Jian Xiong's GP Blog

Racial Harmony (2nd Draft)

2007-08-15T07:43:00.000-07:00

In the context of Singapore's multi-racial society, there 's a need to safeguard the peace that exist between our different racial and religious groups. I think that Szilagyi's view on focusing on social responsibility by the media should be adopted. However, since the views of the two authors are not mutually exclusive, i believe that a balance can be struck between the two by our press, so as to safeguard racial harmony, yet not compromising on freedom of speech. This can be achieved by creating many official platforms for people to express their viewpoint freely, yet not anonymously. This will not allow people to hide behind a psuedonym and make irresponsible remarks with impunity, all under the shield of "freedom of speech". There can also be laws against personal attacks, so as to ensure that constructive viewpoints are freely expressed, which was the initial purpose of freedom of speech.

In Szilagyi's paper, he stated that the press should put more focus on social responsibility, citing the example of Danish newspaper publishing offensive cartoons depicting Muslim religious figures which caused turmoil in the Muslim world as a direct result of lack of social responsibility. In my opinion, freedom of speech does not constitute the freedom to insult fellow human beings. In the context of today's globalised world, where we all live virtually next door, the act of publishing the offensive cartoons was no different than slandering a next door neighbour. Hence, the issue should no longer be about freedom of speech, but of the morality of such an act. Also, i feel that the point of freedom of speech being raised in the defence of the cartoons is nothing more than a smokescreen distracting the world from the real issue. Applying this to the Singaporean context, our press media was ranked rather low globally in terms of the level of freedom of expression allowed. However, there has not been any articles that might contain even the slightest racist element published since the last racial riots in the 1950s. Other than these, our press are allowed to publish anything they deem newsworthy, so long as there is nothing offending to the public and nothing detrimental to the reputation of the people involved in the article. To sum it all up, we can say that there is still freedom of expression allowed for our press, just that it is limited by sound moral values, i.e., we do not publish racist cartoon strips.

In Singer's article, he states that freedom of speech is essential to any democracy, and should not be compromised. He cited Irving's conviction due to his denial of the Holocaust, as an example of freedom of speech being compromised. I feel that there is a widespread misconception about freedom of speech. In my opinion, it does not give one the impunity of speaking about anything at will. This can be illustrated by an analogy to the US allowing citizens to own weapons. US adults are legally allowed to carry firearms, thus being potentially allowed relative ease of killing another person. Despite this, murder is still a capital offense in most US states. Applying this to the context of freedom of speech, most press media are allowed total freedom of speech, which is analogous to Americans being allowed guns. Thus, i feel that these press medias should be responsible in their use of their freedom of speech; they should use it to report on articles that may be controversial, but nonetheless socially useful, for example, reporting on a political tyrant. This would be analogous to Americans using their guns only to defend themselves, and not to kill at will. I hope that through this analogy, the misconception regarding freedom of speech is cleared; it is not freedom to do what you want, it is freedom to do what is right.

Hence, i feel that the press should be allowed freedom of speech, in publishing the whole truth to the public, and not insulting content like that of the cartoons. Also, a seperate set of laws should be made, if they are not already in existence, to ensure that the press do not attack any ideals or values held dear by people of the various racial and religious groups in Singapore.Finally, we should all accept that differences exists between different groups, and being different from others does not give us the right to attack them, whether or not we are given the "freedom of speech" to do so.

Racial Harmony

2007-07-16T07:42:00.000-07:00

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

2007-04-29T06:01:00.000-07:00

We are often told to present ourselves correctly when meeting new people, particularly if they are about to be of high influence in our lives. We are told to dress correctly, speak correctly, yet under this correct pretense, we may not actually be that correct. This is because we are all aware that the first impression may get people prejudiced against us if we show them our incorrect side. This shows that prejudice is indeed a disease that we cannot rid ourselves of. We are all in the food chain of prejudice; we form first impressions on people and are prejudiced against them based on it, and we also sometimes suffer from the prejudices of others.

In the American society, black people are usually prejudiced against. Again this is because of the first impression that they gave to the world. Centuries ago, black people were slaves to the whites, and they were the only race to remain enslaved for such a long period. As a result, the whites of today are prejudiced against them, as they are reminded of the days that they were slaves for them. This shows how first impressions are responsible for the damaging effects of prejudices.

On a similar note, sexual discrimination against women can be traced back to biblical times. Back then, women were seen as little more than cattle, and are often counted among a man's wealth. It is little wonder that the impression of women being the weaker sex survives till today, as people are usually unable to rid themselves of these negatives first impressions, despite them being formed millenia ago.

In many fields, the groups that are discriminated against often do not get equal opportunities. This proves that prejudice is indeed an incurable disease, and "first impressions" is the virus that transmit this disease.

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

2007-04-29T05:04:00.000-07:00

Yes, I agree with the statement. Youtube has enthralled many worldwide by allowing users to post and view videos with impunity, often without regards for copyrights or the feelings of other people, particularly the people that are showed in the videos being posted on Youtube.

Recently, there is a trend among student bullies. Unlike before, when they just physically and/or verbally bully their victims, they now film down the entire process using their handphones and subsequently post the videos on Youtube. I feel that Youtube should excercise stricter censorship on the videos, instead of relying on users flagging the videos as inappropriate, as the system is currently.

Also, there is the issue of copyrights. Many videos are taken from copyrighted works without permission and then are posted on Youtube. The webmasters of Youtube are trying enough to strictly deter users from posting, hence showing a lack of ethnics.

Youtube was recently sold for a large sum of money. The creators of Youtube sold it without ensuring that the ethical issues surrounding Youtube are taken care of. This goes to show that they are driven purely by money, without caring about ethics. All that they are concerned about are getting more hits on the website, preferably by allowing controversial videos to be posted on it, much like those unscrupulous tabloids. As a result, Youtube became a gathering of frivolous and uncaring videos, with the potential to damage the moral values of our younger generation.