Liberalism Disavowed: Communitarianism and State Capitalism in Singapore

by Chua Beng Huat

In Liberalism Disavowed, Chua Beng Huat examines the rejection of Western-style liberalism in Singapore and the way the People's Action Party has forged an independent non-Western ideology.

This book explains the evolution of this communitarian ideology, with focus on three areas: public housing, multiracialism and state capitalism, each of which poses different challenges to liberal approaches. With the passing of the first Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew and the end of the Cold War, the party is facing greater challenges from an educated populace that demands greater voice. This has led to liberalization of the cultural sphere, greater responsiveness and shifts in political rhetoric, but all without disrupting the continuing hegemony of the PAP in government.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Economics, History, Asia, Political Science, Sociology

223 pages, Paperback

First published June 19, 2017

Reviews

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Liberalism Disavowed: Communitarianism and State Capitalism in Singapore by Beng Huat Chua, is an interesting book on the "Singapore Model" of governance, focusing on four primary areas: Non-Liberal politics, public housing, state capitalism and multi-racialism. These four policy areas are the pillars of Singapore's communitarianist political theory, and drive the City-state's political ideology and how policies are developed and implemented. Chua has written a compelling and interesting study of these polices, and offers both insight into their inner workings, and criticisms on their historical implementation.

Singapore is, in practice, a one party state. The People's Action Party (PAP) has been the leading political party of Singapore since it began the process of independence from Britain, and subsequently gained independence from Malaysia in 1965. The PAP has ruled Singapore ever since. From the get go, the party was made up of a coalition of radical left wing activists seeking independence from Britain, and an educated elite of Social Democrats seeking a more amicable separation. This ideological history led to Singapore's eventual discounting of Liberal Democracy as a method of governance for their nation. Although Singapore holds elections every six years, and so far the PAP has won every previous election - even though there are contenders. Singapore's elections are largely transparent, but a combination of popular support, and political repression keep them in power. Historically, this repression has been overt, with harassment of political rivals, gerrymandering electoral districts, and lawsuits and economic repressions against opposition leaders and their home districts. However, their is an element of popular support for Singapore's PAP for a few reasons - more on this later.

Singapore has largely discounted Liberalism as a form of governance due to its insistence on unity and stability as factors of national survival. Singapore has been beset by (real or imagined) threats both internally - from political groups (communists), racial tension, religious extremists and its small geographic size and lack of resources - and externally from hostile neighbours (unspecified politically, but most likely Malaysia and Indonesia), global market forces, and meddling foreign powers. This has led to a perceived necessity throughout its history for a strong, meritocratic, and popular government - an expression found in the PAP's electoral successes. This does not mean the state is without politics, as voters often express frustrations in government policy by switching votes to other parties, but voting percentages for the PAP have only fallen as low as about 60% - as recently as 2011.

A large amount of the popular support for the PAP has to do with there public housing and social welfare policies. Over 80% of Singapore's nationals live in publicly provided housing that is paid for by the resident in generously lenient funding programs that also cover medical costs and retirement savings. These funds are owned and operated by Singapore's major Sovereign Wealth Funds, which in turn reinvest the savings and payments of their citizens in wealth generating projects such as infant industry programs, urban planning and enrichment, and so on. The quality of Singapore's public housing is incredibly high, and residents usually live in large, luxurious suites in high rise apartment complexes. Payment plans are generous, and state funding exists to support those who struggle to make payments. Houses can be resold on the market at market value back to the SWF's, or occasionally at higher costs to foreign buyers. This public housing system ensures residents are both reliant on, and grateful toward the PAP and its economic management strategies. It also requires the managers, politicians, and planners involved to be highly competent, reliable, and not corrupt, or the ensuing scandal and threat to Singaporeans livelihoods would ensure political disgrace and a loss of support for the PAP. As reliant as Singaporeans are on the PAP, the party too is reliant on its peoples support.

The third major pillar, state capitalism, regards Singapore's impressive economic success through developmentalist style wealth generation. Upon independence, Singapore began to invest heavily in State Owned Enterprises (SOE's) as a form of infant industry generation. This led to rapid industrialization as Singapore began to be a port for the fabrication of a large amount of the world's cheaper consumer goods. This success led to the rapid improvement of living standards and wages in the nation, as profits from SOE's were reinvested into the local economy - generating new infant industries, expanding into new markets, and pushing Singapore's development toward the tertiary sectors (banking, communications, trade logistics, etc. etc.) it is well known for today. These SOE's eventually became subsidiary firms under Singapore's two Sovereign Wealth Funds - GIC Private Limited and Temasek Holdings. GIC is primarily a purchaser and manager of foreign currency reserves, and its operations are highly secretive, but seemingly efficient and successful. Temasek is the more well known fund, and is involved in numerous ventures through its subsidiary firms, owning electronic firms, investing in banks in China and the US, and purchasing telecommunications companies and construction firms in India, South East Asia, and the Middle East.

This state control over the nations economy has not been without controversy and some corruption scandals, but has helped Singapore develop rapidly into one of the world's most successful economies, and one that espouses the doctrine of modern Capitalism as its mantra. Singapore is very reliant on global markets, both due to its small size and lack of resources, its position as a global trading hub, and its integration into the global economy. This means the government likes to oversee its economic development, and although Singapore's SWF's are managed like private companies, profits and benefits are often returned directly to the state - thus continuing the cycle of development and enrichment for Singapore's citizens, important to ensure the PAP remains the sole political actor in the nation. Criticisms of this system certainly exist, both at a global level due to the nature of modern trade and economics, and at home due to some corruption and charges of over management by the state. Even so, Singapore's success is evident, and its model of state capitalism is widely regarded and studied by developing countries and autonomous regions throughout the world as the gold standard of its kind.

Finally, the fourth pillar of Singapore's model is its promotion of multiculturalism. This multiculturalism is different from what many in the West would glean from hearing the word. In Singapore a good majority of the population is of Chinese descent, with large minorities of Malay and Indians. At independence, each of these diaspora communities were not necessarily local, as many had been brought in as workers for the British colonial regime. This led to an interesting development, as upon independence many Singaporean residents looked to their homelands to try and build Singapore's future. This was unacceptable to the PAP, and to avoid racial tension and political fragmentation, they made sure at an early stage to develop multicultural provisions into the state. These ranged from meritocratic hiring policies, anti-discrimination laws and harsh penalties for non-compliance, freedom of religion, and equitable distribution of public funds, housing and so on. It also involved more nefarious practices, like forced separation through urban planning and design, harsh reprisals to nationalists and fundamentalists, and so on. This multiculturalism was of paramount importance to Singapore's need for unity, and to ensure popular support for the PAP from all walks of society. It also allowed the ruling party to crack down hard on nationalist politicians from the Chinese and Malay communities, thus removing potential political rivals. All things told, Singapore has had a relatively harmonious history so far, but issues remain. Islamic fundamentalism has taken hold in Singapore, and has led to tensions between the PAP and the Malay community. Singapore's use of foreign laboures from other nations has also led to political tensions related to citizenship, identity, the availability of housing and political repression of immigrant communities.

Singapore's system has also been characterized by other tenants, including PAP control over labour groups and unions, harsh suppression of communism in the Cold War period, and close market connections to other Asian economies. It has also been largely aligned politically with the West, while doing crisp business transactions with China and surrounding non-Western/Liberal states. This interesting mix of political pillars and ideologies seems to have been largely successful for Singapore due to many unique factors and characteristics of the nation. Even so, Chua ponders about the rising murmurs for true Parliamentary democracy in Singapore, and the increasing willingness of Singaporeans to vote against the PAP in elections. Singapore's success up to this point, however, has largely bucked the supposed theory that growing the middle class leads inevitably to demands for Liberal Democracy. Singapore has become one of the richest nations in the world by GDP per capita by utilizing a developmentalist and authoritarian form of parliamentary democracy through its disavowal of Liberalism, its strong socialist foundations, its use of state capitalism, and its strong advocacy for multiculturalism. Chua offers criticisms of all of these systems, and seems to yearn for more democracy in Singapore, but also concedes that the will is not there, seemingly, and in all likelihood there is currently no need. If Singapore continues to thrive, so to will the PAP, and if this is the case, it may be a sharp critique to prevailing theories on the marriage economic development and political representation.

All in all this was an interesting read on Singapore's model of governance. It was unbiased, interesting and technical in its analysis. Chua did a fabulous job detailing the four main pillars of success in Singapore's communitarian model of governance, in terms of their history, how they work, and how they ensure popularity for the ruling party remains stable. Singapore has become a model nation both for its rapid and dazzling economic growth, and its disregard for the Liberal principles that for some time have been seemingly unstoppable forces of political change throughout the world. Even so, Chua also notes that this is not a rosy picture of complete success, and offers criticisms of the system in each of its four pillars. This was an engaging read, although somewhat dry and technical in places, but one of interest for those who enjoy reading about political systems, developmental theory, and economics.

