Representative democracy in Singapore has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 28, 2014 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 18, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Singapore Government believes representative democracy is better understood as focusing on the electorate choosing political parties than individual Members of Parliament (Parliament House pictured)?

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Singapore Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

I understand that this article was written as a school project. Unfortunately, it does read like a school essay. It might help to restructure the lead following the advice in WP:Lead, and to look over WP:Writing better articles for a firmer idea of how to structure encyclopaedic articles. I think there's some good research gone into this, with some interesting information, which would be very useful; however, I think the article could be copy-edited and restructured to better assist the general reader in accessing the information. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that before in another article, mostly that it appeared to be a textbook or lecture point, but only parts of "Freedom of speech and expression" and "Freedom of speech and debate in Parliament" seem to be real issues. In my previous and other discussions, I did not think this rose to WP:ESSAY. While it is NPOV, it does lecture a little bit more than I'd like, but I personally didn't feel it was a failing issue. I'm also a bit tough as a reviewer - but sometimes these government and legal articles need more hand-holding than others. Its definitely not FA class prose and tone, but its not far off the mark. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was extremely surprised to see this being passed as a Good Article with two significant and serious templates still at the top of the article. If the templates still hold, it has no business being considered a Good Article; if they don't, then they should be removed. At the moment, the incongruity of the incompatible templates and GA icon is extremely disconcerting. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't see why this article is claimed to be written too much like a personal essay, or why the lead section is allegedly not long enough. As regards the latter, I thought it struck a good balance between covering the substance of the article without being of excessive length. — SMUconlaw (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Serious issues related to balance/WP:NPOV. Overall, its tone and content appear to hew very closely to the position of the Government of Singapore and fail to fairly note the substantial, serious criticisms of Singaporean democracy from reliable sources. Overall, Singapore's status as a democracy is controversial (for reliable sources arguing about or describing arguments about its status, see e.g. here, here, or here, all of which are easily found with a quick Google of "Singapore democracy").

Some sources in the article also appear to be selectively used; for example, the article cites Freedom House once, noting that "elections in Singapore are free from voter suppression and electoral fraud," but ignores the large volume of more critical information from the source.

At times, the article also dives into what is possibly more original research or essay-like material, such as when it discourses on the proper role of freedom of expression in a democracy qua Mill. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 04:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist – a lot of fundamental issues. The whole article has the tone of an essay, with major WP:SYNTH issues including quoting primary sources such as historical philosophers, court cases and government officials to make arguments/ illustrate points. Expert criticisms are sometimes noted (with cherrypicking as noted above) but critical scholarly views are missing and the government's position is reverentially stated and emphasised throughout producing WP:FALSEBALANCE. The opinions of the presidentially-appointed MP Thio Li-ann's are repeatedly uncritically as an expert voice at many points. It overlaps with Politics of Singapore to the extent that it feels like a WP:POVFORK. Other recurring issues include unsourced opinions stated in the article voice and unattributed quotes. Perhaps a merger of the valuable parts detailing consitutional history into Politics of Singapore is the best long-term solution? Jr8825 • Talk 11:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A couple of places merges could happen (Elections in Singapore?), but I suppose due to the essay style it's hard to nail down exactly what the topic is. CMD (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]