
The three children’s books that NLB has banned in 2014 so far
In the News
Over the past couple of days, news has surfaced that the Singapore National Library Board (NLB) has banned children’s books that feature LGBT themes. The books in question were Who’s In My Family? by Robie H. Harris, The White Swan Express: A Story About Adoption by Jean Davis Okimoto and Elaine M. Aoki, and And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell. The former two books feature families with same-sex couples, while the latter features a pair of male penguins who raise a baby penguin.
Library Books Banned due to Pro-Family Sentiments
The Straits Time reports that NLB pulled these books from the shelves in support of their pro-family stance after they received complaints about these books. Today also notes that those books will not be returned to the library catalogue and will be pulped.
Considering the books that have been removed from the libraries, what offends the sensitivities of a pro-family stance is homosexual parents. That’s what connects these books after all. It isn’t because of the mixed race parentage that can be found in Who’s In My Family?, or is it? That would be racially discriminatory.
What baffles me is that And Tango Makes Three is about penguins mad it is based on a true story of penguins from the Central Park Zoo. How do animal relations affect human relations? I fail to see the connection.
To be fair, And Tango Makes Three also caused a controversy in the USA, belonging to ALA’s top most challenged books between 2006 and 2010.
My Thoughts
Personally, I take issue with two things on the matter. Firstly, the fact that these books were banned. Secondly, the reason these books were banned.
Against Banning Books
Books Represent Culture
Books are representative of culture. The encompass views, thoughts, stories, values, ideals and so much more. Removing a book means silencing a voice. In the case of removing LGBT books, it means silencing the voice of the LGBT community. What legitimizes the silencing of one voice over another?
Even if you’re not an LGBT supporter, the principles behind banning books still affects you. What if your voice is silenced? Freedom to express one’s race, one’s language, and one’s religion are tenets embedded in the Singapore Pledge. What if these came to naught? What if the Bible and the Qur’an were banned because these religious texts don’t preach Confucian values down to a T?
Some values are deeply personal and cannot be imposed onto others. Belief in God (or gods) cannot be forced upon a deeply resolute atheist. As much as we wish for the world to believe the same things as we personally do, the reality is far from it. There are as many different views on earth as people who are alive. Many of these overlap but diversity is inevitable and diversity should be acknowledged.
The Responsibility of Parents
It’s the responsibility of parents to monitor what their children read. Some parents don’t want their children reading religious texts until they’re older, so they can make an informed choice with regards to faiths then. Other parents don’t want their children reading LGBT books. Yet petitioning to remove a book encroaches on the right of other library patrons to access these books. Neither does this alter the reality that we live in today.
Banning a book about two male penguin parents who raised a baby penguin is not going to change that reality. Banning a book about same-sex parents doesn’t change that reality either. They exist. Why prevent children from seeing the world the way it is?
The Role of the Library
If there is such a great concern about children reading particular books because they aren’t “age-appropriate”, then re-shelve these books! Make them accessible only to children of a particular age or shelve them in a restricted section that is only accessible to children accompanied by a parent, guardian or elder sibling. Point is, there is no gain in depriving others of access to particular books because a few vocal people raised complaints.
The Meaning of Pro-Family
Citing “pro-family” as a reason for banning these books is an ambiguous one. What does this even mean? I’m not entirely sure but it could mean:
- in support of families to the exclusion of homosexuality
- in support of families with heteronormative parents
- in support of families with at least one parent and one child
The first meaning is so precise, that “pro-family” would’ve been such an unnecessary term. It would’ve been clearer to just state these books were banned on the grounds of homosexuality. That would’ve caused an uproar, particularly among the LGBT community. Oh wait. The LGBT community is already in uproar. So there’s that.
The second meaning also makes sense in light of the books that were banned. However, it also expands the number of books that would need to be banned. For instance, books about single-parents don’t adhere to this model. I hardly think anyone would consider such a move, so “pro-family” comes off as a sorry excuse for banning books.
The third meaning is pretty much the state of many families today. Undermining that serves no purpose, particularly in literature. Think about little children who see a mother and father in books, asking their mothers why they don’t have a father. Libraries don’t ban these books to preserve the feelings of these children. Instead, they ensure books featuring single-parent families are part of the library collection.
Extend this to children from same-sex parents. They too see pictures of a father and a mother parenting their children. Banning books with same-sex parents is a signal to these children that they don’t belong. It’s already difficult enough for the parents to deal with backlash about their relationships but don’t take it out on their children.
I really hate when books get banned for stupid reasons. Even reading through your post I really couldn’t comprehend why they were banned.
Isn’t a book that supports respect and understanding of ALL relationships and human beings be a GOOD book? I honestly do not understand parents nowadays.
“It’s the responsibility of parents to monitor what their children read.” <– Amen to that. I hate it when people think that they need to censor the book for everyone because not all parents are against what the book is trying to say.
Great post! I didn't know this was going on, so thanks for sharing!
I don’t get it either. It’s like there are multiple standards and they pick the ones that suit them for banning books.
Thing is, as much as I think no child should be discriminated against based on their family circumstances, homosexual couples can’t adopt children in Singapore, which means that officially, no such families exist. Nonetheless, there’s no point sheltering children from the reality of the rest of the world.
And yes, I think that’s a very important point about parents needing to pay attention to their own children. Different parents want to raise their children differently, and they should have that freedom as well, without the library curtailing that by forbidding access to books other parents might actually want for their own children.
