blogging task- which author's view should be adopted in the context of sg's multi-racial society?

I feel that Szilagyi’s view should be adopted in a multi-racial society like Singapore’s. With more social responsibility, people would think twice before expressing their views, or to say out what they personally feel. In a society where people lack the responsibility to be cautious of what they are saying would lead to chaos and conflicts between the people. These conflicts not only happen in multi-racial societies, it also happens between people of the same race and religion.
In Singapore, more focus is placed on social responsibility than on freedom of speech. As a matter of fact, I believe that there is freedom to speak only to a small extent in Singapore. A person can speak freely and express his or her thoughts only when the person has concrete evidence of what he or she says is true. Those who say out what they feel in the public without any evidence would face dire consequences. They would either face a lawsuit, or get fined for making unsupported speeches in the public, and would be seen as public nuisance. Hence, this limits the freedom in which the people can say what they want, or what they feel. The Singapore government adopts the idea of creating more social responsibility in the country. I believe that, that was the right choice and that more focus should indeed be placed on social responsibility. As Singapore is a home to many different races, it is difficult to ensure that all people would receive what they want, or to live a type of lifestyle that they like. For the people to live in peace, sacrifices are made to accommodate to the needs of all races, but not the wants of the people. This would show the people that the government is not showing biasness to any race. Hence when people express their views, criticizing others or another race, the government would step in to stop the negative views from spreading, and to maintain peace between the people. For example, the issue whereby a person narrated his views on his personal blog, stating his unhappiness on another race. This racial issue has been brought to court, and the person was sentenced to jail and fined. This ensured continual racial peace and harmony between the people.
In the article by Peter Singer, he stated that all people should have their rights to freedom of speech, and that David Irving should be freed on the account that what he said wasn’t punishable as it was his rights. However, I feel otherwise. This is because, if this idea that the Holocaust did not occur was passed down to younger children in rural regions, with little education, they would not know much about how cruel the German soldiers were and what they did. They may even be taught that what the German soldiers did wasn’t wrong and would follow their footsteps.
Therefore, I do believe that Singapore should continue to adopt the view that more focus should be placed on social responsibility and not too much on personal freedom.

Is death penalty a form of deterrence or a form of murder?

Throughout the centuries, death penalty was seen and used as a form of punishment, to warn people of certain crimes, and to show them the consequences they would face if they were to commit them. It gives justice to the victims, and assures the country that the person who committed the crime would not be able to harm the people anymore. Hence, I believe that death penalty is a deterrent and not a form of murder.

Death penalties causes people to be afraid of committing crimes, as they would be sentenced to death. Therefore, most people will remain as good citizens, abiding by the law. Also, when a criminal is sentenced to death, he will not harm anyone again, bringing more safety to the people.

However some would feel that a life sentence in jail would be enough for the criminals, for them to repent, to regret what they have done. Furthermore, a life sentence in jail would mean that they will not be freed, or allowed to rejoin the society again. Hence the criminal would not be able to harm others again.

I on the other hand, feel that by sentencing the criminal to life sentence in jail, would not be effective enough to teach the younger generations about the seriousness of the crime. Even though, life sentence does prevent the criminal from committing any more crimes to harm others. I feel that it only impacts a little on those “new generation criminals”, who may cause even more chaos in the country, jeopardizing the security and safety of the country. They may feel that life sentence is only a small matter, even after committing the crime, they would not have to be hung, or electrocuted, instead they can now spend the rest of their life in jail, enjoying the food shelter provided by tax payers.

However, in some other countries like India, where stoning is allowed by the government, death penalty may not be a deterrent, instead it could be a form of murder, to get back on the criminal for whatever harm he made to the society. The people gets an eye for an eye through stoning the felon. The process of stoning causes slow death, and shames the person. He feels unbearable pain when he is being stoned. The people believes that through this process, the criminal will regret deeply for what he has done.

I still believe that death penalty is a deterrent, and not a murder. This is because, in all methods of punishment, the younger generation still learn from the past mistakes committed by the older generation, and know what punishment they would receive if they were to commit the crime. Hence it serves as deterrence, preventing people from committing crime, decreasing crime rates in the world.

merits and demerits of censorship, and why is it necessary or unnecessary

There are merits and demerits for implementing censorship.

Firstly, the merits of censorship. Censorship removes any source of entertainment, showing strong violence, gore, or even sexual scenes. These scenes may corrupt the young’s mind, affecting their psychological development thus causing them to perform crimes or acts which may harm the society in the future.

Next, the demerits of censorship. Censorship allows the government to sieve out some issues that they deem sensitive, preventing them from being broadcasted, or told to the people. Thus this causes the people to be kept in the dark about some issues that may be linked to various sectors of our country, for example our country’s funds or even the country’s defense.

I personally believe that censorship is important in our country. Censorship removes any programs, music, movies or any other forms of entertainment, that shows too much of violence, gore, “skin”, or anything that affects the psychological development of a child. Without censorship, the younger generation may have easy access to adult movies, or shows, causing them to have a wrong mind set about some issues. For example, a survey in one of the articles given, has stated that teens who spend more time watching sex and violence, are more likely to practice it. Hence, with easy access to uncensored adult movies, the younger generation may have a different mind set, for example to them it would be okay to hit someone in the street, as shown in the show.

Even though people may say it is okay to have no censorship, as parents would be able to teach their child the right values. However I feel that if parents do not have the right values to teach the younger generation, the younger generation will still be affected. With exposure to uncensored entertainment, even the adults are prone to be psychologically affected.

Henceforth I believe that censorship is important, even if it has its cons, like the removal of sensitive topics from the news by the government. Therefore, censorship is a must in our society.

Spilling Blood with Oil in Iraq - the way that the media present what is perceived over what is real

The media usually just provide articles based on a political figure’s opinion on certain issues, without concrete evidence that is really the truth. This affects the views of the readers on the issue, for example, the issue on whether to attack Iraq. With reports on Iraq killing or ill-treating the US prisoners of war, the citizens of USA will feel angry after reading the it, hence they will support the government’s decision on waging a war on Iraq. Therefore a war starts even though the reasons behind it may not be sufficient or real.

I feel that the media is strongly influenced by the ruling political party in the country. The media provides information that is only in favour of maintaining the party’s position as the ruling party, and also those that support the party’s decisions. This may be because of the strong censorship the government placed on the press. Hence things that may ruin the government’s good image will not be reported. Therefore, even though the information provided may not be the truth, the media is still oblige to write it, and announce it to the people.