Caning in Singapore

Caning, as a form of legally sanctioned corporal punishment for convicted criminals, was first introduced to Malaya and Singapore by the British Empire in the 19th century. It was formally codified under the Straits Settlements Penal Code Ordinance IV in 1871.[1]

In that era, offences punishable by caning were similar to those punishable by birching or flogging (with the cat o' nine tails) in England and Wales. They included robbery, aggravated forms of theft, burglary, assault with the intention of sexual abuse, a second or subsequent conviction of rape, a second or subsequent offence relating to prostitution, and living on or trading in prostitution.[1]

Caning remained on the statute book after Malaya declared independence from Britain in 1957, and after Singapore ceased to be part of Malaysia in 1965. Subsequent legislation has been passed by the Parliament of Singapore over the years to increase the minimum strokes an offender receives, and the number of crimes that may be punished with caning.[1]

Sections 325–332 of the Criminal Procedure Code lay down the procedures governing caning. They include the following:

• A male offender between the ages of 18 and 50 who has been certified to be in a fit state of health by a medical officer is liable to be caned.[3]
• The offender shall receive no more than 24 strokes of the cane on any one occasion, irrespective of the total number of offences committed.[4] In other words, a man cannot be sentenced to more than 24 strokes of the cane in a single trial, but he may receive more than 24 strokes if the sentences are given out in separate trials.[5]
• If the offender is under 18, he may receive up to 10 strokes of the cane,[4][6] but a lighter cane will be used in this case.[7] Boys under 16 may be sentenced to caning only by the High Court and not by the State Courts.
• An offender sentenced to death shall not be caned.
• The rattan cane used shall not exceed 1.27 cm (0.50 inches) in diameter.[7]
• Caning must not be carried out in instalments.[6] This is to ensure that prisoners sentenced to caning are done with it in a single session and do not have to go through the process repeatedly even if the full sentence might not have been administered for medical reasons.[8]

Any male convict, whether sentenced to caning or not, may also be caned in prison if he commits certain offences while serving time in prison.[9]

The following groups of people are not allowed to be caned:[10]

• Women
• Men above the age of 50
• Men sentenced to death whose sentences have not been commuted

It was not uncommon for the courts to extend, by up to 12 months,[11] the prison terms of offenders originally sentenced to caning but later found to be medically unfit to undergo the punishment. However, on 9 May 2017, the High Court ruled that the courts should not automatically impose an additional jail term in lieu of caning unless there are reasons to do so.[12] According to judicial indicative guidelines, in situations where the court has to extend a convict's jail term in lieu of caning, the extension will range from nine to 12 months when the case involves more than 19 strokes of the cane.[13]

Singaporean law allows caning to be ordered for over 35 offences, including hostage-taking/kidnapping, robbery, gang robbery with murder, rioting, causing grievous hurt, drug abuse, vandalism, extortion, voyeurism, sexual abuse, molestation (outrage of modesty),[14] and unlawful possession of weapons. Caning is also a mandatory punishment for certain offences such as rape, drug trafficking, illegal moneylending,[15] and for foreigners who overstay by more than 90 days – a measure designed to deter illegal immigrants.[16]

While most of Singapore's laws on offences punishable by caning were inherited from the British legal system through the Indian Penal Code, the Vandalism Act was only introduced in 1966 after independence, in what has been argued[17] to be an attempt by the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) to suppress the opposition's activities in the 1960s because opposition supporters vandalised public property with anti-PAP graffiti. Vandalism was originally prohibited by the Minor Offences Act, which made it punishable by a fine of up to S$50 or a week in jail, but did not permit caning.[17] As of today, the Vandalism Act imposes a mandatory caning sentence of between three and eight strokes for a conviction of vandalism. Caning is not imposed on first-time offenders who use delible substances (e.g. pencil, crayon, chalk) to commit vandalism.[18]

Beginning in the 1990s, the higher courts have been more inclined to impose caning sentences in cases where caning is a discretionary punishment. For example, in 1993 an 18-year-old molester was initially sentenced to six months' imprisonment but he appealed against his sentence. Chief Justice Yong Pung How not only dismissed his appeal, but also added three strokes of the cane to the sentence. This precedent set by the Chief Justice became a benchmark for sentences in molest cases, where the court is expected to sentence a molester to at least nine months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane if the offence involves touching the victim's private parts.[19]

In some cases, male employees can be sentenced to caning for offences committed by the company they work for. For instance, the Dangerous Fireworks Act states that caning is mandatory for a manager or owner of a company which imports, delivers or sells dangerous fireworks. Another example is the transporting of illegal immigrants; a manager of a company who authorises or participates in such activity can be sentenced to caning.[19] In July 1998, police reported six cases of employers sentenced to imprisonment and caning for hiring illegal immigrants.[20]

The importation of chewing gum is subject only to fines; it is not and has never been an offence punishable by caning.[21]

In 1993, the number of caning sentences ordered by the courts was 3,244.[22]

By 2007, this figure had doubled to 6,404, of which about 95% were actually implemented.[23] Since 2007, the number of caning sentences has experienced an overall decline, falling to just 1,257 in 2016.

Caning takes place at several institutions around Singapore, most notably Changi Prison, and including the now defunct Queenstown Remand Centre, where Michael Fay was caned in 1994. Canings are also administered in Drug Rehabilitation Centres.

Most caning sentences are far below the legal limit of 24 strokes. Although sentences of between three and six strokes are much more common, they usually receive less or no coverage by the media. Normally, only the more serious cases involving heavier sentences will have a greater tendency to be reported in the press.[33]

The prison officers who administer caning are carefully selected and specially trained for the job. They are generally physically fit and robustly built. Some hold "quite high" grades in martial arts even though proficiency in martial arts is not a requirement for the job.[34] They are trained to use their entire body weight as the power behind every stroke instead of using only the strength from their arms,[35] as well as to induce as much pain as possible. They can swing the cane at a speed of up to 160 km/h (99 miles per hour)[36] and produce a force upon impact of at least 90 kg (200 pounds).[37]

A rattan[38] cane no more than 1.27 cm (0.5 inches) in diameter[7] and about 1.2 m (3.9 feet) in length is used for judicial and prison canings. It is about twice as thick as the canes used in the school and military contexts. The cane is soaked in water overnight to make it supple and prevent it from splitting and embedding splinters in the wounds.[35] The Prisons Department denies that the cane is soaked in brine, but has said that it is treated with antiseptic before use to prevent infection.[39] A lighter cane is used for juvenile offenders.[7]

Caning is, in practice, always ordered in addition to a jail sentence and never as a punishment by itself. It is administered in an enclosed area in the prison out of the view of the public and other inmates.[8] However, anecdotal evidence suggests that the offender, while waiting in a queue for his turn to be caned, has the chance to observe[40] or hear the screams and cries of those before him getting caned.[41] The order is determined by the number of strokes the offender is receiving, with the largest number going first.[42] A medical officer and the Superintendent of Prisons are required to be present at every caning session.[43]

Those who are sentenced to caning and are in the process of appealing against their sentences do not have their caning carried out while pending the outcome of their appeals. Similarly, during the period before the convicts' deadlines of their appeal notices, caning is not carried out until the deadline expires and with the convict not making an notice of appeal.

The offender is not told in advance when he will be caned; he is notified only on the day his sentence is to be carried out.[44] Offenders often undergo a lot of psychological distress as a result of being put into such uncertainty.[36] On the day itself, the medical officer examines him by measuring his blood pressure and other physical conditions to check whether he is medically fit for the caning. If he is certified fit, he proceeds to receive his punishment; if he is certified unfit, he is sent back to the court for the sentence to be remitted or converted to additional time in prison. A prison officer confirms with him the number of strokes he has been sentenced to.[45]

In practice, the offender is required to strip completely naked for the caning. Once he has removed his clothes, he is restrained in a large wooden trestle based on the British dual-purpose prison flogging frame. He stands barefooted on the trestle base and bends over a padded horizontal crossbar on one side of the trestle, with the crossbar adjusted to around his waist level. His feet are tied to a lower crossbar on the same side by restraining ankle cuffs made of leather, while his hands are secured to another horizontal crossbar on the other side by wrist cuffs of similar design; his hands can hold on to the crossbar. After he is secured to the trestle in a bent-over position at an angle of close to 90° at the hip, protective padding is tied around his lower back to protect the vulnerable kidney and lower spine area from any strokes that might land off-target.[39][46] The punishment is administered on his bare buttocks[47] to minimise the risk of any injury to bones and organs.[8] He is not gagged.[39]

