Masagos Zulkifli B M M
Singapore
“Coordination between Early Intervention (EI) centres, families and preschools is important for the continuity of support for children with developmental needs.”
“The Taxi Subsidy Scheme supports persons with disabilities (PwDs) who are unable to take public transport, by providing means-tested subsidies to offset the cost of taxi travel to school, work and employment-related training supported by SG Enable.”
“The Skills and Salary Guidelines published by the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) guides social service agencies (SSAs) to pay their employees fair and competitive remuneration and maintain the sector's attractiveness. The Guidelines are adjusted so that salaries remain competitive with comparable roles in competing markets.”
“Staff turnover rates vary across social service agencies (SSAs). An individual's decision to leave an organisation is influenced by a myriad of factors, of which pay is only one.”
“Beyond the requirement of a structured daily programme, community-based SCFA administrators have the flexibility to offer programmes and additional enrichment activities that meet the needs of their students. MSF does not track staff salaries and turnover of SCCs in general nor those that administer SCFA.”
“Male preschool educators comprised about 1% of the early childhood workforce in each of the last five years. The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has not issued guidelines pertaining to the rules set by preschool centres specific to the conduct of male preschool educators.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,489 lines we hold for Masagos Zulkifli B M M, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 50.
“The Disabled Persons Scheme (DPS) is a means-tested scheme that supports Singapore Citizens with permanent disabilities who have been assessed to be unable to use public transport, that are buses and/or MRT, and require a vehicle to earn a living. Eligible drivers are exempted from paying the premiums for Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) and the additional registration fees (ARF) when they purchase a vehicle. From 2019 to 2022, SG Enable received an average of 17 DPS applications a year with an average of five approvals each year. The rejected applications were due to applicants exceeding the household income eligibility criteria or being assessed to be able to take public transport. The median time to process an application was 47 working days, or approximately 10 calendar weeks, given the time required for verifications and clarifications with applicants and their employers.”
“The Office of the Public Guardian Online (OPGO) was launched to provide greater convenience for individuals to make a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). Nevertheless, as we recognise that some individuals may have difficulties with an online submission, hard copy LPA applications are accepted under exceptional circumstances. This includes cases where the personal circumstances or physical disability of the donor/donee make them unable to use OPGO. It also covers cases where the donor/donee may be ineligible for a Singpass account, as he/she is not a Singapore Citizen (SC), Permanent Resident (PR) or Long-Term Resident. The Office of the Public Guardian has received around 330 hardcopy LPA applications since the launch of OPGO on 14 November 2022. Of these, around 70 were approved, while the remaining applications are being reviewed. For hardcopy applications that are not approved, we will offer assistance to applicants, should they require, to apply via OPGO.”
“In 2019, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) introduced the Centre Management System (CMS) to digitalise administrative processes between all preschools and ECDA, such as licence application and renewal, as well as submission of enrolment details and subsidy applications. Some preschools have utilised the Early Childhood Digitalisation Grant (ECDG) to adopt pre-approved digital solutions to digitalise work processes, such as online application forms or e-forms that enable preschools to manage enrolment and subsidy applications digitally. These e-forms enable direct data transfer to the CMS, eliminating the need for manual entry while improving data accuracy. Four hundred centres have already tapped on the grant support to digitalise their processes. ECDA is currently undertaking a service journey review with a view to digitalise fully the process for parents when enrolling their child in a preschool. We agree that going digital in preschools will not only provide a more seamless and convenient experience for parents, but also improve work processes and efficiency for preschool staff. We thank the Member for the suggestion.”
“The Tertiary Tuition Fee Subsidy (TTFS) is a subsidy for the tuition fees of eligible Malay students at local institutes of higher learning such as polytechnics and universities. The TTFS quantum covers up to 100% of the tuition fees. Currently, Malay students from households with per capita income of $2,000 and below receive the TTFS. Eligible students can also consider other assistance schemes from MENDAKI or the Ministry of Education (MOE). The Government is committed to ensuring that Malay students in financially challenged families have access to higher education and regularly reviews the income eligibility criteria of the TTFS scheme. We will take into consideration the overall prevailing economic situation faced by families.”
“The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) provides zakat financial assistance to eligible beneficiaries and supplements the main support provided from national social assistance efforts, such as ComCare. MUIS regularly reviews the zakat financial assistance scheme to ensure that it continues to support the poor and needy in the community. In 2018, the income eligibility for zakat financial assistance was increased from a gross household per-capita-income (PCI) of $350 to $400. MUIS will continue to work closely with both national and social service agencies to ensure that the zakat beneficiaries are able to access the available network of support.”
“The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF)'s Child Protective Service (CPS) investigates cases involving serious abuse or neglect of children and young persons. There has been an increase in public awareness of child abuse over the years and reporting of violence has been made easier through the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline launched in 2021. Direct reports to CPS by children, family members and members of public made up less than 0.5%, 1.5% and 1.5% of CPS investigation cases. The remaining cases came from our community touchpoints such as preschools, schools, healthcare facilities, Police and social service agencies. These touchpoints would typically have received the initial information from the child or a close family member.”
“Families under ComCare assistance automatically qualify for the Kindergarten Fee Assistance Scheme (KiFAS) start-up grant when they enrol in Anchor Operator (AOP) and the Ministry of Education (MOE) Kindergartens. Likewise, ComCare families who are first-time Child Care Financial Assistance (CCFA) applicants automatically qualify for the CCFA start-up grant when they enrol in eligible childcare centres.”
“The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) utilises the Mosque Building and Mendaki Fund, or MBMF, for the building of new mosques and the upgrading of existing ones. Previously in May 2021, we announced that plans to build new mosques, including in Tampines North, will be deferred and reviewed when the economy recovers, with MUIS prioritising the upgrading plans for existing mosques. For example, MUIS will be working towards securing longer leases for Masjid Tentera Diraja and Masjid Ahmad Ibrahim and upgrading both mosques. Given that needs in the religious sector are being reviewed, together with the funding required, MUIS will be working with the relevant agencies to conduct a fresh needs assessment for all infrastructure, including demand for and supply of prayer spaces. The study will also take into consideration the impact of the pandemic on the construction industry, which has resulted in higher construction costs.”
