Wong Lin Ken
Singapore
“The Minister is also empowered to exempt any person or class of persons from all or any of the provisions of the Bill, whether absolutely or subject to such conditions as the Minister may see fit to impose. Section 6 of the Minor Offences Act will be repealed. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, if I understood the Member for Tiong Bahru correctly, he wants to centralise the issue of birth certificates at Empress Place. With that clarification, I will proceed. Sir, the present practice is for births which occur in Government hospitals to be registered at the hospitals.”
“We do not want to discourage them. It has been suggested that we are in relatively good times, and therefore why should we not be generous. True, our economy has picked up far beyond expectations in the last two or three years.”
“First, with regard to unanswered letters, I would ask the Member to pass them over to me. With regard to long hair, I think the Member is concerned with our policy that the cutting of long hair will affect the number of tourists coming in to Singapore.”
“Part IX of the Police Force Act relating to the Guard and Escort Unit is repealed. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. Wong Lin Ken].”
“I understand the point made by the Member for Tiong Bahru. I will look into the matter and see whether administratively it is feasible. As regards the point raised by the Member for Mountbatten, I agree with him that it takes a long time before a search can be completed.”
The complete record
Every one of 112 lines we hold for Wong Lin Ken, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 3.
“Findings? Well, I have to wait until the report is submitted before I can disclose the findings. At the moment, I think it is still in the process of deliberation and of making recommendations. Regarding traffic offences, can I say that they are not generally regarded by members of the public in the nature of criminal offences. Therefore, there is no odium attached to the committing of traffic offences. It is quite true people speed: when I drive along a certain road on my way home, I see everybody is speeding. Of course, ideally if we could post a policeman at every street corner we could catch every one of them. But it is unfortunate that the number of policemen one can have in the force is determined, first, by the cost, and, secondly, by the availability of men. As I have stated earlier, in connection with another question, last year alone 260,735 traffic offences were committed. This is a very high figure. The best way to reduce the number of traffic offences will be for the public to realise that they have a responsibility and that they should as far as possible obey the law. As regards commercial crimes, I believe a somewhat similar question was asked last year. Since then arrangements have been made for personnel in the Commercial Crimes Branch of the C.I.D. and other police officers to attend courses conducted by the Extramural Studies Department of the University of Singapore to give them a background in banking and accounting matters. Having regard to the fact that crime in this field is liable to vary and become more sophisticated as Singapore becomes more an international business centre, a separate bureau in the Attorney-General's Chambers with experienced staff will be set up to investigate offences in connection with commerce and industry.”
“Sir, before I answer the Member for Mountbatten, perhaps he could ask the question again. He has asked so many questions that I am not quite sure which particular question he wants answered, although in respect of the matter of the committee of inquiry --”
“Sir, let me put it this way. It is quite true that police officers working extra hours or beyond their duty hours do not receive extra emoluments, but due recognition is given for doing this extra work. For police constables who go beyond the usual tour of duties, normally they are compensated by a rearrangement in their subsequent tour of duty. For good work done, certificates of commendation of various grades are given to both officers and members of the rank and file. In the case of the latter, they also qualify for some form of monetary reward, depending on the grade of certificate awarded. Subsidiary awards based on the present system in regard to the rank and file members qualify them for certificates and the payment of monetary rewards on the basis of the points accumulated over a given year.”
“If anyone seriously believes that a police officer has not done his duty, he can complain in writing to the Police Commissioner and he will do the necessary investigation. However. I suspect this is really not generally true.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Telok Blangah talked about the low morale of the police force. It has been suggested that this has something to do with their salaries and conditions of work. If this is true, I think the solution can only come after the Lee Soo Ann Committee has presented its report. With regard to the question of court attendance of police officers and their fear that they may be grilled in the court and therefore they do not perform their duty, let me first inform the Member that not all police officers are required to attend court to testify for the prosecution. They only do so when the accused person claims trial. Even if they do, it is not very often that they have to undergo severe cross-examination by defence counsel. Generally, this happens only in cases of serious crimes. With the training given to them on court procedures, there is no reason for officers or members of the rank and file to fear narrating the true facts of the case as required of them when testimony is called for. Since it is just as much their duty to testify - in court as to attend to offences committed in their presence. I do not really subscribe to the view that failure to take cognizance of the crime when it happens is attributable to their fear to testify in court. The Member also complained that officers off duty or officers not asked to do a particular job, do not attend to offences committed in their presence. The Police Force Orders require that any police officer in such a situation should perform his duty. As I have said earlier, the police force has no other people to check any negligence on the part of its members in this matter.”
“I have indicated earlier that the level of our crime rate is relatively stable and low, and perhaps that is really the best criterion of the efficiency of the police force. I think some kind of comparison will bring the state of efficiency of the Singapore Police Force into proper perspective. I have stated earlier that our crime/population ratio has been relatively stable over the last 10 years, fluctuating around 10 per one thousand people. A comparison with Hong Kong will bring the situation into perspective. Hong Kong, like Singapore, is an immigrant society with a similar social structure and crime pattern. In 1968, the last year for which Hong Kong's figures are available, in so far as the Ministry is concerned, the crime/population ratio stood at 10.33. For that year, the figure for Singapore was 10. It is interesting to compare the position of the ratios for 10 major cities in the United States, another nation of immigrants. For 1969, the ratios varied between 17.5 and 47.3 crimes per one thousand persons with Los Angeles topping the list. I hope the figures will satisfy the Member for Mountbatten with regard to the state of efficiency of our force. As regards corruption, naturally I cannot tolerate it.”
“In fact, I presume that people are called in for questioning and, after that, they are asked to go home. After all, whether a person is wrongfully arrested or not will finally be decided by the law courts. The Member for Sembawang has suggested that the Ministry should consider having a "Police Week". In fact, I can reveal to Members that such a week will be planned this year and Members of Parliament and members of community centres and the Citizens' Consultative Committees will be asked to participate. This, I think, is very necessary to establish good relations between the police and the public. As regards the question of difficulties of getting telephone calls through to the police, I have not looked up the debates last year and I do not know whether my predecessor did, in fact, make such a promise. But since the Member for Sembawang has said that it was promised, I presume that it is so. At the moment, we are in the process of installing a P.A.B.X. system which will be operational some time this year. We hope that when this is completed, communication will improve. As regards rudeness on the part of the telephone operators, here again I say that it is quite possible that such instances might have occurred. But, by and large, the operators are polite. It is quite possible that there might be some linguistic difficulties in this connection. When someone speaks another language, and not too well, a person well versed in the language might interpret the inadequacy as rudeness. Members must understand that when an operator receives a phone call, he is confronted by people speaking several languages and often dialects. The Member for Mountbatten asked me some very specific questions. Firstly, he asked whether I am satisfied with the police force.”