[Sharad Pandian · Rating 5 out of 5]

In scope and insight, this is easily the best analytical summary of Singapore's working I've read until now. While conceding that Singapore is authoritarian and illiberal, Chua argues that we shouldn't think of it merely as a failed version of a Western liberal democracy. Instead, its disavowal of liberalism is instead tied to its social democratic origins:

The general narrative of the PAP government and the economic development of Singapore are by now legendary. However, details of its ideological commitments and the concomitant economic and social political practices remain mired in simplistic explanations of authoritarianism in politics and apparently unstinting support for free market capitalism in Singapore’s economic policy. Indeed, the PAP government itself might be said to have encouraged the simplistic view of its governance and economic policies. What this “encouraged” understanding veils, intentionally or otherwise, is the social democratic origin of the PAP, which explains some of the fundamental social and economic programs which are critical to the economic and political success of the PAP government, and from which it has not wavered in more than its 50 years in power. The PAP’s social democratic origin, not authoritarianism, explains the Party’s vociferous disavowal of liberalism as the basis of politics and government. This book locates the social democratic traces that are embedded in, and continue to determine, the political economy of contemporary Singapore under the PAP government. (5)

Four institutionalized political and economic practices grounded in social democracy can be identified: ideological anti-liberalism, the national public housing program, state capitalism and multiracialism. Their primacy is reflected in the fact that other significant social policies and administrative practices, which are politically important in their own right, can be enfolded within the operating logic of one or more of these four institutions. (8)

Conceptually, the four areas of practices provide relative coherence to Singapore as a social, political and economic unit, demonstrating the possibility of a non-liberal electoral polity with a successful capitalist economy in the contemporary world. (9)

He argues that each of these four practices bucks an important aspect of (neo)liberalism as currently understood in the West:

All this suggests that the PAP has created an enduring political system — an electoral democracy that:

• disavows liberalism and promotes national and collective interests over individual freedoms, especially in the governing of race where mutual tolerance is paramount as a minimal necessary condition for social stability;

• restricts the rights to property by nationalizing land and regularly intervenes in the housing market to maintain affordability of housing for all;

• asserts the right of the state as an active entrepreneur in domestic and global economy, in order to generate income for social redistribution; and

• has shifted democracy away from politics of representation to politics of trusteeship couched in a vocabulary of accountability based on a morality of trust between the governing and the governed. (181-2)

Based on this, he ends by pointing out that:

There appears to be no alternative political bases to be organized to challenge the political hegemony of the PAP in the foreseeable future for three reasons:

• Singapore does not have a capitalist class that is willing and able to fund alternative political parties;

• organized labor unions are firmly under the government’s control; and

• the middle class is highly conservative for various reasons, including being directly or indirectly dependent on the extensive civil service and state enterprise network for employment, and the desire to protect their investments in property. (182)

Fascinatingly, a pattern that emerges is how the contructive and repressive elements of PAP rule fed back in productive ways - eg: stopping criticism, blunting protests, and redirecting energy from ethnicity-specific activities to more nation-building ones helped produce better results, while these results themselves made otiose the ethnicity-specifc groups that had emerged to help their respective groups due to British misrule. Analogous stories are told about unions, capital, the press, etc., pointing to how authoritarianism and competence were two sides of the same coin. Chua then inadvertently shows his own early claim that "The PAP’s social democratic origin, not authoritarianism, explains the Party’s vociferous disavowal of liberalism as the basis of politics and government" (5) is slightly off - it's not social democracy over authoritarianism, it's their synced enaction.

The book has its imperfections:

- written after the 2015 elections, Chua assumes that the PAP had succeeded in addressing the sources of discontent that led to its losses in the 2011 election. After 2020, this claim that "as the 2015 general election demonstrated, the political future of the nation will not be determined by the liberalizing cultural sphere but by the same “bread and butter” or materialist issues, such as affordable housing, employment and economic stability, issues which the PAP government has proven very adept at managing, judging from the institutions it has put in place since its early social democratic days" (175) now looks like a misreading of the significance of the freak post-LKY 2015 election.

-His treatment of liberalism, both ideologically and institutionally, seems both superficial and overly dramatic. Claiming that "the European experiment with liberal multiculturalism has all but collapsed" (187) because of the rise of the far-right and some calls by political leaders for cultural assimilation of immigrants seems premature at best.

-Very oddly, there are moments when he briefly slips into a mode where he takes Singapore's mythical self-fashioning at face value. For example, after several excellent chapters on how the state historically moulded racial organization, blunting and appropriating their independence and power, he bizzarely says: "At its minimal practical level, Singapore’s multiracialism policy explicitly recognizes the differences between the races but leaves the substance of the differences to groups and individual themselves to work out, beyond official gestures of equal distribution of national resources, for example, providing public holidays for all race groups" (187). Sure, apart from dramatically changing their natures and regulating everything from schooling, work, and living arrangements, it doesn't interfere with "the substance of the differences" of the groups.

But these are small issues in an excellent book I would recommend to just about anyone interested in Singapore and/or its brand of state capitalism and system of near-universal public housing.

[Stefanos Baziotis · Rating 4 out of 5]

It covers a lot of ground in little space; generally speaking, the author doesn't waste your time, which is nice. It is also both a political analysis, and a historical account, with a decent amount of references. My only complaint is that it doesn't really cover (except for rare occasions) people's perceptions of the political system, the public opinion, etc.; there are some references, but they're very few.

[Simon Grimm · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very detailed account of Singaporean policy-making and governance. Recommended reading if you visit Singapore.

[M · Rating 4 out of 5]

An important work, though it sometimes felt like a defence of the PAP's ideology and not as critical as it could have been.

When I was a student of political theory in the UK, I often felt incapable of using the tools and concepts I was learning to theorise about my experience as a Singaporean. Liberalism does just that, and for that, I am glad that this work exists.

That said, there were some areas for improvement. Firstly, the lack of sources for certain claims which Chua made (e.g. regarding the popularity of George Yeo, the low quality of certain opposition candidates), which, while broadly corroborative with my experience, without a citation, come across as mere assertion and detracted from the academic quality of Liberalism). Secondly, some omissions seemed deliberate (e.g. not mentioning that the Chairman of Temasek is the Prime Minister’s wife when talking about the lack of political interference in Temasek - which I’m not doubtful of, but omitting this detail seemed disingenuous). Thirdly, if one of Chua's important points was about state influence over the Straits Times, it is unclear to me if he should rely on ST sources for reporting on public opinion as veridical (though I do believe that the ST is trustworthy, it is likely that those being surveyed would be self-censoring). Fourthly, I’m being nit-picky here, but there were several editing mistakes and factual inaccuracies (e.g. misstatement of the 2013 Population White Paper’s population projection as 6.5 million, when it was in actual fact, 6.9 million).

[Abdullah · Rating 5 out of 5]

I first saw this book on display at a local bookstore while attending an event there, couldn't remember the book name but remembered that it had Adam Smith on its cover (I was starting to explore classical liberal economics then). Then it was a book recommendation on CAPE's social media so I decided to borrow it from my nearby library.

Now here's my take;

This book is a REVELATION.

It is uncensored, impartial and meticulous. It really paints an unique narrative of the Singapore Story. Never have I read the book that was thought provoking as this ( or maybe I underestimated my ignorance). Literally page after page I was left staring in blank space about what I've just read. His perspective on Singapore was something really knew and unprecedented. This was a huge upgrade from the Social Studies I learnt in school.

What I like about this book is that the author explains the ideologies of discussion, not only the dictionary definition but complements it with historical reference, case studies, theoretical contradictions before applying them to Singapore's context. Also the fact that the book is crafted in a way that an ordinary person on the street can easily read and understand.

My only area of feedback would be that chronological reference would be helpful when discussing the different topics at hand.

This is a book which EVERY SINGAPOREAN MUST READ at least once.

[Xavier Tan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good analysis on the Singapore system of government, particularly from a sociological point of view given its focus on issues such as race and religion, media policy, and housing. I would have appreciated more analysis on the legal system Singapore employs, however, considering that the separation of powers and the exercise of powers by organs of state such as the courts are integral to liberalism (concerning the safeguarding of rights). Much can be said about limitations on judicial review, as well as detention under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, rather than just focusing on the Internal Security Act (as Chua does in the book).
Additionally, I was a little surprised that in discussing issues concerning race, Chua does not touch on the Little India riot of 2013 at all. Perhaps he does not consider it a racial riot, but if that is the case, he should explain why he chooses to exclude this data point in his analysis. After all, as his colleague Tan Ern Ser puts it, one cannot sidestep the issue of race in discussing the riot.
Still a good read overall.

[I Read · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very important book for any Singaporean with even a passing interest in how their government and society works. I think a lot of Singaporeans will find it to be voicing unspoken rules and understandings, making them more explicit and presenting them within the wider political and ideological context. Not the only book that does this, sure, but the only one I've read so far that is so easily understandable from both a local and foreign perspective, and takes into account development past the mid 2000s.

My biggest takeaway were ideas on race - especially how distinct, obvious racialization gives race a materiality that allows it to be used as a tool of governance, which has given me a lot to think about and would be a good avenue for future reading.

[Royston Wah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Scholarly. But a solid overview of SG politics, economics, and society couched in the overarching argument of communitarianism. I liked the chapter on national housing policy, particularly so as a eager young homebuyer-to-be who's finding it difficult to reconcile the now pervasive idea of public housing as a citizenship entitlement with the growing unaffordability and scarcity of it. As Chua discusses, the government has sort of backed itself into the corner by trying to satisfy both existing homeowners and new homebuyers. Expect a greater reining in of the property market in the name of communitarianism?

[YJun · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant insights into Singapore's political economy and electoral party politics. Does not sensationalise but mattery of factly points out how the PAP stays in power through state capitalism, imposed multiracialism and censorship, and social democracy. Censorship remains a bittersweet issue for me, but I can't help but be in awe of the successful development of the SOEs and sovereign wealth funds. The sheer success of these institutions is truly absurd when one compares it to China's SOE development and SASAC's endless merging of corporations.

[Rohan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fair and balanced review of the Singapore system of governance and its evolution throughout the years, with a special focus on the four pillars of anti-liberalism, public housing, state capitalism and multiracialism. While I would have preferred a more serious examination of liberalism specifically in Singapore’s context, the book does what it set out to do and explain the many decisions in and problems of the communitarian model.

[mellamy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Liberalism Disavowed is far from perfect, but it’s as close to perfectly objective an analysis of singapore’s state capitalist journey as i think can be achieved in any context. professor chua is especially good at organising history, facts and events to make sense to someone like me (i.e. one not academically or professionally trained in studying sociopolitics and governmental economics).

[Judd Siow · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly-fascinating read that gave a broadly balanced view on the PAP's vice-like grip on Singapore's political and social affairs. From racial issues to matters on housing, economics and education, Chua has addressed most key issues that the governing party has (or has not) addressed in Singapore, making it the unique city-state it is today.

[Kifah Maseeh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fantastic book, although at times it seems as if the authors copy/pastes some sections from the earlier sections to the latter word to word.

[Abdulmalik · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent informative critical but balanced, concisely explains Singapore political economy exception in Asia highly recommended!

[Sense Hofstede · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good albeit mainstream overview of the Singaporean model and how it works. Some issues with editing, though, and seems to use a weird mix of two citation styles.

[Dana · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting analysis on Singapore society. Would recommend to anyone interested in learning more about the unspoken rules and assumptions that underlies the city-state.

[CP · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating book about Singapore sociology. Learnt so much about this seemingly familiar society to me.

[Lilian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Explains the social democratic origins of key PAP policies and their effect today (including sovereign wealth fund, public housing, etc.)

[K1c · Rating 4 out of 5]

concise, matter of fact review of sg's political structure and ideology. great on the history, not doing so much of the critique

[Zheng Ming · Rating 5 out of 5]

Singapore's society, governance, and inner workings can only be understood by looking at its historical context and development. This book succinctly connects history and modern Singapore together along with the challenges we have to overcome.

[Mubin Khaja · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although Chua Beng Huat intends to refute the tenets of Liberalism, by the end of this book, one cannot help but feel that he is describing a distinction without a difference with regard to economic arrangements. Whether through invisible hand Liberalism, or the 'State Capitalism' that Chua so extensively details, Capital still reigns supreme. In fact, Capital need not have worried too much, for Singapore only disputed the 'how' of capitalist development, rather than challenging the substantive 'what' end goal. Chua could have better explicated that the SG model is not an alternative, but an update to the vision of endless expansion. Communitarianism, rather than disciplining capital, only served to better discipline labour in service of capital.

Nevertheless, this work is a useful primer to the key decisions that shaped Singapore's economic trajectory and their consequences on Singaporean culture, such as the unrelenting reminders of Singapore's vulnerability and survival. Chua only implies it, but it could be made more apparent that these reminders actually dovetail with capitalism's own demands for endless toil and growth, to make the final connection on how the Singaporean model is in thrall to liberalism.

Finally, this book (like many works on Singapore history), hints at the importance of the 1980s in Singapore. It would be hard to deny that the deplorable Reagan-Thatcher revolution also afflicted Singapore, which ended up dismantling most of its remaining welfare provisions. This period in Singapore's history remains underexplored.