This Bill makes significant changes to seventeen of our criminal statutes. Overall, I am supportive of the Bill.
I wish to speak today on two matters that I find most significant: first, on tackling scams; second on the reduction in the use of caning for other offences. I also have some queries on the new offence of doxxing of public servants. My party colleague, Member Fadli Fawzi, will speak on related issues and other aspects of the Bill.
Tackling Scams
It is clear that despite significant efforts poured into anti-scam measures, Singaporeans are still falling prey to scams and losing significant sums. Banks have made efforts to strengthen digital banking to detect and delay unusual transactions. Public education has intensified – there is now even an anti-scam warning on the Parliament website. But scammers, too, have raised their game.
Scam organisations are brilliant at social engineering and tailoring their ruses to suit the intended victim. Scammers are going further – in one case I came across, the scammers even coached the victim as to what to tell police if she was questioned, which she dutifully complied with as if under some sort of spell. Clearly, we are dealing with highly-sophisticated operators.
The Bill has 19 provisions that are targeted at scam offences. Although there are existing laws to cover these situations, the new provisions create new specific offences or enhance the punishment if they are committed through scams.
For instance, the Organised Crime Act is being amended to create two new offences, of being a member of a locally-linked organised scam group and being a recruiter for organised scam groups, whether locally-linked or not. Besides setting high fines and jail time of up to 5 years, mandatory caning of at least 6 strokes is to be imposed.
How effective the provisions will be will depend on how tightly they can be enforced – no point having strict laws if offenders are not being pursued. It is also likely that even if persons are caught, offender displacement will occur – meaning that there will be no shortage of persons willing to replace them, if the rewards are lucrative enough.
For organised scams, effective enforcement will require agencies across borders to share information and conduct joint operations as well. At this point, it is not clear to me how committed every government in Southeast Asia is towards combatting scams. In the past week, there was extensive media coverage on a scam ring in Cambodia apparently led by a Singaporean and staffed by scores of compatriots. It was reported that the Cambodian police conducted a joint operation with Singapore police on 9 September, after which 15 suspects including 12 Singaporeans, were arrested and charged here. It was further reported that Cambodian police found evidence of the involvement of other suspects; this evidence formed the basis for the SPF to issue Interpol Red Notices against them. While the handling of this case so far shows strong cross-border co-operation, I wonder if such extensive co-operation happens on a regular basis. Further, does the Ministry expect in future to utilise the expanded powers under the Extradition Act to request ASEAN neighbours to hand over such suspects to Singapore through extradition?
It is public knowledge that Southeast Asia is a hotbed for organised scam groups, and some ASEAN countries are reported to be where the main operations are located. To respond to this, some governments are using other tools besides the criminal law. Two months ago, the American Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a statement highlighting that “criminal actors across Southeast Asia” had “increasingly exploited the vulnerabilities of Americans online”, resulting in an estimated loss of USD10 billion last year. He announced that the American government would impose sanctions on various persons and entities involved in running a scam centre in Myanmar and forced labour compounds in Cambodia. He opined that the sanctions would have the effect of disrupting the ability of the criminal networks to perpetuate their fraudulent and abusive activities.
To that end, it would be useful to know to what extent the Singapore government will also consider other tools outside the criminal law to disrupt such organised scam groups.
This Bill also introduces caning as an additional option in scam cases involving the misuse of Singpass credentials under the Computer Misuse Act. The same is being done under the Miscellaneous Offences Act for scams involving the misuse of SIM cards. As for cheating under the Penal Code, there will be mandatory caning if done through remote communication such as the Internet, telephone or electronic or other technology.
The most significant aspect of all the scam-related amendments is the introduction of caning as a punishment. Given the tremendous material loss and psychological harm caused to scam victims, I have little sympathy for those who perpetrate these cruel acts. That said, the sentence of caning is a harsh punishment. While it is a legacy of our colonial past, it is a punishment where the State inflicts violence and physical pain on a prisoner. From reported accounts of some who underwent the punishment, caning led them to bleed and, by some accounts, to suffer such pain that it led them to go into a state of shock.
I accept that there is a strong imperative to curb scams, and it could well be at the stage now when we have to pull out all the stops. In that light, could the Ministry elaborate on why it has assessed that caning will be effective to reduce scam activity? Did the Ministry consider alternatives such as providing for longer jail terms and heavier fines?
This brings me to my second point which is related. I strongly welcome the reduction in the use of caning for other offences.
Reduction of Caning
The Bill proposes the total removal of caning as a punishment for certain offences, and for other offences, making caning optional instead of mandatory. In its press release on 14 October, the Ministry stated that it made these moves considering factors such as whether the offences were still of significant public concern and whether other punishments sufficed. This review - to remove unnecessary punishments - brings important balance to this Bill.
The amendments proposed to the Vandalism Act are particularly significant and welcome. The Bill removes the rigidity of the current Act, where mandatory caning of between three to eight strokes must be imposed on vandalism of both public and private property, except in limited circumstances. The Bill instead proposes that mandatory caning be removed for all vandalism offences. Instead, caning will exist as an option for the court, in cases where the vandalism is deemed more serious.
Even after the Bill is passed, I hope the government will, from time to time, review offences which currently attract caning, to see if caning is still warranted. Social conditions change over time and our laws should be fit for purpose. Singapore is currently on a short list of about thirty countries that have corporal punishment on its criminal statutes. Of course, we must decide for ourselves what is appropriate for our criminal justice system. That said, I believe Singaporeans will support a criminal justice system that is effective and, at the same time, humane.
Doxxing of Public Servants
Clause 25 creates a new offence in the Miscellaneous Offences Act of doxxing of public servants. Under the proposed Section 14E, it will be an offence for anyone to publish identity information and false statements about public servants, if connected to the discharge of their duties. I have three questions related to this.
First, the section will apply to protect public servants. As to who would be considered a public servant, the proposed definition refers to the definition of public servant in the Penal Code, as well as any person who under other written laws is deemed a public servant for the purposes of the Penal Code. If so, would someone holding a political position, such as a Minister or MP, be covered under the section?
Second, the section prohibits the publication of identity information not just about the public servant but also a “related person”. The definition of “related person” is stated as “another person about whose safety or wellbeing the (public servant) would reasonably be expected to be seriously concerned”. This definition is inexact and potentially includes almost everyone, including family members, colleagues and acquaintances. What is the intended ambit of the definition of “related person”?
The third query relates to the use of illustrations to clarify the law. There is an illustration clarifying that the doxxing offence would be made out where the false statement and the identity information were carried in two separate online posts. However, this illustration is found in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill and is not part of the text of the law. I would like to know why the illustration is not legislated together with Section 14E, but instead is relegated to the Explanatory Statement. It would seem to me to be more appropriate to carry the illustration upfront in the law itself, to make it clearly visible to anyone looking up the law in the future. Instead, having it in the Explanatory Statement makes it harder to locate and may lead to unnecessary arguments down the road.
Conclusion
Let me conclude. The Bill confronts us with decisions about the use of caning as a judicial punishment. In view of the devastating harms scammers have caused and continue to cause to Singaporean families, I believe the public supports the amendments regarding scam offences. At the same time, there is a concerted effort in the Bill to remove or reduce the use of caning for various other offences. This is a move I fully endorse, as we work to scope our criminal laws more tightly and appropriately. Finally, I look forward to the answers to the questions I have posed regarding regional cooperation and other approaches to disrupt scam organisations, and the offence of doxxing of public servants.
