In recent parliamentary debates, Singapore’s opposition parties—the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) and the Workers’ Party (WP)—have been vocal about one thing: gerrymandering.
They accuse the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) of manipulating electoral boundaries to keep their grip on power and have proposed reforms they claim will make the process fairer.
But here’s the twist: the very changes they’re pushing for might just do the opposite.
Instead of making things better, they could end up dragging the process into the political mud.
Politicising a neutral process?
Let’s start with the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC).
Its job is pretty straightforward—adjust electoral boundaries based on where people live and how many new homes are being built.
It’s a neutral process, meant to reflect Singapore’s changing landscape, not to give any political party an edge.
But Hazel Poa from the PSP thinks political parties should have a say in this process.
Sounds fair, right? More voices, more transparency?
Not so fast.
Once you let political parties into the room, the whole process risks becoming a political chess game. Instead of focusing on where people live, it might start focusing on where votes can be won.
That could lead to even more drastic boundary changes than we’ve seen before. So, instead of fixing the problem, we might just be making it worse.
Data-Driven? Or data-disguised gerrymandering?
Jamus Lim from the WP suggested using computer tools to draw boundaries based on data.
However, the data he wants to use includes past voting patterns.
If we start redrawing boundaries based on how people have voted in the past, aren’t we just setting things up to favour the incumbents? Think about it—if every constituency mirrors national voting trends, the party in power could end up with a huge advantage.
It’s like playing a game where the rules are designed to favour the house.
And that’s the very definition of gerrymandering.
Judges in politics is a slippery slope
Another idea on the table is to have a High Court judge chair the EBRC.
The opposition argues that this would make the process more impartial.
But here’s the catch—judges are supposed to stay out of politics.
Their job is to interpret the law, not get involved in the nitty-gritty of drawing electoral boundaries.
If we start pulling judges into this process, we risk dragging the judiciary into political battles.
And once that happens, can we really trust the courts to remain neutral? It’s a slippery slope, and once we’re on it, there’s no telling where it might lead.
Institutionalising gerrymandering
The opposition is accusing the PAP of gerrymandering, but their own proposals could end up institutionalising it.
By giving political parties a role in the EBRC or using voting data to shape boundaries, they might be embedding bias into the system rather than eliminating it.
It’s like trying to fix a leaky boat by drilling more holes.
The intent might be good, but the outcome? Not so much.
Everyone wants a fair electoral process. That’s not up for debate. But the way to get there isn’t by politicising a process that’s supposed to be neutral.
We should be looking for ways to keep the EBRC above the fray, not dragging it into the muck. Singapore’s democracy deserves reforms that are genuinely about representation, not about who can play the system better.
And that’s something we should all be thinking about.
