Parliamentary debate over Bills to repeal Section 377A and amend Constitution to protect definition of marriage from court challenges

On 28 and 29 November 2022, a debate was held over two Parliamentary Bills introduced to repeal Section 377A which criminalised sex between men and to amend the Constitution to protect the definition of marriage from court challenges. A total of forty MPs, NCMPs and NMPs rose to speak on the issue.

=Monday, 28 November 2022=

Indranee Rajah

 * See also: Indranee Rajah's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUvfewJSd-A

hUvfewJSd-A 

Transcript:

Masagos Zulkifli

 * See also: Masagos Zulkifli's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAWcWbS9brA

wAWcWbS9brA 

Transcript:

Order for Second Reading read.

12.32 pm

The Minister for Social and Family Development (Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, this Bill is linked to the next Bill on the Order Paper, the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to propose that the substantive debate on both Bills take place together. This will allow a holistic debate and enable Members to raise questions or express their views on both Bills during the debate. We will still have the formal Second Reading of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill to ensure that procedural requirements are dealt with.

Speaker: Yes, please.

Masagos Zulkifli B M M: This Bill gives effect to what Prime Minister announced at this year’s National Day Rally, that is, the Government will protect the definition of marriage from being challenged in the Courts on constitutional grounds. Prime Minister had also announced that the Government will repeal section 377A of the Penal Code.

In introducing the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill, my speech will cover the Government's long-standing position on marriage and family, what the Bill is and why we are taking this approach, and our unique approach to manage diversity in Singapore.

The PAP Government has been consistent in its strong support for the institution of marriage and the family, through its policies and legislation.

One of the first laws enacted by the PAP Government when it came to power was the Women's Charter 1961, which defined and regulated civil marriages. This was a landmark piece of legislation that protected the rights of women by legalising only monogamous marriages between a man and a woman.

Similarly, the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) enacted soon after Independence in 1966 provided for the practice of Muslim law to regulate marriages between Muslims. Under AMLA, marriages must meet the requirements of Muslim law, including being between man and woman.

There is strong consensus in society that marriage is between a man and a woman; and children should be born and raised within such families.

This is the view taken by many Singaporeans, whether religious or not. It is also the view that the Government believes in. It undergirds the shared values that we adopted in 1991.

The family is the foundation on which our society is built and sustained, with each generation raising the next to take its place. Without strong families, Singapore cannot thrive and society cannot perpetuate itself.

In his book from "Third World to First", Mr Lee Kuan Yew wrote "Singapore depends on the strength and influence of the family to keep society orderly". The family is the source of values not only for its members but for society. A 2015 Washington Post article aptly suggests that family values are what makes Singapore strong. It captures Mr Lee's view that when we break away from tested norms, such as the family unit, there is grave disquiet. The family is the building block of society. Indeed, this is wisdom and precisely why we need to be extremely careful to change the construct of the family.

To further quote Mr Lee's words in a 1994 interview, "The family is the basic concept of our civilisation. Governments will come, governments will go, but this endures."

Hence, our policies also reflect and reinforce this basic idea about marriage and family. We encourage parenthood within marriage. We do not support same-sex family formation and we maintain our policy against planned and deliberate single parenthood, including using assisted reproduction techniques (ART) or surrogacy.

We have made these clear in Parliament on multiple occasions. We have also taken steps to defend our pro-family policies when they are challenged.

For example, in the adoption case of UKM vs AG, the Court did not agree with the Government that an adoption order should not be made if it resulted in the formation of a same-sex family unit. Thereafter, the Government made clear its policy position, that it does not support same-sex family formation, surrogacy and planned and deliberate single parenthood, including through ART and/or surrogacy.

More recently, Parliament re-enacted the Adoption of Children Act 2022 to make clear that joint adoption applications can only be made by couples whose marriage is recognised in Singapore. Only a man and a woman who are married to each other can apply together. Adoption should not be used as a process to support the formation of same-sex families.

I reiterate today: Singapore's public policy is and has always been to uphold heterosexual marriage and promote the formation of families within such marriages. Among other things, this public policy has long been embodied in section 12(1) of the Women's Charter, which invalidates same-sex marriages. Consistent with this policy, an overseas same-sex marriage will, generally, not be accorded legal recognition in Singapore.

Our policies clearly reflect the value society places on family formation through marriage. However, we also recognise that there are single unwed parents. We empathise with the challenges they face. Our focus is on their child's well-being and on supporting them in their caregiving responsibilities. Hence, we extend Government benefits that support the growth and development of their children. These include subsidies for education, healthcare, childcare and infant care, the foreign domestic worker levy concession and the Child Development Account. HDB also assesses their requests for housing holistically, based on their individual circumstances.

We make a distinction between support and incentive. Thus, we do not provide the Baby Bonus Cash Grant to single unwed parents because this is an incentive for married couples to have children.

Our policies support individuals to get married and have children within marriage. Examples of these policies and measures that rely on the definition of marriage are: housing, where public housing subsidies and access are prioritised for married couples; financial benefits that favour married couples, such as the Baby Bonus Cash Gift; ART, where access to IVF and use of frozen gametes for procreation are only allowed for married persons; adoption, where only married couples can apply jointly; education, where what is taught in preschools and MOE schools would be based on marriage as between a man and a woman and such a family as the basic unit of society; and media, where higher age ratings apply for media content which depicts non-traditional family units, such as same-sex families. Our public libraries also do not carry books which depict such family units for very young children.

Beyond laws and policies, MSF has also been actively promoting, educating and emphasising the importance of families, through our public education programmes. These programmes inculcate family values, such as love, care and concern, respect and commitment to each other in the family. To support parents, the Families for Life Council has rolled out parenting programmes in pre-schools, schools and the community. We also dedicated 2022 as the Year of Celebrating SG Families, in which the Prime Minister announced an annual National Family Week. Most recently, we had launched the Singapore Made for Families 2025. This plan will create a Singapore where families are valued and supported across different chapters of their lives.

These efforts reflect the Government's deep and abiding commitment to the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and to the formation of families within marriage.

Now I turn to this Bill, which will make it possible to continue with these pro-family policies and the approach embedded in the Bill.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and our other laws must not conflict with it. Overall, the Constitution is like the "operating system" for Singapore. The four key functions of the Singapore Constitution are: it establishes the key Organs of State like the President, Parliament, the Government, the Judiciary, the Public Service and regulates their powers with a system of checks and balances; it protects the sovereignty of Singapore; it provides for citizenship; and it protects the fundamental liberties of individuals.

Specific to the fundamental liberties, they are found in Part 4 of the Constitution. They are Articles 9 to 16 and include, among others, liberty of the person and freedom of speech, assembly and association. Many of these rights are not absolute rights. They are subject to exceptions such as the maintenance of public order, morality and national security.

If an individual considers that their constitutional rights have been infringed by a law or by the actions of a public body, he or she may bring a legal challenge in Court. Hence, it is possible for individuals to argue that our existing laws and policies on marriage are unconstitutional and seek a ruling from the Court to that effect. Just as there have been challenges on the constitutionality of section 377A, there can also be challenges to laws and policies related to marriage.

The experiences of other jurisdictions show the perils of court-led change. Most recently, in August 2022, the Indian Supreme Court observed that the definition of a family unit should be expanded to include homosexual relationships as well as unmarried partnerships or same-sex relationships. This did not even arise from a challenge of definition of family per se. It arose from a case where an employer denied a nurse her application for maternity leave because she had already taken leave to care for her husband's children from a previous marriage.

Before this, in 2018, the Indian Supreme Court also struck down section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which similarly criminalised male homosexual acts.

We also see the same trend in other jurisdictions. In the US for instance, controversial issues such as abortion are litigated and relitigated in the courts. When the courts decide, things change overnight, with drastic social repercussions that polarise society.

Hence, we are proactively safeguarding the institution of marriage and related laws and policies from being challenged in Court. This will allow the Government to continue to make laws and policies, which depend on heterosexual marriage as its foundation.

There have been questions on why the Government is intervening now. Why repeal? Why even amend the Constitution? Perhaps we should leave things as they are, let the Courts decide when there is a challenge. Why do this now, when there are other issues of concern, such as the cost of living? That might be politically expedient.

We acknowledge that there are indeed other issues of concern to Singaporeans, such as cost of living. To use that as a reason for inaction might be politically expedient but it would not be the right or responsible thing to do.

We have assessed that there is a significant risk to our laws being struck down. We cannot just ignore the legal risks. This amendment is necessary and it is the right thing to deal with it now and not delay.

We have the mandate and the responsibility to govern, and we must put forward what we think is best for Singapore and Singaporeans. This includes making changes in a calibrated and careful manner that may not please everyone.

We appreciate our Courts for exercising wisdom and restraint on this matter. But a responsible government should not leave the courts to grapple with controversial social issues. The role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law. It is not their constitutional function to settle political questions or rule on social norms and values. It is not their function to engage with the political, social, ethical and other dimensions of the issues.

Nor do the courts wish to do so. Litigation is a zero-sum, adversarial process with win-lose outcomes. It is unlike a political process, where the interests of stakeholders can be considered, accommodation can be sought to reach consensus. The Courts also recognise that controversial social issues are best dealt with within the sphere of Parliament.

This Bill is what a responsible government carrying out its duty to the people of Singapore would introduce. It allows the political process to balance different interests and perspectives and does not pass the buck to the Court to rule on social issues which are best dealt with via Parliament.

Let me now elaborate on the provisions of the Bill. There will be a new Article 156, under the General Provisions of the Constitution.

Clause 1 of the Article makes clear that Parliament can act to define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote marriage. For example, today, the Women’s Charter and AMLA define civil and Muslim marriages respectively and make clear that same-sex marriages are not valid. This clause empowers Parliament to continue to make and amend laws for these purposes. The interpretation of other Constitutional provisions must recognise this. For example, in applying the reasonable classification test under Article 12(1), the Courts must recognise that the promotion and safeguarding of heterosexual marriage are legitimate and permissible legislative objects.

Clause 2 of the Article applies to the Government and any public authority. It allows them to exercise their functions to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote marriage. This includes, but is not limited to, the following situations:

(a) HDB can implement public housing policies that give preference to married couples to support, foster and promote marriage;

(b) MSF, when they evaluate adoption applications, can recognise and take into account the public policy goal to foster and promote the formation of families within the context of marriage as defined in the Women’s Charter and AMLA;

(c) Curricula for preschools and MOE schools centre on the values that reflect Singapore’s mainstream society. That is, marriage as being a union between a man and a woman; and children being born within marriage and raised within such a family construct;

(d) In the context of sexuality education, content will be age-appropriate. This means, for example, in preschools and Primary schools, our curriculum will not feature same-sex parents or same-sex romantic relationships. At older ages, if introduced, we will focus on educating our young to treat everyone with respect and empathy but will not promote same-sex relationships; and

(e) IMDA, in regulating media content, is guided by principles that include prevailing social norms and values that are generally acceptable to members of the public and protecting younger audiences from age-inappropriate content.

Clause 3(a) provides that nothing in Part 4 of the Constitution, which sets out the eight fundamental liberties, will invalidate any legislative definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Clause 3(b) and clause 4 respectively provides that laws and executive actions cannot be invalidated by Part 4 just because they are based on a heterosexual definition of marriage.

Some may ask why specify all the other fundamental liberties in Part 4, and not just Article 12. Minister Desmond Lee will explain but broadly, we need Article 156 to cover all of Part 4 so that it can apply to other radical legal arguments that may be brought in the future, and based on other articles in Part 4, Article 156 will provide a “strong shield”. However, the shield is also precise, where it only protects the heterosexual definition of marriage and the laws and policies that rely on this definition.

In effect, Article 156 is an exception to the fundamental liberties. There are already such exceptions.

For example, Article 39A empowers the Legislature to create Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) to ensure minority representation in Parliament. Article 39A(3) of the Constitution exempts any law regarding GRCs from being invalidated on the ground of inconsistency with Article 12.

Article 149(1) prevents the Internal Security Act from being invalidated by Articles 9, 11, 12, 13 or 14.

Article 9(6) creates exceptions from Article 9 for the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and for rehabilitative detention for drug addicts.

Article 14(2) also has limits on Article 14, where one’s rights to freedom of speech, assembly and association is subject to public order, morality or security of Singapore.

Article 12(3) makes clear that the right to equal protection does not apply to laws that regulate personal law, or to laws and practices that restrict office or employment connected with affairs of any religion.

Each case involves a balance between the fundamental liberties and countervailing interests. In the case of Article 156(3) and (4), we have struck the balance in favour of having the strongest protection for the heterosexual definition of marriage adopted by Parliament, and the ability of Parliament and the Government to make laws and policies on the basis of this definition. This reflects the importance of heterosexual marriage in our society.

Some have commented that this is an "ouster clause" and could be subject to legal challenges. To be clear, the nature of Article 156 is not an “ouster clause”. Instead, it provides exceptions or limits to the fundamental liberties. As mentioned, such exceptions already exist today.

Let me now turn to another aspect that have come up in our engagements. They have been wide ranging, and we have heard from Singaporeans across various walks of life. I first want to take the opportunity to appreciate the different groups of Singaporeans who have written in and whom we have engaged before and after the Prime Minister's announcement.

These engagements include those with religious leaders, grassroot leaders, union leaders, LGBT groups, social sector professionals, youth groups and members of the public. Many have written to share their views on this matter. Singaporeans have generally understood the need to respect, graciously and mutually accommodate each other’s views and support the Government’s approach.

Gay people appreciate the repeal of section 377A but express some apprehension of the implications of the constitutional amendments. Those in favour of the status quo have constructively shared their views and emphasised the need to safeguard the institution of marriage. Others whom we have engaged, such as leaders from the community, also support the proposed approach to keep the heterosexual definition of marriage, while repealing section 377A.

Many are concerned about cancel culture, religious freedom, discrimination faced by those with differing views on this issue and the narrowing public space to speak openly about it. These are important feedback and concerns that Minister Desmond Lee will also address when he speaks.

Some expressed the wish to go further than what we are proposing, protecting the definition of marriage in our current laws. They want the definition of marriage to be enshrined in the Constitution.

We understand that these calls come from a sincere belief in the sanctity of marriage and reflect a genuine worry that the institution of marriage might be changed in the future to include same-sex marriages. I thank those who have spoken up, for taking a stand on what they think is best for Singapore.

But the Government has to govern with principle. Our view is that elevating marriage to the same level as fundamental rights in the Constitution would not be appropriate. As explained earlier, the Constitution should be for functions such as sovereignty and our system of governance. The institution of marriage and family is the bedrock of society but to elevate it to the same level as fundamental rights, would fundamentally change the whole complexion and schema of the Constitution. There are many important laws and principles that are not in the Constitution but are in Acts of Parliament. For example, National Service is in the Enlistment Act; Corruption is in the Prevention of Corruption Act; zero-tolerance to drugs is in the Misuse of Drugs Act; home ownership is in the HDB Act.

The definition of marriage is and will remain in the Women’s Charter, Interpretation Act and AMLA.

Importantly, this Government will not use our current super-majority in Parliament to tie the hands of the future generations. Hence, the constitutional amendment will not prevent future Governments, elected by the people, from amending the legal definition of marriage by a simple majority in Parliament, should they choose to do so. This is how democracy works.

But what we want to be clear about is that the definition of marriage and related policies should not be determined by the Courts. In fact, this Constitutional amendment provides greater protection than today, not just for the definition of marriage, but also related policies.

The Prime Minister has said that this Government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage, nor the policies that rely on this definition. Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, as the 4G leader, has also said that the Government will not change them under his watch if the PAP were to win the next General Election. I reiterate these assurances in this House.

Ultimately, whether marriage in Singapore will remain as a union between a man and a woman depends on the consensus in society, shaped by the values we all hold.

So long as society strongly supports the current definition of marriage, no Government will change the definition. If society's support erodes, no amount of legislation or constitutional entrenchment will prevent change.

On our part, the Government is doing all it can to promote social norms and values aligned to the current definition of marriage. But it is not something the Government can accomplish on its own. The transmission of social values to the next generation is something Singaporeans practise within their own families and with their loved ones.

Sir, the approach in this Bill reflects Singapore's unique approach. Singapore is a secular state, but a multi-religious and a multiracial society. We are one of the most diverse societies in the world. There are different ethnic and religious groups, each with their own practices, customs, norms, convictions and beliefs. This diversity and harmony make Singapore unique and is a key part of our Singaporean identity.

It is not easy to hold such a diverse society together. We are a young nation and all of us have taken great care and effort to preserve the harmony and peace that we have. We have been able to live together peacefully because we learn to understand, go beyond our own perspectives and graciously accommodate one another. This has been the Singapore way because we recognise what is best for our society.

Some may wish to maximise their own positions. But when this happens, it unsettles others and cause resistance which would lead to further pushback and split our society apart. Singapore will not come out well in the end. It is therefore important that certain groups do not push beyond what is acceptable to our society.

In most cases, society needs time to adjust to change, especially on issues that can polarise us. We may have different ideals and perspectives, but we are all Singaporeans and I hope this is an identity we continue to be proud of.

We forge a majority based on what we share in common and what unites us. This is why the Government has consistently emphasised the importance of preserving our common space, fostering good citizens and upholding the principle of equality, regardless of race, language or religion. Only then can we be united as Singaporeans to achieve progress as a nation.

We are fortunate that our religious leaders understand the context of our diverse society and their communities trust the Government to treat all faiths completely impartially. While they are honest and constructive in providing their views on matters of concern in their religious communities, they trust that laws and policies are in the national interest and not to favour one religion over another.

This approach works because the Government on its part is fair and considers all perspectives, including those who are religious as well as those who are not religious. No one can act only for the interests of a few segments of the society without regard for the rest. Maintaining this approach requires wisdom and courage from everyone.

As we see in other societies, it is very easy to yield to sectarian or tribalist views. Even if you do not win, you will be popular with them. But we need to guard against this.

We also continue to protect all from scorn or harm. This includes homosexuals who are members of our society, our kith and our kin. Homosexuals have a place in our society and space to live their lives in Singapore. In our families, we should not exclude our loved ones who are homosexuals. In our communities, they, like other Singaporeans, have access to education and employment, to healthcare and social services, to protection from violence and harassment. Workplace discrimination against homosexuals for reasons unrelated to their ability to do the job is a breach of the principle of fair and merit-based employment outlined in the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices.

But on marriage and family, most Singaporeans wish to retain current norms. As I have mentioned before, it is the Government's view as well.

As a society, regardless of your views on marriage, family or homosexuality, no one should feel unsafe expressing your views or fear being cancelled, bullied or discriminated against. It is dangerous for our society if we do not learn to respect others who hold differing views from us. This threatens the common space and Singapore will not be able to progress as a cohesive society. Sir, in Malay.

(In Malay): In sharing the Government's intention to repeal section 377A, we have engaged the Malay/Muslim community extensively throughout this year. This includes religious leaders, asatizah as well as community leaders and Malay/Muslim organisations.

Many were initially worried that it would result in sudden changes to other policies such as the definition of marriage, adoption, regulation of media content and educational curriculum as well as the overall approach on the issue. It is clear that as society, we want the institution of family to remain the central pillar of our community.

I have explained that the repeal of section 377A will be accompanied by a Constitutional amendment that will be done simultaneously, so that Parliament continues to have the right to determine marriage and family laws. This will enable the Government to continue upholding the definition of marriage and the policies that depend on it. The amendments protect these laws and policies from new challenges based on Part 4 of the Constitution such as the frequent challenges to section 377A.

This also means that other benefits that takes reference from our definition of marriage, including public housing subsidies and priority access for married couples as well as financial incentives for married couples to have children such as the Baby Bonus Cash Gift, will remain.

In all the discussions, I am pleased with the attitude of our community leaders who were able to discuss these issues in a calm and rational manner. The guidance from our Mufti and established scholars has clarified the religious position on homosexuality in a judicious manner – that in Islam, only sexual relations between man and woman in marriage are permitted. At the same time, the Mufti also explained that the homosexual lifestyle does not remove a person from his faith. They must still be treated with kindness and compassion, particularly by their own families.

The openness of community leaders and the wisdom of our religious scholars have prevented a situation where emotions of the community on this matter can be intentionally inflamed. We are grateful to all of them.

(In English): Sir, I believe that many of us appreciate this secular approach that has provided Singaporeans security and safety living together and the freedom to practise our religion.

Religious groups can continue to preach about homosexuality according to their religious beliefs. However, for all the diverse groups that may be for or against homosexuality, no one can violate the laws of the land or instigate violence or intimidation towards others or a particular group.

We are protected by the constitutional right to be free to profess, practise and propagate our religion. But this right is not absolute. It is subject to considerations of public order, public health or morality. As Singaporeans, we must also have respect for each other as fellow citizens in exercising this right.

I want to make clear that our pro-family values and position are not a result of a majoritarian or a religious approach. It is one that we share in common as Singaporeans and what this Government believes in and stands for. It is how we have come so far and will enable our society to perpetuate and flourish in the future. It is in the public interest and not the narrow interest of a specific religious group.

Our community leaders, many of whom we have engaged on this issue, also support our pro-family approach and have helped families over the years. They will continue to have a critical role in maintaining social cohesion and rallying support for our family values.

Such is the system that ensures the safety, survival and success of Singapore. No one group can have everything they want all the time. The preferences of other Singaporeans matter too. As the Prime Minister has said, we are seeking a political accommodation that balances different legitimate views and aspirations among Singaporeans.

Sir, we are taking a calibrated approach through this constitutional amendment, which seeks to address the concerns that people may have on whether a repeal will cause a sudden shift. However, it is also done in a way not to tie the hands of a future Parliament. Above all, we want to ensure that the Parliament should be the main platform to discuss sensitive issues and not the Courts.

We must also redouble our efforts to sustain this system that has brought about peace and harmony in our multi-religious and multi-ethnic society. As we advocate for what we believe in, let us also do it respectfully and in the knowledge that we are united by our Singaporean identity. Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.]

K Shanmugam

 * See also: K Shanmugam's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aPq5fn7tkg

9aPq5fn7tkg 

Transcript:

Order for Second Reading read.

12.32 pm

The Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, this Bill is linked to the next Bill on the Order Paper, the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to propose that the substantive debate on both Bills take place together. This will allow a holistic debate and enable Members to raise questions or express their views on both Bills during the debate. We will still have the formal Second Reading of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill to ensure that procedural requirements are dealt with.

Mr Speaker: Yes, please.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: This Bill gives effect to what Prime Minister announced at this year’s National Day Rally, that is, the Government will protect the definition of marriage from being challenged in the Courts on constitutional grounds. Prime Minister had also announced that the Government will repeal section 377A of the Penal Code.

In introducing the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill, my speech will cover the Government's long-standing position on marriage and family, what the Bill is and why we are taking this approach, and our unique approach to manage diversity in Singapore.

The PAP Government has been consistent in its strong support for the institution of marriage and the family, through its policies and legislation.

One of the first laws enacted by the PAP Government when it came to power was the Women's Charter 1961, which defined and regulated civil marriages. This was a landmark piece of legislation that protected the rights of women by legalising only monogamous marriages between a man and a woman.

Similarly, the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) enacted soon after Independence in 1966 provided for the practice of Muslim law to regulate marriages between Muslims. Under AMLA, marriages must meet the requirements of Muslim law, including being between man and woman.

There is strong consensus in society that marriage is between a man and a woman; and children should be born and raised within such families.

This is the view taken by many Singaporeans, whether religious or not. It is also the view that the Government believes in. It undergirds the shared values that we adopted in 1991.

The family is the foundation on which our society is built and sustained, with each generation raising the next to take its place. Without strong families, Singapore cannot thrive and society cannot perpetuate itself.

In his book from "Third World to First", Mr Lee Kuan Yew wrote "Singapore depends on the strength and influence of the family to keep society orderly". The family is the source of values not only for its members but for society. A 2015 Washington Post article aptly suggests that family values are what makes Singapore strong. It captures Mr Lee's view that when we break away from tested norms, such as the family unit, there is grave disquiet. The family is the building block of society. Indeed, this is wisdom and precisely why we need to be extremely careful to change the construct of the family.

To further quote Mr Lee's words in a 1994 interview, "The family is the basic concept of our civilisation. Governments will come, governments will go, but this endures."

Hence, our policies also reflect and reinforce this basic idea about marriage and family. We encourage parenthood within marriage. We do not support same-sex family formation and we maintain our policy against planned and deliberate single parenthood, including using assisted reproduction techniques (ART) or surrogacy.

We have made these clear in Parliament on multiple occasions. We have also taken steps to defend our pro-family policies when they are challenged.

For example, in the adoption case of UKM vs AG, the Court did not agree with the Government that an adoption order should not be made if it resulted in the formation of a same-sex family unit. Thereafter, the Government made clear its policy position, that it does not support same-sex family formation, surrogacy and planned and deliberate single parenthood, including through ART and/or surrogacy.

More recently, Parliament re-enacted the Adoption of Children Act 2022 to make clear that joint adoption applications can only be made by couples whose marriage is recognised in Singapore. Only a man and a woman who are married to each other can apply together. Adoption should not be used as a process to support the formation of same-sex families.

I reiterate today: Singapore's public policy is and has always been to uphold heterosexual marriage and promote the formation of families within such marriages. Among other things, this public policy has long been embodied in section 12(1) of the Women's Charter, which invalidates same-sex marriages. Consistent with this policy, an overseas same-sex marriage will, generally, not be accorded legal recognition in Singapore.

Our policies clearly reflect the value society places on family formation through marriage. However, we also recognise that there are single unwed parents. We empathise with the challenges they face. Our focus is on their child's well-being and on supporting them in their caregiving responsibilities. Hence, we extend Government benefits that support the growth and development of their children. These include subsidies for education, healthcare, childcare and infant care, the foreign domestic worker levy concession and the Child Development Account. HDB also assesses their requests for housing holistically, based on their individual circumstances.

We make a distinction between support and incentive. Thus, we do not provide the Baby Bonus Cash Grant to single unwed parents because this is an incentive for married couples to have children.

Our policies support individuals to get married and have children within marriage. Examples of these policies and measures that rely on the definition of marriage are: housing, where public housing subsidies and access are prioritised for married couples; financial benefits that favour married couples, such as the Baby Bonus Cash Gift; ART, where access to IVF and use of frozen gametes for procreation are only allowed for married persons; adoption, where only married couples can apply jointly; education, where what is taught in preschools and MOE schools would be based on marriage as between a man and a woman and such a family as the basic unit of society; and media, where higher age ratings apply for media content which depicts non-traditional family units, such as same-sex families. Our public libraries also do not carry books which depict such family units for very young children.

Beyond laws and policies, MSF has also been actively promoting, educating and emphasising the importance of families, through our public education programmes. These programmes inculcate family values, such as love, care and concern, respect and commitment to each other in the family. To support parents, the Families for Life Council has rolled out parenting programmes in pre-schools, schools and the community. We also dedicated 2022 as the Year of Celebrating SG Families, in which the Prime Minister announced an annual National Family Week. Most recently, we had launched the Singapore Made for Families 2025. This plan will create a Singapore where families are valued and supported across different chapters of their lives.

These efforts reflect the Government's deep and abiding commitment to the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and to the formation of families within marriage.

Now I turn to this Bill, which will make it possible to continue with these pro-family policies and the approach embedded in the Bill.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and our other laws must not conflict with it. Overall, the Constitution is like the "operating system" for Singapore. The four key functions of the Singapore Constitution are: it establishes the key Organs of State like the President, Parliament, the Government, the Judiciary, the Public Service and regulates their powers with a system of checks and balances; it protects the sovereignty of Singapore; it provides for citizenship; and it protects the fundamental liberties of individuals.

Specific to the fundamental liberties, they are found in Part 4 of the Constitution. They are Articles 9 to 16 and include, among others, liberty of the person and freedom of speech, assembly and association. Many of these rights are not absolute rights. They are subject to exceptions such as the maintenance of public order, morality and national security.

If an individual considers that their constitutional rights have been infringed by a law or by the actions of a public body, he or she may bring a legal challenge in Court. Hence, it is possible for individuals to argue that our existing laws and policies on marriage are unconstitutional and seek a ruling from the Court to that effect. Just as there have been challenges on the constitutionality of section 377A, there can also be challenges to laws and policies related to marriage.

The experiences of other jurisdictions show the perils of court-led change. Most recently, in August 2022, the Indian Supreme Court observed that the definition of a family unit should be expanded to include homosexual relationships as well as unmarried partnerships or same-sex relationships. This did not even arise from a challenge of definition of family per se. It arose from a case where an employer denied a nurse her application for maternity leave because she had already taken leave to care for her husband's children from a previous marriage.

Before this, in 2018, the Indian Supreme Court also struck down section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which similarly criminalised male homosexual acts.

We also see the same trend in other jurisdictions. In the US for instance, controversial issues such as abortion are litigated and relitigated in the courts. When the courts decide, things change overnight, with drastic social repercussions that polarise society.

Hence, we are proactively safeguarding the institution of marriage and related laws and policies from being challenged in Court. This will allow the Government to continue to make laws and policies, which depend on heterosexual marriage as its foundation.

There have been questions on why the Government is intervening now. Why repeal? Why even amend the Constitution? Perhaps we should leave things as they are, let the Courts decide when there is a challenge. Why do this now, when there are other issues of concern, such as the cost of living? That might be politically expedient.

We acknowledge that there are indeed other issues of concern to Singaporeans, such as cost of living. To use that as a reason for inaction might be politically expedient but it would not be the right or responsible thing to do.

We have assessed that there is a significant risk to our laws being struck down. We cannot just ignore the legal risks. This amendment is necessary and it is the right thing to deal with it now and not delay.

We have the mandate and the responsibility to govern, and we must put forward what we think is best for Singapore and Singaporeans. This includes making changes in a calibrated and careful manner that may not please everyone.

We appreciate our Courts for exercising wisdom and restraint on this matter. But a responsible government should not leave the courts to grapple with controversial social issues. The role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law. It is not their constitutional function to settle political questions or rule on social norms and values. It is not their function to engage with the political, social, ethical and other dimensions of the issues.

Nor do the courts wish to do so. Litigation is a zero-sum, adversarial process with win-lose outcomes. It is unlike a political process, where the interests of stakeholders can be considered, accommodation can be sought to reach consensus. The Courts also recognise that controversial social issues are best dealt with within the sphere of Parliament.

This Bill is what a responsible government carrying out its duty to the people of Singapore would introduce. It allows the political process to balance different interests and perspectives and does not pass the buck to the Court to rule on social issues which are best dealt with via Parliament.

Let me now elaborate on the provisions of the Bill. There will be a new Article 156, under the General Provisions of the Constitution.

Clause 1 of the Article makes clear that Parliament can act to define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote marriage. For example, today, the Women’s Charter and AMLA define civil and Muslim marriages respectively and make clear that same-sex marriages are not valid. This clause empowers Parliament to continue to make and amend laws for these purposes. The interpretation of other Constitutional provisions must recognise this. For example, in applying the reasonable classification test under Article 12(1), the Courts must recognise that the promotion and safeguarding of heterosexual marriage are legitimate and permissible legislative objects.

Clause 2 of the Article applies to the Government and any public authority. It allows them to exercise their functions to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote marriage. This includes, but is not limited to, the following situations:

(a) HDB can implement public housing policies that give preference to married couples to support, foster and promote marriage;

(b) MSF, when they evaluate adoption applications, can recognise and take into account the public policy goal to foster and promote the formation of families within the context of marriage as defined in the Women’s Charter and AMLA;

(c) Curricula for preschools and MOE schools centre on the values that reflect Singapore’s mainstream society. That is, marriage as being a union between a man and a woman; and children being born within marriage and raised within such a family construct;

(d) In the context of sexuality education, content will be age-appropriate. This means, for example, in preschools and Primary schools, our curriculum will not feature same-sex parents or same-sex romantic relationships. At older ages, if introduced, we will focus on educating our young to treat everyone with respect and empathy but will not promote same-sex relationships; and

(e) IMDA, in regulating media content, is guided by principles that include prevailing social norms and values that are generally acceptable to members of the public and protecting younger audiences from age-inappropriate content.

Clause 3(a) provides that nothing in Part 4 of the Constitution, which sets out the eight fundamental liberties, will invalidate any legislative definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Clause 3(b) and clause 4 respectively provides that laws and executive actions cannot be invalidated by Part 4 just because they are based on a heterosexual definition of marriage.

Some may ask why specify all the other fundamental liberties in Part 4, and not just Article 12. Minister Desmond Lee will explain but broadly, we need Article 156 to cover all of Part 4 so that it can apply to other radical legal arguments that may be brought in the future, and based on other articles in Part 4, Article 156 will provide a “strong shield”. However, the shield is also precise, where it only protects the heterosexual definition of marriage and the laws and policies that rely on this definition.

In effect, Article 156 is an exception to the fundamental liberties. There are already such exceptions.

For example, Article 39A empowers the Legislature to create Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) to ensure minority representation in Parliament. Article 39A(3) of the Constitution exempts any law regarding GRCs from being invalidated on the ground of inconsistency with Article 12.

Article 149(1) prevents the Internal Security Act from being invalidated by Articles 9, 11, 12, 13 or 14.

Article 9(6) creates exceptions from Article 9 for the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and for rehabilitative detention for drug addicts.

Article 14(2) also has limits on Article 14, where one’s rights to freedom of speech, assembly and association is subject to public order, morality or security of Singapore.

Article 12(3) makes clear that the right to equal protection does not apply to laws that regulate personal law, or to laws and practices that restrict office or employment connected with affairs of any religion.

Each case involves a balance between the fundamental liberties and countervailing interests. In the case of Article 156(3) and (4), we have struck the balance in favour of having the strongest protection for the heterosexual definition of marriage adopted by Parliament, and the ability of Parliament and the Government to make laws and policies on the basis of this definition. This reflects the importance of heterosexual marriage in our society.

Some have commented that this is an "ouster clause" and could be subject to legal challenges. To be clear, the nature of Article 156 is not an “ouster clause”. Instead, it provides exceptions or limits to the fundamental liberties. As mentioned, such exceptions already exist today.

Let me now turn to another aspect that have come up in our engagements. They have been wide ranging, and we have heard from Singaporeans across various walks of life. I first want to take the opportunity to appreciate the different groups of Singaporeans who have written in and whom we have engaged before and after the Prime Minister's announcement.

These engagements include those with religious leaders, grassroot leaders, union leaders, LGBT groups, social sector professionals, youth groups and members of the public. Many have written to share their views on this matter. Singaporeans have generally understood the need to respect, graciously and mutually accommodate each other’s views and support the Government’s approach.

Gay people appreciate the repeal of section 377A but express some apprehension of the implications of the constitutional amendments. Those in favour of the status quo have constructively shared their views and emphasised the need to safeguard the institution of marriage. Others whom we have engaged, such as leaders from the community, also support the proposed approach to keep the heterosexual definition of marriage, while repealing section 377A.

Many are concerned about cancel culture, religious freedom, discrimination faced by those with differing views on this issue and the narrowing public space to speak openly about it. These are important feedback and concerns that Minister Desmond Lee will also address when he speaks.

Some expressed the wish to go further than what we are proposing, protecting the definition of marriage in our current laws. They want the definition of marriage to be enshrined in the Constitution.

We understand that these calls come from a sincere belief in the sanctity of marriage and reflect a genuine worry that the institution of marriage might be changed in the future to include same-sex marriages. I thank those who have spoken up, for taking a stand on what they think is best for Singapore.

But the Government has to govern with principle. Our view is that elevating marriage to the same level as fundamental rights in the Constitution would not be appropriate. As explained earlier, the Constitution should be for functions such as sovereignty and our system of governance. The institution of marriage and family is the bedrock of society but to elevate it to the same level as fundamental rights, would fundamentally change the whole complexion and schema of the Constitution. There are many important laws and principles that are not in the Constitution but are in Acts of Parliament. For example, National Service is in the Enlistment Act; Corruption is in the Prevention of Corruption Act; zero-tolerance to drugs is in the Misuse of Drugs Act; home ownership is in the HDB Act.

The definition of marriage is and will remain in the Women’s Charter, Interpretation Act and AMLA.

Importantly, this Government will not use our current super-majority in Parliament to tie the hands of the future generations. Hence, the constitutional amendment will not prevent future Governments, elected by the people, from amending the legal definition of marriage by a simple majority in Parliament, should they choose to do so. This is how democracy works.

But what we want to be clear about is that the definition of marriage and related policies should not be determined by the Courts. In fact, this Constitutional amendment provides greater protection than today, not just for the definition of marriage, but also related policies.

The Prime Minister has said that this Government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage, nor the policies that rely on this definition. Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, as the 4G leader, has also said that the Government will not change them under his watch if the PAP were to win the next General Election. I reiterate these assurances in this House.

Ultimately, whether marriage in Singapore will remain as a union between a man and a woman depends on the consensus in society, shaped by the values we all hold.

So long as society strongly supports the current definition of marriage, no Government will change the definition. If society's support erodes, no amount of legislation or constitutional entrenchment will prevent change.

On our part, the Government is doing all it can to promote social norms and values aligned to the current definition of marriage. But it is not something the Government can accomplish on its own. The transmission of social values to the next generation is something Singaporeans practise within their own families and with their loved ones.

Sir, the approach in this Bill reflects Singapore's unique approach. Singapore is a secular state, but a multi-religious and a multiracial society. We are one of the most diverse societies in the world. There are different ethnic and religious groups, each with their own practices, customs, norms, convictions and beliefs. This diversity and harmony make Singapore unique and is a key part of our Singaporean identity.

It is not easy to hold such a diverse society together. We are a young nation and all of us have taken great care and effort to preserve the harmony and peace that we have. We have been able to live together peacefully because we learn to understand, go beyond our own perspectives and graciously accommodate one another. This has been the Singapore way because we recognise what is best for our society.

Some may wish to maximise their own positions. But when this happens, it unsettles others and cause resistance which would lead to further pushback and split our society apart. Singapore will not come out well in the end. It is therefore important that certain groups do not push beyond what is acceptable to our society.

In most cases, society needs time to adjust to change, especially on issues that can polarise us. We may have different ideals and perspectives, but we are all Singaporeans and I hope this is an identity we continue to be proud of.

We forge a majority based on what we share in common and what unites us. This is why the Government has consistently emphasised the importance of preserving our common space, fostering good citizens and upholding the principle of equality, regardless of race, language or religion. Only then can we be united as Singaporeans to achieve progress as a nation.

We are fortunate that our religious leaders understand the context of our diverse society and their communities trust the Government to treat all faiths completely impartially. While they are honest and constructive in providing their views on matters of concern in their religious communities, they trust that laws and policies are in the national interest and not to favour one religion over another.

This approach works because the Government on its part is fair and considers all perspectives, including those who are religious as well as those who are not religious. No one can act only for the interests of a few segments of the society without regard for the rest. Maintaining this approach requires wisdom and courage from everyone.

As we see in other societies, it is very easy to yield to sectarian or tribalist views. Even if you do not win, you will be popular with them. But we need to guard against this.

We also continue to protect all from scorn or harm. This includes homosexuals who are members of our society, our kith and our kin. Homosexuals have a place in our society and space to live their lives in Singapore. In our families, we should not exclude our loved ones who are homosexuals. In our communities, they, like other Singaporeans, have access to education and employment, to healthcare and social services, to protection from violence and harassment. Workplace discrimination against homosexuals for reasons unrelated to their ability to do the job is a breach of the principle of fair and merit-based employment outlined in the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices.

But on marriage and family, most Singaporeans wish to retain current norms. As I have mentioned before, it is the Government's view as well.

As a society, regardless of your views on marriage, family or homosexuality, no one should feel unsafe expressing your views or fear being cancelled, bullied or discriminated against. It is dangerous for our society if we do not learn to respect others who hold differing views from us. This threatens the common space and Singapore will not be able to progress as a cohesive society. Sir, in Malay.

(In Malay): In sharing the Government's intention to repeal section 377A, we have engaged the Malay/Muslim community extensively throughout this year. This includes religious leaders, asatizah as well as community leaders and Malay/Muslim organisations.

Many were initially worried that it would result in sudden changes to other policies such as the definition of marriage, adoption, regulation of media content and educational curriculum as well as the overall approach on the issue. It is clear that as society, we want the institution of family to remain the central pillar of our community.

I have explained that the repeal of section 377A will be accompanied by a Constitutional amendment that will be done simultaneously, so that Parliament continues to have the right to determine marriage and family laws. This will enable the Government to continue upholding the definition of marriage and the policies that depend on it. The amendments protect these laws and policies from new challenges based on Part 4 of the Constitution such as the frequent challenges to section 377A.

This also means that other benefits that takes reference from our definition of marriage, including public housing subsidies and priority access for married couples as well as financial incentives for married couples to have children such as the Baby Bonus Cash Gift, will remain.

In all the discussions, I am pleased with the attitude of our community leaders who were able to discuss these issues in a calm and rational manner. The guidance from our Mufti and established scholars has clarified the religious position on homosexuality in a judicious manner – that in Islam, only sexual relations between man and woman in marriage are permitted. At the same time, the Mufti also explained that the homosexual lifestyle does not remove a person from his faith. They must still be treated with kindness and compassion, particularly by their own families.

The openness of community leaders and the wisdom of our religious scholars have prevented a situation where emotions of the community on this matter can be intentionally inflamed. We are grateful to all of them.

(In English): Sir, I believe that many of us appreciate this secular approach that has provided Singaporeans security and safety living together and the freedom to practise our religion.

Religious groups can continue to preach about homosexuality according to their religious beliefs. However, for all the diverse groups that may be for or against homosexuality, no one can violate the laws of the land or instigate violence or intimidation towards others or a particular group.

We are protected by the constitutional right to be free to profess, practise and propagate our religion. But this right is not absolute. It is subject to considerations of public order, public health or morality. As Singaporeans, we must also have respect for each other as fellow citizens in exercising this right.

I want to make clear that our pro-family values and position are not a result of a majoritarian or a religious approach. It is one that we share in common as Singaporeans and what this Government believes in and stands for. It is how we have come so far and will enable our society to perpetuate and flourish in the future. It is in the public interest and not the narrow interest of a specific religious group.

Our community leaders, many of whom we have engaged on this issue, also support our pro-family approach and have helped families over the years. They will continue to have a critical role in maintaining social cohesion and rallying support for our family values.

Such is the system that ensures the safety, survival and success of Singapore. No one group can have everything they want all the time. The preferences of other Singaporeans matter too. As the Prime Minister has said, we are seeking a political accommodation that balances different legitimate views and aspirations among Singaporeans.

Sir, we are taking a calibrated approach through this constitutional amendment, which seeks to address the concerns that people may have on whether a repeal will cause a sudden shift. However, it is also done in a way not to tie the hands of a future Parliament. Above all, we want to ensure that the Parliament should be the main platform to discuss sensitive issues and not the Courts.

We must also redouble our efforts to sustain this system that has brought about peace and harmony in our multi-religious and multi-ethnic society. As we advocate for what we believe in, let us also do it respectfully and in the knowledge that we are united by our Singaporean identity. Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.]

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.

1.14 pm The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Minister Masagos has explained the reasons for the constitutional amendments. I will now speak on the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code.

We thought very carefully before moving on the repeal of this section. Over the past year, we have engaged extensively with various groups, some, several times. Those we spoke with include religious leaders, LGBT groups, community leaders, people who want heterosexual marriage as a social norm, youth groups, members of the public who had written to us and many others.

For many who did not believe that section 377A should be repealed, their main concerns were about the consequences of the repeal of section 377A, what will happen after the section is repealed and not because they thought gay sex between men should in itself be criminalised.

In considering whether we should repeal section 377A, I will cover three areas. First, the historical context of section 377A. Second, the political compromise that has been struck in Singapore. And third, the reasons for now moving on the repeal.

First, the historical context. Why do we have to look at the history? We need to understand why and how section 377A became part of the law, whether it was a deliberate, considered decision or perhaps more of happenstance. That provides the context for the discussion. As Members will know, section 377A makes it an offence for a male person, whether in public or private, to commit any act of gross indecency with another male. The term "gross indecency" can include both non-penetrative and penetrative sex acts.

The section was introduced in 1938 when Singapore was a British colony. Attorney General Howell moved the Bill in 1938. He said that section 377A was being introduced to bring our law in line with the UK criminal law. Thus, to understand the genesis of section 377A, we would need to look at the original UK law passed 137 years ago, which is section 11 of the UK Criminal Law Amendment Act (UKCL).

Section 377A is an almost a word-for-word copy of section 11 of the UKCL. Section 11 of the UKCL was passed in 1885. Its origin is quite obscure and we have not been able to find any background, which explains why this section was introduced and made into law. What we did find, was that it was introduced in the UK House of Commons at 2.30 am in the morning with very few members of parliament who were present, as a last-minute amendment to an entirely unrelated bill.

The unrelated bill was meant to protect women and girls and for the suppression of brothels. At that point, that unrelated bill on protection of women and girls had already been through a four-year long process, it had endured a long debate in parliament and it had passed the House of Lords without the amendment.

The unrelated amendment on male homosexuality was introduced by a member of parliament, Mr Henry Labouchere. His motives for introducing section 11 into the bill on protection of women and girls are unclear. One school of thought is that Mr Labouchere had intended it to be a "wrecking amendment", to derail and discredit the entire bill on protection of women and girls. He had that reputation. In fact, he had introduced another amendment to the same bill. Another member of parliament said that Mr Labouchere "couldn't have been serious in introducing that other amendment." Academics who have studied the matter have pointed to Mr Labouchere's habitual parliamentary obstructionist technique. He would make spoiling amendments to discredit bills that have been introduced.

Another school of thought is that Mr Labouchere was fiercely homophobic and so he introduced the amendment. Mr Labouchere himself gave an explanation in parliament for why he introduced section 11 and his explanation raises more questions than it answered. He said that his amendment was to protect any person from an assault of "the kind dealt with" under section 11, whether the person was above, or under, the age of 13 years.

After that short explanation, he said that he did not think it was necessary to discuss the proposal at any length because the government was willing to accept it. If we take at face value what Mr Labouchere said in parliament in 1885, then the purpose of section 11 was to prevent an indecent assault by one male against another male. The provision here introduced, which was passed into law, was however much wider than that, including those where the sex acts were done between consenting male adults.

Thus, the amendment that was introduced was quite different from the explanation that was given. Indeed, the explanation he gave, is somewhat contrary. The amendment was dealt with in parliament for less than four minutes. There was no discussion about the fact that the provision criminalises consenting male homosexual behaviour even though the stated purpose was to criminalise sexual assaults.

People have spent time trying to work out the motives of Mr Labouchere and the reasons that the UK parliament passed the amendment. Some have suggested that the members were fatigued by the late hour – it was 2.30 am – and that the members had been worn out by the long debate on the bill to protect women and girls which, as I said earlier, had taken four years and that the members had just wanted to get on with it, to let the amendment through.

This is the genesis, the background to the law passed in 1885 which has gone on to impact the lives of tens of thousands of people and has caused much controversy and intense debate in many countries.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask for the distribution of a folder which contains Annexes 1 to 7 that I am going to refer to?

Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]

Mr K Shanmugam: Members may also access the Annexes through the SG Parl Mobile App.

In addition to section 11 of the UKCL, the UK also had three other offences which were also used sometimes to prosecute homosexual conduct. The first was Sodomy. Sodomy was first criminalised under the Buggery Act 1533 during the reign of King Henry VIII. The reason this law was passed is linked to a specific, important, historical event in British history and not because there was any specific intention to make Sodomy a crime.

I have in Annex 1, set out the background and context to how and why the Buggery Act was passed into law. [Please refer to Annex 1.] Prior to 1533, sodomy was considered an offence punished by the church. It was only tried in the Ecclesiastical Courts. In other words, not a crime as defined by the state; it was an offence in a religious context to be dealt with by the church. Members would know that Henry VIII broke with the church in Rome, started the Church of England, with him as the head of the church. He wanted to reduce the power of the church and one of the ways he did that was to reduce the power of the Ecclesiastical Courts. He did that by converting many of the church's canon laws into secular laws. The Buggery Act was one such law that was brought over from the canon laws and made into secular criminal law. That way, the King's courts would deal with the matter and the churches' jurisdiction was removed.

What happened thereafter is also useful to note. His daughter, Mary, was an ardent Catholic. When she became Queen in 1553, she abolished the Buggery Act and moved it back to the Ecclesiastical Courts. Queen Elizabeth, another of Henry's daughter, succeeded Queen Mary five years later in 1558. There were questions on her legitimacy and her claims to the throne. She took several steps to establish her legitimacy. And one of the steps she took was to reduce the role of the church by moving the laws out of canon laws and making them secular laws to show that she was following in her father's footsteps. So, the Buggery Act became secular criminal law again.

When you go through this history into the origins of the offence of sodomy, we see that it was introduced as part of a power struggle between Henry and the Catholic church, and not because of any view that Sodomy per se ought to be criminalised.

I am setting out the historical context factually, not suggesting that sodomy ought or ought not to have been criminalised.

The second Act that was used to prosecute homosexual conduct was the offence of solicitating or importuning in public places for immoral purposes. This was first introduced under the Vagrancy Act 1898. It was initially intended to target pimps, men who lived off the earnings of female prostitutes. In practice, however, the legislation was used almost exclusively to prosecute men who engaged in homosexual conduct in public, though male homosexuality was not discussed in parliament when the Bill was first introduced.

The third offence was the offence of indecent assault against males. This was first introduced in under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The offence criminalised homosexual acts committed against males without consent. It was introduced as a part of a wider omnibus bill consolidating all offences against the person and was included in the same provision as an offence of attempting to commit sodomy.

Unfortunately, the provision and its overlap with existing homosexual offences and even male homosexuality were not discussed at all during the parliamentary debates. What we see is that these provisions, when they were first introduced, there was no substantive deliberation on whether there was indeed a need to criminalise homosexual behaviour and it looks more like happenstance than a deliberate decision.

Regardless, the criminal provisions were retained as part of the UK's criminal law until the 1960s. The UK government appointed a committee known as the Wolfenden Committee in August 1954 to review laws relating to homosexual offences. That committee published a report in 1957. The committee stated that it was not charged to enter into matters of private moral conduct except insofar as they directly affect the public good. The committee was only concerned with whether homosexual behaviour should be dealt with under the criminal law.

The committee concluded that the function of criminal law was three-fold. One, to preserve public order and decency. Two, to protect the citizen from what is offensive and injurious. And three, to provide sufficient safeguards against the exploitation and corruption of others. In their view, it was not the function of criminal law to intervene in the private lives of citizens or to seek to enforce any particular pattern of behaviour, further than it was necessary to carry out these three functions. The committee took the view that homosexual activities in private should not be criminalised.

The committee stated that: "Unless a deliberate attempt be made by society through the agency of the law to equate the sphere of crime with that of sin, there must remain a realm of private morality and immorality which is not the law's business. To say this, is not to condone or encourage private immorality. Moral conviction or instinctive feeling, however strong, is not a valid basis for over-riding the individual's privacy and for bringing within the ambit of the criminal law private sexual behaviour of this kind."

The committee accepted that homosexual behaviour between males could have a damaging effect on family life. Let me pause there. I think many Singaporeans believe this as well and we must acknowledge these feelings and beliefs. The committee, however, emphasised that this damage was no greater than many other activities which were sins and may be considered immoral but were not otherwise criminal offences.

The debate continued through the late 1950s and early 1960s. Law students may recall the well-known debate between Lord Devlin and Professor Hart on the Wolfenden report. For Members' reference, I have summarised the points they made in Annex 7. [Please refer to Annex 7.] Eventually, Lord Devlin, who had argued for the criminalisation of shared morality, also said that private consensual homosexual sex between adults should be decriminalised.

In 1967, the UK parliament voted to decriminalise private consensual homosexual sex between two adults. By that time, religious groups such as the Church of England and the Methodist Conference and members of both houses had publicly expressed support for a change. The members of the House of Lords who spoke in support of decriminalisation included the Lord Chancellor. He was the Speaker of the House of Lords and the Head of the Judiciary, as well as the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, who was the leader of the Church of England and the head of the global Anglican Union as well as various other bishops.

I would like to briefly cite the speech made by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. He stated upfront that he believed that homosexual acts were wrong, he went on to say that the case for amending the law rested on reason and justice, and on considerations of the good of the community. He said, to amend the law was not to condone the "wrongness" of the act. It, however, put such acts in the realm of private moral responsibility. He believed that the law, as it stood, gave a sense of injustice and bitterness, which helped morality no more than would a law which made fornication a crime.

He further agreed with his predecessor that having such a law created fear, secretiveness and despair in gay persons who did not dare to seek help, lest they expose themselves and their friends to criminal proceedings.

I would add that not all religious groups were in favour of the change. Some, such as the Church of Scotland and the Church of Ireland and the Baptist Church, objected to the reform.

In 2003, all of the UK’s laws that specifically criminalised male homosexual behaviour, including the offence of gross indecency, were fully repealed.

Before I move on from the UK, I would like to highlight the context of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland was and is part of the UK. However, the partial decriminalisation of homosexual conduct in the UK in 1967 only applied to the mainland and did not apply to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland’s path to decriminalisation started instead from the courts.

After 14 years, in 1981, the European Court of Human Rights found that criminalising private homosexual conduct between men was “an unjustified interference with [a person’s] right to respect for his private life” and was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The UK was bound by that decision and the UK Parliament decriminalised private, consensual homosexual conduct between adults in Northern Ireland in 1982.

However, at that time, Northern Ireland’s society was deeply religious, largely conservative and the majority of the population on Northern Ireland opposed the decriminalisation, including most of the Protestant Churches as well as the Roman Catholic Church. The Bill was opposed by all 12 of the Northern Ireland MPs in the UK Parliament. But, nonetheless, it passed through both Houses by majority vote.

Northern Ireland’s experience shows how a court decision can force a change even though a society is not ready for such a change. I will come back to this later.

Today, homosexuality remains a deeply divisive issue around the world. This is true even within more religiously homogenous communities, such as the Church of England and the Global Anglican Church.

If we look at the Anglican Communion, it comprises 42 member churches. It is the third largest Christian communion after the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. For decades, there has been a strong difference of views within the Anglican Communion on whether same-sex unions can be legitimised and blessed and whether persons living in same-sex relationships can be ordained.

Some Anglican churches in the Global North, such as in the US and Canada, are increasingly supportive of homosexuality. They allow same-sex marriages and ordain persons in same-sex relationships. However, several Anglican Churches from the Global South do not agree with this approach. This has resulted in the creation of the Global Anglican Future Conference, or GAFCON, in 2008, led by the more conservative Anglican bishops and leaders.

In the Church of England, LGBT issues have also been the subject of intense debate for decades.

I mentioned earlier that the Church of England had supported the partial decriminalisation of homosexual conduct in the UK in 1967. But actually, within the Church of England, there was no consensus. The Church was more or less equally split on the issue when it was put to a vote. Of its 735 members, 155 voted in favour, 138 voted against, and the rest either absented themselves or abstained.

So, there continues to be strong differences in viewpoints on this issue, as Members may have seen from recent media reports.

What does all of this show? First, that even within a single religious community, it is difficult to agree on the “right” answer, assuming there is one, on the issue of homosexuality. Second, that homosexuality is a topic that continues to raise strong viewpoints. Third, that if we do not handle this carefully, homosexuality can be a deeply divisive issue even among those who share a common belief.

Some of the international media outlets that report on these issues often gloss over these differences. They gloss over the problems their societies face, and do not understand the need to deal with these issues sensitively, with understanding. They present views as if they are settled and that anyone who has a negative view of male homosexuality is a bigot and is wrong.

If you look at the US, it is considered more accepting of LGBT rights than many other countries. But the country is internally split over this issue. For example, in the Republican states of Florida and Texas, there remain strong objections to LGBT rights.

The Republican Party of Texas recently adopted anti-LGBT positions into their party platform. They state, and I quote: “Homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice. We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behaviour, regardless of state of origin, and we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values. No one should be granted special legal status based on their LGBTQ+ identification.”

But other Republicans have different views on homosexuality. A survey of more than 22,000 people by the Public Religion Research Institute in March of this year found that 48% supported same-sex marriage and 50% opposed it. These were persons who identified themselves as Republicans.

If you look at, say, Italy – I will not go through in detail. I have in set out what has been happening in Italy in Annex 2. [Please refer to Annex 2.] You will see the divisions.

I have laid out examples of how, within the same religion, the same denomination, the same churches within the denomination and in wider society, within some Western countries, even those who are often described as "liberal", the issues remain deeply divisive.

To be clear, it is not the exact same issue in all these communities. In some, the division is about homosexuality in itself. In some, it is about the roles of LGBT people, for example, in church ordination. In others, it is other related issues like same-sex unions that are divisive.

Let me now say something about global trends. Around the world, in several countries, as well as in jurisdictions and territories which are not quite countries, several have decriminalised their version of section 377A, including Commonwealth and Southeast Asian countries.

Some have decriminalised it through the parliamentary process. Some have had their section 377A equivalent struck down by the courts. But there are also some countries which continue to keep the criminal laws.

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to display some slides on the screen. Slides 1 and 2 of Annex 3 show the countries, territories and jurisdictions that have decriminalised homosexuality and those which have not done so, because not all the places in these two slides are countries. [Please refer to Annex 3.]

Slide 3 shows the same for Asian states, places and jurisdictions.

We can see that across the world there are different approaches, even though there is a trend towards decriminalisation.

In Singapore, we look carefully at international trends, but we do not simply follow such trends. We chart our own path based on what we believe is in our own best interests. And we are very clear to foreign governments and companies that these are political, social and moral choices for Singaporeans to decide and that they should not interfere.

For example, in 2021, the US embassy co-hosted a webinar on LGBT rights with a Singaporean LGBT organisation. MFA spoke to the embassy to remind them not to interfere in our domestic politics.

More recently, in August this year, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement when she was in Singapore asking business groups to support the LGBT community in Singapore. MHA issued a statement reminding foreign businesses to be careful about advocating on socially divisive issues in Singapore.

We would also say to US politicians who feel very strongly about these issues that perhaps they should first try and persuade the people in Texas and other such places before they issue statements in Singapore.

In Singapore, section 377A was substantively debated in Parliament 15 years ago in 2007, during the Second Reading of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill. Over the course of two days, 16 Members of Parliament and Nominated Members of Parliament rose to speak on section 377A, to argue for, and against, its retention.

It was a long debate. I have summarised the different positions taken by the Members of Parliament and Nominated Members of Parliament in Annex 4. [Please refer to Annex 4.]

The Prime Minister spoke and stated the Government's position. He said that Singaporeans as a whole remained largely conservative. The majority wanted to keep Singapore a conservative society with heterosexual stable families. But at the same time, there was growing science-based evidence that sexual orientation was substantially inborn. Gay people must have a place in society and they are entitled to their private lives. But there were still very different views among Singaporeans on whether homosexuality was acceptable or morally right. Thus, LGBT advocacy should not set the tone for the rest of Singapore society.

We will try and maintain a balance, said the Prime Minister, to uphold a stable society with traditional, heterosexual family values, but with space for homosexuals to live their lives and contribute to society. He added that we would continue to retain section 377A but not proactively enforce it.

It was a very Singaporean way of dealing with the situation, which best fitted with the way our society was.

The Prime Minister also reminded Members that section 377A was inherited from the British and that Asian societies which were similar to ours did not have such laws – not in Japan, not in China and not in Taiwan. But if we forced the issue, it would divide and polarise our society. It would lead to even less space for the gay community in Singapore. Therefore, it was better to let the situation evolve gradually.

It was a compromise. It was better and it has worked for Singapore in the past 15 years. We managed to maintain some harmony while many other societies have become deeply divided on these issues over the same period.

Let me now move on to explain why we propose to repeal section 377A at this point. There are two main reasons. First, it is the right thing to do, and society is more ready now for the repeal. Second, there is a significant legal risk that the Courts will strike down section 377A if we left it alone and did nothing.

Let me deal with the first reason. In some religions, homosexuality is considered a sin. As Members heard earlier, some sins are crimes, but not every sin is a crime.

Our position in Singapore is, for a conduct to be a crime, there should, generally, be a public order or public interest issue. It is broadly similar to the position set out by the Wolfenden Committee, which I referred to earlier.

The basic function of criminal law is to preserve public order and decency, to protect citizens from what is offensive and injurious, and to provide sufficient safeguards against exploitation and corruption of others.

In Singapore, like in many other places, it is, generally, not the function of criminal law to intervene in the private lives of citizens.

As we consider this question, it is also important to understand what will remain criminalised, even if section 377A is repealed.

First, non-consensual sexual assault by males against other males will obviously be an offence, and it is a serious offence. Two, sexual acts committed by males against young persons, again, a serious offence regardless of consent. Three, sexual acts between two males committed in public that offend public decency will remain an offence.

The maximum penalty for the first two offences is, in fact, more severe than the maximum penalty under section 377A and rightly so. This Government takes an extremely stern view against all non-consensual sexual offences and in respect of sexual offences against minors.

The only thing that will no longer be an offence after the repeal is consensual, male adult homosexual conduct conducted in private. Such conduct does not raise law-and-order concerns.

The time has come for us to remove section 377A. It humiliates and hurts gay people. Most gay people do not cause harm to others. They just want to live peacefully and quietly and be accepted as part of society – the same as any other Singaporean.

They are our family, our friends, our colleagues. They deserve dignity, respect, acceptance. They do not deserve to be stigmatised because of their sexual orientation. To a gay person, even if section 377A is not enforced, it is there, memorialised in the law, a sword hanging over his head, a daily reminder that every time he engages in private sexual activity, behind closed doors, in the sanctity of his bedroom, he is, nevertheless, a criminal.

We have to ask, is it fair that gays have to live in this way? This is not something we should accept, even if we personally disagree with homosexuality. So, I will say – let us start to deal with these divides, heal these divides, remove their pain. Section 377A should no longer be in our books. Repealing section 377A makes it clear that gay people are not criminals.

Compared to 2007, we are now at a stage where our society can accept the repeal of section 377A. From our engagements, we see that most Singaporeans accept that sex between men should not be a crime. Even those who want to retain section 377A, do not want to see it actively enforced.

But as has been stated, in and out of Parliament, we must, and we will take steps at the same time to deal with the possible consequences of the repeal. The constitutional amendment is one big step. There are others. Because some consequences would be unacceptable to a significant section of our society.

The Government has explained its position about dealing with consequences, Members can refer to Annex 5 for a summary of what the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, various Ministries, as well as I, have said on the matter. [Please refer to Annex 5.]

Let me move on to the second reason for the repeal and that is that leaving section 377A alone in the books carries a significant legal risk. The Courts may strike down section 377A in the future and if the Courts strike down section 377A, it will be a binary process. The Courts cannot deal with all the legitimate concerns about the consequential effects of the repeal, which many are concerned about.

Why do we say there is a significant legal risk of section 377A being struck down? Let me take Members through two Court of Appeal decisions.

The Courts of Appeal has dealt with section 377A twice in the last 10 years. First, in Lim Meng Suang vs Attorney-General, decided in 2014; and second, in Tan Seng Kee vs Attorney-General, decided earlier this year in 2022. Both decisions took quite different approaches on two issues. First, a procedural issue; and second, a substantive issue.

In Lim Meng Suang, the Court made a procedural decision in 2012 and the substantive decision in 2014. The procedural decision was on standing – whether the applicants had locus standi, or standing, whether they were entitled to make the application. The Court of Appeal said that the applicants did have locus standi because there was a real and credible threat of future prosecution. The Court of Appeal further added that even if no prosecution was contemplated, the applicants could bring their action, they had standing, because of the very existence of a law which is unconstitutional. Members should note the Court of Appeal in 2012 said the very existence of 377A gave locus standi, for an applicant to make an application.

On the substantive issue, the Court of Appeal said that section 377A did not contravene either Article 9 or Article 12 of the Constitution. On Article 12, the Court of Appeal applied a legal test, known as a "reasonable classification" test to come to that conclusion. It said that section 377A satisfied that test and did not violate Article 12. The Court of Appeal, therefore, dismissed the application in Lim Meng Suang, on the substantive basis that section 377A was not unconstitutional, even though the applicants had locus standi to bring the challenge.

Section 377A was then challenged again in the Courts in Tan Seng Kee. It was again argued that section 377A contravened Articles 9 and 12. In addition, section 377A was also challenged, on the grounds that it contravened Article 14 of the Constitution, which guaranteed the right of freedom of speech and expression. The Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge. How and why the Court of Appeal came to that decision and what it said is important.

This time in Tan Seng Kee, the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds, on the basis that the applicants lacked locus standi to challenge section 377A. And the Court deliberately did not rule on one of the substantive grounds.

First, on the procedural issue, the Court of Appeal reversed itself on the locus standi point and took a different view from its earlier decision in Lim Meng Suang. The Court of Appeal said that there was no locus standi because the Attorney-General had said that, absent other factors, there would generally be no prosecution under section 377A, where the conduct was between two consenting adults in a private place. On this basis, the Court of Appeal said that section 377A was unenforceable until the Attorney-General gave clear notice that he intended to enforce section 377A.

Thus, according to the Court of Appeal, the applicants did not face any real or credible threat of prosecution under 377A and so, they did not have standing to bring the case. In Lim Meng Suang, the Court of Appeal had said that the very existence of 377A was enough to give locus standi. In Tan Seng Kee, the Court took a diametrically opposite view.

Members will note one Court of Appeal can disagree with another Court of Appeal. I will come back to this.

It is also significant to see what the Court of Appeal had to say in Tan Seng Kee on the substantive issue, as to whether section 377A was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeal actually did not need to give any view on the substantive merits of the challenge because it had already said that the applicants could not bring the case. But it, nevertheless, went on to give its views. Sir, with your permission, we can show in a slide, some basic points that they made.

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr K Shanmugam: The Court of Appeal first considered the arguments in relation to Article 9 of the Constitution, on life and personal liberty, and said, quite clearly, that section 377A did not violate Article 9.

The Court, then, considered whether section 377A contravened Article 14 on freedom of speech and expression, and it said no, there was no contravention. Then, it considered Article 12, the equal protection clause, on this, the Court of Appeal took a different view from its previous decision in Lim Meng Suang. The Court of Appeal said that there were two ways to apply the "reasonable classification" test: one is the approach adopted in Lim Meng Suang in 2014; and the second was the approach adopted in a 2021 case in Syed Suhail.

The Court of Appeal went into a detailed comparison between the two approaches. The Court said that if the Syed Suhail approach is taken, then section 377A might fall afoul of the "reasonable classification" test. If you see what the Court of Appeal has said: "One could then conclude that the differentia embodied in section 377A (namely, male-male sex acts) lacks a rational relation to legislative object of reflecting societal disapproval of homosexual conduct in general or safeguarding public morality generally."

In plain language, what this means is section 377A is probably unconstitutional. If the Syed Suhail test is to be applied. Even though the Court of Appeal was careful to say section 377A might be unconstitutional if the test in Syed Suhail was applied, lawyers would know – at least some lawyers would know – that the Court of Appeal has, in fact, in subsequent cases applied the Syed Suhail test.

After the decision in Tan Seng Kee, the Court of Appeal has applied the Syed Suhail test and approach in two other cases, in May and August of this year. In May 2022, in Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah vs Attorney-General; and in August 2022, in Terry Xu's case.

What does all of this mean, in plain language? It means that if another constitutional challenge against section 377A is brought before the Court, the Syed Suhail test is likely to be applied. And if that test is applied, section 377A is likely to be struck down on the grounds that it breaches Article 12 of the Constitution.

Some Members could say, "Well, we accept what the Court of Appeal has said". But the Court of Appeal in Tan Seng Kee this year also said there is no locus standi to bring the challenge. So, as long as the Attorney-General maintains the current position and does not re-assert the right to prosecute cases under section 377A, then there should be no risk that section 377A would be found unconstitutional because no one would have standing to challenge it in the first place.

Taking such a view, I can give an analogy, it is like letting a small boat sail in choppy waters surrounded by rocks and hoping that the boat would not crash into the rocks. There are two major risks in taking this view.

First, just because the applicants in Tan Seng Kee did not have standing, does not mean that no one else will have standing in a future case. For example, persons who had been convicted in the past under section 377A, they may well have a case for standing – I do not want my speech to be read as giving a right to people; it is my personal view. But such persons may well have a case for standing by arguing that their rights had been violated and, therefore, that they have sufficient interest to challenge the constitutionality of section 377A.

They will not be able to directly reopen their convictions, but they can ask for section 377A to be struck down on the basis that this will give them vindication. And the very fact that they have been convicted under an unconstitutional legislation gives them the standing and to allow them to redress the hurt of their conviction.

If you look at Tan Seng Kee, the Court of Appeal was very careful to circumscribe what it said about who had locus standi. It expressly stated that its decision on locus standi will not, for example, prevent Police from investigating conduct under section 377A. In reality, there is a broad universe of cases where the Police may have to investigate, because before investigating, they might not know exactly what the facts are. So, you cannot rule out the possibility that in some situations, a person involved in the investigations brings a challenge. And you cannot rule out there a future Court could find this to be sufficient grounds for a person to have locus standi to challenge section 377A.

And, of course, there is the other risk. The Court of Appeal can always change its mind on locus standi, just as it did between Lim Meng Suang and Tan Seng Kee. It changed its mind precisely on this point of locus standi. So, we cannot proceed in the belief that the Court of Appeal will certainly not change its views in the future.

In September this year, I took part in a law forum organised by the Singapore Academy of Law and the Law Society, which discussed the implications of Tan Seng Kee and the legal risks surrounding section 377A. There was a panel discussion moderated by the Dean of the SMU law school. The panel and audience included the Dean of SUSS law school, legal scholars from our law faculties, past and present presidents of the Law Society, Senior Counsel and distinguished senior legal experts. The panel and the audience were pretty unanimous on the legal risks surrounding section 377A, in light of Tan Seng Kee. Members can refer to Annex 6 for key points and views that were shared at the law forum. [Please refer to Annex 6.]

As the Attorney-General and I looked carefully at the Tan Seng Kee judgment and as the Prime Minister said during the National Day Rally, the Attorney-General and I have advised the Government that in a future Court challenge, there is a significant risk of section 377A being struck down.

So, let us be clear: one, after the Tan Seng Kee judgment, section 377A is at significant risk of being struck down in a future challenge; and two, we cannot simply hope that the point on locus standi is enough for the Government and Parliament to do nothing. That will be just wishful thinking, and wishful thinking is no substitute for careful legal analysis or proper policy.

If we engage in wishful thinking and if section 377A is struck down in the Courts, that could lead to a whole series of consequences, which would be very damaging to our Singaporean society. I will come back to this. But before I do that, it is useful to look at what happened in India, as an illustration.

In India, their section 377 was challenged on grounds broadly similar to those used to challenge our section 377A in Singapore. In 2009, the Delhi High Court ruled that their section 377 was unconstitutional. The court then said that its decision would apply only until parliament repealed section 377 as per the recommendations made by a law commission in 2000, nine years before the decision of the court.

After the judgment, however, the Indian parliament did not do anything about the law. The government also did not appeal the High Court judgment. Instead, an appeal was brought by some organisations and individuals.

On appeal in 2013, the Indian Supreme Court overturned the High Court decision, saying there was no "constitutional infirmity". So, section 377 was held to be constitutional.

Nonetheless, the court emphasised that parliament was still free to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting section 377 from the Indian Penal Code or amending it to exclude private acts between consenting adults. Parliament, however, did nothing after this decision.

In 2016, a fresh application was filed in the Indian Supreme Court to again challenge the constitutionality of section 377. In 2018, the Indian Supreme Court ruled section 377 to be unconstitutional with regard to consensual acts between adults. It reversed its 2013 decision on the grounds that section 377 violated the right to life and liberty, which is Article 9 of our Constitution, that it violated the right to equal protection, which is Article 12 of our Constitution, and that it violated the right to freedom of expression, which is Article 14 of our Constitution. And the court found that section 377 did punish homosexuals arbitrarily.

The court said that a subjective notion of public or societal morality which discriminated against LGBT persons and subjected them to criminal sanctions, simply on the basis of an innate characteristic ran counter to the Indian constitution and could not form the basis of legitimate state interest. The court held that parliament's failure to delete section 377 was not, in any way, a good reason for the court not to strike down section 377. When a provision violated the constitution, the courts must strike it down.

Fast forward to this year, 2022, as Minister Masagos had mentioned in his speech, the Indian Supreme Court has expanded the definition of family to include same-sex relationships. The court held that such atypical manifestations of the family unit are equally deserving of protection.

What is the lesson here? When Parliament does not act, when it should act, then we may leave the courts with no choice. If fundamental constitutional rights have been violated and, yet, Parliament abdicates its duties, then the courts may have no choice but to act. And what can happen if the Courts strike down section 377A? Then, our laws defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, and our laws and policies based on that definition, could also be at risk sometime in the future.

For example, the heterosexual definition of marriage could be challenged on the basis that it is against Article 12 of the Constitution. It could be argued that equal protection means we cannot discriminate against same-sex couples, in the same way that section 377A can be said to discriminate against gay persons. It could be asked: why should a marriage only be between a man and a woman? Why can a marriage between two men or between two women not be considered a marriage?

Some places, jurisdictions like Taiwan and some countries like the US, have ended up legalising same-sex marriage through court challenges.

As mentioned earlier, India's Supreme Court also recently said that "family" will include same-sex relationships.

In Singapore, so far, the Courts have recognised that Parliament, as the elected branch of Government, is better suited to resolve such difficult societal issues. In Parliament, there can be consultation, discussion and debate. Considerations going well beyond the law can be taken into account, whereas Courts can only consider the legal issues. Consensus can be forged in Parliament to bridge divergent viewpoints. Open-ended resolutions are possible, instead of binary, win-lose outcomes.

There are some who have said, since our Courts have recognised what belongs to the political process and what belongs to the judicial process, it is unlikely that the Courts will ever strike down section 377A. In other words, we can just take the easy way. We do not need to decide. We just let things be.

But such an approach would be irresponsible and wrong.

Members may know, the Court of Appeal has also said that although the 2007 compromise was inherently political, legal standards do still exist and may be applied to judge the legality or constitutionality of section 377A. So, we should not assume that the Courts will never strike down section 377A just because the Government chooses to retain it.

Our system has only worked well all these years because all three branches of the state – Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary – work within their respective boundaries and have fulfilled their respective roles. But if Parliament does not do its duty, if Parliament does not deal with the law which is likely unconstitutional, then, you may leave the Courts with no choice. If Parliament does not do what it has to do, then the Courts will have to do what they do not want to do.

So, I emphasise – Parliament has a duty to deal squarely with laws which are unconstitutional. If Parliament abdicates its duty and does not do what it has to do, then the Courts may have to do what they do not want to do.

It would be much easier for us, as Members of Parliament, to leave this to the Courts – "leave the question to the wisdom of the honourable Court", as the Indian Government did. If we left it to the Courts, the Government would bear no blame. It is the path of least resistance. If we approached this purely as politicians, concerned only with votes, and not making anyone unhappy or making as few people unhappy as possible, then, that road of leaving it to the Court would have been easier. Pretend that these issues do not exist, need not have been talked about after the Court of Appeal's decision in Tan Seng Kee, leave it to the Courts.

But this Government will not take that approach. As elected representatives of the people, we cannot do that. If we see a risk that a law may be found unconstitutional, it is our duty to act and deal with it in Parliament, both because it is our duty to do so and because taking the easy way out would have serious negative consequences for our society. It will be very bad for Singapore.

As I said earlier, the Court processes are adversarial by nature. Their decisions are binary, zero-sum. You either win or you lose. There is no middle ground, no balancing of competing interests. The Courts cannot consider competing social norms and social consequences of their decisions. If they strike down section 377A, they will do so without being able to consider the consequential effects of that decision on the definition of marriage, for example.

Whereas, in Parliament, we are now proposing amendments to the Constitution to further protect heterosexual marriage.

Going further, if the definition of marriage is changed through a Court challenge, there can be a cascading effect. It could impact questions relating to same-sex marriage, media content, housing policies, various other policies.

Housing policies can be challenged. It could be asked: why should we only give housing benefits to heterosexual married couples? It could be argued that that is unequal under Article 12.

Media content rules could be challenged. Why should we impose higher ratings for content on movies and Netflix that depict same-sex family units? It could be argued that this curtails some producers' freedom of expression under Article 9.

Such changes through the Court are not in our interests. If we want to act in the best interests of Singapore, then, we have to move on this, given the legal analysis.

We can look at the United States to see how Court decisions on such issues can seriously affect the fabric of society, divide the society, unleash partisan views on both sides of the divide.

If we have that in Singapore, our social fabric will fray. If the Government and Parliament do not take responsibility and, instead, stand by and do nothing, then, litigation could change our societal norms very quickly.

I want to emphasise this. I have given two reasons for proposing the repeal of section 377A.

One, we should do so because there are no public order issues that are raised from such conduct. So, it should not remain criminal. But I accept that Members of Parliament (MPs) and others may disagree with that, that even though there are no public order issues, they may feel that there are other reasons for keeping the law. And I accept that people can and do legitimately have such views and it is reasonable to hold such views.

But the second reason I have given, the legal consequences, that is not a matter of conscience. It is a policy question. It requires each of us to think carefully and apply our minds.

The second question is a matter of considering the consequences for Singapore, given that there is a clear legal risk that section 377A could be struck down and given that, having heard me, you know what the consequential legal risks are. In fact, this has been talked about in public – what the consequential legal risks are to the heterosexual family, housing, education, other policies, that they could all be at risk. Knowing all these risks and refusing to take a position or be clear in how we will deal with it, is avoiding our responsibilities as MPs, basically, passing it on onto the Courts.

It is easier politically, but it is also worse for Singapore and Singaporeans. And, to put it bluntly, that will be an abdication of duty and it will be cynical if we, as MPs, did that, because we would be putting, if we take this as a deliberate decision, political capital over doing what is good for Singaporeans.

So, Mr Speaker, I believe that, in this House, if we proceed in good faith, there are matters of conscience. But ultimately, there is also the question of what is in Singapore's interest, and what is in the interest of Singaporeans. And the law here and the legal consequences here, go beyond matters of conscience. This is like a train approaching. The question is: are we prepared to take the appropriate steps to save and safeguard what is important for our society, whether we have the courage of our conviction, which should be to do what is good for Singapore?

So, Mr Speaker, I say to all Members, let us do what is right, do our duty, what is expected of us in Parliament and take a path forward on this difficult issue. [Applause.]

Pritam Singh

 * See also: Pritam Singh's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao4a4fTk_X8

Ao4a4fTk_X8 

2.15 pm

Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, beyond the bread-and-butter matters of economics and material well-being, Singaporeans must occasionally confront issues that concern our collective values – how we see each other as a citizen community and what kind of place we want Singapore to be.

Section 377A of the Penal Code – which I will henceforth refer to as 377A – that criminalises homosexual conduct in private, is such an issue. For some Singaporeans, it is a very difficult subject. For others, especially younger Singaporeans, they wonder why it has to be a difficult subject and why people of a different sexual orientation cannot be treated as equal Singaporeans.

In recent years, the issue has caused growing tensions between groups who identify themselves for and against the repeal of section 377A. Singaporeans have formed organisations and groups on the issue. At the personal level, the conversations can be uncomfortable and discussing the subject without measure and consideration can quickly pull people apart.

Speaking in their individual capacities, the Workers' Party Members of Parliament (MPs) have different views on the repeal of section 377A. In normal circumstances, I would not lift the whip for Parliamentary debates, given the party political structure that overlays elected MPs in this House. However, 377A is unique in that it is conceived through a religious lens by many in Singapore, in addition to being a matter of conscience for a no less significant number.

The People's Action Party has announced that it is not lifting the whip for this debate. Given the very public opinion on the impending repeal of 377A, there is a risk that the democratic value of the Parliament could be diluted if the views of Singaporeans on this subject are not adequately ventilated in the House.

Not lifting the whip would deny Workers' Party MPs not in favour of a repeal of 377A the opportunity to vote freely and in doing so, to also represent Singaporeans who see this issue as a matter of deep religious belief and conscience.

So, I have decided to lift the whip for the Workers' Party MPs. In doing so, I have also asked all who will speak to carefully reflect on the position they take and to envision a set of principles or perspectives from which society as a whole, with its different views, can move forward. That is the challenge. We know society is divided on 377A. How can we mitigate this and contribute to lowering temperatures and ensuring Singapore is a home for everyone?

For the record, Mr Speaker, both MPs Muhamad Faisal bin Abdul Manap and Chua Kheng Wee Louis are not present for this debate as they are COVID-19 positive. Mr Faisal disagrees with the repeal of 377A as a matter of religion and conscience while Mr Chua agrees to the repeal. The other Workers' Party MPs will state their positions on the matter in the course of their speeches.

Mr Speaker, since 2007, the Government has settled on what was called an uneasy compromise – that 377A would be kept on the books but not enforced. In 2019, in my first term as Secretary-General of the Workers' Party, I stated the Workers' Party's position on 377A in a speech to the National University of Singapore Political Association. The party position I advanced was similar to that of Singapore as a whole – it was varied and diverse, with no consensus as to whether 377A should be repealed.

The depth of the impasse in Singapore society at that time was stark and encapsulated somewhat in a panel discussion between Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Prof Tommy Koh on the Institute of Policy Studies' 30th anniversary in late 2018. Prof Koh said, "A mutual friend of ours was recently invited by one of our religious organisations to speak at a conference on a secular topic. He accepted, prepared the paper and then he was disinvited. Why was he disinvited? Because he signed the petition to repeal 377A." Such has been the divisiveness over 377A.

In my 2019 speech, I said that the LGBTQ+ community should not be exploited for political points. At that time, I believe there was more to consider than deciding which was the right side in this matter, particularly in a society which generally eschews from posting open and frank conversations on difficult matters in the public realm. Against this political culture and background, the Workers' Party neither took up the cause of LGBTQ+ rights, nor stood against it.

I still believe that had the Workers' Party openly supported a repeal of 377A, it would not have been good for Singapore politics. More crucially, it would have not served the interest of the LGBTQ+ community. On issues of great social division and contending values, we do not need politicians to be seen as siding with particular groups.

From my vantage point as the Leader of the Opposition, my personal belief is that the repeal of 377A does not in any way signal the state's hostility towards the family unit or religious freedom. Rest assured, the family remains and, I dare say, will always be at the core of our social norms.

I would also like to reiterate that defending the Singaporean family also means doing more to protect its different forms, including families with single, widowed and divorced mothers and fathers. We must do more to help caregivers who perform the labour of caring for aged parents and those with special needs.

What the repeal of 377A certainly does not signal is Singapore becoming a more liberal or permissive society. What it does is make room in our shared public space for members of our common Singaporean family to not be discriminated against due to their sexual orientation.

Religious Singaporeans are free to maintain their beliefs about homosexuality, but this should not interfere with what is legal in our public sphere. Likewise, supporters of repeal have no business interfering with the private beliefs of religious Singaporeans.

In any secular society, sin and crime are separate categories. They may sometimes align. For example, we have laws prohibiting crimes such as murder that are also considered wrong in many belief systems. But we also do not outlaw many activities considered sinful in some religious communities. Consuming alcohol and pork are legal but not permissible to Muslims. There are also no laws against eating meat, though this is not an option for Jains and some Hindus and Buddhists.

One may argue that 377A is much more complex – that not regulating sexual practices has greater social consequences. But let us remember that when section 377A of the Penal Code was amended in 2007, it decriminalised other sex acts that some still find unorthodox. In singling homosexuality between men in particular, the decision to keep 377A appears to the LGBTQ+ community and not a small number of Singaporeans, to be unjust and unequal.

An important reality is that the political compromise in place since 2007 undermined the sense of belonging of Singapore's LGBTQ+ community. Though unenforced, one should not underestimate its symbolic message that they are outsiders. Additionally, this so-called compromise is not binding on future governments who could choose to enforce the law.

Yet, repealing 377A will no doubt cause anxiety, if not outrage, amongst Singaporeans who believe that our laws must also reflect cultural or religious attitudes towards homosexuality. There are Singaporeans who see this as an erosion of the family as a basic unit of Singapore society. The reality of our political culture, which leans towards conservatism on social issues, is that such concerns cannot be summarily ignored or dismissed.

In the main, the Court of Appeal judgment in Tan Seng Kee vs Attorney-General appears to have precipitated the Government's decision to repeal 377A. But the stark reality before this House and Singaporeans today is that there were never any good options before the Government that could please everybody with regard to managing the tensions of 377A.

Keeping to the status quo indefinitely would only shine an ever brighter spotlight on the issue, particularly as social mores regionally and locally continue a steady shift towards greater acceptance and accommodation of LGBTQ+ individuals.

Like many Singaporeans, I could understand why the uneasy compromise set out by the Prime Minister in 2007 was deemed to be a midpoint that would keep any excessive social cleavage in check. Likewise, I see the decision to protect marriage from constitutional challenge as an institution between man and woman only, through a very narrow lens. It also represents a balancing exercise to ensure that society does not fray over the decision to repeal 377A.

I hope Singaporeans who are against the repeal of 377A approach this issue – in spite of their personal beliefs and religious convictions, which I and my colleagues respect, and I suggest everyone in this House respects – through this lens of compromise and accommodation. In repealing 377A, religious Singaporeans are not asked to endorse homosexuality but instead honour the equality of all Singaporeans in the eyes of the law – that no consenting adult should be regarded as criminals because of what they do in private.

Equality and justice, both stars in our flag, are plenty and bountiful. Unlike finite resources, we do not have less of either by extending it to our fellow citizens. We all gain from a more just and equal society.

We can also look to some of the timeless principles shared amongst all great faiths. The blessed irony here is that religion plays a huge part in inspiring our best qualities as human beings – to be generous, to love our neighbour, to be merciful. These qualities do not weaken but strengthen our faith.

Wherever you stand on this decision, I hope Singaporeans approach our LGBTQ+ community, who are a small minority of the population, like they are anywhere in the world, with these qualities in mind. More than ever, with the impending repeal of 377A, Singaporeans on all sides must come together in good faith and mutual trust to not let this issue further tear our social fabric.

I am certain the decision of this House is not a panacea that repairs the tension between camps. We should anticipate that new battle lines will be drawn. For the LGBTQ+ community, the march towards greater equality has not ended. Some conservatives are likely to mobilise to try and stop any further expansion of LGBTQ+ rights.

In view of the socially divisive nature of 377A, I would suggest three points that could help in keeping things from boiling over. I hope Singaporeans can consider these as guideposts should they deem them useful.

First, any conversation must recognise that there is a distinction between public and private perspectives. Just because one group has a position on an issue does not mean it can impose that position as a public expectation on everyone else.

Why? Because in Singapore, there must be a place for everyone. The public space is for all to share and where we encourage a "live and let live", "give and take" attitude towards our fellow Singaporeans. The public space is where we create conditions for all Singaporeans to succeed and certainly, not to feel marginalised. The public space is where we are tolerant of Singaporeans who are different, insofar as the law allows.

Second, the fact that we are a secular society does not stop religious Singaporeans from holding views that are reflective of their religious norms and values. It is fully understandable that the faithful wish to propagate their religious convictions. There is no basis for us to feel cancelled, provided our views are not set as an expectation for all society. There must be a secular approach to politics and governance, even as we celebrate and protect the freedom of religion in Singapore. The Workers' Party cannot conceive of any other way for different groups and religious communities to live harmoniously with each other in Singapore.

Finally and perhaps most pertinently, as we are free to share our views and propagate our beliefs, let us be thoughtful and put ourselves in the other person's shoes as we welcome conversation and even vigorous debate. But as with most difficult conversations in search of a landing point, it will be crucial to adopt a gentler tone and enlightened perspective that extends and considers the impact on broader community and society, and most fundamentally, a spirit of empathy. Mr Speaker, I support both the Penal Code and Constitution amendment Bills.

Murali Pillai

 * See also: Murali Pillai's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jopTGzxwpPg

jopTGzxwpPg 

Transcript:

2:31pm

Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, one might be tempted to say that this issue is one of the most polarising and contentious socio-political issues that this House ever dealt with. The heavy correspondence that I received and numerous meetings that I had with my constituents on this matter reflect that. I am sure I am not alone in this.

Let us be clear though. Should these Bills be passed, it does not mean that the underlying issues will simply go away. It will not. At the same time, the fact that we are considering these Bills, does signify a potential for this House to express its collective will and I heard the hon Opposition Leader say "collective values" as well, across party lines, and decide on the basis of what is in the greater good of our country. This is what representative politics means. Members of Parliament deciding on matters based on national interest and public good, not their personal interests.

The well-known politician and philosopher, Sir Edmund Burke, said that parliament is not a congress of ambassadors. Members of parliament will have to decide based on national interests and not just based on the opinions of their constituents. This is where our involvement here becomes all the more important, because we cannot decide just on the basis of our personal views. We have to decide on the basis of what is the national interest, how best can we take Singapore forward and ensure that the future of Singaporeans will always remain bright. That is the issue.

What is my view with respect to this issue? I understand from the Leader of the Opposition that he has decided to lift the whip. I just want to clarify that while the whip is not lifted for the People's Action Party, it does not prevent any Member of Parliament from my party to speak his views and I will shortly speak my views too. The whip is basically a system to deal with voting and that is separate and distinct from clearly and honestly expressing our views.

On my view, I can be relatively brief. This is because I had already articulated my views on this matter in 2018 when I was interviewed by CNA. Then, I stated my support for the repeal of section 377A. I said that anyone, regardless of his sexual orientation, is deserving of equal treatment, dignity and respect. No one should be treated as social outcasts. I also advocated a holistic review of the matter, before any legislative decision is made, to address the legitimate concerns that the repeal of section 377A may have an impact on important institutions such as marriage and family.

I therefore have no hesitation in supporting the carefully calibrated provisions in these Bills today. Repealing section 377A is the right thing to do. Homosexual males in consenting relationships will no longer be viewed as criminals and we would have taken a decisive step in removing the stigma that they previously faced. This is the main principle underlying the repeal. I am indebted to the hon Minister Shanmugam for painstakingly reviewing the provision based on materials stretching back to the 16th century. Listening to him, it seems to me that the legislative objective behind the equivalents of section 377A is also rather obscure.

At the same time, the amendments to the Constitution in this House makes it clear that the repeal of section 377A will not affect the important institution of marriage, as between a man and a woman, and the Government policies promoting traditional families. This is in accord with the views of a significant majority of Singaporeans.

There are important lessons that can be drawn from the Government's approach in this House to deal with this issue. I wish to highlight three.

First, it is about ensuring that our nation for now and I hope, for at least the next 20 years, will continue to be united and stable and not fail to hold because of this divisive issue. So much of what we do as a country depends on our unity and stability. We cannot afford to lose that. We do this by making the political accommodation that these Bills collectively represent, something that the hon Prime Minister spoke about at some length during his National Day Rally 2022.

What we need to guard against is the spectre of identity politics with the emphasis on a "all or nothing mindset". If that happens in Singapore, I fear that it may be the beginning of the end of Singapore's cohesive social compact.

Second, it is about acknowledging that our laws reflect the changing realities of our times. This includes respecting the voices of all sections of society, including those of our youths – their voices on their vision and aspirations for Singapore.

Our youths shape the future of our country. Based on the TODAY Youth Survey 2022 published in TODAY on 15 November 2022, about two-thirds of our young adults agreed that the repeal of a law criminalising gay sex represents a step towards a more inclusive society. These are our millenials and Gen Z-ers. This is a sizeable majority. We need to forge an inter-generational understanding to keep us together as a society.

Our founding Prime Minister, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, pithily put this across in a speech he delivered way back in 1966, about the importance of working with our youths to create an enduring future in the context of multiracial harmony. He said: "The young are so important. We are old. Our values, our attitudes are fixed but the minds of the young are flexible. They come out with innocent minds…And we must give them the values of tolerance, understanding, togetherness and a society which gives everybody a meaningful life. And in that way, we will secure an enduring future for ourselves".

Here, we have an opportunity as, currently, based on the same TODAY Youth Survey, three out of five youths support the importance of upholding the definition of marriage as between one man and a woman. This was reportedly attributed to our youths internalising the traditional definition of marriage as a norm.

Third, it is about upholding the legitimacy of the democratic system of Government that we have in Singapore. Both the hon Ministers spoke about this. In our Westminster-styled Government, our judiciary is an independent organ of state that is vested with the judicial power to decide on legal issues without interference from this House or the Executive.

Being an unelected body, it is not directly accountable to our people. We have seen examples in other countries where judges are accused of playing politics when deciding on legal issues that have major socio-political ramifications. In the US, we saw the swinging of the pendulum from one end to the other just about five months ago when the federal right of choice to abort, established in a 1973 case, was overturned by a majority in the US Supreme Court in favour of restoring the states' power to outlaw abortion. This has caused a furore.

Based on a September 2022 Pew Research Centre survey, Americans' ratings of the Supreme Court are now as negative as – and more politically polarised than – at any point in time, during the three decades of polling on the nation's highest court.

Such sentiments, undermine the confidence in and the legitimacy of the judiciary. This in turn, this can affect the rule of law. We must avoid it in Singapore. And the way to do it is to ensure that the policy issues that have socio-political ramifications are dealt with firmly in this House.

We, in this House, have a much better ability to deal with such thorny issues, as compared to the Courts. As elected representatives, we have a much better pulse on what our people think and what is needed to ensure our nation's cohesiveness. We also have a unique ability to accommodate divergent views and reach a consensus that allows our society to march on and make progress.

This is not a fanciful argument. In 2018, the Singapore High Court decided to allow a Singaporean gay man to adopt a son he fathered through a surrogate mother by paying her US$200,000, because amongst others, the Singapore Government had not promulgated then a policy against surrogacy.

In discussing this case in this House in January 2019, the hon Minister Mr Desmond Lee in a carefully worded statement, acknowledged that the decision has "evoked a diverse range of emotions and reactions amongst Singaporeans, and raised questions about its implications". So, it is best that we, in this House, to continue to take the lead to set policies that have socio-political ramifications to preserve the legitimacy of our system of Government, particularly our judiciary.

I have a query in relation to the proposed Article 156 (3) and (4) of the Constitution. Part 4 of the Constitution lists the fundamental liberties. These are described in the 1957 Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission, from which our Singapore Constitution was modelled on, as "fundamental individual rights which are generally regarded as essential conditions for a free and democratic way of life".

There are eight rights enumerated in Part 4. They include safeguards against liberty of a person, slavery, forced labour, protection against retrospective criminal laws, equal protection of all persons before the law, prohibition of banishment and freedom of movement, freedom of speech, religion and education.

The basic idea in this Constitution is to protect individuals' rights by vesting in the Courts the power to strike down legislation passed by this House or Government action should they offend the fundamental liberties stated in this Constitution. It is proposed that the entire Part 4 be excluded from application in relation to both a law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and an exercise of executive authority based on such a definition of marriage.

In contrast, when it comes to laws against subversion and emergency powers, Article 149(1) of the Constitution specifically identifies five provisions that are to be excluded from Part 4. I hope we see the difference in approach here – on matters of national security, we are careful enough to pick out specific exclusions because there are at least three individual rights that are so important so as to be able to stand up against issues pertaining to national security.

Why then, is there a need to adopt a blunderbuss approach in preserving legislation or Government action dealing with the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman? Would it not be possible for the Government to identify specific provisions just as what was done for Article 149, and as the hon Minister said, Article 39(a), which deals with GRCs.

Personally, I prefer such an approach. I heard the hon Minister as saying that, the reason why he wants to have such a shield, is because we may not know of an argument that can be raised in the future. But we are dealing with fundamental liberties and one of the reasons for having fundamental liberties is to curb excess of power, or have a situation whereby there will be an irrational use of power. As a matter of principle, we should be careful in providing for derogations to fundamental liberties of an individual as it would ordinarily be inimical to the concept of democracy and rule of law.

Also, may I ask whether it is intended that the Court's powers of judicial review of Government action on the traditional grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety be ousted? As I heard the hon Minister, he mentioned that that is not the intent. But then, maybe to articulate my point, let me give an illustration.

Say, for example, a government in the future decides to banish a citizen, that is a fundamental liberty under Article 13, on the basis that he does not subscribe to a marriage between a man and a woman, or he enters into a marriage, which falls outside the definition in the Women's Charter. How can we then protect such a person from being banished? Can the Courts exercise its judicial powers to provide a solution for such a person. I would welcome the hon Minister's views on this matter.

Sir, my point is a simple one, that we should put sufficient weight on this, but not be too heavy handed so as to allow it to trump all fundamental rights, as even on matters of national security, we have been careful not to take such a sweeping approach.

Sir, the repeal is the correct thing to do. It reflects Singapore's collective will towards equality as well as the values and realities of our times. We have also, at the same time, captured the wide agreement that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It is an elegant accommodation and a uniquely Singapore way, using hon Minister Masagos' words, of expressing the will of our people through this House.

Sylvia Lim

 * See also: Sylvia Lim's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvHeI-VXqpg

IvHeI-VXqpg 

Transcript:

2.47 pm

Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, at the outset, I wish to state that I am in support of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill. This is due to the likely unconstitutionality of section 377A for violating Article 12, especially in the light of recent legal developments.

I wish now to focus on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill now before the House.

Sir, the Bill proposes to add a new Article 156 to the Constitution. I believe it is important to study the various parts of Article 156 in detail.

The first half of Article 156, namely sub-articles (1) and (2), state that laws and policies concerning the promotion of the institution of marriage lie within the province of Parliament and the Government. The second half of Article 156, namely sub-articles (3) and (4), declare that laws and policies based on a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman cannot be invalidated on the grounds that they violate Part 4 of the Constitution on Fundamental Liberties. It is further stated in these two sub-articles that the apparent prohibition of a Constitutional challenge will apply to laws and policies that are in force whether before, on or after the commencement of this Bill, that is, for all past, current and future laws and policies.

Sir, from what I understand, the amendments to the Constitution are an attempt at a quid pro quo for the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code. The repeal of section 377A is concerning to many Singaporeans who are not supportive of the repeal and who fear that the removal of the offence would mainstream gay lifestyles in further spheres of life.

I see Article 156 as the Government's way of signalling that the definition of marriage in Singapore would not be changed in the near future. However, as pointed out by the Law Minister in August, this does not amount to an entrenchment of the definition of marriage as between a man and woman. He and Mr Masagos also made clear earlier that it was open to Parliament to change the definition of marriage by amending the law by a simple majority in Parliament.

It is therefore appropriate to consider what the actual effect of Article 156 is. I intend to look at each of the four sub-articles in turn.

First, Article 156(1). It is stated that Parliament may pass laws which define, regulate, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage. On the one hand, that sounds like a clear statement of what Parliament can do. However, with due respect, I am not sure what this sub-article actually achieves, apart from stating the obvious. It is indisputable that under Article 38 of the Constitution, legislative power has already been vested in the Legislature consisting of the President and Parliament. Parliament can pass laws on any subject. In what way then is Article 156(1) meaningful?

Similarly, for Article 156(2), it states that the Government and any public authority may exercise their executive authority to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage. Again, is there a need to state that the Government and any public authority may exercise their executive authority? It already is the position that under Article 23 of the Constitution, executive authority is vested in the President and exercisable by Cabinet Ministers and other bodies as authorised by law.

It is arguable then, that Article 156(1) and (2) do not add anything new to the current position.

I next move to the second half of the proposed Article 156. The latter two sub-articles seek to prohibit challenges under Part 4 of the Constitution to laws and policies based on the current definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. I wish to record my concern about the implications of sub-articles (3) and (4) on judicial oversight of the actions of Parliament and the Government.

It bears stating here that Part 4 is the part of the Constitution entitled "fundamental liberties". It is Part 4 that grants individuals critical protections against abuse of state power, such as ensuring freedom from arbitrary arrest and freedom of religion, and the right to equal protection under the law. These are enshrined in the Constitution for a reason. No doubt, these fundamental liberties may not all be absolute, and some of them have been qualified in the Constitution itself. But if one looks at the existing qualifications, they tend to be scoped tightly and justified on the grounds of national emergencies, security, public order and public health. This was a point that Member Mr Murali touched on earlier as well.

Sir, to now include the definition of marriage as something that the Courts cannot assess for constitutionality does not appear to me to be justified. To clarify, I am not advocating for gay marriages here. My concern is purely about whether it is justified to exclude judicial scrutiny on this topic. From a governance standpoint, I find this position very difficult to accept.

Under Article 93 of the Constitution, judicial power has been vested in our Courts. Article 4 provides that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, a point recognised by Minister Masagos earlier. Article 4 provides that laws passed by Parliament that are inconsistent with the Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. The Constitution is the fundamental legal safeguard of citizens, to protect them against illegal laws and policies that violate the Constitution. And it is the job of the Courts to assess whether any law is constitutional or not. Earlier, I heard Minister Masagos in his Second Reading speech, and I would humbly submit that it is not the same thing to say that when the Courts is assessing a law for constitutionality, it is intervening in a political space. It is the Court's job to ensure that laws and policies conform with the Constitution.

Sir, this Bill today seeks to exclude the Courts from reviewing the constitutionality of laws and policies concerning marriage. Quite apart from the decision being taken today, I am concerned about what this carve out means for the future. Will the Government, present or future, come up with other areas of life, where the Courts are to be excluded from reviewing laws and policies for constitutionality? Will Parliament in the future be looking at Article 157, 158 or 159?

Sir, it goes without saying that Parliament and the Government should, instead, be ever mindful of what the Constitution requires and act within those parameters. To that end, I am very concerned about the implications of this new carve-out and what Parliament is asked to do today.

Sir, to summarise, I understand the purpose of Article 156 as a quid pro quo for the repeal of section 377A. However, as far as sub-articles (1) and (2) are concerned, it does not seem to me that these provisions add anything to the current position. As for Articles 156(3) and (4), I am concerned about the Courts being further curtailed in their Constitutional duty to check Parliament and the Government. I am also concerned about whether the carve-out of judicial oversight on the institution of marriage will set a precedent for future carve-outs, even if this is not the intention today. This is potentially detrimental to Singaporeans.

That said, Sir, I appreciate the difficulties the Government has in navigating this issue of section 377A. It is not easy to arrive at a solution that addresses the concerns of society which is divided on the matter. To that end, I understand the signal the Government wishes to send through the proposed Article 156. So, I will not oppose the Bill.

Nevertheless, my concerns about safeguarding the Courts in doing their constitutional duty remain. For the reasons I have stated, I have decided to cast a vote of abstention on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill.

Christopher De Souza

 * See also: Christopher De Souza's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZeAfJDcUO8

8ZeAfJDcUO8 

Transcript:

2.55 pm

Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak. Many Members in this House have known my long-standing support for the institutions of marriage and family. These institutions deserve continuing protection.

I must discharge a duty today. Two questions follow. One, what is that duty? And two, how can I ensure that the carrying out of that duty works to the best for Singapore? My speech today will answer both those questions.

For this, my starting point is to go back to 1962 and quote Mr Lee Kuan Yew. In 1962, Mr Lee Kuan Yew gave a speech to an audience from the University of Singapore. The speech was about "Law and Order". Mr Lee said that the phrase should be modified – it should read "Order and Law". Why? Because Mr Lee's view – and I think it is a correct view – is that without order, then laws become useless.

Allow me to quote Mr Lee: "Those of you who are just embarking on the study of the law will learn the phrase "law and order". In a settled and established society, law appears to be a precursor of order. Good laws lead to good order, that is the form that you will learn. But the hard realities of keeping the peace between man and man and between authority and the individual can be more accurately described if the phrase were inverted to "order and law", for without order the operation of law is impossible."

Minister Mentor inverted the phrase "law and order" to become "order and law". By inverting the phrase, he showed how one must establish order first before laws can work.

Why is this a good starting point? Because what we are debating today is the order of things and the order from which all relevant laws and policies should be construed. Some use the phrase societal norms, some use the phrase social mores. I would use the term "the order of things".

Mr Speaker, we are deciding the order of things today. Even as we are debating removing a law, we are also debating strengthening the order of things by virtue of an amendment to the Constitution. That is a very significant move. Let us pause to think about this.

We are not just removing a law. We are coupling the removal of a law with an amendment to the Constitution to protect the order of things. And, what more, the Constitution is not just another law. It is the beacon from which all laws take their bearing. It sets the tone – it is the backbone of the order of things.

Do I believe that there is a significant risk that section 377A will be struck down by the Courts in a future legal challenge? The Attorney-General (AG) had said so. The Minister for Law has said so. These are views that must be taken seriously. So, I have thought long and hard about this matter, and agree that there is a significant risk that section 377A will be struck down by the Courts in a future legal challenge.

So, the question to ask next is: do we wait or do we move first by shouldering the legislative responsibility of making hard decisions and deciding on what needs to be protected? It is clear in my mind that we must do the latter.

So, Parliament has to act now. We must analyse, deliberate, look into our own selves and make the hard legislative decisions. As Members of this House, we have a duty to decide on and reinforce what we desire to protect given the significant risk that section 377A may be struck down. For this, I now turn to the amendments of the Constitution before the House today.

What does the constitutional amendment do? The Bill states: "the legislature may, by law, define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage". And then clause 3 states, "nothing in Part 4 invalidates a law enacted before, on or after the date of commencement of this Bill by reason that the law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman".

The amendment to the Constitution is clear as to what it seeks to protect. I support it. Why? Mr Speaker, I believe that the institution of marriage, as defined as the union between one man and one woman, is the basis upon which our society is built. It is something we must protect. It must not be diluted.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. For centuries, this union has been the foundation of societies. Children and society, as a whole, flourish when marriages are supported and the resulting family unit is strong. The Prime Minister has said in 2007, 2013 and 2016 that the traditional family unit should form the "basic building block of our society". The Prime Minister stated as recently as three months ago, "we have upheld and reinforced the importance of families through many national policies and we will continue to do so."

Mr Speaker, the amendment to the Constitution strengthens this foundation. It states clearly that marriage is between a man and a woman; and it follows that this is the basis on which family is built. By constitutionalising this, we are entrenching our values on what is the core, the base, the order of things from which all other relevant laws and policies in our society take bearing. It is the beacon – the guiding light.

As a legislator, I see this inclusion and amendment to the Constitution as a deliberate and positive step. By making this amendment to the Constitution, it means that we are also protecting all our social policies that flow from this definition. As the Prime Minister has said in the National Day Rally, this includes policies on public housing, education, adoption regulations, advertising standards and film classification. Such a position has been echoed by various Ministries in press statements or by Ministers in response to press questions since the National Day Rally.

What does this mean? One, the only form of marriage that is recognised in Singapore is the union between one man and one woman. No other form of marriage is recognised in Singapore. A religious teacher – an Ustaz, Imam, Priest, Pastor, Bishop, Rabbi or men and women of any religion – cannot be prevented from teaching what their faith teaches about marriage and about homosexuality. If practising homosexuality is not condoned in a particular faith, the religious leader can state so.

Two, spousal rights can only be granted within the context of a heterosexual marriage.

Three, education in school, particularly sex education, should affirm heterosexual marriage as the norm and the bedrock of family. There is no room to argue that because section 377A is being repealed that this somehow provides a gateway or a licence to teachers to promote or normalise homosexuality in schools in Singapore. The repeal does not provide such a licence.

Four, high age ratings will apply to all media that contains homosexual content. Advertising content should not affirm homosexual unions in any way.

Five, housing policies will prioritise allocation and grants for married couples; and here, marriage means, a union of a man and a woman.

Six, library books for children, both physical and digital, should not have content depicting or affirming homosexual unions.

Seven, as for adoption, there cannot be a case where a civil union recognised overseas gives a couple in the civil union the ability to adopt under our laws.

Eight and for the complete avoidance of doubt, civil unions and civil partnerships are not recognised in Singapore.

Sir, this is not an easy speech for me to deliver. I have spoken with people who want section 377A to be retained at all costs. They have a right to their view. I have spoken with people who want to do away with section 377A and open the gates to changes for all institutions – marriage, adoption, the works. They too have the right to hold those views. But in the final analysis, I have to make my own decision on this difficult issue. Believe me, it is difficult. I, too, have close friends who have same-sex attraction.

To take a public position on such a difficult issue is not easy. But I cannot shy away from facing difficult issues – and what I have shared in this speech is my position for Singapore. Is this decision-making a struggle? Yes. But, in this struggle is where I belong. We, all of us here, have to make a deep effort to make the right choices in Singapore and for Singapore.

Sir, with your permission, I move to my second last point. What we are debating today in this House, on Singapore soil, is squarely a domestic issue. Other countries can choose how they want to shape their societies, but other countries should not impose their choices on us, no matter how well-meaning they perceive themselves to be. Speaking plainly, let us guard against covert and overt foreign influence in our domestic affairs.

Allow me, Sir, to end with the need for unity. Unity has been a powerful force in modern Singapore's unprecedented history. It must remain a part of our future. Why, in my view, is the aspect of unity so important today? I offer three reasons.

One, there are people in our society who hold strong views on these issues. Therefore, there is a potential here for Singapore to be torn apart by discord. Two, my hope is that Singaporeans can discuss our views on these issues peacefully. Where we disagree, let us express such disagreement respectfully and politely. What we are doing today, in this House, is to entrench what we seek to protect and remove a law that has a significant risk of being struck down. Three, by choosing to deal with this in Parliament, we are taking a deliberate and considered approach. Parliament, being made up of elected Members, has the requisite mandate to deal with these issues. And Parliament can do so with dexterity. No other institution can carry through such a legislative manoeuvre. It is hoped that the choice of deploying Parliament to deal with this issue is the best path for unity for our society. Unity – it is very important.

Sir, in conclusion, while there is no perfect solution, I think the formula we are putting forward today, both protects what is of vital importance to our nation and gives Singapore the best chance at unity.

So, let the decorum, tone and respect that we display during this debate in this House set a good example to all Singaporeans of how to deal with such difficult and sensitive issues in future. My prayer is that we will not be torn apart by discord but, instead, stay united as one nation.

In all our deliberations – present and future,

In all our debates – present and future,

In all our decisions – present and future,

Let not the unity of our nation be lost. [Applause].

Hazel Poa

 * See also: Hazel Poa's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDYs0sglO2Q

ZDYs0sglO2Q 

Transcript:

3.10 pm

Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue of whether 377A should be repealed has been a difficult one for Singapore.

When I last spoke in Parliament on this issue at the query of Minister Shanmugam, I said that there were two different views within PSP and we had no consensus at that time, similar to the situation in our society at large. Whilst there is a big group that does not feel very strongly about this issue, there is also a significant group that holds very strong and opposing views, and they are not easily persuaded. We were of the view that any attempts to forcefully reach a single position at that point would be divisive.

PSP believes that while we strive to establish common ground in core areas for unity, we also need to leave room for diverse viewpoints in other areas. Therefore, we believe that this is one issue where we should allow Members to hold on to their personal beliefs. Societal values evolve with time and laws evolve accordingly. Let society at large determine when is the right time to change this law.

Since then, we have held more rounds of lengthy discussions in yet another attempt to seek common ground. We recognise the unfairness of 377A on the gay community, but we also recognise the fears of many on the subsequent effect on families and the difficulties they face in reconciling with their religious beliefs. Our concern is again whether this issue would damage social harmony in Singapore, which is something that we value.

Eventually, recognising that 377A is unenforceable, some members were prepared to put aside their personal opinions and not pursue their objection to the repeal of 377A. With their compromise, PSP is now able to come to a party position of supporting the repeal of 377A.

In any society, contentious issues will always arise. Recognising that no one single person can have his way all the time and that taking turns to compromise is part and parcel of democracy, is a sign of maturity. The willingness to compromise is not a sign of weakness, but instead one of maturity, resilience and community spirit.

Many Singaporeans are concerned about the effect such a repeal will have on the institution of marriage. PSP's position is that the definition of marriage should be decided via a national referendum rather than by Parliament. This will allow the many Singaporeans who have expressed concerns to have a say in this matter.

The path towards political maturity is filled with gives-and-takes from all sides. PSP is confident that Singaporeans can do it and we will strive towards that direction.

Sun Xue Ling

 * See also: Sun Xue Ling's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8A8MON-YmM

T8A8MON-YmM 

Transcript:

3.14 pm

The Minister of State for Home Affairs and Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have spoken to groups who have the whole spectrum of views on this subject, often strongly held with regard to section 377A, given my roles at MSF, MHA and previously MOE. I would like to share on the engagements and the feedback from all these various groups and individuals.

First, I have met with groups such as Young Out Here, Greenhouse, Oogachaga, Sayoni, T Project and others who run support groups to help LGBTQ+ individuals. These ground-up initiatives provide a safe space for their community to come together and support one another, where they can be seen and heard, where they are not treated as invisible and where they will not be judged.

I understand that to the gay community, section 377A, while not actively enforced, is seen as society’s judgement of them – a rejection of their right to exist, criminalises their right to love and be loved in return, and makes them feel like a lesser citizen. It also hangs like the Sword of Damocles over them, since the law exists and reminds them that they are criminals even when what they are engaging in is a private, consensual act between two adults.

LGBTQ+ individuals may also suffer from stigma, discrimination and be disproportionately impacted by mental health concerns. At T Project’s shelter for their community, I saw how a small shelter for six persons was stacked with suitcases and personal items of about another 10 individuals. The owners of these items have no permanent abode and move from place to place as their life is often complicated by mental stress, poverty and unemployment. In conversations with Greenhouse, which runs a support group for 200-plus gay individuals, some shared that they have struggled since young to find acceptance from their family but love and acceptance were not forthcoming. This has consequences on their physical and mental health, ability to find and hold a job and increases their risk of committing offences and suffering from substance addiction. They shared that substance addiction becomes a coping mechanism for them when they are unable to find acceptance in society.

We understand their concerns and are working with social service agencies to be open and sensitive to the diverse needs of clients and to provide social support, regardless of their backgrounds and sexual orientations.

At the same time, I have also spoken to many individuals who are worried about where our society is headed should section 377A be repealed. In an engagement with over 100 members of the public who had written to their Members of Parliament, some youths recounted how they had experienced being ostracised or “cancelled” in schools and Universities because they were seen to be “conservative” and not advocating gay rights. Others spoke about how they were singled out at their workplaces because they are religious and, by default, seen to be homophobic and, therefore, at odds with the company’s diversity and inclusion policies. I saw a grandmother’s hand trembling, as she spoke about her grave concerns should Singapore go down the slippery slope as some other countries have after decriminalising gay sex.

I would like to clarify that employees are protected against discrimination under the Tripartite Guidelines for Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP), and these guidelines require employers to make employment decisions based on merit and factors relevant to the job. MOM is also looking at enacting workplace fairness legislation.

On being “cancelled” for one’s beliefs, the Government is looking into policy solutions to preserve space for persons of different views to share what they think, safely. But ultimately, what is important is that we maintain mutual respect when we engage with one another and not tear each other down.

I also met with leaders of religious groups, some of them four to five times. They have been steadfast partners in our nation-building. They have worked tirelessly to bring Singaporeans from different races and religions together to build common spaces and common values. The religious leaders shared views from their communities on section 377A – views anchored on hopes for Singapore to continue to be strong and stable and a place for families. Many of their congregants have a great sense of gratitude and pride in how far our nation has come and wish for nothing more than for our children and future generations to thrive and prosper and they see the heterosexual family unit as the bedrock of our society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all these individuals, gay or straight, from different walks of life, have stepped forward to share their views because they want to make Singapore a better place – a better place for future generations, to safeguard Singapore society, and safeguard a community. And I want to thank them for being considered in their approach and for sharing the views of their communities in a constructive manner. We have heard their views and will continue to work with them to navigate a way forward.

The two Bills that stand before us today allow us to repeal section 377A in a careful and considered way. The issue that stands before us is one of public policy, as to whether gay sex in the context of private sexual behaviour between consenting adults, should remain a crime under Singapore laws.

Having heard the views from various parties, the two Bills have been drafted with great care, and aim to address their concerns: (a) that the majority of Singaporeans still want the heterosexual family structure as norm; (b) most accept that private consensual sex between men should not be criminalised; and (c) for those who are against the repeal, the main concern is about what the repeal would mean for social norms, and not that they want to criminalise sex between men.

Though the Bills are voted on separately, they should be seen holistically because this is not a zero-sum game, where one side wins and the other side loses. And in the spirit of how the two Bills are drafted, we hope that Singaporeans, with all their varied views on the issue, can be united in our desire to find common ground so that we can move forward together. Let us be united in wanting Singapore to be a home for all, a tolerant and inclusive society, where all Singaporeans feel a sense of dignity and have collective confidence in our future. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in Parliament in 2007 that the Government had decided to retain section 377A but would not actively enforce the law. The decision was made on the basis of feedback from society at that time and was a temporary compromise. However, without repealing section 377A, legislation and law enforcement will not be fully consistent. Repealing section 377A can bring about consistency in law and practice, and make legislation and law enforcement more consistent.

Related to this, just as section 377A may be deemed unconstitutional in court, Singapore's definition of marriage may face similar challenges, resulting in laws and policies related to marriage being threatened. That is why we are proposing to amend the Constitution while repealing section 377A, to clarify that the Government has the power to enact laws to define and protect the institution of marriage, and to prevent the laws and policies related to the institution of marriage on the basis of one man and one woman from being constitutionally challenged.

Over the past few months, the Government and people from all walks of life have held many exchanges on the section 377A issue. Judging from the feedback from various quarters, most people support the repeal of section 377A.

Of course, there are also some polarised views in the exchanges. For example, some see homosexuality as immoral, while others want more rights for the gay community.

It is not necessarily a bad thing that there are opposing views in society. Singapore is a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural society, but we are proud of our harmonious co-existence. Each of us has a different family background, culture and education and there may be different views on a particular issue.

Some people are worried that homosexuals will cause social problems. But we can also see that some of them are in need of understanding and assistance from society. I have visited a mutual aid society that provides assistance to homosexuals, and some of them were not accepted by their families since young. Later, they encountered various problems in life, such as bullying, mental health problems, financial problems, and some felt that they had no way out when facing a crisis in life. These people are also fellow Singaporeans. We do not have to live in the same way as others, but we do not have to force others to live in the same way as us. Do not do unto others what we do not what for ourselves.

Inclusiveness is the solution to resolving differences. On the sensitive issue of homosexuality, we hope that groups with opposing views will be tolerant, understanding of each other, put aside their differences and seek a consensus.

In the process of interacting with the Chinese community, I understand that many people attach great importance to the traditional family-centric values and do not want to change the family values of Singaporeans just because section 377A is repealed. I agree with this view. The family is the cornerstone of society. Only when families are stable can our society be stable.

One of the first laws enacted by the PAP government since it took office was the Women's Charter in 1961. It is a landmark piece of legislation that protects women's rights, allowing only monogamous marriages between men and women to be legalised.

Since then, the Government has been supporting families in Singapore through various policies. For example, married households have always had priority in access to public housing and related subsidies. The Baby Bonus is also meant to encourage marriage and parenthood. The Ministry of Social and Family Development has also been actively promoting, educating and stressing the importance of the family through public education programmes. We also understand the challenges faced by different types of families, such as single parent families and divorced families. MSF will do our best to help them.

As far as the institution of marriage is concerned, we have to uphold it, not subvert it. Only then will we be able to ensure the continuity of policies and stability of society. Otherwise, current policies and laws relating to marriage, including policies such as the Baby Bonus and HDB flats, may face Court challenges in the future, which will complicate the issue.

Some people may ask, people are more concerned about bread-and-butter issues such as rising prices and housing, so why are we discussing the issue of section 377A now?

I would like to clarify that the Government is very concerned about bread-and-butter issues and is doing its best to address them. For example, 2.9 million Singaporeans will receive the Assurance Package next month to reduce the pressures of cost of living. The Government has also just announced an additional $1.5 billion assistance package last month to mitigate the pressures of global inflation.

Even as the Government solves these important bread-and-butter issues, it must also solve other problems. Repealing section 377A and safeguarding the marriage system also affect the lives of Singaporeans, who also need our attention. We have to solve not only macro problems, but also micro problems. Letting every Singaporean live with dignity and hope.

One important reason for the global inflation is because the current international situation is unstable. Sino-US relations continue to be tense, and the Russian-Ukraine war has continued for more than half a year, causing the prices of oil and other raw materials to soar. At a time when the international environment is unstable, Singapore must maintain its internal stability.

Today, we are moving two Bills at the same time, and I hope people can see the good intentions of the Government. The two Bills are one legislative package and cannot be separated, so as to preserve the balance and stability of the society.

On the one hand, repealing section 377A will better protect the freedom and rights of individuals and reduce social pressure on homosexuals. On the other hand, upholding the institution of marriage will help to maintain the stability of the relevant laws and policies and reduce the worries of various ethnic groups. Therefore, I hope that everyone will adopt an inclusive and balanced attitude towards the two Bills and move forward together as one united people.

In addition, I would like to thank the Chinese community for their understanding towards many social problems, and for always emphasising mutual respect and compromise, seeking common ground and harmony, when facing different social issues.

Some parents may have concerns about repealing section 377A, such as whether it will affect social mores.

With regard to social mores, it is inappropriate to be overly intimate in public, whether between men and women or between people of the same sex. Social mores also are not dependent solely based on the law. They require the concerted efforts of society, families and education. Each of us need to play a part.

I also know that parents love their children very much from the bottom of their hearts, hoping that they will grow up in a healthy and harmonious environment, find an ideal partner, and have a sense of security in their old age and enjoy family life.

I would like to say that inclusiveness is not the same as advocacy. We tolerate homosexuality and propose to repeal section 377A and decriminalise homosexuality, but we are not advocating a certain lifestyle or a certain social ethos.

It has not been easy to come up with these two proposals today.

Singapore is a multi-religious, multi-racial and multi-cultural society. Every racial and religious group has its own practices, customs, norms and beliefs. It is not easy to bring together such a diverse society. Hence, the government has always stressed the importance of safeguarding the common space, nurturing good citizens and upholding the principle of equality, regardless of race, language or religion. Only then can we unite and work for the progress of our country.

Repealing section 377A is a difficult decision. Even if we do our best to find a solution that will bring about a more balanced and harmonious society as a whole, there will still be people who are not satisfied with the outcome. But we must make the right decision for Singapore, a decision that is responsible to Singaporeans.

We propose to repeal section 377A to bring it in line with the law. At the same time, the institution of marriage should be preserved, not subverted. The two Bills strike a balance between freedom and stability, just like the two ends of the scale, which cannot be separated from each other, so as to achieve a balance and harmony in society as a whole. I hope you will see that the government has put in a lot of effort into this issue. I also urge everyone to continue to respect one another, put aside their differences, seek consensus and be inclusive of one another. We will continue to work hand in hand with Singaporeans to stay united and maintain our social harmony and prosperity.

Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim

 * See also: Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9KQEISqoiY

n9KQEISqoiY 

3.33 pm

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will focus my speech on two main areas: the legal context behind the necessity for the repeal of 377A, which I will deliver in Malay; and the need to support families and, especially, parents and educators in navigating the post-repeal of section 377A. In Malay, please.

(In Malay): I will touch on the need for the repeal of section 377A in the Penal Code, given the recent development of our Court of Appeal decisions.

By way of explanation: our Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If there is any Bill that contradicts the Constitution, then it is invalid and will expire.

In recent years, there have been many Court challenges and appeals about the constitutional status of section 377A. The argument is that this section violates the country's Constitution.

Following the latest ruling this year, the Minister for Law and Home Affairs, Mr Shanmugam, and our Attorney General have advised that there is a high possibility that section 377A will be struck down if it continues to be challenged in future Court cases.

The Court of Appeal in the case of Tan Seng Kee held that the section may not be consistent with Article 12 of the Constitution, which is the right to guarantee equal protection of the law for all Singaporeans. This is because section 377A only criminalises homosexual conduct between men and not in general. This may breach the Reasonable Classification Test in the interpretation of Article 12 in our Constitution in the case of Syed Suhail.

However, based on the assurance given by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in 2007 and the Attorney General in 2018 that this section will not be enforced, the Court of Appeal is of the opinion that it does not need to make a decision on the constitutionality of section 377A this time and the appellant has no locus standi or right to bring it to Court. This is due to the doctrine of legitimate expectations. However, the Court of Appeal recognises that the Attorney General presently, or in the future, is able to change the policy at any time. This means that the Court's opinion on the issue of locus standi or the doctrine of legitimate expectations can also change at any time. Hence, it is not a question of "if" but "when" section 377A will be struck down by the Courts when other cases are brought to Court.

Hence, I agree with the Government's approach to debate this issue in Parliament and not allow the Court to make a decision in the future.

Although our Singaporean society remains conservative when it comes to marriage and family, most of us do not want a person to be jailed simply because of his conduct under the section. Although we still differ in terms of religion, race, values or way of life, we are all human beings. And each of us has the same right to be protected under the auspices of fair and equitable laws for all citizens.

The amendment to the Constitution proposed today is important because it aims to protect the laws and policies of the Government based on the definition of family and marriage between men and women.

With this protection, no case can be brought to Court to challenge the constitutionality of the law that defines marriage between a man and a woman as well as Government policies that are based on the definition of marriage, including public housing, education and media policies.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill sends a signal that everyone must be equally protected under law.

At the same time, the amendment to the Constitution clarifies the Parliament's role to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage. The new Article 156(3) protects from a constitutional challenge the laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman and also laws and policies based on a heterosexual definition of marriage.

Notwithstanding this, I have met many residents in Keat Hong and Chua Chu Kang and members from various organisations and charities, including Malay/Muslim organisations, who are uncertain as to what future changes these amendments will bring.

I think it is important to actively engage families and parents on this issue and provide them with various avenues of counselling or parenting support. The same goes for our teachers and educators too. For the Muslim community, the common feedback from mosque or organisation leaders is that there is a need for clearer guidelines or capability training.

The new Article 156(2) states that the Government and public authorities may, in the exercise of their executive authority, promote the institution of marriage through public housing, education and media policies that promote and safeguard the institution of marriage.

In this regard, may I ask what are the plans of the Government to achieve this stated objective to "promote and safeguard the institution of marriage" and in particular, whether there are any plans to provide families, especially parents, with counselling or parenting support? In this regard, such parenting support or counselling should also provide for a faith- or value-based support, if such is available, so that the individuals would choose what suits them best.

Also, it is important to preserve the freedom of conscience in our schools, businesses and religious institutions so that our fellow Singaporeans are free to practise their belief, their faith or otherwise, without any fear of cancellation or reprisals against them.

I welcome the announcement by Minister Shanmugam and also by Minister of State Sun Xueling just now that the Ministries and agencies are looking into this. May I ask whether there is an update on this and whether a consultation feedback process will be undertaken?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, we need to continue to stand united together as fellow Singaporeans despite our differences in faith, values or belief. Let us not let this issue divide us but instead unite us.

Dennis Tan

 * See also: Dennis Tan's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ4K3sX11xk

VZ4K3sX11xk 

Transcript:

3.42 pm Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, today, the House is debating the Government's amendment Bill to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code and a proposed amendment on the Constitution to insert a new Article 156 relating to the institution of marriage.

In 2007, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that the Government will not proactively enforce section 377A and that has been the position since then. For the record, I still agree with the previous position of the Government in not enforcing section 377A.

Since the Government announced that it will be repealing section 377A of the Penal Code and after the subsequent announcement of the proposed constitutional law amendments, I have received feedback and spoken to many residents and Singaporeans of different races, religions and ages.

I have heard and read the views of members of the LGBTQ+ community, particularly, their unhappiness with perceived discrimination and different rights as compared to heterosexual couples in the areas of marriage, owning BTOs, rights of child adoption and so on.

I also heard much feedback from residents and Singaporeans of their concerns on the repeal. Many were concerned that we would be removing a symbolic social marker with such a repeal. People are also concerned with the societal changes they have seen in many countries in the areas of gender identity, sex education, marriage laws and public policy.

With the repeal, some will press for more changes in law and policy after the repeal, like what is seen in other countries, for example, in Australia and the US. They wonder to what extent the proposed amendments to the Constitution can prevent such changes.

Many express concern that the removal of such a marker may make it difficult for parents in setting down their family and social values at home. Many are also concerned they will be stopped from expressing their contrary views on sexuality after the repeal, including the fear of being cancelled.

Some are concerned that there will be name calling because of the view they take on sexuality in their workplace or for young people and children in their schools. People are also concerned that more changes will make society more divided.

Mr Speaker, some who are concerned with the repeal are of the view that the present position in law would represent the best balance. The Singaporeans I have spoken to or who have written to me with their reservations include those whose views may not be influenced by any religious views and also those of a wide age range.

Mr Speaker, I have considered different views and positions, many of which we have heard and we will hear in the House today. The proposed repeal presents a number of difficult issues for different groups of Singaporeans. The symbolism of section 337A is different to different groups, their differing views and even the experiences of individuals.

As a Member of Parliament (MP), in considering all issues, I am also guided by my own conscience in arriving at a position that I feel is right for our society and our people, even if some may disagree. Even as I do my best to analyse the issues for different segments of our population and my constituents, for reasons of my own conscience as guided by my own faith and beliefs, I find it difficult to support the repeal of 377A. I am personally troubled by the removal of the marker that it represents.

Mr Speaker, this has not been an easy decision for me because as an MP, I would like to represent all constituents as best as I can. I thank my party whip and party Secretary-General and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, for lifting the whip. I do not take this lightly. In fact, I made this decision with a heavy heart. This is both a most difficult decision and is the most difficult speech I have to make to date, given the divided issues at play for different segments of my constituents and for Singaporeans; being very careful not to cause hurt or offence and yet, having to be principled with my own beliefs. It is also not made easier because, like many fellow MPs and Singaporeans, I also have many friends and good friends who are from the LGBTQ community. Some have over time shared with me some of their difficult circumstances and experiences in life which makes my decision today even more difficult and humbling. I humbly seek their understanding.

Mr Speaker, a conscience vote is a very heavy responsibility an MP is required to discharge because it is a responsibility that each of us carries alone, guided by our own conscience.

Mr Speaker, next on the issue of the constitutional amendment. My colleague and my hon friend, Ms Sylvia Lim, has raised some concerns regarding the implications of the proposed carve-outs in the proposed Article 153 to exclude the Courts' role in ensuring conformity with the Constitution. While I agree that her concerns have some merits – and I look forward to the Government's assurances on these issues – I would still support the amendments for the reason that, as the Government is minded to push through the repeal of section 377A, if the repeal were to proceed without the proposed constitutional amendments, those who have reservations about the repeal may be even more concerned that there will be no other enhancement in law to address their concerns.

Mr Speaker, before I close, I would like to thank many of my constituents and many Singaporeans who wrote and spoke to me about the proposed repeal of section 377A, including both the groups who support the repeal and those who object to the repeal. I would also like to seek the understanding of my constituents and Singaporeans who may not agree with my decision. The position I take today does not change how I treat all my constituents and all Singaporeans. I will continue to serve all my constituents to the best of my ability.

Moving forward, I hope for greater understanding between those who share different views on LGBTQ and greater tolerance of different views. We may not always agree with each other on every issue, but we can, and should, agree to disagree. We should still love and respect each other no less as fellow human beings. And I hope that there will be more dialogue between those who share different views, so that there may be a better understanding and less polarisation.

Mr Speaker, I oppose the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, but will support the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill.

Hoon Hian Teck

 * See also: Hoon Hian Teck's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogtn5xpE1IE

ogtn5xpE1IE 

Transcript:

3.48 pm

Prof Hoon Hian Teck (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir. Each individual functions within a society, so there is a place for public debate about the laws and institutions which we would want to have in order to regulate life within that society.

At one level, I believe that this debate is about whether the family, defined as a marriage between a heterosexual couple, and their parenthood is the unit that forms the basic structure of a well-ordered society. Children are born into families and develop their complete lives, with the investment of their parents, who gave birth to them.

If we view the family, as just defined, as part of the basic structure of society, then we would want to have laws and institutions that support that family. We would want to strengthen this social norm and support the public commitment made by a man and a woman to be married to each other and to raise their children within the safety of their wedding vows.

Playing their complementary roles, fathers and mothers raise their children, who contribute to the orderly formation and further reproduction of society, over many generations. Research shows that the cognitive and the socio-emotional skills that are acquired in early childhood and their development is very much shaped by the family environment.

