Houses of wildlife in the town of the White Swan. — File photo
OF the many issues which the nation faces today, two made disturbing news midweek. First, the proposal by the Ministry of Health to separate the current practice of dispensing medicines to outpatients. From the point of view of pharmacists, it is high time for the divorce to take place as the cost of medicine may be less expensive to the ailing consumers. That assertion I cannot buy. From my perspective, it works the other way round.
The separation of authority may come as early as April, if the Bill currently being prepared by the Attorney General’s Chambers goes to cabinet and thence to Parliament and Parliament passes it into law. When a machine, like the present system, is not breaking down, why is it necessary to fix it?
Consider this scenario
A septuagenarian with a swollen leg hobbles, with a crutch, to see his favourite doctor in the city where parking is a problem. The doctor has a good look at his foot and declares it’s gout all right. Then Dr writes the prescription in Greek and tells the poor man to hand it to a pharmacist in another part of the city where parking is impossible.
Under such circumstances would you not expect an otherwise mild-mannered gentleman in pain to turn into a grumpy old man as he used to get his medicines without any problem from the same doctor, from the dispensary attached to the clinic within the same premises, but now can no longer do so without incurring more expenditure.
Where’s the cheaper medicine that the pharmacists are talking about, I ask. The fuel for the car (for the man is in no condition to walk well), the higher consultation fee charged by the doctor, the medicine by the pharmacist and more importantly the hassle and worry will be enough to kill the poor sufferer. Please spare a thought for him. He may well be your favourite grandfather.
We shall leave the separation problem to the Malaysian Medical Association (MMA) to handle and to deal with the government. They are there for a reason: to protect the good name of their healing profession and, as proud holders of the Aesculapius Staff, to protect the interests of the people in their care.
The MMA has assured us that there will be no change to the present system while the draft law is being fine tuned by the Attorney General’s Chambers. To pray for its stillbirth in the chambers would not be kind, but that’s what many people like me would like to see.
However, the MMA says that the country is not quite ready yet to implement this system because there are not many pharmacies, especially in the rural areas. Correct, correct, correct. Unless you count the bomohs who provide consultancy services, mutter inaudible prayers and dispense medicines on the spot similar to the present practice in the country today.
While the AG Chambers works on the 170 Section draft legislation, we hope our Members of Parliament will be prepared to examine the implications of the Bill before it is presented to Parliament.
To Sibu now
The other bad news is about the difficulty experienced by the Sibu Municipal Council in tracing the owners of abandoned houses under its jurisdiction. Those buildings have been harbouring rats of all sizes, mosquitoes of all descriptions, snakes of all lengths and colours, and possibly addicts of various drugs.
Both issues – separation of a doctor from his dispensary and the abandoned houses in Sibu – are important issues for a serious debate; sensible citizens would be failing in their duty if the separation proposal is left entirely to the government to decide alone and then grumble later. The same applies to those abandoned houses in Sibu. I lump them together today because they are important but I’ll stick to the Sibu problem more than the other, which is being competently treated by the MMA.
I’m frankly puzzled by the report that, according to the secretary of the Sibu Municipal Council, there are lawyers acting for the owners of those houses. That’s the obvious way of tracing the owner – ask his lawyer. No lawyer will act for a client without the latter’s appointment by means of a warrant to act.
One finds it hard to understand that a local government like the Sibu Municipal Council, with ample power and authority, has had a real problem of abandoned houses on its laps for a long time. Some of those houses were built some 50 years ago and abandoned for ages. Is it indifference on the part of the owners and just simple inertia on the part of the authorities or is there some other consideration like the hearts and minds. And votes, if I may add?
There are existing laws to deal with abandoned houses in Sarawak, for instance, under Part V11 (Miscellaneous Powers and Duties of Local Authorities). These may not be the same provisions used by the SMC today but they certainly existed in the Local Authority Ordinance of 1948 unless in the meantime it has been abandoned or repealed altogether.
It would be presumptuous of little me to tell the SMC what to do with the abandoned houses in that town. They know better about the existing legislation than I do.
However, the old law is of immense interest to the history buffs, many of whom are members of the Friends of the Sarawak Museum and it is to them that I would pass this information for all it is worth.
Look for a copy of the Ordinance (Sarawak Cap117) incorporating all amendments and modifications up to Dec 31, 1967, read it and find out if it applies to Sibu and other places in other districts in Sarawak. Note that every inch of Sarawak is under the jurisdiction of local authorities called by various names with their own powers.
Relevant is Clause 37: “If, in the opinion of the local authority, any building or part of thereof, or anything affixed thereon – (a) is in a ruinous state, or likely to fall, or is in any way dangerous to the occupiers thereof, or to a neighbouring building, or to the public; (b) is unfit for human habitation by reason of defective structure, ventilation or sanitation; (c) is in such a state as to be a nuisance or injurious or dangerous to health; or (d) unduly obstructs light or air from any other building, the local authority may, by notice in writing, order, within a time to be stated in the notice, the owner or occupier of such building to demolish and remove such building, or such part thereof as may be specified in the notice.”
There you are, mates. Perhaps, after this, some members of FoSM should lobby for the post of councillor in one of the councils. Good luck.
Your platform is to pull down those buildings which have no historical value. The tourists do not come to see buildings infested with dangerous wildlife. They prefer to see the orang-utans and the crocodiles. These guys are better protected than humans, I tell you.
Comments can reach the writer via [email protected].