Freedom of Expression

After reading both articles on the different views on one’s freedom of speech, I have gained a deeper understanding on the authors’ perspective. In it, they had clearly explained to us about why they took that stand.
However, I feel that Singapore should adopt Zsofia Szilagyi’s view where there is more emphasis on responsibility instead of solely freedom. This is because in our small red dot, internal conflict is one of our great vulnerability if care is not taken. Here in Singapore live many people of different race, language and religion. One cannot afford to take an extremely firm stand on freedom and start doing things that they want. These things could be anything that range from things beneficial to them to things that are harmful to others. All these while, Singaporeans have been living in harmony because the people are responsible enough to spare a thought for others and accepting other race, language and religion. If total freedom takes over, those harmful actions done could be disastrous. Hurtful things said to others could lead to the rising of tension between races. The end result could be anything that you can imagine. An example of freedom of speech being abuse is the Utusan Melayu, a Malayan newspaper. At that point in time, it published an article that said bad things about the Singaporean Chinese and how the Singaporean Malays are not well taken care of when in fact it was not. This sparked off racial tension and before long the famous Singapore racial riot occurred. It affected many people’s daily lives. Furthermore, Singapore is a very small country. A riot of such scale really affects the whole nation. Unlike other big countries, such a riot might only occupy a small part of the country and thus will not be as badly affected as Singapore. From here we can see that Singapore is indeed very vulnerable to internal conflict which could be possibly caused by irresponsible freedom of speech. This is why I feel that for a multi-racial society like Singapore, the importance of being tactful and responsible certainly overwhelms the importance of freedom of speech.
No doubt I disagree to adopting freedom of expression as Singapore’s policy, it is sometimes essential for various aspects in Singapore’s society. In Mr. Peter Singer’s article, he said that this is important for democracy. With this, it helps in the sense that through freedom of expression, thoughts are conveyed across and helps to make a clear situation. Besides this, when views are expressed truthfully and openly, is allows this exchange in opinion to help improve a current situation. Views expressed for a positive purpose are beneficial so long as it is done in a tactful way. In this sense, the freedom of expression is quintessential for development and improvement.
Freedom of expression, if it is abuse, could end up drastic. Hence, it always has to be accompanied by responsibility. This power in freedom of expression allows us to do what we want. But what we had done, if not backed up by responsibility, is totally incoherent. Do you mean that if one day you are extremely frustrated with your chemistry teacher and went to set fire to the chemistry laboratory and then when questioned, deny that it was you who did it since it is “not your responsibility”? With greater power comes heavier responsibility. We have to be prepared to pay for the cost of our actions. So this is why we have to be tactful when expressing freely especially when dealing with sensitive issues so as not to cause problems. But if really want to comment a negative remark, be certain that it is brought through carefully like a discussion. It is your responsibility to ensure that it is conveyed through as a form of your thinking and not a challenge. Afterall, responsibility is a core value in life which is why I feel that Singapore should adopt Zsofia Szilagyi’s concept of responsibility over total liberty.

“The death penalty is murder and should be abolished. Do you agree?”

When one commits a crime, he or she will bound to be sentenced to a certain degree of punishment be it light ones like fine or heavy ones like jail imprisonment or worse death sentence. Talking about the death penalty or also called capital punishment, it brings back about the long old debate on whether the death penalty should be use as a punishment to criminals. “The death penalty is murder and should be abolished. Do you agree?” I disagree and feel that death penalty is not murder and it should not be abolished.
The death penalty is not murder because it is placed there for a reason, a good reason. It is a form of “education” but in the most forceful way. Sometimes an impact must be made in order to convey the message across. In this case it is the message of not to execute wrong-doings for example drug trafficking, murder and many more. The result of it is the life of another, so do not do it. If you do, you are attempting to rid the life of somebody else. And so how about helping you end your life since you could not even spare a thought for others whose life are taken away forcefully because of your wrong-doings. This message is a very important one; everybody has to know and needs to take it seriously. This is a life we are talking about now. If one cannot treasure the life of others, he or she has no right to have one. There is no point as he or she does not know the ultimate value of it. Furthermore, if he or she is left to live on, more innocent lives are at stake. Since the person had shown the ability to do it, he or she will do it again if the need arises. So the death penalty serves as a form of omitting criminals and thus protecting the welfare of citizens. In this form, it is the sacrificing of one that saves many. It is thus essential. With this getting rid of criminals, the society is left with responsible and civic-minded people where everyone can live harmoniously.
It is in place as a form of deterrent. When people know that the consequence is that serious, they will think twice before acting it out. It instills fear in them. It prevents crime rate to a certain extent and act as a really useful tool to keep potential criminals at bay. Hence it protects the welfare of citizens indirectly. This is important as it is this unbearable consequence that helps maintain law and order. With these reasons, it showed that the death penalty should not be abolish since it is useful in the societal level.
I feel that the death penalty is just a form of killing as a means of protection. We cannot use “murder” because it is too strong a word to describe the killing involve. It is just the mere ending of one’s life, not the notion of wanting someone to die and leave in an ugly manner. This is why I feel that it is not murder and should not be abolished. If it is lifted, criminals may take advantage of it to do more of those dreadful acts and yet remain alive, posing a threat to the society. This is definitely undesirable. The death penalty itself is a heavy penalty, hence the execution of it must be thought through very clearly. I feel that humans are humans and they do make mistakes. I will try to give first-time criminals an opportunity to turn over a new leaf since this could be just a mistake that they made then. However, they are supposed to go through all sorts of rehabilitation to correct themselves so as to prevent and avoid possible mistakes that they could make again in the future. And if they repeat, I think it is time that their crimes should be brought to justice.
Death penalty is not murder and should not be abolished.