3.22 pm

The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, as Deputy Prime Minister Teo has mentioned, the Government has, over the years, periodically reviewed the way our criminal justice system operates, and the effectiveness of our laws.

The Deputy Prime Minister has explained some of the changes we intend to make after the latest review. He has spoken about enhancing our drug control framework. He has also informed the House of the Government's intention to make changes to the death penalty in its application to drug trafficking.

I will now explain the changes we propose to make, in respect of how the mandatory death penalty applies, to homicide cases amounting to murder.

Section 300 of the Penal Code provides that culpable homicide amounts to murder where:

(a) The act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death;

(b) The act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows is likely to cause death;

(c) The act is done with the intention of causing bodily injury, and such bodily injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; and

(d) The act is done with the knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, and without any excuse for incurring the risk of death.

If any of these situations are proven beyond reasonable doubt, then section 302 provides for the mandatory imposition of the death penalty.

Based on the review that was undertaken, the Government intends for the mandatory death penalty to apply where there is an intention to kill within the meaning of section 300(a). For cases falling within the other sub-sections of section 300, the mandatory death penalty will be removed. The courts will be given the discretion to order either life imprisonment or the death penalty. The drafting details are being worked out.

Let me now explain how the changes will affect existing cases. As Deputy Prime Minister Teo mentioned, all executions have been suspended since July 2011, when the current review began. Executions will continue to be suspended until the proposed changes are enacted.

Page: 267

Once legislation has been put in place, all accused persons who meet the requirements can elect to be considered for re-sentencing under the new law. This will involve accused persons in ongoing cases, as well as convicted persons who have already exhausted their appeals and are currently awaiting execution.

While we have outlined the principle of the changes today, we ask that those giving legal advice to the accused persons should carefully study the legislation when it is enacted and properly understand the precise scope of the changes. In the meantime they should not make any assumptions or give misleading advice.

And let me reiterate, the court will have the discretion not to impose the death penalty only when an accused person satisfies the necessary criteria. For drug trafficking, the two criteria have been set out by Deputy Prime Minister Teo. For murder, the accused must have been convicted under section 300(b), (c) or (d) of the Penal Code. In cases where the criteria are not satisfied, for example where the accused is convicted of murder under section 300(a) of the Penal Code, or where he is not just a drug courier, the death penalty will still apply and the law will take its course. And in the context of being a drug courier, there are other conditions which Deputy Prime Minister Teo has mentioned, which have to be considered.

Why these changes? The changes announced today will result in the mandatory death penalty applying to a much narrower category of homicides, compared to the situation today.

Let me explain the considerations leading to these changes.

In deciding whether and how to apply the death penalty to a particular offence, several factors have to be considered. In particular, I will mention, in broad terms, three interconnected factors: (1) the seriousness of the offence, both in terms of the harm that the commission of the offence is likely to cause to the victim and to society, and the personal culpability of the accused; (2) how frequent or widespread an offence is; and (3) deterrence.

These three factors must be considered in their totality. For example, the fact that an offence is not widespread or that its incidence is low may not, by itself, be a decisive factor. The overarching aim of the Government is to ensure the safety and security of Singapore, while maintaining a fair and just criminal justice system.

For murder falling within section 300 of the Penal Code, our assessment is this.

Intentional killing within the meaning of section 300(a) is one of the most serious offences in our books. Put simply, this is a case where the offender intends the death of the victim. It is right to punish such offenders with the most severe penalty. It is right to provide for the most powerful deterrent against such offences. It is right, therefore, that the mandatory death penalty should continue to apply to such intentional killing.

In respect of the other categories of murder, under section 300(b) to (d), there could be different degrees of intention, and these offences are committed in a variety of situations. In some cases, the culpability of the offender is serious, but additional considerations may come into play. Today, that is something considered by the Public Prosecutor when he decides the appropriate charge in each case. The factors he considers include the precise intention of the accused, the manner in which the homicide occurred and the deterrent effect a charge may have on others. We want to move towards a framework where the court also has the discretion, to take the same factors into account during sentencing.

Page: 268

This change will ensure that our sentencing framework properly balances the various objectives: justice to the victim, justice to society, justice to the accused, and mercy in appropriate cases. This is a matter of judgment and the approach being taken is not without risks. But we believe this is a step we can take. We now have a relatively low incidence of homicides – last year we had 16 recorded homicides, or about 0.3 per 100,000 population. As our society becomes safer, less violent, and more mature, we believe that today's changes are a right step to take.

