AQ Practice: Individual Freedom vs Security CORRECTIONS!

Stand: For individual freedom OVER security M argues that men are ungrateful, fickle etc

1. This is a sweeping statement as not all men are like that, for they can be kind.

This is an unfair generalization, an excessively pessimistic view of mankind, written possibly from the perspective of a ruler justifying the use of tyranny. In fact, Ebeling argues that the government is the greatest threat to mens freedom, and this is evidenced in the totalitarian regimes of the past, such Nazi Germany and Stalins USSR, along with contemporary examples such as Cuba, North Korea and Myanmar. Singapore, although not in the same category as the aforementioned states, has nonetheless been criticized by its Western counterparts as a quasi-authoritarian state

M argues that men are false, fickle, highlighting mans propensity to violence and crime. While this may have some truth in the light of rising crime rates around the world and increasing threats to terrorism, it cannot justify the iron-fisted control of the government, which would violate human rights

2. Singaporeans are now more educated, and therefore less likely to have fights

* Education can produce more intelligent criminals!

This is an unfair generalisation of mankind, and certainly not a view that is representative of Singapore. Due to its numerous laws and regulations, Singapore enjoys great security and safety compared to other nations, and is consistently ranked as a country with one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

M argues that in order to be successful, the state has to

disregard the reputation of cruelty

1. This is untrue, as cruelty will lead to rebellion, such as riots taking place.

This is untrue, as it clearly violates the principles of democracy espoused by many states today. The practice of cruelty against citizens is greatly frowned upon by the international community, for enshrined in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the right to life, liberty and security of person. The government furthermore has a social obligation to its citizens, ensuring not merely levels of security, but the preservation of freedom such as freedom of expression, assembly and impartial trial by jury. Singapore, which has been criticized by its Western counterparts as being quasi-authoritarian, likewise needs to prioritise individual freedom over security concerns to adapt to the ethos of an increasingly modern and democratic world.

E argues that the government is the greatest threat to mens freedom

1.

This is certainly true in Singapore, as seen in the case of Rony Tan. But does the suppression of individual freedom mean that people will stop thinking such thoughts? It will not stop people from having such thoughts, so the Singapore government should prioritise individual freedom over security concerns.

This is certainly true in Singapore, which apparently espouses principles of democracy but has often been criticized in the past for exhibiting authoritarian practices, stifling individual freedom such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Opposition party leader Chee Soon Juan is one prime example of this, having been detained several times for attempting to protest against citizen issues such as the rising cost of living in Singapore, and even sued to the point of bankruptcy for libel against the Minister Mentor. Even the Speakers Corner that was established to champion free speech in Singapore is almost a farce, as individuals (until recently) had to apply for a police permit to engage in a protest.

2. This is true, as seen in the Singapore context. As Singapore is surrounded by mainly Muslim states, it is inevitable for the government to see a pressing need to maintain social cohesion amongst its people

* Evaluate first! * Do not sidetrack from the main issue!

His argument certainly holds weight in the world today, which has seen many governments, namely North Korea, Cuba and Myanmar, violating human rights in the interest of consolidating political control. While Singapore is not a totalitarian regime, its sometimes inhumane treatment of political opponents certainly borders on authoritarianism. Notable examples include the 23year imprisonment of Chia Thye Poh for alleged pro-communist activities against the government, without charge or trial. Also, the arrest and detention of opposition party leader Chee Soon Juan for speaking in public without a permit attests to the excessively controlling rule of the government, depriving individuals of freedom of expression and assembly. As a progressive democratic state whose model of governance is emulated by many Asian economies, it is imperative that Singapore focus more on individual freedom rather than security concerns, especially when security is already visibly enforced through the citys many rigid laws and regulations.

To read: Singapore model society or city of fear? http://singabloodypore.wordpress.com/2004/05/15/singapore-modelsociety-or-city-of-fear/