June Hoildays 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?

Singapore took painstaking years to establish racial and religious harmony alongside with independence. Should there be another racial or religious riot because of a mere sensitive statement posted to the public, Singapore is bound to suffer economic and social instability from negative effects of the riots. Moreover, her rigorous efforts in maintaining harmony throughout these years would come to nought. Hence, to prevent any social conflicts, Szilagyi’s view would be a better choice over Singer’s.

Singer’s belief on freedom of speech has its benefits of revealing the facts and raising awareness on certain events like the Holocaust; however, his perspective can be misinterpreted and thus the tools freedom of expression may be used as a ground for spreading wrong ideologies. Obnoxiously remembered, the September 11 was on of the violent activities which religious extremist had made used of their religious to manipulate the minds and beliefs of people, and gather them to carry out these violent actions. With the freedom of speech without responsibility, true religious values may be distorted instead. Renowned historian Ms Karen Armstrong said, “Terrorism, in my view, is not inspired by religion. It’s a form of religiously articulated nationalism.”

If freedom of expression is carried out in Singapore in the way Singer perceives, many bloggers and writers may nonchalantly post their thoughts and views on another’s culture and religion, and spark off a large hoo-ha which will strain the society’s harmonious relation, eventually leading to riots and discrimination. Singapore, then, will be instable in many aspects, offering a chance for foreign invasion.

However, if Szilagyi’s views were to be adopted, facts of sensitive issues can be raised to the public without causing any uproar from the public. Carrying responsibility with freedom of expression, facts will be reported in a way where there will be not the slightest tinge of personal opinions and prejudice. For instance, the fact, that the number of Indian pupils continued with tertiary education increased by approximately twice from year 1990 to 2004, was reported in the newspaper without biased comments, hence there was no resentment from other racial groups in Singapore. However, if the writer were to report such facts concerning a minority group and adds on with his personal comments which may have insulting, prejudiced statements, there will be a definitely be resentments from the public because he expressed his thoughts freely without responsibility.

With responsibility, the public’s feelings and thoughts will be carefully considered before an issue, regardless of its degree of sensitivity, can be put forth to the public without straining any relations. Therefore, in order for Singapore to stay as a peaceful, stable and harmonious country, Szilagyi’s approach to the freedom of expression should be adopted.