For those who agree with the imposition of the death penalty, its application to murder will be largely uncontroversial, though some may still question whether it should be mandatory even for cases falling within section 300(a). For those who are opposed in principle to the imposition of the death penalty for any offence, these reforms will not be fully satisfactory.

We hear and take note of these views, but ultimately we have to do what we believe is right for Singapore.

I should also mention our assessment for firearms offences, which also carry the mandatory death penalty. Our conclusion is that such offences are a serious threat against law and order, against which we must continue to maintain a highly deterrent posture. The mandatory death penalty will therefore continue to apply to firearms offences.

Sir, to sum up, capital punishment will continue to remain an integral part of our criminal justice system. It will continue to apply to all offences to which it now applies. At the same time, the courts will be given more discretion in its application.

For drug couriers, the courts may decide not to impose the death penalty if two tightly defined conditions are satisfied. As Deputy Prime Minister Teo explained: first, where the accused's only role was that of a courier; and second, if the accused has either cooperated with the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) in a substantive way, or has a mental disability which substantially impairs his appreciation of the gravity of his acts. Where these two conditions are satisfied, the court may decide to impose life imprisonment, with caning, instead of the death penalty.

For murder, the mandatory death penalty will continue to apply where the killing is intentional, within the meaning of section 300(a). For murder falling within section 300(b), (c), and (d), where there is no outright intention to kill, the courts will be given the discretion to impose either the death sentence or life imprisonment.

In making the changes today, the Government seeks to achieve and balance two broad objectives.

The first is to continue to take a strong stance on crime. Where many other countries have failed, we have succeeded in keeping the drug menace under control. Singapore's homicide rate is one of the lowest in the world, and we believe that the deterrent effect of the death penalty has played an important part in this. Our tough approach to crime has resulted in crime rates which are significantly lower than many other major cities. Young children can take public transport by themselves. Women can move around the city freely. We have no gun violence, no protection rackets, no drug pushers on the streets, no inner city ghettoes. Citizens and visitors alike feel safe, in and out of home, at all hours of the day. This is something enjoyed by few cities in the world. And that is something we should seek to preserve.

Page: 269

The second is the refinement of our approach towards sentencing offenders. Our cardinal objectives remain the same. Crime must be deterred. Society must be protected against criminals. But justice can be tempered with mercy and, where appropriate, offenders should be given a second chance.

How these objectives are achieved and balanced depend on the values and expectations of society, as it evolves and matures. We believe that the proposed changes strike the right balance for Singapore today. They will ensure that our criminal justice system continues to provide the framework for a safe and secure Singapore, while meeting the need for fairness and justice in each case.

Draft legislation implementing the changes outlined today will be introduced later this year.

Sir, I seek your permission to distribute copies of my Statement to Members. [ Copies of Statement distributed to hon Members .] Deputy Prime Minister Teo and I will now take any clarifications which Members may seek.

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, both statements carry weighty issues especially on drugs and the proposed amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act. I have two clarifications on the drugs statement. Bearing out of the Deputy Prime Minister's provision of statistics at 15 grams of pure diamorphine translates in 2,200 straws and a $66,000 street value, that for me translates into thousands of lives ruined. Therefore, I would like to ask a clarification of the Deputy Prime Minister, whether even after these measures are put in place, the overall regime under the Misuse of Drugs Act will still secure a deterrent effect. And bearing out of that is the fact that trafficking of drugs is the most rational crime that I think exists. There is a cost-benefit analysis and the cost needs to be a sufficient deterrent.

Second clarification is the limb on cooperation. How much cooperation must be given? I certainly hope that a high level of cooperation is needed and required by the courts and by the amendments such that we can go upstream with the information collected through that cooperation and go to the people who run these rackets outside of Singapore.

My clarification in relation to the culpable homicide amounting to murder – I must say that I am less concerned about that because by and large, murders or killings are spontaneous and they are not, by and large run for commercial ends. So, my concerns are really in relation to the first Statement.

Mr Speaker: I think we are going to allow an answer.

Page: 270

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, the changes that we propose to make to the drug regime are carefully calibrated. There are some risks indeed, as Mr Christopher de Souza has pointed out, with regard to the deterrent effect and whether that will be diminished. However, we have proposed to define it in a very careful way so that there will still be a very strong deterrent effect because the mandatory death penalty will still apply in most circumstances. The discretion only acts in very specific, tightly-defined conditions and those two conditions which I have listed out are: first, the trafficker must only have been involved as a courier and not in any other type of activity associated with drug supply and distribution; and, secondly, either he has provided cooperation, substantial cooperation, in a substantive way, or he has a mental disability which substantially impairs his appreciation of the gravity of the act. So, it is a very tightly-defined set of conditions and we believe that this will still preserve the very strong deterrent value of the legislative framework.

In addition to that, on the cooperation element, we believe that it will help give us an extra set of tools to reach higher up into the drug syndicates. It is going to be very difficult. I am not sure that we will succeed but it gives us an extra set of tools to encourage the couriers, in this case, to assist us, to dismantle drug syndicates, or to arrest or prosecute members of the syndicates. And I have described the substantive cooperation in those terms. We will have to define the precise way of having this enacted in the laws as we go ahead and I will be happy to have Mr de Souza's assistance here as well as your inputs.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, can I clarify something? I should clarify a couple of points in my Statement. My Statement which I have distributed, refers, in paragraph 21, to "a mental disability which substantively impairs his appreciation of the gravity of his acts." It should be "substantially", not "substantively". And second, my Statement should be taken as made in Parliament orally, and there are slight differences between what I have said and what is in the text. The written text should be taken as an aide-memoire but what I said takes precedence.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. Two clarifications to make. Firstly, the Deputy Prime Minister in his Statement said that we will increase and introduce penalties for those who sell drugs to vulnerable groups and organise drug parties. I would like him to clarify what he considers "vulnerable groups". Secondly, we have had mandatory sentencing for death penalty. I wonder why we cannot leave it to the courts to decide and to impose appropriate sentence rather than mandatory sentence especially death penalty. And if mandatory death penalty is an important deterrent, how will non-mandatory compared to mandatory provide more deterrence? If the courts impose death sentences under certain circumstances, is that not a sufficient deterrent?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, for vulnerable groups, we are thinking, for example, of those who target young people. As I have mentioned earlier, we have seen an increase in the number of young people who have been arrested for drug abuse. So, I would say that those who have deliberately gone out to target young people, I would consider them to have committed an offence which is of a more serious nature.

On the difference in deterrence value between a mandatory death sentence and a death sentence: the mandatory death sentence provides, on conviction, a very certain and severe punishment. And it has been a very strong deterrent. For example, as the Minister for Law has pointed out just now, in the case of firearms, firearms offences fell from more than a hundred a year before the mandatory death sentence was put in as a penalty, and fell within three to four years to a very low level and remains at a very low level today. That is one example.

Page: 271

In the case of the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking, we can see that drug traffickers and others involved in the supply chain are deliberately, where they can, opting to come below the threshold levels for the mandatory death penalty. So, it clearly has an impact on behaviour. Hence these changes we are making are carefully calibrated to maintain a strong deterrent value of the mandatory death sentence while providing for courts to have discretion in certain specific, tightly-defined situations.

Mr Alvin Yeo (Chua Chu Kang): The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law, I certainly welcome the refinement to our criminal sentencing laws to balance the deterrent effect with judicial discretion. My question relates to the issue of this factor of cooperation and how that is going to be measured. Is it going to depend on the prosecution's assessment of how substantial the cooperation is?

I am also slightly troubled by the remark that the cooperation needs to lead to concrete outcomes. As the Deputy Prime Minister has rightly observed, the many drug cartels are very difficult to penetrate to the higher levels. And indeed, the lower down the hierarchy the courier is, the less likely he is to have information that will lead directly to implicate the ring leaders. Are we in some danger of setting too high a barrier? Indeed, if a courier has concrete information which will implicate the higher ups in the hierarchy, that might suggest he is not just a simple courier.

So, my concern here is that while we do want to give an incentive to those who are caught in the whole process of drug trafficking to cooperate fully with authorities, I do think considerable thought needs to be given to make this criterion of cooperation, one that is objective, and one that is fair.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me respond by saying where our start point is. Our start point is that trafficking in drugs in the quantities above the threshold amount is a very serious offence, and should normally merit the death sentence. That is the start point. But if he is involved only as a courier, and has information which can help us in our broader objective to dismantle the syndicate, prosecute and arrest those higher up in the syndicate, then I think that is fair that this option for the courts to impose a lesser punishment of life imprisonment with caning, should be provided.

On the specific ways of defining how we achieve this objective, we will go through a consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, and we will be very happy to have Mr Yeo's inputs as well.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef: Sir, I have two points to make. One, how many prisoners currently on our death row will potentially be affected by these changes that we are discussing today? I suppose the numbers will also tell us roughly how much workload the legal fraternity will have to face, for those who want to request for review. Secondly, on the issue of dealing with the public by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Home Team, we noticed that the middle to low level people who are involved in drug-related issues are actually caught in a vicious cycle and this may actually pass from generation to generation and within the same family. So, I am wondering whether the Ministry is working with partners on different strategies to look for exit points in that vicious cycle.

Page: 272

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned in my speech, Mr Masagos Zulkifli led a taskforce to study how we should deal with the drugs issue in Singapore. It is a very comprehensive report and proposes many programmes and initiatives to deal with the issues that Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef brought up with regard to persons who are affected by drug consumption.

On the question of how many people are potentially affected by this change, there are currently 35 prisoners awaiting capital punishment − 28 of them for drug offences and seven for murder. It is not possible, and not appropriate, for me to speculate on how many might have a change in their sentences. But there will be an appropriate process where they will be given the opportunity to be considered, whether or not the new sentencing regime can be applied to them and, then, of course, whether the new sentence is appropriate for them. So, it would not be correct or appropriate for me to speculate today on how many might possibly have their sentences changed.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Sir, first of all, if I may just add a sentence. I think there have been many of us who have been concerned with the whip of the death penalty for many years, and I believe that the Government's review today and the steps announced are steps towards having some measure of balance. However, Sir, I have several clarifications for the two Ministers concerned.

One is the overriding concern that while we look at the death penalty itself, it should not be looked at in isolation of the criminal procedures as a whole, because the sentence finally comes up at the end of that process. And I think all of us are interested to ensure that we do not convict the wrong person. In that regard, I have two clarifications for Deputy Prime Minister Teo and two for the Minister for Law.

The first clarification for Deputy Prime Minister Teo is related to Mr Alvin Yeo's point earlier. We do come across cases of accused being charged under the Misuse of Drugs Act where they say they are couriers and some of them even say that they have been tricked into carrying certain substances, the nature of which they did not know. Now, under the Misuse of Drugs Act, several presumptions arise when substances are found in the physical possession of the accused. The current position is that it is up to the accused to rebut those presumptions and there is a burden of proof placed on the accused, up to the standard of balance of probabilities. This is quite difficult, in particular where we have accused who do not have witnesses coming forward to testify on their behalf, as they could be foreigners and so on. So, I would like to ask Deputy Prime Minister Teo whether there is actually any concurrent review also of the substantive law on the Misuse of Drugs to alleviate some of the potential sentencing of the wrong person because of the problem of proof.

The second question to Deputy Prime Minister Teo, and also a clarification, is in relation to confessions that are used in these cases often to achieve convictions. Under our law currently, oral confessions are admissible and this means the confession is not acknowledged by the accused person at all. So, is this something that we really need to live with because after all we do record written statements from the accused, and that is at least acknowledged by the accused?

Page: 273

For the Minister for Law, many a time, those facing death penalty, of course, they are remanded pending their trials, access to their lawyers is a concern. Of course, the State provides lawyers but access is a concern, meaning that they have to apply to see their lawyers at fixed times, they cannot really call their family members freely, and so on. So, I would like to ask the Government whether it is prepared for accused facing death penalty cases to have greater access to their lawyers and also to their family members, provided that there is no jeopardy to the evidence gathering, and so on. I think this is an area that would help them a lot to ensure that they can marshal a proper defence.

Last of all, for the Minister for Law, I would like to clarify whether the Government is actually looking at the trial process for death penalty cases. Would he consider, for example, re-introducing two Judges to hear capital cases, which gives a greater assurance that the findings of fact and law, in that sense, have a wider consensus?

