Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill - Cai Yinzhou

Reposted from Source: MDDI Singapore (04 November 2025 - 3:08 PM)

Source: MDDI Singapore

Full Transcript

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Cai Yinzhou.

Mr Cai Yinzhou (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, the Bill updates the Penal Code and other legislations, strengthening the legal framework for urgent issues, like scams, and serious crimes, like abuse. This aligns with Singapore's history of strengthening laws against trends in crime.

I support the Bill but seek clarification firstly on complementary social and support measures to tackle the scourge of scams between deterrence and dialogue. The Bill distinguishes money mules from scam syndicate leaders, introducing mandatory caning for scammers and discretionary caning for money mules. This toughens measures against scams, addressing a national issue. The message is clear, "If you dare to scam Singaporeans, this is the price you pay."

This move is crucial due to devastating losses: over $3.4 billion since 2019, with a record $1.1 billion in 2024. But beyond financial figures, victims have experienced ruined family relationships, depression and some even turned to suicide.

Caning is, therefore, an effective deterrent in reducing loan shark harassment, but I have two clarifications on this.

First is for those above 50 years old where caning is unsuitable, how will alternative penalties be applied? And whether these enhanced penalties will immediately apply to the 27 Singaporeans allegedly found to be part of the Cambodian scam syndicate, if found guilty?

While the Bill assigns lower culpability to money mules, their punishment is still significant. I support the new offences but suggest new ways to augment the effectiveness. As criminal lawyers note, deterrence is not the only crime control method; focusing solely on increased penalties might ignore root issues.

Mules might be financially disadvantaged, incentivised by financial hardship to sell Singpass details or personal access. A worrying trend involves youths becoming scam mules; and a misconception that only elderly are victims when those in the 21 to 59 age group, who might be digitally native and overconfident, thereby constituting most victims. Greater deterrence therefore may not address economic hardship or coercion, but our approach needs to be balanced, focusing on financial literacy and legitimate employment.

Given the heavy penalties for potential money mules, public education on offence severity is needed, especially demographics of those less aware. We must also incorporate these messaging, using technology, like the ScamShield app, a powerful intelligence network against scam trends. Another suggestion includes encouraging money mules to become informants, aligning with Government efforts against local scam enablers, where those actively cooperating with authorities by providing information on scam operations could receive reduced sentencing.

But often the investigation of potential money mules might be complex and lengthy. It is hard to distinguish those who participate as a mule versus those whose personal information might have been misused and compromised.

During investigation, these individuals might face strict restrictions, including frozen bank accounts, affected credit ratings, making it hard to receive salaries, to pay bills or to receive Government benefits. This significantly impacts those already struggling financially. Can the Minister, therefore, clarify interim measures and collaborations with banks to support the increasing number of Singaporeans implicated in scam-related investigations but might not be convicted?

Next, I will speak about strengthening protections for vulnerable victims against abuse.

The Bill proposes increasing maximum jail term for fatal abuse of vulnerable victims from 20 years to life imprisonment of up to 30 years. This tool ensures penalties for the "worst of the worst" egregious cases. Despite serious penalties for abuse, advocates for vulnerable groups, like domestic helpers, highlight root causes lie in power disparity and victims' fear-driven difficulty in seeking help, sometimes due to social isolation.

Increased abuse penalties also need to come with complementary protection and empowerment for potential victims, especially for early intervention. For example, migrant domestic worker abuse averaged 320 reports annually from 2020 to 2024. Existing support measures can be expanded through awareness of help avenues and increased checks on these foreign domestic workers.

Enhanced penalties also apply to abuse of children under 14 and vulnerable persons. Beyond age, if I may suggest stipulating definitions of vulnerable persons for seniors or even those with disabilities using metrics, like the Activities of Daily Living score, which is an established tool for measuring functional ability.

In conclusion, I strongly support this Bill's decisive move to address crime threats and introduce tougher penalties. Notwithstanding these clarifications, I support the Bill.

Ms Sim Ann (Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs) (Excerpt): 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 wish to refer to the Mid-Year Scams and Cybercrime brief published by the SPF for an overview of these measures.

Ms Sim Ann (Excerpt): 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. 

Mr Cai made the point that scam mules are often from vulnerable backgrounds and are incentivised to facilitate scams because of financial hardships. Perhaps, he has seen a recent The 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.

Ms Sim Ann (Excerpt): Mr Cai asked if the 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. 

Ms Sim Ann (Excerpt): Mr Cai asked about the application of caning to offenders who are above 50 years old. And 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 years and younger. Second, an additional imprisonment term of up to 12 months can be imposed in lieu of caning. 

Link to Hansard: Official Reports - Parliamentary Debates (HANSARD)