Singapore’s abortion story isn’t just about choice. It’s about control. And after 50 years of a virtually unquestioned regime, many may find it uncomfortable to revisit the logic behind its legalisation. But we must. Because in a pragmatic culture where people are not seen as intrinsically precious but as resources to manage, we are likely to repeat our errors—not out of malice, but amnesia.
We may have forgotten the logic that justified abortion. But if we’re not careful, we’ll see that same logic used to justify euthanasia. As the saying goes: those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.
When Singapore Legalised Abortion
A look into the annals of history and parliamentary records reveals how abortion laws in Singapore did not hail out of compassion for “women’s rights”. Rather, these anti-life laws came as a result of calculated moves to control Singapore’s then-increasing postwar population, and were laced by an alarmingly eugenic mindset.
Some five decades ago, Singapore implemented one of the most liberal abortion laws in the world (the 1974 Abortion Act), enabling the killing of babies on demand for up to 24 weeks of pregnancy.
The Termination of Pregnancy Act, a compilation of statutes on abortion in the 2020 Revised Edition of the Singapore Statutes, details recent laws surrounding abortion. In essence, the Termination of Pregnancy Act is the same as the earlier 1974 Abortion Act, which dramatically liberalised abortion in Singapore, as compared to the 1969 Abortion Act to supposedly curtail population growth.
As per the 1969 Act, apart from circumstances when abortion was regarded as “necessary” to save the life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the mother, a registered medical practitioner approved by Singapore’s Termination of Pregnancy Authorisation Board could perform the act of killing babies. The Board could then approve the killing of babies if one out of four reasons were present:
- If it was believed that continuing the pregnancy would harm the life of the mother,
- The presence of unfavorable circumstances surrounding the mother and her child once the child is born,
- If it was believed that the child would have abnormalities once he or she was born,
- If the pregnancy was a result of rape, incest, unlawful carnal connection or intercourse with a feeble minded or insane person.
Once it was set up in June 1966, the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board proposed that abortion should be made accessible to further reinforce ongoing family planning programs to limit birth rates in the country.
Subsequently, the more radical 1974 Act that was easily (but unfortunately) passed (by a male-majority Parliament) eliminated the requirements for board approval, and even the need for parental consent for young mothers hoping to kill their unborn children.
Before December 1969, there was not any particular piece of legislation regarding killing babies in Singapore. However, sections in the Penal Code outlawed abortions except when to save the life of the mother.
Population Control, Eugenics, and the 1974 Turning Point
Notably, Singapore in the 1960s was striving to lift itself out of the dregs of the Second World War, with politicians like the late Lee Kuan Yew even singling out large families as hindrances to economic growth and increases in the standard of living. Lee even spoke in favor of smaller families:
“Resources, time, attention and care, lavished on one or two children, can nurture and develop the endowments of the children to their fullest extent, when spread and frittered over six or more in the family, prevent any child from getting the chances he could have had in a smaller family.” – Lee Kuan Yew
Besides, Lee, emphasized various points supporting his anti-life stance, namely:
- That each child receive more attention and resources in order to grow up to be a high-quality and productive member of society
“One of the crucial yardsticks by which we shall have to judge the results of the new abortion law combined with the voluntary sterilisation law will be whether it tends to raise or lower the total quality of our population.”
- Impoverished and less educated families may not have the means to raise and educate their children if they have many children.
“Resources, time, attention and care, lavished on one or two children, can nurture and develop the endowments of the children to their fullest extent, when spread and frittered over six or more in the family, prevent any child from getting the chances he could have had in a smaller family.”
- Children from less educated and well-to-do families would be comparatively disadvantaged economically.
“Until the less educated themselves are convinced and realise that they should concentrate their limited resources on one or two to give their children the maximum chance to climb up the education ladder, their children will always be at the bottom of the economic scale.”
- Legalized abortion would supposedly motivate people to restrict the number of children they have in order to focus limited resources on fewer children. This would allegedly maintain the quality of Singapore’s population (again reeks of eugenics).
“By introducing this new abortion law together with the companion voluntary sterilisation law, we are making possible the exercise of voluntary choice.”
