Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Order read for resumption of debate on Question [8th April, 1969], "That the Bill
be now read a Second time."
3.10 p.m.
Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng (Joo Chiat): Mr Speaker, Sir, my auditory receptors have been
subjected to so much convincing oration in the past two days that I have almost
become converted to the idea that an Abortion Bill is urgently required in Singapore.
The macabre description given by the Minister for Health of the harms inflicted on
some of our women folk by back-alley abortionists, and the soul-searching
communication by the Minister for Communications make me wonder if this
Abortion Bill, as it stands, would be sufficient to meet the needs of thousands of
women requiring medical termination of unwanted pregnancies. Will the Bill, as it is,
eradicate the parasites in the medical world who thrive on the miseries and
anxieties of women wanting abortions? Will this Bill, with its restrictive clauses,
permit pregnant women openly to seek medical attention? I have the suspicion that
this is not going to be the case. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy is usually a
desperate woman. She wants the pregnancy aborted as soon as possible. Do you
really think, Mr Speaker, Sir, that she will have the patience to wait for her case to
be reviewed by an Authorisation Board? And how long will it take the members of
this Board to decide on such a case if the Board is snowed under with hundreds of
applications per week? She would surely find some back-alley abortionist to do the
job for her as this can be done on the same day of her visit.
3.12 p.m.
If, as the Minister for Health has stated, it is the fundamental right of
Column: 1015
a woman to decide when she is going to have her babies, obviously the Bill is not
liberal enough. If the Minister is sincere on this fundamental right, then abortion on
demand is definitely indicated and should be legalised. I take it that when the
Minister talked of this fundamental right of women, he was only confining his
remarks to our citizens. Yet in clause 5 (8) of the Bill, our female citizens residing
outside Singapore will not be entitled to this fundamental right to have an abortion.
This is also applicable to wives of citizens who happen to reside abroad at the time
of unwanted pregnancies.
Sir, last year when the Minister for Health spoke of liberalising the law on abortion
as a complement to family planning, I said to myself, "Here is a daring, outspoken
and most up-to-date Minister." I thought he was going to introduce an Abortion Bill
that will be an all-out Abortion Bill. Alas this is not so.
Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng: I suspect the Minister and his advisers have a lot of qualms
about recommending legalised abortion. Otherwise, why are there so many
restrictive clauses? This Bill will not eradicate our back-alley abortionists who will
still create all the horrifying complications so clearly illustrated by the Minister.
Sir, much reference has been made in this House to the medical practitioners. I
am not going to make excuses for them nor am I going to explain the reasons for
any divergent views held by some of them. The medical profession is noble enough
to weather any storm, political or otherwise. Let me, however, point out that
medical practitioners are not economists and thus do not have the vision or perhaps
the acquired ability to visualise the socioeconomic reasons for abortion. As citizens,
a great majority of them will appreciate the humanitarian reasons for legalised
abortion. Like the rest of the
Column: 1016
citizens, there is a minority among them who are beset by religious scruples and
this has been the bane of the Minister for Health's life. Surely this minority of
medical practitioners are free to express their views on abortion. I respect their
views and I hope the Minister for Health will do likewise.
Sir, if abortion is legalised it will be the medical practitioners who will be doing
the operation and not the politicians. Thus, I feel it is completely justified for my
medical colleagues to air their opinions on a step which they will be taking, a step
that is so completely radical to what they are ac customed to.
Finally, I have the feeling that no matter what we say, this Bill will be accepted in
toto by the House. If this is going to be so, then may I suggest amending the title of
this Bill to read "Abortion (Restrictive) Bill". If this is so amended, then the Bill may
be more acceptable in its title as it will indicate what it is really meant to be, that is,
legalised abortion will be allowed only for medical, legal and socio-economic
reasons and not on demand.
3.20 p.m.
Mr Conceicao: Sir, after listening to the Member for Joo Chiat, I am glad that the
Minister for Health - if indeed the Member for Joo Chiat is correct -has had qualms
about complete and unrestricted availability of abortion.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
3.21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take this opportunity sincerely to congratulate the Minister
for Health on his able marshalling of arguments in justification of this Bill. In
particular, I must express my admiration, perhaps not so sincerely, for the way he
anticipated opposing arguments, especially those based on religious and ethical
grounds. However, I do not agree that he has, as he inferred, disposed of those
arguments. They are,
Column: 1017
as he mentioned, a matter of view-point, and I am sure he will agree that no viewpoint can be rendered sick simply because the Minister for Health says so.
The Minister for Health (Mr Chua Sian Chin): I do not say that!
Mr Conceicao: May I hasten to add, Sir, that I do not wish to discuss the
metaphysics of abortion, but I rise to ask several questions -
Mr Conceicao: - and to seek clarification on some aspects of the Bill before the
House.
Referring to the comment by the Minister just now, Mr Speaker, Sir, on previous
occasions you took me to task for making speeches when I was supposed to ask
questions, but I hope the Minister will allow me to ask questions now that I am
supposed to make a speech.
I want to urge every possible safeguard and caution in the implementation of any
reforms in the law relating to abortion. I would venture to say that the Abortion Bill,
in its present form, justifies that caveat which I am entering.
I would like first to refer to clause 5 (2) which specifies the grounds on which
abortion may be permitted.
Column: 1018
skill, rather than on flimsy grounds of faith. A theological virtue, Sir, to which
perhaps the Minister does not subscribe.
Column: 1019
Continuing, Sir, if I may labour on a particular aspect of this clause, may I ask
what is meant by "risk to the mental health of the pregnant woman"? Indications of
this sort are notoriously un predictable. They are just as unpredictable as what
would happen if a mentally unstable person does procure an abortion. Referring to a
conference on abortion held in Washington, the United States of America, in
September 1967, under the auspices of the Kennedy Foundation and the Harvard
Divinity School, one of the conferees remarked on the vagueness of the
psychiatrists present about the indications that justify abortion on grounds of
damage to mental health. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am merely mentioning this reference to
underline my own view about the vagueness of the term "mental health" in the
clause I am discussing.
Sub-clause (2) (b) of clause 5 also stipulates that an abortion may be permitted, if
it is the opinion formed in good faith that the environment of the pregnant woman,
both at the time when the child would be born and thereafter, so far as is
foreseeable, justifies such an operation. What I would like to know is what "so far as
is foreseeable" means. Presumably we shall have to depend on the foresight of the
Authorisation Board. Where social work experience is concerned, in the technical
sense of the term, the majority of the Board members will be lay people: there will
be one member (who shall be female) who has had experience in social welfare
work, besides the Director of Social Welfare. And the opinion of these members,
with social work experience, could be over-ruled in one direction or another by the
medical members of the Board, if supported by another lay member. What I am
pointing out is that the weight of responsibility will fall upon medical people, where
the grounds to determine whether an abortion may be performed will be essentially
non-medical grounds.
Column: 1020
woolly cloud over this so-called environmental clause. But I must express my
misgivings where environmental considerations may be determined by a caucus of
persons who are not social workers.
Is the Minister aware that when a similar so-called "social clause" was brought up
before the British Parliament, the British Medical Association and the Royal College
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (the Minister for Health has on one occasion
resorted to the views of the latter august body) had opposed this provision on the
grounds that physicians might be un qualified or unwilling to pass judgment on nonmedical aspects of a case?
There are indeed those who believe that initial distress and reasons may not be
sufficient to warrant an abortion, and that case work investigations should be
carried out to determine the circumstances. It should be hoped that, when the
occasion for the imple mentation of this Bill does come, great care will be taken to
ascertain the seriousness of the circumstances that may be said to justify an
abortion. I do not see in this Bill in its current form that there is any guarantee that
a laissez-faire attitude will not be adopted: in fact, that there will not be abortion on
demand that will be the effect of this Bill, as it stands.
May I pass on to sub-clause (2) (c) of clause 5? Here, at least, there is the
qualification "substantial" to the word "risk", and "seriously" to the word
"handicapped". Would that such qualifications had been entered in sub-clause (2)
(a) . However, if I may refer to this sub-clause (2) (c) , I hope that abortion
recommended on genetic or eugenic grounds will not deteriorate into abortion
permitted in a sort of generic manner. For what is meant by substantial risk of
physical or mental abnormalities? Would 30 per cent chance of abnormality be
adequate to warrant abortion? Or 50 per cent? Under such circumstances, would
there not also be the risk of a healthy foetus being destroyed? What is the extent of
wastage that would result
Column: 1021
I shall refrain from commenting on sub-clause (2) (d) at this stage, Sir. I would like
to deal with sub-clause (3) of clause 5. Here it is stated that two general
practitioners (registered, of course) may decide on termination of pregnancy
without the authorisation of the Board. Do I take it that these two general
practitioners would also be qualified to determine the psychiatric condition of the
pregnant woman and to perform an abortion on the ground that this will have less
deleterious consequences on the mental health of the pregnant woman than
ultimate delivery of the child?
Again, Sir, in sub-clause (5) we discover that only one medical practitioner
(registered - but he need not possess psychiatric qualifications) is sufficient to
decide, on mental health grounds, that an abortion is immediately necessary. Is this
an adequate safeguard? Furthermore, in clause 10, sub-clause (3) , a general
practitioner, who may have conscientious scruples against abortion (and whose
religious convic tions the Minister says should be respected), may be forced into a
position where he must determine that an abortion is immediately necessary to
prevent grave permanent injury to the mental health of a pregnant woman.
Now may I touch on the clause related to incest and rape? May I point out that
this clause was originally included in the English Abortion Bill,
Column: 1022
but was removed by the sponsors themselves for legal reasons that rape is
notoriously easy to allege and difficult to prove. We have an apparent resort to a
What I am trying to do is to distinguish the heat from the light in the controversy
over abortion. That there is justification for liberalising the law related to abortion in
the view of those who are not affected by conscientious religious scruples (which we
must also respect) I have no doubt. All I say is that we must proceed cautiously. It
would have been far better if a systematic investigation had been carried out by the
Ministry of Health to disclose objectively what would be for the good of the com
munity. But certain difficulties are obvious, and time is a major consideration. Thus
for the next four or five years we are experimenting with a social situation. And in
such circumstances adequate control must be exercised.
The Minister for Health has made a most important statement on the abortion
issue. But to underline the caution which I feel about the Bill, I would like to enter
certain reservations about certain things that he has said. I agree with him that we
want to provide a healthy social environment in which to bring up our children.
Certainly our society cannot afford to breed delinquents, criminals and antisocial
elements. But I must certainly question the generalisation, as he states it, that such
types are mainly derived
Column: 1023
from the ranks of unwanted children, the illegitimate and broken homes. I am sure
there must be broken homes in which no abortion has ever taken place. Is the
Minister trying to say that abortion will reduce delinquency? Can he substantiate
with data that the crime rate in countries which permit abortion is necessarily less
than in those countries which do not permit it? He has referred to the annual figure
of one million illegal abortions in the United States. There are people who dispute
this figure as grossly exaggerated. But we will accept the authority which he
quoted. Does he conjecture that the crime rate in America would have shot up
without these abortions? Has he any indication of the crime rate among those who
have procured abortions? He has said that promiscuity and indeed I might add other
forms of delinquency are matters that must depend on the moral fibre and
character of the individual and the type of society that the individual comes from. I
agree whole heartedly with him.
Now, Sir, may I refer to this question of the life of the foetus? I would normally be
reluctant to engage myself in philosophical discussions of this sort. But the Minister
himself has mentioned this aspect. May I refer to the opinion of Norman St. JohnStevas, an English M.P, who was prominent in the debate on Abortion in the English
Parliament? St. John-Stevas writes in a journal called America, 9th December, 1967.
He says:
'It is worth noting that the final form of the (English Abortion) Bill left abortion as
a crime but selected certain conditions under which it was considered justifiable.
This form is important, since it recognises, even in attenuated form, respect for the
sanctity of life.'
It may be of interest to note also that one gynacologist wrote in the Times, 5th
December, 1966, "that the embryo becomes genetically complete at the time of
conception though only microscopic in size. It is uncommon," he continued, "for a
woman to present
Column: 1024
herself for abortion before about 12 weeks, by which time these tiny foetuses are
not amorphous masses of protoplasm, but are beautifully formed, move around
freely in their sac of fluid, respond to noxious stimuli and evoke the same emotional
response from theatre staff, as does the delivery of a full-term baby, followed by
quietness and a sense of tragedy because a life has been destroyed." This
emotional response was also described to me independently by a local surgeon,
who is not a Catholic and who supports generally the Government's stand on
abortion.
Presumably this is the same sort of emotional response that one would get should
one visit Woodbridge to see for oneself the pitiful plight of mongols and mental
defectives.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would venture to say that there is profound sorrow to be felt in
both cases over the harsh objective facts of life. Our Government wishes to reflect
what our people want, and to do what is good for them. My view is that our people
in general want a moderate measure of abortion law reform, and not abortion too
freely available. I think this latter caution results from a belief that grave con
sideration must also be given to the life of the unborn child.
Any piece of legislation has an educational impact. This Bill must adequately
reinforce in the minds of our people that human life in all circumstances must be
treated with compassion. It is this consideration that has led me to seek the various
clarifications I have sought. I find it encouraging that in its exercise of the art of the
possible, our Government, in respect of this Bill, is referring it to Select Committee,
and that a period of four or five years' grace will be given to study the effects of this
Bill, inasmuch also as this Bill itself has had, according to the previous Minister for
Health, a gestation period of two years.
Column: 1025
'Leaving out of account the difficulties which may be associated with the decision
to terminate a pregnancy there still remain problems as to who should perform the
operation, who should give the ansthetic and where it should be performed.
hands is more dangerous than the public and many doctors appreciate. This is
especially so with a woman, pregnant for the first time.'
Here again I would like to refer the Minister for Health to an article entitled
Legalised abortion: Report by the Council of the Royal College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists from which the following quotation is taken.
'In Scandinavia operative rates for legalised abortion initially varied from 0.9 to
3.5 per thousand cases; more recent figures put the mortality rate for Denmark at
0.7 per thousand which is still nearly three times as high as the present mortality
rate (including abortions) for England and Wales. Mortality rates of 0.3 to 0.6 per
thousand reported from countries in Eastern Europe are difficult to reconcile with
experience in Northern Europe and in Britain.'
The reason why I am quoting this is that the other day the Minister mentioned
several cases of women with unwanted pregnancies, but he did not state over a
period of how many years that the cases were recorded at Kandang Kerbau
Hospital.
Column: 1026
'During 1962 when there was an estimated number of 2,800 therapeutic abortion
operations carried out in National Health Service Hospitals, four deaths following
therapeutic abortion were registered with the Registrar General and three of these
were the subject of confidential enquiries.'
Quoting again from the same report with regard to immediate morbidity resulting
in abortion:
'Non-fatal serious complications occur in not less than 3 per cent of cases of
legalised abortion induced by experts under modern conditions, and morbidity rates
as high as 15 per cent are reported. Immediate complications include haemorrhage,
rupture of the uterus, salpingitis, peritonitis, septicaemia, renal failure, thrombosis
and embolism.'
Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the risks and ill effects of legalised abortion apparent
in these quotations, let us not forget that the operation, even when done in hospital,
is not without risk.
Professor Kobayashi said that out of 1,026 women who had undergone induced
abortion, 68 per cent showed some kind of regret and fear of the experience.
Evidently, it was a desperate measure taken by a people whose culture and
temperament had bred other desperate practices such as hara-kiri and kamikaze
suicide techniques. But the population problem m Singapore is nowhere like the
post-war Japanese situation. Our birth rate has been steadily falling since 1959 from
Column: 1027
39 to 28.6 per thousand in 1966. The rate of fall has accelerated even further since
the formation of the Family Planning and Population Board and the birth rate for the
first six months of 1967 shows a 13 per cent fall over the same period in 1966.
There would appear to be no cause for alarm and for the adoption of desperate
measures such as abortion.
Regarding the objection of a certain section of the public to the Bill on religious
grounds, I am aware that some Members of this House may take the worldly stand
that in the rugged society of Singapore, religious principles have no relevance
where such principles are incompatible with the political and economic development
of Singapore. To such persons who have made success their god, it is natural that
religious principles may be dismissed as super stitious beliefs. All the same, it is
very much to be regretted if our society is to be developed along the lines that the
amount of respect to be accorded to any principles is to be determined in terms of
money that the principles can earn for us. If such a society was already a fact in
Singapore, I would have no
Column: 1028
Column: 1029
Members of this House may be aware that Russia after the Communist Revolution
enacted a law to provide for and to facilitate abortion on the ground that by
releasing women from labour in bed they will be freed for labour in factories. It is
not surprising that not long afterwards the Russian Government reversed its edict
on the grounds that women are more useful to the state in the production of human
beings than in the proluction of factory goods.
Similarly, in the same cynical spirit the Nazi Government of Germany enacted
stringent legislation against abortion on the ground that it is the sacred duty of a
German woman to augment the Teutonic race.
My point is that when laws relating to the preservation of human life are
tampered with, it is the beginning of the end of the right to exist as a human being.
It is with totalitarian regimes that we associate the control and regulation of the
functions of a woman's body for the ultimate glorification of a metaphysical entity
known as the "State". Admittedly the abortion envisaged by the Bill is strictly
voluntary. But the process of transition from "voluntary" to "compulsory" is invidious
and subtle. And therein lies the valid basis for fear on religious grounds.
Column: 1030
decreased by the knowledge that some abortions that a doctor is made to do may
not be necessary at all. Should abortion laws be liberalised, it cannot be assumed
that doctors will kill off as many foetuses as demanded with impunity. Carl Muller,
Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University of Berne, recently
commented:
'In countries where abortion is entirely legal and a doctor may have to undertake
an enormous number of operations on healthy women during a single day, it can
happen that he breaks down and needs psychiatric help. It seems that for these
mass abortions a special robot-like constitution is needed, which every doctor does
not possess. Some authors from the Communist states have ascribed the increase
in complications after abortion in part to 'signs of exhaustion' in the operator.'
In countries where abortion is permitted for medical reasons only, the doctor has
to assess each case carefully. When the situation requires it, he will perform the
abortion. Liberalising the law on abortion can only serve to blunt the desire to he
conscientious by removing the need to be so. In serving his patients, a doctor's
ethics should be judged not only by what he will do for them but also by what he
feels he cannot do.
'...I will ... abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no
deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; furthermore, I
will not give to a woman an instrument to produce abortion ...'
It is also expected that the demand on our medical facilities would continue to be
pressing despite the effort of the Government to enlarge and increase such facilities
to keep pace with the demand.
Column: 1031
It appears reasonable to conclude that with the liberalisation of the law on abortion,
the demand on our inadequate and , overworked hospital and medical facilities and
staff would become more unbearable. Without going into the pros and cons of
medical objections to the liberalisation of the law on abortion, I am sure that
Members in the House will agree with me that if this Bill is intended as a means of
population control, then I think it should be thrown into the Singapore River.
The reason I have to stress over and over again the precise purpose of this Bill is
that if the objective of the Bill is inchoate or incoherent, the Bill itself cannot be
otherwise. Its purpose is bound to manifest itself in the particular provisions of the
Bill in the way in which particular remedies are proposed for the prevention of
mischief which this Bill is intended to regulate and which may be anticipated to
arise after its enactment. For instance, let us refer now to clause 5 of the Bill which
forms the operative provisions . Sub-clause (2) of the proposed clause states the
four grounds on which the Board may authorise treatment to terminate pregnancy.
The grounds in paragraphs (a) , (c) and (d) are quite acceptable in so far as the
purpose of the Bill is to rationalise the laws relating to abortion.
Column: 1032
any danger that may result to the physical or mental health of a pregnant woman if
abortion is performed. If it is the intention of the Government to liberalise the law on
abortion for the sake of abortion, then it is irrelevant to introduce any such
restrictions as contained in sub-clause (2) . But if it is the intention of the
Government to rationalise the laws relating to abortion, then it is unjustified in
introducing an unduly wide ground for abortion. As I see it, any law which has the
specific objective of rationalising the situation relating to abortion in Singapore,
should spell out regulations for the control of the manner and mode of performance
of abortion to safeguard the life and health of persons who have to undergo
abortion. By seeking to place restrictions on the circumstances in which abortion
may be performed, the law would be lending itself to the creation of circumstances
which would enable the illegal abortionists to carry on with their trade, which is a
mischief this Bill is supposed to prevent.
