Stephan Ortmann

Singapore: Authoritarian but Newly Competitive

The 2011 parliamentary election clearly demonstrated that Singapore has transformed into a competitive authoritarian regime. Not only did the ruling People’s Action Party’s share of the popular vote decline and the opposition win the most seats ever, there was meaningful contestation for ruling power for the first time. As a result of the governments liberalization of the Internet, opposition parties were able to grow in strength by attracting more qualified candidates and an unprecedented number of volunteers. Besides signifying political change in Singapore, the election also worried Chinese leaders, who are trying to copy Singapores authoritarian state-capitalism.

THE UMBRELLA MOVEMENT AND HONG KONG'S PROTRACTED DEMOCRATIZATION PROCESS

The Umbrella Movement is the culmination of Hong Kongs protracted democratization process. This paper uses a historical perspective to explain the present situation. Students, which had been at the forefront of political activism in the 1970s, have yet again taken a leading role in the current movement. This has occurred as the democracy movement, which was buoyed by modest democratic reforms since the 1980s, has become deeply divided in recent years. Political parties of the pan-democratic camp, which played an important role in the 1990s, have been eclipsed by more assertive protest movements. The very slow progress of democratic reforms in Hong Kong is, however, due to the ruling elite. On the one hand, there is the authoritarian government in China which is worried about greater autonomy in its Special Administrative Region as well as potential spillover effects that could threaten one-party rule. At the same time, the powerful business elite in Hong Kong, Beijings key ally, is worried that greater representative politics could lead to more substantial social redistribution.

China's obsession with Singapore: learning authoritarian modernity

Abstract Chinese government officials and academics have shown disproportionate interest in the small city-state of Singapore. The Southeast Asian country with a majority ethnic Chinese population has drawn their attention because it is the only country in the world that combines advanced industrial development with stable one-party rule. Singapore not only seemingly defies Western predictions that modernization will inevitably lead to democracy, but also appears to show that authoritarian regimes may be better suited to achieving societal stability in an Asian context. In particular, the ruling party of the city-state, the Peoples Action Party, has drawn the attention of conservative Chinese reformists who seek to fill the ideological void that emerged following the decline of Maoist ideology. Reformers in China also derive practical governance lessons from Singapore about fighting corruption, increasing professionalization, and improving responsiveness within the party-state. As such, political learning from the Singapore model must be seen as part of the ongoing process of transformation of the Chinese Communist Party. As a consequence of this learning process, Chinese reformers are using lessons from the Singaporean model as arguments in their efforts to bolster the ideological foundations and strengthen the governance capacity of one-party rule, thus reducing pressures for democratization.

The ‘Beijing consensus’ and the ‘Singapore model’: unmasking the myth of an alternative authoritarian state-capitalist model

What is today touted as the ‘Beijing consensus’ or the ‘China model’ is nothing more than a resized version of the ‘Singapore model’ or an attempt to revive the developmental state. In particular, the ‘Beijing consensus’ assumes a greater role for the state in the economy under authoritarian rule. Since Deng Xiaopings Southern Tour in 1992, Chinese academics, politicians, and administrators have flocked to the soft-authoritarian city-state and the result has not only been a sprawling discourse but also a number of political reforms aimed at increasing the effectiveness of the state and strengthening one-party rule. An analysis of this discourse shows that while providing Chinese policy-makers with many important ideas, these studies reveal serious weaknesses in Chinas attempt to follow the ‘Singapore model’. Instead of having found an alternative authoritarian state-capitalist model, the ‘Beijing consensus’ is only a transitory phase.

China and the "Singapore Model"

Following the death of Singapore’s founding leader Lee Kuan Yew in March 2015, China remains obsessed with Singapore, the only country in the region to achieve advanced economic industrialization without undergoing substantial political liberalization. The key “lesson” that China is trying to learn is how to combine authoritarian rule with “good governance” (“meritocratic” one-party rule). The impact of the “Singapore model” on China shows that learning by nondemocratic states is not necessarily a short-term “modular” phenomenon that is largely reactive in character, but can be long-term and highly institutionalized. It has become increasingly clear, however, that China sees what it wants to see in Singapore, making the “lessons” learned more caricature than reality. And China’s recent crackdown on dissenters, squeezing the already limited political space allowed during the post–Tiananmen Square Massacre period, is actually moving the country further away from rather than toward the Singapore model.

Policy Advocacy in a Competitive Authoritarian Regime: The Growth of Civil Society and Agenda Setting in Singapore

Singapore is marked by a very strong hegemonic state, which allows little room for independent activism to flourish. Among the various groups making up civil society, there is a clear division between those groups that collaborate with the government and those that strongly defend their independence. The former profit from their relationship with the ruling authorities not only because they are financially rewarded but also because they have a sense of being involved in the process and thus are able to exert some influence on the making of public policy. The heavy hand of the government and the divisions within civil society, however, mean that it is very difficult to distinguish between different advocacy coalitions that might influence policy change. Despite the recent moves toward liberalization, policy making remains largely the domain of the central government and planning departments. This leaves little space for external policy advocacy. Nevertheless, recent events indicate how nongovernmental groups may come together to bring an issue to the national agenda and have some impact on the policy-making process. This suggests that policy making in increasingly competitive authoritarian regimes can best be explained by an agenda-setting approach.

Opposition and Regime Legitimacy A Comparative Study of Singapore and Hong Kong

This article seeks to understand the changing behavior of oppositional groups during socioeconomic changes using a comparative study of Singapore and Hong Kong. In order to better understand this process, three ideal typical phases are suggested. An almost complete lack of oppositional behavior characterizes the first phase, the ‘colonial phase’. Second, the ‘localization phase’ occurs due to the increasing complexity of the political system and the need to become more responsive to the people. A major legitimacy crisis fundamentally changes the relationship between oppositional groups and the Government. In the ‘decolonization phase’, oppositional groups become mobilized and form coalitions to demand greater democratization.

The Lack of Sovereignty, the Umbrella Movement, and Democratisation in Hong Kong

ABSTRACT Hong Kong’s struggle for democracy reached its peak in 2014 with an electoral reform proposal by the National People’s Congress (NPC) Standing Committee that would have limited the type of candidates in future Chief Executive’s elections and would have thus reduced their representativeness. Unsurprisingly, it was rejected by democracy supporters across the board. Instead, activists chose to protest for representative democracy by blocking major roads during the Umbrella Movement. Even though the movement was capable of mobilising thousands of people, there was no change to the electoral reform proposal, which was eventually rejected by the Legislative Council. This paper argues that the failure of democratisation is primarily due to the lack of stateness. In particular, Hong Kong lacks two essential aspects of sovereignty necessary for democracy with meaningful political participation as it is neither able to determine its own political structures nor is it free from external intervention in its decision-making. Both of these aspects are crucial elements of a state’s autonomy and a fundamental basis for the development of democracy. The Chinese government is deeply worried about the territory’s subversive potential which is why it implies that the democracy movement, which is opposed to Communist Party rule, is unpatriotic and thus disqualified from participating in Chief Executive’s elections. In addition, another obstacle for the emergence of democracy is that Hong Kong still lacks a coherent sense of community as the society is divided between those who either identify primarily with Hong Kong or with China.

Evolving Environmental Governance

This chapter provides the theoretical basis for the analysis of the institutional transformation of the environmental state. Governance as a concept of less-hierarchical rule which involves civil society and businesses is in conflict with the principles of the socialist state. To capture the evolution of governance, it is necessary to analyze the processes of gradual institutional change within the context of the political system which seek to enhance the capacity of the environmental state. Institutional reformers have also promoted the role of civil society and sought to make use of market-based governance approaches as part of the institutional reform process. Many of these reforms would not have happened without the crucial role of international organizations.

The International Dimension

This chapter places the institutional changes in Vietnam in an international context. First, it discusses the country’s role within international environmental regimes. Then it demonstrates the role of various international actors in supporting the institutional reformers within the government in their effort to reform the environmental state. Because Vietnam has reached all developmental goals except for the environment, it is not surprising that donor money is increasingly focusing on environmental protection. International organizations are, however, not just tools of the government but actors with their own interests. They have, for instance, been active in forming networks to exert their influence and to promote new patterns of governance. Questions can be raised about the sustainability of environmental aid as well as the potential of aid dependence.