Dennis Tan

Mr Speaker, today the House is debating the Government's Amendment Bill to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code and a proposed amendment to 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 the unhappiness with perceived discrimination and different rights as compared to heterosexual couples in the areas of marriage, owning BTOs, rights of child adoption, etc. I also heard much feedback from residents and Singaporeans of their concerns for the repeal.

Many were concerned that we would be removing a symbolic social marker by 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. And 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. And they wonder to what extent the proposed amendments to the Constitution can prevent such changes.

Many expressed 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 they take a view 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. 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 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 377A is different to different groups. There are differing views and even the experiences of individuals. As an 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 Section 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 Leader of the Opposition, 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 today, given the divided issues at play for different segments of my constituents and for Singaporeans. I have been 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, and some have over time shared with me some of their very difficult circumstances and experiences in life, which makes my heart and my decision today even more difficult and humbling. I humbly seek their understanding.

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

Mr Speaker, next on the issue of the Constitutional Amendment. My colleague and my Honourable Friend, Ms Sylvia Lim, has raised some concerns regarding the implications of the proposed carve-outs in the proposed Article 153 to exclude the Court's 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 to me and who 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 LGBT 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 Amendment Bill but will support the Constitutional Amendment Bill. Thank you.