Thursday, July 5, 2007
Firstly, I feels that both aurthors have stated clear reasons as to what approach we should take towards freedom of speech. Now, let's define what we meant by 'freedom of speech'. Freedom of speech is a civil liberty. It is one of the basic rights in a democracy. The basic rights are the common threads of a democracy. Some democratic nations guarantee it in their constitution or bill of rights. For other nations it has evolved through common law.(Source: www.curriculumsupport.nsw.edu.au/hsie/speak/pages/printpages/pglossary.htm) After reading this definition, we must agree that what Singer believed should be correct-that freedom of expression is a right in any democratic country. However, in the context of Singapore, where many different races and religions co-exist together, the rights of expression must be approached with caution. Thus, Szilagyi's argument makes more sense.
Whenever we make a speech, a talk or even a conversation, we must be careful of the words an phrases that we are using. We must be responsible for what we have said because it will not only affect ourselves but also people around us. Think about it, if nobody takes responsibility for what they said, will Singapore maintain as a multiracial society? Will people be able to live together peacefully? What we said might lead to dire consequnces. Race riots might happen every now and then. This not only results in serious casualties but also hinder the country's development. A Chinese man might be unwilling to work under a Muslim man. There might even be distrust amongst employers and employees. Some minority races might not even be able to get jobs. All this resulted due to the fact that people have the rights to criticise others without having to bear the consequences.
With technology so advanced, blogs and availability of posting online videos, people tends to have more varieties of expressing their views which is then viewed by their peers. However, the Internet is freely access to anyone, thus, a Singaporean's blog is accessible to a person in China. Hence, since it is now much more easier to express one's view, we must be even more cautious in what we post online. Because, a slight wrong expression can evoke anger in others. For example, in Singapore, there had been cases of racism comments being posted online. It's not a single case issue, but more than twice. One of the cases involved two men who posted racism comments online. One of the man claimed that he had bad experiences with muslims when he was young. Hence, it resulted in him posting those racism comments online. Despite this, he was still heavily punished. Many people might ask why? He has a reason for his action, so why was he still severely punished? The reason is simple. The punishment of the two men is to send a message across to all Singaporeans that the government values the importance of racial harmony and not take it lightly. The government is also trying to tell all Singporeans that freedom of speech comes with a price-you have to take responsibility for what you said.
Therefore, Szilagyi's point of view of people accounting for what they said and do is relevant to Singapore. The law in the freedom of expression is not restricting us not to express our views, but it is to allow people to be careful of what they said and bear the consequences of what they said. Thus, living in a democratic society should never be an excuse to abuse the rights of freedom of expression.
junnn05 stepped on your garbage at