This week we are suppose to choose one of our friend's blog entry and comment on it, I have chosen Weixian's blog because he was one of the top 3 blogs our class have chosen.
The blog entry that i have chosen is the one on the use of torture. I chose this entry becuase both of us share the same idea on the use of torture. In his blog entry, he said that the use of torture is justified when directed at adamant inhumane criminals for non-political agendas and such actions are not justified when political agendas are present. The latter serves only to undermine humanity. I totally agree to this because i think that the authority should not resort to torture unnecessary.
There are many debates going on these decades on the use of torture. Human rights groups have always voice out their disagreement to the use of torture. However, human rights groups are being unrealistic by their outright objection against torture when it comes to garnering crucial information pertaining to where a psychopathic murderer might have buried his victim, still alive and waiting borrowed time to be rescued.
The use of torture may seems cruel to some but when it comes to dealing with terrorists and murderers, i think the use of torture is adsolutely justifiable.
On the other hand, torture is never justified if such means were meted out to the will of a political power with intentions for political use. Many political leaders, since centuries ago, have been using torture to control the people and to garner support. Some famous examples are Adolf Hitler and Stalin. They used torture to control the way the people think, act and speak. This kind of torture is totally unacceptable. This is an inhumane act as the people have not committed serious crimes and yet they are treated in this inhumane ways.
Both Weixian and I share this common views on the use of torture- The use of torture is justified when directed at adamant inhumane criminals for non-political agendas. Again, such actions are not justified when political agendas are present. The latter serves only to undermine humanity.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression
In the context of Singapore's multi racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, i freel that Szilagyi's view should be adopted.
Freedom of expression is essential to any democracy but social responsibility is more important.
According to Singer, freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else beliesves to be false, and even what many people find offensive. I do believe that freedom of speech is important in any democratis country include Singapore. However, i feel that freedom of speech will decrease the level of social responsibilty and people will be saying anything they want without thinking of the consequences. They will criticise parliament publicly and disttort racial harmony.
In a multi-racial society like singapore, this will bring about fatal consequences, people will start voicing out all their unhappiness and criticise one another reces. This is likely to cause another racial riots which everyone does not want.
Szilagyi raised the question that what is important for the democratic advancement of a society-to ensure the freedom of expression of all its citizens or to protect the collective interests of society. The former hails individual freedom while the latter places more emphasis on the media's responsibilty in leading an informed, high quality discussion, with the respect for minority rights.
Finally, i feel that media should practise social responsibilty. Media should not publish article or any resources that will provoke one or are not reliable. This will make our society more friendly to live in.
Freedom of expression is essential to any democracy but social responsibility is more important.
According to Singer, freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else beliesves to be false, and even what many people find offensive. I do believe that freedom of speech is important in any democratis country include Singapore. However, i feel that freedom of speech will decrease the level of social responsibilty and people will be saying anything they want without thinking of the consequences. They will criticise parliament publicly and disttort racial harmony.
In a multi-racial society like singapore, this will bring about fatal consequences, people will start voicing out all their unhappiness and criticise one another reces. This is likely to cause another racial riots which everyone does not want.
Szilagyi raised the question that what is important for the democratic advancement of a society-to ensure the freedom of expression of all its citizens or to protect the collective interests of society. The former hails individual freedom while the latter places more emphasis on the media's responsibilty in leading an informed, high quality discussion, with the respect for minority rights.
Finally, i feel that media should practise social responsibilty. Media should not publish article or any resources that will provoke one or are not reliable. This will make our society more friendly to live in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
