Hansard, Tuesday, 29 November 2022

1 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health in light of the US research paper suggesting that COVID-19 reinfection is more dangerous (a) what is the mortality rate and serious complication rate of those in Singapore catching COVID-19 for a second or third time vis-a-vis a first-time infection; and (b) how does vaccination alter the mortality and severe illness rate in both groups.

Sir, the Member has referred to a US research paper, which according to media reports, found that second COVID-19 infections are more severe compared to first infections.

I am afraid the media reports have not been clear or accurate. The paper cited by the Member does not compare the severity between first-time infections and reinfections. Instead, it compares the outcomes of those who had a first COVID-19 infection, versus those with two or more infections. And therefore, not surprisingly, the study found it is more likely for persons to develop adverse health outcomes after two or more episodes of COVID-19 infection, compared to people who had only one infection episode. Put it simply: getting sick twice is worse than getting sick once; but getting sick for the second time is not worse than getting sick the first time.

In fact, from September to mid-November 2022, the mortality rate of reinfection cases in Singapore was four per 100,000 cases, lower than that for first-time infection cases at 35 per 100,000 cases. The rate of severe illness – those requiring oxygen supplementation, intensive care or death – was also lower for reinfections at 232 per 100,000 cases, compared to first-time infections at 282 per 100,000 cases.

Our data also shows that achieving minimum vaccination protection – in other words, three doses of mRNA or four doses of Sinovac – lowers the risk of severe illness, whether it is a first infection or re-infection.

Mr Yip.

I thank the Minister for his clarification. Is there any data that the bivalent vaccine booster has helped to reduce severe illness and death? What is the uptake of the bivalent vaccine? And with the Singapore public treating living with COVID as a new normal, how can we improve the uptake of the bivalent vaccine?

The initial data from clinical trials of the bivalent vaccine and now, empirical data based on our actual lived experience, show that it has been effective in reducing severe illnesses. Today, when you compare, especially for the aged, those who have gotten full protection and up-to-date vaccination, versus those who have not, it still shows a significant difference between the prevalence of severe illness if they get infected. I do not have the data with me, but it is at least four to five times more likely to fall severely ill if you are not fully vaccinated or not update-to-date with the vaccination.

Today, we are administering healthy numbers of vaccines – about 20,000 a day in uptake; it is quite good. This includes both mono-valent and bivalent. I do not have the breakdown, but the take-up has been encouraging for people keeping their vaccination up-to-date. We will continue to put out public messages to encourage people to take their vaccine, keep it up-to-date, because the pandemic is not over. We will be stepping up our mobile vaccination teams into the heartlands so that, especially for the seniors, they will find that it is more accessible to getting their vaccination up-to-date with the mobile vaccination teams in place.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Thank you, Speaker. I just want to ask the Minister is there data to show what is the reinfection rate and the seriousness of using mRNA and other vaccines.

Can the Member repeat that? I was not too clear.

My question is, is there data to show what is the effective rates of using mRNA and the seriousness of reinfection, and the difference between mRNA vaccine and others, these two categories.

There was a similar Parliamentary Question before and I showed some of the data. The Member should be able to find it in the Hansard. Essentially, for the non-mRNA vaccine, we mostly use Sinovac. Sinovac is effective if you take three or more shots, preferably four shots. It does protect you against severe illness. I remember the protection rate is about 70-plus percent. But if you use mRNA, it is even more effective, at 80-plus, almost 90%.

So, both are effective, with mRNA vaccines having an edge over Sinovac.

2 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Manpower in the past three years, how many reports have been received from platform firms or platform gig workers regarding injuries suffered in the course of platform or gig work including (i) near-misses (ii) accidents without injury (iii) accidents with injury of any severity and (iv) accidents with injury serious enough to require medical help.

Companies are required to report their employees’ injuries to MOM to facilitate expeditious processing of work injury compensation claims and ensure that the injured employees receive the necessary compensation. Platform workers are currently not covered by mandatory work injury compensation requirements, so platform work injury data is not reported to the Ministry.

The Government has accepted recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers, including strengthening financial protection in case of work injury. Upon implementation of the work injury compensation framework for platform workers, the reporting of work injuries for platform workers will be mandated.

Dr Tan.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. I have Clementi residents who are delivery riders with platform companies; some have been injured on the job. The General Insurance Association (GIA) recently proposed expanded use of prolonged medical leave insurance and group personal accident insurance instead of Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) framework. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State, why did the insurers and platform companies not suggest this earlier, especially when they already knew that there were riders who were dying on the job?

Second, does it mean that the GIA proposal will need every company to buy 24-hour insurance coverage for their workers, even if the platform worker is only doing a few hours a day with that particular company? And if so, who is going to pay under the GIA recommendation?

Thirdly, if the GIA proposal is taken up, is it going to weaken the role of WICA? Will it encourage employers in other sectors to convert their employees into contractors so as to avoid the responsibilities and compensation that come with WICA protection for workers?

The Senior Minister of State can respond to the three supplementary questions raised. But just a reminder to Members to limit it to two questions.

Thank you, Speaker. I believe the hon Member must be referring to the statement made by GIA to a Business Times article on 24 November 2022.

Let me just explain that today, some platform companies do provide platform workers with compensation for work injuries, but the coverage is uneven across different platforms and at much lower levels than what employees are entitled to under the WICA. For example, platform companies' coverage for death or permanent disability is largely in the $10,000 to $30,000 range, compared to employees' entitlement under WICA of up to $289,000. That is a significant difference in the magnitude of coverage.

This is why the Platform Workers Advisory Committee recommended requiring platform companies to provide the same scope and level of work injury compensation as employees' entitlement under WICA. This recommendation is both fair to the employers and to the platform workers. Employers meaning the platform companies.

It is fair to platform workers because they receive the same work injury compensation protection as other workers exposed to the same job risks, such as employees in related sectors like logistics. It is fair to platform companies because they only need to cover platform workers if they are injured in the course of work. If, for example, the platform worker was injured while running personal errands, the platform company is not responsible to provide compensation. This is no different from employers' responsibility towards their employees under WICA and ensures a level playing field across different companies.

On the other hand, GIA has suggested requiring companies to purchase prolonged medical leave insurance and group personal accident insurance, in place of WICA. Such insurance policies provide 24/7 coverage and compensation, regardless of whether an injury happen in the course of work. They also use fixed payouts, unlike the WICA mechanism where compensation amount varies based on the worker's total earnings.

While we welcome platform companies to go above and beyond by providing 24/7 coverage for their workers, the Government should not require them to do so, to provide coverage for injuries that are not as a result of work. Similarly, it would not be right to provide a fixed payout to injured platform workers when platform workers are a diverse group, ranging from those who engage in casual work – perhaps only infrequently and a short number of hours a day – to those who do it on a more full-time basis, on a daily basis.

The Platform Workers Advisory Committee recommended that compensation for platform workers should vary based on workers' earnings, the same way that WICA operates today for injured employees. This is fair to the platform worker and platform company as the amount of compensation would depend on the extent of income lost by the worker due to the injury at work.

Dr Tan Wu Meng asked if GIA's suggestions will weaken WICA. I just want to reassure the Member that MOM will ensure that companies do not misclassify workers in order to skirt the requirements under WICA. But indeed, one other important aspect of WICA is that under this legal framework, there is an established mechanism under which companies and workers who object to the insurers' assessment of the claim, can file a dispute. MOM will then oversee a dispute resolution process, to adjudicate and settle the claim. This ensures that claims are resolved fairly in accordance with the WICA framework, without prejudice to the company or the worker.

GIA's suggestion of using only existing prolonged medical leave insurance or group personal accident insurance in place of WICA would relegate this to private insurance policy whose terms and conditions are dictated by the insurer without a clear mechanism to adjudicate disputes.

I appreciate why insurers would want more flexibility in how they compensate claims. But to ensure fairness to workers and companies, I do not think we should be leaving it to insurers to be the final arbiter of any disputes in work injury claims. There could well be a conflict of interest in such a scenario.

In the committee's engagement with different groups of platform workers and looking at some of the surveys and studies conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), there is feedback from workers that when they want to claim injury claims from some of these insurers as a result of group personal accident insurance policies they were protected under, they often have to jump through hoops. And some of them find it very difficult to actually get the claims settled. There were some who told us that they gave up filing claims because it was so onerous and they had no place to turn to.

In our engagements with insurers, we were also told that offering prolonged medical leave insurance and group personal accident insurance at the same level of coverage as WICA would result in higher insurance premiums for platform companies, compared to an insurance policy based on the committee's recommended approach. This is not surprising since the scope of coverage for these policies is much wider, on a 24/7 basis.

Thus, GIA's suggestion would result in higher business costs to platform companies, especially since regardless of the type of insurance, platform companies will need to purchase insurance that covers all platform workers, and this includes precisely the group that Dr Tan said – those who only do one hour of work a day on the platform. GIA's statement is in contrary to what insurers have advised the committee.

GIA also suggested that platform workers could rely on MediShield Life coverage for medical expenses due to work injury. Again, let me reiterate the principle that platform workers should receive the same level of coverage for work injury compensation as employees.

Given that employees are covered for up to $45,000 in medical expenses for work injuries by their employers, there is no reason why platform workers should have to rely on MediShield Life which they pay for using their own MediSave, and consequently, pay part of the medical bills using their MediSave or out-of-pocket cash if they suffer a work injury.

GIA's suggestion is essentially asking platform workers to pay for their own medical expenses. For these reasons, GIA's proposal is not a viable alternative to the advisory committee's recommendation of requiring platform companies to provide the same scope and level of compensation as employees under WICA. It will lead to either unsustainable premiums for platform companies while work injury compensation for platform workers, they are far below the level of entitlements by employees under WICA.

I note that The Business Times article which the Member probably referred to – that was published on 24 November – stated that GIA Chief Executive Officer Mr Ho Kai Weng said, " GIA members firmly believe financial protection for platform workers can be efficiently achieved through the existing solutions compared to the WICA-based solution." That is the crux of the supplementary question asked by the hon Dr Tan Wu Meng. That is, if it was so viable, why did the insurers and platform companies not suggest this earlier when there were workers who were injured or suffered death while on the job.

Our discussions with insurers showed it was not possible to do so in a cost-effective way. But given the confidence that GIA has on the efficiency of existing products and policies that they have and the public statements by various platform companies that platform workers deserved protection for injuries incurred in the course of their work, I would suggest that GIA members work closely with platform companies to offer financial protection and compensation for these workers at the level of WICA as soon as possible by the first quarter of next year, hopefully, using their existing products while maintaining the cost of premiums at parity with WICA insurance products.

This will provide better coverage for the workers in the interim and keep costs manageable for platform companies and consumers while we work on implementation details of WICA for this group of workers by the end of 2024. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I would like to reiterate that the committee's recommendations are fair to both platform companies and workers and take a balanced approach to strengthening platform workers' financial protection in case of work injury in a sustainable manner. We look forward to continuing our engagements with platform workers, platform companies and insurers as we work towards implementing these recommendations.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Sir, I want to thank the Senior Minister of State for leading this future major effort to take care of the welfare of our platform workers and also for him to personally come down to Bukit Panjang to engage our platform workers support group just a few months ago. The Senior Minister of State mentioned about the recommendation from the advisory group, I would like to ask him for the reception from the platform workers and the company so far on all these recommendations. And in particular, I want to hear from the Senior Minister of State, his views on the concern raised by Grab with regards to the issue of level playing field as the taxi's street hail platforms are excluded from the recommendations, whether there would potentially be issues of price and market distortions?

Sir, I thank Mr Liang for working with the committee in the lead-up to the announcement by helping us to also provide avenues to engage to workers. Indeed, these are early days since the recommendations were announced. The early sensing from different stakeholders, workers, companies and consumers showed that it is a positive set of recommendations that is much welcomed. The workers basically welcome the fact that they will now – when it is implemented – have better work injury compensation, much better than they had today under WICA.

But, of course, the details of implementation are not fully out. So, there are some concerns about whether it will be effectively implemented. For the platform companies, they have put out statements to say that recommendations are fair and balanced and they welcome the changes that will enhance the protection given to these group of workers. So, on the whole, this is very much welcomed.

Our surveys before the release also showed that consumers in various surveys, between 70% and 90% are prepared to pay up to 10% more in prices to make sure that these workers have the adequate protection, so long as the price increase that they pay for goes directly to helping these workers address their income retirement, their retirement adequacy as well as their ability to have housing adequacy.

Generally, the public, the companies and the workers themselves all welcome this set of recommendations.

Specific to the comment that the Member raised about Grab's statement expressing that – excluding street hails from these recommendations would create an unlevel playing field. I would say that, in fact, including street hail into this recommendation would cause an uneven playing field instead. The simple reason is that street hail taxis actually work on a different business model as opposed to a platform model because in the street hail model, the taxi driver is essentially renting the taxi from the taxi companies. The taxi driver decides how he wants to pick up passengers, where he wants to pick up, he can deny working for the day, if he chose to, with no penalties levied by the taxi company. It is more of a rental and rentee kind of relationship.

In fact, in a street hail engagement, the passenger pays to the taxi driver directly. The money does not pass through any app platform, it does not go through the taxi company and there is no commission being levied on the amount of fare that the passenger pays to the taxi driver through a street hail. In that sense, the degree of management control is less and perhaps non-existent in this case. And that is why in the deliberation, the committee recommended that platform companies that exert a certain degree of management control on these supposed group of self-employed workers will then need to provide these workers with some degree of basic protection which includes work injury compensation as well as retirement and housing adequacy.

3 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development how many spouses of the owners of HDB flats and executive condominium, who are registered as occupants and not joint owners of the flat, have bought and invested in another private property in their own name in each of the past five years.

Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, as resale Executive Condominium (EC) units are private residential property, HDB does not track data on the owners and occupiers of EC units beyond five years from when the EC receives its Temporary Occupation Permit (TOP). As such, HDB does not have data of all who are currently occupants of the EC unit that their spouse is an owner of.

As for those registered as occupiers of their spouse's HDB flat, HDB's data only captures whether they proceeded to purchase a private property after fulfilling the requisite Minimum Occupation Period. However, HDB does not capture whether they purchased the private property in their own name or jointly with others. They may have purchased the private property with their spouse, who may then have subsequently disposed of the HDB flat. As such, HDB is unable to provide the specific information that the Member had asked for.

4 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education in each year for the past five years, what is the respective breakdown on the median and average ratio of full-time trained and untrained school counsellors to students in primary schools and secondary schools.

Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, all schools are resourced with one or two trained school counsellors depending on the school's counselling needs. Prior to their formal training at the National Institute of Education, untrained school counsellors are attached to schools to learn from experienced school counsellors but will not be involved in actual counselling work. Beside school counsellors, students are also supported by a network of teacher-counsellors, flexi-adjunct school counsellors, peer supporters and community resources such as Response, Early Assessment and Intervention for Community Mental Health teams and Family Service Centres.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir. And I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I have seen the good and important work our school counsellors do, but I think they need some help, they are severely understaffed. Could I ask the Minister of State whether we are planning to increase the number of trained school counsellors in school? What is the ideal number and perhaps what is the timeframe for this increase?

As I mentioned earlier on, all our Primary school, Secondary school, Junior College (JC) and Centralised Institutes (CI) schools are resource with one or two school counsellors. And in total, we have about 410 school counsellors deployed in our schools currently.

Hon Member Louis Ng has mentioned that this might not be a sufficient number. Actually, our schools can also engage flexi-adjunct school counsellors to supplement their short-term manpower needs and this is at the discretion of the school leaders and management. Overall, about 120 flexi-adjunct school counsellors are engaged in our schools. MOE has also provided further training to over 700 teachers, who are then deployed as teacher-counsellors in our schools to work alongside the school counsellors.

Currently, there are about two to three teacher-counsellors in each school and we aim to increase the number of teacher-counsellors to over 1,000 over the next few years. I hope the hon Member and Members in this Chamber take a more holistic approach towards supporting students with counselling needs. The load cannot fall fully on the school counsellors. Instead, we need to look wider at the community support within the school – fellow students, teachers, adjunct school counsellors and outside of the schools, the community partners. Our interest must be to provide adequate and effective support to our students.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir. Just a further clarification. We talked about the teacher-counsellors, but I think we agreed that teachers are really quite overworked. I just spent the weekend with the Singapore Teachers' Union talking about the workload and their concerns. Now you are asking to do counselling work as well. And that is why the clarification really is on whether we can increase the support to school counsellors, separate from teacher-counsellors, so teachers can focus on teaching and school counsellors can help the students who really do need that help quite desperately.

We recognise that counselling work is demanding and teacher-counsellors have to balance their teaching and counselling workload. Schools does have the flexibility to reduce teaching or CCA duties for teacher-counsellors to provide them more time to spend with their students if they need to. And training for teacher-counsellors also has been enhanced to equip them not only to support their students' well-being, but also better manage their own well-being. We do that for the school counsellors too. Self-care is also important for the counsellors.