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I will take all four questions. I think Ms Lim's preliminary remark was that many of us have been concerned, in some measure, with the death penalty. Let me start off by saying that none of us – and I think this applies to Ms Lim as well as all of us sitting on this side – none of us want to see the death penalty imposed as such. We have it in our books and we impose it with a heavy heart only because we believe, based on the balance of benefits put forward by the Deputy Prime Minister and myself, that it is ultimately in the interest of society.

Just to give you an example, if you know that you are going to steal a rifle and go out and shoot a few people, we can take the view taken in some other countries – that even in those circumstances, the death penalty ought not to be imposed, even if you have killed 100 people. But we want a situation where such a person must know beforehand what the consequences of his actions are. Likewise, if you do bring in 30 to 40 grams of heroin, and you know what 15 grams can do – 300 people for a week – if you want to destroy society in that way, then, you ought to know what the consequences of your actions are, upfront. Going back to Mr Low's point, you know exactly that if you are caught, and you knew what you were doing, you will face the death penalty with some certainty, and that has a deep and powerful effect on the entire criminal organisation.

So, we do it, we have this legislation, with reluctance, but because we honestly and sincerely believe that this is necessary. And when we can, the underlying philosophy is to vest more and more discretion with the courts. And I think we are ad idem on that.

With those remarks, let me then say this. I think her point is that we must not be looking at the death penalty in isolation, we must make sure we do not convict the wrong person. I entirely agree, and that is why we must make our criminal justice system rigorous. We have been reviewing it regularly. We have had a number of amendments to the Penal Code. We have amended the Criminal Procedure Code. And we work with the Bar and with the Judges to make sure that we have a system that does not fall into either end – either an extremely liberal system where prosecution becomes a game of catch-me-if-you-can, with a series of procedural hurdles which have no real substantive value, or another system where even innocent people can be convicted. We want the cases to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a fair and proper way. And all suggestions to make the process more rigorous will always be welcome. My Ministry, as well as the Ministry of Home Affairs, will be willing to listen to any suggestions in that context. Ultimately, the test is: does it improve the system?

Page: 274

As regards her four specific points. The first one was cases where the defendants are charged as couriers and they say they do not know, and it is quite difficult for them to prove their innocence. Let me put it this way. Every time you pick up someone with a substantial amount of heroin, they usually say they did not know what they were carrying. If you allowed that simpliciter as a defence, and the prosecution is supposed to prove that they knew the circumstances in which they obtained the heroin in another country overseas, realistically, how many convictions do you think there are going to be, and do you believe that the law will serve as a deterrent? You need to be realistic about this. At the end, whose interests are you protecting – that of society? And does this best serve a system where a person who is guilty ought to be found guilty and at the same time the society's interest ought to be protected?

What is wrong with the present position, given that the accused himself is best placed to know how he came across the drugs? What is wrong with imposing the onus on him to show the circumstances, and to let the courts hear him, look at him, and ask themselves: am I satisfied beyond reasonable doubt? A hard-bitten, professional Judge in the High Court who looks at the accused, hears his testimony carefully, considers where only the accused himself can give evidence, and say, "I believe him" or "I do not"? If you change that, in practical terms, you ask the CNB or the Police Force, "You prove that this man got his drugs in the Golden Triangle, or Bangkok, or somewhere", you will have Singapore awash with drugs. The choice is there for Singaporeans to make.

Second, oral confessions. I think implicit in her question is that oral confessions should not be accepted. I again go back to this point there are processes for evidence to be introduced in court. Anyone who brings up an oral confession in court will have to explain why it is oral. And do we not trust our Judges enough for them to examine the circumstances in which the confession was obtained, the manner of the confession, what was said, did the accused have a reasonable opportunity to explain himself through lawyers – and then decide? Why do we want to pre-fix a framework which is meant to apply to all situations where we say some evidence should not be admitted? Let the Judge decide whether the confession can be relied upon. But having said that, I agree with Ms Lim on the point that as often as possible, the evidence must be the most credible in the most serious of the cases, and we should generally move our criminal justice system towards that. We are again ad idem on that.