Great post!! I loved and tango makes three. Beautiful book. Personally… I don’t think a city library should have the right to pull these books. They should not censor books ever. When I worked at Barnes and Nobles many moons ago people would complain but I would have to tell them that Barnes and Nobles sells everything. Just sad.
I totally agree with you. But I wasn’t too surprised either that this happened. Censorship is pretty much the norm in Singapore, even if it’s becoming less strict. I just think it’s sad that the library board, which is not the governing body for censoring, took it upon itself to ban book that are technically permitted in Singapore. At the same time, it does make more sense for there to be censorship in a library than in a bookstore. A bookstore requires that people actually buy an “offending” book before they can read it. Hahaha.
Point is, there is no gain in depriving others of access to particular books because a few vocal people raised complaints.
THIS. Banning books has never settled right with me, whether it’s people calling for a ban on HP books because they “teach witchcraft” or the kinds of books that you talked about here. For the first case, the HP books, they’re fiction books! They’re fantasy books, and if a parent thinks that a children’s book is going to teach Little Jimmy about witchcraft, then do they think that dystopian YA books like The Hunger Games are teaching teenagers how to kill people?
But moving on to what you talked about here, I agree that saying these books aren’t “pro-family” is indeed a horrible excuse for pulling these books from the shelves. By banning these books, it’s like parents are telling their children that such relationships and families aren’t “normal.” :/ Like they’re some kind of oddity meant to be changed or not represented in literature. What happens when these kids grow up? Will they carry on their parents’ attitudes against people they don’t think are “normal”?
(Just a note, your link for The White Swan Express in the first paragraph doesn’t go anywhere.)
Haha. I remember when I was younger my mother didn’t really want me reading Harry Potter but ultimately, it was up to me. I just had to borrow these books because she wouldn’t allow me to buy them. My father on the the other hand always encouraged me to read widely and read practically anything I could get my hands on.
Well, technically homosexuality isn’t normal in Singapore. Gay acts of “gross indecency” are against the law, although (lack of) enforcement is another matter. Funnily, there’s no such law against lesbian acts. Either way, homosexual marriage, as in most countries, is banned. As far as I know, homosexual couples can’t adopt children either, so it does make sense that The White Swan Expressis one of the books under fire.
Still, there are always ways around this, so it would come as no surprise to me if there are children in Singapore living under the roof of homosexual couples. And rather than turning a blind eye, it’d be better for there to be awareness that families don’t always adhere to the heteronormative model.
By the way, I fixed the link. Thank you for pointing it out, Ana! :)
I completely agree with you. I’m going to be doing a post tomorrow on my thoughts about this but I’m really displeased with NLB. To prevent public access to these books is not a decision a certain group can make for everyone else, you don’t speak on behalf of us. I’m disappointed too that the books are being destroyed, I find that move highly unnecessary. They are still books and works of literature that authors, illustrators and publishers spent time and effort to produce, it feels like a huge waste.
I’ll be sure to look out for your post, Charlotte!
I thought it interesting that this hit the news because earlier this year I wondered if NLB does censor books on the grounds of homosexuality. But then I’ve borrowed and read a few YA books with LGBT themes, so I thought maybe not. Although, I did think it suspicious that Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe by Benjamin Alire Sáenz and Ask the Passengers by A.S. King aren’t in the catalogue, when both of these are award-winning books.
Whatever it is, those three children’s books were already on the shelves, which means they must have been approved. And destroying them is completely unnecessary. NLB might have banned them but Singapore hasn’t, so they might as well donate or sell them to people who do want these books. Such a waste.
I’m not pro gay, but I’m definitely a stickler for respect. We had just been discussing in social about rights and free speech, and anything is okay as long as it doesn’t infringe on the right of others. This is doing just that, and I find it unfair because the government can get away with it unless there was a big public outcry against it, but I know that since Singapore is very anti-gay. So yeah, I don’t know how many people out there would be in support of it.
Like you, I’m not pro gay but I think respect is what matters above it all.
Well, technically this wasn’t move on the government’s part. The library board decided to ban these books. They banned a few other books in the past on sex education as well. But yes, the banning those three books was underpinned by the anti-gay stance that is so rampant in Singapore. People are opening up though, what with Pink Dot gaining more supporters every year.
Great topic today! I’m very against banning books, but I’m also big on parental responsibility when it comes to what books (my) kids read. I’ll just come out and say it- I would not let my (young) kids read a book featuring a LGBT couple, and I’m not going to apologize for this, because it ties into my religious beliefs. However, I would also never want these types of books to be banned. And I also would have no problem having my (older) kids read them, after we’ve had a discussion and had the opportunity to talk though the subject.
And I’m also baffled on the penguin book-it’s a true story about animals for Pete’s sake. That’s the same thing as when you see stories of animals raising other kinds of animals (dogs mothering abandoned kittens etc). I really don’t see what all of the fuss is about this one-I’ll have to check it out now and read it, lol.
I think it’s an important topic to address, so it’s mostly in response to what’s been going on here where I live.
If I were a parent, I’d do exactly what you do. My religious and personal beliefs don’t support homosexuality. But that does not mean I go round condemning people who do support homosexuality. In fact, just as I have friends with different religious beliefs, I have friends who aren’t heterosexual. Marginalizing people who aren’t infringing on the rights of others is wrong, which is why I’m against the banning of those books.
Ah, yes. The penguins. I looked up screenshots of that book since I clearly won’t be able to find that book at a public library anymore. The pages I saw were precisely about about these two male penguins taking over the care of a twin penguin whose parents wouldn’t have been able to take care of him too. Whatever it is, this book has upset parents in various parts of the world.