Ng Kah Ting
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I ask my supplementary question, may I declare, on behalf of the Member for Kebun Baru and myself, that we are both involved in the building of Montfort Secondary School and Montfort Junior School both of which are Government-aided schools. My question now, Sir, is: when will this take effect?”
“But, Sir, at the end of this debate on the Second Reading and the Bill committed to a Select Committee, I sincerely hope that all those who have the interest of Singapore at heart should come forward and make their contributions, be they critical or ways and means on how better we can improve upon this Bill.”
“But the basic foundation, I submit, and that is, the political stability-honest, efficient and an incorruptible political leadership-is paramount to the future well-being of Singapore, and that is, if we are to continue to enjoy our good standard of living, our good government and of course as an independent, sovereign entity or nation.”
“Sir, I knew that the NCMP would come out and say that-don't mix up the ISA with PPSO because basically it is the same. I say, no. Because in 1958, PAP was not in power. It was the Lim Yew Hock government. That is the difference I am trying to make. So let us not go around in this wild political rhetoric. I understand that.”
“Sir, before I make my observations, I just want to make a couple of points in reply to the Non-Constituency MP, Dr Lee. He said that in 1958 when he was asked to stand as a PAP candidate in Kallang he was afraid of the ISA. I do not think that is quite correct because in 1958, Sir, there was no ISA.”
“We should take advantage of the present political stability to provide for the future. In conclusion, Sir, let me draw an analogy. With Singapore being the No. 1 port in the world, this analogy is not inappropriate.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,870 lines we hold for Ng Kah Ting, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 32 of 38.
“Is the Minister of State able to indicate that these copies are really being distributed, because when I was in some of our foreign missions, I found that a lot of such copies had not been distributed.”
“The Minister of State has mentioned that in Australia the Mirror was distributed in 1969. However, he could not indicate the date of distribution for the other missions which he named. I wonder whether he could enlighten this House on it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs be able to indicate the number of copies of such publications that are mailed to our overseas missions?”
“Sir, that being the case, then those who apply for citizenship will be refused until they become millionaires. I do not think that is the proper answer.”
“It has instead encouraged those people relying on standpipes to connect water to their homes. Much has been achieved in this respect, and, as a result, many remote villages and kampongs have benefited. But there is still much to be done in supplying pipe-water to the remotest places. I know for a fact that many poultry and pig farmers are today making use of pipe-water in the course of their work and they have to pay for it at the commercial rate. However, these farms are in the rural areas and I hope the Minister for Finance will consider their case. It is a bit unfair to these people to have to pay more for the water consumed when, in fact, they do not enjoy sewerage facilities. No doubt, the answer given by the Minister for Finance at the last sitting of Parliament was that a line had to be drawn somehow. However, let us hope that the line drawn will not result in a lop-sided tax which imposes a heavier burden on these farmers. I wonder whether the Minister for Finance will give special consideration to the consumers of water in the rural areas by reducing the rate of Government tax. After all, they do not enjoy sewerage facilities. I am positive that, as citizens, the people will understand their responsibility to the State. However, a clear explanation must be given to them, otherwise they will think that in spite of their poor condition the Government is being hard on them in making a general imposition of increased water charges irrespective of whether or not the consumers enjoy sewerage facilities. Lastly, Sir, whilst once again expressing my full support for this Bill, I hope the two Ministers concerned will carefully consider the points I have just now raised. 6.03 p.m.”
“In the course of such tours I came across some countries in Asia and Europe where one cannot drink the pipe-water. Therefore, one has to buy mineral water or beer to quench one's thirst. What is the difference, one may then ask? The difference is that such pipe-water is often muddy and dirty and is meant for washing only. I am also told that if one drinks from the tap, one gets sick because the water has never been treated chemically. I am sure we do not want that to happen to us. Singapore is a city state with a population of some 8,800 persons per square mile. As this number will increase each year, we cannot afford to and we do not wish to have non-treated or undrinkable water from our taps, as is found in some countries. Sir, I believe this situation is unwelcome not only on health grounds but also because we do not wish our people to quench their thirst with beer or mineral water. With respect, Sir, the situation that exists in those countries could be due to certain prevailing conditions, but we in Singapore certainly want our water crystal clear and drinkable straight from the tap. Once again may I reiterate that the price we will be paying for water is well worth it. But the Government must take steps to explain the proposed increase in charges, whether they be due to sewerage fittings, sanitary fittings, or in respect of water consumed. Sir, in fully supporting this amending Bill, I hope the Minister concerned will look into the problem of supplying water to the remotest village or kampong in the Republic where well water is still being used. This is most unhygienic and bad for health. During the past two years or so the Government has conducted several exercises to remove public standpipes.”
