SM K Shanmugam at the Launch of the "25 Years of Legal Reform in Singapore" Book Series

Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong
The Honourable Chief Justice
Minister Edwin Tong
Members of the Judiciary, AGC and MinLaw
Distinguished guests

Introduction

This 4-volume book series being launched today is a major piece of work. It covers, as you have heard, 25 years of legal changes from the year 2000 to 2025.

The Bills that the Ministry of Law (“MinLaw”) worked on, and some of them with other Ministries – it covers primarily the period when Prof Jaya and I were the Law Ministers and in the last 6 months of 2025 when Minister Edwin had taken over the Law Ministry.

The value of this project is not just in its scope, which is very extensive.

It is also in what it records: how the Singapore Government has deliberately and practically made laws that shaped the legal environment to deal with real world problems, make difficult choices, and advance the public interest.

Making Law

The Government’s power to make law is a very significant power. Fundamental – when you want to do law reform, change laws.

In many countries, because of political deadlock, or political controversies, or simply a lack of political will – Parliaments abdicate this power.

And by default, the Courts end up doing what law reform they can – which, of course, is seriously limited in many ways, because the Courts are not equipped to deal with law reform.

In Singapore, changes to the law, law reform – the Government does it.

The Courts perform their traditional role: which is to apply the law to the cases before them.

In these past 25 years, Parliament has passed close to a thousand bills.

Of those, nearly 20 per cent – about 200 Bills, were handled by MinLaw. If you look at the other bills that Minlaw worked with – other agencies, ministries – MHA, MDDI – the figure is nearer 30%.

Law reform changes rights, obligations. It creates institutions. It determines when the State should intervene, and where boundaries should be drawn.

Over the past 25 years, the various laws which have been passed have reshaped the legal landscape across many areas of Singapore society. And, in doing so, they have reshaped the framework of our society itself.

As I say this, I want to share a conversation I had many years ago with Mr Lee Kuan Yew, before I joined Cabinet.

We discussed what I might do at that stage in my career. We discussed possibly staying on in private practice, a judicial appointment, or joining the Cabinet. I have called it a “discussion”. But those who have dealt with Mr Lee will know how it would have been. It was not the usual HR meeting.

Judiciary and law practice – we both knew the landscape and he set out his views, quite trenchantly as usual.

And then, he set out what a Cabinet Minister can do. He said a Minister can conceptualise, help pass legislation and can have a very substantial positive impact on society as a whole – and help make Singapore a much better place for everyone.

As an MP, in Parliament, I could see what Mr Lee was referring to, what Prof Jaya did as Law Minister and what the other Ministers had done.

Subsequently, when I took over as Law Minister in 2008, Mr Lee’s words were firmly in my mind. In area after area, my officers, I, the junior POHs – we discussed, conceptualised new laws that can be passed, how existing laws can be made better, as society’s needs changed, and evolved. And each time, the benefit was to a very substantial section of the public.

This 4-volume series covers legal changes in several fields, including civil, criminal, family, public and constitutional law, restructuring and insolvency, intellectual property, international dispute resolution, and the extraordinary legal measures that were introduced during COVID-19.

I will touch on just four areas by way of examples.

Family Justice

Take family justice. I will spend a little bit of time on this because I think it illustrates in a very effective way how law reform can substantially impact people – day-to-day lives of ordinary Singaporeans.

Singaporeans encounter the legal system at some of the most difficult moments in their lives when they have to deal with Family Law.

If the process is slow, if it’s long, if it’s costly or overly adversarial, it makes a painful situation worse.

The impetus for change was a meeting I had with two women who came to see me at my Meet-the-People session many many years ago. Two separate cases. Both were similar.

On the first case – the lady was going through divorce proceedings. When she had come to see me, she had already paid 40 thousand dollars, even though it wasn’t even at Decree Nisi, and the hearings kept getting postponed. She had two children; she earned about five thousand plus dollars. She struggled to keep paying the legal fees, and each time there was a hearing, she had to take leave from her job to attend court; and hers was not an uncommon experience. The second case was almost exactly similar.

So, we did an in-depth study of the situation, and we decided the system had to change.

