My June Holiday Blogging Task
posted by Justin D. Pereira
The following comment is copyrighted under Justin Daniel Pereira. In no part of it shall it be reproduced in any form or idea. Copyright 2007. All Rights Reserved the Intellectual Property of the owner.
All views are of the author and in no way should it be deemed liable to his perspective.
In Singapore's context, I would sincerely believe that Szilagyi's views should be adopted but at the same time not to the overall extent that the press' freedom of speech and free reporting is prohibited to a mere list of 'safe' topics for Singaporeans.
The media and more importantly the press, plays an important role in any society in the world. It has the distinctive authority to influence the people like no other organisation in the world. People have come to accept it as being 'The Truth', although stories of the same issue may vary throughout newspapers. Henceforth, it is essential that this 'true word' be socially responsible such that it would not cause societal upheaval or mobs in the classes. Drawing from the more recent example of the caricatures of Islam's Prophet Muhammad in the Danish and Norwegian newspapers, certain members of the press argued that their freedom should not be withheld and censured as after all it is a democratic society. Nonetheless, their stance came especially at a wrong time where sensitive issues on Islam was already rampant throughout Europe caused by the varying likes of the common concept on terrorism and extremist religion. In this case, those who stood still to their argument were certainly not being socially responsible for their actions. In short, they have failed in their perspective to the global issues that their words would account for, and the fatal consequences that it would bring. If such an attitude is to be observed in Singapore, the tension would be even greater. Singapore bears in itself a multi-racial community, and sensitive issues like such being brought up by the 'true word' whilst forgoing social responsibility is tantamount to cause a direct upheaval between the many races. As a country, we are not invulnerable. The Mariah Hertogh riots in the 1950s of early Singapore is a classic and vivid example of social unrest because of the irresponsible press. Thus, the views expressed by Szilagyi is a concept that should be used in this country where the press takes a wider glance at the consequences that would follow in its papers.
However, Singer's perspective of the true essence of the freedom of speech is nonetheless also valid in any democratic society. Perhaps the true problem here is the term democratic itself and the freedom it promises to every single person. If every government is to promise no laws to its citizens against society dangers because of radical and uninformed arguments, would this not lead into a dire result of mayhem? As free of a speech a person can be promised, responsibility should also be part requisite of its 'freedom'. Furthermore, as long as the speech makes sense, is thoroughly thought through and 'untwisted' evidence to support it, I believe that that speech should be made. Singapore has gradually moved from the introvert conservative society it once was, to a more liberal perspective today. But a parental government still hovers about its citizens to protect them from views that are too liberal and radical to the point that western societies are calling the country, a nanny-nation. Singapore may be a nanny-nation, but its over-protectiveness is part and parcel of the experiences which she has a nation has undergone. As compared to the western democratic societies of the west, Singapore's societal instability is visibly of a much lower percentage. Hence, perhaps its apprehension on the total freedom of speech is maybe a positive point, but still no nation which advocates democracy should restrain its citizens or the press from expressing their own views that are socially responsible and of course, logical.
A true democratic nation shouts for democracy but it is also the conservative nature of it that also whispers to be patient. In any nation where there is cultural and racial pluralism like Singapore, a balance should be struck between the liberal expression of the freedom of speech and to that of responsibility of what the press and citizen say in order to maintain a posture of civil order and respectfulness. But which side you stand for, is still how you define which is more important, the freedom of speech or social responsibility.
The following comment is copyrighted under Justin Daniel Pereira. In no part of it shall it be reproduced in any form or idea. Copyright 2007. All Rights Reserved the Intellectual Property of the owner.
All views are of the author and in no way should it be deemed liable to his perspective.
In Singapore's context, I would sincerely believe that Szilagyi's views should be adopted but at the same time not to the overall extent that the press' freedom of speech and free reporting is prohibited to a mere list of 'safe' topics for Singaporeans.
The media and more importantly the press, plays an important role in any society in the world. It has the distinctive authority to influence the people like no other organisation in the world. People have come to accept it as being 'The Truth', although stories of the same issue may vary throughout newspapers. Henceforth, it is essential that this 'true word' be socially responsible such that it would not cause societal upheaval or mobs in the classes. Drawing from the more recent example of the caricatures of Islam's Prophet Muhammad in the Danish and Norwegian newspapers, certain members of the press argued that their freedom should not be withheld and censured as after all it is a democratic society. Nonetheless, their stance came especially at a wrong time where sensitive issues on Islam was already rampant throughout Europe caused by the varying likes of the common concept on terrorism and extremist religion. In this case, those who stood still to their argument were certainly not being socially responsible for their actions. In short, they have failed in their perspective to the global issues that their words would account for, and the fatal consequences that it would bring. If such an attitude is to be observed in Singapore, the tension would be even greater. Singapore bears in itself a multi-racial community, and sensitive issues like such being brought up by the 'true word' whilst forgoing social responsibility is tantamount to cause a direct upheaval between the many races. As a country, we are not invulnerable. The Mariah Hertogh riots in the 1950s of early Singapore is a classic and vivid example of social unrest because of the irresponsible press. Thus, the views expressed by Szilagyi is a concept that should be used in this country where the press takes a wider glance at the consequences that would follow in its papers.
However, Singer's perspective of the true essence of the freedom of speech is nonetheless also valid in any democratic society. Perhaps the true problem here is the term democratic itself and the freedom it promises to every single person. If every government is to promise no laws to its citizens against society dangers because of radical and uninformed arguments, would this not lead into a dire result of mayhem? As free of a speech a person can be promised, responsibility should also be part requisite of its 'freedom'. Furthermore, as long as the speech makes sense, is thoroughly thought through and 'untwisted' evidence to support it, I believe that that speech should be made. Singapore has gradually moved from the introvert conservative society it once was, to a more liberal perspective today. But a parental government still hovers about its citizens to protect them from views that are too liberal and radical to the point that western societies are calling the country, a nanny-nation. Singapore may be a nanny-nation, but its over-protectiveness is part and parcel of the experiences which she has a nation has undergone. As compared to the western democratic societies of the west, Singapore's societal instability is visibly of a much lower percentage. Hence, perhaps its apprehension on the total freedom of speech is maybe a positive point, but still no nation which advocates democracy should restrain its citizens or the press from expressing their own views that are socially responsible and of course, logical.
A true democratic nation shouts for democracy but it is also the conservative nature of it that also whispers to be patient. In any nation where there is cultural and racial pluralism like Singapore, a balance should be struck between the liberal expression of the freedom of speech and to that of responsibility of what the press and citizen say in order to maintain a posture of civil order and respectfulness. But which side you stand for, is still how you define which is more important, the freedom of speech or social responsibility.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home