Chua Sian Chin
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on this Bill as a person who had been in Government for many years and before that in legal practice for more than eight years and now back in legal practice. While I was in Government, I had cognizance of the shortcomings of the legal profession.”
“It is 62 members out of a total of 1,335 practising lawyers. This has brought about a situation which no responsible government can let it pass in the public interest. The Government has good reasons to deal with this situation firmly. In fact, the present amendments have only made a small inroad in self-regulation.”
“At the same time, a minority group of activists has also chosen to take on the Government by calling an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Law Society to pass fierce resolutions against the Government. This group comprised only 62 members.”
“Though he has only limited Constitutional powers and acts on the advice of the Cabinet, he is the symbol of the unity, loyalty and aspirations of the people of Singapore.”
“- to hold classes for children of his constituents. What right has he got? The PAP MPs equally have no such rights. It is the right of the Government, if they think so, to have such classes. In fact, through the People's Association, they have been holding kindergarten classes in the community centres.”
“It is the Government who says that, and the Government has the right to say it because they are responsible for the Government of Singapore. And it is not what I say or what you say. Let me turn to the Member for Potong Pasir. He also produced some exhibits which are equally bogus.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,639 lines we hold for Chua Sian Chin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 28 of 33.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot understand the point of the Member for Paya Lebar. If it is a porch for a car, then it must be used for a car. Is the Member suggesting that the porch be used as a waiting place for patients and that the car should be parked elsewhere? If that is his suggestion, then we will look into it. But as far as I am concerned, there has not been any complaint that there is insufficient waiting space for patients in the clinic. Mr Tay Boon Too(In Mandarin): Sir, what I meant was that the porch should be used by the patients who have to wait for the doctor, and not by the doctor to park his car.”
“Anyway, I am not in charge of policemen. The point raised by the Member for Paya Lebar is about porches being used by doctors for parking cars. Of course, they are used for that purpose. The Member asked whether patients should be allowed to take shelter under the porches if it rains. Of course, to a doctor who has humanity at heart, I am sure that irrespective of directives from the Ministry, he will allow human beings, rather than his car, to take shelter under the porch.”
“The Member for Anson agrees with me. You do not number ordinary persons, you number only prisoners. Is it not so? An hon. Member: What about policemen?”
“To answer the Member for Jalan Kayu first. Unfortunately, the name tag has to be in English. If it is in the four official languages, it will make it quite big.”
“This is to ensure that these few black sheep should not get away with their anonymity and mar the good name of the majority of our doctors and nurses who are working, in the words of the Member for Moulmein, "very hard to maintain the best medical service in this part of the world."”
“As Members know, I am not a person who will flinch from taking firm and drastic action against any officer who is guilty after the case has been fairly and justly considered, whatever the consequences. A vague and general allegation will certainly not help us at all. As a matter of fact, my Ministry welcomes substantiated complaints, not only from Members but also from members of the public. We regard substantiated complaints as a means of intelligence report that tells us whether the operations of the Ministry have been carried out efficiently and successfully. My Ministry has no less than 20,000 members - about 10,000 in the Hospitals Division and 10,000 in the Public Health Division. Unless we have a system of feed-back by members of the public, including Members, who can make substantiated complaints, there is no good way in which we can know whether every one of the 20,000 members is working efficiently. I myself can make field visits, which I often do, but the snag here is that when they know that I am coming, everything appears all right. Mr Speaker, Sir, in any organisation there are bound to be a few black sheep whose bad behaviour brings a bad name to the whole organisation. Our problem is to identify these few black sheep and take tougher action against them. With a view to making it easier for members of the public not only to identify these few black sheep but also, on the other hand, to commend those officers who are courteous and efficient, I have last year introduced a system whereby every officer in my Ministry has to wear a name tag.”
