Since independence, it had been assumed that one of the many roles of government in Singapore include family planning and social (re)structuring. Such a role implies that the state possesses the moral duty to uphold family values and take on a pro-family stance aligned with societal ‘norms’. Over the years, we have seen the state enact policies such as “stop at two”, “graduate mother’s scheme”, “have three or more”, refuse to repeal the infamous penal code 377A and pursue various other family planning or pro-family initiatives, none of which brought about expected and required results. Some of these failed to take off altogether while others became so successful that even upon reversal, continue to plague the nation today. A most recent act by the state (or extension of the state) to uphold family values involved the removal of two books from the shelves of the NLB libraries due to their anti-family nature.
But before we look into the NLB book ban, let us delve into the history of the state’s social planning initiatives and study their ‘effectiveness’. First off, let us dissect their “stop at two” policy. This initiative was supposed to curb the high population growth rates in the post-war era. The government, then led by PM Lee Kuan Yew, was alarmed at the burgeoning population growth rates and moved to ‘rectify’ the problem through anti-natal campaigns and punitive measures to dissuade parents from having more than two children. For example, hospitals were legally expected to charge higher child delivery fees beyond the second child. In addition, children who had the unfortunate circumstance of being third onwards in the family line found themselves placed in most disadvantageous positions when it came to education in public schools. Such draconian pecuniary measures resulted in huge declines in birth rates, from a 5% annual rate to a sub-2% by the time the policy was abolished. Labour shortages soon forced the state to not only abolish but make a 180-degrees policy shift with the introduction of the “have three or more” initiative in an attempt to increase birth rates to sustainable repopulating levels. With the government at present still attempting in vain to persuade parents to have more babies, there is no need to explicitly discuss the effectiveness of the latest policy.
The next initiative, the “graduate mother’s scheme” was the brainchild of former PM Lee Kuan Yew. This policy called for the unions of graduate men and women, conveniently overlooking the fact that civil unions occur not because of what the government needs but what each partner is looking for. This interference into the personal lives of Singaporeans was seen necessary by then-PM Lee as he stoutly believed that the practice of eugenics would ensure the ‘production’ of highly intelligent babies. Such intelligence, PM Lee Kuan Yew believed, could subsequently be harnessed for the betterment of the national economy, then starting to gravitate towards a service oriented economy requiring highly skilled workers. Unfortunately once again, the failure to consider the desire for free will amongst the locals led to a watershed election in 1984 with a huge 13% vote swing in favour of the opposition. Needless to say, and thankfully, politics necessitated the abolishment of such a controversial policy and common sense prevailed.
The recent removal of two books from the shelves of all libraries administered by the National Library Board (NLB) resulted in much furore from the civil rights community. The books “And Tango Makes Three” and “The White Sawn Express: A Story About Adoption” had led to a member of the public writing in to NLB complaining that they promoted homosexuality and contravened pro-family values. The statement NLB issued in response to criticism that followed the banning of such books are:
“NLB’s collection development policy takes special care of our children’s collections to ensure they are age-appropriate. We take a cautious approach, particularly in books and materials for children. NLB’s understanding of family is consistent with that of the Ministry of Social and Family.” Development and the Ministry of Education.”
Upon closer inspection, the dissection of the words “development policy” reeks of blatant attempts at crafting young minds arbitrarily by limiting materials available for widespread use. How different is this from that of specialised indoctrination centres? A library is supposedly a centre of knowledge, a venue where great literal works are stored for the perusal of those seeking knowledge far and beyond what one already possesses. As the quote goes, “A library is a delivery room for the birth of ideas, a place where history comes to live.” By banning and then pulping books that do not ‘fit in’, NLB is not only limiting the ideas available for inspection and scrutiny, but also believing rather falsely that they are on a moral pedestal, a pedestal on which they have the right to create the only roads through which young minds can travel.
Had the libraries been privately owned and there was competition amongst them for readership and visitations, then any library should have the right as a privately owned entity to remove books contrary to its vision. However, NLB is an organisation funded by the government (more specifically Ministry of Communications and Information) and is therefore an extension of the government. The name of the Ministry itself could imply that the switch to a Nazi-era Ministry Of Propaganda can be made and its role wouldn’t be much altered besides the remaking of name cards. If the Ministry considers it a sacred role to filter information according to societal norms, how different is it to the ‘societal norms’ propagated by such ministries as those in totalitarian countries.
The arguments in support of NLB’s decision have largely emerged from social conservatives and other traditionalists believing in the sanctity of the status quo. One such argument is that the library is merely reflecting the true stand of the government. But if that is so, will it not also imply that the state is the central facet of society and that every individual should abide by norms set by the state? Does free will still exist then? In a petition launched in favour of NLB’s action by Singaporeans Unite For Family, the supporting argument was that NLB was merely “looking after the interests of children” and it was their (NLB’s) “duty” to act as such. By extension, this would also imply that parents ought to surrender their roles as a guiding light in their own children’s development to the state. And do so willingly too! Even if the intellectual horizons of these people are as narrow as a street alley, why should they have the power to limit those who would seek to broaden their sights? It is within the rights of these conservatives to enforce bans on such materials within their households but to pursue a general ban through the use of state power is resplendent of a totalitarian state and despotism.
In Singapore, the possession of satellite television, wide –spectrum radios and various other communicative devices are heavily regulated if not entirely prohibited. And now, we also know that the national public libraries are not immune to state intervention. The Internet, as one of the last bastions of free speech and expression is also about to or has already come under heavy regulatory scrutiny with the introduction of new ‘licencing’ rules covering websites with an excess of 50,000 unique views from the country. The use of the word ‘licensing’ is but a government euphemism for state oversight. The “performance bond” of 50,000SGD is also but a ransom and a threat to force news and web companies to toe a state sanctioned line of reporting. Of course, every one of these actions may be done with good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This regulatory state is now atop a slippery slope for more rules and regulations based upon their arbitrary definitions of morality and social correctness.
The core reason for this article is not to pursue any ends but to open the doors to others who may seek it. Or at least provide a key. Since independence, the state has been ever-present in the planning and/or engineering of civil society. From how many children we can or should have to the access of materials in accordance to societal norms, the government has a hand in them. But should such decisions be left to mothers and fathers or should the state decide for them with a one-size-fits-all policy? We have seen that such policies hardly ever make their mark on the target board. Yet the state continues to this day to meddle in the daily lives of its citizen. On a personal note, I am not afraid to say that many ministries in the government are obsolete and serve no purpose other than to perpetuate government presence in every facet of society. Shutting down ministries such as MCI, MCCY and MSF wouldn’t make Singapore any lesser, but it would sure save us a lot of money sponsoring such net loss organisations.
Benedict Chong
TRS Contributor