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.

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 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.