“If it is felt that there is still room for improvement in his conduct, then he is warned and advised to be less abrupt and more helpful in his dealings with the public. In general, the staff of the out-patient dispensaries have been told to be always polite to the people and to be sympathetic to their requests. But in dealing with such a large crowd of patients, there are likely to be instances of frayed tempers, and these are investigated and dealt with. As I said just now, out of the six complaints received, every one of them was investigated and was found to be unsubstantiated. Unfortunately, the Member for Paya Lebar did not see fit to submit his complaint to me. If he had done so, the matter would have been properly investigated. It will greatly assist the work of my Ministry to provide a courteous and efficient medical service to the public if Members can give specific instances of rudeness by the staff of the Ministry immediately upon their occurrence either to me or my Director of Medical Services, and not bring them up in Parliament. Of course, if we did not adequately deal with the complaint, the Member could air the matter in Parliament. Unfortunately, this was not done. What we need is a specific complaint, backed by witnesses if necessary, so that the complainant can assist the Ministry in identifying the officer concerned and the case dealt with properly. As you know, in any incident there are always two sides to the story. It is only fair that both sides must be heard and considered. However, if the complaint is substantiated, disciplinary action will be taken against the officer concerned.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed in a very interesting position! The Member for Moulmein has asked me to convey his tribute to my nurses, and now I have been asked by the Member for Paya Lebar to convey to them his criticism of their rudeness to members of the public. I shall convey both. Sir, there are altogether 27 out-patient dispensaries scattered all over Singapore to serve the public. For the year 1969 there were 47 doctors and 83 nurses working in these out-patient dispensaries. The total number of out-patients seen and treated was 1,573,171 in 1969. But the number of complaints regarding rudeness received against the doctors and nurses in 1969 was only six. The two instances of rudeness which the Member for Paya Lebar has narrated to this House were not, however, among these six complaints of rudeness. In the out-patient dispensaries, the doctors and nurses are in constant contact with the public. Large crowds are seen there daily, and in such large crowds there are bound to be patients of different temperaments, and some of them may make unreasonable demands. When their demands are not met, they do sometimes make rude remarks and lodge official complaints. However, the staff of the out-patient dispensaries have frequently been reminded to be courteous to members of the public. This is done by routine inspections of out-patient dispensaries by senior members of the administrative office of the Out-patient Services. Whenever a complaint is received, a visit is made to the particu1ar out-patient dispensary and an investigation is carried out. The officer concerned is asked to give an explanation and a written report of the incident. He is also called up and interviewed.”
“Another solution to this problem which I have stated before is to direct persons who come for non-emergency treatment to the nearest private practitioner who opens after office hours. A list of these clinics has been supplied to the Ministry by the Singapore Medical Association. However, there is no complete solution to guarantee that persons attending the Emergency Unit will not have to wait. There must be adequate facilities and sufficient medical staff. There must also be co-operation between doctors in private practice and the Government service and the public should understand the actual role of the Emergency Service, i.e. if the cases are of a non-emergency nature, they should not go to the Emergency Unit and clog up the work of the doctors there. However, it is hoped that with the taking over of the British Military Hospital at Alexandra in 1971, the pressure on the Emergency Service will be decreased and consequently the waiting time can be brought down.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, may I thank the Member for Thomson for saying that our medical services have greatly improved recently. May I also add that I agree with him that there is always room for further improvement. He mentioned the Emergency Unit as a place where there could be more improvement. He also mentioned that whenever he visits it, he finds it rather crowded. May I give him the reasons? We have only two Emergency Units for the whole of Singapore. One is at the Outram Road General Hospital and the other is at the Thomson Road General Hospital. There are normally only two doctors manning the Emergency Unit and in certain hours it is reduced to one doctor at the Outram Road General Hospital Emergency Unit. Formerly there was only one doctor on duty at all times. So there is improvement in this respect. The time taken to attend to an emergency case depends on how busy the Emergency Unit is, in cases of dire emergency, the patient is rushed through as quickly as possible, cutting through the queue of waiting persons. However the majority of cases which go to this Emergency Unit are not really emergency cases. In the past year there has been an increase in the number of non-emergency cases attending the Emergency Unit. Therefore, it invariably takes up a good deal of the staff's time to screen and examine them, and, as a result, the time spent in attending to them has taken away the time which should be devoted to truly emergency cases. However, the problem is under constant review and we have made certain other improvements in the organisation of the Emergency Unit. We have made more space available so that more doctors can be put on duty.”
“I do not know whether it is the appearance of the hospitals or whether it is because they are hospitals. I agree with him that it is good to make hospitals attractive. But the trouble is that these two hospitals in his constituency are very old buildings, and a lot of money is needed to do any form of face-lifting. But whatever can be done will certainly be done to make them more attractive. The other point which the Member made concerned the behaviour and work of the nurses in the hospitals. He did take the opportunity to pay them a high tribute. That, of course, is welcome and I shall convey that message to the nurses, notwithstanding the fact that the Member himself is a trade unionist. A case of rudeness was brought up by the Member for Punggol. In this respect, may I say that in any organisation there is bound to be a black sheep. Of course, the rude behaviour of the black sheep should not necessarily reflect on the good work of the majority.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first I would like to deal with the matter raised by the Member for Bukit Panjang. He says that whenever a telephone call for the ambulance service is made, a number of questions are asked by the person in charge of ambulances. He says that these questions are irrelevant. At first sight, they may appear to be irrelevant, but there is a reason for asking the questions. It is essential to have certain information when an ambulance is called. First, we must establish the identity of the person who is calling for the ambulance in order to determine the genuineness of the call. There have previously been numerous false ambulance calls and the asking of these questions has reduced them to some extent. The reason why it is necessary to know where the patient is and what he is suffering from is that the call can be answered by the ambulance nearest to the patient. For example, the Thomson Road General Hospital provides a 24-hour ambulance service, and if the patient is nearer to that hospital or around that area, it will be faster if an ambulance is called from that hospital. Therefore, the question asking for that information is certainly not irrelevant. If a patient is suffering from an injury caused by an accident, then the call is directed to the Fire Brigade ambulance. Of course, one question which is usually asked is, "May I know who is calling?" Sometimes the person who is in charge of the telephone may not ask it in a polite manner. He may ask, "Who are you?" We have issued a directive to all persons in charge of the ambulance service to be polite to members of the public when they call for an ambulance. 6.15 p.m. Coming to the Member for Moulmein, he said that whenever he passed the two hospitals in his constituency, he had a gloomy feeling about it.”
