I'm irked and upset that NLB has banned and decided to destroy the three controversial books after receiving complaints of their alleged non-adherence to "family values". This whole fiasco is ludicrous, and so are the people who are pushing for said books to be withdrawn from the NLB collection. I know this sounds like a really opinionated and subjective assertion, but really, it isn't. I'm in fact going to write an extremely cool-headed, rational, and objective piece and convince the staunchest of my detractors that it is unequivocally absurd for those books to be banned.
Let's first consider the role and purpose of a library. Now, as quoted verbatim from NLB's very own About page, it "promotes reading, learning and information literacy by providing a trusted, accessible and globally-connected library and information service". Now, if you're eyeing the quote with churning distrust, thinking silently that I may have somehow quoted out of context, misquoted, or quoted selectively to further my agenda, you're welcome to head over to NLB's website to take a look for yourself. I assure you, I quote it exactly as it is.
The U.S. based National Forum On Information Literacy defines the term "information literacy" to be:
It empowers people in all walks of life to seek, evaluate, use, and create information effectively to achieve their personal, social, occupational and educational goals. It is a basic human right in a digital world and promotes social inclusion of all nations.
Meanwhile, from a source closer to heart, the NLB describes it as (at the bottom of page 8 of the PDF):
Information literacy (IL) improves an individual’s ability to make informed decisions by equipping them with the skills to find, evaluate, assess and use information effectively from the plethora of sources available.
I draw your attention to the overlapping definitions from both sources, which emphasize seeking/finding, evaluating/assessing, and using.
NLB's book ban on the three allegedly offensive works is laughably in direct contradiction to its purported aim of promoting information literacy. I fail to see how the outright removal of books from its catalog can allow readers to seek/find, evaluate/assess and use the information within them to make informed decisions about their very own, personal lifestyles and choices. The NLB claims to promote reading and learning, not act like an informational dictator in policing what the public can or cannot read. The very definition of "information literacy" connotes the ideas of exposure and discernment.
Yes, the NLB has declared in a statement that its understanding of family is consistent with that of the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Ministry of Educaiton, and yes, I respect that. Every individual and entity is entitled to an opinion on any subject matter. Yet, having the right to an opinion does not automatically confer you the right to act on it, with the assumption that your opinion is universally true and factual. The NLB is free to interpret and understand the concept of "family" in any way it so desires. However, it should unwaveringly stay true to its proclaimed objectives of promoting reading, learning and information literacy. Unless the disputed book is outright seditious, hateful, or directly harmful to society at large (which is extremely subjective, yet a topic for another day), the NLB has no business deciding what I (or any other public reader, for that matter) can or cannot read.
But enough with the NLB. After all, the book ban is but a knee-jerk to the stimulus - the complaints from conservative members of the public. Let's take a closer look at these... prudes people. I'd like to refer you to this letter, which very succinctly and effectively worded out my exact sentiments. In particular,
Second, I am shocked that conservatives are acting as self-appointed vigilantes in the public space, policing what society as a whole should and should not read. While they have every right to adopt the views they choose to adopt, and keep their children away from books they deem inappropriate, they should not impose their values on the rest. Singapore is a secular state, and the NLB, as a statutory board, should act accordingly.
I couldn't agree more. If John Tan, an atheist, were to feel offended at every book with mention of religion in NLB's collection and rally to ban all of them, the public outrage would be unthinkable. Why? Because one group's sensibilities should not be held as the golden standard on which to base the moral benchmark of society. Similarly, sexual conservatives should not be acting as vigilantes to influence what others can and cannot read. This comes back to the point that while NLB may be neutral religiously, it is staunchly conservative in its understanding of family. However, as stated earlier, NLB should reflect on its original organizational objectives and work toward it, rather than allow such distractions to divert it from its mission.
I stumbled on this Facebook post by a David Moses Heng, reproduced on Singaporeans United for Family.
