Op-Ed: Come On, Let Us Vote!

Singapore is among the only eight countries in the world with its voting age set at 21 years old. In this Op-Ed, Kate contends that lowering the voting age is a matter of aligning our values. Ultimately, rigidly adhering to the status quo would constitute a disservice to our young.

Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article are the writer’s own and are not representative of MAJU’s views. While we make every effort to ensure that the information shared is accurate, we welcome any comments, suggestions, or corrections of errors.

Credits to Unsplash (Unsplash: Element5 Digital)

During the General Elections 2025 (GE2025) campaign, I casually brought GE up as a dinner topic among friends (who were a mix of Gen Zers and millennials). A response I got from a rather apathetic voting-age millennial was something along the lines of “you’re so young and can’t vote, why do you care about politics?”. The comment struck me — why was it surprising to care about politics at a young age? More importantly, it got me thinking about the reality that I could not vote despite caring and having some stake in Singaporean politics.

Singapore’s voting age has been 21 years old since our first GE in 1948, an eligibility criteria inherited from the British. Globally, we are among the only eight countries, including Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, with a voting age this high.

Discourse about lowering the voting age is not new. It has previously been debated in the Committee of Supply and dialogues have included this as a topic of discussion. However, what is disheartening is the dearth of youth voices advocating for this move. While parliamentarians and political scientists engage in debate, perhaps what matters more are youth voices.

Principally, I believe that 18 to 20 year old Singaporeans should be allowed to vote. For all that the vote symbolises, it is ironic and incongruent to exclude these almost-eligible voters from the electorate.

Value Of The Vote

According to Channel News Asia, a channel owned by Singapore’s state-owned media conglomerate, Singaporeans should vote because it is a pivotal exercise in determining who will lead the nation. By extension, the vote will have an impact on policies which shape daily issues like transportation, cost-of-living, and social support systems. Other significant reasons include accountability, active citizenry, and working towards a “vision for tomorrow”.

If the vote symbolises active citizenry and a say in the direction of the nation’s future, isn’t it ironic that this group of young Singaporeans are prohibited from directly participating in our democracy?

18 year olds in Singapore serve in the military. They could populate highways with their newly-acquired Probation-Plates. They represent the nation at international platforms. They may sign life-changing scholarship documents which determine the course of their education and career. They can go out to work and they often care for their families. Even though these young people have not technically been conferred majority, they can and do come to bear consequential responsibilities not only for themselves but also for others. Resultantly, I find they are more engaged in various domains of Singaporean life than they are given credit for.

Furthermore, they are neither exempt from the impact of policy nor are they entirely uncaring about it. Climate change, cost-of-living, and social issues are pertinent considerations among the young. For example, if we take a look at sustainability in particular, it’s easy to see that young people have a disproportionate stake in the ambitiousness of long-term environmental goals that the state sets and works towards.

The misalignment with our values is apparent. These young people, despite being our future and being active, responsible, and obliged citizens of the nation, are structurally denied representation. Enfranchising them should thus be, above all, a matter of aligning our values.

But…18 Years Old Not Ready Leh…

Democracies often use age as a proxy to determine when citizens are fit to make independent political decisions, among other life decisions (e.g. family formation, housing etc.). In a written reply to a Parliamentary Question in 2019, then-Minister for Trade and Industry Mr Chan Chun Sing emphasised that voting is a decision that requires “experience and maturity”. Ultimately, the Government’s stance is that those qualities are acquired over time. Once a person reaches the age of 21 as their “rights and responsibilities gradually increase”, they will be fit to vote. Similarly, some claims of the lay Singaporean (as I observe on social media) are that these young people are not sensible enough to vote.

Figure 1: Comment on the Asia One video Should Singapore's voting age be 21? 

Their argument falls apart as soon as we acknowledge that political literacy may be acquired intentionally, in addition to being acquired through the passage of time. The concern that younger Singaporeans are not equipped with the appropriate cognitive tools to engage rationally with consequential issues (i.e. politics) is firstly, not entirely true. Studies in the developmental sciences have highlighted that adolescents as young as 16 years old do possess sufficient cognitive capacity to undertake independent political decisions. Anecdotally, it is also not difficult to find fellow under-21 Singaporean youths who are willing and able to think, speak, and write critically about policy and political issues (e.g. youth-run Students 4 A Fossil Free Future, Community for Advocacy and Political Education, etc.) . Secondly, even if there is some truth to the notion that younger voters are more susceptible to rhetoric and bias, it is a problem that can be intentionally mitigated. Targeted political education, which I will expound on later, seems like the logical solution to such a problem. 

Ultimately, I see this as a classic chicken and egg situation. If there is no structural impetus (i.e. the need to vote) to cultivate more mature political discourse among youth, it is less likely that they will embody the maturity we so desire in them. It takes structural and cultural change to develop political maturity, and these changes are a good thing, if we care to develop it. 

A Way Forward

Critical thinking seems like the cornerstone of modern-day education in Singapore. As a student who graduated from Junior College not long ago, “critical thinking” is a buzzword I’ve seen countlessly in syllabus documents and assessment objectives. Regardless of whether genuine “critical thinking” is achieved in academic domains, I propose that it can be achieved through political education. 

Studies have shown that one’s level of political engagement tends to be fossilised in early adolescence, underscoring the critical role of political education in this life stage. If we intentionally carve out space to include political education in the Character and Citizenship Education (commonly known as CCE) curriculum, especially for pre-voting age 15-18 year olds, it can go a long way in developing lifetime political literacy. Such a move could have the effect of curbing political apathy and effectively preparing students to vote, as shown by surveys done in democracies elsewhere. Additionally, a study on Malaysia’s 2019 Undi18 policy revealed that intervention in the form of “comprehensive political education” is critical, alongside the lowering of voting age, to equip youth with the confidence and knowledge to vote. Otherwise, barriers to youth political participation remain. 

Political education thus complements the enfranchisement of young voters. Not only should knowledge about policy, democratic processes, and governance be imparted, a space should also be created in school for students to gradually participate in political discourse with maturity. Furthermore, skills like detecting media falsehoods

as well as being able to grapple with differences in perspective are important in developing a young person’s political maturity. 

It would be remiss in this discussion to neglect the Government’s attempts to include youth voices and cultivate awareness. Dialogues like Singapore Perspectives and policy initiatives like the SG Youth Plan do signal that young people’s concerns are included and will be treated seriously. However, while these dialogues and policy plans have their place, I contend that they are not an alternative to enfranchisement (contrary to Minister Chan Chun Sing’s counterproposal in the 2019 speech). Often voluntary in nature, these initiatives are limited in structurally activating political participation the way that lowering the voting age and political education might.  

Principle And Beyond

To conclude, lowering the voting age should not be a difficult pill to swallow: it rides on the already-present trend of increased political participation among youth. Nonetheless, I fundamentally argue it is only principled that we work towards allowing 18-20 year olds to vote. 

Beyond principle, lowering the voting age is good for Singapore. Although it was not discussed in this article, enfranchising 18-20 year olds has the potential to be highly beneficial in ensuring a more diverse range of issues (and voices!) are represented and legitimised. As other countries have shown, lowering the voting age is likely to promote sustained civic engagement in the long term. This is surely something Singapore needs. 

---

About the Author: Kate is working towards a Linguistics degree at NUS. You'll find her either explaining what linguistics is, writing, or dancing.