That is why the Government has decided to leave the law that criminalises gay sex as it is now.

It was not a decision taken lightly, he emphasised yesterday, but one that entailed long discussions among Cabinet ministers and extensive public consultation.

And the conclusion the Government came to was that while gays should be allowed their personal space, 'the tone of the overall society remains conventional, it remains straight and we want it to remain so', he said.

Mr Lee was joining in the debate on Section 377A of the Penal Code.

Yesterday, the Bill to amend other sections of the Code - Singapore's main piece of criminal law with over 500 provisions - was passed.

For instance, tougher action will now be taken against paedophilia. Archaic laws such as immunity against marital rape were also amended.

But the issue that sparked a highly charged debate in and outside the House was 377A, an interest fuelled in no small part by a citizens' petition to repeal it that Nominated MP (NMP) Siew Kum Hong filed.

Over two days, 16 MPs spoke on the law that deems sex between men a crime. Three PAP MPs - Mr Hri Kumar, Mr Baey Yam Keng and Mr Charles Chong - expressed reservations about continuing with a law they found variously to be inconsistent and unfair. Others, along with Workers' Party chairman Sylvia Lim and NMP Thio Li-ann, opted for the status quo.

Standing by the second group, the PM began his address to a packed chamber by noting that as Mr Siew and Professor Thio had quoted him in their speeches, 'I should state my position and the Government's position'.

He said: 'Singapore is basically a conservative society.'

The social norm: 'heterosexual, stable family'.

'It's what we teach in schools, it's what parents want to see, want their children to see...to set their expectations and encourage them to develop in this direction.

'And I think the vast majority of Singaporeans want to keep it this way...and so does the Government.'

But Mr Lee took pains to reassure the gays that they are part of, and contributing members, of society here.

'They are our kith and kin,' he added, while citing 'growing scientific evidence' that sexual orientation is largely inborn. 'We shouldn't make it harder than it already is for them to grow up and live in a society where they are different from most Singaporeans.'

Placing the status of the the gay community in context, Mr Lee noted Singapore's gradual progress towards a balance of the various interests. Today, gays work in all sectors. Gay films, clubs, websites are available. Section 377A is not proactively enforced.

'I don't think we will ever get the perfect balance, but I think that we have a better arrangement now than was the case 10 or 20 years ago.'

Repealing 377A, he said, would not give gay activists what they want - full acceptance and more space. So 'it's better to accept the legal untidiness and the ambiguity'.

The current chapter on 377A may be closed, but he expects gay rights to continue to be a contentious issue. Both sides hold strong views, he noted, and in particular, many who oppose its repeal 'do so on very deeply held religious convictions'.

'I should therefore say that as a matter of reality, the more gay activists push this agenda, the stronger will be the push-back from conservative forces in our society.

'So it's better to let the situation evolve gradually.'

Singapore also 'cannot be impervious to what's happening elsewhere'. As attitudes around the world change, this will influence the attitudes of Singaporeans.

Mr Lee concluded by saying that while Singapore is willing to move ahead of the curve on issues such as the economy, on moral issues, it will watch how things work out elsewhere first before acting.

To applause and thumping of seats, he said: 'So I suggest to the members of the House, we keep this balance, leave Section 377A alone. I think there is space in Singapore and room for us to live harmoniously and practically all as Singapore citizens together.'

xueying@sph.com.sg

MORE PARLIAMENT REPORTS, HOME