Jaya says No!

In this continuing series of Vote @ 18, I have put forward the government’s argument with respect to lowering the voting age. It is clearly evident that there’s no immediate plans to change the existing status quo.

Below is a parliamentary debate between Ms Sylvia Lim, Chairman of the Workers’ Party and NCMP for the 11th Parliament and Professor Jayakumar, Deputy Prime Minister,Co-ordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Law.

I have already debunked some of the points raised by Prof. Jayakumar in my previoust post: I want to vote!

Ms Sylvia Lim:
Sir, the age of majority in Singapore is 21. Once a young person turns 21, parents cannot by law make decisions on his or her behalf. The 21-year-old can sign contracts and vote in a public election.

However, we require those under 21 to engage in some very serious undertakings already. Boys are enlisted into National Service at 18 years, required to carry weapons and may have to defend Singapore with their lives. If a young adult above 18 commits a capital crime, he will be hanged.

Thus, even within the Singapore context itself, there seems to be anomalies about whether we consider those between 18 and 21 years as adults or not. What have other countries done? Since World War II, the majority of countries have lowered their ages of majority and voting from 21 to 18. Even many Asian countries use 18 as the voting age, including China, India, Pakistan, Thailand and the Philippines. We are one of the remaining few using 21. Are our young people somehow less mature than their peers elsewhere?

In respect of voting, one compelling argument relates to compulsory military service. The United States went through this experience in the 1970s. Young men under 21 were drafted to fight in Vietnam. The public sentiment there was basically that if they were old enough to do that, they should be old enough to vote.

Sir, if young Singaporeans aged between 18 and 21 years are entitled to vote, I believe that this would have a tsunami effect in making them interested in national affairs which in turn will make our national debate more holistic and inclusive.

Prof. Jayakumar:
Let me touch on the points raised by Ms Sylvia Lim on the age of majority. Sir, the age of majority in Singapore is actually not defined by statute. It is defined by common law which sets it at 21 years.

Let me explain what is the legislative approach that we have taken in Singapore. We have, in our body of laws, different laws to prescribe different ages for qualifications, requirements, disqualifications for a whole host of different contexts, purposes, status or objectives, whether it is for driving licence or for voting in elections. This is because each activity calls for different considerations. For example, the law provides the age of 21 for qualification for membership of Parliament, for entering certain professions, like lawyers, public accountants, engineers or to be eligible to be a guarantor or to marry without parents’ consent or to make a valid will. These are some examples for the age of 21.

Then we have laws that prescribe the age of 18 to get a driving licence, to buy cigarettes or alcohol and so on. The point I want to make is that there is no single threshold age for all purposes. I guess it is because we cannot say adulthood is gained overnight on a fixed birthday, whether it is 21 or earlier. Rather it is attained through a gradual process. The approach that our laws have is a pragmatic one where there is a gradual increase in rights and responsibilities leading up to the age of 21, at which stage nearly all the limitations linked to age are removed. But this does not mean that everything is cast in stone and no aspect of this variegated approach will be ever reviewed. Whilst we have no immediate plans to reduce the age of majority, we are currently reviewing the matter for some specific areas impacting on our drive, for example, to create greater entrepreneurial skills and a risk taking approach, especially for our young. For example, the Government is looking into whether those who are at least 18 years of age can more freely enter into contracts, but this is just an example.

On voting age, we do not intend to change that. Sir, voting in parliamentary elections or voting in election for the Presidency is a very serious matter. It is a decision where voters choose their MP and choose, in turn, which political party or parties form the government to look after and run the country. In the case of elections for the elected President, voters will be deciding on which individual they will entrust to hold the office of President to exercise the custodial and veto powers set out in the Constitution.

Sir, if we set the age below 21, many would still be studying and, in the case of males, would still be doing National Service, or they would have just started work. The current age of 21 means that the voter would have finished National Service and many others would have had some working experience. I think they would then be in a better position to make careful assessments, considered judgments about the quality of the candidates and of other many national issues involved when it comes to forming a judgment and choice involved in casting votes.

Sir, I think our model of elections and government has worked well, and I see no pressing reason to change it including the age of voting. Yes, I note the experience in other countries, as pointed out by Ms Sylvia Lim. The practice varies and there are also examples of other countries which have kept to a higher age. Malaysia retains the age of 21. Japan has the age at 20.

Are you convinced by the government’s argument on this issue?

Personally, I am not.

What kind of twisted message is the government sending when they tell youths they are judged mature, responsible adults when they are enlisted in the military, but silly, brainless kids when they want to vote? Isn’t this double standard on the part of the government? Leaders who youths can’t vote for today may send them to war tomorrow. Lowering the voting age is the just, fair way to set things straight.