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. Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.
On balance, I strongly feel that Szilagyi’s view of stressing social responsibility should be adopted although I concede that the freedoms of thought, speech and assembly mark the cornerstone of an enlightened and democratic society, especially since these rights are also enshrined in national constitutions and international law. I shall therefore start by discussing the validity of Singer’s position.
The right to free expression upholds the right of all to express their views openly and freely without fear or favour is critical for public participation in political life. Given the fact that Singapore adopts a representative government and subscribes to a democratic republic governed by the rule of law and the basic principles of human rights, citizens and residents of this free society should have this fundamental privilege.
Having said that, Singapore can still function as a democratic country without subjecting itself to unconditional right to free speech. Democratic governance is not just a matter of practising common principles – it is equally a matter of responding to social change. The triumph of human rights ideals does not rest on an intellectual vacuum but exists within a social-historical milieu. It involves the creative shaping of a social order that encourages people to value their stake in the context of the rights of other people. Peaceful democracy does not depend on brute force of compliance by all but on every citizen’s willingness to co-operate with his/her fellow countrymen of other creed and race. Thus, the sense of a shared community must prevail in order for democracy to flourish. Respect comes before rights.
Singapore is a multicultural society with a demographic Chinese majority and two main ethnic minorities – the Malays and the Indians. It is also part of a region dominated by Malay-Muslim geo-politics. History has taught its government to be sensitive to its social responsibility. The pre-independence disruption by the Malayan Communist Party and the recent economic recession – sandwiched by sporadic ethnic tensions domestically and regionally – have led to a model of nation-building primarily shaped by two principles of governance, namely racial harmony and economic development. Thus I believe that individual rights and personal freedoms should be subsumed under the broader context of social responsivility.
With reference to Szilagyi’s article, freedom of speech indirectly set off “mass demonstrations, diplomatic rows and economic boycotts of products”. This certainly contradicts Singer’s statement that “without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.” Looking at the incident brought out by Szilagyi, might it not be that it is precisely this unrestrained freedom that is the cause of the “roadblock”?
I also agree with Szilagyi that “media messages, films and art works cannot be addressed to a specific cultural group – traditional borders of culture and nation no longer exist.” and should instead place “more emphasis on the media's responsibility in leading an informed, high-quality discussion, with due respect for minority rights.” In that respect, an admirable task of the Singapore media is to help educate the public on national values that are conducive to racial harmony among a heterogeneous community in the city-state. This responsible approach is heavily rooted in experiences of racial riots in the 1950s and 1960s that occurred because of media-inflamed racial distrust and suspicion among the various communities.
Racial tensions were also fuelled by the presence of a communist threat from China, the homeland to the majority of the Singapore Chinese population. The communist insurgents controlled the Chinese vernacular media in the 60s to propagate ill will against the government and other races. Little wonder that social unrest is deemed one of the main flashpoints of national instability for a fledgling nation like Singapore.
Given this backdrop, social responsibility is perhaps the key to ensuring that our freedoms are exercised with restraint rather than unabated. It is a useful doctrine that claims that an entity has a responsibility to society. In all, there are six main stakeholders of social responsibility, namely employees, providers of finance, consumers, community/environment, government, and other groups. Social responsibility cannot be dictated but must be voluntary; it is about going above and beyond what is called for by the law (legal responsibility). It involves an attitude of being proactive towards a problem rather than be reactive to it.
There are two key reasons to support the practice of social responsibility.
First, people and organizations need each other. For example, social responsibility to employees extend beyond contractual terms of employment by according recognition to workers as human beings. Organizations have a moral obligation to achieve positive and sustainable outcomes towards their business, as well as the community at large. Firms should, for example, give due consideration to the design of work organization that makes every reasonable effort to provide equal employment for all racial groups. The recognition of this importance can be gauged in part by the extent of government action and legislation on matters such as equal opportunities for all.
Second, a pluralistic society is one where different groups can interact while showing a certain degree of tolerance and respect for one another; where different cultures can coexist without major conflict; and where minority cultures are encouraged to uphold their customs. In our increasingly diverse society, it is essential that people having plural, varied and dynamic cultural identities should live together in harmonious interaction and proper accord. Hence, I believe that government policies should favour the racial communities as the basic unit to be governed over that of individuals. In particular, the equal treatment of ethnicity should be considered as the cornerstone of national and regional harmony.
Thus I feel that Singaporeans should accept a reasonable amount of constraint on individual freedoms as a concession to the realisation of social and national security.Ultimately, the "mandate for pluralism" exhibits three "marks of acceptances", i.e. respect, reverence and refinement. To get there, we must descend into the depths of our own religious traditions to examine how they can co-exist with the practices of others. Exclusionist claims to faith must not be ignored or ridiculed, but rather understood, appreciated and transcended.
If we can understand the beauty of tolerance and respect, the price to pay for personal freedoms would seem so small and the rewards of harmonious living so enriching.
