Min Cheong
Madasamy Ravi, Human Rights Lawyer
Political rhetoric surrounding the General Elections (GE) has intensified since the Electoral Boundary Review Committee submitted its recommendation to the Singapore government last month. With the conclusion of recent Budget 2011 Parliamentary Debate, interest in GE-related matters has been mounting.
As the GE approaches, two areas of popular concern have emerged. They are the seemingly self-serving redrawing of the boundaries which define constituencies across the Republic and the framework within which voting occurs, with emphasis on the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system.
To help shed some light on the issues surrounding the contentious practice and policy from a constitutional perspective, Min Cheong (MC) speaks to prominent human rights lawyer Madasamy Ravi (MR). New Asia Republic thanks Mr Madasamy for sharing his insight.
MC: The government-initiated redrawing of boundaries around electoral districts has often been criticised and characterised as gerrymandering. What is the definition of gerrymandering and can the redrawing of boundaries surrounding constituencies in Singapore be considered as such?
MR: Basically, gerrymandering can be said to be attempts to manipulate geographic limits so as to create districts within which voters behave more partially towards a certain party, and yes, what is happening in Singapore is gerrymandering.
MC: When was gerrymandering first used in Singapore – was there any particular momentous event or political environment which created the impetus for the powers-that-be to turn to gerrymandering?
MR: There is an interesting link not many people are aware of between the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system which came about in 1988 after a 1987 select committee hearing to ensure minority representation in parliament and the policy of regulating ethnic quotas which was entered into force in 1989 in the form of the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP), both of which are related to the issue of gerrymandering.
The reason as to why minority representation in parliament was an issue which was examined stemmed from the concern that Malays, in particular, would not be elected by the populace in constituencies that had a Chinese majority. They highlighted the Malays as an ethnic group because Joshua Benjamin Jeyaratnam, an Indian, won in a majority Chinese constituency against the PAP, so it was assumed that the Indians did not have a problem garnering votes from people of races other than that of their own.
In 1988, former Solicitor-General Francis Seow contested Eunos GRC with two other members under the Workers’ Party and won 49.11% of the votes cast. It was known that the Bedok and Eunos constituencies had a high concentration of Malays residents, who were consistently voting against the PAP, as observed by Goh Chok Tong. Hence, the government decided to redraw the boundaries surrounding Eunos. Also, to ensure that the political sentiments of the Malays would not disadvantage the PAP’s hold on power, the racial quota scheme was activated in the name of multi-racialism when in fact it was implemented to dilute the Malay vote in lieu of elections.
As a result of the ethnic quota, in any one constituency, there would be a a cap placed on the percentage of ethnic groups permitted to live in the HDB flats within those areas – a maximum of 25% for Malays, between 12-15% for Indians, with the Chinese obviously ending up as the largest ethnic group almost anywhere. So. that’s the connection between diluting minority ethnic group votes and gerrymandering, and it’s a very serious issue.
In other countries, there have been legal suits filed against surreptitious discrimination, but here, it’s done blatantly and it is openly institutionalised. Also, we don’t have any law similar to the Voting Rights Act, which protects against minority group discrimination where voting is concerned and upholds the right of minority communities to achieve majority status within any given electoral district.
MC: Given that explicit legislation pertaining to voting rights does not exist in Singapore, can a constitutional challenge against gerrymandering and associated infractions be issued here?
MR: It can be done basing the challenge on the principle of inequality of representation. In Singapore, there is definitely inequality of representation in the voting system – an SMC shouldn’t have a smaller voice than a GRC, for example. That can be constitutionally challenged. If Radin Mas, an SMC, elections return one MP while in Sembawang GRC, elections return five or six MPs, it is unconstitutional and the case against the system can be argued under Article 12 of the Singapore Constitution, which has to do with equality and equality of treatment.
The ethnic quota system can also be challenged under Article 12, because it is violates the right to movement and association of ethnic groups. It’s healthy for minorities to come together because they need to feel secure in a group in a place where they are outnumbered by other communities, and this idea is celebrated in many parts of the world.
MC: If there are such clear legal metrics which can prove that the GRC system and the application of the racial quota scheme is unconstitutional, why hasn’t a challenge been issued?
