MPs likely to tread carefully in debate to end gay sex ban

City state set to repeal colonial-era law while also fostering and promoting traditional marriage

Singapore lawmakers will today debate two bills that seek to repeal a colonial-era law criminalising sex between men while preserving the city state’s status quo position on marriage.

Analysts say parliamentarians across the political spectrum are set to air potential concerns and flesh out key points after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong first announced plans for the longawaited changes in August.

The government proposes the repeal of Section 377A of the penal code and the introduction of a new “Institution of Marriage” article in the constitution, saying they will be debated together but voted on separately. The marriage article would, the government said, clarify that parliament had the prerogative to make laws to “define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote” marriage.

It will also spell out that the government can promote the institution, including through pro-family policies. The proposed constitutional amendment would protect them from being challenged in the courts.

The two bills will be debated but the ruling People’s Action Party, which has governed with a legislative supermajority for decades, says it will not lift the whip on the votes, so the bills are almost guaranteed to be passed.

The main opposition Workers’ Party (WP), which has nine MPs in the 103-seat legislature, has not provided a clear stance on its view although it has said it recognises the fundamental right to be treated equally and respects “the right of different groups to hold and discuss positions according to their conscience”.

Lee has criticised the opposition’s stance towards the bills, saying the bloc was “missing in action” and “refuse even to say whether they have a party position, or if they will lift the whip on their MPs when Parliament votes on the amendments”. He did not specifically name the WP.

Elvin Ong, an assistant professor of political science at the National University of Singapore (NUS), said opposition parties were likely to “tread a careful line” and how nuanced their positions would be remained to be seen.

Chong Ja Ian, another NUS associate professor, said while the WP was unlikely to deviate from its position of non-discrimination and “a distinct line between church and state”, the debate could offer clues on how the party managed these concerns while taking into account the needs of the LGBTQ community and religious conservatives.

Key officials have suggested the government’s two-pronged plan is designed to remove the archaic Section 377A – a long-time bug bear of LGBTQ citizens who say it denigrates them even though it is not enforced – while also appeasing social conservatives who are worried the definition of marriage may be altered.

Felix Tan, a political analyst at Nanyang Technological University, noted that officials had done the groundwork and religious leaders were already “managing the fallout” before Lee’s announcement.

There is the question of how … society and politics will deal with an increasingly diverse society

CHONG JA IAN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

Ong said once the government announced a position, the chances of it changing its position was “typically very rare”, so it “does not make sense” for stakeholders to continue pushing their concerns. “They may also be waiting for the parliamentary debate to first assess what is said from all parties,” he added.

More pressing questions were when any decision would take effect, what areas were covered by the two bills, and how they would affect other policies like housing, education and adoption, Tan said.

Chong said MPs were likely to raise issues like equality and discrimination and what they or their constituents saw as “traditional” family values. “More importantly, there is the question of how Singapore society and politics will deal with an increasingly diverse and pluralistic society,” he said.