“There are good teachers and bad teachers. There are good and bad Members of Parliament. This is in the nature of things. However, the important point is that we must take the whole picture into consideration and come to the proper perspective. As regards the rudeness and arrogance of police officers, I myself think that such instances do occur, because I have received complaints. I have investigated and sometimes the complaints are true but sometimes they are not. If they are true, disciplinary measures are taken, although I cannot tell Members what they are. The police force is an interesting force. It has different kinds of punishment for different kinds of offences. I am very pleased to note that the Member for Bukit Ho Swee mentioned the case of a police officer in Parliament House who did not recognise him. I will certainly take very stern measures against this police officer if the Member will just give me the specific particulars. This is very important because I will not tolerate any member of the police force not paying due courtesy to Ministers, to Members of Parliament and to members of the Citizens' Consultative Committees. For, as already pointed out by the Member for Sembawang, if the police force is to function efficiently, it must have the support of the community, and discourtesy is one factor which places the force in a bad light. Nevertheless, having said all this, it is also my duty to explain to Members that policemen are instructed to be courteous and they receive lectures on this. And judging by the number of complaints that reach me, it would seem that there have been -occasional lapses in this direction. As regards wrongful arrests. I am not quite sure whether this sort of thing happens at all.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, first let me say how much I appreciate the interest shown by the Members for Sembawang, Mountbatten, Bukit Ho Swee and Ulu Pandan in the functioning of the police force. The police force, unlike the Army, has no other policemen to look after them: to see whether they do their work or not. For this reason, I appreciate so much more the interest shown by these Members in the functioning of the force. The Member for Ulu Pandan has indicated quite clearly that the police force has, as a whole, done an excellent job and I am quite prepared to substantiate this in figures. How can we measure the efficient performance of the police force? It may astonish Members to know that there is no such thing as a crime-free society. In fact, the only society which is crime free happens to be very primitive society, and I do not think any Member in this House wishes Singapore to move in that direction. In the last ten years, our crime rate has been rather low, fluctuating around 10 crimes per 1,000 of the population, and it has not substantially changed. Last year there were a few cases of rather notorious crimes, like the Chartered Bank robbery, which happened to be the biggest in the history of Singapore. But Members will note that the police within a rather short time caught the criminals. In fact, last year the number of offences per thousand persons in Singapore was 9.56. This shows an increase of about 0.7 per cent over the rate in 1969. How about the inadequacies? The Member for Mountbatten has quite rightly pointed out that the number of instances where policemen committed rape and robbery did show the police force in a bad light. However, by and large, our policemen are not like this. After all, there are good students and bad students.”
“I thought I had given the figure earlier. The number of illegal immigrants detained during the period is exactly 119. ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1971, TO 31ST MARCH, 1972 Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [5th Allotted Day]. Resumption of debate on Question (23rd March, 1971), "That the sum to be allocated for Head 1301 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001."- [Mr Teong Eng Siong]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 2.44 p.m. Head 1301 (contd.) -”
“Sir, I cannot give the actual number of illegal immigrants from any particular country. But most of them come from Indonesia and Malaysia.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the number of illegal immigrants detained during the period 1st January, 1971, to the 28th February, 1971, is exactly 119. The control of illegal entry into Singapore is under the constant attention of the Immigration Department. However, a fully effective air, sea and land control system to prevent illegal immigration entails a sizable increase in expense and manpower. Concerted action is being taken by the Police and Immigration Departments to guard the Singapore coast-line against acts of illegal entry. Special police constables are constantly being deployed around certain beaches as shore patrols, while the Marine Police patrol boats cover the coastal waters. In addition, spot checks and investigations and raids are conducted by the Immigration Department and the Police from time to time to detect illegal immigrants. When illegal immigrants are arrested, action is taken forthwith against them under the Immigration (Amendment) Act, 1970. Traffickers of illegal immigrants are severely dealt with under the Act. The inflow of illegal immigrants continues. However, the number of immigrants entering Singapore illegally does not constitute a social threat. As regards security, the position is well under control and there is no threat to our security.”
“Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Science and Technology, That this Parliament approves the proposals of the Government on the proposed conversion to the Metric System in Singapore as set out in Paper Command 35 of 1970. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament approves the proposals of the Government on the proposed conversion to the Metric System in Singapore as set out in Paper Command 35 of 1970. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to the 11th of January, 1971."-[Prof. Wong Lin Ken]. Adjourned accordingly at Seven minutes to Ten o'clock p.m. to Monday, 11th January, 1971. WRITTEN ANSWER TO QUESTION Wednesday, 30th December, 1970 PRIMARY SCHOOL LEAVING EXAMINATION 1. Mr Tay Boon Too asked the Minister for Education the numbers of pupils who sat for the Primary School Leaving Examination in each of the four language streams in hte years 1968 to 1970, and the percentages of passes in each case. Mr Lim Kim San: The number of pupils who sat for the Primary School Leaving Examination in each of teh four language streams in the years 1968 to 1970, and the percentages of passes in each case are as follows:- Year Stream No. Sat No. Passed % Passed 1968 English 44,707 24,395 54.6 Chinese 19,302 11,482 59.5 Malay 5,881 1,961 33.3 Tamil 241 108 44.8 Total: 70,131 37,946 54.1 1969 English 47,879 23,930 50.0 Chinese 19,388 11,962 61.7 Malay 6,092 3,271 53.7 Tamil 235 129 54.9 Total: 73,594 19,292 53.4 1970 English 49,720 27,472 55.3 Chinese 18,452 11,278 61.1 Malay 5,371 2,680 49.9 Tamil 241 104 43.2 Total: 73,784 41,540 56.3”
“The Committee will be empowered to waive in full or in part the bond, depending on the merits of each individual appeal. The Appeals Committee, however, will not consider current applications for overseas schooling. Sir, this Bill will not involve the Government in extra financial expenditure. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. Wong Lin Ken]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. CONVERSION TO METRIC SYSTEM 9.51 p.m.”
“The amount of guarantee required is $20,000 or the total gross income declared in the income tax return of the preceding year, whichever is the greater. Under category "B" are employees in the private sector, excluding managerial, executive, professional and related personnel. The guarantee required of them amounts to $30,000 or the total gross income declared in the income tax return of the preceding year, whichever is the greater. The third category includes all others excluded in the other two categories. The amount required of these persons is $50,000 or the total gross income declared in the income tax return of the preceding year, whichever is the greater. The Immigration Department will issue passports to male citizens above l6« years on presentation of valid exit permits. It will issue passports to boys, 11 to l6« years old, on the same conditions as those required of boys above 16« years. All those in the two age groups now studying abroad will be bonded in the same way. The bonding scheme will exempt those awarded scholarships by the Public Service Commission, the Government, and statutory boards, and those awarded prestigious scholarships endorsed by the Public Service Commission, e.g., the Rhodes and Fullbright awards. Exempted also are those who leave the Republic for not more than six months for holidays and other purposes, those who have discharged their national service obligations, and those not required for full-time or part-time national service for a variety of reasons. An Appeals Committee will be set up with powers to deal with appeals made by parents whose boys are already abroad, should they feel they are unable to meet the guarantee requirements.”
“Clause 5 of the Bill provides that a passport or any visa, renewal or endorsement, issued or granted immediately prior to the commencement of this Act, shall continue in force, unless cancelled under the provisions of any regulations of the proposed Act. Finally, clause 6 repeals the existing Passports Ordinance (Cap. 103). It is intended that the Passport Regulations made under this Bill will come into operation early next year. Sir, earlier I have explained that the immediate objective of introducing this Passports Act is to empower the Minister in charge of Immigration to set up a scheme for bonding boys sent overseas for secondary education. It is obvious that the scheme must necessarily be tailored to meet the enlistment policy of the Ministry of Defence. Under the bonding scheme, all male citizens born on or after 1st January, 1949, and liable for national service, will be subject to the requirement of a bond if they wish to proceed overseas for studies, if they have not already completed their national service obligation. Those above the age of 16« years will be granted an exit permit, subject to their parents' or guardians' furnishing a cash bond or banker's guarantee, that these boys will return to serve national service on their reaching the age of 18 years, or the scheduled date of completion of their respective stages of studies, whichever is the greater. The amount of cash bond or banker's guarantee is graduated according tolines of the graduated scheme have already been worked out. Under the scheme, guarantors are divided into three categories. Under category "A" are the employees of government, statutory bodies or educational institutions.”
“It does not provide a statutory basis to enable the Minister in charge of Immigration to make regulations governing the issue, renewal or refusal of passports, particularly to meet the requirements of the bonding system. The Passports Ordinance (Chapter 103) cannot be neatly amended to provide for such statutory power. For this technical reason, the Passports Act, 1970, has been introduced. Advantage has been taken to remedy certain defects, in the existing Ordinance. At present, the Minister in charge of Immigration may invalidate, cancel or withdraw a. passport already issued to a person, but neither an immigration nor a police officer has legal power to recover the passport if the holder refuses to surrender it. In such an event, the holder can still use the passport, despite the fact that the Minister has declared it to be invalidated or cancelled. Legal power for impounding or re-possessing a passport is, therefore, essential if the order made by the Minister to invalidate or cancel a passport is to be made effective. Sir, in the present Bill, the Minister will be empowered to remedy this deficiency. In addition, the Bill incorporates the various actions for which the Minister may, at present, make regulations under section 2 of the existing Passports Ordinance. When regulations are made, they will be published in the Gazette and presented to this House in accordance with clause 3 of the Bill. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for all fines imposed, and all monies forfeited, and recovered under the Passport Regulations made under this Bill, to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.”
“The Government has reviewed the policy of total refusal of granting of passports and has come to the view that it is unduly restrictive. There may be parents who quite honestly believe, although I think they are quite mistaken in their belief, that their children will be better equipped in life if they receive their education abroad than at home. There is also genuine public demand that those who can afford to send their children abroad for secondary education should not take advantage of their wealth to provide their children with opportunities to avoid their national service liability. The Government endorses this position. However, it is equally inequitable to impose a total ban on the issue of passports as to leave unremedied an avenue by which those who so desire can utilize their wealth to enable their sons to dodge national service. A rational solution to the problem must allow those who wish to send their children abroad the opportunity to do so but also impose a penalty on those who exploit the opportunity to save their children the burden of national service, which should be borne by all, without distinction as to social classes For this reason, the Government has planned to introduce a scheme of bonding students on overseas schooling, the operation of which makes it possible to lift the restriction on the issue of passports and to provide sanctions against those whose ulterior motive is to avoid national service. The Passports Ordinance (Chapter 103), which the Passports Act, 1970, seeks to replace, is an archaic piece of legislation, originally introduced half a, century ago.”
“Sir, I beg to move, `That the Bill be now read a Second time." Members will recall that in the Parliamentary sitting of 4th November this year, my colleague, the Minister of Defence, had announced in a Ministerial statement that it is the intention of the Government to allow children of parents who wish to send them abroad for secondary education to leave the country. However, the Government requires adequate safeguards from such parents that the children will be sent home to discharge their national service obligations to the country. Passports will not be issued unless parents provide adequate security in cash bond or bank guarantee that when their children reach their 18th birthday, they will return to Singapore to do full-time national service. If the children fail to return, the bond will be forfeited, and the Government will take steps to bring them home. In the new enlistment policy, no distinction will be made with respect to students at home and abroad, when they reach the age liable for national service. Neither will deferment nor exemption be granted on the grounds that they have been placed in institutions of higher learning except for 25 per cent of the H.S.C, students who may proceed next year to the local universities on the basis of ballot. My colleague, the Minister of Defence, has already explained the rationale for the new enlistment policy. It will be recalled that there was public outcry that the rich had sent their children abroad to dodge national service. Since July this year, the Immigration Department has not issued passports to boys below l6« years for purposes of secondary schooling abroad. The result has been public criticism against the Government.”
“But not in the way by which he was asked to surrender his red identity card. He has no means of redress. As far as I understand, there is a procedure by which a person can appeal with regard to the deprivation of his citizenship. This person was asked to surrender his Singapore red identity card. He was not asked to give up his citizenship. That is a different matter, Sir.”
“Just a matter of clarification about this question of two birth certificates. I was not interested in who had the false birth certificate. What I was concerned about was that an officer in the Singapore Citizenship Registry had asked the person to surrender his red identity card and in its place he was to be given a non-citizen blue identity card. I think by that action the person would have been deprived of his citizenship, and he would have had no means of defending himself. I think there is a proper procedure by which he can be deprived of his citizenship, and also by the same procedure he can defend his case. This is the case that I was very concerned about.”
“I want to seek clarification. The Minister for Labour has said that we should be careful that those people who apply for citizenship do not do so just because they think they can get Housing and Development Board flats and free education for their children. I must ask him, how about those children who are born Singapore citizens, but their parents cannot get Singapore citizenship, and for that reason they are in difficulty? I want to seek clarification on that point.”
“It seems to me that if he had surrendered his identity card, he would have automatically lost his citizenship, whereas I believe there is a proper procedure by which a person can be deprived of his citizenship, if he has acquired his birth certificate by fraudulent means. As a result of my protests, I was told that the case had been reconsidered. I am not in a position to judge the merits of the case of the two claimants to the ownership of the birth certificates, but I hope that such serious administrative measures which have the result of depriving persons of their citizenship should be taken in a proper procedural manner.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say how much I share the views of the Member for Toa Payoh on the question of eligibility of citizenship and the way by which citizenship is granted to applicants? Speaking on the basis of my own experience in my own constituency, I feel that, perhaps, there should be some relaxation and more compassionate ways in which applications for citizenship are considered. Let me briefly bring out two instances of how people are affected by the way in which applications for citizenship were considered. I have a very difficult case of a hawker who is the main breadwinner in the family. He came from China a long time ago, as a result of which he could not have any tangible evidence to indicate his length of residence in Singapore. All his children were born in Singapore, and they are considered Singapore citizens by birth. As there are some difficulties in the nature of his evidence to prove his residence, he has never been granted his citizenship. The only way in which he can earn a living is to hawk illegally, and, periodically, he is fined by so many agencies which exist to fine hawkers who hawk illegally. This is just one specific instance, and I can in fact quote many more cases if I have my files here. There is another instance where a person was almost deprived of his citizenship by a procedure which I believe is wrong. It happened that two persons were in possession of two birth certificates bearing identical numbers, dating back to the days before the outbreak of the Second World War. On the basis of some administrative enquiry, one person was asked to surrender his Singapore identity card, which in this case was a red identity card, and which indicates that he is a Singapore citizen. He had the common sense to come and see me about it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this is a subject which has great difficulties. Perhaps more thought should be given to it.”
“I think the Minister has not explained all the possible positions of people from West Malaysia. I do meet such people every Friday in the meet-the-people sessions. There are people who claim that they came here prior to the introduction of immigration controls but they carry Malaysian identity cards. I wonder what kind of status we will give them under the proposed changes. It would seem that if there is no clear-cut status given to them, we cannot be certain whether they are legal or illegal immigrants. We do not know what kind of status to give to them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to seek clarification on the precise status of people from West Malaysia who were in Singapore prior to the imposition of full immigration control. I believe the number of such people is very large and I am not very clear how they will be affected by the proposed changes. Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this is the first time I have the pleasure of expressing my thanks to the Member for Bras Basah for fully supporting what I have proposed. He says that there is no distinction in the Bill between those who overstay in Singapore and those who have come in illegally. In the eyes of the law, I think a person who has stayed here longer than he is permitted to is also an illegal immigrant. But whether he should be treated more leniently than the man who comes in illegally, I think there is enough leeway in the law to allow the court to exercise its discretion. I have full confidence in the ability of our Judges to differentiate between the severity of the cases mentioned.”
“For this reason we are confident that you will not allow an over-technical interpretation of the rules of procedure to restrict debate, and when a situation calls for interruption you will give a stern rebuke if it merits sternness, or supply a touch of humour, which can dissolve a strained situation in a burst of laughter, provided, of course, Mr Speaker, Sir, the laughter is that of human beings and not that of gibbons. It is the nature of the office that the Speaker seldom speaks, but when he does he speaks with authority, and this authority comes from his impartiality and its acceptance by the Members. When you speak, Sir, it will be the voice of authority, for you have demonstrated your impartiality during your apprenticeship as Deputy Speaker, and this Parliament has indicated acceptance in the unanimity of its support of your candidature. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe I have the endorsement of my Parliamentary colleagues when I say that we will do our best to make your work less tedious and more pleasant by working within the framework of the best of parliamentary traditions, that is, to give and take with firmness but with courtesy. It was once said with reference to a Speaker in the British Parliament that, and I quote, Sir, "The office of Speaker does not demand rare qualities, it demands common qualities in a rare degree." And with this, Mr Speaker, Sir, permit me to congratulate you. 2.48 p.m.”
“By being the first non-legal man to be elected Speaker, you, Sir, have made history in Singapore. As in all walks of life, some Speakers are better than others. But whoever assumes the Speaker's mantle inherits the dignity and the responsibility that go with the office. In breaking precedent with the past, we in this Parliament firmly believe that you will guide its proceedings with dignity and impartiality, and with credit to your surgical profession. Mr Speaker, Sir, superficially, one may not see the relevance of some ingredients of success in the surgical profession to the qualities which are deemed to be necessary for the successful discharge of the duties of the Speaker. If one examines the specialised competence that distinguishes surgery from other professions and occupations, one may be inclined towards this view. Yet there are other qualities in the career of a successful surgeon that are relevant in the discharge of the duties of the Speakership. These are, Mr Speaker, Sir, integrity, judgment, common sense, patience, tact, a sense of humour, self-confidence, presence of mind, and firmness tempered with courtesy and kindness. Mr Speaker, Sir, for the dignity of your office you will be rewarded by the strain of long hours in the Chair. You have exchanged the right to generate heat and passion for the obligation to sit with an unruffled demeanour through more speeches than any other of my Parliamentary colleagues will probably wish to hear. You sit as the Judge, and will be exercising your judgment all the time. You have been with us long enough to have acquired an intimate understanding of parliamentary life the individual and collective problems of the Members, and their strengths and weaknesses.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to welcome you to your office. On this occasion it seems to me appropriate to remind this Parliament and the nation that the office of Speaker occupies the highest pinnacle of prestige in the structure of our system of government. Your office, Mr Speaker, Sir, embodies the dignity of a country's representative assembly. Much of your work will be formal and ceremonial in character, but behind all these rituals and forms of things lies a very grave and important responsibility of presiding over the debates of our Parliament, safeguarding its privileges, and acting as its representative. Mr Speaker, Sir, the nature of your office is judicial. Perhaps it was for this reason that the office of Speaker in Singapore had been previously occupied by eminent men from the legal profession. In the early days of our history, when parliamentary institutions were in the stage of transplanted infancy, the selection of men with legal training was, in retrospect, both wise and necessary. The letter and spirit of parliamentary rule required careful nurturing, and men with legal qualifications were the best possible and available candidates for the office of the Speaker. Mr Speaker, Sir, legal qualifications are not essential for the proper discharge of the duties of the Speaker. Indeed the technicalities of parliamentary procedure, I believe, can be learned from textbooks. The experience of countries with long traditions of parliamentary government has shown that there is absolutely no evidence to presume that only a lawyer can make a successful Speaker. What is more essential, Mr Speaker, Sir, is parliamentary rather than legal experience. This experience, Sir, you have acquired first as a Member of Parliament, and then as Deputy Speaker.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Constitution (Amendment) Bill as the constitutional expression of our declared faith in an equal multi-racial society, and our unequivocal intention to give substance and meaning to a nation in which all are equal regardless of differences of race, language, culture and religion. 3.30 p.m.”
“No constitution can guarantee that minority interests will not suffer or that the majority will not exercise its will in a discriminating way. There is a popular mystique about the sanctity and inviolability of a constitution. This is true of those countries where democratic institutions have evolved over a long period of history, and the political values of democracy are firmly a part of the cultural traditions of the people. Unfortunately, post-war history is abundant with evidence that democratic constitutions by themselves do not make for democratic processes nor ensure their own survival. In the last analysis, all depends on the people who participate in politics - their outlook and their beliefs. If this is true of democracy, it is even more so for any constitutional provision for minority interests. Ultimately, the greatest safeguard for minority interest in Singapore lies not in any constitutional provision but in the continued election of people to Parliament who believe in and practise multi-racialism. Mr Speaker, Sir, we in this Parliament believe in multi-racialism, and what Singapore requires primarily is confidence that multi-racialism can work within the context of the stresses and strains of Southeast Asia, it is our duty and the duty of those who share our belief to prove to the people that the multi-racial system in Singapore can work as well as establish for our Republic a viable and enduring political identity. On our conduct as a political party, and on our administration as a government will the minority and the majority races judge us as to our multi-racialism. The existence of multi-racial Singapore is a daily referendum, and we have to win it every day.”
“An Opposition is regarded as a desirable factor that keeps the parliamentary system alive, but the lack of it does not mean the destruction of the essence of democracy. For in the democratic process, the electorate can collectively decide to vote a political party entirely out of Parliament, as had happened to the Singapore Alliance in 1963. Equally, it can entirely vote a political party to all the seats in Parliament - this happened to us in 1968. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 3.27 p.m. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have never said that there should be no Opposition in Parliament. But we cannot molly-coddle an Opposition into existence, directly or indirectly, for this will be against the national survival of Singapore. There is only one route to Parliament, and that is by way of elections. The road to Parliament is raw and rough, not for those who want political glamour the easy way. Only those with the will to succeed, sustained by tenacity of purpose and, hopefully, integrity of intentions, will eventually make the grade. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is an organized Opposition in Singapore, a fact some choose to ignore, but it has decided to pursue the path of extra-parliamentary Opposition, as some of my parliamentary colleagues had vividly found when their branch headquarters were attacked. Mr Speaker, Sir, the multi-racialism which this Parliament stands for requires time before its values, beliefs, and practices become irrevocably institutionalized. No constitution or constitutional amendments of any kind, however ingeniously devised by the wisest men on earth, can guarantee that a constitution will survive the turbulent realities of politics.”
“The Presidential Council's report of any Bill or subsidiary legislation is advisory in character, and it is not mandatory on the part of Parliament to accept it, and can be over-ridden if a two-thirds majority of parliamentary Members so decide. However, I should imagine no Parliament can lightly disregard or dismiss the view of the Presidential Council unless there be over-riding reasons for not acting on its advice. The two-thirds majority rule is an adequate safeguard against any infringement of the supremacy of Parliament, at the same time against disrespect of the Presidential Council. I think it has been both consistent with parliamentary principles and the proper functioning of the Presidential Council that its proceedings be conducted in private. Privacy of proceedings safeguards its members from the intimidating pressure of communal public opinion as well as removes any possibility of playing to the communal gallery. As regards its lack of right to hear objectors or examine witnesses, I am of the view that this will not impair the efficiency and efficacy of the Presidential Council. The right to hear objectors or witnesses rightly belongs to Parliament, either in the chambers of Select Committees or parliamentary commissions of inquiry. There is criticism from many quarters that there should be an Opposition to the present Government. The Constitutional Commission of 1966 had reported that the Council of State might act as a check on Parliament in an advisory manner in the absence of responsible or effective Opposition. It is, in my view, correct that there is no possibility of the proposed Presidential Council developing in a way that might give substance to such a view of its function.”
“I attach some special significance to this, for in a state predominantly Chinese in racial composition, neither the extreme right nor left Chinese parties had wanted to test their strength with a multi-racial party, leaving it an almost uncontested arena to assume power for a third time in succession. The Constitutional Commission of 1966 in retrospect had not misjudged the political mood of the races in Singapore. The proposed Presidential Council reflects the intention, the purpose, and the spirit of the Council of State recommended by the Constitutional Commission. As recommended, it is an advisory body, and leaves untouched the present unicameral legislature. It also does not infringe upon the responsibilities of Parliament. Sir, it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy that the supremacy of Parliament remains paramount. In my opinion, there is nothing in the proposed Presidential Council that undermines this principle. It is correct that the Presidential Council shall only be empowered to examine the Bills after the elected representatives of the people have studied, debated and passed them, for I regard intervention of the Council before the final Reading as encroachment upon the responsibilities and privileges of Parliament. To allow the Presidential Council to intervene at any earlier stage of parliamentary Reading of the Bills is to permit it to exercise an influence in the legislature, at the time that the Members Of Parliament should be sensitive to public opinion and form their own independent judgment as to what parliamentary measures will be for the public good and supportable by the electorate.”
“The Constitutional Commission believed, and I am of the view that history will vindicate its belief, that minority interests would be best secured and protected if minority groups enjoyed the same fundamental rights as the majority race. Its belief and faith in a non-racial Constitution of Singapore evidently was derived from the political foresight and common sense of its members, and reflected their belief that the various races in Singapore were increasingly aware that (and I quote page 3, paragraph 10 of the Report): 'their future and the future of the nation lies in a non-racial approach to all problems under a form of government which would enable the growth of a united, multi-racial, free and democratic nation in which all its citizens have equal rights and equal opportunities.' On 27th August, 1966, the Commission presented its Report to the President. The Report was tabled in this Parliament in December 1966 and debated in March 1967. Most of the recommendations of the Commission were accepted by the Government, and in many others the Government accepted the principle but not the details. Sir, slightly more than two years have elapsed between the last debate on the Report of the Constitutional Commission and the present Reading of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, and the public has adequate time to digest and ingest the Report and the basic views of the Government on it. In the interim, the present Government had its mandate to govern renewed, and had, to the astonishment of the world and to its own political embarrassment, won every single parliamentary seat.”
“The members should be appointed by the President after consultation with the Prime Minister but in the President's discretion from amongst able, mature citizens irrespective of race, colour or creed who have attained eminence or responsible positions in their respective walks of life but who are not members of any political party. We believe such a body can play an effective and vital part in the affairs of the nation in many ways. It will be able in its debates to focus the attention of the public on any matter originating from Parliament which may adversely affect the interests of any minority group. It will also be able to serve as an additional check on new legislation and this would be particularly useful on matters of great public importance and on matters which might affect the minorities. Also, it will be able, especially where there is no responsible or effective Opposition in Parliament, to put forward where it considers it necessary in the public interest to do so, constructive and well-informed criticism or amendments of measures proposed in Parliament.'. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it will be recalled that nowhere in the Constitutional Commission Report did it propose that the interests of the minority races in Singapore be secured or protected in the form of constitutional entrenchment of minority rights over and above those enjoyed by the majority race. Indeed, it considered minority representation in Parliament or in an Upper House, or proportional representation, as constitutional measures that would defeat their very objective and intensify politics along communal lines.”
“Sir, I rise to speak on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, a subject of compelling concern to all those, within and without Parliament, who believe that a multi-racial society, with a diversity of cultures, can be organized on a rational basis that denies no race equal opportunities in life. We are not the only multi-racial nation on earth, and the Government is certainly not the first government faced with the all-important problem of finding an appropriate national framework by which multifarious races can live and work together in peace and harmony, respect and tolerate each other's differences and share, at the same time, an identity of nationhood. To take some liberty with a proverbial expression, the political harvests which a nation reaps depend on the way in which it has sowed the seeds of nationhood on ground fertile for politics along communal lines. As a historian by profession, I would like to quote history - history is replete with examples of violent political harvests that can only sow seeds of further bloody discord. In examining the evolution of the present constitutional amendment for the creation of a Presidential Council, I note that the Constitutional Commission of 1966 made the following recommendation, and I quote page 4, paragraph 16, of its Report: 'We recommend the creation of a non-elected advisory body to be called "the Council of State" with a small membership, not subject to dissolution but renewing itself at regular intervals by the retirement and replacement of a proportion of its members in rotation.”
“I think it has none for us, whose primary responsibility is to improve the prospect and quality of human life on earth. The concept of medical concern has changed from century to century. Today, it embraces not only disease and death but health as well. The modern con cept of health is that of a positive state of general well-being, and not just an absence of disease. The World Health Organization has described health as "a state of complete physical, mental, arid social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity". And on the way in which we vote on this Bill will the world judge us on our humanity, our breadth of vision and intellectual horizons, our capacity for compassion and for tolerance. It has been said, Mr Speaker, Sir, that a permissive Abortion Bill will promote immorality. Yet, the experience of other nations and the study of Dr Lee Yong Kiat all have shown that the majority of women who go for induced abortions are married women whose primary concern is the quality of life, and respect of it, among the members of their families. It rests upon the woman to make the final decision to abort, and one must presume she has weighed her decisions against her relations with her husband, her family, and her religious faith. This is her fundamental right which I hope the House will accept, and which only she alone can exercise, hopefully, to her own happiness. '...leave her to heaven, And to those thorns that in her bosom lodge To prick and sting her.' (Shakespeare: Hamlet, Act I, Scene V). Finally, no human wisdom can define an Abortion Bill that is perfect. It is commendable that provision is made for the review of the Bill before the House within a comparatively short time. 4.10 p.m.”
“' The Abortion Bill under discussion should cause no conflict of conscience, as it does not coerce a pregnant mother to have an abortion or a doctor with strong views on the subject to perform it. Catholics and others who do not want to avail themselves of the liberalised abortion law are certainly under no obligation to do so. There remains the delicate question of an emergency when a Catholic doctor has to weigh the fear of excommunication with his duty as a doctor to his patient. It seems clear to me his duty is to his patient, and the true answer to his dilemma will not be found on this earth. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Abortion Bill is not a mandatory piece of legislation. It imposes no obligation in conflict with the religious views of those it covers. It is essentially a permissive law, and can accommodate both those with diverse religious beliefs, the non-believers, and the humanists. The Abortion Bill subjects none to the will of others. This is the nature of religious freedom and tolerance we must strive for in our multi-racial and multi-religious society. If we cannot support the Bill on religious and other grounds of faith, we should not deny the right to such a Bill to those who have the need for it. We are, Mr Speaker. Sir, not showing any disrespect for life. It is because we have a respect for life, and the quality of life on this earth that I believe is the moral justification for this Bill. We cannot eliminate human misery on earth. At least, we can try to reduce it, especially for those whose likely prospect in life can be summed up as follows: "born in poverty, reared in poverty, and doomed to poverty". Human misery may have a value for certain religions.”
“At each stage of development, the foetus has the potential for further development, and even the most accurate knowledge of the foetus cannot answer what value each stage of development has for society, for the mother or father, or in religious terms, for God. Nevertheless, as legislators, we must make a decision because we cannot abdicate our responsibility to find a solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy. Whatever our religious bias and faith, whatever our ethical and humanistic values, it is proper for us to recognise that we are the elected representatives of men on earth, and not the earthly representatives of our faith in Parliament. Even among the Christian churches, there is no unanimity of views on the liberalisation of abortion laws even in Christian countries. I believe, Sir, it is correct to say that in the United States, even members of the Catholic Church hierarchy - and here I am quoting Loren G. Stern again, at pages 90 to 91 of the same article - "do not believe that it is the Church's place to impose its moral beliefs upon the rest of the population through criminal statutes." He went on to cite a letter by Cardinal Cushing, and I would like to quote a portion of the letter: 'There is nothing in Catholic teaching which suggests that Catholics should write into civil law the prescriptions of Church Law, or in any other way force the observance of Catholic doctrine on others. Catholics have no right to do this . . while we should make every effort to see the law upholds human rights and values and reflects the moral consensus of the community we should not look upon it- as an opportunity for promoting specifically religious teachings, especially when this may be offensive to some citizens.”
“He concluded, and here I quote his lordship's words: 'But since the foetus has only this potentiality of humanity which is not yet fully real, because it is in the process of turning that which is potential into that which is real, the rights of the mother who has already passed from the potential to the real, and who is on any showing a full member of the human race, take precedence over those of her unborn baby. So where there is a direct and unavoidable clash between the interests of the mother and of her unborn baby, the mother takes precedence over the baby.' Mr Speaker, Sir, if there is anything that is clear about the issue of abortion, it is that it is a complex and, often, an emotionally charged issue. This is because it is the potential of the human foetus which concerns us. Unless interfered with, this foetus will have the potential to develop into another human being like ourselves. It is this poten tiality that has moved society to set abortion apart from other surgical procedures. Because of "respect for life", in religious and non-religious terms, since it is the only life we have or know of, we are likely to have widely different views on abortion. When does life begin after sexual intercourse? This question has been argued from time immemorial, and from civilization to civilization, and there is no universally acceptable answer, and the likelihood is that there will be none. Religious views about the foetus based on doctrine cannot be proved or refuted as they are based on beliefs incapable of empirical demonstration. Despite its recent spectacular advances, science can give us no answer.”
“I ask of Members of this House, in whom the public expect compassion and justice besides common sense, I ask of them, is it reasonable to for-ce a woman to bear a child whose creation is the result of a relationship with a man she probably does not know nor will ever want to know? Then, Sir, there are the cases of girls impregnated as the result of statutory rape. Are we to punish them for the rest of their lives, when it is the presumption of law that they are too immature to know the nature of their acts, and then, after they become pregnant, force them to face the consequences of motherhood? Basic humanitarian instincts alone compel the legalization of abortion for rape and incest cases. We cannot punish the child nor the mother for the actions of others at whose hands she has already suffered a major traumatic experience. The Member for Punggol, Mr Speaker, Sir, is deeply concerned with the legal rights of the foetus. On this subject, there is a wide range of views even among religious groups. Suffice it for me to quote the Bishop of Exeter in the House of Lords debates in Britain. He had declared his support for abortion where the interests of the mother vitally required it. He pointed out that it is possible to say that the foetus, the unborn baby, is not a member of the human race in the ordinary sense of those words, but it has a potentiality of becoming so.”
“This is the compelling reality of life, here and everywhere. The Member for Punggol, Sir, also would have a defective child born into this world. There are many men in more prominent positions in the world, with the authority of experience and knowledge behind them, who think quite differently. In reviewing the abortion laws in the State of Illinois, Dr Potts, a Chicago pediatric surgeon, said: 'Having for so many years spent much of my time in trying surgically to correct serious congenital defects in the newborn, having witnessed the anguish of the parents confronted with the problem of caring for the malformed child, having seen the burden these children carry into adult life, I can come only to one conclusion. I would advise that the laws be changed to legalize abortion for such specific cases only.' Rabbi Louis L. Mann went further on the subject. "Failing to prevent such births," he declared, "would be nothing short of sin." The Member for Punggol. Mr Speaker, Sir, would also want to compel a woman who is pregnant as the result of rape and incest to go through with her pregnancy. Yet it is a hard reality of social life that both rape and incest are repugnant to our society as they should be. For such situations, society imposes an everlasting stigma on the woman and the child, the product of an unnatural relationship. I believe the child of an incestuous relationship in Singapore can never be legitimized, and experience and common sense point to the unlikely legitimation of the child born of rape.”
“I fully appreciate and respect his concern for the foetus, but I cannot but note a singular lack of compassion for human suffering, and the social consequences of bringing forth unwanted children, mentally retarded and physically defective children. Unfortunately, we have no major studies of the family and social con sequences of unwanted children in Singapore. We can only rely on the experience of other societies where such studies have been made to provide a clue to what are the likely consequences. My view is that the consequences are likely to be similar. In a public lecture at the University of California, at Berkeley, Professor Garrett Hardin said: 'Is it good that a woman who does not want a child should bear one? An abundant literature in psychology and sociology proves that the unwanted child is a social danger. Unwanted children are more likely than others to grow up in psychologically unhealthy homes; they are more likely than others to become delinquents, and as John Bowlby has pointed out, when they become parents, they are more likely than others to be poor parents themselves, and breed another generation of unwanted children. This is a vicious circle if ever there was one. This is what an engineer would call positive feedback: it is ruinous to the social system.' Carrying the argument of general social welfare further, Professor Hardin also said: 'The consequences of an abortion are mostly strictly limited in time: the consequences of ill-advised parenthood are paid for by society for decades and even generations.' Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Punggol has called for a new slogan: "Every child a protected child". I share his concern for the need to protect children, but I say, Sir, every child will be a protected child if every child is a wanted child.”
“If it were the intention to have abortion on demand, it would be scarcely necessary for the Minister for Health to introduce a Bill with a controlling administrative mechanism. One cannot predict that the present Bill will lead to a situation of abortion on demand in the future. Attitudes change, and if public opinion changes in favour of abortion on demand in the years ahead, then it is the responsibility of another Parliament to decide what it should do to satisfy public opinion. In any case, it is also equally possible that the Abortion Bill may itself be obsolete in the future. Let me quote pages 70 to 71 of a very stimulating book by Robert E. Cooke, The Terrible Choice: The Abortion Dilemma: 'There are now in various stages of development several possible methods of preventing or aborting a pregnancy after intercourse through the use of pills. It is believed already possible to do this through taking a series of high-dosage hormone pills for a few days, within a few days after intercourse. There may well be developed what is referred to as the "morning-after" pill, a pill which if taken within a few hours after intercourse prevents the fertilized ovum from being implanted in the uterus. There may also be developed a pill which, if taken on the twenty-eight day of each menstrual cycle, can end a pregnancy begun during a cycle.' These pills are considered likely to be of general use in future, and when this occurs, the law's ability to control will diminish as abortion returns to the realm of private decision. The Member for Punggol has also condemned the socio-economic arguments for abortion.”
“' The Member for Punggol also made the point that it is unnecessary to employ abortion as another adjunct to family planning on account of the success of contraception. It is conceivable that in a situation where the use of contraception is completely effective, resort to abortion is unnecessary. The reality is that we are nowhere near completely effective use of contraception in all sectors of our society. It is among the poor sections that we have not eliminated all the situations in which abortion will be required. It is among them that the demand for induced abortions seems to be greatest, for an additional child born into an already large family means automatically a reduction of an already pitifully inadequate income. It means more hardship for all in the family. It is the poor who resort to the unskilled operators because they cannot afford the price demanded by the qualified doctors who make a living out of human misery. It is they who suffer the injuries of badly induced abortions and end up in hospitals. The rich have no problems of finding someone to perform the operation under aseptic conditions, either within or without Singapore. As a socialist Government, we cannot permit a situation to exist where the opportunities for abortion under aseptic conditions and proper surgical skill are unequal, and definitely to the disadvantage of the poor. The Member for Punggol has rightly pointed out that the Abortion Bill will not eliminate the illegal abortionist, but not for the reason given by him. This must be the price that society must pay for a Bill that does not provide for abortion on demand. It will be noted that there is a great deal of public misunderstanding that the Abortion Bill provides for abortion on demand, which it assuredly does not.”
“They are told this by the abortionist, and are warned to keep silent for their own sakes.' [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 3.48 p.m. Mr Speaker, Sir, can we expect a public clamour for a reformed Abortion Bill when women, whose misplaced confidence in the abortionists has been rewarded with death, are willing to risk the possible consequences of eternal punishment in the next world rather than inform against them? The Member for Punggol has also made certain observations which require refutation. He cited an authority on the dangers of abortion. The Minister for Health, in a written answer to a question about the fatality rate of abortion cases, had made it patently clear that abortions carried out for medical reasons in the Kandang Kerbau Hospital are safe. Indeed, the experience in Singapore is supported by that of other countries. I quote from Loren G. Stern: "Abortion: Reform and the Law" [The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, Vol. 59, No. 1, March, 1968, page 88]. 'The Russian experience with legalized abortion between 1922 and 1936 yielded statistics indicating the mortality rate among pregnant Russian women was less than 001 per cent. In Sweden, where there are about 5,000 legal abortions per year, the fatality rate among pregnant women is about 0.04 per cent. This rate is lower than those mortality rates operative in both the United States and England. Studies of Japan, which legalized abortion in 1948, and those Eastern European countries which provide statistics indicate that physical after effects of abortion are rare and the mortality rate is 'exceedingly low'. Based on these scientific studies, it is evident that abortion under optimum conditions involves little risk to the life or health of the woman.”
“There is only one study on the subject, mentioned several times by the Minister for Health. This is Dr Lee Yong Kiat's The Non-Clinical Aspects of Induced Abortion in Singapore. He has estimated that Singapore has annually 5,000 criminal abortions, a figure that clearly suggests we have a problem of dealing with women with unwanted pregnancies. Dr Lee Yong Kiat concluded in page 48 that "when a woman is desperate enough to want an induced abortion, she will ignore whatever her religion teaches. Religion does not play such a decisive role as economic and social factors." If there he a lack of clamour for a more liberal abortion law in Singapore, it is simply because of the intimidating effects of the existing law. Dr Lee Yong Kiat's observations are worth quoting for the edification of those who equate the absence of a clamour for reform with the lack of demand for it. He writes in page 79 of his work: 'When a patient dies as a result of a criminal abortion, the Coroner is informed and police investigations and a Coroner's inquiry take place. In the majority of cases, the matter ends there with the Coroner passing a few caustic remarks about abor tionists and the evils of criminal abortion, because women are willing to go to their graves without divulging the names of the abortionists . . Patients co-operating with the doctors and police are the exception rather than the rule. The reasons for this are obvious: 1. The patients are grateful and loyal to this particular person who has 'helped' them in their hour of need. Moreover, they may need the services of the abortionist again in the future. 2. Fear of prosecution. Under the present law they are liable to prosecution, at least in theory.”
“Availability of contraceptives renders reliance on the unpleasant and relatively expensive device of an abortion unneces sary, and, therefore, unlikely. As the Minister for Health succinctly pointed out in the parliamentary session yesterday, the reason for introducing the Abortion Bill is to deal with the problem of unwanted pregnancy. The hon. Member for Punggol - I do not think he is here at the moment. Oh yes, I am very glad he is back. He had asked whether there is any need for such a Bill. There has been no public clamour for it, he said, and I think, with obvious passion and conviction. Yet, it is a matter of history that abortion has been practised as long as organised society has existed. It is also a universal occurrence. An authoritative survey of cross-cultural data revealed that - and here I am quoting - "there is every indication that abortion is an absolutely universal phenomenon, and that it is impossible even to construct an imaginary social system in which no woman would ever feel at least impelled to abort." The quotation is from George Devereaux's A Study of Abortion in Primitive Societies, New York: Julian Press, 1954, page 161. The main reason for liberalizing abortion laws in other countries has been patent unenforceability of the law against it. It may be argued, and quite relevantly, that the experience of other countries need not be the reason for our having a more liberal Abortion Bill. But the central question is: do we have an abortion problem? The answer is definitely in the affirmative. Because induced abortion is illegal, a statutory crime, in fact, in Singapore, it is difficult to gather adequate information on the subject; and, for that matter, anywhere in the world where induced abortion is a crime.”