There are 2 reasons for the repeal, Minister Shanmugam said.
The first reason is that there are no public order issues that are raised from such conduct, so it should not remain criminal.
"But I accept that MPs and others may disagree with 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."
There is a second reason and this second reason is NOT a matter of conscience. It is a policy question and '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 s 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 – to the heterosexual family. Housing, education, other policies – they could all be at risk.
Knowing all these risks and refusing to take a position or be clear in how we will deal with it, is avoiding our responsibilities as MPs, basically passing it on to the Courts.
It is easier politically, but it is also worse for Singapore and Singaporeans.
To put it bluntly, that will be an abdication of duty. And it would 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."
Singaporeans who are opposed to the repeal because of the first reason must carefully consider the second reason for repeal. Herein are the things you hold dear and want to protect.
377A is indeed an approaching train. The Court of Appeal has said already that legal standard does exist (which is a good thing).
Upholding legal standard means that at some point in time in the future, it will have to rule that the law is unconstitutional if the Government chooses not to do anything about it.
Knowing that the risk of it being struck down in the future is real, and the consequences that will follow, do we really want the Government to do nothing, wait for the train to crash, and we become casualties?
The Court enforces laws without regard to social norms or value. This, we need to be clear.
We have seen in many places like India, Taiwan and the US, where challenges are brought before the court and same sex marriages legalised in this way.
The result is hostility and friction between opposing groups, and a deeply divided society.
If the Government does nothing and allow the same the thing that happened elsewhere happen in Singapore, our society will fray.
What many fear is that the character of our society will change after the repeal. This fear is addressed by the amendment to the Constitution to protect the definition of heterosexual marriage.
Some will be sad at the repeal. Some will be angry. Some will be disappointed. What you can do and must do is to channel your energy to build strong families in the traditional definition.
Upholding legal standard means that at some point in time in the future, it will have to rule that the law is unconstitutional if the Government chooses not to do anything about it.
Knowing that the risk of it being struck down in the future is real, and the consequences that will follow, do we really want the Government to do nothing, wait for the train to crash, and we become casualties?
The Court enforces laws without regard to social norms or value. This, we need to be clear.
We have seen in many places like India, Taiwan and the US, where challenges are brought before the court and same sex marriages legalised in this way.
The result is hostility and friction between opposing groups, and a deeply divided society.
If the Government does nothing and allow the same the thing that happened elsewhere happen in Singapore, our society will fray.
What many fear is that the character of our society will change after the repeal. This fear is addressed by the amendment to the Constitution to protect the definition of heterosexual marriage.
Some will be sad at the repeal. Some will be angry. Some will be disappointed. What you can do and must do is to channel your energy to build strong families in the traditional definition.
The WP had a debate among themselves but did not adopt a party position.
6 out of 9 WP MPs supported repeal. 2 of them who supported repeal, did not support the Amendments to the Constitution which would give Parliament the right to define marriage.
Excerpt from Minister K Shanmugam's speech:
Articles 156 (3)(b) and (4) are the operating provisions.
They protect the ability of Parliament and Government to make laws and policies.
𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝟏𝟓𝟔 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬’ 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬.
𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 (𝟏) 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 (𝟐) 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.
Ms Lim’s 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 Parliament and Government to make laws and policies based on this definition, and for society to live with the consequences after that.
6 out of 9 WP MPs supported repeal. 2 of them who supported repeal, did not support the Amendments to the Constitution which would give Parliament the right to define marriage.
Excerpt from Minister K Shanmugam's speech:
Articles 156 (3)(b) and (4) are the operating provisions.
They protect the ability of Parliament and Government to make laws and policies.
𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝟏𝟓𝟔 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬’ 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬.
𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 (𝟏) 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 (𝟐) 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.
Ms Lim’s 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 Parliament and Government to make laws and policies based on this definition, and for society to live with the consequences after that.
No comments:
Post a Comment