The response to the publishing of the religious cartoons on the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten could not have said it better. The cartoons, defaming and insulting the Islam religion has sparked racial riots, worsened diplomatic ties and caused furor across the globe; despite the Danish paper insisting that they had the freedom of expression to showcase these cartoons to the rest of the world.
Freedom of expression is essentially the right to speak and express one’s views over an issue openly to the public. While the freedom of expression helps our society to progress forward, it can also invoke repercussions that are unnecessary and detrimental to the development of democracy. In the context of Singapore, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, the consequences of freedom of speech might be too heavy to bear. As such, we must ask ourselves to what extent should an individual be allowed to exercise his right to speak. Personally, I feel that Mr Zsofia Szilagyi’s point of view should be adopted instead of Professor Peter Singer’s.
Professor Singer said that to prohibit the freedom of expression would mean depriving the people of having the basic right to speak out for the cause of truth, and that full freedom of speech should be granted; even on sensitive issues such as religion. Mr Szilagyi on the other hand acknowledges the importance of freedom of expression, but feels that this freedom should be restricted.
I agree with Mr Szilagyi, primarily because to allow total freedom of speech would be equivalent to destroying the racial and religious harmony that we enjoy in Singapore. Race and religion make a person. Each individual is governed by a set of values, and this set of moral values are usually indoctrined into us through our race and religion. Hence, essentially, to not speak out against one’s religion is giving that person a form of respect. I am very sure nobody in their right state of mind will take a defamatory statement to their religion or race lying down. As a result to adopt Peter Singer’s view would slow down societal development rather than act as a catalyst.
Peter Singer also points out that one should let the evidence do the talking. However, he was referring to the denial of the holocaust, a historical tragedy that took the lives of many people. Indeed, the analects of history does allow for such an evidence to do the talking. Still, when it comes to sensitive issues such as religion, it is hard to prove which religion is the true religion as each religion would have its respective form of bible. Might I also point out that had there been concrete evidence, the world would have been a uniform race rather than being diversified.
In spite of what I have said, I do not deny the importance of the freedom of expression. Without freedom of speech, our society will be stagnant and lagging behind in the new era in comparison with other countries. My main point is that one should strike a balance between freedom of speech and public interest to ensure a socially desirable level of expression and to allow our society to advance forward with time.