“I am sorry, a 20-cent charge per 1,000 gallons. We know that water is a precious and priceless commodity. We also know that it is imported, like other raw materials, and has to be treated before it can be consumed. Let me then add that because it is precious, it is therefore worth the price we are asked to pay. I fully support this move, but I must ask the Minister for Law and National Development what steps are being taken to ensure that water will always be readily available. Now that the World Bank has given us an $18 million loan to develop our sewerage facilities, may I ask him what concrete plans are afoot to extend sewerage facilities throughout the Republic? Also, what concrete plans are in hand to ensure that by the early or the late l970s the whole country and its people will enjoy modern sewerage facilities? Because by then no one can quibble that he has to shoulder the burden of increased water charges while others who are enjoying such facilities are not similarly charged. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are always people who take things for granted. From them little appreciation can be expected, except that they will always grumble whenever there is an imposition of increased taxes or charges. To me, these people never seem to understand, for example, that water has to be imported and stored and also treated chemically before it can be piped into their homes and made safe for drinking. The process involved, I am told, is both complicated and costly. To these people, Sir, let me say this: think of what they are getting, and ask themselves whether it is worth the price. Sir, I have been fortunate enough to travel outside the Republic on several occasions.”
“And even though these extra charges or levies will be collected by the Public Utilities Board on behalf of the Government, to the consumers they definitely mean an increase on the rates they are paying now. Together with this, there is an extra levy of $2 per fitting per month. This adds up to an increase of nearly 50 per cent of the rates, as compared with the increase over the last few years. Admittedly, Sir, this increase will impose a heavier burden on the consumers, especially those in the lower income group, i.e., the farmers and labourers. And we know that the possibility of further increases cannot be ruled out because the Minister for Finance was non-committal in his reply to my question at the sitting on the 23rd of December last. Hence I suspect that there must be more valid and cogent reasons than this, and I feel that the Government owes the people an answer. I hope it will not be failing in its duty to disclose the other reasons which prompt it to make such charges and increases. The people, I am positive, will be ready to accept these increased charges if they fully understand the intentions behind the move. Sir, one cannot run away from the fact that water in Singapore means life or death to us. The majority of our people depend on pipe-water, and if they are deprived of it, then I think hell will break loose. We all know that the Government has taken pains to ensure that water is readily and easily available. But I am arguing this from the point of view of the extra 20 per cent charge on water.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment Bill is directly the result of the Ministerial statement made by the Minister for Finance in this House on Tuesday, 23rd December last year, in which he disclosed that the Government intends to levy a sewage fee and increase the charges for water consumed both in the domestic and commercial sectors. Just now, the Minister for Law and National Development, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, pointed out that after some consideration it was decided to impose the increase on all consumers of water, whether they enjoy sewerage facilities or not. You will remember, Sir, that many questions were asked of the Minister for Finance arising out of his Ministerial statement, and the answers he gave have thrown some light on the reasons compelling the Government to resort to taking such measures. Having gone through the Ministerial statement, Sir, and also the answers to subsequent questions, and the Bill, it is obvious to everybody that the days of cheaper public utilities are gone. In other words, nothing is free today. For that matter, no government can afford to pay a heavy subsidy on public utilities without bringing the country to economic chaos. This has been so in several countries where political issues arise out of such matters, but I do not think we will fall into this pit. For example, Sir, medical facilities in Singapore were free some time ago. Today charges are being levied on those who seek them. Today we see the rates of water increased. In the last few years the rates ranging from 60 cents to $1.30 per 1,000 gallons have been increased to 80 cents to $1.50, together with a 10 per cent Government tax. This increase, I believe, was carried out in 1966.”
“Since the Ministry of Finance has studied this subject in some depth, will the Minister disclose to this House the number of chit fund companies in Singapore and the various amounts of paid-up capital?”
