Gerrymandering in Singapore

One of the most obvious affronts to democracy that an incumbent political party can engage in is the process of gerrymandering. Roughly defined as the process of redrawing electoral boundaries to increase ones own chances of winning a seat, it enables parties that have won an election to maintain their grip on power longer than they have a right to.

In a transparent and accountable democracy the process of redrawing electoral boundaries is done by an independent body, one that follows clearly set guidelines and timelines and has to publicly publish the reasoning behind any changes made to the electoral map such that the citizens of the land know those changes are being made for the right reasons. Since the holding of free and fair elections is a key part of the democratic process, the process of gerrymandering, if it takes place, is widely seen as an abuse of power and to undermine the rights of the people.

The Singapore Electoral Boundaries Review Commission (EBRC) is the body responsible for this process, and it recently released its latest report on the electoral map of Singapore. The result, as well as the process by which it was arrived at, paints a bleak picture for supporters of democracy and freedom on the little red dot. The most obvious concern at this stage is the timing. Coming just months or even weeks before the hotly anticipated upcoming election, it contains significant changes to many districts across Singapore that have historically shown strong support for opposition parties, undermining the hard work those parties have done in recent years to build a strong relationship with their local citizens. Workers Party (WP) Chairman Sylvia Lim made her feelings clear, that WP has been a victim of gerrymandering.

“What struck us, at first glance, is that we believe there is some gerrymandering involved in favour of the ruling party.

“If you look at Aljunied GRC, for example, we note very quickly there have been nine precincts given out of Aljunied GRC. Seven to Ang Mo Kio GRC and two to Punggol-Pasir Ris.

“And particularly these precincts are actually very close to Hougang SMC (Single Member Constituency), where we know there is significant WP support.”

Reform Party Chairman Kenneth Jeyaretnam was equally disparaging of the process as well as the results

"There seems to be neither rhyme nor reason behind the decisions to create new boundaries as outlined in the report. We are in solidarity with our fellow Opposition parties such as The Worker’s Party who have stated that 'indications of gerrymandering are apparent'."

So what is the cause of this outrage? Does the EBRC report constitute gerrymandering and are the criticisms of the opposition reasonable or in the best interests of the people of Singapore? The answer is a resounding YES! The EBRC report cannot, for numerous reasons, be considered fair, objective, transparent or in the interests of democracy or the people.

The first and most obvious concern about the conduct of the EBRC is their lack of independence. The EBRC is explicitly not an independent body, it is set up to report to the Prime Minister of Singapore which immediately raises the question of whether the committee has a vested interest to maintain the power of the incumbent PAP, rather than to represent the wishes of Singaporean citizens. Given the PAPs frequently spoken desire to "fix" the opposition, there is a very real concern that the practice of gerrymandering is being used by the EBRC to "fix" the elections of Singapore in favour of the PAP.

The second most egregious concern about the actions of the EBRC is the lack of transparency. This is something Kenneth has alluded to in his quote above, "There seems to be neither rhyme nor reason behind the decisions to create new boundaries as outlined in the report". It is important to be aware that the report contains no explanation or discussion of the reasoning behind why the electoral map has been re-drawn the way it has. Given the significant role of the report in the electoral process, one should expect to see a thorough analysis and explanation of why certain changes have or have not been made. This is important not only to assure Singaporeans that changes are being made fairly but also so that the people can have an informed and engaged debate about and the actions of the EBRC. Without any explanation for their actions the fear that the EBRC engages in gerrymandering to support the Prime Minister and tilt elections against the opposition is only going to linger.

The final point is about accountability, and it is related to those of transparency and independence which I have discussed above. Since the members of the panel are anonymous, they are essentially unaccountable for their actions, and there is therefore a very real risk that the report they generated will not necessarily be in the best interests of Singaporeans. Consider for example if the EBRC includes a hypothetical MP from a district that was closely contested in the last election. With no oversight, independence or explanation required for his (or her) actions, the temptation for this MP, who is no doubt enjoying a significant salary for their place in parliament, to move the boundaries in their own favour must surely exist. I would not like to suggest that this line of thinking really is the cause of the electoral map that the EBRC ultimately published, but the point remains that without independent processes or oversight, there can be no guarantee that the end result will really be in the best interests of all Singaporeans. In fact, even if the EBRC did act in the best interests of Singaporeans, the very flawed process by which they operate could still leave doubts and concerns in the minds of the public and thus undermine the democratic process itself.

The PAP has created and watches over this system, which for so many reasons can not be seen to be in the best interests of Singaporeans, and that should be a huge concern for the people. There are also numerous reasons to think that actually, the EBRC is a vehicle for the PAP to engage in gerrymandering and the undermine the democratic process in Singapore, and that again is a huge concern for the wellbeing of Singaporean society. I want to say that I believe the citizens of Singapore (and of any country) should be free to vote however they like, and I will respect their decision no matter what. However, there is one caveat that their vote has to be a free one, and take place in a real and open democratic system, one in which their choices are not artificially limited by gerrymandering or any other schemes that the incumbent party my take part in. Until Singaporeans have a real free vote, anyone who believes in true democracy will continue to raise concerns about the outcome of their elections.

Singapore Fiddling Carbon Reduction Numbers

Singapore is an island nation, with vast amounts of low lying land reclaimed from the sea filled with shopping malls. The highest point on the island, apart from Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew getting on his high horse from time to time, is a jungle covered hill called Bukit Timah. It's probably fair to say that Singapore stands to suffer more than most countries in the event of climate change, and that is why it is such a disappointment that the government of Singapore is not being honest about what, if anything, it intends to do to prevent global warming.

The official line is that Singapore will achieve a 16% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020, based on a comparison with the "business as usual" case. There are a few problems with this, for example the magnitude of the proposed reductions is in fact very modest, and the making of the reductions is actually dependent on the rest of the world also agreeing to making significant commitments. Such a shame that the Singapore government is not willing to take a lead a topic that any forecaster can see is bound to be a significant issue for Singaporeans in years to come.

However, the real problem with the proposed reduction is not the magnitude or the lack of leadership, but rather that the numbers are completely disingenuous, and that this reduction is in fact nothing of the sort, because the "business as usual" case, which the reduction is supposed to be relative to, is a purely invented hypothetical scenario that appears to have no realistic basis in fact.

The Singapore government has published carbon emissions data from 1990 to 2007, and the average annual growth in emissions is 3.6%. What we might expect is that "business as usual" represents a continuation of that 3.6% trend, and the 16% reductions are below that. However, what we actually find is that the "business as usual" outlook predicts an arbitrary 5% annual increase in emissions, and not coincidentally at all, we discover that achieving the stated "goal" of reducing carbon emissions by 16% in 2020, actually involves nothing more complicated than "reducing" the annual growth in carbon emissions to 3.6%! That means, the reduction of 16% actually involves doing nothing at all.

So Singapore actually plans to do nothing on the topic of climate change, a course of action that will probably cause all sorts of problems for everyday Singaporeans, but less so for the rich elite who can always move to a nice bungalow or landed house on high ground in Bukit Timah.