Authoritarianism Disguised as Asian Democracy:
The Effect of Single Party Dominance on Malaysia and Singapore’s Political System
In our current political landscape, most democracies achieve political legitimacy from a popular belief in an effective government. This relationship between legitimacy and democracy lies in the acknowledgement of key democratic features like representative elections, a multi-party system, citizen rule, limitations on lawmakers, respect for minority rights, etc. However, in today’s international political structure, not all “democratic” nations necessarily adhere to these features. Two self-proclaimed “democratic” nations—Malaysia and Singapore both lack such defining characteristics but yet are still internationally …show more content…
Malaysia’s electoral institutions are not neutral but heavily biased in favor of Barisan National. This attempt at keeping oppositional parties repressed is exemplified in Malaysian laws that impose strict conditions in hosting political gatherings causing opposition parties to meet in confined locations or within party premises to avoid applying for police permits (Lecture, 9/12). Opposition parties are also effectively excluded from access to mainstream media outlets during campaigning, while propagandized adverts on BN candidates and allied political parties like MCA and MIC flood the media scene. Because opposition parties do not have access to mainstream media and generally hold political gatherings at a grassroots level to promote the party 's platform and criticize the ruling coalition, they continue to stay subordinate and lack the resources necessary to truly challenge Barisan National but more specifically UMNO (Pepinsky 90). When it was possible, the government had sought to integrate oppositional figures but in times of conflict, harsh measures were employed to repress oppositional progress. The most infamous case was the treatment of prominent opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim who was subject to administrative detention, criminalization, and exclusion of …show more content…
While many Singaporeans disapprove and even fear the PAP regime, many still endorse and thank it for the progress that it has facilitated. The government’s ability to intimidate voters into supporting them while repressing opposition groups explains the PAP’s electoral success over the years (Verweij 29-30). The state has effectively repressed multiple opposition parties like the Singaporean Democratic Party and the Worker’s Party which have called for greater public participation in decision making, an end to media censorship, full restoration of human rights, lower income inequality, more comprehensive social security, and greater tolerance for sexual and ethnic minority groups—all that should have already been granted in a proper democratic political system (Verweij 30). If Singapore truly embodied the characteristics of a democracy, alternative political voices would be encouraged, spoken, and heard—preventing one party to exclusively rule for almost 60
The Effect of Single Party Dominance on Malaysia and Singapore’s Political System
In our current political landscape, most democracies achieve political legitimacy from a popular belief in an effective government. This relationship between legitimacy and democracy lies in the acknowledgement of key democratic features like representative elections, a multi-party system, citizen rule, limitations on lawmakers, respect for minority rights, etc. However, in today’s international political structure, not all “democratic” nations necessarily adhere to these features. Two self-proclaimed “democratic” nations—Malaysia and Singapore both lack such defining characteristics but yet are still internationally …show more content…
Malaysia’s electoral institutions are not neutral but heavily biased in favor of Barisan National. This attempt at keeping oppositional parties repressed is exemplified in Malaysian laws that impose strict conditions in hosting political gatherings causing opposition parties to meet in confined locations or within party premises to avoid applying for police permits (Lecture, 9/12). Opposition parties are also effectively excluded from access to mainstream media outlets during campaigning, while propagandized adverts on BN candidates and allied political parties like MCA and MIC flood the media scene. Because opposition parties do not have access to mainstream media and generally hold political gatherings at a grassroots level to promote the party 's platform and criticize the ruling coalition, they continue to stay subordinate and lack the resources necessary to truly challenge Barisan National but more specifically UMNO (Pepinsky 90). When it was possible, the government had sought to integrate oppositional figures but in times of conflict, harsh measures were employed to repress oppositional progress. The most infamous case was the treatment of prominent opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim who was subject to administrative detention, criminalization, and exclusion of …show more content…
While many Singaporeans disapprove and even fear the PAP regime, many still endorse and thank it for the progress that it has facilitated. The government’s ability to intimidate voters into supporting them while repressing opposition groups explains the PAP’s electoral success over the years (Verweij 29-30). The state has effectively repressed multiple opposition parties like the Singaporean Democratic Party and the Worker’s Party which have called for greater public participation in decision making, an end to media censorship, full restoration of human rights, lower income inequality, more comprehensive social security, and greater tolerance for sexual and ethnic minority groups—all that should have already been granted in a proper democratic political system (Verweij 30). If Singapore truly embodied the characteristics of a democracy, alternative political voices would be encouraged, spoken, and heard—preventing one party to exclusively rule for almost 60