The caning officer carefully positions himself beside the trestle and takes aim with the cane. The Director of Prisons explained in a 1974 press conference, "Correct positioning is critically important. If he is too near the prisoner, the tip of the cane will fall beyond the buttocks and the force of the stroke will cause the unsupported tip to dip and bend the cane and thus reduce the effect of the stroke. If he is too far, the stroke will only cover part of the buttocks." Strokes are delivered at intervals of about 30 seconds.[35] The caning officer is required to exert as much strength as he can muster for each stroke.[39] The offender receives all the strokes in a single caning session – not in instalments.[6] According to anecdotal evidence, if the sentence involves a large number of strokes, two or more officers will take turns to cane the offender every six strokes to ensure that the later strokes are as forceful as the earlier ones.[48][41]

During the caning, if the medical officer certifies that the offender is not in a fit state of health to undergo the rest of the punishment, the caning must be stopped.[3] The offender will then be sent back to the court for the remaining number of strokes to be remitted or converted to a prison term of no more than 12 months, in addition to the original prison term he was sentenced to.[49]

Caning can cause significant physical damage, depending largely on the number of strokes inflicted. Michael Fay, who received four strokes, said in an interview, "The skin did rip open, there was some blood. I mean, let's not exaggerate, and let's not say a few drops or that the blood was gushing out. It was in between the two. It's like a bloody nose."[50]

A report by the Singapore Bar Association stated, "The blows are applied with the full force of the jailer's arm. When the rattan hits the bare buttocks, the skin disintegrates, leaving a white line and then a flow of blood."[51]

Usually, the buttocks will be covered with blood after three strokes.[35] More profuse bleeding may occur in the case of a larger number of strokes. An eyewitness described that after 24 strokes, the buttocks will be a "bloody mess".[42]

Men who were caned have variously described the pain they experienced as "unbearable", "excruciating", "equivalent to getting hit by a lorry",[40] "having a hot iron placed on your buttocks",[42] etc. A recipient of 10 strokes said, "The pain was beyond description. If there is a word stronger than excruciating, that should be the word to describe it".[52][53]

Most offenders struggle violently after each of the first three strokes and then their struggles lessen as they become weaker. By the time the caning is over, those who receive more than three strokes will be in a state of shock. During the caning, some offenders will pretend to faint but they have not been able to fool the medical officer, who decides whether the punishment continues or stops.[54] Offenders often undergo a lot of psychological distress before and during the caning: They are not only afraid of the physical pain, but are also worried whether they can prevent themselves from crying out because crying means that they would "lose face"[35] and be labelled 'weak' by their fellow inmates.[42]

Gopal Baratham, a Singaporean neurosurgeon and opponent of the practice, in his book The Caning of Michael Fay: The Inside Story by a Singaporean, criticised the American tabloid press for false claims, such as that canings are public events (in fact they always take place privately inside the prison):

Two lashers took turns to wield the bamboo cane. Blood spurted, bits of flesh flew and the prisoner screamed in pain. ... The canings drew hundreds of people, including a lot of women, and everybody seemed to love it. Each time the guy got wacked [sic] the crowd would roar – like at a hockey game. They really enjoyed what they saw. (New York Newsday, 20 April 1994)[55]

After the caning, the offender is released from the trestle and receives medical treatment. Antiseptic lotion (gentian violet) is applied on the wounds.[56] The offender is also given painkillers and antibiotics.[41]

The wounds usually take between a week and a month to heal, depending on the number of strokes received. During this time, offenders cannot sit down or lie down on their backs, and experience difficulties controlling their bowels. Bleeding from the buttocks may still occur in the days after the caning.[41][57] M Ravi, a human rights lawyer, described the injuries of his client, Ye Ming Yuen, who received 24 strokes, as follows:

All over his buttocks were multiple marks and deep lacerations. It was so shocking [that] my female paralegal who was with me almost fainted. [...] The wounds were so deep with blood, flesh and layers of the skin exposed. He didn't have any bandages, just a towel to put over the buttocks. He couldn't sit for too long so he was standing up.[41]

Permanent scars remain even after the wounds have healed.[57]

• Selwyn Hirini Kahukura, Hugh Gordon Clark and Tony Alfred Gordon, three New Zealand soldiers sentenced in 1981 to three years' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane each for selling cannabis in their camp at Dieppe Barracks, Sembawang. They appealed to Singapore's President Devan Nair for clemency in 1982 but the appeals were rejected.[58]
• Nyu Kok Meng, a convicted armed robber from Malaysia who was sentenced to life imprisonment and six strokes of the cane in July 1985 for possessing a rifle while committing armed robbery at Andrew Road under the Arms Offences Act. He had an accomplice, Sek Kim Wah, who was hanged in 1988 for killing three of the five victims they robbed together before Nyu protected the remaining two victims from Sek's murderous rampage upon Nyu discovering Sek murdering the three victims.
• Michael Fay, an 18-year-old American citizen convicted of vandalism in March 1994 and sentenced to four months' imprisonment, a S$3,500 fine, and six strokes of the cane. This incident attracted worldwide publicity and sparked a minor diplomatic crisis between Singapore and the United States. Under pressure from U.S. President Bill Clinton, Singapore's President Ong Teng Cheong reduced Fay's sentence from six to four strokes. Fay was caned on 5 May 1994 in Queenstown Remand Prison.
• Andy Shiu Chi Ho, a Hong Kong teenager convicted of vandalism along with Michael Fay in March 1994. He was originally sentenced to eight months' imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane, but his sentence was eventually reduced to six months' imprisonment and six strokes. He was caned on 23 June 1994.[59]
• David William Peden, a New Zealand former soldier sentenced in November 1997 to one year's imprisonment and three strokes of the cane for overstaying and drug consumption. He was caned on 12 December that year and appeared to be "fine and in good spirits" when a New Zealand consular officer visited him a day after.[60][61]
• Galing Anak Kujat, a convicted robber from Sarawak, Malaysia. He and his friend Kho Jabing had attacked and robbed two Chinese construction workers. One of the two victims died six days later after being continuously hit on the head with a tree branch by Kho. Both Galing and Kho were arrested, found guilty of murder in July 2010, and sentenced to death. In May 2011, Galing made a successful appeal and had his charge reduced to robbery with hurt. His sentence was then reduced to 18 years and six months imprisonment and 19 strokes of the cane. Kho, on the other hand, lost his appeal and was eventually executed on 20 May 2016.
• Oliver Fricker, a Swiss national who was sentenced on 25 June 2010 to five months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane for breaking into the SMRT Trains Changi Depot and vandalising an MRT train by spraypainting it.[62]
• Two Taiwanese nationals, Su Wei Ying and Wu Wei Chun, were sentenced in September 2010 to 21 and 24 months' imprisonment, respectively, and both received 15 strokes of the cane each for loansharking offences. Another Taiwanese national, Chen Ci Fan, was sentenced in January 2011 to 46 months' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane, also in connection with loansharking.[63]
• Samiyappan Sellathurai, an Indian national sentenced to 25 months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane in November 2014 for instigating and participating in the 2013 Little India riot. Over 20 men of South Asian origin were convicted for their respective roles in the riot. Among them, two others also received caning sentences: Arumugam Karthik was sentenced to 33 months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane for flipping over three police cars and setting another on fire; Ramalingam Sakthivel was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane for flipping over a police car, hitting an ambulance with a pole, and hurling projectiles at police.[64]
• Two Germans, Andreas Von Knorre and Elton Hinz, were each sentenced on 5 March 2015 to nine months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane for breaking into a train depot in November 2014 and vandalising a train cabin by spraypainting it.[65]
• Yong Vui Kong, a Malaysian who was caught trafficking heroin in 2007. He was spared the death penalty and re-sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane in 2013 after changes were made to Singapore's laws on drug trafficking. (See Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor for the background of the case). Yong, acting through his lawyer M Ravi, made an appeal to the Court of Appeal against his caning sentence. Ravi argued that the corporal punishment violated the Constitution and that it was racist and discriminatory.[66] In 2015, three judges, including Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, ruled that caning was not unconstitutional and dismissed Yong's appeal.[8][67]
• Tony Anak Imba, a convicted murderer from Sarawak, Malaysia who was sentenced to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane for the murder of Shanmuganathan Dillidurai in 2010 during an armed robbery he had committed with his three friends from Sarawak. One of his friends, Micheal Anak Garing, received the death sentence for murder and was hanged in March 2019. The remaining two, Hairee Anak Landak and Donny Anak Medula, were each sentenced to 33 years in prison and 24 strokes of the cane in 2013 and 2018 respectively.
• Bander Yahya A. Alzahrani, a Saudi Arabian diplomat convicted of molesting a hotel intern in 2016. On 3 February 2017, he was sentenced to 26 months and one week in jail and four strokes of the cane. He appealed against his sentence and was released on bail of S$20,000.[68] On 21 July 2017, the High Court dismissed his appeal. Judge of Appeal Steven Chong remarked that his sentence was "actually lenient", especially given the "dishonest" manner in which he ran his defence.[69]
• Khong Tam Thanh, Vu Thai Son and Michael Le, three Britons of Vietnamese descent accused of raping a Malaysian woman in a hotel in Singapore. They pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of aggravated molestation, and were sentenced on 15 August 2017 as follows: Thanh received six years' jail and eight strokes of the cane; Son received 6½ years' jail and eight strokes of the cane; Le received 5½ years' jail and five strokes of the cane.[70]
• Wade James Burridge, an Australian managing director of a horse-racing company convicted of molesting two women in 2015. He was sentenced on 6 December 2017 to 11 months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane. It was last reported that he appealed against his sentence and was out on bail of S$40,000.[71]
• Ye Ming Yuen, a British former DJ convicted of drug trafficking in January 2018 and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. His case made headlines in the United Kingdom after the Daily Mail published an interview with him conducted without authorisation by the Singapore Prison Service. British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt raised the issue and expressed the United Kingdom's opposition to all forms of corporal punishment during his January 2019 visit to Singapore.[72] Yuen was eventually caned on 19 August 2020,[73] one week after his appeal for clemency failed. His lawyer, M Ravi, is contemplating legal action against the Singaporean government under international human rights law.[41]
• Gregersen Tommy, a Norwegian, was convicted of molesting a drunk woman outside a nightclub at Clarke Quay in August 2017. He was sentenced to one year's imprisonment and three strokes of the cane on 25 May 2018.[74]

• Qwek Kee Chong, a Singaporean convicted of four counts of armed robbery in 1987 and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment and 48 strokes of the cane in total (12 strokes for each count). He received all 48 strokes on 8 April 1988 and was hospitalised in the Changi Prison hospital. On 1 March 1991, he sued the government for damages and costs for "grievous injuries to (his) buttocks". This case was believed to be the first time a prisoner was caned beyond the legal limit of 24 strokes.[75] As it was clearly a mistake for him to receive more than 24 strokes in a single session, the government gave him an ex gratia compensation payment in settlement. Three other members of Qwek's criminal gang made similar claims in 2007, saying that they also received more than 24 strokes each and did not know at the time that it was against the law: Kwek Hak Seng and Lou Chou Fei received 36 strokes each, while Chia Teck Kiam received 48 strokes too.[76]
• Selvaraju s/o Satippan, a jobless Singaporean who was sentenced to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane in 2004 for kidnapping a reporter and causing hurt, as well as attempted murder. He lost his appeal against the sentence.[77][78]
• Dickson Tan Yong Wen, a Singaporean who received three more strokes than he was sentenced to because of an administrative error. He was sentenced on 28 February 2007 to nine months in jail and five strokes of the cane for two offences involving abetting an illegal moneylender to harass a debtor. However, he received eight strokes on 29 March 2007.[79] Tan sought S$3 million from the government in compensation but was rejected. He did receive some compensation after negotiations, but the amount was kept secret.[80] After the caning error incident, Tan ran into trouble with the law again on two separate occasions. In the second case, he committed an offence punishable by caning but was sentenced to only a jail term.[81][82]
• Dave Teo Ming, a Singaporean Full Time National Serviceman who made headlines in Singapore when he went absent without official leave (AWOL) on 2 September 2007 from an army camp with a SAR 21 assault rifle. He was arrested by the police at Cathay Cineleisure Orchard with the rifle, eight 5.56mm rounds, and a knife in his possession. Teo was sentenced in July 2008 to nine years and two months' imprisonment and 18 strokes of the cane under multiple charges under the Arms Offences Act.[83]
• Mohamad Khalid Mohamad Yusop, who vandalised The Cenotaph, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane in August 2013.[84]
• Alvin Phoon Hui Zhi, a former Youth Olympic Games cyclist sentenced to five years' imprisonment and five strokes of the cane in 2015 for drug trafficking and consumption.[85]
• Goh Eng Kiat, a company director who became the first person to be sentenced to caning for offences committed under Singapore's Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA). He was sentenced on 3 November 2017 to a total of 50 months' imprisonment and five strokes of the cane for fraudulently obtaining work passes for 30 foreign workers for a company that did not require their employment.[86]

Judicial caning is also used as a form of legal punishment for criminal offences in two of Singapore's neighbouring countries, Brunei and Malaysia. There are some differences across the three countries.

[88]

Routine school canings are normally not publicised, so only rare and special cases are reported in the media.[113]

• 1987: Seven students at Anglo-Chinese Junior College were given between one and three strokes of the cane for stealing audio equipment from one of the lecture theatres.[119]
• 1994: Six students at Pioneer Secondary School were publicly caned for assaulting a fellow student. One student's parents were unhappy as they believed that their son was innocent even though the Ministry of Education concluded that the school had thoroughly conducted the investigation.[120]
• 2001: 41 students at Fajar Secondary School were given two strokes of the cane each in the principal's office for skipping tests. 82 people who wrote to The Straits Times to share their views on this incident agreed with the principal's decision to punish the boys while the remaining 16 opposed.[121][122]
• 2002: Three students from Montfort Secondary School were publicly caned for repeatedly being disrespectful during the flag-raising ceremony despite having been warned earlier by the principal.[123]
• 2002: A 17-year-old student from Bishan Park Secondary School was given two strokes of the cane in public for assaulting a 50-year-old teacher during a school excursion to East Coast Park. The student was also fined S$1,000 by a court later in June 2003.[124][125]
• 2004: A seven-year-old student from a primary school in Jurong was given one stroke of the cane in public for an offence equivalent to an adult act of vandalism or throwing killer litter.[126]
• 2005: A student from Raffles Institution[127] was publicly caned for defaming a teacher in the school's online forum.[128]
• 2006: A 17-year-old student from Siglap Secondary School was given two strokes of the cane in public for assaulting a 16-year-old student from Victoria School during a soccer match, causing the latter to suffer a fractured jaw.[129]
• 2006: A student from Pasir Ris Secondary School was publicly caned. Some parents strongly opposed the public manner of the punishment as they felt that it harmed the student's self-esteem and traumatised the other students who witnessed it.[130]
• 2008: Two 14-year-old students from Saint Andrew's Secondary School[127] were publicly caned for attempting to use their mobile phones to take upskirt photos of a female teacher, who also made a police report after the incident. The news article also mentioned that a similar incident had happened in the previous year and the two students involved had also been publicly caned.[131]
• 2009: Three Secondary Three students from Anglo-Chinese School (Barker Road)[127] were publicly caned for taunting, mocking and intimidating a Secondary One student.[132]
• 2009: Two Primary Five students from a primary school in Sembawang were publicly caned a few days before the end-of-year exams. Some students were distressed after witnessing the public canings.[133]
• 2011: A 15-year-old student and a 14-year-old student from Saint Andrew's Secondary School were each given one stroke of the cane in the school office for making threats on Facebook to fight in school.[134]
• 2016: 30 Secondary Two and Three students from Anglo-Chinese School (Barker Road)[127] were caught taking, keeping or sharing upskirt photos and videos of six female teachers. One of them was expelled while seven were given two strokes of the cane in front of their respective levels. Nine others were caned in the principal's office.[135]
• 2017: An 11-year-old student from Horizon Primary School was given one stroke of the cane by the vice principal in the school office for misbehaving. His parents later discovered cane marks on his thigh, along with bruising in the area. The school stated that the student had been counselled and had returned to school to continue his studies after the incident.[136]
• 2019: The mother of a 12-year-old student from St. Gabriel's Primary School lodged a police report after discovering cane marks on her son's arm and leg. The boy had been informally punished by the school's discipline headmistress after an altercation with a classmate, and the school had not informed his parents. As the punishment was not carried out according to the Ministry of Education's guidelines, the police investigated the incident as a case of voluntarily causing hurt.[137]

As the Ministry of Education does not allow any form of corporal punishment to be administered to girls, female students receive alternative forms of punishment such as detention, Corrective Work Orders or suspension.[138][139][140][141]

In 2004, Ng Lee Huat, the principal of Nan Chiau High School, controversially stepped down after admitting to hitting a 14-year-old female student with a soft-cover book.[142]

Judicial caning is meant to serve as a humiliating experience for offenders and as a strong deterrent to crime. In 1966, when Singapore's first Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, introduced caning as a mandatory punishment for vandalism, he said in Parliament, "[...] if (the offender) knows he is going to get three of the best, I think he will lose a great deal of enthusiasm, because there is little glory attached to the rather humiliating experience of having to be caned."[156]

In a 2004 interview with China Central Television, Lee explained why caning should continue in Singapore with reference to the 1994 Michael Fay incident: "Every country has its own problems to face, we know, certain things. You put a person in a prison, it makes no difference. He will not change. Because you observe certain rules, there's enough food, enough exercise, fresh air, sunshine ... But if you cane him, and he knows he will be given six of the best on his buttocks, and it will hurt for one week that he can't sit down comfortably, he will think again."[157]

Although the extensive use of judicial caning is a policy commonly associated with the ruling People's Action Party (PAP), the opposition parties do not oppose it because they agree on its effectiveness as a deterrent to crime.[158] Politicians from the opposition parties have voiced support for corporal punishment. Edmund Ng, a candidate for the Singapore Democratic Alliance in the 2006 general election, said, "For criminals, caning serves as a deterrent [...] I would not change a winning formula."[159] Sylvia Lim, a Member of Parliament from the Workers' Party, also said in 2007, "What are the purposes of jail, fine and caning? Caning is controversial internationally, but if one must justify why we cane offenders, it is just deserts for pain which the offender has caused to the victim, for example, hurt, injury or the threat of violence. Caning is a severe punishment, and it is always combined with jail as the offences tend to be serious and to make it easier, administratively, to arrange for the caning to take place."[160]

The severity and humiliation of the punishment are widely publicised in various ways, mainly through the press but also through other means such as education. For example, juvenile delinquents get to watch a real-life demonstration of caning on a dummy during compulsory prison visits.[158]

Singapore has come under strong international criticism for its practice of judicial caning, especially after the 1994 Michael Fay incident. Amnesty International condemned the practice of judicial caning in Singapore as a "cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment".[161] It is also regarded by some international observers as a violation of Article 1 in the United Nations Convention against Torture. However, Singapore is not signatory to the Convention.[162] Human Rights Watch similarly referred to the practice of caning as "an inherently cruel punishment".[163]

The Singaporean government has defended its stance on judicial caning and said that the punishment does not amount to torture and is conducted under strict standards and medical supervision.[164] While most Singaporeans either support or are indifferent towards the practice of judicial caning, there is a minority – including dissident Gopalan Nair,[165] lawyer M Ravi[66] and businessman Ho Kwon Ping – who are completely or partially opposed to it.[166]

A recipient of nine strokes thinks that even though it may be a nightmare the first time, an offender who has been caned before will have experienced the extent of fear of criminal punishment and so may not find it as much of a disincentive to commit repeat offences. He said, "After he knows what it's like, he will have nothing left to fear. He will know what to expect no matter how many strokes he gets – it's more of the same. No alcohol and women – apart from those two things, prison is really not that bad."[40]

Critics argue that since Singapore is a member of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is therefore obliged to "take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse". However, the Singaporean government stated that it considers "the judicious application of corporal punishment in the best interest of the child."[167]

As Singapore evolves, some citizens may perceive that schools are refraining from using corporal punishment due to their fears of a strong backlash from parents.[168] Educators, when interviewed, say that they are cognisant of Singapore's changing landscape, both in terms of the family structure as well as the influence of social media, in the reduction of corporal punishment in schools. They note that understanding and accepting such punishment is essential to the effectiveness of caning as a deterrent of misconduct.[169] According to a Singaporean legal advice website, as long as schools administer corporal punishment according to MOE guidelines, parents may not take legal action against the school as they are not direct employers of the school.[170]

• Behind Bars, a 1991 Singaporean television series produced by the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation in collaboration with the Singapore Prison Service. The drama portrays the lives of prison officers and convicts in prison. In two episodes, two convicts are separately punished by caning for breaking prison rules.
• Prison Me? No Way!, a 15-minute video commissioned by the National Crime Prevention Council to deter teenagers from crime. The video, filmed in Changi Prison and Changi Reformative Training Centre at a cost of S$43,000, shows life in prison from the perspectives of two young offenders and includes a reenactment of a judicial caning. It was distributed to over 140 schools in October 1998.[171]
• Love is Beautiful, a 2003 Singaporean television series produced by MediaCorp Channel 8. In the drama, Huang Leshan (Andrew Seow) is sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane for raping Song Hui (May Phua). The caning scene is briefly shown in one of the episodes when Huang Leshan recalls his ordeal.
• Guru Paarvai, a 2004 Singaporean television series shown on Vasantham. In one episode, four students are caned in the school office for stealing and consuming beer outside school.
• One More Chance,[172] a 2005 Singaporean film by Jack Neo which portrays the lives of three convicts in prison. It also reflects the social stigma towards ex-offenders. In one scene, one of the three convicts (Henry Thia) receives his caning sentence of six strokes.
• I Not Stupid Too,[173] a 2006 Singaporean film by Jack Neo which reflects the lives of three ordinary Singaporean youngsters in school and their relationships with their families. One of the main characters, Tom Yeo (Shawn Lee), is publicly caned in school for possessing an obscene video disc and assaulting his teacher. The caning scene is graphically portrayed, with Tom bending over a desk on the stage in the school hall to receive three hard strokes on the seat of his trousers in front of the assembled student body. This faithfully reproduced the procedure used in real life at the school where the scene was filmed, Presbyterian High School. The public caning issue sparked off a debate in which it was revealed that some Singaporeans were not aware that corporal punishment is common in secondary schools.
• The Homecoming,[174] a 2007 Singaporean television series produced by MediaCorp. In the drama, four men were convicted of arson in their youth and sentenced to imprisonment and three strokes of caning each. One of them (Rayson Tan) received one more stroke than either of his three friends, supposedly for being the mastermind. Several years later when he becomes a successful lawyer, he sets off to find out who betrayed him and takes his revenge. The caning scene is featured briefly in flashbacks.
• Don't Stop Believin', a 2012 Singaporean television series produced by MediaCorp. In the drama, a secondary school student, Zhong Junliang (Xu Bin), is wrongly accused of molesting a female student. He is caned in front of the school assembly by the discipline master (Brandon Wong), who turns out to be his father.
• Ilo Ilo, a 2013 Singaporean family film directed by Anthony Chen. In one scene, the main character Jiale (Koh Jia Ler) receives a public caning in school for fighting with his classmate.
• Lion Moms, a Singaporean television series. In Season 1 (2015), Jeremy (Scott C. Hillyard) is publicly caned in school for shoplifting. In Season 2 (2017), Chae Lian (Lina Ng) publicly canes her daughter Hillary (Victoria Lim) on the hand for lying.
• Chandi Veeran, a 2015 Indian film directed by A. Sarkunam. In the scene after the opening credits, the protagonist Paari (Atharvaa) receives three strokes of the cane in a Singaporean prison.
• Take 2, a 2017 Singaporean comedy film about the lives of four ex-convicts, directed by Ivan Ho and produced by Jack Neo. In the prologue, the four (Ryan Lian, Wang Lei, Gadrick Chin and Maxi Lim) receive their caning sentences.
• Rotan, a 2017 Singaporean short film shown at the Singapore International Film Festival 2017 and directed by Hamzah Fansuri. The film is about a father, who is also the discipline master at his son's school, having to uphold his own principles and punish his rebellious son for breaking the school rules.[175]

• The Caning of Michael Fay: The Inside Story by a Singaporean (1994),[176] a documentary book by Gopal Baratham published in the wake of the controversial caning of Michael P. Fay. It concentrates on the personal aspects, the punishment and the sociology of caning in Singapore. The book includes some descriptions of caning and photographs of its results, as well as two personal interviews with men who had been caned before.
• The Flogging of Singapore: The Michael Fay Affair (1994) by Asad Latif.[177]