Ho Ching defends Singapore’s election system amid gerrymandering criticisms

[VEF888]

the 不男不女's social media jjww commentaries count far exceeds the rest, IMO

since when did the count matter more than the content? oh wait this is edmw after all, pcw for the whine.

 

[Amaterasu]

since when did the count matter more than the content? oh wait this is edmw after all, pcw for the whine.

Content aint well received as we can see here evidently.

 

[Laneige]

I think gd old days r more steady
Lots of smc 1-1
Psp they fielded Indian or malay for the smc
Pap not v sure

Feel that grc isn’t a gd sys
If scare no minority then have them 1-1 on selected smc lo

 

[VEF888]

Content aint well received as we can see here evidently.

here as in minority, here as in edmw, here as in reverse indicator? lol.

 

[2yearswastedlife]

taxpayers pay her multi million salary to sh1tpost on fb. sibei song sia

 

[cloudnim]

SG so small also can divide the areas every 5 years, didnt know we got so much reclaimed land or chop off how many forests?

 

[glarerder]

​

​

The Online Citizen​

tpernsooSdf0h0795m63t4ghc1g45lmf1hta2h821lt5c1g9a28mf706f8ga ·

https://www.facebook.com/#
On 7 May, Ho Ching has defended Singapore’s election system amid claims of gerrymandering, saying boundary changes reflect population shifts, not political bias. Her remarks, made on Facebook, sparked debate as critics called for greater transparency and longer campaign periods.



theonlinecitizen.com
Ho Ching defends Singapore’s election system amid gerrymandering criticisms
On 7 May, Ho Ching has defended Singapore’s election system amid claims of gerrymandering, saying boundary changes reflect population shifts, not political bias. Her remarks, made on Facebook, sparked debate as critics called for greater transparency and longer campaign periods.

All reactions:
5858

Of course lah. It's a good system to those who buy high sell low...

 

[dry_county]

65% approve this logic…..

 

[lupster]

Can suddenly apply new rules for presidency also. But daft 65% thinks there is nothing wrong leh.

 

[Amaterasu]

here as in minority, here as in edmw, here as in reverse indicator? lol.

That is based on the assumption that everyone else outside this sphere receives her jjww with open arms. Which it quite a weak assessment.

 

[VEF888]

That is based on the assumption that everyone else outside this sphere receives her jjww with open arms. Which it quite a weak assessment.

well, 65% clearly don't give a hoot. what more proof do you need?

only edmw-ers cry over such trivialities while waiting for a politician to fix their lives instead of fixing their own.

WNWAMTOT.

 

[matt1618sg]

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/20...redistricting-system-misleads-and-misdirects/


This editorial responds directly to Ho Ching’s recent Facebook post defending Singapore’s electoral boundary redrawing process.

We do so not as a neutral report, but as a necessary rebuttal—because her characterisation of the issue, both in substance and tone, misrepresents the facts, dismisses legitimate concerns, and glosses over deeper structural imbalances that shape the country’s electoral landscape.

Ho Ching is not merely a private citizen. She is the former Chief Executive Officer of Temasek Holdings and has served as Chairperson of Temasek Trust since 2022.

She is also the spouse of Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who was Singapore’s Prime Minister and the long-serving Secretary-General of the People’s Action Party (PAP).

Her public interventions—particularly when political in nature—carry influence, visibility, and the implicit authority of proximity to the ruling establishment.

On 11 October 2025, she published a lengthy Facebook post defending the frequent redrawing of electoral boundaries in Singapore.

She claimed the process exists to ensure voter parity and to accommodate population changes, dismissing criticisms of gerrymandering as “playing the victim card” and referring to dissenters as “crybabies” who risk being pampered.

But these are not harmless remarks. They serve to undermine and trivialise growing concerns over the fairness, transparency, and accountability of how Singapore’s electoral map is shaped. Such comments, when made by someone of Ho Ching’s stature, contribute to the normalisation of institutional opacity and the delegitimisation of public scrutiny.

