Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech

In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society where there is a culture and religious pluralism, there is no doubt a certain degree of sensationalism imposed in order to maintain the peaceful society we are currently living in today. The Straits Times, Singaporeans main source of info, has never published a single sensitive article and cartoon that criticizes any particular culture or race over the past few decades.
As what Szilagyi asks,"What is more important for the democratic advancement of a society- to ensure freedom of expression of all its citizens or to protect the collective interests of a society?", it's no doubt that if we encourage freedom of expression of all citizens, citizens will have their rights to voice out their own opinions which they deem to be true. Hence it contradicts the goal of having democratic advancements of a society since the opinions (which might not be true) would make the victim fell hurt or resentful.
This problem is magnified in Singapore where people of different races and cultures live with each other. A slight provocation of people from any particular race or culture will eventually result in racial riots and social unrest. Thus, a series of problems would be caused due to the socially irresponsible opinion. This is strongly supported by the evidence where the publishing of the cartoons in Danish and Marwegian have provoked the Muslims in the world. Innocent lives were also incurred in the outbreak of protests as a result of an irresponsible remark. Singapore's economic will fail as the citizens engage in racial riots. People will start to live in poverty it riots prevails and many would live in fear. These undesirable outcomes are what Singapore would be like to face it we were to allow absolute freedom of expression of all citizens.
In the article, Peter singer states that "Without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a road block." This is nevertheless true to a certain extent. However, with that complete freedom given to the citizens of Singapore, irresponsible remarks will appear. In the case where the victim is unable to prove that what the person said is untrue, he would resort to resolving the problem physically through fights in order to let others compensate the humiliation inflicted upon them. These social unrests would normally be extremely hard to curb. If the problem continues to persist, it would eventually lead to the downfall instead of human progress as stated by Peter singer. Hence, any sensitive topics raised, though they have no intentions of setting off mass demonstrations, would put the country's future and stability at stake, especially in a multi-cultural society. Therefore, allowing freedom of expression in Singapore to attain democracy is not a practical approach.
On the other hand Szilagyi thinks the press can serve the ever-evolving public interest by focusing on responsibility, and not solely freedom." This is a much more practical approach for Singapore, where there is cultural and religious pluralism. Szilagyi's view is that the press should have limited freedom "to what they actually publish in the interest of the entire society and country. In other words, the press is allowed to publish articles that are socially responsible, that is articles of opinions that are supported by a certain degree of facts and reasons and not just purely an opinion to discriminate others in society.
Though when the press focuses on the responsibility it hinders Singapore's route to complete democracy to a certain extent, it is no doubt this is a more steady approach to the country's advancement in general, where other issues like country's peace and stability is concerned.

Capital Punishment

Q1; George Orwell’s “A Hanging” has been described as the most powerful condemnation of capital punishment. What techniques did he use to draw from his readers the desired inference, as hi s condemnation is delivered indirectly rather than by more explicit means?

George Orwell made use of comparison to condemn capital punishment. In the story, the dog’s action is being compared to the actions of the human beings. The dog showed signs of sympathy and reluctance to see the man dead. The dog sobered when it saw the man dead in the gallows. Similarly, the hangman also showed signs of reluctance to hang the prisoner. He asked for the cooperation of the prisoner so as to end his burden as soon as possible. Thus, from this comparison, George Orwell showed the kind nature of both the human beings and the animals and we should therefore be following our instincts (not to kill), rather than following the orders from the state.
George Orwell also made use of illustration of the person’s action to condemn capital punishment. The prisoner, who was about to be hanged, showed the capability to think for himself, by avoiding the puddle of water. George Orwell also describes the living cells in the prisoner to show that we as human beings has no rights to take away the life of our own species even they have committed serious crime. This is especially so when the prisoner still has the will to survive and is unwilling to die. Thus, if the prisoner is killed unwillingly, the hangman will also become a form of murderer.

Q2: What are some of the arguments for and against capital punishment?

Some people think that capital punishment is justified because it serves as a form of revenge on the person who has done to the victim. It is also a form of punishment for not thinking thoroughly about the consequences first before doing things.
Capital punishment serves as a form of punishment for the people in the public not to follow the footsteps of the prisoners. Thus, it helps in stopping or at least decrease the similar crimes from occurring in the society.
However, some people think that capital punishment is not justified as all human life have intrinsic values even when he or she has done serious harm to the victims. Thus, capital punishment denies the sanctity of human life.
Every human being has absolutely no rights to take away the life of others even when the prisoner has taken away the rights of others. Thus if the state sentences the prisoner to death as a form revenge for the victim, the state is also a form of prisoner.

What are your own views on capital punishment? In what circumstances (if any) can the death penalty be justified?

In my opinion, I think that capital punishment is justified only if the reasons given for his crime are unforgivable. In the case where a person is given a death penalty for bringing in drugs into a country, I personally think that it is not justified. Although indirect harm is being brought into the society, the person has not yet caused the lives of other people. Thus, it can be seen clearly that the reason for giving offenders the death penalty is to give a serious warning the people in the public.
The reasons for committing a crime are very crucial for judge whether or not the death penalty is justified. When a person smuggles drugs into a country due to extreme poverty back in his homeland, the death sentence is therefore not justified at all. In fact the state should also be partly responsible for the person’s crime. Due to the incapability of the state in ensuring a good life for the people, the people are left with no other choice but to commit crimes. However, when a person smuggles drugs into the country purely due to his greed for money, capital punishment is justified.
Several other factors also affects whether or not capital punishment is justified. When the state uses capital punishment mainly for the sake of warning the others about the serious consequences, it is not justified. Other alternative routes can be taken to curb crimes. Education can be used to reduce the =rates of crime. When the right values are being taught to the younger generation they will have a lesser tendency to commit crimes. They will also tend to have better discipline than those who has not undergone moral education before. Thus capital punishment is never the best way to stop crimes.
Capital punishment justified to a small extent as it is not economically worth to keep the prisoners alive. This money could have been used on the needy people instead. It is also right as it helps to give the victims a peace of mind. They need not worry about the prisoner coming back for revenge after he or she is being released from prison.
Generally, whether a not capital punishment is justified depends on the lawbreaker’s reason for committing the crime and the state’s reason for giving the person a death penalty.

Introduction

Hi! I am Yong Sheng and this is the first time I am posting a message through blogging. Thus I feel a bit lost and helpless. Anyway, I have to thank you for visiting my blog. I will start with a brief introduction about myself.
I am currently studying in Anderson Junior College (AJC) and I am previously from Bukit Panjang Government High (BPGHS). I have also studied in Fuchun Primary School when I was young.
Though I don’t have any special hobbies, I do have some passion in sports. I enjoy cycling long distances together my friends and every trip is a memorable experience for me.
Well, that is all for my very first introduction. Hope to see you on my blog again. BYE!