过去一两个星期，新加坡发生了一起“茶杯里的风波”。有人向国家图书馆投诉，其儿童部有三本童书宣扬同性恋，与新加坡社会“亲家庭”的主流价值观不符。图书馆于是决定把这三本童书下架，并准备销毁。

消息传出之后，渐渐引起各方关注和讨论。比较保守的人士认为图书馆做得对，不能让孩子受到同性恋的影响。倾向同性恋的人士认为三本童书只是讲述同性动物的故事，就算有宣扬同性恋的倾向，也很含蓄，根本没有什么错。

像我这样既不反对也不支持同性恋的人，则对“下架”“销毁”这样的字眼毛骨悚然。并想：这下子不是为那三本书做了免费广告么？

事 情不大不小，引来中英文报章网站好多篇文章。图书馆一开始坚持自己的做法，认为是在支持政府所推崇的价值观，如果有人想要读那几本书，可以自己去买。有人 觉得这种争执应该消除，因为会使社会分化，有人觉得虽然事情不好，但引来的讨论不见得是坏事。有一些作者退出图书馆举办的活动，以示抗议；有几百人某一天 集合在图书馆门前的广场，集体读那三本书；保守派则在网上征集了不少签名，支持图书馆。

昨天，图书馆馆长松了口，说将把其中两本书移到成人区书架上，不再销毁，另一本已经销毁，没办法了。

我一直关注这件事，因为不赞同图书馆的做法和官派处理手法。也因为虽然自己不见得会去读那几本书，可是图书馆为了几个人的投诉就下架销毁图书的行为，实在令人不安。天知道还有多少书已经被或将要被他们拿下？

还 有，孩子们怎么想这件事？大人有没有费心去问一下？我问了花生米。她说：如果只是动物的故事，小孩不会想到同性恋那里去的。他们只会当成动物故事来读。我 怎么会知道？我也不知道啊，你告诉我了我才知道。而且，你知道我那个班，里面的人头脑都很肮脏的啦，我也不想知道那些事情，没办法啊。（花生米很看不上她 班上的男生XDD）


今天读到新加坡国立大学李光耀公共政策学院副院长Donald Low的一篇文章《图书馆与世俗道德的侵蚀》，不禁点头，Mr Low把我的反感和不安明确地分析了出来，完全赞同他的观点。因此把这篇文章收在这里。限于时间和能力，无法翻译全文，不过下面这段深得我心，勉强翻译一 下：


"The very purpose of a national library is to open minds and broaden the horizons of all. Its ethos must be one of tolerance, intellectual discourse, and neutrality with respect to people’s life choices (as long as those choices don’t harm others). Libraries should not be required to promote any particular conception of the good that the state chooses. What has happened – the destruction of books by a library - is a perversion and overturning of that ideal. NLB has undermined its very own purpose. It can no longer be considered a library; it is only masquerading as one by having the form (a building with books) but not its essence (a beacon of knowledge)."


国家图 书馆的根本使命是开拓全民的视野，敞开他们的心灵。它的气质必须是包容，理性讨论，并对人们所持的人生观保持中立（只要那人生观不伤害他人）。图书馆没有 责任去宣扬任何一种国家认为是正确的观念。近来所发生的事－－－身为图书馆而销毁书籍－－－恰恰违背颠覆了它自己的理念。国家图书馆与它的目的背道而驰。 它已经不能被称为图书馆；它徒有其表（一座存放很多书的建筑），却丧失了核心（知识的指路明灯）。



附三本童书简介：
● And Tango Makes Three”：讲述的是纽约中央公园动物园两只雄企鹅作为伴侣的真实故事。

● “The White Swan Express”：讲述领养课题的后者则提及两名女伴到中国领养孩子。

● “Who’s In My Family?: All About Our Families”：讲述的则是不同类型的家庭，其中包括单亲家庭以及同性伴侣。


全文：

NLB and the Erosion of our Secular Morality

Posted on Jul 19, 2014 6:09 PM Updated: Jul 19, 2014 6:11 PM
By Donald Low
stopinion@sph.com.sg


The National Library Board’s (NLB) decision to remove and pulp the three children’s books deemed to offend Singapore’s “pro-family” norms has reignited the age-old contest between Church and State, and more specifically in Singapore’s context, the role of private morality in public policy and how the state should adjudicate between competing conceptions of morality in society.

