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.