Freedom of expression or Social responsibility?

In the multi-racial society of Singapore, we often face the dillemma of the choice between the freedom of expression and social responsibility. The "freedom of expression" is basically everyone's right to express opinions and thoughts without any form of hinderance. It is the foundation of democracy that declares all humans equal and with equal rights starting right from the freedom of speech. Social responsibility, however, is restricting one's actions to avoid social conflicts from arising in order to keep peace in society. These two values are both extremely important but will inevitably rise into conflict - which should be given more importance than the other?

The freedom of expression originated as the first amendment in the US and is one of the most basic democratic rights of people as it is believed that for a man to be free, one of the first things he is allowed to do must be to speak liberally. However, when that man begins to speak of things that offends others and create anger among different groups of people, should he still be allowed to say them? While many may feel that it would be wise to ban such speech in order to keep peace in society, this thought may not be exactly correct. If the state was to ban unpopular speeches (eg. "indians are smelly" would be v unpopular among indians) and only allow popular speeches, would use would this 'right' of expression have? Popular speeches support by majorities certainly require no such protection. This entire 'right' would break down and become useless if the state used such an approach.

Yet, the issue of social responsiblity cannot be denied, especially in a multi-racial society like Singapore where groups of different races live side by side with each other. Should a full-scale conflict break out between races, the country would eventually fall into ruins. Thus, it becomes important to protect the peace by preventing provoactive speech from being spread through the mass media. This, therefore, is the paternalistic and pragmatist approach that Singapore uses. The conflict between the opposing values of freedom of expression and social responsibility becomes startling clear when the consequence of social conflict in tiny Singapore is widespread destruction as shown from previous events in our country's history. Thus, the Singapore government's strong measures to punish any irresponsible speech is strongly justified.

One should note, however, that this justification will soon no longer be good enough. As society advances and matures, the general public beings to understand that they cannot be swayed merely by irresponsible speech due to the heavy consequences. They also mature in thought and will no longer be easily influenced by others. Slowly, but steadily, the Singapore government must understand that they have to correct this balance and relax its laws in order to allow the people to enjoy geniune freedom.




(who is Singer and Szilagyi?? i lost those papers so i didnt write abt'em)