ABORTION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.23 p.m.

The Minister for Health and Home Affairs (Mr Chua Sian Chin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Five years ago this House debated the Bill to liberalise the law on abortions. It was debated with an intensity not often seen in the recent history of our parliamentary proceedings. This was for the reason that it raised important social, economic, humanitarian and religious issues which touched the conscience of many.

In the course of the debate, points for and against the Bill were exhaustively put and argued.

The opposing arguments against the Bill that were put forward were of three categories. They were the Religious, Moral or Ethical, and Medical objections to the Bill. I had then refuted the opposing arguments, although many of them were highly theoretical and speculative. As it has turned out, nearly five years of experience of the operation of the Abortion Act has proved that many of the moral and medical objections to the Bill were unfounded. For example, availability of legalised abortions has not led to the breaking down of moral standards and increased promiscuity. Neither has it led to increase in maternal mortality and morbidity for our pregnant women. In fact, during the whole period of nearly five years there was not one single death or permanent disablement resulting from the several thousands of legalised abortions done.

Of course, the religious arguments against legalised abortions for obvious reasons could not then as well as now be proved or disproved. As I have stated then, to allow ourselves to be tied up with the religious arguments for and against abortions, which in any case would never result in any conclusion even if the debate went on till the cows came home, was entirely futile. The religious viewpoints must necessarily be based on one's own religious beliefs and faith as well as conscience. And these must differ from individual to individual. They include one's belief as to whether the foetus can be considered human life, which learned men, medical or otherwise for centuries have still not been able to agree on. Of course, the religious beliefs and conscience of any individual is to be respected. But at the same time, should not a pregnant woman be entitled as of right to request in good conscience for and be granted the termination of her pregnancy if it will lead to her greater benefit and happiness? Further, is it right in our multi-racial and multi-religious society for opponents to the liberalisation of the law on abortion to impose their moral or religious standards upon the entire community?

However, in drafting the Act and in its introduction five years ago, it was in deference to some of the more valid arguments against unrestricted liberalisation of abortion that many safeguards were included in the Act. For some who supported legalised abortion it appeared to be rather too restrictive. In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, you as one of the speakers supporting its introduction, as Member for Joo Chiat, stated then that the Act was too restrictive to be effective.

It was for this reason that the Bill was sent to Select Committee. Here oral and written submissions were carefully considered and weighed, resulting in some of the suggestions being incorporated in the final version as passed by Parliament.

It was also for the same reason that the Act was given a limited life span of four years of operation with the possibility of extension of one year, and one year only. The object was that Parliament should have an opportunity to review operations and effects of the Act at the end of the stated period. Parliament would then be able to determine whether the Act should be allowed to lapse and cast into limbo as a social experiment which has failed or to be re-introduced and made a permanent feature of the Statutes of Singapore.

I would like to report to Parliament here that this social experiment on legalised abortions has been highly successful. In some instances it has more than fulfilled our expectations. I therefore urge this House to support and pass this re-enacted legislation which has been drawn up on the experience of operating the Act over the last 4½ years.

The information of the past 4½ years is best given in the form of figures which should speak for themselves. The tables are given in the Addendum (Appendix I, cols 1151-4), to my speech which I have distributed to Members.

Let me highlight some of the facts as we may derive from these figures.

The number of abortions done each year since the law was brought into effect in 1970 was gradually built up, averaging around 4,000 a year. Relating these figures to the total number of live births, as it is usually done in reporting APPENDIX I - CHARACTERISTICS OF WOMEN WHO HAD LEGALISED ABORTION 1970-1973 (Cols 1151-1152)

APPENDIX I - RESULT OF APPLICATION FOR LEGALISED ABORTION (Cols 1153-1154) such figures for purposes of comparison, the number of abortions which were procured under the Act was 7 per cent of all live births in Singapore from 1970 to 1972 and 10.3 per cent in 1973. The rate in 1974 projected for the whole year may exceed this figure. You will recall that the estimates given at the time the Act was introduced was that it would amount to about 10 per cent of all births. The rate of abortion recorded is thus within our original estimate. It is also well within the rates reported in other countries, which have similar liberalised abortion laws. In the United Kingdom the rate is 14 per cent of all births. In Denmark the rate recorded was 12.7 per cent in 1970, the United States 13 per cent in 1971, in Sweden 16.8 per cent in 1971 and in Japan 37.8 per cent in 1970.

Contrary to the fears expressed in the original debate, our pregnant women have not been turning to abortions in great numbers.

The categories of women who had aborted provide some further interesting information.

The ethnic groups of those who had aborted were in approximate proportion of their numbers in the population. In other words, abortions had been sought equally by all our ethnic groups. This indicates that a common need for legalised abortion among these women which transcended cultural and religious barriers had been met.

The breakdown of the abortion figures by class of persons on the basis of the combined income of family indicates that the vast majority of women who seek abortions are those in the lower income group. The median income is less than $300 per month.

With regard to the marital status of the women who had abortions, more than 90 per cent of them were married women. The median number of children they had is 4.3 children.

Contrary to the warnings made by those who opposed abortions that legalisation of abortions would encourage promiscuity, the number of unmarried women who had abortions numbered only 5 per cent of the total number of abortions done in the first four years, and 9 per cent in the first half of this year. This is in contrast with the experience in other countries where abortions on the unmarried were very much higher. In the United Kingdom it amounted to nearly 50 per cent of all abortions done.

All these are conclusive proof that our expectations of the Act were correct. The Act provided an avenue of escape for our married women, especially those in the lower income group, to be freed from the burden of an unwanted or unintended pregnancy.

Another fear that was voiced was that our women would prefer abortions to the somewhat inconvenient contraceptive practice. It was argued that they will turn to abortions and come over and over again for repeated abortions whenever they become pregnant. This fear is now proved to be unfounded. The number of persons who have had more than one abortion have numbered only 6.6 per cent of the total number of abortions undertaken.

This fear can also be put to rest on the basis of the following two facts: (a) since the Act came into operation 4½ years ago, the total number of family planning acceptors attending the family planning clinics has consistently been in excess of the targets set; (b) contraceptions must have been practised in increasing numbers to have reduced both the crude birth rates and the absolute number of children born in Singapore. A paper studying the various methods which have contributed to this fall in birth in Singapore ascribed contraceptive practice as being responsible for about 50 per cent of the births averted while abortions were responsible only for about 6 per cent of births averted.

Further, there is evidence to suggest that overall contraceptive practice improved since the liberalisation of abortions, due to post-abortal family planning counselling.

