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 30 of 33.
“(vi) The Bill will continue to be in force for a period of four years, which may be extended for a further period of one year, which in effect means that a critical assessment can be made as to the effectiveness of the legislation and Parliament will have the opportunity for debate on it again if it is to be re-enacted. In summary, the Bill makes provisions making it legal to carry out the operations of sterilization on a male or female person on application and by approval of a Eugenics Board. Sterilization does not carry the same emotional and ethical considerations as those raised by legalised abortion. Sterilization is a form of contraception which is virtually sterilization for life. As such, it has the advantage over the other forms of contraceptive techniques which are less convenient, and not completely effective. But being irreversible, serious thought must be given by the applicant and great care must be taken by the Board in approving the application before the operation is undertaken so that it is never regretted. It has therefore been necessary for careful safeguards to be written into the Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 5.45 p.m.”
“We must never get into the position where this law can be used against particular persons or against a community. The law is to allow for sterilization of persons to be done entirely voluntarily and at the person's request. Coercion will be an offence. Since there are both serious social and medical implications for the operations of sterilization which have essentially a permanent result and cannot be so easily undone, very careful safeguards have been introduced and these are: (i) The authority of a Eugenics Board will be required to authorise the sterilization of persons. The Board will consist of five members who will include a Judge, two registered medical practitioners and two others appointed by the Minister, one of whom must have had experience in social welfare work. (ii) Consent of the person, parent or guardian in case the applicant is below 21 years of age, and of the spouse should the person be married, will be required. The reason for requiring consent of the marital partner is that the operation without the consent of the spouse can be considered a marital offence. (iii) Sterilization will be carried out only in Government hospitals or an approved institution. (iv) The operation will be carried out only after a period of 30 days has elapsed from the day of the application in order to give time should the applicant change his mind. (v) For the medical practitioner and other medical staff, a conscience clause is included in the Bill so that no person will be obliged to participate in such an operation if it is against his conscience.”
“' The operation in the male is a simple one. It is done under local anaesthetic and can be done in any out-patient surgery. Perhaps the Member for Joo Chiat will know this better. In the operation, each of the two small tubes, known as the vas deferens, leading from the testes are cut. In this way, sterility is achieved without affecting the man's libido or virility and there is a good chance that the tubes may be re-joined, if required, successfully at a later date. This operation is medically known as vasectomy. It is important to point out here that this is entirely different from castration, which is a form of emasculation. In women, the operation is less simple as the tubes leading from the woman's ovaries, known as the Fallopian tubes, are within the abdominal cavity. The operation requires a small incision into the abdomen, but the other part of the operation is nearly as simple as for a male. Here again, I think the Member for Joo Chiat will know this better. The operation is required to be done under general anaesthesia and the patient has to be warded. Needless to say, the operation carries slightly more risk compared with the negligible risks of the operation on the male. The operation on the female is called a ligation. Like the Abortion Bill, there are certain safeguards written into the Voluntary Sterilization Bill which will effectively prevent abuse. One of the important safeguards is never to permit sterilization of persons against the person's will. We must never get into the position where the Bill, introduced with such high ideals and good intentions, is exploited by unscrupulous and cruel persons as had- happened in the mad days of Nazi Germany during the Second World War where several thousands of persons were sterilized without their consent.”
