Saturday, July 7, 2007 @2:52 PM
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.i personally think that szilagyi's view should be adopted. that is, the focus should be placed on social responsibility.
singapore is a multi-racial society, and even though there is freedom of expression here, it should be limited in order to prevent any riots or conflict between any two cultures or religion. singapore is a small country, and racial harmony is one important value here which makes singapore a safe place to live in. furthermore, racial harmony is also what holds singapore together and it is what makes singapore different from many other countries. once this harmony is destroyed, our country would fall apart, making us vulnerable to external attacks which would bring about further social unrest. hence, everyone should be socially aware and be responsible enough not go beyond the limits of their freedom of expression. they should be accountable for what they say and to think about the effects of their words before saying anything, offensive or not, in order to prevent unrest in and outside of the country. moreover, in this technology savvy world, 'whether we like it or not, now we all effectively live next door to one another'. a big fuss can be made out of any random casual comment made and if it is offensive to any particular religion or culture, those affected around the world would come to know about it too. this would cause severe undesired consequences globally, just like what happened when the danish papers published offensive cartoons about prophet muhammad. furthermore, 'once messages are out in public, they develop a life of their own and become subject to multiple interpretations, and often manipulation that serves political agendas'. this means that anything we say, when passed around as second hand information which might not be true, can also cause harm. this gives us more reason to be aware of what we are saying and to make sure that it does not offend anyone.
of course, i do not disagree with singer's view that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. freedom of expression, i believe is a basic human right. moreover, with freedom of expression, the government would be better able to lead a country well as its citizens would not be restricted by not being able to express their views or feelings on perhaps a new government policy. hence, freedom of expression is essential to any democracy. however, once this freedom of expression is being abused or misused, it would cause more harm than it would help a country. i would not say that peter singer is wrong by saying that 'we must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, as reported in texts that millions of people regard as sacred'. however, this would come under respect and social responsibilty already. by denying the existence of God, criticizing the teaching of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, their respective followers(or believers) might get offended and tensions might rise, which as we all know, would cause adverse effects, just like the riots in 1964.
thus, i conclude that even though freedom of expression is essential, respect and social responsibility would come above it. hence, i believe that szilagyi's view should be adopted in singapore's context.
