WELCOME
When our time is up,
When our lives are done,
Will we say we've had our fun.
Will we make a mark,
This time.
Will we always say we tried.
Standing on the rooftops,
Everybody scream your heart out.
SHESAYS
Thursday, July 5, 2007, 7:26 AM
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, I think that both views are valid to a certain extent.
I agree with Singer that freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes and that some views if not “fearlessly discussed will become a dead dogma, not a living truth”. Singapore, being a democratic society should hence allow a restricted level of freedom of speech to citizens so that they can speak unreservedly about certain issues or policies. However, one condition would have to be the comments must be of constructive nature and not have any hidden malign motives. This is important because citizens may abuse this freedom of expression and risk the stability our society now enjoys. There may be blurred boundaries between freedom of speech and respect for a certain race or religion. Any view expressed without consideration of possible consequences would then be justified by the so-called “freedom of speech principles” as brought up by Singer.
In addition, we have to consider the fact that Singapore is a multi-racial and multi-religious society. On one hand, we can draw strength from our rich diversity but on the other hand, these are also our natural fault lines in the sense we cannot take the present trust and tolerance between different races for granted. If freedom of speech is unrestricted, irresponsible racist comments may just tear our society’s delicate social fabric that has been built over the past few decades. For example, a riot may start just like the one in July 1964 where Malays attacked the Chinese and vice versa. In fact, unintended consequences may arise when people speak “too freely” just like how the Danish and Norwegian newspapers that published the cartoons had no intention of setting off mass demonstrations, diplomatic rows and economic boycotts of their products in the Middle East. If there is total freedom of expression, I fear similar cases might just happen in Singapore.
Moreover, I agree strongly with Szilagyi that words in print can be interpreted differently. The same words can send a different message across to different people according to their own personal opinions and beliefs. This brings up the question –is every citizen mature enough to discern between facts and untruths that may evoke unhappiness in certain race or religion? Why should we put the peaceful and comfortable race and religions relations to risk by allowing unrestricted freedom of speech? In my opinion, it is simply foolish to allow unrestricted freedom of expression just for the sake of complying with the nature of democracy while watching the computer disintegrate before our eyes.
In conclusion, while freedom of expression should be given to ensure the growth and progress of our society, it should be restricted. Emphasis must be placed on social responsibility rather than just personal human right to express oneself freely.
Labels: freedom of expression
0 Comments:
Post a Comment