Caning for scammers?

So what do you guys think about it? Because according to Minister of State for Home Affairs, Sun Xui Ling, in a speech during yesterday's Committee of Supply debate for the Home Affairs Ministry, she did bring up this case that yes, Singapore's going to start considering this. Currently, here's how caning is used, OK? Offenses that warrant caning under Singapore law include robbery, drug abuse, vandalism, sexual abuse, and illegal money laundering, right.

Now that we're extending the use or considering now Singapore is considering it, let's talk about the role of this form of punishment in our legal system. Noel Teo is here, associate lawyer from GJC Law. Noel, welcome back to the show. Hi, Lance, Daniel, thank you for having me. When you first heard about this idea of extending this form of punishment to be included for to potentially be included for very serious scam cases as well, can you give us your,

your legal mind perspective on it? Have we, do we see this in the legal world often that certain forms of punishment which traditionally have been used for certain crimes can also be extended into the use of other types of crimes? I think it's undisputed that Singapore has a very low tolerance towards crime, and I guess for scam-related offenses, Singapore has taken a very strict and harsh stance towards such offenses, and as the minister has mentioned, the starting point is

an imprisonment sentence. Of course, it includes cases where even a person handing over their bank account. SingPass account, or even the new law, which where you hand over your SIM cards to be used in scam-related activities. And um I guess imposing caning on scammers is probably consistent with the firm and uncompromising stance towards scams and with harsher penalties, including physical punishment. Parliament is probably sending a very strong message that scam-related

activities will not be tolerated. Yes, but can, but in the the legal framework, can one form of punishment be extended to other types of crimes? I mean, we have grown used to caning being used for these types of things for robbery, drug abuse.

illegal lending, right? Yeah, something that's, that's very deep, like very personal, very abusive, very serious, um, so the idea of that form of punishment being extended into something else, which maybe is not as physically harmful but definitely emotionally scarring and life ruining scamming is, but can a form of punishment in one area be extended to use in another area?

I guess this has, this is a decision with parliament, of course, if they decide to amend the law to include caning as a form of punishment, that is what the parliament will decide. Um, this is probably because you need a strong deterrent and sometimes maybe financial penalties or imprisonment may not fully deter scammers, particularly if they are in a syndicate and they may treat imprisonment or fines simply as a cost

of doing business. So, you know, having the possibility of caning may make them think twice and discourage local and foreigners from engaging in scam-related activities. Right. OK. No, but what's the quantum, you know, are we talking about someone who Maybe scams and individual or a group of people of over $500,000 a million dollars, there must be some sort of um benchmark.

Understand. I, I think the challenge here is defining what is a more serious case and is it only going to apply to large scale syndicate leaders or is it going to apply to even local individuals who become involved in a scam-related event. Again, this is something to be dealt with by parliament and the company is scams. Yeah, this is pretty much.

But of course there is the Sentencing Advisory panel guidelines. Um, there are certain considerations that they have brought up for other scam-related offenses, such as whether it was motivated by personal gain, whether there's an abuse of position of trust, whether there was the value of the scam proceeds that you mentioned, whether there was a syndicate element, and whether were there vulnerable victims. Right, OK, so. Are we looking at at something like this as well?

I know it's up to parliament, but we're just spitballing here. Would it apply to Singaporeans or anyone that's caught here in Singapore, they will, if this does go ahead, they will have the roan. I believe that it would, it would likely apply to both because um I think a lot of scams are conducted overseas and and in a way, when the harsh punishments are held towards people who hand over accounts in Singapore, it is to cut off their supply.

So it really depends on how parliament and the court interprets this moving forward, but um I believe that if they do, they would not probably will not discriminate between, you know, whether or not they're Singaporeans or whether or not they are foreigners. Actually, that brings up an interesting point because of the nature of scams, which are transboundary in nature and because that may be different jurisdictions as well.

First, I mean, yes, it's all well and good to have this as a punishment or form of pun punishment potentially. But what if the man on the street is gonna say, I, what's the point? Can you catch a person? Yeah, I mean, of course, there is a difficulty there because it is um like you said, transnational and it is a bit difficult to trace if it's conducted online. But like I mentioned just now, sometimes it's pretty much

to deter people. I think similarly to how Singapore's stance towards drugs and you know, how we treat certain offenses. It is quite clear that Singapore has a very harsh stance towards such things and scammers twice. Will the scammer twice? If the scammer is in country X 10,000 kilometers away, they're like, what's the point? You have the law, but you can't, you can't, I I'm not going to end up in a Singaporean jail. Of course, like I said, we're not sure how they're

going to apply the law. If they're going to apply it to locals who become involved, that could also, yes, that could also be possible because like I said, when they target the locals, it's pretty much to sort of cut off the supply for the overseas scammers, and when you cut off their supplies, they tend to not be able to conduct, you know, the scams anymore because you

you're basically targeting them from the source. Can I just tell you guys Fun fact, there are about 120,000 people now working in scam centers in Myanmar. I know, I know. 120,000 people. Some of them have been kidnapped, some of them have gone there thinking they've got job opportunities, they go there, next thing you know. They're working under terrible conditions, paying back debts. I'm not sure what else, maybe even being tortured just to make

money for these scammers. That is scary. It's larger than multinational corporations, you know. So it, it goes to show you how organized these scammers are as well. It's, it's how they're doing things. So that's why we need to fight back. So other than giving them the Rotan as well, are we also looking at maybe seizing all their assets, property, cars, bank accounts? Are we looking at stuff like that? Do you think we need to look at that to make sure it's severe, it's harsh?

I think there is twofold, so there is, of course, the possibility of disgorging any of the proceeds of scam that is that is already currently in place. The other part is there is also a law introduced to also allow authorities to take control of the accounts of targets and to freeze, suspend money transfer. Of course, in this way, you know, instead of just only punishing, we deal with protective measures against scams. So that that's sort of a twofold kind of thing.

Where you're not just punishing people, but you're also warning people against going towards scams, um, you know, protecting people who are just stubbornly going to continue transferring money to scammers. I'm just out of curiosity, this form of punishment, I mean, does draw international flack and, and makes headlines around the world sometimes. If you're old enough like me, uh, and Nance, you'll remember the Michael Fay case, for example, which made

headlines around the world, right? And so, so I'm curious, like is this form of punishment still actively utilized in the judicial systems around the world? Is this very unique to Singapore from a legal point of view, is it still used elsewhere? Um, yes, it is actually used in Asian countries. I believe Malaysia, Indonesia, they still use it as well. Um, of course, for different offenses and like you mentioned just now,

generally reserved for violent crimes, drug offenses, sexual offenses. Interesting. OK. Uh, can we talk about Telegram as well because we know this was brought up in parliament. Should we go after the platforms in a, in a much bigger way, because we know Telegram. A lot of people go on to Telegram to do these jobs and investment scams, so.

Other than the individuals that need to be keen, how can we handle these big social media platforms to, to maybe send a message that their platforms are being used for scams and we need to do something about it if they're not doing something about it? Yes, I think we have spoken quite a few times about how social media is being used for offenses and scams,

all this while. Um, I think there needs to be some sort of guidelines and control in terms of how these these these platforms actually deal with such um Users, I guess, when you call them users who actually create, you know, channels and messages that leads to scams. Um, we have cases where, you know, clients sort of fall prey to such scammers from Telegram thinking that it is a job. And, and in the, in the end, you know, they

get into trouble. So, um I think there needs to be some sort of, you know, I don't know, moderator control whether or not someone can flag out certain words because they tend to use similar words like, you know, fast cash, they use words like quick loan.

Like that sort of sounds. Yeah, and it does sometimes it does sound legal and particularly of course for people who are not as savvy, maybe the younger generation or even the older generation, um that is something that is a bit we need to be a bit more cautious about um and the platforms can actually come in to sort of do. Um, some sort of control. Yeah, but we've been having

this chat for a long time too. You know, we keep saying they need to do better due diligence, but nothing is being done or very little is being done. Maybe they, they may do it for a little while, but how can we make sure that they do any idea at all? I think we should hurt them. Where it is, uh, where, where it hurts them in their pockets. So maybe heavy, heavy fines. That could be

a possible thing. So for example, like, you know, companies who sort of maybe under the PDPA they they unable to certain confidential data, they end up being, you know, fine for certain offense for certain of these disclosures that could be something that could be considered, but again, I said these are businesses, so sometimes it could be just a business cost for them.

Out of curiosity, when things like this happen where the government is considering extending the use of this form of punishment for these types of crimes, and let's, let's say it takes X amount of months for this to be considered, but in terms of implication and utility in the legal world, is it fairly straightforward? Like the judge is like, OK, so this is now part of Punishments that we can roll out. It it is very smooth the transition in order to be able to utilize it.

So of course, once the law is passed and and it depends on whether or not they decide it can be applied retrospectively, um, then the courts will then apply it for cases that they are dealing with generally. Is it also a bad look that we are going to cane scammers if it does become law? How would countries in the region look at it? How would the world look at it, you know, because people may say it's a white-collar crime and we're being a bit too

harsh here. Do you think that there will be um some people who may or some countries that may say don't kill our people. Um, I'm not sure whether that will happen, but that is something to be dealt between the different countries, but I think being able to do swift punishment and and certain punishment reinforces public trust and also shows that the government is committed to holding people accountable. And that this has a profound impact on our community.

It also fosters a sense of safety and confidence. You don't want your maybe your grandmother going out and accidentally falling into a scam as well, right? So, so things like that, I think um it's not just punishment, like I said, there's also public education, there's also protection measures that we have to take in order to work together to to solve counter the crime the crime of scams.

But do you also like, I'm curious, like from the like when you go to international legal conferences and things like that. Other people that like, oh, that's the one that's the lawyer from the country that's the house cleaning, you know. I think Singapore is quite well known for being harsh in terms of our crimes and, and I don't think that's a big problem because um it does, it does give us, gives our country a sort of safety kind

of thing. People see Singapore as a safe place and and it helps with, I guess the tourism, it helps with many, many things, you know, when Singapore is seen as a safe place where there's no confidence. In the justice system, that's very important, I believe. Yeah, you always hear that every time you're flying back to Singapore, the plane will always have the announcement before you land, right, about, you know, bringing in drugs and blah blah blah, and

how it's illegal in Singapore. I like hearing that, you know, I'll I'll tell you a story as well when I was in New Zealand and I was staying there with my family, and one morning my wife was going to work and she opened the door and then I hear her stomping up the stairs and she says my car is not there. So I called the police and I, and I reported it. And the police said, Why are you calling us? So I said, the car has been stolen. Are you gonna come around and CSI the place just to take a look?

And they said, no, just call your insurance people because cars are stolen in New Zealand every day. So no longer my job description to investigate. So yeah, they didn't even bother asking me to make a report, so they said, just, I'm not kidding, but don't you need a police report in order to make the insurance claim? I, I didn't have to make one. I just told them my car's not here. It's stolen, and then I just, uh,

claimed the money that I lost on the car. I'm not kidding because it happened, but you see, in Singapore, if a car is stolen, it makes front page news, Daniel, you know, people will be talking about it, you know, but in New Zealand, it's nothing, you know, it's nothing. It's just one of those things. It's scary. I think interesting, maybe an interesting story. I actually ever

left behind my laptop. So I left behind my laptop at a coffee shop after dinner and I actually reached home, then I realized that my laptop is not with me and a friend went back and it was still there. This at least one hour later, right? It was more than an hour later. This is Singapore for you. So is. One person was like, OK, that's somebody they'll come and take it, blah blah blah. Another person is like, this person go and choke the table for so long with their laptop. Well, I never

come back. Or they will just pass it on to the staff to say someone's left it behind. Please look after this and, and, and they will return it. This is how we are here. Of course we can't take it for granted, yes, yes, but you know when you do lose something, people are talking about it. What? It was stolen here in Singapore. So that's the thing Singapore does have this of trust. We're not saying that no crime happens. does absolutely happen.

I had a friend who Who had to use the toilet, so he parked his bicycle, went inside quickly, we came back out, bicycle gone, for example, you know, stuff does happen unfortunately, but, but, but it's nice to know that I think a majority of Singaporeans will be OK with this because the quantum. I mean, it's, it's just scary, right? $1.1 billion and it went up 70%, you know, from the previous year.

So if it's going to go up like that, you're looking at, hopefully not, but what if it hits $2 billion? What if it hits $4 billion? Is is that it, Noel? I mean, in your legal world, are you all seeing the quantum of the cases involving scams increase so much that no one can ignore them. Everybody has to divert resources to it. It is critical right now. I think everybody sort of know anybody who has fallen to a crime, to a scam and and. It can be something as small as, you know, a

couple of hundreds of dollars. It could be something as big as 2000 to $30,000 per time. Um, unfortunately, it is something that has has gone on and I think it has been described as a growing menace. Yeah, we got to fight back. Do you think We work

I'm not sure it remains to be seen. Yeah, we want to see what the discussions will be like and whether it will be used as a form of punishment for scammers too and serious scam offenses, as was announced by Minister of State for Home Affairsan Xui Ling during her speech yesterday during the Committee of Supply debate for Home Affairs Ministry. Hey, thank you so much, Noel Teo, associate lawyer. Good to talk to you as well. Noel

is an associate lawyer out of GJC Law. This has been Singapore today's top story.