While it has to be acknowledged that there are major challenges that couples will have got to tackle, in order to keep their marriages healthy and to provide the best environment to raise their children, our laws and institutions must help to strengthen the culture, where husbands and wives give priority to building strong families, even when couples are economically disadvantaged, public policy, through early interventions in their children's lives can help to improve social mobility.

Society can, then, uplift the quality of life for future generations of citizens by supporting the husband and wife in their child-rearing activities. Singapore has made a transition from an economy built around factories that produce standard labour intensive goods for sale into the world market, to one that is more service-oriented and where the fourth industrial revolution will require workers to exercise a wide range of both cognitive and non-cognitive skills.

In such an economy, I believe the family remains the bedrock of society, where children learn complementary lessons from their fathers and their mothers, so that they develop the skills needed to become well-functioning future workers. We take for granted that as our parents have invested in our lives, it is our responsibility to provide care for them when they become old.

That responsibility is shared among siblings. Even when there are failures in particular cases, we hold as examples those who inspire us with their devotion to duty, to the care of their ageing parents. While the Government, through its public programmes provides assistance in various forms, much of the glue that holds a society together, comes from the constituent members within the family.

We should, in instituting our laws, convey through all means possible, the gratitude we feel for the complementary roles that our fathers and mothers play in raising us to become well-functioning adults. Departing from this norm, or what constitutes a family, I believe, leaves us in uncharted waters.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has reiterated that it has no intention to change the tone of society. It also affirms: "the family as the cornerstone of our social fabric, and marriage between a man and a woman." A strategy to redefine what constitutes a family from what the Government has reaffirmed as marriage between a man and woman and their parenthood, involves taking sequential steps to progressively bring about change.

In many historical cases around the world, where the structure of the family has been changed from the norm that the Government has reaffirmed, legislative changes have indeed taken place sequentially. Beginning with the decriminalisation, similar to the repeal of the law we are discussing today, to subsequently defining the family in a very different way from the basic structure of the family just mentioned.

These legislative changes make the definition of the institution of marriage, both contingent and subject to change. I believe that not repealing the law acts to bolster the achieving of the aims of the Government to keep the family form out of a marriage between a man and a woman, as a cornerstone of our social fabric for as long as possible, in the face of the many challenges to such an understanding of the family as the unit that forms the basic structure of society.

I believe that keeping the current law serves to provide an important marker to preserve the present structure of the family and its supporting institution. I believe that it is best not to repeal the law.

Mohd Fahmi Aliman

 * See also: Mohd Fahmi Aliman's views on homosexuality

At 4:12pm,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buchVIuhyI8

buchVIuhyI8 

Transcript:

3.55 pm

Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will be speaking in Malay, please.

(In Malay): Having engaged with residents within my constituency and the Malay-Muslim community and organisations, as well as being part of the NTUC and the Labour Movement in Singapore who regularly engages fellow leaders and workers, I appreciate their constructive feedback and concerns.

As such, I would like to raise three concerns relating to the repeal of section 377A, which I hope would be addressed henceforth. These three concerns relate to workplaces, family and education, specifically madrasah education in Singapore.

One the key tenets of good working experience for any workers is to have good workplace harmony.

Employers should ensure that their policies and practices provide an inclusive workspace that respects and is sensitive to different personal beliefs and values of all employees. They should not promote activities that may potentially give rise to bullying or discrimination.

NTUC believes that all employees should be treated fairly based on merit and should not be discriminated based on any non-job-related characteristics, which may include faith or identity.

NTUC calls on companies organising programmes or events for employees in support of diversity and inclusion causes to ensure that employees who choose not to attend such activities for non-job related requirements are not forced to join or made to feel discriminated for not participating. Non-participation must not affect the career progression of employees.

To better support both employers and workers in navigating workplaces in the future, I call upon the Government to consider setting guidelines or advisories that will provide clear guidance towards such activities at the workplace.

In Singapore, the family unit has been a critical pillar of society. Many policies, such as housing, are centred around the family unit or nucleus. I am heartened that the Government will continue to uphold the traditional family in its policies and in the law, as it works with stakeholders to chart a way forward.

At the same time, there is a pressing need to create a safe space for families to openly discuss matters pertaining to sexuality. In particular, parents and children ought to be able to freely discuss matters pertaining to sexuality without fearing stigmatization.

Parents who do not concur with the gay and homosexual community’s view of sexuality should not be publicly shamed. They should be free to share their beliefs with their children, underpinned by religious teachings or their worldview. Parents should be given the space to protect their children from any content they deem inappropriate, including matters pertaining to the gay and homosexual community. Therefore, I call upon the Government to further fortify the traditional family unit to ensure that it remains a safe space for families to discuss matters pertaining to sexuality.

Finally, the question of whether azatisah in madrasahs are equipped with the necessary knowledge to address matters pertaining to sexuality in the classroom.

Last year, in response to a Parliamentary Question raised by Ms. Mariam Jaafar, Mr. Masagos Zulkifli, Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs and Minister for Social and Family Development, mentioned, “Our madrasahs incorporate sexuality education in their existing curriculum for both male and female students. While this is not a standalone subject, it is covered substantially within the syllabus through topics like boy-girl relationships, gender, sexuality, and managing issues relating to self-image, puberty and adolescence, as well as managing peer pressure. These topics are targeted at students aged 13 to 16 years old.”

With the passing of this Bill, there is a concern over how it will affect sexuality education taught in madrasahs. Furthermore, it is unknown if additional training will be provided to equip asatizah with the skills required to address sensitive matters pertaining to sexuality and how such issues should be brought across to students. Therefore, the extent to which this Bill would influence sexuality education in madrasahs ought to be studied further.

Having listed my concerns earlier, I support the Bill in view of inclusivity in a diverse community.

Singapore is a diverse nation and would continue to be more diverse. Despite our differences, we are able to come together and build consensus on national issues. This is no different.

Therefore, I am in favour of this Bill as we are one big family, and the beliefs of every worker matters.

Leon Perera

 * See also: Leon Perera's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnK4of4Ccvs

MnK4of4Ccvs 

4.02 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to start by asking a simple question. What if you were born into a world where your actions marked you out as being in minority because most people do not want to do what you do. An unpopular minority. What if you were able to live your life in the society you were born into, but at the back of your mind, you could never get over this niggling fear, this fear that one day, the majority might turn against you, might bully you, might discriminate against you or worse. Each of us can close our eyes and imagine that we live in such a world.

And then imagine a different world, a different situation imagine that you hold dearly to a viewpoint as a matter of conscience, a viewpoint that others believe is deeply offensive and hurtful, even though to you it is a view that does not call for hurt towards any other human being. Rather, it is a view about what sorts of behaviours should be held up as moral markers in our society. Imagine that you cannot speak about that point of view that you hold, on pain of being cancelled, abused, or attacked on social media or worse. Each of us can close our eyes and imagine that we live in such a world too.

Sir, proponents of either side in the 377A debate may identify with either one or the other scenario, or perhaps some may identify with both scenarios at once. That is what is at stake in this debate. Are we to be divided between people who cherish the freedom to act in a certain way versus those who cherish the freedom to espouse views that are deep matters of conscience and never the twain shall meet? Will this be an unbridgeable chasm in our Singapore?

We have seen what such divisions about values can do in other countries. We can look at the culture wars in the USA, for example, an oft-quoted example, where differences in values, often with the religious dimension have become political and polarising. Another example, possibly is Turkey, where differences in values with the religious dimension have had huge political ramifications in the past and still do.

Politics is and should be about the contest of ideas, robust respectful debate about what is best for the country is a good thing, as most Singaporeans would probably agree these days. The truth, what is best for our country in our time emerges from such disagreement. Other things are needed for political progress, but there can be no progress without respectful, robust political debate.

But major political divides around values or on matters of conscience and religion are a different matter, to some extent. Such debates are often impossible to settle with reference to an agreed set of facts.

So, as we chart a path forward on these issues before the House today, before the country today, it is worth recalling a few truths that almost no one would disagree with on either side of the questions before us. Let us recall a few things that unite us.

Firstly, Singaporeans will have to decide these debates ourselves. The touchstone in our hearts should be what is best for and what is possible in this country we love, not some other country we know about. Secondly, I believe that no one in this debate is calling for the active enforcement of 377A. I know that this is the case for my colleagues in the Workers' Party, who have a different view from mine on 377A and with whom I have had many lively and meaningful discussions from which I have learned a great deal. I suspect that this would be the case for all other Members of this House, who can be taken to represent the political mainstream. Let us stop and reflect on that for a second.

That is hugely important. No one is saying discrimination is okay; no one is saying bullying is okay; no one is saying violence is okay. That is what unites the vast majority. Some on the fringe on either side may not agree but no one in the mainstream disagrees. Despite our worst fears, in my humble opinion, Sir, the middle ground on this issue is strong.

And Mr Speaker, Sir, given that no one is calling for the active enforcement of 377A in this debate, as we move on to unpack the issues, we must hold fast in our hearts to that realisation, because it is the truth that unifies and heals and strengthens.

So, what then is at stake, if it is not practical enforcement? What is at stake is the existence of 377A on our statute books as a moral marker, as a symbolic marker. And as I said in my recent speech on national symbols, the debate is not less important for that reason. It is far from trivial. It is important because symbols matter.

Mr Speaker, what divides us in this debate is whether to keep or throw out 377A in our body of law. I would like to argue that there is another issue that divides us, which is a subtext to the debate, a subliminal factor if you like. And that is the concern that if 377A is repealed and that moral marker is no longer, will those who do not view LGBTQ+ relationships as being consonant with their own personal values, will such people be cancelled from expressing their view, will the expression of their views, say religious views for example, be considered to be acts of hatred and discrimination?

In explaining my own vote today, I would like to address both these issues in turn. Before I do so, I would like to record my thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for lifting the whip in this debate and thus allowing Workers' Party Members of Parliament to speak and vote according to their conscience and deeply held values. Workers' Party Members of Parliament (MPs) do have a majority view but I support the right of each MP to vote according to their conscience on retaining or repealing 377A as a moral marker.

Sir, you do not get an issue that is more entwined with conscience than this. Yet, as I said earlier, no one in the Workers' Party is calling for 377A to be actively enforced.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to move on to my own view on repealing 377A. I support the repeal. First, I would like to talk about the rightful place of the law in policing private acts between consenting adults.

My own view is that there is a public sphere where the law has the right to intervene in private behaviour that has public consequences, even when that private behaviour is consensual on the part of all participants. For example, we have the offence of statutory rape where sex with the minor is criminalised. The minor may have consented, but the law recognises that the minor does not have the maturity to meaningfully consent. And I agree with this. Most of us would. But my own view is that the law has no place to intervene in private behaviour among truly consenting adults, provided there is no other public consequence thrown up.

Sir, I have received feedback from a number of Singaporeans, including my own constituents, who believe that consenting LGBTQ+ relationships do have such public implications. For example, some have made points about public health, some about our ability to reproduce as a nation, some about the undesirability of importing liberal values from the west and so on.

However, let us recall, this is a debate about keeping or throwing out 377A as a symbolic marker, not about actively enforcing it, where there is no disagreement. If we retain 377A as a symbolic marker, should we also introduce other laws into the statute books as symbolic markers without enforcement such as, for example, for illustrative purposes, laws encouraging healthier sexual behaviour, or laws encouraging Singaporeans to have enough children to lift our total fertility rate? Or laws to oppose liberal cultural ideas?

I do not think we should and I do not believe anyone is calling for this. Therefore, by the same token, there is a case to repeal 377A as unnecessary because symbolic markers are not inserted into our body of laws for other issues of importance. And also, because free and respectful conversation about symbolic markers can and should continue completely independently of the law and criminal penalties. Such respectful conversations have a place. I shall return to this in the later part of my speech.

There are other better ways to register our views on matters of conscience, ways that are pursued outside of the realm of laws and criminal penalties.

Sir, my next argument for supporting a repeal of 377A is that retaining a law that is not actively enforced, based on the word of the government of the day, is unsatisfactory and dangerous. No doubt, the current Government has declared that it will not proactively in enforce 377A and the Attorney General has said that the Public Prosecutor will hue to this. But this leaves the door open to a future government and Attorney-General's Chamber (AGC) to reverse this stance.

More importantly, such an approach to the law, in my mind, places too much power in the hands of the government and AGC to decide what laws should be enforced and what laws should absolutely not be enforced. It leaves too much to prosecutorial discretion and too little to the rightful province of Parliament in making these laws and the Courts to interpret them.

To keep a law that has a serious impact on the lives of many Singaporeans on the basis that it is a marker that will not be enforced by the current Government is not in my opinion, how we should go about making good laws. Markers can be created and conveyed respectfully in other ways without incorporating them into our laws.

Which brings me to the last part of my speech on 377A, the part that addresses the subtext. Will removing 377A mean that in the wider society, those of a religious persuasion or who are otherwise persuaded, cannot express their views freely about LGBTQ+ relationships, which may be prescribed in religious faith?

Sir, the freedom of religion is protected under our Constitution. Article 15 protects the right of each Singaporean to profess, practise and propagate their religion. Freedom of speech is also protected by Article 14(1) of our Constitution.

Making these arguments about 377A – I also want to make another argument – those who question LGBTQ relationships on the grounds of religion or other considerations rooted in personal conviction should be free to express their views respectfully. As I said earlier, the mainstream of opinion among Singaporeans who want to retain 377A is not to call for its active enforcement and not to condone bullying and discrimination against LGBTQ individuals of any kind. This is a huge point in favour of the common ground, the strong middle in this debate.

And I would argue that as the mirror image of that, those who questioned LGBTQ relationships on the grounds of religious faith or deep personal conviction should have the freedom to espouse their views respectfully, making clear that they regard everyone equally as a citizen, but they hue to their deep personal convictions on this matter. They should not be cancelled. They should not be demonised. To criticise a choice someone makes in their personal life is not tantamount to criticising, denigrating or disenfranchising that person. But this depends, of course, on how that criticism is made. I recognise that.

Already, as it stands, some religious teachings do constitute criticisms of certain acts not deemed illegal. Likewise, those of a different persuasion, those who believe in LGBTQ equality have the right to respectfully criticise opposing views.

Is such respectful speech where we agree to disagree even possible? I will return to this topic in the last part of my speech today. Before I leave the subject of repealing 377A, Mr Speaker, Sir, I must say that it is my personal conviction that every individual should be treated equally regardless of sexual orientation.

Why? I personally believe that the principles of equality and fairness demand this. I say that as those are rational principles, but I also say that as a human being with the emotional make-up that that entails. As a human being, I close my eyes and imagine if I lived in a world, where what I deeply feel and who I love are held to be fundamentally wrong by many or most of my fellow human beings, are at odds with the social mores I see everywhere around me, reflected in the media, culture, education, religion. I imagine being in that place. The pain that comes from that sharp disconnect between the inner life and the outer reality cannot be described in words easily. That inequality needs to be addressed.

Sir, I would like to move on now to the amendment to the Constitution. Sir, this amendment to the Constitution which has been tabled today, holds that Parliament has the right to decide on the definition of marriage. I see no reason to disagree with this. On a matter such as the definition of marriage, which is deeply cultural, the law should be made democratically by the people of Singapore, whose voice Parliament reflects. Such laws should be made by the legislature, which is accountable to the people directly, and not by the Courts, which have no such direct accountability.

Sir, the Workers' Party Chair, Ms Sylvia Lim, has made some important arguments about why this amendment is unsatisfactory, in a sense redundant and sets a bad precedent. I agree with the points she has made, which come from a good lawyer's understanding of constitutional law; and I say this as a non-lawyer.

Nevertheless, as a legislator, I believe that the amendment does signify a correct principle, one I agree with. And I believe that it is a useful signifier to establish, however imperfect the mechanism and wording of it may be on grounds of legal scholarship. So, I support it on that basis.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, where do we go from here? How can we move forward as one united people, as a democratic society?

Surely, the answer to that question is to cultivate the ability for Singaporeans to talk to each other respectfully and rationally, to decide on important matters that way, to decide our politics that way, to decide our laws that way, to agree to disagree that way, when perfect consensus cannot be forged – as it cannot on a range of issues, not only on section 377A.

For example, in this House we debated the issue of hiking GST versus alternative revenue-raising mechanisms that the Workers' Party put forward. We did not find consensus but there were points of agreement. But in that GST debate, the debate turned on rational argument and ultimately philosophic considerations of a secular nature.

Here, the debate comes down to matters of deep personal conviction that is less easily resolved with reference to agreed facts.

Will we succeed in cultivating the ability to respectfully disagree on such matters where much of the rest of the world has failed? Will we succeed in preserving our unity and not allowing these disagreements, that are so hard to resolve by debate, to become political rifts?

Sir, we will not, not completely and not by making straight line progress. These views are very deeply rooted and passionate on both sides. But can we succeed in moving the needle towards this ideal, so that more and more and more of our national discourse gradually becomes like this, not in a straight line, maybe a zig-zag, messy line, but moving more and more towards a dominant paradigm that says that we can respectfully agree to disagree and tomorrow we will still be fellow Singaporeans, still be brothers and sisters, still defend the political centre and push those spewing hatred, bigotry and violence to the fringes?

Can we hold different views that may never be reconciled and have those views respectfully played out in civil discourse, bearing in mind the place of our laws and the place of freedom of speech and religion in a healthy balance, bearing in mind that we are all citizens, equal before the law?

Can we move forward by respectfully agreeing to disagree without demonising the one we disagree with but embracing him and her as our fellow citizen, our colleague, our brother and our sister?

Can we do this, Sir? I think we must. I do not know for a fact that we can or will. But I do know this. From my discussions I have had with my Workers' Party colleagues who have expressed or will express different views from mine in Parliament today on 377A, I would like to say that I am optimistic that Singapore can do it. Why? Because my colleagues and I strive together for a democratic society. We work alongside each other. And on this issue, we debated, discussed, learnt from one another, agreed to disagree with respect and humility and affection, and we decided democratically.

Lim Biow Chuan

 * See also: Lim Biow Chuan's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwt1kqtpISs

Nwt1kqtpISs 

Transcript:

4.19 pm

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, in 2007, when Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Mr Siew Kum Hong petitioned to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code, I spoke to support the Government's position of retaining section 377A. I argued that Parliament should make laws to reflect the public morality of our times. The messaging by the Government is important – that Singapore is a society whereby the family unit is still seen as the basic structure of society. Further, the Government had indicated that there will not be proactive enforcement of those who are gays.

At that time, Prime Minister Lee had said that the Government had decided to keep the status quo despite the legal untidiness and the ambiguity. Prime Minister Lee said, "It works, do not disturb it. It works, do not disturb it."

Thus, 15 years later, when Prime Minister Lee made his announcement during the National Day Rally in August that the Government intends to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code, I was taken aback. What is the intended signal by the Government when it announced its intention to repeal this law? How do we explain to the many Singaporeans who are still pro-family and worried about the decline in family values?

I spoke to many Singaporeans who had expressed their concern about the repeal. Many of them said that they do not wish to see homosexuals being prosecuted as criminals. But yet, they are concerned whether the repeal would lead to an erosion of family values and an increased number of gay people. And I believe that many Members of Parliament (MPs) in this House have received letters from concerned residents who expressed similar concerns.

To keep an open mind about this issue, I also spoke to different groups of citizens who felt that we should allow those who are homosexuals to live the lifestyle that they wish. They opine that is not the Government's business to tell our citizens, especially those who are gays, how to lead their lives. While some expressed concern about the open expression of homosexual relationship like hands holding and public kissing, they felt that there is no need to make this behaviour a criminal offence. Hence, it appears that the advocacy by the homosexual community over the years has made our citizens more accepting of gay people. There are also a number of citizens who felt very neutral about the matter. They have no views on the issue at all. In other words, it is not their concern.

Sir, in 2007, I had said, "the majority of Singaporeans do not condemn a homosexual or a gay simply because of his lifestyle. Nor do they wish to criminalise a homosexual." Minister Indranee Rajah, when she was a backbencher, had also, in her speech said, "I think we do not want to have a situation where we demonise homosexuals. We certainly do not want to regard them as anything less than Singaporeans."

The Government's stand at that time was articulated by Prime Minister Lee when he said, "There are gay bars and clubs. They exist. We know where they are. Everybody knows where they are. They do not have to go underground. We do not harass gays. The Government does not act as moral policemen. And we do not proactively enforce section 377A on them."

Since the Government does not actively enforce section 377A on homosexuals, the question is whether is it time for Singapore to repeal section 377A today? Is the Singapore society more accepting of homosexuals in our midst? Will the repeal of section 377A mean that the family is no longer the basic building block of society?

Sir, the introduction of Article 156 relating to the institution of marriage has given me great comfort. It reinforces the Government's stand that the definition of marriage and laws to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage should be for Parliament to decide. And that Parliament's power to make such laws on marriage cannot be challenged under Part 4 of the Constitution to be discriminatory. It gives assurance to many Singaporeans that the repeal of section 377A will not lead to a drastic shift in societal norms.

Sir, I am also heartened by the commitment made by Prime Minister Lee and Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong that there will not be any change in the definition of marriage during their watch.

Sir, after speaking to many Singaporeans across a wide spectrum, I have concluded that it is time to repeal section 377A. Many Singaporeans have accepted that homosexuals are fellow Singaporeans living in our midst and doing their part to contribute to Singapore. Societal norms have changed over the years. In particular, many of the younger generation are accepting of the homosexual people. And similar to the position of many Singaporeans, which I alluded to 15 years ago, we do not wish to see homosexuals being criminalised.

But the message that I heard from many Singaporeans is that we need to protect marriage as a union between man and woman, that we need to support values that promote the role of the family as the basic building block of society, that we need to protect Singaporeans from being intimidated or harassed simply because they disagree with the lifestyle of the gay community. Many within the religious community are also concerned whether the repeal of section 377A would lead to a situation whereby the religious leaders cannot tell their congregation that they do not agree with the practice of homosexuality. The religious leaders are concerned that they cannot pray for someone who is homosexual to reflect on God's command. In other words, the religious leaders lose their freedom to preach on what is acceptable or wrong based on their faith. And that is their concern.

There are many who expressed concern about the intolerant views of some gays who attack anyone who disagree with their homosexual views. There are fears about the activism of some of the LGBT community who push their ideology that their world view should be seen as the norm and acceptable. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with their world view should be condemned and ostracised.

In Australia, when the Government held a postal ballot on same-sex marriage, it resulted in vitriolic abuse against people holding views in opposition to the legalisation of same-sex marriage. An Australian politician said, "A culture has developed whereby it is acceptable to vilify, mock, abuse and shame anyone who stands in the way, or even raises questions, about whether we should legalise same-sex marriage. I have been called a homophobe, a bigot and been told that my views are disgusting." So, said the Australian politician. And when such strong and intimidating language is used, it is impossible to hold a civil debate or respectful discussion about any topic regarding the gay community.

Sir, I met with the organisers of the Protect Singapore Townhall. They told me that their townhall meeting was almost cancelled because of complaints and threats by the gay community. They complain that the minority in the gay movement are refusing to allow anyone to have a conversation about their concerns regarding homosexuality. Sir, I think this is sad because many homosexuals that I know are very decent people. And I have deep respect for such people because their sexual preference is really not an issue to me. But because of this small minority of militant homosexuals, they give the others a bad name by being bullies and by being difficult in their conduct.

Sir, I have also received feedback that employees in international organisations or MNCs located within Singapore, they are harassed in their workplace if they do not support the gay beliefs or if they refuse to attend a pride event. Thus, it seems like there is a reversal of role. It is not the gays who are being discriminated in Singapore. On the contrary, if you do not agree with the pro-gay movement, you may be penalised at work or face discrimination. And likewise, for students studying in international schools, they are asked to take part in gay themed projects as if it was part and parcel of the school curriculum.

I urge the Government to look into this and ensure that no organisation, company or school in Singapore can compel their staff or students to participate in gay community projects if they do not subscribe to the same values. I submit that every organisation, company or school must have the scope to allow their employees or students to subscribe to different views on sexuality without being discriminated or having to receive hate mail.

I also urge the Government to consider legislation to make it an offence for anyone to put out hate messages or derogatory comments just purely to intimidate others into keeping silent. And this law should apply equally to those who are anti-gay and those gays who seek to bully others into silent submission. Sir, there should be no space for people to propagate hate messages within Singapore. Let me say that again. There should be no space for people to propagate hate messages within Singapore.

Even as we move to repeal section 377A, I hope that the Government will also make clear its stand that our policies on sexuality education in schools, our content guidelines for publications, for video games and various type of media will remain pro-family, that we will not see a proliferation of materials, video games or media advertisements promoting the gay lifestyle, that we will not have laws that allow individuals to remove their gender in their NRIC or passport and that the Government will remind all organisations, companies and even embassies operating in Singapore that we are still a society that values family as the basic building block of society.

Sir, I support the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code and the amendment to the Constitution to insert Article 156 to the Constitution.

Gerald Giam

 * See also: Gerald Giam's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v79j-VvohvI

v79j-VvohvI 

Transcript:

4.55 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government has decided to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code. Since this plan was first revealed, many Aljunied GRC residents have reached out to me to express their views about this issue. Residents spoke to me during my house visits, came to my Meet-the-People Sessions, sent me WhatsApp messages, emails and petitions, and wrote detailed letters explaining their arguments. Several invited me to their homes, where they gathered their friends and family to passionately express their concerns and urge me to raise them in Parliament.

This included representation from members of the LGBT community who see section 377A as a law that discriminates against them and victimises them and who support its repeal. I acknowledge these sentiments as they cut to the core of how members of the LGBT community see themselves. My constituents' feedback can be grouped into several, sometimes, overlapping, categories.

First, there are concerns that the repeal of section 377A will remove an important societal marker and open the door to an erosion of traditional values in our society.

Second, some are worried that after this law is repealed, there will be a domino effect on other regulations and policies, leading towards a normalisation of homosexuality in our society – from changes to sexuality education in schools to more liberal media portrayals and eventually, the legalisation of same-sex marriage.

Third, many, especially those from the younger age groups, are concerned that as the societal narrative shifts, they will find it harder to freely express their own beliefs without being labelled as homophobic. They worried about getting cancelled or suffering discrimination in school or at the workplace because of their beliefs.

Fourth, some have expressed concerns that the higher health risks of some types of sexual practices are not being adequately communicated to young people for fear of sounding discriminatory.

Fifth, others are worried that the disruption to the current equilibrium will lead to an increase in advocacy by groups on both sides and spark the type of culture wars seen in other nations, which will present challenges to Singapore's national cohesion.

Sixth, some have argued that the LGBT community is already disadvantaged by the laws that support the heteronormative family and that repealing section 377A does not confer any tangible disadvantages on those who oppose the change. These residents are of the view that section 377A should be repealed.

Seventh, residents on both sides of the debate have cited the need to live and let live and call for greater tolerance of different views.

These are diverse and often opposing positions on what is clearly a very controversial issue. Those at one end of the spectrum rue the day that this marker is removed while those on the other see it as one of the many social changes they wish to see in our country.

I have also noticed a large middle ground which does not have strong opinions on this issue and is more concerned about bread and butter issues.

There is in fact some agreement on both sides of the divide. Both agree that section 377A bears significant symbolic weight in our society. They both also anticipate that the repeal of section 377A will open the door to many more challenges to the prevailing norms in our society.

These are all valid concerns and sincere feedback expressed by Singaporeans, all of whom have the interest of our nation at heart. They included young, middle-aged and older Singaporeans.

Listening to constituents on both sides of this contentious debate presented challenges for me on how to raise them both in this House. I see it as my responsibility as a Member of Parliament to reflect the feedback and concerns of my constituents in this House. However, as an elected representative, I will also need to take a stand and vote on these Bills.

My vote will be based, first and foremost, on what I believe is in the best long-term interests of our nation. This will take into consideration the viewpoints of my constituents and my own conscience.

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is my sincere belief that retaining section 377A without enforcing it provides the best balance of the conflicting interests in our society. I have come to agree with what the Prime Minister said in Parliament on 23 October 2007 when he explained that the Government was retaining section 377A but not proactively enforcing it. This was, to quote the Court of Appeal, a "political compromise" that was "conceived with the express intention of accommodating divergent interests, avoiding polarisation and facilitating incremental change".

Attorney-General Lucien Wong took further steps in 2018 by noting that the Police will not proactively enforce section 377A, for instance, by conducting enforcement raids. He added that the Public Prosecutor has taken the position that prosecution of two consenting adults in a private place under section 377A, absent other factors, would not be in the public interest. This assurance was strengthened when the Court of Appeal wrote in February 2022 that section 377A is "unenforceable in its entirety" unless and until the Public Prosecutor of the day provides clear notice that he intends to reassert his right to enforce section 377A proactively by way of prosecution and will no longer abide by the representations made by Attorney-General Lucien Wong in 2018.

Section 377A is, therefore, no longer a Sword of Damocles hanging over men in same-sex relationships. They will not be prosecuted or convicted under section 377A for consensual sexual acts done in private. Furthermore, section 377A has never criminalised same-sex attraction between men or same-sex relations between women.

The final reason for the vote I am about to cast is that my conscience does not allow me to vote in favour of a repeal of section 377A. I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for lifting the whip on Workers' Party Members of Parliament for a vote on both these Bills. This permits Workers' Party Members of Parliament to cast "conscience votes" on these Bills.

Sir, I entered politics almost 14 years ago because I wanted to contribute to the democratic development of our country and propose policies that will improve the welfare of our people. It is important to me and the example that I have set for my children that I hold fast to the values that I have established to be true, without wavering because of political headwinds. Whilst some, especially those in the LGBT community and many of my friends, residents, party members and volunteers, may strongly disagree with my position, I hope that they will accept that these are my sincerely held values which I am trying my best to uphold. My vote is not an attack on their values nor a diminishing of their humanity in any way.

Some have criticised me for allowing my faith to inform my vote in Parliament, arguing that the two should be kept separate. However, what one member, informed by their faith and conscience, believes to be in the best interests of the country in some issues may differ from what another member believes. This issue is, certainly, one of them.

I have been told in my face by a constituent that he will not vote for me in the future because of my stand on this issue. I accept the importance that many Singaporeans place on their elected Members of Parliament's positions on these Bills to the extent that it will be a factor in their decisions at the polls. However, I hope Singaporeans will consider the broader issues at hand. There are too many important issues that affect the lives of Singaporeans for one's vote to be decided based on this single issue.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this has been one of the most difficult speeches to prepare. I was worried I might come across as prejudiced against members of the LGBT community. Hand on heart, I am not. LGBT persons are human beings worthy of the same amount of love and respect that we accord to any other person. Many are our family members, friends, colleagues and fellow Singaporeans. Disagreeing with LGBT positions is not an attack on LGBT persons. In fact, I hope that my speech will open up a platform for more difficult but respectful conversations on this issue.

However, we must recognise that LGBT issues are sensitive issues, just like race and religion. People who subscribe to one faith do not force their belief on others. Religious beliefs are also not taught as facts in our school curriculum that students are expected to accept without question. Similarly, we should treat LGBT issues as sensitive topics, just like religion. We should not force people to accept one view or another, with the risk of being labelled as bigoted or immoral. This is not to say that the issue should not be discussed at all. On the contrary, discussion should be encouraged, but as a balanced discussion on different viewpoints, not as a lesson on facts.

It is inherent in a society as diverse as Singapore's that there will be fundamental differences in values and world views among our people. This need not be a source of conflict. While we may disagree on some issues, there are so many other issues that we agree on and can work together to advance. We do not need to descend into labelling, name-calling or questioning the worth of our fellow human beings. Instead, we need to open up spaces for our people to hold different views at work, in schools and even within families. By looking beyond our differences and working together on what we have in common, we will build that better society we all aspire towards. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will vote against the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill and vote for the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 3) Bill.

Baey Yam Keng

 * See also: Baey Yam Keng's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARR_G_z6t78

ARR_G_z6t78 <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

5.06 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Sustainability and Environment and Minister for Transport (Mr Baey Yam Keng): Mr Deputy Speaker, Prime Minister Xavier Bettel of Luxembourg, Deputy Prime Minister Grant Murray Robertson of New Zealand, father of theoretical computer science and artificial intelligence Alan Turing, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Olympian swimmer Ian Thorpe and diver Tom Daley, poet and playwright Oscar Wilde, actor Sir Ian McKellen, local theatre director and actor Ivan Heng, singers Sir Elton John, Ricky Martin, George Michael and Freddie Mercury – these individuals are some notable men in the fields of government and politics, science and technology, business, sports, arts and entertainment who are openly gay.

These examples do not mean any direct correlation between their sexual orientation and their talent or achievements. There are many people, who just happened to be gay, who have made contributions to society in their own way, whether in their profession or just as individuals. These are people who walk among us every day. They are our friends, our family members, our colleagues and our peers. They should be treated any lesser for what they would like to do in private. We need to be inclusive of different lifestyles, just as we like to have the choice and freedom to lead our private lives in peace.

The repeal of section 377A is the right thing to do if we are to ensure that Singapore is an inclusive and diverse place to live in and for everyone to be a part of.

I spoke in 2007 in support of a repeal. That was 23 years after the last review of the Penal Code. I said then that I hope we would not take another 23 years to address this again. I am glad that our Government made that decision today.

Over the last 15 years, public sentiment has evolved. There is a shift away from our previous views, especially more evident among the young, who feel that there is injustice that there are penalties targeted specifically at sexual acts between men.

On the reinforcement of the institution of marriage by the amendment in the Constitution, I welcome it. It signals the pro-family stance of the current Government and population. It is also the right thing to allow the definition of marriage to continue be covered by the Women’s Charter. If and when the majority of our population or Parliament feels that the current definition needs to change, that should be for our future generation to decide. It is important that the provisions and any amendments to the Constitution are carefully considered, otherwise it loses its value through capriciousness and constant changes. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Older Singaporeans should have seen or heard of the movie "Cousin Wan Jun". It is a 1965 movie adapted from the novel "Chasing” in Qiong Yao's “Six Streams" series. The movie tells the love stories of the girl Wan Jun and her three cousins as they grew up.

This reflects the olden days when people like to strengthen family ties by marrying relatives, whether through matchmakers or even arranged marriages before birth. Now, people have better knowledge of genetic science and understand that marriage between relatives will significantly increase the incidence of genetic disorders and children born with deformity.

Bai Ju Yi said in his poem, “With 3,000 concubines in the palace, their love is only concentrated on one person”. In ancient times when polygamy was the norm, the emperor had multiple wives. In fact, we do not have to go back to the imperial era. Although my grandfather and maternal grandfather were neither officials nor come from rich families, both of them had two wives. Of course, this is an offence now.

These two examples remind us that many customs and even laws change with the progress of society and science. The process can take hundreds and thousands of years, decades or just a few years. This constitutional amendment will protect the current definition of marriage while other national policies relating to marriage and family will remain unchanged. However, the current definition of marriage between men and women will continue to be covered by the Women's Charter. In other words, if, one day, more than half of the Members of Parliament or population agree to amend the Women's Charter and expand the definition of marriage, it would be a new law and need not garner two-thirds of votes as required for an amendment to the Constitution.

This is how democracy works. Our generation should not and does not have the right to set a higher bar on the issue involving someone's lifetime happiness, depriving the next generation of the chance to make a decision for themselves. Several of my friends are gay. I have never looked at them differently. They include professionals from all walks of life. Some have been living with the same-sex partner for decades and are faithful. Some are also public-spirited, contributing to society and the community.

Some Singaporeans may not have known or come into contact with homosexuals directly. But I think you would have heard of these names: Taiwanese writer Pai Hsien-yung, Golden Horse award-winning director Tsai Ming-liang, Hong Kong director Stanley Kwan, founder of Cloud Date Dance Theatre Lin Hwai-min, Hong Kong singers Anthony Wong and Leslie Cheung, lyric writer Lin Xi, and Cantonese Opera singer Ren Jian-hui. These are household names in the Chinese arts, culture and entertainment scene. Their talent has provided us with much spiritual food and entertainment. They have countless loyal readers, audience and fans. They openly admitted that they were homosexuals.

They live in a more conservative and traditional oriental society and have probably gone through a lot of struggles, from knowing their sexuality and accepting that they like same-sex relationships, to coming out of closet and accepting public scrutiny, or even criticism. This takes great courage.

If we enjoy their novels, lyrics and songs they have written and like their movies and stage productions, but on the other hand, we want to control their private lives by law and not allow them to be intimate with their loved ones, aren’t we too selfish and overboard?

Hence, I support the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code to decriminalise gay sex.

(In English): People's views and social norms do change over time. In the past, it was unusual for men to wear earrings, remove body hair, or perm their hair. For women to wear skirts that do not extend below their knees, or for anyone besides gangsters to have tattoos. Now we see these expressions of individuality frequently in our everyday lives. We should not tie our future generations to be restricted by today's traditions and norms. Instead, we should advocate for more freedom for them to decide how they want to live their lives.

It is difficult to predict how society will change in the future and how our children and grandchildren decide to govern themselves then. It is important that the members of Singapore's LGBTQ+ community are not discriminated against for choosing how they want to live their lives and for who they love. Nevertheless, changes in public perception will take time and we will act accordingly if and when these sentiments are ripe.

Today, we are addressing an act of intimacy, in this case for men with men. Just like every other kind of relationship, let us continue to maintain discretion in the public display of affections. Therefore, the advocacy of specific rights before our society is ready may do more harm than good. We aim to be more progressive, but we must ensure that our direction and steps are carefully considered.

Today, we are taking a step towards a more tolerant and inclusive Singapore. We are debating on the issue of the freedom to love. Let us continue to keep the love for everyone in Singapore's society.

I support the repeal of section 377A and the amendment of the Constitution to protect the prevailing definition of marriage.

Alex Yam

 * See also: Alex Yam's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Fc_Jjk-6E

c2Fc_Jjk-6E <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

5.18 pm

Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a debate that I have thought long and hard about. It is an issue close to my heart and also to many conservative Singaporeans at large.

Section 377A has been a key flash point of debate on societal norms, traditional values, freedom, equality any many other topics. This very House has also seen many a fiery and passionate debate over the last two decades on this issue. In our Courts, it has witnessed a share of constitutional challenges as no other law, perhaps, has seen. And it is with the most recent challenge in the Courts that has brought us here today.

For many, 377A represents a bulwark against a perceived counter-cultural tide that may engulf society should the law be done away. This has held true for many years, in particular the last 15, following the political compromise of 2007. But it was an uneasy compromise as each constitutional challenge risked it being struck down by the Courts rather than legislated by Parliament. By not proactively enforcing 377A also in essence made it redundant as a law.

At this point it is worth noting that for most conservatives, opposition to the repeal of 377A is premised not on the act nor the actors itself, but what the repeal may lead to – what I alluded to earlier, of that tide, or slippery slope of what they view as same-sex unions, adoptions and surrogacy by same-sex couples becoming the norm.

Recent interviews with apex religious leaders in the media show that it remains a complex issue. However, they do acknowledge that the prerogative of repeal lies with Parliament, as long as the rights of the religious are protected, what they believe in and what they can preach.

As a parliamentarian, my public duty is to make laws that are for all Singaporeans. But I am not just a legislator. As other Members have mentioned, we are guided by our culture, our faith and the environment that we grow up in. I am a Catholic by faith, guided by the teachings of my faith to discern with justice decisions that are moral. I am also a father and a husband, whose moral duty it is to ensure stability and well-being for my children and family.

So, I arrive at today’s debate having wrestled with all my roles and responsibilities. I also arrive having had the opportunity over the last few months to have robust, intense and passionate discussions with fellow legislators on this topic, and many constituents and Singaporeans who have corresponded with me and feel passionately about this issue – on both sides. I am deeply appreciative of the willingness of all sides of the debate to have listened rationally and respectfully to each other to arrive at a common ground.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me first speak on the constitutional amendment. I will state what I believe marriage to be.

Marriage is a bond that draws a man and woman together. It is a natural relationship framed not just by love but promises of commitment and responsibility. Marriage aligns with the way in which men and women live interdependently and bring out the best of each other. Marriage is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman, joined in an intimate community. It is the bedrock of families and conversely, society as well.

A man and a woman commit themselves to each other, for better or for worst, to the wondrous responsibility of bringing children into the world and caring for them. The call to marriage is also woven deeply into how society works, into the human spirit itself. Man and woman of course, are equal, however, are created differently but made for each other. This sexual difference draws them together in a mutually loving union that should be always open to family.

Therefore, erasing the connection between gender and marriage changes the fundamental nature of a marital union, which is to nurture society’s next generation. Unlike other relationships, marriage has the potential to create and nurture new lives, making it a unique institution.

For these reasons, states recognise the marriage of a man and woman as a public institution in its laws. Marriage is protected and honoured because it makes an exclusive and indispensable influence over the common good of society. The real problem today is a view that marriage as simply a formality or a fad with no social obligations, that it is just a private and personal decision between two persons with nothing to do with wider society.

But marriage is not just a religious or cultural institution. It is a legal institution as well. In a heterosexual marriage, by bringing children into the society, the state has an obligation towards the couple and their children. For this reason, marriage requires the state to intervene and regulate it because of the social implications. If it is just a relationship between two ordinary people, we do not regulate ordinary friendship or even platonic friendships.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in preparing for this debate, I was cautioned by quite a number of people that to speak against redefinition of marriage signifies perhaps, a failure to keep up with the times. That those of us who hold on to the traditional definition of marriage are conservative and old-fashioned – out of touch with reality.

Yet, earlier this year, a poll did find that a majority of Singaporeans oppose same-sex marriage. Some 66% also agree with a proposal to perhaps consider enshrining marriage as “only between a man and a woman". Those who share these sentiments are called out online and accused of blind prejudice, of being bigots. In fact, I accept, as many Members have alluded to, that in taking a stand about this, I and other Members open ourselves to disagreement by others; strong disagreement at times. I appreciate, therefore, this opportunity for a respectful debate in this House. Because in a democracy, it is important that the viewpoints of all citizens can be heard and taken into consideration.

I do support the constitutional amendment, but as some would be aware, I would have preferred to push for heterosexual marriage to be enshrined or codified as a fundamental liberty in our Constitution. Yet, I acknowledge that that same high bar for a constitutional amendment in the future would apply to defining marriage in the Constitution right now.

In as much as the current amendment would not be considered equivalent to enshrining marriage, it offers a clear definition of marriage as it currently stands, as a union between a man and a woman. I hold the Government to its word that under its watch that no redefinition of marriage will take place. And even if a future government does so, it will perhaps require a repeal of Article 156 that we are introducing, as it would be made redundant.

I therefore seek the Government’s continued affirmation that this remains its commitment. This being the year of the celebrating family, perhaps all the more apt that we collectively pass this amendment and affirm marriage and the family and their place in our society.

With the passing of the constitutional amendment, the task is not complete. There is added impetus on multiple fronts. The task ahead will require a whole of society effort to emphasise the importance of marriage and the family – not just on the part of Government but for every individual and group that believes in the importance of marriage and family, and to champion it collectively.

Our laws that uphold the family and marriage, especially on spousal rights, must be re-emphasised. Education, the key leveller for society, that is widely available for all in Singapore, must continue to ensure that our curricula continue to uphold the definition of marriage and family. And in the media space, print and in broadcast, must also help to shape the norms as currently established.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me now touch on the operational aspect of the amendment. The amendment as it stands in Article 156, spells out that the Government cannot be challenged in Court over the definition of marriage. What I hope the Government will help to clarify is the protection of non-government entities from legal challenges over the issue of marriage in the public sphere.

Rightfully, our Government is secular and must remain so. It does not base its laws or policies on religion or faith. But Singapore is also a multi-religious and multiracial society. We built this city on our Asian values, cultures and traditions.

Many citizens’ beliefs and way of life are shaped in line with their religious and cultural beliefs. Singaporeans must feel free and safe to practise their beliefs without fear of backlash, as long as their own actions do not cause harm or danger to others.

So, what protections are there to ensure that businesses and other institutions, such as religious organisations, are freed from legal challenges regarding teachings and beliefs on marriage? For example, if a religious institution declines to conduct a ceremony for a transgender or same-sex couple, will they be subject to a lawsuit? There are many other implications and I hope that the Government would be able to clarify this.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I now move onto the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code. This is a decision that I struggled deeply over the last few months, personally and professionally. I made the point earlier on the role that section 377A as a bulwark. If we do pass Article 156, and pass it we must, I am of the belief that a new gate, perhaps not as robust as what many perceive 377A itself to be, but a gate nonetheless, will now be in place.

As I have made clear earlier, the non-enforcement of 377A had made the law itself redundant. Parliament alone should be responsible for the passing, amendment and repeal of all laws, and she states this right clearly today rather than wait for the Courts to strike it down. As such, I am prepared to support the repeal of 377A with the passage of the constitutional amendment.

I must also emphasise that I am not unsympathetic to the experiences of rejection, violence and vilification that the LGBTQ+ community faces. I know many of them and I am honoured to enjoy the friendship of many as well. I am also aware of the targeting of religious and social conservatives online by trolls and those opposed to their views on traditional marriage and family.

We must therefore come down hard on discrimination in all its form in the workplace, in schools, in the public sphere. We should treat bullying and harassment seriously, be they in physical or virtual spaces, for all parties in this debate. We must endeavour to build a more equal society for all, not just for one, because whatever the label applied to each of us, we must first acknowledge the wholeness and dignity of each person as an individual being.

I acknowledge as well the passion and drive that the LGBTQ+ community has displayed over the years in their effort to repeal section 377A. Many members of the community and their allies are measured, responsible and aware of the complexity of the issue in our society.

While we break down this barrier for what is in the private sphere, I continue to believe strongly that this must not lead to the breakdown of the institution of marriage in the public sphere.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the Constitutional amendment as an affirmation of the role and importance of traditional marriage and family in shaping our society. I fully acknowledge as well that the view may evolve in the distant future, but for now, we have an opportunity in this House to ensure that the institution of marriage endures and is championed and celebrated.

On the basis of the passage of Article 156, I also give my support for the repeal of 377A.

After the conclusion of all our debates, we must return to working together. Unity is not the absence of disagreement but a consensus to agree to work together in spite of those disagreements. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support both Bills.

Vivian Balakrishnan

 * See also: Vivian Balakrishnan's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6NDDuVpgbI

a6NDDuVpgbI <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

5.32 pm

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is clearly not a matter of foreign policy, but since my wife and I celebrate our 35th anniversary today. [Applause.] Thank you. I am the proud parent of four children and four grandchildren, I thought this was a debate which I sought the opportunity to share some personal perspectives and that of my residents.

I start with three propositions.

Traditional marriage has been venerated in all societies, all civilisations since time immemorial – first point.

Second, a marriage is far more than a legally binding contract between two consenting adults.

Third, the rights of children, in fact, are paramount and, in fact, triumph even the mutual happiness of parents.

So, I start off with these three propositions for your consideration.

My life was transformed the first moment I held my daughter in my arms. For the first time in my life, I held a precious, new, unique human being – utterly dependent on my wife and me. She may have been delivered by my wife but my daughter and now, her children – my grandchildren – have a future that goes, hopefully, far beyond me.

That moment was also the time when I realised just how much my parents love me and, with some guilt, I realised that actually all of us cannot possibly love our parents as much as our parents love us. Every single one of you here who has been a parent, I think, has had that experience.

What it shows is that love flows down the generations. It is actually mainly one way. So, parental love is about paying it forward. It is this focus on forward and the future that drives us – drives all parents – to give the best possible start to their children. This is what makes us so focused on leaving the world in a better state for our children to inherit.

You see, it is this focus on the future, on protecting, nurturing, saving, investing, building, it is this future-oriented focus that affects the tone of our society. Frankly, even in Parliament, it is why, for me, there is no such thing as saving too much for the future – because it is for them and not for us. Even as we do that, we are simply, in fact, replicating what our parents and grandparents did for us.

This is why I believe all societies, all religions, have always conferred a sacred status on the institution of marriage.

This is why this is a key pillar, a key prescription, for human progress in societies everywhere since time immemorial.

The second point is that a marriage is far more than a legally binding contract between two consenting adults for the sake of their mutual happiness.

My wife has often reminded me of an aphorism – the best gift you can give your children is to love their mother.

Initially, I found this advice bemusing, but the more I thought about it, actually, this advice makes perfect sense. Because, you see, children – in fact, think back to your own childhood – children need that reassurance, that sense of stability of knowing that both parents are in a committed, loving relationship for the long-term and that both parents, will always be there for them.

In fact, the way we approach our marriage is not and should not be about just optimising the happiness of two adults but really for the sake of our children and their future. Because if we are successful and if we are blessed, then, we are good role models for our children. But our mistakes or, sometimes, our wrong choices have profound impact and implications on our children.

So, my wife is right. Love the mother of your children.

My third point is that every child has a biological father and mother. It is not just a matter of biology and genes and chromosomes, but think back to your own childhood – our mothers and our fathers played essential, complementary but not identical roles. Complementary but not identical roles.

When I served as the Minister in Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, I studied the problem of children in juvenile homes or with dysfunctional social circumstances. The single, most important factor I often found recurring was an absent father. That is why one of the things which I am proudest about was to have been one of the people behind the founding of Dads for Life.

So, yes, I do believe, absolutely, with no apology and with no reservations, in the traditional family form as an ideal – one man, one woman, committed to each other to bring up their children in the context of a stable marriage.

Having said that, we also need to acknowledge that not everyone will be so blessed and enjoy such a simple, straightforward life, that sometimes life does not go according to plan, and that all children, regardless of family circumstances, deserve our fullest support. In fact, some children, especially those in less ideal circumstances, deserve and need additional support, which this House agrees with, I am sure.

Some of my friends whom I have known for the longest time are gay. My generation came of age in the early eighties. The AIDS epidemic had not yet been named or discovered but it had started. Many of us were not quite aware of the threat. The veil of ignorance, the fear of embarrassment, in fact, contributed tragically to the cutting short of lives of some of my friends.

But beyond that, in fact, I am sure if you all speak to every single one of your gay friends, every single one of them has suffered the pain of rejection, of discrimination, sometimes, of violence. They have suffered that at home, in schools and in the workplace. They crave our understanding, our empathy, our support and our protection.

Yet, I think, if many of us think back to our school days, I think we all fell short. I will confess to having fallen short and for that, I apologise to my gay friends.

Unfortunately, this debate on section 377A of the Penal Code – section 377A has come to symbolise simultaneously two paradoxical imperatives. First, to protect the traditional family, which frankly is under considerable stress in modern days. But equally important, there is also a duty to protect our gay brothers from victimisation and the fear and the pain, the dejection and the rejection.

There are no simple answers to such apparently contradictory social imperatives.

Senior Minister of State Sim Ann, Deputy Speaker Christopher de Souza, Mr Edward Chia and I represent the GRC of Holland-Bukit Timah. To be frank with all of you, the majority of the feedback that we have received online and face-to-face, the majority has expressed great anxiety about families, anxiety about the repeal and a deeper anxiety about the future of families.

Minister Shanmugam has explained – and I accept his explanation – that section 377A is at significant legal risk of being struck down. The amendments proposed today to repeal 377A, I believe, helps us avoid that abrupt and potentially disruptive confrontation in a Court of law with a binary outcome and perhaps unpredictable and sometimes uncontrollable social and political consequences.

So, I agree with him and I support the repeal of 377A in that context.

But I also support the amendment to the Constitution that makes it clear that the question of marriage will be decided here in this House. It may not be all of us in the future, it will be a different House, but it will be decided through the political process, with all the engagement, discussion, debate, negotiation and compromises which are needed. That is the way we need to move forward.

Similarly, to my residents who have asked for it to be entrenched, two-third majority, and lock it up. I have to tell them that actually, these are issues which no amount of legal and constitutional lock-ups will decide for the future. The values, the mores, the attitudes of our children and grandchildren – we can all do our best to instil values in them but we have got to trust them. We trust them and entrust them with the power and the authority to make decisions in the future. So, I also accept this amendment which makes it clear that the current definition and if there is going to be any future amendment, will be decided in this House and not in a Court of law.

We do all these in full appreciation of the fact that difficult issues that go to the heart of identity, deeply held values and lived experience are best settled through careful, respectful, sincere discussions – without polemics, without win-lose outcomes. And so, it is in this spirit that I support the amendments moved today.

We have to find ways to continue to protect this precious and fragile institution of the traditional family and marriage and we have to remember that the welfare and the rights of our children are paramount. In practice, what that means is policies and programmes that will unambitiously support the traditional family and parenthood, including adoption rights, housing priority, Baby Bonuses, reproductive therapy. It also means our public messaging, our education, in schools, the mass media must continue to uphold these traditional family ideals.

But having said that, in my earlier versions of the speech I tried to say we can do all these without discrimination. But actually, in life, if you uplift one form, if you prioritise one type of social arrangements, inevitably it means you have to choose and it cannot be completely equal.

By having said that, I believe a spirit of mutual respect and perhaps more important than anything else, compassion, can allow us to find that hopefully safe landing zone where we can protect our families and protect our gay brothers.

On that note, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the amendments standing before the House today. [Applause.]

Rahayu Mahzam

 * See also: Rahayu Mahzam's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zfgHqpNDZs

2zfgHqpNDZs <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

5.48 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam): Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): The decision to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code and amend the Constitution to protect the definition of marriage and the laws and policies that are based on it from legal challenges was not made overnight. It is the result of extensive engagements with stakeholders and careful consideration of the feedback received both before Prime Minister's announcement at this year's National Day Rally and in the ensuing months.

Singaporeans have diverse views on this issue. Each group has its own unique perspective. Most prefer to preserve the existing social norms on marriage and family that have served us well as a stable and prosperous society. However, there is a small yet increasingly expanding segment, that feels differently.

Many of them are youths, who had a different kind of exposure and experience. They have their own views on this matter. Ever since this issue was last debated in Parliament in 2007, society's mindset and attitudes have evolved, and we can expect it to continue evolving in the coming decades.

On the part of the Government, we have sought to take a calibrated position and try to balance various aspects in this sensitive and difficult issue. It is a position that most in society can accept, even if it does not fulfil all their wishes. So, it is important for us to hear different voices from all segments of Singaporeans, including the Malay/Muslim community.

I have been involved in several dialogue sessions involving the Malay/Muslim organisations on this issue. I understand their concerns and worries. Personally, I have also engaged a wide range of groups and many individuals from the Malay/Muslim community on this issue in small and informal discussions.

I would like to thank them for their candour and courage to join these dialogues. I would like to share some of the views conveyed for the benefit of Members of the House.

Some from the gay community shared with me their stories of being discriminated, ostracised and even threatened by those closest to them, including family and friends. No one should be treated this way, especially in a society such as ours, where family and community play such pivotal roles in our daily lives. That is why some individuals, even though they do not practice the homosexual lifestyle, feel that we should not ostracise this group of people. They feel that we need to be open, despite having different views, so that the gay community can lead their own lives in a safe manner.

At the same time, there are others who do not accept the homosexual lifestyle but want to have a discussion on the basis of compassion for their fellow Muslims who are struggling with difficulties. Yet often, they find it difficult to speak up, because they are concerned about the repercussions. They worry about the criticisms and negative and extreme responses that could arise. They are worried that they will be accused of being too conservative if they were to share their views or too liberal for wanting to engage the gay community. They also fear being shunned or threatened. We have seen for ourselves some of the online reactions that are very harsh and unpleasant.

I have also spoken to our youths on this issue. Many are sympathetic of the difficulties that their gay friends and family members face. They care deeply about their mental well-being and their access to social support. Yet, there are still differences of opinion among these youths regarding the repeal to section 377A and the Constitutional Amendment.

Some see the repeal as an overdue issue and question the need to amend the Constitution. Others, whether religious or non-religious, worry about the impact of this repeal on our cherished social norms and traditional family structure.

This is not a black-and-white issue. There is no single narrative or perspective that can fully reflect the reality that we live in. And only by acknowledging these complexities, we can finally begin to move forward together as a community. We want a community that shows kindness and compassion to all, regardless of their background or circumstance. This includes even those who do not adhere to religious teachings on homosexuality. Because that is what Islam teaches us. To quote the Mufti in his religious guidance that provided wise counsel to us on this matter, “There are many factors that define a person as a human being, not just sexual orientation alone. There are individual Muslims that face struggles as they seek to reconcile their sexuality with religious guidance and obligations. As long as one proclaims and practices the basic tenets of the religion, that person is still a member of the Muslim community. Every Muslim deserve to have their dignity and respect preserved. We must ensure that every Muslim does not feel that they are turned away from their faith due to our attitude towards them.”

We must be prepared to face future challenges together as one people: difficult economic conditions; societal norms that continue to evolve; new issues that will challenge our traditional values; and many more. The nature and integrity of our society will be tested. This is our chance to set the norms for our society. We may have differing views, but we must find a way to resolve the differences and find the best way forward for our country. The approach taken by the Government combines religious beliefs, family values and traditional communities with the needs of Singapore’s multi-religious and multicultural society. I am confident that if we can learn to navigate sensitive and crucial issues constructively, we can form a clearer vision for ourselves and future generations.

May this lead us to a brighter future for all of us as a nation.

Cheng Hsing Yao

 * See also: Cheng Hsing Yao's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reg8u0Cr-T8

reg8u0Cr-T8 <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

5.56 pm

Mr Cheng Hsing Yao (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code.

As the Prime Minister had said in the 2022 National Day Rally, social attitudes towards gay people have "shifted appreciably" and the repeal of the provision will "bring the law into line with current social mores". This is an important step towards respecting and acknowledging gay Singaporeans as an integral part of the Singapore society.

The colonial origin law is outdated and it ignores the objective reality that Singapore is home to many gay citizens and residents who are also contributing members of the Singapore society. To retain a law that criminalises a legitimate community of fellow Singaporeans in order to preserve traditional values is at best a stretched logic. There are other better ways to promote traditional values.

While the repeal of section 377A is a major step in the right direction, we should also ensure that public policies that affect gay Singaporeans in their everyday lives do not result in any form of stigmatisation and discrimination on a practical level.

I recognise that a significant segment of the Singapore society is still very conservative. Some fear the repeal will lead to a flood of changes to the complexion of our society. I also recognise that there is an appropriate time and place for all things.

However, amending some public policies to fairly include gay Singaporeans does not equate to an erosion of the family as society's building block. Like all Singaporeans, gay citizens have everyday concerns about life and livelihoods that public policies can address without threatening the current definition of marriage.

We also should be mindful that social norms change and evolve. It may not be prudent to adopt an immutable stance towards any public policies, as we may find ourselves out of sync with the realities on the ground in time to come. Thus, it may be pragmatic for the Government to always adopt an adaptive stance towards public policies, including policies affecting gay Singaporeans.

More importantly, we must not forget that gay Singaporeans contribute economically and socially to Singapore. They are also members of Singaporean families. They should be treated as full members of our society and be accorded the respect and support like any Singapore citizen. As such, we should be careful to ensure that our public polices do not marginalise or pervade stigmatisation or discrimination against them.

In the public discourse on the repeal of section 377A so far, I am heartened to see a lot more restraint exhibited, in comparison to what we saw back in 2007 when the repeal was first debated. This is a positive sign that our society has evolved and we are able to discuss difficult issues without being inflammatory. I hope the forward discourse will continue to be balanced, considered and secular.

In a diverse and multi-faceted society like ours, fault lines exist everywhere. Some are deep and old, others are new and emergent. We only need to look around the world to see many examples of how once inclusive and tolerant societies could suddenly become severely polarised and fractured.

As Singaporeans, we must remember to always demonstrate a high level of respect and willingness to engage with fellow citizens who hold different views.

To promote social harmony and cohesion, our national values should promote mutual accommodation and compassion among the different segments of the Singapore society. Even if we cannot agree, we must always uphold mutual respect and be prepared to listen and to try to understand each other.

In conclusion, I hope we can continue to work to eliminate all forms of discrimination and learn to embrace all fellow citizens as equal members of our society, while always maintaining mutual respect and being accommodating towards each other. With that, I support the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code.

Jessica Tan

 * See also: Jessica Tan's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfX__Dnnvnw

rfX__Dnnvnw <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

6.00 pm

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am speaking today on both the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill and the Bill on the amendment to the Constitution as many of my residents have reached out or written to me since the Prime Minister's National Day Rally speech on the repeal of section 377A. They had asked that I share their concerns and seek clarification to address their apprehensions. This is a difficult topic with differing views but an important one for all Singaporeans.

At this point, I should share my personal views on this. And I will say that it took me quite a long time to write the speech. My speech is not long, do not worry, but it took me a long time to write it. Because I had to ask myself where do I stand on this. As a parent and also being a Member of Parliament for the last 16 years and seeing my residents when they come to me with the issues, I have a very firm belief that the family is the cornerstone of society. I really believe it is the source of strength and it is also the source of weakness. Therefore, I do cherish the traditional definition of family and being a parent for about more than 30 years now, and being married for over 32 years, I will say to you, as much as I think I am a good mother, I have realised that my husband and myself play a very important role for our three children. I do want to preserve and protect the definition of a family.

So, let me now summarise the apprehensions expressed by my residents and what they centre around.

One, the safeguarding and the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman and pro-family policies, such as, public housing, education, adoption rules and media standards.

Two, that the repeal of section 377A will encourage gay activists to push the agenda much further and this may cause reactions and divisions in Singapore as we see happening in many countries in the world. The concern of my residents is the divisions and what it may cause.

Three, protecting people from being pressured, bullied or discriminated against when they do not support the same ideas and beliefs whether to retain or repeal section 377A.

Many have shared that they feel that section 377A is a unique Singapore compromise. Its non-enforcement means our colleagues, friends, neighbours and family members who identify themselves as homosexuals are able to live out their private lives while protecting gay values from becoming mainstream. It has worked for Singapore, so, the question is, why the need to make the change now?

Minister Shanmugam has explained the circumstances and that there are real risks that section 377A can be stuck down. Section 377A has been challenged as unconstitutional and continues to be challenged. The Courts have judged that such matters are sensitive societal issues and that it is for Parliament to decide.

But the point is that if Parliament does nothing, the Courts will have to do what it has to do, when it has to do it. And when that happens, the apprehensions that have been expressed will become real. It is precisely that the Government, hearing the views of the majority, is acting. It is easier for the Government to do nothing – and in fact, politically actually, much easier, especially given how controversial this issue is. However, that would be extremely irresponsible, as there is real risk that the very definition of marriage and the pro-family policies that the majority want to protect will be challenged as we are already seeing in several countries.

On the point of why we keep section 377A, I think it is also important that I also share feedback that I have received from residents, that I have friends, colleagues, neighbours and family members, as I have shared, who are gay members. They, and even those who have asked for the repeal of 377A, do not view it as a crime that what consenting adult gay men have and do in private. But what it stems more from the fact that of the fear of what it means after that.

What the repeal of 377A really does is it removes the stigma and the hurt that the gay people in our community have been feeling. And I want to say that gay males are fellow Singaporeans as they are and they can be your neighbour, your co-worker, your friend or even your family member. They contribute to and are part of our society and they too, deserve dignity and respect.

Let me touch on the proposed amendment to the Constitution and the insertion of the new Article 156 and whether they will be sufficient to safeguard the definition of the institution of marriage and the associated pro-family policies.

The new Article 156 subsection (3) and subsection (4), seek to protect the definition of marriage in such laws like the Women's Charter, the Administration of Muslim Law Act and laws that confer rights and benefits on or in relation to persons married under those enactment, from constitutional challenges. Pro-family policies of the Government, for example, in regard to housing, education and media standards will therefore also be protected.

But the anxiety is if this would make it easy for change as it will only require a simple majority to amend the definition of marriage. I have received feedback from some asking that the definition of marriage be directly in the Constitution so as to require a two-thirds majority and not just a simple majority to affect such a radical redefinition.

The proposed amendment, I feel, is a balanced one, as it protects the traditional definition of marriage and pro-family policies while allowing our future generations to decide on societal norms.

To give further reassurance, Deputy Prime Minister Wong has given PAP's commitment that the definition of marriage as that of the union between a man and a woman, will not change under the watch of the current leadership of Prime Minister Lee and if the PAP Government were to win the next General Election, it will not change under his watch. That is the reassurance that has been given. I think that that is a balanced approach and one that does seek to protect, the definition that the majority want to hold.

Finally, I would like to talk about the cancel culture and bullying. We are hearing strong sentiments and differing views with the debate around the repeal of section 377A. From the reactions and feedback shared, an area that is of concern and we must address is that of bullying and a cancel culture. Youths and working professionals have approached me and expressed fears and anxieties with gay activism. Some have shared that while they accept their friends and family who identify as gays, they find it difficult to voice their opinions when they do not share their values and ideas, for fear of being labelled, bullied or cancelled in school or at the workplace. The fear, real or perceived, is that the repeal of 377A will amplify this activism.

But, similarly, I would like to caution us that with the debate on this repeal, we are also seeing a heightened attention on those that identify as gay. I also have residents expressing concerns of possible discrimination against those who identify themselves as gay.

What is clear is that this is a subject that matters to many, regardless of whether we support the repeal or the retention of section 377A. What we cannot allow is for any persons, regardless of which side they stand on, to be labelled, discriminated or bullied.

Minister Shanmugam and Minister of State Sun Xueling have shared that the agencies are looking at ways to ensure that discrimination is not tolerated. I would ask for more to be shared as to what the details of these are and to reassure individuals and groups that there are clear protections from discriminatory pressures, a cancel culture and bullying in society, in schools, and/or at the workplace.

The societal values and definition of marriage, family and policies affecting our children are important for Singapore and Singaporeans. As we have done before, I do appeal to all, regardless of where we stand on this matter, we must work together and not allow this to divide us.

I do believe that while the amendments strive to provide the legislation to preserve and protect our social norms, how we act will determine the Singapore we have today and in the future. I support the Penal Code amendment as well as the amendment to the Constitution.

Cheryl Chan

 * See also: Cheryl Chan's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsRVpqCyR4w

fsRVpqCyR4w <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

6.11 pm

Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, in our 57 years of Independence, Singapore has pride ourselves on being a multiracial, multi-religious country. While diversity exists, we have learnt to respect and allow different individuals to practise their faith, believes, traditions and religions. All these are possible because first, we have intentional policies in place to enhance behaviours which are widely acceptable or discourage certain behaviours which are less accepted. Second, we learn to respect one another from the values we are taught in school and at home. Third, we define over time the country we wish to live in and the societal behaviours that most consider as norms. This is the basis I believe have bonded us together and enabled us to live in harmony thus far.

But beneath this social model, there still lies frictions and differing views in our country. Some of these frictions or differences are not easily solved or appreciated by different groups as it is not simply an assessment of right or wrong, nor is it about the louder voice triumphs. Especially not so when it comes to one's preferences, liberty of choices and how one can make others understand their views and accept it without having broader societal impact.

If only things were as straightforward, there would be hope of reduced conflicts and more peace today.

As it is with any evolving society, when the exposure to different facets of life become wider for most individuals, the reality is we are faced with a gradation of expectations and perceptions from the family, friends, co-workers and society.

For us to move forward as a country, there needs to be more ability in us to actively hear different viewpoints, be less biased beginning with a lesser extent of pre-judging people and for activists not to plainly impress one's agenda on others to accept regardless of other's preferences and values. How then can we achieve a calibrated balance between one's beliefs and practices without imposing on others?

I believe this boils down to the values that define each of us and what we are prepared to accept and adopt in our lives. There are values which are key tenets of a society's mainstream, those which most can accept and acknowledge as norms. These values are those where people freely express and are naturally accepted without being judged.

However, we must also recognise that there are other values which serve some unique groups or serve some purposes or being adopted by some but are not commonly observed amongst our daily lives. This is where management of social expectations and perceptions play a role.

Personally, I was raised on the values where family centricity is key. One where marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. This is what I also wish to see remain as the beliefs, teachings and practices in our education system. While I think many may share this view, we should not be oblivious that our next generation will not have access to information that influences them about homosexuality or sensitive topics; just because it is not taught or spoke about in mainstream schools. By not having it as mainstream, we can at best differ the exposure of the young ones to a later stage when they are more mature to differentiate or make sound decisions independently.

Thus, I firmly believe that to repeal 377A, it must be done on the grounds where the recognised legal union between a man and woman is also strongly protected by definition within the Constitution.

While we can now take reference of this in the form of Article 156 if it is passed, we must ensure that the Government stands by this firmly as we consider any future amendments to the legislation or even the repeals. Particularly so for ours, as many pieces of today’s legislation are designed with the family unit being the fundamental social fabric.

Take the housing policy as an example. Today, HDB public housing can be purchased or rented by those who have a family nucleus. But housing demands come from many groups besides those with a family nucleus. These groups include the unmarried singles, single parents with or without children, lone seniors and more. They, too, have a need for basic housing. But their applications are currently either limited by conditions or considered on a case-by-case basis. Hence, this brings about the question of fairness if the definition of family nucleus for a married couple changes. For a need as basic as housing, this becomes a tricky situation. Whom then should be given access to public housing and in a timely manner?

Sir, what may not be a social norm today that is publicly expressed and accepted does not imply that it cannot be privately practised by various groups who adopt it as their way of living. Similarly, this also does not indicate that those who do not believe or adopt it should ostracise individuals who are different from themselves. Every family, every community, every individual has the right to choose what is comfortable for their lives. But as individuals, regardless of our beliefs and inclination, we should not impress upon others that they must embrace our way of living. With time and ability of individuals to perceive different norms, the values of what define us as a society will naturally surface.

Thus, Sir, let us not allow divisive voices to break us apart but rather for us to consider when and how we want to be inclusive while maintaining our own beliefs and values.

Darryl David

 * See also: Darryl David's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtEcusJdRQw

HtEcusJdRQw <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

6.17 pm

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, even before this debate started in the House, we had already had widespread debate and exchanges of views regarding this matter across various platforms and in the community. The responses and emotions were mixed – from disappointment that the repeal was not enough, to concern that societal norms and values would be challenged and even, eventually, possibly changed.

Indeed, in the run up to this Parliamentary Sitting, I have often been asked what my views are on the matter, and one particular question that I was asked, which stuck with me, was if I was “pro-repeal” or “pro-family.” These were terms that made me realise how polarising the issue was for many people who took a binary view of the matter. For them, it was either one or the other.

My reply was, to that person who asked me, and is, that I am “pro-people” and “pro-Singapore.” These are two principles that I have always strongly believed in and it is why I am speaking today in support of this Bill and the subsequent repeal of 377A.

I would like to address the issue of why 377A should be repealed.

First, Mr Deputy Speaker, when we use terms like “community” and “society”, we have to acknowledge that these are larger entities that are made up of individuals, they are made up of people. And no one is exactly alike – we look different, we think different, we have different beliefs, we have different cultures, we have different values, we have different lifestyles, and, yes, we have different sexual preferences and practices.

A truly inclusive community and society consists of people who are willing to not just tolerate, but actually accept those who are different from them, and those who are different should not be discriminated against in any way.

As such, while I understand the legal arguments for the repeal of 377A, I would like to say that it is even more important for us to recognise the need to repeal 377A from the perspective of moral integrity. You might ask how you would define moral integrity. I think, simply put, moral integrity is doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Two men having sex in private is precisely that, a private and, in my opinion, a personal matter, and it should not be something that is regarded as criminal.

In this regard, I believe that repealing 377A is, thus, the right thing to do because it is the right thing to do. Repealing this law sends a strong signal that we do recognise and respect individual differences, and that different groups are welcome in our community, which brings me to my next point about people, community and conversations. Because we now have to look at the issue from the different perspective of how, while a community and society is made up of people, as I mentioned earlier, these people do not live in isolated silos but have to live and function within the larger entity of a community.

In this regard, the changes that the Government is affirming with the definition of marriage, of what constitutes a family, and related social policies are done in the context of what it feels would work for our Singaporean community, having taken into account the various opinions and views on the matter.

Differences in opinion, such as those arising from a topic, such as the repeal of section 377A, can lead different groups to clashing head-on over issues. It may lead to our society fracturing over fault lines because of the different hectoring voices that shout others down.

However – and this is my sincere hope – such differences, if looked at rationally, can also be an opportunity for frank and open dialogue to look at the debate and embrace different perspectives and viewpoints.

These conversations, based on mutual respect, can help us evolve into a more inclusive society, one that is richer through plurality and diversity. Enshrining anything in law is important but, equally important, is the value of open discussion and mutual respect.

It is also important not to embrace a "cancel" culture or to automatically rule out someone who holds different views or even someone who decides to look at the topic conservatively. Worse still, we should not go back to labelling and stereotyping, even though I know I just used the term "conservatively". What does "liberal" mean? What does "conservative" mean? My view is that it would be good to allow others their views, even if it may seem more traditional and less progressive – there go the labels again – when viewed through certain lenses. So, I know. It is not easy, it is not possible, but it is really my view that we are able to allow others with a different opinion from us to speak, to have their voices heard, for us to have this dialogue.

I would now like to move into education and schools, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe it would be good to consider education and consider how the schools can play a part in nurturing open conversations so that this topic is handled sensitively.

Our schools must be safe places for students to engage in respectful conversations or debates with others who may hold contrary opinions. Through the careful management of discussions on controversial issues, schools can help to promote freedom of expression, as well as inclusion and tolerance. In doing so, I believe they would encourage mutual understanding and acceptance. In many ways, sensitive handling of these challenging issues would be a form of modelling of open discussion.

There could also be instances when students themselves are exploring their own identity and having trained educators who could help them in this journey of discovery would be important. So, I feel it would be good if the Government could consider how educators could be trained to handle these issues and other related topics that might emerge from this debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in one of my previous speeches, I had referred to the Singaporean identity as a quilt – a patchwork of many cultures and multiple identities that we have stitched together and that has stayed together over the past 55 years. I then made the point that, like any quilt, in time, we do have occasional tears in the fabric and some parts of our quilt are fraying at the edges. Perhaps these parts are parts of our community that we have not always heard, engaged or connected with, and who are somehow feeling that they are like a discarded scrap of cloth, rather than part of a beautiful and wonderful quilt.

But I believe that what continues to connect us, what will help mend the tears and strengthen the fabric in our quilt, will be the strong threads that start with conversation, dialogue and understanding, and all done with respect.

So, while this debate might be settled in the House over the next couple of days, I hope that the different groups in our society will continue to have important and relevant conversations and treat one another with dignity and respect, so that we can, indeed, work towards a Singapore that emerges stronger.

With that, I conclude my speech in support of the Bill and the repeal of 377A.

Joan Pereira

 * See also: Joan Pereira's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTApqYzqDiQ

jTApqYzqDiQ <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

6.25 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, the Government’s rationale for the repeal of section 377A has been laid out quite clearly over the past few months. However, I would like to express my worry that fault lines are being drawn in our society as a result of the views of various groups in our society occupying the centre stage on this issue.

The concerns and aspirations of every Singaporean should be heard and should be valued, especially on such issues that matter to all of us. For most of the voices that are speaking up, they have come from a place of love – a love for the future of this country, a love for the future of our people and our society, and a love for this world.

There are members of our community who have difficulty accepting the implications that they feared would come with the repeal of section 377A. The fear is about losing the fundamental values that we have built our society on and the fabric that holds us together. To me, this fear comes from a position of love, not of hate, as they love the country and community that we have built and are worried about it being damaged.

There are also members of our community who feel that the repeal of section 377A has been long overdue, and some of them are also hoping that our societal norms can further evolve and become more liberal towards different types of marriages and families. This set of views also stems from a place of love, where they would like to embrace differences and allow everyone to pursue whatever lifestyle they so desire.

Unfortunately, we have also come across voices who do not come from a place of love but would rather stir hatred and misunderstanding within our society, and these are the ones who are drawing and then exploiting fault lines within our social fabric. Such views can come from any quarter of society and may even be disguised as supporters of any of the positions that I had mentioned above, but their ultimate aim is to push Singapore to an extreme corner of the spectrum, without consideration as to whether this would be good for us. Some of these could also be driven or initiated by foreign elements with an insidious agenda, given the borderless nature of social media and the Internet.

We are a small and closely-knit nation. Our society cannot afford to be polarised by this issue. We have already so many challenges facing us, as families, as communities and as a nation. We need to unite and fight as one to overcome the many difficulties which lie ahead. The COVID-19 pandemic is not yet over. We have to deal with the rising costs of living amid increasing global tensions and geopolitical conflicts. We need to combat social and income inequality and strive to make sure that no Singaporean is left behind.

I hope that cool heads will prevail and we can all take a step back and understand one another's positions and work together as a society to bridge any differences. Let us all be more understanding of and respectful towards one another, so that no one will feel discriminated against. This is one aspect where we individuals have choice.

Sharael Taha

 * See also: Sharael Taha's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6Ezawnc2tU

N6Ezawnc2tU <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

6.30 pm

Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. At the National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lee's announcement that Singapore will repeal section 377A of the Penal Code and amend the Constitution to protect the definition of marriage reflects the common agreement that many believe our gay citizens have a place in society and should not be treated as criminals. And in Singapore, marriage between a man and woman remains the fundamental building blocks of a family.

Mr Speaker, I would like to touch on a few points. One, section 377A as a Penal Code issue; two, protection of current social and family norms; and three, preventing increasingly aggressive and divisive activism.

Mr Speaker, there remains some concern that the repeal of section 377A would lead to a drastic change in social norms, such as how marriages would be defined in the future, sexuality education in schools and what can or cannot be screened on television and in the cinema. However, we have to consider how, since 2007, when section 377A was last debated, social acceptance for homosexuality has "shifted appreciably" as mentioned by Prime Minister Lee.

Back then, it was decided not to actively enforce section 377A. In addition to shifting societal values, we have to also consider the "significant risk" of section 377A being struck down in a Court of law on the grounds that it breaches the provisions of "equal protection" in our Constitution, as discussed extensively by Minister Shanmugam earlier. It has been unsuccessfully challenged in the past before, but it will be reckless of us to not consider this and the ramifications if it was struck down without any protection on the definition of marriage as how our society values it.

Mr Speaker, while I appreciate that there are some reservations and concerns from certain segments of society, most of us agree that two males committing a sexual act or "acts of gross indecency", as the law puts it, in private, should not be punished by imprisonment of up to two years. Hence, it is only right that we consider to repeal section 377A in our Penal Code. We acknowledge that we are still a largely conservative society, but our gay citizens have a place in society and should not be treated as criminals.

While, in general, more are accepting of homosexuality now, we are also very concerned about protecting the current social and family norms. With the repeal of section 377A, how can we effectively safeguard our social norms and values and, in particular, the institution of marriage which is currently defined as being that between man and woman? We must also understand how this definition underpins various national policies, such as housing and education. Hence, it is even more necessary for us to ensure that the current social and family norms are protected.

Undoubtedly, there are strong views for and against the repeal of section 377A and the amendment to the Constitution. There are concerns that there would be increased activism on both ends of the spectrum, which can potentially be aggressive and, more importantly, divisive to our society. I think it is necessary for us to accept this as a consensus – the best possible outcome, given the various viewpoints and deliberations with regard to all the various groups of people, religious, non-religious organisations and the gay community, which has been ongoing since 2007 and before.

While we should not curtail or suppress social activism for causes that our citizens believe in, we must also caution against extreme views and actions that may prove to be divisive to our society. In time to come, should values and norms here in Singapore "appreciably shift" again, then we should be able to come together, sharing our views and reaching a consensus on how we best move forward.

Activists in both camps need not think that they should resort to drastic measures to highlight their cause, nor should any of us be influenced by foreign developments, including pushing values from multinational corporations which are not aligned with our Singaporean values. Singapore's laws are its own and we need not follow the lead of other countries if it does not suit the values and dispositions of our citizens. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): We can see how the whole world changes with the passage of time. Society's views have also changed.

Section 377A is a piece of legislation that we inherited from the British and has been used as a symbol to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Earlier this year, in the case of Tan Seng Kee v Attorney General, the Attorney General's Office found that there is a significant risk that section 377A could be rejected in Court, because it violates the provision for equality in our Constitution. Although previous cases have not succeeded in rejecting section 377A, we cannot take that risk, especially since such a key decision will leave a huge impact on other legislations.

For our Muslim community, we have AMLA, which defines marriage.

Earlier this year, I was pleased that Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong gave his assurance that PAP will continue to uphold policies that puts the family first and will continue to ensure that marriage will be defined as between a man and a woman.

Although this ensures that policies in Singapore will continue to prioritize the family and the definition of marriage will not change, we cannot deny that the rest of the world has and will continue to evolve, including the values within their own communities. We cannot be influenced by foreign elements, including multinational corporations that support values which are not aligned with our society. The laws in Singapore are our laws and we should not follow in the footsteps of other countries if these are not appropriate for our country. Therefore, it is important for us to define the kind of values we want in Singapore's society.

Like a Malay proverb which exalts that children should be nurtured from young, it is important for us to build a family based on these values, so that we can instill them in our children.

Regarding homosexuality, we must admit that there are a few in our society who face personal challenges and sometimes, they are ridiculed, condemned and marginalised, or left behind without the support of their families from a young age. In cultivating family values, we should also cultivate and portray our religious values, such as mercy, compassion, and love for each other, so that these individuals do not feel left out and ostracised from our society. As each of us provides family support, I urge our community to refer to asatizah and MUIS for help and guidance, if needed.

(In English): Admittedly, however, this is not the end of our conversation on this topic, just like all the other issues that we face in society. Society is dynamic and ever-changing. Hence, we must continue to keep future dialogues civil, rational and, most importantly, beneficial for Singapore as a whole.

We only have to look around us to see how issues can be made very divisive, if everyone insists on their entrenched views and not hear one another out and come to a compromise. While we would like to repeal section 377A, we would also like to protect the prevailing definition of marriage while still allowing recourse in the future.

How, then, do we protect the definition of marriage, something which we all value as a society?

By ensuring that the definition of marriage is dependent on Parliament, and Parliament will define marriage based on the prevailing values and views of the Singaporean society at any given point of time. At this juncture, I wish to thank Prime Minister Lee and Deputy Minister Lawrence Wong for the clear assurance that "the PAP Government will continue to uphold our family-centred policies and is fully committed to them and will continue to uphold marriage as defined between man and woman."

In this way, even if one does not agree with the repeal of section 377A, at least the definition of marriage is preserved, for the time being, in our Constitution. On the other hand, for those who welcome the repeal and look beyond decriminalisation, there is room for the definitions to change when public opinion, values and norms differ. I think this is a viable compromise for our society to move forward for now. With the points considered earlier, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do support the repeal in the Penal Code and the amendments to the Constitution.

Mark Chay

 * See also: Mark Chay's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MThC5fNsQxo

MThC5fNsQxo <br style=="clear: left"/>

6.40 pm

Mr Mark Chay (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, section 377A of the Penal Code is a complex topic, one that has been passionately debated in and out of this House. I am glad that the Singapore Government has decided to finally repeal section 377A. I believe section 377A is no longer relevant in contemporary Singaporean society and I agree with its repeal.

I would also like to state my support for the inclusion of Article 156 of the Constitution, which clarifies that the power to make laws to do with the institution of marriage rightly rests with this very Parliament, and for Parliament to protect the prevailing definition of marriage.

This could potentially be a divisive issue, but it may not be. I see it instead as an opportunity to open meaningful conversations about equality and inclusivity within our society. Equality being one of our nation's ideals, we need to ensure that policies implemented to uphold the equal protection of rights for Singaporeans who do not fit squarely into the definition of a traditional family unit. So, for instance, single-parent households and LGBTQ+ Singaporeans, amongst others – after all, these people and many others not mentioned, contribute to the diverse, vibrant, welcoming society that is so admired around the world. Do our policies recognise this and are we doing enough for them? In this regard, I would like to put forward the following suggestions.

First, can PMO consider coordinating a policy review across the whole-of-Government and ensure that those who are not married are actively considered as part of the policy-making process? Other jurisdictions, such as the European Union, have undertaken similar reviews in ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their background, are not unfairly discriminated against. This also ties into the ongoing Forward Singapore exercise, as we refresh our social compact to pursue a more equal and inclusive society.

Second, would be on education for our children. Are we doing enough to ensure that our children understand that even though their peers may not fit into the definition of a traditional family unit, either because of their home situation or their personal realities, that these peers should not be treated differently or, worse, derisively.

I would like to encourage MOE to have meaningful conversations with students, not for the purposes of problem solving, but to seek understanding. I would like to see more education content on handling relationships, not just in the heterosexual sense, but all definitions of relationships. I agree with my Parliamentary colleague here, the hon Member Darryl David, that schools should be a safe space to explore, debate and educate about respect and inclusivity, and we should train our teachers to have productive conversations with students about these.

So, in conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, regardless of where all in this House stand, I think we all agree that we want the best for our country and our people for a prosperous and inclusive and forward-looking Singapore. During his speech to announce Singapore's Independence from Malaysia on 9 August 1965, our founding father Lee Kuan Yew said: "Everyone will have his place: equal; language, culture, religion." We are, thus, compelled to move in this direction and ensure that every Singaporean can live a joyful, happy and peaceful life and contribute meaningfully to this great nation.

It is based on these ideals for a better Singapore that were first articulated more than five decades ago that we have built this inclusive global city which we are all proud to call home today. Singapore has, indeed, become a beacon for many and, while conservative in our nature, we are a tolerant, peaceful and harmonious society, where everyone can live in community without fear.

I hope that one day, we will not have to rely on the Constitution to safeguard, respect and celebrate our differences where there is a lot more binding us together as Singaporeans – a love for food, being "kiasu", being "champion grumblers" – than what differentiates us. We have built a society based on interracial and inter-religious harmony. I am certain we can establish a similarly harmonious relationship among one another regardless of our differences. In fact, we can learn to welcome, protect and even celebrate those differences, as one diverse, inclusive harmonious nation of Singaporeans.

Henry Kwek

 * See also: Henry Kwek's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWuY7AkNkWg

wWuY7AkNkWg <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

6.46 pm

Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the amendments proposed today.

Our society's view on section 377A has evolved over time. Part of it can be attributed to our youths today. Therefore, I believe I can best contribute to our debate by highlighting their views.

Most of our youths want section 377A gone, because it suggests that some Singaporeans are less than others. The views of our youths are not solely attributed to the influx of "woke" culture from the West. There is a more fundamental reason.

And that is, for the past few decades, we have been building a kinder Singapore. Our schools have taught our children and youths the value of justice, empathy and kindness. Naturally, our youths believe the dignity of every Singaporean matters. Therefore, we should not be surprised if our youths think that the provisions of section 377A are innately discriminatory, even if they are not enforced by the Government.

So, should we be surprised that our youths can empathise with the lived experience of the gay community, some of whom have experienced real or perceived discrimination? No, we should not.

At the same time, while our Singapore youths respect diversity, they also continue to uphold the sensibility of a traditional society. They are pro-family and most believe marriage is best defined as between a man and a woman. Therefore, with regards to family, their views are not that different from the generations of Singaporeans before them.

Most of them have grown up with loving parents, grandparents and under the nurturing shade of our family centric policies. They, therefore, intuitively understand the importance of families, not just for themselves, but also for society.

At the same time, many youths also wonder why it took society so long to repeal section 377A.

However, they have now observed the painstaking consensus building effort needed to move Singapore along. And because our youths can empathise with differing viewpoints, our youths now have a deeper sense of understanding of how our more traditional Singaporeans feel. Therefore, I believe that most of our youths will support the amendments proposed today.

To sum up, our youths do not see the repeal of section 377A, or their belief that all Singaporeans matter, as contradictory to their pro-family stance. Their views are reasonable and we should listen to them.

Next, I would like to talk about how we can best support our youths on this issue, especially, on the one hand, our youths who are gay and worried that they will be ostracised and, on the other hand, our youths who are worried about being "cancelled" for voicing, in a respectful manner, their traditional family values.

Indeed, we must take pains to ensure that our schools remain neutral on this issue and support both types of youths in an effective and low-key manner.

I have observed that for a minority of youths, there is a certain fluidity in gender self-identification. A youth might identify himself as gay at a certain age but have a different take years later. And the reverse can also be true too.

Therefore, our schools should neither celebrate nor ostracise our youths for being gay. Our schools should not let gender become the defining attribute of who a person is, because if this issue gets polarised, we will be robbing them of the opportunity to do an authentic self-evaluation, in their formative years, of who they truly are.

We must also remember that for a small country, if our children and youths are fiercely divided along any issue, and then they grow up within the confines of those fault lines, the divide is not just ideological. It can get deeply personal. Remember, we are a small country. Frequently, the divide will have a human face attached to that divide.

