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.

Leadership behavior theory and practice¡ÐResearch of the case Leadership behavior Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore. Abstract Leadship capability is not only inherent, it must be created by leaning and training also. And the leadership should have characteristics, which depends on the surroundings. Basically leadership has three types, which are dictatorship, laissez-faire, democratic. A leader must be responsible for his subordinates, team and superintendents. Excellent morality and advanced knowledge are the requisites for a good leader. The goal of leadship behavior is to prevent the troubles about people and things, then furthermore start his career and make contributions to the peoples. Finally he is to earn the sympathy of the crowd and erect his enterprise. The leadership behavior is show of creative intelligence and skill during solving the problems of ¡§people¡¨ and ¡§matters¡¨. It condenses the moral, wisdom, experience, ability and social relationship of the leader and displays the outstanding enchantment and boldness. It depends on the brain to operate powerfully, make use of main theme, depend on concentrate one¡¦s attention. Leadership is an very important intellect, it needs both theory and applications. In the daily life and the process of dealing the human affairs, people experience the tastes of leading and being lead. However, in the history, it is not difficult to find that some leaders are very prominent and bring happiness to human being, while some are very bad, caused masses in anguish and distressed. The public would justify that he is a success or a failure. Singapore is well known as a ¡§garden city¡¨ as well as a lawful nation. The government is famous for it ¡§being small with strength and being capable with uprightness¡¨. The leader, Lee Kuan Yew is the greatest contributor. Although he is criticized as tyrant, arbitrary, authoritative, he had been always persisting in his idea, not excited by the Western merits, advocacy ¡§Asian Values¡¨ and ¡§Confucianism¡¨ executing his ¡§Eastern authoritarian leadership style¡¨. Under his conduct, Singapore changes from head to feet and is praised as a miracle of ¡§politics and economics¡¨ in the world. Surely, that a country is strong or feeble depends on many aspects but the leader with sapience and characteristics of a statesman plays the main role. As is said, ¡§soldiers moves around their general¡¨, a leader constantly creates environments, then the people become accustomed in the district and go with his action as the leader go along with the timely opportunity, topographical advantage and social harmony. Lee Kuan Yew and his elitist cadres established the stable foundation for burgeoning by means of subjugating, candid, sagacious and practical leading style. We can examine the political leadership manner of Lee Kuan Yew carefully¡HHow he exert the leadership ability to confront challenge, break through predicament, overcome troubles and finally win the victory, shows boldness, intelligent resolution, braveness of a statesman everywhere. Anyway we can learn much more from Lee Kuan Yew.

<p>This thesis will show how authoritarian governments rest legitimacy on their ability to create socio-economic development. It will point to some methods used to consolidate power by authoritarian leaders in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. An authoritarian regime that successfully creates development is strengthened and does not call for democratic change in the short run. It is suggested that the widely endorsed Lipset hypothesis, that development will eventually bring democratic transition, is true only when further socio-economic development requires that the economy transfers from being based on industrial manufacturing to knowledge and creativity – not on lower levels of development. Malaysia and Singapore have reached – or try to reach – this level of development today, but restrictions on their civil societies have still not been lifted.