Workers' Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh allowed his Members of Parliament (MPs) to express their different views during a debate on the repeal of Section 377A on Monday (Nov 28) by lifting the party whip. He reiterated that his party does not have a consensus view on the matter.

Noting that he had publicly stated the party’s lack of consensus in 2019, Mr Singh said he believes that if WP had openly supported a repeal, it would not have been good for Singapore politics.

More crucially, such a stance would not have served the interests of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) community, he added.

Mr Singh, who is the Leader of the Opposition, said: "On issues of great social division and contending values, we do not need politicians to be seen as siding with particular groups.”

He was speaking during a parliamentary debate on a Bill to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex between men.

The debate is also dealing with a second related Bill on amending the Constitution to protect the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

The role of a party whip, among other things, is to ensure that MPs from a given party vote according to the party's position in order to maintain party solidarity. The requirement is rarely lifted.

Mr Singh said that not lifting the whip would have denied WP MPs who are not in favour of a repeal the opportunity to vote freely, and in a manner that represents Singaporeans who see this issue as a matter of deep religious belief and conscience.

“The People's Action Party has announced that it is not lifting the whip for this debate,” he said.

“Given the varied public opinion on the impending repeal of 377A, there is a risk that the democratic value of Parliament could be diluted if the views of Singaporeans on this subject are not adequately ventilated in this House.”

Mr Singh said that WP has not endorsed or rejected the cause of LGBTQ+ rights because the LGBTQ+ community should not be exploited for political points.

 “At that time, I believed there was more to consider than deciding which was the ‘right’ side in this matter, particularly in a society, which generally eschews hosting open and frank conversations on difficult matters in the public realm.”

With the WP’s whip lifted, MPs Sylvia Lim, Leon Perera and Louis Chua as well as Mr Singh himself have expressed their support for the repeal. Opposing the Bill were Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Faisal Manap, who has supported the Wear White campaign that opposes homosexuality in the past.

Mr Chua and Mr Faisal were both ill with Covid-19 and absent on Monday, but had their positions conveyed to the House through Mr Singh.

'CANNOT PLEASE EVERYBODY'

Speaking on his personal beliefs, Mr Singh said that in any secular society, sin and crime are separate categories — a point Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam had also raised when he opened the House for debate. Sometimes they overlap, as with murder, he said.

Despite the Government’s political compromise in 2007 — to keep Section 377A in the law but not enforce it — the symbolic message was that the LGBTQ+ community are outsiders, Mr Singh said.

“But the stark reality before this House and Singaporeans today is that there were never any good options before the Government that could please everybody with regards to managing the tensions of 377A,” he said.

Calling for calm in handling the socially divisive nature of this issue, Mr Singh said that there is no basis for religious groups to feel “cancelled” for holding views that are different from society’s expectations. He urged Singaporeans to be thoughtful and empathetic as they share their views on the matter.

Ms Lim, WP's chair, supported the repeal, but abstained from voting on the constitutional amendment after raising concerns that the amendment prohibits challenges to laws and policies based on the definition of marriage.

“To now include the definition of marriage as something that the courts cannot assess for constitutionality does not appear to me to be justified,” she said.

Ms Lim clarified that she is not advocating for gay marriage but found the position hard to accept from a governance standpoint.

“Will the government, present or future, come up with other areas of life, where the courts are to be excluded from reviewing laws and policies for constitutionality?''

Mr Leon Perera, MP for Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC), supported both the repeal and the constitutional amendment.

He noted that though there is no disagreement that most people in society do not want Section 377A actively enforced, there is debate over keeping the law as a symbolic moral marker.

However, Singapore does not introduce other laws into the statute books merely as symbolic markers for other issues of importance, he said.

"Free and respectful conversation about symbolic markers can and should continue completely independently of the law and criminal penalties," he added.

"To keep a law that has a serious impact on the lives of many Singaporeans on the basis that it is a marker but will not be enforced by the current government is not, in my opinion, how we should go about making good laws.''

Likewise, the Progress Singapore Party supports the repeal. Its party member Hazel Poa, who is a Non-Constituency MP said that but called for a national referendum to define marriage, rather than to leave its definition to Parliament.

“This will allow many Singaporeans who have expressed concerns to have a say in this matter,” she said.

LOSS OF A SOCIAL MARKER

Hougang MP Dennis Tan opposed the repeal on the basis that it removes the social marker that the law symbolises for family and social values. He supported the constitutional amendment to protect the definition of marriage.

Describing it as the most difficult speech he has made, the WP MP called for understanding as he expressed concerns he has heard from Singaporeans, that the repeal may lead to further societal changes in areas of gender identity, sex education, marriage laws and public policy.

The removal of Section 377A as a marker may make it difficult for parents in setting down their family and social values at home, he said.

Many are also worried that they will be stopped from expressing contrarian views on sexuality after the repeal for fear of being "cancelled" or being the subject of name-calling in the workplace or school, Mr Tan added.

Likewise, Mr Gerald Giam, MP for Aljunied GRC, opposed the repeal and supported the constitutional amendment.

He said he believes that the Government's compromise of keeping Section 377A without enforcing it gives the best balance of the conflicting interests in society, after hearing various concerns from residents, such as one who said that a disruption to the status quo would spark the type of "culture wars" seen in other countries.

"My vote is not an attack on their values or a diminishing of their humanity in any way," he said, adding that fundamental differences in values and world views is natural in a diverse society such as Singapore's and need not be a source of conflict.

Mr Faisal, MP for Aljunied GRC, opposed the repeal as a “matter of religion and conscience”, Mr Singh said.

The parliamentary debate will resume on Tuesday, with about 10 more MPs set to speak on the debate. The two Bills will be put to a vote, and if approved by the House, can be passed into law.

Source:
courtesy of TODAY

by DARYL CHOO

If you have any stories or news that you would like to share with the global online community, please feel free to share it with us by contacting us directly at [email protected]