“The provisions relating to the qualifications for membership have been redrafted to widen the choice of suitable candidates for membership. Article 74 in clause 2 of the Bill now contains, in more specific language, those disqualifications from membership. Further, there have been doubts whether the present Article 80 would prevent the Public Service Commission from delegating any of its powers or functions, save to public officers. This may put in question the validity of certain decisions of the Public Service Commission and its delegates which were made in good faith. In several cases, the appointment of a delegate has been at the request, or with the express consent or approval, of the persons concerned with, or directly involved in, the exercise of the functions by the Public Service Commission. To avoid litigation on procedural and technical grounds, provisions validating them have been inserted in Article 80D in clause 2 of the Bill so that no proceedings may be instituted or maintained against the Commission as a whole or any of its members for any exercise of such powers and rights. But where the bona fides of the Commission i3 challenged, and not just legal technicalities, a suit can be taken and remedy sought. It is not the intention of the Government that those aggrieved by an excess of authority should be prevented from seeking legitimate redress as the law allows. But the Government has to, and is prepared to, take the responsibility, with the support of Members of this House, to move validation clauses in the new Bill, to negate frivolous or vexatious attempts at litigation. These changes, I hope, will enable the Public Service Commission the more efficiently to carry out their functions. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.10 p.m.”
“The Constitution has undergone three fundamental changes in a space of six years. It has created confusion in several areas whether certain provisions continued to be law or were superseded and altered. The present Constitutional provisions relating to the Public Service Commission are a carry-over of those when we were a state in Malaysia. The Government could have left this Constitution (Amendment) Bill to be taken together with the draft Constitution. This draft is now being vetted by expert constitutional draftsmen before it is tabled in this House. But this may take some time. And since it is the intention of the Government to afford every institution and citizen an opportunity to make representations on the constitutional draft, it may be a few years before it is promulgated. It has, therefore, been decided that we should take the provisions relating to the Public Service Commission in a separate Bill. Changes have been made to the existing provisions in the Constitution which were thought too restrictive for the proper and efficient functioning of the Public Service Commission. The Bill seeks to re-enact and provide a comprehensive part in our Constitution dealing with the public service. The constitutional changes brought about since independence have necessitated these changes. The Public Service Commission have also recommended other changes as a result of their experiences, especially after August 1965. The Bill amends the Articles in the Constitution dealing with the qualifications and tenure of office of the Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission. There will now be a maximum of seven and a minimum of four members of the Public Service Commission, excluding the Chairman, instead of the present maximum of four and minimum of two members.”
“He suggested having a division of hawkers, with separate rates of licence fees for the rural areas and the city areas. Does he consider Bukit Panjang town a city area or a rural area, or Changi Village a city area or a rural area? Mr Sim Boon Woo (Changi): A rural area. BILLS INTRODUCED 3.01 p.m. INCOME TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166 of the Revised Edition)" recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. NGEE ANN COLLEGE (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Ngee Ann College Act, 1967 (No. 23 of 1967)", presented for the Minister for Education by his Parliamentary Secretary (Dr Lee Chiaw Meng); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. CONSIDERATION OF MORE THAN ONE ITEM OF SUPPLY BUSINESS 3.03 p.m. Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure and the Second Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st January, 1969 to 31st March, 1970, be taken today." - [Dr Goh Keng Swee]. REARRANGEMENT OF ORDER OF BUSINESS Resolved, "That under Standing Order 10 (2) item 2 on the Order Paper be taken before item 1." - [Mr Barker]. CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.04 p.m. The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In June 1959, Singapore became a self-governing state. In September 1963, it became part of the Federation of Malaysia. In August 1965, it became a republic.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, what is the yardstick by which you assess how much a hawker earns? Has the Member for Telok Blangah some ideas and can he tell me how we can have a yardstick?”
“Sir, as far as markets are concerned, formerly there were five classes and we have now reduced them to two. They have been classified on the basis of various factors, one of which is the type of building that houses the stallholders, and the other the facilities provided.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Telok Blangah could suggest a yardstick by which we could differentiate between hawkers plying in Albert Street and those plying in, say, Kampong Heap Guan San in Telok Blangah, then I shall be very interested. And perhaps the Comptroller of Income Tax will also be very interested. Unless we can find such a yardstick, I am afraid we have to stick to our present policy of adopting uniform rates.”
“In general, the fees for hawkers have not been raised, except for itinerant and wall-showcase hawkers whose fees have been brought into line with the rates payable by the street pitch hawkers. The increase of fees for market stallholders is marginal. In a small and compact city state such as ours, it is not unreasonable to have uniform rates of fees for hawkers within the city area or without. For the reasons I have mentioned and the fact that the new fees have only just been introduced, I am not inclined to consider reverting to the previous practice of having separate rates of fees for hawkers conducting business in different parts of the island. In any case, Mr Speaker, Sir, what is the yardstick to gauge the income of hawkers, short of standing beside them and keeping watch? If a foolproof method exists, I am sure the Comptroller of Income Tax will be most interested.”
“There were different rates of fees for each of the five classes of markets, and in each class there were up to 37 categories of articles of sale with each category being charged a different rate of fee. Further, even within each category, different rates were charged, depending upon the size of the stall or pitch in the particular market. In this respect there were no less than 20 different sizes of stalls and pitches in the various markets. Mr Speaker, Sir, all these worked out to something like 3,700 different rates of fees which had to be collected by the Hawkers Department. To further complicate matters, at least three markets of the same class in the city area charged different rates of fees. In addition, there were also different fees for: (a) street hawker pitches which varied from one rural area to another, the city having a standard rate; (b) hawkers' shelters which varied from site to site: (c) stallholders occupying vacant lands; (d) itinerant hawkers; (e) private markets; (f) pasar malam hawkers; and (g) wall showcase hawkers. This has led to considerable administrative and accounting difficulties and, at times, much confusion. The new regulations which came into force on the 1st January, 1970, reduced the five classes of markets to two, and revised and standardised licence fees for stall-holders in markets and for the various categories of hawkers which have remained unchanged for over 20 years. With the integration of the City Council into the Rural Board in 1963, it was necessary to standardise the various rates prevailing in the city and rural areas and also to reduce the numerous categories and classifications.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the licence fees for stalls in public markets range from $10 to $60 in a Class A market, and from $10 to $40 in a Class B market, depending on the article of sale. The fees are detailed in the Third Schedule of the Environmental Public Health (Markets) Regulations, 1959, and the classification of markets into A and B classes are listed in the Second Schedule of the same Regulations. The licence fees for street pitch hawkers are uniform throughout the Republic, irrespective of whether the pitch is in the city or rural areas. All licences for day pitches cost $10, except for those for meat (that is, pork, beef and mutton) and poultry, which cost $30 and $20 respectively. A poultry hawker's licence permits the hawker to conduct business the whole day, while the sale of meat is restricted from 6.00 a.m, to 4.00 p.m. only All licences for night pitches are $20 per month, except meat and poultry in respect of which no night licences as such are issued. The fees are detailed in the Schedule to the Environmental Public Health (Hawkers) Regulations, 1969. All public markets are provided with water and electricity. Water is also available to all cooked food street pitch hawkers, who number more than ten and conduct business at specified hawker sites. Prior to the introduction of the new rates of fees for markets and hawkers, there existed a series of by-laws dating from 1909 onwards, some of which set out fees that were divided and subdivided into various categories. To begin with, there were hitherto five classes of markets, three in the city area (Classes A, B and C), and two in the rural area (Classes A and B).”
“74 for tap water (b) 79,129.10 for electricity (c) 17,217.00 for installation of standpipes (d) 899.50 for maintenance of and repair of standpipes (e) 34,418.35 for Government tax on P.U.B. bills ----------- $397,060.69 =========== Mr Speaker, Sir, it must be appreciated that the assistance given to hawkers by Government is by no means small. HAWKER STALL LICENCE FEES 9. Mr N. Govindasamy asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the cost of a licence for a stall in public markets with water and light supplies; (b) what is the fee for (i) a day licence; and (ii) a night licence for a pitched-hawker stall in the city area such as at Orchard Road or Albert Street; and what is the fee for corresponding licences in the rural areas; and (c) if the same rate of licence fee is charged for any pitched-hawker stall irrespective of its location, whether he will consider reducing licence fees for such stalls in rural areas where the average daily takings of hawkers are very much less than those of their counterparts in the city area.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a total of 1,689 hawkers from 22 different areas were re-sited in 1969. I have a list* showing the areas and the number of hawkers involved. As it is a rather long list, I propose, Sir, with your permission, to circulate copies of it among the Members of this House. [Copies of list handed in to the Clerk and distributed to Members.] (* See appendix, cols. 595-8.) Appendix to Question 8 (col. 565) (Cols 0595-0598) Mr Speaker, Sir, the expenditure incurred in preparing the various sites to re-site these 1,689 hawkers totalled $10,750. Most of the expenditure was in respect of wages for labourers and workmen of the Ministry of Health. Nearly all the material used, that is, cement slabs, etc, was obtained from Government stores. The only material purchased was cement. It has not been firmly decided what are the areas from which hawkers will be resited this year. In general, the areas will, however, be: (a) those under immediate urban renewal clearance; (b) those involving main traffic routes where there is serious obstruction; and (c) where and when suitable alternative accommodation is available. By "suitable alternative accommodation", I do not mean the nearest backlane or sidelane, for it has been decided that hawkers should henceforth be re-sited only in proper sites. Not every hawker will get direct Government assistance, but deserving hawkers will be considered for subsidised rental when they are re-sited into proper premises to enable them to cater just as cheaply as they did when they were conducting business on the street. For the information of the Member for Punggol, I would like to state that hawkers and stallholders inside and outside markets in 1969 cost the Government a total expenditure of $397,060.69 made up as follows: (a) $265,396.”
