NLB’s banned children’s books reflect a facet of reality

I was surprised that the National Library Board (NLB) removed two children’s books from its collection after it received complaints that the books were not “pro-family”.

One of the books, And Tango for Three, is based on a true story about two male penguins raising a baby penguin in New York’s Central Park Zoo. The other, The White Swan Express: A Story About Adoption, is about four families who adopted children – two were made up of heterosexual couples, one was a single-parent family and the last was a same-sex family.

One can surmise that the objection to these books was based on their purported references to homosexuality.

As an agnostic father of two young kids, married to a moderate Christian wife, I was intrigued by the complaint and disturbed that the NLB acted in favour of the complainant.

First, I have absolutely no problems exposing my children to stories and themes of homosexuality, because I believe it highlights a facet of reality: that there are sexual minorities in every society. If my kids turned out straight, I would like them to accord complete respect, empathy and acceptance to their LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) friends.

More importantly, if my children turned out to be adults who belonged to a sexual minority, I would want them to be completely comfortable in their own skin. These books would allow me to inform my children at a young age of the diversity in what it means to be a family and would serve as an invaluable teaching resource.

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.

Third, the meaning and definition of “family” can be diverse, and it would serve everyone better if people can agree to disagree, than for one vocal minority to define the meaning of “family”.