This paper engages the question of why governments in dominant party states employ formal amendment procedures to bring about constitutional changes. It examines the constitutional amendment practice of Singapore, a dominant party state, arguing that amendments are often perceived as legitimate because they purportedly re-indigenize and reclaim the countries’ constitutions from their colonial roots, and are thus characterized as ‘tailored’ to local conditions. It is this juxtaposition of an autochthonous constitution, as opposed to a colonial one, that provides the key to understanding how amendments to the constitution are both seen as legitimate and legitimating of the government.