Freedom of Expression or Social Responsibility

Firstly, I would like to talk about the contrasting opinions of the two writers, Singer and Szilagyi. Singer basically places a firm believe that there should be freedom of expression for democratic countries and is making his stand by using the example of one Austrian, David Irving, who was sent to jail because he denied there ever being a holocaust. From this, it is not hard to gather why Singer has such strong believes. Imagine, someone in Singapore denying that the Japanese occupation ever existed. Is he going to get arrested? You see, the basic principle behind having a democratic society is to grant each and every person in society the chance to voice himself or herself, regardless of how controversial their opinions may be. Thus, he feels that David Irving has to be released, as he was simply telling out what he felt was right. You can’t just silence them and throw them in prison. It shouldn’t be done in any society, much more in a democratic one.

As for Szilagyi, she believes that social responsibility should be exercised even in a democratic society. She bases her claims from the Danish cartoon saga There is no shadow of a doubt that it sparked controversy in the Middle East and the temperatures down there were reaching boiling point. It was so terrible that the Muslims refused to but anything that was Danish, believing them to be tainted of sorts. Now, knowing that the situation was volatile in the Middle East, shouldn’t the Danish government, in the least prevent it from being published? If everyone was going to dismiss the cartoons with a hearty laugh, they were obviously, wrong.

Now we shall take a look at Singapore. Singapore is a democratic nation, in which all our voices, grievances are attentively heard by our government. But we must not forget that Singapore is also a multi racial society. Then means being extra careful with what we say or do. This virtually means that we are in total freedom over what we say but know when to keep our mouths shut so as to avoid saying anything that may come across as racist remarks. Of course, Singaporeans are wary about this, with the 1964 race riots still fresh in our minds. So, I’ve finally decided that both writers’ approaches should be adopted to ensure that will be able to build a strong, cohesive multi-racial society, while still keeping the idea of freedom of expression.

But, then again, this idea is absurd…Its near impossible to say that the government is going to be able to do such a thing when the two principles contradict each other on almost every scale. Thus, while I would certainly have been content if there was a way to combine the two principles, I would have to say that Singapore should most probably adopt Szilagyi’s approach. Social responsibility is what’s most important in Singapore…

Firstly, we must think about what our society in made up of: a multi-cultural society. While over the years, the threat of there being social or racial tension has been quelled, we all cannot deny that there still lies distinct lines existing between each racial group. Nobody just wants to admit to it. So say that we focus on the principle of freedom of expression and a cruel racial-related article crops up in the newspaper one day. There is most certainly going to be an outcry of injustice the next day…Yes, this is Singapore, and the outcry certainly is not going to rival those in the Middle East, but it will stir up a bit of hatred and tension within the targeted racial group. A volatile bomb, ready to burst once its endured too much. What could be worse???

But, if we take the better route, in this case, towards having social responsibility, we can be assured that almost everyone in the public are going to go about their daily lives as per normal. By saying almost, I do refer to those minority die-hards who are so vocal and expressive that the press has to cover-up their views. There is going to be an out-cry by these people that there is no freedom of speech but, for Singapore’s sake, I pray that their volumes will be almost negligible.

Finally, I believe that everyone in Singapore has a good moral sense, and have virtues that would make even our forefathers proud. Nobody’s going to post an article, knowing that the social impacts of it would be insurmountable. If not why have the principle of transparency between the government and the public in place??? The government must surely feel that Singaporeans will be mature enough to not boil over racial issues and etc. Take for example; the government was very transparent about revealing the economic status of all the racial groups though this information was indeed a sensitive one.

The fact that we have not had even a glimmer of a potential racial riot in the last 40 years has indicated that whatever transparency the government and public are having is really effective. I almost feel as if I have nothing to worry about…