SM Lee Hsien Loong at the Launch of the "25 Years of Legal Reform in Singapore" Book Series

Law Reform and Singapore’s Continuing Legal Journey

The Honourable Chief Justice, Cabinet colleagues, and members of the Judiciary
Distinguished guests
Ladies and gentlemen

I am very happy to join you to launch the Book Series “25 Years of Legal Reform in Singapore”. This publication is a fitting contribution to SGLaw200, commemorating the Bicentennial of Singapore’s modern legal system.

In the span of one lifetime, Singapore has developed from a young nation still finding its footing in the world, into the thriving country that we are today.

Many factors contributed to that success. But one lesson stands out: strong institutions matter, the rule of law matters, and their continued strength depends on our foresight and resolve to adapt and readapt them as the world changes and as Singapore progresses.

The Bicentennial is therefore not only an occasion to celebrate our legal heritage. It is also an opportunity to reflect on how successive generations of Singaporeans have kept our legal system relevant – a trusted and effective institution well-suited to serving the needs of our nation and our society.

Formally promulgated in 1826, the Second Charter of Justice effectively introduced Singapore’s modern legal system. But our legal system did not emerge fully formed 200 years ago, nor has it remained unchanged since. The Charter established courts operating within the English common law tradition. Through this, we inherited foundational principles that remain central today: The rule of law, an independent judiciary, and the idea that everyone is subject to the same law. Since then, this foundation has been continuously built upon, refined and strengthened, especially during our years of self-government and independence. The institutions, laws and safeguards that Singaporeans rely on today are products of this evolution.

Our challenges today are very different from those the pioneers faced. Technology has transformed how we live and communicate. Economic activity has become more global and complex. Social norms have evolved and continue to evolve. Expectations over governance and rights have changed. New threats have emerged, both physical and digital.

To sustain the rule of law, our legal system must keep abreast of all these changes. And that has been a defining feature of Singapore’s approach to governance. We have never treated law reform as an occasional, one-off exercise. It is a continuous undertaking. Each generation must review the system it has inherited, decide what remains fit for purpose, update or repeal those parts which are outdated, and design and pass new laws to deal with new circumstances.

This book series chronicles one important chapter in that longer journey. It records a quarter-century of legal reform since the turn of the millennium, and captures the experiences, reflections and insights of those who helped shape our laws during this period. More broadly, it invites us to ponder on a fundamental question: what should a good set of laws set out to achieve, in order to serve society’s needs?

Laws must address national imperatives

First, a good set of laws must address enduring national imperatives.

As a multiracial and multi-religious society, we have long been acutely conscious that racial and religious harmony are not the natural state of things. The communal riots in the 1950s and 1960s left a lasting imprint on our national psyche. We learnt that social cohesion must be actively protected, nurtured and renewed across generations.

Singapore’s response was decisive. We did not just rely on goodwill and dialogue, or the pious hope that differences would somehow over time resolve themselves. Instead, we implemented policies to foster social mixing, build common spaces, and forge a national identity. Importantly, we also embedded key safeguards into our institutions and laws.

The Presidential Council for Minority Rights, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and the newly enacted Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act are all part of this legal framework.The Presidential Council for Minority Rights, created soon after independence, has been one important Constitutional safeguard. The Council scrutinises Bills passed by Parliament, to ensure that our majority-driven legislative process does not inadvertently or deliberately discriminate against any minority community.

The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, enacted in 1990, was another innovative law. It recognised that threats to harmony are best tackled before they escalate into conflict. It created preventive tools to counter conduct that could inflame religious tensions. It reinforced the principle that religion and politics should be kept separate. Importantly, it sought not to suppress religious faith, but to ensure that people of different faiths could practise their beliefs peacefully alongside one another.

More recently (in 2025), Parliament passed the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act. This law responds to the new and emerging threats to social cohesion. Social media, online platforms and foreign actors can aggravate and inflame racial tensions far quicker than before. The legislation consolidates and strengthens existing powers to deal with such threats, while affirming that racial harmony is as fundamental as religious harmony to Singapore’s success.

The significance of these laws goes beyond the offences and penalties that they define. By their mere existence, the laws shape norms and expectations in our society. They declare where we stand. Ever since the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act came into force in 1992, no restraining order has ever had to be issued. And this is not because the law was not needed, but because its presence encouraged restraint, dialogue and responsible conduct among religious groups.

Granted, legislation alone is not enough. Laws cannot compel people to trust one another or make friends across different groups. The deeper work of building trust must be done by Singapo­reans themselves, supported by initiatives to promote inter-racial dialogue, mutual respect and understanding. But laws can set boundaries, deter harmful conduct and create the conditions for harmony. And that is why our legal framework has always been an important component of our response.

Taken together, this approach reflects our broader philosophy of governance. That social harmony is too important to be left to chance. That we will support it with strong norms, trusted institutions and, where necessary, effective laws.

These laws and institutions to uphold and protect racial and religious harmony are among the most important legal innovations of independent Singapore, and a key reason Singapore has been a cohesive and stable society despite our diversity.

Laws must respond to new challenges

A good set of laws must also respond to new and emerging challenges.

The digital age has brought tremendous opportunities for communication, innovation and connection. But it has also created new avenues for harm.

We have had to develop new legal tools to deal with online falsehoods, foreign interference, scams, online harassment and other forms of digital harm.

The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) was enacted in 2019 to address the growing problem of online falsehoods. Online, falsehoods travel further and faster than factual corrections. They can undermine public trust, damage institutions, inflame social divisions, and even jeopardise public health and safety. POFMA equips the Government to respond quickly when false statements of fact affecting the public interest spread online. Importantly, its primary mechanism is the Correction Direction, which allows the Government’s clarification to be presented alongside the original content, enabling citizens to consider both accounts and make informed judgments for themselves. And this reflects the broader aim of preserving a shared foundation of facts, which is essential for meaningful public discourse.

But misinformation is not the only challenge online. Increasingly, state and foreign actors seek to influence political discourse in other countries through covert means, including online disinformation campaigns and influence operations. As a small and open nation, Singapore is particularly vulnerable to this modern form of subversion.

The Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA) was thus introduced in 2021 to strengthen Singapore’s ability to detect, prevent and disrupt foreign interference in our domestic politics. FICA provides tools to counter hostile information campaigns and foreign influence operations, while safeguarding our political sovereignty in an increasingly interconnected world. At its heart is a simple principle: decisions about how Singapore is governed must be made by Singaporeans alone.

While POFMA and FICA are principally concerned with protecting broader societal interests, the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act focusses on serious online harms to individuals. The Act recognises that online safety is a shared responsibility involving users, online communities, platforms and the Government. It provides victims with avenues for relief and establishes clearer responsibilities for those who create, administer and operate online spaces. It is supported institutionally by the Online Safety Commission, which officially commenced operations on 29 June, a few weeks ago. This was an important step in strengthening our ability to keep the public safe in digital space.

Taken together, these three measures illustrate how the law must develop to deal with new threats and challenges. The objective remains the same – to protect social cohesion, to preserve trust in our institutions, to safeguard our sovereignty, and to keep Singapore a safe and resilient society for future generations. But today’s threats look very different from those faced by earlier generations. And hence our laws must be updated, in order to remain fit for purpose.

Laws must respond quickly in times of crisis

A third lesson from Singapore’s legal development is that exceptional circumstances require governments to act with exceptional despatch.

Legislation is usually the product of extensive and deliberate study, consultation and debate. And this remains the cornerstone of sound law-making.

But crises do not wait for this normal stately pace of legislation. All due deliberate haste is not enough. In such moments, governments must respond swiftly while remaining anchored in the rule of law.

The COVID-19 pandemic was a vivid example. Senior Minister Shan mentioned it just now. When the pandemic spread in early 2020, it quickly became clear that the scale and nature of the disruptions exceeded anything envisioned by existing legal frameworks. Public health risks required urgent intervention. Businesses and supply chains were severely disrupted. Individuals found themselves unable to fulfil contracts and obligations through no fault of their own.

