Opinion
Chan Chun Sing’s non-reply on gerrymandering suggests it may be practiced in Singapore
Opinion: Chan Chun Sing’s non-reply to a straightforward question on gerrymandering in Parliament on 7 August raises serious doubts. While it might not be a smoking gun proving gerrymandering in Singapore, it certainly suggests that the practice could be in place, especially when considering historical precedents of Prime Ministerial influence over boundary decisions.
![](https://gutzymedia.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp/2024/08/11150135/Election-CCS.png)
In Parliament on 7 August, Education Minister Chan Chun Sing made a non-statement that might have inadvertently revealed more than intended.
During a motion debate raised by the Progress Singapore Party’s (PSP) Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs), Mr Chan addressed statements made by members of the opposition about Singapore’s electoral boundaries, a topic that has long been a subject of public suspicion and concern.
PSP NCMP Mr Leong Mun Wai, speaking on the motion, questioned the irregular shapes of certain constituencies and the seemingly arbitrary splitting of Housing Development Board (HDB) towns across multiple constituencies.
Mr Leong cited examples like Braddell Heights, where he lives, being part of Marine Parade GRC, and questioned the rationale behind the frequent changes in constituency borders experienced by residents.
In response, Mr Chan merely reiterated that the motion was about the process of boundary drawing rather than specific decisions made by the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC). He clarified that he had no influence over the EBRC’s decisions and emphasized that the focus should be on maintaining an apolitical process.
Mr Chan, speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, asserted that electoral boundaries are drawn to serve the interests of the people, not political parties.
Yet, when pressed for a direct answer on whether gerrymandering occurs in Singapore by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Chan demurred, leaving his response open-ended and ambiguous.
Mr Singh asked, “Is there gerrymandering in Singapore?”
In response, Mr Chan said, “I think I’ve explained the meaning of gerrymandering, what it means in other countries, and whether it applies or does not apply in our context. And I’ll leave it to members of the House and the public to decide.”
This refusal to answer a straightforward question could be seen as a warning sign. Under Singaporean law, while statements made in Parliament are generally protected from liability, false representation of facts can still lead to consequences under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.
If Mr Chan had been aware that gerrymandering had indeed taken place in Singapore and had falsely presented this knowledge to Parliament, he would have risked severe repercussions.
This legal risk could explain why Mr Chan avoided giving a direct answer. His hesitation might suggest that acknowledging the absence of gerrymandering could expose him to legal jeopardy if evidence to the contrary were ever made public. The same reason why Dr Vivian Balakrishnan saw the need to clarify the assurance he made to Parliament over the use of data in the TraceTogether app, which he had previously promised would be used only for COVID-19 tracing purposes.
What is also telling is that despite the political significance of this issue, no other members of the People’s Action Party (PAP), including the Prime Minister, chose to address the motion from the PSP.
This silence speaks volumes, suggesting that Mr Chan may not be alone in his reluctance to tackle the question head-on. The fact that the Prime Minister — both current and former — and other senior members of the PAP who were present at the motion did not engage in the debate might imply that they, too, would struggle to provide a straightforward answer without risking contradiction or legal implications.
Adding weight to the suspicions of gerrymandering is a recollection shared by veteran journalist Bertha Henson.
In a Facebook exchange with Andrew Loh, co-founder of The Online Citizen, over PSP’s motion, she recalled a conversation with Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, who was then Prime Minister, in which he reportedly said that he would ask the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) to redraw boundaries to facilitate a direct contest between Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), and then-Minister of State Matthias Yao of the People’s Action Party at Marine Parade GRC.
A version of this arrangement was recorded in a report in The Straits Times on 3 October 1994.
The report stated, “He (Mr Yao) said he had sought and the Prime Minister had agreed to propose to the proper authority to have his MacPherson ward detached from Marine Parade GRC for this straight fight.”
There does not appear to be any public record of ESM Goh refuting this news.
Furthermore, a Straits Times report on the EBRC’s report in November 1996 explicitly stated that the Mountbatten Single Member Constituency (SMC) was being carved out from Marine Parade GRC so that Dr Chee and Mr Yao could have a straight fight between them, seemingly supporting the notion that the Prime Minister does exert influence over the EBRC’s decisions.
With the above in mind, Mr Chan’s defence that the Prime Minister has no influence over the EBRC’s boundary reviews seems awfully difficult to reconcile with this historical precedent.
Let’s not also forget that the members of the EBRC are top civil servants appointed under the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
The composition of the EBRC committee has historically been comprised of:
- Secretary to the Cabinet, who typically also serves as the Prime Minister’s Principal Private Secretary
- Chief Executive Officer of the Housing and Development Board
- Chief Executive of the Singapore Land Authority
- Chief Statistician, Department of Statistics
- Head of the Elections Department, who reports to the Prime Minister
Given this context, it is reasonable to question whether the committee operates independently of the Prime Minister’s influence or whether it is swayed by the political objectives of the ruling party.
