I heard this speech in 2010 and I attach a transcript for you. It is still relevant today for all of us Singaporeans!
“In countries like the UK, electoral boundary revisions are carried out by an independent Boundary Commission under the charge of a High Court Judge. Proposed boundary changes are also open to public scrutiny and objection. In Singapore, however, the boundary revisions are done by a committee chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, reporting to the PM. Sir, despite my belief that the PMO should not be in charge of boundary review, the focus of my cut is how the current process may be improved for transparency and accountability.
I would like to touch on 2 points: first, the timing of the release of the report; second, the contents of the report.
As regards timing of the report, it is noted that in GE 2001, the revised boundaries were released about 1 week before Nomination Day. In 2006, they were announced about 7 weeks before.
I would call for the boundary review report to be released at least 6 months to 1 year before Nomination Day. This is especially important because of the unique situation in Singapore where there are GRCs and SMCs; GRCs can be chopped and changed and SMCs can be created and dissolved with the stroke of a pen.
For the coming elections, we are expecting some significant revisions due to expected increase in the number of SMCs from 9 to 12, and some GRCs being reduced in size. Having good notice will give voters confidence in the boundary re-drawing process. It will also give a reasonable time for political parties to do more focused groundwork and consider their candidate line-up.
My second point relates to the contents of the report. In the last EBRC report in 2006, the Terms of Reference were very generally stated as recommending the new constituencies and boundaries, taking into account significant changes in distribution of voters due to population shifts and housing development.
As a basis, the 2006 report calculates the MP to voter ratio, using the total number of voters nationally divided by the number of Parliamentary seats. This led to a conclusion of one MP for every 26,000 voters. The report then states that a 30% variation is allowed, leading to a possible voter range of between 18,000 to 34,000 per MP.
Sir, reading the report raises more questions than it answers. For example:
1.How was it derived that a 30% variation was permissible?
2.Why were Ayer Rajah SMC and Bukit Timah SMC dissolved when they still had the number of voters in the acceptable range for SMCs?
3.How was it decided that the new replacement SMCs would be Yio Chu Kang and Bukit Panjang?
And so on.
Such changes could not have been at the whims and fancies of the EBRC. There must have been a certain methodology employed or other factors considered. As this is a matter of public interest, could the next EBRC report go further into the reasons for dissolving or creating SMCs, or changing the boundaries of GRCs?
The government must know that Singaporeans are skeptical about the re-drawing of boundaries. It would be an improvement to have advanced notice and some transparency in this process.”