Etiquette guardians on prowl in libraries...."Library" used to be a word which brings along peace and serenity to me. A place where knowledge, facts and stories permeate and unravel for those who find out. However, the libraries in Singapore now are loaded with inconsiderate people who speak at the top of their voices, with total disregard for those who are respecting the library as a quiet and tranquil place. Disturbing scenes include people taking off their shoes and socks and putting their feet on the coffee tables; parents and maids chatting, leaving their charges unattended and these children are then at liberty to treat the library like a playground. The author thinks it has something to do with people forgetting that they are in a public place, leading them to relax a little too much. In my opinion, I deem it as a worsening behaviour of Singaporeans, a selfish and thoughtless behaviour that is flourishing in many people nowadays. Many a time, we only think about ourselves and what we want, without considering much if our acts will beget any repercussions on the people around us. And usually, those around do get affected in one way or another.Perhaps it is time for us Singaporeans to contemplate on our conduct, especially in public places where the property that we employ do not belong to us alone. In addition to the campaign for better behaviour kicked off by the National Library Board, the root of this problem can only be solved if Singaporeans fix ourselves first. Some may think this is not an acute problem, but I believe otherwise. This is not just an image issue, but a protrayal of Singaporean conduct and values. If we ourselves cannot act in a fitting manner, how can we expect others to do the same? Singapore has always been seen as a "fine" and green garden city, with her people well known for being "kiasu". When will it be our turn to be known for being selfless, thoughtful and solicitous? At the end of the day, it all hinges on how we want to be, as behaviour is something we can change, for the better.
"How far should an individual be allowed to exercise his freedom of speech?"
Freedom of speech is an essential foundation of any democracy. However, while many insist on this right that any being should hold, we must not neglect the social responsibility and sensitivity that comes with it. Therefore, an individual should be allowed to exercise his freedom of speech to the extent that social respect and accountability are acutely taken into contemplation, such that the rights of others are also not undermined while he pursues his entitlement.
As we are living in a world where globalisation has stepped into the shoes of individualism, protecting the collective interests of society is undoubtedly more imperative for the democratic advancement of a society, rather than to be adamant on ensuring freedom of expression of all its citizens. We must be clear that we can no longer insist on "I am right" and that is that, because we have to look beyond "myself" and see "ourselves" in this society. For that reason, over-emphasis on individual freedom of speech will only lead to the detriment of other components of society, which the individual had failed to take into consideration or simply did not see the need to do so.
We see the price of freedom of speech in the row over Danish caricatures of Prophet Muhammad, which has turned into a verbal clash of civilizations, pitting Western freedom of speech against Muslim beliefs. In response to the clash, the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten issued a statement regretting the offense the cartoons had caused to Muslims around the world, but continued to insist that their publication was justified under freedom of speech principles. To show solidarity, several European newspapers republished the cartoons, some of them urging tough action in defense of press freedom. However, I do not fully consent with the doing of the Danish press. In our world of global information flow, there is an insuperable contradiction between traditional free speech values and public discussion about Islam. Media messages, films and art works cannot be addressed to a specific cultural group, as traditional borders of culture and nation no longer exist in our networked world. Hence, freedom of speech is not a static value. The responsibilities of the press evolve with every new social and political development around the world, thus it requires the limits of media output to be subjected constant review. The press needs to serve the ever-evolving public interest, and it needs to do so by focusing on responsibility, and not solely on freedom.
On the other hand, I deem that it is not entirely wrong for the Muslims to remonstrate, but it needs to be done wisely and proportionally for the sake of maintaining the image of Islam. Legal and political challenges are far more effective than simply burning flags or death threats which only chip away at the strong case that Muslims have against these forces of hate in Europe. What we need now is for moderate voices among Muslims worldwide to take charge and calm the debate, and for them to be met with respect in the countries. The one starting point to be shared is that none of the parties can or will accept threats. The difference of opinion has to be dealt with rationally, instead of resorting to extreme means, which will only bring about injurious consequences.
All in all, globalisation has made the world one big family where time-honoured borders and boundaries no longer exist. It is up to us whether to craft a world with its people living in peace and harmony or one with them suffering under the hands of discord and war. It all hinges on the degree of sensitivity and deference that we are willing to give up for the interest of everyone. There is freedom of speech, and we all revere that, but there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory. We must not only be obstinate on gaining, on the contrary we ought to learn how to give and accommodate to others, even if they are the minority. "No man is an island", we have to progress together. This is the only way to live to tell the tale in this world of ours.
Abortion....
The wrangle on abortion stems from the difference of opinion of the authors towards either being pro-life or pro-choice. Teo, who is for pro-choice, sees abortion as a matter of personal choice of the parents even after 24 weeks of gestation. On the other hand, Ser and Seto, who are for pro-life, remain firm on their point that a foetus is a person because human life begins at conception and thus abortion amounts to murder. While I do not deny the fact that I agree ‘the foetus is not a growth in the mother’s body, nor even a potential human being, but a human life who, though not yet mature, has the potentiality to grow into the fullness of humanity he already possesses’, I do not see eye to eye with the view that all abortions amount to murder. Instead, I think aborting a foetus with defects is a form of Euthanasia, where the future sufferings of the child will be impeded. Thus, I do agree with Teo that the abortion law should be reviewed, but to some extent.
At present, the abortion law states that it is illegal to abort a baby after 24 weeks of gestation, unless it can be proven that the foetus cannot live beyond a few days after birth. This denotes that no choice is left to the parents on abortion if defects of babies are discovered after 24 weeks, even if the mother’s life is at stake. While Ser makes a case that it is "gross injustice if we deny babies with disabilities the opportunity to live beyond the womb by emphasizing parental choice", is it being fair to the mother whose life is in jeopardy if the law forces her to give birth to the child? Ultimately, we should consider if the choice is justified, rather than completely denying parents of that choice, because it is the parents who will be the ones raising the child after all. Others may continue to argue that it is unjust to the child, but at the end of the day, they are not the ones who will be supporting the child, going through the financial and emotional strain. It is easier said than done. Will they be willing to donate money consistently to help these parents who have no choice but to abide by the law? Will they be agreeable to share the emotional burden of these parents? I doubt so.
In addition, if the child is to be born, will it be guaranteed that he or she will not be discriminated against by the society? Despite efforts made by the government to integrate people with disabilities into society, many are still seen by others with a different perspective. When the parents can no longer handle the financial burden on account of medical expenses, the child becomes a burden of the society. At such, will society be willing to help them? It may be mean increased taxes, more charities and added donations, is society ready for and complied to this? As I see it, the law may be bringing more injustice to the society this way. If in the first place, abortion of the child is allowed, the emotional strain on the child, financial burden on the family and liability of society will never find their way through. Perhaps the cases of suicide will decrease as well. Here, the abortion of the child is not an indication that his life is worthless, but instead, it reveals a worthwhile sacrifice, which put off the sufferings of society, his parents and himself.
In conclusion, I believe that abortion should still be a choice of the parents. However, the government can play an active role, especially in educating the people since young on the value of life and the significance of being responsible for one's actions. In this way, the exploitation of this choice will be minimum. Life is never fair. The fact that everyone is distinct has already proven so. We must not pine for things to be fair, but to work out a best way in which torment is minimized for all parties instead.
