Louis Ng (黄国光; Huáng Guóguāng; born 8 December 1978) is member of the governing People's Action Party (PAP) and has been a Member of Parliament (MP) representing the Nee Soon East division of Nee Soon GRC since 2015. He is also animal and environmental activist, being the founder of the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (ACRES).

Ng is proud to have spoken up in Parliament for the rights of LGBT Singaporeans as well as other minorities[1].

Parliamentary debate over Bills to repeal Section 377A and amend Constitution to protect definition of marriage from court challenges[]

On 28 and 29 November 2022, nine months after a landmark ruling by the Court of Appeal in Tan Seng Kee v AG that Section 377A of the Penal Code was "unenforceable in its entirety", a debate was held over two Parliamentary Bills introduced to repeal the statute which criminalised sex between men and to amend the Constitution to protect the definition of marriage from court challenges. A total of forty MPs, NCMPs and NMPs, including Louis Ng, rose to speak about the issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXAmCB5vm8E

3.08 pm, Tuesday, 29 November 2022.

Transcript:

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, the repeal of section 377A holds great significance for many across the social and religious spectrum. The heated civic discourse and vigorous advocacy speaks to strongly held beliefs that many hold on this issue.

This has been an opportunity for Singaporeans to learn to disagree in a spirited but civil way. I believe that such open debate is a sign of a healthy and functioning democracy. However, in doing so we cannot lose sight of our shared humanity.

I can do no better than quote MUIS. In response to the repeal of section 377A, it said that Muslim law "places importance on human dignity, respect and peaceful relations". It further said, "These values are crucial as we navigate complex socio-religious issues today. As Muslims, we should treat everyone with full dignity and respect. Everyone, regardless of their sexual orientations, must feel safe in our society and institutions. Muslims should uphold the best of character, charity and compassion, in dealing with others, even with whom we disagree".

I believe these statements apply not just to those of the Muslim faith but to all of us. As we continue to engage on discrimination against the gay community and discrimination of any form, I hope we continue to treat each other with dignity, respect and kindness.

In doing so, we cannot shy away from having conversations with people that we do not identify with. We need to continue the dialogue on issues affecting the gay community with the intent of achieving progress for everyone.

For the gay community, the repeal of section 377A is the correct thing to do. It is the correct thing to do not only because of the likelihood of success of any Court challenges. It is the correct thing to do because gay Singaporeans deserve, like any other member of society, not to be criminalised for their private behaviour.

The repeal of section 377A is a positive step towards making Singapore a more equal and inclusive society. We should recognise and thank the collective efforts of activists and organisations over the years to raise awareness about the challenges that the gay community faces and foster acceptance of gay individuals within our society. We need to continue to have conversations about these issues as our nation progresses.

Sir, I have three points of clarifications on both Bills.

My first point is on the treatment of prior convictions under section 377A. In his National Day Rally speech, when he announced the intended repeal of section 377A, Prime Minister Lee said he believed that the repeal is the right thing to do and that it would provide relief to gay Singaporeans.

Minister Shanmugam has also said that it would be wrong to continue criminalising the sexuality of gay Singaporeans and what they do in private. Nobody, he said, deserves to be stigmatised because of their sexual orientation, so repealing section 377A and removing their pain is the right thing to do.

If the continued stigmatisation of gay Singaporeans is wrong, then the continued stigmatisation of gay Singaporeans because of their record of conviction under section 377A must also be wrong.

Under the Registration of Criminals Act, an offence under section 377A is a registrable crime. Any criminal record of a conviction under section 377A will become spent after a crime-free period of five years. An exception is if the person is disqualified from having their criminal record being spent.

As such, this may mean that individuals with existing records of conviction under section 377A because the conviction was within a five-year period or because the individual is disqualified from having the record becoming spent. These individuals may, due to their records, remain stigmatised, even as we repeal section 377A.

Can the Minister clarify if there are any individuals with existing records of convictions under section 377A that have not been spent? Can the Minister clarify how these prior convictions will be treated?

My second point is about support provided to students of diverse genders. The repeal of section 377A sends a strong message against the discrimination of gay Singaporeans on the basis, again, of their private behaviour. As Minister Shanmugam shared, this legislative step is a significant step in removing stigma on a legislative level and will also go some way in removing hurt.

However, discrimination and stigma do not just exist in abstract policies. Many individuals of diverse genders face discrimination, stigma and hurt in their day-to-day interactions in the community and even with their closest loved ones.

These challenges can be especially daunting for young students who are just starting to build their identity and navigate their teenage years which can already be a stressful experience for anyone.

Many surveys, both local and international, show that many individuals of diverse genders experienced symptoms of generalised anxiety disorder. Many also experienced major depressive disorder and engage in self harm.

Our teachers in schools are a first line of defence in identifying students who may be struggling from such stressors and challenges. They are also well placed to facilitate appropriate intervention.

Can Minister share what support has been or will be extended to such students? In particular, what role will teachers and schools play in identifying students of diverse genders who may be struggling and extending such support to them?

My final point is on the new Article 156(1) in the Constitution. It enables the legislature and the Government to define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage. In the explanatory statement, examples of such activities included housing preferences and financial benefits for married persons, and education and media policies that promote and safeguard the institution of marriage.

As we encourage marriage, I hope we will not discriminate against single parents, whether they are unmarried, divorced or widowed.

I am glad that Minister Masagos provided some assurances on this during his opening speech that single parents will not be left behind. Indeed, increased support for single parents is one of the main recommendations in the White Paper on Singapore Women's Development, published this year by the Government.

I have raised recommendations on housing policies to ensure that single unwed parents and their children will have a roof over their heads. I have also asked for single unwed parents to receive the Parenthood Tax Rebate, the Working Mothers' Child Relief, and the cash component of the Baby Bonus. It is a whole suite of parenthood policies that exclude and discriminate against single unwed parents. There is a lot more we can do.

Can the Minister confirm that even as the Government takes steps to define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage, we will also continue to review our policies to ensure that single unwed parents are adequately supported? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of both Bills.

Parliamentary debate on Workplace Fairness Bill[]

See also: Workplace discrimination against LGBT people in Singapore

On Wednesday, 8 January 2025, during the second of the two-day Parliamentary debate on the Workplace Fairness Bill, Ng rose to speak up against the exclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in the proposed Bill[2].

Transcript[3]:

5.17 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): The Workplace Fairness Bill aims to foster fairer and more harmonious workplaces by protecting employees from unfair employment decisions. This Bill is the culmination of three years of efforts by the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness. I thank the Committee for their hard work in studying laws from other countries, consulting a wide range of stakeholders and publishing both interim and final reports.

Members have spoken on groups that will benefit from protection on the basis of age, nationality, sex, marital status, pregnancy, caregiving responsibilities, race, religion, language ability, disability and mental health condition.

I just have one point to raise. The Workplace Fairness Bill is an inclusive and progressive one, but it has a glaring carve-out. As many Members have mentioned, specifically, section 10(2) excludes sexual orientation and gender identity from the definition of "sex". These are the only two characteristics that are expressly excluded from the Bill.

What message are we sending? Are we telling LGBTQ+ people that they are not protected from workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity? Are we telling employers that it is okay to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation and gender identity?

When we repealed section 377A, Minister Shanmugam explained, "The time has come for us to remove section 377A. It humiliates and hurts gay people". He said, "They deserve dignity, respect, acceptance. They do not deserve to be stigmatised because of their sexual orientation." By repealing 377A, Minister Shanmugam said that we will "start to deal with these divides, heal these divides, remove their pain".

But now, do we not think that we may deepen the stigmatisation by having our workplace fairness law single out sexual orientation and gender identity for exclusion? With this Bill, will we deepen the divides that we started to heal with the repeal of 377A? The Bill's carve-out of sexual orientation and gender identity is not merely hurtful to LGBTQ+ employees; it could also cause them to face additional workplace discrimination.

Studies have shown that LGBTQ employees already face significant workplace discrimination. A 2024 study by the National University of Singapore (NUS) Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health found that over half of their respondents who were LGBTQ experienced discrimination or harassment at the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity. A 2022 study by AWARE and Milieu Insight found that 68% of LGBTQ+ persons reported experiencing discrimination compared to 56% of those who did not identify as LGBTQ.

One respondent to the NUS School of Public Health study, who is lesbian, said that a headhunter warned her against bringing up her sexual orientation at a job interview because a previous candidate had been rejected for mentioning their same-sex spouse. Another respondent, who is gay, said he was told by his employer that he would not be appointed to a managerial position because of his sexual orientation. Indeed, hiring managers and HR representatives themselves have described this same type of discrimination.

The Singapore LGBTQ+ Workforce Audit 2022, which polled 200 HR professionals and business leaders, found that only 64% of respondents said yes when asked if companies were open to recruiting and hiring diverse candidates, including LGBTQ individuals. It is likely that the data understates the scale of the problem and that LGTBQ individuals are under-reporting the discrimination they face.

From 2018 to 2022 none of the 312 workplace discrimination complaints received by TAFEP and MOM were related to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The NUS School of Public Health survey found that for LGBTQ respondents who experienced workplace discrimination and harassment, only 10.71% reported it to their employer, 0.32% reported it to MOM, and only 0.97%, not even 1%, reported it to TAFEP.

The express exclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity from this law is likely to worsen this discrimination. Employers may think they are free to discriminate against LGBTQ employees. Employees may have the belief that TAFEP, TADM and MOM will not assist them.

Can the Minister provide a clear statement that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace is wrong and unacceptable? Can the Minister also confirm that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is prohibited under the TGFEP and Prevention from Harassment Act? Will the Minister confirm that TAFEP, TADM, ECT and MOM will assist individuals who report being discriminated against at their workplace due to sexual orientation or gender identity and that LGBTQ+ individuals who face discrimination should feel safe to report workplace discrimination to TAFEP, TADM and MOM?

Moving forward, can the Minister share a timeline for reviewing protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity? This would not be a radical step. The UK's Equality Act already includes sexual orientation as a protected characteristic. This is the law that the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness has cited as having had a positive impact on workplaces. I know that in Minister Tan's reply in Parliament in July 2023, he said that the Committee's recommendations were scoped tightly and to address the more common and familiar forms of discrimination. He said that it is better to take a measured first step, let stakeholders adjust to the new rules, before reviewing if more needs to be done.

I agree that our workplace fairness laws should be measured. I welcome the suggestion that our laws will be reviewed and updated. However, it is one thing for the Bill to be silent on sexual orientation and gender identity and a very different thing for the Bill to expressly exclude sexual orientation and gender identity. Again, do we not feel this is a step back by reinforcing discrimination and promoting stigma against LGBTQ+ individuals?

Given that the exclusions already exist under the Bill, I hope again that the Minister can provide a clear assurance that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is wrong, regardless of whether this position is codified under legislation. Will the Minister also share what data and factors he will consider in deciding when our laws should expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity?

I would like to end by thanking groups who have been fighting hard and tirelessly to ensure that we can live in a world without discrimination. In particular, I thank groups that have been speaking up against workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. They include Pink Dot SG, Oogachaga, Same But Different, SAFE, Project X, Q Chamber of Commerce, Action for Aids and AWARE. There are many, many more groups and individuals who have fought hard for a more inclusive Singapore, including for LGBTQ+ individuals. While there are too many to name, I thank them too for their perseverance and advocacy.

As former US President, Bill Clinton, said, "All of the country loses when any person is denied or forced out of a job because of sexual orientation. Being gay, the last time I thought about it, seemed to have nothing to do with the ability to read a balance book, fix a broken bone, or change a spark plug." Indeed, a person's sexual orientation or gender identity has nothing to do with their ability to do a job well.

I support this Bill which ensures that we can live in a world without discrimination. And a world that is without discrimination must be inclusive regardless of a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

Facebook post[]

The following day, on 9 January 2025, Ng made the following post on his Facebook accompanied by a video clip of his debate with Manpower Minister Tan See Leng[4],[5]:

"[ Not fair for LGBTQ+ community? ]

I thank Minister for confirming that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity IS COVERED under the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices BUT this is currently not stated on the TAFEP website.

I asked that TAFEP explicitly state on their website that sexual orientation and gender identity is included.

Check out the video for the reply and the debate we had.

What do you think Let me know your thoughts and I will help raise them in Parliament.

Help spread the word Thanks!".

Parliamentary report card[]

On Sunday, 13 April 2025, Ng made the following post on his Facebook [6]:

My first selfie in Parliament nearly a decade ago (left) and the one I took this week (right) — glad I still look the same (mostly)!

It’s been almost a decade of speaking up in Parliament and here’s my report card:

I have raised:

1,055 Parliamentary Questions
15 Adjournment Motions
2 Private Member's Motions
2 Private Member's Bills
1 Parliamentary Petition and
I've helped to shape 269 pieces of legislation through my Bill speeches.

I’m especially glad to have spoken up for single unwed parents, teachers, nurses, junior doctors, social workers, LGBTQ+ community, those facing fertility issues, breastfeeding mothers, abused children, sex workers, migrant workers, refugees, on secondhand smoke, climate change, animal welfare, wildlife crime, parental leave and many more

It has been an incredible privilege to serve as an MP, speaking up and giving everyone, especially the marginalised a voice in Parliament. It’s a responsibility I have never taken lightly.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to make a difference in the lives of others. I will continue to fight hard to make Singapore a better place for all.

References[]

Acknowledgements[]

This article was written by Roy Tan.

Louis Ng's views on LGBT rights

Contents