Non-constituency MP Hazel Poa suggested introducing an opt-out delivery for people, subject to protection.
For instance, the limitations order’s opt-out could only be implemented after 30 days, and people would have to do so in person following a mandated counseling session, according to the Secretary-General of Progress Singapore.  ,
A restriction buy perhaps risk pushing “emotionally invested” patients to despair, said Ms Poa.  ,
Scam victims may receive mental health support and counseling from a social worker, she added. These societal workers may advise the police on whether a restriction order would benefit the target.  ,
Ms. Poa even inquired about whether the limitations purchases may be extended to mutual records, which might cause issues for account holders who are not subject to the restrictions.
There are two types of joint accounts, according to Ms. Sun’s response: a joint-all account where all account holders must provide instructions for banking transactions and a joint-alternate account where transactions can be completed without the other account holder’s consent.
Although banks informed MHA that this was “operationally challenging,” it “would prefer to take a risk-calibrated approach” by imposing restriction orders on only joint-alternate accounts.  ,
For a start, we have therefore decided to impose restriction orders on both types of joint accounts, according to Ms. Sun.
She noted that the authorities have decided to proceed with this action to “provide victims with the necessary protection,” even though it is” not ideal.”
MHA will work with the banks to explore putting technical solutions in place” to facilitate such exemptions” in the future, she added.  ,
Ms. Sun also reiterates that the restriction order is a “last resort” measure in response to the suggestion to provide an option to opt out.  ,
She noted that the restriction order will only be temporarily for a maximum of 30 days and will be extended up to five times if necessary.  ,
MPs, such as Mr Gerald Giam ( WP-Aljunied ), Ms Ng Ling Ling ( PAP-Ang Mo Kio ) and Mr Sharael Taha ( PAP-Pasir Ris-Punggol ), asked if the legislation is enough to address scam tactics that are evolving and being conducted at high speeds.
Ms. Ng also made note of the danger of scams occurring on non-banking platforms and asked if the restrictions orders could be expanded to include organizations like remittance and cryptocurrency exchanges.
Ms. Sun responded that MHA recognized the danger that other platforms act as “intermediaries in the scam chain.” It will continue to monitor the scam situation in conjunction with the Monetary Authority of Singapore and” consider, if necessary, expanding the scope of the restriction order.”
Ms. Sun added that the police anticipate issuing five to ten restriction orders each month, although the actual number will depend on the types of cases that are brought to the police’s attention and the severity of each case’s evaluation.
Mr Giam noted that this will come up to about 60 to 120 restriction orders being issued a year, which is “negligible” compared to the 50, 000 scam cases reported annually. He inquired if this implies that the Bill will only have a limited impact on preventing scams.
Ms. Sun reaffirmed that the Bill alone” will not significantly decrease the total number of scams,” and that it is only one of the many strategies being used to combat scams.
Despite this, it is focused on scams that involve social engineering and can result in “quite a lot of losses” over time.
” So, while the number of scams that could be deterred through this Bill … is ( expected ) to be between five to 10 cases a month, I think we should not neglect the fact that the absolute amounts ( in terms of ) losses could be substantial”, said Ms Sun.