Debated in Parliament on 7 Aug 2024.
Ms Hazel Poa.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move*, "That this House calls on the Government to review the process by which electoral boundaries are determined in order to increase the transparency and fairness of the electoral boundary review process for all political parties."
**The Motion also stood in the name of Mr Leong Mun Wai.*
The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) had earlier asked for Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) to be abolished. Our proposals in this debate are based on accepting the existence of GRCs as reality and how we can make things better within that reality and is not an indication of a change of position on GRCs.
Sir, the process by which electoral boundaries are reviewed in Singapore has been long-standing. The Prime Minister appoints an Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) and sets its terms of reference. Once the EBRC publishes its report with the new electoral boundaries, Parliament is dissolved and a General Election (GE) held shortly after.
However, the Prime Minister does not have to reveal when the EBRC will be formed or whether he has formed the EBRC. On previous occasions, the Prime Minister has only revealed to the public that the EBRC has been formed months after he has convened the EBRC.
In the interests of transparency and public accountability, I would first like to start by asking the Prime Minister whether he has formed the EBRC.
PSP has raised this Motion today because we believe that there are many areas in this process which can be reformed, so that electoral boundaries are reviewed in a manner that incorporates transparency, accountability, independence, fairness and respect for voters.
One, justify boundary changes for transparency and accountability. The EBRC needs to make public the reasons why the boundaries of certain constituencies are changed while others remain untouched.
Over the years, the reports of the EBRC have become shorter and shorter, providing less and less explanation of why the boundaries have changed. The reports of the 2011, 2015 and 2020 EBRCs were only four pages long and contained six paragraphs. For example, in the 2020 report, the EBRC merely stated, "The Committee reviewed the boundaries of the current electoral divisions taking into account the current configurations, changes in the number of electors due to population shifts and housing developments."
This is in stark contrast to the early years of Independence. The report of the 1971 EBRC, for example, was 12 pages long and contained 20 paragraphs, and provided more details for its decisions than present-day EBRCs. For example, the 1971 EBRC explained clearly the reasons why it did not alter the boundaries of constituencies in the central areas of the city. It even explained the names for new constituencies.
Many constituencies now have strange boundaries that do not follow the boundaries of Housing and Development Board (HDB) towns or Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) planning areas, or any relation to how people on the ground live their lives. In 1971, the EBRC clearly stated that "all changes and adjustments were made in keeping with proximity, identity of interest and similarity of association". These do not appear to be considerations for the EBRCs of today. It is common to find residents of the same HDB town belonging to different constituencies.
I still remember when I first entered politics more than a decade ago, a veteran in an opposition party told me how hard he walked the ground in a Single Member Constituency (SMC) for four years, only to have that SMC disappear on him when boundaries were reviewed and the SMC was absorbed into a GRC. Is this an isolated incident or is there a pattern?
We examined the data on SMCs from GE1988 to GE2015, spanning seven GEs. Excluding opposition-held SMCs at the point of boundary review, we find that amongst the SMCs where opposition scored below 40% of the votes, on average, 58% were retained as SMCs. In comparison, where opposition scored between 40% and 50% of the votes, only 33% were retained on average. SMCs in GE2020 cannot be included here because the decision on whether they will be retained is yet to be made. We hope that these statistics will not be maintained or further aggravated by the next boundary review.
Without clear justifications for its decisions, it is difficult to tell whether the EBRC has changed the boundaries simply because of population shifts and housing developments, or for other reasons. Suspicions of gerrymandering naturally surface and erode public trust.
The number of voters in each constituency is often used as the justification for boundary changes. The average number of voters per Member of Parliament (MP) is not codified into law. In 2020, the EBRC worked with a ratio of one MP to about 29,000 voters. Since 1980, the EBRC has also allowed the average number of voters per MP to deviate by plus or minus 30%, up from 20% previously. This is very wide and creates the possibility that a constituency could be almost twice as large as another and still return the same number of MPs. For example, an SMC could have 20,000 to 38,000 voters while a five-member GRC could have 100,000 to 190,000 voters. This is unequal representation and unfair to voters.
Let me illustrate with some real examples in the last GE. In 2020, Sengkang GRC had 120,100 voters and elected four MPs, while East Coast GRC had 121,644 voters, only slightly more, but elected five MPs. Yuhua SMC had 21,351 voters, while Bukit Panjang SMC had 35,437 voters. This means that the votes of Sengkang and Bukit Panjang voters counted for less compared to East Coast and Yuhua voters.
In 1963, the EBRC adopted a rule allowing the numbers of voters in each electoral division to differ by no more than 20%. The permitted deviation was increased to 30% in 1980. This deviation should be narrower so that each electoral divisions has approximately equal numbers of voters. This is important as the electors' votes need to carry the same weight. The electors' votes should be respected and not be unduly diluted by having larger deviation in each electoral division.
The average number of voters per MP and the allowable deviations should be fixed into law. In the United Kingdom (UK), for example, under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, there must be 650 MPs and the average number of voters per MP can only deviate by plus or minus 5%. In Australia, the average number of voters per MP can only deviate by plus or minus 10% under the Commonwealth Electoral Act (No 2) 1973.
Putting aside the issue of unequal workload for each MP, we should adopt tighter limits on deviation to ensure that every Singaporean's vote carries the same weightage and is represented fairly in this House.
In the interest of transparency, accountability and fairness to voters, PSP proposes the following changes.
One, upon formation of EBRC, announce the formation immediately and publish the current number of voters in each constituency based on boundaries in the last GE.
Further, identify the constituencies that require boundary changes based on fixed criteria.
First, constituencies with the number of voters falling outside the specified range can have its boundaries changed. The current range of 20,000 to 38,000 per MP is too wide, with the maximum number being 90% higher than, or nearly twice, that of the minimum. This means that some MPs are taking the load of nearly twice that of other MPs. This is not an ideal situation. PSP proposes that one MP should represent 30,000 voters, with a deviation of plus or minus 10%, such that each MP represents 27,000 to 33,000 voters. As such, the maximum is limited to 22% higher than the minimum. This is a fairer distribution of duties amongst MPs and fairer to voters in terms of their voting weightage.
Second, the boundaries of constituencies with number of voters within specified range cannot be changed unless justified on the basis of necessity due to an adjacent constituency having voters falling outside that specified range. The basis for such changes must be published.
Two, respect voters by reducing the potential for gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is an attempt to manipulate the outcome of elections. It is an act of disrespect for voters. 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. 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.
To achieve this, PSP makes the following proposal. Just like houses and buildings have structural walls that cannot be demolished in renovations and non-structural walls that can be demolished, we propose the introduction of major boundaries and minor boundaries.
Major boundaries are meant to remain unchanged for many elections. Each region bound by major boundaries could contain one or two GRCs and a few SMCs. These 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. We propose that these major boundaries cannot be changed unless agreed to by a bipartisan committee. I will elaborate on this later. The introduction of major boundaries that will not change frequently also make it easier for MPs to build community identities and bond.
Minor boundaries lie within the major boundaries and can be changed by EBRC based on the criteria mentioned earlier. Let me illustrate with an example. Suppose that a region enclosed by major boundaries is as follows: the number of voters was 200,000 in the previous GE and there was a five-member GRC with 140,000 voters plus two SMCs with 30,000 voters each.
Suppose that before the next GE, the number of voters changed as follows: (a) the number of voters grew to 220,000; (b) the number of voters in the GRC grew to 166,000 and the two SMCs dropped to 27,000 voters each. Under the proposed system, the boundaries of the two SMCs need not be changed as they are still within the range. But the boundaries for the GRC must change as it has gone beyond 33,000 per MP. The GRC must now be served by six MPs instead of five.