“Children and young persons (CYPs) may reside in a place of safety, should they require care or protection. This includes the Singapore Boys' Home (SBH) or Singapore Girls' Home (SGH). Over the past five years, the average monthly cost of placing a CYP in a place of safety is $3,000. This figure does not include additional items incurred at SBH and SGH, such as the provision of in-house medical services, school and security set-up, which are required to cater to CYPs with higher risks and needs.”
“"Signal for Help" is not a programme, but a hand signal that can be used by survivors of family violence to discreetly indicate that they need help. MSF started promoting the use of the hand signal in November last year, as part of the Break the Silence campaign. Since "Signal for Help" is not the only way which survivors of family violence make their reports, we do not track specifically the number of cases reported using the signal.”
“Children and young persons (CYPs) in need of care or protection may be referred by MSF or ordered by the Youth Court to reside in a place of safety. MSF Youth Homes, namely the Singapore Boys' Home and Singapore Girls' Home, are also places of safety under the Children and Young Persons Act. Table 1 provides the breakdown of such CYPs who subsequently offended and (i) entered MSF Youth Homes, or (ii) were imprisoned. There is a higher proportion of CYPs who entered MSF Youth Homes as a place of safety, who subsequently offended and were imprisoned, compared to those in other places of safety. This is because such CYPs have higher risks and needs, displaying behaviours that could lead to offences requiring imprisonment.”
“The Government does not track the number of court cases involving a conflict between a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) made under Singapore’s Mental Capacity Act and a foreign LPA executed by the same donor. We have no plans to amend our laws to recognise and enforce foreign LPAs and foreign mental capacity proceedings, or to ratify the 2000 Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults to achieve the same end. This is because the requirements to make an LPA may differ greatly from country to country, and it is important to us that there are robust safeguards in place for Singaporeans to make an LPA to ensure that the interests of the donor will be protected. Parties who wish to have a foreign LPA recognised or enforced in Singapore, or to resolve a conflict between an LPA made in Singapore and a foreign LPA, may seek their own legal advice.”
“Children and young persons (CYPs) in need of care or protection may be referred by MSF or ordered by the Youth Court to reside in a place of safety. MSF’s Youth Homes, namely the Singapore Boys’ Home and Singapore Girls’ Home are also places of safety under the Children and Young Persons Act. From 2017 to 2021, the average duration of stay for such CYPs ranged from 1.8 years to 2.2 years, and the median duration of stay ranged from 1.4 years to 1.6 years. The durations were relatively stable with no indication of an increasing or decreasing trend.”
“Now, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."”
“They will wait for the train to crash on us.”
“Finally, that has come out in the open. So, we know that they are going to support the repeal of section 377A, but they will not support that the amendment to the Constitution be made. Their position means that while now there would be no further challenges to section 377A because it does not exist, there will now be new challenges that will be put up in Court on constitutional grounds that other institutions, like marriage and families, important to many Singaporeans, will now stand before the Court. And then we are back to square one again. We have to, reactively again, come to make a decision or wait for the Court to make that decision.”
“I thank the Member for the clarification. But I think the most important question is not the referendum. It is what is the PSP's position on the constitutional amendment. Are they for or against it? And, therefore, when the referendum, if held, are they for or against it?”
“As a society, we cannot lose sight of mutual respect when we engage with one another and must endeavour to listen to those who disagree with us. We must not destroy their social or economic standing. We should not denigrate others. This applies to all sides in every debate. We should consistently exercise responsibility, restraint and sensitivity to one another, both online and in person. The work of staying united as one Singapore is what lies ahead of us, even as the debate on these two Bills concludes. Mr Speaker, this debate proves that this House is, indeed, the right forum for issues and policies that are complex and require political judgement. It is an example of Parliament stepping up to do its duty. It is a responsible Government that has balanced the views expressed by Members and stakeholders and has shown the viable way forward. We did not deflect the matter to the Courts nor kick the can down the road. This is the strength of our system in Singapore when each branch – the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary – does its part to its fullest and does it well and does what is right for Singapore and Singaporeans. We have had a robust debate. With the passing of the two Bills – the repeal of section 377A and the introduction of the constitutional amendment – we have created space for society to deliberate on social issues within the political process, and not through a legal route which is zero-sum in nature. It is time to come together and move forward. Preserve the peace and stability that our society has fought hard for, and forge ahead – united, not divided – so that we can achieve progress as a nation for many more years to come. [Applause.]”
“Let us not look for politically easy options and cite referendum as an easy solution, just so that a decision does not have to be made in Parliament. In any case, even if the PSP wants a referendum, does it or does it not support the constitutional amendments? They seem to be against it. It then leaves the Courts to decide on heterosexual marriage. I have explained why that is not ideal. In any case, PSP seems to be against the constitutional amendment. I have explained why that is not good for Singapore. Mr Speaker, governing requires us to bring people with different perspectives together to ensure that various segments do not push for a maximalist position which would impinge on others, and pave the way forward. We should especially not adopt positions just because it coincides with our own religious beliefs. Indeed, everyone in Singapore cannot expect their maximalist position to be realised because Singapore is a vastly diverse society. Singapore has progressed because everyone understands this and has been accommodating of one another. This applies to governance. To be able to faithfully discharge our duties as leaders, we cannot make decisions that affect our fellow citizens based on personal religious beliefs. Instead, I hope we understand the principles of our religions, in making decisions that affect others. That is what our Malay/Muslim leaders we engaged were able to do after numerous engagements – they went beyond their own perspectives and assessed what is good for the community, Singapore and Singaporeans – and accepted why these changes need to be made. I hope all Members of this House can do so, too, and support the repeal of section 377A, together with the proposed amendment to the Constitution. Let me conclude.”
“A referendum is required when sovereignty or the command of our Armed Forces and Police is at stake. We have only had one referendum in our history – on our merger with Malaysia. We should be very careful about elevating any matter to this level, saying it is equivalent to an issue on sovereignty. It is the duty of elected Members of Parliament to consult, discuss and come to a decision even, and perhaps especially, for difficult and polarising social issues. The PSP says that we should not allow Parliament to decide but, instead, let the definition of marriage be decided by national referendum. This might seem seductive. But let us call it what it is. It is an attempt to avoid taking a position, as Parliamentarians, as elected representatives of the people. Even if a referendum is held, which side will the PSP be on? Would the PSP try to bring people together or stay silent on where it stands on heterosexual marriage, as it is doing in this debate? Also, would a referendum settle this issue once and for all? May I remind Members and the PSP what happened in the UK with Brexit. Both sides campaigned vigorously and bitterly. It created and entrenched polarised identities. Brexit was eventually approved, in a referendum, with the slimmest of margins, and people continued to campaign for a second referendum. In the process, the credibility of the British government was severely damaged. Indeed, it has yet to recover. Despite being in government, the Tories were split on Brexit. The leadership, rather than uniting around a single position, allowed their members of parliaments and even their ministers to take different views. A government unable to act, cannot govern.”
“Lastly, we should keep the marketplace free from the polarising contestation of values. In a free and open economy, with an abundance of choice, businesses can decide what events are allowed on their premises. However, while businesses make their own commercial judgement with regard to their prospective customers, they should do so in a sensitive and respectful manner. Nonetheless, I urge everyone not to use commerce as a platform to display the conviction of their beliefs. In the spirit of mutual respect, I hope businesses and prospective customers can strive to be gracious and adopt the approach of "live and let live". Mr Speaker, Sir, for complex issues, such as these, we must exercise leadership to make difficult decisions that are best for our society, even if it does not satisfy everyone's wishes. We are a secular Government. And while each of us, as individuals, may have our religious convictions, we take care to ensure that when we make decisions for the whole country, we apply secular, universal values and not individual religious beliefs. Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Faisal Manap indicated they will not support the repeal because of their religious values. Yet, they do not offer any solution on how we can keep society united and cohesive if section 377A is found to be unconstitutional. Is it their solution to accept a decision by the Courts? What would be the implications? If so, then why not vote for the repeal now? Ms Hazel Poa says that the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) wants the definition of marriage to be decided by national referendum rather than by Parliament. The Government has explained why we are not proposing to hold a referendum on this issue. But let me explain again. Our Constitution sets a very high bar for the holding of referenda.”
“Gay people are members of our society and have access to the same opportunities and social support as other Singaporeans. Social Service Agencies (SSAs) provide secular services to the community. Some SSAs are set up by, or affiliated to, religious organisations. All SSAs, regardless of their religious affiliations, serve all clients, including gay persons. Social service professionals are continuously trained to be sensitive to the diverse needs of clients. Fourth, on employment, workplace and businesses. We do not tolerate discrimination at the workplace. Employees are protected against discrimination under the Tripartite Guidelines for Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP). These guidelines require employers to make employment decisions based on merit and not factors irrelevant to the job. For religious organisations, understandably, the potential employee's religion and values would be a relevant consideration for certain roles. Mr Derrick Goh enquired about staff benefits offered by companies to gay couples. The Government, generally, does not interfere in how a private business operates. However, private businesses must respect that their own staff have a right to their personal beliefs. They also cannot cross the line into advocacy on issues in Singapore that are socially divisive, which include issues on homosexuality. These are matters only for Singaporeans to discuss and decide. At our workplaces, employees should not feel compelled to support causes or participate in activities that do not align with their beliefs. TGFEP is clear that an employee's support or non-support of causes, if not relevant to job performance, cannot be used in employment decisions and performance evaluation.”
“I would like to make clear the Government’s position. First, Article 156 will provide further protection for the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. There are no plans to change this definition to include same-sex marriages. Religious leaders or any licensed solemniser for that matter, cannot solemnise a same-sex couple. This is against the law. Second, religious freedom is protected in Article 15 of the Constitution. Every person has the right to profess, propagate and practise his or her own religion, subject to public order, health and morality. Every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs. One can still preach on the pulpit their beliefs about homosexuality or family, even if others might disagree. But no one should incite violence or hate towards others. This is against the law and is not the society we want to become. This is regardless of whether the comments are made in public, online, or in your private space. Religious organisations, as owners of their premises at places of worship, have the discretion to refuse same-sex solemnisations or weddings to be held on their premises. There is no law which prohibits them from treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples when exercising such rights. Religious organisations may support those who are struggling or have issues with their sexuality, including through prayers and counselling, as long as consent is obtained and criminal thresholds of harm are not crossed. Third, in exercising religious freedom, we must understand that we are also members of a plural society. We must graciously accommodate those who have different values from us.”
“Mr Louis Ng asked how LGBT students struggling with family and mental health issues are supported. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim also asked how teachers and educators are supported. Our schools have a system of support for students with issues concerning their well-being, including on sexuality. Teachers will listen to students objectively to facilitate support, and not discount, disregard or judge their views. They assure confidentiality but explain to students that the disclosed information has to be shared with the appropriate key school personnel to assist students in managing their concerns. Teachers also consult the School Leader and Lead School Counsellor who will further manage these cases, with the school counsellor providing targeted support for the student’s concerns. Where required, schools, will, with parents’ consent, refer students to professionals and relevant authorities to provide counselling support and appropriate intervention. MOE’s focus is on the students’ well-being. Schools must remain a common and safe space for all students, regardless of their background. We have a duty to care to every student. For students with sexuality issues, our focus is likewise to provide them with a conducive learning environment and the necessary support to ensure their overall well-being. As sexuality issues are complex, schools work with these students and their families sensitively. Mr Zhulkarnain asked where families can seek help. Family Service Centres offer family counselling and can also assist if family relations are strained because one of them has sexuality concerns. Lastly, Members Mr Christopher De Souza, Mr Zhulkarnain, Mr Mohd Fahmi Bin Aliman, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Darryl David, Ms Janet Ang and Mr Alex Yam have spoken about religious freedom.”
