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 there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?

Singapore has come a long way since attaining nationhood in 1965, and it is common knowledge to all that the 1960s racial outbursts were one of the greatest obstacles we encountered in our struggle for independence. To prevent a future repeat of such events, it is a must for every Singaporean to practice sensitivity and discretion in what we write, say and do. Thus, even though, freedom of expression is highly encouraged by the government and education system, there are still laws present to enforce a certain level of restriction to this model.

In his article, Professor Singer brings in the point about every human being’s right to freedom of expression, that is, “to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference from public authority and regardless of frontiers”. What would everyday life be like if local society was based on the model of freedom of expression? Personally, I feel that it would be like reliving the dark days of racial and religious discord. We would speak our minds with less regard for the repercussions as compared to when we would have had in actual context.

I feel that Mr. Szilagyi’s view on social responsibility would be more applicable in the context of a multi-racial and religious society like Singapore. We need to understand that in order for our society to function efficiently, a certain level of social order has to be maintained. With free expression, it is without a doubt, that certain bold and outrageous ideas can be expressed with greater ease. Human progress can be made as a result of this freedom. However, we must also not forget the long term implications involved in the implementation of this free speech policy. Social unrest is one such example and arises when racial feelings are played up during the delivery of insensitive and discriminatory statements or speeches. This price might prove to be too heavy for Singapore to pay because we have to bear in mind that our population is our only resource. In the absence of social order, who would be left to drive our economy?

Instead, by focusing on social responsibility, the collective interests of society would be protected and people can then concentrate on the generation of new ideas to boost our country’s growth and progress. The media can be highly-manipulative and often, it either fails to disseminate accurate information or does so in an offensive and insensitive manner, i.e. the Danish journalist who made his point about self-censorship and press freedom through the publication of provocative cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. The media can claim to be the watchdog of democracy, but who would be the one to hold it to task when things go awry? Hence, instead of going ahead with the adoption of the free expression policy and giving the media more excuses to misuse its power, I advocate that the government should restrain press freedom. This way, there would be a limit to what the media can make claims for and materials of provocative natures would not be subjected to different interpretations as their circulation is now prohibited.