The Level of Democracy in Singapore and Thailand

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Democracy in Thailand
Democracy in Singapore
Comparing democracy of the two countries
References

Introduction

Democracy is a form of government in which people make decision on how they are going to be ruled. It is a more participatory form of government elected by the people and working for the people. At the end of the last century, the world experienced a wave of growing democracy in most countries. This came with the collapse of communism in Russia. The end of cold war marked a new era of democratic government in most countries previously embracing communism and authoritarian rule.

Majority of the countries in Southeast Asia have remained communism states even with the fall of communism. Countries like China, Singapore, Philippines, and other in the same region have been experiencing growing dissidents among the citizens in clamor for a change to a democratic government. Democratic government have been praised for being more open to the public and giving the public a hand in deciding how they are to be ruled.

According to Chu (2003), majority of the countries that formed the communist Russia have experienced a hard time in shedding the legacy of authoritarian rule that governed them. Communism regimes as opposed to democratic regimes had more authoritarian government with centralized economic controls, abuse of human rights and most of them embraced the culture of corruption. It is worth noting that since the collapse of Russia and seeming the end of the communism empire, most countries in East Asia like China and Vietnam have been slowly moving to more democratic governments and have experienced a remarkable economic growth. The effects of a democratic government cannot be ignored.

A country like China experienced a remarkable growth in its economy when it embraced the policy of a free market without the control of the authoritarian government. It is argued that China cannot ignore the fact that there is a need from the citizens of a more transparent government to run its shoring economy and it is just a matter of time before the country becomes full democratic.

There has been a heated argument in the world concerning the necessity of democratic regimes in order to enhance the economic growth of a country. Many countries that have propelled their economies have been under democratic governments. The questions about whether we need democracy first to have economic growth or whether we need economic growth first to support the process of democracy have not been argued out due to differing circumstances and countries taken as examples or as study cases on this matter.

Many countries in Asia have experienced a remarkable economic growth even without democracy. It is also amazing that some countries in Africa have embraced democracy but have remained relatively poor with under-performing economies. But taking the example of China as our study case, we can see that the more people becomes economically well up, the more they realize their right to a democratic government. An authoritarian rule can only exist due to oppression of the public or in instances where people are so much occupied with their daily struggles that they have no time to think about their rulers. Hence the process of economic development and democratic government goes parallel with one another and cannot be ignored.

In this paper, the level of democracy in Singapore and Thailand shall be compared. The paper will implore the development of democracy in the two countries and compare and contrast the difference in the development. It will also look into the level of economic development of the two countries as a function of the governance and how both interact. It will also look into the factors that have to the difference in the development of full democracy in both states.

Democracy in Thailand

Thailand has evolved in its democratic government. It has evolved for the semi-democratic government and is moving towards a democratic regime. According to Santi (1995), since 1973, there have been activities aimed at instilling democracy in the government of Thailand. During the 1980, Thailand was ruled by Prem which was leaning more to a democratic government and is credited to have restored parliamentary politics.

However in 1991, the country experienced a military rule which remained in power till 1992. The process of democracy grew fast in Thailand and it is recorded that by the year 1992, Thailand had met the international required standards for democracy including citizen participation in the government, a transparent electoral process and observation of human rights. It is recorded that democracy has grown in the country since the bloodshed of 1992.

It was boosted in 2001 when the Populist Party Thai Rak Thai took over power led by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who embraced a more democratic space for the country. Since then, the country has been moving towards establishing a more democratic regime with strengthening of the democratic institutions. One of the most important factors that have helped the process of growth of democracy in Thailand has been the installation of the electoral system which has given people the power to rule themselves through a fairly elected government.

The growth of democratic space in Thailand has been marked by the recent events which have shown that the country has grown to a mature democratic regime. According to Albritton and Bureekul (2004), one of these events was the adoption of new constitution in 1997 that had structures that enhanced the growth of democracy. This constitution defined the electoral system and gave people the power to govern themselves.

The constitution has also given the country institutions that are necessary for good governance of the people including a constitutional court which allows for a fair trial of any suspect. The constitution has also created an independent election commission to oversee the electro process in the country. This has restored the confidence of the citizens in their participation in the electoral process.

A landmark achievement of the constitution has been the creation of a nation a counter corruption commission. This has been a great breakthrough in the fight against corruption. It is to be remembered that democracy is very vibrant in the country as was seen with the removal of Minister Thaksin Shinawatra over corruption allegation. The corruption commission has been given more power than in other democratic countries and can now charge, try and consequently remove from public office anybody that is convicted of corruption. The electoral commission has indeed been bestowed with powers of supervising an election and consequently can disqualify an elected candidate convicted of having committed an electoral offense including violation of electoral laws.

According to Muntarbhorn and Taylor (1994), Thailand has also moved swiftly to identify the role of civil society contribution to the democratic governance. As such, there has been hyperactivity in sensitizing the civil society in having a role to play in the democratic process. Civil society movements are perhaps some of the most important institution that supports democracy. As compared to other countries in Southeast Asia, Thailand has given the civil society a free spaced to criticize or support the regime in the process of governance. Although the civil society movement is still weak in Thailand compared to other democratic governments, it is growing at a remarkable pace.

Perhaps the remarkable event in the development of democracy in Thailand was a survey conducted in 2001 among the citizens of Thailand which showed an overwhelming support for democracy in the country. The survey showed that majority of the citizen’s preferred democracy as the most acceptable form of government and the form able to propel the country economic development. The survey showed a minority support for a military government.

There was an overwhelming support for a parliamentary government as compared to others. However, majority of the citizen cited economic development to be more important than creating parallel democratic institutions. This is one of the things that show that Thailand is not a semi democratic country but can be compared to full democratic country and what is remaining is just to strengthen the institutions that support democracy in the country. Support from majority of the citizens is perhaps the most important process in recognizing the level of democracy in a country.

The new constitution also gave space for more participation of people in the economic activities in the county. Thailand has experienced remarkable economic growth since the adoption of the new constitution in 1997. According to Morris (1998), the constitution emphasized individual liberty, gender equity in economic activities, environmental preservation, resource management, empowerment of the community and right to education and health services.

Democracy in Singapore

Singapore is yet to embrace the spirit of democracy as compared to Thailand. The country has a parliamentary framework of government in which it has the Prime Minister as the head of government. The parliament shares with the government the legislative powers while the government retains the executive power. Thy have a ceremonial president but has powers over judiciary appointments and some internal security issues.

Although seeming having a good political structure which can embrace democracy, the country has been under the rule of People Action Part from 1959 which Lee Kuan Yew was elected as a prime minister. Lee Kuan Yew has clang to power for that time although there are opposition parties in the country. The government has employed censorship and filing of suits in courts to intimidate the opposition. This has kept the opposition low and fearful of the powers amassed by the government.

Although considered democratic, it has been argued that governance of Singapore is more authoritarian than democratic. It has been considered illiberal democracy or procedural democracy. Indeed there are some democratic aspects in governance of Singapore. It partially involves people in the decision making process which has led many scholar to refer Singapore as a socialist democracy, a notion it rejects. It claims not to be a socialist state but the economy tells more. The economy of Singapore although, flourishing, is dominated by state owned corporations. The state controls the housing system and it employs a compulsory education policy. However Singapore is rated as one of the most corrupt free states in Asia and in the world.

The few democratic instances in Singapore are hampered by laws that counter the progress of democracy. Perhaps one of the laws that have retarded the growth of democracy in Singapore is the law that prohibits the freedom of speech. The government imposes this law arguing that it is intended to safeguard the interest of the multiracial nation. Singapore government has come under fierce criticism all over the world due to these laws which has led to violation of human rights.

Many people have been detained and executed on accounts of hate speech. Singapore has one of the highest executions in the world as it still practices capital punishment. Singapore still holds the Internal Security Act which gives the government the power to arbitrary arrest and prosecution of citizens and detains them without trial. One of the longest serving prisoners in the country is Mr. Chia Thye Poh who was detained without trial for 23 years. The judiciary is misused by the government and the prime minister has intimated, bankrupted and crippled the opposition in the law courts. The courts are mere puppets of the government and are no less than kangaroo courts for the citizens and especially those posing opposition to the government.

A democratic regime is based on the freedom of the people to access information that is unbiased and in a free manner. This calls for a free press and media houses. However in Singapore this has been hampered by fact that there are no private media houses in the country. All press and media houses are owned and controlled by the state. The government has been gone to an extent of curtailing even the foreign press in the country. The government has throttled all avenues of expression and it even controls the labor movement in the country.

It is amazing that the Nation Trade Union Congress is headed by a cabinet minister. This makes sure that there can not be strikes from workers. This is a form of oppression of the people because it denies them the freedom to express their views. The civil society has been crumbled by the authoritarian rule. With an oppressed and intimidated opposition and with a crumbled civil society, who can fight for the citizens and ensure that democratic principles are upheld?

Singapore has one of the most flawed electoral systems in the world. There is no an independent electoral commission to oversee the elections. The campaign period for election is set at 9 days. The electoral process is repeated after every four or five years. The election process is heightened by state corruption and intimidation. In the run up to the 2001 elections voters were promised to be given shares which were to be cashed in a day before the elections.

It was just an alternative scheme to direct corruption as practiced in other countries. In the 1997 elections it is reported that voters were told that if they did not vote for the PAP candidates, their houses would be confiscated or turned into slums. The government also interferes with the electoral boundaries which are announced a day before the election is held in order to confine the opposition to one region.

Perhaps in terms of the appreciation of the citizen of the country to the principle of democracy, Ser and Zhengxu (2007) argue that, majority of them says they are not interest in politics. Although voting in Singapore is compulsory and ballot papers come with personal identity card numbers, majority of the people in the country feel that they are obliged to participate in a process they are not interested in. The level of public awareness is quite low in Singapore with majority of the population expressing satisfaction in the way the government is run. They feel that the democratic space that prevails in the country is okay with them.

The same survey reveals that majority of the population are aware that the country is not democratically run with few people expressing satisfaction on the issues of governance, freedom of speech and transparency in the government.

Majority of the citizens in the country support a democratic government while still a good number supports an authoritarian government. This survey reveals that the citizens of the country are not very much aware of their rights. Perhaps this is due to fear that is instilled by the government over the citizens. Lack of the freedom of speech is perhaps one of the greatest hindrance and one factor that instill fear to the citizens. In a full democratic regime, the citizens should have a say in how the government is run. They should be the one electing a government to power and also have powers to remove the government. But in Singapore the process of oppressing the citizens perhaps begins with the use of court to intimidate the country.

Economically the country fairs very well but it ranks poorly when it comes to the issue of equality. There is a big gap between the rich and the poor with majority of the political elite amassing more wealth than the public.

Comparing democracy of the two countries

The difference in democracy between the two countries is very evident. While Thailand has embraced democracy and put in place institutions that enhance a democratic environment, Singapore has continued to oppress the citizens and the government is in control of all the institutions that can be used to build democratic space for a country. In deed compared to Thailand, Singapore cannot be ranked as a democratic government. It is an authoritarian government. The only sign of democracy in Singapore is perhaps its government system which has a parliamentary system of government. The two countries give us a good insight into the process of growth of democracy.

It shows us that for democracy to work there must be working institution which are protected by the constitution of the country. Democracy needs to separate the judiciary power from the government and enhance creation of free institutions. The two countries have parallel democratic institutions that support democracy but their effectiveness is different. It is good to point out here that democracy in Singapore is hampered by the fact that the government still has the power to arrest and prosecute and largely limits the freedom of expression.

While Thailand has efficient electoral commission that oversees the election and has powers to nullify results of a candidate though to malpractices in the electoral process, Singapore has the government in control of everything. The government sets the electoral date and also sets the electoral boundaries. There is no place for filing election petitions in Singapore since even the courts are controlled by the ruling regimes. This is one of the indicators that show us that Thailand should not be treated as a semi democratic country but rather a democratic country. The electoral institution is a crucial institution in a democratic process of any nation.

While Thailand has a free and impartial court system, Singapore has the government and the judiciary sharing powers. Democracy cannot happen in a process where there are no fair means of administering democracy. A law court is important in administration of justice in any for of government whether democratic or authoritarian. The process of democracy in Singapore is flawed by the judiciary system since instead of protecting the citizens, it is used to oppress them and intimidate those opposing the ruling regime.

The difference in the level of democracy in the two countries is perhaps contributed by the will of the citizens for change. In Thailand, citizens show a great desire to be democratically ruled and show a higher level of understanding of the need to have a working democracy. On the other hands, citizens of Singapore shows low level of interest in politics and seems satisfied with the war their country is run. It is good to point out here that democracy begins with people and ends with people. Even for an oppressive regime, it takes it a matter of time before citizen stage massive resistance to the regimes as recently witnessed in Burma.

References

Albritton, R. and Bureekul, T. (2004): Developing Democracy under a New Constitution in Thailand. University of Mississippi.

Chu, Y. (2003). Lessons from East Asia’s Struggling Democracies; Asian Barometer Survey, Working Paper Series.

Morris, G. (1998). The Asian Financial Crisis: Causes, Cures, and Systemic Implication. Institute for International Economics: Washington, DC. Policy Analysis in International Economics, No. 5.

Muntarbhorn, V. and Taylor, C. (1994): Roads to Democracy: Human Rights and Democratic Development in Thailand.

Santi, H. (1995). Thailand: They Buy Candidates, Not Votes. Inter press Services.

Ser, T. E. and Zhengxu, W. (2007): Second Wave of Asian Barometer: A comparative survey of democracy, governance and development. Singapore Country Report, National University of Singapore.

Click Here To Order Now!