My Opinion on the Key Concept of John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle.

John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle

John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle was stated in his book “On Liberty”. John argues “that the sole purpose of law should be to stop people from harming others. Conversely, Mill concludes that government should not forcibly prevent people from engaging in victimless crimes such as gambling, drug usage, and prostitution”.
An extract of what essay is as shown:

“…is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

Generally governance in any government is based on that principle, where policy makers will have to look at the outcome of developing or enforcing a particular law to be cleared by their respective parliaments or senates.
In Singapore, we have seen such policies being promulgated over the years. For example when the country was hit by the deadly SARS virus in Apr 2003. We have always had the law against spitting which is a common natural habit for many. Spitting in public places created uproar in Singapore on the onset of SARS when people were penalized for spitting in public places because of the possibility of the SARS virus being transmitted by the sputum of the individual. Singaporeans started to take notice of such violations and were voluntarily reporting people who violated that law, all for the sake of the general public. People started to be aware of the consequences. However after 5 years, that eagerness that was present in 2003 has dwindled as I have seen many Singaporeans spitting and getting away with it.
The same could be said about smoking where there is ban in smoking in public places. This was due to the findings that passive smoking has also caused lung cancer in people who do not smoke. A classic case where a law is instituted to stop people from harming other people.
Despotism is legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians. Such as the internal security act that hunts people down who are involved trans- territorial terrorism activities e.g. like the JIs or the Al Qaeda groups.
It is also important to note from John Mills that a person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inactions too. This is where a person is held accountable for any injury that is caused by his inaction. This was clearly evident in the drowning of the NS solder in Pulau Tekong Military camp during a water dunking training, where the inaction(s) of the supervisor for the exercise was also held accountable for the death of the soldier, even though he was not the instructor actually conducting the training. Thus to make someone answerable for doing evil to others is the rule but to make him answerable for not preventing the evil is comparatively specking the exception but not totally ruled out in the court of law.

However the statement in John Mills exercise also emphasizes that personal liberty needs to be respected .This falls under the following category: a. Liberty of conscience (thoughts and feelings), b. Liberty of tastes and pursuits, and c. Liberty of combination of individuals.
I support the “Harm principle” that John Mills had stated for each of us must pursue our won good in our own way as long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs and or impede their efforts in doing so. Each of us are our own guardian, in how we look after ourselves in both physically, mentally and spiritually. Mankind has reached a point where whether as rulers or as citizens we tend to impose or inclinations and opinions as a rule of conduct on others and this is generally due to the desire to have power over others. As I see it this greed for power is not declining and the only way to move our society is to have inculcate a strong moral obligation against such mischief where we must not harm other people. This is the epitome social excellence that we must strive for.

Why Freedom Of Speech Should, as far as possible, Be Granted To The People

In my opinion, the governments of nations should as far as possible grant the people freedom of speech. The government need only step in when the people are crossing the borders of freedom of speech, and as said by Baggini & Kassim,"... we should constrain the liberty of others if what they do causes harm..." As such, the people should be able to voice out their opinions, and are beginning to cause harm to a person or ,more importantly, a group of people. If the opinions expressed do not cause this type of harm, and only offends a group of people, then these people can rally together and protest, excersising their freedom of speech, or as put by Chua, they can "vote with their wallets." When the caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) were published, as a muslim, I avoided Lurpak butter. I still do not purchase Lurpak butter, and my family and I use Flora butter to add flavour to our bread(which is locally produced). My own "mini" protest gave me much satisfaction, and will give any rational person, in my opinion, a sense of satisfaction. Living in a multi-racial and multi-religious society, everyone has to accommodate one another. As such, people can simply have the satisfaction that they have done something to express their views on a specific issue and have exercised their freedom of speech, while not stirring up any racial riots. As said by Chua, "It is the old dictum of a democratic, liberal society, that I may disagree with you, but I will defend vigorously your right to do so."  In keeping true to our democratic roots, I feel that the government should, as far as possible, give people their right to express their views. This would mean the scrapping of all laws protecting a specific race or religion from what they deem to be insult. 

The press has to be granted freedom of speech as well. This is provided that the press knows how to exercise its freedom of speech in a way that is not damaging to the society. If the press were to take extreme views on a certain topic, then they should be able to phrase and justify their view in a way that will please those who agree with them, and give those who disagree with them a point to ponder about. The forum pages of the newspapers should also give the people freedom of speech, meaning that the maximum possible number of views should be printed. This type of expression of views will result in healthy debate among the people, and the government can focus on more important issues.

Opinion on John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle

According to Mill, there is only one legitimate reason for the exercise of power over individuals:

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty

In response to John Stuart Mill's harm principle, I feel that the principle is only an ideal principle, just like communism which can never be applied in reality and only covers one form of wrongdoing. Whether a person has caused harm or not is not the only determinant in deciding whether one is guilty of a crime. Must one cause harm to have done wrong? Furthermore, what is the definition of “harm” in this principle? Does it only mean physical harm or injury? Or does it include psychological sufferings as well? Humans are emotional beings and psychological harm can cause greater damage than physical harm does. How and who will determine the degree of harm that one suffers? While physical harm is much easier to define, psychological harm is subjective to one's mindset. What one feels is harmful may be seen as harmless to another. Hence, the harm principle is not an appropriate guideline to determine whether one is punishable by law.

The harm principle does not cover the issue of moral values. Morally wrong acts may not be harmful to anyone, yet may result in serious consequences that should have it punishable by law. Theft is an act of crime, but may not cause harm to anyone. Racism too, may not neccesary cause harm, but it is definitely an act deserving punishment by the law, for it affects the unity of the multi-racial society of Singapore, where development is greatly dependant on this very harmony. Racism disrupts this harmony and affects the social peace and economy of the country. As seen from these examples, harmless acts may result in serious consequences to the society as a whole. Concluding the above statements, I feel that Mill's “harm principle” is insufficient alone as a guideline to determine whether one is punishable by the law, and it should also be decided based upon the individual situations and moral values as well.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH vs SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

I feel that Szilagyi's view on social responsibility should be adopted in Singapore. Although Singer states that freedom of speech should stand as it is every human's basic right and is essential for the advancement of democratic regimes, which is true, I believe otherwise; at least in the context of Singapore. Freedom of speech is a basic right when speakers use it responsibly. However this is not always the case and there is no room for anyone to use freedom of speech irresponsibly. Hence, in Sinagapore, which is a multi-racial and multi-cultural society and I believe that social responsibility should be practised. This is important if a country such as Singapore wants to achieve political and social stability. Singapore should place this as its top priority rather than catering to its people's want for free speech

In Singapore iresponsible use of freedom of speech can easily lead to racial and religious conflicts among its people. Its government and more importantly its people and media, I feel, should thus adhere to social responsibility. Transfer of messages from one cultural context to another in our highly networked world can very quickly spark societical and political tensions and the power to transfer this messages lies in the media and quite significantly in the people. For instance, when the Danish and Norwiegian newspaper published provocative cartoons of Phrophet Muhammad, its only intention was to express its views. However, through through the spread of these messages that were greatly manupilated by the people, it sparked of demonstrations and economic boycotts of their products in the Middle East and rough relations between Christian and Muslim countries. Thus social responsibility should be adopted in Singapore. The media must realize that they alone do not create or determine the lifespan and outcomes of the mesages they publish. They must realize that once the messages are out in public, like Szilagyi said, they develop a life of their own and are subject to multiple interpretations and manupilations. Its people must also act responsibly and be aware of what they should express and what they should not. The government should also do what it can to ensure that the people and media express their views responsibly and can impose censorship on certain view that can threaten our country's stability.