Singaporean economist Li Shengwu’s recent interview with The New York Times has reignited focus on Singapore’s Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), specifically the controversial appointment of Lucien Wong as Attorney General (AG).
In the New York Times video titled “How Tyranny Begins,” Li Shengwu’s comments on political suppression in Singapore were juxtaposed with former US President Donald Trump’s controversial nomination of Pam Bondi as Attorney General. Bondi, who had defended Trump during his impeachment trial, was presented as an example of a political ally assuming a critical legal role.
This comparison highlighted parallels between Bondi’s and Wong’s appointments, both of which critics have argued were shaped by political connections.
In Wong’s case, his lack of courtroom experience and his prior role as former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s personal lawyer during the 38 Oxley Road dispute continue to raise questions about impartiality.
While there is no evidence of illegality, the perception of partiality and political connections in these appointments risks undermining public confidence in these institutions.
Scrutiny of Wong’s appointment
Wong’s appointment in 2017 was controversial from the outset. Despite a prolific career in corporate law spanning over four decades, Wong had never argued a case in court before assuming the AG position. This lack of courtroom experience is highly unusual for the role, which requires not only legal expertise but also the ability to command respect in prosecutorial and legal proceedings.
Wong’s ties to Senior Minister Lee further complicated matters. As SM Lee’s personal lawyer during the family dispute over 38 Oxley Road, Wong’s appointment gave rise to questions about impartiality.
The AG is tasked with advising the government and prosecuting on behalf of the state, making independence a cornerstone of the role. Critics, including opposition politicians, argued that Wong’s close relationship with SM Lee created a perception of conflict of interest that could undermine public trust.
Li Shengwu’s New York Times interview reiterated these concerns, with Shengwu accusing the Singapore government of using legal tools to suppress dissent. The circumstances surrounding Wong’s appointment—his connections to SM Lee, his lack of courtroom experience, and his tenure beyond the recommended retirement age—appear to support Shengwu’s observations.
Age and succession planning concerns
Wong’s age is another point of contention. At the end of his current term in 2026, Wong will be 72 years old, far exceeding the recommended retirement age of 60 for the role of AG. His reappointment to a third term in January 2023 has raised questions about why the government has chosen to extend his tenure despite his age and the availability of qualified successors.
Singapore boasts a deep pool of talented lawyers who could assume the AG role, many with extensive courtroom experience. The decision to retain Wong for another term—given his advanced age and lack of litigation background—has puzzled observers and fuelled perceptions of political motivations.
Government’s response versus public perception
The government has repeatedly maintained that Wong’s appointment followed due process, including consultations with the Chief Justice and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission. Ministers have stated that there is no conflict of interest in Wong’s role.
However, these assurances have done little to dispel public unease. The facts surrounding Wong’s appointment align with Li Shengwu’s criticisms in the New York Times interview, lending credence to claims of political considerations overshadowing institutional independence.
Public institutions in Singapore derive legitimacy from the trust and confidence of the people. The AG’s dual role as the Government’s legal adviser and the state’s prosecutor makes impartiality critical—not just in practice but also in perception.
In a democratic society, public institutions must not only be impartial but must also be seen as impartial by the public they serve.
As Wong’s term progresses, these unresolved concerns will continue to overshadow the AGC. Under a new Prime Minister, Singapore’s leaders would be wise to prioritise transparency and ensure that future appointments reflect not only legal competence but also the highest standards of public accountability and trust.