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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. At the National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lee's announcement that Singapore will repeal section 377A of the Penal Code and amend the Constitution to protect the definition of marriage reflects the common agreement that many believe our gay citizens have a place in society and should not be treated as criminals. And in Singapore, marriage between a man and woman remains the fundamental building blocks of a family.

Mr Speaker, I would like to touch on a few points: one, section 377A as a Penal Code issue; two, protection of current social and family norms; and three, preventing increasingly aggressive and divisive activism.

Mr Speaker, there remains some concern that the repeal of section 377A would lead to a drastic change in social norms, such as how marriages would be defined in the future, sexuality education in schools and what can or cannot be screened on television and in the cinema. However, we have to consider how, since 2007, when section 377A was last debated, social acceptance for homosexuality has "shifted appreciably" as mentioned by Prime Minister Lee.

Back then, it was decided not to actively enforce section 377A. In addition to shifting societal values, we have to also consider the "significant risk" of section 377A being struck down in a Court of law on the grounds that it breaches the provisions of "equal protection" in our Constitution, as discussed extensively by Minister Shanmugam earlier. It has been unsuccessfully challenged in the past before, but it will be reckless of us to not consider this and the ramifications if it was struck down without any protection on the definition of marriage as how our society values it.

Mr Speaker, while I appreciate that there are some reservations and concerns from certain segments of society, most of us agree that two males committing a sexual act or "acts of gross indecency", as the law puts it, in private, should not be punished by imprisonment of up to two years. Hence, it is only right that we consider to repeal section 377A in our Penal Code. We acknowledge that we are still a largely conservative society, but our gay citizens have a place in society and should not be treated as criminals.

While, in general, more are accepting of homosexuality now, we are also very concerned about protecting the current social and family norms. With the repeal of section 377A, how can we effectively safeguard our social norms and values and, in particular, the institution of marriage which is currently defined as being that between man and woman? We must also understand how this definition underpins various national policies, such as housing and education. Hence, it is even more necessary for us to ensure that the current social and family norms are protected.

Undoubtedly, there are strong views for and against the repeal of section 377A and the amendment to the Constitution. There are concerns that there would be increased activism on both ends of the spectrum, which can potentially be aggressive and, more importantly, divisive to our society. I think it is necessary for us to accept this as a consensus – the best possible outcome, given the various viewpoints and deliberations with regard to all the various groups of people, religious, non-religious organisations and the gay community, which has been ongoing since 2007 and before.

While we should not curtail or suppress social activism for causes that our citizens believe in, we must also caution against extreme views and actions that may prove to be divisive to our society. In time to come, should values and norms here in Singapore "appreciably shift" again, then we should be able to come together, sharing our views and reaching a consensus on how we best move forward.

Activists in both camps need not think that they should resort to drastic measures to highlight their cause, nor should any of us be influenced by foreign developments, including pushing values from multinational corporations which are not aligned with our Singaporean values. Singapore's laws are its own and we need not follow the lead of other countries if it does not suit the values and dispositions of our citizens. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We can see how the whole world changes with the passage of time. Society's views have also changed.

Section 377A is a piece of legislation that we inherited from the British and has been used as a symbol to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Earlier this year, in the case of Tan Seng Kee vs Attorney-General, the Attorney-General's Chambers found that there is a significant risk that section 377A could be rejected in Court, because it violates the provision for equality in our Constitution. Although previous cases have not succeeded in rejecting section 377A, we cannot take that risk, especially since such a key decision will leave a huge impact on other legislations.

For our Muslim community, we have AMLA, which defines marriage.

Earlier this year, I was pleased that Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong gave his assurance that PAP will continue to uphold policies that puts the family first and will continue to ensure that marriage will be defined as between a man and a woman.

Although this ensures that policies in Singapore will continue to prioritise the family and the definition of marriage will not change, we cannot deny that the rest of the world has and will continue to evolve, including the values within their own communities. We cannot be influenced by foreign elements, including multinational corporations that support values which are not aligned with our society. The laws in Singapore are our laws and we should not follow in the footsteps of other countries if these are not appropriate for our country. Therefore, it is important for us to define the kind of values we want in Singapore's society.

Like a Malay proverb which exalts that children should be nurtured from young, it is important for us to build a family based on these values, so that we can instil them in our children.

Regarding homosexuality, we must admit that there are a few in our society who face personal challenges and sometimes, they are ridiculed, condemned and marginalised, or left behind without the support of their families from a young age. In cultivating family values, we should also cultivate and portray our religious values, such as mercy, compassion and love for each other, so that these individuals do not feel left out and ostracised from our society. As each of us provides family support, I urge our community to refer to asatizah and MUIS for help and guidance, if needed.

(In English): Admittedly, however, this is not the end of our conversation on this topic, just like all the other issues that we face in society. Society is dynamic and ever-changing. Hence, we must continue to keep future dialogues civil, rational and, most importantly, beneficial for Singapore as a whole.

We only have to look around us to see how issues can be made very divisive, if everyone insists on their entrenched views and not hear one another out and come to a compromise. While we would like to repeal section 377A, we would also like to protect the prevailing definition of marriage while still allowing recourse in the future.

How, then, do we protect the definition of marriage, something which we all value as a society?

By ensuring that the definition of marriage is dependent on Parliament, and Parliament will define marriage based on the prevailing values and views of the Singaporean society at any given point of time. At this juncture, I wish to thank Prime Minister Lee and Deputy Minister Lawrence Wong for the clear assurance that "the PAP Government will continue to uphold our family-centred policies and is fully committed to them and will continue to uphold marriage as defined between man and woman."

In this way, even if one does not agree with the repeal of section 377A, at least the definition of marriage is preserved, for the time being, in our Constitution. On the other hand, for those who welcome the repeal and look beyond decriminalisation, there is room for the definitions to change when public opinion, values and norms differ. I think this is a viable compromise for our society to move forward for now. With the points considered earlier, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do support the repeal in the Penal Code and the amendments to the Constitution.

Mr Speaker, section 377A of the Penal Code is a complex topic, one that has been passionately debated in and out of this House. I am glad that the Singapore Government has decided to finally repeal section 377A. I believe section 377A is no longer relevant in contemporary Singaporean society and I agree with its repeal.

I would also like to state my support for the inclusion of Article 156 of the Constitution, which clarifies that the power to make laws to do with the institution of marriage rightly rests with this very Parliament and for Parliament to protect the prevailing definition of marriage.

This could potentially be a divisive issue, but it may not be. I see it instead as an opportunity to open meaningful conversations about equality and inclusivity within our society. Equality being one of our nation's ideals, we need to ensure that policies implemented to uphold the equal protection of rights for Singaporeans who do not fit squarely into the definition of a traditional family unit. So, for instance, single-parent households and LGBTQ+ Singaporeans, amongst others – after all, these people and many others not mentioned, contribute to the diverse, vibrant, welcoming society that is so admired around the world. Do our policies recognise this and are we doing enough for them? In this regard, I would like to put forward the following suggestions.

First, can PMO consider coordinating a policy review across the whole-of-Government and ensure that those who are not married are actively considered as part of the policy-making process? Other jurisdictions, such as the European Union, have undertaken similar reviews in ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their background, are not unfairly discriminated against. This also ties into the ongoing Forward Singapore exercise, as we refresh our social compact to pursue a more equal and inclusive society.

Second, would be on education for our children. Are we doing enough to ensure that our children understand that even though their peers may not fit into the definition of a traditional family unit, either because of their home situation or their personal realities, that these peers should not be treated differently or, worse, derisively?

I would like to encourage MOE to have meaningful conversations with students, not for the purposes of problem solving, but to seek understanding. I would like to see more education content on handling relationships, not just in the heterosexual sense, but all definitions of relationships. I agree with my Parliamentary colleague here, the hon Member Darryl David, that schools should be a safe space to explore, debate and educate about respect and inclusivity, and we should train our teachers to have productive conversations with students about these.

So, in conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, regardless of where all in this House stand, I think we all agree that we want the best for our country and our people for a prosperous and inclusive and forward-looking Singapore. During his speech to announce Singapore's Independence from Malaysia on 9 August 1965, our founding father Lee Kuan Yew said: "Everyone will have his place: equal; language, culture, religion." We are, thus, compelled to move in this direction and ensure that every Singaporean can live a joyful, happy and peaceful life and contribute meaningfully to this great nation.

It is based on these ideals for a better Singapore that were first articulated more than five decades ago that we have built this inclusive global city which we are all proud to call home today. Singapore has, indeed, become a beacon for many and, while conservative in our nature, we are a tolerant, peaceful and harmonious society, where everyone can live in community without fear.