MR: The only person who challenged the results of the elections was Chee Sook Chin in 2006, whom I represented. It was after the General Elections in 2006 and we wanted to declare the results of the General Elections null and void because the government used the threat of not upgrading HDB estates in constituencies won by opposition parties to intimidate the electorate. Really, opposition parties should take up this challenge. It’s a grave issue. Basically, what the government is doing is similar to what happened during the Apartheid – to tell the minority that their members have to remain a minority group in every constituency. This is an infringement of their freedom of choice and restricts their right to movement in terms of being able to choose where they want to live.
MC: One of the reasons proffered by the authorities is that the racial quota scheme creates microcosms that display representative population statistics and has been put in place also to prevent ghettoisation. Is this a valid defence?
MR: There are ghettos everywhere and the world has accepted that. Even if ghettos are not ideal, it is not right to use a tool such as the racial quota system to deal with ghettoisation. Nowhere in the world is this the case, save for in Singapore.
MC: In your opinion, why haven’t opposition parties placed the notion of a constitutional challenge on their agendas?
MR: Opposition parties are probably not paying enough attention to such important constitutional issues. They should be consulting constitutional lawyers to examine matters like this as well as documents such as the Election Petition; the only time this was done was in 2006 when I represented Chee Sook Chin in court.
However, I don’t blame them and the fact that they haven’t done so. There are no constitutional lawyers in Singapore doing this kind of work. The Law Society is equipped to assist challenges as such, but the public law section of the Law Society is not looking into the issue at all. Most lawyers are not interested and even if they are, they are fearful of rocking the boat, but I am here to assist, and I can help if any of the opposition parties want to get the ball rolling. In addition, the opposition parties do not have the resources to embark on such projects and therefore focus on other issues.
Still, the opposition has to take discussions on social and political issues to a higher level. JBJ was able to fire up the man on the street. He gave us all constitutional education. He carried out all sorts of constitutional challenges on his own and when he talked about civil rights, he explained basic concepts of civil liberties to the layman, so the population then was more educated in this aspect. The internet population, however, despite all the information they are getting, do not seem to be grasping these concepts as adequately.
MC: How should a constitutional challenge be promulgated and are there specific arguments that can be made in the case of gerrymandering and related injustices?
MR: Firstly, you can take out what is known as an Originating Summons or a Declaration stating that the drawing of boundaries violates Article 12 of the Constitution and how so, also that the GRC system dilutes minority representation in respective constituencies and infringes upon their right to choose their own leaders.
It can also be said that the redrawing of the boundaries gives the PAP undue advantage over the opposition during elections, and this can be challenged under the Parliamentary Elections Act. Of course details have to be provided. – Furthermore, this causes constituents duress when their boundaries change without notice – there might a loss of a sense of identity which can be protected using the principle of natural justice. Then there is the issue of inequality, where representation in parliament is not proportionate. Lastly, it can be argued that race-based politics is unfair and unconstitutional.
MC: In what manner/ways can members of society, including opposition parties, collaborate with the legal community to work on restoring and protecting the rights of the citizenry?
MR: Allow lawyers who are keen on pursuing cases like these to take the lead where manoeuvring legislation is concerned and support us however possible. Also, the opposition parties should cooperate more and be more united. That is the best way to tackle this problem.
—
New Asia Republic thanks Mr Madasamy for sharing his insight with our readers.
Unfortunately, M Ravi does not appear to be that familiar with the Constitution. Art 39A of the Constitution deals with GRCs. Subsection (3) clearly states: “No provision of any law made pursuant to this Article shall be invalid on the ground of inconsistency with Article 12 or be considered to be a differentiating measure under Article 78.”
The PAP is not stupid; it has covered its bases and included constitutional provisions to forestall any Art 12 challenge to the GRC system.
Everyone knows the PAP plays the race card. However, the majority Chinese population has to also fight for the rights of their non-Chinese Singaporean neighbours too if they truly want a democratic and cosmopolitan nation. We have to get rid of the stereo-type mindset the PAP has instilled in us for more than 50 years.
We all bleed the same colour. If the Chinese suffer, non-Chinese suffer too and vice-versa. Its time we band together and not let the incumbent ruling party control and toy with our rights as human beings.
Article 12 comes under the section of fundamental liberties. Articles which are classified as fundamental liberties, such as Article 12, take precedence over any other article that comes after, like Art. 39 and Art. 78
When considered from this perspective, Articles 39 and 78 seem to exclude the courts’ jurisdiction towards a constitutional challenge under Article 12.
To prevent such a challenge itself, can be declared as unconstitutional and citizens all around the world have already sought such a redress, except Singaporeans.
It only goes to show how many a person like Lavamight will only be too happy to surrender his/her/its fundamental liberties and rights and blindly accepting any adulterations made to the Constitution, without so much as a whimper.
This is the beginning towards opening our citizen’s eyes towards any attempted further erosion of our fundamental liberties as enshrined in our Constitution.
Thank you Lavamight for bringing this matter up to our attention.
You may also want to look up these cases:
Shaw v Reno 1993
Texas Graves v Barnes
Session v Perry 2004
Willams v City of Dallas
What’s with the Bollywood wanna be photo?
RH: UK DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS PROVE LKY ‘GERRYMANDERED’ IN 1963 ALTHOUGH IT WAS REALLY MASSIVE ELECTION FRAUD [PARAS 9 & 10 BELOW]:
1. First, my belated kudos to Yawning Bread for taking the iconic photo of an Opposition rally that proves the huge, pent-up support the Opposition has on the people and voters. I immediately saw the power of that photo when I first saw it on the internet but did not praise it there and then because I did not want to alert the LEEgime to see the seriousness of the matter and implement more blocking tactics to eliminate this phenomenon, again.
2. However, now that your photo and others similars are all over the internet now, and I expect many, many, more in the coming General Election, it is entirely possible that you have hit on the truth, which is that the LEEgime has already readied a whole online internet campaign, with huge production costs giving them Steven Spielberg and George Lucas kind of effects, to dominate the media. Since they have so much money [PAP donates millions to charity every year], they can literally buy up all/most of the available online ad spaces, leaving none for the impoverished Opposition. Thus, LEEgime can saturate the online ad spaces, which may explain why they have suddenly loosened their stranglehold and prohibitions and blocking tactics, on Opposition online activities. [If you have installed ad blockers like AdBlock, etc, you should not see any ads at all].
3. I think that having a full orchestra to do your sound effects, and having real, paid handsome or pretty actors and spokesmen to sell the PAP is not that much of an advantage because there are plenty of free sound effects including music loops, etc, available at these excellent sites:
http://www.ccmixter.org/
http://www.freesound.org/
4. True, a good director can make a far better video than the impecunious Opposition, but again, a bit of creativity and free video editing softwares like Windows Movie Maker, etc, can do a decent job. So, overall, the advantage of money cannot win the LEEgime the elections just like that. Most importantly, Opposition can upload their videos to YouTube for free and these can, hopefully, go ‘viral’ thus reaching big numbers of voters, free of charge. It may be good if all the Opposition can agree to host an “Opposition channel” on YouTube so all the Opposition videos are collected in one place, for easier viewing by Singaporeans. Or can someone do this for them? It is free, and easy. Collected together, there will be many more viewers than each video separate and have to be searched for.
5. What is more worrying is if the election rules allow tv and newspaper advertising. These are so expensive and the Opposition so poor that the PAP will be the sole party and political advertisers and therefore saturate the mainstream media. But really, they are getting free ‘advertising’ all the time, every day, directly and sneakily indirectly, from their PAP-controlled medias anyway. So why pay when so much advertising is free and better still, disguised as editorial?
6. I think the PAP dominance of the mainstream media is the more problematical problem. Most people, including dedicated netizens, cannot ignore the mainstream medias. Most netizens take their ‘inspiration’ and cues from the mainstream medias before blogging their say. In other words, the mainstream medias set the agendas, most of the time, and netizens only react. Only a few bloggers, like Yawning Bread, etc, can create agendas themselves. Such agenda-setters are rare because this takes a lot of time and work, besides the obvious creativity.
