Scams are no longer a fringe crime affecting a careless few. In many countries, they have become a systemic threat—draining life savings, undermining trust in institutions, and exploiting the most vulnerable members of society. Singapore, long known for its strict approach to law and order, has now taken one of its most decisive steps yet to confront this growing menace.
From the end of December 2025, individuals convicted of scam-related offences—including those who recruit others or operate within organised scam networks—will face mandatory corporal punishment alongside imprisonment and fines. This move represents a significant escalation in Singapore’s legal response to fraud and deception, signaling that scams are no longer being treated as “white-collar” crimes with limited physical consequences.
Instead, they are being reframed as serious offences with social harm comparable to violent crime.
This shift raises important questions: Why has the government taken such a strong stance now? What does it mean for offenders, victims, and society at large? And how does this approach reflect Singapore’s broader philosophy on crime, deterrence, and responsibility?
Scams as a National Crisis, Not a Minor Offence
For years, scams were often perceived as distant crimes—email frauds, suspicious phone calls, or overseas operations that could be ignored with sufficient vigilance. That perception no longer holds.
In Singapore, scam-related offences have surged dramatically over the past five years. The scale of losses alone tells a sobering story: billions of dollars siphoned away, often from ordinary citizens who trusted what appeared to be legitimate communications from banks, government agencies, or well-known companies.
But beyond the financial damage lies a deeper impact. Scam victims frequently experience long-term psychological distress, shame, and a loss of confidence in digital systems that now underpin daily life. Some lose retirement savings. Others fall into debt or depression. A crime that begins with a phone call or message can permanently alter the trajectory of a person’s life.
Against this backdrop, Singapore’s leadership has increasingly framed scams as a national security and social stability issue—not merely a policing challenge.
Why the Law Is Changing Now
Singapore’s updated penalties did not emerge overnight. They are the result of years of rising case numbers, evolving scam tactics, and growing frustration that existing punishments were failing to deter repeat offenders.
Despite awareness campaigns and tighter banking controls, scam syndicates continued to adapt. Criminal groups professionalised their operations, recruited local intermediaries, and exploited digital infrastructure faster than enforcement mechanisms could keep pace.
At the same time, courts increasingly encountered cases involving large-scale fraud that caused severe harm but did not always trigger penalties proportionate to their impact.
The new legal framework seeks to address this imbalance.
By introducing mandatory corporal punishment for serious scam offences and harsher options for those who enable them, lawmakers aim to send an unambiguous message: participation in scams—directly or indirectly—carries consequences that cannot be dismissed as a cost of doing business.
Understanding the New Penalties
Under the revised legal regime, individuals convicted of serious scam-related crimes will face a minimum number of cane strokes, with courts empowered to impose significantly more depending on the severity of the offence.
This applies not only to the individuals who directly deceive victims, but also to those who play structural roles within scam networks—recruiters, organisers, and key operatives who make large-scale fraud possible.
The emphasis here is critical: scams are rarely solo crimes. They thrive on division of labour, anonymity, and layers of facilitation. By targeting the entire ecosystem, the law seeks to dismantle syndicates rather than merely punishing their most visible members.
The Role of “Enablers” and Why They Matter
One of the most consequential aspects of the new framework is its treatment of enablers—often referred to as “scam mules.”
These individuals may not directly contact victims, but they provide essential services: opening bank accounts, transferring illicit funds, registering SIM cards, or handing over digital credentials. In many cases, enablers claim ignorance or downplay their involvement, arguing they were simply doing a favour or earning quick cash.
Singapore’s updated laws take a more nuanced—but firmer—approach.
Where an enabler knowingly assists or reasonably should have suspected their actions were facilitating scams, courts may now impose corporal punishment at their discretion. The focus is not on punishing naïveté, but on addressing willful blindness and reckless disregard.
This reflects a broader legal principle: turning a blind eye to crime does not absolve responsibility when harm is foreseeable.
Why Corporal Punishment?
For international observers, Singapore’s use of caning often attracts attention and debate. But within the country’s legal philosophy, corporal punishment serves a specific function: deterrence.
Singapore’s justice system has long prioritised clear consequences over rehabilitative ambiguity for serious offences. The belief is that punishment must be immediate, tangible, and memorable to effectively discourage crime—particularly crimes motivated by profit rather than impulse.
In the case of scams, which are often calculated and repetitive, policymakers argue that financial penalties alone are insufficient. For syndicates generating large sums, fines and prison terms can be factored into operational risk.
Physical punishment, by contrast, cannot be outsourced, ignored, or absorbed as overhead.
A Shift in How Society Views Scam Crimes
One of the most striking implications of these changes is symbolic rather than procedural.
Scams are no longer being treated as abstract financial crimes. They are being recognised as acts that cause real suffering, comparable in gravity to offences that inflict physical harm.
This reframing matters.
When society minimises scams as “stupid mistakes” or “avoidable losses,” victims bear an unfair burden of blame. By strengthening penalties, the law reinforces the idea that deception is an aggressive act—one that exploits trust and deserves firm condemnation.
Youth Offenders and the Balance Between Rehabilitation and Accountability
The revised legal framework also addresses how scam-related and other serious crimes committed by older youths will be handled.
Singapore has traditionally emphasised rehabilitation for young offenders, recognising the role of immaturity and social factors. That commitment remains—but with clearer boundaries.
Older youths who repeatedly offend or engage in serious crimes may now be tried in adult courts, where penalties reflect the severity of their actions rather than their age alone.
This reflects a delicate balancing act: offering second chances without enabling cycles of harm. The law acknowledges that while youth deserves protection, it does not grant immunity from responsibility.
Deterrence in the Digital Age
Scams today are not limited by geography. A message sent from one country can empty a bank account in another within minutes. This creates a unique challenge for enforcement: crimes are global, but laws are national.
Singapore’s response focuses on what it can control—local participation.
By raising the cost of involvement for residents and citizens, authorities aim to make Singapore an unattractive base for scam operations. Even if syndicates operate internationally, they rely on local nodes to function efficiently.
Disrupt those nodes, and the network weakens.
Will Harsher Penalties Work?
This is the central question—and the most debated.
Critics argue that punishment alone cannot solve scams, pointing to the need for education, technological safeguards, and international cooperation. Supporters counter that without strong deterrence, other measures lose effectiveness.
In reality, the answer lies somewhere in between.
Singapore has not relied on punishment in isolation. The tougher penalties are part of a broader strategy that includes tighter banking controls, faster account freezes, public awareness campaigns, and cooperation with technology companies.
The law is one lever among many—but it is a powerful one.
Ethical and Global Perspectives
Internationally, Singapore’s approach will likely attract scrutiny. Corporal punishment remains controversial in many legal systems, and human rights groups may question its use.
Yet Singapore has consistently maintained that its criminal justice policies must be evaluated by outcomes rather than ideological alignment. From the government’s perspective, the primary moral obligation is to protect citizens from harm.
If severe penalties reduce victimisation and dismantle criminal networks, policymakers argue, they are justified.
What This Means for Ordinary Citizens
For most people, the immediate impact will not be felt in courtrooms but in daily behaviour.
The message is clear: lending your bank account, selling SIM cards casually, or sharing digital credentials carries serious risk. Ignorance is no longer a safe defence when warning signs are present.
Citizens are being asked—not politely, but firmly—to act as responsible participants in the digital economy.
A Defining Moment in Singapore’s Fight Against Scams
The introduction of mandatory corporal punishment for scam-related crimes marks a turning point.
It reflects a society grappling with the realities of digital crime and choosing decisiveness over incrementalism. Whether one agrees with the approach or not, it is undeniably bold—and it underscores how seriously Singapore views the threat posed by scams.
As technology continues to evolve, so too must the laws that govern its misuse. In drawing this hard line, Singapore has signaled that the era of treating scams as low-risk, high-reward crimes is over.
The coming years will reveal how effective this strategy proves to be. But one thing is already clear: the consequences of deception have fundamentally changed.