To quote figures in support, in 1972, there were 788 post-abortal sterilizations. This works out to about 14 per cent of the total number of sterilizations in 1972. In 1973, the number of post-abortal sterilizations rose to 2,056 which works out to 23 per cent of the total number of sterilizations in that year. In 1972, there were 428 new family planning acceptors through post-abortal motivation. This works out to about 2.4 per cent of the total number of new acceptors in 1972. In 1973, the number of new acceptors through post-abortal motivation rose to 483 which works out to 2.5 per cent of the total number of new acceptors in that year.

It is therefore clear that contraceptive practice is the accepted and preferred mode of limiting the number of children in families. This is as it should be. Further, to encourage contraceptive practice, women must be confident that if these fail - as they do sometimes - they can fall back on readily available abortion. Thus legalised abortion is a very important complement to our already comprehensive family planning programme.

Another expressed fear was on the safety of the procedures for an operation of abortion. Here no one could deny the fact that under any operative procedure there would be an element of risk, no matter how small. The mortality figures of abortions published in other countries had ranged from 2 to 30 deaths per one hundred thousand. We were very conscious of such hazards. But I am glad to announce that throughout this entire period of 4½ years, not a single death has occurred from abortions performed under the provisions of the Act. In contrast, you will have read recent reports in the press relating to deaths from illegal abortions.

Complications resulting from abortions under the Act have also been of a very minor nature. There have been a few complications such as excessive bleeding. But in all of these the patients were restored to health without any permanent disablement.

It had been suggested, in certain studies, that there might be adverse psychological effects, such as guilt feelings and emotional aftermaths resulting from abortions. A study on the psychological effects, if any, on patients who had undergone abortions was therefore undertaken by our psychiatrists and psychologists in collaboration with our obstetricians. The total number of persons investigated were all the cases done in the first year. They were followed up throughout the period. Although the full analysis of the results is not yet available, the preliminary indications are that there has been no major or minor psychological effects: such as emotional upset or mental anguish in the short term nor has there been any adverse effects observed in the women in the long term. On the contrary, the findings indicate that the women have been immensely relieved when the abortions were over and perhaps, for these reasons, have benefited mentally by having had the abortions.

A psychiatrist reporting on the psychological effects of abortion had stated that the notion of post-abortion mental illness is probably a myth, and I quote:

`Abortion far from being a precipitative of psychiatric illness, is actually a defence against it. For a woman who has let her life be directed by forces outside of herself, to make a decision to take charge of her life can be an extremely liberalising, positive experience. For the first time in her life she is master (or rather mistress) of her destiny.'

Conversely, a British woman psychiatrist, contended from her studies on British women that -

`If they are refused (abortions) their mental and physical health, their family life and often their children's future can be catastrophically affected.'

With the introduction of various disincentives against large family size and to promote acceptance of small families, there should be made available the entire range of facilities ranging from family planning services to abortion facilities. Failure, Mr Speaker, Sir, to provide these facilities would be regarded as perpetrating a cruel fraud on our people.

In concluding the review, it is with a sense of satisfaction and fulfilment to know that this historic social experiment was timely and had achieved its main objectives. It has freed our women from the tyranny of unintended and unwanted pregnancies. It has provided a reliable, safe method in terminating these unwanted pregnancies, particularly for the benefit of women who could least afford to continue with such pregnancies. These were achieved without the dire consequences, as prophesied by some, of a lowering of moral standards and increase in promiscuity. Nor has there been an abandonment of contraceptive practice in determining family size. Abortions were resorted to by a relatively small segment of the population. It acted as an important complement to family planning by conventional contraceptive methods. A spin-off from this has been that legalised abortions have contributed to a small percentage of the total number of births averted in the population.

There was, however, one objective, Mr Speaker, Sir, which was not reached. This was the reduction in the number of illegal abortions. We did not expect that illegal abortions could be eradicated completely but it was hoped that these would be reduced to an insignificant number. It is not possible, of course, to determine the exact numbers which have been done illegally. Nevertheless, an indication of their numbers is the number of septic abortions which are treated in the hospitals. These abortions are done through criminal interference, mainly by unqualified quacks. Although the number of septic abortions treated in our hospitals have more than halved what they were during the first two years when the law was brought into effect, it is still significant. This is a problem which was borne in mind when the new Bill now before the House was being drafted.

The new Bill now before the House is the result of the sum total of experience gathered in the 4½ years of operation of the Abortion Act. Thus, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are now in a much happier position than when we were formulating the Abortion Act five years ago. We then had no experience of our own to go by but had to depend on certain assumptions as well as the experience of other countries. We then had to be extremely cautious. On the other hand, in drafting this new Bill we have before us all the concrete experience of the achievements as well as the drawbacks of the existing Act. We therefore have the advantage of being able to make decisive amendments to the Act free from speculative doubts.

Further, since five years ago the attitudes of the vast majority of our people towards family planning, legalised abortions and voluntary sterilizations have also undergone radical change. More than 60 per cent of our eligible population are currently using contraceptives. Another 17 per cent have used contraceptives some time earlier although not currently practising contraception for various reasons such as planning for a child, husband away and so on. Another 11 per cent have been voluntarily sterilized. Thus the attitude towards family planning is now one of acceptance on the part of the vast majority of our people. Favourable attitudes towards voluntary sterilizations and legalised abortions are fast gaining ground.

Attitudes towards legalised abortions have also changed considerably in many countries of the world. There are now 55 countries in the world which have legalised abortions on "extended" grounds.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the passage of our Abortion Act there have also been advances in the techniques of procuring abortions. Technically the conventional method at the time when the Act was passed, was to evacuate the womb by dilation and curettage. Now there are simpler techniques which are just as effective, less traumatic and very much safer, such as evacuation by vacuum suction.

But the most promising advances are in the use of drugs to procure abortions. There are now abortificant pills which are known in common parlance as "the morning after pill" and others euphemistically as "menstrual regulating pills". The ones under intensive testing are the "prostagladins" which appear to be the most efficient abortificants. Unfortunately, these are still mainly experimental. We have on our own been conducting large-scale clinical trials of several of these drugs in our Government hospitals but they have not as yet been completely evaluated to justify release for general use.

Hence with these new developments and with the changed climate of thinking and attitudes this new Abortion Bill is presented for re-enactment. The basic change reflected in the Bill over the existing Act which will be repealed, is that the decision to carry out an abortion will rest with the pregnant woman and the registered medical practitioner.

