Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T16:06:35.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Political Meritocracy in Singapore

Lessons from the PAP Government

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2014

Daniel A. Bell
Affiliation:
Tsinghua University, Beijing
Chenyang Li
Affiliation:
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Get access

Summary

The PAP (People's Action Party) government has ruled Singapore since its independence in 1965. Power has been concentrated in the hands of a small group of men who have governed the country in an authoritarian and paternalistic manner. Hailed as a model of the developmental state, Singapore today is one of the most advanced and richest countries in the world. Although the state lacks conventional institutions of check and balances, the government is widely admired for its integrity and efficiency. Singapore ranks consistently high among the least corrupt countries of the world on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) and the World Bank's control of corruption governance indicator. Moreover, in the Global Competitiveness Report published by the World Economic Forum, Singapore has also been consistent in being at the top in terms of public sector competence as well as public trust in politicians’ honesty. The performance record of the PAP government is far from perfect. But Singaporeans today are enjoying increasing personal as well as political freedoms. There is now less fear of the government and more open criticisms of it. The government in turn appears to be more responsive to public grievances.

The PAP government could be held as a model of political meritocracy understood as a form of government whose leaders are selected on the basis of their character and abilities. Singapore, moreover, is distinguished by the fact that meritocracy has been institutionalized as a fundamental principle of governance. It is perhaps the only country in the world that applies meritocracy “rigorously and consistently” to its entire political leadership. The government places great emphasis on talent as it believes that “the single decisive factor that made for Singapore's development was the ability of its ministers and the high quality of its civil servants who supported them.”

Type
Chapter
Information
The East Asian Challenge for Democracy
Political Meritocracy in Comparative Perspective
, pp. 288 - 313
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

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.)

References

Winters, Jeffrey A., Oligarchy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton-Hart, Natasha, “The Singapore State Re-visited,” The Pacific Review, vol. 13 (2000), pp. 195–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oehlers, Alfred, “Corruption: the peculiarities of Singapore,” Corruption and Good Governance, in Asia edited by Tarling, Nicholas (London: Routledge, 2005), pp. 149–64Google Scholar
Quah, Jon, Public Administration Singapore Style (Bingley: Emerald Group, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellows, T. J., “Meritocracy and the Singapore Political System,” Asian Journal of Political Science, vol. 17 (2009), p. 26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yew, Lee Kuan, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story, 1965–2000 (Singapore: Times Editions, 2000), p. 736Google Scholar
Tan, Kenneth Paul, “Who's Afraid of Catherine Lim? The State in Patriarchal Singapore,” Asian Studies Review, vol. 33 (2009), pp. 43–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, Khai Leong, Shared Responsibilities, Unshared Power: The Politics of Policy-Making in Singapore (Singapore: Eastern University Press, 2003), pp. 44Google Scholar
Loong, Lee Hsien, “Education as the Hook to Reel In, Retain Talent.” The Straits Times, April 12, 2011, S12
Han, Fook Kwang et al., Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going (Singapore: The Straits Times Press, 2011), p. 110Google Scholar
Hoong, Chua Mui, “How Meritocracy Can Breed Intellectual Elitism,” The Straits Times, November 10, 2006, p. 37
Lian, Goh Chin, “Want a PSC Scholarship? Be Yourself,” The Straits Times, July 25, 2009, A3
Eddie, Teo, “What the PSC Wants in Its Scholars” The Straits Times, July 25, 2009B, A37
Mauzy, Diane K. and Milne, R. S., Singapore's Politics under the People's Action Party (London: Routledge, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, Michael D. and Skrbiš, Zlatko, Constructing Singapore: Elitism, Ethnicity and the Nation-Building Project (Denmark: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies Press, 2010), p. 66Google Scholar
Worthington, Ross, Governance in Singapore (London: Routledge Curzon, 2003), p. 275
Lee, Lynn, “Ministers Graded Stringently, Only Two Got Full Bonus,” The Straits Times, April 12, 2007, H7
Loong, Lee Hsien, “A Very Difficult, Emotional Issue,” The Straits Times, January 18, 2012, A11
Loong, Lee Hsien, “Maintaining a First-Class Public Service,” The Straits Times, March 23, 2007, H12
Loong, Lee Hsien, “It's Not Just About Pay, It's About Securing Bright Future,” The Straits Times, April 12, 2007, p. 31
Heng, Janice, “Salaries to be Based on Larger Pool of Top Income Earners,” The Straits Times, January 5, 2012, A6
Ong, Andrea, “Pay Review Both Half Full and Half Empty,” The Straits Times, January 17, 2012A, A13
Chua, Beng Huat, “Singapore in 2007: High Wage Ministers and the Management of Gays and Elderly,” Asian Survey, vol. 48 (2008), p. 55Google Scholar
David, Harvey, A Brief History of NeoLiberalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 2Google Scholar
Han, Fook Kwang et al., Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas (Singapore: The Straits Times Press, 1998), p. 159Google Scholar
Tan, Sor-hoon, “Beyong Elitism: A Community Ideal for a Modern East Asia,” Philosophy East and West, vol. 59 (2009), p. 540Google Scholar
Barr, Michael D., Lee Kuan Yew: The Beliefs Behind the Man (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2000), p. 112Google Scholar
Florida, Richard, The Flight of the Creative Class (New York: Harper Business, 2005), p. 3Google Scholar
Bremmer, Ian, The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War between States and Corporations? (New York: Portfolio, 2010), p. 17Google Scholar
Ong, Andrea, “Should Civil Servants Be Paid More Than Ministers?” The Straits Times, January 17, 2012B, A13
Vasil, Raj, Governing Singapore: A History of National Development and Democracy (St Leonards: Allen & Unwin, 2000), p. 51Google Scholar
Cherian, George, “Consolidating authoritarian rule: calibrated coercion in Singapore,” The Pacific Review, vol. 20 (2007), pp. 127–45Google Scholar
Kampfner, John, Freedom for Sale: How We Made Money and Lost Our Liberty (London: Simon & Shuster, 2009), p. 5Google Scholar
Miller, Matt, “The S’pore Take Away for Uncle Sam,” The Straits Times, May 5, 2012, A38
Ngiam, Tong Dow, A Mandarin and the Making of Public Policy: Reflections by Dow, Ngiam Tong, introduced and edited by Tay, Simon (SingaporeNUS Press, 2006), p. 24Google Scholar
Freeland, Chrystia, The Rise of the New Global Elite, The Atlantic (Jan/Feb 2011)
Wee, Siew Kim, “A Lesson Learnt, Says MP and Dad Wee Siew Kim,” The Straits Times, October 4, 2006, H5
Kwek, Ken, “Wee Siew Kim Apologises for Remarks,” The Straits Times, October 26, 2006, H4
Gibney, Alex (director and producer), Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room [Documentary] (Magnolia Pictures, 2005)Google Scholar
Lam, Peng Er, “The Voters Speak: Voices, Choices and Implications,” in Voting in Change: Politics of Singapore's 2011 General Elections, edited by Tan, Kevin YL and Lee, Terence (Singapore: Ethos Books, 2011), p. 183Google Scholar
Shanmugam, K., “Why Do We Demand Financial Sacrifice From Those Going Into Public Service?” The Straits Times, April 11, 2007, H5
Dow, Ngaim Tong, “Winning Back Public Trust after the GE.” The Straits Times, July 2, 2011, A36
Hoong, Chua Mui, “I Want to Attend Our SG Dialogue in Teochew,” The Sunday Times, September 9, 2012, p. 41
Cheam, Jessica, “Analysts Surprised at WP's margin,” The Sunday Times, May 27, 2012, p. 4
Lim, Lydia, “PM Says Sorry,” The Straits Times, May 4, 2011, A6
Bell, Daniel, Beyond Liberal Democracy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heng, Janice, “Elite Should Trust Electorate, Says Retired Top Civil Servant,” The Straits Times, September 16, 2012B, B14
Teo, Eddie, “Idealistic Citizens Help Push the Bar for Public Servants,” The Sunday Times, October 24, 2010, p. 34

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×