Hansard, 1969-12-29

Under the provisions of clause 2 (d) of Article 30 of the Constitution of Singapore, I have granted permission to the following Members to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr Yong Nyuk Lin (Geylang West), Minister for Communications on 29th December, 1969. Mr Tang See Chim (Choa Chu Kang), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance from 29th December, 1969, to 15th January, 1970. (P. COOMARASWAMY) Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

I have been informed by the President that, on the day stated, he assented to the following Bills:- 26th December, 1969 (i) Light Dues Bill; (ii) Moneylenders (Amendment) Bill; (iii) Statute Law Revision Bill; (iv) Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill; (v) Extradition (Amendment) Bill; and (vi) Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill. (P. COOMARASWAMY) Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour if he will consider introducing legislation to amend the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance (a) by extending the applicability of the Ordinance to all categories of employees earning $750 or less per month; and (b) by increasing the numbers of months of earnings and the maximum amounts prescribed for compensation in section 8 of the Ordinance where injury sustained results in the death or in permanent total disablement of the employee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, manual workers are eligible for workmen's compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance, 1954, irrespective of the amount of their monthly earnings. It is only in respect of non-manual workers that the ceiling of $400 earnings per month is fixed so that non-manual workers earning more than $400 per month will not be eligible for workmen's compensation. If the Ordinance is amended in the manner suggested by the Member for Kallang, it would have the effect of denying workmen's compensation for manual workers should their earnings exceed $750 per month. As for non-manual workers, statistics for the 11 months of January to November 1969 show that the number of non-manual workers who were paid workmen's compensation was 14 out of a total of 7,952. This works out to 0.17 per cent, the rest being all manual workers. Raising the eligibility of non-manual workers for claims of workmen's compensation would, therefore, have little or no practical effect since it is well known that manual workers are exposed to greater risks to their personal safety in the course of their employment than non-manual workers. Under section 8 of the Ordinance, the amount of workmen's compensation for victims of accidents resulting in death is calculated on 36 months of their monthly earnings or $7,200 whichever is the less. Where the victim is permanently disabled, the workmen's compensation is calculated on 48 months of his monthly earnings or $9,600 whichever is the less. The maximum payable for death or permanent disablement of the employee is based on an earning of $200 per month. This figure is above the average monthly earnings of workers in Singapore which, according to a sample survey made in 1968, amounted to $180.60 per month. Amending legislation will be made to revise the scales of benefits should the average monthly earnings of workers in Singapore exceed $200.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary value a man's life only at $7,200 or 36 months' wages?

I think that is laid down as compensation; that is, a man's life-span of work expected of him. But I am sure, if the Member has any suggestion to make, we will be very glad to receive it.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary not believe that the estate of a deceased person stands a better chance of being awarded more damages by the High Court than the award of $7,200 under the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance?

Sir, depending on the individual case, I am sure the deceased's family is at liberty to seek workmen's compensation or to seek redress in the High Court.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree with me that a workman would get more compensation from damages by the High Court if he were to die in a road accident than in a factory or at a work site?

Sir, that is a hypothetical question. I do not think I am in a position to answer that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary said just now that if the average worker in Singapore should get $200 a month, then he would take steps to amend the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance. But is not the per capita income of a worker over $200?

No, Sir. It can be seen from page 49 of the 1968 Report of the Ministry of Labour, where there is a report of a sample survey, that the average monthly income was $180.60.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Parliamentary Secretary not consider it expedient to extend the definition of "workman" to all classes and categories of workers irrespective of whether they perform manual or technical work?

I think that question was answered in the Parliamentary Secretary's principal answer.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I underline the word "technical".

Has the Parliamentary Secretary anything to add?

I do not think I have anything to add to that.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour (a) whether there is a shortage of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled labour in Singapore recently due to the Government's policy of rapid industrialisation; (b) what steps have been taken or are being taken to remedy the situation; and (c) if he will consider an overall survey to ascertain the actual situation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the categories and numbers of persons currently registered for employment in the Employment Exchange, there appears to be a shortage of skilled labour and to a lesser extent semiskilled labour in Singapore. However, there is no shortage of unskilled labour. Out of a total of 52,115 persons registered for employment at the Employment Exchange as on 30th November, 1969, 1,475 were registered as skilled workers, 3,259 as semi-skilled workers and 28,854 as unskilled workers. The remaining persons were registered as commercial and domestic workers. The steps taken by the Government to meet the immediate shortage of skilled workers include (i) encouragement to industrial concerns to undertake their own training programmes to meet their demands for skilled workers; (ii) permission for industrial concerns to bring in skilled labour from outside Singapore; (iii) provision of special courses to upgrade and retrain workers in the Vocational Institutes and the Industrial Training Centres by way of day-release and evening classes. To meet the requirements of industries for skilled personnel on a long-term basis, Government has taken measures to restructure the educational system so that there will be an increasing number of school-leavers in the coming years with vocational and technical training. From time to time, various organisations, including the Ministry of Labour, the National Productivity Centre, the Technical Education Department of the Ministry of Education, and the Economic Research Centre of the University of Singapore, have carried out their own surveys to ascertain the manpower requirements in certain specific areas or industries. At the moment, the question of an overall survey is not an urgent one. If at some future date the situation demands it, Government will consider making an overall survey to ascertain the skilled manpower requirements of Singapore.

asked the Minister for Defence (a) how many non-citizens have applied for Professional Employment Passes from August, 1968, up to the latest convenient date; (b) how many applications were approved; and (c) the reasons for rejecting the other applications.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the period August 1968 to November 1969, 7,051 applications were received from non-citizens for professional visit passes and employment passes. The number of applications included new applications and applications for extension. During the same period, 6,911 applications were approved. The number approved included some applications submitted before August 1968 and finalised after 1st August, 1968. A total of 508 applications were rejected during the same period. The rejections also included some applications submitted before August 1968 and finalised after 1st August, 1968. The reasons for rejecting the applications are as follows: (1) If local citizens with similar qualifications and experience were considered available to take over the jobs applied for. (2) Applicants who were considered of little or no appreciable economic benefit to Singapore; and (3) Security objections.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development (a) if he is aware that fancy fish breeders and hobbyists are having difficulty in obtaining live worms from local sources since the recent anti-mosquito campaign was started; and (b) if he will instruct the Primary Production Department to undertake the breeding of worms under controlled conditions to restore the local supply of live worms to meet the requirements of our fancy fish breeders and hobbyists, in view of the export earning capacity of fancy fish.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the current shortage of worms is due not so much to the anti-mosquito campaign but rather to the rapid increase in the demand for worms as more and more people breed fancy fish either for their own enjoyment or for export. The Primary Production Department has been conducting experiments in tubi-fex worm cultivation since 1967. Successful techniques have been evolved to enable fancy fish breeders to produce their own worms. The techniques have been taught to interested parties and demonstration units have been set up at Lim Chu Kang and Sembawang veterinary centres. In fact, many aquarium fish hobbyists and exporters are now producing tubi-fex worms on their own. Those who are interested should apply to the Primary Production Department for a demonstration of the technique of worm production.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister encourage further the breeding of worms so that fish breeders and hobbyists will not find it difficult to get worms?

The Primary Production Department will encourage the breeding of worms. For those who do not know how to breed them, the Department will be only too pleased to give them a demonstration of the technique of tubi-fex worm production.

Mr Speaker. Sir, is the Minister aware that worms are now being imported from across the Causeway?

Yes, and I do not see any objection to such imports. We have in the past imported worms even from Japan.

Will the Minister give us some assurance that we will be self-sufficient in worms?

I cannot give the Member that assurance. The only assurance I can give is that the Primary Production Department itself, whilst not producing worms on its own, is prepared to show fish hobbyists how they can go about producing worms.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development, in view of the serious floods in early December, 1969, whether Government has any effective plans to prevent those serious floods from recurring.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the floods on 10th December last were caused by unprecedented heavy rains coinciding with a high spring tide. Nothing can be done to prevent rainfall or to alter the movement of tides. However, our drainage system can be improved. But finance is the limiting factor. We can construct a drainage system augmented by huge pumping stations that will meet all eventualities, but this will be extremely costly and difficult to justify. Like all public work projects, priorities have to be decided. Over the last few years, several drainage and flood alleviation schemes have been approved. Some of these have been completed, whilst others are still under construction. The following schemes are now under construction: (1) The Bukit Timah Flood Alleviation Scheme, Phase 1, which is the cutting of a diversion canal to channel water from the upper Bukit Timah catchment area to Ulu Pandan canal. The scheme is expected to be completed by the end of next year and the cost will be in the region of $6� million. (2) The urban renewal drainage scheme - the New Bridge Road outlet drain and Peng Siang Quay outlet drain. Concrete lining and realignment of both drains is being done. Completion date is May 1970 and the cost is $1 million. (3) The Sungei Kallang improvement scheme, which consists of the realignment and widening of the river from Braddell Road to Thomson Road, including Potong Pasir and Lorong Chuan, costing $� million. (4) Kampong Kembangan and Siglap improvement scheme. Work is being done on the improvement of subsidiary drains in the Kampong Kembangan area which lead into the Siglap Canal at a cost of $150,000. (5) Sungei Whampoa lining. Concrete lining of Sungei Whampoa is expected to be completed in four months' time at a cost of $� million. Mr Speaker, Sir, in addition, all flood alleviation and drainage plans are being reassessed and, finance permitting, proposals for new drainage schemes will be implemented in the future that will lessen the severity of floods. We could not altogether avoid the flooding that was caused by the unprecedented 16.9 inches of rainfall in 24 hours on the 10th of December coinciding with a high spring tide of 10 feet 1 inch.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, apart from the various schemes mentioned by the Minister, what are the flood alleviation schemes that have been completed and where are these schemes situated?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the most recently completed one was the Pelton Canal scheme which was the lining of Pelton Canal through MacPherson Estate completed in May this year at a cost of $� million. The Alexandra Canal lining was completed in 1968 at a cost of $2 million. The Geylang Canal widening and lining was completed in 1968 at a cost of $1.2 million. The Tampines Road Canal improvement was completed in 1967 at a cost of $� million. The Orchard Road Canal lining was completed in 1964 at a cost of $� million.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, apart from these completed schemes and in view of the serious flood recently, can the Minister inform the House of other proposed flood alleviation schemes and when these will be started?

Sir, the biggest scheme which has not yet received approval is the second phase of the Bukit Timah flood alleviation scheme to cut a new canal from the 3� milestone Bukit Timah Road through Whitley Road and Thomson Road along part of Sungei Whampoa to join up with Sungei Kallang at Kallang Basin. The estimated cost is $7� million. The next scheme is at Potong Pasir and Lorong Chuan valley. This is a rather low-lying area. We could widen Sungei Kallang and realign and improve its subsidiary drains. We could even construct a storage reservoir in Lorong Chuan valley. But all this would cost $5� million. There are some smaller projects. For instance, Geylang Serai is a very low-lying area and some parts of it are below high tide level. There is a scheme which is being considered to provide adequate concrete-lined canals in Geylang Serai. This will cost about $300,000. Other smaller schemes are the improvement and lining of Rochore Canal costing about $1 million, the provision of adequate canals, and the raising of the level of the roads in the Boon Tat Street area which would cost about $� million.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister say whether there is any flood alleviation scheme for Changi, especially in the Koh Sek Lim Road area which was very badly hit by the recent floods?

Mr Speaker, Sir, officials from the Public Works Department and the Public Utilities Board are reconsidering the drainage plans for the Bedok/Changi area; we are thinking of building a reservoir where the Housing and Development Board is digging earth to reclaim the east coast. We may build this reservoir both as a catchment area against floods and to catch the Water during floods. Alternatively, if the water is not very polluted, we can use it as an additional store for our water supply. The matter is receiving the consideration of officials and a decision will be made soon.

Mr Speaker, Sir, arising out of the question of floods, what is the Government's policy in regard to the construction of temporary unauthorised shacks or huts by the victims in the recent floods? Is the Government going to allow this?

Without any hesitation, I would say yes to the Member for Bras Basah. People who have suffered and lost their homes either completely or partly can surely repair or rebuild and have a roof over their heads without fearing prosecution from the Chief Building Surveyor. On the other hand, of course, we must watch the position to see that others who have not suffered from the floods do not take the opportunity to erect unauthorised houses.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, has the Government any plans to carry out flood alleviation schemes in Sembawang Constituency? Certain areas in Sembawang were affected by the recent floods and had water as high as four feet. Some roads have been eroded by the flood waters. Will the Government take immediate steps to repair these roads?

Immediate steps are being taken to repair the roads which have been spoilt as a result of the floods. But this supplementary question is really in connection with the second question of the Member for Sembawang. As to floods in Sembawang, I think the Member will agree with me that this was the first time the floods affected Sembawang. Frankly, we have no concrete plans for alleviating floods in Sembawang. But as I said in the last sentence of my reply, our whole flood alleviation measures are being reconsidered with a view to alleviating floods which may occur as a result of either heavy rains for many hours or high tides or both.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister said that Sembawang was affected by the floods for the first time. I hope it will not happen again there.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in regard to the recent floods, the damage done was very serious. Some rich people had their cars totally submerged in the flood and these were completely damaged. Some people were killed and others injured. Damage to property was extensive. Just now the Minister mentioned big flood alleviation projects coming up. That is good news. But, from my point of view, projects are projects. In this connection, we must learn from our past experience in building flats and houses. We have been very speedy in putting up houses and flats. Therefore, we should be equally speedy in carrying out these flood alleviation schemes. For example, the Ulu Pandan scheme has been going on for the last few years. I paid visits to the work site a few times, but there were no men working on the scheme. Ulu Pandan Road is a very important main trunk road which will connect Singapore with Malaysia and even Thailand. lf it rains very heavily for two days, it is very difficult to go through this road. I would like to ask the Minister if he will send more men to work on the Ulu Pandan scheme. If they are not working fast enough, they should work day and night. Just now the Minister said that there was not enough money to spend on all the flood alleviation projects. That is wrong. If there is no money, how can we build houses and flats? We should spend part of the money allocated to flat-building on the Ulu Pandan scheme, which is a very important project. The small drains in the area should be widened so that the water will flow more quickly to the sea. The East Coast Reclamation Scheme has somehow affected the free flow of water. Can the Minister take steps to remedy the situation?

Sir, that is the longest supplementary question I have ever heard! Perhaps to satisfy the Member for Ulu Pandan I should say, as I said in the last sitting of Parliament, that the Ulu Pandan scheme has been delayed because of rock formation which has been encountered in the tunnels we are now building between Bukit Timah and Ulu Pandan. It is not the P.W.D. workers who are working on the project but the contractors. The work has been let out to three or four contractors under a tender scheme. Of course, if it rains, they cannot work. But I will look into the Member's complaint and see what can be done to expedite matters.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether investigations have been carried out to ascertain the loss and damage as a result of the recent floods; and whether he will inform the House of the number of lives lost and the extent of damage to property.

Sir, investigations have been carried out to ascertain the loss and damage caused by the floods of the 10th December, 1969. Preliminary figures show that the damage has been extensive. Five deaths were reported to have been caused by the very heavy rains and the subsequent flooding. Some 10,000 families were affected. Damage to private farms, properties, and household effects is believed to be substantial, but it is difficult to assess such losses with any degree of accuracy. In the public sector, the damage to buildings, roads, bridges, sewerage pumping stations and other installations is estimated to be $780,000, and to electricity, water and gas installations, about $500,000.

asked the Minister for Social Affairs what assistance has been given to help the people affected by the floods in order that they may rehabilitate themselves.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the floods, the Social Welfare Department opened five relief centres at: (i) Serangoon Secondary School; (ii) Geylang Serai Vocational School; (iii) Bedok School; (iv) Balestier Hill School; and (v) St. Andrew's School. It is estimated that 2,800 persons used these five centres. In addition, eight relief centres manned by voluntary workers were opened in various flood-stricken areas. These eight centres were used by an estimated 870 persons. The Social Welfare Department gave immediate relief on the day of the flood itself by supplying the following foodstuffs to the above 13 centres: (a) Rice; (b) Sugar; (c) Coffee powder; (d) Sardines; (e) Fresh vegetables; (f) Biscuits; (g) Ikan bilis; and (h) Dried prawns. The total quantity of foodstuffs supplied came to 3,250 lbs. In addition, 3,780 lbs, of clothings were issued to those in need. After the floods, as an immediate measure, the Social Welfare Department paid cash grants at the rate of $10 per person to 12 families comprising 65 persons whose houses had been extensively damaged or rendered unsafe by the floods. Eight of these families have been allocated Housing and Development Board flats. The following categories of persons were adversely affected as a result of the floods: (i) Farmers; (ii) Next-of-kin and dependants of those who died; (iii) Persons who need alternative accommodation as a result of their houses being washed away, rendered unsafe or extensively damaged. The Government has drawn up a relief scheme for farms damaged by the floods to help the farmers re-establish their farms and get back to full production as quickly as possible. The scheme provides for aid in cash as well as in kind to farms licensed by the Primary Production Department. Small vegetable farmers have been given $100 in cash plus $50 worth of materials, i.e., vegetable seeds, fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides and lime. Farmers of medium-sized vegetable farms were given $100 in cash plus $100 worth of materials. Farmers of large-sized farms were given $100 in cash plus $150 worth of materials. Pig farmers are eligible for a loan of up to $1,000 at 3 per cent interest repayable in one year. In addition to this loan, small pig farmers who lost pigs in the floods are given $160 worth of feeding stuff. Poultry farmers are eligible for a loan of up to $500 at 3 per cent interest repayable in one year. In addition to this loan, small poultry farmers who lost poultry in the floods are given $150 worth of feeding stuff. It is estimated that this relief scheme for farmers will cost the Government $137,400 to be given in the form of grants and $406,500 by way of loans. The Government has also drawn up a scheme to assist the next-of-kin of those who died as a result of the floods. The scheme provides for the ex gratia payment of compensation from the General Relief Fund. Payment will be assessed on the lines of the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance which provides for maximum compensation of 36 months' wages or $7,200 whichever is the less. The estimated cost of ex gratia compensation is $20,360. The floods also rendered a number of persons homeless. Such persons who need alternative accommodation as a result of the floods will be paid a rent subsidy on the same basis as that paid to persons made homeless by fire, i.e., at the rate of $7 per person per month subject to a limit of $35 per family per month for a maximum period of three months. The estimated cost for rent subsidies is $1,491.

