Singapore's Rule of Law Faces AI, Climate Challenges

Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned on Tuesday (Jul 28) that Singapore’s rule of law remains an unfinished project, calling it a “continuing endeavour” for future generations as they confront novel pressures from artificial intelligence, online harms, climate change and geopolitical instability. He delivered the keynote address at Gardens by the Bay before approximately 200 guests drawn from the legal sector, marking the launch of a four-volume book series commissioned by the Ministry of Law to document 25 years of legal reform in Singapore.

The event was held under the banner of SGLaw200, commemorating the 200th anniversary of Singapore’s modern legal system. Mr Lee spoke alongside Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam and Minister for Law Edwin Tong. The book series — edited by Singapore Management University law professor Yip Man — spans criminal, public and family law; civil justice, restructuring, insolvency and intellectual property; international dispute resolution; and legal innovations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The rule of law, Mr Lee said, “is never a finished project.”

He argued that each generation inherits a legal system, determines what remains fit for purpose, repeals the obsolete, and designs new frameworks to meet emerging realities — before passing the system on, “updated and improved,” to the next. The next chapter of Singapore’s legal story, he said, is not about preservation but construction: keeping laws relevant, the Constitution fit for purpose, institutions trusted, and society grounded in the values that make the rule of law possible in the first place.

On crisis response, Mr Shanmugam disclosed that Singapore’s first COVID-19 legislation was conceptualised and drafted in nine days — with no international precedent to draw on. The framework affected commercial tenants, couples whose weddings were disrupted, and event organisers across the island, with the economic impact running into tens of billions of dollars. It was subsequently amended eight times as ground conditions evolved, ultimately touching more than S$100 billion (approximately US$77 billion) in contracts.

On social change, Mr Lee cited the 2022 repeal of Section 377A, which had criminalised sex between men. The repeal was accompanied by a constitutional amendment affirming parliament’s authority to define and regulate the institution of marriage — a dual move designed to accommodate competing concerns rather than produce a winner-takes-all outcome. Mr Lee described this as a distinctive feature of Singapore’s law reform approach: managing dissent constructively, preventing a divisive issue from hardening into lasting social fracture, and preserving common ground where Singaporeans of differing convictions can coexist with mutual respect.

He added that the Constitution itself cannot remain static indefinitely. Constitutional arrangements, he said, must continue to provide an effective framework for governance, accountability and the protection of fundamental rights — even if amendments require a higher legislative threshold than ordinary bills.

Mr Shanmugam noted that parliament has passed close to a thousand bills over the past 25 years, with roughly 20 per cent handled by the Ministry of Law. Mr Tong characterised these reforms not as abstract legal exercises but as interventions that “strengthened institutions, supported our businesses, and improved lives.” Law reform in Singapore, he said, is never pursued for its own sake — it is undertaken to strengthen trust and ensure the legal system continues to serve both the state and its citizens.

Professor Yip, who edited the series, said she hoped readers would come away understanding that behind every legal reform was a team working hard through difficult trade-offs. The publication deliberately captures the journey through multiple perspectives rather than a single official narrative.

Mr Lee closed by stressing that legislation alone is insufficient. Strong institutions must translate legal principles into functioning systems that enforce rules, maintain order, and enable commerce. Beyond that, he argued, society itself bears responsibility: citizens, businesses, public agencies and community organisations must internalise values of trust, restraint and mutual respect. Serious disagreements, he said, must be resolved through legal processes — and legitimate institutions acting lawfully must be respected and obeyed.