Speech at Workers’ Party Youth Wing YouthQuake Forum: “Should Singaporean Youths be Allowed to Vote at 18?”
3rd May 2008

Having served for a little more than over a year since March 2006, my term in national service has been marked with its own moments of glories and downfalls - there were the highs, instances where all efforts seem to have come to fruition, all the fatigue, sadness and tears redeemed and the success rendering all sacrifices worthwhile; and there were the inevitable occasions where you were at the very nadir, when self-defeatism rears its head and existentialist questions comes into play - and you begin questioning why you are even there, why you even bother to serve. But it is no different from what other men would describe; the quintessential NS experience: bittersweet, but no less a meaningful sacrifice.

And the state recognizes this sacrifice - we are bestowed with numerous perks and benefits, made available through the good offices of their statutory boards and quasi-governmental agencies. We enjoy movie concessions on weekends, discounts at selected retail outlets and restaurants and access to sports and recreational facilities courtesy of SAFRA, while concession prices are offered for theatre tickets, and we can get a waiver for our mobile phone subscriptions. However, these consolation benefits make our greatest right ever more elusive - the recognition of our service to the nation, of our sacrifice of two years of prime youth does not extend to the right to vote.

And this is where the inconsistency lies: despite fulfilling the dues of citizenship and carrying out our national duty as prescribed by our Singaporean citizenship, we do not get accorded the full rights of citizenship. And this is akin to taxation without representation - the rallying call of the Americans against the imposition of taxes by the British colonial power. A Boston politician, James Otis, went so far as to declare that “taxation without representation is tyranny.” And it is an act of tyranny that we are excluded suffrage despite contributing to the upkeep of the nation.

I believe that it should be an inherent principle of democracy to extend suffrage to those who are serving the interests of the nation, particularly for those who provide for the finances and the defence of the state. The finance and defence of the state are the two important pillars by which the state derives its power and exercise its sovereignty from; and in defence lies the central and critical factor to the state’s existence since it serves as a guarantee and protection of its sovereign right. It goes without saying that without a viable military capability or an effective defence capacity, the state would find it vulnerable to encroachments to its territorial and sovereign integrity.

The arrangement of National Service therefore accords a huge and heavy responsibility to the serving conscripts, as it provides the right to bear arms and be the guardians of the land - a duty never trivial. This suggests that the government has an implicit trust in the NSFs (Full-time National Servicemen) to undertake such a critical responsibility; however a similar trust to enfranchise us into the electorate remains lacking.

The right of eighteen years old to vote was gained dearly in the United States, when eighteen year-olds were drafted to serve and fight for the American stand against communism in Indochina. The Vietnam War exacted a substantial casualty toll - and it mostly constituted of teenagers without a voice in the political process and therefore had no access to the authority that deployed them into the warzone. The push for reduction therefore rested on the campaign premise that if you are “old enough to fight, [you are] old enough to vote.” In 1971, the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18 at the federal level, with states rapidly following suit for local elections - making it one of the quickest ratifications in history. The American public recognized and endeavoured to reconcile the fact that these 18 years old were being conscripted yet were deprived of a voice in the democratic process of the country; despite dying for the nation’s cause, they were still disenfranchised. The recognition of their service and sacrifice in the form of medals, commendations and financial compensations were deemed hollow, as they were not endowed with the full rights of citizenship despite being true patriots prepared to sacrifice their lives. It was an anomaly, and one that was quickly rectified, that the most courageous and boldest citizens had no representation in politics, in spite of being the most deserving to have a voice.

While it is true that an outbreak of war in Singapore (and servicemen dying to protect the nation) is unlikely, it misses the point as the central tenet to the reduction campaign was that those serving in the military should have the right to choose the political authority that wields the power to deploy them. It reiterates the state’s accountability to its tools of state, one of which is the armed forces. The soldiers should be able to question, and the government answer for, the state and condition of the military and its personnel, and enfranchising those serving would provide them with a voice to air their concerns and grievances.

And when we examine two nations with an active conscription policy, it would bolster the argument to draw down the voting age. In Finland and Israel, the culture of national service is deeply entrenched - and it is the latter from which we drew inspiration to develop our own National Service model. And these two countries have a voting age of 18.

In Israel, it would be difficult to justify excluding the men and women who serves three-year terms and are deployed in warzones and hostile areas like the West Bank and Gaza, where there is a real and active threat of fatality involved. It would provoke moral outrage, and seem outrightly reprehensible, if the State of Israel were to deny representation to those who are thrown into the midst of battle and are ready to undertake the ultimate sacrifice for the country. Again, there is little scope for applicability to the Singapore context, since the casualties that we sustain is not through wars or battles, but only through training accidents. And this is obviously not sufficient enough to compel the authorities to recognize the sacrifice that we undertake; and it remains that our commitment to defend Singapore “with our lives” - inscribed in the pledge we undertake on the first day of enlistment - does not compel for an equal commensuration of political rights.

In Finland, there has been a history of reduction in voting age from 24 to 18 - and it is considered one of the most progressive democracies in the world, being the first nation to introduce women suffrage. Its conscription model bears close resemblance to Singapore, with mandatory service in either in the military or civilian branch, with the option of armed or unarmed vocations for the former. The duration of service varies accordingly to the training, vocation and rank - those in technical, specialized vocations, or holding command and leadership roles such as commissioned and non-commissioned officers will be liable for a longer service term - an arrangement that almost parallels the Singapore system. And the Finnish model has a corresponding political arrangement that bestows voting rights to eighteen years old; a change effectuated in 1972, which, along with other objectives such as increasing voter turnout, was an effort to enfranchise those serving in the military. The change was a gesture of recognition and credit of thanks for the services these conscripts rendered to the country - and the central principle governing this arrangement was that if a citizen fulfills the necessary obligations and renders service to the country as stipulated under the dues of his citizenship, there should be a corresponding commitment by the state to endow the full rights of citizenship that can be enjoyed, in particular the right to vote.

And these two countries are not alone in their stand to accord serving conscripts a vote; countries such as Germany, Greece, Russia, Norway and Turkey have similar conscription and voting arrangements. Interestingly in Turkey, the right to vote is accorded at 18 even though conscription begins at 20 - the right to vote is granted in anticipation of the conscript’s future service, even though he was not at the moment fulfilling that due.

Despite international precedents and the moral and political right that powers the argument for the reduction in voting age, there will still be concerns about maturity of these eighteen years old. However, if these eighteen years old conscripts were to be considered immature to grasp the intricacies of the political process, then the implementation of National Service would constitute as an irresponsible act since it would be akin to providing a child with a loaded gun. The right to bear arms, as previously stated, is a responsibility, a heavy duty, that should not be trivialized or trifled with - and if the state believes that these eighteen years old could undertake such a duty, then it consistently follows that he is of sufficient sound mind to make an informed decision.

This discrepancy represents an inconsistent practice that has to be resolved, because it weakens the value of democracy and political ownership in Singapore. As it stands, there is a selective allocation of duties of state without a commensurate political compensation - it would be no less than exploitation to have conscripts undertake responsibility for burdens of the state but to deprive them of the perks and rewards. The situation is a one-sided social contract that unfairly penalizes the serving conscripts, and there is no moral justification to perpetuate the practice.

Also, for maturity to be considered as a prerequisite for the right to vote remains tenuous, as it would potentially disqualify a substantial portion of the electorate since age is not necessarily a convenient barometer of maturity. There are many middle-aged men and the elderly who do not make informed decisions when they vote, but yet they are not disqualified from voting. To say that every citizen at and after the age of 21 is mature is dubious, and it demeans the argument that the right to vote should be coupled with maturity.

The right to vote should essentially be accorded to recognize the contributions of citizens and provide them with a legitimate mean of voicing their concerns; and in the context of national service, the right to vote recognizes the services of the conscripts in providing for the perpetuated existence of the nation through defence.

It has to be remembered that a citizenship both discharges obligations and grants rights, and the government must allow individuals to exercise both - that is, to carry out their obligations and also enjoy the rights. The incongruity of serving NS but not having a vote means that the conscript only has the former, and that is an unfair arrangement that requires redress.

Also, there will be a concern that providing NSFs the right to vote would bring politics into the barracks and camps; there is a worry that there will be a politicization of the military. The fear is that the army will be wreaked along divisive partisan lines, and it will cease to function. There is no discernable logic in this - as there is a very real distinction between the military as an institution, and the military in terms of its personnel. The military as an institution can, and should and must, remain neutral to affairs related to the civilian and political realm, but that is not achieved by depriving its personnel the right to vote. The right to vote empowers servicemen with a voice in the political process in their personal capacity, as an individual citizen. They do not vote as representatives of the military, but as private citizens with their own share of concerns and aspirations. To deprive voting rights on the grounds that one is a military personnel is quite hard to justify (particularly since they are serving the nation), and that logic would entail regulars should be disbarred from voting as well, an arrangement which would undoubtedly be of much displeasure to them.

Also, political participation would transform the NS experience into a more meaningful one - as it contrives to provide a sense of ownership to the conscript. Many would attest to becoming cynical, jaded and detached after serving for two years, and while the right to vote would not cure this malaise, it would go some way in ameliorating the low morale pervasive in the institution. The right to vote would adduce further motivation for the conscript to discharge his responsibilities to the best of his abilities, as a direct link has been forged between the citizen-soldier and the nation; there is an intertwining of fates: the soldier recognizes that his success is the nation’s success, and the nation’s success his. This sense of ownership and empowerment in the country’s affair is greatly lacking, and contributes to the poor appreciation of national service by the citizens of this country. The right to vote would, in its own little way, do much to transform the fundamental perspective to national service.