National Library Board's Book Acquisition and Review Process

Assoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what are the learning points from NLB's recent withdrawal of three titles from its children's collection; (b) what are the "community norms" in Singapore that guide NLB in the acquisition and review of titles for its collection; and (c) how the NLB can avoid being caught in future contests over values.

Ms Faizah Jamal asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether the review process for library materials will include a notice on the NLB website of withdrawn books and the reasons for so doing for transparency; (b) who are the external parties envisaged in the review process that will be invited to give feedback to NLB; (c) whether he can give an assurance that this exercise will be as diverse and inclusive in terms of views and that it will be open and transparent and for the public to be continually informed; and (d) whether he will give an assurance that NLB will remain secular in all its procurement of library materials and in its policies and decisions.

Page: 13

Ms Janice Koh asked  the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how can the process of content regulation for publications be made more transparent to the public; (b) whether NLB can publish a quarterly list of challenged, withdrawn and reclassified books in the National Library; and (c) whether MDA can publish a quarterly list of publications that have been prohibited from sale by booksellers.

Ms Janice Koh asked  the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what are the roles and objectives of the National Library; (b) whether NLB's collection policy should be subject to existing community norms; and (c) as a member of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), how is NLB committed to upholding its core values of free and equitable access to information, ideas and works of imagination.

Mr Nicholas Fang asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether there is a standard procedure for Statutory Boards, such as NLB, for the communication of decisions that can potentially have significant social impact, such as the recent move to remove three titles from the National Library's children's section.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked  the Minister for Communications and Information with the recent removal of three children's books from the National Library (a) what system is in place to screen the content of all books at the National Library before they are released for lending to the public; and (b) what are the general guidelines for a book to be cleared before it is put up for public lending.

I thank Members for their questions. My response would be in three parts. First, I will touch on the library's role in society; second, I will discuss National Library Board's (NLB's) processes and how these might be improved; and third, how we move on from this episode.

Our libraries serve Singaporeans of all ages from all walks of life. To promote reading, learning and information literacy, NLB maintains comprehensive and high quality collections for the reference library, for the adult sections of the public library, and for the children's section of the public library. NLB recognises that its collections must cater to a broad range of interests, tastes, reading levels, cultural and social backgrounds.

Page: 14

NLB also recognises that its role goes beyond providing a place for reading. It strives to provide spaces where communities can come together and learn together.

NLB cannot impose a one-size-fits-all approach to its different collections. The Lee Kong Chian Reference Library at the National Library provides a comprehensive collection of library materials, with a special emphasis on Singapore, to preserve our cultural heritage and to support research. Its materials are housed in the Reference Library and are not for loan. Its content guidelines allow for an extensive range of ideas and opinions.

NLB's approach for the adults' section of the library is that it will be in compliance with Singapore laws and regulations. It will, therefore, not acquire publications that are prohibited under the Undesirable Publications Act. It will also not acquire publications that incite hate or violence, or cast aspersions on any racial or religious groups, for example.

Madam, it is impossible to keep every known title in its collection. Some curation is required, and NLB is guided by the principle of maintaining a comprehensive and high quality collection. Materials in the adult's collection will also not be inhibited by the possibility that materials may be accessible to children or teenagers. It is NLB's philosophy that the responsibility for guiding and directing the use of such materials by children and teenagers rests with their parents or guardians.

With the children's section of the public libraries, NLB adopts a more cautious approach. The children's library covers a wide range of developmental stages and reading levels, from zero to 12 years old.

NLB encourages parents to actively partner their children in their reading or their visits to the library. However, it must also be recognised that, in reality, for many different reasons, it is not possible for kids in the children's library to be supervised at all times. Many will thus browse the shelves unsupervised. NLB also recognises that many preschools organise visits to its libraries and, in those situations, a whole class will be supervised by only a few teachers. Titles from the children's collection are also provided to some preschools and kindergartens to help them provide greater variety of books in their kindergarten libraries.

