| Parliament No: | 2 |
| Session No: | 1 |
| Volume No: | 29 |
| Sitting No: | 6 |
| Sitting Date: | 29-12-1969 |
| Section Name: | BILLS |
| Title: | ABORTION BILL (As reported from Select Committee) |
| MPs Speaking: | Mr Chua Sian Chin (Minister for Health); Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Prime Minister); Mr Wee Toon Boon (Acting Minister for Culture); Inche Rahmat Bin Kenap; Madam Chan Choy Siong; Mr Ho See Beng; Mr Lee Teck Him; Mr Ng Kah Ting; Mr P. Govindaswamy; Mr Sia Khoon Seong; Mr P. Coomaraswamy (Mr Speaker); |
|
Column: 319
ABORTION BILL
(As reported from Select Committee)
Order read for resumption of debate on Question
[23rd December, 1969], "That the Bill be now read a
Third time." - [Mr Chua Sian Chin].
Question again proposed.
3.22 p.m.
Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, many people believe that the
primary object of the Abortion Bill is to provide
an additional check on the population growth of
Singapore, particularly when contraceptives fail.
If this is truly the primary intention of the Bill,
then I cannot accept it.
Family planning in Singapore has been a great
success and our crude birth rate has fallen
dramatically in recent years to 2.3 per cent. For
this, I must congratulate the former and present
Ministers for Health, and I am sure with the
continued efforts by the present Minister on family
planning, the expected target of two per cent by
1970 will be within our reach. I therefore cannot
see the need to introduce this Bill.
My contention is that despite the great advances
made in science, now that man is able to travel to
the moon, man is still unable to create human life
in a science laboratory. Since we cannot create
human life, we have no right to destroy human life.
Except for medical emergencies when both the lives
of the mother and the unborn baby are at stake, and
unless the resort to abortion can save at least the
Column: 320
mother, I cannot agree to abortion under any other
circumstances.
I am aware that population control is absolutely
necessary for the preservation and even survival of
the community, but is it necessary at this stage of
great success in family planning that we should
resort to killing of the foetus in order to control
population growth? The Minister has not proposed
that it be made illegal for anyone to have five,
10 or even 12 children, though the father may be
deprived of income tax relief, free primary
education, etc, in respect of the fourth and
subsequent children. Yet it should be pointed out
that for every abortion done to reduce the number
of births by one, its effect is cancelled by the
many unwanted births to others who already have
several children. Therefore, the answer seems to
lie not in abortion, but in compulsory birth
control for people with more than, say, two or
three children. Mr Speaker, Sir, with due respect
to the Minister, I cannot accept the Bill.
In conclusion, I would leave this thought with
the House - if this Bill had been introduced, say,
50 years ago, would we be so fortunate as to have
all our 11 Ministers with us today?
The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the noticeable trends in
developed countries is that parents with more
education have much smaller families than those
with less education. This trend is also discernible
in urbanised, though still underdeveloped,
societies like Singapore. If these trends continue
to their logical conclusions, then the quality of
the population will go down.
In all societies, there are the more intelligent
and the less intelligent. Professor Richard Lynn, a
member of the Economic and Social Research
Institute, Dublin, wrote in the New Scientist of
20th March, 1969, that geneticists have come to the
conclusion that intelligence is principally
determined by heredity. One of the ways of
demonstrating this is through the study of
identical twins reared in different families.
Investigations in Britain, America and Denmark
Column: 321
have invariably revealed a high measure of
agreement between the I.Q.s of identical twins,
even though they have been reared in families of
different educational and cultural standards. The
I.Q. classification of the levels of the various
occupations was quoted by the same author as
follows:
Occupation Mean I.Q.
Higher professional and executive 150
Lower professional and executive 130
Highly skilled and Clerical 118
Skilled workers 108
Semi-skilled workers 97
Unskilled workers 86
It is not unlikely that many other attributes of
mind and body are also inherited. But whatever the
inheritance, man, more than any other living
creature, depends on nurturing and training for his
capacity to mature and to develop. Man needs to be
reared for one-third of his life span in order to
be productive for the next two-thirds. In highly
developed societies, students are supported for 25
to 27 years until they get their Ph.D.'s, and then
begin to repay their debt to society. His final
performance is affected by diet, health and
cultural, social and educational opportunities.
