The term "nanny state" is loosely thrown around to
define a society in which personal freedoms are curtailed by an over-protective
government. Singapore is occasionally cited as an example of a nanny state,
given that eating on public transport carries a fine of SG$500. More recently,
a young girl was charged in court and fined SG$400 for using a power outlet at
a train station to charge her phone. Ignoring the arguments involved in that
particular case, it becomes clear that the term "nanny state" has
barely any positive connotations, and is used when a populace feels - often
correctly - hemmed in by authoritarian measures.
And yet, there exists a glimmer of hope for the nannies.
This beacon of hope lies in the House of Lords, in London, where a 222-197 vote
backed an amendment to fine parents who smoked in cars with children in them.
Response to this decision has been ambivalent - the deputy PM, Nick Clegg, was
quoted by The Telegraph as saying, "You can't sub-contract responsible
parenting to the State". On the other hand, The Mirror's Paul Routledge
wrote a column entitled, "A triumph of common sense over the vested
interests of the tobacco industry." The debate, from what I understand, is
largely based on two contrasting perspectives. In favour of the ban, the view
that cigarette smoke poses a serious health hazard to passive smokers. Against
the ban, the view of Charlotte Gore in the Guardian, who believes "A ban
on smoking in cars with children is an authoritarian step too far".
My personal opinion on this issue is a combination of all
the perspectives mentioned above. I agree with Mr. Clegg in that the
responsibilities of individual adults cannot and should not be the affairs of
the state. I agree with Ms. Gore when she considers this ban totalitarian in
nature. I also agree with Mr. Routledge regarding the health hazards of this
issue. The conclusion, to me, is simple. A government should not pass such
legislation. Why? Because it should not be obliged to consider such an issue in
the first place. People should be responsible enough to recognise the dangers
of smoking in confined spaces. Yet, the main reason why this amendment is being
passed is because obviously there has been an alarming number of cases of
children being forced to inhale the toxic fumes of their parents' cigarettes on
long journeys. Simply put, action to control this issue makes the government
appear totalitarian. Inaction, resulting in hundreds of cases of lung cancer in
45 years' time, would make the government appear incompetent. In this case,
authoritarianism is certainly the lesser of two evils.
If there's anything the above example proves, it is that a
nanny state is sometimes essential if the legislature is to be effective. There
exist sufficient tabloid newspapers for us to know that some parents, for
example, do not take adequate care when it comes to raising their children
responsibly; instead, the aroma of baby oil is replaced by methamphetamine fumes.
It is common sense that one does not eat food with a rich aroma in a confined
space, but there are those who treat rationality like a scab. And yes, the
decision to fine the girl in the above example was contentious; who's to say
that putting up signs will stop people from using power sockets at train
stations? All it takes is one individual with a grossly misplaced sense of
rebellion to plug an appliance into the socket, and voila. The MRT network
shuts down because of a voltage fluctuation.
The conclusion this article tries to reach is simple. We
need a nanny state more often than we think. This is simply because a
government cannot risk trusting that all its citizens spend their entire lives
acting rationally. And when irrational actions affect those other than the
perpetrators, who's responsibility is it to tie up the loose ends? The answer is
obvious - Mary Poppins, the wonderful nanny.
- Chap
Links to articles:
1. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/30/ban-smoking-cars-children-authoritarian-step-too-far?commentpage=1
2. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paul-routledge-ban-smoking-cars-3095327#.UusecfmSzLk
3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/10606598/Why-not-ban-TV-too-Clegg-opposes-car-smoke-clampdown.html
No comments:
Post a Comment