Connect with us

Opinion

Chan Chun Sing’s non-reply on gerrymandering suggests it may be practiced in Singapore

Opinion: Chan Chun Sing’s non-reply to a straightforward question on gerrymandering in Parliament on 7 August raises serious doubts. While it might not be a smoking gun proving gerrymandering in Singapore, it certainly suggests that the practice could be in place, especially when considering historical precedents of Prime Ministerial influence over boundary decisions.

Published

on

In Parliament on 7 August, Education Minister Chan Chun Sing made a non-statement that might have inadvertently revealed more than intended.

During a motion debate raised by the Progress Singapore Party’s (PSP) Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs), Mr Chan addressed statements made by members of the opposition about Singapore’s electoral boundaries, a topic that has long been a subject of public suspicion and concern.

PSP NCMP Mr Leong Mun Wai, speaking on the motion, questioned the irregular shapes of certain constituencies and the seemingly arbitrary splitting of Housing Development Board (HDB) towns across multiple constituencies.

Mr Leong cited examples like Braddell Heights, where he lives, being part of Marine Parade GRC, and questioned the rationale behind the frequent changes in constituency borders experienced by residents.

In response, Mr Chan merely reiterated that the motion was about the process of boundary drawing rather than specific decisions made by the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC). He clarified that he had no influence over the EBRC’s decisions and emphasized that the focus should be on maintaining an apolitical process.

Mr Chan, speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, asserted that electoral boundaries are drawn to serve the interests of the people, not political parties.

Yet, when pressed for a direct answer on whether gerrymandering occurs in Singapore by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Chan demurred, leaving his response open-ended and ambiguous.

Mr Singh asked, “Is there gerrymandering in Singapore?”

In response, Mr Chan said, “I think I’ve explained the meaning of gerrymandering, what it means in other countries, and whether it applies or does not apply in our context. And I’ll leave it to members of the House and the public to decide.”

This refusal to answer a straightforward question could be seen as a warning sign. Under Singaporean law, while statements made in Parliament are generally protected from liability, false representation of facts can still lead to consequences under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.

If Mr Chan had been aware that gerrymandering had indeed taken place in Singapore and had falsely presented this knowledge to Parliament, he would have risked severe repercussions.

This legal risk could explain why Mr Chan avoided giving a direct answer. His hesitation might suggest that acknowledging the absence of gerrymandering could expose him to legal jeopardy if evidence to the contrary were ever made public. The same reason why Dr Vivian Balakrishnan saw the need to clarify the assurance he made to Parliament over the use of data in the TraceTogether app, which he had previously promised would be used only for COVID-19 tracing purposes.

What is also telling is that despite the political significance of this issue, no other members of the People’s Action Party (PAP), including the Prime Minister, chose to address the motion from the PSP.

This silence speaks volumes, suggesting that Mr Chan may not be alone in his reluctance to tackle the question head-on. The fact that the Prime Minister — both current and former — and other senior members of the PAP who were present at the motion did not engage in the debate might imply that they, too, would struggle to provide a straightforward answer without risking contradiction or legal implications.

Adding weight to the suspicions of gerrymandering is a recollection shared by veteran journalist Bertha Henson.

In a Facebook exchange with Andrew Loh, co-founder of The Online Citizen, over PSP’s motion,  she recalled a conversation with Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, who was then Prime Minister, in which he reportedly said that he would ask the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) to redraw boundaries to facilitate a direct contest between Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), and then-Minister of State Matthias Yao of the People’s Action Party at Marine Parade GRC.

A version of this arrangement was recorded in a report in The Straits Times on 3 October 1994.

The report stated, “He (Mr Yao) said he had sought and the Prime Minister had agreed to propose to the proper authority to have his MacPherson ward detached from Marine Parade GRC for this straight fight.”

There does not appear to be any public record of ESM Goh refuting this news.

Furthermore, a Straits Times report on the EBRC’s report in November 1996 explicitly stated that the Mountbatten Single Member Constituency (SMC) was being carved out from Marine Parade GRC so that Dr Chee and Mr Yao could have a straight fight between them, seemingly supporting the notion that the Prime Minister does exert influence over the EBRC’s decisions.

With the above in mind, Mr Chan’s defence that the Prime Minister has no influence over the EBRC’s boundary reviews seems awfully difficult to reconcile with this historical precedent.

Let’s not also forget that the members of the EBRC are top civil servants appointed under the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

The composition of the EBRC committee has historically been comprised of:

  • Secretary to the Cabinet, who typically also serves as the Prime Minister’s Principal Private Secretary
  • Chief Executive Officer of the Housing and Development Board
  • Chief Executive of the Singapore Land Authority
  • Chief Statistician, Department of Statistics
  • Head of the Elections Department, who reports to the Prime Minister

Given this context, it is reasonable to question whether the committee operates independently of the Prime Minister’s influence or whether it is swayed by the political objectives of the ruling party.

Even setting aside the question of whether gerrymandering is actively practised in Singapore, the way electoral boundaries are drawn undeniably raises eyebrows among voters who have seen changes to their constituencies in general elections, despite residing at the same address for decades.

The frequent redrawing of boundaries, often resulting in changes that appear to benefit the incumbent PAP, does little to dispel suspicions of gerrymandering. For instance, the removal of SMCs that the PAP nearly lost in previous elections could be interpreted as a strategy to secure electoral advantage and create an issue for alternative political parties to campaign as they are uncertain how the boundaries would be redrawn.

An explicit example of this is the case of Joo Chiat SMC, where former WP NCMP Yee Jenn Jong won 48.98% of the vote in GE2011. Mr Yee was awarded an NCMP position because of the high percentage he received and later worked hard to campaign in the SMC over the next few years.

However, in GE2015, the SMC was absorbed into Marine Parade GRC, forcing him to form a team to contest in the GRC, which the National Solidarity Party had contested in the previous election — another issue arising from the arbitrary redrawing of electoral boundaries.

For larger parties like the PSP and the Workers’ Party, countering the potential redrawing of boundaries may involve contesting neighbouring constituencies so that even if there is a redraw, the party will still be in the running.

Ironically, this approach could eventually turn the practice of boundary redrawing against the ruling party itself, as seen in the case of Sengkang GRC, where the PAP lost three of its officeholders.

At its core, politics is about serving the people, and the belief that the PAP may be redrawing boundaries for its political gain undermines public trust.

For many years, the social compact between the PAP and Singaporeans has been one where citizens overlook these perceived manipulations in exchange for prosperity and stability.

However, as job opportunities, including newly created positions, seemingly go in the way of foreigners (including Permanent Residents)—as shown in the latest labour reportand the cost of living continues to rise, particularly for younger generations in their apparent struggle to afford new homes, this compact is showing signs of strain. The next general election could see this trust re-evaluated, along with the acceptance of the perceived practice of gerrymandering.

Mr Chan’s non-reply to the question of gerrymandering in Singapore might not be a smoking gun regarding whether gerrymandering takes place in the city-state, but it certainly raises more questions than it answers.

This post was first published on Gutzy.asia

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Opinion

Are Govt policies and big business interests limiting competition in Singapore?

This opinion piece from Foong Swee Fong explores concerns about how restrictions on private driving instructors and rising COE prices may reflect a broader trend of collaboration between large corporations and the government, potentially reducing market competition and impacting Singaporeans.

Published

on

by Foong Swee Fong

The article, “Driving schools fully booked for months; some students paying bots to secure limited lesson slots” by Channel News Asia, encapsulates all that is wrong with Singapore.

The reason why students can’t get slots is because the “police stopped issuing private driving instructor licences in 1987 when the first two driving schools were set up”.

The police cited coordination and safety reasons.

In 1987, there were “thousands of them” but today “the country only has about 300 private driving instructors” as those who retired were not replaced.

With the gradual reduction of private driving instructors, students have little choice but to patronize the two main driving centres.

Thus, their business is booming not because they are providing excellent service at a competitive rate but because their main competitors – private driving instructors – are being reduced with each passing year, eventually to zero.

Singaporeans should be incensed because what the authorities did is anti-competitive and disadvantageous to them, but not surprisingly, this being Singapore, they brushed it aside, accepting it, perhaps, as the price of progress.

It is becoming a recurring trend: Big Business working hand in glove with the government to subvert the free market.

For crying out loud! The police “stopped issuing private driving instructor licenses WHEN the two driving schools were set up!” How blatant must it get before people start waking up?

While ComfortDelGro Driving Centre is part of the publicly listed ComfortDelGro Corporation, which is commonly perceived as government-linked, Bukit Batok Driving Centre is majority-owned by large corporate entities including Honda Motor Co, Kah Motors, and Income Insurance Ltd.

The CNA article then quoted young Singaporeans who say they still want to learn driving despite the skyrocketing COE prices “due to the convenience and option of renting a vehicle” from car-sharing companies.

It then relates the positive experience of a 22-year-old national serviceman, Calvert Choo, with car-sharing companies, about the price of rental and its convenient location near his HDB block, about Tribecar and GetGo, ending by saying that other reasons for learning to drive
include working in the ride-hailing and delivery industry.

I can’t help but sense that Big Business, with the government, is again trying to subvert the market:

In 2012, taxis were exempted from the COE bidding process to prevent them from driving up Category A COE prices. Instead, they pay the Prevailing Quota Premium, which is the average of the previous three months’ Category A prices at the point of purchase, with their COEs sourced from the Open Category. This arrangement acknowledges that taxi companies are using passenger cars for commercial purposes unlike private car owners, and that they can outbid private car owners.

However, recent trends have seen Private Hire Vehicles (PHVs), car-sharing companies, and even driving schools pushing passenger car COE prices higher, echoing the earlier situation with taxi companies. A simple solution would be to extend the taxi model to these groups. Yet, this approach has not been adopted, and authorities have instead proposed unrealistic solutions.

If COE prices remain elevated, average and even above-average-income drivers will be priced out of the market, forcing them to use PHVs and car-sharing vehicles.

Is this another diabolical scheme to force the people to patronize certain businesses, just like student drivers have now to patronize driving schools?

There are numerous worrisome alliances between Big Business and the Government in our country. They are using fewer generic medicines compared to many other countries in the region, which may contribute to higher healthcare costs. Some have raised concerns about the influence of patented medicines within the healthcare system, potentially increasing overall medical expenses.

As a measure of how preposterous the situation has become, the said CNA article, which in fact is propaganda and free advertisement for the respective big businesses, is published by state-owned MediaCorp, thus paid for by the people, to brainwash themselves!

The Big Business-Government cancer has spread deep and wide. By subverting the free market, resources will be mis-allocated, the poor will be poorer, a large chunk of the middle class will become the new poor, and the rich will be richer, thus tearing society apart.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Revitalizing democracy in Southeast Asia: Grassroots efforts, youth engagement, and international support

Simone Galimberti highlights the importance of grassroots activism, youth engagement, and international support to revitalize democracy in Southeast Asia. It emphasizes the role of students, global organizations, and bottom-up democratic approaches in promoting human rights and political freedoms.

Published

on

by Simone Galimberti

The 15th of September is celebrated internationally as the International Day of Democracy.

It is a United Nations-sanctioned day, one of the many recognized by the international body to highlight important issues that affect the planet and humanity.

Considering how the member states are so divided on matters of human rights and democracy, it is almost a miracle that there was an agreement to observe an international day on these issues.

Yet, perhaps commemorating this day is not totally surprising considering that even the most heinous regimes consider themselves, at least on paper, adhering to and respecting democratic norms and principles.

In this regard, the Asia Pacific is a global trailblazer, setting a high bar on trumping and stifling civil and political rights and within the wider region, South East Asia is doing its bits to contribute and preserve this track record.

As highlighted by the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) in a press release on occasion of International Day of Democracy, “ ASEAN has not shown serious efforts to promote universal values of democracy in its member states such as respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; holding free and fair elections; a pluralistic system of political parties and organizations; separation of powers; independence of the branches of government; freedom of expression and the press; and constitutional subordination of all state institutions to the legally constituted civilian authority”.

The specific theme of this year is the role of Artificial Intelligence to promote or destroy the democratic fabric of our societies.

I am not going to touch on it, not because it is an unimportant issue but because it is essential to talk more about the fundamentals, as underscored by APHR.

I will focus on possible remedies and practical, actionable, concrete initiatives that could really re-energize and re-vitalize democracy and human rights.

First, we need a massive effort at the grassroots level.

The same passion and commitment put into promoting the fight against climate warming and biodiversity degradation should also be shared to promote democracy and human rights.

Indeed, we need an overarching effort to engage the youths of the region in civic actions that can have direct repercussions on improving and enhancing the quality of democracy in the South East Asia.

It is not going to be easy as both students and their higher learning institutions in which they study, are conveniently brushing aside any discussion on human rights and democracy.

Second, the role of the international community.

International philanthropies organizations, human rights organizations working globally have a special responsibility to try to generate interest among the great numbers of detached, insulated and disinterested students of the region.

As we know, it is not that there is apathy and cynicism among them throughout the region. There are best practices, and we can look at the vigour put by students in Thailand to assert their rights and defend democracy.

Those members of the international community valuing democracy and, at least in words, profess steadfast, unflinching support for human rights, no matter risking of being accused of hypocrisy when they sign business deals with authoritarian and semi-democratic regimes of South East Asia, must play a big role.

While it is difficult, often impractical and inconvenient to raise issues of democracy and human rights in the official nations ‘ interactions, we should invest huge sums to support discussions and debate on these issues with local youths.

Ambassadors from these nations should be much more proactive and prioritize public engagements with youths and students.

While in diplomacy, pragmatism and real politick reign supreme, there is nothing that prevents the representatives of nations caring about democracy and human rights from stepping up their efforts.

Funding, even small grants, should be made available to support micro initiatives around human rights and democracy, offering students and young people channels to discuss topics that too often are ignored and neglected.

When their high-ranking senior officials do visit the capitals of South East Asia, they should always prioritize meeting with students and youths.

Such dialogues, even though they are just rich in symbolism and nothing else, would offer a way to embolden new generations to think differently.

Let’s not forget that the United Nations has been recently trying to highlight the importance of human rights to achieve sustainable development.

It means, for example, that climate change cannot be fought without giving people a voice and respecting their rights.

The Secretary General of the United Nations has been pushing to underscore the essentials of human rights through his Call to Action for Human Rights.

That’s why the regional office in Bangkok, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, plays such a vital role.

It should be equipped with more resources to scale its work in the region, also considering the active role played by the High Commissioner, Volker Türk through his initiative, Human Rights: A Path for Solutions, to commemorate, last year, the 75th anniversary of the adaption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

But then we need to tackle what it is, according to APHR, the defining issue, “integrating the institutionalization of democracy norms and promotion into the drafting of the ASEAN Vision 2045, which is set to be adopted in 2025 as the realization of the ASEAN Charter’s promises to strengthen democracy in the region”.

On this case, more awareness and knowledge on the part of the youths on democracy and human rights should lead to an overall discussion on the future of ASEAN.

Like all regional cooperation projects, ASEAN is, by definition, an elite initiative that is far from the day to day lives of the people.

This year and the next one are going to be fundamental for the future of the bloc.

Citizens, with the help of media outlets and with the involvement of social influencers who should espouse the cause, must take an informed interest on the ongoing negotiations on the future of ASEAN.

Ideally schools and universities should debate the way forward for this institution that is so remote and aloof that no one really cares about.

Lastly, we should remind ourselves that the status of democracy is ailing everywhere and not only in the South East Asia.

While we should enable the new generations to get engaged and involved, it is indispensable to find ways to improve the current existing model based on representations and elections.

It is high time that bottom up, deliberative forms of democracy are taken into consideration and given the due importance.

There are many ways to do so by putting the people and especially the youths at the center not only of the conversation but also at the center of the decision making.

While localized, endogenous ways must be found to strengthen democracy in the South East Asia, it is essential to reflect on how to do it.

It is indispensable to make democracy and human rights stronger by rethinking the way democracy works, making it more inclusive and participatory.

The author writes about development, regional integration and democracy and human rights in the Asia Pacific

Continue Reading

Trending