When the less educated who are also in the lower
income groups have large families, the problems
they create for their children are compounded.
Resources, time, attention and care, lavished on
one or two children, can nurture and develop the
endowments of the children to their fullest extent;
when spread and frittered over six or more in the
family, prevent any child from getting the chances
he could have had in a smaller family.
In urbanised Singapore, this can become an
acute problem. Free pre-natal care, post-natal
health and almost free medical services have
reduced infant mortality to the low rates of highly
developed countries. Free education and subsidised
housing lead to a situation
Column: 322
where the less economically productive people in
the community are reproducing themselves at rates
higher than the rest. This will increase the total
population of less productive people.
Our problem is how to devise a system of disincentives,
so that the irresponsible, the social delinquents, do not
believe that all the have to do is to produce their
children and the government then owes them and their
children sufficient food, medicine, housing, education
and jobs.
There are certain areas of activity over which
control by any government is both difficult and
repugnant. One such area is the choice of the
number of children a father and mother decide to
rear. One day the pressure of circumstances may
become so acute that attitudes must change. Until
such time when moral inhibitions disappear and
legislative or administrative measures can be taken
to regulate the size of families, we must try to
induce people to limit their families and give
their children a better chance. The quality of our
population depends on raising not only the I.Q.
level but also getting parents to care, nurture and
educate their children and to develop all those
other qualities so crucial to effective living
summed up in the word "character".
Every person, genius or moron, has a right to
reproduce himself. So we assume that a married pair
will want to be allowed two children to replace
them. This is already the average size family of
the skilled industrial worker in Europe. In
Singapore we still allow three for good measure.
Beyond the three children, the costs of subsidised
housing, socialised medicine and free education
should be transferred to the parent. We have
changed the priorities in public housing, by not
awarding more points for more children. One day we
may have to put disincentives or penalties on the
other social services.
By introducing this new abortion law together
with the companion voluntary sterilisation law, we
are making possible the exercise of voluntary
choice. But
Column: 323
we must keep a close watch on the result of the new
laws and the patterns of use which will emerge.
It is not unlikely that the people who will want
to restrict their families are the better educated
parents in better paid jobs. They are the people
who already understand that their children's future
depends on their being able to care for their
health, education and upbringing.
One of the crucial yardsticks by which we shall
have to judge the results of the new abortion law
combined with the voluntary sterilisation law will
be whether it tends to raise or lower the total
quality of our population. We must encourage those
who earn less than $200 per month and cannot afford
to nurture and educate many children never to have
more than two. Intelligent application of these
laws can help reduce the distortion that has
already set in. Until the less educated themselves
are convinced and realise that they should
concentrate their limited resources on one or two
to give their children the maximum chance to climb
up the educational ladder, their children will
always be at the bottom of the economic scale.
It is unlikely that the results will be
discernible before five years. Nor will the effect
be felt before fifteen to twenty years. But we will
regret the time lost if we do not now take the
first tentative steps towards correcting a trend
which can leave our society with a large number of
the physically, intellectually and culturally
anaemic.
3.36 p.m.
Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was expecting to see, as a
result of the numerous representations submitted,
some basic changes and amendments made by the
Select Committee on the Abortion Bill but this has
not been so. The Minister for Health in his
statement last Tuesday in this House stated that
there were some minor amendments but that there
were no substantial changes, though many
representations had been submitted to the Select
Committee. And studying the
Column: 324
Select Committee's Report, I am somewhat struck by
a number of points raised in it.
However, I do not wish to go back to those
points I made in this House on Tuesday, 8th April,
1969. My stand has not been changed since then and
I do not wish to waste Members' time by repeating
what I said then. Therefore, Sir, suffice that I
shall confine my remarks to the Report.
