Freedom of speech part 2
In economic policy, the result of the lack of open criticism is even more glaring. While I am not a complete adherent to the Austrian school of economics, I do firmly believe that the state taking an active role in the economy is an exercise in futility. I am highly skeptical of the notion that a group of people i.e. the state bureaucracy, can obtain enough information to pick economic winners and losers. Given that the market consists of millions of individuals making decisions based on their own subjective preferences, can it be believed that a group of people can accurately divine the demand for and scarcity of products in real-time?
The dangers, as always, with centralised decision-making, are unforeseen or unintended outcomes, or just plain stupidity. The list of failures is long and illustrious. Chartered Semiconductors, Micropolis Hard Drives, the North-East MRT line, the IT industry boom and bust (anyone remember the singapore one network?), the purchase of Global Crossing by ST Telemedia without due diligence; the belated entry into the biomedical sector at a time when Big Pharma are finding it hard to innovate due to stupid patent policy, and at the same time strengthening all the components of IP laws without public debate and consultation, and ALSO ignoring a growing body of empirical evidence and real-world studies which strongly suggest that the chilling effects of overbroad and overstrong IP laws actually hinder and obstruct innovation and creativity.
A common defense of the current policy towards free speech is that Singapore is not like the United States. We are too small, too fragile, to allow for the sort of unrestrained free speech that the Americans are used to. Our citizens are not yet mature or responsible enough to be entrusted with the right to free speech. We cannot afford the costs and harms that would arise out of free speech, regardless of the benefits.
I believe this argument should be turned on its head. America is too big to fail simply because of stupid laws like the DMCA or a hasty decision to invade Iraq without adequate planning. We, on the other hand, are too small, too fragile to have bad laws passed and bad policy implemented without the accountability of public debate.
We do not have the luxury of having the government making bad decisions only to find out later what the costs are. Without full and open debate that includes criticism of state policy, there is no easy way to expose bad policy until it is too late.
