Hansard, 1955-11-22

asked the Financial Secretary under what authority was the sum of $4,270.20 paid out of the public funds of the Colony to meet the cost of the farewell party given by the Chief Minister to the former Governor, Sir John Nicoll.

This expenditure was met on my authority from financial provision voted for official entertainment.

Does the Hon. the Financial Secretary consider this amount a fair amount for a satay party?

Order, please. That is a matter of opinion.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The object of this Bill is to substitute a new scale of estate duty for the scale contained in the Second Schedule to the Estate Duty Ordinance, Chapter 227, as amended by the Estate Duties (Increase of Rates) Ordinance, 1946. I have already explained the reasons why it is considered desirable to introduce this new scale, and I do not think that I need say anything further in this connection. There are three main points about the new scale to which I invite attention. It exempts estates of under $10,000 from duty. It makes use of a new method of calculating duty, and of course, it increases the rate of duty on estates of over $10,000. Hitherto, only estates of under $1,000 have been exempted from payment of duty. This level of exemption is low. A considerable number of estates fall within the limits of $1,000 to $10,000, perhaps rather more than a third of all estates assessed for duty in a normal year. On the other hand, the amount of duty collected from these estates is small, and in no way commensurate with the time and labour involved in collecting it. For example, the 400 estates within these limits, which were assessed in 1954 yielded no more than $23,000. The staff of the Estate Duty Office is not large, and clearly the time and labour spent on assessing these small estates could, with much greater advantage, be devoted to larger estates. In the circumstances, it has been decided to raise the level of exemption to $10,000. The same form of graduated scale as is used in income tax has been adopted. This gives a smooth curve in the progression in the graduations of duty, avoids steps and obviates the need for special provisions for marginal relief. The first two characteristics will be seen from an examination of the comparative table attached to the Bill. Examples will illustrate the third characteristic. The existing rate of duty on an estate of exactly $1 million is 23 per cent. The rate of duty on an estate exceeding $1 million but less than $1.2 million is 25 per cent. Duty on an estate of exactly $1 million is $230,000. Duty on an estate of $1,000,001 is $250,000.

25. In other words, one dollar makes a difference of $20,000 in duty. Therefore, in this particular section of the existing scale, it is well worthwhile to surrender estate up to about $26,000 in order to retain the lower rate of duty. For example, the duty on an estate of $1,025,000 at 25 per cent is $256,250. If the executor decides to surrender estate, he can pay 23 per cent on $1 million, which is $230,000, surrender $25,000 and still be better off by about $1,000 than he would have been if he had accepted taxation at 25 per cent. On the other hand, if the estate is $1,030,000, it pays to pay tax at 25 per cent. The new form of graduated scale avoids all these anomalies. The rate of tax rises smoothly without sudden jumps. For example, the duty on an estate of $1 million is $328,250. The duty on an estate of $1,000,001 is $328,250.50 and so on. The rates of duty proposed are generally higher than the existing rates. In this connection, attention is invited not to the Schedule but to the comparative table attached for information to the Bill. This table shows the effective rates under the new scale by comparison with the existing rates. The effective rate is the rate obtained after allowing for exemption on the first $10,000. For example, on an estate of $25,000 the first $10,000 would be exempt from tax and the next $15,000 would be taxed at 5 per cent. This would yield $750. The effect in rate of tax on this estate is therefore $750 over $25,000 multiplied by 100 equals 3 per cent. It will be seen that the effective rate of the new scale diverges increasingly from the existing scale until, on estates of $5 millions, there is a difference of about 10 per cent. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the second paragraph of the explanatory note it is stated: "In effect under the proposed new scale the graduations rise on a large number of small steps in place of a smaller number of large steps under the old scale." Now, Sir, I have here the Estate Duties (Increase of Rates) Ordinance, 1946, which includes a schedule of rates effective from the 4th day of July, 1941. The scale of duty rises in 27 steps, covering one per cent on $5,000 to 40 per cent on $5 millions. In the new Bill the scale starts on estates at $10,000 and ends at 60 per cent on that part of an estate exceeding $4 millions in 14 stages. It would seem, therefore, that the last sentence of paragraph two of the explanatory note should read: "In effect under the proposed new scale the graduations rise on a smaller number of larger steps in place of a larger number of smaller steps under the old scale." The proposal to exempt estates of less than $10,000 appears to be a step in the right direction, but hon. Members may be interested to know that in the United Kingdom exemption limits since the war have been steadily increased until in the last Budget the figure was raised to £3,000, that is approximately $26,000. Moreover, the effective rate of duty on estates of $130,000 and under will now be higher than the rate of duty in the United Kingdom. That is just as a point of interest. But then there is a slight anomaly, to my mind, with regard to the new Schedule. For example, under the old scale an estate of $1,000 paid duty at one cent. Now supposing it were $1,001, the duty paid would be $10.

01. We will take it a step further. Under the new scale an estate of $10,001 will be liable for duty at five per cent on one dollar only, because the first $10,000 is exempt from duty. Well, assuming that the basic cost of a collection, for example, in a straightforward estate is perhaps $30 - I do not know, but just call it $30 - it would seem economical to exempt estates not exceeding, say, $10,599 with the proviso that for estates in excess of this figure the duty shall be exigible on any sum in excess of $10,000, so that, in fact, the proposed scale still operates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, here again the Labour Front is on very solid ground. Even the hon. Mr Sutherland feels that the move to increase estate duty is a move in the right direction, although he feels that estate duty should be exempted up to the amount the Conservative Government of Britain allowed last year. On estates not exceeding £3,000, no estate duty is paid. But then Mr Sutherland did not tell the House that in England duty on estates of about £1 million goes up to 80 per cent, of three- quarters to £1 million 75 per cent, of half a million to three-quarter million pounds 70 per cent, and so it tapers down to one per cent between £3,000 and £4,000. Sir, I hesitate to give the Hon. the Minister for Transport a lecture on egalitarian societies because obviously he believes such ideas to be old- fashioned. He believes that we should all be equal in a Socialist democracy but that some people should be more equal than others. Perhaps that is the way it ought to be. But even he will agree with us that estate duty is one of those forms of taxation which can be used deliberately to counter-balance the unjust distribution of wealth and prevent its perpetuation. The primary purpose of a Socialist taxation policy is to bring about a redistribution of wealth. You take the money from the "haves" and then you spend it on your education, on your public services, and on your social welfare, and thereby give it to the have-nots. You have this added advantage in that you really do not hurt anybody because you have really taken it from no one. All you have taken away from the sons and heirs and successors is not money, but just the hope of a succeeding to money. That might be painful for a week or two after the will has been read and duties have to be paid, but it is certainly less painful than if we were to impose a capital levy while the man who has made his millions is still alive. Sir, while we commend the increase which the Labour Front Government has imposed, a step taken independently of the Federation, and while we are confident that the Federation will be following suit in the very near future, we feel that the Labour Front Government should compare these tables with those obtaining in other Commonwealth countries. These places have Conservative governments, not dedicated to the Socialist principle, but dedicated to the principle of what they now call a property-owning democracy: in other words, we will each have a bit of property, but if my father has a lot of property, than I will have a lot more than you have. If a comparative table were made of estate duties in all the Commonwealth countries, where there are Conservative governments, I think the Labour Front will find that their increases are modest and moderate. The next time they are facing a danger of a deficit in their Budget, they should consider pushing the rate of estate duty up to the limits obtaining in the most conservative of capitalist societies. Mr Hart rose -

Mr Hart, in reply?

In reply, Sir. I think that the point raised by my friend Mr Sutherland is answered in my opening address to the effect that the incorporation of the income tax method of calculating duty gives smooth curves and does away with steps in the scale. I am glad that my friend the Member for Tanjong Pagar approves the step we have taken to increase estate duty, and I agree heartily with him that it is a most equitable means of distributing wealth. Certainly our rates are lower than those in the United Kingdom in the higher ranges of estate, but I think I should say that our new rates are still considerably higher than those obtaining in our nearest Commonwealth neighbours, Ceylon and Hongkong. I have the rates for these territories here. I will give them to him if he will come and see me. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Sir, I beg to move, That the Assembly do resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.

I second the motion. Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2-

Clause 2. Can I have the Governor's recommendation?

I have the Governor's authority to move, Sir. Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported, without Amendment.

Third Reading, What day?

Now, Sir. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time.

Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly by virtue of the provisions of subsection (1) of section 11 of the Petroleum Revenue Ordinance (Chapter 224 of the Revised Edition) resolves that, with effect from the 22nd day of November, 1955, the duties specified below shall be paid on petroleum in lieu of the duties imposed by a resolution of the Legislative Council at a meeting on the 24th September, 1934, published as Notification No. 2261 in Gazette No. 76 of 5th October, 1934, and amended by a resolution of the Advisory Council at a meeting on the 3rd July, 1947, published as Notification No. S 224 in Gazette Supplement No. 57 of 18th July 1947: -

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly by virtue of the provisions of subsection (1) of section 11 of the Petroleum Revenue Ordinance (Chapter 224 of the Revised Edition) resolves that, with effect from the 22nd day of November, 1955, the duties specified below shall be paid on petroleum in lieu of the duties imposed by a resolution of the Legislative Council at a meeting on the 24th September, 1934, published as Notification No. 2261 in Gazette No. 76 of 5th October, 1934, and amended by a resolution of the Advisory Council at a meeting on the 3rd July, 1947, published as Notification No. S 224 in Gazette Supplement No. 57 of 18th July, 1947: -

Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly by virtue of the provisions of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Liquors Revenue Ordinance (Chapter 225 of the Revised Edition) resolves that, with effect from the 22nd day of November, 1955, the duties specified below shall be paid on intoxicating liquors in lieu of the duties imposed by a resolution of the Legislative Council at a meeting on the 18th March, 1952, published as Notification No. S 123 in the Gazette Supplement No. 28 of 21st March, 1952: - Intoxicating Liquors. Duty. $ c. I.-

I second the motion. Question proposed.

Sir, I would like to know from the Hon. the Financial Secretary whether he has considered a preferential duty on locally produced ale, because my contention is that, if we want to promote local industries, we will have to give a preferential tariff. I am not going to make a long speech, Sir, but I just want to find out whether he has considered it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, here again, I think we should put on record our full support of the move to increase taxation, indirectly falling on the whole community, on items which cannot be considered essential to life or health. Singapore is one of the few places in the world where one can cheaply drink and smoke oneself to death. One does not need to have much wealth to be able to afford it. I think the time will come very soon when we should rescue the less strong-willed members of our population from such an unhappy state by taking excessive smoking and drinking out of their reach. We shall support the Government every time it comes with a proposal to step up taxation on these commodities. It is an accepted method of taxation in all civilised countries where they govern a country, not just hold the ring for private enterprise, where they govern the country and not just keep law and order. These are the accepted techniques of taxation, and the Government should not have the slightest doubt that they would get full support from the people. Mr Hart rose -

Mr Hart, in reply?

In reply, Sir, I would like to thank my friend the Member for Tanjong Pagar for his most eloquent support of our motion. With regard to the point raised by my friend the Member for Seletar, we did consider the question of giving a preferential rate to local breweries, but we came to the conclusion that, having regard to the excellent results of last year's working, perhaps any preferential treatment was unnecessary at the present time.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly by virtue of the provisions of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Liquors Revenue Ordinance (Chapter 225 of the Revised Edition) resolves that, with effect from the 22nd day of November, 1955, the duties specified below shall be paid on intoxicating liquors in lieu of the duties imposed by a resolution of the Legislative Council at a meeting on the 18th March, 1952, published as Notification No. S 123 in the Gazette Supplement No. 28 of 21st March, 1952: - Intoxicating Liquors. Duty. $ c. I.-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move, That the report of the Select Committee on the Labour Bill contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 12 of 1955 be adopted subject to the recommittal of the Bill in respect of clauses 46 and 49 to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Sir, the Labour Bill was committed to a Select Committee and from Sessional Paper No. L.A. 12 of 1955, it will be seen that the Select Committee held six meetings. The minutes of the proceedings of these meetings can be found in Appendix III. The Bill reproduced in Appendix II contains all the amendments to the Bill as recommended by the Select Committee. Some of these amendments are major ones, while most of them are either consequential or for the purpose of tidying up. Since the report was made public, I have received several representations, particularly from employers. These representations have been duly considered in my Ministry and it is not felt that they are of such major importance as to warrant amendments to be made in the Bill. The Sessional Paper has been in the hands of hon. Members for quite some time, and as the amendments recommended by the Select Committee will have been taken note of by hon. Members, I do not propose to take up their time to touch on them. I would like to say, however, that I am confident that my motion will receive the unanimous support of hon. Members so that a large majority of the workers of Singapore will be more adequately protected than has been possible under the present outmoded Labour Code. The proposal to recommit the Bill in respect of clauses 46 and 49 to a Committee of the whole Assembly is not to seek any material amendment, but is for the purpose of tidying up. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion and reserve my right to speak at a later stage. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is one other clause in this Bill which I think escaped the attention of the Minister for Labour and other Members of the Select Committee, and that is clause 48 (1): "Any workman who has served an employer for a period of not less than twelve months after the coming into force of this Ordinance shall, after examination at the expense of the employer by a duly registered medical practitioner appointed by the employer, be entitled to such paid sick leave as may be certified to be necessary by such medical practitioner: Provided that no workman shall be entitled to an aggregate of more than twenty-eight days' paid sick leave in each year." Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it escaped our attention at the time that it might well be construed that no workman shall be entitled in any case to more than 28 days' paid sick leave in each year. It has been brought to my attention that there are many unions who have entered into contracts with many employers for more than 28 days' paid sick leave. If the clause were left in this form, it might well be taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers to get out of their contracts and go back to 28 days' paid sick leave, because it says here: "... no workman shall be entitled to an aggregate of more than twenty-eight days...". Sir, I beg to move that clause 48 be inserted between clauses 46 and 49.

Sir, I rise to second the motion. Question proposed, "That the figure proposed to be inserted, be there inserted."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to accept the amendment so that the point raised by the Member for Tanjong Pagar can be discussed in the Committee stage.

Question, "That the figure proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, I move, That the Assembly do resolve itself into Committee to consider the clauses of the Bill recommitted.

I second it. Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 46 -

Sir, I rise to move, In page 18, lines 36 to 47, to leave out the whole of sub-clause (3) of clause 46. Sir, this deletion will be re-introduced by incorporation in a later clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 19, line 1, to leave out the figure "(4)" and to insert the figure "(3)" in place thereof. This is a consequential amendment.

Question, "That the figure '(4)' proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the figure '(3)' proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 48 -

Mr Chairman, Sir, I indicated just now that we overlooked the point that the interpretation of the proviso might well be understood to mean that no one shall be entitled to more than 28 days' paid sick leave in each year. The intention of the Select Committee on the Labour Bill was that no one shall be entitled to less than 28 days. He shall be entitled to at least 28 days and to a further number of days according to any agreement he may have reached with his employer. 28 days should be the minimum. I therefore move, Sir, That on line 25, page 19, the word "more" be left out and the words "not less" be substituted. The clause will then read: "Provided that no workman shall be entitled to an aggregate of not less than twenty-eight days' paid sick leave in each year."

Would the Member for Tanjong Pagar like to consider that amendment further? I am a bit puzzled about it.

It is a double negative, Sir. The only alternative would be a recast of the whole proviso and I would rather consult the legal draftsmen on this before we attempt to recast it. Substitution of words will not upset the whole proviso, but I should hate to have to recast the whole proviso unless I have an opportunity first to discuss the matter with the legal draftsmen.

Can I suggest that perhaps the word "no" should be left out and the word "a" substituted? Does that cover the hon. Member's point?

Mr Chairman, Sir, it does not really, because there is this further difficulty. It may well mean that in any one year in any case a workman shall be entitled to at least 28 days' paid sick leave. There should be a further proviso. I think the intention that we all have is quite clear. The workman shall be entitled, if he is ill and if he gets a medical certificate for it, to a minimum of 28 days. The maximum may be whatever is agreed between him and his employer. If he is sick for 28 days, no trouble arises. If he is sick for 29 days, he will get at least 28 days, but he will get 29 days if his agreement with his employer says 30 days. The Chief Minister (Mr D. S. Marshall) rose -

Yes, Mr Chief Minister?

Can I be of assistance, Sir? I do appreciate what I think the hon. Member seeks. It seems to me very simple. If there are contractual obligations outside the provisions of this Bill, he wishes to see that those contractual obligations should, in no way, be affected by the provisions of this Bill. I would suggest this: Provided that no workman shall be entitled under the provisions of this section to an aggregate of more than 28 days' paid sick leave in each year, so that if there is no contract entered into, then he is entitled to 28 days' paid sick leave even if he is sick, say, for six weeks, and the doctor orders six weeks. But if there is a contract between an employer and the union to give six weeks, then it is not affected by the provisions of this section. I do not know if that is what the hon. Member wishes.

I am much obliged to the Chief Minister, Sir, but, with respect, that is exactly the kind of situation which the unions want to avoid. In that form, the employer will say that under the law the workman is entitled to 28 days, and any agreement made for more than 28 days, because of this clause of the law, will entitle the workman to only 28 days. A great deal of argument will start and a few more strikes may take place just over the wording of this clause on paid sick leave. Mr Chairman, Sir, I have completely overlooked the fact that this motion was coming up and I had not realised that the Minister for Labour wanted to take the Committee stage today.

Perhaps I can be of some assistance?

Perhaps the Attorney-General might suggest a formula which will ensure that a workman shall be entitled to at least 28 days, but he can get as many days as he can get his employer to agree to.

What I have in mind, Sir, to resolve this difficulty is a further proviso, something on these lines: "And provided further that the provisions of this subsection shall be without prejudice to any agreement between a workman and his employer." I do not know whether this would meet the point made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar.

If I might comment on that suggestion, Mr Chairman, Sir, I think the agreement must be one which increases and not decreases the number of days. Otherwise, there might be a lockout to have the 28 days cut down, and that is not the intention. We have to add something further to the Attorney-General's suggestion to provide for this.

I am much obliged to the Minister for Communications and Works. I think he is quite right. The difficulty, of course, is to produce what will be a suitable further proviso, which is to be incorporated in the law, without giving it a moment or two of consideration, and I should like time to formulate this. May I have that, Sir?

Yes, Mr Butterfield.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar and I are not yet in entire agreement on the suggested proviso, Sir. I think we will have to take a few moments longer.

Will this meet the case? If it does not, then I propose that we suspend the sitting. This is what I suggest as an additional proviso: "And provided further that the provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to any agreement between a workman and his employer which provides for more than 28 days' paid sick leave in each year." Some hon. Members indicated dissent.

No? In that case, I will suspend the sitting for a quarter of an hour. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly. Sitting suspended at 10.55 am. Sitting resumed at 11.10 am. Debate in Committee resumed.

Clause 48 -

Mr Chairman, Sir, with the assistance of each other - the Member for Tanjong Pagar and myself - we have been able to agree on an amendment to clause 48 on the point made by him, and I therefore have to move now, in respect of this clause, Page 19, line 22, to insert after the word "leave" the words "not exceeding in the aggregate 28 days in each year". And further, I move, Page 19, lines 24 to 26, to leave out the proviso and to substitute or insert: "Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall be without prejudice to any agreement made between a workman and his employer providing for a period of paid sick leave exceeding in the aggregate 28 days in each year."

Question, "That the words 'not exceeding in the aggregate 28 days in each year' proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the proviso to sub-clause (1) of clause 48 of the Bill, proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 49 -

Mr Chairman, Sir, clause 49, page 19, line 33, I move, After the word "sections" to insert the figure "46" and a comma. This amendment is necessary in order to reintroduce the subclause (3) to clause 46 which was deleted earlier.

Question, "That the figure '(46)' and a comma proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Clause 49 again, Sir. I move, Page 19, line 42, after the words "preceding the" to insert the word "holiday" and a comma. The reason for this amendment, Sir, is to reintroduce subclause (3) of clause 46 that has been deleted earlier.

Question, "That the word 'holiday' and a comma proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, "That the Bill, as amended on recommittal, be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported, with Amendments.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That the Bill, as amended, be now read the Third time."

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill, as amended, accordingly read the Third time.

Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's permission to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $168,533 should be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 30 of 1955. The applications for supplementary vote which are included in this Command Paper, are required to finalise the 1954 accounts, which, as I said yesterday, are now in print. An explanation has been given for all the items in the Schedule. I shall be happy to amplify any of these explanations in any way, which Members may require. Sir, I beg to move.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $168,533 should be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 30 of 1955.

Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's permission to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $82,834 should be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 31 of 1955. Here again, Sir, the items in the Schedule are explained in the Command Paper, but I shall be happy to amplify these explanations. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second the motion. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask information on Head 35: International Exhibition at Cambodia - $25,000. Can the Hon. the Financial Secretary say what business we have with Cambodia, in terms of dollars or in commodities, that we have to spend $25,000 on an exhibition in such a small country?

Perhaps before I answer the specific questions raised by the Member for Telok Ayer, Sir, I might explain that the particular exhibition to which we are contributing is a tripartite exhibition in so far as the Federation Government, the Singapore Government and Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are all taking part. The object of our stall at the exhibition in Pnom Penh is to promote trade, to invite the attention of the inhabitants and the traders of Cambodia to the existence of Singapore as a potential source of supply of the commodities which they require. Trade with Cambodia has been mounting slowly over the past three years, and it is hoped that this exhibition will have the effect of increasing trade with Cambodia. I should say that the proposal to have a stall in the exhibition in Pnom Penh has the full support of the traders of Singapore. I am afraid I cannot say offhand just precisely what the dollar value of our trade with Cambodia is each year. I fear I shall have to make reference to various statistical reports in my office before I can give a full reply on that point to the Member for Telok Ayer.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $82,834 should be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 31 of 1955.

Considered in Committee of Supply: [1st Allotted Day]

Under Standing Orders, we will first deal with the Schedules. First Schedule Head 1 - The sum of $6,480,000 for Head 1 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 2 - The sum of $8,521,760 for Head 2 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 3 -

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, To reduce by $85,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 3, Family Planning Association, on page 23 of the Estimates. Mr Chairman, my reasons are as follows. Hon. Members will remember that at the Assembly sitting on the 29th of June, a question was asked of the Hon. the Minister for Health. (Mr A. J. Braga) as to what Government's policy was in respect of family planning. He replied that Government had no policy in regard to family planning. He also said that as the matter was a controversial one and affected the conscience and religious beliefs of individual Members, it would be open to each and every one to vote according to his conscience. Now, Sir, I think this is the appropriate time to discuss this matter. Mr Chairman, Sir, my grand-parents were Roman Catholics. My parents were Roman Catholics. I am a Roman Catholic. So is everyone at home, and in this case I think I am qualified to say that Roman Catholics are strongly against family planning and also against the use of public funds, to which they are contributors as tax-payers, for family planning and birth control. The use of contraceptives or any method of birth control is against the religious ethics of Muslims. Of course, there will be a small minority who think that it is not sinful, but I firmly believe that the majority of the Muslims are against such practices.

Think for yourself!

I therefore feel that in a matter which is so highly controversial, it would offend the people who have put us into power by supporting the Government in giving this contribution to the Family Planning Association. I think it would be wrong of Government to do such a thing. We should also remember that we should not disregard the wishes of the people. Sir, I therefore beg to move. Question proposed.

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I had hoped that I would not have to intervene in this debate except to say that on the Government side there will be no question of the Whip being used. The matter is going to be left, in so far as we are concerned, entirely to a free vote, according to the feelings and the conscience of the individuals. But I do feel very strongly about the few remarks made by the Member for Bukit Panjang, and I deeply regret it and I am more than a little distressed that in this Assembly, composed of re- presentatives of people of many creeds and many races, the question of religion and religious beliefs should be made to impinge upon our deliberations, and that there should be an effort and a suggestion that any one creed should impose its will upon the country as a whole. That is a terrifying thought, Sir. I had hoped that the Member for Bukit Panjang would have recognised and appreciated the religious tolerance in this country, exemplified particularly by the Malay community. If we are to follow the lines indicated by the Member for Bukit Panjang, my Ministry, for example, would have to cease to give assistance to farmers in breeding better pork for the market. We would, in fact, have to prohibit pigs entirely from the island in order to support the theory that public money should not be spent in respect of an item which offends a section of the community; and certainly the existence of pigs and the eating of pork offend the Muslim community. We would, Sir, have to refrain from spending money on the veterinary service which looks after the canine population of this territory. Maybe we should have to go further and put an end to the existence of dogs on this island. The Malay community have shown a tolerance and an understanding of the position, which is an example to all other communities. They have shown courtesy towards others' views and they have shown consideration for others' customs; and one can but ask that a community, that is supposed to be far more highly developed, should at least show the same courtesy and the same consideration for other sections of the community. It is a very frightening thing, Sir, that we should in this Assembly have religious intolerance and religious domination introduced. I have very many Roman Catholic friends. I have the highest regard for them. I have in the Council of Ministers, Sir, Roman Catholics and we have discussed this matter not on the basis of religious feelings but on the basis of individual views and individual conscience. It has been fully recognised that there can be no question of any single religion seeking to dominate the country with its own particular theology. Sir, I would like to say this: I have the deepest regard for religion as the first and most important civilising factor in the history of humanity - warm religion that understands the human being's needs and seeks to guide a human being to a better way of life. I cede to no one, however religious he may be, in my respect for the civilising influence of religion, but I do ask hon. Members to recognise the fact that often religions in certain aspects degenerate into nothing but sterile theology whose baneful edicts can but do harm to human relations. In this case, Government is giving an opportunity to debate what many consider to be a very real need. People of all religions, Sir, not excluding the religions, which the Member for Bukit Panjang has mentioned, have been to the eleven clinics of the Singapore Family Planning Association. Those who are wealthy do not have to go to the Family Planning Association. They go to their own medical advisers. The rich do not need the Family Planning Association. They have got their own doctors. What Government seeks to do, in giving $85,000 out of a total Budget of about $150,000 to this Family Planning Association, is to assist the very poor amongst us who may wish guidance in planning their families. There is no question of compelling anybody. There is no question of seeking to attract anybody to a particular doctrine. There is no question in our minds of seeking to diminish the increase of population. We have faith in the future, and we do not fear the increase of population; but we do say that where the wealthy have an opportunity to get this advice and to get this assistance, it is our duty to give an opportunity to the poor to have the same advice if they should so wish it. I intervene early in this debate to express the sincere hope, the intense desire, the anxiety that there should no more during the remaining stages of this debate on this particular question ever be mentioned the religious aspect, and that Members should bear in mind the question of religious tolerance to their fellow human beings.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I rise to support the amendment moved by the Member for Bukit Panjang. We can understand that we are living it a world dominated by certain economic factors and, of course, it is a custom nowadays largely to adopt a materialistic attitude towards life. The real and the selfish idea of family planning is that, if there are fewer people around the table, there will be much to eat. Of course, it will be argued that Singapore cannot support a larger population than it does at present. So also, it might have been argued in other capitals of the world, but, as their population grows, those capitals have adapted themselves and have tried to set their economic house in order. So also will we be able to do this when we come face to face with such problems. Nothing could be, in my opinion, so short-sighted as the Government provision for family planning. I am sure that those who advocate family planning know, in their heart of hearts, that this is not a solution to the problem. It is only running away from the problem, and those Assemblymen who are going to support family planning are supporting an issue equivalent to the slow slaying of a rising nation.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I rise to support the Chief Minister in opposing this motion. The nature of the work of the Family Planning Association is a negative one. It seeks, for one thing, to prevent coming into this world children who might not be properly looked after, properly fed, and properly brought up. For another thing, it seeks to space the coming of children into this world according to the financial means of the parents. It therefore benefits both the parents and the children. Its work being of a negative nature, it is not easy for this Association to prove to you how many unwanted children have been prevented from coming into this world. It would require much longer time to be able to judge their success. This Association offers its assistance voluntarily to all those who need such assistance. It compels no woman or her husband to seek the assistance it is willing to give. Many of us who are not mental cases have not objected to the amount of money that has been spent and will be spent every year on Woodbridge Hospital. I therefore do not see why public revenue should not be spent on the work of the Family Planning Association even by those who object to the use of contraceptives and other forms of prevention. From the record supplied to me by this Association, it seems that in 1954 it had assisted 9,000 women, and assuming that that number remains the same, $85,000 a year would mean spending less than $10 per person to help such a person either to prevent or to space the period of children coming into this world to their happiness and to the good of Singapore as a whole.

Mr Chairman, Sir, it might be thought that, as the oldest unmarried Member of the House, my interest in this subject would be academic but I find that I cannot be neutral as I have quite decided views on the matter. I may claim, however, to put forward what I think to be a truly objective opinion because of my single - some people call it - blessed state, and also, Sir, because I do not belong to any religious sect which expressly forbids family planning. Sir, I have received, as I presume all hon. Members have, a memorandum from a certain group of people enclosing their views on family planning. It is a document containing many interesting, if to my mind specious, arguments, but the main theme is that birth control is unnatural. The memorandum then reminds us that the word "nature" has several meanings, but in this case is used in the ethical sense. "Birth control", it says, "is the deliberate frustration of a function which nature clearly intended for an important specific end." I am afraid I cannot accept the argument. Man is always interfering with nature, taming nature and bending nature to his will, and if we did nothing contrary to nature, we would presumably allow no surgeon to use a knife, and shaving, of course, would be quite out of order. However, Sir, I would emphasise that we should all respect the opinions of those who object to family planning on religious grounds, just as we do the opinions of those Indian races whose hair has never known a scissors nor face a razor. For those people who object to family planning on religious grounds or on any grounds at all - incidentally, I may say that the memorandum lists a most frightening number of diseases which can arise through the use of contraceptives - all they have to do is to have nothing to do with it. But the reason for this debate is surely the dog-in-the-manger attitude of these very people. The memorandum to which I have just referred urges the Members of this Assembly not to force the members of their organisations to contribute tax money against their conscience to the F.P.A. programme and thus jeopardise the respect of their electors. Well, Sir, I have not in any case been elected, and so I can speak quite freely; but somebody's conscience must always be worried by the way Government money is spent and I cannot take this plea too seriously. Now the organisation to which I have referred makes light of the fact that in 20 years' time Singapore may have a population of two million. "So what!" they say, "many other cities have more than this, and do not think so badly of it." Now, Sir, may I, with your permission, read to the Assembly a few sentences from an extract of the Joint Committee appointed by the two Houses of the Legislature to examine the question of over-population in Barbados and to make recommendations for dealing with this problem? "The population at the end of 1961 has been estimated at 255,600, or 1,540 per square mile, one of the densest in the world. The actual rate of increase has so far worked out in excess of the estimate. The Committee takes a most serious view of these staggering figures and urges that steps be taken with the least possible delay to alleviate the situation. It points out that if early action is not taken, the result must be an increasingly lower standard of living with consequent misery for everyone. Among the implications of over-population is the fact that the Government services, such as the General Hospital, the water supply and schools, are all inadequate and are being or will have to be enlarged at a tremendous first cost and an increasing recurrent cost that is beyond the economic resources of the island. Another effect is unemployment and under-employment. There is a great deal of both of these evils at the present time, and they will become progressively worse." And then finally, the Address of His Excellency the Governor at the opening of the Barbados Legislative session, 1954/55. "My Government believes that the overpopulation problem must be approached not only through the development of local resources but also through the promotion of planned parenthood among the people." Surely, Sir, there is something of an analogy here for Singapore in that our population is increasing at the rate of three per cent per annum cumulatively, and with each succeeding year Government's task in providing education, medical, housing, social and other services becomes one of increasing magnitude. Even the World Bank, that august body which visited Malaya recently, urged Government support for public and private bodies to adopt family planning in the long run interests of the Malayan people and their welfare. Now, Sir, it must be obvious to anyone with an elementary knowledge of mathematics that population increases in some sort of a progression, and that with higher standards of living and the technique of preventive medicine, the rate of infant mortality, for instance, is likely to be reduced, and so on. Where will that lead us in 50 years', 30 years' or even 20 years' time? Well, it may be that man's fecundity will diminish, but I should not bank on that! Sir, there cannot be a soul in this House who does not shrink in horror from the thought of war involving nuclear weapons; but, of course, if these weapons were used, they would certainly destroy the destroyers as well as the victims, and the chances are that they will never be so used. In fact, they may be even turned to man's use. A far greater problem, in my humble opinion, is the uncontrolled growth of population, especially in those Asian countries whose economies are, in any case, non-viable. Can anyone deny that in the lower income groups the children of smaller families have a better chance in life than those of larger families? They have better feeding, better attention and healthier living. Sir, I do not wish to pose as a feminist - in fact, I usually take the opposite role - but I think it is a great pity that there are no women Members in this Assembly so that we could hear their point of view. Among those who oppose family planning, it is usually the arrogant male of the species who shouts the loudest! He forgets, of course, that the part he plays in bringing children into the world is a comparatively minor one, and that he plays an even smaller part in looking after them when they have made their appearance on the planet! Sir, I should like to suggest that we rid our minds of cant. There are people who, because of their beliefs, will always oppose family planning. So be it. But there are vast numbers of women in this city weary of the burden of incessant child-bearing to whom family planning would bring relief. Sir, in conclusion, I would say that the members of the Family Planning Association are decent people who are seeking to bring relief to sufferers. They are working neither for gain nor for notoriety. They are not corrupt themselves, nor do they seek to corrupt others. They are certainly not trying to make sex relations safe for democracy! Government, in my opinion, should give them the utmost support in the work they are doing.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am glad that my colleague the Hon. the Chief Minister has stated just now that religion should not be brought into this Assembly in this most controversial subject. As an elected Member of this Assembly, naturally I received quite a number of representations from my constituency. I received several memoranda signed by 72 members and one telegram from a person unknown to me. I will first mention that these 72 members opposed the grant proposed by Government. The other memorandum that I received was from the Family Planning Association. In view of these representations, I went and consulted many members of my constituency, the electorate, and to my surprise, a large majority are for the Family Planning Association. Sir, in advising on family planning, the work is two-fold. It shows couples how to space their children so as to allow time for the mother to recover her strength fully between births and also to protect her own health and that of her children. Secondly, how to have as many children as the parents want and can afford to have, to feed, house, clothe and educate them. In drawing attention to the word "educate", which happens to be my Ministry, hon. Members are aware that many children are without places in schools. An hon. Member: Build more schools for them!

The question is not to build more schools. The question is to space the children and to have as many children as the parents can afford to feed and house them. There is always the clamour against Government that it is not doing enough to feed the people, to give social services to the poor, and to give education to all that need education. If we do not have family planning in a country like Singapore, where the population is increasing by 55,000 a year, we will soon have a state in which it will be almost impossible for any government to do its share in providing all the facilities that human beings are entitled to. I wish to stress that the Family Planning Association is not trying to limit any couple to the number of children they want, but they are only doing it in an advisory capacity, telling them how to space their children, ensure the mother's health, and to have as many children as they want and can afford. There is no compulsion, and I therefore do not see any objection to the provision by Government of this most admirable project.

Mr Chairman, Sir, although I have walked across the floor, I am in full agreement with the Hon. the Chief Minister on one issue, and that issue is that religion should not come into the debates of this Assembly. However controversial the subject may be, religion is entirely out of the question. I am not opposed to family planning myself, but what I am opposed to is that vote being allotted to this Association under the Head: Contributions and Charitable Allowances. If this vote had come under the Head: Social Welfare, I would have gladly supported the vote, but for it to come under "Contributions and Charitable Allowances", I am afraid, Sir, that many other associations would apply to the Government for contributions. Where are we to end then? We have listed so many associations and if we are going to vote money for associations, we are using public funds for the purpose of associations. The subject is so controversial and delicate that I am not prepared to discuss the merits or demerits of this question and I think I am going to remain neutral.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I had decided at the beginning not to speak on this subject, but I have changed my mind after hearing the arguments put forward by both sides. For the arguments that have been put forward for family planning, I think, are not valid. I am supporting the motion for deleting this provision from the Budget. Sir, it has been suggested by those who support family planning that limitation of population is good for Singapore because it is getting over-populated. Sir, what is good and what is bad is a matter of opinion with each human being and that opinion varies with the times. At the moment, we are in times of peace and we do not want to increase our population. But there are nations which when they go to war require cannon fodder and then they give bonuses to families who produce more and more children. So, I think, Sir, that the opinion as to what is good or bad varies with the times and, therefore, man must fall back on the fundamental teachings of religion to find a stable rock on which to lean. Sir, it has been said that the Family Planning Association does not force anyone to perpetrate its teachings. That is true. It has also been said that the F.P.A. is seeking this way of limiting births to those poorer sections of the community who, everyone will realise, are not educated enough. Sir, there is always the fear that if you teach something which may become dangerous, it is better not to take it to those sections who do not know how to handle it. For instance, in the case of a radio-active substance, you will take care to give it to a person who understands how to handle it, how to control it, and how to keep it securely. You will not give it to a person who does not know how to handle it lest he may destroy himself.

The rich understand better than the poor about family planning.

It is not a question of rich or poor. It is a question of whether you should teach a thing to persons who do not know how to handle it, and who may, in time, be destroyed by it. Sir, it has been suggested by Mr Sutherland that Asian countries are over-populated and, therefore, it would be better for them to limit births. Sir, I think that is a negative attitude. If you are afraid of over-populated nations, then throw open those areas of the world which are under-populated. Give the human race a chance to expand. Why limit it? This is a negative attitude. It has also been said that the poor man has not got enough educational facilities and so on. That again is a negative attitude. The answer is to provide more for the people. That is the right way to approach the problem, not by limiting the population through birth control.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I agree with the Hon. the Chief Minister's attitude that this controversial problem and religion cannot mix up all together, but I cannot agree with him when he is against the amendment. I wish all Members of this House to answer me a question. Is it or is it not a fact that our Malayan nation is big enough - [Interruption.]

Let us have some order, please.

- to say, "We want Merdeka, independence, and so on, and so on"? Yet, please check up how many aliens or outsiders or colonial workers are in this Colony alone. In other words, we need more manpower to build this country. Think of it, we are so close to the border of the Federation where there is so much vacant land, yet we grumble and say how congested Singapore is. So, Sir, I wish all Members of this House would look at this question more from the political point of view that our manpower cannot meet the growth of the Malayan nation. Secondly, I will support the amendment based on the oriental tradition. Sir, we Eastern nations can learn a lot from the Western nations, but as regards parental love, I do not think any Western nation can challenge us. I give an answer to our hon. Mr Sutherland when he said, "We regret that we have no female Member in this House." I will represent my wife to this House! She has told me that she wishes to have a dozen children!

Very good! You can afford it!

I can assure this House that even when I have a dozen children and am jobless or cannot afford to feed them, I will never sell or kill them! To kill them or sell them is crazy! Now, how about the practice of birth control? Is there no similarity between it and the limitation of natural birth?

Think of your wife!

My wife wants it! I cannot stop her! Now, Sir, I have gone through the list of volunteer workers in the Family Planning Association when I received their memorandum on this coming debate. It was a surprise to me to find that many wealthy ladies are members of this Association, and I think if all the volunteer workers in this Association think that this is the right thing for them to do, then simply not go to the Government, not go to the taxpayer but ask their husbands to contribute to the sum of money that is required. Besides there is a lot of other social welfare work for these ladies to do. But, please, for goodness sake, do not introduce birth control in this country because we want to maintain the oriental tradition and keep the growth of the Malayan nation.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am very glad indeed that, from the outset, this controversial subject has been lifted from the plane of religious intolerance. I would go further and ask Members of this House not to be influenced by the many memoranda and requests we have each of us received and not think of this question from the point of view of vote-catching or keeping promises to voters before the election. [Interruption].

Order, please.

Now, to my mind, this is a very simple question. We have to think of the whole thing objectively: whether or not the expenditure of this $85,000 is to be beneficial or harmful to Singapore. We went through the Budget yesterday and we are quite convinced that expenditure will mount and mount and keep mounting as the years go by. Whatever we do, we will not be able to cope with the present population, which we have in Singapore, to say nothing of the increase in population that will arise, without some measure of family planning. I am told that we have about 40,000 people who are unemployed or are partially unemployed. Add to that another 10,000 who will be leaving schools each year and who will be looking for jobs. The Hon. the Assistant Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy) says: "Let us have all of them, as many as possible." Will he be able to find jobs for these people? If you get so many unemployed people, what is going to happen? You are only going to increase discontent, subversion and trouble. If we are to plan our families and only raise the number that we can afford, there will be much less misery in this world and in Singapore in particular. I have gone through my constituency, Sir. I have been through huts where there is only a small space of about thirty feet square. In it, I have found the father, mother and ten children -

Share your house with them!

Order, please.

Now, some of them have ten or more children and the man is earning less than $100 a month. Who is going to look after all these children, and who is going to pay for all the expenses incurred in child-birth? The result is that he gets into debt. He goes and worries relations. All the children are under-fed and in the normal course of events, many children die. Do you prefer them to suffer and die rather than to stop producing them?

Why bring them up?

Order, please. Hon. Members must please remember that they are in Committee and if they want to speak, again there is an opportunity. They can speak ten times, but please do not interrupt. Please continue, Mr Lim.

Sir, I have finished.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am glad the Member for Paya Lebar raised this point. It strikes me that it is the rich who will support family planning and they will do all they can because they are afraid that the poor people will expand in numbers; the population will grow, and one day the rich will have to part with their money to give the poor education. [Interruption.]

Order, please.

So income tax will have to be raised to provide more schools, hospitals, and so on, for the children of the poor. Maybe the best way is to limit the population, and then the rich can live in their palaces and enjoy their lives.

I heard Mr Lim Cher Kheng. Would the hon. Member like to speak again? Mr Lim Cher Kheng indicated dissent.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I rise to speak with no sense of pleasure. This is just one more skirmish in the eternal battle between light and darkness, between knowledge and ignorance, intelligence and stupidity, reason and prejudice, and between science and magic. It is a battle which has been fought through the ages. We might go back about a hundred years, I think, to the invention of chloroform. You will recollect, perhaps, that there was a lot of opposition to the use of chloroform for women in child-birth. The Christian people said, "This is very wrong. Women should bear their children in pain, for it says so in the Bible. The Bible cannot be wrong. They must bear their children in pain and suffering." And then, of course, the advocates of chloroform pointed out that at the very beginning of the Bible, you have the story of how the first man gave birth to the first woman. Adam was put into a deep sleep by the Lord and the woman was taken out of his side. And so the Bible apparently contradicted itself because, whereas the prophets said this, God, had, in fact, done the other thing; God had put a man into a deep sleep in order that he might produce another human being. Now, this is an eternal battle and we are gradually winning it. Reason, intelligence, understanding, and sympathy for people's suffering do gradually get the better of timidity and the fear of anything new which tend to dominate people's minds. I do not want to go on about the religious point of view because this is not a place for that sort of argument, but we had a similar skirmish in this eternal battle in the very early days of the old Labour Party of Singapore. It was then, I think, we had the first vote for family planning - a very small sum, $10,000 or $15,000, I cannot remember the figures - but, anyhow, it was bitterly opposed by people who said, "Well, this is a very wrong thing to help any woman to avoid child bearing." The Labour Party had a lot of internal discussions about it and they came out with a statement condemning the vote. Perhaps I might read you a little bit of this because it puts the case rather well: "As a non-sectarian political Party, Labour does not seek to form policy on religious grounds. Birth control is to be left to the individual's free will and conscience. From the practical side of the question, Labour is not convinced that birth control teaching and family planning clinics will make any real contribution to solving the problem of a large birth rate tending towards over-population." I personally agree with this. I am reluctant to shoot down anybody who is fighting on my side in this skirmish, but I do not think myself that you will get any significant reduction in your population by encouraging the use of contraceptives, because there are no contraceptives at present which do not demand certain habits of punctuality and regularity, and certain sanitary conveniences and so on, which are, in fact, not available. Even the long-promised pill (which I do not think has even appeared in a practical form yet), - even that is going to mean that people have got to take a pill and they have to remember to take it, and I am afraid they will forget or they will lose the pill. In any case, I do not think it will work. However, that is a point of view. I would not say I am right. My personal opinion is that it is not going to have a significant effect on the size of the population whether you have it or not, and I am reluctant to disappoint my very good friend and colleague, the Hon. the Assistant Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy) who apparently envisaged Singapore building up an enormous army and embarking on some campaign of imperialist aggression to bring SouthEast Asia under our control, supported, if I understood him rightly, by the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng), who also demanded more manpower. Perhaps he envisaged an attack on the Federation and taking over their lands; I am not sure. Anyhow, he seems to think in those terms, but I do not personally think that it is a religious point of view to suggest that, in order to avoid contraception, we should embark on war. That is my religion, but it may not be the same as others. Now, if I might continue to refer to this original draft memorandum put out by the Labour Party of Singapore. We drew attention to the fact that in Great Britain in this connection, according to Eva Hubbard who is a reputed authority on the subject - she is on the Population and Investigation Committee - more than 50 per cent of the mothers in Great Britain say, after birth, that their child was unplanned and unwanted. I remember also that the British Medical Association at about the same time quoted figures to say that there were 60,000 illegal abortions taking place in Britain, amounting to about 10 per cent of the total conceptions. If you take those two figures together, you get about 55 per cent of all conceptions which are unwanted and unplanned in Great Britain, a country with a much more advanced standard of education than we have here and which, of course, has had birth control well known for about a hundred years, since the time of the Bradlaugh-Besant trial. On those grounds, it seems to me unlikely that you are going to get any significant reduction in birth control in Singapore and that is not an argument which I personally accept as justifying this vote of $85,000. I would like to bring this discussion back to the plane on which it should have been kept. There has been, to my mind, far too much laughter amongst a group of men who are dealing with what is in the long run a woman's problem. I am going to give one particular instance which I know and where I have been concerned in trying to do something to help. There is a poor woman living quite close to my house. We try and keep in touch with the people around us. We try and give them help and, in the case of this woman, she had twelve children and was very hard up. She found it very hard to feed her children. We got her a part-time job washing clothes. She could come out for an hour or two in the morning to do the washing and then get back and look after the children again. By this means she could bring in some more money for the family. Well, she worked very well and happily. She was extremely grateful but, in due course, she had to give up the work because a thirteenth child was on the way. It is extremely wrong that anybody should laugh at this. It is not a comic story. It is a story of the tragic suffering of a poor woman in a mud-floor hut down in the Serangoon end of Potong Pasir. We went down to see her. We gave her some little help, but there she was, with the children all over the floor. One of them was in a high state of fever, but she herself was too weak and languid to be able to look after it. Another had fallen into the drain and scratched all the skin off his leg, and there was nobody to look after him, to get him to a clinic to have a bit of anti-tetanus serum. We had to look after that. The whole family was in a state of great poverty and misery, although the woman herself was an admirable person, being extremely hard-working, cheerful, willing and doing the very best she could to carry this family burden. I do not want to seem to be coarse, but I think I should continue with this: that her husband insisted on having intercourse with her up to within 24 hours of the time that her thirteenth baby was born. That baby has now been born and is paralysed all down the left side and will live and die a helpless cripple. The mother is so reduced in strength that she cannot go back to work at present and she has got another mouth to feed on an insufficient salary and without the strength even to look after the children, quite apart from feeding them. She is still there trying to get off her bed, trying to look after her children and without help. Well, that is a typical case, to my mind, which justifies this grant and any Member who votes against this $85,000 is voting for women all over Singapore to go on under those conditions - for children to be born paralysed, for children to grow up in over-crowded families uncared for, unloved, doomed for their whole lives to be bad citizens, to be a burden on the community. Now, there is one more point. The Member for Changi said, in his final peroration, I think, "For God's sake or for heaven's sake do not introduce birth control into Singapore." Now, I am afraid he is very far behind the times. There has been the practice of birth control in this part of the world long before the West ever came here -

Only for a -

Order, please.

I will tell you, Mr Chairman, Sir, that if you like to refer to a large two-volume dictionary "The Economic Products of Malaya" by Mr Burkill, you will find page after page of jungle herbs and roots with their Malay names, their Sumatran names; sometimes they are Chinese names, or they are Sakai names; and they are noted there as economic products because they are connected with and sold and used either to produce abortion or in the hope of preventing conception. That has been going on here from time immemorial, as it has in every part of the world, because women have always suffered this burden of excessive childbearing. Their husbands have imposed it on them, and they have had to carry it and they have therefore tried to avoid it in one way or another. You can hardly talk to a family in this city without coming across a case of some woman who has tried to bring about an abortion and has killed herself or permanently damaged her health in the process, and that is going to happen as long as you have these unwanted conceptions and you are going to have people seeking to produce abortion. It is not facing the facts at all to say, "Do not introduce family planning. Do not introduce birth control into Singapore." You have already got it here. You may say, "Let us have it as dirty, as unhealthy, as magical, as wrong, as harmful, or as expensive as possible, by all means. Let us do all the damage we can with it, because women will still demand it." But you wish to deny them having something which is clean, scientific, reasonable and secure. I hope Members will remember that this is not a subject for humorous remarks although they are very easy and tempting to make, but at the back of it all does lie an enormous mass of human suffering which we ought to relieve, and which we can relieve, through this voluntary Association which is doing this remarkable and expanding job of taking away some of the burden of ignorance and suffering which men impose upon women.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I think the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works is mistaken about birth control when he says that it has been practised quite long ago in Malaya. He must be innocent of the fact that many abortions are due to illicit intercourse especially among - I am so sorry to offend them - the Malays. Because of illicit intercourse they try to avoid the punishment. That is why they seek a herb called "kong thow", which is an unhygienic means of birth control. As I have just now pointed out, all the volunteer workers and supporters of the Family Planning Association, including the wives of our Deputy Speaker (Mr R. C. H. Lim) and the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) are wealthy. They can easily contribute a sum of $85,000, but it is not for the Government to support the principle of granting this sum of money for family planning, which is against the feelings of a large section of the public. There are also a majority of the taxpayers who are against it.

I think this is a convenient time to suspend the sitting. We shall resume at 2.30 p.m. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.26 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m. Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

We are still on Head 3. Hon. Members are aware that I have allotted 150 minutes for this Head, so that if that time is utilised, it will take us till four o'clock.

Sir, I rise to oppose this amendment. I think it is very necessary and desirable at this stage of the debate to quote the aims and objects of the Singapore Family Planning Association. Sir, this body is a voluntary Association the objects of which are: "(i) to educate the people in healthy family planning and to provide facilities for scientific contraception so that married people may space or limit their families and thus promote their happiness in married life and mitigate the evils of ill-health and over-crowding; (ii) to advocate and promote the establishment of family planning centres at which, in addition to advice on scientific contraception, women can get advice on, and when necessary for, any or all of the following: (a) involuntary sterility; (b) minor gynaecological ailments; and (c) difficulties connected with the marriage relationship; (iii) to encourage the production of healthy children who are an asset to the nation provided that the parents have the help and means to give them a reasonable chance in life; and (iv) to examine such other steps as are relevant to the above and to take such action as may be considered as advisable." Sir, the Association has been functioning in Singapore for the past seven years. It is widely known for its good work to both the educated and the uneducated people of Singapore. The attention of many people, who have the interests and the welfare of the people of Singapore at heart, has been drawn to the activities of this Association, which have increased considerably. Consequently, this Association has to its credit the services of about 102 volunteer workers acting as office bearers, Committee members, a senior staff and voluntary workers, a fact which, of course, only a very few voluntary organisations in Singapore have the good fortune to point to with pride. This includes, Sir, the broad-minded, enthusiastic and public-spirited wives of the Members of the Assembly. The amendment before the House, Sir, is in itself a compliment to the work of this Association and ample testimony of the wide interest taken by Members of this Assembly in regard to family planning. Whichever way you look at it, the Association has been doing very useful work for the community generally, and it was not a surprise at all to me when the Government repeated the provision of financial assistance to this organisation to promote its aims and objects. When a grant of $60,000 as contribution was provided in the 1955 Budget for the first time, this attracted considerable public attention. Since then, the subject of family planning and Government contribution has met with severe criticism by members of a certain section of the public, especially the Roman Catholic denomination of the Christian religion, so much so that certain candidates to the last Assembly election chose this subject as one of their election platforms. A reflection of that promise made at these election campaigns can be seen in the form in which the amendment has been introduced this morning. The amendment seeks to delete in toto the contribution of $85,000 to this organisation. Sir, I, on my behalf, and on behalf of my electorate, am dispassionately against the amendment. First of all, let me pay my sincere tribute to those who are against this expenditure for the courage of their convictions. I think honest criticisms can clear up all misunderstandings underlying the opposition to this provision. The population of Singapore is increasing steadily year by year. In 1954, there were 56,931 births and 10,790 deaths. The rate of births was 5.26 times over deaths. This works out at an average of 1,090 babies in one week. It is estimated - I am quoting the Singapore Annual Report for the year 1954 - that: "The number of children in the primary age group of 7-12 years was 144,800 in 1954, but this figure will rise to 239,500 by 1959 the increase being nearly 20,000 a year in 1955, increasing to 23,000 a year in 1958. To provide extra school accommodation necessary in these critical years there is a need for 20 new schools a year, and for 600 teachers." Increased needs will also arise year by year as the population increases. The social services, like housing and public assistance, also tend to increase very heavily in expenditure. There has been a very sharp increase year by year. In 1953, $2,423,503 was paid to 6,835 families and in 1954 nearly $3.6 millions to 9,943 families. The estimated expenditure in 1955 was shown as $5 millions. Most of the families receiving public assistance usually complain that they cannot make both ends meet, because of the cost of education, medical attention, etc. for their children. The vast increase in population, accompanied by the existing high per- centage of illiteracy, low earnings of the people, and the large number of children and dependants, should serve as an eye-opener to all right-thinking men or women and cause them to devise new methods of improving the economic standards of the community. It can safely be said that the provision of social security is not the only solution. There is also room for the concept of the prevention of new life on the grounds of duty to care for those already living. Certain improvements cannot be effected by measures taken by Government only, but voluntary organisations also can help. The Family Planning Association, Sir, I submit, is such an organisation aimed at improving family life. Sir, my main interest in the work of the Family Planning Association is in so far as it serves the poor families of the community. The Association's record of activities lists also the following. I am now reading, Sir, extracts of figures that I have been able to get on the income groups: - "Those who receive less than $100 per month or unemployed, etc. 768 persons - 26.83 per cent. Those from $101 to $200 per month 1,284 persons - 44.85 per cent. Those from $201 to $300 per month 374 persons - 13.06 per cent. Those from $301 to $400 per month 146 persons - 5.10 per cent. Those from $401 to $500 per month 46 persons - 1.06 per cent. Those from $501 and above per month 244 persons - 8.05 per cent". Sir, I maintain that a contribution from Government funds to such a voluntary organisation is fully justified. Having said this, let me now turn to what governments in other parts of the world are doing to assist the Family Planning Association in their respective countries. Sir, recently in Tokyo there was a conference of delegates representing organisations on family planning. Fifteen countries were represented at that conference, and it is very important to note that three of these countries do receive direct government aid. They are India, Japan and Egypt. Although countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Pakistan, Ceylon, Germany and South Africa do not get direct financial aid, the majority give subsidies and assistance to local family planning organisations in the form of equipment and premises. In those countries where there is no government subsidy, facilities are provided otherwise; for instance, for T.B. and mental patients. The State provides family planning facilities, or else it pays the family planning clinics. Sir, in the case of countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, there is a basic difference in the wages that they receive. In Singapore and other parts of the Asian countries, the basic wage is far lower than that in the countries of Europe. Sir, our position, as compared to India, Japan, Egypt and other Asian countries, is that we have a very high percentage of illiteracy and our earning capacity is very low and we have more than 50 per cent who are under 21. Sir, in Hongkong, the Government provides premises for the Family Planning Association. In 1955, the organisation received a token grant from the Government, a site in the city for their new headquarters, passage expenses for their two delegates to the Tokyo conference. In addition to this, the Jockey Club of Hongkong gives large donations yearly. This year, I understand, a sum of (Hongkong) $125,000 has been contributed to their new building. Sir, Japan recognises her obligation to the Family Planning Association. She has tried to prevent large families by abortion. This means a danger to mental health, maternal health and it also threatens family happiness and moral character. I will not, for a moment, recommend that we take such a step. But Japan is also giving assistance to the Family Planning Association. Sir, I think I have covered some of the countries, which do give subsidies to their Family Planning Association. May I also, Sir, draw attention to a few remarks made by a very eminent social worker in India who is also very actively connected with the Family Planning Association there? This eminent social worker is Mrs. Allabhai B. Wardhya, and she says that there are three necessary conditions for planned parenthood in Asia. "In each country where it is sought to be introduced, it must meet the current and future needs and fit in with the national and ethical aims. As far as religious scruples are concerned, no rigid dogma seeks to rule out knowledge or what the practice of fertility can solve. All the great Asian religions forbid killing and enjoins compassion. A rational application of this could find ethical the concepts of the prevention of a new life on the grounds of duty to care for those already living." I do not want to prolong my speech, Sir, with all those quotations, but I think what I have already given will suffice for the time being. Sir, the main objection to the Singapore Government's contribution to the Family Planning Association seems to me to come from the Roman Catholics. As far as I can gather, they too are not opposed to family planning in the broadest sense. They differ only in the method employed. Sir, I am a Hindu by religion. My ancestors were very orthodox Hindus. Our religion forbids killing in all forms. We are forbidden to kill chickens, goats and even ants. There are many Hindus in Singapore to-day, and if the contention is advanced that the tax collected from the Roman Catholics should not be used for the Family Planning Association, I think the Hindus have just as right a claim to say that their religion does not permit the collection of their rates to be utilised for the construction, maintenance, staffing and equipment of slaughter houses. I also think, Sir, that the Malays would also object very strongly to those houses where pigs are slaughtered. Sir, if there is only one religion in this world, or if Singapore is a religious state, then probably we will be able to impose such conditions as the Roman Catholics want us to do, but may I ask the Roman Catholics of Singapore to be tolerant in the matter? The world at this critical stage cannot exist without individual members or various religious organisations exercising tolerance and patience in their beliefs and activities. Sir, in conclusion, let me tell this Assembly this: if you delete this provision from the Budget, you will be taking away the basic right of the poor woman to receive a knowledge of contraception, a knowledge that is available to her and her uneducated sister through the Family Planning Association; or, alternatively, the Government will be forced to set up family planning centres.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am confident that all the hon. Members in this House are quite aware of my attitude towards the question of whether Government should use the taxpayers' money in contributing funds to the Family Planning Association of Singapore. On the 29th of June, I was asked by the Member for the Southern Islands (Inche Mohamed Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid) who, I believe, is against family planning, what Government's policy was towards the Family Planning Association and I replied that Government had no set policy. I did say, on behalf of the Government, that as the matter was highly controversial the Government quite rightly decided that it should, at the proper time, be freely debated in this House where one could vote according to one's religious beliefs and conscience; and the Hon. the Financial Secretary, when introducing the Budget, informed hon. Members that the $85,000 under Head 3: Contributions and Charitable Allowances would form the subject of a free vote. Government has taken away the Whip and everyone is entitled to say what he thinks about the matter. The only issue before this House is whether Government should finance with taxpayers' money the Family Planning Association of Singapore. All the Members who have spoken have advocated or, shall I say, preached the gospel of family planning and have completely lost sight of the issue before the House. Even the Hon. the Chief Minister, in his address to the House, has taken up the wrong angle. We are not asked to vote for or against family planning. I respect the views of everyone in this House, whether they be for or against. I appreciate, however, that the Hon. the Chief Minister was perhaps answering things that might have been said by the Member for Bukit Panjang (Mr Goh Tong Liang) who was talking about his Catholic ancestors. Mr R. C. H. Lim, in his address, also attacked the subject from the same angle. He was attempting to preach the gospel of family planning to us. It was the same with our bachelor Member (Mr Sutherland) - I cannot understand how such a good-looking gentleman is still a bachelor. He said that family planning would bring relief to women. Bachelors are usually reminded that they should get married and do their duty to the country. The Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) asked us not to pay attention to the appeals of members of the public who asked elected Members to safeguard their interests. I say to him that every Member should lend a sympathetic ear to his electorate and then use his sound judgment. The Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Thomas) made a rather pathetic appeal to us. He asked everyone to remain silent and serious while he related a pathetic story in order to play upon our emotions. If he is such an ardent advocate of birth control and knows that the husband of the lady he was talking about was insatiable, surely he could have given the poor lady the necessary advice or brought her himself to the Family Planning Association? This lady's case, as are similar cases in all parts of the world, is used as an example to advocate birth control. The answer to his picture of a poor home with poor uneducated children around is better housing and better education, a matter, which I will touch on a little later. But as you will see, all those who preach the gospel of family planning have strayed from the very issue before the House, and that is whether the sum of $85,000 be deleted. The population of Singapore - the voters who have placed the elected Members in power in this House - comprise of a number of races of different creeds. Amongst them, of course, are Catholics, to which religion different races belong, embracing a large number of Chinese, Europeans, Indians, Eurasians and Tamils, who are certainly opposed to Government's grant. There is also a large number of people belonging to other Christian denominations. There are the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews who consider birth control and the use of contraceptives highly objectionable and resent that part of their contribution towards public funds should be used for a purpose repugnant to them. I mention this not for the purpose of raising any religious views, as I and every right-thinking person respect the views of others. There are forty to fifty thousand Catholics in Singapore of whom, taking a rough estimate, thirty to thirty-five thousand are eligible voters spread throughout the various constituencies. I make no threat. Amongst the other bodies that I have mentioned, I know that there are minority groups who consider family planning not sinful. I have not been able to get an estimate of the number of those who are anti-family planning, but I am satisfied that there are a considerable number from these different creeds who object to taxpayers' money being used for the Family Planning Association. In mentioning these groups, I do not wish, and I repeat once again, to raise any religious issues at all nor to impose the will of any religion upon the Government. My purpose in mentioning this is purely to show you that it is necessary for the Government to be cautious and not to ride roughshod over the wishes and conscience of the people of Singapore. What we are debating today is not purely a matter of dollars and cents but one that goes much deeper. We must be concerned with the feelings of our electorate and whether or not we are safeguarding, with care, consideration and understanding, the most cherished views even of the minorities- I have received, and I believe Members of the House have also received, petitions from persons of different religions on the matter. I have also received a memorandum from an association of University students who have expressed their deep concern in this matter. These youths belong to a cross-section of our community, both in terms of economics and race, and yet they have expressed one single united view against Government's proposed grant. They possess a high sense of responsibility and they are the voters of tomorrow and we cannot disregard them. I have also received telegrams, as have some of you. I am not asking hon. Members to vote against family planning - to some of you it may be a good thing - but I suggest that the Family Planning Association of Singapore could and should carry on without any contributions from public funds, as associations in other parts of the world are doing. Let us suppose that Government tomorrow says: We wish to conserve land in Singapore and therefore a public crematorium must be built and all people dying in Singapore should be cremated there. Would not the Muslims, the Catholics and others whose very religious tenets forbid cremation create an uproar and call upon Government to change its policy? I am certain that we in this House will agree that their wishes should be respected. I have heard the argument, and I have heard it again today, that the Catholics and other objecting bodies should be more tolerant because the abattoir was built with public funds and pigs are slaughtered there. I wish to say to the person who advanced that argument that he is ignorant of the fact that a special abattoir has been built solely for the slaughter of cattle and sheep according to Muslim rites, so that the Muslims and Jews whose religious laws proclaim pigs to be unclean have, from part of their funds, contributed to special abattoirs built for them where animals are slaughtered without offending their religious beliefs. There is a special abattoir solely for the slaughter of pigs.

Out of public money!

Yes, out of public money contributed, as we all know, by the majority of the population in Singapore, the Chinese. The money contributed by the Muslims, which is a small amount, has been used by Government to build a special abattoir for themselves. No matter what hon. Members' views may be on the question of birth control and the use of contraceptives, no matter how strongly they may feel that it is a good thing, their duty is to respect the wishes of even the minority of their electorate. I do not know from where my hon. Friend the Member for Seletar (Mr Nair) got his information about this international family parenthood conference that was held in Tokyo. As you all know, I went there myself and I have first-hand information on the subject.

At Government expense!

Yes, at Government expense.

Shame! Why did you not put up -

Order, please. You can speak afterwards, Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Since my learned Friend has mentioned this, let me clarify the situation. Government decided to send two representatives to Tokyo for this conference and it was felt by my Ministry that it would be a good thing for me to go as an observer. I felt that it might be politically unwise for me to do so and I referred the matter not only to my electorate but also to the Catholic Social Guild and I had their written approval before I decided to go. In that international conference, there were sixteen countries represented. I do not know from where my hon. Friend the Member for Seletar got his information about Egypt, because Egypt was not represented. The countries that were represented were Australia, Bermuda, Ceylon, Great Britain, Hawaii, Hongkong, India, Israel, Pakistan, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand, the United States and an observer from Canada. Now, all the family planning associations in these countries, with the exception of India and Japan, are run on voluntary contributions. Those in India and Japan are Government financed. The Hongkong Government gave their family planning association this year a token vote of (Hongkong) $5,000, which is equivalent to about $2,000 odd of our money. The Government is now asking us to give $85,000 to the Association. If the Jockey Club of Hongkong were to contribute money to the Family Planning Association here, I would have no objection at all, but my hon. Friend the Member for Seletar commenced his address by saying, when he was boosting the Family Planning Association of Singapore, that it is a voluntary Association. If that were so, I would have no objections whatsoever. In this House, for the first time in history, the majority of the Members are elected representatives of the people. It is the duty of a democratic government to give the people what they want and not merely, what is thought good for them. The World Health Organisation brought up the question of family planning in the House of Commons in August 1952, and I wish to quote the reply which was given by the Minister of Health on behalf of Her Majesty's Government: "The British Government has no intention of imposing birth control on any native territory under its jurisdiction." Speaking at the end of the debate on birth control, Miss Patricia Hornsby- Smith, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, said: "We have also great responsibilities of our own towards native populations under our jurisdiction. Her Majesty's Government have set themselves against imposing anything of this nature on any territory under our control. Hon. Members will be in no doubt how readily such a policy would be misrepresented as an attempt to control native populations to the advantage of white minorities. Hon. Members must be well aware of the dynamite which such a policy would carry. Her Majesty's Government do not consider the World Health Organisation competent to discuss or express views on the social, economic or ethical aspects of birth control." Mr Churchill, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, referred to the use of contraceptives as one of the most pernicious innovations of our time, and George Bernard Shaw, who was a non-Catholic, called the use of contraceptives mutual masturbation. I, like my hon. Friend, say that the matter is not a laughing matter. It is serious. The maternity and child welfare centres and clinics run by the Ministry of Health in England have received specific directives on the subject. These are the directives given: "The Minister of Health has authorised a statement that Government has under consideration the question of the use of institutions which are controlled by local authorities for the purpose of giving advice to women on contraceptive methods. So far as maternity and child welfare centres are concerned, these centres can properly deal only with expectant mothers, nursing mothers and young children, and it is the view of the Government that it is not the function of the centres to give advice in regard to birth control and that their use for such a purpose would be likely to damage the proper working of these centres. At the same time, the Government considers that in cases where there are medical grounds for giving advice on contraceptive methods to married women in attendance at the centres, it may be given but that such advice should be limited to cases where further pregnancy would be detrimental to health. Having regard to the acute division of public opinion on the subject of birth control, the Government has decided that no departmental sanction, which may be necessary to the establishment of such clinics for expectant and nursing mothers, shall be given except on condition that contraceptive advice would be given only in cases where further pregnancy would be detrimental to health." It winds up: "The Authority will be aware that the Departmental Committee on Maternal Mortality and Morbidity in their final Report published in 1932 called special attention to the importance of the avoidance of pregnancy by women suffering from organic disease, such as tuberculosis, heart disease, diabetes, chronic nephritis, etc. What is or is not medically detrimental to health must be decided by the professional judgment of the registered medical practitioner in charge of the clinics." Discussions for and against the passing of this vote to the Family Planning Association take a multiple character. There is the economic view, the religious view, the political view and the anti-colonial view. Those who support the vote appear to me to put the cart before the horse, by saying that the encouragement of so-called family planning will lessen squalor and poverty. I would suggest to my hon. Friends that squalor and poverty can unfortunately be found, but they are aspects of the social, economic and political problems, which were handed over by our predecessors. Let me quote from a booklet entitled: "Is the World heading for Starvation?" by A. G. Doniforn, M.A., Oxford, Lecturer in Political Economy, University College of London. He cites the proceedings of the United Nations Scientific Conference on the conservation and utilisation of resources as follows: "In general, expert after expert concluded that it was possible for the less wasteful use of resources to fuller application of existing techniques and the exploitation of new scientific developments to support a far greater population than exists today at a much higher level of living." Again, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation Survey stated: "Many people who have given serious study to the population problem prophesied doom for much of mankind unless the rate of population growth can be drastically checked. It is worth reiterating that the fundamental solution of the problem lies in increasing the productivity of the individual by putting at his disposal modern scientific knowledge and the tools of modern technology. To the extent that this is done, every individual can become a source of new wealth to his country and to the world. To the extent that this is not done, he is a potential liability, unable to supply his own needs, let alone helping to supply those of his fellow-beings." I suggest that the conditions of the working class are not improved by restricting the family to its size but in providing it with the needs it requires. The question of a minimum wage is now being considered as a matter of great urgency. In my opinion, those who wish to cloak the evils of colonialism and capitalism will support this grant. There is a great mal-distribution of wealth in society, and families are asked to restrict their size by objectionable methods with a subsidy from public funds. I quote from an editorial from a Chinese daily, the Sin Chew Jit Pao of the 21st July, 1954, when discussing the question of the population of Singapore and birth control. The article wound up with this paragraph: "The main solution to the problem of population lies in scientific progress and improvement of our social and economic system. If men can be united in peace and help one another according to the moral law of justice and mercy, the world will experience no trouble in feeding a population ten times more numerous than the present one." It seems ironical that while, on the one hand, we are told of squalor and poverty, on the other, we are also told of the wealth that this beautiful island has produced and is producing. We admit we have this wealth, yet we must also admit we have this poverty and this squalor. Yes, we have the cubicles of Chinatown and the Indian lines around Keppel Harbour. We have the attap huts of our squatters and the thousands of human beings huddled behind Havelock Road and the persons of whom my hon. Friend spoke. In these areas people suffer squalor and poverty but, please note, not because as normal human beings, they desire children, and once they have them they can only support them with difficulty. The reason is because, before our time, no attempt was made to see that the people were properly housed and paid proper wages, and because colonial economy did not allow for normal industrialisation. This is the problem now. This is our heritage from the period fortunately now over, when nominated and official individuals played at politics and thought that so-called family planning could be disguised as a radical social reform. We are now asked to spend $85,000 of the taxpayers' money on a scheme which nowhere has given any conclusive proof that it can diminish squalor and poverty and which incorporates obnoxious practices welcomed only by a few and rejected by the more normal masses. It has been said that no harm is done in the use of contraceptives. Let me quote from a book on birth control by Halliday Sutherland, M.D. - I am sorry he is not a relation of yours, Mr Sutherland! - "Medical Objections to Contraception": "All contraceptive methods of birth control are, in the first place, unphysiological because, apart altogether from preventing conception, they either hinder or prevent the absorption of hormones which may have some part in promoting health and compatibility in marriage." Professor McIlroy of the London School of Medicine for Women considered it to be more widely known that neuroses are largely the result of the use of contraceptives and also that in women the maternal passion is even stronger, for it might develop later than sexual passion and would ultimately demand satisfaction. Dame Mary Scharliet - this is from the British Medical Journal - said: "An experience of well over forty years convinces me that the artificial limitation of the family causes damage to a woman's nervous system. The damage done is likely to show itself in inability to conceive when the restriction voluntarily used is abandoned because a couple desire offspring ... Sometimes such a woman is not only sterile but nervous and generally in poor health but the more common occurrence is that she remains fairly well until the time of the change of life when she frequently suffers more on the nervous side than does a woman who has lived a natural married life." Dr. James Young, D.S.O., M.D., F.R.C.S., said: "Passing to the consideration of contraceptives, we have to note that harm to the genital canal can be produced by such methods and we have seen infective lesions in which there was clear evidence of such a casual agent. On this subject there is urgent room for further study before we could pretend to speak with authority. Indeed we are in a position of having allowed a gigantic unhealthy system possessing much of danger to the national health to go up before our eyes almost entirely unhealed." Amongst other things that are preached by the Family Planning Association is the taking advantage of the sterile period of a woman, usually known as the "safety period". Amongst the religious bodies that I have cited, there are no objections to anything that does not contravene the laws of nature. The Catholics, of course, feel much stronger about it and say that that can only be used when necessary for the health of the mother. It is the earnest desire and intention of this Government to give more medical, health and social services to the people. With this $85,000 much more good can be done. I could probably build two first-class maternity and child welfare clinics, or the money could be utilised for much more beneficial social services than family planning. The use of the people's money for a purpose repugnant to them is bitterly resented by quite a large number of our constituents. What right have I or any Member of this House to vote for public assistance to an association that strikes at the deepest and most sincere convictions of a large number of those who elected them? If we in this House consider ourselves justified in riding roughshod over their profound beliefs and ignoring their earnest appeals to you, can we expect them to have any faith in the democracy which we are trying to uphold? As I have said before, I respect everybody's views and I am not asking them to vote against family planning but against the use of the taxpayers' money and I ask you once again, hon. Members, no matter what your views may be, which I respect, to be extremely cautious before making your decision and not to ride roughshod over the wishes of your voters who put you into power. At that international conference in Tokyo, the reports of the various family planning associations were brought up. I would just like to read to you the American report. It is from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which incorporates all its 49 States: "Both this Federation and its affiliates are supported by voluntary contributions and fees from persons receiving service at the centres. Clinic services are generally rendered at less than cost. In 1954 for the first time, the total income of the Federation and its affiliates of the United States topped a million and a half dollars. The total includes more than a million dollars in income from contributions. Thus, for every dollar paid by persons served in local family planning centres, more than three other dollars were collected in other ways to operate the total programme. The cost of the planned parenthood fund raised in the United States alone is 6.3 per cent of the total income and contributions."

Mr Chairman, Sir, we must all thank the Hon. the Minister for Health for his learned dissertation on the pros and cons of not spending Government money to help family planning. This is a question which is highly charged with emotion, religious and traditional beliefs. It is also a delicate question which, unless delicately handled, could border on the burlesque. First of all, I would like to dispose of what I think is the principal cause of this lengthy debate, namely, the Catholic objection. It is a proper objection for those who subscribe to the Catholic faith. We have been told that three per cent of the population in Singapore are Catholics. They have every right to voice their views and to have their representatives come to this Assembly to propagate their point of view. We have to respect their point of view - as we should always do if we are to remain a happy and tolerant society. But I think the fundamental question we must decide is whether we are a religious state or a secular state. If we are a religious state, a state based on a particular God, whether a Roman Catholic, non-Roman Catholic or Islamic God, then the whole question changes complexion. A state based on a particular God accepts certain axioms, certain miracles, and certain dogmas. But we hope to build out of a multi-religious society a secular state in which all traditional religions, beliefs, and philosophies are allowed to go their own way and co-exist. That is the only way out for us in Malaya and, for that reason, we shall start with the assumption that we wish to found a secular state. If we wish to found a state based on Islam, as Pakistan has done, then the whole question takes on a different complexion altogether. Having decided that this is to be a secular state, we then put the Roman Catholic objection - quite a proper objection - into perspective. Sir, the proposition advanced is that you cannot spend the taxpayers' money to support a scheme, which is abhorrent to three per cent of the population. That is one point of view. The Hon. the Minister for Health has explained how it is that, in spite of that major proposition, one his abattoirs built with Government funds for killing pigs in a multi-religious society such as ours. His explanation is that the majority of the people here are Chinese and, therefore, the small percentage of Muslims (more than three per cent of the population) do not object to it because, at the same time, they build their own abattoir where they slaughter animals according to their rites. Now, Sir, if I may pursue this particular line of argument, I would say that if the Hon. the Minister for Health came to this Assembly with a proposal to set up some kind of institution for the Catholics which he feels would counterbalance government expenditure on family planning, I am sure it would receive a most sympathetic hearing in this House. But there is another aspect of the problem which he may have some difficulty in rationalising. There are lots of conscientious objectors and I do not think any of them has ever raised the proposition that his money or any of the taxpayers' money should not be spent on armament because it is abhorrent to his particular belief. It has not been suggested in Singapore yet, but we may yet have an association of conscientious objectors who might find supporters in this Assembly, and then we would be in a very difficult position when we come to the Defence Budget. But even before we reach that fantastic situation, may I remind the Hon. the Minister for Health that the Roman Catholics, as I understand their tenets, object vehemently, and quite rightly, to divorce, because they hold the view that a marriage is for life. Sir, I have not heard any challenge on that portion of the Budget which is going to be spent on the divorce courts. As a matter of fact, Mr Chairman, Sir, quite a number of Roman Catholic lawyers practise in the divorce courts. One has got to be rational about these things, and these lawyers are. A Roman Catholic lawyer, if he is asked to appear for a petitioner to bring about the wrecking of a marriage, will object. He will not appear. It is against his religious beliefs and, quite rightly and properly, he refuses such a brief. No court has the right to compel him to prosecute a divorce because the court respects his religious beliefs. But he does appear on behalf of those against whom a divorce is sought, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad, reasons. What I wish to point out is that the whole process is being financed by the State out of State funds, which include the taxes paid by the three per cent Catholics, and that fundamental point has not been challenged. Sir, I believe very strongly in complete religious freedom. I believe that it is not right that a minority point of view - and it is still a minority point of view - should prevent us from giving support to what we consider right. Once we decide on that, this question of whether we can or cannot spend public money should be set aside - and it should be set aside the moment we have decided that we are a non-religious and secular state, in which the will of the majority as represented by its elected representatives is the deciding factor - we can then decide whether family planning is good or bad. If it is bad on the merits, we shall not give the money. If it is good on the merits, we shall give the money. The Hon. the Minister for Health has been troubled by a lot of arguments one way or the other on the merits of family planning. There are two contending points of view. The one put forward by the Hon. the Minister for Health is that you should leave nature alone and not tamper with it. You can produce and reproduce and all you need to do to meet the needs of the increasing population is higher productivity, harder work, putting right the social evils and, somehow or the other, things will come out right. Man will triumph over nature and everybody will flourish. The other point of view most vehemently advocated by the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) is that it is a wicked thing, this procreation, this profligate fecundity, and we will wind up in a mass of slums if it is not checked. It has got to be checked somehow, and the way to do it is to give them all the proper preventives so that, whilst they may not be able to control their natural instincts, they can at least avoid the unpleasant consequences. Sir, I think both points of view do not really pose the problem which the world faces. It is a world problem, and it is in that world context that each individual country should view its problem. I think it is agreed that if the world keeps on multiplying and you have limited land, there must mathematically speaking come a time when all the land is completely occupied, either agriculturally, industrially or domestically. One then begins to build upwards. You can go on building upwards until you reach that point in the hemisphere where human life could no longer be maintained. But whether it is an advantage to any particular community, nation or race to restrict its population, or maintain it or expand it depends on relative factors. It depends upon certain circumstances obtaining at any particular moment. The circumstances are not absolute. I do not subscribe to the view that one can multiply oneself ad infinitum and everything will be all right somehow or the other. Nor do I subscribe to the opposing point of view that, unless one stops this unfortunate multiplication of human lives, an unhappy situation will arise and there will be more slums in Paya Lebar for the Member for Paya Lebar to worry about. I think if we approached this problem in a more academic frame of mind, we would see that whether a particular nation or race has expanded or contracted depends on many factors. When Germany was expanding her territorial claims, her Government was confident that the right thing was to multiply. They believed that the more people they had fighting on their side and holding the same beliefs, the greater were their chances of overwhelming their enemies. Hitler, quite rightly, gave prizes all round to mothers who were able to help him build his magnificent Reich which was going to last a thousand years. So did Mussolini in Italy. There are also other countries, without these evil intentions, like Australia, who also want to increase their population. Given their particular conditions - a large land mass with ten million Europeans, and 600 million Chinese and nearly 100 million Japanese to the North - it is in the interests of Australia militarily, politically and industrially, too, to expand its population. I do not think the Australian Government will support any family planning when it is importing large sections of population from Britain, and even from Italy. Each country faces its particular population problem in a world context. If you view birth control from the point of view of the individual, there are many factors coming into play - his religious beliefs, his approach to life, his general philosophy of life. If people find a particular state of bliss in bachelorhood, then a very serious situation will arise for the country as a whole if everybody becomes a bachelor, and the Government will have to do something to remedy that. But for the time being, I do not think Mr Sutherland is really a problem either to the British Empire, to his Government or even to the Colony of Singapore -

That is very generous of you!

But there are countries where, as a result of industrialisation and a breeding of a particular attitude and approach to life, either by reduction of fertility rates or excessive use of contraceptives, the population has, in fact, been decreasing and it is worrying their governments considerably. The French Government is extremely alarmed at the tapering down of the population pyramid. Health measures are good. People live longer. Less and less young people are being born to support more and more old people. A very serious population problem arises where you have the inverted population pyramid. The problem must be viewed from a particular territory's point of view, its particular economic, social and geographical conditions. For instance, if we want to overwhelm the island of Sumatra, which is occupied by 200,000 people, and we say there is gold, rubber and tin there and all we need is a strong strapping army which believes in conquest, then the proper thing to do is to multiply our population at the fastest possible speed. Train up youth corps, put them in brown shirts or blue shirts, march them up and down, and away they go across to Sumatra to found a new Empire. But we are a small nation and I do not think our future lies in military conquests. Neither does our future lie in becoming a weak and unbalanced society by having the population pyramid tapering down and inverted. In fact, if there is any danger of that, the People's Action Party might not have a free vote on it. As a Member of the Party I would very strenuously object to any birth control if the population were going to taper down in that way. Because I have very strong views about having enough young people to do the work when I reach that age when I stop working and want social security benefits. For the time being, the population base is spreading right out in Singapore. It is one of those things that go by geometrical progression and going at a terrific speed. The Singapore Improvement Trust have already thrown in their hand. They say that it is a hopeless job. The Hon. the Minister for Health has not said that it is a hopeless job. He will cope with anything - with two district cottage hospitals at $85,000 - and he says that there is not the slightest danger of our population becoming too large. But there is no need for us to expand it. All we need do is to keep it steady - with regular age groups going right up to the top. For the time being, I see no danger whatsoever of this $85,000 for the Family Planning Association upsetting the population balance or upsetting the economy or trade of the country. All I see in this $85,000 is a feeble attempt to bring the benefits of birth control methods to those who wish to have them - those who have six or seven or eight children and do not wish to have more but do not know how to prevent it. This $85,000 is a small drop in the ocean. When the propagation of birth control knowledge and methods becomes a social or an economic problem by upsetting the population one way or the other, then we will have to come back to this House and review it. The whole problem must be viewed in the context of a particular society at a particular time. The object of any organised society is the pursuit of the happiness and the well-being of all its peoples. My opinion is that, in our pursuit of this happiness, we should do something to alleviate the sufferings and hardships of those who wish to avoid unduly large families by having the assistance of family planning. France and even Great Britain have reached the point where they have childless couples throughout all strata of society - people whose attitude to life, as a result of their civilisation, have become so personal and so introvert that they do not wish to assume any responsibility. They just like to live their own lives. But when a whole class of people in a nation begins to adopt that attitude, as they have in France, then the Government becomes most concerned because it upsets the whole population structure. We have not reached that point yet. For the time being, with very great respect for the Catholics, I say there is no harm in this subsidy to the Family Planning Association. If there is any harm, we can review it. It is not a question of brushing aside a Catholic point of view, or imposing the view of a majority. The question is whether we, as Members of an Assembly which wants to establish a secular state, consider this in the best interests of the country for the time being, not for all time. For the time being, there is no harm in it and we support it.

Mr Chairman, Sir, we have indeed heard very good speeches from the Hon. the Minister for Health and the Member for Tanjong Pagar. One would not know which side to vote for after hearing these two powerful arguments. Sir, in this case and in many other cases, we have got to bow to the wishes of our electorate whom we represent here. If not, we will be questioned on this point. Sir, Singapore is a place with many races and many creeds but it is not a secular state. I believe it is a religious state. Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister rather scolded the Member for Bukit Panjang (Mr Goh Tong Liang) for bringing religion into this debate. Sir, the Muslims say religion and politics go together. Mahatma Gandhi once said, "I will do anything and everything at the dictate of my inner voice or religion." Now they are inseparable. There is no reason why hon. Members cannot debate this subject based even on religion. Take, for example, the Muslims. According to their religion, they are allowed to marry four wives -

How many have you got?

It cannot be for nothing. On the other hand, it is very difficult to have more than one wife if the religion is properly followed. Now, Sir, according to that religion, it is not wise to control births unless it is for health reasons. Muslim religion is most rational and women can always go to their doctors for advice where their health is concerned. Because of this I support the motion that we should not contribute anything from the taxpayers' money to this Family Planning Association. There will be many who will be willing to give voluntary support, as is being done, so some hon. Members say, in India, Hongkong, and many other countries. We should not take up a matter which might create unnecessary trouble.

Mr Chairman, Sir, this question before the House of whether or not to give aid to the Family Planning Association should be debated in the light of whether it is deserving of help. To answer that question, we will ask: Is it at the present moment doing the country good? If it is, by all means give the grant. If it is not doing a service, then we should not spend a cent on it. I am speaking on this subject not because I am a Catholic or because I am not a Catholic. I am not tackling it from the point of view of religion. I wish to say that I will tackle it from a few other angles, say morals. Years ago, people were more careful about morals. We did not see much of what we see today and people were happy. But today, if we look at the younger generation, I think the knowledge such as that spread by the Family Planning Association, although it is meant for the grown-ups, very soon gets to the people who should not get that. That is where, I think, it is not doing a service to the people. Morals must be watched and watched at all times. If a nation is going to be one that can lift its head up and look forward towards progress, then morals is about one of the most important things that we must watch out for. Now, the second point that I am going to raise will be somewhat similar to the point raised by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. It is this. Is it necessary now to teach birth control? Have we reached saturation point in the matter of population? Let us take ourselves back to a few decades from now, say, to the time between 1890 and 1900. At that time Singapore was a much smaller place -

Not geographically, was it?

No, but from the economic point of view, and at that time, too, I think the national income was less. Now, after many years of importation of people from China, India and probably from Europe, we have our present population and the national income has not decreased; it has increased. Now, if national income can increase with an increase in population, what does it point to? Does it point to the fact that population and income are in inverse ratio to each other? It seems to me that they go parallel with each other until probably they reach the optimum. Have we reached that optimum? I certainly feel that, although there is an imaginary line drawn across the causeway saying that this is Singapore and that is the Federation of Malaya, I certainly do not believe there are two separate territories. To you, to me, and to everybody living in this peninsula, it is one territory. We are free to get into the Federation and the people of the Federation are free to come into Singapore. In the Federation you will find there are large tracts of land not developed. Their potentialities have not been fully exploited and if they have not been fully exploited, do we want to import people from elsewhere to help us exploit that land and extract the riches from underneath it, or is it not our duty at the present moment to bring the population up so that, in a short time to come, we will have sons of the soil tilling the land and making use of it? I certainly feel that that point of view is going to be very important and any attempt to stop that happening would not be in the national interests. Now, there has been an outcry from the very learned Member the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works who said that we have all the ills of the world in Singapore. We have slums right behind this Assembly House and in front of it and all over Singapore, and we have families having children ranging from ten to fifteen probably - he quoted an instance of one family with thirteen children. Yes, it was indeed a very miserable picture, but I think that argument in favour of family planning will not hold water. We must say that all this misery has been due to budgets being wrongly framed thirty to forty years ago, whereby the people did not get a fair deal. If the budgets had been correctly framed, then we would probably not have so much of the misery we see today. If housing had been planned in the year 1900, probably we would today all have a house at a rental of, say, $20 a month. If there had been planning for schools, then we would probably have no problem of school children coming to us asking, "Where can I get a place?" Now, all these ills are not due to the fault of the present generation but due to previous administrations. I believe we can still remedy such ills and, by setting up an accelerated rate of social services, we can catch up. We definitely can catch up. Coming back to the question of a big family of thirteen, it strikes me that if we ever talk of such conditions, we must be there to witness it. I do not believe that a family of thirteen could consist of one, say, two months old, the next one eight months old, the next twelve months old and so on! Even if you step up the ages and say they range from one year to two years, three, four, etc. until thirteen, it would be an almost impossible situation. I have been going round the rural and slum areas, and have looked at families large and small, and I have always seen that if there are eight members in the family where the youngest one is, say, a year old, then the oldest one would probably be at an age where he is able to earn his or her own living. The next point of view is this. I do not like the idea of families that have only one child or two children. Do you know of cases where there is an only child in the family? It is most pampered and selfish and feels that it must have its own way. But if I look at a large family, I see that there is more give and take. There is more sharing between them. It is indeed developing a spirit that is definitely good for the community and I certainly feel that we should not discourage them but we should assist them - not by giving them an Iron Cross or a Silver Cross - but assist them with more social services -

What is there to stop them from working?

This is a very serious matter. You all say that it is a very serious matter, and you are all laughing about it -

Order, please. There is only five minutes left.

The next point, Sir, would be to compare what other countries are doing. In Europe, there is an outcry: "Look, the population is coming down. Let us do something about it." Well, I think there is political significance in that because if a nation has no young people coming up, then it will not have people who will be able to work and produce income and probably help to defend it.

Then it becomes the last of the Mohicans!

Order, please.

We still have to defend our country here - Singapore or Malaya. There might come a day when we will have to defend it and we will have to do that -

What with?

Order, please.

The main thing is that, unless you have people, you will not have the means of defending your own land and the young people of today will be precious to us tomorrow. From this, I feel that I cannot support the grant to the Family Planning Association.

Can I ask a question, Sir? Time is getting very short.

Yes, Mr Goh Tong Liang.

In spite of the blackest of pictures painted by the Hon. the Chief Minister and the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works, may I be informed whether any child has died of starvation in Singapore?

Sir, I wish to make a correction. I did not say that Egypt was represented at the Tokyo Conference. What I said was that of the few countries which contribute towards family planning, Egypt is one of the countries.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the Minister for Health thinks that birth control is unhealthy. The Minister for Communications and Works thinks that there should be more communication but less work. As the Minister for Labour and Welfare, Sir, I should say that the Labour Department has at one time been misinterpreted as the Labour Ward of the Labour Ministry! Therefore, I feel that I should stand up and speak for the poor women who have to bear the burden of those who are married and of my good friend over there, the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) who believes that "it is cheaper by the dozen"! The Minister for Health says: "Let us not cloud the issue by considering the merits and demerits of birth control." The whole issue hangs on whether or not the Government should give a grant of $85,000 to the Family Planning Association to assist them in their work, but he spent 99.9 per cent of the time of his speech in trying to prove how evil birth control is. Sir, I am the Minister for Labour plus Welfare, and as it is necessary that the welfare of the people should be looked after, I am for the grant of $85,000.

In reply to the Member for Bukit Panjang, yes, children do die of starvation.

I say to hon. Members, "Do not try to encourage us to cut our foot to fit our shoe!"

If there are no other Members who wish to speak, I will put the Question. Question put. Hon. Members: Division, Sir.

Clear the lobbies. The House divided: Ayes, 11; Noes, 17; Abstentions, 4. Ayes Noes Braga, A. J. Chew Swee Kee. Butterfield, C. H. Ede, John. Goh Tong Liang. Goh Chew Chua. Jumabhoy, J. M. Hart, T. M. Jumabhoy, R. Higham, J. D. Lazarous, A. R. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim Ching Siong. Lim Choon Mong. Lim. R. C. H. Mak Pak Shee. Lim Koon Teck. Seah Peng Chuan. Lim Yew Hock. Tan, William. Marshall, D. S. Nair, M. P. D. Ong Piah Teng. Sutherland, G. A. P. Tan Theng Chiang. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam. Abstentions Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat. Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. Lee Choon Eng. Mohd. Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Question on the amendment accordingly negatived. The sum of $1,181,550 for Head 3 ordered to standpart of the Schedule.

Order, order. Moment of interruption. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Sir, we are making some progress in the Committee.

Are you reporting that the Committee of Supply has made progress?

Some progress, Sir.

You beg leave to sit again?

Yes, Sir, tomorrow.

The Committee of Supply will sit again tomorrow. Adjourned accordingly at 4.05 p.m. to the 23rd of November, 1955.