I have deliberately avoided the use of this phrase "abortion on demand". It tends to be emotive. Some would use this term to describe the position when abortions can be done, but within prescribed conditions. This would mean removing from the penal and medical codes, all conditions that make abortion subject to special restrictions, penalties or procedures except those that apply generally to sound medical practice. Others would restrict usage of the term "abortion on demand" where the request for abortion must be acceded to on pain of penalty to the doctor approached by a pregnant woman. This, in fact, is the present position in Sweden under their legislation. The position envisaged in this Bill is akin to the former position plus certain special safeguards.

The safeguards in the existing Act are retained. This has been done particularly to ensure that the abortion procedures are undertaken safely. The conscientious objection clause against participation in treatment to terminate pregnancy has also been retained.

Nevertheless, two major restrictive provisions in the Act have been removed. They are:

(a) The abolition of the Termination of Pregnancy Board;

(b) The period of pregnancy where abortion can be done has been extended from 16 weeks to 24 weeks.

Under the existing Act all applications for abortions had to be authorised by the Board before any abortions could be undertaken except of course in cases of emergencies. Experience has shown that the need to go through the Board has resulted in delays. Although the Board processed applications with des-patch, it took about a week from receipt of an application to an abortion being done. This might appear to be a short period but a delay of a week is crucial in procuring abortions. The reason is that with every passing day the pregnancy advances and the more difficult and hazardous the operation becomes.

From the figures, it is noted that between 12 per cent and 25 per cent of those who had their abortions authorised by the Board did not turn up for the operation. A study of these cases revealed that a large number were rather desperate and were unable to wait even for one week for their abortions to be done. Many thus went to have the abortions done illegally.

One of the other reasons advanced as to why illegal abortions still flourish is that many persons who want an abortion are very reluctant to apply to a Board and have their applications assessed by a panel of persons. It is true that no matter how reliably secret records are kept, women would naturally shy away from making known their secrets. In the United Kingdom a Commission which was appointed to review their Abortion Act touched on the suggestion that a panel should be formed to consider applications for abortions. The Justice Lane Commission (as it was called) quite categorically rejected this notion of setting up panels for adjudication. A Supreme Court ruling in the United States in 1973 by Mr Justice Harry Blackmun also rejected the demand that a panel of persons should approve abortions.

The second major departure from the existing Act is that the period of pregnancy when abortions can be done has been extended from 16 weeks to 24 weeks. This may, on superficial consideration, be considered a risky step. It should, however, be noted that the existing Act allows for abortions to be undertaken up to the 24th week on medical ground but up to the 16th week on socio-economic grounds. Therefore, this extension does no more than reflect the basic change in the Bill which is that the decision to carry out an abortion should be made by a qualified doctor and his patient. As it should be, the decision will depend on the doctor's assessment of whether or not an abortion can be safely done. If in the doctor's assessment the abortion should not be done because it might be too advanced, even if it is at the 16th week, then the abortion should not be carried out.

An upper limit of 24 weeks is imposed as it is generally accepted that a foetus may be viable outside the mother after the 24th week. Thus after 24 weeks of gestation the operation should be looked upon as inducing a premature birth.

Among the safeguards in the existing Act which are retained in the new Bill are as follows. Abortions will have to be carried out in Government hospitals or in approved institutions. The doctors who carry out abortions will have to be officers working under supervision in Government hospitals or those who have the prescribed qualifications and experience. It is an offence to coerce a person to submit to abortion. Also retained is the provision that abortions can only be undertaken on Singapore citizens or their wives and, in the case of other women, only if they have been resident in Singapore for at least four months.

Looking into the future when abortions may be procured entirely by prescription, a new provision has been introduced in the Bill which will allow any registered medical practitioner to abort a pregnant woman if it is procured solely by drugs.

For the reasons that the law has proven to have met a need that it offers a safe and reliable method of terminating unintended and unwanted pregnancies and that many of the misgivings expressed by those who had reservations about the law have proved unfounded, I now urge the House to overwhelmingly approve this Bill that will further liberalise our laws on abortion.

With the re-enactment of this Bill, the liberation of our women from unwanted and unintended pregnancies will be enshrined in a permanent statute of our Republic. This will also ensure that every child born in Singapore is a wanted child.

I am, however, fully conscious that however overwhelming the evidence, be they medical, socio-economic, or humanitarian that is presented to prove that the re-enactment of the Bill is m the best interest of the people of Singapore, there will still be some who will oppose it on grounds of religious beliefs and conscience. But these opposing views must remain personal judgments. They will, of course, be respected. But it is not right in our multi-racial and multi-religious society that these personal judgments and dogmas be imposed upon those who do not hold such views and beliefs.

I remember in the debate in this House five years ago on the existing Act, I referred to a minority group who on their out-of-date beliefs had hitherto stood opposed to the introduction of birth control in Singapore. As I said then, Mr Speaker, the negative stand of this minority group had found itself in the dustbins of history. I had also stated then that the opposing stand to the Abortion Bill would in the course of time also end up in the dustbins of history. I can now say that the course of history in the last five years has proved this prediction to be correct.

The Government, in respecting the religious and ethical beliefs of individual hon. Members, is withdrawing the Whip in this debate.

However, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have every confidence in the good sense of judgment, fair play and high humanitarian principles of our hon. Members in that they will not oppose the re-enactment of the Bill when it is clear to them that it is in the best interest of the people of Singapore even though some, because of religious beliefs, may not personally be in favour of abortion. They will certainly not seek to impose their personal religious beliefs on others who do not share such beliefs.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

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

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Is not Singapore in Southeast Asia?

Mr P. Govindaswamy: It is in Southeast Asia, but mention has been made of Singapore only, and not other countries. You may recall that when the Abortion Bill was first introduced in Parliament five years ago, I was one of those who spoke against it. However, it was passed by a majority decision, and I had no choice but to abide by it.

Today this Act is being amended. I wonder why the Termination of Pregnancy Board is to be abolished. The Abortion Act is being liberalised and this causes the fear that henceforth many people may abuse this privilege. I wonder whether the Minister is encouraging the further killing of the foetus in the mother's womb. During the last few weeks, after this new Abortion Bill was introduced in this Chamber, controversial views on the subject have been expressed by both doctors and the people, some of which have appeared in the daily newspapers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I also understand that after the first Abortion Bill was passed five years ago, there had been cases where some doctors were not happy to perform abortions. I have also learned that some doctors who were required to perform abortions had pushed their cases to other doctors because they felt very bad about it. In fact, a few of them had resigned from the service because of the nature of their duties. I do not know whether this is right or wrong, but the Minister should know it. Therefore, Sir, I do not support the abolition of the Termination of Pregnancy Board.

