THE STATE

Meaning of State• a nation or territory considered as an organized political

community under one government.• A State (note the capital "S") is a self-governing political

entity. The term State can be used interchangeably with country.

• How far has the state the right to interfere in the private life of an individual?

How far …• To determine whether the extent of interference or nature

of interference are considered acceptable• Determine the rights of the individual and the rights of the

state• ‘rights of the individual’ defined by the state and yet the

‘rights of the state’ can be defined by the people depending on the political culture of the country

State interference• Direct and structural

• Legislations and institutions

• Indirect control• Norms, values, beliefs

• Important that state interference does not result in repression, suppression or oppression

Social Contract• Individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to

surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.

What is private life?• According to impact of their actions• Religion, lifestyles, marriage are typically considered

private affairs• Issues on politics and crimes are considered public• BUT both spheres are not distinct

• Eg: Freedom of expression or freedom of association and assembly have both political and social impact though they are also deemed as private

WHY SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT (have theright to) GET INVOLVED in any matter at all ?

• The government’s duty is to its people. This is true for democracies and non-democracies.

• This duty involves preserving the lives and the security of the people as well as the resources the people need to thrive.

• The government should get involved when this duty is being jeopardised.

• This foremost duty is the requisite for the other rights that the government has over its people. Without this, the people could be subjected to abuses by thestate.

Yes to a large extent• Bentham’s utilitarian principle of ‘the greatest

happiness for the greatest number’ • Considering the immeasurability of each individual’s

definition of happiness, state interference in the private affairs of the individual is justified for the protection of interest of the majority.

• Especially true in Asian societies –Confucian ethics of harmony in the society overrides individuality or individual rights (paternalistic style of government)

To interfere for the good of the majority:

• Protection of individuals against themselves • Necessary for the state to control what individuals do to their own

bodies to prevent them from harming themselves or becoming a social concern

• Making suicide & taking drugs illegal, strict policies on clinical testing and organ transplantation, indirect discouragement of smoking through high prices, putting a ban on smoking in public places

To interfere for the good of the majority:

• Uphold common morality• responsibility of state to uphold moral standards / value system of

the society through direct or indirect influence• Strict guidelines regarding euthanasia, criminalizing certain acts,

maintaining gambling as a taboo (National Centre on Problem Gambling set up to treat ‘problem gamblers’)

To interfere for the good of the majority:

• Maintain law and order• State has the right to limit our freedom of expression on issues and

areas that has the potential to disrupt social order• Censoring religious and racial views in print media and social

media, restriction of the type of public speech permitted at Speaker’s corner

• The government should get involved because it has the natural, human and financial resources of the country at its disposal to solve problems.

• The government should get involved because it has longer-term, broader understanding of issues compared to laymen who may only have their narrow,personal interests at heart.

• The government can bring other stakeholders- such as the private sector, non-government groups in society and members of civil society - together to solve issues

• The government should get involved because it can communicate with other leaders to solve issues(ordinary people, even in organised NGOs, are unlikely to have the same connections)

No, state controls need to be limited…

• Libertarian principle to assess when it is considered right for state to override our basic freedom

• Libertarian principle: maximize autonomy and freedom of choice

• J.S. Mill’s ‘harm principle’ – used to define the private sphere – that government intervention should be limited and can only be exercised over its citizens, without their consent, for the purpose of preventing the actions of an individual when it is likely to cause harm to others

The state should not interfere when..• No right to interfere with the rights to religion & beliefs,

association and assembly• The outlawing and prosecution of Fa Long Gong members in China

has been criticized by human rights groups and the Patriotic Act has also drawn much controversy as it violates the privacy of the individual

The state should not interfere when..• Individual’s right to their life and life choices

• Basic human right to decide on life and death issues or what we do with our bodies

• Arguments put forth for suicide, euthanasia and abortion based on basic human rights of self determination

• Gay rights activists argue for their right to choose their sexual orientation to be legalized by permitting gay marriages

The state should not interfere when..• Freedom of speech and expression

• Media has the responsibility to act as the watchdog and reporting objective facts

• Free press (unbalanced coverage content on PAP and opposition parties during the elections)

• Basic democratic rights to free speech and expression should be secured (restriction of content allowed at the Speaker’s corner)

• Censorship in art films and controversial books

What should the EXTENT of state involvement be ?

• HOWEVER It is too naive of any people to assume that the state will always have the welfare of the people at heart.

State involvement becomes more acceptable if :• there are means to check on the government

(e.g. adherence to international standards of incorruptability & transparency; inclusiveness of alternative voices / political opposition; fair, democractic elections etc.) so the people can get out of what they think is bad policy.

• the state can get the best talent to work towards the most effective solutions for the people (e.g. recruitment into the civil service, co-option into the ruling party, cooperation / consultation with private organisations or corporations etc.)

How does the state draw the line ?• social norms / standards & cultural context of that

particular society• historical precedent• universal principles

• State involvement is necessary on many counts,BUT will NOT ensure PERFECT solutions

• The state cannot get involved to the extent ofdenying basic individual rights

• The state cannot get involved to the point of denying people the rights to organise themselves and engage the government on civil platforms