Written by Chris Low (2016)

The state has no place in the private lives of its

citizens. Do you agree?
We do not expect the state or the government of a state to crawl into the bedroom of
its citizens to interfere with their sexual activities but the government of Singapore, in
1972, did just that not directly, of course, but through campaign posters, radio and
television broadcasts. In that year, the then Minister for Health, Mr. Chua Sian Chin
highlighted the dangers of Singapores explosive population growth and announced the
Stop at Two (children) campaign. He could not have known, at that time, the campaigns
extraordinary success because in 1987, just years later, the slogan was changed to Have
Three or More, if you Can Afford it. While the government is now promoting a high birth
rate, the explosive population growth in the earlier years provided a valid justification for
the governments interference in the private lives and decisions of its citizens. The birth
rate of 4.3 children per family in 1973 if allowed to grow unchecked, would be an
unbearable burden for most families and overwhelmed the states social infrastructures.
Other areas where the state might be justified in being involved, in our private lives, would
be areas related to education, national security and social stability, but the biggest
challenge lies with the demarcation of the private inner space beyond which no one
including the government should breach.
In the American Declaration of Independence (1776) individual freedom and autonomy
is sacrosanct, all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. This famous declaration implies that a persons government has no right to
impose upon the individuals freedom and privacy. However, in political regimes which
do not subscribe to these basic human rights, such as in dictatorships, where the dictators
power is absolute and unlimited, then the concept of individual privacy and freedom does
not exist. Current dictators include Kim Jong-Un (North Korea), Robert Mugabe
(Zimbabwe) and Hun Sen (Cambodia) just to name a few. But, in other regimes where
democracy and human rights are respected, a demarcation of public and private inner
space is possible and exists a point to which we will return in the conclusion.
Beyond population control, the second area of justified government intervention is the
area of education. Within the privacy of our families, the welfare and education of our
children are and should be a private matter within our homes but according to Singapores
Compulsory Education Act (2000), a child above the age of 6 years and below the age of
15 years must attend primary school. The parents of a child who fails to attend primary
school will have committed an office and may be fined or jailed. This Compulsory
Education Act is a clear case where the government has stepped into the private space of
the family and has been deemed to be a justified case of involvement. Globally, the
United Nations had even listed universal primary education as one of its eight
Millennium Development Goals in September 2000.

Written by Chris Low (2016)

The third area of justified government intrusion into our private space is national security.
The recent cases where Islamic extremists1 or would-be extremists have been arrested
might be viewed, by some, as the Singapore Governments interference into the private
affairs of citizens. The justification here is the prevention of catastrophic terrorists
attacks (local and foreign) that could happen if such actions are not taken. The
Singaporean economy and society would be so severely affected that the livelihood and
well-being of all Singaporeans will be affected (Singapore being such a small country).
Should a person be arrested for having only the intention to commit a crime or a terrorist
act? Perhaps, the answer rests on the severity of the (intended) criminal activity and on
the likelihood of the act taking place. There will always be controversy when the state
step into our private space.
Social stability is yet another area where the government can justifiably intervene. The
Little India riot in Singapore, in 2013, was triggered by drunk local and foreign Indian
workers and the incident motivated new laws governing additional limitations on the sale
of alcohol. Presumably, the purchase and consumption of alcohol are in our private
space and that this space has been invaded by the state albeit for a good cause.
In pursuance of this line of thought, it is reasonable that one would fear that the state
might become too powerful. In the extreme scenario, a democratic state whose
government becomes all-powerful and all-pervasive turns into a police state or a
dictatorship beyond which, the cyclical wheel of dictatorship, revolution, and democracy
would have to make another full turn before achieving political equilibrium (again).
In conclusion, while the demarcation of private space remains important, certain
private areas may have to be given up if the state absolutely requires them for the
betterment of the country. Both John Locke2 and Thomas Hobbes wrote about the role of
government, its social contract with its citizens, and the benefits that a government can
bring to its citizens who in return have to give up some of their freedom, power, and
resources. We just need to trust that the government of the people, by the people and
for the people (Abraham Lincoln) is an attainable political system.

SINGAPORE: The Internal Security Department has arrested 27 male Bangladeshi nationals working in
Singapore, who were planning to take part in extremist activities in other countries, including their homeland of
Bangladesh. No terrorist acts were planned in Singapore, the authorities said. The 27, all working in the
construction industry in Singapore, were arrested under the Internal Security Act (ISA) between Nov 16 and Dec
1, 2015, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said on Wednesday (Jan 20). In another case: SINGAPORE - Four
Singapore citizens have been dealt with under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for taking part in violence or
intending to undertake violence in armed conflicts overseas, the Ministry of Home Affairs announced on
Wednesday (March 16).
2
John Locke, in his Second Treatise wrote this But though men who enter into society give up the equality,
liberty, and executive power they had in the state of nature....each of them does this only with the intention of
better preserving himself, his liberty and property So the power of the society or legislature that they create
can never be supposed to extend further than the common good.