S377A Debates — A Foreboding Joy

All opinions here are my own and do not represent any organisation or publication I work for.

Mr Speaker, Sir. The speeches in Parliament, today on Section 377A could not be any more polarising.

And while some were empathetic towards the discrimination faced by our fellow gay Singaporeans, I cannot help but observe that, even when in agreement, allies in this House cannot set aside their misgivings and regard this ruling for what it truly is: a celebration. 

Others clutch their metaphorical pearls in worry over hypothetical situations, completely missing the point of today's debate. That equality for all Singaporeans should and must be given without conditions. 

And while it is but a democratic function these debates, it nonetheless saddens me deeply to see parliamentarians use the pulpit not as a platform for upholding tenets of equality but as a podium to monger fear. 

They worry that the repeal will pave the way for the definition of marriage to change. They fear their religious representatives won't be allowed to address the congregation and preach hate towards the LGBTQ community under the guise of doctrine. 

They worry that their way of life as they know it will change. It matters little that their insistence that everything remains absolutely status quo brings irreparable harm to the Singaporeans they pretend to stand up for but whose rights they wish to curtail. 

Such is the sad state of the speeches I see unfolding today in these hallowed halls. 

Fortunately, I do not stand here today like all my other parliamentarian friends who have, thus far, not been able to see the type of progress the country is moving towards. 

As a nation, we are progressive in many ways—a ready adoption of technology, our openness to business opportunities, and an education pathway that depends less and less on academic excellence. Crypto. 

Yet, we can't see how this repeal, this move to undo a law that unjustly and blatantly discriminates against a particular group of individuals, is the exact type of progressiveness that would finally bring this country in line with the rest of the modern world. 

Our failure to celebrate the untangling of the uncomfortable legal truce we hang over the head of gay men, Singaporean men, who are merely being their authentic selves is, in a word, shameful. 

Why are we not permitting ourselves to rejoice? Why do we insist on worrying and fearing hypotheticals that, absent evidence, is but a figment of a fertile, overactive imagination? Has this House collectively lost its mind?

Mr Speaker, sir. Perhaps we can take pearls of wisdom from Vulnerability researcher Brene Brown, who says that true courage comes when we take a risk without knowing the outcome. 

She asserts that true courage means showing up and letting yourself be seen, despite the risk. 

When you show up this way, Ms Brown adds, you open yourself up to joy and connection, but you can only do it by accepting that there could be pain.

This pain that Ms Brown intones is perhaps the familiar ache I feel for gay Singaporean men tuning in to the live stream of today's debates and watching as Mr Shanmugam, with nary an expression of empathy, refers to this situation as a 'problem'. 

Mr Speaker, Sir, the homosexual community is not a problem. 

Mr Shanmugam also mentioned managing the 'negative consequences' of this repeal. By that, does he mean the now unbridled freedom that gay men in Singapore should have been afforded by default and without conditions?

When he talks about the repeal of 377A as 'perpetuating differences', did he also conveniently forget the many instances where the PAP and the populace were at extreme ends of agreement? The implantation of GST comes to mind, yet that perpetuating difference seems less of a problem than that of 377A, which stigmatises a select group of citizens. 

What's even sadder than pretences is the way both sides of the political aisle weaponised the debates for political clout. MP for Mountbatten SMC, Mr Lim Biao Chuan, mentioned the term "militant homosexuals" in his speech.

I would posit instead that the real militant in the debate of this repeal are the PAP and the Workers Party, who, both freely and without an iota of shame, used the day's debates as a way to say, "I am better than you."

Mr Speaker, sir, answer me honestly. Is this really about the votes? Do Parliamentarians think that the gay community in Singapore can be tossed around and moved on the chessboard of public opinion for political gains?

Still, I cannot deny the joy I feel in watching MPs quake in their boots in worry that, in the words of Mr Shanmugam, the fabric of society will be torn rent asunder if the repeal is not approached correctly. The minister does have a way with colourful idioms, condescending as it comes across. 

I express joy, not from schadenfreude but because, for the first time, ministers in this house care, fear even, what the electorate may think. They worry about a liberal blowback from a group of people whose motivations are powerful enough to influence a majority. If ministers in this House believe that this repeal has that much power over the government's ideals of family, then maybe the problem is not the gay community. 

All this worry is, in no small ways, proof that democracy is working. This is what democracy looks like, and anything that blocks such attempts is an assault on the very instruments we hold dear.

Mr Speaker, Sir. History will look back on the debates of these two days with utmost disgust. It's a stain on this House that no amount of backpedalling or Forward SG consultations can erase. Two decades and four GEs later, Singaporeans would look back today and see a House divided on every person's birthright to equality and collectively united on homophobia. 

The nation would not soon forget the shameful debacle on display today.