In 1965, Singapore became independent. While this country¡¦s history is not a long one, nor is its surface area expansive, its economic prowess has astounded all. It is truly a city state which deserves closer examination. The long rule of the People¡¦s Action Party includes the terms of Prime Ministers Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong, and Lee Hsien Loong. While this period has been marked with outstanding economic accomplishments, Singapore¡¦s political development has been primarily under an authoritarian leadership model. This study divides these three administrations into the Lee Kuan Yew period and post Lee Kuan Yew period and analyzes methods of rule the People¡¦s Action Party takes with respect to politics, economic issues, and social issues in creating its authoritarian regime today. In the political realm, the People¡¦s Action Party limited opposition from gaining political control through intended and actual operations. In the economic realm, they created large nationally owned companies covering an enormous scope and, through the cooperation of labor, capital, and governance, kept their hand on the levers of the economy. With respect to society, the People¡¦s Action Party controlled media and news publications in order to slow the development of civil society. Thus, they have achieved stability in their authoritarian rule. The same time, the theory through Western authoritarian, it is attributed to the authoritarian rule of the common features in order to distinguish between Singapore today is what type of authoritarian regime. Found that Singapore, although from time to time that congressional elections are held regularly, but still did not have a fair and free election system, therefore be classified as a mixed constitution "competitive authoritarian" regimes. Contemporaneously,western theories are utilized to draw conclusions concerning the common characteristics of authoritarianism and distinguish what type of authoritarian regime Singapore is today. This study finds though Singapore holds regular parliamentary elections from time to time, it has never held fair or free elections and must therefore be classified as a hybrid ¡§competitive authoritarian¡¨ form of government.