June blog task.

Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility.

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?

Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.




In Singapore's multi-racial society, where there is culture and religious pluralism. It is important that there is maintenance of racial and religious harmony. A disparity or conflict within the races would be chaotic and result in many undesirable consequences. Thus it is important that Szilagyi view on freedom of speech be adopted.

Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility. He sees the need of freedom of expression, but believes that in order to protect the collective interests of society, there must be social responsibility. He also believes that in present times, it is difficult to strike a balance between individual and collective press freedom. Also as the society changes and the world evolve, so would the limits of the freedom of speech. However, the press still has to serve public interest and be responsible.

This is a more conservative and common stand to adopt; to allow freedom to a certain limit. However this is still a relevant and usefully method. It allows for the control of what reaches the people, helping to regulated what the people reads or hears. This is important in maintaining the delicate balance in Singapore. It is important that there is a limit to the freedom of speech, as free speech can invoke unhappiness into the hearts of the unintended listeners, or people who simply do not wish to hear such words. Unhappiness can often result in anger and a need for revenge. Often, this comes into the form of conflict. Conflict in itself has many forms; a serious matter would result in armed or physical conflict, which includes riots and fights. Another result of such unhappiness stirring in the heats of the people is distrust. In a nation such as Singapore, having conflict or distrust would be detrimental because of the small size of the country, and the importance of people as the main resource in the country.

However, Singer's view cannot totally be ignored. Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. He believes that people have the right to air their views, and that they should not be condemned for their views. Instead they should be confronted with evidence. He feels that if people are imprisoned for expressing views, they would feel that this is so because they cannot be refuted by evidence and argument. To him, this method can be used as a temporary emergency measure to stop propaganda, but when there is no longer any treat, freedom of expression should be allowed to exist. Without this freedom, human progress would come to a standstill.

Singer's view comes as an insight as it is a less common view in such a topic. Undoubtedly, his views seem possible and workable in the society. It also makes sense as education is the key in changing the mindsets of the people. Blocking them by law or limitations, does not mean that they would not have views of their own, neither would it keep these views out of small talks between people. As such, only when face by true evidence would they accept and change they view. However, this view should be held to a more open society, where people show are more acceptance to others views and would willingly oppose each other to defend their stand in a polite and unaggressive manner. If not the, such different views would be able to spread faster like wildfire and raise disharmony between the people. Thus, this is not a sure work method, and do have its limitations. Furthermore, if it fails, the results would be disastrous.

Therefore, due to the multi-racial and multi-religious type of country that Singapore is, it is safer to adopt a more conservative stand on this issue. Thus it is important to focus on social responsibility. To put in place a social responsibility is to put in place protect for the people and for the country.





Articles: http://www.freewebs.com/vivloh/juneblogtask.htm

Crime and punishment.

“The death penalty isn’t a deterrent; it is murder”

Personally I do not agree with the statement. Indeed the death penalty may be murder but it is a deterrent no doubt.

The death penalty has been around for a very long time. In ancient times, people were already being killed for crimes they committed. There were different methods of killing these people, for example, stoning them, beheading or hanging them, but all done in public to serve a purpose; to show the consequences of their crime and to warn the people not to follow in their footsteps. This was further emphasized when their dead bodies are not immediately taken away, but left for a period of time. In present times, this is still being carried out, more modern methods include the electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection. But why has this law stood the test of time, because its purpose still remains, a deterrent.

The death penalty is such an effective deterrent for simple reasons. People fear death; it is in their basic nature to protect themselves and try to live as long as possible, a main survival instinct. This fear of death is very evident, as we feel fear when our life is threatened.

Another reason for the death penalty is to protect the society. The same man that has killed once can kill again if he is release back to society. Keeping him away from society is the best we can do to protect the people. Some may argue that he deserves a second chance, but that cannot be judge, and it would be too risky to put him back only to find him committing the same crime. Others may still argue that we can give him a life sentence and lock him up in prison till he dies. That for one is a waste of tax-payers money, and two, is not much difference from the death sentence. It’s taking away his freedom and then waiting for nature to take him.

But, the death penalty is still murder. It takes the right to live away from the person. The difference between a murderer and an executioner is the badge. One has the law on his side and the other doesn’t. It comes to a question of “is it right for a man’s life to be taken away by the law?” and “if the law should hold such power?” This is one of the grey areas in life, as some consider it a white and while to others it’s black.

