First Reading of the Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill

1. The Ministry of Home Affairs (“MHA”) introduced the Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (“the Bill”) for First Reading in Parliament today. 

2. The Bill amends the Penal Code and other legislation to rationalise and update our criminal laws. It builds on previous amendments to the Penal Code in 2019 and 2021, which, amongst others, enhanced protection for vulnerable victims, introduced new offences to tackle emerging crime trends, and calibrated the scope of and penalties for existing offences.

3. The key amendments in the Bill seek to:

(a) Amend sexual offences relating to obscene objects, sexual grooming of minors, intimate images, and abuse material, including to better address technological advances;

(b) Increase the penalties for causing or allowing fatal abuse of vulnerable victims;

(c) Deter false allegations against authorities and doxxing of public servants; 

(d) Revise caning penalties for certain offences, including the introduction of caning for scams and scams-related offences;

(e) Where appropriate, ensure that youth offenders whose cases are dealt with in the State Courts or High Court can receive adequate penalties such as imprisonment; and

(f) Amend the obligations on workers and dealers of precious metals. 

Amending Sexual Offences 

Offences Relating to Obscene Objects 

4. Today, section 292 of the Penal Code criminalises a range of acts relating to obscene objects, including sale and distribution. The offence is punishable with imprisonment of up to three months, or a fine, or both. If the obscene objects depict minors below the age of 16, there are enhanced penalties of imprisonment of up to two years, or a fine, or both. 

5. The Bill introduces four amendments to section 292:

(a) First, the Bill extends the application of the enhanced penalties to obscene objects depicting minors below the age of 18, up from the current age of 16. This is to better protect minors and align with international conventions on child pornography.

(b) Second, the Bill ensures that consensual, private sending of obscene objects depicting adults is not criminalised. For avoidance of doubt, non-consensual sending of obscene objects, and sending of obscene objects depicting minors below the age of 16, or minors below the age of 18 and in an exploitative relationship^[1] with the offender, will continue to be criminalised under other offences.

(c) The third and fourth amendments (see paras 6 to 8) seek to address large-scale electronic circulation of obscene objects. Technological advancements have enabled such objects to be transmitted more quickly and to large groups of people, at minimal or no cost. The current penalties in section 292 are also inadequate to deal with egregious cases. To deal with this:

(i) The Bill creates a new offence targeting those who set up or manage online locations^[2] with the intent of facilitating such large-scale circulation. Such online locations facilitate and amplify the spread of obscene materials. As compared to members of the online location who share obscene content, administrators have a higher level of culpability.

(ii) The Bill introduces enhanced penalties for the circulation of obscene objects to 10 or more persons. 

6. The updated penalties, including for the new offence, are tiered as follows:

7. Today, the offences of sexual grooming in sections 376E and 376EA of the Penal Code generally do not apply if the offender and victim intend to meet overseas to carry out the sexual act. The Bill amends the offences to cover cases where the offender and victim meet or intend to meet overseas to carry out the sexual act, as long as the travel of either party commenced in Singapore and the intended sexual act would have been an offence if committed in Singapore.

8. Given the expanded reach of the offence to cover these potentially more egregious cases, the Bill also increases the penalties:

9. The 2019 Penal Code amendments introduced new offences in sections 377BA to 377BO, which criminalised a range of acts involving intimate images and child abuse materials. The definitions of intimate images and child abuse materials introduced at the time already covered most forms of deepfakes and included computer-generated child abuse materials. 

10. The Bill introduces three amendments to these offences to account for technological advances:

(a) First, the Bill extends the definition of intimate images in section 377BE to include synthetic AI-generated images. The current definition of “intimate image” only applies to images that are created by altering existing images or recordings. However, the increasing sophistication of AI models means that completely synthetic images can be generated. These are no less objectionable than images which are created by altering existing images or recordings.

(b) Second, the Bill introduces a new offence of producing intimate images, including AI-generated images, without consent. In practice, there is no gap as persons who produce intimate images of others will invariably be caught under the existing offences of possession of or gaining access to intimate images. However, for clarity, MHA will expressly criminalise production of intimate images without consent. The penalties for this new offence will be the same as the offences of voyeurism and possession of intimate images.

(c) Third, the Bill amends the definition of child abuse material in section 377C to clarify that the Penal Code offences cover computer-generated child abuse material, even without proof that an image of a real child had been used in the production of that material. This has always been our policy intent, and the amendment is meant to provide certainty. 

11. The 2019 Penal Code amendments introduced new offences under sections 304B and 304C of causing or allowing the death of a child below 14 years of age, a domestic worker, or a vulnerable person, through abuse. These offences are punishable with imprisonment of up to 20 years, with liability for a fine or caning.

12. The Bill increases the maximum penalties for these offences to life imprisonment or imprisonment of up to 30 years, with liability for a fine or caning. This enables stiffer sentences, including life imprisonment, to be imposed for the most egregious forms of abuse leading to death. The increase brings the penalties in line with those for culpable homicide when committed against a vulnerable victim, and follows recent local cases which have demonstrated situations where life imprisonment or lengthy imprisonment terms may be warranted^[3].  

13. Doxxing (the disclosure of identity information) of public servants or public service workers can impede or deter them from discharging their duties. When accompanied by falsehoods, they can also undermine public confidence in our public institutions over time. Today, our existing laws are limited in two ways: 

(a) The offence of doxxing a public servant or public service worker under section 6 of the Protection from Harassment Act (“POHA”) requires proof that the victim suffered harassment, alarm, or distress.

(b) The offence of communicating a false statement of fact in Singapore under section 7 of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act requires that the falsehood diminishes public confidence in a public institution in that particular instance.

14. To adequately protect public servants and public service workers, and to maintain confidence in public institutions, the Bill introduces two amendments:

(a) First, the Bill amends the offence of doxxing a public servant or public service worker under POHA to remove the need to prove that the victim suffered harassment, alarm, or distress, so long as the offender had the intention to harass. All harassment of public servants or public service workers is unacceptable.

(b) Second, the Bill introduces a new offence in the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (“MOA”) which criminalises 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. The offence must also be done with the intent to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging their duty, or in consequence of anything done by the public servant in discharge of their duty. The new offence is punishable with imprisonment of up to three years, a fine of up to $10,000, or both. 

15. Today, judicial caning serves the functions of deterrence (i.e., to discourage the specific offender and other would-be offenders from committing future offences) and proportionate punishment (i.e., to ensure that the punishment fits the crime). There are currently 161 offences that attract caning: 96 attract discretionary caning, while 65 attract mandatory caning^[4].  

16. Fighting scams continues to be a top national priority. The number of scam cases and scam losses remain concerning. MHA will introduce caning for scams and scams-related offences for stronger deterrence. 

(a) Scammers^[5] and members/recruiters^[6] of scam syndicates will face mandatory caning of at least 6 strokes, which can go up to 24 strokes.

(b) Scam mules who enable scammers by laundering scam proceeds, providing SIM cards and providing Singpass credentials will face discretionary caning of up to 12 strokes. These include certain money-laundering offences under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act; Singpass offences under the Computer Misuse Act; and certain SIM-card offences under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.

In these cases, discretionary caning will generally be a sentencing option for the courts if:

(i) The offender intended or knew (depending on the offence) that the enabler would be used to commit or facilitate the commission of a scam; or

(ii) If: 

17. MHA will also introduce discretionary caning for non-scam cheating (i.e., traditional fraud) under section 420 of the Penal Code. This recognises that there are egregious traditional cheating cases that could warrant caning as a sentencing option. 

18. The full list of offences for which caning will be introduced is in Annex A.

19. MHA has also reviewed all offences which carry mandatory or discretionary caning to assess if they are still required in today’s context. The key considerations underlying this review are:

(a) Whether the offence is still of significant public concern;

(b) Whether there was any actual harm caused by the offence, for instance, where the offence involves only preparatory acts;^[7] and/or

(c) Whether other forms of punishment, such as discretionary caning, imprisonment or fines, are adequately deterrent and proportionate to the harm caused by the offence.

20. The review concluded that, for vast majority of these offences (139 of 161 offences), the existing penalties remain relevant and appropriate. However, for 22 offences, MHA intends to remove caning as a penalty or replace mandatory caning with discretionary caning. MHA has assessed that the alternative punishments for these 22 offences remain appropriate and proportionate.

21. The full list of revised caning penalties is in Annex B. MHA will continue to periodically review and adjust the list of offences that are liable for caning as appropriate.

22. To expand rehabilitative support for older youth offenders, the Children and Young Persons Act (“CYPA”) and Criminal Procedure Code were amended in 2019 to allow the cases of youth offenders aged 16 to below 18 years to be heard in the Youth Courts.

23. At the same time, to maintain public safety and deterrence against crime, the amendments would also allow cases involving older youths who are repeat offenders or who commit certain serious crimes, such as serious sexual offences, unlicensed moneylending and drug trafficking, to be transmitted to the State Courts or High Court. In addition, cases that must be tried in the High Court will continue to be tried there. The intent of having serious cases heard in the State Courts and High Court was to ensure that adequately deterrent sentences, such as imprisonment, reformative training, and caning, can continue to be imposed where appropriate.

24. This Bill introduces amendments to fully achieve this intended policy,^[8] in particular, to ensure that the Courts retain sufficient flexibility to impose firmer punishment on older youth offenders tried in the State Courts or High Court. This maintains the intent of the 2019 CYPA amendments and reflects the Government’s tough stance on crime, even as we continue to help youth offenders rehabilitate and reintegrate into society. The 2019 CYPA amendments are planned to come into effect at the same time as the relevant amendments in this Bill.

25. Today, the MOA imposes a waiting period of three days after receipt before workers or dealers in precious metals can melt, alter or deface those goods or articles. The Bill amends the MOA to increase the waiting time from three days to five and applies this waiting period only to the dealer who first receives the goods from a customer. This will better meet law enforcement needs while managing the compliance burden on industry. The Bill also clarifies that this waiting period applies to selling or disposing of such goods or articles. Furthermore, the Bill repeals registration requirements for such dealers under the MOA, which are now obsolete.

26. The Government regularly reviews and updates our criminal laws to ensure they remain effective, fair, and responsive to emerging challenges. We are determined to maintain a safe and secure Singapore, where people have confidence in our criminal justice system, and where criminals have no refuge and are deterred from committing crime.

---

[1] Whether the accused person’s relationship with the minor is exploitative will be determined by the Court according to the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court must consider the following factors in making such a determination: (i) the age of the minor; (ii) the age difference between the accused person and the minor; (iii) the nature of the relationship; and (iv) the degree of control or influence exercised by the accused person over the minor.

[2] This will cover digital platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram group chats and channels, websites and blogs, and channels on video-sharing platforms such as YouTube.

[3] For example, Azlin binte Arujunah and Ridzuan bin Mega Abdul Rahman abused their 5-year old son, who eventually died from cumulative scald injuries which were inflicted using hot water over four incidents. The victim also suffered other forms of abuse.

[4] Mandatory caning means that the Courts must impose caning on the offender if he is found guilty of the relevant crime. Discretionary caning means that the Courts have discretion whether to impose caning, if he is found guilty of the relevant crime. 

[5] Specifically, for the offence of cheating inducing delivery of property under section 420 of the Penal Code, when committed mainly by means of remote communication. 

[6] Under sections 5 and 6 of the Organised Crime Act.

[7] For example, under section 402 of the Penal Code, it is an offence to assemble for the purpose of committing gang-robbery. The offence does not require that the offenders commit gang-robbery, and is punishable with imprisonment of up to 7 years, and mandatory caning with not less than 4 strokes. The Bill replaces the punishment of mandatory caning with discretionary caning. In the scenario that the offenders proceed to commit gang-robbery, the offence will continue to be punishable under section 395 of the Penal Code with imprisonment of between 5 and 20 years, and mandatory caning with not less than 12 strokes.

[8] In December 2024, MSF announced that further legislative amendments were needed to give full effect to the 2019 CYPA amendments passed by Parliament (link). 


Annexes

1. Annex A – Scams and Scams-Related Offences for which Caning will be Introduced (PDF, 191KB)

2. Annex B – Offences for which Caning will be Removed or Made Discretionary (PDF, 136KB)