I AGREE with Mr Han Ming Guang that there should be a frank and open discussion on what makes a family ("Time for open discussion on nature of families"; yesterday).
For this reason, it is essential that different perspectives are adequately represented in a forum like the one organised by the National University of Singapore Students' Political Association ("Forum on families stirs online debate"; March 13, "Let's make room for alternative views" by Ms Angeline Wong Hui Wei; last Saturday, and "Majority view of family not represented" by Ms Ho Lay Ping; Tuesday).
At stake here are two mutually exclusive views of family.
In the first view, "family" is based on a biological connection between a father, mother and children. In 2007, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong defined "family" in Singapore as "one man, one woman, marrying, having children and bringing up children within that framework of a stable family unit" ("Why we should leave Section 377A alone: PM"; Oct 24, 2007).
In the second view, families "are not built on blood ties but are formed from strong relationships", to quote Mr Han. These include "friends who call one another family, or even the close bond between pet owners and their pets".
There are good reasons why "family" should be defined based on biological connection.
Biologically, human reproduction requires the sexual complementarity of a man and a woman. Anthropologically, fathers and mothers are different and complementary. Sociologically, evidence shows that children fare best when raised by their married biological fathers and mothers.
Where it is not possible for both father and mother to be present, society should do what it can to support children in these circumstances. Children's best interests remain paramount.
The twain can never meet on the twoviews. Nevertheless, different segments of society can still work to serve the common good, despite these differences.
I hope that in future discussions, individuals and groups will take into account the needs of children and develop constructive solutions to protect them in all circumstances.
Darius Lee
For this reason, it is essential that different perspectives are adequately represented in a forum like the one organised by the National University of Singapore Students' Political Association ("Forum on families stirs online debate"; March 13, "Let's make room for alternative views" by Ms Angeline Wong Hui Wei; last Saturday, and "Majority view of family not represented" by Ms Ho Lay Ping; Tuesday).
At stake here are two mutually exclusive views of family.
In the first view, "family" is based on a biological connection between a father, mother and children. In 2007, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong defined "family" in Singapore as "one man, one woman, marrying, having children and bringing up children within that framework of a stable family unit" ("Why we should leave Section 377A alone: PM"; Oct 24, 2007).
In the second view, families "are not built on blood ties but are formed from strong relationships", to quote Mr Han. These include "friends who call one another family, or even the close bond between pet owners and their pets".
There are good reasons why "family" should be defined based on biological connection.
Biologically, human reproduction requires the sexual complementarity of a man and a woman. Anthropologically, fathers and mothers are different and complementary. Sociologically, evidence shows that children fare best when raised by their married biological fathers and mothers.
Where it is not possible for both father and mother to be present, society should do what it can to support children in these circumstances. Children's best interests remain paramount.
The twain can never meet on the twoviews. Nevertheless, different segments of society can still work to serve the common good, despite these differences.
I hope that in future discussions, individuals and groups will take into account the needs of children and develop constructive solutions to protect them in all circumstances.
Darius Lee