“Division. The House divided: Ayes, 32: Noes, 10; Abstention, 1; Absent, 15. Ayes Noes Abdul Aziz Karim Chan Choy Siong, Madam Ang Nam Piau Govindaswamy, P. Barker, E. W. Ho Kah Leong Chan Chee Seng Ho See Beng Cheong Yuen Chee Lee Teck Him Ch'ng Jit Koon Low Yong Nguan Chor Yeok Eng Ng Kah Ting Chua Sian Chin Rahmat bin Kenap Fong Sip Chee Sia Khoon Seong Goh Keng Swee Tay Boon Too Govindasamy, N. Ho Cheng Choon Abstention Hwang Soo un Low Guan Onn Lee Chiaw Meng Lim Cheng Lock Absent Lim Guan Hon A. Rahim Ishak Lim Kim San Buang bin Omar Lim Soo Peng Junid Mohd. Ghazali bin Conceicao, J. F. Ismail Jek Yeun Thong Ng Yeow Chong Lee Khoon Choy Ong Pang Boon Lee Kuan Yew Ong Son Chuan Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi Phua Bah Lee Othman bin Wok Rodrigo, L. P. Rajaratnam, S. Seah Mui Kok Ramaswamy, S. Selvadurai, P. Sha'ari bin Tadin Sia Kah Hui Tang See Chim Sim Boon Woo Toh Chin Chye Teong Eng Siong Ya'acob bin Mohamed Wee Toon Boon Yong Nyuk Lin Wong Lin Ken Yeoh Ghim Seng Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. VOLUNTARY STERILIZATION BILL (As reported from Select Committee) Order for Third Reading read. 5.53 p.m.”
“Perhaps we lack the ability and vitality to put our arguments across clearly enough. Perhaps we lack the power of persuasion necessary to induce the people to look beyond the immediate advantages of this Bill to the long-term disadvantages that will come with its implementation. 4.11 p.m.”
“It is for you! Sir, the conclusion I am about to draw is obvious, for I did mention in this House on 8th April, 1969 - Hansard, Vol. 28, No. 11, col. 895, and I quote: '...a child unwanted by its parents may well become a treasure to some childless couple.' May I therefore, Sir, recommend this for careful and considerate consumption to those who are too eager to recommend liberalised abortion as advocated in this Bill. But some of us here in this House are convinced that abortion is a bad thing, and that widespread abortion would be disastrous for the nation. We think it should be confined and discouraged in every possible way. It would therefore seem that we have failed to convince this House on this point. Perhaps the fault is ours. An hon. Member: Yours!”
“Sir, I have already mentioned that it is The Sunday Times dated 21st December, 1969, page 3, under the headline, "A long queue -but not enough babies to adopt".”
“Sir, perhaps the House will be interested to note further that an article in The Sunday Times of the same date and captioned: "A Sunday Times Inquiry"”
“But one searches in vain for any expression of regret that abortions should be performed at all. The impression I get, Sir, is that the Select Committee's attitude was: Well, abortions are being performed; they will continue to be performed. Some people think that this is undesirable, so we will make a few minor amendments to placate them. We will merely change "risk to the life of the pregnant woman" to "serious risk" and so on. But we will leave untouched the most controversial clause - the socio-economic clause and the environmental clause which can be interpreted broadly enough to suit any purpose. And then we will see what happens. If things work out badly, we can always amend the law again. In the meantime, we note that abortions reduce the population growth. Apparently, the Minister for Communications hit the nail on the head when he was reported to have said: 'With family planning a success and legislation of abortion on the cards, I envisage that whichever government is in power in the late '70s would have seriously to consider whether or not to offer baby bonuses to mothers, in order to check the fast falling birth rate that would prevail in Singapore at that time.' [The Sunday Times dated 21st December, 1969, page 1]. So, today this House passes this Bill to liberalise the law on abortion. But what I am afraid is that the House in the late seventies, which is some ten years away, may have to forbid abortion and may come up with another Bill - to offer mothers-to-be-hence baby bonuses! Can you see what irony! Therefore, if we try to look ahead ten years hence, I am sure many Members in this House, who will definitely be around, will then sadly sigh, "We made a terrible mistake in 1969!".”
“Ask yourself. You are a father; you should know. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 3.57 p.m. In fact, Sir, what causes me a lot of uneasiness in reading this Report is the absence of any clear indication that the Select Committee was convinced that abortion is a bad thing and is to be reduced to a minimum. Sometimes one could get the opposite impression and this is understandable. For instance, in discussing the question whether the Abortion Bill is to be used as a means of population control - I refer to the Minutes of Evidence at page B37, paragraphs 254 and 256 - one of the witnesses quoted the Minister for Health's speech in this House: 'Another important benefit to our society that would result from this Bill would be to lower the rate of our population growth...' And further on, the Chairman said, and I quote with your permission, Sir: 'We must recognise one point, and that is, every abortion performed under this Bill, when it is law, will, whatever its purpose, play a part in population control.' This is undoubtedly true.”
“Sir, may I refer Members to page A50 of the Select Committee's Report? Paragraph 10 of Paper No. 21 reads: 'As doctors we consider it our duty to safeguard the life and health of our patients. What non-medical people apparently fail to realise is that when a pregnant woman comes to a doctor, the doctor considers that he has two patients to look after. This is not the opinion based on metaphysical or theological speculation. This is a simple fact based on scientific evidence.' Moreover, since the Minister for Health is so concerned about the Declaration of Geneva, I wish that he had also referred to another clause in the Declaration. In paragraph 32 of Paper No. 27, reproduced on page A73 of the Report, the Declaration reads: 'I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception;'.”
“Mr Minister, you will have plenty of time to reply. I now refer to my next point on "conscientious objection" which is in respect of clause 10 (2) of the Bill. It is gratifying to note that the Select Committee has made it clear that a statement under oath or on affirmation will establish proof of conscientious objection. This is what the Minister said. However, in dealing with sub-clause (3) of clause 10, I am surprised to note that no cognisance appears to have been taken of the doctor's responsibility towards the foetus. Once again, it seems to be assumed that the foetus has no rights at all. In this connection, it seems to me that the Minister for Health has misinterpreted a clause in the Declaration of Geneva, because twice in the course of the examination of the witnesses, he raised this point. I refer to pages B78 and B98, paragraphs 591 and 750. The Declaration of Geneva is, in part, reproduced in paragraph 32 of Dr S. R. Salmon's representation, Paper No. 27. This paragraph is in the Report at page A73. I quote: 'I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient.' I think, Sir, the clear and obvious meaning to it is this. I will not refuse to treat a patient because I disagree with his religion, or disapprove of his nationality or dislike his race or abhor his political views or consider his social standing as beneath me. In other words, it is talking about the religion of the patient and not about that of the doctor. Furthermore, let us not forget that the doctor who has conscientious objections to abortion, objects to abortion precisely because he sees it as being against his duty to one of his patients.”
“- but because I think it is wrong. Just as I am opposed to murder because I think it is wrong. All Members of this House think that murder is wrong too. You do not have to be a Catholic, or for that matter a Hindu, a Muslim or a Buddhist to think that abortion is wrong. I am opposed to a liberalised abortion policy because I think this would be bad for our nation. It is very easy to write off the opposition to this Bill as "religious objections". This saves us the trouble of examining the rational arguments put forward against it. This enables us to evade the very pertinent questions raised, questions which have nothing to do with religion but which have a great deal to do with the welfare of our people. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 3.50 p.m. Sir, it is clear from the number of representations sent in that a considerable amount of thought and care went into their preparation. The authors of these representations were acting as responsible citizens. They were fulfilling what they considered to be their duty towards the State by expressing their genuine misgivings about the social consequences of this Bill. Instead of being glad and grateful that there are such people, people who are concerned about the welfare of the nation, people with initiative to clarify their misgivings, people with courage to express them, the Minister for Health has seen fit to treat them with ridicule and to brush them off with a cheap smear, and I quote, "although they of course did not want openly to admit it." This sort of attitude on the part of the Minister is hardly calculated to enhance the atmosphere of religious tolerance and mutual respect for which Singapore has been hitherto renowned.”
