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. I believe that both of them have their own reasons and experience to support their view, however, I think that both viewpoints suits a different kind of society. For third world countries like Pakistan, Singer’s view should be considered due to the fact that that place lacks the freedom of expression. However too much of this freedom of expression have heavy consequences. Mass demonstration can occur; the country will suffer heavy lost from it.
For Singapore, a multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, I feel that Szilagyi’s point of view should be adopted. Limited freedom of expression should be given. It is true that democracy is required for a transparent and uncorrupted government board, but by giving total freedom of expression, some people would take this chance to discriminate other religions or cultural practices. There will then be mutual suspicion of the races. The government might loose control over the citizens.
Like Szilagyi said in his article, “ But when making a point about self-censorship and press freedom, newspaper should have considered the cartoon’s potential effects on Europe’s growing anti-Islam sentiments.” Before we demand for more freedom of expression, we should consider what might happen if full freedom of expression is allowed. We are sure to be biased against other religions and races. Furthermore, since technology is very advanced and information is can be attained very quickly through the media, even a small hurting racist comment might start a boycott if it were to reach the targeted racial group. The collective interests of the society should be protected, especially for small and more dependant countries like Singapore.
However on the other hand, freedom of expression is important and should not be done away with. To maintain a clear and transparent government, some press freedom should be granted. Without press freedom, the NKF leaders would continue to suck a large portion of donations and use it for themselves. To improve, governments need suggestions from the citizens. It is sometimes hard to see everything from the government’s point of view; however, the people of the country are the ones affected by the many laws and benefits provided by the government. Since we are affected, we should be granted a say to voice our displeasure. This is to ensure that the country would continue to improve economically and socially.
In conclusion, I think that more of Szilagyi’s view should be adopted. However Singer’s view is not totally rubbish. The public should be aware when or not to make a remark on a certain issue, like racial equality, and how far they should go on talking about that issue. The intention of a comment should not be to hurt others, but to let improvement take place. In Singapore, respect should be given to all races and religions to ensure peaceful coexistence of different races and religion---to protect the collective interests of society. Therefore I think that Szilagyi’s view should be adopted.
