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?
Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them. This famous quote by Mark Twain may give us an idea as to why many demand for the freedom of expression in media as well as in the press. I, for one, agree that freedom of expression is vital and marks the rise of a democratic as well as an open nation. However, in the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, I feel that the Szilagyi’s view should be adopted. This is due to the potential racial and religious boundaries present in our society. Hence, being a country of cosmopolitan nature, it is important to take the feelings and well-being of people into concern so as to avoid conflicts and misunderstanding among the various ethnic groups. I also agree with Szilagyi’s view because though he emphasizes the importance on social responsibility, he agrees that it is necessary to have freedom of expression too. Depriving one to express his or her own ideas freely to the public reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It shows that the society needs to be told or shown what is right or wrong. As true as this can be, not practicing individual social responsibility, in other words, expressing our views openly; in this case racist comments, is just a call for trouble. Why then, call it a free society, many might ask, when more than often the government seeks to censor or destroy any material that it finds offensive? It is clearly a matter of opinion as to what is offensive and what is not. However, what one may not find offensive may offend another.
For example in 2005, two bloggers were charged with sedition for posting racist comments online due to numerous complaints by other bloggers.
They were accused of promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between races in Singapore. Though, it is safe to say that not all were affected by this, there was still a considerable amount of uproar caused by this incident. This clearly shows that as much as we want, not all might be tolerant to the expression of such comments openly. Furthermore, this might also create ill-feelings to arise. However, this does not call for full censorship either as not having freedom of expression might have adverse effects on the society.
Then, again, the government can charge the bloggers and deprive them of freely expressing their views on the net, but is it possible to deprive them of freedom of thoughts. How is the problem solved by merely removing the medium of the problem rather than the root of the problem; the blogger’s thoughts. Moreover, is it not true that blogs are a portal through which many express their feelings? Furthermore, allowing such racist comments to be published in public might not necessarily be a cause for trouble. This is because in the article, Singer puts across the point that David Irving should be released despite his absurd denial of the holocaust. Singer, was directly affected by the holocaust, through which he lost his grandparents; but instead of insisting on putting David Irving behind bars, he does the opposite. Therefore, it is not right to assume that freedom of expression is nothing but trouble. However, referring to the second article by Szilagyi,who believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility, I am compelled to agree that republishing the religious cartoons was not a very wise thing to do.
In this age of IT and technology, where the countries around the world are in some way interconnected, it is necessary to encourage the freedom of expression for the benefit of all nations. Freedom of expression is important at all levels in society. Yet it is most important for government. A government which does not know what the people feel and think is in a dangerous position. The government that muzzles free expression runs a risk of destroying the creative instincts of its people. On the other hand, when freedom of expression is restricted, rumors, unfair criticisms, comments and downright falsehoods are circulated by word of mouth. Furthermore,suppressing the ideas we don't like, encourages proponents of those ideas to fester in secret societies and be involved in wrong acts that may cause more harm to the society.Hence, as important as it is to allow the freedom of expression it is also necessary to practice social responsibility so that we can live harmoniously, especially in a multi-racial country like Singapore.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/167812/1/.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