asked the Minister for Health if he will consider (a) undertaking immediately a pilot survey to determine the extent and degree of air pollution in Jurong and other selected industrial estates caused by noxious smoke, fumes, gases and dust from factories; (b) engaging an expert to carry out the survey; (c) making the report on the survey available to the House; (d) following up the pilot scheme with a complete survey of the problem of air pollution in the Republic; and (e) taking the necessary measures to eliminate air pollution as far as possible.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry is aware of the increasing seriousness of the problem of air pollution especially in Jurong and other smaller industrial areas in Singapore. Further, the problem is enhanced by the increasing number of motor vehicles and other equipment utilising the internal combustion engine which can cause pollution of the atmosphere with the discharge of exhaust gases, especially carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide, on the main highways of the city. Steps have already been taken for an expert on air pollution control from the World Health Organisation to be assigned to Singapore to help us look into this problem and to help in the development of an air pollution control section. Among the functions of the expert it is envisaged that he should -

asked the Minister for Health, in view of the prevalence of cancer of the womb and breasts among women, whether he will consider expanding the facilities for cancer detection and treatment, and if he will introduce legislation to provide for periodic examinations for cancer.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for the information of the Member for Delta, the figures for cancers of the breast and uterus occurring in Singapore are as follows: Year Breast Neck of Body of uterus uterus 1965 92 112 43 1966 112 121 49 1967 106 136 27 1968 103 95 27 In terms of percentages, cancers of the breast account for 12 per cent, cancers of the neck of the uterus 22 per cent, and body of the uterus 4 per cent of all types of cancer affecting women in Singapore. Compared with the average figures over the previous five years from 1960 to 1964, there has been no significant increase, although there is an apparent increase when compared with the figures for the years 1950 to 1959. This really is due to better service and more comprehensive diagnostic methods of detecting cancer rather than any true upward trend. Mr Speaker, Sir, since my last statement in this House in December 1968 on a similar subject, although the Cytological Service in our Kandang Kerbau Hospital has not had the number of its staff increased, the number of slides examined by it has increased. There is provision for nine Cytotechnicians but only eight are presently employed, one having resigned. The number of slides, with corresponding suspicious and confirmed cases of cancer, is as follows: Year Total No, of No, of Slides Suspicious confirmed examined slides cases 1966 1,744 71 42 1967 9,779 142 71 1968 14,677 166 116 1969 14,883 126 67 (Jan to Nov) Slides examined in our Kandang Kerbau Hospital come from two sources - hospital patients and from selected Maternal and Child Health Clinics. As the majority of slides from hospital patients come from cases which have symptoms, the yield of suspicious and confirmed cases is higher. On the other hand, a considerable number of slides from Maternal and Child Health Clinics are from patients without symptoms. In the Maternal and Child Health Clinics, the yield is approximately three out of 1,000 slides examined. This figure is similar to the findings in many other centres throughout the world. Prior to October 1969, not all gynaecological cases seen at the Kandang Kerbau Hospital are routinely examined with a cytological smear. However, since that date, all gynaecological cases attending the hospital are now being screened. In the case of cancer of the breast, detection can only be made when patients come forward because of a complaint of a lump in the breast. It would be extremely difficult to provide a routine examination for all women. However, women who detect any small lump in the breast should see their general practitioners or attend one of the Government outpatient dispensaries, or one of the Maternal and Child Health Clinics. They will be referred to the surgeon if the doctor feels this requires further opinion. It is not intended to introduce legislation to provide for periodic examinations for cancer. A proposal for the expansion of the Cytological Service has been made this year. This has been submitted to Treasury for consideration. It is intended under this proposal to screen all women who are likely to have symptoms. The estimated figure to require such screening will be about 100,000 to 125,000 cases per year.

asked the Minister for Health whether he will consider providing nightsoil workers with hygienic masks and uniform so as to promote a healthier, neater and a more disciplined working force befitting a "Garden City" in Southeast Asia.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry concurs with the view that the wearing of uniforms will lead to a neater appearance and will assist in the fostering of a sense of discipline in a work force. But the provision of uniforms, if accepted, should in fact not be confined to only nightsoil workers, but should be made available to all daily-rated workers engaged in environmental public health work. In the case of street cleansing workers, an added safety consideration exists as they can be easily identified by traffic on roads. The question of the provision of uniforms has been under active consideration, and the Ministry is in consultation with the Ministry of Finance for the introduction of uniforms for a disciplined public health work force. The annual cost of providing such uniforms works out to about $35 per workman; and the annual cost of such uniforms at the present time for 6,500 environmental health workers has been estimated to be approximately $240,000. This matter is being pursued with the Ministry of Finance. The cost of providing uniforms for 600 nightsoil workers alone is $21,000 per year. However, the provision of protective masks in any work operation for workers is only resorted to where improvements to the industrial techniques, the provision of exhaust hoods and the installation of mechanical ventilation are inadequate to eliminate entirely any dangerous dust or fumes that may affect the health of the workers. The handling of nightsoil does not give rise to such dangers and is of no direct health value, contrary to popular opinion. There is, of course, an aesthetic value as the smell associated with such work is not pleasant. The use of protective masks, therefore, for this purpose alone is not practical as such masks restrict movement, are uncomfortable, and have never been popular with the workers themselves. Even if such masks are supplied, it is doubtful they will be worn by the night-soil workers.

asked the Minister for Culture, in view of the scarcity of "spiritual food" for children, particularly in cinema entertainment in Singapore, whether he will take steps to ensure that film distributors supply a reasonable quantity of educational films to the cinemas so as to provide wholesome entertainment for our children.

Mr Speaker, Sir, film distributors are at liberty to exhibit the types of films that they wish and they will naturally bring in those films which in their view will draw the biggest revenue for them. The control which is exercised is done through the Board of Film Censors which ensures that objectionable films are not shown to the public. It is neither practical nor practicable to lay down any stipulations with regard to the quantity of educational films to be shown. In any case, it is difficult to specify what an educational film is, remembering that films that educate are not necessarily restricted to the documentaries but must include the wider field of film entertainment from which any child can learn something that enhances not only his knowledge but his sense of values. In recent weeks some films of good educational value depicting the broader aspects of nature and wild life study, self-reliance, innovation, have been shown in Singapore. Exhibitors will bring in such films if they find they are appreciated by their customers. The children's section of the National Library also shows films which are educational in nature, in addition to talks, lectures, etc., for children.

(In Mandarin): The Minister said just now that some good educational films have been shown in Singapore in recent weeks. Does he know how many good films were shown over the past two years? There were only seven good films. The rest were all films depicting violence, killing and sex. Has not Government the duty to promote the screening of good films?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said in my reply, the film distributors will import only films that have a demand in Singapore. Therefore, it is not a question of whether Government wants to stipulate the kind of films to be imported. If there is a great demand for films depicting violence and sword fights, as can be seen nowadays, the film producers will produce more of such films. So it all depends on the taste of the film-going public.

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [23rd December, 1969], "That the Bill be now read a Third time." - [Mr Chua Sian Chin]. Question again proposed. 3.22 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many people believe that the primary object of the Abortion Bill is to provide an additional check on the population growth of Singapore, particularly when contraceptives fail. If this is truly the primary intention of the Bill, then I cannot accept it. Family planning in Singapore has been a great success and our crude birth rate has fallen dramatically in recent years to 2.3 per cent. For this, I must congratulate the former and present Ministers for Health, and I am sure with the continued efforts by the present Minister on family planning, the expected target of two per cent by 1970 will be within our reach. I therefore cannot see the need to introduce this Bill. My contention is that despite the great advances made in science, now that man is able to travel to the moon, man is still unable to create human life in a science laboratory. Since we cannot create human life, we have no right to destroy human life. Except for medical emergencies when both the lives of the mother and the unborn baby are at stake, and unless the resort to abortion can save at least the mother, I cannot agree to abortion under any other circumstances. I am aware that population control is absolutely necessary for the preservation and even survival of the community, but is it necessary at this stage of great success in family planning that we should resort to killing of the foetus in order to control population growth? The Minister has not proposed that it be made illegal for anyone to have five, 10 or even 12 children, though the father may be deprived of income tax relief, free primary education, etc, in respect of the fourth and subsequent children. Yet it should be pointed out that for every abortion done to reduce the number of births by one, its effect is cancelled by the many unwanted births to others who already have several children. Therefore, the answer seems to lie not in abortion, but in compulsory birth control for people with more than, say, two or three children. Mr Speaker, Sir, with due respect to the Minister, I cannot accept the Bill. In conclusion, I would leave this thought with the House - if this Bill had been introduced, say, 50 years ago, would we be so fortunate as to have all our 11 Ministers with us today?

Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the noticeable trends in developed countries is that parents with more education have much smaller families than those with less education. This trend is also discernible in urbanised, though still underdeveloped, societies like Singapore. If these trends continue to their logical conclusions, then the quality of the population will go down. In all societies, there are the more intelligent and the less intelligent. Professor Richard Lynn, a member of the Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, wrote in the New Scientist of 20th March, 1969, that geneticists have come to the conclusion that intelligence is principally determined by heredity. One of the ways of demonstrating this is through the study of identical twins reared in different families. Investigations in Britain, America and Denmark have invariably revealed a high measure of agreement between the I.Q.s of identical twins, even though they have been reared in families of different educational and cultural standards. The I.Q. classification of the levels of the various occupations was quoted by the same author as follows: Occupation Mean I.Q. Higher professional and executive 150 Lower professional and executive 130 Highly skilled and Clerical 118 Skilled workers 108 Semi-skilled workers 97 Unskilled workers 86 It is not unlikely that many other attributes of mind and body are also inherited. But whatever the inheritance, man, more than any other living creature, depends on nurturing and training for his capacity to mature and to develop. Man needs to be reared for one-third of his life span in order to be productive for the next two-thirds. In highly developed societies, students are supported for 25 to 27 years until they get their Ph.D.'s, and then begin to repay their debt to society. His final performance is affected by diet, health and cultural, social and educational opportunities. When the less educated who are also in the lower income groups have large families, the problems they create for their children are compounded. Resources, time, attention and care, lavished on one or two children, can nurture and develop the endowments of the children to their fullest extent; when spread and frittered over six or more in the family, prevent any child from getting the chances he could have had in a smaller family. In urbanised Singapore, this can become an acute problem. Free pre-natal care, post-natal health and almost free medical services have reduced infant mortality to the low rates of highly developed countries. Free education and subsidised housing lead to a situation where the less economically productive people in the community are reproducing themselves at rates higher than the rest. This will increase the total population of less productive people. Our problem is how to devise a system of disincentives, so that the irresponsible, the social delinquents, do not believe that all the have to do is to produce their children and the government then owes them and their children sufficient food, medicine, housing, education and jobs. There are certain areas of activity over which control by any government is both difficult and repugnant. One such area is the choice of the number of children a father and mother decide to rear. One day the pressure of circumstances may become so acute that attitudes must change. Until such time when moral inhibitions disappear and legislative or administrative measures can be taken to regulate the size of families, we must try to induce people to limit their families and give their children a better chance. The quality of our population depends on raising not only the I.Q. level but also getting parents to care, nurture and educate their children and to develop all those other qualities so crucial to effective living summed up in the word "character". Every person, genius or moron, has a right to reproduce himself. So we assume that a married pair will want to be allowed two children to replace them. This is already the average size family of the skilled industrial worker in Europe. In Singapore we still allow three for good measure. Beyond the three children, the costs of subsidised housing, socialised medicine and free education should be transferred to the parent. We have changed the priorities in public housing, by not awarding more points for more children. One day we may have to put disincentives or penalties on the other social services. By introducing this new abortion law together with the companion voluntary sterilisation law, we are making possible the exercise of voluntary choice. But we must keep a close watch on the result of the new laws and the patterns of use which will emerge. It is not unlikely that the people who will want to restrict their families are the better educated parents in better paid jobs. They are the people who already understand that their children's future depends on their being able to care for their health, education and upbringing. One of the crucial yardsticks by which we shall have to judge the results of the new abortion law combined with the voluntary sterilisation law will be whether it tends to raise or lower the total quality of our population. We must encourage those who earn less than $200 per month and cannot afford to nurture and educate many children never to have more than two. Intelligent application of these laws can help reduce the distortion that has already set in. Until the less educated themselves are convinced and realise that they should concentrate their limited resources on one or two to give their children the maximum chance to climb up the educational ladder, their children will always be at the bottom of the economic scale. It is unlikely that the results will be discernible before five years. Nor will the effect be felt before fifteen to twenty years. But we will regret the time lost if we do not now take the first tentative steps towards correcting a trend which can leave our society with a large number of the physically, intellectually and culturally anaemic. 3.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was expecting to see, as a result of the numerous representations submitted, some basic changes and amendments made by the Select Committee on the Abortion Bill but this has not been so. The Minister for Health in his statement last Tuesday in this House stated that there were some minor amendments but that there were no substantial changes, though many representations had been submitted to the Select Committee. And studying the Select Committee's Report, I am somewhat struck by a number of points raised in it. However, I do not wish to go back to those points I made in this House on Tuesday, 8th April, 1969. My stand has not been changed since then and I do not wish to waste Members' time by repeating what I said then. Therefore, Sir, suffice that I shall confine my remarks to the Report. Firstly, it can be seen that out of 29 written representations and not 33, Sir, the other four were on the Voluntary Sterilization Bill - received by the Select Committee on the Abortion Bill, there were no less than 21 that were either opposed to the Bill in principle or at least were opposed to the present broadly worded "socio-economic" clause, found in clause 5 (2) (b). In spite of this, it appears to me that the Select Committee not only did not see fit to propose any amendment to this clause, but also they did not appear to have spent very much time discussing the arguments against this clause which were made in those representations. The arguments put forth by some of them I consider to be extremely well-founded and forceful. Take Paper No. 14, in page A4l as an example. I refer to points Nos. 7 to 12. These people consider themselves as teachers who have a responsibility to perform, and they are of the view that clause 5 (2), if passed, will have ill-effects "on the character of the nation". And so, too, have many of the representations been made on the point that the human foetus has at least some human rights. Yet nowhere in the Minutes of Evidence do I find the Select Committee seeking to have this point discussed, much less conceded to. Surely, this is the central issue: if the human foetus has no human rights, then there is no need for any legal restrictions on abortion; but if the foetus does possess some human rights, then the law must exercise extreme caution to protect those rights from being violated. It is regretted that the Select Committee did not seem to have thought fit to raise the question of the rights of the foetus at all. This brings me, Sir, to another point about which I feel very, very strongly. In referring to those who sent in written representations on the Abortion Bill, the Minister for Health in his speech said in this House and I quote: 'Some took their stand in accordance with their particular religious persuasion, although they of course did not want openly to admit it.' Mr Speaker, Sir, I consider this remark a gratuitous insult to the authors of the representations. It accuses them, by implication, of insincerity, of concealment and of crookedness. I consider it not only insulting but blatantly unjust and uncalled for. I know that amongst the memoranda sent in by religious organisations, the largest number came from the Catholic bodies. Yet reading the representations, do we find them arguing that abortion should be prohibited because the Catholic Church teaches that it is wrong? We do not. We find them arguing that abortions should be prohibited because it is bad for the nation. They ask that their case should be judged not on the merits of their religious beliefs but on the strength of their arguments. We may agree or disagree with their arguments, but we have no right to doubt the integrity of those who oppose it. I am a Catholic. I am also opposed to abortions. I am opposed to abortions not because I am a Catholic -

Hear, hear!

- but because I think it is wrong. Just as I am opposed to murder because I think it is wrong. All Members of this House think that murder is wrong too. You do not have to be a Catholic, or for that matter a Hindu, a Muslim or a Buddhist to think that abortion is wrong. I am opposed to a liberalised abortion policy because I think this would be bad for our nation. It is very easy to write off the opposition to this Bill as "religious objections". This saves us the trouble of examining the rational arguments put forward against it. This enables us to evade the very pertinent questions raised, questions which have nothing to do with religion but which have a great deal to do with the welfare of our people.

3.50 p.m. Sir, it is clear from the number of representations sent in that a considerable amount of thought and care went into their preparation. The authors of these representations were acting as responsible citizens. They were fulfilling what they considered to be their duty towards the State by expressing their genuine misgivings about the social consequences of this Bill. Instead of being glad and grateful that there are such people, people who are concerned about the welfare of the nation, people with initiative to clarify their misgivings, people with courage to express them, the Minister for Health has seen fit to treat them with ridicule and to brush them off with a cheap smear, and I quote, "although they of course did not want openly to admit it." This sort of attitude on the part of the Minister is hardly calculated to enhance the atmosphere of religious tolerance and mutual respect for which Singapore has been hitherto renowned.

By imposing your views on others?

Mr Minister, you will have plenty of time to reply. I now refer to my next point on "conscientious objection" which is in respect of clause 10 (2) of the Bill. It is gratifying to note that the Select Committee has made it clear that a statement under oath or on affirmation will establish proof of conscientious objection. This is what the Minister said. However, in dealing with sub-clause (3) of clause 10, I am surprised to note that no cognisance appears to have been taken of the doctor's responsibility towards the foetus. Once again, it seems to be assumed that the foetus has no rights at all. In this connection, it seems to me that the Minister for Health has misinterpreted a clause in the Declaration of Geneva, because twice in the course of the examination of the witnesses, he raised this point. I refer to pages B78 and B98, paragraphs 591 and 750. The Declaration of Geneva is, in part, reproduced in paragraph 32 of Dr S. R. Salmon's representation, Paper No. 27. This paragraph is in the Report at page A73. I quote: 'I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient.' I think, Sir, the clear and obvious meaning to it is this. I will not refuse to treat a patient because I disagree with his religion, or disapprove of his nationality or dislike his race or abhor his political views or consider his social standing as beneath me. In other words, it is talking about the religion of the patient and not about that of the doctor. Furthermore, let us not forget that the doctor who has conscientious objections to abortion, objects to abortion precisely because he sees it as being against his duty to one of his patients. Sir, may I refer Members to page A50 of the Select Committee's Report? Paragraph 10 of Paper No. 21 reads: 'As doctors we consider it our duty to safeguard the life and health of our patients. What non-medical people apparently fail to realise is that when a pregnant woman comes to a doctor, the doctor considers that he has two patients to look after. This is not the opinion based on metaphysical or theological speculation. This is a simple fact based on scientific evidence.' Moreover, since the Minister for Health is so concerned about the Declaration of Geneva, I wish that he had also referred to another clause in the Declaration. In paragraph 32 of Paper No. 27, reproduced on page A73 of the Report, the Declaration reads: 'I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception;'.

When is that?

Ask yourself. You are a father; you should know.

3.57 p.m. In fact, Sir, what causes me a lot of uneasiness in reading this Report is the absence of any clear indication that the Select Committee was convinced that abortion is a bad thing and is to be reduced to a minimum. Sometimes one could get the opposite impression and this is understandable. For instance, in discussing the question whether the Abortion Bill is to be used as a means of population control - I refer to the Minutes of Evidence at page B37, paragraphs 254 and 256 - one of the witnesses quoted the Minister for Health's speech in this House: 'Another important benefit to our society that would result from this Bill would be to lower the rate of our population growth...' And further on, the Chairman said, and I quote with your permission, Sir: 'We must recognise one point, and that is, every abortion performed under this Bill, when it is law, will, whatever its purpose, play a part in population control.' This is undoubtedly true.

So what!

But one searches in vain for any expression of regret that abortions should be performed at all. The impression I get, Sir, is that the Select Committee's attitude was: Well, abortions are being performed; they will continue to be performed. Some people think that this is undesirable, so we will make a few minor amendments to placate them. We will merely change "risk to the life of the pregnant woman" to "serious risk" and so on. But we will leave untouched the most controversial clause - the socio-economic clause and the environmental clause which can be interpreted broadly enough to suit any purpose. And then we will see what happens. If things work out badly, we can always amend the law again. In the meantime, we note that abortions reduce the population growth. Apparently, the Minister for Communications hit the nail on the head when he was reported to have said: 'With family planning a success and legislation of abortion on the cards, I envisage that whichever government is in power in the late '70s would have seriously to consider whether or not to offer baby bonuses to mothers, in order to check the fast falling birth rate that would prevail in Singapore at that time.' [The Sunday Times dated 21st December, 1969, page 1]. So, today this House passes this Bill to liberalise the law on abortion. But what I am afraid is that the House in the late seventies, which is some ten years away, may have to forbid abortion and may come up with another Bill - to offer mothers-to-be-hence baby bonuses! Can you see what irony! Therefore, if we try to look ahead ten years hence, I am sure many Members in this House, who will definitely be around, will then sadly sigh, "We made a terrible mistake in 1969!". Sir, perhaps the House will be interested to note further that an article in The Sunday Times of the same date and captioned: "A Sunday Times Inquiry"

Mr Ng, if you quote, you might refer to the headlines. Holding the newspaper up will hardly enable Members to identify the article to which you refer.

Sir, I have already mentioned that it is The Sunday Times dated 21st December, 1969, page 3, under the headline, "A long queue -but not enough babies to adopt".

Is that a Sunday bonus?

It is for you! Sir, the conclusion I am about to draw is obvious, for I did mention in this House on 8th April, 1969 - Hansard, Vol. 28, No. 11, col. 895, and I quote: '...a child unwanted by its parents may well become a treasure to some childless couple.' May I therefore, Sir, recommend this for careful and considerate consumption to those who are too eager to recommend liberalised abortion as advocated in this Bill. But some of us here in this House are convinced that abortion is a bad thing, and that widespread abortion would be disastrous for the nation. We think it should be confined and discouraged in every possible way. It would therefore seem that we have failed to convince this House on this point. Perhaps the fault is ours. An hon. Member: Yours!

Perhaps we lack the ability and vitality to put our arguments across clearly enough. Perhaps we lack the power of persuasion necessary to induce the people to look beyond the immediate advantages of this Bill to the long-term disadvantages that will come with its implementation. 4.11 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I oppose the Abortion Bill. Although abortion is not forced on those who are against it, nevertheless when this Bill becomes law, it will automatically encourage and also give an opportunity to those who seek to satisfy their lust to abuse this Bill. Is this not a shameful act? Abortion on the foetus, which is life, is tantamount to killing. For this reason, Islam forbids abortion. Sir, it is not logical to have the Abortion Bill because family planning can be a success if Government improve on the methods. If this Bill is not successfully carried out, has the Government plans to introduce another Bill to kill new-born babies? If this happens, what will be the devastation that will befall human beings? Sir, I oppose this Bill. 4.12 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Sir, when the Abortion Bill was read a Second time, I neither objected to nor approved of it. But now that it is being read a Third time. I oppose it. Just now my colleagues mentioned that, in the past, family planning campaigns have been successfully carried out. Why then is it necessary to liberalise the law on abortion if family planning has been a success? Abortion can be very harmful and dangerous to the health of the mother. If we implement this Bill, are we not, in fact, encouraging many young people to indulge in promiscuous behaviour? We know that the Minister for Finance is doing his best to encourage tourism. That is why the bars are doing very well. These places of sin result in the birth of more babies. The Acting Minister for Culture, in reply to a question earlier, said that films depicting violence and sword fights are popular. He then becomes a "yellow" Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. In fact, before the Member for Delta raised this question I had, on occasion, personally met the film distributors, like the Cathay Organisation and Shaw Brothers, who produce films in Hong Kong. I raised with them the fact that there are too many films which are not of educational value, and asked them whether they would produce more films which would be of civic and educational value. Their answer was this. They said that they had, in fact, imported some of these films and found that the box-office takings were always very poor. They are therefore very reluctant to produce films which are of a serious type or have educational or civic value. I would appreciate it if Members, like the Members for Ulu Pandan and Delta, would do their part to exhort parents not to encourage their children to patronise sword-fighting films but to patronise films having educational or civic value.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a point of clarification. May I know what relevance this has to the Abortion Bill?

By virtue of your proximity to him, Mr Chua, it is easier for you to ascertain that from the Acting Minister for Culture than for me! 4.14 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to be quite honest, before the Minister for Health made his Third Reading speech on this Bill, I was in two minds whether I should speak again or not, considering the fact that I had spoken at great length on the Second Reading on this topic. But after his speech in which he made many sweeping statements, I found it very tempting to speak again, and I have decided to speak now. Since the introduction of the Abortion Bill, the Health Minister, to me, somehow seems to be labouring under the magnificent obsession that he has become a liberator of women's rights. He has liberated them from unwanted pregnancies. He has also come out with a solution to solving the delinquency problem and improving the quality of children to be born in future. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, sounds to me like the views of an extremist, because if we were to speak in the same manner as he did on the point of liberating the rights of this or that category of persons, then would he consider fighting for the rights of groups of men who would want, on their own, to patronise brothels, or watch obscene films without the harrassment of the police? There is at present a law against such type of entertainment which is, in fact, in the manner of the Health Minister, denying the rights of certain categories of our citizens. Is he also not worried about the rights of thousands of women who perhaps for months and years have been out of job and to whom we, as Members of Parliament, have had to attend sometimes at meet-the-people sessions? And would he consider legalising prostitution, because that could be a very profitable profession today in our present situation? But for him to speak as he did would only incur probably the displeasure of many, because there are such things as public morals and public concern for matters like this. He has also mentioned the solving of the delinquency problem, or something to that effect. Perhaps he should turn his attention to the delinquency problem in England, and in places where abortion is already legalised. It has been found that in no way does abortion help to reduce delinquency.

When did Britain legalise the abortion laws?

What proof has the Minister that delinquency is the result of unwanted babies? The other very damaging point that he has made is that this Bill could improve the quality of children born after the Bill is passed. This is to suggest that all this while, the quality of children born before the enactment of this Bill is questionable. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now view the whole Bill as it stands. Leaving aside the minor points, I think the Bill can be reduced to two major underlying principles, namely, that abortion is permitted (1) on medical grounds, and (2) on socio-economic grounds. The first principle on medical grounds would also include cases on eugenic grounds, and cases of rape which could result in the mental health being affected. This could be the main underlying principle behind this Bill. On the first principle, namely, on medical grounds, I think there is in existence today some provisions in the Penal Code permitting abortions to be carried out under limiting circumstances on medical grounds. It may be necessary that the scope and area in which an abortion could be carried out on medical grounds should be extended. Therefore, any feature of this Bill relating to the question of permitting abortions to be carried out on medical grounds will find no objection from me. My objection, and what I consider as a very highly controversial point in this Bill, is the clause that permits abortions to be carried out on socio-economic grounds. To begin with, Mr Speaker, Sir, the term "socio-economic grounds" is very difficult to define and to assess. For example, a middle-aged couple may find it very difficult to have two or even one child because they would prefer to have a car, a television set, a refrigerator, and all the modern comforts of life. And if they have a car, a television set, and a refrigerator, they would further prefer a bigger car, a bigger television set, and a better refrigerator. On the other hand, a couple with a low income may find it quite acceptable to have more than two or three children, because they do not care very much for the modern luxuries of life but they care more for the love and affection of children. Families amongst the vast majority of workers in the low-income group are too large because they do not believe in family planning. I think the right step to take to help reduce the plight and size of such families in the low-income group is to step up the family planning campaign and to make a genuine effort to get these big families in the low-income group to participate in family planning programmes. But to do it through abortion will, I think, lead to a great deal of other complications, because abortion is not as simple a matter as the removal of an appendix but an operation that involves wider implications. Abortion means the removal of a foetus. Whatever our religious views are on the status of the foetus, no one can deny that it is the source of life, a potential life. Therefore, its removal is not a matter to be taken lightly. It is precisely because of our respect for the foetus irrespective of whether it is life itself or a potential life, and because we hold a high respect for life itself that we should be very careful in taking any step that will cause disrespect for the foetus. Much has been said already both from within and from without this House on the implications of abortion, and I feel it is not necessary for me to repeat all the arguments against the complications and implications of such a move. My point, therefore, Mr Speaker, is that abortion is not a simple matter. It has other repercussions and other implications. We will allow an abortion to be carried out only under very good grounds. But to legalise abortion and to allow abortions to be carried out on socio-economic grounds will lead to many serious undesirable results. Because of that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not convinced by the evidence appearing in the Select Committee's Report, and I do not think that the speech of the Minister for Health can change my views on this Bill. 4.24 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Abortion Bill was read a Second time in this House, I did not speak on it because I thought many of my colleagues here had already expressed their views. I had hoped that when the Bill was considered in Select Committee, Government would accept the views of the majority and would introduce certain amendments to the Bill. But after the Bill had been considered in Select Committee and brought up for Third Reading in this House, I find that the Select Committee's Report is very disappointing. My views on this Bill centre on two points. First, I would like to give my views as a woman. Second, in respect of the future of our country, I would like to give a warning. All of you are not women. Of course, all of you think that whatever you want to do, you can and will do it. For example, when Government wanted to reduce population growth, it implemented the family planning campaign. This is beneficial to the future of our country as well as to the family. In this respect, women have sacrificed a great deal. In the whole process of family planning, those adversely affected are the women. Whenever you are free, go to the family planning clinics and you will find that those who go there are women, not men. Our women have played their part for the country. This fact is well recognised by the country and the people themselves. Quite often it has been emphasised that, in terms of population growth, the family planning campaign is a great success because it has managed to reduce the population growth. This should be a source of great satisfaction to all of us. However, the Government does not sufficiently accept the success of this family planning campaign. Instead it is proposing to adopt another course of action, i.e., when a woman is pregnant and does not want the baby, she can have an abortion. According to the Minister for Health, the process is painless and will not affect the mother's health. Perhaps it is because he is not a woman that he does not know how it feels. Whether the performance of an abortion is painful and whether it is damaging to the mother's health, only a woman can tell. Let us consider this Bill very carefully. Those women who go for abortions usually come from the lower income group, i.e., their standard of living is poor. Quite often they lack the nourishment necessary after an abortion. If we move from family planning to abortion, then I am afraid that more pregnant women will go for abortion, and in the end those who suffer will not be the fathers but the mothers. Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Prime Minister mentioned that from the point of view of the economy of the country it is necessary to curb the population growth of the country. Since we have recognised the fact that the family planning campaign has been successful, why must we pass a Bill to legalise abortion? By doing so, we will encourage people to do things which are not beneficial to the country. We can see that in many countries they have not found it necessary to legalise abortion in order to reduce population growth and thus improve the economy of their country. They do not rely on the legalisation of abortion to raise the living standard of their people. Take China as an example. We can say that it is the most heavily populated country in the world. But its economy is also one of the most stable. Why is this so? Why cannot we learn from the example of China as well as of other countries in our effort to improve our economy and raise the living standard of our people? Why must we take a retrogressive step by introducing the Abortion Bill? It is not an act of a responsible government. The Singapore Government has already emphasised that we must try to establish our prestige in South-east Asia. At the same time, we must also try to be a model country in South-east Asia. But are we trying to establish ourselves as a model country by this Abortion Bill? If the Government thinks that our population is too big and that it is having an adverse effect on our economy, why does it not kill some people? Is this not a better way? Legalisation of abortion is tantamount to murder. But it is not a direct form of murder. It is an indirect form of murder. If we go through with this Bill, then in time to come we will realise that what we are doing now is wrong. From the short-term point of view, it may appear to be the correct course of action. But from the long-term point of view, it is wrong. We must try to educate our people not only on sex but also on every other aspect of life. That is, make them understand the problems arising out of a large family and their effects on the economy of our country. This is what a responsible government should do. The P.A.P. Government should not introduce this Bill and other Bills that will encourage promiscuous behaviour in our people. We know that our people conduct themselves properly because they live in a society governed by law and order. They realise that in a democracy there is a limit to their freedom. But by introducing this Bill to legalise abortion, we are giving them more freedom. This is an undesirable action on the part of the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to remind the Minister for Health that our women will suffer a great deal more if the Bill is passed. We should reconsider it and take into account the long-term point of view and its effect on the country as a whole. 4.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in every democratic government, the motivation for introducing new laws or changing old ones is based on two factors. First, it can be the result of a public outcry for or against a certain matter. The second factor is when a situation is so very critical that Government is called upon to introduce emergency laws. With abortion, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no public outcry for the introduction of a law. Even the doctors themselves do not like the abortion law. In so far as the liberalisation of abortion is concerned, I have a feeling that the law is cock-eyed since there is an Authorisation Board to terminate pregnancy. We all know that a pregnant woman or any woman who carries an unwanted baby is a desperate woman and she will not submit to the embarrassment of presenting herself before the Authorisation Board. No one will go to the Authorisation Board. Women who are in a financially sound position will see a private doctor. However, those who are poor will still resort to the back-street practitioners for an abortion. These are facts which we cannot deny. Sir, I am a realist and I always speak with facts and figures to back me up, unlike the Minister for Health who always speaks in abstract terms. Let us look at the figures of population growth in 1968. I am quoting from the Monthly Digest of Statistics published by the Ministry of Labour in 1968. The figure for live births in 1968 is 47,241. The figure for deaths in the same year is 10,982. So for 1968 we have a net gain of 36,259. Let me project it for ten years, from 1969 to 1979. The population increase will only be 360,000. Mr Speaker, Sir, 360,000 is a little bit more than one-third of a million.

What is the basis of your projection?

On the same basis as the figure for 1968 where the difference in live births and deaths gives a net gain of 36,259, Assuming that this rate remains constant, in ten years' time our country will have an increase in population of only 360,000.

What is the basis of your assumption?

This is no assumption, Mr Speaker. I have obtained these figures from the Ministry of Labour publication. I do not see how the Minister can behave like an alarmist, why he is so afraid of the population. Let us not forget that the Minister is very young, energetic and virile. He has fought the Communists and the communalists. But now he is running away from infants and babies. All possible arguments have been put forward in the Select Committee meetings and published in the report.

Over and over again.

There is no need for us here to carry on the debate "over and over again", to borrow the Minister's words, if, in the implementation of the Abortion Bill, it can fulfil the aim of the Government, let it be so. But if there are adverse results, my only hope is that the law will be reviewed as early as possible, without the Government waiting for four years and a review in the fifth year.

Order. I will take the suspension now and take the Chair again at 5.10 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.42 p.m. until 5.10 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.10 p.m.

Debate on Third Reading resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I reply to the points raised by the various opposition speakers to the Bill, may I first make a few preliminary remarks on their speeches? At first, I was rather anxious to hear some more new points that they might bring forward to oppose the Bill. But, unfortunately, I find that they have repeated the familiar arguments in opposition to the Bill and it has left me greatly disappointed.

Any new point would have fallen on deaf ears!

However, may I just say this? After listening to the very ardent speech by the Member for Punggol, may I say that I do admire his doggedness in opposing this Bill? He did not, as expected, lose any opportunity to oppose this Bill once again even on its Third Reading. I do respect his persistence and the courage of his convictions in speaking out quite loudly and strongly against it. But I am afraid I cannot likewise have similar respect for the cogency of his arguments in opposing it. I admire all the more his dogged opposition to it since I have every reason to believe that his last stand against it must necessarily end up in the dust-bins of history. May I take the arguments of Members one at a time? To begin with, of course, I must give the honour to the Member for Punggol. In his argument, he did say that out of the 29 representations made on the Bill in Select Committee, 21 were against the inclusion of the socio-economic clause or the environmental clause in the Bill. I think his argument is that there was strong opposition to this clause judging by the number of representations made on it. May I just remind him that the multiplicity of representations does not necessarily mean the strength of the opposition. For example, if you just look at some of the addresses of the representations in opposition to the Bill, you will find that a number came from the same address. Two of them came from 96 Bras Basah Road and three of them came from 76 Bras Basah Road, but, of course, under different names and different labels.

That is very unfortunate!

