Written by Ng E-Jay
10 July 2014
Recently, the National Library Board (NLB) took on the role of thought police by taking down two children’s books, “And Tango Makes Three” (by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson), and “The White Swan Express” (by Jean Davies Okimoto).
The NLB claimed it took down these two books in response to “complaints from the public”. Actually, the complaints originated from the Facebook Group with the title “We Are Against Pinkdot“, which the founders initiated to oppose the advancement of homosexual rights and other fundamental civil liberties.
The opposition to homosexual rights stems primarily from religious beliefs as well as indoctrination in a backward and outdated social culture that practices discrimination against people based on their sexual differences rather than on their character and integrity.
What are so objectionable about these two books that prompted the NLB to censor them?
“And Tango Makes Three” is based on the true story of two male Chinstrap Penguins in New York’s Central Park Zoo who were given an egg to raise. The egg successfully hatches and the baby penguin is raised by the two male adult penguins which act like a couple. Ostensibly then, this book is about how a family with two males raising a kid can succeed.
“The White Swan Express” tells the stories of four baby girls from a Chinese orphanage and the families which adopt them. The stories feature a single mother as well as a lesbian couple among its characters.
According to the Assistant Chief Executive & Chief Librarian of NLB, Ms Tay Ai Cheng, the NLB takes a “strong pro-family stand” in selecting books for children.
In so doing then, Ms Tay is actively promoting the PAP government’s stand on what constitutes a proper or valid family unit, and indirectly implies that other parenting units, such as those comprising two adults of the same gender, are “anti-family” and hence improper, invalid or destructive.
Why is the NLB forcing its readers to conform to the government’s moral code? Is it right for a national library to do so, to help the government of the day dictate moral policy for all Singaporeans? Perhaps the NLB views itself as an instrument of the government, being under its direct administrative ambit, and hence it is proper for it to conduct itself thusly. But should we, especially the liberal-minded, accept that?
Let us take a step back from LGBT rights and the issue of what should constitute a proper or valid family unit. Let us look instead at the broader picture of what role literature should play in society.
Literature is not just to teach the young moral values that society or the government prefers them to adopt. Literature should inspire a questioning attitude. Literature should foster inquisition, invite readers to take a fresh perspective at issues, and encourage original thought. Literature should foster creativity. It should edify, entertain, and educate, perhaps even all three at the same time. Literature should stir within the consciousness of the reader a deeper appreciation of the human condition.
That to me is what literature is about. It is not a simple matter of deciding that some books will impart the incorrect values and thus they should be censored. That is a most shallow view of what literature is.
Why should the two books in question, “And Tango Makes Three” and “The White Swan Express“, be simply about describing alternative family units? Surely they can have deeper meanings what is up to the reader to explore. Surely there are larger issues being brought up, such as the role of discrimination in society, the basic need of each individual for love and care and acceptance, and the human struggle for equality and self-determination.
Surely it is up to the young reader to form his or her own interpretation of these two books. Why must our children (and adults, for that matter) be forced to accept the NLB narrow and superficial interpretation and be forced to accept censorship as a given?
Let people read these two books. Let people discuss and debate them. Let people form their own opinions and interpretations. Let there be both support as well as opposition to these opinions and interpretations. Let the people be free to read and to think and to form their own views of the world.
With censorship, all of the above is killed off immediately and there is no more room for thought, for debate, for opinion. Surely this is not right. Surely this is oppression.
http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=8860
10 July 2014
Recently, the National Library Board (NLB) took on the role of thought police by taking down two children’s books, “And Tango Makes Three” (by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson), and “The White Swan Express” (by Jean Davies Okimoto).
The NLB claimed it took down these two books in response to “complaints from the public”. Actually, the complaints originated from the Facebook Group with the title “We Are Against Pinkdot“, which the founders initiated to oppose the advancement of homosexual rights and other fundamental civil liberties.
The opposition to homosexual rights stems primarily from religious beliefs as well as indoctrination in a backward and outdated social culture that practices discrimination against people based on their sexual differences rather than on their character and integrity.
What are so objectionable about these two books that prompted the NLB to censor them?
“And Tango Makes Three” is based on the true story of two male Chinstrap Penguins in New York’s Central Park Zoo who were given an egg to raise. The egg successfully hatches and the baby penguin is raised by the two male adult penguins which act like a couple. Ostensibly then, this book is about how a family with two males raising a kid can succeed.
“The White Swan Express” tells the stories of four baby girls from a Chinese orphanage and the families which adopt them. The stories feature a single mother as well as a lesbian couple among its characters.
According to the Assistant Chief Executive & Chief Librarian of NLB, Ms Tay Ai Cheng, the NLB takes a “strong pro-family stand” in selecting books for children.
In so doing then, Ms Tay is actively promoting the PAP government’s stand on what constitutes a proper or valid family unit, and indirectly implies that other parenting units, such as those comprising two adults of the same gender, are “anti-family” and hence improper, invalid or destructive.
Why is the NLB forcing its readers to conform to the government’s moral code? Is it right for a national library to do so, to help the government of the day dictate moral policy for all Singaporeans? Perhaps the NLB views itself as an instrument of the government, being under its direct administrative ambit, and hence it is proper for it to conduct itself thusly. But should we, especially the liberal-minded, accept that?
Let us take a step back from LGBT rights and the issue of what should constitute a proper or valid family unit. Let us look instead at the broader picture of what role literature should play in society.
Literature is not just to teach the young moral values that society or the government prefers them to adopt. Literature should inspire a questioning attitude. Literature should foster inquisition, invite readers to take a fresh perspective at issues, and encourage original thought. Literature should foster creativity. It should edify, entertain, and educate, perhaps even all three at the same time. Literature should stir within the consciousness of the reader a deeper appreciation of the human condition.
That to me is what literature is about. It is not a simple matter of deciding that some books will impart the incorrect values and thus they should be censored. That is a most shallow view of what literature is.
Why should the two books in question, “And Tango Makes Three” and “The White Swan Express“, be simply about describing alternative family units? Surely they can have deeper meanings what is up to the reader to explore. Surely there are larger issues being brought up, such as the role of discrimination in society, the basic need of each individual for love and care and acceptance, and the human struggle for equality and self-determination.
Surely it is up to the young reader to form his or her own interpretation of these two books. Why must our children (and adults, for that matter) be forced to accept the NLB narrow and superficial interpretation and be forced to accept censorship as a given?
Let people read these two books. Let people discuss and debate them. Let people form their own opinions and interpretations. Let there be both support as well as opposition to these opinions and interpretations. Let the people be free to read and to think and to form their own views of the world.
With censorship, all of the above is killed off immediately and there is no more room for thought, for debate, for opinion. Surely this is not right. Surely this is oppression.
http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=8860