Her argument is riddled with omissions, contradictions, and rhetorical gaslighting. And it is precisely because of the weight her words carry—by virtue of who she is and the system she continues to defend—that a clear, evidence-based rebuttal is not just warranted, but essential.

This is not simply about tone. It is about trust in the integrity of Singapore’s electoral system—and the right of citizens to question the structures that define their vote.

Misrepresenting Japan: a flawed comparison​

Let us start with the Japan comparison—because she raised it, and it deserves to be answered on its own terms.

It is true that Japan has historically had a rural-urban imbalance in representation.

But that problem was not ignored. Under Japanese law, electoral boundaries must be reviewed and updated within one year of the release of census data, which is conducted every ten years. The redistricting process is based on clear legal criteria and institutional independence—not the political discretion of the government in power.

In Japan, redistricting is not timed to suit political convenience. Elections may be called early, but the map used is determined by a regular, census-anchored process.

The political leadership cannot unilaterally redraw lines in the months before an election.

In contrast, Singapore’s Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) is convened by the Prime Minister, reports to the Prime Minister’s Office, and its chairman is typically the Secretary to the Cabinet—currently Tan Kee Yong, who is also Secretary to the Prime Minister.

Even if the Prime Minister does not give explicit instructions, the institutional proximity makes neutrality difficult to guarantee—and impossible to verify.

What also makes the comparison particularly weak is that Japan—like nearly every other democracy—does not have a GRC system.

Its parliamentary elections are conducted through single-member districts and proportional representation, meaning each electoral district returns a single representative, and voters cast individual ballots for candidates or party lists. Constituency boundaries may shift based on census data, but the fundamental structure of representation remains consistent and predictable.

In contrast, Singapore’s GRC system allows for teams of four to five candidates to contest as a block, with the winning team taking all seats.

This system, unique globally, introduces far more flexibility—and ambiguity—into how boundaries can be drawn or adjusted. GRCs can be created, dissolved, merged, or split with little explanation, and each change can significantly alter the electoral map.

The scope for boundary redrawing is therefore not just about adjusting for population, but potentially for political advantage.

The implications of redistricting in Singapore are thus far more complex than in systems where voters choose individuals in stable, single-member constituencies.

Potong Pasir: the myth of equal voter numbers​

Ho Ching cites Potong Pasir SMC as an example of restraint. She claims it was “left untouched for a long time” despite a smallish population, perhaps ironically, to avoid accusations of gerrymandering. But this characterisation conveniently ignores decades of data.

Potong Pasir was not left untouched out of caution. It was deliberately contained. Its voter base remained small, even as surrounding areas grew rapidly.

In 2006, while Chiam See Tong of the Singapore People’s Party (SPP) remained MP, Potong Pasir had just 15,864 voters. The next smallest SMC was 21,026. The largest, Nee Soon East, had 32,569 voters—more than double Potong Pasir’s number.

In 2020, it still had only 18,551 voters, again one of the smallest SMCs. The next highest—Yuhua—had 21,188. These figures run directly counter to Ho Ching’s assertion that Singapore aims for an even range of about 20,000–30,000 voters per MP.

If population equity were the only concern, Potong Pasir would have been merged or redrawn long ago. Instead, it was maintained as an artificially small constituency, arguably because absorbing it into surrounding wards might have introduced opposition-leaning voters into PAP-held areas, raising electoral risk.

The case of Potong Pasir doesn’t prove fairness. It proves strategic containment.

Aljunied and Sengkang: left untouched—for now​

Likewise, Aljunied GRC and Sengkang GRC—both held by the opposition Workers’ Party (WP)—were not spared because the system is fair. They were untouched likely because redrawing them would be riskier.

If their populations exceed those of surrounding PAP-held GRCs, but splitting them would dilute ruling party margins in adjacent wards, leaving them intact becomes a pragmatic political choice—not a democratic one.

This selective approach, dictated by electoral calculus, not principles, gives the lie to any claim of consistent redistricting criteria.

(article too long to post all here, go read complete article at toc ...)