</p><p>This thesis describes modern political history in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia in a Machiavellian tradition. The historical perspective will give a more or less plausible idea of how authoritarian regimes consolidated au-thority and what role development policies played in the leaders’ claims for authority. The conclusion will give a suggestion on how the political future in these three countries might evolve. It will point to the importance of an active and free civil society as a means to develop the nations further, rather than oppression.</p><p>This thesis will try to point to the dos and don’ts for authoritarian regimes. The ideas of Plato, Machiavelli and Hobbes provide the structures and methods that authoritarian regimes apply. It will be shown that a regime will disintegrate when it fails to comply with Plato’s and Machiavelli’s ideas. Al-though ancient, Plato and Machiavelli provide methods and structures that seem to carry relevance to the modern history of Southeast Asia.</p><p>I will point to how authoritarian rule can be maintained in the long run. What is required from the political leadership, what are their strategies and methods? What makes people to tolerate or topple authoritarian regimes? Why do some authoritarian regimes successfully create development while others do not? These are some of the questions this thesis will try to an-swer.</p>

<p>This thesis will show how authoritarian governments rest legitimacy on their ability to create socio-economic development. It will point to some methods used to consolidate power by authoritarian leaders in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. An authoritarian regime that successfully creates development is strengthened and does not call for democratic change in the short run. It is suggested that the widely endorsed Lipset hypothesis, that development will eventually bring democratic transition, is true only when further socio-economic development requires that the economy transfers from being based on industrial manufacturing to knowledge and creativity – not on lower levels of development. Malaysia and Singapore have reached – or try to reach – this level of development today, but restrictions on their civil societies have still not been lifted.</p><p>This thesis describes modern political history in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia in a Machiavellian tradition. The historical perspective will give a more or less plausible idea of how authoritarian regimes consolidated au-thority and what role development policies played in the leaders’ claims for authority. The conclusion will give a suggestion on how the political future in these three countries might evolve. It will point to the importance of an active and free civil society as a means to develop the nations further, rather than oppression.</p><p>This thesis will try to point to the dos and don’ts for authoritarian regimes. The ideas of Plato, Machiavelli and Hobbes provide the structures and methods that authoritarian regimes apply. It will be shown that a regime will disintegrate when it fails to comply with Plato’s and Machiavelli’s ideas. Although ancient, Plato and Machiavelli provide methods and structures that seem to carry relevance to the modern history of Southeast Asia.</p><p>I will point to how authoritarian rule can be maintained in the long run. What is required from the political leadership, what are their strategies and methods? What makes people to tolerate or topple authoritarian regimes? Why do some authoritarian regimes successfully create development while others do not? These are some of the questions this thesis will try to answer.</p>

國際政治向來是由大國主導，傳統觀念中總認為小國必然是逆來順受的一方，也就是說，在國際無政府的狀態下，一個國家的命運將取決於這個國家所擁有的權力資源之多寡與大小，弱肉強食成了國際現實的生存法則。但小國真的如此宿命嗎？我們從新加坡今日的發展及其在國際外交舞台上的表現，看到了最好的反證。 新加坡由於位處太平洋和印度洋之間頻繁的國際航道必經之地，為其贏得「東方直布羅陀」的美譽，加上地扼麻六甲海峽航運線，在戰略及貿易路線上均具有影響區域政治的能力。基此樞紐性的關鍵地位，使新加坡在經濟上得以很自然的發展成為東南亞各國工商之輻輳中心、航運中心及金融中心。 對於這個面積約等於大台北地區，並只有香港一半大小的國家，其所散發出來的光芒，卻令人無法忽視。在新加坡這個蕞爾小國，如果問新加坡人生存發展成功之道是什麼？最常聽見的答案可能就是「務實」這兩個字。因為務實，使新加坡經貿實力在亞洲四小龍常保領先地位；因為務實，使得其國家雖小，但在國際舞台上的聲音卻遠超過其他領土比它大好幾倍的國家。 對於新加坡領導者來說，影響其外交政策制訂最重要的考量就是新加坡的脆弱性。自人民行動黨(People's Action Party，PAP)組黨以來，它一直不認為一個獨立的新加坡可以好好生存下去，畢竟它實在太小，人口也太少，加上缺乏天然資源，根本沒有獨立的條件。因此在被迫與馬來西亞分離後，如何在周遭並不友善的馬來海洋中求生存，是對新加坡領導者智慧最大考驗。 然而，在經過人民行動黨第一代領導者三十多年的帶領下，不僅實現了國家的現代化，更讓新加坡成為小國成功的最佳例子。至今，新加坡已是電子、造船、精密機器製造、光學機器、煉油和電腦零件等高科技發展中心，此外，它也是東南亞金融中心及國際航空、電訊與旅遊會議中心。優越的地理位置使新加坡成為東南亞轉口貿易中心，並同時也是世界最繁忙的海港之一。優秀的人才與技術，讓新加坡的海域鑽油塔建造業直逼美國與日本，名列世界第三，並獲得「東方的休士頓」美譽。 對外關係繫乎一國之安危，對於新興國家更是其命脈之根源與建國歷程中的重要基石。新加坡只是一個蕞爾小國，其所以能在國際舞台上生存甚至特立獨行，必有其獨特之道。而其外交政策運用之成功，也讓這個小國能在接二連三的驚濤駭浪中，從容的發展其繁榮的經濟與解決其社會問題。 雖然李光耀已於1990年退休，交棒給新一代的領導者，但新加坡可以說是在李光耀任內建設完成的。在其任內，李光耀不僅致力於國內經濟的重建，對於國家外交政策更是深謀遠慮，為小國外交立下良好的典範。李光耀為新加坡打下深厚的基礎，也讓新加坡成為第三世界新興國家學習的對象。 新加坡雖小，但其對於生存與發展之強烈企圖心卻是不容忽視。新加坡得以在面對強敵壓境的情況下，藉由對於國際環境變化的體察，靈活地避免本身所遭受的限制，並適時運用內外環境所提供的機會在多次的危機中獲得生存的機會，化不可能為可能，創造出今日的「新加坡奇蹟」。 傳統對於外交政策的研究多半將重心置於大國身上，而傳統上所謂的外交多半只注重依靠軍事手段及政治權謀來達成國家的利益，即所謂的「高政治(high politics)」。但在第二次世界大戰結束後，亞洲、非洲及拉丁美洲殖民地紛紛獲得獨立，新興小國遂如雨後春筍般的成立，加上國際經濟組織的成立，經濟議題逐漸成為國際舞台的重心，也大大降低了軍事的傳統地位，這種發展對於小國尤其有利。 Peter J. Katzenstein在研究西歐小國因應全球市場所採取的策略後，認為這些小國的成功之道在於經濟彈性的平衡(balance of economic flexibility) 與政治穩定(political stability)，新加坡顯然就是依循這種發展模式。由於能充分運用其地理位置的優勢，加上吸引外資投入的強烈誘因，使得新加坡迅速成為區域和國際商業的中間經濟體，成為東南亞及國際性的製造與服務業中心。對於新加坡外交政策之研究，也許理性決策模式(rational decision-making model) 可作為一個有用的模式。 新加坡可以說是研究小國外交相當好的一個對象，在台灣面臨外交困境的時候，我們常問：「小國是否無外交?」由新加坡對外事務的表現中，我們得到了答案。因此本論文也將針對國際關係理論長久以來所忽視的課題-小國外交來作一探討。 本論文將探討李光耀執政時期，對於國家定位、國家發展的理念及對外的政策與觀點，並將分別敘述新加坡對國際政治與區域組織的參與及立場。 李光耀時期新加坡外交政策之研究(1965-1990) 目 錄 第一章 緒論 第一節 研究動機與目的………………………………………… 2 第二節 研究方法與分析架構…………………………………… 5 第三節 研究範圍………………………………………………… 9 第四節 資料來源與研究限制…………………………………… 10 第二章 影響新加坡外交政策的因素 第一節 國內歷史層面…………………………………………… 12 壹、歷史背景……………………………………………… 12 貳、地理環境……………………………………………… 26 參、人口及社會結構……………………………………… 28 肆、政府因素……………………………………………… 31 伍、經濟因素……………………………………………… 33 第二節 國際環境層面…………………………………………… 44 壹、第二次世界大戰後東南亞國際情勢………………… 44 貳、東南亞區域組織的成立………………………… … 48 第三節 決策者因素…………………………………………… 56 第三章 新加坡外交政策取向與國家角色 第一節 外交政策取向…………………………………………… 68 第二節 國家角色………………………………………………… 80 第四章 新加坡與區域國家的關係 第一節 新加坡與馬來西亞…………………………………… 91 第二節 新加坡與印尼………………………………………… 104 第三節 新加坡對柬埔寨問題的態度……………………… 119 第五章 新加坡與東南亞國家協會的關係………………………132 第六章 新加坡與列強的關係 第一節 新加坡與英國……………………………………………154 第二節 新加坡與美國………………………………………… 162 第三節 新加坡與中共………………………………………… 176 第四節 新加坡與蘇聯……………………………………………197 第七章 結論…………………………………………………… 220 參考書目………………………………………………………… 234 附表 表2-1 人民行動黨選舉得票率(1959-1988)…………… 25 表2-2 新加坡種族人口變化表………………………… 30 表2-3 新加坡對外貿易(1965-1990)…………………… 42 表2-4 新加坡對外貿易出口國(1966-1989)…………… 42 表2-5 新加坡主要進口來源國(1966-1989)………… 43 表2-6 1988年新加坡的十大貿易伙伴………………… 43 表4-1 印尼與新加坡海空軍聯合演習…………………118 表4-2 蘇聯經濟援助越南金額統計表(1976-1975)……123 表5-1 東協五國區域內貿易量佔區域內貿易總額百分比.……… 148 表5-2 東協五國區域內貿易額與占對外貿易總額比重………… 149 表5-3 東協與新加坡的貿易額及佔本國對外貿易總額的比例……149 表6-1 新加坡與英國總貿易額…………………………161 表6-2 美國與東協國家經濟的往來(1990)……………169 表6-3 新加坡與中國大陸貿易概況表(1970-1990)……194 表6-4 東南亞各國人口、獨立年代與中共和前蘇聯建交日期…… 195 表6-5 新加坡主要進口來源國(1984-1990)……………196 表6-6 新加坡出口主要目的地(1984-1990)……………196 表6-7 新加坡與蘇聯之貿易往來………………………218

This thesis will show how authoritarian governments rest legitimacy on their ability to create socio-economic development. It will point to some methods used to consolidate power by authoritarian leaders in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. An authoritarian regime that successfully creates development is strengthened and does not call for democratic change in the short run. It is suggested that the widely endorsed Lipset hypothesis, that development will eventually bring democratic transition, is true only when further socio-economic development requires that the economy transfers from being based on industrial manufacturing to knowledge and creativity – not on lower levels of development. Malaysia and Singapore have reached – or try to reach – this level of development today, but restrictions on their civil societies have still not been lifted. This thesis describes modern political history in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia in a Machiavellian tradition. The historical perspective will give a more or less plausible idea of how authoritarian regimes consolidated au-thority and what role development policies played in the leaders’ claims for authority. The conclusion will give a suggestion on how the political future in these three countries might evolve. It will point to the importance of an active and free civil society as a means to develop the nations further, rather than oppression. This thesis will try to point to the dos and don’ts for authoritarian regimes. The ideas of Plato, Machiavelli and Hobbes provide the structures and methods that authoritarian regimes apply. It will be shown that a regime will disintegrate when it fails to comply with Plato’s and Machiavelli’s ideas. Although ancient, Plato and Machiavelli provide methods and structures that seem to carry relevance to the modern history of Southeast Asia. I will point to how authoritarian rule can be maintained in the long run. What is required from the political leadership, what are their strategies and methods? What makes people to tolerate or topple authoritarian regimes? Why do some authoritarian regimes successfully create development while others do not? These are some of the questions this thesis will try to answer.

This thesis will show how authoritarian governments rest legitimacy on their ability to create socio-economic development. It will point to some methods used to consolidate power by authoritarian leaders in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. An authoritarian regime that successfully creates development is strengthened and does not call for democratic change in the short run. It is suggested that the widely endorsed Lipset hypothesis, that development will eventually bring democratic transition, is true only when further socio-economic development requires that the economy transfers from being based on industrial manufacturing to knowledge and creativity – not on lower levels of development. Malaysia and Singapore have reached – or try to reach – this level of development today, but restrictions on their civil societies have still not been lifted. This thesis describes modern political history in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia in a Machiavellian tradition. The historical perspective will give a more or less plausible idea of how authoritarian regimes consolidated au-thority and what role development policies played in the leaders’ claims for authority. The conclusion will give a suggestion on how the political future in these three countries might evolve. It will point to the importance of an active and free civil society as a means to develop the nations further, rather than oppression. This thesis will try to point to the dos and don’ts for authoritarian regimes. The ideas of Plato, Machiavelli and Hobbes provide the structures and methods that authoritarian regimes apply. It will be shown that a regime will disintegrate when it fails to comply with Plato’s and Machiavelli’s ideas. Al-though ancient, Plato and Machiavelli provide methods and structures that seem to carry relevance to the modern history of Southeast Asia. I will point to how authoritarian rule can be maintained in the long run. What is required from the political leadership, what are their strategies and methods? What makes people to tolerate or topple authoritarian regimes? Why do some authoritarian regimes successfully create development while others do not? These are some of the questions this thesis will try to an-swer.