Tuesday, May 25
Shazunah: How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders?
A state should have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders to ensure the safety and welfare of the people in the state. Most governments which are non-corrupted would aim to provide the best to the people of the state. They would not want bloodshed or disorientation of the state to happen and even if it does happen, government intervention would take place. However it is observed that successful countries are often led by participatory governance where democracy is practiced through the participation of the citizens. Therefore the government does not have the right to monitor the actions of the people all the time because such participatory governance allows the people of the states to be the watchdog instead. This provides the people of the state with a more direct role in decision making and allows them to have a say in issues that is happening in the state. For example in Singapore where voters or campaigners are allowed to have licensed protest to ensure that riots does not happen. This shows that a certain extent of monitoring is done by the state to ensure that the welfare of the people is not at risk. Hence a state should monitor the actions of the people when it could possibly cause harm to the state.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A state should have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders to ensure the safety and welfare of the people in the state.
ReplyDeleteYou are very clear on WHY a state should monitor its people's actions but how far? Perhaps you could rewrite this to tell me it does have the right WHEN it is deemed necessary to ensure the safety and welfare of the people in the state.
You need an example or a trend (like the no-fly lists in international flight lists) to justify how far the state goes to ensure safety.
However it is observed that successful countries are often led by participatory governance where democracy is practiced through the participation of the citizens.
Are you saying that it should not be one-way? That the citizens too should be allowed, by constitution, to monitor the actions of the state?
If so, your elaboration needs to be clearer and your example should be relevant. The link between voting and riots is not clear. But it's still a relevant point. You have to work on your elaboration.