Singapore’s Age limits
I’ll like to hear the rationale for the following contradictions :
21 years old age limit for R(21) movies
21 yrs old age limit for voting
18 yr old age limit to drive
16 yr old age limit for killing someone or being killed in war (NS age limit)
(you can’t vote for the govt you want, even tho’ the govt who comes to power has the authority to send you to war to die)
16 yr old age limit for age of consent to sex
( i can’t understand how people think that we should not lower the R(21) movie age limit, should not let our 16 year olds learn about sex in sch, do not want our 16 year olds having sex, but shoud lower the 16 yr old age of consent)
16 yr old age limit for sentencing someone to death for drug crimes
(http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2009/yax-1074.htm)
14 yr old age limit for being given to marriage legally
(even tho’ they have no capacity to vote their govt, or to handle a R(21) movie, they can be allowed to make a lifetime commitment , and have kids at 15yr old??)
Explain this to me, someone, please!
11 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
The R21 age-limit is actually for the benefit of cinema goers. Otherwise you’ll be too distracted by all the giggling around you to enjoy the show properly.
If you’re below 21 and want to watch R21 movies, you can get them from video shops.
“14 yr old age limit for being given to marriage legally”
You really shouldn’t put this up. It may give a perception (or reality?) of your lack of knowledge on historical culture.
This law is really a “antique-law” from the previous generation (or maybe 2 generations ago). Just 100-150 years ago, the notion of child brides is probably not so foreign in Singapore.
Note that it is “given to marriage”. There’s no consent on the part of the teenager. No “I do”, exchange of rings, mutual kisses. They did not make the choice on the “lifetime commitment”.
I don’t think anyone in Singapore does this any more.
For those who do make the choice on lifetime commitment, between age 18-21, parental consent is required. No parental consent is required above age 21.
Of course i’m aware CM, I wish you would stop insulting me.
And what you’ve said is precisely my point. Antique-laws.
It’s one thing to understand how it got there.
It’s another thing altogether to justify why it ought to REMAIN there
Can’t you take a little comments? Or perhaps I should say, please stop giving people the wrong perception?
I think you missed the point.
This particular “antique-law” has a historical/cultural background.
Are you saying that such a practice is wrong? Do you condemn such a culture? On what authority then?
It is essential for this particular “antique-law” to be there because the State has to make it clear that we embrace and tolerate (to different extents) different cultures.
In this particular case, the State is giving individuals the freedom to carry out this practice. At the same time, the State is stepping in by imposing an age limit, so that there won’t be something undesirable like having 6 year old brides, pregnant at 12 and bodies destroyed by 20.
In this particular matter, I find your approach rather authoritarian. I like. LOL.
At 14 you get married but don’t have sex until 16. At 16 you can have sex but can’t watch dirty movies….
Clearly, somebody forgot to harmonise the laws. I think the laws were made at different times and because we are a ‘conservative’ society we never trottle back the laws after they are made like 477A. Moving the age of consent to 14 will really get the Christian fundamentalists going. But 14 was the marriage age because some Asian cultures allowed child marriages and arranged marriages.
As for dirty movies at 16. Remember this wasn’t even allowed at all regardless of age. Then we had the ‘R’ movies …..plenty of protests from the conservatives so the compromise was ‘RA’ – A for artistic elements as excuse for showing the dirty parts. Why 16? I really don’t know because with the internet, a few clicks and you get porn…so it doesn’t really make sense to stop the 16 yr old from watching RA – he has to go to the cinema, pay for a ticket and sit through all the artistic parts. Same with playboy magazine – does it make sense these days to ban it?
its just that isn’t it?
” somebody forgot to harmonise the laws.”
so when people argue for the validity of laws that are there only because someone forgot to harmonise it, it becomes perplexing
Some clarifications:
(1) For non-Muslim marriages, there is a 3-tiered regime. If both parties are over 21, their consent is sufficient. If one or both parties are under 21, parental consent or a court order is required (s. 13 of the Women’s Charter read with the Second Schedule). In addition, if one or both parties are under 18, a “special marriage licence” is needed (s. 9), and the ROM apparently requires the parties to undergo counselling / interviews first.
For Muslim marriages, the general rule is that the parties must be over 18; however, if the girl has attained the age of puberty, the Kadi may in “special circumstances” solemnize the marriage (s. 96(4)-(5) of the Administration of Muslim Law Act).
My understanding is thus that there is no absolute bar on an age to marry; however, the age of ‘full’ capacity is 21 for non-Muslim marriages and 18 for Muslim marriages.
An exception applies, however, to marriages solemnized, before 2nd June 1967 (a long time ago!), iin accordance to some other law, religion or custom. For these, the requirements above don’t apply. But that exception existed only because the law was in a state of transition then.
(2) For the sentence of death, s. 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code unequivocally states that no sentence of death may be pronounced on a person who was under 18 years of age at the time of the offence.
(3) On NS, it’s a popular perception that the minimum age one can be mobilized / enlisted is 16.5 years. A careful reading of the Enlistment Act, however, shows that between 16.5 and 18 years of age, you can only be required to register and to undergo fitness exams as “a person subject to this Act”. To be required to report for enlistment (s. 10), and to be a “person liable to render national service”, including being mobilized in times of war (ss. 12, 13, 16), you must be at least 18.
This scheme of minimum age limits makes more sense, doesn’t it?
While there is no absolute bar on persons under 18 or 21 marrying, there are 2 further requirements which may be imposed, i.e. parental consent plus (if you’re under 18) the need for special approval by the ROM after counselling etc. Not having an absolute bar makes sense, because allowing teenage marriages may help reduce the problem of single teenage mothers.
I don’t think a link can be made between the minimum voting age and, say, the minimum age of NS enlistment. After all, the government rightly expects the non-voting segments of the population (whether minors or foreigners) to obey all its laws and policies (not just those regarding NS), whether or not you actually have recourse to the ballot box. A 16-year old can’t say, “I should be free to commit Crime X, because I had no say in the government which passed the law against Crime X.”
As for the R(21) age limit: a significant number of films / publications effectively have a minimum viewing-age limit equivalent to ‘infinity’; they are banned or censored by the government irrespective of what age you are. So we can’t really link the censorship age limits to the age of consent under our Penal Code, can we? (Otherwise, there might be no age at which one may be permitted to have sex…)
Ooo… Very bold statement – “……its just that isn’t it?……only because somebody forgot to harmonise it.”
How about we do an interesting little experiment to check the validity of this bold statement?
Simply send a friendly email to Mr. Shanmugam (Minister of Law) and all the top people in MinLaw and don’t forget the previous Law Minister, Prof. Jayakumar.
Ask them, specifically Prof. Jayakumar since he’s around quite long, on why they have forgotten to harmonise the laws?
You asked “Explain this to me, someone, please!”. I’m sure they would be in the best position to explain.
Please post their reply. I’m sure it would be most enlightening and encourage constructive debate.
Oops, an addendum in respect of NS liability: in special cases, with parental consent, a person between the ages of 16.5 and 18 may be permitted to enlist. However, the subsidiary legislation to the Enlistment Act provides that he “shall not be permitted to take a direct part in hostilities until he has attained the age of 18 years” (this is to comply with the international humanitarian law as spelt out in the Geneva Conventions, and international human rights law under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child — although the minimum age there is more usually 15, rather than 18).
Thanks la nausee! All this very helpful info to give food for thought……….
Sorry to digress from the current topic.
I saw your posting on pre-diabetes and got worried about my own health. I looked up the Internet and found a good video on the detection of diabetes:
You might want to show it on your blog.