Was out with my wife yesterday. We were at Bras Ba Sah after service and chanced upon a gathering. Curious, I went forward to find out what was it about while she went to the ladies. I did not like what I saw. The atmosphere was very tense and weird, not hostile. I saw couples hugging each other, holding onto a penguin soft toy. These couples, a majority of them, were of the same gender. There are easily 100 over person gathered together. Shortly after, my wife joined me and I spoke with her. She told me that she felt weird that there are so many people at the courtyard. She thought that it was an event to promote children books because she saw penguin soft toys BUT she did not see any kids around. I then suggested to her that it may have been a protest by people from a particular group on the removal and destruction of the 3 gay theme books. All these took place at the head quarters of the National Library on a Sunday afternoon. Questions flooded my mind. Emotions start to well up within me and I can't help but think that lawlessness has began to gain a foot hold in my Singapore. in the name of free speech and human rights, groups of unsound practices are exploiting loop holes to impose their un orthodox practices and view point down the throats of the conservatives majority, demanding for acceptance. When they do not get what they want, they staged protest as such, imposing a physical visual pressure on the authorities, forcing them to bow them, to give in. Friends and loved ones who can read what I have written, may I invite you to seriously consider and re consider what do you truly want to leave behind for our future generation? For those of us whom are sitting on the fence, are you willing to be held responsible for the destruction that may very soon hit our country? It is not with fear that I write what I have written. Rather it is with sadness and disappointment that prompts me to write and alert my fellow country men that evil is lurking or may have even entered our land. Any delay in action MAY and WILL caused us to loss all that is at hand, resulting in the eroding and decaying of the morale pillars that has been the foundation pillars of our country. For the sake of our children and children's children, please make your stand.
Now, I'm going to risk sounding really opinionated and biased, but I'm just going to go ahead and say it. This post sounds so stupid that I'd thought it was satirical. Unfortunately, I've come to realize that the author was dead serious.
1. How does opposing censorship amount to "impose their un orthodox practices and view point down the throats of the conservatives majority"? Hey David, protesting the ban is not the same as calling for a copy of the book to be mailed to every household in Singapore, and requiring a written summary as proof that said household has read it. You are the one forcing your viewpoints on others, by pushing for the continued illegitimacy of their lifestyles, simply because you believe that it is wrong.
2. "For those of us whom are sitting on the fence, are you willing to be held responsible for the destruction that may very soon hit our country?" Now that's a slippery slope argument if I've ever encountered one. Hey David, you want to explain how you got from a protest against the book ban to the uh... destruction of our country?
3. Hey David, who appointed you Supreme Moral Judge of the Land? Who are you to decide that their cause represents evil and will result in the erosion and decay of the moral (I'm going to correct that for you) pillars of our country? Why do you get to determine what is moral and immoral?
Yes, his argument is obviously leaky and fraught with logical fallacies and flaws. He isn't alone, though. The Facebook page Singaporeans United for Family has a handful of vocal fans who aren't shy to declare their personal opinions as incontrovertible facts.
Now, as I have mentioned earlier, every parent is entitled to an opinion of the meaning of family. The proper course of action is to act on your opinion, educate your child and raise him/her up right. Just as you would not tolerate a third party telling you to "Raise your child <insert religion here>, or he will become evil! If you want to ruin yourself, I can't stop you; but why pervert your kid?", do not stand for anyone telling you how you should teach sexuality to your kid. Information, not ignorance, is power. Ignoring the existence of alternative sexuality does not make it disappear.
And should my compelling and structured argument fail to convince you, I would like to say: I think society would be better off without crime, and I'm sure everyone agrees. I don't want any young and impressionable kids to take up a life of crime. As such, I solemnly propose banning every book with criminal elements in it. Yes, essentially the thrillers collection. You see, I wholly believe that reading about crime will turn one into a criminal, and that the thrillers collection is a catalyst for the decay of our society.
Sudo Nyme
*The writer blogs at http://literallykidding.blogspot.sg/