As we plough through cases with long, dry judgments, we watch how the law has developed over the years through the various situations placed before the court. We tend to get be so focused on examining the past that we overlook the present - what the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) Law Reform and Revision Division (LRRD) is doing on a day-to-day basis.

The LRRD reviews laws and recommends relevant changes in order to ensure that our legal infrastructure is kept up to date with the rest of the world. In an increasingly interconnected world, staying relevant often requires us to constantly cross-reference to laws developed in other jurisdictions.

The LRRD works through research and consultation with ministries and governmental agencies, among others. Steps are also taken to make revised editions of the laws more easily accessible and informative. The fluid nature of law makes the work of the LRRD one of the most important, yet one which we tend to take for granted.

Laws are enacted for the protection of the rights of the citizenry in a fair and just manner, and it is thus an inherent requirement that the law has to be suited to the current needs of the people. However, certain reforms made, like the amendments to section 377 of the Penal Code- decriminalisation of anal and oral sex between heterosexual couples aged 16 years and above in private - might not be so easily accepted because of the issues of civil liberties it is associated with.

The shaping of laws is influenced as much by public sentiment as it is by parliamentary debates. This in turn poses the question of what extent the public voice should be taken into account in such amendments, since it affects not only the legal arena, but also social values and principles that impact the public at-large.

The most recent example of an attempt at law reform that received mixed reviews is the parliamentary petition to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code. The section provides for a jail sentence of up to two years should a man be found to have committed an act of “gross indecency” with another man.

Two directly opposing camps with equally strong opinions have surfaced and each has signed and submitted a petition letter to the Prime Minister expressing their respective views. So who should decide whether to keep or repeal Section 377A?

Granted, decisions by the people should not have an unduly large impact on decisions regarding the content of laws. Take the 377A debate for instance, lawyers on both sides have brought up strong legal arguments, like those based on constitutional law. This indicates that the issue, though closely entwined with social values, is a legal matter as well. Leaving the decisions entirely up to the discretion of the people might make the law uncertain, as it would then be hinging on the ever-changing and varying attitudes of the people. The relative strength of differing opinions might also result in the greater good of the people not being realised in face of a strong, though unreasonable, majority.

Nevertheless, in issues closely related to social values and interaction, I feel that the participation of the public in the making of the laws would bring the law closer to the people they have been made to serve.

Lynette Lim is a first year law student and an associate editor of SLR.