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

Please see below for the Mandarin translation of the English speech.

* * * * *

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.

* * * * *

Mandarin translation of the English speech

李显龙：法律改革与新加坡持续的法治之路

我很高兴与各位共同推出《新加坡25年法律改革》丛书。这套出版物是对SGLaw200的恰当贡献，纪念新加坡现代法律制度200周年。

在一代人的时间里，新加坡从一个仍在世界上摸索立足之道的年轻国家，发展成为今天这个繁荣兴盛的国家。

许多因素促成这一成功。但有一条经验尤为突出：强大的制度至关重要，法治至关重要，而这些制度和法治能否持续强健，取决于我们是否具备远见和决心，随着世界变化和新加坡进步而不断调整、再调整。

因此，200周年不仅是庆祝我们法律传承的时刻，也是一个契机，让我们思考一代又一代新加坡人，如何使我们的法律制度和时代要求保持一致，成为值得信赖、行之有效，并能高度契合国家和社会需要的制度。

1826年正式颁布的《第二司法宪章》，实际上为新加坡引入现代法律制度。但我们的法律制度并非在200年前就已完整成形，此后也并非一成不变。《宪章》确立在英国普通法传统下运作的法院体系。由此，我们继承至今仍处于核心地位的基本原则：法治、独立的司法机关，以及人人受同一法律约束的理念。此后，尤其是在自治和独立岁月里，这一基础不断得到建设、完善和加强。今天新加坡人所依赖的制度、法律和保障机制，都是这一演进过程的产物。

我们今天面临的挑战与先辈所面对的已大不相同。科技改变我们的生活和沟通方式。经济活动变得更加全球化、更加复杂。社会规范已经演变，并仍在继续演变。人们对治理和权利的期待也已改变。新的威胁不断出现，既有实体空间的，也有数码空间的。

要维持法治，我们的法律制度就必须跟上所有这些变化。这一直是新加坡治理方式的一个鲜明特征。我们从未把法律改革视为偶尔进行的一次性工作。它是一项持续不断的事业。每一代人都必须审视自己继承的制度，判断哪些仍然合用，哪些需要更新或废除已经过时的部分，并设计和通过新的法律，以应对新的情况。

这套丛书记录这段更长历程中的一个重要篇章。它记载千禧年以来四分之一个世纪的法律改革，并收录在这一时期参与塑造我国法律的人士的经历、思考和见解。更广泛地说，它也邀请我们思考一个根本问题：一套良好的法律应当致力于实现什么目标，才能服务社会的需要？

法律必须回应国家持久要务

首先，一套良好的法律必须回应持久的国家要务。

作为一个多元种族、多元宗教的社会，我们长期以来都深切意识到，种族与宗教和谐并非自然状态。上世纪50年代和60年代的种族骚乱，在我们的国民心理留下深刻印记。我们认识到，社会凝聚力必须在一代又一代人之间得到积极保护、培育和更新。

新加坡的应对是果断的。我们并没有仅仅依靠善意和对话，或寄望于差异会随着时间自然化解。相反，我们推行政策，促进社会融合，建设共同空间，塑造国家认同。重要的是，我们也把关键保障纳入制度和法律之中。

少数权利总统理事会、《维持宗教和谐法令》，以及新近颁布的《维持种族和谐法令》，都是这一法律框架的一部分。独立后不久成立的少数权利总统理事会，是一项重要的宪法保障。理事会审查国会通过的法案，以确保由多数推动的立法程序，不会无意或有意地歧视任何少数族群。

1990年颁布的《维持宗教和谐法令》，是另一项创新性法律。它认识到，对和谐的威胁最好在升级为冲突之前加以处理。它设立预防性工具，以应对可能激化宗教紧张的行为。它强化宗教与政治应当分开的原则。重要的是，它的目的不是压制宗教信仰，而是确保不同信仰的人，能够和平共存地实践各自的信仰。

最近，也就是2025年，国会通过《维持种族和谐法令》。这部法律回应对社会凝聚力构成的新兴威胁。社交媒体、网络平台和外国力量，可能比以往更迅速地加剧和煽动种族紧张。法令整合并加强现有权力，以应对此类威胁，同时确认种族和谐与宗教和谐一样，是新加坡成功的根本。

这些法律的意义超越它们所界定的罪行和处罚。仅凭其存在，这些法律就在塑造我们社会的规范和期待。它们宣示我们的立场。自《维持宗教和谐法令》于1992年生效以来，从未须要发出任何限制令。这并不是因为法律不须要存在，而是因为它的存在，促使宗教群体之间保持克制、展开对话并采取负责任的行为。

诚然，仅靠立法并不足够。法律不能强迫人们彼此信任，也不能强迫不同群体之间建立友谊。建立信任的更深层工作，必须由新加坡人自己来完成，并由促进跨种族对话、相互尊重和理解的举措加以支持。但法律可以设定边界，遏制有害行为，并创造有利于和谐的条件。这就是为什么我们的法律框架，始终是我们应对方式的重要组成部分。

总体而言，这一做法反映我们更广泛的治理理念：社会和谐太重要，不能听凭偶然；我们将以强有力的规范、可信赖的制度，以及在必要时以有效法律来支撑它。

这些维护和保护种族与宗教和谐的法律和制度，是独立后的新加坡最重要的法律创新之一，也是新加坡尽管多元，却能保持凝聚和稳定社会的重要原因。

法律必须回应新挑战

一套良好的法律，也必须回应新的和正在出现的挑战。

数码时代为沟通、创新和连接带来巨大机遇，但也制造新的危害途径。

我们必须发展新的法律工具，以应对网络假信息、外国干预、诈骗、网络骚扰以及其他形式的数码危害。

《防止网络假信息和网络操纵法令》（POFMA）于2019年颁布，旨在应对日益严重的网络假信息问题。在网络上，假信息传播得比更正事实更远、更快。它们可能削弱公众信任，损害制度，激化社会分歧，甚至危及公共卫生和安全。POFMA使政府能够在影响公共利益的虚假事实陈述，在网上传播时迅速作出回应。重要的是，其主要机制是更正指示，允许政府的澄清与原始内容并列，使公民能够同时考虑两种说法，并自行作出知情判断。这反映更广泛的目标，即维护共同的事实基础。这是有意义的公共讨论所不可或缺的。

但错误信息并不是网络空间唯一挑战。国家和外国力量越来越多地试图通过隐蔽手段，影响其他国家的政治论述，包括网络虚假信息行动和影响力行动。作为一个小而开放的国家，新加坡尤其容易受到这种现代颠覆活动的影响。

因此，《防止外来干预（对应措施）法令》（FICA）于2021年推出，以加强新加坡侦测、防止和遏制外国干预我国国内政治的能力。FICA提供工具，用以应对敌意信息行动和外国影响力行动，同时在一个日益互联的世界中，维护我们的政治主权。其核心是一项简单原则：新加坡如何治理，必须只由新加坡人来决定。

POFMA和FICA主要关注保护更广泛的社会利益，而《互联网安全（援助与问责）法令》则聚焦于对个人造成的严重网络危害。该法承认，网络安全是一项共同责任，涉及用户、网络社区、平台和政府。它为受害者提供救济途径，并为创建、管理和运营网络空间的人，确立更明确的责任。该法在制度上由互联网安全委员会负责，委员会已于数周前的6月29日正式开始运作。这是加强我们维护公众在数码空间安全能力的重要一步。

总体来看，这三项措施说明，法律必须发展，以应对新的威胁和挑战。目标依然相同——保护社会凝聚力，维护对制度的信任，捍卫我们的主权，并为未来世代保持新加坡继续是一个安全、有韧性的社会。但今天的威胁与早前世代所面对的已大不相同，因此，我们的法律必须更新，才能继续符合目的。

法律必须在危机时迅速回应

新加坡法律发展的第三条经验是，特殊情况要求政府果断迅速地采取行动。

立法通常是广泛而审慎研究、咨询和辩论的产物。这仍然是健全立法的基石。

但危机不会等待这种正常而从容的立法节奏，再审慎地加快步伐也不够。在这种时刻，政府必须迅速回应，同时仍以法治为根基。

冠病疫情就是一个鲜明例子。尚穆根国务资政刚才也提到这一点。2020年初疫情蔓延时，很快就清楚显示，所造成的冲击规模和性质，超出现有法律框架所能预见的范围。公共卫生风险须要紧急干预。企业和供应链受到严重扰乱。个人在并非自身过错的情况下，发现自己无法履行合同和义务。

面对这些挑战，政府讨论并敲定核心构想，起草法律，并在短短九天内，以紧急证书方式在国会单次会议中通过《冠病19（临时措施）法令》。这迅速建立处理疫情所引发紧急问题的法律框架。随着疫情发展和新挑战出现，我们又多次修订该法，在疫情期间共修订八次。

值得注意的不只是回应速度，而是这一切都通过既定的宪法和国会程序完成。即使在危机中，国会仍然是立法过程的核心。法治并未暂停；我们并没有简单宣布紧急状态并以法令治理。相反，法治提供框架，使特殊但必要的措施能够以正当和可问责的方式被采纳。

疫情也显示，法律可以成为经济和社会稳定的工具。许多企业和个人突然因疫情相关限制而无法履行合同，若让各方通过诉讼解决纠纷，将会缓慢、昂贵，并可能对许多原本可持续经营的企业造成毁灭性打击。因此，临时法律纳入有针对性的救济、暂停某些法律和执行行动，以及促进各方达成实际解决方案的机制。这些措施有助于保住企业、保障生计，并防止一场公共卫生危机引发经济和社会灾难。

冠病疫情经验表明，法律制度不仅必须在平常时期运作良好，也必须具备灵活性和制度能力，以有效应对特殊和不可预见的情况。

法律必须回应社会变化

除了回应科技变化和危机，我们的法律也必须回应社会价值观、身份认同和规范的变化。

这类改革往往最难落实。感知社会规范的变化，再以立法修订加以表达，本质上是一项政治判断。这是一个极其微妙的过程，因为涉及家庭、信仰、道德和社会价值观的问题，会牵动深层的个人信念。不同群体往往持有根本不同的观点，而且每一方都真诚而坚定。

在这种情况下，政府的任务并不只是决定是否修改任何法律，它还必须以尊重不同观点、维护社会凝聚力和保持信任的方式管理变化。

2022年废除《刑事法典》第377A条，就是一个显著例子。

多年来，将男性之间性行为刑事化的第377A条，是本地法律的一部分。它反映早前时代的主流社会规范。

随着时间推移，社会态度逐渐改变。越来越多新加坡人开始接受，成年人之间私下自愿的行为不应被刑事化。我们停止积极执行第377A条，但它仍保留在法典中。

最终，政府判断废除该条文的时机已经到来，并着手处理这项复杂任务。

我们与宗教团体、社区领袖、学者、企业、青年代表、性少数（LGBT）群体和家庭组织进行广泛接触。目标不是取得一致意见，因为那是不可能的。相反，目标是了解关切，找出共同点，并寻求一条新加坡人能够广泛接受的前进道路。

接触过程确认，虽然多数新加坡人同意，私人性行为不应再被刑事化，但许多人担心废除条文，可能对围绕婚姻和家庭的更广泛社会规范产生影响。这些关切是真实而诚挚的，必须得到回应。因此，问题并不只是简单废除《刑事法典》中的一个条文。

因此，除了废除第377A条，宪法也作出修订，以确认国会有权界定、规管和支持婚姻制度。这保障婚姻的现行定义，以及基于这一定义的法律和政策，使其免受基于宪法基本自由条款的司法挑战。重要的是，我们并没有在宪法中固化任何具体的婚姻定义。相反，我们基于另一项原则修订宪法：这类敏感问题不应由法院通过诉讼来决定，而应由通过民主程序向选民负责的民选代表来决定。这一做法保留未来世代随着社会规范演变，通过政治竞争和公共讨论来辩论并决定这些问题的能力。

第377A条的辩论显示新加坡法律改革方式的一个鲜明特点。我们没有追求赢家通吃的结果，而是兼顾相互对立的关切。我们没有把异议视为须要压制的东西，而是以建设性方式加以管理。我们没有让一个分裂性议题恶化为持久的社会裂痕，而是努力维护共同空间，使持有不同信念的新加坡人，能够继续和谐相处、相互尊重。

所有法律都在宪法框架内运作，而宪法本身也必须与时俱进。我们不能随意修改宪法，但也不应把它视为永不可变、永远一成不变的文件。修改宪法的门槛高于修改其他法律，一般需要国会三分之二多数通过，某些条文的要求甚至更为严格。但和其他法律一样，随着社会发展和世界变化，宪法也须要不时更新。宪制安排必须始终服务国家需要——为治理、问责和基本权利保护提供有效基础——并且必须承认，这些需要会随着时间改变。

多年来，我们进行几项重大宪法改革，以弥补法律框架中的重大脆弱点。这包括设立少数权利总统理事会，以维护种族和宗教和谐；设立集选区，以确保国会中的多元种族代表性；以及设立机制，确保国会中有反对党的声音，并使非政治性的民间社群也能在国会中获得代表。我们修订宪法，设立民选总统制度，以保护关键任命和储备金，并建立机制，确保总统定期由少数族群人士出任。这些都是重要改变，并非为应对眼前急务，而是未雨绸缪并应对较长期趋势。

通过持续改革我们的法律，包括宪法，以满足不断变化的需要，我们维持一套与时俱进、反应灵敏、并很好适应我国社会的法律体系——一个符合目的的法律框架。

法律之外：制度与价值观

在回顾新加坡两个世纪的法律发展时，我们很容易把注意力集中在所颁布的法令和所推行的改革上。但良好的法律尽管重要，本身并不足够。法治并不会仅仅因为法律原则写入法令或载入宪法而蓬勃发展，它只有在立法转化为现实，成为一套能够执行规则、确保法律与秩序，并使商业活动高效进行的运作体系时，才会蓬勃发展。

这需要强大且受信任的制度。法院必须独立、公正、高效；政府机构必须尊重法律，并以有能力、公平和一致的方式执行法律，同时也遵守法律；国会必须能够对最重要的问题进行充分而公开的辩论，并通过民主程序作出决定。纵观历史，新加坡一直大力建设能够赢得公众信心的制度。这些制度与法律本身一样，对我们的成功至关重要。

归根结底，法治取决于社会本身。要让法律和制度能有效规范行为，我们需要公民、企业、公共机构和社区组织都拥抱信任、责任、克制和相互尊重等价值观。法治需要民众共同理解和接受：严重分歧应通过法律程序解决；依法行事的合法制度应受到尊重和遵从；权利必须与责任相平衡。

结语

健全法律、强大制度和公民信任的结合，使新加坡受益良多。然而，法治从来不是一个已经完成的项目，它是一项持续不断的事业。

未来世代将面对许多新颖而陌生的挑战。人工智能将提出关于问责、责任和人的能动性等新问题。数码技术将继续考验既有法律概念。新形式的网络危害、错误信息和外国干预，将要求我们的法律框架不断调整。气候变化、人口结构变化和地缘政治不确定性，将带来前几代人几乎无法想象，也无须应对的艰难政策和治理挑战。这些问题不会有简单答案。

让我们有信心的，并不是我们已拥有所有解决方案，而是新加坡已经展现出能够以深思熟虑、务实的方式适应变化的能力。无论是回应社会变化、科技颠覆、外国干预，还是全球疫情，我们的法律制度都能够在坚守持久原则的同时自我更新。

因此，新加坡法律故事的下一章，不是单纯保存我们继承的东西，而是在这些基础上继续建设，使我们的法律保持相关性，使我们的宪法符合目的，使我们的制度受到信任，并使我们的社会充满让法治成为可能的价值观和规范。每一代人都必须加强自己继承的法律制度，使它适应新的现实，并把经过更新和改进的制度传给下一代。

我们纪念法律发展200年，不仅是为已经取得的成就感到自豪，也是对我们应对未来挑战的能力充满信心。

愿《新加坡25年法律改革》这套丛书，帮助未来世代理解他们必须在其上继续建设的结构，体会法律改革所需要的判断和取舍，并受到启发，继续以审慎思考推动我国法律演进，以服务国家。