Although Nominated Member of Parliament Raj Joshua Thomas is away on holiday in Armenia, he recently made the time to engage with youth leaders from Protect Singapore ahead of the second readings of two Bills.

The two bills in question were the repeal of Section 377A which criminalizes sex between men and a constitutional amendment to protect the current definition of marriage as the union between a man and woman.

The bills were tabled by the Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam and by the Minister for Social and Family Development Masagos Zulkifli respectively during a parliamentary sitting in October.

The two readings of the Bills will be debated when Parliament convenes on 28 Nov, with a simple majority required to repeal the law, and two-thirds of the MP’s support needed to amend the constitution.

Such a bold move by the government has attracted interest from various groups in Singapore, those that are for the repeal and those that are against it. One such group has differing views on the matter and is uneasy about how it would affect the community at large.

See also  Lawrence Wong: FTX loss is disappointing, but won’t impact Net Investments Returns Contribution

“I also took some time to meet up online with youth leaders from the Protect Singapore movement. They spoke passionately about how they felt about the upcoming repeal of section 377A, and their views and concerns on how Singapore is changing as a society. Their concerns range from the makeup of the family, to health matters and the upbringing of children, all of which are fundamental to any society,” posted Raj on his Facebook page.

“I was glad that they affirmed the need to continue to have dialogue and engagement, and that they emphasised having respect for others who did not share their views. I was also encouraged that they largely understood the legal underpinnings of why Parliament was moving now to repeal section 377A (although they did not necessarily agree).”

Earlier in the month, the Ministry of Social and Family Development launched ‘A Singapore Made For Families 2025 Plan’, aiming to create strong and stable families as the bedrock of society. 

The plan was built on the momentum of the Year of Celebrating SG Families in 2022. It is the nation’s plan for how the government, community partners, businesses and individuals come together to co-create a Singapore where all families are valued and supported.   

See also  K Shanmugam: Homosexuality might be a sin in some religions, but not every sin is a crime

“Strong families are our first line of support and a key pillar of our social compact. A Singapore Made For Families 2025 plan cements our nation’s continued commitment to building A Singapore Made For Families – a society that values and supports family well-being. We have made much progress in championing families at every stage of their lives, and will strive to do more. Families shape how we relate to each other as fellow members of our community, impart values that we carry with us through life. We must continue to work together towards making Singapore a warm home where all families can thrive,” said Minister Masagos.

Although most of the time discussions on this issue remained cordial, the NMP was disheartened to find out that on several occasions it did get out of hand and hoped that all parties maintain a high level of civility towards one another.

“I was, however, saddened to hear that they had encountered incidents of name-calling and harassment due to their advocacy, including by LGBTQ+ activists. A national dialogue, especially on divisive issues, needs a plurality of voices to be heard. These voices, as long as they are respectful and not unlawful, must have a safe space to speak out and be heard. This is their right and this right must be safeguarded,” explained the president of the Security Association of Singapore.

See also  Netizens completely disagree with Law Minister; insist that family background greatly affects success in Singapore

“I told them that I admired their courage for speaking up, especially given that their views might not be the most popular at this time, and that they should continue to do so, without fear.”

“I also suggested that advocacy should focus not on setting out views on why the opposite side is wrong, but on why one’s own side is correct. This will nurture constructive dialogue without being seen as targeting or attacking anyone. And importantly, everyone should be ready to listen to the views and experiences of others.”