Read Time: 10 Minutes
- Activists in Singapore are quietly working to expand the definition of family, challenging traditional norms and values.
- The nuclear family is criticised as restrictive, sparking debates about whether it still serves society’s needs.
- Redefining family structures brings concerns about prioritising adult desires over children’s well-being and stability.
- The push for change raises questions about the long-term impact on Singapore’s societal cohesion and future generations.
On June 24, 2023, thousands gathered at Hong Lim Park for the fifteenth edition of Pink Dot SG, marking the event after the landmark repeal of Section 377A the previous year. The gathering ended with a rainbow-lit formation of the word “Family.”
In statements published on Pink Dot SG’s website, Clement Tan, spokesperson for the LGBTQ+ advocacy group, stated:
“LGBTQ+ people are often minorities within our own families and often face rejection by the very people meant to support us. When we strive to form our own versions of family, we encounter obstacles because we do not fit the mold of a traditional nuclear family.”
Afzar Anwar, Co-founder of the LGBTQ+ advocacy group Quasa, lamented that natural families have not been “chosen” by those with LGBTQ+ tendencies:
“When I did not feel like I had a community to feel safe within, a place of worship I could not be myself in or appear as myself in, and when I didn’t even have any friends or family I could turn to, and upon whom I could lean — those were not by choice.“
We must empathise with these feelings— the yearning for community and belonging is universal. Yet, while compassion is crucial, rushing to create policies that reshape family structures is not the solution to these complex issues.
What Singapore’s society (not the State) needs to do, is address their underlying needs for community, without compromising what has provided stability for generations.
Hitting A Raw Nerve In Singapore
Tan’s and Anwar’s comments may resonate with many, especially those who didn’t grow up in a traditional nuclear family structure.
Many Singaporeans, through no fault of their own, were raised in unconventional family environments—such as single-parent households or with relatives and other caregivers.
Life can be difficult, and sadly, various circumstances have led to these non-traditional family arrangements—divorce, separation, death, and domestic abuse. However, these situations are generally exceptions rather than the norm, and are often seen as tragic and best avoided.
On the other hand, the traditional nuclear family—a married couple with children—has provided stability and essential support for its members. From a child’s perspective, it provides stability, helps develop relational skills with both parents, and offers consistent authority figures they can rely on due to the enduring commitment of marriage.
We shouldn’t normalise these unfortunate fatherless or motherless situations, especially when it is the children within these situations that pay the highest price, just to placate a vocal sexual minority.
Attempts to Redefine Family
Since the 1960s, the traditional family—anchored by a married father, mother, and their children—has come under increasing criticism.
Activists and feminists argue it’s outdated, advocating instead for “freedom of choice” in relationships.
The traditional family model has faced challenges with the rise in individuals identifying as LGBT, which has contributed to shifting norms around heterosexuality. This, combined with their distancing from traditional family structures and advocating for state recognition of same-sex unions, has led to confusion about what constitutes a family.
Look no further than liberal writers like Stephen Whitehead, contributing to the Taipei Times, to argue that the traditional family model is outdated, citing the rise of ‘freedom of choice’ in romantic relationships. Following this perspective, advocates of new family structures promote ‘individual freedom’ in defining who belongs in one’s chosen community.
The Media’s Portrayal of the Family
Making matters worse, liberal media outlets have played a significant role in redefining the concept of family, often working against a cohesive traditional model by promoting doubt and cynicism.
Take, for example, how New Narratif recently published a piece framing traditional families as mere “tools of state control.” This portrayal aims to undermine confidence in the value of traditional families by questioning their origins and intentions. (Newsflash: traditional families existed long before nation-states. They have always been the core of strong, stable communities.)
Ironically, this same narrative dismisses the traditional family as oppressive but turns around to demand that the State legitimise new family structures under the guise of ‘freedom’ and ‘equality.’
Another way liberal media pushes for alternative family models is through selective portrayal. They often ignore instances where LGBT members are accepted within traditional families, instead focusing almost exclusively on scenarios where these families are depicted as oppressive and intolerant.
Media outlets also push alternative family structures by leveraging emotional rhetoric. Terms like “love,” “feelings,” and “inclusivity” are used as catchphrases to normalise these new models. Redefining family based on these vague ideals serves activists’ goals of validating personal desires, ultimately undermining the value of the traditional family model.
However, this shift isn’t solely driven by media or activists.
When heterosexuals redefined marriage as primarily about personal fulfilment, rather than a commitment to raising future generations, they paved the way for the decline in marriage culture. This set the stage for today’s widespread acceptance that emotional bonds should automatically receive state recognition—even if these unions cannot produce children, which has historically been the State’s key interest in marriage.
The Playbook: Why the Focus on Redefining the Family?
More than just a feel-good aspiration, LGBT activists and liberal media outlets in Singapore arguably have a strategic reason for trying to redefine the concept of “family” in their campaign for the public’s hearts and minds.
The aim is to shift the Overton window—the range of ideas deemed acceptable in public discourse—by pushing for a broader definition of “family”.
