinance has been granted allowing houses of the northern block open spaces as shown on the plan.
This corps, when formed, will, I hope, be able to do more good in promoting sanitary improve- ments than an army of foremen and coolies in the pay of the Sanitary Department. In the case of a coolie tenant, the suggested amend- (d) It was also agreed that a modification of ment still empowers the Board to carry out the the Praya Reclamation Ordinance should be disinfecting work by its own staff.
granted, if required, to enable latrines to be (4) I fail to see how the adoption of the suggest-erected in the back yards left for the houser
after the formation of the 22 ft. lane,
(e) Another modification was granted per mitting houses to exceed fifteen feet in height.
(9) In respect to these reputed modifications I reply as follow:-
with the necessary disinfectants, hot water and soap.
This systematic cleansing is one of the most valued protective measures and I advise that it be continued. It is the duty of the Sanitary Board to prevent disease, not to wait till it is epidemic before moving in the matter. "Officer of the Banitary Department" is already defined in section 19 of the Ordinance. I do not see any objectioned amendment can affect the general cleansing of to the alteration of the hour from 5 a.m. to 8 the town, which had been in vogue long before a.m. in the second paragraph of bye-law 1. Ordinance 15 of 1694 was enacted. The present (5) "Improperly lodged means the same byelaw was remodelled from byslaw 25 made thing as the phrase suggested and is the under section 13 of that Ordinance. In the old wording of the home act and expresses in my days, during the cleansing period, the inhabitants opinion all that is necessary.
were given every facility for carrying out the work, & full supply of water being turned on and dust-carts sent round to remove the refuse taken out of the different homes. The cleansing, though not so often as now, was done three times a year, and notice was each time issued by the Registrar General informing the inhabitants of the facilities given them. The evil of dumping dead bodies was, apparently, brought on by the introduction of a new law in 1894, and even at that time the byelaw above referred to was only enforced during the prevalence of an epidemio. Conditions are now different. Public dispensaries having been established by the Chiness to co-operate with the Board, and more facilities given by the authorities in regard to their domestic comfort, the present bys-law, No. 1, should be so modified as to conform to existing conditions. If, however, it is deemed necessary to legalize the present pro- cedure of general cleansing, a clause can easily be inserted to that effect, leaving out all the other measures mentioned in the bye-law to be enforced only in time of spidemio. The power of entering houses without notice should never be vested in the subordinate offers.
(1) My object in suggesting that the Chinese should be given the option of treating their sick in their own houses, or if that is not feasible, to treat them in an appointed house in the immediate neighbourhood is to induce them to come forward unreluctantly to report osses of sickness during the plague season. Theore tically, it is, no doubt, advisable to have every plague patient properly isolated, bat I fail to see how this on be done in practice, as the Chinese do not like to part with their sick, until there is no hope of saving them, and it is only human nature, especially in the cases of husband and wife and mother and child, that they should do so. It has been amply known from ex- perience that the Chinese would rather conceal their sick until the last moment, and dump their dead in cases where their fellow lodgers would be involved in trouble, in order to avoid detection, than to submit to foroible removal. Would it not, therefore, be better to allow them the option of treating their sick in their own houses, or in some places, where the relatives can tend and soothe the minds of their sick by being present more often, thus ensuring the disinfec- tion of every infected building and placing every plague patient under proper surveillance! The byelaw as to isolation has proved to be a failure, it is time that some new scheme should be tried, Moreover, it has transpired that plague is after all not so infections, and so complete isolation
might not be insisted upon,
(2) If it is impossible to prove that a Chinese patient knows that he is suffering from an infections desease, why retain this part of the section i It appears to me that it is most undesirable to make it illegal for a patient to hire a vehicle for his own conveyance.
This matter was referred to a commi tee con. sisting of the Registrar-General, Mr. Fung Wa-chun and the Medical Officer of Health MR. HOOPER AND THE GOVERNOR-IN-COUNCIL.
Mr. HOOPER submitted a long minute as follows:-My reasons for proposing that the recommendations of the Sanitary Board that the modification of the requirements of section 188 of the Public Health and Building Ordinance in respect of houses on Marine Lot 57, and which were to be approved by the Governor- in-Council, should be referred back to the | Governor-in-Council for further consideration
are as follows:-
(1) That Professor Simpson in bis report to the Secretary of State recommended that every house should have a latrine.
(2) That placing a latrine on the roof in the proposed position is the best.
(3) That although the latrine does increase the height of the portion when in the front it is a much more sanitary position than placing it in the centre of the building on the roof which the applicant entitled to do without any permission.
(4) That if the proposed erection were a brick chimney occupying exactly the same position, no permission would be required.
(5) That the Board unanimously recommended the Governor-in-Council to grant the applica- tion. Three members of the Board were absent namely, the Director of Public Works, Mr. Fung Wa-chan and Lieut. Col. Rid.
