This article applies a theoretical approach that focuses on the interaction between media, politicians, activists, and citizens to investigate the influence of social media during two recent general elections in Singapore. Taking into account the combination of authoritarian governance and popular elections in this city-state, this article utilizes a mixed methods approach (i.e., a combination of statistics and virtual ethnography) to analyze four aspects of this influence. First, social media are used by the opposition parties because they are the only alternative to use in disseminating information and fostering dialogue. However, the ruling authorities use the same social media to counter the opposition. Second, social media empower the opposition by serving as efficient tools to mobilize, organize, and engage active citizens. However, compared to the traditional grassroots approach, online mobilization is not as effective as expected. Third, social media are able to change the perceptions of ordinary citizens regarding the opinion climate, which could be to either the advantage or the disadvantage of the opposition. Finally, the youngest age group (i.e., 21-30 years) was surveyed in both 2011 and 2015 to investigate their responses to these changes. Because of the complex influence of social media in Singapore, the citizens in this age group are particularly prone to being swing voters.

Within U.S. cities, public–private partnerships (PPPs) consisting of government agencies and property developers have been dominated by the profit-driven goals of the private partners. In sharp contrast, Singapore’s PPPs are state dominated and aligned with general policy goals. As elsewhere, they are project specific and oriented toward promoting economic development as well as housing construction. This article discusses Singapore’s governance model and examines 3 examples of PPPs there. It shows that state land ownership and investments limit the leeway of the private partners and that the impetus for the project as a rule comes from public agencies. In relation to principles of justice—defined here as equity, democracy, and diversity—the projects ensure that gains will be realized by the public sector and that housing will be socially integrated. Failures of equity, however, are involved in the lack of rights for the foreign construction workers building the projects, while the exclusion of the public from the planning process constitutes a failure of democracy. In sum, then, PPPs in Singapore show that public land ownership gives the public sector control over the distribution of benefits within PPPs but, at the same time, the government’s decision making, for better and worse, is relatively unchecked.