Abstract
Singapore has been called a state that has “disavowed” liberalism. However, a number of liberals have emerged who see political freedoms as essential to achieve accountable government that acts in the general interest. They draw on an institutional foundation that has been deeply shaped by liberalism while the rejection of liberalism is not based on an ideological alternative. Instead, it is portrayed as a necessity because citizens are told they need to sacrifice freedoms in exchange for economic growth and political stability due to the many vulnerabilities of a small, multi-ethnic country. Over the years, as the city-state became more developed and more secure, the government has liberalized some aspects, although often followed by greater restrictions. Two types of liberals have emerged, one seeking to change the system from the outside, the other advocating for political reform from within. However, both have been unsuccessful as the ruling party has sidelined liberal voices within the party and increasingly insists on the need for illiberal authoritarian rule.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The “Shared Values” were (1) Nation before community and society above self, (2) Family as the basic unit of society, (3) Community support and respect for the individual, (4) Consensus, not conflict, and (5) Racial and religious harmony. (Singapore Government 1991).
References
Afoaku, O. G. (2000). US foreign policy and authoritarian regimes: Change and continuity in international clientelism. Journal of Third World Studies, 17(2), 13-40.
Barr, M. D. (2000). Lee Kuan Yew and the “Asian values” debate. Asian Studies Review, 24(3), 309-334.
Bell, D. (2014). What is liberalism? Political theory, 42(6), 682-715.
Chan, D. (2018). Stop those who speak up a ‘vocal minority’ The Straits Times, 19 May, p. A34.
Chee S.J. (1994). Dare to Change: An Alternative Vision for Singapore. Singapore: Singapore Democratic Party.
Chee S.J. (2001). Your Future, My Faith, Our Freedom. Singapore: Open Singapore Centre.
Chee S.J. (2012). Democratically Speaking. Singapore: New Brick House.
Cheong KH (2018). Anticipating our urban future: Trends, threats, and transformation. IPS-Nathan Lecture Series, 10 April.
Chong, J. I. (2017). Liberalisation in the Face of Existential Threat: Contemplating Political Change in Singapore from Taiwan and South Korea. In L. K. Seng, Thum P. T., & J. M.-T. Chia (Eds.). Living with Myths in Singapore (pp. 147-158). Singapore: ethos books.
Chua BH. (2005). Liberalization without democratization: Singapore in the next decade. In FKL Wah and J Öjendal (eds) Southeast Asian responses to globalization: restructuring governance and deepening democracy (pp. 57-82). Copenhagen: NIAS.
Chua BH. (2017). Liberalism Disavowed: Communitarianism and State Capitalism in Singapore. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Fernandez, M. & Loh, K. S. (2008). The Left-Wing Trade Unions in Singapore, 1945-1970. In M. Barr & C.A. Trocki (Eds.). Paths Not Taken: Political Pluralism in Post-War Singapore (pp. 206-227). Singapore: NUS Press.
Freeden, M. (1996). Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Freeden, M. & Stears M. (2013). Liberalism. In M. Freeden, L. T. Sargent, & M. Stears (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies (pp. 329-347). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
George, C. (2007). Consolidating authoritarian rule: Calibrated coercion in Singapore. The Pacific Review, 20(2), 127-145.
George, C. (2017). Singapore, Incomplete: Reflections on a First World nation’s arrested political development. Singapore: Woodsville News.
Gomez, James. 2000. Self-censorship: Singapore’s shame. Singapore: Think Centre.
Ho, J. & Kwang, K. (2019). “Proposed law on falsehoods has ‘clear oversight mechanism’ to prevent abuse by Government, says Shanmugam, Channel News Asia, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/proposed-law-on-falsehoods-has-clear-oversight-mechanism-to-11438132
Lee, T. (2002). The politics of civil society in Singapore. Asian Studies Review, 26(1), 97-117.
Lent, J. A. (1975). Protecting the people. Index on Censorship, 4(3), 7-16.
Liow, E. D. (2012). The neoliberal-developmental state: Singapore as case study. Critical Sociology, 38(2), 241-264.
Low, D. & Vadaketh, S. T. (2014). Hard Choices: Challenging the Singapore Consensus. Singapore: NUS Press.
Mehta, U. S. (2018). Liberalism and empire: A study in nineteenth-century British liberal thought. University of Chicago Press.
