In contrast to his father, Lee Kuan Yew's views on homosexuality, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, leader of the People's Action Party (PAP), had all along not been in favour of repealing Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalised sex between men. However, six months after a landmark ruling by the Court of Appeal in Tan Seng Kee v AG that Section 377A was "unenforceable in its entirety", a significant risk that law could be struck down in a future constitutional challenge, as well as recent surveys which showed that public attitudes towards homosexuality had shifted dramatically, he announced during his National Day Rally speech on 21 August 2022 that Singapore would repeal the statute, but that the Constitution would be amended to protect the existing definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
BBC interview, 2000[]
On 13 November 2000, Christopher Gunness from the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) interviewed Lee Hsien Loong when he was Deputy Prime Minister during a programme called Out in Asia.
Gunness: I'm now with one of the new generation of Singaporean politicians, the Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. We've been talking to gay and lesbian people in Singapore and one of the things they say is that they just don't have enough space, that because it's criminalised but people aren't actively pursued by the police, there is this atmosphere of intimidation, even though it's not actual, they're not all carted off to prison, but there is this fear in the background. What's your answer to that?
Lee: These are social mores and norms, a balance which is set not so much by the Government, as by the expectations of the public, and this is a multi-racial, multi-religious public and some segments are very conservative and traditional in their views, and we have to accept that. As you say, homosexual people are not harassed or intimidated or squeezed in Singapore. But neither do we encourage homosexual lifestyles to be publicly flaunted or legitimised or presented as being part of a mainstream way of life.
Gunness: We spoke to a lesbian who told us that her girlfriend was a doctor, and when she qualified, they had to split up because her girlfriend said, 'I will simply not get a job as a doctor.' Now, that's clearly not Government discrimination, but the Government sets the tone and it happens lower down. Do you accept that that is at least a problem?
Lee: Well, I think these are balanced trade-offs which we have to make. We have to take a position. We've inherited a society which is the way we are. We've inherited legislation which we now have on our books, really from the British. You have evolved - you have changed, and it continues to be a matter for debate in Britain, so I'm sure it will continue to be a matter for debate in Singapore. But, I think it has to evolve on its own and it really cannot...we really don't think it's a good idea to make this an issue for a pressure group effort.
Gunness: There have been surveys done which show the people are much more tolerant, which puts a lie, if you like, to the Government argument that there are public objections to a more liberal attitude. Is that not fair?
Lee: Well, we have to judge the overall political tone. You can conduct surveys. It depends whom you ask, and our judgement is that this is a fairly conservative society and it is not ready to make a qualitative change.
Replay to Time journalist's question, 2005[]
On 1 October 2005, Time magazine journalist Jake Smith, during a Q&A session with members of the Foreign Correspondents Association, asked Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong how he felt about gays and said that the Singapore Government gives 'every impression of being somewhat homophobic'.
Rejecting this view, PM Lee said that he agreed with the view taken by his predecessor, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, that homosexuals 'are people like you and me'.
But the question, he said, was this: 'How do we provide the maximum space without it becoming intrusive and oppressive on the rest of the population and without causing a backlash which will lead to polarisation and animosity?
'That's our responsibility and challenge. It's very hard to do.' A balance, he said, needs to be struck between two opposing forces. On the one side are the gay activists who want more space and feel entitled to it. On the other are those who condemn homosexuality.
'There will be those who say this is wrong, it's a sin, not just a crime but a sin, stop it,' he said. 'Therefore, it's a dynamic balance and one which we'll have to manage very carefully.'
Mr Lee replied that it was a question of what a society considered acceptable, and Singaporeans were still largely very conservative.
While accepting of gays, PM Lee drew a line against gay marriages and parades. The annual Nation gay party, usually held in August, was banned that year.
He said: 'You can do that in Sydney and London and San Francisco, but I'm not sure you're allowed to do that in Singapore, because I think it will be offensive to a large number of Singaporeans and it will be very divisive.'
Parliamentary debate on Section 377A, 2007[]
During the debate on 22 and 23 October 2007 over the Parliamentary petition to repeal Section 377A presented by Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Siew Kum Hong, PM Lee made the following concluding speech:
Transcript:
Mr Speaker, Sir, this parliamentary debate is on the amendments to the Penal Code, but the hottest debate is on one section which is not being amended - section 377A. Both Mr. Siew Kum Hong and Prof. Thio Li-ann quoted me with approval in their speeches yesterday, so I think I should state my position and the Government's position on this matter.
Because of the review of the Penal Code and the amendments, I think the gay community and the activists have staged a push to get the Government to open this subject and to abolish section 377A. They have written an open letter to me as Prime Minister, they have also petitioned Parliament on this issue on the grounds of constitutional validity, and the constitutional argument was made by Mr. Siew Kum Hong yesterday in Parliament. I do not have to go into the details. It was rebutted very cogently by Ms Indranee Rajah and very passionately by Prof. Thio Li-ann. They are not my legal advisers. I take my legal advice from the Attorney-General, and his advice to the Government is quite clear.
The continued retention of section 377A would not be a contravention of the Constitution.
The Government has not taken this matter lightly. We had a long discussion amongst the Ministers. We had an extensive public consultation on the Penal Code amendments and we decided on this issue - to leave things be.
Let me, today, focus on the policy issue - what we want the law to be, and explain our thinking, our considerations, why we came to this conclusion. I would ask these questions: what is our attitude towards homosexuality? "Our", meaning the Government's attitude and Singaporeans' attitude too. How should these attitudes and these values be reflected in our legislation?
Many Members have said this, but it is true and it is worth saying again. Singapore is basically a conservative society. The family is the basic building block of our society. It has been so and, by policy, we have reinforced this and we want to keep it so. And by "family" in Singapore, we mean one man one woman, marrying, having children and bringing up children within that framework of a stable family unit.
If we look at the way our Housing and Development Board flats are, our neighbourhoods, our new towns, they are, by and large, the way Singaporeans live. It is not so in other countries, particularly in the West, anymore, but it is here.
I acknowledge that not everybody fits into this mould. Some are single, some have more colourful lifestyles, some are gay. But a heterosexual stable family is a social norm. It is what we teach in schools. It is also what parents want their children to see as their children grow up, to set their expectations and encourage them to develop in this direction. I think the vast majority of Singaporeans want to keep it this way. They want to keep our society like this, and so does the Government.
But, at the same time, we should recognise that homosexuals are part of our society. They are our kith and kin.
This is not just in Singapore. This is so in every society, in every period of history, back to pre-historic times, or at least as long as there have been records - biblical times and probably before.
What makes a person gay or homosexual? Well, partly, it could be the social environment. If we look at the ancient Greeks and Romans, it was quite normal for men to have homosexual relationships - an older man with a young boy. It does not mean that that was all they did - they had wives and children. But, socially, that was the practice. So, I think, the social environment has something to do with it.But there is growing scientific evidence that sexual orientation is something which is substantially inborn. I know that some will strongly disagree with this, but the evidence is accumulating. We can read the arguments and the debates on the Internet. Just to take one provocative fact, homosexual behaviour is not observed only amongst human beings but also amongst many species of mammals.
So, too, in Singapore, there is a small percentage of people, both male and female, who have homosexual orientations.
They include people "who are often responsible, invaluable, and highly respected contributing members of society".
I quote from the open letter which the petitioners have written to me, and it is true. They include people who are responsible and valuable, highly respected contributing members of society. And I would add that among them are some of our friends, our relatives, our colleagues, our brothers and sisters, or some of our children.
They, too, must have a place in this society, and they, too, are entitled to their private lives. We should not make it harder than it already is for them to grow up and to live in a society where they are different from most Singaporeans. And we also do not want them to leave Singapore to go to more congenial places to live. But homosexuals should not set the tone for Singapore society.Nor do we consider homosexuals a minority, in the sense that we consider, say, Malays and Indians as minorities, with minority rights protected under the law - languages taught in schools, cultures celebrated by all races, representation guaranteed in Parliament through GRCs and so on.
And this is the point which Ms Indranee Rajah made yesterday in a different way.
This is the way Singapore society is today. This is the way the majority of Singaporeans want it to be. So, we should strive to maintain a balance, to uphold a stable society with traditional, heterosexual family values, but with space for homosexuals to live their lives and contribute to the society.
We have gradually been making progress towards achieving a closer approximation to this balance over the years. I do not think we will ever get a perfect balance, but I think we have a better arrangement now than was the case 10 or 20 years ago.
Homosexuals work in all sectors, all over the economy, in the public sector and in the civil service as well. They are free to lead their lives, free to pursue their social activities. But there are restraints and we do not approve of them actively promoting their lifestyles to others, or setting the tone for mainstream society. They live their lives. That is their personal life, it is their space. But the tone of the overall society, I think, remains conventional, it remains straight, and we want it to remain so.
So, for example, the recent case of Mr Otto Fong, who is a teacher in Raffles Institution. He is gay and he is a good teacher by all accounts. He put up a blog which described his own sexual inclinations, and explained how he was gay. He circulated to his colleagues and it became public. So MOE looked at this. The school spoke to the teacher.
The teacher understood that this was beyond the limit, because how he lives is his own thing. But what he disseminates comes very close to promoting a lifestyle. So, they spoke to him, he took down his blog. He posted an explanation, he apologised for what he had done, and he continues teaching in RI today. So there is space, and there are limits.
De facto, gays have a lot of space in Singapore.Gay groups hold public discussions. They publish websites. I have visited some of them. There are films and plays on gay themes. In fact, sometimes people ask, "Why are there so many? Aren't there other subjects in the world?" But since we have allowed it in the last few years, maybe this is a letting off of pressure. Eventually, we will find a better balance.
There are gay bars and clubs. They exist. We know where they are. Everybody knows where they are. They do not have to go underground. We do not harass gays. The Government does not act as moral policemen. And we do not proactively enforce section 377A on them.
But this does not mean that we have reached a broad social consensus, that this is a happy state of affairs, because there are still very different views amongst Singaporeans on whether homosexuality is acceptable or morally right.
And we heard these views aired in Parliament over these last two days.
Some are convinced, passionately so, that homosexuality is an abomination, to quote Prof. Thio Li-ann's words
yesterday.Others, probably many more, are uncomfortable with homosexuals, more so with public display of homosexual behaviour. Yet others are more tolerant and accepting.
There is a range of views. There is also a range of degrees to which people are seized with this issue. Many people are not that seized with this issue. And speaking candidly, I think the people who are very seized with this issue are a minority. For the majority of Singaporeans - this is something that they are aware of but it is not the top of their consciousness - including, I would say, amongst them a significant number of gays themselves. But, also, I would say, amongst the Chinese-speaking community in Singapore. The Chinese-speaking Singaporeans are not strongly engaged, either for removing section 377A or against removing section 377A. Their attitude is: live and let live.
So, even in this debate in these two days, Members would have noticed that there have been very few speeches made in Parliament in Mandarin on this subject. I know Mr Baey Yam Keng made one this afternoon, but Mr Low Thia Khiang did not. It reflects the focus of the Chinese-speaking ground and their mindsets. So, for the majority of Singaporeans, their attitude is a pragmatic one. We live and let live.
The current legal position in Singapore reflects these social norms and attitudes, as Ms Indranee Rajah and Mr Hri Kumar explained yesterday. It is not legally neat and tidy. Mr Hri Kumar gave a very professional explanation of how untidy it is, but it is a practical arrangement that has evolved out of our historical circumstances. We are not starting from a blank slate, trying to design an ideal arrangement; neither are we proposing new laws against homosexuality. We have what we have inherited and what we have adapted to our circumstances. And as Mr Hri Kumar pointed out, we inherited section 377A from the British, imported from English Victorian law - Victorian from the period of Queen Victoria in the 19th century - via the Indian Penal Code, via the Straits Settlements Penal Code, into Singapore law.
Asian societies do not have such laws, not in Japan, China and Taiwan. But it is part of our landscape. We have retained it over the years. So, the question is: what do we want to do about it now? Do we want to do anything about it now? If we retain it, we are not enforcing it proactively. Nobody has argued for it to be enforced very vigorously in this House. If we abolish it, we may be sending the wrong signal that our stance has changed, and the rules have shifted.
But because of the Penal Code amendments, section 377A has become a symbolic issue, a point for both opponents and proponents to tussle around. The gayactivists want it removed.Those who are against gay values and lifestyle argue strongly to retain it. And both sides have mobilised to campaign for their causes. There was a Petition to remove section 377A. It accumulated a couple of thousand signatures which were presented to this House.
Therefore, there was a counter-petition to retain it, which collected 15,000 signatures - at least, according to the newspapers. I have not counted the signatures - 16,000.
An hon. Member: 15,560.
The Prime Minister: 15,560 signatures. It has probably gone up since we last started speaking.There was also an open letter to me.The Ministers and I have received many emails and letters on this subject. I have received emails too in my mail box, very well written, all following a certain model answer style.
So it is a very well organised campaign. And not only writing letters, but constituents have visited MPs at meet-the-people sessions to see the MP, not because there is anything they want done, but to congratulate the MP on what a good Government this is, that we are keeping section 377A, and please stay a good Government, and please do not change it.
I do not doubt the depth of the sentiments and the breadth of the support but it is also a very well organised pressure campaign. But I am not surprised that this issue is still contentious, because even in the West, even where they have liberalised, homosexuality still remains a very contentious issue. They decriminalised homosexual acts decades ago, in the 1960s, 1970s, and they have gone a long way towards accepting gays in society. They not only have gays in prominent places, but if you want to have a complete Cabinet or a complete line-up when you go for elections, you must have some on your list so that you are seen to have been inclusive. This is certainly so in Europe, also true in America.
But still the issue is bitterly disputed. So in America, there are fierce debates over gay rights and same-sex marriages. And the conservatives in America are pushing back. President George Bush has been calling for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and not between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. This is in America. So the issue is still joined. Even within the churches, it is a hot subject. The Anglican Church, Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, had liberal views on gay issues. He became the Archbishop. He has moderated his views, because he has to reflect the Church as a whole.
And even within the church, the Church in England, and the Church in America have a very serious disagreement with the Anglican churches in Asia and in Africa, who almost split away on this issue of ordination of gay people as bishops. And they have patched up in a compromise recently in America and the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is head of the church, had to plead with his community to come to some understanding so that they maintain the Anglican communion.
So, this is not an issue where we can reach happy consensus and abolishing section 377A, were we to do this, is not going to end the argument in Singapore. Among the conservative Singaporeans, the deep concerns over the moral values of society will remain and, among the gay rights' activists, abolition is not going to give them what they want because what they want is not just to be freed from section 377A, but more space and full acceptance by other Singaporeans. And they have said so. So, supposing we move on 377A, I think the gay activists would push for more, following the example of other avant garde countries in Europe and America, to change what is taught in the schools, to advocate same-sex marriages and parenting, to ask for, to quote from their letter, "...exactly the same rights as a straight man or woman." This is quoting from the open letter which the petitioners wrote to me. And when it comes to these issues, the majority of Singaporeans will strenuously oppose these follow-up moves by the gay campaigners and many who are not anti-gay will be against this agenda, and I think for good reason.
Therefore, we have decided to keep the status quo on section 377A. It is better to accept the legal untidiness and the ambiguity. It works, do not disturb it. Mr Stewart Koe, who is one of the petitioners, was interviewed yesterday and he said he wanted the Government to remove the ambiguity and clarify matters. He said the current situation is like, I quote him, "Having a gun put to your head and not pulling the trigger. Either put the gun down or pull the trigger." First of all, I do not think it is like that, and secondly, I do not think it is wise to try to force the issue. If you try and force the issue and settle the matter definitively, one way or the other, we are never going to reach an agreement within Singapore society. People on both sides hold strong views. People who are presently willing to live and let live will get polarised and no views will change, because many of the people who oppose it do so on very deeply held religious convictions, particularly the Christians and the Muslims and those who propose it on the other side, they also want this as a matter of deeply felt fundamental principles. So, discussion and debate is not going to bring them closer together. And instead of forging a consensus, we will divide and polarise our society.
I should therefore say that as a matter of reality, the more the gay activists push this agenda, the stronger will be the push back from conservative forces in our society, as we are beginning to see already in this debate and over the last few weeks and months. And the result will be counter productive because it is going to lead to less space for the gay community in Singapore. So it is better to let the situation evolve gradually. We are a completely open society. Members have talked about it - the Internet, travel, full exposure.
We cannot be impervious to what is happening elsewhere. As attitudes around the world change, this will influence the attitude of Singaporeans. As developments around the world happen, we must watch carefully and decide what we do about it. When it comes to issues like the economy, technology, education, we better stay ahead of the game, watch where people are moving and adapt faster than others, ahead of the curve, leading the pack. And when necessary on such issues, we will move even if the issue is unpopular or controversial. So we are moving on CPF changes, we are moving on so many economic restructuring changes. We moved on IRs - it is a difficult subject, not everybody supports the Government, but we decide this is right, we move.
On issues of moral values with consequences to the wider society, first we should also decide what is right for ourselves, but secondly, before we are carried away by what other societies do, I think it is wiser for us to observe the impact of radical departures from the traditional norms on early movers. These are changes which have very long lead times before the impact works through, before you see whether it is wise or unwise. Is this positive? Does it help you to adapt better? Does it lead to a more successful, happier, more harmonious society?
So, we will let others take the lead, we will stay one step behind the frontline of change; watch how things work out elsewhere before we make any irrevocable moves. We were right to uphold the family unit when western countries went for experimental lifestyles in the 1960s - the hippies, free love, all the rage, we tried to keep it out. It was easier then, all you had were LPs and 45 RPM records, not this cable vision, the Internet and travel today. But I am glad we did that, because today if you look at Western Europe, the marriage as an institution is dead. Families have broken down, the majority of children are born out of wedlock and live in families where the father and the mother are not the husband and wife living together and bringing them up. And we have kept the way we are. I think that has been right.
I think we have also been right to adapt, to accommodate homosexuals in our society, but not to allow or encourage activists to champion gay rights as they do in the West. So I suggest, Mr Speaker, and 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. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Response to Braema Mathi's question, 2013[]
After a speech at the Singapore Perspectives conference organised by the Institute of Policy Studies on Monday, 28 January 2013, Lee was asked by a participant, civil society activist Braema Mathi, how the fact that the republic was a secular country reconciled with “an old and archaic law that nearly discriminates against a whole (group) of people”. Lee replied, “Why is that law on the books? Because it’s always been there and I think we just leave it.”[1],[2] The LGBT community expressed their extreme disappointment with his comments.
Views on same-sex marriage, 2015[]
During the Ho Rih Hwa Leadership in Asia Public Lecture Series held in Singapore on 30 June 2015, PM Lee answered a question from a female member of the audience regarding the then recent legalisation of same-sex marriage in the USA and its relevance to Singapore.
Transcript:
"Audience member: Thank you, Mr Lee. So over the weekend the same sex marriage was legalised in the United States. Effectively nine citizens redefined marriage on behalf of millions of their peers, many of whom were opposed to the idea of same sex marriage. What is your view on the appropriateness of judges’ views overriding properly-passed laws? Do you think a political or judicial solution is better to address such a thorny issue especially for countries like Singapore? Thank you.
PM Lee: Well, this is the way the American system works. They have created the Supreme Court. It is nine men and the nine men decide important issues and in this case, it was five to four. So actually one man decided the issue. But that is their system. They will not say that they made a decision on the issue, they will say that they interpreted the Constitution in its true sense and this is what the US Constitution has always meant. That is the way there. I am not a law professor but I think that is the way they explain their legal system. It is how they resolve social, political, economic, racial, all kinds of important issues. Congress, the Parliament does not have the last word. It goes to the Supreme Court. Things like abortion, things like racial discrimination, drugs, all sorts of things go to the Supreme Court.
It is not our system. In our system, the Parliament decides, the Executive through the Parliament, takes the lead, legislates and legislates on behalf of the population. On an issue like LGBT where there are very strong views in the society, I think the legislature has to act very cautiously. You can pass a law but will it be accepted? Will it be respected? Will people feel that it is legitimate? I think that we have to have a good sense of the ground, a good sense of how people feel and reflect the values and the attitudes of the population or rather than try to impose your own on them. Even in America, there are people who feel like that. I mean there are 40 percent of Americans who are opposed to same sex marriage and they say “well you decided this but I do not like this. I have to accept it but it is not my preference.” In Singapore, we have different legislative arrangements. We have a much more cautious approach towards social issues. On LGBT issues, I have stated my position. It is one where we move carefully because it is really a conservative population and I think we let the views evolve with time. The population has to decide collectively rather than the government decide that I am going to go one way or the other."
The full transcript of the dialogue is available on the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) website[3].
Evolving attitudes towards LGBT community, 2016[]
During the Q&A session at the inaugural 'Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) Ministerial Forum: Dialogue with SITizens 2016' held on 24 October 2016, Lee spoke about the evolving attitudes towards the LGBT community in Singapore. (PMO video by Alex Qiu and Chiez How.)
Conservatives and liberals on LGBT issues, 2016[]
On Sunday, 4 December 2016, in a speech at the 34th People's Action Party (PAP) Conference held at the Singapore Expo, Lee said:
"People have different interests, adopt different causes, take different views on social issues. We have nature groups, arts groups, conservatives and liberals on LGBT issues, groups focussed on people with disabilities. Such diversities can be strengths, but only if we do not let them divide us."
Response to BBC's question on homosexuality and gay equality, 2017[]
During the BBC episode of HARDtalk aired on Tuesday, 28 February 2017, host Stephen Sackur asked Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong about homosexuality and gay equality[4]:
Transcript:
Sackur: Well, let's talk symbols then. About the identity of Singapore today and what you want it to look like in the years to come. There's been a lot of discussion, shall I say, inside the city-state, about your repressive law on homosexuality. It is still technically illegal thanks to statute, I think, number 377A for two consenting male adults to have sex. It is a criminal offence. Now I know that the Singapore judicial authorities choose not to prosecute men for doing it, but why not, as a symbol of change in this country, get that off the statute book?
Lee: It's a matter of society values. We inherited this from British Victorian attitudes.
Sackur: And I'm sure you do not want Singapore today to reflect British Victorian attitudes.
Lee: We are not British, we are not Victorian, but this is a society which is not that liberal on these matters. Attitudes have changed but I believe if you had a referendum on the issue today, 377A would stand. The majority of Singaporeans believe...
Sackur: You've been in power for, what, more than twelve years yourself. Is it not your role as a leader to signal to your people that Singapore can and must adapt to changing social mores. Lee: On social moral issues, I think the government's role is not to lead. It is, people believe this, they believe, some of them believe this fervently, it's a vex issue in every society. I think we just let it...
Sackur: Let me ask you a personal question. I mean, I don't wish to sound rude in any way but...
Lee: You never are.
Sackur: ...if any of your children or grandchildren were gay, would that change your perspective? Would you then think it were unacceptable for consenting adults to be criminalised this way?
Lee: I think that it's a law which is there. If I remove it, I will not remove the problem. Because if you look at what has happened in the West, I mean in Britain, you decriminalised it in the 1960s, your attitudes have changed a long way but even now, gay marriage is contentious. In America, it's very contentious. Even in France, in Paris, they've had demonstrations in the streets against gay marriage.
Sackur: But what's your personal view? Would you like, all things being equal, to get rid of 377A?
Lee: My personal view is that if I don't have a problem, this is an uneasy compromise, I'm prepared to live with it until social attitudes change.
.................................
Lee: We are completely open. We have one of the fastest Internet accesses in the world. We have no Great Wall of the Internet. You can get any site in the world you wish. So where is the restriction?
Sackur: So if the government of Britain were to make linkages between a trade deal and seeking guarantees about human rights, press freedoms, workers' rights, demonstrators' rights in this country, your reaction would be?
Lee: I would wait to react until I see it. You look at the Americans. They don't lack fervour and moral causes. They promote democracy, freedom of speech, women's rights, gay rights, sometimes even transgender rights. But you don't see them applying that universally across the world, with all their allies? Yes, they do it where the cost is low. You can take a high position. But you look at some of the most important oil producers in the world. Do they conform? Have they been pressured? You have to do business. The world is a diverse place. Nobody has a monopoly of virtue or wisdom. And unless we can accept that, and we prosper together, and cooperate together, accepting our differences - differences in values, differences in outlooks, differences even in what we see the goals of life to be - I think it becomes difficult.
Response to question at Smart Nation Summit, 2019[]
On Wednesday, 26 June 2019, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong took questions from the audience after his speech at the Smart Nation Summit held at the Marina Bay Sands. When asked by an unidentified member of the audience how Singapore's regulations could be made more diverse to attract tech talent, including those with other sexual orientations, Lee replied that Section 377A "will be around for some time" but it would not hinder the country's efforts to attract tech talent[5],[6].
On the issue of inclusiveness, Lee said that Singapore had been open to the LGBT community. “You know our rules in Singapore. Whatever your sexual orientation, you are welcome to come and work in Singapore,” he said. “But this has not inhibited people from living, and has not stopped Pink Dot from having a gathering every year. It is the way this society is: We are not like San Francisco, neither are we like some countries in the Middle East. (We are) something in between, it is the way the society is.” Such a “framework” would not hinder the technology scene here, added Lee. The Pink Dot event was set to take place on Saturday, 29 June 2019.
Announcement of repeal of 377A and Constitutional amendment to protect current definition of marriage during National Day Rally speech, 2022[]
During his National Day Rally speech which lasted from 6:45pm to 8:15pm on Sunday, 21 August 2022, at the Institute of Technical Education headquarters in Ang Mo Kio, Lee announced that Singapore would repeal Section 377A, confirming months of speculation about the issue which had caused much polarisation. He also said that the Constitution would be amended to protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. The reason for this was that even though most Singaporeans did not want sex between men to be criminalised, they desired the institution of marriage to remain heterosexual[7],[8].
Channel NewsAsia's report[9]:
Complete segment of National Day Rally speech on Section 377A[10]:
Transcript of speech[]
"Another concerns the treatment of gay people in our society under the law. By and large, Singapore is a traditional society, with conservative social values. We believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, children should be born and raised within such families, the traditional family should form the basic building block of our society. Most Singaporeans would like to keep our society like this, and this is the Government’s position too. We have upheld and reinforced the importance of families through many national policies, and we will continue to do so. However, like every human society, we also have gay people in our midst. They are our fellow Singaporeans, they are our colleagues, our friends, our family members. They too want to live their own lives, participate in our community, and contribute fully to Singapore. We need to find the right way to reconcile and accommodate both the traditional mores of our society, and the aspiration of gay Singaporeans to be respected and accepted.
A major issue for gay Singaporeans is Section 377A of the Penal Code, which makes sex between men a criminal offence. It was originally introduced in the 1930s by the British colonial government. It reflected moral attitudes and social norms that prevailed back then. But over the decades, homosexuality has become better understood, scientifically and medically. In many societies, including Singapore, gay people have become more accepted for who they are, instead of being shunned and stigmatised. Many countries that used to have laws against sex between men have since repealed them, and they include several Asian countries, but so far not Singapore.
Parliament last debated whether or not to repeal Section 377A in 2007. MPs expressed strong views on both sides. I joined in the debate to advise restraint and caution. I acknowledged that what consenting adults do in private is their personal affair, and the Government should not intervene. But I pointed out that not everyone was equally accepting of homosexuality. Quite a few had considerable reservations, particularly within certain religious groups, including the Muslims, the Catholics and many Protestant denominations. The Government decided then that we would leave 377A on our books, but not actively enforce it. We stopped short of repealing the law. It would have been too divisive to force the issue then. It was better for us to live with this untidy compromise, and it was a practical way to accommodate evolving societal attitudes and norms in Singapore. The compromise didn't satisfy every group. But by and large, it has enabled all of us to get along. And so we have lived with this sensitive issue, without it monopolising our national agenda or dividing our society.
Now, 15 years later, attitudes have shifted appreciably. While we remain a broadly conservative society, gay people are now better accepted in Singapore, especially among younger Singaporeans. It's timely to ask ourselves again the fundamental question: Should sex between men in private be a criminal offence? Singaporeans still have differing views on whether homosexuality is right or wrong. But most people accept that a person’s sexual orientation and behaviour is a private and personal matter, and that sex between men should not be a criminal offence. Even among those who want to retain Section 377A, most don't want to see it being actively enforced, and criminal penalties applied. From the national point of view, private sexual behaviour between consenting adults does not raise any law-and-order issue. There is no justification to prosecute people for it, nor to make it a crime.
Furthermore, we've seen several court challenges to Section 377A, seeking to declare the law unconstitutional. None have succeeded, so far. However, following the most recent judgement in the Court of Apppeal, the Minister for Law and the Attorney-General have advised that in a future court challenge, there's a significant risk of Section 377A being struck down, on the grounds that it breaches the Equal Protection provision in the Constitution. We have to take that advice seriously. It would be unwise to ignore the risk, and do nothing. For these reasons, the Government will repeal Section 377A and decriminalise sex between men. I believe this is the right thing to do, and something that most Singaporeans will now accept.
[Applause]
This will bring the law into line with current social mores, and I hope, provide some relief to gay Singaporeans. But at the same time, most Singaporeans do not want the repeal to trigger a drastic shift in our societal norms across the board, including how we define marriage, what we teach children in schools, what's shown on free-to-air television and in cinemas, or what is generally acceptable conduct in public. In our engagements and soundings over several months, this has come through very clearly. Among those with reservations, some feel strongly about 377A itself. But for most, their main worry is what they feel Section 377A stands for, and what they fear repealing it may quickly lead to. They also worry that this may encourage more aggressive and divisive activism on all sides. This is not only the concern of those with religious objections, but is shared by many non-religious people. Even many Singaporeans who support repeal want to maintain our current family and social norms. The Government understands these concerns. We too do not want the repeal to trigger wholesale changes in our society. We will maintain our current family-oriented approach, and the prevailing norms and values of Singapore society. Hence, even as we repeal 377A, we will uphold and safeguard the institution of marriage. Under the law, only marriages between one man and one woman are recognised in Singapore. Many national policies rely upon this definition of marriage including public housing, education, adoption rules, advertising standards, film classification. The Government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage, nor these policies.
However, as the law stands, this definition of marriage can be challenged on constitutional grounds in the courts, just like Section 377A has been challenged. And this has indeed happened elsewhere. If one day such a challenge succeeds here, it could cause same-sex marriages to become recognised in Singapore. And this would happen not because Parliament passed any such law but as the result of a court judgment. And then, even if the majority of MPs oppose same-sex marriage, Parliament may not be able simply to change the law to restore the status quo ante. Because to reverse the position, Parliament may have to amend the Constitution, and that would require a two-thirds majority. I do not think that for Singapore, the courts are the right forum to decide such issues. Judges interpret and apply the law. That's what they are trained and appointed to do - to interpret the law, what does the law say, to apply the law, how does it work in this instance. But judges and courts have neither the expertise nor the mandate to settle political questions, or to rule on social norms and values. Because these are fundamentally not legal problems, but political issues. This has been wisely acknowledged by our courts in their judgments dealing with such cases. But even so, those seeking change may still try to force the pace through litigation which is, in its nature, adversarial. It would highlight differences, inflame tensions and polarise society. And I'm convinced this would be bad for Singapore.
We will therefore protect the definition of marriage from being challenged constitutionally in the courts. The legal definition is contained in the Interpretation Act and the Women’s Charter. We have to amend the Constitution to protect it, and we will do so. This will help us repeal Section 377A in a controlled and carefully considered way. It will limit this change to what I believe most Singaporeans will accept, which is to decriminalise sexual relations between consenting men in private. But it will also keep what I believe most Singaporeans still want, and that is to retain the basic family structure of marriage between a man and a woman, within which we have and raise our children.
[Applause]
What we seek is a political accommodation, one that balances different legitimate views and aspirations among Singaporeans. For some, this will be too modest a step. For others, it will be a step taken only with great reluctance, even regret. But in a society where diverse groups have strongly held opposing views, everyone has to accept that no group can have things all their way. If one side pushes too hard, the other side will push back even harder. And in some Western societies, not few, this has resulted in culture wars, contempt for opposing views, and not just for their views but for opposing people - cancel culture to browbeat and shut up opponents, and bitter feuds splitting society into warring tribes. There are some signs of similar things starting to happen here too.
I say, let us not go in this direction. All groups should exercise restraint because that is the only way we can move forward as one nation together. There's much more to be said on this difficult subject. I'm sure what I have said tonight will set off further reactions and discussions. And we will have a full debate when we bring the legislation to Parliament. But tonight, I wanted to set out our broad approach on this issue. We have a stable and generally harmonious society, and we will work hard to keep things like this. I hope the new balance will enable Singapore to remain a tolerant and inclusive society for many years to come."
Segment of National Day Rally speech on Section 377A in Malay[]
Transkrip:
Pastinya, dari semasa kesemasa, akan muncul isu-isu lain yang sensitif. Dan kita mesti menanganinya dengan cara yang sama. Salah satu isu ini yang anda mungkin sudah maklum ialah Seksyen 377A. Pada asasnya, ia berbeza daripada isu tudung. Tetapi, ia juga hal yang perlu ditangani dengan teliti. Saya akan sentuh perkara ini dengan lebih lanjut dalam ucapan Bahasa Inggeris nanti. Namun, biar saya beri jaminan disini. Dalam menangani hal ini, Pemerintah akan terus mengekalkan keluarga sebagai asas pembentukan masyarakat. Kami tidak akan mengubah dasar-dasar perhubung keluarga dan perkahwinan. Kami juga akan terus mengekalkan norma-norma serta nilai-nilai sosial sedia ada dalam masyarakat kita. Seksyen 377A adalah isu yang sangat sensitif dan boleh menimbulkan perbalahan. Kedua-dua penyokong dan penentang mempunyai pandangan yang keras. Tetapi kita tidak boleh membiarkan perkara ini memecahbelahkan kita seperti yang berlaku di tempat-tempat lain. Biarkan kita menangani isu ini dengan berhati-hati. Ibarat menarik rambut dalam tepung. Rambut jangan putus, tepung jangan berserak.
[Tepukan tangan]
Setiap kumpulan mesti menerima bahawa ia tidak boleh dapat semua yang diinginkan kerana ia sesuatu yang mustahil. Dan kita mesti memelihara sifat saling menghormati dan mempercayai yang telah kita kupuk bertahun-tahun lamanya serta kekal bersatupadu sebagai satu rakyat. Dalam dunia yang kian tidak menentu dan semakin kompleks ini, daya tahan dan perpaduan masyarakat kita akan menjadi semakin genting.
English translation:
Definitely, from time to time, there will be other sensitive issues that we must address in the same manner. One such issue, as you would know, is Section 377A. It is fundamentally different from the tudung issue. But it needs to be handled just as carefully. I will say more on this in my English speech. But let me rassure everyone thatin handling the issue, the Government will continue to uphold families as the basic building blocks of society. We will keep our policies on family and marriage unchanged, and maintain the prevailing norms and social values of our society. Section 377A is a highly sensitive and contentious issue. There are strong views on both sides. But we must not allow it to divide us, like what has happened elsewhere. We must handle this carefully like how a Malay proverb describes it best: "Like pulling hair in flour. Don't break the hair, don't scatter the flour." (Complex matters need to be handled delicately with care to avoid undesirable consequences.)
[Applause]
Every group must accept that it cannot get everything it wants, because that is simply not possible. And we must maintain the mutual respect and trust that we have painstakingly built up over the years, and sty united as one people. In an increasinly uncertain and complex world, our society's resilience and unity will be more important than ever.
Speech at International Conference on Communities of Success[]
On Friday, 9 September 2022, Lee said, in a keynote speech as guest-of-honour at the opening ceremony of the International Conference on Communities of Success (ICCOS), that the Government must take a neutral, secular approach in a multireligious society such as Singapore’s. He gave the example of Section 377A, the colonial-era law criminalising sex between men[11],[12].
He said: "Islam considers homosexual acts to be sinful. Many Christians think so too. But what some religions consider a sin should not necessarily therefore be made a crime. Like every human society, Singapore also has gay people in our midst. And like other Singaporeans, gay people want to be respected and accepted just like their fellow citizens. For reasons that the Government has explained, we intend to repeal S377A, and to decriminalise sex between men." Lee, however, also stressed that the Government did not want the repeal to trigger any drastic shift in societal norms, lead to same-sex marriage, or affect the many policies that were based on the existing definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. The Government intended to uphold and safeguard the institution of marriage, and will amend the Constitution to protect the existing definition of marriage from being challenged constitutionally in courts, he said, reiterating a point he made at the National Day Rally. Lee explained: "Muslims are not directly affected by this, because Muslim marriages are governed separately by Muslim law. But understandably, Muslims are concerned too. Hence we have reassured them that they will remain free to preach and practise what Islam teaches on sexuality and marriage. The broader social context within which Muslims live in Singapore will not suddenly change."
Speech at PAP conference, 6 November 2022[]
On 6 November 2022, while speaking at the biennial People's Action Party (PAP) conference held at at the Resorts World Convention Centre, Lee, who was also secretary-general of the PAP, said that the Opposition had been missing in action when it came to thorny issues, such as the impending repeal of Section 377A[13],[14],[15],[16]. It could not just “lie low and disappear”, particularly if it aimed to win more seats in Parliament and eventually take over the government[17],[18],[19],[20].
When it came to “spiky issues” such as the repeal of 377A, the Government had to assess the problem, weigh the arguments and work out the right way forward to the best of its judgment, said Lee. Ministers Masagos Zulkifli, K Shanmugam, Edwin Tong, Desmond Lee and others had spent months meeting contending groups, which all had very strong and passionately held views on this issue. “They listened carefully, they explained patiently, they got all sides to accept that on such an issue, everyone has to give and take. No group can get everything it wants. Now, where is the opposition on S377A? Are they critiquing the Government’s approach? Do they support or oppose what the Government is doing? Are they offering alternative proposals? None of the above. The opposition is missing in action. They have said nothing so far. They have declined all comment. They refuse even to say whether they have a party position, or if they will lift the whip on MPs when Parliament votes on the amendments, which is going to be done at the end of this month. Why? They do not want to displease anyone – therefore they have gone AWOL (absent without leave). You can’t be AWOL if you want to govern Singapore.”
Governing Singapore was a serious business and so was being the Opposition, especially if it aimed to win more and more seats, which must eventually mean taking over, he stressed. “You can't lie low and disappear when it suits you. And when the Opposition does that, it calls into question its fitness for Parliament, let alone to govern,” he told the estimated 3,500 party members who attended the conference. In a statement issued after PM Lee's National Day Rally in August 2022 when the move to repeal Section 377A was announced, the Workers' Party said it would participate in the parliamentary debate on the repeal and the proposed changes to the Constitution relating to marriage.
Facebook post after Section 377A repealed and Constitution amended to protect definition of marriage[]
At 9:34pm on Tuesday, 29 November 2022, Lee posted the following message on his Facebook[21], the same day that Section 377A was repealed and a Constitutional amendment passed to protect the existing definition of marriage as between one man and one woman earlier on in the evening. Accompanying his comments was an article from The Straits Times reporting on the event which he shared.
"I am very happy that Parliament today passed the Constitutional Amendment on the definition of marriage, and the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code.
It is a major milestone for Singapore. The outcome itself is significant. We are decriminalising sex between men – a longstanding issue, and not just for gay Singaporeans.
At the same time we are protecting the definition of marriage – as a union between a man and a woman – from Constitutional challenge. Taken together, these are balanced, wise steps forward.
Even more important, we have got here together – calmly, with all sides showing restraint, listening to one another, and accepting compromises to achieve a good result.
This is a deeply felt and sensitive issue, and could easily have become a very divisive one. But we have not allowed it to divide us. Instead we have handled it responsibly and thoughtfully, and held everyone together. This is a major achievement.
I thank all those who worked so hard for so many months to get us here. The engagements started long before I talked about the issue at the National Day Rally in August. Thousands have taken part in countless dialogues, to give views, express concerns, and share their hopes for how our society would develop. The participants spoke openly and sincerely, and helped to shape a national consensus on the path forward.
The way we have been able to handle this delicate matter gives me confidence that the outcome will be well accepted. Other difficult issues are bound to arise in the years to come. With the same spirit, we can tackle them successfully, while remaining one united people. – LHL"
Media interviews before handover of Prime Minister post[]
In two wide-ranging media interviews at The Istana on 26 and 28 April 2024 ahead of his handover to Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong on 15 May 2024, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke about Section 377A which criminalised sex between men and which Parliament repealed in 2022[22].
Transcript:
"And the have been other issues we have been dealing with too during these twenty years like 377A, like the tudung issue, which in the way we dealt with it enabled us to understand each other better and to accept each other's differences and respect each other and work out practical arrangements for that. But to say after this we can fly solo, the government doesn't need, can take hands off the steering wheel or the controls and it will look after itself, I don't think so, never. It's not possible because these issues are forever sensitive ones and you need to have limits to the discussion. You need to have that tone set by the government and if we are going to have to take a, make a major move, for example, on tudung for nurses or decriminalising male homosexuality, if the government doesn't make it, it's not going to happen or it is going to happen in a very chaotic and very contentious way. So I think that it's better for the government to guide it, allow more discussions, allow freer exchange of views, and you can allow more liberal practice too, but I think we have to handle this with very great care."
See also[]
- Lee Kuan Yew's views on homosexuality
- Singapore political parties' politicians' views on homosexuality
- PM Lee Hsien Loong allows indoor talks to be held without a police licence, 22 August 2004
- Ho Ching's views on homosexuality
- Section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore)
References[]
Acknowledgements[]
This article was written by Roy Tan.