And in my discussions with many teachers and school leaders, I believe our Primary, Secondary schools and Junior College (JC) leaders have done a good job in keeping our schools neutral. They have taken a child-centric approach to providing quiet and effective support to our youths. Compared to other countries, they have been quite successful in preventing educators from injecting their personal agendas into the classrooms.

But it has been a while since we have last debated on this issue. So, it is best if MOE can remind our school leaders and teachers on this. And Singaporeans will also appreciate if MOE can reiterate their firm stance on this matter.

The situation in our tertiary institutes is more complex. At that age, our youths are at the discovery stage in their lives and our educators have a lot less influence over their students. Therefore, I hope we can consider legislations, moving forward, to prevent the Cancel Culture from take root in Singapore.

Let me now conclude, Mr Speaker. I stand in support of the proposed amendments because they are the result of a painstaking consensus building effort, thereby cementing our common ground into law, and also because they refresh our social compact on gender and marriage for the years ahead, thereby addressing the very reasonable concerns of more traditional Singaporeans, and because it helps us move Singapore forward.

=Tuesday, 29 November 2022=

Jamus Lim

 * See also: Jamus Lim's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4khnckSC924

4khnckSC924 <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

1.31 pm

Associate Professor Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, as Members of this House executing our duties in Parliament, we simultaneously hold three distinct identities. We are, first and foremost, representatives of the people that voted for us. In my view, this is our utmost responsibility: to properly capture and reflect the views of our constituents. Second, we are members of a political party, who were likewise elected to formulate policies for our nation. For the Workers’ Party, our mandate – as loyal opposition – is to provide alternative views and constructive critique of the ruling party’s ideas and proposals. And third, we are of course individuals who carry our own beliefs and convictions.

Rarely is there confluence in these three identities, which results in us having to make a reasonable effort at balancing between different preferences and exercising compromise. But this is not necessarily as difficult as it sounds; for esoteric bills, our electorate often expects us to do our homework and choose what is in the best interests of the country at large. Hence, they may not hew to strongly-held views of their own. At other times, there are bipartisan consensus on how best to proceed and so our interventions in Parliament are limited to flagging points of concern, but the Workers’ Party nevertheless votes alongside the ruling party.

In a matter such as the repeal of section 377A and the attendant proposed constitutional amendments, however, it would appear that there is not only an intractable divide between the different interests that we represent, but our own personal convictions may play a role in the choices we are forced in make.

In my speech, I wish to explain why I believe that these disparate views can be reconciled and how this leads me to vote the way that I will.

In the many letters written to me by the residents of Sengkang, those that have expressed their concern over the repeal of 377A have, almost uniformly, cited their reservation over how such a repeal would open the floodgates to revisions to the traditionalist interpretation of marriage.

This concern has not only been limited to those who are more religiously inclined. I have spoken to residents who would otherwise hold no strong views on 377A, nevertheless underscore their wish that the heterosexual definition of marriage be, somehow, protected.

To be clear, this is a prospective fear: one based on how the repeal of 377A is a slippery slope; once the law is removed, the floodgates are open and all manner of permissive laws become possible.

In contrast, 377A is currently on the books and consenting relations between two men is currently a crime. This is no longer prospective, but real. In principle, a man engaged in same-sex sexual relations could be jailed, if the strict letter of the law were to be followed.

The repeal decision is thus a trade-off between the removal of a tangible, actual threat of imprisonment, versus a perceived, potential concern over how repeal would undermine marriage. It seems clear to me that there is not, and cannot, be a genuine equivalence between the two.

The usual pushback against claims that 377A constitutes an actual violation of the law, is that 377A is not enforced and – on the basis of court judgments – will not be, unless otherwise instructed by the Attorney-General. This suggests that the Article is merely a relic, one that has no bite and hence, any fear is similarly ephemeral. Why not the existing status quo, then?

It is true that the Courts have previously ruled that 377A would not be prosecuted. Even so, sexual relations between men remains, on the books, an arrestable offence. Think about what this means when the status of rule of law in our country if we insist on instituting laws that simultaneously do not matter in practice. How many more de jure issues also would not matter, de facto? If we wish to make a slippery slope argument, this strikes me as a far slipperier one.

Furthermore, we should recognise that even an unenforced law can have effects on individuals and society.

Think of the symbolism behind what a law, any law, implies. Suppose, for a moment, there was a law prohibiting relationships between individuals of different races, and further suppose that a similar legal precedent and political compromise exists, in that those who are in such a miscegenated relationship are assured that they will never be prosecuted. It is a hypothetical but is it fair to expect those who are in a mixed-race relationship to accept the assurance that such a sword of Damocles hanging over their relationship does not really mean anything?

To take the argument further, should we expect that individuals will feel that they are a fair and equal part of society, when society has deigned it permissible to have a law that, even while unenforced, nevertheless explicitly condemns their behaviour? Can we expect such individuals to truly feel that they are accepted as a part of Singaporean society, when Singaporean law declares them to be criminals?

Some would suggest that Singapore is different. We are an Eastern society, with different cultural mores and practices. They argue that a repeal of 377A amounts to bringing in the polarisation and cultural wars – so prevalent in the seemingly dysfunctional democracies of the West – back home.

I agree that Singapore is different. Our cultural norms skew toward greater social conservatism and society stresses compromise for the sake of harmony, rather than the contentious and often raucous activism favoured by civil society and activism in the West.

But an untenable status quo, however entrenched, does not imply that all is well under the surface. For those who keenly feel the yoke of discrimination, suggesting that we should keep things the way that they have always been – simply because that is how it has always been – is more than simply benign neglect. It is an insult to their plight, to the burden that they have been bearing, perhaps silently, until now. It is like telling a prisoner that their desire for freedom is an attempt to stir up unrest while they are in jail.

As a man attracted to the opposite sex, I can never fully empathise what it means to develop feelings for someone of the same gender. But when I was a hot-blooded teenager, I had a dear friend, who turned out to be gay, explain to me what his world was like. The analogy has stayed with me ever since. Just imagine, he said, if the way you feel about women – the strong, unrelenting attraction when you first meet, the wish to share one’s most innermost thoughts and feelings with them, the deep desire to be with that person for the rest of your life – imagine if all that was not the natural order of things. Imagine that society deemed my attraction to women as not just abhorrent, but also judged intimate expressions of my love to be criminal.

This is not too far from other historical legacies where the law deemed certain forms of love to be illegal. As recently as the 1960s, interracial relationships were limited in some form in as many as 31 US states, as it was in Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. While I am not equating the two, my point is that my own relationship as well as that of my parents – which occurred between two different ethnicities – would have fallen afoul of the law.

The usual retort to such scenarios is that it is contrived; humans are not animals and, after all, we can always exercise self-restraint. Some argue that because same-sex attraction is ultimately psychological, it can be overturned, with intervention and counselling. Perhaps. But I am not here to question the natural biological order which I respect. After all, it is a physiological reality that asexual reproduction among mammals is impossible. And hence, the male-female pairing is necessary to ensure the continuation of these species. Even so, for certain individuals, such attractions are deeply embedded in what may be regarded as innate biologically-led behaviour.

For these reasons, I support the repeal of the discriminatory law that is 377A.

Even so, I also cannot really ignore how many in our Asian society continue to equate marriage and partnership to one between a man and a woman. This view is held not only those who are religious – by which I mean not just by groups that have been more vocal about traditional marriage, such as evangelical Christians and Muslims – but, based on my conversations with residents in Sengkang and beyond, also those who do not strongly profess any faith.

For these Singaporeans, the fact that marriage must involve a union between a man and a woman goes beyond a legally binding contractual relationship. It is a fundamental belief, a worldview. This sense is so deeply ingrained that they are not only are unable to accept the principle of same-sex marriage. For them, were such marriages to become recognised, they – perhaps paradoxically – would feel that society is not only no longer representative of who they are, but some may even go as far as to feel that it has turned against them. It is secondary that heterosexual norms remain the firm majority. Many will feel a sense of exclusion and victimhood.

As it turns out, this worldview is remarkably pervasive. While I do not have comprehensive data, I have had many conversations over the course of the past few months and I would be willing to venture that a significant majority of Singaporeans – including those in Sengkang, including otherwise liberal-minded spirits, and even including those who are otherwise sympathetic about the repeal of 377A – carry this perspective close to their hearts.

It is important that we do not dismiss this worldview as emanating from an oppressive majority, finally receiving their comeuppance. This is because I actually believe that such sentiments – even if some may argue are seemingly misplaced – are indeed genuine.

When I was a teenager, I took my Christian faith very seriously – to the point where I even harboured ambitions to be a missionary. While I am no longer as zealous today as I was, I can fully empathise with how it is like to hold fast to a set of tenets and beliefs that so completely shape one’s worldview that it would be wholly inconceivable to not expect that challenges to it would not be met with visceral resistance.

To reiterate: this is not a sentiment that is limited to those that are religious. It is one that is accepted by broad segments of Singaporean society, almost to a point where it is regarded as self-evident among these groups. To those within this group, their sense of identity and meaning is as much tied to heteronormativity as those who identify as homosexual tie theirs otherwise. Just as important, threats to these identities affect their behaviours and their welfare.

It is for this reason that I do not see a decision to alter the Constitution as essentially a compromise for merely the sake of political expediency, necessary for the repeal of 377A. Rather, it is the manner by which the state will echo what society, as a whole, believes in.

Prime Minister Lee had explained in his National Day Rally speech that challenges via the judicial system were becoming more insistent, and that we did not wish to go down the dangerous road of judicial activism. He also explained why decisions on the repeal of 377A and – perhaps more importantly, constitutional amendments – should be determined in the legislature. He was articulating, in this specific instance, the principle of de facto parliamentary sovereignty, a notion that others have observed also applies to Singapore.

As Workers’ Party chair Sylvia Lim has articulated, there may be potential legal lacunae that passing such constitutional amendment may entail. I am also aware that the amendment will continue to discriminate – albeit to a lesser extent – against those who wish to normalise their same-sex relationship, especially in matters of public policy.

This question of jurisprudence – where I am very sympathetic to the views of Ms Lim – is important and a concern. But even accepting this argument, I believe that there remains a strong justification for ensuring that deliberation of matters of broad societal concern occur within the forum designed for such matters, which is this House. I will also explain why I believe that a social institution such as marriage may reasonably be included in a foundational document, such as the Constitution.

Keeping in mind that representative democracy will always be imperfect, it is nevertheless the closest system we have that reasonably aggregates the preferences of our people at large. And in our time, the significant majority of Singaporeans have articulated their preference for a clear reassurance that the institution of marriage be protected.

Could this justify a constitutional amendment then? From my perspective, I do not see why not. Constitutions are live documents, meant – as Thomas Jefferson once said – to serve the present generation. They embody the rights of nature, of society and of government; these are essential principles of constitutional design. Many constitutions embed rights of association. Consequently, I believe it is reasonable that our Singaporean Constitution captures the key institutions that our society cherishes, which includes this cornerstone institution of marriage.

Mr Speaker, as Members of Parliament, I believe that it is paramount that we carry out our duties of representation faithfully, echoing, to the best of our ability, the views of the majority of our constituents, even when this position may differ from what we, individually, may hold. It is in this light that I see a vote in favour of a constitutional amendment that codifies the institution of marriage as a reflection of the conversations I have had with my many diverse constituents on this matter.

Keen observers will nevertheless note that the constitutional amendments that were proposed, however, merely refer to how the legislature may define marriage, leaving the specific definition indeterminate. Should the amendments be more specific then? This is where I depart from those who would go further, those who are asking for a heterosexual definition of marriage be hardcoded into the Constitution. In contrast to the more fundamental notion of the institution of marriage, its definition does not strike me as an unwavering principle that belongs to a constitution. It is therefore appropriate that such a definition be clarified only in subsidiary legislation, subject to change by the people of the contemporary time.

Almost two centuries ago, the French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville documented his observations on the then-nascent state of democracy in the United States. He shared his admiration for the democratic project as it unfolded in America. Even so, he pointed out an inherent tension in the power of democratic majority opinion, and in particular, he highlighted what he observed to be the "tyranny of the majority".

Tocqueville did not much propose a resolution to this conundrum, beyond suggesting, like his contemporary, English philosopher John Stuart Mill, that appropriate respect for individualism and liberty could offer a way out of this conundrum. Importantly, these thinkers believed that it was vital for each society to arrive at their own definition of the limits that public opinion would have over individual lives. One could argue that democratic republics, of which Singapore is one, are the practical manifestation of this compromise between individual rights and popular opinion.

We stand, today, at a similar precipice, albeit in our own Little Red Dot. The way I see it, the repeal of section 377A is the way that our society respects these individual rights, while enshrining the institution of marriage within the Constitution is how we respect the values of the majority. Hence, the decision we make today is not solely about a political compromise, as so many have suggested. It is also about striking the balance between the principles of individualism and majoritarianism.

As a republic, we are required to do right by our people – we have it right there in our Pledge, a commitment to "justice and equality". Which is why fundamentally discriminatory laws such as section 377A should no longer be allowed to stand. But at the same time, our commitment to – also in our pledge – "build a democratic society" calls on us to affirm our common values, such as marriage, that make us one united people. That is why I will vote yes to both of these amendments today.

He Ting Ru

 * See also: He Ting Ru's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIlEqmigmAM

bIlEqmigmAM <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

1.50 pm

Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, like many of us in this House, I am often filled with questions about the type of world we live in, the world that I want my children to inherit from us. I worry about how I can inculcate in them the right values, the right tools to be able to dissect tricky situations and to be able to tell right from wrong, even when the world around you sometimes appears to have gone mad.

Today, my sons are still young, and it will be years yet before they are old enough to understand the topics we are debating and to have their own views on these matters, which touch on the very core of what it means to be humans living together in a society. But I hope that when they are old enough, they will be able to understand and appreciate what I say here today, as it is my contribution to what I hope will be a healthy and positive debate for a more tolerant and accepting nation. These are topics that are fundamental to who we are as individuals, who we are as a society.

And because society is a collection of individuals, this necessarily means that we are people who have different views and ways of looking at things. It comes as no surprise that we have many different viewpoints and that some amongst us do feel extremely passionately about the issues involved. This is a good thing in and as of itself, as it shows that we care deeply about the society we live in.

When the repeal of section 377A and the amendments to the Constitution were first announced, my thoughts were initially clear-cut – this relates to my conscience and it seemed straightforward. Yet, as I listened to friends and residents who shared their thoughts with me on the matter, I realised that there was a wide variety of opinion on the matter, each informed by one's own life experiences, their own social or religious value systems. It would also be impossible to find a position that everyone fully agreed on. But whether they are for or against repeal, one thing was clear to me: that everyone is motivated by the same desire to see Singapore move in the right direction, in the direction of the greater good.

I think it is crucial that we do not lose sight of this, even as we may debate over what this greater good is. This is important because having many different cultures, values or viewpoints is not new to Singapore and it will not be the last time we face an issue that risks our society being increasingly polarised.

But I am reminded that we can face challenges as a nation and can do so soberly in a way that balances the individual's right to hold their own beliefs and practices, with the need to build a cohesive society founded on principles of understanding and acceptance.

It is also not lost on me that I am speaking today not just as an individual, but as a representative of my constituents who have entrusted this privilege to me and my teammates. This is something that we will never take for granted, even as we strive each day to be worthy of that trust.

But Sengkang, like Singapore, is multi-faceted. And as interests and viewpoints are split on section 377A, I believe we need to remind ourselves of the same principles of acceptance and understanding that have helped us build a strong ship that can weather difficult storms.

I believe that we must have empathy and put ourselves in the shoes of those who hold different views from us, and to try our very best to understand where their concerns are coming from. We must approach this difference with respect; it does not do anyone favour to dismiss the other as being hysterical, overblown, or wanting to impose corrupt values on others. We must above all, work to not discriminate against our fellow citizens.

It is this principle that moves me to vote in support of repeal today.

I do not believe that we should have a law in the books that is plainly and obviously discriminatory. It sends a signal that one segment of society is so morally reprehensible that their identity should be considered criminal, even if it is only on paper. It excuses discriminatory behaviour and contradicts the Pledge we take, as citizens of Singapore "to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality".

Not repealing section 377A today would be at odds with steps that Singapore is taking to be a fairer and more equitable society for all and will go against the principles behind the Government's welcome announcement that we will finally legislate against discrimination. Many in this House have already mentioned the Government's announcement to introduce anti-discrimination legislation and I believe the repeal of section 377A plays its part in our move towards a more inclusive society.

Some residents and concerned citizens have written to me to express concerns about the repeal of section 377A and the deleterious effect that this will have on the next generation. Having three young and curious children myself, I fully appreciate where this is coming from. And indeed, I often find myself worrying about how to teach them to know right from wrong, and to be able to distinguish between good and bad influences. After all, we cannot completely insulate them from the outside world and our children will be exposed to many different ideas and arguments which we believe are wrong.

Our role as a parent is to educate, to guide them as we think fit and to have a sense of moral values which they can apply to different situations. Yet, our children are also their own people, and we must accept that they too will eventually grow up to have their own views, make their own choices and to deal with the consequences of their actions.

And while it is true that a country's laws do provide some moral guardrails for what is acceptable to society as a whole, history has shown us that in some instances, this has not always been the case. After all, I like to think that if I lived in a time and society where slavery was legal and accepted, I would still teach my children that the very concept of a human owning another human is abhorrent and unacceptable under any circumstances.

Having said all of this, I have also heard and understand the concerns of those who feel that the repeal of section 377A will be a slippery slope to further shifts in policy that they feel are simply unacceptable, or that its repeal will cause deep faults and divisions in society that are irreparable.

I understand and respect their concern. But since as early as 2007, the regard for section 377A as a bad law has been growing. Legal personages, including former Judges of the Court of Appeal and a former Chief Justice, have cast doubt on its constitutionality. Similar arguments have been made in this House before as well. If not, today, the law would likely have been struck down in the near term.

But we must also not mix legality with morality. The repeal rejects a legal framework of discrimination, but parents remain able to educate our children and impart the moral lessons that we want within our household, shaped by our own beliefs and faiths. The concerns relating to the silencing of certain groups are also, I believe, understandable. However, Article 15 of our Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion in Singapore, specifying that "every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it". This right has been upheld by the Court of Appeal.

And if there should be any proposed amendments to remove or water down the right to religious freedom in Singapore, I will not hesitate to oppose it.

In fact, this approach is similar to thorny moral questions that are handled differently between religions or communities today, yet our laws are secular and do not attempt to enshrine the moral compass of each group. Our laws seek instead, to provide the protection for each community from discriminatory treatment from another. The same principle applies here and the protection of religious freedom will remain a core tenet of our democracy.

With this in mind, I record my concern about the proposed constitutional amendment before us. I appreciate the concern behind its formation. Yet, from a legal perspective, the proposed amendments carve out an area of legislative decision-making and functionally shields it from judicial review. Specifically, the proposed Articles 156(3)(b) and (4) prevent laws and policies relating to the heterosexual definition of marriage from being challenged in Court on the basis of the fundamental liberties provisions in the Constitution.

This causes me some concern. While I can understand and appreciate that the majority of Singaporeans feel that marriage is between a man and woman and share the concern about a judiciary running roughshod over the will of the people as expressed through Parliament, I note that the Singapore Courts have always been conscious of the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, giving precedence to the lawmaking function of Parliament and are ever cognisant of not overstepping the line into judicial law-making.

Perhaps in taking fright at the "phantom menace" of judicial activism, we may be losing sight of a more fundamental principle – that the judiciary should be the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of legislation and has an important role in safeguarding the fundamental liberties protected therein. Article 156, while not an ouster clause in the traditional sense, functionally shields legislation from being tested against the protection of fundamental liberties under Part 4 of the Constitution.

This concern goes beyond the present issue and I hope we will not lose sight of the bigger picture. If we were to pass this constitutional amendment today that prevents the Courts from determining the constitutionality of a legislative policy, what would stop a future Parliament from passing discriminatory legislation and then shielding it from judicial oversight?

For example, a future Parliament may decide to pass or entrench laws that prevent the propagation of one's religion and then immunise that from court challenge on the basis of the constitutional protection for religious expression by introducing a carve-out similar to the present amendment as contained in Articles 156(3) and (4).

I would additionally urge empathy when debating and passing the constitutional amendment. While I applaud removing the divisive thorn of section 377A from the body politic, I worry too that the constitutional amendment may continue to advance the divisiveness that we precisely want to combat.

Although I understand and appreciate why the Government has introduced the new Article 156, I find that I must abstain from the amendments proposed to the Constitution due to my concerns relating to the carve-out from judicial oversight.

Finally, the divergent views on section 377A underscore the need for measured dialogue, for opportunities to walk in the shoes of another, to not view fellow Singaporeans as an existential threat and to not underestimate the good sense, resilience and pragmatism of the Singaporean people.

For a pluralistic society like Singapore, it is in walking together, in conversation with each other, all the while cognisant and respectful of our differences that we are able to move forward. Sometimes, legislation is not just the imperfect substitute for society's greater good, it can be a barrier to it.

I note that I have spoken very much in the abstract so far, on principles and ideas. Yet, allow me the liberty to close with a personal anecdote about a boy I grew up with in this part of the world. We moved to different cities in our teens and did not see each other for almost a decade. One day, in our 20s, our paths were fortuitous enough to cross again thousands of miles from home and I remember sitting up late one night, chatting about nothing in particular. I made a throwaway, teasing comment about whether he would take girls to a particular spot to impress them. What followed next was totally unexpected.

He suddenly grew quiet and paused for a long while, looking away. I could see that his mind was racing and he swallowed hard a few times. Finally, he looked at me and said, "You probably don't know this, but I'm gay. I thought a long time about whether to tell you but decided to do so because I think you'd be okay with it."

It was now my turn to be silenced as he started telling me about how a few months ago, he attended his sister's wedding, where he felt compelled to tell lie upon lie to well-meaning relatives asking when it would be his turn to get married. He felt like a total charlatan but overriding this was his greatest fear that he did not want to "bring shame upon his parents".

I will never forget the fear and anguish and the pain in his eyes and I regret that this was not the first, nor the last time I saw these emotions as someone "came out" to me about their sexual orientation – all because they feared condemnation and disgust for who they were. It is a whirlwind of emotions that I will never fully understand and I would not wish this on anyone.

It is a timely reminder that for the vast majority of us, the topics we discuss today are but academic to our personal situation. Yet, to some of our fellow Singaporeans, every moment of their lives is affected by it.

We do not have to condone it nor encourage it, but I hope we can find it within ourselves to try to empathise with them, even just a little bit – that we can find it within ourselves to be able to live and hope and pray that the LGBTI members of our community are able to live without discrimination and fear of being ostracised.

Conversely, those who support the repeal of section 377A or even feel that we should go further should also not attempt to bludgeon their views upon those who are deeply uncomfortable with it and instead try to understand the reasons behind why they feel this way. This will be a start towards better understanding each other and how we can begin to heal any rifts that may have arisen.

After section 377A is repealed, life will go on. Families and spouses who love and value each other and their children will continue to do so. Love and hope can still triumph over anger and mistrust, and we will still open our doors and hearts to our neighbours in the community who need an extra helping hand – like the countless stories of neighbourhood group chats stepping in during the pandemic, the students of our Sengkang schools who came together to make gift cards to show their appreciation for our healthcare heroes in our healthcare facilities and their vaccination centres.

This is what makes us as a nation, as one nation, and I hope we never lose sight of this, nor stop fighting to keep this as our shared future. [Applause.]

Tan Yia Swam

 * See also: Tan Yia Swam's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c17u7hWhDFk

c17u7hWhDFk <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

2.07 pm

Dr Tan Yia Swam (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, in my view, the proposed amendments are nothing more than stating the current social norms.

I am not a lawyer. Let the lawyers discuss the legal aspects of the implications of such a change. I am not a religious leader. I look to them to lead the future discussions of what their faith finds permissible. I speak to you now, as a doctor and as a mother of boys.

As a doctor, I will treat all patients who come before me equally, regardless of race, language or religion, and – I add – sexual preferences or gender identity. I ask about these only to advise on any impact on their medical care.

As a mother of boys, I want for them a world where they can grow safely in. What does that mean?

Think back to your growing years. It was a time to find oneself – your identity and who you are – and I dare say that there are some adults who are still searching or may never find the answer their whole lives.

We form our identity through multiple factors – our character at birth, be it extro- or introverted, then shaped by family, school and peers. Teenagers explore their sexuality and their gender identity.

In my time, tomboyish girls and effeminate boys were given mocking and even derogatory names. For those of us who were lucky to never be confused as to whether you liked a boy or girl, it was already not easy. We still worried and fussed over whether your crush liked you back, collected red saga seeds, folded hearts from bus tickets and listened to heartbreak songs.

For those who felt an attraction to someone of the same gender, I can only imagine the fear and anxiety – fear that there’s something wrong with you, that your parents will disown you, that your friends will call you a freak. How many have suppressed their feelings and stayed single or went on to have a heterosexual relationship just to fit in? How many are deeply unhappy?

For those who have advocated actively for LGBTQ rights, I applaud their steadfast commitment and bravery. I am glad that one key change will be achieved – the decriminalisation of the homosexual male.

I look to an environment where each person can grow and explore safely.

As I have said in most of my other speeches, education is key – education by the family, by formal schooling and by the various faiths. For those people facing conflicts and stress, there must be safe havens for them to seek fair and balanced counselling without undue influence.

Perhaps the healthcare profession needs to step up and lead this with paediatricians, psychiatrists, psychologists who are trained and experienced – professional providers who do not impose their personal views.

In schools, I urge MOE to review the sex education component to ensure that it is based on science and facts, while controversial opinions and trends are clearly stated as such. This will be a guide for parents to use in our own conversations at home with our growing children. To fellow parents, if you, like me, grew up without any knowledge of LGBT terms, let us educate ourselves. What is hetero, homo, pan or asexual? What is trans or cis gender? What is sexual orientation versus sexual identity? Only then we are equipped to guide our children as they grow and explore. This is when we can meaningfully share our personal beliefs, our religious convictions and allow the child to find his or her own way, with love and support.

We fear what we do not know. We react with anger when we are hurt. We are all talking a lot. But are we listening? I am deeply aware of how divisive discussing LGBTs rights is and how society may become fragmented. We are one Singapore, one united people. I urge everyone to stay calm and be kind. The above notwithstanding, I support both amendments.

Xie Yao Quan

 * See also: Xie Yao Quan's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMMnv_NQvBs

UMMnv_NQvBs <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

2.11 pm

Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I speak on the substantive matters concerning the Constitution amendment and the repeal of section 377A, let me first make one point that I think has not been made enough.

This is the fact that the debate that we are having yesterday and today in this House is a milestone – a huge milestone – for our evolving democracy. It reflects the political leadership of a government and a parliamentary majority who have resolved to rise to our duty, not abdicate from our responsibilities and find the political courage and gumption to confront the difficult issues head on and do what is right even if there is no political favour to be gained and, indeed, every chance of a political cost to bear.

Once the prospects of the Courts striking down section 377A in a future challenge became clear, this Government of the day did not choose to "unsee" what it had seen. The Government did not look the other way. Instead, we sprang into action, put it squarely on the agenda as our duty required us to and set out to find a way forward for all Singaporeans, difficult as it may be.

So, I say – especially to the youths who desire a more robust democracy in Singapore – I say let us celebrate this moment. This is our democracy in action. This is our democracy growing stronger.

I listened to my colleagues yesterday – Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Alex Yam, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, Ms Jessica Tan, for example – who hold very strong beliefs on the family unit and want the institution of marriage to be protected and strengthened. Nonetheless, eventually, by the end of their speeches, they have also expressed their strong support for repeal in this debate.

On the other hand, there was Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng, for example, who has been advocating strongly for repeal, indeed, since 2007. Yet, in this debate, eventually, by the end of his speech, he has also expressed strong support for protecting the institution of marriage.

So, very different starting points – repeal on the one hand, protecting the institution of marriage on the other – and a broad tent of views, a broad tent of starting points, even amongst PAP Members of Parliament representing various parts of our society.

Yet, we have found mutual accommodation and we have found convergence in support of both Bills. And we have closed ranks and come together to try and bring all Singaporeans along on the way forward, together, in the national interest, our personal views notwithstanding, as my colleague Mr Murali Pillai has so eloquently put it.

This is how a responsible governing party works. This is our democracy in action.

And I am glad that Opposition Members and Nominated Members have all joined us in seizing this moment. We owe it to Singaporeans to do right by our democracy. We discuss the difficult issues directly, and above all, we stand for unity and compassion as one people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, now, let me get to the substantive matters.

First, on the repeal of section 377A. I will start with a quick story. I once asked two friends – husband and wife, in their 30s, young parents to two kids and we were talking about their expectations of their children. And I asked them, what if their son turns out to be gay, and wishes to bring his partner home to meet them, what would they think? Without missing a beat, they replied to me, they cannot even begin to contemplate and imagine such a scenario.

I do not think they belong to a minority of young parents today. Far from it. Yet, if their son does turn out to be gay, I would make a guess that they will: one, love him all the same; and two, they will certainly not want their son, and his acts of intimacy with his partner, consensual, in private, to be labelled as criminal. Why should their son be labelled a criminal?

This, I think, is the crux of the section 377A issue. Regardless of our views on homosexuality, I think we can generally agree that we know a gay friend or even family member, and we love and respect him like we do any other friend or family member, and we have very little reason, really, to see him as a criminal.

I believe this is the prevailing morality of our society. And because our laws ought to reflect the morality of our society, repealing section 377A and decriminalising gay sex is really the right thing for us to do. I am glad we are doing it.

We could very well stop here. Legislatively, there is no obligation or inevitability that as we decriminalise gay sex, we will also protect the institution of marriage. It is a deliberate act of Parliament, a carefully considered and balanced decision and move, to do both at the same time. And we do it, because we know that taken together, this set of arrangements would be one that our society, as a whole, can probably accept, and it can point a way forward for all of us.

Going back to the story of my two friends, the young parents. Yes, if their son does turn out to be gay, they will certainly not want their son's private activities to be criminal, but I think it will be much less certain if they will accept the notion of a son-in-law, or of a grandchild, or grandchildren, within the context of such a marriage between their son and his gay partner.

And I think they would also completely understand if their friends were to turn to them and say: look, we really will not agree to allowing your son to marry here in Singapore, because it runs against our beliefs and it runs against what we would like our children and grandchildren to believe about marriage, or at least, what we would like our children and grandchildren to see and hear for themselves before forming their own conclusions.

On marriage, I think, this is the prevailing morality of our society, and our laws and policies should also protect this, even as we repeal the law on gay sex.

Indeed, it seems, from a survey conducted by TODAY just two months ago, that younger Singaporeans generally think this way too. Sixty-eight percent view the repeal of 377A positively and at the same time, an almost equal proportion wishes to uphold the current definition of marriage between one man and one woman.

Let me also say this. Some have commented that where we are today is effectively one step forward and two steps back for the gay community. I have to respectfully disagree. I think this is real progress. Gay sex is decriminalised in Singapore, finally. At the same time, we are coming together as a society and coming to terms with the reality that a majority of us are not yet ready to give up our fundamental beliefs including on marriage and so, let us find a balance, let us find mutual accommodation. This is a mark of our maturing society. This is real progress.

Some, on the other hand, have characterised the repeal as a capitulation by the Government – and society at large – to the relentless campaigns and militant advocacy of some gay rights activists. I think this is quite unfair too. I believe, instead, that this change is about all of us, our society as a whole, maturing, progressing organically.

Change takes time – and this has taken quite some time – but this change has not been precipitated by the narrow words or actions or deeds of a few. I think this change represents part of our broader progress towards becoming a more inclusive society, in various other dimensions like wage level, age, disabilities, mental health and yes, we have become more inclusive on the dimension of sexual orientation, too. Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, sir, try to imagine as a parent that one day your son tells you, “Mom and Dad, I am gay. I have a partner. I want to bring him to see you”. What would you say? What would you think?

It may be a difficult problem and I do not wish any parent to go through this test. But, if this is the reality, then I guess that our first response should be that our love for our children remains the same. In addition, we would not wish the son to be considered a criminal because of his sexual orientation.

This second point is the crux of section 377A of the Penal Code. Regardless our attitude towards homosexuality, we would have homosexual friends or even family members in life. Like anyone else, they deserve to be loved and respected. I think we can also agree that we have no reason to regard their sexual life in private as a criminal offence. It is inhumane and unfair. I therefore support the repeal of section 377A. This is what we should do as an inclusive society. This is our duty.

Of course, I fully understand that many Singaporeans are worried about the consequences of repealing section 377A. What will LGBT and gay rights group advocate next?

If the next step after repealing section 377A is to recognise and allow same-sex marriage, what will happen to the norms and core values of our society? These concerns are fundamental and important, and it is precisely because of this that together with repealing section 377A, the Government is also proposing to amend the Constitution to protect the current definition of marriage. Yesterday, Minister of State Sun Xueling pointed out that the Government has put in a lot of efforts to address the issue of section 377A and the concerns of various groups in society.

I would like to say is that these two Bills reflect the political courage of a responsible Government and Parliament. Although the section 377A issue is difficult, we did not abdicate from our responsibilities.

There is an ancient saying that “the policies of the country must benefit the people, and the key to political education is for the policies to be implemented smoothly”. The Government has faced the issue squarely and found a compromise. Through these two Bills, the Government has achieved this.

The key to a successful policy is its smooth implementation. This time, the PAP did not lift the Whip. The ruling party’s job is to rule and enable policies to be carried out smoothly, and the ruling party has achieved this.

This is a victory for our democratic system and for all Singaporeans.

(In English): So, where else do we go from here? My hope is that all sides will continue engaging with each other and do so with ever greater depths of mutual respect, understanding and empathy. And it starts with avoiding unhelpful assumptions.

For one, gays and lesbians are not a monolith. Not all homosexuals are judicial activists; and judicial activists do not speak for all homosexuals. At the same time, not all social conservatives are Christian or Muslim. Indeed, many conservatives are either of other religions, or not religious at all. Their socially conservative views, while deep-seated, are not religious in nature.

I also hope that our engagements going forward will be in the real world, offline. Not in social media where certain narratives get amplified much more than others. Social media creates echo chambers and not equally. Some chambers may be small, but their echoes are especially loud and reverberate well beyond the realms of the chambers themselves.

We have Singaporeans who are concerned about how and what social media is buffeting us with, and I think, rightly so. We need safe spaces, in the real world, where all views can come forth and be heard equally, where we can get a good sense of the real balance of views amongst all of us. And in these safe spaces, no one should have to labour under the fear of name-calling or being cancelled, especially by bad actors under the guise of anonymity. Mr Speaker, Sir, with this, I support both Bills.

Nadia Samdin

 * See also: Nadia Samdin's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wErOA1wDrfI

wErOA1wDrfI <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

2.28 pm

Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir. I would like to start off my speech by highlighting the significance of this debate being held in this House.

The separation of powers is a deeply rooted principle in our parliamentary tradition. Parliament makes the laws, the Executive administers the laws and the Judiciary interprets and applies the laws when disputes are brought before the Courts. In this House, regardless of personal beliefs, we are duty-bound to represent the different voices of Singaporeans. This is a responsibility that I do not take lightly.

Over the past few months, a number of my residence in Cheng San-Seletar have written to me or even come down to my Meet-the-People Sessions to express that, while they do not believe that acts of intimacy between two consenting men should be a crime, they sincerely wish to preserve the definition and institution of family. Others have shared that removing criminality from homosexuality is long overdue, given that the law was introduced back in 1938. Some have also questioned if there is actually a real possibility of 377A being struck out by the Courts, while others have also worried about the wider ripples of this repeal, whether this has potential to change the way that marriage is defined in Singapore or how sexuality education will be taught to their children.

I have also heard stories of gay youths facing discrimination in their friend groups or struggling to find acceptance among peers who do not have the capacity or vocabulary to understand them. And also of youths who hold more conservative beliefs who have been called out in schools.

Sometimes, these disagreements occur online, hidden under the cloak of anonymity which emboldens individuals to speak carelessly. But loud does not always mean right and some may feel pressured into adopting a view. When issues are contentious, tribes are built and positions are entrenched and conversations quickly start from an adversarial place. This environment, if left unchecked, do not allow for people to build the capacity to discuss and debate with respect and reconcile even internal incongruence between faith, heart and mind before coming to their own considered position.

While it may be just one section of law – and about consensual acts in private, no less – section 377A has come to represent much more for many over the years, concerning fundamental values of individuals in a visceral way.

As elected representatives, we value every perspective shared with us. As such, this matter which has been debated in both public and private spaces for many years, even before the 2022 National Day Rally, belongs here in this House after years of consultation and engagement in both public and private spaces – not in the Courts, where judges must make decisions based on the information and facts presented before them, resulting in a binary decision.

Laws and policies must be guided by a careful balancing of the scales, not having the scales tipped to one side or the other through judicial activism or driven by individuals with the resources to litigate. I will not belabour this point as it has been raised by hon colleagues such as Mr Murali Pillai yesterday.

This process of a judiciary intervening actively in social issues may also signal an unwillingness of elected politicians to deal with such issues ourselves and leave such decisions to the Courts so that we do not have to assume responsibility for them. In some countries, judicial activism has deepened polarisation in societies – for example, over immigration matters in Australia and abortion rights in the US.

This also results in judicial appointments in themselves becoming politicised affairs. We should not foster this culture in Singapore and so I agree with the hon Minister for Social and Family Development on the approach of this Bill.

I appreciate that we are dealing with this now. The decision made in 2007 to accept the legal untidiness and ambiguity of keeping the law on the books was the compromise struck by society at the time. Later in 2018, Attorney-General Lucien Wong affirmed the Public Prosecutor would not prosecute two consenting men for having sex in private, giving legal significance to the political compromise struck in 2007.

Former Attorneys-General Walter Woon and VK Rajah also separately said it was not desirable for the Government and Parliament to direct the Attorney-General not to prosecute offences under section 377A. Following these comments, Attorney-General Lucien Wong clarified that the Public Prosecutor retains independence in deciding whether to pursue a case under section 377A. He shared that "while the Public Prosecutor is entitled to consider public policies in exercising his discretion, these do not fetter the exercise of prosecutorial discretion."

In all the feedback I have received, many of our people, regardless of race, language or religion, agree that acts of intimacy between two consenting men do not make them criminals. We have also generally not seen public interest or organised groups for the active enforcement of section 377A. For most, the disagreement lies solely in if it should be repealed.

So, we must ask ourselves, objectively, 15 years on, should we accept the legal untidiness and ambiguity, given that over the last 15 years, there has been little public interest in seeing section 377A enforced? From a legal perspective, it is not quite tenable for us to keep this dead letter law and I support the repeal.

Sir, I have heard the concerns of those who are seeking for the definition of marriage between one man and one woman to be codified in the Constitution. However, the hon Minister for Social and Family Development has elaborated on why such an approach is not the right one for Singapore. For this reason, I can understand the intention of the introduction of Article 156 to the Constitution as part of a package of amendments which strives to reflect a balance – protecting the existing definition of marriage from constitutional challenges per the majority views today while leaving space for future generations to make their own decisions based on the contexts of their time.

Sir, societies evolve over time and leaders must proactively respond to the conditions of the day. The Singapore I grew up in is different from the one of my parents and I can also appreciate that the Singapore which my children one day may grow up in could be unrecognisable from my lived experiences.

To do this, while we may choose to educate and guide our families based on our own personal values, we ought to avoid passing down entrenched positions to future generations, especially in our secular shared space. Sir, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): Ever since Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made an announcement about section 377A during National Day Rally 2022, many have been discussing this issue and expressed their support as well as their opposition. Our Malay/Muslim community is not a monolithic community. Each generation has different views, backgrounds, and experiences. In my discussions with organisations and different individuals, I have heard different perspectives. I would like to thank everyone who took the time to share their thoughts with me.

I also had the opportunity to meet leaders, staff, and volunteers from our various Malay/Muslim organisations. In our conversations, many have expressed hope that the family institution will be protected, in addition to the repeal of Section 377A. Some shared their concerns about their ability to manage and support conversations between family members about Section 377A. Others shared their personal struggles to reconcile their faith, mindset and society so that they could impart values to their children that are aligned with their faith and the way they were brought up because it is something that they cherish. Nonetheless, they still believe that any assistance and social services should be given on the basis of compassion and place an importance on the dignity of the individual, regardless of their sexuality.

The tolerance and diversity that we have in Singapore is something that we have nurtured and built over the years. It exists today because the generations before us as well as the current generation agree that it is important for us to seek a compromise in our public spaces where advocacy does not necessarily mean that we need to tear down each other.

(In English): On that note, I would like to finish off my speech to ask not just the Members of this House but Singaporeans at large – where do we go from here, with not just dealing with this repeal but other issues that may divide us?

There are two paths.

The first sees us entrenched in our positions, unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue with others who may not see the world the way we do. The second sees us engaging in respectful conversation while remaining steadfast to our own values.

Path 1 leads to division and we have seen the damage this has done in fractured societies. Path 2 leads to understanding and in turn, peace and a more lasting prosperity. It is a path rarely paved and harder fought and uncharted territory for many of us. In moments of crisis, we run the risk of deviating back to Path 1.

In the context of section 377A, we move beyond talking about criminality in the same sentence as homosexuality and see people as individuals for who they are. It is easy to say that we must move beyond tolerance and towards understanding but harder to accept that we can no longer steer clear from speaking on contentious issues.

I ask that we endeavour to not invalidate the lived experiences of others and that we do not fall prey to living in echo chambers.

Singapore is not in a special bubble which makes us immune to these risks and I do believe that our leaders understand that. As a young nation, we have not had as many years to discuss and debate or come to a landing of what we expect of each other as well as an understanding of trade-offs.

I am hopeful that efforts such as Forward Singapore will build up the muscle for society to do so, if done well. Such sessions are an important part of setting up a two-way mode of engagement between the Government and people, where engaging in productive dialogue, varying points of view, becomes the new normal.

In closing, there are many ways to create change. Sometimes, it requires us raising our voices; most times, it requires persistence and tough conversations; and always, it involves time, a big heart and the willingness to hear each other out.

Ultimately, change should not be born out of or led by fear as fear will not protect us. I echo my hon colleague Joan Pereira's sentiments – that we should come from a place of love – and, I will add, also of courage. Knowing that there are diverse groups who feel strongly about this, I hope that we can continue to be brave, to have tough conversations with mutual respect for our fellow Singaporeans.

Abdul Samad

 * See also: Abdul Samad's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahiBUNLc3X4

ahiBUNLc3X4 <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

2.41 pm

Mr Abdul Samad (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Prime Minister Lee first announced in his National Day Rally Speech in August 2022 that section 377A would be repealed. Since then, this matter has been deeply debated by members of the public as well as Members of this House.

Based on my interactions with my friends, colleagues, union leaders and members, I have gathered that there are sentiments of worry and unhappiness amongst Singaporeans on this topic, despite the many engagement sessions carried out earlier involving various groups of leaders and fellow Singaporeans.

We have heard today and yesterday from more than 20 Members of Parliament and Nominated Members of Parliament on this thorny and sensitive subject matter. I am heartened by the passion and conviction of the various speeches by the Members of this house and their commitment to safeguard the natural institution of marriage and family structure, as reiterated by many.

On the other hand, I am also comforted, knowing that we are according the necessary space to those who had previously felt oppressed by the existence of section 377A in our books.

I would like to thank both Minister Masagos for his explanation on the implications of the insertion of a new Article 156 into our Constitution with regards to marriage as well as Minister Shanmugam's explanation on the importance of repealing section 377A in this House instead of being struck down by the Court.

In fact, many in our society may not have known that prior to this announcement, there have been constitutional challenges filed in Court against section 377A on the basis that it violates the Constitution. Prime Minister Lee also mentioned during his National Day Rally Speech that the Attorney-General and the Minister for Law have advised that in a future Court challenge, there is a real risk of section 377A being struck down.

Sir, our union members and fellow workers are also residents of the Members of Parliament here. They, too, shared their concerns with me either in person, over calls, messages or even emails.

I have received emails from multiple individuals and groups calling for the retention of section 377A. This view is commonly held by more conservative and/or religious groups as they are concerned with what the repeal of section 377A represents – that there would be an erosion of family values and the traditional definition that marriage is between a man and woman could be challenged.

