Mr Speaker Sir,
Scams have proliferated in recent years and appear to be increasing in number. In the first six months of 2024, scam victims in Singapore lost a record high of over $385.6 million.
The Bill we are debating today is a groundbreaking one. If passed, we could be the first country in the world to allow the Police to restrict bank accounts and an individual’s banking transactions, if there is reasonable belief that the individual will make money transfers to a scammer.
This Bill is well-intentioned. 86% of scams in the first half of 2024 involved the voluntary transfer of monies by the victim to the scammer. By allowing the Police to restrict a potential victim’s bank account for 30 days in the first instance, and up to 180 days in total, we will provide the Police, banks or family members with more time to convince potential scam victims that they may be at risk of being manipulated into sending money to scammers.
That being said, the money in the bank accounts belongs to the account holders and to uphold the principle that they have the right to determine its use, we suggest introducing a provision for individuals to opt out, subject to some safeguards. These safeguards can include a 30-day period before the opting out takes effect, the opting out must be done in person, and a compulsory counselling session.
Additionally, a Restriction Order may run the risk of pushing emotionally vested victims into desperation. For example, a victim of a romance scam may be emotionally devastated if they are prevented from sending money to the scammer, who has also become their lover. Such victims may need emotional support. How does the Police intend to support such victims?
PSP’s suggestion is for an explicit provision to be added to Clause 4(b) that the Police must take into account the views of a social worker before issuing the Restriction Order. Scam victims should be counselled by a social worker and be provided mental health support. With the assistance of family members, the social worker can determine whether a Restriction Order would be to the victim’s benefit or might instead cause harm. This would better help the Police decide whether a Restriction Order would benefit the victim.
PSP would like to raise several further clarifications about the Bill.
The Government has said that it will put in place a mechanism for an individual, who is the subject of a Restriction Order, to have access to his monies for legitimate reasons, such as sustaining daily living, and paying bills.
Will this mechanism be extended to all RO subjects automatically, or will they have to submit appeals to withdraw monies for legitimate reasons? If it is the latter, can the Police consider streamlining the mechanism, because it is likely that almost all RO subjects will submit such an appeal? RO subjects may face significant hardship if they are unable to access their money for legitimate reasons for an extended period.
Additionally, how will the Police determine the quantum of these withdrawals? How much proof will the Police require the individual to show? Will the Police also subject these monies to restrictions or monitor whether individuals are also sending these withdrawals to scammers?
Next, will the RO extend to joint accounts owned by the individual? If so, while this may protect the other joint account holder from financial losses caused by another joint account holder who is being scammed, we must also ensure that there are mechanisms to avoid unduly inconveniencing joint account holders.
During the public consultation by REACH, members of the public suggested that individuals should be allowed to continue with GIRO payments, including bill payments to legitimate organisations, while an RO is in force.
PSP supports such a suggestion. The Government has said that the banks are unable to exempt selected transactions, such as GIRO payments and bill payments, from the RO, without significant system changes.
However, a freeze on such legitimate payments may add to the inconvenience and confusion faced by scam victims during an already difficult time. In addition, they may face financial penalties for any late or unsuccessful payment. We urge the Government to work with the banks to set up the system changes and enact this suggestion as soon as possible.
Mr Speaker, Mandarin please.
议长先生，
今天二读的防诈骗法案是一个前所未有的法案。法案一旦通过，我们可能会成为世界上第一个允许警方在合理的情况下，为了防止诈骗而限制银行户口的交易的国家。
前进党认为，这个法案的出发点是好的。近年来，诈骗案不断增加，我们有必要采取强烈措施，抵御诈骗对国人造成的威胁。
然而，前进党也认为，银行账户里的钱是属于用户的资产。私有财产权的一个重要原则是，用户有权决定如何处置他们的资产。为了维护这个重要原则，前进党提议，我们应该设置一项退出条款，允许银行用户退出这项限制。为了确保用户不是在受诈骗的影响下引用这项退出条款，我们提议设立为期30天的冷静期，退出条款只会在用户引用条款后的30天才生效，在这30天内，警方依然可以为了防止诈骗而限制银行户口。
此外，限制令也可能使一些投入情感的受害者陷入绝望。例如，恋爱骗局的受害者若被强制阻止向情人汇款，可能会做出冲动或愚蠢的选择。这些受害者需要心灵上的支持。 警方打算如何提供这类支持呢？
前进党提议，在法案中规定，警方在发布限制令之前必须考虑社工的意见。诈骗受害者应接受社工的辅导，而社工可以在受害者的家庭成员协助下，确认限制令是否会对受害者造成伤害。这将更好地帮助警方决定限制令是否对受害者有利。
提防诈骗，人人有责，我们希望法案实施之后，我们能防止更多国人自愿向诈骗者转账，减低我国对诈骗者的吸引力。
Sir, a whole-of-society effort is required to prevent the scourge of scams from spreading. The Government can only do so much to protect Singaporeans from scams. The onus is also on Singaporeans to remain vigilant and take steps to protect themselves from potential scams.
We hope that after this Bill is enacted, we will be able to prevent more victims from voluntarily transferring funds to scammers, which will hopefully reduce the attractiveness of Singapore as a target for scammers.
Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, PSP supports the Bill.