2022: Agrees that there is “significant legal risk” that Section 377A will be struck down by the courts

Do I believe that there is a significant risk that section 377A will be struck down by the Courts in a future legal challenge? The Attorney-General (AG) had said so. The Minister for Law has said so. These are views that must be taken seriously. So, I have thought long and hard about this matter, and agree that there is a significant risk that section 377A will be struck down by the Courts in a future legal challenge.

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

‍

2022: Supported constitutional amendment

The amendment to the Constitution is clear as to what it seeks to protect. I support it. Why? Mr Speaker, I believe that the institution of marriage, as defined as the union between one man and one woman, is the basis upon which our society is built. It is something we must protect. It must not be diluted.

Mr Speaker, the amendment to the Constitution strengthens this foundation. It states clearly that marriage is between a man and a woman; and it follows that this is the basis on which family is built. By constitutionalising this, we are entrenching our values on what is the core, the base, the order of things from which all other relevant laws and policies in our society take bearing. It is the beacon – the guiding light.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-607

‍

2022: Concern for far-reaching consequences of LGBTQ ideology

As a legislator, I see this inclusion and amendment to the Constitution as a deliberate and positive step. By making this amendment to the Constitution, it means that we are also protecting all our social policies that flow from this definition. As the Prime Minister has said in the National Day Rally, this includes policies on public housing, education, adoption regulations, advertising standards and film classification. Such a position has been echoed by various Ministries in press statements or by Ministers in response to press questions since the National Day Rally.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-607

‍

2022: Stood up for religious freedoms

What does this mean? One, the only form of marriage that is recognised in Singapore is the union between one man and one woman. No other form of marriage is recognised in Singapore. A religious teacher – an ustaz, imam, priest, pastor, bishop, rabbi or men and women of any religion – cannot be prevented from teaching what their faith teaches about marriage and about homosexuality. If practising homosexuality is not condoned in a particular faith, the religious leader can state so.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-607

‍

2022: Stood up for marriage as the only institution for spousal rights

Two, spousal rights can only be granted within the context of a heterosexual marriage.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-607

‍

2022: Stood up for education to be protected from LGBTQ ideology

Three, education in school, particularly sex education, should affirm heterosexual marriage as the norm and the bedrock of family. There is no room to argue that because section 377A is being repealed that this somehow provides a gateway or a licence to teachers to promote or normalise homosexuality in schools in Singapore. The repeal does not provide such a licence.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-607

‍

2022: Stood up for media ratings to be protected from LGBTQ ideology

Four, high age ratings will apply to all media that contains homosexual content. Advertising content should not affirm homosexual unions in any way.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-607

‍

2022: Stood up for housing policies to prioritise heterosexual couples

Five, housing policies will prioritise allocation and grants for married couples; and here, marriage means a union of a man and a woman.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-607

‍

2022: Stood up for children's library books to be protected from LGBTQ ideology

Six, library books for children, both physical and digital, should not have content depicting or affirming homosexual unions.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-607

‍

2022: Stood up for non-recognition of civil unions

Seven, as for adoption, there cannot be a case where a civil union recognised overseas gives a couple in the civil union the ability to adopt under our laws.

Eight and for the complete avoidance of doubt, civil unions and civil partnerships are not recognised in Singapore.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-607

‍

2022: Stood up against foreign interference of LGBTQ ideology in Singapore

What we are debating today in this House, on Singapore soil, is squarely a domestic issue. Other countries can choose how they want to shape their societies, but other countries should not impose their choices on us, no matter how well-meaning they perceive themselves to be. Speaking plainly, let us guard against covert and overt foreign influence in our domestic affairs.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-607

‍

2019: Asked MSF to ban commercial surrogacy, a loophole that same-sex couples use to procure children

Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will (i) ban commercial surrogacy in Singapore (ii) prohibit agreements to pay for surrogacy in Singapore or overseas and (iii) disallow adoptions arising from commercial surrogacy whether such surrogacy occurs in Singapore or overseas.

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): I thank the Minister for his response. Commercial surrogacy, in my view, where a woman's womb is rented for money, is demeaning to the child and to the woman. It commodifies the life of a baby. Life is formed for a commercial price, then bought and sold. This is exploitative.

Mr Christopher de Souza: I thank the Minister for his response and I take it to heart that there are some men and women in marriage who find it difficult to conceive. But to resort to commercial surrogacy where you are paying for a womb overseas, renting a womb, I think does bring about ethical concerns. And there is always the option in Singapore for a married man and woman to explore adoption. So, there is an adoption of another child. So, there is a route to create a family unit with children. Would the Minister consider that as a route?

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=oral-answer-1859

‍

2007: Supported retaining Section 377A

Some argue to repeal it and provide reasons to support their position.  Others say repeal because the law is archaic, not abreast with the times, displays Singapore to be inflexible. I do not agree with this position and provide a number of arguments in support of retaining section 377A and, in so doing, record my support for the Bill.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/topic?reportid=024_20071022_S0004_T0007

‍

2007: Against giving homosexual lifestyle parity with heterosexual lifestyle

Because of the concept of negative liberty, the removal of section 377A puts homosexual lifestyle on par with heterosexual lifestyle.  It is to accord both lifestyles a sense of parity.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/topic?reportid=024_20071022_S0004_T0007

‍

2007: Far-reaching consequences of repeal

The truth of the matter is that if we do repeal section 377A, what is in private will not remain private.  There are far-reaching consequences.  If it is repealed, arguments can be made that rights accorded to heterosexual couples must be accorded to homosexual couples.  This has happened in many jurisdictions - the United States, UK, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, to name a few.  In Singapore, we have had recent calls by lobby groups advocating the trumping of minority interests over wider society's preferences and priorities.  This argument is attractive.  But, really, what are the consequences?  What if section 377A is repealed?  Surely, the answer to this must be weighed in the balance.  So, let us consider the consequences of repealing section 377A.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/topic?reportid=024_20071022_S0004_T0007

‍

2007: Legalising the homosexual lifestyle leads to recognition of same-sex couples

It is the same situation in the United Kingdom, except that gay marriages are termed same-sex civil partnerships.  In fact, the law in the UK is entrenched in the Civil Partnerships Act of 2004.  Under that Act, a civil partnership is defined as a relationship between two people of the same sex which is formed when they register as civil partners of each other.  Perhaps, some supporting the repeal of section 377A may say, "Well, that does not matter.  That marriage relationship can still be private.  It does not pervade common space."  Unfortunately, that is incorrect.  There has been recent judicial opinion in the United Kingdom that the Civil Partnership Act 2004 grants the same-sex couples the same legal recognition that the law grants to opposite-sex couples.  It allows them a formal status with virtually identical legal consequences to those of marriage.  Incidentally, the United Kingdom is the jurisdiction with which Singapore law has the most intimate relationship.  What happens there could happen here, if section 377A is repealed.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/topic?reportid=024_20071022_S0004_T0007

‍

2007: Legalising homosexual lifestyle leads to permitting same-sex couples to adopt children, institutionalising the deprivation of children to a father or mother

Adoption by same-sex couples may be the second consequence of a repeal of section 377A.  Is this far-fetched?  No.  The UCLA School of Law reported in March 2007 that, to date, 10 states in the US allow same-sex partners to adopt children as couples.  About the same number either implicitly or explicitly state that sexual orientation cannot legally prevent homosexual persons from adopting.  The same 2007 report from Williams Institute, UCLA, states that gay and lesbian parents are raising 4% of all adopted children in the United States.  Is this just a US phenomenon?  No.  The International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family stated in a 2002 report that the Danes have since removed the prohibition on same-sex couples adopting, while the Netherlands has expressly legislated to permit such adoptions.  This has forced societies to accept what some academics called the modern family in its many variations.  Do we want our family-centric culture and the traditional definition of family to be threatened?  They will be, if section 377A is repealed.  This is not just a private matter.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/topic?reportid=024_20071022_S0004_T0007

‍