The following question stood in the name of Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim –

5 To ask the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the (i) average (ii) longest and (iii) shortest time it takes for the Anti-Scam Centre (ASC) to investigate scam cases thus far; and (b) does the ASC provide guidance to individuals who experience frozen accounts to appeal to the courts under section 35(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Question No 5.

Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, we had answered a Parliamentary Question on the time it takes Police to investigate scam cases just recently in July 2022.

The time taken to complete scam investigations depends on a couple of factors such as the type of scam, how well the scammer covers his tracks and whether or not the monies have been transferred overseas, because if it involves overseas jurisdictions, which often is the case when it comes to scams that happened in Singapore, then the time taken is necessarily longer. In that sense, every case in terms of investigation time differs significantly.

Bank accounts suspected to be involved in scam operations will be frozen by the Police, with monies seized as proceeds of crime. The freeze on the bank accounts will be lifted upon completion of investigations.

Persons whose bank accounts are frozen can make an application to the Courts to withdraw money for reasonable living or legitimate expenses. Section 35(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code allows the account holder to submit an application to the courts to access their funds for the payment of basic expenses, including any payment for foodstuff, rent, discharge of a mortgage, medicine, medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums and public utility charges, amongst others. Where asked, the Police will inform account holders of this possibility and advise them to seek legal advice.

Mr Gerald Giam.

I thank the Minister of State for her replies. I have got to two supplementary questions. Nowadays, bank accounts are absolutely essential for daily living because if the bank account is frozen, it could severely impact the person's ability to conduct daily transactions like receiving their salary. My first supplementary question is, the Minister of State mentioned that they can apply to conduct some limited transactions, does this include being able to receive their salary into their bank accounts?

Secondly, can the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and even the Prison Service provide banks with a letter stating that the investigation or conviction against the person has been completed and what the outcome is so the bank will not flag these persons as being high-risk and prevent them from being from using the bank account or opening a bank account.

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Indeed, we recognise that victims of scams require their bank accounts to be able to make daily transactions. We all recognise the importance of having a bank account to facilitate these transactions. I think the difficulty that the Police faces is that during investigations, some of these bank accounts, unfortunately, from the victim's perspective, they are absolutely a victim in the absolute sense.

But what has happened to some of these accounts is that they may be also tainted with the sense that scam monies may also have been remitted into these accounts, because when a scam syndicate operates, we often see that monies are transferred from one bank account to another and there is often co-mingling of monies in bank accounts. So, the Police actually has to freeze the relevant bank accounts for the purposes of investigations.

The Police freezes these bank accounts when there are two instances. Let me just share with you, for instance, where another victim has made a police report and designates a specific bank account as having received their scam monies. So, the victim from your perspective, victim A for instance, may see himself or herself as the victim who has transferred monies out. But actually, if you look at the entire scam syndicates and its operations, this particular victim A's bank account, could have been compromised whereby another victim's monies has been transferred in as well. That is number one.

Number two, as part of fund tracing investigations, because for instance, in a job scam, it can impact hundreds of persons at the same time. So, as part of tracing the flows of monies, they will have to freeze many bank accounts and you will often see that there are multiple claimants on the specific sums of monies.

I just wanted to share that this is the background as to why the Police has to freeze bank accounts. For instance, you mentioned where a victim actually requires a bank account to be able to facilitate their transactions, if the bank account is actually frozen, what we would suggest to the victim, is actually for them to open another bank account for the purposes of receiving their salaries, because unfortunately, like I mentioned in my original reply, the time taken for investigations for scams can differ significantly, depending on the complexity of the case. And we do not want to unnecessarily impede the victims' ability to transact on a bank account, so we would typically recommend that they set up a separate bank account, to be able to receive their salaries.

On your second point, there are various reasons why a bank account can be blacklisted. A victim, like I mentioned before, they themselves see themselves as a victim in the absolute sense, but unfortunately their bank account has been compromised, it could have been used almost in a sense like a money mule, because monies have been transferred in and out of the account. So, there could be various reasons why an account is blacklisted. The Police would give inputs on whether an investigation has completed to the banks, but the banks will have to make their own assessment as to whether or not to continue to blacklist a particular account holder, when it comes to setting up new bank accounts.

Mr Gerald Giam.

I thank the Minister of State for the detailed answer. I think we are on the same page here, but I understand that once the Police informs the bank that a certain account needs to be frozen, will that impact that account holders' ability to open up another bank account? As in, will the bank flag this person is high-risk and therefore not allow him or her to even open another bank account and so, that would present difficulties for them.

So, the purpose or my second supplementary question just now, was then, can MHA provide more information to the banks on the update of the investigations, so that the banks can use that to assess and perhaps, lower the risk level of this particular account holder, so that they can allow them to open up, may be, a limited purpose bank account.

I thank the Member for his further question. The Police will do their very best to provide information to be able to help these victims move on and expedite investigations as much as necessary to be helpful to the victims. But, MHA will only be able to share information that does not compromise investigations. So, I think it differs on a case-by-case basis.

6 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for National Development whether a percentage of the HDB community care apartments to be launched for seniors can be allotted for suitable younger persons with disabilities so that they can live within the community.

Sir, Community Care Apartments, or CCAs, seek to expand the continuum of housing-cum-care options for seniors. CCAs integrate senior-friendly design features with care services that can be scaled up as seniors' needs evolve. The services and activities offered will cater to seniors across a wide range of care needs and enable seniors to age independently in place for as long as they can within the community.

The CCA is a new model. We have launched two pilots, which are still under construction, and we will need to evaluate them when they are operational to ensure that they provide sufficient support to the intended target group before we consider expanding the target segment further.

I would like to assure the Member that Government agencies are actively studying options to support persons with disabilities to live independently in the community. Under the Enabling Masterplan 2030, a task force comprising Government agencies as well as disability social service agencies (SSAs) has been formed to look into community living models and will consider existing gaps as well as new residential options to better support persons with disabilities. We can look forward to the task force's recommendations next year. There are also various SSAs that have initiatives to enable persons with disabilities to live independently in the community and we will support these where we can.

7 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how many consumers enjoy tax rebates under the Commercial Vehicle Emissions Scheme (CVES) since its implementation; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider delaying the stepdown in incentives announced on 15 November 2022 on adjustments to the CVES.

Under the Commercial Vehicle Emissions Scheme or CVES, purchasers of cleaner light commercial vehicles receive a cash incentive to defray the purchase cost. More than 6,700 CVES incentives have been awarded since the CVES was implemented on 1 April 2021.

The CVES was due to end on 31 March 2023. Following our review and consultation with industry, we have announced the extension of the CVES on 15 November 2022 with adjustments to the scheme. We have taken industry feedback into consideration and extended the CVES with a smaller stepdown in incentives than initially planned. The revised incentives and surcharge quanta ensure that the total cost of owning and using a cleaner vehicle over its lifespan will continue to be lower than a more pollutive one, maintaining the momentum towards cleaner vehicles.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask one supplementary question regarding whether has the scheme achieved the initial target? Will the Ministry consider further extension of this scheme? The feedback from the commercial users is that it has been extremely helpful for them for the conversion. If this scheme is removed, then their cost will go up.

Of course, we hope that more vehicle owners will switch to cleaner vehicles. That is the purpose of the scheme. We are happy to see that 6,700 vehicle owners have benefited from that and we hope that the momentum will carry on. That is why we are extending the scheme even though it was due to expire in a few months' time.

We have considered the option of extending the scheme without changing any of the scheme parameters, but there was a need to adjust the pollutant thresholds, to account for the new and more stringent emissions test cycle – which is called the Worldwide Harmonised Light Duty Test Procedure, which will be solely adopted from 1 April 2023. This is to ensure that there is sufficient variety of price competitive vehicle models across all the three bands, while continuing to spur the adoption of cleaner energy vehicles. So, we would like to urge all light commercial vehicles owners to make good use of this extension and help us towards achieving a cleaner target for Singapore.

8 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport how many households currently own (i) one car (ii) two cars and (iii) three or more cars, including cars owned by different members of the same household.

Mr Speaker, as of 31 October 2022, about 471,000 households own cars. Of these, about 12% own two cars and less than 3% own three or more cars.

Mr Gerald Giam.

I thank the Minister for his reply and his figures. Can I ask the Minister two supplementary questions? What impact do these multiple car owners have on the price of COEs, considering they not only add to the demand, but because they tend to come from higher-income households, they have the ability to pay more for their COEs. And secondly, has the Ministry considered the possibility of introducing measures to dampen the demand for second and subsequent Category A cars from the same household, so that the limited supply of cars can be spread out more equitably to those who need it most – for example, caregivers and those who need to drive for work.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song for his question. Firstly, I think the underlying thesis is that somehow this component of the COE ownership is driving price increases. If we look at the facts, the proportion that has been accounted for by households in these various categories has been relatively stable over time. There has not been any major shift in patterns of demand. If anything, in fact, multiple car ownership amongst individuals has shown probably a bit of a declining trend; firstly.

Secondly, in terms of what accounts for the COE prices, whilst we can look for many plausible explanatory factors, the fundamental issue is supply and demand. Demand remains unabated, whereas supply is constrained, because we have a zero-growth policy and the supply is determined by de-registrations – which are in part affected by the 10-year cycle because of the historical pattern of car registrations and also because of current economic environment in people's decisions on the margin – whether they want to de-register or extend their COEs on the cars that they already have.

So, on balance, I would say that it does not necessarily follow that any effort to curb car ownership beyond the first car in any household will necessarily have a dampening effect on COE prices, which is the second point that the Member raised. For two reasons, first, the quantitative impact is unclear as I have just explained; and secondly, because there may be very legitimate reasons why households have a second car or need a second car. So, we have designed a system where the market, based on demand and supply, clears the COEs at a certain price and we need to try not to adjust or affect the fundamentals too much because then it starts to create unintended consequences in the market.

Mr Gerald Giam.

I have a quick supplementary question. I accept that the second and third car households have not contributed to the increase in the COE in recent years, but does it add to the baseline of the COE demand. Because it might well be the fact that the number of households with two or more cars has not increased over the years, but 12% is not a small number, so that could also be causing the baseline price of the COE to be high.

If I may make two points in response to the Member's questions. First, as I said the percentage has been stable over a period of time, at a time when COE prices were not so high. So, if the baseline argument is to be made, it must be made consistently across a 10-year cycle.

And the fact is, it is not so much that part of the equation, but more the supply side that has been affecting the overall prices of the COEs because of what we have seen.

It is also worth noting that households — because implicit in the Member's question is that multiple car ownership is biased towards higher-income households. I think that is the point the Member is making, if I am correct, is that right? Yes.

So, there is a certain equity argument that is being advanced as well. I would point out that households that own multiple cars are not just those that live in private residential housing. There is actually a distinct proportion that also live in public housing.

So, there are different reasons why people have more than one car and we should have a care in making decisions on how to curb these additional demands.

Going back to the first point, I think that the patterns have not changed dramatically; in fact, it has been fairly stable. But we remain open and I think policy has to be informed by data and the patterns. And we will continue to track them.

9 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for National Development whether there is any requirement for individuals signing an exclusive estate agency agreement to be formally advised of the option of signing a non-exclusive agreement, especially in situations where the individual is entering into a property transaction for the first time and may not be aware of the existence of non-exclusive agreements.

Mr Speaker, Sir, an Estate Agency Agreement (EAA) is a contract between a consumer and a property agency and agent for the performance of estate agency work. The agreement protects the interests of both parties by providing contractual clarity in the property transaction.

Under the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA)'s Code of Ethics and Professional Client Care, a property agent must explain the meaning and consequences of the agreement to the client and give the client sufficient time to read and understand the content, so that the client can make an informed decision whether to enter into the agreement with the agent. Property agents who fail to do so may be issued a warning letter, imposed with financial penalties of up to $100,000 and/or have their registration suspended or revoked. There is no specific requirement for a property agent to advise the client on the options between an exclusive and a non-exclusive agreement.

In addition, CEA actively promotes consumer education. CEA continues to work with relevant agencies, for example, HDB and CASE, and the real estate agency sector and online property portals to educate property consumers about the purpose of signing an estate agency agreement, the differences between an exclusive and a non-exclusive agreement, and consumers' obligations under each type of agreement. Consumers are advised to choose and sign the type of estate agency agreement based on their needs and preferences.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. My Clementi resident told me that she signed an exclusive agreement with an estate agent, but she was not told about the option of other types of agreements, including non-exclusive agreements.

Sir, can I ask the Senior Minister of State two supplementary questions. Firstly, I note that the Senior Minister of State mentioned the phrase "it is a contract between a consumer and an agent". So, can I ask the Senior Minister of State if MND has studied best practices from other Ministries. For example, under the Consumer Protection Fair Trading Act, the Second Schedule, Part 1, item 23, mentions omitting a material fact might be considered an unfair practice. So, can the Senior Minister of State tell us: is the option of a non-exclusive agreement a material fact when a customer is going to sign an exclusive agreement?

Secondly, can I also ask the Senior Minister of State to elaborate on how MND sees the fiduciary duty of estate agents regarding sellers? Does it include some measure of requirement for informed consent when signing an exclusive contract, especially for first-time sellers who are not experienced and may require additional support and clarification?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the two supplementary questions. Let me take them in turn. Let me first clarify that the use of EAA is not mandatory. Consumers are encouraged to sign the agreement with their property agencies and agents to protect the interests of both parties, but it is not mandatory. In fact, many property sellers and buyers DIY, and do it themselves, and do not appoint an agent.

To Dr Tan Wu Meng's question about best practices and informed consent, CEA takes seriously, its responsibility in upholding the professional standards in the real estate agency industry and its primary responsibility of safeguarding consumers' interests. That is why I mentioned in my reply earlier, that an estate agent or the real estate salesperson, the technical term, is expected and required to explain the content of the agreement to the buyer or seller before the agreement is signed. A breach of that can be investigated and penalties can be imposed against the real estate agent.

On consumer awareness, I mentioned it earlier, but allow me to elaborate and set in context Dr Tan's case about his resident. I appreciate and empathise where Dr Tan is coming from, but in context, we have received very, very few complaints against real estate salesperson on the use of an exclusive or non-exclusive agreement – less than 1% of all the cases we received over the last five years. So, very few complaints against real estate salesperson, on this particular point.

There are other complaints and they are the more egregious ones about conflict of interest or inappropriate handling of the client's money, which are important other considerations that we have in investigating the real estate salesperson.

Financial investment in a property or buying and selling properties is a big financial investment for many families. Please do take time to look at the various resources on CEA's website. They have a very comprehensive guide, in four languages, guiding the consumers on deciding if you need an agent; how to ensure your agent is properly registered with CEA; how to negotiate agent's commissions; how to look at the various agreements, including what agreements needs to be signed between the real estate salesperson and yourself; and understanding the agent's responsibilities and obligations, and how money is to be handled.

So, I encourage those who are buying or selling properties, especially those doing for the first time, please do go to CEA's website and check out the different resources.

10 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Prime Minister with the increased digitalisation of Government services (a) what are the measures to ensure the availability and resiliency of these systems; and (b) what alternatives are available to the public for continued access to critical services when there is a sustained system and service outage.

Mr Speaker, unscheduled downtime of Government digital services occurs infrequently, affecting service availability less than 0.1% of the time in 2021. Among services that experienced unscheduled downtime, the median cumulative downtime for the whole of 2021 was four hours. This is partly because the majority of Government systems providing services to the public have been moved to commercial cloud hosting platforms, which have high availability. And these platforms, and the services that run on them, are designed for better availability.

For systems which provide critical services, there are further measures to better ensure high availability and resilience. For example, backup hardware and network links, as well as monitoring tools to detect and alert system owners of potential problems.

When systems go down, we seek to detect the outage quickly and recover service availability fast, while mitigating the impact of the outage. Government agencies have ICT incident management plans and exercise them regularly. Agencies may also activate measures to allow citizens to perform critical transactions offline, in-person or over the phone.

11 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) in the past three years, how many incidences of IT system outage have occurred at local public healthcare institutions; (b) what measures are being taken to ensure that the national healthcare IT system will have adequate capacity for the planned system enhancements under Healthier SG; and (c) what helplines or support will be available to affected persons in case of an IT system outage or malfunction, especially for doctors and patients.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as explained in Parliament on 12 September and 20 October this year, we will continue to review our system design and architecture, and invest in capabilities to strengthen the resilience of our IT systems and reduce disruptions. We are also reviewing our downtime and business processes to minimise the impact during outages.

Our public healthcare institutions have business continuity plans that are activated in case of emergencies. Each institution's business continuity plan is supported by solutions with appropriate functionality and can be used when key applications are unavailable to allow public healthcare institutions to continue with the delivery of patient care services. For example, users would be able to view a patient's historical clinical information but may not be able to enter new clinical information into the system during the downtime. Patients should contact their healthcare provider for medical assistance as needed.

12 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the supply of certificates of entitlement will be a key determinant to accelerate transition to electric vehicles over the next few years; (b) whether high interest rates, supply chain issues and other costs will derail the plan of phasing out internal combustion engine vehicles by 2040; and (c) if so, what alternate plans will be considered to mitigate the impact.

Mr Speaker, COEs are not differentiated by propellant type, so we do not expect COE supply to be a key determinant of the pace of vehicle electrification.

