ANTHONY WONG
First Year NUS Law

Critique of various government policies seems to be the issue at heart in the October issue of Juris Illuminae. Several articles centred on the much-debated freedom of expression, their scope spanning across the political sphere, the artistic arena, and to the online community. There were several indiscrete hints directed at the need for huge-stepping reforms, which more or less called for the repeal of existing laws and the removal of existing regulations.

Starkly apparent among these articles however, was their failure to take into account countervailing factors when questioning the validity and relevance of the government policies in question. The writers seem to forget that the changes they outwardly advocate are essentially to be implemented upon the Singaporean background. It is trite knowledge that no argument for change in Singapore can be made without sufficient deliberation over its far-ranging effects on our society.

No individual group, be it online bloggers, public speakers or art practitioners, exist in a vacuum. Merely having ostensible benefits for a certain sector of society is not good enough a justification for implementing a change.

Laws are usually not made to target a particular group. It involves a very delicate juggling act among the various competing interest and needs of every citizen.

Far from purportedly bringing about less confusion and arbitrariness, the hasty and ill-considered removal of the offending acts and regulations would be uncharacteristic of Singapore’s prudent nature. Underlying the predictable way in which our government acts is not merely those banal economic reasons we are so familiar with. It perhaps also reflects a conscious safeguarding of the unvocal majority’s desires.

The government’s alleged suffocating control over expression on the Internet, in Hong Lim Park and in the theatres are certainly indicative of the dire repercussion that potential abuse can bring about. By virtue of Singapore’s history, a myriad of races and cultures are aberrantly confined within this limited amount of space we call home. As much as being our pride, this uniqueness it also necessarily our burden. Not only can we not discount this uniqueness, it has to be consciously given sufficient deliberation in any discourse relating to effecting change in our society. For example, if the government were to greatly relax its control over online blogging, would it open the floodgates to racially inspired hate speeches or derogatory comments? Not likely I feel, but these possibilities and their potential ramifications demand to be explored rather than just waived over.

I do however recognise the argument that we inevitably have to take the first step while simply bracing ourselves for the unforeseen, as Neil Armstrong did when he strode onto the moon. How else are we to achieve that ‘one giant leap for mankind’: that of a more idealistic society where all forms of expression can be thrown out into society, with meritorious ideas being recognised while frivolous one being subject to a cordial and rational rejection.

However, way before that first step can even be contemplated, adequate preparation needs to be in place so that we would not be plainly blind-sighted should a crisis emerge. There is no way we can attain this reasonable level of anticipation other than through rigorous examination of our society and a direct confrontation with the possible realities. Only then can a call for change be convincingly plausible and be given true consideration for implementation rather than just provoking a passing thought.