Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility.

In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?


Personally, I think that in the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, Szilagyi’s view should be adopted instead. Peter Singer’s view is that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and that everyone should be allowed to say whatever they want to say. However, on the other hand, Szilagyi’s view is that the practice of freedom of speech is a personal responsibility that everyone should take and that one should be able to note the sensitivity of a certain issue before commenting anything. Singapore has a history of racial riots in the past, the 1964 and 1969 racial riots that took away many lives or affected many. To prevent a repeat of the past, the government has emphasized a lot on racial harmony and that it’s very crucial for the economic and social development of Singapore. For example, in 2005, two ethnic Chinese bloggers have been jailed for posting racist remarks bout ethnic Malays on the internet.
(http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking/singapore-jails-bloggers-for-racist-remarks/2005/10/07/1128563001603.html)


In this case, Singer’s idea about freedom of speech spreads to the issue on the provocative nature of the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. He thinks that the freedom of expression should be allowed and this includes the right to form opinions, to disseminate information and ideas without being altered or changed by public authority and frontiers. Thus, meaning that even though it might offend certain communities, in this case, the Islamic community, he believes that it is the right way to do. On the other hand, Szilagyi’s idea is of a different kind. His idea is that freedom of speech is an essential foundation of any democracy but not that the expense of media ignoring the consequences of their act of freedom expression. To him, the press needs to serve the ever-evolving public interest, but they need to do so by focusing on responsibility, and not just on freedom.

Once again, in the case of Singapore which is a democratic society, the freedom of expression is our essential basic foundation. However, we must understand that the price that we pay for the freedom of expression might be way more that what we can afford. For example, the bloggers’ racist comments. It might actually affect the dynamics of the country and this is not something that be fixed that easily. Hence, I think that Szilagyi’s view is better.