Most of Singapore’s opposition parties have expressed support for electoral reforms and greater transparency in the electoral boundary review process, in response to a query from The Online Citizen (TOC).
The query referred to a proposal by constitutional law expert Professor Kevin YL Tan, which he presented during a public webinar hosted by AcademiaSG on 21 March 2025, titled Fair and Foul.
In his presentation, Prof Tan delivered a pointed critique of Singapore’s current boundary review process. He identified a key structural flaw: the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) is appointed solely by the Prime Minister and operates under the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).
According to Prof Tan, this arrangement lacks statutory safeguards or independent oversight, creating an inherent conflict of interest, as the committee responsible for redrawing electoral boundaries ultimately reports to a political leader with a direct stake in the outcome.
He further noted that this centralisation of control—combined with the absence of public consultation and detailed justifications for boundary changes—undermines both the transparency and credibility of the process.
To address these concerns, Prof Tan proposed the formation of an independent elections commission, protected under the Constitution. This body, he said, should operate with a clearly defined legal mandate and objective criteria, such as population size, geographic coherence, and equitable representation.
Importantly, Prof Tan stressed that such a commission must be independent of the executive, insulated from political influence, and accountable to the public through transparent and publicly accessible processes.
He pointed to examples from countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia, where boundary commissions are enshrined in law and operate independently of government control.
Prof Tan’s remarks came at a time of heightened public scrutiny, following the release of the latest EBRC report in early March 2025, which introduced substantial boundary changes ahead of the upcoming general election.
In light of these developments, The Online Citizen sent queries to all political parties expected to contest the next general election, seeking their views on Prof Tan’s proposal for an independent elections commission, and more broadly, their positions on the transparency and fairness of Singapore’s electoral boundary review process.
The People’s Action Party (PAP), National Solidarity Party (NSP), Singapore People’s Party (SPP), and Workers’ Party (WP) did not formally respond, while the Singapore United Party (SUP) declined to comment.
However, several parties provided detailed replies, with some echoing proposals they had previously made in Parliament or public statements.
While PAP did not respond, Minister-in-Charge of the Public Service Chan Chun Sing had addressed this issue in Parliament in February 2025.
He stated that the EBRC comprises “senior civil servants with the relevant professional knowledge and expertise” and that they are given “the space to do their work independently and objectively, without fear or favour.”
Nevertheless, many parties questioned whether genuine independence is achievable under a system where the committee reports to the Prime Minister.
The Workers’ Party did not issue a formal response, but Secretary-General and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh expressed strong concerns in a Facebook post dated 25 March.
Singh described the boundary changes as “incredulous” and criticised the rationale of “population growth” for what he called one of the most radical redistricting exercises in recent memory. He warned that opaque decisions by the EBRC risk undermining public trust in Singapore’s democratic system.
Similarly, although the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) did not respond directly to TOC’s query, the party had earlier raised the issue in Parliament. In a motion filed in August 2024, NCMP Hazel Poa proposed comprehensive reforms to the boundary review process.
PSP’s recommendations included publicly announcing the formation of the EBRC, publishing up-to-date voter numbers, narrowing the voter-to-MP ratio variance from ±30% to ±10%, and distinguishing between “major” and “minor” boundaries—with changes to major boundaries requiring bipartisan approval.
Poa also proposed codifying the EBRC’s membership in law, having it chaired by a High Court judge, and ensuring at least a three-month interval between the release of the boundary report and the dissolution of Parliament.
The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) reaffirmed its long-standing support for an independent commission. It criticised the EBRC’s lack of transparency and pointed to the 1959 election as a model, where boundary changes were publicly debated by all parties, including the then-minor PAP.
Reform Party Secretary-General Kenneth Jeyaretnam recounted how his father’s former constituency, Anson, was removed following his expulsion from Parliament, alleging decades-long political manipulation of boundaries. He called for the establishment of a truly independent commission, citing the UK’s arms-length boundary process as a benchmark.
Red Dot United (RDU) noted that the current EBRC’s placement under the PMO erodes public trust. The party reiterated its previous calls—made in August 2024 and March 2025—for an independent, legally defined boundary review process.
The People’s Alliance for Reform (PAR) accused the government of gerrymandering, citing the disappearance of Joo Chiat SMC in 2015 and Bukit Batok SMC in 2025. The party proposed a judicial review mechanism, a two-month public inspection period, and a nine-month minimum interval between the release of the boundary report and polling day.
The People’s Power Party (PPP) called for the Elections Department and oversight bodies such as the EBRC to be placed under the Elected President’s Office, rather than the Executive, as part of a broader vision of institutional independence.
The Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) offered general support for greater transparency and fairness in the electoral process. Secretary-General Desmond Lim also stressed the need for greater opposition presence in Parliament to push for meaningful structural reforms.
Observers note that Singaporeans—particularly younger voters—are increasingly focused on institutional accountability and electoral fairness, including how electoral boundaries are drawn.
With the general election approaching, calls for reform are mounting. Whether through the creation of an independent commission or the introduction of safeguards within the current system, most parties are sending a clear signal: the process of drawing electoral boundaries must be seen as transparent, impartial, and just.
The table below summarises the positions of the parties that responded, as of 27 March 2025:
| Political Party | Position on Independent Commission | Additional Comments / Proposals |
| PAP | No response | Chan Chun Sing previously defended the independence of the EBRC. |
| Workers’ Party | No formal response; SG Pritam Singh raised concerns publicly | Singh questioned the fairness of the EBRC, noting opaque justifications for boundary changes and potential political motivations. |
| Progress Singapore Party | No formal response; called for reforms to increase transparency and fairness | Proposed codifying EBRC’s composition in law, setting fixed criteria, publicising voter data, and requiring minimum time before elections. Called for major/minor boundary categories. |
| Singapore Democratic Party | Supports | Reiterated its long-held view that the EBRC should not be under the PMO and called for a transparent and inclusive process, citing the example of the 1959 election. |
| Reform Party | Supports | Advocated for full independence since 2010; criticised gerrymandering, called for abolishing GRCs and strengthening campaign rules. Cited UK model as an example. |
| Red Dot United | Supports | Called for transparent, accountable, and constitutionally protected boundary reviews. Reiterated previous public statements on electoral fairness. |
| People’s Power Party | Supports | Suggested moving the Elections Department under the Elected President’s Office to avoid executive interference; stressed separation of powers. |
| People’s Alliance for Reform | Supports | Strongly criticised EBRC as lacking legal basis and subject to executive control. Proposed a nine-month gap before elections, public review, and judicial challenge process. |
| Singapore Democratic Alliance | Supports | Backed fairness and transparency; proposed looking to Indonesia’s representative system and stressed the need for opposition unity and long-term democratic growth. |
| Singapore United Party | No comment | Chose not to provide a position. |
| National Solidarity Party | No response | – |
| Singapore People’s Party | No response | – |
Full responses from political parties
Below are the full statements provided by the respective parties in response to TOC’s query.
Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)
“The SDP has long argued in support of a truly independent Electoral Boundaries Review Committee that, like the whole Elections Department, does not fall under the purview of the Prime Minister’s Office and is open and transparent about processes.
As Professor Kevin Tan pointed out, in the 1959 election, the drawing of boundaries was clear, transparent, and debated among all political parties—including the PAP, which then only had three seats in the legislative assembly.”
Reform Party
“The Reform Party has called for the establishment of an independent election commission since 2010 and its removal from being merely a department in the PM’s Office.
I have said that an independent election commission is a necessary but not sufficient condition for free and fair elections. Gerrymandering by the PAP is not new but goes back to the 1980s…
Among other reforms, we have also called for:
- Abolition of GRCs
- Severing of government control over the media
- Longer campaign periods
- Repeal of repressive legislation like POFMA”
— Kenneth Jeyaretnam, Secretary-General
Red Dot United (RDU)
“As we expressed in our public statements on 14 August 2024 and 11 March 2025, Red Dot United (RDU) has long called for a more transparent, independent, and accountable process in the review of electoral boundaries.
We support the idea of an independent elections commission, constitutionally protected and guided by clear, published criteria. Such reforms would go a long way in restoring faith in the integrity of our electoral system.”
— Ravi Philemon, Secretary-General
People’s Power Party (PPP)
“It is written in our Party Constitution that oversight institutions—including the Elections Department—should come under the purview of the Elected President’s Office, not the Executive.
This would remove conflicts of interest and ensure impartiality.
Elections must not only be fair but also seen to be fair, or public trust in government legitimacy will suffer.”
— Goh Meng Seng, Secretary-General
People’s Alliance for Reform (PAR)
“We broadly agree with Prof Tan’s call for an independent boundaries commission.
The EBRC has no statutory basis. It is created by the Prime Minister and headed by his Principal Private Secretary. How such a body can be impartial is beyond comprehension.
We propose:
- A nine-month gap between boundary report and GE
- Two-month public inspection period
- Fast-track judicial review process
- Requirement for full justification of all boundary changes”
— Lim Tean, Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA)
“I believe that the PAP is unlikely to implement changes that would undermine their governing authority.
However, SDA supports fairness and transparency. The current EBRC can be improved. Our democracy must evolve to ensure better representation for all.”
— Desmond Lim, Secretary-General
Note: Parties such as PAP, NSP, SPP, SUP, and WP (aside from Pritam Singh’s social media commentary) did not respond directly to TOC’s query.
The post Broad political support for reforming Singapore’s electoral boundary review process appeared first on The Online Citizen.