I hope that one day, we will not have to rely on the Constitution to safeguard, respect and celebrate our differences where there is a lot more binding us together as Singaporeans – a love for food, being "kiasu", being "champion grumblers" – than what differentiates us. We have built a society based on interracial and inter-religious harmony. I am certain we can establish a similarly harmonious relationship among one another regardless of our differences. In fact, we can learn to welcome, protect and even celebrate those differences, as one diverse, inclusive harmonious nation of Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the amendments proposed today.

Our society's view on section 377A has evolved over time. Part of it can be attributed to our youths today. Therefore, I believe I can best contribute to our debate by highlighting their views.

Most of our youths want section 377A gone, because it suggests that some Singaporeans are less than others. The views of our youths are not solely attributed to the influx of "woke" culture from the West. There is a more fundamental reason.

And that is, for the past few decades, we have been building a kinder Singapore. Our schools have taught our children and youths the value of justice, empathy and kindness. Naturally, our youths believe the dignity of every Singaporean matters. Therefore, we should not be surprised if our youths think that the provisions of section 377A are innately discriminatory, even if they are not enforced by the Government.

So, should we be surprised that our youths can empathise with the lived experience of the gay community, some of whom have experienced real or perceived discrimination? No, we should not.

At the same time, while our Singapore youths respect diversity, they also continue to uphold the sensibility of a traditional society. They are pro-family and most believe marriage is best defined as between a man and a woman. Therefore, with regards to family, their views are not that different from the generations of Singaporeans before them.

Most of them have grown up with loving parents, grandparents and under the nurturing shade of our family centric policies. They, therefore, intuitively understand the importance of families, not just for themselves, but also for society.

At the same time, many youths also wonder why it took society so long to repeal section 377A.

However, they have now observed the painstaking consensus building effort needed to move Singapore along. And because our youths can empathise with differing viewpoints, our youths now have a deeper sense of understanding of how our more traditional Singaporeans feel. Therefore, I believe that most of our youths will support the amendments proposed today.

To sum up, our youths do not see the repeal of section 377A, or their belief that all Singaporeans matter, as contradictory to their pro-family stance. Their views are reasonable and we should listen to them.

Next, I would like to talk about how we can best support our youths on this issue, especially, on the one hand, our youths who are gay and worried that they will be ostracised and, on the other hand, our youths who are worried about being "cancelled" for voicing, in a respectful manner, their traditional family values.

Indeed, we must take pains to ensure that our schools remain neutral on this issue and support both types of youths in an effective and low-key manner.

I have observed that for a minority of youths, there is a certain fluidity in gender self-identification. A youth might identify himself as gay at a certain age but have a different take years later. And the reverse can also be true too.

Therefore, our schools should neither celebrate nor ostracise our youths for being gay. Our schools should not let gender become the defining attribute of who a person is, because if this issue gets polarised, we will be robbing them of the opportunity to do an authentic self-evaluation, in their formative years, of who they truly are.

We must also remember that for a small country, if our children and youths are fiercely divided along any issue, and then they grow up within the confines of those fault lines, the divide is not just ideological. It can get deeply personal. Remember, we are a small country. Frequently, the divide will have a human face attached to that divide.

And in my discussions with many teachers and school leaders, I believe our Primary, Secondary schools and Junior College (JC) leaders have done a good job in keeping our schools neutral. They have taken a child-centric approach to providing quiet and effective support to our youths. Compared to other countries, they have been quite successful in preventing educators from injecting their personal agendas into the classrooms.

But it has been a while since we have last debated on this issue. So, it is best if MOE can remind our school leaders and teachers on this. And Singaporeans will also appreciate if MOE can reiterate their firm stance on this matter.

The situation in our tertiary institutes is more complex. At that age, our youths are at the discovery stage in their lives and our educators have a lot less influence over their students. Therefore, I hope we can consider legislations, moving forward, to prevent the "cancel culture" from taking root in Singapore.

Let me now conclude, Mr Speaker. I stand in support of the proposed amendments because they are the result of a painstaking consensus building effort, thereby cementing our common ground into law, and also because they refresh our social compact on gender and marriage for the years ahead, thereby addressing the very reasonable concerns of more traditional Singaporeans, and because it helps us move Singapore forward.