377A is like an approaching train: K Shanmugam

 

There are 2 reasons for the repeal, Minister Shanmugam said.

The first reason is that there are no public order issues that are raised from such conduct, so it should not remain criminal.

"But I accept that MPs and others may disagree with that. Even though there are no public order issues, they may feel that there are other reasons for keeping the law. And I accept that people can and do legitimately have such views, and it is reasonable to hold such views."

There is a second reason and this second reason is NOT a matter of conscience. It is a policy question and 'requires each of us to THINK CAREFULLY, and APPLY OUR MINDS'.

"The second question is a matter of considering the consequences for Singapore, given that there is a clear legal risk that s 377A could be struck down.

And given that, having heard me, you know what the consequential legal risks are – in fact, this has been talked about in public – to the heterosexual family. Housing, education, other policies – they could all be at risk.

Knowing all these risks and refusing to take a position or be clear in how we will deal with it, is avoiding our responsibilities as MPs, basically passing it on to the Courts.

It is easier politically, but it is also worse for Singapore and Singaporeans.

To put it bluntly, that will be an abdication of duty. And it would be cynical if we, as MPs, did that. Because we would be putting, if we take this as a deliberate decision, political capital over doing what is good for Singaporeans."

Singaporeans who are opposed to the repeal because of the first reason must carefully consider the second reason for repeal. Herein are the things you hold dear and want to protect.

377A is indeed an approaching train. The Court of Appeal has said already that legal standard does exist (which is a good thing).

Upholding legal standard means that at some point in time in the future, it will have to rule that the law is unconstitutional if the Government chooses not to do anything about it.

Knowing that the risk of it being struck down in the future is real, and the consequences that will follow, do we really want the Government to do nothing, wait for the train to crash, and we become casualties?

The Court enforces laws without regard to social norms or value. This, we need to be clear.

We have seen in many places like India, Taiwan and the US, where challenges are brought before the court and same sex marriages legalised in this way.

The result is hostility and friction between opposing groups, and a deeply divided society.

If the Government does nothing and allow the same the thing that happened elsewhere happen in Singapore, our society will fray.

What many fear is that the character of our society will change after the repeal. This fear is addressed by the amendment to the Constitution to protect the definition of heterosexual marriage.

Some will be sad at the repeal. Some will be angry. Some will be disappointed. What you can do and must do is to channel your energy to build strong families in the traditional definition.

The WP had a debate among themselves but did not adopt a party position.

6 out of 9 WP MPs supported repeal. 2 of them who supported repeal, did not support the Amendments to the Constitution which would give Parliament the right to define marriage.

Excerpt from Minister K Shanmugam's speech:

Articles 156 (3)(b) and (4) are the operating provisions.

They protect the ability of Parliament and Government to make laws and policies.

𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝟏𝟓𝟔 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬’ 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 (𝟏) 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 (𝟐) 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

Ms Lim’s and Ms He’s position would mean that they accept that the courts can strike down the heterosexual definition of marriage, or to curtail the ability of Parliament and Government to make laws and policies based on this definition, and for society to live with the consequences after that.

377A: WP runs away from taking a position in contentious issues

 

The Whip is about the voting system. It in no way prevents any MPs from speaking their views.

MPs are free to speak their minds but when it comes to voting, they have to vote according to the party position. And the party position represents the policy direction the party has decided upon.

The PAP Govt had consulted various organisations and individuals over the years on 377A. There were more against repealing before until now where most are more conciliatory about it.

There is an urgency to protect our way of life with regards to a marriage between man and woman plus all issues surrounding it.

If the Courts came to a decision FIRST that 377A goes against our constitution or law, the Govt would not be able to stop what comes next.

So as a GOVERNMENT, the PAP has to MAKE A UNITED STAND on the repeal even though some of their MPs are against it.

Why?

Because a Govt has to make a firm decision and follow through. It cannot leave it to individual votes to carry out reforms or policy change that the Executive, having done all due diligence through engagements and consultations, have decided upon.

What’s good for Singapore cannot be based on an MP’s individual preference or bias. It has to be through studies and detailed considerations, devoid of extreme emotive and religious leanings. Hence the PAP MPs need to unite in their stand despite their differing opinions.

By lifting the whip, Pritam not only shows a weakness in his leadership of his team but also on his inability to make hard decisions for Singapore’s future. Imagine a WP Govt that leaves every policy decision to individual votes rather than an expertly considered direction already made. Singapore will no longer be nimble and decisive, and we will have an ineffective government. A stalled parliament is not a joke for a country with no natural resources.

Finally, if Pritam Singh had used the phrase “It’s your call” in this instant, we will all know that he meant it the way the dictionary meaning intended it to be.

Repeal of 377A, the definition of marriage and family, education, etc

 

Once again, the PAP Government shows that it does not flinch from its reponsibility.

377A had seen 4 challenges in the Supreme Court. At the 4th challenge this year, CJ Sundaresh Menon said that it was 'unenforceable in its entirety'.

What happens to a law that cannot be enforced? It will get struck down eventually, right?

If 377A is struck down in court, things are going to become very ugly as marriage gets challenged in court on the same ground as 377A, and along with it, many other policies.

This you need to understand, folks who are unhappy with the repeal. You don't want all these ugliness. You don't want these challenges in court. Imagine if a challenge against marriage is successful, same sex marriage will be recognised - not because of a law passed by Parliament but because the Court rules it so.

There are accusations that the PAP Government is doing this for votes. How can it be? There are more votes to lose than to gain by doing this.

It is politically expedient not to do anything but as Law Minister Shanmugam said, Parliament is not doing its job if it does not act because of fear or a lack of will.

Such issues, as PM Lee pointed out, are political issues to be decided by Parliament, not left to the Court. Lawyers and judges interpret and apply the law. That's what they are trained to do: what does the law say, how does the law apply in this instance, etc.

The PAP is finding a way forward for Singapore without the mess that you see in other countries.

The PAP Government has said that they will maintain the prevailing family structure and values. There will be no change.

If you want same sex marriage, you have to change the government first.

As long as the PAP is in government, there will be no change to prevailing family structure and values, and therefore no change to policies (housing, education, advertising standards, film classification) that take reference from this structure.

Any group or political party that wants to push for same-sex marriage will have to put that in their manifesto, win elections first and then change the definition of marriage, says Law Minister Shanmugam.

Education policies will be anchored on prevailing values on family and marriage.

MOE said in a press statement:

1. Our schools and institutions of higher learning must remain safe spaces for the pursuit of knowledge, and not become places for advocacy or contestation on socially divisive issues.

Singapore's family and social norms must continue to be determined by Singaporeans. Foreign institutions and foreigners should respect these norms, and not use our educational institutions as platforms for their own agendas.

3. Sexuality education taught in our educational institutions will remain secular, based on traditional values, and sensitive to the multiracial and multireligious make-up of our society.

4. All students will learn and practice values such as mutual understanding, respect, and empathy for everyone.

Bullying and cancel culture must not take root in our educational institutions and society. Our educational institutions will continue to partner parents to guide our children, and provide counselling and socio-emotional support to all students according to their needs.

MCI affirms the Government's position that the repeal of s377A will not change the tone of society. LGBT media content will continue to warrant higher age rating.