Please note that by posting online you are now a content provider and local online laws and regulations apply. For information on those laws and regulations, click here.
Tuesday, May 25
Yee Tat / How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders
The state should have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders as long as they do not infringe upon its people’s privacy unless it is a matter of national security which threatens the lives of many. Even so, it should be considered by a case-by-case basis as the basic right of an individual is that he or she has his own personal space which should not be invaded by anyone without his permission. The state should only monitor people who threaten national security such as suspected terrorists, mentally ill patients who not only pose a threat to himself but to others around him and released convicts as they may return to their old ways of crime. They should only monitor its average citizens while informing them they are being monitored so they do not feel it is an invasion of their privacy. It is the state’s responsibility to look after its people by protecting them from people who carry a threat risks to others. One such example is the Singapore government who assigns police officers to monitor recently released convicts and have agents keeping a watch on suspected terrorists so they can stop them in time if they are plotting something against the government. However, monitoring of its people should not go to an extreme to the point it resembles USSR when Stalin was in charge. He had spies everywhere to monitor everyone to minimize the threat of anyone rebelling. This caused the people to live in terror and in fear of trusting anyone. This is an infringement of basic human rights as they are deprived of their freedom to do things they like. Hence while the government should monitor its people for the sake of national security, they should not do so in self interest like Stalin who made the people live in fear while he tried to hold on to his position. Thus the government should monitor its people but not with too much intensity and its people should be made known of their monitoring with the exception of people who pose a threat to national security.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with yee tat! I find his conditions precise and specific. However, he could elaborat further.
ReplyDeleteOVERALL WELL DONE ^^
i agree with Yeetat's paragraph.he explains clearly the condition in which the state governmentshould intervene and when it should not hence there is clarity in his argument. However the example used of Stalin is abit exaggerated.
ReplyDelete