Pondering on limitless freedom of expression and social responsibility

In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, I think that Szilagyi’s view should be adopted. It is to the writer’s contention that Singer’s view is not completely wrong. In fact, I firmly believe that freedom of expression is essential. However, it must be limited by social responsibility.

I fully comprehend the importance of freedom of expression and think that it should neither be limited nor forsake fully. We should understand that for democracy to prevail, people should have imbibed the democratic will. They must participate in the affairs of the state and have the courage to criticize the government, for “to articulate is its very life; to be dumb its demise”. Hence, freedom of expression is imperative for the continuous development of a country; it is through free speech that people can honestly voice out their opinions and do not have to give forced thoughts and ideas that may lead to future downfalls. In this case, facts and fictions can then be separated where decisions or policies made by the government are agreeable and appeal to the masses. Moreover, it would also foster social cohesion because people of different races are able to tolerate one another differences knowing that the various honest views from different groups of communities are considered and the best decision(s) is/are being made. A brilliant example would be the case of Singapore where good governance exists. The government has set up a feedback unit which citizens are allowed to voice their opinions regarding any issues or appointment. Hence, freedom of expression was allowed. This saw better policies being implemented and happiness within the citizens as they know that decisions were made with the best of their interests.

However, the people should be capable of rational conduct and be conscious of their rights and responsibilities. There should be a certain limit to freedom of speech as if it was not controlled, it could be detrimental and may result in consequences that have negative effects. One of the examples would be publication of the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad. Although there was/were no ulterior motive(s), it have provoked rage in the Muslim world and caused tension to rise in result. In this case, freedom of expression would only be seen to worsen a situation instead of being a method to find solution for certain issue.

Therefore, it is to my belief that we should adopt Szilagyi’s vies that more focus should be placed on social responsibility. Social responsibility has a greater impact in the Singapore context with cultural and religious pluralism. With social responsibility, there may be lesser riots and tensions that may arise if complete freedom of expression were given. Moreover, social cohesion would be fostered. However, a certain amount of freedom of expression should be allowed but must always be practiced or accompanied with discretion in such a way that social responsibility is always present.