03/12/2022
๐ฃ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ฃ๐๐๐ต๐ฏ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ธ - ๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฏ๐ณ๐ณ๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ฎ๐บ๐ถ๐น๐
โFamily is the foundation on which our society is built and sustained, with each generation raising the next to take its place. Without strong families, Singapore cannot thrive, and society cannot perpetuate itselfโฆ Family is the building block of society. Indeed, this is wisdom and precisely why we need to be extremely careful to change the construct of the family. โ
โParental love is really about paying it forward. And it is this focus on forward and the future. And that drives us drives all parents to give the best possible start to their children. This is what makes us so focused on leaving the world in a better state, for our children to inherit. And you see it is this focus on the future. on protecting, nurturing, saving, investing, building. It is this future oriented focus that affects the tone of our society, and frankly, even in Parliament.
It's why for me, there's no such thing as saving too much for the future. Because it's for them and not for us. And even as we do that we are simply, in fact, replicating what our parents and grandparents did for us. And so this is why I believe all societies, all religions, have always conferred a sacred status on the institution of marriage. And this is why this is a key pillar, a key prescription for human progress and societies everywhere since time, immemorial.
The second point is that a marriage is far more than a legally binding contract between two consenting adults for the sake of their mutual happinessโฆ but really, for the sake of our children and their future.โ
โUnlike other relationships, marriage has the potential to create and nurture new lives, making it a unique institution. For these reasons, states recognise the marriage of a man and woman as a public institution in its laws. Marriage is protected and honoured because it makes an exclusive and indispensable influence over the common good of society.
The real problem today is a view that marriage is simply a formality of fact, with no social obligations. That is just a private and personal decision between two persons with nothing to do with wider society. But marriage is not just a religious or cultural institution. It is a legal institution as well.
In a heterosexual marriage, by bringing children into society, the state has an obligation towards the couple and the children. For this reason marriage requires the state to intervene and regulate it because of the social implications. If it's just a relationship between two ordinary people, we don't regulate ordinary friendship or even platonic friendships.โ
---
I am deeply grateful to Minister Masagos Zulkifli, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, and Member of Parliament (MP) Alex Yam for making the above statements in parliament during the debates over the past two days. The wisdom speaks for itself. Many other positions were taken and words said, but these quotes are what I hope many took note of. The protection and promotion of the institution of man-woman marriage is what I believe will help society continue to flourish for generations.
The debates were very civil and respectful, and I am thankful for many MPs who heard and voiced the diverse views of all Singaporeans, including ours.
At the same time, I find the hundreds of mocking, sarcastic and rude comments against mentions of cancel culture, militant activism, and discrimination of those who do not agree with LGBT ideology very ironic โ demonstrating exactly how hostile the online space can become.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Leon Perera, as well as a few others, underscored the importance of people with different views and values being able to hold and express them. I further stand with the three parliamentarians who voted against repeal โ MP Dennis Tan, MP, Gerald Giam, and NMP Hoon Hian Teck. They went against the grain and stayed true to what they consider best for society. Some of them have already been singled out by LGBT advocacy groups and activists for being homophobic, and worse, as oppressors. To have such accusations hang over them, despite committing their lives to serving Singaporeans, must not be easy.
Even Leader of the Opposition Mr Pritam Singh was not spared for allowing pro-377A viewpoints of his party leaders to be aired. These reactions really prove the points about cancel culture, discrimination and militant activism which the MPs were making - that any disagreement with their cause is criticized and dismissed as discriminatory rhetoric, and those who do not toe their line are harassed and labelled.
People laugh at the truth that many who disagree with homosexuality can have homosexual friends โ it is this very tribal and binary mindset that will entrench differences in society and deepen the โus vs themโ narratives. On the other hand, I am glad that a few of our MPs were able to balance this nuance โ one is able to have LGBT friends and yet disagree with LGBT idealogy.
Alternative media went as far as to take issue with with the lack of joy and celebration in parliament. To some people, repeal is not enough, it must be celebrated โ a position entirely dismissive of the viewpoints and considerations of other fellow Singaporeans.
I repeat some important questions Mr Leon Perera posed:
โCan we hold different views that may never be reconciled? And have those views respectfully played out in civil discourse, bearing in mind, the place of our laws and the place of freedom of speech and religion in a healthy balance? Bearing in mind that we are all citizens equal before the law? Can we move forward? Respectfully agreeing to disagree without demonising the one we disagree with, but embracing him and her as a fellow citizen or colleague or brother in our system? Can we do this? I think we must.โ
I know that many of you wrote in to your MPs about your concerns regarding the repeal and its potential impact. I encourage you to thank your MPs if they have made your voices heard in Parliament, especially those who are being accused of homophobia and bullying right now. It's important for them to know they have your support. I further hope that in the many critical national conversations to come, we can all remain civil, respectful, and courageous to speak up for what we truly believe in, as many MPs have done in Parliament.
Moving forward, I urge everyone to think about marriage โ what does it mean, why does it matter, what role does it play in society? Why has it become contested ground in so many countries? Is it merely about two people coming together? What do other Singaporeans think?
In one of The Straits Timesโs key articles today, Associate Editor Chua Mui Hoong pointed out that โA Blackbox Research survey showed that more than 60 per cent of those aged between 18 and 24 supported gay marriage, while only 15 per cent of those above 50 years did so.โ I went to look closely at the numbers, and found that interestingly, almost 60% of young people aged 18 and 24 also supported enshrining man-woman marriage in Singapore, and only 15% of them opposed it.
I found these numbers painting quite a different picture of younger Singaporeans after reading the ST article. While I canโt explain the seeming discrepancy, it is worth noting, and should have been highlighted in the article. The link to the full poll results is in the comments.
I hope we will all process current conversations and future concerns well by going beyond โpro-โ or โanti-โ labels (or even other labels like โprogressiveโ and โtraditionalโ). I noticed people making the obvious point that LGBTQ people have families too, in reaction to those who are โpro-family.โ Iโm surprised that point had to be made โ that is a given. It not only misses the substance of what people mean when they ask to protect the institution of family, but questions the ability to reason, and shuts down conversation.
I, and the many who identify with protecting the institution of family, are talking about the ethical considerations surrounding issues like surrogacy, or same-sex parenting. These are difficult and sensitive topics that we all must look into, grapple with, form our own conclusions, and have civil conversations on, as we progress. That is the only way we can protect Singapore together.
