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

内容涉复述李玮玲指控总理要求本社撤文 媒体人质问弟妹畅所欲言其他人却不行?

昨日(9月1日),李总理新闻秘书张俪霖,代表总理向本社总编许渊臣发函,指本社英语站在8月15日刊登的一篇评论,复述针对总理的不实指控,要求本社撤下并在三日内道歉。 张俪霖指上述评论涉及重复总理妹妹李玮玲,在此前作出的指控,指其已故父亲李光耀曾受到哥哥李显龙的误导,误以为欧思礼38号故居已经获政府宪报为文化遗产,故此要保留遗嘱中要求拆除故居的指示是徒劳的。 张俪霖驳斥上述指控毫无根据,也解释2017年7月,总理已在国会作出充分解释,反驳其弟妹的指控。总理重申李光耀个人遗嘱要求在他百年后拆除欧思礼38号故居。 然而,在听取内阁一致认为故居不应被拆除的意见后,李光耀最终接受政府有可能出于公共利益而保留该产业,因此愿意灵活处理和考虑拆屋以外的选项。 此外,张俪霖也反驳,李光耀自2011年起就没有在任何一份遗嘱中,将李总理列为遗嘱执行人和受托人。 她续称,上述文章的指控具诽谤行,总理选择不起诉弟妹,不代表容许他人复述和散播这些指控。 信函称总理限定本社英语站在三天内需撤下上述评论,并刊登道歉启事以及承诺不再刊载有关指控,否则总理“别无选择,只能委律师行使法律权益”。 本社英语站已在昨晚撤下上述誌期8月15日的评论文章,惟暂未针对总理公署的要求,作出任何回应。 对于总理公署再对本社抛下重磅弹,也有许多读者、社运分子表达关注,其中范国瀚就在个人脸书揶揄,“总理又在起诉网络批评声音”。 至于资深媒体人兼《海峡时报》前副总编辑默乐(Bertha Henson)则质问,总理选择不起诉弟妹,但是不容许他人复述、散播他们的指控,难道意味着总理的弟妹可以畅所欲言,但是其他人如果重复他们的言论就不可以?“法律是这样运作的么?” 人权律师、前政治拘留者张素兰则好奇询问:如果网络公民请总理弟妹也参与诉讼?恐怕只有总理和他的弟妹才知道真相。…

女灾黎与死神搏斗逾月离世 武吉巴督火灾水管不出水谁该问责?

上月1日凌晨,武吉巴督21街的第210A组屋一座单位发生火患,造成两男一女被困,其中,73岁妇女在被救出时严重烧伤,经过一个多月的治疗后,最终仍不幸离世。 火灾当天,民防部队欲使用水管(hose reels)扑灭火势,但却发现消防栓遭锁上;打开后发现水管竟不出水! 事后,民防部队与裕廊-金文泰市镇会代表一同检查消防栓,而该市镇会也被指不遵守消防安全规定而被警告,要求市镇会纠正违规问题,如若民防部队再次检查发现违规,将可能被罚款高达5000元,或是被起诉。 对于73岁女灾黎吴女士的离世,裕廊-金文泰是真会也在脸书表达哀悼: 然而,民防部队要救火时,最关键的消防水管却无法出水,严重拖延民防人员争分夺秒的救援工作,这件事不容就此带过。 上周一(12月2日),裕廊-金文泰市镇会在脸书发表长文,指他们已经完成调查,指负责维护保养消防栓的承包商 J. Keart Alliances Pte Ltd (简称JKeart),在事故两周前进行维护检查时,未能确保组屋顶楼水泵室的开关,有调整为正确的“自动”模式,导致事故时未能自动供水作救灾用。…

港爆发最大规模示威,百万民众抗”送中“

香港近日来因修订《逃犯条例》,引来大批香港民众的反弹。香港民间人权阵线昨日(9日)发起游行抗议活动,要求香港政府撤销修订“逃犯条例“。截至昨日晚上9点,已有逾100万人参与游行,同时获得海外多个城市的声援。 此次示威活动亦是自1997年主权移交以来,香港最大规模的游行活动。 游行原定下午3点从维多利亚公园起步,前往香港立法会,但由于人数太多导致香港交通瘫痪。据悉,游行期间多个港铁站已实施管制,部分民众甚至被困在同一个地点超过一个小时。直至下午4点,由召集人岑子杰带领的游行队伍抵达政府总部,准备包围立法会。 据港媒报道,大批示威者身穿白衣撑着黄色雨伞,举起标语如“反送中“、”林郑下台“,并高喊”反送中“口号,要求政府撤回恶法。游行人士聚集了不同的人包括父母携带小孩一同参加、老年人、青年等各个阶层人士。不少香港艺人与公众人物也响应游行活动如黄耀明、何韵诗、王宗尧、苏玉华及前全国政协委员刘梦熊。 约晚上8点时,警方与示威者一度在金钟夏悫道爆发冲突,拉扯间险酿人踩人的意外。5-6名示威者一度冲破警方设好的路障,而警方向示威者喷胡椒喷雾试图阻止示威者前进。 在接近游行的尾声,部分示威者更是堵截立法会,要求与行政长官林郑月娥对话。期间,警民对峙已久,双方均有人受伤,血流披脸。警察公共关系科高级警司江永祥更斥责示威者漠视法纪,称已属非法集会,呼吁在场人士立即离开。 香港警方表示,游行期间最高峰时约24万人参与活动,目前合共拘捕了7人,分別涉及普通袭击、刑事毁坏、袭警等罪名。 修法后程序过于简单,恐受中国制约 而此次修订条例是由2018年一起发生于台湾的香港命案所引起,碍于台湾与香港间并无司法互助安排,无法将嫌犯移交台湾受审,故香港保安局期望能修例。 截至今日,香港的罪犯移交条例仍援用1997年回归之前的安排,与20个国家签订长期的引渡条例协议,其中并不包括中国、澳门及台湾。其他地区若提出移交嫌犯申请,需逐个个案经立法会审批。而修订条例后,全球便可向香港提出移交申请,只要疑犯在移交地犯下其中37项罪行,特首便可授权后,将单次移交疑犯。 对于修例为何引起大批港民的反弹,其主要原因为,港民忧心修例后将会引发不公平审讯,尤其在中国司法并未独立的情况下,香港疑犯很可能会被移交到中国接受审讯,并且打开从香港引渡疑犯的缺口,影响香港的新闻自由与营商环境。另外,港民认为缺乏立法会审批的移交过程,程序过于简单,中国可以轻易要求香港将疑犯移交到中国受审。 草案引起强烈反弹,港府却无意撤回草案…

MOM will not hesitate to revoke work passes and withdraw related privileges under the new entry rules in Singapore

In efforts to manage the coronavirus situation in Singapore, the Ministry of…