7. Thus, what the Opposition are up against are the mainstream medias, which are all bought and in the pockets of the PAP. So all the PAP needs to do is to saturate the mainstream medias and the tiny, few, voices in the online medias will be outgunned by far. Even today, most people, especially the older Singaporeans, have little time or inclination to go online. Most Singaporeans are so pressed for time and apolitical that they simply flip the newspapers and are done for their info feed for the day, then complete with a bit of tv news. The Opposition have an uphill fight, as always.
8. This is not to say that the Opposition will lose. The [astounding?] fact is that LEE Kuan Yew has lost entire elections before but this is known only to the oldies, like those in their 70s now. For example, in the critical 1963 GE, the Barisan Sosialis, despite having key members arrested and jailed without trial, won 43 out of the 51 seats. LEE Kuan Yew had to do a little fiddling to turn this landslide defeat into a landslide victory. Stalin said famously “Elections are decided not by those who cast their votes, but by those who count the votes.”
9. Another nugget of truth confirming LEE Kuan Yew’s fiddling elections results is from the British archives, now declassified, and quoted in the book THE FAJAR GENERATION:
“He [LKY] would hold the elections for the 15 Malaysian seats before Malaysia took place, perhaps in June or July. He would so arrange the boundaries that the PAP would get a majority; the Barisan Sosialis would get some seats and the UMNO one. All the other parties would be wiped out (CO 1030/1159, November 1962). [*1]
[*1] The Fajar Generation – Para 1, Pg 185
[*2] ’The Fajar Generation’ – Pg 192, Para 5
http://www.flickr.com/photos/toomanythoughts/4116921548/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24524253/THE-FAJAR-GENERATION
http://www.temasekreview.com/2009/12/27/book-review-the-fajar-generation-merger-and-the-decimation-of-the-left-wing-in-singapore-part-1/
10. Notice that LEE Kuan Yew was promising Lord Selkirk such precise election results for his PAP, the Barisan Sosialis and UMNO, etc, THAT THESE PRECISE RESULTS CANNOT BE OBTAINED FROM JUST GERRYMANDERING ALONE. IN OTHER WORDS, ONLY BY FAKING VOTES AND FAKING TOTALS.
11. Thus, the Opposition, as usual, are desired to be the Govt by almost all the voters [proven by your iconic photo and the pitiful dozens at PAP rallies] but have to contend with a govt that has been falsifying elections from as early as 1963 [proven] and even 1959 [LEE Kuan Yew's first 'win'] and my own acquaintance, Mr David Duclos, a Catholic former police inspector and his lawyer friend, who both witnessed a highly likely bringing in of fake ballot boxes stuffed with fake PAP votes, in the 1997 Cheng San GRC election. Note that Cheng San GRC disappeared in the next GE due to more gerrymandering redrawing of electoral boundaries. Visit my blog for more:
http://i-came-i-saw-i-solved-it.blogspot.com/
12. I have been alleging these for years without being sued or charged for criminal defamation, etc. You only have to google all the various sentences or phrases I have written here, to find all the instances on the internet I have written. As usual, I end with my name, address, emails, etc. My NRIC is on my blog.
Robert HO
28 Bukit Batok Street 52
#20-03 Guilin View
Singapore 659248
Tel: +65-68989553
CellPhone: +65-90127417
Email 1:
Email 2:
Dear Tetty,
I am not defending the way the Constitution has been “adulterated”. I’m simply pointing out the legal position and stating that M Ravi has got his law wrong.
There is no doctrine in Singapore constitutional law whereby certain provisions can be ignored if they curtail the effect of the provisions relating to fundamental liberties. It makes no sense to say that Art 39A “unconstitutional” when it is itself part of the Constitution. You cannot pick and choose parts of the Constitution that you like while rejecting the parts you don’t or relegating them to subsidiary importance.
Also, you have cited a string of cases from the US, when Singapore courts have repeatedly made it clear that US cases are of limited assistance in interpreting Singapore’s Constitution, citing differences in social and political background between the two countries.
My point being, no one has challenged the GRC system in court because there is really no hope of success; the law is pretty clear on this issue. Any change to the GRC system is better pursued through electoral politics and not the court system.