Abdul Samad

Mr Speaker, Prime Minister Lee first announced in his National Day Rally speech on August 2022 that Section 377A would be repealed. Since then, this matter has been deeply debated by members of the public as well as members of this House. Based on my interactions with my friends, colleagues, union leaders and members, I have gathered that there are sentiments of worry and unhappiness among Singaporeans on this topic, despite the many engagement sessions carried out earlier involving various groups of leaders and fellow Singaporeans.

We have heard yesterday from more than 20 MPs and NMPs on this thorny and sensitive subject matter. I am heartened by the passion and conviction of the various speeches by the members of this House and their commitment to safeguard the natural institution of marriage and family structure, as reiterated by many. On the other hand, I am also comforted knowing that we are according the necessary space to those who had previously felt oppressed by the existence of Section 377A in our books.

I would like to thank both Minister Masagos for his explanation on the implications of the insertion of a new Article 156 into our Constitution with regards to marriage, as well as Minister Shanmugam's explanation on the importance of repealing Section 377A in this House, instead of being struck down by the Court. In fact, many in our society may not have known that prior to this announcement, there have been constitutional challenges filed in Court against Section 377A, on the basis that it violates the Constitution.

PM Lee also mentioned during his National Day Rally speech that the Attorney-General and Minister of Law have advised that in the future Court challenge, there is a real risk of Section 377A being struck down.

Sir, our union members and fellow workers are also residents of all the MPs here. They too shared their concerns with me, either in person, over calls, messages or even emails. I have received emails from multiple individuals and groups calling for the retention of Section 377A. This view is commonly held by more conservative and or religious groups as they are concerned with what the repeal of Section 377A represents, that there would be an erosion of family values, and the traditional definition that marriage is between a man and a woman could be challenged.

There is also another view that the Government should not intervene, nor police private and sexual behaviours between consenting adults. Accordingly, it should be removed from our books, especially if the Government would not actively enforce it.

With all being said, I hope the Government can enlighten laypersons like myself on the relevant processes for legislative and policy reforms. Under what circumstances would the Court be empowered to strike down the laws passed by Parliament? What can be done by Parliament to avoid the striking down of the laws? Should the matter be canvassed before Parliament, for Parliament to consider repealing the same verse? What is the difference between these two processes? Can an infographic illustrate these processes to make it easier for people out there to understand?

Nevertheless, I am glad that this issue is canvassed before us presently, as such a law which has far-reaching implications on Singapore's family structure and societal norms should be decided by Parliament, which has the people's mandate and not the Court's, which only interpret and apply laws passed at the Parliament.

At this same juncture, I applaud the Government's decision of introducing Article 156 into our Constitution. Article 156 too provides that the Government and public authorities may, in exercising their executive authority, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage. This is wholly consistent with what most Singaporeans want, which is to maintain the current family and social norms, where marriage is between a man and a woman, and children are brought up in such a family structure. We hope that the existing measures, such as public housing policies and financial benefits for married couples, as well as education and media policies, continue to promote and safeguard the institution of marriage.

So I will now speak in Malay. Mr Speaker, our discussion on Section 377 and the changes in the Constitution have drawn the attention of our people. Regardless of race or religion, many people are concerned about the way our people live if Section 377 is passed. Sadly, not many people pay attention to the same issue as the move of the Constitution, with the addition of Article 156, which highlights and strengthens the definition of marriage and family. Many people ask whether the Government agrees with the actions of the group and is in accordance with their demands.

We are all aware that a group like this will reappear, and it is very worrying for our society now and in the future. This act of This act of this act can be seen as a small achievement for this group. Will they continue to make more demands based on the same principles for all communities in the future? Will the Government support and allow the same as it is now?

It is not wrong to raise concerns, but we must acknowledge that this world belongs to all creation, from humans, animals, mountains, plants and so on, which we cannot count. People like us are also humans. We share the same world as all creation. Let us not separate them only because of their desire to be different from us. Spread the mercy among people and acknowledge their challenges. They have never asked to be in such a situation. But we admit that we are the heirs and heirs must play their roles, advise and share with them the truth of life. Let us plant respect, not punishment, based on differences of opinion, determination and trust. We must avoid spreading slander that can break our society. Harmony in communities that have long been built on the basis of respect must be maintained and strengthened, united and divided.

Sir, I am sure that the repeal of Section 377A will bring some form of relief and comfort to those who had previously felt oppressed by the same, in knowing that our societal norms have shifted and we as a society are ready to accept and grant them the space needed. In my personal view, the Government has arrived at a nice balance, granting homosexuals the space that they need through the repeal, while recognising and upholding the traditional definition of marriage through the constitutional amendments.

In closing, I echo what our Prime Minister said at the National Day Rally, that we must maintain the mutual respect and trust that we have painstakingly built up over the years and stay united as one united people. I stand by and support the decision to repeal Section 377A, as well as amendments to the Constitution, because every human matters. I also call on fellow workers and employers to treat every worker equally, regardless of their gender, because every worker matters. Thank you.