Ng Zeng Woon/ To what extent does the state have a right to montior the actions of the people within their borders?

In my personal opinion, I feel that the state has a right to monitor the actions of its people within its borders as it will help to safe guard the interests of the state, not just that of the people. Some of the actions of the people in a country may be beneficial but it does not mean that majority of the actions are beneficial to the state. There may be a few individuals or groups however whose actions may be harmful to the state in terms of state welfare and national security. These actions can range from acts of racism, which can lead to racial tensions and racial riots, to the more harmful effects of loss of life and infrastructure through terrorism. As such, the state would need to monitor the actions of such individuals or groups not just to effectively prevent them from causing any harm to the interests of the state but also it could pose as a deterrence to others who have similar intentions. This will help ensure that the interests of the people within the state’s jurisdiction are not damaged. However, there are flaws in this view as the extent to which the state monitors the actions of their people within its borders could vary from country to countries. This difference in extent of surveillance may infringe the people’s rights to privacy which can be seriously affected. Some countries like those in despotic regimes will monitor their people’s actions greatly in order to seek out those who pose a threat to their governance. For instance, in the now defunct Soviet Union, under the Communist regime of Stalin, the people who opposed Stalin’s rule had a very high chance of being murdered by members of the KGB, Stalin’s secret police. Also the KGB frequently monitors the actions of the people in the Soviet Union till the extent that everyone feared for their lives as anything that they say could ultimately lead to their deaths.