How did we end up needing 'nanny' laws to save scam victims from themselves?

Victims' judgment, sense of reality can be deeply distorted by master manipulators

- David Sun

If you are too stubborn to believe you have fallen for a scam, then you will have to be treated like a child.

Newly proposed laws seek to give powers to the police to essentially play parent to the most stubborn of scam victims by putting them on the equivalent of an allowance scheme.

The Protection from Scams Bill was introduced in Parliament on Nov 11, and proposes allowing the police to issue restriction orders (ROs) to banks, which will then restrict the banking transactions of an individual's accounts.

These include money transfers and the use of ATM facilities and all credit facilities, affecting even PayNow and in-person, over-the-counter transactions.

But these victims will still be allowed some money for legitimate reasons, such as paying bills and buying daily essentials.

Like schoolchildren on an allowance, if they want money for other things, they will have to make a case for it by showing proof and telling the police what they want the money for. Police will decide if it is a legitimate reason and whether they will be allowed to have the money.

But unlike children, the money for the "allowance" is the victim's own.

Although there has been strong public support for the proposed laws, which are meant to be a last resort, their unprecedented intrusiveness has raised some eyebrows.

Singapore Management University's law don Eugene Tan said it was a matter of one's perspective on the role of the state.

Associate Professor Tan said: "It is not so much draconian as it is paternalistic or intrusive, in that the reach of the state is going to be extended to instances where people are 'willing' victims.

"At first blush, the proposed laws appear to be intrusive - that the legislation is not empowering or protective, but instead renders individuals powerless to fully operate their bank accounts.