June Blog Task

As Szilagyi mentioned in the article, ensuring freedom of speech and protecting the interest of the society cannot happen together. This is something that I truly believe in which is why I feel that to ensure racial harmony in Singapore, we should adopt Szilagyi’s views.

Singapore is a multi racial society and although we are said to be a democratic society, we do not have excess to freedom of speech (speaking against PAP will lead you straight to jail). This, I feel, is a very good thing. Take for example the cartoonist sketcher on Muhammad. Although the newspaper had no such intentions, a situation where Muslims around the world were rioting and unhappy with the Danish did come about. Religion is an extremely sensitive topic that should not be given any freedom of speech as the most likely outcome, as was in this case, is violence. If people were given the right to speak as they wished in Singapore, racial unrest would be the likely outcome. As mentioned earlier, freedom of speech and interest of the people cannot go hand in hand. This can only happen if the press becomes mature enough, as Szilagyi mentioned, to think before they publish. But press, like some European newspapers who republished the cartoons again, prefer to show that they have the freedom to publish whatever they wish to rather than to think through the consequences of their actions. This is why I feel that freedom of speech should be given when, and only when the press and society at large learns how to respect their given right. Till that happens, the government has to act as a parent and teach its children right from wrong.

However, Singer made a very good point by asking how imprisoning a person for denying the holocaust would persuade others who think that way to change their minds. Singer feels that freedom of speech is every human being’s right and the way to correct a person’s view is by providing the person with the right knowledge rather than pinning the person down with the law. I completely agree to this as this way, the person will still have his own freedom of an opinion, but will be given an opportunity to have a second opinion after looking at the facts. However, the question I wish to raise is just how many people can we educate this way? And how many people will actually listen? People who deny the holocaust are either Nazis or completely insane. Then what would be the point in trying so hard to convince them otherwise? In the end, their words will still have a harsh impact on the people who are related to the issue, may it be Muslims or Jews. This person’s words will still cause unhappiness and unrest among people and even of the person changes his perception after looking at evidence, the harm was already done.

Therefore, I feel that multi racial Singapore should adopt Szilagyi’s views.