Corrections regarding false statements of fact published on The Online Citizen’s websites and social media pages on the re-appointment of Attorney-General Lucien Wong

The article published on The Online Citizen (“TOC”) website on 9 March 2026, and shared on certain TOC social media pages as well as the website Heidoh.com, communicates assertions regarding the re-appointment of the Attorney-General (“AG”) Lucien Wong (“AG Wong”), which are false and misleading.

The article communicates the following falsehoods

a.     AG Wong has not recused himself from acting on matters pertaining to the compulsory acquisition of 38 Oxley Road.

b.     During the Committee of Supply (“COS”) debate on 2 March 2026, Ms Sylvia Lim (“Ms Lim”) was not permitted to raise any follow-up questions on the AG’s re-appointment process.

c.     The Constitution provides for the AG to retire at age 60 without any qualification or proviso, but the Prime Minister has appointed AG Wong until he is 75.

These falsehoods risk undermining public confidence in the constitutional appointment of the AG, parliamentary procedures, and the integrity of key government institutions.

Facts

1.     Recusal by AG Wong from acting on matters pertaining to the compulsory acquisition of 38 Oxley Road

·       As stated in Parliament on 3-4 July 2017, AG Wong has recused himself from matters pertaining to 38 Oxley Road, and therefore did not act in those matters. This includes the compulsory acquisition of 38 Oxley Road.  Any statement or suggestion that AG Wong may have acted or is acting in conflict of interest in such matters is entirely without basis.

2.     Ms Lim was allowed to raise follow-up questions on the re-appointment process of the AG during the COS debate

·       During the COS debate on 27 February 2026, Ms Lim asked the Government about the AG’s re-appointment process. Minister Edwin Tong addressed Ms Lim’s questions in his response in Parliament on 2 March 2026.

·       After Minister Tong’s response, like 5 other Members of Parliament (“MPs”), Ms Lim was allowed to raise follow-up questions, and Ms Lim in fact asked two questions to which Minister Tong responded, as reflected in the public record.

·       Due to the time limit for the COS debates, all MPs have to make good use of the limited time to ask their questions.    

·       This does not mean that MPs lack other opportunities to pose questions to the Government. In addition to posing questions during the Parliamentary debates, including the COS debates, MPs like Ms Lim may file Parliamentary Questions (“PQs”) to Ministers. In this regard, Ms Lim filed a PQ in October 2025 regarding the AG’s re-appointment process but subsequently withdrew it. She then chose to ask questions about the AG’s re-appointment during the COS debates, under the well-established procedure and time limits for such debates. Ms Lim or other MPs can still file PQs on the topic, if they wish.

3.     AG Wong’s re-appointment by the President was made in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (“the Constitution”), which permits appointments beyond 60

·       First, the suggestion that an AG must retire at 60 is incorrect and false. Under Article 35(4) of the Constitution, an AG may be appointed either:

• for a specific period, in which case, the age limit of 60 years does not apply; or

• for a non-fixed term, in which case, the AG will serve until the age of 60 but may continue to hold office thereafter with the agreement of the AG and the Government, provided that the President, acting in his own discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister (“PM”).

·       Second, PM Lawrence Wong did not re-appoint AG Wong. Under our Constitution, it is the President, not the PM, that appoints or re-appoints the AG.

·       Pursuant to Article 35(4) of the Constitution, it was President Tharman Shanmugaratnam, acting in his discretion and concurring with the PM’s advice, and having consulted the Council of Presidential Advisors (“CPA”), who re-appointed AG Wong.

(See below for more information.)

Additional Clarifications

Process for appointment and re-appointment of the AG

The process for appointing and re-appointing the AG in Singapore is clearly set out in Article 35 of the Constitution.

Under Article 35, the PM must first consult the Chief Justice and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission (as well as the incumbent AG) for their views, before tendering to the President his advice on the appointment. After receiving the PM’s advice, the President in turn consults the CPA for their views and makes an independent assessment of the appointment.

If the President, having considered all relevant matters (including the advice of the PM and the CPA), agrees with the recommendation, the President, acting in his own discretion, then appoints the AG.

Appointment of AG Wong

Mr Lucien Wong has served as AG since 14 January 2017. He was re-appointed for further 3-year terms in 2020, 2023, and 2026.

The role of the AG requires an individual of high professional standing, wide-ranging legal experience, sound judgement and a strong sense of public duty. The individual must be willing to carry out his or her duties independently and without fear or favour.

Before his appointment as AG, Mr Wong had an illustrious career in private practice. He grew and led Singapore’s largest law firm, was widely regarded as the top corporate lawyer in the country, and was internationally respected for his work in corporate and banking law. He sat on the boards of several of the largest companies in Singapore, and was highly sought after for his commercial acumen and expertise in governance.

Mr Wong also had a long track record of public service. He served on several committees to review and reform laws and regulations, and was previously chairman of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre and the Maritime Port Authority of Singapore.

Since he was appointed as AG, Mr Wong has made significant contributions across almost every area of law. Under his leadership, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (“AGC”) has advised the Government on complex legal and constitutional matters, prosecuted criminal offences fairly and firmly, and ensured that legislation introduced in Parliament is clear, sound and fit for Singapore’s purposes.

AG Wong also represented the Government in major domestic and international proceedings, defending Singapore’s interests robustly and honourably.

For example:

·       Between 2017 and 2020, AG Wong and AGC officers worked closely with the Government to resolve the Pedra Branca dispute, and the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail project.

·       In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, AG Wong personally supervised the drafting of the Covid-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020, and the Rental Relief Framework.

·       In recent years, AG Wong and the AGC team worked with the Government to secure Singapore’s interests in air-space, defence, and extradition agreements with Indonesia, and advanced new trade and digital-economy frameworks, including the ASEAN Digital Economy Agreement Framework, which will grow economic opportunities for Singaporeans.

Having considered the relevant factors – including AG Wong’s track record, significant ongoing matters that require his continued oversight, and his fitness, ability and willingness to serve – the PM advised the President to re-appoint AG Wong. After considering the recommendation and consulting the CPA, President Tharman Shanmugaratnam exercised his own discretion to re-appoint AG Wong as AG for another three-year term in accordance with the Constitution.

TOC’s article strips away the safeguards in our Constitution, to imply that AG Wong’s re-appointment is motivated by a personal relationship and mutual interest between PM Wong and AG Wong. This is not supported by the facts, as established above.

The Minister for Law has instructed the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Office to issue a POFMA Correction Direction to Xu Yuan Chen (alias Terry Xu) and Miao Yi Infotech Ltd. The Correction Direction requires the recipients to insert a notice against the original post, with a link to the Government’s clarification. We advise members of the public not to speculate and/or spread unverified rumours.