While one part of Singapore’s 2025 criminal law reforms introduced tough new mandatory caning for scammers, a different part of the very same law quietly went the other way for a set of less serious offences. The Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2025, passed in Parliament on 4 November 2025, removed mandatory caning for eight offences, including vandalism, and replaced it with discretionary caning instead. This means judges, not the law itself, now decide whether caning is appropriate in these cases.
It might seem like an odd pairing, toughening penalties for scams while softening them for offences like vandalism, but the government has explained both moves as part of the same underlying philosophy: matching the punishment more precisely to how serious and how culpable the offence actually is.
The Offences Affected
Among the offences where mandatory caning has been removed is vandalism of public property and certain private property, including property with national, cultural, or religious significance. Another example specifically mentioned by the Ministry of Home Affairs is blocking train carriages, an offence that previously carried caning automatically upon conviction regardless of the specific circumstances.
In total, eight provisions were amended in this direction. The government has not framed this as decriminalising these acts or treating them lightly, but rather as recognising that the circumstances behind a vandalism case, for example, can vary enormously, from serious and deliberate property damage motivated by malice, to less severe acts that do not warrant the same automatic physical punishment as violent crime.
Mandatory Versus Discretionary Caning Explained
The distinction between mandatory and discretionary caning is central to understanding this change. When caning is mandatory, a court has no choice in the matter once a person is convicted of the offence, meaning caning must be imposed as part of the sentence regardless of the specific facts. When caning is discretionary, a court can choose whether to impose it based on the circumstances of the case, such as the offender’s history, the severity of the damage caused, and any mitigating factors.
By moving offences like vandalism from the mandatory to the discretionary category, Parliament has effectively told judges to use their judgement rather than following a fixed rule. A first time offender who vandalised a wall in a moment of impulsiveness might now avoid caning at a judge’s discretion, whereas someone who caused extensive, deliberate damage, particularly to a site of cultural or religious significance, could still be caned if the court considers it warranted.
Why Parliament Made This Change
During the debate on the Bill, the government explained that this recalibration follows a review of how caning is currently applied across the roughly 96 offences that can attract discretionary caning and the 65 that carry it as mandatory. The review found that some offences carrying mandatory caning did not need the same rigid, one size fits all approach, particularly where the harm caused can vary so widely from case to case.
Officials were careful to stress that this does not signal any general softening of Singapore’s stance on crime. Sim Ann, the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs who presented the Bill, emphasised that the amendments do not reflect reduced seriousness about these offences, only a more precise approach to sentencing them. Most offences that currently attract caning, including serious sexual and violent crimes, are entirely unaffected by this change and continue to carry the same penalties as before.
What Still Attracts Mandatory Caning
It is worth being clear about what did not change. Serious violent and sexual offences, along with the newly introduced mandatory caning for scammers, syndicate members, and recruiters discussed elsewhere, remain firmly in place. The recalibration in this part of the law is narrowly targeted at a specific list of eight less serious offences, not a broad rewrite of how caning works in Singapore generally.
This targeted approach reflects how Singapore’s criminal law tends to evolve, through periodic, carefully scoped amendments rather than sweeping changes, with Parliament regularly reviewing how existing penalties are working in practice and adjusting specific provisions where the evidence suggests a change is warranted.
Two Directions, One Underlying Principle
At first glance, it can look inconsistent that the same Act toughened penalties for scammers while easing them for offences like vandalism. Looked at more closely, both changes follow the same underlying logic, which is that punishment should be proportionate to how much harm an offence causes and how deliberate or organised the offending behaviour is. Scams cause direct, often devastating financial harm to victims and are frequently carried out by organised syndicates, which is why Parliament decided a fixed, non-negotiable punishment was justified. Vandalism, by contrast, covers an enormous range of conduct, from serious deliberate damage to comparatively minor and impulsive acts, which is why Parliament decided judges were better placed to weigh the specific facts of each case rather than being locked into one fixed outcome.
This dual approach also reflects a broader trend in how Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs has approached criminal law reform in recent years, treating the full menu of available offences and penalties as something to be periodically reviewed and rebalanced, rather than as a fixed list that only ever grows more severe over time. Members of Parliament who debated the Bill generally supported this rebalancing, though some raised questions about whether removing mandatory caning for certain offences could be seen as sending a mixed message, a concern the government addressed directly by stressing that discretionary caning remains fully available to judges who consider it warranted.
When caning is discretionary rather than mandatory, the decision sits with the judge hearing the case. A judge will typically weigh the extent of the harm caused, the offender’s background and any prior record, and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances raised during the hearing, before deciding on the full sentence, including whether caning should form part of it. This gives the court room to distinguish between, for example, a first time offender who caused limited damage in a moment of impulsiveness, and someone whose vandalism was extensive, deliberate, or targeted at a site of particular cultural or religious significance.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this mean vandalism is no longer taken seriously as a crime in Singapore?
No. Vandalism remains a criminal offence with penalties including fines and imprisonment. The change only affects whether caning is automatic upon conviction or left to the court’s discretion, and vandalism involving culturally or religiously significant property in particular can still attract caning if a judge considers it appropriate.
Can a first time offender still be caned for vandalism under the new rules?
Yes, it remains possible. Moving an offence to the discretionary category does not prevent a court from imposing caning, it simply removes the automatic requirement, so a judge can still choose to cane a first time offender if the facts of the case justify it.
Are there age limits on who can be sentenced to caning in Singapore?
Yes, Singapore law places age related limits on caning as a punishment, and courts take an offender’s age into account, alongside other factors such as sex and medical fitness, when deciding whether caning can lawfully be imposed in a given case.
Does this change apply retroactively to offences committed before the law changed?
Generally, criminal law changes in Singapore apply based on when the offence took place and how the transitional provisions of the amending Act are written, so someone charged for conduct that occurred before the amendments came into force may still be dealt with under the rules that applied at the time, depending on the specific transitional arrangements.
Were any other offences besides vandalism and blocking train carriages affected by this recalibration?
The Ministry of Home Affairs indicated that eight provisions in total were amended to move from mandatory to discretionary caning, though not every one of these has been individually publicised in detail, so anyone dealing with a specific charge should check the current classification for that particular offence.
Thank you for sharing this article...
About the Author: Randy Alta