By altering the minor boundaries, EBRC can change the GRC to either a five-member GRC + one SMC; or a four-member GRC + two SMCs; or a three-member GRC + three SMCs; or two three-member GRCs. The justification for the option chosen should be provided by EBRC.
Three, ensure political fairness by imposing a minimum timeframe from finalising boundaries to GE. We propose a minimum period of three months between the publishing of EBRC report to the dissolution of Parliament. This will ensure a more level playing field by giving all political parties more time to prepare for the GE.
In response to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) earlier, Minister Chan Chun Sing had assured Parliament that "there will be sufficient time between the release of EBRC's report to the time of election." Does the Minister agree that a minimum of three months is a very reasonable time frame?
Four, enhancing independence in the composition, appointment and reporting structure of EBRC. In our system, the Prime Minister has full control over the electoral boundary review process. This starts with who gets to be appointed to EBRC. There is no law stating who gets to be appointed to EBRC, even though in recent years, EBRC has always consisted of the Cabinet Secretary, the chief executive officers (CEOs) of the Elections Department (ELD), HDB and the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), and the Chief Statistician. These are senior civil servants with deep domain knowledge that enable them to make decisions on how to redraw electoral boundaries in a practical way and we have no objection to them sitting on EBRC.
There are concerns about potential conflict of interest for EBRC to report to the Prime Minister. In the interest of enhancing the independence of EBRC, PSP proposes that the membership of EBRC should be codified into law to prevent any future abuses. In the UK, for example, the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 specifies that the Boundary Commissions are chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons and the deputy chair must be a High Court Judge. Some legal constraints are necessary to prevent the appointment of partisan members onto the committee. PSP proposes that EBRC be chaired by a High Court Judge with four other members being the CEOs of ELD, HDB and SLA, and the Chief Statistician.
If EBRC is proposing changes to the major boundaries, then these changes must be approved by a committee to be chaired by the Speaker of Parliament by right of his office, but he will not play any part in the review. The other members of the committee will be appointed by the President and comprise equal numbers of representatives from: one, the ruling party; and two, the other political parties that have won at least 5% of the votes at the previous GE. This committee could be bipartisan or multi-partisan. For the sake of simplicity, I shall refer to this committee as "the bipartisan committee" within this debate. If the EBRC's proposed electoral boundary changes do not impact the major boundaries, then these changes do not need to be approved by a bipartisan committee.
At the end of the process, the changes will be compiled into a report by EBRC and submitted to Parliament. The report by the Boundary Commission for England contained a paragraph assuring that election results are not taken into consideration in the review of boundaries. We should do the same to enhance public trust. The changes will be approved and implemented without modification by Parliament to ensure that the process remains fair and transparent. Mr Speaker, Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Speaker, Sir, over the years, the Prime Minister has appointed the EBRC before a GE, and the establishment of the EBRC and the release of its report also signal the upcoming GE. PSP is proposing this Motion today because we believe that there are many areas in our country's electoral boundaries review system that can be improved to enhance the transparency, independence, and fairness of the system.
Firstly, the EBRC should provide a more detailed explanation to the public as to why the boundaries of certain constituencies have changed. Since independence, the EBRC's reports have become increasingly concise and in recent years, the explanations for changes in constituency boundaries have been brief and vague.
This makes it difficult to determine whether the changes in electoral boundaries are solely due to changes in population and housing development. For example, looking at the election results from 1988 to 2015, we find that the probability of opposition-held constituencies with a vote share between 40% and 50% disappearing in the next election is higher than constituencies where the opposition's vote share is below 40%. Due to the overly concise nature of the EBRC's report, suspicions of unfair constituency delineation naturally arise. If the EBRC's report were more detailed, these doubts would naturally dissipate.
Secondly, currently, each MP can represent between 20,000 and 38,000 voters. This results in significant disparities in voter representation. For example, in the 2020 general election, the number of voters in Sengkang GRC was almost the same as in East Coast GRC, but Sengkang GRC has four seats in Parliament while East Coast GRC has five seats. The existing electoral boundaries mean that some MPs represent almost twice as many voters as other MPs. The PSP proposes legislation to stipulate that each MP can only represent between 27,000 and 33,000 voters to reduce the current significant disparity and unfairness to voters and MPs.
Thirdly, PSP proposes that, in order to reduce the possibility of drawing the electoral boundaries unfairly, we should establish two types of electoral boundaries: major boundaries and minor boundaries. Major boundaries can encompass multiple constituencies, and these boundaries should be stable and rarely changed to ensure community cohesion and reduce unfair constituency delineation. If changes to major boundaries are necessary, they should require the consent of a committee with equal representation from the ruling party and the opposition. Minor boundaries are the boundaries between constituencies covered by major boundaries. Minor boundaries can be adjusted based on changes in the population of constituencies.
Fourthly, the release of the EBRC report should be at least three months before the dissolution of Parliament to allow all political parties sufficient time to prepare for the GE.
Fifthly, currently, there are no explicit regulations on the members of the EBRC. To ensure fairness and transparency, we believe that legislation should stipulate that the EBRC should be chaired by a High Court Judge, with members being the CEO of ELD, HDB and SLA, as well as the Chief Statistician. To avoid suspicion, the EBRC should not report to the Prime Minister but should submit the report directly to Parliament. Upon receiving the report, Parliament should immediately approve and implement it without any modifications to ensure fairness and transparency of the process.
(In English): In summary, PSP's proposal seeks to:
(a) increase transparency and accountability by: one, requiring the formation of EBRC to be publicly announced immediately; two, requiring EBRC to, upon its formation, publish the current number of voters in each constituency based on boundaries in the last GE; and three, requiring EBRC to publicly and sufficiently explain all changes;
(b) ensure fairness to voters by narrowing the range of number of voters per MP;
(c) respect voters and reduce the potential for gerrymandering by: one, implementing fixed rules through major and minor boundaries; and two, requiring changes of major boundaries to be approved by a bipartisan committee;
(d) increase political fairness by imposing a minimum timeframe from finalising boundaries to GE; and
(e) enhance the independence of EBRC.
With that, I urge all hon Members to support the Motion.
*Question proposed. (proc text)]
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Yes, Mr Speaker, I wish to participate in the debate, please.
Sorry, I missed that.
I wish to participate in this debate.
Go ahead.
Few Singaporeans have not privately wondered where the sea is when they look out of the window in Upper Serangoon or how the residents of Kaki Bukit have found themselves in four different GRCs over four different elections or why Sengkang, my home constituency, had its westernmost neighbourhood somewhat unceremoniously carved out from what had hitherto been a well-accepted division between the four "vales" of "River", "Compass", "Anchor" and "Fern". Others have already explained why the present system comes across as inherently opaque and potentially unfair.
Sir, my contribution to this debate is more modest. First, I will explain how looking at the shape of boundaries alone does not tell us all that much. Next, I will share that it is nevertheless possible to move away from the present status quo towards a more robust and, just as important, scientifically sound system. Finally, I will offer suggestions on how EBRC may actually get there.
Let me start by accepting that the practice of drawing electoral boundaries is complicated. Even a simple four-by-four grid, an unrealistically simple map if there ever was one, offers up 117 ways to subdivide these 16 squares, such that there are four districts with four contiguous squares in each. A six-by-six grid will present more than 451,000 options and there are seven hundred trillion ones in a nine-by-nine grid.
With such a dizzying array of possibilities, it is plausible that potentially nonsensical shapes could emerge. This raises the perverse possibility that even oddly shaped maps could somehow turn out to be fair. After all, the outcome depends on the allocation of voters across space.
Nor can we rely solely on the magnitude of the win margins either. After all, disproportionate wins can result from very mild differences in geographic patterns. Just as crucially, first-past-the-post systems, such as ours, could potentially give rise to these outcomes. The most recent Labour Party win in the UK is a fine example of this.
But, that said, such arguments ultimately ring hollow because there are, indeed, ways to diagnose and treat the problem of gerrymandering. Advances in mathematics, political science and economics offer the possibility of drawing credible electoral maps that will undoubtedly be better than the current opaque practices pursued by EBRC.
One approach is to apply techniques in geometry to obtain compact districts that align well the sort of electoral geographies that make sense, not just mathematically, but also from intuitive notions of what should constitute a simply drawn, cohesive community. Such insights can be practically applied to actual data and, with the aid of computers, to new representative districts that can be derived in a completely reasonable timeframe.
A second metric is to minimise what some political scientists have taken to calling an efficiency gap. This approach simply asks that so-called wasted votes, the votes that would not be necessary for a winner to be declared in a given district, be kept as small as possible, taking into account voting shares across all districts.
It boils down, actually, to a simple equation which tallies the difference between seat and vote margins. I did the calculations and, for GE2020, this amounted to an electoral advantage of about 17%, owing not to credible aspects of the different parties but simply to the system of districting alone, at least according to this interpretation.
This, significantly, notably, is below the gap one saw between the People's Action Party's (PAP's) share of the popular vote of 61% versus its seat share of 89%, but it nevertheless offers some sense of how much PAP might currently benefit from the way that electoral boundaries are currently drawn.
A third relies more on game theoretic ideas to ensure fair division. One particularly promising strategy is to allow parties to take turns in either proposing divisions or rejecting unfavourable ones. This practice is actually less foreign than it seems. Elections in the 1950s in Singapore included representatives from several political parties and, in 1963, PAP itself invited opposition parties to submit proposals on delineating constituencies.
Possibly the most promising set of tools rely on simulations based on repeated samples. Such algorithms can generate sample districting plans under various constraints in Singapore. We might imagine a need to meet specific population targets and geographical compactness along with, of course, Ethnic Integration Policy considerations that are actually nevertheless more competitive.
Just as important, these maps can be evaluated in advance, not merely after the fact, which means that they can be used by EBRC to draw out mathematically fair constituencies.
Sir, the events that I have described are not just pie-in-the-sky ideas. They can and have been profitably applied in real world situations, both as diagnostic tools as well as for the purposes of electoral reform.
Legal arguments relying on these techniques have gone all the way to various constitutional courts, where, for example, in Florida, proposals for eight of 27 proposed districts were struck down in 2023 on the basis of evidence presented. In the state of Pennsylvania, an analogous Supreme Court ruling in 2018 declared violations of that state's constitution resulting from partisan congressional maps.
Perhaps most fundamentally, the principle behind these efforts is straightforward and consistent with the practice of many jurisdictions worldwide – to achieve impartiality by delegating the redistricting task to a truly independent electoral commission. This has been adopted by, among other countries, Australia, Canada, India, Jordan, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand and the UK.
These tools are practically available. Computer packages to apply these solutions in a scalable way have been made available by researchers, including separate efforts by teams at Harvard and Tufts universities.
These can be adapted and adopted by our own EBRC to improve its own processes. Indeed, in 2017, Singaporeans even participated in a workshop meant to train participants on applying these techniques, although I do not know if the individual or individuals attending were members of EBRC.
Even if we remain uncomfortable with completely delegating the redistricting task to automation, I personally would still favour human hands at the tiller. But in my view, publishing any adjustments and deviations from districts proposed by such algorithms would nevertheless constitute an important step forward in fairness.
Sir, even if we accept that no perfect electoral districting system exists, it does not mean that we must be content with the status quo. The proposals I have offered get us much closer to a system that is both fair and, perhaps more importantly, perceived to be fair by the wider electorate.
This, surely, is the sort of goal that everyone in this House and beyond would agree with. Benchmarking our existing electoral bounds against these that have passed mathematical muster would improve transparency and make these maps more acceptable to everyone involved.
Of course, perhaps we should take a step back and question the underlying political values that may have led us to even have to worry about the cancer of intentional gerrymandering. If gerrymandering does truly become endemic, do we as a nation accept this? Gerrymandering effectively means that the votes of those who happen to live in certain geographies are inadvertently given lesser weight simply by dint of the districting system.
Do we wish to be known as a modern democracy that does not aspire to ensure that the voices of all our citizens be heard equally? For these reasons, Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.
Any other Member wishes to join the debate? Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. Let me outline my speech. First, for decades, PAP has gained political advantage from the way that electoral boundaries have been drawn and redrawn. Second, in a fair democratic political system, no party should gain such an advantage. So, Singapore should implement a politically impartial electoral boundary system based on international best practices. Third, if the 4G PAP were to implement such an impartial system, this would be in keeping with the promise flowing from the Forward Singapore exercise, that Singapore will operate under a refreshed social compact.
My first point is that PAP has gained political advantage from the drawing of electoral boundaries. As far back as 1996, then-MP for Hougang, Mr Low Thia Khiang, presented a table in this House that showed how SMCs that had been through close electoral races were invariably incorporated into GRCs. Ms Hazel Poa has cited similar evidence in her speech on this Motion. I will give three examples.
In 1991, the opposition candidate in Braddell Heights, Mr Sin Kek Tong, obtained close to 48% of the vote. In the next GE in 1997, Braddell Heights was incorporated into Marine Parade GRC. In 2011, the Workers' Party's (WP's) Yee Jenn Jong obtained close to 49% of the vote, losing the SMC of Joo Chiat by a mere 388 votes. In GE2015, Joo Chiat was merged into Marine Parade GRC.
In 2015, the three SMCs where PAP had their smallest percentage of wins were incorporated into GRCs. As a matter of interest, these were all SMCs contested by WP. There is really no need for me to say more about this or to give more examples because any reasonable person can tell that the examples cited are not coincidences. It is obvious that changes in the electoral boundaries of SMCs and GRCs have benefited PAP.
My second point is that in a fair and democratic political system, no parties should benefit politically from the rejoining of boundaries. No party. To that end, Singapore should implement a politically impartial electoral boundaries system based on international best practices. This would prevent a situation where any party, whether PAP now or some other party in future, benefits politically from the drawing of electoral boundaries.
Mr Speaker, allow me to quote various parts of one senior stateman's different Parliamentary speeches on this issue. First, and I quote, "If we want to avoid gerrymandering, any alteration of boundary lines to suit whoever is the Minister and his party, then let us have a Boundaries Commission".
Second, and I quote, "I am stating, as a proposition, that in any part of the world, and more especially in this part of the world, people who assumed the duties of Government are somewhat tempted to use the powers with which they are temporarily vested to weigh things permanently in their favour. If we want to avoid gerrymandering, the drawing of boundary lines to include kampongs where one's supporters are and to exclude kampongs where one's opponents' supporters are, then let us have a proper Boundaries Commission. Let the mechanics of it be by the Minister notifying it in the Gazette. But let us have proper machinery to ensure that the working of Parliamentary democracy, this wholesale importation of western ideas of political organisation, is not perverted by feudalistic eastern ideas of personal survival".
Third, and I quote, "On principle, it is advisable to have the work of this Committee placed before all political parties. If there had been no gerrymandering, it would be quite obvious to everybody and everybody would then be quite happy. But whether or not there has been an unconscious bias in the work of any official, so as to justify the allegations made by the Member for Serangoon, one can only judge from the vehemence of his allegations and the corresponding vehemence of the denials of the Chief Minister and the Chief Secretary. Nothing would be lost, if the reasons for the delineations are placed before an all-party Committee".
It should not surprise this House to learn that these quotes were from Parliamentary speeches made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew in 1956 and 1957 when he was in the opposition. Mr Lee talked about the possibility of unconscious bias, if a political party in power benefits from the redrawing of boundaries, whether that benefit has come about due to the unconscious or conscious bias of officials. This can be taken care of through the two bodies proposed by Mr Lee Kuan Yew. In his speech in 1956, Mr Lee suggested that a Boundaries Commission be set up. And in his speech in 1957, he suggested that the work of such a Committee be placed before an all-party Committee.
Those measures proposed by Mr Lee are in line with those currently practiced by Australia, Canada and the UK, countries which practise the western ideas of political organisation that Mr Lee himself mentioned. In these commonwealth countries, boundary revisions are decided by boundary commissions or committees which are independent of Government ministers. The commission of Canada and the UK include a high court judge appointed by the chief justice.
There is variation in each country's process, but generally, the boundary commissions will publish proposed changes in the number of representatives and electoral boundaries based on set guidelines, which are formalised through legislation. The public and political parties are given the opportunity to provide feedback on these proposals before the boundary commissions make their final decisions.
Ministers and Parliament cannot reject the decisions of the boundary commissions. In the UK, the boundaries commissions for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland consult the public before coming up with their final recommendations. In addition, the boundary delineation exercise takes place once every eight years, and not before a general election. In Canada, there is an additional stipulation that revised boundaries cannot be used for elections within seven months of the revision. Any election within that period would run using the previous boundaries. In all these countries, there is a clear commitment to preventing political interference in the process of redrawing boundaries and to ensure the independence of the boundaries commission.
This brings me to my third point. If Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and the 4G PAP team were to implement such an impartial system, this would be in keeping with the spirit flowing from the Forward Singapore exercise that envisions Singapore operating under a refreshed social compact. A commitment from the 4G leadership to an independent and de-politicised EBRC would be concrete manifestation through action.
In the end, the choice is the PAP's. They are in power. They can continue with things as they are, or they can amend the law to entrench fairness into the electoral boundary system to protect future generations. Even if they decide to retain the current system and not amend Singapore law, it is the PAP's choice 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. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and the 4G leaders have the chance to change "politics as usual" in Singapore.
The WP asks the Government to consider legislating and implementing a system that includes the following features: first, a Commission that is truly independent whose decisions cannot be rejected by the party in power; second for a Supreme Court Judge selected by the Chief Justice to be appointed as a member of the EBRC; third, the publication of proposed changes well in advance of elections and outside the election cycle; fourth, the opportunity for the public, including political parties, to provide feedback on the proposed changes; and fifth, a minimum period during which revised boundaries cannot be used for elections.
I ask Prime Minister Lawrence Wong to take Singapore forward into a truly democratic political system. This would enhance Singapore's world standing even further. The international community and even fellow Singaporeans respects Singapore and our leaders for economic achievements and lack of corruption. But there are asterisks when they assess our political system. As for the population of Singapore, changes that promote democratic participation will give the public greater confidence and pride in our 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. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.
Minister Chan Chun Sing.
Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, Sir. First, let me say that I would like to thank all the Members who have spoken on this and given your various suggestions and comments. I listened to them very carefully. For Ms Hazel Poa, who has submitted her speech prior to ELD, we have also examined her suggestions very carefully.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government will continually seek to improve our electoral system to better serve Singapore and Singaporeans. The recent move to improve voter access for overseas Singaporeans is one such example.
However, we cannot agree with the premise of this Motion. First, the Motion suggests that the current electoral boundary review process is not transparent and not fair. Second, the Motion seeks to review the electoral boundary review process in the interests of political parties.
This is a fundamentally wrong premise. Electoral boundaries are drawn so that the electorate is best served by their MPs. This process is meant to serve the interests of Singaporeans and not the interests of political parties.
Sir, the process of delineating electoral boundaries is well known and has been discussed in this House previously on various occasions.
Let me reiterate the key points.
The review is conducted by the EBRC, tapping on the specific expertise of its members, who include qualified senior civil servants with domain knowledge in the technical areas required for boundary delineation. The EBRC works independently and objectively.
Since 1958, the Prime Minister's terms of reference to the EBRC and its predecessors have been published. The recommended delineation is presented to Parliament as a White Paper and this has been so since 1967. All this is on public record.
The delineation of boundaries of electoral divisions comes down to a balance between the population and the geographical size of each electoral division. Over time, with the movement of people and the development of new estates and towns, population densities in different areas will change.
The EBRC reviews the boundaries holistically, by taking into account such population shifts and housing developments while making sure that the boundaries make practical sense. A constituency must be an area that its MP or MPs can effectively represent and serve. At the same time, we strive to have some continuity and minimise the changes that could disrupt existing communities. The EBRC's work is data driven. It is centred on the interests of voters and not the interests of political parties or candidates.
The Government also gives reasonable notice of boundary changes. The past few GEs were called some one to three months after the release of EBRC's report. And as we have said before, we will seek to have sufficient time between the release of EBRC's report and the dissolution of Parliament, so that all political parties and candidates can make the necessary preparations.
To answer Ms Poa's question, the Prime Minister has not convened the EBRC. ELD has been responding to Parliamentary and media queries on whether the Prime Minister has convened the EBRC for the coming GE. It will continue with this practice and will inform the public when the EBRC is convened.
I will now address some other points raised by Ms Hazel Poa, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Pritam Singh.
Ms Hazel Poa and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim have spoken about "suspicions of gerrymandering" and "reducing the potential for gerrymandering" and used the word "gerrymandering" quite a few times. Let me address this directly.
First, let me touch on the EBRC's process and composition, which has allowed the committee to do its job independently and objectively.
First, the EBRC does not have access to voting information and hence, does not make its recommendations based on voting patterns. 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 allegiances. Therefore, unlike other countries where political parties are involved in the boundary drawing process, EBRC’s composition and processes are insulated from party politics. Hence, we do not have the horse-trading and gerrymandering that have taken place in other countries. And I must say, if we get all political parties involved, present or future, it will politicise the whole process and not bring us forward, but bring us backwards.
Ms Hazel Poa suggested that the EBRC be chaired by a High Court Judge – and so did Mr Pritam Singh and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim – to enhance the independence of the EBRC. We have thought about this carefully and we have looked at the experiences of other countries, and we do not think that this will resolve the concern about political interference.
Other jurisdictions that have done so continue to face allegations and doubts concerning the independence of their electoral boundary delineation process. Their debate, instead, sinks into questions on who appoints the judge and whether the judge has any political leanings or bias. The judiciary ends up getting drawn into the political debate and the judiciary is politicised. Besides, there are no legal issues in the EBRC's work which require a judicial officer to weigh in. What is required is political neutrality, integrity and objectivity, which I trust all my Public Service officers have, whether they are in the EBRC or not, for them to discharge their duties without fear and favour.
Second, let us look at Singapore's context. The term "gerrymander" is almost as old as electoral politics. It originated in the US more than 200 years ago, in 1812. Such allegations still persist, including in mature democracies, but the circumstances in Singapore are very different and should cause us to pause and ask ourselves, if indeed such "suspicions" and the "potential" of gerrymandering, as said, really exist and are possible. Let me explain.
In other countries, gerrymandering happens when political parties manipulate boundaries to favour their supporters in specific areas. This could be voters in urban or rural areas, or in specific ethnic enclaves. The political parties assume that these voters, whom they consider their base, largely remain in the same areas, and therefore can have greater influence in the election outcomes.
