Political Stability

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ON THE POLITICAL STABILITY

IN THAILAND AND SINGAPORE

This paper aims to analyse the political stability in terms of the political opposition and existence of corruption in Thailand and Singapore. It further aims to present the similarities and differences of these two countries by (1) giving an introduction about the political system and political stability of Thailand and Singapore, (2) discussing the political opposition especially the interest groups and the perception of the government with it, and (3) stating cases of corruption that exist in these countries. The researcher acknowledges that these two countries differ a lot from each other, but it would be interesting to know what constitutes political (in)stability

By this, my approach in this analysis would be based on the premise that opposition comes in different objectives by which I refer to opposition in specific and key policies up to opposition in the country’s leader and regime. Kusin (1973) in his review of The Typology of Opposition enumerated types of opposition by which are (1) integral opposition – anti-communist rejection of the system, (2) factional opposition – to leaders in power, often on ideological ground, but also as simple rivalry, (3) fundamental opposition – to key policies, often waged by interest groups, and (4) specific opposition – to specific policies without rejection of the regime, its leaders and basic orientation. “Certain groups express profound dissent from the very structure of the state or others direct their protest against the constitutional and public policy-making machinery (van de Kroef, 1978-1979)”. In addition, according to van de Kroef (1978-1979), the interest groups are as follows: “(1) students and segments of the intellectual community, (2) the military, (3) religious and ethnic groups, and (4) the communists”. “Opposition is a form of action which any critic of the government can avail himself [or herself] of (Kusin,

Singapore placed fifth in the least corrupt country in the world; placed first in Southeast Asia. “Financial greed is much under control not only because of effective anti-corruption measures but also because the PAP, both under Lee and Goh, and aided by Singapore’s economic prosperity, has been able to do what many governments could not: reward ministers and other political appointees well, including offering lucrative salaries and other perks and incentives (Mutalib, 2000)”. In contrast to those countries that have high corruption rates, Singapore is encouraging civil servants to stay in the administration and prevent from performing corrupt practices (Quah, 1988). Though there would also be exceptions, some leaders faced few corruption charges such as Teh Cheang Wan (Minister for National Development) and Phey Yew Kok (NTUC president). Nevertheless, the Singapore government has maintained a clean, corruption-free image. This is a manifestation of a “genuine commitment on the part of political leaders to combat the phenomenon (Ho and Quah cited in Abdulai, 2009)”. It can be argued that a strong political will, “a genuine and comprehensive legal framework that identifies corrupt practices and establishment of accountability institutions (Jones, 2009)” is needed to combat