Racial Harmony Day Blogging

It is rare for countries to have a multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism. For example, in many places, like Sri Lanka, the Sinhalese and Tamils are unable to live in harmony with one another due to the intolerance of each other's cultures and religions. However, I feel that the multi-racialism is easily displaced by insensitive remarks against other races. That is why I personally feel that remarks made, has to be socially responsible so as to maintain the cultural and religious pluralism in countries like Singapore, and not cause Singapore to be like Sri Lanka, where violence is rampant because of the probable socially irresponsible remarks made.

Singapore's government also has the same beliefs as Szilagyi, and believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility. In 2006, a young Chinese blogger was arrested for making supposedly 'racist' remarks on Muslims because of their religious restriction of their physical contact with dogs. The rationale for arresting this young blogger was because his actions were found to be seditious.

I feel the same way as Szilagyi does. He feels that the press needs to serve the ever-evolving public interest, and needs to do so by focusing on responsibility, and not solely on freedom. True, the freedom of the press is essential to let the members of the public know about the ongoing events happening around the world, but responsibility of the remarks made is more important because lives around the world would be in jeopardy if social responsibility is not exercised.

Therefore, if in Singapore, social responsibility of the press is not exercised, the tolerance of other's cultures and religions would be lowered, and uprisings would occur.

"The death penalty is murder and should be abolished", do you agree?

The death sentence, in Singapore, is meted up by the judge when a person has committed murder to another person. This is a move made by the legislature in Singapore, to punish the murderer fairly, so as to give an accountability to the murdered family.

The rationale is, in my opinion, the old saying, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". But to think it this way, is it absolutely necessary to defy nature, and take another person's life away, because he killed another person?

Some people might actually feel strongly for or against the death sentence, but, I, as an individual, is caught between both these opinions. I feel that the death sentence is necessary to deter the murder offence from occuring again. But then again, if the death sentence is supposed to deter, it is not very useful, because there are still so many murder cases happening everyday, all around the world. I feel that the death sentence is, in a sense, the taking away of life of a person. Whatever the rationale, I feel that it is a type of murder, just that it is legalised murder. Taking life artificially away, is rebelling against nature, when we should be preserving every form of life in mother nature. In a naturalist point of view, I think the death sentence should be abolished.

So to abolish or not to abolish? That is the question.

In my opinion, if the death sentence were to be abolished, many people would take it to be the condoning of murders in today's society. The number of murders might increase, because the murderers would not have to pay for their crimes with their lives. They might deem it more worthwhile to kill someone because of person hatred, and not pay for it with an equal price.

As a personal believer of "what goes around comes around", I feel that the death sentence is the murderer's just deserts for committing the murder crime, and should not be abolished, so as to serve as a warning to other people contemplating the murder crime, and to serve as accountability for the murdered' family.