Deconstructing the Architecture of Singapore’s Rapid Economic Development and Authoritarian Rule

Photo from GoodFreePhotos is in the public domain.

Every political scientist worth their salt knows that democratization goes hand in hand with economic development. But, lodged between two democracies, Indonesia and Malaysia, lies an authoritarian city-state whose success over the past 30 years puts modern economic and democratic theory to shame. While a plethora of political scientists have spent years studying and analyzing the trends between economic development and democratization, Singapore defies the belief that an authoritarian regime would be unable to economize rapidly, let alone become one of the richest nations in the world. It’s easy to understand why western political thinking developed in this way. For most authoritarian regimes, a suffocating shadow of poverty prevents a nation’s ability to grasp economic development. Based on this evidence, democratic theory assumes that authoritarian, monopolistic governments lead to corrupt societies, catalyzing the economy to collapse. The Singapore example rejects this and other assumptions of democratic theory, including the belief that robust economic development facilitates an expansion of heightened political freedom. Over the past 60 years, Singapore has experienced less and less political expansion while still enjoying unprecedented economic freedom. Furthermore, Singapore rejects a third assumption in orthodox democratic theory that there must be a “resulting alternation in government power,” as the same party has held onto power for over half a century.

Within 60 years, Singapore has transitioned from a subject of British colonial rule to a global model for economic prowess. Yet, from its inception in 1965, the People’s Action Party (PAP) has been the only party to rule, occupying almost every seat in Parliament ever since. As Singapore continues to bolster greater economic development, the government continually and explicitly limits political mobilization and freedom. As a “poster-nation” for authoritarianism, Singapore’s unconventional rise to economic success, especially given its use of authoritarianism, presents a similarly paradoxical political puzzle to that of China. Both Singapore and China’s economic models, coupled with the one-party system, urge politicians and citizens alike to reconsider whether or not democracy is the best route to securing robust economic development.  

Singapore’s rise from a small fishing village with less than one thousand inhabitants to the financial epicenter of Southeast Asia brings the rags to riches fairy tale to life. Even before it assumed its own independence, the island of Singapore was a pioneer in free trade in the mid-19th century, spearheading the idea that free trade could be based on private enterprise. Prior to gaining its independence in 1965, Singapore was a popular free trading port due to its unique “nodal position,” sitting at the very tip of the Malay Peninsula. Following World War II and the conclusion of Japanese occupation, Singapore was forfeited back to the British. In 1963, in accordance with the Malaysia Agreement, the island of Singapore became a part of the Malaysia Federation. In 1965, however, after years of rising tension between two dominant parties in the Malaysia Federation, the PAP, and the United Malays National Organization, the inflated balloon of political pressure reached its zenith and popped. All 281.2 square miles of the island of Singapore emerged as an independent state. It was at this moment that the PAP cemented its dominance over the politics of the newly independent city-state, foreshadowing Singapore’s authoritarian approach in which the government was willing to turn to any means if it meant finding its end of economic development. 

Singapore and the United States both gained independence in the hopes of being able to self-govern. Yet, Singapore and the United States, two ex-British colonies, have developed strikingly opposing political trajectories and economic policies. On average, U.S. GDP increases by 2 percent annually; Singapore, however, has averaged an annual GDP growth of 7.7 percent since 1965. 

Since 1965, Singapore has bolstered robust economic growth, decreased inflation, and exceptionally high savings rates. Between 1960 and 1999, Singapore’s most critical years of economization, GNP increased more than thirteen-fold through the maximization of exports and mass manufacturing. Singapore’s key export commodities include: consumer electronics, information technology products, petroleum products, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, airfare, and other mass machinery and equipment. In 2019, Singapore’s GDP was an estimated $362.8 billion, with exports totaling $31.2 billion. Today, Singapore ranks as the seventh richest country in the world with USD 75,250 per capita. Singapore inches on the heels of the United States, the world’s sixth richest country, with USD 77,653 per capita. Yet, the two nation’s antithetical government models and gaping contrast in population sizes pose a paradox when contextualized through the nearly identical GDP per capita. While Singapore’s population is a mere 5.6 million, the United States is approximately 66 times larger, with a population of 330 million. Singapore’s ratio of wealth to population indicates just how much money a small amount of the population harbors. 

Yet, following the path of how Singapore became so economically robust, one discovers a labyrinth of loopholes, decimating political freedom and impelling the public to feel the permanent pangs of authoritarian rule. Singapore relentlessly sacrifices the cost of political freedom in return for an impressive GDP. While, even in its ubiquitous use of a one-party system, Singapore boasts that its polity enjoys democracy in many ways. For example, Singapore states it holds fair and free elections and claims to have a heavy commitment to the rule of law. Yet, when one pokes at the glass façade of Singapore’s political system, these supposed democratic institutions shatter into sharp weapons of authoritarianism. While on paper Singapore has a multiparty system, with nine parties contesting the 2015 election, the PAP has ruled consecutively for over 60 years. The electoral framework and continual use of defamation suits prohibit any of the other eight parties from becoming the incumbent. In reality, Singapore cannot facilitate free and fair elections or put an emphasis on the rule of law if its own legal system is utilized to directly prevent competition. Singapore weaponizes its emphasis on a rule of law by arbitrarily passing legislation to secure the leading party’s power.

While Singapore regularly holds elections, the PAP continues to be the dominant party, year after year. The PAP’s historic and present dominance, coupled with a “pro-government media sector[,]… high financial barriers to electoral candidacy, and legal restrictions on free speech,” create the perfect storm, guaranteeing the PAP’s recurrent victory. Not only has Singapore’s ruling party, the PAP, dominated Singaporean politics since the nation’s inception, but the PAP uses libel laws to inhibit the opposition party from winning. Many of Singapore’s electoral laws are created ad hoc and are more than conveniently formulated. Whenever the PAP desires to silence looming antipathy, it simply passes a new law to curtail defeat. The PAP will first sue individuals running in opposition to them; these individuals then become ineligible to run for office as Singapore’s electoral rules state that individuals with “undischarged bankruptcies” cannot assume office. Coincidentally, between 1973 and 1993, 11 opposition politicians were sued by the government, becoming unable to assume office. 

Singapore’s media also works to the PAP’s benefit. All domestic newspapers, radio stations, and television channels are owned by companies connected to the government. As a result, the media, intrinsically, cannot criticize the PAP; and in fact, media outlets can expect to be penalized and criminalized for speaking out. In 2019, a digital news website, The Online Citizen, was sued by the government for an article that allegedly made “baseless claims about the prime minister and his family.” Singapore’s newly passed Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act also permits government officials to remove or restrict online content they deem misleading or inaccurate, without oversight from a third party. 

When one takes a closer look at the city-state’s robust economic development, it is not as perfect as it seems. While Singapore is one of the richest countries in the world, its political freedom is practically nonexistent and it also has one of the world's highest income disparity rankings—the second in Asia. In fact, 73 percent of Singapore’s wealth is harbored by the top 20 percent of households. While Crazy Rich Asians might have made it seem as though all Singaporean citizens enjoy the same type of luxury and affluence as Nick Young, from 2012-2015, the number of people living in poverty jumped to 43.5 percent. Plus, in 2016, it was recorded that around 41,500 Singaporeans earned less than USD 800 monthly. The reality is far from what it seems. Singapore’s economic development illustrates how the top 20 percent of Singaporeans, owning the majority of the nation’s wealth, intrinsically benefit from this continual authoritarian rule. For example, the prime minister’s wife is the CEO of Temasek Holdings, “a government-linked corporation and sovereign wealth fund.” 

Unfortunately, Singapore’s economic trajectory seems to have a symbiotic relationship with authoritarianism; as long as Singapore continues to become wealthier, one can expect the authoritarian grip to only become tighter. While Singapore’s idyllic location and utopic allure might seem like an unimaginable world of luxury, if being nominally known as one of the world’s wealthiest nations comes at the price of infringing on political freedom and rejecting democracy, perhaps national wealth is a poor measure of a country’s success. Singapore illustrates that rapid economic development is indeed possible when political freedom and democracy are explicitly restricted and absent.