“I stand to be corrected, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like once again to thank the Member for Anson for his full support. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL Order for Committee Stage read. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 6.01 p.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -”
“As the Member has just said, they are giving a bonus. I believe they give 20 rupees to a person who gets himself sterilized and 10 rupees to the person who brings a person for sterilization.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, so far as sterilization is concerned, in India, they have in fact introduced what they call "instant sterilization" whereby a person can get himself sterilized instantly, even in railway stations.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Member for Anson for his full support of the Voluntary Sterilization Bill, although he did not support the Abortion Bill. From the way he spoke, he is now very much in support of the Voluntary Sterilization Bill. Perhaps it is because of his recent trip to India. I know that in India today, they are in fact making every effort to sterilize persons.”
“The reasons for this change were already described by me previously. (3) Treatment for sexual sterilization This amendment to clause 5 is a significant amendment. Under this amendment, sterilization of a woman by the ligation of the tubes may be carried out immediately after birth or at the same time when an abortion is performed. This is the usual practice now. The operation of tubal ligation immediately after birth is a very simple one compared to the same operation if performed later. The provisions of the Bill as it stands, without this amendment, would prevent such an operation to be carried out immediately and could defeat the purpose of sterilizing persons when it is so simple and safe to do. If these persons have to wait for 30 days at least before the operation can be carried out, the operation is much more difficult. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I have said before, this Bill, together with its companion Abortion Bill when they become law, will liberate our women from the tyranny of unwanted pregnancies. They have, therefore, been rightly described as Bills relating to human rights. The adoption of this Bill today indeed marks a significant milestone in the social progress of our people. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." As expected, the Voluntary Sterilization Bill did not attract as many representations as the Abortion Bill. Neither did it arouse as much heated controversy. The representations received have been useful and the suggested amendments which have been proposed for adoption will serve to strengthen the Bill further. The amendments proposed in the Bill are, however, minor. (1) Definition of "sexual sterilization" This amendment relates to the definition of "sexual sterilization". As defined in the original text, the surgical removal of the female or male reproductive organs would all come under the purview of this Bill. It was pointed out that this was too broad a definition. The definition has, therefore, by the amendment, been restricted to exclude the removal of such organs which are essential for reasons of medical treatment. The suggestion was made by Professor L.C. Green, former Professor of Law in the University of Singapore, in a written representation to the Select Committee. There are certain conditions where the removal of the reproductive organs is undertaken as a therapeutic measure, for example, the removal of the ovaries as part of the treatment in the case of cancer of the breast. Such therapeutic measure should not come within the ambit of the Bill. 5.55 p.m. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] (2) Membership on the Eugenics Board A similar amendment as that made for the membership of the Termination of Pregnancy Authorisation Board is also proposed. The amendment provides that at least one of the two appointed members of the Eugenics Board should be "professionally qualified social workers" rather than one who "has had experience in social welfare work".”
“Of course, by the application of our social policies, we shall encourage those who earn a low income and who cannot afford to nurture and educate their children to have less children, and those better educated parents who have the means to nurture their children to have larger families. Mr Speaker, Sir, whatever Members opposing the Bill have said about it, I wish to stress that I have every confidence that it will fully fulfil the purpose for which it has been introduced. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." 5.47 p.m.”
“In fact, when discussing the environmental reasons for authorising abortions in my speech moving the Second Reading of the Bill, I stated that common examples would be, and I quote [Hansard Vol. 28, No. II dated 8-4-69, col. 864]: 'When the pregnancy will bring about social ruin as when the woman is unmarried, is deserted or when she is on the threshold of a career;'. However, I would like to say that the concern expressed by the writer for the plight of unmarried mothers is indeed admirable, and I would like to assure him that it is well taken care of in the Bill. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to reiterate that the central purpose of the Bill is to liberate our women from the tyranny of unwanted pregnancies. It will serve to ensure that, as far as possible, every child born in our Republic will be a wanted child who will have the opportunity of being properly nurtured and educated, so that whatever good qualities he has inherited will be developed to their full capacity so that he can grow up to lead a meaningful life and contribute his maximum to our society. It will also avoid the tragedy of children born unwanted or children born with physical or mental abnormalities. Thus it will serve to improve the total quality of our population. As has been stated by the Prime Minister, one of the social yardsticks by which we shall have to judge the results of the new abortion law, together with the companion sterilization law, will be whether it tends to raise or lower the total quality of our population. The total quality of our population depends on the raising of the mean I.Q. level and on the capacity of parents to help the state to nurture and educate their children to their maximum capacity.”
“Anyway, I do not think I can stretch the explanation any further. It is quite clear that if he thinks that the Authorisation Board will be a hindrance to women who want to apply for abortion, then I challenge him to vote in support of the Bill, in particular, on the clause on the Authorisation Board. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have dealt with all the points raised by the opposition speakers. It is now left for me to conclude. But before I do so, may I just raise one particular point not mentioned by the Members of this House? A letter was recently published in the press. It expressed concern that the Select Committee, by agreeing to add the word "serious" to qualify the risk to life or injury to the physical and mental health of the pregnant women in clause 5 (2) (a), has made it impossible for the unmarried college or working girl, caught with an unwanted pregnancy, to have an institutionalised abortion. This is indeed a serious misconception of the meaning of the proposed amendment, and should not be allowed to go unrefuted. If only the writer of this letter had read my speech carefully, it would have been quite clear to him that the amendment was on the medical reasons for which an abortion may be authorised. As I have explained, it may probably restrict the area of manoeuvre of the medical practitioners, but it does serve to clarify the position of this provision. It does not in any way affect the environmental grounds on which an institutionalised abortion may be authorised. As a matter of fact, it has been envisaged that the case of unmarried mothers, which the writer of the letter was so concerned about, would normally come under the environmental clause, i.e., clause 5 (2) (b).”
“According to his contention, the Authorisation Board will be a hindrance to women who apply for abortion. If he is opposed to the principle of legalised abortion, then he should be happy with the Board, is that not so?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, after hearing this point again, I am not so sure whether the Member is now opposing or supporting this Bill.”
“Of course, I do admit that. Perhaps the Member for Moulmein does not make mistakes. The Member for Bras Basah said that the Abortion Bill is cock-eyed. The Bill is not cock-eyed, but his reasons are. He said, "What is the use of having such a law, because the poor women will still go to -”
“Well, I am not as sure as the Member for Delta is. She moralises. I now come to the Member for Bras Basah. He says that Government only legislates or takes measures when there is a public outcry or when there is an emergency. Obviously that cannot be true. If it is, then we are not a good government. A good government plans ahead and weighs the long-term effects of any measure. If the long-term effects are good, the government will introduce legislation.”
“Of course. Madam Chan Choy Siong(In Mandarin): Can the Minister say whether the Abortion Bill, when passed, will do away with the backstreet abortionists? Mr Chua Sian Chin: I think the Member has not read my speech carefully, or she has not bothered to read my speech at all. I have not said that when the Bill is passed it would eliminate all backstreet abortionists. What I have said is that it will reduce the number of backstreet abortionists, and in doing so it will reduce pain and suffering which has been the lot of these unfortunate women in the past. Madam Chan Choy Siong: There will be more.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not deny that it is true that I am a man. But what I do deny is that the Member has, in her strong opposition to the Abortion Bill, forgotten the plight of her fellow women who are suffering because of unwanted pregnancies and have to resort secretly to illegal abortionists to get rid of their unwanted babies. Is that not suffering? Is that not human misery? As I have said before, it is all very well for us to come here in this august Chamber and moralise. But we often forget that there are women who are in such a predicament that they resort to the backstreet abortionists to get rid of their unwanted babies at the risk of their health. Madam Chan Choy Siong: On a point of clarification, Sir.”
“I am much obliged, Sir. The Member for Delta did say that the fact that I am a man does not entitle me to know the sufferings of women. Madam Chan Choy Siong: It is true.”
“So the Member is obsessed with blue films then. But I cannot see the logic of his argument. It does not follow. This is what we call non sequitur -when we legalise abortion, we are going to legalise prostitution. It is rather facetious and mischievous. [Interruption] Well, it is the right of an individual to have an abortion under specified conditions. Let me come to Madam Chan.”
