Lawrence Wong & Edwin Tong on potential political cost of 377A repeal: ‘Not how we look at the issue'

CNA's Tan Si Hui (SH): Now with the decision to repeal Section 377A, do you think there is a political price to pay for the government and for the People's Action Party?

Wong: That's not how we look at the issue. I have been in public service long enough to know that in government, you can't please everyone all the time, you have to focus on doing what is right.

In this case, as we have explained, we are trying to do a limited, controlled repeal of S377A and to achieve a new balance that reflects societal attitudes while preserving unity. We are limiting the change to what we believe most Singaporeans will accept, which is to decriminalise sexual relations between consenting adults in private.

I believe that [the repeal] is the right thing to do, and that most Singaporeans will understand and support such a move. At the same time, we are retaining and upholding what most Singaporeans want, which is to uphold our current family and social norms. So we believe this package of moves is the right balance to strike.

I know not everyone will be happy with this proposal. Some will want us to move further, others will say that we are going too far. But in the end, the government has to make a judgment and do what we believe is right for the wider good of Singapore and Singaporeans.

And I would say that in a society like ours, where there are diverse and sometimes opposing views, it is not possible for any single group to have everything that they want. We have to learn to compromise to arrive at solutions which most people are comfortable with and can live harmoniously together. That is the "Singapore way" – that is how we have dealt with sensitive issues in the past, that is how we are dealing with this issue now, and that is how we can continue to deal with sensitive issues going forward while keeping our social fabric intact.

SH: Why not hold a referendum on the repeal of S377A?

Wong: The Constitution states that a referendum is required only when sovereignty is at stake. As all of us know, in Singapore’s history, we have only had a referendum once, on the merger with Malaya. So, the bar for a referendum is set very high, and repealing S377A is very far from reaching this bar, because we are repealing a law which the Courts have already said we cannot enforce.

And even as we go about repealing the law, we are taking steps to ensure that the current family and social norms do not change. We are taking further steps to make sure that this repeal does not trigger further societal changes. So, we believe this certainly does not meet the bar for a referendum.

In any case, for those who think that having a referendum will provide resolution and make things better, that may not necessarily happen. In fact, it may well have the opposite effect. Because you can just look at what other countries have done in holding referendums on sensitive issues. Take the example of Brexit or the Scottish independence in the UK – far from resolving the issue, finding closure and moving forward, these referendums have deepened divisions in their societies.

CNA‘s Tang See Kit (SK): DPM, Minister, my question is still on the protection of definition of marriage. Given how social attitudes change and evolve overtime, as DPM mentioned in an earlier response, why is the government amending the Constitution now and locking in the protection for the definition of marriage?

Edwin Tong: Well, it is correct. Societal attitudes will shift, will change with time. Values, mores will gradually evolve over time. While they are shifting at this point in time, as DPM has mentioned, Singaporeans see that it is right to decriminalise private behaviour between consenting individuals.

But at the same time, the prevailing value today is centred around the traditional stable family unit. Having children within this unit, raising children within this unit, and ensuring that the societal laws and policies support this. We do not see this changing for many years to come.

Which is why we decided to take the step to build in these safeguards to preclude further constitutional challenges like we have seen on S377A, against other social policies as well. Marriage, as a social institution, should reflect these prevailing views and we think that this is best achieved by the balanced package of amendments that I have outlined.

SK: My next question is on the impact of this repeal on other national policies. I know both ministers have stressed that there will be no major changes to these policies, but how do you prevent the cascading effect of this repeal that some conservatives in society are worried about?

Wong: Well, let me be very clear. The government will continue to uphold our family-centred policies. We are fully committed to that, and we will continue to uphold marriage as defined as between man and woman. PM himself said this very clearly in his speech – the PAP government will not change the current definition of marriage.

So this will not change, this will not happen under the watch of the current prime minister, and it will not happen under my watch – if the PAP were to win the next General Election. Likewise, we will not change the laws and policies that rely on this definition of marriage, and that relates to public housing, adoption, what we teach our children in schools, advertising standards, film classification, and so on.

Basically, the overall tone of society will not change – our laws and policies will remain the same. I know that there are some Singaporeans who are also concerned, beyond changes on laws and policies, about the excesses of activism and advocacy on both sides – pro-LGBT and anti-LGBT.

Some have given us feedback that they have been subject to discrimination or even being harassed when they speak out, and when they practise their faith and beliefs. We are monitoring this very closely and we will take action and steps against any such acts of discrimination or harassment. There is no place for such behaviours in Singapore. No one should feel threatened because of their religious affiliation. No one should be threatened because they are LGBT.

Finally, I would just urge everyone to exercise restraint and tolerance. I know these are issues that people feel a lot of emotions about, but if one side were to push too hard, the other side will push back even harder, and we will end up splitting our society. So let us instead find ways to come together, learn to compromise and accommodate each other, focus on the common ground which we share, which is significant, and continue to work at building an ever more cohesive and united society.

SK: While the current definition of marriage will be protected by the Constitution, what will the government’s response be if the LGBT community starts advocating for other legal recognition or committed relationships such as civil unions?

Wong: As I mentioned just now, we are committed to ensuring that our current family and social norms remain the same. So we do not have any plans to go further.

SK: Will the PAP lift the Whip for the debate in the Parliament for the repealing of 337A and amending the Constitution?

Wong: As I mentioned just now, what we are proposing to do pertains to a very limited, careful, and controlled repeal of 377A. In our minds, this is a matter of public policy because we are repealing a law which the Courts have already said is not going to be enforced. At the same time, even as we were to repeal this law, we are making sure that we are putting in place measures to make sure that it will not trigger further societal changes. From that point of view, this is a matter of public policy and we do not intend to lift the Whip when this matter is debated in Parliament later on.

SK: So how will the government reconcile the national position on marriage with the position taken by local and international companies? Some companies may have opted or already taken the position to recognise same-sex marriage or partners of their employees and extend traditional spousal benefits to them.

Wong: We have always emphasised that these matters are for Singapore and Singaporeans to decide. Other countries do what they wish based on their norms and circumstances, but in Singapore, we decide what our social norms are, what family and marriage is about.

And I think if you look at where we are in society, Singapore remains by and large a conservative society, and while attitudes are evolving with regard to younger people being more accepting of LGBT persons and recognising that we need not criminalise the sexual behaviours of consenting adults in private, I believe there are still many people in Singapore who care deeply about [the position on] families and marriage, and would like to keep it that way.