Mr Speaker,
I would like to thank the WP for their support of our Motion and for sharing their proposals for greater transparency, fairness and impartiality. I would also like to thank the Minister for clarifying that the EBRC has not yet been convened and that when it is, announcements will be made.
Let me now address the points made by the Minister during the debate.
The Minister has said that the EBRC does not make its recommendations or boundary changes based on election results. I welcome that assurance and hope that he will accept our proposal that this be made explicitly clear in the electoral boundaries report.
Secondly, he mentioned that the EBRC actually does not have access to the election results. I would just like to mention that we have given examples of how SMCs whereby opposition did better, tend to have a higher chance of disappearing. The fact is that the SMC results is open knowledge to everyone. So, naturally, the EBRC would know. Just pointing out that fact.
The Minister has also said that, it is not possible for voting weightage to be exactly the same. I would just like to clarify that we are not asking for it to be exactly the same but just to narrow down the range of variation.
He also mentioned that, the major and minor boundaries model would not work due to high mobility of voters and that our proposal would become immune to population shifts. I would disagree that it is immune to population shift. In fact, I have made it a point to illustrate how that model can accommodate population shifts.
Secondly, he also mentioned that narrowing the range of voters per MP will lead to more frequent changes of the boundaries because of so many voters changing addresses every year.
Firstly, I would like to point out that when one family moves out, another family moves in. Yes, you will have shifts, but it is not quite as drastic as the Minister made it appear. It is more dependent on the number of housing units within a particular boundary, rather than how many people are shifting house each year.
Secondly, no doubt narrowing the range will lead to more frequent changes to boundaries, but as with much of policy-making, a fine balance must be struck between two different priorities. We believe that this range of plus or minus 10%, as it has been implemented in other countries, should be doable and will not result in too frequent changes. Moreover, our proposal has the establishment of the major boundaries, which will not change from election to election, so, further providing stability.
The Minister declared that our current system is fair and transparent. But he has not given any explanation to explain why is it that the statistics that we have mentioned, about the SMCs where the opposition did better, have a higher chance of disappearing. So, that raises doubts on the fairness. Secondly, how can it be transparent when the EBRC report does not bother to explain the changes?
If there are cogent reasons for changes in boundaries, this should be made known to all Singaporeans for transparency and accountability. It would simply be a matter of recording on paper, what the Committee had discussed and agreed to. If we look overseas, the most recent report for the review of parliamentary constituency boundaries in England went into detail explaining the reasoning behind how constituencies were derived and how certain geographic features, such as the River Thames or expressways, were used as boundaries.
It is up to the Prime Minister to decide on the terms of reference provided to the EBRC and it is up to him to set the standards that he expects of the EBRC, in terms of transparency and accountability.
The Minister also said that the EBRC should be left to do its work independently, without fear of public pressure. We do not agree that requiring transparency from the EBRC in the form of clearer and more detailed reports would affect the functions of the EBRC. Judges provide reasons for their decisions in detailed judgments available to the public. This has not affected their ability to work independently.
The Minister has also, in several instances, implied that we are doing this for personal interests. As I recall, when I did the Motion on GRC, calling for GRCs to be abolished, he remarked that I am arguing against something that benefited me because I rode on the coattails of Dr Tan Cheng Bock. At that time, my reply to him was that, it is not a matter of whether I benefited, it is whether this system is best for Singapore.
Again, I would like to reiterate that now he is querying me for arguing for something that will be for my benefit. It seems that either way, I will not meet with his approval. So, again, I just want to say, let us not focus on personal interests. Let us discuss and debate based on the merits of the issues here and do not go after the person making these proposals.
The Minister attributed that what we wanted is that in the constituencies where we have done well, to not change it because we want to go back there again. I would like to ask the Minister to state specifically where in our speeches did we ask for our constituencies to be unchanged. In our proposal, we are merely asking for major boundaries based on guidance from HDB town boundaries, URA planning boundaries, which, in fact, if it were implemented, would imply changes, for example, in the West Coast GRC. So, please, do not attribute things to us that we did not ask for.
He also said that if he were to do that – to not change a constituency so that the opposition can go back again – then that would be gerrymandering. I would like to point out that the definition of gerrymandering is to change boundaries. To ask for not changing it, cannot be gerrymandering.
Finally, the Minister took issue with the words in the Motion statement “for political parties” and concluded that therefore, this Motion is all for the benefit of political parties and not for Singapore. I wish to point out that that would be focusing on semantics. What we are arguing for in this Motion is for fairness, transparency and accountability. It is very important to assure that there is fair competition in the political arena because this can only give Singapore a healthier democracy and that is definitely in the national interest.
Sir, in closing, I believe that PSP’s proposal is balanced and considered, and will enhance the transparency and accountability of the electoral boundaries review process. It will make the process fairer for all political parties.
Much of the electorate has grown accustomed to the changes of the boundaries without much justification and explanations. When conducting house visits, we often hear residents joke to us about how they kept moving constituencies in consecutive GEs without physically moving house, but underlying the joke is disagreement.
As society develops, our expectations change. Fairness and good governance are gaining greater importance. As a small nation, we are keenly aware of the importance of fair and just approaches when it comes to competition in the international arena. As a country, we believe in upholding meritocracy and fair competition is an important pillar to upholding meritocracy. It also pushes all of us to be better than we thought we can be. In this same spirit, we can see our Olympians bringing out the best versions of themselves in Paris.
As Singapore enters a new chapter with the appointment of a new Prime Minister, let us renew our push for values that are important to us. And fairness in GE starts with the boundary review process. I call on all hon Members to support the Motion.