“Mention was made in describing the Abortion Bill that it was the experience in some countries which had liberalized their laws on abortions that a significant number of women were having repeated abortions. For such women, it would be preferable to undergo sterilization than be allowed to go through repeated ordeals of abortions. It would be infinitely simpler if niarried couples submit to sterilization after they have the number of children they have planned for. For a relatively simple operation they are rid once and for all of the worry of a possible unplanned pregnancy. For them, they are once and for all rid of the inconvenience of practising contraception. They will also he free from any further expenditure for birth-control measures. For the woman burdened with the care of too many children, where her health is sapped by repeated pregnancies, it is a relief to be free from the tyranny of fertility. A recent report of a series of 186 sterilised women from the Medical Research Council, Medical Sociology Research Unit, in the University of Aberdeen, showed that most of the women were satisfied with and were enthusiastic advocates of sterilization. Sterilization will also be permitted for eugenic reasons. For example, it would be permitted where there is a likelihood of transmission of hereditary diseases or where one of the partners is insane, or manic-depressive, or schizophrenic, or feeble-minded. In words that have become memorable, Mr Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, a great jurist, delivered the following opinion: 'It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute a degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”
“This proposition, however, has no direct judicial authority to support it, because it has never been tested in a court of law, Therefore, the state of the law on the subject is such that no one can say with certainty what the law is. Meanwhile, doctors have to take responsibility for the sterilization operations which they have to perform to protect the health of women and to protect mothers from giving birth to potentially abnormal babies. The object of the Bill, therefore, is to correct the ambiguity in the laws regarding sterilization. It will make it lawful for sterilization operations to he performed for purely medical conditions as a form of treatment if the registered practitioner in consultation with another practitioner agrees that it is necessary. In any other case, the operation can be performed on any person so long as the person is (a) above 21 years of age; (b) has the valid consent not only of himself but of his wife, if he is married; and (c) has three or more living children. If the person is under age, the operation can be performed only if the parents or guardians of the person signify consent for such treatment; or if the person is afflicted with any hereditary form of illness that is recurrent, mental deficiency or epilepsy. Sterilization has such a vital part to play in the prevention of pregnancy from the stand-point of the health of the individual or the happiness of the family and for population control, that the need for new legislation to cover its performance is as urgently required as that for the Abortion Bill. It is essential that the Abortion Bill should be complemented with the simultaneous passage of a law on sterilization.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill, introduced concurrently with the Abortion Bill, forms, together with the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board Act of 1965, a trio of social legislation of major importance. The three laws are a charter to liberate women from unwanted pregnancies and are as far-reaching in their social import as the Employment Act, the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Act and the industrial Relations (Amendment) Act are to the working community. The Voluntary Sterilization Bill provides for a means of preventing the unwanted or harmful pregnancy by the sterilization of either the female or male partner of a union. Female sterilization is at present practised quite frequently, in this country, the need for it, and possibly for male sterilization, is likely to increase progressively. There are far fewer ethical objections to these operations than those to the termination of pregnancies. But our present law in regard to sterilization is obscure and much open to criticism. There is no specific reference in the Penal Code to sterilization except reference to emasculation, which is an offence defined as a grevious hurt. At present, sterilization is probably not unlawful provided there is full and valid consent for the operation and that it was done for the benefit or well-being of the person. But this is by no means certain. Unless sterilization is performed for the purpose of treatment, it might however be considered an assault on the person if performed for any other reasons, such as for family limitation, social and economic pressures, high parity and eugenic considerations. In such circunistances, the operation is not made lawful even if consent is given in such cases.”
“Resolved, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection." - [Mr Chua Sian Chin].”
“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. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." 5.00 p.m. An hon. Member: Division. The House divided: Ayes, 32; Noes, 10; Abstentions, 2; Absent, 14. Ayes Noes Abdul Aziz Karim Chan Choy Siong, Madam Ang Nam Piau Conceicao, J.F. Barker, E. W. Ho Kah Leong Chan Chee Seng Ho See Beng Ch'ng Jit Koon Low Yong Nguan Chor Yeok Eng Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi Chua Sian Chin Ng Kah Ting Fang Sip Chee Rahmat bin Kenap Govindasamy, N. Sia Khoon Seong Ho Cheng Choon Tay Boon Too Hwang Soo Jin Absentions Lee Chiaw Meng Lee Teck Him Lim Cheng Lock Low Guan Onn Lim Guan Hoo Lou Kim San Absentions Lim Soo Peng Ng Yeow Chong Lee Teck Him Ong Pang Boon Low Guan Onn Ong Soo Chuan Phua Bah Lee Absent Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamy. S. A. Harim Ishak Seah Mui Kok Buang bin Omar Junid Selvadurai, P. Cheong Yuen Chee Sia Kah Hui Goh Keng Swee Sim Boon Woo Govindasamy, P Tang See Chim Jek Yeun Tong Teong Eng Siong Lee Khoon Choy Wee Toon Boon Lee Kuan Yew Wang Lin Ken Mohd. Ghazali bin Ismail Yeoh Ghim Seng Othman bin Wok Yong Nyuk Lin Rodrigo, L. P. Sha'ari bin Tadin Toh Chin Chye Ya'acob bin Mohamed Bill accordingly read a Second time.”
“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. 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.”
“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.”
“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 given an abortion will he asked to accept voluntary sterilization as a condition of the authorisation of abortion. These two complementary steps will ensure that the family planning programme will not suffer and that women will not come repeatedly for abortion. It will, in fact, stimulate the practice of family planning, contrary to what the prophets of doom amongst the opposition to the Bill say. Because of this close and intimate tie-up, the situation that occurred in Japan, where the Eugenic Protection Law was implemented independently of the family planning programme with consequent detrimental effects on family planning practice, is not expected to occur in Singapore. 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 of growth. By 1970, at the end of the present five-year family planning programme, we will reach 1.”
“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 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.”
“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. 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.”
“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.”
“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 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 33-year 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.”
“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 minimal. There must, therefore, be adequate control of operations. Otherwise, the back-street abortionists will certainly not only continue in business but will be having a booming one. (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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“, 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.”
“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 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.”
“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 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?”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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. Of course, some also attempt to put up a facade of rationality and of being scientific by quoting excerpts from some 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.”
“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.”
“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 abortion trade at present flourishing in Singapore are members of the medical profession. Even when it is a criminal offence to perform abortions except in the very restricted circumstances permitted under the Penal Code, the consequences of a conviction for illegal abortion are not sufficient to deter doctors as well as quacks from performing abortions. With the present Bill there is much less deterrence to such doctors to perform abortions which are not envisaged or permissible under the provisions of this Bill. I cannot see any provision contained in this Bill in respect of the penalties that may be suffered by a doctor who performs an operation not on the basis of an opinion formed in good faith to the satisfaction of the Board or in circumstances which are beyond the scope of the Bill. I wonder whether mere infringement of the provisions of this Bill would constitute substantial grounds to cause a registered medical practitioner to be deregistered by his medical association.”
“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 permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. 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.”
“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. The three provisions I have just referred to are, in a manner of speaking, amplified and extended versions of the existing provisions in our Penal Code specifying the circumstances to which abortion may not be considered to be a crime. But in paragraph (h) of sub-clause (2) of clause 5 a controversial ground is introduced. The provisions are to the effect that if the Board is of the opinion formed in good faith that the environment of the pregnant wonlan justifies the termination of a pregnancy, the Board may authorise an abortion to be performed. My objection is that in the term "environment", which is defined in the said paragraph to include family and financial circumstances of the pregnant woman, there is no reference to 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.”
“Regarding the objection to the Bill on psychological and moral grounds, I am given to understand that doctors are called to safeguard life and promote health, not to kill or destroy. Their code of ethics, crystallised in the Hippocratic Oath, makes this abundantly clear: '...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. 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 .”
“Jeffcoate: 'The destruction of the living embryo offends something fundamental in human nature and the most scientifically detached gynaecologist cannot fail to approach the operation with an uneasiness which has been variously accredited to 'primordial revulsion' and 'subtle archaic motives'.' In a discussion of the risks of carrying out abortions, reference must be made to the effects on the doctor himself. Doctors feel that their primary professional role is to preserve life and not to destroy it. This feeling of uneasiness will not be 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.”
“Is that so? Mr Ho See Beng: In view of such vehement and valid objection, it seems to me that a law which embodies a radical concept repugnant to a substantial number of citizens and which is sponsored as a measure of expediency is likely to bring about a train of events which will secure the subsequent revocation of such law. Sir, in view of the religious objections to the Bill and as Singapore is a secular state, I feel that their opinions should be taken into consideration. We cannot just brush them off. 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. Here I would like to quote Professor T.N.A.”
“It is always good to aspire to an ideal.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Paya Lebar Constituency does not have an outpatient dispensary within its boundaries. But there are dispensaries just outside these boundaries, namely, the Paya Lebar Outpatient Dispensary at the junction of Paya Lebar Road and Yio Chu Kang Road; Lim Ah Pin Outpatient Dispensary which is further up on Upper Serangoon Road from the Paya Lebar Clinic; MacPherson Road Outpatient Dispensary at Pesiaran Keliling in the MacPherson Housing Estate, just off Paya Lebar Road. There are no immediate plans to build a new dispensary for the Paya Lebar Constituency. Development plans for resiting Paya Lebar Outpatient Dispensary will have to be made should it be demolished to make way for road development. The alternative site has not been chosen. This will be determined by consultations with the Commissioner of Lands. It could well happen that the site chosen may be within the Paya Lebar Constituency. ABORTION BILL Order read for resumption of debate on Question [8th April, 1969], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question again proposed. 3.27 p.m.”
