Introduction
1. Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs, I move, “That the Bill be now read a second time”.
2. Sir, MHA has been reviewing and amending the Penal Code over the years, to ensure that the law remains fit for purpose. We made major amendments in 2019 and 2021. We have since completed another round of review, which has culminated in this Bill. The amendments in the Bill cover six themes:
(a) First, increase deterrence against scams by introducing caning as a punishment, while re-calibrating its use in other offences.
(b) Second, enhance measures to address the increasing misuse of technology to produce and circulate abusive materials.
(c) Third, enhance protection for minors and vulnerable victims.
(d) Fourth, better protect public servants and public service workers.
(e) Fifth, ensure adequate penalties for older youth offenders.
(f) Sixth, recalibrate the requirements on workers and dealers of precious metals.
Updating and Rationalising Our Use of Caning
3. The first category of amendments will enhance deterrence against scams by introducing caning for scammers and scam mules, while re-calibrating its use in other offences.
4. With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute an Annex. Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGPARL app.
5. Sir, scams are by far the most prevalent crime type in Singapore today. Between 2020 and the first half of 2025, there were about 190,000 cases reported, with losses amounting to about S$3.7 billion. These are staggering numbers. They constitute 60% of all reported crimes, and the losses are more than three and a half times the cost of building Woodlands Health Campus.
6. MHA has been working with other agencies and the private sector on measures to counter the scourge of scams. Earlier this year, Dr Tan Wu Meng suggested in this House that MHA also consider introducing caning for scams, to better deter and punish those who commit scams or facilitate the commission of scams.
7. We have reviewed the suggestion and agree with it. Members may refer to Part A of the Annex for the proposed amendments.
8. We will introduce mandatory caning for scammers. Clause 64 of the Bill amends section 420 of the Penal Code so that offenders who commit scams, defined as cheating mainly by means of remote communication, will be punished with at least six strokes of the cane. We will also introduce discretionary caning in section 420 of the Penal Code for serious cases of cheating.
9. We will take an equally firm stance against scam syndicates. These syndicates mobilise significant resources to conduct and profit from scams and have the highest level of culpability. Clauses 37 and 38 of the Bill introduce new offences in the Organised Crime Act so that members of and recruiters for scam syndicates will be subject to mandatory caning of at least 6 strokes, if they knew that the organised criminal group was a scam syndicate.
10. Beyond dealing with scammers and scam syndicates, another key strategy is to deny them the tools that enable them to conduct scams. These scam enablers include SIM cards, Singpass credentials, and payment accounts. Crippling the supply of scam enablers would significantly increase the difficulty for scammers to successfully conduct or profit from scams in Singapore.
11. We will therefore introduce discretionary caning for those who facilitate scams. These are offenders who either knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the scam enabler they provide, would be used in the commission of, or would be used in the facilitation of, a crime. Clauses 10, 11, 19, 20 and 30 to 34 of the Bill introduce discretionary caning for certain offences under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, and the Computer Misuse Act, in this regard.
12. For upstream enablers such as Singpass credentials and SIM cards, discretionary caning will broadly apply to two categories of cases. The first category is where the offender intended or knew, depending on the offence, that the enabler would be used to commit or facilitate the commission of a scam. The second category covers cases where the enabler is actually used to commit or facilitate the commission of a scam, even if the offender did not intend or know this. For the second category of offenders, discretionary caning will apply if the offender fails to prove that he or she had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the enabler would not be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of a scam.
13. For downstream enablers such as payment accounts, discretionary caning will apply if the criminal proceeds laundered involve benefits from a scam and the offender had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the account is not used to launder scam proceeds.
14. Let me assure Members that genuine victims who are found to have been deceived into providing a scam enabler would not be affected by the introduction of caning as a punishment. The existing offences do not penalise genuine victims in the first place.
15. The Ministry will continue monitoring the scams situation closely, and will further increase our penalties if needed.
16. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.
17. 政府持续重视打击诈骗案件。在 2025 年上半年，本地共发生了近 2 万起诈骗案件，所造成的损失金额近 5 亿元。虽然与 2024 年上半年相比，案件及相关金钱损失数额已有所下降，但是仍然相当可观。在这项法案中，我们建议对诈骗罪犯，以及诈骗团伙成员和招募者，施以强制鞭刑。同时，也对那些通过提供 Singpass 账号、手机SIM 卡或银行账户等方式协助诈骗的人，判处酌情鞭刑。如果我们能阻断诈骗分子获取这些“助力工具”的管道，他们将更难得逞，我们也能更好地保护国人。
English Translation The Government continues to place strong emphasis on combating scams. In the first half of 2025, there were almost 20,000 cases and almost half a billion dollars lost. While these numbers have decreased compared with the first half of 2024, they are still significant. In this Bill, we are proposing to introduce mandatory caning for scammers, as well as members of and recruiters for scam syndicates. We will also introduce discretionary caning for those who facilitate scams through providing enablers such as their Singpass credentials, SIM cards or bank accounts. If we can deny scammers access to such enablers, it will be much more difficult for them to carry out successful scams, and we can better protect Singaporeans. |
18. Sir, even as we introduce caning for scams, we also intend to recalibrate the use of caning in other offences. Today, there are 96 offences that attract discretionary caning, and 65 which attract mandatory caning. My Ministry has conducted a review, to ensure that caning is only applied where there is a need.
19. As Members can see from Part B of the Annex, we are proposing to amend eight provisions to remove caning entirely, and in the case of vandalism, to remove caning for a subset of the offence. As our societal context and crime situation have evolved, caning may no longer be necessary in some offences. These are generally offences that do not involve intentional harm to a person nor cause significant harm to the public, and for which we assess that the other penalties are adequate. Clauses 41, 61, 67, and 69 to 76 of the Bill make the necessary amendments.
20. For 15 provisions reflected in Part C of the Annex, we propose to give the courts the discretion to decide whether to impose caning, rather than to require caning in all cases. These are given effect by clauses 15 to 17, 40, 54 to 60, 62, 65, 66 and 72 to 74 of the Bill.
21. For avoidance of doubt, more serious cases should still result in caning, even as we make these amendments to change mandatory caning to discretionary caning.
22. Let me illustrate with vandalism. Clauses 72 to 74 of the Bill amend the Vandalism Act so that mandatory caning is replaced with discretionary caning for vandalism of public property and designated private property. The latter category includes private property that is of national, cultural or religious significance, and any other private property that the Minister may prescribe, in short, primarily property that has public significance or serves a public function. For these vandalism offences, we will leave it to the court to decide whether caning should be imposed, on a case-by-case basis.
23. This approach maintains a firm stance against vandalism generally, while allowing the punishment to be calibrated based on the facts of each case. The court may consider factors like the extent of property damage, the vandal’s motivations, the degree of premeditation, and the impact on public services and functions.
24. Similarly, in other offences which only involve preparatory acts or do not require an element of harm to be present before the offence is made out, we have assessed that discretionary caning is adequate. The courts can still impose caning in serious cases where real harm results or there are other aggravating factors. This includes certain offences under the Corrosive, Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act, as well as attempted robbery and making preparation for gang-robbery under sections 393 and 399 of the Penal Code.
25. Let me be clear. The amendments do not signal any softening in our stance against crime. The large majority of offences which attract caning today, including serious sexual and violence offences, will continue to attract caning as a punishment.
Enhancing Measures Against Misuse of Technology to Produce and Circulate Abusive Materials
26. Sir, the second category of amendments ensures that our criminal laws keep pace with technology.
27. First, we are introducing amendments to deal with large-scale circulation of obscene objects, which include sexual images or videos. Members will recall the case of the chat group “SG Nasi Lemak”, in which over 44,000 members circulated and shared obscene materials involving women and girls.
28. The Government’s view is that the current penalties are not adequate. Technology allows obscene materials to be shared with tens of thousands of recipients, through a single keystroke. The harm is amplified, many times over. We cannot begin to imagine the distress suffered by a young girl whose images are sent to thousands of prying eyes. And because these materials can be sent to so many people, it is impossible to take them out of circulation entirely. They will always be lurking somewhere, threatening to resurface. These victims may never have peace of mind again.
29. Clause 42 of the Bill therefore introduces enhanced penalties for offences under section 292(1) of the Penal Code where obscene materials are circulated by electronic means to ten or more persons. This threshold takes reference from other provisions where the involvement of ten or more persons introduces a public dimension. For example, under the Societies Act, the threshold size of a group that must be registered as a society is ten persons. The maximum imprisonment term for such offences will be increased from three months to two years. If the obscene material depicts a minor below the age of 18, the penalty will be mandatory imprisonment of up to four years, a doubling of the current maximum of two years’ imprisonment. These enhanced penalties will also apply to cumulative transmissions to ten or more persons in total, to close the potential loophole of accused persons sending separate messages to single individuals, but to a large number of individuals.
30. In addition, clause 43 of the Bill introduces a new offence to target those who set up or manage online locations where obscene materials are circulated, including administrators of chat groups or channels, blogs, or accounts on video-sharing platforms.
(a) The offence is scoped to offenders who intend that the online location be used to circulate obscene materials. It will not cover, for example, platforms whose online locations are used in this way contrary to their original intent or administrators whose chat groups are “spammed” by bad actors.
(b) Given the seriousness of such conduct, the offence is punishable with a fine, and mandatory imprisonment of up to five years, or seven years if the obscene material circulated depicts a minor below the age of 18.
31. Second, we also intend to deal with the problem of images and videos generated by the use of artificial intelligence, or “AI”.
32. Let me begin with intimate images or recordings. By virtue of section 377BE(5) of the Penal Code, our criminal laws already cover sexually explicit “deepfakes”, where an image or recording is altered to depict the victim. It is already an offence to possess or gain access to, or to distribute or threaten to distribute such sexual “deepfakes”, without consent.
33. However, generative AI now makes it possible to generate entirely synthetic images or videos of a person, without making use of a pre-existing image or recording. Clauses 50(a) and (b) of the Bill update the relevant provision to get ahead of this development.
34. Clause 49(d) makes clear that it is an offence to produce any intimate image without consent. Today, such offenders would already be liable for the offence of possessing or gaining access to an intimate image, but we want to make criminal liability clearer as far as production of the intimate image is concerned.
35. Clause 50(c) makes explicit what has always been our intent: that, for the offence of threatening to distribute an intimate image, it is not necessary to prove that the intimate image exists. Such threats can cause serious harm even if the intimate image does not exist, especially now that it is easier to generate such images using AI.
36. Sir, let me turn to child abuse materials. When the relevant offences were introduced in 2019, it was always the Government’s intention to criminalise realistic computer-generated child abuse material, even if the material depicts a fictional child. The offences should not require proof that an actual child was involved, for example, that an image of an actual child was used as part of the training data for the AI used to generate the material. This is both to reduce the roadblocks to enforcement and to reduce the supply of such materials, which contributes to a vicious cycle of abuse. Clause 53 of the Bill amends the relevant definitions to put these points beyond doubt.
Enhancing Protection of Minors and Vulnerable Victims
37. Mr Speaker, the third category of amendments builds on past efforts to protect minors and vulnerable victims.
38. First, clause 42 of the Bill extends enhanced penalties for offences relating to obscene materials under section 292 of the Penal Code, to obscene materials depicting minors below the age of 18, up from the current threshold of 16. This will also bring us in line with the United Nations’ Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography.
39. Second, we propose to strengthen the sexual grooming offences under sections 376E and 376EA of the Penal Code. Today, the offences generally only apply if the groomer and victim meet or intend to meet in Singapore for the sexual acts. There have, however, been cases where sexual grooming charges could not be preferred because the sexual acts were done or intended to be done overseas. Clauses 47 and 48 of the Bill will amend the sexual grooming offences so that they will also apply to sexual acts intended to be done overseas, as long as the acts would constitute an offence if done in Singapore. To prevent overreach, this will only apply where either the groomer or victim travels from a location in Singapore to meet overseas.
40. The amendments also increase the penalties for sexual grooming offences.
41. Third, clauses 45 and 46 of the Bill will increase the penalties for fatal abuse of vulnerable persons under sections 304B and 304C of the Penal Code to life imprisonment, or up to 30 years’ imprisonment if life imprisonment is not imposed.
42. We are introducing life imprisonment because there is strong public interest to deter abuse of vulnerable persons. Often, they are voicelessand they cannot protect themselves, and they depend on others even for their basic needs. And so, when they are abused to the point of death, it is especially heinous and must be met with the full force of the law.
43. Take the tragic case of the young boy who was scalded to death by his parents a few years ago. In 2022, his mother was convicted of murder, while his father was convicted of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by means of a scalded substance. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment. Although the father’s charge was not for causing death but only endangering life, the Court of Appeal found that life imprisonment was justified given the cruelty and severity of the abuse. The Government agrees with the Court’s decision. Moving forward, similar cases may be prosecuted under sections 304B and 304C of the Penal Code instead, as these provisions were specifically introduced to overcome certain hurdles in prosecuting cases of fatal abuse. The amendments will ensure that life imprisonment will be available as a sentencing option in such cases.
Better Protecting Public Servants and Public Service Workers
44. The fourth category of amendments addresses protections for public servants and public service workers.
45. Many public servants and public service workers are at risk of being doxed in the course of performing their duties, that is, having their identity information published with the intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Doxxing can impede or deter them from discharging their duties objectively and impartially, and, when accompanied by falsehoods, can also undermine public confidence in our institutions.
46. First, we will strengthen the protections for public servants and public service workers under section 6 of the Protection from Harassment Act (“POHA”). Today, this offence requires proof that the victim actually suffered harm, alarm or distress. Clause 68 of the Bill removes this requirement. All harassment of public servants or public service workers in the line of duty is unacceptable. For the purposes of securing a conviction, it should not matter whether or to what degree the victim experienced harassment, alarm or distress.
47. The extent of harm experienced by the victim should, of course, still be a factor for sentencing.
48. Second, clause 25 of the Bill introduces a new offence in the Miscellaneous Offences Act to criminalise the doxxing of a public servant, when accompanied by a falsehood about the public servant that the offender knows or has reason to believe is false. Such conduct is especially harmful because not only are the individual public servants adversely affected, but trust in our public institutions is undermined. Section 7 of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act today already criminalises the publishing of a falsehood if that specific falsehood diminishes public confidence, but this new offence will not have that requirement of needing to show diminution of public confidence.
49. To be clear, neither of these amendments prevents members of the public from expressing legitimate feedback or criticism, including publicly. Such feedback, expressed constructively and through the appropriate channels, can help us improve our service delivery and staff training. There will also not be any offence disclosed if the feedback is based on genuinely mistaken facts, since the offence requires that the person know or have reason to believe that a statement of fact is false.
Ensuring Adequate Penalties for Older Youth Offenders
50. Mr Speaker, the next category of amendments in this Bill ensures that adequate penalties, including reformative training, imprisonment and caning, can continue to be imposed on older youth offenders who are repeat offenders or who commit serious crimes, and whose cases are heard outside the Youth Court.
51. In 2019, the Government moved the amendments to the Children and Young Persons Act (“CYPA”) to expand the jurisdiction of the Youth Court to all offenders below the age of 18, up from the previous age of 16. The policy intent, however, was to ensure that if youth offenders between the ages of 16 and 18 commit serious offences or repeat offences, their cases could be transferred out of the Youth Court to the High Court and State Courts. In those cases, it was always intended that the High Court and State Courts will continue to have the full suite of powers to deal with the offenders.
52. However, when preparing to operationalise the CYPA amendments, we identified certain provisions in the earlier round of amendments which are not fully aligned with the policy intent.
53. Clauses 3 to 7, and 23 of the Bill straighten out these provisions and ensure that the policy intent is given its full effect. In particular, it ensures that reformative training, imprisonment and caning are available in such cases. To be clear, the amendments will not require the Court to impose these penalties, nor otherwise limit the Court’s discretion in sentencing. The Court can still, upon a close examination of the facts, impose a rehabilitative sentence.
Recalibration of Requirements on Workers and Dealers of Precious Metals
54. The final set of amendments, Sir, in clauses 26 to 28 of the Bill pertains to workers and dealers of precious metals. The amendments to the Miscellaneous Offences Act will increase the waiting period before such workers or dealers can work on or deal with goods sold to them, from three days to five. This will give the Police more time to trace and recover stolen goods.
55. At the same time, we are reducing the scope of the requirement. This waiting period will only apply to the worker or dealer who first receives goods from a customer, and not the worker or dealer who receives the goods from another dealer. Stolen goods usually come from a customer, rather than from another dealer.
56. The overall intent of the amendments is to improve law enforcement’s ability to trace stolen goods and the criminals, while minimising the burden on businesses in a risk-calibrated manner.
Conclusion
57. Sir, the amendments in the Bill are part of MHA’s regular efforts to make our criminal laws clearer, fairer and more responsive to the prevailing operating environment. They will help MHA carry out our mission of keeping Singapore safe and secure, more effectively. We seek the support of Members for the amendments.
58. Mr Speaker, I seek to move.
