{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02058590657165479, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.723404255319149, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Of inequality and irritation: new agendas and activism in Malaysia and Singapore

Democratization may best be understood in terms of movement towards fair representation and empowerment across all society. Electoral authoritarian, or “hybrid”, regimes fall far short of this mark, but not identically so. Malaysia and Singapore, quintessential hybrid regimes, demonstrate well how specific institutional configurations matter. As socio-economic grievances meet with new space for articulation, both these states have seen efforts to press liberalization from the grassroots up, by opening access to policy agendas or bringing new voices to the table. Those efforts span both institutional and non-institutional domains, from electoral mobilization, to mass protests for institutional reform, to endeavours to reshape relations between voters and parties. Available now across classes and cleavages to an atypical extent, the spread and scope of such tactics begs a reassessment of space and options for voice in specific illiberal orders. The progress of these efforts informs our understanding of participation and contestation in persistently, but differently, hybrid Malaysia and Singapore, with implications for our understanding of regime types more broadly.