INVOLVING political parties will only politicise the electoral boundary review process, while setting a fixed formula could undermine effectiveness, said Education Minister Chan Chun Sing, as he rejected suggestions from opposition Members of Parliament (MPs).
The Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC), which oversees the process, has not yet been convened, said Chan on Wednesday (Aug 7).
He was replying on behalf of Prime Minister Lawrence Wong to a motion filed by Progress Singapore Party (PSP) Non-Constituency MPs Hazel Poa and Leong Mun Wai.
Their motion called 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”.
Parliament rejected the motion, with 76 MPs voting against it. All 10 opposition MPs – two PSP NCMPs and eight Workers’ Party MPs – voted in favour of the motion.
Greater fairness, transparency
In her speech on the motion, Poa said the PSP believes 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”.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
The EBRC must make public the reasons that boundaries of certain constituencies are changed while others are untouched, she said, noting that the committee used to provide more elaboration on its decisions.
“Many constituencies now have strange boundaries that do not follow the boundaries of HDB (Housing and Development Board) towns or URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority) planning areas, or have any relation to how people on the ground live their lives,” she added.
“It is difficult to tell whether the EBRC has changed boundaries simply because of population shifts and housing developments, or for other reasons.”
Poa laid out three suggestions to improve the EBRC’s process.
First, the EBRC should publish the number of voters in each constituency based on prevailing boundaries, then identify the constituencies which need changes based on fixed population criteria.
Only such affected constituencies, or those that border them, should have their boundaries changed, added Poa. The basis for any changes should also be published.
PSP proposed a criterion of one MP to 30,000 voters, with a deviation of plus or minus 10 per cent, such that each MP represents 27,000 to 33,000 voters.
“This is a fairer distribution of duties among MPs and fairer to voters in terms of their voting weightage,” said Poa, arguing that the current range of 20,000 to 38,000 voters per MP is too wide.
Second, “major boundaries” and “minor boundaries” should be introduced to reduce the potential for gerrymandering, she said.
Major boundaries – containing one or two group representation constituencies (GRCs) and a few single-member ones – should “take into consideration local ties and geographical considerations”, and take reference from HDB town boundaries. They cannot be changed unless agreed to by a bipartisan committee.
Minor boundaries, which lie within the major boundaries, can be changed.
Third, the composition of the EBRC should be codified in law to prevent abuse and address concerns about potential conflict of interest, since the committee reports to the prime minister, added Poa.
The PSP suggests that it should be chaired by a High Court judge, with the four other members being the chief statistician and the executive officers of the Elections Department, HDB and Singapore Land Authority.
‘Fundamentally wrong’ premise
Joining the debate, Workers’ Party MP Jamus Lim suggested allowing political parties to propose or reject changes, noting that the People’s Action Party invited opposition parties to submit proposals on constituency divisions in 1963.
Another solution is to use algorithms to suggest changes, based on factors such as population targets, he said. These tools have been created by researchers from Harvard and Tufts universities in the United States, and can be adapted by the EBRC.
Noting the risk of “unconscious bias” towards the incumbent, Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh suggested that a High Court judge – selected by the Chief Justice – be appointed as a member of the EBRC.
He also suggested that proposed boundary changes be published “well in advance” of the election cycle, and to let the public provide feedback.
In his response, Chan said the motion’s premise that the EBRC is neither transparent nor fair is “fundamentally wrong”.
Electoral boundaries balance each division’s population with its geographical size, he said.
“The EBRC reviews the boundaries holistically, by taking into account population shifts and housing developments, while making sure that the boundaries make practical sense.”
Dismissing the suggestions from the MPs in turn, Chan noted that involving political parties will “not bring us forward, but bring us backward” – and would count as gerrymandering.
Meanwhile, the government has studied the idea of appointing a High Court judge to the EBRC, but believes this will not resolve concerns about political interference, and will only politicise the judiciary.
Jurisdictions that have done so continue to face allegations and doubts about the independence of the electoral boundary delineation process, he added.
As for narrowing the range of voters per MP, Chan said that applying the same margin of deviation used by bigger countries – such as the United Kingdom and Australia – will lead to more frequent and drastic changes, due to Singapore’s small base.
Since 1980, Singapore has had a planning norm of plus or minus 30 per cent in the average number of electors per MP, because population shifts between elections can be quite significant, said Chan.
“No electoral system in the world can definitively claim that every vote is exactly the same, or near equal”, and established democracies are still debating this issue, he added.
The government has also studied PSP’s suggestion to introduce major and minor boundaries, but is not sure that this will resolve fundamental issues, said Chan.
This will also invite questions on what should constitute a major or minor boundary, which will bring the debate back to square one, he noted.
As for the timing of the report, Chan said the government has given “reasonable notice” before the past few general elections.
“Frankly, I don’t think any amount of explanation is going to satisfy any political party, be it the incumbent or opposition,” said Chan.
“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.”
