Workers' Party politicians' views on LGBT rights

In the run up to the 2025 General Election, the Workers' Party published an updated manifesto which included a section entitled, Stamp Out Discrimination in All Forms. The paragraph stated:

"Discrimination is the unfair and unequal treatment of people based on ascribed characteristics as race, gender, age, sexual orientation and physical abilities. Discrimination and its related demonstrations such as harassment, exclusion and biases must be addressed using legislative measures."

However, it must be noted that two Workers' Party MPs, Gerald Giam and Dennis Tan spoke out against the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalised sex between men, and Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap supports the Muslim anti-LGBT Wear White movement.

Increasingly supportive of LGBT equality

Pritam Singh

Main article: Pritam Singh's views on homosexuality

Pritam Singh is the leader of the Workers' Party and a Member of Parliament (MP) representing the Aljunied Group Representation Constituency. He has gradually shifted his stance over the years from one of neutrality to one of support for the eradication of discrimination against the LGBT community.

Section 377A

On Friday, 5 April 2019, Workers' Party chief, Singh, published an article entitled, One Singapore Family: Rising above the Culture War[2] on his blog, Singapore 2025[3] hosted on Wordpress and also on his Facebook page[4]. 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[5],[6]. 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."

"One Singapore Family: Rising above the Culture War

Good evening Moderator A/P Bilveer Singh, SMS Chee Hong Tat and Dr Tan Cheng Bock, students, faculty and friends who have come to attend this event. At the outset, I would like to thank the organizers for giving each speaker a broad canvas to speak on anything pertaining to leadership transition and the key social and political challenges facing Singapore in the coming decade.

Today the world faces new challenges and many leaders are on the defensive against the forces of protectionism, ultra-nationalism and anti-intellectualism. Emotions are running high as people are caught up in identity politics and culture wars, fighting over questions of globalization, race, religion, class, gender and sexuality. Critically many seem unwilling to talk and listen to each other forget about trying to engage each other respectfully. A centre does not seem to exist online and perhaps this is not unexpected given the internet’s ecology but it will be worrisome if this state of affairs extends to the real world as well.

In Singapore, the country is retooling for Industry 4.0. But even as we do, our political and social institutions and political leadership will come under pressure from larger global forces in the years to come, if they have not already. The culture war encompassing simplistic extremes, opposing identities and values have entered our mainstream conversations and presents a new fault lines that can damage the overall unity and cohesiveness of Singapore society, a unique society that already has the added task of simultaneously integrating 20,000 – 30,000 new citizens from different races, religions and cultures into the Singapore family each year.

Section 377A

The issues I can speak on make up a very long list. After much reflection, I have decided to focus on a divisive issue that splits Singaporeans. That is the existence of Section 377A on our statute books. As some of you know, an extensive Penal Code review will be debated in Parliament next month. Section 377A’s status is not on the Parliamentary agenda. For those of you who do not know, Section 377A states that, “Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.”

In the last decade or more, a culture war pitting, for want of better terms, conservatives holding traditional values against liberals espousing progressive values has crystallized around this piece of colonial statute. This statute was introduced in the Straits Settlements very late in 1938 and can be traced to colonialism and the politics of empire. While many former colonies and Asian countries have gotten rid of this law or taken a clear judicial position on it such as China, Hong Kong and Taiwan and more recently India, Singapore continues to wrestle with it.

The problem of Section 377A came to head in 2007 when the culture war become audible in Parliament during a review of the Penal Code to keep up with the times. While oral and anal sex was decriminalised if it involved two women, “any act of gross indecency” between men remained on the statutes.

Prime Minister Lee noted there were very different views among Singaporeans on whether homosexuality was acceptable or morally right, but equally recognised that enforcement of the law was problematic. PM therefore took the position of an “uneasy compromise” on 377A, where the law would remain on the books, but the government would not enforce it.

The Workers’ Party only had two MPs then, Mr Low Thia Khiang, who was MP for Hougang SMC then, and Ms Sylvia Lim, an NCMP at that time.

Our stated position, which remains today, is that WP would not be calling for the repeal of 377A because there is no consensus within the party’s central executive committee on the issue. Even within the party at large, views differ on the matter, a microcosm of Singapore society.

The Culture War

Fast forward slightly more than a decade, Section 377A has become more of a symbolic lightning rod for conservatives and liberals. The culture war has deepened and expanded, consuming time and energy with campaigns pitting against one group against the other in the public sphere. Conservatives frame their campaigns as pro-family, while the liberals refer to theirs as the right-to-love. Such is the nature of advocacy I can understand the necessity of such simple communication. But such framing leaves little room for each side to stop and listen to each other and reduce temperatures. As currently framed, 377A generates a lot of heat, but sheds very little light.

The main issue surrounding some in the conservative camp who focus on pro-family campaigns is the apparently disproportionate focus on the tangential issue of 377A. This is precisely when the institution of the family is coming under a lot of social and economic strain. Young people are delaying marriage, less marriages are taking place, fewer children are being born, divorces are on the rise and whole families are suffering from inequality and even poverty in Singapore. And as a recent Institute of Policy Studies survey has shown us, infidelity is by far the dominant concern surrounding marriage.

We need to focus on the larger issues besetting Singaporean families. It is not useful to deploy the family to defend Section 377A. The political imperative of the leaders of our generation in the decade to come is to equip Singaporean families to face the socio-economic pressures of globalization and disruption, not drag the family into the public square to flog a sin for all to see.

The main issue with some in the liberal camp and their right-to-love campaigns is that they have unwittingly weaponized the concept of love for many of those in the middle, particularly those who do not take a position on the matter. Like many of my peers Section 377A has no effect on my affection and esteem for my LGBT friends. I know faculty at NUS who are gay. Those who taught me were some of the finest intellectual minds I have ever come across. Thousands of undergraduates and graduates would be so much poorer if not their impact and contributions. I know more than a handful of civil servants who are gay. In executing public policy, they are likewise some of the most even-handed and respectful people I know.

But when some in the pro-LGBT camp speak of the right-to-love, the implicit suggestion is that those who align themselves to conservatives, by default hate LGBT people. Our various religious groups and their leadership give a lot of support and comfort to those across the income spectrum, from low-wage workers to high-income earners to deal with the challenges of life. Instead of considering the tremendous contributions people of faith, including Christians and Muslims have made on society and helping those in need and providing a sacred canopy for the faithful, some of respected religious figures and friends are singularly judged through their views on section 337A. This is not fair because even within different faiths, there are different views on issues such as 377A.

Now my friends, the Workers’ Party is against hate, especially when it is enacted in speech and action against people for their race, religion, gender, class, disabilities, sexual orientation and so on. We have seen what hate speech can set off – most tragically a few weeks ago in Christchurch. So let’s be mindful of what we say, particularly online where there are fewer inhibitions, no matter on which side of a polarizing issue we stand on.

The concern I have is how the turning of Section 377A into a political issue may worsen divisions in our society. And I have a few questions I hope the audience can ponder over and consider later when the floor is opened to questions.

First, in light of where the debate has taken us thus far, would not the active championing of either the conservative or liberal camp by any political party immediately invite further polarization of the matter with even less prospect for consensus or tolerance?

Second, would it not invite politicization to divisive issues such that our political leaders and Members of Parliament start taking positions based on political expediency and majoritarianism rather than on conscience and strengthening our common space?

Thirdly, would it not cause voters to reduce the complex political and economic issues we face as country into this one singular issue and choose leaders based on their view on Section 377A? Do we want Section 377A to define the ballot box and determine elections?

Five Principles

So, in the midst of this culture war over Section 377A and LGBT rights and identities, what should we do? I would like to propose five principles that could guide our way forward.

One, FAMILY FIRST. This is what the WP MPs have been doing in Parliament. Our energies have been invested first and foremost into championing for policies and institutions that will shore up Singaporean families as they face the pressures of economic transformation and social change. We do it without prejudices. Thus, we care for the single, widowed and divorced mothers who have to bring up children in difficult circumstances, for women who have been caregivers for their parents and others for the large part of their lives and now need care themselves, for unmarried singles who continue or seek to continue to be part of loving families, for children that their best interests and welfare be put first when their parents are going through a divorce. And we must consider homosexual friends who are coming out and their family members who coming to terms with their sexuality too. Can they not be better supported if they face prejudice and depression? In the final reckoning, I would suggest that our definition of family, a wider Singapore family, should be an enlightened and inclusive one.

Two, NEVER POLITICISE THE ISSUE. This is what we have been doing by advising party members and party leaders to stay out of public campaigns by either side. We have not and will not turn Section 377A into a political issue by pandering either to conservatives or liberals. Electoral support for the WP based on Section 377A does not enter into our decisions to field specific candidates. Our candidates’ individual conscience about this issue is irrelevant in their selection as candidates. What matters is their integrity, credibility, ability and the depth of their concern for Singapore and Singaporeans. The converse is also true. We should immediately suspect those who try to label our MPs and candidates as anti-gay or pro-gay, anti-family or pro-family, and who campaign for or against WP on this basis. These people targeting WP are trying to politicize the LGBT issue and have a hidden political agenda to do so.

Three, CONTINUE THE DIALOGUE. Within the party, we do not disallow or discourage dialogues and debates across different levels and fora on this issue. But mutual respect has to represent the foundation of such conversations. There is a wide diversity of views among our members, but we are united by one thing, to not allow this one issue to derail our shared purpose of pushing for reforms to strengthen and equip Singaporeans to survive and thrive in the world of tomorrow.

Four, RESPECT INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE. The wide diversity of views among our members on this issue arises from individual conscience. Our members hold deep religious, spiritual and philosophical beliefs that form their individual conscience. It is this very sense of individual conscience that gave our members courage to drop their fears and acquire the mental strength to accept the sacrifices to join WP to serve Singaporeans. That is why we need to talk and listen to each other respectfully. We will seek to find common ground if there is common ground. If not, we will have to give each other the space to express our own deeply held beliefs and values, without prejudice and without prejudicing another’s right to express their views.

Fifth, RISE ABOVE THE CULTURE WAR. Culture wars were historically a European thing, when just a few centuries ago religious conflicts were commonplace until the European experience proved that the only way out from total destruction of society was the tolerance for different beliefs and the respect for individual conscience. This is a powerful lesson they learned and we cannot ignore it. In America, many communities are fighting each other over what each one thinks is right or evil, sin or truth. I think we should agree that we cannot let these culture wars represent the Singapore way. We should not fight over who is more right than the other – we should listen, discuss and debate with the suspicion that we may be wrong, and look for common ground to overcome our differences.

Conclusion

To conclude, the Workers’ Party is committed to strengthening our bonds as a society and one people and empowering Singaporeans to face the uncertain future of disruption and change.

We welcome people from all walks of life to join us to walk with Singapore – people with different views and opinions, all united by the cause of serving Singaporeans, who will continue to talk and listen to each other and make sure the centre holds. We know that people who drop their fears and make sacrifices to join us have a strong conscience giving them the courage to do so, and thus we respect each other’s individual conscience.

The Workers’ Party will not participate in the culture war over LGBT issues because this is prejudicial to the common good of our society. We seek to rise above it. Because the moral courage required to address the issue of Section 377A is not in reveling in the glory of taking absolute stances on what we believe is right, but in lowering ourselves, swallowing our pride and listening to another. If all of us do this, then one day we will get to that place where the uneasy compromise we see today transfigures into a unifying consensus marked by a tolerance and understanding befitting of the Singapore that respects both the public and private space, and a Singapore we all will be proud of leaving behind for the next generation.

Thank you."

Transgender Singaporeans

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[7],[8],[9].

Together with the post which carried the heading, ‘The Singaporeans Amongst Us’, he also shared a documentary on Ler entitled, 'When Daddy Becomes Mummy'[10].

"The Singaporeans amongst us

Until I became an MP, I had never conversed with a transsexual person before. Fanny came to see me sometime in 2013 as she was a resident in the Eunos ward of Aljunied GRC and needed some assistance on a matter before she shifted homes, I would see Fanny now' and then in the constituency and she was always polite and thankful.

In Singapore one seldom learns about sexual minorities in a formal setting. Be it in NS or in schools for example, whatever one learns about sexual minorities in the first instance is more often than not, negative and usually derogatory.

Life for such individuals and their families is hard, challenging and difficult until acceptance makes a breakthrough. We need not make it any harder for them. A spirit of tolerance for who they are and due consideration for those who are different from us will make the world a better place for everyone. It is far easier to live in a closed world - where we revel living in judgment of others much harder to reflect step up and help others get through a tough day, or in some cases a tougher life."

Neutral towards LGBT equality

Sylvia Lim

Main article: Sylvia Lim's views on homosexuality

Sylvia Lim is a Member of Parliament (MP) representing the Aljunied Group Representation Constituency.

This is an excerpt of the speech made by Non-constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Sylvia Lim, chairperson of the Workers' Party (WP) at 5:45 pm on 22 October 2007 during the debate over the Penal Code (Amendments) Bill.

Transcript:

"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."

Against LGBT equality

Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap

Main article: Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap's views on homosexuality

See also: Archive of The Straits Times article, "WP's Faisal supports Wear White", 3 July 2014

Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap is a Member of Parliament (MP) representing the Aljunied Group Representation Constituency.

Workers' Party member of parliament (MP) Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap supports the Wear White campaign[11] 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."[12],[13]

His comments came in the wake of three photographs that week showing him wearing a white songkok (traditional headgear) and white jubah (ankle-length robe) alongside the Wear White campaign organisers and supporters at a mosque on the night of Saturday, 29 June 2014, the date of the Pink Dot gathering at Hong Lim Park. The photos, posted online, prompted talk about whether his stand represented the Workers' Party's position on homosexuality.

Gerald Giam

Main article: Gerald Giam's views on LGBT rights

See also: Parliamentary debate over Bills to repeal Section 377A and amend Constitution to protect definition of marriage from court challenges

Despite the Workers' Party Manifesto 2025 stating that the party was committed to stamping out all forms of discrimination, including that based on ascribed characteristics as sexual orientation, Giam spoke up against the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalised sex between men. 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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v79j-VvohvI

4.55 pm, Monday 28 November 2022.

Transcript:

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government has decided to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code. Since this plan was first revealed, many Aljunied GRC residents have reached out to me to express their views about this issue. Residents spoke to me during my house visits, came to my Meet-the-People Sessions, sent me WhatsApp messages, emails and petitions, and wrote detailed letters explaining their arguments. Several invited me to their homes, where they gathered their friends and family to passionately express their concerns and urge me to raise them in Parliament.

This included representation from members of the LGBT community who see section 377A as a law that discriminates against them and victimises them and who support its repeal. I acknowledge these sentiments as they cut to the core of how members of the LGBT community see themselves. My constituents' feedback can be grouped into several, sometimes, overlapping, categories.

First, there are concerns that the repeal of section 377A will remove an important societal marker and open the door to an erosion of traditional values in our society.

Second, some are worried that after this law is repealed, there will be a domino effect on other regulations and policies, leading towards a normalisation of homosexuality in our society – from changes to sexuality education in schools to more liberal media portrayals and eventually, the legalisation of same-sex marriage.

Third, many, especially those from the younger age groups, are concerned that as the societal narrative shifts, they will find it harder to freely express their own beliefs without being labelled as homophobic. They worried about getting cancelled or suffering discrimination in school or at the workplace because of their beliefs.

Fourth, some have expressed concerns that the higher health risks of some types of sexual practices are not being adequately communicated to young people for fear of sounding discriminatory.

Fifth, others are worried that the disruption to the current equilibrium will lead to an increase in advocacy by groups on both sides and spark the type of culture wars seen in other nations, which will present challenges to Singapore's national cohesion.

Sixth, some have argued that the LGBT community is already disadvantaged by the laws that support the heteronormative family and that repealing section 377A does not confer any tangible disadvantages on those who oppose the change. These residents are of the view that section 377A should be repealed.

Seventh, residents on both sides of the debate have cited the need to live and let live and call for greater tolerance of different views.

These are diverse and often opposing positions on what is clearly a very controversial issue. Those at one end of the spectrum rue the day that this marker is removed while those on the other see it as one of the many social changes they wish to see in our country.

I have also noticed a large middle ground which does not have strong opinions on this issue and is more concerned about bread and butter issues.

There is in fact some agreement on both sides of the divide. Both agree that section 377A bears significant symbolic weight in our society. They both also anticipate that the repeal of section 377A will open the door to many more challenges to the prevailing norms in our society.

These are all valid concerns and sincere feedback expressed by Singaporeans, all of whom have the interest of our nation at heart. They included young, middle-aged and older Singaporeans.

Listening to constituents on both sides of this contentious debate presented challenges for me on how to raise them both in this House. I see it as my responsibility as a Member of Parliament to reflect the feedback and concerns of my constituents in this House. However, as an elected representative, I will also need to take a stand and vote on these Bills.

My vote will be based, first and foremost, on what I believe is in the best long-term interests of our nation. This will take into consideration the viewpoints of my constituents and my own conscience.

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is my sincere belief that retaining section 377A without enforcing it provides the best balance of the conflicting interests in our society. I have come to agree with what the Prime Minister said in Parliament on 23 October 2007 when he explained that the Government was retaining section 377A but not proactively enforcing it. This was, to quote the Court of Appeal, a "political compromise" that was "conceived with the express intention of accommodating divergent interests, avoiding polarisation and facilitating incremental change".

Attorney-General Lucien Wong took further steps in 2018 by noting that the Police will not proactively enforce section 377A, for instance, by conducting enforcement raids. He added that the Public Prosecutor has taken the position that prosecution of two consenting adults in a private place under section 377A, absent other factors, would not be in the public interest. This assurance was strengthened when the Court of Appeal wrote in February 2022 that section 377A is "unenforceable in its entirety" unless and until the Public Prosecutor of the day provides clear notice that he intends to reassert his right to enforce section 377A proactively by way of prosecution and will no longer abide by the representations made by Attorney-General Lucien Wong in 2018.

Section 377A is, therefore, no longer a Sword of Damocles hanging over men in same-sex relationships. They will not be prosecuted or convicted under section 377A for consensual sexual acts done in private. Furthermore, section 377A has never criminalised same-sex attraction between men or same-sex relations between women.

The final reason for the vote I am about to cast is that my conscience does not allow me to vote in favour of a repeal of section 377A. I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for lifting the whip on Workers' Party Members of Parliament for a vote on both these Bills. This permits Workers' Party Members of Parliament to cast "conscience votes" on these Bills.

Sir, I entered politics almost 14 years ago because I wanted to contribute to the democratic development of our country and propose policies that will improve the welfare of our people. It is important to me and the example that I have set for my children that I hold fast to the values that I have established to be true, without wavering because of political headwinds. Whilst some, especially those in the LGBT community and many of my friends, residents, party members and volunteers, may strongly disagree with my position, I hope that they will accept that these are my sincerely held values which I am trying my best to uphold. My vote is not an attack on their values nor a diminishing of their humanity in any way.

