Gladys/How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders?(gce/2007)

The state should have the right to monitor the actions of the people within its borders when these actions have an impact on society and the general well being of the country to a large extent. This is so as to protect the interests of the country. For example, the Singapore government makes it compulsory for all newborns to be vaccinated against tuberculosis and hepatitis B. The government makes it compulsory for the newborns to be vaccinated and the parents and the newborns are monitored closely by the government and relevant officials to ensure that the vaccinations are carried out. Without vaccination against such diseases, the disease will be rampant and hence, the government will then have to use much money in terms of health subsidies to cure such diseases. This may adversely affect the country economically when such money can be better utilized. Therefore the government should have the right to monitor the actions of the people within its borders when these actions affect the society to a large scale. However, some may argue that their actions do not adversely impact the society to a large scale by stating that it is difficult to determine whether their actions are detrimental to the society to a large extent. They might then say that the government is being authoritarian when they keep monitoring the peoples’ actions. For example, the government in Singapore makes it mandatory for all school going students to be vaccinated. This may come across as “forcing” the children to take the vaccinations as they may feel that one person not taking the vaccination is not of a big impact to society.