Hansard, 1974-11-06

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: - Haji Sha'ari Bin Tadin (Kampung Chai Chee), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture - from 26th October to 2nd November, 1974. Dr Toh Chin Chye (Rochore), Minister for Science and Technology - from 27th to 30th October, 1974. Mr Sim Boon Woo (Changi) - from 30th October to 7th November, 1974. Mr Chin Harn Tong (Aljunied) - from 1st November to 10th December, 1974. Dr Augustine H. H. Tan (Whampoa) - from 4th to 10th November, 1974. Encik Othman Bin Wok (Pasir Panjang), Minister for Social Affairs - from 11th to 15th November, 1974. Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol) - from 18th November to 3rd December, 1974. Mr Sia Kah Hui (Upper Serangoon), Minister of State for Labour and Government Whip - from 18th November to 9th December, 1974. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: - 1st November, 1974 (i) Estate Duty (Amendment) Bill; (ii) Customs (Amendment) Bill; and (iii) Development Loan Bill. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

2.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, That this Parliament, in accordance with Article 1 of the Constitution of Singapore, elects Dr Benjamin Henry Sheares as President of the Republic of Singapore for a further term of four years to commence immediately after the expiry of his present term of office. As President, Dr Sheares has undertaken his duties with a conscientiousness which has characterised his whole working life. Unfortunately, in December 1971, his health suffered a setback whilst under examination in hospital at Houston, Texas. Those of us who knew how gravely ill he was, before and after he had his operation in December 1971, were deeply concerned. However, he overcame the setback. Slowly and steadily, he pulled himself up from the aftermath of such a major operation. Courage and tenacity summed up the spirit in the man. He never treated himself as an invalid and, as a consequence, his doctors were surprised and delighted, within less than a year of the operation, to report that he could resume his normal duties. Firmly but surely, he adjusted life to his new condition and settled a format for an active intellectual life. He resumed his regular protocol and social duties. He also resumed his teaching and demonstration classes at Kandang Kerbau Hospital, imparting his considerable experience and expertise to young doctors aspiring to be gynaecologists. He has carried his office with unassuming dignity, application and self-discipline. He has won the respect of all who came to know him. He takes his official and social duties seriously. He has a keen and lively interest in his work. He reads up the background to all the papers that constitutionally have to go to him, and thus is abreast of what is going on in government. In moving his re-election, my colleagues and I have every confidence that he will continue to discharge his duties ably. He has now gained wider experience, and a greater understanding of the ways of men and nations. Every dignitary who has had to call on him has received unfailing courtesy. To everyone of them, he has paid the deepest compliment any Head of State can pay, namely, to take a real interest in the man, learn about him and about the country or causes he represents. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.36 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion to re-elect Dr Benjamin Henry Sheares as the President of the Republic of Singapore for a second term. Since his appointment as President, Dr Benjamin Sheares has demonstrated his capability and efficiency as a Head of State. He is not only a gentle man of kind disposition and manners but also one who is far-sighted. What convinced us is his character and demeanour. He has an interest in all spheres of life, not only in social life but also in religious celebrations organised by the various communities in Singapore. For instance, in the annual celebration of the Prophet Mohamed organised by the Muslim Missionary in Lorong 12, Geylang, to commemorate the birth of Prophet Mohamed, leader of the Muslim faith and the apostle of God, President Sheares has never rejected such an invitation. Instead by attending such meetings he contributed valuable speeches for the Muslim people in the Republic. In brief, President Sheares is not only a Professor in Surgery, and an efficient one at that, but he is also a wise and efficient Statesman who has won the hearts and minds of the people. A leader who possesses these qualities can be a symbol of unity among our multi-racial, religious and cultural communities in our Republic. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the re-election of Dr Benjamin Henry Sheares for a second term.

(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wholeheartedly support the motion moved by the Prime Minister to re-elect Dr Benjamin Henry Sheares as President for a further term beginning 2nd January, 1975. Our President has until today carried out his duties efficiently, thereby earning our praise and respect. Moreover, he has impressed the foreign leaders and diplomats by his intelligence and simplicity. An example of his qualities can be found in the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference held in our Republic. You may recall that it was just before that Conference that our President first assumed the responsibilities of the office of Head of State. During that important and trying period, when there were so many leaders of the Commonwealth, our President performed his duties as Head of State and received these dignitaries with accord and earned a good reputation. He has established the fact that he is in every respect fit to be a President. I, therefore, sincerely support the re-election of Dr Sheares, who has gained experience in the duties of a Head of State, and I am sure all hon. Members in this House will join me in support.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to second the motion moved by the Prime Minister to re-elect Dr Benjamin Henry Sheares as the President of the Republic of Singapore for a further term of four years. Sir, the President is the Head of a State. In external and internal affairs he symbolises the dignity and the prestige of a country. At the same time he is the highest and model representative of the people. He has to shoulder onerous and important missions of state. Hence, it is very important to choose someone with profound learning, good character and quality, and eminent reputation as President. Looking for such a person may not be too difficult a problem with big countries, but to a small country with a small population such as ours, it really is not an easy task. Since assumption of office of the President of the Republic of Singapore, Dr Sheares has fully demonstrated his fine qualities in this appointment. His efforts over the past few years have won for our country a high reputation and prestige abroad. His contributions are what we all can see and praise, with appreciation. From his performance in the past few years, we have reason to believe that Dr Sheares will be able to continue leading our country to march towards a better future. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to second the motion re-electing Dr Sheares as President of the Republic of Singapore for a further term. We can also assure him here that we will give him our full support and co-operation.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with Article 1 of the Constitution of Singapore, elects Dr Benjamin Henry Sheares as President of the Republic of Singapore for a further term of four years to commence immediately after the expiry of his present term of office.

asked the Minister for Communications if he will give (i) the number of applicants for provisional driving licences in the 17 to 21 year age group as at the latest convenient date; (ii) the number of accidents, fatal or otherwise, involving motor vehicles driven by provisional licence holders and licence holders within that age group in 1971, 1972, 1973 and the first nine months of 1974; and (iii) the number of owners of classes 2 and 3 motor vehicles who are in that age group.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a person applying for a provisional driving licence is first required to apply for a test in the Highway Code. As at 30th September, 1974, the number of applicants for the Highway Code test was 69,700. There is no breakdown by age for this group of applicants. As the number of Highway Code tests that can be conducted in any one month at present is about 10,000, there is a waiting period of about seven months. After passing the Highway Code test, the applicant is issued with a Provisional Driving Licence (PDL). As at 30th September, 1974, the number of PDLs issued to the 17/21-year age group total- led 34,819. Breakdown by age is as follows: - Age PDL Holders 16 years 387 17 2,987 18 6,165 19 7,480 20 8,682 21 9,118 Total 34,819 As the Traffic Police does not maintain breakdown statistics of traffic accidents according to provisional licence holders and for the years 1971 and 1972, perhaps the Member for Punggol licence holders, neither breakdown figures according to age groups were maintained for traffic accidents will be satisfied with the following breakdown figures for the various categories of traffic accidents by drivers of the age group 17 -21 years as indicated below*. * Following are the figures: - Serious Slight Year Fatal Inujury Injury No Injury Total 1971 - - - - 1,147 1972 - - - - 642 1973 29 205 409 2,114 2,757 1974 16 103 218 1,356 1,693 As particulars of age in respect of the ownership of a vehicle are not required for registration purposes, it is not possible to give the statistics as requested by the Member for Punggol as to the number of owners of Classes 2 and 3 motor vehicles who are in the 17/21-year age group. However, the hon. Member may be interested to know that as at 30th September, 1974, there were 84,452 Class 2 motor vehicles (i.e, motorcycles and scooters) and 143,019 Class 3 motor vehicles (i.e, motor-cars and station wagons).

asked the Minister for Communications (a) if he will consider the display by new licence holders of `P' plates on the front and back of their vehicles for a period of not less than twelve months from the date of issue of their licences, and the requirement that such licence holders undergo a re-test if they are penalised more than six points under the Points Demerit System during that period; and (b) if he will consider the requirement that professional drivers, who are over the age of 60 years, undergo a medical examination.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Transport Advisory Board, now defunct, did discuss the suggestion that new licence holders should display `P' plates on the front and back of their vehicles for a period of time from the date of issue of their licences. The suggestion was not adopted in February 1970 as the members were not convinced that new qualified drivers were more accident-prone than other drivers and that introduction of `P' plate system would help to reduce the accident rate. Information received from a motorist association in New South Wales, Australia, where such a system was in existence showed that although such schemes may have a beneficial psychological effect on drivers, there was no satisfactory statistical information to indicate that such schemes did have effect in reducing accidents. The Registrar of Vehicles has sought for more up-to-date information from the relevant authorities in Australia, and this information is being awaited. If the `P' plate system has been found to reduce accidents involving new licence holders, my Ministry will consider its adoption with favour. In the meantime, we shall implement the Points Demerit System and Traffic Ticketing System. We shall find out how effective these two new systems will be in reducing traffic accidents. It is relevant to point out that in the initial phase of implementation of the Points Demerit System, only violations of the more serious traffic offences qualifying for four points or more will be recorded. The intention is to concentrate on identifying and weeding out the dangerous and reckless drivers. Meanwhile, the Traffic Police and the Registry of Vehicles will review the accident statistics to determine whether there is a correlation between the rates of accidents and the number of years of driving experiences. As to medical examination for professional drivers who are over the age of 60 years, this requirement is already in practice under Rule 6 (2) of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) (Vocational Licences and Conduct of Drivers, Conductors and Passengers) Rules, 1974, whereby no vocational licence for a professional driver shall be granted to a person who is 60 years old or more unless the Registrar of Vehicles is satisfied that such a person is medically fit to be licensed. The hon. Member may be interested to know that there is a plan to extend this requirement for drivers of private cars soon.

asked the Minister for the Environment, in the licensing of electrical workers under the Electrical Workers and Contractors Licensing Act, 1974, if the Public Utilities Board will consider (1) granting exemption from the theory paper of the Skill Evaluation Test for Electrical Fitting and Installation conducted by the Industrial Training Board to practising electrical workers with over 15 years' relevant working experience and with limited educational level; and (ii) granting the electrical worker's licence to those who pass in either the Domestic Electrical Fitting and Installation part or the Industrial Electrical Fitting and Installation part of the Test so as to enable them to practise in their separate electrical works.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the reply to the first part of the question is an unqualified yes. As regards the second part of the question, those who have either passed the Domestic Electrical Fitting and Installation part or the Industrial Electrical Fitting and Installation part of the Test will be granted a licence provided that, after passing the Test, they have two years' experience in the relevant trade.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development (a) whether he is aware that there have been several accidents, both fatal and otherwise, at the junction of Upper Serangoon Road and Lim Ah Pin Road, which is a bus terminal, since the re-routing of buses into Simon Road! Florence Road/Lim Ah Pin Road/Upper Serangoon Road, due to the heavy traffic especially in the mornings and evenings; (b) whether he is aware that requests to have either a pedestrian crossing or traffic light system installed at the said junction have been turned down; and (c) whether he will now consider installing the traffic light system that will operate in the day and switch off automatically in the night, so as to enable a smoother flow of traffic in the vicinity in the mornings and evenings and also help to reduce the threat to life and injury of pedestrians.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there have been a few accidents at the junction of Upper Serangoon Road and Lim Ah Pin Road, namely, four in 1973, and seven in 1974, only one of which was serious. Following a request by the hon. Member and his Citizens Consultative Committee in Ponggol for a traffic light system to be installed at this junction, the Public Works Department carried out traffic counts and studies of the accidents at the junction and found that the volume of traffic does not justify the installation of a traffic light system. The left-hand side of Upper Serangoon Road (going towards Ponggol), between Florence Road and Lim Ah Pin Road, has double yellow lines marked thereon, restricting parking on that side. The visits by mobile squad policemen have indicated that this parking restriction is generally observed. However, on the opposite side of the road, there is a bus terminus and double parking of buses is not unusual due to lack of parking space. This restricts the view of motorists and results in some impatient drivers taking unnecessary risks. The situation, however, will be kept under review and consideration is now being given to a proposal that the bus terminus be re-sited.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will request the Public Works Department to expedite the repairs to damaged and sunken footpaths along Old Airport Road and other estate roads in the Kallang and Guillemard Road Estates.

