Shanmugam criticizes WP for lacking an official stance on 377A, questions their capability ‘if in charge’

Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam delivered his closing speech on Nov. 29 after Members of Parliament (MPs) debated the bills to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code and amend the Constitution to safeguard the definition of marriage from legal challenges.

Shanmugam: WP lacks official position on 377A Shanmugam pointed out that the Workers’ Party (WP) has no official position on the repeal of Section 377A. They neither support nor oppose the repeal and do not back the constitutional amendments to protect marriage. Shanmugam noted that WP MPs debated the issue internally but ultimately did not establish a party-wide stance. He questioned, “How will such a team function if they are in charge?”

During the final vote, two WP MPs abstained from voting on the constitutional amendment, and two voted against the repeal. WP chief Pritam Singh clarified that six of nine WP MPs supported the repeal of Section 377A, while seven supported the constitutional amendment, with two abstaining.

On lifting the whip Shanmugam also critiqued Singh’s decision to lift the party whip, which Singh described as a democratic move allowing members to express their views freely. Shanmugam countered that MPs are always entitled to express their views, even without the whip being lifted.

He argued that political parties must have a position on important national issues and be held accountable for their decisions. Shanmugam accused WP of avoiding taking a clear stand, wanting to appeal to all sides without committing to a decision. He urged Parliament members to “deal squarely with the problem” and not avoid responsibility.

Addressing concerns about cancel culture Shanmugam addressed concerns about “cancel culture,” which MPs like Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim had raised. Shanmugam emphasized that people should feel free to express their beliefs respectfully without fear of being “cancelled.” He acknowledged that religious groups have felt “bullied” when expressing their views on 377A and said the Ministry of Law is exploring measures to address the issue.

Past convictions under 377A Louis Ng raised a question about individuals with past convictions under Section 377A. Shanmugam responded that most convictions involved non-consenting acts or acts against minors, which remain illegal after the repeal. However, he noted that a small number of individuals convicted for consensual private acts between adults from 1998 to 2007 might have their records considered for being rendered spent.

Constitutional amendments and marriage definition Shanmugam also addressed concerns about the constitutional amendments to protect the definition of marriage. He explained the necessity of Article 156 to safeguard the heterosexual definition of marriage from legal challenges. Responding to WP’s Sylvia Lim and Murali Pillai, he clarified that the Article 156 provisions are carefully crafted to ensure that the heterosexual definition of marriage is constitutionally protected without overreaching.

Shanmugam concluded his speech by urging Parliament to take responsibility for difficult decisions, stating, “On this difficult matter, we will do our duty and take responsibility for holding society together.”