ABORTION BILL

Debate on Second Reading resumed.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, before we rose I was on the safeguards of the Bill and I was interrupted when I was expounding the dilemma of the Roman Catholic doctor. Sir, if I may be permitted to continue.

The religious beliefs of the Roman Catholic as well as those of other religious groups are respected. But the duty to save life must surely over-ride all religious beliefs or dogmas. It is therefore quite clear that clause 10 (3) should be retained.

(g) To prevent women residing outside Singapore from taking advantage of the liberalisation of the laws on abortions, the operations will be available only to women who have been resident in Singapore for at least four months prior to the application.

(h) Finally, the law will run for a limited duration. It shall continue in force for four years and may be extended for a further period of not more than one year. Parliament would, therefore, have the opportunity of reviewing the experience and the effectiveness of the legislation and the desirability of continuing it.

The essence of the liberalisation of the laws is to provide a pregnant woman with an unwanted pregnancy to procure a cheap but safe method of abortion. To do so, efficiency of procedure and secrecy must be maintained throughout. To be effective, the whole process from application, authorisation, or rejection must be done with despatch.

Unless treatment to terminate a pregnancy is permitted under sub-clauses (3) and (5) of clause 5 of the Bill, every pregnant woman wishing to have her pregnancy terminated shall apply to the Board for authorisation, but, before so doing, shall submit to a medical examination. The woman has a free choice as to whichever registered medical practitioner she wants to go to and no doubt she will go to the medical practitioner in whom she has confidence. The registered medical practitioner who performs this examination will then send to the Board the application form of the pregnant woman with a medical certificate certifying the reasons which, in his opinion, justify treatment to terminate pregnancy together with such other certificates or documents as may be prescribed. The Board may also call for further information or arrange for further medical examinations. If the Board decides to authorise the abortion, it shall advise the applicant the date on which and place at which treatment is to be carried out and this date will normally be within seven days of the date on which treatment is authorised by the Board. The Board shall at the same time send all relevant information on the application to the place where treatment is to be carried out for the use of the registered medical practitioner carrying out such treatment. Provision is also made, where the Board refuses an application, for the pregnant woman to request the Board to reconsider its decision in the light of further evidence. This is provided in clause 7 (9).

I am fully aware that by introducing this Bill making abortions more permissive, it does raise as many issues as it attempts to solve. Liberalisation of our abortion laws is not only a legal, medical or sociological problem. It does touch on our basic moral and religious beliefs - and for this reason it has created an intense interest as well as some controversy. But these are important issues and we must face them courageously. The problem is not whether the foetus is inchoate and hence expendable as the law reformers claim, or whether it is human and inviolable as the opponents insist. The central problem is that of an unwanted pregnancy and how to treat it.

The issue is simply the right of an individual to have a choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy under specified conditions, just as it is the right of every human being to enjoy a meaningful life, a right to liberty and a right of privacy. And for the medical practitioner, the right to perform an abortion without the threat of criminal proceedings, both being free to follow their conscience and not be imposed by any ethical code, religious belief, or moral standard of others. And conversely there is nothing in the Bill to force anyone to perform, or have, an abortion.

This Bill will now liberate our women, allowing them to determine when they should bear their children. For the woman, therefore, the Bill will liberate her from the fear of unwanted pregnancies; where the termination of an unwanted pregnancy can be performed under the best possible circumstances and in approved hospitals where the risks are minimum. As a corollary, it will discourage her from resorting to the back-street abortionists.

As for society and the state, by ensuring that every child born is a wanted child, it will assure the quality of life of children in Singapore. It will ensure that the children born in Singapore will be properly cared for and have opportunities for education and the full development of their faculties so that they can grow up and lead meaningful lives in our society. The lower reproductive rate among those who can least afford children will have beneficial effects in ensuring that the children of these members of the community would stand a better chance of having a happy and meaningful life. All these can only result in greater good to our society and help to improve the quality of our next generation.

Finally, we in Singapore are now standing on the cross-roads of history. We are facing the major problems of defence and economic development that must be solved if we are to survive as an independent nation. But in order to succeed in this, we must also solve our social problem which is by no means less important to our continued survival and prosperity. As you know, Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a small island with no natural resources; but we have been able to survive and prosper so far because of the high quality of performance of our people. Therefore, our continued survival and well-being will depend upon the quality of our next generation, which in turn must depend on the quality of the children we now produce. As a matter of fact, with our advent into the modern age, the pace and tempo of life will be much faster and the quality of our people to meet the future challenges must therefore be of a higher calibre. Can we, therefore, particularly in our Singapore situation, afford to have children resulting from unwanted pregnancies from where most of the delinquents, the criminals and antisocial elements are derived, or allow children with physical and mental abnormalities to be born? Will not these lower the quality of our next generation and, in fact, reverse the process of nature where the fittest survive? The Bill, therefore, offers a humane and rational solution to this important social question facing us. It will assure the quality of our children so that we can continue to survive and prosper.

I, therefore, appeal to hon. Members to face up to the challenge on this important social issue and give their full support to the Bill. I do hope that they will not falter just because of some pressure, social or otherwise, brought to bear on them by some minority groups outside who, on account of their religious dogmas, desire to impose their will on the majority. There have been similar minority groups before who, in their out-of-date beliefs, have stood opposed to the introduction of birth control in Singapore and whose stand, as we know today, has found itself in the dustbins of history. In the same way, I am certain that the opposing stand to this Bill taken by this minority group will also in the course of time end up in the dustbins of history.

After all, it must be emphasised again that the Bill does not compel anyone who has any religious scruples and conscience against abortion to undergo the operation. In fact, the Bill makes it an offence for anyone who compels any person to have an abortion. The Government has even gone further in respecting the religious and ethical beliefs of hon. Members by withdrawing the Whip in this debate. On the other hand, what I would like to stress again is this: is it right in our multi-racial and multi-religious society for any person or group of persons, on grounds of religious dogma, to deny others, whose religious and ethical beliefs do not forbid them to have an abortion, from taking advantage of the provisions of this proposed law?

Mr Speaker, Sir, criticisms of the Bill there will be, but after all that has been said, the case for the Bill on every count is indeed overwhelming.

I have every confidence in the good sense of judgment, of fair play and of the high humanitarian principles of our hon. Members who are always con scious of the public good. I am sure they will courageously rise to the occasion and give overwhelming support to this historic Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.33 p.m.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill which we are debating today is by far the most controversial ever to come before the House. Since it was first raised in the middle of 1967, the question of liberalised abortion has been discussed at great length by civic, professional and religious bodies in Singapore. It has been the subject of three extraordinary general meetings of the Singapore Medical Association; it has been the subject of forums in the University of Singapore and the Polytechnic; it has been much talked about over the radio and on TV; it has been the subject of articles and letters in the press. From all the discussions no consensus of opinion has emerged. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that a consensus has been reached on only two points: first, no responsible body in Singapore would approve of abortion on demand, and, secondly, scarcely anybody is satisfied with the present Bill as it stands.

It is my contention that the Abortion Bill now before the House is ill-conceived and ill-timed, and that it should be withdrawn from the programme of the Government. This Bill does not serve any useful purpose at all and will not answer any need expressed by the people. When the then Minister for Health announced that the Government was proposing to introduce a Bill to liberalise abortion, was this in response to any public clamour for a change in the existing law? It was not. His announcement was received with dismay by many, with surprise by all. This Bill was not something that the people wanted, lt was something that the Government thought up for the good of the state; it was something on which, in my opinion, the Government's thinking went seriously wrong.

So far the people have shown no enthusiasm for the Government's proposal to grant them easier facilities for abortion, in spite of all the comments made, and because the people are convinced that abortion is a bad thing. They are not easily deceived by those who tell them that liberalised abortion is an enlightened policy. They are not confused by philosophical arguments as to when exactly human life is present. They know that abortion means killing a life which, if left alone, would very soon be a baby boy or a baby girl. And they are quite sure that the fewer abortions there are the better.

But if this Bill before the House today is passed, the one certain result is that the number of abortions performed in Singapore is going to increase enormously. It has happened everywhere else where they have changed the law and I am positive it will happen here also. People know this, and are far from enthusiastic about it. Of one thing I am absolutely convinced, namely, that any change in the existing law will bring more harm than good to the Republic.

There is no need to change the law. The only grounds on which any self-respecting doctor would wish to be allowed to perform an abortion would be on very rare medical grounds, when the life or health of the mother is at stake. This is already provided for in our present law. By statute, the doctor is not liable to prosecution if he operates to save the life of the mother. By interpretation, he will not be prosecuted if he operates to prevent the mother from becoming "a physical or mental wreck". The doctor who, in good faith, operates for this purpose, provided he has followed the accepted medical practice in therapeutic abortion, will have nothing to fear from the existing law as actually applied.

Some doctors would like to see this interpretation written into the statute. But I think this would be unwise. This statute embodies one of the fundamental values of our society - respect for human life, even the life of the unborn child - and any tampering with this statute will give the impression that we are changing our sense of human values. Moreover, if the present stricter wording of the law makes doctors cautious in the matter of performing abortions, this is as it should be; an abortion is a destructive procedure which should never be contemplated except with extreme caution.

As for the other clauses in the Bill under which abortions would be allowed, they are completely un acceptable. Either they are reducible to the preservation of the life or health of the mother - in which case they are unnecessary - or they are a totally unwarranted extension of the one plausible reason for even considering permitting an abortion.

Nobody arguing in favour of changing our present law has brought forward any convincing reason for change. Many reasons indeed have been advanced. None of them, in my opinion, will stand up to critical analysis. For instance, we have been told that our ideal should be: "Every child a wanted child." Now, may I ask, either this is meant seriously - in which case it is an argument for abortion on demand - or it is not - in which case it is an example of irresponsible sloganeering.

"Every child a wanted child" - what is this supposed to mean? That every woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant has a legal right to have the baby removed? This is abortion on demand. Is this what is wanted? If it is, then why not say so, instead of making us all study a long and complicated Bill with provisions for "Boards" and "committees" and "approved institutions" and the rest? But the Bill is not what is intended, so let us stop pretending that a liberalised Abortion Bill will ensure that every child is a wanted child.

"Every child a wanted child" -often enough we have to deplore the circumstances in which a pregnancy occurs, but once the child has been conceived we have an obligation to protect it. We cannot be deflected from this duty because the intercourse might have been illegal (because of rape or incest); or because the woman might be unmarried, or separated, or divorced; or because her environment might not be suitable (whatever that might mean); or because the baby might be born handicapped. All these circumstances might be deplorable, but not to the extent of justifying the killing of the unborn child. To say otherwise would be to legislate out of sentimentalism.

We speak of the right of the child to be a wanted child - and then we deprive it of the right to live. What sort of crazy logic is this?

"Every child a wanted child" - this should indeed be our ideal; but not by increasing the number of abortions. Who can really judge whether or not the child is wanted until it is born? There are innumerable cases reported of women who, when they first became pregnant, asked for an abortion - but were persuaded to have the baby, and once it was born, were very grateful that the doctor had not given in to their request. In any case, a child unwanted by its parents may well become a treasure to some childless couple. I quote from a paper by Prof. Tow Siang Hwa, Why I disapprove of legalised socio-economic abortion:

'The "unwanted child" - if there is such a term - should surely be entrusted to the care of an adoption society rather than to the abortionist.'

I would prefer to change this slogan to: "Every child a protected child." Here is an aim which is worthy of a truly liberal and enlightened society. The cornerstone of a truly enlightened society lies in its protection of the right to life. In such a society the function of the law is seen to be primarily to protect the rights of individuals, of which the most fundamental is the right to life. The protection which the law affords to individuals extends to the unborn child in its mother's womb. In our society the assumption underlying the law is that the value of a human life, even the life of the unborn child, is so great that its destruction could never be justified on the grounds of mere convenience, either to an individual or to the state.

Now there is wish to change all this; there is wish to change a basic principle of our society and of our law; there is wish to measure the right to life of the unborn child according to the socio-economic circumstances of its mother. On what grounds does the Government seek to reverse a long-held tradition of our society about the right to life of the unborn child? Is it on the grounds that this foetus is not human, and therefore does not enjoy the right to life which is embodied in our law? If this is the view of those who wish to liberalise our abortion laws, then it is up to them to prove it, for the weight of evidence lies heavily against them. From innumerable testimonies available I shall choose only three:

1. From the International Code of Medical Ethics published by the World Medical Association: 'A doctor must always bear in mind the importance of preserving human life from the time of conception until death.' [Ref. INTERCHANGE - Vol. 1, No. 4 of 1968, page 206].

2. From the International Conference on Abortion held in Harvard in 1967: 'From the present available data, we can only conclude that human life begins at conception, or no later than 'blastcyst' (i.e, eight days after conception). The foetus, therefore, at least from blastcyst, deserves respect as human foetal life.' [Ref. INTERCHANGE - Vol. 1, No. 4 of 1968, page 206].

3. From Professor Scott, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Leeds University, who, after lengthy research into this question, concluded: 'The most important fact that gynaecologists know, and the one most understandably suppressed, is that performing an abortion at the time they are usually called upon to do so involves destruction of a clearly recognisable human being.' [Ref. INTERCHANGE - Vol. 1, No. 4 of 1968, page 205].

The point of these citations from experts - and they could be multiplied indefinitely - is to show that it is a solidly founded tradition that foetal life is somehow human. Because this brings us to the central issue at stake in this debate. That central issue is this: our present law on abortion embodies a traditional social belief about the humanness of foetal life, a belief strongly supported by scientific opinion. Any decision by this House to change that law involves society in a decision affecting life and death, not merely for the foetus, but ultimately for the whole of society. For what is at issue is the right to life. Once the law sanctions the invasion of that fundamental right, may I ask, where then does it draw the line?

Or will it be said that because the foetus is not yet fully developed, therefore it possesses no rights? This is a dangerous principle on which to rely. Once we start putting the convenience of an individual or of the state before respect for a human life that is not yet fully developed, then we have set our feet on the slippery path indeed. If one considers oneself justified in destroying foetal human life for the well-being of the mother, or the family, or the state, then there is every danger that one will not be satisfied to stop there. I am not thinking of this Government. I am thinking of whatever government might be sitting here 10 or 20 years from now. If we here today abandon the principle that human life, even foetal human life, must be respected, then we have opened the way for a future government to argue that it is justifiable to legislate for the destruction of deformed babies, of the mentally defective, of the incurably ill, of the old and the sick and the economically worthless. In other words, once we allow the destruction of foetal human life on the grounds that it is not completely human, then we leave the door open to others to argue about what constitutes a "complete human". Compulsory euthanasia is not unthinkable in a society that has accepted voluntary abortion. Once one starts to value human beings according to their worth to the community, then one soon begins to notice quite a few without whom the community - the rest of the community, that is, - might be considered better off.

This is the sort of thing of which people are always accusing politicians - sacrificing principles for expediency. And all for what? What problems does the Government attempt to solve by these drastic and dangerous measures? What good will come to the Republic of Singapore by pushing through this controversial Bill?

