2017 Singaporean presidential election

On 5 May 2017, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, a former Member of Parliament (MP) from the People's Action Party (PAP) who contested in the Singaporean presidential election of 2011, filed a constitutional challenge to determine whether it is correct to set the Presidential Election 2017 as a reserved election under the newly introduced amendments to the Elected Presidency. His challenge was dismissed by Justice Quentin Loh in High Court, explaining that "Article 164(1)(a) provides for Parliament to specify the first term of office of the President to be counted under Art 19B(1) ("First Term")."[19][20] He then filed an appeal, heard by the Court of Appeal on 31 July 2017.[21] On 23 August 2017, his appeal was unanimously dismissed by the court of five judges which ruled that the Parliament has full discretion to set the First Term.[22]

On 28 August 2017, the Workers' Party filed an adjournment motion on the election to debate on the issue in the next Parliament sitting on 11 September.[23] On 5 September, the Workers' Party was informed that their motion was not selected for mention as Murali's topic on community sentencing won the ballot.[24] The Workers' Party eventually raised their query in Parliament on 3 October through its chairperson Sylvia Lim, who challenged why the PAP government uses AGC's advice as a "red herring" to evade justifying its own decision of starting the count from President Wee Kim Wee instead of the first elected President Ong Teng Cheong.[25] She quoted instances where PM Lee Hsien Loong, DPM Teo Chee Hean and Minister in Prime Minister's Office Chan Chun Sing spoke on the matter in parliament, when they stated that the AGC's advice was taken for deciding the starting count.[26][27] In response, Law Minister Shanmugam said that the Government sought the AGC's advice on whether there would be "legal impediments" to start the count from President Wee, and that the timing of when to trigger the reserved election was a "policy decision" that was not based on the AGC's advice, as parliament has full discretion on this issue.[27] He insisted that the Government has not misled the public by giving the impression that the decision was a legal one,[28] and pointed to some unnamed individual, "not from the PAP", who was deemed by the court to be misleading the Parliament.[29]

In a Facebook post, Tan Cheng Bock highlighted Shanmugam's apparent contradiction when he was quoted saying in Parliament, "once we get the (AGC's) advice, we will send it out". Shanmugam responded by accusing Tan of "splicing and rearranging" his words, insisting that "it" refers to the government's position instead of AGC's advice. He even engaged in ad hominem by calling Tan "bitter".[30]

On 22 May 2017, human rights lawyer M. Ravi filed a constitutional challenge, stating that the amendment to the Elected Presidency Scheme "deprives citizens of the right to stand" for the office of the Elected Presidency, is "discriminatory on the grounds of ethnicity", and that it contradicts article 12(2) of the Constitution.[31] On 15 June 2017, his application was dismissed by the High Court with cost. Judge See Kee Oon said during the hearing that Ravi had not shown how his personal rights were violated by the changes that were made to the scheme. See added that Ravi therefore had "no standing" as a private citizen to mount the challenge. Ravi has since filed an appeal against the court's verdict.[32] His appeal was scheduled to be heard on 31 July.[33] Ravi's challenge was dismissed by Justic See Kee On, a high court judge on grounds that Ravi as a private citizen had "no standing" to mount a challenge.[34]

The People's Action Party has been accused of using the Presidential office's imperative of preserving racial peace as a way to circumvent democracy and shore up its political power.[35] The government has relied on a survey jointly conducted by online publication Channel NewsAsia, and National University of Singapore's Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), both with ties to the Singapore government, to support its case that Singaporeans are voting along racial lines. This is seen by some ^[who?] as a farcical attempt at combating voters' racial bias which, at every election, has been proven to have no impact on election results.[36]

The reserved Presidential election is also seen as an elaborate plan to block the candidacy of Tan Cheng Bock,[37] who lost by a thin margin of 0.35% in the 2011 Presidential elections to Tony Tan Keng Yam, a former deputy prime minister.[35][38] Some social media users have mockingly referred to the move as "Tan Cheng Block".[35] The Singapore government has denied the accusation.[35]