Many view the current debate in starkly binary terms - a contest between a religious or conservative majority and a liberal minority that represents a small but vocal segment of society. According to this binary view, those who claim to be pro-family are naturally assumed to support the withdrawal of the offending children’s books.

Yet in all my conversations in the last few days with former and current civil servants (many of whom held or are holding senior positions), I was surprised to find that not a single one of them supported NLB’s decision. None of them, as far as I know, are enthusiastic supporters of the Pink Dot movement or view the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community as an important issue for the government to address. Many of the civil servants I spoke to were also Christians who would readily say that they subscribed to “family values”. But all of them were deeply disturbed (even offended) by NLB’s decision, not just by the decision to remove the books, but also by its underlying rationale and what it says about the kind of public service we’re becoming.

In my conversations with them, I very quickly realised that as professionals in government, they were applying a secular morality – rather than their own private (or religious) morality – to assess decisions that affected the common good. The purpose of this essay to make explicit their line of moral reasoning, and to argue that this secular morality, which I share, is the only way for the state in Singapore to arbitrate between competing (moral) claims.

So why did my civil service friends find NLB’s decision offensive to their secular morality? In my mind, there were at least three breaches of our secular morality.

Fairness and Non-discrimination

First and perhaps most importantly, the decision to withdraw the books violated the public service principle of fairness and non-discrimination. This principle holds that the state should not discriminate against anyone, and deny them access to public services, on account of their beliefs, religious convictions (or lack thereof), and life choices.

This principle of non-discrimination is why in spite of the government’s pro-family stance, public sector doctors do not deny treatment to unwed pregnant women, teenage mothers, people who have contracted HIV through casual sex, and many others whose life choices public officials may find disagreeable on a personal level. In these instances, I think we can agree that it would be wrong for a public sector doctor to refuse to serve these patients and to tell them that they can obtain the services from the private sector on the grounds that the government has not banned such services.

I recall facilitating a discussion between a group of young civil servants and the late Dr Balaji Sadasivan, who at the time was the Senior Minister of State for Health. Dr Balaji was asked if Christian gynaecologists in the public sector should have the right to refuse to perform abortions. Dr Balaji was aghast at the suggestion and proceeded to lecture the young civil servant who had asked the question on the distinction between private beliefs and public morality. His bottom-line: if you don’t agree with the non-discrimination principle of the public sector, join the private sector.

Now, some may argue that there is a substantive difference between library books and essential healthcare services. They are wrong. While library books are not a matter of life and death, it cannot be the case that simply because they are less important to the well-being of individuals (a questionable assumption, especially for people who aren’t ill), it is legitimate for the state to practise discrimination. But I do think that this argument – that it’s only children’s books which are at stake here – is part of the reason why NLB probably thought it was all right to remove the books. After all, nobody would really get hurt. This view, even if understandable, is flawed. For if we allowed “non-essential” services like library books to be provided on a discriminatory basis, when do we know that something is essential and should be provided to all?

A different objection to the non-discrimination principle holds that the state has already made a decision to promote certain values and life choices, say traditional families and family values. This promotion does not just take the form of hectoring by government leaders, but also the provision of material incentives and benefits for such families (think of the baby bonus) which may not be provided to people who do not conform to the state's life choices. In addition, Section 377A of the Penal Code, which is clearly discriminatory, remains on our statutes. So why should we find discrimination with respect library books objectionable?

The first response to this argument is that liberals like me do in fact object to children of single parents not having the same benefits as children of traditional families. We also object to Section 377A on principle.

But even if one didn’t object to the state’s preferential treatment of traditional families and the continued existence of Section 377A, one should still object to NLB’s decision. In the case of the library, its very purpose and the very nature of its service preclude it from being used as an instrument to serve any particular political or religious ends. Public agencies like the Ministry of Social and Family Development were set up to promote the institution of the family. It can therefore enact policies designed to benefit individuals whose choices conform to the state’s normative ideals. The same cannot be said of NLB. The very purpose of a national library is to open minds and broaden the horizons of all. Its ethos must be one of tolerance, intellectual discourse, and neutrality with respect to people’s life choices (as long as those choices don’t harm others). Libraries should not be required to promote any particular conception of the good that the state chooses. What has happened – the destruction of books by a library - is a perversion and overturning of that ideal. NLB has undermined its very own purpose. It can no longer be considered a library; it is only masquerading as one by having the form (a building with books) but not its essence (a beacon of knowledge).