For this reason, NLB's approach is to take special care in its children's collection, to ensure that the books are age-appropriate. The assessment of age-appropriateness should take into account community norms.

For example, we observed from the 2013 Our Singapore Conversation survey that 55% of the 4,000 respondents surveyed rejected same sex marriage, compared to 24% who were

Page: 15

neutral and 21% who accepted same sex marriage.

It is not NLB's mandate to challenge or seek to change these norms. Community norms are subjective and will evolve over time, especially as our society becomes increasingly diverse. A REACH survey conducted after the NLB decision was first made known showed that 52% of respondents agree that books promoting values that are not in line with traditional family values should not be made available in the children's section of the public libraries. A further 23% were neutral on the issue and 21% disagreed.

The Government pays close attention to community norms. This is the right approach. We will continue to run polls from time to time, and actively listen to how Singaporeans debate various issues. Therefore, we must also enhance our processes to ensure that our collections best meet community norms. I will speak more about this later.

Madam, NLB is an active member of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). IFLA has members from over 150 countries with diverse cultures, as well as government and legal structures. By adopting a differentiated approach for the reference, adults and children's libraries, NLB seeks to apply the principles and philosophy of IFLA, adapted to the local context. This is because in every society, libraries must be responsible to the communities they serve.

Let me now touch on the queries regarding NLB's selection and review processes.

The NLB runs a wide network of 25 public libraries across Singapore, with about 35 million loans per year. To make sure Singaporeans' reading demands are met, the libraries bring in about a million new items a year.

Within NLB, there is a team of selectors. To ensure new books are made available in a timely manner as expected by NLB's patrons, selectors refer to reviews and synopses to decide what the library should buy. With the high volume, it is not possible to read every book from cover to cover during the selection process.

NLB also considers public feedback in building up its collection. Any member of the public can submit a recommendation for a book that is not in the collection.

Now, let me explain the book review process. There are two ways NLB reviews its collections.

First, NLB regularly reviews about 5,000 books a year internally. This is part of NLB's regular work in putting together booklists for their programmes and festivals. Secondly, the

Page: 16

public may also provide feedback on books to be reviewed. Each year, NLB receives about 20 such requests. Regardless of whether the review is initiated internally, or via public feedback, the book will be read by staff, supplemented by research based on book reviews and recommendations in trade journals. NLB staff also make reference to lists, such as the American Libraries Association's list of challenged books. They then make recommendations to withdraw or retain the books for final decision through an internal approval process.

Mr Pritam Singh asked specifically about the book "Who's In My Family". That book was reviewed through the process which I have just described.

Let me touch on the issue of how books are disposed of. Today, it has been NLB's standard practice to recycle books when they are torn or worn. They, therefore, applied this same practice to books withdrawn on the basis of content that is not age-appropriate. The REACH survey showed that while 52% of respondents agreed that books that promote values not in line with traditional family values should not be made available in the children's section of the public libraries, only 22% thought that the books should be destroyed.

I think that was a reasonable point of view. It reflects a deep-seated respect in our culture for the written word. It is for this reason that I had asked NLB to transfer "And Tango Makes Three" and "The White Swan Express" to the adults' section. NLB's key objective in ensuring the children's library is age-appropriate can still be achieved.

Madam, I am confident that NLB has learnt from this episode and will improve its processes. Let me highlight three important areas.

First, NLB will ensure that the team selecting books for acquisition and the team reviewing books are different. At the moment, this is not clearly spelt out. It is a good practice to segregate these responsibilities and I believe it will also lead to greater public confidence in the review process.

Second, we should retain the existing system in which NLB staff make professional judgements on the suitability of a title for any collection. Making such assessments is not an exact science. It would be most regrettable if NLB staff making such assessments as part of their duty and acting in good faith, are attacked by those who are unhappy that a particular decision did not go their way. This is why I had announced that NLB should set up an advisory panel, to help NLB staff to take into account the broader concerns of the community. Such a committee should represent a cross-section of society and include members from the literary community. An advisory panel will also help improve the communication of the rationale for review decisions – something that Mr Nicholas Fang raised. This is also the experience of MDA, which relies on various consultative panels to provide input to its

Page: 17

classification decisions.

NLB will be working out further details of the advisory panel in the weeks to come.

Third, NLB will establish a clear process to deal with books that have to be withdrawn. For books that are in good condition but were withdrawn due to controversial content, NLB would consider other options than pulping. I do not want to prejudge their review, but one possibility is to place them in a more appropriate section of the library for lending, as was finally done in this case. Other possibilities are to place them in the reference library, or to put them up for sale or donation.

Ms Janice Koh has asked if NLB could publish a list of challenged books and if MDA could similarly publish a list of publications that are prohibited from sale.

Let me address the queries pertaining to MDA in the area of regulation for publications. Madam, the publications industry is largely self-regulated. In assessing whether a publication is suitable for importation or distribution, importers, local publishers and retailers refer to content guidelines issued by MDA and the Undesirable Publications Act (UPA). These documents can be found on MDA's website. MDA also engages importers and local publishers regularly, to ensure that they are aware of the content guidelines.

MDA steps in when there are public feedback or complaints, or when importers refer publications to MDA for advice. If MDA assesses that a publication is in breach of the UPA or content guidelines, MDA would advise the importer or retailer not to import or distribute the publication.

Given that importers, publishers and retailers, by and large, self-regulate based on the UPA and content guidelines, it would not be meaningful to publish a quarterly list of publications that have been disallowed for sale.

In NLB's case, the immediate priority should be to establish the advisory panel, which can complement NLB's review process. At this point, NLB has not decided whether to publish a list of challenged titles.

Madam, I would reiterate that this would not be the last time public institutions like NLB would face such controversy. We have learnt much from this experience and we will continue to work with Singaporeans, such as those who will be appointed to NLB's advisory panel, to better understand and balance the different views of different groups.

Page: 18

Thank you, Madam. I agree with the Minister that we should leave it to NLB staff's professional judgement in deciding what books to select for its collection. I would like to ask the Minister when the books in question were withdrawn or transferred to the adults' section this year, what was the staff's professional judgement of the books to be deemed suitable at that time for the children's section. And why did NLB then decide to reverse the decision – first to pulp it; and subsequently, to transfer it to the adults' section – when a member of public gave the feedback? How is NLB accounting? I think NLB has not stood up to give an account of why the initial decision was made because I am sure there are a lot of literature and reviews about these books because they have also faced some controversy in other countries.

My second and last question is, referring to MDA's decision not to allow the import and sale of a certain volume of the Archie comic series, I know that NLB is letting that volume remain in its collection. This discrepancy between two Government agencies – one to allow the sale, for public to make a considered decision to purchase a copy, versus allowing it on public shelves – does the Ministry have a view on this, and should there be streamlining between the practices of the two agencies?

I thank the Member for those two questions. In the first case, as Members may have known, we acquired the books, especially "And Tango Makes Three" in 2005, before the book even made it to the American Libraries Association list. In fact, it was reviewed internally in 2009, some years after it was acquired. At that time, NLB decided to retain it. This time round, we received feedback and, therefore, the book was reviewed with a fresh pair of eyes. Noting the current environment, they decided internally, based on their professional judgement, that it is best to be withdrawn. The process that I had mentioned earlier in my reply was adhered to, to the letter and spirit, to ensure that we go through the due process.

Going forward, as I had mentioned earlier, they will have an advisory panel to be able to allow them to test their judgement and views on a particular book to a wider cross-section of the community. I think we can improve the process, no doubt, but I am confident that what they have done so far, for these many, many years in terms of reviewing books which are up for feedback, has been done with the best professional judgement that they can make under the circumstances.

As to the Member's second question, the first thing we have to remember is that it was not the intention that the MDA decision should determine how NLB should decide on a particular book. The reason is very simple: in Singapore, bookshops are opened to all patrons. In fact, there are no age restrictions at the point of sale, as practised in some other counties.

Page: 19

MDA has to take this into account when it decides on a particular book, whether it finds it objectionable or not.

In the case of NLB, as I had mentioned earlier, we have different collections. This allows us to apply a differentiated approach that gives us flexibility to decide on some materials which may be unsuitable for one age group to be placed to another section.

So, our position in the Ministry, together with NLB, is that the judgement finally has to be made by NLB, taking into account feedback and inputs from various different sources. But, finally, NLB will have to make it in the best interest of the patrons who come to NLB to seek the books that they want. There is, in fact, no reason for us to harmonise the two systems. We draw from each other primarily because the two institutions deal with actually an entirely different audience. The way we see it is that NLB will see what MDA decides and then they make their own decisions. Sometimes, they may coincide; sometimes, they may not.

In the case of the Archie book, the NLB actually purchased it before MDA made the decision. Now that MDA has made a decision, NLB has decided to review the book. And once we have set up the advisory panel, we will review it before we decide on what to do with that book. Again, this is something which I do not want to prejudge. I will leave it to NLB and the soon-to-be-formed advisory panel to decide on the future of that particular book.

I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. Firstly, in this House last month, in answer to Nominated Member of Parliament Laurence Lien regarding how the Government wishes to engage with diverse views of the community, Minister Lawrence Wong had said that we should exercise restraint, moderation and mutual respect and have open dialogue. In view of this reply, would the Minister agree that in view that NLB had made the decision really hastily, and in view of the fact that it already knows that there was controversy not just in Singapore but elsewhere, should NLB not have then paused and taken a step back before making that decision, and especially to use the word "pulp", which creates tension not just within the LGBT community and the literary community, but also with members at large?

Secondly, by actually making a decision to put the books in the adults' section – although I agree that is far better than actually pulping it completely – would this not, as a society of diverse races, views and ages, marginalise a group of people that may not necessarily fit into the model of the traditional family of father, mother and children, especially since things are changing organically, as the Minister also recognises?

Page: 20

Thirdly, I would also like an assurance from the Minister that, going forward, NLB, as a Government agency, would continue to stay secular not just in its procurement of materials but also in all its policies and decisions.

Madam, to the hon Member's last question, I would like to assure her that we are a secular Government. But we also look into community norms. We have to see how society is shaping up because we do not operate in a vacuum. We adopt secular policies. We stay true to that but, at the same time, we operate in an environment where there are people of different races and religions. So, we have to take our context into account.

Let me answer both the questions together because I think they are somewhat related. I will answer the issue on pulping later on.

It is not true that we were making the decision hastily. Feedback came in, we looked at it, we used the best possible judgement that we had with the best available information that was available to NLB to make that decision. As I admitted in my reply, we could have made the process slightly better and we plan to do so with the advisory panel. We recognise that there are different views in society. There are different groups with different interests and we have to take that into account. In fact, the NLB does so in all of its dealings. For example, they have their meet-the-customer sessions. They meet different groups who have interests in the Library's work. They meet MOE and other civil society groups that may be interested to have discussions with them and they are happy to do so. But going forward, as I said earlier, with that advisory panel drawn from a wide cross-section of society, it will give NLB an additional source of inputs for them to make their decision. But I have to say here that, finally, the decision has to be made by NLB.

As I mentioned in my reply, it is not an exact science. We do our very best. Sometimes, we will not get the best decision possible out there; sometimes, we will get it right. But at the same time, on balance, we will do our best to try and seek as much feedback as possible. So, the advisory panel will serve us in that particular avenue and we will continue to do so, to draw as much input as possible. It is not the intention of NLB to exclude any group in society. But we cannot pretend that we can have every possible book in the universe in the Library. It does not happen anywhere in the world. Some curation is possible because we need to draw certain lines. In our case, because we are a multi-racial and multi-religious society, some books which incite racial hatred, we will never allow into our Library.

So, let us not pretend there is no censorship. There is, because we need to make sure that we protect society and also observe our community norms. We are very clear about that. But we also recognise that society is changing and, therefore, NLB will have to take its cue from the various sources I mentioned earlier, including now with the new advisory panel,

Page: 21

to make its final decision on whether a book should be withdrawn.

Madam, I would like to ask the Minister whether there was a sustained period of astroturfing in the form of emails or letters, all unusually appearing around the same time, which led to the announcement from NLB that the books in question were pulped in response to public feedback in the first instance.

Secondly, are there any communication guidelines that the Ministry issues to Government bodies on how to deal with or differentiate regular feedback from what appears to be orchestrated feedback from interest groups? If not, are there plans for the Government to introduce such guidelines?

Thirdly, with regard to the Minister's remarks on the advisory panel, would the Minister consider the process of an appeal with regard to decisions made by the advisory panel?

Madam, I did not answer Ms Faizah Jamal's question on pulping. As I mentioned in my reply, that is the standard practice that has been used in most libraries for books which are withdrawn because of being torn or worn out. The vast majority of books that are withdrawn from our collection fall into that category. In fact, only a small number of books are withdrawn because of controversial content. The practice of pulping or recycling is not exceptional. It is being used in other parts of the world. Some books which are outdated, for example, IT books, we take them out and then we either sell them or put them up for sale for donation or even export them overseas, if there are countries that may want to use them.

As I mentioned earlier, going forward, for books which are withdrawn for controversial content, we will consider other options other than pulping. Again, I do not want to prejudge. I will leave it to NLB, which is undertaking its review process at the moment, to decide what it will do in such cases.

To Mr Pritam Singh's question whether or not there was astroturfing, it is difficult for me to say exactly, but there was obviously a lot of input that came in during that period of time. NLB and other Government agencies will probably have to take all of these into consideration and then decide what is the best course of action.

It is difficult for all of us to say whether or not that this is a bona fide feedback or this is basically something which is planned. We should leave it to the agencies. They know what to do. They have been in this business for a long time to exactly determine what is the appropriate course of action. I think we cannot be very, very prescriptive in this day and age when, as the hon Member rightly pointed out, astroturfing is possible. I am sure that all the

Page: 22

agencies, including the agencies under MCI, are aware that these are things which can happen and, therefore, they have to take these into account when they come to making a decision on the matter.

On the advisory panel, at the moment, it is difficult for me to say whether we should have an appeals panel. We are already taking one step further to have an advisory panel. I would rather prefer, at this point in time, for all decisions to be made by NLB. Do not forget – this is an advisory panel to advise NLB on whether a book is appropriate or not for its collection. The decision finally rests on NLB and I would rather prefer to leave it to NLB to do that because this is the practice for most libraries across the world. The library and the librarians make the decision on what is the best course of action for a particular book. In fact, this is what we do in most of our panels. Advisory panels are set up to advise the agencies. We have only one appeals panel, which is in the film appeals panel. Everything else is just an advisory panel and we would like to retain it that way.

Mdm Speaker, I have three sets of supplementary questions for the Minister.

Firstly, in a complex plural society where the socio-cultural context is still gradually shifting, whose community norms is NLB basing its policies on? Is there only one standard set of community norms that prevails? What assurance do we have that, in the future, NLB shall not flinch from its basic purpose as a custodian not of morality but of learning, knowledge and access to a wide range of information? What assurance do we have that NLB will not take the easy way out and only bring in books that will never offend?

Secondly, with regard to transparency, can the Minister ensure that there is transparency in the review process, as well as in the deliberations of the advisory panel, so that the public can be kept informed of the recommendations made to the National Library?

Finally, I understand that one of the three books that have been challenged was previously removed or even destroyed. Now that the other two have been put back on the adults' section shelves, will that last book – I believe it is "Who's in my Family" – be replaced on the adults' section shelves as well?

To the Member's last question, I am not sure whether that is the best course of action at this point in time. I want the NLB to move forward in terms of the review process. At the same time, we welcome any recommendation. If we find the book suitable, we will acquire it and put it on the shelves.

Page: 23

To the Member's first question – whose norms are we looking at – our norms, society's norms. As I had mentioned in my reply, the norms will change over time and, therefore, we rely on Government polls and feedback channels and the meet-the-customer sessions that NLB holds from time to time for us to get a sensing.

The Member asked me for an assurance as to whether we will flinch or not. It is difficult for me to give the Member the assurance. But as long as we recognise that what we want to do is to try and serve as wide a section of the community as possible and we will continue to do so. Some books that I mentioned earlier we will never bring in because they will incite hatred. Between those extreme right and left books that we will never bring in, there is a vast set of collection that we will have to decide on. And because the Library has differentiated collections, this allows us that flexibility and we will continue to do so. It is in our interests to provide as wide a reading list as possible to Singaporeans. Therefore, as you will see in the adults' section, we have themes which we will never put in the children's section because we recognise that adults have the ability to differentiate.

So, I will give the Member the assurance that at least under the current administration, we will continue to do so to ensure that we can try and collect as many books as possible to make available all these books to as wide a section of Singaporeans as possible.

I do not think we should prejudge NLB's intentions. At the end of the day, they will do their best. As I had mentioned in my reply, this is not an exact science. Having the advisory panel is a good step to allow NLB another source of inputs to their decision-making process. Will they get it right all the time? I will not give you that assurance. But we will try our very best to draw as much inputs as possible for us to make a decision.

On the transparency of the review process and whether or not we will make known the decisions of the advisory panel, again, I do not want to prejudge. I will let NLB work it out. Certainly, I think we will draw as many inputs as possible in that review process and then see what is the best way forward.

I would like to assure the Member that I do not think we will just go for safe titles. We have been able to expand our adult collection significantly, bringing in titles which may be controversial to some groups in society but we realise that we have to give those who visit the adults' section the option for them to make that decision.

I think the Member's description of NLB being caught in a tussle may not be appropriate. I agree with him that when we reviewed it in 2009 and we decided to retain it, it was then looking at perhaps the discussion at that point in time. Things have changed – a fresh pair of eyes took a look at the book again, there was feedback from the public. And they decided maybe it was not appropriate for us to have the book in the children's section. So, my sense is that I do not think that NLB has shifted significantly. But obviously, as I mentioned, because it is not an exact science, you have a different group of people reviewing the book compared to those that were reviewing it in 2009, they have their own views. They make their own decisions and, therefore, they decide.

But at the same time, we recognise that this process is never foolproof, so, I am repeating myself: we are now trying to improve the process with the advisory panel as much as possible. I do not think NLB will flinch in future but we have to take into account the concerns of the community and how best to go forward. And I repeat here again, we may not get it right sometimes. Please do not ignore the fact that NLB has been doing good work for how many years. They have served millions of Singaporeans, they have done their very best to do their job as best as possible. And, in fact, NLB, if I may say so, is one of those Government institutions that have received the highest numbers of compliments compared to complaints, because they have done their jobs well. So, let us not ignore the contribution of NLB to building up a reading culture and raising the literacy of Singaporeans.

This is an episode that we will learn from and will move forward from. I thank the contributions of Members, both in and outside the House, on how we can move the process forward. But finally, as I mentioned earlier, NLB will have to make its own decision and we will have to live with that decision, whether we agree or not.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for the very detailed and systematic explanation. It contrasts quite significantly with the initial replies that we, in the media, and, to a certain extent, the public, were receiving from NLB in the immediate aftermath of news emerging. The fact that the Minister is repeating himself

Page: 25

also speaks to the complexity of an issue like this.

I refer to my original question to the Minister which basically asks if there is an actual standard of procedure for communicating such information of such decisions with the relevant background, with the relevant context so that people can immediately appreciate the significance, the reasons or the rationale behind it, especially when it involves issues of community norms, of learning, of knowledge and the restriction of such things in our social space.

I agree with the Member that we can improve our communications and procedures. As I have said, going forward, we will learn from this experience and do what we can to try and explain as much as possible our decision-making process.