By making the idea of “LGBT families” and same-sex parenting commonplace, LGBT activists are cultivating mindshare to ultimately push for the legalization of “same-sex” “marriages” and parenting.
The incremental strategy aims to gradually shift the conversation toward eventual child adoption and “same-sex” parenting. By making concepts like ‘LGBT families’ more accessible and acceptable, the public conversation inevitably then shifts toward the acceptance and legalisation of same-sex civil unions, possibly marriage, and, ultimately gay parenting rights.
Here’s how it’s playing out right now.
Step 1: Criticise the Nuclear Family
The movement begins by criticising the nuclear family and advocating broader definitions, like “chosen families.” They argue this expansion based on social rejection, personal fulfilment, and the right to belong. By framing the nuclear family as outdated, activists aim to normalise alternative family models. This is well underway as has been illustrated in this article.
Step 2: Have Children Without Legal Recognition
Despite the lack of government approval for same-sex unions or parenting, some couples proceed to have children and intentionally raise them as “illegitimate” within Singapore.
In fact, some are even holding seminars which encourage planned and deliberate single parenthood which flies in the face of the Government’s clear lines on not encouraging planned and deliberate single parenthood as a lifestyle choice, and correspondingly, the formation of same-sex family units through institutions and processes like adoption.
By doing so, they intend to create a growing presence of non-traditional families, forcing society to confront their existence and mull over the legal and social statuses of these units.
This step too has been undertaken by lesbian couples for some years now. It was only in 2018 that a landmark High Court case thrust the issue of opportunistic gay parenting into the public spotlight.
Step 3: Play the Victim
Once these unconventional family structures gain a measure of public acceptance, activists often shift the narrative to focus on the challenges and discrimination these families allegedly face within existing societal norms and institutions. This reframing is a strategic move to generate public empathy and support.
By presenting these families as victims of systemic marginalisation, activists aim to cultivate a sense of moral responsibility among the public, encouraging broader acceptance and, ultimately, legitimising such family arrangements. This emotional appeal serves to shift societal consensus, framing these families as not only valid but in urgent need of legal protection.
In Singapore, some same-sex couples may emphasise their children’s experiences, portraying them as symbols of societal injustice. This strategy leverages the emotional resonance of these narratives to argue for the legalisation of “chosen” families, including gay parenting.
The result is a reframing of family values that diminishes the traditional emphasis on gender roles and biological parentage, advancing the agenda to redefine family structures within the legal and cultural framework.
Step 4: Wait for a Favourable Climate
The final step involves waiting for a favourable political climate. When there’s a potential shift in the political landscape, activists will make a strategic push for policies legitimising gay parenthood, leveraging their children to argue that their children deserve equal rights. There will be much talk around themes of equality, dignity and belonging.
The recognition of their attempt at fulfilling their parental responsibilities will in turn raise the question of their parental rights. In such a social climate where it is forgotten that Children have an inviolable, natural right to their biological, opposite-sexed parents, legitimating same-sex unions will seem like the obvious thing to do.
Consequences for Children and the Future of Singapore
The push to promote unconventional family structures often neglects the needs of children for a mother and a father.
Should children’s needs be considered secondary to adults’ desires for same-sex unions? Are LGBTQ+ advocates implicitly treating children as commodities for the satisfaction of their own wants, rather than as human beings with natural rights and valid needs?
Redefining families inevitably destabilizes the foundational unit of society—subtly and progressively—by diluting norms around parental complementarity, defined social roles, the responsibilities parents owe to their children, and the natural rights of children.
Should Singapore recognise unconventional families, policymakers would also face complex issues around same-sex adoption, intersecting with the religious fabric of society.
Consider how bakers, florists, and even website designers were targeted with lawfare when they refrained from servicing gay weddings or gender transition parties on account of their sincerely held religious beliefs.
A move towards recognizing “chosen families” would embolden leftist ideologues to lobby for same-sex adoption, possibly opening a Pandora’s Box of problems that would implicate religious conservatives in Singapore, particularly those against homosexual unions and “marriage”.
In the 2021 landmark case Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed how Catholic Social Services (CSS) was unfairly targeted by Philadelphia for adhering to its religious beliefs. The city had severed ties with CSS, refusing to allow the agency to continue providing foster care services because it would not place children with same-sex adoptive “parents.” This decision effectively punished CSS for following its faith-based understanding of family. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Philadelphia’s actions violated the First Amendment, affirming CSS’s right to act in accordance with its religious convictions.
Cases such as these highlight the challenges that Singapore may face should it choose to go down the path of normalising hotly-contested family structures, and rewriting deeply held norms around family life.
Conclusion
Everyone longs to belong to a family. This desire for companionship and connection is deeply human and should never be dismissed. However, redefining the concept of family to fit individual preferences risks destabilising the very structures that have provided society with resilience, stability, and continuity for generations.
The traditional family serves as a cornerstone of societal order, offering children the consistency and support they need. Moving away from these well-established definitions risks turning children into mere pawns of shifting ideologies, rather than prioritising their genuine needs.
Singapore must cultivate a society where everyone feels a sense of belonging without compromising the values and structures that ensure stability for future generations.