Even setting aside the question of whether gerrymandering is actively practised in Singapore, the way electoral boundaries are drawn undeniably raises eyebrows among voters who have seen changes to their constituencies in general elections, despite residing at the same address for decades.
The frequent redrawing of boundaries, often resulting in changes that appear to benefit the incumbent PAP, does little to dispel suspicions of gerrymandering. For instance, the removal of SMCs that the PAP nearly lost in previous elections could be interpreted as a strategy to secure electoral advantage and create an issue for alternative political parties to campaign as they are uncertain how the boundaries would be redrawn.
An explicit example of this is the case of Joo Chiat SMC, where former WP NCMP Yee Jenn Jong won 48.98% of the vote in GE2011. Mr Yee was awarded an NCMP position because of the high percentage he received and later worked hard to campaign in the SMC over the next few years.
However, in GE2015, the SMC was absorbed into Marine Parade GRC, forcing him to form a team to contest in the GRC, which the National Solidarity Party had contested in the previous election — another issue arising from the arbitrary redrawing of electoral boundaries.
For larger parties like the PSP and the Workers’ Party, countering the potential redrawing of boundaries may involve contesting neighbouring constituencies so that even if there is a redraw, the party will still be in the running.
Ironically, this approach could eventually turn the practice of boundary redrawing against the ruling party itself, as seen in the case of Sengkang GRC, where the PAP lost three of its officeholders.
At its core, politics is about serving the people, and the belief that the PAP may be redrawing boundaries for its political gain undermines public trust.
For many years, the social compact between the PAP and Singaporeans has been one where citizens overlook these perceived manipulations in exchange for prosperity and stability.
However, as job opportunities, including newly created positions, seemingly go in the way of foreigners (including Permanent Residents)—as shown in the latest labour report—and the cost of living continues to rise, particularly for younger generations in their apparent struggle to afford new homes, this compact is showing signs of strain. The next general election could see this trust re-evaluated, along with the acceptance of the perceived practice of gerrymandering.
Mr Chan’s non-reply to the question of gerrymandering in Singapore might not be a smoking gun regarding whether gerrymandering takes place in the city-state, but it certainly raises more questions than it answers.
![](https://gutzy.asia/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Gutzy-Logo-whiteS.png)
-
Politics2 weeks ago
Jamus Lim on Minister Chee Hong Tat’s remarks on fiscal policy: Calls for genuine debate over rhetoric
-
Community2 weeks ago
Toast Box faces backlash and boycott calls amid price increases
-
Media1 week ago
Notice to Our Readers: Moving Back to The Online Citizen
-
Singapore2 weeks ago
Singapore introduces new scheme in April 2025 offering up to S$6,000 in financial support for retrenched workers
-
Politics2 weeks ago
Jamus Lim raises concerns over high cost of living and its impact on Singaporeans’ sense of belonging
-
Opinion2 weeks ago
Chee Hong Tat’s call for fiscal prudence rings hollow amid contradictory government spending
-
Singapore2 weeks ago
Tan Suee Chieh: Sacrificing NTUC Income’s values for short-term gains undermines its foundation
-
Comments2 weeks ago
Netizens raise skepticism over Inclusiveness of Singapore’s new Jobseeker Support scheme
Hope voters keep him in his seat this GE so that we can have Change faster. If Clean Slate, change will be tougher.
How they draw the boundaries and whatever gerrymandering they used is also useless….IF YOU LOCALS FUCKTARDS HAVE THE BALLS NOT TO VOTE FOR THEM!
So this is all pointless to debate as it was always you locals as voters ,who VOTED TO HAVE YOURSELF SCREWED ,except those who can enrich themselves in such governing system!😆😆
Cheng San GRC years ago was nearly lost to opposition, the EBRC…I mean pap deleted Cheng San GRC. This gerrymandering continued for years and elections, and later Joo Chiat also disappeared by pap after the opposition nearly won that ward. Coincidence??? I think not! There’s no clearer proofs than these, that pap had for years been gerrymandering. When pap fails, gerrymandering seems their sure way of hegemony over Singapore politics. Pap has failed indeed
So the answer is YES it’s practiced here. It’s just plain security protocol to canvas areas where support for the white ants is weak. We all know that and they know that.
Did his voters voted for him knowingly or they voted blindly?
Note whether Gerrymandering is criminalized in SG legal system and if Not, why?
The only way to know the truth is dig out everything and investigate everything. In the absence of this, we can only make our own perceptions using our Intellect and gut feel. 1. If EBRC is independent, how does chan prove beyond doubt what he says is the truth about the way the boundaries are drawn? Simply becos he said so? Arbiter of Truth? 2. If he does not know first hand how the EBRC decided on how to draw the boundaries, how can he say what he said except as his personal opinion only? In parliament, how is such… Read more »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
“Gerrymandering is almost always considered a corruption of the democratic process. ” So Lee Hsien Yang is correct about his brother! Abuse of power and corruption of due process by redrawing electoral boundaries to unfairly favour pap – this cannot go on. Let’s vote for change! No matter how you vote, pap already won the next election. Let’s all vote opposition and deny pap their two thirds majority!
When the PAP Administration has victories over their attacks against Opposition people like Lim Tean, Leong, much publicised all over the Singaporeans OWNED PAP Manipulated Media, has victorious over SMALL powerless Citizens who voiced displasures, when they LOUDLY Give THANKS to China for RELEASING SAF Vehicles at HK Port – THEY CELEBRATE as THOUGH they WON A HUGE WARS, over weak entities whether citizens or other people HAVING stakes in SG.
When their EXPOSED, CORRUPTION EXPOSED, they avoid avoid avoid AND RUN AWAY like FACING with ghosts.
If course the pap had been guilty of gerrymandering all these years. They control everything from arts, sports, EBRC etc . Of course those obedient canines in EBRC know which side of their bread is buttered, and will always do pap’s bidding to act against opposition and against the will and the people of Singapore. To claim EBRC being independent from pap’s interference and manipulation is like saying Lawrence Wong acts independently as pm. What a joke! What an insult against voters! What atrocity!
C’mon, it’s not just Ah Sing issit, … and their evading and not responding of and to key questions is not limited to gerrymandering alone issit !!!
This is the gradual and actual erosion of transparency, equitability and accountability within the regime, and, … it’ll only worsen to the point where it’ll be the norm, and entirely acceptable to the majority, … because in return they get security, most powerful passport and bragging rights of a strong Sing dollar !!!
Pathetic state of affairs and I can only repeat once again, … only in SillyPore !!!
Terry Xu, China going to Sodomise you soon.
Last round why no female party member in Marine Parade GRC? Was there discrimination against woman? Also why far few young party members below 30 yr old in the GE? Due to aging population? Thus discriminate young voters? TPL already old-girl liao, we need new energetic MPs not too much above 40s MPs with short runwayS. Somehow I like SYTs although I old liao. My family line will ends with me. But I wish to see more young people taking over the future of this nation fixing all those shit our older gen created. Please, Sorry, and Thank you! PGRN… Read more »
Perhaps in 2 decades time, Marine Parade GRC electoral boundary will draw until Yishun then reaches Woodlands, CCK , Jurong, Clementi, followed by a round trip to Queens Town, Bukit Merah, and connects back to Little India and Kallang. Then we will call it RICH GRC aka Round-Island-Circle-of-Hope GRC. 😁 After that CDC can provide FREE-Shuttle Buses going from Marine Parade to Woodlands shopping trip @ JB or Jurong West trip to Serangoon for Fish Ball noodle stall operated by Lightning team. Wait till the GRC win by a non Lightning team, then the whole thing will look so funny.… Read more »
The EBRC is comprised of people from various Government agancies.
Whatever boundaries that they draw up will be to PAP’s advantage.
But the EBRC will just reply with the standard manner .. repeating exactly in the
style of any other agency of Government:
“We have taken into account the relevant data and believe that this for the best for Singapore”
End of statement.
And that is the end of the matter.
No one files a police report either.
ELD comprises of gagi lang, what do you all people think?
Vote counting is also gagi lang…..lol.
Can I Repeat
Bye Bye
Sayonara
For many years, the social compact between the PAP and Singaporeans has been one where citizens overlook these perceived manipulations in exchange for prosperity and stability.
Can conclude
Selling their Soul to Satan
Want stability convert to full communists
Shitagapore far worst than Chinese Communists .
Gerrymandering is necessary when your policies have no more public appeal.
If you can’t beat ’em ,cheat ’em.
This picture is slowing unfolding.
Frankly, the whole of Singapore knows that gerrymandering is practised; no matter the denials or skirting around the issue. One solution may be to use the number of voters as a guide eg SMCs, let’s say 15,000 and GRCs not more than 80,000 (regardless the number of MPs) These are my arbitrary numbers; a top of the head suggestion. In addition, geography is important. We should not have another Marine Parade-type GRC that reaches Braddel Heights. Proximity of the precincts to each other should be a must. And the EBRC should give a detailed justification or explanation if changes are… Read more »
Arrh
South East Asia standard
我沒讀書
讓我看一下 華文翻譯
格里蝾螈(英语:Gerrymandering)[1],又名不公正划分选区[2],是一个来自美国的政治术语,指以不公平的选区划分方法操纵选举,使投票结果有利于某方。这个术语源自1812年美国马萨诸塞州州长埃尔布里奇·格里(Elbridge Thomas Gerry)将某一选区划分成不寻常的蝾螈(salamander)状,以让民主共和党得胜。当时被重划的选区中,有一选区形状特别怪异,有如蝾螈(一种长得像蜥蜴的两栖动物),格里的政敌于是将格里(Gerry)姓氏与蝾螈的字尾(mander)组合成“gerrymandering”(格里蝾螈),以影射为照顾党派利益,不公平画分选区的方式,此后沿用于世。[3]美国最高法院在1985年裁决该做法违宪,此后各州的众议院选区划分须以人口比例去作分配,而全国则以每十年的人口普查决定州的选区数目。