June Blog Task: Freedom of Expression vs Social Responsibility

Singapore, despite its minute size on the world map, has made a name for itself among the top nations in the world. It has established itself as an attractive educational and medical hub and its economy is one of the best in the Asian region. One would ask how Singapore has recovered and achieved such tremendous success just after 50 years from the devastation World War II had dealt it. The answer is simple; it is due to the capability of her democratic government and hard work of the people. The government has led Singapore effectively and achieved great success. At the same time, it has retained a politically stable climate and peace among its multi-racial society, a difficult feat to accomplish indeed. However, such a combination of democracy and a multi-racial society may face problems too. For example, how can Singapore manage between freedom of expression and maintain harmony among the different races?

Singer’s view does have its pros. Since the government has chosen the form of democracy, it should respect the claim that in democratic countries, freedom of expression is a basic right. Everyone should not be restricted in what they want to say, be it true of false, and violence should not be involved so as to change their opinions or limit them from voicing their views. If the different races could freely express what they think of each other, even if their opinions may be harsh, the issues can still be debated in a proper and official manner so as to come to a solution that satisfies both parties. This is much better compared to harboring their thoughts, keeping mum about actions that people of other races did to stimulate feelings in them and perhaps, may even lead to misunderstandings and in turn, hatred towards other races.

Another advantage is that the mass media would not be restricted in what they show through the various media forms such as newspapers and television. The mass media is seen as a symbol of freedom and it should treat itself as one instead of limiting what can be written or said by the editors and reporters. Only then will news coverages give people the full story instead of being one-sided so they can see the full picture and not be influenced by only what the government or mass media wants them to see. For example, a group of Malays assaulted a Chinese because he said some racist comments that insulted the malay community. Then, the mass media should publish the whole story to let everyone know the truth and not be limited in their freedom of expression, masquerading it with lies such as the fight started due to a misunderstanding. Nowadays, Singaporeans are civilized people and the mass media should have faith in them that the two races will not become hostile to one another just because of one case.

However, there are people who may disagree with Singer’s view. The existence of the Holocaust is undeniable. The countless tombstones of its victims and sorrowful history records are solid proof that the Holocaust occurred, yet there are some with the audacity to reject its existence just because there is freedom of expression. Not having experienced the Holocaust or its aftermath does not mean a person can baselessly voice out that the Holocaust never happened and believes freedom of expression gives them the authority to do so and there is nothing wrong about it. As a result, that person unwittingly infuriates many of those who themselves or relatives have suffered during that period and they would want that person to be made accountable for his atrocity. By imprisoning Irving to appease the anger of the masses, a problem created by freedom of expression was attempted to be solved by limiting freedom of expression contradictingly. What if in a democratic country like Singapore, a Chinese, who is likely not understand the impact Prophet Muhammad on Malays, boldly claims that the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad should be published on all newspapers? Considering Singapore is a multi-racial society, won’t this greatly provoke the Malays, so much so that they could initiate a racial riot? This puts Singaporean government in a predicament as they have to decide between restricting a person’s freedom of expression, akin to going against the principles of democracy, or upholding it and further angering the Malays.

Szilagyi’s view is based on social responsibility and in a multi-racial country like Singapore, it is an important issue. As mentioned before, when one race provokes another, hatred between them is could ensue, ending up with violent clashes nation-wide. What’s more, its hard to keep the conflicting races apart with four million people living in such a small country like Singapore. In short, a racial conflict would be devastating to Singapore and must be prevented as far as possible. Only through social responsibility and controlling freedom of expression will the chances of such a scenario happening be greatly reduced and the multiple races will not be offended.

Currently, competition among countries is very stiff and Singapore has to constantly improve her economy and productivity of the workforce. If there was no social responsibility to keep in check the extent of the effect of freedom of expression, When races badmouth each other because of certain issues that concerns each race as a whole, it will breed hostility between them and they cannot tolerate each other. Consequently, workers of the different races in the same companies find it difficult to work with each other and disputes arises. As a result, many companies with workers belonging to the different races will encounter internal problems such as workers resigning just because they cannot stand each other and this adversely affects Singapore’s economy. With social responsibility, workers of different races remain united and can cooperate together and good work ethics is maintained among them.

However, with social responsibility, freedom of expression will always be limited. It is mentioned that Singapore has cultural and religious pluralism, but social responsibility prevents people from expressing them and forces cultures and religions to be always seen from one perspective. People are hardly ever given to right to question the truth behind them and as much as they want to, they cannot do anything about as freedom of expression is monopolized by the government and mass media.

In my opinion, I feel that Szilagyi’s view should be adopted. Most of us know the effects of the two racial riots during 1964, one of which also occurred during the celebration of Prophet Muhammad’s birthday. During that time, racial tension was very high and all that was needed to spark off the riots was a small fight between the Chinese and Malays. More importantly were the consequences of the riots, namely over a hundred deaths, many more injured and millions of dollars worth of public property turned into worthless wreckage. Singapore has no natural resources, thus she is very reliant on her people. If freedom of expression is unbounded and no social responsibility to control what people say of other races, one race may upset another and this ultimately leads to Singaporeans not being united, disruption of production and economic downturn due to workers of difference races unable to work together and worse of all, the possibility of racial riots which could all have been prevented with a little social responsibility. Singapore cannot afford to lose her most important resource due to racial enmity, hence Szilagyi’s view on social responsibility is more important and should be adopted.