Hansard, 1969-04-09

The following Question stood in the name of Inche Abdul Aziz Karim - 1. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour whether he proposes to abolish one or both Industrial Arbitration Courts.

Question No. I. Inche Abdul Aziz Karim is not here. The Minister will, therefore, please send a written answer to the Member. It will also appear in the Hansard(Cols. 991-992).

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour whether he is aware that many applications for Singapore citizenship from persons, who have more than 15 years' residence here, and who have families of their own, have been rejected; and whether the Government will reconsider such cases and assure the persons concerned, where applicable, that they will not be deprived of their jobs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member is fully aware that length of residence in Singapore is not the only criterion for the grant of citizenship. The Minister informed this House in May last year that a person who has the necessary residential qualification will not automatically be granted Singapore citizenship, and he also indicated the policy on the grant of citizenship. This is contained in Hansard of 21st May, 1968, Volume 27, No. 7, Col. 345. Non-Singapore citizens can still work in Singapore if they are drawing a basic salary of less than $750 per month. They will have to apply for work permits. I can assure the hon. Member that it is not the intention of Government to deprive people of their jobs if they are useful to our economy.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour, in order to alleviate the human hardships, sufferings and frust rations of persons affected on both sides of the Causeway and to bring about better understanding betwen the two countries, whether the Government will consider a bilateral arrangement with the Malaysian Government whereby a citizen of one country having a permanent job and at least ten years' residence in the other be granted citizenship of the country in which he now resides on a reciprocal basis and in return for a grant of citizenship to his counterpart with similar qualifications in the other country subject to such persons being willing to take up the citizenship of the respective countries.

and Minister for Labour): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government does not intend to vary the policy on the grant of citizenship which was enunciated by the Minister in this House on 21st May, 1968. By the end of 1971, when the British completely pull out from Singapore, a great number of our citizens will become unemployed. In addition, more and more of our young citizens will be coming into the labour market, thus aggravating the unemployment situation. The hon. Member will agree with me that our primary responsibility is to our citizens. The Government can only consider relaxing its present policy on the grant of citizenship when the economic effect of the British run-down has been resolved.

(In Mandarin): Sir, when does the Parliamentary Secretary expect some im provement in our economy in order to vary the policy on the grant of citizenship?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is always our hope that the sooner that happens, the better.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour has not fully answered my question. I am asking about a reciprocal arrangement with the country across the Causeway and whether such an arrangement can be made.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the policy on the grant of citizenship has already been enunciated by the Minister in this House on several occasions, and I do not think we need elaborate further on the subject.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it appears that the Parliamentary Secretary is stressing on the point that granting citizenship to the applicants might deprive Singapore citizens of jobs. What happens if the applicant does not seek a job or depend on one in Singapore? Will the Government consider his application if he has the qualifications to apply for citizenship?

Sir, this is only a hypothetical case and I think we can only consider each individual case on its own merits.

Let us assume that I can bring forward a person with sufficient proof to the Government. Will the Parliamentary Secretary then give an assurance that this man's application for citizenship will be sympathetically considered?

Sir, I cannot give a categorical answer to a hypothetical question. If the hon. Member can set out the particular case in writing, we shall certainly give him a satisfactory answer.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour whether he will consider introducing amending legislation for an upward revision of the scales of benefit in the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, workmen's compensation is regarded more as substitute income and represents partial indemnity for the loss of earnings suffered by a workman as a result of an industrial accident. The quantum of compensation is based on the earnings of a workman, including any privilege or benefit which can be estimated in monetary terms. For computation of the amount of compensation payable, the monthly average earning for all classes of adult workers is estimated to be $200. In 1955 when the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance was enacted, such average monthly earning was estimated to be about $147.20 cents (based on a sample survey), while in 1968 it was about $180.60 cents. Therefore the average monthly earning of $200 is still equitable since the average monthly earning for workers still remains below $200. As for temporary disablement cases which constitute about 90 per cent of the industrial accident cases reported to the Ministry, the injured workman is paid two-thirds of his monthly earnings or $130, whichever is the less. In some cases employers pay their injured employees full wages throughout the period of temporary disablement, though they are not obliged to do so. At present we do not intend to introduce amending legislation for an upward revision of the scales of benefit. However, my Ministry will keep a close watch on the situation and consider introducing amending legislation when the need arises.

According to the 1967 Report of the Ministry of Labour, there is an increasing tendency for claims to be brought under common law and not under the Ordinance. In view of this, will the Parliamentary Secretary consider making it compulsory for all out-of-court settlements under common law to be approved by the Commissioner, because some of the injured workmen are very often exploited by unscrupulous middle-men?

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the need arises we shall surely look more carefully into the subject.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary has admitted that the average income calculated since 1953 has gone up by some $40 when a late review was made in 1968. On this admission itself, does the Parliamentary Secretary not feel that it is time for a revision of the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have indicated that the injured workman is paid two-thirds of his monthly earnings or $130, whichever is the less, and I think that is roughly the correct figure for the moment.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour whether he is aware that a certified copy of an entry in the Adopted Children Register issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths under the Adoption of Children Ordinance containing a record, approved by the court, specifying Singapore as the country of birth of the adopted person is not accepted by the National Registration Office in support of an application for the red (Singapore Citizen) identity card; and if he will clarify the matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the hon. Member seeks clarification. I must explain in some detail the circumstances under which citizen identity cards are, or are not, issued on the strength of a certified extract from the Adopted Children Register. When an applicant produces an extract from the Adopted Children Register issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Singapore, as directed by the District Judge in the Adoption Order, with place of birth shown thereon as Singapore, he is requested to produce a copy of the Adoption Order. Whether or not an Adoption Order is proof of one's birth in Singapore will depend on the terms of the order and evidence before the court making the order. If proof of place of birth is furnished to the satisfaction of the court, it will be stated in the order itself. In such cases, a citizen (pink) laminated identity card will be issued. If however a birth certificate cannot be produced and all that is relied upon to prove place of birth is a statutory declaration, then this evidence would not be conclusive evidence of place of birth, but only prima facie evidence in support of it. In such cases, a non-citizen (blue) identity card will be issued. It is also pertinent to point out to the hon. Member that an Adoption Order does not go into the question of nationality.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour if he will ascertain from the Central Provident Fund Board whether the post of General Manager of the Board will be permanently filled when the contract of employment of the present incumbent expires on 30th April, 1971.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Central Provident Fund Board proposes to fill the post of General Manager permanently when the contract of employment of the present incumbent, who is incidentally a Singapore citizen, expires on 30th April, 1971. A decision will be made by the Board at about that time.

Sir, other than the present General Manager, are there any serving officers with the Central Provident Fund Board who are qualified to fill the post of General Manager of the Board?

Sir, I do not think it is proper to answer that question at the moment.

Sir, are not preparations being made to see that there is more than one person standing by to fill that position?

There may well be many people inside and outside the Board who are qualified to fill that post at the moment, but the question does not arise whether the present incumbent should be replaced when the time comes.

Will it not be good management to look after all the contingencies that might arise in the very near future?

I think the hon. Member will agree that the matter is in good hands.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour if he will ascertain from the Central Provident Fund Board whether the Board considers it feasible to compute interest on contributions not on a yearly but on a monthly basis as practised by the Post Office Savings Bank.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Central Provident Fund Board could set up the machinery to calculate the interest on Central Provident Fund accounts on a monthly or even daily basis if the Ordinance required it, but the administration of the Fund would be much more complicated and expensive than it is at present. A change of the method in calculation would not make more interest available for distribution to the members of the Fund and it is the Board's view that the present system is both simple and equitable.

asked the Minister for Education (a) what steps have been taken towards improving the schools transport service; and (b) whether there has been any response from schools to his suggestion on 17th December, 1968, that schools run school bus services of their own.

Mr Speaker, Sir, various measures have been taken to improve the transport service for school children. A committee, consisting of representatives from the Registrar of Vehicles Department, the Ministry of Education, the Traffic Police, the Chinese Bus Owners' Association as well as the Singapore Traction Company, has been formed to work for the improvement of bus services for school children. The Government has encouraged bus companies to operate school bus services through the offer of relatively low licence fees and taxes. Up to 20th March, 1969, the Changi, Hock Lee, Katong-Bedok and Green Bus Companies operated a total of 11 buses picking up only school children at designated stops along their usual bus routes. In addition, a scheme has been worked out to provide special bus services for pupils who are residing in certain constituencies but who are studying outside their constituencies. From 17th March this year, the Green Bus Company has been running special school buses to transport pupils who live in the Bukit Panjang Constituency to and from Toh Tuck Primary School. From I st April, the Hock Lee and Tay Koh Yat Bus Companies will run similar school bus services for pupils who are residents of the Bukit Ho Swee, Alexandra, Tiong Bahru and Queens-town Constituencies to enable them to travel to Dunearn Secondary School, Dunearn Hill Secondary Technical School, Toh Tuck Secondary School and Chestnut Drive Secondary School and back to their constituencies after school hours. At the same time, schools have now been offered tax concessions for school buses they propose to operate. As from 20th March, 1969, 13 Government-aided schools have been operating their own school buses. A scheme for the operation of school buses by Government schools was introduced in February this year. Let me mention the scheme for the registration of vehicles carrying children to and from school as school taxis on payment of reduced licence fees and taxes. This is to enable the Government to exercise a measure of control on the service provided by such taxis. A total of 1,056 school taxis were registered up to 20th March, 1969. As for the second part of the question, Sir, under the scheme for the operation of Schoo1 buses by Government schools, each school will enter into an agreement with an individual bus owner to run bus services for its own pupils. The bus will be registered in the name of the schoal but its operation and maintenance will be the responsibility of the bus owner. The school will make no profit out of the scheme and the bus owner will be expected to charge a reasonable monthly fee per pupil depending on distance between school and home. A standard agreement on which individual agreements can be based has been drawn up. By 20th March, 1969, eight individual bus owners have expressed interest in providing such a service.

asked the Minister for Education (a) whether he is aware that in certain Government primary schools some classes are still without teachers; (h) why there is a shortage of teachers: and (c) when those vacancies will be filled.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as I am aware, all classes in Government primary schools are filled either be regular teachers or relief teachers who arc paid on a day-to-day basis. Teachers are posted to primary schools in accordance with the approved staffing quota. As second language teachers are included in the quota, some schools have to make use of them as form teachers. Whilst classes may be without first language teachers as form teachers, nevertheless lessons are carried out according to the class time-tables. As for the second and third parts of the question, there is now a shortage of regular teachers as vacancies arising out of terminations, resignations, dismissals, retirements, and increase of classes can only be filled in May/June 1969 when students of the full-time course at the Teachers' Training College will be available for employment. In the meantime, all vacancies are filled by relief teachers.

asked the Minister for Education (a) what was the number of daily-rated relief teachers employed by his Ministry during 1968; (h) what was the average period of employment of such teachers during 1968; (c) what is the number of daily-rated teachers employed from 1st January, 1969, up to the latest convenient date and their average period of employment; and (d) why is it necessary to employ the large number of daily-rated teachers for long periods.

Mr Speaker. Sir, (a) The number of daily-rated relief teachers employed by my Ministry during 1968 is 2,302. (b) The period of employment of these teachers varies. In the case of relief teachers appointed to replace permanent teachers called up for National Service, the period of employment will be approximately two years: replacements for permanent teachers on maternity leave will be employed for a period of 42 days: as for replacements for permanent teachers who are on long medical leave (other than maternity leave), the period of employment will depend on how soon the permanent teachers can resume duty after niedical leave: as for replacements filling pure vacancies, the period of employment depends on how soon the vacancies can be filled substantively. (c) The number of daily-rated relief teachers employed by my Ministry from 1-1-69 to 18-3-69 is 1,000. Of this number, 268 have since resigned, thus leaving only 732 still in the service. The answer to what is the average period of employment is similar to (b) above. (d) The employment of daily-rated relief teachers is necessary on account of the following reasons: (i) To relieve permanent teachers who have been drafted into full-time National Service for a period amounting to two years or more. (ii) To relieve permanent teachers who are on long medical leave or maternity leave. (iii) To fill vacancies pending recruitment.

Sir, in 1968, 2,302 teachers were recruited. May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary by what criteria these teachers were recruited?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the criteria for recruiting the relief teachers depend on the type of teachers required, if a teacher is required to teach a certain subject, a relief teacher with that special qualification will be recruited.

Was there a selection board constituted to select these 2,302 teachers? Did they have any specific qualifications as teachers? Or will the principals' reports on the teachers' work in the classroom, at the end of a certain period of teaching, be taken into consideration in renewing the contracts of the daily-rated teachers?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the appointment of relief teachers does not require a selection board. The work of the relief teachers is under constant review by the principals who make reports on their performances. There is no question of a renewal of contract, because no question of the offer of a contract arises.

asked the Minister for Education whether he is aware that there are still no textbooks prescribed for the special classes of the Adult Education Board this year, and if he proposes to prescribe them.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I have to point out that my Minister is fully aware of what is going on in the Adult Education Board. I must also point out that plans for the special classes were made towards the end of last year. Within a short period of 2½ months, after the decision to run these special classes was made, the Adult Education Board has successfully launched these classes for 5,000 students, which is a very outstanding achievement. Since these special classes would cater for students who were unsuccessful more than once in the Primary School Leaving Examination, it was agreed that the programme should lay emphasis on craft training and the acquisition of technical skills. While there was provision for academic subjects, e.g., the Language of instruction, Science, Mathematics and Civics, the content of these subjects would relate to the practical and real-life situation and not the abstract. Syllabuses were drawn up for each subject to indicate the items to be taught, the skills to be developed and the attitudes to be inculcated. Since the programme was being launched for the first time, it was felt that the syllabuses should be considered experimental, to be modified and adjusted in the light of actual experience gained in the teaching situation. Syllabuses drawn up covered (i) Language, (ii) Mathematics and Science, (iii) Civics, (iv) Dressmaking and Tailoring, (v) Homecraft and Cookery, (vi) Metalwork and (vii) Woodwork. Prior to 13th January, 1969, before the classes commenced operations, supervisors, senior assistants and teachers of the special classes were briefed on the objectives of the programme and the syllabuses introduced to them. They were told to keep watch on the applicability of the topics chosen and to note particularly any possible shortcoming in the syllabuses. All syllabuses are to be reviewed and, if necessary, revised for the second term. Since the syllabuses were being tested, it was thought unwise to prescribe textbooks for the students. However, teachers were required to use certain textbooks for their own use in the classroom situation in order to provide a control of the testing period. For certain subjects, teachers drew from several textbooks to find the most suitable material. By 29th March, every syllabus had undergone the planned testing and evaluation process under actual operational conditions and was redesigned accordingly. At the present moment, the syllabuses are being studied for detail and accuracy. With the issue of the revised syllabuses in the second term. all the students attending these classes will be required to buy certain textbooks which are considered to meet the requirements of the programme. The period of being without textbooks is thus coming to an end. However, the Member for Sembawang should be assured that there are certain merits in not prescribing textbooks, because teaching in such a situation would become pupil-orientated and not textbook-orientated.

(In Mandarin): The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the outstanding achievements of the Adult Education Board. However, the fact that there were no textbooks after the classes were opened was a shortcoming and not an achievement. Another point is that the lack of textbooks would lead to a great deal of inconvenience both to the teachers and the pupils. I am not quite satisfied with his reply.

Mr Teong, can we have your supplementary question, please?

(In Mandarin): Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary has not said when the books will be ready for the pupils.

That is not a supplementary question, Mr Teong. Mr Selvadurai.

asked the Minister for Communications whether he will take steps to legalise the status of pirate taxi-drivers if he thinks that those drivers are performing a necessary social function.

The question raised by the Member for Bukit Panjang is not a new one. On the 14th May, 1968, during the debate on the President's Speech, I mentioned that I was fully aware of the pirate taxi problem and the economic effects on the bus and taxi operators if the pirate taxis were to be legalised. I had then also stated that to legalise pirate taxis is equivalent to suggesting the legalisation of smuggling activities. I have not changed my view since. I agree that pirate taxis, though running illegally, are performing a form of social function in providing an element of public transport service. But they are performing this function at the expense of the law-abiding licensed taxis and the bus companies. They are able to operate at a much lower cost because they pay less tax, incur very little maintenance expenditure and pay no insurance cover for passenger liability. Thus, they offer an unhealthy type of competition to the licensed operators which is harmful to our long-term planning for an improved public transport service in Singapore. In August last year, I established a Transport Advisory Board with the objective of improving the present inadequacy of public transport services and am glad to say that modest progress has been achieved. To date, there has been an increase of 80 new buses operating on the road and more new buses are expected in the near future. As the adequacy and efficiency of the public transport services improve, there should be a consequent decrease in the number of pirate taxis running on the road.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as it is virtually impossible to get licensed taxis during peak traffic hours in Singapore, does the Minister not think that an easy way of solving this problem would be to allow more licensed taxis to ply on the roads?

I can assure the Member for Bukit Panjang that this matter is under serious consideration by the Transport Advisory Board, I do not think there is any easy way out. We hope to find a reasonable solution. May I, therefore, ask him to be patient enough to wait for the recommendations to be considered by me at a later stage?

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister for Communications say how many of the 80 new buses belong to the Singapore Traction Company?

Order. That is not a supplementary question which arises out of the original question.

The following Question stood in the name of Inche Abdul Aziz Karim - 13. To ask the Minister for Communications if he will consider introducing legislation to make it compulsory for pedestrians, who are within a reasonable distance on either side of a pedestrian overhead bridge, to use the overhead bridge to cross the road.

Inche Abdul Aziz Karim.

Question No. 13.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not consider it desirable to introduce legislation to compel pedestrians to use overhead bridges where these are available. It is unfortunately true that, although Government has spent quite a large sum of money - almost $½ million as explained by my colleague, the Minister for Law and National Development, yesterday in erecting a number of such overhead bridges for the safety of pedestrians to cross busy roads, many through sheer laziness still choose to tempt the gods and risk life and limb by running across busy roads instead of using overhead bridges. To discourage such ill-advised actions, our Public Works Department have, wherever possible, erected railings along road dividers, so that pedestrians are thus forced to use overhead bridges. I think this is as far as we can go in the matter, as to legislate in a matter like this would be somewhat repressive.

asked the Minister for Communications if he will inform the House of the measures taken and to be taken to improve the adequacy and efficiency of the public transport service and to reduce vehicular traffic congestion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure the Member for Thomson that Government is giving deep thought and consideration as to how best to improve and resolve the public transport service of Singapore, including the problem of reduction of traffic congestion. This is being tackled at two levels, long term and short term. As for the long-term solution, a United Nations team of experts is already working closely with the State and City Planning Department in our Ministry of Law and National Development, on the possibility of constructing a mass rapid transit system for Singa pore by the early 1970s, the cost of which, if approved, would involve an expenditure of not less than nine figures. As for short-term measures:-

asked the Minister for Communications if he will make a statement on the talks that he has had with the Malaysian Government on the commercial viability of the Malaysia-Singapore Airlines.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the invitation of the Minister of Transport. Malaysia, I visited Kuala Lumpur from the 5th to the 7th of January for informal discussions with him on "matters of common interest, particularly the problems surrounding Malaysia-Singapore Airlines". It can now be disclosed that amongst the matters discussed were two outstanding issues pertaining to the terms and conditions of appointment of Mr David Craig, Senior General Manager of British Overseas Airways Corporation, as Managing Director of MSA. which appointment was confirmed by the MSA Board with effect from 1st April, 1969. Although clause 7 of the Agreement on MSA entered into with the Malaysian Government on 14th May, 1966, states that "Both parties recognise that MSA shall continue to operate on the basis of sound commercial principles". I regret to say that the Singapore Gov ernment had to express "no confidence" in the former management of MSA. This was made known at the MSA Board meeting held on 27th August, 1968, as a result of which the General Manager (Mr K. R. Hamilton) had to tender in his resignation, which became effective on 10th October, 1968. Since then, three other senior officials have also resigned: (1) the Secretary (Mr G. Fernandez), with effect from 31st December, 1968: (2) the Accounts Manager (Mr S. N. Houghton), with effect from 15th March, 1969; and (3) the Legal Officer (Mr Sathi V. Kandiah), to take effect from 31st May, 1969. I have reasonable confidence in stating that under the new management, MSA can be made commercially viable in the near future.

asked the Minister for Communications whether vacancies in the Civil Aviation Department are advertised in the English language newspapers only; and if he will take steps to have such advertisements hereafter inserted also in the newspapers published in the other official languages.

Mr Speaker, Sir, advertisements for vacancies in the Ministry of Communications (which include the Civil Aviation Department) are referred by the Public Service Commission to the Ministry of Culture, with indications as to which newspapers the advertisements are to appear. In the recent general advertisement inviting university graduates and those with Higher School Certificate qualifications for 59 different appointments in the civil service (which includes those for the Civil Aviation Department) such advertisement was published in the Straits Times, the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Berita Harian. The said advertisement invited those interested to call at the Public Service Commission for further details, which are to be found in an 18-page cyclostyled hand-out.

The following Question stood in the name of Inche Rahmat Bin Kenap - 17. To ask the Minister for Communications if he will ascertain from the Singapore Telephone Board how many applicants for telephones were on the waiting list, as at a latest convenient date, because there are no existing spare lines; and how long those applicants are expected to wait for telephones.

Inche Rahmat Kenap.

Question No. 17.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as at 31st January, 1969, there were 4,373 applications for telephones on the waiting list, because of shortage of spare lines and exchange equipment. However, it is expected that about 3,000 or 65 per cent of the applicants will be able to get service by the middle of this year. Installations for the remainder, however, will take much longer. In certain isolated areas, it would be uneconomical to meet their demand, e.g., it would cost half-a-million dollars to provide telephones to 60 applicants who are living in the Choa Chu Kang, Woodlands Road/Mandai Road and Sungei Kadut areas. It should be stated that in recent years, the demand for telephones has far exceeded expectations. For 1967, although the planned expansion rate was fixed at 8 per cent, the actual rate achieved was 13 per cent. For 1968, although the planned expansion rate was raised to 12 per cent, the actual rate achieved exceeded 14 per cent. The Board has, therefore decided on a four-year crash programme of expansion for 1969-72 to meet the ever-increasing demand for telephones. It has already submitted an application for a second loan with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

asked the Minister for Communications whether he will take steps to expand the facilities for the training of seamen so as to enable more citizens to become seamen.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Ulu Pandan can rest assured that every effort is being made to expand the facilities for training more of our citizens to become seamen, within the limits of finance made available to us. There is, fortunately, a good demand for the services of our seamen, and it is our first aim to raise the present number of registered seamen of around 8,300 to 20,000, within the next few years. As our training ship "Singapore" is only able to produce about 500 trained seamen each year, it will be recalled that on 23rd December, 1968, at the Second Reading of the Bill to amend the Seamen's Registry Board, we introduced a crash programme for "on-the-job training on board ships", with Government prepared to pay a subsidy to foreign ship-owners, of the equivalent of $35 per month for every Singapore citizen trainee serving on board their ships. To date, 160 are already under the scheme and another 190, making a total of 350, are waiting to be signed on. There are also other proposals under active consideration by my Ministry for the expansion of training facilities for seamen, and these will be announced when ready.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I must thank the Minister for Communications for giving me a very satisfactory reply. We know that there are numerous shipping companies which are registered in Singapore. These shipping companies should be requested to get rid of the foreign seamen they employ and replace them with Singapore seamen. By doing so, we will be able to solve our unemployment problem to a certain extent. Furthermore, there are many other methods of training these seamen. For example, a Chinese businessman begins his career as an apprentice doing odd jobs. So we should train our seamen on the same basis. We should request these foreign shipping companies to take on a few apprentices from amongst our citizens to do odd jobs in the ship. There need not be any formal training in the beginning, because instructors have to be employed and this involves paying them salaries. It is therefore a good idea for apprentices to begin training in a shipping company first.

The following Questions stood in the name of Mr Lee Teck Him - 19. To ask the Minister for Defence if he will consider reducing the period of national service from two years to six months for graduates who have specialist qualifications.

20. To ask the Minister for Defence whether he has any intention of setting up a committee for the purpose of inviting the public to donate to the National Defence Fund.

Mr Lee has, under Standing Order 20 (2), signified his desire that *Questions Nos. 19 and 20 be stood over to Thursday, 10th April, 1969. * These Questions appear respectively as Questions Nos. 3 and 4 in cols. 997-1001.

asked the Minister for Defence what is the outcome of his examination into the problem of issuing Certificates of Identity to non-citizens of Malaysian origin per manently resident in the Republic for purposes of travel between Singapore and West Malaysia.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue of Certificates of Identity is governed by the United Nations Final Act and Con vention relating to the status of stateless persons. Such certificates can only be issued to stateless persons lawfully residing in the Republic to enable them to travel outside Singapore. As regards the issue of Certificates of Identity to non-citizens of Malaysian or other origins permanently resident in the Republic for purposes of travel between Singapore and West Malaysia, the matter has been carefully examined but the position remains unchanged. Our present policy with regard to the issue of Certificates of Identity is that a person applying for such a certificate must produce evidence from his country of birth to the effect that he is stateless. The Government is aware of the position in which stateless people are placed, but, in view of the international issues of policy involved, the Government cannot relax the present regulations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what happens in the event of a person getting a certificate from the Malaysian Government to the effect that he is not a citizen of Malaysia? Will that be satisfactory?

That is avoiding the issue, Sir. What we want is a certificate from the country where the applicant was born stating that he is stateless.

Mr Speaker, Sir, no government would be able to give such a certificate of statelessness to any of its citizens.

Neither can we certify that a person is stateless since he was not born here.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr P. Selvadurai - 22. To ask the Minister for Culture if he will make a statement on the proposed conversion of Radio and TV Singapura into a statutory corporation: the need for such a conversion, and if such a conversion will result in changes in the cultural policy hitherto pursued by the Government in relation to Radio and TV programmes.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Lim Soo Peng - 23. To ask the Minister for Culture (a) whether he is aware that the Governmeni Gazette, which is published on every Friday, reaches the public only on the following Monday, and what steps he proposes to take to make the Gazette available to the public earlier; and (b) whether he will consider publishing the Gazette on Mondays instead of on Fridays.

Mr Selvadurai and Mr Lim Soo Peng have, under Standing Order 20 (2) , signified their desire that *Questions Nos. 22 and 23 respectively be stood over to Thursday, 10th April, 1969. * These Questions appear respectively as Questions Nos. 16 and 17 in cols. 1011-3.

asked the Minister for Culture whether he is aware that some books published in Singapore are printed in Hong Kong, a practice which is not conducive to the development of the printing industry in Singapore; and what steps he has taken or proposes to take in the matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry is aware that some books published in Singapore are printed in Hong Kong and, for that matter, in Malaysia, Japan and elsewhere. Out of a total of 529 books published in Singapore in 1968, 429 were printed in the Republic. Of the 100 books printed outside the country, 87 were printed in West Malaysia, 12 in Hong Kong and one in the Philippines. In regard to those local publications printed in West Malaysia, most of them are textbooks and are for Malaysian clientele. Many of these publishers have offices in Singapore as well as in Malaya. In respect of those publications printed in Hong Kong, the percentage is relatively low (about 2.3 per cent only), and the local printing industry may not therefore be badly affected. Although steps may be taken to introduce legislation to make it compulsory for books published in Singapore to be printed only in the Republic and/or put up tariffs to protect the local printing profession, it is not considered advisable to adopt this type of negative measures. Depending on legislation and tariffs alone is not the right kind of approach to help solve the problems facing the local printing industry or the Republic as a whole. That will not improve the situation. These measures may, on the contrary, increase the burden on our readers and particularly on the parents who buy textbooks and other reference books for their children. Besides, the percentage of local publications printed in Singapore is comparatively high and does not appear to warrant any protective measures in the form of legislation, tariffs, etc, for our printing industry. The positive measures should be, I think, to assist the local printers to build an efficient industry so that they can keep abreast with the modern printing world. Although Singapore compares favourably in book printing with other Asian countries, our printers still have to modernise so that they are capable not only of meeting local demands, but also more important, of breaking into the international market. To this end, a Printing Industry Advisory Council was formed towards the end of 1967 to advise and assist in formulating development programmes for the printing industry in Singapore. Steps have also been taken to set up a school of printing in Singapore to help provide a constant and regular supply of trained and skilled workers to the industry. In fact, the printers themselves can also play an important role in solving some of the problems facing their profession. There are about 220 printing presses in Singapore. The vast majority of these firms are small, under-capitalised family businesses, resulting in too many machines chasing too few jobs and giving rise to cut-throat competition which also affects the business of bigger printers. If the printers themselves will try a new approach by amalgamating on a mutually advantageous basis, perhaps they may be able to achieve a breakthrough to great potentials and will be in a better position to compete with foreign printers.

asked the Minister for Health whether he has any plans to build a clinic in the densely populated part of the Paya Lebar Constituency.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Paya Lebar Constituency does not have an outpatient dispensary within its boundaries. But there are dispensaries just outside these boundaries, namely, the Paya Lebar Outpatient Dispensary at the junction of Paya Lebar Road and Yio Chu Kang Road; Lim Ah Pin Outpatient Dispensary which is further up on Upper Serangoon Road from the Paya Lebar Clinic; MacPherson Road Outpatient Dispensary at Pesiaran Keliling in the MacPherson Housing Estate, just off Paya Lebar Road. There are no immediate plans to build a new dispensary for the Paya Lebar Constituency. Development plans for resiting Paya Lebar Outpatient Dispensary will have to be made should it be demolished to make way for road development. The alternative site has not been chosen. This will be determined by consultations with the Commissioner of Lands. It could well happen that the site chosen may be within the Paya Lebar Constituency.

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [8th April, 1969], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question again proposed. 3.27 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I resume, I would like to stress that I oppose strongly the liberalisation of the law on abortion for many reasons. But yesterday, the press and radio gave the impression that I support this Bill. So I must make my correction now and I hope that you, Mr Speaker, will first allow me to correct this impression. Just a few minutes before the adjournment yesterday, I was talking about the fact that Singapore's population explosion problem was attended to by the former Minister for Health who tried his best to promote family planning and, as a result, the birth rate has been decreasing year by year. According to the statistics of the Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital, we can see that there is a decrease in the birth rate. We can, therefore, say for certain that family planning has been a great success, and we can boast about it to the world. But today the Minister for Health is bringing up a Bill to liberalise the law on abortion. This may prove a bit too much in the circumstances. There is no doubt that the Minister, before bringing up this Bill, carried out extensive investigations and incorporated many suggestions from various quarters in the Bill. The Bill provides that certain conditions and requirements must be fulfilled before a woman can apply for abortion. This merely demonstrates the democratic spirit of the People's Action Party in seeking public opinion and cannot be taken to mean that there is merit in the liberalisation of the law on abortion. That is the true picture. In the meantime, the Minister, on the Second Reading of the Bill, gave various reasons to support it. But I am not able to accept them. I feel that many of the reasons advanced need more careful consideration. What is more important is that we must be very careful and always watchful for the undesirable consequences and reactions that will follow if the Bill is passed. They are as follows: (1) Psychological reaction. Married couples who have been generally successful in family planning will no longer worry about the unfavourable circum stances of having a baby in view of the ready facilities for abortion. They will thus resolutely give up resorting to the troublesome practice of using contraceptives, such as the taking of pills, using intra-uterine devices, condoms, diaphragms, jellies, etc., in order to enjoy the pleasure of sexual intercourse. At the back of their minds is the thought that if there is any conception, safe and easy abortion facilities will be available to solve their problem. Women who have been quite successful in family planning if their financial circumstances are bad and they cannot maintain their livelihood if they are to have more children need not continue their way of life as before, because they can resort to the practice of abortion. (2) The degeneration of social morality. Mr Speaker, Sir, in this metropolitan city of ours, there are undeniably groups of wanton pleasure-seeking vagabonds, male and female, and other numerous innocent, passionate and energetic youths to whom romance and petting are the social vogue. If the law on abortion is liberalised, the flood-gates of sexual promiscuity will be opened. Such people will indulge in licentious behaviour and incest. When a woman becomes pregnant, she will take advantage of the provisions of the Bill and tell the authorities that her pregnancy has come about because of rape. When people ask, "You are not married. How is it that you are pregnant?", she can reply that it is the result of rape. Instances of false allegations of rape, which might arise as a result of the Bill, will cause the degeneration of social morality and the decadence of our social order. We shudder at the thought of such undesirable consequences. Yesterday the Minister mentioned the circumstances of those who have been taking family planning guidance. But he forgot one point. Those who are receiving family planning guidance are married women. Those who are not married are quite a different lot. Family planning is meant only for married couples and not for teenagers. If an 18-or 19-year old unmarried girl is misled by this Abortion Bill and becomes licentious in her behaviour, I shudder to think of the consequences in our society. (3) On humanitarian grounds. Sir, I have no intention to argue with the Minister as to whether a conceptus is a foetus or an embryo or a ball of flesh and blood or what-not. But verily I would stress that it is truly and unmistakably a body with life.

3.38 p.m. The Minister also mentioned that shortly after its formation, the foetus is still not a human being. It is considered something like a fertilised egg. A man may perhaps be compared to a fertilised egg in another form. But do we so nonchalantly destroy an egg - even a chicken egg? The Minister gave a lot of reasons yesterday in support of the Bill, but many of them are not acceptable. From an analysis of the Chinese character for yin, namely, conceptus or pregnancy, it is composed of two parts. There are two characters, "being" and "child". That is to say, the conceptus is a child. In the old days (even at the present time) there were cases where people were so poor and hard pressed that they had to sell their children to keep themselves alive. One would never imagine that today, in an age of science and space technology, there can be people who will legislate to enable parents to kill their children in order to live. What a pity and a calamity. Where is the sense of humanity? For the three reasons I have advanced, I oppose the passage of this Bill. 3.40 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in recent years, the question of liberalising abortion laws i; a familiar one in progressive societies. Many other nations, both within and without the non-Communist bloc, have faced the question. In a very broad sense, the pros and cons for liberalisation of abortion have become classical arguments, having been developed with increasing sophistication with the passage of time. The significant point to note is that the protagonists of liberal reforms have, as a whole, won the day, as can be testified by the increasing number of nations that have legalized abortion, with varying degrees of liberalism, and by not one nation that has liberalized abortion taking retrogressive steps into the past. In a rough sense, the controversy on the liberalization of abortion laws parallels that on birth control. Regarding the latter, at least it can be said that those who stood in the way of the principle of voluntary parenthood are being consigned relentlessly into the dustbin of history, although the lid is occasionally lifted. The rough analogy with contraception is of interest, as early opposition to this was fierce, often expressing itself in prediction of moral decay, the collapse of stable society, and even the killing of life itself. Today, contraception is accented and respectable in many narts of the world, and it is a tribute to the healthy pragmatism of the people of Sinzapore that they have come to take contraception as a normal way of life. One cannot foresee such a future for abortion, and, in any case, it has been stressed time and time again, and it has been ignored time and time again, that the purpose of the Abortion Bill under discussion is not to substitute abortion for contraceptive planned parenthood. Availability of contraceptives renders reliance on the unpleasant and relatively expensive device of an abortion unneces sary, and, therefore, unlikely. As the Minister for Health succinctly pointed out in the parliamentary session yesterday, the reason for introducing the Abortion Bill is to deal with the problem of unwanted pregnancy. The hon. Member for Punggol - I do not think he is here at the moment. Oh yes, I am very glad he is back. He had asked whether there is any need for such a Bill. There has been no public clamour for it, he said, and I think, with obvious passion and conviction. Yet, it is a matter of history that abortion has been practised as long as organised society has existed. It is also a universal occurrence. An authoritative survey of cross-cultural data revealed that - and here I am quoting - "there is every indication that abortion is an absolutely universal phenomenon, and that it is impossible even to construct an imaginary social system in which no woman would ever feel at least impelled to abort." The quotation is from George Devereaux's A Study of Abortion in Primitive Societies, New York: Julian Press, 1954, page 161. The main reason for liberalizing abortion laws in other countries has been patent unenforceability of the law against it. It may be argued, and quite relevantly, that the experience of other countries need not be the reason for our having a more liberal Abortion Bill. But the central question is: do we have an abortion problem? The answer is definitely in the affirmative. Because induced abortion is illegal, a statutory crime, in fact, in Singapore, it is difficult to gather adequate information on the subject; and, for that matter, anywhere in the world where induced abortion is a crime. There is only one study on the subject, mentioned several times by the Minister for Health. This is Dr Lee Yong Kiat's The Non-Clinical Aspects of Induced Abortion in Singapore. He has estimated that Singapore has annually 5,000 criminal abortions, a figure that clearly suggests we have a problem of dealing with women with unwanted pregnancies. Dr Lee Yong Kiat concluded in page 48 that "when a woman is desperate enough to want an induced abortion, she will ignore whatever her religion teaches. Religion does not play such a decisive role as economic and social factors." If there he a lack of clamour for a more liberal abortion law in Singapore, it is simply because of the intimidating effects of the existing law. Dr Lee Yong Kiat's observations are worth quoting for the edification of those who equate the absence of a clamour for reform with the lack of demand for it. He writes in page 79 of his work: 'When a patient dies as a result of a criminal abortion, the Coroner is informed and police investigations and a Coroner's inquiry take place. In the majority of cases, the matter ends there with the Coroner passing a few caustic remarks about abor tionists and the evils of criminal abortion, because women are willing to go to their graves without divulging the names of the abortionists . . . Patients co-operating with the doctors and police are the exception rather than the rule. The reasons for this are obvious: 1. The patients are grateful and loyal to this particular person who has 'helped' them in their hour of need. Moreover, they may need the services of the abortionist again in the future. 2. Fear of prosecution. Under the present law they are liable to prosecution, at least in theory. They are told this by the abortionist, and are warned to keep silent for their own sakes.'

3.48 p.m. Mr Speaker, Sir, can we expect a public clamour for a reformed Abortion Bill when women, whose misplaced confidence in the abortionists has been rewarded with death, are willing to risk the possible consequences of eternal punishment in the next world rather than inform against them? The Member for Punggol has also made certain observations which require refutation. He cited an authority on the dangers of abortion. The Minister for Health, in a written answer to a question about the fatality rate of abortion cases, had made it patently clear that abortions carried out for medical reasons in the Kandang Kerbau Hospital are safe. Indeed, the experience in Singapore is supported by that of other countries. I quote from Loren G. Stern: "Abortion: Reform and the Law" [The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, Vol. 59, No. 1, March, 1968, page 88]. 'The Russian experience with legalized abortion between 1922 and 1936 yielded statistics indicating the mortality rate among pregnant Russian women was less than 001 per cent. In Sweden, where there are about 5,000 legal abortions per year, the fatality rate among pregnant women is about 0.04 per cent. This rate is lower than those mortality rates operative in both the United States and England. Studies of Japan, which legalized abortion in 1948, and those Eastern European countries which provide statistics indicate that physical after effects of abortion are rare and the mortality rate is 'exceedingly low'. Based on these scientific studies, it is evident that abortion under optimum conditions involves little risk to the life or health of the woman.' The Member for Punggol also made the point that it is unnecessary to employ abortion as another adjunct to family planning on account of the success of contraception. It is conceivable that in a situation where the use of contraception is completely effective, resort to abortion is unnecessary. The reality is that we are nowhere near completely effective use of contraception in all sectors of our society. It is among the poor sections that we have not eliminated all the situations in which abortion will be required. It is among them that the demand for induced abortions seems to be greatest, for an additional child born into an already large family means automatically a reduction of an already pitifully inadequate income. It means more hardship for all in the family. It is the poor who resort to the unskilled operators because they cannot afford the price demanded by the qualified doctors who make a living out of human misery. It is they who suffer the injuries of badly induced abortions and end up in hospitals. The rich have no problems of finding someone to perform the operation under aseptic conditions, either within or without Singapore. As a socialist Government, we cannot permit a situation to exist where the opportunities for abortion under aseptic conditions and proper surgical skill are unequal, and definitely to the disadvantage of the poor. The Member for Punggol has rightly pointed out that the Abortion Bill will not eliminate the illegal abortionist, but not for the reason given by him. This must be the price that society must pay for a Bill that does not provide for abortion on demand. It will be noted that there is a great deal of public misunderstanding that the Abortion Bill provides for abortion on demand, which it assuredly does not. If it were the intention to have abortion on demand, it would be scarcely necessary for the Minister for Health to introduce a Bill with a controlling administrative mechanism. One cannot predict that the present Bill will lead to a situation of abortion on demand in the future. Attitudes change, and if public opinion changes in favour of abortion on demand in the years ahead, then it is the responsibility of another Parliament to decide what it should do to satisfy public opinion. In any case, it is also equally possible that the Abortion Bill may itself be obsolete in the future. Let me quote pages 70 to 71 of a very stimulating book by Robert E. Cooke, The Terrible Choice: The Abortion Dilemma: 'There are now in various stages of development several possible methods of preventing or aborting a pregnancy after intercourse through the use of pills. It is believed already possible to do this through taking a series of high-dosage hormone pills for a few days, within a few days after intercourse. There may well be developed what is referred to as the "morning-after" pill, a pill which if taken within a few hours after intercourse prevents the fertilized ovum from being implanted in the uterus. There may also be developed a pill which, if taken on the twenty-eight day of each menstrual cycle, can end a pregnancy begun during a cycle.' These pills are considered likely to be of general use in future, and when this occurs, the law's ability to control will diminish as abortion returns to the realm of private decision. The Member for Punggol has also condemned the socio-economic arguments for abortion. I fully appreciate and respect his concern for the foetus, but I cannot but note a singular lack of compassion for human suffering, and the social consequences of bringing forth unwanted children, mentally retarded and physically defective children. Unfortunately, we have no major studies of the family and social con sequences of unwanted children in Singapore. We can only rely on the experience of other societies where such studies have been made to provide a clue to what are the likely consequences. My view is that the consequences are likely to be similar. In a public lecture at the University of California, at Berkeley, Professor Garrett Hardin said: 'Is it good that a woman who does not want a child should bear one? An abundant literature in psychology and sociology proves that the unwanted child is a social danger. Unwanted children are more likely than others to grow up in psychologically unhealthy homes; they are more likely than others to become delinquents, and as John Bowlby has pointed out, when they become parents, they are more likely than others to be poor parents themselves, and breed another generation of unwanted children. This is a vicious circle if ever there was one. This is what an engineer would call positive feedback: it is ruinous to the social system.' Carrying the argument of general social welfare further, Professor Hardin also said: 'The consequences of an abortion are mostly strictly limited in time: the consequences of ill-advised parenthood are paid for by society for decades and even generations.' Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Punggol has called for a new slogan: "Every child a protected child". I share his concern for the need to protect children, but I say, Sir, every child will be a protected child if every child is a wanted child.

