The Singapore government has captured the imagination of the West, having been described as authoritarian and undemocratic, yet enjoying a baffling run of economic success generally achieved by free, democratic, capitalist states. Its success has lent justification to the formation of the Singapore School that championed a separate 'Asian-style' democracy that eschews some of the accepted features of liberal democracy in favour of greater state control. This has divided critics over the legitimacy of democracy

Singapore-style. This paper - by looking at Asian-style democracy vis a vis liberal democracy, and through examining the extent to which democratic institutions are present in Singapore - hopes to determine if Singapore is truly a unique form of democracy or if it is simply authoritarianism by another name.

Democracy is a contentious term to define, replete with numerous qualifications and caveats. The common definition of "of the people, for the people, by the people" captures the spirit of the concept, but doesn't advance an understanding of what constitutes a democracy. Neher and Marlay (1995), note that democracy recognizes individual rights and places less belligerent lea

Tracing modern Singapore's history, Neher and Marlay (1995) posit its strategy has been to enforce tight social and political discipline in favour of freedoms, and it has reaped the benefits of human and economic development and an increasingly affluent and educated populace. While electoral participation is high, opposition isn't strong, the media is fettered, parliament is dominated by the PAP, and a corporatist state has been installed. Civil liberties are curtailed, few autonomous groups are permitted, the population has been detribalized, and dissidence is not tolerated. While Singapore strives to be the bridge between the East and the West, the authors consider it an "autocracy". As such most of the democratic institutions are not present in Singapore. The press is fettered, civil society is weak, and opposition is either co-opted of crushed, leaving real political competition sorely lacking. With this as the case, can Singapore be considered a democracy.

Neher and Marlay (1995) posit that Asian democracies are 'semidemocratic' with universal franchise and elections of liberal democracies, but with other countervailing features. These include confucianism with its emphasis on harmony, stability and consensus; a hierarchic but mutually beneficial patron-client communitarianism; personalism where personal alliances precede institutions and laws in importance and force of personality garners the mandate to lead, a great respect for authority; a dominant political party stressing on consensus; and a strong, corporatist state that co-opts independent organizations and unions. Inoguchi (1998) takes a more economy-centred perspective and observes commonalities in Asian-style democracies, while noting that they have particular manifestations in each country. These are: good economic performance underpinned by government intervention and management of economy; emphasis on human resource development; high propensity to save thereby aiding capital accumulation; social trust in networks and kinship ties over laws and contract; small, pragmatic and responsive government that eschews ideology; a small, lean bureaucracy in the pursuit of national interest; co-option of autonomous social organizations of forge consensus, and a distinct communitarian and Confucianistic values.

Neher and Marlay (1995) also point out that variables that contribute to the development of democracy include economic development, the rise of a middle class, indigent cultures given to tolerance and compromise, and international links to other democracies. While it can be argued that developed, multicultural, cosmopolitan Singapore has all these variables in place, and while there is universal suffrage, the recognition of civil and political rights, and the extent of political competition are questionable. Whither then is Singapore's democracy?

Some common words found in the essay are:
Neher Marlay, Singapore Malaysia, Singapore's PAP, East West, Corner Singapore, Confucianism Confucianism, Singapore School, West Diametric, Action Party's, Asian Asian-style, liberal democracy, civil society, neher marlay 1995, neher marlay, marlay 1995, asian democracies, democratic institutions, political competition, form democracy, rule law, individual rights, unique form democracy, democratic institutions singapore, democracy human rights, people's action party,
Approximate Word count = 2513
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page double spaced)