Selene Cheng

“The power of Parliament comes from the people, and the power of the people comes from our right to vote.”

The Workers’ Party Youth Wing (YPYW) launched its inaugural YouthQuake forum series today on the topic “Should Singaporean Youths be Allowed to Vote at 18?”

The public forum, targeted at youths, took place at the party’s headquarters in Syed Alwi Road.

WPYW executive committee member and chairperson of today’s forum Bernard Chen said that the YouthQuake forums aim to “promote greater awareness of youth-centric issues, to promote debate and discussion on issues that affect [youths]”.

Three youths were invited to speak – 17-year old debater Anne Tan, first-year student at Anglo-Chinese Junior College and daughter of WP executive council member Eric Tan; 20-year old full-time National Serviceman Khairulanwar Zaini, and 23-year old Choo Zheng Xi, second-year law undergraduate at the National University of Singapore and the Chief Editor of socio-political blog The Online Citizen.

Speakers generally agreed that Singaporean youths should be allowed to vote at 18, as this would engender political maturity amongst youths and give them a sense of ownership and commitment to the nation. All were confident that youths would exercise their vote responsibly.

“Head knowledge” never really quite hits the heart

First speaker Anne Tan argued that encouraging a culture that allowed vibrant socio-political discourse would make for a more resilient Singapore society, and that giving youths the right to vote would be a formal recognition of the validity of different opinions.

She also argued that if Singapore society did not encourage expression of different opinions for fear of destroying the social fabric, then perhaps the racial and religious harmony that Singapore prides itself on having was just “simply cosmetic”. Anne was of the view that Singapore should not allow the “ghosts” of the pasts – the racial and religious riots in the 60s – to haunt its collective consciousness.

Anne also gave her view on why the Government’s efforts at repoliticising Singapore youths had failed. She argued that in educating youths about national issues, there was a wrong focus on “head knowledge”.

“The thing about head knowledge is that it never really quite hits your heart,” said Anne.

She also felt that the Government’s well-intentioned policies failed because the civil servants that carried out the policies were “entrenched in a cycle of fear” over encouraging political awareness amongst their charges.

A corresponding trust from the state is needed

Second speaker Khairulanwar Zaini spoke on the rights of full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) to vote if they were18, as they were contributing to the defence, and thus protection, of the state’s sovereignty:

I believe that it should be an inherent principle of democracy that we extend suffrage to those who are serving the interests on the nation, in particular for those who provide for the finances and the defence of the state.

Khairul argued that “those serving in the military should have the right to choose the authority that deploys them [for armed combat]”. Citing historical examples of other nations with compulsory conscription, and nations during wartime which had done so, he argued that since the state entrusts its National Servicemen with the heavy responsibility of bearing arms in defence of it, there should be “a corresponding trust to enfranchise [them] into the electorate”.

Additionally, Khairul also argued that citizenship meant obligations and rights, and since in doing National Service male youths at 18 are fulfilling their obligation to defend the nation, they should accordingly be awarded their full rights as citizens as well, which includes the right to vote.

Pre-empting the argument that giving 18-year old National Servicemen suffrage would be “politicising the military”, Khairul stressed that there was a difference between the “rights” of the military as an institution, and the rights of each 18-year old national serviceman. He also noted that if one felt that allowing suffrage would result in a “politicised” military, and that this was unacceptable, that would mean that regular NS men would also have to be denied the vote.

Lastly, Khairul felt that giving NSFs suffrage would give them a “sense of ownership in their country’s affairs”, imbuing them with “a sense of purpose to serve NS”.

To questions from some forum attendees on giving 18-year old females suffrage, Khairul noted that there were many different ways to contribute to the nation, and since 18-year old women also work and pay taxes, they ought to be accorded the same voting rights.

In response to another question as to whether one should allow 16-year old NSFs who were “just as good, just as well, [and] just as brave” to vote, Khairul replied that personally, he felt that the line had to be drawn somewhere, and that this was a minor issue as the number of males voluntarily conscripting themselves at 16 was very low.

Right to vote not guaranteed in law

Last speaker Choo Zheng Xi spoke on how the right to vote was not enshrined in Singapore’s Constitution, and said that Singaporeans were “not familiar with framing [the issue of suffrage] in a rights perspective, but [saw it] instead as a legal obligation”. He noted that it was more a compulsion to act, as the Parliamentary Elections Act stated that non-voters would have their names struck off the electoral register.

Citing legal precedents where the courts affirmed the right of the judiciary to invalidate law inconsistent with the Constitution, Zheng Xi argued that this meant if a law was passed, barring people below a certain intelligence level to vote, such a law could be challenged in court.

“Political engagement is about participation and taking your rights seriously,” said Zheng Xi. “The power of parliament comes from the people, and the power of the people comes from our right to vote”, he said.

Zheng Xi argued that the culture of political apathy has been actively encouraged, and that this mindset had to be changed. Without changing mindsets, changing the law in name would not change the way people think, and their valuing their vote. Nevertheless, he argued that people “[had] to start acting on being the creators of a system that [they wanted] to see, by voting at 18”.

Some forum attendees had some concerns. One asked if giving youths the right to vote at 18 would make a difference, since the current election process was flawed. Another asked if in talking about voting at 18, did one have in mind the general principle that everyone has the right to vote, or was voting rights tied to age.

Speakers were of the view that allowing people to vote at 18 was the first step towards improving the flawed election process, to increase awareness, put aside their fear, and realise that “rights aren’t necessarily confrontational and self-centered” (Zheng Xi).

On the age issue, speakers generally agreed that it was both the age 18 (the age one could get married, buy and drink alcohol legally, and get charged for murder, speakers noted) and the individual right to vote that were equally important. Forum chairperson Bernard Chen noted that a lot of countries were now considering lowering the voting age from 18 to 16, and Singapore was thus lagging behind.

Heartening attendance

The forum closed with each speaker being presented the WP’s anniversary publication as a token of appreciation. WP members The Online Citizen spoke to, including WP chairperson Sylvia Lim, were heartened to see that the forum attracted a fair number of youths among the packed room who were “interested in Singapore’s future”, and all supported the idea of youths being allowed to vote at 18.

“Leaders who youth can’t vote for today may send them to war tomorrow. Youth shouldn’t be held to a stricter standard than [that for] adults….intelligence and maturity should not be the basis upon which the right to vote [rests upon]. Lowering the voting age should be the just and fair way to make things straight,” forum chairperson Bernard Chen concluded.

Videos of the forum can be viewed here.

——————-

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

近百患者与武吉班让综合交通中心感染群有关! 淡马亚吁民众勿惊惶

日前《海峡时报》报导指出,近100名冠病确诊者,与武吉班让综合交通中心感染群有关联! 消息震惊人民,不过传染病学亚太学会会长淡马亚教授安抚民心,敦促人民勿惊惶,提醒我国的检测和专业都属全球顶级,过去也曾确认接触者,迅速阻断传播链。 上月中旬,武吉班让综合交通中心出现感染群,其中包括巴士车长和巴士转换站职员,在确诊后,为确保能够及时控制感染群,本地约1万1千名公共交通业员工均接受冠病检测。 当局在7月23日至8月5日之间于七个地点展开拭子检测,包括两个巴士车厂和两处住所。 截至目前,已逾3700名公交员工和承包商当中,有六人的聚合酶链式反应(PCR)冠病检测呈阳性,卫生部已分别在7月24日、30日和8月6日公布这六起病例。这六人的血清检测也呈阳性,相信他们是在早前受感染。 另有89人的血清检测呈阳性,但PCR检测呈阴性,这意味着他们曾经染病并已康复,不会再传播病毒。这89人当中,有12人之前住在宿舍,惟当局未透露他们的工作岗位。 淡马亚表示,新加坡公共卫生当局在使用血清检测的经验和专业都属于世界顶级,曾在三月初,透过血清检测出第83例和91例,并快速地将两个无关联的感染群连在一起,才能迅速断开传播链。 “我们敦促居民勿惊惶。新加坡公共卫生当局也正利用血清检测确定接触者,而且我国一直在这方面都是领先于其他国家。” 因此,针对武吉班让的情况,相信透过血清检测获得类似的结果。 他也呼吁民众应该时刻留意自己的身体状况,并保持良好的卫生习惯,一旦出现急性呼吸系统症状,或突然发烧或失去味觉或嗅觉,应立即前往公共卫生防范诊所(PHPC)就医,接受检测,并告知医生曾到访的地点。 此外,他也要求新加坡政府应该公开其测试结果,并在防范策略上保持透明,让公众理解,以遏制病毒的传播。 “我们相信,新加坡人民定能够在这一战中取得成功。”

Chiam fulfils walkway promise made at 2006 polls

The project, which costs the town council $250,000, also ended a dispute between Mr Chiam and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin from the People’s Action Party, who lost the contest for the ward in 2006 polls. When some of the lights were vandalised, Mr Sitoh declined to repair them, saying the land’s lease was due to expire.

Pakary Haw Ball withdraw from shelves after plastic chip found in one of the bottles

Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) announced on July 13 that the…

Clubs and affiliates of Singapore Athletics call into question the governance of the Singapore Masters Athletics, appealed for realignment

At least 11 clubs and affiliates of Singapore Athletics (SA) have filed…