CNA: Parliamentary debate on S377A repeal & amending Constitution to protect definition of marriage

[Guest Roy Tan]

This was the main news report in English by Channel NewsAsia broadcast at 10pm tonight. It is by far the longest of them all. 

[Steve5380]

6 hours ago, Guest Roy Tan said:

 

 

So much idle blabber by this man who opposes same-sex marriage! 

 

"Consensus of society" does not exist.  What may exist is "consensus within a ruling party, entity with authority".  And such consensus is rare.  In democracies the decisions are approved by some form of majority,  which is NOT consensus.  

 

Was 377A implemented by consensus?  Regardless, now the repeal of 377A will not happen by consensus but by a political move of the government.   It is the same for any law in the books.  

 

So that this man wants to dignify his choice, which may be the choice of the majority in government,  as "consensus",  is a travesty.  But like it happens with 377A, one day the majority in government may follow with the majority in society and will add same-sex to the definition of marriage.  It is all a matter of time, I think.

 

This is just my opinion, and I find it repulsive when politicians resort to false morality and sanctimoniousness to push for their personal interests, choices.

[drektster]

sometimes i wondered why religion groups are so worried about homosexual. straight will still be straight. people will still get married if they wants to. then again, a couple is a couple, there is no need for a piece of paper to tell the world a couple is or is'nt. in today society, everyone can make a living. marriage might be there only to ensure the used to be the weaker gender got maintenance. in the past tax was calculated as in per household income. now, it is based on individual. so then again marriage has no significant meaning.

[Guest Guest Useless]

They need to increase if not maintain their membership

[keyboard]

9 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

 

So much idle blabber by this man who opposes same-sex marriage! 

 

"Consensus of society" does not exist.  What may exist is "consensus within a ruling party, entity with authority".  And such consensus is rare.  In democracies the decisions are approved by some form of majority,  which is NOT consensus.  

 

Was 377A implemented by consensus?  Regardless, now the repeal of 377A will not happen by consensus but by a political move of the government.   It is the same for any law in the books.  

 

So that this man wants to dignify his choice, which may be the choice of the majority in government,  as "consensus",  is a travesty.  But like it happens with 377A, one day the majority in government may follow with the majority in society and will add same-sex to the definition of marriage.  It is all a matter of time, I think.

 

This is just my opinion, and I find it repulsive when politicians resort to false morality and sanctimoniousness to push for their personal interests, choices.

Isn't that what politics is about. Driving self interest on the pretext of democracy and citizen voices. On the assumption that a better system exist, how will it overcome the current one without bloodshed. In the 90s, I thought this law will never be repealed, by the 2000s, I gave up on marriage, in the 2010s, I didn't understand why those group of people were fighting in courts about the law, and in 2020s, I saw their effort and result. I'm humbled by the people who have fought for my rights without me realizing it. I do still feel it is unnecessary to spend so much time, effort, money into the process but yes, you don't know what is taken away from you if you never had it in the first place.

2 hours ago, drektster said:

sometimes i wondered why religion groups are so worried about homosexual. straight will still be straight. people will still get married if they wants to. then again, a couple is a couple, there is no need for a piece of paper to tell the world a couple is or is'nt. in today society, everyone can make a living. marriage might be there only to ensure the used to be the weaker gender got maintenance. in the past tax was calculated as in per household income. now, it is based on individual. so then again marriage has no significant meaning.

Society as a whole need to hold on to a generally accepted model to function. E.g. North Koreans is still thinking they are under threat of a US military attack any day any given time. The war never ended since then. To us, it might seem ridiculous, to them, that's what they been taught since birth. Personally, I'm still unlearning that marriage/dating should be "preferably" within the same community, yes, there will be learning curve or disagreements, but why should that hold us back and not try at all due to "society norms".

