I think Szilagyi’s view should be adopted. I believe that more focus should be placed on social responsibility rather than freedom of expression. Indeed freedom of expression is essential to any democracy, but it should be limited to a certain extent. In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, a small disagreement can easily aggravate into a large conflict. Social responsibility is important because Singapore is a small country and the only resource Singapore has, is human manpower. Singapore is made up of different races, mainly the Chinese, Malays and Indians. Although we must have the right to express our views and thoughts about a certain issue, we have to do this without arousing feelings of dissatisfaction of the others. We must not be seen as adversely affecting their ways of life, rights and interests. This is because insensitivity such as insults and mockery of religions and cultures will stir up distress among our cosmopolitan multi-racial society. This in turn poses a threat to our society in terms of political stability or even economic progression. Examples are strikes and racial riots in 1964, which made Singapore vulnerable. There are work stoppages, destruction of property and breakdown in peace and order. As such, the Singapore government avoided and enforced laws in prevention of potential activities that could cause social tension.
Furthermore, Singapore mass media is partially government intervened. It is not fully up to private companies such as Mediacorp or Singapore Pressholdings to express and publish their articles and opinions freely. According to Mediacorp, a significant number of Singaporeans spend their time watching television and listening to radio. Hence, it is highly important that Mediacorp be cautious about the content being broadcast. With regard to Singapore Pressholdings, the CEO is related to the government; therefore they hold responsibilities in making sure articles being published do not arouse conflicts upon publication. This is to make sure the rights of the minority are protected and prevent unnecessary disagreements from occurring.
However, it is true that freedom of expression is a basic right, but it should be exercised at the correct time to prevent any misunderstanding. This is crucial with regard to people of different races and religion because all of us have different beliefs and ideologies, and conflicts can easily occur among us. There may be different views and opinions expressed by individuals, simply on one selected issue. Hence, there should be limits to the extent that the issue is to be discussed. But what truly matter are the consequences that arise. One should be sensible and socially responsible to the issue being expressed, in order to prevent stirring up of tension. Referring to the Straits Times, the issue of racial blogger is a perfect example. Views had been expressed in discomfort towards the Muslim practices and this inevitably alarmed many readers, especially the Muslims. Thus, even a small matter such as blogging can in fact evolve into the ending up in jail for a day or fine in large sum. This shows how much the government is concerned about protecting the stability of our racial harmony.
Therefore, in Singapore, even if freedom of expression is respected as a basic right, one has to be responsible and bear the consequences that his words will bring about. In conclusion, it is very important to place more focus on social responsibility than freedom of expression in Singapore.