“We must try to induce people to limit their families and give their children a better chance…We must encourage those who earn less than $200 p.m. and cannot afford to nurture and educate many children never to have more than two.”
Similarly, Chua Sian Chin, who served as Minister for Health at various times, played a key role in the initial abortion bill introduced in 1968 and the subsequent Abortion Act of 1974. Chua articulated the rationale behind liberalizing abortion laws, claiming it was vital to make accessible the “entire range of facilities ranging from family planning services to abortion facilities”. The minister, however, was quick to claim that he was not supporting “abortion on demand”, but merely abortion as a final resort that would reinforce Singapore’s then family planning policies.
Chua also claimed that unwanted children may “degenerate into delinquents, drug addicts, and so on,” implying that killing off these children could somehow enhance the quality of Singapore’s population.
Additionally, Chua tried to dismiss religious and moral objections to the Abortion Bill, instead of examining the rationality of these anti-abortion arguments. Instead, Chua insisted that religious beliefs should not dictate policy in multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore.
Strikingly but inaccurately, Chua claimed that Catholic moral objections to abortion did not care for the life of the mother, but only sought to protect the life of the fetus. The reality is far from Chua’s allegations.
Voices of Dissent Silenced in Parliament
On the other end of the spectrum, some politicians voted against the killing of unborn babies in Singapore on the grounds of health and societal consequences (religion was not the only factor involved in these pro-life arguments).
Among these anti-abortion politicians was Chan Choy Siong, also one of Singapore’s first few female politicians, and the only woman Member of Parliament (MP) in the 1960s. Chan, a woman, was vociferous in her opposition for abortion, thus showing that abortion in Singapore did not get legalized as a result of the leftist need to champion “women’s rights”.
During the abortion debates in the Singapore Parliament in the 1960s, Chan opposed the legalization of abortion. Notably, Chan asserted that the “legalisation of abortion is tantamount to murder” and stated that “our women will suffer a great deal more” should the Bill be legalized.
Chan, a woman, addressed the majority male Singapore Parliament at that time, stating: “All of you are not women.”
Elaborating, Chan stated that the MPs voting for the Abortion Act were not well-versed about the deleterious consequences on a woman during the process of killing her unborn child (or children).
Moreover, Chan lambasted the remarks of Chua Sian Chin, then-Minister for Health, that the abortion process is pain-free.
“According to the Minister for Health, the process is painless and will not affect the mother’s health. Perhaps it is because he is not a woman that he does not know how it feels. Whether the performance of an abortion is painful and whether it is damaging to the mother’s health, only a woman can tell.”
Additionally, Chan declared that many women who go for abortions hailed from low-income families and may lack post-abortion health support.
“Those women who go for abortions usually come from the lower income group, i.e., their standard of living is poor. Quite often they lack the nourishment necessary after an abortion. If we move from family planning to abortion, then I am afraid that more pregnant women will go for abortion, and in the end those who suffer will not be the fathers but the mothers.”
Likewise, Tay Boon Too, MP for Paya Lebar at that time, echoed Chan’s anti-abortion stance, but pointed out the possible “degeneration of social morality” as a result of decriminalizing abortion. By legalizing abortion, Tay argued, sexual promiscuity would be more rampant.
Strikingly, MP Ng Kah Ting of Punggol forcefully, rebutted the arguments put forth by pro-abortion MPs that all anti-abortion arguments were due to religious convictions, and thus had no place in multi-religious Singapore. Ng declared:
“Yet reading the representations, do we find them arguing that abortion should be prohibited because the Catholic Church teaches that it is wrong? We do not. We find them arguing that abortions should be prohibited because it is bad for the nation. They ask that their case should be judged not on the merits of their religious beliefs but on the strength of their arguments. We may agree or disagree with their arguments, but we have no right to doubt the integrity of those who oppose it. I am a Catholic. I am also opposed to abortions. I am opposed to abortions not because I am a Catholic, but because I think it is wrong. Just as I am opposed to murder because I think it is wrong. All Members of this House think that murder is wrong too. You do not have to be a Catholic, or for that matter a Hindu, a Muslim or a Buddhist to think that abortion is wrong. I am opposed to a liberalised abortion policy because I think this would be bad for our nation.It is very easy to write off the opposition to this Bill as ‘religious objections’. This saves us the trouble of examining the rational arguments put forward against it. This enables us to evade the very pertinent questions raised, questions which have nothing to do with religion.”
Chan, Ng, and Tay were not alone in opposing the Abortion Bill, for they were accompanied by the MPs of Delta, Anson and Bras Basah as well.
Despite the number of MPs who opposed the Abortion Bill, abortion laws were still ultimately liberalized, arguably due to the influence of the then Prime Minister Lee, who supported the Abortion Bill on the grounds of population control and eugenics. Here is what Lee had to say in a 1969 Parliament session:
“Our problem is how to devise a system of disincentives, so that the irresponsible, the social delinquents, do not believe that all they have to do is to produce their children and the government then owes them and their children sufficient food, medicine, housing, education and jobs. There are certain areas of activity over which control by any government is both difficult and repugnant. One such area is the choice of the number of children a father and mother decide to rear. One day the pressure of circumstances may become so acute that attitudes must change. Until such time when moral inhibitions disappear and legislative or administrative measures can be taken to regulate the size of families, we must try to induce people to limit their families and give their children a better chance. The quality of our population depends on raising not only the I.Q. level but also getting parents to care, nurture and educate their children and to develop all those other qualities so crucial to effective living summed up in the word ‘character’.Every person, genius or moron, has a right to reproduce himself. So we assume that a married pair will want to be allowed two children to replace them. This is already the average size family of the skilled industrial worker in Europe. In Singapore we still allow three for good measure. Beyond the three children, the costs of subsidised housing, socialised medicine and free education should be transferred to the parent. We have changed the priorities in public housing, by not awarding more points for more children. One day we may have to put disincentives or penalties on the other social services. By introducing this new abortion law together with the companion voluntary sterilisation law, we are making possible the exercise of voluntary choice. But we must keep a close watch on the result of the new laws and the patterns of use which will emerge. It is not unlikely that the people who will want to restrict their families are the better educated parents in better paid jobs. They are the people who already understand that their children’s future depends on their being able to care for their health, education and upbringing. One of the crucial yardsticks by which we shall have to judge the results of the new abortion law combined with the voluntary sterilisation law will be whether it tends to raise or lower the total quality of our population. We must encourage those who earn less than $200 per month and cannot afford to nurture and educate many children never to have more than two. Intelligent application of these laws can help reduce the distortion that has already set in. Until the less educated themselves are convinced and realise that they should concentrate their limited resources on one or two to give their children the maximum chance to climb up the educational ladder, their children will always be at the bottom of the economic scale.”
When Expediency Becomes Law and Law Loses Its Moral Ground
With such political rhetoric in an atmosphere focused on economic growth and “population quality”, it is no wonder why many mothers practised contraception and even resorted to abortion once abortion laws were liberalized after 1969.
From 1974, there was a sharp rise in the number of abortions conducted, with the figure reaching its zenith at 23,512 abortions in 1985. Tragically, 35% of all pregnancies were terminated in 1985.
Among teenage pregnancies, the teenage abortion rate was 0.2 per 1000 female teenagers under 20 years of age in 1970. Once the radical 1974 Abortion Act materialized, the rate attained a peak of 13.7 per 1000 female teenagers in 1985.
Pro-abortion advocates refer to the aforementioned statues as legal grounds to continue pushing for so-called “women’s choice” and “abortion”, given that present statutes permit liberal legal interpretations and consequently abortion upon request of the mother of the baby.
Nevertheless, legislation should be morally justified in any society, including Singapore. Even on the grounds of expediency, Singapore’s reasons to support anti-life laws (i.e. its desire to curb population growth), do not hold water, particularly in the case of today’s abysmal birth rates. It is high time the Singapore government look into reviewing and amending the abortion law, if it is truly serious about countering the negative effects of population decline.
