Sia Khoon Seong
Singapore
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LD 1500 of the Main Estimates. Earlier, I stated that the morale of the teachers is dependent on their conditions of work.”
“For one thing it must be clear to the parents that the Day School is not just another name for a day care centre. Neither does the Day School scheme diminish parental role and responsibility in the moral upbringing of their children. Children can and will do just so much during school hours.”
“I must urge the Ministry of Education to allow as many serving non-graduate teachers as possible, who have the ability and qualifications, to join the degree programme and attain graduate status. Those who have proven their worth in the service more than deserve the opportunity to further themselves.”
“I have not finished. Of course, the underlying reasons for the teaching of Religious Knowledge are always valid since time immemorial - to teach man to be good. After all, our moral education basically wants to achieve that. Since 1959, not just 1982, the underlying reasons for moral education have always been the same.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to ask the Minister of State, is it not true that prior to 1982 Religious Knowledge was also an optional subject? Prior to 1982, all along Religious Knowledge was taught as an optional subject. In 1989, we are going back to pre-1982. The mistake in 1982 was to make RK compulsory.”
“With the introduction of caning for traffickers and employers who employ illegal immigrant workers, I am quite sure it will act as a strong deterrent to them from doing so. With the passing of this Bill, employers and traffickers will now find it not worth the while to take risk in employing foreign workers illegally.”
The complete record
Every one of 624 lines we hold for Sia Khoon Seong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 13.
“But whether the Government gives him the gratuity before that or after that, the amount is still the same. That is my point, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will continue this controversy with the Parliamentary Secretary after this session, but the point I made earlier was not whether the option is exercisable at the beginning or at the end of the officer's career. The point I wanted to make was this. In the illustration I gave earlier, the officer retires at the age of 40 years. Then from 40 up to 50, which should be his normal retirement age, he gets ten years extra of pension allowance. Therefore, this gives an added advantage to an officer who leaves the service much earlier than one who serves faithfully until the normal retirement age. Therefore you stop it, and I say there is a rationale for this. But how does this compare with gratuity? Because whether you give him gratuity at the age of 40, 45, or 50, it is the same amount. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance just now mentioned one point, that is, that the value of money today and its value in ten years' time is not the same. My point is, do you think that it is fair that an officer, after having served a number of years and you allow him to retire with all the retirement benefits, should not be given the amount of money that is due to him in the form of a gratuity when the money value is much more than what it will be ten years hence? You are not giving him the added advantage hut that which is rightly his. I do not think it is right for the Government to prevent him from immediately getting what is due to him as a gratuity. But if the Government does not allow him to get a pension immediately on his premature retirement, it is merely saying that his normal pension benefits only start when he has attained the age of 50 years. Therefore, the Government is not giving him ten years extra of pension benefits.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to carry on this diatribe with the Parliamentary Secretary. I think he has to check that fact first because I know it from my own experience. As a former teacher, I was required to opt for full or reduced pension at the outset, unless, of course, the Ministry of Education made the mistake of asking me to make the option - that probably is possible -but I doubt that; in spite of their inefficiency, they are not likely to make a mistake like this because this is under the direction of the Treasury. As one who happened to be a civil servant in the past I am quite certain that this is the practice. An officer is not allowed to carry on for 10 or 20 years of his career, and finally make that option six months before his retirement. In fact, at the very outset, when he makes the option, it is very clearly stated that it is irrevocable.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to inform the Parliamentary Secretary that the moment a person joins the public service, before he even thinks of retiring prematurely or in normal circumstances, he will have to opt at the outset whether he wants a full pension or a three-quarters pension and the rest to be computed in the form of a gratuity. The choice is made, and if that statement is disputed, then either I have been in the wrong Government service in the past, or the Parliamentary Secretary is not aware of the service conditions.”
“But the amount of gratuity will not change once it is computed -whether he receives it at the age of 40 years or 50 years. He is entitled to it. Therefore, I would imagine that while, or, the one hand, there is a rationale for stopping an officer from getting his pension allowance immediately on his premature retirement, I see no rationale at all for stopping him from getting his gratuity. However, I hope that my fears are unfounded and that the Parliamentary Secretary will give a "yes" answer to my query. 4.47 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak on the second part of the Bill dealing with public officers having to retire prematurely and their entitlement to pension benefits. I do agree with the rationale behind this Bill that an officer who retires prematurely should only be entitled to the drawing of pension on reaching the age of 50 years. However, I feel that this particular feature of the Bill has not taken into consideration the fact that a public officer can opt for a full pension, a three-quarters pension and a quarter pension with gratuity. What I want to know is, if an officer retires prematurely and he is not able to receive the monthly pension until he reaches the age of 50 years, will he be entitled to receive his gratuity immediately? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance will give a "yes" answer to my query, simply because I think that there will be no rationale behind the move to prevent an officer from receiving his gratuity payment immediately. The reason is this: I will just give an illustration. If an officer retires prematurely on good grounds, at the age of 40 years, and he is given immediate pension benefits, meaning that every month he gets his pension allowance, then he definitely has an added advantage over another serving officer who has got to serve till the normal retirement age. It gives him an extra ten years to draw that extra money. Therefore, if this Bill seeks to stop that loop-hole, I think the rationale is sound. This will not make those dedicated and loyal officers who serve up to the normal retirement age feel that they have been unfairly treated, and that those who leave the service prematurely get an added monetary benefit.”
