Is Singapore still the model authoritarian state for China?

Since the Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) era, Singapore has been the only country admired by all four generations of China’s leadership. Recently, however, friction between the two countries over the South China Sea and the seizure of Singapore’s armoured vehicles in Hong Kong has led people to wonder whether the “Singapore model” remains relevant to China.

Singapore, despite its small size, is known for miraculous economic modernisation, efficient and nearly corrupt-free governance, good urban planning and a well-behaved citizenry. Both the government and people in China have clamoured for all these hallmarks. The Chinese leadership favours Singaporean-style governance as a feasible model for the future, possibly for the following reasons.

First and foremost, Singapore’s “Asian authoritarianism” is believed to have demonstrated the compatibility between effective economic management and one-party rule, raising doubts about the suitability of Western-style democracy for Asian countries.

The Singapore political system may prove a difficult model for China, whatever the West thinks

China’s road or the Western way: whose economic development model will prevail?

And, to maintain their grip on power, both governments have sought to exercise strict control over all aspects of public discourse: whether in the education system or, most importantly, the media. Also, the economic success of both countries has been attributed to their one-party leadership. Both ruling parties maintain their legitimacy mainly through raising people’s living standards under their watch.

Furthermore, according to the doctrine of Singapore’s ruling party, the People’s Action Party, a good government is one with the ability to convince its citizens to compromise individual liberties for long-term collective interests. The Chinese Communist Party apparently shares this ideology. Over the past 10 years, for example, it has hosted big events like the Olympic Games and G20 summit, which caused inconvenience to many, but managed to retain popular support for these activities through preaching individual sacrifice for magnificent national achievements.

Compared to some other cultures, more ordinary people in both nations have traditionally placed higher value on so-called bread-and-butter issues than individual freedom. The “climate of fear” also makes people reluctant to fight for their rights. Moreover, the majority of people in both nations are used to regarding the ruling party in their respective country as the only authority capable of governing. The ruling parties have successfully convinced people that they represent stability, while the opposition represents turbulence.

What Chinese, Singaporean universities can teach us about academic freedom

To sum up, a sizeable number of people in the two nations believe in the need for a strong government capable of forging a consensus and deciding on the best interests of society. Interestingly though, the “unique national characteristics” of the two countries are actually opposite to each other. China is huge and diverse, with the largest population on earth; the authorities fear that things could get out of control if they don’t rule with an iron fist. Singapore, on the other hand, is small and vulnerable, and an authoritarian government is seen as necessary to protect it from being bullied in the neighbourhood.