Chan Chun Sing dodges direct answers and criticism in electoral boundary debate

Electoral boundaries are drawn to serve the interests of the people, not those of political parties, stated Education Minister Chan Chun Sing in Parliament on 7 August during a motion debate raised by the Progress Singapore Party’s (PSP) Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) calling for a review of the electoral boundary review process.

However, he refrained from giving a direct yes or no answer when asked if there is gerrymandering in Singapore.

Mr Chan, who also serves as Minister-in-charge of the Public Service, emphasized that the primary interest of Singaporeans is to have Members of Parliament (MPs) who can take care of and represent them effectively and for a Parliament that can form a functioning government.

He argued that the Government opposes the motion because it is based on the incorrect premise that the process should favour political parties and that the current process lacks transparency and fairness.

Initial Proposals and Responses

The debate was initiated by PSP NCMP Hazel Poa, who proposed several reforms to the boundary drawing process.

These included the need for the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) to publicly explain all changes to dispel suspicions of gerrymandering. Ms Poa also suggested narrowing the range of voters per MP from the current 20,000 to 38,000 to ensure fairer representation and distribution of duties among MPs.

In response, Mr Chan, who was answering on behalf of Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, acknowledged the desire for more transparency from the EBRC but stressed the importance of allowing public officers to work independently and objectively without the fear of political repercussions. He highlighted that the EBRC is composed of senior civil servants with no party allegiance, ensuring the process remains insulated from party politics.

Mr Chan further noted that the EBRC does not have access to voting information and does not base its recommendations on voting patterns. He rejected the proposal for the EBRC to be chaired by a High Court judge, arguing that such a move could politicize the judiciary.

Exchange with PSP NCMP Leong Mun Wai

PSP NCMP Leong Mun Wai questioned Mr Chan about the irregular shapes of certain constituencies and the splitting of Housing Development Board (HDB) towns across multiple constituencies. He cited examples like Braddell Heights being part of Marine Parade GRC and questioned the rationale behind frequent changes in constituency borders experienced by residents.

Mr Leong argued that the current system appears politicized and asked for explanations of various anomalies in the boundary drawing process. He emphasized that a more compact and economically efficient arrangement would be preferable.

In response, Mr Chan reiterated that the motion was about the process of boundary drawing rather than specific decisions made by the EBRC. He clarified that he had no influence over the EBRC’s decisions and reiterated that the focus should be on maintaining an apolitical process.

Mr Chan warned that adopting Mr Leong’s suggestions could lead to even more drastic boundary changes. He emphasized that the primary goal is to ensure the electoral process commands trust and respect from the public and that the ultimate outcome should benefit Singapore and its citizens, rather than any particular political party.

Mr Leong countered by stating that their proposals aimed for a more objective and rational boundary drawing process, not a politically motivated outcome. He sought confirmation from Mr Chan that the debate’s focus was on achieving fairer and more compact constituencies.

Mr Chan expressed confusion over Mr Leong’s suggestions and reiterated the importance of allowing the EBRC to work independently, without specific instructions from the Prime Minister, to avoid the politicization of the process.

Chan: No to scientifically based methods to adjust electoral divisions

Mr Chan also dismissed suggestions made by Workers’ Party (WP) MP Associate Professor Jamus Lim. Assoc Prof Lim proposed using scientifically sound methods and independent electoral commissions to ensure transparency and address potential issues of unfair representation in the electoral boundary review process.

Mr Chan expressed openness to exploring various models but cautioned that adjusting electoral divisions to reflect voting patterns could inadvertently lead to gerrymandering. He questioned whether fairness is defined by process or outcome and reiterated that the EBRC’s current methods ensure impartiality.

Mr Lim acknowledged that while intentional gerrymandering might not be an issue, unintentional gerrymandering could arise from natural shifts in the electorate. He advocated for using scientific tools to create benchmark maps and questioned why the Prime Minister’s Office does not direct the EBRC to adopt these methods, which have been effectively used in other jurisdictions.

Exchange with Leader of the Opposition

During the debate, Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh supported the call for greater transparency and fairness in the boundary review process. He cited past boundary changes as examples of potential gerrymandering, including the incorporation of Braddell Heights SMC into Marine Parade GRC in 1997 and the merger of Joo Chiat SMC into Marine Parade GRC in 2015.

Mr Singh referenced a 1983 statement by Lee Kuan Yew, noting that electoral boundary committees were to consist solely of civil servants unless a credible opposition existed. He asked if Mr Chan’s comments marked a departure from this practice. He also sought a direct answer on whether there is gerrymandering in Singapore, referencing the Minister’s earlier comments about the EBRC taking note of close electoral contests in previous elections.

In response, Mr Chan reiterated his trust in civil servants to handle the electoral boundary process impartially, avoiding political interference. He stated that the process remains unchanged to prevent the kind of political horse-trading seen in other countries. Mr Chan expressed confidence in the civil servants’ objectivity and professionalism, emphasizing that they have served Singapore well.

Mr Chan also noted that the future government’s approach could differ, depending on its leadership and priorities, but any changes would need to be justified in Parliament. He argued that while past practices inform current processes, they should not constrain the evolution of systems to meet contemporary needs.

Regarding gerrymandering, Mr Chan sidestepped the direct question, reiterating his explanation of its implications in other countries and leaving it to the House and public to interpret his comments on its relevance to Singapore.

Despite the proposals from the opposition, the motion was not carried at the end of the two-hour debate. The final vote saw 76 MPs voting against the motion, while the eight opposition MPs from the WP and two from the PSP voted in favour.