ABORTION BILL

Debate on Second Reading resumed.

5.06 p.m.

Inche Rahmat Bin Kenap (Geylang Serai): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the Abortion Bill because it is conducive to the moral degradation of our women folk and encourages members of the public to indulge in licentiousness and adultery. I understand that the family planning scheme at present being carried out is already opening the way for our unmarried girls and widows to commit fornication since they believe they can avoid becoming pregnant by means of family planning contraceptive aids now readily available. If this Bill is passed and if they become pregnant through the failure of contraceptive aids, then they can resort to abortion without difficulty. Do we really wish to involve ourselves and be a party to such a state of affairs? In all earnestness, we ought to be on guard against anything that may impair the good name of the Republic. But instead here we are trying to push through this Bill which, if passed, will only encourage all manner of despicable practices.

The religion of Islam prohibits abortion as an act that is contrary to the will of God. It is a cardinal and unforgivable sin because it is regarded as being tantamount to killing, even if the foetus has not yet assumed human form. Abortion is a despicable act. Besides, it serves to encourage fornication and adultery and leads to moral degradation, thereby tarnishing the good name of our Republic. Mr Speaker, Sir, I oppose this Bill.

5.09 p.m.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Health Minister, in his long and devastating speech yesterday, said that it was the fundamental right of a woman to have an abortion if the family circumstances are not right for the birth of the child. According to him, the issue is simple - 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 to privacy. To me, all these sounded like pious protestations of the other extreme view.

May I ask, if we are to legislate a law in order to give an individual the right to abortion, the right to liberty, and the right to privacy, are we also to legislate a law in future to ensure the right of an individual or a group of individuals to watch a blue film in their own residence without being harassed by the police, since values have become not abiding but conditional? Are we also to legislate a law to ensure the right of an individual to take away his own life by committing suicide if that individual feels that life has no longer any meaning and any future for him? This could perhaps be extended further by a pronouncement that all persons who are liabilities to the state should do society a favour by eliminating themselves.

The Health Minister presented to the House six case studies of illegal abortions and he did not spare us the sordid details of the traumatic experience of the patients concerned. He went further and mentioned the case of a Roman Catholic housewife. I would like to tell the Minister that, in the case of the Roman Catholic housewife, if she had only followed the teachings of her religion, she would not have in the first place resorted to the illegal abortion, and thus she would have spared herself the traumatic experience. However, the point that I would like to bring out is this. Is it a right line of argument that we should take, when we say that we must legislate the liberalisation of the law on abortion in order to enable our women folk the individual right to have an unwanted pregnancy aborted? This line of argument, if applied in a different situation, can also present the case for the state to legislate a law for legalised suicide and to provide facilities for individuals wishing to commit suicide to have the facilities of a gas chamber - seeing that this is a much easier way of taking one's life than to resort to various hideous forms of killing oneself. We could as well present to this House the traumatic experience of many individuals who had made unsuccessful attempts at suicide. But to suggest at this juncture that the state legislates such a law to this effect will bring upon myself strong criticisms from the Health Minister and I might be accused of being mischievous. But there is a parallel.

One would think that the right way to help someone who wants to take away his own life is to persuade the person to abandon the idea and help him to see a future, a hope and a more courageous way out of whatever difficulties that he faces. Similarly, it would be equally logical to say that for an unwanted pregnancy, we must try to find ways and means to make mothers learn to want the unwelcomed pregnancy. Surely it is not right for the state to help them get rid of an unwanted pregnancy just as it is not right for the state to help an individual get rid of his own life, although it may be argued that every individual has his own right, even the right to take away his own life.

Sometimes, it is dangerous to invoke such noble terms as the right of individuals, the right to this and the right to that. I think the fundamental principle behind a good law is that the law must generally concern itself with the general welfare of the public, even if such a law may encroach upon the rights of a minority group.

The welfare of a community must involve public order and civil peace; the security of the young, the weak and the handicapped; the maintenance of the decencies of public behaviour, the protection of life and property. To me the liberalisation of the law on abortion will work against the general welfare of the community, particularly when it will infringe upon certain moral values of the Singapore society. In Singapore, we respect and value certain human and moral values. The present Government has not shown itself up to now in favour of a permissive society. Its marriage legislation and its concern over porno graphic films, in its emphasis on social responsibility, it has striven to improve the social and the moral standards of the people. I am sure this can be undone to a certain extent by the move to liberalise the law on abortion.

The Health Minister, in moving the Bill to be read a Second time, has proceeded to demolish objections that might be anticipated from this House on religious grounds as well as ethical, moral, social and medical grounds. In the course of such refutation, he expressed his view that abortion is not murder. Elsewhere in his speech, the Minister has levelled religious objections to legalised abortion as being based on concepts which have sprung from the middle ages and beyond.

The implied tenor of the Minister's arguments is that the proponents of the Bill are favoured with crystal-clear and rational understanding of the concept of life and the concept of laws pertaining to the preservation of life. It is only unfortunate that in the course of his lengthy speech the Minister has lost the thread of his own arguments.

If the very basis of the laws of the Republic governing abortion is as outdated and as irrational as the Minister sincerely believes, a pertinent question may be asked why the Minister is sponsoring a Bill which, in effect, seeks tn perpetuate the concept that abortion is intrinsically wrong and that the procreative organs of a human being are of a special category meriting distinctive treatment in relation to the other organs and parts of the human body. Such an inference is to be clearly drawn from the fact that the Bill is designated to reform and liberalise the law of abortion in Singapore - in other words, to make less restrictive the circumstances in which an abortion may be legally performed. In contrast, the Minister has not found it necessary to enact similar legislation to govern the removal of an excrescence on the brain, liver or kidney or even a portion of the organ itself by competent medical personnel. The very fact that the removal of a foetus, which the Minister regards as nothing more than a piece of living organism, must be made the subject of a special piece of legislation with innumerable safeguards, is a strong indication that the proponents of the Bill are not clear in their conscience that an operation for the removal of foetus can be considered to be like any other operation.

Sordid details and nebulous arguments have been used to cover up the mental confusion and uneasiness that are inherent in the concept of life underlying the sponsorship of the Bill. An instance of such arguments is the contention that the present law gives rise to a serious conflict for the doctor, between the duty to serve the patient and the duty to obey the law. With all due respect to the Minister, who has been a distinguished legal practitioner, I am of the view that there is no such conflict. The duty of a doctor to serve his patient has always been conditioned and determined by his medical training and the Hippocratic oath. It is my contention that any law governing would only serve, as it does at present, to restrict the scope within which a doctor can exercise his discretion to serve his patient in the best interest of the patient. I would have thought that the Minister should have pursued his fundamental contention - namely, that abortion is desirable and necessary in the context of the Republic - to its logical conclusion by repealing sections 312 to 316 and 511 of the Penal Code and enacting henceforth that abortion is an offence only if it is performed by medically unqualified persons. Otherwise, if abortion is not intrinsically wrong, why should members of such a responsible profession be made subject to petty, harassing man-made laws pertaining to abortion?

I have also a strong objection to the portion of the Minister's speech relating to clause 10 (3) which provides that a doctor can be compelled to perform an abortion against his conscience. The Minister justified the invasion of a person's right to act legitimately according to his own conscience by saying that the legal duty to preserve life over-rides all religious dogmas and beliefs. I wish to point out that in countries such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom, even when they are engaged in a struggle of life and death, they do not compel their citizens against their conscience to carry out their legal duty to kill in defence of the state of which they are citizens. But where abortion is concerned, the Minister is prepared to uphold the right of a woman who, in accordance with her conscience, demands an abortion, even at the expense of the right of the doctor to refuse to perform or assist in an abortion against his conscience. Thus an irony may arise later that while our police force is not efficient enough to enforce the observance of laws relating to criminal abortion as the Minister admits, there would be no difficulty in prosecuting doctors, particularly those in government service, for refusing to perform abortions.

There is already in existence at present a law permitting abortion to be carried out on the grounds that such an action is necessary to save a woman's life, and today before this House is a Bill intended to reform and to liberalise this law. One notable feature of this Bill is the extension of the law to permit abortion to be carried out on social and economic grounds, and this feature to which I am referring is embodied in clause 5, sub-clause (2) (b) . This sub-clause, judging from the way the term "environment" is defined, makes abortion readily available to a substantial number of our women folk who would be able to have abortion for their unwanted foetus under the cover of environmental circumstances. This sub-clause will, in practice, virtually allow abortion on demand by the persons concerned. The underlying principle of this sub-clause represents a radical change of the attitude of the Government towards abortion, and perhaps constitutes the main reason behind the Government's move to liberalise the law relating to abortion.

When the Government's intention to liberalise the law on abortion was first made known, it came as a complete surprise to the public especially since there does not seem to have been any widespread public clamour for a change in the present law on abortion. Naturally there were strong public reactions to the Bill, even though it would be granted that there was also a favourable response to it. But it appears to me that there seems to have been more adverse than favourable response to the Government's intention. The Health Minister may disagree with me here. One section of the community which is greatly opposed to the Bill is the medical profession itself. The Singapore Medical Association, which is the spokesman for Singapore doctors in matters relating to their profession, is divided among itself towards the proposed Bill before this House. One would gather the impression that many doctors have strong objections, founded on medical grounds, against the liberalisation of the abortion law, and I suggest that due consideration and weight be given to their objections since they are most qualified to comment on the medical aspects of abortion. The objection of many doctors against liberalising the law on abortion is on the ground that every operation for abortion carries with it definite risks endangering the patient's life and health. It will seem unreasonable for the Government to ignore such an important objection since this is a matter of life and death. Medical science has not advanced to such a stage as to ensure absolute safety for the patient undergoing abortion, no matter what safeguards are taken. An element of risk to the patient's life and health is always present. I do not find the reasons behind the Government's proposal compelling enough to make us ignore the risk involved.

There is another point of view to consider if we want to liberalise the law on abortion. If the abortion law is liberalised, and the practice of abortion becomes widespread and "respectable", so to speak, it would lead to a loss of respect for human life. True, there has been much controversy over whether the foetus can be considered to be a human being. But whatever differences of views there may be as to the true nature of the foetus, one must at least accept that the foetus should not be treated as mere waste-matter to be disposed of as circumstances require. Many eminent doctors hold the view that life is present in full potentiality from the moment of conception and that there are no intrinsic differences between the foetus at conception and at birth - the only differences being the stage of development. If our own convenience is put before our respect for a human life which is not yet fully developed, there is reason to fear that this attitude will spread. In other words, once we allow the destruction of human life on the grounds that it is not completely human, then we leave the way for others to argue what constitutes complete "human life". Once we start to value human beings according to their worth to the society, our attention would then be directed to those persons without whom our society might be considered better off. We may start to think in terms of getting rid of the aged, the incurably sick, the deformed and so on. Surely this is not the kind of society we desire and the way by which we want our society to evolve.

To my mind, the objections to reforming and liberalising the abortion law on medical and humanitarian grounds are very valid no matter what my good friend, the Minister for Health, may say. Let us now examine some of the reasons advanced by him for the proposed changes of the abortion law as embodied in the Bill. One reason seems to be that the Government wants to make abortion available as the ultimate method of population control when other methods of family planning have failed. Another reason may be that the Government wants to ensure that the Republic is not burdened with the care of un wanted babies. The third reason may be that through liberalising the law on abortion, the Government hopes to get rid of the unqualified quacks now per forming illegal abortions.

It appears at this juncture necessary to ask two pertinent questions. First, will the proposed Abortion Bill achieve the desired results? And, secondly, if so, will the harm done be greater than the good achieved? In my opinion, the probable answer to the above two questions is that it is possible that the Government might achieve partially some of the desired results at the price of seeing more harm done than good achieved.

If abortion is resorted to as an ultimate means of population control when other family planning methods have failed, then it will either be rarely resorted to - in which case it will make no significant difference to the overall population - or it will be something widespread - in which case it is a very bad means of birth control, because it is dangerous to the health of the woman and, also, because it only solves the problem for a short time, especially when a woman can become pregnant again within a short period after abortion.

