Mr Speaker: Last year, Singaporeans lost 913.1 million dollars to scams down from more than 1.1 billion the year before.
The Police, the Anti-Scam Centre, and our banks have made real progress against an adversary that adapts faster than most of our institutions can. I would also like to acknowledge the recent formation of the Cyber Command by the SPF as another important step towards combating scams and other cybercrimes.
Nevertheless, I want to direct our attention to Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill, which introduces Account Disabling Orders that allows the Police to disable bank accounts that may be facilitating scam-related offences.
An Account Disabling Order will be capped at thirty days, extendable once and no further, while clause 8 gives the user of a disabled account a right of appeal.
I welcome these procedural protections for those affected by Account Disabling Orders.
I also understand that these Account Disabling Orders are primarily targeted at accounts implicated in scam-related offences.
However, can the Minister clarify how the Police will use these orders in cases where the bank accounts belong to vulnerable individuals, for example, elderly, young adults, or migrant workers, who may have been manipulated by criminal syndicates into allowing their accounts to be used for money laundering?
It is my hope that the Police and banks will always be circumspect and judicious when exercising their powers to freeze the bank accounts of individuals, whether under the provisions of today’s Bill or otherwise.
The freezing of bank accounts, and banking restrictions more generally, can cause considerable difficulties and hardship for individuals affected, especially given the pervasiveness of digital banking and e-payment services in our society.
Sir, I acknowledge that, in terms of banking restrictions, the introduction of Account Disabling Orders is not new. There are many other circumstances in which an individual’s bank account may get frozen.
For instance, this House passed the Protection from Scams Act last year, which empowers the Police to step in and issue restriction orders to banks if there is reasonable belief that account holders will be making transfers to scammers.
However, such account holders are still permitted access to funds for essential daily living expenses and bills.
In a response to Parliamentary Question from my honorable friend Mr Kenneth Tiong, the Ministry of Home Affairs has revealed that, as of February 2026, only twelve restriction orders had been issued under the Protection from Scams Act. The Police approved withdrawals for daily expenses In ten of the twelve cases, while no requests for withdrawal were made in the remaining two cases.
And beyond the powers conferred in today’s Bill and the Protection from Scams Act, Section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows an officer of or above the rank of inspector to direct a bank to allow no dealings with an account, and I quote, "for such period as may be specified in the order".
Unlike restriction orders and account disabling orders, Section 35 of the CPC contains no maximum period, no automatic review, and no duty to give reasons. Moreover, accounts frozen under Section 35 have no mechanism for appeal at all.
Instead, affected individuals have to make an application to a court to release money for, in the words of the statute, "foodstuff, rent, the discharge of a mortgage, medicine, medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums and public utility charges".
In November 2025, my honourable friend Mr Dennis Tan asked whether restrictions would remain on a person the courts had acquitted, and whether there was any recourse where a restriction had harmed a livelihood.
The honourable member Mr Cai Yinzhou also asked how many of those investigated had unknowingly lost control of their accounts, and what interim support they would be given.
In response, the Minister pointed to his reply of 15 October, where he said that restrictions are lifted when they are no longer required, or where a person is acquitted in court.
In that reply, the Minister also added that individuals subject to banking restrictions "will still have access to basic banking facilities and can continue to receive incoming payments, including salaries and government benefits".
I recognise that today’s Bill does not seek to amend Section 35 of the CPC, but rather introduces a different form of banking restriction to address bank accounts involved in scams.
In light of this, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Police intends to continue using the Section 35 of the CPC against bank accounts that may be facilitating scam-related offences, or if the Police would consider issuing Account Disabling Orders against these bank accounts instead as a first resort, once this Bill is passed?
Sir, I hope the House takes the point that losing access to basic banking facilities, for whatever reason, can cause severe hardship to anyone affected.
Hence, if the relevant authorities receive reports of cases where individuals subject to banking restrictions report losing their access to basic banking facilities, or encounter difficulties as a result, I hope that such reports will be taken seriously and that the claims will be investigated thoroughly.
Also, I have two specific suggestions in this regard.
One, the Government can consider legislating provisions to simplify the process for modest sums to be released automatically from frozen bank accounts for subsistence, so that an ordinary person need not file a court application or seek Police permission to buy groceries or pay for public utilities.
Two, the Government should also consider extending a guarantee of basic banking to Singapore Citizens, Permanent Residents, and all holders of work passes, so that no resident is left without an account he or she can use in the event that their bank account is frozen under the provisions of this Bill or otherwise.
This idea can be modelled after the European Union's Payment Accounts Directive, which guarantees residents with the right of access to a basic payment account since 2014. Banks are given ten working days to reach a decision, and must provide written reasons if they want to refuse a customer.
On a related note, Mr Speaker, I hope the Government can share more details about how many bank accounts have been frozen and on what basis I understand that the Anti-Scam Command froze more than fifteen thousand accounts last year, and more than sixteen thousand seven hundred accounts were frozen in 2022.
Can the Minister provide a breakdown of the number of bank accounts that have been frozen (including for non-scam-related reasons) in each of the past two years, under which statutory provision, and the average and median duration that these accounts were frozen?
Finally, Mr Speaker, Section 6A of the Bill will let the Police limit a person's access to financial and telecommunications services for up to three years.
That may well be justified for those who sell their identities to syndicates.
But I hope that hardship will not be caused to anyone unknowingly or wrongly caught up by these provisions.
Can the Minister reassure the public that such a Service Limitation Order will be levied sparingly and carefully? Also, can the Minister clarify how the Police will ensure that such orders will only be issued against those who are truly deserving of such a punishment?
Mr Speaker, I am fully supportive of the Police being equipped with every tool necessary to protect Singaporeans from scams. However, I hope that the Government can also consider the suggestions I have offered to strengthen the procedural safeguards for those whose bank accounts are frozen under the provisions of this Bill or otherwise.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I await the Minister’s clarifications.
