Edwin Tong pushes back on Sylvia Lim’s claim that the AG appointment process is “thin,” arguing that it is a careful, constitutionally guided procedure that balances executive oversight with robust safeguards.
Tong told lawmakers on March 2 that the AG’s selection is far from a mere formal act. Under Singapore’s Constitution, the Prime Minister first seeks input from the Chief Justice and the Public Service Commission (PSC) chairman before forwarding advice to the President. The President then consults the Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA) and makes an independent judgment on the appointment, Tong explained during the budget debate.
Attorney-General Lucien Wong, aged 72, began his fourth term in January 2026.
At a February 27 session, Ms Lim of the Workers’ Party criticized the appointment process as lacking transparency because deliberations are not publicly disclosed.
Lim had previously raised concerns when Wong was first named AG in 2017, noting Wong’s prior collaboration with then-Law Minister K. Shanmugam at a law firm and Wong’s role advising then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on matters related to the Lee estate (Oxley Road).
In his address, Tong contrasted Singapore’s model with those of some other countries where AGs are elected. He emphasized that Singapore’s AG is not a politician but is chosen for professional excellence, integrity, and sound judgment. The safeguards, he noted, lie in constitutional requirements, the qualifications demanded, the consultative process outlined above, and the office’s performance and conduct.
Tong also rejected Lim’s call for public disclosure of appointment deliberations. He noted that the PSC chairman and the CPA handle the appointment’s confidential aspects, and that the CPA does not publish its advice or deliberations. He warned that publicizing discussions could deter suitable candidates from being considered.
Explaining the criteria for selecting an AG, Tong described the role as one of the most crucial within Singapore’s constitutional framework. The AG must possess unimpeachable integrity and strong moral character, provide objective legal advice, and conduct prosecutions impartially, even when politically difficult or unpopular. He stressed that finding individuals with the right experience, judgment, and integrity is challenging.
The Government screens for candidates who can shoulder these responsibilities while also weighing factors such as the incumbent’s performance, willingness and capacity to continue serving, and whether ongoing matters require continuity and careful oversight.
Tong asserted that Wong’s reappointment was justified by his track record and ongoing contributions to major issues—ranging from maritime boundary negotiations and tax and financial sector reforms to complex cross-border criminal matters. He described Wong as fit, capable, and willing to continue, and said the decision followed the constitutional process after necessary consultations and the Prime Minister’s recommendation to the President.
Lim, while acknowledging Wong’s legal accomplishments, pointed out that Wong would be 75 at the end of his current term. She asked whether other shortlisted candidates existed and whether the AG is truly indispensable given current projects and leadership succession planning. She warned that the system might feel precarious in three years if the same debate resurfaces.
Tong responded that no single person is indispensable and that multiple considerations shape the appointment. Beyond availability and willingness, factors include ongoing projects, the candidate’s stature and ability to contribute, and reputation. He declined to reveal whether there was a long or short list but indicated that the government would evaluate these factors comprehensively before recommending a successor to the President.