Some have criticised me for allowing my faith to inform my vote in Parliament, arguing that the two should be kept separate. However, what one member, informed by their faith and conscience, believes to be in the best interests of the country in some issues may differ from what another member believes. This issue is, certainly, one of them.

I have been told in my face by a constituent that he will not vote for me in the future because of my stand on this issue. I accept the importance that many Singaporeans place on their elected Members of Parliament's positions on these Bills to the extent that it will be a factor in their decisions at the polls. However, I hope Singaporeans will consider the broader issues at hand. There are too many important issues that affect the lives of Singaporeans for one's vote to be decided based on this single issue.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this has been one of the most difficult speeches to prepare. I was worried I might come across as prejudiced against members of the LGBT community. Hand on heart, I am not. LGBT persons are human beings worthy of the same amount of love and respect that we accord to any other person. Many are our family members, friends, colleagues and fellow Singaporeans. Disagreeing with LGBT positions is not an attack on LGBT persons. In fact, I hope that my speech will open up a platform for more difficult but respectful conversations on this issue.

However, we must recognise that LGBT issues are sensitive issues, just like race and religion. People who subscribe to one faith do not force their belief on others. Religious beliefs are also not taught as facts in our school curriculum that students are expected to accept without question. Similarly, we should treat LGBT issues as sensitive topics, just like religion. We should not force people to accept one view or another, with the risk of being labelled as bigoted or immoral. This is not to say that the issue should not be discussed at all. On the contrary, discussion should be encouraged, but as a balanced discussion on different viewpoints, not as a lesson on facts.

It is inherent in a society as diverse as Singapore's that there will be fundamental differences in values and world views among our people. This need not be a source of conflict. While we may disagree on some issues, there are so many other issues that we agree on and can work together to advance. We do not need to descend into labelling, name-calling or questioning the worth of our fellow human beings. Instead, we need to open up spaces for our people to hold different views at work, in schools and even within families. By looking beyond our differences and working together on what we have in common, we will build that better society we all aspire towards. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will vote against the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill and vote for the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 3) Bill.

Dennis Tan

Main article: Dennis Tan's views on LGBT rights

Dennis Tan also spoke out against the repeal of Section 377A.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ4K3sX11xk

3.42 pm, Monday, 28 November 2022

Transcript:

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, today, the House is debating the Government's amendment Bill to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code and a proposed amendment on the Constitution to insert a new Article 156 relating to the institution of marriage.

In 2007, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that the Government will not proactively enforce section 377A and that has been the position since then. For the record, I still agree with the previous position of the Government in not enforcing section 377A.

Since the Government announced that it will be repealing section 377A of the Penal Code and after the subsequent announcement of the proposed constitutional law amendments, I have received feedback and spoken to many residents and Singaporeans of different races, religions and ages.

I have heard and read the views of members of the LGBTQ+ community, particularly, their unhappiness with perceived discrimination and different rights as compared to heterosexual couples in the areas of marriage, owning BTOs, rights of child adoption and so on.

I also heard much feedback from residents and Singaporeans of their concerns on the repeal. Many were concerned that we would be removing a symbolic social marker with such a repeal. People are also concerned with the societal changes they have seen in many countries in the areas of gender identity, sex education, marriage laws and public policy.

With the repeal, some will press for more changes in law and policy after the repeal, like what is seen in other countries, for example, in Australia and the US. They wonder to what extent the proposed amendments to the Constitution can prevent such changes.

Many express concern that the removal of such a marker may make it difficult for parents in setting down their family and social values at home. Many are also concerned they will be stopped from expressing their contrary views on sexuality after the repeal, including the fear of being cancelled.

Some are concerned that there will be name calling because of the view they take on sexuality in their workplace or for young people and children in their schools. People are also concerned that more changes will make society more divided.

Mr Speaker, some who are concerned with the repeal are of the view that the present position in law would represent the best balance. The Singaporeans I have spoken to or who have written to me with their reservations include those whose views may not be influenced by any religious views and also those of a wide age range.

Mr Speaker, I have considered different views and positions, many of which we have heard and we will hear in the House today. The proposed repeal presents a number of difficult issues for different groups of Singaporeans. The symbolism of section 337A is different to different groups, their differing views and even the experiences of individuals.

As a Member of Parliament (MP), in considering all issues, I am also guided by my own conscience in arriving at a position that I feel is right for our society and our people, even if some may disagree. Even as I do my best to analyse the issues for different segments of our population and my constituents, for reasons of my own conscience as guided by my own faith and beliefs, I find it difficult to support the repeal of 377A. I am personally troubled by the removal of the marker that it represents.

Mr Speaker, this has not been an easy decision for me because as an MP, I would like to represent all constituents as best as I can. I thank my party whip and party Secretary-General and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, for lifting the whip. I do not take this lightly. In fact, I made this decision with a heavy heart. This is both a most difficult decision and is the most difficult speech I have to make to date, given the divided issues at play for different segments of my constituents and for Singaporeans; being very careful not to cause hurt or offence and yet, having to be principled with my own beliefs. It is also not made easier because, like many fellow MPs and Singaporeans, I also have many friends and good friends who are from the LGBTQ community. Some have over time shared with me some of their difficult circumstances and experiences in life which makes my decision today even more difficult and humbling. I humbly seek their understanding.

Mr Speaker, a conscience vote is a very heavy responsibility an MP is required to discharge because it is a responsibility that each of us carries alone, guided by our own conscience.

Mr Speaker, next on the issue of the constitutional amendment. My colleague and my hon friend, Ms Sylvia Lim, has raised some concerns regarding the implications of the proposed carve-outs in the proposed Article 153 to exclude the Courts' role in ensuring conformity with the Constitution. While I agree that her concerns have some merits – and I look forward to the Government's assurances on these issues – I would still support the amendments for the reason that, as the Government is minded to push through the repeal of section 377A, if the repeal were to proceed without the proposed constitutional amendments, those who have reservations about the repeal may be even more concerned that there will be no other enhancement in law to address their concerns.

Mr Speaker, before I close, I would like to thank many of my constituents and many Singaporeans who wrote and spoke to me about the proposed repeal of section 377A, including both the groups who support the repeal and those who object to the repeal. I would also like to seek the understanding of my constituents and Singaporeans who may not agree with my decision. The position I take today does not change how I treat all my constituents and all Singaporeans. I will continue to serve all my constituents to the best of my ability.

Moving forward, I hope for greater understanding between those who share different views on LGBTQ and greater tolerance of different views. We may not always agree with each other on every issue, but we can, and should, agree to disagree. We should still love and respect each other no less as fellow human beings. And I hope that there will be more dialogue between those who share different views, so that there may be a better understanding and less polarisation.

Mr Speaker, I oppose the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, but will support the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill.

For LGBT equality

Jamus Lim

Main article: Jamus Lim's views on LGBT rights

Lim spoke up for the repeal of Section 377A.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4khnckSC924

Transcript:

1.31 pm

Associate Professor Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, as Members of this House executing our duties in Parliament, we simultaneously hold three distinct identities. We are, first and foremost, representatives of the people that voted for us. In my view, this is our utmost responsibility: to properly capture and reflect the views of our constituents. Second, we are members of a political party, who were likewise elected to formulate policies for our nation. For the Workers’ Party, our mandate – as loyal opposition – is to provide alternative views and constructive critique of the ruling party’s ideas and proposals. And third, we are of course individuals who carry our own beliefs and convictions.

Rarely is there confluence in these three identities, which results in us having to make a reasonable effort at balancing between different preferences and exercising compromise. But this is not necessarily as difficult as it sounds; for esoteric bills, our electorate often expects us to do our homework and choose what is in the best interests of the country at large. Hence, they may not hew to strongly-held views of their own. At other times, there are bipartisan consensus on how best to proceed and so our interventions in Parliament are limited to flagging points of concern, but the Workers’ Party nevertheless votes alongside the ruling party.

In a matter such as the repeal of section 377A and the attendant proposed constitutional amendments, however, it would appear that there is not only an intractable divide between the different interests that we represent, but our own personal convictions may play a role in the choices we are forced in make.

In my speech, I wish to explain why I believe that these disparate views can be reconciled and how this leads me to vote the way that I will.

In the many letters written to me by the residents of Sengkang, those that have expressed their concern over the repeal of 377A have, almost uniformly, cited their reservation over how such a repeal would open the floodgates to revisions to the traditionalist interpretation of marriage.

This concern has not only been limited to those who are more religiously inclined. I have spoken to residents who would otherwise hold no strong views on 377A, nevertheless underscore their wish that the heterosexual definition of marriage be, somehow, protected.

To be clear, this is a prospective fear: one based on how the repeal of 377A is a slippery slope; once the law is removed, the floodgates are open and all manner of permissive laws become possible.

In contrast, 377A is currently on the books and consenting relations between two men is currently a crime. This is no longer prospective, but real. In principle, a man engaged in same-sex sexual relations could be jailed, if the strict letter of the law were to be followed.

The repeal decision is thus a trade-off between the removal of a tangible, actual threat of imprisonment, versus a perceived, potential concern over how repeal would undermine marriage. It seems clear to me that there is not, and cannot, be a genuine equivalence between the two.

The usual pushback against claims that 377A constitutes an actual violation of the law, is that 377A is not enforced and – on the basis of court judgments – will not be, unless otherwise instructed by the Attorney-General. This suggests that the Article is merely a relic, one that has no bite and hence, any fear is similarly ephemeral. Why not the existing status quo, then?

It is true that the Courts have previously ruled that 377A would not be prosecuted. Even so, sexual relations between men remains, on the books, an arrestable offence. Think about what this means when the status of rule of law in our country if we insist on instituting laws that simultaneously do not matter in practice. How many more de jure issues also would not matter, de facto? If we wish to make a slippery slope argument, this strikes me as a far slipperier one.

Furthermore, we should recognise that even an unenforced law can have effects on individuals and society.

Think of the symbolism behind what a law, any law, implies. Suppose, for a moment, there was a law prohibiting relationships between individuals of different races, and further suppose that a similar legal precedent and political compromise exists, in that those who are in such a miscegenated relationship are assured that they will never be prosecuted. It is a hypothetical but is it fair to expect those who are in a mixed-race relationship to accept the assurance that such a sword of Damocles hanging over their relationship does not really mean anything?

To take the argument further, should we expect that individuals will feel that they are a fair and equal part of society, when society has deigned it permissible to have a law that, even while unenforced, nevertheless explicitly condemns their behaviour? Can we expect such individuals to truly feel that they are accepted as a part of Singaporean society, when Singaporean law declares them to be criminals?

Some would suggest that Singapore is different. We are an Eastern society, with different cultural mores and practices. They argue that a repeal of 377A amounts to bringing in the polarisation and cultural wars – so prevalent in the seemingly dysfunctional democracies of the West – back home.

I agree that Singapore is different. Our cultural norms skew toward greater social conservatism and society stresses compromise for the sake of harmony, rather than the contentious and often raucous activism favoured by civil society and activism in the West.

But an untenable status quo, however entrenched, does not imply that all is well under the surface. For those who keenly feel the yoke of discrimination, suggesting that we should keep things the way that they have always been – simply because that is how it has always been – is more than simply benign neglect. It is an insult to their plight, to the burden that they have been bearing, perhaps silently, until now. It is like telling a prisoner that their desire for freedom is an attempt to stir up unrest while they are in jail.

As a man attracted to the opposite sex, I can never fully empathise what it means to develop feelings for someone of the same gender. But when I was a hot-blooded teenager, I had a dear friend, who turned out to be gay, explain to me what his world was like. The analogy has stayed with me ever since. Just imagine, he said, if the way you feel about women – the strong, unrelenting attraction when you first meet, the wish to share one’s most innermost thoughts and feelings with them, the deep desire to be with that person for the rest of your life – imagine if all that was not the natural order of things. Imagine that society deemed my attraction to women as not just abhorrent, but also judged intimate expressions of my love to be criminal.

This is not too far from other historical legacies where the law deemed certain forms of love to be illegal. As recently as the 1960s, interracial relationships were limited in some form in as many as 31 US states, as it was in Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. While I am not equating the two, my point is that my own relationship as well as that of my parents – which occurred between two different ethnicities – would have fallen afoul of the law.

The usual retort to such scenarios is that it is contrived; humans are not animals and, after all, we can always exercise self-restraint. Some argue that because same-sex attraction is ultimately psychological, it can be overturned, with intervention and counselling. Perhaps. But I am not here to question the natural biological order which I respect. After all, it is a physiological reality that asexual reproduction among mammals is impossible. And hence, the male-female pairing is necessary to ensure the continuation of these species. Even so, for certain individuals, such attractions are deeply embedded in what may be regarded as innate biologically-led behaviour.

For these reasons, I support the repeal of the discriminatory law that is 377A.

Even so, I also cannot really ignore how many in our Asian society continue to equate marriage and partnership to one between a man and a woman. This view is held not only those who are religious – by which I mean not just by groups that have been more vocal about traditional marriage, such as evangelical Christians and Muslims – but, based on my conversations with residents in Sengkang and beyond, also those who do not strongly profess any faith.

For these Singaporeans, the fact that marriage must involve a union between a man and a woman goes beyond a legally binding contractual relationship. It is a fundamental belief, a worldview. This sense is so deeply ingrained that they are not only are unable to accept the principle of same-sex marriage. For them, were such marriages to become recognised, they – perhaps paradoxically – would feel that society is not only no longer representative of who they are, but some may even go as far as to feel that it has turned against them. It is secondary that heterosexual norms remain the firm majority. Many will feel a sense of exclusion and victimhood.

As it turns out, this worldview is remarkably pervasive. While I do not have comprehensive data, I have had many conversations over the course of the past few months and I would be willing to venture that a significant majority of Singaporeans – including those in Sengkang, including otherwise liberal-minded spirits, and even including those who are otherwise sympathetic about the repeal of 377A – carry this perspective close to their hearts.

It is important that we do not dismiss this worldview as emanating from an oppressive majority, finally receiving their comeuppance. This is because I actually believe that such sentiments – even if some may argue are seemingly misplaced – are indeed genuine.

When I was a teenager, I took my Christian faith very seriously – to the point where I even harboured ambitions to be a missionary. While I am no longer as zealous today as I was, I can fully empathise with how it is like to hold fast to a set of tenets and beliefs that so completely shape one’s worldview that it would be wholly inconceivable to not expect that challenges to it would not be met with visceral resistance.

To reiterate: this is not a sentiment that is limited to those that are religious. It is one that is accepted by broad segments of Singaporean society, almost to a point where it is regarded as self-evident among these groups. To those within this group, their sense of identity and meaning is as much tied to heteronormativity as those who identify as homosexual tie theirs otherwise. Just as important, threats to these identities affect their behaviours and their welfare.

It is for this reason that I do not see a decision to alter the Constitution as essentially a compromise for merely the sake of political expediency, necessary for the repeal of 377A. Rather, it is the manner by which the state will echo what society, as a whole, believes in.

Prime Minister Lee had explained in his National Day Rally speech that challenges via the judicial system were becoming more insistent, and that we did not wish to go down the dangerous road of judicial activism. He also explained why decisions on the repeal of 377A and – perhaps more importantly, constitutional amendments – should be determined in the legislature. He was articulating, in this specific instance, the principle of de facto parliamentary sovereignty, a notion that others have observed also applies to Singapore.

As Workers’ Party chair Sylvia Lim has articulated, there may be potential legal lacunae that passing such constitutional amendment may entail. I am also aware that the amendment will continue to discriminate – albeit to a lesser extent – against those who wish to normalise their same-sex relationship, especially in matters of public policy.

This question of jurisprudence – where I am very sympathetic to the views of Ms Lim – is important and a concern. But even accepting this argument, I believe that there remains a strong justification for ensuring that deliberation of matters of broad societal concern occur within the forum designed for such matters, which is this House. I will also explain why I believe that a social institution such as marriage may reasonably be included in a foundational document, such as the Constitution.

Keeping in mind that representative democracy will always be imperfect, it is nevertheless the closest system we have that reasonably aggregates the preferences of our people at large. And in our time, the significant majority of Singaporeans have articulated their preference for a clear reassurance that the institution of marriage be protected.

Could this justify a constitutional amendment then? From my perspective, I do not see why not. Constitutions are live documents, meant – as Thomas Jefferson once said – to serve the present generation. They embody the rights of nature, of society and of government; these are essential principles of constitutional design. Many constitutions embed rights of association. Consequently, I believe it is reasonable that our Singaporean Constitution captures the key institutions that our society cherishes, which includes this cornerstone institution of marriage.

Mr Speaker, as Members of Parliament, I believe that it is paramount that we carry out our duties of representation faithfully, echoing, to the best of our ability, the views of the majority of our constituents, even when this position may differ from what we, individually, may hold. It is in this light that I see a vote in favour of a constitutional amendment that codifies the institution of marriage as a reflection of the conversations I have had with my many diverse constituents on this matter.

Keen observers will nevertheless note that the constitutional amendments that were proposed, however, merely refer to how the legislature may define marriage, leaving the specific definition indeterminate. Should the amendments be more specific then? This is where I depart from those who would go further, those who are asking for a heterosexual definition of marriage be hardcoded into the Constitution. In contrast to the more fundamental notion of the institution of marriage, its definition does not strike me as an unwavering principle that belongs to a constitution. It is therefore appropriate that such a definition be clarified only in subsidiary legislation, subject to change by the people of the contemporary time.

Almost two centuries ago, the French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville documented his observations on the then-nascent state of democracy in the United States. He shared his admiration for the democratic project as it unfolded in America. Even so, he pointed out an inherent tension in the power of democratic majority opinion, and in particular, he highlighted what he observed to be the "tyranny of the majority".

Tocqueville did not much propose a resolution to this conundrum, beyond suggesting, like his contemporary, English philosopher John Stuart Mill, that appropriate respect for individualism and liberty could offer a way out of this conundrum. Importantly, these thinkers believed that it was vital for each society to arrive at their own definition of the limits that public opinion would have over individual lives. One could argue that democratic republics, of which Singapore is one, are the practical manifestation of this compromise between individual rights and popular opinion.

We stand, today, at a similar precipice, albeit in our own Little Red Dot. The way I see it, the repeal of section 377A is the way that our society respects these individual rights, while enshrining the institution of marriage within the Constitution is how we respect the values of the majority. Hence, the decision we make today is not solely about a political compromise, as so many have suggested. It is also about striking the balance between the principles of individualism and majoritarianism.

As a republic, we are required to do right by our people – we have it right there in our Pledge, a commitment to "justice and equality". Which is why fundamentally discriminatory laws such as section 377A should no longer be allowed to stand. But at the same time, our commitment to – also in our pledge – "build a democratic society" calls on us to affirm our common values, such as marriage, that make us one united people. That is why I will vote yes to both of these amendments today.

He Ting Ru

Main article: He Ting Ru's views on LGBT rights

He Ting Ru spoke up for the repeal of Section 377A.

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

Transcript:

1.50 pm

Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, like many of us in this House, I am often filled with questions about the type of world we live in, the world that I want my children to inherit from us. I worry about how I can inculcate in them the right values, the right tools to be able to dissect tricky situations and to be able to tell right from wrong, even when the world around you sometimes appears to have gone mad.

Today, my sons are still young, and it will be years yet before they are old enough to understand the topics we are debating and to have their own views on these matters, which touch on the very core of what it means to be humans living together in a society. But I hope that when they are old enough, they will be able to understand and appreciate what I say here today, as it is my contribution to what I hope will be a healthy and positive debate for a more tolerant and accepting nation. These are topics that are fundamental to who we are as individuals, who we are as a society.

And because society is a collection of individuals, this necessarily means that we are people who have different views and ways of looking at things. It comes as no surprise that we have many different viewpoints and that some amongst us do feel extremely passionately about the issues involved. This is a good thing in and as of itself, as it shows that we care deeply about the society we live in.

When the repeal of section 377A and the amendments to the Constitution were first announced, my thoughts were initially clear-cut – this relates to my conscience and it seemed straightforward. Yet, as I listened to friends and residents who shared their thoughts with me on the matter, I realised that there was a wide variety of opinion on the matter, each informed by one's own life experiences, their own social or religious value systems. It would also be impossible to find a position that everyone fully agreed on. But whether they are for or against repeal, one thing was clear to me: that everyone is motivated by the same desire to see Singapore move in the right direction, in the direction of the greater good.

I think it is crucial that we do not lose sight of this, even as we may debate over what this greater good is. This is important because having many different cultures, values or viewpoints is not new to Singapore and it will not be the last time we face an issue that risks our society being increasingly polarised.

But I am reminded that we can face challenges as a nation and can do so soberly in a way that balances the individual's right to hold their own beliefs and practices, with the need to build a cohesive society founded on principles of understanding and acceptance.

It is also not lost on me that I am speaking today not just as an individual, but as a representative of my constituents who have entrusted this privilege to me and my teammates. This is something that we will never take for granted, even as we strive each day to be worthy of that trust.

But Sengkang, like Singapore, is multi-faceted. And as interests and viewpoints are split on section 377A, I believe we need to remind ourselves of the same principles of acceptance and understanding that have helped us build a strong ship that can weather difficult storms.

I believe that we must have empathy and put ourselves in the shoes of those who hold different views from us, and to try our very best to understand where their concerns are coming from. We must approach this difference with respect; it does not do anyone favour to dismiss the other as being hysterical, overblown, or wanting to impose corrupt values on others. We must above all, work to not discriminate against our fellow citizens.

It is this principle that moves me to vote in support of repeal today.

I do not believe that we should have a law in the books that is plainly and obviously discriminatory. It sends a signal that one segment of society is so morally reprehensible that their identity should be considered criminal, even if it is only on paper. It excuses discriminatory behaviour and contradicts the Pledge we take, as citizens of Singapore "to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality".

Not repealing section 377A today would be at odds with steps that Singapore is taking to be a fairer and more equitable society for all and will go against the principles behind the Government's welcome announcement that we will finally legislate against discrimination. Many in this House have already mentioned the Government's announcement to introduce anti-discrimination legislation and I believe the repeal of section 377A plays its part in our move towards a more inclusive society.

Some residents and concerned citizens have written to me to express concerns about the repeal of section 377A and the deleterious effect that this will have on the next generation. Having three young and curious children myself, I fully appreciate where this is coming from. And indeed, I often find myself worrying about how to teach them to know right from wrong, and to be able to distinguish between good and bad influences. After all, we cannot completely insulate them from the outside world and our children will be exposed to many different ideas and arguments which we believe are wrong.

Our role as a parent is to educate, to guide them as we think fit and to have a sense of moral values which they can apply to different situations. Yet, our children are also their own people, and we must accept that they too will eventually grow up to have their own views, make their own choices and to deal with the consequences of their actions.

And while it is true that a country's laws do provide some moral guardrails for what is acceptable to society as a whole, history has shown us that in some instances, this has not always been the case. After all, I like to think that if I lived in a time and society where slavery was legal and accepted, I would still teach my children that the very concept of a human owning another human is abhorrent and unacceptable under any circumstances.

Having said all of this, I have also heard and understand the concerns of those who feel that the repeal of section 377A will be a slippery slope to further shifts in policy that they feel are simply unacceptable, or that its repeal will cause deep faults and divisions in society that are irreparable.

I understand and respect their concern. But since as early as 2007, the regard for section 377A as a bad law has been growing. Legal personages, including former Judges of the Court of Appeal and a former Chief Justice, have cast doubt on its constitutionality. Similar arguments have been made in this House before as well. If not, today, the law would likely have been struck down in the near term.

But we must also not mix legality with morality. The repeal rejects a legal framework of discrimination, but parents remain able to educate our children and impart the moral lessons that we want within our household, shaped by our own beliefs and faiths. The concerns relating to the silencing of certain groups are also, I believe, understandable. However, Article 15 of our Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion in Singapore, specifying that "every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it". This right has been upheld by the Court of Appeal.

And if there should be any proposed amendments to remove or water down the right to religious freedom in Singapore, I will not hesitate to oppose it.

In fact, this approach is similar to thorny moral questions that are handled differently between religions or communities today, yet our laws are secular and do not attempt to enshrine the moral compass of each group. Our laws seek instead, to provide the protection for each community from discriminatory treatment from another. The same principle applies here and the protection of religious freedom will remain a core tenet of our democracy.

With this in mind, I record my concern about the proposed constitutional amendment before us. I appreciate the concern behind its formation. Yet, from a legal perspective, the proposed amendments carve out an area of legislative decision-making and functionally shields it from judicial review. Specifically, the proposed Articles 156(3)(b) and (4) prevent laws and policies relating to the heterosexual definition of marriage from being challenged in Court on the basis of the fundamental liberties provisions in the Constitution.

This causes me some concern. While I can understand and appreciate that the majority of Singaporeans feel that marriage is between a man and woman and share the concern about a judiciary running roughshod over the will of the people as expressed through Parliament, I note that the Singapore Courts have always been conscious of the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, giving precedence to the lawmaking function of Parliament and are ever cognisant of not overstepping the line into judicial law-making.

Perhaps in taking fright at the "phantom menace" of judicial activism, we may be losing sight of a more fundamental principle – that the judiciary should be the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of legislation and has an important role in safeguarding the fundamental liberties protected therein. Article 156, while not an ouster clause in the traditional sense, functionally shields legislation from being tested against the protection of fundamental liberties under Part 4 of the Constitution.

