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.

Singaporeans question who PAP MPs are trying to help

Cutting GST to ease financial strain of inflation would benefit poor more than rich, they say.

The Singapore parliament debated today on the topic of the recently announced 2011 budget. As reported in the Straits Times, the main point of contention was around the impact of inflation on the less well off. Workers' Party chief Low Thia Khiang suggested reducing GST from 7% to 5%, as well as eliminating GST entirely on essential items.

"The GST is at the centre of everything we consume. I urge the Government to seriously consider reducing the GST to help all sectors of the society cope with projected slower growth and high inflation"

His suggestion is a wise and constructive one, as it would no doubt benefit the less well off hugely by reducing their weekly shopping bill for food, clothes and other essential items. A few extra dollars in the pockets of the poor makes a significant difference to their quality of life and a cut in GST should be seen in that light. These facts however, did not stop a gang of at least seven PAP MPs standing up to take turns trying to undermine his suggestion. The two main protagonists were PAP MP for Tanjong Pagar Koo Tsai Kee and PAP MP for Holland - Bukit Timah Christopher de Souza

Koo Tsai Kee said

"Our policies are designed to protect the lower income group. If we lower GST, those who benefit are the rich Singaporeans"

The Straits Times put it another way, whilst cleverly managing to put the words in the mouth of the Government and not their own, presumably for fear of basic economic illiteracy tarnishing their reputation.

"the Government's stand has been that cutting [GST] across the board would not necessarily help the poor."

The problem with this logic is that it flies in the face of common sense and basic economic literacy. The common sense argument is as outlined above, making basic necessities cheaper puts money directly back into the pockets of those who need it most, the poor. The fact that it also puts money back into the pockets of the rich is not really relevant. Mr Low's suggestion to abolish GST entirely on essential items goes to the heart of the matter and is in fact a policy that many modern first world nations have adopted. Distinguishing what is and is not essential might well be beyond the intellectual capacity of SM Goh but it is something that many countries around the world, including Switzerland, have solved many years ago.

The point about basic economic literacy is slightly more subtle but nevertheless an important one. You might forgive the average man on the street for not understanding the difference between progressive and regressive taxation but Messrs de Souza and Koo can not be forgiven, since they hold a total of seven degrees between the two of them. So what is the difference between progressive and regressive taxation, and why does it matter?

Those of you with a keen sense for the English language can guess that progressive taxation is a positive concept (as far as taxation can ever be positive!) whereas regressive taxation is a negative concept. Regressive taxation means that the poor are hit harder, relative to their income, than the rich. Progressive taxation is the opposite, where the rich are hit harder relative to their income, than the poor. When it comes to funding for government services such as health care, education, defense, infrastructure etc, it makes perfect sense for the rich to pay their way a bit more than the poor, hence in most sensible academic circles, progressive taxation is considered fairer. So, with this in mind, it is important to note that GST can only be considered regressive taxation. It hits the poor harder for those reasons touched on in the common sense argument above. Every time the price of a bowl of rice goes up, the poor, who are already struggling just to get by, have to struggle that little bit harder. And the rich barely notice. Conversely, if the price of a bowl of rice went down by 7%, the poor would benefit immediately and the rich would hardly notice, not least because they are most likely to be eating Australian steaks and no rice.

This is not a controversial argument, in fact it is widely accepted economic theory. Wikipedia for example says

"In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich — there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay"

"Sales taxes are often criticized because low income households must pay a greater share of their disposable income to a sales tax than wealthier households"

and

"It has been suggested that any regressive effect of a sales tax could be prevented, e.g., by excluding rent, or by exempting 'necessary' items"

The last quote is particularly interesting since it refers again to making necessary items exempt from GST, a simple idea which is supposedly beyond the understanding of our million dollar ministers.

So where does all this leave us? Regressive taxation is less fair and causes the poor more financial difficulties than the alternatives. Mr Low of the Workers' Party would like to reduce regressive taxation. The conclusion can only be that Mr Low is trying to help the less well off, and we should commend him for that. In spite of this, PAP MPs were queuing up to discredit his opinion, even though they surely know the economic theory. I certainly do, and I first heard of it at high school. What is the agenda of the PAP, and why do they try to prevent a reduction in GST?

The unspoken consequence of reducing GST is that government revenues would obviously go down, and thus something else, most likely income tax, would have to go up. And guess what, income tax is the perfect example of progressive taxation. Remember, that's the more fair one, the one that impacts the rich harder than the poor. Presumably it is this group of high earners & high income tax payers that the PAP is trying to protect by maintaining high GST rates and low income tax rates. And don't forget the PAP MPs are themselves included in that group, with their super high self awarded salaries.

So my take on it is that those PAP MPs are speaking economic nonsense in parliament, to discredit the ideas of the Workers' Party, so that they can maintain their own low income tax bills, whilst keeping the burden of taxation (and recently, inflation) disproportionately on the shoulders of the poor in Singapore.

Straits Times to be listed as political association

When does a journalist become a politician?

"THE Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has announced on Tuesday its intention to gazette news website The Straits Times (ST) as a political association.

"On why the decision to gazette ST, the PMO explained in the statement: 'As a website that provides coverage and analysis of political issues, ST has the potential to influence the opinions of their readership and shape political outcomes in Singapore. It has been gazetted to ensure that it is not funded by foreign elements or sources.'"

In Singapore the answer is when they write about political issues, but it seems the rule is only applied to those journalists who cover topics that the government sanctioned media would prefer to not touch. I think it is clear here that I am referring to the recent arbitrary decision taken by the PMO to gazette (gag?) The Online Citizen (TOC). The reasoning behind the decision is entirely spurious and without merit, and that can clearly be seen by taking the exact wording of the justification, replacing the name of The Online Cizitzen with The Straits Times and seeing how well the same reasoning applies to an organisation controlled by the government and which has been allowed to operate for many years without fear of being gazetted.

So we can infer from the above that there is more to the gazetting than merely the justification given by the PMO. I have written previously on how un free the press in Singapore are, and this decision is merely a very transparent extension of the governments desire to control the media into the realm of the internet. Make no mistake that this is not about preventing foreign funding for organisations that could influence political discourse in Singapore, rather this is an attempt by the government to intimidate and silence organisations that disagree with them, challenge their authority or dare to encourage greater awareness of political and social concerns held by the people of Singapore.

The true irony in all of this is that TOC has admitted to receiving no foreign funding (and surely will soon have to prove the same), whereas two of the Straits Times' three largest shareholders are foreign companies! Which one better falls into the category of "foreign funded organisations that [provide] coverage and analysis of political issues" is obvious, but that is at odds with which one got gazetted and which one didn't. It should be clear then that the real reason for this is about the government's desire to control the media, and the ideas and criticisms to which the population are exposed to.

Why Singapore needs a free press

From time to time, the PAP likes to describe Singapore either as a democracy, or as a "democracy with Asian characteristics", although quite what those Asian characteristics might be, and why democracy needs to have regional flavours is never fully explained, it's not a Laksa after all. In fact there are many flaws with the implementation of democracy on the little red dot, but one of the most glaring is the lack of a free press.

The fundamental point of democracy is to give the people the chance to choose who represents them based on a free discussion of ideas such that citizens can decide for themselves the advantages and disadvantages of the policies suggested by the ruling party and the opposition. Hand in hand with this is the idea that any failures or shortcomings of the ruling party can be discussed by the public at large, so that they can then decide whether or not the ruling party is deserving of another term in office.

It is well recognised that all of the mainstream media in Singapore answers to the government; although in reality it is important to note that this means the PAP as opposed to any independent oversight body. The effect of this undermines both the crucial aspects of democracy mentioned above, because the PAP does not approve of their political opponents having anything more than minor or negative coverage in the mainstream media. The result therefore is that many Singaporeans are unaware of any credible opposition even existing, such that voting for the opposition is akin to voting for an unknown party with unknown policies. The second crucial problem is about having an informed electorate who know the truth about the actions and policies of the ruling party, such that their performance can be objectively assessed in time for the next election. However, Singaporean journalists, as well as foreign journalists if their publication is to be sold in Singapore, are not at all free to objectively criticise the ruling PAP and any mistakes or misjudgements they may make, the result being that the electorate is not fully informed of what has happened in the preceding years when they go to the ballot box, and they are less likely to vote out the ruling party when they've not had a chance to be told the whole truth about their actions in power.

To truly understand the power of a free press you only need to see those modern first world countries where brave reporters have made public information that their governments would have preferred to keep private, such that it improved the lives of ordinary citizens. A recent example would be in the UK, where a continuous stream of leaked reports regarding Members of Parliament overcharging and abusing their expenses was reported by the press and resulted in many rule changes, money being paid back and some MPs losing their jobs.

Far be it from me to suppose that Singaporean MPs are as corrupt as those in the UK, the point here is that in Singapore, the press would never report such negative stories about the ruling party for fear of losing their jobs or being sued for defamation, and as such, any hypothetical misconduct or failures would go unreported and unpunished.

A Question for the PM

With the general election bound to be announced any time soon, now is a good time for all of Singapore to reflect on the achievements of the PAP over the last 4+ years. If I were lucky enough to meet the PM or his father Minister Mentor Lee the question I would ask is "What achievements can you point to over the last parliament that you are most proud of? What have you done to deserve to be re-elected by the Singaporean people?"

I'm afraid I'm hard pressed to imagine a good answer to that. We've seen the financial crisis hammer Singapore; a better late than never bounce back, the magnitude of which was only impressive in so far as it was a recovery from a huge drop in GDP; the three times over-budget YOG, to which most Singaporeans were either apathetic to or outright annoyed about; the huge security lapse in letting Singapore's most wanted criminal escape to Malaysia ... the list of failings goes on and on, while the achievements are hard to think of.

But unfortunately, with the Singapore press being wholly controlled by the PAP, it's pretty much impossible to imagine that we'll ever get a straight answer to this question, because all journalists know that asking difficult questions is a bad career move, and writing a negative article is pretty much asking to be sacked, or worse, sued for defamation and financially ruined.

How the world sees Singaopre

How does the world see Singapore? Is it important? Not everyone may be interested to know what the rest of the world thinks of them, but in a country such as Singapore where freedom of expression is not a universally respected right, it is hard for people inside to give an objective view of the state of the nation. It is because many people in the rest of the world have the freedom to speak as they like, rather than to limit their words to whatever is politically acceptable, that we can look to them to give an honest and objective opinion on the reality of the social and political situation in Singapore.

The first thing to understand about how the world sees Singapore, is to recognise that Singapore is a small country, a little red dot if you will, and that many people in the world are barely aware of it's existence. Ask an average Englishman in London or American in New York about Singapore, and chances are all they can tell you is that it is very clean, that it is a refuelling stop on the way to Australia, and that chewing gum is banned. Given that chewing gum has not actually been banned in Singapore for a good few years now, you can see that most people have very little knowledge of what Singapore is really like.

The other interesting point to mention is that Singaporeans, or more accurately just the ruling PAP, have ideas about how they would like to be seen, and that is that they would like to be seen as a modern first world nation. The PAP take it as one of their crowning achievements that they have turned Singapore into a modern first world country, and the concept of "Swiss standards of living" is something that politicians have long offered as being the fruits of their hard work and high salaries.

So, although many people know very little about Singapore, is it still possible to get some insight into whether Singapore is really seen as a first world nation, is it seen as a country that respects the freedoms that first world countries hold dear, are Singaporean politicians respected or otherwise in the world at large? Fortunately, there are a good few organisations which make it their business to assess the political, social & cultural environment in most countries around the world. Since these organisations take the time to measure key performance indicators for almost every country in the world, it is fair to say they are not likely to be biased against the little red dot, and similarly, since these organisations have seen so much of the world, their view of us can tell us a lot about how Singapore fits in and stands up in the world.

First of all, lets consider the press. It is widely accepted that a free press and free speech are fundamental rights considered essential in first world countries. Luckily, a respected French organisation "Reporters Without Borders" goes to the trouble to assess this on a global basis every year. In the most recent survey Singapore ranked a lowly 136 out of 178 countries. Below is a selection of Asian and "First World" countries for comparison.

=1. Switzerland
11. Japan
19. UK
34. Hong Kong
42. S. Korea
117. Indonesia
128. Cambodia
136. Singapore
141. Malaysia
153. Thailand

It's fair to say that the world sees Singapore in a pretty bad light on this KPI. Sandwiched among our SE Asian neighbours Singapore is hardly a place for the rest of the world to look up to. The Swiss standard of living is a distant dream, since they are up in first spot, and those modern Asian powerhouses, HK, S Korea and Japan are far ahead of Singapore, which can only really claim to be a second rate Asian nation by this metric.

Secondly, lets look at democratic freedoms. Singapore from time to time proclaims itself as a "Westminster Democracy", and most of those first world nations it aspires to be amongst are themselves democracies; in fact Switzerland has one of the longest histories of democratic freedom in the world. Again, we are thankful to the Economist Intelligence Unit, based in another first world country, the UK, for going to the trouble of rating 167 countries on their democratic freedom. Again, Singapore ranks a lowly 82, barely outdoing HK which is an administrative region of China.

1. Sweden
8. Switzerland.
17. Japan
28. Korea
54. Thailand
68. Malaysia
69. Indonesia
82. Singapore
84. Hong Kong

Again, Singapore is a long way from first world status, outdone by almost all of it's Asian neighbours, the modern Asian leaders of Japan and S Korea are far ahead of the little red dot, which trails even Malaysia and Indonesia. Again, true first world status is achieved by Switzerland and other European countries, but Singapore is a second rate player in Asia, let alone the world as a whole.

The third metric of interest is civil liberties, again this is something which first world nations aspire to uphold and we are grateful to an American organisation called "Freedom House" for compiling data on a similar number of countries as presented above. Unfortunately the data is presented alphabetically rather than sorted from "most free" to "least free" but we can still compare the score in Singapore with that of it's neighbours.

1.0 Switzerland
1.5 Japan
1.5 S Korea
2.5 Indonesia
3.5 Philippines
3.5 Hong Kong
4.0 Malaysia
4.5 Singapore
4.5 Thailand

Again, the same trend is emerging, Singapore is stuck amongst or often below most of it's immediate neighbours, lags behind those countries seen as modern Asian leaders, such as Japan, S Korea & HK, and is far away from first world status or enjoying a "Swiss standard of living". In this index Switzerland has the best score possible and Japan and S Korea are one rung below on the ladder. Singapore is down in the basement with Thailand, being looked down on by Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia.

The conclusion to draw from all this is that whilst most people don't pay much attention to Singapore, the reality is that in comparison to first world nations, on the metrics that first world nations care about, Singapore is a long way behind the world leaders. It's not a coincidence that all three of these surveys are carried out by organisations in first world nations (France, UK & US) because one of the things that makes first world nations such, is that they care about certain ideals and concepts enough to aspire to be seen as leaders in those fields. As long as Singapore has leaders who ignore such goals and ideals, Singapore will never be seen as a first world nation, and is very unlikely to move up in the rankings towards the Swiss style leadership positions that the rest of the world looks up to. In fact, as long as the current situation remains, it is highly likely that Singapore will remain as a second rate Asian nation for the foreseeable future.

Why is HDB a private company?

Back in the early days of Singapore, when the HDB was first founded, it had the very laudable goal of producing a large quantity of cheap public housing, and to reflect its public service mission, it was a government department famously run by Lim Kim San, who worked for no salary for 3 years!

Nowadays, the situation is very different. Not least because it is hard to imagine the PM's wife (or the MM's daughter in law) working for no salary, but more seriously because the HDB was incoprorated into a private company in July 2003 then in 2004, it was 100% bought out by Temasek Holdings. To me this seems strange, HDB has gone from a selflessly run public service, to being owned by a profit driven private company, presumably with a highly paid board and shareholders demanding a dividend and return on equity. If you doubt the fact that Temasek is not a profit driven organisation, just look at the reaction on line every time they announce another huge loss on one of their investments, and their complimentary efforts to boast of their rates of return. So there inevitably will be some tension in HDB between providing an affordable public service to Singaporeans, and delivering profit to shareholders and Temasek Holdings.

So the question is whether this is a hypothetical conflict of interest or a real cause for concern to Singaporeans. This question doesn't have a simple answer, we can only try to infer the reality by look at the affordability of public housing to the average Singaporean. Luckily, the analysis has already been done for us by Eugene Yeo at Temasek Review and unfortunately the answer is that housing in Singapore is either "Unaffordable" or "Severely Unaffordable" by the internationally recognised Median Multiple measure.

Of course the Singapore government, through the state controlled media, would like to promulgate the idea that housing is perfectly affordable, the ultimate answer is for Singaporeans to ask themselves if they truly believe that, or if housing actually feels more expensive and harder to come by every year.