Bertha Harian

There is this little kerfuffle on social media about what Chan Chun Sing said in Parliament about gerrymandering. Answering a direct question from Pritam Singh, he said that it was up to voters to decide if such a thing happens here. It was really the only answer he could give, short of lying to Parliament or being laughed at. Unless, of course, everyone agrees that gerrymandering can be defined in such a way that covers independence and neutrality without transparency and accountability.

To give Mr Chan his due, he tried valiantly to paint the process of revising the electoral boundaries as non-partisan and the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee as independent, even as he chided critics for fostering discontent.

In my view, it is politically naive to expect a Yes or No answer on such a political hot potato. Do we expect an incumbent authority to forgo any advantage it might have to boost its electoral chances? Or to give its opponents a leg-up? It is like asking the Government to release control of the community centres in the wards which it had lost to the opposition – which former PM Goh Chok Tong had once mused about.

The difference between Singapore and other jurisdictions is that other places make it more difficult for incumbents to revise boundaries for their own advantage, by putting obstacles or checks along the way.

Here, the much vaunted Singapore way is efficient, quick and no-fuss. Whatever fuss is overtaken by the excitement of an election taking place soon.

So it is quite perceptive of the Progress Singapore Party to propose a motion on the process of redrawing electoral boundaries in calmer times, before the EBRC is formed and in time for the next general election.

The first thing to understand about the EBRC is that it reports to the Prime Minister. So it was a pity that Mr Chan spoke on PM Lawrence Wong’s behalf when he could have done so himself. He should have done so, methinks, because it would have given us a measure of what our new leader thinks about the political playing field, and even give us a heads-up about what he is proposing that the EBRC do for this round.

Yes, what he proposes. Because Prime Ministers can direct the EBRC, as our earlier two PMs have done.

Like Goh Chok Tong who agreed to get the EBRC to carve out MacPherson from Marine Parade GRC for GE1997 because two feuding politicians wanted a straight fight. Jumbo GRCs were also created under his instruction. The justification was to better align them with the newly created Community Development Councils.

Lee Hsien Loong, however, decided to reduce the GRC size and representation after GE2015, in a nod to public unhappiness at that time. The EBRC did away with six-member GRCs.

It also fulfilled PM Lee’s requests on single member constituencies ( eight is the minimum number) although in a rather miserly manner.

For GE2011, PM Lee asked for at least 12 SMCs (up from nine then), he got 12. For GE2015, he made the same request, and EBRC obliged with 13. For GE2020, he asked for ‘more than the current 13’, the EBRC carved out 14.

The question is whether those directions could be considered partisan in nature, or in the interest of Singapore. Or political requests, rather than suggestions based on geographical or demographic requirements.

These proposals to the EBRC were made public, which means that everyone is aware of the general direction – and this is reflected in the cover letter fronting its changes.

That is the extent of transparency we have over the process, which is very quickly put into motion when a writ of election is introduced.

Broad directions aside, this still leaves open the question of what else the EBRC might have been told in more specific terms. Even if they had not been ‘briefed’, there is this suspicion that they are long-time civil servants who know what their political masters want and would act accordingly. This is an uncharitable view, but inevitable given the opacity of the process.

It can’t have escaped the attention of political watchers that Hougang has remained a single-seat ward since 1991 when the Workers’ Party wrested it from the People’s Action Party. Any of the general parameters could have justified its merger into a bigger GRC or at least with expanded boundary limits.

Potong Pasir had long looked like a candidate for merger especially after the PAP took it back from veteran opposition politician Chian See Tong in 2011. For GE2020, it had just over 18,500 voters leading to speculation that it would be dissolved. It wasn’t and it has since ballooned to more than 31,000 voters because of new residents moving into the Bidadari housing estate. A reason to keep it as an SMC or to carve it up?

It can be argued that the EBRC was being sensitive to public opinion by leaving the boundaries of opposition wards (present and former) untouched. In fact, it would have created an uproar should an opposition single-seat ward find itself merged into a GRC. This would not be a repeat contest, as the single incumbent MP would have to join hands with three or four others to stand in the next election.

Nobody seems to have considered how these multi-member constituencies would actually be a constraint on the EBRC’s ability to review boundaries.

Aljunied GRC, for example, has been left alone since 2011. In all likelihood, Sengkang GRC, a creation for GE2020, will remain untouched.

The usual parameters on size of wards can always be used to justify any change – and nobody would know better. But for a long time, it seems prudent to only apply them to PAP wards.

It would not be politically astute of opposition politicians to ask that the walls surrounding their strongholds be knocked down. Rather it would be more beneficial for them if nothing changes at all because of the blood, sweat and tears invested over the years on cultivating known ground.

Hence, the row at every election when single-seat wards which were closely contested disappear from the map or get carved up or merged into a bigger entity.

I doubt that incumbent PAP MPs were happy either to have the rug pulled out from under their feet. I would like to think that those in closely-fought wards would have relished the chance to put up a better display. And those who did well might have liked to showcase their own popularity, rather than have their wards carved up to bolster the electoral chances of their weaker neighbouring party colleagues.

That is, of course, assuming that the precinct-by-precinct results are available to the EBRC. Mr Chan says no. But the fact remains that after every election, the contestants themselves are privy to specific results. That is why we have people, including politicians, murmuring about how so-and-so pulled down the overall GRC votes.

Candidates, successful and failed, do not publicise how their own division in their GRC did, even though this does not require parliamentary approval or Government blessing. This would have demonstrated the voters direct link to the specific overseer in the GRC. The main reason for not doing so is a selfish one: all political parties would rather not display their weak links. Not the PAP. Not the WP. Not the PSP.

I would have expected the G, under PM Wong’s leadership, to have acceded to a few points made by the opposition to shed some light on the process or even put the EBRC on a more solid foundation for Singapore’s future.

Going by past practice, the EBRC is traditionally chaired by the Cabinet secretary and comprises domain experts so to speak. Besides the Chief Statistician, the rest are the heads of the Housing Board, Singapore Land Authority and Election department.

These positions are not codified in any form, which means that it is up to the PM of the day (who may not always be from the PAP) to decide if this should continue to be the case – or change the composition or numbers at will. Rationally and intellectually argued, of course.

I am frankly tired of the usual trope about how further changes, like including a judge in the panel, would lead to more questions of the ‘who watches the watcher’ variety.

Changes are not supposed to please one and all, or they would be, ahem, ‘populist’. In this case, what was asked for are some fixed reference points to assure people that a process is in place to reduce the risk of undue partisan advantage.

As I have said before, the very least the G can do is commit to making a public announcement when the EBRC starts work, along with the parameters that the PM has set for it. But not even this miniscule commitment was made.

In my view, the whole debate on EBRC was partisanship veiled in national colours.

What was conspicuously absent from the debate was the view of the voter, who has borne with the changes every four or five years.

Speaking for myself as a voter, I am tired of being flung from GRC to GRC into an SMC and back into a GRC despite an unchanging address. I have to remind myself of changes such as which town council is in charge. I am suddenly surprised that a community centre has changed its name and even the area it is supposed to serve. Perhaps, these are minor inconveniences for most voters.

I have also always wondered how much money has been spent to align the municipal changes, including signboards and letterheads, with the new ward structure. And I ask myself if a community identity can ever fully evolve if it can’t even be sure that its name will live on. Are these minor issues as well?

From what I have seen from the debate, I will have to live in bafflement for a long, long time.

re no earth-shattering changes suggested to the