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

http://www.freewebs.com/vivloh/juneblogtask.htm

Both articles were well written and well substantiated, and both authors have managed to argue their stand. However, in the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, I strongly believe that Zsofia Szilagyi’s view should be adopted instead of Peter Singer’s. More focus should be placed on social responsibility than on the freedom of expression because a lack in the former will lead to a potential threat to national security. According to Singer’s article, ‘if a view is not “fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed,” it will become “a dead dogma, not a living truth”’. Nevertheless, Szilagyi’s article argues that although freedom of speech is an essential foundation of any democracy, different people tend to have different interpretations of the messages released by the press, making it impossible to fully understand what exactly is the ‘living truth’ being discussed. The press has be responsible and sensitive towards certain issues regarding races and religions, especially. An analogy is that these issues are like balloons – when they are poked with something sharp, they will burst with a deafening sound. Also, Singer’s article states that without the freedom of expression, ‘human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock’, but isn’t this roadblock the reason why people of different beliefs and races can live in harmony in countries like Singapore till this day? Roadblocks are set up for a reason.

Singapore is a highly cosmopolitan nation that has once failed to see the importance of racial harmony and paid a price for it. Singapore experienced racial riots as early as 1950 (Maria Hertogh riots), until 1969 (spill-over of the May 13 Incident in Malaysia) because there were misunderstandings between the different races. The various races were unaware of one another’s cultures and beliefs, and the insensitivity towards one particular race triggered the riots. It was a time of serious racial tension and violence. Many lost their lives during these riots, others were injured, and public properties were damaged. It was a period of time when everyone lived in fear and uncertainty. The upsetting thing about this is that it could have been prevented. The Singapore government learnt their lesson from these events and decided to pay a huge amount of attention in ensuring racial harmony in Singapore. We are taught the importance of living in harmony with one another and the consequences that will follow if we fail to do so. Even though much effort is put into this, a balloon is still a balloon – racial issues are still as sensitive as ever. Therefore, to ensure that history does not repeat itself, Szilagyi’s views should be adopted instead of Singer’s. Responsibility should be placed before the freedom of expression.