Since the early 21st century, Singapore's LGBT community has become increasingly aware of the power of the 'pink vote' to aid them in their struggle for equality. Journalists from the mainstream, LGBT, human rights and civil society activist media grew more emphatic in querying politicians regarding their views on equal rights for LGBT Singaporeans. These quotes were published and accessible to the general public for comment. The LGBT community became more inclined to vote for political parties which supported equal rights for them above other considerations. This was because after basic economic needs were fulfilled, spiritual and human rights aspirations strode towards the forefront.
People's Action Party
Current PAP politicians
Against repeal of Section 377A
During the debate on 22 and 23 October 2007 over the parliamentary petition to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises sex between men, the following People's Action Party (PAP) members of parliament (MP)s spoke out against it.
Christopher de Souza
- Main article: Christopher de Souza's views on homosexuality
The retention of section 377A is a non-amendment. Yet, its retention has attracted the most press. Some argue to repeal it and provide reasons to support their position. Others say repeal because the law is archaic, not abreast with the times, displays Singapore to be inflexible.
I do not agree with this position and provide a number of arguments in support of retaining section 377A and, in so doing, record my support for the Bill.
Consequences of repealing section 377A
The first argument is a basic one. It involves the possible consequences of appealing section 377A. A repeal of section 377A will not merely remove an offence. It is much more significant than that. Because of the concept of negative liberty, the removal of section 377A puts homosexual lifestyle on par with heterosexual lifestyle. It is to accord both lifestyles a sense of parity.
As a result, homosexual lifestyle no longer remains private but travels into spheres traditionally reserved for heterosexual couples. The point I make is this. It is a misconception to argue for the repeal of section 377A on the ground that "what goes on behind closed doors will not affect us, so no point criminalising it". It is also a misconception to argue that "what is private, will stay private" and therefore there is no harm repealing section 377A. Such arguments are incorrect.
The truth of the matter is that if we do repeal section 377A, what is in private will not remain private. There are far-reaching consequences. If it is repealed, arguments can be made that rights accorded to heterosexual couples must be accorded to homosexual couples. This has happened in many jurisdictions - the United States, UK, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, to name a few. In Singapore, we have had recent calls by lobby groups advocating the trumping of minority interests over wider society's preferences and priorities.
This argument is attractive. But, really, what are the consequences? What if section 377A is repealed? Surely, the answer to this must be weighed in the balance. So, let us consider the consequences of repealing section 377A.
One major consequence is the effect that such an appeal may have on the institution of marriage. Take Massachusetts, for example. In the case of Goodridge v the Department of Public Health, the US Massachusetts court ruled that a law denying marriage licences to same-sex couples was unconstitutional. The court disagreed with the argument that child-rearing was best performed under the care of a heterosexual couple.
It is the same situation in the United Kingdom, except that gay marriages are termed same-sex civil partnerships. In fact, the law in the UK is entrenched in the Civil Partnerships Act of 2004. Under that Act, a civil partnership is defined as a relationship between two people of the same sex which is formed when they register as civil partners of each other. Perhaps, some supporting the repeal of section 377A may say, "Well, that does not matter. That marriage relationship can still be private. It does not pervade common space."
Unfortunately, that is incorrect. There has been recent judicial opinion in the United Kingdom that the Civil Partnership Act 2004 grants the same-sex couples the same legal recognition that the law grants to opposite-sex couples.
It allows them a formal status with virtually identical legal consequences to those of marriage. Incidentally, the United Kingdom is the jurisdiction with which Singapore law has the most intimate relationship. What happens there could happen here, if section 377A is repealed.
So, this is not a private matter between two consenting male adults. It is a public matter, the effects of which will be felt by all in the wider community.
Adoption by same-sex couples may be the second consequence of a repeal of section 377A. Is this far-fetched? No. The UCLA School of Law reported in March 2007 that, to date, 10 states in the US allow same-sex partners to adopt children as couples. About the same number either implicitly or explicitly state that sexual orientation cannot legally prevent homosexual persons from adopting. The same 2007 report from Williams Institute, UCLA, states that gay and lesbian parents are raising 4% of all adopted children in the United States. Is this just a US phenomenon? No. The International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family stated in a 2002 report that the Danes have since removed the prohibition on same-sex couples adopting, while the Netherlands has expressly legislated to permit such adoptions. This has forced societies to accept what some academics called the modern family in its many variations.
Do we want our family-centric culture and the traditional definition of family to be threatened? They will be, if section 377A is repealed. This is not just a private matter.
Another consequence, if section 377A is repealed, is the effect it will have on spousal rights. Same-sex partners may be statutorily entitled to benefits because of their new-found spousal status. This is already the position in some states in the US. Where Massachusetts is concerned, the Goodrich decision now permits same-sex spouses to take advantage of statutes allowing an employee to include his or her spouse in the health insurance coverage. How will we cope in Singapore, where traditional definitions of family and marriage had been the bedrock of the HDB policies? How would it affect the laws of intestacy? Would we then change the definitions of spouse under, say, the CPF Act or Income Tax Act? These are far-reaching consequences.
The last consequence of a repeal of section 377A is its effect on how we may have to educate our children. It flows that with changes in how marriage, the family nucleus and spousal rights are defined, there will be pressure to change our curricula in our schools. Do we want to see our children being taught that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle choice? This is something that we should all think carefully about.
In the light of these consequences, I ask that we do not treat these calls for the repeal of section 377A lightly. It is a misconception to think that repealing section 377A is simply the repealing of an outdated and obsolete offence.
Instead, such a repeal would have far-reaching consequences.
Some say that the retention of section 377A does not shield society from harm. I do not think that line of argument is defensible in light of the possible consequences the repeal may bring.
Lack of enforcement
The lack of enforcement is another argument put forward by those advocating a repeal. Whether section 377A is enforced or not is the decision of the Executive. In fact, the Ministry has just confirmed in the Second Reading of the Bill that it has been enforced in certain circumstances. By retaining section 377A, the consequences listed above can be prevented. In any event, enforcement cannot be construed as the sole litmus test for an effective law.
The effectiveness of section 377A is seen in what it prevents beyond the act criminalised. For example, to attempt suicide is an offence in Singapore. Yet, how many are prosecuted for it? I dare say a negligible percentage of those who do attempt to commit suicide. Yet, the offence remains on the books even after this amendment because it conveys the message that we do not want people taking their own lives. Will that message become weaker if the offence is taken off the books? Of course, it will. That is why we cannot only be fixated with enforcement.
Scientific arguments that homosexuality is genetic
In recent years, by comparing identical twins to fraternal twins, scientists have attempted to prove a genetic basis for homosexuality. However, such studies are now called into question because the scientists drew their subjects from non-representative samples. Indeed, the earlier twin studies were criticised as being "ascertainment-biased", in that homosexuals with gay siblings were more likely to volunteer for studies. Later twin studies have been drawn from broader, more representative samples. In a recent large-scale study by two universities, ie, Yale and Columbia, researchers concluded that "We find no support for genetic influences on same-sex preferences net of social structural constraints."
However, even if we take the argument that homosexuality is genetic at its best - I do not agree with it - but even if we take that argument at its best case, does that merit a repeal of section 377A? It does not. Natural predispositions should not translate into exceptions from the law. Genetic or natural predispositions do not translate in removal of related offences. For example, it is a known fact that some members of our society suffer from a medical condition known as kleptomania. However, this does not merit repealing all the offences in the Penal Code relating to theft.
The open letter
I have read the open letter to the Prime Minister seeking the repeal of section 377A. Several points are worth highlighting.
Firstly, the letter states: "a gay man should have exactly the same rights as a straight man or woman," and "Singapore will be woefully out-of-step with the rest of the world should it retain this legislation." I have just read the Petition which was put on the seat, and it seems that the Petition takes the same position. It seems from these words that the letter seeks not just a repeal but an unreserved embracing of the homosexual lifestyle, ie, marriage, adoption, spousal rights and so on.
Secondly, the letter seems to adopt the position that section 377A should be repealed even if "those who disapprove of gay people outnumber those who support them."
Thirdly, the letter claims that section 377A contravenes Singapore's Constitution. Any analysis of the relevant Article, ie, Article 12, must come with a study of the authoritative judgment in Ong Ah Chuan. To my mind, this case will not support the letter's position.
- Main article: Zaqy Mohamad's views on homosexuality
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will begin my speech in Malay.
(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Penal Code amendments are timely and even necessary, with various developments in society, crime patterns and our social situation. Basically, these legislative amendments aim to continue to preserve Singapore's well-being and security, and tighten our protection. From some changes suggested, we can see how the amendments aim to respect our daily lives as well as our multi-cultural and multi-religious culture. It also ensures our children are safely raised. It is our responsibility to protect our young children as they have the right to grow in a safe situation in this country.
Overall, I support the Government's effort to update the Penal Code to protect our interests. However, there are a few areas that raise concerns and need further refinement. We have to look at the Penal Code changes in totality to bring the benefits and effectiveness of law to all levels of society. I hope that the focus of debate on this Bill will not be dragged into too much attention to heated arguments on homosexual activities under section 377A.
In my view, the Government's status quo stand on homosexual activities under section 377A is for the benefit of society as a whole. The fact is, even though our country is open and receptive to changes and diversity, our society's majority view is still conservative in many aspects of life. But I concede that current points of view, especially amongst youths, are changing to a more progressive one. Homosexual activities, although undoubtedly exist, are still considered a lifestyle outside the mainstream society. From a secular point of view, it is something personal and I feel that it is good to leave it as such. But many of my constituents and community leaders have given feedback that by making the activity not considered as an offence, it can be seen as an endorsement or support and this will divide society. They believe that the Government will make the appropriate decision that will reflect our social situation in Singapore. And this includes the consideration for the Petition presented by NMP Siew Kum Hong in Parliament just now. I feel we should not make the issue a big one, and let us look at the Penal Code amendments from a bigger perspective and for the benefit of the majority of Singaporeans.
- Main article: Indranee Rajah's views on homosexuality
I turn now to the comments made by Mr Siew Kum Hong, both in respect of his Petition and section 377A itself. I think I can have some sympathy with the concerns that the gay community or the homosexuals in Singapore have, but I would like to address some specific legal points made by Mr Siew. The entire basis on which the Petition rests is that it is a violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution which provides that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law. But actually, the submission that has been made by Mr Siew is not quite correct in its interpretation and taken out of context. What Article 12(1) really means, by way of an illustration, would be this. If somebody is charged with theft, for example, you cannot say that, " I will prosecute you if you are a homosexual, but I would not prosecute you if you are a heterosexual." That would be an unequal and discriminatory application of the law. So that is what it means when you say that all persons are equal before the law. We do not look at your sexual orientation in determining whether or not you should be prosecuted or you should be charged.
Article 12(1) of the Constitution and the provisions on equal protection do not mean that the same law applies to every group. An example of this is section 376A on sexual penetration of a minor under 16, irrespective of consent. Because, for someone above 16, you look at consent and you see whether or not that person consented, and then it is fine. But in the case of a minor under 16, there is no consent. The minor may well say, "But the law says that all persons are equal before the law. I am under 16. I give my consent. You should treat me equally as an adult." But we do not argue with that. And why do we not argue with that? We do not argue with that because we recognise that minors are a special group and have to be treated differently and they require certain protection.
Of course, that comes to the issue of whether or not you should treat homosexuals differently. I would come to that in a moment, but I just want to address another legal submission made by Mr Siew which is that we can have a departure from Article 12(1) if there is a rational nexus or legitimate purpose for the statute in question. Then, he went on to say that the purpose in question for the amendments in the Penal Code is that Singapore is a safe and secure society and there is no rational nexus between the keeping of section 377A to this stated purpose.
The first thing I would say is that that purpose was a purpose stated in the public consultation paper of the proposed Penal Code amendments. It does not come from a statute and it is not part of legislation. It is very obviously a summary of the purpose of the amendments. But if you want to take that sort of argument, then what about the distribution of pornographic material? You could, if you want to take the same argument, say that distribution of pornographic material has nothing to do with a safe and secure society as it is not a threat to persons and property. But all of us accept that distribution of pornographic materials is something that should be regarded as an offence. So in exactly the same way, it is the broader concept of what we regard to be a safe and secure society. When we look at the safety and security of Singapore, we also look at the question of public morals, public decency and public order.
Mr Siew also talked about public morality as being the wrong touchstone. I think he said that public morality has been cited as the basis for legislation to enforce slavery, discrimination against racial and religious minorities, discrimination against women, etc. But in a way, that exactly proves the point. At the time when they had slavery, there were laws in place which reflected the public morality of that time. If you had been in America at that time when they had slaves and you had said to somebody, "You should not have slaves because slavery is wrong", nobody there, at that time, would have agreed with you because the society was such that that was the correct thing at that time. And that is precisely the point because societies do evolve. Clearly, we have evolved to a stage where we now regard slavery as wrong. We certainly regard discrimination on racial and religious grounds as wrong. But in some places, that is still regarded as correct, which just brings us back to the point that in each case, it is a question of what society is prepared to accept.
I come to what is Singapore prepared to accept. I do not think we want to have a situation where we demonise homosexuals. We certainly do not want to regard them as anything less than Singaporeans. But the point is: what does our society want for itself? Societal rules are not purely a matter of free choice. A murderer could say he is free to kill but society disagrees. Murder is a crime. The right to free speech, for example, does not extend to vilifying another race or religion. And once you have different groups that live in a society, you have to accept that there will be some restrictions on behaviour, and particularly so in Singapore, where we have a small land area and a population of diverse races, religions and beliefs. If we have a difference of views then, what do we do?
One group says, "I want this". Another group says, "No, I want that." How do we decide? We have to come down to a decision one way or another and, in most cases, we would go with the majority view, unless there is a reason to protect the minority position. So, under the Constitution, for example, there is no discrimination on the basis of race or religion. Why? Because society as a whole accepts that there should be no discrimination on the basis of race or religion. But that is not the universal principle. That is something we accept here, but there are some countries where there is institutionalised discrimination on the basis of either race or religion as part of their official policy. And for those countries, they consider it right. But in Singapore, we do not. So, in each case, we have to consider what the society regards as the correct or the right way to decide for that society, and particularly so in a State like Singapore which is a secular state. A secular state's position should be that we go with the majority view unless there is a particular reason to uphold the minority position, and legislation has to be a reflection of the societal norms and what is acceptable to that society.
In this case, the public reaction has shown that the majority of Singaporeans do not agree with or accept homosexual behaviour. I think it will be fair to say that most Singaporeans do not want to see somebody jailed for homosexual practices, but most would definitely not want to see any public demonstration of the conduct. They may be prepared to tolerate it if it is done in private, but they do not wish to see it in public and, very importantly, they do not wish to have their children see it in public. Then, of course, the argument comes, "OK, fine, if we do not do it in public, what if we just do it in private?" And that is where the signalling concern comes in, because people are concerned about the impact that a repeal of section 377A would send.
Many Members may recall that some years back, the Senior Minister had made the statement that the civil service would not discriminate against gays. And that was a progressive statement because it indicates that the civil service would not discriminate against employing a homosexual just because he is a homosexual. That was already an advance of a public position from what we had 20 years ago. I do not think the Government would have made such a statement like that 20 years ago. That shows that we have evolved to some extent where a statement like that can be made. But immediately after that statement was made, I had a number of pastors coming to speak to me to say, "Why is the Government endorsing homosexual behaviour?" The Government was not endorsing. The Government was saying that we would not discriminate against a homosexual in terms of employment because he is a homosexual. But the immediate public perception, at least for many people, was that it is just not discrimination, it is an endorsement. And our society, obviously, has not arrived at the stage where we can just separate the two. It is not as easy as that, and people see it as an important form of public signalling. Therefore, the stance which the Government is taking is, in fact, an exact reflection of what Singapore society in general think, which is that if you really have to do it in private, the Government and the Police will not take a proactive enforcement policy but, at the same time, we do not want to send a message to everybody that this is correct, because we have to take into account the majority view. And I think that many liberal groups have, for a long time, thought that the Government was exaggerating the extent of the conservatives in Singapore, but that is not so. I appreciate Mr Siew's point that there were many people who would have written, emailed or given support to the Petition on the Internet. But I can tell you that for every one of those, there was someone who emailed us as Members of Parliament to say, "Do not repeal. Keep it. We thank the MPs, we thank the Government for keeping this law."
Sir, when we have a situation like that, when we have one group that feels very strongly to keep the law, and another group that feels strongly to do away with it, what do we do? We have to make a decision. And the obvious decision in such a situation is to maintain the status quo, and to recognise that somewhere along the line, the situation may evolve. It may well change, just as the position on slavery changed, just as the position on a woman being a chattel changed, thank goodness, just as many other things have changed along the way.
Actually, we think about it, that was the conclusion that the Workers' Party arrived at. Members will recall that Ms Sylvia Lim said that the Workers' Party had debated it for a long time, and they basically could not arrive at a consensus. And because they could not arrive at a consensus, they figured that they should let the status quo remain. And until such time when society is ready to move, the Government's position is the correct position, which is - let things develop but, in the meantime, obviously, they have signalled that they will not actively prosecute, although that may be different if the act is done in public, and it certainly may not be the case if a minor is involved. In that way, it is a compromise of sorts, but we always have to have a compromise when we live in a society where there are diverse groups.
Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim
- Main article: Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim's views on homosexuality
Mr Speaker, Sir, before I end my speech, I would like to be heard on my views on the Petition to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code that has been brought to this House for debate.
Sir, the Petition brought forward by Mr Siew Kum Hong, in recent weeks, has attracted widespread attention and debate in both mainstream media channels as well as on the Internet. I have been following this debate, trying to understand what both sides of the coin present.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I have mentioned earlier that the Penal Code is a vital component of our judiciary system. It sets both the economic and social direction that our society would take in realising our vision for the nation while, at the same time, protecting the interests and rights of our society.
In recent weeks, I have heard many voices in both mainstream media and others that have called for the retention of section 377A. In private, I have personally received strong disapproval from my residents who have submitted their own petitions to retain section 377A. Feedback from the ground suggests that the majority of my constituents feel the same way too. Like the hon. Mr Zaqy Mohamad, MP for Hong Kah GRC, I received similar feedback from my engagement with the members of the Malay community. In fact, in addition to the delicious rendang and ketupat, section 377A became a topic of discussion during my Hari Raya visits and gathering.
One feedback I received in particular was from a concerned parent, a mother in fact, whose son would be entering National Service soon which would put him in a male-oriented environment. She is concerned on how her son would have to manage this issue during his National Service. How would he and his fellow NS mates' focus be affected when their main objective was to protect our nation? And she is concerned that her son's sexual orientation may be influenced.
Though pro-petitioners to repeal section 377A could always have a counter argument against her concerns, I feel that it is still a genuine worry of many parents and reflects the sentiments of the society towards this issue. She further claimed that many of her friends and relatives are concerned about this issue and hope that the outcome of our debate would address their concerns.
Sir, I recognise that gay Singaporeans have contributed to our nation-building process and, like most Singaporeans, been loyal to our nation. However, I do feel that the act to repeal section 377A is against the mainstream approval of most Singaporeans.
Singapore is that unique Asian society that still embodies strong cultural traditions and religious roots while at the same time is also immersing itself in new cosmopolitan lifestyles and values. However, what makes us different is that we are discerning in our approach to find the right balance that meets the needs and aspirations of our people. I am not certain that repealing section 377A at this moment serves the larger interests of our nation.
On the issue of infringing the rights of gay Singaporeans, I do not think the community's rights are being put under the microscope. The gay community in the past and present has its private space in Singapore and, like other citizens, the rights to vote and enjoy the benefits that most Singaporeans are accorded.
Sir, the essence of my argument is to engage in a speech that the purpose of the Penal Code is in serving our society and nation in this ever complex world. To me, the Penal Code serves the interest of the community at large. The message that I heard loud and clear is that the majority of Singaporeans are not ready for open homosexuality acts to be part of our way of life yet.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to record my strong support that section 377A be retained in the Penal Code.
Violence against LGBT people
On Thursday, 5 March 2020, in response to Nominated MP Walter Theseira's question in parliament about whether the next iteration of the ministry's Break the Silence campaign against family violence could be made more inclusive and address the specific vulnerabilities of LGBTQ people, Prof Faishal, who was then Senior Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), said his ministry was exploring the possibility of setting up a dedicated national hotline for all victims of violence to get help, regardless of the abuse,. This was part of the MSF's continuing efforts to be inclusive and to make social services available to all who needed them, including LGBTQ people. He added: "We recognise that it is not easy for persons facing violence to seek help. Their concerns are varied, such as whether it would lead to the arrest of the perpetrator, who might be a loved one; stigma; or fear about being judged."
He said the Government was very clear on its stance that violence against any person - LGBTQ or not - should not be condoned. He noted that the Penal Code and the Protection from Harassment Act protected all victims of domestic violence, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status. "As a policy, social services must be accessible to all, without discrimination. For example, our Family Violence Specialist Centres have supported LGBTQ persons who faced violence after 'coming out' to their families," he elaborated. He also said the Singapore Association of Social Workers had a Code of Professional Ethics, which was covered and reinforced throughout a social worker's training and practice. "This code binds social workers to strive towards a culturally sensitive practice that acknowledges all diversity, including sexual orientations and gender identities."
Lee Hsien Loong
- Main article: Lee Hsien Loong's views on homosexuality
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.]
Lim Biow Chuan
- Main article: Lim Biow Chuan's views on homosexuality
Finally, Sir, on the issue of section 377A, I wish to state my support for the Government's position of retaining section 377A of the Penal Code. I had originally not intended to speak on this topic. But in view of the Petition presented by Nominated MP Mr Siew Kum Hong, I feel that I should state that not all MPs agree with Mr Siew's arguments. I do not agree, Sir, that the role of the criminal law is only to punish those who have caused harm to others. If that is the case, as my fellow MPs had said yesterday, why do we have laws on attempted suicide? Why do we have laws prohibiting the sale of obscene materials? Why do we have laws against incest? Should we be bothered whether a father decides to sleep with his adult daughter in the privacy of their own home? Why do we bother to make it an offence for someone to have sex with animals? This is in section 377B. In fact, with this current amendment Bill, Sir, we have just introduced a new offence of necrophilia, which is this abhorrent act of engaging in sex with a corpse. Does this offence harm society? Does it make Singapore unsafe or less secure?
Sir, the basic position of Parliament should be that we make laws to reflect the public morality of our times. In this situation, Sir, I agree with the views of Ms Indranee Rajah. I support the Government's stand because I do not agree with the practice of homosexuality. This is not just my personal view but alsothe views of many of my residents when I sought their opinion. With the greatest respect to the Prime Minister, I must state that I do not think that there is conclusive evidence that homosexual behaviour is inborn. The jury is out on this issue, and different scientists would have different views on the matter.
Let me state unequivocally, Sir, that I am not anti-gay. The fact that I disagree with the practice of homosexuality does not mean that I despise homosexuals. In fact, like the hon. Member, Mr Baey Yam Keng, I have friends who are gay, and my approach to them is simply that "I do not agree with your lifestyle. But I would respect you for who you are. So if you are a decent chap, an honest and hardworking person, your sexual orientation or preference does not affect the way I see you. I would treat and respect you as another fellow citizen." And I do not believe that any Member in this House would turn away a person who comes to him during a meet-the-people session seeking financial help simply on the ground that this person is a homosexual. I believe that the majority of Singaporeans do not condemn a homosexual or a gay simply because of his lifestyle. Nor do they wish to criminalise a homosexual.
However, as my fellow MP, Mr Christopher de Souza, said, the messaging or signpost is important. As MPs, we have to send the message that Singapore is a conservative society whereby the family unit is still seen as the basic structure of society. I believe, Sir, we have not accused gays of being criminals, nor do I know of any petition to enforce section 377A.
Sir, in conclusion, I would like to state that I support the amendment Bill on the Penal Code.
Seah Kian Peng
- Main article: Seah Kian Peng's views on homosexuality
Sir, I made some reference to the normative nature of the law-making process at the start of this speech. With regard to section 377A, I have heard many stories and quotes that Mr Siew Kum Hong has related about homosexuals living in Singapore. It is difficult not to be moved by them. At the same time, I know that his accusations about the tyranny of the majority are false. This matter is one of principle and not of numbers. If we acted with the tyranny of the majority, why do we have the GRC system, where ethnic minorities are protected? Or if we were truly trying to be on the side of numbers, why did we not go along with the Malaysians in 1963 when they asked us to be part of a Malay Malaysia? Or in the case of Myanmar, why do we not side with China or India, and take a completely "hands off approach"? The numbers are certainly there. Or why do we not be like the US or Europe? The number of people may be smaller but the guns are larger.
Sir, this is the real slippery slope. If we abdicate debate and discourse for mere accounting, we would not be upholding our role as Members of Parliament. I believe that this debate has given an airing to both sides of the argument. My own view is a simple one. I would be the mother who loves her gay son. I would be the man who loves his gay brother. I would be the first to stand up for a gay man's right to be treated as an equal under the law.
Yet, I am a Member of Parliament who believes that, as a nation, our families are not ready to have an open acceptance of the gay lifestyle, including same-sex marriages and gay adoption of young children. I believe that these key institutions would be weakened by the repeal of section 377A. This view, like this debate, is a matter of principle, not of numbers.
Sir, I support the Bill.
- Main article: Vivian Balakrishnan's views on homosexuality
During the 2011 General Elections, Vivian attacked Singapore's first openly gay politician and Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) candidate, Vincent Wijeysingha, for having an alleged gay agenda (see main article: Vivian Balakrishnan attacks Vincent Wijeysingha for having alleged gay agenda during 2011 General Elections).
In April 2019, Vivian, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, was heard calling Section 377A a “silly” law by Singaporean YuZhou Lee at a tech forum in the San Francisco Bay Area. Vivian had attended the forum along with soon-to-be Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat to encourage Singaporeans in the region, which included Silicon Valley, to consider opportunities back home. When faced with this question, "What is something you would change about Singapore that you would disagree on with the audience here?” and Lee in the audience shouting out "377A!", Vivian answered with the following sentiments:
- That he was not interested in what Singaporeans did privately in their bedrooms
- That they were here to focus on recruiting tech talent, and not on “silly” issues like these laws.
Vivian later denied that he used the word “silly” to describe the law. He wrote in a comment on Lee’s post:
“Thank you for attending the Tech Forum over the weekend and for asking a salient question. You may recall that I made the following points. First, that this is an old law that we inherited from the British. Second, that we don’t enforce this law – we respect the privacy of consenting adults in the bedroom. Third, we really want to avoid the ‘culture wars’ that we see elsewhere on this polarising issue. We are not likely to achieve consensus by prolonged arguments. Fourth, this is not the central issue of our time. Our focus is to welcome talented Singaporeans like you if relevant opportunities arise. Even if we disagree, we should live and let live in mutual respect. Best wishes for your future. PS: I did not use the word ‘silly’. I think you misheard me.”
- Main article: Zainal Sapari's views on homosexuality
In response to LGBT rights advocacy group Sayoni's email for comments or updates on his position regarding LGBTQ issues in 2020, Zainal said that he was a Muslim and takes reference from MUIS' advisory on LGBTQ-related issues which states: "we do not agree nor approve the pervasiveness of the LGBT lifestyle, and we cannot agree to the efforts in promoting such a lifestyle".
For repeal of Section 377A
During the debate on 22 and 23 October 2007 over the parliamentary petition to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, Baey Yam Keng was one of only three PAP MPs who spoke in favour of decriminalising sex between men. The other two were Hri Kumar Nair and Charles Chong, both of whom have retired from politics.
Baey Yam Keng
- Main article: Baey Yam Keng's views on homosexuality
The section that has attracted the most number of opinions, most heated public debate, with two online petitions and one Public Petition to Parliament is, in fact, one that has been retained - section 377A which probably has become the most known piece of legislation in recent Singapore history.
Let us look at this issue in a hypothetical scenario. Singapore was never a British colony and we did not inherit section 377A. Today's debate then becomes one of justifying the introduction of a new piece of legislation which states that, "It is an offence for any male person, who in public or private, commits an act of gross indecency with another male person.".
The rationale will be that since Singapore is a generally conservative society, we should single out and criminalise all sexual activities between two men while accepting that the same activity of anal and oral sex between a heterosexual couple and sexual activity between two women need not be offences.
By doing so, we will be aligning our law with most countries in Africa and Middle East. In this hypothetical scenario, perhaps some countries like India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Malaysia will also introduce similar Acts, as what their current position is. Other former British colonies which have since repealed the 19th century law, such as Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong, will most likely not think it is necessary to now criminalise man-to-man sex.
While almost all western countries do not have similar laws, we will argue that it is not relevant for us to take reference from them. However, we are also choosing not to benchmark Singapore against countries like China, Indonesia, Thailand, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines which do not have laws that criminalise male homosexual activity.
According to various points raised by the public, by not criminalising gay sex, it will lead to an increase in homosexual activity, both in public and private. There will also be more male paedophiles eyeing young boys, blatant public solicitation and more AIDS patients.
We also know that there are already laws and there will be stronger laws against prostitution, sexual abuse, exploitation of minors and public indecency. Maybe that is why we will propose that section 377A need not and will not be proactively enforced.
Can the Senior Minister of State give examples of situations where specific enforcement of only section 377A may be needed? Yesterday, he mentioned previous convictions under section 377A, but it seems to me that they could also have been prosecuted under other sections. With no proactive enforcement, should anyone be a good citizen and report private gay sexual activities to the police or will they be simply ignored? Will there be ramifications of this legislation? If someone rents his apartment to a gay couple, will he be charged as an abetting accomplice to a crime under section V of the Penal Code? Besides valid immigration and employment papers, should landlords now ask for confirmation of their tenant's sexual orientation?
With a punishment by up to two years of imprisonment, we are deeming that such activities are of similar severity as causing death by negligent act in section 304A(b), and wrongfully confining any person for three or more days in section 345, and assault or use of criminal force to a person with intent to outrage modesty in section 354(1).
Our justification will also be supported by various surveys, including a NTU study published in September 2007 which saw that 68.6% of respondents in Singapore were negative towards sex between two men or two women. However, it is also interesting to note that some countries choose not to reflect such social non-acceptance in legislation.
Based on the Pew Global Attitudes Project in 2003, 93% in Indonesia and 84% in Vietnam say that homosexuality should not be accepted by society, but these countries have no equivalent of section 377A.
I assume most Singaporeans do not have many gay acquaintances. We are likely to gather our knowledge and form our opinions of the homosexual world from media reports. I believe certain stereotypes of homosexuals in people's minds will include effeminate men, like Boy George, men who prey on young boys, eg, Christopher Neil, flamboyant men who seem to lead decadent lifestyles, like Elton John, and AIDS patients, like Paddy Chew.
I do know quite a number of homosexual men and women. However, the majority, if not all of them, do not fall into any of those abovementioned stereotype categories. Well, they include some very talented and creative people - a common impression of gays which many have said is totally unfounded. These are the directors, actors, hairstylists and designers. But I also know many gay men who are just your average men on the street, making a living as lawyers, lecturers, engineers, accountants, bankers, teachers and civil servants.
I know they have different sexual practices from me, and I have treated them just as any other person. Now, I am reminded that perhaps I should see them as criminals who should spend time behind bars. Perhaps, the thousands of audience who paid as much as $400 to watch Sir Ian McKellen, better known as Gandalf in Lord of the Rings, playing King Lear, in July, might think twice now as he is an openly gay man and hence should object to allowing a criminal on the stage of our Esplanade.
There are negative and positive steps a country can do to discourage and encourage certain behaviours. For example, we do not want to condone smoking and drinking. These acts are not criminal under the law, although we have made tobacco and alcohol less accessible and a lot more expensive. We want to promote marriage and procreation. Hence, singles do not enjoy certain tax and housing benefits, but they are not jailed.
We may be utterly surprised, disappointed, embarrassed, disgusted and angry with our friends, our colleagues and our relatives if we find out they are gay. I will be saddened if my son is gay, because I realise I will not have any grandchildren by him. I may choose to disown him, but now we are saying that he should be jailed.
Sir, I will now continue my speech in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *. ] As the Chinese saying goes, 不孝有三，無後為大 (Bu Xiao You San, Wu Hou Wei Da) which means, "There are three unfilial acts, the greatest is not to have a son." This is an important concept in a traditional and oriental society like ours. Parents are hoping that their sons will have wives and their daughters will be married, and the children also understand that it is an obligation for them to get married and have children. Nevertheless many people choose to marry late, not to get married, or not to have children, and for some it remains solely a personal choice. There are many reasons, but one reason is that they are homosexuals.
I have some homosexual friends and most of them do not want to make public the fact about their sexual inclination, because Singapore is after all a more conservative society. They will only confide with their close friends, colleagues and siblings. More often than not, parents are the last to know. Especially for those who are male homosexuals, the gays, they will not be able to have children and they do not know how to live up to their parents' expectations. A friend of mine did not have the courage to tell his parents. And only after his father had passed away that he disclosed his secret at his father's coffin. Even now the mother does not know about it.
When parents find out that their children do not like the opposite sex, their immediate reaction is that of shock, sadness, shame, anger or remorse, and they try to find out what has gone wrong - why their children had become homosexuals. Some of the parents chose to run away from reality and one of my friend's mother had gone to the temple to pray, she came back with a charm mixed with water, with the hope that after drinking it, it will cure the son. They do not know what to do and some of them even chase their son out of the house, but if they were to take time to think it through calmly, I do not believe that they will charge their son in court and send him to prison for two years.
I have a friend who is the only child in the family. His mother still could not fully accept the fact that her son does not have any interest in the opposite sex. She was more worried that her son may be sentenced to jail being a homosexual. However, she is the person that knows him best, she knows that her son is very filial and obedient; he is a law-abiding citizen and a successful professional. Also, she has known the "boyfriend" of her son for many years and knows they do not have a promiscuous lifestyle.
As parents, we are often the best judges of our children's character. Having a different sexual orientation from the others does not mean that they have committed a heinous crime and therefore should be criminalised.
Back in English
Back to my hypothetical scenario, we will also say that we introduce section 377A as a symbol that the society is conservative and that we do not want to go down a slippery slope to see public display of affection between men, the fight for gay rights and gay marriages. For seven years, I have lived in London, a city that legalised consensual homosexual sex 40 years ago in 1967. I am hence surprised to recollect my time there and I have not ever seen any such behaviour or intimacy between two men in public whilst I was there. Perhaps I have not been to the right places, but I have not indeed seen anyone before my eyes.
Perhaps we are afraid that the slope will be more slippery in Singapore. After all, we have a track record of taking a more progressive stance in some areas, such as stem cell research and digital rights, leading the way, so to speak.
We take into account the change of times and lifestyles. For example, section 376E on sexual grooming of minors is farsighted nip in the bud. Times have changed and our attitudes towards different crimes and their punishments have evolved as well.
Should the law reflect the general or popular opinion or should it set up a framework to steer the way of thinking and behaviour of its citizens, residents and visitors? It is clear that we have chosen to take the former approach in this case.
I do recognise that in today's situation, there is already an existing Act, and the debate is whether it should be retained or repealed and not whether we should introduce a new Act. We have inherited section 377A from the British.
It is easier and, as the Senior Minister of State said, more practical to maintain the status quo than to change it. Because of the extensive and, some may say, polarised debate, we may not be ready to repeal the Act now.
However, whether the perceived majority holding the status quo view has enough knowledge and understanding of the subject matter to make an informed opinion, is another question. I suspect a significant segment of our society does not really care and some are just uncomfortable with this topic and choose the convenient way to stick with the status quo without knowing what the Act exactly is and does.
Last week, a resident came to my meet-the-people session and said that she is happy that the Government is retaining section 377A. I asked her, "Do you know what section 377A is about?" She said, "I don't know."
I am happy to note that both the proposition and the opposition have spoken publicly and rationally. Hopefully, the Government will provide the environment to encourage the continuation of such dialogue so that the society at large can achieve a better understanding of the matter. I want to especially encourage voices from institutions, like the Law Society, so that this discussion will not be driven to periphery. Hopefully, the discussion will be ongoing and not just during the next review of the Penal Code. Hopefully, the review will happen earlier rather than another 23 years later. Hopefully, we will move with and not play catching up with the pace of change around the world that is affecting people's lives.
Sir, with that, I support the Bill.
- Main article: Desmond Lee's views on homosexuality
On Monday, 14 January 2019, three PAP MPs - Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah GRC), Dr Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade GRC) and Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade GRC) - raised questions in Parliament about the High Court's decision to grant a gay surrogate patent James' appeal to adopt his biological son in the interest of the child's welfare (see main article: High Court allows gay father to adopt surrogate son, December 2018).
Desmond Lee, who was then Minister for Social and Family Development, replied: “Following the court judgment, MSF (Ministry of Social and Family Development) is reviewing our adoption laws and practices to see how they should be strengthened to better reflect public policy” and also “the formation of family units with children of homosexual parents through institutions and processes such as adoption”. The authorities would be looking into the issue of surrogacy as well. He stressed the Government's position on same-sex parenthood, reiterating it did not support the formation of families by gay parents. “While we recognise that there are increasingly diverse forms of families...the prevailing norm of society is still that of a man and a woman,” he explained. However, he added that government policy was not to intrude or interfere with the private lives of Singaporeans, including homosexuals, and they were entitled to private lives of their choosing.
- what the Ministry was doing to reach out to persons of minority sexual orientations or gender identities who were facing physical, psychological or sexual violence from family members or intimate partners;
- whether state-run institutions were trained to be sensitive to their needs and particular experiences when they report incidents of domestic violence; and
- whether there were plans to launch awareness-raising campaigns and programmes to work with NGOs to support LGBTQ victim-survivors and reach out to those suffering in silence,.
Minister Lee replied:
"We do not and should not tolerate violence against any person, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. The Penal Code criminalises violence and the use of force against all persons, including LGBTQ persons. The Protection from Harassment Act, or POHA, enables victims of harassment to apply for protection orders against their perpetrators. The recent Criminal Law Reform Act has strengthened protection in both the Penal Code and POHA, by enhancing penalties for offences against vulnerable persons and victims of violence in intimate or close relationships with the perpetrator. The recent POHA amendments have also strengthened the protection framework for intimate partners under POHA.
Our institutions and social workers are trained to be sensitive to the diverse needs of victims of violence, including those of LGBTQ persons. Victims of violence may approach our Social Service Agencies, such as Family Violence Specialist Centres and Family Service Centres, for assistance. These services are provided to anyone in need, without discrimination.
No victim of violence should have to suffer in silence. MSF has run public education initiatives to raise awareness. Our Break The Silence campaign, in particular, focuses on the role of bystanders in preventing and reporting acts of violence – regardless of marital status or sexual orientation of the victim. Everyone has a part to play to prevent, detect and report all forms of violence."
Miscellaneous views on LGBT equality
Tan Chuan Jin
- Main article: Tan Chua Jin's views on homosexuality
Response to lesbian Singaporean's letter
On Monday, 5 August 2013, in response a letter by public relations consultant Wang Su Lin, a 40-year old lesbian who wrote on Yahoo! News that she was not ashamed of being gay but ashamed of being a Singaporean and that was why she had emigrated to Canada which she felt was more welcoming and tolerant, Tan said he wished her well but hoped she would also find it in herself "to contribute and help build Singapore".
The Acting Minister for Manpower and Senior Minister of State for National Development, who praised volunteers and public servants who work to improve the lives of Singaporeans, was speaking at the Manpower Ministry's National Day Observance ceremony.
Comments in relation to misogynist Daryush Valizadeh
Self-proclaimed American "pick-up artist" Daryush Valizadeh, also known as Roosh V, intended to hold a meetup in Singapore on 6 February 2016 for “like-minded men in their cities”. He announced this on a controversial website that caters to "heterosexual and masculine" men. The event was finally cancelled as he could "no longer guarantee the safety or privacy of the men" who intended to attend.
In response to this incident, Tan posted the following status update on his Facebook:
"A number of you have raised the issue of this character Daryush Valizadeh and what he plans to stage in Singapore. Never heard of the guy but having read up on him, I think we'd just have to stand up to misogynists like him and others who will come in various forms. He is the more obvious kind and it's easy for us to respond with disgust. But less obvious would be those that also disrespect and violate women in more subtle ways...and they exist amongst us. Just as there are those who mistreat the elderly. Abuse the young. Discriminate and ridicule those with different sexual orientation. Or even as I posted earlier, give nursing moms a hard time.
We should not just say no, but to affirm our own values by making a stand when we encounter bigotry, and to actively inculcate them in our children."
- Main article: K Shanmugam's views on homosexuality
K Shanmugam has commented publicly several times on LGBT rights in Singapore and also agreed to meetings with both pro- and anti-LGBT equality activists where he has listened intently to their viewpoints but endeavoured to maintain a neutral stance.
However, it was under his purview as Minister of Law that the Public Order Act was amended in November 2016 to prevent foreigners from participating in events at Speakers' Corner, Hong Lim Park, ostensibly mainly in acquiescence to homophobic complaints against the exponential growth in attendence at Pink Dot and the strong support the event received from the most successful multinational companies in the world like Google and Facebook which had very LGBT-friendly human resources policies.
Ong Ye Kung
- Main article: Ong Ye Kung's views on homosexuality
On Friday, 14 September 2018, during a dialogue with the audience at the annual Singapore Summit, a conference for business and thought leaders to discuss business and global affairs, Ong was asked how the nation could be more inclusive towards people of different sexual orientations.
He replied that there was no discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community "at work, housing (and) education" in Singapore. Saying that it was in Singapore’s DNA to be inclusive, he added: "The fact is they (the LGBTQ community) live in Singapore peacefully, no discrimination at work, housing (and) education. They go about their lives. However, on the issue of LGBTQ, it is also an issue of social mores and societal values."
Ng Chee Meng
- Main article: Ng Chee Meng's views on homosexuality
The "Singapore Perspectives 2016" conference was organised by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) on Monday, 18 January 2016 and held at the Fairmont Ballroom, Raffles City Convention Centre. The theme of the annual event that year was “We” – the first word in the National Pledge summoning into existence that collective noun, "Singaporean". The conference was attended by almost 1,500 people. During the Q&A session, Acting Minister for Education (Schools) Ng answered a question from Pink Dot representative Paerin Choa on LGBT rights in Singapore.
- Main article: Murali Pillai's views on homosexuality
He was interviewed by Channel NewsAsia journalist Bharati Jagdish on Saturday, 15 September 2018. Among the issues he was asked about included his stance on Section 377A in the light of India's recent decriminalisation of gay sex.
“It is certainly a vexed issue. My overriding view and hope is that whatever decision that is eventually made in Parliament about Section 377A, it is done after we have made our best attempt in reaching a consensus within our society on this matter. This may seem like wishful thinking on my part since our society is currently polarised. But I’m hopeful, I’m optimistic because I believe there is a general recognition that a homosexual is deserving of equal treatment, deserving of dignity and respect and should not be treated as a social outcast.”
But does he personally agree with this standpoint?
“Yes, certainly,” he says. When Bharati put it to him that perhaps the Government should take a firm stand on the issue and set the tone as it has with many other tough issues, he says the matter has to be looked into holistically. “At the same time, there is a belief that a decision on Section 377A may have an impact on important institutions such as marriage and family. This must be addressed too,” he adds. “Hence, I strongly feel that we should take a holistic approach. This involves properly identifying all the issues associated with matter, a thorough engagement and discussion with civil society, religious groups, etc, and an effort at forging a consensus on the main issues involved. The hallmark of democracy at the end of the day is that we must be able to justify the moves we make even if not every single person agrees. We are not alone in this journey. This is happening in the rest of the world too.
It is important that we study and gain insights from the global developments too. The efforts, the studies on these fronts should start now but will take time to complete. So be it. To be an effective interlocutor for this process, I feel that I should be open to suasion at this stage.” He points out that while Section 377A is still in the penal code, it is not enforced.
- Main article: Tharman Shanmugaratnam's views on homosexuality
On Sunday, 22 June 2014, in response to questions from the media about the Wear White campaign launched by Islamic religious leader Noor Deros urging fellow Muslims to don white clothes on 28 June 2014 to protest against homosexuality and the Pink Dot event to be held at Hong Lim Park on the same day, then Deputy Prime Minister Tharman said: "All these matters, we just have to exercise a sense of balance and restraint, especially when it comes to matters that have to do with religion and personal preferences." He added that Singaporeans were "very moderate people" and he did not think the situation would escalate,,,.
- Main article: Edwin Tong's views on homosexuality
On 7 May 2019, when Tong was Senior Minister of State for Law, he made a speech on behalf of Law Minister K Shanmugam during the second reading of the Protection from Harassment (Amendment) Bill where he addressed the need to tackle online harassment against LGBT youth. He pointed out that:
Tong was a panellist during a virtual ministerial engagement session organised on Saturday, 3 July 2021 by the National Youth Council (NYC) in line with Youth Month which fell in July that year. A fellow panellist, actress and singer Annette Lee suggested embracing diversity in a tangible way and encouraging people to be "a little bit less insular". Tong expanded on the suggestion by saying: "Take, for example, if we had a friend who was from a different race, different gender, different age profile or different sexuality... If we each had a personal friend like that, and we understood and knew that person better, I think we will find ourselves a lot more tolerant, a lot more accepting, and eventually a lot more embracing of these differences."
Low Yen Ling
- Main article: Low Yen Ling's views on homosexuality
On 4 September 2019, in response to a parliamentary question from Nominated MP Walter Theseira on measures to combat bullying of LGBT youths based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression at educational institutions, then Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Education Low emphasised that the Ministry of Education (MOE) did not tolerate bullying of any form at any time in Singapore’s schools and post-secondary educational institutions (PSEIs).
Teachers and counsellors were given “very extensive training” to handle bullying targeting gender identity or sexual orientation, she said. “When working with students with sexuality-related issues, our school counsellor understands the sensitivity and they adopt an objective approach to ensure the overall best interest of the students,” she explained.
She added that school counsellors would facilitate continued family support “where relevant, and when the timing is right” to prevent students from being ostracised and developing mental health issues. In addition, the counsellors would also share suggestions to help the parents talk to and better support their children. “The Ministry of Education will continue to look at how we can improve our systems and measure to make sure that we provide a safe and secure conducive environment for all our students,” she assured.
Teachers were also taught at the National Institute of Education (NIE) ways to foster a positive classroom culture without imposing their own prejudice. The teacher's preparation programme at the NIE equipped all teachers with "strategies to address actions that are mean or hurtful" and "manage behaviour such as those that are targeting gender identity or sexual orientation", Low elaborated. After NIE, the teachers are supported in student management matters by senior school staff, who "encourage peer support amongst students".
"In the PSEIs and schools, we have now percolated the peer support group because sometimes it takes the best friend or close friends to approach the teacher and share observations that their friend is suffering," revealed Low. In so doing, the teachers would make sure that they protect the identity of the person who came forward to share the information, she stressed. "The Ministry of Education will continue to look at how we can improve our systems and measure to make sure that we provide a safe and secure conducive environment for all our students."
- Main article: Sun Xueling's views on LGBT rights
"I valued the opportunity to meet with June Chua, Executive Director of The T Project. I had last met her over zoom a few months ago when I wanted to seek her inputs and views on preventing family violence.
Apart from sharing about the work she is doing, providing shelter services to the transgender community, she also shared with me her role as a caregiver to her mum.
She was telling me how important it was that people, regardless their situation, be given the agency of choice wherever possible as it gives them some semblance of control over their lives. It could be something simple, June was telling me about food (we were in the kitchen then)....but it extends beyond that, to jobs and shelter.
I thank June for the work she does and may she and her team be blessed."
Former PAP politicians
Lee Kuan Yew
- Main article: Lee Kuan Yew's views on homosexuality
Goh Chok Tong
- See also: PM Goh Chok Tong liberalises employment of openly gay individuals in civil service, July 2003
In a Time magazine (Asia) article entitled, "The Lion in Winter" by Simon Elegant published on 7 July 2003, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong was reported to have said that his government would henceforth allow gay employees into its ranks, even in sensitive positions. The change in policy, inspired at least in part by the desire not to exclude talented foreigners who were gay, was being implemented without fanfare to avoid raising the hackles of more conservative Singaporeans.
"So let it evolve, and in time the population will understand that some people are born that way," Goh said. He added the by-now famous quip which presciently predated Laga Gaga's runaway hit and LGBT anthem Born This Way by almost a decade:
"We are born this way and they are born that way, but they are like you and me."
Goh's announcement was perhaps an attempt at making Singapore less restrictive and more creative to revive the economy in the wake of the 1997 Asian financial crisis and the SARS outbreak in 2003 which caused a severe recession.
- Main article: Alvin Yeo's views on homosexuality
Alvin Yeo served as Member of Parliament for Hong Kah GRC from 2006 to 2011, and for Chua Chu Kang GRC from 2011 to 2015. At the 2015 General Elections, he retired from politics. He opposed the parliamentary petition to repeal Section 377A in 2007.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to take part in this debate at this late hour. After such powerful moving speeches from our two Nominated Members of Parliament, one is tempted to remain silent. But allow me to respectfully add my perspective.
In the run up to this debate, I read an interview or feature in the New Paper where Mr Siew Kum Hong was asked for his personal background and his reasons for bringing this parliamentary Petition. He replied that his personal background was irrelevant to the issue and that he was bringing this Petition as he supported the principle of equality of treatment, including for those who engage in homosexual conduct.
I should say that I agree with Mr Siew that one's personal background is simply not relevant to the issue and, personally, I applaud Mr Siew for his willingness to subject himself to intense media and public scrutiny for a principle he subscribes to. I say that one's own background and indeed one's own personal views are not what is really important. Because our role as Members of this House is to represent not so much our own views, but those who have placed us in this position of responsibility. This means that one has to take account of not just the minority views but the majority views as well, to not just listen to the vocal, the articulate, the high profile spokesmen for their various causes, but to try and discern the views of the vast and silent segments of the population whose views and feelings run just as strong.
It is generally accepted that a large portion of the population remains uncomfortable with, even troubled, by homosexual behaviour. The Straits Times ran a poll where something like 70% expressed discomfort with these views. Those of the Muslim faith, many with Christian beliefs, oppose the condoning of homosexual conduct. Do their views not have to be taken into account? Is this tyranny of the majority? Some commentators think that it is outmoded for our laws to reflect the moral and social values of the people it governs. I disagree.
In our nation which has, as one of its ingrained principles, the rule of law, indeed it is usually considered one of our competitive strengths as well, the law stands, not just as a boundary line of what conduct will or will not be prosecuted, but as a moral compass of what we stand for. It is a benchmark of our values, our beliefs, not just a reference book to determine when we can sue and when we can be sued. That is why our courts, in interpreting the law, have always required parties to observe not just the letter of the law, but also its spirit and its purpose.
In this regard, I do take issue with the two points that Mr Siew, notwithstanding his forceful and loquacious arguments, has made. The first is that, because the Ministry has said that section 377A will not be proactively enforced, it is an admission that no harm results from it. I think other speakers, more eloquent than me, have spoken of the social and psychological and moral harm that can result from embarking or slipping down the slippery slope. I prefer to think that the stand of the Ministry is not because they recognise that there is no harm, but because they wish to show some degree of tolerance to those who subscribe to different views to give them some space in their personal lives. But they are standing firm on what the principles and beliefs that our society stands for in continuing to have this law on the statute books.
Mr Siew also says that he does not agree with this "signposting" argument because, to him, signposting is an all-or-nothing approach. Again, I have to respectfully disagree. There are certain key markers in all our laws which reasonate through the fabric of our society more than others. For instance, how many of you have heard of section 498 which has to do with enticing a married woman, and how many of you consider that doing away with that law means that this House is permitting adultery or promiscuity? Certainly, from all the press reports, none of them seem to labour under the misimpression that the non-repeal of section 377A was what that particular signpost was about.
One of the points made is about equal treatment for all before the law, including homosexuals, which I think is the central plank of the petition that has been presented. Equality before the law is a fundamental concept. But it cannot be looked at in vacuum. It does not deprive a state, a government, of regulating what it considers to be proper and correct behaviour. It is equal rights for all, as measured against the values and beliefs of our society. And our society is a multi-religious, multi-racial and multi-cultural one. So, for instance, we have an Administration of Muslim Law Act which imposes a separate regime on Muslims in family and estate matters. Yet, we do not hear complaints about unequal treatment from either Muslims or non-Muslims. It is accepted as part of our multi-cultural, multi-religious Singapore.
To take another more recent example, the Human Organ Transplant Act (HOTA), where Muslims are not subject to the same opting-out provisions on account of their religious beliefs.
Even then, discussions and consultations are going on within the Muslim community and outside, to remove this particular difference. Again, the principle of equal treatment of all has to be moderated by our aim of preserving harmony among our different races, of mutual respect for each other's beliefs. I do not believe that anyone seriously contends we should not continue to uphold this.
Having said that, there may be something to be learnt from HOTA and the discussions relating to its possible change. To those who support the removal of section 377A, it is an object demonstration that laws can and do change based on a reconciliation of different views. But such changes, particularly where they involve deeply-held deep-seated religious and moral beliefs, do take time and they cannot be forced. Indeed, I hope that all concerned in this particular lobby effort will be patient and understand that the views of others do count as well and try to give this issue more time and not let it be something that divides our society.
Overall, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the changes to the Penal Code may keep it more relevant to this day and age and are to be welcomed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Ho Geok Choo
- Main article: Ho Geok Choo's views on homosexuality
Sir, reactions to section 377A have been sharp and vocal, with several interest groups taking highly public positions on this particular provision. In fact, I understand that there is a disturbing undercurrent of violent hostilities surrounding this discussion. I would like to appeal to all interest groups and interested individuals to discuss section 377A in a calm and peaceful manner befitting a civil and civilised society. Sir, I would like to reiterate what Dr Balaji said recently, although in another context, and that is, "Whilst we encourage diversity in society, we must not allow divisiveness to cut society into a disintegrated one, especially in a small and open country like Singapore.". We must strike a balance.
Sir, I was reflecting on this issue and I realised that the Government is very much like the parents in the household. With a brood of children, born of the same parents, but with totally different characters, how do the parents ensure that within the family, there is space, tolerance, balance and peace and harmony in their co-existence? Of course, there are principles and values that parents must instil. But when there are disagreements, it is not enough to know what is wrong but it is important to know how to fix the problem as well. How could the parents do this without excluding any member of the family? This is the imperative task faced by the Government at the moment.
Ong Kian Min
- Main article: Ong Kian Min's views on homosexuality
I would state categorically that I am not in favour of mainstreaming the homosexual lifestyle, but have not intended to speak on section 377A as the Government has consulted widely. Many have spoken on this issue and most Singaporeans let out a sigh of relief when they noticed that this Amendment Bill left the existing section 377A intact. Well, I do not want to dwell into the hypothetical scenario painted by Mr Baey Yam Keng as the fact remains that, outraged by Mr Siew Kum Hong's open Petition, many of my concerned constituents and friends have come forward to voice out their extreme unease about how this issue might evolve. And they feel that it is about time they let their stand be made known. They have come out more forcefully to make their views known and the Tampines GRC MPs have promised to express some of these views for them, the hitherto silent majority.
I would like to quote from one of my residents from my GRC, Miss Samantha Wong of Tampines Street 81:
"I cannot imagine the repercussions it [repeal of section 377A] would have on the morality of the society. This is a place where my children and children's children would grow up in. Thus I plead that this decision [the Government's decision in not changing section 377A] would not change for the sake of upholding the moral standards and family values in this nation. In no way does this petition [Mr Siew Kum Hong's petition] serve the interests of Singapore or us as Singaporeans, but only a small portion pushing to serve their own personal interests/agenda."
Sir, whether section 377A should be repealed or retained is an emotive issue that has aroused much debate. It has forced us to examine our beliefs and convictions against the context of changing perceptions and values that have happened over time. Judging by the number of signatures that the two opposing websites - "Repeal377A" and "Keep377A" - have amassed, it has compelled many of us to make a stand for what we believe in.
The true crux of the matter is whether Singaporeans are ready to openly accept homosexuality into mainstream society.
Although a vocal segment of society has garnered much support for the repeal of section 377A, the majority of Singaporeans have unequivocally rejected these cries to decriminalise homosexuality. The overwhelming sentiment of Singaporeans is that they are not prepared to compromise their conservative family values by opening up to alternative sexual behaviour, nor allowing it to permeate across time honoured boundaries into the conventional family sanctity.
Sir, I would like to thank Prof. Thio for giving me a history lesson yesterday on how the concept of marriage and modern-day family came about. The family unit has been acknowledged as the building block of society, praised as the foundation of social order and exalted as the bastion of civilisation. It is the family thatnurtures our children. It is the family that inspires us to contribute to our community. It is the family that believes in working towards a future. Every nation is fully cognisant of the importance of the family as the primary source of stability and growth. Singapore is no different. Our Government has demonstrated its commitment to preserve and strengthen the family structure through pro-family laws and policies. I believe that a great majority are keen to preserve the family unit as we know it - a family unit that consists of a father, a mother and their children.
In a fast-changing world, the traditional family unit is already vulnerable to various encroachments such as rising divorce rates, the increase in the number of single-parent households and work pressures. We must do all we can to support the integrity of the family and keep it safe from further challenges. By promoting homosexuality, we are effectively initiating a shift in the definition of the family unit. I gravely fear that repealing section 377A will lead to calls for further integration of homosexuality into our society. Singaporeans are simply not ready to change their family values at this point in time. Encouraging homosexuality will undermine the traditional family institution and weaken our social fabric. Let the family unit not be compromised.
The majority of Singaporeans want their children to grow up in a traditional environment that espouses healthy and wholesome traditional family values. We do not want the homosexual lifestyle to be promoted or celebrated.
- Main article: Cynthia Phua's views on homosexuality
Sir, I would also like to state that I support the retention of section 377A. I agree totally with what Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law, Professor S Jayakumar, who recently presented this perspective when he spoke at the Rule of Law Symposium. In the application of the rule of law, it has to be in accordance with the social, cultural and political values of each society. I quote:
"Asian societies like Singapore generally give greater importance to the larger interests of the community in arriving at this balance. In western societies, the tilt is towards more emphasis on the rights of the individual."
In Singapore, we must continue to protect and uphold the traditional core family structure and values.
Hri Kumar Nair
- Main article: Hri Kumar Nair's views on homosexuality
He also feels that there are Singaporeans who have questions concerning their sexual orientation and who are deeply affected by it and that the Government needs to provide a facility for those seeking advice or support. Society should have a frank conversation about its approach towards homosexuality.
Let me touch briefly on the issue of section 377A. As Professor Ho pointed out, this is one debate which will not see people switching sides easily. Both proponents and opponents of the law have deeply entrenched views on the subject, and that is unlikely to change for some time. I have personally asked many people, both young and old, what they think of this issue, and the almost common consensus is that they do not want this law to be repealed and that is consistent with the feedback the Government has received.
So I do not wish to engage in a moral debate, and certainly not a long one, and I have no rousing speech to deliver. What I wish to do is to approach it from a lawyer's point of view and how I see Parliament and Parliament's role in making laws.
Sir, as a lawyer, the power of Parliament to make law is of particular interest to me. When judges and lawyers interpret laws, they are, in certain instances, permitted to refer to Hansard to determine the intention behind any word, phrase or provision in a piece of legislation. Parliamentary debates, therefore, play an important role not just in the passing of laws but how they will be understood by those who later apply them. What we say here or do must be consistent with the law we promulgate and also make sense to those who will scrutinise our words perhaps years from now. In my submission, laws must meet the three Cs, ie, be clear, consistent and concrete, meaning that they must be substantive, effective and make sense. What I find difficult about this issue before us is that while the majority do not wish a repeal for good reason, intellectually, section 377A does, in some respects, fall short of what a good law is or should be.
Sir, first, it is unclear what the current legal position is. In a statement on 7th of November 2006, the Ministry of Home Affairs said that, with respect to section 377A, it will not be proactive in enforcing the section against adult males engaging in consensual sex with each other in private. But what does that mean? Does it mean that the Police will not act on complaints or that suspects may be investigated but ultimately not arrested or prosecuted? Or is it the case that the Attorney-General, who has prosecutorial discretion, may prosecute some but not all offenders? That puts the Attorney-General in a difficult position because selective prosecution will give rise to more issues. But if the intention is not to do anything at all, then what is the purpose of having the law? Does it not hurt our credibility that we have laws that are toothless? The Penal Code is an important piece of legislation and, in the long run, making some conduct criminal under our Penal Code whilst stating that the law will not be enforced, simply invites attacks on the integrity of the Code.
Second, we are not being consistent. The retention of section 377A is often justified as being consistent with the importance society places on family values. But society has done away with criminalising a whole host of other conduct, which is far more damaging to family values, such as adultery, which carries a more direct threat to the integrity of the family. And adultery was one of the original Ten Commandments. Further, it is not always true that laws always reflect society's or the moral position. Marital rape is a good example. I cannot imagine any Member of the House believing that it is acceptable for a man to force himself on a woman under any circumstances, regardless of whether they are married. But we do not completely outlaw marital rape. The Bill here certainly protects a woman more by prescribing circumstances under which her husband can be charged with rape, but the protection is not absolute for wives. Why? Over and above the reasons that have been given - and in this respect I share NMP Ms Eunice Olsen's criticisms of those reasons - more importantly, the law knows its own limits and it is practically impossible to properly enforce a law by giving a wife absolute protection. So, likewise, we also accept that the Penal Code is not the appropriate tool to legislate or regulate the private heterosexual behaviour of consenting adults. Indeed, it is almost impossible to effectively do so. In addition, the question arises also why section 377A does not deal with lesbianism. Over and above the legal basis for discriminating between men and women, where is the consistency?
Thirdly, Sir, the law has no real substance. Through a 15-year period, ie, 1988 to 2003, there were only eight convictions under section 377A involving seven incidents. Two convictions were for the same incident. Moreover, it has not been invoked in respect of consensual sex since 1993. So this law is rarely applied or, if applied, it applies to minors or acts in public. Does that mean that private consensual homosexual acts do not happen in Singapore? To believe that would be naive. The truth is that it is virtually impossible to enforce this law. Now that the MHA has said that it will not actively pursue offenders, we are not likely to see any prosecutions in the future, certainly not many.
Sir, I accept that even if a law is difficult to enforce, it can still serve a legitimate purpose in its underlying message, and section 377A sends the message that those who engage in homosexual activities are criminals. But at the same time, we have been saying that our society will not reject those with alternative lifestyles. We have even said that such individuals have a place in our civil service.
It has also recently been said that homosexuality may be genetic, and the debate on this issue is still raging on. Now, the MHA says that it will not prosecute offenders. So what is the message we are sending? Are we for or against it? What do we stand for? While this may be an uncomfortable issue, we should at least make our position clear. Just to cite an example by Mr Christopher De Souza, he says, messaging is important, and he cites the example of suicides, that if we do not make it an offence to commit suicide, we are sending the message that suicide is acceptable. But there is no inconsistent messaging for suicide. So it is not such a clear issue.
Sir, my second issue is with the arguments put forward by the opposing camp. The opponents of the repeal have expressed concern that any repeal may be construed as endorsement by the Government in favour of alternative
lifestyles. That is a fair point. However, likewise, I hope that any decision not to repeal will not be regarded as an endorsement for some of the reasons that have been advanced to oppose it. What are some of these reasons?
First, the argument advanced by some religious groups that section 377A should be retained because homosexuality is an abomination. I respect their right to express their views, and I do not think this is the appropriate time or place for me to discuss it. But we must remind ourselves that we are a secular state, where every one is equal in the eyes of the law, and it is important to assure all citizens of Singapore that decisions will always be made on secular grounds.
Second is the notion that section 377A reflects our Asian values. But section 377A is not even Asian in origin. Section 377 was originally based on an English criminal law which sought to prohibit sodomy, and was incorporated into the Indian Penal Code in late 1862. It was also adapted for the Straits Settlements Penal Code in 1871. Section 377A was later added under the sub-title "Unnatural offences" in 1938. Both sections were absorbed unchanged into the Singapore Penal Code when the latter was passed by Singapore's Legislative Council on 28th January 1955. In short, we inherited this from the British. There is nothing distinctly Asian about it.
Third is the argument that repealing section 377A will lead to a rampant increase in homosexuality, and thereby increase HIV rates. First, retaining the law can make no difference because offenders have already been told that they will not be prosecuted. Second, Sir, it is stretching logic to suggest that the repeal will lead to a sudden proliferation of homosexual activity. Thirdly, making something illegal only forces it underground. That will restrict the ability of the Government to respond to the HIV threat through promotion and education, when Government agencies feel that they cannot engage with the gay community in any way except a condemnatory one.
Finally, Sir, is the argument that the repeal is a slippery slope, that it will herald the end of the family unit. As I have said earlier, there is no consistency in our laws to support this argument. Further, while society may frown on homosexuality, that, by itself, does not justify criminalising it. A number of speakers, at least one of them, have highlighted the surveys in the Straits Times where the public was polled and 70% were said to frown on homosexuality. I can understand that. Seventy percent frowned on it. But how many actually said that they were willing to criminalise it? That question was not even asked, and that is a serious question because that is the issue we face today.
Some Members have mentioned the possibility of same-sex marriages occurring here. That, no doubt, will be an issue which gay activists will push further down the road. But that involves the Government actively endorsing and passing legislation to recognise same-sex marriages. So the arguments here do not apply.
Sir, can I end by putting the question in another way? I say there is another way to test the issue: assume we are here debating whether to include section 377A into our Penal Code, would we do it? I am not sure we would, because we would hesitate about passing laws to deal with private acts in the bedroom. But because it is already there, we are comfortable living in there.
Sir, it may well be that our society today is not ready to debate this issue. I hope that it will not be too long before we feel ready to do so, because I think that is a sign of our growing maturity. But when we do debate this issue, I hope that the debate will be calm and measured as that typifies the way we do things in Singapore. Certainly, we do not wish to see any proliferation of hate messages of mails and other things which Professor Thio Li-ann has talked about. That is certainly not the way we do things in Singapore, and long may that continue. Ultimately, laws should be passed or repealed not only because the majority wants it that way, but because it makes sense and it is in the interests of Singapore as a whole, including the interests of all minority groups.
Lee Bee Wah
- Main article: Lee Bee Wah's views on homosexuality
On 3 December 2018, Edward Foo, a supporter of the Ready4Repeal online movement, volunteered to talk to his MP, Lee Bee Wah of the (Nee Soon GRC) regarding Section 377A of the Penal Code during a Meet-the-People session,. He also offered to pass her a copy of a petition to repeal 377A which contained the signatures of 859 people in her GRC. Lee asked Foo to say what he wanted to say and he replied: “This is regarding Section 377A, and I was wondering what your views on this matter are.” The MP then retorted: “I have other residents with real problems”, and exited the room. After 15 minutes, she returned and talked to other residents around Foo, actively avoiding the table he was sitting at. A Meet-the-People session volunteer seated with him called out to her, but to no avail. Foo call out her name as well. She again did not reply. As she walked away from Foo, he called her name a second time, this time a little louder. Lee turned around. upon which Foo remarked: “If you don’t want to talk to me, can I at least pass you this” holding out the Ready4Repeal petition addressed to her. She gave a dismissive gesture with her hand and asked him to pass it to the volunteers instead.
In January 2019, Lee filed a parliamentary question asking if the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) had received objections to the performance of the RuPaul’s Drag Race: Werq the World 2019 World Tour live show set to be held on 2 February at the Kallang Theatre. She also asked what the criteria for approving such performances were, how the Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) dealt with approval and censorship of performances dealing with LGBT issues and how IMDA determined the age restriction for audiences for such shows,,. She said she tabled the question because residents in her ward had expressed concerns about the content of the show and its appropriateness for children.
- Main article: Charles Chong's views on homosexuality
Charles Chong was the Member of Parliament for the Punggol East Single Member Constituency (Punggol East SMC). He supported the parliamentary petition to repeal Section 377A in 2007. Chong retired from politics two weeks before the 2020 General Elections.
Sir, another provision that has generated much controversy is section 377A. Much has already been said on this section, and I am not sure if I can add anything that has not already been said. I shudder at the thought of adding more of it because of the passion that has been shown in this House. But I think I would be remiss as a legislator if I merely hid behind the views of the "conservative majority" and maintain the status quo, which of course would be the least inconvenient thing to do if you were not gay.
Sir, I am not convinced that there would be drastic consequences in our society if we do not repeal section 377A, as the section has been in the Penal Code since the Code was adopted in, I think, 1871. Neither am I convinced that we will all rapidly slip down the slippery road if we were to repeal section 377A, as suggested by some Members. The slippery road argument has less of an impact on me these days, as I have heard that sort of arguments used many times before.
Some years ago, a senior politician (who shall remain unnamed) argued his case as eloquently and as convincingly as some of our NMPs did yesterday, in retaining an archaic regulation. The removal of such a regulation, it was said, would have led to conflicts, fights and murders, if it were to be abolished. Well, we have abolished that archaic regulation and permitted bar-top dancing for some years already, and the world has not come to an end yet.
Sir, if the experts and MM and PM are indeed correct (and some of our MPs wrong) that some of us are indeed born with different sexual orientations, then it would be quite wrong for us to criminalise and persecute those that are born different from us, regardless of how conservative a society we claim to be, especially if their actions do not cause harm to third parties.
Sir, we also claim to be a secular and inclusive society. We should therefore respect the private space of those who are born different from us as much as we expect them to respect our common space. Therefore, if we do retain section 377A, which is most likely the case, as the Prime Minister has said so already, then we should exclude criminalising acts done in private between consenting adults of full capacity. Enforcing section 377A for acts done in private would be onerous if we do not have the equivalent of religious vigilantes that some of our neighbouring countries have to spy on what takes place in the bedrooms and hotel rooms.
Is it really the business of Government to regulate acts between consenting adults born with different sexual orientations in the privacy of their bedrooms?
Sir, if we have intended the retention of section 377A in the Penal Code as an expression of our conservative values, rather than to be proactively enforced, as some have suggested, then I think we have come out short even in this respect. The section criminalises act of gross indecency in public and in private only if it is engaged between men.
Surely, the Minister must acknowledge that women are as capable as men of committing such acts. Is section 377A therefore, as it stands, a correct statement of our values and principles? Or are there no lesbians in Singapore?
Sir, it would simply not be realistic to expect the majority of Singaporeans to ever reach a position of being pro-homosexuality or where they would actively seek to repeal section 377A as a matter of priority. Even if heterosexual Singaporeans are apathetic towards homosexuality, it would be much easier just to maintain the status quo than to take steps to modify or even expunge section 377A from the Penal Code.
Having said all this, section 377A is useful in one regard as it is currently an offence for a man to "procure or attempt to procure the commission" of an act of gross indecency with another man. This gives some protection to men who are subject to unwanted sexual advances of other men and should continue to be an offence whether these advances are made in public or in private. The section should however be extended to protect women who face the same sort of harassment from other women.
This is a rare case of the Penal Code providing more protection to men than it does to women. It is unfair and may even be unconstitutional that women do not, in this respect, currently have the same sort of protection that men have under the law.
So, ultimately, my question, as asked by the other Members, is: if we did not have section 377A in the Penal Code today, would we think it fit and proper to enact a provision in exactly the same terms? Would we not be seen as being narrow-minded, perhaps even bigoted in our philosophy towards people who are born different and engage in practices not approved by the majority, even if no harm is done to others?
If we would not, then I think we should show leadership and convince the majority to do what is fair, just and representative of the age in which we live. And that it does not make sense to have a law we do not intend to proactively enforce and that intimate relations with the consenting adults in the privacy of one's bedroom are not the business of the Government.
Finally, Sir, I support the many changes made in the Penal Code, not only to expunge archaic laws and terms - I am delighted to hear the Senior Minister of State say that there are no more terms of "bullock", "ice-house" and "horse carriages" in the Penal Code - but also to bring the existing laws up to date with our present day situation.
Although in several areas I think we could have done better, overall, it was quite a commendable effort and I hope the Minister would continue to refine the provisions further in the very near future and to seriously consider expunging laws that we have no intention to enforce.
Reaction to Lee Kuan Yew's comments on homosexuality
- See also: Lee Kuan Yew's views on homosexuality
In a Sunday Times feature article on 23 January 2011 about then Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's comments on homosexuality made in his book, 'Hard truths to keep Singapore going', Chong, then an MP for the Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC said: "PAP candidates have never been asked to declare our sexual orientation. MM is right in saying an MP should be judged purely on his performance, and not on his sexual orientation.",
Wong Kan Seng
- Main article: Wong Kan Seng's views on homosexuality
Singapore Democratic Party
The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) supports LGBT equality in Singapore and is against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression[]. It also supports the repeal of Section 377A, making its stand clear on its website since 2007.
Current SDP politicians
For LGBT equality
Chee Soon Juan
- Main article: Chee Soon Juan's views on homosexuality
Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party, has accepted Singapore's pioneering LGBT advocacy group People Like Us' (PLU) invitation to several IndigNation events where he has spoken up for LGBT equality. He has also attended Pink Dot SG with his wife and children.
During the IndigNation 2006 event entitled, 'The 2006 General Election and the Gay Issue' held at Theatreworks' 72-13 along Mohamed Sultan Road on 1 August 2006 at 7:30pm, Chee made the following speech in support of LGBT equality.
In response to a joint letter signed by 7 members of the LGBT community several months before the 2011 General Elections querying Singapore's political parties' views on various issues of concern to the community (see main article: Singapore political parties’ positions on LGBT concerns – General election 2011), Chee sent an e-mail reply on 2 November 2010:
"Rather than respond to the questionnaire, the Singapore Democratic Party would like to reiterate its stand:
We support the repeal of Section 377A. We made our stand clear in 2007 here  and defended it here . We have embedded in our website the following statement: “As a nation, we must not only show tolerance but also acceptance of our fellow citizens regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, or political persuasion.” (see here ).
Chee also made a speech in support of fellow SDP candidate, Vincent Wijeysingha, during the 2011 General Elections, saying that his party does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (see main article: Vivian Balakrishnan attacks Vincent Wijeysingha for having alleged gay agenda during 2011 General Elections).
On Wednesday, 8 July 2020, one day before Cooling-off Day during the 2020 General Elections, social media celebrity Preetipls interviewed Chee regarding his life and views. His response to her question about when Singapore would be ready to repeal Section 377A was that the issue was a divisive one and that the people would have to decide.
Chee: You know, I think this is something that the people will have to answer. Right now, I'll be very honest with you, it's still a very divisive situation. The time when the society is ready is, I think, for Singaporeans to answer at some point, you know, people will have to decide.
- Main article: Paul Tambyah's views on homosexuality
Prof Paul Anantharajah Tambyah is a physician specialising in infectious diseases. He is the chairman of the Singapore Democratic Party. He was also a founding member of MARUAH and a member of Action for AIDS' exco.
"In terms of 377A, the SDP has been very clear about this - that 377A should be repealed. And again, this is in line with the idea that there should be equality for all Singaporeans. We also don't believe that it makes sense to keep a law on the books if you have decided you are not going to enforce the law. So there has to be consistency in order for rule of law to be practised in Singapore."
Against LGBT equality
- Main article: Damanhuri Abas' views on homosexuality
One of the SDP's Malay-Muslim candidates running in the Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC during the 2015 General Elections, Damanhuri Abas thinks that Section 377A should not be repealed. He even had a hand in drafting the Fellowship of Muslim Students Association (FMSA) statement supporting NUS professor Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied when he dehumanised lesbians by describing them as ‘diseases’ and ‘cancers’ of society,.
He contradicts himself by saying that he believes in a society where everyone is treated as equals and is against the discrimination of Hijabi Muslimahs and Malay-Muslims in the military while, at the same time, supporting the criminalisation of gay Singaporeans.
Neutral towards LGBT equality
- Main article: Benjamin Pwee's views on homosexuality
Benjamin Pwee is an SDP parliamentary candidate for the 2020 General Elections. He heads media management under the Central Executive Committee of the SDP. He left the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in February 2019.
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015, Inconvenient Questions interviewed Pwee when he was still a member of the Democratic Progressive Party regarding his stand on Section 377A, amongst other issues after the NUSS political forum on the 2015 General Elections.
Pwee, who has been a committed Protestant Christian since his youth, did not take a firm stand on whether 377A should be repealed or not, saying that it was instead a question of legislative fairness and regulation of private behaviour.
"377A is again a very complex issue. How we see it on our side is that there is a distinction between what is and should be regulated within the sphere of the private, within the sphere of a community, within the sphere of a family and what is to be regulated under a criminal Penal Code at the national level.
And issues that are dealt with at a criminal Penal Code level need to be something that is fair and applicable across everybody.
So the question around 377A I think is not about whether you repeal it or you don't repeal it. The question of 377A is "Does it need to be rewritten? Does it need to be revised where it applies?" If it's going to apply and stand, it should apply to men AND women. If it's not going to apply at all, it should not apply to men or women.
The issues are around how do we see legislative restrictions and limitations on private choices. But at the same time to also say that if a community is not ready for it, can that community also regulate itself and deal with this issue, where the state steps out of what could be a very private decision amongst two people.
So that's our position on 377A."
Former SDP policiticians
Vincent Wijeysingha was Singapore's first openly gay politician. He was a member of the SDP from 2010 to 2013. He served as the party's Treasurer and stood as a parliamentary candidate in the 2011 General Elections.
- Main article: Workers' Party politicians' views on homosexuality
Current Workers' Party politicians
Neutral towards LGBT equality
- Main article: Pritam Singh's views on homosexuality
On Friday, 5 April 2019, Singh published an article entitled, One Singapore Family: Rising above the Culture War on his blog, Singapore 2025 hosted on Wordpress and also on his Facebook page. It was the transcript of a speech focusing on Section 377A of the Penal Code which he delivered on Wednesday, 3 April 2019 at the National University of Singapore (NUS) Political Association Forum 2019. The latter seminar was a panel discussion on Singapore's future. Singh said he would not call for the repeal of the law criminalising sex between men because there was no consensus within its leadership committee on the matter,. Singh was sharing his thoughts on the prospect of dealing with divisive issues in the public sphere. The speech effectively broke the Workers' Party's decade-long official silence on the matter. Like his predecessors, he declined to take a stand, saying that the moral courage required to address Section 377A was not in revelling in the glory of taking absolute positions on what one believed was right but in lowering oneself, swallowing one's pride and listening to others. Reiterating the party's unchanged stance on Section 377A last made in 2007 during the Penal Code review, Singh said: "Even within the party at large, views differ on the matter, a microcosm of Singapore society."
On Tuesday, 14 May 2019, Singh shared on his Facebook the story of how a heartfelt encounter in 2013 with transwoman Fanny Ler changed his views towards transsexual individuals forever,,.Together with the post which carried the heading, ‘The Singaporeans Amongst Us’, he also shared a documentary on Ler entitled, 'When Daddy Becomes Mummy'.
- Main article: Sylvia Lim's views on homosexuality
This is an excerpt of the speech made by then Non-constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Sylvia Lim, chairperson of the Workers' Party (WP) at 5:45 pm on 22 Oct 2007 during the debate over the Penal Code (Amendments) Bill.
"Sir, next, I would like to say a few words on the Petition presented by the Nominated Member on section 377A. Sir, the Workers' Party leadership, several months ago, discussed extensively the issue of whether section 377A should be retained or repealed. After much deliberation, we were unable to arrive at a consensus that it should be repealed and, as such, we would not be calling for its abolition."
"Daniel Goh 吴佩松
February 5, 2014 · Shared with Public
Looks like there is some kind of campaign against this excellent HPB website for the FAQs on homosexuality. ST journalists must have gotten wind of it and asked me several questions in my professional capacity as a sociologist through email on Tuesday afternoon.
This was my reply, with ST journalist questions abbreviated and paraphrased (warning: long post).
1) What do you think of the FAQs?
I think the FAQs are very factual and reflect the current social scientific and scientific understanding of homosexuality. I don't find it surprising at all and not progressive, but objective.
2) What do you make of the timing of this?
I am wondering what took so long. I believe government agencies should operate on the basis of facts and not the prejudices of society whichever way they bend. I think it would be speculation to interpret the timing of the FAQs as linked to society's views and prejudices. If anything, I think society has become quite pluralistic when it comes to sexuality and a whole range of views exist. If government agencies adopt the point of view of a particular segment, it will just produce or exacerbate conflicts and misunderstandings. Agencies should go by facts, which is what HPB is doing.
3) Do you think the FAQs reflect or contradict the government's pro-family policy?
I don't see any contradiction. Informing people about concerns and facts about homosexuality is to acknowledge the incontrovertible reality of homosexuality. It doesn't undermine healthy relationships between married heterosexual couples at all. If it offends someone's individual sensibility, then it is just that, offending an individual, not hurting a relationship between two heterosexual partners.
In fact, I think informing people about homosexuals actually helps promote the family as a basic building block of society, as it helps parents and other family members understand and accept homosexuality as a fact. This reduces discord and strengthens family bonds, making for a stronger society where homosexuals do not feel ostracized and alienated through no fault of their own.
4) Do you think the FAQs achieve the goal of STD education?
I think it does, because it helps clarifies misperception that AIDS is a homosexual disease, and directs our understanding of STDs as linked to risky sexual behavior of having unprotected sex with multiple partners regardless of sexual orientation.
The only criticism I have is the factoid on the increase in homosexuals being tested positive for HIV. The increase was only in 2011 and HPB should be more circumspect and not appear to frame it as a trend -- we don't know yet until more data is available. Overall, I like the FAQs very much and am very impressed by HPB's clarity and balanced objectivity."
Tan Jee Say
- Main article: Tan Jee Say's views on homosexuality
During the forum entitled 'Face to Face 2' organised by The Online Citizen on 18 August 2011, in which four presidential candidates fielded questions from a small audience, LGBT activist Alex Au asked where each candidate stood on Section 377A. Tan replied:
"Number two is no. Alright? Just to get ... No, I would have no discrimination. No discrimination. I’m not a lawyer. Ha, ha. I need to consult a lawyer on the intricacy, but I said, no discrimination."
Against LGBT equality
Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap
- Main article: Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap's views on homosexuality
Workers' Party member of parliament (MP) Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap supports the Wear White campaign that opposes homosexuality and Pink Dot SG. Faisal, an MP in Aljunied GRC, said on 2 July 2014 that he backed the movement in his personal capacity "as a Muslim individual". Speaking to The Straits Times at his meet-the-people session in Bedok North, he said: "It has nothing to do with the party stand."
For LGBT equality
- Main article: Nicole Seah's views on homosexuality
Nicole Seah stood as a National Solidarity Party candidate for the Marine Parade GRC in the 2011 General Elections but made a political comeback and joined the Workers' Party to contest in the 2020 General Elections.
She is apparently supportive of LGBT equality as she attended Pink Dot 2011. (To date, Seah is one of only five politicians, all from the Opposition, to have attended a Pink Dot event. The others are Dr Chee Soon Juan and Vincent Wijeysingha from the Singapore Democratic Party, and M Ravi and Roy Ngerng from the Reform Party. Of these four, only Chee remains in politics while the others have retired from it.)
Former Workers' Party politicians
Low Thia Khiang
Low Thia Khiang, the former leader of the Workers' Party who retired from politics two weeks before the 2020 General Elections, did not want his party to call for an abolition of Section 377A during the parliamentary debate over its repeal in 2007.
- Main article: Reform Party politicians' views on homosexuality
Current Reform Party politicians
- Main article: Kenneth Jeyaretnam's views on homosexuality
On Monday, 25 April 2011, the Reform Party's secretary-general Kenneth Jeyaretnam said he fully supported Vincent Wijeysingha, after the online buzz of a YouTube video allegedly showing the Singapore Democratic Party candidate at a forum on Section 377A (see main article: Vivian Balakrishnan attacks Vincent Wijeysingha for having alleged gay agenda during 2011 General Elections). Jeyaretnam was speaking on the sidelines of a walkabout at Depot Road that evening.
"Somebody's sexuality is not a part of the qualities to be a politician. At the Reform Party, we're an inclusive, liberal party and we don't believe in discriminating against people on the grounds of gender, race, religion or sexual orientation," said Jeyaretnam.
On 24 April 2011, Jeyaretnam also sent the following message to SDP's candidate Wijeysingha:
"Vincent, you know my stand we have corresponded on this. You have my support, just as previously I gave my support to Dr Chee. This is a low attack. You are an asset to politics in general and to the alternative cause in particular and the incumbents should stick to the real issues resulting from their poor policy decisions."
On Sunday, 24 April 2011, Jeyaretnam also sent the following message to SDP's candidate Wijeysingha:
"Vincent, you know my stand we have corresponded on this. You have my support, just as previously I gave my support to Dr Chee. This is a low attack. You are an asset to politics in general and to the alternative cause in particular and the incumbents should stick to the real issues resulting from their poor policy decisions."
In response to a joint letter signed by 7 members of the LGBT community several months before the 2011 General Elections querying Singapore's political parties' views on various issues of concern to the community (see main article: Singapore political parties’ positions on LGBT concerns – General election 2011), Jeyaretnam sent the following e-mail reply on 1 November 2010:
"Thanks for sending this questionnaire to us. I am aware that these issues are of overwhelming importance to the LGBT community. Please be assured that the Reform Party is a liberal secular Party. We believe passionately in freedom of expression and association. One of our central tenets is that there should not be any discrimination between individuals based on gender, race, religion, age and sexual orientation. We are committed to working towards the repeal of Section 377A and the decriminalisation of homosexuality. However we have not had time to consider our position in detail on the additional issues raised by you. Rather than asking for our position, it might be more productive if you would send us a list of the policies you would like to see adopted. Better still, you could join us and work on getting us elected to Parliament or contribute to our campaign. Unless you (like other Singaporeans) are prepared to stand up then there is very little chance of change.
Former Reform Party politicians
On 5 August 2015, blogger Roy Ngerng announced his application to join the Reform Party. He was subsequently accepted, making him Singapore's second openly gay politician after Vincent Wijeysingha who had left Singapore for New Zealand in July 2015 and the first to be openly gay while campaigning in a General Election.
Ngerng also considered running as an independent candidate in the 2011 General Elections but later joined the Reform Party's Ang Mo Kio GRC team.
On Friday, 28 August 2015, The Straits Times reported that M Ravi, the human rights lawyer who initiated the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 377A in 2010 arrived at the Elections Department with Reform Party member Osman Sulaiman and said that he would like to contest in the Ang Mo Kio GRC for the 2015 General Elections. Reform Party candidate Roy Ngerng announced on his blog, The Heart Truths, that Ravi would for part of the GRC team for Ang Mo Kio together with Ngerng himself, Gilbert Goh, Osman Sulaiman, Jesse Loo and Siva Chandran. Ravi was the first openly pansexual politician in Singapore.
National Solidarity Party
Ang Yong Guan
- Main article: Ang Yong Guan's views on homosexuality
In 2000, Ang co-authored an academic paper entitled, "Adjusting to Military Life - Servicemen with Problems Coping and their Outcomes", published in the Singapore Medical Journal (downloadable in PDF format:). The research retrospectively studied 77 servicemen in the work year July 1995 to June 1996 who were referred to the Psychological Medicine Branch (PMB) of the Singapore Armed Forces within six months of enlistment. The main classes of diagnoses found in the study were stress-related disorders, anxiety, mood and psychotic disorders. The main stressor was problems adapting to the military environment. The demographic profile of the servicemen was an age ranging from 17 to 23 years old; 81.8% of patients were heterosexual and 18.2% were homosexual.
Ang was the first politician in Singapore to propose holding a referendum on the repeal of Section 377A. On Monday, 7 September 2015, in a rally speech at Boon Lay during the hustings for the 2015 General Elections, he said:
"We will push for referendum on these issues. Another example is Section 377A. We respect the diverse views on these issues. These are moralistic issues. Issues where people hold strong views. And the only way to sort it out is to have a referendum. We need to have open debate to discuss these issues. And we need to embrace diversity. We can no longer make assumptions for people. Referendum is the way forward!"
People's Power Party
- Main article: People's Power Party politicians' views on homosexuality
- Main article: Syafarin Sarif's views on homosexuality
On 15 June 2016, Syafarin Sarif, Chairman of the People’s Power Party (PPP) shared several posts on his Facebook which asserted that the Orlando shooting in a gay nightclub was fake. Several minutes later he shared a YouTube video which suggested that the media was lying to its readers about the massacre. He captioned the post, “Syarikat (Amerika) yang menipu tak sudah-sudah.” (Translated: “American companies are always cheating”).
Goh Meng Seng
- Main article: Goh Meng Seng's views on homosexuality
Reply to LGBT activists' letter, 2011
In response to a joint letter signed by 7 members of the LGBT community several months before the 2011 General Election querying Singapore's political parties' views on various issues of concern to the community (see main article: Singapore political parties’ positions on LGBT concerns – General election 2011), Goh Meng Seng, then Secretary-General of the National Solidarity Party (NSP) but currently leader of the People’s Power Party (PPP), sent an e-mail reply on 12 November 2010:
The questions that you have raised in your email have given us a great opportunity to closely examine and discuss about LGBT issues in general as well as sorting our thoughts on various universal issues of equality and human rights.
Upon reflection, we come to the following general conclusions:
1) NSP is made up of a wide spectrum of individuals with different inclinations, from extreme liberal to ultra conservative. However, the mean score index is skewed towards the conservative position. We believe that this composition of NSP is more or less representative of the Singapore society at large.
2) Although NSP will be fighting for a broader base of equality and rights for Singaporeans in various segments of legislation (eg. Equal Opportunity in Labour law etc), the isolate issue of LGBT rights will not be NSP’s main political campaigning focus for the foreseeable future.
3) However, NSP will not restrict its members or future Members of Parliament to express their views or vote according to their own inclination with regard to LGBT issues.
4) NSP may not be able to answer each and every question that you have raised but we would like to address these questions in a more general approach at this moment.
5) Your questions could be categorized into 4 broad areas i.e.
A) Section 377A & Equality
B) Equality on Jobs
C) Media policy and promotion of alternative lifestyle via media
D) Recognition of Same-sex marriage
5A) Section 377A & Equality
NSP recognizes the existence of LGBT community in Singapore. NSP also recognizes the enactment of any laws should be in accordance with the principles and core values that the nation holds as a people. Individuals’ interests and rights should not supercede the core values that the society holds. If a law is to be repealed or changed, it must get enough support from the society at large. NSP strives to have a more diverse representation within its rank and file so that different views could be heard and presented within. For the issue of Section 377A, with due respect to each different individuals in the party, we would let our members decide on their own as this is the not the key political focus of the party. It would also mean that future MPs of the party would have to exercise their own political discretion and judgment in deciding whether to vote for or against the repeal of Section 377A, in accordance to social sentiments of that time.
5B) Equality on Jobs
In principle, NSP is against discriminative employment practices. We advocate Equal Opportunities for all, regardless of race, religion, disability, age, sex and even sexual orientation.
5C) Media policy and promotion of alternative lifestyle via media
In principle, we do not think Singapore is ready for equal promotion of alternative lifestyle. However, we do not discount the fact that social mindset may change over time. It will depend very much on the social acceptance of Singaporeans on promotion of alternative lifestyle over the media.
5D) Recognition of Same-sex marriage
We do not think Singapore society is ready to legitimize same-sex marriage. Most of the issues raised could be dealt with by other legitimate means like writing Will or empowering LGBT partners by means of Attorney of Power.
Singapore’s social core values, at this moment, only recognizes family unit with heterosexual relationship. In principle, NSP has to respect such core values held as a society.
Downplaying Orlando gay club massacre
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016, following a series of Facebook posts by Syafarin Sarif, chairman of the People's Power Party (PPP) which claimed that the Orlando shootings may have been staged by "government organizations" (see main article: Syafarin Sarif's views on homosexuality), then PPP Secretary-General Goh came out to "scold" the LGBT community for only caring about events that affected their community. He also cast doubts on certain aspects of the Orlando shooting and questioned whether there was more than met the eye to the tragedy.
Democratic Progressive Party
Red Dot United
- Main article: Nicholas Tang's views on homosexuality
In the newly formed Red Dot United (RDU) party's first-ever online rally which was broadcast on Sunday, 5 July 2020, its politicians shared their vision for Singapore. Nicholas Tang, an RDU parliamentary candidate running in the Jurong GRC said:
"Movements like Pink Dot and the [Singapore] Climate Rally must not only be allowed to carry on, they must be encouraged. Instead of silencing them, the government should engage them in discourse. This is why I believe that participation in civil discourse is the duty of every Singaporean."
Progress Singapore Party
Tan Cheng Bock
- Main article: Tan Cheng Bock's views on homosexuality
During the forum entitled 'Face to Face 2' organised by The Online Citizen on 18 August 2011, in which four presidential candidates fielded questions from a small audience, LGBT activist Alex Au asked where each candidate stood on Section 377A. Tan replied:
"As for the other question of three-three-A (meaning 377A), I think as a doctor I’ve seen patients of mine also with this type of lifestyle, it is his lifestyle choice. So I am not ... I have no difficulty in accepting this lifestyle choice."
- Main article: Terence Soon's views on homosexuality
Terence Soon was the head of the Progress Singapore Party's youth wing. He contested in the 2020 General Elections as part of a five-person team that eventually garnered 36.9% of the vote in Tanjong Pagar GRC, losing out to a People's Action Party slate led by Minister for Trade and Industry Chan Chun Sing. In April 2021, during the Covid-19 pandemic, he quit the party as a member, citing job and family considerations.
During the 2020 General Elections, while most candidates and political parties took to live streams and pre-recorded videos to share their plans for their constituencies and Singapore, Terence Soon took a different approach which appealed to the younger generation - an Ask Me Anything (AMA) session on Instagram on Sunday night, 5 July 2020.
Fielding 50 odd-questions over a one-and-half-hour period, he covered a wide range of topics including parenting advice, his Tanjong Pagar GRC’s team and whether he would still be taking to the skies as a pilot if elected. When asked: "What is your stand on LGBT issues and 377A?", he replied:
"This is a rather complicated subject, and I'd like to discuss in further detail. But in short, the party stance is that we would like to repeal the criminal aspect of 377A, and we respect the rights of all LGBTQ people in the country."
However, when some members of the LGBT community took a look at Soon's Instagram stories the following day, they could no longer find the above screenshot of this particular question and answer. The conclusion was that he deleted it as the other answers from the night before were still there.
Leong Mun Wai
- Main article: Leong Mun Wai's views on LGBT rights
Leong Mun Wai is a Central Executive Committee member of the Progress Singapore Party. He has been a Non-constituency Member of Parliament of the 14th Parliament of Singapore since 16 July 2020.
Prior to the May 2021 Parliamentary session, the Progress Singapore Party announced that it would "continue to raise important questions in Parliament for a more compassionate Singapore" and that it believed "compassion begins with a strong social safety net". Leong Mun Wai raised the following queries for the Minister for Social and Family Development:
- What are the current options for young and vulnerable teens to seek shelter if they are kicked out of their homes for reasons such as their sexual orientation or gender identity?
- Would the government consider extending financial support to shelters run by LGBTQ+ community groups such as The T Project?
and for the Minister for Home Affairs:
- An update of the investigation into the incident of the rainbow flag being thrown at staff of the SMOL salad bar at Lau Pa Sat
- What further steps are being taken to protect frontline staff members and LGBTQ symbols such as the rainbow flag of LGBTQ-friendly establishments?
Singapore political parties’ positions on LGBT concerns, 2010
In mid-September 2010, 7 members of the LGBT community sent a joint letter to 6 political parties requesting a clarification of their position on selected issues of interest to LGBT Singaporeans. Replies were requested before the end of October 2010. The aim was to provide information to LGBT voters as to the stands taken by various political parties. The 7 signatories were Russell Heng, Jean Chong, Sylvia Tan, Choo Lip Sin, Irene Oh, Alex Au and Alan Seah.
The same letter was sent to (in alphabetical order) the National Solidarity Party, the People’s Action Party, the Reform Party, the Singapore Democratic Alliance, the Singapore Democratic Party and the Workers’ Party. The parties were informed that their replies would be released to the LGBT public. None of the parties responded to the complete list of questions. Nonetheless, three parties provided a reasonably clear outline of their stand with respect to LGBT concerns. The People’s Action Party did not reply at all, nor even acknowledge the letter. The Singapore Democratic Alliance acknowledged the letter but in the end did not provide a reply.
Shortly before the 2015 General Election, a group of third-year students from Yale-NUS College created Electionaire, a website which compares the policy positions of 10 political parties on several issues, including the repeal of Section 377A. It is not supported, funded or aligned with any political party.
Electionaire is not a poll. The site is a questionnaire which matches users with a Singapore political party. It does not ask the anonymous respondents whom they plan to vote for. Electionaire compares the respondents' opinions on the issues of the 2015 General Elections with the policies of Singapore’s 10 political parties, then measures how much they agree with each of them.
The chart on the left depicts survey respondents' agreement with the policies of the various political parties regarding Section 377A.
Rainbow Scorecard: Review of the Decade, 2020
- Main article: Rainbow Scorecard: Review of the Decade
On Wednesday, 24 June 2020, less than three weeks before the 2020 General Elections, queer women's advocacy group Sayoni published a report entitled, 'Rainbow Scorecard: Review of the Decade' which graded Singapore politicians based on their views on LGBTQ issues. It looked at the statements made by local politicians from 2011 to 2020 on social media, mainstream and independent news sites and the official written record of parliamentary proceedings, known as Hansard. The group also reached out to the politicians for comments or updates on their positions on LGBTQ issues, such as their views on Section 377A, anti-discrimination legislation, and policies on gender marker change and transgender healthcare.
The politicians were then graded according to the following criteria:
- Engagement with LGBTQ groups
- Positive inclusion of LGBTQ issues in policies and law, and how consistent or frequent this is demonstrated
- Advocacy against discrimination or violence towards LGBTQ individuals
- Demonstration of awareness of the specific challenges LGBTQ people face
The report found that all political parties in Singapore were unresponsive or non-committal when asked about their positions on LGBTQ issues. It also listed the top and bottom five politicians on LGBTQ issues. These politicians come from various political parties in Singapore.
Emailing political candidates
- PAP MPs against the repeal of Section 377A
- PAP MPs for the repeal of Section 377A
- Singapore Democratic Party politicians' views on homosexuality
- Workers' Party politicians' views on homosexuality
- Reform Party politicians' views on homosexuality
- National Solidarity Party politicians' views on homosexuality
- Democratic Progressive Party politicians' views on homosexuality
- SingFirst politicians' views on homosexuality
- Singapore political parties’ positions on LGBT concerns – General election 2011
- Archive of parliamentary debate on Section 377A (22, 23 October 2007)
- Lee Kuan Yew's views on homosexuality
- Former Singapore politicians' views on homosexuality
- Electionaire, a website which compares the electorate's opinions on the issues of the 2015 General Election with the policies of Singapore’s 10 political parties, then measures how much the voters agree with each of them.
- Tessa Oh, "Gay rights group releases scorecard grading S’pore politicians based on their views on LGBTQ issues", TODAY, 24 June 2020.
- Sayoni, "Rainbow Scorecard: Review of the Decade", 24 June 2020.
- Teo Yu Sheng, "General Elections 2020: Every political party’s stance on LGBTQ+ issues, and what you can do about it", Heckin' Unicorn, 23 June 2020.
This article was written by Roy Tan.