Legitimizing Authoritarianism in Singapore and Malaysia
Two of the remaining electoral authoritarian regimes in Southeast Asia, Singapore and Malaysia offer stark contrasts in their aptitudes for prospective democratization in an otherwise enduring autocratic landscapes. While both are emerging from the same historical past, the current differentiation in their socio-economic and political contexts may seriously affect the hypothesis of a receding authoritarian rule in the region.
A cursory comparative review of the two countries would reveal some of these distinctions: Singapore follows republicanism and Malaysia tracks a monarchial form of government. The former has semi-presidential system with a singular party in control of power while the latter has parliamentary system of authority run by a multi-party coalition. These two countries were equally subjected to the British rule for years until their independence in 1965 and 1957, respectively, with both benefiting from an efficient colonial administration leaving them a legacy of a well-developed public infrastructure, stable legal system and strong modern economies (Croissant and Lorenz, 2018) that can match the performance of some of the most developed countries in the world. More than five decades since liberation, Singapore remained strong in continuously showing impressive economic indices compared to Malaysia’s slow-but-steady growth as seen in the variance of their 2016 GDP per capita – Singapore has 52,600.62USD while Malaysia has 11,028.20USD (Trading Economics, 2018).
Political development in both countries was largely influenced by its multi-cultural pluralist social setting. Described as the homes of tri-nations composed of Malays, Chinese and Indians, both countries had to struggle in ensuring an inclusive society. In Singapore, there are more Chinese nationals compared to Malays and Indians, although they all seem to enjoy equity in resource share unlike in Malaysia, where despite the dominance of the Malays, the Chinese have higher income for being involved in profit-rich enterprises like business and commerce as opposed to Malay’s reliance on agriculture and Indian’s low-paying jobs in service industries. This resulted to Malaysia’s conscious formulation of a New Economic Policy (NEP) favoring the bumiputeras (Malays) more than the Chinese and the Indians in order to reduce the inequities that existed. Malays were prioritized in the bureaucracy, in accessing loans, in education, and in employment. On a state level, Islam became the state religion, Malay as the official language and a policy was adopted ensuring that the leaders especially the Prime Minister should come from the Malay race (Croissant and Lorenz, 2018). This became known later as the “Bargain.”
In terms of government control, the ascent to power by the People’s Action Party (PAP) headed by Lee Kuan Yew came after the attainment of Singapore’s constitutional independence in 1959. Since then, the PAP has retained control of Singapore’s “electoral authoritarian” regime until today. Despite some aggregates of state coercion through PAP’s monopoly of power, suppression of political opposition, curtailment of certain freedoms and alienation of the civil society organizations, the Singaporeans have submitted themselves to the central rule of PAP in exchange for the assurance that they will live a good life. This manifests what Neo-Marxists would call as the consent-wielding effect of false consciousness.
Meanwhile, in Malaysia, an “Alliance” with co-opted opposition parties, now known as the Barisan Nasional had to be formed in order to ensure the control by the Union of Malays National Organization (UMNO) of governmental powers to the subordination of the Malayan Indian Congress (MIC) and the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA). While popular multi-party elections are the main route to power just like in Singapore, Malaysia’s Barisan Nasional however, is saddled with issues of corruption and money politics with authoritarian practices that favor the ruling coalition. The government’s capitulation to cronyism as seen in the 1MDB Berhad corruption scandal of PM Najib Razak for instance, has given birth to a public dissent in Malaysia, something that is wanting in Singapore.
With calibrated coercion, Singapore’s PAP is able to legitimize its authoritarian rule because as Croissant and Lorenz (2018) put it, “the government provided for continuously high investment and saving rates, secure property rights and political stability, a highly effective state bureaucracy, and low levels of corruption, resulting in the provision of public goods like education, housing, social security, and health.” In contrast, Malaysia has trouble selling the coalition-centralized authoritarianism because situations like the lack of people’s participation in decision-making processes, absence of political reforms, crony capitalism and money politics, although these are trappings of democratic institutions, have de-legitimized its authoritarian regime. It might just be a matter of time when Malaysians demand a shift to democracy should its Barisan Nasional fail to heed the signs of public frustration.
Critical in keeping the authoritarian regime in Singapore and Malaysia is the government’s ability to deliver the public goods as an inequity-reduction mechanism. Oftentimes, in many autocratic institutions, democracy is usually perceived in very limited expressions such us the presence of election and access to public goods and services. This makes electoral authoritarianism work compatibly with some elements of democracy. In the end, the citizens bequeath the government a sense of legitimacy despite its overly centralized processes. Theyen Kressen (2017) concluded her study that “authoritarian regimes may seek to justify and strengthen their rule by attempting to induce constituents’ perception of living in a democracy.”
Therefore, if Malaysia continues to co-opt business elites through manipulation of election practices using the state apparatuses, if it is unable to reduce social inequities between the rich and the poor, the rural and the urban communities, the political elites and the average Malaysians, and if it continues to rob the people of their deserved services in health, food, education, shelter, social security and others, there is no doubt that liberal democracy will be demanded by the people. As Fukuyama (2013) postulated in his “Political Order and Political De
cay,” weak institutions affect the state’s ability for good governance. A government eventually crumbles for lack of accountability, disregard for the rule of law and unbridled corruption. Hence, he strongly pushed for an efficient meritocratic civil service to strengthen state political regimes.
Singapore on the other hand, will remain a strong authoritarian state as long as it remains to be an inclusive institution and not extractive according to Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) in “Why Nations Fail?” If the state ploughs out resources from its citizens, then a revolution may take place changing the whole political contour of Singapore. But if it is able to provide incentive to the people and distribute wealth accordingly, the state shall grow stronger. As such, if Singapore can keep social equity afloat, then it shall definitely stay as one of the strongest authoritarian states in the world surpassing the lifespan of notable empires in the past.
References:
Acemoglu, Daron, and James A Robinson. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty. 1st ed. New York: Crown, 529.
Croissant, Aurel and Lorenz, Philip. (2018). Malaysia: Competitive Authoritarianism in a Plural Soceity. Comparative Politics in Southeast Asia. An Introduction to Government and Political Regimes. Springer International Publishing AG. Switzerland. 2018. Pp. 141-170.
Croissant, Aurel and Lorenz, Philip. (2018). Singapore: Contradicting Conventional Wisdom About Authoritarianism, State and Development. Comparative Politics in Southeast Asia. An Introduction to Government and Political Regimes. Springer International Publishing AG. Switzerland. 2018. Pp. 255-289.
Fukuyama, Francis. (2014). Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. Profile Books Publishing. London. 2014.
Trading Economics. (2018). Gross Domestic Product per Capita: Malaysia, Singapore. Retrieved through tradingeconomics.com
Kressen, Theyen. (2017). Promising democracy, legitimizing autocracy? Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft. VOl. 11, Issue 2. Pp. 325-347. Retrieved through https://link.springer.com/journal/12286
