When the same party has won every single election since 1959, you have to wonder if they mean anything.

If a population vote the same party in every election cycle, does that mean the elections are pointless?

Or are you suggesting the elections are marred by fraud? It has to be one of these two.

It is possible that SK PAP politicians are just damn good at their jobs -- The modern history of Singapore does seem to suggest this.

But it's also possible that no viable oppositions are allowed to organize effectively enough to compete fairly.

My personal yardstick for judging a healthy and mature democracy is counting how many times political power has changed hands without violence -- Singapore is yet to score after 60 years.

> But it's also possible that no viable oppositions are allowed to organize effectively enough to compete fairly.

The odds are stacked against the opposition — for some reason, elected Members of Parliament are required to manage their individual town councils as well. The opposition that won a group constituency recently got a lawsuit slapped against them for "mismanagement" [1].

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/dgbe25/ahtc_case...

It's a mix. PAP are quite competent and has improved lifes greatly. On the hand there is the GRC concept that screw opposition. GRC are constitutcies which are worth multiple parliament seats. Only one was won by opposition and that was by a razor thin margin. GRC also make gerymendering easier and less obvious.

There is a third option, that the election system is designed to allow only the desired result. For example, only two of the five possible Singapore Presidential elections have been contested.

> There is a third option, that the election system is designed to allow only the desired result. For example, only two of the five possible Singapore Presidential elections have been contested.

Adding on: this is because the PAP in Singapore controls more than two-thirds of parliament [1], and have been able to push through constitutional changes without much consultation [2].

I think the increase in the private-sector requirement for candidates of our presidency (overtly disqualifying Tan Cheng Bock, a former PAP MP who was a candidate for the presidential elections, and is now the leader of an opposition party) slipped past many of our political critics until it was too late; a lot of uproar was focused on the elections being reserved for people from a specific ethnic group [3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Parliament_of_Singapore

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Singapore#Amen...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_elections_in_Sing...

Singaporean here - I don't think they are faked. It's just that we don't have strong opposition party. Many opposition parties here spent majority of their time complaining every single decision the government makes instead of making actual contribution to the society.

Sometimes SNG expat here. Why exactly do you think that is?

Surely there is enough highly talented, smart people to have a crack at a political office that's been held for decades and of course an enthusiastic young generation who have lived under this system perhaps interested in a change? It's a country with one of the highest average IQ's on Earth and I'm always intrigued by the statement "no viable opposition". There's definitely a viable everything else in the nation, wondering why politics is so different. It's an amazing place to live from my Australian perspective.

I'd argue that everyone couldn't care less given the history and are fine with the system as exists. Which seems to backed up by a lot of elections.

My theory is people who want to join politics, do it for power, for money, for status. Put yourself in their shoes, which party would you affiliate with to set yourself up? PAP also have an extensive network of grassroot organizations to recruit any young talents who want to join. It's very hard to change the status quo unless PAP leadership makes a series of catastrophic mistakes.

> My theory is people who want to join politics, do it for power, for money, for status. Put yourself in their shoes, which party would you affiliate with to set yourself up?

Not all political candidates seek power, money, or status.

Some might just want parliament to be more diverse than one party making up more than two-thirds of it, and having the power to push through constitutional changes any time they want.

Aspiring politicians who join the PAP hoping to steer it from within probably haven't thought about how they're subject to the party whip [1], and how nobody has disobeyed the whip since Tan Cheng Bock.

[1] https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/explainer-what-does-wh...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tan_Cheng_Bock#Nominated_Membe...

It's sort of a Catch-22 but worse. No one good joins the opposition parties because they don't stand a chance of winning, and the opposition parties don't stand a chance of winning because no one good joins them. Even if the opposition parties were suddenly magically packed full of talent one year, the PAP still has the senior vote, track record, civil servant connections, and actual governing experience for Singapore that none of the opposition could possibly have. Singaporeans don't elect on ideals and promises for change, they elect on feelings of stability and security. The only way I can see an opposition party putting up real competition and having a chance at attaining a majority in parliament is if a quarter to half of the PAP schisms and joins the WP, which isn't likely.

> Many opposition parties here spent majority of their time complaining every single decision the government makes instead of making actual contribution to the society.

What would you consider "actual contribution to the society"? Any chance you could give examples of some things you would like to see opposition candidates do?

No, it's certainly not faked. There is no viable oppositions, the reason for this is a whole different story. Many of my Singaporean friends would GLADLY vote for an opposition party to keep PAP in check but they simply don't match the quality of PAP's candidates.

> they simply don't match the quality of PAP's candidates.

Is that by design?

I would say it's a positive feedback loop. PAP is the main party, so young talents are more likely to join, which in turn makes PAP stronger.

> PAP is the main party, so young talents are more likely to join, which in turn makes PAP stronger.

What makes "young talents" suitable for good governance?

The elections are probably real. It's the politics that are faked and the opposition hampered.