K Shanmugam
Singapore
“Bank accounts are frozen when there is reason to suspect that the bank accounts are involved in illicit activities, including money laundering activities.”
“The Singapore Police Force does not track the requested data. Distinguishing artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content typically requires more detailed forensic examination which may not be necessary in every investigation and may also not be conclusive as to whether AI-generative tools were used.”
“The Building and Construction Authority’s Code on Accessibility provides baseline requirements for accessible and inclusive buildings. It stipulates a minimum width of 1.5 metres or 1.8 metres for primary accessible routes, depending on the building type.”
“The Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Driving Licence) Rules under the Road Traffic Act set out the scope of the medical assessment required for motorists aged 65 and above who wish to retain their driving licences.”
“When a Police report has been made, the Police will investigate to determine if a criminal offence has been committed. If there is reasonable suspicion that a case is scam-related, the Police can direct online service providers to restrict Singapore users' access to the relevant online activity under the Online Criminal Harms Act.”
“Through intelligence sharing and coordinated enforcement actions, the cross-border operation disrupted a transnational drug trafficking syndicate and downstream drug trafficking activities, with the UK arresting seven persons so far and further investigations underway.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,552 lines we hold for K Shanmugam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 25 of 92.
“My Ministry has been working on improving various aspects of the civil enforcement framework. Most recently, the Rules of Court 2021, which came into operation on 1 April 2022, simplified the process which applies to the enforcement of civil judgments and orders. For example, where the judgment debt is not satisfied, the party seeking to enforce the order or judgment may now make a single application requesting one or more methods of enforcement. Previously, separate applications were required for different methods of enforcement. We are currently working with MSF on a joint Bill to introduce enhancements to the maintenance enforcement regime. These enhancements are intended to make the enforcement of maintenance orders more efficient and effective, and to minimise repeat enforcement. We are also working with the Courts to study possible changes to make the enforcement of civil judgments more effective, efficient and simpler. These include the introduction of new powers to punish and deter non-compliance with Court orders in respect of both monetary and non-monetary judgments, and enhanced powers to track and trace the assets of the judgment debtor where the debtor fails to comply with the Court order. We are engaging stakeholders and refining our proposals based on their feedback. We will announce more details at a later date.”
“Now, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."”
“Thank you. Mr Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that clarification. And so, I stand by everything I have said earlier, which is based on an accurate understanding of what Mr Singh had said. Sir, I think I am not seeing many people wanting to speak.”
“If needed, I can read out other paragraphs, but I think I am just reading out what he said.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." I suppose I should read out yesterday's speech. Sir, the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill will repeal section 377A of the Penal Code. As Members know, it criminalises acts of gross indecency between males, whether in public or private. This Bill is linked to the previous Bill in our Order Paper, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 3) Bill. In the debate we have just had on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, I have explained the reasons for repealing section 377A. Members have already raised their questions and expressed their views on both Bills during the earlier debate, although they are still welcome to do so now if there are any additional questions or views. Before I sit down, Sir, I have gotten the transcript of what Mr Pritam Singh said yesterday. I think I should read it and put it on record. He said, "The People's Action Party has announced that it is not lifting the whip for this debate. Given the very public opinion on the impending repeal of section 377A, there is a risk that the democratic value of the Parliament could be diluted if the views of Singaporeans on the subject are not adequately ventilated in the House." That is the point I was responding to and that is simply untrue. It is inaccurate. It does not do this House any credit because you are entitled to ventilate your views, we have always been ventilating our views and it should not be thought of in public that if the whip is imposed, you cannot ventilate your views. Mr Singh also explained that the Workers' Party will be lifting the whip and he was not talking about some years ago; he was talking about this debate.”
“They will decide on the question presented to them and strike out if they think it should be struck out. Where does that leave society? So, this is not a case of, "Are we avoiding the supervisory jurisdiction of the Courts?" It has been explained. I believe the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans support us on this constitutional amendment. 5.44 pm”
“", I think it would be either a stupid lawyer or a foolish lawyer who will say there is no risk. If you accept that there is a risk, then, what do you do? What do we do as Parliamentarians? I think the answer is clear. Third, do I accept that the Courts have a constitutional role? Of course, I accept that. But I think if the question goes towards why do we then say that the Courts should not look at the definition of marriage, I think I have given a very extensive answer. What should count as marriage should be decided here. The Courts can only make binary decisions. We should discuss it, we should decide it and we should take into account what society is ready for and what society needs and what strengthens society. Even if we take a view which is different from the majority view, then it is our duty to go and convince society as to why we are taking that view. We can do all of those things; the Courts cannot do those things. That is why we have decided there is this risk that the definition of marriage could be challenged and we have decided that is a matter for Parliament. We are not providing for a supermajority. So, any elected Government, by a simple majority, can decide on what a marriage ought to be like. That is democracy. That is how democracy ought to work. No Court can do what we did yesterday and today, which is to consider repealing section 377A, but at the same time, strengthening the institution of marriage and explaining the reasons, having it fully discussed, going out to the public and explaining – that is what is necessary. We believe that a future discussion would require these sorts of discussions and it may require changes to more than one piece of legislation. How does the Court do that?”
“It is not a game. You do not take chances. You do not take fine legal analysis. Fine legal analysis is necessary to identify whether there is a risk. Once you identify there is a risk, you then do not go and take chances. So, if one were to ask, "Is the risk to the heterosexual definition of marriage less than the risk to section 377A?", the answer is yes. But that does not lead to, "Well, we do not have to do anything about it". If there is a risk to something as fundamental as marriage, you act – or at least this Government acts. Second, do I not believe that the Government can convince the Court that providing for a heterosexual definition of marriage, we can tell the Court it is reasonable to say it should be between a man and a woman. Well, you have seen the arguments elsewhere. You have seen the social policy changes in the United Kingdom, from which many of our laws come. Of course, there, the laws have been changed through parliament, but there are many countries where the laws have been changed through the courts. I, for one, while I believe that our Courts have always taken the approach, the three great branches of the state, as I said yesterday – the Courts, the Judiciary, Parliament and the Executive – the system has worked well because each has respected the sphere of the other and our Judiciary is independent. If I were asked, I would say there is a reasonably good likelihood that we will be able to persuade the Court today that there is a basis for making a distinction between same-sex marriages and heterosexual marriages, and that the current definition of marriage in the Woman's Charter should be maintained. But if I were asked a different question, "Is there a risk that it could be struck out?”
“So, three questions. One, whether I agree that while there is a more immediate risk on section 377A, that those concerns do not quite apply to the current definition of marriage. No, I do not quite agree. I think what we can see and what we need to take reference from is what has happened elsewhere. We agree that there is a significant risk to section 377A. There, all of us are agreed. What is the Government's concern about the current definition of marriage? If you look at what has happened in India. The courts first said that their version, their section 377 was not unconstitutional. And then, within a few years, they said – well, it is unconstitutional. And now, earlier this year, they have said – the definition of marriage should be broader than a purely heterosexual marriage. This is a similar system and similar broad common law principles. One can say and one can discern that there are different approaches that the Singapore Courts take vis-à-vis the Indian courts. But I think if you were to look at it as a lawyer, legal analysis and, particularly, if you are charged with a heavy responsibility to make sure that Singapore is looked after properly and that you care for Singapore and that your concern is for the well-being of Singaporeans, then you will not take these risks. You will think them through, whether it is immediate or perhaps it is in the mid-term. If you think that there is a risk, then our duty is to go out there, explain the risks and then say how we would seek to put the laws in place to protect society, protect marriage, protect the institution of marriage and the structure of marriage, so that our society, successful as it has been, can continue to be successful, and so that the fundamental values of Singaporeans can be protected.”
“Can the Member clarify or repeat the third clarification, please? I did not quite get that.”
“It appears to me that, as usual, Mr Singh wants to move the goalpost and start an entirely new debate about who can and who will stand for elections. I am not the Prime Minister or the Secretary-General of the party, but my personal view is that anyone who is not a criminal and who is of good character and of sound mind and who can work for the residents ought to be able to stand for elections. In all of this, in a democracy, it also depends on how people are perceived and accepted in society. All of these are relevant considerations. One has got to look at individual candidates. But Mr Singh started out by talking about paedophilia. I am sure the records, the Hansard, will show that. And that is why I answered. Because I was shocked that he would even ask that question.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope we do not have to go into an extended discussion on this. Mr Singh started out the second question by saying that paedophilia was talked about. Let me make it clear to him. If there is a candidate who is standing for elections, whether for the PAP – and I hope the PAP will never field such a candidate – or for the Workers' Party or SDP. And if there is a suggestion of paedophilia, I will certainly speak about it and I am sure all right-thinking Singaporeans will speak about it and will say it is not acceptable. So, I do not quite know the precise context. But as I said in my speech, sexual offences against minors continue to remain serious offences and we take a very serious view. I hope Mr Singh is not suggesting that paedophiles stand for elections and we do not need to talk about it. As to whether there are broader innuendoes, I think let us get to the point, Mr Singh. As the Workers' Party trooped into Parliament yesterday, there was one point. And that point is: Mr Singh, Sir, as Leader of the Opposition, was not prepared for his party to take a position. That is what we are talking about; not about an election held in 2011. We are talking about 2022. What is our position on section 377A? And whether we come here prepared to take a position or we are abdicating. I think I have made my points. We leave it to Singaporeans to judge.”
“I think Mr Singh mentioned paedophilia. Again, I do not recall the facts. So, I can only answer in hypotheticals. I think if a paedophile was standing for elections, I am surprised Mr Singh would advocate that cause. Thank you, Sir.”
“But where it is purely matters of conscience and you do not quite see such a significant issue for society as a whole, where the very institution of marriage, all your housing policies and your education policies and your rules on the structure and basic content of society can change overnight and where societies get rent asunder by cultural wars, those are the risks we are talking about. Do we duck and say, "Well, you know, we do not have a position"? You are leaving it to the Courts. Abortion is quite different in that it was a matter of individual conscience, at least at that point in time. I think, today, the issue is well settled in Singapore at least, unlike in some other countries. But at that time, it was a matter that raised very serious personal concerns. People would know the arguments. And, Ireland, much more recently. I was not in the House at that point in time and I do not think we should draw conclusions from the fact that one or another Member was present or was not present. But I would be careful if I were Mr Singh to bring Mr Lee Kuan Yew into this and suggest that he had somehow acted dishonourably. If Mr Singh can remind me of his second question?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mr Singh mentioned democracy. He said that in the pursuit of democracy, he will lift the whip. If he now says that is not so, then he can state that for the record. He said, "We are more democratic, we lift the whip". And I just wanted to point out, let us just be accurate. People can speak their minds even with the whip imposed. And when Mr Singh says the whip will not be imposed on his MPs, he is referring to voting positions. He is referring to a party position, that when he came into the Chamber here yesterday, the party did not have a position. That is what we are talking about. And his MPs spoke on both sides; the party did not have a position. It is not a question of totalling up the numbers at the end of the day. It is a question of coming upfront and saying, "This is our position as a party even though individuals have their different views and they will speak about them". That is the point I was addressing. When will a whip be lifted and when will a whip not be lifted? I made it clear in this case, why is the whip being imposed. It is because it is a policy question with serious consequences for Singaporeans. If we do not repeal section 377A, then we are saying we will not do what we have to do and we will pass on the buck to the Courts. That is an abdication of responsibility as Parliamentarians. In such a situation, lifting the whip is not acceptable for the PAP because societal interests are at stake.”
“As I say this, Sir, let me tell Members, the issue of conscience which is real, is quite different from the issue of policy. I have focused on the policy issue. And I think it is not too much to ask that a clear stand be taken on policy issues. Let me end by quoting Winston Churchill: “They are decided only to be undecided, resolved only to be irresolute.” Sir, this Government has consulted widely and has come to a position. We believe that our policy offers a way forward. It balances the different views, maintains our social cohesion, keeps us together. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong have stated clearly that they will maintain this position. On this difficult matter, we will do our duty and take responsibility for holding society together. [Applause].”
“Given that, then what does the WP has a party propose, if you do not want to repeal section 377A and also do not want to support strengthening marriage which we have proposed? The position with section 377A is like a train approaching. The question is whether we have the courage to act or rather dive for cover to protect yourselves and leave society to face the train wreck. I emphasised this quite strongly yesterday. Given the risks, we have a responsibility to do our duty as Parliamentarians, to take a position, to deal squarely with the problem and not abdicate our duty. To say the party has no position allows the WP MPs to make speeches supporting all sides without having to make a decision and be held responsible for that decision. That is not true democracy. It is better described as wanting to speak without taking responsibility. In the context of our debate, their position will mean that they would leave the decision to the Courts and let Singaporeans face the negative consequences, including perpetuating differences and polarising our society further; if we leave this matter to the Courts, because the Courts can only make binary decisions, as we have seen happen elsewhere. If the WP truly believes that these sensitive matters ought to be decided by the Court, never mind the consequences, including further dividing us in endless rounds of litigation, then they should be honest and say so in this House. The only reason we can have a decision in Parliament is because the PAP has its whip in place. When you stand up and speak at length about the pain and suffering of the LGBT community, then I think one can ask, “Why don’t you take a clear stand and support the repeal?” Or if you believe otherwise, take a stand, oppose the repeal, as a party.”
“In my remarks yesterday, I reminded Members there are two reasons for repealing section 377A. First, it is the right thing to do because there are no public concerns that justify private consensual sex between men being a crime. Some disagree with that. They think that the law should be retained as a matter of conscience. I mentioned yesterday that I accept that. We understand and respect these views. These are seriously held views by honest, sincere people, including in this House. They have thought about it, have decided that for reasons of conscience and often of personal faith they cannot agree to the repeal. But I also outlined a second reason to repeal section 377A – the significant legal risk of it being struck down by the Courts if we were to leave section 377A alone and the significant negative and disruptive consequences for Singaporeans and Singapore if that were to happen. That is a policy question – a question that requires us to consider what is in Singapore's interests. From the debate, the following points are clear and are not in question, and the WP does not question them. One, section 377A is at risk of being struck out for being unconstitutional. Two, if section 377A is struck out, then, there is a further risk that the definition of marriage could be challenged as well. Three, and that then means that there are risks that our housing, education, media content policies and multiple other policies could all be challenged. No one has questioned these risks in this House. The WP understands this; there are four lawyers among them in this House, including Ms Lim who has agreed that the legal risks with section 377A, exist.”
“The WP MPs could have made all the speeches they made, even with the whip in place. MPs are always entitled to state their honest views. They can agree. They can disagree. They can say what they think. You can express your views, whatever they are, without having to lift the whip. I repeat that. The whip does not, and has not, prevented MPs from speaking their minds. MPs have always been free to express what they and their constituents think. The whip is relevant for voting, not speaking; and the whip sets out the party's position. In moving the Bills, Minister Masagos and I took pains to lay out both sides of the issue. The PAP MPs speaking on the issue, too, have reflected the concerns, the fears and pain of the many individuals they have spoken with. These include views of Singaporeans from different religious groups, LGBT groups and others. So, do not be mistaken. Views on all sides can, have been and must be fully ventilated and they have been ventilated by PAP MPs. As I said earlier, the whip is imposed to set out the party's position as a whole. In our Westminster parliamentary system, parties must have a view on the important questions that come before the Parliament. They need to be honest in this House, say what they think is good for Singapore and be accountable to the electorate for their decisions. The real point is that the Workers' Party as a party does not want to take a stand on this matter. It does not want to be seen as supporting the repeal. At the same time, it also does not want to be seen as opposing the repeal. That way, it hopes to be all things to all men, and not too much of anything to anyone. Members may know the second line was said in respect of a well-known person.”
“This, then, is the choice before the House today – whether we decide to have the certainty that the Parliament will decide on issues of marriage or whether we want to leave this to the Courts and live with the potential threat of unconstitutionality and have that change imposed on our society, as has happened in other countries. Let me now turn to the Workers' Party's position on section 377A. Mr Pritam Singh, as Leader of the Opposition, says that the Workers' Party does not take a position on the matter. Thus, as a party, the Workers' Party has no official position. It does not support the repeal of section 377A. It does not quite oppose it either. It also does not support the constitutional amendments to protect marriage. From their speeches, Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Sylvia Lim, for example, support the repeal. While Mr Singh supports the constitutional amendments, Ms Lim and Ms He Ting Ru do not support the constitutional amendments. Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Gerald Giam are against the repeal but support the constitutional amendments. Mr Leon Perera is for the repeal, somewhat more enthusiastically than his Leader, and as for the constitutional amendments, he takes a divergent position from his Chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim. So, the Workers' Party had a debate among themselves. They debated and discussed but did not decide on a party position. The question is – if this is how one decides, how will such a team function if they are in charge? Mr Pritam Singh said his lifting the whip on Workers' Party Members of Parliament (MPs) was democratic so as to allow for a full and honest representation of all views. This explanation is factually untrue. Every Member of Parliament must know that. So, it does no credit to this House to say these things.”
“We do not believe that the Government's policies and laws are in breach of Article 13 or for that matter any other Article in the Constitution, but Members can see that creative arguments can be made. So, if you want to clear that we want to protect marriage and keep it within the province of the Parliament, then you need to make sure that your drafting is accurate. That is why we have had to draft Article 156 in the way it has been worded. In the case of executive actions, common law judicial review under administrative law principles will generally still apply. The application of those principles must, however, take Article 156 into account. For example, with Article 156, acting to promote marriage would not be an unlawful purpose or an irrelevant consideration. But otherwise, administrative law principles can and will still apply. Ms Lim and Ms He Ting Ru say that judicial review under Part 4 should be fully available without restriction. Article 156 takes two specific issues out from the Courts' province and keeps them entirely within the province of the elected branches: (a) the heterosexual definition of marriage and (b) the ability of the Parliament and Government to make laws and policies based on this definition. The Government believes that this is necessary for the reasons I have explained. Parliament and the elected Government should deal with these questions and try and strike the right balance on these complex and delicate social issues. Ms Lim and Ms He's position would mean that they accept that the Courts can strike down the heterosexual definition of marriage or to curtail the ability of the Parliament and Government to make laws and policies based on this definition and for society to live with the consequences after that.”
“Because if you look at Articles 156(3)(b) and (4), the operating provisions, they protect the ability of the Parliament and the Government to make the laws and policies. The protection, the shield is strong, but what is shielded, we have sought to make it quite precise. If the Government tries to give benefits to married couples, for example, say, with the surname Tan, Article 156 will only protect the part of the policy that relates to married couples. The Government will still have to justify why giving benefits to only people with a certain surname is a relevant consideration. I think lawyers will understand; it will not be accepted as a relevant consideration. Nor will the Government be able to take measures that are absolutely prohibited under Part 4, for example, slavery. If such a measure is taken, the challenge will not be that it is based on the heterosexual definition of marriage or some other basis, it will be that these measures are not allowed on any basis. To directly answer Mr Murali Pillai – no, Article 156 does not enable the Government to banish anyone as the term is conventionally understood today. Why do I say that? Let me give an example. It will be a nice constitutional question if, for example, a same-sex couple were to argue that since Singapore does not recognise same-sex marriages, they had no choice but to emigrate and that is effectively a banishment, and that this Government's policy in not recognising same-sex marriages is therefore in breach of Article 13, which precludes banishment. So, you can see that a careful person will want to think about the different possibilities of arguments and then make sure that the drafting covers the different possibilities.”
“With section 377A, we have seen how the arguments in our Courts progressed from equal protection under Article 12 to asserting that sexual conduct is a form of liberty protected by Article 9 or a form of expression protected by Article 14. Some of these alternative arguments have been accepted by courts in other countries. It is possible that additional creative arguments could be made about the heterosexual definition of marriage. For example, could marriage be a form of association that is protected by Article 14? Members may think it is a little outside of the orthodox interpretation today, but can you rule it out? Thus, if we want to properly protect the heterosexual definition of marriage from Court challenge, we have to exclude the whole of Part 4. But it is not a carte blanche. What is protected is quite precise. It is the heterosexual definition of marriage. That is because just as we have been clear about repealing section 377A – we took a clear position – we are equally clear; this Government is very clear – that we will protect the heterosexual marriage as a key institution in our society. That is why the Constitution is being amended. But let me digress and say, as we say all this, as we listen to the speeches by Members on families, let us also not forget, let us also acknowledge that LGBT persons also have and come from families. They have parents, siblings, grandparents, nieces, nephews, aunties, uncles, close friends and much more. So, families are not exclusive to non-LGBT persons. Let us remember and acknowledge that these things are not binary. Back to Article 156. If the Parliament tries to enact, say, for example, apartheid marriage laws or impose other outlandish definitions of marriage, those laws would not be protected.”
“To put it another way, the fact that the Parliament can pass laws and that Article 38 gives that power, does not automatically mean that all such laws cannot be challenged. They can be challenged, for example, if they are contrary to the Constitution. Article 156 is structured to give effect to and protect laws and policies based on the heterosexual definition of marriage. So, Articles 156(1) and (2) have been drafted in to give effect to this principle, to protect the laws and policies, based on that definition and to make it clear that passing laws and having policies based on the current definition of marriage are constitutionally valid. They give context to Articles 156(3) and (4). We have been advised by AGC that Articles 156(1) and (2) could be relevant if there are questions raised as to whether regulating marriage and so on are constitutionally valid purposes and considerations for action by the legislature and Government. Thus, Articles 156(1) and (2) have been enacted to make it clear that the legislature can exercise its legislative power to define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote marriage. Similarly, the Government and public bodies can exercise their executive authority to achieve these ends. Mr Murali Pillai asked why is it necessary for Articles 156(3) and (4) to exclude the whole of Part 4 instead of just a few Articles. Let us look at Article 156(3)(a) first. This protects the heterosexual definition of marriage itself from invalidation by Part 4. We need to exclude the whole of Part 4 because we cannot predict what possible arguments might be made against this definition in the future.”
“We do take a serious view of them. Criminal records for offences are dealt with under the framework in the Registration of Criminals Act. And within that framework, people can apply to have their convictions rendered spent. Some of these offences have become automatically spent. Automatic expiry takes place after a period of time for specific offences and where the criteria are met. Persons who are disqualified from having their conviction automatically spent, can apply to the Police for the record to be considered spent or rendered spent. But where egregious acts were committed, like non-consensual acts or sexual acts against minors, the records are unlikely to be treated as spent. There are a small number of individuals who were convicted between 1988 and 2007 for consensual, private, homosexual acts, between adults. I have instructed my Ministry to consider how the records of these persons can be rendered spent proactively. Mr Lim Biow Chuan said that he hopes that the Government will not allow individuals to remove their registered sex from their NRIC or passport. The short answer is that there is no such plan. Ms Sylvia Lim suggested that there is no real need for Article 156(1) and (2) since the Constitution already vests legislative power in the legislature and the executive authority in the Government. Let me explain. It is a fairly basic point. Let us take section 377A as an example. It is a law made in the exercise of legislative power by the Parliament. Section 377A has been challenged as being in breach of the Constitution. Ms Lim agrees that section 377A could be unconstitutional. The presence of Article 38 in the Constitution will not help if section 377A is in fact unconstitutional.”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who have spoken up in support of the Bills. Most have expressed support for the repeal of section 377A. I will deal with questions raised by Members on: (a) our approach towards cancel culture; (b) past section 377A convictions; (c) keeping sex identification in NRICs and passports; (d) Article 156; and one or two other issues. Mr Zhulkarnain asked for any update on the Government’s plans to deal with "cancel culture" and whether there will be any consultation and feedback process. My Ministry – MinLaw – is looking at measures to deal with the harm caused by cancel campaigns online. People really ought to be free to stand by their beliefs and express their views, with due respect for the feelings of others without fearing being "cancelled". Many religious groups and organisations, in particular, are very concerned about this. Many church groups have spoken with us. Their experience is that when they express their views, they are shouted down and they feel bullied. Children in schools also feel this. This is not right. I have said that we will try and do something about this. We are studying the matter. We are consulting different groups as part of our review. We want to try and strike the right balance. It is not an easy area to deal with or legislate on. We will give more details when we get a sense of what is doable. Mr Louis Ng asked whether there are any individuals with existing conviction records under section 377A and how these records will be dealt with. There are some individuals with convictions under 377A. Most of these cases involved non-consenting victims or acts against minors, or sexual acts committed in public. These acts continue to be offences, even after any repeal of section 377A.”
“MHA has, indeed, observed an increase in illegal football betting during major international football tournaments, including the World Cup. In anticipation of this, the Police have stepped up enforcement efforts during this World Cup 2022 period. The Police are also working with various stakeholders to disable telephone lines that are reported to be used for advertising illegal gambling activities, block access to illegal gambling content and websites, as well as close bank accounts involved with illegal gambling activities. The National Crime Prevention Council has launched a campaign to warn the public about the risks of betting with illegal operators. In addition, the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) has launched a new campaign to caution the public on excessive football betting. The NCPG video is screened before and during football matches on television. There will also be advertisements on radio, newspaper and social media platforms. Ultimately, however, individuals must exercise personal responsibility. Family members and friends should also look out for people close to them who may be affected by problem gambling and encourage them to seek help by calling the NCPG Helpline (1800-6-668-668) or Webchat (www.ncpg.org.sg).”
“MSF will also continue to raise public awareness on family violence through the Break the Silence campaign and providing Family and Domestic Violence Awareness Training to more stakeholders across the public, private and people sectors. We urge anyone who suspects or witnesses family violence to call the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline (NAVH) at 1800-777-0000.”
“The Police collaborate with community partners and strategic stakeholders to support victims of sexual crime and family violence. For example, the Police are working with SG Her Empowerment Limited (SHE) to improve the reporting experience for victims. As of October 2022, 167 volunteers have been appointed under the Victim Care Cadre Programme (VCCP). Police can activate these volunteers, with the consent of the victim, to provide emotional support throughout the course of investigations. The Police also work with the Family Violence Specialist Centres (FVSCs), which provide support to victims of any form of violence, including sexual violence. Since July 2022, the Police have deployed Family Violence Community Police Officers in all Neighbourhood Police Centres. These officers manage family violence cases and escalate high-risk cases to social service agencies to enable early upstream intervention. The Police Training Workgroup (PTWG) was set up by the Police and MSF in June 2021 to enhance training for frontline Police Officers in managing victims of family violence, as recommended by the Taskforce on Family Violence. Members of PTWG come from diverse backgrounds, such as Family Service Centres, the Singapore Council of Women's Organisations, crisis shelters and the Family Justice Court. The workgroup has tapped on the members' professional and practical experiences to develop a scenario-based training package for the officers. The Family Violence Working Groups (FVWGs), comprising community and Government agencies, was set up in March 2021 to raise awareness of family violence and ensure that victims have access to help.”
“The Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) has been working with its partners to educate the public, especially youths, on the harms of cannabis. It regularly publishes explainer videos, news stories and other resources on its website and social media platforms. These materials are also made available to persons in positions of influence over youths, such as parents, counsellors, educators, community leaders and National Service commanders. CNB will be increasing its collaboration with the education sector to better engage students on drug matters. To ensure that its materials are relatable to youths, CNB works with youth advocates, such as students from Institutes of Higher Learning, on projects, such as campus-based exhibitions and outreach campaigns, including correcting misinformation about "medical cannabis" and the nature of cannabis addiction, and to encourage students to take a strong stand against drugs. At the same time, CNB will continue with its enforcement efforts, including cracking down on Telegram channels facilitating drug transactions.”
“The cultivation of the cannabis plant in Singapore is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The possession of any part of the cannabis plant, including the whole plant and its seeds, is also an offence. The Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) works with agencies, such as the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and Singapore Customs, to detect and prevent the importation of cannabis. CNB also takes enforcement action against persons found to be cultivating cannabis in Singapore.”
“The Police do not track the number of such requests. The breach of such Court orders, by itself, does not constitute a criminal offence. When such requests for help are received, Police will assess based on the facts and circumstances of each case. For situations where criminal offences are disclosed, Police will investigate accordingly.”
“Between 2017 and 2021, about 19 persons under the age of 18 were arrested and investigated for drug trafficking every year. Of these, about 27% were under 16 years old and about 2% were under 14. Between 2017 and 2021, about four persons under the age of 18 were charged and found guilty of drug trafficking every year. Of these, about 21% were under 16 and none was under 14. The Government has taken several measures to try to protect the young from being recruited into drug-related crime or exposed to a drug culture. We strengthened our laws in this regard. In 2013, we increased the punishment for adult traffickers who traffic a Class A controlled drug to a person below the age of 21. We also introduced a new offence for an adult who causes or procures any young person or vulnerable person to traffic or import drugs. In 2019, we made it an offence for an adult to permit, or not take reasonable steps to prevent, a young person below 16 years of age from consuming illicit drugs in the adult’s possession. Second, the Central Narcotics Bureau, or CNB, works with its partners to educate the young on the harms of drugs. CNB engages students from Primary and Secondary schools and Institutes of Higher Learning through a range of activities, such as talks and sharing sessions, pre-overseas exchange briefings, and skits. CNB also provides informational resources to persons in positions of influence over young persons, such as parents, counsellors, National Service commanders and educators, with tips on how to spot possible drug abuse and where to seek help for their children or wards.”
“MHA periodically reviews the spent regime for criminal records. In our last review in 2021, MHA assessed that the existing regime and criteria continue to be appropriate to facilitate the reintegration of ex-offenders, in particular, those who committed minor crimes. We have other measures to facilitate their re-integration into society. For example, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) provides a range of rehabilitation programmes for inmates during incarceration. These programmes may include psychology-based correctional programmes, family programmes, education programmes and religious programmes. SPS also works with Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG) to provide industry-relevant skills training to enhance inmates’ employability, employment assistance to help inmates secure jobs prior to release, and career retention support to ex-offenders in their transition from prison to the national workforce.”
“Between 2019 and 2021, 16% of fatal accidents, and 16% of accidents with injuries, involved vehicle drivers and motorcycle riders aged 65 or older. This proportion has remained stable over the recent years. Amongst these accidents, 69% involved motor cars, 17% involved motorcycles, and 14% involved other vehicles, such as heavy vehicles. The current licence revalidation regime strikes a balance between road safety and providing senior citizens the convenience of driving and, for some, they require a licence for their livelihood as well. At this point, given that there is no deterioration in the road traffic situation due to elderly motorists, we do not see a need to shorten the current licence revalidation cycle for them. The Ministry will continue to monitor the situation and review as necessary.”
“There were 5,190 Police reports on family violence in 2021, a slight increase from 5,134 in 2020. From January to June 2022, the number of Police reports on family violence was 2,603. There were 2,638 cases in the same period in 2021. The Police started to track such reports in 2020 to assist the Taskforce on Family Violence to better understand the situation and develop recommendations to tackle family violence. The Police work with social service agencies to support victims. Victims are referred to the nearest Family Service Centre or the Family Violence Specialist Centre if they request for assistance, and to one of the four crisis shelters funded by MSF if they request for shelter. The Police will also assess the risk of victims encountering further family violence and refer those assessed to be at higher risk to social service agencies. Where appropriate, the Police will encourage the victim to apply for a Personal Protection Order or an Expedited Order from the Courts, to better protect himself or herself from the perpetrator. If the perpetrator breaches such orders, he or she may be arrested by the Police. To provide emotional support to victims throughout the course of investigations, Police can activate volunteers under the Victim Care Cadre Programme (VCCP), with the consent of the victim. As of October 2022, 167 volunteers have been appointed under VCCP. Since the programme started in 2014, more than 490 victims of sexual crime and family violence have requested for such support. Victim care officers can be activated to attend to the victim on an urgent basis. Alternatively, an appointment can be scheduled based on the victim’s preferred time and date.”
“And the law here and the legal consequences here, go beyond matters of conscience. This is like a train approaching. The question is: are we prepared to take the appropriate steps to save and safeguard what is important for our society, whether we have the courage of our conviction, which should be to do what is good for Singapore? So, Mr Speaker, I say to all Members, let us do what is right, do our duty, what is expected of us in Parliament and take a path forward on this difficult issue. [Applause.]”
“One, we should do so because there are no public order issues that are raised from such conduct. So, it should not remain criminal. But I accept that Members of Parliament (MPs) and others may disagree with that, that even though there are no public order issues, they may feel that there are other reasons for keeping the law. And I accept that people can and do legitimately have such views and it is reasonable to hold such views. But the second reason I have given, the legal consequences, that is not a matter of conscience. It is a policy question. It requires each of us to think carefully and apply our minds. The second question is a matter of considering the consequences for Singapore, given that there is a clear legal risk that section 377A could be struck down and given that, having heard me, you know what the consequential legal risks are. In fact, this has been talked about in public – what the consequential legal risks are to the heterosexual family, housing, education, other policies, that they could all be at risk. Knowing all these risks and refusing to take a position or be clear in how we will deal with it, is avoiding our responsibilities as MPs, basically, passing it on to the Courts. It is easier politically, but it is also worse for Singapore and Singaporeans. And, to put it bluntly, that will be an abdication of duty and it will be cynical if we, as MPs, did that, because we would be putting, if we take this as a deliberate decision, political capital over doing what is good for Singaporeans. So, Mr Speaker, I believe that, in this House, if we proceed in good faith, there are matters of conscience. But ultimately, there is also the question of what is in Singapore's interest and what is in the interest of Singaporeans.”
“The Courts cannot consider competing social norms and social consequences of their decisions. If they strike down section 377A, they will do so without being able to consider the consequential effects of that decision on the definition of marriage, for example. Whereas, in Parliament, we are now proposing amendments to the Constitution to further protect heterosexual marriage. Going further, if the definition of marriage is changed through a Court challenge, there can be a cascading effect. It could impact questions relating to same-sex marriage, media content, housing policies and various other policies. Housing policies can be challenged. It could be asked: why should we only give housing benefits to heterosexual married couples? It could be argued that that is unequal under Article 12. Media content rules could be challenged. Why should we impose higher ratings for content on movies and Netflix that depict same-sex family units? It could be argued that this curtails some producers' freedom of expression under Article 9. Such changes through the Court are not in our interests. If we want to act in the best interests of Singapore, then, we have to move on this, given the legal analysis. We can look at the United States to see how Court decisions on such issues can seriously affect the fabric of society, divide the society, unleash partisan views on both sides of the divide. If we have that in Singapore, our social fabric will fray. If the Government and Parliament do not take responsibility and, instead, stand by and do nothing, then, litigation could change our societal norms very quickly. I want to emphasise this. I have given two reasons for proposing the repeal of section 377A.”
“But if Parliament does not do its duty, if Parliament does not deal with the law which is likely unconstitutional, then, you may leave the Courts with no choice. If Parliament does not do what it has to do, then the Courts will have to do what they do not want to do. So, I emphasise: Parliament has a duty to deal squarely with laws which are unconstitutional. If Parliament abdicates its duty and does not do what it has to do, then the Courts may have to do what they do not want to do. It would be much easier for us, as Members of Parliament, to leave this to the Courts – "leave the question to the wisdom of the honourable Court", as the Indian government did. If we left it to the Courts, the Government would bear no blame. It is the path of least resistance. If we approached this purely as politicians, concerned only with votes, and not making anyone unhappy or making as few people unhappy as possible, then, that road of leaving it to the Court would have been easier. Pretend that these issues do not exist, need not have been talked about after the Court of Appeal's decision in Tan Seng Kee, leave it to the Courts. But this Government will not take that approach. As elected representatives of the people, we cannot do that. If we see a risk that a law may be found unconstitutional, it is our duty to act and deal with it in Parliament, both because it is our duty to do so and because taking the easy way out would have serious negative consequences for our society. It will be very bad for Singapore. As I said earlier, the Court processes are adversarial by nature. Their decisions are binary, zero-sum. You either win or you lose. There is no middle ground, no balancing of competing interests.”
“Some places, jurisdictions like Taiwan and some countries like the US, have ended up legalising same-sex marriage through court challenges. As mentioned earlier, India's supreme court also recently said that "family" will include same-sex relationships. In Singapore, so far, the Courts have recognised that Parliament, as the elected branch of Government, is better suited to resolve such difficult societal issues. In Parliament, there can be consultation, discussion and debate. Considerations going well beyond the law can be taken into account, whereas Courts can only consider the legal issues. Consensus can be forged in Parliament to bridge divergent viewpoints. Open-ended resolutions are possible, instead of binary, win-lose outcomes. There are some who have said, since our Courts have recognised what belongs to the political process and what belongs to the judicial process, it is unlikely that the Courts will ever strike down section 377A. In other words, we can just take the easy way. We do not need to decide. We just let things be. But such an approach would be irresponsible and wrong. Members may know, the Court of Appeal has also said that although the 2007 compromise was inherently political, legal standards do still exist and may be applied to judge the legality or constitutionality of section 377A. So, we should not assume that the Courts will never strike down section 377A just because the Government chooses to retain it. Our system has only worked well all these years because all three branches of the state – Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary – work within their respective boundaries and have fulfilled their respective roles.”
“The court said that a subjective notion of public or societal morality which discriminated against LGBT persons and subjected them to criminal sanctions, simply on the basis of an innate characteristic ran counter to the Indian constitution and could not form the basis of legitimate state interest. The court held that parliament's failure to delete section 377 was not, in any way, a good reason for the court not to strike down section 377. When a provision violated the constitution, the courts must strike it down. Fast forward to this year, 2022, as Minister Masagos had mentioned in his speech, the Indian supreme court has expanded the definition of family to include same-sex relationships. The court held that such atypical manifestations of the family unit are equally deserving of protection. What is the lesson here? When Parliament does not act when it should act, then we may leave the courts with no choice. If fundamental constitutional rights have been violated and, yet, Parliament abdicates its duties, then the Courts may have no choice but to act. And what can happen if the Courts strike down section 377A? Then, our laws defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, and our laws and policies based on that definition, could also be at risk sometime in the future. For example, the heterosexual definition of marriage could be challenged on the basis that it is against Article 12 of the Constitution. It could be argued that equal protection means we cannot discriminate against same-sex couples, in the same way that section 377A can be said to discriminate against gay persons. It could be asked: why should a marriage only be between a man and a woman? Why can a marriage between two men or between two women not be considered a marriage?”
“The court then said that its decision would apply only until parliament repealed section 377 as per the recommendations made by a law commission in 2000, nine years before the decision of the court. After the judgment, however, the Indian parliament did not do anything about the law. The government also did not appeal the high court judgment. Instead, an appeal was brought by some organisations and individuals. On appeal in 2013, the Indian supreme court overturned the high court decision, saying there was no "constitutional infirmity". So, section 377 was held to be constitutional. Nonetheless, the court emphasised that parliament was still free to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting section 377 from the Indian Penal Code or amending it to exclude private acts between consenting adults. Parliament, however, did nothing after this decision. In 2016, a fresh application was filed in the Indian supreme court to again challenge the constitutionality of section 377. In 2018, the Indian supreme court ruled section 377 to be unconstitutional with regard to consensual acts between adults. It reversed its 2013 decision on the grounds that section 377 violated the right to life and liberty, which is Article 9 of our Constitution, that it violated the right to equal protection, which is Article 12 of our Constitution, and that it violated the right to freedom of expression, which is Article 14 of our Constitution. And the court found that section 377 did punish homosexuals arbitrarily.”
“There was a panel discussion moderated by the Dean of the SMU law school. The panel and audience included the Dean of SUSS law school, legal scholars from our law faculties, past and present presidents of the Law Society, Senior Counsel and distinguished senior legal experts. The panel and the audience were pretty unanimous on the legal risks surrounding section 377A, in light of Tan Seng Kee. Members can refer to Annex 6 for key points and views that were shared at the law forum. [Please refer to Annex 6.] As the Attorney-General and I looked carefully at the Tan Seng Kee judgment and as the Prime Minister said during the National Day Rally, the Attorney-General and I have advised the Government that in a future Court challenge, there is a significant risk of section 377A being struck down. So, let us be clear: one, after the Tan Seng Kee judgment, section 377A is at significant risk of being struck down in a future challenge; and two, we cannot simply hope that the point on locus standi is enough for the Government and Parliament to do nothing. That will be just wishful thinking, and wishful thinking is no substitute for careful legal analysis or proper policy. If we engage in wishful thinking and if section 377A is struck down in the Courts, that could lead to a whole series of consequences, which would be very damaging to our Singaporean society. I will come back to this. But before I do that, it is useful to look at what happened in India, as an illustration. In India, their section 377 was challenged on grounds broadly similar to those used to challenge our section 377A in Singapore. In 2009, the Delhi high court ruled that their section 377 was unconstitutional.”
“But such persons may well have a case for standing by arguing that their rights had been violated and, therefore, that they have sufficient interest to challenge the constitutionality of section 377A. They will not be able to directly reopen their convictions, but they can ask for section 377A to be struck down on the basis that this will give them vindication. And the very fact that they have been convicted under an unconstitutional legislation gives them the standing and to allow them to redress the hurt of their conviction. If you look at Tan Seng Kee, the Court of Appeal was very careful to circumscribe what it said about who had locus standi. It expressly stated that its decision on locus standi will not, for example, prevent the Police from investigating conduct under section 377A. In reality, there is a broad universe of cases where the Police may have to investigate, because before investigating, they might not know exactly what the facts are. So, you cannot rule out the possibility that in some situations, a person involved in the investigations brings a challenge. And you cannot rule out there a future Court could find this to be sufficient grounds for a person to have locus standi to challenge section 377A. And, of course, there is the other risk. The Court of Appeal can always change its mind on locus standi, just as it did between Lim Meng Suang and Tan Seng Kee. It changed its mind precisely on this point of locus standi. So, we cannot proceed in the belief that the Court of Appeal will certainly not change its views in the future. In September this year, I took part in a law forum organised by the Singapore Academy of Law and the Law Society, which discussed the implications of Tan Seng Kee and the legal risks surrounding section 377A.”
“After the decision in Tan Seng Kee, the Court of Appeal has applied the Syed Suhail test and approach in two other cases, in May and August of this year. In May 2022, in Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah vs Attorney-General; and in August 2022, in Terry Xu's case. What does all of this mean, in plain language? It means that if another constitutional challenge against section 377A is brought before the Court, the Syed Suhail test is likely to be applied. And if that test is applied, section 377A is likely to be struck down on the grounds that it breaches Article 12 of the Constitution. Some Members could say, "Well, we accept what the Court of Appeal has said". But the Court of Appeal in Tan Seng Kee this year also said there is no locus standi to bring the challenge. So, as long as the Attorney-General maintains the current position and does not re-assert the right to prosecute cases under section 377A, then there should be no risk that section 377A would be found unconstitutional because no one would have standing to challenge it in the first place. Taking such a view, I can give an analogy; it is like letting a small boat sail in choppy waters surrounded by rocks and hoping that the boat would not crash into the rocks. There are two major risks in taking this view. First, just because the applicants in Tan Seng Kee did not have standing, does not mean that no one else will have standing in a future case. For example, persons who had been convicted in the past under section 377A, they may well have a case for standing – I do not want my speech to be read as giving a right to people; it is my personal view.”
“The Court of Appeal first considered the arguments in relation to Article 9 of the Constitution, on life and personal liberty, and said, quite clearly, that section 377A did not violate Article 9. The Court, then, considered whether section 377A contravened Article 14 on freedom of speech and expression, and it said no, there was no contravention. Then, it considered Article 12, the equal protection clause, on this, the Court of Appeal took a different view from its previous decision in Lim Meng Suang. The Court of Appeal said that there were two ways to apply the "reasonable classification" test: one is the approach adopted in Lim Meng Suang in 2014; and the second was the approach adopted in a 2021 case in Syed Suhail. The Court of Appeal went into a detailed comparison between the two approaches. The Court said that if the Syed Suhail approach is taken, then section 377A might fall afoul of the "reasonable classification" test. If you see what the Court of Appeal has said: "One could then conclude that the differentia embodied in section 377A (namely, male-male sex acts) lacks a rational relation to legislative object of reflecting societal disapproval of homosexual conduct in general or safeguarding public morality generally." In plain language, what this means is section 377A is probably unconstitutional, if the Syed Suhail test is to be applied. Even though the Court of Appeal was careful to say section 377A might be unconstitutional if the test in Syed Suhail was applied, lawyers would know – at least some lawyers would know – that the Court of Appeal has, in fact, in subsequent cases applied the Syed Suhail test.”
“This time in Tan Seng Kee, the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds, on the basis that the applicants lacked locus standi to challenge section 377A. And the Court deliberately did not rule on one of the substantive grounds. First, on the procedural issue, the Court of Appeal reversed itself on the locus standi point and took a different view from its earlier decision in Lim Meng Suang. The Court of Appeal said that there was no locus standi because the Attorney-General had said that, absent other factors, there would generally be no prosecution under section 377A, where the conduct was between two consenting adults in a private place. On this basis, the Court of Appeal said that section 377A was unenforceable until the Attorney-General gave clear notice that he intended to enforce section 377A. Thus, according to the Court of Appeal, the applicants did not face any real or credible threat of prosecution under 377A and so, they did not have standing to bring the case. In Lim Meng Suang, the Court of Appeal had said that the very existence of 377A was enough to give locus standi. In Tan Seng Kee, the Court took a diametrically opposite view. Members will note one Court of Appeal can disagree with another Court of Appeal. I will come back to this. It is also significant to see what the Court of Appeal had to say in Tan Seng Kee on the substantive issue, as to whether section 377A was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeal actually did not need to give any view on the substantive merits of the challenge because it had already said that the applicants could not bring the case. But it, nevertheless, went on to give its views. Sir, with your permission, we can show in a slide, some basic points that they made.”
“In Lim Meng Suang, the Court made a procedural decision in 2012 and the substantive decision in 2014. The procedural decision was on standing – whether the applicants had locus standi, or standing, whether they were entitled to make the application. The Court of Appeal said that the applicants did have locus standi because there was a real and credible threat of future prosecution. The Court of Appeal further added that even if no prosecution was contemplated, the applicants could bring their action, they had standing, because of the very existence of a law which is unconstitutional. Members should note the Court of Appeal in 2012 said the very existence of 377A gave locus standi, for an applicant to make an application. On the substantive issue, the Court of Appeal said that section 377A did not contravene either Article 9 or Article 12 of the Constitution. On Article 12, the Court of Appeal applied a legal test, known as a "reasonable classification" test, to come to that conclusion. It said that section 377A satisfied that test and did not violate Article 12. The Court of Appeal, therefore, dismissed the application in Lim Meng Suang, on the substantive basis that section 377A was not unconstitutional, even though the applicants had locus standi to bring the challenge. Section 377A was then challenged again in the Courts in Tan Seng Kee. It was again argued that section 377A contravened Articles 9 and 12. In addition, section 377A was also challenged, on the grounds that it contravened Article 14 of the Constitution, which guaranteed the right of freedom of speech and expression. The Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge. How and why the Court of Appeal came to that decision and what it said is important.”
“Compared to 2007, we are now at a stage where our society can accept the repeal of section 377A. From our engagements, we see that most Singaporeans accept that sex between men should not be a crime. Even those who want to retain section 377A, do not want to see it actively enforced. But as has been stated, in and out of Parliament, we must, and we will take steps at the same time to deal with the possible consequences of the repeal. The constitutional amendment is one big step. There are others. Because some consequences would be unacceptable to a significant section of our society. The Government has explained its position about dealing with consequences, Members can refer to Annex 5 for a summary of what the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, various Ministries, as well as I, have said on the matter. [Please refer to Annex 5.] Let me move on to the second reason for the repeal and that is that leaving section 377A alone in the books carries a significant legal risk. The Courts may strike down section 377A in the future and if the Courts strike down section 377A, it will be a binary process. The Courts cannot deal with all the legitimate concerns about the consequential effects of the repeal, which many are concerned about. Why do we say there is a significant legal risk of section 377A being struck down? Let me take Members through two Court of Appeal decisions. The Courts of Appeal has dealt with section 377A twice in the last 10 years. First, in Lim Meng Suang vs Attorney-General, decided in 2014; and second, in Tan Seng Kee vs Attorney-General, decided earlier this year in 2022. Both decisions took quite different approaches on two issues. First, a procedural issue; and second, a substantive issue.”