ABSTRACT
The political systems of Malaysia and Singapore stand out in Southeast Asia in that their military forces have never participated directly in politics. Their citizens have not experienced harsh authoritarian rule, and the opposition parties are allowed to exist legally. The leaders of both regimes do appreciate the benefits of electoral competition for regime legitimacy, and have stead-fastly held elections within constitutionally prescribed time frames. However, within this broad electoral framework, the ruling parties in Malaysia and Singapore have sought actively to dominate the political process in their countries, taking it for granted that they should rule with at least a two-thirds majority in Parliament, which allows for constitutional changes to be made with ease. The ruling coalition in Malaysia, initially called the Alliance but restructured and renamed as the Barisan Nasional (BN) or National Front in 1974, has been in power since independence in 1957 and in Singapore, the People’s Action Party (PAP) has ruled since 1959. Neither party has shown any sign of losing its predominant position in the polity. Considering that a number of long-standing dominant parties, such as the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan, the Congress Party of India, and the PRI of Mexico, have either lost power or have weakened over time, it is worthwhile to ask why the PAP and the Barisan have remained so hegemonic. In Malaysia, the question is also tantamount to asking why the United Malays National Organisation or UMNO, the core party in the Barisan, has been in power for so long. Just as the main opposition parties revolve around the Barisan Nasional in the general political
system, the non-Malay component parties revolve around UMNO in the ruling coalition.