A 16-member Community Committee was appointed by the Prime Minister, based on the nominations given by the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, to assess whether a candidate belongs to a particular racial group.[39][40] Former MP Inderjit Singh questions why a different yardstick is used for determining the race of an individual instead of adopting the existing standards practised by ethnic self-help organisations SINDA and MENDAKI.[41] In a forum held at IPS on 8 September 2017, law professor Kevin Tan pointed out that the Community Committee's ultimate power to decide a candidate's race, instead of using the court, is unconstitutional. Dr Norshahril Saat, a fellow at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, criticised the racial classification process which relies on the judgement of a few prominent individuals, as elitist.[42] Questions were raised on the implications if the committee were to, in a hypothetical situation, reject a Malay candidate because he is Christian and not Muslim, as it could be seen as an infringement on a person's constitutional rights to religious freedom. Cabinet Minister Chan Chun Sing responded that it is up to individual racial communities to determine whom to accept as one of them, and no one would dispute the decision. MP Janil Puthucheary suggested that in such a case, the hypothetical non-Muslim Malay individual could still contest in the next open election.[43]

Law professor Eugene Tan argued that as a reserved election prevents participation of qualified candidates from other races, the principle of meritocracy is not exercised fully.[44] Tan also proposed that a race-based election can give rise to the belief that a racial community is entitled to have one of its own to be elected President, leading to the expectation for other public offices to be rotated amongst the races as well.[44] Critics have highlighted that the more influential position of the prime minister has been held by the Chinese since Singapore's independence.[45] When asked if the role of prime minister should be reserved for minorities at the IPS forum, Law Minister K. Shanmugam responded that Singapore has chosen "a mixed system", and that whether the country should "go all the way is a question of... what is doable, what the people will accept and also whether you need it... to strengthen our multiracial environment."[46]

In addition, Professor Tan contends that a reserved election might just reinforce the alleged tendency of Singaporeans to vote along racial lines since the system will automatically produce a minority-race President at regular intervals if one is not elected.[44] As noted by critics, the reserved election would generate unnecessary tension and lead to racial divide amongst Singaporeans.[47][48]

An online petition circulated on the internet, calling for the election to be made open to all races.[49]

A planned protest against the reserved Presidential election at the Speaker's Corner was abruptly cancelled as organiser Gilbert Goh believed that a police permit is required and he may not be granted one since the protest revolves around race issues, which, according to National Parks Board, may contravene the Public Order Act which stipulated that speakers must not speak about matters that may cause ill-will between different racial or religious groups.[50]

Following his unsuccessful protest, Goh began organizing a silent sit-in protest to be held on 16 September 2017 at Hong Lim Park.[51]

Global media monitoring house Meltwater observed an increase in negative sentiment on social media surrounding the Presidential Elections from 11 to 12 September 2017, after the Elections Department announced that Halimah Yacob was the only candidate to be declared eligible for the election, effectively making the contest a walkover. The data shows 83% of negative sentiment and 17% of positive sentiment.[103] In addition, critical backlash on the internet has led to the widespread use of the hashtag #NotMyPresident in Singapore.[104] The Straits Times also reported on a counter-hashtag #halimahismypresident for Halimah's supporters.[105]

Political analyst Eugene Tan believed that while the online criticisms were not directed at Halimah, the electoral process and the government was "seen as exclusive and disenfranchising".[106] Along with Gillian Koh, deputy director of research at IPS,[107] Tan believed that a contested presidency would have added to Halimah's legitimacy.[106] Writer and political commentator Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh commented that Singaporeans are "unhappy that meritocracy and electoral fairness, core Singaporean values, have been eroded to fulfil perceived political goals."[108] The Association of Women for Action and Research congratulated Halimah Yacob, the first female head of state of the country, but noted the tightening of the eligibility criteria for presidential candidates.[109][99]

Political commentator and former Straits Times journalist Bertha Henson noted that the government had "opened the can of worms" as the elections have raised questions on Malay racial purity, in a country that often suppresses such discussions in fear of upsetting racial harmony.[110] Others, such as former Nominated MP Calvin Cheng, lamented that eligible Malay candidates have failed to contest the election.[105]

Activists called for a silent sit-in protest against the electoral process.[107]