Singapore – Last year, Charlotte Goh received a call from someone who claims to be an officer of the Singapore cybersecurity agency.
The appellant told Goh that his number was linked to a scam targeting the Malaysians and had directed it to “the Malaysian interpol” to submit a report.
As a sales professional who often lists his number in public spaces, Goh, who asked to use a pseudonym, has found the plausible story.
For two hours, Goh shared personal details such as its name and its identification number, although it hesitated to disclose its exact bank details.
“I did not know if it was a scam – it seemed so true – but I was also afraid that it is the case,” she told Al Jazeera.
When asked to photograph herself with his official identity card, Goh realized that she was scammed and hung up. Fortunately, Goh, 58, was able to quickly change his passwords and transfer funds to her daughter’s account before the money could be stolen.
Others in his circle of friends have not been lucky.
“Some friends have lost thousands of people,” she said.
Singapore, one of the richest and most informed countries in the world, has become a main target for global crooks.
In the 2023 edition of the Annual Report of the Global Anti-SCAM Alliance, Singapore underwent the highest average loss by victim of all the countries questioned, at $ 4,031.
In the first half of 2024, scam reports reached a record of 26,587, with losses exceeding $ 284 million.
To combat this, the government has turned into unprecedented measures.
Earlier this month, the Singapore parliament adopted leading legislation of its kind granting the authorities of new powers to freeze the bank accounts of the victims of alleged scams.
Under the protection bill against scams, designated officers can order banks to block an individual’s transactions if they have reason to believe that they intend to transfer funds, to withdraw from the ‘Money or use credit facilities for the benefit of a crook.
The persons concerned always retain access to funds for daily lives costs.
The Singaporean police that the convincing victims that they are scammed are a persistent challenge.
Despite numerous anti-scam initiatives, education efforts and the introduction by functional banks such as Kill Switches, 86% of all scams declared in the city-state between January and September 2024, implied the transfer of Funds arranged.
The current tactics used by crooks include the identity of usurpation of civil servants and the creation of the illusion of a romantic relationship.
“This bill allows the police to act decisively and to fill a gap in our arsenal against the crooks,” said the Minister of State for Internal Affairs and Social and Family Development that Sun Xueling.
Although the law was praised by his supporters as a critical tool to fight against creeping scams, he also attracted a debate on the famous trend of the Singaporean government to intervene in private matters, a model of governance sometimes described as a “paternalism caring”.
Critics see the law as an extension of paternalistic governance embodied by the founding chief of Singapore, the the late lee kuan yewwho said once it was “proud” that the state of the city was known as a state of nanny and said that its economic success had been made possible by intervening in personal questions such as “who is your neighbor , how you live, the noise you make, how you spit. ”
In his speech to Parliament before the adoption of the bill, Jamus Lim, a deputy for the workers ‘workers’ party, expressed concerned about the intrusive nature of the law, suggesting that individuals are authorized to Remove from his protections or to appoint members of the family of confidence as account administrators instead.
“We can be uncomfortable specifically with the way in which the bill grants the police a huge quantity of latitude to intervene and restrict what is ultimately a private transaction,” said Lim.
Bertha Henson, former editor -in -chief of the Straits Times newspaper, said that the legislation was only the last example of the government involved in “so many parts of our life”.
“Can we be adults and not continue to run to the state to protect themselves?” Henson said in an article on Facebook. “Because we should really think much further and ask who will also protect the individual from the state. Or if we can always be assured that the right hands are on the bar. »»
The discussion occurs while the government deploys beach measures to improve public security, including plans to double the number of police surveillance cameras to more than 200,000 people by mid-2030 and legal amendments Giving the police new powers to have people with mental health problems that are considered a security risk.
Other recent laws, such as the law on lies and online manipulation and the law on manipulation and the law on foreign interference (countermeasures), reflect efforts to treat disinformation and the ‘External influence.
Although measures to protect national security and social stability also grant the authorities of discretionary powers.
Walter Thsira, an associate professor of economics at the Singapore University of Social Sciences (Suss), said that the government’s anti-SCAM legislation reflects the high economic and social costs of fraud in the city city.
CESIRA noted that many retirees choose to manage significant sums outside the compulsory Singapore savings regime used to finance retirement, health and housing needs, “risking losing everything”.
“Unfortunately, the right to do what you want with your funds may have to be limited if your decisions end up depending on the company or to encourage more criminal activities,” Alira in Alra Jazeera told Alira.
Eugene Tan, an associate professor at the Singapore Management University (SMU) School of Law, said that the growing losses of the scams had stimulated an evolution towards a “preventive approach” focused on the prevention of scams before they occur.
“If it is not more urgently and in a robust manner, then we are not far from an unmized disaster,” Tan told Al Jazeera.
“The government is alive at the social cost and it will be neglected in its functions not to face the imminent crisis.”
Confidence in government
The supporters of the law argued that it was closely defined in its scope. The legislation specifies that the restriction orders will only be published in the last resort, if all the other efforts to convince the individual have failed.
Individuals also have the right to call the restriction orders, which initially last 30 days and can be extended up to five times.
Although the law may seem intrusive to foreigners, the Singaporeans are largely expecting that the government plays an active role in the supervision of the well-being and well-being of the public, said Tan Ern Ser, an associate professor of sociology at the National University of Singapore (nudes).
“In a sense, the Singaporeans want” parental support “but not the” control “aspect of paternalism”, said Tan in Al Jazeera, describing the expectation of the public for a “selective and narrower form of paternalism”.
What distinguishes Singapore is the strong public confidence in the government, said Tan, citing surveys such as the Asian barometer and the World Values Survey.
Tan pointed out that the Singaporeans have largely accepted the orders of stay at home, the compulsory mask wearing and the tracing of contacts during the COVVI-19 pandemic, which was not “politicized to a significant extent”.
Yip Hon Weng, a deputy for the Party of the Government People’s Action, said that the enlarged police powers were a necessary response to the growing problem of scams.
“This ability to act quickly is a game changer for the victims who have been targeted several times, because it prevents new financial losses at critical moments,” YIP told Al Jazeera, sharing the case of an elderly resident In his constituency who had lost his life savings to a crook pretending to be a government official.
“The temporary restriction of access to accounts is a drastic stage, but a step that could save individuals from financial ruin. However, such measures must be exercised with caution to avoid undermining public confidence. »»
YIP said that “intrusion – temporarily restricting access to accounts – requires a delicate balance” between the safeguard of the personal agency and the robust implementation.
Although the law is adapted to the political context of Singapore, such measures may not be so easily adopted in the global context, according to some analysts.
“Countries will have to decide what will work for them and if there is membership of the legislative regime to face the scams,” said the SMU TAN, suggesting that there is a limit to the quantity of State which can intervene and which “the political cost of these measures cannot be neglected”.
Already, the law has attracted negative online chatter and has cost the government a political capital, said Cesira de Suss, adding that he “created a point of discussion that could be used against them in the next elections”.
The general elections of Singapore, which should take place by November, come in the middle of the growing dissatisfaction of the affordability of housing, the rise in life costs, the inequality of income, the increase in polarization and restrictions perceived on dissent in civil society.
Naked tanning said it was unlikely that the anti-SCAM law will establish a world precedent in a time of growing distrust of politicians and the government.
“On the whole, I think that a high degree of confidence in the government / institutions, social cohesion and consensus are necessary when an intervention is designed to restrict or retain for a good legitimate cause, but with the company Becoming more fractured and polarized, and entering a post-truth era, “Fair and Foul, and Foul is right,” said Tan, citing Macbeth.
