Second Reading of the Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill – Wrap-Up Speech by Ms Sim Ann, Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Home Affairs

Introduction

1. Mr Speaker, let me thank Members for their questions and their strong support for the amendments.

2. Let me first touch on the amendments to sexual offences. 

3. Ms Joan Pereira highlighted bullying cases which involve the distribution of intimate images of minors. We agree that a firm stance should be taken against such acts. Let me assure Ms Pereira that this is already an offence under the Penal Code which attracts severe punishment. I also thank Ms Pereira for her suggestions regarding upstream preventive measures and downstream victim support, and agree that these are important to complement the proposals in the Bill. Measures have indeed been put in place to help victims of sexual offences, including minors, through the criminal justice process.

4. Mr Xie Yao Quan suggested introducing discretionary caning for administrators of online locations circulating obscene material. MHA will continue to monitor the situation and assess if there is a need to review the penalties further.

5. Next, on the enhanced penalties for fatal abuse of vulnerable victims. 

6. Mr Cai Yinzhou highlighted that beyond increasing the penalties for abuse of vulnerable victims, it is also important to have upstream preventive measures. We agree. Such measures have been put in place by MSF and MOM. 

7. Mr Cai has also suggested including seniors and persons with disabilities within the definition of vulnerable persons. Under our current laws, a ‘vulnerable person’ refers to those who, due to mental or physical infirmity, disability, or incapacity, are substantially unable to protect themselves from abuse, neglect, or self-neglect. Seniors and persons with disabilities who meet this definition will be protected by the enhanced penalties we propose to impose on their abusers.

8. On the new offence to criminalise the doxxing of a public servant, Dr Wan Rizal asked if offenders could escape liability by claiming that the falsehood was minor or was disguised in humour or sarcasm. The Courts apply an objective standard in determining what constitutes a false statement of fact, and will not take such claims at face value. 

9. Dr Wan Rizal sought to clarify when agencies would use levers under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), versus the new offence of doxxing accompanied by a falsehood. POFMA levers focus on the likely impact of the false statement of fact on key public interests, such as Singapore’s security, public health, safety, tranquillity or finances, or public confidence in our institutions. On the other hand, the new offence is targeted at protecting public servants, and thus requires that the false statement of fact relate to the public servant. Different cases may require one lever or the other, or even a combination of the two. Such a determination would have to be made on a case-by-case basis. 

10. Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Sylvia Lim had questions regarding the scope of the new offence. Dr Wan Rizal asked if the new offence would extend to public service workers who perform public duties but are not public servants. The new offence will only cover public servants. False statements against public servants can directly undermine confidence in our public institutions and so warrant a higher penalty. That said, doxxing of a public service worker is already an offence under the Protection from Harassment Act, and that carries enhanced penalties. Ms Lim asked if the new offence would extend to politicians such as Ministers and MPs. Political officeholders are covered as they are part of the executive. MPs are currently not covered but MHA is separately reviewing this. To be clear, persons who harass MPs are nonetheless still liable for an offence under the Protection from Harassment Act, or other offences like criminal intimidation and criminal defamation, depending on the facts of the case.

11. Ms Lim asked if the definition of a ‘related person’ of a public servant could be made more precise. A ‘related person’ of a public servant is defined as a person whose safety or wellbeing the public servant would reasonably be expected to be seriously concerned about. The rationale for extending the offence to cover doxxing of ‘related persons’ of a public servant is because offenders may target persons close to a public servant to get to the public servant. The question of whether a person falls within the definition of a ‘related person’ is an objective one that the Courts will determine based on the facts of each case. The concept of a ‘related person’ is not new and already exists within POHA.

12. Ms Lim asked about the placement of the illustration in the Explanatory Note instead of within the provision. We assess that the provision is clear enough. Not all offence provisions need to have illustrations. In any case, the Explanatory Note is available in the public domain and can be referred to by all stakeholders, including counsel and the courts if necessary.

13. Let me now move on to comments on the scam caning proposals. Comments from Members are largely divided into three categories – the Government’s general anti-scam measures, adequacy of the proposed penalties, and clarifications on the proposals. 

14. First, on the Government’s general anti-scam measures. 

15. Ms Lee Hui Ying asked about the Government’s plans to implement more robust industry safeguards to disrupt the communication channels used by scam syndicates to approach victims. In the first half of 2025, scammers used online platforms to approach victims in about 82% of all scam cases. To address this, the Government has worked with online platforms to implement anti-scam safeguards and remove scam-tainted content and accounts. For example, in September 2025, the Online Criminal Harms Act Competent Authority issued an Implementation Directive to Meta to put in place measures to target scam advertisements, accounts, profiles, and/or business pages impersonating Government Office Holders on Facebook. The Government will consider further legislative levers as necessary.

16. Given the transnational nature of scams, Mr David Hoe asked if Singapore can establish a permanent joint disruption cell bringing together both governments and private entities in different jurisdictions. Mr Melvin Yong and Ms Lee asked if Singapore takes action against overseas scam syndicates. I agree with Mr Hoe, Mr Yong, and Ms Lee that it is critical for governments to work together to disrupt scams and recover assets. To cite one example, in October 2024, the Police formalised FRONTIER+, an initiative to strengthen real-time intelligence sharing, improve asset recovery, and coordinate joint operations among the anti-scam units of several jurisdictions. FRONTIER+ now covers 13 jurisdictions, including Hong Kong, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia and Thailand. We are actively encouraging other jurisdictions to join FRONTIER+. Between May and June this year, SPF conducted one of the biggest anti-scam operations with six other jurisdictions under Frontier+, which led to the arrest of 1,800 persons and the 

recovery of more than $26 million.

17. Mr Hoe also asked if the Ministry publishes regular updates on the number of scammers caught and their penalties, for deterrence. SPF regularly publishes its enforcement efforts through press releases following key operations, and via the biannual Scams and Cybercrime Briefs. For example, in the Scams and Cybercrime Brief for the first half of 2025, the Police reported that more than 3,500 suspected money mules and scammers were investigated, of whom more than 500 were charged. The Police also arrested 93 persons and investigated another 119 persons for their suspected involvement in providing fraudulently registered SIM cards for monetary gain. The message is clear – if you enable scams, even indirectly, you will face the full force of the law. 

18. Mr Yong asked if we could do more to prevent vulnerable individuals, such as youths, from becoming scam mules. The Government has been running many public education initiatives to educate youths about the consequences of facilitating scams. For example, MHA has worked with MOE to conduct school talks and insert anti-scam messaging into advisories, which are disseminated to students in primary and secondary schools as well as Institutes of Higher Learning. 

19. Mr Hoe asked if more could be done to support scam victims and encourage them to come forward and make reports. The Police have developed a resource guide on what victims should do and the community support that they can seek. The guide is available in all four official languages and has been delivered to all households, with online copies available on the SPF and ScamShield websites. Where necessary, the Police may also refer victims to a Victim Care Officer for psychological first aid and crisis intervention.  

20. Mr Hoe also highlighted the need to build a resilient public and suggested gamification and making scam quizzes more accessible. I thank Mr Hoe for raising these ideas, which my colleagues will look into. I agree with him that we should consider new and creative ways to get the message across. I hope businesses too will consider these ideas, and proactively help shore up their employees’ digital defence against online threats including scams.

21. Ms Lee also asked about the Government’s efforts to monitor the effectiveness of anti-scam public education tools. SPF periodically commissions surveys on the outreach and engagement performance of the Government’s scam education initiatives. A recent survey to measure the effectiveness of Singapore’s “I can ACT against scams” campaign found that 89% of respondents felt that the campaign messages were easy to understand. 84% said that the campaign motivated them to adopt anti-scam protective measures.  

22. Mr Yong also asked if the Government would consider introducing anti-ticketing scam laws to tackle concert ticket scams. I thank the Member for his concerns and passionate advocacy on this issue. Over the past year, MHA and the Police have worked with secondary resale platforms like Carousell and Facebook Marketplace to disallow listings of resale tickets for high-demand concerts. MHA is also working with MTI, MCCY, and STB to explore other measures to address concert ticket scams, including the establishment of authorised ticket resale platforms and consumer education campaigns. More details will be announced when ready.

23. Mr Cai Yinzhou highlighted that stiffer penalties alone will not be effective in dealing with the scams problem. Ms Sylvia Lim asked if the government had considered other measures outside the criminal law to disrupt scam syndicates. I would like to assure the Members that introducing stiff penalties is not the only anti-scam measure that the Government employs. The government adopts a whole-of-society approach to deal with scams, ranging from upstream measures to prevent scammers from approaching victims to the usage of technology to scale up disruption efforts. The Members may also wish to refer to the Mid-Year Scams and Cybercrime brief published by the SPF for an overview of these measures.

24. Second, on the adequacy of the proposed penalties.

25. Mr Hoe asked if we relied on any benchmark in deciding the maximum number of strokes for scam-related offenders and if a ceiling of 12 strokes provides sufficient deterrence. In deciding the maximum number of strokes, the Ministry considered factors including the existing penalty regime for offences of a similar nature, such as unlicensed moneylending. We assess that 12 strokes is sufficient for now but will monitor the situation closely. The Courts will have discretion to decide the actual number of strokes, and will take into account the principle of proportionality that Mr Hoe talked about.

26. Mr Foo Cexiang asked if caning should be made mandatory for scam mules as well, given that mules are essential to the scam enterprise. Mr Foo also asked if caning should be mandatory for scam-related offenders with a nexus to Government Official Impersonation scams. Mr Xie Yao Quan suggested for the penalties for scams and scam-related offences to be increased and aligned with drug offences. I thank the members for their suggestions and for their recognition of the severity of the scam problem. Scammers indeed rely heavily on the enablers provided by scam mules to deceive victims and profit from their scams. Dismantling this local ecosystem of enablers is essential to addressing the scams situation. Notwithstanding the need to deter scam mules, MHA recognises the need to be calibrated in our approach. In reality, scam mules have a range of culpability. Therefore, we have proposed for caning to be discretionary to allow the Courts to decide if the facts of the case warrant the application of caning. MHA will monitor the situation and adjust the penalties further if necessary. 

27. Mr Fadli Fawzi and Mr Cai asked if leniency could be shown for mules who step forward as informants. An offender’s degree of cooperation with the authorities and degree of remorse are already mitigating factors that the Courts may consider. 

28. Mr Cai made the point that scam mules are often from vulnerable backgrounds and incentivised to facilitate scams because of financial hardships. Perhaps he has seen a recent Straits Times article on crime gangs quoting an expert drawing connections between economic inequality and family-linked crime. The Government has many measures in place to uplift and support families and individuals in financial need. MHA’s view on this matter, therefore, is that financial hardship cannot be used as a justification to facilitate or commit scams, or any crime for that matter. And, as many Members have pointed out, scams are not victimless crimes. The victims can suffer permanent, irreparable harm – not just financial harm, but also severe psychological, and in some cases, physical harm. To reduce such harm, we must be prepared to deter potential scam mules with sufficiently stiff penalties.

29. Third, Sir, on clarifications on the proposals.

30. Dr Wan Rizal asked if there would be sentencing guidance to clearly define the key roles in a scam to aid the Courts in distinguishing between the masterminds and low-level participants. Mr Yong asked if the sentencing guidelines would accord leniency for youths and those with intellectual disabilities. Today, the various scam-related offences already differentiate penalties based on the fault element – in general, the higher the level of culpability, the higher the maximum penalty for that offence. Where an offender has been charged for a particular offence, the legal burden will be on the Public Prosecutor to prove that all the elements of the offence, including the fault element, have been met. In sentencing, the Courts will consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, including mitigating factors such as the offender’s young age or intellectual capabilities. In August 2024, the interagency Sentencing Advisory Panel, chaired by Justice Tay Yong Kwang, issued sentencing guidelines for scams-related offences. 

31. Dr Wan Rizal also asked if there was a checklist defining what counts as reasonable steps that an individual can take to ensure that an enabler would not be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of a scam. It would not be practical to provide an exhaustive checklist. It will be for the Courts to decide whether the steps taken, if any, meet the legal threshold, based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. That said, all individuals should protect their Singpass credentials, payment accounts and SIM cards and should not provide them to unknown individuals no matter what the unknown individuals claim they would be used for.

32. Mr Cai asked if enhanced penalties can apply retrospectively to the 27 Singaporeans who are alleged to be part of the scam syndicate in Cambodia, if found guilty. The proposed penalties will apply prospectively. In other words, only those who commit offences after the enhanced criminal penalties come into force, can be liable for them. This is provided for under the Constitution. 

33. Mr Foo asked about the need to scope scam offences to deceit mainly by way of remote communication. A defining characteristic of scams is the substantial use of remote communications to reach and engage victims. Using remote communication allows scammers to significantly scale up their operations and frustrate law enforcement efforts by allowing them to reach victims without entering Singapore. They can therefore be far more insidious than traditional cheating cases, and warrant the application of the enhanced penalties. We have been careful in the choice of words – in particular, we have chosen not to scope scam offences to deceit only by way of remote communication, as we cannot rule out the possibility of scammers making some form of physical outreach to victims as part of their modus operandi. Such scammers should not escape liability for caning because of this technicality. It will be for the courts to decide whether each case meets the definition of scams as set out in law.

34. Ms Lim asked what led MHA to decide on tightening the penalties for scam and scam-related offences. MHA periodically reviews the adequacy of our criminal penalties. Specific to scams, MHA needed time to examine the deterrence effect of the new money laundering and Singpass offences that were operationalised in February 2024 and the new SIM card offences that were operationalised in January this year. We think there is strong public interest to tighten the penalties further now, and caning would be commensurate with the severity of the scam problem.

35. Mr Fadli Fawzi suggested using recovered funds to finance a scam victim restitution fund. As we stated in Parliament on 28 February 2025, we are studying various proposals, including the return of seized scam assets. However, there are significant difficulties with returning recovered assets through a restitution fund, and any such approach has to be carefully considered as Mr Fadli himself has also pointed out. 

36. Lastly, there were also some comments from members that go beyond the scope of this Bill. I will touch on these briefly. 

37. Ms Lee raised the ongoing case involving Prince Holding Group. As this is beyond the scope of this Bill, I invite Ms Lee to file a separate PQ with her detailed questions. But I will say that this case demonstrates the Police’s ability to advance investigations against highly complex, large-scale transnational criminal networks. We will continue to work with our foreign law enforcement counterparts and financial intelligence units, as well as leverage domestic coordination platforms like the AC3N which Mr Yong had earlier highlighted, to act against such organised crime groups and money laundering networks.

38. Ms Lim asked if the Extradition Act can be used in future to transfer suspects from foreign jurisdictions to Singapore and whether joint operations with foreign jurisdictions would occur more frequently. I invite Ms Lim to file a separate PQ on the usage of the Extradition Act as it goes beyond the scope of this Bill. But I would like to highlight that SPF regularly collaborates with their foreign counterparts to enforce against transnational criminal syndicates, and in the first half of 2025, eight scam syndicates were dismantled through such joint collaboration. These syndicates must know that they cannot take refuge anywhere – the law will eventually catch up with them. 

39. Mr Cai asked about the application of caning to offenders who are above 50 years old. Ms Lee also suggested reviewing the maximum age limit for caning. The Government has previously explained that we do not intend to do so. First, the number of men above the age of 50 at the point of arrest for serious offences that attract the punishment of caning, is significantly lower than that for men aged 50 and younger. Second, as mentioned earlier, an additional imprisonment term of up to 12 months can be imposed in lieu of caning.

40. Finally, on the amendments regarding young offenders, Mr Henry Kwek suggested the adoption of an age-sensitive charging approach for younger offenders. This is already the case today. Cases involving offenders below the age of 16 will generally continue to be heard in the Youth Court. The amended Children and Young Persons Act only provides that cases involving offenders aged 16 to below 18 may be transmitted to the State Court or High Court if they have committed serious or repeat offences. Even for such offenders, I would highlight that the prosecution retains discretion in deciding on the appropriate charge and whether to apply for these cases to be transmitted out of the Youth Court. In exercising this discretion, the Public Prosecutor will consider the full facts and circumstances of the case, including the age of the offender.

41. Sir, the Government regularly reviews our criminal laws to ensure that they remain effective, fair, and responsive to the changing environment. The proposed amendments enhance our efforts to maintain a safe and secure Singapore, and I thank Members for their support.

42. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.