JULY 17 ― Last week, Singapore’s National Library Board announced its intention to pulp three children’s books deemed to be in opposition to the country’s “pro-family” stance. The contentious decision was taken after complaints from a few library users - and I do mean a few, given that the NLB receives on average fewer than 20 removal requests a year, not all of them related to children’s books.
The decision to destroy these books comes hot on the heels of the recent Pink Dot rally, where a record 26,000 activists gathered in downtown Singapore to celebrate sexual diversity despite fierce opposition from religious and cultural conservatives.
The books at the centre of the controversy include: And Tango Makes Three, an illustrated true story of two male penguins in the Central Park zoo; The White Swan Express: A Story About Adoption, which involves a lesbian couple; and Who's In My Family: All About Our Families, which features – shock, horror – all kinds of families, including references to gay couples.
In a characteristically insipid statement, the NLB, defending its actions, said that it takes a “cautious approach” to the approval of children’s material in its libraries, while information minister Yaacob Ibrahim stated simply that the NLB’s decision was “guided by community norms.”
He admitted that “societies are never static, and will change over time” but that the role of the NLB is to “reflect existing social norms.” He also added that the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans “accept teaching children about conventional families, but not about alternative, non-traditional families.”
Plenty of people in Singapore have come out to condemn the NLB, criticising the decision to destroy the books as “knee-jerk” and calling for a more thorough review of the so-called “offensive” material. Singapore’s arts and literary community have been particularly vocal ― prominent local writer Ng Yi-Sheng bemoaned the decision to destroy the books instead of choosing a “compromise solution, such as putting the books in adult lending or even the reference section.” Meanwhile, local playwright Alfian Sa’at, called for a boycott of the NLB network, stating: “Our stand is precise and clear. We are against censorship, an opaque bureaucracy and the destruction of books.”
This is great and all, but it only addresses part of the threat. Yes, the removal of these books is an attack on the very premise of intellectual freedom in a democratic society. But to object to the destruction of these books solely on these grounds suggests that there is something inherently offensive about the material contained.
The implication here is that we should preserve these books because censorship is wrong, not because homophobia is. Anti-gay conservatives almost always cleverly cast the censorship debate in terms of protecting children from “adult” material.
Ng Shi-Yeng’s “compromise solution”, where the books are moved to the adults’ section, only serves to confirm this view. Meanwhile, confining the books to the reference section reinforces the idea that LGBT families are a shameful, dirty secret that deserve to be stuffed in a dark corner, gathering dust, until they fall apart and disintegrate.
Lest we think this is just a problem in the conservative city-state of Singapore, it isn’t. The US, despite its commitment to freedom of speech under the First Amendment, has a long history of controversy surrounding the removal of books featuring LGBT themes from library shelves.
Such decisions are usually taken independently by school boards pandering to the demands of "outraged" parents (none of them actual homophobes, you know, even as they describe homosexuality as “perversely vulgar, obscene and inappropriate”).
We all know by now that “pro-family” is thinly veiled code for “anti-LGBT”, “anti-diversity” and even “anti-single parent.” It’s never clear precisely what heinous crimes these “non-traditional families” are committing, but the modus operandi always seems to be: deny their existence and maybe they’ll cease to exist.
The core of this battle, of course, is the fight over information; and information means power and control. It is a stark reminder of the disproportionate extent to which books about LGBT people and their families are the targets of censorship.
The American Library Association keeps an updated list of frequently challenged books, which more often than not cite “homosexuality” and unfavourable “religious viewpoints” as the reason for their exclusion from library shelves.
Books have the powerful ability to challenge perceptions and encourage people to think – both of which are inimical to a certain kind of "groupthink." Opponents of gay rights, indeed opponents of anything "liberal" or "enlightened", know that the more children are exposed to the existence of non-traditional families via literature, the more likely they are to be accepting of such families. And a world filled with more acceptance and less prejudice would be a terrible one indeed.
Having read And Tango Makes Three myself (you can listen to it read here), the authors are far more concerned with promoting adoption and unconditional love than some twisted "homosexual agenda."
But even if they were promoting a homosexual agenda ― what, precisely, is the problem? I make no apologies for the fact that I believe LGBT relationships should be accepted and normalised in society. I also strongly believe that affording LGBT parents the same cultural and social visibility as straight parents is critical in eliminating discrimination and homophobia. One of the easiest ways to do this is to actively encourage sensitive and truthful portrayals of LGBT families in books, film and television.
I fully accept that in a country like Singapore, where 72 per cent of the population reject gay relationships, that change may be a long time coming. I also accept that individual families have the right to decide which books their children read and do not read.
But the time has come for all of us to critically examine our prejudices and ask what it is we find so threatening about “non-traditional” families. Studies have consistently found that the children of same-sex couples are just as happy and healthy as those from heterosexual families.
We need to oppose the destruction of these books not just because it is a gross exercise in book-burning and censorship, but because LGBT families (and LGBT penguins) deserve to have their stories told.
* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
