Having two different opinions of freedom of speech, for the first opinion, the author, Peter Singer, strongly feels that everyone must have the right to voice out their views and thoughts. In a democratic society, the right of freedom of speech must be adhered to the public and be respected. As stated by Peter Singer, with the devoid of freedom of speech, the progression of humanity will always faced obstacles and be prevented to go on. He also says that European countries have to appiled the freedom of speech to everyone, regardless of the race or religions, for a country to attain democracy.
The other opinion is from an author, Zsofia Szilagyi, believes that individual responsibilty must come into play in the freedom of speech and prevent themselves from stating their stands and views on issus which are more sensitive. As this may result in riots and conflicts between different ethnic groups, or even worse, between countries. He hopes that the media can restrained themselves, to reduce the amount of the broadcasting of relatively sensitive issues. The media must also be accountable to the consequences of their actions and not avoid them. Though the media needs to serve the ever-evolving public interest, it also need limit itself, by focusing on the responsibility, and not only on the freedom of speech.
In a multi-racial society like Singapore, i feel that we have to focus more on the social responsibility rather than the right of the freedom of speech. There numerous different races and religions in Singapore, hence in order to achieve the stability in the country, we must avoid the broadcasting of sensitive issues as it may result in racial riots, or even the fall of Singapore. The consequences of racial riots can be disastrous. One example that occurred in Singapore is the 1960s riots, which resulted in many deaths and property damaged. This also led to the increased in the crime rate then. This will adversely affect the trust that the races originally have between themselves and also affect Singapore's economy, in the tourism and foreign investments sectors. Currently, Singapore is a harmonious country, where there is little conflicts between people of different culture, thus equality is achieved and the country is thereby prospering. Singapore have to be responsible of their actions when news or information are given to the public, so as to ensure the enjoyment of racial harmony. Therefore i strongly feel that Singapore shaould adopt Szilagyi's view of the freedom of speech.
However, some people may argue that being a democratic country, the right of freedom of speech is essential for democracy to be attain in Singapore. This is to help bolster the bonds between the people, as all the views and differences are sort out, and made available to the public. But, if the freedom of speech is made possible in Singapore, the negative impacts outweights the benefits that are brought by the right of freedom. This is giving the authority to the public to mimick and discriminate the people of different races, thus is undesirable in a way. Therefore, i feel that Singapore have to adopt to Szilagyi's way.
