Sunday, March 30, 2008

Freedom Of Expression In Singapore

Singer Believes that the 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 responsiblity.
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

Saturday, March 29, 2008

freedom of speech

question: reading 3 and reading 4 cite differing views regarding freedom of expression. which view do you subscribe to and why?

I feel that there should be freedom of speech, but only to a certain extent.
From reading 3, its states that "there is no doubt freedom of speech is an essential foundation of any democracy" i agree with this statement. This is because, decisions are usually made on a majority vote in democratic countries, however, if there is no freedom of speech, no one will voice out their opinion, and even the wrong opinion will become a right opinion. For example, the holocaust, prohibiting holocaust denial does not mean that the holocaust occured. However, it is from people's majority opinions that the holocaust ever existed.
Reading 3 also states that "the press have to understand, the do not alone create the context and lifespan of their messages." I also agree with this statement, because the press should know that for a same message, different people may receive it in a different way. For example, when the danish papers depicted prophet muhammed as a terrorist, the danish may just take it as a joke, becuase in their culture, it is okay to insult other religions. However, they do not realise that muslims can read it in a different perspective, where they see this as an insult to their religion.

From reading 4, it states that "a distinction should be made clear between what believers of one faith prefer, and what the state decides for a secular society".This may be a situation where too many people can be offended by too many things, and therefore ban everything. For example, the "da vinci code", the christians believe that it is against their faith, but that does not mean that the governement will have to ban it. The christians can protest by boycotting the film, but they cannot stop others from watching the film as others may not feel the same way as they do. Like i have mentioned above, different people can read the same thing in a different perspective.
Reading 4 also mentioned that "my own view was that i did not think any state should ban the cartoons(danish cartoons about prophet muhammed). But i did find hypocritical the newspapers' decisions to continue publishing those cartoons on the grounds of freedom of expression, in societies which had laws and norms against insult to Christians or Jews". Thus, when the press is publishing about an issue, they should consider whether it is a sensitive issue and maybe put themselves in the shoes of the muslim, where their own beliefs are being insulted. Therefore, maybe abstaining from such sensitive issues.

In conclusion, i agree with both reading 3 and reading 4, where the press can have freedom of speech to a certain extent. With freedom of speech wrong opinions can be corrected. Also, too many people are offended by too many things and one cannot stop people from saying something that offends you. However, the press have to understand that different people look at things in a different perspective, and thus existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural context to another. Thus after reading both articles, it is best that the press have freedom of speech but used responsibly.

HELLO!

YAY! i MANAGE TO JOIN THE BLOG! (:

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless frontiers".

http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=5287&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

After reading Article 19, my first thought was in the eyes of the law, freedom of opinion and expression knows no boundaries. It does not include any restriction or acknowledgement with respect to a person's emotions. Freedom, as defined in 15 ways from dictionary.com goes

1.the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.the power to determine action without restraint.
4.political or national independence.
5.personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
6.exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually fol. by from): freedom from fear.
7.the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.
8.ease or facility of movement or action: to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.
9.frankness of manner or speech.
10.general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.
11.the absence of ceremony or reserve.
12.a liberty taken.
13.a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation: freedom to levy taxes.
14.civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
15.the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.

These are probably why the definition of Freedom of Expression is being exploited and hence intensely discussed globally. However, in my opinion, Freedom of Expression should still be carried out conscientiously, bearing in mind, social, religious and political sensitivities. World peace is also currently promoted and I believe that Freedom of Expression and the former cannot co-exist together because achieving World Peace requires accommodative mindsets of the various parties involve. Yes, they can express their opinions ‘freely’ but the word is used loosely as the opinions are careful and not made at the expense of others.

Freedom of Expression can be applied to all forms of media, from art to speeches, letters, the Internet, the television and press. Any form that could bring an individual’s or group’s opinions out to the public. At present, Freedom of Expression is not just about expressing creativity but has unfortunately taken a form of direct attacks at sensitive issues, taking religion as an example.

Freedom of Expression is not about having biased, unsupported claims against another party but rather a discussion about an issue. Take for example, the fairly recent issue of the Danish newspaper publishing caricatures about Prophet Muhammad leading to a global uproar amongst the Muslim community. These were direct and open insults at Prophet Muhammad. There was neither a floor for discussion nor a chance for the Muslims to defend their religion.

Everything has it’s own place an time. Yes, the world can only progress if people express themselves to others, be it negatively or positively. But I think it should be conducted and moderated in a manner that does not jeopardize social stability that tends to tear at the fabric of life itself. Furthermore, Personal ‘Freedom of Expression’ should not subject others to large degrees of discomfort or take the form of causing many misunderstandings between oneself and others. At the end of the day, there should be restraint, moderation and most importantly a desire for the common and larger good of mankind, to take precedent over local and personal agendas.

386 words excluding words in italics.

Saturday, March 22, 2008