Saturday, July 07, 2007.
I believe that Szilagyi’s view should be adopted in the case of Singapore. I am not trying to say that Singer’s view is wrong, however, I believe for Singapore, where we have many people of different races and religions living together, it is essentially that people do not abuse their rights of freedom of speech that they hurt other people, especially in Singapore where racial harmony is important. Thus, there must be a limit to what can be said and what cannot be said. I believe that freedom of expression comes with responsibility.
I do agree that having no limits for freedom of speech does have its advantage. With no limits, people can be honest about their views. It is only when people could honestly point out the flaws and mistakes of another can the other people learn. It is the same for the community. If people are allowed to voice out their concern in the public, many ideas can be shared and different viewpoints can be considered. Intelligent debates can then be carried, and the best solutions can then be derived. If people are not allowed to speak in public and point out major flaws and show their displeasure of something, there can be no solutions to the problem. What are wrong remain wrong. For example, if the citizens are not allowed to voice out on how a certain policy is going to negatively affect the mass community; the government will just carry on with it, resulting in much unhappiness and problems. Thus, freedom of expression is important in the sense that it helps us progress improve, and search for even better options and solutions, instead of just being happy with the current state.
However, we have to realize that because of freedom of expression, people can often make insensitive remarks and get away with it. They can use freedom of expression as an excuse to avoid taking responsibility over what they had said. I believe that should not be the way. People must realize not all views can be expressed. If insensitive remarks are made on sensitive issues, it is only going to make things worse. If everyone can be allowed to make comments on all issues with no boundary, there will certain be chaos. Instead of an intelligent debate, what we get is protest and riots. Thus, before one says something, they would have to weigh the importance and impact of saying it. If what one wants to say can bring about a good change, prompt a good discussion and able to bring out positive solutions, by all means, say it. However, if what one wants to say is not going to spark off a peaceful discussion, but a riot instead, it should be stopped. I am not saying that saying what the majority proclaims wrong is not allowed. It is only that one must see that if the need to bring the message across is more important than the need to prevent a possible protest or riot from occurring, and then decide whether he should insist on making that remark. For example, if one want so make a negative remark on a certain race group to voice out his displeasure, he must weigh if voicing out his personal displeasure is more important, or the need to maintain racial harmony and preventing a race riot is more important. This privilege of freedom of expression comes with an unspoken condition of responsibility and maturity in handling matters. Like that previous example, if a race riot did occur in Singapore, is that man able to be responsible for it? The answer is no. Thus, freedom of expression must definitely come with a social responsibility.
Next, if what one is going to say will affect a certain community, one will have to judge if the affected community is mature enough to start a discussion about it, or just stage a protest. This thus has something to do with the tone of the man making that particular remark or statement. When discussing a sensitive issue with a close friend, your tone can be very harsh and one sided and no one cares. However, if you are speaking openly in the public, the tone must not show any hint of biasness. It must be objective and impartial, so that it could spark of a thinking process within the people. You must express your views and support it, and allow people to think through about it and debate about it. If your tone is already one sided and harsh, people will not be prompted to think through about it and consider your viewpoint, instead, they will be unhappy and start staging a protest. Especially in Singapore, with many religions and races, if one person wishes to state a flaw or their unhappiness about a certain religion or race, they must make sure that their tone must not be harsh that it could offend them. Instead, the tone must be objective and pleasant, so that the religions or races could reflect on their behavior instead. No religion will teach people the wrong things. With that basis in mind, when making a remark on a religion, if your tone is pleasant, the people will definite reflect about it and allow a high quality discussion on it. Thus, freedom of expression can only be allowed people could be objective and not biased when stating their point of view, especially in the context of Singapore.
Therefore, I believe that in the context of Singapore, we should adopt Szilagyi’s view, as I believe that if everyone is allowed to say anything, it is definitely going to be very chaotic. Thus, everyone must take note of their social responsibility, which is fulfilling the criteria of being responsible of what one says, weigh the importance of saying that thing, and adopt a pleasant tone. Thus, my concluding statement would be freedom of expression must come with social responsibility and have a limit.
7teen
ex ijtp
anderson jc
02/07
nice old song...
10:49:00 PM
Thrid official gp postI believe that Szilagyi’s view should be adopted in the case of Singapore. I am not trying to say that Singer’s view is wrong, however, I believe for Singapore, where we have many people of different races and religions living together, it is essentially that people do not abuse their rights of freedom of speech that they hurt other people, especially in Singapore where racial harmony is important. Thus, there must be a limit to what can be said and what cannot be said. I believe that freedom of expression comes with responsibility.
I do agree that having no limits for freedom of speech does have its advantage. With no limits, people can be honest about their views. It is only when people could honestly point out the flaws and mistakes of another can the other people learn. It is the same for the community. If people are allowed to voice out their concern in the public, many ideas can be shared and different viewpoints can be considered. Intelligent debates can then be carried, and the best solutions can then be derived. If people are not allowed to speak in public and point out major flaws and show their displeasure of something, there can be no solutions to the problem. What are wrong remain wrong. For example, if the citizens are not allowed to voice out on how a certain policy is going to negatively affect the mass community; the government will just carry on with it, resulting in much unhappiness and problems. Thus, freedom of expression is important in the sense that it helps us progress improve, and search for even better options and solutions, instead of just being happy with the current state.
However, we have to realize that because of freedom of expression, people can often make insensitive remarks and get away with it. They can use freedom of expression as an excuse to avoid taking responsibility over what they had said. I believe that should not be the way. People must realize not all views can be expressed. If insensitive remarks are made on sensitive issues, it is only going to make things worse. If everyone can be allowed to make comments on all issues with no boundary, there will certain be chaos. Instead of an intelligent debate, what we get is protest and riots. Thus, before one says something, they would have to weigh the importance and impact of saying it. If what one wants to say can bring about a good change, prompt a good discussion and able to bring out positive solutions, by all means, say it. However, if what one wants to say is not going to spark off a peaceful discussion, but a riot instead, it should be stopped. I am not saying that saying what the majority proclaims wrong is not allowed. It is only that one must see that if the need to bring the message across is more important than the need to prevent a possible protest or riot from occurring, and then decide whether he should insist on making that remark. For example, if one want so make a negative remark on a certain race group to voice out his displeasure, he must weigh if voicing out his personal displeasure is more important, or the need to maintain racial harmony and preventing a race riot is more important. This privilege of freedom of expression comes with an unspoken condition of responsibility and maturity in handling matters. Like that previous example, if a race riot did occur in Singapore, is that man able to be responsible for it? The answer is no. Thus, freedom of expression must definitely come with a social responsibility.
Next, if what one is going to say will affect a certain community, one will have to judge if the affected community is mature enough to start a discussion about it, or just stage a protest. This thus has something to do with the tone of the man making that particular remark or statement. When discussing a sensitive issue with a close friend, your tone can be very harsh and one sided and no one cares. However, if you are speaking openly in the public, the tone must not show any hint of biasness. It must be objective and impartial, so that it could spark of a thinking process within the people. You must express your views and support it, and allow people to think through about it and debate about it. If your tone is already one sided and harsh, people will not be prompted to think through about it and consider your viewpoint, instead, they will be unhappy and start staging a protest. Especially in Singapore, with many religions and races, if one person wishes to state a flaw or their unhappiness about a certain religion or race, they must make sure that their tone must not be harsh that it could offend them. Instead, the tone must be objective and pleasant, so that the religions or races could reflect on their behavior instead. No religion will teach people the wrong things. With that basis in mind, when making a remark on a religion, if your tone is pleasant, the people will definite reflect about it and allow a high quality discussion on it. Thus, freedom of expression can only be allowed people could be objective and not biased when stating their point of view, especially in the context of Singapore.
Therefore, I believe that in the context of Singapore, we should adopt Szilagyi’s view, as I believe that if everyone is allowed to say anything, it is definitely going to be very chaotic. Thus, everyone must take note of their social responsibility, which is fulfilling the criteria of being responsible of what one says, weigh the importance of saying that thing, and adopt a pleasant tone. Thus, my concluding statement would be freedom of expression must come with social responsibility and have a limit.
About me...
patricia lim angie7teen
ex ijtp
anderson jc
02/07
Now Playing...
nice old song...