Singapore’s Parliament: A Whipped Tale of Repeal
In a whirlwind of speeches that stretched almost ten hours over two days, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam made a clear point: “The PAP’s whip was the single factor that tipped the scales for the repeal of colonial‑era Section 377A.” The whip, he said, is nothing more than the party’s official stance—purely a voting cue, not a debate directive.
Honest Voices, No Wap‑Out
Shanmugam reminded parliamentarians that MPs are free to voice their true opinions—no sugar‑coating, no jade‑policy mumbling. “Those who spoke on the floor reflected the concerns, fears, and pain of the people who talk to them daily,” he said. He stressed that “all sides of the conversation—one could call them the rainbow spectrum—have been, and must continue to be, fully aired by PAP MPs.”
Voter Roll: The Big Numbers
All PAP MPs in attendance swung the vote decisively toward repeal. The Bill passed with 93 in favour and a lone 3‑vote dissent.
- Reversal of Section 377A: 93 affirmative, 3 votes against.
- Constitutional amendment protecting the current definition of marriage (Article 156): 85 votes in favour.
Who Stayed on the Sidelines?
Three MPs voted against the repeal:
- Gerald Giam (Workers’ Party)
- Dennis Tan (Workers’ Party)
- Hoon Hian Teck (Nominated MP)
Two non‑constituency MPs opposed the constitutional amendment:
- Hazel Poa (Progress Singapore Party)
- Leong Mun Wai (Progress Singapore Party)
Two WP MPs chose to abstain, signifying a ‘no‑decision’ stance:
- Sylvia Lim (Workers’ Party)
- He Ting Ru (Workers’ Party)
Bottom Line
When the whip was put down, the parliament groveered quietly for change—citing honest debate, the voices of the people, and a chorus of majority votes. The result? Section 377A has been repealed and a new clause safeguarding marriage rolls through Parliament with salt‑level confidence.
Shanmugam: WP did not want to make a stand on Section 377A
The Workers’ Party Takes a Stand on the 377A Debate
In a lively session at Parliament on Monday (November 28), WP leader Pritam Singh told lawmakers that his party would lift the whip for both the discussion and voting on the controversial Bills. The idea? Let every member vote freely—especially those who disagree with the repeal of Section 377A.
Why “Free” Voting Matters
Pritam argued that Singapore’s views on this issue are varied. If MPs keep the whip, it could blur Parliament’s democratic value, preventing voices that see the law as a matter of deep religious belief from being heard.
- “Not lifting the whip would deny WP MPs the freedom to vote against the repeal,” he said.
- He added that this would also mean those MPs couldn’t represent Singaporeans who feel strongly about the issue.
Shanmugam’s Counterpoint
Shanmugam shot back, labeling Pritam’s explanations as “factually untrue.” He said the real issue was that WP hasn’t taken a firm stance on whether to support or oppose Section 377A.
When pressed about repealing the law, he said it’s the “right thing to do,” and that the courts might even strike down the law, which could lead to major, disruptive consequences for the nation.
Will Politicians Ride the Train?
Using a train analogy, Shanmugam questioned Parliamentarians: do they have the courage to step forward, or will they just “dive for cover” and let society face the “train wreck”?
He cited a recent debate within WP where the party never decided on a clear position. “If this is how a governing team decides, how can it run the country?” he reiterated.
Only the PAP Has a Clear Course
Wrapping up, Shanmugam pointed out that Parliament can only move forward with a decision because the PAP retains its whip. The rest, the Workers’ Party remains uncertain.
‘WP MPs behaved like loyal opposition’
When a Voice Gets Misread
Pritam didn’t hold back when he hit the floor of Parliament to reply to Secretary‑General Shanmugam’s comments. “The so‑called former official got his words all wrong,” he quipped, setting the record straight.
It Was All About the 2019 Divide
- 19‑year‑old policy confusion: Pritam reminded everyone that his remarks were rooted in the Workers’ Party’s position back in 2019.
- “Varied and divided” reality: At that time there was no consensus on scrapping Section 377A; opinions were as mixed as a Malaysian dessert platter.
Whip‑free Wednesdays
He pointed out that the WP MPs had raised the baton—no roll‑call—giving each member a chance to vote with their own conscience. “This is how we keep the ‘Workers’ Party of Singapore in sync with Singaporeans outside the House,” he said, adding, “Not partisan loyalty, but believer‑in‑Singaporean‑values loyalty.”
Faisal Manap’s Catch‑22
With Mr. Faisal “Manap” down with Covid‑19, the WP caucus still stayed poised to put their personal stances on record. Even without him in the room, the WP MPs flowed like a well‑tuned orchestra—no need for a whip to keep everyone in time.
Why ’Lift’ the Whip, Why Not?
He asked Shanmugam directly: “Why did the PAP lift the whip for some bills, but leave others intact?” Pritam recalled a flashback to the Abortion Bill of 1969. “Even Mr. Lee Kuan Yew rose, spoke, but was absent at the voting—does that make us feel like he was shirking his duties?”
He went on to suggest that for both the Abortion Bill and the current bills being debated, the PAP should have used public policy as a rationale for holding the whip in place. “The PAP lifted it anyway; can the minister clarify whether there’s a pattern or just a one‑off?”
Bottom Line
In a nutshell, Pritam’s rebuttal was a mix of effort to scrub his record clean, assurance that the WP remains fiercely independent, and a critical probe into the PAP’s whip‑strategy—everything served with a dash of humor and a touch of heart.
Shanmugam: Repealing Section 377A is a ‘policy question’
Singapore’s Parliament Grapples with the Repeal of Section 377A
In a spirited floor‑talk, Minister Shanmugam waved his parliamentary whip to keep MPs on track about the controversial Section 377A. The move was prompted by Pritam’s request for clarification, and the minister quickly highlighted that the whip was a strict policy tool, not a mere formality.
“We’re not going to bail out”
Shanmugam stressed that keeping Section 377A in the books would effectively be the government “passing the buck” to the courts. “If we won’t repeal it then we’re admitting that we’re not doing what we’re supposed to do,” he said, warning that withdrawing the whip could free the parliament from its responsibilities.
Societal stakes at play
Beyond the immediate legal debate, the minister warned that letting go of the whip might leave other crucial policies—anything from housing to education—exposed to the same wild swings. Shanmugam expressed concerns that a public clash over marriage definitions could “tear society asunder” if it were taken to court.
History of the whip: The 1969 abortion bill
When asked about the whip’s removal once again, Shanmugam pointed to the 1969 abortion bill as a previous example. At that time, MPs acted on personal conscience and heavy ethical considerations, which led the party to withdraw the whip. The minister described that situation as “a matter of individual conscience at that point in time and had raised very serious personal concerns.”
Lee Kuan Yew caution
Shanmugam advised Pritam not to bring up the former prime minister in the debate. “I was not in Parliament when Mr Lee Kuan Yew gave his abortion speech,” he clarified. “We should not draw conclusions just from who was present. If I were Mr Singh, I’d be careful about linking Mr Lee to any allegations of dishonor.”
In response, Pritam firmly denied ever in any context portraying Lee Kuan Yew as dishonorable.
What’s next?
- The whips are still tightly held, ensuring MPs stay aligned on the controversial repeal.
- Experts predict that the debate will continue to ripple beyond legalese into everyday societal matters.
- Stay tuned for more twists as class action and constitutional issues play out on the parliamentary floor.
Bottom line: Singapore’s Parliament is playing a high‑stakes political game. If the whip lands, the world of law, ethics, mateship, and marriage could see a gripping showdown—so keep your eyes peeled.
