From 15 October 2025, Singapore’s banks will be required to hold or even reject digital transfers when they cross a new regulatory threshold.
If a customer with at least S$50,000 in their account tries to move more than half of that balance within a 24-hour period, the bank will automatically stop the transaction.
The money either sits on hold for a full day, or the transfer is blocked outright.
For those who rely on speed, this, I remind you, is not a minor change. The safeguard has been described by regulators as a way to insert a “cognitive break” into the transaction journey.
So, there’s a huge possibility that it might interrupt the psychological tricks that scammers use to pressure victims into acting quickly.
Yet critics see it differently.
On forums like Reddit, the mood is sour, with users asking why everyday financial life should be slowed down because of scam victims.
What Are These “Banking Safeguards” Singapore Is Talking About?
The rule applies only to digital banking, which means transactions through mobile apps and online banking portals.
If you withdraw the same money through a branch, an ATM, a cheque, or even a cashier’s order, you won’t be affected. Pre-arranged payments such as mortgage instalments, GIRO deductions, and utility bills are also exempt.
The banking safeguards by the government of Singapore are being rolled out across all seven of the country’s domestic systemically important banks. Mainly, they are DBS, OCBC, UOB, Citibank, HSBC, Maybank, and Standard Chartered.
Once triggered, the transfer is held automatically for 24 hours. If the payment is urgent, customers can go through extra verification, which may mean a call with the bank, a visit to a branch, or using certain ATMs.
This is not just a voluntary add-on. It is part of a wider regulatory shift. Under the Shared Responsibility Framework introduced last year, banks are financially liable for scam losses if they fail to implement active fraud surveillance.
The 50% transfer rule is said to be the direct result of that framework.
Why Singapore Thinks These Banking Safeguards Are Necessary
“But why?” You asked?
Well, in 2024, scam losses in Singapore exceeded S$1.1 billion, the highest in Southeast Asia, if I may add. This is all despite a raft of public campaigns and security features.
Most of these scams were not even that sophisticated, but rather, what the authorities call “self-effected transfers”.
Victims were tricked into authorising the payments themselves. In 2024, these cases accounted for more than 80% of reported scams.
This is why regulators see an enforced delay as more than bureaucracy. By halting a transaction, the system creates a cooling-off period when victims may recover their bearings.
Scammers often work by inducing urgency or fear, so that critical thinking collapses. A forced 24-hour pause is meant to break that psychological state. Regulators call it a cognitive break.
The measure is also part of a broader national defence strategy.
Banks already offer tools such as Money Lock or digiVault, which allow customers to park funds in accounts that can only be unlocked in person. Emergency kill switches let customers freeze their entire account instantly if they suspect fraud.
And under the Protection from Scams Act, police can even freeze accounts of individuals who continue to send money to scammers despite repeated warnings.
Taken together, these policies represent a more interventionist philosophy.
Each measure is rational on its own, but collectively they shift Singapore’s digital banking landscape into one where external controls and friction points are built into the system.
For regulators, the priority is safeguarding trust in the financial system.
For critics, the worry is that too much friction risks breaking the convenience that digital banking was supposed to deliver.
Reddit Users Are Furious
When the news first broke, Reddit lit up.
On r/singapore and r/singaporefi, users were quick to voice frustration, calling the new rule everything from “a blunt instrument” to “a lazy approach.”
One of the top comments summed up the mood in a single line:
It was exaggerated, sure, but it captured how many active users feel about this change.
Much of the criticism revolves around real scenarios that play out every day in Singapore’s financial system. Property purchases, for instance, are a major concern.
Buyers often time their option-to-purchase payments to the last day before expiry.
These payments can run into hundreds of thousands, and a 24-hour hold could mean missing the deadline and forfeiting the option fee.
On forums, several users warned that if the safeguard kicks in at the wrong moment, deals could collapse through no fault of the buyer.
Investors Say the New Rule Could Cost Them Opportunities
Investors are another vocal group. Some use their bank accounts like launchpads, moving money rapidly to seize trading opportunities or to park funds in higher-interest “fresh funds” accounts at other banks.
The new rule gets in the way of both. Instead of shifting large sums in one go, users may need to break their transfers into smaller chunks over several days, which can undermine investment strategies or promotional timelines.