[singalion]

Repealing S377A the right step for Govt, Parliament: Ministers

ST, PUBLISHED 28 NOV 2022, 10:35 PM

 

Ministers are speaking in Parliament at the start of a debate on the amendment as well as the repeal of S377A. ST PHOTO: GAVIN FOO

Goh Yan Han

Political Correspondent

 

P

 

SINGAPORE - Repealing the longstanding law criminalising gay sex is the responsible thing for the Government and Parliament to do, two ministers said on Monday. 

 

There is a real risk that the courts could strike down Section 377A of the Penal Code, with an impact on marriage and other policies, and this would not be in Singapore’s interests, they said.

 

That is why the Constitution is being amended with a new Article 156 to protect the current definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, and related policies, from legal challenges, they told Parliament at the start of a debate on the amendment as well as the repeal of S377A.  

 

“This Bill is what a responsible Government, carrying out its duty to the people of Singapore, would introduce,” said Social and Family Development Minister Masagos Zulkifli, who opened the debate by elaborating on the constitutional amendment. “It allows the political process to balance different interests and perspectives and does not pass the buck to the court to rule on social issues which are best dealt with via parliaments.”

 

 

On the repeal, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said leaving the decision to the courts would divide society.

“Housing, education, other policies – they could all be at risk. Knowing all these risks and refusing to take a position or be clear in how we will deal with it, is avoiding our responsibilities as MPs,” he said. “It is easier politically, but it is also worse for Singapore and Singaporeans. To put it bluntly, that will be an abdication of duty.” 

 

The debate, which resumes on Tuesday, comes after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said at the National Day Rally in August that the Government will repeal S377A. This follows a Court of Appeal decision in February and advice from the Attorney-General that signalled the risk of S377A being struck down by the courts in a future challenge.

 

At the same time, most Singaporeans do not want the repeal to trigger a drastic shift in societal norms, the ministers said.

Article 156 will protect the prevailing consensus in society that marriage is between a man and a woman, and children should be born and raised within such families, said Mr Masagos. Future governments are also not prevented from amending this definition in Parliament, should they choose to do so.

 

Mr Shanmugam said society is more ready now for repeal since S377A was last extensively debated in 2007, when the Government said that while the law remained, it would not be enforced. On Monday, he acknowledged that the law had continued to hurt gay people. “Let us start to... heal these divides, remove their pain. S377A should no longer be in our books. Repealing S377A makes it clear that gay people are not criminals.”

 

Many of the 25 MPs who spoke on Monday echoed these sentiments.

 

Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and the Environment and Transport Baey Yam Keng cited various famous foreign personalities who are openly gay, such as Apple chief Tim Cook and actor Ian McKellen. “These are people who walk among us every day… They should not be treated (as) any lesser for what they would like to do in private. We need to be inclusive of different lifestyles just as we’d like to have the choice and freedom to lead our private life in peace.”

 

A number of MPs expressed concern about cancel culture, religious freedom, and discrimination that could be faced by those with differing views on homosexuality. Mr Fahmi Aliman (Marine Parade GRC) asked that companies not penalise and discriminate against workers who choose not to attend diversity and inclusion programmes or events.

 

Workers’ Party (WP) MP Leon Perera (Aljunied GRC) said that those who question lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) relationships on the grounds of religious faith or deep personal conviction should have the freedom to espouse their views respectfully, while those who believe in LGBTQ equality have the right to respectfully criticise opposing views. “They should not be cancelled. They should not be demonised. To criticise a choice someone makes in their personal life is not tantamount to criticising, denigrating or disenfranchising the person, but this depends on how the criticism is made,” he said.

 

 

Some MPs also called for continued commitment to pro-family values. Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said he believed “absolutely, with no apology and with no reservations, in the traditional family form as an ideal”. He said: “We have to find ways to continue to protect this precious and fragile institution of the traditional family and marriage and we have to remember that the welfare and the rights of our children are paramount.”

 

Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh (Aljunied GRC) said in repealing S377A, religious Singaporeans are not asked to endorse homosexuality, but to instead honour the equality of all Singaporeans in the eyes of the law, that no consenting adults should be regarded as criminals because of what they do in private.

 

MPs will vote on both Bills – the constitutional amendment and the repeal – at the end of debate on Tuesday.

 

The People’s Action Party has said it will not lift the party Whip – requiring all its MPs to vote as a bloc – as the changes are a matter of public policy. But Mr Singh said on Monday he would lift the Whip on his party’s MPs, who are divided on the issue, adding: “Not lifting the whip would deny WP MPs not in favour of a repeal of S377A the opportunity to vote freely and in doing so, to also represent Singaporeans who see this issue as a matter of deep religious belief and conscience.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of the five WP MPs who spoke on Monday, Mr Singh and Mr Perera said they agreed with both Bills; Mr Dennis Tan (Hougang) and Mr Gerald Giam (Aljunied GRC) said they were against the repeal but for the constitutional amendments; while Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) said she was pro-repeal but would abstain from voting on the constitutional amendments.

 

Mr Singh said Mr Faisal Manap (Aljunied GRC) was against the repeal as a matter of religion and conscience, while Mr Louis Chua (Sengkang GRC) was pro-repeal. Both men had tested positive for Covid-19 and did not attend Parliament.

Ms Hazel Poa, a Non-Constituency MP from the Progress Singapore Party, said the party had strong differing views but decided to support the repeal of S377A. However, it also called for a national referendum on the definition of marriage.

 

Meanwhile, Nominated MPs Mark Chay and Cheng Hsing Yao said they were pro-repeal while Professor Hoon Hian Teck said he was against it.

 

A common thread among MPs was a call for mutual respect and civil discussion despite differing views. Ms Cheryl Chan (East Coast GRC) said: “For us to move forward as a country, there needs to be more ability in us to actively hear different viewpoints. Let’s not allow divisive voices to break us apart, but rather for us to consider when and how we want to be inclusive while maintaining our own beliefs and values.”

 

 

 

 

Anything new ?

Edited November 29, 2022 by singalion

[keyboard]

4 hours ago, keyboard said:

Society as a whole need to hold on to a generally accepted model to function. E.g. North Koreans is still thinking they are under threat of a US military attack any day any given time. The war never ended since then. To us, it might seem ridiculous, to them, that's what they been taught since birth. Personally, I'm still unlearning that marriage/dating should be "preferably" within the same community, yes, there will be learning curve or disagreements, but why should that hold us back and not try at all due to "society norms".

Sometimes it makes you wonder if the internet is spying on you. If a kid from birth is only surrounded with monks who claims he's the reincarnation of the grand lama. How can he be anything else? Will the people around him allow him to break free? Or does he not see it as any issue in the first place.

 

[keyboard]

The things that happen as a consequence of actions.

 

[singalion]

Singapore is now a country that has decriminalised gay sex!

 

It is done!

 

 

Parliament repeals Section 377A; endorses amendments protecting marriage definition

ST, 29 November 2022 6:15pm

 

SINGAPORE - Parliament on Tuesday voted to repeal a decades-old law criminalising gay sex, while endorsing changes to the Constitution to protect the current definition of marriage from legal challenge.

The repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code, following a 10-hour debate over two days, saw 93 MPs voting in favour of the move. 

 

Workers’ Party MPs Gerald Giam (Aljunied GRC), Dennis Tan (Hougang) and Nominated MP Hoon Hian Teck were the only three to vote against repeal.

 

The constitutional amendment to introduce Article 156 saw 85 MPs vote in favour, while both Progress Singapore Party Non-Constituency MPs voted against the move and WP MPs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) and He Ting Ru (Sengkang GRC) abstained. Nominated MPs are not allowed to vote on constitutional amendments.

 

Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said Parliament’s overall choice showed that the House is the one to decide on issues of marriage rather than leaving the matter to the Courts and living with the potential threat of the current definition being ruled unconstitutional.

 

During the debate, several MPs had raised concerns about the repeal leading to cancel culture - or the practice of shutting down those with differing views.

