NLB has right to decide on its definition of family

I refer to Ms Lin Shaojun’s letter “Library books should not reflect values of only one group” (July 10), which has correctly pointed out that the controversy surrounding the National Library Board’s (NLB) decision to withdraw two books from circulation revolves around the definition of a family.

While the definition and re-definition of a family have sparked off a global debate that is set to continue into the future, the NLB’s actions exemplify precisely what it means to live in a tolerant society that embraces diversity, counter-intuitive as it may sound.

The NLB has exercised its right to choose which viewpoint it seeks to represent, in accordance with the freedoms of a democratic society. Viewpoint diversity does not mean that the NLB abrogates its right to decide on the legitimate community interests it chooses to serve; and to that extent, to decide on a definition of a family that is most consistent with its policies.

In fact, the NLB’s definition of the family is consistent with the government’s pro-family stance, which Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong defined in 2007 as “one man, one woman, marrying, having children and bringing up children within that framework of a stable family unit”.

The notion of tolerance does not mean that every view is equally valid; the call to tolerance cannot be used to affirm a myriad of contrary viewpoints and obscure fundamental issues. To tolerate something means that you have to disagree with it in the first place, but if one asserts that nobody should have the ability to pronounce right and wrong, it renders the concept of tolerance incoherent.

In this context, it means that there must be robust debate about the content of the controversy — which is first and foremost on the definition of the family — and not merely assert that the NLB is in no position to decide what that definition should be.

Restricting the circulation of books is not inconsistent with the values of free expression in a democracy.

For instance, the European Court of Human Rights allowed the ban of a children’s book, The Little Red Schoolbook, in the case of Handyside v United Kingdom, stating that although “the book contained factual information that was generally correct … the competent English judges were entitled, in the exercise of their discretion, to think at the relevant time that the book would have pernicious effects on the morals of many of the children and adolescents who would read it” and so allowed the UK’s ban of the children’s book.

In contrast, the books in the NLB controversy were merely withdrawn from public libraries and can still be purchased and read.

It is precisely because the books are pitched at a young audience that the NLB is right to restrict the books in its circulation to those that promote community norms. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.

Parents can still choose to expose their children to other content, but to insist that the NLB circulate books that are inconsistent with its own policies would be intolerant.