He Ting Ru supports 377A repeal: ‘I don’t believe we should have a law that’s plainly & obviously discriminatory’

Workers’ Party MP He Ting Ru underlined the need for respect, empathy, and open dialogue between Singaporeans who may hold to differing points of view in her speech in Parliament concerning Section 377A of the Penal Code on Tuesday (Nov 29).

Ms He (Sengkang GRC) voiced support for the repeal, but like WP chair Sylvia Lim she said she has reservations about proposed amendments to the Constitution, which she said may appear to functionally shield the section from judicial review.

Section 377A of the Penal Code criminalizes sexual intercourse between consenting male adults. It is a holdover from the country’s colonial history. India, which had a similar law, has since declared it unconstitutional in 2018. It remains, however, in the Penal Codes of Bangladesh, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

“I do not believe that we should have a law in the books that is plainly and obviously discriminatory,” Ms He said, adding that “it sends a signal that one segment of society is so morally reprehensible that their identity should be considered criminal, even if it is only on paper. 

It excuses discriminatory behaviour, and contradicts the pledge we take, as citizens of Singapore, to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality.”

She also said that not repealing 377A at this point “would be at odds with steps that Singapore is taking to be a fairer and more equitable society for all, and will go against the principles behind the Government’s welcome announcement that we will finally legislate against discrimination.”

Ms He added that she believes “the repeal of 377A plays its part in our move towards a more inclusive society.”

However, the MP, a lawyer, will abstain from voting to amend the constitution, saying that the “proposed amendments carve out an area of legislative decision-making and functionally shields it from judicial review.”

She said that the proposed articles prevent laws and policies relating to the heterosexual definition of marriage from being challenged in Court, causing her some concern.

“I note that the Singapore Courts have always been conscious of the concept of parliamentary sovereignty – giving precedence to the lawmaking function of Parliament, and are ever cognizant of not overstepping the line into judicial law-making,” she added.

“Perhaps in taking fright at the ‘phantom menace’ of judicial activism, we may be losing sight of a more fundamental principle: that the judiciary should be the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of legislation, and has an important role in safeguarding the fundamental liberties protected therein.” /TISG

Maybe not ‘missing in action?’ Some opposition have supported 377A repeal as far back as 2007