Q

Until yesterday night, every time someone mentions NLB’s destruction of And Tango Makes Three, i feel my guts seize up with indignation. The country i have defended from scoffing, jet-setting friends; the country i optimistically believed was heading towards a culturally-rich and tolerant direction; the country i have always loved for its quaint old ways co-existing with dynamic modernism – IS. DESTROYING. BOOKS.

WEH. My heart.

BUT. The more i thought about it, the less sense it made. I’ve come to the conclusion that NLB’s move might actually be an insanely clever strategy that would ultimately benefit the pro-homosexual faction. What made their actions suspect?

Firstly, NLB is not stupid. It has after all curated millions of books, co-ordinating across libraries, conducted art and cultural events, festivals, programs. I refuse to believe that NLB can take the demands of anti-Tangos seriously, without detecting the illogic behind their rationale.

The greatest concern presented by anti-Tangos is that the book, being accessible to younger children, may ‘promote values’ they should not ‘exposed’ to. If the children in question are as young as supposed – that a story revolving around penguins can possibly inflame their infant libido for homosex, or somehow ground their lifelong beliefs about marriage – then wouldn’t the parents be present to function as a filter?

How the children interprets the book, or in fact if they even come into contact with the book, depends almost entirely on their parents. The onus is on them to either explain to their children that such relationships exist in reality and should not be condemned, or that such relationships are unnatural and unacceptable.

If your children are as impressionable as you have claimed, i am sure they will take your word over a picture book about antarctic birds they have just encountered. Are we that in doubt of our parenting, that the complete physical destruction of a book is necessary?

How about its value as a literary resource for parents who do want to educate their children on homosexual acceptance? By destroying the book, thus creating a literary void about homosexuals, we deprive the early exposure and understanding of homosexuals for children of such parents.

As i was saying, i would like to believe that NLB is not stupid. They must have weighed the arguments from both ends, and given the multiplicity of their committee, i would imagine much debate generated from both sides.

So why is it that NLB has chosen the extreme course of action? The very act of destruction brings to mind dystopian societies, Fahrenheit 451, oppression at the cost of literacy and culture, etc. NLB cannot possibly be blind to this. Could they not have transferred the books to the adults section, or limited access to it in the central library? Was pulping books really necessary?

Especially given the backlash from social media, why would NLB go ahead with such measures without an attempt at compromise to appease both camps? I think the anti-Tango parents would have been smug enough if these books were made restricted in the central library, beyond the grasp of impressionable young hands. That would leave pro-Tangos – parents or not – free to access and peruse them.

This was what triggered my suspicions that NLB’s ultimate goal may be more complex than publicly perceived. There’s more:

The PinkDot was a recent success. The calls for restriction against it – to fence up Hong Lim Park and ban people under 21 and/or are foreigners from PinkDot – were nowhere close to fulfilled. NLB, as part of the statutory boards of Singapore, would predictably echo the stance taken by the government: even if there was no outward endorsement of homosexuals, the government had at least symbolically indicated that homosexuals and their societal rights were considered.

The pulping of Tango, however, was in direct opposition to the supposed governmental stance taken. Not only did it yield to the demand of anti-Tangos, they went to the lengths of physical destruction – almost performative in their metaphor of how homosexual values should be destroyed and not ‘taint traditional family values’.

Why the confusing, contradictory messages sent out by each arm of the governmental body? First a victory against suppression by the homosexuals, then #achievementunlocked #bookburning by the anti-homosexuals. What is going on? Friends. This is where i propose a ludicrous conspiracy theory that bubbled and took form yesterday night while seething in quiet discontent.

NLB’s move was that of an ingenious, tactical mastermind. At the present, it somewhat maintains a balance between the crossfire between anti- and pro-homosexuals. In the long-term, however, where progress is inevitable, this incident serves only to advance the recognition and acceptance of homosexuals.

They have stoppered the escalating noise rising from anti-homosexuals after the WearWhite/ PinkDot, appeasing them with a token follow-through of their complaints. Will removing a book about penguins prevent the children of anti-homosexuals from future exposure, or from forming their own insights on the issue? No.

In fact, what is does on a societal level, in favor of pro-homosexuals, is much more powerful. What are the future consequences of destroying books, seen in conjunction with its surrounding societal context (PinkDot, global progression towards homosexual acceptance), and historical allegory (Fahrenheit 451, Stalin’s persecution, Mao’s cultural revolution, etc)?

Our kids will perceive the destroying of literature as oppressive, an obstruction to true progression. They will view the homosexuals as gagged, as unjustifiably persecuted. Our children will feel the same indignation i feel today for homosexuals, the same ones blamed for ‘playing the victim card’ but at the same time having their voices taken from shelves.

Our children, when they have their own minds and cannot have their rights snatched from their fingers, will be more sympathetic to the homosexual cause than they would have been without your complaints today. 

So anti-Tangos, thank you for unintentionally steering the future of our society the right way. Thank you NLB for your tactical genius. Thank you.