June Holidays 2007 Blogging Task

Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility. In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?

Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To start off, the freedom of expression is a vital concept in any modern democracies of being able to receive, and impart information or ideas, regardless of the medium used, without censorship. Fundamentally, the opinions made in both articles by Peter Singer and Zsofia Szilagyi are valid. Personally, I think that Szilagyi’s view that more focus should be placed on social responsibility, should be adopted in Singapore, rather than Singer’s view of freedom of expression being essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited.

In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religion pluralism, the government plays a vital role in legislating laws, meting out rules and regulations, and looking after the public interests. Hence, decision-making is a critical precedent process to a maximized social welfare. Evaluations, discussions and considerations would be made among the different races, thus, enhancing mutual understandings between people of differences. Definitely, a heated debate that can improve racial understandings and perhaps, discover solutions is preferred over violence that could arise because of the lack of freedom of expression.

Moreover, the freedom of expression is particularly vital to the government as it can understand how people feel and think on various racial issues. Furthermore, any creative ideas would not be restricted which is fundamental to Singapore’s social progress. Ultimately, it is Singaporeans that make up Singapore. The public will get a clear idea of why and how the government implements the policies, how these actions benefit them, perhaps through national rallies. Through this, improvements can be made that will increase the standard of living. Similarly, different people of different races, languages, religions, cultures, can enhance their understanding on one another, clearing any doubts or misconceptions. This is important such that not only relationships between the government and its people are strong, people of different races can also interact, developing trust in each other.

Rumours, false accusations, unfair criticisms would be spread that will harm racial harmony in the case without freedom of expression in a democratic Singapore. Thus, freedom of expression is an emphasis, especially in a multi-racial Singapore, but with a limit. Just like what Szilagyi expressed: “……no doubt that freedom of speech is an essential foundation of any democracy. But when newspapers insist on this right, they have to understand that they do not - alone - create the context and lifespan of their messages.” News and information conveyed through newspapers can be temporary as time goes by because people might forget, but by speculations, the damage caused can be permanent like psychological harm.

With freedom of expression however, criticisms or any insensitivities should not cross the line that will result in racial tensions. For instance, Muslim rage has been provoked due to the publish of Prophet Muhammad’s caricature, the 1964 race riots that started because of racial misunderstandings and speculations between the Malays and the Chinese. Singapore cannot let history repeats itself. If this view of Singer: “…freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people find offensive. We must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha,” is expressed in Singapore, racial conflicts are bound to occur. There must a limit to freedom of expression for a multi-racial Singapore. This is where social responsibility comes into place.

As stated by Szilagy, “……raises the stakes in the century-old debate on how to strike a balance between individual and collective press freedom rights.” indeed is difficult as he also expressed “that in a world of global information flow there is an insurmountable contradiction between traditional free speech values and public discussion about Islam.” Perhaps, under considerations of having freedom of expression as much as possible, legal actions should only be implemented where there is an absolute need to prevent infliction of actual harm or to protect the citizen’s rights.

Therefore, a balance must be struck between the ability of individuals to be unrestricted in the free expression of thoughts and ideas, and the ability of the government to effectively and efficiently enforce law to preserve the rights of individuals. Nonetheless, individuals should accept that rules are applicable to all and thus, have to be responsible in their expression.

In conclusion, in Singapore, there should be freedom of expression in the consideration of public interests through social responsibilities so that opinions on certain issues can be brought across at the same time, without racial tensions and conflicts. Hence, cultural and racial harmony can be maintained without jeopardizing any citizen’s rights and interests, ensuring a maximal social welfare. Therefore, Szilagyi’s view should be adopted in the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism.