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?

I think Szilagyi's view should be adopted. Singapore is a multi-racial country where many people of different races and religion live together. It is necessary to ensure peace and harmony so as to avoid any racial tension. To do so, we as citizens of Singapore should have social responsibility. Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. I agree that the people should have the freedom of expression as stated in the European Covention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However, i disagree with the part in which he said that this freedom of expression should not be limited. Imagine if people in Singapore are allowed to express themselves freely or make comments on any race or religion, Singapore would be in turmoil. There will be discrimination and racial riots etc.

The issue raised in the articles about the cartoons ridiculing Muhammad, is an excellent example showing the Muslims offended by the Danish paper that claims their publication was justified under freedom of speech principles. It has caused many strong reactions from the Muslims from countries all over the world. We could learn from this example, the importance and significance of social reposibility that should be exercised by every citizen so as to ensure peace and harmony within the country. Szilagyi's idea of balancing freedom of expression of the citizens and protecting the interests of the society is relative to Singapore. The crux of this idea is that people should respect each other's race, religion and culture and not be critical.

In conclusion, people must always bear in mind the dire consequences that might arise from their criticism. If unlimited freedom of expression is given at the expense of the country's peace and security, is it worth it?