If old enough for NS, why not the vote?
By Andy Ho
A RECENT public forum about youth concerns raised the issue of lowering the
voting age to 18. This would empower citizens born between 1991 and 1993 to
vote in the next General Election due in 2011.
Only a handful of countries still make their citizens wait till they are 21 before they
can vote. Besides Singapore, the other countries on the list are the Central African
Republic, Fiji, Gabon, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Oman, Samoa,
Solomon Islands, Tokelau and Tonga.
Brunei has no suffrage and Indonesia's voting age is 17. So the voting age in
Asean countries, except Singapore and Malaysia, is 18. In fact, that is the voting
age in most nations, even Iran.
In 2002, Morocco lowered its voting age from 20 to 18. In Cuba, Brazil, Nicaragua
and, from March last year, in Austria, citizens can vote at 16. Austria's move, its
government said, reflected the need for political institutions to engage the young
'more robustly' in view of a greying population.
Beginning in 2010, Japan will lower its voting age from 20 to 18 for national
referendums on constitutional amendments. In February, the opposition
Democratic Party began pushing to make 18 the voting age for all elections.
Perhaps, it reckons that as a centre-left party, it would probably appeal to teenage
voters.
But it certainly didn't work out that way for the Democrats in the United States.
Impelled by the powerful student-led anti-Vietnam War movement, Congress
lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 in 1970. The vote, the US Senate said at the
time, would give the young 'a direct, constructive and democratic channel for
making their views felt and for giving them a responsible stake in the future of
the.
It was widely assumed that youth turnout would help the Democratic presidential
nation's candidate George McGovern in 1972. But he was trounced by the
Republican contender Richard Nixon. So conservative parties need not fear that
the young will reflexively vote liberal.
If most nations think it wise to enfranchise their 18- to 20-year-olds, why does
Singapore tarry? The prime argument here for lowering the voting age has been
that if 18-year-olds can be called up for National Service in the armed forces, they
should also have the right to vote. At a minimum, Singaporean males - and
females who volunteer for the armed forces - should be given the vote at 18.
During World War I, Britain gave its active servicemen the vote at 19, against 21
for its other citizens.
We cannot tell our 18-year-olds they are mature enough to kill enemy combatants
- and be held responsible as adults if they commit murder - yet are too immature
to vote.
All sides agree that maturity matters. In its 2004 public consultation to consider
lowering the voting age from 18 to 16, Britain's Electoral Commission pointed out
three aspects of the maturity argument.
First, younger people may be swayed by others because of ignorance or
intimidation. Second, they might vote for parties without grasping the implications
of their proposed policies. And third, they may not be sufficiently intellectually
developed.
As to being swayed by family and friends because of ignorance, this applies to
adults too. As to the young being more susceptible to coercion and intimidation,
the Constitution does not require voters to prove the absence of such influences or
be physically mature. We do not deny the old and frail or the physically disabled
the vote out of similar concerns.
As to understanding complex public policy issues, how many people aged 21 and
above grasp the complexity of, say, Singapore's transport policy or the recent CPF
changes? Our political affiliations are influenced by our families because we tend to
share the values and norms of those whom we love and trust.
And as for intellectual and analytical abilities, note that those 21 or older don't
have to prove they have these qualities. We don't even deny the vote to the senile
or the psychotic who live outside institutionalised care. Of course, we would prefer
voters to be well informed about the issues. But how much knowledge they should
have before they have the vote is not a judgment society can make.
Naysayers urge 18- to 20-year-olds to just wait and vote the next time round.
That is akin to telling the poor they can't vote but if they work hard and earn
enough, they will be able to vote in a few years' time.
Offering the young rights will encourage them to behave responsibly. If they think
their opinions and actions will not make a difference to themselves and society,
why would they bother to think through the issues? Conversely, if they know their
decisions matter, they would try to make rational and informed choices.
The authorities lament that our young do not seem to be engaged politically. If so,
the cause might not just be apathy. After all, the young tend to participate in
community activities more often than older people do. Could they, instead, be just
alienated from existing political institutions? Perhaps they perceive the system to
be inattentive to their concerns since they cannot vote?
Giving the young the vote would be a move of great symbolic import to 'prove' to
them the system's sincerity when it calls on them to participate in our democracy.
Perhaps a post-1965 Member of Parliament might initiate the debate to
enfranchise these trustees of our posterity.
Why voting age in Singapore is 21
I REFER to Dr Andy Ho's column on Thursday, 'If old enough for NS, why not the
vote?'
Dr Ho advocated lowering the age for voting to 18, and urged MPs to raise the issue in
Parliament.
He appears to be unaware that this very issue was raised in Parliament during the
Committee of Supply debate last year. Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar, who was
also then minister for law, gave a detailed explanation, which was reported in The
Straits Times on March 3.
In Singapore, we do not have a single threshold age of majority for all purposes.
Adulthood is attained through a gradual process, with a progressive increase in rights
and responsibilities. For example, one may drive at 18; but must be 21 to qualify to be
a Member of Parliament, or to make a will, to renounce citizenship or to enter certain
professions, such as the law, public accountancy or engineering; and be 25 to adopt a
child.
Voting in elections is a very serious matter. The voting age of 21 means that many
voters would have finished national service or even have some working experience.
They would then be in a better position to assess the quality of the candidates and to
make considered judgments about the national issues at stake in the political debate.
It is for these reasons that voting age in Singapore is 21.
S. Radha (Ms)
Head, Corporate Communications
Ministry of Law
If they're old enough to defend Singapore...
MS S. RADHA, head of corporate communications at the Ministry of Law, in her reply
last Saturday ('Why voting age in Singapore is 21') to Dr Andy Ho's column last
Thursday ('If old enough for NS, why not the vote?') has failed to comprehend the
thrust of the argument he put forward.
Dr Ho did not argue against the gradual entrusting of responsibilities by the state to
young Singaporeans.
Indeed, most states around the world also have a similar gradual system.
For example, the age at which young Americans can legally consume alcohol is higher
than the age at which they can vote or get married.
Instead, Dr Ho's query pertains to the question of why the voting age of Singaporeans
is 21, even though the state is comfortable with its male citizens bearing arms in its
defence at age 18.
It is precisely because Singapore has no single threshold age for all aspects of life that
the system is flexible enough to lower its voting age for male citizens entrusted to
defend it.
If the state considers young male Singaporeans mature enough to fight and die in the
defence of the nation, the state should then also consider them mature enough to
have a role in deciding who their political leaders should be.
Dr Norman Vasu
Why it makes sense to have voting age at 21
DR NORMAN Vasu's letter on Wednesday, 'If they're old enough to defend
Singapore...', argued that the voting age should be linked to the age at which young
men enter national service.
The suitable voting age for an individual is not best defined by any single eligibility
qualification. The approach we have taken is a practical one with a gradual increase in
rights and responsibilities of an individual leading up to the age of 21.
Typically at 21 years old, the individual would either be working or pursuing tertiary
studies. At that age also, nearly all the limitations linked to age are removed.
This includes the right at that age to renounce one's citizenship to take up a foreign
citizenship. Thus, it does not follow that the voting age should coincide with the
national service call-up age.
We think our model has worked well. These are matters that each society has to
decide for itself, and, of course, in such matters, the rules must keep pace with
changes in society as well.
S. Radha (Ms)
Head, Corporate Communications,
Ministry of Law