The paper under investigation is entitled Singapore: Authoritarian but Totally Competitive. In the course of the article, the author, Stephan Ortmann, cogitates about the nature of changes peculiar to the society and economy of Singapore. The given concern is touched upon because of the increase in the level of interest devoted to the given Asian state. Singapores general elections of 2011 are taken as the key point of the further evolution of the country because of their significant impact on all spheres of its existence. The world considered it to be the first crucial step towards the democratization and improvement of the situation related to human rights. In the paper, the author tends to show another perspective of the given process, emphasizing the positive impact these changes have on the economy of the state and development of its competitiveness. Therefore, Ortmann assumes that Singapore “has gone from being simply an authoritarian regime to being a competitive authoritarian regime” (153). The given statement is supported by the deep investigation of the most important shifts triggered by the general elections. Performing the analysis, the author underlines the idea of the beneficial impact of governmental control over the economy of a state. The introduction of the given practice promotes the establishment of real control over the most important branches of industry and contributes to the increase of the level of competitiveness. At the same time, Ortmann doubts the initiation of the process of democratization triggered by the elections (153). The author insists that the state remains authoritarian while the opposition hopes for the introduction of the two-party or multi-party system. Yet, the situation remains almost unchanged. Analyzing the author’s claims, his vision of the development of the competitiveness could be taken as logical and justified. The strengthening of governmental control will obviously lead to the improvement of the performance of various industries and the state of Singapore’s economy. However, it is possible to doubt Ortmanns vision of the democratization of the country. The above-mentioned elections could be taken as a sign of the significant improvement of the situation. They might also trigger the significant change process resulting in great social shifts. For these reasons, it is difficult to accept the idea of the total failure of the democratization and preservation of the past authoritarian system. Additionally, there is one more important concern raised by the article. The author admits the increasing role of the Internet in the state and the involvement of a number of users into the vigorous online discussions (Ortmann 160). This fact could be taken as another important evidence of the democratization of the state. The Internet provides unlimited access to impartial sources and contributes to the evolution of the conscience of people. For this reason, the increase in the popularity of the given tool could be accepted as one of the most significant concerns peculiar to modern Singapore. On the whole, the given paper presents a reader with credible information related to the changes in Singapore triggered by the elections of 2011. At the same time, it is crucial to keep in mind that the author presents his own vision of the situation. In this regard, the evaluation of the article and critical approach is needed to make certain conclusions. Works Cited