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 is more of a cosmopolitan country with people of different races and religions living
under one roof. As such, there are lots of differences in our beliefs, lifestyles, views and opinions. However we are able to appreciate the differences among us and create a single identity - Singaporean - which binds us together. Since the separation of Singapore from Malaysia, there have been no local demonstrations or racial riots like the ones of the past. However, we cannot refute the fact that people in Singapore are affected by religious conflicts happening elsewhere in the world. For example, the caricatures on Prophet Mohammed caused tensions in our homeland that the prime minister had to address the issue to reemphasize that we cannot afford any racial conflicts as they are detrimental to Singapore’s growth and prosperity.
Thus we can evidently see that issues, especially sensitive ones that deal with the uniqueness among us in our religion and race, affect us directly even if they occur in another part of the world. Therefore, we cannot afford to compromise with our peace and tolerance which is likely to happen if freedom of expression is allowed in Singapore regardless of any frontiers. We can conclude that Singaporeans are tolerant people but we cannot assume that they remain tolerant even in the face of tensions among us because Singapore has not met such difficult and critical situations since its independence. We can recall the imprisonment of two guys a few months ago for their remarks made against the Muslims in their blogs.
Why were the guys arrested? Why didn’t the government close its eyes to that incident by saying its freedom of expression? Why didn’t the media publish the remarks as well since we are talking about freedom of expression without limits in here? There is just one main reason for this which is Singaporeans should never involve in a mass suicide attempt by starting a racial riot. For this reason, the government in Singapore has a control over our freedom of expressions. If our words and actions are going to be national threats, we cannot expect the government to give us a green signal to carry on with our actions. Especially in our society, no matter how thickly bonded we might be, if a remark insults any group of people among us, its going to create troubles for our nation as a whole. Thus Singaporeans should adopt freedom of expression keeping in their minds their limits and the consequences of their actions. This is where social responsibility comes in.
Singaporeans should have social responsibility. They should not hold illegal discussions or make offending remarks publicly about any race or religion or about anyone for that matter. What I mean here by publicly is through the media. Media should also hold social responsibility in the sense that it should hold high-quality discussions with due respect for everyone. It should never take freedom of expression into its hands like the Danish paper which continued to publish the cartoons on Prophet Mohammed insisting that its publication was justified under freedom of speech principles without considering the consequences of its actions which aggravated the conflicts between Muslims and people of other races. Thus Singapore should adopt social responsibility in lieu of unlimited freedom of expression in order to maintain the progress of the nation.
Reference:Article entitled 'Free speech, Muhammad and the Holocaust' by Peter Singer
www.project-syndicate.org
Zsofia Szilagyi International Herald Tribune
Article entitled :Publishing those cartoons was a mistake
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2006
No comments:
Post a Comment