On 28 and 29 November 2022, Singapore’s parliament debated the repeal of Section 377A and a constitutional amendment that “protects” the definition of marriage from legal challenges. Both bills passed with overwhelming majority — with 97% and 96% of MPs voting in favour respectively. 

All of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) MPs voted in favour of repealing s377A. 

But it’s important for us to peel back the veneer of support that many MPs showed in parliament — especially those from PAP — and understand that not everyone who voted for the repeal of s377A are real LGBTQ+ allies. 

Politics is politics after all. 

---

---

What were the proposed bills? 

Two bills were discussed in parliament: 

1. The repeal of s377A, a colonial law that criminalises sex between men. 
2. A constitutional amendment that, among other things, “protects” the definition of marriage from legal challenges

Repeal of s377A 

s377A makes sex between men a crime, even when consensual and done in private. This crime comes with up to 2 years of jail time. Repealing this law means that sex between men will no longer be a crime. 

However, it’s worth noting that the government has already promised since 2007 to never actively enforce s377A. 

On top of that, senior politicians have also confirmed that the government will not make changes to any of the other existing anti-LGBTQ regulations and policies. 

In other words, while the repeal of s377A is a significant milestone, the state will continue enacting and enforcing every other form of institutional discrimination against LGBTQ+ people in Singapore. These range from housing policies to media censorship, to education policies and more, and severely impact the daily lives of LGBTQ+ people in Singapore. 

And that brings us to the next bill. 

Constitutional amendment (Article 156)

The constitutional amendment bill is easily misunderstood, so let’s take a moment to understand what it really does. 

First, the amendment clarifies that parliament can make laws that “protect” and reinforce the institution of marriage, and that government bodies (e.g. MOE, IMDA, etc.) can make and enforce policies that do the same. 

Next, the amendment protects such laws and policies from being invalidated by Part 4 of the Constitution, which covers the Fundamental Liberties of any person (e.g. the entitlement of equal protection under the law). 

In other words, the constitutional amendment prevents any anti-LGBTQ law or policy from being challenged in a court of law as being unconstitutional. 

Under the constitutional amendment, these hypothetical scenarios cannot take place: 

• The heterosexual definition of marriage cannot be legally challenged as being unconstitutional 
• Housing policies that discriminate against same-sex couples cannot be legally challenged as being unconstitutional 
• Media censorship policies that unfairly erase positive LGBTQ+ representation and showcase negative ones cannot be legally challenged as being unconstitutional 

In other words, the constitutional amendment makes it such that LGBTQ-affirming laws or policies can only happen through the will of parliament and the government. These laws or policies can never happen through court challenges. 

However, it’s important to note that the constitutional amendment does not enshrine the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman within the Constitution itself. Marriage itself is not defined in the Constitution; its definition remains within the Women’s Charter. 

The Women's Charter, like all other statutes, only requires a 50% majority vote in Parliament to be amended. In other words, only half of Parliament will need to vote in favour to legalise same-sex marriage in Singapore. 

Now that we understand the bills that were being debated in parliament, let’s now turn our attention to the context behind the debate. 

The context behind s377A’s repeal 

The context behind November 2022’s s377A debate is markedly different than that of 2007’s debate. 

As we listen to or read about speeches made by politicians (especially those from the ruling party), it’s important that we don’t take things at face value. Context changes things.

So here’s the context: in 2007, the parliamentary debate on s377A was triggered by a citizen-led parliamentary petition that came at a time of a Penal Code reform. There were no plans to repeal s377A then, but the PAP government encouraged an open parliamentary debate on the issue. It only formalised its position at the closing speech by explaining that it wouldn’t repeal s377A.

Since then, ground-up movements such as Pink Dot have shown that increasing numbers of Singaporeans do not support the retention of s377A or the discrimination of LGBTQ+ individuals.

Legal challenges were also mounted against s377A, and senior PAP politicians have claimed that s377A is at significant risk of being struck down by the courts.

Then during this year’s National Day Rally, the PAP announced its decision to repeal s377A. Its message was strong: we will repeal it.

Crucially, PAP did not lift its party whip on s377A’s repeal, which meant that its members must vote to repeal s377A or face consequences (e.g. possible expulsion). That set the tone for the debate. 

Now that we’ve laid down the context, here are some key takeaways from the debate that ensued. 

1: We shouldn’t assume that PAP is more progressive than other parties 

PAP did not lift its whip on the proposed bills. During the parliamentary debate, Minister K Shanmugam claimed that the whip only restricts the way PAP MPs vote, but does not stop them from speaking against the proposed bills. Despite his good intentions, it is not difficult to imagine that some PAP MPs might fear speaking against their party line on such a sensitive and important matter.

That’s all to say: the PAP MP speeches you’ve heard in parliament most definitely do not represent what all of their MPs truly think of the LGBTQ+ community. PAP MPs who do not wish to repeal s377A for “reasons of conscience” might not feel comfortable speaking up about their true desires. 

When we compare the speeches made by PAP and WP MPs, we should bear this in mind. While WP has laid bare all its elected MPs’ views, we don’t have nearly the same level of visibility on PAP’s MPs.

We shouldn’t assume that PAP is more progressive than other parties. If you live in a PAP ward, your MP would have voted for the repeal of s377A, yet you cannot assume that they are empathetic to LGBTQ+ issues. We have incomplete information, which is further obscured by the politics of it all.

Plus, for the longest time, PAP was the oppressor. They’ve also promised to not change any of the other anti-LGBTQ policies they’ve helped to enact and enforce.

I’m sorry, but you don’t get to become the hero overnight.

2: WP’s position is precarious

WP’s position on LGBTQ+ issues is shaky at best. For the longest time, the party couldn’t arrive at any position.

This debate revealed that out of their 9 elected MPs, 6 were for the repeal, and 3 against. Yet despite this majority, the party was unable to reach a consensus. This suggests that the dissenting members felt so strongly against the repeal that they insisted on making their dissent known.

The decision to lift the party whip is inherently politically risky, because, unlike PAP, it exposes their MP’s views to scrutiny and allows opponents to ridicule the party’s lack of a position. Yet perhaps the risk is higher if WP were to force its dissenting members to vote along party lines.

The realities of Singapore’s political landscape also cannot be ignored. While WP is not a new party, their success and size is. We will need to observe the party and its members for a longer time to properly ascertain whether — on LGBTQ+ issues — they are truly worse than the alternative.

It’s worth pointing out that the speeches made by the pro-repeal WP MPs felt genuine and moving. In particular, Leon Perera, He Ting Ru, Louis Chua, and Pritam Singh’s speeches are grounded, compassionate, and reveal true empathy towards the LGBTQ+ community. The same cannot be said of some PAP MPs who spoke in favour of the repeal — more on this below.

3: “Cancel culture” was legitimised more than real LGBTQ+ discrimination

It’s troubling how many MPs spoke up against the fear of “cancel culture” (Lim Biow Chuan 👀), and how those same MPs failed to speak up about real LGBTQ+ discrimination that has been happening in Singapore for decades.

Their eagerness to legitimise “cancel culture” and ignore real discrimination is more telling of their actual position on LGBTQ+ issues than how they voted in parliament.

LGBTQ+ people in Singapore have been cancelled by state institutions for decades, in areas such as housing, media representation, education, and workplace harassment.

If those who espouse prejudicial views would like to cry over harassment and “reverse discrimination”, we kindly ask them to join the queue.

4: Politicians and their “gay friends”

Many politicians who spoke against LGBTQ+ issues spoke about their “gay friends”, as if to use them as a shield to ward off accusations that they are prejudiced.

WP’s Dennis Tan and Gerald Giam, as well as PAP’s Christopher de Souza and Vivian Balakrishnan, among others, mentioned “gay friends” in their speech.

Yet something in their speeches felt off. For Dennis Tan and Gerald Giam, it’s straightforward: they voted to make sex between men a crime despite claiming to have gay friends. For Christopher de Souza, his use of the term “same-sex attraction” to describe his friends reminds us too much of the way anti-LGBTQ groups use the term to dehumanise LGBTQ+ people.

For Vivian Balakrishnan, it was a mix of things. His speech started with a strange, almost egotistical brag about his marriage and number of offsprings. He then proceeded to mention the AIDS epidemic, as if to allude that he shares the pain experienced by the LGBTQ+ community in the 1980s. He talked about his “gay friends” and their sufferings, and apologised for falling short of them during his schooling days, but chose not to apologise to his GE2011 political opponent, whom he indirectly publicly outed to the entire country. All in all, he tried to do too much, and it felt hollow and insincere.

A note to politicians: please stop using your “gay friends” if you’re going to act contrary to their interests. Your “friends” deserve better.

5: This is a new beginning

s377A is finally repealed. Yet the Constitution is also amended to ensure that changes to marriage can only happen via parliament, and that the state can continue any number of anti-LGBTQ policies without legal consequences.

And the government has stated that they will continue all of their existing anti-LGBTQ policies.

This is a new beginning on our march to equality for all. Marriage isn’t the only thing we need to fight for either.

Now more than ever, we need to make our voices and concerns heard by politicians, by engaging with them in dialogue, and by voting them in or out of office.

The journey will be long, but we will get there together. 

A list of all the notable speeches made by PAP and WP MPs during the s377A debate 

Here is a list of notable speeches made by PAP and WP MPs. Speeches that contained incorrect information, weird remarks, or that requires additional context, will have supplementary notes added to them. 

Masagos Zulkifli — Minister (Social & Family Development), People’s Action Party

“Homosexuals have a place in our society, and space to live their lives in Singapore... In our communities, they, like other Singaporeans, have access to education and employment, to healthcare and social services, to protection from violence and harassment.”

Supplementary note 

We would like to invite Mr Masagos Zulkifli and his colleagues to read up on and understand the realities of the quality of access to education, employment, healthcare, and social services that LGBTQ+ Singaporeans face:

• Anti-LGBTQ regulations
• How schools suppress LGBTQ+ identities

Mr Masagos Zulkifli’s avoidance of mentioning access to housing for gay individuals is also noteworthy.

The use of the term “homosexuals” to refer to gay individuals is also often deemed to be rude and dehumanising. You’re allowed to say “gay” and “lesbian”. 

Pritam Singh — Leader of the Opposition, Workers’ Party

“In repealing s377A, religious Singaporeans are not asked to endorse homosexuality, but instead honour the equality of all Singaporeans in the eyes of the law — that no consenting adults should be regarded as criminals because of what they do in private. Equality and justice, both stars in our flag, are plenty and bountiful. Unlike finite resources, we do not have less of either by extending it to our fellow citizens. We all gain from a more just and equal society. 

Just because one group has a position, does not mean that it could impose that expectation on everyone else... because in Singapore, there must be a place for everyone. The fact that we are a secular society does not stop religious Singaporeans from holding views that are reflective of their religious norms and values… There is no basis for us to feel cancelled, provided our views are not set as an expectation for all of society. There must be a secular approach to politics and governance even as we celebrate and protect the freedom of religion in Singapore.”

Christopher de Souza — MP, Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, People’s Action Party

“Sir, this is not an easy speech for me to deliver… In the final analysis, I have to make my own decision on this difficult issue. Believe me, it is difficult. I, too, have close friends who have same-sex attraction.”

Supplementary note

In general, the term “same-sex attraction” is considered rude and should not be used to describe gay or lesbian people. This term is often used by scientific journals (as a technical term) and anti-LGBTQ groups or individuals (as a way to dehumanise queerness).

However, this does not necessarily mean that Mr Christopher de Souza bears anti-LGBTQ intentions. His choice of words could be an unfortunate mistake, and we are glad that he would be able to consult with his close gay and lesbian friends for further context and understanding on his word choice.

You are allowed to say “gay” and “lesbian”. 

Murali Pillai — MP, Bukit Batok SMC, People’s Action Party

“On my view [on the repeal of s377A], I can be relatively brief. This is because I have already articulated my views on this matter in 2018 when I was interviewed by CNA. Then, I stated my support for the repeal of s377A. I said that anyone, regardless of his sexual orientation, is deserving of equal treatment, dignity, and respect. No one should be treated as social outcasts.”

Dennis Tan — MP, Hougang SMC, Workers’ Party

“The symbolism of s377A is different to different groups... As an MP, in considering all issues, I’m also guided by my own conscience in arriving at a position that I feel is right for our society and our people, even if some may disagree… For reason of my own conscience as guided by my own faith and beliefs, I find it difficult to support the repeal of s377A. I am personally troubled by the removal of the marker that it represents. 

Like many fellow MPs and Singaporeans, I also have many good friends who are from the LGBTQ community. And some have over time shared with me some of their very difficult circumstances and experiences in life, which makes my decision today even more difficult. I humbly seek their understanding. The position I take today does not change how I treat all my constituents and all Singaporeans. I will continue to serve all my constituents to the best of my ability.”

Supplementary note 

While Mr Dennis Tan thinks that the action he took today does not “change how he treats his constituents”, we humbly seek his understanding and comprehension that it reflects how he is literally treating his LGBTQ+ constituents.

It is disappointing to hear that, despite having many good LGBTQ+ friends and having heard their “difficult circumstances and experiences”, Mr Dennis Tan has still decided to vote to retain s377A.

However, we must acknowledge that Mr Dennis Tan is free to take his stance as an elected MP. His constituents are also free to take their stance in future elections.

Lim Biow Chuan — MP, Mountbatten SMC, People’s Action Party

“I have also received feedback that employees in... MNCs located within Singapore... are harassed in their workplace if they do not support the gay beliefs or if they refused to attend a pride event. Thus it seems that there is a reversal of role: it is not the gays who are being discriminated in Singapore. On the contrary, if you do not agree with the pro-gay movement, you may be penalised at work or face discrimination.”

Supplementary note 

We would like to assure Mr Lim Biow Chuan that in Singapore, it is very much “the gays” who are discriminated against. We invite him to read up on the realities on the ground before he suffers further embarrassment in public:

• Anti-LGBTQ regulations
• How schools suppress LGBTQ+ identities

Do also note that the term “the gays” is generally considered offensive and rude. If you’re referring to LGBTQ+ individuals, you may say “LGBTQ+ individuals” or “LGBTQ+ people”. If you’re referring to gay men, you may say “gay men” or “gay people”. 

Leon Perera — MP, Aljunied GRC, Workers’ Party

“Before I leave the subject of repealing s377A, Mr Speaker Sir, I must say that it is my personal conviction that every individual should be treated equally regardless of sexual orientation. Why? I personally believe that the principles of equality and fairness demand this. I say that as those are rational principles. But I also say that as a human being with the emotional makeup that that entails.

As a human being, I close my eyes and imagine if I lived in a world where what I deeply feel and who I love are held to be fundamentally wrong by many or most of my fellow human beings, are at odds with the social mores I see around me, reflected in the media, culture, education, religion. I imagine being in that place. The pain that comes from that sharp disconnect between the inner life and outer reality cannot be described in words easily. That inequality needs to be addressed.”

Gerald Giam — MP, Aljunied GRC, Workers’ Party

“It is in my sincere believe that retaining s377A without enforcing it provides the best balance of the conflicting interests in our society… I entered politics almost 14 years ago because I wanted to contribute to the democratic development of our country and propose policies that would improve the welfare of our people. It is important to me and the example that I set for my children that I hold fast to the values that I have established to be true, without wavering because of political headwinds.

I was worried that I might come across as prejudiced against members of the LGBT community. Hand on heart, I am not. LGBT persons are human beings worthy of the same amount of love and respect that we accord to any other person. Many are family members, friends, colleagues, and fellow Singaporeans. Disagreeing with LGBT positions is not an attack on LGBT persons. In fact, I hope that my speech will open up a platform for more difficult but respectful conversations on this issue.

We must recognise that LGBT issues are sensitive issues just like race and religion. People who subscribe to one faith do not force their beliefs on others. Religious beliefs are also not taught as facts in our school curriculum that students are expected to accept without question. Similarly, we should treat LGBT issues as sensitive topics just like religion. We should not force people to accept one view or another, with the risk of being labelled as bigoted or immoral.”

Supplementary note 

It is often easy for people on the side of the oppressor to say that their lack of support for the removal of discrimination doesn’t constitute an attack. However, in all practical aspects, a vote to retain criminalisation of sex between men is an act that causes harm to the community. An attack by any other name is still an attack.

Hand on heart.

We also hope that Mr Gerald Giam would understand that, even though both religion and LGBTQ issues are sensitive topics, their discussions — especially in public spheres — are not accorded with the same degree of protection, whether legally or socially. 

Baey Yam Keng — Sir Parliamentary Secretary (Transport), People’s Action Party

“The repeal of s377A is the right thing to do... It is also the right thing to allow the definition of marriage to continue be covered by the Women’s Charter. If and when the majority of our population or parliament feels that the current definition needs to change, that should be for our future generation to decide… Today, we are taking a step towards a more tolerant and inclusive Singapore. We are debating on the issue of the freedom to love. Let us continue to keep love for everyone in Singapore’s society.”

Vivian Balakrishnan — Minister (Foreign Affairs), People’s Action Party

“My wife and I celebrate our 35th anniversary today [waits for applause]... Some of my friends whom I’ve known for the longest time are gay… In fact, I’m sure if you all speak to every single one of your gay friends, [they would have] suffered the pain of rejection, of discrimination, and sometimes of violence. And they have suffered that at home, in schools, and in the workplace. They crave our understanding, our empathy, our support, and our protection. And yet I think if many of us think back to our school days, I think we all fell short. I will confess to having fallen short, and for that I apologise to my gay friends. 

s377A has come to symbolise... two paradoxical imperatives: first, to protect the traditional family which frankly is under considerable stress in modern days, but equally important, there is also a duty to protect our gay brothers from victimisation and the fear and the pain, the dejection, and the rejection. There are no simple answers to such apparently contradictory social imperatives.

We have to find ways to continue to protect this precious and fragile institution of the traditional family and marriage... What that means is that policies and programmes that will unambiguously support the traditional family and parenthood, including adoption rights, housing priority... It also means our public messaging, our education in schools, mass media, must continue to uphold these traditional family ideals... If you uplift one form, if you prioritise one type of social arrangement, inevitably it means you have to choose and you cannot be complete equal.”

Supplementary note 

Bruh, please don’t call us your “gay brothers”.

It’s also interesting how, after apologising for falling short of his gay friends back in his school days, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan then decides to once again fall short 🙃

In the 2011 General Election, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan made comments that resulted in the public outing of his political opponent as a gay man. Dr Vivian Balakrishnan was later called out by Mr Pritam Singh for this act, but chose not to respond or apologise for it. His actions call into serious question the sincerity of his speech. 

Bruuuuh. 

Jamus Lim — MP, Sengkang GRC, Workers’ Party

“The repeal decision is… a tradeoff between the removal of a tangible, actual threat of imprisonment, versus a perceived, potential concern over how repeal would undermine marriage. It seems clear to me that there is not, and cannot, be a genuine equivalence between the two... For those who keenly feel the yoke of discrimination, suggesting that we should keep things the way they are —simply because that’s how it’s always been — is more than simply benign neglect; it is an insult to their plight, to the burden that they have been bearing, however silently, until now.

Even so, I also believe we cannot ignore how many in our Asian society continue to equate marriage and partnership to one between a man and a woman. This view is held not only those who are religious… but, based on my conversations… also those who do not strongly profess any faith... It is for this reason that I do not see a decision to alter the constitution as... a compromise for the sake of political expediency, necessary for the repeal of 377A. 
Rather, it is the manner by which the state echoes what society, in general, believes in.”

He Ting Ru — MP, Sengkang GRC, Workers’ Party

“I do not believe that we should have a law in the books that is plainly and obviously discriminatory: 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... The concerns relating to the ‘silencing’ of certain groups are also, I believe, understandable. However, Article 15 of our Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion in Singapore.

It is a timely reminder that for the vast majority of us, the topics we discussed today are but academic to our own personal situation. Yet to some of our fellow Singaporeans, every moment of their lives are affected by it. We do not have to condone it, nor encourage it, but I hope we can find it within ourselves to try to empathise with them even just a little bit. That we can find it within ourselves to be able to live and hope and pray that LGBTI members of our community are able to live without discrimination and fear of being ostracised.”

Louis Ng — MP, Nee Soon GRC, People’s Action Party

“The repeal of s377A is the correct thing to do... because gay Singaporeans deserve, like any other member of society, not to be criminalised for their private behaviour... The repeal of s377A is a positive step towards making Singapore a more equal and inclusive society... We should recognise and thank the collective effort of activists and organisations over the years to raise awareness about the challenges that the gay community face, and foster acceptance of gay individuals within our society.

I have 3 points of clarifications for both bills:

1. On the treatment of prior convictions under s377A.
2. About the support provided to students of diverse genders. Can Minister share what support has been or will be extended to such students?
3. On the constitutional amendment: I hope that we do not discriminate against single parents, whether they are unmarried, divorced, or widowed.”

Louis Chua — MP, Sengkang GRC, Workers’ Party

“Section 377A never really bothered me in the way I live my life. But over the years, I’ve gotten to know several members of the LGBTQ+ community, some of whom have become my close friends. The daily struggles they face regarding their sexual orientation and gender identity are very real. We all live in a largely heteronormative world. For my LGBTQ+ friends, that means they constantly face subtle judgement, discrimination, apathy, and hatred even, towards them at home, at school, in the military, and at work.

It’s been well-documented that LGBTQ+ individuals are at higher risk of depression and mental and physical health dangers... A recent NUS public health survey found that among 570 sexual minority young adults aged 18 to 25, 59% had contemplated suicide, and 14% had attempted to kill themselves. Having 377A in our laws means that it’s hard to organise support groups to help not just members of the gay community – which is who the law targets – but also the wider LGBTQ+ community who face discrimination, bullying, or mental struggles just for being who they are.”

K Shanmugam — Minister (Law & Home Affairs), People’s Action Party

“As we listen to the speeches by MPs on families, let’s also not forget — let’s also acknowledge that LGBT persons also have, and come from, families. They have parents, siblings, grandparents, nieces, nephews, aunties, uncles, close friends, and much more. So families are not exclusive to non-LGBT persons. So let’s remember and acknowledge that these things are not binary.” 

“What does the WP as a party propose? If you do not want to repeal s377A, and also do not want to support strengthening marriage, which we have proposed, the position with 377A is like a train approaching... I emphasised this quite strongly yesterday. Given the risks, we have a responsibility to do a duty as parliamentarians to take a position, to deal squarely with the problem, and not abdicate our duty. To say the party has no position allows the WP MPs to make speeches supporting all sides, without having to make a decision and be held responsible for that decision.”

Pritam Singh — Leader of the Opposition, Workers’ Party

“The party’s position [in 2019]... was varied and divided with no consensus as to whether s377A should be repealed... similar to Singapore’s society... What has been the result arising from [today’s] debate? 6 MPs for the repeal of s377A, 3 against... The party position has now been established by way of a majority in parliament. All the WP MPs (apart from Mr Faisal Manap who is down with COVID-19) put their personal positions on the record, and in my view, they behaved like a loyal opposition. Not loyal to the PAP, but loyal to Singaporeans, knowing the position of Singaporeans outside of this house.”

“At the 2011 General Election... the sexual orientation of an opposition candidate came into the spotlight, with the PAP asking the SDP to ‘come out of the closet’. The PAP statement on this issue pursued an innuendo that made an allusion to pedophilia. In view of the speeches made by PAP MPs over the last 2 days... can I confirm the PAP’s position with regards to LGBTQ+ candidates standing in general elections?”

Supplementary note

Mr Pritam Singh was referring to Dr Vivian Balakrishnan’s public outing of his political opponent during the 2011 General Election. 

K Shanmugam — Minister (Law & Home Affairs), People’s Action Party

“I’m not the Prime Minister or the Secretary General of the party, but my personal view is that anyone who is not a criminal, and who is of good character, and of sound mind, and who can work for the residents, ought to be able to stand for elections. In all of these, in a democracy, it also depends on how people are perceived and accepted in society. All of these are relevant considerations. One has got to look at individual candidates.”

Supplementary note

We are glad that Mr Pritam Singh brought up the issue that happened in GE2011, where Dr Vivian Balakrishnan caused the public outing of a gay political opponent. 

While Minister K Shanmugam’s response suggests that he would not personally deny a political candidate the chance to stand in an election because of their LGBTQ+ identity, it was far from a reassuring statement. 

It’s noteworthy that Dr Vivian Balakrishnan chose not to respond to Mr Pritam Singh’s call out. His decision to not answer for his past actions — or to apologise for them — suggests a level of cowardice and, perhaps more importantly, inconsistency between the way he portrays himself and the way he acts.