Whether 18-year-olds are politically mature enough to vote is at the center of an ongoing debate about lowering the voting age.
If 18-year-old high-school students are considered too immature, how do we expect them to mature within two years to be able to make sound political decisions as 20-year-old college students?
As high-school students, due to their age, are not allowed to vote, schools have maintained an illusory image of political neutrality, which might have made students seem “immature” in the eyes of the public: aloof and disengaged from politics and public affairs.
In candidates’ campaigns ahead of the Nov. 26 local elections, far more time has been spent on debating smears and allegations than policies.
Candidates base their campaigns on the voter demographic they intend to win over. It has been a letdown to see that issues concerning young people and policies that affect them have hardly played a role, as this demographic is apparently considered too unimportant.
Many candidates seem to consider policies regarding start-ups, employment, the low birthrate and residence subsidies enough in terms of youth-related policies. Perhaps this is closely related to the harsh reality of the population structure.
On the other hand, if a referendum on lowering the voting age passes, it would broaden the voter base, and younger people — a minority within the electorate — could finally be seen and heard.
If people aged 18 to 20 were allowed to vote in future elections, it would address the issue of policy fatigue among young people, and youth-related topics would play a larger role in the political discourse.
Those planning to run for office would have to listen to young people and address issues that concern them. The discourse would become broader, paving the way for a more diverse and inclusive society.
Eighteen-year-olds today have had a more diverse learning environment, more access to information and enjoyed a more open political environment than previous generations. Compared with people of my generation, their capacity for having their own opinions and making political judgements is clearly not inferior to ours.
The judgement needed to vote in local elections is not much different from that needed to vote on a referendum. Eighteen-year-olds are already allowed to vote on referendums.
It would be a pity for 18-year-olds to miss out on public affairs engagement just because of an age restriction based on the groundless notion that they are “not mature enough.”
Prior to the referendum on the voting age, Taiwan has seen many people give their lives and time in exchange for democracy and liberty. Because of them, we are given the opportunity to amend the Constitution via referendums and set new milestones for Taiwan’s democracy.
On Nov. 26, a “yes” vote on the referendum would give the next generation support, ensuring their engagement and confidence to participate in public affairs.
Ko Chia-wei is a former National Chengchi University Student Association president.
Translated by Rita Wang
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS