By John Q. Hosedrinker 
As part of an effort to combat rising fraud, the Singaporean government has implemented mandatory caning for scammers, with punishments of up to 24 strokes. These changes to the criminal law, which take effect on December 30th, supplement existing penalties like imprisonment and fines. Individuals involved in scams, including recruiters and those providing their personal information for fraudulent activities, are subject to this form of corporal punishment. The government has cited the concerning increase in scam cases, which accounted for a significant portion of reported crime between 2020 and 2023, as the impetus for these stricter measures.
Read the original article here
Singapore to punish scammers with up to 24 strokes of the cane from Dec 30, and it’s certainly generating a lot of buzz. The government is taking a tough stance on fraud, especially the kinds that target people online, like phishing scams, bogus job offers, fake e-commerce sites, and those too-good-to-be-true investment schemes. What’s striking is the juxtaposition between these high-tech crimes and the decidedly low-tech punishment: corporal punishment, specifically, caning.
It’s difficult not to be struck by the intensity of the punishment. From what I gather, it’s not a light tap on the wrist. Apparently, the pain is so severe that offenders have been known to lose consciousness after only a few strokes. The law seems to recognize the heightened vulnerability of the elderly; if a scam targets an elderly person, the number of strokes could be doubled. The concern is valid, especially considering reports that some scammers may be victims of human trafficking themselves. It makes you wonder whether the law will focus on the ringleaders and the people who are truly orchestrating these scams, rather than the individuals who may have been coerced into participating.
This shift signals a strong response to a growing problem. Scamming has become incredibly pervasive in Singapore, and it seems that existing methods of prevention and punishment haven’t been effective enough. The frustration is understandable. Many people who have been scammed find themselves at a dead end when the trail leads overseas, with little recourse available. The suggestion of implementing this type of punishment, or similar measures, in other countries isn’t surprising. The thought of a stroke for each person a scammer targeted is a compelling idea, but the practicalities would be challenging to say the least.
The potential for physical harm is significant. It’s not a mere spanking. This type of corporal punishment is harsh enough to cause lasting physical damage and scarring. It’s a reminder that actions have consequences and that fear can be a powerful motivator. If anything, it seems to show that traditional ways of punishing and deterring bad behavior are seeing a comeback. The reality is that for some, the fear of physical pain is the only thing that gets their attention.
The caning itself is a serious process. Before the punishment is administered, the offender undergoes a health check to ensure they’re fit enough to withstand it. A medical professional is present during the caning, and if the person’s health is at risk, the punishment is stopped, with any remaining strokes converted into jail time. This points to a recognition of the severity and the potential risks involved. The suggestion of increasing the severity based on the number of victims or the age of the victims quickly escalates the severity of the punishment to unmanageable levels.
There’s a lot of emotion wrapped up in this issue, and the focus on the punishment overshadows the question of whether this is the best way to address the problem. Some view it as a necessary evil, given the scale of the scamming problem. Others see it as a step backward, a move toward more draconian measures that may not be in line with human rights. The comparison to medieval punishments is inevitable.
Arguments that Singapore is a backward authoritarian state tend to diminish the discussion about its effectiveness in deterring crime. The concern is real that a focus on punishment alone misses deeper issues like opportunity and economic conditions that might drive people to commit these crimes. Does a harsh punishment like this address the root causes of scamming, or is it just a way to punish the symptoms?
Ultimately, this move highlights the tension between crime and punishment, between the desire for justice and the complexities of human behavior. It’s a reminder that even in a technologically advanced world, some societies are willing to embrace traditional, and arguably barbaric, forms of punishment.