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. 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 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I would like to address the issue of why 377A should be repealed first. When we use the term 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. Now, a truly inclusive community and society consists of people, 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.

Now, you might ask how would you define moral integrity. I think simply put, moral integrity is doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Now, two men having sex in private, 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 also 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. Now, 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 various opinions and views on the matter.

Now, differences in opinions 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.

And shining anything in law is important, but equally important is the value of open discussion and mutual respect. It is also important not to embrace cancel culture, or to automatically rule out someone who holds different views, or even someone who decides to look at the topic conservatively. What does liberal mean? What does conservative mean? My view is that it would be good to allow others their views. Even it may seem more traditional, 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 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 and controversial issues, schools can help promote freedom of expression as well as inclusion and tolerance. In doing so, I believe they would encourage mutual understanding and acceptance. And in many ways, sensitive handling of these challenging issues would be a form of modelling of open discussion. There could also be instances where 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 referred to the Singaporean identity as a quilt, a patchwork of many cultures and multiple identities that we have stitched together and that have 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 the quilt are fraying at the edges. Perhaps these parts are parts of our community that we haven't 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 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 Bill 377A. Thank you, Sir.