Jessica Tan

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I am speaking today on both the Penal Code Amendment Bill and the Bill on the Amendment to the Constitution, as many of my residents have reached out or written to me since PM's National Day Rally speech on the repeal of Section 377A. They had asked that I share their concerns and seek clarification to address their apprehension.

This is a difficult topic with differing views, but an important one for all Singaporeans.

At this point, I should share my personal views on this as well. I will say that it took me quite a long time to write this speech. My speech is not long, don't worry, but it took me a long time to write it because I had to ask myself, where do I stand on this?

As a parent and also being an MP for the last 16 years and seeing my residents and when they come to me with their issues, I have a very firm belief that the family is the cornerstone of society. I really believe it is the source of strength and it is also the source of weakness. Therefore, I do cherish the traditional definition of family and being a parent for more than 30 years now and being married for over 32 years, I will say to you, as much as I think I am a good mother, I have realised that my husband and myself play a very important role for our three children. I do want to preserve and protect that definition of family.

So let me now summarise the apprehensions expressed by my residents and what they centre around. One, the safeguarding and the definition of marriage as a union between men and a woman and pro-family policies such as public housing, education, adoption rules and media standards. Two, that the repeal of Section 377A will encourage gay activists to push the agenda much further and this may cause reactions and divisions in Singapore as we see happening in many countries in the world and the concern of my residents is really the divisions and what it may cause. And three, protecting people from being pressured, bullied or discriminated against when they do not support the same ideas and beliefs whether to retain or to repeal Section 377A.

Many have shared that they feel that Section 377A is a unique Singapore compromise. Its non-enforcement means our colleagues, friends, neighbours and family members who identify themselves as homosexuals are able to live out their private lives while protecting gay values from becoming mainstream. It has worked for Singapore so the question is why the need to make the change now?

Minister Shanmugam has explained the circumstances that there are real risks that Section 377A can be struck down. Section 377A has been challenged as unconstitutional and continues to be challenged. The courts have judged that such matters are sensitive societal issues and it is for Parliament to decide. But the point is that if Parliament does nothing, the courts will have to do what it has to do when it has to do. And when that happens, the apprehensions that have been expressed will become real.

It is precisely that that the Government, hearing the views of the majority, is acting. It is easier for the Government to do nothing and in fact politically actually much, much easier. But given how controversial this issue is, especially given how controversial this issue is. However, that would be extremely irresponsible as there is real risk and the very definition of marriage and the pro-family policies that the majority want to protect will be challenged as we are already seeing in several countries.

On the point of why we keep 377A, I think it is also important that I also share feedback that I have received from residents that have friends, colleagues and neighbours and family members as I have shared who are gay members. They and even those that have asked for the repeal of 377A do not view it as a crime that what consenting adult gay men have and do in private. But it stems more from the fact of the fear of what it means after that. So what the repeal of 377A really does is it removes the stigma and the hurt that the gay in our community have been feeling. And I want to say that gay males are fellow Singaporeans as they are and they can be your neighbour, your co-worker, your friend or even your family member. They contribute to and are part of our society and they too deserve dignity and respect.

Now let me touch on the proposed amendment to the Constitution and the insertion of the new Article 156 and whether they will be sufficient to safeguard the definition of the institution of marriage and the associated pro-family policies. The new Article 156, subsection 3 and subsection 4 seek to protect the definition of marriage in such laws like the Women's Charter, the administration of the Muslim laws and laws that confer rights and benefits on or in relation to persons married under those enactments from constitutional challenges. Pro-family policies of the government, example in regard to housing, education and media standards, will therefore also be protected. But the anxiety is if this would make it easy for change as it will only require a simple majority to amend the definition of marriage.

I have received feedback from some asking that the definition of marriage be directly in the Constitution so as to require a two-thirds majority and not just a simple majority to affect such a radical redefinition. The proposed amendment I feel is a balanced one as it protects the traditional definition of marriage and pro-family policies while allowing our future generations to decide on societal norms.

To give further reassurance, DPM Wong has given PAP's commitment that the definition of marriage as that of the union between men and a woman and will not change under the watch of the current leadership of PM Lee and if the PAP government were to win the next General Election, it would not change under his watch. Those are reassurances that have been given. I think that that is a balanced approach and one that does seek to protect the definition that the majority want to hold.

Finally, I would like to talk about the cancel culture and bullying. We are hearing strong sentiments and differing views with the debate around the repeal of Section 377A. From the reactions and feedback shared, an area that is of concern and we must address is that of bullying and a cancel culture.

Youth and working professionals have approached me and expressed fears and anxieties with gay activism. Some have shared that while they accept their friends and family who identify as gays, they find it difficult to voice their opinions when they do not share their values and ideas for fear of being labelled, bullied or cancelled in school or at the workplace. The fear, real or perceived, is that the repeal of 377A will amplify this activism.

But similarly, I would like to caution us that with the debate on this repeal, we are also seeing a heightened attention on those that identify as gay. I also have residents expressing concerns of possible discrimination against those who identify themselves as gay.

So what is clear is that this is a subject that matters to many, regardless of whether we support the repeal or the retention of Section 377A. What we cannot allow is for any persons, regardless of which side they stand, to be labelled, discriminated or bullied.

Minister Shanmugam and MOS Sun Xueling have shared that the agencies are looking at ways to ensure that discrimination is not tolerated. I would ask for more to be shared as to what the details of these are, and to reassure individuals and groups that there are clear protections from discriminatory pressures, a cancel culture and bullying in society, in schools and or at the workplace.

The societal values and definition of marriage, family and policies affecting our children are important for Singapore and Singaporeans. As we have done before, I do appeal to all, regardless of where we stand on this matter, we must work together and not allow this to divide us.

I do believe that while the amendments strive to provide the legislation to preserve and protect our social norms, how we act will determine the Singapore we have today and in the future. I support the Penal Code amendment as well as the amendment to the Constitution. Thank you.