Repeal of colonial anti-gay law ‘is the right thing to do’
Ruling party will scrap controversial Section 377A while also upholding traditional view of marriage
The Singapore government yesterday said the decision to strike down a colonial-era law that criminalises sex between men was “the right thing to do”, while warning that keeping the legislation on the books carried major legal risks.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in August first announced the ruling People’s Action Party’s (PAP) plan to repeal Section 377A, while also amending the constitution to protect the status quo definition of marriage.
The dual legislative moves – to be voted on separately – are expected to be passed into law as PAP MPs will be instructed to back the changes. The party has 83 seats in the 103-seat parliament.
Speaking in parliament, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam cited how Section 377A had been challenged in the courts twice in recent years on the basis that it violated the Singapore constitution, and there was a possibility that it could be ruled unconstitutional in the future.
“I can give an analogy. [It] is like letting a small boat sail in choppy waters surrounded by rocks and hoping that the boat won’t crash into the rocks,” he said at the start of a debate that is expected to stretch into the week.
“If we engage in wishful thinking and if Section 377A is struck down in the courts, that could lead to a whole series of consequences which would be very damaging to our Singaporean society,” Shanmugam said.
If the courts indeed ruled the legislation unconstitutional, it could bring about challenges to the heterosexual definition of marriage, which would have an impact on existing policies in housing and media, he said.
The minister added that homosexuality remained a deeply divisive issue internationally and while some countries had decided to get rid of their versions of Section 377A in recent years – including India in 2018 – Singapore did not “simply follow such trends”. Singapore is one of the few former British colonies still keeping the law, which came into force in 1931 after being adapted from 19th-century India’s legal code. Malaysia and Sri Lanka are other jurisdictions that still retain the legislation in some form.
More than 20 lawmakers also concurrently debated the second bill that preserves the status quo position on marriage being between a man and woman, and spells out that any deviation from that definition required a simple majority assent of parliament.
The proposed “Institution of Marriage” article would be introduced into the constitution and would also clearly state it is parliament’s prerogative to make laws to define and safeguard marriage, including pro-family policies.
The main opposition, the Workers’ Party (WP), which has nine MPs, said it would allow MPs to vote freely on the two bills.
The Progress Singapore Party, a relatively new opposition group with two representatives in parliament, said its position was that the definition of marriage should be decided by a national referendum.
Masagos Zulkifli, Minister for Social and Family Development, meanwhile sought to reaffirm the government’s position of keeping marriage as between a man and woman, citing a “strong consensus” in society that marriage should remain as such.
“I reiterate today, Singapore’s public policy is and has always been to uphold heterosexual marriage and promote the formation of families within such marriages,” Masagos said. “Family is the foundation on which our society is built and sustained, with each generation raising the next to take its place,” he added.
Calling the constitutional amendment “necessary”, he said the government had the responsibility to put forward what it felt was best for Singaporeans.
“This includes making changes in a calibrated and careful manner that may not please everyone,” he said.