Parliament
Shanmugam defends president’s role in racial harmony orders amid concerns over checks on government power
Minister K Shanmugam defended the role of the president in reviewing restraining orders issued under the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act (MRHA), describing it as a necessary check on ministerial decisions. However, opposition MPs raised concerns about the president’s ability to act independently given legal obligations to follow Cabinet advice in many cases.

During a parliamentary debate on the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act (MRHA), Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam defended the role of the president in reviewing restraining orders issued by the government, arguing that it is an important check on executive power.
However, opposition MPs, including Workers’ Party Member of Parliament for Aljuned GRC Sylvia Lim and Progress Singapore Party Non-Constituency MP Leong Mun Wai, questioned whether the president truly has independent discretion, given constitutional provisions requiring the president to act on the advice of the Cabinet.
The MRHA gives the Minister for Home Affairs the power to issue restraining orders against individuals who engage in speech or activities that threaten racial harmony.
If an individual appeals the order, it is reviewed by the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, an independent body comprising senior community and religious leaders. Based on the council’s recommendations, the president has the authority to confirm, cancel, or modify the restraining order—particularly if the council’s advice differs from that of the Cabinet.
However, Lim expressed concern over the lack of accountability in the council’s role, arguing that since its members are unelected and not answerable to the public, its recommendations should not be placed on the same level as those made by Parliament.
“Unlike the government, the Presidential Council is not directly accountable to the people. Yet, its recommendations could lead to the president overriding the government’s decision,” she said.
Lim also warned that placing the president in such a position risks politicising racial issues, given the sensitive nature of race in Singapore’s multicultural society.
“Today, we are faced with an additional dimension: the possibility of the president having to confront the government on issues of race, which go to the heart of every Singaporean’s identity and to social cohesion,” Lim said. She cautioned that such confrontations could lead to divisions along racial lines.
Lim’s position reflects the Workers’ Party’s longstanding reservations about the president’s discretionary powers. During a related constitutional amendment updating the president’s powers, seven Workers’ Party MPs voted against it, while the remaining 78 MPs voted in favour.
Shanmugam acknowledged that confrontations between the president and the government could occur under the MRHA but said this was part of a deliberate system of checks and balances.
He explained that the review process, involving the Presidential Council and the president, ensures that ministerial decisions are thoroughly examined.
“The council consists of upstanding leaders from different communities who provide advice to the president. If they and the president—who is elected by the people—disagree with the minister, that disagreement should be given weight,” he said.
The minister contrasted this with the approach taken in many other countries, where courts typically handle disputes over sensitive speech.
He explained that Singapore’s decision to bypass the judiciary and instead rely on a council and the president reflects the government’s preference for non-judicial mechanisms to address issues of racial and religious harmony. “In my experience, judicial reviews often worsen such matters by making them even more contentious,” Shanmugam said.
Despite the minister’s reassurances, Leong pressed him on whether the president truly has the authority to act independently under the MRHA.
Leong referenced previous parliamentary debates, where it was clarified that the president is often constitutionally bound to follow Cabinet advice.
“Under this Act, does the president have the power to independently veto a restraining order issued by the minister?” Leong asked.
Shanmugam responded that the president’s discretion under the MRHA is distinct from the general requirement to act on Cabinet advice, as the president can act independently when the Presidential Council’s recommendation conflicts with the government’s position.
However, Leong continued to question whether this discretion is meaningful, noting that in many cases, including decisions involving Singapore’s financial reserves and public service appointments, the president is required to act based on the Cabinet’s recommendations.
In his defence, Shanmugam explained that the structure of the MRHA was designed to be different from laws such as the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA), which grants the government more direct control over sensitive decisions.
Under FICA, the president does not have veto power over ministerial actions, as decisions often involve classified intelligence that cannot be shared beyond a small group of officials.
“Many foreign interference cases involve covert activities tracked through intelligence, often shared with other countries. Disclosing such information beyond a select group would compromise national security,” Shanmugam said.
By contrast, the MRHA deals with public statements and actions that can be openly assessed. As such, Shanmugam argued that it is appropriate for the president and the Presidential Council to have a say in reviewing such decisions.
“Issues of race are visible and do not require the same level of secrecy as national security matters,” he said.
Lim remained unconvinced, arguing that the current structure could lead to confusion over the roles and responsibilities of the government and the president.
“The government is defending the president’s role as a check, but at the same time, the president often has to follow Cabinet instructions. Is this balance sustainable in the long term?” she asked.
Shanmugam maintained that the MRHA strikes the right balance, ensuring ministerial powers are subject to oversight without creating excessive delays.
He acknowledged that while confrontations between the president and the government are not ideal, they are a necessary feature of Singapore’s legal framework.
“If you have too many checks, nothing gets done. If you have none, things can go very wrong,” he said.

- Opinion1 week ago
Shanmugam’s call to avoid politicising Nee Soon’s kickback case exposes hypocrisy given his 2015 attack on WP
- Politics1 week ago
Shanmugam defends response in kickback scandal at Nee Soon Town Council
- Singapore1 week ago
SM Lee urges Singaporeans to embrace new citizens for national unity during Chinese New Year speech
- Singapore4 days ago
Former transport minister S. Iswaran placed on home detention scheme after serving part of jail term
- Singapore1 week ago
Healthcare worker’s death sparks public dispute between TTSH and Red Dot United’s Ravi Philemon
- Singapore2 weeks ago
Singapore’s diversity and unity are vital assets, says PM Lawrence Wong in Chinese New Year message
- Politics1 week ago
Foreign family members of candidates exempted from election participation rule in Singapore
- Court Cases3 days ago
Ong Beng Seng diagnosed with bone marrow cancer amid ongoing charges linked to ex-minister S Iswaran