Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 3) Bill

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For many who did not believe that section 377A should be repealed, their main concerns were about the consequences of the repeal of section 377A, what will happen after the section is repealed and not because they thought gay sex between men should in itself be criminalised.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

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

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 members of parliament 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.

Yes.

Leader of the Opposition.

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 the 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 and 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.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

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.

Mr Christopher de Souza.

Ms Hazel Poa.

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, it 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.

Minister of State Sun Xueling.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong.

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.

Prof Hoon Hian Teck.

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.

Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will be speaking in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] 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.”

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.

Mr Leon Perera.

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 (MPs) to speak and vote according to their conscience and deeply held values. Workers' Party 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 enforce 377A and the Attorney General has said that the Public Prosecutor will hew 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 the 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 hew 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.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.30 pm until 4.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.55 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song.

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.

Mr Deputy Speaker: 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 not 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): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] 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 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 Gate 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, are we not 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.

Mr Alex Yam.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this is clearly not a matter of foreign policy, but my wife and I celebrate our 35th anniversary today. [Applause.] Thank you. I am the proud parent of four children and four grandchildren, so this was a debate which I saw 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 the 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 1980s. 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 and reproductive therapy. It also means our public messaging, our education, in schools, the mass media must continue to uphold these traditional family ideals.

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.

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.]

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] 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.

Mr Cheng Hsing Yao.

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.

Ms Jessica Tan.

Miss Cheryl Chan.

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 the 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 defer 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.

Mr Darryl David.

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.

Minister Masagos, would you like to move the Motion for Exempted Business?