Singapore
Political System: Parliamentary Democracy System
Singapore became a country on August 9, 1965, and, for the fifty year period since, the People’s Action
Party (PAP) and its charismatic leader, Lee Kuan Yew have dominated its politics. Prior to independence,
it had been part of the British Empire from the end of World War II until 1963. Then, it spent two
contentious years as part of Malaysia until it broke away in 1965. Currently, the government and the
cabinet are led by Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong while President Halimah Yacob is the Head of State.
Functions of Political Systems:
Legal Systems: English common law system
Singapore is a republic with a parliamentary system of Government based on the Westminster Model.
The roots of Singapore’s legal system can be traced back to the English legal system and it has evolved
over the years. Our sources of law are derived from our Constitution, legislation, subsidiary legislation
(e.g. Rules and Regulations etc) and judge-made law.




The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and lays down the basic framework for the
three organs of state, namely, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary.
The Executive includes the Elected President, the Cabinet and the Attorney-General. The
President is elected by the people and is empowered to veto government budgets and
appointments to public office. The Cabinet comprises the Prime Minister and Ministers
appointed from among the Members of Parliament and is responsible for the general direction
and control of the Government and is accountable to Parliament. The Attorney-General is the
principal legal advisor to the government and has the power and discretion to prosecute
offenders.
The Legislature comprises the President and Parliament and is the legislative authority
responsible for enacting legislation. Parliament is made up of elected, non-constituency and
nominated Members of Parliament. The President’s assent is required for all bills passed by
Parliament and he may in his discretion withhold assent to certain bills.
The Judiciary consists of the Supreme Court and the State Courts and the head of the Judiciary is
the Chief Justice. Judicial power in Singapore is vested in the Supreme Court and in such
subordinate courts as may be provided for by any written law for the time being in force.
Country Risks Produced by Political Systems:
List of Pros of Parliamentary Democracy
1. Encourages Frequent Elections - Under this system of government, the majority of legislators
must support the ruling party. Failure to maintain this majority means that the government
lacks the necessary legitimacy and will be forced to call a special election. Furthermore, it allows
citizens to demand prompt elections if the current government fails to meet expectations.
2. Prevents Dominance - Two parties typically dominate pure presidential systems. This system
works to keep such a problem from occurring. It allows anyone to form a political party and use
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
it as a vehicle to compete for political power. As a result, everyone has an equal opportunity to
hear his side of the story.
Upholds Diversity - Closely related to the preceding is the issue of preserving Diversity of opinion
in society, which can provide each person with a fair chance of having their voice heard.
Furthermore, many political parties run on local platforms and issues rather than national
issues, as is the norm for parties in purely presidential systems.
Bolsters Cooperation - A party must win a clear majority of seats to be given the mandate to
form a government. Failure to do so frequently necessitates the formation of a coalition
between the parties. This coalition’s formation necessitates a relatively high level of cooperation
and compromise, resulting in lower friction and abrasion among the various factions.
More Accountable - This system is more accountable when all factors are considered than the
pure presidential one. The ruling party is restrained both within and outside the legislative body,
and constituent parties must hear their voices while the minority party checks the ruling party.
Finally, the ceremonial head of state has a say in the direction that the ruling parties take.
Boosts Political Compromise - Each time a clear winner is not found or does not emerge in an
election, the leading contenders are required to enter into a coalition. This, of course, requires
some compromise as the parties will have to back down on some of their stances while at the
same time embracing others. The total of all these is good for the entire nation or society.
Guarantees Active Participation - Most people feel disenfranchised in a presidential system as,
for a large part, it is only the voices of the majority that reign supreme. A parliamentary system
gives voice to all and sundry regardless of how minuscule they may be as a percentage of the
total population. Thus more people are generally incentivized to participate in the electoral
process under this system.
Creates and Promotes Diversity - The truth is most societies are diverse and highly disintegrated.
Of all the political systems at the moment, only the parliamentary democracy seems to capture
this reality. This is mainly because it gives the different segments of the society the leeway to
send the representatives who hold their standpoints and opinions—that way, every segment of
the society feels well taken good care of.
Stops Societal Polarization - Further to the above is that it stops the polarization of society. It is
principally capable of serving different cadres of political parties concurrently rather than only
two monolithic parties or viewpoints. For this reason, the system welcomes as many kinds of
opinions as it can be. The friction that may arise between the various factions is stopped
considerably.
