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

The state should have the right to monitor people’s actions when if it might affect the country economically or socially. For example, the government monitored the people who are allowed to enter the casino such that people with financial problems are denied access. In this case, the state has the right to monitor so as to prevent any negative consequences like heavy debts or the vulnerability to bankruptcy, which affects society as a whole as Singapore might be susceptible to economic crisis and retarding the development process. However, the government should not monitor the actions of the people if it invades personal privacy or individual rights. Although the government is in control of the whole country, basic courtesy and respect for every individual cannot be dismissed. For example, individuals have the right and choice to decide when they are to marry or procreate. Personal issues like this should be contained within ourselves because if the government were to control the age that we are to procreate (as a result of changing population structure), to some, it may be a sensitive topic and others might see this as a barrier to freedom of what individuals are to do. Thus this can lead to unhappiness amongst people. Despite this, I think that the government should be given the right to monitor the actions of its people as his aim is to better our current social welfare and living conditions of the country. Apart from that, the government is deemed as the group of people who understands the country the best and thus by monitoring people’s actions, it allows the economy to achieve greater heights of development. In a long-run, the quality of life of people will improve.