There is also another view that the Government should not intervene nor police private and sexual behaviours between consenting adults. Accordingly, it should be removed from our books, especially if the Government would not actively enforce it.

With all being said, I hope the Government can enlighten laypersons like myself on the relevant processes for legislative and policy reforms. Under what circumstances would the Court be empowered to strike down the laws passed by Parliament? What can be done by Parliament to avoid the striking down of the laws? Should the matter be canvassed before Parliament for Parliament to consider repealing the same first? What is the difference between these two processes? Can an infographic illustrate these processes to make it easier for people out there to understand?

Nevertheless, I am glad that this issue is canvassed before us presently, as such a law which has far reaching implications on Singapore’s family structure and societal norms should be decided by Parliament, which has the people’s mandate, and not the Courts, which only interpret and apply the laws passed by Parliament.

At this same juncture, I applaud the Government’s decision of introducing Article 156 into our Constitution. Article 156(2) provides that the Government and public authorities may, in exercising their executive authority, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage. This is wholly consistent with what most Singaporeans want – which is to maintain the current family and social norms, where marriage is between a man and a woman, and children are brought up in such a family structure. We hope that the existing measures, such as public housing policies and financial benefits for married couples, as well as education and media policies continue to promote and safeguard the institution of marriage. Sir, I will now speak in Malay.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, our discussions on the repeal of Section 377 and amendments to the National Constitution have gained the attention of our citizens, regardless of race or religion. Many have expressed their concerns about the impact on our way of life if Section 377 is repealed. Sadly, not many people have given equal attention to the Constitutional Amendment through the addition of Article 156 which clarifies and strengthens the definition of marriage and family.

Many are asking whether the Government agrees with the actions of such groups to the point that it acknowledges and gives in to their demands. We are all aware of the emergence of such groups and it is a grave concern for our society, present and future. The repeal can be seen as a minor success for this group. Is it possible that in the future they will continue to make more demands based on equal rights for all in society? Will the Government also support and allow the same thing, just as it does now?

There is nothing wrong with expressing concerns, but we must accept that the world belongs to all of creation including humans, fauna, mountains, flora and countless others. This group of people are also human beings just like us. We should rightfully share the vastness of this world with all of God's creations. Let us not alienate them, just because of their sexual preferences. Let us spread kindness to all humankind and recognise the challenges that they face. They never asked to be that way, but we who claim to be of sound mind and body should take up the role of advising and sharing with them the natural state of life.

Let us cultivate respect, instead of being judgmental, based on our own different opinions, positions, and beliefs. We must avoid spreading slanders that can divide our society. The harmonious cohesion that we built over the years that is founded on mutual respect must be maintained and strengthened. United we stand, divided we fall!

(In English): Sir, I am sure that the repeal of section 377A will bring some form of relief and comfort to those who have previously felt oppressed by the same – in knowing that our societal norms have shifted and we, as a society, are ready to accept and grant them the space needed.

In my personal view, the Government has arrived at a nice balance – granting homosexuals the space that they need through the repeal, while recognising and upholding the traditional definition of marriage through the constitutional amendments.

In closing, I echo what our Prime Minster said at the National Day Rally that we must maintain the mutual respect and trust that we have painstakingly built up over the years and stay united as one united people.

I stand by and support the decision to repeal section 377A as well as amendment to the Constitution because Every Human Matters!

I also call on fellow workers and employers to treat every worker equally regardless of their gender, because Every Worker Matters!

Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim

 * See also: Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim's views on homosexuality

At 2:56pm,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7z5F2fMd2o

-7z5F2fMd2o <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

2.51 pm

The Minister of State for Home Affairs and National Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): Over the past few months, the Government has consulted extensively with various groups on this important issue.

I have met Malay/Muslim religious leaders, Malay/Muslim organisations, interfaith groups, youth groups, and healthcare professionals during those engagement sessions. Participants shared their honest and candid feedback.

The majority in our society, including the Malay/Muslim community, value and wish to uphold the traditional view of family, where marriage is between a man and a woman, with children raised in such a family setting.

The Government is fully supportive of this. Our position on marriage and family is clear, and this has consistently been reflected in our policies and legislation. The conventional definition of marriage is set out in our laws – in the Women’s Charter and the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA). Many of Singapore’s policies are based on that definition, including adoption, housing, education, and media.

With the Constitutional amendment, the Government is taking steps to protect the definition of marriage and related laws and policies from constitutional challenges. This would ensure that any changes to the definition of marriage can only be debated and decided through Parliament, and not through the Courts.

If we look at the various challenges mounted against Section 377A over the years, we can expect similar challenges to the definition of marriage and laws and policies based on this definition.

Such decisions should not be left to the Courts to decide. During Prime Minister’s National Day Rally speech, he made it clear that judges have neither the expertise nor the mandate to address political questions, nor rule on social norms and values. Minister Masagos had also earlier in his speech highlighted US and India as examples of why Court-led decisions could lead to undesirable, win-lose outcomes for society.

If we do not take action to protect the institution of marriage, and allow this to be left to the Courts, we risk damaging the bedrock of society which is the structure of family.

Where important social issues are concerned, Parliament is more suited to deal with them. Parliament can consult different groups, take in their feedback, and assess the best way forward while balancing wider societal considerations. In essence, the making of pro-family laws should be decided by Parliament; not by the Courts.

I have shared a gist of the above in my various engagements with the Malay/Muslim community and most of them understood and welcomed this.

As Minister Shanmugam explained in his speech, we are also moving to repeal Section 377A.

During my engagements, some, including those in the Malay/Muslim community, shared they were concerned that the repeal would signal a sea of change in other laws and policies, and result in a sudden shift of the tone of our society.

Some also shared their fears – that the repeal of Section 377A would open the floodgates for same-sex marriage and same-sex family formation, normalising LGBT discourse in our society, and lead to knock-on effects pertaining to sex education in schools, normalising the portrayal of LGBT relationships in the media, and so on.

I would like to reassure the community that there will be no change to the Government’s position on marriage and family.

The Government has no plans to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriages. Similarly, policies relying on the current definition of marriage will remain unchanged. This has also been echoed by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong that this Government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage, nor the policies that rely on this definition.

You may ask, “why repeal Section 377A now?” Allow me to briefly explain why the Government has decided to repeal Section 377A and protect the definition of marriage.

First, repealing Section 377A is the right and principled thing to do.

Fundamentally, there are no law-and-order concerns arising from consensual, adult homosexual conduct in private.

Society has changed since Parliament last debated Section 377A in 2007. In 2007, our society was not yet ready, but our engagements over the past few months have shown that most Singaporeans today accept that sex between men should not be a crime.

Even if we may be personally opposed to homosexual conduct, we should recognise that Section 377A as a law has been a marker of stigmatisation to those in the gay community, and experienced as a stark reminder of their rejection by the rest of society. Removing this source of psychological and physical distress from their lives is the right thing to do, so we can move forward as a society where our gay family, friends, and colleagues are treated with the same degree of respect.

Second, as Minister Shanmugam has explained earlier, there is a significant risk of Section 377A being struck down by the Courts, on the grounds that it breaches the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Third, if Section 377A were to be struck down by the Courts, our definition of marriage and related laws and policies would be subjected to similar legal challenges.

Taken together, the Constitutional amendment and the repeal of Section 377A reflect the approach that the Government is taking to prevent the definition of marriage from being overturned by the Courts, while doing the right thing and maintaining unity and social cohesion.

Earlier I mentioned some of the key concerns raised by the Malay/Muslim community with regards to the repeal of Section 377A and the possible implications. I also made clear that there will be no change to the various laws and policies related to marriage as it is not the Government's intention to cause a destabilising shift in our society.

Let me address some of the feedback the Government has received from our engagement sessions.

First, I understand that the Malay/Muslim community wishes to protect longstanding religious and family values.

Regarding this, I would like to refer to the Mufti's recent religious guidance concerning LGBT matters. Mufti clarified that in Islam, only sexual relations between a husband and wife is permitted. I agree this should continue to be protected and promoted.

At the same time, Mufti also acknowledged that we live in a diverse society where we ought to respect differences in worldviews and that we should continue to extend compassion to Muslims who identify as LGBT. As Muslims, we must exercise kindness and empathy to our fellow Muslims who might have differences in opinions and views from us.

Second, some are concerned that the push for LGBT rights would infringe on religious freedom.

I would like to clarify that the repeal will not affect the religious freedom of the Malay/Muslim community which will continue to be constitutionally protected.

Malay/Muslim community leaders and asatizah can continue to preach freely on Islamic beliefs about homosexuality, including doing so online to engage more youths on the matter, as long as it is done respectfully, and does not cross redlines of inciting violence or hate towards others. The community should also take reference from Mufti's guidance.

More importantly, I would like to emphasise that religious freedom must be balanced with mutual accommodation, respect and compassion in our plural society. This is essential to maintaining social cohesion.

Where sensitive issues are concerned, people are free to disagree with one another, and we should have the space to air views and concerns.

But even so, as we navigate these differences in worldviews, we must remember to abide by principles of mutual, understanding, respect and accommodation in these interactions so that we are able to have constructive conversations on how we can move our society forward.

In an earlier interview, Mufti commented that the repeal of Section 377A was a complex social issue and a tough balancing act for everyone, including the Government and religious groups.

As a community, we must continue to be guided by Islamic values and teachings in all that we say and do, even as laws change. We have to be careful not to polarize debate on this issue and risk straining the communal ties that we have built up painstakingly over the years.

As Muslim leaders, we should not focus on our own personal views and appeal to our own community only. Instead, we should fully consider what is best for our community by considering and balancing the views of all Singaporeans. This will ensure that we adopt a holistic view and approach to enable us to move forward together.

In line with what Mufti has stated, although homosexuality is a sin, the community should not reject or ostracise them. We should remain principled and balanced even though we have different views and look at what is best for the society as a whole.

This is why the Government supports both the repeal of Section 377A and the amendment to the Constitution to protect marriage.

As we move forward, I would like to call on everyone to keep calm and exercise moderation as we work out a consensus for the betterment of Singapore, as one united society, as we have always done.

I would also like to thank our community leaders and colleagues for sharing their views and giving their support to the Government in this matter. We heard their views and opinions, and we will continue to work closely with them in this matter.

I am touched with their readiness to continue strengthening our nation-building ecosystem despite facing complex issues from time to time. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Louis Ng

 * See also: Louis Ng's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXAmCB5vm8E

rXAmCB5vm8E <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

3.08 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, the repeal of section 377A holds great significance for many across the social and religious spectrum. The heated civic discourse and vigorous advocacy speaks to strongly held beliefs that many hold on this issue.

This has been an opportunity for Singaporeans to learn to disagree in a spirited but civil way. I believe that such open debate is a sign of a healthy and functioning democracy. However, in doing so we cannot lose sight of our shared humanity.

I can do no better than quote MUIS. In response to the repeal of section 377A, it said that Muslim law "places importance on human dignity, respect and peaceful relations". It further said, "These values are crucial as we navigate complex socio-religious issues today. As Muslims, we should treat everyone with full dignity and respect. Everyone, regardless of their sexual orientations, must feel safe in our society and institutions. Muslims should uphold the best of character, charity and compassion, in dealing with others, even with whom we disagree".

I believe these statements apply not just to those of the Muslim faith but to all of us. As we continue to engage on discrimination against the gay community and discrimination of any form, I hope we continue to treat each other with dignity, respect and kindness.

In doing so, we cannot shy away from having conversations with people that we do not identify with. We need to continue the dialogue on issues affecting the gay community with the intent of achieving progress for everyone.

For the gay community, the repeal of section 377A is the correct thing to do. It is the correct thing to do not only because of the likelihood of success of any Court challenges. It is the correct thing to do because gay Singaporeans deserve, like any other member of society, not to be criminalised for their private behaviour.

The repeal of section 377A is a positive step towards making Singapore a more equal and inclusive society. We should recognise and thank the collective efforts of activists and organisations over the years to raise awareness about the challenges that the gay community faces and foster acceptance of gay individuals within our society. We need to continue to have conversations about these issues as our nation progresses.

Sir, I have three points of clarifications on both Bills.

My first point is on the treatment of prior convictions under section 377A. In his National Day Rally speech, when he announced the intended repeal of section 377A, Prime Minister Lee said he believed that the repeal is the right thing to do and that it would provide relief to gay Singaporeans.

Minister Shanmugam has also said that it would be wrong to continue criminalising the sexuality of gay Singaporeans and what they do in private. Nobody, he said, deserves to be stigmatised because of their sexual orientation, so repealing section 377A and removing their pain is the right thing to do.

If the continued stigmatisation of gay Singaporeans is wrong, then the continued stigmatisation of gay Singaporeans because of their record of conviction under section 377A must also be wrong.

Under the Registration of Criminals Act, an offence under section 377A is a registrable crime. Any criminal record of a conviction under section 377A will become spent after a crime-free period of five years. An exception is if the person is disqualified from having their criminal record being spent.

As such, this may mean that individuals with existing records of conviction under section 377A because the conviction was within a five-year period or because the individual is disqualified from having the record becoming spent. These individuals may, due to their records, remain stigmatised, even as we repeal section 377A.

Can the Minister clarify if there are any individuals with existing records of convictions under section 377A that have not been spent? Can the Minister clarify how these prior convictions will be treated?

My second point is about support provided to students of diverse genders. The repeal of section 377A sends a strong message against the discrimination of gay Singaporeans on the basis, again, of their private behaviour. As Minister Shanmugam shared, this legislative step is a significant step in removing stigma on a legislative level and will also go some way in removing hurt.

However, discrimination and stigma do not just exist in abstract policies. Many individuals of diverse genders face discrimination, stigma and hurt in their day-to-day interactions in the community and even with their closest loved ones.

These challenges can be especially daunting for young students who are just starting to build their identity and navigate their teenage years which can already be a stressful experience for anyone.

Many surveys, both local and international, show that many individuals of diverse genders experienced symptoms of generalised anxiety disorder. Many also experienced major depressive disorder and engage in self harm.

Our teachers in schools are a first line of defence in identifying students who may be struggling from such stressors and challenges. They are also well placed to facilitate appropriate intervention.

Can Minister share what support has been or will be extended to such students? In particular, what role will teachers and schools play in identifying students of diverse genders who may be struggling and extending such support to them?

My final point is on the new Article 156(1) in the Constitution. It enables the legislature and the Government to define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage. In the explanatory statement, examples of such activities included housing preferences and financial benefits for married persons, and education and media policies that promote and safeguard the institution of marriage.

As we encourage marriage, I hope we will not discriminate against single parents, whether they are unmarried, divorced or widowed.

I am glad that Minister Masagos provided some assurances on this during his opening speech that single parents will not be left behind. Indeed, increased support for single parents is one of the main recommendations in the White Paper on Singapore Women's Development, published this year by the Government.

I have raised recommendations on housing policies to ensure that single unwed parents and their children will have a roof over their heads. I have also asked for single unwed parents to receive the Parenthood Tax Rebate, the Working Mothers' Child Relief, and the cash component of the Baby Bonus. It is a whole suite of parenthood policies that exclude and discriminate against single unwed parents. There is a lot more we can do.

Can the Minister confirm that even as the Government takes steps to define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage, we will also continue to review our policies to ensure that single unwed parents are adequately supported? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of both Bills.

Janet Ang

 * See also: Janet Ang's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyMdtQQ4rwA

YyMdtQQ4rwA <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

3.15 pm

Janet Ang (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. I am mindful that the subject concerns sensitive matters of religious beliefs, sexuality and identity. I stand to speak what I believe and beg the indulgence of everyone who may not necessarily hold the same view.

We all have friends and family who may hold the liberal view or conservative view when it comes to matters concerning sexuality and morality. At the same time, we all have friends and family who are LGBTQ+ persons. The long public debate of the status of section 377A of the Penal Code has weighed heavily on all sides and has divided our society and even families.

To see the cup half full, I would say that during this time, especially since 2018, parties holding differing views have learnt more about one another's perspectives and engaged in dialogues with the Government, and directly or indirectly with one another. The Government has listened and the proposed amendment to the Constitution, along with the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code, will soon bring the debate to a legislative closure.

I hope that after today's debate and after this House has decided, we will move forward together as one Singapore, upholding our pledge to be one united people, respecting one another's dignity as human persons and upholding the Singapore family built on marriage between a man and a woman, and the children they will birth and raise, to be the bedrock of our society.

I declare I am a Catholic and have been brought up knowing that my Creator is a loving God and he loves everyone. The catechism of the Catholic Church teaches Catholics that the men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity, even as they are called to chastity. Pope Francis, in his encyclical, Amoris Laetitia – The Joy of Love, wrote, and I quote, "We would like before all else to reaffirm that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while 'every sign of unjust discrimination' is to be carefully avoided, particularly any form of aggression and violence." The Catholic Church's position is clear – homosexual acts are sinful, but homosexual orientation is not.

The Archbishop of Singapore, His Eminence, Cardinal William Goh, in a statement in August 2022 after the Prime Minister's National Day Rally speech on this matter of repealing section 377A, has come out to say that the Church is against the criminalisation of LGBTQ+ people and, so, supporting the repeal of section 377A is not the issue. Rather, the issue is with regard to the rights as a Catholic Church, to teach and practise our beliefs and regard the family and marriage as defined between a man and a woman, according to natural law. As we have all heard over these two days in Parliament, his concerns on this issue matter to more segments than just the Catholic Church.

Several hon Members of Parliament have referred to the Youth Survey conducted in September by the news media, Today. Here is an excerpt from the news report: "The demographically representative survey, which polled 1,000 respondents aged between 18 and 35, was carried out between 5 and 16 September. Almost seven in 10, or 68%, of youths polled said that the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex between homosexuals, is positive for inclusivity in Singapore. But when asked if same-sex marriage is wrong, the respondents were generally divided, with 37% agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement, and 33% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. The remaining said that they were neutral. At the same time, 62% of the respondents felt that it was important to uphold and safeguard the definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman."

There have been various polls done over time and, while they may not all be statistically significant, I believe they do sufficiently tell the story. First, that Singaporeans are sympathetic towards decriminalising gay sex; two, Singaporeans are divided on the acceptance of same-sex relations; and three, the majority of Singaporeans, both young and old, believe that it is important to uphold and safeguard the definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman.

After much prayer, research and listening to many, including my own daughters, repealing section 377A is the right thing to do, and doing so will send a statement to the LGBTQ+ community that they are safe being who they are, even if their behaviour may not be accepted by the mainstream community in Singapore.

Supporting the repeal is not the issue. As many in the House have said, the removal of anti-gay sex laws in some countries saw the issue of same-sex marriage falling under the spotlight and there are large segments in Singapore who care deeply about marriage as defined currently between a man and a woman, as well as family norms, such as how children are brought up and what is taught in school. Most people have come to accept that gay sex is a matter of private individual choice.

Same-sex marriage, however, is effectively changing a social institution, contrary to what most Singaporeans believe and are ready to accept. For me, marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, committing fidelity to each other, so long as they both shall live, and bringing forth children to form a family and fulfil the natural order of the transmission of life.

In fact, this Parliament has declared 2022 as the Year of Singapore Families. Singapore families want to be confident that, in Singapore, we will be able to freely guide our children on what we believe to be right and wrong. Likewise, for us Catholics, the Catholic Church needs to be confident that their rights to preach and to teach in the parishes and Catholic schools, according to Catholic beliefs, will be protected. As we have heard in these past two days, the same is true for other religious communities and even for non-religious Singaporeans.

I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister to clarify a few points to help address concerns and worries in the minds and hearts of Singaporeans, even as we move to support the repeal of section 377A.

Firstly, with the amendment to the Constitution, are there still circumstances where the definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman can be subjected to challenge? What are those circumstances and how will the Government deal with such circumstances?

Second, will the Christian and Catholic Churches be assured that they will continue to be free to preach against gay sexual acts? Cardinal William Goh has spoken of his concerns that we may be drawn into a situation as in the West, where we cannot even say that a same-sex relationship is wrong. For the Catholic Church, this would not be acceptable as the Church must have freedom to continue to teach in the Catholic schools and from the pulpit what we believe, and practise what we teach.

Third, how will MOE handle sexuality education in our schools, both public and private, and assure Singaporeans that Singapore's family and social norms, based on traditional Singaporean values, will be protected? Bullying and cancel culture must not take root in our educational institutions and our society.

Fourth, we should not allow a culture where people of religion are ostracised, attacked for espousing their views or their disagreements with LGBTQ+ viewpoints and vice versa. Singapore has worked hard to create inter-religious harmony in our society. How will the Government protect and safeguard this precious strength and asset of our country?

Let me close by reiterating my desire that after today's Bills are carried, the LGBTQ+ community amongst us will feel reaffirmed that they are safe being who they are, and, together, all of us, as Singaporeans, we will rise above differences in views and beliefs, and respect one another's dignity as human persons. We will work together to prevent cancel culture to take root in our educational institutions, our workplaces and our society.

We will maintain our religious freedom to practise and teach what we believe to be right and wrong. We will uphold Singapore's societal norms where marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that married couples live as role models for their children and children's children. And we will not disregard the importance and essential need to have the holistic family as the bedrock of our society.

And finally, we will continue to dialogue, to listen with compassion and kindness, to one another. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications, with hope and trust, I stand in support of the amendment to the Constitution and the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code.

Louis Chua

 * See also: Louis Chua's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRY2VTb78Io

xRY2VTb78Io <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

3.25 pm

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, I welcome the move to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code. For too long, the law has remained in our statutes, explicitly stating that sex between adult men is a crime, even if it is consensual and done in private.

Despite the Government having said multiple times in the past that it will not enforce the colonial era law, and with the Court of Appeal ruling earlier this year that section 377A was unenforceable in its entirety, its existence has very real repercussions that affect many of our fellow Singaporeans, their families and their loved ones.

The topic of this debate is a complex and multi-faceted one, with individuals, including Members of Parliament, holding deep personal convictions. Yet, beyond the Bills and clauses themselves, we must also be cognisant that the issues we are debating have far-reaching effects into the personal lives of our fellow Singaporeans. It is on this note that I wish to touch on some aspects of the lived experience of our LGBTQ+ community in Singapore, which may be less apparent to those of us who are not from within the community.

I am a young father, with a loving and happy family. Section 377A never really bothered me in any way that I live my life. But over the years, I have gotten to know several members of the LGBTQ+ community, some of whom have become my close friends. The daily struggles they face regarding their sexual orientation and gender identity are very real. We all live in a largely heteronormative world. For my LGBTQ+ friends, that means they constantly face subtle judgement, discrimination, apathy and hatred, even towards them at home, at school, in the military and at work.

Seemingly nondescript questions of "bring your girlfriend to drink next time" or "where is your husband?" or "do you plan to have kids" can come up suddenly at family gatherings or happy hour drinks at work and make them squirm. Think about those awkward Chinese New Year conversations that you have with distant relatives at various stages of your life, be it when you are single, married but without children, or even married with one child, and replicate it throughout the rest of the year.

These questions become even more damaging, especially when they are unsure of how others will react to their true sexual orientation or gender identity, and potentially affect their opportunities at work and in society. So, some choose to hide their true selves and avoid talking about who they are dating or their hopes and dreams to lead a stable life. They stay hidden from society. Some choose to be public about it but fear the risk of being punished for their choices by not being considered for promotion at work or being bullied at school. In some form or another, individuals who identify as LGBTQ+ have to cope with additional mental and emotional stress and, in some cases, physical abuse, just for being someone they were born as.

Mr Speaker, it has been well-documented that LGBTQ+ individuals are at a higher risk of depression and mental and physical health dangers. Some suffer from internalised homophobia, where they loathe themselves over a sexual orientation or gender identity that they had no choice over.

A recent NUS public health survey found that among 570 sexual minority young adults aged 18 to 25, 59% had contemplated suicide and 14% had attempted to kill themselves. Having section 377A in our laws means that it is hard to organise support groups to help not just members of the gay community, which is who the laws target, but also the wider LGBTQ+ community, who face discrimination, bullying or mental struggles, just for being who they are.

Schools and companies may think twice about setting up official LGBTQ+ groups, or at least show overt support in counselling and supporting these individuals. Let us not forget the unfortunate incident from earlier this year, where a school counsellor himself presented content discriminating against the LGBTQ+ community, before being suspended from all duties pending investigations. The fact that there remains a legal route for prosecuting LGBTQ+ persons has a specific state-sanctioned chilling effect on the community.

Retaining 377A also makes Singapore look anachronistic, especially in light of our Asian financial hub status. Hong Kong's Legislative Council passed legislation decriminalising homosexual acts in 1991. China repealed similar laws in 1997. Japan briefly made homosexuality illegal and then repealed the law during the Meiji era. Homosexual acts were never a legal issue in Taiwan. India, which also shares similar colonial roots as Singapore, struck the law down in 2018. Having section 377A made it challenging to convince prominent members of the LGBTQ+ community – Singaporean or otherwise – in the arts, financial sector, tech and many other areas to remain in Singapore and make meaningful contributions to our society and economy. The LGBTQ+ community's joy of seeing section 377A repealed would have been even greater if not for the fact that the move merely puts Singapore more in line with other cosmopolitan, open and inclusive societies.

In addition, retaining a law that is not actively enforced or cannot be enforced sends a confusing signal on how one should comprehend Singapore's legal system. It also means that there is always a chance that a future Government may attempt to prosecute a man for sex with another man that was done in private and consensual. That is why I applaud the Government's move to repeal section 377A.

Some will know that my colleague and fellow Sengkang GRC Member of Parliament Assoc Prof Jamus Lim attended a Pink Dot rally this past June in his personal capacity. As shared in a media release for Pink Dot 14, "We are living in an increasingly divided world. The ability to reach across the spaces between us, for dialogue and co-created understanding, is what will keep us safe."

Mr Speaker, the issue of repealing, at its core, is not a political one but one that grants dignity and freedom to a marginalised section of Singapore. I am glad to see that society is, indeed, ready to move on and repeal section 377A. But repealing section 377A does not mean discrimination towards the LGBTQ+ community disappears overnight. Discrimination against such individuals still exists in Hong Kong, China, Japan, India and many other jurisdictions where gay sex is not illegal per se.

On the constitutional amendment that is being proposed, the message that Singapore sends is quite clear: the idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman and this is a decision that will be left for the legislature and society to decide, and not by the Courts. For the geographies that I mentioned earlier that have repealed discriminatory same-sex laws, that discrimination still exists is a reminder to us that social acceptance is crucial to any landmark legal or constitutional changes, to maintain harmony and stability in society. As such, I do recognise the importance of the signal the new Article 156 sends, to provide greater protection for the definition of marriage and its related policies today.

After the Prime Minister's announcement at the National Day Rally, MCI said that media policies on homosexuality will remain, which means, as a Toy Story Fan who has enjoyed the entire Toy Story series since 1995, I cannot bring my children to watch Lightyear, a Pixar animated children's film due to "overt homosexual depictions", as though homosexuality is unspeakable and cannot be seen. MOE said that the education curriculum will still be focused on what the majority of society supports, which is family, between a man and a woman. But at the same time, we need to be conscious of LGBTQ+ individuals being invisible in our curriculums.

It will take time for society to come together and, as shared by Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, "create conditions for all Singaporeans to succeed and certainly not to feel marginalised", "where we are tolerant of Singaporeans who are different in as far as the law allows." But it is all the more important for us to understand one another's viewpoints, stay civil and respectful as we engage all members of society as Singapore becomes more inclusive and open.

I had the privilege of hearing from one of our LGBTQ+ advocates recently and she is a household name who needs no introduction, Ms Theresa Goh. She shared her incredible journey as a child born with spina bifida, to becoming our first female swimmer at the 2004 Athens Paralympic Games, winning Gold at the 2006 IPC World Swimming Championships and Bronze at the 2016 Paralympic Games. More recently, she has also been elected as one of 10 members of the Singapore National Olympic Council Athletes' Commission.

While we know her for her extraordinary achievements, what is less well known were the struggles she and her family had to go through as a disabled person and a queer woman here in Singapore. What was particularly heart-wrenching to me was hearing her speak so casually about the difficulties her parents had in searching for a kindergarten for her back in the 1990s, as they faced repeated rejections the moment the kindergartens found out that she had a disability. She shared that there was even one day when she was not feeling well and threw up after lunch, yet her teacher did not help to clean her up. But she felt that had she been any other normal child, her teachers would have cleaned her up before her parents came to pick her.

It is upsetting to hear of such experiences, but I also take comfort in that such behaviour would be completely unacceptable and unthinkable in today's circumstances and we, as a society, have moved to become more accepting of the disabled since the 1990s.

Today, however, LGBTQ+ inclusivity remains a frowned-upon topic. As late as 2017, when Theresa shared about how she decided to "come out" in an interview with The Straits Times, she was particularly afraid of how other people would see her and how they would react. At home, she was worried that her parents, in particular, would take this news badly. However, they reassured her that all they want is for her to find somebody who would take care of her, whether that person is a boy or a girl.

While Theresa's story has a happy ending, another close friend of mine is still facing challenges in broaching this topic with his parents. As an only son, he has been extremely filial to his parents and shares a very special bond with them. A number of years ago, he felt that he no longer wanted to hide his sexuality from his parents and wanted to be completely honest with them as he has been with every other aspect of his life. This was not taken very well unfortunately, with his mother feeling distraught that there was something wrong with her son and even prays at the temple regularly with the hope that, one day, he will be "normal" again. I pray that, one day, his parents will accept him fully for who he is.

Mr Speaker, let me draw on what I see in the finance sector where I work. Many financial institutions encourage their employees to bring their true selves to work, because they believe that only then can they truly be engaged in what they do and fully develop their passions. Many banks see being open about being who you are can make for a more productive workforce. They have clear DEI – or diversity, equity and inclusion – talent policies. Incorporating DEI into business operations has proven to benefit companies' performance because it encourages a wider range of views and opinions among staff. All these have clear, measurable impact and should equally apply to our country and economy, too, where we place a very strong emphasis on developing everyone's potential.

A survey by YouGov in May 2022 on behalf of LinkedIn shared that 75% of LGBTQ+ professionals indicated that it is important that they work at a company where they feel comfortable bringing their full selves to work and 49% indicated that they will not work at a company that does not have LGBTQ+ friendly benefits. Similarly, a Deloitte survey of 600 members of the LGBTQ+ community across 12 countries showed that over 70% of the respondents are more inclined to remain with their current employer because of its approach to inclusiveness, while 37% of respondents indicate that they are actively considering changing employers to find one with a more inclusive culture.

Every individual in Singapore should be able to contribute in their fullest capacity without fear of being discriminated against for who they are – be it over race, language, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. Only then can Singapore be truly a global, cosmopolitan, harmonious home that we can all be proud of.

I have a male friend who married his partner of seven years just before the pandemic in New York. The two men are in a loving relationship but there is just one snag – my friend is an only son. When he is old and bedridden, he wants to know that he can trust someone to make difficult medical and legal decisions for him. All they hoped for is that there is at least a jurisdiction out there that can give them societal and legal guarantees that straight couples enjoy. That is why he married his partner, even though he knows that their marriage is not recognised in Singapore. I support the repeal of section 377A and the Constitution (Amendment) Bill.

Ng Ling Ling

 * See also: Ng Ling Ling's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OaQF_XiPSQ

9OaQF_XiPSQ <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

3.39 pm

Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak on the Penal Code and the Constitution (Amendment) Bill as a mother, community leader and friend, in addition to my role as an elected legislator of this land.

Since the proposed repeal of section 377A was mentioned in the media and the public, I have received several written appeals from my Jalan Kayu residents to urge the Government not to do so. These residents are mostly parents of young children and youths. As a mother, I can relate to their concerns.

In October 2007 when the Parliament undertook a comprehensive review of our Penal Code since its major amendments in 1984, the public feedback on section 377A was emotional. The Cabinet, after extensive public consultations and discussions, concluded at the end of the debate that Singapore society remained conservative and the majority preferred to uphold a stable society with traditional, heterosexual family values while giving homosexuals the space to live their lives and contribute to society.

As one who has been brought up in a traditional Asian family, I understand Singaporeans who uphold the construct of a family formed by marriage between a man and a woman. This is an important cornerstone of any society since the start and for the continuation of human history.

Why then the need to repeal section 377A now? The Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Shanmugam, gave a detailed explanation. Section 377A was first introduced in 1938, when Singapore was still part of the Straits Settlements and under colonial rule. The origin of the provisions of section 377A stretched even further back to the Victorian times in the 1860s.

Looking at the recent developments in other jurisdictions like India, India's Supreme Court struck down part of the section 377 of their Indian Penal Code, which also criminalised gay sex. It went further to redefine marriage and familial relationships. As recent as in August this year, India's Supreme Court widened the definition of the family institution and ruled that familial relationships, "can also take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships and queer relationships."

To me, what happened in India gives a glimpse of the implications on societal norms when the judiciary branch of the government, which is the courts, instead of the legislative branch of the government, which is the parliament, began to interpret what are social norms, because the legislative branch, that is, the Parliament, avoided dealing with the matter.

As such, I think it is right for this Parliament of Singapore to debate and decide on the risks posed by recent constitutional challenges that our Court is also facing in terms of section 377A in our Penal Code, with the most recent one in just February this year in the case of Tan Seng Kee vs Attorney-General.

As I am not a trained lawyer, I will not dwell further into the legality of this case, which Minister Shanmugam has also explained yesterday. Suffice to say that I am of the view that this Parliament has the duty to set in place constitutional amendments to clarify our definitions of marriage and family.

In this regard, I have also taken careful note, as a community leader, of the wider views, especially among our younger generation, whose views must also be valued. I will not repeat the studies and surveys that several of my fellow hon Parliamentarians have mentioned about the attitudes towards the repeal of section 377A among our younger generation.

I will share that, in a Youth Network dialogue session, which I attended shortly after the National Day Rally this year, almost the full hall of youth audience between the ages of 15 and 35, raised their hands in support of the repeal of section 377A. On further dialogue, I learned that most youths are of the view that a law that will not be enforced is better off removed. I understand the views of the youths.

But what touched me most in that session were a few young adults, who shared that they regretted being too quick to judge and being insensitive in their teenage years when some peers struggled with their sexual identity in their puberty years. With more maturity now, they felt that they could have been more supportive. One even contacted me for opportunities in social service agencies to serve as a counsellor for the homosexual individuals who may be in need, like how we would have helped any other individuals who are in need in Singapore.

As a trusted friend of a few homosexual individuals, some of whom I have known since school days, I have heard their stories of life's challenges, of loss and of regaining of hopes. What they taught me as a friend is the need for human kindness, compassion and love to prevail over judgement and stigmatisation.

As we propose the repeal of section 377A in our Penal Code and amend our Constitution for the Parliament of the day to be able to reflect our majority electorate's values on the definition of families in Singapore, let us do so with always a care for our fellow Singaporeans at heart, no matter how diverse we are.

Mr Speaker, I struggled with my speech for many months, like many hon Parliamentarians who have spoken out in these two days of Debate. In the end, it was the reconciliation of my mind, of the duty I have as a Parliamentarian, and my heart, which holds respect and care for people, that I accept the need for the repeal and the important amendments to our Constitution, which will leave space for us as a people to continue to forge understanding, reconciliation and a future together.

Derrick Goh

 * See also: Derrick Goh's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_5nGyjLEM8

t_5nGyjLEM8 <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

3.46 pm

Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Sir, during the Committee of Supply debate in March this year, I asked the Government to clarify its position on the Court of Appeal's ruling on the constitutional challenge to section 377A of the Penal Code since it was last debated in 2007.

Given proactive steps taken by the Government on stakeholder engagements, including the Minister's explanation yesterday on the historical context of relevant laws, I fully understand the implications of the Court's rulings and judgments. I welcome the Government's clear explanation of the legal risk that the colonial-era 377A faces and the potential domino impact on other parts of our legislation and related policies. I accept Minister Shanmugam's interpretation on this issue.

I also fully agree that it is the responsibility of our Government and this House to address this issue head on. We cannot cop out and pass this uncomfortable duty to the judiciary. Both Minister Masagos and Minister Shanmugam spoke of the perils of court-led decisions, where the US Supreme Court controversially reversed 50 years of federal abortion rights. The US media noted the chaos brought about by the court judgment to a great nation already split by deep political divide. Singapore cannot afford to take this path.

As the debate on this topic can be divisive, I am glad that our Government has taken accountability and has taken steps to help us navigate this complex matter in an inclusive and transparent way, where views from different segments of our society are heard.

I, too, can attest to this process, where after the National Day Rally Speech, we discussed this issue at Nee Soon's events with our grassroots leaders, residents and religious organisations. We did so in a cool-headed manner and I have to say, the discussions we had with a lot of understanding and empathy. It was way calmer than I earlier expected as this issue is an especially difficult one for all of us to speak on.

This topic affects many in the community who are our friends, relatives and colleagues from both gay and traditional families. While majority of Singaporeans do not want to criminalise sex between gay men, residents I spoke to are concerned whether the repeal of section 377A will lead to an erosion of the protection for marriage, family and children and if the underlying motives of past legal challenges go beyond mere removal of stigma and criminalisation.

I note that the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, which safeguards the definition of marriage without tying the hands of future generations, is a balanced approach to allow the Government of the day to consider prevailing societal attitudes.

On this premise, my community at Nee Soon welcomes Prime Minister Lee and Deputy Prime Minister Wong's assurance that the definition of marriage will not change under their watch and the PAP Government's stance on the traditional family as a basic building block of our society will be strengthened while also respecting the dignity and place of gays in our community.

On this point, it is my hope that on this basis, our Government will continue to find ways to further strengthen the structure of marriage and family in our current policies.

Sir, as we debate the repeal of section 377A and the safeguards put in place, we should also be clear of any impact to the way of life as we know in Singapore and the measures necessary to guide the way forward.

As the premise for the repeal of section 377A is that what happens in private should not be criminalised, the concern of the community is that this could be incorrectly viewed as a signal for stronger public advocacy of gay relationships.

We need to remember that the debate will not make this issue any less divisive. We should expect diverse and passionate views from different stakeholders in society to carry on after today. As such, we will need to continue to ensure a safe space for healthy and civil conversations, just as we did over the last many months so that our society evolves peacefully.

On this note, can the Minister explain his thoughts on further mechanisms that the Government will put in place to promote genuine, healthy engagements? Will surveys be done regularly and discussed over national conversations? In some ways, this can guide the discourse moving forward, monitor fault lines and potentially reduce harassment or discrimination of pro-gay groups or those who do not agree with them, especially in secular spaces such as schools and workplaces.

Currently, some multinational companies offer family benefits to their gay staff, like those for traditional couples. Can the Government explain if it supports such arrangements and its position if gay couples were to push for more workplace benefits? Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, with regards to section 377A, over the past few months, we have held discussions with grassroots leaders, residents and religious groups at some of our activities in Nee Soon. I have covered their questions in my English speech and look forward to the answers.

More importantly, from the national conversations, we can see that Singapore has gained maturity to discuss sensitive issues and find a balance. I think this is the unique Singapore spirit. I hope that we can continue to seek common ground while preserving differences and make better decisions for our society.

(In English): Sir, in our Singapore Pledge, we committed ourselves to build a democratic society based on justice and equality. For me, this process of stakeholder engagements leading to this debate has, I believe, enabled all of us to better understand what our pledge really means.

Our Government has demonstrated its even-handed approach and the two Bills placed before us are well-balanced and are steps forward in the right direction. It recognises that there is a place for everyone, factoring majority preferences and protecting the dignity of our gay community. We are all together better off.

Singapore has always prided itself as a melting pot of cultures, races and religions. In navigating and not avoiding this issue, we have grown together as a nation and I am confident that we can continue to find strength and harmony in diversity as we continue to write our Singapore story. I support in support of these two Bills.

Rachel Ong

 * See also: Rachel Ong's views on homosexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HsYdNRcMDA

8HsYdNRcMDA <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

3.54 pm

Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The announcement of the repeal of section 377A has elicited much response from the ground. Many in this House shared and agreed that this has been a divisive topic. Over the past four months, I have received emails and messages, met in person with residents and members of the public across age groups who are supportive as well as those who are against the repeal.

While most have been respectful in sharing their opinions, I have come to learn of the hostilities some groups carried against those who do not share their views. The vitriol in some manners of speech is of concern to me.

Singapore understands the value of diplomacy and keeping peace with other nations. We do not have the option of being careless with our words or relationships. Diplomacy has been and continues to be key to our progress.

However, it would be futile to work hard on external relationships if our internal relations are weak. A House divided against itself will not stand. Singapore cannot afford a society fractured by toxicity, with one group severing ties with the other simply because we hold different values and opinions.

As Singapore progresses and continues to expose ourselves to global issues and movements, there will only be more opportunities for diverging options to arise in our society. We must ready ourselves. We must work towards a society that can hold difficult conversations where we make room for disagreements and do not force people into a corner of hate. We need to allow many rooms for disagreement but not disharmony.

For this reason, Mr Speaker, I wish to focus my speech on how we can shape Singapore conversations on contentious issues such as the repeal, with a heart set on peace-making, to close the space between us and find the way forward.

Peace by domination and subjugation is not peace. One side prevailing at the expense of the other will break the social compact that is vital for us to be able to live in harmony. Once the compact is broken, repealing section 377A will not be the only divisive issue.

Some view the repeal as rending the moral fabric of society and vice versa.

I take heart by the stated positions of a number of our respected religious leaders earlier in August. Then Archbishop, now Cardinal William Goh spoke of the Roman Catholic Church's neutrality on the repeal, provided that the church continues to have the freedom to teach what it believes and practise what it teaches. Mufti Nazirudin Mohd Nasir spoke of the complexity of the issue. He shared Islam's clear stance on sexuality and marriage and at the same time, the need to respect differences and keep our society cohesive and intact.

What we need to recognise is that the moral and social fabrics of any society are intricately intertwined. One risks being torn as a consequence of the rending of the other. As such, I commend our Government for seeking to protect both the moral and social fabrics of this nation through the proposed Bills. After all, problems are solved in the middle, not at the extremes.

Finding a way forward does not mean we have to hold onto unenforced laws like section 377A, nor does it mean we have to redefine marriage and, consequently, family. Since our families form the foundation of the moral and social fabric of Singapore, we must protect the definition of marriage to avoid more division amongst our people as lines get blurred.

Finding a way forward does mean that people or groups that fall outside the norms of a traditional family are still to be embraced and supported, whether the single parents, singles, widows, widowers or homosexual family members and friends.

As a Member of Parliament, I represent the aspirations of residents from traditional and non-traditional family units and also the rights of my constituents, regardless of their sexual orientation. I hope the decriminalisation of gay sex will bring relief to those who have experienced discrimination. At the same time, those who are heterosexual should also not have to live in fear or be discriminated in their workplaces, schools and communities because they stand neutral or express pro-traditional family views.

It has brought distress to some parents to hear that terms ranging from "cancel them", "bigots" to homophobic, derogatory names are being used in our classrooms against students who do not share the same views on this topic, forcing others into silence.

No one should attack the other and no one should fear being cancelled for holding or expressing pro-homosexual, pro-traditional family views or neutral views. We cannot allow coercion to infringe upon an individual's right to decide on matters of conscience and conviction. This is a right that we must protect through legislation as an open, multi-religious and multi-ethnic society.

Wisdom is found in the ability to get along with others. Just as family members differ from one another, yet still share our lives together, can we, as Singaporeans, define our relational compact to be one of a wider brother- or sisterhood? We can remain honouring of others while disagreeing, respectful without conforming.

Singapore has worked hard to create and build models that have worked well for us – economically, socially and religiously – precisely because we are a pluralistic society. This has been our strength, not a weakness. I am hopeful that we can do the same in the space of affirming heterosexual marriage and family culture, while creating safe social spaces for gay persons.

On the personal front, my feet are firmly rooted in my faith and my arms are wide open. Wide open especially to people who believe differently from me. It is this rootedness that allows me to love and walk alongside those different from me, and to stay interested in their lanes and their realities.

On the repeal, let us remember that our sexual identity, while being an important aspect of our identity, is not the sum total of who we are. If we choose to go deeper into our fuller human identity, we will perhaps find connections that will help us acknowledge and understand one another in our common humanity.

Mr Speaker, my hope is for us to be intentional in sieving out divisive voices in the midst of deep disagreements. Let us not give in to discord nor give up on unity but give our best to our nation. May we then realise our commonalities, close the space between us and, together, discover the Singapore forward.

Resumption of debate
At 4:27pm, the debate resumed with Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam and Minister for Social and Family Development Masagos Zulkifli addressing the questions that MPs had put to them during their speeches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m8E_hhhHUk

3m8E_hhhHUk <br style=="clear: left"/>

Transcript:

4.25 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who have spoken up in support of the Bills. Most have expressed support for the repeal of section 377A.

I will deal with questions raised by Members on: (a) our approach towards cancel culture; (b) past section 377A convictions; (c) keeping sex identification in NRICs and passports; (d) Article 156; and one or two other issues.

Mr Zhulkarnain asked for any update on the Government’s plans to deal with "cancel culture" and whether there will be any consultation and feedback process. My Ministry – MinLaw – is looking at measures to deal with the harm caused by cancel campaigns online.

People really ought to be free to stand by their beliefs and express their views, with due respect for the feelings of others without fearing being "cancelled". Many religious groups and organisations, in particular, are very concerned about this. Many church groups have spoken with us. Their experience is that when they express their views, they are shouted down and they feel bullied. Children in schools also feel this. This is not right.

I have said that we will try and do something about this. We are studying the matter. We are consulting different groups as part of our review. We want to try and strike the right balance. It is not an easy area to deal with or legislate on. We will give more details when we get a sense of what is doable.

Mr Louis Ng asked whether there are any individuals with existing conviction records under section 377A and how these records will be dealt with.

There are some individuals with convictions under 377A. Most of these cases involved non-consenting victims or acts against minors, or sexual acts committed in public. These acts continue to be offences, even after any repeal of section 377A. We do take a serious view of them.

Criminal records for offences are dealt with under the framework in the Registration of Criminals Act. And within that framework, people can apply to have their convictions rendered spent. Some of these offences have become automatically spent. Automatic expiry takes place after a period of time for specific offences and where the criteria are met.

Persons who are disqualified from having their conviction automatically spent, can apply to the Police for the record to be considered spent or rendered spent. But where egregious acts were committed, like non-consensual acts or sexual acts against minors, the records are unlikely to be treated as spent.

There are a small number of individuals who were convicted between 1988 and 2007 for consensual, private, homosexual acts, between adults. I have instructed my Ministry to consider how the records of these persons can be rendered spent proactively.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan said that he hopes that the Government will not allow individuals to remove their registered sex from their NRIC or passport. The short answer is that there is no such plan.

Ms Sylvia Lim suggested that there is no real need for Article 156(1) and (2) since the Constitution already vests legislative power in the legislature and the executive authority in the Government. Let me explain. It is a fairly basic point.

Let us take section 377A as an example. It is a law made in the exercise of legislative power by the Parliament. Section 377A has been challenged as being in breach of the Constitution. Ms Lim agrees that section 377A could be unconstitutional. The presence of Article 38 in the Constitution will not help if section 377A is in fact unconstitutional.

To put it another way, the fact that the Parliament can pass laws and that Article 38 gives that power, does not automatically mean that all such laws cannot be challenged. They can be challenged, for example, if they are contrary to the Constitution.

Article 156 is structured to give effect to and protect laws and policies based on the heterosexual definition of marriage. So, Articles 156(1) and (2) have been drafted in to give effect to this principle, to protect the laws and policies, based on that definition and to make it clear that passing laws and having policies based on the current definition of marriage are constitutionally valid. They give context to Articles 156(3) and (4).

We have been advised by AGC that Articles 156(1) and (2) could be relevant if there are questions raised as to whether regulating marriage and so on are constitutionally valid purposes and considerations for action by the legislature and Government.

Thus, Articles 156(1) and (2) have been enacted to make it clear that the legislature can exercise its legislative power to define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote marriage. Similarly, the Government and public bodies can exercise their executive authority to achieve these ends.

Mr Murali Pillai asked why is it necessary for Articles 156(3) and (4) to exclude the whole of Part 4 instead of just a few Articles.

Let us look at Article 156(3)(a) first. This protects the heterosexual definition of marriage itself from invalidation by Part 4. We need to exclude the whole of Part 4 because we cannot predict what possible arguments might be made against this definition in the future.

With section 377A, we have seen how the arguments in our Courts progressed from equal protection under Article 12 to asserting that sexual conduct is a form of liberty protected by Article 9 or a form of expression protected by Article 14.

Some of these alternative arguments have been accepted by courts in other countries. It is possible that additional creative arguments could be made about the heterosexual definition of marriage. For example, could marriage be a form of association that is protected by Article 14? Members may think it is a little outside of the orthodox interpretation today, but can you rule it out?

Thus, if we want to properly protect the heterosexual definition of marriage from Court challenge, we have to exclude the whole of Part 4.

But it is not a carte blanche. What is protected is quite precise. It is the heterosexual definition of marriage. That is because just as we have been clear about repealing section 377A – we took a clear position – we are equally clear; this Government is very clear – that we will protect the heterosexual marriage as a key institution in our society. That is why the Constitution is being amended.

But let me digress and say, as we say all this, as we listen to the speeches by Members on families, let us also not forget, let us also acknowledge that LGBT persons also have and come from families. They have parents, siblings, grandparents, nieces, nephews, aunties, uncles, close friends and much more. So, families are not exclusive to non-LGBT persons. Let us remember and acknowledge that these things are not binary.

Back to Article 156. If the Parliament tries to enact, say, for example, apartheid marriage laws or impose other outlandish definitions of marriage, those laws would not be protected. Because if you look at Articles 156(3)(b) and (4), the operating provisions, they protect the ability of the Parliament and the Government to make the laws and policies.

The protection, the shield is strong, but what is shielded, we have sought to make it quite precise.

If the Government tries to give benefits to married couples, for example, say, with the surname Tan, Article 156 will only protect the part of the policy that relates to married couples. The Government will still have to justify why giving benefits to only people with a certain surname is a relevant consideration. I think lawyers will understand; it will not be accepted as a relevant consideration.

Nor will the Government be able to take measures that are absolutely prohibited under Part 4, for example, slavery. If such a measure is taken, the challenge will not be that it is based on the heterosexual definition of marriage or some other basis, it will be that these measures are not allowed on any basis.

To directly answer Mr Murali Pillai – no, Article 156 does not enable the Government to banish anyone as the term is conventionally understood today. Why do I say that? Let me give an example.

It will be a nice constitutional question if, for example, a same-sex couple were to argue that since Singapore does not recognise same-sex marriages, they had no choice but to emigrate and that is effectively a banishment, and that this Government's policy in not recognising same-sex marriages is therefore in breach of Article 13, which precludes banishment.

So, you can see that a careful person will want to think about the different possibilities of arguments and then make sure that the drafting covers the different possibilities.

We do not believe that the Government's policies and laws are in breach of Article 13 or for that matter any other Article in the Constitution, but Members can see that creative arguments can be made. So, if you want to clear that we want to protect marriage and keep it within the province of the Parliament, then you need to make sure that your drafting is accurate. That is why we have had to draft Article 156 in the way it has been worded.

In the case of executive actions, common law judicial review under administrative law principles will generally still apply. The application of those principles must, however, take Article 156 into account.

For example, with Article 156, acting to promote marriage would not be an unlawful purpose or an irrelevant consideration. But otherwise, administrative law principles can and will still apply.

Ms Lim and Ms He Ting Ru say that judicial review under Part 4 should be fully available without restriction. Article 156 takes two specific issues out from the Courts' province and keeps them entirely within the province of the elected branches: (a) the heterosexual definition of marriage and (b) the ability of the Parliament and Government to make laws and policies based on this definition.

The Government believes that this is necessary for the reasons I have explained. Parliament and the elected Government should deal with these questions and try and strike the right balance on these complex and delicate social issues.

Ms Lim and Ms He's position would mean that they accept that the Courts can strike down the heterosexual definition of marriage or to curtail the ability of the Parliament and Government to make laws and policies based on this definition and for society to live with the consequences after that.

This, then, is the choice before the House today – whether we decide to have the certainty that the Parliament will decide on issues of marriage or whether we want to leave this to the Courts and live with the potential threat of unconstitutionality and have that change imposed on our society, as has happened in other countries.

Let me now turn to the Workers' Party's position on section 377A. Mr Pritam Singh, as Leader of the Opposition, says that the Workers' Party does not take a position on the matter. Thus, as a party, the Workers' Party has no official position. It does not support the repeal of section 377A. It does not quite oppose it either. It also does not support the constitutional amendments to protect marriage.

From their speeches, Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Sylvia Lim, for example, support the repeal. While Mr Singh supports the constitutional amendments, Ms Lim and Ms He Ting Ru do not support the constitutional amendments. Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Gerald Giam are against the repeal but support the constitutional amendments. Mr Leon Perera is for the repeal, somewhat more enthusiastically than his Leader, and as for the constitutional amendments, he takes a divergent position from his Chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim.

So, the Workers' Party had a debate among themselves. They debated and discussed but did not decide on a party position. The question is – if this is how one decides, how will such a team function if they are in charge?

Mr Pritam Singh said his lifting the whip on Workers' Party Members of Parliament (MPs) was democratic so as to allow for a full and honest representation of all views. This explanation is factually untrue. Every Member of Parliament must know that. So, it does no credit to this House to say these things.

The WP MPs could have made all the speeches they made, even with the whip in place. MPs are always entitled to state their honest views. They can agree. They can disagree. They can say what they think. You can express your views, whatever they are, without having to lift the whip.

I repeat that. The whip does not, and has not, prevented MPs from speaking their minds. MPs have always been free to express what they and their constituents think. The whip is relevant for voting, not speaking; and the whip sets out the party's position.

In moving the Bills, Minister Masagos and I took pains to lay out both sides of the issue. The PAP MPs speaking on the issue, too, have reflected the concerns, the fears and pain of the many individuals they have spoken with. These include views of Singaporeans from different religious groups, LGBT groups and others.

So, do not be mistaken. Views on all sides can, have been and must be fully ventilated and they have been ventilated by PAP MPs.

As I said earlier, the whip is imposed to set out the party's position as a whole. In our Westminster parliamentary system, parties must have a view on the important questions that come before the Parliament. They need to be honest in this House, say what they think is good for Singapore and be accountable to the electorate for their decisions.

The real point is that the Workers' Party as a party does not want to take a stand on this matter. It does not want to be seen as supporting the repeal. At the same time, it also does not want to be seen as opposing the repeal. That way, it hopes to be all things to all men, and not too much of anything to anyone. Members may know the second line was said in respect of a well-known person.

In my remarks yesterday, I reminded Members there are two reasons for repealing section 377A.

First, it is the right thing to do because there are no public concerns that justify private consensual sex between men being a crime. Some disagree with that. They think that the law should be retained as a matter of conscience. I mentioned yesterday that I accept that. We understand and respect these views. These are seriously held views by honest, sincere people, including in this House. They have thought about it, have decided that for reasons of conscience and often of personal faith they cannot agree to the repeal.

But I also outlined a second reason to repeal section 377A – the significant legal risk of it being struck down by the Courts if we were to leave section 377A alone and the significant negative and disruptive consequences for Singaporeans and Singapore if that were to happen. That is a policy question – a question that requires us to consider what is in Singapore's interests.

From the debate, the following points are clear and are not in question, and the WP does not question them. One, section 377A is at risk of being struck out for being unconstitutional. Two, if section 377A is struck out, then, there is a further risk that the definition of marriage could be challenged as well. Three, and that then means that there are risks that our housing, education, media content policies and multiple other policies could all be challenged.

No one has questioned these risks in this House. The WP understands this; there are four lawyers among them in this House, including Ms Lim who has agreed that the legal risks with section 377A, exist. Given that, then what does the WP has a party propose, if you do not want to repeal section 377A and also do not want to support strengthening marriage which we have proposed?

The position with section 377A is like a train approaching. The question is whether we have the courage to act or rather dive for cover to protect yourselves and leave society to face the train wreck.

I emphasised this quite strongly yesterday. Given the risks, we have a responsibility to do our duty as Parliamentarians, to take a position, to deal squarely with the problem and not abdicate our duty. To say the party has no position allows the WP MPs to make speeches supporting all sides without having to make a decision and be held responsible for that decision. That is not true democracy. It is better described as wanting to speak without taking responsibility.

In the context of our debate, their position will mean that they would leave the decision to the Courts and let Singaporeans face the negative consequences, including perpetuating differences and polarising our society further; if we leave this matter to the Courts, because the Courts can only make binary decisions, as we have seen happen elsewhere.

If the WP truly believes that these sensitive matters ought to be decided by the Court, never mind the consequences, including further dividing us in endless rounds of litigation, then they should be honest and say so in this House. The only reason we can have a decision in Parliament is because the PAP has its whip in place. When you stand up and speak at length about the pain and suffering of the LGBT community, then I think one can ask, “Why don’t you take a clear stand and support the repeal?” Or if you believe otherwise, take a stand, oppose the repeal, as a party.

As I say this, Sir, let me tell Members, the issue of conscience which is real, is quite different from the issue of policy. I have focused on the policy issue. And I think it is not too much to ask that a clear stand be taken on policy issues.

Let me end by quoting Winston Churchill: “They are decided only to be undecided, resolved only to be irresolute.”

Sir, this Government has consulted widely and has come to a position. We believe that our policy offers a way forward. It balances the different views, maintains our social cohesion, keeps us together. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong have stated clearly that they will maintain this position. On this difficult matter, we will do our duty and take responsibility for holding society together. [Applause].

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister Masagos Zulkifli.

4.50 pm The Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Members for putting forth their perspectives and reasoning on this very important debate. In this House, Members have reflected the complexity of the issue and the diversity of our stakeholders. Something a court process will not achieve. Members have shown why Parliament, rather than the Courts, is the right forum to debate difficult social issues.

We have explained clearly why we must act without delay. Inaction will leave open the significant legal risk that the Court will, at some point in the future, rule section 377A unconstitutional. Parliament has a duty to act.

Let me turn to what we all need to do to keep Singapore united after we have debated and then voted on these Bills. Many Members touched on this in their speeches. Some have voiced the concern of Singapore going down a slippery slope after the repeal. Some touched on support for families with single parents. Others asked about the posture in educational institutions and expressed concerns on religious freedom.

Mr Alex Yam, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Abdul Samad have asked for assurance that the repeal would not result in a change in social norms. Mr Derrick Goh asked about the use of surveys and engagements.

It is indeed the intention of the Government that there should not be a change in social norms following the repeal. This is precisely what Article 156 is intended to achieve. I explained in my speech yesterday, the many different practices and policies that support society’s notion of children within a marriage between a man and a woman.

On surveys, while they can help facilitate conversations and potentially reduce discrimination, we recognise that a single or a series of questions would not fully capture such a complex and emotive matter. It also depends on the survey’s sampling method, whether it is representative and when it was conducted. We have engaged extensively on this matter. There are ongoing efforts to facilitate conversations and civil dialogue.

Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Mark Chay and Mr Louis Ng said there should be support for other families such as single unwed parents. My opening speech explained our approach. We make a distinction between incentives and support. Benefits intended to support a child’s development and caregiving are given to children of single unwed parents and of married parents equally. These include healthcare and education subsidies, the Government’s First Step grant and co-matching of the Child Development Account, as well as the Government-paid maternity leave to unwed working mothers to care for their infant.

Let me now turn to educational institutions. Ms Janet Ang and Mr Mohd Fahmi Bin Aliman have asked about sexuality education in public and private schools and the madrasahs. Dr Tan Yia Swam said students should be taught based on evidence. Mr Henry Kwek commented that school leaders should take a clear objective stance. Mr Mark Chay asked how we prepare students to be more understanding and empathetic. Mr Lim Biow Chuan also asked about international schools that compel staff or students to participate in gay community projects even if they do not subscribe to the same lifestyle.

I explained in my opening speech that our education policies and curriculum remain anchored on Singapore's prevailing family values and social norms, which most Singaporeans want to uphold. These include the family as the cornerstone of our social fabric, and marriage between a man and a woman. In our schools, all students learn and practise values such as mutual understanding, respect and empathy for everyone. They will also understand that issues can have multiple perspectives and are taught to listen to each other’s points of view, understand the perspective of others and learn to interact and engage respectfully with each other, even if their views differ.

The Sexuality Education Curriculum in MOE schools respects the primary role of parents and reflects the national posture on the heterosexual family as the basic unit of society. The curriculum remains secular and based on research and evidence. It is focused on age appropriateness and the developmental needs of the child when touching on topics such as homosexuality.

In madrasahs, sexuality education is part of their education curriculum and included in specially curated programmes. Madrasahs are also equipped with trained asatizah and teachers to address sexuality issues. Counsellors are available should students need further advice and support. MUIS is in regular consultation and collaboration with the madrasahs to further enhance the sexuality education curriculum for students. Teachers will also be equipped and updated on the current discourse on the matter, to advise and guide students on matters related to sexuality, according to the teachings and traditions of the religion.

For international schools, MOE does not regulate the curriculum. That said, as the schools operate in Singapore, they should respect our social norms and values. They must also be careful not to cross the line into advocacy on issues in Singapore that could be socially divisive, such as how sexual orientation, are handled in laws and public policy. These are matters for Singaporeans to discuss and decide.

Mr Louis Ng asked how LGBT students struggling with family and mental health issues are supported. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim also asked how teachers and educators are supported.

Our schools have a system of support for students with issues concerning their well-being, including on sexuality. Teachers will listen to students objectively to facilitate support, and not discount, disregard or judge their views. They assure confidentiality but explain to students that the disclosed information has to be shared with the appropriate key school personnel to assist students in managing their concerns. Teachers also consult the School Leader and Lead School Counsellor who will further manage these cases, with the school counsellor providing targeted support for the student’s concerns. Where required, schools, will, with parents’ consent, refer students to professionals and relevant authorities to provide counselling support and appropriate intervention.

MOE’s focus is on the students’ well-being. Schools must remain a common and safe space for all students, regardless of their background. We have a duty to care to every student. For students with sexuality issues, our focus is likewise to provide them with a conducive learning environment and the necessary support to ensure their overall well-being. As sexuality issues are complex, schools work with these students and their families sensitively.

Mr Zhulkarnain asked where families can seek help. Family Service Centres offer family counselling and can also assist if family relations are strained because one of them has sexuality concerns.

Lastly, Members Mr Christopher De Souza, Mr Zhulkarnain, Mr Mohd Fahmi Bin Aliman, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Darryl David, Ms Janet Ang and Mr Alex Yam have spoken about religious freedom. I would like to make clear the Government’s position.

First, Article 156 will provide further protection for the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. There are no plans to change this definition to include same-sex marriages. Religious leaders or any licensed solemniser for that matter, cannot solemnise a same-sex couple. This is against the law.

Second, religious freedom is protected in Article 15 of the Constitution. Every person has the right to profess, propagate and practise his or her own religion, subject to public order, health and morality. Every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs. One can still preach on the pulpit their beliefs about homosexuality or family, even if others might disagree. But no one should incite violence or hate towards others. This is against the law and is not the society we want to become. This is regardless of whether the comments are made in public, online, or in your private space.

Religious organisations, as owners of their premises at places of worship, have the discretion to refuse same-sex solemnisations or weddings to be held on their premises. There is no law which prohibits them from treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples when exercising such rights. Religious organisations may support those who are struggling or have issues with their sexuality, including through prayers and counselling, as long as consent is obtained and criminal thresholds of harm are not crossed.

Third, in exercising religious freedom, we must understand that we are also members of a plural society. We must graciously accommodate those who have different values from us. Gay people are members of our society and have access to the same opportunities and social support as other Singaporeans.

Social Service Agencies (SSAs) provide secular services to the community. Some SSAs are set up by, or affiliated to, religious organisations. All SSAs, regardless of their religious affiliations, serve all clients, including gay persons. Social service professionals are continuously trained to be sensitive to the diverse needs of clients.

Fourth, on employment, workplace and businesses. We do not tolerate discrimination at the workplace. Employees are protected against discrimination under the Tripartite Guidelines for Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP). These guidelines require employers to make employment decisions based on merit and not factors irrelevant to the job. For religious organisations, understandably, the potential employee's religion and values would be a relevant consideration for certain roles.

Mr Derrick Goh enquired about staff benefits offered by companies to gay couples. The Government, generally, does not interfere in how a private business operates. However, private businesses must respect that their own staff have a right to their personal beliefs. They also cannot cross the line into advocacy on issues in Singapore that are socially divisive, which include issues on homosexuality. These are matters only for Singaporeans to discuss and decide. At our workplaces, employees should not feel compelled to support causes or participate in activities that do not align with their beliefs. TGFEP is clear that an employee's support or non-support of causes, if not relevant to job performance, cannot be used in employment decisions and performance evaluation.

Lastly, we should keep the marketplace free from the polarising contestation of values. In a free and open economy, with an abundance of choice, businesses can decide what events are allowed on their premises. However, while businesses make their own commercial judgement with regard to their prospective customers, they should do so in a sensitive and respectful manner. Nonetheless, I urge everyone not to use commerce as a platform to display the conviction of their beliefs. In the spirit of mutual respect, I hope businesses and prospective customers can strive to be gracious and adopt the approach of "live and let live".

Mr Speaker, Sir, for complex issues, such as these, we must exercise leadership to make difficult decisions that are best for our society, even if it does not satisfy everyone's wishes. We are a secular Government. And while each of us, as individuals, may have our religious convictions, we take care to ensure that when we make decisions for the whole country, we apply secular, universal values and not individual religious beliefs.

Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Faisal Manap indicated they will not support the repeal because of their religious values. Yet, they do not offer any solution on how we can keep society united and cohesive if section 377A is found to be unconstitutional. Is it their solution to accept a decision by the Courts? What would be the implications? If so, then why not vote for the repeal now?

Ms Hazel Poa says that the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) wants the definition of marriage to be decided by national referendum rather than by Parliament. The Government has explained why we are not proposing to hold a referendum on this issue. But let me explain again.

Our Constitution sets a very high bar for the holding of referenda. A referendum is required when sovereignty or the command of our Armed Forces and Police is at stake.

We have only had one referendum in our history – on our merger with Malaysia.

We should be very careful about elevating any matter to this level, saying it is equivalent to an issue on sovereignty.

It is the duty of elected Members of Parliament to consult, discuss and come to a decision even, and perhaps especially, for difficult and polarising social issues.

The PSP says that we should not allow Parliament to decide but, instead, let the definition of marriage be decided by national referendum. This might seem seductive. But let us call it what it is. It is an attempt to avoid taking a position, as Parliamentarians, as elected representatives of the people.

Even if a referendum is held, which side will the PSP be on? Would the PSP try to bring people together or stay silent on where it stands on heterosexual marriage, as it is doing in this debate?

Also, would a referendum settle this issue once and for all?

May I remind Members and the PSP what happened in the UK with Brexit. Both sides campaigned vigorously and bitterly. It created and entrenched polarised identities. Brexit was eventually approved, in a referendum, with the slimmest of margins, and people continued to campaign for a second referendum.

In the process, the credibility of the British government was severely damaged. Indeed, it has yet to recover.

Despite being in government, the Tories were split on Brexit. The leadership, rather than uniting around a single position, allowed their members of parliaments and even their ministers to take different views. A government unable to act, cannot govern.

Let us not look for politically easy options and cite referendum as an easy solution, just so that a decision does not have to be made in Parliament. In any case, even if the PSP wants a referendum, does it or does it not support the constitutional amendments?

They seem to be against it. It then leaves the Courts to decide on heterosexual marriage. I have explained why that is not ideal. In any case, PSP seems to be against the constitutional amendment. I have explained why that is not good for Singapore.

Mr Speaker, governing requires us to bring people with different perspectives together to ensure that various segments do not push for a maximalist position which would impinge on others, and pave the way forward. We should especially not adopt positions just because it coincides with our own religious beliefs. Indeed, everyone in Singapore cannot expect their maximalist position to be realised because Singapore is a vastly diverse society.

Singapore has progressed because everyone understands this and has been accommodating of one another.

This applies to governance. To be able to faithfully discharge our duties as leaders, we cannot make decisions that affect our fellow citizens based on personal religious beliefs. Instead, I hope we understand the principles of our religions, in making decisions that affect others. That is what our Malay/Muslim leaders we engaged were able to do after numerous engagements – they went beyond their own perspectives and assessed what is good for the community, Singapore and Singaporeans – and accepted why these changes need to be made.

I hope all Members of this House can do so, too, and support the repeal of section 377A, together with the proposed amendment to the Constitution.

Let me conclude. As a society, we cannot lose sight of mutual respect when we engage with one another and must endeavour to listen to those who disagree with us. We must not destroy their social or economic standing. We should not denigrate others. This applies to all sides in every debate. We should consistently exercise responsibility, restraint and sensitivity to one another, both online and in person.

The work of staying united as one Singapore is what lies ahead of us, even as the debate on these two Bills concludes.

Mr Speaker, this debate proves that this House is, indeed, the right forum for issues and policies that are complex and require political judgement. It is an example of Parliament stepping up to do its duty. It is a responsible Government that has balanced the views expressed by Members and stakeholders and has shown the viable way forward. We did not deflect the matter to the Courts nor kick the can down the road. This is the strength of our system in Singapore when each branch – the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary – does its part to its fullest and does it well and does what is right for Singapore and Singaporeans.

We have had a robust debate. With the passing of the two Bills – the repeal of section 377A and the introduction of the constitutional amendment – we have created space for society to deliberate on social issues within the political process, and not through a legal route which is zero-sum in nature. It is time to come together and move forward. Preserve the peace and stability that our society has fought hard for, and forge ahead – united, not divided – so that we can achieve progress as a nation for many more years to come. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

5.12 pm Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister – I refer to Minister Shanmugam – has mischaracterised my speech somewhat. What I said was specific to the party position in 2019 and here, there was a context. The party position, as I mentioned, was varied and divided, with no consensus as to whether section 377A should be repealed – and as I said, somewhat similar to Singapore society.

I lifted the whip and did not fetter the voting rights of Members of Parliament (MPs). I did not say speaking rights. I did not fetter the voting rights of MPs. This is consistent with the party position. What has been the result arising from this debate? Six for the repeal of section 377A; three against, for reasons of conscience.

The party position has now been established by way of a majority in Parliament.

On the Constitution, seven for and two abstentions for the reasons the Members mentioned. All the Workers' Party MPs, apart from Mr Faisal Manap who is down with COVID-19, put their personal positions on the record. And, in my view, they behaved like a loyal Opposition, not loyal to the PAP, but loyal to Singaporeans, knowing the position of Singaporeans outside of this House.

I have two clarifications for the Minister, Mr Speaker.

My first question pertains to an understanding of how and why the PAP chooses to lift the whip for some Bills and not others. And I raise this because the Minister raised it in his closing address.

Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced that the PAP did not lift the whip for this debate because section 377A is a matter of public policy. The Prime Minister, in his National Day address this year, said that not everyone is equally accepting of homosexuality and there were considerable reservations within certain religious groups.

For the Human Organ Transplant Bill of 2009, the PAP lifted the whip so that MPs could vote based on their religious and ethical beliefs. The first generation of PAP leaders under Lee Kuan Yew did the same with the Abortion Bill of 1969, where Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself rose to deliver a speech but was absent when it came to voting.

If I follow the Minister's reasoning, would it be correct to say Mr Lee Kuan Yew was abdicating his responsibilities?

There would be compelling reasons to suggest that for both these Bills, public policy could have been deployed as a reason not to lift the whip – but the PAP lifted it anyway. Can the Minister please clarify the consistency or lack of consistency with regard to lifting the whip?

My second question pertains to implications of the constitutional amendments for the LGBTQ+ community in the political context. With these amendments, the effect would be that the Courts are not the correct forum to determine questions of housing policies and same-sex marriage, for example.

At the 2011 General Elections some 11 years ago, the sexual orientation of an Opposition candidate came into the spotlight with the PAP asking the Singapore Democratic Party to "come out of the closet" and the PAP statement on this issue pursued an innuendo that made an allusion to paedophilia.

In view of the speeches made by PAP MPs over the last two days and the call for any change on the definition of marriage to be a political question, can I confirm the PAP's position with regard to LGBTQ+ candidates standing in General Elections?

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mr Singh mentioned democracy. He said that in the pursuit of democracy, he will lift the whip. If he now says that is not so, then he can state that for the record. He said, "We are more democratic, we lift the whip". And I just wanted to point out, let us just be accurate.

People can speak their minds even with the whip imposed. And when Mr Singh says the whip will not be imposed on his MPs, he is referring to voting positions. He is referring to a party position, that when he came into the Chamber here yesterday, the party did not have a position. That is what we are talking about.

And his MPs spoke on both sides; the party did not have a position.

It is not a question of totalling up the numbers at the end of the day. It is a question of coming upfront and saying, "This is our position as a party even though individuals have their different views and they will speak about them". That is the point I was addressing.

When will a whip be lifted and when will a whip not be lifted? I made it clear in this case, why is the whip being imposed. It is because it is a policy question with serious consequences for Singaporeans.

If we do not repeal section 377A, then we are saying we will not do what we have to do and we will pass on the buck to the Courts. That is an abdication of responsibility as Parliamentarians.

In such a situation, lifting the whip is not acceptable for the PAP because societal interests are at stake. But where it is purely matters of conscience and you do not quite see such a significant issue for society as a whole, where the very institution of marriage, all your housing policies and your education policies and your rules on the structure and basic content of society can change overnight and where societies get rent asunder by cultural wars, those are the risks we are talking about. Do we duck and say, "Well, you know, we do not have a position"? You are leaving it to the Courts.

Abortion is quite different in that it was a matter of individual conscience, at least at that point in time. I think, today, the issue is well settled in Singapore at least, unlike in some other countries. But at that time, it was a matter that raised very serious personal concerns. People would know the arguments. And, Ireland, much more recently.

I was not in the House at that point in time and I do not think we should draw conclusions from the fact that one or another Member was present or was not present. But I would be careful if I were Mr Singh to bring Mr Lee Kuan Yew into this and suggest that he had somehow acted dishonourably.

If Mr Singh can remind me of his second question?

Mr Pritam Singh: It was about the LGBTQ question vis-à-vis the PAP's position as to whether the LGBTQ community would not be a victim of some personal attacks.

Mr K Shanmugam: I think Mr Singh mentioned paedophilia. Again, I do not recall the facts. So, I can only answer in hypotheticals. I think if a paedophile was standing for elections, I am surprised Mr Singh would advocate that cause. Thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, let me take up the last point. But before that, sorry, the point of abdication and suggesting that I am saying Mr Lee Kuan Yew was dishonourable. I never used those words. I think I made the point in the context of the question that I put to the Minister.

On the issue of paedophilia, let me share the specific statement that the PAP made which led me to make that point.

This was the statement that was released by the PAP. "What is its agenda? A video has been posted on the Internet showing Vincent Wijeysingha participating at the forum which discussed the promotion of the gay cause in Singapore." I do not think there is a problem with that statement. And thereafter it says, "The discussion at the forum also touched on sex with boys and whether the age of consent for boys should be 14 years of age." The innuendo I think is clear.

In the video, Mr Wijeysingha was introduced as being from the SDP. In addition to other comments, Wijeysingha stated, "I think the gay community has to rally ourselves. Perhaps, one outcome of today's forum would be for those of us who are interested to come together to further consider how we can address the 377 issue as well as further rights issues in relation to gays and lesbians."

I do not have any issue with the PAP coming up and saying, "Look, what is the political agenda of a candidate?" But what is the relevance of that point on sex with boys, if not to cast aspersions on the candidate himself and to suggest that. Did he make that point? Was this a forum where this was the only issue that was discussed? So, that was intentionally included. That is my view of the statement.

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope we do not have to go into an extended discussion on this. Mr Singh started out the second question by saying that paedophilia was talked about. Let me make it clear to him. If there is a candidate who is standing for elections, whether for the PAP – and I hope the PAP will never field such a candidate – or for the Workers' Party or SDP. And if there is a suggestion of paedophilia, I will certainly speak about it and I am sure all right-thinking Singaporeans will speak about it and will say it is not acceptable.

So, I do not quite know the precise context. But as I said in my speech, sexual offences against minors continue to remain serious offences and we take a very serious view. I hope Mr Singh is not suggesting that paedophiles stand for elections and we do not need to talk about it.

As to whether there are broader innuendoes, I think let us get to the point, Mr Singh.

As the Workers' Party trooped into Parliament yesterday, there was one point. And that point is: Mr Singh, Sir, as Leader of the Opposition, was not prepared for his party to take a position. That is what we are talking about; not about an election held in 2011. We are talking about 2022. What is our position on section 377A? And whether we come here prepared to take a position or we are abdicating.

I think I have made my points. We leave it to Singaporeans to judge.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Likewise, Mr Speaker, I think I have made my point with regard to what Minister has said. But the issue was not about paedophilia and I agree with him I do not think anybody in Singapore would be thrilled to have a person who is a paedophile standing for elections.

But the question I asked was: what is the PAP's position with regard to LGBTQ+ candidates standing in general elections? I do not think that question has been answered.

Mr K Shanmugam: It appears to me that, as usual, Mr Singh wants to move the goalpost and start an entirely new debate about who can and who will stand for elections. I am not the Prime Minister or the Secretary-General of the party, but my personal view is that anyone who is not a criminal and who is of good character and of sound mind and who can work for the residents ought to be able to stand for elections. In all of this, in a democracy, it also depends on how people are perceived and accepted in society. All of these are relevant considerations. One has got to look at individual candidates.

But Mr Singh started out by talking about paedophilia. I am sure the records, the Hansard, will show that. And that is why I answered. Because I was shocked that he would even ask that question.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Indeed, Mr Speaker, the record will show what the context was with regard to that point on paedophilia. But I accept the Minister's reply to my second question. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Any other questions? Clarifications? Ms Hazel Poa.

Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to respond to Minister Masagos' comment earlier on PSP's position.

I wish to clarify that our position on wanting the definition of marriage to be determined via a national referendum instead of Parliament is not a convenient way to avoid difficult decisions. A case in point would be the fact that we do have a position on section 377A which is also a difficult one.

We are aware of the Government's position on what the criteria are for holding a referendum. It is just that we have a slightly different view on what are the issues that should go for a referendum.

In this particular case on the issue of the definition of marriage, we feel that this is an issue that is important to many Singaporeans and there is a high level of interest from the public to have a say in this matter. And since it is an area that does not require any specialised knowledge – which would otherwise make it unsuitable for participation from members of the public – and actually, marriage, as many Members have pointed out, is a matter of social norm, we feel that this is an area that is suitable for the public to participate.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I thank the Member for the clarification. But I think the most important question is not the referendum. It is what is the PSP's position on the constitutional amendment. Are they for or against it? And, therefore, when the referendum, if held, are they for or against it?

Ms Hazel Poa: Okay. As far as the vote for the constitutional amendment is concerned, we will be voting no, because of what I have explained earlier, that we would like the definition of marriage to be via referendum, rather than through Parliament.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Finally, that has come out in the open. So, we know that they are going to support the repeal of section 377A, but they will not support that the amendment to the Constitution be made.

Their position means that while now there would be no further challenges to section 377A because it does not exist, there will now be new challenges that will be put up in Court on constitutional grounds that other institutions, like marriage and families, important to many Singaporeans, will now stand before the Court. And then we are back to square one again. We have to, reactively again, come to make a decision or wait for the Court to make that decision.

Ms Hazel Poa: We will support a constitutional amendment, if it says that the definition of marriage is to be determined via national referendum.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: They will wait for the train to crash on us.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I wish to make four points if I may, three are clarifications for the Minister for Home Affairs and one is a clarification on my position on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill.

Let me go to the clarifications for Minister for Home Affairs. Yesterday, during his Second Reading speech, he cited many Court challenges to the constitutionality of section 377A. We are all aware of them. But I do not believe any of the Ministers cited any Court challenges to the heterosexual definition of marriage. So, I would like to ask the Government, whether there has been any Court challenge to the heterosexual definition of marriage. And to that extent, would he not agree with me that his analogy of the oncoming train applies to section 377A, but does not quite apply to the heterosexual definition of marriage?

The second clarification, earlier he mentioned that the Government does not believe that their policies violate the Constitution. I would like to ask him, without Article 156 being enacted, is the Government not confident that it can convince a Court that marriage, based on heterosexual definition, is based on reasonable criteria? It serves the purpose of promoting procreation within a family unit under AMLA, under Women's Charter; and therefore, the Government is on much stronger footing on the constitutionality of the heterosexual definition of marriage, compared to section 377A. That is my belief anyway.

The third clarification is, I would like to ask the Minister to confirm that he accepts that the Courts have a constitutional role to ensure that Parliament's laws and Government actions do conform with the Constitution. I would like his confirmation on that.

And lastly, Sir, my clarification for the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, I did say that I am not opposing the Bill, but I am abstaining. And the reason I am abstaining is that I have concern about the role of the Courts having judicial oversight over the legality of Government actions and Parliament. I am concerned that that should be protected. I, for one, value it and that is why I am abstaining.

Mr K Shanmugam: Can the Member clarify or repeat the third clarification, please? I did not quite get that.

Ms Sylvia Lim: The third clarification is, I would like the Minister to confirm whether he accepts that the Courts have a constitutional role to ensure that Government actions, as well as Parliament's laws, do conform to the Constitution.

Mr K Shanmugam: So, three questions. One, whether I agree that while there is a more immediate risk on section 377A, that those concerns do not quite apply to the current definition of marriage. No, I do not quite agree. I think what we can see and what we need to take reference from is what has happened elsewhere.

We agree that there is a significant risk to section 377A. There, all of us are agreed.

What is the Government's concern about the current definition of marriage? If you look at what has happened in India. The courts first said that their version, their section 377 was not unconstitutional. And then, within a few years, they said – well, it is unconstitutional. And now, earlier this year, they have said – the definition of marriage should be broader than a purely heterosexual marriage.

This is a similar system and similar broad common law principles. One can say and one can discern that there are different approaches that the Singapore Courts take vis-à-vis the Indian courts. But I think if you were to look at it as a lawyer, legal analysis and, particularly, if you are charged with a heavy responsibility to make sure that Singapore is looked after properly and that you care for Singapore and that your concern is for the well-being of Singaporeans, then you will not take these risks.

You will think them through, whether it is immediate or perhaps it is in the mid-term. If you think that there is a risk, then our duty is to go out there, explain the risks and then say how we would seek to put the laws in place to protect society, protect marriage, protect the institution of marriage and the structure of marriage, so that our society, successful as it has been, can continue to be successful, and so that the fundamental values of Singaporeans can be protected.

It is not a game. You do not take chances. You do not take fine legal analysis. Fine legal analysis is necessary to identify whether there is a risk. Once you identify there is a risk, you then do not go and take chances.

So, if one were to ask, "Is the risk to the heterosexual definition of marriage less than the risk to section 377A?", the answer is yes. But that does not lead to, "Well, we do not have to do anything about it". If there is a risk to something as fundamental as marriage, you act – or at least this Government acts.

Second, do I not believe that the Government can convince the Court that providing for a heterosexual definition of marriage, we can tell the Court it is reasonable to say it should be between a man and a woman. Well, you have seen the arguments elsewhere. You have seen the social policy changes in the United Kingdom, from which many of our laws come. Of course, there, the laws have been changed through parliament, but there are many countries where the laws have been changed through the courts.

I, for one, while I believe that our Courts have always taken the approach, the three great branches of the state, as I said yesterday – the Courts, the Judiciary, Parliament and the Executive – the system has worked well because each has respected the sphere of the other and our Judiciary is independent.

If I were asked, I would say there is a reasonably good likelihood that we will be able to persuade the Court today that there is a basis for making a distinction between same-sex marriages and heterosexual marriages, and that the current definition of marriage in the Woman's Charter should be maintained. But if I were asked a different question, "Is there a risk that it could be struck out?", I think it would be either a stupid lawyer or a foolish lawyer who will say there is no risk. If you accept that there is a risk, then, what do you do? What do we do as Parliamentarians? I think the answer is clear.

Third, do I accept that the Courts have a constitutional role? Of course, I accept that. But I think if the question goes towards why do we then say that the Courts should not look at the definition of marriage, I think I have given a very extensive answer. What should count as marriage should be decided here. The Courts can only make binary decisions. We should discuss it, we should decide it and we should take into account what society is ready for and what society needs and what strengthens society. Even if we take a view which is different from the majority view, then it is our duty to go and convince society as to why we are taking that view. We can do all of those things; the Courts cannot do those things.

That is why we have decided there is this risk that the definition of marriage could be challenged and we have decided that is a matter for Parliament. We are not providing for a supermajority. So, any elected Government, by a simple majority, can decide on what a marriage ought to be like.

That is democracy. That is how democracy ought to work.

No Court can do what we did yesterday and today, which is to consider repealing section 377A, but at the same time, strengthening the institution of marriage and explaining the reasons, having it fully discussed, going out to the public and explaining – that is what is necessary. We believe that a future discussion would require these sorts of discussions and it may require changes to more than one piece of legislation.

How does the Court do that? They will decide on the question presented to them and strike out if they think it should be struck out. Where does that leave society?

So, this is not a case of, "Are we avoiding the supervisory jurisdiction of the Courts?" It has been explained. I believe the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans support us on this constitutional amendment.

5.44 pm Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 63 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.

After two minutes –

Mr Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.

I note that there are Members seated in the Speaker's Gallery. For Members seated there, the Clerk will call your name to indicate your vote.

Members seated within the Bar of the House will vote electronically. They are reminded to be seated at their designated seats.

The Clerk will first call the names of Members seated in the Speaker's Gallery to indicate their votes. These Members are to verbally state their vote indication when their names are called by the Clerk in alphabetical order.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Speaker: The Clerk will now proceed to record the votes.

Thereupon, the Clerk read out the names of Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Sylvia Lim seated in the Speaker's Gallery, one at a time, for them to indicate their votes.

Mr Speaker: The manual voting is now completed. We will now proceed with the electronic voting for Members seated within the Bar of the House. These Members should only start to vote when the voting buttons on their armrest start to blink.

Take a vote. You may now begin to vote. May I remind Members to depress your vote button firmly in order to register your vote in the system.

Members seated within the Bar of the House are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens. These results do not include the votes taken manually from the Members seated in the Speaker's Gallery and the final results are subject to the addition of these votes.

Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been recorded correctly? No.

Mr Speaker: I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 85 "Ayes"; two "Noes"; and two "Abstentions". The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.

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. – [Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Now, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 63 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.

After one minute –

Mr Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third Time."

Mr Speaker: The Clerk will now proceed to record the votes of the Members at the Speaker's Gallery.

Thereupon, the Clerk read out the names of Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Sylvia Lim seated in the Speaker's Gallery, one at a time, for them to indicate their votes.

Mr Speaker: The manual voting is completed. We will now proceed with the electronic voting for Members seated within the Bar of the House. Again, Members should only start to vote when the voting buttons on their armrest start to blink.

Take a vote. Once again, do remember to depress the vote button firmly to register your vote in the system.

Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens. These results do not include the votes taken manually from the Members seated in the Speaker's Gallery and the final results are subject to the addition of these votes.

My vote is manually included as well. Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members, apart from myself, who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been recorded correctly? No.

Mr Speaker: I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 85 "Ayes"; two "Noes"; and two "Abstentions". The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

=Media reports=

Monday, 28 November 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GbxivLCtdY

5GbxivLCtdY <br style="clear: left"/>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjkfFmF_l1g

QjkfFmF_l1g <br style="clear: left"/>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndeG2I7UtAU

ndeG2I7UtAU <br style="clear: left"/>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prSzziY6TxU

prSzziY6TxU <br style="clear: left"/>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVEjYWchp8w

uVEjYWchp8w <br style="clear: left"/>

Tuesday, 29 November 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-bI9s58NfQ

U-bI9s58NfQ <br style="clear: left"/>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f2iNNtOGcs

9f2iNNtOGcs <br style="clear: left"/>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnQOQVqvO4U

fnQOQVqvO4U <br style="clear: left"/>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwEHbbsiPdI

qwEHbbsiPdI <br style="clear: left"/>

=See also=
 * Section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore)
 * Singapore politicians' views on homosexuality

=References=
 * Official reports of Singapore Parliamentary debates (Hansard):,,,

=Acknowledgements=

This article was written by Roy Tan.