Third, on access to counsel. Greater access as long as it does not prejudice the investigations is Ms Lim's point, and I entirely agree. That is the practice that we should encourage – as long as it does not prejudice the investigations, access ought to be given. And I believe that it is, but that is a point we will emphasise. And we work with the criminal Bar regularly, and these are matters that the Attorney-General's Chambers, Ministry of Law and Ministry of Home Affairs discuss. And where it is believed that access has been denied unfairly, that can be brought up to us and we will look into it.

Finally, is the Government looking at the trial process? I think the specific question was whether we will re-introduce the hearing of capital cases by two Judges. This was something that was considered by the courts, and we have discussed it with the courts. They do not feel that they need to have two Judges. But nothing is set in stone, and these are matters that can be reviewed as necessary. But based on what we have heard – and we have always looked at these areas internally on a very regular basis, once every year-and-a-half, 18 months or so – the courts' view is that one Judge is adequate because, in any event, it is subject to appeal − to the Court of Appeal − where it will be reviewed again. And the court, in appropriate cases, can look at the facts, as it has in a number of cases, and overturn the convictions.

Page: 275

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to speak on this very important and significant matter.

It is helpful to note of the Government's general loosening of the position of the mandatory death penalty and this is actually very much in line with the WP's position of eschewing mandatory sentences. I would like to ask Deputy Prime Minister Teo on what considerations did Minister of State Masagos' Committee deliberate upon in not extending to the courts a full discretion to determine cases that oblige the court to mete out the mandatory death penalty.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I should clarify that this was not a subject that Mr Masagos' Committee studied.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Moulmein-Kallang): Sir, I think we can all see the logic behind the different grades of culpability which underpin the homicide and the drug trafficking offences and the introduction of commensurate levels of discretion for Judges in sentencing. Sir, but that logic behind those differences has always been there. In that context, can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Law why was that review conducted, why in 2010, and eventually the review in 2011 July, and what were the reasons for the review?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not quite answer Mr Pritam Singh's question but I think I explained earlier already why in the review we have maintained the mandatory death sentence for most of the circumstances under the current MDA, and why we have allowed for an exception in these two very specific tightly defined situations when these two conditions are met. I think I have explained that quite clearly already, and I said that is not a subject which Mr Masagos' Committee addressed.

On Mr Edwin Tong's question, from time to time, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Law have looked again at our punishment framework and also at the death penalty. In 2006 and in 2009, there were actually reviews conducted. In 2010, again, there was a background study conducted and subsequently in July 2011 when the study was presented, the decision was taken that a general review would be appropriate. And that was the history of the reviews that have been conducted on the death penalty.

Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I welcome the Ministerial Statements. The refinement to our criminal justice system is to be welcomed. These refinements will help to enhance the confidence in as well as the legitimacy of our criminal justice system.

I have three clarifications to seek of either Deputy Prime Minister Teo or the Law Minister. One is regarding the role of the courier and the co-operation that has been extended to the CNB. As pointed out by other Members, the problem of the couriers is that if he or she is a courier, then he or she is unlikely to have very significant information. The larger concern here relates to whether the investigation agency would have an unfair leverage over the accused person, promising that perhaps the mandatory death sentence would not be imposed. So, that is one clarification sought.

Page: 276

The second relates to the time frame with regard to tabling the amendments to the Penal Code and other relevant legislation. As the Deputy Prime Minister has mentioned, there are 35 prisoners on the death row. I would like to know whether the process will be expedited in terms of tabling these amendments, and what would be done to protect the interests of these 35 prisoners. One can imagine that they could be subjected to a lot of inaccurate information, and the concern here is whether this will give rise to false hopes for them.

The last point relates to the guidelines on judicial discretion. While the Bill has not been drafted, it is my hope that the guidelines will not be drafted so rigidly to the effect that the Judges will not be given the full force of exercising judicial discretion. That, ultimately, the Judges should not operate within a very strict and tight regime which does not enable them to mete out justice that fits the individual merits of each case.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I will take all three questions.

I think the first point that the Member made is that the role of courier is unlikely to be significant and whether the concept of cooperation could operate as an unfair leverage. The precise scope of the cooperation required and how it is to be identified would be worked out, and as Deputy Prime Minister Teo has indicated, the stakeholders will be consulted on the matter.

