Not sure what's up with this thought, as it's repeated many times in the comments here.
You don't give power to the opponents, they either take it, or they are elected. They'll be able to make their own laws, or cancel old ones, regardless of what you want or do now.
It's times like these that I'm glad Singapore has an open and mostly uncensored internet access policy.
As the dominant party in Singapore controls more than two-thirds of parliament [1], they have been able to push through constitutional changes without much consultation [2] — a recent example was the increase in the private-sector requirement for candidates of our Presidency (head of state), and it being reserved for people from a specific ethnic group [3].
Mainstream media in Singapore is highly regulated and mainly spreads the government angle, which leaves the internet as one of the few open platforms for dissenting perspectives to be spread.
[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...
In case you actually misunderstood the post you are replying to, the point was that these checks are not up to the task (as in "what you are describing sounds much, much better than it works in reality. How nice it would be if it actually were like that")
Anyway, we have constitutional democaracy where I live, and almost every article is qualified by "unless law tells othervise". Even speech is restricted, you can't say anything you like in TV, it's regulated and has an oversight bureaucracy. It's just made so that law is not targeted at any particular party, but on particular behavior.