Despite cost pressures on vehicles in recent times, such as supply chain issues and higher interest rates, Electric Vehicle (EV) adoption in Singapore has grown strongly this year. For example, electric car registrations in 2022 so far, have exceeded 10% of all new car registrations. That is almost triple the rate last year.

The Government also continues to support EV adoption by providing tax rebates, accelerating the deployment of EV charging points and strengthening regulations to ensure the safety and reliability of our EV charging network. In fact, in this Sitting later, we will be moving an EV Charging Bill.

LTA will continue to monitor the overall EV adoption trends and take appropriate measures as necessary to support our overall vision for cleaner energy vehicles in Singapore.

13 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Social and Family Development with respect to households assisted with ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance (SMTA) that wish to have the support renewed (a) whether there is a difference in the review period for households assessed to require short-term assistance as compared to the review period for medium-term assistance under SMTA; and (b) what is the average review period for the purposes of assessing applications for renewal in both circumstances.

Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, the term "Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance" (SMTA) is a single category describing ComCare assistance that is not long-term in nature.

In terms of both the processing time and duration of approved support, we make no distinction between what may be considered short-term or medium-term assistance. More than nine out of 10 ComCare applications, including renewal applications, have been processed within four weeks, once the necessary documents have been submitted by applicants. Approved applications are typically for periods of about three to six months and are renewable on further application.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether MSF is prepared to review its system to set timelines for the three categories of cases: short-term assistance, medium-term assistance and long-term assistance? The reason why I suggest this is because then there will be efficiency in relation to provision of time-bound support for these families and it will also result in the saving of manpower and the time on the part of MSF officers in assessing each case to see whether the help should be renewed.

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his additional supplementary questions. I think there are two buckets here. One is for long-term assistance. Typically, we are looking at residents who may not be able to be in employment, so we are talking about seniors who live alone; seniors who are not able to work and in the long haul, will need assistance for quite a long time. So, that is long-term assistance.

For short- to medium-term assistance, we are looking at families and I think that the Member will agree with me that there will be some variability, in terms of the conditions in each family. I have mentioned earlier in my original reply that the families are able to come back to the Social Service Office to renew their applications, even before their applications are due to expire. The point about this renewal process is not so much to impose an unnecessary bandwidth tax on these families but rather to have regular check-ins with these families, so that together with the families, we can journey with them, understand the difficulties they are facing and then, render assistance where needed.

So, as I have mentioned in my earlier reply, between short and medium term, we do not make that distinction, but the principle is one and the same and that is to lend appropriate and prompt assistance to the families, where needed.

Mr Pillai.

Sir, I apologise if I was not clear in my earlier question. The point is this: you have a category called Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance for Comcare. I have heard from the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary that the Ministry does not make a distinction in relation to the timelines for the review. My point is whether MSF could consider imposing timelines, or rather, coming up with appropriate timelines, so there is no mismatch in expectations of families getting assistance and the expectations of the Ministry in relation to assessing whether or not continued care and assistance is needed.

I have now, situations whereby families are coming up and saying, "Look, my situation has not changed and yet, I have to come back to MSF to submit my case for review." That presents a waste of time and effort.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. I will make two points in response. First is the fact that I think between families to families, there are differences in circumstances, differences in terms of the challenges that each family faces. So, what is applicable to one family might not be quite applicable to the rest.

The second point I want to make is that the renewal process, as much as possible, we have made it less onerous. In terms of documents submission, we are not expecting the family to come back with the full suite of documentation that was needed at first application. In fact, we will only need documentation that reflects the changes. For instance, if there are changes in terms of employment status, due to hospitalisation leave, medical leave, or changes in other aspects of their financial conditions, those documents can be presented to the Social Service Office so that relevant assistance can be presented.

In terms of making sure that there is as little bandwidth tax on them as possible for the renewal process, the Member would be happy to note that now, applications for renewal as well as first applications can be made online on the SupportGoWhere portal. As much as possible, we are trying to make this as seamless and as frictionless a process for families as possible.

14 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with regard to the Enhanced Central Intermediary Scheme (a) what are the regulations or rules that protect the interests of sub-accounts who wish to recover excess solar generation power that flows back to the grid; and (b) what are the potential workarounds to resolve constraints faced by sub-accounts in receiving payments for exported solar electricity from the master account holder.

Mr Speaker, the Enhanced Central Intermediary Scheme, or ECIS, allows contestable consumers with small solar panel systems, that is, less than 10 Megawatts of Alternating Current, to sell their excess electricity into the wholesale electricity market through SP Services as an intermediary.

Sub-accounts can do so through the master account, after fulfilling their demand and the aggregated onsite demand of the master account and other tenants. The sub-accounts will need to enter into commercial agreements with the master account to share revenues from the sale of electricity to the grid.

While there are no specific rules or regulations governing such commercial agreements between the master and sub-accounts, the Government encourages all parties to be fair and transparent, and we support industry-led efforts in promoting best practices.

The Government will also continue to review ways to incentivise and promote more solar adoption, including co-creating solutions with private developers and industry players, as well as working with stakeholders to address regulatory challenges and maximise solar energy adoption in Singapore.

Mr Edward Chia.

Thank you, Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister of State for her reply. Can the Minister of State elaborate on what are the constraints faced by sub-account holders in selling back the excess energy to master account holders, especially when there are now technical solutions such as bidirectional private meters?

Secondly, can MTI consider mandating master account holders to compensate sub-account holders through either EMA's framework or a fair tenancy industry code of conduct framework? Because it is important to help businesses adopt solar energy and fully benefit from it. In turn, this supports our Singapore Green Plan.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Edward Chia for his two supplementary questions. I want to assure him that MTI and EMA work very closely with MSE. We are very committed to encouraging our households as well as businesses to accelerate and catalyse solar energy adoption.

On his first supplementary question, sub-accounts can sell their excess electricity through the master account. But that is after fulfilling their own energy demands as well as the aggregated onsite demand of the master account and other tenants. The sub-accounts will need to enter into commercial agreements with the master account to share the revenues accordingly.

We have been advocating to various stakeholders and industry developers – whether they are landlords holding master accounts or tenants holding the sub-accounts – to be fair and to be transparent. Because of the arrangement that I have talked about, SP Services would not have sight of the energy consumption of the tenants.

Imagine we are talking about Landlord A holding the master account and he has five tenants holding five sub-accounts. SP Services would only have sight of the master account. Because of that, only the landlord's master account can export excess solar energy to the grid and be paid via the ECIS.

So, to address, Mr Chia's first question, MTI and EMA are working with the SP group on the feasibility of an IT system enhancement to enable the master accounts or the sub-accounts with solar panels installed on their buildings to be paid accordingly, based on the excess solar energy that is exported to the grid. As this system-wide enhancement requires very massive, system-wide changes to the existing IT infrastructure, I seek the Member's understanding that they would require some time to make a proper and comprehensive assessment and to implement the necessary changes.

In his second question, the Member mentioned a code of conduct. I think he is alluding to the one by Fair Tenancy Industry Committee (FTIC), which applies to the retail premises. The Code of Conduct for the Leasing of Retail Premises in Singapore, developed by FTIC sets out key leasing principles to enable fairer and more balanced lease negotiations for the retail premises. Where it concerns retail premises, if there is any feedback, MTI and Enterprise Singapore will refer the feedback to the FTIC for review and incorporation into the Code of Conduct.

So, in the same vein, we encourage all the parties in this case – whether landlord holding the master account or tenants holding the sub-accounts – to be very fair and transparent as they negotiate and undertake their commercial agreement. We are committed to supporting industry-led efforts to promote best practices.

Mr Edward Chia.

Thank you, Speaker. I also thank the Minister of State for sharing that SP is looking into technology systems to account for sub-accounts' excess energy. But in some cases, most of the excess energy generated by sub-account holders are being subsumed by the master account holder, because there is no total aggregated excess energy. In this case, would SP be able to track that, since there is no aggregated excess?

If it is very much based on a commercial agreement, then, we need to help sub-account holders who are usually tenants, because they are already in asymmetrical structural relationship to negotiate with the master account holder. In this case, the master account holders are benefiting from the excess energy.

I want to thank Mr Edward Chia for these two further points. Therein lies two points: one is in terms of the IT factor that I talked about. I have explained that based on the current system, SP only has sight of the energy usage by the master account. In order to address this, they are looking at the feasibility of undergoing system enhancements and that will have system-wide implications and so they need time to do an evaluation.

In the meantime, whether you are the landlord holding the master account or you are the tenant, large or small, holding the sub-account, there needs to be a spirit of fairness and transparency, as you negotiate the conditions for the sharing of the revenue. I want to assure the Member that we take this very seriously. MTI and EMA will review any feedback and if there is a case in point, we certainly will follow up with the relevant master and sub-account holders, to make sure we facilitate a discussion. In the meantime, we will work with the relevant trade and industry associations and all stakeholders to promote industry-led sharing of best practices.

15 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has plans to build taller and high-rise schools; (b) whether the Ministry has assessed the developmental importance in childhood and formative years of play, social interaction and friendship-building and the role of open unstructured spaces and unstructured interactions in child development; and (c) whether high-rise school buildings will affect this.

Mr Speaker, to make best use of the limited land in Singapore, MOE considers how we can adopt higher-rise designs without hindering or compromising teaching and learning. In particular, MOE provides open spaces in our school campuses, to support student learning, as well as healthy social and emotional development.

One example is Valour Primary School, which was completed in 2020, with eight-storey blocks. The school has various sky terraces and pockets of open spaces adjacent to classrooms at multiple levels, which allow students to interact, play and exercise. The second level of the school is designed as an open area, with (a) a parade square which doubles up as a play court, (b) a playground and (c) other outdoor learning spaces. Together, these sections form a contiguous space for both formal and informal student activities.

16 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower of the 558 firms penalised during the recent workplace safety enforcement operations between 15 August 2022 and 17 October 2022 (a) how many firms are repeat offenders who have received penalties for workplace safety infringements previously; and (b) what is being done to prevent repeated safety breaches from happening.

Mr Speaker, this enforcement operation was aimed at reducing slips, trips and falls (STFs) at the workplaces, which was the leading cause of major injuries in the first half of 2022. The operation uncovered common contraventions such as STF hazards not identified during risk assessments, control measures not implemented for poorly maintained flooring and workers wearing inadequate footwear. All these contraventions required very basic mitigations for the workers’ safety.

MOM issued a total of 12 stop-work orders (SWO), over 200 composition fines and close to 1,600 notices of non-compliances to 558 companies in the Construction, Manufacturing, Transportation and Storage and Accommodation, and Food Services sectors.

Despite the Heightened Safety Period and the repeated calls by the Ministry, slightly more than half of the 558 companies had received penalties for workplace safety and health (WSH) offences previously. These repeat WSH offenders received stiffer penalties, such as higher composition fines compared to first time offenders. Those with poor WSH performance were also inspected more regularly. For instance, DA Engineering Pte Ltd, a repeat WSH offender, was issued with a SWO and fined a total of $8,000 as this enforcement operation continued to uncover multiple unsafe conditions in its workplace.

The Ministry recognises that tangible improvements to unsafe WSH practices go beyond issuance of penalties.

For companies with fatal or major injuries, MOM requires them to engage external auditors to conduct a thorough review of their WSH processes and implement measures to prevent recurrence. The WSH Council has also strengthen the support for companies, especially our SMEs who need help to improve their WSH practices and processes through StartSAFE. Under the StartSAFE programme, SMEs have access to WSH consultants who can provide professional advice and hands-on guidance on how to identify WSH risks, implement good WSH practices and prevent recurrence of a WSH offence.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. I have two supplementary questions. Since the introduction of the Heightened Safety Period from 1 September this year, how many CEOs and Directors were made accountable for serious workplace safety breaches, what was the highest penalty imposed and if the ACOP had been used to penalise any Director thus far?

Two, as part of the Heightened Safety Period measures, how many companies had volunteered for the StartSAFE programme that the Senior Minister of State mentioned, which I believe is offered free to companies? Are there any plans to reach out to more companies, in particular SMEs, to take up this programme?

I thank the Member for asking about the Approved Code of Practice for Directors and CEOs (ACOP) that was just recently implemented on 1 November this year. So, we are just a month into it. Prosecutions typically take time, and therefore, I do not have an update, specific to the ACOP.

But what I can say is this: today, under section 48 of the Workplace Safety and Health Act, company directors as well as C-suite or senior leaders can already be prosecuted under the law for contraventions or not complying to workplace safety and health measures. ACOP helps us to put an added layer to put more transparency and clearer obligations on managements and boards so that they look after the workplace safety and health of their employees and workers. So, it makes it clearer. And if needed, it makes also clearer for prosecution, for us to prosecute them in Court.

But let me also give the Member some idea since he asked about what we have done so far with prosecution of board directors and senior leaders. I will take two recent cases. One is the director of Thyme Food & Services who was charged under section 48 of the WSH Act for failure to prevent the offence of the occupier. The director was fined $45,000 while the firm was fined $185,000. So, we do differentiate between firms and directors. In the other case, Leeden National Oxygen Ltd was also charged under the same section 48 of the WSH Act – the ex-CEO for failure to exercise due diligence as CEO. He was fined $45,000 while the firm was fined $340,000. So, these are actual offences which we have prosecuted under the older regime. But, with ACOP, it makes it easier for us to prosecute as the regime is a lot clearer.

Specific to StartSAFE, I agree with the Member that beyond just enforcement and penalties, it is also important for us to inculcate that culture and mindset of workplace safety among leaders and businesses. So, if we look at StartSAFE, we have brought in more than 140 companies, in fact, that have signed up since September and October this year since we started the heightened safety period. This is close to 50% higher than what we typically got monthly before this. So, there is, indeed, higher demand.

But, certainly, if you ask me whether it can still be better, this is where I seek the help of the unions, for example, and employers and trade associations, to encourage more companies, because this is fully funded by the Government for SMEs. And SMEs have also been shown to have a higher incidence of fatalities and major injuries this year. So, we want to inculcate and bring more on board as much as we can.

Since the launch of ACOP as well, we have also now engaged various industry associations and companies, particularly to promote the adoption of ACOP principles and measures. So, what we will be doing next is to develop online resources on ACOP and incorporate ACOP into bizSAFE level 1 by the first quarter of 2023. So, we are going to institutionalise ACOP into our bizSAFE certification programmes and, therefore, I hope we will get more firms on board as we formalise it as well.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his further clarifications. We are about three months into the heightened safety period. Can the Senior Minister of State share if this period and the measures have helped to improve the workplace safety situation across the various industries and are there any plans to extend the heightened safety period beyond 28 February 2023?

I thank the Member for his follow-up question on the heightened safety period. To recap, MOM introduced a slew of measures to strengthen WSH as part of our heightened safety period from 1 September this year to 28 February next year. So, this is really to target egregious companies with serious or fatal workplace accidents. To date, I think we have had some promising results or outcomes so far. Prior to 1 September, we were having about 4.5 fatal accidents per month, on average. After the heightened safety alert was implemented, we have about two fatalities per month. So, we have slowed down the momentum. I hope it continues. I think there is greater awareness among firms. But again, we should move towards zero because every fatality is just one too many.

To date, more than 30 companies were also required to engage external auditors to conduct a thorough review of the WSH processes following the issuance of stop-work orders during the heightened safety period. So, in addition, two companies Le Fong Building Service and Green Cycling were debarred from employing new foreign workers for up to three months and their CEOs had to personally account to MOM to take responsibility for rectifications. So, this also shows the change in posture that we are taking now, to make leaders, CEOs, a lot more accountable for fatalities and major injuries in their workplaces. Another the heightened safety period, MOM also called for mandatory safety timeout to be completed by 30 September 2022 and we are enforcing it as we move along with inspections.

To the Member's question whether this will be extended, the heightened safety period is still ongoing. So, let us review it. The initial outcomes, as I have shared, have slowed down the momentum of fatalities. So, I think that is a good sign and we hope that continues. But it is still too early to say. Let us wait till March next year and then we will decide after we see the total outcome of the whole period.

17 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB is prepared to review the monthly household-income ceiling for prospective buyers of BTO flats and Executive Condominiums respectively, given the high inflation rate.

Mr Speaker, the income ceilings for the purchase of subsidised HDB flats and Executive Condominiums, or ECs, are reviewed regularly to ensure that public housing remains within reach of the majority of citizen households and that housing subsidies are given to those who need them most. Factors that are considered include the household incomes of Singaporeans and prevailing housing market conditions, among others. We are also mindful that lower-income households could be crowded out by an adjustment to the income ceilings.

The income ceiling was last reviewed in 2019, when it was raised from $12,000 to $14,000 for families buying a new flat, and from $14,000 to $16,000 for families buying an EC from property developers. At the same time, we introduced the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant, or the EHG, to better support lower- to middle-income families buying their first homes.

There are no plans to revise the income ceilings at this point. At the current income ceiling of $14,000, about eight in 10 Singaporeans are eligible to apply for a BTO flat, while the $16,000 ceiling enables about nine in 10 Singaporeans to apply for EC. There is no income restriction for the purchase of a resale HDB flat on the open market.

HDB is committed to helping Singaporeans, particularly first-timers and lower- to middle-income families, to own a home. The Government will continue to monitor housing market conditions closely to ensure that public housing remains affordable and accessible.

Mr Ang.

Thank you, Speaker and I thank Minister Indranee for the comprehensive reply. The real income of Singaporeans may not increase this year and next year because of high inflation. But their nominal income will likely increase if inflation stays high at 5% this year, and probably next year at 10%. So, does this not affect only the income ceilings of application of BTO flats but also affect Singaporeans' income criteria eligibility for Enhanced Housing Grant, which means that $1,500 now get $80,000 of EHG, a lot of them may exceed $1,500 because of the increase in nominal income but not the real nominal income?

My second supplementary question is that in 2010, the income ceiling for HDB BTO flats and the EC, the differential is $2,000 – that is, the difference between $8,000 and $10,000. Today, the gap remains at $2,000. But in 2010, the differential was 25%. Today, the gap is 14%. And the average price of, say, a 3-bedroom EC, as compared to a, HDB 4-room flat, is probably more than double. So, could the Second Minister consider these two considerations?

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. I also understand his concern, which is about affordability and accessibility for HDB housing for the majority of Singaporeans. What HDB and MND do is to look at it as a whole, not just one lever or one particular measure in isolation. Overall, what we are trying to do is to look at the demand as well as the supply which, of course, in the pandemic years, has been somewhat constrained.

So, to ensure that public housing remains affordable and accessible, one of our current priorities is to rein in the strong upward momentum in HDB resale prices. To this end, as the Member knows, we have rolled out additional measures in September 2022 to moderate demand and ensure prudent borrowing amidst rising interest rates. And then to moderate demand for resale flats, MND and HDB introduced the 15-month wait-out period for private property owners and ex-private property owners to buy a non-subsidised HDB resale flat. Raising the income ceiling at this juncture may negate the efforts to cool the resale market as it would enable the higher-income households to bid up resale prices further.

Our other priority is to ramp up the supply of new flats to meet the strong demand for public housing. Thus, any review to raise the income ceiling would also have to be balanced against greater competition for the finite resources of the Government.

So, in short, what we are really saying is this. We understand the concerns. We know that Singaporeans are keen to buy their HDB flats. On MND and HDB side, we will do our utmost to ensure that they remain affordable and accessible. Tweaking the income ceiling, in and of itself, may not necessarily be the best measure. We will look at it overall and see how we can maintain that accessibility and affordability.

Mr Ang.

I was also asking about the income criteria to qualify for the various levels of the Enhanced Housing Grant and other housing grants. So, with the increase of the nominal income, you put a lot of people at a disadvantage that they cannot qualify for the higher housing grant. That is the question. That is the first supplementary question. The second supplementary question is about the differential in gap between the HDB BTO income ceiling as well as the EC income ceiling. The gap of $2,000 is quite different between today, which is a 14% difference, as compared to 2010 when it was a 25% difference. So, two different questions. I hope the Second Minister can answer the two questions.

In so far as the grant is concerned, if the concern is whether or not their housing grant can be increased, that is something we can look at and make a separate decision because they are two separate things. So, if the Member is asking, today, can I say that we will increase the income ceiling, the answer is there are no plans to do that at this stage. If the Member is saying whether we can increase the grants, that is something we can look at. But, overall, the key message to the Member and to Singaporeans is that we will do whatever is necessary to ensure that housing remains affordable and accessible.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis –

18 To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government has considered implementing windfall taxes on energy companies in light of record profits by oil majors; and (b) what are the considerations behind implementing or not implementing such a tax.

Question No 18.

Mr Speaker, in light of elevated global oil and gas prices over the past year, some countries have introduced windfall taxes on the profits of energy companies. Such taxes can yield short-term revenues. But they will damage the economy in the longer-term.

In particular, it is typical for energy markets to experience up and down cycles. Higher profits in good years help the energy companies smooth out past losses and prepare for future downcycles. Windfall taxes arbitrarily applied to companies just because of their recent “record profits” will lead to considerable business uncertainty and disincentivise long-term private investments. Energy companies will hold back on investing in greener fuels and decarbonisation measures, which will make it harder for us to achieve our net-zero targets.

Sir, more generally, Singapore’s value proposition as a trusted business hub has been based on our long-term stability, anchored on strong rule of law and a predictable regulatory environment. Arbitrary measures like windfall taxes will send the wrong signal to businesses and discourage them from investing in Singapore. This will erode investor confidence and, in turn, affect Singapore’s competitiveness and the livelihoods of our workers, who could either lose their jobs or have fewer career advancement opportunities when businesses divert their investments elsewhere.

We must not let the temptation of short-term revenue gains come at the expense of our long-term economic competitiveness. We must be careful not to resort to populist ideas to raise revenue that will ultimately hurt businesses, hurt our economy and hurt Singaporeans.

Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

[ Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 20, 23-30, 33-44, 46-47, 49, and 51-52 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. The remaining Questions have been postponed to a later Sitting of Parliament or withdrawn.]

[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [28 November 2022], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." – [Minister for Social and Family Development]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Mr Speaker, as Members of this House executing our duties in Parliament, we simultaneously hold three distinct identities. We are, first and foremost, representatives of the people that voted for us. In my view, this is our utmost responsibility: to properly capture and reflect the views of our constituents. Second, we are members of a political party, who were likewise elected to formulate policies for our nation. For the Workers’ Party, our mandate – as loyal opposition – is to provide alternative views and constructive critique of the ruling party’s ideas and proposals. And third, we are of course individuals who carry our own beliefs and convictions.

Rarely is there confluence in these three identities, which results in us having to make a reasonable effort at balancing between different preferences and exercising compromise. But this is not necessarily as difficult as it sounds; for esoteric bills, our electorate often expects us to do our homework and choose what is in the best interests of the country at large. Hence, they may not hew to strongly-held views of their own. At other times, there are bipartisan consensus on how best to proceed and so our interventions in Parliament are limited to flagging points of concern, but the Workers’ Party nevertheless votes alongside the ruling party.

In a matter such as the repeal of section 377A and the attendant proposed constitutional amendments, however, it would appear that there is not only an intractable divide between the different interests that we represent, but our own personal convictions may play a role in the choices we are forced in make.

In my speech, I wish to explain why I believe that these disparate views can be reconciled and how this leads me to vote the way that I will.

In the many letters written to me by the residents of Sengkang, those that have expressed their concern over the repeal of 377A have, almost uniformly, cited their reservation over how such a repeal would open the floodgates to revisions to the traditionalist interpretation of marriage.

This concern has not only been limited to those who are more religiously inclined. I have spoken to residents who would otherwise hold no strong views on 377A, nevertheless underscore their wish that the heterosexual definition of marriage be, somehow, protected.

To be clear, this is a prospective fear: one based on how the repeal of 377A is a slippery slope; once the law is removed, the floodgates are open and all manner of permissive laws become possible.

In contrast, 377A is currently on the books and consenting relations between two men is currently a crime. This is no longer prospective, but real. In principle, a man engaged in same-sex sexual relations could be jailed, if the strict letter of the law were to be followed.

The repeal decision is thus a trade-off between the removal of a tangible, actual threat of imprisonment, versus a perceived, potential concern over how repeal would undermine marriage. It seems clear to me that there is not, and cannot, be a genuine equivalence between the two.

The usual pushback against claims that 377A constitutes an actual violation of the law, is that 377A is not enforced and – on the basis of court judgments – will not be, unless otherwise instructed by the Attorney-General. This suggests that the Article is merely a relic, one that has no bite and hence, any fear is similarly ephemeral. Why not the existing status quo, then?

It is true that the Courts have previously ruled that 377A would not be prosecuted. Even so, sexual relations between men remains, on the books, an arrestable offence. Think about what this means when the status of rule of law in our country if we insist on instituting laws that simultaneously do not matter in practice. How many more de jure issues also would not matter, de facto? If we wish to make a slippery slope argument, this strikes me as a far slipperier one.

Furthermore, we should recognise that even an unenforced law can have effects on individuals and society.

Think of the symbolism behind what a law, any law, implies. Suppose, for a moment, there was a law prohibiting relationships between individuals of different races, and further suppose that a similar legal precedent and political compromise exists, in that those who are in such a miscegenated relationship are assured that they will never be prosecuted. It is a hypothetical but is it fair to expect those who are in a mixed-race relationship to accept the assurance that such a sword of Damocles hanging over their relationship does not really mean anything?

To take the argument further, should we expect that individuals will feel that they are a fair and equal part of society, when society has deigned it permissible to have a law that, even while unenforced, nevertheless explicitly condemns their behaviour? Can we expect such individuals to truly feel that they are accepted as a part of Singaporean society, when Singaporean law declares them to be criminals?

Some would suggest that Singapore is different. We are an Eastern society, with different cultural mores and practices. They argue that a repeal of 377A amounts to bringing in the polarisation and cultural wars – so prevalent in the seemingly dysfunctional democracies of the West – back home.

I agree that Singapore is different. Our cultural norms skew toward greater social conservatism and society stresses compromise for the sake of harmony, rather than the contentious and often raucous activism favoured by civil society and activism in the West.

But an untenable status quo, however entrenched, does not imply that all is well under the surface. For those who keenly feel the yoke of discrimination, suggesting that we should keep things the way that they have always been – simply because that is how it has always been – is more than simply benign neglect. It is an insult to their plight, to the burden that they have been bearing, perhaps silently, until now. It is like telling a prisoner that their desire for freedom is an attempt to stir up unrest while they are in jail.

As a man attracted to the opposite sex, I can never fully empathise what it means to develop feelings for someone of the same gender. But when I was a hot-blooded teenager, I had a dear friend, who turned out to be gay, explain to me what his world was like. The analogy has stayed with me ever since. Just imagine, he said, if the way you feel about women – the strong, unrelenting attraction when you first meet, the wish to share one’s most innermost thoughts and feelings with them, the deep desire to be with that person for the rest of your life – imagine if all that was not the natural order of things. Imagine that society deemed my attraction to women as not just abhorrent, but also judged intimate expressions of my love to be criminal.

This is not too far from other historical legacies where the law deemed certain forms of love to be illegal. As recently as the 1960s, interracial relationships were limited in some form in as many as 31 US states, as it was in Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. While I am not equating the two, my point is that my own relationship as well as that of my parents – which occurred between two different ethnicities – would have fallen afoul of the law.

The usual retort to such scenarios is that it is contrived; humans are not animals and, after all, we can always exercise self-restraint. Some argue that because same-sex attraction is ultimately psychological, it can be overturned, with intervention and counselling. Perhaps. But I am not here to question the natural biological order which I respect. After all, it is a physiological reality that asexual reproduction among mammals is impossible. And hence, the male-female pairing is necessary to ensure the continuation of these species. Even so, for certain individuals, such attractions are deeply embedded in what may be regarded as innate biologically-led behaviour.

For these reasons, I support the repeal of the discriminatory law that is 377A.

Even so, I also cannot really ignore how many in our Asian society continue to equate marriage and partnership to one between a man and a woman. This view is held not only those who are religious – by which I mean not just by groups that have been more vocal about traditional marriage, such as evangelical Christians and Muslims – but, based on my conversations with residents in Sengkang and beyond, also those who do not strongly profess any faith.

For these Singaporeans, the fact that marriage must involve a union between a man and a woman goes beyond a legally binding contractual relationship. It is a fundamental belief, a worldview. This sense is so deeply ingrained that they are not only are unable to accept the principle of same-sex marriage. For them, were such marriages to become recognised, they – perhaps paradoxically – would feel that society is not only no longer representative of who they are, but some may even go as far as to feel that it has turned against them. It is secondary that heterosexual norms remain the firm majority. Many will feel a sense of exclusion and victimhood.

As it turns out, this worldview is remarkably pervasive. While I do not have comprehensive data, I have had many conversations over the course of the past few months and I would be willing to venture that a significant majority of Singaporeans – including those in Sengkang, including otherwise liberal-minded spirits, and even including those who are otherwise sympathetic about the repeal of 377A – carry this perspective close to their hearts.

It is important that we do not dismiss this worldview as emanating from an oppressive majority, finally receiving their comeuppance. This is because I actually believe that such sentiments – even if some may argue are seemingly misplaced – are indeed genuine.

When I was a teenager, I took my Christian faith very seriously – to the point where I even harboured ambitions to be a missionary. While I am no longer as zealous today as I was, I can fully empathise with how it is like to hold fast to a set of tenets and beliefs that so completely shape one’s worldview that it would be wholly inconceivable to not expect that challenges to it would not be met with visceral resistance.

To reiterate: this is not a sentiment that is limited to those that are religious. It is one that is accepted by broad segments of Singaporean society, almost to a point where it is regarded as self-evident among these groups. To those within this group, their sense of identity and meaning is as much tied to heteronormativity as those who identify as homosexual tie theirs otherwise. Just as important, threats to these identities affect their behaviours and their welfare.

It is for this reason that I do not see a decision to alter the Constitution as essentially a compromise for merely the sake of political expediency, necessary for the repeal of 377A. Rather, it is the manner by which the state will echo what society, as a whole, believes in.

Prime Minister Lee had explained in his National Day Rally speech that challenges via the judicial system were becoming more insistent, and that we did not wish to go down the dangerous road of judicial activism. He also explained why decisions on the repeal of 377A and – perhaps more importantly, constitutional amendments – should be determined in the legislature. He was articulating, in this specific instance, the principle of de facto parliamentary sovereignty, a notion that others have observed also applies to Singapore.

As Workers’ Party chair Sylvia Lim has articulated, there may be potential legal lacunae that passing such constitutional amendment may entail. I am also aware that the amendment will continue to discriminate – albeit to a lesser extent – against those who wish to normalise their same-sex relationship, especially in matters of public policy.

This question of jurisprudence – where I am very sympathetic to the views of Ms Lim – is important and a concern. But even accepting this argument, I believe that there remains a strong justification for ensuring that deliberation of matters of broad societal concern occur within the forum designed for such matters, which is this House. I will also explain why I believe that a social institution such as marriage may reasonably be included in a foundational document, such as the Constitution.

Keeping in mind that representative democracy will always be imperfect, it is nevertheless the closest system we have that reasonably aggregates the preferences of our people at large. And in our time, the significant majority of Singaporeans have articulated their preference for a clear reassurance that the institution of marriage be protected.

Could this justify a constitutional amendment then? From my perspective, I do not see why not. Constitutions are live documents, meant – as Thomas Jefferson once said – to serve the present generation. They embody the rights of nature, of society and of government; these are essential principles of constitutional design. Many constitutions embed rights of association. Consequently, I believe it is reasonable that our Singaporean Constitution captures the key institutions that our society cherishes, which includes this cornerstone institution of marriage.

Mr Speaker, as Members of Parliament, I believe that it is paramount that we carry out our duties of representation faithfully, echoing, to the best of our ability, the views of the majority of our constituents, even when this position may differ from what we, individually, may hold. It is in this light that I see a vote in favour of a constitutional amendment that codifies the institution of marriage as a reflection of the conversations I have had with my many diverse constituents on this matter.

Keen observers will nevertheless note that the constitutional amendments that were proposed, however, merely refer to how the legislature may define marriage, leaving the specific definition indeterminate. Should the amendments be more specific then? This is where I depart from those who would go further, those who are asking for a heterosexual definition of marriage be hardcoded into the Constitution. In contrast to the more fundamental notion of the institution of marriage, its definition does not strike me as an unwavering principle that belongs to a constitution. It is therefore appropriate that such a definition be clarified only in subsidiary legislation, subject to change by the people of the contemporary time.

Almost two centuries ago, the French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville documented his observations on the then-nascent state of democracy in the United States. He shared his admiration for the democratic project as it unfolded in America. Even so, he pointed out an inherent tension in the power of democratic majority opinion, and in particular, he highlighted what he observed to be the "tyranny of the majority".

Tocqueville did not much propose a resolution to this conundrum, beyond suggesting, like his contemporary, English philosopher John Stuart Mill, that appropriate respect for individualism and liberty could offer a way out of this conundrum. Importantly, these thinkers believed that it was vital for each society to arrive at their own definition of the limits that public opinion would have over individual lives. One could argue that democratic republics, of which Singapore is one, are the practical manifestation of this compromise between individual rights and popular opinion.

We stand, today, at a similar precipice, albeit in our own Little Red Dot. The way I see it, the repeal of section 377A is the way that our society respects these individual rights, while enshrining the institution of marriage within the Constitution is how we respect the values of the majority. Hence, the decision we make today is not solely about a political compromise, as so many have suggested. It is also about striking the balance between the principles of individualism and majoritarianism.

As a republic, we are required to do right by our people – we have it right there in our Pledge, a commitment to "justice and equality". Which is why fundamentally discriminatory laws such as section 377A should no longer be allowed to stand. But at the same time, our commitment to – also in our pledge – "build a democratic society" calls on us to affirm our common values, such as marriage, that make us one united people. That is why I will vote yes to both of these amendments today.

Ms He Ting Ru.

Mr Speaker, like many of us in this House, I am often filled with questions about the type of world we live in, the world that I want my children to inherit from us. I worry about how I can inculcate in them the right values, the right tools to be able to dissect tricky situations and to be able to tell right from wrong, even when the world around you sometimes appears to have gone mad.

Today, my sons are still young, and it will be years yet before they are old enough to understand the topics we are debating and to have their own views on these matters, which touch on the very core of what it means to be humans living together in a society. But I hope that when they are old enough, they will be able to understand and appreciate what I say here today, as it is my contribution to what I hope will be a healthy and positive debate for a more tolerant and accepting nation. These are topics that are fundamental to who we are as individuals, who we are as a society.

And because society is a collection of individuals, this necessarily means that we are people who have different views and ways of looking at things. It comes as no surprise that we have many different viewpoints and that some amongst us do feel extremely passionately about the issues involved. This is a good thing in and as of itself, as it shows that we care deeply about the society we live in.

When the repeal of section 377A and the amendments to the Constitution were first announced, my thoughts were initially clear-cut – this relates to my conscience and it seemed straightforward. Yet, as I listened to friends and residents who shared their thoughts with me on the matter, I realised that there was a wide variety of opinion on the matter, each informed by one's own life experiences, their own social or religious value systems. It would also be impossible to find a position that everyone fully agreed on. But whether they are for or against repeal, one thing was clear to me: that everyone is motivated by the same desire to see Singapore move in the right direction, in the direction of the greater good.

I think it is crucial that we do not lose sight of this, even as we may debate over what this greater good is. This is important because having many different cultures, values or viewpoints is not new to Singapore and it will not be the last time we face an issue that risks our society being increasingly polarised.

But I am reminded that we can face challenges as a nation and can do so soberly in a way that balances the individual's right to hold their own beliefs and practices, with the need to build a cohesive society founded on principles of understanding and acceptance.

It is also not lost on me that I am speaking today not just as an individual, but as a representative of my constituents who have entrusted this privilege to me and my teammates. This is something that we will never take for granted, even as we strive each day to be worthy of that trust.

But Sengkang, like Singapore, is multi-faceted. And as interests and viewpoints are split on section 377A, I believe we need to remind ourselves of the same principles of acceptance and understanding that have helped us build a strong ship that can weather difficult storms.

I believe that we must have empathy and put ourselves in the shoes of those who hold different views from us, and to try our very best to understand where their concerns are coming from. We must approach this difference with respect; it does not do anyone favour to dismiss the other as being hysterical, overblown, or wanting to impose corrupt values on others. We must above all, work to not discriminate against our fellow citizens.

It is this principle that moves me to vote in support of repeal today.

I do not believe that we should have a law in the books that is plainly and obviously discriminatory. It sends a signal that one segment of society is so morally reprehensible that their identity should be considered criminal, even if it is only on paper. It excuses discriminatory behaviour and contradicts the Pledge we take, as citizens of Singapore "to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality".

Not repealing section 377A today would be at odds with steps that Singapore is taking to be a fairer and more equitable society for all and will go against the principles behind the Government's welcome announcement that we will finally legislate against discrimination. Many in this House have already mentioned the Government's announcement to introduce anti-discrimination legislation and I believe the repeal of section 377A plays its part in our move towards a more inclusive society.

Some residents and concerned citizens have written to me to express concerns about the repeal of section 377A and the deleterious effect that this will have on the next generation. Having three young and curious children myself, I fully appreciate where this is coming from. And indeed, I often find myself worrying about how to teach them to know right from wrong, and to be able to distinguish between good and bad influences. After all, we cannot completely insulate them from the outside world and our children will be exposed to many different ideas and arguments which we believe are wrong.

Our role as a parent is to educate, to guide them as we think fit and to have a sense of moral values which they can apply to different situations. Yet, our children are also their own people, and we must accept that they too will eventually grow up to have their own views, make their own choices and to deal with the consequences of their actions.

And while it is true that a country's laws do provide some moral guardrails for what is acceptable to society as a whole, history has shown us that in some instances, this has not always been the case. After all, I like to think that if I lived in a time and society where slavery was legal and accepted, I would still teach my children that the very concept of a human owning another human is abhorrent and unacceptable under any circumstances.

Having said all of this, I have also heard and understand the concerns of those who feel that the repeal of section 377A will be a slippery slope to further shifts in policy that they feel are simply unacceptable, or that its repeal will cause deep faults and divisions in society that are irreparable.

I understand and respect their concern. But since as early as 2007, the regard for section 377A as a bad law has been growing. Legal personages, including former Judges of the Court of Appeal and a former Chief Justice, have cast doubt on its constitutionality. Similar arguments have been made in this House before as well. If not, today, the law would likely have been struck down in the near term.

But we must also not mix legality with morality. The repeal rejects a legal framework of discrimination, but parents remain able to educate our children and impart the moral lessons that we want within our household, shaped by our own beliefs and faiths. The concerns relating to the silencing of certain groups are also, I believe, understandable. However, Article 15 of our Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion in Singapore, specifying that "every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it". This right has been upheld by the Court of Appeal.

And if there should be any proposed amendments to remove or water down the right to religious freedom in Singapore, I will not hesitate to oppose it.

In fact, this approach is similar to thorny moral questions that are handled differently between religions or communities today, yet our laws are secular and do not attempt to enshrine the moral compass of each group. Our laws seek instead, to provide the protection for each community from discriminatory treatment from another. The same principle applies here and the protection of religious freedom will remain a core tenet of our democracy.

With this in mind, I record my concern about the proposed constitutional amendment before us. I appreciate the concern behind its formation. Yet, from a legal perspective, the proposed amendments carve out an area of legislative decision-making and functionally shields it from judicial review. Specifically, the proposed Articles 156(3)(b) and (4) prevent laws and policies relating to the heterosexual definition of marriage from being challenged in Court on the basis of the fundamental liberties provisions in the Constitution.

This causes me some concern. While I can understand and appreciate that the majority of Singaporeans feel that marriage is between a man and woman and share the concern about a judiciary running roughshod over the will of the people as expressed through Parliament, I note that the Singapore Courts have always been conscious of the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, giving precedence to the lawmaking function of Parliament and are ever cognisant of not overstepping the line into judicial law-making.

Perhaps in taking fright at the "phantom menace" of judicial activism, we may be losing sight of a more fundamental principle – that the judiciary should be the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of legislation and has an important role in safeguarding the fundamental liberties protected therein. Article 156, while not an ouster clause in the traditional sense, functionally shields legislation from being tested against the protection of fundamental liberties under Part 4 of the Constitution.

This concern goes beyond the present issue and I hope we will not lose sight of the bigger picture. If we were to pass this constitutional amendment today that prevents the Courts from determining the constitutionality of a legislative policy, what would stop a future Parliament from passing discriminatory legislation and then shielding it from judicial oversight?

For example, a future Parliament may decide to pass or entrench laws that prevent the propagation of one's religion and then immunise that from court challenge on the basis of the constitutional protection for religious expression by introducing a carve-out similar to the present amendment as contained in Articles 156(3) and (4).

I would additionally urge empathy when debating and passing the constitutional amendment. While I applaud removing the divisive thorn of section 377A from the body politic, I worry too that the constitutional amendment may continue to advance the divisiveness that we precisely want to combat.

Although I understand and appreciate why the Government has introduced the new Article 156, I find that I must abstain from the amendments proposed to the Constitution due to my concerns relating to the carve-out from judicial oversight.

Finally, the divergent views on section 377A underscore the need for measured dialogue, for opportunities to walk in the shoes of another, to not view fellow Singaporeans as an existential threat and to not underestimate the good sense, resilience and pragmatism of the Singaporean people.

For a pluralistic society like Singapore, it is in walking together, in conversation with each other, all the while cognisant and respectful of our differences that we are able to move forward. Sometimes, legislation is not just the imperfect substitute for society's greater good, it can be a barrier to it.

I note that I have spoken very much in the abstract so far, on principles and ideas. Yet, allow me the liberty to close with a personal anecdote about a boy I grew up with in this part of the world. We moved to different cities in our teens and did not see each other for almost a decade. One day, in our 20s, our paths were fortuitous enough to cross again thousands of miles from home and I remember sitting up late one night, chatting about nothing in particular. I made a throwaway, teasing comment about whether he would take girls to a particular spot to impress them. What followed next was totally unexpected.

He suddenly grew quiet and paused for a long while, looking away. I could see that his mind was racing and he swallowed hard a few times. Finally, he looked at me and said, "You probably don't know this, but I'm gay. I thought a long time about whether to tell you but decided to do so because I think you'd be okay with it."

It was now my turn to be silenced as he started telling me about how a few months ago, he attended his sister's wedding, where he felt compelled to tell lie upon lie to well-meaning relatives asking when it would be his turn to get married. He felt like a total charlatan but overriding this was his greatest fear that he did not want to "bring shame upon his parents".

I will never forget the fear and anguish and the pain in his eyes and I regret that this was not the first, nor the last time I saw these emotions as someone "came out" to me about their sexual orientation – all because they feared condemnation and disgust for who they were. It is a whirlwind of emotions that I will never fully understand and I would not wish this on anyone.

It is a timely reminder that for the vast majority of us, the topics we discuss today are but academic to our personal situation. Yet, to some of our fellow Singaporeans, every moment of their lives is affected by it.

We do not have to condone it nor encourage it, but I hope we can find it within ourselves to try to empathise with them, even just a little bit – that we can find it within ourselves to be able to live and hope and pray that the LGBTI members of our community are able to live without discrimination and fear of being ostracised.

Conversely, those who support the repeal of section 377A or even feel that we should go further should also not attempt to bludgeon their views upon those who are deeply uncomfortable with it and instead try to understand the reasons behind why they feel this way. This will be a start towards better understanding each other and how we can begin to heal any rifts that may have arisen.

After section 377A is repealed, life will go on. Families and spouses who love and value each other and their children will continue to do so. Love and hope can still triumph over anger and mistrust, and we will still open our doors and hearts to our neighbours in the community who need an extra helping hand – like the countless stories of neighbourhood group chats stepping in during the pandemic, the students of our Sengkang schools who came together to make gift cards to show their appreciation for our healthcare heroes in our healthcare facilities and their vaccination centres.

This is what makes us as a nation, as one nation, and I hope we never lose sight of this, nor stop fighting to keep this as our shared future. [Applause.]

Dr Tan Yia Swam.

Mr Speaker, in my view, the proposed amendments are nothing more than stating the current social norms.

I am not a lawyer. Let the lawyers discuss the legal aspects of the implications of such a change. I am not a religious leader. I look to them to lead the future discussions of what their faith finds permissible. I speak to you now, as a doctor and as a mother of boys.

As a doctor, I will treat all patients who come before me equally, regardless of race, language or religion, and – I add – sexual preferences or gender identity. I ask about these only to advise on any impact on their medical care.

As a mother of boys, I want for them a world where they can grow safely in. What does that mean?

Think back to your growing years. It was a time to find oneself – your identity and who you are – and I dare say that there are some adults who are still searching or may never find the answer their whole lives.

We form our identity through multiple factors – our character at birth, be it extro- or introverted, then shaped by family, school and peers. Teenagers explore their sexuality and their gender identity.

In my time, tomboyish girls and effeminate boys were given mocking and even derogatory names. For those of us who were lucky to never be confused as to whether you liked a boy or girl, it was already not easy. We still worried and fussed over whether your crush liked you back, collected red saga seeds, folded hearts from bus tickets and listened to heartbreak songs.

For those who felt an attraction to someone of the same gender, I can only imagine the fear and anxiety – fear that there’s something wrong with you, that your parents will disown you, that your friends will call you a freak. How many have suppressed their feelings and stayed single or went on to have a heterosexual relationship just to fit in? How many are deeply unhappy?

For those who have advocated actively for LGBTQ rights, I applaud their steadfast commitment and bravery. I am glad that one key change will be achieved – the decriminalisation of the homosexual male.

I look to an environment where each person can grow and explore safely.

As I have said in most of my other speeches, education is key – education by the family, by formal schooling and by the various faiths. For those people facing conflicts and stress, there must be safe havens for them to seek fair and balanced counselling without undue influence.

Perhaps the healthcare profession needs to step up and lead this with paediatricians, psychiatrists, psychologists who are trained and experienced – professional providers who do not impose their personal views.

In schools, I urge MOE to review the sex education component to ensure that it is based on science and facts, while controversial opinions and trends are clearly stated as such. This will be a guide for parents to use in our own conversations at home with our growing children. To fellow parents, if you, like me, grew up without any knowledge of LGBT terms, let us educate ourselves. What is hetero, homo, pan or asexual? What is trans or cis gender? What is sexual orientation versus sexual identity? Only then we are equipped to guide our children as they grow and explore. This is when we can meaningfully share our personal beliefs, our religious convictions and allow the child to find his or her own way, with love and support.

We fear what we do not know. We react with anger when we are hurt. We are all talking a lot. But are we listening? I am deeply aware of how divisive discussing LGBTs rights is and how society may become fragmented. We are one Singapore, one united people. I urge everyone to stay calm and be kind. The above notwithstanding, I support both amendments.

Mr Xie Yao Quan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I speak on the substantive matters concerning the Constitution amendment and the repeal of section 377A, let me first make one point that I think has not been made enough.

This is the fact that the debate that we are having yesterday and today in this House is a milestone – a huge milestone – for our evolving democracy. It reflects the political leadership of a government and a parliamentary majority who have resolved to rise to our duty, not abdicate from our responsibilities and find the political courage and gumption to confront the difficult issues head on and do what is right even if there is no political favour to be gained and, indeed, every chance of a political cost to bear.

Once the prospects of the Courts striking down section 377A in a future challenge became clear, this Government of the day did not choose to "unsee" what it had seen. The Government did not look the other way. Instead, we sprang into action, put it squarely on the agenda as our duty required us to and set out to find a way forward for all Singaporeans, difficult as it may be.

So, I say – especially to the youths who desire a more robust democracy in Singapore – I say let us celebrate this moment. This is our democracy in action. This is our democracy growing stronger.

I listened to my colleagues yesterday – Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Alex Yam, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, Ms Jessica Tan, for example – who hold very strong beliefs on the family unit and want the institution of marriage to be protected and strengthened. Nonetheless, eventually, by the end of their speeches, they have also expressed their strong support for repeal in this debate.

On the other hand, there was Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng, for example, who has been advocating strongly for repeal, indeed, since 2007. Yet, in this debate, eventually, by the end of his speech, he has also expressed strong support for protecting the institution of marriage.

So, very different starting points – repeal on the one hand, protecting the institution of marriage on the other – and a broad tent of views, a broad tent of starting points, even amongst PAP Members of Parliament representing various parts of our society.

Yet, we have found mutual accommodation and we have found convergence in support of both Bills. And we have closed ranks and come together to try and bring all Singaporeans along on the way forward, together, in the national interest, our personal views notwithstanding, as my colleague Mr Murali Pillai has so eloquently put it.

This is how a responsible governing party works. This is our democracy in action.

And I am glad that Opposition Members and Nominated Members have all joined us in seizing this moment. We owe it to Singaporeans to do right by our democracy. We discuss the difficult issues directly, and above all, we stand for unity and compassion as one people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, now, let me get to the substantive matters.

First, on the repeal of section 377A. I will start with a quick story. I once asked two friends – husband and wife, in their 30s, young parents to two kids and we were talking about their expectations of their children. And I asked them, what if their son turns out to be gay, and wishes to bring his partner home to meet them, what would they think? Without missing a beat, they replied to me, they cannot even begin to contemplate and imagine such a scenario.

I do not think they belong to a minority of young parents today. Far from it. Yet, if their son does turn out to be gay, I would make a guess that they will: one, love him all the same; and two, they will certainly not want their son, and his acts of intimacy with his partner, consensual, in private, to be labelled as criminal. Why should their son be labelled a criminal?

This, I think, is the crux of the section 377A issue. Regardless of our views on homosexuality, I think we can generally agree that we know a gay friend or even family member, and we love and respect him like we do any other friend or family member, and we have very little reason, really, to see him as a criminal.

I believe this is the prevailing morality of our society. And because our laws ought to reflect the morality of our society, repealing section 377A and decriminalising gay sex is really the right thing for us to do. I am glad we are doing it.

We could very well stop here. Legislatively, there is no obligation or inevitability that as we decriminalise gay sex, we will also protect the institution of marriage. It is a deliberate act of Parliament, a carefully considered and balanced decision and move, to do both at the same time. And we do it, because we know that taken together, this set of arrangements would be one that our society, as a whole, can probably accept, and it can point a way forward for all of us.

Going back to the story of my two friends, the young parents. Yes, if their son does turn out to be gay, they will certainly not want their son's private activities to be criminal, but I think it will be much less certain if they will accept the notion of a son-in-law, or of a grandchild, or grandchildren, within the context of such a marriage between their son and his gay partner.

And I think they would also completely understand if their friends were to turn to them and say: look, we really will not agree to allowing your son to marry here in Singapore, because it runs against our beliefs and it runs against what we would like our children and grandchildren to believe about marriage, or at least, what we would like our children and grandchildren to see and hear for themselves before forming their own conclusions.

On marriage, I think, this is the prevailing morality of our society, and our laws and policies should also protect this, even as we repeal the law on gay sex.

Indeed, it seems, from a survey conducted by TODAY just two months ago, that younger Singaporeans generally think this way too. Sixty-eight percent view the repeal of 377A positively and at the same time, an almost equal proportion wishes to uphold the current definition of marriage between one man and one woman.

Let me also say this. Some have commented that where we are today is effectively one step forward and two steps back for the gay community. I have to respectfully disagree. I think this is real progress. Gay sex is decriminalised in Singapore, finally. At the same time, we are coming together as a society and coming to terms with the reality that a majority of us are not yet ready to give up our fundamental beliefs including on marriage and so, let us find a balance, let us find mutual accommodation. This is a mark of our maturing society. This is real progress.

Some, on the other hand, have characterised the repeal as a capitulation by the Government – and society at large – to the relentless campaigns and militant advocacy of some gay rights activists. I think this is quite unfair too. I believe, instead, that this change is about all of us, our society as a whole, maturing, progressing organically.

Change takes time – and this has taken quite some time – but this change has not been precipitated by the narrow words or actions or deeds of a few. I think this change represents part of our broader progress towards becoming a more inclusive society, in various other dimensions like wage level, age, disabilities, mental health and yes, we have become more inclusive on the dimension of sexual orientation, too. Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, sir, try to imagine as a parent that one day your son tells you, “Mom and Dad, I am gay. I have a partner. I want to bring him to see you”. What would you say? What would you think?

It may be a difficult problem and I do not wish any parent to go through this test. But, if this is the reality, then I guess that our first response should be that our love for our children remains the same. In addition, we would not wish the son to be considered a criminal because of his sexual orientation.

This second point is the crux of section 377A of the Penal Code. Regardless our attitude towards homosexuality, we would have homosexual friends or even family members in life. Like anyone else, they deserve to be loved and respected. I think we can also agree that we have no reason to regard their sexual life in private as a criminal offence. It is inhumane and unfair. I therefore support the repeal of section 377A. This is what we should do as an inclusive society. This is our duty.

Of course, I fully understand that many Singaporeans are worried about the consequences of repealing section 377A. What will LGBT and gay rights group advocate next?

If the next step after repealing section 377A is to recognise and allow same-sex marriage, what will happen to the norms and core values of our society? These concerns are fundamental and important, and it is precisely because of this that together with repealing section 377A, the Government is also proposing to amend the Constitution to protect the current definition of marriage. Yesterday, Minister of State Sun Xueling pointed out that the Government has put in a lot of efforts to address the issue of section 377A and the concerns of various groups in society.

I would like to say is that these two Bills reflect the political courage of a responsible Government and Parliament. Although the section 377A issue is difficult, we did not abdicate from our responsibilities.

There is an ancient saying that “the policies of the country must benefit the people, and the key to political education is for the policies to be implemented smoothly”. The Government has faced the issue squarely and found a compromise. Through these two Bills, the Government has achieved this.

The key to a successful policy is its smooth implementation. This time, the PAP did not lift the Whip. The ruling party’s job is to rule and enable policies to be carried out smoothly, and the ruling party has achieved this.

This is a victory for our democratic system and for all Singaporeans.

(In English): So, where else do we go from here? My hope is that all sides will continue engaging with each other and do so with ever greater depths of mutual respect, understanding and empathy. And it starts with avoiding unhelpful assumptions.

For one, gays and lesbians are not a monolith. Not all homosexuals are judicial activists; and judicial activists do not speak for all homosexuals. At the same time, not all social conservatives are Christian or Muslim. Indeed, many conservatives are either of other religions, or not religious at all. Their socially conservative views, while deep-seated, are not religious in nature.

I also hope that our engagements going forward will be in the real world, offline. Not in social media where certain narratives get amplified much more than others. Social media creates echo chambers and not equally. Some chambers may be small, but their echoes are especially loud and reverberate well beyond the realms of the chambers themselves.

We have Singaporeans who are concerned about how and what social media is buffeting us with, and I think, rightly so. We need safe spaces, in the real world, where all views can come forth and be heard equally, where we can get a good sense of the real balance of views amongst all of us. And in these safe spaces, no one should have to labour under the fear of name-calling or being cancelled, especially by bad actors under the guise of anonymity. Mr Speaker, Sir, with this, I support both Bills.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin.

Mr Speaker, Sir. I would like to start off my speech by highlighting the significance of this debate being held in this House.

The separation of powers is a deeply rooted principle in our parliamentary tradition. Parliament makes the laws, the Executive administers the laws and the Judiciary interprets and applies the laws when disputes are brought before the Courts. In this House, regardless of personal beliefs, we are duty-bound to represent the different voices of Singaporeans. This is a responsibility that I do not take lightly.

Over the past few months, a number of my residence in Cheng San-Seletar have written to me or even come down to my Meet-the-People Sessions to express that, while they do not believe that acts of intimacy between two consenting men should be a crime, they sincerely wish to preserve the definition and institution of family. Others have shared that removing criminality from homosexuality is long overdue, given that the law was introduced back in 1938. Some have also questioned if there is actually a real possibility of 377A being struck out by the Courts, while others have also worried about the wider ripples of this repeal, whether this has potential to change the way that marriage is defined in Singapore or how sexuality education will be taught to their children.

I have also heard stories of gay youths facing discrimination in their friend groups or struggling to find acceptance among peers who do not have the capacity or vocabulary to understand them. And also of youths who hold more conservative beliefs who have been called out in schools.

Sometimes, these disagreements occur online, hidden under the cloak of anonymity which emboldens individuals to speak carelessly. But loud does not always mean right and some may feel pressured into adopting a view. When issues are contentious, tribes are built and positions are entrenched and conversations quickly start from an adversarial place. This environment, if left unchecked, do not allow for people to build the capacity to discuss and debate with respect and reconcile even internal incongruence between faith, heart and mind before coming to their own considered position.

While it may be just one section of law – and about consensual acts in private, no less – section 377A has come to represent much more for many over the years, concerning fundamental values of individuals in a visceral way.

As elected representatives, we value every perspective shared with us. As such, this matter which has been debated in both public and private spaces for many years, even before the 2022 National Day Rally, belongs here in this House after years of consultation and engagement in both public and private spaces – not in the Courts, where judges must make decisions based on the information and facts presented before them, resulting in a binary decision.

Laws and policies must be guided by a careful balancing of the scales, not having the scales tipped to one side or the other through judicial activism or driven by individuals with the resources to litigate. I will not belabour this point as it has been raised by hon colleagues such as Mr Murali Pillai yesterday.

This process of a judiciary intervening actively in social issues may also signal an unwillingness of elected politicians to deal with such issues ourselves and leave such decisions to the Courts so that we do not have to assume responsibility for them. In some countries, judicial activism has deepened polarisation in societies – for example, over immigration matters in Australia and abortion rights in the US.

This also results in judicial appointments in themselves becoming politicised affairs. We should not foster this culture in Singapore and so I agree with the hon Minister for Social and Family Development on the approach of this Bill.

I appreciate that we are dealing with this now. The decision made in 2007 to accept the legal untidiness and ambiguity of keeping the law on the books was the compromise struck by society at the time. Later in 2018, Attorney-General Lucien Wong affirmed the Public Prosecutor would not prosecute two consenting men for having sex in private, giving legal significance to the political compromise struck in 2007.

Former Attorneys-General Walter Woon and VK Rajah also separately said it was not desirable for the Government and Parliament to direct the Attorney-General not to prosecute offences under section 377A. Following these comments, Attorney-General Lucien Wong clarified that the Public Prosecutor retains independence in deciding whether to pursue a case under section 377A. He shared that "while the Public Prosecutor is entitled to consider public policies in exercising his discretion, these do not fetter the exercise of prosecutorial discretion."

In all the feedback I have received, many of our people, regardless of race, language or religion, agree that acts of intimacy between two consenting men do not make them criminals. We have also generally not seen public interest or organised groups for the active enforcement of section 377A. For most, the disagreement lies solely in if it should be repealed.

So, we must ask ourselves, objectively, 15 years on, should we accept the legal untidiness and ambiguity, given that over the last 15 years, there has been little public interest in seeing section 377A enforced? From a legal perspective, it is not quite tenable for us to keep this dead letter law and I support the repeal.

Sir, I have heard the concerns of those who are seeking for the definition of marriage between one man and one woman to be codified in the Constitution. However, the hon Minister for Social and Family Development has elaborated on why such an approach is not the right one for Singapore. For this reason, I can understand the intention of the introduction of Article 156 to the Constitution as part of a package of amendments which strives to reflect a balance – protecting the existing definition of marriage from constitutional challenges per the majority views today while leaving space for future generations to make their own decisions based on the contexts of their time.

Sir, societies evolve over time and leaders must proactively respond to the conditions of the day. The Singapore I grew up in is different from the one of my parents and I can also appreciate that the Singapore which my children one day may grow up in could be unrecognisable from my lived experiences.

To do this, while we may choose to educate and guide our families based on our own personal values, we ought to avoid passing down entrenched positions to future generations, especially in our secular shared space. Sir, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Ever since Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made an announcement about section 377A during National Day Rally 2022, many have been discussing this issue and expressed their support as well as their opposition. Our Malay/Muslim community is not a monolithic community. Each generation has different views, backgrounds, and experiences. In my discussions with organisations and different individuals, I have heard different perspectives. I would like to thank everyone who took the time to share their thoughts with me.

I also had the opportunity to meet leaders, staff, and volunteers from our various Malay/Muslim organisations. In our conversations, many have expressed hope that the family institution will be protected, in addition to the repeal of Section 377A. Some shared their concerns about their ability to manage and support conversations between family members about Section 377A. Others shared their personal struggles to reconcile their faith, mindset and society so that they could impart values to their children that are aligned with their faith and the way they were brought up because it is something that they cherish. Nonetheless, they still believe that any assistance and social services should be given on the basis of compassion and place an importance on the dignity of the individual, regardless of their sexuality.

The tolerance and diversity that we have in Singapore is something that we have nurtured and built over the years. It exists today because the generations before us as well as the current generation agree that it is important for us to seek a compromise in our public spaces where advocacy does not necessarily mean that we need to tear down each other.

(In English): On that note, I would like to finish off my speech to ask not just the Members of this House but Singaporeans at large – where do we go from here, with not just dealing with this repeal but other issues that may divide us?

There are two paths.

The first sees us entrenched in our positions, unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue with others who may not see the world the way we do. The second sees us engaging in respectful conversation while remaining steadfast to our own values.

Path 1 leads to division and we have seen the damage this has done in fractured societies. Path 2 leads to understanding and in turn, peace and a more lasting prosperity. It is a path rarely paved and harder fought and uncharted territory for many of us. In moments of crisis, we run the risk of deviating back to Path 1.

In the context of section 377A, we move beyond talking about criminality in the same sentence as homosexuality and see people as individuals for who they are. It is easy to say that we must move beyond tolerance and towards understanding but harder to accept that we can no longer steer clear from speaking on contentious issues.

I ask that we endeavour to not invalidate the lived experiences of others and that we do not fall prey to living in echo chambers.

Singapore is not in a special bubble which makes us immune to these risks and I do believe that our leaders understand that. As a young nation, we have not had as many years to discuss and debate or come to a landing of what we expect of each other as well as an understanding of trade-offs.

I am hopeful that efforts such as Forward Singapore will build up the muscle for society to do so, if done well. Such sessions are an important part of setting up a two-way mode of engagement between the Government and people, where engaging in productive dialogue, varying points of view, becomes the new normal.

In closing, there are many ways to create change. Sometimes, it requires us raising our voices; most times, it requires persistence and tough conversations; and always, it involves time, a big heart and the willingness to hear each other out.

Ultimately, change should not be born out of or led by fear as fear will not protect us. I echo my hon colleague Joan Pereira's sentiments – that we should come from a place of love – and, I will add, also of courage. Knowing that there are diverse groups who feel strongly about this, I hope that we can continue to be brave, to have tough conversations with mutual respect for our fellow Singaporeans.

Mr Abdul Samad.

Mr Speaker, Prime Minister Lee first announced in his National Day Rally Speech in August 2022 that section 377A would be repealed. Since then, this matter has been deeply debated by members of the public as well as Members of this House.

Based on my interactions with my friends, colleagues, union leaders and members, I have gathered that there are sentiments of worry and unhappiness amongst Singaporeans on this topic, despite the many engagement sessions carried out earlier involving various groups of leaders and fellow Singaporeans.

We have heard today and yesterday from more than 20 Members of Parliament and Nominated Members of Parliament on this thorny and sensitive subject matter. I am heartened by the passion and conviction of the various speeches by the Members of this house and their commitment to safeguard the natural institution of marriage and family structure, as reiterated by many.

On the other hand, I am also comforted, knowing that we are according the necessary space to those who had previously felt oppressed by the existence of section 377A in our books.

I would like to thank both Minister Masagos for his explanation on the implications of the insertion of a new Article 156 into our Constitution with regards to marriage as well as Minister Shanmugam's explanation on the importance of repealing section 377A in this House instead of being struck down by the Court.

In fact, many in our society may not have known that prior to this announcement, there have been constitutional challenges filed in Court against section 377A on the basis that it violates the Constitution. Prime Minister Lee also mentioned during his National Day Rally Speech that the Attorney-General and the Minister for Law have advised that in a future Court challenge, there is a real risk of section 377A being struck down.

Sir, our union members and fellow workers are also residents of the Members of Parliament here. They, too, shared their concerns with me either in person, over calls, messages or even emails.

I have received emails from multiple individuals and groups calling for the retention of section 377A. This view is commonly held by more conservative and/or religious groups as they are concerned with what the repeal of section 377A represents – that there would be an erosion of family values and the traditional definition that marriage is between a man and woman could be challenged.

There is also another view that the Government should not intervene nor police private and sexual behaviours between consenting adults. Accordingly, it should be removed from our books, especially if the Government would not actively enforce it.

With all being said, I hope the Government can enlighten laypersons like myself on the relevant processes for legislative and policy reforms. Under what circumstances would the Court be empowered to strike down the laws passed by Parliament? What can be done by Parliament to avoid the striking down of the laws? Should the matter be canvassed before Parliament for Parliament to consider repealing the same first? What is the difference between these two processes? Can an infographic illustrate these processes to make it easier for people out there to understand?

Nevertheless, I am glad that this issue is canvassed before us presently, as such a law which has far reaching implications on Singapore’s family structure and societal norms should be decided by Parliament, which has the people’s mandate, and not the Courts, which only interpret and apply the laws passed by Parliament.

At this same juncture, I applaud the Government’s decision of introducing Article 156 into our Constitution. Article 156(2) provides that the Government and public authorities may, in exercising their executive authority, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage. This is wholly consistent with what most Singaporeans want – which is to maintain the current family and social norms, where marriage is between a man and a woman, and children are brought up in such a family structure. We hope that the existing measures, such as public housing policies and financial benefits for married couples, as well as education and media policies continue to promote and safeguard the institution of marriage. Sir, I will now speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, our discussions on the repeal of Section 377 and amendments to the National Constitution have gained the attention of our citizens, regardless of race or religion. Many have expressed their concerns about the impact on our way of life if Section 377 is repealed. Sadly, not many people have given equal attention to the Constitutional Amendment through the addition of Article 156 which clarifies and strengthens the definition of marriage and family.

Many are asking whether the Government agrees with the actions of such groups to the point that it acknowledges and gives in to their demands. We are all aware of the emergence of such groups and it is a grave concern for our society, present and future. The repeal can be seen as a minor success for this group. Is it possible that in the future they will continue to make more demands based on equal rights for all in society? Will the Government also support and allow the same thing, just as it does now?

There is nothing wrong with expressing concerns, but we must accept that the world belongs to all of creation including humans, fauna, mountains, flora and countless others. This group of people are also human beings just like us. We should rightfully share the vastness of this world with all of God's creations. Let us not alienate them, just because of their sexual preferences. Let us spread kindness to all humankind and recognise the challenges that they face. They never asked to be that way, but we who claim to be of sound mind and body should take up the role of advising and sharing with them the natural state of life.

Let us cultivate respect, instead of being judgmental, based on our own different opinions, positions, and beliefs. We must avoid spreading slanders that can divide our society. The harmonious cohesion that we built over the years that is founded on mutual respect must be maintained and strengthened. United we stand, divided we fall!

(In English): Sir, I am sure that the repeal of section 377A will bring some form of relief and comfort to those who have previously felt oppressed by the same – in knowing that our societal norms have shifted and we, as a society, are ready to accept and grant them the space needed.

In my personal view, the Government has arrived at a nice balance – granting homosexuals the space that they need through the repeal, while recognising and upholding the traditional definition of marriage through the constitutional amendments.

In closing, I echo what our Prime Minster said at the National Day Rally that we must maintain the mutual respect and trust that we have painstakingly built up over the years and stay united as one united people.

I stand by and support the decision to repeal section 377A as well as amendment to the Constitution because Every Human Matters!

I also call on fellow workers and employers to treat every worker equally regardless of their gender, because Every Worker Matters!

Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim.

Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Over the past few months, the Government has consulted extensively with various groups on this important issue.

I have met Malay/Muslim religious leaders, Malay/Muslim organisations, interfaith groups, youth groups, and healthcare professionals during those engagement sessions. Participants shared their honest and candid feedback.

The majority in our society, including the Malay/Muslim community, value and wish to uphold the traditional view of family, where marriage is between a man and a woman, with children raised in such a family setting.

The Government is fully supportive of this. Our position on marriage and family is clear, and this has consistently been reflected in our policies and legislation. The conventional definition of marriage is set out in our laws – in the Women’s Charter and the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA). Many of Singapore’s policies are based on that definition, including adoption, housing, education, and media.

With the Constitutional amendment, the Government is taking steps to protect the definition of marriage and related laws and policies from constitutional challenges. This would ensure that any changes to the definition of marriage can only be debated and decided through Parliament, and not through the Courts.

If we look at the various challenges mounted against Section 377A over the years, we can expect similar challenges to the definition of marriage and laws and policies based on this definition.

Such decisions should not be left to the Courts to decide. During Prime Minister’s National Day Rally speech, he made it clear that judges have neither the expertise nor the mandate to address political questions, nor rule on social norms and values. Minister Masagos had also earlier in his speech highlighted US and India as examples of why Court-led decisions could lead to undesirable, win-lose outcomes for society.

If we do not take action to protect the institution of marriage, and allow this to be left to the Courts, we risk damaging the bedrock of society which is the structure of family.

Where important social issues are concerned, Parliament is more suited to deal with them. Parliament can consult different groups, take in their feedback, and assess the best way forward while balancing wider societal considerations. In essence, the making of pro-family laws should be decided by Parliament; not by the Courts.

I have shared a gist of the above in my various engagements with the Malay/Muslim community and most of them understood and welcomed this.

As Minister Shanmugam explained in his speech, we are also moving to repeal Section 377A.

During my engagements, some, including those in the Malay/Muslim community, shared they were concerned that the repeal would signal a sea of change in other laws and policies, and result in a sudden shift of the tone of our society.

Some also shared their fears – that the repeal of Section 377A would open the floodgates for same-sex marriage and same-sex family formation, normalising LGBT discourse in our society, and lead to knock-on effects pertaining to sex education in schools, normalising the portrayal of LGBT relationships in the media, and so on.

I would like to reassure the community that there will be no change to the Government’s position on marriage and family.

The Government has no plans to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriages. Similarly, policies relying on the current definition of marriage will remain unchanged. This has also been echoed by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong that this Government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage, nor the policies that rely on this definition.

You may ask, “why repeal Section 377A now?” Allow me to briefly explain why the Government has decided to repeal Section 377A and protect the definition of marriage.

First, repealing Section 377A is the right and principled thing to do.

Fundamentally, there are no law-and-order concerns arising from consensual, adult homosexual conduct in private.

Society has changed since Parliament last debated Section 377A in 2007. In 2007, our society was not yet ready, but our engagements over the past few months have shown that most Singaporeans today accept that sex between men should not be a crime.

Even if we may be personally opposed to homosexual conduct, we should recognise that Section 377A as a law has been a marker of stigmatisation to those in the gay community, and experienced as a stark reminder of their rejection by the rest of society. Removing this source of psychological and physical distress from their lives is the right thing to do, so we can move forward as a society where our gay family, friends, and colleagues are treated with the same degree of respect.

Second, as Minister Shanmugam has explained earlier, there is a significant risk of Section 377A being struck down by the Courts, on the grounds that it breaches the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Third, if Section 377A were to be struck down by the Courts, our definition of marriage and related laws and policies would be subjected to similar legal challenges.

Taken together, the Constitutional amendment and the repeal of Section 377A reflect the approach that the Government is taking to prevent the definition of marriage from being overturned by the Courts, while doing the right thing and maintaining unity and social cohesion.

Earlier I mentioned some of the key concerns raised by the Malay/Muslim community with regards to the repeal of Section 377A and the possible implications. I also made clear that there will be no change to the various laws and policies related to marriage as it is not the Government's intention to cause a destabilising shift in our society.

Let me address some of the feedback the Government has received from our engagement sessions.

First, I understand that the Malay/Muslim community wishes to protect longstanding religious and family values.

Regarding this, I would like to refer to the Mufti's recent religious guidance concerning LGBT matters. Mufti clarified that in Islam, only sexual relations between a husband and wife is permitted. I agree this should continue to be protected and promoted.

At the same time, Mufti also acknowledged that we live in a diverse society where we ought to respect differences in worldviews and that we should continue to extend compassion to Muslims who identify as LGBT. As Muslims, we must exercise kindness and empathy to our fellow Muslims who might have differences in opinions and views from us.

Second, some are concerned that the push for LGBT rights would infringe on religious freedom.

I would like to clarify that the repeal will not affect the religious freedom of the Malay/Muslim community which will continue to be constitutionally protected.

Malay/Muslim community leaders and asatizah can continue to preach freely on Islamic beliefs about homosexuality, including doing so online to engage more youths on the matter, as long as it is done respectfully, and does not cross redlines of inciting violence or hate towards others. The community should also take reference from Mufti's guidance.

More importantly, I would like to emphasise that religious freedom must be balanced with mutual accommodation, respect and compassion in our plural society. This is essential to maintaining social cohesion.

Where sensitive issues are concerned, people are free to disagree with one another, and we should have the space to air views and concerns.

But even so, as we navigate these differences in worldviews, we must remember to abide by principles of mutual, understanding, respect and accommodation in these interactions so that we are able to have constructive conversations on how we can move our society forward.

In an earlier interview, Mufti commented that the repeal of Section 377A was a complex social issue and a tough balancing act for everyone, including the Government and religious groups.

As a community, we must continue to be guided by Islamic values and teachings in all that we say and do, even as laws change. We have to be careful not to polarize debate on this issue and risk straining the communal ties that we have built up painstakingly over the years.

As Muslim leaders, we should not focus on our own personal views and appeal to our own community only. Instead, we should fully consider what is best for our community by considering and balancing the views of all Singaporeans. This will ensure that we adopt a holistic view and approach to enable us to move forward together.

In line with what Mufti has stated, although homosexuality is a sin, the community should not reject or ostracise them. We should remain principled and balanced even though we have different views and look at what is best for the society as a whole.

This is why the Government supports both the repeal of Section 377A and the amendment to the Constitution to protect marriage.

As we move forward, I would like to call on everyone to keep calm and exercise moderation as we work out a consensus for the betterment of Singapore, as one united society, as we have always done.

I would also like to thank our community leaders and colleagues for sharing their views and giving their support to the Government in this matter. We heard their views and opinions, and we will continue to work closely with them in this matter.

I am touched with their readiness to continue strengthening our nation-building ecosystem despite facing complex issues from time to time. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, the repeal of section 377A holds great significance for many across the social and religious spectrum. The heated civic discourse and vigorous advocacy speaks to strongly held beliefs that many hold on this issue.

This has been an opportunity for Singaporeans to learn to disagree in a spirited but civil way. I believe that such open debate is a sign of a healthy and functioning democracy. However, in doing so we cannot lose sight of our shared humanity.

I can do no better than quote MUIS. In response to the repeal of section 377A, it said that Muslim law "places importance on human dignity, respect and peaceful relations". It further said, "These values are crucial as we navigate complex socio-religious issues today. As Muslims, we should treat everyone with full dignity and respect. Everyone, regardless of their sexual orientations, must feel safe in our society and institutions. Muslims should uphold the best of character, charity and compassion, in dealing with others, even with whom we disagree".

I believe these statements apply not just to those of the Muslim faith but to all of us. As we continue to engage on discrimination against the gay community and discrimination of any form, I hope we continue to treat each other with dignity, respect and kindness.

In doing so, we cannot shy away from having conversations with people that we do not identify with. We need to continue the dialogue on issues affecting the gay community with the intent of achieving progress for everyone.

For the gay community, the repeal of section 377A is the correct thing to do. It is the correct thing to do not only because of the likelihood of success of any Court challenges. It is the correct thing to do because gay Singaporeans deserve, like any other member of society, not to be criminalised for their private behaviour.

The repeal of section 377A is a positive step towards making Singapore a more equal and inclusive society. We should recognise and thank the collective efforts of activists and organisations over the years to raise awareness about the challenges that the gay community faces and foster acceptance of gay individuals within our society. We need to continue to have conversations about these issues as our nation progresses.

Sir, I have three points of clarifications on both Bills.

My first point is on the treatment of prior convictions under section 377A. In his National Day Rally speech, when he announced the intended repeal of section 377A, Prime Minister Lee said he believed that the repeal is the right thing to do and that it would provide relief to gay Singaporeans.

Minister Shanmugam has also said that it would be wrong to continue criminalising the sexuality of gay Singaporeans and what they do in private. Nobody, he said, deserves to be stigmatised because of their sexual orientation, so repealing section 377A and removing their pain is the right thing to do.

If the continued stigmatisation of gay Singaporeans is wrong, then the continued stigmatisation of gay Singaporeans because of their record of conviction under section 377A must also be wrong.

Under the Registration of Criminals Act, an offence under section 377A is a registrable crime. Any criminal record of a conviction under section 377A will become spent after a crime-free period of five years. An exception is if the person is disqualified from having their criminal record being spent.

As such, this may mean that individuals with existing records of conviction under section 377A because the conviction was within a five-year period or because the individual is disqualified from having the record becoming spent. These individuals may, due to their records, remain stigmatised, even as we repeal section 377A.

Can the Minister clarify if there are any individuals with existing records of convictions under section 377A that have not been spent? Can the Minister clarify how these prior convictions will be treated?

My second point is about support provided to students of diverse genders. The repeal of section 377A sends a strong message against the discrimination of gay Singaporeans on the basis, again, of their private behaviour. As Minister Shanmugam shared, this legislative step is a significant step in removing stigma on a legislative level and will also go some way in removing hurt.

However, discrimination and stigma do not just exist in abstract policies. Many individuals of diverse genders face discrimination, stigma and hurt in their day-to-day interactions in the community and even with their closest loved ones.

These challenges can be especially daunting for young students who are just starting to build their identity and navigate their teenage years which can already be a stressful experience for anyone.

Many surveys, both local and international, show that many individuals of diverse genders experienced symptoms of generalised anxiety disorder. Many also experienced major depressive disorder and engage in self harm.

Our teachers in schools are a first line of defence in identifying students who may be struggling from such stressors and challenges. They are also well placed to facilitate appropriate intervention.

Can Minister share what support has been or will be extended to such students? In particular, what role will teachers and schools play in identifying students of diverse genders who may be struggling and extending such support to them?

My final point is on the new Article 156(1) in the Constitution. It enables the legislature and the Government to define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage. In the explanatory statement, examples of such activities included housing preferences and financial benefits for married persons, and education and media policies that promote and safeguard the institution of marriage.

As we encourage marriage, I hope we will not discriminate against single parents, whether they are unmarried, divorced or widowed.

I am glad that Minister Masagos provided some assurances on this during his opening speech that single parents will not be left behind. Indeed, increased support for single parents is one of the main recommendations in the White Paper on Singapore Women's Development, published this year by the Government.

I have raised recommendations on housing policies to ensure that single unwed parents and their children will have a roof over their heads. I have also asked for single unwed parents to receive the Parenthood Tax Rebate, the Working Mothers' Child Relief, and the cash component of the Baby Bonus. It is a whole suite of parenthood policies that exclude and discriminate against single unwed parents. There is a lot more we can do.

Can the Minister confirm that even as the Government takes steps to define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage, we will also continue to review our policies to ensure that single unwed parents are adequately supported? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of both Bills.

Ms Janet Ang.

Mr Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. I am mindful that the subject concerns sensitive matters of religious beliefs, sexuality and identity. I stand to speak what I believe and beg the indulgence of everyone who may not necessarily hold the same view.

We all have friends and family who may hold the liberal view or conservative view when it comes to matters concerning sexuality and morality. At the same time, we all have friends and family who are LGBTQ+ persons. The long public debate of the status of section 377A of the Penal Code has weighed heavily on all sides and has divided our society and even families.

To see the cup half full, I would say that during this time, especially since 2018, parties holding differing views have learnt more about one another's perspectives and engaged in dialogues with the Government, and directly or indirectly with one another. The Government has listened and the proposed amendment to the Constitution, along with the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code, will soon bring the debate to a legislative closure.

I hope that after today's debate and after this House has decided, we will move forward together as one Singapore, upholding our pledge to be one united people, respecting one another's dignity as human persons and upholding the Singapore family built on marriage between a man and a woman, and the children they will birth and raise, to be the bedrock of our society.

I declare I am a Catholic and have been brought up knowing that my Creator is a loving God and he loves everyone. The catechism of the Catholic Church teaches Catholics that the men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity, even as they are called to chastity. Pope Francis, in his encyclical, Amoris Laetitia – The Joy of Love, wrote, and I quote, "We would like before all else to reaffirm that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while 'every sign of unjust discrimination' is to be carefully avoided, particularly any form of aggression and violence." The Catholic Church's position is clear – homosexual acts are sinful, but homosexual orientation is not.

The Archbishop of Singapore, His Eminence, Cardinal William Goh, in a statement in August 2022 after the Prime Minister's National Day Rally speech on this matter of repealing section 377A, has come out to say that the Church is against the criminalisation of LGBTQ+ people and, so, supporting the repeal of section 377A is not the issue. Rather, the issue is with regard to the rights as a Catholic Church, to teach and practise our beliefs and regard the family and marriage as defined between a man and a woman, according to natural law. As we have all heard over these two days in Parliament, his concerns on this issue matter to more segments than just the Catholic Church.

Several hon Members of Parliament have referred to the Youth Survey conducted in September by the news media, Today. Here is an excerpt from the news report: "The demographically representative survey, which polled 1,000 respondents aged between 18 and 35, was carried out between 5 and 16 September. Almost seven in 10, or 68%, of youths polled said that the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex between homosexuals, is positive for inclusivity in Singapore. But when asked if same-sex marriage is wrong, the respondents were generally divided, with 37% agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement, and 33% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. The remaining said that they were neutral. At the same time, 62% of the respondents felt that it was important to uphold and safeguard the definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman."

There have been various polls done over time and, while they may not all be statistically significant, I believe they do sufficiently tell the story. First, that Singaporeans are sympathetic towards decriminalising gay sex; two, Singaporeans are divided on the acceptance of same-sex relations; and three, the majority of Singaporeans, both young and old, believe that it is important to uphold and safeguard the definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman.

After much prayer, research and listening to many, including my own daughters, repealing section 377A is the right thing to do, and doing so will send a statement to the LGBTQ+ community that they are safe being who they are, even if their behaviour may not be accepted by the mainstream community in Singapore.

Supporting the repeal is not the issue. As many in the House have said, the removal of anti-gay sex laws in some countries saw the issue of same-sex marriage falling under the spotlight and there are large segments in Singapore who care deeply about marriage as defined currently between a man and a woman, as well as family norms, such as how children are brought up and what is taught in school. Most people have come to accept that gay sex is a matter of private individual choice.

Same-sex marriage, however, is effectively changing a social institution, contrary to what most Singaporeans believe and are ready to accept. For me, marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, committing fidelity to each other, so long as they both shall live, and bringing forth children to form a family and fulfil the natural order of the transmission of life.

In fact, this Parliament has declared 2022 as the Year of Singapore Families. Singapore families want to be confident that, in Singapore, we will be able to freely guide our children on what we believe to be right and wrong. Likewise, for us Catholics, the Catholic Church needs to be confident that their rights to preach and to teach in the parishes and Catholic schools, according to Catholic beliefs, will be protected. As we have heard in these past two days, the same is true for other religious communities and even for non-religious Singaporeans.

I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister to clarify a few points to help address concerns and worries in the minds and hearts of Singaporeans, even as we move to support the repeal of section 377A.

Firstly, with the amendment to the Constitution, are there still circumstances where the definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman can be subjected to challenge? What are those circumstances and how will the Government deal with such circumstances?

Second, will the Christian and Catholic Churches be assured that they will continue to be free to preach against gay sexual acts? Cardinal William Goh has spoken of his concerns that we may be drawn into a situation as in the West, where we cannot even say that a same-sex relationship is wrong. For the Catholic Church, this would not be acceptable as the Church must have freedom to continue to teach in the Catholic schools and from the pulpit what we believe, and practise what we teach.

Third, how will MOE handle sexuality education in our schools, both public and private, and assure Singaporeans that Singapore's family and social norms, based on traditional Singaporean values, will be protected? Bullying and cancel culture must not take root in our educational institutions and our society.

Fourth, we should not allow a culture where people of religion are ostracised, attacked for espousing their views or their disagreements with LGBTQ+ viewpoints and vice versa. Singapore has worked hard to create inter-religious harmony in our society. How will the Government protect and safeguard this precious strength and asset of our country?

Let me close by reiterating my desire that after today's Bills are carried, the LGBTQ+ community amongst us will feel reaffirmed that they are safe being who they are, and, together, all of us, as Singaporeans, we will rise above differences in views and beliefs, and respect one another's dignity as human persons. We will work together to prevent cancel culture to take root in our educational institutions, our workplaces and our society.

We will maintain our religious freedom to practise and teach what we believe to be right and wrong. We will uphold Singapore's societal norms where marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that married couples live as role models for their children and children's children. And we will not disregard the importance and essential need to have the holistic family as the bedrock of our society.

And finally, we will continue to dialogue, to listen with compassion and kindness, to one another. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications, with hope and trust, I stand in support of the amendment to the Constitution and the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code.

Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Speaker, I welcome the move to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code. For too long, the law has remained in our statutes, explicitly stating that sex between adult men is a crime, even if it is consensual and done in private.

Despite the Government having said multiple times in the past that it will not enforce the colonial era law, and with the Court of Appeal ruling earlier this year that section 377A was unenforceable in its entirety, its existence has very real repercussions that affect many of our fellow Singaporeans, their families and their loved ones.

The topic of this debate is a complex and multi-faceted one, with individuals, including Members of Parliament, holding deep personal convictions. Yet, beyond the Bills and clauses themselves, we must also be cognisant that the issues we are debating have far-reaching effects into the personal lives of our fellow Singaporeans. It is on this note that I wish to touch on some aspects of the lived experience of our LGBTQ+ community in Singapore, which may be less apparent to those of us who are not from within the community.

I am a young father, with a loving and happy family. Section 377A never really bothered me in any way that I live my life. But over the years, I have gotten to know several members of the LGBTQ+ community, some of whom have become my close friends. The daily struggles they face regarding their sexual orientation and gender identity are very real. We all live in a largely heteronormative world. For my LGBTQ+ friends, that means they constantly face subtle judgement, discrimination, apathy and hatred, even towards them at home, at school, in the military and at work.

Seemingly nondescript questions of "bring your girlfriend to drink next time" or "where is your husband?" or "do you plan to have kids" can come up suddenly at family gatherings or happy hour drinks at work and make them squirm. Think about those awkward Chinese New Year conversations that you have with distant relatives at various stages of your life, be it when you are single, married but without children, or even married with one child, and replicate it throughout the rest of the year.

These questions become even more damaging, especially when they are unsure of how others will react to their true sexual orientation or gender identity, and potentially affect their opportunities at work and in society. So, some choose to hide their true selves and avoid talking about who they are dating or their hopes and dreams to lead a stable life. They stay hidden from society. Some choose to be public about it but fear the risk of being punished for their choices by not being considered for promotion at work or being bullied at school. In some form or another, individuals who identify as LGBTQ+ have to cope with additional mental and emotional stress and, in some cases, physical abuse, just for being someone they were born as.

Mr Speaker, it has been well-documented that LGBTQ+ individuals are at a higher risk of depression and mental and physical health dangers. Some suffer from internalised homophobia, where they loathe themselves over a sexual orientation or gender identity that they had no choice over.

A recent NUS public health survey found that among 570 sexual minority young adults aged 18 to 25, 59% had contemplated suicide and 14% had attempted to kill themselves. Having section 377A in our laws means that it is hard to organise support groups to help not just members of the gay community, which is who the laws target, but also the wider LGBTQ+ community, who face discrimination, bullying or mental struggles, just for being who they are.

Schools and companies may think twice about setting up official LGBTQ+ groups, or at least show overt support in counselling and supporting these individuals. Let us not forget the unfortunate incident from earlier this year, where a school counsellor himself presented content discriminating against the LGBTQ+ community, before being suspended from all duties pending investigations. The fact that there remains a legal route for prosecuting LGBTQ+ persons has a specific state-sanctioned chilling effect on the community.

Retaining 377A also makes Singapore look anachronistic, especially in light of our Asian financial hub status. Hong Kong's Legislative Council passed legislation decriminalising homosexual acts in 1991. China repealed similar laws in 1997. Japan briefly made homosexuality illegal and then repealed the law during the Meiji era. Homosexual acts were never a legal issue in Taiwan. India, which also shares similar colonial roots as Singapore, struck the law down in 2018. Having section 377A made it challenging to convince prominent members of the LGBTQ+ community – Singaporean or otherwise – in the arts, financial sector, tech and many other areas to remain in Singapore and make meaningful contributions to our society and economy. The LGBTQ+ community's joy of seeing section 377A repealed would have been even greater if not for the fact that the move merely puts Singapore more in line with other cosmopolitan, open and inclusive societies.

In addition, retaining a law that is not actively enforced or cannot be enforced sends a confusing signal on how one should comprehend Singapore's legal system. It also means that there is always a chance that a future Government may attempt to prosecute a man for sex with another man that was done in private and consensual. That is why I applaud the Government's move to repeal section 377A.

Some will know that my colleague and fellow Sengkang GRC Member of Parliament Assoc Prof Jamus Lim attended a Pink Dot rally this past June in his personal capacity. As shared in a media release for Pink Dot 14, "We are living in an increasingly divided world. The ability to reach across the spaces between us, for dialogue and co-created understanding, is what will keep us safe."

Mr Speaker, the issue of repealing, at its core, is not a political one but one that grants dignity and freedom to a marginalised section of Singapore. I am glad to see that society is, indeed, ready to move on and repeal section 377A. But repealing section 377A does not mean discrimination towards the LGBTQ+ community disappears overnight. Discrimination against such individuals still exists in Hong Kong, China, Japan, India and many other jurisdictions where gay sex is not illegal per se.

On the constitutional amendment that is being proposed, the message that Singapore sends is quite clear: the idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman and this is a decision that will be left for the legislature and society to decide, and not by the Courts. For the geographies that I mentioned earlier that have repealed discriminatory same-sex laws, that discrimination still exists is a reminder to us that social acceptance is crucial to any landmark legal or constitutional changes, to maintain harmony and stability in society. As such, I do recognise the importance of the signal the new Article 156 sends, to provide greater protection for the definition of marriage and its related policies today.

After the Prime Minister's announcement at the National Day Rally, MCI said that media policies on homosexuality will remain, which means, as a Toy Story Fan who has enjoyed the entire Toy Story series since 1995, I cannot bring my children to watch Lightyear, a Pixar animated children's film due to "overt homosexual depictions", as though homosexuality is unspeakable and cannot be seen. MOE said that the education curriculum will still be focused on what the majority of society supports, which is family, between a man and a woman. But at the same time, we need to be conscious of LGBTQ+ individuals being invisible in our curriculums.

It will take time for society to come together and, as shared by Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, "create conditions for all Singaporeans to succeed and certainly not to feel marginalised", "where we are tolerant of Singaporeans who are different in as far as the law allows." But it is all the more important for us to understand one another's viewpoints, stay civil and respectful as we engage all members of society as Singapore becomes more inclusive and open.

I had the privilege of hearing from one of our LGBTQ+ advocates recently and she is a household name who needs no introduction, Ms Theresa Goh. She shared her incredible journey as a child born with spina bifida, to becoming our first female swimmer at the 2004 Athens Paralympic Games, winning Gold at the 2006 IPC World Swimming Championships and Bronze at the 2016 Paralympic Games. More recently, she has also been elected as one of 10 members of the Singapore National Olympic Council Athletes' Commission.

While we know her for her extraordinary achievements, what is less well known were the struggles she and her family had to go through as a disabled person and a queer woman here in Singapore. What was particularly heart-wrenching to me was hearing her speak so casually about the difficulties her parents had in searching for a kindergarten for her back in the 1990s, as they faced repeated rejections the moment the kindergartens found out that she had a disability. She shared that there was even one day when she was not feeling well and threw up after lunch, yet her teacher did not help to clean her up. But she felt that had she been any other normal child, her teachers would have cleaned her up before her parents came to pick her.

It is upsetting to hear of such experiences, but I also take comfort in that such behaviour would be completely unacceptable and unthinkable in today's circumstances and we, as a society, have moved to become more accepting of the disabled since the 1990s.

Today, however, LGBTQ+ inclusivity remains a frowned-upon topic. As late as 2017, when Theresa shared about how she decided to "come out" in an interview with The Straits Times, she was particularly afraid of how other people would see her and how they would react. At home, she was worried that her parents, in particular, would take this news badly. However, they reassured her that all they want is for her to find somebody who would take care of her, whether that person is a boy or a girl.

While Theresa's story has a happy ending, another close friend of mine is still facing challenges in broaching this topic with his parents. As an only son, he has been extremely filial to his parents and shares a very special bond with them. A number of years ago, he felt that he no longer wanted to hide his sexuality from his parents and wanted to be completely honest with them as he has been with every other aspect of his life. This was not taken very well unfortunately, with his mother feeling distraught that there was something wrong with her son and even prays at the temple regularly with the hope that, one day, he will be "normal" again. I pray that, one day, his parents will accept him fully for who he is.

Mr Speaker, let me draw on what I see in the finance sector where I work. Many financial institutions encourage their employees to bring their true selves to work, because they believe that only then can they truly be engaged in what they do and fully develop their passions. Many banks see being open about being who you are can make for a more productive workforce. They have clear DEI – or diversity, equity and inclusion – talent policies. Incorporating DEI into business operations has proven to benefit companies' performance because it encourages a wider range of views and opinions among staff. All these have clear, measurable impact and should equally apply to our country and economy, too, where we place a very strong emphasis on developing everyone's potential.

A survey by YouGov in May 2022 on behalf of LinkedIn shared that 75% of LGBTQ+ professionals indicated that it is important that they work at a company where they feel comfortable bringing their full selves to work and 49% indicated that they will not work at a company that does not have LGBTQ+ friendly benefits. Similarly, a Deloitte survey of 600 members of the LGBTQ+ community across 12 countries showed that over 70% of the respondents are more inclined to remain with their current employer because of its approach to inclusiveness, while 37% of respondents indicate that they are actively considering changing employers to find one with a more inclusive culture.

Every individual in Singapore should be able to contribute in their fullest capacity without fear of being discriminated against for who they are – be it over race, language, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. Only then can Singapore be truly a global, cosmopolitan, harmonious home that we can all be proud of.

I have a male friend who married his partner of seven years just before the pandemic in New York. The two men are in a loving relationship but there is just one snag – my friend is an only son. When he is old and bedridden, he wants to know that he can trust someone to make difficult medical and legal decisions for him. All they hoped for is that there is at least a jurisdiction out there that can give them societal and legal guarantees that straight couples enjoy. That is why he married his partner, even though he knows that their marriage is not recognised in Singapore. I support the repeal of section 377A and the Constitution (Amendment) Bill.

Ms Ng Ling Ling.

Mr Speaker, I rise to speak on the Penal Code and the Constitution (Amendment) Bill as a mother, community leader and friend, in addition to my role as an elected legislator of this land.

Since the proposed repeal of section 377A was mentioned in the media and the public, I have received several written appeals from my Jalan Kayu residents to urge the Government not to do so. These residents are mostly parents of young children and youths. As a mother, I can relate to their concerns.

In October 2007 when the Parliament undertook a comprehensive review of our Penal Code since its major amendments in 1984, the public feedback on section 377A was emotional. The Cabinet, after extensive public consultations and discussions, concluded at the end of the debate that Singapore society remained conservative and the majority preferred to uphold a stable society with traditional, heterosexual family values while giving homosexuals the space to live their lives and contribute to society.

As one who has been brought up in a traditional Asian family, I understand Singaporeans who uphold the construct of a family formed by marriage between a man and a woman. This is an important cornerstone of any society since the start and for the continuation of human history.

Why then the need to repeal section 377A now? The Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Shanmugam, gave a detailed explanation. Section 377A was first introduced in 1938, when Singapore was still part of the Straits Settlements and under colonial rule. The origin of the provisions of section 377A stretched even further back to the Victorian times in the 1860s.

Looking at the recent developments in other jurisdictions like India, India's Supreme Court struck down part of the section 377 of their Indian Penal Code, which also criminalised gay sex. It went further to redefine marriage and familial relationships. As recent as in August this year, India's Supreme Court widened the definition of the family institution and ruled that familial relationships, "can also take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships and queer relationships."

To me, what happened in India gives a glimpse of the implications on societal norms when the judiciary branch of the government, which is the courts, instead of the legislative branch of the government, which is the parliament, began to interpret what are social norms, because the legislative branch, that is, the Parliament, avoided dealing with the matter.

As such, I think it is right for this Parliament of Singapore to debate and decide on the risks posed by recent constitutional challenges that our Court is also facing in terms of section 377A in our Penal Code, with the most recent one in just February this year in the case of Tan Seng Kee vs Attorney-General.

As I am not a trained lawyer, I will not dwell further into the legality of this case, which Minister Shanmugam has also explained yesterday. Suffice to say that I am of the view that this Parliament has the duty to set in place constitutional amendments to clarify our definitions of marriage and family.

In this regard, I have also taken careful note, as a community leader, of the wider views, especially among our younger generation, whose views must also be valued. I will not repeat the studies and surveys that several of my fellow hon Parliamentarians have mentioned about the attitudes towards the repeal of section 377A among our younger generation.

I will share that, in a Youth Network dialogue session, which I attended shortly after the National Day Rally this year, almost the full hall of youth audience between the ages of 15 and 35, raised their hands in support of the repeal of section 377A. On further dialogue, I learned that most youths are of the view that a law that will not be enforced is better off removed. I understand the views of the youths.

But what touched me most in that session were a few young adults, who shared that they regretted being too quick to judge and being insensitive in their teenage years when some peers struggled with their sexual identity in their puberty years. With more maturity now, they felt that they could have been more supportive. One even contacted me for opportunities in social service agencies to serve as a counsellor for the homosexual individuals who may be in need, like how we would have helped any other individuals who are in need in Singapore.

As a trusted friend of a few homosexual individuals, some of whom I have known since school days, I have heard their stories of life's challenges, of loss and of regaining of hopes. What they taught me as a friend is the need for human kindness, compassion and love to prevail over judgement and stigmatisation.

As we propose the repeal of section 377A in our Penal Code and amend our Constitution for the Parliament of the day to be able to reflect our majority electorate's values on the definition of families in Singapore, let us do so with always a care for our fellow Singaporeans at heart, no matter how diverse we are.

Mr Speaker, I struggled with my speech for many months, like many hon Parliamentarians who have spoken out in these two days of Debate. In the end, it was the reconciliation of my mind, of the duty I have as a Parliamentarian, and my heart, which holds respect and care for people, that I accept the need for the repeal and the important amendments to our Constitution, which will leave space for us as a people to continue to forge understanding, reconciliation and a future together.

Mr 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 Appeal's ruling on the constitutional challenge to section 377A of the Penal Code since it was last debated in 2007.

Given proactive steps taken by the Government on stakeholder engagements, including the Minister's explanation yesterday on the historical context of relevant laws, I fully understand the implications 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 impact on 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 Minister Masagos and Minister Shanmugam spoke of the perils of court-led decisions, where the US Supreme Court controversially reversed 50 years of federal abortion rights. The US media 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 with 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 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 for 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 Constitution (Amendment) Bill, which safeguards the definition of marriage without tying the hands of future generations, is a balanced approach to allow the Government of the day to consider prevailing societal attitudes.

On this premise, my community at Nee Soon welcomes Prime Minister Lee and Deputy Prime Minister Wong's assurance that the definition of marriage will not change under their watch and the PAP Government's stance on 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.

Sir, as we debate the repeal of section 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 for the repeal of section 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 the 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.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, with regards to section 377A, over the past few months, we have held discussions with grassroots leaders, residents and religious groups at some of our activities in Nee Soon. I have covered their questions in my English speech and look forward to the answers.

More importantly, from the national conversations, we can see that Singapore has gained maturity to discuss sensitive issues and find a balance. I think this is the unique Singapore spirit. I hope that we can continue to seek common ground while preserving differences and make better decisions for our society.

(In English): 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 and 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 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 support in support of these two Bills.

Miss Rachel Ong.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The announcement of the repeal of section 377A has elicited much response from the ground. Many in this House shared and agreed that this has been a divisive topic. Over the past four months, I have received emails and messages, met in person with residents and members of the public across age groups who are supportive as well as those who are against the repeal.

While most have been respectful in sharing their opinions, I have come to learn of the hostilities some groups carried against those who do not share their views. The vitriol in some manners of speech is of concern to me.

Singapore understands the value of diplomacy and keeping peace with other nations. We do not have the option of being careless with our words or relationships. Diplomacy has been and continues to be key to our progress.

However, it would be futile to work hard on external relationships if our internal relations are weak. A House divided against itself will not stand. Singapore cannot afford a society fractured by toxicity, with one group severing ties with the other simply because we hold different values and opinions.

As Singapore progresses and continues to expose ourselves to global issues and movements, there will only be more opportunities for diverging options to arise in our society. We must ready ourselves. We must work towards a society that can hold difficult conversations where we make room for disagreements and do not force people into a corner of hate. We need to allow many rooms for disagreement but not disharmony.