“If at all we want to say anything about their work, it is that they are in fact working very hard and they deserve our praise instead of criticism. Another reason which has prompted me to have a very high regard for our nurses is this. I remember one occasion when I turned on the radio and there was a programme called Nurses' Week. This is one of the programmes that are put on the air every week. It is a week which the nurses set aside as a dedication to their noble profession. This programme shows a number of activities which focus attention on the nurses' dedication to their work and the nobility of their profession. Coming back to our own nurses, generally speaking, they are quite aware of their responsibility and the nobility of their profession. My observation is that - and I think many people have also expressed this opinion - the nurses have made valuable contributions to the well-being of the people, and from their work in the hospitals, we can say that they have, in fact, tried their very best. I would like to pay a tribute to them. Perhaps the Minister for Health would like to show some appreciation of the hard work that they are putting in by employing more nurses to lighten their load.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to raise two minor points in respect of two hospitals in my constituency namely Middleton Hospital and Tan Tock Seng Hospital. When one passes by these two hospitals along Moulmein Road, one gets a very gloomy and unhealthy feeling when one sees the drab frontage of Middleton Hospital. There is lalang growing beside the iron bars. I am just wondering whether some face-lifting cannot he done to the frontage of Middleton Hospital. With our present policy of making Singapore a garden city, perhaps that portion of the hospital can be improved by planting flowering plants so that it can look more graceful and also take away the drab atmosphere. A few days ago a Member of this House mentioned his very unpleasant experience in a hospital in relation to the rude conduct of a nurse. There could have been many reasons for that nurse's behaviour. At this juncture, I do not know exactly the reason which prompted her to behave in that manner. But perhaps her behaviour could be attributed to the fact that she was overworked. Someone has drawn my attention to the fact that in the third-class ward where there are many patients, there are insufficient nurses to look after them. They are, in fact, overworked. I had one occasion to visit one of the hospitals myself and I observed the conditions there. But unlike the Member who was unfortunate to experience the rudeness of a nurse, I found that our nurses were in fact very diligent and dedicated. Therefore, I was very surprised to hear the complaint of the Member. I have also found that the work in the hospital is too heavy for the present number of nurses to cope with, I would like to say the other way round about them.”
“(13) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0701 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1504. (14) That the sum to be allocated f or Head 0701 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1506.”
“(7) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0701 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1158.”
“contributions, at least not to the extent that one thinks that he should get as the result of the amendment to the C.P.F. Ordinance to increase the C.P.F. contributions from five per cent to ten per cent, in conjunction with the amendments to the Employment Act. Members will surely understand if there is some feeling of frustration over this matter among some workers. I hope that the Government and the N.T.U.C. together with Management, will be able to iron out the anomalies arising out of the operation of the Employment Act. The decision of Labour to accept the underlying principles and objectives of the recent Employment Act has begun to pay dividends. What we all must not forget is the sound advice of the Finance Minister in his Budget statement that the more difficult period will come at the end of 1971, with the completion of the British military withdrawal. We must, therefore, not be complacent and over-confident. We have overcome the difficult 1960s, and we shall overcome the challenge of the I 970s provided that Labour, Government and Management can continue to work as co-equals in a tripartite partnership striving for national, social and economic progress. It is for the reason that Labour must play a responsible role as a co-equal partner with Government and Management that the Singapore trade union movement has made its momentous decision to modernize itself so as to be a co-equal partner with the Government and Management in the very sense of the word. 2.48 p.m.”
“Members will recall that, together with the passing of the Employment Act, the Central Provident Fund Ordinance was also amended to increase C.P.F. contributions from five per cent to ten per cent in gradual stages. This was to be part and parcel of a package deal, so to speak, with Labour - that is, higher C.P.F. contributions for better work discipline and efficiency. Workers are to be given greater C.P.F. savings which, in a very significant way, will go a long way towards giving them a sense of security after their retirement from employment. While the vast majority of workers benefit from the increase in C.P.F. contributions, there are also, sad to say, some workers who happen to work under less reasonable employers and who do not benefit from the increase of C.P.F. contributions. These are the unionised workers in the private sector who are enjoying not less than 10 per cent retirement benefits under the collective agreements. One obtained the impression that the primary objective of the amendment to the C.P.F. Ordinance was to increase the C.P.F. savings of individual workers so that when they retire, they will be able to find a bigger amount of money to provide for their old age after retirement. But, sad to say, this may not be the case in many situations. Many employees, with the concurrence of the Arbitration Court, have the increased C.P.F. contributions offset against their normal gratuity payments. In effect, on retirement, a worker gets, on the one hand, increased C.P.F. savings, but on the other hand, he loses the greater portion if not the whole of his gratuity payments, equivalent to his increased C.P.F. contributions. The net result is that he does not benefit from the increase in C.P.F.”
“This attitude could have far-reaching effects on the national staff if steps are to remedy this situation. The Finance Minister, in his speech, paid tribute to the National Trades Union Congress by stating that its success in promoting labour responsibility was one of the important factors creating a favourable general investment climate. It is gratifying for the N.T.U.C. leadership to note that its realistic and responsible stand in promoting labour responsibility has been appreciated by the Government. The leadership of the N.T.U.C. has always maintained that the labour movement can play a responsible role as a coequal sector in the tripartite partnership of Labour, Government and Management in the social and economic development of Singapore. Since the introduction of the Employment Act on 15th August, 1968, the N.T.U.C. has no reason to doubt the bona fide intentions of Government in giving vent to the underlying objectives of the Employment Act. While the N.T.U.C. may say the same of the many enlightened employers who have co-operated wholeheartedly and sincerely not only in refusing to take advantage of some of the provisions of the Act, but also in observing the spirit of the Act, the N.T.U.C., unfortunately, cannot say the same of a few employers who have taken advantage of the anomalous provisions of the Act to the serious detriment of their workers. The N.T.U.C. will soon be making representations to the Government to rectify the anomalous provisions of the Employment Act so that the Act will not lend itself to abusive practices by a few unreasonable employers who may be tempted to treat the Employment Act as a licence to exploit labour. Hon.”
“It may well be, to quote the extreme case, that our citizens with managerial and technical skills may find it more attractive and lucrative to migrate to other lands where they are likely to find greater job satisfaction for the skills that they possess. If this happens, it would indeed be a paradox to our detriment. This feeling of unhappiness is all the more acute in cases where expatriate personnel are placed in positions above our citizen personnel who subsequently obtain equivalent, if not higher qualifications. A case in point is the situation today in Malaysia-Singapore Airlines. The expatriate management of M.S.A. gives the impression that it has adopted a policy of recruiting white expatriates irrespective of the availability of local personnel with similar or better qualifications. The Singapore Air Transport Workers' Union has over the years battled strenuously for a concrete plan for nationalisation and a training programme for suitably qualified national staff to be groomed to replace expatriates. But with the recent changes in the structure of the management, more expatriates are being brought in. And now under the so-called scientific expatriate management of M.S.A., all kinds of dubiously qualified expatriates have been recruited; existing expatriates who have been scheduled to leave are promoted over the more qualified national staff. Experienced national staff are switched around to their disadvantage under the guise of reorganisation in order to pave the way for establishing expatriate footholds. All these nefarious activities have lowered the morale of the M.S.A. staff and have created deep-seated frustration and disillusionment among the national staff who feel that qualifications and efficiency are not the prerequisites for promotion.”
“With such demand for the services of trained technical personnel, Singapore's offer of permanent residence and citizenship in addition to a wide range of incentives in terms of money or otherwise may not necessarily attract the best type of workers who may prefer to emigrate to other countries, more developed and prosperous than Singapore. The point I wish to make is that, supposing we have managed to attract only third-rate personnel with management and technical skills, we may be creating a situation which will have an adverse effect on, and ramifications in relation to, the long-term objectives of our industrialisation programmes. The end result is that our production cost and quality control may be seriously affected. It is a matter of time before the need of technical and management personnel can be met locally. When that time comes, the import of management and technical personnel from abroad may cause a demoralizing effect on local management and technical personnel who will thereby be deprived of promotion avenues to that extent. Moreover, the incentives given to expatriate personnel besides permanent residence and eventual citizenship will serve to increase their take-home pay. Situations may arise where citizen and expatriate personnel working side by side on the same job and possessing the same qualifications enjoy two entirely different terms and conditions of service. It will not be surprising if a feeling of unhappiness results from such disparities in pay and working conditions. It is, therefore not likely to be conducive to a congenial atmosphere in the place of work, and to assist our efforts to educate and train our own local personnel to man our industries and industrial enterprises.”
“While the acceleration and expansion of industrialisation programmes as planned and carried out by the Economic Development Board up to date have helped to increase the number of persons employed in the manufacturing industries to 87,128, and while we are confident that the full economic impact of the complete British pull-out at the end of 1971 can be cushioned through further expansion of the industrialisation programmes, it is envisaged that this will give rise to attendant problems, the chief of which is likely to be a shortage of engineers, management and technical personnel. This problem is further aggravated by such personnel being required to do national service. The Government has proposed, as a way of minimising the problem of shortage of such personnel, to relax our immigration and work permit restrictions on the in-flow of such personnel. The Government, after weighing the pros and cons, considers it advantageous to liberalise the conditions under which such people can qualify for permanent residence in Singapore and eventually citizenship. While such a proposal appears to be logically necessary as a solution to the problem of our envisaged shortage of trained personnel with technical and management skills, and while in principle it has my support, I must, however, ask the Government to exercise great caution in its implementation as it may result in the creation of other and greater problems. My fear is that the persons who may avail themselves of the relaxed conditions for entry into Singapore and swarm into our factories and industrial enterprises may not necessarily be of the best calibre. The shortage of men with skills in management and technical fields is a problem all over the world, particularly with the developing countries.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me offer my heartiest congratulations to the Minister for Finance on his very illuminating Budget statement. He has set out succinctly the course of economic development in Singapore during the last decade. What impresses me most, and perhaps every Singaporean, in his presentation of the 50-page Budget statement is not just that it is a well-prepared statement with a great deal of scholarly thought behind it, but that it exudes a quiet note of confidence for the future against the background story of the economic development and success story of Singapore in the face of great adversity and against overwhelming odds. A great tribute must be paid to the Finance Minister who has been personally responsible for Singapore's economic development and planning during the greater part of the past decade. The lesson that we are to draw from Singapore's economic progress in the last decade is that, despite our lack of natural resources and the presence of adverse factors, we can not only survive but also make significant improvements in our economic, social and political fields if we Singaporeans are prepared to sweat and toil for it. This lesson should undoubtedly give us added confidence and determination to work harder if we are to win for ourselves greater prosperity and greater progress in the coming decade. The important thing that we must bear in mind is the timely warning given by the Minister for Finance that we must not be complacent if we are not to fritter away all that we have achieved in the last decade, and if we are successfully to meet the challenge that we have to face at the end of 1971 when the British completely withdraw their forces from Singapore, thereby aggravating both our security and economic problems.”
“But for him to speak as he did would only incur probably the displeasure of many, because there are such things as public morals and public concern for matters like this. He has also mentioned the solving of the delinquency problem, or something to that effect. Perhaps he should turn his attention to the delinquency problem in England, and in places where abortion is already legalised. It has been found that in no way does abortion help to reduce delinquency.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, to be quite honest, before the Minister for Health made his Third Reading speech on this Bill, I was in two minds whether I should speak again or not, considering the fact that I had spoken at great length on the Second Reading on this topic. But after his speech in which he made many sweeping statements, I found it very tempting to speak again, and I have decided to speak now. Since the introduction of the Abortion Bill, the Health Minister, to me, somehow seems to be labouring under the magnificent obsession that he has become a liberator of women's rights. He has liberated them from unwanted pregnancies. He has also come out with a solution to solving the delinquency problem and improving the quality of children to be born in future. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, sounds to me like the views of an extremist, because if we were to speak in the same manner as he did on the point of liberating the rights of this or that category of persons, then would he consider fighting for the rights of groups of men who would want, on their own, to patronise brothels, or watch obscene films without the harrassment of the police? There is at present a law against such type of entertainment which is, in fact, in the manner of the Health Minister, denying the rights of certain categories of our citizens. Is he also not worried about the rights of thousands of women who perhaps for months and years have been out of job and to whom we, as Members of Parliament, have had to attend sometimes at meet-the-people sessions? And would he consider legalising prostitution, because that could be a very profitable profession today in our present situation?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour has said that he will prepare a strong case to the Minister for Finance if there is such a need. I want to know whether his Ministry at this juncture think that there is such a need and whether, in fact, his Ministry is taking steps to prepare such a case for the consideration of the Minister for Finance for the provision of extra personnel for this particular department.”
“I just want to tell the Minister that I am not talking about rules and regulations, or that they should not be there. What I am talking about is the rationale of the case. The rationale here seems to be a bit cock-eyed simply because, on the one hand, the Government allows a wheel-chair costing $300 to be given free and, on the other hand, it does not allow an artificial limb which costs $250 to be given free. That is the rationale that I am questioning, Mr Speaker, Sir. With regard to the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance which was referred to by the Minister, I just want to point out that I am not referring to the cases under that Ordinance. I am referring to those labourers who, outside their work, happen to be knocked down by a car and are not covered by the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance. These are the two points I wish to mention.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Minister for Health has missed some of my points in his reply. I am not quarrelling over the fact that there should be rules and regulations.”
“- especially at a time when it needs all its own resources to strengthen the Singapore trade union movement. The responsibility of giving all possible care and assistance to the unfortunate must rest largely upon the State that has all the national resources at its command, and not on an organisation like the N.T.U.C. I am sure hon. Members in this House will agree with me that requiring third-class patients, who are no more than humble and poor workers, to pay the full cost of artificial limbs, if they wish to have these fitted in place of their natural limbs that have been amputated, is both harsh and unnecessary. Fate has been cruel enough to them and, in addition to their agony and the pain of injury, they have grave worries and nightmares about their own future and the future of their loved ones and dependants. Their plight and distress are often shared and felt by well-meaning people who have shown and expressed their compassion and sympathy by making generous donations to assist them to meet the future with a certain amount of courage and confidence. Dedicated doctors and nurses have also done their bit by providing them with the best medical treatment and attention possible. Let there be no hospital rule or regulation that is harsher than is necessary. Laws and rules are made to serve mankind, not to enslave them. I ask the Minister for Health to give his urgent attention and sympathetic consideration to my proposal to rationalise the various hospital stipulations governing the supply of artificial aids to orthopaedic patients, and to take steps to supply artificial limbs on the same basis as wooden pegs and wheelchairs are supplied to patients in third-class wards, whose limbs have to be amputated as a result of an accident or events beyond their control.”
“This absurd stipulation deprives a poor patient of a chance to be fitted with an artificial limb which, as I said earlier, is far more superior to any other artificial aids in terms of function and appearance, simply because he cannot find the money to pay the full cost of an artificial limb that the hospital wants to charge him. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope you will allow me at this juncture to mention in passing that, with regard to this P.W.D. labourer whose case I have just mentioned, the National Trades Union Congress decided to pay for the cost of an artificial limb to enable him to be fitted with one instead of with a wooden peg. The decision of the N.T.U.C. is only a symbolic gesture to ring out the cry of distress of this labourer and all those who happen to suffer the same misfortune. However, this must not be taken to mean that the N.T.U.C. has now been turned into a philanthropic organisation. It just does not have the financial resources to dole out assistance to all those who need help and charity -”
“The paradox of the whole situation is that if his condition requires him to have a wheel-chair, he is entitled, as a Government employee, to be supplied with one free of charge. I am sure hon. Members will agree with me that it is extremely paradoxical that, as a Government servant, while he is entitled to a free wooden peg which costs about $100, and a wheel-chair which has to be imported from the United Kingdom at a cost of $300, he is not entitled to an artificial limb which is made locally and which costs $250. The reason for such a paradox is that there is a hospital regulation which classifies artificial limbs under the heading "Prosthesis", and wooden pegs and wheel-chairs under the heading "Appliances". According to this regulation or stipulation, items such as artificial limbs under the heading "Prosthesis" can only be supplied to a third-class patient if he pays the full cost of such items, irrespective of whether or not he is a Government employee. But such items as wooden pegs or wheel-chairs under the heading "Appliances" can be supplied to a third-class patient free of charge if he is a Government employee, and at a concessionary rate of 20 per cent of the actual cost if he is not a Government employee. It is very difficult to follow the logic behind such a stipulation. To a layman particularly, artificial limbs, wooden pegs, or wheel-chairs, prosthesis or appliances all mean one thing, i.e., artificial aids for a patient who has had his limbs amputated. To split hairs by classifying one item under the heading "Prosthesis" and other items under the heading "Appliances" might be convenient for the purpose of administration, but certainly in this instance it is not to the advantage and interest of a third-class patient who has had his limbs amputated.”
“As an illustration, I refer to the case of a Public Works Department labourer who was admitted to hospital in February this year for diabetic gangrene of the left foot, resulting in his left leg being amputated below the knee. The hospital decided to fit him with a pylon or a wooden peg, and not with an artificial limb. The reason for this decision seemed to be on the following ground: as a Government employee, he would be fitted with a wooden peg free of charge, but if he wanted to have an artificial limb fitted, he would have to pay the full cost of the artificial limb. In terms of money, it means that he would have to find $250 to pay for the cost of such an artificial limb, which is made locally. Knowing the financial position of this P.W.D. labourer, I need not elaborate on his difficulty in finding this sum of money. Hon. Members in this House may want to know what is the difference between an artificial limb and a wooden peg. An artificial limb has certain advantages over a wooden peg, namely, a patient fitted with an artificial limb will look in appearance very much like a normal person with natural limbs, and after some time he will be able to move about quite easily. But a patient fitted with a wooden peg is likely to feel dejected perpetually because of its unnatural appearance and will, in addition, find greater difficulty in moving about. An artificial limb is certainly far more superior to a wooden peg in terms of function and appearance. A patient by reason of his being poor is not likely to be given a chance to be fitted with an artificial limb, simply because there is in existence at present a puzzling hospital regulation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on the matter of artificial aids for persons who are unfortunate enough to suffer the loss of any portion of their limbs through accident or otherwise, and who are not fortunate enough to be able to purchase such aids which are necessary for them to earn their livelihood. Any accident resulting in the injury to and eventual loss of a limb is a tragedy for any person. The tragedy, however, is greater where the person concerned belongs to the under-privileged class of manual workers whose very limbs are the means of supporting themselves and their families. I may safely say that it is not only a tragedy but also a calamity for a worker to have an accident to his limbs, because of his low level of wages and because of his invariably having little or no savings at all. Added to the physical agony and pain of his injuries, he has to suffer a great deal of mental agony and anxiety regarding his own future and the future of his wife, children, aged parents perhaps, and other dependants. His worries and fears about the future are very real and substantial, particularly if he is the sole bread-winner. Apart from the productive use of his God-given limbs, he has no other means or savings to depend upon for his livelihood. The plight of such an unfortunate victim deserves not only compassion and sympathy but also whatever help that can be given to enable him to face the future with a certain amount of hope and confidence . Mr Speaker, Sir, in bringing up this matter of artificial aids for persons with amputated limbs, I am prompted by the need to rationalise the basis for determining the type of artificial aids to be supplied and the amount of charges to be levied, if the aids are so supplied.”
“Point of clarification, Sir,I was not talking of under-population in Singapore. I was only making a general statement about economic development. Population control is very essential. Under-population can be a problem. Over-population can be a problem. I was making a general statement which can be applicable in all situations. I went on to explain that Singapore would never face that problem. So I think the Minister has got me wrong there.”
“- I wonder how he can ensure the quality of children born in future. There will always be children who are sickly, retarded or deformed. There will always be children who are not up to the quality mentioned by the Minister. What are we to do with them? Are we to consider them as unwanted children? It is said that the Government hopes to get rid of the illegal or the unqualified quacks through liberalisation of the law on abortion. This again cannot be achieved as long as there are stipulations restricting the circumstances under which an abortion may be legally permitted. Women who cannot meet the stipulations will continue to seek illegal abortions. In view of all that I have said, I feel that this is not the proper time for the Government to introduce legislation to liberalise the law on abortion. It is to be hoped that such a move will never become necessary in Singapore. I therefore strongly urge the Government to withdraw the Abortion Bill in the light of what I have said. 5.35 p.m.”
“All right. And that every child will be a wanted child. I think he is attempting the impossible. Assuming that abortions may be freely available in Singapore ---”
“If today, by a miracle, we can train the unemployed to become skilled labour and technocrats, then we can ensure for ourselves the success in our industrial expansion and progress and solve our unemployment problem. Desirable though population control may be for planning our economic progress and advancement, it does not necessarily mean that we must reduce the number of births to zero. A certain number of births is necessary to maintain our population at its prevailing level. A liberal abortion law which permits all babies to be killed before they are born, theoretically speaking, will serve to defeat the very purpose for which the Bill was proposed - to ensure the continuing survival of our Republic. The Minister in his speech also pointed out that the central purpose of the Bill may be to ensure the quality of the life of children born in Singapore.”
“This was achieved despite the fact that a vast majority of the women population have not taken advantage of the facilities and advice of the Family Planning programmes. As improvements are made to extend the services of the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board to reach a greater number of the women population in Singapore, I would expect to see a further drop in the annual birth-rate in Singapore. Surely, the logical step for the Government to take at this juncture should be to develop the services of the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board to such an extent as to reach the maximum number of our women population to achieve a significant drop in annual birth-rate rather than for the Government to introduce measures to liberalise the law on abortion as an effective means to plan our population control. In talking about population control, I do not think it is out of place for me here to point out that sometimes under-population can hamper the economic development and progress of a country. While I do not see that under-population will ever become a problem that we have to face, I do not also see over-population becoming an over-riding problem that we have to face in our efforts to bring about the economic progress and advancement of our two million citizens. In Singapore today, while we talk of unemployment of so many thousands on the one hand, we also find ourselves faced with the problem of a skilled labour shortage on the other hand. We cannot hope to expand industrially at a desired rate if we lack the skilled labour and the technocrats to man and run our factories. The problem, therefore, is not one of number. The problem is how do we plan and train our manpower resources according to our national needs.”