Faced with these challenges, the Government discussed and settled the core ideas, drafted the legislation, and put the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020 through Parliament on a Certificate of Urgency in a single sitting, all within just nine days. This swiftly created the legal framework to address urgent issues arising from the pandemic. And as the pandemic progressed and new challenges emerged, we repeatedly amended the Act in response, eight times in all during the pandemic.

What is noteworthy is not merely the speed of the response, but that all this was done through established constitutional and parliamentary processes. Even in a crisis, Parliament remained central to the process of law-making. The rule of law was not suspended; we did not simply declare an emergency and rule by decree. Rather, it provided the framework for extraordinary but essential measures to be adopted properly and accountably.

The pandemic also demonstrated how law can be a tool of economic and social stabilisation. Many businesses and individuals suddenly found themselves unable to fulfil their contracts because of pandemic-related restrictions. Leaving parties to resolve these disputes through litigation would have been slow, costly and potentially devastating to many otherwise viable businesses. The temporary legislation therefore included targeted relief, suspension of certain legal and enforcement actions, and mechanisms to facilitate practical resolutions between the parties. These measures helped to preserve businesses, protect livelihoods, and prevent a public health crisis from precipitating an economic and social disaster.

The COVID-19 experience demonstrated that the legal system must not only operate well during ordinary times, but it must have the flexibility and institutional capacity to respond effectively to extraordinary and unforeseen circumstances.

Laws must respond to social change

Beyond responding to technological change and crises, our laws must also react to changing societal values, identity and norms.

Such reforms are often the most challenging to implement. Sensing changes in social norms, and then expressing them in legislative amendments, is fundamentally an exercise in political judgment. It is a most delicate process, as questions involving family, faith, morality and social values engage deep personal convictions. And different groups often hold fundamentally different views, each sincerely and strongly.

In these circumstances, the task of government is not simply to decide whether to change any laws. It must also manage changes in a way that respects different viewpoints, maintains social cohesion, and preserves trust.

The repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code in 2022 is a salient example.

For many years, Section 377A, criminalising sexual acts between males, was the law of the land. It reflected the prevailing social norms of an earlier era.

Over time, social attitudes gradually changed. More Singaporeans came to accept that private consensual conduct between adults should not be criminalised. We stopped actively enforcing Section 377A, but it still remained on the statute books.

Eventually the Government judged that the time had come to repeal the Section, and set about the complex task of doing so.

We held an extensive series of engagements with religious groups, community leaders, academics, businesses, youth representatives, LGBT groups and family organisations. The aim was not to secure unanimity, which would have been impossible. Rather, it was to understand concerns, identify common ground, and seek a path forward that Singaporeans could broadly accept.

The engagement confirmed that while most Singaporeans agreed that private sexual conduct should no longer be criminalised, many worried about the possible impact of a repeal on broader social norms around marriage and family. These concerns were genuine and sincerely held, and they had to be addressed. The issue therefore went beyond a simple repeal of a single section of the Penal Code.

Hence besides repealing Section 377A, the Constitution was also amended to affirm Parliament’s authority to define, regulate and support the institution of marriage. This safeguarded the prevailing definition of marriage, as well as laws and policies based on this definition, from judicial challenges based on the fundamental liberties provisions in the Constitution. Importantly, we did not entrench any specific definition of marriage in the Constitution. Instead, we amended the Constitution based on a different principle: that such sensitive questions should not be determined by the courts through litigation, but by elected representatives accountable to voters through the democratic process. This approach preserved the ability of future generations to debate and decide these issues through political contest and public discourse as societal norms evolve.

This Section 377A debate demonstrated a distinctive feature of Singapore’s approach to law reform. Instead of going for a winner-takes-all outcome, we accommodated opposing concern. Instead of treating dissent as something to be quelled, we managed it constructively. And instead of allowing a divisive issue to fester into a lasting social schism, we worked to preserve the common space where Singaporeans with different convictions could continue to live together harmoniously and with mutual respect.

The Constitution itself must be updated

The Constitution, within whose framework all our laws operate, must itself also be kept up-to-date. We must not change the Constitution on a whim, but neither should we treat it as an immutable document, forever cast in stone. The threshold for amending the Constitution is higher than amending other legislation, generally requiring a two-thirds majority in Parliament, and for some Articles even more stringent than that. But just like other laws, the Constitution needs to be updated from time to time as society develops and the world changes. Constitutional arrangements must always serve the nation’s needs – to provide an effective foundation for governance, accountability and the protection of fundamental rights – and it must recognise that these needs change over time.

Over the years, we have enacted several major Constitutional changes to remedy significant vulnerabilities in our legal framework. These included creating: The Presidential Council for Minority Rights to safeguard racial and religious harmony, Group representation constituencies to ensure multiracial representation in Parliament, and schemes to guarantee opposition voices in Parliament and to provide for non-political civil society also to be represented in Parliament. We amended the Constitution to create the Elected President to protect key appoint­ments and reserves, and a mechanism to ensure that the President is regularly someone from a minority race. These were important changes not to deal with immediate exigencies, but to anticipate and address longer term trends.

By continually reforming our laws, including the Constitution, to meet evolving needs, we have maintained an up-to-date and responsive system of laws well adapted to our society − a legal framework that is fit for purpose.

Beyond Laws: Institutions and Values

As we reflect on two centuries of legal development in Singapore, it is tempting to focus on the statutes that were enacted, and the reforms that were introduced. But good laws, important as they are, are not in themselves sufficient. The rule of law does not flourish simply because legal principles are written into legislation or entrenched in a constitution. It flourishes only when legislation is translated into reality, into a functioning system that enforces rules, ensures law and order, and enables the efficient conduct of business.

And this requires strong and trusted institutions. Courts that are independent, impartial and efficient, government agencies that respect the laws, and act competently, fairly and consistently to enforce them, and also to comply with them. A Parliament where the most important questions are debated thoroughly and openly, and decided through the democratic process. Throughout history, Singapore has invested heavily in building institutions that command public confidence. And these institutions have been as important to our success as the laws themselves.

Ultimately, the rule of law depends on society itself. For laws and institutions to be effective in regulating conduct, we need citizens, businesses, public agencies and community organisations alike to embrace values like trust, responsibility, restraint and mutual respect. The rule of law requires a shared understanding and acceptance that serious disagreements should be resolved through legal processes, that legitimate institutions acting lawfully should be respected and obeyed, and that rights must be balanced with responsibilities.

Conclusion

This combination of sound laws, strong institutions and civic trust has served Singapore well. Yet the rule of law is never a finished project. It is a continuing endeavour.

Future generations will meet many novel and unfamiliar challenges. Artificial intelligence will raise new questions about accountability, responsibility and human agency. Digital technologies will continue to test established legal concepts. New forms of online harm, misinformation and foreign inter­ference will require continual adaptation of our legal frameworks. Climate change, demographic shifts and geopolitical uncertainty will present difficult policy and governance challenges that previous generations could scarcely have imagined and did not need to deal with. Such issues will not have straightforward answers.

What gives us confidence is not that we possess all the solutions, but that Singapore has shown its ability to adapt thoughtfully and pragmatically to changing circumstances. Whether responding to social change, technological disruption, foreign interference, or a global pandemic, our legal system has been able to renew itself while remaining anchored in enduring principles.

The next chapter of Singapore’s legal story is therefore not about preserving what we have inherited, but about building upon these foundations to keep our laws relevant, our Constitution fit for purpose, our institutions trusted, and our society imbued with the values and norms that make the rule of law possible. Each generation must strengthen the legal system that it inherits, and adapt it to new realities, and pass it on, updated and improved, to the next generation.

We commemorate 200 years of our legal development not only with pride in what has been achieved, but with confidence in our ability to meet the challenges ahead.

May this book series, “25 Years of Legal Reform in Singapore”, help future generations understand the structure on which they must build, appreciate the judgments and trade-offs that law reform requires, and be inspired to continue the thoughtful evolution of our laws in service of the nation.

Thank you very much.