One of the most baseless and yet frequently repeated by the opposition claims is that there's evidence of PAP gerrymandering in how EBRC dissolved SMCs where PAP's people were performing poorly against the opposition candidates, who were within a shout of winning.
Now, that this is repeated by online trolls is not really a surprise, but it was surprising to see Pritam Singh himself level the accusation against the PAP in the parliament.
He claimed that PAP suspiciously benefited from disappearing Single Member Constituencies where opposition was close to winning over 50% and as evidence of that he mentioned 5 (five) cases of such SMCs since 1991.
It's a pity he forgot 23 (twenty-three) other constituencies which have been dissolved throughout that time and incorporated into GRCs (a few of them have returned in recent years too).
I have found a total of 28 SMCs which at some point have been dissolved since 1991. In only 6 cases it involved constituencies where PAP had under 55% of the vote in the last GE - i.e. where it had a less than a double-digit (10% or more) majority over the opposition.
Which means 22 of those constituencies were dominated by the ruling party.
Does Pritam Singh want some sort of immunity from redistricting in areas where opposition parties are just a few percent behind PAP? Should EBRC only move boundaries of the constituencies where PAP has a huge lead, giving opposition better chances at winning seats?
Wait, what's the definition of such behaviour? Oh, right, gerrymandering.
It gets even funnier when we examine the examples he did give in the parliament.
He started with Braddell Heights which was one of over a dozen SMCs that were shaken up in 1991. Why was he mum about all of them but one?
Next, Joo Chiat SMC was redrawn after the area became HDB-free in 2011, following the demolition of the last blocks. Given that housing is a big part of national policy, how would creating a private-property-only constituency with its own representative fit in the parliament?
And he conveniently omitted Whampoa SMC, which was dissolved at the same time, where PAP scored over 66%. Didn't fit the narrative?
Still, his take on 2015 is best.
Fengshan was just a one-term SMC, where PAP had a 14% majority anyway - not exactly a close race, was it? Meanwhile, Punggol East was won back by the PAP and Sengkang West saw a surge up to 62% of the votes.
And both became parts of Sengkang GRC, which was later won by... the Workers' Party – a clear benefit from redistricting.
In other words, Pritam Singh claimed in the parliament – with a straight face – that PAP benefited from SMCs being dissolved and merged into GRCs, while members of one of those GRCs, representatives of his own party, were sitting behind him.
All of that after conveniently omitting over 20 other cases of constituencies changing borders in the period he was complaining about.
Dear Mr Singh, you need to fill those gaps.
