EQUAL OBLIGATIONS = EQUAL RIGHTS ( or should be )

19 May 1994


        I refer to Mr Tan Bah Bah's column This week's News that 
matters to you (Sunday Plus, May 15).
        Mr Tan dismissed as "wrong" the objections to Senior 
Minister (SM) Lee Kuan Yew's proposal to give double weight (not an 
extra vote) to the vote cast by a 35- to 60-year-old person who is 
married with children. He made a few points to support his conclusion 
that "the proposed change is in itself not that bad." His arguments are 
specious.
        Firstly, Mr Tan claimed that giving double weight to the vote 
of an older adult follows from the principle of restricting the vote to 
those deemed responsible, i.e. adults. This is a non sequitur because the 
vote is restricted to adults not only on the grounds of greater maturity 
but also for the reason that adults have more legal and social obligations 
than minors. These obligations are an inseparable part of 
enfranchisement.
        Mr Tan implied that the older adult is more responsible than 
the younger adult. The corollary then is that the younger adult should 
have fewer obligations. However, insofar as we insist that all adults 
shoulder the same obligations, we hold that all adults are equally 
responsible. Therefore, all adults should have the same voting power.
        Mr Tan also said that when Singaporeans become part of the 
privileged group of 35- to 60-year-olds, "all [our] previous objections 
would become irrelevant." Applying the same "logic", should he not 
conclude that: since most Singaporeans would eventually age out of the 
privileged group, the objections are always relevant? His argument is 
not only specious but it also insults the integrity of those who objected 
to SM's proposal by insinuating that their objections arose out of base 
self-interest. Mr Tan is also overly contemptuous to think that the 
dissenters will be easily seduced by the promise of being part of the 
privileged group.
        We are meant to be reassured with the soothing words that the 
proposed change "merely offers an extra vote to a particular group." 
Oh, really? This "extra vote" is no mere thing and it fortunately resists 
Mr Tan's effort to minimise its significance. The double weight 
increases the power of an arbitrarily defined group to determine the 
course of our country, with the attendant worries of a tyranny being 
established. Of course you will still have a vote even if you are not part 
of that group but your right to equal representation is effectively 
abrogated. Meanwhile, you are expected to continue to fulfil the same 
obligations as those in the privileged group. Is this fair?
        Mr Tan asserted that the "real worry" lies in implementation: 
"Where does one go from here? Where does one draw the line?" I 
submit that the debate is not over the technical "hows" but rather the 
philosophical "whys" of the proposal. Until we are convinced of that 
the proposal is sound, why waste our time discussing how to 
implement it? A change of such import should not be accepted merely 
because it is "not that bad." It must be unequivocally "good".