Puts a Limit to the Political Gridlock - The pace at which the laws are passed under this system is
faster than that of the pure presidential system. Before a bill is tabled in the legislative body, the
same has to be deliberated upon by the party or the coalition of parties that form the
government. Also, a ruling party enjoys a comfortable majority in the legislative body at any
given time. Thus, debates and votes are pure formalities.
More Responsible - When all factors are considered, parliamentary democracy is more
responsive to the masses’ needs and cries. Other than the need to hold the majority at any
given time, it is also subject to the vote of no confidence and other checks. People governed by
this system are hence more satisfied with the services they receive from the government.
Guarantees Greater Stability - Generally speaking, this form of governance is less prone to the
risk of political instability, unlike, say, the pure presidential system. It is also less affected by the
13.
14.
15.
16.
political coups, insurrections, and other issues that tend to make the nations ungovernable for a
large part. This is evidenced by 90% of the 35 countries that have maintained stable and ongoing
democracies globally having this system in place.
Enjoys Consistently High Approval Ratings - Lending greater credence to the above, this system
has enjoyed consistently high approval ratings. For instance, the approval rating of the US
Congress has averaged a paltry 20%, whereas that of the UK parliament is at about 40%. Many
hence seem to enjoy better services and a fairer degree of satisfaction when governed by the
parliamentary system.
Allows for Easier Formation of Political Parties - The political parties are the bedrock of
parliamentary democracy. As such, some safeguards and laws are specifically meant to facilitate
the formation of these parties in such areas. One striking aspect of this is that a party need not
necessarily have a more wide or national following to be registered or given a lease of life.
Hence, each person has a fairer chance of having his side heard and incorporated.
Great for ethnically-diverse Societies - Of all the political systems that be, none is as remarkable
for the ethnically-diverse societies as the parliamentary democracy. The political power in this
system is more uniformly divided and spread out than in the case of the pure presidential
system. Moreover, the head of government does not wield absolute power and control, as with
the pure presidential system.
Highly Adaptable - Change is inevitable. Indeed, societies will often have to change and adapt to
new realities from time to time. That calls for a fairer deal of flexibility on the part of the
structures that are placed for governance. Parliamentary democracy is, for a large part, more
flexible and hence highly adaptable to change than the puree presidential system.
List of Cons of Parliamentary Democracy
1. Suppresses Minorities - As explained above, the passage of a bill in this system is mainly a
formality. The ruling party, which often enjoys a comfortable majority, usually deliberates on
the provisions beforehand before the same is debated and voted on. Thus, the minority is only
heard but never taken seriously or have their views incorporated into the final bills.
2. Reduces Influences of Local Concerns - This form of governance reduces direct representations
at the local levels. That is given its forcing of the elected officials to compromise their stands to
rhyme with what the majority favors. Most often, these concerns are out of touch with the
reality on the ground, and they may not address the plight of the governed as need be.
3. Encourages Inconsistency - The form of government is quite unstable. If a party that constitutes
a coalition of parties that make up the government falls out with the ideals of that coalition, a
special election is held to fill the vacancy. The new leader may not have the same vision or plan
as the one that existed before. This, of course, leads to some inconsistencies along the way.
4. Gives the Voters a Limited Sphere of Influence - Under this system of governance, the voters do
not have a say on who exactly becomes the head of state. In many instances, the legislature
votes the head of state in power. Thus, citizens are essentially disenfranchised. They may also
not have a say on the kinds of decisions and mandates issued by the head of state.
5. Unpredictable Election Schedules - Given that elections may be held at any time, this form of
governance presents an unpredictable election schedule. People can go to vote without the
prior announcement of the same. This is disruptive and costly as the frequency may often get
too high and cost more.
6. Prone to Confusion and Mild Instability - There is also bound to be some confusion and mild
instability in these many unpredictable elections. We have already explained that a special
election is triggered each time the ruling party lacks or loses the simple majority it is supposed
to have. Then again, trouble may brew if the executive authority is kicked out or resigns before
completing his entire term in office.
7. Highly Susceptible to Manipulations - The parties that make up the ruling coalition may use the
loopholes within the structure to manipulate the outcomes. They may, for instance, sabotage
certain government operations, pull out of the coalition prematurely, or even team up with the
opposition to betray the government in whichever shape or form. Those acts do not potentially
bode well for the government and the smooth welfare of the people.
Country Risks Arising from the Home Country Legal Environment:
Country Risks Arising from the Host Country:
Country Risks Arising from the Home Country:
Managing Country Risk: