10S403 General Paper

How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of its people within its borders?

The state should have the right to monitor the actions of its people within its border as they can make sure that the society's welfare is maximised. The state help to ensure that certain actions taken by its people are healthy and beneficial for the society and their monitoring reduce the potential of making the wrong decisions which can lead to detrimental effects. For instance, governments' policies and regulations like banning of smoking in certain places in Singapore. Not only does smoking pollutes the e3nvironment, it can cause health hazards. State's monitoring guide its people in making the right decisions. However, when the state have the right to monitor the actions of its people within its border,one's privacy can be easily invaded and their freedom restricted. There is a close line between monitoring and controlling. Sometimes, monitoring can lead to excessive restrictions of the people's action, then it becomes a form ofcontrolling, hence losing their freedom. Freedom is an universal right. Their actions would be controlled by the state and also forced to do what the state desires or they would have to face the fines imposed. For example, Singapore practises high level of censorship. Most of the media's content are largely censored to make sure that their contents is not destructive to Singapore's image. Hence, the people's perspective of issues around them would be narrowed. So, the state should have a right but not too much.