It will therefore appear that the logical step to take in planning population control would be to step up our national campaign on family planning and to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of our family planning machinery, to enable a sizable number of our women population to take advantage of the facilities and advice of our national family planning board.

In the White Paper on Family Planning of September 1965 the Government stated:

'If our Family Planning Plan succeeds, the present crude birth rate of over 30 per thousand in Singapore could be reduced to around 20 per thousand and with our death rate remaining constant around six per thousand, Singapore's net increase in population in the 1970's could be brought down to around 15 per thousand - which will bring Singapore in line with prevailing rates of population increase applicable to prosperous and advanced countries elsewhere.'

The 1966 and 1967 Annual Reports of the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board indicate that our national family planning programmes have achieved a significant reduction in our annual birth rates, and can become effective means of population control. This was achieved despite the fact that a vast majority of the women population have not taken advantage of the facilities and advice of the Family Planning programmes. As improvements are made to extend the services of the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board to reach a greater number of the women population in Singapore, I would expect to see a further drop in the annual birth-rate in Singapore. Surely, the logical step for the Government to take at this juncture should be to develop the services of the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board to such an extent as to reach the maximum number of our women population to achieve a significant drop in annual birth-rate rather than for the Government to introduce measures to liberalise the law on abortion as an effective means to plan our population control.

In talking about population control, I do not think it is out of place for me here to point out that sometimes under-population can hamper the economic development and progress of a country. While I do not see that under-population will ever become a problem that we have to face, I do not also see over-population becoming an over-riding problem that we have to face in our efforts to bring about the economic progress and advancement of our two million citizens. In Singapore today, while we talk of unemployment of so many thousands on the one hand, we also find ourselves faced with the problem of a skilled labour shortage on the other hand. We cannot hope to expand industrially at a desired rate if we lack the skilled labour and the technocrats to man and run our factories. The problem, therefore, is not one of number. The problem is how do we plan and train our manpower resources according to our national needs. If today, by a miracle, we can train the unemployed to become skilled labour and technocrats, then we can ensure for ourselves the success in our industrial expansion and progress and solve our unemployment problem. Desirable though population control may be for planning our economic progress and advancement, it does not necessarily mean that we must reduce the number of births to zero. A certain number of births is necessary to maintain our population at its prevailing level. A liberal abortion law which permits all babies to be killed before they are born, theoretically speaking, will serve to defeat the very purpose for which the Bill was proposed - to ensure the continuing survival of our Republic.

The Minister in his speech also pointed out that the central purpose of the Bill may be to ensure the quality of the life of children born in Singapore.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Not "may be".

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: All right. And that every child will be a wanted child. I think he is attempting the impossible. Assuming that abortions may be freely available in Singapore ---

Mr Chua Sian Chin: It is always good to aspire to an ideal.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: - I wonder how he can ensure the quality of children born in future. There will always be children who are sickly, retarded or deformed. There will always be children who are not up to the quality mentioned by the Minister. What are we to do with them? Are we to consider them as unwanted children?

It is said that the Government hopes to get rid of the illegal or the unqualified quacks through liberalisation of the law on abortion. This again cannot be achieved as long as there are stipulations restricting the circumstances under which an abortion may be legally permitted. Women who cannot meet the stipulations will continue to seek illegal abortions.

In view of all that I have said, I feel that this is not the proper time for the Government to introduce legislation to liberalise the law on abortion. It is to be hoped that such a move will never become necessary in Singapore. I therefore strongly urge the Government to withdraw the Abortion Bill in the light of what I have said.

5.35 p.m.

The Minister for Communications (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in full support of the Abortion Bill now before this House. It is necessary for purpose of record to state that the Government's decision to introduce this piece of progressive legislation to legalise and to liberalise abortion was taken nearly two years ago, when I was then in charge of the Ministry of Health. A great deal of time, thought and consideration has, therefore, been given to the drafting of this Bill, as we are fully aware of the highly controversial nature of the legislation to be enacted, and the hue and cry that will be raised by those holding strong religious views on the subject, as well as those who are sincere, conscientious objectors. We are confident, however,, that genuine opposition and resistance to this Bill forms only a minority, although vocal and somewhat vociferous in nature.