It is difficult to find the answer to this obvious question, for those who favour liberalising our abortion laws keep chopping and changing the reasons they put forward to justify this move. They tell you horror stories about women suffering disability or death at the hands of illegal abortionists. When it is proved to them that legalising abortion does not lead to any decrease in the number of illegal abortions, they change their ground and say that it is necessary to control the population growth. When it is pointed out that our rate of increase is well on the way to being controlled by less drastic mea sures, they change again and say that no woman should be obliged to bear a child which she never wanted to have. When it is again pointed out that it may be necessary to take into consideration the right of the child to be born, they resort to abuse and claim that one is talking idealistic nonsense.

Now, let us try to look dispassionately at these alleged reasons for changing our law. First of all, to get rid of the criminal abortionist. It is commonly assumed that it is necessary to legalise abortion if we are to reduce the number of criminal abortions. May I point out in passing that in no other criminal activity has it been suggested that ordinary citizens, much less the members of a dignified profession, should take over from the criminals because they do the job so much better. Again, what does the experience of other countries teach us about the relationship between liberalising the abortion laws and reducing the number of illegal abortions? Professor Ingelman-Sundberg from Stockholm has reported that 25 years of legalised abortion in Sweden have not made the slightest difference in the criminal abortion rate. He found the experience of Hungary and Czechoslovakia was similar. The reason for this strange fact is given in the Report:

'...the legalising of abortion alters the climate of opinion among the public and even the Courts of law. The result is that criminal abortion becomes less abhorrent. The public becomes abortion-minded.' [Ref. 5th World Congress of Gynaecology and Obstetrics - Sydney, pages 784 to 787].

Again, in September 1967, speakers at the 5th World Congress of Gynaecology and Obstetrics in Sydney testified to the same effect. Two doctors from Switzerland stated:

'Contrary to many people's expectations the legalisation of therapeutic abortion has not led to a reduction in the incidence of illegal abortions in the countries concerned.' [Ref, ibid, page 764].

I believe similar conclusions have been reached about the experience of Japan.

In all these cases the result of liberalising the abortion laws has simply been that the overall number of abortions shoots up, but there is no evidence that the number of illegal abortions shows any sign of decreasing. The reason is obvious: as long as the law demands that certain conditions be fulfilled before an abortion can be performed, then those women who do not come under those conditions will continue to seek out the illegal operator.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Is the Member for Punggol saying that abortions should be freely available?

Mr Ng Kah Ting: In fact, there is good reason to believe that the effect of liberalising the abortion laws is to increase the number of illegal abortions, since women become more abortion-minded.

In other words, the only hope of getting rid of the illegal abortionist is to make abortion freely available on demand; to induce women to believe that having an abortion is as respectable as having a hair-cut. Is this the attitude we wish to encourage among our women?

Coming to the argument that a liberalised abortion policy is necessary foi population control, I would say this: if abortion is resorted to as a means of population control when other family planning methods have failed, then it will either be something rare - in which case it will make no appreciable difference to the overall population -or it will be widespread, in which case it is a very bad means of birth control. It is a bad means because it is dangerous for the health of the women, because it only solves the problem temporarily, and because it will put a severe strain on the medical services.

I shall not go into details concerning the medical dangers of abortion but shall content myself with one quotation. This is a statement by Dr Hector MacLennan, President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in Britain, made in the Times of 21st January, 1966:

'Even if the operation is to be limited to hospital practice by recognised specialists it should be stated most emphatically that therapeutic abortion even in skilled hands is more dangerous than the public and many doctors appreciate.'

In any case, with a falling birthrate like that of Singapore - I have just received the Report of the Population Board - it is absurd to say that abortion is a necessary adjunct to other methods of family planning as a means of population control. This is why so many overseas visitors to international conferences here have expressed amazement at the proposal of the Government to introduce liberalised abortion.

Turning now to the socio-economic argument: that a woman should not be obliged to carry on with her pregnancy if her environment would justify an abortion. I have already spoken about the importance our law should attach to the protection of human life, even the life of the unborn child, if competent medical authorities are of the opinion that the preservation of the life of the mother entails killing the foetus, then the state does not abdicate its responsibilities to protect human life if it exonerates the woman and her doctors from prosecution. But where the position involves not only one life against another but socio-economic convenience against the right to life, then any truly progressive and enlightened law must be one that protects this human life. Abortion on socio-economic grounds is not a liberalisation of the law, but a leap into lawlessness.