 

 

Mr Shanmugam said on Tuesday that the Law Ministry is looking at measures to deal with the harm caused by cancel campaigns online.

 

“People really ought to be free to stand by their beliefs, express their views with due respect for the feelings of others, without fearing being ‘cancelled’,” he said.

He added that as it is not an easy area to deal with or legislate on, the ministry will give more details when it has a sense of what is doable.

Responding to Mr Louis Ng (Nee Soon GRC) on whether there are any individuals with existing records of convictions under S377A and how they will be treated, Mr Shanmugam said there are some, though most involved non-consenting victims, acts against minors, or sexual acts committed in public.

 

He added: “There are a small number of individuals who were convicted between 1988 and 2007 for consensual, private, homosexual acts, between adults. I have instructed my ministry to consider how the records of these persons can be rendered spent proactively.”

 

He also questioned the Workers’ Party’s decision to lift the Whip on its members, saying this meant that as a party, WP had no official position on the repeal and also did not support the constitution amendments to protect marriage.

 

The Whip requires party members to vote as a bloc and WP chief and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh had said on Monday that his decision was due to the risk of diluting the democratic value of Parliament as the varied views of Singaporeans on the topic would not be adequately ventilated in the House.

 

Mr Shanmugam said this explanation was “factually untrue”. “The Whip does not, and has not, prevented MPs from speaking their minds. MPs have always been free to express what they, their constituents think. The Whip is relevant for voting, not speaking, and the Whip sets out the Party’s position,” he said.

 

He added that choosing not to vote for the repeal meant passing on the buck to the Courts, given the legal risks of the law being struck down by the Courts.

 

“That’s an abdication of responsibility as parliamentarians,” he said.

 

 

 

Mr Singh replied that with the WP MPs indicating their positions - six for repeal and three against due to reasons of religion and conscience - the party position has now been established by way of a majority in Parliament.

 

Rounding up the debate, Minister for Social and Family Development Masagos Zulkifli addressed concerns MPs had on religious freedom, sex education in schools and support for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) students.

Mr Masagos said that it is the intention of the Government that there should not be a change in social norms following the repeal - precisely what Article 156 is intended to achieve.

 

He reiterated that education policies and curriculum remain anchored on Singapore’s prevailing family values and social norms, which most Singaporeans want to uphold. These include the family as the cornerstone of society’s social fabric, and marriage as between a man and a woman.

 

On religious freedom, he said: “Every person has the right to profess, propagate and practice his or her own religion, subject to public order, health and morality. Every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs.”

He also addressed NCMP Hazel Poa’s call on Monday, when she said the Progress Singapore Party wanted the definition of marriage to be decided by a national referendum.

 

Mr Masagos said the Constitution sets a very high bar for a referendum - when sovereignty, or the command of the Armed Forces and Police is at stake - and Singapore has only had one referendum in history, in 1962 on merger with Malaysia.

 

He said of Ms Poa’s call: “This might seem seductive, but let’s call it what it is: It is an attempt to avoid taking a position, as Parliamentarians, as elected representatives of the people.”

In response, Ms Poa said the party had shown its ability to make difficult decisions, such as its stance to support the repeal of S377A.

 

On the definition of marriage, she said that given the high level of interest from the public, and that it is not an area requiring specialised knowledge, it would be an issue suitable for the public to participate in.

 

 

 

 

[Tanxq]

...

Edited November 29, 2022 by Tanxq
.

[Guest Hahaha]

so how many of you guys will be going be making out furiously anywhere and everywhere with your boyfriends on the streets of Singapore now?

[Vometra]

What a shitshow. The repeal is already a much ado about nothing, and they still want to politicise it.

https://www.straitstimes.com/multimedia/the-big-story-shanmugam-addresses-key-points-of-s377a-debate-in-wrap-up-speech

[drektster]

1 hour ago, singalion said:

Singapore is now a country that has decriminalised gay sex!

 

It is done!

