GP assignment 2
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?

Personally i do agree with certain points of both the authors' views. However, in the context of Singapore where we are living and progressing as a multi racial society working towards a democratic system i feel that Peter Singer's view should be adopted. I feel very strongly about the point that he has brought up. In the article it was stated that “We must be free to deny the existence of god, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad and Buddha, as reported in texts that millions of people regard as sacred. Without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock" I absolutely agree with this statement ,i feel that if we are always confined to a certain perimeter in the case of speech, we will never be able to explore new ideas and make and any progress as a society. This is simply because just a view of somebody from a different angle that is against the norms that might seem to be offensive to certain groups of people will be nipped at the bud , before anybody else could dwell on it any further to see if that was really a better and more thorough way of looking at things. Hence with the lack of freedom of speech, the society will never be able to progress we will only remain static.

In the article written by Peter Singer, he ended it by saying" Only when David Irving has been freed will it be possible for Europeans to turn to the Islamic protesters and say ' We apply the principle of freedom of expression even-handedly, whether it offends Moslem's, Christians, Jews, or anyone else." This brings out another point of adopting the idea of freedom of speech. If freedom of speech is allowed, and from some peoples' point of view the comments directed a certain group of people will always hurt them as they are usually very blunt, i would say that no group of people will escape unscathed. That is because everybody has the freedom of speech and they have the right to comment. Looking at it from another perspective, wouldn't it be a good idea to voice out the unhappiness individuals have for one another by laying them on the table , to resolve the differences. I believe this is definitely a better of of living and progressing together as a society. then just to keep mum about the unhappiness you have for an individual or a group of people and allowing it to swell in magnitude, causing more undesirable acts.

As i have mentioned i do agree with certain points raised by Zsofia Szilagyi as well. I feel that social responsibility is just as important. This might sound contradicting but the point I’m trying to raise here is that i believe that when individuals comment on certain issues they would exercise a certain extent of restraint. This does not mean distorting their words intently or conceal certain facts. To put it simply it just means speaking the plain truth and not exaggerate.

In conclusion, i feel that it will be an uphill task to balance both of these. However, the thing we are dealing with here is peoples' emotion towards certain comments posed. Therefore there is no perfect way to satisfy everybody as people can react differently given the same situation.