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?
In Singapore’s context, none of these views should be adopted singly as it would cause unnecessary problems. In fact, both views should be adopted to a certain extent.
Singer’s view on freedom of speech should be adopted to some extent, because Singapore deemed herself as a democratic country and freedom of expression is crucial. Democracy is defined by dictionary.com as government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. Therefore for the government to be one where the decision is that of the choice of the people, the people must be allowed to voice their views, and that could only be possible with the freedom of speech.
However, everything in this world has rules and regulations to follow. From the simple board games that we play as a child to our behaviour and conduct in school, our whole life are restricted by rules and regulations. Thus freedom of expression is no exception. For freedom of speech that is applied to Singapore, due to our multi-racial society, freedom of speech should not be total ‘freedom’; it should have its boundaries. Singaporeans who wish to voice their views should be considerate and treat others like how they would like others to treat them (Chinese saying), in aspects like religion, race or other sensitive issues.
On the other hand, living in a multi-racial society, we as individuals should be more understanding and gracious towards others. This is because we cannot expect everyone to believe in what we believe and to view things like how we do, when everyone has a mind of their own. It is difficult and almost impossible to prevent the clash of ideas. Thus to implement the freedom of expression in Singapore, there should be some sort of mild censorship to sensitive issues that might cause riots but still have room for the public to voice their views. Also, since Singapore is a democratic country and the people wish to have freedom of expression, they take into consideration the consequences, and be gracious and forgiving about comments made.
Next, is Szilagyi’s view on placing more focus on social responsibility. Social responsibility is especially important for a multi-racial country like Singapore. If we did things without social responsibility, it would result in unhappiness between different groups of people, which causes tension to arise and thus riots. By then the country would not be able to enjoy the luxury of living in peace and harmony.
Social responsibility as defined by dictionary.com as the accountability of or pertaining to the life, welfare, and relations of human beings in a community. We should not be overly social responsible because this would mean that before every sentence, every action, every move that we make, we have to consider, re-consider ad further consider before we set foot upon it. Other than the much amount of thinking and analyzing skills that we would require, this would also mean – we have many things to consider. Which in turn implies that our boundary for ‘freedom’ of speech decreases till somewhat the standard is no longer called freedom. Also, being overly social responsibility might mean that in order to be accountable to the life, welfare, and relations of human beings in a community, we might twist and turn the truth. Therefore, resulting in the distortions of facts.
To enable us to live like a highly democratic yet peaceful and harmonious multi-racial nation, we should adopt both views of freedom of expression and social responsibility. However, both are not adopted totally but partially, till the extend where we are able to voice what we want and how we feel about some issues without causing any form of encumbrance to any other groups of people in the society. This state of perfection might not be reached easily, but may be after years and years of changes. It is not easily achievable as people are always selfish and usually put themselves before others, causing them to hope for their own ability of freedom of expression yet unable to be gracious enough to let others criticize self. Thus with a group wanting freedom of speech, there will sure to be a group that opposes it due to social responsibility, this might even be the same group. Therefore, the plan above might not be able to work out very well in practice.
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?
In Singapore’s context, none of these views should be adopted singly as it would cause unnecessary problems. In fact, both views should be adopted to a certain extent.
Singer’s view on freedom of speech should be adopted to some extent, because Singapore deemed herself as a democratic country and freedom of expression is crucial. Democracy is defined by dictionary.com as government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. Therefore for the government to be one where the decision is that of the choice of the people, the people must be allowed to voice their views, and that could only be possible with the freedom of speech.
However, everything in this world has rules and regulations to follow. From the simple board games that we play as a child to our behaviour and conduct in school, our whole life are restricted by rules and regulations. Thus freedom of expression is no exception. For freedom of speech that is applied to Singapore, due to our multi-racial society, freedom of speech should not be total ‘freedom’; it should have its boundaries. Singaporeans who wish to voice their views should be considerate and treat others like how they would like others to treat them (Chinese saying), in aspects like religion, race or other sensitive issues.
On the other hand, living in a multi-racial society, we as individuals should be more understanding and gracious towards others. This is because we cannot expect everyone to believe in what we believe and to view things like how we do, when everyone has a mind of their own. It is difficult and almost impossible to prevent the clash of ideas. Thus to implement the freedom of expression in Singapore, there should be some sort of mild censorship to sensitive issues that might cause riots but still have room for the public to voice their views. Also, since Singapore is a democratic country and the people wish to have freedom of expression, they take into consideration the consequences, and be gracious and forgiving about comments made.
Next, is Szilagyi’s view on placing more focus on social responsibility. Social responsibility is especially important for a multi-racial country like Singapore. If we did things without social responsibility, it would result in unhappiness between different groups of people, which causes tension to arise and thus riots. By then the country would not be able to enjoy the luxury of living in peace and harmony.
Social responsibility as defined by dictionary.com as the accountability of or pertaining to the life, welfare, and relations of human beings in a community. We should not be overly social responsible because this would mean that before every sentence, every action, every move that we make, we have to consider, re-consider ad further consider before we set foot upon it. Other than the much amount of thinking and analyzing skills that we would require, this would also mean – we have many things to consider. Which in turn implies that our boundary for ‘freedom’ of speech decreases till somewhat the standard is no longer called freedom. Also, being overly social responsibility might mean that in order to be accountable to the life, welfare, and relations of human beings in a community, we might twist and turn the truth. Therefore, resulting in the distortions of facts.
To enable us to live like a highly democratic yet peaceful and harmonious multi-racial nation, we should adopt both views of freedom of expression and social responsibility. However, both are not adopted totally but partially, till the extend where we are able to voice what we want and how we feel about some issues without causing any form of encumbrance to any other groups of people in the society. This state of perfection might not be reached easily, but may be after years and years of changes. It is not easily achievable as people are always selfish and usually put themselves before others, causing them to hope for their own ability of freedom of expression yet unable to be gracious enough to let others criticize self. Thus with a group wanting freedom of speech, there will sure to be a group that opposes it due to social responsibility, this might even be the same group. Therefore, the plan above might not be able to work out very well in practice.
