Voting age: It’s not a numbers game
YouthInk writers share their thoughts on the recent debate over whether the voting age in Singapore should be lowered to 18 and if their contemporaries should be entrusted with the power to choose their leaders.
Opt in if you’re ready
I HAVE always believed that suffrage, or the right to vote, is one of the cornerstones of political participation.Giving someone a vote is recognising their stake in society and telling them that their views about how that society should be run is important.
At 18, I would have jumped at the opportunity to vote. I had a view which I would have wanted to express through my vote.
However, I was also keenly aware that many of my contemporaries back then did not feel the same way. Apathy was cool and voting would have been regarded as a chore.
This is why I propose an opt-in system for 18- to 20-year-olds.
It is in Singapore’s interest to engage its youth as soon as they are ready; but not any sooner.
An opt-in system allows this – it tells those who are ready to take a stand and that someone is there to hear it.
It also reminds those who are on the sidelines that, in a few years, they would have to take a stand too.
Angela Xu, 22, is post-graduate law student at University College London
A necessary chance
RECENT debate on lowering the voting age is like arguing which came first: the chicken or the egg.Some feel that youth here are too immature to vote but, if you do not give them the chance, how would they learn to appreciate politics?
Different societies prioritise socio-political concerns differently.
In the United States, the legal drinking age is 21, while the voting age is 18. In this case, society seems to deem its youth mature enough to vote, but incapable of drinking responsibly.
Conversely, here, the legal drinking age of 18 seems to imply that youth here are able to drink more responsibly than vote. Recent reports on rampant binge-drinking and drink-driving among youth beg some pause for thought.
The lower priority granted to youth voting here could be because they are perceived to be politically apathetic and incapable of making an informed, responsible choice.
I beg to differ.
A growing minority are expressing political interest through various channels, such as the Young PAP, socio-political blogs like www.tomorrow.sg, dialogue sessions with ministers and MPs, and participation in international conferences.
Perhaps with the greater responsibilities that come with the power to vote, youth may develop greater political interest.
Chew Zhi Wen, 21, has a place to read law and economics at the National University of Singapore
Education is key
DOES it matter if a voter is 18 or 55 years old? The debate to lower the voting age is an aimless one if we do not educate our people on civic responsibility and good citizenship.A good and responsible citizen understands the importance of every vote in determining the political direction of his country, takes an interest in this process and votes for a party that best represents his views and interests.
Citizenship is a product of education.
For starters, educating our youth on responsible citizenship as part of our national learning curriculum will go a long way in ensuring the dignity and legitimacy of our political processes.
Kenny Tan, 22, is a second-year economics student at the Singapore Management University
A deserving vote
THERE was a time in classical antiquity when only defenders of democracy were participants in democracy.
In ancient Athens, only male adults who had served in the military could vote.
Today, democratic countries practising conscription, such as Finland, Germany and Switzerland, have suffrage for youth aged 18 and above.
Suffrage ought to be given to those who contribute directly to the governance of their nation.
Our soldiers provide the fundamental guarantee of security, upon which our entire society is based.
Using intangible qualities like ‘maturity’ to justify an arbitrary voting age is an unjustified value judgment.
The electoral process doesn’t exclude people of low intellect, suspect morals or indecisive tendencies.
As such, at the very least, the blood, toil, tears and sweat of our servicemen deserve affirmation and inclusion in that process.
Wong Chun Han, 22, is a second-year history student at the London School of Economics
Lesson Down Under
THE Australian Federal election last year saw many of my university classmates fervently defending their favourite candidate over lunch.
Though hardly 20 years of age then, many were capable of rationalising the arguments from the opposing parties, understanding their points of contention and adopting their personal commitment.
The level of maturity, enthusiasm, understanding and commitment when deciding the leadership of the country exemplifies the youth of today.
During the campaign, the Australian Electoral Commission set up information booths and advertisements at the university with facts from each party that targeted and addressed the interests of youth.
The easy access to information encouraged better and more informed decision-making among young citizens. It also emphasised the importance of including them as voters.
Participation in voting at a young and impressionable age instils national pride by giving youth a proactive role in society.
