Shanmugam slams WP for ducking responsibility on Section 377A, Pritam Singh says party MPs 'behaved like loyal opposition'

SINGAPORE — Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam chastised the Workers’ Party (WP) on Tuesday (Nov 29) for not having an official position on the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code, or the constitutional amendment to protect the definition of marriage.

He said that the failure to do so on both Bills was akin to letting the courts decide on the matters, which could have “negative consequences” for Singaporeans.

“The position with 377A is like a train approaching. The question is whether we have the courage to act, or rather dive for cover to protect yourself and leave society to face the train wreck,” he added.

However, WP chief Pritam Singh responded that Mr Shanmugam's assertion over the opposition party's lack of a position is not true, given that six of his party members were for the repeal of the law that criminalises sex between men, while three were against it for reasons of conscience.

As for the constitutional amendment, he said that seven were in favour, while two chose to abstain.

“The party's position has been established by way of a majority in Parliament,” Mr Singh said. A day before, he announced in Parliament that he was lifting the party whip to allow his MPs to express their differing views on the repeal of Section 377A.

Mr Shanmugam told the House that when Mr Singh said the whip was not being imposed on his MPs, the WP leader was referring to voting positions.

"When he came into chambers here yesterday (Monday), the party did not have a position," Mr Shanmugam said.

"It's not a question of totalling up the numbers at the end of the day. It's a question of coming up front and saying this is our position as a party, even though individual (MPs) have different views and they will speak about them."

Mr Singh had also addressed the decision by the People's Action Party (PAP) for not lifting its own party's whip for this debate in his speech on Monday.

“Given the varied public opinion on the impending repeal of 377A, there is a risk that the democratic value of Parliament could be diluted if the views of Singaporeans on this subject are not adequately ventilated in this House,” the WP chief said then.

With the WP’s whip lifted, MPs Sylvia Lim, Leon Perera, Louis Chua, Jamus Lim and He Ting Ru, as well as Mr Singh himself, have expressed their support for the repeal.

Opposing the Bill were Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Faisal Manap, who had supported the Wear White campaign that opposes homosexuality in the past.

Mr Chua and Mr Faisal were both ill with Covid-19 and absent on Monday, but had their positions conveyed to the House through Mr Singh. Mr Chua recovered from his illness on Tuesday, and was able to personally convey his position in Parliament as well. 

Tuesday’s exchange between Mr Shanmugam and Mr Singh took place at the end of two days of debate on the repeal of Section 377A, and a second related Bill on amending the Constitution to protect the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

‘TAKE A STAND’

During his closing speech on Tuesday, Mr Shanmugam repeated two reasons for why Section 377A has to be repealed.

The first pertained to the repeal being the right thing to do, since there are no public concerns that justify private consensual sex between men being a crime.

The second was that Section 377A is at risk of being struck down by the courts. For instance, this could lead to the definition of marriage being challenged. This, in turn, could put other policies including those related to housing, education and media content at risk of being challenged as well.

“No one has questioned these risks in this House,” Mr Shanmugam said, adding that the WP understood these risks, too.

Given these risks, he said that parliamentarians have a duty to “deal squarely with the problem and not abdicate our duty”.

He added that the WP had spoken at length about the pain and suffering of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and others (LGBTQ+) community during the debate.

This being the case, he said, “I think one can ask: Why don’t you (as a party) take a clear stand and support the repeal? Or if you believe otherwise, then oppose the repeal?”

“This is not true democracy. It is better described as wanting to speak without taking responsibility,” Mr Shanmugam added.

In the context of the debate, he said WP’s position means that it “would leave the decision to the courts, and let Singaporeans face the negative consequences”, which includes perpetuating differences and polarising society further.

This was a similar criticism that Mr Masagos Zulkifli, Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, had made the day before about the opposition party in his closing speech on the debate.

Mr Shanmugam said that if WP believes that such sensitive matters should be decided by the courts, the opposition party “should be honest and say so”.

He also called Mr Singh’s explanation for lifting the whip for democratic reasons as “factually untrue”.

The whip, Mr Shanmugam said, is only relevant for voting and does not prevent MPs from speaking their minds.

He added that the WP MPs could have made all the speeches they made, even with the whip in place.

“The only reason we can have a decision in Parliament is because the PAP has its whip in place," Mr Shanmugam added.

‘LOYAL TO SINGAPOREANS’

In response to Mr Shanmugam’s criticisms, Mr Singh said that the minister had “mischaracterised” his speech delivered on Monday.

When Mr Shanmugam highlighted WP’s lack of a position on the repeal of Section 377A, Mr Singh pointed out that what he had said was specific to the party’s position in 2019.

“The party's position, as I mentioned, was varied and divided with no consensus as to whether 377A should be repealed… (This is) somewhat similar to Singapore society,” Mr Singh continued.

“I lifted the whip and did not fetter the voting rights of MPs... This is consistent with the party’s position.”

The result showed that his party was for the repeal of Section 377A and the amendments to the Constitution by way of a majority.

Despite the difference in opinions on the matter by his fellow party members, he said that they had behaved loyally.

“In my view, they behaved like a loyal opposition. Not loyal to the PAP, but loyal to Singaporeans, knowing the position of Singaporeans outside of this House.”

As part of their exchanges with each other, Mr Singh sought two clarifications from Mr Shanmugam.

Noting that PAP had lifted the whip for the Human Organ Transplant Amendment Bill in 2009 and the Abortion Bill in 1969, Mr Singh asked why the ruling party lifts the whip for some Bills but not others.

Mr Singh said that Singapore’s founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew had given a speech in Parliament about the Abortion Bill, but was absent when it came to voting.

He also asked for PAP’s position with regards to LGBTQ+ candidates standing in General Elections, since the sexual orientation of an opposition candidate from the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) had come under the spotlight during the 2011 General Election.

Referring to former SDP member, Dr Vincent Wijeysingha, Mr Singh said that PAP had not only told Dr Wijeysingha at the time to “come out of the closet”, but had issued a statement that “pursued an innuendo that made an allusion to paedophilia”.

A MATTER OF PHRASING

On why the whip is being imposed for PAP for the debate on Section 377A, Mr Shanmugam reiterated that it is a policy question with serious consequences for Singaporeans.

“If we do not repeal Section 377A, then we are saying… we will pass on the buck to the courts. That's an abdication of responsibility as parliamentarians. In such a situation, lifting the whip is not acceptable for PAP,” Mr Shanmugam replied.

On Mr Singh’s example of the Abortion Bill, Mr Shanmugam said that the matter was “quite different” because it was a matter of individual conscience.

Moreover, the debate on the Abortion Bill was unlike the repeal of Section 377A, which could potentially see the institution of marriage, housing and education policies change overnight and where societies get "rent asunder by cultural wars".

Mr Shanmugam added: “I would be careful if I were Mr Singh to bring Mr Lee Kuan Yew into this and suggest that he somehow acted dishonourably.”

As for Mr Singh’s second question, Mr Shanmugam said that “he could not remember the facts”, but if a paedophile were running for elections, he would be surprised that Mr Singh would advocate for him.

To Mr Shanmugam’s responses, Mr Singh first clarified that he had never suggested Lee Kuan Yew was dishonourable and had never used that word.

On the issue of paedophilia, Mr Singh read from a PAP statement that led him to use the word.

In short, the statement referred to a video of Dr Wijeysingha attending a forum that was discussing the promotion of gay causes in Singapore. The statement questioned Dr Wijeysingha's agenda, then went on to state that 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.

Mr Singh said that he had no issue with PAP questioning the political agenda of a candidate, but he asked for the relevance of the party highlighting “that point on sex with boys” aside from casting aspersions on the candidate.

“(Was it) to suggest that he made that point? Was this a forum where this was the only issue that was discussed? So that was intentionally included? That's my view of the statement.”

Mr Shanmugam said that Mr Singh had started out his second question by stating that paedophilia was talked about.

“Now, let me make it clear to him, if there is a candidate who is standing for elections, whether for the PAP… or for the Workers' Party or SDP, and if there is a suggestion of paedophilia, I will certainly speak about it. And I'm sure all right-thinking Singaporeans will speak about it,” Mr Shanmugam added.

To this, Mr Singh agreed with Mr Shanmugam, but he said the minister was avoiding answering his question as the issue is not about paedophilia, but PAP’s position on LGBTQ+ candidates standing for elections.

Although Mr Shanmugam said that Mr Singh was “(moving) the goalposts and starting an entirely new debate about who can and will stand for elections”, he gave his view on the matter.

“Anyone who is not a criminal, and who is of good character and of sound mind, and who can work for the residents, ought to be able to stand for elections,” Mr Shanmugam answered.

“But Mr Singh started out by talking about paedophilia. I’m sure the records… will show that, and that is why I answered.”