Censorship

We often see censorship in many aspects of our daily lives. There is censorship in movies, censorship in speech and publications, even censorship in schools. Is censorship actually necessary? Can we do without it?

Basically, censorship is actually an integral aspect of a policy to maintain harmony among people of different people. What is deemed acceptable to one group of people might seem derogatory or blasphemous to another. Simply saying, "one man's meat is another man's poison". In the most recent case involving a clash of civilizations between the West and the Islamic world, we can imagine the positive implications if the Jyllands-Posten itself had chosen to censor the caricatures of Prophet Muhammad at its own discretion. Such an uproar wouldn't have been induced and many innocent people wouldn't have died in the unrest that ensued in many Islamic countries. Such a conflict actually reveals the lack of sensitivity in the West towards Islamic countries and is a valuable lesson learnt for many and it actually showcases the need for censorship in this case. In my opinion, as religion is central to these people, we should try to balance absolute freedom of speech with censorship as a show of respect and understanding. In Singapore, theatre and even blogs are censored, so as to prevent offending any particular group and to maintain harmony. Vadi PVSS's 2004 play, Shanmugam-The Keling Kia Trilogy, was changed to Shanmugam;The Kalinga Trilogy as the phrase "keling kia" is a Hokkien derogatory phrase after some members of the Indian community took issue with it. People are still not mature enough to see beyond the literal meaning of words and comments, as such, a certain extent of censorship is necessary to prevent disharmony as people are easily incensed by discriminatory comments eg. racial comments in blogs. 2 bloggers were charged under the Sedition Act for writing such comments. Censorship must be coupled with education so as to influence the thinking of people in a positive manner. Implementing censorship on its own will only create underlying tensions. Censorship in Singapore might be too stringent, some might say, but until people are able to accept jokes about themselves in a good way, unbridled freedom of speech might result in the proliferation of hate speech with disrupts harmony.

Censorship exists so as to protect people from being exposed to vices. Such censorship is especially pertinent to children. Parents hope that their children are not imbued with wrong values from young, as such, there is much censorship in television programmes and movies that youths and children are in contact with. These years are the crucial formative years of their mindsets, as such, it is important that they learn the correct values. If movies and television programmes were not censored, our young people would be constantly plagued by images of violence and nudity, these being censored currently, what kinds of values and ideas would they form? It can be argued that the majority of the people are able to think rationally, but we should take into consideration the fact that a few black sheep can topple the peace and harmony in society. An example would be the gun shooting in Columbine High School in America. Constant exposure to violence and the easy availability of guns both contributed to this tragic incident. Social stability is crucial to every society and it is imperative to maintain it. Moreover, the young children of today are the leaders of the country tomorrow, if they do not have correct values, how can we expect them to lead the country to success in future?

Finally, i think that censorship is necessary to prevent unscrupulous people from indoctrinating people with hate speech aimed at disrupting the harmony in society just so that they can achieve their own selfish agenda. Terrorists use the Internet to publicize their cause. If there is no attempt to censor this, they can easily garner a large base of supporters to carry out killing missions. Many innocent lives will be lost.

However, where do we draw the line between restraint and running away from diffcult realities? Self-censorship might lead to a growing opacity between the different communities in a society. As such, we should constantly take note of trends and modify the standards of censorship to suit current situations. Discussions involving contradicting views won't disrupt harmony if the form of speech is carefully regulated and people are able to take criticism in their stride. Singapore organises many meetings between religious groups so as to facilitate understanding. Saying everything out might help to breed understanding but we must be careful that what we articulate is based on facts and not personal prejudices.

Ultimately, we aim to remove censorship completely when society is mature enough to think rationally. But until then, censorship is the best form of protection against disharmony and misunderstanding.

"Let's talk about racial differences" 24/2/06
"European Media vs Muslim World" 3/2/06
"Blogging: Whose business is it anyway?" 30/4/06

T!W7 task 5 freedom of speech

“How far should an individual be allowed to exercise his freedom of speech?”

“One man's cartoon can be another man's crime.” All along, most democracies have repeatedly asserted their right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression as part of their guiding principles in society as epitomized by Denmark's Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, statement that 'Of course the principle of freedom of expression is the most important principle for us. This is our priority number one.’ There should be a limit to an individual should be allowed to exercise his freedom of speech so as to ensure that this freedom of speech does not affect others adversely.

Moreover, freedom of speech is widely accepted as a basic right of individuals and countries likewise. As such, we should allow people to make a reasonable amount of criticism against unfair practices. It is also one of the guiding principles of democracy. In many European countries, freedom of speech is highly regarded. Also, there is constant feedback from the people for different policies so that they can be improved to benefit people further.

Freedom of speech generally promotes plurality and diversity of opinions in a society. By imposing restrictions on speech, a system of oppression is essentially created. This is not conducive for advancement of society. To encourage a diversity of opinions in society is also a step towards minimizing discontentment in society. Underlying tensions might build up and cause disastrous effects if freedom of speech is overtly restricted and the government and general public is unaware of problems that they need to set right. Only with the freedom of speech to speak up against unfavourable current policies or situations can there be hope of improvement.

Freedom of speech gives people and organizations the support required for exposing misdoings and this is desirable. The basic principle of freedom of speech in democracies protects individuals and organizations who ‘blow the whistle’ on unjust practices carried out by higher authority. In this aspect, freedom of speech is essential for providing people with the courage to spill the beans so as to refine existing practices or eliminate unjust practices for the advancement of society. For example, if there was no freedom of speech, Newsweek, an American magazine, would not have been able to expose to the world the humiliating torture of Iraqi prisoners by the American army without facing persecution. The publication led to the subsequent censure of the Army and further investigations to stop such barbaric behaviour.