Are we perhaps to change our abortion law just because some other countries have changed theirs? Before we decide to jump into the same boat, let us reflect on the fact that some of those countries are having second thoughts about the wisdom of their decision. London is not proud of her new title as the "abortion-centre of Europe". Japan has for many years been worried about the continuing high rate of abortions, in a Japanese paper entitled The East, Vol. IV, No. 6, November-December 1968, a report entitled A report of Induced Abortion, it was stated that according to the investigation carried out by the Institute of Population Problems of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the amendment to the Eugenic Protection Law which allowed abortion on grounds of financial hardship resulted in a sudden increase in the number of abortions. Between 1953 and 1961, there was art annual average of one million abortions. Although 1962 showed some decrease, cases in 1965 numbered 840.000. These were only the cases officially reported.

Furthermore, an article in the Straits Times of 20th November, 1967, page 9, entitled "Abortion Alarm. Communists take to the Pill", states that the governments of several Eastern European countries have become alarmed at the increasing number undergoing legal abortions. The reason for their alarm is that the health of young women, both married and unmarried, is being affected by these numerous abortions.

Hence, in spite of all these warnings, are we still eager to rush into a liberalised abortion policy without even pausing to estimate the probable effects? Let us be clear about one point: to imagine that we can safely pass this Bill since it can always be repealed in four years' time is to be blind to the realities of life. An enlightened society like ours cannot liberalise its abortion policy and then, when the evil consequences become apparent, hope to change the permissive attitude that its own policy has engendered. This is quite unrealistic.

At this time, in the Republic of Singapore, we are trying to build a nation. We are striving to instil into our people a spirit of dedication, a sense of responsibility, an attitude of social-mindedness, loyalty, patriotism and the rest. We are niaking strenuous efforts to encourage people to think beyond their own selfish interests, to look to the welfare of their fellows. We are aiming to strengthen the character of our people by proposing high ideals, by calling for self-discipline. And now we are in danger of undoing all this by introducing a Bill to make it easier for women to obtain abortions, We have been trying to inspire our people to face up to challenges. Now, when we are faced with a challenge, we take the easy way out by legalising abortion.

We have tried to teach our people responsibility. Now we encourage irresponsibility.

We have always been trying to build a hard society. Now we are preparing the way for a soft society.

It may well be said that this Bill does not oblige anybody to have an abortion if she does not wish to do so. But we must remember that the law itself has a certain educational value, It is one thing to introduce a new law constituting abortion a crime; it is a different thing to repeal or amend a law which has been on the statute books a long time and still holds good. In this case the impression is given to people that if abortion is no longer as illegal as before, that must be because it is no longer as bad as before.

We in Singapore want to be looked up to as a beacon in Southeast Asia - not just for our economic drive, not just for our skills and dynamism, but also for our sense of justice, for our defence of human rights, for our protection of the weak. Therefore, nobody is in more need of that protection than the unborn child in its mother's womb.

If Singapore is to survive and prosper, it will be because of the physical and moral sturdiness of its people, because of the personal moral discipline it is prepared to face challenges with courage and determination. Encouraging easier abortions is not the way to foster such an attitude. On the contrary, it is the way to foster a selfish society; one which puts personal convenience before a sense of duty to others; one which refuses to face challenges because that requires effort; one which ends up as a soft, comfort-seeking society - people looking for more money for less work, people more eager to receive than to give, and people looking for the easy way out rather than striving hard to achieve.

What Singapore needs is not an Abortion Bill, but an increased emphasis on self-respect, on self-discipline, on common human decency. We need to ensure that our young people receive a better preparation all-round for marriage, towards responsible parenthood and the rest. This should be and must be our main objective if we are to develop a hard society. We need to make more strenuous efforts to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor.

