ABSTRACT
Today, an interdependent relationship between the state and foreign capital is best understood through the lens of neoliberal globalization, which promotes free markets through policies of privatization, liberalization, and deregulation, all of which require not a weakened state but increased state capacity to facilitate the interests of capital (Scholte, 2005; Purcell, 2008). Based on 2014 data from the International Monetary Fund (2015), Singapore is the third wealthiest country in the world according to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita measured in terms of purchasing power parity. It is placed at or near the top of several international rankings on economic performance, competitiveness, and business environment (Economic Development Board, 2015). The PAP government has, for the most part, enjoyed high levels of political legitimacy based on successful economic growth policies and its ability to deliver on promises to provide for the material well-being of citizens in conditions of permanent vulnerability. At the ideological level, the PAP government has been able to manage the hegemonic discourse of survival and success, producing national slogans that remind the people of how the nation has developed in accelerated fashion ‘from Third World to First’ and of how its national accomplishments are substantial yet fragile. Economic crisis, disease outbreak, terrorism, racial and religious conflict, and volatile relations with neighbours Malaysia and Indonesia are constantly presented to the public as national threats, circulated and re-circulated as reports in the state-directed media. By assuming the subject position of heroic protagonist in official history, the PAP government has been able to explain its political longevity and justify its extensive intrusions into aspects of economic, social, and human life that would normally be regarded in more liberal political societies as private and off-limits to the state. Powerfully ensconced in a dominant party system and hegemonic state, the PAP government has effectively propagated the idea that it is more important for a small country with limited resources and talent to have meritocratic, pragmatic, and economically-oriented government than one that is limited by principles of accountability, transparency, and checks and balances (Rodan, 2004).
