Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech

In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society where there is a culture and religious pluralism, there is no doubt a certain degree of sensationalism imposed in order to maintain the peaceful society we are currently living in today. The Straits Times, Singaporeans main source of info, has never published a single sensitive article and cartoon that criticizes any particular culture or race over the past few decades.
As what Szilagyi asks,"What is more important for the democratic advancement of a society- to ensure freedom of expression of all its citizens or to protect the collective interests of a society?", it's no doubt that if we encourage freedom of expression of all citizens, citizens will have their rights to voice out their own opinions which they deem to be true. Hence it contradicts the goal of having democratic advancements of a society since the opinions (which might not be true) would make the victim fell hurt or resentful.
This problem is magnified in Singapore where people of different races and cultures live with each other. A slight provocation of people from any particular race or culture will eventually result in racial riots and social unrest. Thus, a series of problems would be caused due to the socially irresponsible opinion. This is strongly supported by the evidence where the publishing of the cartoons in Danish and Marwegian have provoked the Muslims in the world. Innocent lives were also incurred in the outbreak of protests as a result of an irresponsible remark. Singapore's economic will fail as the citizens engage in racial riots. People will start to live in poverty it riots prevails and many would live in fear. These undesirable outcomes are what Singapore would be like to face it we were to allow absolute freedom of expression of all citizens.
In the article, Peter singer states that "Without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a road block." This is nevertheless true to a certain extent. However, with that complete freedom given to the citizens of Singapore, irresponsible remarks will appear. In the case where the victim is unable to prove that what the person said is untrue, he would resort to resolving the problem physically through fights in order to let others compensate the humiliation inflicted upon them. These social unrests would normally be extremely hard to curb. If the problem continues to persist, it would eventually lead to the downfall instead of human progress as stated by Peter singer. Hence, any sensitive topics raised, though they have no intentions of setting off mass demonstrations, would put the country's future and stability at stake, especially in a multi-cultural society. Therefore, allowing freedom of expression in Singapore to attain democracy is not a practical approach.
On the other hand Szilagyi thinks the press can serve the ever-evolving public interest by focusing on responsibility, and not solely freedom." This is a much more practical approach for Singapore, where there is cultural and religious pluralism. Szilagyi's view is that the press should have limited freedom "to what they actually publish in the interest of the entire society and country. In other words, the press is allowed to publish articles that are socially responsible, that is articles of opinions that are supported by a certain degree of facts and reasons and not just purely an opinion to discriminate others in society.
Though when the press focuses on the responsibility it hinders Singapore's route to complete democracy to a certain extent, it is no doubt this is a more steady approach to the country's advancement in general, where other issues like country's peace and stability is concerned.