Hear, hear!

This is the compelling reality of life, here and everywhere. The Member for Punggol, Sir, also would have a defective child born into this world. There are many men in more prominent positions in the world, with the authority of experience and knowledge behind them, who think quite differently. In reviewing the abortion laws in the State of Illinois, Dr Potts, a Chicago pediatric surgeon, said: 'Having for so many years spent much of my time in trying surgically to correct serious congenital defects in the newborn, having witnessed the anguish of the parents confronted with the problem of caring for the malformed child, having seen the burden these children carry into adult life, I can come only to one conclusion. I would advise that the laws be changed to legalize abortion for such specific cases only.' Rabbi Louis L. Mann went further on the subject. "Failing to prevent such births," he declared, "would be nothing short of sin." The Member for Punggol. Mr Speaker, Sir, would also want to compel a woman who is pregnant as the result of rape and incest to go through with her pregnancy. Yet it is a hard reality of social life that both rape and incest are repugnant to our society as they should be. For such situations, society imposes an everlasting stigma on the woman and the child, the product of an unnatural relationship. I believe the child of an incestuous relationship in Singapore can never be legitimized, and experience and common sense point to the unlikely legitimation of the child born of rape. I ask of Members of this House, in whom the public expect compassion and justice besides common sense, I ask of them, is it reasonable to for-ce a woman to bear a child whose creation is the result of a relationship with a man she probably does not know nor will ever want to know? Then, Sir, there are the cases of girls impregnated as the result of statutory rape. Are we to punish them for the rest of their lives, when it is the presumption of law that they are too immature to know the nature of their acts, and then, after they become pregnant, force them to face the consequences of motherhood? Basic humanitarian instincts alone compel the legalization of abortion for rape and incest cases. We cannot punish the child nor the mother for the actions of others at whose hands she has already suffered a major traumatic experience. The Member for Punggol, Mr Speaker, Sir, is deeply concerned with the legal rights of the foetus. On this subject, there is a wide range of views even among religious groups. Suffice it for me to quote the Bishop of Exeter in the House of Lords debates in Britain. He had declared his support for abortion where the interests of the mother vitally required it. He pointed out that it is possible to say that the foetus, the unborn baby, is not a member of the human race in the ordinary sense of those words, but it has a potentiality of becoming so. He concluded, and here I quote his lordship's words: 'But since the foetus has only this potentiality of humanity which is not yet fully real, because it is in the process of turning that which is potential into that which is real, the rights of the mother who has already passed from the potential to the real, and who is on any showing a full member of the human race, take precedence over those of her unborn baby. So where there is a direct and unavoidable clash between the interests of the mother and of her unborn baby, the mother takes precedence over the baby.' Mr Speaker, Sir, if there is anything that is clear about the issue of abortion, it is that it is a complex and, often, an emotionally charged issue. This is because it is the potential of the human foetus which concerns us. Unless interfered with, this foetus will have the potential to develop into another human being like ourselves. It is this poten tiality that has moved society to set abortion apart from other surgical procedures. Because of "respect for life", in religious and non-religious terms, since it is the only life we have or know of, we are likely to have widely different views on abortion. When does life begin after sexual intercourse? This question has been argued from time immemorial, and from civilization to civilization, and there is no universally acceptable answer, and the likelihood is that there will be none. Religious views about the foetus based on doctrine cannot be proved or refuted as they are based on beliefs incapable of empirical demonstration. Despite its recent spectacular advances, science can give us no answer. At each stage of development, the foetus has the potential for further development, and even the most accurate knowledge of the foetus cannot answer what value each stage of development has for society, for the mother or father, or in religious terms, for God. Nevertheless, as legislators, we must make a decision because we cannot abdicate our responsibility to find a solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy. Whatever our religious bias and faith, whatever our ethical and humanistic values, it is proper for us to recognise that we are the elected representatives of men on earth, and not the earthly representatives of our faith in Parliament. Even among the Christian churches, there is no unanimity of views on the liberalisation of abortion laws even in Christian countries. I believe, Sir, it is correct to say that in the United States, even members of the Catholic Church hierarchy - and here I am quoting Loren G. Stern again, at pages 90 to 91 of the same article - "do not believe that it is the Church's place to impose its moral beliefs upon the rest of the population through criminal statutes." He went on to cite a letter by Cardinal Cushing, and I would like to quote a portion of the letter: 'There is nothing in Catholic teaching which suggests that Catholics should write into civil law the prescriptions of Church Law, or in any other way force the observance of Catholic doctrine on others. Catholics have no right to do this . . . while we should make every effort to see the law upholds human rights and values and reflects the moral consensus of the community we should not look upon it- as an opportunity for promoting specifically religious teachings, especially when this may be offensive to some citizens.' The Abortion Bill under discussion should cause no conflict of conscience, as it does not coerce a pregnant mother to have an abortion or a doctor with strong views on the subject to perform it. Catholics and others who do not want to avail themselves of the liberalised abortion law are certainly under no obligation to do so. There remains the delicate question of an emergency when a Catholic doctor has to weigh the fear of excommunication with his duty as a doctor to his patient. It seems clear to me his duty is to his patient, and the true answer to his dilemma will not be found on this earth. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Abortion Bill is not a mandatory piece of legislation. It imposes no obligation in conflict with the religious views of those it covers. It is essentially a permissive law, and can accommodate both those with diverse religious beliefs, the non-believers, and the humanists. The Abortion Bill subjects none to the will of others. This is the nature of religious freedom and tolerance we must strive for in our multi-racial and multi-religious society. If we cannot support the Bill on religious and other grounds of faith, we should not deny the right to such a Bill to those who have the need for it. We are, Mr Speaker. Sir, not showing any disrespect for life. It is because we have a respect for life, and the quality of life on this earth that I believe is the moral justification for this Bill. We cannot eliminate human misery on earth. At least, we can try to reduce it, especially for those whose likely prospect in life can be summed up as follows: "born in poverty, reared in poverty, and doomed to poverty". Human misery may have a value for certain religions. I think it has none for us, whose primary responsibility is to improve the prospect and quality of human life on earth. The concept of medical concern has changed from century to century. Today, it embraces not only disease and death but health as well. The modern con cept of health is that of a positive state of general well-being, and not just an absence of disease. The World Health Organization has described health as "a state of complete physical, mental, arid social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity". And on the way in which we vote on this Bill will the world judge us on our humanity, our breadth of vision and intellectual horizons, our capacity for compassion and for tolerance. It has been said, Mr Speaker, Sir, that a permissive Abortion Bill will promote immorality. Yet, the experience of other nations and the study of Dr Lee Yong Kiat all have shown that the majority of women who go for induced abortions are married women whose primary concern is the quality of life, and respect of it, among the members of their families. It rests upon the woman to make the final decision to abort, and one must presume she has weighed her decisions against her relations with her husband, her family, and her religious faith. This is her fundamental right which I hope the House will accept, and which only she alone can exercise, hopefully, to her own happiness. '...leave her to heaven, And to those thorns that in her bosom lodge To prick and sting her.' (Shakespeare: Hamlet, Act I, Scene V). Finally, no human wisdom can define an Abortion Bill that is perfect. It is commendable that provision is made for the review of the Bill before the House within a comparatively short time. 4.10 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in my view, the Abortion Bill has been introduced on two main grounds. Firstly, to control effectively the growth of our population and, secondly, to stop the increase or existence of illegal abortions. On the question of population control, it i5 my view that in so far as a small nation like Singapore is concerned, such a Bill is very important because we lack natural resources and we have a population of two million. Both in terms of our economy and the un employment problem, we are shouldering very heavy responsibilities. At the present moment, about 60,000 of our citizens are in a state of unemployment or under-employment. Furthermore, we have to look after our citizens in the fields of health, education and social welfare. Therefore, we must stress that effective control of population growth is very important in Singapore. We must make sure that every child in Singapore is a healthy child and a wanted child. We must also ensure that every child in our society will have a place in the sun. We have achieved a certain measure of success in family planning and, in this respect, the Singapore Government should be congratulated on its foresight. As a matter of fact, when family planning was first introduced in Singapore, views were expressed against it. Sir, had it not been for the adamant attitude adopted by our Government, our population growth rate would have been about 40 per 1,000 and, as a result, our population by now would have been at least 2.5 million instead of two million. So, on the same basis, the Singapore Government is trying to effect better control over the growth of population and this, in my view, is in keeping with our national interests. Mr Speaker, Sir, our Government is now encouraging the people to have small families with, at the most, three children in a family. This is not only beneficial to the individual family but also conducive to a better state of social well-being. According to statistics, many illegal abortions are done in Singapore, amounting to at least 500 cases per annum, and the women involved will eventually go to the Kandang Kerbau Hospital for assistance when their lives are in danger. We must take every possible step to prevent the recurrence or the worsening of this situation. Mr Speaker, Sir, some people will say that this Bill will lower the standard of morality. I thin-k the people who hold this view are too passionate and incapable of making a cool and calculating analysis of the situation. If they open their eyes and look around the world, they will change their attitude. We can see that thousands and thousands of people are dying because of war, starvation and malnutrition, and many thousands are on the brink of starvation. In my view, it is a sin for human society to allow such misery to continue to exist. It is, in fact, a tragedy for human society to be in such a state. We must not allow these things to happen. We must take positive steps to prevent an occurrence of such a state of affairs. We must effectively control our population growth. We must stress that in this Bill, abortion is performed on a voluntary basis. It is not compulsory at all, and people can, on religious grounds or for some other reason, very well refuse to accept abortion if they so choose. In addition, there are certain conditions - I can see at least four of them - to be satisfied before an abortion can be authorised. Firstly, that continued pregnancy will endanger life; secondly, financial hardship does not justify the continuance of pregnancy; thirdly, the doctor must be satisfied that there is a risk that the child to be born will be abnormal; and, fourthly, the pregnancy is the result of rape, incest or intercourse with an insane or feeble-minded person. Because of these four safeguards, the present social order and moral standards can and will still be maintained. Another feature of this Bill is that there is a provision for its review within five years, so that whatever defects there might be will be corrected in due course. In short, this Bill is based on national interest and has been carefully drafted. It will bring about social progress and promote human welfare as well as economic development. In the long-term interest, the Bill is a good one. It will advance human welfare. For all these reasons, I fully support this Bill. 4.17 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, ever since the Abortion Bill had its First Reading in Parliament, it has stimulated keen discussion in our society. Members of the public, whether from medical, religious or educational circles, have come out with various views on it, both divergent and controversial. This can be said to be the first time that any Bill introduced in Parliament by the present Government has been keenly discussed outside Parliament. This spirit of taking part in the study of a Bill introduced by Parliament really merits our encouragement. This is just where the precious spirit of our democratic system lies. Today, when we debate this Bill in Parliament, we have naturally taken note of such public views. Whether or not the law on abortion should be liberalised is certainly a highly controversial question. This must necessarily arise in a great metropolis. Singapore has reached a stage in its development where its population growth cannot be allowed to increase without a check. Yesterday the Minister spent much time and trouble in this House quoting extensive references in support of his arguments for this Bill. We, of course, have taken note of the good intentions of the Minister in introducing it. In view of the fact that our land area is limited and our population is increasing continuously, we must, therefore, ensure that babies born will become useful elements in our society in the future and not become scums and a burden to society. Moreover, in view of the prevailing practice of illegal abortions which have caused traumatic damage and harm to ignorant women, we must legislate to correct the situation. But the Minister seems to see only one side of the question and has neglected to see the other side. It is fortunate that there are already some countries in the world which have introduced a law to liberalise abortions. Their actual implementation and result can serve as lessons for our reference. The first question that merits the reconsideration of the Minister is whether the liberalisation of the law on abortion will actually solve our problems. The second question is, when the law on abortion is liberalised, what effect will it have on our society? In fact, in recent years, as a result of the successful implementation of family planning, the rate of our population growth has been effectively checked. According to statistics based on the present trend of a decreasing rate of population growth, by 1971 the rate of births will be only 17 per 1,000. We should actually strengthen our efforts in implementing family planning and not allow the liberalisation of the law on abortion to defeat or weaken the practice of family planning. The reason is very simple. Once the liberalisation law on abortion is passed, women will generally be less keen on family planning. They will have the idea that if they do not want the baby, the foetus can easily be aborted. If their application is not approved by the Termination of Pregnancy Authorisation Board, they can still go for illegal abortions. As the Minister has admitted, legalised abortions may not displace illegal abortions. In countries where the law on abortion has been liberalised, such as Sweden, America and Japan, abortion is regarded as an ordinary domestic chore, as the Member for Punggol pointed out yesterday. Many women have had three or four experiences in abortion. They substitute abortion for family planning. They take abortion as a means of population control. What is more, in these countries there are tens of thousands of bastards born every year of unwed mothers. Mr Speaker, Sir, if we deem, like many other scholars, that the moment the foetus is formed inside the mother's womb it is a human life, then abortion will virtually amount to the taking of life. I think the Minister for Health has no intention of making himself the number one executioner by legislation killing a life which is absolutely unable to defend itself inside the mother's body. Moreover, in the United Nations Code of Children's Rights, it is stated that a child should be given adequate legal protection before and after its birth. This illustrates the fact that before a child is born it should also have its human rights. Human life is sacrosanct and inviolable. The process of evolution from the primeval age to the present state of civilisation has been long and arduous. The concept of the absolute sacredness of human life has also been established through a similar arduous process. These are the fruits of civilisation and should on no account be easily allowed to be damaged. Once the law on abortion is liberalised, it will mean that life can easily be killed. Human life will then become as valueless as a piece of waste paper. What is even worse is that it may shake the foundation upon which mankind has maintained its social order. Once the law on abortion is liberalised, one of the obvious consequences will be the degeneration of social behaviour. This can be evinced from the social behaviour of those countries which have liberalised the law on abortion. Legalised abortion will easily be misunderstood by people. They will think that pregnancy does not matter. After all, it can be aborted at will. Thus it will lead to a licentious, laissez-aller relationship between the male and the female. Libertines and promiscuous women will give full vent to their feelings. In such circumstances, will the Minister for Health be able to ensure that impressionable youths will not be uninhibitedly and wantonly more unscrupulous in their behaviour and that the standard of social morality will not deteriorate? On the one hand, we are determined to build a rugged society, but, on the other hand, we are indirectly encouraging a libertine relationship between the male and the female and thus allow social morality to degenerate. Is it not contradictory and ironical? Sir, I am a free thinker. The views I have put forward have emanated from my conscientious rationalisation, although some of the points expressed therein might inevitably be similar to those expressed by others. Finally, I sincerely hope that the Minister for Health will reconsider whether there is an imperative need to bring up this Bill.

Order. I propose to take the suspension now. I will take the Chair again at five minutes past five o'clock. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.25 p.m, until 5.05 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your consent and the general assent of the House, I beg to move, That notwithstanding the Standing Orders, this House doth adjourn tonight at six o'clock instead of eight o'clock.

I give my consent. Does the Minister have the general assent of Members to move the motion as proposed? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That notwithstanding the Standing Orders, this House doth adjourn tonight at six o'clock instead of eight o'clock.

Debate on Second Reading resumed. 5.06 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the Abortion Bill because it is conducive to the moral degradation of our women folk and encourages members of the public to indulge in licentiousness and adultery. I understand that the family planning scheme at present being carried out is already opening the way for our unmarried girls and widows to commit fornication since they believe they can avoid becoming pregnant by means of family planning contraceptive aids now readily available. If this Bill is passed and if they become pregnant through the failure of contraceptive aids, then they can resort to abortion without difficulty. Do we really wish to involve ourselves and be a party to such a state of affairs? In all earnestness, we ought to be on guard against anything that may impair the good name of the Republic. But instead here we are trying to push through this Bill which, if passed, will only encourage all manner of despicable practices. The religion of Islam prohibits abortion as an act that is contrary to the will of God. It is a cardinal and unforgivable sin because it is regarded as being tantamount to killing, even if the foetus has not yet assumed human form. Abortion is a despicable act. Besides, it serves to encourage fornication and adultery and leads to moral degradation, thereby tarnishing the good name of our Republic. Mr Speaker, Sir, I oppose this Bill. 5.09 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Health Minister, in his long and devastating speech yesterday, said that it was the fundamental right of a woman to have an abortion if the family circumstances are not right for the birth of the child. According to him, the issue is simple - the right of an individual to have a choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy under specified conditions, just as it is the right of every human being to enjoy a meaningful life, a right to liberty and a right to privacy. To me, all these sounded like pious protestations of the other extreme view. May I ask, if we are to legislate a law in order to give an individual the right to abortion, the right to liberty, and the right to privacy, are we also to legislate a law in future to ensure the right of an individual or a group of individuals to watch a blue film in their own residence without being harassed by the police, since values have become not abiding but conditional? Are we also to legislate a law to ensure the right of an individual to take away his own life by committing suicide if that individual feels that life has no longer any meaning and any future for him? This could perhaps be extended further by a pronouncement that all persons who are liabilities to the state should do society a favour by eliminating themselves. The Health Minister presented to the House six case studies of illegal abortions and he did not spare us the sordid details of the traumatic experience of the patients concerned. He went further and mentioned the case of a Roman Catholic housewife. I would like to tell the Minister that, in the case of the Roman Catholic housewife, if she had only followed the teachings of her religion, she would not have in the first place resorted to the illegal abortion, and thus she would have spared herself the traumatic experience. However, the point that I would like to bring out is this. Is it a right line of argument that we should take, when we say that we must legislate the liberalisation of the law on abortion in order to enable our women folk the individual right to have an unwanted pregnancy aborted? This line of argument, if applied in a different situation, can also present the case for the state to legislate a law for legalised suicide and to provide facilities for individuals wishing to commit suicide to have the facilities of a gas chamber - seeing that this is a much easier way of taking one's life than to resort to various hideous forms of killing oneself. We could as well present to this House the traumatic experience of many individuals who had made unsuccessful attempts at suicide. But to suggest at this juncture that the state legislates such a law to this effect will bring upon myself strong criticisms from the Health Minister and I might be accused of being mischievous. But there is a parallel. One would think that the right way to help someone who wants to take away his own life is to persuade the person to abandon the idea and help him to see a future, a hope and a more courageous way out of whatever difficulties that he faces. Similarly, it would be equally logical to say that for an unwanted pregnancy, we must try to find ways and means to make mothers learn to want the unwelcomed pregnancy. Surely it is not right for the state to help them get rid of an unwanted pregnancy just as it is not right for the state to help an individual get rid of his own life, although it may be argued that every individual has his own right, even the right to take away his own life. Sometimes, it is dangerous to invoke such noble terms as the right of individuals, the right to this and the right to that. I think the fundamental principle behind a good law is that the law must generally concern itself with the general welfare of the public, even if such a law may encroach upon the rights of a minority group. The welfare of a community must involve public order and civil peace; the security of the young, the weak and the handicapped; the maintenance of the decencies of public behaviour, the protection of life and property. To me the liberalisation of the law on abortion will work against the general welfare of the community, particularly when it will infringe upon certain moral values of the Singapore society. In Singapore, we respect and value certain human and moral values. The present Government has not shown itself up to now in favour of a permissive society. Its marriage legislation and its concern over porno graphic films, in its emphasis on social responsibility, it has striven to improve the social and the moral standards of the people. I am sure this can be undone to a certain extent by the move to liberalise the law on abortion. The Health Minister, in moving the Bill to be read a Second time, has proceeded to demolish objections that might be anticipated from this House on religious grounds as well as ethical, moral, social and medical grounds. In the course of such refutation, he expressed his view that abortion is not murder. Elsewhere in his speech, the Minister has levelled religious objections to legalised abortion as being based on concepts which have sprung from the middle ages and beyond. The implied tenor of the Minister's arguments is that the proponents of the Bill are favoured with crystal-clear and rational understanding of the concept of life and the concept of laws pertaining to the preservation of life. It is only unfortunate that in the course of his lengthy speech the Minister has lost the thread of his own arguments. If the very basis of the laws of the Republic governing abortion is as outdated and as irrational as the Minister sincerely believes, a pertinent question may be asked why the Minister is sponsoring a Bill which, in effect, seeks tn perpetuate the concept that abortion is intrinsically wrong and that the procreative organs of a human being are of a special category meriting distinctive treatment in relation to the other organs and parts of the human body. Such an inference is to be clearly drawn from the fact that the Bill is designated to reform and liberalise the law of abortion in Singapore - in other words, to make less restrictive the circumstances in which an abortion may be legally performed. In contrast, the Minister has not found it necessary to enact similar legislation to govern the removal of an excrescence on the brain, liver or kidney or even a portion of the organ itself by competent medical personnel. The very fact that the removal of a foetus, which the Minister regards as nothing more than a piece of living organism, must be made the subject of a special piece of legislation with innumerable safeguards, is a strong indication that the proponents of the Bill are not clear in their conscience that an operation for the removal of foetus can be considered to be like any other operation. Sordid details and nebulous arguments have been used to cover up the mental confusion and uneasiness that are inherent in the concept of life underlying the sponsorship of the Bill. An instance of such arguments is the contention that the present law gives rise to a serious conflict for the doctor, between the duty to serve the patient and the duty to obey the law. With all due respect to the Minister, who has been a distinguished legal practitioner, I am of the view that there is no such conflict. The duty of a doctor to serve his patient has always been conditioned and determined by his medical training and the Hippocratic oath. It is my contention that any law governing would only serve, as it does at present, to restrict the scope within which a doctor can exercise his discretion to serve his patient in the best interest of the patient. I would have thought that the Minister should have pursued his fundamental contention - namely, that abortion is desirable and necessary in the context of the Republic - to its logical conclusion by repealing sections 312 to 316 and 511 of the Penal Code and enacting henceforth that abortion is an offence only if it is performed by medically unqualified persons. Otherwise, if abortion is not intrinsically wrong, why should members of such a responsible profession be made subject to petty, harassing man-made laws pertaining to abortion? I have also a strong objection to the portion of the Minister's speech relating to clause 10 (3) which provides that a doctor can be compelled to perform an abortion against his conscience. The Minister justified the invasion of a person's right to act legitimately according to his own conscience by saying that the legal duty to preserve life over-rides all religious dogmas and beliefs. I wish to point out that in countries such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom, even when they are engaged in a struggle of life and death, they do not compel their citizens against their conscience to carry out their legal duty to kill in defence of the state of which they are citizens. But where abortion is concerned, the Minister is prepared to uphold the right of a woman who, in accordance with her conscience, demands an abortion, even at the expense of the right of the doctor to refuse to perform or assist in an abortion against his conscience. Thus an irony may arise later that while our police force is not efficient enough to enforce the observance of laws relating to criminal abortion as the Minister admits, there would be no difficulty in prosecuting doctors, particularly those in government service, for refusing to perform abortions. There is already in existence at present a law permitting abortion to be carried out on the grounds that such an action is necessary to save a woman's life, and today before this House is a Bill intended to reform and to liberalise this law. One notable feature of this Bill is the extension of the law to permit abortion to be carried out on social and economic grounds, and this feature to which I am referring is embodied in clause 5, sub-clause (2) (b) . This sub-clause, judging from the way the term "environment" is defined, makes abortion readily available to a substantial number of our women folk who would be able to have abortion for their unwanted foetus under the cover of environmental circumstances. This sub-clause will, in practice, virtually allow abortion on demand by the persons concerned. The underlying principle of this sub-clause represents a radical change of the attitude of the Government towards abortion, and perhaps constitutes the main reason behind the Government's move to liberalise the law relating to abortion. When the Government's intention to liberalise the law on abortion was first made known, it came as a complete surprise to the public especially since there does not seem to have been any widespread public clamour for a change in the present law on abortion. Naturally there were strong public reactions to the Bill, even though it would be granted that there was also a favourable response to it. But it appears to me that there seems to have been more adverse than favourable response to the Government's intention. The Health Minister may disagree with me here. One section of the community which is greatly opposed to the Bill is the medical profession itself. The Singapore Medical Association, which is the spokesman for Singapore doctors in matters relating to their profession, is divided among itself towards the proposed Bill before this House. One would gather the impression that many doctors have strong objections, founded on medical grounds, against the liberalisation of the abortion law, and I suggest that due consideration and weight be given to their objections since they are most qualified to comment on the medical aspects of abortion. The objection of many doctors against liberalising the law on abortion is on the ground that every operation for abortion carries with it definite risks endangering the patient's life and health. It will seem unreasonable for the Government to ignore such an important objection since this is a matter of life and death. Medical science has not advanced to such a stage as to ensure absolute safety for the patient undergoing abortion, no matter what safeguards are taken. An element of risk to the patient's life and health is always present. I do not find the reasons behind the Government's proposal compelling enough to make us ignore the risk involved. There is another point of view to consider if we want to liberalise the law on abortion. If the abortion law is liberalised, and the practice of abortion becomes widespread and "respectable", so to speak, it would lead to a loss of respect for human life. True, there has been much controversy over whether the foetus can be considered to be a human being. But whatever differences of views there may be as to the true nature of the foetus, one must at least accept that the foetus should not be treated as mere waste-matter to be disposed of as circumstances require. Many eminent doctors hold the view that life is present in full potentiality from the moment of conception and that there are no intrinsic differences between the foetus at conception and at birth - the only differences being the stage of development. If our own convenience is put before our respect for a human life which is not yet fully developed, there is reason to fear that this attitude will spread. In other words, once we allow the destruction of human life on the grounds that it is not completely human, then we leave the way for others to argue what constitutes complete "human life". Once we start to value human beings according to their worth to the society, our attention would then be directed to those persons without whom our society might be considered better off. We may start to think in terms of getting rid of the aged, the incurably sick, the deformed and so on. Surely this is not the kind of society we desire and the way by which we want our society to evolve. To my mind, the objections to reforming and liberalising the abortion law on medical and humanitarian grounds are very valid no matter what my good friend, the Minister for Health, may say. Let us now examine some of the reasons advanced by him for the proposed changes of the abortion law as embodied in the Bill. One reason seems to be that the Government wants to make abortion available as the ultimate method of population control when other methods of family planning have failed. Another reason may be that the Government wants to ensure that the Republic is not burdened with the care of un wanted babies. The third reason may be that through liberalising the law on abortion, the Government hopes to get rid of the unqualified quacks now per forming illegal abortions. It appears at this juncture necessary to ask two pertinent questions. First, will the proposed Abortion Bill achieve the desired results? And, secondly, if so, will the harm done be greater than the good achieved? In my opinion, the probable answer to the above two questions is that it is possible that the Government might achieve partially some of the desired results at the price of seeing more harm done than good achieved. If abortion is resorted to as an ultimate means of population control when other family planning methods have failed, then it will either be rarely resorted to - in which case it will make no significant difference to the overall population - or it will be something widespread - in which case it is a very bad means of birth control, because it is dangerous to the health of the woman and, also, because it only solves the problem for a short time, especially when a woman can become pregnant again within a short period after abortion. It will therefore appear that the logical step to take in planning population control would be to step up our national campaign on family planning and to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of our family planning machinery, to enable a sizable number of our women population to take advantage of the facilities and advice of our national family planning board. In the White Paper on Family Planning of September 1965 the Government stated: 'If our Family Planning Plan succeeds, the present crude birth rate of over 30 per thousand in Singapore could be reduced to around 20 per thousand and with our death rate remaining constant around six per thousand, Singapore's net increase in population in the 1970's could be brought down to around 15 per thousand - which will bring Singapore in line with prevailing rates of population increase applicable to prosperous and advanced countries elsewhere.' The 1966 and 1967 Annual Reports of the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board indicate that our national family planning programmes have achieved a significant reduction in our annual birth rates, and can become effective means of population control. This was achieved despite the fact that a vast majority of the women population have not taken advantage of the facilities and advice of the Family Planning programmes. As improvements are made to extend the services of the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board to reach a greater number of the women population in Singapore, I would expect to see a further drop in the annual birth-rate in Singapore. Surely, the logical step for the Government to take at this juncture should be to develop the services of the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board to such an extent as to reach the maximum number of our women population to achieve a significant drop in annual birth-rate rather than for the Government to introduce measures to liberalise the law on abortion as an effective means to plan our population control. In talking about population control, I do not think it is out of place for me here to point out that sometimes under-population can hamper the economic development and progress of a country. While I do not see that under-population will ever become a problem that we have to face, I do not also see over-population becoming an over-riding problem that we have to face in our efforts to bring about the economic progress and advancement of our two million citizens. In Singapore today, while we talk of unemployment of so many thousands on the one hand, we also find ourselves faced with the problem of a skilled labour shortage on the other hand. We cannot hope to expand industrially at a desired rate if we lack the skilled labour and the technocrats to man and run our factories. The problem, therefore, is not one of number. The problem is how do we plan and train our manpower resources according to our national needs. If today, by a miracle, we can train the unemployed to become skilled labour and technocrats, then we can ensure for ourselves the success in our industrial expansion and progress and solve our unemployment problem. Desirable though population control may be for planning our economic progress and advancement, it does not necessarily mean that we must reduce the number of births to zero. A certain number of births is necessary to maintain our population at its prevailing level. A liberal abortion law which permits all babies to be killed before they are born, theoretically speaking, will serve to defeat the very purpose for which the Bill was proposed - to ensure the continuing survival of our Republic. The Minister in his speech also pointed out that the central purpose of the Bill may be to ensure the quality of the life of children born in Singapore.