Firstly, it can be seen that out of 29 written
representations and not 33, Sir, the other four
were on the Voluntary Sterilization Bill - received
by the Select Committee on the Abortion Bill, there
were no less than 21 that were either opposed to
the Bill in principle or at least were opposed to
the present broadly worded "socio-economic" clause,
found in clause 5 (2) (b). In spite of this, it
appears to me that the Select Committee not only
did not see fit to propose any amendment to this
clause, but also they did not appear to have spent
very much time discussing the arguments against
this clause which were made in those
representations. The arguments put forth by some of
them I consider to be extremely well-founded and
forceful. Take Paper No. 14, in page A4l as an
example. I refer to points Nos. 7 to 12. These
people consider themselves as teachers who have a
responsibility to perform, and they are of the view
that clause 5 (2), if passed, will have ill-effects
"on the character of the nation". And so, too, have
many of the representations been made on the point
that the human foetus has at least some human
rights. Yet nowhere in the Minutes of Evidence do I
find the Select Committee seeking to have this
point discussed, much less conceded to. Surely,
this is the central issue: if the human foetus has
no human rights, then there is no need for any
legal restrictions on abortion; but if the foetus
does possess some human rights, then the law must
exercise extreme caution to protect those rights
from being violated. It is regretted that the
Select Committee did not seem to have thought fit
to raise the question of the rights of the foetus
at all.
Column: 325
This brings me, Sir, to another point about
which I feel very, very strongly. In referring to
those who sent in written representations on the
Abortion Bill, the Minister for Health in his
speech said in this House and I quote:
'Some took their stand in accordance with their
particular religious persuasion, although they of
course did not want openly to admit it.'
Mr Speaker, Sir, I consider this remark a
gratuitous insult to the authors of the
representations. It accuses them, by implication,
of insincerity, of concealment and of crookedness.
I consider it not only insulting but blatantly
unjust and uncalled for. I know that amongst the
memoranda sent in by religious organisations, the
largest number came from the Catholic bodies. Yet
reading the representations, do we find them
arguing that abortion should be prohibited because
the Catholic Church teaches that it is wrong? We do
not. We find them arguing that abortions should be
prohibited because it is bad for the nation. They
ask that their case should be judged not on the
merits of their religious beliefs but on the
strength of their arguments. We may agree or
disagree with their arguments, but we have no right
to doubt the integrity of those who oppose it. I am
a Catholic. I am also opposed to abortions. I am
opposed to abortions not because I am a Catholic -
Mr Chua Sian Chin: Hear, hear!
Mr Ng Kah Ting: - but because I think it is
wrong. Just as I am opposed to murder because I
think it is wrong. All Members of this House think
that murder is wrong too. You do not have to be a
Catholic, or for that matter a Hindu, a Muslim or a
Buddhist to think that abortion is wrong. I am
opposed to a liberalised abortion policy because I
think this would be bad for our nation.
It is very easy to write off the opposition to
this Bill as "religious objections". This saves us
the trouble of examining the rational arguments put
forward against it. This enables us to evade the
very pertinent questions raised, questions which
have nothing to do with religion
Column: 326
but which have a great deal to do with the welfare
of our people.
[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]
3.50 p.m.
Sir, it is clear from the number of
representations sent in that a considerable amount
of thought and care went into their preparation.
The authors of these representations were acting as
responsible citizens. They were fulfilling what
they considered to be their duty towards the State
by expressing their genuine misgivings about the
social consequences of this Bill. Instead of being
glad and grateful that there are such people,
people who are concerned about the welfare of the
nation, people with initiative to clarify their
misgivings, people with courage to express them,
the Minister for Health has seen fit to treat them
with ridicule and to brush them off with a cheap
smear, and I quote, "although they of course did
not want openly to admit it." This sort of attitude
on the part of the Minister is hardly calculated to
enhance the atmosphere of religious tolerance and
mutual respect for which Singapore has been
hitherto renowned.
Mr Chua Sian Chin: By imposing your views on others?
Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Minister, you will have plenty of time to
reply.
