Racial Harmony Blog Entry
Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believe 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?
In my opinion, i feel that Szilagyi's view should be adopted. In Singapore's multi-racial context, Moral Education and religious ethics are important aspects of education. Within its multi-racial context, it is vital for Singaporeans to begin learning from a tender age how to live harmoniously with others of varying social and racial backgrounds. They must develop the ability to cooperate with others of different races and cope during times of uncertainty and change. Like what we have learnt, a single racist opinion made could cause tragic events between races. If freedom of expression is allowed in Singapore, chances are that some insensitive people will misuse it. We have to admit that our country has not reached the stage where everyone is mature and cultivated enough.
There is an advantage about freedom of expression which can be undeniable, that is, without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock. It can be argued that humans will be unable to improve without accepting others’ criticism and from there change for the better. However, if freedom of expression in applied to religion, it will cause and uproar. Racial, religious and ethnical issues are issues which third-parties are in no position to comment, because it is a kind of teaching or practice that have been passed down through generations, and it is impossible for outsiders to know the whole hidden meaning of these practices, because each individual is born to a different religion. Therefore, who are we to be given the freedom to criticize other races and give suggestions, when we are not even born to the kind of environment they are exposed to?
Citing an example from the article about the Danish and Norwegian newspapers that published the cartoon about Prophet Mohammad, the cartoon originally had no intentions of setting off mass demonstrations, diplomatic rows and economic boycotts of Danish products in the Middle East. They insisted that they were protected under the freedom of speech principles. However, shouldn’t have the newspaper editors been aware, that in a world of global information flow there is an insurmountable contradiction between traditional free speech values and public discussion about Islam? In our networked world, existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one context to another.
In conclusion, I feel that if freedom of expression is capable of causing so much social destruction, it will be better not to implement it to the society. The main idea is that we do not live independently in this world, and because we are so dependent on each other, social responsibility should have more focus placed on it.
