Saturday, July 7, 2007
Blogging task
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 articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.Democracy is a state of society charactersied by formal equality of rights and previlages. Most countries in the world now adopt the democratic system as many history events have proven communism a failure. To practice democracy, the most fundamental concept is to allow citizens to have the freedom of speech. However, this can be such a contradiction. For example, David Irving was in denial of the Holocaust, and was imprisoned for expressing his thoughts and opinions. To practice freedom of speech is to allow people to express themselves without any censorship, and this is the policy that democratic countries adopt. But yet, Austria, which is a democratic country, convicted David Irving for denying the Holocaust. This is indeed ironic. As the world has begin to place great emphasis on human rights, it is tough for us to decide whether to place more focus on social responsibility or that we should be allowed to exercise our freedom of speech fully. However, in the context of Singapore’s multi racial society, I feel that Szilagyi’s belief of placing the focus on social responsibility should be adopted.
Freedom of speech can be vital to the government in hearing the voices of the citizens and know what exactly does the people wants. As quoted from the article “Free Speech, Muhammad, and the Holocaust”, “Without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.” If citizens were not allowed to voice out their grievances or to comment on a certain issues, they will not have a sense of belonging to the country as all matters are to be decided by the government. Also, the government will not be able to make improvements to the life of the people as they are unable to hear the call of the citizens. Moreover, there are always two sides to a story. If everyone was to have the freedom to express their views, they will then be exposed to many view points made by others, allowing them to have analysed the issue better.
On the contrary, freedom of speech may be the cause of political instability and unrest in a country. In a cosmopolitan society, it is crucial to ensure that people of different races and religions are able to live in harmony as media messages or any forms of art can easily trigger a racial riot. Even though Singapore is a democratic country, but I strongly believe that freedom of speech should not be executed in the issue on races/religions. Singapore is a small country and she would be vulnerable to attacks if citizens do not stand together as one. Singapore’s government has taken a great deal of effort in ensuring that there is peace and order in Singapore. 21st July is the day to commemorate racial harmony and integration in Singapore, this is the day whereby schools and Residents’ committees will organize events to give Singaporeans a chance to get to mingle with other races and get know one another’s culture better. It is only with understanding and interaction; we will then be able to have mutual respect for all. Races and religion is still an extremely sensitive issue to touch on as without prior knowledge of the other cultures, misunderstanding may arise and this will most likely to cause a riot to take place.
Szilagyi has mentioned 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 plays a very crucial role in educating the public as we access most of the global information or knowledge from here. Hence, media messages, films and art works cannot be addressed to a specific cultural group, they should have the social responsibility “in leading an informed, high-quality discussion, with due respect for minority rights.” It was also mentioned in Szilagyi’s article that “once messages are out in public, they develop a life of their own and become subject to multiple interpretations.” For example, the publication of cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad has proved rage in the Muslim world. People may send out messages without having any intention to criticize any races, but some may interpret the message and see it as sarcasm towards their race/religion.
It is indeed very difficult to strike a balance between freedom of speech and social responsibility. If Singapore was to take the view of Singer, racial riot is bound to happen. However, if Singapore was to take the view of Szilagyi, it will obstruct Singapore’s development. Thus, I believe that freedom of speech should be allowed but with close supervising from the government. Government should take up the responsibility in playing the parental role and carry out censorship to materials that may sow discord between two races/religions. As individuals, we have the rights to speak our mind but we should always be ready to bear any consequence that may arise from our words.
p.s. mdm loh,sorry for the late work.xp
the world will turn WILD.
6:38 AM
|
