When PM Lawrence Wong said in 2022 that the definition of marriage would not change “under my watch if the PAP Government were to win the next General Election,” many marriage conservatives breathed a sigh of relief. That relief may have been misplaced—not just because his tone has now shifted, but because many misunderstood the original promise in the first place.
Mr Wong’s statement was never a commitment for his entire premiership, nor even for a full term. Technically speaking, it was a conditional assurance tied specifically to one election cycle.
Now, just two years later, the rhetoric has changed again. Instead of the reassuring albeit temporary certainty of 2022, we hear an open-ended, hands-off stance: “The Government’s position is to let things take its natural course“—a chilling reminder of the pragmatic moral ambivalence that characterised Lee Hsien Loong’s leadership.
PM Wong made his latest statement during a dialogue session on January 21, 2025, at the NUS Cultural Centre, at an event, organised by Reach, and Varsity Voices.
He stated that while the current societal consensus defines marriage as between a man and a woman, future perspectives may evolve. He emphasised that the government’s approach is to allow discussions to unfold organically rather than impose directives that could divide society.
This shift in rhetoric should be a warning—what was once framed as a reassurance in 2022, is now acknowledged as fluid. Even if he remains true to his initial commitment that same-sex marriage (SSM) may not happen on his watch, his watch will end someday.
The Polling Numbers That Should Worry Conservatives
Singaporeans are divided on same-sex marriage (SSM), but every survey points to growing acceptance, especially among the young.
The Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) data shows this shift in greater resolution over time. In 2018, an IPS survey found that 27% of Singaporeans supported SSM. But a 2019 IPS study revealed a generational divide: nearly six in ten young Singaporeans (18–25) believed SSM was not wrong.
This highlighted a younger cohort far more liberal than the national average.
By 2022, an Ipsos survey put overall support for SSM at 32%, with 43% of those aged 18–29 backing legalisation.
Cultivate Singapore’s Marriage, Family and Social Discourse (MFSD) survey from 2024 offers a contrasting perspective. It found that 78% of respondents overall support defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
According to Cultivate SG, even among the youngest respondents (18–24), 67% still agree with this definition, though their support is significantly lower than older generations.
The numbers between IPS, Ipsos and Cultivate SG may vary, but the trend is undeniable—support for SSM is growing. The real question is how fast.
Conservatives who assume the status quo will hold indefinitely are ignoring the obvious: younger generations are shifting, and over time, they will shape the electorate. Meanwhile, the PAP has made its position clear—it follows public sentiment, not moral conviction on this matter.
A Historical Pattern: Policy Shifts in Singapore Are Predictable
Singapore’s policy shifts are not just a matter of pragmatic evolution but also reflect the PAP’s tendency to govern with a selective moral compass.
On issues like drugs, race, and religious harmony, the government has taken firm moral positions. But when it comes to LGBTQ+ issues and other socially divisive topics, its approach is more reactive, shaped by shifting public sentiment rather than a fixed moral philosophy.
As an example, consider its permissive handling of abortion where the moral issue is unambiguous: abortion is wrong because it ends the life of an innocent human being.
In the late 1960s, The PAP not only introduced abortion in Singapore, but later liberalised it into one of the most permissive regimes in the world. Today, abortion is allowed up to 24 weeks—well beyond the point when modern science confirms that babies in the womb have beating hearts, exhibit consciousness and can feel pain.
While other nations are rolling back late-term abortion limits in light of growing medical evidence, Singapore remains one of the most extreme outliers. This is not moral leadership—it is governance by expedience, where human life is weighed against public sentiment rather than upheld as an inviolable good.
The protection of marriage today is merely a political stopgap, not a lasting commitment.
Singapore has a history of pragmatic policy reversals. The banning and subsequent legalisation of casinos, the gradual relaxation of censorship laws, and the repeal of Section 377A—each was once unthinkable, yet each was done when political conditions allowed.
In the same way, the so-called protection of marriage today is no different. It is merely a political stopgap, not a lasting commitment.
The World Has Seen This Before
Globally, this pattern has played out before. In the United States, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed in 1996 to define marriage as between a man and a woman at the federal level. It reflected public sentiment at the time, with only 27% of Americans supporting same-sex marriage. But as approval climbed past 70%, DOMA was first weakened, then fully overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013 and 2015.
A similar shift happened in majority Catholic Ireland, where public sentiment led the way. In 2015, Ireland became the first country to legalise same-sex marriage through a popular referendum, with 62% voting in favour. The government didn’t push the change—it followed the people.
Likewise, in Australia, a nationwide postal survey in 2017 saw 61.6% of respondents backing same-sex marriage, prompting Parliament to pass legislation shortly after.
In both cases, shifting societal attitudes paved the way for legal recognition, not the other way around. Statements issued by the PAP suggest it may follow a similar path—perhaps not today, but eventually.
Political Strategy: The PAP’s Calculated Moves
While some conservatives assume the PAP is their ally on this issue, its actions tell a different story. PAP MPs have been steadily shifting the Overton Window in favour of LGBT causes:
Pink Dot Attendance: PAP MPs attended both 2023 and 2024 Pink Dot events, signalling tacit approval.
PAP MP Louis Ng recently argued for the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) protections in the Workplace Fairness Bill. Had this made its way into the bill, it would have entrenched persons claiming the identity label “LGBT” as a protected class, and acted as a trojan horse for a myriad of other issues that we have all seen play out in the West, such as demands around the use of pronouns and women’s spaces, and same-sex spousal benefits.
Former Pink Dot spokesperson Deryne Sim has been sighted at PAP walkabouts, fuelling speculation that she may be fielded as a candidate. If so, this would mark a shift from merely LGBT-friendly voices to activists entering the political arena, signalling that the next Parliament could lean further in this direction.
Each of these moves proves that the PAP is not ideologically committed to preserving traditional values—it is playing a balancing act, carefully moving the country leftward while avoiding conservative backlash.
And there is little more than a precarious political promise that the government will not go back on its word—especially if opposition parties decide to opportunistically capitalise on the issue.
Don’t Overestimate the Religious Vote
Because of the consultative nature of government and various political overtures over the years, churches and Muslim communities in Singapore may assume they are a respected voting bloc. The reality is that even if combined, they form a minority in a country where pragmatism, not religious conviction, drives policy.
According to the 2020 Census, Christians make up 18.9% of the population, while Muslims account for 15.6%, totalling 34.5%—far from a dominant majority. Meanwhile, 20% of Singaporeans have no religious affiliation, a figure that continues to rise.
Moreover, not all Christians and Muslims hold firm traditional views. Many are culturally religious but have adopted progressive stances, shaped by the overwhelming influence of secular society.
Source: IPS Working Paper, RELIGION, MORALITY AND CONSERVATISM IN SINGAPORE
This shift is measurable. Between 2013 and 2018, the proportion of young Muslims (18–35 years old) who felt same-sex marriage was always wrong dropped from 78.0% to 64.6%, while those who said it was “not wrong at all” or “not wrong most of the time” grew from 4.7% to 12.4%. Among young Christians, opposition declined more modestly, from 57.5% to 53.9%, while acceptance rose from 12.5% to 14.6%.
The younger generation is not only less attached to religious teachings on marriage but is also steadily moving in a more progressive direction.
Conservatives who think their numbers alone will protect their position are dangerously mistaken.
Will Our Own Pragmatism be Used Against Us?
Besides, most Singaporeans, religious or not, vote based on immediate concerns, with the cost of living ranking as the top issue. The issue may not even be decided at the ballot box as a direct moral question—it could quietly be absorbed into a broader, pragmatic agenda, where economic and social arguments will outweigh traditional convictions.
A Blackbox Research survey recently found that 34.8% of voters rank inflation and the cost of living as their top concern, far ahead of issues like social values. Jobs, unemployment, and the economy follow closely behind.
With such a pragmatic electorate, policies affecting marriage and family can be buried within broader economic initiatives like job creation, passing with little resistance. If the government decides to expand legal recognition for same-sex unions, it may come packaged with a slew of economic or social stability benefits—making it politically palatable.
Minority Mobilisation: A Lesson from LGBT Activism
A minority can shape policy if it organises effectively. The LGBT movement in Singapore is proof. Despite being a small fraction of the population, it has gained ground because it understands how to influence culture, frame narratives, and leverage international pressure. The lesson for conservatives is that numbers alone do not win battles—strategy does.
If rank and file traditionalists want to protect marriage, they must stop assuming their position is secure. They need to actively shape public opinion rather than merely reacting to shifts once it is too late. They must engage culture, present logical and persuasive arguments, and stop letting the other side define the debate.
The Writing on the Wall
It is disappointing that social conservatives in Singapore have uncritically swallowed the mantra that a government “whiter than white” in terms of corruption is all that matters. Even that claim is now suspect, but more importantly, it has blinded many to the deeper necessity of demanding a government that is also moral, upright, and righteous.
A clean government that lacks moral leadership is ultimately still a compromised government. The PAP’s history of policy decisions demonstrates that it governs by expediency, not by principle—whether on marriage, life, or other issues of justice.
While PM Wong’s softening rhetoric does not outright contradict his 2022 statement, it exposes the PAP’s underlying mindset. This government is not anchored in objective moral principles on marriage—it is a political animal that governs by popular approval. Once survey numbers hit a certain threshold, SSM will be legislated in the name of “social harmony” and “progress.”
Conservatives cannot afford to sit back and assume their position is safe. The trend lines are clear, the political moves are in motion, and the cultural landscape is shifting. Same-sex marriage in Singapore isn’t a distant possibility—it’s an approaching reality.
Will rank and file conservative Singaporeans who claim to stand for traditional values take proactive steps, or will they remain passive as shifting political pragmatism gradually reshapes societal norms?
