JULY 27 — Do you remember the good old days? The Singapore of the 70s and 80s — a world of clear, moral certainties. Things were straightforward back then: Long hair? B​ad.​ C​hewing gum? Banned. Vandalised a car? Four strokes of the rotan. Because with these certainties there were clear laws of cause and effect — okay, perhaps the effect was usually the same (a sore behind) but the causes were diverse.

​A beacon of freedom of expression and liberal democracy it wasn’t but the little red dot shone as an example of a well-managed patriarchy; excellent discipline, the leadership of an enlightened ruling class a​nd​ a phenomenal economic record. Whatever the deficiencies of the system no one can deny that things were more certain back then. Our founding father knew what was what best for you.

These days though things have changed, and it begs the question: does the technocratic 21st century incarnation of​ the​ Singaporean government know what’s best for you?​

The answer appears to be — not necessarily. The government, it seems, is not sure if the population should be expanded to 7.2 million, it doesn’t seem to know what should be done about migrant workers and it’s clearly confused about its stance on homosexuality. ​ Nothing encapsulates this new era of uncertainty better than the recent​ “Penguin-gate” saga. For anyone who isn’t au fait with the city’s happenings, this is the case of a children’s book about two male penguins who, together, hatch an egg and raise a chick (apparently this is based on a real life tale from the New York Zoo).

The recent ‘Penguin-gate’ saga at the National Library caused quite a stir in Singapore. — Picture courtesy of National Library Board

The Singapore National Library purchased a copy of this great tome for its children’s section but was then stung by complains about the book’s apparently homosexual agenda. In response, the National Library issued a statement on its support for family values, and decreed the offending book would not only be removed – but also pulped, so no youngster could ever lay their eyes on it.

This atavistic turn towards “book ​burning” sparked an enormous online outcry. Singaporean ​netizens exploded with derision accompanied by strongly worded ​editorials, ​petitions decrying the decision and profile photo protests. And rather uncharacteristically, before the books’ scheduled execution, the

National Library reversed its decision in the face of the relentless public pressure.

The offending volumes will now be moved to the adult section. The powers that be have been forced to reach a compromise with public opinion, and in doing so are effectively admitting that perhaps they don’t always know best.

For those who’ve long looked forward to a more open and democratic Singapore, this seems like a step forward but I’m inclined to view the fallout from “Peguin-gate” with a little scepticism.

While any step away from book pulping is a good one, I wonder if ​what we are seeing here is simply​ a knee jerk reaction instead of a considered change in policy.

​After all, h​omosexuality remains illegal. So, rather than handling the issue in its entirety​ and formulating a comprehensive response the National Library seems to​ have​ simply backed down in the face of pressure. There’s been no announcement of a change to homosexuality laws or censorship regulations, nor was the final decision on the books’ fate the result of a legal challenge and a considered court decision.

I suppose one could call it Facebook governance – with the government responding to a slew of negative comments and a lack of “likes.” It’s not a uniquely Singaporean phenomenon — China’s government selectively adapts policy to match the prevailing winds of the blogosphere; playing to the nationalist gallery in the South China Sea, diverting the odd carcinogenic factory to a less wired province. Under the thin veneer of web 2.0 responsiveness, however, nothing substantive changes. 

I suspect this may well be the case with “Penguin-gate.”  At its worst, this implies a sort of survival of the noisiest. The most vociferous groups, not necessarily the most deserving causes, will get the most attention.

Singapore’s gay community has always been a key part of the nation’s intellectual and artistic landscape. Naturally they create a significant amount of on and offline buzz but what about communities or groups such as migrant workers, senior citizens less able to create a buzz?

The National Library’s last minute climbdown may have been a victory for a particular group but whether this will translate into progress for the cause of democratisation in Singapore remains to be seen.

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.