I mention this to make a basic point about Law Reform.

We are limited only by our own ideas and imagination. No one at that stage thought that Family Law needed to change, because what was happening was how we knew it had always been done.

Before 2014, there were no specialist family courts, no specialist family judges, no specialised family court rules. Disputes were dealt with primarily through an adversarial process. Cases could take 12 months, 18 months, sometimes 24 months.

Voluminous affidavits, and of course, fees were charged based on every page of the affidavit. Endless accusations – the couple rearguing their entire marriage through affidavits in court; all the unhappiness which arose in the course of the marriage being put before the court.

So I told my team, there are only three issues.

One is the marriage (is) over – by the time they are in the family courts, the marriage is over.

Second, how much money? Most Singaporeans have a HDB flat, some CPF, some cash in banks, some investments. How do you settle the capital? How do you settle monthly maintenance?

What do you do with the children? The third question, the most important question.

So, in 2014, I said we should aim for an affidavit of one page. We still haven't reached there, but we have gotten somewhere close. Cut out all these things about what happened in the past. Look for the future.

The Family Justice Act was passed in 2014. It established the Family Justice Courts (“FJC”). Processes were by law – simplified and streamlined. The approach that was directed was to be simple, fast, inexpensive, efficient, and reduce the trauma.

The next year, in 2015, the Simplified Divorce Track was introduced – to allow cases to be resolved even faster, at lower cost, with less friction for the parties and their children.

10 years later, now, I visited the family justice courts a couple of weeks ago, to understand how it's going on – there are about 6,000 divorces annually, you’d see from the slide, about 6,400 last year, about two thirds – 4,281 to be exact, on the simplified track. What does that mean? The median completion period from beginning to end is four months now. So,  4,000 couples with their children, perhaps 10,000 souls who have a better experience every year, and that's not including the extended families.

A divorce now can be handled for somewhere between one to three thousand dollars if the disputes are sorted out early. And the family relationship is not as damaged as it otherwise might be, especially important for children. And, contrast this with the pre-2015 position – if these 4,000 plus cases had to go through a long, costly and bitter process.

There was no public clamour or demand for the change, but it makes a real impact.

In 2023, another key reform was made in this area.

The Maintenance Enforcement Process was introduced through the Family Justice Reform Act 2023.

We saw too many cases where parties – usually the women – struggle to enforce the maintenance orders that had been made in their favour. Before Covid, in 2017-2019 period, about 2,700 cases annually, and 15 to 20% were repeat cases. A bit less after Covid, but still very many.

These women had to go to court to apply for enforcement; some had to bring three to four applications a year. Many had to take leave and go and apply, and attend court again and again. Excuses would be given by the respondent, in different contexts, and you know the Courts had the choice of either sending the chap to Court or giving an adjournment when there were some other things they could do, but essentially, you know, it was a very unsatisfactory situation, and it was expensive because if you want to find out the other parties means you have to employ lawyers, accountants. They don't have the legal powers to require, for example, information from IRAS or CPF, banks. So, expensive process. The final result is still not good enough for the Courts to make a good assessment.

Under the MEP, now, we have established a division of Maintenance Enforcement Officers (MEOs) within MinLaw. These officers were given legal powers to get information from all the government agencies and banks. Under law, they can get information on assets and means, they can conduct conciliation to help parties reach a settlement, and for cases that don’t settle, they can submit a report to the FJC to make the appropriate orders.

The results are encouraging. Nearly 1,400 cases had been referred to the MEOs in the initial phases; over 70% of those cases went through conciliation with the MEOs and reached a settlement. And again, it avoids a lot of frustrated emotions, expense, money.

I have gone into some detail on family justice, as I explained, to see how law reform can affect individuals on the street and make a positive change.

The same is true for many of the other laws in the four-volume series.

That is how our legal landscape has changed, with substantial impact on society.

Criminal Justice

There have also been major reforms to the criminal justice system in the past 25 years.

There are too many to detail: stronger protection for vulnerable victims, repeal of marital immunity for rape, introducing community-based sentences to enhance rehabilitation; and at the other end of the spectrum – increasing sentences through the Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection, stronger protection against grooming and voyeurism. And more recently, major steps on online safety – working together with MDDI.

Access to justice has also been significantly strengthened, with the Government changing 60 years of its legal philosophy, with the setting up of the Public Defender’s Office (PDO) and directly funding criminal defence.

Since its operation, the PDO has helped more than four to five hundred cases every year, and the number has been increasing.

Arbitration

Law reform, beyond the domestic scene, has also shaped Singapore’s position externally, as a trusted place for international business, and dispute resolution.

Arbitration is one example. Today, we are a leading global arbitration hub. This was the result of deliberate, active Government policy. The legal framework for arbitration was kept current and arbitration-friendly, And some cases came out based on existing law, which were not arbitration friendly – we moved legislation in Parliament within three months to reverse the court decisions.

The International Arbitration Act was amended regularly to align with international standards. The wider eco-system was made conducive: a first-class arbitration centre in SIAC – excellent physical infrastructure in Maxwell Chambers – an open system where people from all over the world could be arbitrators or counsel here. It wasn't an open system not too long ago, resulting – as we thought it would – much more work for Singapore lawyers. And of course, planting our flag in the countries which are our major sources of arbitration work. I think Minister Edwin Tong and Mr Davinder Singh have just come back from New Delhi, from where a lot of our cases come from.

COVID-19

The last example I will give is COVID-19.

The final volume of this series is entirely dedicated to COVID-19- related law reforms.

The first COVID-legislation was conceptualised and drafted in about nine days – a record.

AG Lucien Wong was central to this effort, because we were introducing novel legislation, with no precedent anywhere in the world, with impact on thousands of people – commercial tenants all across Singapore; couples who had paid deposits to hold weddings receptions in hotels and restaurants; others who had made event bookings. The economic impact was tens of billions of dollars.

I took a lot of comfort that one of the top commercial lawyers in the world was looking through it, advising on the legal aspects, with a key understanding of the commercial implications, and was taking personal charge of the drafting.

JCA Sushil Nair and the late Mr Patrick Ang helped us significantly in the process as well.

And, we went on to amend the framework eight times to react to the conditions on the ground.

COVID-19 showed the power of law reform in a crisis: moving quickly but calibrating carefully as conditions changed.

The changes brought swift and practical relief to tens of thousands of persons.

Couples whose wedding could no longer proceed did not have to worry about their wedding deposits being forfeited.

Tenants who had been affected were able to get rental relief. And so on. They didn’t need to, as like in other countries, try and argue force majeure, or frustration of contracts.

We asked the State Courts to assist us. We said, literally, don't worry so much about the law. Look at the individual case, and decide – no appeal. If the deposit is $8,000, you see what the restaurant or hotel has spent, and take a view – $2,000, order that, and ask for the balance to be paid. Did it get it correct to the last cent in every case? Probably not. Did it do justice such that most people went away reasonably satisfied? Yes, except for some of the restaurants.

In total, more than $100 billion worth of contracts were impacted.

The Law Reform Book series

This 4-volume series captures a significant chapter of Singapore’s legal development – at a meaningful point in our legal history, as we mark the 200^th Anniversary of the Second Charter of Justice – which will, I hope, be of value to students, academics, practitioners and the Courts in understanding why each law was made.

The policy chapters explain why the law was put in place, the problems it was meant to solve, the choices that were considered, and why one approach was taken, as opposed to other approaches that could have been taken.

They were written by the officers who worked on the policy and the legislation. And there are contributions from others – practitioners, institutions, academics, judges.

They add different perspectives, they allow us to gain insights into how the law works on the ground, how the reforms fit within the wider legal landscape, how the law has been applied to real cases, and suggestions on how the law can be improved.

The majority of these laws were passed when Senior Minister Lee was Prime Minister. It is therefore especially apt that he is the Guest of Honour today.

I thank the managing editor, Professor Yip Man, editors, authors, current and former MinLaw officers, other ministries and agencies, all those who contributed their time, experience and institutional knowledge to this series, as well as all who helped to carry these reforms through, from policy to practice over the past 25 years.

Thank you.