From time infinite, human civilization has been evolving and enhancing itself through a varied set of documented rules. From school rules to legislative laws, our daily lives are governed by the boundaries of these explicit and understood regulations. Especially since the Covid-19 pandemic which saw new rules like lockdowns and wearing face masks surfacing, the applicability of rules has been under increasing scrutiny. Supposedly, rules were established in tandem with public interests and to promote social security and increase the efficiency of a country. Rules that achieve these purposes should be abided by. However, taking into account the rights for freedom of expression, social justice and the relevance of rules, there exists rules that are to be broken.
Critics of my view claim that rules are not meant to be broken as abiding by the rules will increase the efficiency of a country. In our communities which consist of people with differing beliefs, goals and values, the key to ensuring that people from all walks of life are able to advance together as a country is by setting regulations and boundaries with the national aim in mind. These rules are to be abided by as they are meaningful and beneficial to the greater good, despite possibly requiring the sacrifice of individuals. This is evidenced by the different methods that various countries adopted in the fight against the Covid-19 pandemic. While both Singapore and the United States (US) implemented lockdowns in 2020 to curb the spread of the virus, the grudgingly compliant Singapore citizens contrasted greatly with the defiant US citizens who took to the streets and held massive anti-lockdown protests that went against the lockdown rule. Although this led to governors relaxing the lockdown rules in various states in the US, the number of Covid-19 cases continued on an exponential spike in the US while Singapore saw the infections curve flattening, signaling a stable condition for the country. Indubitably, following effective and meaningful rules helps in efficiently solving a national crisis and more generally, allows a country to advance faster. To ensure the rapid development of a country, it is insufficient for competent leaders to set useful rules. It is as important, if not more, for its citizens to abide by these rules in order to achieve its national goals. Therefore, rules that make a country more efficient and its people more effective in terms of securing the national interests should be abided by.
Moreover, rules are set to maintain social security and public order and hence should be followed. Rules that safeguard the privacy of individuals, protect the public from harmful acts and promote racial and religious harmony should be abided by to ensure peace and stability within a country. By criminalising destructive anti-social behaviour, rules mandate citizens to be socially responsible and obedient in order to maintain social security. For example, Singapore’s Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) mandates followers of different religions to exercise moderation and tolerance towards different cultures and beliefs. Largely, Singapore citizens adhere to this rule and therefore Singapore is considered by its Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, as “a rare, precious example of harmonious, multiracial, multi-religious society”. Evidently, adhering to rules that promote public order will ensure the peace and stability within a country. Only when internal peace exists within a country will its citizens be confident of their safety and security, thereby increasing their sense of belonging to their own country. Therefore, the adherence to rules that promote social security and peace is crucial for the wellbeing of a country.
In my view, however, there are rules that are meant to be broken, such as those that limit the freedom of expression. While some rules may be established to shape ideal thoughts and actions, they may stifle creative expressions and therefore undermine the uniqueness of each creative individual. Creativity should not be shackled by the chains of restrictive rules, and people of the Arts should be encouraged to express themselves in their own unique ways. For instance, Arundhati Roy, bestselling author of The God of Small Things, was charged for obscenity in her book under the Indian Penal Code. Though the rules in this largely conservative country seeks to protect readers from obscene content, they are actually restricting the freedom of expression of creative writing authors. Rules as such should be challenged and broken for society to advance and develop as no horizons will ever be expanded if everyone were to be bound by the given rules. Therefore, rules that restrict an individual’s freedom of expression and creativity should be broken for the development of the Arts scene and society as a whole.
Additionally, rules that are discriminatory and biased should be broken for the sake of social justice. Breaking rules that encourage oppression and unfair control over parts of society is considered a milestone for socio-political progress as it is an act of civil disobedience that leads to positive changes. The Jim Crow Law, enacted in the US in 1877 to encourage racial segregation, was rightly challenged by a group of civil rights activists known as the Freedom Riders. The Freedom Riders took racially segregated buses across several US states and their non-violence protest by breaking the racial rule eventually led to the enforcement of a new law that all interstate buses were to be race-blind. Rules that encourage racial segregation should be shredded and those that promote racial and religious harmony should be put in place instead. In this era of globalisation where people of various races intermingle even more than ever, it is important that rules are enacted to protect the rights and wellbeing of various races so as to ensure minimal discrimination and prejudice within a society. Undoubtedly, misguided rules are to be broken for the good of the society.
Besides, rules that are outdated and non-beneficial should be broken. Some rules were enacted based on traditional beliefs that are not logic-based or are irrelevant to bettering the society. These rules that serve no purpose but to punish those who go against it should no longer be enforced, and therefore should be broken. For instance, an old law in Milan mandates people to smile constantly while in public places and those who frown could face a hefty fine. Traditionally, it was created as a way to bring prominence to the city of Milan during the Austro-Hungarian times. However pleasant a smile may seem today, it is audacious to expect citizens to be looking happy all the time. Therefore, outdated laws as such serve no meaningful purpose and should hence be broken.
To conclude, rules are often enforced to ensure that a nation develops efficiently and to maintain public peace and order. However, there are rules that are excessively restrictive, unjust and outdated. As such, rules are to be broken when there are no beneficial meanings or purposes attached to the rules. Whether or not a rule is supposed to be broken depends heavily on the nature and aim of the rule. Therefore, people need to be wise in distinguishing between rules that compel adherence and those that are to be broken.
photo credits: Alaric Sim, Florian Olivo, Tingey Injury Law Firm, Giammarco zeH
Comments