http://knifetricks.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-singapore-rigs-its-elections.html
Sherman Oaks, California
When the United States drafted its Constitution, the Framers looked for inspiration to the governments of ancient Athens and Rome. Alternatively, dozens of countries have followed the example of the “Mother of Parliaments” in London. Singapore, however, modeled itself on Djibouti.
The election laws of Singapore have one purpose: to maintain the power of the People’s Action Party (the PAP) and its predominantly Chinese constituents. To this end, multiple arms of the state are used to guarantee not merely that the PAP always wins but that the PAP always wins by crushing margins.
As discussed in this informative essay by Jeremy Grace, one of the keys to sustained PAP dominance is the use of Group Representative Constituencies (GRCs). In the U.S. and Great Britain, each district in the lower house is represented by one parliamentarian. That’s only true for 9 of the 84 seats in Singapore’s Parliament.
For the remainder of the seats, a Singaporean votes for a slate of 5 or 6 candidates per GRC. That way, 50.1% of the vote can translate into several seats. Multiply that across 14 GRCs, and you have a machine for running up supermajorities that are grossly unreflective of the way people actually voted. The same system was used in Ecuador, Lebanon, Senegal, Tunisia and the tiny African nation of Djibouti.
The government makes it difficult for opposition parties to contest the GRCs. The district boundaries are drawn by an electoral committee appointed by the Prime Minister and composed of civil servants. The district lines are not subject to parliamentary or judicial review, and past practice has been to publish new boundaries in the Government Gazette immediately before the calling of a general election, hampering the ability of the opposition to organize.
But that’s not the disturbing part. The vast majority of Singaporeans live in public housing (although the flats can be bought and sold as private property), and, according to Grace's report, the government uses its power over real estate to prevent the formation of rival power centers.
Singapore is a multi-ethnic nation. About 70% of the population is Chinese, while about 25% is Malay and 5% is Indian (predominantly Tamil). The Chinese form the power base of the PAP, which can do the math. An opposition party which appealed to Malays, Indians and enough disaffected Chinese could win an election.
To prevent such an unthinkable result, the government prohibits the concentration of Malays or Indians in public housing. The percentage of ethnic minorities in a housing estate cannot exceed that minority’s percentage of the national population. Title transfers which would exceed the caps are disallowed, so sellers can be forced by the law to discriminate on the basis of race. There’s no realistic possibility of a minority group controlling certain districts, one of the hallmarks of a true democracy.
The rulers of Singapore have other tricks up their sleeve. Protests of 5 or more people can be declared “illegal gatherings.” Ostensibly legal protests of 4 or fewer people can be physically blocked by a ring of police (pictured). Films with political content are banned. Campaigning by the opposition is limited. The viewpoints of the opposition are not well represented in the state-controlled media, to put it mildly.
The truly Nixonian aspect of all this legerdemain is that the PAP would almost certainly win a fair election. The city-state is safe and prosperous, and Singaporeans will never be confused with Bolsheviks.
But, as the elderly Mafioso asked near the end of Casino, “Why take a chance?”
I have to agree that what ever the perceived advantages of the HDB's policy for capping minority purchases of HDB housing, It is simply not constitutional.
"regardless of race"