“(a) Child born with physical/mental abnormality, 1967 = 78 (0.22 per cent of births). 1968 = 109. (b) (i) Pregnancy following rape/incest = 5. (ii) Pregnancy following intercourse with insane person = Nil. (iii) Pregnancy following intercourse with feeble-minded person = Nil. (c) Maternal deaths following pregnancy in Kandang Kerbau Hospital, 1967 = 19 deaths. 1968 = 12 deaths. (d) It is not possible to give figures of the number of women who suffered physical or mental injury following the birth as follow-ups of women following their confinements are not carried out indefinitely. Further, any morbid condition which a woman suffered from is treated at other institutions, and there is no linkage in the records to be able to provide for information on these matters. Hence, unless the morbid condition occurred soon after birth, no infor mation will be available. The number of deaths given in my answer should be related to the total number of births in the Hospital which were 38,252 and 36,727 respectively. This gives a maternal mortality rate per thousand births at 0.5 and 0.33 respectively. Maternal mortality is defined as the number of women dying shortly following childbirth whether a child was born alive or at still birth. The number of deaths is usually given as a rate, i.e. total number of maternal mortalities per thousand births. The latest figures available from the overall maternal mortality rate in Singapore in 1965 and 1966 were 0.4 and 0.5.”
“Rodrigo asked the Minister for Health how many births have been recorded by or reported to the Hospital Authorities from 1st January, 1967, up to the latest convenient date - (a) in which the child was born with physical or mental abnormalities as to seriously handicap it; (b) in which a pregnancy had been the result of - (i) rape or incest; (ii) intercourse with an insane person; (iii) intercourse with a feebleminded person; (c) which resulted in the death of the pregnant woman as the pregnancy had involved risk to her life: (d) which resulted in physical or mental injury to the pregnant woman as the pregnancy had involved such risk to her.”
“These latter cases cannot always be determined accurately as the woman seldom will admit interference with the pregnancies and many of the numbers included in the group are based on presumptive evidence that they are criminally induced abortions. An MD thesis on Non-clinical aspects of induced abortions in Singapore was written by Dr Lee Yong Kiat. His figures for induced abortions were 1,676 for a six-month period in 1964, i.e. 3,352 projected for the year. He also estimated that the total number of abortions occurring in Singapore would probably be about 6,000 a year. My predecessor, replying to a question in Parliament on abortions, quoted the same source for his figures on estimated abortions. (Hansard - Thursday, 7th September 1967, Vol. 26, Columns 95 and 96). From my answers, it can be inferred that abortions carried out (for medical reasons) in the Hospital are safe since no deaths occurred in the entire series in the last two years. In comparison, the deaths recorded from abortions treated in the Hospital were deaths from those who had in all probability been criminally aborted outside and were brought into the Hospital for treatment. The comparative safety of abortions done under the Hospital conditions is further confirmed by comparison with deaths resulting from childbirth. Whereas there were no deaths resulting from therapeutic abortions, there were a few deaths resulting from childbirth in the Hospital (0.5 and 0.3 per thousand of births) as appears in my answer to another question filed by the hon. Member. CHILDBIRTHS 2. Mr L. P.”
“(a) Abortions carried out by Kandang Kerbau Hospital 1967 = 820 (with no deaths). Abortions carried out by Kandang Kerbau Hospital 1968 = 1,376 (with no deaths). (b) Cases of abortions treated, recorded or reported by Hospital Authorities for 1967 = 3,327 (with 5 deaths). 1968 = 2,922 (with 2 deaths). In amplification of the figures in these answers 1 should add that the figures in my answer to question (a) for abortions carried out in the Hospital were those done for medical reasons, i.e. "therapeutic abortions" for such conditions as incomplete abortions (to complete the evacuation of the womb of the contents of conception when abortion has occurred spontaneously - "naturally" -or by "artificial induction"; or from inevitable abortion, or in some other conditions where the continued pregnancy may endanger the life of the pregnant woman such as heart diseases in heart failure, tuberculosis, advanced kidney diseases with kidney impairment and cancer of the breast. The figures in my answer (b) for cases of abortions treated, recorded or reported by the Hospital would include the figures for abortions carried out by the Hospital given in answer (a) . The difference in the numbers would, therefore, more correctly be figures for cases of abortions treated in the hospital. These cases would include persons treated for threatened abortions, i.e. where there is a possibility of the pregnancy terminating for one reason or the other, but usually from natural causes; where it is necessary to try and save the pregnancy. In others, these were for treatment of cases which had been interfered with, and were suffering from infection of injury to the womb.”
“Is the Member for Punggol saying that abortions should be freely available?”
“I have every confidence in the good sense of judgment, of fair play and of the high humanitarian principles of our hon. Members who are always con scious of the public good. I am sure they will courageously rise to the occasion and give overwhelming support to this historic Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 5.33 p.m.”
“It will assure the quality of our children so that we can continue to survive and prosper. I, therefore, appeal to hon. Members to face up to the challenge on this important social issue and give their full support to the Bill. I do hope that they will not falter just because of some pressure, social or otherwise, brought to bear on them by some minority groups outside who, on account of their religious dogmas, desire to impose their will on the majority. There have been similar minority groups before who, in their out-of-date beliefs, have stood opposed to the introduction of birth control in Singapore and whose stand, as we know today, has found itself in the dustbins of history. In the same way, I am certain that the opposing stand to this Bill taken by this minority group will also in the course of time end up in the dustbins of history. After all, it must be emphasised again that the Bill does not compel anyone who has any religious scruples and conscience against abortion to undergo the operation. In fact, the Bill makes it an offence for anyone who compels any person to have an abortion. The Government has even gone further in respecting the religious and ethical beliefs of hon. Members by withdrawing the Whip in this debate. On the other hand, what I would like to stress again is this: is it right in our multi-racial and multi-religious society for any person or group of persons, on grounds of religious dogma, to deny others, whose religious and ethical beliefs do not forbid them to have an abortion, from taking advantage of the provisions of this proposed law? Mr Speaker, Sir, criticisms of the Bill there will be, but after all that has been said, the case for the Bill on every count is indeed overwhelming.”
“The lower reproductive rate among those who can least afford children will have beneficial effects in ensuring that the children of these members of the community would stand a better chance of having a happy and meaningful life. All these can only result in greater good to our society and help to improve the quality of our next generation. Finally, we in Singapore are now standing on the cross-roads of history. We are facing the major problems of defence and economic development that must be solved if we are to survive as an independent nation. But in order to succeed in this, we must also solve our social problem which is by no means less important to our continued survival and prosperity. As you know, Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a small island with no natural resources; but we have been able to survive and prosper so far because of the high quality of performance of our people. Therefore, our continued survival and well-being will depend upon the quality of our next generation, which in turn must depend on the quality of the children we now produce. As a matter of fact, with our advent into the modern age, the pace and tempo of life will be much faster and the quality of our people to meet the future challenges must therefore be of a higher calibre. Can we, therefore, particularly in our Singapore situation, afford to have children resulting from unwanted pregnancies from where most of the delinquents, the criminals and antisocial elements are derived, or allow children with physical and mental abnormalities to be born? Will not these lower the quality of our next generation and, in fact, reverse the process of nature where the fittest survive? The Bill, therefore, offers a humane and rational solution to this important social question facing us.”
“The problem is not whether the foetus is inchoate and hence expendable as the law reformers claim, or whether it is human and inviolable as the opponents insist. The central problem is that of an unwanted pregnancy and how to treat it. The issue is simply the right of an individual to have a choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy under specified conditions, just as it is the right of every human being to enjoy a meaningful life, a right to liberty and a right of privacy. And for the medical practitioner, the right to perform an abortion without the threat of criminal proceedings, both being free to follow their conscience and not be imposed by any ethical code, religious belief, or moral standard of others. And conversely there is nothing in the Bill to force anyone to perform, or have, an abortion. This Bill will now liberate our women, allowing them to determine when they should bear their children. For the woman, therefore, the Bill will liberate her from the fear of unwanted pregnancies; where the termination of an unwanted pregnancy can be performed under the best possible circumstances and in approved hospitals where the risks are minimum. As a corollary, it will discourage her from resorting to the back-street abortionists. As for society and the state, by ensuring that every child born is a wanted child, it will assure the quality of life of children in Singapore. It will ensure that the children born in Singapore 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.”
“The woman has a free choice as to whichever registered medical practitioner she wants to go to and no doubt she will go to the medical practitioner in whom she has confidence. The registered medical practitioner who performs this examination will then send to the Board the application form of the pregnant woman with a medical certificate certifying the reasons which, in his opinion, justify treatment to terminate pregnancy together with such other certificates or documents as may be prescribed. The Board may also call for further information or arrange for further medical examinations. If the Board decides to authorise the abortion, it shall advise the applicant the date on which and place at which treatment is to be carried out and this date will normally be within seven days of the date on which treatment is authorised by the Board. The Board shall at the same time send all relevant information on the application to the place where treatment is to be carried out for the use of the registered medical practitioner carrying out such treatment. Provision is also made, where the Board refuses an application, for the pregnant woman to request the Board to reconsider its decision in the light of further evidence. This is provided in clause 7 (9). I am fully aware that by introducing this Bill making abortions more permissive, it does raise as many issues as it attempts to solve. Liberalisation of our abortion laws is not only a legal, medical or sociological problem. It does touch on our basic moral and religious beliefs - and for this reason it has created an intense interest as well as some controversy. But these are important issues and we must face them courageously.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before we rose I was on the safeguards of the Bill and I was interrupted when I was expounding the dilemma of the Roman Catholic doctor. Sir, if I may be permitted to continue. The religious beliefs of the Roman Catholic as well as those of other religious groups are respected. But the duty to save life must surely over-ride all religious beliefs or dogmas. It is therefore quite clear that clause 10 (3) should be retained. (g) To prevent women residing outside Singapore from taking advantage of the liberalisation of the laws on abortions, the operations will be available only to women who have been resident in Singapore for at least four months prior to the application. (h) Finally, the law will run for a limited duration. It shall continue in force for four years and may be extended for a further period of not more than one year. Parliament would, therefore, have the opportunity of reviewing the experience and the effectiveness of the legislation and the desirability of continuing it. The essence of the liberalisation of the laws is to provide a pregnant woman with an unwanted pregnancy to procure a cheap but safe method of abortion. To do so, efficiency of procedure and secrecy must be maintained throughout. To be effective, the whole process from application, authorisation, or rejection must be done with despatch. Unless treatment to terminate a pregnancy is permitted under sub-clauses (3) and (5) of clause 5 of the Bill, every pregnant woman wishing to have her pregnancy terminated shall apply to the Board for authorisation, but, before so doing, shall submit to a medical examination.”
“" As a matter of fact, a member of the public who participated in a recent public forum on Medical Ethics organised by the Singapore Medical Association had stated that, by insisting on absolute freedom to refuse to act against conscience even in an emergency to save the life or prevent grave permanent injury to the pregnant woman, the Singapore Medical Association seemed to have overlooked the Declaration of Geneva where a doctor is required solemnly to pledge that he would not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party political affiliations or social standing to intervene between his duty and his patient.”
“However, under clause 10 (3) the medical practitioner has a duty to participate in such treatment in an emergency where no other doctor is available and which is necessary to save the life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical and mental health of a pregnant woman. The Singapore Medical Association in their memorandum have expressed strong opposition to this sub-clause. According to them, their Roman Catholic members will find themselves accountable and this will not, as has been envisaged by clause 10, allow them a way out without breaking the law. But I cannot really see any justification to the objection to clause 10 (3) since it, in fact, restates our existing law in which all doctors have a legal duty to preserve life. This legal duty must certainly over-ride all religious dogmas and beliefs. It is the Roman Catholic dogma that the foetus has the right to life as the born child. This assumption can, if I may point out, lead the Roman Catholic doctor into a great moral dilemma, for sometimes he has to choose between destroying the foetus in order to save the mother's life and allowing the mother to die in the hope of saving the foetus. As has been well said and I quote: "The Catholic preference of doing nothing to assist the mother amounts in fact to a preference of the foetus over the mother and may amount to a sentence of death for both.”
“As this time factor is important, it is also written into the Bill in sub-clause (6) of clause 7 that the termination of pregnancy must be carried out within seven days of its authorisation. The objective of this provision is to minimise the danger to the health of the woman seeking abortion as it is known that abortions carried out late in pregnancy carries with them a high mortality and morbidity rate. (d) Consent is required of the person to have abortion - this is provided in clause 8 - and in case of feeblemindedness or where the woman is unable to give a valid consent if she is below 18 years of age, the parent or guardian or, in the absence of either one, the Board, after consultation with the husband, may authorise the abortion. Consent may, however, be withdrawn any time before abortion is carried out. (e) Secrecy is guaranteed for any application for treatment for termination of pregnancy. Disclosure of any facts or information without the consent of the pregnant woman is an offence. (f) The medical practitioner who has conscientious objection in carrying out abortions is protected under clause 10 which provides that he may refuse to do so unless such treatment is to save the life or preserve the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. It should be elaborated further that the practitioner has a general duty towards his patient. Once a doctor/patient relationship has been created when the practitioner accepts the patient, he must provide advice as well as treatment with reasonable care and skill.”
“These safeguards are: (a) The establishment under clause 3 of the Bill of an Authorisation Board known as the Termination of Pregnancy Authorisation Board. Every abortion will have to be authorised by the Board unless it is carried out as an emergency under clause 5 (5) or if two medical practitioners in consultation deem it necessary to do so under clause 5 (3) . The Board will consist of 11 members; six are officials, and five are appointed by the Minister. Its composition is well balanced and representative. The medical representation would naturally dominate, with the three medical directors from the Ministry of Health; an obstetrician and a psychiatrist. Social workers are represented in the person of the Director of Social Welfare and a female person who has had experience in social welfare work. At least one more female member is guaranteed and she will be nominated by the Minister. As it will be essential that the Board is able to fulfil its functions and to complete its work expeditiously, provision is made for it to form committees which will be delegated powers to perform any specific function of the Board. (b) It is also required - under clause 5 (4) - that the abortion is done in a Government hospital or in an approved institution. And under clause 9, abor tions approved by the Board are to be done only by a medical practitioner with specialist qualifications or who has the necessary experience. This will ensure that abortions are done under the best possible conditions. (c) Abortions will not be authorised where the duration of pregnancy has gone beyond a certain period of time unless such treatment is immediately necessary to save the life or prevent grave injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. This is provided in clause 6.”
“" Mr Speaker, Sir, these quotations are from learned journals and if Members are interested, they are in front of me. In many young married women the effects of termination are equally gratifying and the benefits to the whole marriage situation may be very consider able. In older married women who do not want more children and are strained to the breaking point by the occurrence of another pregnancy, the results of termination plus tubal ligation are most satisfactory. There is striking improvement in the woman's physical and mental health and in the well-being of the whole family. In summary, the Bill offers a safe alternative to an unwanted pregnancy where there is none now; where the abortion is carried out expeditiously, cheaply and confidentially. A cautionary note has been injected by many suggesting that abortions should not be made freely available, that is, that abortion should not be made on demand, The reasons for this reservation range from religious, moral to medical grounds described above. Whatever the reasons, may I repeat again that it is not the intention of the Bill to make abortions on demand. To presume so is a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Bill. If it was the purpose to make abortions on demand, there would have been no necessity to introduce such an elaborate Bill with its several conditions and safe guards. All that would have been required would be to pass a short amending Bill deleting the relevant sections of the Penal Code referring to illegality of abortions. Certain safeguards have, however, been written into the Bill which would, amongst other things, effectively prevent abortions being procurable on demand.”
“In a series of 13 cases studied in Japan, 20 per cent of the women on whom abortions were induced were pregnant again within six months, and 50 per cent within 12 or 18 months. From Sweden it is reported that 38 per cent of the women whose pregnancies were terminated had a second unwanted pregnancy within two to four years. In Czechoslovakia it is said that 50 per cent of the women on whom abortions are induced are having a second operation and 12 per cent a third operation within two years. These are pertinent arguments. It is for these reasons that a Bill on Voluntary Sterilization is being introduced concurrently. Where a woman requires repeated abortions, sterilization will be advised. I would like to reveal here that the Government has already decided, 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. This policy will be adopted as standing practice by the Termination of Pregnancy Authorisation Board. A third objection to abortion is the frequent undesirable psychic and physical reactions following its legal performance. I bring this matter up to lay a ghost. Three excellent studies, published during 1966, by Niswander and Patterson, Pack and Marcus, and Baird all show that "in women who had a pregnancy terminated, psychiatric and neurotic symptoms were no more common than one might expect in the population generally." In his study, Sir Dougald Baird, who is a distinguished emeritus professor of obstetrics in Scotland, states: "In most unmarried women the crisis is resolved by termination of pregnancy, and the benefit is immediate and very pronounced.”