Singapore’s anti-scam law casts critical eye on ‘benevolent paternalism’

Singapore – Charlotte Goh was called last year by a claiming to work for Singapore’s Cyber Security Agency.

The caller directed Goh to the “Malaysian Interpol” to report a scam that targeted Malaysians, according to the caller who informed her that her number was connected to one.

As a sales professional who often lists her number in public spaces, Goh, who asked to use a pseudonym, found the story plausible.

Goh hesitated to reveal her precise bank details, despite sharing personal information like her name and identification number for more than two hours.

“I wasn’t sure if it was a scam – it sounded so true – but I was also afraid it might be”, she told Al Jazeera.

Goh realized she was being defrauded when she was asked to take a selfie with her official identity card. Luckily, Goh, 58, was able to quickly change her passwords and transfer funds into her daughter’s account before any money could be stolen.

Other members of her friendship family have not had the same luck.

“Some friends lost thousands”, she said.

Singapore, one of the world’s wealthiest and internet-savvy countries, has become a prime target for global scammers.

In the 2023 edition of the Global Anti-Scam Alliance’s annual report, Singapore had the highest average loss per victim of all countries surveyed, at $4, 031.

In the first half of 2024, reports of scams hit a record high of 26, 587, with losses topping $284m.

To combat this, the government has turned to unprecedented measures.

Earlier this month, Singapore’s parliament passed first-of-its-kind legislation granting authorities new powers to freeze the bank accounts of suspected scam victims.

In accordance with the Protection from Scams Bill, designated officers can direct banks to halt a person’s transactions if they have good reason to believe they intend to transfer funds, withdraw money, or use credit facilities to profit a scammer.

Those impacted continue to have access to funds for daily expenses.

Victims of scams are repeatedly battling with Singaporean police, according to them.

Despite numerous anti-scam initiatives, education efforts, and banks ‘ introduction of features like kill switches, 86 percent of all reported scams in the city-state between January and September 2024 involved the willing transfer of funds.

Impersonating government officials and creating the impression of a romantic relationship are common scam techniques employed by scammers.

According to Home Affairs and Social and Family Development Minister of State Sun Xueling, “This Bill allows the police to take a decisive stand against scammers.”

The law has sparked debate about the Singaporean government’s infamous tendency to intervene in private matters, a system of governance that some have called “benevolent paternalism,” despite its supporters’ praise as a crucial tool to combat rampant scams.

The late Lee Kuan Yew, the city’s founding leader, once proclaimed he was “proud” that the city-state was a “nanny state” and that intervening in personal matters like “who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit” contributed to its economic success.

Jamus Lim, an MP for the under-represented Workers’ Party, addressed parliament before the bill’s passage, expressing concern about the intrusive nature of the law, suggesting that people should be able to choose to designate trusted family members as account administrators instead.

One might find it unsettling specifically because the bill gives law enforcement “an enormous amount of latitude to intervene and restrain what is ultimately a private transaction,” Lim said.

Former Straits Times editor Bertha Henson claimed the legislation was the most recent instance of the government “interfering in so many aspects of our lives.”

“Can we be adults and not keep running to the State for protection”? In a Facebook post, Jenson stated. “Because we really need to ask the person who will protect them from the State as well. Or whether the helm is always in the hands of the experts.

The government is implementing a number of measures to improve public security, including plans to increase the number of police surveillance cameras to more than 200 000 by the mid-2030s and legal amendments giving police new authority to detain people with mental health conditions that are perceived as a safety risk.

The Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act and the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act are recent laws that address misinformation and external influence.

They give authorities broad discretionary powers, despite being seen as measures to safeguard social stability and national security.

Walter Theseira, an associate professor of economics at the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS), said the government’s anti-scam legislation reflects the steep economic and social costs of fraud in the city-state.

Many retirees choose to manage significant amounts of money outside Singapore’s mandatory savings account, which “raises the risk of losing it all,” Theseira said.

Theseira told Al Jazeera, “Unfortunately, the right to do what you want with your money may have to be constrained if your choices lead to greater social dependency or lead to increased criminal activity.”

The rise in scam losses, according to Eugene Tan, associate professor at Singapore Management University’s (SMU) School of Law), has sparked a shift toward a “preventive approach” that focuses on stopping them before they occur.

“If not more is done urgently and robustly, then we are not far from an unmitigated disaster”, Tan told Al Jazeera.

The government is aware of the social cost, and it will not fulfill its obligations to deal with the looming crisis.

Trust in government

The law’s proponents claim that its scope is narrowly defined. If all other attempts to persuade the person have failed, restriction orders are only issued as a last resort, according to the legislation.

Additionally, individuals have the ability to appeal restriction orders, which are effective for up to five times.

Singaporeans generally expect the government to play an active role in controlling the welfare and well-being of the public, according to Tan Ern Ser, an associate professor of sociology at the National University of Singapore (NUS).

“In a sense, Singaporeans want ‘ parental support ‘ but not the ‘ control ‘ aspect of paternalism”, Tan told Al Jazeera, describing the public’s expectation for a “selective, narrower form of paternalism”.

What sets Singapore apart is the public’s high trust in the government, Tan said, citing surveys such as the Asian Barometer and World Values Survey.

Tan pointed out that Singaporeans widely accepted stay-at-home orders, compulsory mask-wearing and contact tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was not “politicised to any significant degree”.

The People’s Action Party’s MP Yip Hon Weng claimed that the more powerful police were needed to address the nation’s growing scam problem.

According to Yip, “This ability to act quickly is a game changer for victims who have been repeatedly targeted, as it prevents further financial losses at critical times” by mentioning the case of an elderly man who lost his life savings to a scammer posing as a government official.

“Temporarily restricting account access is a drastic move that could save individuals from financial ruin,” according to the article. However, it is important to use caution when using these measures to protect public trust.

Yip claimed that maintaining a delicate balance between safeguarding personal agency and robust implementation is required because of the law’s “intrusiveness – temporarily restricting access to accounts.”

While the law is suited to Singapore’s political context, such measures may not be so easily adopted in the global context, some analysts say.

According to Tan, the SMU’s Tan said, “Countries will have to decide what will work for them and whether the legislative regime to deal with the scams” and that there is a cap on the amount of state intervention and that “the political cost of such measures cannot be overstated.”

According to Theseira of SUSS, the law has already sparked negative online debate and cost the government political gain, adding that it “created a talking point that may be used against them in the upcoming elections.”

Singapore’s general elections, which are scheduled to take place by November, come amid growing discontent over housing affordability, rising living costs, income inequality, increasing polarisation and perceived restrictions on dissent in civil society.

In a time when there is growing distrust of politicians and the government, Tan of the NUS claimed it was unlikely that the anti-scam law would set a precedent.

Source: Aljazeera