Racial Harmony

“Singer believes that 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 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?”

I think Szilagyi's view should be adopted in the context of Singapore's multi-racial society. This is because by allowing an individual to voice out his or her opinion, we are giving them the right to freedom of speech, but at the same time, they would be stepping on the toes of people who are on the other end of the statement. If practicing our rights to freedom of speech means having to injure another party’s beliefs, I strongly feel we should reconsider doing so and always take responsibility for our words and actions. And especially in a country like Singapore, where different racial groups exist together, negative opinions about each other give rise to racial tension, which would only serve to weaken our country’s political power. In the long term, our economy would also suffer, as social and political instability in a country turn investors off. Singapore is a small nation that depends greatly on her only resource-her people. If this pillar were to break and fall, Singapore would not only collapse but also face the dangers of countries invading.

“In our networked world, existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural context to another. Media messages, films and art works cannot be addressed to a specific cultural group - traditional borders of culture and nation no longer exist.” As mentioned by Szilagyi in his article, there are no more boundaries between different cultures and nations any longer especially because of the advancements in technology and transportation. Messages are made known to everybody regardless of factors such as race or religious beliefs. So any opinion a person gives will be judged and interpreted in different ways. Ultimately, it is not only the victim who suffers, but the person giving the opinion as well. Singapore is not very large; her people are interlinked one way or another and will become affected somehow.

However, according to Peter Singer, “Without that freedom (of speech), human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.” In other words, the freedom of speech is always essential for democracy to take place, even if the words may not be pleasing to the ears. Without it, it would be as if we were being obstructed by a fundamental issue that would only prevent us from progressing. This, however, can only happen if people are open-minded enough to accept whatever unpleasant things that come their way. An example would be the political system in Taiwan. Citizens, along with politicians as well as certain artistes in the media industry, throw their criticisms around, mockingly at times.

To conclude, I believe that in order for us to live in a peaceful and harmonious society, people should respect the feelings and beliefs of other racial groups, practising the freedom of speech with a sense of social responsibility.