Dr Vivian Balakrishnan (born 25 January 1961) is the Singapore Minister for Foreign Affairs and a member of the governing People's Action Party (PAP). He is also the Minister-in-charge of the Smart Nation Programme Office. He has previously held appointments in the Singapore Cabinet as Minister for Environment and Water Resources and Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, as well as the Second Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, and Trade and Industry. In 2002, Balakrishnan was appointed a Minister of State at the Ministry of National Development, and the Chairman of the Remaking Singapore Committee. He was also the Chairman of the Young PAP from 2004 to 2008. He is a Member of Parliament (MP) representing the Holland-Bukit Timah Group Representation Constituency.
Attacking Vincent Wijeysingha for having alleged gay agenda during 2011 General Elections[]
Just days before Nomination Day on 27 April 2011, the PAP team in the Holland-Bukit Timah Group Representation Constituency (GRC), led by Vivian, told the press that the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) was suppressing a video which would "raise some awkward questions" about the party's agenda[1]. Dr Wijeysingha's response was that he was unsure which video Vivian was referring to and that the SDP was "an open party".
The issue of the video was clarified on 25 April 2011, two days before Nomination Day, with both the PAP and the SDP issuing statements about the matter.
A public forum on the Section 377A Constitutional challenge initiated by human rights lawyer M Ravi on behalf of his client, Tan Eng Hong, was held at Public House, near Boat Quay on Saturday, 27 November 2010. One of the speakers on the panel was Singapore's first openly gay politician, Vincent Wijeysingha, who made this cogent, comprehensively argued speech.
The PAP's release addressed the online video which it alleged the SDP was trying to suppress. The statement is reproduced below and undersigned by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and his GRC team:
"Dear Friends of the Media
Please find below a statement which is being sent on behalf of the PAP team contesting in Holland-Bukit Timah GRC. We would appreciate it very much if you could kindly publish the statement in full, and attribute it to the PAP team contesting in the Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, led by Minister Vivian Balakrishnan.
Kindly call me at [phone number deleted] if you have any queries or if you need any clarification.
What is his agenda?
A video has been posted on the internet showing Vincent Wijeysingha participating at a forum which discussed the promotion of the gay cause in Singapore.
The discussion at the forum also touched on sex with boys and whether the age of consent for boys should be 14 years of age.
In the video, Wijeysingha was introduced as being from the SDP.
In addition to other comments, Wijeysingha stated: ‘I think the gay community has to rally ourselves. Perhaps one outcome of today’s forum would be, for those of us who are interested, to come together to further consider how we can address the 377 issue as well as further rights issues in relation to gays and lesbians.’
We believe that candidates should be upfront about their political agenda and motives, so that voters are able to make an informed choice.
The issue is not Wijeysingha’s sexual orientation. That is a matter for him.
The video raises the question on whether Wijeysingha will now pursue this cause in the political arena and what is the SDP’s position on the matter.
The above release was ostensibly aimed at smearing Dr Vincent Wijeysingha and the SDP team, trivialising their efforts and reducing them to alleged advocates of an issue which homophobes in their own bigoted world find morally contentious - the "gay agenda".
Allegedly calling Section 377A a "silly" law[]
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[2]. 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.”
Parliamentary debate over Bills to repeal Section 377A and amend Constitution to protect definition of marriage from court challenges[]
On 28 and 29 November 2022, nine months after a landmark ruling by the Court of Appeal in Tan Seng Kee v AG that Section 377A of the Penal Code was "unenforceable in its entirety", a debate was held over two Parliamentary Bills introduced to repeal the statute which criminalised sex between men and to amend the Constitution to protect the definition of marriage from court challenges. A total of forty MPs, NCMPs and NMPs, including Vivian Balakrishnan rose to speak on the issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6NDDuVpgbI
5.32 pm, Monday, 28 November 2022.
Transcript:
The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is clearly not a matter of foreign policy, but since my wife and I celebrate our 35th anniversary today. [Applause.] Thank you. I am the proud parent of four children and four grandchildren, I thought this was a debate which I sought the opportunity to share some personal perspectives and that of my residents.
I start with three propositions.
Traditional marriage has been venerated in all societies, all civilisations since time immemorial – first point.
Second, a marriage is far more than a legally binding contract between two consenting adults.
Third, the rights of children, in fact, are paramount and, in fact, triumph even the mutual happiness of parents.
So, I start off with these three propositions for your consideration.
My life was transformed the first moment I held my daughter in my arms. For the first time in my life, I held a precious, new, unique human being – utterly dependent on my wife and me. She may have been delivered by my wife but my daughter and now, her children – my grandchildren – have a future that goes, hopefully, far beyond me.
That moment was also the time when I realised just how much my parents love me and, with some guilt, I realised that actually all of us cannot possibly love our parents as much as our parents love us. Every single one of you here who has been a parent, I think, has had that experience.
What it shows is that love flows down the generations. It is actually mainly one way. So, parental love is about paying it forward. It is this focus on forward and the future that drives us – drives all parents – to give the best possible start to their children. This is what makes us so focused on leaving the world in a better state for our children to inherit.
You see, it is this focus on the future, on protecting, nurturing, saving, investing, building, it is this future-oriented focus that affects the tone of our society. Frankly, even in Parliament, it is why, for me, there is no such thing as saving too much for the future – because it is for them and not for us. Even as we do that, we are simply, in fact, replicating what our parents and grandparents did for us.
This is why I believe all societies, all religions, have always conferred a sacred status on the institution of marriage.
This is why this is a key pillar, a key prescription, for human progress in societies everywhere since time immemorial.
The second point is that a marriage is far more than a legally binding contract between two consenting adults for the sake of their mutual happiness.
My wife has often reminded me of an aphorism – the best gift you can give your children is to love their mother.
Initially, I found this advice bemusing, but the more I thought about it, actually, this advice makes perfect sense. Because, you see, children – in fact, think back to your own childhood – children need that reassurance, that sense of stability of knowing that both parents are in a committed, loving relationship for the long-term and that both parents, will always be there for them.
In fact, the way we approach our marriage is not and should not be about just optimising the happiness of two adults but really for the sake of our children and their future. Because if we are successful and if we are blessed, then, we are good role models for our children. But our mistakes or, sometimes, our wrong choices have profound impact and implications on our children.
So, my wife is right. Love the mother of your children.
My third point is that every child has a biological father and mother. It is not just a matter of biology and genes and chromosomes, but think back to your own childhood – our mothers and our fathers played essential, complementary but not identical roles. Complementary but not identical roles.
When I served as the Minister in Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, I studied the problem of children in juvenile homes or with dysfunctional social circumstances. The single, most important factor I often found recurring was an absent father. That is why one of the things which I am proudest about was to have been one of the people behind the founding of Dads for Life.
So, yes, I do believe, absolutely, with no apology and with no reservations, in the traditional family form as an ideal – one man, one woman, committed to each other to bring up their children in the context of a stable marriage.
Having said that, we also need to acknowledge that not everyone will be so blessed and enjoy such a simple, straightforward life, that sometimes life does not go according to plan, and that all children, regardless of family circumstances, deserve our fullest support. In fact, some children, especially those in less ideal circumstances, deserve and need additional support, which this House agrees with, I am sure.
Some of my friends whom I have known for the longest time are gay. My generation came of age in the early eighties. The AIDS epidemic had not yet been named or discovered but it had started. Many of us were not quite aware of the threat. The veil of ignorance, the fear of embarrassment, in fact, contributed tragically to the cutting short of lives of some of my friends.
But beyond that, in fact, I am sure if you all speak to every single one of your gay friends, every single one of them has suffered the pain of rejection, of discrimination, sometimes, of violence. They have suffered that at home, in schools and in the workplace. They crave our understanding, our empathy, our support and our protection.
Yet, I think, if many of us think back to our school days, I think we all fell short. I will confess to having fallen short and for that, I apologise to my gay friends.
Unfortunately, this debate on section 377A of the Penal Code – section 377A has come to symbolise simultaneously two paradoxical imperatives. First, to protect the traditional family, which frankly is under considerable stress in modern days. But equally important, there is also a duty to protect our gay brothers from victimisation and the fear and the pain, the dejection and the rejection.
There are no simple answers to such apparently contradictory social imperatives.
Senior Minister of State Sim Ann, Deputy Speaker Christopher de Souza, Mr Edward Chia and I represent the GRC of Holland-Bukit Timah. To be frank with all of you, the majority of the feedback that we have received online and face-to-face, the majority has expressed great anxiety about families, anxiety about the repeal and a deeper anxiety about the future of families.
Minister Shanmugam has explained – and I accept his explanation – that section 377A is at significant legal risk of being struck down. The amendments proposed today to repeal 377A, I believe, helps us avoid that abrupt and potentially disruptive confrontation in a Court of law with a binary outcome and perhaps unpredictable and sometimes uncontrollable social and political consequences.
So, I agree with him and I support the repeal of 377A in that context.
But I also support the amendment to the Constitution that makes it clear that the question of marriage will be decided here in this House. It may not be all of us in the future, it will be a different House, but it will be decided through the political process, with all the engagement, discussion, debate, negotiation and compromises which are needed. That is the way we need to move forward.
Similarly, to my residents who have asked for it to be entrenched, two-third majority, and lock it up. I have to tell them that actually, these are issues which no amount of legal and constitutional lock-ups will decide for the future. The values, the mores, the attitudes of our children and grandchildren – we can all do our best to instil values in them but we have got to trust them. We trust them and entrust them with the power and the authority to make decisions in the future. So, I also accept this amendment which makes it clear that the current definition and if there is going to be any future amendment, will be decided in this House and not in a Court of law.
We do all these in full appreciation of the fact that difficult issues that go to the heart of identity, deeply held values and lived experience are best settled through careful, respectful, sincere discussions – without polemics, without win-lose outcomes. And so, it is in this spirit that I support the amendments moved today.
We have to find ways to continue to protect this precious and fragile institution of the traditional family and marriage and we have to remember that the welfare and the rights of our children are paramount. In practice, what that means is policies and programmes that will unambitiously support the traditional family and parenthood, including adoption rights, housing priority, Baby Bonuses, reproductive therapy. It also means our public messaging, our education, in schools, the mass media must continue to uphold these traditional family ideals.
But having said that, in my earlier versions of the speech I tried to say we can do all these without discrimination. But actually, in life, if you uplift one form, if you prioritise one type of social arrangements, inevitably it means you have to choose and it cannot be completely equal.
By having said that, I believe a spirit of mutual respect and perhaps more important than anything else, compassion, can allow us to find that hopefully safe landing zone where we can protect our families and protect our gay brothers.
On that note, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the amendments standing before the House today. [Applause.]
See also[]
- Singapore political parties' politicians' views on homosexuality
- Christopher de Souza's views on homosexuality
References[]
- Alex Au, "Vivian slithers in the gutter, SDP on knife-edge, part 1", Yawning Bread, 25 April 2011[3].
- Alex Au, "Vivian’s bomb goes boo boo ", Yawning Bread, 26 April 2011[4].
- Ng E-Jay, "Gutter politics and political cowardice by Vivian Balakrishnan", Sgpolitics.net, 26 April 2011[5].
Acknowledgements[]
This article was written by Roy Tan.