Opinion
People’s Action Party’s gerrymandering denial faces reality check in upcoming election
Opinion: As Singapore nears its next General Election, the People’s Action Party (PAP) faces increasing scrutiny over gerrymandering accusations. With pundits speculating on the possible disappearance of Bukit Batok and Bukit Panjang SMCs—where the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has shown strength—the integrity of electoral boundaries is again under question.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/08/16133355/CCS-SMCs.png)
As Singapore approaches its next General Election, the People’s Action Party (PAP) finds itself in a precarious position. The party’s repeated denial of gerrymandering accusations is increasingly difficult to maintain, particularly with pundits speculating about the possible disappearance of two Single-Member Constituencies — Bukit Batok SMC and Bukit Panjang SMC — where the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has shown significant strength in recent years.
In the 2020 General Election, Professor Paul Tambyah of the SDP delivered an impressive performance in Bukit Panjang SMC, securing 46.27% of the vote against PAP’s Liang Eng Hwa. Despite being placed in the ward only on Nomination Day, which many viewed as a tactical move by the SDP, Prof Tambyah, an infectious diseases expert and the first Singaporean to lead the International Society of Infectious Diseases, proved to be a formidable challenger.
Similarly, in Bukit Batok SMC, Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the SDP, garnered 45.20% of the vote against PAP’s Murali Pillai in the 2020 General Election. This marked a significant improvement from his performance in the 2016 by-election, signalling growing support for the party in the constituency.
Given these performances, the possibility that these two SMCs may be absorbed into larger Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) raises serious questions about the integrity of Singapore’s electoral boundaries.
The potential removal of Bukit Batok and Bukit Panjang SMCs would follow a pattern seen in past elections, where constituencies that showed signs of opposition gains were absorbed into GRCs. Notable examples include the absorption of Fengshan SMC, Punggol East SMC, and Joo Chiat SMC—constituencies where the opposition also showed significant electoral strength.
The PAP has consistently denied any gerrymandering, with the Minister-in-charge of the Public Service, Chan Chun Sing, asserting in Parliament that the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) operates independently and objectively.
The opposition, led by the Workers’ Party (WP) and the Progress Singapore Party (PSP), has repeatedly called for greater transparency in the boundary-drawing process.
During the recent parliamentary debate over a motion put forth by PSP Non-Constituency members of Parliament, PSP secretary-general Hazel Poa described gerrymandering as “an act of disrespect for voters,” arguing that it undermines the genuine concerns of the electorate by changing the rules to favor the ruling party.
Leader of the Opposition, Pritam Singh, further highlighted that the PAP has long benefited from the way electoral boundaries have been drawn and redrawn.
According to Mr Chan, who was responding to the motion, the EBRC does not have access to voting information, nor does it consult the PAP or any other political party during its deliberations. This, he argues, insulates the boundary-drawing process from party politics, unlike in other countries where gerrymandering is a known issue.
However, these assurances ring hollow for many Singaporeans, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of past electoral boundary changes that have disproportionately affected constituencies with strong opposition performances.
The argument that the EBRC’s decisions are purely technical and non-political becomes harder to accept when one observes the consistent pattern of SMCs being absorbed into GRCs after the opposition has made gains.
During the debate on the PSP motion, when pressed for a direct answer on whether gerrymandering occurs in Singapore by Mr 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 carefully worded reply leaves more questions than it answers and underscores the growing tension between the ruling party and those who challenge the fairness of Singapore’s electoral processes.
As speculation mounts over the fate of Bukit Batok and Bukit Panjang SMCs, the PAP’s assertion that there is no gerrymandering will be tested once again.
If these constituencies are indeed absorbed into GRCs, it will add fuel to the argument that the ruling party is using electoral boundary changes as a tool to maintain its political dominance.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2023/03/26202010/TOC_newlogo_small.webp)
Opinion
A tragic reminder: The urgent need for defamation law reform in Singapore
Opinion: The tragic suicide of Geno Ong highlights the emotional and financial toll of defamation lawsuits in Singapore, where plaintiffs often aren’t required to prove reputational damage. Her case, alongside others, calls for urgent reform to ensure fairer balance between protecting reputation and free speech.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/09/09175212/supreme-court-singapore.png)
The recent suicide of Geno Ong has once again cast a spotlight on the nature of defamation laws in Singapore and the pressures they exert on those caught in legal battles.
Ong’s tragic note, accusing businessman Raymond Ng of financially and emotionally breaking her through lawsuits, reflects the personal toll of defamation cases in a jurisdiction where proving damage to reputation is not always required.
This backdrop invites a broader reflection on how defamation laws in Singapore are structured, particularly when compared to other legal systems like the UK’s.
In the UK, as seen in the recent case of British billionaire Sir James Dyson, courts demand that plaintiffs demonstrate significant reputational harm.
Dyson lost his defamation case against the Daily Mirror because he could not prove any financial loss stemming from the publication. This standard, established under the UK’s Defamation Act 2013, creates a higher threshold for plaintiffs, emphasizing the need to show serious damage.
In contrast, Singapore’s defamation laws, as demonstrated in the recent legal victory of Singaporean Ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan against Lee Hsien Yang (LHY), do not require proof of reputational damage.
The Ministers successfully argued that LHY’s Facebook post insinuated corrupt practices, even though LHY maintained that his post did not imply personal benefit or corruption. The Singapore court sided with the Ministers, and LHY did not pursue a counterclaim.
Comparing Legal Standards: Singapore vs. the UK
This divergence between the UK and Singapore is stark. While Sir James Dyson’s lawsuit was dismissed due to a lack of evidence of financial loss, the Singaporean Ministers’ lawsuit prevailed based on the interpretation of a Facebook post, with no need to prove actual harm.
In Singapore, it is often the defendant’s responsibility to disprove the defamation, a legal structure that may make it easier for powerful individuals to pursue and win defamation suits.
For critics, this represents a significant flaw in Singapore’s defamation laws, as the threshold for sustaining defamation suits is relatively low. Plaintiffs in Singapore are not required to show reputational damage or financial loss, leading to concerns that defamation laws may be used by the wealthy and powerful to silence critics, rather than to address legitimate harm.
The Impact on Free Speech and Public Discourse
These cases raise important questions about the balance between protecting individuals from defamation and safeguarding freedom of speech.
In the case of LHY, one might question what reputational harm the Ministers could have suffered when they remained in power and continued to be elected by the public.
Should defamation lawsuits be used when public figures face criticism in a democratic society? These legal actions, especially when successful, may have a chilling effect on free speech, discouraging citizens from voicing concerns about public figures for fear of legal retaliation.
Similarly, in the case of Geno Ong, Raymond Ng’s defamation lawsuits against her raise significant questions about the actual damage to his reputation.
Ong’s accusations, while serious, appeared to target a niche social media audience and did not seem to widely impact Ng’s standing or business operations.
Given his continued involvement in business, it becomes difficult to argue that Ng’s reputation suffered substantial harm from Ong’s posts. This situation echoes broader concerns about Singapore’s defamation laws, where plaintiffs are not required to show clear evidence of reputational damage to succeed in their claims.
Moreover, the Ministers chose to serve LHY legal papers in the UK, a jurisdiction with a higher threshold for defamation claims, through social messaging rather than physical service.
This decision, and the Ministers’ choice to pursue the case in Singapore rather than the UK, where the case might have been dismissed, raises concerns about fairness. Critics suggest that Singapore’s legal framework, influenced by long-standing laws and political structures, favours those in positions of power.
The Future of Defamation Laws in Singapore
The contrast between the Dyson case in the UK and the Ministers’ case in Singapore demonstrates how defamation laws in different jurisdictions can lead to significantly different outcomes.
In the UK, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove serious harm, offering greater protection to free speech. In Singapore, the burden often shifts to the defendant, creating a system where plaintiffs in positions of power can more easily sue for defamation without showing significant damage.
Without legislative reforms, defamation laws in Singapore may continue to be seen as tools that can be used by those in power to suppress criticism, stifling public discourse.
Geno Ong’s case, while rooted in personal tragedy, highlights the emotional and financial toll that defamation suits can have on ordinary individuals.
Ong’s story, alongside high-profile cases like those involving the Ministers and LHY, underscores the need for a deeper conversation about the purpose and fairness of defamation laws in Singapore.
Ultimately, Singapore must grapple with the question of whether its defamation laws strike the right balance between protecting reputations and upholding freedom of speech in a democratic society.
Opinion
Charity or Campaigning?: The blurred line between aid and political influence in Singapore
Opinion: The intersection of charity and politics in Singapore raises questions when politicians appear at events like grocery distributions. While well-intentioned, such appearances can blur lines, influencing vulnerable voters who may associate aid with political figures, impacting free and fair competition.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/09/09172825/charity-Grace.png)
The intersection of charity work and politics is a sensitive topic, particularly when voluntary organisations and political figures come together to distribute handouts.
In Singapore, where elections often see the People’s Action Party (PAP) dominate constituencies, these charity-driven distributions, whether intentional or not, sometimes blur the lines between volunteerism and political campaigning.
Grace Fu, a PAP politician representing Yuhua Single Member Constituency (SMC), posted on her Facebook page on 27 August, highlighting an event where student volunteers distributed groceries and household essentials to the residents of Yuhua.
This initiative, organised by the South West Community Development Council (CDC) and HRHS (好人好事), saw volunteers working to help defray living costs for residents.
While the post emphasized the role of kindness, the optics of Fu personally being present to hand out groceries may give rise to questions about the intent behind such appearances.
You can see similar events where Ms Fu is seen along with handouts by charitable organisations to residents in Yuhua.
This brings to mind a conversation I had with Robin Low, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) candidate who ran against Fu in the 2020 General Election.
Low shared his hopefulness during the campaign, buoyed by residents expressing dissatisfaction with the status quo and support for the SDP’s platform. Yet, despite this apparent backing, he was disheartened with the final results, receiving only 29.46% of the vote, a marginal improvement over the 2015 results but a step back from the 2011 outcome.
Low’s experience post-election provides a striking insight into how residents may interpret acts of charity. As he went back to thank voters, he had a conversation with one resident who had expressed support for SDP during the campaign.
When asked why he ultimately voted for Fu, the resident admitted that his decision was influenced by the gratitude he felt for a bag of rice he received, mistakenly believing it came from Fu herself. Low tried to explain that the rice was actually from the NGOs involved in the event, but the resident was confused, noting that Fu was present during the distribution.
This anecdote, while personal, illustrates a broader challenge in Singapore’s political landscape.
While the distribution of goods is often driven by NGOs and charitable causes, the close proximity of politicians to these events can leave a lasting impression on residents—one that may influence voting decisions, particularly among the poor.
For some, the gratitude felt for these handouts, even if provided by a neutral third party, can be transferred to the political figures who appear during the distribution.
This, in turn, complicates the narrative of free and fair political competition, especially when residents are left unclear as to the true source of the support.
The perception that politicians are directly responsible for handouts, whether accurate or not, can sway the votes of the more vulnerable populations who feel a sense of obligation or gratitude for this perceived generosity.
For poorer residents, the immediate and tangible relief from a bag of rice or household essentials may outweigh the less immediate and often abstract promises made during political campaigns. It highlights how acts of charity, even when unintentional, can play a powerful role in shaping electoral outcomes.
This scenario raises questions about the ethical implications of politicians being present at charitable distributions.
While these events can genuinely benefit residents, they also risk being seen as part of a larger campaign strategy, where goodwill is exchanged for political support. It is a complex dynamic that touches on the heart of political ethics in Singapore and calls for clearer boundaries between voluntary aid and electoral influence.
In a broader sense, this reflection encourages us to consider how the provision of aid, particularly to the poor, can be seen as a tool of influence.
-
Singapore4 days ago
Singapore woman’s suicide amidst legal battle raises concerns over legal system
-
Diplomacy6 days ago
India PM Narendra Modi meets with PM Lawrence Wong; Four MoUs signed
-
Opinion1 week ago
Singaporean voters and the ‘Battered Wife Syndrome’
-
Parliament2 days ago
PAP MPs attack WP Gerald Giam in Parliament over NTUC independence from ruling party
-
Politics5 days ago
PAP adopts SDP policies after criticizing them: Dr Chee urges Singaporeans to see through tactics
-
Parliament1 day ago
Minister Shanmugam rejects request for detailed information on visa-free visitor offences: Cites bilateral considerations
-
Food6 days ago
NTU stall food prices questioned after parent pays S$6.30 for meal
-
Civil Society1 week ago
CIVICUS Monitor labels Singapore as ‘repressed’ for crackdown on civic freedoms