Abstract

Singapore was once a poor ex-British colony when it was founded. Yet, in only a few decades, Singapore was transformed into a modern state with a robust economy. This economic miracle of Singapore was not accomplished under a complete liberal democracy, but rather from a semi-authoritarian system of governance dominated by the People’s Action Party (PAP). While some may admonish Singapore’s dabbling in authoritarianism, few can argue against its effectiveness. Singapore has higher levels of development than many democracies and authoritarian regimes. Singapore’s success story challenges the neoliberal assumptions that democracy inherently leads to economic growth.

The story of Singapore is widely regarded as one of the most successful cases of national development in modern history. Starting as an ex-British colony that reluctantly obtained independence from Malaysia in 1965, Singapore had no natural resources, little industry, high unemployment, and a housing crisis (SG101, n.d.). Yet, this island nation rapidly turned itself around, becoming the richest country in Asia by GDP per capita and acting as a major trade and financial hub for the world's economies (Central Intelligence Agency, 2021). Furthermore, it has the highest Human Development Index score in Asia, with world-class healthcare, housing, and education services. (United Nations Development Programme, 2022). In the words of Singapore’s founder, Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s story is one of coming from the third world to the first (Lee, 2000).

However, this economic prosperity did not come without cost. Singapore’s government has been dominated by the same People’s Action Party (PAP) since before its independence in the 1959 parliamentary election (Kurlantzick, 2023). This may lead many to speculate that Singapore’s elections are rigged, similar to those in North Korea, Russia, and other dictatorships. However, Singapore’s elections have historically been free of tampering and interference (Freedom House, 2024). Singaporeans recognize that the PAP led the country through its economic miracle, which led it to develop into one of the leading nations in economics and human development. This prosperity has led to high amounts of public approval for the party. However, while Singapore’s elections may be free with legitimate popular support, these elections are in no way fair. 

Numerous laws limit the ability of opposition parties and actors to voice their opinions. Only the President may call elections in Singapore, often doing so during an advantageous time for the PAP, such as after passing popular policies. Furthermore, during election periods, parties have been historically limited to nine days to campaign. This gives opposition parties an unreasonably short amount of time to present their case to voters (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2024). Singapore’s electoral constituencies are drawn by the Prime Minister (Elections Department Singapore, 2023). This power has led to allegations of gerrymandering by the PAP to ensure its victory during elections (Aravindan & Geddie, 2020). Additionally, Singapore’s rights to freedom of expression and free media have come under scrutiny for its restrictions on press freedom and political assembly. Singapore has harsh media suppression laws, including the government’s ability to appoint members to the boards of prominent media outlets (Reporters Without Borders, 2024). Moreover, the government has passed laws to suppress online discourse, such as the Foreign Interference Law in 2021. This law allows the government to target users deemed hostile online with vague definitions of who this law could apply to, granting the government expanded power to suppress dissent (Pannett, 2021). Meanwhile, Singapore’s harsh restrictions on free assembly are exemplified by the arrest of activist, Jolovan Wham, who was detained and charged with unlawful assembly for holding up a sign with a smiley face near a police station in 2020 (Ratcliffe, 2020). These powers have given the PAP unbridled power within Singapore’s government to the extent that the PAP and the government are virtually inseparable.

The West has been the largest critic of the PAP’s democratic records and its semi-authoritarian tendencies. Some have labeled Singapore as being run like a corporation, where efficiency comes at the expense of free expression (Jayakumar, 2022). WIRED reporter William Gibson (1993) famously referred to Singapore as “Disneyland with the death penalty.” However, it is difficult to criticize Singapore’s methods when one considers the massive success this style of governance has achieved for the country. Singapore’s success runs counter to the idea that liberal democracies are the only path to economic development. In fact, Singapore outclasses many of the world’s leading liberal democracies in both economic and human development such as the United States, France, Japan, and the United Kingdom (United Nations Development Programme, 2022). Singapore’s development model is one based upon a social contract: in exchange for some liberties, the government will provide economic prosperity and an increase in the quality of life. The PAP’s strategy has been to prioritize economic prosperity over individual liberty to maintain its power in Singapore (Kurlantzick, 2023). While Singapore may sometimes trample over individual civil liberties, it steadfastly enforces the rule of law in business and economics. Utilizing its efficient merit-based bureaucracy, Singapore has created a highly desirable environment for businesses by enforcing laws that ensure fair competition and markets (Truitt, 2023). With no natural resources, trade and foreign investment have been the backbone of Singapore’s economy. Thus, the PAP has done everything it can to incentivize business in the nation. Alongside the institutional and legal framework, the political dominance of the PAP has given Singapore a competitive edge over more democratic nations in attracting foreign businesses. This political dominance has allowed it to invest in long-term economic planning that has massively benefited the nation in providing economic growth and increasing the standard of living. Businesses are incentivized to invest in Singapore as there is little chance of a change in government and thus economic policy that would occur in more democratic states (Overseas Business Risk - Singapore, 2023). This business-friendly angle by the PAP has allowed Singapore to be ranked second on the Ease of Doing Business Index, providing Singapore with the needed capital to develop itself into the country it is today (The World Bank, 2023). The income from businesses has enabled Singapore to provide some of the highest quality healthcare, education, and housing programs for Singaporeans.

Singapore’s journey from third world to first is one of the most unique stories of modern nation-building. Singapore is a semi-authoritarian state that suppresses civil liberties and opposition forces while being more economically successful than many liberal democracies in human development and wealth. Moreover, it is also less corrupt and more stable than nations like China which have also adopted a socially authoritarian but economically free stance to development. Singapore challenges the dichotomy between liberal democracy and authoritarianism in nation-building and economic development. The story of Singapore raises certain important questions regarding economic development and personal liberty. “Is economic prosperity worth the loss of individual liberty?” “Is liberal democracy truly the only way for successful economic development?” What can be said is that Singapore’s success is a testament to how robust institutions, pragmatic policymaking, and efficient governance can lead a small island nation of slums into one of the world’s great metropolises.