It is said that two wrongs don’t make a right. What has been done wrong cannot be undone, is it right for us to further take a man’s life for the cause of his wrong doings? Indeed this is mistake by the law on the way it gives out punishment; it takes away something to punish the person instead of correcting. Removal of freedom, removal of rights all may seem like wrongs to people demanding equal rights for everyone. However even if punishment is a wrong, it is a wrong that is trying to cause a right.

censorship

Consider the merits and demerits of censorship and state your reasons why you think it is un/necessary.


Is there a need to control what is given to the public? Should there be a need to pass media through guidelines before handing it to the public? Is there really a need for censorship? Personally, I feel that censorship is needed at least to some extend.

Censorship is needed to protect the “innocent minds” in the public. As most sources, like the television, are free and open, they can be easily accessible to young minds, which are easily influence. For example, children who are exposed to too much violence might grow up to have a tendency to violence. Also, some content contain adult issues that children may not understand, having an immature mind watching it can cause misunderstanding with in the child. These children grow up thinking morally different from the norm. Thus, there is a need to control what is being shown when to protect the interests of these “innocent minds”.

Another merit of censorship is to protect the interests of certain groups and prevent conflicts. This mainly pertains to race and religion. As both are sensitive issues, it is important to handle them with care. Censorship maintains a certain level of respect due to each group, keeping them satisfied. Without this, it would be easy to hurl insults and cause dissatisfaction between groups. This can easily result in racial riots or riots cause because of religion. Thus, a merit of censorship is to maintain the delicate balance between racial or religious groups.

Censorship allows gives the government control, allowing them to control issues that are being brought to the people. This also concerns national security, as the government can remove anti-government material before they stir up feelings in the people. It protects the government from external threats against their government, benefiting the people indirectly as they would have a stable government.

However, censorship does have its demerits, censorship takes away the freedom people have, the freedom of speech and expression. It takes away from the people the right that they should have to express themselves. With censorship, their creativity and artistic minds get constrain, and they are no longer able to let their minds run freely. Censorship also takes away the freedom of information, as it removes information and put it under constrains. People are not able to gather information as they should be without censorship.

Censorship also allows for propaganda. This happen when a government censor all other articles and only allow articles that are for their government to pass. People are no longer able to read different views other then those that support their government. Many examples of this can be found in history, where censorship is use by the government to minimize resistance from the masses.

All in all, censorship does have its merits and demerits. It may be good to a certain line, but it’s a fine line and hard to balance. Still, it is important to some extend as it helps to give a certain control over the media and information. Freedom may seem like a good thing, but sometimes a little control is better. Still, over censorship is not a good thing either. Thus, I support balance of censorship and freedom.

the mass media

the way the media presents what is perceived over what is real?


After reading the article, it can be seen that the media can be used to change the perception of things. Adding different views to what is actually real.

With reference to the Iraq war, it is seen that the mass media was used as a tool. It was use as a tool to change the thinking of the people. A tool used to cover up hidden real reasons and cover up mistakes. The media was used when they wanted to give different impressions on the people, making them seem right no matter the real reason, and allowing the people to accept their reason for what they did.

This shows the power of the media. The power to affect the thinking of people, throwing to them different views that can shake their stand. The power of the media to inform the people would mean that the media have a choice on how much to inform the people, and how correct the information is. The media can choose a certain set of information and withheld the rest, or report half truths. In both cases the media can choose to create a certain view that they want to give the people, which largely depend on the purpose of the source. when the purpose is no longer to just simply inform people and combine with a hidden agenda, it would be misleading. But the real power is not in creating this misleading sources, it is in making the people believe in these misleading source or rather leading the masses into believing in this certain view. it is the power to reach out and change the people without them knowing that they are being change. without them knowing that what they are reading has this hidden agenda to change them.

But, how is this possible, it is possible because of the level of trust the people put into the media. Because the media is a unique source available, it is generally trusted by most of the public. To most people, if different mediums and different sources say the same thing, it is generally trusted. Most people do not question the reports of the media even though they don't actually see the happenings. There is this unspoken level of trust between the media and the masses and this is what is played on.

Another possible reason is the availability of the media. The media is widely available and a large part of our lives. This wide coverage makes it able to reach masses and thus wield so much power, power in the form of being able to affect masses. Another effect of availability is that repeatedly telling people things affect them. For example, a man reads about a certain piece of news in the newspaper, and does not believe. But, the news is reported the everyday for 2 weeks. By then, he might have started to believe or at least believe it is possible. It is this repeated effect that the media can use, knowing that the media is available to the people everyday.

The power the media holds is real. But, knowing this, can we really protect ourselves from it? Are we going to question the credibility of every source, or if there more to it? how do we find out if there is? It would be difficult and there is no way that we can be totally unaffected, but we have to be more careful and more aware of what we are getting out of the media.