Misguided Moral Equivalence

The second breach of secular morality that upset my civil service friends was the implied moral equivalence between the claims of the people who wanted to remove the books and those who wanted them to still be there.

It is sometimes pointed out – by government and others – that society today is more diverse and pluralistic and that the state has a more difficult job “balancing” between competing demands and interests. The unspoken assumption here is that the claims of those clamouring for more rights – say for the LGBT community or for alternative families – have to acknowledge the equally valid claims of those who want to deny them these rights.

But there is a clear moral difference between the two groups. One group is seeking acceptance for itself; the other is seeking to deprive the first group of a place in our common spaces. The analogy I would use here is that of blacks not being allowed to use public water fountains in the old American south. That was a deliberate exclusion of people for who they are – this exclusion can be of people, their voice, and yes, their books in public spaces. It is discrimination pure and simple. It is one group saying to another group that they are lesser members of society. There is no morality or moral equivalence to speak of. If it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of race and gender, why would it be ok to do so on the basis of sexual preferences? We might as well also pulp books with mixed race families.

Occasionally, as in the NLB saga, the government points out that both sides hold their views strongly, as if to suggest that the rightness of an argument corresponds to how much fervour and conviction people invest in it. This is bad reasoning – the validity of an argument has nothing to do with the strength with which its believers hold it.

On other occasions, the government says that the majority of Singaporeans are conservative and do not approve of alternative, non-traditional families. That may be a valid political consideration. But it is certainly not a valid moral consideration. Just because more people subscribe to a fallacious argument does not make it right. A few hundred years ago (and until more recently in South Africa), religion also sanctioned racial discrimination. It was wrong just like the current crop of homophobic zealots is wrong.

Misapplication of Community Norms

The third reason my civil service friends were so upset by the NLB’s decision was the argument that its decision was consistent with, and sanctioned by, “community norms”. This appeal to community norms is not, in and of itself, wrong. But it is grossly inadequate as a guide for public policy. Community norms are not the only yardstick by which to assess governmental decisions and actions. As argued above, fairness, non-discrimination and equal regard for all are far more important considerations. So even if some people’s life choices violated community norms, we do not deny them public services. If this were not so, community norms would provide us the reason to do all sorts of heinous things to minorities who offend the majority. Indeed, I find it extremely ironic that some fundamentalist Christians and Muslims would appeal to the community norms argument. They should know that their own histories are replete with examples of state-led persecution against them, justified by what the majority wanted.

A second problem with the appeal to community norms is that it ignores the possibility that there are contesting, even contradictory, norms at stake. In this instance, NLB’s decision to remove the books on the grounds that it offended society’s pro-family sensibilities bump up against at least two other sets of norms. The first set of norms is that of tolerance and respect for diversity and differences. We celebrate Singapore’s 50th year as a nation in 2015. One of our greatest achievements as a country is the generally accommodating, tolerant, live-and-let-live attitude the vast majority of Singaporeans take towards people not like us. In a contest between our pro-family norms and our norms of inclusion and respect for diversity, I would have thought the latter was far more valuable and important for maintaining social harmony.

I would also argue that the pro-family norms go against the grain of NLB’s own professional ethos and mission. Institutions are not just organisations providing a transactional service. For an organisation to also be an institution, it must have its own professional norms and values, a sense of mission, and integrity of purpose – all of which outlast any individual leader in the organisation. These institutional norms and values are permanent and timeless.

In the case of NLB, I would have assumed that one of the professional values it holds dear is that it is a neutral platform for society to access as wide and diverse a range of knowledge as possible. Another professional norm that the NLB should hold dear is that it is bastion of learning, knowledge and enlightenment. For such an august institution, with such an honourable mission and worthy professional norms, to cave in to ignorance and intolerance – even if it were the majority that is ignorant and intolerant – must be deeply disappointing to anyone who has ever served in a public institution.

Donald Low is associate dean (executive education and research) at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore.