Letter: No inconsistency in setting voting age at 21

Dear Editor,

I refer to the letter entitled “If they are old enough to die for their country, why not old enough to vote?” by Concerned Citizen. Concerned Citizen makes numerous errors of logic and fact in his letter that I will address here.

First, Concerned Citizen claims that if 18-year-olds are mature enough to receive the death penalty for their crimes, they should also be mature enough to vote. This is a fallacy: It assumes that the level of maturity required in voting is equivalent to the level of maturity needed to be responsible for one’s own actions.

This is not the case. Politics and governance in Singapore is complicated, and the policies enacted are crafted by elite scholars and bureaucrats. As such, the average 18-year-old will lack the mental acuity needed to understand the subtle merits of our policies and vote accordingly. With three more years in the workforce, university or the army, they would be better-equipped to appreciate the strengths and accomplishments of the ruling party and thus vote more wisely.

On the other hand, it doesn’t take much maturity or intelligence to follow the law without asking questions, and our education system trains our youth to become extremely adept at doing that by age 18. That is why we hold 18-year-olds fully responsible for committing crimes.

Secondly, Concerned Citizen also argues that if Singaporean males are “old enough” to fight and die for their country at age 18, they should also be old enough to vote.

We assure him that 18-year-olds are indeed old enough to die for their country. In fact, we have run numerous experiments on this issue, with subjects ranging from newborn babies to 90-year-old women. When subjected to a fatal event (such as poison, electrocution or gunshots), all of the subjects died without exception. Thus, the results are unequivocal: No one is too young to die.

We also note that in National Servitude (NS), recruits are only required to follow the orders of their superiors unquestioningly. As with following the law, this task doesn’t require great maturity or intelligence.

Finally, Concerned Citizen advocates that we follow the ideals and examples of Western liberal democracies in setting the voting age. We wish to emphasise that Singapore adheres to Asian values, and will not uncritically adopt Western liberal ideas that have resulted in protests, instability and inefficient governments.

We think our model has worked well. These are matters that each society has to decide for itself, and, of course, in such matters, the rules must keep pace with changes in society as well. We assure Concerned Citizen that the Government will continue to help society decide what it wants.

S. Atan (Ms)

Head, Corporate Communications,

Ministry of Legalism

Letter: If they are old enough to die for their country, why not old enough to vote?

Dear Editor,

I refer to the issue of the voting age in Singapore.

I question the validity of setting the minimum age to vote at 21. At age 18, youths are considered to be fully responsible for their actions, and are even eligible for the death penalty. If they are mature enough to be hung by the neck till dead for their crimes, why are they deemed too young to vote?

Also, from age 18, all Singaporean males are drafted into the army and compelled to take up arms to defend their country. In the process, they bear the risk of being injured or dying. If 18-year-old males are deemed mature enough to die for their country, it seems inconsistent and unreasonable to claim that they are not old enough to vote and decide on their country’s leadership.

It is further downright immoral to force young men into the army by governmental fiat without giving them a say in who forms the government. Western governments adhere to the ideal of “no taxation without representation”; is it too much to ask for “no conscription without representation” in Singapore?

In order to uphold the principles of justice, morality and consistency, the Government should lower the voting age to 18, as most other liberal democracies have done.

Concerned Citizen

MM Lee explains need for vague and secretive laws

SINGAPORE – Minister Master Lee Ka Yu has explained the rationale behind Singapore’s vague and secretive laws in an exclusive interview with Serious News.

His defence of the current laws comes after widespread citizen dissatisfaction towards the city-state’s opaque legal system. Singapore’s legal system is characterised by vaguely-worded laws that allow judges maximum discretion to interpret the laws as they see fit. Another distinctive feature of Singapore’s legal system is that bureaucrats in government statutory boards are vested with the full powers of judge, jury and prosecutor when overseeing activities within their sphere of regulation. The Internal Suppression Act further affords the government the authority to detain anyone whose activities are so innocuous that they even escape the ambit of Singapore’s catch-all laws.

The following is an edited excerpt of our interview with MM Lee.

Serious News (SN): What do you make of calls for more transparency in the legal system?

MM Lee: There have always been these calls for transparency and we have been careful about it. There are reasons why we do not think we should be too transparent.

One, people will anticipate the limits of our legal powers. No government likes to have its authority curtailed by clearly demarcated laws. If you make your laws very clear, people can then forestall your attempts to punish or detain them by exploiting legal loopholes. They might even pre-empt you by saying that what they do is perfectly legal according to the law or the constitution.

Two, you raise the expectations of your own people. If you write your laws to make it clear that there is no freedom of speech and assembly in your country, then people will have a basis of objective comparison. They will say, “Why are we so backward in terms of human rights compared to every other First World nation?” They will agitate for more lenient laws and greater liberties, which will then lead to protests and riots that will topple your economic system and lead to racial and religious violence. Some people might even have to work as maids in neighbouring countries as a result.

SN: But other First World Countries – many of them equally multiracial – also enjoy peace, stability and prosperity. Yet they have a clear, objective legal system and allow their citizens more rights and freedoms.

MM Lee: No, no, no. They have a different view. They need to answer to their citizens every four years. We don’t have to – our electoral system is such that it is virtually impossible for our party to ever be voted out. We have to think in terms of the next 10, 20, 30 years. We are engineering a country that we intend to keep for the next two, three decades.

Maybe we’re wrong, and we’ll pay for it. But so far, we have kept a firm hold on power. On the whole, we have managed to retain at least two out of every three votes cast in the elections, so we’re not so bad. Singaporeans keep electing us back into power in spite of all our alleged flaws.

MOE designs new formula to teach creativity

SINGAPORE – After three years of intensive research and development, the Ministry of Enlightenment has created a new programme to help teachers teach creativity in the classrooms.

At the heart of the new programme is a precise formula – named iCan – that has been proven to make students more creative.

Serious News has managed to obtain an excerpt of the classified formula, and has reproduced it below:

i – “i” stands for innovation. The “i” is uncapitalised to echo innovative products like the iPod. Students will be instilled with the spirit of innovation through readings of the biographies of famous innovators like Adam Smith, Deng Xiaoping and Lee Kuan Yew. At the end of the semester, students will undergo an “innovation examination” to assess their grasp of the prescribed readings.

C – “C” stands for creativity. Students will be taught to become more creative through creative writing and film-making projects. Students will be assigned tasks that will stretch their creativity – such as designing a poster to explain how GST hikes benefit the poor. Another possible creative project would be to film a rap song to improve the image of government agencies like the MDA.

a – “a” stands for art. Students will be trained to become more artistic with compulsory 15-minute Arts Appreciation Sessions (AAS) every school morning. During AAS, students will listen to classical music by luminaries like Bach, Beethoven and Mozart for 15 minutes while watching a slideshow of creative art pieces like Munch’s “The Scream” and Da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa”. The music and art pieces used for AAS will be derived from an “approved list of creative artwork” compiled by MOE and MDA administrators.

n – “n” stands for nation. In order to ensure that students trained to become creative talents under this programme stay and contribute to Singapore after they graduate, nationalistic themes will be subtly incorporated into the creative programme. For example, during AAS, one of the slides in the art slideshow can be that of a PAP logo. The innovation exam may also include a few questions on how Singapore progressed from the Third World to First in a few short decades.

According to the MOE, iCan has been experimentally tested and proven to produce more creative students. Said the Minister for Enlightenment, Mr Ngo Egg Hen, “We tested the programme on a group of 500 ‘A’ level students randomly chosen from local junior colleges. The results were astouding – the students experienced an average of 66% improvement in their level of creativity, as determined by the number of As they scored in the ‘A’ level examinations compared to a mock examination of similar difficulty they had taken before the start of the one-year programme.”

When asked why the programme was not tested on Polytechnic and ITE students too, Mr Ngo replied, “We did not test the programme on them as they do not take the ‘A’ levels, which is the only examination we have currently that can identify talents.

“The chief objective of the programme is to groom creative artistes who will help us realise our dreams of becoming an arts and media hub, and nurture innovative leaders who will take up the mantle of governance for the next generation. We firmly believe that with iCan, we can.”

MDA fines MediaCrap for airing pro-left-handedness scene

SINGAPORE – The Media Dictatorship Authority has fined MediaCrap, Singapore’s sole producer of television programmes, a sum of $10,000 for airing a show that depicted a boy using his left hand in a way that “promotes a left-handed lifestyle”.

The station aired an episode of a national education series called “I Love My Country” that featured a classroom of students undergoing national education. In response to a question asked by the teacher (“How does the Internal Security Act help protect Singapore?”), a male student raised his left hand. The teacher was shown to smile, nod and acknowledge the boy, allowing him to answer.

The MDA said that the teacher’s approval and acknowledgement of the boy “normalises and encourages left-handedness”, and was in breach of rules on free-to-air television programming, which disallows content that promotes, justifies or glamorises the left-handed lifestyle.

When interviewed, the MDA spokesperson, Mr Fandi said, “Singapore is still largely a conservative society, where more than 90% of Singaporeans are right-handed. Most Singaporeans frown on left-handedness, and television stations should air programmes that are in line with the moral sentiments of the majority of Singaporeans.

“We cannot mature as a society if the mass media constantly challenges our moral beliefs and presents alternative lifestyles as if they were normal, functional or acceptable.”

Mr Kom Ply Ian, executive vice-president of programming and production for MediaCrap, said, “It was completely our fault. We have a team of in-house censors who scrupulously vet all our programmes for undesirable ideas and material, but while they are all trained to tell right from wrong, they were not trained to tell left from right.

“As a result, that scene slipped through our nets.

“However, we realise our mistake and have reshot that scene. In the revised and improved edition, the teacher frowns at the boy and scolds him for raising his left hand. The discipline master is called in and the boy is sent for behavioural therapy in order to regain normal right-handed functioning. A close-up of the boy’s hurt, tear-streaked face is taken to underscore the message that a left-handed lifestyle only brings pain and suffering.

“We hope that in view of our efforts, the MDA would consider reducing the fine. We promise that such an incident will not happen again.”

CEO resigns over missing toilet roll

SINGAPORE – The Chief Executive Officer of CleanWorks, Mr Won Ken Ching, has resigned over a missing toilet roll.

CleanWorks is a publicly listed company manufacturing toilet cleaning equipment.

Mr Won’s resignation comes after tremendous employee outrage over the lack of a toilet roll in the company restroom.

The toilet roll was normally placed in a common dispenser located beside the sinks in the company restroom. However, the dispenser was empty for a week, leaving employees who use the toilet stranded.

The employee who was at the forefront of the employee protest, Ms Mashit, said, “Due to my lack of time in the mornings, I am accustomed to keeping my needs on hold until I arrive at the company. Thus, I was the first to realise that the dispenser had run out of tissue. I reported it immediately, but no action was taken until after seven days later!

“It is totally unacceptable.”

When interviewed, Mr Won said, “There was a delay in replacing the toilet roll as it took some time for the independent committee to investigate the matter and arrive at its conclusions and recommendations.”

Serious News understands that an independent committee consisting of an external hygiene auditor, a retired senior janitor, and the company’s HR Director was established, following the report of the missing toilet roll.

The Committee encountered difficulties in tracking down the culprit who extricated the toilet roll from its dispenser without permission. It eventually discovered that the toilet roll was not removed; rather, it was never placed there to begin with. The janitor-on-duty was unable to replace the toilet roll as the stockpile of toilet rolls in the utility cabinet had been exhausted.

The stockpile of toilet rolls was not replenished as the company’s HR Department experienced a budgetary shortfall for that month, and could not afford new stock.

The HR Director explained, “The company’s coffee machine broke down in March, and we were faced with the decision of whether to divert funds to purchase a new one.

“We felt that coffee was more important than toilet paper since the former boosts productivity while the latter encourages toilet breaks.”

Said Ms Mashit, “Ultimately, it is not the janitor’s fault or the HR Department’s fault. The CEO is to blame for not allocating enough funds to the HR Department. He should have foreseen unforeseen circumstances like coffee machine breakdowns and made the necessary adjustments.

“This is even more appalling considering that we are a company manufacturing toilet equipment. If we can’t even keep our own toilets equipped, how can we equip others?”