2022: Supported the repeal of Section 377A

The repeal of section 377A is the right thing to do if we are to ensure that Singapore is an inclusive and diverse place to live in and for everyone to be a part of.

I spoke in 2007 in support of a repeal. That was 23 years after the last review of the Penal Code. I said then that I hope we would not take another 23 years to address this again. I am glad that our Government made that decision today.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-605

‍

2022: Supported the constitutional amendment

On the reinforcement of the institution of marriage by the amendment in the Constitution, I welcome it. It signals the pro-family stance of the current Government and population. It is also the right thing to allow the definition of marriage to continue be covered by the Women’s Charter.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-605

‍

2022: Definition of marriage should be open to change

If and when the majority of our population or Parliament feels that the current definition needs to change, that should be for our future generation to decide. It is important that the provisions and any amendments to the Constitution are carefully considered, otherwise it loses its value through capriciousness and constant changes.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-605

‍

2022: Compared heterosexual norms with marrying relatives, arranged marriages, polygamy

This reflects the olden days when people like to strengthen family ties by marrying relatives, whether through matchmakers or even arranged marriages before birth. Now, people have better knowledge of genetic science and understand that marriage between relatives will significantly increase the incidence of genetic disorders and children born with deformity.

Bai Ju Yi said in his poem, “With 3,000 concubines in the palace, their love is only concentrated on one person”. In ancient times when polygamy was the norm, the emperor had multiple wives. In fact, we do not have to go back to the imperial era. Although my grandfather and maternal grandfather were neither officials nor come from rich families, both of them had two wives. Of course, this is an offence now.

These two examples remind us that many customs and even laws change with the progress of society and science. The process can take hundreds and thousands of years, decades or just a few years. This constitutional amendment will protect the current definition of marriage while other national policies relating to marriage and family will remain unchanged. However, the current definition of marriage between men and women will continue to be covered by the Women's Charter. In other words, if, one day, more than half of the Members of Parliament or population agree to amend the Women's Charter and expand the definition of marriage, it would be a new law and need not garner two-thirds of votes as required for an amendment to the Constitution.

This is how democracy works. Our generation should not and does not have the right to set a higher bar on the issue involving someone's lifetime happiness, depriving the next generation of the chance to make a decision for themselves.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-605

‍

2022: Made homosexuality relatable for Chinese people

Some Singaporeans may not have known or come into contact with homosexuals directly. But I think you would have heard of these names: Taiwanese writer Pai Hsien-yung, Golden Horse award-winning director Tsai Ming-liang, Hong Kong director Stanley Kwan, founder of Cloud Gate Dance Theatre Lin Hwai-min, Hong Kong singers Anthony Wong and Leslie Cheung, lyric writer Lin Xi, and Cantonese Opera singer Ren Jian-hui. These are household names in the Chinese arts, culture and entertainment scene. Their talent has provided us with much spiritual food and entertainment. They have countless loyal readers, audience and fans. They openly admitted that they were homosexuals.

They live in a more conservative and traditional oriental society and have probably gone through a lot of struggles, from knowing their sexuality and accepting that they like same-sex relationships, to coming out of closet and accepting public scrutiny, or even criticism. This takes great courage.

If we enjoy their novels, lyrics and songs they have written and like their movies and stage productions, but on the other hand, we want to control their private lives by law and not allow them to be intimate with their loved ones, are we not too selfish and overboard?

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-605

‍

2022: Compared marriage norms to fashion trends

People's views and social norms do change over time. In the past, it was unusual for men to wear earrings, remove body hair, or perm their hair. For women to wear skirts that do not extend below their knees, or for anyone besides gangsters to have tattoos. Now we see these expressions of individuality frequently in our everyday lives. We should not tie our future generations to be restricted by today's traditions and norms. Instead, we should advocate for more freedom for them to decide how they want to live their lives.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-605

‍

2022: There should be discretion in public displays of affection for all types of relationships

Today, we are addressing an act of intimacy, in this case for men with men. Just like every other kind of relationship, let us continue to maintain discretion in the public display of affections.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-605

‍

2022: Society should become more "progressive"

Therefore, the advocacy of specific rights before our society is ready may do more harm than good. We aim to be more progressive, but we must ensure that our direction and steps are carefully considered.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-605

‍

2016: Views on LGBT might change based on life stage

As to the point on “one’s stance on homosexuality changes with … having children", I was responding specifically to the question asked on banning a same-sex kiss in the Singapore staging of Les Miserables, that a parent might feel uncomfortable explaining to a child when asked why two men were kissing. I know I can speak for fellow parents, that we are typically ill prepared to discuss matters of a sexual nature, even pertaining to mainstream lifestyles.