Sir, the Public Works Department began repairs along Jalan Satu and Dakota Crescent on the 16th of October, 1974. Work is still in progress and is expected to be completed by about the middle of this month. Tenders will be called soon for repair works along the Old Airport Road and along Jalan Dua, Jalan Tiga and Jalan Empat in the Kallang and Guillemard Road Estates. Work will commence as soon as the tenders are accepted.

asked the Minister for Health and Home Affairs if he will request the Traffic Police to delete the white line along the stretch of the Old Airport Road between its junctions with Jalan Lima and Jalan Tiga so as to allow the parking of cars in front of the Kallang Estate Market.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am pleased to inform the Member for Mountbatten that the continuous white line along Old Airport Road between its junctions with Jalan Lima and Jalan Tiga was replaced by a broken white line on 31st October, 1974. Motorists may now park their vehicles along Old Airport Road next to the Kallang Estate Market.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Special Constabulary comprises volunteers and part-time national servicemen. Its members are paid nominal allowances for their services during duty hours. Their employers are under no obligation to pay them the difference between their civilian pay and the allowances paid by the Police for their services. To assist the members of the Special Constabulary the Police Force has, as far as possible, arranged their duty hours such that they suffer minimal disruption in their civilian occupations or suffer loss of personal emoluments. However, in view of a severe manpower shortage, the Police Force intends to utilise the Special Constabulary more intensively. This may result in loss of pay to members of the Special Constabulary unless the Government is in a position to compensate the losses through make-up pay, as is being done in the case of national service reservists. Just like the Special Constabulary, the People's Defence Force is also composed of national servicemen and volunteers. Recently the Force was reorganised to enable it to undertake additional operational duties. Members of the People's Defence Force are only paid allowances during their training periods. Unless they are national service reservists, their employers are under no obligation to pay them any make-up pay. As a result they too would lose in terms of pay if they are not compensated. It is intended to remedy the situation through this Amendment Bill. The Bill seeks to repeal and re-enact section 24 of the Enlistment Act (i.e, the present provision providing for make-up pay). Apart from making provision for makeup pay for the categories who are already eligible, the Bill requires employers to pay make-up salary to both the volunteers and national servicemen (i.e, those who are performing part-time service) in the People's Defence Force and the Special Constabulary when they are called up for training or reserve service and to volunteers in these Forces when they are mobilized. Employers may deduct the amount paid from their payroll tax. Those employers who are not liable to pay payroll tax, and those whose payroll tax is insufficient for such deductions, may claim reimbursement from Government. Self-employed members of the People's Defence Force and the Special Constabulary can claim reimbursement also from Government. The Bill also provides that employers of volunteers in the People's Defence Force and the Special Constabulary are to continue to make Central Provident Fund contributions to the extent that they would be liable had the volunteers not been mobilized for full-time service or called up for training. The Bill repeals section 13 of the Vigilante Corps Act and with this repeal, volunteers in the Vigilante Corps will not be liable for full-time mobilization. There are two main reasons for repealing section 13. First, it is unfair to impose the liability of mobilization on volunteers in the Vigilante Corps. Secondly, it is not intended to mobilize the volunteers anyway, as there are large numbers of national servicemen doing part-time service in the Vigilante Corps. The other important points in the Bill relate to reinstatement in employment, prohibition against dismissal and leave of absence when performing service. The provisions in respect of these matters are found in sections 21, 22 and 23 of the Act. In the Bill these three sections have been amended so as to extend them to the volunteers in the People's Defence Force and the Special Constabulary. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek a small point of clarification. There does not seem to be any provision with regard to daily-rated workers. I think there is provision for those who have been employed continuously for a period of six months or for those who are self-employed. But what about daily-rated people, such as building site workers?

Sir, I am happy to clarify that. There are two types of daily-rated workers. One is a person who, although he may be daily-rated, is on regular employment in a firm. To that extent, he is covered by the provisions of this Bill. The other type are often casual workers going from one place to another, particularly in the construction industry. It is very difficult to cover them here because they change employers so often that you cannot pin them to any particular employer. In effect, such people would come under the category of "own account" workers, of which there are quite a substantial number in the reservists.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Dr Goh Keng Swee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.02 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Singapore Council of Social Service (Amendment) Bill was introduced in Parliament on 23rd October, 1974. This Bill, now before the House, seeks to make amendments to the Singapore Council of Social Service Act, 1968, in the light of the experience gained by the Council in administering the Act over the years. The Council was formally established with the following objectives: (a) to co-ordinate the voluntary welfare activities in Singapore not only between its member organisations, but also with other organisations; (b) to maintain and improve standards of voluntary social work and to encourage voluntary welfare efforts in fields not fully covered by Government; (c) to assist member organisations in their efforts to promote welfare activities in Singapore; (d) to initiate, assist and organise forms of relief and schemes of social service; (e) to disseminate information to members of the public and interest them in social welfare matters and to encourage their participation in these matters; and (f) to make recommendations to Government regarding legislation in the field of social welfare. In the course of administering the Act to achieve these objectives, the Council has encountered some problems and this is why my Ministry has proposed the amendments in this Bill. I shall now elaborate on these problems. Past experience shows that many purely religious and non-welfare related organisations have sought affiliation with the Council. However, the Council's main interest and focus is on welfare and social service. It is therefore proposed that the Singapore Council of Social Service Act be amended to limit purely religious and non-welfare related organisations from seeking affiliation to the Council. Such organisations which seek to carry out welfare and social service activities and wish to affiliate with the Council must establish a separate structure for social and welfare activities and could then seek affiliation in their own right. Under current legislation, any person, firm, corporation or organisation which subscribes not less than $25 per year may be an associate of the Council. Likewise, any organisation affiliated to the Council must subscribe not less than $10 to the Council. The Council has, among its associates and member organisations, a wide-ranging group of bodies, including many well-known firms and corporations. The present subscription of $25 per annum for associates can be considered negligible. My Ministry therefore proposes an amendment to allow the Council to charge any subscription it thinks fit for associates as well as for member organisations. There are many people who are interested in welfare work but who, for some personal reason, do not wish to be attached to any particular welfare organisation. Such people should be encouraged, nevertheless, to contribute towards the work of the Council. It is proposed that the Council be empowered to appoint such people as honorary members, in addition to the patrons-in-chief and patrons whom the Council is already authorised to appoint. In this way, more people could contribute actively towards the work of the Council. Such honorary members will, however, be restricted from holding office and voting in the Board of Management of the Council. As regards the Board of Management, whose members are elected by the Council from among its member organisations and associates or are ex-officio members, there is a provision in the Amendment Bill which stipulates that only those who are confirmed as still being representatives of member organisations can be re-elected to office in the Board. In this way, the Council hopes to ensure that only those who are still actively involved in the work of its various members are allowed to be elected or to hold office on the Board of Management of the Council. In addition to the Annual General Meeting, the Council also holds two general meetings each year. This is specified in the Singapore Council of Social Service Act. However, administratively the Council is now able to work much more closely with members and keep them informed on developments through the various committees set up to service members as well as other channels of communication such as circulars, news bulletin, etc. Therefore, there is no further need to have two general meetings a year. This is why it is proposed that the frequency of general meetings be reduced to just once a year (excluding the Annual General Meeting) in order to encourage greater participation on the committee level which is a much more effective means of relating and involving members to come together to further the objects of the Council. It is also proposed that the Council be vested with the power to make its own regulations concerning procedural matters on application for and withdrawal of membership in the Council, the conduct of general meetings and the submission of reports and returns by member organisations. It is felt that the Council should have these powers in order to be more effective as the co-ordinating body for voluntary welfare activities in Singapore. It also keeps the public and community informed on current trends and developments among its member organisations and the welfare community in general. The regulations which the Council intends to make are subject to the approval of the Minister for Social Affairs. Finally, to remove doubt as to whether the Council is authorised to accept gifts and procure contributions not only to the Singapore Council of Social Service Fund but to establish and administer trust funds, it is proposed to amend the Act to enable the Council to administer such trusts. From time to time, the Council has been approached by Foundations and Trusts to hold monies in trust but because of the uncertainty regarding its power in this matter, the Council has been unable to act on these offers. In view of the need to maintain the spirit of voluntary social work among Singaporeans, it is necessary to provide the Council with an effective framework for the achievement of its objectives. Hence, the need to enact this amendment to the Singapore Council of Social Service Act. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Chan Chee Seng]. Bill considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5- Amendments made: In page 2, line 15, to leave out "to". - [Mr Chan Chee Seng]. In page 2, line 17, to leave out "to". - [Mr Chan Chee Seng]. In page 2, line 22, to leave out "to". - [Mr Chan Chee Seng]. Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 6 to 10 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Bill now before this House seeks to make certain amendments to the State Lands Encroachments Act (Cap. 286) to provide, inter alia, for more speedy removal of unlawful occupants of State land and the movable properties dumped thereon and to provide that the Government's right to recovery of possession of State land shall not be barred by any period of limitation. It also seeks to revise the penalties provided for certain offences prescribed under the Act. Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to repeal subsection (2) of section 3 of the Act which enables an unlawful occupant of State land to defeat the action of the Commissioner of Lands to recover possession of State land by merely raising a claim of title to the land. In most cases, there is no substance in the claim, which merely delays proceedings. A new subsection is to be enacted in its place to provide that when a claim of title is made by the occupant charged with the unlawful occupation of State land, the defendant may apply to the High Court for the action to be transferred to that Court on the ground that the defendant is claiming title to the land. The new subsection will prevent frivolous claims. In the past some unlawful occupants of State land have not made efforts to remove their property which has been deposited on State land even after they have been served with a notice requiring them to do so. Under clause 3, which amends section 4 of the Act, the Government will now be empowered to seize and forfeit any movable property found on State land when it is not removed within 28 days of an eviction notice. Under clause 4, which amends section 7 of the Act, it will be an offence for any person to trespass on State land by depositing, placing or throwing any article or thing whatsoever, or any waste, refuse or other thing onto State land. A new subsection will be added to section 7 to punish any director, manager, partner, secretary or other officer of a body of persons, corporate or incorporate who is convicted of an offence of trespassing on State land unless such persons can prove that they had exercised due care and diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. A new section 12 has been enacted under clause 5 of the Bill to provide that State land shall not be acquired by adverse possession. The maximum penalty of a fine of $50 prescribed (under section 13 of the Act) for the offence of unlawfully depastoring on State land will be increased to $500 by clause 6 of the Bill and the maximum penalty of a fine of $200 prescribed (under section 14 of the Act) for the offence of trespassing on State land by the removal of timber, minerals, shells and stones therefrom will also be increased to $2,000 by clause 7 of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House, The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr E. W. Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed,

