Scams (Countermeasures) and Other Matters Bill

Senior Minister of State, you may proceed.

Thank you. Mr Jackson Lam asked if the Bill strengthens our ability to cooperate with regional partners and whether we will be conducting more joint operations with our counterparts following the success of Operation FRONTIER+ III. International cooperation is critical in disrupting scams and recovering assets and I assure Members that we are working actively in this area. FRONTIER+ now covers 15 jurisdictions, with the United States and the Philippines joining earlier this year. We are encouraging more jurisdictions to join and work together on cross-border enforcement and asset recovery.

The passing of this Bill also allows us to demonstrate to our international counterparts Singapore's national resolve to combat scams.

Ms Elysa Chen asked if the Government will consider widening the scope of the Shared Responsibility Framework to cover more variants of scams as well as cryptocurrency platforms, whether the Government will consider a private right of civil action for scam victims against offenders and non-compliant service providers, and whether financial penalties imposed on non-compliant platforms can be redistributed to scam victims. Mr Gerald Giam suggested that the Government explore setting up an independent investigative mechanism under the Shared Responsibility Framework to complement internal bank assessments and provide a neutral dispute review for customers. Mr Giam further asked the Government to consider establishing a statutory victim compensation framework. Ms He Ting Ru also suggested a scam victim restitution fund as well as an insurance scheme to cover losses from scams.

These queries fall outside the ambit of the Bill and will require an involved answer. Regardless, let me assure Members that the Government is committed to helping scam victims recover their losses wherever possible. The key challenge is one of asset recovery as scam proceeds are often dissipated quickly and it is not always possible for the Police to recover and return victims all monies lost by them.

I invite Ms Chen, Ms He and Mr Giam to file separate Parliamentary Questions on their queries. Regarding expanding the Shared Responsibility Framework, a related Parliamentary Question has been filed by Dr Hamid Razak for the Sitting on or after 10 September. I invite Ms Chen to look out for the response.

Mr Gerald Giam also asked if there was an update on MHA's assessment of the establishment of a scam victim recovery fund following his Parliamentary Question in February 2025. There are several operational challenges that need to be carefully considered, including the co-mingling of criminal proceeds, the fact that the amount of funds recovered is but a fraction of the amount lost, and the potential for moral hazard.

Mr Giam further asked the Government to study the feasibility of a standardised public anti-scam rating system by MAS and IMDA to encourage the industry to enhance security measures and consumer transparency. MAS and IMDA already work closely with the industry to enhance their anti-scam safeguards even without such a rating. Publishing such a rating also risks inadvertently exposing the weaknesses of industry players, which could be exploited by scammers.

Ms Jessica Tan also suggested that the Government continue to work with industry to tap on advanced technologies to disrupt scams before they reach businesses and users. She also suggested stepping up information sharing between the Government and service providers further to allow for automated real-time alerts of suspicious behaviour, implementing pre-emptive restrictions for high-risk accounts and mandatory rapid response protocols for service providers. These are good suggestions. The Government will indeed continue to work closely with industry to disrupt scams quickly and with precision.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have come some way in our fight against scams. But as I mentioned earlier, about $2 million of our citizens' hard-earned money is still lost to scammers every single day. We still have much to do.

This Bill gives the Government the tools to enable swifter, more proactive and decisive action against scams. This builds on the comprehensive anti-scam strategy that we have developed in recent years. We are working to disrupt and counter scams on all fronts – legislation, industry and international cooperation, leveraging cutting-edge technology, public education – and the list goes on. We will leave no stone unturned.

But the Government cannot do this alone. Service providers must do more to protect their platforms and their users. Individuals must remain vigilant and take responsibility for protecting themselves and those around them.

The Government, industry and the public must stand together. When we do, scammers have fewer places to hide, fewer tools to exploit and fewer opportunities to cause harm. I seek Members' support on this Bill, to move decisively and reflect this House's commitment to fight scams and better protect our people. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [Applause.]

Do any Members have any clarifications? Mr Fadli Fawzi.

I thank the Senior Minister of State, for the comprehensive reply. I just have a minor point. Can I clarify whether the people subject to SLOs can be allowed to pay their bills online? Given that many banks are reducing their counter transaction facilities, this may help facilitate legitimate bill payments by those who are subject to SLOs.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his clarification. SLOs are imposed on individuals on a case-by-case basis. Depending on the circumstances of the case and what services are being restricted to the individual, he may or may not be able to do the online payments that he is talking about. It has to depend on what the case entails.

Mr Giam.

Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his update on the Government's response to my proposal for a scam victim restitution fund.

Does the Senior Minister of State agree that it is fundamentally unsatisfactory for any seized scam assets which are not dissipated to eventually be forfeited to the Government, simply because it is difficult to attribute proceeds to individual victims? While I acknowledge there are genuine forensic challenges in tracking co-mingled proceeds, as he mentioned just now, can the Ministry commit to developing a structured restitution mechanism so that victims who have lost their life savings do not go home empty-handed while seized criminal proceeds end up in public coffers?

Mr Speaker, in response to the Member's question, actually, he has asked this question many times in different ways.

I hope the Member understands and appreciates the difficulty we have in terms of establishing such a restitution fund. One factor indeed is that amounts recovered are but a fraction of the overall amounts lost. But in terms of how the funds have been co-mingled, often times, we see multiple fund streams going into common accounts and thereafter going out to multiple accounts again. The process cycles itself and repeats a few times before it actually reaches the destination the scammers want it to be.

This co-mingling makes it very difficult for us to trace and identify whose monies are where. In terms of attributing how much to return to every victim that we are talking about, it becomes very difficult for us to be equitable in this sense.

The other question here is also about moral hazard. If we establish that there is a certain baseline amount – I think the Member has asked this question before, whether we are able to have a certain minimum repayment amount for every scam victim – the overall awareness and vigilance of members of the public may fall, because they will get the sense that buying the next concert ticket, they have certain protections, up to a certain amount for scam protection.

I think there are many questions that we need to deal with in terms of how we can operationalise such a restitution fund.

But on the Member's other point about some of the funds that we have recovered which have gone back to the consolidated fund for the Government, I want to put out the point that these monies do not go back to the Government's coffers and just stay there. The Government spends a huge amount of our Budget, including funds that come from this consolidated fund, in our efforts to develop the technologies, to develop all our workstreams to fight scams across all the various fronts that I highlighted earlier. It goes directly or indirectly back to our efforts to fight scams and prevent the next scam from taking place.

Ms Gho.

I would just like make a clarification, Mr Speaker. I misspoke just now when I talked about the standard of proofs when it comes to the thresholds, on the balance of probability. It should be for civil proceedings and not criminal proceedings. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Noted. Any other clarifications for the Senior Minister of State? No?

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Goh Pei Ming].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.