One user described it as “annoying when changing investment strategies,” which is a mild way of saying that in fast-moving markets, a 24-hour delay can mean missing the boat entirely.
Businesses Worry About the Knock-On Effects
Businesses, too, are bracing for headaches. Even before the official rollout, some firms reported that their banks were already flagging large transfers and holding them overnight.
One business owner said that despite more than 200 identical transfers to their own company account, the bank still held the transaction for a full day.
For companies with tight supplier payment schedules or payroll deadlines, this kind of unpredictability is more than just a nuisance.
Is It A Blunt Tool for a Sophisticated Problem?
Beneath the practical complaints is a deeper critique regarding the banking safeguards that Singapore wants to implement.
Many users see this as a crude, outdated response to a sophisticated problem.
They suggested that instead of imposing a universal threshold, they argue that banks should be investing in better AI and smarter fraud detection that distinguishes between high-risk and low-risk activity.
Transfers to a customer’s own account at another bank, for example, are treated the same as transfers to an unknown recipient, even though the risk profile is completely different.
Others have gone even further. They are questioning whether the measure is partly about banks holding onto funds longer to benefit from the float.
It’s a cynical take, but it reflects a certain erosion of trust.
If the system really “slows everyone down”, what if, let’s say, scammers who know how to work their way can simply instruct victims to transfer 49% and stay under the radar.
Doesn’t this make the policy look less like a shield and more like a blunt tool?
Am I right?
This tension between security and user experience is especially sharp in a place like Singapore, where digital banking has become deeply embedded in daily life.
People are used to instant transfers, seamless payments, and almost frictionless movement of money. Introducing mandatory pauses cuts against that cultural expectation.
So, it’s no surprise that for some, it feels like a step backwards.
But it’s also worth asking whether one side is complaining too much about a minor friction that could ultimately save someone from losing their life’s work.
Some Others Think That It Might Be A Necessary Line of Defence
While Reddit was busy poking holes in the new rule, the tone on LinkedIn and in official circles was noticeably different.
Regulators, banking executives, and academics have mostly framed the safeguard as a calculated trade-off rather than an overstep.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Association of Banks in Singapore have been upfront about the friction this rule creates.
Their message, however, is that this inconvenience is a price worth paying to stop life-altering losses. The language they use is telling.
They call it a “societal safeguard”, not a product feature.
A Pause That Could Save Someone’s Life Savings
The strongest argument comes from those who work with scam victims. Elderly individuals and those less digitally savvy remain prime targets.
Scammers don’t rely on technical hacks. They thrive on psychological manipulation.
They create urgency, fear or excitement, then push their victims to act fast. Once the money leaves the account, it’s often gone for good. A forced delay interrupts that emotional surge and buys time for rational thought to return.
Professor Hannah Yee-Fen Lim of Nanyang Business School put it simply in an interview.
“Ultimately, if one scam can be prevented, it is already worth the new guardrails.”
She pointed out that scams don’t just drain savings, they also inflict emotional and psychological trauma that can linger for years.
From this perspective, you can say that a single day’s delay is a small price to pay for preventing someone from losing their life savings.
Two Visions of Digital Banking Collide
The LinkedIn discourse also has a more institutional flavour. Many posts from financial professionals highlight compliance obligations and the importance of maintaining public trust in digital banking.
The Shared Responsibility Framework has changed the equation. Banks are now legally accountable for not stopping suspicious outflows.
This isn’t a case of banks being overzealous on their own. They are executing a regulatory requirement that prioritises collective protection over individual convenience.
Supporters of the safeguard often frame the issue as one of inclusivity.
A modern financial system should work not only for the fastest and most sophisticated users, but also for those who are vulnerable. For them, the 24-hour hold is not overreach. It’s a safety net.
This difference in tone between Reddit and LinkedIn reveals two distinct worldviews.
One sees digital banking as a personal tool for optimisation and efficiency. The other sees it as a shared infrastructure that must protect everyone, even those who might fall for a scam.
The safeguard sits awkwardly between these two visions, trying to shield the vulnerable without alienating the savvy.
But one should know that safety isn’t free. Someone always has to pay the price.
And this time, it might be your convenience.
Featured image: Edited by Fintech News Singapore based on images by f11photo and rawpixel.com via Freepik.