Order for Second Reading read. 3.23 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Five years ago this House debated the Bill to liberalise the law on abortions. It was debated with an intensity not often seen in the recent history of our parliamentary proceedings. This was for the reason that it raised important social, economic, humanitarian and religious issues which touched the conscience of many. In the course of the debate, points for and against the Bill were exhaustively put and argued. The opposing arguments against the Bill that were put forward were of three categories. They were the Religious, Moral or Ethical, and Medical objections to the Bill. I had then refuted the opposing arguments, although many of them were highly theoretical and speculative. As it has turned out, nearly five years of experience of the operation of the Abortion Act has proved that many of the moral and medical objections to the Bill were unfounded. For example, availability of legalised abortions has not led to the breaking down of moral standards and increased promiscuity. Neither has it led to increase in maternal mortality and morbidity for our pregnant women. In fact, during the whole period of nearly five years there was not one single death or permanent disablement resulting from the several thousands of legalised abortions done. Of course, the religious arguments against legalised abortions for obvious reasons could not then as well as now be proved or disproved. As I have stated then, to allow ourselves to be tied up with the religious arguments for and against abortions, which in any case would never result in any conclusion even if the debate went on till the cows came home, was entirely futile. The religious viewpoints must necessarily be based on one's own religious beliefs and faith as well as conscience. And these must differ from individual to individual. They include one's belief as to whether the foetus can be considered human life, which learned men, medical or otherwise for centuries have still not been able to agree on. Of course, the religious beliefs and conscience of any individual is to be respected. But at the same time, should not a pregnant woman be entitled as of right to request in good conscience for and be granted the termination of her pregnancy if it will lead to her greater benefit and happiness? Further, is it right in our multi-racial and multi-religious society for opponents to the liberalisation of the law on abortion to impose their moral or religious standards upon the entire community? However, in drafting the Act and in its introduction five years ago, it was in deference to some of the more valid arguments against unrestricted liberalisation of abortion that many safeguards were included in the Act. For some who supported legalised abortion it appeared to be rather too restrictive. In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, you as one of the speakers supporting its introduction, as Member for Joo Chiat, stated then that the Act was too restrictive to be effective. It was for this reason that the Bill was sent to Select Committee. Here oral and written submissions were carefully considered and weighed, resulting in some of the suggestions being incorporated in the final version as passed by Parliament. It was also for the same reason that the Act was given a limited life span of four years of operation with the possibility of extension of one year, and one year only. The object was that Parliament should have an opportunity to review operations and effects of the Act at the end of the stated period. Parliament would then be able to determine whether the Act should be allowed to lapse and cast into limbo as a social experiment which has failed or to be re-introduced and made a permanent feature of the Statutes of Singapore. I would like to report to Parliament here that this social experiment on legalised abortions has been highly successful. In some instances it has more than fulfilled our expectations. I therefore urge this House to support and pass this re-enacted legislation which has been drawn up on the experience of operating the Act over the last 4½ years. The information of the past 4½ years is best given in the form of figures which should speak for themselves. The tables are given in the Addendum (Appendix I, cols 1151-4), to my speech which I have distributed to Members. Let me highlight some of the facts as we may derive from these figures. The number of abortions done each year since the law was brought into effect in 1970 was gradually built up, averaging around 4,000 a year. Relating these figures to the total number of live births, as it is usually done in reporting APPENDIX I - CHARACTERISTICS OF WOMEN WHO HAD LEGALISED ABORTION 1970-1973 (Cols 1151-1152) APPENDIX I - RESULT OF APPLICATION FOR LEGALISED ABORTION (Cols 1153-1154) such figures for purposes of comparison, the number of abortions which were procured under the Act was 7 per cent of all live births in Singapore from 1970 to 1972 and 10.3 per cent in 1973. The rate in 1974 projected for the whole year may exceed this figure. You will recall that the estimates given at the time the Act was introduced was that it would amount to about 10 per cent of all births. The rate of abortion recorded is thus within our original estimate. It is also well within the rates reported in other countries, which have similar liberalised abortion laws. In the United Kingdom the rate is 14 per cent of all births. In Denmark the rate recorded was 12.7 per cent in 1970, the United States 13 per cent in 1971, in Sweden 16.8 per cent in 1971 and in Japan 37.8 per cent in 1970. Contrary to the fears expressed in the original debate, our pregnant women have not been turning to abortions in great numbers. The categories of women who had aborted provide some further interesting information. The ethnic groups of those who had aborted were in approximate proportion of their numbers in the population. In other words, abortions had been sought equally by all our ethnic groups. This indicates that a common need for legalised abortion among these women which transcended cultural and religious barriers had been met. The breakdown of the abortion figures by class of persons on the basis of the combined income of family indicates that the vast majority of women who seek abortions are those in the lower income group. The median income is less than $300 per month. With regard to the marital status of the women who had abortions, more than 90 per cent of them were married women. The median number of children they had is 4.3 children. Contrary to the warnings made by those who opposed abortions that legalisation of abortions would encourage promiscuity, the number of unmarried women who had abortions numbered only 5 per cent of the total number of abortions done in the first four years, and 9 per cent in the first half of this year. This is in contrast with the experience in other countries where abortions on the unmarried were very much higher. In the United Kingdom it amounted to nearly 50 per cent of all abortions done. All these are conclusive proof that our expectations of the Act were correct. The Act provided an avenue of escape for our married women, especially those in the lower income group, to be freed from the burden of an unwanted or unintended pregnancy. Another fear that was voiced was that our women would prefer abortions to the somewhat inconvenient contraceptive practice. It was argued that they will turn to abortions and come over and over again for repeated abortions whenever they become pregnant. This fear is now proved to be unfounded. The number of persons who have had more than one abortion have numbered only 6.6 per cent of the total number of abortions undertaken. This fear can also be put to rest on the basis of the following two facts: (a) since the Act came into operation 4½ years ago, the total number of family planning acceptors attending the family planning clinics has consistently been in excess of the targets set; (b) contraceptions must have been practised in increasing numbers to have reduced both the crude birth rates and the absolute number of children born in Singapore. A paper studying the various methods which have contributed to this fall in birth in Singapore ascribed contraceptive practice as being responsible for about 50 per cent of the births averted while abortions were responsible only for about 6 per cent of births averted. Further, there is evidence to suggest that overall contraceptive practice improved since the liberalisation of abortions, due to post-abortal family planning counselling. To quote figures in support, in 1972, there were 788 post-abortal sterilizations. This works out to about 14 per cent of the total number of sterilizations in 1972. In 1973, the number of post-abortal sterilizations rose to 2,056 which works out to 23 per cent of the total number of sterilizations in that year. In 1972, there were 428 new family planning acceptors through post-abortal motivation. This works out to about 2.4 per cent of the total number of new acceptors in 1972. In 1973, the number of new acceptors through post-abortal motivation rose to 483 which works out to 2.5 per cent of the total number of new acceptors in that year. It is therefore clear that contraceptive practice is the accepted and preferred mode of limiting the number of children in families. This is as it should be. Further, to encourage contraceptive practice, women must be confident that if these fail - as they do sometimes - they can fall back on readily available abortion. Thus legalised abortion is a very important complement to our already comprehensive family planning programme. Another expressed fear was on the safety of the procedures for an operation of abortion. Here no one could deny the fact that under any operative procedure there would be an element of risk, no matter how small. The mortality figures of abortions published in other countries had ranged from 2 to 30 deaths per one hundred thousand. We were very conscious of such hazards. But I am glad to announce that throughout this entire period of 4½ years, not a single death has occurred from abortions performed under the provisions of the Act. In contrast, you will have read recent reports in the press relating to deaths from illegal abortions. Complications resulting from abortions under the Act have also been of a very minor nature. There have been a few complications such as excessive bleeding. But in all of these the patients were restored to health without any permanent disablement. It had been suggested, in certain studies, that there might be adverse psychological effects, such as guilt feelings and emotional aftermaths resulting from abortions. A study on the psychological effects, if any, on patients who had undergone abortions was therefore undertaken by our psychiatrists and psychologists in collaboration with our obstetricians. The total number of persons investigated were all the cases done in the first year. They were followed up throughout the period. Although the full analysis of the results is not yet available, the preliminary indications are that there has been no major or minor psychological effects: such as emotional upset or mental anguish in the short term nor has there been any adverse effects observed in the women in the long term. On the contrary, the findings indicate that the women have been immensely relieved when the abortions were over and perhaps, for these reasons, have benefited mentally by having had the abortions. A psychiatrist reporting on the psychological effects of abortion had stated that the notion of post-abortion mental illness is probably a myth, and I quote: `Abortion far from being a precipitative of psychiatric illness, is actually a defence against it. For a woman who has let her life be directed by forces outside of herself, to make a decision to take charge of her life can be an extremely liberalising, positive experience. For the first time in her life she is master (or rather mistress) of her destiny.' Conversely, a British woman psychiatrist, contended from her studies on British women that - `If they are refused (abortions) their mental and physical health, their family life and often their children's future can be catastrophically affected.' With the introduction of various disincentives against large family size and to promote acceptance of small families, there should be made available the entire range of facilities ranging from family planning services to abortion facilities. Failure, Mr Speaker, Sir, to provide these facilities would be regarded as perpetrating a cruel fraud on our people. In concluding the review, it is with a sense of satisfaction and fulfilment to know that this historic social experiment was timely and had achieved its main objectives. It has freed our women from the tyranny of unintended and unwanted pregnancies. It has provided a reliable, safe method in terminating these unwanted pregnancies, particularly for the benefit of women who could least afford to continue with such pregnancies. These were achieved without the dire consequences, as prophesied by some, of a lowering of moral standards and increase in promiscuity. Nor has there been an abandonment of contraceptive practice in determining family size. Abortions were resorted to by a relatively small segment of the population. It acted as an important complement to family planning by conventional contraceptive methods. A spin-off from this has been that legalised abortions have contributed to a small percentage of the total number of births averted in the population. There was, however, one objective, Mr Speaker, Sir, which was not reached. This was the reduction in the number of illegal abortions. We did not expect that illegal abortions could be eradicated completely but it was hoped that these would be reduced to an insignificant number. It is not possible, of course, to determine the exact numbers which have been done illegally. Nevertheless, an indication of their numbers is the number of septic abortions which are treated in the hospitals. These abortions are done through criminal interference, mainly by unqualified quacks. Although the number of septic abortions treated in our hospitals have more than halved what they were during the first two years when the law was brought into effect, it is still significant. This is a problem which was borne in mind when the new Bill now before the House was being drafted. The new Bill now before the House is the result of the sum total of experience gathered in the 4½ years of operation of the Abortion Act. Thus, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are now in a much happier position than when we were formulating the Abortion Act five years ago. We then had no experience of our own to go by but had to depend on certain assumptions as well as the experience of other countries. We then had to be extremely cautious. On the other hand, in drafting this new Bill we have before us all the concrete experience of the achievements as well as the drawbacks of the existing Act. We therefore have the advantage of being able to make decisive amendments to the Act free from speculative doubts. Further, since five years ago the attitudes of the vast majority of our people towards family planning, legalised abortions and voluntary sterilizations have also undergone radical change. More than 60 per cent of our eligible population are currently using contraceptives. Another 17 per cent have used contraceptives some time earlier although not currently practising contraception for various reasons such as planning for a child, husband away and so on. Another 11 per cent have been voluntarily sterilized. Thus the attitude towards family planning is now one of acceptance on the part of the vast majority of our people. Favourable attitudes towards voluntary sterilizations and legalised abortions are fast gaining ground. Attitudes towards legalised abortions have also changed considerably in many countries of the world. There are now 55 countries in the world which have legalised abortions on "extended" grounds. Mr Speaker, Sir, since the passage of our Abortion Act there have also been advances in the techniques of procuring abortions. Technically the conventional method at the time when the Act was passed, was to evacuate the womb by dilation and curettage. Now there are simpler techniques which are just as effective, less traumatic and very much safer, such as evacuation by vacuum suction. But the most promising advances are in the use of drugs to procure abortions. There are now abortificant pills which are known in common parlance as "the morning after pill" and others euphemistically as "menstrual regulating pills". The ones under intensive testing are the "prostagladins" which appear to be the most efficient abortificants. Unfortunately, these are still mainly experimental. We have on our own been conducting large-scale clinical trials of several of these drugs in our Government hospitals but they have not as yet been completely evaluated to justify release for general use. Hence with these new developments and with the changed climate of thinking and attitudes this new Abortion Bill is presented for re-enactment. The basic change reflected in the Bill over the existing Act which will be repealed, is that the decision to carry out an abortion will rest with the pregnant woman and the registered medical practitioner. I have deliberately avoided the use of this phrase "abortion on demand". It tends to be emotive. Some would use this term to describe the position when abortions can be done, but within prescribed conditions. This would mean removing from the penal and medical codes, all conditions that make abortion subject to special restrictions, penalties or procedures except those that apply generally to sound medical practice. Others would restrict usage of the term "abortion on demand" where the request for abortion must be acceded to on pain of penalty to the doctor approached by a pregnant woman. This, in fact, is the present position in Sweden under their legislation. The position envisaged in this Bill is akin to the former position plus certain special safeguards. The safeguards in the existing Act are retained. This has been done particularly to ensure that the abortion procedures are undertaken safely. The conscientious objection clause against participation in treatment to terminate pregnancy has also been retained. Nevertheless, two major restrictive provisions in the Act have been removed. They are: (a) The abolition of the Termination of Pregnancy Board; (b) The period of pregnancy where abortion can be done has been extended from 16 weeks to 24 weeks. Under the existing Act all applications for abortions had to be authorised by the Board before any abortions could be undertaken except of course in cases of emergencies. Experience has shown that the need to go through the Board has resulted in delays. Although the Board processed applications with des-patch, it took about a week from receipt of an application to an abortion being done. This might appear to be a short period but a delay of a week is crucial in procuring abortions. The reason is that with every passing day the pregnancy advances and the more difficult and hazardous the operation becomes. From the figures, it is noted that between 12 per cent and 25 per cent of those who had their abortions authorised by the Board did not turn up for the operation. A study of these cases revealed that a large number were rather desperate and were unable to wait even for one week for their abortions to be done. Many thus went to have the abortions done illegally. One of the other reasons advanced as to why illegal abortions still flourish is that many persons who want an abortion are very reluctant to apply to a Board and have their applications assessed by a panel of persons. It is true that no matter how reliably secret records are kept, women would naturally shy away from making known their secrets. In the United Kingdom a Commission which was appointed to review their Abortion Act touched on the suggestion that a panel should be formed to consider applications for abortions. The Justice Lane Commission (as it was called) quite categorically rejected this notion of setting up panels for adjudication. A Supreme Court ruling in the United States in 1973 by Mr Justice Harry Blackmun also rejected the demand that a panel of persons should approve abortions. The second major departure from the existing Act is that the period of pregnancy when abortions can be done has been extended from 16 weeks to 24 weeks. This may, on superficial consideration, be considered a risky step. It should, however, be noted that the existing Act allows for abortions to be undertaken up to the 24th week on medical ground but up to the 16th week on socio-economic grounds. Therefore, this extension does no more than reflect the basic change in the Bill which is that the decision to carry out an abortion should be made by a qualified doctor and his patient. As it should be, the decision will depend on the doctor's assessment of whether or not an abortion can be safely done. If in the doctor's assessment the abortion should not be done because it might be too advanced, even if it is at the 16th week, then the abortion should not be carried out. An upper limit of 24 weeks is imposed as it is generally accepted that a foetus may be viable outside the mother after the 24th week. Thus after 24 weeks of gestation the operation should be looked upon as inducing a premature birth. Among the safeguards in the existing Act which are retained in the new Bill are as follows. Abortions will have to be carried out in Government hospitals or in approved institutions. The doctors who carry out abortions will have to be officers working under supervision in Government hospitals or those who have the prescribed qualifications and experience. It is an offence to coerce a person to submit to abortion. Also retained is the provision that abortions can only be undertaken on Singapore citizens or their wives and, in the case of other women, only if they have been resident in Singapore for at least four months. Looking into the future when abortions may be procured entirely by prescription, a new provision has been introduced in the Bill which will allow any registered medical practitioner to abort a pregnant woman if it is procured solely by drugs. For the reasons that the law has proven to have met a need that it offers a safe and reliable method of terminating unintended and unwanted pregnancies and that many of the misgivings expressed by those who had reservations about the law have proved unfounded, I now urge the House to overwhelmingly approve this Bill that will further liberalise our laws on abortion. With the re-enactment of this Bill, the liberation of our women from unwanted and unintended pregnancies will be enshrined in a permanent statute of our Republic. This will also ensure that every child born in Singapore is a wanted child. I am, however, fully conscious that however overwhelming the evidence, be they medical, socio-economic, or humanitarian that is presented to prove that the re-enactment of the Bill is m the best interest of the people of Singapore, there will still be some who will oppose it on grounds of religious beliefs and conscience. But these opposing views must remain personal judgments. They will, of course, be respected. But it is not right in our multi-racial and multi-religious society that these personal judgments and dogmas be imposed upon those who do not hold such views and beliefs. I remember in the debate in this House five years ago on the existing Act, I referred to a minority group who on their out-of-date beliefs had hitherto stood opposed to the introduction of birth control in Singapore. As I said then, Mr Speaker, the negative stand of this minority group had found itself in the dustbins of history. I had also stated then that the opposing stand to the Abortion Bill would in the course of time also end up in the dustbins of history. I can now say that the course of history in the last five years has proved this prediction to be correct. The Government, in respecting the religious and ethical beliefs of individual hon. Members, is withdrawing the Whip in this debate. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have every confidence in the good sense of judgment, fair play and high humanitarian principles of our hon. Members in that they will not oppose the re-enactment of the Bill when it is clear to them that it is in the best interest of the people of Singapore even though some, because of religious beliefs, may not personally be in favour of abortion. They will certainly not seek to impose their personal religious beliefs on others who do not share such beliefs. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Health has given a very long explanation on abortion. There is no doubt that he has made mention of Western countries or Europe, but he has never made any mention of Southeast Asia.

Is not Singapore in Southeast Asia?

It is in Southeast Asia, but mention has been made of Singapore only, and not other countries. You may recall that when the Abortion Bill was first introduced in Parliament five years ago, I was one of those who spoke against it. However, it was passed by a majority decision, and I had no choice but to abide by it. Today this Act is being amended. I wonder why the Termination of Pregnancy Board is to be abolished. The Abortion Act is being liberalised and this causes the fear that henceforth many people may abuse this privilege. I wonder whether the Minister is encouraging the further killing of the foetus in the mother's womb. During the last few weeks, after this new Abortion Bill was introduced in this Chamber, controversial views on the subject have been expressed by both doctors and the people, some of which have appeared in the daily newspapers. Mr Speaker, Sir, I also understand that after the first Abortion Bill was passed five years ago, there had been cases where some doctors were not happy to perform abortions. I have also learned that some doctors who were required to perform abortions had pushed their cases to other doctors because they felt very bad about it. In fact, a few of them had resigned from the service because of the nature of their duties. I do not know whether this is right or wrong, but the Minister should know it. Therefore, Sir, I do not support the abolition of the Termination of Pregnancy Board.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has a very limited land area. With no natural resources and with a population of about 2.2 million, it is necessary for us to achieve zero population growth through family planning, sterilization and abortion. If we want to maintain our present standard of living and to enjoy political and economic stability, it is necessary for every one, especially the younger people, to limit his family to two children. One must realise that the peace, progress and prosperity of a country can only be achieved through the quality of its people and not quantity. Too many children in a family would be a burden to oneself, to society and to the government. Unwanted children are not cared for, and are not given any parental love. They will not have nourishing food and proper accommodation, and will thereby suffer physically and mentally. This will affect their ability to study and eventually they will become school dropouts, juvenile delinquents, drug addicts, gangsters and armed robbers. To avoid all this misery and suffering, it is better to limit one's family to two children only through family planning, sterilization and, if necessary only, through abortion. Sir, in legalising the case for abortion, I would request the Minister for Health and Home Affairs to get his staff in the Medical Department to explain to the women through the media of publicity to make them realise that frequent abortion will affect their health and endanger their lives. The Medical Department should also explain to them the advantages of family planning and sterilization, which are far better than undergoing abortion. I would also like to suggest that the charges for performing an abortion should be fair and, if possible, limited to a certain rate to avoid unfair high charges. The charges should be within the means of the lower income group workers too.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after hearing the Minister for some 20 minutes, it appears that he crows over the achievement of the Abortion Act. According to the Minister's arguments, the Abortion Act is to protect the woman who is afraid of having more children. If that is the case, then I think this Abortion Bill does not justify our support. I think the intention of the Bill is more than that, and the Minister has failed to explain it. That is why we cannot agree with him. Our arguments which had been put forward five years ago when the first Abortion Bill was introduced in this House still hold water today. The Minister has said that the Abortion Act has not shown increase in promiscuity. But I say that it certainly encourages promiscuity.

How could you know?

What authority has he to tell us that promiscuity has not increased? He is not a student of sociology! The risk of mortality through abortion is still there. He can get a battery of doctors under him to explain that there is no risk, and so forth. And I can also get so many doctors to testify that the risk is still there.

I never said that the risk was not there.

Yes, but your arguments just now seem to tell the House that there is no risk at all. This is the impression the public will get. If you say that liberalised abortion is for the sake of stopping the population growth which is the best for the future of Singapore and its people, then I will agree with him. But I will not agree that liberalised abortion is to protect women because they do not want to have more children, nor do I agree with him that the woman just wants an abortion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the passing of the Abortion Act five years ago was traumatic for Singapore, and now the liberalising of the Act will be much worse for us. I am just wondering whether the Hon. Minister's conscience is not pricked. It is really strange that he comes up with arguments saying that promiscuity has not increased in Singapore -

As a result of abortion.

- as a result of legalising abortion. From figures I have before me, in 1970 there were 91 unmarried Women who had legalised abortions; 1971 - 145; 1972 - 190; 1973 - 316; and January to June 1974 - 304 abortions. These are unmarried women, mind you. Among divorced, separated and widowed women, there was an increase from 21 in 1970 to 26 in 1971, 35 in 1972 and 47 in 1973, and 42 between January and June 1974. This tells me that promiscuity has increased because of legalised abortion. In addition to that, the Hon. Minister says that repeat abortions have decreased. Repeat abortions, according to the figures, show: 1971 - 111; 1972 -269; 1973 - 356; January to June 1974 --379. Here again, there has been an increase of repeat abortions. I cannot follow the Hon. Minister's arguments and neither, I am sure, can the other Members in the House. Not a single death, he says, has occurred because of legalised abortions. How about the dying foetus? A foetus that is alive with a soul, a foetus that is living in the mother -~ it is now dead because of abortion, legalised abortion, legalised murder. I fail to follow his arguments really and I exhort hon. Members not to support the Abortion Bill that is being presented to the House today. Our population needs to be reduced, I agree; but Education, hon. Minister, is what is required to get the people to realise that we need to decrease our population because we do not have sufficient food, because we do not have sufficient land space, and because we do not have what we need to have to support such a large population. A decrease in sexual activity is what we have to look for. Has the Minister done anything to get facts and figures to enable Singaporeans through education to reduce their sexual activity? I believe that we are trying to get away by using the easy method -legalised abortion. That is how it works. It is surprising that with such intelligence we cannot come up with something that will not harm not only the mother but the living foetus. I notice that this Abortion Bill will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure. This is true. No extra financial expenditure is needed, hut I can assure the Government that it will be involved in extra "moral and spiritual expenditure".

