Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T03:16:27.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Modes of Political Participation and Singapore's Nominated Members of Parliament1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2013

Garry Rodan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite growing recognition that authoritarianism can be far more durable than transition theorists previously expected, transition theory assumptions continue to constrain attempts to understand authoritarian regimes. In particular, alternative avenues of political participation to opposition political parties and electoral contests are under examined. Singapore's authoritarian regime involves a range of such innovative institutional and ideological initiatives, one of the most significant being the Nominated Members of Parliament scheme. This promotes notions of representation different from democratic parliamentary representation that are not without appeal to targeted, emerging social forces. Singapore's political economy dynamics contribute to this responsiveness by obstructing independent power bases.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , 2009 , pp. 438 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2009.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

Research for this essay was supported by the Australian Research Council through Discovery Project DP0557290, for which the author is grateful. The author also thanks Kanishka Jayasuriya and two anonymous referees for constructive criticisms on an earlier draft as well as interviewees involved in the project for their cooperation. This work was first presented at the ‘Contemporary Authoritarianism in Southeast Asia: Structures, Institutions and Agency’ workshop, organized and funded by the Southeast Asia Research Centre, City University of Hong Kong.

References

2 Marina Ottaway, Democracy Challenged: The Rise of Semi-Authoritarianism, Washington, DC, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2003; Carothers, Thomas, ‘The End of the Transition Paradigm’, Journal of Democracy, 13: 1 (2002), pp. 17–33;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Andreas Schedler (ed.), Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition, Boulder, CO, Lynne Rienner, 2006.

3 Jennifer Gandhi, Political Institutions Under Dictatorship, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2008; Ghandi, Jennifer and Przeworski, Adam, ‘Authoritarian Institutions and the Survival of Autocrats’, Comparative Political Studies, 40: 11 (2007), pp. 1279–301;Google Scholar Barbara Geddes, ‘Stages of Development in Authoritarian Regimes’, in Vladimir Tismaneanu, Mac Morjé Howard and Rudra Sil (eds), World Order After Leninism, Seattle, Washington University Press, 2006, pp. 149–70.

4 Brownlee, Jason, Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 For theoretical approaches in this vein, but which have not yet been applied to new modes of political participation, see King, Stephen J., ‘Sustaining Authoritarianism in the Middle East and North Africa’, Political Science Quarterly, 122: 3 (2007), pp. 433–60;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Eva Bellin, ‘Contingent Democrats: Industrialists, Labor, and Democratization in Late-Developing Countries’, World Politics, 52: 1 (2000), pp. 175–205.

6 Gandhi, Political Institutions Under Dictatorship, p. 1.Google Scholar

7 Brownlee, Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization, p. 42.Google Scholar

8 Literature on new forms of political participation is rapidly expanding, although much of it reflects the transition theory emphasis on, and optimism about, possible openings for democracy that these initiatives might in time unleash. See, for example, Ethan J. Leib and Baogang He (eds), The Search for Deliberative Democracy in China,New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2006; Jamie P. Horsley, ‘Public Participation and the Democratization of Chinese Governance’, in Yang Zhong and Shiping Hua (eds), Political Civilization and Modernization: The Political Context of China's Reform, Singapore, World Scientific Press, 2006, pp. 207–50; Elizabeth J. Perry and Merle Goldman (eds), Grassroots Political Reform in Contemporary China, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2007.Google Scholar

9 Jayasuriya, Kanishka and Rodan, Garry, ‘Beyond Hybrid Regimes: More Participation, Less Contestation in Southeast Asia’, Democratization, 14: 5 (2007), pp. 773–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Geddes, ‘Stages of Development in Authoritarian Regimes’, p. 161.Google Scholar

11 Levitsky and Way, ‘The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism’, p. 54.Google Scholar

12 Gandhi, Political Institutions Under Dictatorship, p. xxiv.Google Scholar

13 See Brown, Mark B., ‘Survey Article: Citizen Panels and the Concept of Representation’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 14: 2 (2006), pp. 203–25;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Andrew Kuper, Democracy Beyond Borders. Justice and Representation in Global Institutions, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004.

14 Barr, Michael, ‘Beyond Technocracy: The Culture of Elite Governance in Lee Hsien Loong's Singapore’, Asian Studies Review, 30: 1 (2006), pp. 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 For an account of the changes within the PAP during this process, see Diane K. Mauzy and R. S. Milne, Singapore Politics Under the People's Action Party, London, Routledge, 2002.Google Scholar

16 Barr, ‘Beyond Technocracy’, p. 14. Also see Worthington, Ross, Governance in Singapore, London, RoutledgeCurzon, 2003.Google Scholar

17 ‘PM Replies to Voters’ Signals’, Straits Times, 24 December 1984, p. 1.Google Scholar

18 Rodan, Garry and Jayasuriya, Kanishka, ‘The Technocratic Politics of Administrative Participation: Case Studies of Singapore and Vietnam’, Democratization, 14: 5 (2007), pp. 795–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Jayasuriya and Rodan, ‘Beyond Hybrid Regimes’.Google Scholar

20 Terms can be shorter, depending on when general elections are held. For example, the 2004 appointments served for only one and a half years. Terms are also potentially renewable.Google Scholar

21 Goh Chok Tong, in Parliamentary Debates, Singapore, 54: 8 (29 November 1989), col. 705.Google Scholar

22 As quoted in Leong, Ho Khai, The Politics of Policy-Making in Singapore, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 90.Google Scholar

23 ‘Nothing to Lose from Having Nominated MPs, Says GG Lee’, Straits Times Weekly Overseas Edition, 9 December 1989, p. 6.Google Scholar

24 In this respect, there is a parallel with the notionally competitive electoral institution of the elected president, introduced in 1991. This involves stringent eligibility criteria, couched in terms of requisite capacities and talent. See Kevin Tan and Lam Peng Er (eds), Managing Political Change in Singapore: The Elected Presidency, London, Routledge, 1997.Google Scholar

25 Medical appointments include cardiologist and physician Maurice Choo, haematologist Toh Keng Kiat and qualified surgeons Tan Sze Wee and Loo Choon Yong, the former also being the current official spokesperson and council member for the Singapore Medical Association and the latter the executive chairman and cofounder of the Raffles Medical Group, a private healthcare provider. Legal professionals include practising lawyers Chandra Mohan and Shriniwas Rai as well as academic lawyers Walter Woon, Simon Tay, Thio Li-Ann and Fang Ai Lian.Google Scholar

26 Including: Lawrence Leow (president of the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises); Stephen Lee (a past president of the Singapore National Employers’ Federation); Tay Beng Chuan (president of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry 1998–2001); Chuang Shaw Peng (who has chaired the Property Committee of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry); Robert Chua and Edwin Khew (respectively past and current presidents of the Singapore Manufacturers’ Federation) and Claire Chiang (who has chaired the Economic Committee of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry).Google Scholar

27 Garry Rodan, The Political Economy of Singapore's Industrialization, London, Macmillan, 1989, p. 98; Carl Trocki, Singapore: Wealth, Power and the Culture of Control, London, Routledge, 2005; Sikko Visscher, The Business and Politics of Ethnicity: A History of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Singapore, Singapore University Press, 2007.Google Scholar

28 Rodan, Garry, ‘Singapore: Globalisation, the State, and Politics’, in Rodan, Garry, Hewison, Kevin and Robison, Richard (eds), The Political Economy of South-East Asia: Conflicts, Crises and Change, Melbourne, Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 137–69.Google Scholar

29 Soin, Kanwaljit, ‘Woman Doctor in the House’, Singapore Medical Journal, 40: 4 (1999), available at http://www.sma.org.sg/smj/4004/articles/4004ia5part2.html.Google Scholar

30 Ibid.Google Scholar

31 Ibid.Google Scholar

32 Charlotte Venudran, ‘Goh Has Come Down Hard on Us’, New Straits Times, 8 November 2000, p. 15.Google Scholar

33 Ahmad Osman, ‘AMP Drops Idea for Separate Leaders’, Straits Times Weekly, 23 December 2000, p. 2.Google Scholar

34 Seth Mydans, ‘Singapore's Young Challengers Beg to Differ’, International Herald Tribune, 6 May 2006, p. 2.Google Scholar

35 Rodan, ‘Singapore: Globalisation, the State, and Politics’; Worthington, Governance in Singapore.Google Scholar

36 Rodan, Garry, ‘The Coming Challenge to Singapore Inc.’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 168: 1 (December 2004), pp. 51–4.Google Scholar

37 Brownlee, Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization.Google Scholar

38 Gandhi, Political Institutions Under Dictatorship.Google Scholar

39 The Singapore Business Federation chairman, Stephen Lee, was the coordinator for the business and industry group. National Arts Council chairman Edmund Cheng coordinated the media, arts and sports group, while National Council of Social Services chief executive officer Benedict Cheong coordinated the social and community service organizations.Google Scholar

40 Thio Li-Ann, interview, Singapore, 16 May 2006.Google Scholar

41 Edwin Khew, interview, Singapore, 26 July 2007.Google Scholar

42 Jessie Phua, interview, Singapore, 17 May 2007.Google Scholar

43 Ibid.Google Scholar

44 Geh Min, interview, Singapore, 6 November 2006.Google Scholar

45 Ibid.Google Scholar

46 Ibid.Google Scholar

47 Goh Chong Chia, interview, Singapore, 6 November 2006.Google Scholar

48 Siew Kum Hong, interview, Singapore, 17 May 2007.Google Scholar

49 Mr Brown is a popular blog site and pseudonym of Lee Kin Mun, who provides satirical social and political commentaries on Singapore. See http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/.Google Scholar

50 Eunice Olsen, interview, Singapore, 14 May 2007.Google Scholar

51 Interview, Singapore, 7 November 2007. The interviewee expressed preference for anonymity on this particular view.Google Scholar

52 Thio Li-Ann, interview, Singapore, 16 May 2007.Google Scholar

53 Lee Hsien Loong, in Parliamentary Debates, Singapore, 83: 15 (23 October 2007), col. 2469–72.Google Scholar

54 Goh, interview.Google Scholar

55 Geddes, ‘Stages of Development in Authoritarian Regimes’, p. 161.Google Scholar