QuoteSingapore's governing People's Action Party (PAP) has won a decisive victory in the general election.
Partial results suggest the PAP is on course to increase its share of the vote. The party has won every election since independence in 1965.
Patriotic feeling over the death of long-term leader Lee Kuan Yew may have swelled the vote, analysts said.
The opposition, running in all constituencies for the first time, had hoped to challenge the PAP's dominance.
But initial results showed that the PAP had crossed the threshold to gain a majority in Singapore's 89-seat parliament.
The final result is expected in the coming hours.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the eldest son of PAP founder Lee Kuan Yew, said he was "humbled" by the result.
"Tomorrow will be better than today," he told supporters.
Singapore has more than two million registered voters
While the result was widely expected, the PAP's main rival - the Workers' Party - could end up with fewer than the seven seats it won in the last election. A number of smaller parties also ran.
The PAP's success has been attributed to its widespread popularity among Singaporeans - who have seen their country rapidly evolve into a first-world economy - as well as its tight political control.
But government stumbles in managing immigration and infrastructure, coupled with a greater desire by younger Singaporeans for political plurality, have led to gains by opposition parties over the years.
The Singapore Democratic Party's Chee Soon Juan, who was formerly bankrupted by defamation suits launched by Lee Kuan Yew, was hoping to stage a political comeback
If the last election was the PAP's nadir, then this one marked its return to glory.
In 2011 it scored 60% of the vote share - a good showing by most counts, but it was the party's worst ever performance - thanks to public unhappiness over an influx of foreigners, a housing shortage, and transport breakdowns.
It sought to resolve these problems, promised to listen to citizens more, and put in place slightly more generous social welfare policies. On Friday, voters rewarded the party with a bigger mandate.
Lingering feel-good vibes from last month's jubilee celebrations, and a renewed sense of gratitude to PAP founder and revered leader Lee Kuan Yew, triggered by his death in March, no doubt also played a part in voters' decisions.
The PAP's return to power was widely expected but its large margin was a surprise to many, not least to the main opposition Workers' Party (WP). It campaigned on a platform of providing an effective check on the PAP, but lost a constituency and saw its winning margins reduced in the few seats it retained.
The results thus cement the PAP's long-running political dominance in Singapore and highlight the long slog ahead for those pushing for political plurality with an electorate which, for now, appears unconvinced of its merits.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi62.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh101%2FMonoriu%2F692e065fc35232f710235fa513808054_zpsadnvzna2.jpg&hash=5b572e005ff19dacb5ceda35f37bae4bf299c4f6) (http://s62.photobucket.com/user/Monoriu/media/692e065fc35232f710235fa513808054_zpsadnvzna2.jpg.html)
A Chinese electorate chooses to act together as a rubber stamp; knock me down with a feather. :P
Quote from: mongers on September 11, 2015, 05:53:01 PM
A Chinese electorate chooses to act together as a rubber stamp; knock me down with a feather. :P
The people have spoken :P
One party state keeps electing the same party over and over. News at 11.
Quote from: The Larch on September 11, 2015, 06:08:02 PM
One party state keeps electing the same party over and over. News at 11.
Singapore is many things, but the actual voting is clean. Voters can choose alternative parties if they want to.
Quote from: Monoriu on September 11, 2015, 06:13:05 PM
Quote from: The Larch on September 11, 2015, 06:08:02 PM
One party state keeps electing the same party over and over. News at 11.
Singapore is many things, but the actual voting is clean. Voters can choose alternative parties if they want to.
It might have the trappings of a democratic system, but when the same party rules uninterrupted and with overwhelming majorities for more than 50 years (including a 12 year period with no opposition in parliament) you can't really call yourself a democracy, the system is rigged.
Quote from: The Larch on September 11, 2015, 06:33:10 PM
It might have the trappings of a democratic system, but when the same party rules uninterrupted and with overwhelming majorities for more than 50 years (including a 12 year period with no opposition in parliament) you can't really call yourself a democracy, the system is rigged.
I think Japan also had a multi-decade period when voters chose the same party over and over, from the 50s to the 90s. Can't deny that it is a democracy because of that though.
Singapore - I agree the system is unfair, but only to an extent. The fact remains that voters can choose alternatives but they didn't.
Quote from: The Larch on September 11, 2015, 06:33:10 PM
It might have the trappings of a democratic system, but when the same party rules uninterrupted and with overwhelming majorities for more than 50 years (including a 12 year period with no opposition in parliament) you can't really call yourself a democracy, the system is rigged.
Is Mexico aware of how you feel about their history from 1929 until 2000? :P
Quote from: The Larch on September 11, 2015, 06:33:10 PMIt might have the trappings of a democratic system, but when the same party rules uninterrupted and with overwhelming majorities for more than 50 years (including a 12 year period with no opposition in parliament) you can't really call yourself a democracy, the system is rigged.
isn't south africa the same?
South Africa has not had the same party for 50 years.
Quote from: Monoriu on September 11, 2015, 05:54:24 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 11, 2015, 05:53:01 PM
A Chinese electorate chooses to act together as a rubber stamp; knock me down with a feather. :P
The people have spoken :P
As it should be. Stability is ensured. :bowler:
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2015, 08:44:55 PM
South Africa has not had the same party for 50 years.
i'm going off recollection, but hasn't south africa had the same party since the fall of apartheid? if so, whether it's 30 or 50 years shouldn't matter.
Meh, I think it's easily possible for a democratic state to run fair elections and have the same people/party win over-and-over. Especially if they run the country successfully, keep the economy in good shape, and enforce rule of law. We may not think of Singapore being all that enlightened as a society, and the laws as overly harsh, but I don't doubt that most of the people there probably think the government serves them well.
PAP won nearly 70% of the vote, compared with 60% in the last election. In terms of seats, they got 83 out of 89. The opposition Workers' Party got 6 seats, one fewer than the previous number. They narrowly retained a group district worth 5 seats with 51% of the votes.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi62.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh101%2FMonoriu%2FLee-Kuan-Yew-1024x576BM-_zps2wdghzu7.jpg&hash=696fe6df884ad3f57fc4fd9d0b319754009bd2f6) (http://s62.photobucket.com/user/Monoriu/media/Lee-Kuan-Yew-1024x576BM-_zps2wdghzu7.jpg.html)
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 11, 2015, 10:56:52 PM
Meh, I think it's easily possible for a democratic state to run fair elections and have the same people/party win over-and-over. Especially if they run the country successfully, keep the economy in good shape, and enforce rule of law. We may not think of Singapore being all that enlightened as a society, and the laws as overly harsh, but I don't doubt that most of the people there probably think the government serves them well.
Well and also you end up with the machinery on your side. How else to explain how say Pelosi has remained in office so long?
Quote from: Monoriu on September 11, 2015, 06:50:59 PM
Quote from: The Larch on September 11, 2015, 06:33:10 PM
It might have the trappings of a democratic system, but when the same party rules uninterrupted and with overwhelming majorities for more than 50 years (including a 12 year period with no opposition in parliament) you can't really call yourself a democracy, the system is rigged.
I think Japan also had a multi-decade period when voters chose the same party over and over, from the 50s to the 90s. Can't deny that it is a democracy because of that though.
Singapore - I agree the system is unfair, but only to an extent. The fact remains that voters can choose alternatives but they didn't.
I don't claim to know enough of the Japanese situation, but indeed a 1955-93 period of uninterrupted government by the same party is hugely worrying. At least in Japan there has been alternance in power since then (although very short lived, LDP lost power in 93, recovered it in 96, lost it again in 2009 and recovered it again in 2012) and the LDP never had such an overwhelming grip of power like the case in Singapore (it never had more than 59% of the votes and their parlamentary majorities were not as crushing).
Being a democracy is more than ocasionally casting a vote, and in the case of Singapore obviously the ruling clique has rigged the system to their advantage and are not going to allow a real opposition to challenge them.
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2015, 08:41:33 PM
Quote from: The Larch on September 11, 2015, 06:33:10 PM
It might have the trappings of a democratic system, but when the same party rules uninterrupted and with overwhelming majorities for more than 50 years (including a 12 year period with no opposition in parliament) you can't really call yourself a democracy, the system is rigged.
Is Mexico aware of how you feel about their history from 1929 until 2000? :P
The PRI for most of the XXth century is not exactly a shining beacon of fairness either. :p I mean, when you call yourself "Revolutionary Institutional Party" it's plainly obvious that you're not exactly big on coherence. :lol:
Quote from: The Larch on September 12, 2015, 11:20:59 AM
The PRI for most of the XXth century is not exactly a shining beacon of fairness either. :p I mean, when you call yourself "Revolutionary Institutional Party" it's plainly obvious that you're not exactly big on coherence. :lol:
Were their institutions revolutionary? Or did they institutionalize revolution?
Quote from: Syt on September 12, 2015, 11:23:51 AM
Quote from: The Larch on September 12, 2015, 11:20:59 AM
The PRI for most of the XXth century is not exactly a shining beacon of fairness either. :p I mean, when you call yourself "Revolutionary Institutional Party" it's plainly obvious that you're not exactly big on coherence. :lol:
Were their institutions revolutionary? Or did they institutionalize revolution?
It was founded as "Partido Nacional Revolucionario" in 1929, in the aftermath of the Mexican Revolution. In 1938 is was renamed as "Partido de la Revolución Mexicana" and then in 1946 it adopted its current name. They held power continuously during that whole period. It was basically the political body that the winners of the revolution created to create stability and keep the peace between their different factions (it was created after Álvaro Obregón, a general during the revolution and president of México afterwards, was assasinated in 1928 by a radical catholic while in charge).
Quote from: Monoriu on September 11, 2015, 05:51:07 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi62.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh101%2FMonoriu%2F692e065fc35232f710235fa513808054_zpsadnvzna2.jpg&hash=5b572e005ff19dacb5ceda35f37bae4bf299c4f6) (http://s62.photobucket.com/user/Monoriu/media/692e065fc35232f710235fa513808054_zpsadnvzna2.jpg.html)
Dude has freakishly long fingers.
He's popular with the ladies.
Quote from: The Larch on September 11, 2015, 06:33:10 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 11, 2015, 06:13:05 PM
Quote from: The Larch on September 11, 2015, 06:08:02 PM
One party state keeps electing the same party over and over. News at 11.
Singapore is many things, but the actual voting is clean. Voters can choose alternative parties if they want to.
It might have the trappings of a democratic system, but when the same party rules uninterrupted and with overwhelming majorities for more than 50 years (including a 12 year period with no opposition in parliament) you can't really call yourself a democracy, the system is rigged.
Bavaria has been ruled by one party since 1957 and it surely is a democracy.
Quote from: Syt on September 12, 2015, 11:23:51 AM
Quote from: The Larch on September 12, 2015, 11:20:59 AM
The PRI for most of the XXth century is not exactly a shining beacon of fairness either. :p I mean, when you call yourself "Revolutionary Institutional Party" it's plainly obvious that you're not exactly big on coherence. :lol:
Were their institutions revolutionary? Or did they institutionalize revolution?
The latter.
Quote from: Zanza on September 12, 2015, 03:15:28 PM
Quote from: The Larch on September 11, 2015, 06:33:10 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 11, 2015, 06:13:05 PM
Quote from: The Larch on September 11, 2015, 06:08:02 PM
One party state keeps electing the same party over and over. News at 11.
Singapore is many things, but the actual voting is clean. Voters can choose alternative parties if they want to.
It might have the trappings of a democratic system, but when the same party rules uninterrupted and with overwhelming majorities for more than 50 years (including a 12 year period with no opposition in parliament) you can't really call yourself a democracy, the system is rigged.
Bavaria has been ruled by one party since 1957 and it surely is a democracy.
Yep. I tend to view the true test of a democracy as seeing a peaceful transition of power--holding power for that long might be a red flag, but it's not a guarantee of a rigged system.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2015, 04:19:50 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 11, 2015, 10:56:52 PM
Meh, I think it's easily possible for a democratic state to run fair elections and have the same people/party win over-and-over. Especially if they run the country successfully, keep the economy in good shape, and enforce rule of law. We may not think of Singapore being all that enlightened as a society, and the laws as overly harsh, but I don't doubt that most of the people there probably think the government serves them well.
Well and also you end up with the machinery on your side. How else to explain how say Pelosi has remained in office so long?
Because she is a talented politician that you just happen to be jealous of.
No, I don't think a) that's true as I can't think of what she has that I'd want (well maybe more money than me) and b) theoretical jealousy would have no impact on why she has stayed in office so long.
To expand upon what I was saying, it is rare that she ever gets less than 80% of the vote. Says something about the viability of opposing candidates.
Quote from: Zanza on September 12, 2015, 03:15:28 PM
Bavaria has been ruled by one party since 1957 and it surely is a democracy.
Regions are a different matter. Bavaria has been ruled by the opposition from Bonn and Berlin, so there's little reason to switch just because the grass is greener. Also, parties tend to find an equilibrium nationally, but that often leaves particular regions firmly in one camp or the other.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 13, 2015, 09:06:26 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 12, 2015, 03:15:28 PM
Quote from: The Larch on September 11, 2015, 06:33:10 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 11, 2015, 06:13:05 PM
Quote from: The Larch on September 11, 2015, 06:08:02 PM
One party state keeps electing the same party over and over. News at 11.
Singapore is many things, but the actual voting is clean. Voters can choose alternative parties if they want to.
It might have the trappings of a democratic system, but when the same party rules uninterrupted and with overwhelming majorities for more than 50 years (including a 12 year period with no opposition in parliament) you can't really call yourself a democracy, the system is rigged.
Bavaria has been ruled by one party since 1957 and it surely is a democracy.
Yep. I tend to view the true test of a democracy as seeing a peaceful transition of power--holding power for that long might be a red flag, but it's not a guarantee of a rigged system.
And it would not be the first time that Bavaria is called a one party region. :P
In Spain we have Andalucía and PSOE, they've been ruling there since 1982, 1978 if you count the pre-autonomy governments. They've been teetering to get kicked out for a couple of times but they have a real iron clad grip on power there.
Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2015, 02:09:46 AM
No, I don't think a) that's true as I can't think of what she has that I'd want (well maybe more money than me) and b) theoretical jealousy would have no impact on why she has stayed in office so long.
To expand upon what I was saying, it is rare that she ever gets less than 80% of the vote. Says something about the viability of opposing candidates.
Holding that office allows her the title of "Queen of San Fransisco" I title you desperately wanted in your younger days.
Sorry, Raz, but you gone a bit mongers-like with that most recent post.
Alright, I don't know why you have an unreasonable hatred for the woman.
I don't. I don't even have a hatred. :D