The National Library Board penguin saga took another turn after the government stepped in.

Two children's books meant to teach kids about non-conventional families will not be returned to the children’s shelves nor pulped, but will be made available in the adult section instead.

This development, which you can read about here, comes a week after the initial brouhaha, which you can read about here.

And now that part of the hot air has dissipated, the coolest, most rational voices have come out to offer their take on things: A Straits Times forum letter by former NLB CEO Dr N. Varaprasad and a missive by academic Cherian George.

There are three takeaway points they offer:

1. True inclusiveness in Singapore takes into account the feelings and realities of marginal groups who are less loud and less offended, but nonetheless, Singaporeans.

2. Inclusive government policies have to be more nuanced in a multi-cultural Singapore. As our diversity is our greatest asset as well as our greatest challenge, we should strive not to have unnecessary polarisations in our small crowded city state.

3. People who argue that something is not right just because they feel offended shouldn’t be taken seriously because the state will constantly be hard-pressed to placate them.

And the most poignant analogy by Cherian, post-World Cup 2014, is this: People who are easily offended are the Arjen Robbens of the world. They are the ones who go to great lengths to whinge and writhe dramatically at the slightest of fouls to sway decisions in their favour.

The worst part is that there is no HD replays in real life.

Regardless, here are the two responses:

Straits Times Forum letter

Policies need to be truly inclusive

NO DOUBT the Civil Service College will make the ongoing National Library Board (NLB) saga a case study for its new cohorts, given the issues of a growing culture war, the amplifying effect of online media and the collateral damage caused.

It would be a pity, however, if the saga came to be framed as communication failure and concluded that "the NLB could have communicated better". The issues go deeper.

After the 2011 General Election, the Government's mantra has been inclusiveness. However, what this encompasses has not been clearly articulated. Therefore, many public agencies have not spent enough effort to change their policies accordingly.

Many think inclusiveness is mostly about ensuring that the aged, the poor and the needy are taken care of, hence the changes to MediShield, transport subsidies and so on.

But inclusiveness is also about including other marginal groups outside the mainstream, such as single parents, new immigrants, former prisoners, pet lovers, the disabled, the artistic, and cultural non-conformists. They, too, are Singaporeans.

To be responsive in an inclusive way, policies need to be more nuanced, without the bluntness of "all or nothing".

In the present case, for example, having a "parental guidance" shelf that is out of reach of children and whose books can be borrowed only by adults would have been an inclusive solution. Announcing plans to pulp undamaged books merely served to exacerbate an already contentious issue.

Such conceptual mental reframing is continually necessary if Singapore is to be a "smart", "innovative", "productive" or "sustainable" city, and not just by the application of new technologies.

We cannot afford to have such unnecessary and unproductive polarisations in our small city-state, although they will continue to crop up from time to time. If policies were truly inclusive, without subjective judgments, we would all be better off.

N. Varaprasad (Dr)

Donald Low, Associate Dean at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and author of best-selling book Hard Choices praised Dr Varaprasad's letter. Low commented that he always respected Dr Varaprasad's "practical idealism".

Looking beyond the liberal/conservative divide

By Cherian George

Some will see it as a victory for a vocal minority of liberals. Others will declare it a conservative triumph. Perhaps, though, it was never about where the government landed on the left-right spectrum. What was really at stake were the principles by which a multi-cultural nation makes decisions that will inevitably offend one community or another.

This specific controversy was over three children’s books meant to teach kids about non-conventional families. The National Library Board’s professional librarians had earlier decided they were suitable for acquisition, but some parents complained that the books were too soft on homosexuality. As a result, the books were to be discarded. Following a public outcry, the government intervened, in time to save two books from pulping. They will not be returned to the children’s shelves, but will be made available in the adult section.

Compared with the earlier decision, this is a passable compromise. It concedes to the conservatives that the books should not be freely available to all children regardless of the moral objections of some of their parents. At the same time, it does not permit these parents to dictate standards for all library users: adults interested in teaching their own children to be more broad-minded about what constitutes a loving family can still borrow the books.

What was striking about the earlier decision was not so much that it did not conform to liberal standards (nothing new there), but that it deviated from the government’s own principles. For more than 20 years, it has been official policy to avoid censorship when classification would do. A totally laissez faire approach to public morals would fall short of the fundamental societal obligation to protect the young; it would risk treating children like adults. At the other extreme, a crude censorship approach treats adults like children, denying them choices that they are entitled to.

In contrast, classification maximises choice for consenting adults while protecting the vulnerable. NLB’s original response to the conservatives’ complaints was inconsistent with this rational, well-established approach. The latest decision simply brings the practice more in line with the principle. Instituting a proper, transparent review process would have to be the next step. Expert judgments by professional librarians need to be shielded from shadowy complainants who are not prepared to come out to justify their positions publicly.

Even more disquieting was the fact that the decision to pulp was part of a wider pattern, of deciding cultural policy based on how offended people are. It is dangerous for the government of a multi-ethnic country to resolve disputes this way, even if they side with the majority. Once the referee signals that he will side with those who cry the loudest, some players will start outperforming the most talented World Cup actors.

In football, at least, an eagle-eyed referee and slow-motion HD replays can discover the truth: was it a real foul or did he dive? When it comes to religion and morality, however, it is all subjective. No amount of rational theological forensics can establish whether a believer’s outrage is justified. Governments that agree to play this game end up having to take community leaders’ word for it, that they are suffering intolerable indignity.

Around the world, religious leaders use this inherent uncertainty to their own political advantage. Claiming to be offended and then declaring battle against the real or imagined source of that offence is one of the easiest ways to galvanise your followers; gain a higher profile than your competitors; put opponents on the defensive; and play the state like a puppet. It happens in Malaysia; it can happen here.

Indeed, as the most religiously diverse country in the world, Singapore is particularly prone to this risk. There is no limit to the offence that the intolerant can choose to take from what other communities do. Proselytisation by Christians and polygamy among Muslims are just two examples of practices that some consider consistent with their faiths – but that others find upsetting. Thus, restrictions based on the capacity to offend won’t just hurt secular liberals; it will also backfire on the most devout.

In most countries, like Malaysia, the state simply sides with the majority community (it’s wrong, but at least it’s unambiguous). Here, where there is no religious majority, the state will find itself pushed this way and that. And the ultimate result will be the conclusive unwinding of Singaporean experiment in multi-racial, multi-religious harmony.

The only responsible approach for a society like Singapore is for the state to adopt a strong bias for tolerance, and suppress nothing other than the most extreme of speech. Adult Singaporeans need to be educated to look after their own feelings.

After decades of enjoying the dubious privilege of turning to a nanny state whenever one feels offended, many Singaporeans will find this a difficult adjustment. Indeed, by changing tack, the government may lose more votes than it wins. But it is the only viable strategy for a crowded city-state whose greatest asset, as well as its greatest challenge, will always be its cultural diversity.

And for good measure, this is the stance of the U.S. Embassy in Singapore:

Top photo from here

Find Mothership.SG on Facebook and Twitter.