Govt rejects opposition MPs' electoral boundary suggestions, says EBRC is free from political intervention
Suggestions from opposition party members included having a High Court judge chair the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee.
Education Minister and Minister-in-charge of the Public Service Chan Chun Sing reiterated that the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) works for the interest of voters, and not of political parties.
This audio is generated by an AI tool.
SINGAPORE: Accusing the ruling party of gerrymandering, opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) on Wednesday (Aug 7) called for changes to how electoral boundaries are drawn, during a debate in parliament on a motion by the Progress Singapore Party (PSP).
One of these changes includes having a High Court judge chair the review committees.
These suggestions were roundly rejected by Minister-in-charge of the Public Service Chan Chun Sing, who reiterated that the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) works in the interest of voters, and not political parties.
“The government will oppose the motion given its false premises and suggestions that the electoral boundary review process and our public officers who serve on it, have not been transparent or fair,” said Mr Chan, who is also Education Minister.
“But we assure everyone that we will continue to evolve our electoral processes to better serve Singapore and Singaporeans first and foremost.”
PSP secretary-general Hazel Poa called for a division at the end of the debate, and the House voted with 76 rejecting the motion. All 10 opposition MPs - eight from the Workers' Party (WP) and two PSP Non-Constituency MPs - voted for it.
The Government opposes a motion moved by Progress Singapore Party NCMP Hazel Poa on reforming the electoral boundary review process as it is based on a fundamentally wrong premise, Minister-in-charge of the Public Service Chan Chun Sing told Parliament on Wednesday (Aug 7). He said the motion suggests the current process is not transparent or fair, and seeks to review it in the interests of political parties. Mr Chan said electoral boundaries are drawn not to serve political parties’ interests, but so that voters are best served by their MPs. Addressing concerns raised about gerrymandering, Mr Chan emphasised that the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) does not have access to voting information and hence does not make its recommendations based on voting patterns; it does not consult the People's Action Party (PAP) or any other political party; and it comprises senior civil servants with no party allegiances. If political parties get involved, said Mr Chan, “it will politicise the whole process and not bring us forward, but bring us backwards”. He explained why any attempts at gerrymandering are unlikely to be effective in the Singapore context and why getting the EBRC to be chaired by a High Court judge is unlikely to resolve concerns about political interference, as well as why implementing major and minor electoral boundaries would not work. Mr Chan said, “What (the opposition) are really saying ... comes down to this - we almost won this constituency, we think we can take it next time, so do not touch it, because we want to try again. Paradoxically, if indeed the EBRC takes these political considerations into account, then this would certainly qualify as gerrymandering.” Citing survey findings that showed Singaporeans’ satisfaction with the way democracy is working, the minister urged all candidates to fight elections on substance and by earning voters’ trust with concrete actions, “rather than thinking about excuses for not being able to do so”. He said the test of any electoral system is not its theoretical merits, but whether in practice it has worked for the country - and by that measure, Singapore’s system is “reasonably good”. Trust levels, including in Government, are high; and even the opposition would concede that the PAP governments have served the people well, he said. Mr Chan said “intentionally or unintentionally, this motion sows distrust and disaffection. This is disastrous for our political system and for Singaporeans.” In his speech, he also revealed that the Prime Minister has not convened the EBRC ahead of the next General Election.
GERRYMANDERING ACCUSATIONS
In her speech, Ms Poa said that gerrymandering is “an act of disrespect for voters”.
Gerrymandering is the manipulation of electoral boundaries such that a political party has an advantage over others.
“Instead of working harder to make things better, serving the people better and being more responsive to the needs of the voters, gerrymandering seeks the easy way out of changing the rules,” said Ms Poa, an NCMP.
“The genuine concerns of voters are not addressed and respect for voters is eroded. This is not acceptable and we should reduce the potential for gerrymandering in our system.”
Leader of the Opposition and WP chief Pritam Singh said that for decades the ruling PAP has gained political advantage from the way that electoral boundaries have been drawn and redrawn.
The process by which electoral boundaries are determined can be reformed in many areas to improve transparency, accountability, independence, fairness and respect for voters - that was the premise of a motion moved by Progress Singapore Party NCMP Hazel Poa in Parliament on Wednesday (Aug 7). Ms Poa put forward a slew of proposals. They included requiring the formation of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) to be publicly announced immediately, after which it should publish the current number of voters in each constituency based on boundaries in the previous General Election; and requiring the EBRC to publicly and sufficiently explain all changes. She also called for the range of number of voters per MP to be narrowed, to ensure fair representation. Voters should be respected by reducing the potential for gerrymandering, said Ms Poa. She suggested introducing major and minor boundaries which are subject to fixed rules, and requiring changes of major boundaries to be approved by a bipartisan committee. A minimum time frame of three months should also be imposed between the finalising of electoral boundaries and the dissolution of Parliament. This would ensure a more level playing field by giving all political parties time to prepare for the polls, said Ms Poa. Finally, she proposed several ways to enhance independence in the composition, appointment and reporting structure of the EBRC.
Among his examples, he noted that in 2015, the three Single Member Constituencies (SMCs) where the PAP previously had their smallest percentage wins – which the WP contested – were incorporated into Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs).
In response, Mr Chan said that the EBRC – which has not yet been convened for the next General Election – functions independently and objectively.
“First, the EBRC does not have access to voting information and hence, does not make its recommendations based on voting patterns,” he said.
"The EBRC does not consult the PAP or any other political party. Party politics do not come into this exercise.
“The EBRC comprises senior civil servants with no party allegiance. Therefore, unlike other countries where political parties are involved in the boundary-drawing process, the EBRC’s compositions and processes are insulated from party politics.
“Hence, we do not have the horsetrading and gerrymandering that have taken place in other countries.”
INDEPENDENCE OF THE EBRC
Ms Poa also proposed that the EBRC be chaired by a High Court judge, instead of the Secretary to the Prime Minister.
Under her proposal, the other four members who comprise the committee – the chief executives of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and the Singapore Land Authority, as well as the chief statistician and the head of the Elections Department – can remain.
Mr Singh echoed her suggestion, noting that such an arrangement is in place in other countries such as Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, where boundary revisions are decided by commissions or committees independent of government ministers.
The People’s Action Party (PAP) can continue with things as they are or amend the law to entrench fairness into the electoral boundaries system to protect future generations, said Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh. Speaking in support of the motion in Parliament on Wednesday (Aug 7), he said it is the PAP’s choice on whether to continue to "accrue political advantage" from the redrawing of electoral boundaries. “This coming election is a chance for a new start, a refreshing of the social compact as the new Prime Minister has promised,” he said. The Workers’ Party urged the Government to consider legislating and implementing a system that has several features - a Commission that is truly independent and whose decisions cannot be rejected by the party in power, a Supreme Court judge selected by the Chief Justice to be appointed as a member of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee, the publication of proposed changes well in advance of elections and outside the election cycle, the opportunity for the public to provide feedback on the proposed changes and a minimum period during which revised boundaries cannot be used for elections. Mr Singh stressed the need for a “truly democratic” political system that would enhance Singapore’s world standing even further and promote democratic participation that would give the public greater confidence and pride in the political system. “We in the opposition and I dare say ordinary Singaporeans are asking Prime Minister Lawrence Wong to do the right thing. As Forward Singapore notes, Singapore is at a prime moment for change, and a functioning and robust social compact creates trust. Keep your promise to Singaporeans to create a new and refreshed social compact. Follow through with the Government’s Forward Singapore exercise. Bring Singapore forward with a fair electoral boundaries system. That is nothing more than aligning Singapore with international best practices,” he said.
In response, Mr Chan said the Singapore government has looked at the experience of other countries, and concluded that it would not resolve the concern about political interference.
“Other jurisdictions that have done so continue to face allegations and doubts concerning the independence of the electoral boundary delineation process,” he said.
“Their debate instead sinks into questions on who appoints the judge, and whether the judge has any political leaning or bias. The judiciary ends up getting drawn into the political debate, and the judiciary is politicised.”
In response to questions from PSP NCMP Leong Mun Wai on the considerations behind the EBRC’s decisions on the boundaries, Mr Chan repeated several times that he is "not EBRC" and that the government does not have any influence, direction or control over the committee.
Mr Chan said those on the EBRC should be allowed to provide recommendations without the fear that every change to the electoral boundaries will be politicised, if viewed unfavourably by certain political parties or individuals.
ESTABLISHING VOTER NUMBERS
In her motion, Ms Poa also called for fixed criteria in deciding which constituencies need adjusting ahead of every election.
While those with voter numbers falling outside a specified range can be adjusted, Ms Poa said the current range of 20,000 to 38,000 per MP is too wide.
The maximum threshold is 90 per cent higher than the lower limit, meaning that some MPs take on nearly twice the workload of other MPs, noted Ms Poa.
"This is not an ideal situation," she said.
“PSP proposes that one MP should represent 30,000 voters, with a deviation of plus or minus 10 per cent, such that each MP represents 27,000 to 33,000 voters."
This would bring about a fairer distribution of duties amongst MPs, and is fairer to voters in terms of their voting weightage, she added, citing the examples in the UK and Australia.
“We are certainly for learning from others. However, we must try to learn the right lessons in context,” said Mr Chan, noting that the number of electors per MP in those countries is two to three times that of Singapore’s.
In Parliament on Wednesday (Aug 7), Minister-in-charge of the Public Service Chan Chun Sing responded to comments and clarifications sought by Members following his speech on the motion calling on the Government to review the process by which electoral boundaries are determined to increase the transparency and fairness of the electoral boundary review process for all political parties.
Applying the same margin of deviation to a smaller base will lead to more frequent and drastic changes to boundaries here, due to the high rate of voters moving and changing their addresses within the country, explained Mr Chan.
“An advantage of Singapore being a small country with a small population is that we can have much smaller constituencies, both in terms of population and area, which makes for a stronger connection between MPs and the area and voters that they serve,” he said.
“Smaller constituency populations in absolute terms do mean that the percentage variation can be larger. And we have to strike a balance between the two that suits our context, rather than pursue one at the expense of the other.”
Mr Chan added that “no electoral system in the world can definitively claim that every vote is exactly the same or near equal”, even in established democracies around the world.
LIMITS ON CHANGING BOUNDARIES
In her motion, Ms Poa also proposed the setting of major and minor boundaries on the electoral map.
Major boundaries should correspond closely to local ties and geographical considerations, and could take reference from existing HDB town boundaries, URA planning area boundaries and postal district boundaries, she said.
They should remain unchanged "for many elections". Within each one would be GRCs and SMCs whose minor boundaries can be adjusted based on the EBRC’s criteria.
“The introduction of major boundaries that will not change frequently also makes it easier for MPs to build community identities and bond,” said Ms Poa.
In response, Mr Chan said the government studied the proposal and it is not sure it will resolve the fundamental issues when boundaries change.
"Unlike big countries with different states and provinces, we are a city-state with high mobility of our residents in every electoral cycle. To have major boundaries that cannot be changed and are immune to population shifts may not work out in Singapore," he said.
"Then there will be the question of who and how should we delineate what constitutes major and minor boundaries, and we are back to square one."
FOCUS OF OUTCOME ON SINGAPOREANS
Mr Chan said that Singapore should not change its system, including its electoral boundary review process, “for the convenience or advantage of individual political parties”.
“All political parties should not expect to keep or win seats because the boundaries are drawn one way or the other. Singaporeans are discerning voters,” he said.
“I urge all candidates to fight an election on substance, earn the trust of the electorate with concrete actions, focus on how to serve the voters and gain their trust wherever you choose to stand, rather than thinking about excuses for not being able to do so.”
He said that Singapore’s system has been “reasonably good” and “even the opposition and many opposition voters will concede that the PAP governments have served Singaporeans well and to the best of our ability”.
"However, intentionally or unintentionally, this motion sows distrust and disaffection," Mr Chan added.
He noted that the formation of the new Sengkang GRC in 2020 did not prevent the WP from winning the constituency.
The Progress Singapore Party’s (PSP) proposal is balanced and will enhance the transparency and accountability of the electoral boundaries review process, said NCMP Hazel Poa. Wrapping up the debate on the motion in Parliament on Wednesday (Aug 7), she said PSP’s proposal will make the process fairer for all political parties. She stressed the need to uphold meritocracy and fair competition. “As Singapore enters a new chapter with the appointment of a new Prime Minister, let us renew our push for values that are important to us. And fairness in GE starts with the boundary review process,” she said. She urged Members to support the motion. During the vote, the motion received 10 in favour of it and 76 against it, with no abstentions.
“Very often, perhaps in this chamber, we are all very seized with who wins or who loses,” said Mr Chan.
“At the end of the day, it must be Singapore and Singaporeans who win. It must be that we have a functioning parliament that can produce good governance in service of our people and nation.
“That is the real outcome that we're looking for. The outcome is not whether your party wins or my party wins - it is whether Singapore wins.”
