Formation of Electoral Boundaries Review Committee

Mdm Speaker, the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) was formed two months ago. I have asked the Committee in its review to:

a) consider the population shifts and housing developments since the last boundary delineation exercise;

b) have smaller Group Representation Constituencies, so as to reduce the average size of the Group Representation Constituencies below five; and

c) have at least 12 Single Member Constituencies.

As per past practice, the Committee is chaired by the Secretary to the Prime Minister. It is now in the midst of its deliberations and will make its recommendations to me when it is ready.

I thank the Prime Minister for the answer. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to commit a minimum time period, say, at least six months from the publishing of the EBRC report to the calling of

Page: 19

elections. I believe that it had been as short as one day from the report to the calling of elections in the past. A longer period would allow residents being moved out of their constituencies to be able to adjust to the changes.

The second question I have is on the composition of the EBRC for future Committees. Prior to Singapore's Independence, the members have comprised of people that are outside of the Government, including representatives from various political parties. So, I would like to check with the Prime Minister whether in subsequent EBRCs, we can change the composition of the EBRC to involve non-Government representatives or for it to be chaired by a High Court Judge, like in the case of the UK.

Finally, I would like to ask the Prime Minister: the completeness of the EBRC report seems to have been shrinking from the 1960s to the early 1970s. So, will the Prime Minister direct the Committee to provide better justifications for the changes because many of these changes do not seem to make sense to political observers and to the residents? Can the minutes of meetings of the EBRC be published so that they will be open for all to understand the decisions that have been made? Thank you.

Mdm Speaker, I think that the Committee will publish its report and to the maximum extent possible, we will make sure that there is enough time to elapse so that everybody can read the report, understand it and know where they stand before elections are called. But I do not think it is possible to say that we promise a certain minimum period, such as six months, because it depends very much on the exigencies of the situation and on when elections become necessary.

Secondly, on the composition of the EBRC, the EBRC has for many years comprised civil servants who have domain knowledge which enable them to make considered decisions on how to divide up the constituencies, taking into account, as I have said, population shifts, housing developments and also to do this in a practical sort of way so that you do not have a complete upheaval each time you have re-demarcation. If there is a need for outside expertise, I think that can be considered and they will have no hesitation to look for outside expertise. As for bringing political parties in, I am not sure that is an entirely good idea. The Americans do it with political parties, and the way it is done is that the sitting members – this is for the House of Representatives – decide on the demarcations. Usually, what happens is that they carve it up amongst themselves. It is a political deal. I think that is not a good arrangement. I think it is best we leave it to the civil servants to work at.

As for the completeness of the report and of the minutes, I think I have to leave it to the Committee. I do not believe that it is helpful to have every twist and turn in the minutes

Page: 20

reported and published. I think the Committee's report is the final word.