Student ID:
| 300448153 |
Marco Verweij and Riccardo Pelizzo’s journal first explains Singapore’s success, under a non-democratic regime, they then go on to explain the shortcomings within the regime and how their success isn’t as straightforward as it seems. The main argument made is that Singapore ultimately has a successful non-democratic regime, though they do have a number of issues. The authors suggest that if Singapore was a democratic nation then they would not have faced some of these problems.
To explain their argument the authors describe Singapore’s authoritarian regime and its success.
Singapore gained independence in 1965 and has since been governed by one political party called the People’s Action Party (PAP). Since gaining independence, PAP has won nearly every parliamentary seat in every election. PAP has ruled Singapore by adopting repressive techniques, for example discouraging those who run against them, including jailing and bankrupting those opposition leaders that run against them and also restricting political debate. These techniques have been discussed in lectures and are a widespread technique used by most non-democratic rulers, as repression is a tool to control people's beliefs and behaviors.
In class, we discussed how repressive techniques can be used by leaders to hold on to power.
The author then explains that this “soft authoritarianism” goes against the liberal democratic theory which suggests, firstly, that over time such regimes become corrupt, secondly, that as they prosper and gain more economic freedom, they will also gain more political freedom. This has not happened in Singapore’s case, as there has been an increase in censorship and among other factors. The author suggests that this illiberal regime has helped secure Singapore’s economic success. For example, since the PAP has gained power, Singapore has gone from a developing country to a highly developed country and for the most part having one of the highest GDPs in the world. “As a result, in 1997, Singapore’s GDP per capita (GDPpc) ranked eighth in the world.
As noted by the authors, there are fundamental issues within Singapore’s economy. For example, Singapore is seen as an illiberal government and has problems with their treatment towards poor migrants. This has created a large income disparity between the rich and the poor and has meant that people on low incomes are earning below the minimum wage and are having to save vast amounts of money for their retirement, yet they still end up with small pensions. This develops the idea that the government hasn’t been as successful as it appears at face value. Additionally, Singapore has had a lack of “local entrepreneurship, innovation, and productivity growth that has resulted from the government’s economic policies ”. Singapore’s economic problems and government responsibility have been under-reported. The author suggests that if Singapore had a liberal democracy, the government might be able to mitigate some of these issues.
The authors ultimately conclude that Singapore has been incredibly economically successful since being ruled by a one-party state. However, there are issues, for example, their treatment towards immigrants, wealth disparity, and immigration issues. If Singapore had a liberal democracy, none of these issues would have come into play as a free society is likely to be most beneficial to its citizens.
The purpose of this journal article is to inform and structure a debate around the success and shortcomings of the Singaporian political regime. The article, in a sense, is a historical account because it describes Singapore’s form of government and seeks to understand their level of success.
This article has been peer-reviewed, which gives the reader reason to believe the information provided is trustworthy. Furthermore, the report makes claims based on other broader literature available and uses valid economic data to develop its ideas.
I enjoyed reading this article as it provided useful insights into how undemocratic regimes like Singapore function. This article ties into the themes of this course in terms of how it explains why and how non-democratic regimes can be successful through economic advancements. This article also relates to the course through its discussion on the benefits of non-democratic regimes.
However, I think the authors could have explained further the definition of what success looks like—in particular, providing criteria that help the reader to understand if Singapore’s regime has paid off for its citizens. The Criteria could have included such things as, Technology and Education, Wealth and Wealth Disposition, and Human Rights and Equality. The authors seem to focus on Singapore Economic success to show how Singapore's illiberal regime has paid off for its citizens. I think it would have been useful if the article had gone into greater detail about other aspects to explain regime success. For example the authors could have explored other considerations like how its citizens feel about Singapore. For example, in 2019, Singapore ranked 34 in the happiness index; in 2020, the world press freedom index showed Singapore dropping to 158 out of 179 countries. These measures haven’t been explored fully in this article. By looking at other factors this could have helped the reader make up their own minds on whether Singapore's illiberal government has paid off for its citizens.
This article shows how Singapore is a successful non-democratic regime, with low corruption levels, and a high GDP. However, Singapore has various issues that it would not have faced, to begin with, if it was a liberal democratic regime. This article connects to the course content because the course discusses what makes a successful non-democratic regime and a big part of this is having a strong economy, and using repressive techniques. In Singapore’s case, it appears that the regime is strong, and in many ways, has paid off for it.
Verweij, Marco, and Riccardo Pelizzo. “SINGAPORE: DOES AUTHORITARIANISM PAY?” Journal of Democracy 20, no. 2 (April 1, 2009): 18–32.
https//worldhappeness.report
https//www.theonlinecitizen.com
Thanks for this summary and discussion, Sophie. How would being more democratic have helped Singapore avoid these problems?
ReplyDeleteOne thing to note is that Singapore is not highly repressive - while there has been the occasional jailing of dissidents and so on, Singapore's authoritarianism is "soft" in that it does not relay much on violence.