Mr Seah Mui Kok (Bukit Ho Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has a very limited land area. With no natural resources and with a population of about 2.2 million, it is necessary for us to achieve zero population growth through family planning, sterilization and abortion. If we want to maintain our present standard of living and to enjoy political and economic stability, it is necessary for every one, especially the younger people, to limit his family to two children. One must realise that the peace, progress and prosperity of a country can only be achieved through the quality of its people and not quantity. Too many children in a family would be a burden to oneself, to society and to the government. Unwanted children are not cared for, and are not given any parental love. They will not have nourishing food and proper accommodation, and will thereby suffer physically and mentally. This will affect their ability to study and eventually they will become school dropouts, juvenile delinquents, drug addicts, gangsters and armed robbers. To avoid all this misery and suffering, it is better to limit one's family to two children only through family planning, sterilization and, if necessary only, through abortion.

Sir, in legalising the case for abortion, I would request the Minister for Health and Home Affairs to get his staff in the Medical Department to explain to the women through the media of publicity to make them realise that frequent abortion will affect their health and endanger their lives. The Medical Department should also explain to them the advantages of family planning and sterilization, which are far better than undergoing abortion. I would also like to suggest that the charges for performing an abortion should be fair and, if possible, limited to a certain rate to avoid unfair high charges. The charges should be within the means of the lower income group workers too.

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

Mr Chua Sian Chin: How could you know?

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

Mr Chua Sian Chin: I never said that the risk was not there.

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

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

Mr Chua Sian Chin: As a result of abortion.

Mr Baptist: - as a result of legalising abortion. From figures I have before me, in 1970 there were 91 unmarried Women who had legalised abortions; 1971 - 145; 1972 - 190; 1973 - 316; and January to June 1974 - 304 abortions. These are unmarried women, mind you. Among divorced, separated and widowed women, there was an increase from 21 in 1970 to 26 in 1971, 35 in 1972 and 47 in 1973, and 42 between January and June 1974. This tells me that promiscuity has increased because of legalised abortion. In addition to that, the Hon. Minister says that repeat abortions have decreased. Repeat abortions, according to the figures, show: 1971 - 111; 1972 -269; 1973 - 356; January to June 1974 --379. Here again, there has been an increase of repeat abortions. I cannot follow the Hon. Minister's arguments and neither, I am sure, can the other Members in the House. Not a single death, he says, has occurred because of legalised abortions. How about the dying foetus? A foetus that is alive with a soul, a foetus that is living in the mother -~ it is now dead because of abortion, legalised abortion, legalised murder.

I fail to follow his arguments really and I exhort hon. Members not to support the Abortion Bill that is being presented to the House today. Our population needs to be reduced, I agree; but Education, hon. Minister, is what is required to get the people to realise that we need to decrease our population because we do not have sufficient food, because we do not have sufficient land space, and because we do not have what we need to have to support such a large population. A decrease in sexual activity is what we have to look for. Has the Minister done anything to get facts and figures to enable Singaporeans through education to reduce their sexual activity? I believe that we are trying to get away by using the easy method -legalised abortion. That is how it works. It is surprising that with such intelligence we cannot come up with something that will not harm not only the mother but the living foetus.

I notice that this Abortion Bill will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure. This is true. No extra financial expenditure is needed, hut I can assure the Government that it will be involved in extra "moral and spiritual expenditure".

Mr L. P. Rodrigo (Serangoon Gardens): Mr Speaker, Sir, my contribution is not as sex-oriented as the previous speaker, but whatever the views against abortion, the problem of too many bodies and so little food stares some nations in the face, and what the future holds for many of the people of these nations is the tragedy of our times.

To avoid hardship among ourselves as a result of an undisciplined growth in the family unit in our society, we have family planning and family planning facility for our peoples. For 4½ years now abortion has been made available under certain conditions to our womenfolk who request for it. This Bill seeks to release applicants from some o these conditions and offer abortion under minimal control.

In my view, Sir, there are matters for concern. Unless and until family planning education reaches the populace in general and secure their response through contraception and sterilization, there is in my view a real likelihood that many may have to resort to abortion because of carelessness or indiscretion. Abortion may then be accepted by the people and, in fact, become a primary means of controlling or planning their families. This can be an unhealthy situation.

Abortion in my view is both tragic and traumatic. There is a moral disorganisation in the person undergoing abortion, the extent of the disorganisation depends on the sensitivity of the person's moral character.

Applying this situation at a societal level, there can result what is termed an anomie in society - a situation in society where people find it no longer pertinent or meaningful to relate their conduct with social norms as a result of their personal experience or interpretation of the pettiness of life and its qualities. It, therefore, becomes imperative for the well-being of our society to ensure that our efforts in family planning education are not relaxed. Easily available abortion must be and remain, as the Minister himself says it, a complement to contraception.

But the problem which this Bill attempts to deal with cannot be gain-said. I believe we need to size down our families as proposed, in order that our children may live in some comfort and experience in some measure the quality of life in the future.

Mr J. F. Conceicao (Katong): Sir, despite the considerable self-satisfaction, even aplomb, confidence and, very likely in his mind, the positive assertions with which the Minister has presented this Abortion Bill to further liberalise the law relating to abortion, the facts still remain that abortion is a very vexed question.

In this House in 1969 and even now, you hear all sorts of views, some very emotionally expressed, some with a lacing of purported wit. Even the Minister has not been free from certain emotion-charged phraseology. This problem of abortion is certainly a very vexed question.

There are many people in Singapore who look upon this Act with grave misgivings; people who feel that abortion is even an outright abomination. These people are not rebels, Mr Speaker, Sir. They are not bad people. They are not anti-Government. They are decent law-abiding people. I would expect that more than 70 per cent of such people voted for the Government in the last election. They support the Government. The Minister would consider them very sane, intelligent, rational, and even good looking people. I myself would like to express considerable sympathy with the views of these people, and I would express it in as sombre a way as I can.

