ABORTION BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate on Third Reading resumed.

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

Mr Ho See Beng: Any new point would have fallen on deaf ears!

Mr Chua Sian Chin: However, may I just say this? After listening to the very ardent speech by the Member for Punggol, may I say that I do admire his doggedness in opposing this Bill? He did not, as expected, lose any opportunity to oppose this Bill once again even on its Third Reading. I do respect his persistence and the courage of his convictions in speaking out quite loudly and strongly against it. But I am afraid I cannot likewise have similar respect for the cogency of his arguments in opposing it. I admire all the more his dogged opposition to it since I have every reason to believe that his last stand against it must necessarily end up in the dust-bins of history.

May I take the arguments of Members one at a time? To begin with, of course, I must give the honour to the Member for Punggol. In his argument, he did say that out of the 29 representations made on the Bill in Select Committee, 21 were against the inclusion of the socio-economic clause or the environmental clause in the Bill. I think his argument is that there was strong opposition to this clause judging by the number of representations made on it. May I just remind him that the multiplicity of representations does not necessarily mean the strength of the opposition. For example, if you just look at some of the addresses of the representations in opposition to the Bill, you will find that a number came from the same address. Two of them came from 96 Bras Basah Road and three of them came from 76 Bras Basah Road, but, of course, under different names and different labels.

Mr Ho See Beng: That is very unfortunate!

Mr Chua Sian Chin: I hope my point is quite clear. The other point on which the Member for Punggol did express a certain amount of sorrow is that the Select Committee did not think fit to debate whether the foetus has a right to life or whether it should have human rights like anyone of us. This, as I have said again and again, will involve ourselves in the argument which primarily springs from religious and ethical considerations. When the Member for Punggol made this assertion, he forgot one medical fact - that, as far as I know, from the medical point of view, the foetus is not yet a human being, and as such, logically, how can it have human rights?

The Member for Punggol did take strong exception to my remark that some of the opposition comes from persons who take their stand in accordance with their religious persuasion, although they do not want to admit it openly. I suppose it would suffice for me to say that the truth does hurt. Some of the opponents to the Bill say that they do not oppose it on religious or ethical grounds, but when we examine their arguments more deeply, we are sure to find that they revolve around certain religious or ethical dogmas. I have said this in my introductory speech and I do not think I need go further.

The Member for Punggol made a great deal of play on The Sunday Times report of "baby bonuses" which was attributed to a speech made by my colleague, the Minister for Communications. May I say this? My colleague's prediction that Singapore may have to offer baby bonuses to mothers in the late 1970s because of the great success in slowing down of population growth in Singapore, is in no way inconsistent with the main objectives of the Abortion Bill. The Member for Punggol thought that it was a bonus for him to use it against the Abortion Bill. I am afraid he is under a serious misconception again. I have time and again reiterated that it is not the purpose of the Bill to be used as a means of population control. However, time and again, some opponents of the Bill who, of course, include not only the Member for Punggol but also the Members for Delta, Anson and Bras Basah, have tried the all too familiar tactics of labelling it as such so as to find sufficient arguments to oppose the Bill. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, only serves to indicate the bankruptcy of their arguments against the Bill. May I just repeat once again that the main purpose of the Bill is to liberate our women from the tyranny of unwanted pregnancies, and that, as far as is possible, every child born in Singapore will be a wanted child who will be cared for so that he can grow up to lead a meaningful life. This Bill will also be a tremendous aid and will complement our efforts to help our people plan their families. Any reduction in the birth rate as a result will be an incidental benefit, and not the main purpose of the Bill.