“But I am afraid that he has opposed the Bill not only because he wants to assert his independence but also because it is clear, from his speech, that he has ill understood the considerations which have made us introduce it, although I have taken great pains to explain them in the Second and Third Readings. I come now to the Member for Geylang Serai. I think he has just repeated the familiar argument that abortion will lead to promiscuity. I have already replied to the same point he made during the Second Reading of the Bill. Will family planning by contraceptive means not also encourage promiscuity if his argument is correct? May I now come to the Member for Ulu Pandan? He has quite categorically stated that after having read the Select Committee's Report he has come to the conclusion, a very strong conclusion, I suppose, that he is now against the Bill, although he abstained from voting on the Second Reading. He has also made certain remarks that the Bill has been introduced because Government intends to encourage tourism. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not see what relevance tourism has to the Abortion Bill. Although an old man, perhaps he has allowed his imagination to run riot. Further, he harps on the theme that the Abortion Bill has been introduced for the purpose of population control. On this point, I do not wish to repeat what I have already said. Turning to the Member for Moulmein, he repeats the familiar argument and says that if we legalise abortion, then what about legalising prostitution or allowing the viewing of blue films? This point again is repetitious. The Member seems to be quite obsessed with blue films. Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Because the Minister is obsessed with --”
“He keeps on harping on the foetus. By doing so, he forgets the plight of the unfortunate pregnant mother. As I have stated in my introductory speech, this preoccupation with the right of the foetus, unfortunately, ends up in lack of consideration for the mother. As I have also stated before, the Catholic dogma is that the foetus has the right to life. This assumption can put the Catholic doctor in a moral dilemma -to choose between destroying the foetus in order to save the mother's life, or allowing the mother to die in the hope of saving the foetus. This Catholic preference for doing nothing to assist the mother, in fact, amounts to a preference of the foetus over the mother, and may amount to a sentence of death for both. Referring to the principles of the Declaration of Geneva where a doctor should not allow considerations of religion, political affiliation, etc., to come between him and his patient, the Member for Punggol very cleverly used a twist by saying that these principles refer to the religion of political affiliation of the patient and not the doctor. But how do you split this? Will not the religious and ethical conviction of the doctor be equally relevant? Let me now turn to the Member for Anson. He introduced in his last remarks a very interesting point about compulsory birth control, but he did not elaborate on it. Members will remember that five days ago the Member for Anson was congratulated by the Minister for Law on the courage of his convictions when he raised a lone voice in this House against the abolition of the jury system. Sir, it would be amiss on my part not to congratulate him similarly on raising his voice against the Abortion Bill.”
“If a woman has not subsequently adopted family planning, the Termination of Pregnancy Authorisation Board is likely to take an extremely dim view of any subsequent application by a woman for an abortion. The recommendation for abortion from the Family Planning and Population Board, supported by evidence of the practice of family planning and other records, will make it very easy for women to get an abortion in case of contraceptive failure. Further, I have already stated that the Government has decided to make a woman with three or more live children accept voluntary sterilisation as a condition for the authorisation of abortion. Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to clear any further misconceptions, perhaps I should explain here what family planning means. Family planning does not merely mean restriction of population growth. What it, in fact, means is that a couple who adopt family planning plan not only the size of the family but also when pregnancy should occur, so that they can have children when they want them. I hope that disposes of the misconceptions. Of course, if misconceptions are doggedly adhered to on grounds of dogmas, I do not think I can go any further! Another point which the Member for Punggol brought up was when he waved a copy of The Sunday Times showing a picture of people adopting unwanted babies. I think his point is that there will be people to adopt these unwanted babies and that these unwanted babies will provide solace to childless couples. But the fact remains that these babies are unwanted babies. Referring to the conscientious objection clause, the Member for Punggol pointed out that, according to him, the doctor's responsibility towards the foetus should be given due consideration. That is a familiar argument brought up by him.”
“I am afraid he is under a serious misconception again. I have time and again reiterated that it is not the purpose of the Bill to be used as a means of population control. However, time and again, some opponents of the Bill who, of course, include not only the Member for Punggol but also the Members for Delta, Anson and Bras Basah, have tried the all too familiar tactics of labelling it as such so as to find sufficient arguments to oppose the Bill. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, only serves to indicate the bankruptcy of their arguments against the Bill. May I just repeat once again that the main purpose of the Bill is to liberate our women from the tyranny of unwanted pregnancies, and that, as far as is possible, every child born in Singapore will be a wanted child who will be cared for so that he can grow up to lead a meaningful life. This Bill will also be a tremendous aid and will complement our efforts to help our people plan their families. Any reduction in the birth rate as a result will be an incidental benefit, and not the main purpose of the Bill. I have emphasised before, and I repeat, the relationship between family planning by the use of contraceptive methods and legalised abortion is like that between prevention on the one hand and cure on the other. There will be a close tie-up between the administration of the Abortion Bill when it becomes law and the national family planning programme. The family planning staff will, when this Bill is implemented, interview every woman who has been granted an abortion in the hospital, as they do now, and encourage them to take up family planning.”
“I hope my point is quite clear. The other point on which the Member for Punggol did express a certain amount of sorrow is that the Select Committee did not think fit to debate whether the foetus has a right to life or whether it should have human rights like anyone of us. This, as I have said again and again, will involve ourselves in the argument which primarily springs from religious and ethical considerations. When the Member for Punggol made this assertion, he forgot one medical fact - that, as far as I know, from the medical point of view, the foetus is not yet a human being, and as such, logically, how can it have human rights? The Member for Punggol did take strong exception to my remark that some of the opposition comes from persons who take their stand in accordance with their religious persuasion, although they do not want to admit it openly. I suppose it would suffice for me to say that the truth does hurt. Some of the opponents to the Bill say that they do not oppose it on religious or ethical grounds, but when we examine their arguments more deeply, we are sure to find that they revolve around certain religious or ethical dogmas. I have said this in my introductory speech and I do not think I need go further. The Member for Punggol made a great deal of play on The Sunday Times report of "baby bonuses" which was attributed to a speech made by my colleague, the Minister for Communications. May I say this? My colleague's prediction that Singapore may have to offer baby bonuses to mothers in the late 1970s because of the great success in slowing down of population growth in Singapore, is in no way inconsistent with the main objectives of the Abortion Bill. The Member for Punggol thought that it was a bonus for him to use it against the Abortion Bill.”
“However, may I just say this? After listening to the very ardent speech by the Member for Punggol, may I say that I do admire his doggedness in opposing this Bill? He did not, as expected, lose any opportunity to oppose this Bill once again even on its Third Reading. I do respect his persistence and the courage of his convictions in speaking out quite loudly and strongly against it. But I am afraid I cannot likewise have similar respect for the cogency of his arguments in opposing it. I admire all the more his dogged opposition to it since I have every reason to believe that his last stand against it must necessarily end up in the dust-bins of history. May I take the arguments of Members one at a time? To begin with, of course, I must give the honour to the Member for Punggol. In his argument, he did say that out of the 29 representations made on the Bill in Select Committee, 21 were against the inclusion of the socio-economic clause or the environmental clause in the Bill. I think his argument is that there was strong opposition to this clause judging by the number of representations made on it. May I just remind him that the multiplicity of representations does not necessarily mean the strength of the opposition. For example, if you just look at some of the addresses of the representations in opposition to the Bill, you will find that a number came from the same address. Two of them came from 96 Bras Basah Road and three of them came from 76 Bras Basah Road, but, of course, under different names and different labels.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I reply to the points raised by the various opposition speakers to the Bill, may I first make a few preliminary remarks on their speeches? At first, I was rather anxious to hear some more new points that they might bring forward to oppose the Bill. But, unfortunately, I find that they have repeated the familiar arguments in opposition to the Bill and it has left me greatly disappointed.”
“From the short-term point of view, it may appear to be the correct course of action. But from the long-term point of view, it is wrong. We must try to educate our people not only on sex but also on every other aspect of life. That is, make them understand the problems arising out of a large family and their effects on the economy of our country. This is what a responsible government should do. The P.A.P. Government should not introduce this Bill and other Bills that will encourage promiscuous behaviour in our people. We know that our people conduct themselves properly because they live in a society governed by law and order. They realise that in a democracy there is a limit to their freedom. But by introducing this Bill to legalise abortion, we are giving them more freedom. This is an undesirable action on the part of the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to remind the Minister for Health that our women will suffer a great deal more if the Bill is passed. We should reconsider it and take into account the long-term point of view and its effect on the country as a whole. 4.36 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Prime Minister mentioned that from the point of view of the economy of the country it is necessary to curb the population growth of the country. Since we have recognised the fact that the family planning campaign has been successful, why must we pass a Bill to legalise abortion? By doing so, we will encourage people to do things which are not beneficial to the country. We can see that in many countries they have not found it necessary to legalise abortion in order to reduce population growth and thus improve the economy of their country. They do not rely on the legalisation of abortion to raise the living standard of their people. Take China as an example. We can say that it is the most heavily populated country in the world. But its economy is also one of the most stable. Why is this so? Why cannot we learn from the example of China as well as of other countries in our effort to improve our economy and raise the living standard of our people? Why must we take a retrogressive step by introducing the Abortion Bill? It is not an act of a responsible government. The Singapore Government has already emphasised that we must try to establish our prestige in South-east Asia. At the same time, we must also try to be a model country in South-east Asia. But are we trying to establish ourselves as a model country by this Abortion Bill? If the Government thinks that our population is too big and that it is having an adverse effect on our economy, why does it not kill some people? Is this not a better way? Legalisation of abortion is tantamount to murder. But it is not a direct form of murder. It is an indirect form of murder. If we go through with this Bill, then in time to come we will realise that what we are doing now is wrong.”
“This is beneficial to the future of our country as well as to the family. In this respect, women have sacrificed a great deal. In the whole process of family planning, those adversely affected are the women. Whenever you are free, go to the family planning clinics and you will find that those who go there are women, not men. Our women have played their part for the country. This fact is well recognised by the country and the people themselves. Quite often it has been emphasised that, in terms of population growth, the family planning campaign is a great success because it has managed to reduce the population growth. This should be a source of great satisfaction to all of us. However, the Government does not sufficiently accept the success of this family planning campaign. Instead it is proposing to adopt another course of action, i.e., when a woman is pregnant and does not want the baby, she can have an abortion. According to the Minister for Health, the process is painless and will not affect the mother's health. Perhaps it is because he is not a woman that he does not know how it feels. Whether the performance of an abortion is painful and whether it is damaging to the mother's health, only a woman can tell. Let us consider this Bill very carefully. Those women who go for abortions usually come from the lower income group, i.e., their standard of living is poor. Quite often they lack the nourishment necessary after an abortion. If we move from family planning to abortion, then I am afraid that more pregnant women will go for abortion, and in the end those who suffer will not be the fathers but the mothers.”