Having said that, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that this Bill will be passed today. Let us look at the reality of it all. Arranged opposite are people who will definitely cause this Bill to be passed. Arranged on this side are people who are speaking with opposing voices. There is no doubt that this Bill will be passed. At the same time, a climate of apparent social approbation has been aroused by very effective Government propaganda, and I am using the word "propaganda" in the same way as it is used in propaganda fide, propagation of faith. I do not intend any pejorative implication. There has been effective planned propaganda to sell the idea to the people, and the people have responded. But it is necessary for people like myself and others to assert their own particular viewpoint and, having asserted that, to see what can be done that is practical and what are the realities of the situation. This is the art of the possible. We expect that there may be some ill-effects of this Bill. What can be done to mitigate such ill effects? One of the things we should try to encourage as much as possible is greater and more intensive family education, not merely family education for the sake of family planning but family education to bring home to the people in a family their responsibility to each other - how they have to provide supports one for the other in a family. This is a very traditional local ethic and it has to be encouraged as much as possible, with emphasis on the integrity of the individual in the family. Of course, with this family education, one has to intensify understanding of family planning in all sorts of ways so that, as far as possible, people can avoid resorting to abortion.

In this context, Mr Speaker, Sir, I crave your indulgence to let me make an appeal to people, like leaders of religious faiths, to intensify their own efforts to bring home to their own adherents the notion of the value of life and respect for the integrity of the individual. For those who are against abortion, they should try as far as they can to bring home to their own people such knowledge of family planning practices as they themselves find approvable, and those people - religionists, adherents of faiths who have international affiliations - should give all the support they can to research to provide, if possible (and I do not think it is impossible), the means of family planning which they find approvable.

Mr Speaker, Sir, another point is that we should as far as possible encourage those who, in my own way of thinking, regretfully want abortion. We should encourage them to have their abortions as early as possible. I mean when they understand that a child is coming, the realisation comes early. If a person indeed has to have an abortion, then it should be done as early as possible, and this is tied up with the question of additional knowledge or complete knowledge in respect of family planning. I hope this is not taken to imply that I support abortion.

The Minister for Communications (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): But you are!

Mr Conceicao: No. But it is in the circumstances that we find ourselves faced with, that I am just seeking a way out that is possible. At the same time, those who come for abortion should be given adequate counselling. The Minister referred to the Lane Report. But the Lane Report also referred to the necessity for adequate counselling for those who come for abortion, counselling that will perhaps avoid abortions later on, by which I mean a return for further abortions. The rate of recidivism in abortions, according to the Minister's own figures, seems to be quite high. I would urge that these people be given adequate counsel.

Another point which the Minister has not mentioned in respect of the Lane Report is that it has also referred to the necessity that should a pregnancy be terminated after 24 weeks the abortion would be for induction of birth. We should also provide that particular measure when people come for abortion. I think we should try our best, Mr Speaker, Sir, not to touch the tradition in our society as far as we can-the tradition that holds on moral, ethical or religious grounds, that abortion is a regrettable act and one that should be avoided as far as possible. Abortion, therefore, should not be a mere substitute for family planning. We should encourage as much as possible those who do come for abortion to weigh all the considerations. There has been apparently a weighing of considerations, in view of the figures given of those who were permitted abortions but who did not eventually accept. We should encourage this consideration so that respect for life is something that we hold valuable in our society.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am not proposing to "abort" the debate on this Bill. I think it would be a good idea to have a suspension now. I suspend the Sitting and shall take the Chair again at ten minutes past Five.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.23 p.m. until 5.10 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.10 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

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

Mr Chua Sian Chin rose -

Mr Speaker: Would you like to give way, Mr Ng?

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

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot allow a misinterpretation of what I have said.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: There has been no misinterpretation, Sir. Anyway, I will give way.

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

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

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

Mr Chua Sian Chin: I never used the term "cast". I said "found itself".

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Would have found itself in the dustbins of history. This is a very clever and shrewd way of trying to fettle down any criticism or comment for or against the Bill - more so in the case against the Bill. As for myself, I will be more tolerant. I would listen and say, "All right, what have you got to say?"

Sir, if I may be permitted to start off by quoting the Minister for Health and Home Affairs when he summed up the debate on the Second Reading on the 10th April, 1969, before this Bill was committed to Select Committee. This is found in Hansard, Vol. 28, col. 1043. This is what the Minister said. I did not say it, but the Minister said it, and I quote:

`We are not in favour of abortions on demand because, as I have stated in my opening speech, this may lead to recurrent demands for abortion and we know, as a medical fact, that repeated abortions result in a higher rate of mortality and morbidity.'

Further down the column, Sir, I quote again:

`Where is the abortion on demand? It is a fantasy that was flourished again and again by the opponents of this Bill.'

Sir, I crave your indulgence to give me a little bit of time to get my notes right. The Explanatory Statement to the Bill says:

`This Bill seeks to consolidate and amend the law relating to abortion by further liberalising that law in certain major respects and to repeal the Abortion Act.'

And the last paragraph of the Explanatory Statement accompanying this Bill states:

`Finally, it should be mentioned that it is intended that the legislation will no longer be of a temporary nature as is the existing Act. The Bill when passed will, therefore, become a permanent feature of our laws.'

Sir, I cannot follow or understand the explanation of the Minister concerned when he said that this new Bill before the House would further liberalise abortion. Towards the end of his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, he said that he did not want to use the term "abortion on demand". The Minister can correct me if I am wrong. To my mind, this Bill is in fact a way out for women who are pregnant and who do not wish to have the child. In such cases the Bill says that abortion can be allowed. The Minister tried to whiz himself out of the debate by trying to forestall any argument and saying that - and I am not putting words into his mouth -all the criticisms of the opponents of the Bill spring from religious dogmas, etc.

I am not going to be concerned with this particular aspect of the Bill, but I am going to talk on the ethical aspect of this Bill. In one of the deliberations about ethical considerations of the Abortion Bill, as recorded in Hansard, Volume 28, col. 878, the Minister himself referred to - and I quote:

`Ethical, moral and social reasons form the second category. Based on religious premises, moral reasons arc advocated against abortions and these reasons are further extended to social issues.'

There were ethical considerations. But that was a criterion. Here he has quoted the Prime Minister; Hansard, Volume 29, col. 348:

`As has been stated by the Prime Minister, one of the social yardsticks by which we shall have to judge the results of the new abortion law, together with the companion sterilization law, will be whether it tends to raise or lower the total quality of our population.'

