A certain Mr Seet hasn't quite got his political theories right. Here is the rather poorly-argued letter to the Straits Times.
from the Straits Times forum page, 17 May 2008
VOTING AND NS NOT QUITE THE SAME
EQUATING serving national service (NS) to qualifying to vote is wrong.
Serving national service is just a baby step towards understanding the great importance of politics.
We know politics is about taking sides.
Politics also often involves envy, self-interest and, worse, blind loyalty.
Race, religion and money also revolve around politics.
An 18-year-old must be able to see through the ulterior motives of opposing factions.
But at such an age, he may not have the experience to distinguish between myth and motive.
Years ago, we started work at 16 years of age.
At 21, we were already exposed to the workings of society for a full five years.
We felt and understood the hardships that people go through, their success and also the cunning that abounds in this world.
Today, an 18-year-old Singaporean would have only just completed his basic schooling.
He has little knowledge of the realities of the outside world.
National service is just one of the many training sessions that prepare and equip a youth to live his life.
We cannot equate qualifying for national service to qualifying to vote.
Seet King Hwee
Let's start with "understanding the great importance of politics".
By this I understand he means the comprehension of the power and responsibility invested in a person who has the right to vote.
Let me get this straight - if NS is a "baby step" towards that, then what should we make of the ability of about 50% of our population to make an informed decision in an election? After all, women do not have to serve NS. By insinuation, they have, in Mr Seet's eyes, lost out on 2 formative years of political education since they do not have to serve, albeit they lose out merely on "baby steps".
Does Mr Seet thus contend we have to delay the female voting age to compensate for a supposed delay in the development of their political awareness? No.
Why? The easy answer is such a move would be dismissed as sexist. But if Mr Seet regards maturity and political awareness as such vital qualities in a voter, so much so that 18-year-olds are arbitrarily discounted as immature, while 21-year-olds are deemed capable of wise decisions on unqualified grounds, then wouldn't 2 years of NS make an incredible difference?
"We know politics is about taking sides."
Really? Who's we? I'm certainly not one of them. Cheap use of rhetoric here, to predetermined the answer to the unasked question - what politics are about. Assumption made here by Mr Seet - we know it is about taking sides, because it's true. Tautological.
In any case, politics is quitely simply a decision-making process. In itself, politics has nothing to do with taking sides. Taking sides is how some people try to stifle the process - partisan politics. I.e. the political divide you see for instance in the US - Democratic Party versus the Republican Party. Within both parties, there are wide spectrums of opinion, but they align themselves to the Democratic or GOP brand to extend their range of support and audience.
"Politics also often involves envy, self-interest and, worse, blind loyalty."
Then wouldn't NS be even more appropriate? After all, it's two years of "discipline", "work ethic", office politics, sabotaging, backstabbing, nationalist indoctrination (your blind loyalty right there). Two years of the "hardships that people go through", two years of the "outside world".
(I have another problem with this use of the term "outside world". What is the "outside world"? So if a soldier signs on at 16, and progresses through the ranks till 21, should he be deemed unworthy of a vote, since he hasn't seen the "outside world"? Now that I've seen the world beyond Singaporean shores, a world more outside than what he apparently means by "outside world" does it make me a better qualified voter?)
Mr Seet not only doesn't qualify his argument against allowing NSmen to vote, but also inadvertently opens a new line of query into his views on women suffrage.
"Politics also often involves envy, self-interest and, worse, blind loyalty."
Once again on this statement. He later argues that at 18, one "may not have the experience to distinguish between myth and motive." Yet he confesses that politics is full of self-interest and BLIND LOYALTY. The political scene is already permeated with blind voters, by his own admission, who arguably vote out of pure party identification and little consideration of policy or other pertinent factors. Such blind voters are above 18, and yet are no wiser despite their age.
Should we disenfranchise them then?
"National service is just one of the many training sessions that prepare and equip a youth to live his life."
So how many of these training sessions must one go through before one is qualified to vote? What about female citizens? Wouldn't them being shortchanged of 2 years of "life training" make them less qualified voters?
"Today, an 18-year-old Singaporean would have only just completed his basic schooling.
"He has little knowledge of the realities of the outside world."
A plausibly true statement that cannot be empirically tested. A personal anecdotal opinion. But is this a valid reason to deny an 18-year-old the vote, and grant it to a 21-year-old? This We don't grant voting rights to 21-year-olds just because they know the realities of the world anyway.
It is plausible for an 18-20 year-old to earn enough income to pay income tax - the minimum annual income is $22,000. But can we legitimately tax someone yet not allow him any means to influence how his money will be spent?
"Years ago, we started work at 16 years of age."
How is this even a legitimate starting point of an argument is beyond me. The assumption is, if you work and earn money, you gain political wisdom, ergo you have the qualifications to vote.
So the crux of his waffling is - at 18, you are not wise enough to vote, because you haven't seen anything. By 21, after 3 years of working life, you are a wise young citizen - responsible and informed.
Mr Seet instantly digs his own grave. In terms of this debate anyway. By arguing the case against giving the vote to NSFs on fraudulent gounds, he is unable to square off his concept of suffrage with the wider issues in the democratic electoral process. Quite clearly, he had no real basis for his argument or any understanding of the nuances of the electoral process. He had a pre-determined thesis, and set out to prove it with a poor selection of untruths and unqualified opinions.
We do not deny the vote to people on grounds of mental deficiency. We do not deny the vote to people on the grounds of intelligence, wisdom, naivety or how easily they are persuaded by outside influence. If we do, which is essentially what Mr Seet implies, then the right to vote is would have to be qualified by the relevant tests of these values.
A democracy doesn't work this way.
We give people the vote because our government's decisions have an immense influence over their lives. We give people the vote so that they can have a say in the decision-making process of this country - so that the decisions reflect to some degree the collective will of the people, regardless of their intellectual ability.
The question of intellectual ability is addressed in the process of electing our MPs and our govt. We elect who we deem as our elite (hopefully with great compassion and humility into the bargain) - the most capable and intellectually endowed people of our nation - to run the country in the best possible way, while adhering to our wishes via the democratic process that holds them accountable.
How about this. At 18, you are conscripted, without freedom of choice, to serve in the military or perhaps in the police force or civil defence force. You are demanded, by virtue of being a male Singaporean citizen, to be ready to sacrifice your own life in a feat of arms, to defend our way of life and our nation's sovereignty. You are forced to bear arms (no Jehovah Witnesses allowed in Singapore, so no legitimate conscientious objection) and possibly use deadly force on people who violate our laws and harm our citizens and property (guard duty personnel, NS policemen etc are issued with live rounds and have the power to deal death in the appropriate circumstances).
All this are considerable responsibilities to shoulder. Grave, in fact. And you haven't a choice if you are male. How do you justify conscription without representation? That you demand young men to possibly die for your country, yet they have no say in how this country is to be run? No way to hold their leaders accountable? Yet these leaders may one day make a decision that results in the loss of their lives?
If anything, this is considerably worse than taxation without representation - a cardinal sin in a democracy.
As a matter of principle, defenders of democracy should be participants of democracy. If we demand our men to serve and protect our way of life, they should have a say in the governance of this way of life. Otherwise, we are better off hiring mercenaries. Blackwater or Gurkhas, anyone?
Ancient Greeks, Athenians, Spartans, etc, fought for their republic city-states, their way of life, and gave their lives to defend their right to live as free men - citizens of the state who have the constitutionally enshrined right to vote and decide on their collective future.
For over 40 years, Singapore - a city-state and professed democracy, a republic no less (constitutionally speaking) - has denied a significant portion of its citizen-soldiers the right to vote.
Perhaps that should end now.
