Derrick Goh

Sir, during the Committee of Supply debate in March this year, I asked the Government to clarify its position on the Court of Appeals ruling on the constitutional challenge to Section 377A of the PIN code, since it was last debated in 2007. Given proactive steps taken by Government on stakeholder engagement, including Minister's explanation yesterday on the historical context of relevant laws, I fully understand the implication of the Court's rulings and judgments.

I welcome the Government's clear explanation of the legal risk that the colonial era 377A faces, and the potential domino effect on the other parts of our legislation and related policies. I accept Minister Shanmugam's interpretation on this issue. I also fully agree that it is the responsibility of our Government and this House to address this issue head-on. We cannot cop out and pass this uncomfortable duty to the judiciary.

Both Ministers Masagos and Minister Shanmugam spoke on the perils of Court-led decisions, where the US Supreme Court controversially reversed 50 years of federal abortion rights. US media there noted the chaos brought about by the Court judgment to a great nation already split by deep political divide. Singapore cannot afford to take this path.

As the debate on this topic can be divisive, I am glad that our Government has taken accountability and has taken steps to help us navigate this complex matter in an inclusive and transparent way, where views from different segments of our society are heard. I too can attest to this process, where after the National Day rally speech, we discussed this issue at Nee Soon's events with our grassroots leaders, residents and religious organisations. We did so in a cool-headed manner, and I have to say, the discussions we had had a lot of understanding and empathy. It was way calmer than I earlier expected, as this issue is an especially difficult one for all of us to speak on.

This topic affects many in the community who are our friends, relatives and colleagues from both gay and traditional families. While the majority of Singaporeans do not want to criminalise sex between gay men, residents I spoke to are concerned whether the repeal of Section 377A will lead to an erosion of the protection of marriage, family and children, and if the underlying motives of past legal challenges go beyond mere removal of stigma and criminalisation.

I note that the constitutional amendment Bill, which safeguards the definition of marriage without tying the hands of future generations, is a balanced approach. To allow Government of the day to consider prevailing societal attitudes. On this premise, my community at Nee Soon welcomes PM Lee's and DPM Wong's assurance that the definition of marriage will not change under their watch, and the PAP's Government stance of the traditional family as a basic building block of our society will be strengthened while also respecting the dignity and place of gays in our community.

On this point, it is my hope that on this basis, our Government will continue to find ways to further strengthen the structure of marriage and family in our current policies. So as we debate the repeal of 377A and the safeguards put in place, we should also be clear of any impact to the way of life as we know in Singapore, and the measures necessary to guide the way forward.

As the premise of the repeal of 377A is that what happens in private should not be criminalised, the concern of the community is that this could be incorrectly viewed as a signal for stronger public advocacy of gay relationships. We need to remember that the debate will not make this issue any less divisive. We should expect diverse and passionate views from different stakeholders in society to carry on after today.

As such, we will need to continue to ensure a safe space for healthy and civil conversations, just as we did over the last many months, so that our society evolves peacefully. On this note, can the Minister explain his thoughts on further mechanisms that Government will put in place to promote genuine, healthy engagements? Will surveys be done regularly and discussed over national conversations? In some ways, this can guide the discourse moving forward. Monitor fault lines and potentially reduce harassment or discrimination of pro-gay groups or those who do not agree with them, especially in secular spaces such as schools and workplaces.

Currently, some multinational companies offer family benefits to their gay staff, like those for traditional couples. Can the Government explain if it supports such arrangements and its position if gay couples were to push for more workplace benefits?

Sir, in Mandarin. Mr Speaker, the 377A Bill has been discussed in the past few months. We discussed it in some of the activities in Nee Soon and discussed it with the leaders of the community and religious groups. I have spoken about the issues they raised in my English speech and I hope to get an answer.

More importantly, from these talks, we can see that Singapore is mature enough to discuss sensitive issues and find a balance. I think this is Singapore's unique spirit. I hope we can continue to seek common ground and make better decisions for society.

Sir, in our Singapore Pledge, we committed ourselves to build a democratic society based on justice and equality. For me, this process of stakeholder engagements leading to this debate has, I believe, enabled all of us to better understand what our pledge really means.

Our Government has demonstrated its even-handed approach. The two bills placed before us are well-balanced and are steps forward in the right direction. It recognises that there is a place for everyone, factoring the majority preferences and protecting the dignity of our gay community. We are all together better off. Singapore has always prided itself as a melting pot of cultures, races and religions.

In navigating and not avoiding this issue, we have grown together as a nation and I am confident that we can continue to find strength and harmony in diversity as we continue to write our Singapore story. I stand in support of these two bills.