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?
I personally feel that Zsofia Szilagyi's approach toward freedom of expression is best suited for a multi-ethnic society like Singapore. Szilagyi believes that the media should practice social responsibility, especially in a borderless and connected world, as social tensions could be easily generated with the global transmission of messages. I agree that ' Media messages, films and art works cannot be addressed to a specific cultural group.' This is especially true for Singapore, bearing a multi-religious community due to its diverse mix of ethnic originating from foreign countries.
Singapore had seen racial conflicts during its days in the federation of Malaysia.The 1964 race riots, also known as the 1964 Sino-Malay riots, saw a bloody confrontation between the two races that lead to a 36 dead and 556 injured. An estimated 3000 were arrested. The riots were a result of UMNO's communal campaign that targeted the Malays. The pro-Malay party often criticised the PAP for their alleged mistreatment of the Singaporeans Malays. This eventually escalated racial tension to the extent of the 1964 racial riots. The UMNO party communal messages were aimed to secure Malay votes in that region, however, it failed to realise that such issues were extremely sensitive and could harm the racial harmony of the island. Hence, we could see that freedom of expression without any social responsibility would only serve to destroy the delicate threads binding the Singapore society.
Learning from the experience, the Singapore government practices a certain level of censorship. Negative portrayals of religions are subjected to censorship as the government does not tolerate any actions or speech that deems to adversely affect the racial relationships. This shows that Szilagyi's beliefs coincide with the government's policy.
Singer states that without the freedom of expression, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock. Instead, i believe that freedom of expression without social responsibility would produce the opposite effect: reverse human progress. Freedom without social responsibility would allow propagation of radical thoughts and beliefs, corrupting the mind and the society. The consequences of such are disastrous for the world. The spreading of radical islamic teachings through the different mediums such as the internet has lead to the breeding of terrorist all over the world and even in Singapore. Should Freedom without social responsibility be allowed in Singapore, the correct religious teachings would be twisted and distorted. We would be breeding radical extremist. This is a frightening scenario indeed.
In conclusion, the benefits gain from freedom of expression is meagre, which is to protect and uphold the name of democracy. The collective interest of the society is far more valuable than to ensure freedom of speech. Expression with Social responsibility in mind is not freedom of expression, as social responsiblity restricts your boundary of expression. Thus both cannot co-exist and a choice has to be made between both of them. I myself believe that expression with Social responsibility is the correct approach to adopt for Singapore, where cultural and religious pluralism exists.
AHa! I win 496 words excluding italics =P Goodnights
No comments:
Post a Comment