WP will not call for repeal of 377A or participate in ‘culture war’: Pritam Singh

SINGAPORE — The Workers’ Party (WP) would not call for a repeal of Section 377A, the law that criminalises sex between men, as there is “no consensus” over it within the party’s leadership, said its chief Pritam Singh.

In a speech, the transcript of which he posted on Facebook on Friday (April 5), in which he called on political parties to “never politicise” the issue, Mr Singh noted that the WP’s stance on Section 377A remains unchanged from 2007, when Parliament last held a debate on the issue.

“Even within the party at large, views differ on the matter, a microcosm of Singapore society.”

Mr Singh had expressed these views in a speech at the National University of Singapore’s Political Association Forum 2019 held on Thursday.

He was among three local political figures invited to be part of a panel discussion, with the other two being People’s Action Party’s Chee Hong Tat, who is the Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry, and leader of the newly-registered Progress Singapore Party Tan Cheng Bock. The event was not opened to the media.

In the speech, Mr Singh had said that his party “will not participate in the culture war” over the issues relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning and queer (LGBTQ) as 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,” said Mr Singh.

“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.”

Mr Singh added that 377A has become “more of a symbolic lightning rod for conservatives and liberals”, with the culture war having “deepened and expanded, consuming time and energy with campaigns pitting one group against the other in the public sphere”.

That leaves little room for both sides to constructively engage with each other and “reduce temperatures”, he said.

Mr Singh said: “As currently framed, 377A generates a lot of heat, but sheds very little light.”

READ ALSO

The Big Read: With a house still divided over 377A, time to seek common ground

NEVER POLITICISE SECTION 377A

The politicisation of Section 377A might worsen divisions in society, he warned.

This is why the WP has not and will not turn Section 377A into a political issue by pandering either to conservatives or liberals, he said.

“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,” he stressed.

“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 politicise the LGBT issue and have a hidden political agenda to do so.”

Not politicising Section 377A is among five key principles he proposed “that could guide our way forward”.

They include putting families first, but to also support homosexuals who are coming out and their family members who are coming to terms with their sexuality.

Other principles include encouraging continuous dialogue on the issue, respecting individual conscience and rising above the "culture war", said Mr Singh.

He added: “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.”