Advertisement

PAP Vulnerability and the Singapore Governance Model: Findings from the Asian Barometer Survey

  • Bridget WelshEmail author
  • Alex H. Chang
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter looks at how Singaporeans view the governance of the People’s Action Party (PAP) and finds that there are considerable differences in views. The focus is on three dimensions of governance—one party dominance, immigration policy, and Singapore as a ‘model’ of development, but it also includes assessments of other public perceptions of governance such as corruption. The analysis is based on the findings of the Asian Barometer Surveys of 2010 and 2014. Using a statistical multilogit model we explore who and why Singaporeans are divided on its development trajectory and find that there is considerable variation and inconsistency with regard to views of governance in Singapore. Despite this variation, the PAP is facing more pressure from the public to maintain its political legitimacy.

Bibliography

  1. Barr, M. (2014). The Ruling Elite of Singapore: Networks of Power and Influence. United Kingdom: IB Tauris.Google Scholar
  2. Cho-Oon K. (1996). Singapore: Political Legitimacy through Managing Conformity, In M. Alagappa (Ed.), Political Legitimacy in Southeast Asia (pp. 108−135). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Chua B. H. (1997). Political Legitimacy and Housing: Stakeholding in Singapore. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Chua, V., Tan, E. S., Koh, G. (2017). A Study of Social Capital in Singapore. http://lkyspp2.nus.edu.sg/ips/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/11/Study-of-Social-Capital-in-Singapore_281217.pdf. Accessed January 20, 2018.
  5. da Cunha, D. (2012). Breakthrough: Roadmap for Singapore’s Political Future, Singapore: Institute of Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  6. Diamond, L. and Morlino, L. (2004). The Quality of Democracy: An Overview. Journal of Democracy, 15(3), 20−31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. East Asia Forum. (2015a, September 15). Singapore’s PAP wins over the youth and secures its future,Google Scholar
  8. East Asia Forum. (2015b, September 16). PAP’s win silences its critics.Google Scholar
  9. ISEAS Perspective. (2013, February 4). Singapore’s Population White Paper: Impending Integration Challenges,Google Scholar
  10. Hussin M. (2012). Singapore Malays: Being Malay, Muslim and Minority in a Global City-State. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Kausikan, B. (1997). Governance that Works, Journal of Democracy, 8(2), pp. 24−34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lee, D, Jeoung, K. P. and Chae, S. (2011). Measuring Social Capital in East Asia and other World Regions: An Index of Social Capital, Global Economic Review, 9(4), pp. 385−407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lim, J. (2015). Popular Nationalism in the Wake of the 2011 National Elections in Singapore. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 16(2), pp. 143−159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Norris, P. (2011). Democracy Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ong, E. (2015). Complementary Institutions of Authoritarian Regimes: Constituency Service in Singapore, Journal of East Asia Studies, 15, pp. 361−390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ortmann, S. (2010). Singapore: the politics of inventing national identity. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 28(4), pp. 23−46.Google Scholar
  17. Population White Paper. (2013). Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore. Singapore, National Population and Talent Division.Google Scholar
  18. Putnam, R., Leonardi, R., and Nanetti, R. Y. (1994). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Rahim, L. Z. (1999). The Singapore Dilemma: The Political and Educational Marginality of the Malay Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Rahim, L. Z. (2015). Reclaiming Singapore’s Growth with Equity Social Compact, Japanese Journal of Political Science 16 (2), 160−176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rodan, G. (1993). The Growth of Singapore’s Middle Class and Its Political Significance. In G. Rodan (Ed.) Singapore Changes Guard: Social, Political and Economic Directions in the 1990s (pp. 52−71). London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  22. Rodan, G. (2004). Transparency and Authoritarian Rule in Southeast Asia: Singapore and Malaysia. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rodan, G. (2016). Capitalism, inequality and ideology in Singapore: New challenges for the ruling party. Asian Studies Review. 40(2), 211−230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Singh, B. (2016). Singapore’s 2015 General Election: Explaining PAP’s Resounding Win, The Round Table, The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs. 105(2), 129−140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tan E. S. (2004a). Does Class Matter: Social Stratification and Orientations in Singapore. Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tan, E. K. B. (2004b). Multiracialism and Meritocracy in Singapore: Conventional Wisdom Reconsidered. Asia Pacific Research Center’s Southeast Asia Forum.Google Scholar
  27. Tan, N. (2014). Why no Liberalizing Outcome? Singapore’s Hegemonic Party Regime after the 2011 Elections, Paper presented at the Dominant Party Systems Conference, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  28. Tan E. S. and Wang Z. (2007). Are Younger People Becoming More Democratic? Lifecycle Effects of Generational Change Asian Barometer Working Paper. 36.Google Scholar
  29. Tan, K. Y. L. and Lee, T. (Eds.). (2011). Voting in Change: Politics of Singapore’s 2011 General Election. Singapore: Ethos Books.Google Scholar
  30. Tan, K. Y. L. and Lee, T. (Eds.). (2016). Change in Voting: Singapore’s 2015 General Election. Singapore: Ethos Books.Google Scholar
  31. Taylor, R. H. (1996). The Politics of Elections in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. The Straits Times. (2015, November 4). GE2015: 7 Takeaways from the IPS post-election conference that explains PAP’s dominance.Google Scholar
  33. The Diplomat. (2016, January 26). Singapore wants to Tweak its Political System.Google Scholar
  34. The Diplomat. (2017, June 27). ‘Squabbling Lees Highlight Singapore’s Dynastic Dilemma’. Taylor. R. H. (1996) The Politics of Elections in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Thompson, M. (2001). Whatever Happened to ‘Asian Values’? Journal of Democracy 12(3), 154−165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vadaketh, S. and Low, D. (2014). Hard Choices: Challenging the Singapore Consensus. Singapore: National University of Singapore.Google Scholar
  37. Varshney, A. (2003). Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Welsh, B. (2011). Does Difference Matter: Particular and National Identities in Singapore’s 2011 General Election, In K. Tan and T. Lee (Eds.). Voting in Change: Politics of Singapore’s 2011 General Election (pp. 91−114). Singapore: Ethos Books.Google Scholar
  39. Welsh, B. (2016a). Clientelism and Control: PAP’s Fight for Safety in GE2015. The Round Table, The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs. 105(2), 119−128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Welsh, B. (2016b). Political Identities, Engagement and Voting in Singapore’s 2015 Election. In K. Tan and T. Lee (Eds.). Change in Voting: Singapore’s 2015 General Election (pp. 191−219). Singapore: Ethos Books.Google Scholar
  41. Welsh, B. and Chang, A. (2015). Choosing China: Public Perceptions of ‘China as a Model’. Journal of Contemporary China. 24(93), 377−397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yap M. T. (2014). Singapore’s Population Conundrum: The Great Balancing Act 2. In D. Singh (Ed.) Southeast Asian Affairs 2013 (pp. 274−84). Singapore: ISEAS.Google Scholar
  43. Yap M. T., Koh, G. & Soon, D. (Eds.) (2015). Migration and Integration in Singapore: Policies and Practices. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.John Cabot UniversityRomeItaly
  2. 2.IPSASTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations