Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." The Select Committee considered 33 written submissions on the Abortion Bill and heard oral evidence from the representors of five different organisations which had submitted memoranda. The Committee decided to incorporate certain amendments based on some of the points brought up in the memoranda as well as in oral evidence. However, no change in the basic purposes of the Bill was deemed necessary. The basic aim of the Bill is to reform and liberalise the abortion law so that women with unwanted pregnancies may, on social and humanitarian grounds as well as on medical and eugenic considerations, have their pregnancies terminated safely and cheaply in approved institutions and by approved doctors. As was expected, there were written submissions which argue on the principles of the Bill. Of course, the stand taken depended upon whether the individual person or the organisation which made the representation was for or against the principle of treatment by way of a deliberate act to terminate pregnancy. Some took their stand in accordance with their particular religious persuasion, although they of course did not want openly to admit it. There were also other submissions which proposed amendments to specific provisions of the Bill. Often the representations took the form of the first part being devoted to arguments on principle and, in the latter part, to propose specific amendments to the Bill. It is interesting to note that there were also memoranda which, in the first instance, argued against the principle of the liberalisation of the law of abortion, but later went on to propose amendments to specific provisions of the Bill, presumably to improve it. Most of the issues raised in the submissions pertaining to the principles of the Bill were indeed familiar ground as these had already been covered by arguments for and against the Bill which had been raised before the Bill was presented to Parliament and which were exhaustively debated in Parliament at the Second Reading of the Bill. I can say that, all in all, with a few exceptions, most of the representations were agreed that there was a need to reform and liberalise our law of abortion, although there was disagreement on specific provisions of the Bill and their wording and how far we should go in liberalising it. As a result of the representations, the Select Committee decided upon certain amendments to the Bill. But I wish to emphasise here that these amendments to the Bill will in no way alter the aims and objectives of the Bill or deviate from the basic considerations which had made the Government introduce the Bill. Neither would they in any way weaken the Bill as had been suggested in one quarter. The amendments which are submitted for acceptance would, in fact, improve the Bill and considerably strengthen some of its provisions. For this, I would like to take the opportunity here to express my thanks to those who had come forward to make representations to the Select Committee. I do not propose to comment on every one of the amendments which the Select Committee decided to recommend acceptance by the House. These have been described in detail in the Report of the Select Committee. I propose instead to consider them under main subject headings. They are as follows: (1) Membership of the Termination of Pregnancy Authorisation Board The total number of members of the Board remains at 11. The amended changes relate to changes in the composition of the five appointed members. Of the five members to be appointed by the Minister, three instead of the original two shall be females. It is further specified in the amendments that two of these three women are to be "professionally qualified social workers". The original text stated it rather ambiguously as persons with "experience in social welfare work". The reasons for these amendments will be immediately apparent to Members. It was pointed out both in written representations and in oral evidence that abortions involve primarily the female person and, therefore, female representation should be larger. Hence the amendment to increase the appointed number of female members to at least three. The number can, of course, be larger if the Minister wishes to appoint more women on the Board if he considers this of advantage. The appointment to the Board of two "professionally qualified social workers" instead of persons with "experience in social welfare work" was made on the suggestion of various organisations. such as the Catholic Social Guild, the Inter-Religious Organisation and the professional social workers. Professionally qualified persons are identifiable. They are persons who possess a qualification in social work, i.e., the Diploma in Social Studies. This would not be the case if the original term "experience in social welfare work" is used, as this could include a range of persons from charitable organisations, voluntary workers and those whose experience may be limited and not relevant to the issues. The other amendments relating to the membership of the Board are minor administrative amendments. Thus, for clarification, the filling of a casual vacancy on the Board should be by a person who has equivalent qualifications to the member whom he replaces. Also, the composition of the Board, but not the number, may be varied by the Minister. In the original text the Minister would be able to vary the composition as well as the number of members of the Board. This appeared objectionable to the Catholic Social Guild. (2) Conditions under which abortions may be authorised Several significant amendments to the conditions under which abortions may be authorised have been accepted as a result of the suggestions by various representations made orally and in written submissions. The first amendment makes a qualification to the medical reasons under which an abortion may be authorised. In the original text, an abortion could be performed where there was risk to the life of the pregnant woman or injury to her physical and mental health. The amendment clarifies that these risks should be "serious" risks. The addition of the adjective to qualify the risk to life or the threat to a woman's physical and mental well-being injects a relative term into the considerations and probably will restrict the conditions under which abortions can be carried out for medical reasons. If the amendment is accepted, medical practitioners will probably find their area of manoeuvre restricted even more than under the present law which allows an abortion to be performed where there is a threat to the life and health of the pregnant woman, without qualification. The amendment is made on the suggestion of various representations, that is, the Singapore Medical Association, the Catholic Social Guild, the Catholic Medical Guild and the Regional Council of Churches. Since, however, this amendment was largely proposed by the medical profession which have probably weighed the disadvantages, the amendment is submitted for acceptance. But I would like to reiterate here that this amendment will in no way weaken this part of the Bill. In fact, it will serve to clarify the position of this provision. The second amendment (made to clause 5 (2) (d)) adds another condition under which an abortion may be approved by the Board. This is when pregnancy has been due to carnal connection. The Women's Charter makes unlawful carnal connection with any girl under 16 years of age. The exception is when the girl is married. Since the clause provides that pregnancy consequent on rape or incest is ground for abortion, it is equally good grounds for adding this other sexual assault on the girl to be included under this clause. A further amendment relating to the conditions under which abortions can be performed relates to abortions in cases of emergencies. This is provided under clause 5 (5). Under this clause, it was provided that an abortion could be performed when it is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant mother or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. The amendment seeks to restrict the practitioner's discretion to a condition where it is immediately necessary to perform the operation to save the life of the pregnant woman. In other words, the condition where there may be reason to perform the operation to prevent grave permanent injury to physical or mental health is excluded under this clause. The amendment was made on the suggestion of the Singapore Medical Association in the course of discussions with its representatives in Select Committee. The view expressed was that if there was a grave threat of permanent physical or mental injury of the pregnant woman, this should be done under a different clause (i.e. clause 5 (3)) where a second medical opinion is required and that the operation is carried out in a Government hospital or in an approved hospital. The fourth significant amendment relates to the citizenship status of the woman applying for abortion. The relevant clause is clause 5 (8). The original text would have covered abortions under the approved conditions to residents of Singapore only. Although a woman who is "resident in Singapore" would normally include Singapore citizens, it could happen that such a citizen might not have been resident in Singapore during the four months prior to the application of the abortion and would, by interpretation of this clause, become ineligible for consideration for an abortion. Obviously this is not the intention of the Bill. The intention of this clause is to exclude non-residents and non-citizens from taking advantage of the liberalisation of our laws. It should not operate, however, against our women citizens. The amendment seeks to clarify and forestall the remote, though possible, interpretation of the clause against our citizens. It specifies that an abortion may be authorised if the pregnant woman is a resident in Singapore in the four months prior to the application, or is a citizen or wife of a citizen of Singapore. The other amendments under this heading are administrative and consequential to the three major amendments which I have just described. For example, it is provided that a report of an abortion performed for medical reasons by a medical practitioner where the prior authority of the Board has not been obtained will have to be made within 14 days. It was considered that the original text providing for the report to be made "as soon as possible" was ambiguous. (3) Processing of applications for abortions Several amendments are proposed relating to the clauses which pertain to the work of the Board in processing the applications for abortions. This may briefly be described as follows: (a) Referrals for specialist opinion In clause 7, the Board may make reference, as circumstances arise, to specialists for an opinion on an application before it makes a decision on it. In the original text, in clause 7 (4) (d), this was limited to a reference to an obstetrician and gynaecologist. It was rightly pointed out that this was an unnecessary restriction. There may be other conditions outside the competence of an obstetrician and gynaecologist which may require another medical specialist opinion, say, that of a physician or a psychiatrist. With this amendment, the Board would have the discretion to refer such matters to the appropriate specialist. (b) Consent for the operation of termination of pregnancy For obvious reasons, the Board has to be satisfied that the application for abortion is of genuine intent and a consent to undergo the operation is an indication of this intent. A valid consent for such an operation is described in clause 8. This clause states that a valid consent may be given by a woman who is over 18 years of age. By the proposed amendment, this has been extended to a married woman even though she is under 18 years of age. It is only where the pregnant woman is unmarried and under 18 years of age that the consent of