Singapore – Last year Charlotte Goh received a call from someone who claimed to be an official of the cyber security authority in Singapore.
The caller informed Goh that her number was associated with a fraud in connection with Malaysier, and directed it to the “Malaysian Interpol” to submit a report.
As a sales professional, who often lists her number in public spaces, Goh, who asked to use a pseudonym, found the story plausible.
GOH announced personal data such as her name and identification number for over two hours, although she hesitated to disclose her exact bank details.
“I was not sure if it was a fraud – it sounded so true – but I was also afraid that it could be,” she said to Al Jazera.
When she was asked to photograph herself with her official identity card, Goh found that she was cheated and hung up. Fortunately, Goh, 58, could change her passwords quickly and transfer money to her daughter’s account before a money could be stolen.
Others in their circle of friends didn’t have so happy.
“Some friends have lost thousands,” she said.
Singapore, one of the richest and internet -razed countries in the world, has become a main goal for global fraudsters.
In the 2023 edition of the annual report of the Global Anti-Scam Alliance, Singapore had $ 4,031 the highest average loss per victim of all countries surveyed.
In the first half of 2024, reports on fraud cases achieved a record high of 26,587, with the losses exceeding $ 284 million.
To combat this, the government has faced unprecedented measures.
At the beginning of this month, the parliament in Singapore passed the first legislation in which the authorities were granted new powers in order to freeze the bank accounts of the alleged victims of fraud.
After protection against fraud calculation, the officials can order the banks to block the transactions of a person if they have reason to assume that they intend to transfer money, to withdraw money or to use credit facilities to benefit a fraudster.
Those affected still have access to funds for daily living costs.
According to Singapore police, the convincing victims who cheated on them are a continuing challenge.
Despite numerous anti-scam initiatives, educational efforts and the introduction of characteristics such as Kill Switches, 86 percent of all reported fraud in the city state between January and September 2024 included the willing transfer of funds.
The common tactics used are the identity of government officials and the creation of the illusion of a romantic relationship.
“This legislation enables the police to act decisively and to close a gap in our arsenal against fraudsters,” said Sun Xueling, Minister of State for Home and Family Development, to the parliament.
While the law was celebrated by its followers as a critical instrument to combat lower scams, it also surprises a debate about the famous tendency of the Singapore government, in private affairs, a model of government management, which is sometimes referred to as “benevolent paternalism” .
Critics see the law as an expansion of paternalist governance, which is embodied by Singapore’s founding manager late Lee Kuan YewHe once said that he was “proud” that the city-state became known as a nanny state and claimed that his economic success was made possible by in personal affairs such as “Who is your neighbor, how you live, the noise you live Live, intervene, make you spit ”.
In his speech on Parliament before the law was adopted, Jamus Lim, a member of a member of the party of secondary business, expressed concern about the intrusive character of the law, which indicates this of accounts.
“Especially with the way the legislation grants the law enforcement authorities, you can be uncomfortable to intervene and limit a private transaction,” said Lim.
Bertha Henson, a former editor of the newspaper of the Straits Times, said that legislation is only the latest example of the government, which intervenes in “so many parts of our lives”.
“Can we be adults and don’t run further to protection into the state?” Henson said in a Facebook post. “Because we really think and ask a lot and ask who will protect the person from the state. Or whether we can always be sure that the right hands are at the top. “
The discussion comes when the government measures a range that is considered a security risk.
Other recent laws such as the protection against the online law and manipulation law and manipulation law and the law on foreign interference (countermeasures) reflect the efforts to combat misinformation and the external influence.
While they are exposed to measures to protect national security and social stability, they also grant the authorities broad impact authorities.
Walter Thisira, Associate Professor of Economics at the Social Sciences in Singapore (Suss), said that the government’s anti-scam legislation reflects the strong economic and social costs of fraud in the city state.
Therma found that many pensioners decided to manage significant amounts of money outside of Singapore’s obligatory savings program to finance retirement, health care and the need for housing and to “suspend the risk of losing everything”.
“Unfortunately, the right to do what you want must be limited with your means if your decisions make it dependent on society or promote more criminal activities,” Theira told Al Jazera.
Eugene Tan, Associate Professor at the School of Law from Singapore Management University (SMU), said that the growing losses through fraud had suggested a shift to a “preventive approach” that gave way to the prevention of fraud before occurring.
“If it is no longer urgent and robust, we are not far away from an unrestricted catastrophe,” Tan told Al Jazera.
“The government lives for social costs and will agree in its duties not to deal with the upcoming crisis.”
Trust in the government
Proponents of the law have argued that it is closely defined in its scope. The legislation states that the restriction orders are only given as the last way if all other efforts to convince the person have failed.
Individuals also have the right to calculate restrictions on restrictions that initially take 30 days and can be extended to five times.
While the law could appear intrusive, the Singaporers generally expect an active role in monitoring well -being and well -being of the public, said Tan Ern Ser, Associate Professor of Sociology at the National University of Singapore (NUS).
“In a sense, Singaporeers want” parental support “, but not the” control “aspect of paternalism,” Tan told Al Jazera and described the expectation of the public to a “selective, narrower form of paternalism”.
What distinguishes Singapore is the high trust of the public in the government, Tan said, citing surveys such as the Asian Barometer and World Valuer Survey.
Tan pointed out that the Singaporer during the Covid 19 pandemic, which was not “politicized” to a significant degree, widely recognized residence commands, obligatory mask supply and tracking during Covid 19 pandemic.
Yip Hon Weng, MP at the Action Party of the Leaders, said that the extended police powers are a necessary response to the growing problem of fighting fraud.
“This ability to act quickly to a fraudster who pretends to be a government official.
“The temporary restriction of account access is a drastic step, but one that could protect individuals from financial ruin. However, such measures must be carried out with care in order to avoid the lower limit of public trust. “
Yip said that the “intrusiveness of the law – temporarily restricting access to accounts – requires a sensitive balance between protective measures and a robust implementation.
While the law is suitable for the political context of Singapore, such measures cannot be easily accepted in the global context, some analysts say.
“The countries have to decide what will work for them and whether there is a buy-in for the legislative regime to deal with the frauds,” said the SMU TAN and beat that there is a limit, how much state intervene and that “the political costs of such measures cannot be overlooked. “
The law has already attracted a negative online chat and the government cost political capital, said Thera von Suss and added that it “created a topic of conversation that could be applied to the upcoming elections against them”.
The general elections in Singapore, which are to take place until November, will take place in the middle of the growing dissatisfaction with the affordability of living space, increasing cost of living, income, increasing polarization and perceived restrictions on dissent in civil society.
The Tan of the Nus said it was unlikely that the anti-scam law would be a global precedent in a time of growing distrust of politicians and government.
“All in all, I believe that a high degree of trust in the government/institutions, social cohesion and consensus is necessary if an intervention is designed in such a way that it restricts or restricts a good, legitimate matter, but since society is more is broken and polarized. And to enter a post-truth era, “Fair and Fault and Foul is fair,” said Tan and quoted Macbeth.