The confusion that seems to charactense the drafting of this Bill is further shown
when the provisions of sub-clause (2) of clause 5 are compared with the provisions
of sub-clauses (3) and (5) thereof. Sub-clause (3) is to the effect that a registered
practitioner, after consultation with another in a Government hospital or in an
approved institution, may perform an abortion on the ground mentioned in
paragraph (a) of sub-clause (2) of clause 5 without the prior authorisation of the
Board. Sub-clause (5) is to the effect that any registered medical practitioner may
perform an abortion without the prior authorisation of the Board if he is of the
opinion formed in good faith that the abortion is im mediately necessary to save the
life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the
pregnant woman. As I see it, there is nothing to prevent a woman who is
determined to terminate her pregnancy from putting up a convincing show before
the registered medical practitioner to enable him to form the opinion in good faith
that it is immediately necessary to perform an abortion to prevent grave
Column: 1033
Members of this House may recall a certain incident, which was widely reported
in the local press a few years back, about an English woman who worked herself
into a hysterical fit in order to justify the abortion of her unborn baby who might
have been deformed as a result of a certain drug taken by her. Moreover, the Bill
does not contain any provision to prevent a woman from repeatedly having
abortions performed on her. I should think it is reasonable to require that, where the
woman is married or cohabiting with a man, she attends a course at the family
planning clinic after she has undergone an abortion. In my view, sub-clause (5) of
clause 5 of this Bill is tantamount to making abortion permissible in all
circumstances. The provisions of sub-clause (5) seem to place a great deal of faith
on the integrity of the members of the medical profession in Singapore. With all due
respect to them and also to Members of this House who are members of this
honourable profession, my impression is that most of the practitioners in the illegal
Column: 1034
Then in paragraph (a) of sub-clause (2) of clause 8, it is stated that only the
consent in writing of the applicant over eighteen years of age is required. That
means a married woman, who is over eighteen years old and who is not insane or
feeble-minded, does not have to consult her husband regarding the abortion of their
unborn child. Where the husband has strong religious objection to abortion and
where abortion has been permitted under paragraph (h) of sub-clause (2) of clause
(8) , a domestic dispute is bound to arise between the husband and the wife in such
circumstances. Is it the intention of the Govern ment to 1e1 in such domestic
dispute as a ground for divorce? I should think it is not only reasonable but also
logical to provide for the consent of the husband when abortion is to be approved.
Even in family planning, consent is required of both parties.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour (Mr S. Rajaratnam): No!
Column: 1035
control, if it is the intention to have a Bill to liberalise the laws relating to abortion, it
would have been better for the Bill not to restrict the grounds on which abortion
may be performed but to control and regulate the persons by whom or the manner
by which abortion is to be performed. With the impression that the Bill has an
ulterior motive of promoting birth control, it is legitimate for persons with religious
principles to fear that this Bill is a forerunner of other Bills which seek to legalise the
murder of persons who cease to be capable of making a useful contribution to the
life and econonly of the society in which we live.
Mr Ho See Beng: It is a reasonable fear which the Government has not effectively
dealt with by sponsoring a Bill which supposedly liberalises the law relating to
abortion and, at the same time, does not effectively deal with the mischief which it
is supposed to remedy.
In taking a stand against the Abortion Bill, I am convinced that any little gain from
liberalising the law on abortion will be more than offset by the losses. I am in
complete agreement with Professor Tow Siang Hwa who suggested at a forum in the
University of Singapore recently that the population in Singapore can confidently be
solved and any future anticipated explosion can be averted by the following steps:
Firstly, a redoubling of the present family planning effort with greater attention to
personal contact and follow-up.
Column: 1036
4.20 p.m.
Abortion is a complex and deep-rooted social and economic problem, its solution
requires social, economic, medical and educational measures. It cannot be solved
by doctors wielding curettes.
Thirdly, why do the Government not allow the Parliamentary Secretaries a free
vote as well?
The fourth question is, who are going to be appointed to the Select Committee on
the Abortion Bill? If the Minister's cronies are appointed, the opponents of the Bill
are done for.
Column: 1037
The fifth question is this. Does the Abortion Bill also apply to foreigners who come
here? They will know about it and come here. The Minister should clarify this point.
My last question is about the ceiling of the fee. What is it? Is it $5? If it is $5, and
there is no stipulation in the Bill to prevent foreigners from taking advantage of this
Bill, then our medical staff are going to be worked to death. I think it is reasonable
for the Minister to provide some safeguards against this in the Bill. Another question
is, how can the Minister check against illegal abortions, since the Bill is drafted in
such a way that abortion is given not as of right or as of demand? How will the backstreet abortionist be checked?
4.20 p.m.
Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, as has been expected, clearly divergent
views on the Bill have been expressed by hon. Members in the course of the debate.
As has also been expected, the opponents of the Bill have taken up and repeated
the familiar arguments usually expressed by those who oppose legalised abortion.
Of course, they have put forward their arguments in a different style and form often
by the rearrangement of the language. Furthermore, some have even attempted to
conceal the fact that their arguments spring primarily from their religious and
ethical dogmas which are based on one single debatable hypothesis - that abortion
is the destruction of the foetus which is human life or the beginning of human life
and is, therefore, bad. That is a debatable hypothesis. Some, like the Member for
Paya Lebar, even went further and alleged that by introducing the Abortion Bill we
are trying to legislate to kill children. How interesting it is to note that one has just
to stretch such an argument a little, to end up in an apparent absurdity, as has
happened with the allegation of the Member for Paya Lebar which I have just
mentioned.
Column: 1038
learned medical journals in the hope of concealing the fact that their arguments
spring from their fundamental religious conviction, as in the case of the Member for
Punggol as well as some others. By the rigmarole of old familiar arguments that the
protection of the individual must extend to the unborn child, that the destruction of
the foetus affects the humane feeling for life, and that the liberalisation of the law
on abortion in other countries has not reduced the number of illegal abortions, the
Member for Punggol seeks to give the impression that he is taking a purely
humanitarian stand and not a religious one. Unfortunately, he lets the cat out of the
bag by his statement, and I quote, "On what grounds does the Government seek to
reverse a long-held tradition of our society about the right to life of the unborn
child? Is it on the grounds that this foetus is not human, and therefore does not
enjoy the right to life which is embodied in our law? If this is the view of those who
wish to liberalise our abortion laws, then it is up to them to prove it, for the weight
of evidence lies heavily against them." So says the Member for Punggol. He should
know, however, that the issue he has raised is within the realms of religious
hypothesis and dogmas on which mankind has disagreed for centuries.
Unfortunately for the people who have raised these arguments to cover what, in
effect, are arguments which spring from religious and ethical dogmas, I have
already forestalled these arguments. I think I have adequately disposed of them
under the category of opposition views based on religion in my opening address. I
remember that I ended my speech under the head of religious objections by stating
that it is futile to allow ourselves to be involved in religious arguments for or against
abortion which, in any case, will never result in any satisfactory conclusions, even if
the debate goes on till the cows come home. However cleverly these opponents
build their case around their religious dogmas with a view to justifying them, often
quoting from learned authorities ad lib in order to give the
Column: 1039
trappings of being scientific, the significant fact to notice is the lack of facts and
figures to back up these theoretical arguments.
In spite of my having anticipated the arguments opposing the Bill and classifying
them into three distinct categories - first, religious arguments; second, ethical,
moral and social reasons; and third, medical reasons - and I have systematically
disposed of them - the arguments brought up by Members of the House who oppose
the Bill have unfortunately been repetitions of the same old familiar arguments.
What I, therefore, propose to do now is to touch on some of them and Members may
like to refer to my speech which I made on moving the Second Reading of the Bill, in
rebuttal of the rest of their arguments.
The first point I would like to touch upon is that made by the opponents
concerning the arguments on the destruction of life. The Member for Punggol, the
Member for Paya Lebar, the Member for Jurong, the Member for Moulmein and, I
think, the Member for Bras Basah say that the unborn foetus is human life and that
abortion amounts to the killing of life. In the course of their debate, this concept has
been extended as reflecting a lack of respect for human life, built on the hypothesis
that such lack of respect will lead to social and moral decline with consequent
deterioration in the moral character of the people. So they say. The premises on
which such arguments have developed are medieval and we can argue till the cows
come home without reaching any agreement on this point. Tn law, the unborn
foetus is not life as it is understood, for no abortionist in any community has been
charged with murder for the destruction of the foetus. The extensions of the
arguments are extremely picturesque and wild. To permit the destruction of the
foetus, they say, affects the humaneness of life; it may affect the whole of society,
and it may eventually lead to the slippery path downhill. It has been
Column: 1040
extended to say that this may lead to the justification of taking other forms of
human life, such as the sick, the old and the economically useless. Such an
argument is not only dangerous but also mischievous. 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.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me now turn to the social reasons. Are we, as
suggested by the Member for Punggol, really making a law so that members of the
medical profession can take over the work done by criminals in order to do it better?
Of course not. It is because our law has prevented members of the medical
profession from freely doing this, where there is a crying need, that criminals have
been able to take over and provide a much needed service. They do it in a
haphazard, dangerous and irresponsible manner and yet, as the Member for
Alexandra has stated, they earn the gratitude of women who carry their confidence
and gratitude even to the grave. Should we not give our medical profession the
freedom they should have had many years ago? A Bill of this nature, complex in
character with considerable safeguards for the women, the medical practitioners
and the community, offers the sanction of society under specific conditions. It 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.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
4.32 p.m.
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
Column: 1041
abortion centre, perhaps they have not read the Bill carefully and I ask them to read
it again; in fact, we have gone so far as to write complex provisions to prevent this.
For example, it is provided in clause 5 (8) of the Bill that no woman can have an
abortion unless she has been a resident in Singapore for at least four months. Any
visitor who has to reside in Singapore for four months will find it too late to have an
abortion. Perhaps the Member for Punggol does not understand this. This is the sort
of provision that we have put into the Bill, because we have learnt from the
experience of Japan and the United Kingdom.
Again, if you look up the immigration regulations, you will see that no foreigner is
allowed to stay in Singapore for more than two weeks. If the Member for Punggol
likes, he can, in a question, ask the Minister for Defence to clarify that. He will give
him the same answer.
Now let me turn to the arguments put forward by the Member for Moulmein. He
got a bit awry when he referred to legalising the right to suicide and! to provide
facilities to see blue films, etc., as something equal to the passing of this Bill. This
is, quite clearly, a facetious approach to a serious problem. His argument got rather
confused when he referred to the success of the Government family planning
programme, the result of which he said was encouraging. And then, curiously, he
proceeded to say next that under-population can hamper economic growth and
development. Presumably, he was not referring to Singapore when he said that.
Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Point of clarification, Sir,I was not talking of
under-population in Singapore. I was only making a general statement about
economic development. Population control is very essential. Under-population can
Column: 1042
would never face that problem. So I think the Minister has got me wrong there.
Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, in that case the Member's general statement is neither
here nor there. May I proceed by saying that it is also because abortion has a
special place in community concepts that special provisions have been made.
The danger to unmarried girls and widows has been referred to by the Member
for Geylang Serai who has stated that the Abortion Bill will aggravate an unhealthy
situation which has been created by the extensive family planning programme now
under way. This is a debatable point because family planning is made available to
married women and, if I may repeat again, I have dealt with the point about
abortion leading to promiscuity rather adequately in my opening speech. Perhaps
the Member for Geylang Serai might like to refer to my speech again.
Again turning to the Member for Moulmein, he also accused me of losing the
thread of my argument when in arguing that since the laws on abortion in Singapore
are outdated and irrational, he asked why I was sponsoring a Bill which seeks to
perpetuate the concept that "abortion is intrinsically wrong". That abortion has been
"made the subject of a special piece of legislation with innumerable safeguards, is a
strong indication that the proponents of the Bill are not clear in their conscience"
about abortion. That is what the Member for Moulmein has alleged. First and
foremost, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me say that the Bill does not seek to perpetuate the
concept that abortion is intrinsically wrong. Surely the concept that abortion is
intrinsically wrong or right is a pronouncement of an ethical and religious nature,
and I have time and again said that to be involved in ethical and religious
arguments for or against the Bill is entirely futile. Further, it is astonishing for the
Member for Moulmein to allege that the conscience of the proponents of the Bill is
not clear or is dubious. Apart from
Column: 1043
the fact that it is a non sequitur and therefore illogical, on the contrary, I am sure
that unlike the opponents of the Bill who are torn between their dogmas and the
humanitarian appeal to alleviate suffering, the proponents have a clear conscience.
I for one have no doubts about it. However, the Member for Moulmein's aforesaid
trend of argument, which was clearly involved and apparently confused, does serve
to illustrate the typical way in which the opponents go about attacking the Bill by
basing their arguments on false presumptions. Another good example of presuming
falsely is that, time and again, they have insisted even in the face of facts that the
Bill will allow abortions on demand. However, let me state once again that an
elaborate Bill such as the one before us has been made to contain all the
safeguards which are necessary in order to ensure the following:
(i) That abortions are to be made available under certain specified conditions as
have been provided and drafted with care in the Bill and that abortions are not
allowed on demand. 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. In fact, I have revealed in my opening speech the decision
of Government which was taken even before the Bill was presented to Parliament,
that in order to prevent repeated abortions, where a woman who presents herself
for an abortion has three children or more, the abortion will be permitted on
condition that she agrees to sterilization subsequently. Where is the abortion on
demand? It is a fantasy that was flourished again and again by the opponents of
this Bill.
(ii) From the medical point of view, we have to provide for the most aseptic
conditions under which abortions can be done so that the risk is absolutely
Column: 1044
(iii) We must provide safeguards for doctors who have conscientious objections,
and make it an offence for anyone to compel others to have an abortion.
Some of these conditions are to safeguard the interest o1 persons who are in the
minority like the Member for Moulmein whose ethical and religious beliefs make
them oppose abortions. I do not think it is necessary for me to go on to elaborate
further why such a Bill ir necessary. The conditions to safeguard the interests of
such persons are so apparent, and I have already stated them in detail in my
opening speech, that only an ostrich will not be aware of them.
Again, the Member for Moulmein in his speech has complained that I have not
spared the House of the sordid details of the traumatic experiences of women
undergoing abortion at the hands of the back-street and illegal abortionists or by
do-it-yourself methods in the case studies which I recounted in this House to
illustrate the desperation of our women caught with an unwanted pregnancy and
the terrible cost in pain, suffering and health. I am sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir, if they did
make some Members uneasy or cause them to wince a little in their seats,
particularly those who are torn between their religious dogmas on the one hand
and, on the other, the irrefutable evidence of human agony and suffering facing
them. I am afraid I had to do so. However, being realistic, I also know that it would
not be possible to dislodge the hard-held opposing views of some Members based
on ethical and religious dogmas with which they have been inculcated for years. To
have attempted to do so would have been just as difficult as it is to make a duck's
back wet. But it would have served its purpose if they had stirred the conscience of
the opponents to the Bill who have come out with a strong belief in their
righteousness, to
Column: 1045
face up to the realities of human agony and pain and make them ponder over it
even if it does not end up in correcting their dogmatism.
The Member for Moulmein also picked out one of the examples I quoted of a 33year old Roman Catholic Chinese housewife. He very strongly remarked that if only
she had obeyed her religious teachings, she would have been spared the agony.
This is indeed interesting and proves the point that I have stated in my opening
speech, that it is all very easy to put on a straight collar and start moralising on
someone else's anguish and predicament.
I now come to the Member for Katong. He has been quite assiduous in his study
of the Bill and has talked quite a lot about legal expressions like "mental health",
"foreseeable" and so on.
Mr Chua Sian Chin: It has a legal interpretation and this is the point I want to
make. These are terms used by our legal draftsmen who drafted this Bill and when
they use these terms they have decided cases to guide them. I do not think hon.
Members will allow me to go on to quote legal precedents in order to explain what
these terms mean, but if the Member for Katong puts up sonic questions on these
legal terms, perhaps I may be able to satisfy him.
May I now turn to the Member for Joo Chiat? He expressed some disappointment
that we have not introduced a Bill whereby abortion will be made available on
demand. But as a surgeon he will realise the point which I have made just now, and
also in my opening address, that to allow repeated abortion is, from the medical
point of view, not a good thing because it does increase the rate of mortality and
morbidity. This is one of the reasons why we have decided not to make abortions
available on demand.
Column: 1046
The Member for Bras Basah made a long speech and concluded by saying that
since we are liberalising the law on abortion, why do we not also legalise suicide,
after mentioning hara-kiri and kamikaze? May I tell the Member that suicide, in fact,
is no legal offence because of the simple reason that no one can be prosecuted for
suicide.
The Minister for Defence (Mr Lim Kim San): Successful suicide.
Mr Chua Sian Chin: Under the law, attempted suicide is an offence hut suicide is
not. So if a person commits hara-kiri successfully, he will not be prosecuted.
Let me now turn to the point about family planning in conjunction with the
Abortion Bill. All those Members who support the Bill and those who oppose it have
congratulated the Government on its success in family planning, and this is
accepted. However, Mr Speaker. Sir, the possible effects of this Bill are interpreted
differently by those who support the Bill and those who oppose it. Those who
oppose it express enthusiasm for the Government's family planning programme and
welcome its extension. I would like to state that the effects of the Abortion Bill on
the Government's family planning programme have been very carefully considered
by my Ministry and the Family Planning and Population Board, it is because of this
that one of the fundamental features in the administration of the Abortion Bill will
be its close tie-up with the national family planning programme. We already have an
excellent post-partum programme in our maternity and gynaecological wards at the
Kandang Kerbau Hospital and Thomson Road General Hospital.
The family planning staff from the Board interview every woman who has
delivered a child and who has been admitted for an abortion. These women are
encouraged to take up family planning. In fact, in 1968, 50 per cent of such women
actually did so. The family planning staff will, when this Bill
Column: 1047
is implemented, interview every woman who has been granted an abortion in the
hospital, as they do now, and encourage her to take up family planning. That is why
the amendment to the Family Planning and Population Board Act becomes
necessary. 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 the woman for an abortion. The
recommendation for abortion from the Family Planning and Population Board,
supported by evidence of the practice of family planning in their records, will make
it very easy for women to get an abortion in the case of contraceptive failure. This
would be made quite clear when a woman comes in for her first termination of
pregnancy. In addition, a woman with three or more live children who is then to be
It is true that the rate of population growth in Singapore is falling. This has also
been repeated by many speakers both for and against the Bill. I would Iike to remind
Members again that even with our present rate of population growth of 1.8 per cent,
our population will double in 39 years. Our aim eventually, and as soon as it is
practicable, is to reach the one per cent rate
Column: 1048
of growth. By 1970, at the end of the present five-year family planning programme,
we will reach 1.5 per cent, It is going to be much harder to reach one per cent
growth rate because the rate of fall from three per cent to two per cent is always
much quicker, whereas the rate of fail from two per cent to one per cent requires a
tremendous effort. So far, no developing country has achieved this and we shall
only achieve it with a broad measure of support for all measures of population
control and our family planning programme needs all the support it can get to
achieve its goal.
Recent social measures have been introduced and through the Employment Act,
much to the unhappiness of the Member for Bras Basah, maternity leave after the
third pregnancy is denied. This measure and the raising of hospitalisation charges
for later pregnancies are part of the broad Government support together with the
Voluntary Sterilization Bill, of family planning in Singapore. This Bill is a further
measure in our effort to control the growth of population and this work is by no
means done yet, although we have achieved considerable success to date. Far from
tarnishing the good name of the Republic, the passage of the Abortion Bill, which is
a piece of modern social legislation conceived for the welfare of women and their
families as well as for the benefit of Singapore, will redound to the credit of the
Government, whatever some hon. Members may like to say.
The Minister for Communications has pointed out how much this Bill means as a
further and final step in the emancipation of women in Singapore - women who are
already enjoying equaL rights, equal pay and a host of privileges provided for in the
Women's Charter. The emancipation of women is the logical consequence of our
efforts tobuild a just and equal society with equal and adequate opportunities for
the living and those who are to he born.
Column: 1049
Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just summarise the central purpose of the Bill' it is
to reform and liberalise the law of abortion in Singapore which is al present not only
uncertain and completely unenlightened and restrictive, but also ineffective in that
the majority of our women, faced with an unwanted pregnancy, resort to be relieved
by going to the back-street or illegal abortionists, usually with tragic results. It offers
an alternative to our women who qualify under the specific conditions as set out in
the Bill to have an abortion which is comparatively safe and under aseptic
conditions, it thereby liberates our women from the fear of unwanted pregnancies, it
also benefits the family by ensuring, as far as possible, that every person born in
that family is a wanted child and also avoids the tragedy of having children born
with physical or mental abnormalities. It therefore serves to protect the health and
welfare of the mother as well as her family.
Further, the Bill will also enhance the welfare of our community by ensuring that
every child born in Singapore is a wanted child. It also ensures the quality of our
children and that they will be properly cared for and have opportunities for
education and the full development of their faculties so that they can grow up and
lead meaningful lives in our society.
Let me stress again, Mr Speaker. Sir, that this Bill does respect the religious and
ethical beliefs of our people. No one is forced to have an abortion. Therefore, to
those whose ethical and religious beliefs have made them oppose abortion, I would
like to ask them again this question: Is it right in our multi-racial and multi-religious
society for any person or group of persons, on grounds of religious dogmas, to deny
others, whose religious and ethical beliefs do not forbid them to have an abortion,
the opportunity to take advantage of the provisions of this proposed law? If their
ethical and religious beliefs forbid them to support abortion, the least they can do,
in the name of humanity, is to abstain from voting against the Bill.
Column: 1050