her parents or that of a guardian is required. (c) Participation in the decisions of the Board As a safeguard to the impartiality of the Board, an amendment is provided in clause 9 to disallow a member of the Board or any committee appointed by the Board involved in any way with the application or in the operation to terminate a pregnancy, to be party to the authorisation for treatment to terminate the pregnancy. This amendment has been inserted on the suggestion of the Inter-Religious Organisation, whose representors to the Select Committee appeared rather concerned and wished to exclude the possibility of a conspiracy between medical practitioners to procure an abortion. (4) Conscientious objection The original text of clause 10, which is called the "conscience clause", provides that a person who has a conscientious objection may refuse to participate in any treatment to terminate pregnancy. Sub-clause (2) of clause 10, however, states that in any legal proceedings the burden of proof of conscientious objection shall rest on the person claiming to rely on it. This unfortunately has caused some misapprehension, as can be seen from the representation of the Singapore Medical Association as well as several others. Therefore, in order to clear the ambiguity, an amendment has been proposed which will provide specifically the manner in which a person who may be involved in the operation of termination of pregnancy can indicate his conscientious objection to participate in the operation. This is done by the person testifying on oath or affirmation that he has a conscientious objection to participating in the operation of abortion. There are, of course, many other amendments which had been suggested by the various representations but which the Select Committee had decided to reject. One of the amendments proposed but was rejected was from the Singapore Medical Association which sought to add in a phrase that an additional child "is likely to impose additional and grievous hardship on the woman or her family" to the environmental clause, i.e., clause 5 (2) (b). As I have stated before, this proposal to add in this additional phrase, though it may appear to make the clause slightly restrictive, adds nothing materially to the criterion already contained in it, nor does it in any way alter its essential meaning, that is, to allow abortions on socio-economic grounds. Moreover, it has been rightly pointed out that it may unnecessarily impose a restriction on the judgment of the Board which already has a difficult job to perform. This suggested amendment was accordingly rejected. The reasons for the rejection of the other suggested amendments become quite apparent, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you are to read through the proceedings of the Select Committee as published in its Report, and I, therefore, do not propose to go through them. Mr Speaker, Sir, the passage of this Bill together with its companion Bill, the Voluntary Sterilization Bill, is certainly an event of major importance to the people of our Republic. This Bill has been rightly described outside this House as a Human Rights Bill. When adopted by this House, it will forever liberate our women from the present tyranny of unwanted pregnancies. It will free the family from the burden of having to feed and care for the child which, on account of family and financial hardships, it is just unable to do. As for the community, it will be spared the tragedy of having unwanted children from whom most of the delinquents, the criminals and the anti-social elements are derived. This is the social evil from which our community will be freed. On the other hand, it will help to ensure that children born in Singapore will be wanted children, being children who will be properly cared for and have opportunities for education and the full development of their faculties so that they can grow up to lead meaningful lives and contribute to our society. The Bill also respects the religious and ethical beliefs of our people in that it does not compel any woman to have an abortion if she does not want it on account of her religious and ethical beliefs or for any other reasons. But it makes it possible for those whose religious and ethical beliefs do not forbid them from having an abortion to request for treatment by way of a deliberate act of termination of pregnancy under certain conditions as specified in the Bill. This indeed does vindicate the freedom and rights of the individual and his conscience which is so important in our multiracial and multi-religious society. The passing of this Bill indeed marks a historic milestone in the development and progress of our Republic. This Abortion Bill, which will allow abortions on purely socio-economic grounds under its environmental clause, can indeed be considered one of the most progressive pieces of social legislation ever to be adopted in the non-Communist world. This Bill, when it becomes law, will be in force for four years and may be extended for a period of not more than one year, after which it will have to come up for review before Parliament. No doubt time and experience gathered from its administration will tell us how effective the great change proposed in this Bill will fulfil its purposes. Of course, we shall watch very carefully the effects of the implementation of this law on our social and medical habits, and if it is deemed necessary in the light of experience gathered, it can be brought up for review before this House even much earlier. However, I have every confidence that, barring initial practical difficulties in implementation, this Bill, on which a great deal of thought and consideration had been given, would more than fulfil the purposes for which it has been drawn up. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. Resolved. "That Parliament do now adjourn to the 29th December, 1969."-[Mr Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Six o'clock p.m. to Monday, 29th December, 1969.