june holiday blog assignment

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.

Peter Singer believes that freedom of speech is essential to any democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people find offensive. People 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. Without this freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.

To a certain extent, Singer’s point of view is true. Freedom of speech is indeed essential to any democratic regimes and should not be limited. Freedom of speech can even help a government to lead their country more effectively. For example, with freedom of speech, the citizens of a democratic country can be free to express his or her views about policies implemented by the government. The government will be able to listen to the grouses of their citizens of the new policies they implemented and perhaps alter the policy to suit the demands of the citizens. In this way, both the citizens and the government will benefit as the citizens are satisfied with the changes made and the government gain respect for listening to the citizens. In this way, the country will be able to progress more effectively with the freedom of speech.

However, I do not support Singer’s belief that people 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. By denying the existence of God or criticize teachings of other religions, one can easily cause unnecessary arguments or arouse displeasure and perhaps even cause riots or demonstrations. One such recent example is the publishing of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad by the Danish and Norwegian newspapers which provoked rage in the Muslim world, leading to mass demonstrations, diplomatic rows and economic boycotts of their products in the Middle East. I believe that the freedom of expression is wrongly used in this case as the issue discussed was about religion, something which still continues to make people defend the ideologies and die for.

On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility. He believes that in our networked world, existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural context to another. Media messages, films and art works cannot be addressed to a specific cultural group - traditional borders of culture and nation no longer exist. Also, whether we like it or not, now we all effectively live next door to one another. This raises the stakes in the century-old debate on how to strike a balance between individual and collective press freedom rights.

I strongly believe that what Szilagyi said is true. Although many people believe that the freedom of expression is a basic human right, but we must know when and how we should exercise this right. This is social responsibility. We should use this freedom of expression to fight for something which will benefit the society as a whole and not put anybody in a worse off situation. For example, freedom of expression used by citizens to appeal to the government to change their policies for the better of the country is the correct way to exercise this right. However, usage of freedom of expression to criticize religious figures is deemed socially wrong as this may cause riots and demonstrations. No one benefits from this and I personally see this as a very selfish act. This is because the person who made the rude remarks perhaps did not think of the consequences of his actions beforehand.

In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, I believe that Szilagyi’s view should be adopted. Singapore, being a multi-racial society, values racial harmony as this is the key factor to why Singapore is one of the most successful countries in the world. The past government and the present have identified and agreed that without racial harmony, Singapore cannot progress as a society. This is the reason why students have to recite the pledge every morning as much emphasis is placed on the weak concept of social cohesion. Also, with the 1964 racial riots still deeply imprinted in the minds of several elder Singaporeans, I can be quite sure to say that none of us want a repeat of that tragedy. Therefore, as citizens of Singapore, we should be responsible socially and exercise the freedom of expression for the better of the society and not for the individual selfish reasons.