“We find them arguing that abortions should be prohibited because it is bad for the nation. They ask that their case should be judged not on the merits of their religious beliefs but on the strength of their arguments. We may agree or disagree with their arguments, but we have no right to doubt the integrity of those who oppose it. I am a Catholic. I am also opposed to abortions. I am opposed to abortions not because I am a Catholic -”
“These people consider themselves as teachers who have a responsibility to perform, and they are of the view that clause 5 (2), if passed, will have ill-effects "on the character of the nation". And so, too, have many of the representations been made on the point that the human foetus has at least some human rights. Yet nowhere in the Minutes of Evidence do I find the Select Committee seeking to have this point discussed, much less conceded to. Surely, this is the central issue: if the human foetus has no human rights, then there is no need for any legal restrictions on abortion; but if the foetus does possess some human rights, then the law must exercise extreme caution to protect those rights from being violated. It is regretted that the Select Committee did not seem to have thought fit to raise the question of the rights of the foetus at all. This brings me, Sir, to another point about which I feel very, very strongly. In referring to those who sent in written representations on the Abortion Bill, the Minister for Health in his speech said in this House and I quote: 'Some took their stand in accordance with their particular religious persuasion, although they of course did not want openly to admit it.' Mr Speaker, Sir, I consider this remark a gratuitous insult to the authors of the representations. It accuses them, by implication, of insincerity, of concealment and of crookedness. I consider it not only insulting but blatantly unjust and uncalled for. I know that amongst the memoranda sent in by religious organisations, the largest number came from the Catholic bodies. Yet reading the representations, do we find them arguing that abortion should be prohibited because the Catholic Church teaches that it is wrong? We do not.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was expecting to see, as a result of the numerous representations submitted, some basic changes and amendments made by the Select Committee on the Abortion Bill but this has not been so. The Minister for Health in his statement last Tuesday in this House stated that there were some minor amendments but that there were no substantial changes, though many representations had been submitted to the Select Committee. And studying the Select Committee's Report, I am somewhat struck by a number of points raised in it. However, I do not wish to go back to those points I made in this House on Tuesday, 8th April, 1969. My stand has not been changed since then and I do not wish to waste Members' time by repeating what I said then. Therefore, Sir, suffice that I shall confine my remarks to the Report. Firstly, it can be seen that out of 29 written representations and not 33, Sir, the other four were on the Voluntary Sterilization Bill - received by the Select Committee on the Abortion Bill, there were no less than 21 that were either opposed to the Bill in principle or at least were opposed to the present broadly worded "socio-economic" clause, found in clause 5 (2) (b). In spite of this, it appears to me that the Select Committee not only did not see fit to propose any amendment to this clause, but also they did not appear to have spent very much time discussing the arguments against this clause which were made in those representations. The arguments put forth by some of them I consider to be extremely well-founded and forceful. Take Paper No. 14, in page A4l as an example. I refer to points Nos. 7 to 12.”
“Sir, if it is a case of rates which the Finance Minister mentioned just now in respect of no tax on consumers whose bills are now below $10 a month, will he then increase them to, say, $15 and $30 instead of coming to a happy compromise at $12 and $25?”
“The Minister has already informed the House that water rates will be increased after the New Year. Whether it be a Christmas present or a New Year present makes no difference. My question is this: will he not consider it unfair to those consumers who lack the sewage facilities and yet have to pay more for the water consumed?”
“It is somewhat different from the question asked by the Member for Kampong Kapor. The Member's question was about the increase of sewage fee. My question is: will the increase not be unfair to those consumers who make use of water only?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Finance Minister not agree that to charge the increase in water rates to those who lack such sewage facilities is unfair? Mr Speaker: Order. Are you repeating Mr Lim Cheng Lock's question in different terms?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Finance Minister mentioned that a loan of $60 million will be coming from the World Bank to enable us to extend our sewage facilities in the next five years. Can he inform the House whether the entire Republic will have such facilities, bearing in mind, of course, the increase in water rates?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the figure of $1.2 million was arrived at as a result of the $60 million loan, apart from the other capital investment involved. Just now the Finance Minister mentioned that the Sewerage Department had been running at a loss. I would be grateful if he could inform the House of the amount of losses up to date.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this is a Christmas present for the thousands of consumers. I have two questions, Sir. First, what is the number of consumers who are making use of the sewage schemes? Secondly, the Minister for Finance mentioned that the revenue returns would be only two per cent. In other words, it is only $1.2 million. Will there be further increases later on when the Minister will probably come here with another Ministerial statement?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am happy with the Minister's reply. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,077,000 for Head 102 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st January, 1969, to 31st March, 1970. Question, "That the sum of $1,127,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st January, 1969, to 31st March, 1970, contained in Paper Cmd. 24 of 1969", put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“Not Punggol. It has one market which is adequate for Punggol's purposes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 102 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 901. In spite of the amount of $44,000 revoted for, a further sum of $37,460 is required for the construction of Taman Jurong Market I, and also another sum of $197,540 is required for the completion of Taman Jurong Market II. Sir, I am a bit confused here. Perhaps the Minister for Health can clear my confusion. Why are two markets being built in Taman Jurong? Approximately how many residents are there who will benefit from the construction of these two markets? Where are their exact locations? Is it really necessary to put up two markets in one area? How much revenue can be collected from them each year? Has the Government any plans to build one or more markets in other constituencies? An hon. Member: In Punggol!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was only suggesting to the Minister to look into the possibility of a night or early morning removal service. I was not advocating that it be made more frequently. However, in view of the answers given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 3.45 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 102 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 205. Sir, the explanatory note to this subhead clearly stresses the need for more vehicles to meet the increasing demands of the public cleansing services. I would have thought that with assiduous planning, the need of more vehicles for the public cleansing services would have received high priority when the "Keep Singapore Clean" campaign was mounted last year. In other words, there should have been forward planning to enable the Ministry of Health to meet immediate requirements. Hence I would be grateful if the Minister for Health could enlighten the House on the date when such vehicles were ordered, and also how many workers are manning them. I would have imagined that these vehicles would have already been purchased and are now on the road serving their purpose. Also I would like to suggest to the Minister to look into the possibility of introducing a cleansing service either at night or in the early hours of the morning, as there is less traffic during, those hours. Will the Minister also look into the possibility of increasing the frequency of clearing away rubbish and trade refuse from our bin centers? To illustrate, Sir, I notice that at two bin centers in my constituency, namely, at Punggol Road 8� m.s. and Upper Serangoon Road 6� m.s., the bins are cleared in the morning, but by evening they are full to the brim. Sir, I beg to move.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $50,000 for Head 71 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st January, 1969, to 31st March, 1970. Head 102 -”
“If savings in the current Development Estimates can warrant increased expenditure, I would like to see more urgent items of expenditure, like the construction of abattoirs in the rural areas, treated with the same priority. I would also like to seek elucidation from the Minister regarding the actual source of savings amounting to $14,990. Did it come from the Development Estimates pertaining to his Ministry or otherwise? Sir, I beg to move. The Acting Minister for Culture (Mr Wee Toon Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, since 1967 Radio Singapore has been operating four radio channels on frequency modulation, commonly known as FM. These channels were an addition to the four existing amplitude modulation, commonly called AM medium wave channel. The four channels were radiated without the device called the encoder to enable a receiving set with a decoder to receive such broadcasts in stereophonic sound. It was felt that the time had come for such FM broadcasts to be improved to the level where stereophonic sounds can be radiated. With regard to the point raised by the Member for Punggol in connection with the source of savings, the token provision of $10 in the Development Estimates for this year was made for the purchase of stereophonic equipment. A sum of $14,990 was found from savings from subhead 201, Improvements to Television and Broadcasting Services. The House is now asked for a supplementary provision of $50,000 to make a total of $65,000 needed. With regard to the other point, since stereophonic broadcasts started only in July this year, it is too soon to conduct a survey. An overall survey of listeners and their preferences is being planned and, when carried out, stereophonic broadcasts will certainly be included.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 71 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 302. Sir, it is interesting to note from Paper Cmd. 24 of 1969 that, 'In conjunction with the celebrations in commemoration of the 150th Anniversary of the Founding of Singapore, stereophonic broadcasts have been commenced in the Republic this year.' It would, therefore, mean to me, Sir, that there would have been no stereophonic broadcasts if Singapore had not celebrated its 150th anniversary. In fact, stereophonic music has been here for quite some time. I think it must have struck the ingenuity of someone in the Broadcasting Department that it was a novel idea to introduce such a service. It means buying a radio set or a transistor radio set with an FM stereophonic band in order to receive such broadcasts. Sir, I stress on the FM stereophonic band because I remember the FM station has already been in existence for quite some time. If a listener wishes to receive stereophonic broadcasts, he must buy a set that has this band, otherwise he will continue to receive music without stereophonic effects. Therefore, my conclusion is obvious. However, I shall be grateful to the Minister for Culture if he will inform the House whether any careful consideration was given in all respects before introducing such a service, and whether a survey has been made to establish the number of listeners tuning in to such a service. Furthermore, Sir, I would ask the Minister if a $10 token provision in the Development Estimates means the provision of a further sum of $50,000.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister for Culture enlighten the House on the difference in functions between RTS Enterprises (Private) Ltd, and RTS?”
“Is the Minister aware that these complaints were not attended to immediately? Also, can he say when the complaints in the areas mentioned were submitted to the relevant authorities and when action was taken'?”
“Sir, it is true that the complaints were made through me. However, can the Minister enlighten the House whether there have been any complaints of low water pressure in areas other than the three mentioned by me?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am surprised that the Minister's reply indicated that no complaint came from the residents in the three areas mentioned. Would he be interested to ascertain from the Board that such written complaints by the residents of Holy Innocents Lane were submitted to the relevant authorities, through me, as far back as last year?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not going to say anything on this Bill, However, lest it be construed that my silence on the Bill means consent, I rise merely to have my abstention on record. Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to say anything except to thank my colleague, the Minister for Communications, for having further amplified the objectives of the Voluntary Sterilization Bill, May I just add that there has been some talk recently about there not being sufficient facilities for sterilization in the hospitals. But may I give an assurance that after the Bill is passed every person who needs sterilization will be in a position to have his or her sterili zation performed in Government hospitals. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, "That this Bill be committed to the Select Committee to be appointed to consider the Abortion Bill."-[Mr Chua Sian Chin]. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." [Mr Chua Sian Chin]. Adjourned accordingly at Six o'clock p.m, to a date to be fixed.”
“Let us admit that this Bill was a mistake and that this Abortion Bill is one whose purpose is obscure, whose need is unproven and whose consequences would be deplorable. For these reasons, I urge hon. Members of this august Chamber to support me in asking that this Bill be withdrawn. 6.05 p.m.”
“Encouraging easier abortions is not the way to foster such an attitude. On the contrary, it is the way to foster a selfish society; one which puts personal convenience before a sense of duty to others; one which refuses to face challenges because that requires effort; one which ends up as a soft, comfort-seeking society - people looking for more money for less work, people more eager to receive than to give, and people looking for the easy way out rather than striving hard to achieve. What Singapore needs is not an Abortion Bill, but an increased emphasis on self-respect, on self-discipline, on common human decency. We need to ensure that our young people receive a better preparation all-round for marriage, towards responsible parenthood and the rest. This should be and must be our main objective if we are to develop a hard society. We need to make more strenuous efforts to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. Sir, in conclusion, I would like to believe that Parliament, being the responsible legislating body and being responsible for the foreseeable consequences, of its acts, would not turn a deaf ear to my arguments against the passing of this Bill, because I am fully convinced that its consequences would be detrimental to the future growth, health and welfare of our young Republic. "Singapore - Instant Asia". It is a very nice caption and well projected. I fear that if this Bill is passed, another name "Paradise of Abortionists" may be added to it. Surely this is not the sort of reputation we want to get. Surely this is not the sort of image of ourselves we want to project. This Government has never before been afraid to admit its mistakes.”
“We are niaking strenuous efforts to encourage people to think beyond their own selfish interests, to look to the welfare of their fellows. We are aiming to strengthen the character of our people by proposing high ideals, by calling for self-discipline. And now we are in danger of undoing all this by introducing a Bill to make it easier for women to obtain abortions, We have been trying to inspire our people to face up to challenges. Now, when we are faced with a challenge, we take the easy way out by legalising abortion. We have tried to teach our people responsibility. Now we encourage irresponsibility. We have always been trying to build a hard society. Now we are preparing the way for a soft society. It may well be said that this Bill does not oblige anybody to have an abortion if she does not wish to do so. But we must remember that the law itself has a certain educational value, It is one thing to introduce a new law constituting abortion a crime; it is a different thing to repeal or amend a law which has been on the statute books a long time and still holds good. In this case the impression is given to people that if abortion is no longer as illegal as before, that must be because it is no longer as bad as before. We in Singapore want to be looked up to as a beacon in Southeast Asia - not just for our economic drive, not just for our skills and dynamism, but also for our sense of justice, for our defence of human rights, for our protection of the weak. Therefore, nobody is in more need of that protection than the unborn child in its mother's womb. If Singapore is to survive and prosper, it will be because of the physical and moral sturdiness of its people, because of the personal moral discipline it is prepared to face challenges with courage and determination.”
“6, November-December 1968, a report entitled A report of Induced Abortion, it was stated that according to the investigation carried out by the Institute of Population Problems of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the amendment to the Eugenic Protection Law which allowed abortion on grounds of financial hardship resulted in a sudden increase in the number of abortions. Between 1953 and 1961, there was art annual average of one million abortions. Although 1962 showed some decrease, cases in 1965 numbered 840.000. These were only the cases officially reported. Furthermore, an article in the Straits Times of 20th November, 1967, page 9, entitled "Abortion Alarm. Communists take to the Pill", states that the governments of several Eastern European countries have become alarmed at the increasing number undergoing legal abortions. The reason for their alarm is that the health of young women, both married and unmarried, is being affected by these numerous abortions. Hence, in spite of all these warnings, are we still eager to rush into a liberalised abortion policy without even pausing to estimate the probable effects? Let us be clear about one point: to imagine that we can safely pass this Bill since it can always be repealed in four years' time is to be blind to the realities of life. An enlightened society like ours cannot liberalise its abortion policy and then, when the evil consequences become apparent, hope to change the permissive attitude that its own policy has engendered. This is quite unrealistic. At this time, in the Republic of Singapore, we are trying to build a nation. We are striving to instil into our people a spirit of dedication, a sense of responsibility, an attitude of social-mindedness, loyalty, patriotism and the rest.”
“' In any case, with a falling birthrate like that of Singapore - I have just received the Report of the Population Board - it is absurd to say that abortion is a necessary adjunct to other methods of family planning as a means of population control. This is why so many overseas visitors to international conferences here have expressed amazement at the proposal of the Government to introduce liberalised abortion. Turning now to the socio-economic argument: that a woman should not be obliged to carry on with her pregnancy if her environment would justify an abortion. I have already spoken about the importance our law should attach to the protection of human life, even the life of the unborn child, if competent medical authorities are of the opinion that the preservation of the life of the mother entails killing the foetus, then the state does not abdicate its responsibilities to protect human life if it exonerates the woman and her doctors from prosecution. But where the position involves not only one life against another but socio-economic convenience against the right to life, then any truly progressive and enlightened law must be one that protects this human life. Abortion on socio-economic grounds is not a liberalisation of the law, but a leap into lawlessness. Are we perhaps to change our abortion law just because some other countries have changed theirs? Before we decide to jump into the same boat, let us reflect on the fact that some of those countries are having second thoughts about the wisdom of their decision. London is not proud of her new title as the "abortion-centre of Europe". Japan has for many years been worried about the continuing high rate of abortions, in a Japanese paper entitled The East, Vol. IV, No.”
“In fact, there is good reason to believe that the effect of liberalising the abortion laws is to increase the number of illegal abortions, since women become more abortion-minded. In other words, the only hope of getting rid of the illegal abortionist is to make abortion freely available on demand; to induce women to believe that having an abortion is as respectable as having a hair-cut. Is this the attitude we wish to encourage among our women? Coming to the argument that a liberalised abortion policy is necessary foi population control, I would say this: if abortion is resorted to as a means of population control when other family planning methods have failed, then it will either be something rare - in which case it will make no appreciable difference to the overall population -or it will be widespread, in which case it is a very bad means of birth control. It is a bad means because it is dangerous for the health of the women, because it only solves the problem temporarily, and because it will put a severe strain on the medical services. I shall not go into details concerning the medical dangers of abortion but shall content myself with one quotation. This is a statement by Dr Hector MacLennan, President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in Britain, made in the Times of 21st January, 1966: 'Even if the operation is to be limited to hospital practice by recognised specialists it should be stated most emphatically that therapeutic abortion even in skilled hands is more dangerous than the public and many doctors appreciate.”
“Professor Ingelman-Sundberg from Stockholm has reported that 25 years of legalised abortion in Sweden have not made the slightest difference in the criminal abortion rate. He found the experience of Hungary and Czechoslovakia was similar. The reason for this strange fact is given in the Report: '...the legalising of abortion alters the climate of opinion among the public and even the Courts of law. The result is that criminal abortion becomes less abhorrent. The public becomes abortion-minded.' [Ref. 5th World Congress of Gynaecology and Obstetrics - Sydney, pages 784 to 787]. Again, in September 1967, speakers at the 5th World Congress of Gynaecology and Obstetrics in Sydney testified to the same effect. Two doctors from Switzerland stated: 'Contrary to many people's expectations the legalisation of therapeutic abortion has not led to a reduction in the incidence of illegal abortions in the countries concerned.' [Ref, ibid, page 764]. I believe similar conclusions have been reached about the experience of Japan. In all these cases the result of liberalising the abortion laws has simply been that the overall number of abortions shoots up, but there is no evidence that the number of illegal abortions shows any sign of decreasing. The reason is obvious: as long as the law demands that certain conditions be fulfilled before an abortion can be performed, then those women who do not come under those conditions will continue to seek out the illegal operator.”