I hope my point is quite clear. The other point on which the Member for Punggol did express a certain amount of sorrow is that the Select Committee did not think fit to debate whether the foetus has a right to life or whether it should have human rights like anyone of us. This, as I have said again and again, will involve ourselves in the argument which primarily springs from religious and ethical considerations. When the Member for Punggol made this assertion, he forgot one medical fact - that, as far as I know, from the medical point of view, the foetus is not yet a human being, and as such, logically, how can it have human rights? The Member for Punggol did take strong exception to my remark that some of the opposition comes from persons who take their stand in accordance with their religious persuasion, although they do not want to admit it openly. I suppose it would suffice for me to say that the truth does hurt. Some of the opponents to the Bill say that they do not oppose it on religious or ethical grounds, but when we examine their arguments more deeply, we are sure to find that they revolve around certain religious or ethical dogmas. I have said this in my introductory speech and I do not think I need go further. The Member for Punggol made a great deal of play on The Sunday Times report of "baby bonuses" which was attributed to a speech made by my colleague, the Minister for Communications. May I say this? My colleague's prediction that Singapore may have to offer baby bonuses to mothers in the late 1970s because of the great success in slowing down of population growth in Singapore, is in no way inconsistent with the main objectives of the Abortion Bill. The Member for Punggol thought that it was a bonus for him to use it against the Abortion Bill. I am afraid he is under a serious misconception again. I have time and again reiterated that it is not the purpose of the Bill to be used as a means of population control. However, time and again, some opponents of the Bill who, of course, include not only the Member for Punggol but also the Members for Delta, Anson and Bras Basah, have tried the all too familiar tactics of labelling it as such so as to find sufficient arguments to oppose the Bill. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, only serves to indicate the bankruptcy of their arguments against the Bill. May I just repeat once again that the main purpose of the Bill is to liberate our women from the tyranny of unwanted pregnancies, and that, as far as is possible, every child born in Singapore will be a wanted child who will be cared for so that he can grow up to lead a meaningful life. This Bill will also be a tremendous aid and will complement our efforts to help our people plan their families. Any reduction in the birth rate as a result will be an incidental benefit, and not the main purpose of the Bill. I have emphasised before, and I repeat, the relationship between family planning by the use of contraceptive methods and legalised abortion is like that between prevention on the one hand and cure on the other. There will be a close tie-up between the administration of the Abortion Bill when it becomes law and the national family planning programme. The family planning staff will, when this Bill is implemented, interview every woman who has been granted an abortion in the hospital, as they do now, and encourage them to take up family planning. If a woman has not subsequently adopted family planning, the Termination of Pregnancy Authorisation Board is likely to take an extremely dim view of any subsequent application by a woman for an abortion. The recommendation for abortion from the Family Planning and Population Board, supported by evidence of the practice of family planning and other records, will make it very easy for women to get an abortion in case of contraceptive failure. Further, I have already stated that the Government has decided to make a woman with three or more live children accept voluntary sterilisation as a condition for the authorisation of abortion. Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to clear any further misconceptions, perhaps I should explain here what family planning means. Family planning does not merely mean restriction of population growth. What it, in fact, means is that a couple who adopt family planning plan not only the size of the family but also when pregnancy should occur, so that they can have children when they want them. I hope that disposes of the misconceptions. Of course, if misconceptions are doggedly adhered to on grounds of dogmas, I do not think I can go any further! Another point which the Member for Punggol brought up was when he waved a copy of The Sunday Times showing a picture of people adopting unwanted babies. I think his point is that there will be people to adopt these unwanted babies and that these unwanted babies will provide solace to childless couples. But the fact remains that these babies are unwanted babies. Referring to the conscientious objection clause, the Member for Punggol pointed out that, according to him, the doctor's responsibility towards the foetus should be given due consideration. That is a familiar argument brought up by him. He keeps on harping on the foetus. By doing so, he forgets the plight of the unfortunate pregnant mother. As I have stated in my introductory speech, this preoccupation with the right of the foetus, unfortunately, ends up in lack of consideration for the mother. As I have also stated before, the Catholic dogma is that the foetus has the right to life. This assumption can put the Catholic doctor in a moral dilemma -to choose between destroying the foetus in order to save the mother's life, or allowing the mother to die in the hope of saving the foetus. This Catholic preference for doing nothing to assist the mother, in fact, amounts to a preference of the foetus over the mother, and may amount to a sentence of death for both. Referring to the principles of the Declaration of Geneva where a doctor should not allow considerations of religion, political affiliation, etc., to come between him and his patient, the Member for Punggol very cleverly used a twist by saying that these principles refer to the religion of political affiliation of the patient and not the doctor. But how do you split this? Will not the religious and ethical conviction of the doctor be equally relevant? Let me now turn to the Member for Anson. He introduced in his last remarks a very interesting point about compulsory birth control, but he did not elaborate on it. Members will remember that five days ago the Member for Anson was congratulated by the Minister for Law on the courage of his convictions when he raised a lone voice in this House against the abolition of the jury system. Sir, it would be amiss on my part not to congratulate him similarly on raising his voice against the Abortion Bill.

Thank you.

But I am afraid that he has opposed the Bill not only because he wants to assert his independence but also because it is clear, from his speech, that he has ill understood the considerations which have made us introduce it, although I have taken great pains to explain them in the Second and Third Readings. I come now to the Member for Geylang Serai. I think he has just repeated the familiar argument that abortion will lead to promiscuity. I have already replied to the same point he made during the Second Reading of the Bill. Will family planning by contraceptive means not also encourage promiscuity if his argument is correct? May I now come to the Member for Ulu Pandan? He has quite categorically stated that after having read the Select Committee's Report he has come to the conclusion, a very strong conclusion, I suppose, that he is now against the Bill, although he abstained from voting on the Second Reading. He has also made certain remarks that the Bill has been introduced because Government intends to encourage tourism. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not see what relevance tourism has to the Abortion Bill. Although an old man, perhaps he has allowed his imagination to run riot. Further, he harps on the theme that the Abortion Bill has been introduced for the purpose of population control. On this point, I do not wish to repeat what I have already said. Turning to the Member for Moulmein, he repeats the familiar argument and says that if we legalise abortion, then what about legalising prostitution or allowing the viewing of blue films? This point again is repetitious. The Member seems to be quite obsessed with blue films.

Because the Minister is obsessed with --

So the Member is obsessed with blue films then. But I cannot see the logic of his argument. It does not follow. This is what we call non sequitur -when we legalise abortion, we are going to legalise prostitution. It is rather facetious and mischievous. [Interruption] Well, it is the right of an individual to have an abortion under specified conditions. Let me come to Madam Chan.

Order. Will the Minister refer to the Member by her constituency, and not by name?

I am much obliged, Sir. The Member for Delta did say that the fact that I am a man does not entitle me to know the sufferings of women.

It is true.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not deny that it is true that I am a man. But what I do deny is that the Member has, in her strong opposition to the Abortion Bill, forgotten the plight of her fellow women who are suffering because of unwanted pregnancies and have to resort secretly to illegal abortionists to get rid of their unwanted babies. Is that not suffering? Is that not human misery? As I have said before, it is all very well for us to come here in this august Chamber and moralise. But we often forget that there are women who are in such a predicament that they resort to the backstreet abortionists to get rid of their unwanted babies at the risk of their health.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

Is the Minister prepared to give way to Madam Chan?

Of course.

(In Mandarin): Can the Minister say whether the Abortion Bill, when passed, will do away with the backstreet abortionists?

I think the Member has not read my speech carefully, or she has not bothered to read my speech at all. I have not said that when the Bill is passed it would eliminate all backstreet abortionists. What I have said is that it will reduce the number of backstreet abortionists, and in doing so it will reduce pain and suffering which has been the lot of these unfortunate women in the past.

There will be more.

Well, I am not as sure as the Member for Delta is. She moralises. I now come to the Member for Bras Basah. He says that Government only legislates or takes measures when there is a public outcry or when there is an emergency. Obviously that cannot be true. If it is, then we are not a good government. A good government plans ahead and weighs the long-term effects of any measure. If the long-term effects are good, the government will introduce legislation.

A good government also makes mistakes.

Of course, I do admit that. Perhaps the Member for Moulmein does not make mistakes. The Member for Bras Basah said that the Abortion Bill is cock-eyed. The Bill is not cock-eyed, but his reasons are. He said, "What is the use of having such a law, because the poor women will still go to -

I said, "What is the use of having the Authorisation Board?"

Order. Will the Member stand up and make his point?

I just want to make a point of clarification. What I said was that if the Government is going to legalise abortion and liberate the women, as the Minister has said, then it should not set up the Authorisation Board. By doing so, nobody will believe that the women will come forward before the Board to be cross-examined by its members, who will ask questions like, "Why do you want to get rid of the baby?", and so on and so forth. Therefore, rather than expedite the abortion, the Authorisation Board will hinder it. That is my point.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after hearing this point again, I am not so sure whether the Member is now opposing or supporting this Bill.

Definitely I am opposing the Bill.

According to his contention, the Authorisation Board will be a hindrance to women who apply for abortion. If he is opposed to the principle of legalised abortion, then he should be happy with the Board, is that not so?

I say it is cock-eyed.

Anyway, I do not think I can stretch the explanation any further. It is quite clear that if he thinks that the Authorisation Board will be a hindrance to women who want to apply for abortion, then I challenge him to vote in support of the Bill, in particular, on the clause on the Authorisation Board. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have dealt with all the points raised by the opposition speakers. It is now left for me to conclude. But before I do so, may I just raise one particular point not mentioned by the Members of this House? A letter was recently published in the press. It expressed concern that the Select Committee, by agreeing to add the word "serious" to qualify the risk to life or injury to the physical and mental health of the pregnant women in clause 5 (2) (a), has made it impossible for the unmarried college or working girl, caught with an unwanted pregnancy, to have an institutionalised abortion. This is indeed a serious misconception of the meaning of the proposed amendment, and should not be allowed to go unrefuted. If only the writer of this letter had read my speech carefully, it would have been quite clear to him that the amendment was on the medical reasons for which an abortion may be authorised. As I have explained, it may probably restrict the area of manoeuvre of the medical practitioners, but it does serve to clarify the position of this provision. It does not in any way affect the environmental grounds on which an institutionalised abortion may be authorised. As a matter of fact, it has been envisaged that the case of unmarried mothers, which the writer of the letter was so concerned about, would normally come under the environmental clause, i.e., clause 5 (2) (b). In fact, when discussing the environmental reasons for authorising abortions in my speech moving the Second Reading of the Bill, I stated that common examples would be, and I quote [Hansard Vol. 28, No. II dated 8-4-69, col. 864]: 'When the pregnancy will bring about social ruin as when the woman is unmarried, is deserted or when she is on the threshold of a career;'. However, I would like to say that the concern expressed by the writer for the plight of unmarried mothers is indeed admirable, and I would like to assure him that it is well taken care of in the Bill. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to reiterate that the central purpose of the Bill is to liberate our women from the tyranny of unwanted pregnancies. It will serve to ensure that, as far as possible, every child born in our Republic will be a wanted child who will have the opportunity of being properly nurtured and educated, so that whatever good qualities he has inherited will be developed to their full capacity so that he can grow up to lead a meaningful life and contribute his maximum to our society. It will also avoid the tragedy of children born unwanted or children born with physical or mental abnormalities. Thus it will serve to improve the total quality of our population. As has been stated by the Prime Minister, one of the social yardsticks by which we shall have to judge the results of the new abortion law, together with the companion sterilization law, will be whether it tends to raise or lower the total quality of our population. The total quality of our population depends on the raising of the mean I.Q. level and on the capacity of parents to help the state to nurture and educate their children to their maximum capacity. Of course, by the application of our social policies, we shall encourage those who earn a low income and who cannot afford to nurture and educate their children to have less children, and those better educated parents who have the means to nurture their children to have larger families. Mr Speaker, Sir, whatever Members opposing the Bill have said about it, I wish to stress that I have every confidence that it will fully fulfil the purpose for which it has been introduced. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." 5.47 p.m.

