Calvin Cheng’s downplaying of gerrymandering in Singapore sparks online backlash

Netizens challenged former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Calvin Cheng’s assertion that “it’s very difficult to gerrymander in Singapore,” arguing that he was downplaying or dismissing the reality of gerrymandering in the country.

While Mr Cheng suggested that Singapore’s ethnic integration policy and the absence of racial or socioeconomic enclaves make gerrymandering difficult, some netizens pressed him to explain whether carving out parts of a closely contested constituency and merging them into a stronghold GRC could still achieve the same effect of weakening opposition votes.

Calvin Cheng Downplays Gerrymandering Concerns in Singapore

In a podcast interview with Mothership published on 10 August on YouTube, Mr Cheng argued that while opposition supporters may suspect gerrymandering, the practicalities of implementing it in Singapore differ significantly from those in countries like the US or the UK.

To explain gerrymandering, he referred to “psephology,” the study of voting trends and patterns, noting that effective gerrymandering requires knowledge of distinct demographic clusters that vote in predictable ways.

He pointed out that in countries like the US, where racial or socioeconomic enclaves exist, gerrymandering is easier because constituency lines can be drawn to favor one party.

However, due to policies such as the Ethnic Integration Policy, Singapore lacks such enclaves.

Citing  Minister-in-charge of the Public Service Chan Chun Sing’s claim that the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) does not have access to voting statistics from previous elections, Mr Cheng argued that this makes conventional gerrymandering difficult.

He also challenged the notion that voting behaviour can be predicted based on socioeconomics or demographics in Singapore, given the diversity within each constituency.

“There is no demographic that you are certain; there are no clums of demographics that you can carve out that you know is going to vote in a certain way,” said Mr Cheng.

He emphasized that in Singapore, elections are often decided by swing voters rather than by consistent voting patterns.

Therefore, even if boundaries are redrawn, it does not necessarily guarantee a significant shift in voter support toward one party.

The Mothership podcast host then highlighted concerns raised by NCMP Hazel Poa and Leader of Opposition Pritam Singh in the Parliament on 7 August regarding the neutrality of the EBRC.

Participating in the motion debate, Pritam Singh cited examples where opposition-held constituencies, such as Braddell Heights SMC and Joo Chiat SMC, were absorbed into larger GRCs following close electoral contests.

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

Mr Cheng reiterated that Singapore’s diverse and integrated population makes it challenging to predict and manipulate voting patterns through boundary changes, meaning even dividing a constituency like Aljunied GRC among other GRCs would not guarantee a benefit for the PAP.

He suggested that attempting to gerrymander in Singapore could backfire, potentially angering voters and leading to unintended consequences, such as losing multiple GRCs rather than securing a single one.

Mr Cheng argued that because concerns are uniform across Singapore, local issues have less impact, which could disadvantage the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) if they focus on local issues to gain votes. Instead, national issues and overall policies become more significant in elections.

Netizens Question if Merging Close-Fight Constituencies into GRCs Could be Considered Gerrymandering

Observing the comments on Mothership’s Facebook post and YouTube, netizens argued that Mr Cheng’s focus on the absence of racial enclaves missed the broader point that gerrymandering can also involve manipulating boundaries based on class and income groups, not just race.

Some netizens accused Cheng of using straw man arguments by focusing narrowly on racial enclaves and ignoring other forms of gerrymandering, such as merging risky SMCs with safer GRCs to protect ruling party interests.One comment noted that voting behaviour is influenced by factors beyond race, and questioning Mr Cheng whether integrating close-fight constituencies into larger GRCs could still be a form of gerrymandering, even if it’s not straightforward.

The comment suggested that there could be more nuanced methods, such as partially integrating close-fight constituencies into stronghold GRCs, which might still influence election outcomes.

Another netizen criticized Mr. Cheng’s explanations about gerrymandering as unconvincing, arguing that a GRC with a substantial buffer of ruling party votes could safely incorporate an SMC, thus reducing the influence of the opposition’s votes.

Calvin Cheng responds to  online criticism

Responding to online criticism, Mr Cheng in a Facebook comment reiterated that errymandering requires an understanding of psephology, which studies long-term voting trends by demographics such as age, race, religion, income, and education, rather than just looking at past election results.

“It’s not about looking at how people voted in the last election (%).”

“And then after studying these psephological underpinnings, you have to map it onto geographical spread to see if gerrymandering can even be done.”

Yeoh Lian Chuan, a Singaporean lawyer, criticized Mr Cheng’s argument as “meaningless semantics.”

He acknowledged that while the term “gerrymandering” might be debated, political manipulation occurs when a constituency is absorbed into a GRC based on political considerations.

“That said, I agree with the Government that constituencies should be designed to be broadly microcosms of Singapore and that the EBRC broadly seeks to do that.”

Mr Yeoh argued that Cheng’s explanation did not address whether political factors influence the delimitation process, which he believes is a significant issue.