Sir, in conclusion, I would like to believe that Parliament, being the responsible legislating body and being responsible for the foreseeable consequences, of its acts, would not turn a deaf ear to my arguments against the passing of this Bill, because I am fully convinced that its consequences would be detrimental to the future growth, health and welfare of our young Republic.

"Singapore - Instant Asia". It is a very nice caption and well projected. I fear that if this Bill is passed, another name "Paradise of Abortionists" may be added to it. Surely this is not the sort of reputation we want to get. Surely this is not the sort of image of ourselves we want to project.

This Government has never before been afraid to admit its mistakes. Let us admit that this Bill was a mistake and that this Abortion Bill is one whose purpose is obscure, whose need is unproven and whose consequences would be deplorable.

For these reasons, I urge hon. Members of this august Chamber to support me in asking that this Bill be withdrawn.

6.05 p.m.

Mr Ang Nam Piau (Thomson): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Abortion Bill is a complex issue and its implications are extremely wide, for this is not only a problem of medicine but also a problem of social life, family welfare and personal health. It is to be expected, therefore, that the attitude towards this problem will not be uniform among the people. The reason is quite simple. There are some people who persist in following certain moral and religious concepts and, as a result, lack the courage to adopt positive measures in the face of a very important problem. Attitudes of this sort are likely to obstruct the efforts of the Government to change our society.

Mr Speaker. Sir, the Abortion Bill is designed in accordance with the needs of our people and the requirements of our society. I personally have gone through very carefully the clauses of this Bill and I have the following reasons to advance in full support for the liberalisation of the law on abortion. My view-point is a completely independent one and I am not influenced by any medical ideas or religious concepts.

We all realise that our country is in a peculiar situation and we should not be satisfied with our present situation. We should plan ahead for the future as our country does not have enough natural resources to accommodate the increase of our population. At present, our population growth rate is 2.5 per cent, a figure slightly higher than that in some Western countries. At the same time, we also have some 50,000 people who are unemployed, and on top of all this, the British forces are going to withdraw, it is to be expected, therefore, that the problem of unemployment will become more and more serious. As a responsible Government we must pay attention to these problems. We should plan ahead and find fair and rational solutions to these problems. I believe that the liberalisation of the law of abortion will reduce the population growth rate and this will be beneficial to our economy.

Secondly, the Abortion Bill will ensure that children born in the Republic will be of a very good quality. They will be able to obtain proper care and have a fair chance of a good education. Thirdly, the Abortion Bill will provide a last resort for women when contraceptive measures have failed. Liberalisation of the law on abortion is not a substitute for family planning, it is only a supplementary method, especially for those women who do not wish to have any more children. In other words, it is a very safe last resort.

Mr Speaker, Sir, bearing in mind the national interests and the requirements of our environment, the future of our children, family welfare and the safety and personal welfare of our women, I fully support this Abortion Bill in principle.

Mr Tay Boon Too (Paya Lebar): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member sitting beside me has stood up to oppose vehemently the Abortion Bill. In rising to speak on the Bill, I have a different view-point from his. His arguments are based on religious considerations, but my opposition to the Bill arises from humanitarian considerations.

Sir, we all know that Singapore is a tiny island with no natural resources. The land area is limited and there is also very little valuable land. But our population has reached two million with a population density of 8,000 people to a square mile. This population density has given cause for worry, and if this is to continue, we may one day reach a situation where there will be a population explosion. On the other hand, our country is only at the beginning of nation building and there are many tasks which require our attention. Our rate of economic growth is still far behind our rate of population growth, in view of this, the former Minister for Health, now the Minister for Communications, during his term of office tried his very best to promote family plann ing. As a result, our rate of population growth is decreasing. According to a report by the Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital, it is stated that in 1965, 40,181 babies were born in Singapore, on the average of about 110 babies a day. Whereas after the nation-wide campaign of family planning, the birth rate in Singapore decreased to 38,252 in 1967.

6.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption.