June Blog Task ; Free Speech

In the context of Singapore, I would agree that Szilagyi’s view of being socially responsible is more applicable. Compared to Szilagyi’s point of view, Singer believes that without the element, freedom of speech, countries will not be considered as having democracy.

On the other hand, having four major races (Chinese-77%, Malay-15%, Eurasian and Indian-8%) and different religions in Singapore, we are not able to survive in places where freedom of expression is given priority over the welfare of the citizens. Though we are considered a democratic country. Come to think of it, Singapore is only a small little red dot on the world map but we’re one of the most heavily diversified countries. If our media pushes for similar freedom of speech in Singapore, the effects will not be imaginable. As a group of people will eventually get offended by what another said in the process of freely expressing themselves. Moreover, cultural and religion matters have always been an issue close to the people’s hearts causing us to be especially sensitive.

Citing the racial riots in Singapore in 1964, it happened due to various reasons. One of the unanimous reason by Singapore and foreign bodies was agitation by Syed Jaafar Albar(a malay politician) and United Malays Nation Organisation(UMNO) who allowed ran the campaign. The agitation and carrying out of the campaign were evidences of freedom of expression. And the prices paid for this freedom were the lives of many people and the peace in Singapore. Come to think of it, which is more important?

People may argue that through all the education and information on racial harmony in Singapore, citizens are already sensible enough to react correctly to the comments communicated through the media. Unlike the Muslims that reacted violently to the Danish cartoon which was interpreted as insulting Prophet Muhammad. If that was so, why did Singapore ban the publishing of the cartoon in Singapore’s newspapers? The ban was an action against the freedom of expression. It was not because Singapore wasn’t in favour of democracy but instead to prevent any turmoil to brew. Through all the education, people have learnt to live with other races but it cannot ensure that emotions will not be stirred when insulting comments are hurled at oneself. Thus accounting for the measures taken in Singapore.

Singer mentioned, “Without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.” I would beg to differ with this statement, as there were more bad consequences than good in the practicing of freedom in Singapore. Apart from the death toll and turmoil, Singapore’s economy was affected too. A curfew had to be enforced in order to control the situation thus causing trading, businesses had to be stopped at the same time. With Singapore being such an unsafe place, business partners would stop investing here. Obviously the roadblock for human progress will be the freedom of speech instead.

Although Singer is right to say that all human should be given the right to have a mind of their own without any interference from the government or borders. Nonetheless humans have proved themselves to be unable to be responsible for whatever they said whenever sharing their views on sensitive issues. Taking the case of the two young adults that were jailed because of the racist comments published in their blogs, although it did not cause any hurt physically, the Malays were affected mentally. Upon the fact that they were not little children but adults with a mind of their own, it proved Singapore is not ready for total freedom of expression.

Thus all of us have to prove ourselves to be responsible when communication before freedom of expression can be considered. Before this happens, Szilagyi’s viewpoint is a better solution for Singapore.