ABORTION BILL

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

Question again proposed.

3.27 p.m.

Mr Tay Boon Too (Paya Lebar): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I resume, I would like to stress that I oppose strongly the liberalisation of the law on abortion for many reasons. But yesterday, the press and radio gave the impression that I support this Bill. So I must make my correction now and I hope that you, Mr Speaker, will first allow me to correct this impression.

Just a few minutes before the adjournment yesterday, I was talking about the fact that Singapore's population explosion problem was attended to by the former Minister for Health who tried his best to promote family planning and, as a result, the birth rate has been decreasing year by year.

According to the statistics of the Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital, we can see that there is a decrease in the birth rate. We can, therefore, say for certain that family planning has been a great success, and we can boast about it to the world. But today the Minister for Health is bringing up a Bill to liberalise the law on abortion. This may prove a bit too much in the circumstances. There is no doubt that the Minister, before bringing up this Bill, carried out extensive investigations and incorporated many suggestions from various quarters in the Bill. The Bill provides that certain conditions and requirements must be fulfilled before a woman can apply for abortion. This merely demonstrates the democratic spirit of the People's Action Party in seeking public opinion and cannot be taken to mean that there is merit in the liberalisation of the law on abortion. That is the true picture.

In the meantime, the Minister, on the Second Reading of the Bill, gave various reasons to support it. But I am not able to accept them. I feel that many of the reasons advanced need more careful consideration. What is more important is that we must be very careful and always watchful for the undesirable consequences and reactions that will follow if the Bill is passed. They are as follows:

(1) Psychological reaction. Married couples who have been generally successful in family planning will no longer worry about the unfavourable circum stances of having a baby in view of the ready facilities for abortion. They will thus resolutely give up resorting to the troublesome practice of using contraceptives, such as the taking of pills, using intra-uterine devices, condoms, diaphragms, jellies, etc., in order to enjoy the pleasure of sexual intercourse. At the back of their minds is the thought that if there is any conception, safe and easy abortion facilities will be available to solve their problem. Women who have been quite successful in family planning if their financial circumstances are bad and they cannot maintain their livelihood if they are to have more children need not continue their way of life as before, because they can resort to the practice of abortion.

(2) The degeneration of social morality. Mr Speaker, Sir, in this metropolitan city of ours, there are undeniably groups of wanton pleasure-seeking vagabonds, male and female, and other numerous innocent, passionate and energetic youths to whom romance and petting are the social vogue. If the law on abortion is liberalised, the flood-gates of sexual promiscuity will be opened. Such people will indulge in licentious behaviour and incest. When a woman becomes pregnant, she will take advantage of the provisions of the Bill and tell the authorities that her pregnancy has come about because of rape. When people ask, "You are not married. How is it that you are pregnant?", she can reply that it is the result of rape. Instances of false allegations of rape, which might arise as a result of the Bill, will cause the degeneration of social morality and the decadence of our social order. We shudder at the thought of such undesirable consequences.

Yesterday the Minister mentioned the circumstances of those who have been taking family planning guidance. But he forgot one point. Those who are receiving family planning guidance are married women. Those who are not married are quite a different lot. Family planning is meant only for married couples and not for teenagers. If an 18-or 19-year old unmarried girl is misled by this Abortion Bill and becomes licentious in her behaviour, I shudder to think of the consequences in our society.

(3) On humanitarian grounds. Sir, I have no intention to argue with the Minister as to whether a conceptus is a foetus or an embryo or a ball of flesh and blood or what-not. But verily I would stress that it is truly and unmistakably a body with life.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

3.38 p.m.

Mr Tay Boon Too (Paya Lebar): The Minister also mentioned that shortly after its formation, the foetus is still not a human being. It is considered something like a fertilised egg. A man may perhaps be compared to a fertilised egg in another form. But do we so nonchalantly destroy an egg - even a chicken egg?

The Minister gave a lot of reasons yesterday in support of the Bill, but many of them are not acceptable. From an analysis of the Chinese character for yin, namely, conceptus or pregnancy, it is composed of two parts. There are two characters, "being" and "child". That is to say, the conceptus is a child.

In the old days (even at the present time) there were cases where people were so poor and hard pressed that they had to sell their children to keep themselves alive. One would never imagine that today, in an age of science and space technology, there can be people who will legislate to enable parents to kill their children in order to live. What a pity and a calamity. Where is the sense of humanity? For the three reasons I have advanced, I oppose the passage of this Bill.

3.40 p.m.

Prof. Wong Lin Ken (Alexandra): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in recent years, the question of liberalising abortion laws i; a familiar one in progressive societies. Many other nations, both within and without the non-Communist bloc, have faced the question. In a very broad sense, the pros and cons for liberalisation of abortion have become classical arguments, having been developed with increasing sophistication with the passage of time. The significant point to note is that the protagonists of liberal reforms have, as a whole, won the day, as can be testified by the increasing number of nations that have legalized abortion, with varying degrees of liberalism, and by not one nation that has liberalized abortion taking retrogressive steps into the past.

In a rough sense, the controversy on the liberalization of abortion laws parallels that on birth control. Regarding the latter, at least it can be said that those who stood in the way of the principle of voluntary parenthood are being consigned relentlessly into the dustbin of history, although the lid is occasionally lifted. The rough analogy with contraception is of interest, as early opposition to this was fierce, often expressing itself in prediction of moral decay, the collapse of stable society, and even the killing of life itself. Today, contraception is accented and respectable in many narts of the world, and it is a tribute to the healthy pragmatism of the people of Sinzapore that they have come to take contraception as a normal way of life.

One cannot foresee such a future for abortion, and, in any case, it has been stressed time and time again, and it has been ignored time and time again, that the purpose of the Abortion Bill under discussion is not to substitute abortion for contraceptive planned parenthood. Availability of contraceptives renders reliance on the unpleasant and relatively expensive device of an abortion unneces sary, and, therefore, unlikely. As the Minister for Health succinctly pointed out in the parliamentary session yesterday, the reason for introducing the Abortion Bill is to deal with the problem of unwanted pregnancy.

The hon. Member for Punggol - I do not think he is here at the moment. Oh yes, I am very glad he is back. He had asked whether there is any need for such a Bill. There has been no public clamour for it, he said, and I think, with obvious passion and conviction. Yet, it is a matter of history that abortion has been practised as long as organised society has existed. It is also a universal occurrence. An authoritative survey of cross-cultural data revealed that - and here I am quoting - "there is every indication that abortion is an absolutely universal phenomenon, and that it is impossible even to construct an imaginary social system in which no woman would ever feel at least impelled to abort." The quotation is from George Devereaux's A Study of Abortion in Primitive Societies, New York: Julian Press, 1954, page 161. The main reason for liberalizing abortion laws in other countries has been patent unenforceability of the law against it. It may be argued, and quite relevantly, that the experience of other countries need not be the reason for our having a more liberal Abortion Bill. But the central question is: do we have an abortion problem? The answer is definitely in the affirmative.

Because induced abortion is illegal, a statutory crime, in fact, in Singapore, it is difficult to gather adequate information on the subject; and, for that matter, anywhere in the world where induced abortion is a crime. There is only one study on the subject, mentioned several times by the Minister for Health. This is Dr Lee Yong Kiat's The Non-Clinical Aspects of Induced Abortion in Singapore. He has estimated that Singapore has annually 5,000 criminal abortions, a figure that clearly suggests we have a problem of dealing with women with unwanted pregnancies. Dr Lee Yong Kiat concluded in page 48 that "when a woman is desperate enough to want an induced abortion, she will ignore whatever her religion teaches. Religion does not play such a decisive role as economic and social factors." If there he a lack of clamour for a more liberal abortion law in Singapore, it is simply because of the intimidating effects of the existing law. Dr Lee Yong Kiat's observations are worth quoting for the edification of those who equate the absence of a clamour for reform with the lack of demand for it. He writes in page 79 of his work:

'When a patient dies as a result of a criminal abortion, the Coroner is informed and police investigations and a Coroner's inquiry take place. In the majority of cases, the matter ends there with the Coroner passing a few caustic remarks about abor tionists and the evils of criminal abortion, because women are willing to go to their graves without divulging the names of the abortionists . . . Patients co-operating with the doctors and police are the exception rather than the rule. The reasons for this are obvious:

1. The patients are grateful and loyal to this particular person who has 'helped' them in their hour of need.

Moreover, they may need the services of the abortionist again in the future.

2. Fear of prosecution. Under the present law they are liable to prosecution, at least in theory. They are told this by the abortionist, and are warned to keep silent for their own sakes.'

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

3.48 p.m.

Prof. Wong Lin Ken (Alexandra): Mr Speaker, Sir, can we expect a public clamour for a reformed Abortion Bill when women, whose misplaced confidence in the abortionists has been rewarded with death, are willing to risk the possible consequences of eternal punishment in the next world rather than inform against them?

The Member for Punggol has also made certain observations which require refutation. He cited an authority on the dangers of abortion. The Minister for Health, in a written answer to a question about the fatality rate of abortion cases, had made it patently clear that abortions carried out for medical reasons in the Kandang Kerbau Hospital are safe. Indeed, the experience in Singapore is supported by that of other countries. I quote from Loren G. Stern: "Abortion: Reform and the Law" [The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, Vol. 59, No. 1, March, 1968, page 88].

'The Russian experience with legalized abortion between 1922 and 1936 yielded statistics indicating the mortality rate among pregnant Russian women was less than 001 per cent. In Sweden, where there are about 5,000 legal abortions per year, the fatality rate among pregnant women is about 0.04 per cent. This rate is lower than those mortality rates operative in both the United States and England. Studies of Japan, which legalized abortion in 1948, and those Eastern European countries which provide statistics indicate that physical after effects of abortion are rare and the mortality rate is 'exceedingly low'. Based on these scientific studies, it is evident that abortion under optimum conditions involves little risk to the life or health of the woman.'

The Member for Punggol also made the point that it is unnecessary to employ abortion as another adjunct to family planning on account of the success of contraception. It is conceivable that in a situation where the use of contraception is completely effective, resort to abortion is unnecessary. The reality is that we are nowhere near completely effective use of contraception in all sectors of our society. It is among the poor sections that we have not eliminated all the situations in which abortion will be required. It is among them that the demand for induced abortions seems to be greatest, for an additional child born into an already large family means automatically a reduction of an already pitifully inadequate income. It means more hardship for all in the family. It is the poor who resort to the unskilled operators because they cannot afford the price demanded by the qualified doctors who make a living out of human misery. It is they who suffer the injuries of badly induced abortions and end up in hospitals. The rich have no problems of finding someone to perform the operation under aseptic conditions, either within or without Singapore. As a socialist Government, we cannot permit a situation to exist where the opportunities for abortion under aseptic conditions and proper surgical skill are unequal, and definitely to the disadvantage of the poor.

The Member for Punggol has rightly pointed out that the Abortion Bill will not eliminate the illegal abortionist, but not for the reason given by him. This must be the price that society must pay for a Bill that does not provide for abortion on demand. It will be noted that there is a great deal of public misunderstanding that the Abortion Bill provides for abortion on demand, which it assuredly does not. If it were the intention to have abortion on demand, it would be scarcely necessary for the Minister for Health to introduce a Bill with a controlling administrative mechanism. One cannot predict that the present Bill will lead to a situation of abortion on demand in the future.

Attitudes change, and if public opinion changes in favour of abortion on demand in the years ahead, then it is the responsibility of another Parliament to decide what it should do to satisfy public opinion. In any case, it is also equally possible that the Abortion Bill may itself be obsolete in the future. Let me quote pages 70 to 71 of a very stimulating book by Robert E. Cooke, The Terrible Choice: The Abortion Dilemma:

'There are now in various stages of development several possible methods of preventing or aborting a pregnancy after intercourse through the use of pills. It is believed already possible to do this through taking a series of high-dosage hormone pills for a few days, within a few days after intercourse. There may well be developed what is referred to as the "morning-after" pill, a pill which if taken within a few hours after intercourse prevents the fertilized ovum from being implanted in the uterus. There may also be developed a pill which, if taken on the twenty-eight day of each menstrual cycle, can end a pregnancy begun during a cycle.'

These pills are considered likely to be of general use in future, and when this occurs, the law's ability to control will diminish as abortion returns to the realm of private decision.

The Member for Punggol has also condemned the socio-economic arguments for abortion. I fully appreciate and respect his concern for the foetus, but I cannot but note a singular lack of compassion for human suffering, and the social consequences of bringing forth unwanted children, mentally retarded and physically defective children. Unfortunately, we have no major studies of the family and social con sequences of unwanted children in Singapore. We can only rely on the experience of other societies where such studies have been made to provide a clue to what are the likely consequences. My view is that the consequences are likely to be similar. In a public lecture at the University of California, at Berkeley, Professor Garrett Hardin said:

'Is it good that a woman who does not want a child should bear one? An abundant literature in psychology and sociology proves that the unwanted child is a social danger. Unwanted children are more likely than others to grow up in psychologically unhealthy homes; they are more likely than others to become delinquents, and as John Bowlby has pointed out, when they become parents, they are more likely than others to be poor parents themselves, and breed another generation of unwanted children. This is a vicious circle if ever there was one. This is what an engineer would call positive feedback: it is ruinous to the social system.'

Carrying the argument of general social welfare further, Professor Hardin also said:

'The consequences of an abortion are mostly strictly limited in time: the consequences of ill-advised parenthood are paid for by society for decades and even generations.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Punggol has called for a new slogan: "Every child a protected child". I share his concern for the need to protect children, but I say, Sir, every child will be a protected child if every child is a wanted child.

The Minister for Health (Mr Chua Sian Chin): Hear, hear!

Prof. Wong Lin Ken: This is the compelling reality of life, here and everywhere.

The Member for Punggol, Sir, also would have a defective child born into this world. There are many men in more prominent positions in the world, with the authority of experience and knowledge behind them, who think quite differently. In reviewing the abortion laws in the State of Illinois, Dr Potts, a Chicago pediatric surgeon, said:

'Having for so many years spent much of my time in trying surgically to correct serious congenital defects in the newborn, having witnessed the anguish of the parents confronted with the problem of caring for the malformed child, having seen the burden these children carry into adult life, I can come only to one conclusion. I would advise that the laws be changed to legalize abortion for such specific cases only.'

Rabbi Louis L. Mann went further on the subject. "Failing to prevent such births," he declared, "would be nothing short of sin."

The Member for Punggol. Mr Speaker, Sir, would also want to compel a woman who is pregnant as the result of rape and incest to go through with her pregnancy. Yet it is a hard reality of social life that both rape and incest are repugnant to our society as they should be. For such situations, society imposes an everlasting stigma on the woman and the child, the product of an unnatural relationship. I believe the child of an incestuous relationship in Singapore can never be legitimized, and experience and common sense point to the unlikely legitimation of the child born of rape. I ask of Members of this House, in whom the public expect compassion and justice besides common sense, I ask of them, is it reasonable to for-ce a woman to bear a child whose creation is the result of a relationship with a man she probably does not know nor will ever want to know? Then, Sir, there are the cases of girls impregnated as the result of statutory rape. Are we to punish them for the rest of their lives, when it is the presumption of law that they are too immature to know the nature of their acts, and then, after they become pregnant, force them to face the consequences of motherhood? Basic humanitarian instincts alone compel the legalization of abortion for rape and incest cases. We cannot punish the child nor the mother for the actions of others at whose hands she has already suffered a major traumatic experience.

The Member for Punggol, Mr Speaker, Sir, is deeply concerned with the legal rights of the foetus. On this subject, there is a wide range of views even among religious groups. Suffice it for me to quote the Bishop of Exeter in the House of Lords debates in Britain. He had declared his support for abortion where the interests of the mother vitally required it. He pointed out that it is possible to say that the foetus, the unborn baby, is not a member of the human race in the ordinary sense of those words, but it has a potentiality of becoming so. He concluded, and here I quote his lordship's words:

'But since the foetus has only this potentiality of humanity which is not yet fully real, because it is in the process of turning that which is potential into that which is real, the rights of the mother who has already passed from the potential to the real, and who is on any showing a full member of the human race, take precedence over those of her unborn baby. So where there is a direct and unavoidable clash between the interests of the mother and of her unborn baby, the mother takes precedence over the baby.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, if there is anything that is clear about the issue of abortion, it is that it is a complex and, often, an emotionally charged issue. This is because it is the potential of the human foetus which concerns us. Unless interfered with, this foetus will have the potential to develop into another human being like ourselves. It is this poten tiality that has moved society to set abortion apart from other surgical procedures. Because of "respect for life", in religious and non-religious terms, since it is the only life we have or know of, we are likely to have widely different views on abortion. When does life begin after sexual intercourse? This question has been argued from time immemorial, and from civilization to civilization, and there is no universally acceptable answer, and the likelihood is that there will be none. Religious views about the foetus based on doctrine cannot be proved or refuted as they are based on beliefs incapable of empirical demonstration. Despite its recent spectacular advances, science can give us no answer. At each stage of development, the foetus has the potential for further development, and even the most accurate knowledge of the foetus cannot answer what value each stage of development has for society, for the mother or father, or in religious terms, for God. Nevertheless, as legislators, we must make a decision because we cannot abdicate our responsibility to find a solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy. Whatever our religious bias and faith, whatever our ethical and humanistic values, it is proper for us to recognise that we are the elected representatives of men on earth, and not the earthly representatives of our faith in Parliament. Even among the Christian churches, there is no unanimity of views on the liberalisation of abortion laws even in Christian countries. I believe, Sir, it is correct to say that in the United States, even members of the Catholic Church hierarchy - and here I am quoting Loren G. Stern again, at pages 90 to 91 of the same article - "do not believe that it is the Church's place to impose its moral beliefs upon the rest of the population through criminal statutes." He went on to cite a letter by Cardinal Cushing, and I would like to quote a portion of the letter:

'There is nothing in Catholic teaching which suggests that Catholics should write into civil law the prescriptions of Church Law, or in any other way force the observance of Catholic doctrine on others. Catholics have no right to do this . . . while we should make every effort to see the law upholds human rights and values and reflects the moral consensus of the community we should not look upon it- as an opportunity for promoting specifically religious teachings, especially when this may be offensive to some citizens.'

The Abortion Bill under discussion should cause no conflict of conscience, as it does not coerce a pregnant mother to have an abortion or a doctor with strong views on the subject to perform it. Catholics and others who do not want to avail themselves of the liberalised abortion law are certainly under no obligation to do so. There remains the delicate question of an emergency when a Catholic doctor has to weigh the fear of excommunication with his duty as a doctor to his patient. It seems clear to me his duty is to his patient, and the true answer to his dilemma will not be found on this earth.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Abortion Bill is not a mandatory piece of legislation. It imposes no obligation in conflict with the religious views of those it covers. It is essentially a permissive law, and can accommodate both those with diverse religious beliefs, the non-believers, and the humanists. The Abortion Bill subjects none to the will of others. This is the nature of religious freedom and tolerance we must strive for in our multi-racial and multi-religious society. If we cannot support the Bill on religious and other grounds of faith, we should not deny the right to such a Bill to those who have the need for it. We are, Mr Speaker. Sir, not showing any disrespect for life. It is because we have a respect for life, and the quality of life on this earth that I believe is the moral justification for this Bill. We cannot eliminate human misery on earth. At least, we can try to reduce it, especially for those whose likely prospect in life can be summed up as follows: "born in poverty, reared in poverty, and doomed to poverty". Human misery may have a value for certain religions. I think it has none for us, whose primary responsibility is to improve the prospect and quality of human life on earth.

The concept of medical concern has changed from century to century. Today, it embraces not only disease and death but health as well. The modern con cept of health is that of a positive state of general well-being, and not just an absence of disease. The World Health Organization has described health as "a state of complete physical, mental, arid social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity". And on the way in which we vote on this Bill will the world judge us on our humanity, our breadth of vision and intellectual horizons, our capacity for compassion and for tolerance.

It has been said, Mr Speaker, Sir, that a permissive Abortion Bill will promote immorality. Yet, the experience of other nations and the study of Dr Lee Yong Kiat all have shown that the majority of women who go for induced abortions are married women whose primary concern is the quality of life, and respect of it, among the members of their families. It rests upon the woman to make the final decision to abort, and one must presume she has weighed her decisions against her relations with her husband, her family, and her religious faith. This is her fundamental right which I hope the House will accept, and which only she alone can exercise, hopefully, to her own happiness.

'...leave her to heaven,

And to those thorns that in her bosom lodge

To prick and sting her.'

(Shakespeare: Hamlet, Act I, Scene V).

Finally, no human wisdom can define an Abortion Bill that is perfect. It is commendable that provision is made for the review of the Bill before the House within a comparatively short time.

4.10 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in my view, the Abortion Bill has been introduced on two main grounds. Firstly, to control effectively the growth of our population and, secondly, to stop the increase or existence of illegal abortions.

On the question of population control, it i5 my view that in so far as a small nation like Singapore is concerned, such a Bill is very important because we lack natural resources and we have a population of two million. Both in terms of our economy and the un employment problem, we are shouldering very heavy responsibilities. At the present moment, about 60,000 of our citizens are in a state of unemployment or under-employment. Furthermore, we have to look after our citizens in the fields of health, education and social welfare. Therefore, we must stress that effective control of population growth is very important in Singapore. We must make sure that every child in Singapore is a healthy child and a wanted child. We must also ensure that every child in our society will have a place in the sun.

We have achieved a certain measure of success in family planning and, in this respect, the Singapore Government should be congratulated on its foresight. As a matter of fact, when family planning was first introduced in Singapore, views were expressed against it. Sir, had it not been for the adamant attitude adopted by our Government, our population growth rate would have been about 40 per 1,000 and, as a result, our population by now would have been at least 2.5 million instead of two million. So, on the same basis, the Singapore Government is trying to effect better control over the growth of population and this, in my view, is in keeping with our national interests.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our Government is now encouraging the people to have small families with, at the most, three children in a family. This is not only beneficial to the individual family but also conducive to a better state of social well-being. According to statistics, many illegal abortions are done in Singapore, amounting to at least 500 cases per annum, and the women involved will eventually go to the Kandang Kerbau Hospital for assistance when their lives are in danger. We must take every possible step to prevent the recurrence or the worsening of this situation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, some people will say that this Bill will lower the standard of morality. I thin-k the people who hold this view are too passionate and incapable of making a cool and calculating analysis of the situation. If they open their eyes and look around the world, they will change their attitude. We can see that thousands and thousands of people are dying because of war, starvation and malnutrition, and many thousands are on the brink of starvation. In my view, it is a sin for human society to allow such misery to continue to exist. It is, in fact, a tragedy for human society to be in such a state. We must not allow these things to happen. We must take positive steps to prevent an occurrence of such a state of affairs. We must effectively control our population growth. We must stress that in this Bill, abortion is performed on a voluntary basis. It is not compulsory at all, and people can, on religious grounds or for some other reason, very well refuse to accept abortion if they so choose. In addition, there are certain conditions - I can see at least four of them - to be satisfied before an abortion can be authorised. Firstly, that continued pregnancy will endanger life; secondly, financial hardship does not justify the continuance of pregnancy; thirdly, the doctor must be satisfied that there is a risk that the child to be born will be abnormal; and, fourthly, the pregnancy is the result of rape, incest or intercourse with an insane or feeble-minded person. Because of these four safeguards, the present social order and moral standards can and will still be maintained.

Another feature of this Bill is that there is a provision for its review within five years, so that whatever defects there might be will be corrected in due course. In short, this Bill is based on national interest and has been carefully drafted. It will bring about social progress and promote human welfare as well as economic development. In the long-term interest, the Bill is a good one. It will advance human welfare. For all these reasons, I fully support this Bill.

4.17 p.m.

Mr Ho Kah Leong (Jurong): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, ever since the Abortion Bill had its First Reading in Parliament, it has stimulated keen discussion in our society. Members of the public, whether from medical, religious or educational circles, have come out with various views on it, both divergent and controversial. This can be said to be the first time that any Bill introduced in Parliament by the present Government has been keenly discussed outside Parliament. This spirit of taking part in the study of a Bill introduced by Parliament really merits our encouragement. This is just where the precious spirit of our democratic system lies.

Today, when we debate this Bill in Parliament, we have naturally taken note of such public views. Whether or not the law on abortion should be liberalised is certainly a highly controversial question. This must necessarily arise in a great metropolis. Singapore has reached a stage in its development where its population growth cannot be allowed to increase without a check.

Yesterday the Minister spent much time and trouble in this House quoting extensive references in support of his arguments for this Bill. We, of course, have taken note of the good intentions of the Minister in introducing it. In view of the fact that our land area is limited and our population is increasing continuously, we must, therefore, ensure that babies born will become useful elements in our society in the future and not become scums and a burden to society. Moreover, in view of the prevailing practice of illegal abortions which have caused traumatic damage and harm to ignorant women, we must legislate to correct the situation. But the Minister seems to see only one side of the question and has neglected to see the other side. It is fortunate that there are already some countries in the world which have introduced a law to liberalise abortions. Their actual implementation and result can serve as lessons for our reference.

The first question that merits the reconsideration of the Minister is whether the liberalisation of the law on abortion will actually solve our problems. The second question is, when the law on abortion is liberalised, what effect will it have on our society? In fact, in recent years, as a result of the successful implementation of family planning, the rate of our population growth has been effectively checked. According to statistics based on the present trend of a decreasing rate of population growth, by 1971 the rate of births will be only 17 per 1,000. We should actually strengthen our efforts in implementing family planning and not allow the liberalisation of the law on abortion to defeat or weaken the practice of family planning. The reason is very simple. Once the liberalisation law on abortion is passed, women will generally be less keen on family planning. They will have the idea that if they do not want the baby, the foetus can easily be aborted. If their application is not approved by the Termination of Pregnancy Authorisation Board, they can still go for illegal abortions. As the Minister has admitted, legalised abortions may not displace illegal abortions.

In countries where the law on abortion has been liberalised, such as Sweden, America and Japan, abortion is regarded as an ordinary domestic chore, as the Member for Punggol pointed out yesterday. Many women have had three or four experiences in abortion. They substitute abortion for family planning. They take abortion as a means of population control. What is more, in these countries there are tens of thousands of bastards born every year of unwed mothers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if we deem, like many other scholars, that the moment the foetus is formed inside the mother's womb it is a human life, then abortion will virtually amount to the taking of life. I think the Minister for Health has no intention of making himself the number one executioner by legislation killing a life which is absolutely unable to defend itself inside the mother's body. Moreover, in the United Nations Code of Children's Rights, it is stated that a child should be given adequate legal protection before and after its birth. This illustrates the fact that before a child is born it should also have its human rights. Human life is sacrosanct and inviolable. The process of evolution from the primeval age to the present state of civilisation has been long and arduous. The concept of the absolute sacredness of human life has also been established through a similar arduous process. These are the fruits of civilisation and should on no account be easily allowed to be damaged.

Once the law on abortion is liberalised, it will mean that life can easily be killed. Human life will then become as valueless as a piece of waste paper. What is even worse is that it may shake the foundation upon which mankind has maintained its social order.

Once the law on abortion is liberalised, one of the obvious consequences will be the degeneration of social behaviour. This can be evinced from the social behaviour of those countries which have liberalised the law on abortion. Legalised abortion will easily be misunderstood by people. They will think that pregnancy does not matter. After all, it can be aborted at will. Thus it will lead to a licentious, laissez-aller relationship between the male and the female. Libertines and promiscuous women will give full vent to their feelings. In such circumstances, will the Minister for Health be able to ensure that impressionable youths will not be uninhibitedly and wantonly more unscrupulous in their behaviour and that the standard of social morality will not deteriorate? On the one hand, we are determined to build a rugged society, but, on the other hand, we are indirectly encouraging a libertine relationship between the male and the female and thus allow social morality to degenerate. Is it not contradictory and ironical?

Sir, I am a free thinker. The views I have put forward have emanated from my conscientious rationalisation, although some of the points expressed therein might inevitably be similar to those expressed by others. Finally, I sincerely hope that the Minister for Health will reconsider whether there is an imperative need to bring up this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the suspension now. I will take the Chair again at five minutes past five o'clock.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.25 p.m, until 5.05 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.05 p.m.