What Straits Times associate editor Chua Mui Hoong wrote is largely uncontroversial (Fighting racism calls for all to take a clear stand against it, June 11).

That a worrying number of outwardly racist incidents have occurred is cause for concern, and it is surely correct that a deep look into the reasons for such incidents is required.

I was particularly impressed with her analysis of how such bigoted views, once kept within the ambit of private conversations, now appear to be expressed more openly.

Unfortunately, I disagree with her conclusion. Ms Chua wrote that "silence is complicit". This entails that people in Singapore have a duty to speak out against and condemn the racist behaviour we observe online.

The concomitant conclusion is that if racist behaviour is a criminal offence, then those who watch in silence are accessories to the crime (that is, they are complicit in the commission of the racist act).

This cannot be right. Inaction or silence can be complicity in only very limited situations (for example, where there is a duty to act).

While everyone in Singapore has a duty to ensure that we do not engage in racist behaviour, it is certainly not our duty to speak out against it.

This is evidenced in Article 14 of the Constitution. Broad exceptions exist to the general right to free speech. Such restrictions include speech that jeopardises public order. But in no way does Article 14 compel any form of speech.

That an effective way to combat racism is to publicly condemn the racist acts and the racist himself is undeniable.

But Singapore should not go further to compel speech of that kind, for that is a slippery slope it does not want to go down.

Brent Lim Zi Jian