Not "may be".

All right. And that every child will be a wanted child. I think he is attempting the impossible. Assuming that abortions may be freely available in Singapore ---

It is always good to aspire to an ideal.

- I wonder how he can ensure the quality of children born in future. There will always be children who are sickly, retarded or deformed. There will always be children who are not up to the quality mentioned by the Minister. What are we to do with them? Are we to consider them as unwanted children? It is said that the Government hopes to get rid of the illegal or the unqualified quacks through liberalisation of the law on abortion. This again cannot be achieved as long as there are stipulations restricting the circumstances under which an abortion may be legally permitted. Women who cannot meet the stipulations will continue to seek illegal abortions. In view of all that I have said, I feel that this is not the proper time for the Government to introduce legislation to liberalise the law on abortion. It is to be hoped that such a move will never become necessary in Singapore. I therefore strongly urge the Government to withdraw the Abortion Bill in the light of what I have said. 5.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in full support of the Abortion Bill now before this House. It is necessary for purpose of record to state that the Government's decision to introduce this piece of progressive legislation to legalise and to liberalise abortion was taken nearly two years ago, when I was then in charge of the Ministry of Health. A great deal of time, thought and consideration has, therefore, been given to the drafting of this Bill, as we are fully aware of the highly controversial nature of the legislation to be enacted, and the hue and cry that will be raised by those holding strong religious views on the subject, as well as those who are sincere, conscientious objectors. We are confident, however,, that genuine opposition and resistance to this Bill forms only a minority, although vocal and somewhat vociferous in nature. As we are practising parliamentary democracy in Singapore, it is important to ensure that those in opposition to the Bill should be heard ---

But not seen.

That is the responsibility of the Minister for Defence. And this has been going on for nearly 20 months, ever since it became known in August 1967 that it was Government's intention to introduce this legislation in Parliament. It must be remembered, however, that the large majority, espe cially the women folk who will benefit under this Bill and who are, I am sure, in full agreement with the principles of the Bill, prefer to remain silent on it. As the saying goes, silence means consent. Let me first recall, briefly, the background of how this Bill came into being. I can assure this House that the liberalisation of the law on abortion for Singapore is no flash-in-the-pan idea, just to hit the headlines, but a sober, measured, deliberate and ultimate step for the full emancipation of our women. We passed the Women's Charter of 1961 which gives to our women (other than those who subscribe to the Muslim faith) equality of status and security through the one-man, one-wife law.

5.42 p.m. They are no longer chattels to be trifled with but equal partners in a marriage. In my view, the right of a woman to decide whether or not she is to bear a child can only be guaranteed if it is made "legal" for her, of her own free will, to undergo an abortion if she so decides. Indeed, we would fail in our aim, that of giving our women folk who, after all, form one-half of the human race living on this earth, full equality in the eyes of the law if we do not pass this Bill to give her the right to decide whether or not to have another baby. Having a baby is something no man can ever understand because, physically, man is incapable of bearing children. Man does not go through the profound experience of childbirth and the attendant mother-love of tending and caring for the young till it is able to look after itself, after years of laborious care, pain and sorrow. As men, we tend to talk somewhat lightly about the pangs of childbirth. How many of us fathers who are not medical doctors like yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, have watched their wives at childbirth? I have. It is only after watching a mother going through such an experience that one can understand the problem of the unwanted child to the woman - not the man. Mother-love is so strong and powerful and yet she chooses to abort. It goes against her very nature to do it. But when she does make that decision, it must have been under great provocation. Having an abortion is no picnic. It is not fun. It is painful. It is a traumatic experience, as mentioned by the hon. Member, and the woman who decides on an abortion does not come to such a decision lightly. I, therefore say, that when a woman decides on an abortion, the least we can do for her is not to make it harder for her by labelling it as "illegal" and thus make her desperate enough to do something furtive and, worse still, to go under the counter, with all the attendant dangers that go with illegal activities, to get what she wants, despite the fear, the risks that are being taken and the rapacious swindle that goes on by those who profit out of it, just because of the existence of an antiquated law which, far from protecting women, has made them victims of it. Unlike Japan, which introduced legalised abortion in 1948 as a population control measure long before family planning came into the picture, we in Singapore, on the other hand, are fortunate to have a successful mass family planning programme in action before contemplating the introduction of a law to liberalise abortion. This is therefore no desperate measure to control population growth in Singapore. The success of the first three years, 1966 to 1968, of our Five-Year Family Planning programme has already brought down the natural rate of increase of our population by over six points, i.e., from 24.4 per 1,000 population in 1965, the year before the introduction of the Five-Year Plan, to 18.2 per 1,000 population in 1968. This is a most satisfactory position indeed, and a record, probably unequalled elsewhere, for such good results within the short space of three years of an action programme.

5.46 p.m. To those who ask, since our family planning programme is so successful, why then introduce the controversial issue of liberalising the law on abortion? Is this necessary? The answer is a categorical yes. Once the principle of family planning is accepted, i.e., that not every sex union must automatically result in a conception and thereafter the birth of a child, it automatically follows that legalised abortion for contraceptive failures must be conceded to, and that is what this Abortion Bill aims to achieve. All those who practise family planning, and they must include many Members in this House and those outside this House, must know how easily con traceptive failures can arise, whatever the method used - be it the rhythm method, which is reported to have as high a failure rate as 75 per cent - a most unreliable method indeed, and other methods like a tear in the condom, whether through age or faulty manufacture, or vaginal cream which has gone off because of time or temperature or being inadequately spread out, or forgetting to take the contraceptive pill for one occasion, or impatience or over-zealousness on the part of one or both partners. I do not think I need go further into the subject. But it is patently clear that contraceptive failures occur inevitably, sometime and somehow, with the woman missing her next menstrual period - the first sure sign that conception has taken place. What then? Why do we practise family planning? In these circumstances, I say the woman who decides to have an abortion should feel free to seek this remedy, and not be made to feel like a criminal and an outcast of society for wanting to commit a so-called illegal act. This matter should be treated as if an "accident" had occurred, just as we would treat cases that come to the Emergency Unit of our General Hospital at present. It is then the duty of Government to have the best facilities available to rectify the "accident" which has arisen and to heal and repair any damage that may have been caused. As my colleague, the Minister for Health, said yesterday in his speech, it is possible for those who are rich and able to pay the price for abortions to be performed legally under the guise of dilatation and curettage (i.e., dilatation of the neck of the womb). That is what abortion is. But because of the so-called ethics practised in the medical profession that of secrecy between doctor and patient - very little comes out unless a fatality or a scandal occurs. So you hear very little about it. But it is going on. It must be said for the profession, however, that most doctors will not be prepared to perform abortions under the present Jaw, but, unfortunately, many doctors are painfully aware of the unsavoury "goings-on" of some of their compatriots who have less scruples and are performing these supposedly "illegal" abortions, raking in the money and exploiting the desperation of many women in Singapore. Let me now read out a relevant paragraph of the White Paper mentioned by my Friend across the Floor on Family Planning (Command Paper 22 of 1965), which was published on 27th September, 1965, paragraph 8.2: 'Purpose of 5-Year Plan It should not be forgotten that many women in desperation over innumerable child-bearing, are resorting to illegal abortion as a way out. Every year nearly 500 patients are being admitted to Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital in serious condition, and their cases are clinically diagnosed as being "abortions with sepsis", and these could well have been the result of unsuccessful attempts at induced abortion. It is estimated that for every one who is hospitalised there may be as many as five going undetected. This yearly tragedy of suffering and exploitation of thousands of women which sometimes result in death must be stopped!' Sir, let us put a stop to these malpractices by making it legal for our women to have abortions if they so desire. Let us not have one law for the rich and another for the middle class and the poor, who resort to all kinds of dangerous forms of induced abortions just because they cannot afford to pay the high sum and the price for a "legal" abortion to be performed in the aseptic conditions of a private well-equipped clinic or hospital under the present law. Why am I so confident that only the minority oppose the liberalising of the law on abortion? Taking family planning as the cue, when implementing the Five-Year Mass Family Planning programme in 1966, a senior official of the Health Ministry (since retired) in the Maternal and Child Health Department asked: "What are we to do with staff (doctors and nurses) who are opposed to family planning on religious grounds?" My answer was a straightforward administrative one. "Ask them to put in writing that they wish to be excused from family planning work on religious grounds and we can then transfer them out to other sections in the Ministry - we do not sack them where their religious scruples need not be embarrassed." The result was a request for transfer by only two members of the staff (one doctor and one nurse) out of a staff of hundreds. That is all! To those who oppose this Bill, we simply say no one is being compelled to have abortions. The affected woman has to decide, of her own free will, that she wants it. No one is going to force her to do it. She has to come to that conclusion herself. The decision is something for her to make. So if you must oppose this Bill, you are at liberty not to have an abortion. Have your baby, it is yours to have and to hold, but please leave others alone and do not interfere with the wishes of others who want a legal abortion. Do not stand in their way. Stay off! Just as we respect the views of those who differ, so should they respect the views of others who want to have legal abortions and to exercise their legal rights. In conclusion, I say a vote to liberalise the law on abortion is a vote for progressive legislation and for the full emancipation of our women. If Members have to disagree on this Bill, the least they can do is to abstain from voting.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Chua Sian Chin]. Adjourned accordingly at Six o'clock p.m.

Wednesday, 9th April, 1969 The following Question for Oral Answer stood on the Order Paper of 9th April, 1969 :-

To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour whether he proposes to abolish one or both Industrial Arbitration Courts." Pursuant to Standing Order No. 20 (2) , the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour supplied the following answer: - 1. "The Honourable Member is aware that the Industrial Arbitration Court is set up under the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. 20 of 1960). Section 3 (1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance provides that there shall be one or more Industrial Arbitration Courts to be presided over by a President or Deputy President to be appointed by the President of Singapore in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister. If we are going to do away with the Industrial Arbitration Court, we will also have to do away with the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, and this the Government does not intend to do. The Honourable Member is aware that at present there are two Industrial Arbitration Courts and whether there should be one or two such Courts, or even three, is dependent on the number of cases that have to be dealt with. Provision, however, is made in the 1969 Estimates for two Industrial Arbitration Courts."