However, too excessive freedom might bring about repercussions. As such, freedom of speech should be curtailed when it has negative effects on groups of people or countries. In this increasingly globalized world, there is rapid transfer and exchange of ideas. We should be more sensitive to areas of speech that might insult other people’s beliefs, and in the case of the caricatures of Prophet Muhammad, blasphemy to a religion, Islam, as what we say can have a wide impact. What is acceptable by Western standards might be contentious in the Muslim world. The problem with the cartoons are that not only do they go against Muslim law that disallows the prophet to be depicted, but they even depict the Prophet, a sacred figure Islam, as a terrorist. To the Muslims, it is seen as a trampling on their beliefs and their rights as in a way, they think that they are being viewed as 2nd-class and not respected in the European society. As such, this has resulted in a violent upheaval in numerous countries, Danish goods being boycotted and Danes in Muslim countries receiving death threats.

The Danish cartoons incident serves not only as a grim reminder of the lack of understanding between the Western world and the Islamic religion but also of the urgent need for every individual to exercise caution in his speech and be sensitive to others’ feelings.

MOBLOG Entry....

PSC Scholar ship Application Essay: “Please tell us about the activities and interests which you believe best represent the values and beliefs you hold strongly to.”

OR Choice of 1 question from the US University Joint Application form
1) Evaluate a significant experience, achievement, risk you have taken, or thical dilemma you have faced and its impact on you.
2) Discuss some issue of personal, local, national, or international concern and its importance to you.
3) Indicate a person who has had a significant influence on you, and describe that influence.
4) Describe a character in fiction, an historical figure, or a creative work(as in art, music, science, etc.) that has had an influence on you, and explain that influence.
5) A range of academic interests, personal perspectives, and life experiences adds much to the educational mix. Given you personal background, describe an experience that illustrates what you would bring to the diversity in a college community or an encounter that demonstrated the importance of diversity to you.
6) Topic of your choice.

Abortion

My personal opinion is that abortion of babies with disabilities should be of the choice of the parents. In my belief, it is useless to coerce a person into a certain action if the person himself is not a willing party. It is meaningless for a couple to continue with the pregnancy and give birth to the child in the end if they do not want to take care of the child and shower love on the child. In the end, it brings burden on the parents and personal misery on the child.

As Teo states, children with disabilities are a financial and emotional burden on the family. I do agree that such children would require special care and attention and accordingly, the costs of raising the child would also be higher. However, to take such a stand as the author, "It made me wonder why anyone would make a decision to carry such a pregnancy through"(last sentence), is seemingly too dismissive of the child's right to live despite disabilities. Such special attention could be a burden to some but it could also be a sacrifice that loving parents are willing to give for their children. It is definitely welcome if parents are willing to shower love on their disabled children and enjoy the process of bringing them up but we should be equally sympathetic of parents who choose to abort such children. Firstly, people often argue that organisations and the government itself will provide financial help and support, but are they able to provide 24-hour non-stop commitment to aid in the healthy growth of the child? Ultimately, it all boils down to the willingness of the parent to shoulder the responsibility willingly. It would be a tragedy if the child is abused and used as a tool for venting one's temper on if the parents are forced to carry on with the delivery.

Both Seto and Ser think that every foetus is a person and that we should not discriminate against foetuses with disabilities.

As John Stott, a famous theologian, once put it, 'the foetus is not a growth in the mother's body (which can be removed as readily as her tonsils or appendix), nor even a potential human being, but a human life who, though not yet mature, has the potentiality to grow into the fullness of the humanity he already possesses'. (paragraph 6 from Seto Hann Hoi)

Such a statement is usually a guiding principle behind the arguments of anti-abortion advocates. Moreover, many religions believe that 'ensoulment' begins from the moment of conception. So abortion is actually a form of murder, an act of violence and evil against a fellow human being. Abortion is a gruesome procedure which is revolting to many but this should not be the only reason why it is condemned. Americans introduced lethal injection so that the person who is killed does not appear in pain and evoke the sympathies and protests of the majority of the Americans. But it is equally tormenting, rupturing the lungs of the prisoner and causing the prisoner to die without expressing pain(because some chemical numbs all expression). It is important to just realise that it is inherently wrong to carry out abortion not because it is disgusting(as would the reactions of some people be when they see videos on abortion procedures).

I do agree with Ser that "[how] disabled a person is depends on how responsive the environ-ment is towards his needs too." On this note, governments should do more to strengthen their infrastructure to make their environment disabled-friendly as well. With the provision of more emotional and financial support and improvement of infrastructure, then will the argument that children with disabilities should not be aborted have a stronger basis.

Although abortion is a morally abhorrent option, sometimes it is necessary. However, instead of imposing strict regulations against abortion, let the misery suffered after abortion be a form of retribution to those who make rash decisions and view abortion as a solution to any problems.

The following statistics explores post-abortion mentalities of women in general: Even some post-abortion women who became pregnant as a result of rape or incest report that the abortion made them feel further violated. Of the other 99% of post-abortion women, many report that instead of feeling free or happy after the abortion, they feel burdened with guilt and loss.

The whopping 99% of these women show that abortion in fact brings serious moral repercussions for them later on, so it is a form of punishment in itself. However, the harm to the baby has already been done, advocates of anti-abortion laws may argue. What i think is, in time to come, more people will realise the demerits of abortion, and not as an easy solution to end unwanted pregnancies. Through understanding the harrowing experiences of others, our society will mature at the same time. Also, medical science advancements will further help to salvage situations. Maybe with the increased focus on therapeutic cloning and stem-cell research, disabilities could even be cured before the baby is delivered. The after-effects of abortion are usually very tormenting for the people involved as well, so we should not adopt a stand that condems all of them. Let us not condemn people based on our own strong personal opinion.