I now refer to my next point on "conscientious
objection" which is in respect of clause 10 (2) of
the Bill. It is gratifying to note that the Select
Committee has made it clear that a statement under
oath or on affirmation will establish proof of
conscientious objection. This is what the Minister
said. However, in dealing with sub-clause (3) of
clause 10, I am surprised to note that no
cognisance appears to have been taken of the
doctor's responsibility towards the foetus. Once
again, it seems to be assumed that the foetus has
no rights at all. In this connection, it seems to
me that the Minister for Health has misinterpreted
a clause in the Declaration of Geneva, because
twice in the
Column: 327
course of the examination of the witnesses, he
raised this point. I refer to pages B78 and B98,
paragraphs 591 and 750. The Declaration of Geneva
is, in part, reproduced in paragraph 32 of Dr S.
R. Salmon's representation, Paper No. 27. This
paragraph is in the Report at page A73. I quote:
'I will not permit considerations of religion,
nationality, race, party politics or social
standing to intervene between my duty and my
patient.'
I think, Sir, the clear and obvious meaning to it
is this. I will not refuse to treat a patient
because I disagree with his religion, or disapprove
of his nationality or dislike his race or abhor his
political views or consider his social standing as
beneath me. In other words, it is talking about the
religion of the patient and not about that of the
doctor. Furthermore, let us not forget that the
doctor who has conscientious objections to
abortion, objects to abortion precisely because he
sees it as being against his duty to one of his
patients. Sir, may I refer Members to page A50 of
the Select Committee's Report? Paragraph 10 of
Paper No. 21 reads:
'As doctors we consider it our duty to safeguard
the life and health of our patients. What non-medical people apparently fail to realise is that
when a pregnant woman comes to a doctor, the doctor
considers that he has two patients to look after.
This is not the opinion based on metaphysical or
theological speculation. This is a simple fact
based on scientific evidence.'
Moreover, since the Minister for Health is so
concerned about the Declaration of Geneva, I wish
that he had also referred to another clause in the
Declaration. In paragraph 32 of Paper No. 27,
reproduced on page A73 of the Report, the
Declaration reads:
'I will maintain the utmost respect for human life
from the time of conception;'.
Mr Chua Sian Chin: When is that?
Mr Ng Kah Ting: Ask yourself. You are a father; you should know.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
3.57 p.m.
In fact, Sir, what causes me a lot of uneasiness
in reading this Report is the
Column: 328
absence of any clear indication that the Select
Committee was convinced that abortion is a bad
thing and is to be reduced to a minimum. Sometimes
one could get the opposite impression and this is
understandable.
For instance, in discussing the question whether
the Abortion Bill is to be used as a means of
population control - I refer to the Minutes of
Evidence at page B37, paragraphs 254 and 256 - one
of the witnesses quoted the Minister for Health's
speech in this House:
'Another important benefit to our society that
would result from this Bill would be to lower the
rate of our population growth...'
And further on, the Chairman said, and I quote with
your permission, Sir:
'We must recognise one point, and that is, every
abortion performed under this Bill, when it is law,
will, whatever its purpose, play a part in
population control.'
This is undoubtedly true.
Mr Chua Sian Chin: So what!
Mr Ng Kah Ting: But one searches in
vain for any expression of regret that abortions
should be performed at all. The impression I get,
Sir, is that the Select Committee's attitude was:
Well, abortions are being performed; they will
continue to be performed. Some people think that
this is undesirable, so we will make a few minor
amendments to placate them. We will merely change
"risk to the life of the pregnant woman" to
"serious risk" and so on. But we will leave
untouched the most controversial clause - the socio-economic clause and the environmental clause which
can be interpreted broadly enough to suit any
purpose. And then we will see what happens. If
things work out badly, we can always amend the law
again. In the meantime, we note that abortions
reduce the population growth.
Apparently, the Minister for Communications hit
the nail on the head when he was reported to have
said:
'With family planning a success and legislation of
abortion on the cards, I envisage that whichever
government is in power in the late '70s would have
seriously to consider whether or not to offer baby
bonuses to mothers, in order to check the fast
falling birth rate that would prevail in Singapore
at that time.' [The Sunday Times dated 21st
December, 1969, page 1].
Column: 329
So, today this House passes this Bill to liberalise
the law on abortion. But what I am afraid is that
the House in the late seventies, which is some ten
years away, may have to forbid abortion and may
come up with another Bill - to offer mothers-to-be-hence baby bonuses! Can you see what irony!
Therefore, if we try to look ahead ten years hence,
I am sure many Members in this House, who will
definitely be around, will then sadly sigh, "We
made a terrible mistake in 1969!".
Sir, perhaps the House will be interested to note
further that an article in The Sunday Times of the
same date and captioned: "A Sunday Times Inquiry"
Mr Speaker: Mr Ng, if you quote, you might refer to the
headlines. Holding the newspaper up will hardly
enable Members to identify the article to which you
refer.
Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I have already mentioned that it is The
Sunday Times dated 21st December, 1969, page 3,
under the headline, "A long queue -but not enough
babies to adopt".
Mr Chua Sian Chin: Is that a Sunday bonus?
Mr Ng Kah Ting: It is for you! Sir, the conclusion I am about to
draw is obvious, for I did mention in this House on
8th April, 1969 - Hansard, Vol. 28, No. 11, col.
895, and I quote:
'...a child unwanted by its parents may well become
a treasure to some childless couple.'
May I therefore, Sir, recommend this for careful
and considerate consumption to those who are too
eager to recommend liberalised abortion as
advocated in this Bill.
But some of us here in this House are convinced
that abortion is a bad thing, and that widespread
abortion would be disastrous for the nation. We
think it should be confined and discouraged in
every possible way. It would therefore seem that we
have failed to convince this
Column: 330
House on this point. Perhaps the fault is ours.
An hon. Member: Yours!
Mr Ng Kah Ting: Perhaps we lack the ability and vitality to put
our arguments across clearly enough. Perhaps we
lack the power of persuasion necessary to induce
the people to look beyond the immediate advantages
of this Bill to the long-term disadvantages that
will come with its implementation.
4.11 p.m.
Inche Rahmat Bin Kenap (Geylang Serai)(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I oppose the Abortion Bill.
Although abortion is not forced on those who are
against it, nevertheless when this Bill becomes
law, it will automatically encourage and also give
an opportunity to those who seek to satisfy their
lust to abuse this Bill. Is this not a shameful
act? Abortion on the foetus, which is life, is
tantamount to killing. For this reason, Islam
forbids abortion.
Sir, it is not logical to have the Abortion Bill
because family planning can be a success if
Government improve on the methods. If this Bill is
not successfully carried out, has the Government
plans to introduce another Bill to kill new-born
babies? If this happens, what will be the
devastation that will befall human beings? Sir, I
oppose this Bill.
4.12 p.m.
Mr Lee Teck Him(In Mandarin): Sir, when the Abortion Bill was read a Second time,
I neither objected to nor approved of it. But now
that it is being read a Third time. I oppose it.
Just now my colleagues mentioned that, in the
past, family planning campaigns have been
successfully carried out. Why then is it necessary
to liberalise the law on abortion if family
planning has been a success? Abortion can be very
harmful and dangerous to the health of the mother.
If we implement this Bill, are we not, in fact,
encouraging many young people to indulge in
promiscuous behaviour?
Column: 331
We know that the Minister for Finance is doing
his best to encourage tourism. That is why the bars
are doing very well. These places of sin result in
the birth of more babies.
The Acting Minister for Culture, in reply to a
question earlier, said that films depicting
violence and sword fights are popular. He then
becomes a "yellow" Minister.
The Acting Minister for Culture (Mr Wee Toon Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. In
fact, before the Member for Delta raised this
question I had, on occasion, personally met the
film distributors, like the Cathay Organisation and
Shaw Brothers, who produce films in Hong Kong. I
raised with them the fact that there are too many
films which are not of educational value, and asked
them whether they would produce more films which
would be of civic and educational value. Their
answer was this. They said that they had, in fact,
imported some of these films and found that the box-office takings were always very poor. They are
therefore very reluctant to produce films which are
of a serious type or have educational or civic
value.