This concern goes beyond the present issue and I hope we will not lose sight of the bigger picture. If we were to pass this constitutional amendment today that prevents the Courts from determining the constitutionality of a legislative policy, what would stop a future Parliament from passing discriminatory legislation and then shielding it from judicial oversight?

For example, a future Parliament may decide to pass or entrench laws that prevent the propagation of one's religion and then immunise that from court challenge on the basis of the constitutional protection for religious expression by introducing a carve-out similar to the present amendment as contained in Articles 156(3) and (4).

I would additionally urge empathy when debating and passing the constitutional amendment. While I applaud removing the divisive thorn of section 377A from the body politic, I worry too that the constitutional amendment may continue to advance the divisiveness that we precisely want to combat.

Although I understand and appreciate why the Government has introduced the new Article 156, I find that I must abstain from the amendments proposed to the Constitution due to my concerns relating to the carve-out from judicial oversight.

Finally, the divergent views on section 377A underscore the need for measured dialogue, for opportunities to walk in the shoes of another, to not view fellow Singaporeans as an existential threat and to not underestimate the good sense, resilience and pragmatism of the Singaporean people.

For a pluralistic society like Singapore, it is in walking together, in conversation with each other, all the while cognisant and respectful of our differences that we are able to move forward. Sometimes, legislation is not just the imperfect substitute for society's greater good, it can be a barrier to it.

I note that I have spoken very much in the abstract so far, on principles and ideas. Yet, allow me the liberty to close with a personal anecdote about a boy I grew up with in this part of the world. We moved to different cities in our teens and did not see each other for almost a decade. One day, in our 20s, our paths were fortuitous enough to cross again thousands of miles from home and I remember sitting up late one night, chatting about nothing in particular. I made a throwaway, teasing comment about whether he would take girls to a particular spot to impress them. What followed next was totally unexpected.

He suddenly grew quiet and paused for a long while, looking away. I could see that his mind was racing and he swallowed hard a few times. Finally, he looked at me and said, "You probably don't know this, but I'm gay. I thought a long time about whether to tell you but decided to do so because I think you'd be okay with it."

It was now my turn to be silenced as he started telling me about how a few months ago, he attended his sister's wedding, where he felt compelled to tell lie upon lie to well-meaning relatives asking when it would be his turn to get married. He felt like a total charlatan but overriding this was his greatest fear that he did not want to "bring shame upon his parents".

I will never forget the fear and anguish and the pain in his eyes and I regret that this was not the first, nor the last time I saw these emotions as someone "came out" to me about their sexual orientation – all because they feared condemnation and disgust for who they were. It is a whirlwind of emotions that I will never fully understand and I would not wish this on anyone.

It is a timely reminder that for the vast majority of us, the topics we discuss today are but academic to our personal situation. Yet, to some of our fellow Singaporeans, every moment of their lives is affected by it.

We do not have to condone it nor encourage it, but I hope we can find it within ourselves to try to empathise with them, even just a little bit – that we can find it within ourselves to be able to live and hope and pray that the LGBTI members of our community are able to live without discrimination and fear of being ostracised.

Conversely, those who support the repeal of section 377A or even feel that we should go further should also not attempt to bludgeon their views upon those who are deeply uncomfortable with it and instead try to understand the reasons behind why they feel this way. This will be a start towards better understanding each other and how we can begin to heal any rifts that may have arisen.

After section 377A is repealed, life will go on. Families and spouses who love and value each other and their children will continue to do so. Love and hope can still triumph over anger and mistrust, and we will still open our doors and hearts to our neighbours in the community who need an extra helping hand – like the countless stories of neighbourhood group chats stepping in during the pandemic, the students of our Sengkang schools who came together to make gift cards to show their appreciation for our healthcare heroes in our healthcare facilities and their vaccination centres.

This is what makes us as a nation, as one nation, and I hope we never lose sight of this, nor stop fighting to keep this as our shared future. [Applause.]

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.

For LGBT equality

Nicole Seah

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. (As at 2015, Seah was one of only six politicians, five from the Opposition and one from the ruling People's Action Party, 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.)

Nicole Seah mingling with the crowd at Pink Dot 2011. Photo source:[1].

Pro-LGBT elements in Workers' Party's previous manifesto

Prior to the Workers' Party's updated manifesto for the 2025 General Election which stated outright that the party's aim was to stamp out all forms of discrimination, including that based on ascribed characteristics such as sexual orientation, some observers pointed out that its previous manifesto (PDF downloadable here:[14]) also contained covert pro-LGBT elements. Its progressive stance was found on pages 40-41 of the document. Although not explicit, when dealing with LGBT activism, one had to read between the lines. A gay advocacy meeting was not directly labelled “gay advocacy meeting”. Instead, words like “diversity”, “inclusive” or “equality” were used.

The previous manifesto sought to liberalise areas of Singapore which were at the forefront of LGBT advocacy. In the “Responsible Public Sphere” segment, points 1 to 4 were all about being more liberal - promoting less control over the Arts and less control over the media, especially the online media.

The Workers' Party's suggestion for the Public Order Act on public gatherings was to permit all sorts of gatherings and parades, including LGBT pride parades.

Its proposed Hate Speech Act would be effective in protecting the LGBT community against verbal and psychological abuse.

Children in schools would be taught inclusive sexuality education.

See also

• Singapore political parties' politicians' views on homosexuality
• PAP MPs against the repeal of Section 377A
• PAP MPs for the repeal of Section 377A
• Singapore Democratic 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
• Singapore political parties’ positions on LGBT concerns – General election 2011
• Archive of parliamentary debate on Section 377A (22, 23 October 2007)
• Workers' Party Manifesto 2025

References

• Pritam Singh, "One Singapore Family: Rising above the Culture War", Singapore 2025 blog, Wordpress, April 2019[15].
• Rachel Au-Yong, "Pritam: WP will not call for 377A to be repealed", The Straits Times, 6 April 2019[16].
• Martino Tan, "Pritam Singh on 377a: Workers’ Party would not be calling for its repeal", Mothership, 5 April 2015[17].
• Nur Asyiqin Mohamad Salleh, "WP's Faisal supports Wear White", The Straits Times, 3 July 2014[18],[19].
• https://singaporeaffairs.wordpress.com/2019/03/03/where-workers-party-stand-on-lgbt-debate/

Acknowledgements

This article was written by Roy Tan.