 

 

Parliament repeals Section 377A; endorses amendments protecting marriage definition

ST, 29 November 2022 6:15pm

 

SINGAPORE - Parliament on Tuesday voted to repeal a decades-old law criminalising gay sex, while endorsing changes to the Constitution to protect the current definition of marriage from legal challenge.

The repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code, following a 10-hour debate over two days, saw 93 MPs voting in favour of the move. 

 

Workers’ Party MPs Gerald Giam (Aljunied GRC), Dennis Tan (Hougang) and Nominated MP Hoon Hian Teck were the only three to vote against repeal.

 

The constitutional amendment to introduce Article 156 saw 85 MPs vote in favour, while both Progress Singapore Party Non-Constituency MPs voted against the move and WP MPs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) and He Ting Ru (Sengkang GRC) abstained. Nominated MPs are not allowed to vote on constitutional amendments.

 

Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said Parliament’s overall choice showed that the House is the one to decide on issues of marriage rather than leaving the matter to the Courts and living with the potential threat of the current definition being ruled unconstitutional.

 

During the debate, several MPs had raised concerns about the repeal leading to cancel culture - or the practice of shutting down those with differing views.

 

 

Mr Shanmugam said on Tuesday that the Law Ministry is looking at measures to deal with the harm caused by cancel campaigns online.

 

“People really ought to be free to stand by their beliefs, express their views with due respect for the feelings of others, without fearing being ‘cancelled’,” he said.

He added that as it is not an easy area to deal with or legislate on, the ministry will give more details when it has a sense of what is doable.

Responding to Mr Louis Ng (Nee Soon GRC) on whether there are any individuals with existing records of convictions under S377A and how they will be treated, Mr Shanmugam said there are some, though most involved non-consenting victims, acts against minors, or sexual acts committed in public.

 

He added: “There are a small number of individuals who were convicted between 1988 and 2007 for consensual, private, homosexual acts, between adults. I have instructed my ministry to consider how the records of these persons can be rendered spent proactively.”

 

He also questioned the Workers’ Party’s decision to lift the Whip on its members, saying this meant that as a party, WP had no official position on the repeal and also did not support the constitution amendments to protect marriage.

 

The Whip requires party members to vote as a bloc and WP chief and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh had said on Monday that his decision was due to the risk of diluting the democratic value of Parliament as the varied views of Singaporeans on the topic would not be adequately ventilated in the House.

 

Mr Shanmugam said this explanation was “factually untrue”. “The Whip does not, and has not, prevented MPs from speaking their minds. MPs have always been free to express what they, their constituents think. The Whip is relevant for voting, not speaking, and the Whip sets out the Party’s position,” he said.

 

He added that choosing not to vote for the repeal meant passing on the buck to the Courts, given the legal risks of the law being struck down by the Courts.

 

“That’s an abdication of responsibility as parliamentarians,” he said.

 

 

 

Mr Singh replied that with the WP MPs indicating their positions - six for repeal and three against due to reasons of religion and conscience - the party position has now been established by way of a majority in Parliament.

 

Rounding up the debate, Minister for Social and Family Development Masagos Zulkifli addressed concerns MPs had on religious freedom, sex education in schools and support for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) students.

Mr Masagos said that it is the intention of the Government that there should not be a change in social norms following the repeal - precisely what Article 156 is intended to achieve.

 

He reiterated that education policies and curriculum remain anchored on Singapore’s prevailing family values and social norms, which most Singaporeans want to uphold. These include the family as the cornerstone of society’s social fabric, and marriage as between a man and a woman.

 

On religious freedom, he said: “Every person has the right to profess, propagate and practice his or her own religion, subject to public order, health and morality. Every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs.”

He also addressed NCMP Hazel Poa’s call on Monday, when she said the Progress Singapore Party wanted the definition of marriage to be decided by a national referendum.

 

Mr Masagos said the Constitution sets a very high bar for a referendum - when sovereignty, or the command of the Armed Forces and Police is at stake - and Singapore has only had one referendum in history, in 1962 on merger with Malaysia.

 

He said of Ms Poa’s call: “This might seem seductive, but let’s call it what it is: It is an attempt to avoid taking a position, as Parliamentarians, as elected representatives of the people.”

In response, Ms Poa said the party had shown its ability to make difficult decisions, such as its stance to support the repeal of S377A.

 

On the definition of marriage, she said that given the high level of interest from the public, and that it is not an area requiring specialised knowledge, it would be an issue suitable for the public to participate in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

let's forget about everything and vote for a better tomorrow come GE2025

[Guest Hahaha]

Will Roy and his gang be fighting for same sex marriage to be legal in Singapore next? Repealing 377A was only the first step of their grand plan.

[singalion]

13 minutes ago, Guest Hahaha said:

Will Roy and his gang be fighting for same sex marriage to be legal in Singapore next? Repealing 377A was only the first step of their grand plan.

 

might take another 15 years,....

[Guest Peace]

9 minutes ago, Guest Hahaha said:

Will Roy and his gang be fighting for same sex marriage to be legal in Singapore next? Repealing 377A was only the first step of their grand plan.

Marriage was not a religious thing until it was made so. But since the religions wanted to lay claim to it, so be it. Rather than marriage, I think more can be done when it comes to making medical and legal decisions on behalf of our partner if they are critical ill, comatose, or things that happen after one partner passed away. Maybe a civil agreement/ union/ something similar will be good. Imagine a son passed on, and his family kicked him out because he is lgbt, and his partner took care of him through thick and thin.. build wealth together only to give them away to the ones who disowned their son..because there were nothing to protect them even if the son wanted to give everything to his partner.

[drektster]

9 minutes ago, Guest Peace said:

Marriage was not a religious thing until it was made so. But since the religions wanted to lay claim to it, so be it. Rather than marriage, I think more can be done when it comes to making medical and legal decisions on behalf of our partner if they are critical ill, comatose, or things that happen after one partner passed away. Maybe a civil agreement/ union/ something similar will be good. Imagine a son passed on, and his family kicked him out because he is lgbt, and his partner took care of him through thick and thin.. build wealth together only to give them away to the ones who disowned their son..because there were nothing to protect them even if the son wanted to give everything to his partner.

well , they indirectly indicate that marriage has always been a tool to control the people on what benefits they are entitled to. marriage is always the perfect system as a political tool.

Edited November 29, 2022 by drektster

[keyboard]

15 minutes ago, singalion said:

might take another 15 years,....

Don't think my parents can wait that long to walk me down the aisle.

[Guest Roy Tan]

1 hour ago, Guest Hahaha said:

Will Roy and his gang be fighting for same sex marriage to be legal in Singapore next? Repealing 377A was only the first step of their grand plan.

There's going to be a gay adoption fight in the courts soon before a same-sex marriage fight and it's not by me.

[Guest Roy Tan]

Channel NewsAsia's English report is only coming out at 10pm on Singapore Tonight because the Parliamentary session ended late so all the other language reports came out first.

[Guest Roy Tan]

Channel NewsAsia's report dealt in depth with the bickering between the PAP and the opposition parties about their stance on the repeal of Section 377A and same-sex marriage.

[fragile being]

It’s about time this outdated law is repealed! Though it’s a small step, it is a progress nonetheless and the “sword” dangling above our heads are lifted. The fight is far from over and I really hope this country will keep progressing — for everyone’s sake. For now, congratulations everyone! To many more victories for the community💯💯💯

[fyongwee83]

Congrats. There is no crime in love. :)

[singalion]

Would wonder how many now kiss in public or hold hands in the MRT like straight couples.

 

However, knowing from the West, expect harsh reactions from straights at start.

[Why?]

Instead of wasting so much resources criminalising gay, they should be concerned of the majority parliamentary approved 2 giants casino in Singapore.  Moral value? My Ass is more moral than those who opposed repealing.