Mr Speaker, Sir, my contribution is not as sex-oriented as the previous speaker, but whatever the views against abortion, the problem of too many bodies and so little food stares some nations in the face, and what the future holds for many of the people of these nations is the tragedy of our times. To avoid hardship among ourselves as a result of an undisciplined growth in the family unit in our society, we have family planning and family planning facility for our peoples. For 4½ years now abortion has been made available under certain conditions to our womenfolk who request for it. This Bill seeks to release applicants from some o these conditions and offer abortion under minimal control. In my view, Sir, there are matters for concern. Unless and until family planning education reaches the populace in general and secure their response through contraception and sterilization, there is in my view a real likelihood that many may have to resort to abortion because of carelessness or indiscretion. Abortion may then be accepted by the people and, in fact, become a primary means of controlling or planning their families. This can be an unhealthy situation. Abortion in my view is both tragic and traumatic. There is a moral disorganisation in the person undergoing abortion, the extent of the disorganisation depends on the sensitivity of the person's moral character. Applying this situation at a societal level, there can result what is termed an anomie in society - a situation in society where people find it no longer pertinent or meaningful to relate their conduct with social norms as a result of their personal experience or interpretation of the pettiness of life and its qualities. It, therefore, becomes imperative for the well-being of our society to ensure that our efforts in family planning education are not relaxed. Easily available abortion must be and remain, as the Minister himself says it, a complement to contraception. But the problem which this Bill attempts to deal with cannot be gain-said. I believe we need to size down our families as proposed, in order that our children may live in some comfort and experience in some measure the quality of life in the future.

Sir, despite the considerable self-satisfaction, even aplomb, confidence and, very likely in his mind, the positive assertions with which the Minister has presented this Abortion Bill to further liberalise the law relating to abortion, the facts still remain that abortion is a very vexed question. In this House in 1969 and even now, you hear all sorts of views, some very emotionally expressed, some with a lacing of purported wit. Even the Minister has not been free from certain emotion-charged phraseology. This problem of abortion is certainly a very vexed question. There are many people in Singapore who look upon this Act with grave misgivings; people who feel that abortion is even an outright abomination. These people are not rebels, Mr Speaker, Sir. They are not bad people. They are not anti-Government. They are decent law-abiding people. I would expect that more than 70 per cent of such people voted for the Government in the last election. They support the Government. The Minister would consider them very sane, intelligent, rational, and even good looking people. I myself would like to express considerable sympathy with the views of these people, and I would express it in as sombre a way as I can. Having said that, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that this Bill will be passed today. Let us look at the reality of it all. Arranged opposite are people who will definitely cause this Bill to be passed. Arranged on this side are people who are speaking with opposing voices. There is no doubt that this Bill will be passed. At the same time, a climate of apparent social approbation has been aroused by very effective Government propaganda, and I am using the word "propaganda" in the same way as it is used in propaganda fide, propagation of faith. I do not intend any pejorative implication. There has been effective planned propaganda to sell the idea to the people, and the people have responded. But it is necessary for people like myself and others to assert their own particular viewpoint and, having asserted that, to see what can be done that is practical and what are the realities of the situation. This is the art of the possible. We expect that there may be some ill-effects of this Bill. What can be done to mitigate such ill effects? One of the things we should try to encourage as much as possible is greater and more intensive family education, not merely family education for the sake of family planning but family education to bring home to the people in a family their responsibility to each other - how they have to provide supports one for the other in a family. This is a very traditional local ethic and it has to be encouraged as much as possible, with emphasis on the integrity of the individual in the family. Of course, with this family education, one has to intensify understanding of family planning in all sorts of ways so that, as far as possible, people can avoid resorting to abortion. In this context, Mr Speaker, Sir, I crave your indulgence to let me make an appeal to people, like leaders of religious faiths, to intensify their own efforts to bring home to their own adherents the notion of the value of life and respect for the integrity of the individual. For those who are against abortion, they should try as far as they can to bring home to their own people such knowledge of family planning practices as they themselves find approvable, and those people - religionists, adherents of faiths who have international affiliations - should give all the support they can to research to provide, if possible (and I do not think it is impossible), the means of family planning which they find approvable. Mr Speaker, Sir, another point is that we should as far as possible encourage those who, in my own way of thinking, regretfully want abortion. We should encourage them to have their abortions as early as possible. I mean when they understand that a child is coming, the realisation comes early. If a person indeed has to have an abortion, then it should be done as early as possible, and this is tied up with the question of additional knowledge or complete knowledge in respect of family planning. I hope this is not taken to imply that I support abortion.

But you are!

No. But it is in the circumstances that we find ourselves faced with, that I am just seeking a way out that is possible. At the same time, those who come for abortion should be given adequate counselling. The Minister referred to the Lane Report. But the Lane Report also referred to the necessity for adequate counselling for those who come for abortion, counselling that will perhaps avoid abortions later on, by which I mean a return for further abortions. The rate of recidivism in abortions, according to the Minister's own figures, seems to be quite high. I would urge that these people be given adequate counsel. Another point which the Minister has not mentioned in respect of the Lane Report is that it has also referred to the necessity that should a pregnancy be terminated after 24 weeks the abortion would be for induction of birth. We should also provide that particular measure when people come for abortion. I think we should try our best, Mr Speaker, Sir, not to touch the tradition in our society as far as we can-the tradition that holds on moral, ethical or religious grounds, that abortion is a regrettable act and one that should be avoided as far as possible. Abortion, therefore, should not be a mere substitute for family planning. We should encourage as much as possible those who do come for abortion to weigh all the considerations. There has been apparently a weighing of considerations, in view of the figures given of those who were permitted abortions but who did not eventually accept. We should encourage this consideration so that respect for life is something that we hold valuable in our society.

Order. I am not proposing to "abort" the debate on this Bill. I think it would be a good idea to have a suspension now. I suspend the Sitting and shall take the Chair again at ten minutes past Five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.23 p.m. until 5.10 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.10 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister for Health and Home Affairs has made a very good analysis of this Bill in moving its Second Reading. But it is sad to note the way in which he has tried to forestall criticisms against the Bill by urging this House to give passage to the Second Reading and ultimately the Third Reading of this Bill. He has said something like casting all criticisms and the opponents of this Bill into the dustbins of history. Sir, one would expect a responsible Minister to be more tolerant of opposing views. I speak, Sir, for myself on this side of the Chamber. I do not use terminology such as "cast away into the dustbins of history". Sir, that being the case, any criticism against this new Bill before the House is deemed to be rubbish and, therefore, ought to be cast away. Mr Chua Sian Chin rose -

Would you like to give way, Mr Ng?

No, Sir. He has got plenty of time to answer. He has got an hour to wind up the debate, but as I have only one hour to speak I have to make full use of my time, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot allow a misinterpretation of what I have said.

There has been no misinterpretation, Sir. Anyway, I will give way.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have never said that the opponents of this Bill be cast into the dustbin. I never said that. What I said was a quotation I made five years ago - that because of history the opposing stand that was taken "found itself in the dustbins of history". That is what I have said. I said that I respected the views of the opponents of the Bill but the stand taken "found itself in the dustbins of history".

Perhaps, Mr Ng, you may want to correct yourself.

Mr Speaker, Sir, that being the case, even then the stand that was taken would be cast into the dustbins of history.

I never used the term "cast". I said "found itself".

Would have found itself in the dustbins of history. This is a very clever and shrewd way of trying to fettle down any criticism or comment for or against the Bill - more so in the case against the Bill. As for myself, I will be more tolerant. I would listen and say, "All right, what have you got to say?" Sir, if I may be permitted to start off by quoting the Minister for Health and Home Affairs when he summed up the debate on the Second Reading on the 10th April, 1969, before this Bill was committed to Select Committee. This is found in Hansard, Vol. 28, col. 1043. This is what the Minister said. I did not say it, but the Minister said it, and I quote: `We are not in favour of abortions on demand because, as I have stated in my opening speech, this may lead to recurrent demands for abortion and we know, as a medical fact, that repeated abortions result in a higher rate of mortality and morbidity.' Further down the column, Sir, I quote again: `Where is the abortion on demand? It is a fantasy that was flourished again and again by the opponents of this Bill.' Sir, I crave your indulgence to give me a little bit of time to get my notes right. The Explanatory Statement to the Bill says: `This Bill seeks to consolidate and amend the law relating to abortion by further liberalising that law in certain major respects and to repeal the Abortion Act.' And the last paragraph of the Explanatory Statement accompanying this Bill states: `Finally, it should be mentioned that it is intended that the legislation will no longer be of a temporary nature as is the existing Act. The Bill when passed will, therefore, become a permanent feature of our laws.' Sir, I cannot follow or understand the explanation of the Minister concerned when he said that this new Bill before the House would further liberalise abortion. Towards the end of his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, he said that he did not want to use the term "abortion on demand". The Minister can correct me if I am wrong. To my mind, this Bill is in fact a way out for women who are pregnant and who do not wish to have the child. In such cases the Bill says that abortion can be allowed. The Minister tried to whiz himself out of the debate by trying to forestall any argument and saying that - and I am not putting words into his mouth -all the criticisms of the opponents of the Bill spring from religious dogmas, etc. I am not going to be concerned with this particular aspect of the Bill, but I am going to talk on the ethical aspect of this Bill. In one of the deliberations about ethical considerations of the Abortion Bill, as recorded in Hansard, Volume 28, col. 878, the Minister himself referred to - and I quote: `Ethical, moral and social reasons form the second category. Based on religious premises, moral reasons arc advocated against abortions and these reasons are further extended to social issues.' There were ethical considerations. But that was a criterion. Here he has quoted the Prime Minister; Hansard, Volume 29, col. 348: `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.' Sir, I myself do not follow how the Minister could come to that conclusion. If he wants a higher quality type of population in Singapore, then does he not realise that if he has a house - I am sure he has - he has got to employ servants or gardeners. Now what sort of quality of people does he want? He has a car. But who drives the car? Does anybody sit by his side in the car? Is the amount of remuneration the same? Why do they have a Government comprising the Cabinet? Why do they have Members elected to Parliament? Why do we have the white collar workers and blue collar workers? What sort of quality of the populace do you want to have? I do not understand that yardstick, and neither do many of my Friends on this side of the House. Therefore, the question is whether the Government is more concerned with human values of the society as a whole or whether Government is concerned with the efficiency of population control. The Minister has vigorously denied this, and he has given us some facts and figures. But from the facts and figures one can see that abortion is on the increase, whatever the age group. As I have said, this Bill actually means abortion on demand. If it is so, then I oppose it, because even though the Minister has vigorously tried to forestall the criticisms, the opponents to the Bill would say, "All right, if you have abortion on demand, then you are going to breed permissiveness." That is exactly so. Or can the Minister ascertain that this will not be so? I would like to point out to Members of this House that it is my belief that a permissive society inevitably breeds permissiveness and promiscuity, a word which the Minister has been trying hard to pronounce. And promiscuity further breeds diseases like gonorrhoea and V.D. Incidentally he is also the Minister for Home Affairs. There are laws with heavy penalties and fines for those who indulge in drug-taking, drug peddling or drug pushing. He can therefore be likened to a pair of Siamese twins trying to outbox each other. We have a situation where one Ministry fights against drug trafficking, permissiveness, drug-taking and against increases in the incidence of V.D, and gonorrhoea. Campaigns have been mounted. And the other Ministry says, "Yes, by all means, have abortions." Where is the logic? I do not follow. I do not know whether the argument that I put forward today will stand the test of time. If not, he will come out and say, "it has not stood and will be swept into the dustbins of history." If one looks up the 1969 debate on the Second Reading of the Abortion Bill, the Hon. Minister consistently fought back and declined a discussion of the points on what he called "religious or ethical dogmas". Any fundamental objection to the Bill was, he said, attributed to concealed religious premises, even though at least one of the Backbenchers, my good Friend the Member for Bras Basah, had said when he opposed the Bill in 1969 that he was a freethinker. I think he is still a freethinker, and he has just opposed this present Bill. If anyone wants to challenge the validity of my statement, Sir, I have got all the proof here. Sir, it is not yet five years since the last debate in December, 1969. My good Friend is sitting down and is enjoying a rest. Now, Sir, if any of the speakers on the Backbenches who had opposed the Bill had based their arguments on religious beliefs - for myself I have made it very clear and it is all in the Hansard - many of them did certainly base their objections on ethical considerations. I would expect the Hon. Minister to consider their opposing views rather than jumping the gun by forestalling their criticisms and saying that the opponents of this Bill would again come out with religious beliefs, religious dogmas and, may I say, "ethics", etc. - good, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education is here. In the schools today we teach ethics, we teach them what is right and what is wrong. In this august Chamber if a Member stands up and argues on the basis of ethics or ethical considerations, he would be shot down even before he is allowed to stand up to speak. Is this argument not considered as ethics? What sort of educational system do we want to evolve? If in the schools we teach ethics and, for ethical consideration in this august Chamber, what is the application? By the same measure. Therefore, this has given rise to a very curious situation, and as a result people sometimes ask me what we mean when we say "we are a pragmatic Government". They seem to think it means that we have no principles. In view of the refusal on the part of the Minister concerned even to discuss the ethical considerations of this Bill, can he blame the people for thinking in this way? Just now the Minister quoted you, Sir, when you were a Backbencher. With due respect to you, Sir, he tried to hand you a bouquet. But on the other hand, you told him then in no uncertain terms - if the impression I gather from the Hansard is correct - you would rather call it the Abortion (Restrictive) Act. In other words, why not call it "white" and "white" only, rather than call it a shade of grey or black. Come out with it! Sir, you told him that a few years ago, and today he says, Sir, that when you were the Member for Joo Chiat you supported the Bill. In fact, I do not think you supported the Bill. You were quite frank when you said, "Look, if you want abortion, go ahead." Therefore, Sir, it would seem that whenever a question of ethics is raised, the Minister would be like an ostrich, burying his head in the sand and refusing even to look up to the argument. Sir, I am told that even the most obstinate or determined ostrich must come up for air. So we may still hope that the implications of this Bill will be examined rationally, impartially and without emotion. After all, if we were to think that the Minister is a man without any concern for ethical principles, we would surely be doing him an injustice. He does not, for example, propose to introduce a Bill allowing infanticide at the request of the parent in order to reduce the size of her family. This might be a quick and efficient way of reducing the size of the population, but he probably thinks that this manner of behaviour would be unethical. Again, if I may be permitted to quote from Hansard, Vol. 28, col. 1040: `A Bill of this nature, [that is, the present Act and not this particular Bill before the House] . , is not a licence for a permissive society. I have already stated in my opening speech that if the object is merely to remove the present restraints on abortion in the Penal Code, this Bill in its present form will not be necessary. And yet the opponents have not taken note of that. Contrary to what the Member for Punggol has claimed, and I believe that the Member for Bras Basah has also claimed that Singapore, with the passing of the Abortion Bill, would become an abortion centre.'. And again, he says in col. 1040: `No community anywhere in the present world, irrespective of its political character, has ever thought of permitting the killing of human beings, as it is generally understood, be they sick, old, infirm, paralysed or totally decrepit.' Sir, the Minister presumably thought that this would be an unethical way of acting. I have mentioned just now that, as Minister for Home Affairs, he is making strenuous efforts to stop drug-taking. Does he consider this an unethical practice? Unless the Minister wishes to be the complete ostrich, therefore, I think he will have to consider whether or not there is anything unethical about abortion. It is not a religious dogma or presumption of ethics. I opposed the former Bill because I was concerned about human values and that the then Bill would not be good for our country. I believe that the present Bill will be worse, and for the same reason I am opposing it. I do not intend to go into the philosophical aspect which the Minister dislikes so much. So let me put the matter in its simplest form to Members in this august Chamber. This Bill, if passed, and it will be passed because you, Sir, had mentioned in your speech that the Bill would finally be passed. That was true then and it is still true today. [Laughter] This is no laughing matter. Do not be too happy. Any woman who wishes to get rid of something inside her, something which is already a living thing and which, with due respect to you, Sir, if allowed to remain there and to develop would eventually emerge as a recognisable human being, just like any one of us. Is it not so? Can any one stand up and say that that thing has got no life? Note that I use the phrase "allowed to remain there to develop". Sir, as I said just now, with due respect to you and to my colleagues who are doctors and medical practitioners, when it comes to near full term there is the heart-beat of the child. Is that not a process in which a human being is subsequently born? Sir, I do not want to go into the rigmarole of philosophy, as I have said. But is there no consideration given to the question of human values? I would strongly urge the Minister, I understand his difficulty in the twin role as Minister for Health and Home Affairs, to reconsider in a rational, impartial way and without any emotion whatsoever the comments made by the many speakers just now. And let it not be said that there was no contradiction to the views exposed. What I would like to say for the purposes of record is this. I oppose the Bill in toto, Sir, as you had mentioned in the last part of your speech that "this Bill will be accepted in tow." If it is passed in toto, then on the same principle and for the same reason, I so oppose. An hon. Member: Amen.

(In Mandarin): Sir, the new Abortion Bill is a matter for grave concern, because it will lead to more serious social problems. In the past, people regarded abortion as a very serious matter and to be considered only as a last resort. The introduction of the present Abortion Bill will pave the way for more and more abortions, with the result that people will take to abortion easily. Consequently, there will be an undesirable social atmosphere and degradation of social morals. By that time unmarried women will not consider abortion as a cause for shame. Unmarried women will take to abortion as a very common matter and there will be promiscuity in our society. If we come to that stage, young girls will not take pregnancy very seriously. As the Minister has already pointed out, the concept of abortion in the minds of the people has become more enlightened. Perhaps parents will then tell their children, "Do not worry, go and get an abortion." What would become of our society then? What would become of human dignity then? Since it is our desire to build a healthy society of traditional values, we must maintain this dignity in our legislation by setting a high standard of social morals. We are a small country that is not able to accommodate any increases in population. But to control population we can have proper family planning programmes and thus promote our national economy. I am sure all hon. Members in this House will support me on this point. On the other hand, Sir, we should not liberalise abortion law in Singapore because it is harmful to our society. When the first Abortion Bill was introduced five years ago to accommodate those people who wanted abortions because of financial or health reasons, that was understandable. The Minister has pointed out that the old legislation was effective. If so, it is therefore not necessary to bring in this new Abortion Bill to this House. I would therefore like to express my opposition to the new Bill. 5.46 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, several Members have raised certain points which, I think, need reply. First of all, the Member for Anson who, unfortunately, is not here. He said something to the effect that abortion means killing the foetus and that amounts to killing a human life. That point has been repeated by some other Members who spoke against the Bill, e.g, the Member for Punggol. In fact, that was his only point - that abortion means killing the foetus, a human life. I have stated quite clearly in my opening speech that the question of whether or not a foetus under 24 weeks is human life is a matter which has been debated for centuries by learned people, both medical and non-medical. They could not come to any conclusion as to whether a foetus is human life, and therefore to equate abortion, i.e, the evacuation of the foetus from the womb, to killing, murder, or infanticide is something which cannot be accepted. Perhaps they have their own beliefs that it is human life. But there are others who do not think so. Therefore, as I have said, if we were to continue to argue this point till the cows come home, we will come back to where we started. But from the view of those who are in favour of legalised abortion, they are quite categorical about it. They do not consider that a foetus under 24 weeks of pregnancy is human life, for the simple reason that if a foetus comes out of the womb under 24 weeks, it will not be able to survive outside the mother's womb. The Member for Anson made comments that some doctors are not happy to perform abortions. I have stated quite categorically here that there is a conscientious objection clause where nobody is forced or compelled to perform an abortion if he or she has a conscientious objection. Therefore, to say that doctors are unhappy or are compelled to perform an abortion is nonsense. The Member for Bukit Ho Swee stated that abortion should be only a last resort and that we should encourage family planning. This is exactly what I have stated. In fact, over the last five years family planning has advanced to such an extent that nearly 90 per cent of our eligible population have accepted family planning. Therefore, legalised abortion which we are introducing today is a complement to family planning. It is not a substitute to family planning and it will not replace family planning. Regarding the charges for abortion and the point that doctors should not be allowed to exploit their patients, as far as the Government hospitals are concerned, it is contained in the new Bill that a fee of $5 will be charged and no more. However, if private practitioners want to charge more, we cannot control them. So the pregnant woman has the choice of paying only $5 for an abortion in Government hospitals or paying more outside. Coming to the Member for Bras Basah, he said that I implied in my speech that there was no risk in abortion. That was not what I stated. I said that we recognise the risk not only now but also five years ago, and that is the reason why we have certain safeguards - that it must be done under absolutely safe conditions. That is why we said that if abortions are done outside the hospitals, they must be done by competent doctors and in institutions which are approved by the Ministry of Health as being capable of doing safe abortions. It is because we were very thoughtful about the need for safe abortions that I am glad to say after 4½ years of operation of the Act that there was not one single mortality, nor was there any disablement resulting from legalised abortions. As opposed to this, an illegal abortion, as you know, often turns septic and the woman dies. So it is not true to say that we do not recognise the risk. It is because we were able to maintain a good record of no incident of mortality and morbidity in cases of legalised abortion that we are preserving the same safeguards in this new Bill. That is to say, if abortions are to be done outside the Government hospitals, they must be done in approved institutions and by doctors who have the skill and experience in abortion. Let me now come to the Member for Potong Pasir. There again, the Member for Potong Pasir mentioned about murder and infanticide. As I have already said, it is a matter of belief -whether you believe that a foetus under 24 weeks is human or not. If you do not believe that it is human, then of course there is no case of infanticide when an abortion is done. About promiscuity and permissiveness, and so on, I have stated that after 4½ years of operation of the Act, there has not been any lowering of moral standards or permissiveness as a result of legalising abortion. There may be other causes, but certainly not because of abortion. The other point is about repeat abortions. I have stated quite categorically that repeat abortions have remained as low as 6.5 per cent, as compared with other countries like Japan, Sweden, and the UK where it is much higher. Another point is about education to reduce population growth. I think I must answer that. It is quite clear that family planning efforts will continue, and I have stated in my opening speech that we are only offering abortion as a last resort and as an important complement to a comprehensive family planning programme. As far as the Member for Katong is concerned, he has made certain remarks which, I think, are very diplomatic. On the whole, I do not disagree with his sentiments. In fact, some of the things he has stated are not contrary to what I have stated in my opening speech. He has stated that it is a vexed question. Yes, of course it is a vexed question. He has stated that there must be effective Government propaganda and so on and so forth to propagate these matters. Of course, if the Government thinks it is good, it will propagate it; whether it is accident-free, family planning or crime-free campaign, it will be done. But, of course, it does not mean that those who oppose abortion cannot themselves conduct their own campaign to persuade people not to have abortions. The other point he said was something about adequate counselling for those who are forced to have abortions. I have mentioned in my opening speech that the Family Planning and Population Board has made it a point to give adequate counselling to those who go for abortions. In fact, I have quoted figures and perhaps I may repeat that there has been adequate counselling or what they call post-abortal counselling. May I just repeat: `Further, there is evidence to suggest that overall contraceptive practice improved since the liberalisation of abortions, due to post-abortal family planning counselling. To quote figures in support. In 1972 there were 788 post-abortal sterilizations. This works out to about 14 per cent of the total number of sterilizations in 1972. In 1973 the number of post-abortal sterilizations rose to 2,056 which works out to 23 per cent of the total number of sterilizations in that year. In 1972 there were 428 new family planning acceptors through post-abortal motivation. This works out to about 2.4 per cent of the total number of new acceptors in 1972. In 1973 the number of new acceptors through post-abortal motivation rose to 483 which works out to 2.5 per cent of the total number of new acceptors in that year. It is therefore clear that contraceptive practice is the accepted and preferred mode of limiting the number of children in families.' So it is quite clear that abortion is, so far, a last resort. After abortion there is post-abortal counselling, so that the people will accept family planning methods, whether it be the pill or sterilization. So it is not true that we do not do anything about counselling a woman who goes for abortion. But what I would like to say is this. The views of those who oppose abortions, whether they be on ethical or religious grounds, are respected. I have made that quite clear five years ago and again today. But they should not impose upon others who do not have such ethical or religious beliefs. If a woman's conscience and religious belief permit her to have an abortion, why should we deny her an abortion? Who are we to deny? On the other hand, if her conscience and religious belief do not allow her to have an abortion, nobody is forcing that woman to have an abortion. It was quite clearly stated in the Bill five years ago, and it is repeated in the present Bill, that no one can on penalty or punishment coerce a woman to have an abortion against her will. Coming to the Member for Punggol, unfortunately he is not here. With his rather rambling dissertation, I have tried my best to comprehend him, but I am afraid I could only comprehend a little of what he has been saying. First of all, he took objection to my reference to the opposing stand that found itself in the dustbins of history. I was just quoting what I said five years ago. That was all. I never said that opponents of that Bill should be cast into the dustbins of history. I do respect the views opposing the Bill, whether they be on religious grounds or on ethical grounds. He also mentioned about someone being an ostrich. I do not know who is the ostrich, he or I. But the point is this. He keeps on quoting what I said five years ago. It is very nice to hear what you have stated five years ago. But by doing so he has forgotten that we are now debating a new Bill and not the existing Act. He also said something about forestalling arguments and so on. If his arguments had been forestalled by my opening speech, I am afraid I cannot help it. He mentioned something about "abortion on demand". Yes, of course, five years ago, the Bill then did not allow abortion on demand. I had explained quite clearly in my opening speech that we then had no experience in abortions. We had to make certain assumptions. We had to learn from the experience of other countries. We were cautious because, as I said, there might be valid arguments then and, therefore, we did not agree to abortion on demand then. But now it is a different matter. Times have changed and we have gathered 4½ years of experience. We have all the facts and figures to prove our point. He also brought up another point about raising and lowering the total quality of our population. He does not seem to understand the meaning of those terms. May I just explain? If we have unwanted children around, they will, as the Member for Bukit Ho Swee said, degenerate into delinquents, drug addicts, and so on. Therefore, do we increase the total quality of our population by having unwanted children around? I now come to the Member for Sembawang. On the matter of promiscuity, permissiveness and so on, there is no proof that abortions have caused promiscuity and permissiveness. In fact, all the predictions that were made five years ago did turn out to be correct. Lastly, the Member for Sembawang talked about the degradation of social morals, human dignity, and so on. Do we raise the quality of human dignity if we have a lot of unwanted children around? Mr Baptist rose -

Is the Member rising on a point of clarification?

Sir, a few points of clarification and a few very small statements.

All right.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I might be simplistic in my thinking but I do not see any reason why debates arc necessary among experts to finally come to a conclusion whether a foetus is a living thing or not. To my mind, something living requires sustenance and grows. The foetus requires sustenance from its mother and it grows, because by the ninth month it is born a bonny baby. In addition to that, if it is taken out whether before or after 24 weeks it cannot grow unless it is within its mother. Is the Minister suggesting that if it is taken out after 24 weeks it can grow into a baby outside the mother's womb?

The answer is no.

The Minister also quoted lots of percentage figures. In my case I quoted actual figures which I have obtained. In actual fact, the Minister has no proof that legalised abortion has not led to an increase in promiscuity. I he has these facts and figures, I would be most grateful if he could present them to the House.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to clarify one point. When I spoke just now, perhaps the Minister was not fast enough to grasp my point. He seemed to have misunderstood the essence of my speech, or perhaps he intentionally twisted what I said or distorted what I said. Mr Speaker, Sir, what I said was that the introduction of the new Bill would create an undesirable atmosphere in our society and would lower the standard of morals of our society. The people will take promiscuity lightly, and consequently our social and moral standards will be gradually lowered. The Minister also referred to higher figures of abortions in the European countries. It would appear that in his view it does not matter what happens to Singapore. I do not know whether it is his intention to make Singapore a second Denmark or a second Sweden. If that is the case, then it will be too bad for Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether I was not fast enough to grasp his point or whether he was not fast enough to grasp my point. But the point is this. I have never said that we want Singapore to be a second Sweden or a second Denmark. I have never said that. I said that our figure of abortions carried out on unmarried mothers is low compared with the other countries. But I am not saying that we must bring it up. That is what the Member for Sembawang wants to interpret it, and he talked about twisting. I do not know who is twisting. The other point is that the Member for Sembawang was positive when he said that this new Bill would lower the moral standards and all the pontifications and so on. I do not know how the Member for Sembawang could make that statement. Has he got any facts and figures to substantiate it? I have said earlier that the same arguments were put forward five years ago when the first Abortion Bill was being debated in this Chamber - arguments that abortion would cause moral decline and so on and so forth. But five years after, i.e, today, has it resulted in any moral decline? The Member for Potong Pasir has brought up the argument whether the foetus is a human life or not. He is entitled to his belief. As I have said, learned men have for centuries debated this point. We know that it is a biological fact that the foetus remains to be born, but under 24 weeks is it human or is it not human? Learned men are still debating it. Of course, the Member for Potong Pasir is entitled to his view, and so are other people who may not agree with him. I accept abortion as a fact of life, otherwise we cannot go on from there. The Member for Potong Pasir can keep on arguing until the cows come home. This is where the matter lies. The only thing we can do is to agree to disagree. The other point of the Member for Potong Pasir is the figures. I think I have answered it partly when answering the points raised by the Member for Sembawang. I presume the Member for Potong Pasir referred to the figures which I have distributed. Was he referring to increased repeat abortions or was it abortions on unmarried mothers?

Both.

As far as unmarried mothers are concerned, it is good to know that unmarried mothers go to the Government hospitals for their abortions rather than go surreptitiously to the illegal abortionists and risk septicity. But that only proves the point. It does not prove that there has been an increase in promiscuity or permissiveness or a decline in morals. As Members may know, most of the cases of septic abortions involve unmarried mothers. Let us face the facts of life. Let us not, quoting the Member for Punggol, be an ostrich. As far as repeat abortions are concerned, they could have gone to an illegal abortionist. On the record there is a low rate of repeat abortions. But as I said, even if repeat abortions go up a little bit more, it does not mean that there has been an increase in promiscuity, permissiveness and so on and so forth. Lastly, the Member for Potong Pasir said about education on sexual abstinence and so on, or some study of that nature.

It speaks for itself.

Whatever his proposal is, it speaks for itself.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Chua Sian Chin]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 6.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In contrast to the Abortion Act, the passage of the Voluntary Sterilization Act through Parliament in 1969 was a smooth one. It came into effect on 20th March, 1970. The Act is now in its fifth year of operation. Like the Abortion Act it was given a limited lease of life, for the same reasons that the House should have an opportunity to review the operation of the Act and to determine how it has served its objectives and its impact on our society. Unlike the Abortion Act, however, it was soon evident that the safeguards written in to protect persons from a hasty decision to be sterilized which they might regret later, were found to be excessive. These checks were found to operate against the objectives of the Act. Accordingly, Parliament approved amendments lifting some of the more restrictive provisions in the Act on 23rd March, 1972. These amendments were brought into effect on 12th May, 1972. The effect of lifting these restrictions became immediately evident. The immediate result was a noticeable increase in the flow of persons who came for sterilization. The statistics given in the form of tables are in the Addendum* (*Appendix II, cols, 1155-8) to my speech which I have distributed earlier. It is evident from the yearly figures that they clearly fall into two parts. The early part is comprised of figures before the amendments were brought into effect on 12th May, 1972. The second phase is after the amendments Act had come into effect. The number of sterilizations has increased tremendously, particularly in the last two years. However, male sterilization is still relatively unpopular compared with female sterilizations. A total of 4,787 applications for sterilization on women were approved of which only about three-quarters were carried out. It would be noted that in the first or restrictive phase the numbers approved and performed were less than 70 per cent of total applications. After some of the restrictions had been removed by amendments, the numbers approved and performed went up to about 75 per cent. The fact that there are still sizable numbers who have been approved for sterilization but do not undergo the operation probably reflects the effects of the residual restrictions imposed by the existing law. Figures on the number of sterilizations undertaken for therapeutic reasons are also given. It is interesting to note that the proportion of female sterilization on therapeutic indications increased from 66.8 per cent of total female sterilization in 1970 but jumped to 90.1 per cent in 1973. This indicates that women will be prepared to be sterilized if it is more easily obtainable such as on therapeutic grounds, rather than having to go through the Eugenics Board. The age of sterilizations for those sterilized on socio-economic grounds has been decreasing since 1970. In 1970, 35 per cent of those sterilized were on APPENDIX II - CHARACTERISTICS OF FEMALE STERILIZATIONS 1970-1973 (Cols 1155-1156) APPENDIX II - RESULT OF APPLIATION FOR FEMALE STERILIZATION (Cols 1157-1158) females aged under 30. In 1971, the figure increased to 38 per cent; in 1972 40 per cent and 1973 49 per cent. The median and mean age show similar trends. Sterilizations on therapeutic indications were carried out on older females, as expected, since the main therapeutic indication is too many pregnancies. The hazards of pregnancies increase as birth order increases. Only 22 per cent of females sterilized on socio-economic applications had two or less children in 1970. But the figure increased to 35 per cent in 1971, 48 per cent in 1972 and 81 per cent in 1973. The increase in 1972 and particularly in 1973 reflected the effect of the amendment to the Act. In total nearly 11 per cent of all women aged 15 to 44 years have been voluntarily sterilized. The demographic impact of sterilization on such a large proportion of women in the fertile ages is of particular significance. It would of course be difficult to assess what would have been the re-productive behaviour of these sterilized group of persons if they had not been sterilized. Such an exercise is often conjectural and speculative. Nevertheless there are mathematical methods, no doubt presumptive, which can be applied in such cases. For purposes of comparison of demographic impacts of the various direct components of a fertility reproductivity programme a method has been used to compute the births averted by contraception. Using such methodology it has been estimated that the number of births averted by sterilization in females was as follows: - Births Averted by Sterilizations in Government Hospitals 1970 1971 1972 1973 Number 1,486 2,465 4,035 6,436 Percentage of all averted births 5.2 8.2 13.2 18.3 For comparison, using the same methods of estimation, the number of births averted by abortions and contraceptions is as follows:- Births Averted by National Family Planning Abortions No. % No. % 1970 15,648 54.6 1,733 6.1 1971 15,798 54.6 1,972 6.6 1972 16,046 52.3 1,912 6.2 1973 17,441 49.6 2,167 6.2 It is clear that irreversible contraception is now an accepted method of family planning. It is also an important method. Its role in preventing births is, if the trends continue, going to be a more significant and an increasing one. This is as it should be. It rids the parents once and for all, the inconvenience of having to use contraceptives, and freeing them permanently from the tyranny of unwanted pregnancies. We have come some way along the path on family planning and the control of population. We have passed two important milestones. The first was when we adopted, as a national programme, measures for family planning when the Act on Family Planning was passed by Parliament in 1965. The next milestone was when the laws on abortions and voluntary sterilization were liberalised in 1970. At the time when we passed these historic pieces of legislation there was expressed concern whether we were not too advanced of our times. Sometimes as a Government we should be in advance of the times. If we think it is right and have thought through these problems and carefully weighed the pros and cons, we should give the lead. As events turned out we need not have been too concerned. We were not too far ahead of our people. They have accepted family planning and taken to voluntary sterilizations in a way quite beyond our fondest hopes and expectations. We had offered the full range of methods of contraception, from the reversible to the irreversible which is sterilization. We knew that sterilization would be the preferable procedure where the person had completed her family. A person was freed from the inconvenience of adopting the inconvenient measures of contraception. Sterilization was the method advocated by the family planners and by doctors as the best and preferred measure in such cases. As it turned out these advantages spoke for themselves and a large segment of our married women have now been voluntarily sterilised. In fact, a sample survey of our married women has shown that more than 42 per cent of them know about sterilization and will accept it when they have completed their families. This being the case, we have a duty to make this form of contraception freely available to those who have given sober thought to this as a means of family planning and who have considered it as the method which they will adopt. However, from our experience we know that many of them would not be prepared to do so if there are too many restrictions on their applications. We know for instance that the need to apply to a Board or panel of persons is repugnant as it interposes a third party in a matter which is essentially of a very private and personal nature. The delays which have been imposed, that is, seven days under the existing Act together with all the waiting time in processing the applications before sterilizations can be done, are also unacceptable to many. In fact, a sizable number, approximately 25 per cent, did not undergo sterilizations after the Board had approved them. Sterilization under the Bill, as is proposed in the case of abortions, will be entirely a private matter between the person applying for it and the registered medical practitioner. It will be undertaken entirely on the volition of the person wanting it. A valid consent will be given by the person if he is an adult. It will not require the further consent of the spouse as is provided in the existing law. Consent is only required in the case of the person who is below the age of discretion, that is, under 21 years of age and if he or she is unmarried. Under the Bill, the procedures are accordingly simplified considerably by removing all the unnecessary strictures. These are: -

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill-[Mr Chua Sian Chin]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed..

Order for Second Reading read. 6.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." There are two authorities which exercise disciplinary control over Police Officers. They are the Public Service Commission and the Commissioner of Police. The Singapore Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1970, empowers the Public Service Commission to exercise disciplinary control over Senior Officers down to and including those of the rank of Inspector. In practice, the Public Service Commission has delegated the power of disciplinary control over Inspectors to the Commissioner of Police. Under the Police Force Act (Chapter 78) the Commissioner of Police is vested with disciplinary powers over all Junior Officers. Disciplinary proceedings against Inspectors and Junior Officers are dealt with by the Police Disciplinary Boards formed under the Police Force Act and its Regulations. These Police Disciplinary Boards are made up entirely of Police Officers and this enables the Commissioner of Police to deal with ordinary breaches of discipline expeditiously. However, for some cases of breaches of discipline such as those involving allegations of corrupt practices it is important that the Disciplinary Board formed to deal with them is not only in fact impartial, but also seen in the eyes of the public to be so. Thus to deal with such cases the Police Disciplinary Boards consisting entirely of Police Officers are not the best arrangement. It is therefore proposed that the Police Force Act be amended to enable the Commissioner of Police, if he thinks fit, to refer any disciplinary case involving an Inspector or a Junior Officer to the Public Service Commission to be dealt with in accordance with disciplinary regulations for public officers. It is further proposed that this amendment be effected by adding a section 28A to the Police Force Act. Section 28 of the Police Force Act empowers the President to dismiss or retire an Inspector. This is inconsistent with the provisions in the Singapore Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1970, and with the terms of delegation of powers by the Public Service Commission to the Commissioner. Therefore, it is necessary to amend section 28 of the Police Force Act to empower the Commissioner of Police to dismiss, retire, reduce in rank or mete out other punishment to an Inspector who is found guilty of an offence specified in section 27 (1) of the Act. Any Inspector who is aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner may apply to the Public Service Commission to have the decision reviewed. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Chuo Sian Chin]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

6.38 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name, as it appears in item 7 on the Order Paper. * The motion reads as follows: `That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of those portions of the foreshore and seabed around Pulau Ayer Merbau, containing a total area of approximately 335 acres as shown coloured yellow on the plan marked " LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 7/74", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore'. Sir, the Jurong Town Corporation proposes to reclaim, as agent of the Government, about 335 acres of the foreshore and seabed around Pulau Ayer Merbau as shown coloured yellow on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 7/74" for industrial development. A copy of this plan is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. Sir, the reclamation is expected to cost about $40 million. Some of the fill required will be available from materials dredged by the Port of Singapore Authority from Selat Sakra and the remaining fill required will be brought in from sources outside the island. On completion of the reclamation, the reclaimed land will be proclaimed as State land and alienated to Jurong Town Corporation on terms and conditions to be agreed with the Commissioner of Lands. Subsequently, the whole island will probably be leased out by the Corporation to a group of companies led by Sumitomo Chiba Chemical Co. Ltd, of Japan to set up a petro-chemical complex involving an investment of more than $1,000 million. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of those portions of the foreshore and seabed around Pulau Ayer Merbau, containing a total area of approximately 335 acres as shown coloured yellow on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 7/74", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.

6.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name, as it appears in item 8 on the Order Paper. * The motion reads as follows: That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of those portions of the foreshore and seabed at - 1. Pulau Tmbakul/Kusu Island 18 acres 2. Buran Darat 59 acres 3. Ponggol 10 acres 4. Pula Sebarok 91 acres 5. Pualu Busing 60 acres 6. Pulau Seletar 70 acres as depicted coloured pink on the plans marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLANS NOS. 9/74, 10/74, 11/74, 12/74, 13/74 and 14/74", respectively, which are deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.' Sir, it is proposed to reclaim the foreshores and seabeds at Pulau Tembakul (Kusu Island), Buran Darat, Ponggol, Pulau Sebarok, Pulau Busing and Pulau Seletar as shown coloured pink on the plans marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLANS NOS. 9/74, 10/74, 11/74, 12/74, 13/74 and 14/74" respectively, copies of which are displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. Sir, the projects at Pulau Tembakul, Buran Darat and Pulau Seletar involving the reclamations of 18 acres, 59 acres and 70 acres respectively, of the fore-shores and seabeds at these islands are for recreational development. Fill for the reclamations at Pulau Tembakul and Buran Darat will be obtained from Sisters' Shoal and that for Pulau Seletar from the Alang Perimbi Reef in Johore Straits. The reclamations estimated to cost about $3.5 million for Pulau Tembakul, about $11 million for Buran Darat and about $13.5 million for Pulau Seletar are expected to be completed in two years' time. The reclamation at Ponggol, involving about 10 acres of the foreshore and estimated to cost about $4 million, is complementary to the reclamation of the foreshore off Coney Island which was approved by this House at its sitting in March this year. On completion of the reclamations, it is proposed to construct a bridge linking Coney Island with Ponggol. Fill for this reclamation, which is expected to be completed in about nine months, will be obtained from the Alang Perimbi Shallows, off West Ponggol. The reclamation at Pulau Sebarok, covering about 91 acres of its foreshore and seabed, is necessary for the expansion of the Port of Singapore Authority's slop disposal centre on the island. Fill for this reclamation will be obtained from the Sisters' Shoal and Sawa Pemalang. The reclamation is expected to be completed in two years' time and is estimated to cost about $17 million. The reclamation at Pulau Busing is for industrial development. About 60 acres of the foreshore and seabed at this island will be reclaimed. Fill will be obtained from the Sisters' Shoal and Beting Kapal. The reclamation is estimated to cost about $9 million and is expected to be completed in about two years' time. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of those portions of the foreshore and seabed at- 1. Pulau Tmbakul/Kusu Island 18 acres 2. Buran Darat 59 acres 3. Ponggol 10 acres 4. Pula Sebarok 91 acres 5. Pualu Busing 60 acres 6. Pulau Seletar 70 acres as depicted coloured pink on the plans marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLANS NOS. 9/74, 10/74, 11/74, 12/74, 13/74 and 14/74", respectively, which are deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.

6.44 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name, as it appears under item 9 on the Order Paper. * The motion reads as follows: `That this Parliament, pursuant to section 7 of the Civil List and Pension Act (Chapter 52), resolves that the Schedule to the said Act be varied by deleting the figures "$667,020", "$145,060" and "$14,050" appearing in the second column thereof and substituting therefor the figures "$686,720", "$220,344" and "$14,773" respectively'. Sir, the provision approved under Class II of the Civil List is insufficient to meet increasing expenses such as the 1974 National Wages Council wage supplement and the higher rate of Central Provident Fund contribution. The increase under Class III is mainly for the purchase of household requisites for "The Lodge" which is the proposed official residence of the President and for increased costs of maintenance of grounds and public utility services. Under Class IV, a small increase in provision is required to meet the cost of a deep freezer and the increased cost of a swing-fog machine to be used in outdoor vector-control work, particularly against mosquitoes. It is, therefore, necessary to augment the provision for "Salaries of Personal Staff" from $667,020 to $686,720; the provision for "Expenses of Household" from $145,060 to $220,344; and the provision for "Special Services" from $14,050 to $14,773. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, pursuant to section 7 of the Civil List and Pension Act (Chapter 52), resolves that the Schedule to the said Act be varied by deleting the figures "$667,020", "$145,060" and "$14,050" appearing in the second column thereof and substituting therefor the figures "$686,720", "$220,344" and "$14,773" respectively.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed."-[Mr E. W. Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes to Seven o'clock p.m, to a date to be fixed.

asked the Minister for Education if he will give (i) the number of candidates who sat for the Skill Evaluation Test for Electrical Fitting and Installation conducted by the Industrial Training Board since 1st January, 1974, up to the latest convenient date; (ii) the number who have been awarded the full certificate; (iii) the number who failed in the theory paper; and (iv) the number who failed in the practical paper.

The number of candidates who sat for the Skill Evaluation Test for Electrical Fitting and Installation conducted by the Industrial Training Board from 1st January 1974 to 26th October 1974 was 172. (ii) The number who have been awarded the full certificate was 82. The Evaluation Test consists of one theory and two practical papers. Full certificates are awarded to those who pass in all three parts. (iii) The number who failed in the theory paper was 34. Eight candidates did not qualify for full certificate due to failure in the theory paper only. (iv) The number who failed in the practical paper was 82. APPENDIX I - CHARACTERISTICS OF WOMEN WHO HAD LEGALISED ABORTION 1970-1973 (Cols 1151-1152) APPENDIX I - RESULT OF APPLICATION FOR LEGALISED ABORTION (Cols 1153-1154) APPENDIX II - CHARACTERISTICS OF FEMALE STERILIZATIONS 1970-1973 (Cols 1155-1156) APPENDIX II - RESULT OF APPLIATION FOR FEMALE STERILIZATION (Cols 1157-1158)

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: 2nd December, 1974 (i) Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill; (ii) Naval and Air Bases (Repeal) Bill; (iii) Enlistment (Amendment) Bill; (iv) Singapore Council of Social Service (Amendment) Bill; (v) State Lands Encroachments (Amendment) Bill; (vi) Abortion Bill; (vii) Voluntary Sterilization Bill; (viii) Police Force (Amendment) Bill; ( ix) Cancellation of Planning Permission Bill; (x) Foreshores (Amendment) Bill; (xi) Jurong Town Corporation (Amendment) Bill; and (xii) National Police Cadet Corps Bill.