SINGAPORE — The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has introduced a proposed Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill that would significantly toughen penalties for scam-related offences. Among the more controversial measures: mandatory caning for certain scam perpetrators and discretionary caning for those who help as “mules” — for example, by providing SIM cards, Singpass credentials, or bank accounts to facilitate scams.
Contents
What’s Proposed
| Role / Offence | Caning Strokes Proposed | Mandatory or Discretionary? |
|---|---|---|
| Scammers, syndicate members or recruiters | 6-24 strokes | Mandatory for those convicted under the new rules. |
| Mules / Enablers (e.g., those providing tools like SIM cards, Singpass, bank accounts) | Up to 12 strokes | Discretionary — depends on whether offender was aware the tool would be used, or failed to take reasonable steps to prevent misuse. |
Supporting & Related Measures
- The Sentencing Advisory Panel has already recommended more serious penalties (including longer jail terms) for money mules and those who facilitate scams.
- New offences introduced recently target those who pass on valuable credentials or permit use of their accounts (bank, Singpass) with knowledge or suspicion of misuse.
- Also part of the crackdown: restricting access to facilities (banking, telecommunications, Singpass services) for known scam mules, to disrupt their ability to facilitate scams.
Rationale Given by Authorities
- The government cites the huge financial and emotional harm inflicted on scam victims, and the need for stronger deterrence.
- There have been significant losses from scams: Singapore’s scam-related losses hit S$1.1 billion in 2024.
- Officials argue that existing penalties are not always sufficient for offences involving enablers and that stronger laws will close loopholes.
Points of Contention & Questions
- Human rights / proportionality concerns: Mandatory caning is a severe corporal punishment; how it applies, to whom, and under what conditions may be questioned in terms of fairness and proportionality.
- Scope & implementation: How the law delineates who “knew” or “should have known” will be critical (i.e. what counts as “reasonable steps” to prevent misuse).
- Discretionary vs mandatory: For mules, the caning is discretionary; the courts will decide. For scammers/syndicate members the penalty would be mandatory.
- Age / gender / special categories: Singapore’s judicial caning is already disallowed for certain categories (e.g. women, men over 50, etc.). Whether these restrictions will still apply under the expanded scope is not yet fully detailed.