I have emphasised before, and I repeat, the relationship between family planning by the use of contraceptive methods and legalised abortion is like that between prevention on the one hand and cure on the other. There will be a close tie-up between the administration of the Abortion Bill when it becomes law and the national family planning programme. The family planning staff will, when this Bill is implemented, interview every woman who has been granted an abortion in the hospital, as they do now, and encourage them to take up family planning. If a woman has not subsequently adopted family planning, the Termination of Pregnancy Authorisation Board is likely to take an extremely dim view of any subsequent application by a woman for an abortion. The recommendation for abortion from the Family Planning and Population Board, supported by evidence of the practice of family planning and other records, will make it very easy for women to get an abortion in case of contraceptive failure. Further, I have already stated that the Government has decided to make a woman with three or more live children accept voluntary sterilisation as a condition for the authorisation of abortion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to clear any further misconceptions, perhaps I should explain here what family planning means. Family planning does not merely mean restriction of population growth. What it, in fact, means is that a couple who adopt family planning plan not only the size of the family but also when pregnancy should occur, so that they can have children when they want them. I hope that disposes of the misconceptions. Of course, if misconceptions are doggedly adhered to on grounds of dogmas, I do not think I can go any further!

Another point which the Member for Punggol brought up was when he waved a copy of The Sunday Times showing a picture of people adopting unwanted babies. I think his point is that there will be people to adopt these unwanted babies and that these unwanted babies will provide solace to childless couples. But the fact remains that these babies are unwanted babies.

Referring to the conscientious objection clause, the Member for Punggol pointed out that, according to him, the doctor's responsibility towards the foetus should be given due consideration. That is a familiar argument brought up by him. He keeps on harping on the foetus. By doing so, he forgets the plight of the unfortunate pregnant mother. As I have stated in my introductory speech, this preoccupation with the right of the foetus, unfortunately, ends up in lack of consideration for the mother. As I have also stated before, the Catholic dogma is that the foetus has the right to life. This assumption can put the Catholic doctor in a moral dilemma -to choose between destroying the foetus in order to save the mother's life, or allowing the mother to die in the hope of saving the foetus. This Catholic preference for doing nothing to assist the mother, in fact, amounts to a preference of the foetus over the mother, and may amount to a sentence of death for both.

Referring to the principles of the Declaration of Geneva where a doctor should not allow considerations of religion, political affiliation, etc., to come between him and his patient, the Member for Punggol very cleverly used a twist by saying that these principles refer to the religion of political affiliation of the patient and not the doctor. But how do you split this? Will not the religious and ethical conviction of the doctor be equally relevant?

Let me now turn to the Member for Anson. He introduced in his last remarks a very interesting point about compulsory birth control, but he did not elaborate on it. Members will remember that five days ago the Member for Anson was congratulated by the Minister for Law on the courage of his convictions when he raised a lone voice in this House against the abolition of the jury system. Sir, it would be amiss on my part not to congratulate him similarly on raising his voice against the Abortion Bill.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Thank you.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: But I am afraid that he has opposed the Bill not only because he wants to assert his independence but also because it is clear, from his speech, that he has ill understood the considerations which have made us introduce it, although I have taken great pains to explain them in the Second and Third Readings.

I come now to the Member for Geylang Serai. I think he has just repeated the familiar argument that abortion will lead to promiscuity. I have already replied to the same point he made during the Second Reading of the Bill. Will family planning by contraceptive means not also encourage promiscuity if his argument is correct?

May I now come to the Member for Ulu Pandan? He has quite categorically stated that after having read the Select Committee's Report he has come to the conclusion, a very strong conclusion, I suppose, that he is now against the Bill, although he abstained from voting on the Second Reading. He has also made certain remarks that the Bill has been introduced because Government intends to encourage tourism. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not see what relevance tourism has to the Abortion Bill. Although an old man, perhaps he has allowed his imagination to run riot. Further, he harps on the theme that the Abortion Bill has been introduced for the purpose of population control. On this point, I do not wish to repeat what I have already said.

Turning to the Member for Moulmein, he repeats the familiar argument and says that if we legalise abortion, then what about legalising prostitution or allowing the viewing of blue films? This point again is repetitious. The Member seems to be quite obsessed with blue films.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Because the Minister is obsessed with --

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

Let me come to Madam Chan.

