I would like
to write my thoughts about the NLB controversy that has been taking place
recently in Singapore. The NLB is the National Library Board in Singapore, and
it had drawn flaks from pro-LGBT and humanist circles for its removal of 3
children books featuring homosexual themes from its libraries. Just last
weekend or so, pro-LGBT activists staged a protests outside the National
Library by bringing the books removed and reading them there together with
their children. Then there was the boycott movement by pro-LGBT writers to host
their events under the premises of NLB. On the social conservative front,
petitions numbering to about 26,000 or more were garnered to present support
for the NLB decision. There has been many letters written in from both camps
criticizing and supporting the NLB decision.
I suppose
this NLB issue and controversy is simply a facet in a much larger cultural tussle
that is happening within Singapore about the homosexuality issue. I just hope
to be able to put some perspective on the issue by articulating the possible sentiments
held by both sides, and proposing a way in which the issue can be dealt with in
a more amicable manner.
Foremost, I think
that the homosexuality issue is one that is not easily resolved, and is going
to last for a long long time, perhaps even past the lifetime of people within
this generation or the next few generations or so. Different people would have
different sentiments of homosexuality and ideals on how it should be treated in
society. A person with pro-LGBT sentiments probably sees homosexuality as an
innate characteristic of a person, as much as is a person’s personality or
preference. They thus view a person’s homosexual desires as something to be
sympathetic about, and even condoned as a normal and acceptable aspect of human
nature. A conservative on the other hand probably sees homosexuality as a
deviant sexual orientation, as much as pedophilia or bestiality are considered
deviant amongst the majority of society at this contemporary point of time.
Even if a social conservative were to be sympathetic to the innate desires for
same-sex relationships of a homosexual, such desires would still be considered
as deviant and unacceptable for him or her.
I suppose the
way in which conservatives and liberals view homosexuals is in part responsible
for the vastly diverging approach in which they treat homosexuality.
Conservatives view homosexuality as a reprobable lifestyle choice, as much as
how they see people who would choose to lead a promiscuous or sexually licentious
lifestyle. For conservatives, the ideal sexual relationship is a monogamous marriage relationship between a man and a woman. Liberals probably see sexual
relationships as something that is acceptable as long as it between any
consenting individuals. And with regards to homosexual relationships, a liberal
probably wishes to allow for such desires to be expressed without being disapproved
as morally unacceptable. More moderate individuals will probably differ about
their opinions on the matter depending on whether they identify more with the
arguments sympathizing a person’s homosexual orientation, or those professing a
monogamous heterosexual relationship as the ideal of a family structure.
With such
vastly differing view on homosexuality, I believe that the best way that
society can deal with it is to first of all acknowledge and respect the
existence of the opposite view, instead of simply belittling the other view as
unintellectual or bigoted. I believe those with liberal sentiments struggle
with the need to be sympathetic to the plights of those with homosexual
orientation. On the other hand, conservatives probably acknowledge such
sympathies, but still feel strongly that there is an appropriate cultural norm
to which society should preserve or aspire to. It is ultimately a difference of
ideals of what society should be like.
I think that
as far as possible, a society affirming some degree of libertarian values of allowing
individuals to lead life the way they wish to as long as it does not harm other
individuals is the best and most peaceful approach to which people of differing
views and sentiments can live amicably with one another. Homosexuals should be
allowed to conduct their personal relational lives without fear of prosecution
by the state, while conservatives should be free to express their disapproval
of homosexuality without fear of being censured for hate speech by the state.
There are the iffy grey areas where disagreements are to be expected, but as far as possible, we should try to be as amicable and congenial in the way we approach our differences. The proselytizing of views from either camps should be
kept out of public institutions, such as our schools or our media. The
matter is controversial enough such that should either a liberal view
normalizing homosexuality or a conservative view condemning it be advanced in
such public institutions where people of different faiths exists, it is bound
to offend or incur the ire of another individual. So why not let’s agree to
keep our moral views to ourselves, and speak of them only in appropriate
occasions where people are agreeable to discuss and debate the issue. As much
as one does not like it if someone from another camp forces his or her views
down upon him or her, he or she should likewise not force his or her view on
another person.
My view for
the NLB matter is thus that libraries should be keeping away books professing
either moral positions from either camps away from the children bookshelves. As much as liberals would not want homosexaul-condemining children books like Alfie's home on the shelf, conservatives do not want homosexual-normalizing children books like And Tango makes Three. If
there is anything that is really discomforting to people from either moral
ideological camp, it is that their children are exposed to and being
indoctrinated with views from the opposing camp without their knowledge or
supervision. Perhaps books pertaining to such controversial issues may be
included in the adults section where readers are of more discerning characters.
But when it comes to children, let’s keep our public sphere neutral to the
controversy by agreeing to not allow books aimed at a children audience and
espousing a certain position on the moral issue away from the children
bookshelf. I think that if liberals or conservatives can affirm on a value to
preserve this middle ground in our public institution, and take their cultural
war away from the public’s sphere, especially where children are the subjects
caught in the crossfire, it would make for a slightly more comfortable
co-existence between members of the two camps in society.
