Freedom of speech, as defined in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is "the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies." In a multi racial society such as Singapore, where people of different cultural and religious backgrounds coexist together, freedom of expression should be limited to the extent that it does not cause disharmony within the country. Freedom of expression against religious beliefs is one example that could cause a great possibility of discord between various religious groups. Being a sensitive topic, several opinions formed by a certain religious groups could lead to opposing views from another and a chain reaction of disputes might arise. I personally feel that this should not be meddled with, thus I advocate Szilagyi’s view.
According to Singer, “freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false and even what many people may find offensive.” To some extent, an individual should have the right to oppose, form their own views or question opinions formed by others, even if it may be offensive. After all, one reason why freedom of expression is encouraged is to inculcate the ability to be resistant to negative opinions formed. Tolerance is a highly desirable quality that should exist in a society. It is believed that the free speech principle involves a special act of carving out one area of social interaction for extraordinary self-restraint, the purpose of which is to develop and demonstrate a social capacity to control feelings evoked by a host of social encounters (Wikipedia). Tolerance in an individual, would lead to higher tolerance within a society. When the resistance in a society is established, negative opinions formed can be curbed easily, maintaining cohesion and restraining disputes in the country. Thus, tolerance should be established. However, in the case of Singapore, I personally feel that our society does not have an adequate level of resistance against offensive remarks. The country we live in does not provide the proper environment for developing this level of tolerance. Laws restricting freedom of speech are justified by claims that unrestricted speech may breed disharmony within Singapore's multi-racial, multi-religious society (Wikipedia). Thus, if Singer’s view were to be adopted, discord within the country might arise.
Szilagyi brought up a question in his write up on freedom of speech. He asked, “What is more important for the democratic advancement of a society - to ensure the freedom of expression of all its citizens (within the limits marked by law) or to protect the collective interests of society? “ To me, protecting the interest of a society would aid in democratic advancement. People would develop a sense of satisfaction if their needs are met. This sense of satisfaction would eventually foster greater cohesion between the society and their government. Freedom of expression as explained earlier, might lead to disharmony in a country. With disharmony, how can the country progress? Some may argue that although laws restrict one from expressing their views, it sometimes is difficult to prevent conveying them. Again, the value of respect can be inculcated. Respect for others in different racial or religious groups would allow an individual to develop a different mindset towards the racial or religious group. One must also have a certain level of maturity to attain this level of respect. Only then can people of different racial and religious backgrounds live in harmony with one another. In Singapore, this level of respect more or less exists.
We live in a society where freedom of speech has been restricted to such a level that we are not ready to accept absolute freedom of speech. The government has now begun to relax their stance against freedom of speech. One must be careful not to make sweeping remarks, but have tangible evidence when commenting on political matters. As Szilagyi said, “Freedom of speech has never been a static value, and the responsibilities of the press evolve with every new social and political development around the world - requiring the limits of media output to be subjected to constant review.” Likewise it is our responsibility to ensure that we do not make false accusations or construct harmful statements against others. This would maintain stability in social cohesion in Singapore.
Kavina Shahi
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech">
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)