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)

The Death Penalty isn't a deterrent, it is murder. Do you agree?

I do not agree with this statement to a fair extent as i believe that the death penalty is a justified and suitable deterrent in order to keep the crime rate down, especially organized ones.

While some crimes may be done on impulse, others are well organized and prepared beforehand. The death penalty - the ultimate price one can pay - will thus deter these potential criminals by the serious consequences they will have to face upon doing the crime. Thus, through this potential threat, crimes will be discouraged to a fair extent as people would be afraid of getting the death penalty if they were caught. This prevention indirectly saves a lot of money and lives, and it is also economically cheaper to kill criminals instead of jailing them for life, thus the death penalty is a very economically friendly method for governments to control crime and criminals. This concides perfectly with the pragmatist approach the Singapore government tend to use.

However, there are situations where the death penalty is used as a form of revenge, thus making it morally unethical. However, is it totally wrong for the families of victims to feel a sense of injustice and the need for revenge? They should be given this right - but should not have the final decision in their hands. Therefore it is important to pick a Judge or jury made up of people that are not prejudiced or emotionally driven.

Certain cases also cause great suffering to the criminal before he dies and thus is regarded as inhumane, especially in certain methods such as the poison gas chamber. Yet, they fail to compare death to lifetime imprisonment where the criminal spends his entire life devoid of freedom. It may be subjective, but a fair majority may feel death might actually be the easier way out. The process might be ugly, yet the pain is only momentarily as compared to lifelong torment.

Others claim that no one has the right to play god - no one should be able to decide who should live and who should die. Yet, would they rather letting the criminal go free and await his just deserts god will give him? This not only would be unfair but it also gives the chance for the criminal to harm more people. If no one has the right to kill another - then no one should have the right to imprison another either.

Therefore, i feel that the death penalty is a fair detterent to protect society against crime - especially organized ones as they would take the full punishment into consideration and thus would be intimidated, hopefully persuading them to not commit the crime. Mistakes might occur in deciding if a person is guilty and deserving of the death penalty, or they also may happen should the process of the death penalty have a mistake and cause the criminal to suffer pain, but this is a small factor when compared to the benefits: a extremely strong detterent and a way to mete out justice to the victims. No one denys the death penalty kills criminals, but no one should overlook the number of lives and dollars indirectly saved through it.

the merits and demerits of censorship and if it is neccessary

In my opinon, censorship should be used and is neccessary as it has many positive points.

One reason why censorship is neccessary as it protects our youth against negative social habits such as drinking, a pormiscuous sexual lifestyle, smoking, drugs and gangsterism, among other undesireable values. Censorship is vital in protecting our youth who are still not mature enough to watch these without becoming negatively influenced and learning the wrong social values.

Censorship of advertisements can also help steer the economy from luxery goods to capital goods and thus make it more productive, especially to a young one. For example, by censoring beauty advertisements and promoting other ones such as for homes, people will be encouraged to own homes instead of going for plastic sugery. This home they have allows them to have capital that for example can be used to get loans from banks. Censoring advertisements in the medical and law field also ensures that costs are kept down so that consumers are paying not for the image put on television but rather for the service instead.

However, there are exceptions to this. Censorship should never be used for political control or propoganda. One example would be in N. Korea now, the only dictatorship left in the world, where people are not allowed to get any news of the outside world. Other examples would be Germany or China in the past during the time of Hitler and Mao Zedong respectively.

Thus, censorship is neccessary except only in certain exceptions, mainly to protect our youth and to steer the economy.

Response to "spilling blood with oil in Iraq"

I learnt that what the media reports may not be true as they can be manipulated into presenting wrong information for the political purposes. The article is a good example of this.

The article, "Spilling Blood with Oil in Iraq", shows one example of this manipulation as it clearly aims to dissuade the reader from supporting the war on iraq. Examples of this would be "After just 18 days, the US invasion destroyed more of the country that Saddam Hussien ever did in more than 20 years." This sentence alone shows that the author is strongly against the war, as he immediately disclaims one of the main justification of the war on iraq: to liberate the people from Saddam.

However, the article, although one-sided, has its positive points as well. It shows us how the media was used in a political battle to gather support for the Iraq war, such as how "Colin Powell (secretary of state) accused Iraq of planning to use chemical weapons" and that US officials claimed that some US PoWs were executed when no such thing seemed to had happened.

In conclusion, one should keep an open mind and not be too easily influenced by what he reads or sees on television. Having access to many different forms and sources of media allows one to maintain a better understanding of the situations as well.