Commentary: Should caning be meted out for more offences in Singapore?
Caning plays an integral but controversial role in Singapore’s criminal justice system, says Mark Yeo of Fortress Law Corporation.
This audio is generated by an AI tool.
SINGAPORE: On May 19, two former actors were sentenced following their convictions for separate sexual offences.
Lev Panfilov was sentenced to 11 and a half years in jail, as well as 12 strokes of the cane for raping a woman he met on Tinder. Ian Fang was sentenced to 40 months’ jail after pleading guilty to three charges of sexual penetration of a girl under 16. The sentence caused a stir among netizens, who wondered why caning was not meted out for such a serious sexual offence.
Caning has played an integral but controversial role in Singapore’s criminal justice system. For example, Singapore canes repeat drug abusers and foreigners who illegally overstay their visa.
More recently, the government is considering caning scammers in certain cases, in recognition of the serious harm they cause to society.
When and why should caning be imposed, and when is it not an appropriate punishment?
RETRIBUTION AND DETERRENCE
Caning serves two purposes in today’s criminal justice system. The first less controversial purpose is for retribution for violent crimes, including sexual offences such as rape and molestation.
The second purpose of caning is for deterrence. This is especially so for offences where imprisonment or fines are found to be of insufficient deterrent value.
Former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, when introducing caning for vandalism offences in parliament in 1966, described the punishment as “rather humiliating”, which would deter would-be offenders who were otherwise not afraid of the repercussions.
The same principle was applied for illegal immigration, as such offenders were purportedly happy to be imprisoned as they would be clothed, fed and generally looked after in prison. Mandatory caning was thus imposed for long-term overstayers.
However, this rationale is not without its detractors. Opponents argue that judicial caning is prohibited under international law on the basis that it amounts to torture or is a cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment. This argument has been rejected by the Singapore courts.
It has also been argued that imposing judicial caning may carry unintended consequences. In a letter published on TODAY, activist Jolene Tan argued that caning people who commit serious sexual offences may normalise a culture of violence and entrench the sexist view that men can only be “controlled” through pain.
It may also deter victims of sexual offences from reporting such offences, especially if it was committed by a family member, for fear that the perpetrator would face caning.
Finally, there does not appear to be studies conducted or commissioned by the government on the effectiveness of judicial caning as a deterrent against crime.
Without such a study, there is no empirical data to conclude that other forms of punishment such as imprisonment, fines or community sentences are inadequate in deterring crime.
ENSURING THAT PUNISHMENT FITS THE CRIME
When determining what types of sentences ought to be imposed for any offences, it is important that the punishment fits the crime.
Returning to Fang’s charge – sex with a minor between the ages of 14 and 16 – the penalty is a jail term of up to 10 years and a fine. But in cases where the offender is in an exploitative relationship with the victim, the penalty is a jail term of up to 20 years, and a fine or caning.
Because Fang was not handed the latter charge – as the prosecution did not deem the relationship itself to be exploitative – he was not sentenced with caning.
As the Penal Code underwent a comprehensive review in 2018, with offences and punishments updated, it stands to reason that the government is satisfied that the sentence has a sufficient deterrent effect.
Singapore’s laws criminalise a wide range of sexual offences involving minors, from sexual communication and grooming to sexual penetration. Each carries its own prescribed punishment based on severity, ensuring that each type of sexual offence is appropriately dealt with.
Before implementing caning for offences, especially non-violent ones, it would be incumbent on lawmakers to ensure that other methods of deterrence are exhausted.
Given that caning causes not only great hurt – to the point that a doctor must be present when the offender is being caned – but also significant humiliation, it is one of the gravest sentences that can be imposed, and not one to be meted out freely.
Where scams are concerned, it would be prudent for lawmakers to review the effectiveness of current measures to prevent, detect and punish offenders and how they would compare to caning. The Sentencing Advisory Panel already issued guidelines for scam-related offences in August 2024, setting out strict punishments that exclude caning for people who hand over control of their bank accounts or disclose Singpass credentials to others.
It would also be crucial for the government to consult the public widely before implementing such a sentence, as there is no general consensus regarding the use of judicial caning in Singapore, and laws should align with societal mores and values. “Spare the rod, spoil the child” should not be an assumption that underlies our criminal justice system.
Mark Yeo is a Director at Fortress Law Corporation. He was formerly a Deputy Public Prosecutor with the Attorney-General’s Chambers.
