Racial Harmony

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 both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.

Like in all controversial issues, there is no definite right answer. Both authors stated their stands clearly with strong supporting details, making it difficult to refute either of their stands. To resolve any problem, often more than not, a single solution is not used. Instead, a variety of solutions is used. This is because by using only one solution, the results tend to lean to one extreme side. So, a number of solutions is used to complement each other and to strike a balance.

I think that to achieve maximum positive results, both authors' views should be adopted. This is in accordance with Singapore's culture, beliefs and mindsets. Singapore is becoming more open-minded, accepting of new ideas than before, and becoming less conservative. However, comparing Singapore with say, the United States, the United States is without doubt more liberal than Singapore. This is because the United States value liberty the most and this liberty refers to freedom which includes the freedom of speech. Singer's view may work very well in United States but not as well in Singapore due to the fact that Singapore values its liberty equally with other things such as racial harmony. Liberty is not Singapore's topmost priority though it is one of her priorities.

It is true that democracy celebrates individualism and that each individual should have the right to voice his/her views. This is the whole idea of democracy and liberty. However, if this liberty is not taken charge of, it is susceptible to abuse. Simply because not every individual has the same maturity and level of thinking. To a person with a lower level of thinking, making hurtful and destructive racist comments may only mean expressing his/her own views. He/she does not take into account the consequences and after-effect of his/her actions or words. With this type of people, giving them total liberty poses a danger to the racial harmony that Singapore enjoys.

Take for example the blogger who was sentenced to jail last year for making irresponsible racist comments on his blog. He had been given the liberty and freedom of expressing what he wants to say on his own blog. But he had abused the trust given, the trust that he knows what ought and what ought not to be written. Thus he was punished to make a statement and an example that it is not alright to make hurtful comments about another race and that the perpetrator would be duly punished. This is a case whereby the government intervened to make known of its stand towards the level of liberty it gives to the people.

Singer says, "Only when David Irving has been freed will it be possible for Europeans to turn to the Islamic protesters and say: 'We apply the principle of freedom of expression even-handedly, whether it offends Moslems, Christians, Jews, or anyone else.' ” He is implying that it is okay to offend other people or even large groups of people. I disagree with him because this causes tension and unhappiness. The tension aroused due to liberal comments made irresponsibly by people is detrimental to racial harmony in Singapore. Racial harmony, though not frail, is not that strong a bond either. So Singapore should protect her precious racial harmony at all costs. So absolute liberty should not be given to Singaporeans.

Szilagyi believes more in social responsibility because once messages are out in public, they develop a life of their own and become subject to multiple interpretations, and often manipulation that serves political agendas. Only with social responsibility, then does one know which are the harmless messages that can be passed without damaging harmony among the races. I fully agree with Szilagyi that the press needs to serve the ever-evolving public interest, and it needs to do so by focusing on responsibility, and not solely on freedom. Social responsibility has a more permanent effect.

In conclusion, a balance between freedom of expression and social responsibility of individuals should be attained to best protect our racial harmony. Social responsibility is indeed important but so is the freedom to express oneself in this rapid globalising society. A globalised individual is one that expresses himself freely yet has the social responsibility to maintain racial harmony. The key to the problem is to strike a balance.