Chan Chun Sing rejects Jamus Lim's proposal for enhanced transparency in electoral boundary review
Summary
TLDRThe speaker addresses the issue of electoral districting, advocating for a fair and transparent system that avoids gerrymandering. They emphasize the importance of an electoral boundary review committee (EBRC) that operates independently of political parties, ensuring neutrality and objectivity. The discussion also touches on the potential for both intentional and unintentional gerrymandering, and the speaker proposes the use of scientifically supported tools to create benchmark maps. They question the PMO's stance on adopting such an approach and highlight the need for the EBRC to serve the interests of the people and Singapore, rather than political parties.
Takeaways
- π³οΈ The speaker acknowledges the imperfections in electoral districting systems but argues for improvements to achieve fairness and public perception of fairness.
- π The speaker suggests that benchmarking current electoral boundaries against mathematically sound models can enhance transparency and acceptance.
- π€ There is a call to question the underlying political values that lead to concerns about intentional gerrymandering, which can diminish the weight of certain voters' voices.
- π£οΈ The speaker emphasizes the importance of ensuring that all citizens' voices are heard equally in a modern democracy.
- ποΈ The speaker describes the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) as an independent and objective body, free from party politics.
- π‘οΈ The EBRC's composition and processes are designed to be insulated from political interference, unlike in other countries.
- π¨ββοΈ Suggestions to involve a high court judge to enhance the EBRC's independence are considered but deemed insufficient to prevent political interference.
- π The speaker distinguishes between intentional and unintentional gerrymandering, with the former being assuredly absent in the EBRC's approach.
- π The proposal to use scientifically supported tools to produce benchmark maps is presented as a method to counteract potential unintentional gerrymandering.
- π€ The speaker invites consideration of whether the EBRC should serve political parties' interests or the broader interests of the people and Singapore.
- π The primary goals for Singapore and Singaporeans are identified as having MPs who can take care of, represent, and form a functioning government to look after the nation's interests.
Q & A
What is the primary goal of the electoral boundary review committee (EBRC) according to the script?
-The primary goal of the EBRC is to serve the interests of the people and Singaporeans, ensuring that every electoral division is a microcosm of the nation, reflecting national interests and not just sectoral interests.
How does the EBRC ensure independence and objectivity in its work?
-The EBRC is composed of senior civil servants with no party allegiance, and it does not have access to voting information. It operates independently and objectively without consulting any political party, thus avoiding party politics and gerrymandering.
What is the speaker's stance on the use of mathematical models in electoral boundary delimitation?
-The speaker is open to the idea of using mathematical models to adjust electoral boundaries, as long as it is uninformed by actual voting preferences and aims to create a microcosm of Singapore in each electoral division.
What are the two forms of gerrymandering mentioned in the script?
-The two forms of gerrymandering mentioned are intentional and unintentional. Intentional gerrymandering is purposefully manipulated for political advantage, while unintentional gerrymandering occurs naturally through population movements and may inadvertently affect electoral outcomes.
Why does the speaker believe that involving all political parties in the EBRC's process could be counterproductive?
-Involving all political parties could politicize the entire process, leading to horse trading and gerrymandering, which would move the process backwards rather than forwards, away from the goal of serving the interests of the people.
What concerns does the speaker express about having a high court judge oversee the EBRC?
-The speaker is concerned that a high court judge's involvement could politicize the judiciary, leading to debates about who appoints the judge and whether the judge has any political leaning or bias, which could undermine the independence of the electoral boundary delimitation process.
How does the speaker define fairness in the context of electoral boundary delimitation?
-Fairness, according to the speaker, is defined by the process rather than the outcome. It is about ensuring that the process is transparent, objective, and serves the interests of all Singaporeans equally.
What is the speaker's view on the importance of transparency in electoral boundary delimitation?
-The speaker believes that benchmarking existing electoral boundaries against those that have passed mathematical muster will improve transparency and make the maps more acceptable to everyone involved.
What is the speaker's opinion on the role of the EBRC in ensuring that the voices of all citizens are heard equally?
-The speaker emphasizes that the EBRC should aim to ensure that the voices of all citizens are heard equally, reflecting the democratic aspiration of giving equal weight to the votes of those living in different geographies.
What suggestions does the speaker make to improve the electoral boundary delimitation process?
-The speaker suggests introducing scientifically supported tools to produce benchmark maps as a reference, and exploring various models to ensure that the electoral divisions are a fair representation of the national pattern.
How does the speaker address the issue of unintentional gerrymandering?
-The speaker acknowledges the possibility of unintentional gerrymandering due to natural movements in the electorate and suggests the use of mathematical models to adjust the boundaries to mitigate this risk.
Outlines
π³οΈ Electoral Boundaries and Gerrymandering Concerns
The speaker discusses the impossibility of a perfect electoral districting system and the need for proposals that foster fairness and public perception of fairness. They argue for benchmarking current electoral boundaries against mathematically sound ones to enhance transparency and acceptance. The speaker also addresses the issue of intentional versus unintentional gerrymandering, emphasizing the independence of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) from political influences and the importance of political neutrality. They suggest using scientifically supported tools to create benchmark maps and question the underlying political values that lead to gerrymandering concerns.
π€ Purpose of the EBRC and Representation of Interests
This paragraph delves into the purpose of the EBRC and whom it should serve. The speaker questions whether the EBRC should cater to political parties or the interests of the people. They assert that the primary goals should be to have MPs who care for and represent the people and a functioning government that advances Singapore's interests. The speaker rejects the idea of using voting preferences to adjust electoral boundaries, arguing that it could lead to gerrymandering. They emphasize the importance of ensuring that every electoral division reflects the national interests and is not skewed by sectoral interests, and they express openness to exploring various models while maintaining the focus on a fair process rather than a favorable outcome.
Mindmap
Keywords
π‘Electoral Districting
π‘Gerrymandering
π‘Perceived Fairness
π‘Benchmark Maps
π‘Intentional Gerrymandering
π‘Unintentional Gerrymandering
π‘EBRC (Electoral Boundaries Review Committee)
π‘Political Neutrality
π‘Judiciary
π‘Microcosm
π‘National Interests
Highlights
The speaker acknowledges the imperfections in electoral districting systems but argues for the pursuit of fairness and public perception of fairness.
Proposes the use of mathematically validated benchmarks to improve the electoral boundary setting process.
Advocates for transparency in the electoral boundary setting to make maps more acceptable.
Questions the underlying political values that lead to concerns about intentional gerrymandering.
Discusses the impact of gerrymandering on the weight of votes in certain geographies.
Calls for a modern democracy that ensures equal voice for all citizens.
Details the independent and objective composition and process of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC).
Clarifies that the EBRC's recommendations are not based on voting patterns or party politics.
Suggests that involving political parties in the boundary drawing process could politicize it.
Considers the appointment of a high court judge to the EBRC but concludes it may not resolve political interference concerns.
Argues that the EBRC's work does not require a judicial officer due to the lack of legal issues involved.
Differentiates between intentional and unintentional gerrymandering and assures that the EBRC avoids the former.
Proposes the use of scientifically supported tools to prevent unintentional gerrymandering.
Questions the PMO's stance on adopting a mathematical approach to boundary setting.
Challenges the definition and understanding of intentional versus unintentional gerrymandering.
Reiterates the EBRC's goal to serve the interests of the people and Singaporeans, not political parties.
Discusses the importance of electoral divisions being a microcosm of the nation for national interest in elections.
Considers the use of mathematical models to adjust electoral boundaries without being informed by voting preferences.
Raises concerns about the potential for equal division leading to uniform election outcomes.
Questions the definition of fairness in the context of electoral boundary setting.
Transcripts
even if we accept that no perfect
electoral Sy districting system exists
it does not mean that we must be content
with the status quo the proposals I've
offered get us much closer to a system
that is both fair and perhaps more
importantly perceived to be fair by The
Wider
electorate this surely is a sort of goal
that everyone in this house and Beyond
would agree with benchmarking our
existing electoral bounds against these
that have passed mathematical muster
will improve transparency and make these
Maps more acceptable to everyone
involved of course perhaps we should
take a step back and question the
underlying political values that may
have led us to even have to worry about
the cancer of intentional
gerrymandering if Jerry mandering does
truly become endemic do we as a nation
accept this Jerry mandering effectively
means that the votes of those who happen
to live in certain geographies are
inadvertently given lesser weight simply
by Dent of the districting system do we
wish to be known as a modern democracy
that does not aspire to ensure that the
voices of all our citizens be heard
equally Miss poo Mr jamus have spoken
about suspicions of Jerry mandering and
reducing the potential of jry mandering
and use the word jry mandering quite a
few times let me address this
directly first let me touch on the EC's
process and composition which has
allowed the committee to do is work
independently and
objectively first the ebrc does not have
access to voting information and hence
does not make its recommendation based
on voting patents
the ebrc does not consult the pap or any
other political party Party politics do
not come into this
exercise the ebrc comprises senior
servil servants with no party
Allegiance therefore unlike other
countries where political parties are
involved in the boundary drawing process