Sir, I myself do not follow how the Minister could come to that conclusion. If he wants a higher quality type of population in Singapore, then does he not realise that if he has a house - I am sure he has - he has got to employ servants or gardeners. Now what sort of quality of people does he want? He has a car. But who drives the car? Does anybody sit by his side in the car? Is the amount of remuneration the same? Why do they have a Government comprising the Cabinet? Why do they have Members elected to Parliament? Why do we have the white collar workers and blue collar workers? What sort of quality of the populace do you want to have? I do not understand that yardstick, and neither do many of my Friends on this side of the House. Therefore, the question is whether the Government is more concerned with human values of the society as a whole or whether Government is concerned with the efficiency of population control. The Minister has vigorously denied this, and he has given us some facts and figures. But from the facts and figures one can see that abortion is on the increase, whatever the age group. As I have said, this Bill actually means abortion on demand. If it is so, then I oppose it, because even though the Minister has vigorously tried to forestall the criticisms, the opponents to the Bill would say, "All right, if you have abortion on demand, then you are going to breed permissiveness." That is exactly so. Or can the Minister ascertain that this will not be so?

I would like to point out to Members of this House that it is my belief that a permissive society inevitably breeds permissiveness and promiscuity, a word which the Minister has been trying hard to pronounce. And promiscuity further breeds diseases like gonorrhoea and V.D. Incidentally he is also the Minister for Home Affairs. There are laws with heavy penalties and fines for those who indulge in drug-taking, drug peddling or drug pushing. He can therefore be likened to a pair of Siamese twins trying to outbox each other. We have a situation where one Ministry fights against drug trafficking, permissiveness, drug-taking and against increases in the incidence of V.D, and gonorrhoea. Campaigns have been mounted. And the other Ministry says, "Yes, by all means, have abortions." Where is the logic? I do not follow. I do not know whether the argument that I put forward today will stand the test of time. If not, he will come out and say, "it has not stood and will be swept into the dustbins of history."

If one looks up the 1969 debate on the Second Reading of the Abortion Bill, the Hon. Minister consistently fought back and declined a discussion of the points on what he called "religious or ethical dogmas". Any fundamental objection to the Bill was, he said, attributed to concealed religious premises, even though at least one of the Backbenchers, my good Friend the Member for Bras Basah, had said when he opposed the Bill in 1969 that he was a freethinker. I think he is still a freethinker, and he has just opposed this present Bill. If anyone wants to challenge the validity of my statement, Sir, I have got all the proof here. Sir, it is not yet five years since the last debate in December, 1969. My good Friend is sitting down and is enjoying a rest. Now, Sir, if any of the speakers on the Backbenches who had opposed the Bill had based their arguments on religious beliefs - for myself I have made it very clear and it is all in the Hansard - many of them did certainly base their objections on ethical considerations. I would expect the Hon. Minister to consider their opposing views rather than jumping the gun by forestalling their criticisms and saying that the opponents of this Bill would again come out with religious beliefs, religious dogmas and, may I say, "ethics", etc. - good, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education is here. In the schools today we teach ethics, we teach them what is right and what is wrong. In this august Chamber if a Member stands up and argues on the basis of ethics or ethical considerations, he would be shot down even before he is allowed to stand up to speak. Is this argument not considered as ethics? What sort of educational system do we want to evolve? If in the schools we teach ethics and, for ethical consideration in this august Chamber, what is the application? By the same measure. Therefore, this has given rise to a very curious situation, and as a result people sometimes ask me what we mean when we say "we are a pragmatic Government". They seem to think it means that we have no principles. In view of the refusal on the part of the Minister concerned even to discuss the ethical considerations of this Bill, can he blame the people for thinking in this way?

Just now the Minister quoted you, Sir, when you were a Backbencher. With due respect to you, Sir, he tried to hand you a bouquet. But on the other hand, you told him then in no uncertain terms - if the impression I gather from the Hansard is correct - you would rather call it the Abortion (Restrictive) Act. In other words, why not call it "white" and "white" only, rather than call it a shade of grey or black. Come out with it! Sir, you told him that a few years ago, and today he says, Sir, that when you were the Member for Joo Chiat you supported the Bill. In fact, I do not think you supported the Bill. You were quite frank when you said, "Look, if you want abortion, go ahead." Therefore, Sir, it would seem that whenever a question of ethics is raised, the Minister would be like an ostrich, burying his head in the sand and refusing even to look up to the argument. Sir, I am told that even the most obstinate or determined ostrich must come up for air. So we may still hope that the implications of this Bill will be examined rationally, impartially and without emotion. After all, if we were to think that the Minister is a man without any concern for ethical principles, we would surely be doing him an injustice. He does not, for example, propose to introduce a Bill allowing infanticide at the request of the parent in order to reduce the size of her family. This might be a quick and efficient way of reducing the size of the population, but he probably thinks that this manner of behaviour would be unethical.

Again, if I may be permitted to quote from Hansard, Vol. 28, col. 1040:

`A Bill of this nature, [that is, the present Act and not this particular Bill before the House] . , is not a licence for a permissive society. I have already stated in my opening speech that if the object is merely to remove the present restraints on abortion in the Penal Code, this Bill in its present form will not be necessary. And yet the opponents have not taken note of that.

Contrary to what the Member for Punggol has claimed, and I believe that the Member for Bras Basah has also claimed that Singapore, with the passing of the Abortion Bill, would become an abortion centre.'.

And again, he says in col. 1040:

`No community anywhere in the present world, irrespective of its political character, has ever thought of permitting the killing of human beings, as it is generally understood, be they sick, old, infirm, paralysed or totally decrepit.'

Sir, the Minister presumably thought that this would be an unethical way of acting. I have mentioned just now that, as Minister for Home Affairs, he is making strenuous efforts to stop drug-taking. Does he consider this an unethical practice? Unless the Minister wishes to be the complete ostrich, therefore, I think he will have to consider whether or not there is anything unethical about abortion. It is not a religious dogma or presumption of ethics. I opposed the former Bill because I was concerned about human values and that the then Bill would not be good for our country. I believe that the present Bill will be worse, and for the same reason I am opposing it. I do not intend to go into the philosophical aspect which the Minister dislikes so much. So let me put the matter in its simplest form to Members in this august Chamber. This Bill, if passed, and it will be passed because you, Sir, had mentioned in your speech that the Bill would finally be passed. That was true then and it is still true today. [Laughter] This is no laughing matter. Do not be too happy. Any woman who wishes to get rid of something inside her, something which is already a living thing and which, with due respect to you, Sir, if allowed to remain there and to develop would eventually emerge as a recognisable human being, just like any one of us. Is it not so? Can any one stand up and say that that thing has got no life? Note that I use the phrase "allowed to remain there to develop". Sir, as I said just now, with due respect to you and to my colleagues who are doctors and medical practitioners, when it comes to near full term there is the heart-beat of the child. Is that not a process in which a human being is subsequently born? Sir, I do not want to go into the rigmarole of philosophy, as I have said. But is there no consideration given to the question of human values? I would strongly urge the Minister, I understand his difficulty in the twin role as Minister for Health and Home Affairs, to reconsider in a rational, impartial way and without any emotion whatsoever the comments made by the many speakers just now. And let it not be said that there was no contradiction to the views exposed. What I would like to say for the purposes of record is this. I oppose the Bill in toto, Sir, as you had mentioned in the last part of your speech that "this Bill will be accepted in tow." If it is passed in toto, then on the same principle and for the same reason, I so oppose.

