The Last Sunset

In Singapore, Freedom of Expression or Social Responsibility

In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, I feel that Szilagyi’s view, which believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility, should be adopted.

We must understand that Singapore is made up of people with various races and religions. It is such harmony between these races and religions that ensured the survival of our heartland. Singapore is an extremely small country, thus being incredibly vulnerable to external or internal attacks. Though the former is being taken care of by our Armed Forces, it will still not be enough to maintain Singapore’s survival should the latter is not taken care of. One example of internal attacks is racial riots (such as the 1964 Sino-Malay Riots). The only way to prevent such strife from happening again is to unite our people together as one. How is this done? Through racial harmony of course!

Since racial and religious issues are particularly sensitive, we must prevent offences pertaining to them at all cost. One accidental remark towards a certain race will lead to a grave outcome. One example is from an article written by Szilagyi, “the provocative nature of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, which have provoked rage in the Muslim world.” The only reason why such wrath occurred was due to insensitivity to the Malays – by offending their beliefs. Although such result was not intended to happen, the cartoonist should have been more matured enough to think at different people’s point of view (in this case, in the Muslim’s point of view). Having no intention is not sufficient to prove one’s innocence. The damage has already been done, and there is no way to go back in time to reverse it.

Singapore’s only resource is our people. If such hostility between each race exists, Singapore can never progress, but instead, it will fall terribly. If our own people are not able to work together as a team to benefit Singapore, who else will? Thus, racial harmony is all the more crucial to us. It is the most important key in allowing us to strive together for the benefit of ourselves, our society and our nation.

However, I am not totally against Peter Singer’s view that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. Too much restriction to our lives will make us no different to robots, which are programmed to act and not to think. Absolute limitation to our freedom of expression will only provide a disincentive for us to voice out our views on various issues that arise. In such cases where people only flow along with the tide, no progress can be made.

Although freedom of expression is a basic right, we must not abuse it or go overboard. We must appreciate that there exists a certain level of tolerance within that right.

Things must not be done in the extreme manner, such as totally restricting our freedom of expression or totally allowing us to voice out our opinions. The former leads to the society being very rigid while the latter may lead to parties being offended by remarks. Hence, we have to be balanced – by allowing freedom of expression with due regard to maturity and sensitivity.

In conclusion, I feel that in Singapore’s context, more focus should be placed on social responsibility. We have to be sensitive to one another’s feelings if we want to continue to excel. Moreover, I will like to emphasize that Singapore is made up of people of different races and religions from all over the world, thus being a multi-racial society. As a result, racial harmony must be observed in order to let us unite as one people, one nation, one Singapore.