{
  "id": 14543791,
  "title": "CNA Explains: What happens when the government disagrees with the courts?",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/14/cna-explains-what-happens-when-the-government-disagrees-with-the",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-10-14T22:00:00.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "CNA - Singapore",
    "slug": "cna-singapore",
    "url": "https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/government-parliament-judiciary-courts-legislative-changes-disagree-6458426"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "When the High Court overturned deterrent sentences for four young scam mules in September, the government proposed changes to the law, asserting that such lenient sentences were not in line with their policy. Senior Minister K Shanmugam, who is also Coordinating Minister for National Security, emphasized that the decision did not align with the government’s sentencing guidelines, which called for sterner penalties like jail or reformative training.\n\nIn response, Shanmugam announced that his ministry would be tabling new legislation in parliament to clarify the government’s position on deterrent sentences for scam-related offenders, particularly youths. The legislation will explicitly state that the court’s September ruling should not be followed.\n\nThe September case involved seven individuals convicted of facilitating scam syndicates through their bank accounts or Singpass credentials. The three-judge High Court panel, comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Justices Ang Cheng Hock and Hoo Sheau Peng, allowed appeals for four cases and imposed probation and community-based sentences. The remaining three cases were dismissed.\n\nThe court clarified that sentencing guidelines suggested by the Sentencing Advisory Panel (SAP) are not binding but intended to assist in sentencing decisions. The panel stated that applying custodial sentences and reformative training as defaults for young offenders in such cases was considered “too blunt.”\n\nExperts noted that the government’s ability to propose legislative amendments following a court ruling reflects the constitutional separation of powers. Parliament is responsible for debating and passing legislation, while courts interpret and apply the law to resolve legal disputes. Sentencing advisory panel guidelines provide some clarity to lawmakers but are not legally binding on courts.\n\nThe discrepancy between judicial rulings and parliamentary intent can arise from drafting issues and ambiguity in legislative language. Courts have the authority to interpret legislation passed by parliament, and discrepancies can occur if laws are not drafted with sufficient clarity or if lawmakers did not anticipate all potential court interpretations.",
  "summary": "A recent High Court ruling that overturned deterrent sentences for four young scam mules prompted the government to propose changes to the law. CNA looks at similar past cases, how lawmakers responded and the constitutional limits involved.",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 2,
    "also_reported_by": [
      {
        "outlet": "Channel News Asia",
        "title": "CNA Explains: What happens when the government disagrees with the courts?",
        "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/14/cna-explains-what-happens-when-the-government-disagrees-with-the-14544851",
        "published": "2026-10-14T22:00:00.000Z"
      }
    ]
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}