These are the events concerning the 2006 Singaporean general election which occurred before the polling day on 6 May 2006.
Pre–nomination day events
New candidates
This election was expected to have a large number of new candidates as the major political parties had undergone self-renewal in recent years, many of whom belong to the post-1965 generation. PAP had introduced 24 new candidates. Opposition fielded a total of 25 new candidates, in which the two opposition parties that held a seat, the Workers' Party and the Singapore Democratic Alliance introduced 15 and eight new candidates, respectively. Singapore Democratic Party, a group which did not win any seats in the last election, fielded two new candidates. A total of 49 brand-new candidates (including 11 female candidates, seven from PAP, four from WP and one from SDP) participated in the election.
Candidates who switched parties
This election features a number of candidates who have switched political parties.
Politicians who are retiring
All politicians who were retiring or stepping down from their seats were from the People's Action Party.
Talks on an impending election have surfaced in earnest since mid-2005, two years before the electoral term is constitutionally expected to end in June 2007. On 9 April, Goh Chok Tong had said that the election was likely to be held in the following four to six weeks.
Budget day and progress package
On 17 February 2006, Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister of Singapore and Secretary General of the PAP delivered the country's Budget Statement to the Parliament. He released details of a S$2.6 billion on a "progress package" including S$500 million for Central Provident Fund top-ups, S$400 million for workfare bonuses, and S$200 million bonuses for national servicemen. Largely due to this package, the 2006 Budget incurred a deficit of S$2.86 billion.
Several PAP members attempted to play down the significance of the event. Sin Boon Ann and Halimah Yacob said it was no different from the PAP government's past practices of sharing surpluses when the economy does well. More neutral watchers, such as Gillian Koh from the Institute of Policy Studies, however, say it reflects the government's intentions to fulfil general sentiments in the electorate who feel it is the "right thing" to be done.
Low Thia Khiang (WP) came out strongly against the progress package which he said was no more than a vote-winning tool by the PAP. Low questioned why the government had earlier retorted his call for more spending on education citing that it would result in a budget deficit. Low called for greater transparency on how the government intend to financing the package and to compensate for the budget shortfall. Wong Kan Seng (PAP) later dismissed claims that the progress package constitutes a form of vote buying. Nonetheless, even PAP MPs such as Wang Kai Yuen (Retired MP) had said that the payout would "render the ground sweeter for the ruling party in the coming General Election". Tan Cheng Bock (Retired MP) expressed surprise that the government had more than S$13 billion in capital receipts and asked why these were "not [itemised] in the Budget".
Workers' Party manifesto
Workers' Party (WP) was the first party to launch an update to its manifesto on 14 January 2006. Among its policy proposals, it called for the Presidency to revert to its former ceremonial role and the abolishment of the GRCs, the Ethnic Integration Policy for Housing and Development Board flats, the Resident Committees and the Citizen Consultative Committees. It also revealed its intentions to establish a central agency in the provision of public transport, setting up of a national unemployment insurance scheme and a more comprehensive national health insurance scheme among a host of other things.
On 21 January, PAP launched a coordinated attack on the WP's proposals, with Ng Eng Hen highlighting four of their proposals as "four time bombs...[which] will weaken and tear Singapore apart". Khaw Boon Wan, revealed various changes in medical policies, including the Medisave scheme, which has been a constant target for criticism by opposition parties. He also chided the WP for its "failure to understand what makes inter-racialism work in Singapore and why we are different from the rest of the world", referring the four points brought up by Ng Eng Hen as "poisons" Workers' Party chairman Sylvia Lim released a press statement on 22 January, responding to each of the four "time bombs" criticised by Ng and adding that the party was standing firmly by its manifesto.