[[Freedom of expression]]

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?



I feel that Szilagyi's view on social responsibilty should be adopted. As Singapore is a multi-racial society, the people of different races and religions have their own cultures. Thus, even though freedom of expression may be accepted in our society, it is necessary for us to exercise social responsibility, so as to show respect to the other races and be sensitive to their feelings. By doing this, not only can we built a more harmonious community, peace can also be preserved. According to Szilagyi, an example of anger caused by the freedom of speech would be, the offence cartoons in a Danish paper had caused to the Muslims in the world. Even though the Danish paper did apologise, they still insisted that their publications was justified under the freedom of speech principles. Thus this shows how easily a simple publication can spark off tension among different races. Though 'freedom of speech is, no doubt, an essential foundation of any democracy, newspapers or other forms of media have to understand that they do not create the context and lifespan of their messages'. Szilagyi is trying to say that in most cases of achieving democracy, there is a need for freedom of expression, provided that it is used to a small extent. Most of the time, these people do not know their limits and thus not know what is the impact or consequences of their words. Therefore, it may cause a momentary dissatisfaction among others, which the person responsible of the controversy may not have thought of before- hand.


On the other hand, Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and should not be limited. In his view, he felt that it is alright for people to speak whatever they have in mind. But he did not consider the fact that some people may be more sensitive than the others. In this way, I feel that he is rather self-centred. From his views, we can see that he speaks without consideration of others' feelings. In the context of a multi-racial Singapore, we have to take into account of others' feelings, rather than our own. An example of an insult would be 'we must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad and Buddha, as reported in text that millions of people regard as sacred'. If this were to be allowed in Singapore, this will immediately cause tension or even racial riots among the races. Just this sentence alone would have illustrated the impact of the abuse of freedom of expression.

Therefore, in conclusion, I feel that though the freedom of expression may be acceptable, there should be a limit to which it can be used. Especially in a multi-racial society, like Singapore, freedom of expression can only be allowed to a certain extent, as focus should most importantly be placed on each person's social responsibility.

1. The author used illustrations to deliver his condemnations. He expressed his views in a story , depicting the prisoner's plight in the few moments before his sentence. He wants his readers to understand the situation by describing the whole hanging process, and made used of this to draw his readers' attention and feelings towards capital punishment.



2. Some arguments for capital punishment are to eliminate the worst criminals from society, to save cost, and to set as an example to other criminals. Firstly, by eliminating the worst criminals, the society will be a safer place to be in, as there will be lesser criminals to harm the innocent. For some of these criminals, they might repeat their actions if released or escaped from prison. Secondly, having more criminals kept in prisons meant higher cost to feed and to take care of their daily needs. Hence, by executing them, lesser money is required for further maintenance costs to the state. Lastly, by carry out this severe punishment, people will see it as the consequence of the one major they make in committing crimes. Thus, it will serve as an example to the society.

On the other hand, some arguments against capital punishment are that it is cruel, torturous and it violates religious rules. Sometimes, certain people may see this as an example of "bringing justice to the world", as they think that it is only right to punish those who did something terrible, by taking revenge on their own. In addition, according to the saying, "what is done cannot be undone", some people see no point in executing the criminals, as sufficient punishment will be able to punish them for their misdeeds. Furthermore, some crimes can also be unintended in the first place and the criminals may already be remorseful over what they have committed. Lastly, capital punishment is seen as a means of murder, so it violates the bible commandment. Hence, some religions may see it as an unacceptable wayof punishment.


3. I personally feel that capital punishment can be accepted, as long as it is carried out in a reasonable way. For instance, the crime committed must be checked thoroughly before sentencing. Unless the crime committed is towards the extreme, I see no case for capital punishment to be given. An acceptable case for capital punishment to be carried out is the murder case of the little China girl, Huang Na.

Self introduction...

Hi everyone, I'm Rebecca who is doing a self-introduction about myself. It feels a little weird having to use proper English to write on my blog. I guess it's because I'm too used to using short forms when it comes to blogging. Anyway, I hope doing a GP blog will help me in my GP and hopefully, by the end of J2, I will be able to exclaim that GP is not difficult at all! All the best to GP! Kambatei~(japanese word :do your best).....