Yes, one’s views would sometimes change too based on our life stage. These include notions of what is fun and danger, social norms, moral values and personal conviction.

https://www.facebook.com/BaeyYamKeng/photos/a.115248718502843.14666.115142085180173/1474701615890873/?type=3&theater

https://sg.style.yahoo.com/baey-yam-keng-responds-younger-031603582.html

https://popspoken.com/issues/2016/11/lgbt-singapore-discussion

‍

2015: Does not support same-sex marriage and parenting

"A MAN IS NOT A MOTHER, A WOMAN NOT A FATHER"

Speaking in his personal capacity, Mr Baey said he was not in support of same-sex marriage.

"Man and woman are just made differently. While two men or two women can love and care for a child as good as, or even better than a man-woman couple, we have to understand that a man is not a mother and a woman is not a father," he told the audience at UTown in NUS.

"I may cook better than my wife but I will never be a mother to my three children. Even if my wife becomes the breadwinner, she cannot be their father. To be fair to the child who is innocent and cannot choose, I am not for same gender couples to have and raise children."Likewise, I do not support people wanting children and choosing to do so as a single parent, not because of divorce or bereavement. The child is missing something in such a family."

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1034355823258790&set=a.710230282338014

‍

2015: Called for more discussion about Section 377A

At the forum, Mr Baey called for continued discussion on Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminises gay sex between men, saying that policies needed to reflect societal sentiment.

"I want to especially encourage voices from individuals, organisations and institutions, so that the discussion will not be driven to periphery," said Mr Baey, who had spoken in favour of repealing S377A in 2007.

"Hopefully the discussion will be ongoing and not just during the next review of the Penal Code. Hopefully the review will happen earlier rather than another 23 years later, which was the period between 2007 and the previous review of Penal Code.

"No policy should or needs to remain the same forever, it must move with times.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1034355823258790&set=a.710230282338014

‍

2014: NLB has duty to provide appropriate books, parents must choose literature for their own children

NLB has a duty to provide appropriate books for the public, both to meet the reading interests of the masses but also to avail the public of a wide range of literature in order for us to form our own judgment as a learning society. However, in the case of children's books, parents must also play a part in choosing the literature they would like their kids to be exposed to.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=879394512088256&set=a.710230282338014

‍

2007: Supported the repeal of Section 377A

Let us look at this issue in a hypothetical scenario.  Singapore was never a British colony and we did not inherit section 377A.  Today's debate then becomes one of justifying the introduction of a new piece of legislation which states that, "It is an offence for any male person, who in public or private, commits an act of gross indecency with another male person.".

The rationale will be that since Singapore is a generally conservative society, we should single out and criminalise all sexual activities between two men while accepting that the same activity of anal and oral sex between a heterosexual couple and sexual activity between two women need not be offences.

By doing so, we will be aligning our law with most countries in Africa and Middle East.  In this hypothetical scenario, perhaps some countries like India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Malaysia will also introduce similar Acts, as what their current position is.  Other former British colonies which have since repealed the 19th century law, such as Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong, will most likely not think it is necessary to now criminalise man-to-man sex.

While almost all western countries do not have similar laws, we will argue that it is not relevant for us to take reference from them.  However, we are also choosing not to benchmark Singapore against countries like China, Indonesia, Thailand, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines which do not have laws that criminalise male homosexual activity.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/topic?reportid=018_20071023_S0003_T0002

‍

2007: Asked questions about how non-enforcement of Section 377A works

We also know that there are already laws and there will be stronger laws against prostitution, sexual abuse, exploitation of minors and public indecency.  Maybe that is why we will propose that section 377A need not and will not be proactively enforced.

Can the Senior Minister of State give examples of situations where specific enforcement of only section 377A may be needed?  Yesterday, he mentioned previous convictions under section 377A, but it seems to me that they could also have been prosecuted under other sections.  With no proactive enforcement, should anyone be a good citizen and report private gay sexual activities to the police or will they be simply ignored?  Will there be ramifications of this legislation?  If someone rents his apartment to a gay couple, will he be charged as an abetting accomplice to  a crime under section V of the Penal Code?  Besides valid immigration and employment papers, should landlords now ask for confirmation of their tenant's sexual orientation?

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/topic?reportid=018_20071023_S0003_T0002

‍

2007: Not convinced about the slippery slope following repeal of Section 377A

Back to my hypothetical scenario, we will also say that we introduce section 377A as a symbol that the society is conservative and that we do not want to go down a slippery slope to see public display of affection between men, the fight for gay rights and gay marriages.  For seven years, I have lived in London, a city that legalised consensual homosexual sex 40 years ago in 1967.  I am hence surprised to recollect my time there and I have not ever seen any such behaviour or intimacy between two men in public whilst I was there.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/topic?reportid=018_20071023_S0003_T0002