As we are practising parliamentary democracy in Singapore, it is important to ensure that those in opposition to the Bill should be heard ---

The Minister for Defence (Mr Lim Kim San): But not seen.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: That is the responsibility of the Minister for Defence. And this has been going on for nearly 20 months, ever since it became known in August 1967 that it was Government's intention to introduce this legislation in Parliament. It must be remembered, however, that the large majority, espe cially the women folk who will benefit under this Bill and who are, I am sure, in full agreement with the principles of the Bill, prefer to remain silent on it. As the saying goes, silence means consent.

Let me first recall, briefly, the background of how this Bill came into being. I can assure this House that the liberalisation of the law on abortion for Singapore is no flash-in-the-pan idea, just to hit the headlines, but a sober, measured, deliberate and ultimate step for the full emancipation of our women. We passed the Women's Charter of 1961 which gives to our women (other than those who subscribe to the Muslim faith) equality of status and security through the one-man, one-wife law.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

5.42 p.m.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: They are no longer chattels to be trifled with but equal partners in a marriage. In my view, the right of a woman to decide whether or not she is to bear a child can only be guaranteed if it is made "legal" for her, of her own free will, to undergo an abortion if she so decides. Indeed, we would fail in our aim, that of giving our women folk who, after all, form one-half of the human race living on this earth, full equality in the eyes of the law if we do not pass this Bill to give her the right to decide whether or not to have another baby. Having a baby is something no man can ever understand because, physically, man is incapable of bearing children. Man does not go through the profound experience of childbirth and the attendant mother-love of tending and caring for the young till it is able to look after itself, after years of laborious care, pain and sorrow. As men, we tend to talk somewhat lightly about the pangs of childbirth. How many of us fathers who are not medical doctors like yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, have watched their wives at childbirth? I have. It is only after watching a mother going through such an experience that one can understand the problem of the unwanted child to the woman - not the man. Mother-love is so strong and powerful and yet she chooses to abort. It goes against her very nature to do it. But when she does make that decision, it must have been under great provocation. Having an abortion is no picnic. It is not fun. It is painful. It is a traumatic experience, as mentioned by the hon. Member, and the woman who decides on an abortion does not come to such a decision lightly. I, therefore say, that when a woman decides on an abortion, the least we can do for her is not to make it harder for her by labelling it as "illegal" and thus make her desperate enough to do something furtive and, worse still, to go under the counter, with all the attendant dangers that go with illegal activities, to get what she wants, despite the fear, the risks that are being taken and the rapacious swindle that goes on by those who profit out of it, just because of the existence of an antiquated law which, far from protecting women, has made them victims of it.

Unlike Japan, which introduced legalised abortion in 1948 as a population control measure long before family planning came into the picture, we in Singapore, on the other hand, are fortunate to have a successful mass family planning programme in action before contemplating the introduction of a law to liberalise abortion. This is therefore no desperate measure to control population growth in Singapore. The success of the first three years, 1966 to 1968, of our Five-Year Family Planning programme has already brought down the natural rate of increase of our population by over six points, i.e., from 24.4 per 1,000 population in 1965, the year before the introduction of the Five-Year Plan, to 18.2 per 1,000 population in 1968. This is a most satisfactory position indeed, and a record, probably unequalled elsewhere, for such good results within the short space of three years of an action programme.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

5.46 p.m.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: To those who ask, since our family planning programme is so successful, why then introduce the controversial issue of liberalising the law on abortion? Is this necessary? The answer is a categorical yes. Once the principle of family planning is accepted, i.e., that not every sex union must automatically result in a conception and thereafter the birth of a child, it automatically follows that legalised abortion for contraceptive failures must be conceded to, and that is what this Abortion Bill aims to achieve.

All those who practise family planning, and they must include many Members in this House and those outside this House, must know how easily con traceptive failures can arise, whatever the method used - be it the rhythm method, which is reported to have as high a failure rate as 75 per cent - a most unreliable method indeed, and other methods like a tear in the condom, whether through age or faulty manufacture, or vaginal cream which has gone off because of time or temperature or being inadequately spread out, or forgetting to take the contraceptive pill for one occasion, or impatience or over-zealousness on the part of one or both partners. I do not think I need go further into the subject. But it is patently clear that contraceptive failures occur inevitably, sometime and somehow, with the woman missing her next menstrual period - the first sure sign that conception has taken place. What then? Why do we practise family planning? In these circumstances, I say the woman who decides to have an abortion should feel free to seek this remedy, and not be made to feel like a criminal and an outcast of society for wanting to commit a so-called illegal act.

This matter should be treated as if an "accident" had occurred, just as we would treat cases that come to the Emergency Unit of our General Hospital at present. It is then the duty of Government to have the best facilities available to rectify the "accident" which has arisen and to heal and repair any damage that may have been caused.

As my colleague, the Minister for Health, said yesterday in his speech, it is possible for those who are rich and able to pay the price for abortions to be performed legally under the guise of dilatation and curettage (i.e., dilatation of the neck of the womb). That is what abortion is. But because of the so-called ethics practised in the medical profession that of secrecy between doctor and patient - very little comes out unless a fatality or a scandal occurs. So you hear very little about it. But it is going on. It must be said for the profession, however, that most doctors will not be prepared to perform abortions under the present Jaw, but, unfortunately, many doctors are painfully aware of the unsavoury "goings-on" of some of their compatriots who have less scruples and are performing these supposedly "illegal" abortions, raking in the money and exploiting the desperation of many women in Singapore.

Let me now read out a relevant paragraph of the White Paper mentioned by my Friend across the Floor on Family Planning (Command Paper 22 of 1965), which was published on 27th September, 1965, paragraph 8.2:

'Purpose of 5-Year Plan

It should not be forgotten that many women in desperation over innumerable child-bearing, are resorting to illegal abortion as a way out. Every year nearly 500 patients are being admitted to Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital in serious condition, and their cases are clinically diagnosed as being "abortions with sepsis", and these could well have been the result of unsuccessful attempts at induced abortion. It is estimated that for every one who is hospitalised there may be as many as five going undetected. This yearly tragedy of suffering and exploitation of thousands of women which sometimes result in death must be stopped!'

Sir, let us put a stop to these malpractices by making it legal for our women to have abortions if they so desire. Let us not have one law for the rich and another for the middle class and the poor, who resort to all kinds of dangerous forms of induced abortions just because they cannot afford to pay the high sum and the price for a "legal" abortion to be performed in the aseptic conditions of a private well-equipped clinic or hospital under the present law.

Why am I so confident that only the minority oppose the liberalising of the law on abortion? Taking family planning as the cue, when implementing the Five-Year Mass Family Planning programme in 1966, a senior official of the Health Ministry (since retired) in the Maternal and Child Health Department asked: "What are we to do with staff (doctors and nurses) who are opposed to family planning on religious grounds?" My answer was a straightforward administrative one. "Ask them to put in writing that they wish to be excused from family planning work on religious grounds and we can then transfer them out to other sections in the Ministry - we do not sack them where their religious scruples need not be embarrassed." The result was a request for transfer by only two members of the staff (one doctor and one nurse) out of a staff of hundreds. That is all!

To those who oppose this Bill, we simply say no one is being compelled to have abortions. The affected woman has to decide, of her own free will, that she wants it. No one is going to force her to do it. She has to come to that conclusion herself. The decision is something for her to make. So if you must oppose this Bill, you are at liberty not to have an abortion. Have your baby, it is yours to have and to hold, but please leave others alone and do not interfere with the wishes of others who want a legal abortion. Do not stand in their way. Stay off! Just as we respect the views of those who differ, so should they respect the views of others who want to have legal abortions and to exercise their legal rights.

In conclusion, I say a vote to liberalise the law on abortion is a vote for progressive legislation and for the full emancipation of our women. If Members have to disagree on this Bill, the least they can do is to abstain from voting.