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

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

Madam Chan Choy Siong: It is true.

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

Madam Chan Choy Siong: On a point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Is the Minister prepared to give way to Madam Chan?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Of course.

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

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

Madam Chan Choy Siong: There will be more.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Well, I am not as sure as the Member for Delta is. She moralises.

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

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: A good government also makes mistakes.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Of course, I do admit that. Perhaps the Member for Moulmein does not make mistakes.

The Member for Bras Basah said that the Abortion Bill is cock-eyed. The Bill is not cock-eyed, but his reasons are. He said, "What is the use of having such a law, because the poor women will still go to -

Mr Ho See Beng: I said, "What is the use of having the Authorisation Board?"

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

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

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

Mr Ho See Beng: Definitely I am opposing the Bill.

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

Mr Ho See Beng: I say it is cock-eyed.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Anyway, I do not think I can stretch the explanation any further. It is quite clear that if he thinks that the Authorisation Board will be a hindrance to women who want to apply for abortion, then I challenge him to vote in support of the Bill, in particular, on the clause on the Authorisation Board.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have dealt with all the points raised by the opposition speakers. It is now left for me to conclude. But before I do so, may I just raise one particular point not mentioned by the Members of this House?

A letter was recently published in the press. It expressed concern that the Select Committee, by agreeing to add the word "serious" to qualify the risk to life or injury to the physical and mental health of the pregnant women in clause 5 (2) (a), has made it impossible for the unmarried college or working girl, caught with an unwanted pregnancy, to have an institutionalised abortion. This is indeed a serious misconception of the meaning of the proposed amendment, and should not be allowed to go unrefuted.

If only the writer of this letter had read my speech carefully, it would have been quite clear to him that the amendment was on the medical reasons for which an abortion may be authorised. As I have explained, it may probably restrict the area of manoeuvre of the medical practitioners, but it does serve to clarify the position of this provision. It does not in any way affect the environmental grounds on which an institutionalised abortion may be authorised. As a matter of fact, it has been envisaged that the case of unmarried mothers, which the writer of the letter was so concerned about, would normally come under the environmental clause, i.e., clause 5 (2) (b). In fact, when discussing the environmental reasons for authorising abortions in my speech moving the Second Reading of the Bill, I stated that common examples would be, and I quote [Hansard Vol. 28, No. II dated 8-4-69, col. 864]:

'When the pregnancy will bring about social ruin as when the woman is unmarried, is deserted or when she is on the threshold of a career;'.

However, I would like to say that the concern expressed by the writer for the plight of unmarried mothers is indeed admirable, and I would like to assure him that it is well taken care of in the Bill.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to reiterate that the central purpose of the Bill is to liberate our women from the tyranny of unwanted pregnancies. It will serve to ensure that, as far as possible, every child born in our Republic will be a wanted child who will have the opportunity of being properly nurtured and educated, so that whatever good qualities he has inherited will be developed to their full capacity so that he can grow up to lead a meaningful life and contribute his maximum to our society. It will also avoid the tragedy of children born unwanted or children born with physical or mental abnormalities. Thus it will serve to improve the total quality of our population.

As has been stated by the Prime Minister, one of the social yardsticks by which we shall have to judge the results of the new abortion law, together with the companion sterilization law, will be whether it tends to raise or lower the total quality of our population. The total quality of our population depends on the raising of the mean I.Q. level and on the capacity of parents to help the state to nurture and educate their children to their maximum capacity. Of course, by the application of our social policies, we shall encourage those who earn a low income and who cannot afford to nurture and educate their children to have less children, and those better educated parents who have the means to nurture their children to have larger families. Mr Speaker, Sir, whatever Members opposing the Bill have said about it, I wish to stress that I have every confidence that it will fully fulfil the purpose for which it has been introduced.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

5.47 p.m.

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

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.