AQ Response (Racial Harmony Blog Assignment)

I feel that Szilagyi’s view should be adopted in Singapore.

Both authors acknowledge freedom of expression as a key component in a democracy. However, while Singer believes that people should be allowed to exercise their freedom without restrictions set by the law, Szilagyi emphasizes more on social responsibility.

Being a racially diverse society, social cohesion plays an important role in the progress and stability of the nation. The peace that had been attained after the tumultuous years of post-WWII where riots and unrest was rampant can still be easily shaken by even the smallest displays of racial discrimination.

Peter Singer believes that denial of the Holocaust would not be deterred by the penalty of imprisonment (Paragraph 5 Line 3-4). However he provides no evidence that the penalty of serving a jail term for offenders that abuse freedom of speech will not deter them or others from repeating or committing such an offence.

In incidents such as the one in which blog authors in Singapore who posted racist comments on their blogs were jailed, such a harsh legal measure was proven effective when Leonard Loo, managing partner of Leonard Loo & Co Advocates & Solicitors observed that "Currently if you surf the net you will come across a lot of bloggers making such comments. You will probably see a drop in such cases henceforth”. This shows that the imprisonment of the racist bloggers was indeed effective in preventing further displays of such behavior.

In his article, Zsofia Szilagyi discusses the point that public dissemination of information can result in the spread of harmful propaganda due to manipulation o the information (Paragraph 11 Lines 2-3). One may question that while information can indeed be manipulated to serve political purposes, does this really influence the views of the public?

In saying this, the author is assuming that the public are easily influenced by the media and the government.

However, proof of such a phenomena can be found in incidents such as the resigning of Dr Mahathir. He was accused of using the war against terrorism to garner support for himself by arousing contempt against his Islamic political opponents and the effect was that his position was strengthened during electioneering while support for the Islamic Party decreased. This proves that people are indeed swayed by political manipulation in their decision-making as something as important as election results can be affected by such a case of political exploitation.

Racial Harmony Day Blog Assignment

Singapore, the small cosmopolitan city etched above the equator of our ever-morphing modern world. She is just the place where the inevitable question of whether freedom of speech in a democratic society should be valued above the need to exercise control over articles circulated among the mainstream.

While some believe that the absolute liberty to publish material according to one’s free will is a cardinal component in the practice of democracy, I beg to differ.

Being a racially diverse society, social cohesion plays an important role in the progress and stability of the nation. The peace that had been attained after the tumultuous years of post-WWII where riots and unrest was rampant can still be easily shaken by even the smallest displays of racial discrimination. In his article, Zsofia Szilagyi discusses the point that ‘existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural context to another’, effectively illustrating the large-scale impacts of the production and dissemination of articles that may stir up racial and religious tension.

If Singaporean journalists were given the liberty to circulate articles that could potentially create discord between the different racial and religious groups in Singapore, a chain reaction of negative effects would inevitably occur. First such articles would reap mistrust as conflicting reactions arise. These minor cracks would then cascade into large-scale impacts as hatred develops and builds and violence ensues, resulting in riots which would cause social and economic instability, leading to the downfall of the country.

Snide comments made against particular racial or religious groups when released to the public could also spark extremist hatred that is the driving force of terrorism. One careless comment made by any person that unfortunately lands in the local newspaper could motivate radicals to believe in the extermination of the people whom they believe responsible for any discrimination against them – most of which are innocent.

Thus I conclude that although none of the two articles are completely flawed in their views, I feel that Zsofia Szilagyi’s views are more relevant to Singapore’s cosmopolitan society.

"Prejudice is a disease we can never get rid of." Discuss

While we cannot discredit efforts that have potential to put up a strong fight against prejudice in society, I do not think the complete eradication of prejudice possible to achieve.
As long as there are differences, there will be stereotypes. Governments may try to foster social cohesion by deducing strategies such as implementing policies to ensure that different races live in close proximity to each other. For example, the Singapore Government has implemented an 'ethnic quota to match the national demography for public housing living' (http://www.jamesgomeznews.com/article.php?AID=13). This promotes more opportunities for interactions between the different races in Singapore. While it has effectively encouraged communication across the different races, the fact still remains that for the majority of the citizens, the people they share one roof with would be people of the same race since they are from the same family. Thus, understanding across different races would not reach the intimate level achieved by intra-racial ties. As a result, the threat of prejudice is rampant even in the most cosmopolitan cities, proving my point that prejudice cannot be completely exterminated.
Other than racial prejudice, social stereotypes also exist in society. For example, men with large builds and arms covered in tattoos are often seen as members of the underworld. Stereotypical characteristics include extreme violence and aggressiveness, and as a result people often avoid contact with people with many tattoos. While it is true that gangsters often sport tattoos 'to indicate facts about their criminal behavior, prison sentences, and organizational affiliation' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tattoo), tattoos are also widely regarded as works of art. In fact, tattoos have been around for several thousand years and have links with the cultural heritage of several communities. Therefore it is highly inaccurate and unfair for people to generalise people with tattoos as gang members and criminals; but this widespread belief serves as proof that prejudice lives amongst us in our every day lives and mentalities, and thus it will be highly difficult, if not entirely impossible, to rid the world of prejudice.

“YouTube has no ethics, it's been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money.” Do you agree?

Youtube, although possibly considered a newcomer in the cyberspace, having been founded just two years ago, has already seen the waves of its impact on world today where exchange of information occurs in a matter of milliseconds. As Youtube functions mainly as a video-sharing website where users upload videos on topics of their choice, some of which choosing to share snippets of their personal lives while others on more worldly issues such as politics, the inevitable comparison between the importance of freedom of speech and the need for censorship and discretion with regards to the material posted by individuals to protect copyright and social cohesion often arises.
On what grounds, then, should editors ban videos in order to ensure maximum freedom that does not go beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable and lawful in society?
I strongly feel that Youtube should not only focus on banning sexually obscene videos, and those with scenes containing excessive gore that may cause detrimental psychological effects when exposed to the young, as it is already practising.
The management of Youtube should also consider whether the videos it permits to circulate threaten the moral and cultural expectations of any particular community. For example, in the incident in which a 44-second film focused on insulting the Thai king was posted on Youtube, the management had refused to remove the video and this caused the Thai government to ban access to Youtube. Although some may argue that Youtube has an international and not exclusively Thai audience and thus it is not directly necessary to consider the standards of any particular country, the management should still consider the fact that access is also available in Thailand. The very fact that a video insulting a country’s widely respected figure head could have been so freely broadcasted shows an utter lack of respect for an entire populace and thus has serious implications about Youtube’s regard for ethics.

INTRODUCTION

I don't quite know what to write, to be honest, but to make things easier I'll write little paragraphs on some random facts about myself.
1) I have had long hair for 6 years! It gets boring wearing the same hairstyle with little variations (perhaps the extent of layering - very layered or a little layered and maybe fringe or no fringe) but I haven't had the heart to snip it off, also because I don't think short hair suits my face.
2) I have held an unbelievably slimy bullfrog by its spine with my bare hands.
3) I have done the reverse bungee! Back in secondary school I used to be all for the adrenaline-inducing activities but I've grown sick of them and moved from horror movies to tame comedies.
4) I wear contacts. Sometimes I worry that I'll get my corneas scratched out and I'll go blind but I can't stand spectacles, especially after PE lessons where the perspiration sticks to the parts that touch the face (notice how the little pieces that rest on the nose turn brown eventually?)
5) Two things I can say I'm completely passionate about is singing and literature. I'm more of an arts person although I'm in the science stream. I did consider the arts stream but since I'm not likely to take music even if it's offered as in A Level subject in school, I figured that there was absolutely no point.
6) I have an online alter-ego. It's not something I really acknowledge but I do think I'm quite a different person online.
7) I haven't written compositions for 3 months and counting and that's probably why I'm having a temporary mental blockage and am resorting to writing incoherent things about myself.

Signed off,
ME.