Following the Westminster system, the position is largely ceremonial, but enjoys several reserve powers including withholding presidential assent on supply bills and changing or revoking civil service appointments.

In his speech to Parliament on 27 January 2016, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that it was timely to review the eligibility criteria of the Elected Presidency.

[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.

[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.

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.

[36] 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.

[37] 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.

[41][42] 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.

[43] 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.

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.

[44] 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.

[45] 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.

[51] 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.

Regarding commenters who have questioned the lower qualifying bar for public sector candidates like herself, Halimah said, "It is an open, transparent system... has been in place since 1991".

[74] Salleh said "I believe I have done well for myself in business and would like to step up and give back to society in a much larger way" and that he "can also fulfill the call of most Singaporeans who desire a truly independent Elected President, one who is untainted by party politics".

[78] Salleh stated that as a Presidential candidate: he is independent of any political party or organisation; he has the business acumen to safeguard the reserves; he is one who has empathy and compassion for the less fortunate; and he is prepared to stand up and be counted.

[104] 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".

[105] Along with Gillian Koh, deputy director of research at IPS,[106] Tan believed that a contested presidency would have added to Halimah's legitimacy.

"[107] 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.