Ministry of Communications and Information and the Ministry of Law. (2018). Deliberate Online Falsehoods: Challenges and Implications. Singapore: Government Printer. https://bit.ly/2ZUOEBr
Ministry of Manpower (MOM) (2019). Comprehensive Labour Force Survey. Singapore: Government Printer.
Mirpuri, A.K. (2019). “Singapore Says It’s Fighting ‘Fake News.’ Journalists See a Ruse.” The Atlantic, 8. August, https://www.theatlantic.com/letters/archive/2019/08/singapores-ambassador-to-the-us-defends-pofma/595645/
mrbrown (2007). “Conversations: What does MP Baey Yam Keng feel about new media, censorship and anonymity online?” the mrbrown show, March 5, http://www.mrbrownshow.com/2007/03/05/the-mrbrown-show-mrbrown-interviews-mp-baey-yam-keng/
Ortmann, S. (2009). Managed crisis: Legitimacy and the national threat in Singapore. Saarbrücken: VDM Publishing.
Ortmann, S. (2011). Singapore: Authoritarian but newly competitive. Journal of Democracy, 22(4), 153-164.
People’s Action Party (1954). Party Constitution. People’s Action Party website, https://www.pap.org.sg/party-constitution/
Porter, A. N., Stockwell, A. J., Pasieka, A., & Ho, W. S. (1987). British Imperial Policy And Decolonization 1938-64: Vol 1. 1938-1951. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Progress Singapore Party. (2020). You Deserve Better: A GE2020 Manifesto by Progress Singapore Party. Singapore: Progress Singapore Party.
Reform Party (2020). About Us. Reform Party website, https://reform.sg/
Rodan, G. (1992). Singapore: Emerging tensions in the ‘dictatorship of the middle class’. The Pacific Review, 5(4), 370-381.
Rosenfeld, B. (2020). The autocratic middle class: how state dependency reduces the demand for democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Roy, D. (1994). Singapore, China, and the “soft authoritarian” challenge. Asian Survey, 34(3), 231-242.
Singapore Democratic Party (2010). The Singapore Democrats. 30 Years of Democratic Service. Singapore: Singapore Democratic Party.
Singapore Democratic Party (2019). SDP Campaign Message: Politics is about Serving the People, Not Self-enrichment. Singapore Democratic Party Website, February 24, https://yoursdp.org/news/0-6/
Singapore Government (1991). Shared Values. White Paper, 2 January.
Tan, K. P. (2012). The ideology of pragmatism: Neo-liberal globalisation and political authoritarianism in Singapore. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 42(1), 67-92.
Tan, N. (2014). Democratization and embracing uncertainty in post-2011 Singapore. In E. S. K. Fung, & S. Drakeley (eds.). Democracy in Eastern Asia: Issues, Problems and Challenges in a Region of Diversity (pp. 181-201). London: Routledge.
Tan, K.W.K. (2021). In Singapore, backlash against foreign workers is becoming a hot political issue. The Print, July 30, https://theprint.in/world/in-singapore-backlash-against-foreign-workers-is-becoming-a-hot-political-issue/705946/
Tay, S. S. C. (2004). Imagining freedom. In K. C. Ban, A. Pakir, & C. K. Tong (eds.). Imagining Singapore. 2nd ed. (pp. 84-105). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
Tey, T. H. (2008). Excluding religion from politics and enforcing religious harmony – Singapore-style. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 118–142.
Tham, D. (2022). Judge dismisses SDP’s POFMA challenge over ‘10 million population’ article. Today, 10 May.
Thompson, M. R. (2019). Authoritarian Modernism in East Asia. London: Palgrave.
Verweij, M., & Pelizzo, R. (2009). Singapore: Does authoritarianism pay? Journal of Democracy, 20(2), 18-32.
Wee, C. L. (2001). Mediating ‘Progress’: The National Narrative of Economic Development and Liberalism in Singapore. Communal/Plural: Journal of Transnational & Cross-Cultural Studies, 9(2), 223-242.
“Workers’ Party MPs found liable in multimillion-dollar AHTC case; judgment raises ‘serious doubt’ about their integrity,” CNA, Oct. 11, 2022, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/workers-party-mps-ahtc-liable-low-thia-khiang-sylvia-lim-pritam-856276
Workers’ Party (2020). Make Your Vote Count: The Workers’ Party Manifesto 2020. Singapore: Workers’ Party.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author declares no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Ortmann, S. Liberal Vestiges in an Illiberal Regime: The Case of Singapore. Soc 60, 28–39 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-022-00790-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-022-00790-0