Introduction
Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the motion.
Let me outline my speech.
First, for decades, the PAP has gained political advantage from the way that electoral boundaries have been drawn and redrawn.
Second, in a fair and democratic political system, no party should gain such an advantage, and so Singapore should implement a politically impartial electoral boundaries system based on international best practices.
Third, if the 4G PAP were to implement such an impartial system, this would be in keeping with the promise flowing from the Forward Singapore exercise that Singapore will operate under a refreshed social compact.
1. The PAP has benefited politically from the drawing of electoral boundaries
My first point is that the PAP has gained political advantage from the drawing of electoral boundaries.
As far back as 1996, then MP for Hougang, Mr Low Thia Khiang presented a table in this House that showed how Single Member Constituencies that had been through close electoral races were invariably incorporated into Group Representation Constituencies.
Ms Hazel Poa has cited similar evidence in her speech on this motion.
I will give just three examples.
In 1991, the opposition candidate in Braddell Heights, Mr Sin Kek Tong obtained close to 48% of the vote. In the next general election in 1997, Braddell Heights was incorporated into Marine Parade GRC.
In 2011, the WP’s Yee Jenn Jong obtained close to 49% of the vote, losing the Single-Member Constituency (SMC) of Joo Chiat by a mere 388 votes. In 2015, Joo Chiat was merged into Marine Parade GRC.
And in 2015, the three SMCs where the PAP had their smallest percentage wins were incorporated into GRCs. As a matter of interest, these were all SMCs contested by the Workers’ Party.
There is really no need for me to say more about this or to give more examples, because any reasonable person can tell that the examples cited are not coincidences. It is obvious that changes in the electoral boundaries of SMCs and GRCs have benefited the PAP.
2. Singapore should follow international best practices
My second point is that in a fair and democratic political system, no party should benefit politically from the redrawing of boundaries. To that end, Singapore should implement a politically impartial electoral boundaries system based on international best practices. This would prevent a situation where any party, whether the PAP now, or some other party in future, benefits politically from the drawing of electoral boundaries.
Mr Speaker, allow me to quote various parts of one senior statesman’s different parliamentary speeches on this issue.
First, and I quote, “[i]f we want to avoid any gerrymandering, any alteration of boundary lines to suit whoever is the Minister and his Party, then let us have a Boundaries Commission.” Unquote.
Second, and I quote, “I am stating, as a proposition, that in any part of the world, and more especially in this part of the world, people who assume the duties of government are somewhat tempted to use the powers with which they are temporarily vested to weigh things permanently in their favour. If we want to avoid gerrymandering, the drawing of boundary lines to include kampongs where one’s supporters are and to exclude kampongs where one’s opponent’s supporters are, then let us have a proper Boundaries’ Commission. Let the mechanics of it be by the Minister notifying it in the Gazette, but let us have proper machinery to ensure that the working of parliamentary democracy, this wholesale importation of Western ideas of political organisation, is not perverted by feudalistic Eastern ideas of personal survival.” Unquote.
Third, and I quote, “On principle it is advisable to have the work of this Committee placed before all political Parties. If there has been no gerrymandering it would be obvious to everybody, and everybody would then be quite happy. But whether or not there has been an unconscious bias in the work of any official so as to justify the allegations made by the Member for Serangoon, one can only judge from the vehemence of his allegations and the corresponding vehemence of the denials of the Chief Minister and the Chief Secretary. Nothing would be lost if the reasons for the delineations are placed before an All-Party Committee.” Unquote.
It should not surprise this House to learn that these quotes were from parliamentary speeches made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew in 1956 and 1957 when he was in the opposition.
Mr Lee talked about the possibility of “unconscious bias”. If a political party in power benefits from the redrawing of boundaries, whether that benefit has come about due to conscious or unconscious bias of officials, this can be taken care of through the two bodies proposed by Mr Lee Kuan Yew. In his speech in 1956, Mr Lee suggested that a Boundaries Commission be set up, and in his speech in 1957, he suggested that the work of such a committee be placed before an All-Party Committee.
Those measures proposed by Mr Lee are in line with those currently practiced by Australia, Canada and the UK, countries which practice the Western ideas of political organisation that Mr Lee himself mentioned.
In these Commonwealth countries, boundary revisions are decided by Boundary Commissions or committees which are independent of Government Ministers.
The Commissions of Canada and the UK include a High Court judge appointed by the Chief Justice.
There is variation in each country’s’ process, but generally, the Boundary Commissions will publish proposed changes in the number of representatives and electoral boundaries based on set guidelines which are formalized in legislation.
The public and political parties are given the opportunity to provide feedback on these proposals before the Boundary Commissions make their final decisions. Ministers and Parliament cannot reject the decisions of the Boundary Commissions. In the UK, the Boundaries Commission for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland consult the public before coming up with their final recommendations. In addition, the boundary delineation exercise takes place once every eight years, and not before each general election.
In Canada, there is an additional stipulation that revised boundaries cannot be used for elections within seven months of the revision. Any election held within that period would be run using the previous boundaries.
In all these countries, there is a clear commitment to preventing political interference in the process of redrawing boundaries and to ensuring the independence of the Boundary Commissions.
3. An independent EBRC would be in line with Forward Singapore
This brings me to my third point. If Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and the 4G PAP team were to implement such an impartial system, this would be in keeping with the spirit flowing from the Forward Singapore exercise that envisions Singapore operating under a refreshed social compact.
A commitment from the 4G leadership to an independent and depoliticised Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) would be concrete manifestation through action.
In the end, the choice is the PAP’s. They are in power. They can continue with things as they are. Or they can amend the law to entrench fairness into the electoral boundary system to protect future generations. Even if they decide to retain the current system and not amend Singapore law, it is the PAP’s choice whether to continue to accrue political advantage from the redrawing of electoral boundaries.
This coming election is a chance for a new start. A refreshing of the social compact as the new Prime Minister has promised. PM Lawrence Wong and the 4G leaders have the chance to change “politics-as-usual” in Singapore.
The Workers’ Party asks the Government to consider legislating and implementing a system that includes the following features:
First, a commission that is truly independent, whose decisions cannot be rejected by the party in power;
Second, for a Supreme Court judge, selected by the Chief Justice, to be appointed a member of the EBRC;
Third, the publication of proposed changes well in advance of elections and outside the election cycle;
Fourth, the opportunity for the public, including political parties, to provide feedback on the proposed changes; and
Fifth, a minimum period during which revised boundaries cannot be used for elections.
I ask PM Lawrence Wong to take Singapore Forward into a truly democratic political system. This would enhance Singapore’s world standing even further. The international community and even fellow Singaporeans respect Singapore and our leaders for our economic achievements and lack of corruption, but there are asterisks when they assess our political system. As for the population of Singapore, changes that promote democratic participation will give the public greater confidence and pride in our political system.
We in the opposition and I dare say, ordinary Singaporeans are asking PM Lawrence Wong to do the right thing. As the Forward Singapore notes, Singapore is at a prime moment for change. And a functioning and robust social compact creates trust.
Keep your promise to Singaporeans to create a new and refreshed social compact. Follow through with the Government’s Forward Singapore exercise. Bring Singapore Forward with a fair electoral boundary system that is nothing more than aligning Singapore with international best practices.
Mr Speaker, I support the motion.
7 August 2024
Office of the Leader of the Opposition 