But in Singapore, every electoral division is more or less a microcosm of our nation. This is a result of our urban planning, where we do not want to have racial or religious enclaves in Singapore, nor do we have a rural-urban divide. Our voter base is also fluid. The voters in a given area are not always the same in every election, because they move around the whole island. For those Members who have studied our electoral data, you would know. Some 200,000 electors change their residential addresses annually.
Then there are many new first-time voters every electoral cycle. Taken together, these two factors alone will add to a not insignificant churn of the respective constituencies' electoral roll, which calls into question any suggestion of the efficacy of attempts at gerrymandering. Maybe I should put this in context: 200,000 electors every year and our electoral roll is about 2.7 million.
I should also point out that changes to the electoral boundaries have a greater impact on the incumbent parties and their MPs, given the substantial investment of time and effort by the MPs and their volunteers to engage and serve the residents, only to see them subsequently reassigned to another electoral division due to electoral boundary changes. Members may want to speak to Mr Sitoh Yih Pin on this after the debate.
Taking a step back, what we have heard from Ms Poa and others, and what they are really saying when she raises the point about gerrymandering comes down to this: we almost won this constituency, we think we can take it the next time, so do not touch it because we want to try again.
Paradoxically, if indeed the EBRC really takes these political considerations into account, then this would certainly qualify as gerrymandering.
Let me now address Ms Poa's and other speakers' points about explaining boundary changes. Sir, at the end of the day, any boundary change is the result of the EBRC applying the principles and considerations that I have set out. Those principles and considerations are not different from what has been articulated in this House in the past.
We know and all of us want more explanations from the EBRC. But we also have to strike a practical balance, so that our public officers are given the space to do their work independently and objectively, without fear or favour. That they 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, no matter how minor those recommendations may be.
Sir, there is no secret formula. And frankly, I do not think any amount of explanation is going to satisfy any political party, be they incumbent or opposition, and they may be unhappy with the boundary changes.
They are unhappy not because of the process but because of the outcome – they think they have lost out, that the map disadvantages them politically. And there is nothing that the EBRC can say about its process that will satisfy any political party because, as I have said, the EBRC does not take political interests into account.
Indeed, when the EBRC reviews the boundaries, it does so holistically – not only to take into account population shifts as mentioned, but also to balance the need for some continuity in community formation, as well as the objective of allowing the elected MP to serve the constituencies effectively. This is an established process, which has worked and served us well. Setting some fixed formula for the review or involving other persons who do not have the relevant expertise and knowledge to do the work, as suggested by Ms Hazel Poa, may instead undermine the effectiveness of the EBRC in carrying out its work. And the most important point is that, the involvement of political parties will also certainly politicise the process. And I think it will bring us backwards.
Ms Poa spoke about the need for the electors' votes to carry the same weight; she also suggested narrowing the range of voters per MP, and she cited the UK and Australia as examples. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are certainly for learning from others. However, we must try to learn the right lessons in context. We must also present the comparison and lessons from other countries holistically and responsibly.
For context, while the UK and Australia examples may suggest a smaller margin of deviation per constituency, what Ms Poa should also highlight is that their number of electors per MP is two to three times that of ours. Applying the same margin of deviation to a smaller base will certainly lead to more frequent and more drastic change to boundaries, because of our high rate of movement and change of addresses within a small city-state. This may be the exact opposite of what Ms Poa may desire.
Since 1980, we have a planning norm of plus or minus 30% variation in the average number of electors per MP. In our context, because population shifts between general elections can be quite significant, as I have illustrated, lowering the planning norm would likely require more extensive and more disruptive redrawing of boundaries.
A lower variation in the elector to MP ratio between constituencies is also not the only or overriding consideration. We can probably lower the percentage variation if we only have a few super constituencies with much larger populations. But again, I do not think that is what Ms Poa is suggesting, nor do we think that it is a good outcome necessarily, because in absolute terms, voters would be served by fewer MPs.
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.
Smaller constituency populations in absolute terms do mean that the percentage variation can be larger and we have to strive for a balance between the two that suits our context, rather than pursue one at the expense of the other.
On the weight of each vote, we have also studied the systems in other countries very carefully. No electoral system in the world can definitively claim that every vote is exactly the same or near equal. Even in established democracies today, we still have endless debates if the weight of every vote is the same.
For example, in the elections now ongoing, there are places which ask "why are smaller states having the same number of senators or representatives as bigger states?" Does that not mean that their votes are not of equal weightage?
On Ms Poa's suggestion for major and minor boundaries, we have also studied it and we are not sure that it will resolve the fundamental issue 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. 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.
At the end of the day, what counts is the candidates that the party puts forth, and whether they are able to win the hearts and minds of Singaporeans to get elected into Parliament. At the GE2020, the formation of the new Sengkang GRC did not prevent the WP from winning that GRC, and that is why Assoc Prof Jamus Lim is here today.
It is not for me to tell parties and candidates how they should win the hearts and minds of our electorate. As Members have said, Singaporeans are wise people. They will know who has put in their hearts, day in day out, to serve them and I am sure they will cast their votes accordingly.
Sir, no system is static, but our system has worked reasonably well. According to the Spring 2024 Global Attitudes Survey by the Pew Research Center, more than three-quarters of the Singaporeans interviewed were satisfied with the way democracy is working in Singapore and Singapore ranked first within the Asia Pacific region in terms of level of satisfaction with our practice of democracy. As the survey findings show, we have a trusted electoral system that allows the electorate to vote freely for MPs who do their best in looking after their constituent's interests, representing them in Parliament and forming a government to run the country responsively and responsibly.
To keep our electoral system working well, it must continue to be based on what is best for Singapore and Singaporeans. Our system will continue to evolve, but we should not be changing the system, whether is it the electoral boundary review process or some other aspect, for the convenience or advantage of individual political parties. And when we study other people's system, we should also look at the system in entirety, rather than to pick and choose certain aspects that may or may not be able to be applied in context to ours, while neglecting other aspects in their systems as well.
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. And so, 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. Our electoral boundary review system is generally functioning well and seeks to ensure that voters distributed across Singapore are represented in Parliament in as fair a way as possible.
Sir, the test of any electoral system is not its theoretical merits, but whether in practice it has worked for the country. In other words, whether it has enabled the electorate to elect governments whom they trust and who serve them well. By those two tests, our system is reasonably good. Trust levels in Singapore, including in Government, are high 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. This is disastrous for our political system and for Singaporeans. Low trust countries are stuck in a vicious cycle, where the Government cannot do things that are urgent and necessary because the population does not trust them, and therefore they fail and the population’s trust in their leaders and system is further diminished, and we are on a downwards spiral.
Sir, our electoral boundary review process is fair and transparent. Elections remain clean and fair. 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. But we assure everyone that we will continue to evolve our electoral processes to better serve Singapore and Singaporeans first and foremost. [Applause.]
Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Thank you, Speaker. When I sat there, listening to the long speech made by the Minister, I cannot help feeling that while we are here to say that there are some reasons to believe that the system is being politicised by the PAP, he in turn says that we are trying to politicise the whole system.
But I think he has not answered the questions that we have raised or the doubts that we have raised. Why our electoral system or electoral boundary drawing has given rise to a number of phenomena or a number of things that we think is not normal? We will only be convinced unless the Minister can explain why these things had happened.
So, to reiterate what my colleague Hazel Poa, the Leader of the Opposition and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim have probably also raised; but I hope to raise a few questions and if the Minister can answer convincingly why this is so, then he will have a stronger case to say that we are politicising this whole debate.
Firstly, if he says that there is no gerrymandering, I think we have to look at all these examples. Can he explain why if there is no gerrymandering, then why are our constituency borders, the shape of our constituencies, some of them are very odd-shaped?
Even the Minister agrees that it is better to have a more compact shape because the residents in the same areas should have a better environment to mix with one another. And, of course, from an economics perspective, to maintain a constituency that is more compact, it is far more economical.
So, why are some of our constituencies so odd-shaped? Like the constituency that I am living in, Braddell Heights, Mr Speaker's constituency. Why is Braddell Heights under Marine Parade GRC, miles away?
My second question: the Minister also mentioned that the shape of a constituency or the current area of a constituency may be due to the urban planning that we have been doing. Yes, if that is the case, like what my colleague and other speakers have pointed out just now, why then is one HDB town divided, sub-divided amongst so many constituencies? We would expect that if the urban planning is being done properly, then one HDB town will more or less be inside one constituency. That is the second question I wanted to ask the Minister.
And third, if there is no gerrymandering, then why have so many Singaporeans, although they have lived in the same place all their lives, experienced more than two times changing of constituencies. Why is that so?
And fourth, what explains the disappearing of the SMCs, whereby the oppositions have done fairly well in an election?
And lastly, if there is no gerrymandering and no other political intention, then whenever there is a huge increase in population in one place, leading to a decline in the weightage of one vote, that means the discrepancy of the vote, we can actually address it quite speedily. Why is that not addressed? Instead, our EBRC guidelines have been increased over the years – from 20% to 30%. Why is there a need to do that?
So, these are the questions, Sir. If the Minister can answer them convincingly, then I think we can carry on with this debate and in more good faith.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought this was a Motion by the PSP Members. I thought we should be seeking clarifications from you. I will just make three points.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not the EBRC. Today, we are here to talk about the process and whether the process is right. We are not here to debate the decisions or recommendations of EBRC. And I am certainly not the EBRC. If you are trying to get me to explain on behalf of the EBRC, then I think you are trying to get me to say that I have some influence, direction or control over the EBRC. Unfortunately, to disappoint you, I am not the EBRC.
Today, the Motion is about the process and whether the process should stay apolitical, to be run by the Public Service officers or do we want to go back in time and, like in other countries, where our process goes into a horse-trading between different political parties. And even if we do that, what about new political parties that are formed? Everyone will have a view on what they should and should not do, how the EBRC should or should not move or change the boundary.
So, that is my first point. Let us get back to the Motion. Today, we are not here to explain what the EBRC does. I am not the EBRC. We are here to talk about the review process.
My second point, as I have explained very carefully to Ms Hazel Poa's suggestions, if we adopt and do exactly what you all have recommended, we should expect even more and more drastic boundary changes. You can work it out mathematically and I am sure Ms Hazel Poa will agree.
Number three, you mentioned and you cited some examples of some people having to shift constituency although they stay in the same house. That will always happen regardless of which system because when boundaries change, there will be some shifts.
The question is, how many, how much. And by your recommendations and your system, it will be much more and many more.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Sir, I should clarify that there are in fact two forms of gerrymandering – intentional and unintentional. Minister Chan assured this House that there is in fact no intentional gerrymandering as pursued by the EBRC.
Even if we accept this position, it does not exclude the very real possibility that natural movements in the electorate – 200,000 in fact, as Minister Chan just shared – might inadvertently give rise to an unintentional gerrymandered outcome.
That is why I suggested introducing scientifically supported tools to produce benchmark maps as reference.
So, my question is, what objections does the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) have to instructing the EBRC to adopt this approach in Singapore, given how it has been applied not just in theory but in practice by jurisdictions elsewhere?
Mr Speaker, Sir, in response, may I make the following points.
First point, I am not sure I am an expert to distinguish what you refer to as "intentional" versus "unintentional". As I have mentioned in my speech, no system can ever claim that it is perfect nor will satisfy everyone who may choose to contest in an election. The question is: what is the purpose of the EBRC and whom must it serve? The fundamental question before us today is this: should the EBRC serve the interests of political parties or should the EBRC serve the interests of our people? Should the EBRC, as its primary goal, serve the political interests of different parties or should the primary goal of the EBRC be to serve the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans?
And what are the goals of Singapore and Singaporeans? First, have an MP that can take care of them. Second, have an MP that can represent them. Third, have a Parliament that can form a functioning government that can take Singapore forward and look after Singapore and Singaporeans.
So, I will not go into whether it is intentional, unintentional because I cannot understand your definition of and distinction between those.
But I want to reiterate one point. We do not give the EBRC and the EBRC has no access to the polling results. We have no idea what the polling results or the voting pattern of the 200,000 people who have moved; neither do we have data on how the new electors in every election cycle will vote. Our goal is to make sure that every division is roughly a microcosm of Singapore so that when an election is conducted, people consider the national interest so that we do not have sectoral interests that define a particular division like other countries.
We are open to all kinds of tools, as suggested by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. But actually, it is quite interesting. Some of the ideas that the Member has mentioned and I listened carefully, but one of the Member's suggestions is quite interesting. I think, fundamentally, the Member would agree with us but he may also not like the result and it is this: that every electoral division should be a microcosm of Singapore.
The Member said that we should actually use mathematical models to adjust the population so that they reflect the national pattern. First of all, if we use people's voting preference to adjust the model, would the Member not agree with us that that is precisely gerrymandering? Second, if we indeed do that and every division is exactly the same, then every division should give the vote share to the incumbent that is roughly the same. Is that the outcome that we are striving for?
So, I think, have a care on how and what we learn from others and how we use models. We are open to exploring all kinds of models. But at the end of the day, is fairness defined by the process or is fairness determined by the outcome as to whether it is favourable to me or not? That is the question that we have to think about. [Applause.]
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Just a quick clarification on my part. What I did say, in fact, was a suggestion about adjusting by mathematical methods the bounds, which is the shape of these electoral boundaries. It is, in fact, uninformed by actual voting preferences which, as Minister Chan said, the EBRC has no access to.
Minister, do you need to respond to that? No? Okay. Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Speaker, just two clarifications for the Minister. Before that, just a point for the record. I disagree with the Minister that the Motion, as filed by PSP, sows distrust. If we do not discuss this issue in Parliament in a civil way, where do we do it?
My two clarifications are as follows. I note that the Minister made a point about the presence of the term "political party" in the Motion and took issue with it at a few junctures in the course of his interventions and in the course of his speech.
I would like to refer the Minister to a reply in 1983 by Mr Lee Kuan Yew again. When asked by Mr JB Jeyaretnam whether there were plans to increase the number of electoral constituencies to Parliament and, if such, whether a committee had been set up and so on and so forth, the usual questions that we get, in view of the current system. Mr Lee Kuan Yew replied as follows: "As there have been population shifts away from the old centres of populations into the new towns, my office will appoint an Electoral Boundaries Delineation Committee consisting of civil servants. Their report will be presented to this House. On previous occasions in 1967, 1971, 1976 and 1980, no political party served on the Committee. Until there is a credible opposition party, this will continue to be the practice."
Sir, I raise this to understand from the Minister whether the Minister's comments today are a significant point of departure in terms of the prospect of political parties ever serving on such an EBRC. If it is, then we can have it on the record.
A second clarification which I think we ought to have on the record is the question of gerrymandering. The Minister, in his speech, was very careful to phrase it in a particular way. He said if – and correct me if I am wrong and if I am misquoting the Minister – the Minister said that if the EBRC takes notice or takes note of the close electoral contest in the previous elections in its work and it takes it into account, that would be gerrymandering. Can I ask the Minister a simple question? Is there gerrymandering in Singapore?
Mr Speaker, I will just say two things in response to the comments.
First, I think I have explained very clearly in my speech why we have kept the process as it is now, so that the civil servants who are not politically affiliated take charge of this process rather than have political parties getting involved and ending up, like in other countries, where there is horse-trading on how the boundaries are to be drawn.
If you ask me, personally, I trust my civil servants to do their job objectively, professionally. If you ask me, personally, I think they have served us well. I cannot say what future governments may do. I do not even know who may form the future governments. And if a future government with a future Prime Minister thinks otherwise, then he explains to the House why they do so.
We can quote selectively from our previous Prime Ministers, previous MPs, but we have always prided ourselves as a system that we are very practical people. We look at the issue at hand, see the needs of the country at its point in time and ask ourselves how do we evolve our system to keep pace with the needs of the time.
We have never let the past shackle us in thinking of new ideas, coming up with new processes that fit the needs of our time. And I think that must be the spirit for us to keep progressing. Even in established democracies today, they have so-called rules that they so-called stick to across time. They soon find themselves in trouble because those rules are not adequate to meet the needs of the time. I do not need to name any country. There are many examples across the world for us to take a look at now.
On the second point, I think I have explained the meaning of gerrymandering, what it means in other countries and whether it applies or not applies in our context. I will leave it to Members of the House and the public to decide.
Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Sir, I would like to make one point, that the Minister did not really answer the questions that I have asked. But okay, I just take it as that. But he is pointing out that today's debate is about the process. I think it is not just about the process. It is about whether the current system is the most desirable system for the development of a fairer electoral system in Singapore.
So, I cannot imagine a situation where us, especially the Prime Minister who appoints the EBRC and also including all of us, we would accept a process that leads to an outcome that we find that is not desirable and that desirability is not measured by political considerations like, for example, whether it is good for the opposition or good for the ruling party.
But we can use certain parameters, like what Assoc Prof Jamus Lim has said. We can use certain parameters like, for example, we should stipulate to EBRC that, preferably, we want the constituency to be a compact —
Mr Leong, you should not make another speech. You can ask your clarifications directly to Minister Chan.
Yes. So, we can give a parameter to the EBRC that we want the constituency to be more compact. Given that, does the Minister agree that it is not just about the process that we are arguing today? It is about the outcome and this outcome does not necessarily be a political outcome that we are aiming for. We are talking about a more rational boundary drawing in Singapore.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I will just make one comment in response. I am glad that Mr Leong says that we are here to talk about the process and not the outcome. Maybe Mr Leong can clarify what does outcome mean. Is outcome the boundaries or is outcome whether a certain party, a certain candidate, wins or loses?
If the outcome that we are desiring is a set of boundaries that the public servants who have done their work professionally and objectively come up with to the best of their ability, then, that is the outcome. If the outcome is about whether a certain party wins or loses, then I am sorry to say that my public officers should not be made responsible for such an outcome. Is the EBRC responsible for WP winning Sengkang GRC in the last GE? Do we pin that outcome on the EBRC? No, certainly not. The EBRC's outcome is a set of boundaries, Sengkang Town. Ultimately, Sengkang voters choose who they want to represent them.
But, Sir, if I may just move one step back, as I have to reiterate this point. The mark of success for any political system is not what rules it has. That is part of it. The mark of success of how we evaluate a political system is whether it is fit for purpose, it commands the trust and respect of its people so that the country can progress together. Very often, perhaps in this Chamber, we are all very seized with who wins, who loses.
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. And it is on that note and that is the real outcome that we are looking for. The outcome is not whether your party wins or my party wins. It is whether Singapore wins.
Mr Leong, this should be a clarification. Thank you.
Sir, I think the Minister keeps saying that we are aiming for a political outcome. Can I ask the Minister did we propose anything that is targeted at aiming for a particular political outcome? We did not propose any of that and we do not know what will be the political outcome because it all depends on the electorate.
But we have proposed concrete ideas as to why we think the electoral boundaries should be drawn with more objective parameters and I pointed out one just now to you, whether we can give the parameter to the EBRC that we want more compact constituencies?
So, I want the Minister to confirm whether we actually aim for a political outcome in our debate today or did we actually put up ideas to say that we are asking for a more objective way of drawing the boundaries?
Mr Leong, maybe you should also respond to the Minister's questions to you, so that we can progress and come to a finality on the debate.
May I ask the Minister what were the questions that were posed to me? Did he say a process or an outcome?
I think he mentioned about your definition of an outcome.
Sir, I have already said, the outcome is a more objective way of drawing our boundaries, with certain parameters, not necessarily politically motivated. We do not know what the political results will be, but definitely, we would like to see, for example, our constituencies being more compact, where the residents of one constituency are living closer to one another. Like now, I live in Braddell Heights, I do not know my fellow constituents in the far end of the other part of Marine Parade, for example.
We can go on and on. I am sure we can provide more parameters, but just answer me. This parameter is what I mean by the outcome that we are aiming for.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we are going round and round in circles. I am thoroughly confused now, as to whether the Member is suggesting that the Prime Minister give more specific instructions to the EBRC or the Member would like the Prime Minister to allow the EBRC to do its work objectively, with some basic instructions.
Because it sounds like, now, we have to have the Prime Minister tell the EBRC the definition of compactness. It sounds like we want the Prime Minister to give the EBRC even more specific instructions. I am sure, if the Prime Minister does that, the Prime Minister will be accused of interfering unnecessarily in the process of the EBRC.
So, I think the Prime Minister will do what he needs to do to give the broad outlines and guidelines to the EBRC. We will leave the EBRC to do their work, professionally and objectively. Sometimes, the more we interfere, the more we fall into this trap to make it a politically-motivated process.
If Mr Leong Mun Wai says that they are not concerned about the political outcome, we thank them. And we also thank them for allowing the EBRC to do their work professionally and objectively.
Mr Raj Thomas.
Thank you, Sir, I thought that I would let the elected Members have their go on the Motion first before I offered a non-partisan view, because they actually have skin in the game.
Sir, I think the underlying assumption of this Motion is that, all voters in a particular geographical area would vote a particular way across the elections. But, based on what Minister Chan had said, that is, that more than 200,000 persons change address every year, I think that diminishes that underlying assumption.
Mr Speaker, this is also not borne out by an Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey, which was updated in June 2024, the Post-Election Survey on the 2020 elections. In that survey, Sir, it was found that the number of swing voters had increased tremendously from 37.8% in 2015 to 59.2% in 2020. More than half of the voters. Swing voters were defined as voters who gave an eclectic mix of views of having somewhat conservative views and somewhat pluralist views.
The number of pluralists went up as well. These were people who agreed that there was a need for change in the electoral system, checks and balances, and different voices in Parliament. That number went up by 18% to 22.4%. The only group that went down was the conservative voters. The conservative voters were those who disagreed that there is a need for change in the electoral system, checks and balances, and different voices. They went down from 44.3% in 2015 to only 18.5% in 2020.
That shows that the voting patterns are unlikely to remain the same, whether is it geographical location or across the entire electorate.
So, Sir, as a lawyer, I listen to many of the arguments that were made by Ms Hazel Poa and, very eloquently, by the Leader of the Opposition, where he had suggested that there be a commission or a committee which was independent because there is a judge that could chair it. I think if we look at civil servants and the neutrality of civil servants, I am compelled to agree, to a large extent, with what Minister Chan Chun Sing had said.
I would also venture to suggest that, in fact, if the EBRC were to determine and, I am talking about the electoral climate right now; if the EBRC were to determine the new boundaries based on political considerations, Singaporeans will not be blind to this.
Looking at the IPS survey and how there has been a shift towards looking at fairness, towards looking at more equity in the political system, I would say, ultimately, Sir, aside from all these theoretical debates, why not we just leave it to Singaporeans to decide? Because if it was overtly political, if there was overt gerrymandering, Singaporeans would see it and they would react accordingly at the ballot. So, I think, perhaps, that is the best test of whether the current system is a good system and whether we should continue with it.
Ms Hazel Poa, would you like to give your wrap-up speech?
Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the WP for their support of our Motion and for sharing their proposals for greater transparency, fairness and impartiality. I would also like to thank the Minister for clarifying that the EBRC has not yet been convened and that when it is, announcements will be made.
Let me now address the points made by the Minister during the debate.
The Minister has said that the EBRC does not make its recommendations or boundary changes based on election results. I welcome that assurance and hope that he will accept our proposal that this be made explicitly clear in the electoral boundaries report.
Secondly, he mentioned that the EBRC actually does not have access to the election results. I would just like to mention that we have given examples of how SMCs whereby opposition did better, tend to have a higher chance of disappearing. The fact is that the SMC results is open knowledge to everyone. So, naturally, the EBRC would know. Just pointing out that fact.
The Minister has also said that, it is not possible for voting weightage to be exactly the same. I would just like to clarify that we are not asking for it to be exactly the same but just to narrow down the range of variation.
He also mentioned that, the major and minor boundaries model would not work due to high mobility of voters and that our proposal would become immune to population shifts. I would disagree that it is immune to population shift. In fact, I have made it a point to illustrate how that model can accommodate population shifts.
Secondly, he also mentioned that narrowing the range of voters per MP will lead to more frequent changes of the boundaries because of so many voters changing addresses every year.
Firstly, I would like to point out that when one family moves out, another family moves in. Yes, you will have shifts, but it is not quite as drastic as the Minister made it appear. It is more dependent on the number of housing units within a particular boundary, rather than how many people are shifting house each year.
Secondly, no doubt narrowing the range will lead to more frequent changes to boundaries, but as with much of policy-making, a fine balance must be struck between two different priorities. We believe that this range of plus or minus 10%, as it has been implemented in other countries, should be doable and will not result in too frequent changes. Moreover, our proposal has the establishment of the major boundaries, which will not change from election to election, so, further providing stability.
The Minister declared that our current system is fair and transparent. But he has not given any explanation to explain why is it that the statistics that we have mentioned, about the SMCs where the opposition did better, have a higher chance of disappearing. So, that raises doubts on the fairness. Secondly, how can it be transparent when the EBRC report does not bother to explain the changes?
If there are cogent reasons for changes in boundaries, this should be made known to all Singaporeans for transparency and accountability. It would simply be a matter of recording on paper, what the Committee had discussed and agreed to. If we look overseas, the most recent report for the review of parliamentary constituency boundaries in England went into detail explaining the reasoning behind how constituencies were derived and how certain geographic features, such as the River Thames or expressways, were used as boundaries.
It is up to the Prime Minister to decide on the terms of reference provided to the EBRC and it is up to him to set the standards that he expects of the EBRC, in terms of transparency and accountability.
The Minister also said that the EBRC should be left to do its work independently, without fear of public pressure. We do not agree that requiring transparency from the EBRC in the form of clearer and more detailed reports would affect the functions of the EBRC. Judges provide reasons for their decisions in detailed judgments available to the public. This has not affected their ability to work independently.
The Minister has also, in several instances, implied that we are doing this for personal interests. As I recall, when I did the Motion on GRC, calling for GRCs to be abolished, he remarked that I am arguing against something that benefited me because I rode on the coattails of Dr Tan Cheng Bock. At that time, my reply to him was that, it is not a matter of whether I benefited, it is whether this system is best for Singapore.
Again, I would like to reiterate that now he is querying me for arguing for something that will be for my benefit. It seems that either way, I will not meet with his approval. So, again, I just want to say, let us not focus on personal interests. Let us discuss and debate based on the merits of the issues here and do not go after the person making these proposals.
The Minister attributed that what we wanted is that in the constituencies where we have done well, to not change it because we want to go back there again. I would like to ask the Minister to state specifically where in our speeches did we ask for our constituencies to be unchanged. In our proposal, we are merely asking for major boundaries based on guidance from HDB town boundaries, URA planning boundaries, which, in fact, if it were implemented, would imply changes, for example, in the West Coast GRC. So, please, do not attribute things to us that we did not ask for.
He also said that if he were to do that – to not change a constituency so that the opposition can go back again – then that would be gerrymandering. I would like to point out that the definition of gerrymandering is to change boundaries. To ask for not changing it, cannot be gerrymandering.
Finally, the Minister took issue with the words in the Motion statement "for political parties" and concluded that therefore, this Motion is all for the benefit of political parties and not for Singapore. I wish to point out that that would be focusing on semantics. What we are arguing for in this Motion is for fairness, transparency and accountability. It is very important to assure that there is fair competition in the political arena because this can only give Singapore a healthier democracy and that is definitely in the national interest.
Sir, in closing, I believe that PSP's proposal is balanced and considered, and will enhance the transparency and accountability of the electoral boundaries review process. It will make the process fairer for all political parties.
Much of the electorate has grown accustomed to the changes of the boundaries without much justification and explanations. When conducting house visits, we often hear residents joke to us about how they kept moving constituencies in consecutive GEs without physically moving house, but underlying the joke is disagreement.
As society develops, our expectations change. Fairness and good governance are gaining greater importance. As a small nation, we are keenly aware of the importance of fair and just approaches when it comes to competition in the international arena. As a country, we believe in upholding meritocracy and fair competition is an important pillar to upholding meritocracy. It also pushes all of us to be better than we thought we can be. In this same spirit, we can see our Olympians bringing out the best versions of themselves in Paris.
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. I call on all hon Members to support the Motion. [Applause.]
Are there any clarifications for Ms Poa? I do not see any.
The question is, "That this House calls on the Government to review the process by which electoral boundaries are determined in order to increase the transparency and fairness of the electoral boundary review process for all political parties." As many are —
Yes, Ms Poa?
I wish to call for a division, please.
I have not reached that stage yet. Hang on. And the Leader of the Opposition, you had the same point? Okay. Let the process go on. Let me repeat.
The question is, "That this House calls on the Government to review the process by which electoral boundaries are determined in order to increase the transparency and fairness of the electoral boundary review process for all political parties." As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".
Some hon Members say "Aye".
To the contrary say "No".
Hon Members say "No".
I think the Noes have it. The Noes have it. Any Member wishes for his dissent or abstention to be recorded before I declare the result?
Do I ask for the division now?
Sure, now you can ask for the division. So, you have to ask.
Can I call for a division?
You can still continue to ask for the division, but would the Member wish for hers and other Members' dissent to be recorded? It is the same outcome.
Sorry, Speaker. Just to move things along, dissent would be the PAP's dissent. So, that is why the Member is calling for division.
No, we will get to the same point here. So, all Members who support the division, please rise in your place.
More than five hon Members rose.
Okay, you can sit down. Clerk, ring the division bells.
After two minutes –
Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.
The question is that, "That this House calls on the Government to review the process by which electoral boundaries are determined in order to increase the transparency and fairness of the electoral boundary review process for all political parties."
Ms Poa, you have claimed a division. Would you like to proceed with the division?
Yes.
Clerk, proceed with the division. Before I proceed to start the electronic voting, may I remind Members that they are to be seated at their designated seats and should only start to vote when the voting buttons on the armrest start to blink.
Alright, Members may begin to vote.
Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the electronic voting results are shown on the display screens.
The Clerks will now tally the votes from the electronic voting.
Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that their vote has not been recorded correctly?
I do not see any. I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 10 "Ayes", "76 Noes", no "Abstentions". The "Noes" have it.
Question, "That this House calls on the Government to review the process by which electoral boundaries are determined in order to increase the transparency and fairness of the electoral boundary review process for all political parties", put and negatived.
Leader of the House.
PAPERCUTS