ebrc compositions and processes are
insulated from Party
politics hence
we do not have the hor trading and jry
mandering that have taken place in other
countries and I must say if we get all
political parties
involved present or future it will
politicize the whole process and not
bring us forward but bring us
backwards Miss hazer suggested that the
ebrc be ched by a high court judge and
so did Mr pritam and Mr jamus
to enhance the independence of the
ebrc we have thought about this
carefully and we have look at the
experiences of other countries and we
don't think that this will resolve the
concern about political
interference other jurisdictions that
have done so continue to face
allegations and doubts concerning the
independence of their electoral boundary
delation
process their debate in state sinks into
question
on who appoints the judge and whether
the judge has any political leaning or
bias the Judiciary ends up getting drawn
into the political debate and the
Judiciary is
politicized besides there are no legal
issues in the EC's work which require a
Judicial officier to weigh it what is
required is political neutrality
integrity and objectivity
which I trust all my public service
officers have whether they are in the
ebrc or not for them to discharge their
duties without fear and
favor so I should clarify that there are
in fact two forms of Gerry mandering
intentional and unintentional Minister
Chan answered assured this house that
there is in fact no intentional jry
mandering as pursued uh by the ebrc now
even if we accept this position it does
not exclude the very real possibility
that natural movements in the electorate
200,000 in fact as Minister Chan just
shared might inadvertently inadvertently
give rise to an unintentional Gerry
manded outcome that's why I suggested
introducing scientifically supported
tools to produce Benchmark Maps as
reference so my question is what
objections does the pmo have to
instructing the ebrc to adopt this
approach in Singapore given how it has
been applied not just in theory but in
practice by other by jurisdictions
elsewhere first point I'm not sure I'm
expert to distinguish what you refer to
as intentional versus
unintentional as I've mentioned in my
speech
no system can ever claim that it is
perfect nor will
satisfy everyone who may choose to
contest in an
election the question
is what is the
purpose of the
ebrc and who must it
serve the fundamental question before us
today is this should the ebrc serve the
interest of political parties
or should the interest of C ebrc be to
serve the
interests of our
people should
ebrc as its primary goal serve the
political interests of different parties
or should the primary goal of ebrc to
serve the interest of Singapore and
singaporeans and what are the goals of
Singapore and singaporeans
first have a MP that can take care of
them
second have a MP that can represent them
third have a parliament that can form a
functioning government that can take
Singapore forward and look after
Singapore and
singaporeans so I will not go into
whether it's intentional unintentional
because I
cannot understand your definition of an
distinction between that but I want to
iterate one
point we have
we do not give
ebrc and ebrc have no access to the
polling results we have no idea what the
polling results or the voting pattern of
the 200,000 people that have moved
neither do we have data on how the new
electors in every election
cycle will
vote our goal is to make sure that every
division is roughly a microcosm of
sort so that we have
elections and people conduct and when
the elections is conducted people
consider the national interests so that
we don't have sectoral interest that
delates that defines a particular
division like other
countries we are open to all kinds of
tools as suggested by Mr jamus but
actually it's quite
interesting some of the ideas that you
have mentioned and I listen
carefully by one of your ideas your
suggestion is quite
interesting and I think fundamentally
you agree with
us but you may also not like the
result and that is this that every
electoral division should be a microcosm
of
Singapore and you say that we should
actually use mathematical models to
adjust the population so that they
reflect the national
pattern first of all if we use people's
voting preference to adjust the model
won't you agree with us that that is
precisely Jerry
mandering second if we indeed do that
and every division is exactly the same
then every election in every sorry every
division should give the vote share to
the incumbent that's roughly the same
and is that the outcome that we are
striving for so I think have a
care on how and what we learn from
others and how we use models we are open
to exploring all kinds of models but at
the end of the day is fairness defined
by the process or is fairness determined
by the outcome as to whether it is
favorable to me or not just a quick
clarification on my part uh what I did
say in fact was a suggestion about
adjusting by mathematical methods the
bounds uh which is the shape of these
electoral boundaries it is in fact
uninformed by actual voting preferences
which as uh Minister Chan said the ebrc
has no access to
Browse More Related Video
VICTORIA CIUDADANA GANΓ, PERO SE COMPORTΓ COMO LOS PARTIDOS TRADICIONALES - ΒΏSon diferentes?
BOLSONARO FALA EM LIVE SOBRE O PROJETO DA PL DAS FAKE NEWS: "NΓO PODEMOS PERDER A LIBERDADE"
Dr. King: Nonviolence is the Most Powerful Weapon
Does One Nation One Election Change our Politics? | Dr Jayaprakash Narayan on Simultaneous Elections
Electoral Reforms in Pakistan | Updates | Pakistani Politics
IMPACTO DE OBSERVADORES INTERNACIONALES EN PROCESOS PRIMARISTAS
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)