“In our schools, all students learn and practise values such as mutual understanding, respect and empathy for everyone. They will also understand that issues can have multiple perspectives and are taught to listen to each other’s points of view, understand the perspective of others and learn to interact and engage respectfully with each other, even if their views differ. The Sexuality Education Curriculum in MOE schools respects the primary role of parents and reflects the national posture on the heterosexual family as the basic unit of society. The curriculum remains secular and based on research and evidence. It is focused on age appropriateness and the developmental needs of the child when touching on topics such as homosexuality. In madrasahs, sexuality education is part of their education curriculum and included in specially curated programmes. Madrasahs are also equipped with trained asatizah and teachers to address sexuality issues. Counsellors are available should students need further advice and support. MUIS is in regular consultation and collaboration with the madrasahs to further enhance the sexuality education curriculum for students. Teachers will also be equipped and updated on the current discourse on the matter, to advise and guide students on matters related to sexuality, according to the teachings and traditions of the religion. For international schools, MOE does not regulate the curriculum. That said, as the schools operate in Singapore, they should respect our social norms and values. They must also be careful not to cross the line into advocacy on issues in Singapore that could be socially divisive, such as how sexual orientation, are handled in laws and public policy. These are matters for Singaporeans to discuss and decide.”
“It also depends on the survey’s sampling method, whether it is representative and when it was conducted. We have engaged extensively on this matter. There are ongoing efforts to facilitate conversations and civil dialogue. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Mark Chay and Mr Louis Ng said there should be support for other families such as single unwed parents. My opening speech explained our approach. We make a distinction between incentives and support. Benefits intended to support a child’s development and caregiving are given to children of single unwed parents and of married parents equally. These include healthcare and education subsidies, the Government’s First Step grant and co-matching of the Child Development Account, as well as the Government-paid maternity leave to unwed working mothers to care for their infant. Let me now turn to educational institutions. Ms Janet Ang and Mr Mohd Fahmi Bin Aliman have asked about sexuality education in public and private schools and the madrasahs. Dr Tan Yia Swam said students should be taught based on evidence. Mr Henry Kwek commented that school leaders should take a clear objective stance. Mr Mark Chay asked how we prepare students to be more understanding and empathetic. Mr Lim Biow Chuan also asked about international schools that compel staff or students to participate in gay community projects even if they do not subscribe to the same lifestyle. I explained in my opening speech that our education policies and curriculum remain anchored on Singapore's prevailing family values and social norms, which most Singaporeans want to uphold. These include the family as the cornerstone of our social fabric, and marriage between a man and a woman.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Members for putting forth their perspectives and reasoning on this very important debate. In this House, Members have reflected the complexity of the issue and the diversity of our stakeholders. Something a court process will not achieve. Members have shown why Parliament, rather than the Courts, is the right forum to debate difficult social issues. We have explained clearly why we must act without delay. Inaction will leave open the significant legal risk that the Court will, at some point in the future, rule section 377A unconstitutional. Parliament has a duty to act. Let me turn to what we all need to do to keep Singapore united after we have debated and then voted on these Bills. Many Members touched on this in their speeches. Some have voiced the concern of Singapore going down a slippery slope after the repeal. Some touched on support for families with single parents. Others asked about the posture in educational institutions and expressed concerns on religious freedom. Mr Alex Yam, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Abdul Samad have asked for assurance that the repeal would not result in a change in social norms. Mr Derrick Goh asked about the use of surveys and engagements. It is indeed the intention of the Government that there should not be a change in social norms following the repeal. This is precisely what Article 156 is intended to achieve. I explained in my speech yesterday, the many different practices and policies that support society’s notion of children within a marriage between a man and a woman. On surveys, while they can help facilitate conversations and potentially reduce discrimination, we recognise that a single or a series of questions would not fully capture such a complex and emotive matter.”
“AWDP aims to develop the asatizah workforce structurally through the adoption of industry good practices, such as the Career and Competency Framework (CCF) and Common Salary Guideline (CSG), as well as the development of upskilling programmes, such as the Skills Upgrading Plan (SUP) and the Religious Leadership and Talent Development programme (RLTD).”
“The mandatory Asatizah Recognition Scheme (ARS) was implemented in 2017 to develop a capable, credible and confident pool of religious teachers (asatizahs) for the Singapore Muslim community. ARS has two tiers, T1 – Islamic Teacher (Graduates) and T2 – Quranic Teacher. Under T1, Islamic teachers must be graduates in Islamic Studies from a recognised university and have a good command of the Arabic language. Under T2, Quranic teachers must possess a certificate in Quranic teaching from a recognised institution. Based on MUIS' Asatizah Manpower Planning Studies (AMPS) conducted in 2021, about 350 new asatizahs would be required over the next five years, or around 70 new asatizah per year. Currently, there are about 5,000 asatizahs operating in the religious sector, serving our religious institutions, such as mosques, madrasahs and private Islamic Education Centres and Providers (IECP). Based on projections in AMPS and the number of Islamic Studies graduates returning annually, there will be sufficient asatizahs to meet the community’s current and future religious needs. There are, currently, over 600 students known to MUIS that are undergoing degree programmes related to Islam or Islamic Studies, but not all of them will go on to be religious teachers. To ensure that the religious sector remains vibrant and able to attract, as well as retain, religious teachers, MUIS embarked on the Asatizah Workforce Development Plan (AWDP) in 2019.”
“All places of safety are required to meet MSF's minimum care staff-to-child ratio of 1:10 (previously 1:15). This new ratio was introduced in 2020. As a result, the average and median care staff-to-child ratio in places of safety improved from 1:12 (average and median) in 2017 to within the minimum ratio by 2021. The two juvenile homes, that is, Singapore Boys' Home and Singapore Girls' Home, are places of safety and operate under the same minimum care staff-to-child ratio.”
“Operators not on the AOP or POP schemes can also participate in sector-wide initiatives, such as ECDA’s Scholarships and Training Awards, the Skills Framework for Early Childhood, and the Professional Development Programme. They can tap on SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore’s course fee subsidies and programmes, such as the Career Conversion Programme (CCP), to hire and train mid-career jobseekers. The recent moves are important ones to signal the Government’s support to our families and early childhood educators. Overall, families will enjoy greater access to quality and affordable preschools near their homes as Government-supported preschool capacity expands. At the same time, the market will remain open to preschools not on the AOP or POP schemes. ECDA aims to encourage operators to innovate in response to changing market patterns, so that we have a vibrant and competitive sector that meets the different needs of Singaporean families.”
“The recently announced move to reduce fees and enhance salaries for Anchor and Partner Operators is part of the Government’s strategy since 2012, to provide families with access to affordable and quality preschools. I would like to clarify that Anchor Operators (AOPs) and Partner Operators (POPs) are private sector players in the preschool market. In particular, the POP scheme allows more small- and medium-sized private operators to join. In return, AOPs and POPs follow prescribed fee caps and quality requirements, such as achieving Singapore Preschool Accreditation Framework (SPARK) certification and ensuring continued professional development of their educators. The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) recognises that there are private preschool players who are not on the AOP or POP schemes. They offer niche programmes and meet other needs and preferences of parents. If such services are valued by parents, the preschool would be able to price its offering higher. The reality is that the key competitive pressure faced by such private preschool players is from other sectors in the economy competing to offer good salaries and careers to the same potential pool of skilled manpower. If the Government did not continue to review the support for AOPs and POPs, the challenge of finding and retaining sufficient manpower would be felt by the entire preschool sector and by parents who would not have affordable quality preschool options. Lastly, I want to assure the Member that preschool operators not on the AOP or POP schemes still benefit from ECDA’s other schemes. These include funding for smart solutions to raise productivity, and preschool support schemes to defray staff training, infrastructure and rental costs.”
“Above all, we want to ensure that the Parliament should be the main platform to discuss sensitive issues and not the Courts. We must also redouble our efforts to sustain this system that has brought about peace and harmony in our multi-religious and multi-ethnic society. As we advocate for what we believe in, let us also do it respectfully and in the knowledge that we are united by our Singaporean identity. Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.] [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“However, for all the diverse groups that may be for or against homosexuality, no one can violate the laws of the land or instigate violence or intimidation towards others or a particular group. We are protected by the constitutional right to be free to profess, practise and propagate our religion. But this right is not absolute. It is subject to considerations of public order, public health or morality. As Singaporeans, we must also have respect for each other as fellow citizens in exercising this right. I want to make clear that our pro-family values and position are not a result of a majoritarian or a religious approach. It is one that we share in common as Singaporeans and what this Government believes in and stands for. It is how we have come so far and will enable our society to perpetuate and flourish in the future. It is in the public interest and not the narrow interest of a specific religious group. Our community leaders, many of whom we have engaged on this issue, also support our pro-family approach and have helped families over the years. They will continue to have a critical role in maintaining social cohesion and rallying support for our family values. Such is the system that ensures the safety, survival and success of Singapore. No one group can have everything they want all the time. The preferences of other Singaporeans matter too. As the Prime Minister has said, we are seeking a political accommodation that balances different legitimate views and aspirations among Singaporeans. Sir, we are taking a calibrated approach through this constitutional amendment, which seeks to address the concerns that people may have on whether a repeal will cause a sudden shift. However, it is also done in a way to not tie the hands of a future Parliament.”
“This will enable the Government to continue upholding the definition of marriage and the policies that depend on it. The amendments protect these laws and policies from new challenges based on Part 4 of the Constitution such as the frequent challenges to section 377A. This also means that other benefits that takes reference from our definition of marriage, including public housing subsidies and priority access for married couples as well as financial incentives for married couples to have children such as the Baby Bonus Cash Gift, will remain. In all the discussions, I am pleased with the attitude of our community leaders who were able to discuss these issues in a calm and rational manner. The guidance from our Mufti and established scholars has clarified the religious position on homosexuality in a judicious manner – that in Islam, only sexual relations between man and woman in marriage are permitted. At the same time, the Mufti also explained that the homosexual lifestyle does not remove a person from his faith. They must still be treated with kindness and compassion, particularly by their own families. The openness of community leaders and the wisdom of our religious scholars have prevented a situation where emotions of the community on this matter can be intentionally inflamed. We are grateful to all of them. (In English): Sir, I believe that many of us appreciate this secular approach that has provided Singaporeans security and safety living together and the freedom to practise our religion. Religious groups can continue to preach about homosexuality according to their religious beliefs.”
“In our communities, they, like other Singaporeans, have access to education and employment, to healthcare and social services, to protection from violence and harassment. Workplace discrimination against homosexuals for reasons unrelated to their ability to do the job is a breach of the principle of fair and merit-based employment outlined in the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices. But on marriage and family, most Singaporeans wish to retain current norms. As I have mentioned before, it is the Government's view as well. As a society, regardless of your views on marriage, family or homosexuality, no one should feel unsafe expressing your views or fear being cancelled, bullied or discriminated against. It is dangerous for our society if we do not learn to respect others who hold differing views from us. This threatens the common space and Singapore will not be able to progress as a cohesive society. Sir, in Malay. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In sharing the Government's intention to repeal section 377A, we have engaged the Malay/Muslim community extensively throughout this year. This includes religious leaders, asatizah as well as community leaders and Malay/Muslim organisations. Many were initially worried that it would result in sudden changes to other policies such as the definition of marriage, adoption, regulation of media content and educational curriculum as well as the overall approach on the issue. It is clear that as a society, we want the institution of family to remain the central pillar of our community. I have explained that the repeal of section 377A will be accompanied by a constitutional amendment that will be done simultaneously, so that Parliament continues to have the right to determine marriage and family laws.”
“In most cases, society needs time to adjust to change, especially on issues that can polarise us. We may have different ideals and perspectives, but we are all Singaporeans and I hope this is an identity we continue to be proud of. We forge a majority based on what we share in common and what unites us. This is why the Government has consistently emphasised the importance of preserving our common space, fostering good citizens and upholding the principle of equality, regardless of race, language or religion. Only then can we be united as Singaporeans to achieve progress as a nation. We are fortunate that our religious leaders understand the context of our diverse society and their communities trust the Government to treat all faiths completely impartially. While they are honest and constructive in providing their views on matters of concern in their religious communities, they trust that laws and policies are in the national interest and not to favour one religion over another. This approach works because the Government on its part is fair and considers all perspectives, including those who are religious as well as those who are not religious. No one can act only for the interests of a few segments of the society without regard for the rest. Maintaining this approach requires wisdom and courage from everyone. As we see in other societies, it is very easy to yield to sectarian or tribalist views. Even if you do not win, you will be popular with them. But we need to guard against this. We also continue to protect all from scorn or harm. This includes homosexuals who are members of our society, our kith and our kin. Homosexuals have a place in our society and space to live their lives in Singapore. In our families, we should not exclude our loved ones who are homosexuals.”
“So long as society strongly supports the current definition of marriage, no Government will change the definition. If society's support erodes, no amount of legislation or constitutional entrenchment will prevent change. On our part, the Government is doing all it can to promote social norms and values aligned to the current definition of marriage. But it is not something the Government can accomplish on its own. The transmission of social values to the next generation is something Singaporeans practise within their own families and with their loved ones. Sir, the approach in this Bill reflects Singapore's unique approach. Singapore is a secular state, but a multi-religious and a multiracial society. We are one of the most diverse societies in the world. There are different ethnic and religious groups, each with their own practices, customs, norms, convictions and beliefs. This diversity and harmony make Singapore unique and is a key part of our Singaporean identity. It is not easy to hold such a diverse society together. We are a young nation and all of us have taken great care and effort to preserve the harmony and peace that we have. We have been able to live together peacefully because we learn to understand, go beyond our own perspectives and graciously accommodate one another. This has been the Singapore way because we recognise what is best for our society. Some may wish to maximise their own positions. But when this happens, it unsettles others and causes resistance which would lead to further pushback and split our society apart. Singapore will not come out well in the end. It is therefore important that certain groups do not push beyond what is acceptable to our society.”
“The institution of marriage and family is the bedrock of society, but to elevate it to the same level as fundamental rights would fundamentally change the whole complexion and schema of the Constitution. There are many important laws and principles that are not in the Constitution but are in Acts of Parliament. For example, National Service is in the Enlistment Act; Corruption is in the Prevention of Corruption Act; zero-tolerance to drugs is in the Misuse of Drugs Act; and home ownership is in the HDB Act. The definition of marriage is and will remain in the Women’s Charter, Interpretation Act and AMLA. Importantly, this Government will not use our current super-majority in Parliament to tie the hands of the future generations. Hence, the constitutional amendment will not prevent future Governments, elected by the people, from amending the legal definition of marriage by a simple majority in Parliament, should they choose to do so. This is how democracy works. But what we want to be clear about is that the definition of marriage and related policies should not be determined by the Courts. In fact, this constitutional amendment provides greater protection than today, not just for the definition of marriage, but also related policies. The Prime Minister has said that this Government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage, nor the policies that rely on this definition. Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, as the 4G leader, has also said that the Government will not change them under his watch if the PAP were to win the next General Election. I reiterate these assurances in this House. Ultimately, whether marriage in Singapore will remain as a union between a man and a woman depends on the consensus in society, shaped by the values we all hold.”
“Many have written to share their views on this matter. Singaporeans have generally understood the need to respect, graciously and mutually accommodate each other’s views and support the Government’s approach. Gay people appreciate the repeal of section 377A but express some apprehension of the implications of the constitutional amendments. Those in favour of the status quo have constructively shared their views and emphasised the need to safeguard the institution of marriage. Others whom we have engaged, such as leaders from the community, also support the proposed approach to keep the heterosexual definition of marriage, while repealing section 377A. Many are concerned about cancel culture, religious freedom, discrimination faced by those with differing views on this issue and the narrowing public space to speak openly about it. These are important feedback and concerns that Minister Desmond Lee will also address when he speaks. Some expressed the wish to go further than what we are proposing, protecting the definition of marriage in our current laws. They want the definition of marriage to be enshrined in the Constitution. We understand that these calls come from a sincere belief in the sanctity of marriage and reflect a genuine worry that the institution of marriage might be changed in the future to include same-sex marriages. I thank those who have spoken up, for taking a stand on what they think is best for Singapore. But the Government has to govern with principle. Our view is that elevating marriage to the same level as fundamental rights in the Constitution would not be appropriate. As explained earlier, the Constitution should be for functions such as sovereignty and our system of governance.”
“Article 9(6) creates exceptions from Article 9 for the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and for rehabilitative detention for drug addicts. Article 14(2) also has limits on Article 14, where one’s rights to freedom of speech, assembly and association is subject to public order, morality or security of Singapore. Article 12(3) makes clear that the right to equal protection does not apply to laws that regulate personal law, or to laws and practices that restrict office or employment connected with affairs of any religion. Each case involves a balance between the fundamental liberties and countervailing interests. In the case of Article 156(3) and (4), we have struck the balance in favour of having the strongest protection for the heterosexual definition of marriage adopted by Parliament, and the ability of Parliament and the Government to make laws and policies on the basis of this definition. This reflects the importance of heterosexual marriage in our society. Some have commented that this is an "ouster clause" and could be subject to legal challenges. To be clear, the nature of Article 156 is not an “ouster clause”. Instead, it provides exceptions or limits to the fundamental liberties. As mentioned, such exceptions already exist today. Let me now turn to another aspect that have come up in our engagements. They have been wide ranging, and we have heard from Singaporeans across various walks of life. I first want to take the opportunity to appreciate the different groups of Singaporeans who have written in and whom we have engaged before and after the Prime Minister's announcement. These engagements include those with religious leaders, grassroot leaders, union leaders, LGBT groups, social sector professionals, youth groups and members of the public.”
“At older ages, if introduced, we will focus on educating our young to treat everyone with respect and empathy but will not promote same-sex relationships; and (e) IMDA, in regulating media content, is guided by principles that include prevailing social norms and values that are generally acceptable to members of the public and protecting younger audiences from age-inappropriate content. Clause 3(a) provides that nothing in Part 4 of the Constitution, which sets out the eight fundamental liberties, will invalidate any legislative definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Clause 3(b) and clause 4 respectively provides that laws and executive actions cannot be invalidated by Part 4 just because they are based on a heterosexual definition of marriage. Some may ask why specify all the other fundamental liberties in Part 4, and not just Article 12. Minister Desmond Lee will explain but broadly, we need Article 156 to cover all of Part 4 so that it can apply to other radical legal arguments that may be brought in the future, and based on other articles in Part 4, Article 156 will provide a “strong shield”. However, the shield is also precise, where it only protects the heterosexual definition of marriage and the laws and policies that rely on this definition. In effect, Article 156 is an exception to the fundamental liberties. There are already such exceptions. For example, Article 39A empowers the Legislature to create Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) to ensure minority representation in Parliament. Article 39A(3) of the Constitution exempts any law regarding GRCs from being invalidated on the ground of inconsistency with Article 12. Article 149(1) prevents the Internal Security Act from being invalidated by Articles 9, 11, 12, 13 or 14.”
“For example, today, the Women’s Charter and AMLA define civil and Muslim marriages respectively and make clear that same-sex marriages are not valid. This clause empowers Parliament to continue to make and amend laws for these purposes. The interpretation of other constitutional provisions must recognise this. For example, in applying the reasonable classification test under Article 12(1), the Courts must recognise that the promotion and safeguarding of heterosexual marriage are legitimate and permissible legislative objects. Clause 2 of the Article applies to the Government and any public authority. It allows them to exercise their functions to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote marriage. This includes, but is not limited to, the following situations: (a) HDB can implement public housing policies that give preference to married couples to support, foster and promote marriage; (b) MSF, when they evaluate adoption applications, can recognise and take into account the public policy goal to foster and promote the formation of families within the context of marriage as defined in the Women’s Charter and AMLA; (c) Curricula for preschools and MOE schools centre on the values that reflect Singapore’s mainstream society. That is, marriage as being a union between a man and a woman; and children being born within marriage and raised within such a family construct; (d) In the context of sexuality education, content will be age-appropriate. This means, for example, in preschools and Primary schools, our curriculum will not feature same-sex parents or same-sex romantic relationships.”
“We cannot just ignore the legal risks. This amendment is necessary and it is the right thing to deal with it now and not delay. We have the mandate and the responsibility to govern, and we must put forward what we think is best for Singapore and Singaporeans. This includes making changes in a calibrated and careful manner that may not please everyone. We appreciate our Courts for exercising wisdom and restraint on this matter. But a responsible government should not leave the courts to grapple with controversial social issues. The role of the Courts is to interpret and apply the law. It is not their constitutional function to settle political questions or rule on social norms and values. It is not their function to engage with the political, social, ethical and other dimensions of the issues. Nor do the Courts wish to do so. Litigation is a zero-sum, adversarial process with win-lose outcomes. It is unlike a political process, where the interests of stakeholders can be considered, accommodation can be sought to reach consensus. The Courts also recognise that controversial social issues are best dealt with within the sphere of Parliament. This Bill is what a responsible government carrying out its duty to the people of Singapore would introduce. It allows the political process to balance different interests and perspectives and does not pass the buck to the Court to rule on social issues which are best dealt with via Parliament. Let me now elaborate on the provisions of the Bill. There will be a new Article 156, under the General Provisions of the Constitution. Clause 1 of the Article makes clear that Parliament can act to define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote marriage.”
“Most recently, in August 2022, the Indian Supreme Court observed that the definition of a family unit should be expanded to include homosexual relationships as well as unmarried partnerships or same-sex relationships. This did not even arise from a challenge of definition of family per se. It arose from a case where an employer denied a nurse her application for maternity leave because she had already taken leave to care for her husband's children from a previous marriage. Before this, in 2018, the Indian Supreme Court also struck down section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which similarly criminalised male homosexual acts. We also see the same trend in other jurisdictions. In the US for instance, controversial issues such as abortion are litigated and relitigated in the courts. When the courts decide, things change overnight, with drastic social repercussions that polarise society. Hence, we are proactively safeguarding the institution of marriage and related laws and policies from being challenged in Court. This will allow the Government to continue to make laws and policies, which depend on heterosexual marriage as its foundation. There have been questions on why the Government is intervening now. Why repeal? Why even amend the Constitution? Perhaps we should leave things as they are, let the Courts decide when there is a challenge. Why do this now, when there are other issues of concern, such as the cost of living? That might be politically expedient. We acknowledge that there are indeed other issues of concern to Singaporeans, such as cost of living. To use that as a reason for inaction might be politically expedient but it would not be the right or responsible thing to do. We have assessed that there is a significant risk to our laws being struck down.”
“Now I turn to this Bill, which will make it possible to continue with these pro-family policies and the approach embedded in the Bill. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and our other laws must not conflict with it. Overall, the Constitution is like the "operating system" for Singapore. The four key functions of the Singapore Constitution are: it establishes the key Organs of State like the President, the Parliament, the Government, the Judiciary, the Public Service and regulates their powers with a system of checks and balances; it protects the sovereignty of Singapore; it provides for citizenship; and it protects the fundamental liberties of individuals. Specific to the fundamental liberties, they are found in Part 4 of the Constitution. They are Articles 9 to 16 and include, among others, liberty of the person and freedom of speech, assembly and association. Many of these rights are not absolute rights. They are subject to exceptions such as the maintenance of public order, morality and national security. If an individual considers that their constitutional rights have been infringed by a law or by the actions of a public body, he or she may bring a legal challenge in Court. Hence, it is possible for individuals to argue that our existing laws and policies on marriage are unconstitutional and seek a ruling from the Court to that effect. Just as there have been challenges on the constitutionality of section 377A, there can also be challenges to laws and policies related to marriage. The experiences of other jurisdictions show the perils of court-led change.”
“Examples of these policies and measures that rely on the definition of marriage are: housing, where public housing subsidies and access are prioritised for married couples; financial benefits that favour married couples, such as the Baby Bonus Cash Gift; ART, where access to IVF and use of frozen gametes for procreation are only allowed for married persons; adoption, where only married couples can apply jointly; education, where what is taught in preschools and MOE schools would be based on marriage as between a man and a woman and such a family as the basic unit of society; and media, where higher age ratings apply for media content which depicts non-traditional family units, such as same-sex families. Our public libraries also do not carry books which depict such family units for very young children. Beyond laws and policies, MSF has also been actively promoting, educating and emphasising the importance of families, through our public education programmes. These programmes inculcate family values, such as love, care and concern, respect and commitment to each other in the family. To support parents, the Families for Life Council has rolled out parenting programmes in preschools, schools and the community. We also dedicated 2022 as the Year of Celebrating SG Families, in which the Prime Minister announced an annual National Family Week. Most recently, we had launched the Singapore Made for Families 2025. This plan will create a Singapore where families are valued and supported across different chapters of their lives. These efforts reflect the Government's deep and abiding commitment to the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and to the formation of families within marriage.”
“More recently, Parliament re-enacted the Adoption of Children Act 2022 to make clear that joint adoption applications can only be made by couples whose marriage is recognised in Singapore. Only a man and a woman who are married to each other can apply together. Adoption should not be used as a process to support the formation of same-sex families. I reiterate today: Singapore's public policy is and has always been to uphold heterosexual marriage and promote the formation of families within such marriages. Among other things, this public policy has long been embodied in section 12(1) of the Women's Charter, which invalidates same-sex marriages. Consistent with this policy, an overseas same-sex marriage will, generally, not be accorded legal recognition in Singapore. Our policies clearly reflect the value society places on family formation through marriage. However, we also recognise that there are single unwed parents. We empathise with the challenges they face. Our focus is on their child's well-being and on supporting them in their caregiving responsibilities. Hence, we extend Government benefits that support the growth and development of their children. These include subsidies for education, healthcare, childcare and infant care, the foreign domestic worker levy concession and the Child Development Account. HDB also assesses their requests for housing holistically, based on their individual circumstances. We make a distinction between support and incentive. Thus, we do not provide the Baby Bonus Cash Grant to single unwed parents because this is an incentive for married couples to have children. Our policies support individuals to get married and have children within marriage.”
“Without strong families, Singapore cannot thrive and society cannot perpetuate itself. In his book from "Third World to First", Mr Lee Kuan Yew wrote, "Singapore depends on the strength and influence of the family to keep society orderly". The family is the source of values not only for its members but for society. A 2015 Washington Post article aptly suggests that family values are what makes Singapore strong. It captures Mr Lee's view that when we break away from tested norms, such as the family unit, there is grave disquiet. The family is the building block of society. Indeed, this is wisdom and precisely why we need to be extremely careful to change the construct of the family. To further quote Mr Lee's words in a 1994 interview, "The family is the basic concept of our civilisation. Governments will come, governments will go, but this endures." Hence, our policies also reflect and reinforce this basic idea about marriage and family. We encourage parenthood within marriage. We do not support same-sex family formation and we maintain our policy against planned and deliberate single parenthood, including using assisted reproduction techniques (ART) or surrogacy. We have made these clear in Parliament on multiple occasions. We have also taken steps to defend our pro-family policies when they are challenged. For example, in the adoption case of UKM vs AG, the Court did not agree with the Government that an adoption order should not be made if it resulted in the formation of a same-sex family unit. Thereafter, the Government made clear its policy position, that it does not support same-sex family formation, surrogacy and planned and deliberate single parenthood, including through ART and/or surrogacy.”
“This Bill gives effect to what Prime Minister announced at this year’s National Day Rally, that is, the Government will protect the definition of marriage from being challenged in the Courts on constitutional grounds. Prime Minister had also announced that the Government will repeal section 377A of the Penal Code. In introducing the constitutional (amendment) Bill, my speech will cover the Government's long-standing position on marriage and family, what the Bill is and why we are taking this approach, and our unique approach to manage diversity in Singapore. The PAP Government has been consistent in its strong support for the institution of marriage and the family, through its policies and legislation. One of the first laws enacted by the PAP Government when it came to power was the Women's Charter 1961, which defined and regulated civil marriages. This was a landmark piece of legislation that protected the rights of women by legalising only monogamous marriages between a man and a woman. Similarly, the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) enacted soon after Independence in 1966 provided for the practice of Muslim law to regulate marriages between Muslims. Under AMLA, marriages must meet the requirements of Muslim law, including being between man and woman. There is strong consensus in society that marriage is between a man and a woman; and children should be born and raised within such families. This is the view taken by many Singaporeans, whether religious or not. It is also the view that the Government believes in. It undergirds the shared values that we adopted in 1991. The family is the foundation on which our society is built and sustained, with each generation raising the next to take its place.”