“If abortion is resorted to as an ultimate means of population control when other family planning methods have failed, then it will either be rarely resorted to - in which case it will make no significant difference to the overall population - or it will be something widespread - in which case it is a very bad means of birth control, because it is dangerous to the health of the woman and, also, because it only solves the problem for a short time, especially when a woman can become pregnant again within a short period after abortion. It will therefore appear that the logical step to take in planning population control would be to step up our national campaign on family planning and to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of our family planning machinery, to enable a sizable number of our women population to take advantage of the facilities and advice of our national family planning board. In the White Paper on Family Planning of September 1965 the Government stated: 'If our Family Planning Plan succeeds, the present crude birth rate of over 30 per thousand in Singapore could be reduced to around 20 per thousand and with our death rate remaining constant around six per thousand, Singapore's net increase in population in the 1970's could be brought down to around 15 per thousand - which will bring Singapore in line with prevailing rates of population increase applicable to prosperous and advanced countries elsewhere.' The 1966 and 1967 Annual Reports of the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board indicate that our national family planning programmes have achieved a significant reduction in our annual birth rates, and can become effective means of population control.”
“In other words, once we allow the destruction of human life on the grounds that it is not completely human, then we leave the way for others to argue what constitutes complete "human life". Once we start to value human beings according to their worth to the society, our attention would then be directed to those persons without whom our society might be considered better off. We may start to think in terms of getting rid of the aged, the incurably sick, the deformed and so on. Surely this is not the kind of society we desire and the way by which we want our society to evolve. To my mind, the objections to reforming and liberalising the abortion law on medical and humanitarian grounds are very valid no matter what my good friend, the Minister for Health, may say. Let us now examine some of the reasons advanced by him for the proposed changes of the abortion law as embodied in the Bill. One reason seems to be that the Government wants to make abortion available as the ultimate method of population control when other methods of family planning have failed. Another reason may be that the Government wants to ensure that the Republic is not burdened with the care of un wanted babies. The third reason may be that through liberalising the law on abortion, the Government hopes to get rid of the unqualified quacks now per forming illegal abortions. It appears at this juncture necessary to ask two pertinent questions. First, will the proposed Abortion Bill achieve the desired results? And, secondly, if so, will the harm done be greater than the good achieved? In my opinion, the probable answer to the above two questions is that it is possible that the Government might achieve partially some of the desired results at the price of seeing more harm done than good achieved.”
“The objection of many doctors against liberalising the law on abortion is on the ground that every operation for abortion carries with it definite risks endangering the patient's life and health. It will seem unreasonable for the Government to ignore such an important objection since this is a matter of life and death. Medical science has not advanced to such a stage as to ensure absolute safety for the patient undergoing abortion, no matter what safeguards are taken. An element of risk to the patient's life and health is always present. I do not find the reasons behind the Government's proposal compelling enough to make us ignore the risk involved. There is another point of view to consider if we want to liberalise the law on abortion. If the abortion law is liberalised, and the practice of abortion becomes widespread and "respectable", so to speak, it would lead to a loss of respect for human life. True, there has been much controversy over whether the foetus can be considered to be a human being. But whatever differences of views there may be as to the true nature of the foetus, one must at least accept that the foetus should not be treated as mere waste-matter to be disposed of as circumstances require. Many eminent doctors hold the view that life is present in full potentiality from the moment of conception and that there are no intrinsic differences between the foetus at conception and at birth - the only differences being the stage of development. If our own convenience is put before our respect for a human life which is not yet fully developed, there is reason to fear that this attitude will spread.”
“This sub-clause, judging from the way the term "environment" is defined, makes abortion readily available to a substantial number of our women folk who would be able to have abortion for their unwanted foetus under the cover of environmental circumstances. This sub-clause will, in practice, virtually allow abortion on demand by the persons concerned. The underlying principle of this sub-clause represents a radical change of the attitude of the Government towards abortion, and perhaps constitutes the main reason behind the Government's move to liberalise the law relating to abortion. When the Government's intention to liberalise the law on abortion was first made known, it came as a complete surprise to the public especially since there does not seem to have been any widespread public clamour for a change in the present law on abortion. Naturally there were strong public reactions to the Bill, even though it would be granted that there was also a favourable response to it. But it appears to me that there seems to have been more adverse than favourable response to the Government's intention. The Health Minister may disagree with me here. One section of the community which is greatly opposed to the Bill is the medical profession itself. The Singapore Medical Association, which is the spokesman for Singapore doctors in matters relating to their profession, is divided among itself towards the proposed Bill before this House. One would gather the impression that many doctors have strong objections, founded on medical grounds, against the liberalisation of the abortion law, and I suggest that due consideration and weight be given to their objections since they are most qualified to comment on the medical aspects of abortion.”
“I have also a strong objection to the portion of the Minister's speech relating to clause 10 (3) which provides that a doctor can be compelled to perform an abortion against his conscience. The Minister justified the invasion of a person's right to act legitimately according to his own conscience by saying that the legal duty to preserve life over-rides all religious dogmas and beliefs. I wish to point out that in countries such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom, even when they are engaged in a struggle of life and death, they do not compel their citizens against their conscience to carry out their legal duty to kill in defence of the state of which they are citizens. But where abortion is concerned, the Minister is prepared to uphold the right of a woman who, in accordance with her conscience, demands an abortion, even at the expense of the right of the doctor to refuse to perform or assist in an abortion against his conscience. Thus an irony may arise later that while our police force is not efficient enough to enforce the observance of laws relating to criminal abortion as the Minister admits, there would be no difficulty in prosecuting doctors, particularly those in government service, for refusing to perform abortions. There is already in existence at present a law permitting abortion to be carried out on the grounds that such an action is necessary to save a woman's life, and today before this House is a Bill intended to reform and to liberalise this law. One notable feature of this Bill is the extension of the law to permit abortion to be carried out on social and economic grounds, and this feature to which I am referring is embodied in clause 5, sub-clause (2) (b) .”
“The very fact that the removal of a foetus, which the Minister regards as nothing more than a piece of living organism, must be 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 that an operation for the removal of foetus can be considered to be like any other operation. Sordid details and nebulous arguments have been used to cover up the mental confusion and uneasiness that are inherent in the concept of life underlying the sponsorship of the Bill. An instance of such arguments is the contention that the present law gives rise to a serious conflict for the doctor, between the duty to serve the patient and the duty to obey the law. With all due respect to the Minister, who has been a distinguished legal practitioner, I am of the view that there is no such conflict. The duty of a doctor to serve his patient has always been conditioned and determined by his medical training and the Hippocratic oath. It is my contention that any law governing would only serve, as it does at present, to restrict the scope within which a doctor can exercise his discretion to serve his patient in the best interest of the patient. I would have thought that the Minister should have pursued his fundamental contention - namely, that abortion is desirable and necessary in the context of the Republic - to its logical conclusion by repealing sections 312 to 316 and 511 of the Penal Code and enacting henceforth that abortion is an offence only if it is performed by medically unqualified persons. Otherwise, if abortion is not intrinsically wrong, why should members of such a responsible profession be made subject to petty, harassing man-made laws pertaining to abortion?”
“Elsewhere in his speech, the Minister has levelled religious objections to legalised abortion as being based on concepts which have sprung from the middle ages and beyond. The implied tenor of the Minister's arguments is that the proponents of the Bill are favoured with crystal-clear and rational understanding of the concept of life and the concept of laws pertaining to the preservation of life. It is only unfortunate that in the course of his lengthy speech the Minister has lost the thread of his own arguments. If the very basis of the laws of the Republic governing abortion is as outdated and as irrational as the Minister sincerely believes, a pertinent question may be asked why the Minister is sponsoring a Bill which, in effect, seeks tn perpetuate the concept that abortion is intrinsically wrong and that the procreative organs of a human being are of a special category meriting distinctive treatment in relation to the other organs and parts of the human body. Such an inference is to be clearly drawn from the fact that the Bill is designated to reform and liberalise the law of abortion in Singapore - in other words, to make less restrictive the circumstances in which an abortion may be legally performed. In contrast, the Minister has not found it necessary to enact similar legislation to govern the removal of an excrescence on the brain, liver or kidney or even a portion of the organ itself by competent medical personnel.”
“Surely it is not right for the state to help them get rid of an unwanted pregnancy just as it is not right for the state to help an individual get rid of his own life, although it may be argued that every individual has his own right, even the right to take away his own life. Sometimes, it is dangerous to invoke such noble terms as the right of individuals, the right to this and the right to that. I think the fundamental principle behind a good law is that the law must generally concern itself with the general welfare of the public, even if such a law may encroach upon the rights of a minority group. The welfare of a community must involve public order and civil peace; the security of the young, the weak and the handicapped; the maintenance of the decencies of public behaviour, the protection of life and property. To me the liberalisation of the law on abortion will work against the general welfare of the community, particularly when it will infringe upon certain moral values of the Singapore society. In Singapore, we respect and value certain human and moral values. The present Government has not shown itself up to now in favour of a permissive society. Its marriage legislation and its concern over porno graphic films, in its emphasis on social responsibility, it has striven to improve the social and the moral standards of the people. I am sure this can be undone to a certain extent by the move to liberalise the law on abortion. The Health Minister, in moving the Bill to be read a Second time, has proceeded to demolish objections that might be anticipated from this House on religious grounds as well as ethical, moral, social and medical grounds. In the course of such refutation, he expressed his view that abortion is not murder.”
“I would like to tell the Minister that, in the case of the Roman Catholic housewife, if she had only followed the teachings of her religion, she would not have in the first place resorted to the illegal abortion, and thus she would have spared herself the traumatic experience. However, the point that I would like to bring out is this. Is it a right line of argument that we should take, when we say that we must legislate the liberalisation of the law on abortion in order to enable our women folk the individual right to have an unwanted pregnancy aborted? This line of argument, if applied in a different situation, can also present the case for the state to legislate a law for legalised suicide and to provide facilities for individuals wishing to commit suicide to have the facilities of a gas chamber - seeing that this is a much easier way of taking one's life than to resort to various hideous forms of killing oneself. We could as well present to this House the traumatic experience of many individuals who had made unsuccessful attempts at suicide. But to suggest at this juncture that the state legislates such a law to this effect will bring upon myself strong criticisms from the Health Minister and I might be accused of being mischievous. But there is a parallel. One would think that the right way to help someone who wants to take away his own life is to persuade the person to abandon the idea and help him to see a future, a hope and a more courageous way out of whatever difficulties that he faces. Similarly, it would be equally logical to say that for an unwanted pregnancy, we must try to find ways and means to make mothers learn to want the unwelcomed pregnancy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Health Minister, in his long and devastating speech yesterday, said that it was the fundamental right of a woman to have an abortion if the family circumstances are not right for the birth of the child. According to him, the issue is simple - 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 to privacy. To me, all these sounded like pious protestations of the other extreme view. May I ask, if we are to legislate a law in order to give an individual the right to abortion, the right to liberty, and the right to privacy, are we also to legislate a law in future to ensure the right of an individual or a group of individuals to watch a blue film in their own residence without being harassed by the police, since values have become not abiding but conditional? Are we also to legislate a law to ensure the right of an individual to take away his own life by committing suicide if that individual feels that life has no longer any meaning and any future for him? This could perhaps be extended further by a pronouncement that all persons who are liabilities to the state should do society a favour by eliminating themselves. The Health Minister presented to the House six case studies of illegal abortions and he did not spare us the sordid details of the traumatic experience of the patients concerned. He went further and mentioned the case of a Roman Catholic housewife.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary, in reply to the Member for Joo Chiat, has raised a doubt whether the swimming pool will be built. I hope it will be built. I disagree with the Member for Joo Chiat and the Member for Mountbatten that the facilities in this teaching hotel are too extravagant. I think they are necessary if we are to get good results from the training; that is, to produce good waiters and waitresses and other people dealing with hotel servicing. Unless the stu dents have the opportunity to train with facilities similar to those obtaining in the best hotels, I think they will need to be re-trained when they are actually employed as waiters and waitresses in hotels. I hope the swimming pool and all the other facilities envisaged in the plan will come through.”
“Our airport is a place where we even go to spend our recreational hours because of the very pleasant surroundings there. But I have reason to feel a little small when I compare the facilities in our airport with those of other international airports. I agree that we should not make a comparison because we are a small country with limited resources. Be that as it may, if we place emphasis on the importance of air traffic, particularly in Singapore, we should think in terms of making our airport a truly international airport, even to the extent of catering for the jumbo jets. We should also think in terms of cashing in on the tourist trade. One very important factor has also to be considered. Our airport facilities should be in keeping with the standards that we intend to set for our hotel industry, taxi service and shops, because I think travellers are usually irritable after a long flight. Sometimes the four arrival channels in our airport cannot meet the demands of a heavy flow of air traffic, and I see a need for an increase in the number of arrival channels in the near future. Similarly, there is a need for quicker clearance of the passengers. Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that the Minister for Communications should look into these essential matters, not so much in terms of meeting the present intolerable position but of meeting a position that will arrive in the very near future. I am beginning to see signs of strain at the airport with the number of passengers coming in and going out. We should take heed of these signs and take the necessary remedial measures. 6.45 p.m.”
“No, not on M.S.A, but on the need to do something about the clearance in the arrival channels at our airport. I have personal experience of not only leaving Singapore Airport for other countries, but also of making regular visits to the airport to receive international guests. My observations confirm the fact that there are signs of congestion and delay in clearance at the arrival channels particularly during certain periods of heavy air traffic. I think sometimes the passengers and those whom I receive do feel a bit irritated because of the delay in clearance. This is quite under standable because after having travelled for 10 or 20 hours, they are extremely tired and therefore they need a quick clearance service so that they can go to their hotels as quickly as possible. I do not say that the arrival channels in our airport are not adequate to meet the present demands. There must be certain occasions when there is a heavy flow of air traffic. I am thinking in terms of the development of our tourist trade. In addition to the present flow of air traffic and the number of passengers arriving at the airport. there should be a considerable increase in the number of passengers moving in and out of the airport. As a result, we see signs of congestion and delay. I wonder whether the situation will not be aggravated to the extent that it will become extremely intolerable. I admit there are occasions when I feel proud that Singapore has a very efficient airport. There was one occasion in particular when I felt extremely proud of our airport and that was when I arrived at a neighbouring airport where the facilities and conditions were atrocious. I said to myself that we in Singapore are living in heaven.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Minister wants more people to support the Member for Havelock, I wish to be the first to come forward.”
“This news passed around, resulting in a feeling among the principals that they should not try to overdo things because, instead of putting things right, they would find themselves in serious trouble.”
“Yes, Sir. The Member for Serangoon Gardens has said that there can be no half- way measures in teaching. I cannot agree with him more that that is an educational ideal. But the problem is how to apply that ideal in the Singapore situation. I also agree with the Minister who has said that there are black sheep among the teachers, but that the problem is how to spot them out. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are also many teachers who want to play their role but who face certain difficulties. To be good teachers, there must be certain environmental conditions favourable for the teachers to carry out their responsibilities. As I have mentioned earlier, in certain schools they do not even have a field for teachers to train students to be more rugged. There is the problem of getting a proper field and facilities for physical education exercises. There are a host of other problems, such as teachers getting transferred every so often. Finally, to enlighten the Minister on why no principals would bring to his notice or to the notice of his officials certain cases of bad teachers, I think this is the position and I will quote an example which is causing this situation. There is a principal who is very energetic and keen to see that the educational standard in his school is maintained and that the teachers maintain certain standards of professional proficiency and conducts. One teacher in his school persistently misbehaved himself and the principal brought up the matter with the inspector of schools concerned. 3.45 p.m. There were a series of investigations, but finally it appears that the principal was not doing his job because he did not fulfil certain requirements.”
“But like people in other professions, principals and teachers need one very important element if they are to make any contri bution towards their profession, and that is peace of mind. There should be less interruptions in their professional duties. They should be given the opportunity to do research work and thus make their contribution in the field of education.”
“After grappling with them, I wonder how they can have the mental capacity, if at all they have the time, to make any significant contribution towards improving their professional work. Nevertheless, some efforts have been made towards this end. I can only say that from my association with the Singapore Teachers' Union, some modest efforts have been made towards professional improvement. Representatives from principals and teachers have met together and have drawn up a code of ethics. We have occasionally produced journals in connection with our profession. We have also met to discuss matters of professional interest. We have on numerous occasions made representations to the Minister and the Ministry officials on matters of professional interest. The Education Ministry did organise a seminar for principals. The Singapore Teachers' Union also made an effort to follow up that seminar by offering to organise seminars for teachers. However, we were told that the Education Ministry itself was following this up with further seminars for teachers. I must say that the Education Ministry has, in fact, organised refresher courses and re-training courses for teachers. I think the teachers are today spending a great deal of their time outside teaching hours trying to improve themselves by attending these courses. I do not think I have much to say at this juncture. I am not really trying to be too pessimistic about the contributions from principals and teachers. I can confidently say that the teachers would be more than willing to make their contribution, not only by spending extra hours in teaching or taking part in extramural activities, but also in producing papers on matters of professional interest to education.”