Be careful about opening Pandora's box with landmark judgment

I refer to the article, "Landmark High Court case allows Singaporean gay dad to adopt surrogate son" (Dec 17).

The three-judge appeal court ruled and provided grounds for its decision "with not insignificant difficulty" to reverse an earlier decision and to allow a Singaporean gay to adopt his biological son, whom he fathered in the United States through surrogacy.

The judges held that they could not find reasons "sufficiently powerful to enable us to ignore the statutory imperative to promote the welfare of the child and, indeed, to regard his welfare as first and paramount".

The child is, of course, innocent and should be accorded the proper dignity and rights to life. There is no disagreement.

But what does this judgment conclude about Singapore's laws concerning the family unit, given that there is a public policy that favours parenthood within the marriage and a policy against same-sex unions?

I sincerely hope the judgment in the case does not lead to Pandora's box being increasingly opened.

Yeo Seng Kong Finian

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on December 20, 2018, with the headline 'Be careful about opening Pandora's box with landmark judgment'. Print Edition | Subscribe