I would appreciate it if Members, like the
Members for Ulu Pandan and Delta, would do their
part to exhort parents not to encourage their
children to patronise sword-fighting films but to
patronise films having educational or civic value.
Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, a point of clarification. May I
know what relevance this has to the Abortion Bill?
Mr Speaker: By virtue of your proximity to him, Mr Chua, it
is easier for you to ascertain that from the Acting
Minister for Culture than for me!
4.14 p.m.
Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Mr Speaker, Sir, to be quite honest, before the
Minister for Health made his Third Reading speech
on this Bill, I was in two minds whether I should
speak again or not, considering the fact
Column: 332
that I had spoken at great length on the Second
Reading on this topic. But after his speech in
which he made many sweeping statements, I found it
very tempting to speak again, and I have decided to
speak now.
Since the introduction of the Abortion Bill, the
Health Minister, to me, somehow seems to be
labouring under the magnificent obsession that he
has become a liberator of women's rights. He has
liberated them from unwanted pregnancies. He has
also come out with a solution to solving the
delinquency problem and improving the quality of
children to be born in future. This, Mr Speaker,
Sir, sounds to me like the views of an extremist,
because if we were to speak in the same manner as
he did on the point of liberating the rights of
this or that category of persons, then would he
consider fighting for the rights of groups of men
who would want, on their own, to patronise
brothels, or watch obscene films without the
harrassment of the police? There is at present a
law against such type of entertainment which is, in
fact, in the manner of the Health Minister, denying
the rights of certain categories of our citizens.
Is he also not worried about the rights of
thousands of women who perhaps for months and years
have been out of job and to whom we, as Members of
Parliament, have had to attend sometimes at meet-the-people sessions? And would he consider
legalising prostitution, because that could be a
very profitable profession today in our present
situation? But for him to speak as he did would
only incur probably the displeasure of many,
because there are such things as public morals and
public concern for matters like this.
He has also mentioned the solving of the
delinquency problem, or something to that effect.
Perhaps he should turn his attention to the
delinquency problem in England, and in places where
abortion is already legalised. It has been found
that in no way does abortion help to reduce
delinquency.
Mr Chua Sian Chin: When did Britain legalise the abortion laws?
Column: 333
Mr Sia Khoon Seong: What proof has the Minister that delinquency is
the result of unwanted babies?
The other very damaging point that he has made is
that this Bill could improve the quality of
children born after the Bill is passed. This is to
suggest that all this while, the quality of
children born before the enactment of this Bill is
questionable.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now view the whole Bill
as it stands. Leaving aside the minor points, I
think the Bill can be reduced to two major
underlying principles, namely, that abortion is
permitted (1) on medical grounds, and (2) on socio-economic grounds. The first principle on medical
grounds would also include cases on eugenic
grounds, and cases of rape which could result in
the mental health being affected. This could be the
main underlying principle behind this Bill.
On the first principle, namely, on medical
grounds, I think there is in existence today some
provisions in the Penal Code permitting abortions
to be carried out under limiting circumstances on
medical grounds. It may be necessary that the scope
and area in which an abortion could be carried out
on medical grounds should be extended. Therefore,
any feature of this Bill relating to the question
of permitting abortions to be carried out on
medical grounds will find no objection from me.
My objection, and what I consider as a very
highly controversial point in this Bill, is the
clause that permits abortions to be carried out on
socio-economic grounds. To begin with, Mr Speaker,
Sir, the term "socio-economic grounds" is very
difficult to define and to assess. For example, a
middle-aged couple may find it very difficult to
have two or even one child because they would
prefer to have a car, a television set, a
refrigerator, and all the modern comforts of life.
And if they have a car, a television set, and a
refrigerator, they would further prefer a bigger
car, a bigger television set, and a better
refrigerator. On the other hand, a couple with a
low income may find it quite acceptable to have
Column: 334
more than two or three children, because they do
not care very much for the modern luxuries of life
but they care more for the love and affection of
children.
Families amongst the vast majority of workers in
the low-income group are too large because they do
not believe in family planning. I think the right
step to take to help reduce the plight and size of
such families in the low-income group is to step up
the family planning campaign and to make a genuine
effort to get these big families in the low-income
group to participate in family planning programmes.
But to do it through abortion will, I think, lead
to a great deal of other complications, because
abortion is not as simple a matter as the removal
of an appendix but an operation that involves wider
implications. Abortion means the removal of a
foetus. Whatever our religious views are on the
status of the foetus, no one can deny that it is
the source of life, a potential life. Therefore,
its removal is not a matter to be taken lightly. It
is precisely because of our respect for the foetus
irrespective of whether it is life itself or a
potential life, and because we hold a high respect
for life itself that we should be very careful in
taking any step that will cause disrespect for the
foetus.
Much has been said already both from within and
from without this House on the implications of
abortion, and I feel it is not necessary for me to
repeat all the arguments against the complications
and implications of such a move. My point,
therefore, Mr Speaker, is that abortion is not a
simple matter. It has other repercussions and other
implications. We will allow an abortion to be
carried out only under very good grounds. But to
legalise abortion and to allow abortions to be
carried out on socio-economic grounds will lead to
many serious undesirable results. Because of that,
Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not convinced by the
evidence appearing in the Select Committee's
Report, and I do not think that the speech of the
Minister for Health can change my views on this
Bill.
Column: 335
4.24 p.m.
Madam Chan Choy Siong(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Abortion Bill was read
a Second time in this House, I did not speak on it
because I thought many of my colleagues here had
already expressed their views. I had hoped that
when the Bill was considered in Select Committee,
Government would accept the views of the majority
and would introduce certain amendments to the Bill.
But after the Bill had been considered in Select
Committee and brought up for Third Reading in this
House, I find that the Select Committee's Report is
very disappointing.
My views on this Bill centre on two points.
First, I would like to give my views as a woman.
Second, in respect of the future of our country, I
would like to give a warning. All of you are not
women. Of course, all of you think that whatever
you want to do, you can and will do it. For
example, when Government wanted to reduce
population growth, it implemented the family
planning campaign. This is beneficial to the future
of our country as well as to the family. In this
respect, women have sacrificed a great deal. In the
whole process of family planning, those adversely
affected are the women. Whenever you are free, go
to the family planning clinics and you will find
that those who go there are women, not men.
Our women have played their part for the country.
This fact is well recognised by the country and the
people themselves. Quite often it has been
emphasised that, in terms of population growth, the
family planning campaign is a great success because
it has managed to reduce the population growth.
This should be a source of great satisfaction to
all of us.
However, the Government does not sufficiently
accept the success of this family planning
campaign. Instead it is proposing to adopt another
course of action, i.e., when a woman is pregnant
and does not want the baby, she can have an
abortion. According to the Minister for Health, the
process is painless
Column: 336
and will not affect the mother's health. Perhaps it
is because he is not a woman that he does not know
how it feels. Whether the performance of an
abortion is painful and whether it is damaging to
the mother's health, only a woman can tell.
Let us consider this Bill very carefully. Those
women who go for abortions usually come from the
lower income group, i.e., their standard of living
is poor. Quite often they lack the nourishment
necessary after an abortion. If we move from family
planning to abortion, then I am afraid that more
pregnant women will go for abortion, and in the end
those who suffer will not be the fathers but the
mothers.
Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Prime Minister
mentioned that from the point of view of the
economy of the country it is necessary to curb the
population growth of the country. Since we have
recognised the fact that the family planning
campaign has been successful, why must we pass a
Bill to legalise abortion? By doing so, we will
encourage people to do things which are not
beneficial to the country. We can see that in many
countries they have not found it necessary to
legalise abortion in order to reduce population
growth and thus improve the economy of their
country. They do not rely on the legalisation of
abortion to raise the living standard of their
people. Take China as an example. We can say that
it is the most heavily populated country in the
world. But its economy is also one of the most
stable. Why is this so? Why cannot we learn from
the example of China as well as of other countries
in our effort to improve our economy and raise the
living standard of our people? Why must we take a
retrogressive step by introducing the Abortion
Bill? It is not an act of a responsible government.
The Singapore Government has already emphasised
that we must try to establish our prestige in South-east Asia. At the same time, we must also try to be
a model country in South-east Asia. But are we
trying to establish ourselves as a model country by
this Abortion Bill? If the Government thinks that
our population is too big and
Column: 337
that it is having an adverse effect on our economy,
why does it not kill some people? Is this not a
better way? Legalisation of abortion is tantamount
to murder. But it is not a direct form of murder.
It is an indirect form of murder. If we go through
with this Bill, then in time to come we will
realise that what we are doing now is wrong. From
the short-term point of view, it may appear to be
the correct course of action. But from the long-term point of view, it is wrong. We must try to
educate our people not only on sex but also on
every other aspect of life. That is, make them
understand the problems arising out of a large
family and their effects on the economy of our
country. This is what a responsible government
should do. The P.A.P. Government should not
introduce this Bill and other Bills that will
encourage promiscuous behaviour in our people. We
know that our people conduct themselves properly
because they live in a society governed by law and
order. They realise that in a democracy there is a
limit to their freedom. But by introducing this
Bill to legalise abortion, we are giving them more
freedom. This is an undesirable action on the part
of the Government.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to remind the
Minister for Health that our women will suffer a
great deal more if the Bill is passed. We should
reconsider it and take into account the long-term
point of view and its effect on the country as a
whole.
4.36 p.m.
Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, in every democratic government,
the motivation for introducing new laws or changing
old ones is based on two factors. First, it can be
the result of a public outcry for or against a
certain matter. The second factor is when a
situation is so very critical that Government is
called upon to introduce emergency laws. With
abortion, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no public
outcry for the introduction of a law. Even the
doctors themselves do not like the abortion law.
Column: 338
In so far as the liberalisation of abortion is
concerned, I have a feeling that the law is cock-eyed since there is an Authorisation Board to
terminate pregnancy. We all know that a pregnant
woman or any woman who carries an unwanted baby is
a desperate woman and she will not submit to the
embarrassment of presenting herself before the
Authorisation Board. No one will go to the
Authorisation Board. Women who are in a financially
sound position will see a private doctor. However,
those who are poor will still resort to the back-street practitioners for an abortion. These are
facts which we cannot deny.
Sir, I am a realist and I always speak with facts
and figures to back me up, unlike the Minister for
Health who always speaks in abstract terms. Let us
look at the figures of population growth in 1968. I
am quoting from the Monthly Digest of Statistics
published by the Ministry of Labour in 1968. The
figure for live births in 1968 is 47,241. The
figure for deaths in the same year is 10,982. So
for 1968 we have a net gain of 36,259. Let me
project it for ten years, from 1969 to 1979. The
population increase will only be 360,000. Mr
Speaker, Sir, 360,000 is a little bit more than one-third of a million.
Mr Chua Sian Chin: What is the basis of your projection?
Mr Ho See Beng: On the same basis as the figure for 1968 where
the difference in live births and deaths gives a
net gain of 36,259, Assuming that this rate remains
constant, in ten years' time our country will have
an increase in population of only 360,000.
Mr Chua Sian Chin: What is the basis of your assumption?
Mr Ho See Beng: This is no assumption, Mr Speaker. I have
obtained these figures from the Ministry of Labour
publication. I do not see how the Minister can
behave like an alarmist, why he is so afraid of the
population. Let us not forget that the Minister is
very young, energetic and virile. He has fought the
Communists and the communalists. But now he is
running away
Column: 339
from infants and babies. All possible arguments
have been put forward in the Select Committee
meetings and published in the report.
Mr Chua Sian Chin: Over and over again.
Mr Ho See Beng: There is no need for us here to carry on the
debate "over and over again", to borrow the
Minister's words, if, in the implementation of the
Abortion Bill, it can fulfil the aim of the
Government, let it be so. But if there are adverse
results, my only hope is that the law will be
reviewed as early as possible, without the
Government waiting for four years and a review in
the fifth year.
Mr Speaker: Order. I will take the suspension now and take
the Chair again at 5.10 p.m.
Sitting accordingly suspended at
4.42 p.m. until 5.10 p.m.