Govt rejects opposition MPs’ electoral boundary suggestions, says EBRC is free from political intervention

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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
“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.”