By Andrew Loh
“The WP is worse,” says a comment on Yawning Bread. The person was referring to the issue of section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises gay sex between men. “[At] least the PAP talked about it,” the comment says, referring to the People’s Action Party (PAP).
Alex Au, the writer and owner of Yawning Bread, himself said he is “more and more convinced that so long as either the People’s Action Party or the Workers’ Party dominate Parliament” he expects no legislative changes to s377A. “Neither party has courage on social issues that can in any way be classed as ‘liberal’”, he says.
One would tend to agree with Alex, given that both the PAP and the WP have chosen to support the status quo.
While the PAP have been criticised by some for lacking in leadership on the issue, others are starting to point the finger at the Workers’ Party (WP) for taking no position on a matter which has consistently been in the spotlight in recent times. In short, both parties have chosen to cop-out of the matter.
“WP is for a caring society and believes that social justice must be intrinsic to the concept of government,” the Workers’ Party election manifesto of 2011 says. “It also recognizes that Singapore is a multicultural society and everyone should be treated equally.”
Yet, in spite of what its own manifesto declares, WP chairman Sylvia Lim has reiterated several times the party’s position which it has adhered to since 2007. At a WP forum in February 2007, on amendments to the Penal Code which was being considered by the Government, Mr Roy Tan, a gay activist, reported that “Sylvia Lim said the party ‘was split over whether they should embrace our 'liberal views' and thus would not be pushing or even bringing up the issue in Parliament.’”
In October the same year, Ms Lim spoke on the amendments to the Penal Code in Parliament:
“Sir, the Workers' Party leadership, several months ago, discussed extensively the issue of whether section 377A should be retained or repealed. After much deliberation, we were unable to arrive at a consensus that it should be repealed and, as such, we would not be calling for its abolition.” (Link)
She repeated the party’s stance in February 2011, “We have no position on this.”
One general election has taken place since and on 12 August the WP elected a new Central Executive Council (CEC). However, as the Straits Times reported, “the line-up of the new central executive council (CEC) is almost exactly the same as the previous incarnation, with no new faces.”
It is thus likely that the party will retain its status quo position on s377A. But such a position may increasingly become untenable, especially to the more liberal segments of society, in particular the younger Singaporeans and the more vocal gay community. The WP’s position, or non-position, will attract the same criticism as the PAP’s has – that it lacks certainty of leadership on sensitive social issues.
With Mr Tan Eng Hong’s case now going to trial, serious questions of the constitutionality of s377A will be raised, questions which go right to the heart of citizens’ right to be treated equally under the law.
In handing down its judgement on Tan’s appeal on 20 August, the Court of Appeal said “[there] is a real and credible threat of prosecution under s377A” and that s377A “affects the lives of a not insignificant portion of our community in a very real and intimate way.” This despite the Government’s assurances that s377A will not be “proactively” enforced, which itself was contradicted by the arrest and charging of Mr Tan under s377A originally, which is now the issue for the trial.
“This judgment is nothing less than earth-shattering for the LGBT community,” Sayoni reported of the Court of Appeal’s decision. “For the first time, the Courts have acknowledged the existence of the gay person, and the gay community, and their interests. Furthermore, for the first time, they have acknowledged that s377A is ‘alive and kicking’, and has effects on the community beyond that of direct enforcement.”
No doubt the PAP and the WP will look to the final outcome of Mr Tan’s case before deciding on their next steps, or consider a change in their positions.
The irony, perhaps, is that it might take a court case to compel the two political parties which have regularly spoke of an “inclusive society” and how that “everyone should be treated equally”, to change their position.
For the WP, in particular, it needs to step up and be more bold in providing leadership, especially on matters which might not be of concern to the average Singaporean but which are no less important. After all, does not the WP speak of a First World Parliament? One would therefore think that MPs of such a Parliament would not cop-out of difficult issues and bury their heads in the sand, while the law is used to criminalise Singaporeans simply for being who they are.
For now, it seems Singaporeans are the ones who are fighting for their rights, while our parliamentarians, including the opposition MPs, prefer to be spectators instead of providing that much needed leadership. [Mr Tan is potentially facing bankruptcy if he loses his case.]
5 years after Ms Lim announced the WP’s “no position” on s377A in Parliament, perhaps it is time the party took a stance – either way – even as it aims to become the next government of Singapore, a goal which it also states in its manifesto. Singaporeans of all persuasions, including the gay community, deserves and have the right to know its position on the matter.
It is time for the WP to take a stance, and not cop-out.