|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
Freedom of speech? | by LeoHyuuga | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
| Straits Times Forum (quote) |
by kelli217 |
2005-02-28 07:48:43 |
Feb 28, 2005
PUBLIC AIRING OF VIEWS ON RACE AND RELIGION
Ideal society needs free speech, press
IN HIS letter, 'Libel suits cannot guarantee social stability' (ST, Feb 19), Mr Liew Kai Khiun urges caution with respect to Mr Jamie Han Li Chou's recommendations to allow greater freedom of speech and the press in his letter, 'Why are we so afraid of the 'R' words?' (ST, Feb 17).
Mr Liew repeated the warnings of the Government that racial and religious harmony is fragile and tenuous; that it requires only the irresponsible actions of a few before the remarkable economic and social edifice Singapore has built up over the past 40 years comes crashing down; and that in view of these concerns, we should be wary of bestowing freedom of speech and the press. Racial and religious issues should thus be left to the Government.
I disagree with this view.
I agree with Mr Liew that 'towering skyscrapers and high per capita income' are not a good indicator of social maturity and that 'not everyone subscribes to the notions of religious and cultural plurality or of disagreeing without being disagreeable'.
In addition, I share Mr Liew's vision of 'the day when Singaporeans need not be prompted by the Government, and will not hesitate, to defend anyone who has been negatively and unfairly prejudiced for his identity and beliefs, regardless of race, language or religion'.
However, contrary to Mr Liew's implicit thesis that freedom of speech and the press is not conducive to the achievement of such a vision, I think it is precisely freedom of speech and the press which will enable Singaporeans to attain this ideal.
Mr Liew cites liberal European countries where freedom of speech and the press has led to attacks on other races and religions and uses them as support to argue why we should leave racial and religious concerns to the Government.
However, this is a fallacious argument since nowhere in Mr Han's letter does he argue for absolute freedom of speech and the press. In fact, Mr Han makes the case that 'only people with views that stand on strong foundations not based on racial or religious prejudices, but on the firm ground of reason, would air them in public'.
I do not believe the 'far-right neo-Nazi political parties and anti-Semitic organisations' mentioned by Mr Liew stand on the 'firm ground of reason'.
In addition, Mr Liew himself agrees that differences in opinion are bound to exist in society, so we should not be surprised there are people who hold such views.
However, the way to combat such opinions is not to ignore them, which does not make them go away but may allow them to gain popularity in mainstream society.
In fact, the right way to oppose such viewpoints is to speak up against them whenever they are voiced, to show they belong in the minority.
We should not focus so much on the fact that, under conditions of freedom of speech and the press, discriminatory viewpoints can be voiced, to the extent that we overlook the corollary fact that anti-discriminatory views can similarly be put forth.
Of course, this is not to disregard Mr Liew's point that we should try to understand other races and religions better.
Rather, freedom of speech and the press, with effective legal safeguards, will accelerate our progress towards Mr Liew's vision. A vision which is shared by many Singaporeans.
Desmond Tan Junhao |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
