Lynn/ Governance & Leadership

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

The state should intervene with the actions of the people within its borders once the country’s society welfare is threatened. To have an ideal country to live in means to have one that does not have disputes among its citizens, conflicts or even bloodshed. The government is obliged to look after the well-being of its citizens. Moreover, society is labour-driven, citizens are the one that work and generate income for the country which in turn affects the economic progress. Thus, when harmony does not prevail within the borders, the state should intervene to control the situation. An example would be The Red Shirts in Bangkok, where the people attempted to overthrow the elite government, which led to bloodshed. The government stepped in and tried to have truce. Through the “Red Shirt” incident, the death toll has risen drastically. This shows that society’s welfare was threatened. However, the state should not monitor the actions of people within the borders as the citizens have their own rights to decide what they wish to do. It is difficult for the government not to have differing views on many issues that the country faces, and as the government has never put themselves into the shoes of the citizens, they may not fully understand the situation. An example would be the “One Child Policy” in China where the government coerces its citizens to have only one child. On the contrary, the government did not regard children as economic assets in the agriculture industry and treated them as liabilities – the opposite of what the citizens think. Therefore, this proves my point that the government should not intervene with matters that they have never experienced first-hand. Hence, the state should only monitor people’s actions when the society’s welfare is being threatened.