Freedom of expression is the right of a person to speak or publish his own opinions without fear of punishment and interference from other organisation. In the first article, Singer believes that freedom of expression is the fundamental of democracy and thus should not be restricted. On the other hand, Szilagyi in the second article felt that even though people should not be deprived of the right to express their views and opinions freely, it is important that the people practise social responsibility and avoid sensitive issues that may potentially spark social unrest.
In my opinion, the latter should be adopted in Singapore, especially when we have cultural and religious pluralism in our multi-racial society. The reason why Singapore have come thus far, evolving from a small fishing village into a cosmopolitan city, is because all races and religions had been able to work together as one, working towards a common goal as one country instead of satisfying their own agendas. As quoted from Szilagyi,"What is more important for the democratic advancement of a society - to ensure the freedom of expression of all its citizens (within the limits marked by law) or to protect the collective interests of society?" I would choose the latter, as it is the collective interests of the society that ensures continual growth and prosperity of our country and not the freedom of expression of the people. In some countries where a greater emphasis is placed on freedom of expression of the people, there has been countless cases of insensitive articles published on a certain race or religion that sparked social unrest. This, i rather not experience in my life.
As much as i would like to have absolute freedom of expression, i understand that it cannot be accomplished together with the protection of collective interests of the society. I believe that the welfare of the country should come first and if we can maintain racial and relgious harmony among all our people at the expense of less freedom of expression, i would adopt it, rather than face with racial and religious tension and riots all the time and fearing for our own lives.
In Singapore, we are lucky to have races and religions which are more tolerant to sensitive issues but in order not to risk any chance of social unrest, the government has set strict laws which convict anyone intent of disrupting social harmony by making sensitive remarks. But more importantly, i think it is the social responsibility of all Singaporeans to refrain from abusing their freedom of expression to take a swipe at other races or religions so as to protect the collective interests of our society, lest a repeat of the 1964 racial riots.
In my opinion, the latter should be adopted in Singapore, especially when we have cultural and religious pluralism in our multi-racial society. The reason why Singapore have come thus far, evolving from a small fishing village into a cosmopolitan city, is because all races and religions had been able to work together as one, working towards a common goal as one country instead of satisfying their own agendas. As quoted from Szilagyi,"What is more important for the democratic advancement of a society - to ensure the freedom of expression of all its citizens (within the limits marked by law) or to protect the collective interests of society?" I would choose the latter, as it is the collective interests of the society that ensures continual growth and prosperity of our country and not the freedom of expression of the people. In some countries where a greater emphasis is placed on freedom of expression of the people, there has been countless cases of insensitive articles published on a certain race or religion that sparked social unrest. This, i rather not experience in my life.
As much as i would like to have absolute freedom of expression, i understand that it cannot be accomplished together with the protection of collective interests of the society. I believe that the welfare of the country should come first and if we can maintain racial and relgious harmony among all our people at the expense of less freedom of expression, i would adopt it, rather than face with racial and religious tension and riots all the time and fearing for our own lives.
In Singapore, we are lucky to have races and religions which are more tolerant to sensitive issues but in order not to risk any chance of social unrest, the government has set strict laws which convict anyone intent of disrupting social harmony by making sensitive remarks. But more importantly, i think it is the social responsibility of all Singaporeans to refrain from abusing their freedom of expression to take a swipe at other races or religions so as to protect the collective interests of our society, lest a repeat of the 1964 racial riots.
No comments:
Post a Comment