In the letter “Fining people based on income makes a mockery of the law” (March 16), the writer argued that income-based fines are not an equal application of the law.

I disagree, because the intent of fines in our justice system is to support retribution, deterrence, prevention, and rehabilitation.

For many Singaporeans, the maximum $1,000 fine for speeding is a significant hit to their monthly income. This is justified because speeding is a dangerous act that has a high risk of causing injury and death.

However, $1,000 is not enough to deter someone who earns, say, six figures a month. For such an offender, the fine is akin to paying a congestion charge or some minor fee aimed at dissuading him from driving in this manner. 

Having differentiated fines is not unheard of in Singapore. For instance, the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) has a maximum penalty of 10 per cent of an organisation’s turnover in Singapore if this turnover exceeds $10 million a year. The PDPA is widely seen as an essential guardrail in ensuring trust in businesses as it holds them to account in the digital age. 

This does not mean income-based fines are the most effective and fairest solution in preventing offences and punishing perpetrators. After all, it does not take into account wealth. A retiree may have no income but live in a multimillion-dollar property. 

Just because we do not know how to design the perfect fine does not mean we should not explore improvements to the current system. We cannot let perfection get in the way of improvement. 

It would also not be novel for the Government to study the effectiveness of the Finnish fine system. Singapore regularly takes inspiration from good practices overseas, and we can adopt good policy ideas from anywhere.

Edward Eng