The Australian government’s initiative may have contributed to the 10.3per cent rise in the number of 18-year-olds who registered to vote in last year’s election as compared to the 2004 election.
Australia has a well-developed and time-proven electoral system which Singapore may consider taking a page from.
Tabitha Mok, 21, is a fourth-year medical student at the University of Western Australia
Tags: Angela Xu, Chew Zhi Wen, Kenny Tan, Tabitha Mok, Wong Chun Han
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
June 1, 2008 at 4:21 pm
I read Wong Chun Han’s “A Deserving Vote” with mixed feelings. I must admit that he brings up a good point in that there is no reason why people seen as being able to take on the country’s defence should not even be allowed to vote. However, by calling for voting to be allowed to NSmen, he does not take into account the consequences that this means that only MALES of 18-20 will be allowed to vote while their female counterparts will not. That is, obviously, absolutely unacceptable and will send the sexual egalitarianism movement back to the dark ages. Germany, Finland and Switzerland do indeed have suffrage for 18year olds, but for girls as well and not, I think, directly related to the fact that they have military service too. Maybe a debate should start about including women in military service (not unlike our counterpart Malaysia), especially since national bonding is one of the prime pillars of the NS institution and there is no reason why women should be left out of it. Perhaps then a sort of dual model of the German sort (of alternatives to military service like civilian service) can be considered.
June 1, 2008 at 6:54 pm
In 120 words, one can only say that much about the Singapore electoral system. My point was to highlight the most glaring inconsistency within the system – conscription without representation. And they wonder why some people call it National Slavery.
Without a doubt the ideal would be to see an 18-yr-old voting age. I suspected that the general voting age debate by other contributors will address the youth vote as a whole, so I declined to discuss it in my piece. Anyway, if you read my piece carefully, it does say youths aged 18 and above get the vote in those examples, and not merely servicemen.
Also, even if the idea of suffrage being accorded to servicemen only is implemented, females of 18-20 will also get the vote, if they are in the military or police or civil defence forces. The only problem is, this is a very select and small group of females who have volunteered for service, or rather, joined up for a career.
In terms of female suffrage, it is unacceptable. But it does reconcile with a fundamental principle of democratic representation – that those who contribute to the state are represented.
If there was no NS, and the voting age was set at 21, there is no violation of this principle except in circumstances where say someone below 21 earns enough to pay income tax. Then we would have a problem. But there is no female suffrage argument for making the voting age 18 in this case.
Note my argument is not – only NSmen can have the right to vote (which was indeed how it was done in the classical democracies), but that we cannot accept the inconsistency of not allowing NSmen to vote. Lowering the voting age to 18 is indeed the best way to resolve this problem.
In any case, I felt inclined to respond to a piece by Mr Seet King Hwee, who argued that NS should not a factor in deciding the voting age, as it doesn’t necessarily mean the serviceman who emerges from it is “mature enough”. His point is in fact hogwash. Maturity was never the basis of having suffrage. In fact, he clearly has no idea what the whole point of having an electoral system is.
Furthermore, if his argument is to be logically extrapolated, he is actually backing the idea that females should have their voting age retarded by perhaps two years. Given that maturity is a critierion for the right to vote, and he regards life experience as a fundamental factor in becoming mature, then surely 2 years of NS would be of benefit?
But of course, that is nonsense. Democracy isn’t like this. His idea leads to an essentially elitist state – suffrage given to those who are “good enough” to vote. Being “good enough” means being mature, being level-minded, presumably of good intellect and morality etc.
So I decided to turn his argument on its head, but not resorting to cheap and mistaken value judgements regarding the intangible benefits of NS.
My argument is essentially – you cannot demand non-citizens to defend a democracy. Citizens – nationals with full rights of political participation, including and especially the right to vote. If the solution is to lower the voting age to 18 then all the better. And for all practical purposes, this would be actually the most politically expedient way to resolve this problem.
Also, national bonding is actually not one of the prime pillars of National Service. The govt makes it look like it is to make NS more appealing and desirable. Bonding can be best described as a positive spin-off that makes for good PR. By no means a stated objective, much less a “pillar” of NS.
June 1, 2008 at 11:28 pm
[...] http://styouthink.wordpress.com/2008…-numbers-game/ [...]