Division. The House divided: Ayes, 32: Noes, 10; Abstention, 1; Absent, 15. Ayes Noes Abdul Aziz Karim Chan Choy Siong, Madam Ang Nam Piau Govindaswamy, P. Barker, E. W. Ho Kah Leong Chan Chee Seng Ho See Beng Cheong Yuen Chee Lee Teck Him Ch'ng Jit Koon Low Yong Nguan Chor Yeok Eng Ng Kah Ting Chua Sian Chin Rahmat bin Kenap Fong Sip Chee Sia Khoon Seong Goh Keng Swee Tay Boon Too Govindasamy, N. Ho Cheng Choon Abstention Hwang Soo un Low Guan Onn Lee Chiaw Meng Lim Cheng Lock Absent Lim Guan Hon A. Rahim Ishak Lim Kim San Buang bin Omar Lim Soo Peng Junid Mohd. Ghazali bin Conceicao, J. F. Ismail Jek Yeun Thong Ng Yeow Chong Lee Khoon Choy Ong Pang Boon Lee Kuan Yew Ong Son Chuan Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi Phua Bah Lee Othman bin Wok Rodrigo, L. P. Rajaratnam, S. Seah Mui Kok Ramaswamy, S. Selvadurai, P. Sha'ari bin Tadin Sia Kah Hui Tang See Chim Sim Boon Woo Toh Chin Chye Teong Eng Siong Ya'acob bin Mohamed Wee Toon Boon Yong Nyuk Lin Wong Lin Ken Yeoh Ghim Seng Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Order for Third Reading read. 5.53 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." As expected, the Voluntary Sterilization Bill did not attract as many representations as the Abortion Bill. Neither did it arouse as much heated controversy. The representations received have been useful and the suggested amendments which have been proposed for adoption will serve to strengthen the Bill further. The amendments proposed in the Bill are, however, minor. (1) Definition of "sexual sterilization" This amendment relates to the definition of "sexual sterilization". As defined in the original text, the surgical removal of the female or male reproductive organs would all come under the purview of this Bill. It was pointed out that this was too broad a definition. The definition has, therefore, by the amendment, been restricted to exclude the removal of such organs which are essential for reasons of medical treatment. The suggestion was made by Professor L.C. Green, former Professor of Law in the University of Singapore, in a written representation to the Select Committee. There are certain conditions where the removal of the reproductive organs is undertaken as a therapeutic measure, for example, the removal of the ovaries as part of the treatment in the case of cancer of the breast. Such therapeutic measure should not come within the ambit of the Bill. 5.55 p.m.

Membership on the Eugenics Board A similar amendment as that made for the membership of the Termination of Pregnancy Authorisation Board is also proposed. The amendment provides that at least one of the two appointed members of the Eugenics Board should be "professionally qualified social workers" rather than one who "has had experience in social welfare work". The reasons for this change were already described by me previously. (3) Treatment for sexual sterilization This amendment to clause 5 is a significant amendment. Under this amendment, sterilization of a woman by the ligation of the tubes may be carried out immediately after birth or at the same time when an abortion is performed. This is the usual practice now. The operation of tubal ligation immediately after birth is a very simple one compared to the same operation if performed later. The provisions of the Bill as it stands, without this amendment, would prevent such an operation to be carried out immediately and could defeat the purpose of sterilizing persons when it is so simple and safe to do. If these persons have to wait for 30 days at least before the operation can be carried out, the operation is much more difficult. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I have said before, this Bill, together with its companion Abortion Bill when they become law, will liberate our women from the tyranny of unwanted pregnancies. They have, therefore, been rightly described as Bills relating to human rights. The adoption of this Bill today indeed marks a significant milestone in the social progress of our people. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the success of any family planning campaign depends largely on the acceptability of the contraceptive methods offered. However safe and effective these contraceptives may be, one often hears of reports of side effects with some of the oral pills. However founded or unfounded these reports may be, the use of contraceptives is, in the least, an inconvenience, and for those who already have the number of children they want, such inconvenience would be eliminated by sterilization. The introduction of the Voluntary Sterilization Bill is, therefore, a sensible approach to the problem of family planning and population control, and I will not only support the Bill, but hope that the Minister will give it the widest publicity so that the need to use contraceptives will be reduced to a shorter period. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wholeheartedly support the Bill.

5.59 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Member for Anson for his full support of the Voluntary Sterilization Bill, although he did not support the Abortion Bill. From the way he spoke, he is now very much in support of the Voluntary Sterilization Bill. Perhaps it is because of his recent trip to India. I know that in India today, they are in fact making every effort to sterilize persons.

Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. We are talking about Singapore and not about India.

Mr Speaker, Sir, so far as sterilization is concerned, in India, they have in fact introduced what they call "instant sterilization" whereby a person can get himself sterilized instantly, even in railway stations.

They are giving a bonus!

As the Member has just said, they are giving a bonus. I believe they give 20 rupees to a person who gets himself sterilized and 10 rupees to the person who brings a person for sterilization.

Two hundred rupees, Sir!

I stand to be corrected, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like once again to thank the Member for Anson for his full support.

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

Order for Committee Stage read. Bill considered in Committee.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, line 18, to leave out "an" and insert "the". This is to rectify a typographical error. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 to 10 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 11 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 19, to leave out "of the Supreme Court". These words are really not necessary. Amendment agreed to. Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 12 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 23, to leave out "High" and insert "Supreme'. This is to rectify a drafting error. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 24, to leave out "one month and insert "two months". This is to provide a longer vacation for the High Court from the original one month to two months so that, administratively, the full complement of Judges will be available throughout the legal working year. Amendment agreed to. Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 13 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 5, lines 5 and 6, to leave out "section 23 of the Partnership Act, 1890" and insert "any provision of any written law relating to partnership". Sir, as this clause imports an English Act, by the amendment as proposed, it will not be necessary in the future to make further amendments to this clause should there be any change in our partnership laws. Amendment agreed to.

A consequential amendment will be made, In page 5, line 6, the marginal reference "53 and 54 Vict, c. 39." will be omitted. Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 14 to 18 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 19 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 7, lines 7 and 13, to leave out "Criminal". Sir, it would be preferable that the expression "District Courts" appearing in this clause should not be qualified by the adjective "Criminal" or "Civil". This would be in line with the Subordinate Courts Ordinance and would also avoid the necessity of any amendment should the present division between Civil District Courts and Criminal District Courts be done away with in the near future and the jurisdiction of these courts merged. Amendment agreed to. Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 20 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 7, lines 20 and 21, to leave out "Civil" and "Criminal" respectively. Sir, the reason for this amendment is similar to that given for clause 19. Amendment agreed to. Clause 20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 21 to 36 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 37 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 11, line 30, to leave out "for oaths". This is to rectify a drafting error. Amendment agreed to. Clause 37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 38 to 45 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 46 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 14, to leave out lines 15 to 27 inclusive. Sir, these amendments are considered necessary consequent upon the abolition of trial by jury under the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill. Amendment agreed to.

In consequence of that, in page 14, line 14, the colon should be omitted and a full-stop inserted. Clause 46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 47 to 54 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 55 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 17, lines 36 and 37, to leave out "but such evidence shall not be taken in the presence of a jury". The reason for this amendment is similar to that given for clause 46. Amendment agreed to. Clause 55, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 56 to 60 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. 6.15 p.m. Clause 61 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 20, line 16, to leave out "an" and insert "the". This is to rectify a typographical error. Amendment agreed to. Clause 61, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 62 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 20, line 19, after "62.", to insert -"-

In consequence of these amendments, the existing clause 62 will be re-numbered as sub-clause (2), and in the marginal note, after the word "of", to insert "Registrar,". Clause 62, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 63 -

Question, "That clause 63 stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived. Clause 63 accordingly disagreed to. New clause 63 "Sheriff 63.-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time." Sir, this is to provide for the Registrar of the Supreme Court to be Sheriff of the Supreme Court and the Deputy Registrar to be Deputy Sheriff with all the powers and privileges and who may perform all the duties of the Sheriff.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill. Clause 64 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 20, lines 29 and 30, to leave out "warrants, orders, notices and other mandatory processes" and insert "rules, orders, warrants, commands and process". This is a consequential amendment as a result of the deletion of clause 73 from the Bill which we will deal with later, Sir. Amendment agreed to. Clause 64, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 65 to 72 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 73 - Question proposed, "That clause 73 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is intended that the Question, "That clause 73 stand part of the Bill," be negatived. It is considered that this clause is not really necessary in the Bill.

Question put, and negatived. Clause 73 accordingly disagreed to.

In consequence, the cross heading "Writs of Supreme Court" in page 22, line 37, will be omitted, and the subsequent clauses will be re-numbered consequent on the deletion of clause 73. Clauses 74 to 80 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 81 - Amendment made: In page 26, after line 31, to insert - " (c) regulating and prescribing the procedure to be followed in regard to M.Ord. 58 proceedings under the Government of 1956 Proceedings Ordinance 1956, where, such proceedings are instituted in the Supreme Court;". -[Mr Barker].

In consequence of this, paragraphs (c) to (p) of this clause will be respectively re-lettered (d) to (q). Clause 81, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 82 to 86 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. First Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Second Schedule -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 32, lines 31 and 32, to leave out "warrants, orders and other mandatory processes" and insert "rules, orders, warrants, commands and process". This is a consequential amendment in view of the amendment made to clause 64 and the deletion of clause 73 from the Bill. Amendment agreed to. Second Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed."-[Mr Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight minutes past Six o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed.