尊敬的中共中央政治局委员、中共中央政法委员会书记陈文清先生
新加坡社会及家庭发展部部长马善高先生
中共中央政法委员会秘书长訚柏先生
中共浙江省委书记王浩先生
各位嘉宾
女士们，先生们
1. 大家早上好！
2. 很高兴今天能与陈文清书记首次共同主持第五届新中社会治理高层论坛。 我谨代表新加坡团队，衷心感谢陈书记与中国政府的盛情款待，以及周到的安排。
3. 新加坡和中国的外交关系源远流长。这次行程，是我今年第二度到访杭州。今年一月，我和保健卫生部团队参观了一些医院和科技公司，学习中国在科技应用方面 的经验和做法。此次再访，与中方进行交流分享，汲取各自在社会治理上的经验。
4. 2023 年，两国政府将新中关系正式提升为 “全方位高质量的前瞻性伙伴关系”。这包括了先进制造、金融、人工智能、可持续发展，和保健卫生方面的各种合作项目。
5. 新加坡和中国也建立了许多富有成效的合作平台，例如新中双边合作联合委员会，以及省级经贸理事会。 新中双方的高层领导和多位部长也通过出席中国以及新加坡举行的高层活动，建立良好关系。我希望新中关系继续不断发展，日益兴旺。
6. 接下来，我会以英语发言。
Changing Landscape of Social Governance
There is a continuum in social governance. At one end, there is governance through “法”, or the rule of law. Ownership of assets is recognised by law, which gives people the right to property, and therefore motivates them to be enterprising and work hard.
Order is maintained through the application of law, enforcement and punishment. Legalism is like curative medicine – it treats problems after they arise, to redress conflict and deter disruptive behaviour.
At the other end, we also govern through “礼”, or virtue and propriety. Established social norms – often unwritten – strengthen mutual respect and trust between people to bind the community together. It is more like preventive medicine, enduring and holistic.
Most modern societies today are founded on the rule of law. In societies with a strong Confucian tradition, like China, there is also a strong emphasis on social norms and conduct of relationships between people. And even when you use the law you use it to shape the people’s good behaviour.
In Singapore, we have long concluded that we need the whole spectrum, spanning 法and礼 in governing a modern society, especially when circumstances have changed drastically over the years.
For one, Singapore is 100% urbanised, families are shrinking, and the number of households is rising. Most people live in high-rise public housing, in greater proximity to each other but each cocooned in their private space, with much less interaction than in the past. It is not easy to foster strong community spirit.
At the same time, digital technology has changed the way we consume news and interact with each other. It has become far easier to produce and circulate falsehoods and misinformation. This weakens trust between people.
Immigration and a more diverse population also mean that people of different cultures and backgrounds live closely together. Diversity can be a great strength of a society, fostering greater inclusivity, opening our hearts and minds. We say 海纳百川，有容乃大 . But in many countries, it has turned against the society, and divided society.
These driving forces have made social governance more challenging. Social governance and its mechanisms must therefore continue to evolve. Today, let me share a few lessons that Singapore has learned in managing the challenges of a modern society.
Lessons in Community Dispute Resolution - Fa
Let me start with the hard measures of law – 法 .
First, we need to constantly update our laws and regulations to maintain social order. For multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore, our utmost priority since day one is to maintain peace and harmony in our communities.
We have the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act of 1990 which worked very well. Last year, we further enacted the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act because as society evolves, secular racial issues not tied to specific religions have arisen and need their own dedicated framework. Together, both acts provide legal recourse against words and actions that undermine community peace and harmony.
Second, we must ensure citizens have access to accurate and reliable information, even in the digital world. Digital technology has resulted in a great asymmetry of effort and resources in producing truthful news, as compared to falsehoods. The former – truthful news, is a serious and professional operation. The latter anyone can do, with very little effort.
In a world of digital media, truthful and accurate news has become even more important, and more of a public good. Hence, in Singapore, we have restructured our print media into a trust, and support it through public funds, while respecting the independence of media. This is similar to how some countries like the UK support public service broadcasters like the BBC.
At the same time, we have also taken steps to address misinformation in Singapore, through the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA).
If an online article or post is found to contain falsehoods that undermine public interest and public trust, the Act empowers the relevant Minister to issue a Correction Direction. The article or post need not be taken down. Instead, the recipient is required to publish a correction notice, setting out the Government’s clarification of the facts. That way, readers can look at both the original article and the clarification and decide for themselves which to believe.
Lessons in Community Dispute Resolution - Li
We must also build the ‘softer’ aspects of governance – a culture of mutual respect and trust, give and take, and collective responsibility for societal cohesion.
This brings me to my third lesson – we need to actively cultivate shared values and social norms. Education has always played a central role to instil values such as respect, responsibility, and consideration for others from a young age.
But we need to broaden this effort beyond young children in schools. We have extended it to new citizens through the Singapore Citizenship Journey, which we launched in 2011. Through the programme, new citizens better understand Singapore’s history and values, and build connections with fellow residents and community leaders.
Last year, we further extended the programme to new Permanent Residents. Many who went through it found it useful tol help them better integrate into our society andwe intend to offer the programme to all new Permanent Residents later this year.
Fourth, we need to strengthen our system of social support and care. In a globalised world of commercial pursuits and intense competition, the most important aspect of governing through virtue and propriety, is to address the problem of social inequality.
Inequality is inherent in any market economy, but in an extreme form it is unfair and unjust. In Singapore, to address inequality and build a fair and just society, we set up social support systems that empower and uplift our people .
For example, home ownership is a major tenet that ensures that the great majority of Singaporeans have a stake in our growth, and can benefit from it.
The Central Provident Fund (CPF) mandates personal savings, reinforces the virtue of savings, while also harnessing the help of employers to support Singaporeans in their retirement.
The old and sick can rely on universal healthcare, which we keep affordable through subsidies and mandatory national healthcare insurance.
Ageing has become a major challenge for us, and many countries. Hence, in recent years, we have expanded our healthcare system, and also built up a vast network of Active Ageing Centres, to help seniors stay physically and socially active, which is key to good health.
For lower-income families, we have targeted schemes such as ComLink+, which we have further enhanced recently. The scheme provides additional financial incentives for vulnerable families. In return, families do their part to achieve goals such as sending their children to preschool, undergoing training and securing stable employment, and working towards home ownership.
Lessons in Community Dispute Resolution – The Middle
Let me come to my final and probably the most important lesson – the fact isthat every major social governance policy needs an effective combination of 法 and 礼, of law enforcement and soft influence through virtue and propriety. Let me use the example of resolving community disputes – which is the theme of today’s Forum – to illustrate this point.
If we expect people to exhibit a strong sense of 礼 to minimise and resolve disputes on their own, it is wishful thinking. It is like wishing there would be no sickness in this world. There will always be unruly behaviour and misunderstandings which cause bitter community disputes. And when that happens, we need the law to come in.
Conversely, if we over-rely on law and enforcement to resolve disputes, people would only behave when authorities are watching. There would be no kindness, care and warmth in society. We may have a compliant, but not a strong and cohesive society.
Our healthcare and education institutions in Singapore are trying to combine both effectively. Hospitals are fundamentally about care and restoration of health, and the central mission of schools is to nurture the young to be good people who can contribute to society.
But in hospitals there are patients and family members who abuse healthcare workers, in schools there are disciplinary issues and bullying. There will also be the small minority of healthcare workers and educators who breach their respective codes of professional conduct.
So healthcare and education institutions have set up bodies with the disciplinary powers to enforce the professional standards.
In addition, hospitals take a firm, zero-tolerance stance against verbal or physical abuse of healthcare workers by patients and their visitors. We set a clear and shared definition of abuse, encourage healthcare professionals to report it, and take follow-up actions. This can mean a mandatory discharge when the abusive patient is no longer in need of clinical care or halting communications with an abusive visitor.
Last week, the Ministry of Education announced a refreshed framework to instil better discipline in schools. It will be easier for students to report incidences of bullying, schools will conduct fact finding and investigations, and disciplinary actions will be standardised across all schools. Schools will also take a firmer stand against parents who protest against the disciplinary actions.
The enforcement and disciplinary systems of healthcare and education are strengthened, with the direction and support of central authorities. Individual hospitals and schools cannot do this on their own. Only central authorities like the Ministry can uphold the concept of ‘国有国法，家有家规‘, meaning ensuring proper standards of behaviour within each institution. These standards apply to everyone - whether public servants, patients, visitors, students or parents.
With a stronger system to maintain order and peace, hospitals are better able to nurse patients to good health, and provide comfort and pain relief to those who are suffering. Schools can be a better and more positive environment for learning, and when there are fights between students, schools can better help them restore their friendships and learn from the episodes.
To handle disputes in communities, we need to adopt a similar philosophy. We need to recognise that communities can’t resolve disputes on their own.
In 1988, Singapore made a significant devolution move, when the Town Council Act was enacted. Our objective was to make elected Members of Parliament more accountable to the people, in the maintenance of estates and safeguarding their well-being.
However, as a local level authority, there is a limit to how much the Town Council can do in resolving community disputes. Town Councils can try to mediate the disputes or regulate within housing estates clearly inconsiderate behaviours, such as feeding pigeons or blocking the corridors. However, they lack credibility in resolving more complex interpersonal disputes, where impartiality and authority are critical.
When it comes to difficult community disputes, people will still look to the state to be the custodian of reason and uphold justice.
Singapore’s response, just like in hospitals and schools, is therefore not to devolve enforcement powers, but to decentralise them, with support from the centre.
We set up the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) in 2015 as part of our Court system. They serve as a channel of last resort to resolve intractable disputes, after other avenues such as mandatory community mediation have been exhausted.
Individual residents can file claims directly, without the need for lawyers. A judge will hear the case from disputing parties, make determinations and order compensation, which is legally binding.
And we are conducting a pilot where specific government agencies dealing with such disputes can also bring cases forward. They form a small group in the community – the Community Relations Unit (CRU). This will help strengthen the hand of government agencies to resolve disputes more quickly. When I learnt about the Chinese system of Comprehensive Governance Centres, I think we are actually on the same path about bringing justice to the ground, to the community, where we can resolve disputes before they get out of hand.
In this way, we uphold a shared sense of justice, while sending clear signals on desired social behaviour to shape how people relate to each other.
The True Strength of Community
There is no single or permanent formula to social governance. We must tend to our communities, like a delicate garden. This requires activating the entire span of social governance tools – upholding the rule of law and enforcement on one hand, strengthening trust and mutual respect on the other. And combining both most of the time.
I believe that ultimately, a community and a society’s greatness is best measured by the compassion and everyday acts of kindness of its members. The law is needed, to provide the bedrock, upon which such compassion and kindness can then take root and flourish.
Hence, in our early days of nation-building, even as the rule of law and democracy became the cornerstones of our governing framework, our founding leaders nevertheless called for Singapore to be a “democracy of deeds”, where citizens actively participate in shaping and improving society. This philosophy remains just as relevant today, and reminds us that strong societies are built not only through institutions, but through the actions and behaviour of individuals.
56. I look forward to our discussions at the Forum. Thank you.