Proposed law treats stubborn scam victims like children

[SINGAPORE] If you refuse to realize you have fallen victim to a scam, you will be treated as a child. Newly proposed legislation seeks to empower the police to basically play parent to the most obstinate scam victims by placing them on an allowance program.

The Protection from Scams Bill, tabled in Parliament on November 11, proposes allowing the police to issue restriction orders (ROs) to banks, limiting an individual's banking operations. These include money transfers, the use of ATMs, and all credit facilities, including PayNow and in-person, over-the-counter purchases.

The proposed legislation comes in response to the alarming rise in scam cases across Singapore. Law enforcement agencies have reported a significant increase in the number of victims falling prey to sophisticated scams, ranging from investment fraud to romance scams. The financial losses incurred by these victims have not only affected individuals but have also had a ripple effect on families and the broader community. This new bill aims to provide a safety net for those who may be particularly vulnerable to repeated scam attempts.

However, these victims will be able to keep some money for legitimate purposes, such as paying bills and buying necessities. If they want money for something else, like schoolchildren on an allowance, they must make a case for it by presenting facts and telling the police what they want it for. Police will determine whether it is a genuine reason and whether they will be permitted to keep the money. However, unlike children, the victim pays for the "allowance" himself.

Although there is widespread public support for the proposed legislation, which are intended to be a last option, their unprecedented intrusion has prompted some concerns.

Critics of the bill argue that it may infringe on personal freedoms and financial autonomy. They question whether such measures could potentially be misused or applied too broadly, affecting individuals who may not necessarily require such stringent oversight. However, proponents of the legislation emphasize that these measures are designed as a last resort, to be implemented only in cases where individuals have repeatedly fallen victim to scams despite numerous warnings and interventions.

Eugene Tan, a law professor at Singapore Management University, stated that it depended on one's viewpoint regarding the function of the state. According to Associate Professor Tan, it is more paternalistic or intrusive than draconian because it will expand the state's authority to include situations in which victims are "willing."

At first glance, the proposed regulations seem intrusive; they do not empower or protect people, but rather deprive them of the ability to properly manage their bank accounts. He emphasized that individuals who hold such a position would most likely claim that if someone chooses to be conned despite warnings, the state is immune from accountability.

"However, where one's view is that scams are also a social menace that imposes a burden on society, then the long arm of the state should be extended to protect not just individuals, but also society at large," said Mr. Johnson.

The dangers of scams cannot be overstated. In Singapore, frauds have cost more than $2.7 billion since 2019, with more than $385.6 million lost in the first half of 2024 alone.

These staggering figures highlight the urgent need for more robust measures to combat scams. The financial losses not only impact individual victims but also have far-reaching consequences for the economy and social fabric of Singapore. Law enforcement agencies have reported that scammers are becoming increasingly sophisticated, using advanced technology and psychological manipulation tactics to target vulnerable individuals. This escalating threat has prompted authorities to consider more drastic measures to protect citizens and maintain the integrity of the financial system.

Despite numerous measures, such as public education campaigns, new regulations, and anti-scam activities, the numbers are anticipated to rise further. Professor Tan stated that the impact of scams necessitates that the Singapore government do more, and immediately. "Based on the amounts being defrauded, we are on the verge of a crisis. The cumulative loss is horrendous," he stated.

The state has no business in such matters where one's premise is that one's individual autonomy and agency should be given priority. If nothing is done quickly and decisively, we are on the verge of a total tragedy. The government is aware of the societal costs, and it would be foolish to fail to address the impending catastrophe.

While initiatives and information efforts are common for dealing with new crime tendencies, a legislation that restricts how people can spend their own hard-earned money is not.

Tan Ern Ser, adjunct principal research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies Social Lab, said the proposed regulations are a substantial improvement over previous anti-scam attempts. Despite the intrusive nature of the intervention, he does not expect much reaction from the public.

He pointed out: "It can be likened to a rescue operation, preventing a person from living a life of dependency on family members, which would affect family relations and the state, and being deprived of access to a decent quality of life."

He noted that the Act also requires the state to accept accountability. "If no close family or friends could intervene, because the victim is adamant that this is his or her own business, then, as a last resort, having the state intervening to protect its citizens is the right thing to do," according to Dr. Tan. After all, in general, the state has a responsibility to intervene to keep its citizens from injuring themselves or others. Freedom is a critical aspect of democracy, and here we are speaking of freedom from harm.

The proposed legislation has sparked a broader debate about the balance between personal freedom and state intervention in Singapore. While some view it as a necessary step to protect vulnerable individuals and society at large, others worry about the potential for overreach. This discussion reflects the ongoing challenge faced by governments worldwide in adapting to the evolving landscape of cybercrime and financial fraud. As Singapore moves forward with this unprecedented approach, it may set a precedent for other nations grappling with similar issues, potentially reshaping the global response to the persistent threat of scams.

The question remains, however, as to why the state should attempt to assist persons who appear to refuse assistance. Since the proposed rules were published, many people have written online that such obstinate victims should be permitted to bear personal responsibility for their own actions.