oh you Singaporeans!

[spiderpig]

Lalala, The whole Wee Shu Min saga is...... wow don't we have better things to talk about?

If it wasn't for like 10 essays waiting for me I'd probably go like "OMG WSM HAS NICE BOOBS I WANT NICE BOOBS TOO" but yeah, no problem with that. This proletariat actually punctuates and uses capitalizations on her blog. O:

So you know

when i tok lyk dis when i'm forty it prob means tt i lyk lost my job or sumthin. n i probly hate the govt for letting all tt foreign talent NO I MEAN FOREIGN TARENT INTO MY COUNTRY.
waaaaaaaaaah nice satire there! 9_9

but then again since i am william blake i might as well become an e.e cummings and type like
this to
gain; full effect of
whatever shit i
am writing. :)

(Actually what WSM says isn't the problem. It's what her father said that makes me what to chuck my Converse Chucks at him.) Chip off the old block, like father like daughter I say?

EDIT:

I actually noticed that my previous posts have been of the "oh" kind. :\

Anyway, from the future of Singapore, we've jumped all the way to freedom of speech in this post that restarted all the hoo-ha about Singaporean society.

Now wait a second here, why is no one blaming the mother for showing the article to one Miss Wee who then blogged in response?

I just jest.

So anyway, this post is actually an excuse to post my AQ for the classmates who need AQ references. In other words: more fodder to fuel the cannon of "WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO ALL FUTURE LEADERS?!"

Passage 1 suggests that freedom of thought and expression are universal rights. Passage 2 claims that limiting freedom of speech is unjustified.

How should your society address the demand for freedom of thought and expression? Justify your view with reference to relevant material from both passages as well as your knowledge and experience.

With increased globalization and the rise of the MTV-generation, Singaporean’s thirst for the freedom of expression and thought has far outstretched what the government is willing to give. Much to our behest, they are “rationing” out the extent of freedom we can have. While this is certainly better than letting the floodgates open, some feel that the government is taking too long a time to reduce the limitations on the freedom of speech. In that sense, passage 2 is more relevant in a Singapore context.

Pamuk asserts that people emigrate to the West to escape the oppression and economic hardship that they face back home. While the latter does not apply to us, and neither do we encounter blatant racism against us, the fact is that people do leave Singapore due to the limitation on expression. The issue here is not that we have no been allowed the right to speak our minds, but the horrible reality that the small morsels of true democracy offered to us do not leave us satisfied – instead we hunger for more. It is common knowledge that the education system in Singapore largely prohibits the true freedom of thought and expression. Young children have been repatedly “shushed” by teachers even though brimming with questions or answer due to the innate Confucian concept that represses freedom in the classroom. Such stifling atmosphere only leads to the great exodus of potentially talented Singaporeans – who cannot survive here – thriving in the more liberal system of the West. Instead of imploring us to return, or remain here or even worse – “import” foreign talent, the government needs to take the education issue by the horns and address it explicitly.

Pamuk also brings up the issue of how censoring one’s own work is robbing one’s own human dignity. Some argue that having freedom to speak also means that we have to accept whatever response that is fired back at us, as brought up by both Pamuk and Dworkin. If this is the case, then the basis for equality is thus set. Yet in a supposedly democratic Singapore, the reaction does not always fit the initial “provocation”. Such is the issue of Mr Brown of the MrBrown Show fame. Admittedly, he may have made some baseless assertions in his implicated article in TODAY. However, the government’s response of removing him from his job and their reason, that he should not have “abused mainstream media” was uncalled for. This only serves to extricate the government further away from the people. True freedom of speech should not be repackaged to fit into society’s construct – further more, the government again should have taken up the points brought up by Mr Brown and refute them. Sacking him only angers the people and like Pamuk asserts, removes our dignity as we are not even privileged to speak in a democracy.

Clearly the government and society cannot come to a consensus on what is acceptable regarding free speech, save for one small issue: religion. Perhaps, as Dworkin puts it so aptly, it is because of our concession to religion that prevents us from becoming a true democracy that advocates freedom of expression. However, Dworkin has a point where he observes that it is religion that should fit into the democratic constructs of society rather than the other way around. Yet this is impractical in Singapore’s position. Our freedom of speech in this area must be limited due to our geopolitical vulnerabilities. The government and people alike must toe the line in this sense. Explain in depth?

Yet how Dworkin rejects the link between “respect” and “freedom of speech” is flawed. If he does construe that everyone in society has the right to be insulted and to insult, is it then not an implicit form of respect when we differentiate what is to be insulted? In this same way, Singapore’s society adopts this approach where “respect” for another person’s culture or religion allows us to freely express our views. As long as we take into consideration in the social sensitivities of another ethnicity, there is no reason why we cannot have both the freedom to express ourselves and a peaceful and democratic society.

Essentially, freedom of speech in the context of Singapore’s political situation is as democratic as it can get. We must always be mindful that freedom of speech does not equate to baseless accusations or statements. Our society instead, should adopt a more democratic form of freedom of expression where we can express our views freely as long as they are backed up with some form of evidence.

A full and balanced discussion that covers a range of pertinent aspects of society. Ideas from text are well related to local context. Fluent and competent use of language. Apt and effective phrases. Some minor errors. 7/8

Before you all lambast me for being vague and stuff, well under exam conditions, and being from a JC of which we have staunch PAP supporters from remember that this young student from a 'neighbourhood' JC will probably never become a political figure. :D

Besides, a blog is supposed to be a private space!