An hon. Member: Amen.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): (In Mandarin): Sir, the new Abortion Bill is a matter for grave concern, because it will lead to more serious social problems. In the past, people regarded abortion as a very serious matter and to be considered only as a last resort. The introduction of the present Abortion Bill will pave the way for more and more abortions, with the result that people will take to abortion easily. Consequently, there will be an undesirable social atmosphere and degradation of social morals. By that time unmarried women will not consider abortion as a cause for shame. Unmarried women will take to abortion as a very common matter and there will be promiscuity in our society. If we come to that stage, young girls will not take pregnancy very seriously. As the Minister has already pointed out, the concept of abortion in the minds of the people has become more enlightened. Perhaps parents will then tell their children, "Do not worry, go and get an abortion." What would become of our society then? What would become of human dignity then? Since it is our desire to build a healthy society of traditional values, we must maintain this dignity in our legislation by setting a high standard of social morals.

We are a small country that is not able to accommodate any increases in population. But to control population we can have proper family planning programmes and thus promote our national economy. I am sure all hon. Members in this House will support me on this point. On the other hand, Sir, we should not liberalise abortion law in Singapore because it is harmful to our society. When the first Abortion Bill was introduced five years ago to accommodate those people who wanted abortions because of financial or health reasons, that was understandable. The Minister has pointed out that the old legislation was effective. If so, it is therefore not necessary to bring in this new Abortion Bill to this House. I would therefore like to express my opposition to the new Bill.

5.46 p.m.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, several Members have raised certain points which, I think, need reply.

First of all, the Member for Anson who, unfortunately, is not here. He said something to the effect that abortion means killing the foetus and that amounts to killing a human life. That point has been repeated by some other Members who spoke against the Bill, e.g, the Member for Punggol. In fact, that was his only point - that abortion means killing the foetus, a human life. I have stated quite clearly in my opening speech that the question of whether or not a foetus under 24 weeks is human life is a matter which has been debated for centuries by learned people, both medical and non-medical. They could not come to any conclusion as to whether a foetus is human life, and therefore to equate abortion, i.e, the evacuation of the foetus from the womb, to killing, murder, or infanticide is something which cannot be accepted. Perhaps they have their own beliefs that it is human life. But there are others who do not think so. Therefore, as I have said, if we were to continue to argue this point till the cows come home, we will come back to where we started. But from the view of those who are in favour of legalised abortion, they are quite categorical about it. They do not consider that a foetus under 24 weeks of pregnancy is human life, for the simple reason that if a foetus comes out of the womb under 24 weeks, it will not be able to survive outside the mother's womb.

The Member for Anson made comments that some doctors are not happy to perform abortions. I have stated quite categorically here that there is a conscientious objection clause where nobody is forced or compelled to perform an abortion if he or she has a conscientious objection. Therefore, to say that doctors are unhappy or are compelled to perform an abortion is nonsense.

The Member for Bukit Ho Swee stated that abortion should be only a last resort and that we should encourage family planning. This is exactly what I have stated. In fact, over the last five years family planning has advanced to such an extent that nearly 90 per cent of our eligible population have accepted family planning. Therefore, legalised abortion which we are introducing today is a complement to family planning. It is not a substitute to family planning and it will not replace family planning.

Regarding the charges for abortion and the point that doctors should not be allowed to exploit their patients, as far as the Government hospitals are concerned, it is contained in the new Bill that a fee of $5 will be charged and no more. However, if private practitioners want to charge more, we cannot control them. So the pregnant woman has the choice of paying only $5 for an abortion in Government hospitals or paying more outside.

Coming to the Member for Bras Basah, he said that I implied in my speech that there was no risk in abortion. That was not what I stated. I said that we recognise the risk not only now but also five years ago, and that is the reason why we have certain safeguards - that it must be done under absolutely safe conditions. That is why we said that if abortions are done outside the hospitals, they must be done by competent doctors and in institutions which are approved by the Ministry of Health as being capable of doing safe abortions. It is because we were very thoughtful about the need for safe abortions that I am glad to say after 4½ years of operation of the Act that there was not one single mortality, nor was there any disablement resulting from legalised abortions. As opposed to this, an illegal abortion, as you know, often turns septic and the woman dies. So it is not true to say that we do not recognise the risk. It is because we were able to maintain a good record of no incident of mortality and morbidity in cases of legalised abortion that we are preserving the same safeguards in this new Bill. That is to say, if abortions are to be done outside the Government hospitals, they must be done in approved institutions and by doctors who have the skill and experience in abortion.

Let me now come to the Member for Potong Pasir. There again, the Member for Potong Pasir mentioned about murder and infanticide. As I have already said, it is a matter of belief -whether you believe that a foetus under 24 weeks is human or not. If you do not believe that it is human, then of course there is no case of infanticide when an abortion is done.

About promiscuity and permissiveness, and so on, I have stated that after 4½ years of operation of the Act, there has not been any lowering of moral standards or permissiveness as a result of legalising abortion. There may be other causes, but certainly not because of abortion.

The other point is about repeat abortions. I have stated quite categorically that repeat abortions have remained as low as 6.5 per cent, as compared with other countries like Japan, Sweden, and the UK where it is much higher.

Another point is about education to reduce population growth. I think I must answer that. It is quite clear that family planning efforts will continue, and I have stated in my opening speech that we are only offering abortion as a last resort and as an important complement to a comprehensive family planning programme.

As far as the Member for Katong is concerned, he has made certain remarks which, I think, are very diplomatic. On the whole, I do not disagree with his sentiments. In fact, some of the things he has stated are not contrary to what I have stated in my opening speech. He has stated that it is a vexed question. Yes, of course it is a vexed question. He has stated that there must be effective Government propaganda and so on and so forth to propagate these matters. Of course, if the Government thinks it is good, it will propagate it; whether it is accident-free, family planning or crime-free campaign, it will be done. But, of course, it does not mean that those who oppose abortion cannot themselves conduct their own campaign to persuade people not to have abortions.

The other point he said was something about adequate counselling for those who are forced to have abortions. I have mentioned in my opening speech that the Family Planning and Population Board has made it a point to give adequate counselling to those who go for abortions. In fact, I have quoted figures and perhaps I may repeat that there has been adequate counselling or what they call post-abortal counselling. May I just repeat:

`Further, there is evidence to suggest that overall contraceptive practice improved since the liberalisation of abortions, due to post-abortal family planning counselling.

To quote figures in support. In 1972 there were 788 post-abortal sterilizations. This works out to about 14 per cent of the total number of sterilizations in 1972. In 1973 the number of post-abortal sterilizations rose to 2,056 which works out to 23 per cent of the total number of sterilizations in that year. In 1972 there were 428 new family planning acceptors through post-abortal motivation. This works out to about 2.4 per cent of the total number of new acceptors in 1972. In 1973 the number of new acceptors through post-abortal motivation rose to 483 which works out to 2.5 per cent of the total number of new acceptors in that year.

It is therefore clear that contraceptive practice is the accepted and preferred mode of limiting the number of children in families.'

So it is quite clear that abortion is, so far, a last resort. After abortion there is post-abortal counselling, so that the people will accept family planning methods, whether it be the pill or sterilization. So it is not true that we do not do anything about counselling a woman who goes for abortion.

But what I would like to say is this. The views of those who oppose abortions, whether they be on ethical or religious grounds, are respected. I have made that quite clear five years ago and again today. But they should not impose upon others who do not have such ethical or religious beliefs. If a woman's conscience and religious belief permit her to have an abortion, why should we deny her an abortion? Who are we to deny? On the other hand, if her conscience and religious belief do not allow her to have an abortion, nobody is forcing that woman to have an abortion. It was quite clearly stated in the Bill five years ago, and it is repeated in the present Bill, that no one can on penalty or punishment coerce a woman to have an abortion against her will.

Coming to the Member for Punggol, unfortunately he is not here. With his rather rambling dissertation, I have tried my best to comprehend him, but I am afraid I could only comprehend a little of what he has been saying. First of all, he took objection to my reference to the opposing stand that found itself in the dustbins of history. I was just quoting what I said five years ago. That was all. I never said that opponents of that Bill should be cast into the dustbins of history. I do respect the views opposing the Bill, whether they be on religious grounds or on ethical grounds.

He also mentioned about someone being an ostrich. I do not know who is the ostrich, he or I. But the point is this. He keeps on quoting what I said five years ago. It is very nice to hear what you have stated five years ago. But by doing so he has forgotten that we are now debating a new Bill and not the existing Act.

He also said something about forestalling arguments and so on. If his arguments had been forestalled by my opening speech, I am afraid I cannot help it. He mentioned something about "abortion on demand". Yes, of course, five years ago, the Bill then did not allow abortion on demand. I had explained quite clearly in my opening speech that we then had no experience in abortions. We had to make certain assumptions. We had to learn from the experience of other countries. We were cautious because, as I said, there might be valid arguments then and, therefore, we did not agree to abortion on demand then. But now it is a different matter. Times have changed and we have gathered 4½ years of experience. We have all the facts and figures to prove our point.

He also brought up another point about raising and lowering the total quality of our population. He does not seem to understand the meaning of those terms. May I just explain? If we have unwanted children around, they will, as the Member for Bukit Ho Swee said, degenerate into delinquents, drug addicts, and so on. Therefore, do we increase the total quality of our population by having unwanted children around?

I now come to the Member for Sembawang. On the matter of promiscuity, permissiveness and so on, there is no proof that abortions have caused promiscuity and permissiveness. In fact, all the predictions that were made five years ago did turn out to be correct.

Lastly, the Member for Sembawang talked about the degradation of social morals, human dignity, and so on. Do we raise the quality of human dignity if we have a lot of unwanted children around?

Mr Baptist rose -

Mr Speaker: Is the Member rising on a point of clarification?

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

Mr Speaker: All right.

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

Mr Chua Sian Chin: The answer is no.

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

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to clarify one point. When I spoke just now, perhaps the Minister was not fast enough to grasp my point. He seemed to have misunderstood the essence of my speech, or perhaps he intentionally twisted what I said or distorted what I said.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I said was that the introduction of the new Bill would create an undesirable atmosphere in our society and would lower the standard of morals of our society. The people will take promiscuity lightly, and consequently our social and moral standards will be gradually lowered. The Minister also referred to higher figures of abortions in the European countries. It would appear that in his view it does not matter what happens to Singapore. I do not know whether it is his intention to make Singapore a second Denmark or a second Sweden. If that is the case, then it will be too bad for Singapore.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether I was not fast enough to grasp his point or whether he was not fast enough to grasp my point. But the point is this. I have never said that we want Singapore to be a second Sweden or a second Denmark. I have never said that. I said that our figure of abortions carried out on unmarried mothers is low compared with the other countries. But I am not saying that we must bring it up. That is what the Member for Sembawang wants to interpret it, and he talked about twisting. I do not know who is twisting.

The other point is that the Member for Sembawang was positive when he said that this new Bill would lower the moral standards and all the pontifications and so on. I do not know how the Member for Sembawang could make that statement. Has he got any facts and figures to substantiate it? I have said earlier that the same arguments were put forward five years ago when the first Abortion Bill was being debated in this Chamber - arguments that abortion would cause moral decline and so on and so forth. But five years after, i.e, today, has it resulted in any moral decline?

The Member for Potong Pasir has brought up the argument whether the foetus is a human life or not. He is entitled to his belief. As I have said, learned men have for centuries debated this point. We know that it is a biological fact that the foetus remains to be born, but under 24 weeks is it human or is it not human? Learned men are still debating it. Of course, the Member for Potong Pasir is entitled to his view, and so are other people who may not agree with him. I accept abortion as a fact of life, otherwise we cannot go on from there. The Member for Potong Pasir can keep on arguing until the cows come home. This is where the matter lies. The only thing we can do is to agree to disagree.

The other point of the Member for Potong Pasir is the figures. I think I have answered it partly when answering the points raised by the Member for Sembawang. I presume the Member for Potong Pasir referred to the figures which I have distributed. Was he referring to increased repeat abortions or was it abortions on unmarried mothers?

Mr Baptist: Both.

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

Lastly, the Member for Potong Pasir said about education on sexual abstinence and so on, or some study of that nature.

Mr Baptist: It speaks for itself.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Whatever his proposal is, it speaks for itself.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Chua Sian Chin].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.