Jamus Lim

Mr Speaker, as Members of this House executing our duties in Parliament, we simultaneously hold three distinct identities. We are, first and foremost, representatives of the people that voted for us. In my view, this is our utmost responsibility, to properly capture and reflect the views of our constituents. Second, we are members of a political party who were likewise elected to formulate policies for our nation. For the Workers' Party, our mandate as a loyal opposition is to provide alternative views and constructive critique of the ruling party's ideas and proposals. And third, we are of course individuals who carry our own beliefs and convictions.

Rarely is there confluence in these three identities, which results in us having to make a reasonable effort at balancing between different preferences and exercising compromise. But this is not necessarily as difficult as it sounds. For esoteric bills, our electorate often expects us to do our homework and choose what is in the best interests of the country at large. Hence, they may not hew to strongly held views of their own. At other times, there are bipartisan consensus on how best to proceed. And so our interventions in Parliament are limited to flagging points of concern, but the Workers' Party nevertheless votes alongside the ruling party.

In matters such as the repeal of Section 377A and the attendant proposed constitutional amendments, however, it will appear that it is not only an intractable divide between the different interests that we represent, but our own personal convictions may play a role in the choices that we are forced to make. In my speech, I wish to explain why I believe that these disparate views can be reconciled and how this leads me to vote the way that I will.

In the many letters written to me by the residents of Sengkang, those that have expressed their concern over the repeal of Section 377A have almost uniformly cited their reservations over how such a repeal would open the floodgates to revisions to the traditionalist interpretation of marriage. This concern has not only been limited to those who are more religiously inclined. I have spoken to residents who would otherwise hold no strong views on Section 377A, nevertheless underscore their wish that the heterosexual definition of marriage be somehow protected. To be clear, this is a prospective fear, one based on how the repeal of 377A is a slippery slope. Once the law is removed, the floodgates are opened and all manner of permissive laws become possible.

In contrast, 377A is currently on the books and its consenting relations between two men is currently a crime. This is no longer prospective but real. In principle, a man engaged in same-sex sexual relations could be jailed if the strict letter of the law were to be followed. The repeal decision is thus a trade-off between the removal of a tangible, actual threat of imprisonment versus a perceived potential concern over how repeal could undermine marriage. It seems clear to me that there is not and cannot be a genuine equivalence between the two.

Now, the usual pushback behind claims that 377A constitutes an actual violation of the law is that 377A is not enforced and, on the basis of court judgments, will not be unless otherwise instructed by the Attorney-General. This suggests that the article is merely a relic, one that has no bite and hence any fear is similarly ephemeral. Why not the existing status quo then? It is true that the courts have previously ruled that 377A would not be prosecuted and even so sexual relations between men remains on the books an arrestable offence. Think about what this means when the status of the rule of law in our country, if we insist on instituting laws that simultaneously do not matter in practice, how many more de jure issues also would not matter de facto? If we wish to make a slippery slope argument, this strikes me as a far slipperier one.

Furthermore, we should recognise that even an unenforced law can have effects on individuals and society. Think of the symbolism behind what the law, or any law, implies. Suppose for a moment that there was a law prohibiting relationships between individuals of different races and further suppose that a similar legal precedent and political compromise exists in that those who are in such a miscagenated relationship are assured that they will never be prosecuted. It is a hypothetical, but is it fair to expect those who are in a mixed race relationship to accept the assurance that such a sword of democles hanging over their relationship doesn't really mean anything?

To take the argument further, should we expect that individuals will feel that they are a fair and equal part of society when society has deigned it permissible to have a law that even while unenforced nevertheless explicitly condemns their behaviour? Can we expect such individuals to truly feel that they are accepted as a part of Singaporean society? When Singaporean law declares them to be criminals?

Some would suggest that Singapore is different. We are an Eastern society with different cultural mores and practices. They argue that 377A amounts to bringing in the polarization and cultural wars so prevalent in the seemingly dysfunctional democracies of the West back home. I agree that Singapore is different. Our cultural norms skew toward greater social conservatism and society stresses compromise for the sake of harmony rather than the contentious and often raucous activism favoured by civil society and activism in the West. But an untenable status quo, however entrenched, does not imply that all is well under the surface. For those who keenly feel the yoke of discrimination, suggesting that we should keep things the way that they have always been, simply because that's how it's always been, is more than simply benign neglect. It is an insult to the plight, to the burden that they have been bearing, perhaps silently until now.

It's like telling a prisoner that their desire for freedom is an attempt to stir up unrest while they're in jail. As a man attracted to the opposite sex, I can never fully empathize what it means to develop feelings for someone of the same gender. But when I was a hot-blooded teenager, I had a dear friend who turned out to be gay explain to me what his world was like. The analogy has stayed with me ever since. Just imagine, he said, if the way you feel about women, the strong, unrelenting attraction that you've when you first meet, the wish to share one's most innermost thoughts and feelings with them, the deep desire to be with the person for the rest of your life, imagine if all that was not the natural order of things. Imagine that society deemed my attraction to women as not just aberrant, but also judged intimate expressions of my love to be criminal.

This isn't too far from other historical legacies where the law deemed certain forms of love to be illegal. Recently, in the 1960s, interracial relationships were limited in some form in as many as 31 US states, as it was in Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. But I'm not equating the two.

My point is that my own relationship, as well as that of my parents, which occurred between different ethnicities, would have fallen afoul of the law. The usual retort to such scenarios is that it's contrived. Humans are not animals, and after all, we can always exercise self-restraint. Some argue that because same-sex attraction is ultimately psychological, it can be overturned with intervention and counselling. Perhaps.

I'm not here to question the natural biological order, which I respect. After all, it is a physiological reality that asexual reproduction among mammals is impossible, and hence the male-female pairing is necessary to ensure the continuation of these species. Even so, for certain individuals, such attractions are deeply embedded in what may be regarded as innate, biologically-led behaviour. For these reasons, I support the repeal of the discriminatory law that is 377A.

Even so, I also cannot ignore how many in our Asian society continue to equate marriage and partnership to one between a man and a woman. This view is held not only by those who are religious, by which I mean not just groups that have been more vocal about traditional marriage, such as evangelical Christians and Muslims, but based on my conversations with residents in Sengkang and beyond, also those who do not strongly profess any faith.

For these Singaporeans, the fact that marriage must involve a union between a man and a woman goes beyond a legally binding contractual relationship. It is a fundamental belief, a worldview. This sense is so deeply ingrained that they are not only unable to accept the principle of same-sex marriage. For them, were such marriages to become recognised, they, perhaps paradoxically, would feel that society is no longer representative of who they are. But some may even go as far as to feel that it has turned against them.

It is secondary that heterosexual norms remain the firm majority. Many will feel a sense of exclusion and victimhood. So it turns out this worldview is remarkably pervasive. While I do not have comprehensive data, I have had many conversations over the course of the past few months, and I would be willing to venture that a significant majority of Singaporeans, including those in Sengkang, including otherwise liberal-minded spirits, and even including those who are otherwise sympathetic about the repeal of 377A, carry this perspective close to their hearts.

It is important that we do not dismiss this worldview as emanating from an oppressive majority finally receiving their comeuppance. This is because I actually believe that such sentiments, even if some may argue are seemingly misplaced, are indeed genuine. When I was a teenager, I took my Christian faith very seriously, to a point where I even harboured ambitions to be a missionary. While I am no longer as zealous today as I was, I can fully empathise with how it is like to hold fast to a set of tenets and beliefs that so completely shape one's worldview that it would be wholly inconceivable to not expect that challenges to it would not be met with visceral resistance.

To reiterate, this is not a sentiment that is limited to those that are religious. It is one that is accepted by broad segments of Singaporean society, almost to the point where it is regarded as self-evident among these groups. And to those within this group, their sense of identity and meaning have as much tied to heteronormativity as those who identify as homosexual tie theirs otherwise.

Just as important, threats to these identities affect their behaviours and their welfare. It is for this reason that I do not see a decision to alter the Constitution as essentially a compromise for merely the sake of political expediency, necessary for the repeal of 377A. Rather it is a manner by which the State will echo what society as a whole believes in.

Prime Minister Lee had explained in his National Day speech that challenges via the judicial system were becoming more insistent and that we do not wish to go down the dangerous road of judicial activism. He also explained why decisions on the repeal of 377A and perhaps more importantly constitutional amendments should be determined in the legislature. He was articulating in this specific instance the principle of de facto parliamentary sovereignty, a notion that others have observed also applies to Singapore. As Workers' Party Chair, Sylvia Lim, has articulated, there may be potential legal lacunae that passing such a constitutional amendment may entail.

I am also aware that the amendment will continue to discriminate, albeit to a lesser extent, against those who wish to normalise their same-sex relationship, especially in matters of public policy. This question of jurisprudence, where I am very sympathetic to the views of Ms Lim, is important and a concern. But even accepting this argument, I believe that there remains a strong justification for ensuring that deliberation of matters of broad societal concern occur within the forum designed for such matters, which is this House.

I will also explain why I believe that a social institution such as marriage may reasonably be included in a foundational document such as the Constitution. Keeping in mind that representative democracy will always be imperfect, it is nevertheless the closest system we have that reasonably aggregates our preferences of our people at large. And in our time, the significant majority of Singaporeans have articulated their preference for a clear reassurance that the institution of marriage be protected.

Could this justify a constitutional amendment then? From my perspective, I do not see why not. Constitutions are live documents meant, as Thomas Jefferson once said, to serve the present generation, to embody the rights of nature, of society and of government. These are essential principles of constitutional design. Many constitutions embed rights of association. Consequently, I believe that it is reasonable that our Singaporean constitution captures the key institutions that our society cherishes, which includes this cornerstone institution of marriage.

Mr Speaker, as Members of Parliament, I believe that it is paramount that we carry out our duties of representation faithfully, echoing to the best of our ability the views of the majority of our constituents, even when this position may differ from what we individually may hold. It is in this light that I see a vote in favour of a constitutional amendment that codifies the institution of marriage as a reflection of the conversations I have had with my many diverse constituents on this matter.

Keen observers will nevertheless note that constitutional amendments that were proposed, however, merely refer to how the legislature may define marriage, leaving the specific definition indeterminate. Should the amendments be more specific then? This is where I depart from those who would go further, those who are asking for a heterosexual definition of marriage to be hard-coded into the constitution. In contrast to the more fundamental notion of the institution of marriage, its definition does not strike me as an unwavering principle that belongs to a constitution. It is therefore appropriate that such a definition be clarified only in subsidiary legislation, subject to change by the people of the contemporary time.

Almost two centuries ago, the French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville documented his observations on the den-nacent state of democracy in the United States. He shared his admiration for the democratic project as it unfolded in America. Even so, he pointed to an inherent tension in the power of democratic majority opinion. In particular, he highlighted what he observed to be the tyranny of the majority.

Tocqueville did not much propose a resolution to this conundrum beyond suggesting, like his contemporary English philosopher John Stuart Mill, that appropriate respect for individualism and liberty could offer a way out of this conundrum. Importantly, these thinkers believed that it was vital for each society to arrive at their own definition of the limits that public opinion would have over individual lives.

One could argue that democratic republics, of which Singapore is one, are practical manifestations of this compromise between individual rights and popular opinion. We stand today at a similar precipice, albeit in our own little red dot. The way I see it, the repeal of 377A is the way that our society respects these individual rights, while enshrining the institution of marriage within the constitution is how we respect the values of the majority.

Hence, the decision we make today is not solely about political compromise, as so many have suggested. It is also about striking the balance between the principles of individualism and majoritarianism. As a republic, we are required to do right by our people. We have it right there in our pledge, a commitment to justice and equality, which is why fundamentally discriminatory laws such as 377A should no longer be allowed to stand. But at the same time, our commitment to, also in our pledge, build a democratic society, calls on us to affirm our common values, such as marriage, that make us one united people.

That is why I will vote yes to both of these amendments today.