(6) That the Medical Officer of Health recommended the Board to grant the applica- tion, and the Principal Civil Medical Offloor wrote to the Colonial Secretary and informed him of the views of the Medical Offour of Health.
(3) I think my intention has been misinter- preted. It has never occurred to me to dis- courage the present system of house cleansing during the plague season, As a matter of fact, it was I who first advocated this method of cleansing by the Chinese residents themselves as a measure to replace the harsh fumigation with oblorine. I am glad that it now merits the appreciation of the M. O. H. My intention simply aims at having moh amendments in- troduced as will allow the better class of Chinese and the shopkeepers to do the cleansing and dis- infecting work themselves, even when a case of plague takes place on their premises. During Dr. Pearse's regime, it was arranged through the Honourable Registrar General that the occupiers of the upper or lower floor of a hous other thau the floor on which the death occurs, should be permitted to wash and disinfect their own floors, if they should so wish and if the officer in charge of the cleansing gang thought the work could be so done satisfactorily. The Chinese have since gladly availed themselves of this concession. Why should, in the case of the infected floors, a similar concession not be granted to them? The work will also be carried out under the supervision of the M. O. H. or his deputies. I need scarcely repeat that the Chinese are strongly averse to the foremen and the coolies of the Sanitary Department invading their homes, I may here mention (b) The Government has agreed to purchase that the Honourable Registrar General, a strip of land in the centre of the block at the with the co-operation of the Chinese members rate of $8 per foot in order to improve the of the Board, and some other Chinese proposed building scheme, Ordinance I of 1903, gentlemen, is forming a "Kaifong" corps or giving the necessary powers for curtailing the committees of a few men in every street to | depth of houses erected on the Praya. This is assist the Government in checking dumping. more than a modification.
(7) That it was not until the notification came rom the Government that the Governor.in. Council refused to great the modification recommended, that the Director of ublic Works stated that the applicant had been granted several other modifications.
(8) These several modifications he stated are as follows:-
(a) The godowns are permitted to project into the back yard spaces of the ground floor to the extent of six feet subject to certain conditions, This is a modification of section 180.
(a) This modification was applied for by the architects and granted only on condition that the remainder of the yard of these houses was thrown into the 20 feet road the Government / wished to form through the property; the owner had no option but to accept this, otherwise the permit for the verandahs of the northern block would have been refused.
(b) No modification. Government desired road 22 ft. wide through this property, and have resumed a strip eight feet in width. The remainder has been acquired from the owɑer without payment, the granting of a permit for the above mentioned verandaba being a lever used to obtain the result. If the Governm at had been so seriously concerned about the alleged insanitary condition of these houses it would have b en quite simple to have resumed and paid for the whole 22 feet, and thus have necessitated the owner curtailing the depth of his houses by setting back the rear walla so 3.8 to fulfil the requirements of the Prays reclamation scheme as to back yards.
14
(c) No modification, or if so, only a technical sone. The Prays Reclamation and the Build. ing Ordinance are not in agreement. 'T'he open space required for these houses under the former was provided by the owner. The latter ordinance says
no kitchen shall extend soross more than the width of A house." This necessitated the altering of the shʊp yards so s to meet this requirement. It is distinctly beneficial to the houses from a sanitary point of view, and not of the slightest benefit to the owner financially.
(d) No a. plication for a modification neoos- sary. The Prays Reclamation Ordinance re- quires a yard of a certain size, and the Building Ordinance says latrines may be erected in yarda,
(e) No modification. The Building Ordinance eunota "No storey shall exceed fifteen feet without the permission of the Building Autho rity who in such case shall pre-oribe to what extent, if any, the walls shall be increased in thickness." The exercise of discretionary powers by the Building Authority with regard to the necessary strength of walls when they are more than fifteen feet high cannot be called a modification of the Ordinance.
(10) With regard to the back yards. It is governed by subsection (a) of section 180, as the land forms part of the Prays reclamation, and it is in the knowledge of the Government that this subsection was specially put in the Public Health and Buildings Ordioaños on account of the agreement entered into between the Government and the owner who reclaimed the land, as without this subsection the owner would have been entitled to compensation.
(11) Subsection 2 of section 151 provides that these houses need not have lateral windows open- ing into external sir, as the Crown fosse specially provides for the erection of houses on this land of a greater depth than 40 feet.
The DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, replied as follows:-
I do not consider it necessary to deal seriatim with the points raised in Mr. Shelton Hooper's minate of the 22nd ultimo, as many are beside the question. The facts as far as they relate to the application before the Board for permission to areot latrines on the roofs of the southern block of houses are as follows:-
(u) The land is being built on for the first time and there is therefore no question of the owner having any claim, morally or otherwise, of his having formerly possessed latrines on the roofs.
(b) It is quite possible to erect houses of an improved and sanitary type without requiring any modifications but the owner elects to erect houses of the old type sad of such depth as to constitute them insanitary.
The following are the depths of the houses :- two at 81 feet, one at 79, one at 74, one at 68, ons at 55, one at 44 and one at 36 feet.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.