But I would ask the House to bear this in mind – that we are dealing with a very serious problem. Any criminal justice system has to take into account a number of different factors. One, the external environment, how it is changing, and Deputy Prime Minister Teo has painted the picture of how the drug situation is changing – in fact, negatively. Second, the criminal justice system, the legal system, has a framework which will operate within this external environment. Third, any justice system must have the support of the people. They must believe it to be just. So, these are the three factors, but underlying it, as people who are in charge of the matter, while we take these factors into account and give substantial weight, we must generally move towards a system where the philosophy must be that Judges have more discretion, not less. That is the underlying philosophy. But that underlying philosophy has got to be seen in the context of these three factors. And if you believe that the external situation is deteriorating badly, and that that might impact on society substantively, then you need to react to make sure that safety and security are not compromised. That is the operating philosophy.

You focus on the courier, but let us look at the courier as part of a larger framework. Today, the message is out there, extremely clearly, that Singapore is tough on drugs. And the entire criminal organisation operates on that assumption and people outside know that there are a lot of risks in coming to Singapore. Any change you make to that perception, you will add to the risks, which is what the Deputy Prime Minister has alluded to, and we need to see how it operates in practice. And if the situation goes downhill substantially, then we need to reconsider it. Let us be clear about that. Within that framework, should we take into account cooperation? It helps enhance the enforcement, and in that sense the courier faces a lesser penalty if he is able to cooperate; otherwise he does face a severe penalty. That is the framework we have announced in the statement. How that is to be operationalised is something that we will work out in the next few months.

Page: 277

Second, as regards the 35 accused persons, they all either have lawyers whom they chose or they have assigned counsel. The Ministry of Home Affairs will immediately contact their lawyers, and where their lawyers have discharged themselves, the Law Society will be contacted very quickly within the next few days, and these lawyers will be briefed on the framework. We hope that they will not mislead the defendants on death row, and we will try to make sure that they understand, both the accused, their next-of-kin, as well as their lawyers. We intend to operationalise this quickly but, of course, what actually happens has got to wait for the Bill to be passed. We will do that as quickly as we can.

The third point I think is a more general sentiment that Asst Prof Tan expresses − that the guidelines for judicial discretion should not be so closely circumscribed. I take note. I think it is best to wait to see what the actual guidelines are and I have indicated that we will consult the stakeholders. You can see from today's statement, for example, for section 300(b), (c) and (d), it is a discretion that is going to be given to the courts to either impose the death penalty or life imprisonment. For drug couriers, the setting out of the framework has been done by the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker: Ms Faizah Jamal, last clarification.

Ms Faizah Jamal (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I really applaud the developments that I have been hearing the last few minutes. My concern is also an extension of what Asst Prof Eugene Tan said and this is in reference to the very precise circumscribed conditions for the Judge. Very often − I am speaking specifically about couriers as well in drug trafficking − most of these couriers are very young and probably driven by hard circumstances.

While I understand the primary objective is always for the society, my concern is, in the course of that long period of time when they are in remand or in prison, change happens and I wonder if that can be taken into account. People change and there could be real remorse and this can be attested to by authorities. And if this happens, I think that should be taken into account because what we are working towards really is not just to change the law but compassion. I hope that would be something that could be really considered seriously.

Mr K Shanmugam: I thank the Member for her comments. I think I will emphasise again some points I made earlier. We have this legislation – death penalty as well as mandatory death penalty in the legislation – because we believe that it is necessary in the interest of society. If we believed otherwise, we will seek to change it. And the fact is that we have always been considering it, as shown by the fact that we have been reviewing it fairly consistently. Deputy Prime Minister Teo mentioned that we have reviewed it for a very long time but the most recent reviews were in 2006, which lasted a year; in 2009; and then again in December 2010 we started studies, and then conducted a full review in July 2011 based on the studies. So, we ourselves are constantly aware of the need to look at this legislation and see how it impacts – in the context of the facts as I explained just now – the external environment, society and the protection of society.

I think if we focus on any one individual, a powerful case can emotionally be made out for saving a life. For saving lives, powerful cases can always be made out. It is more difficult if you want to balance that against the reality. Fifteen grams of heroin feeds 300 addicts for a week. Somebody who peddles that, and usually they peddle much more than that, is bringing death, or at least a life of ruin, to a large number of people. Let us say instead of 15 grams it is 100 grams – work it out for yourself how many thousands of people that is.

Page: 278

What is never in the headlines is the number of lives that have been lost, the number of children who are orphaned either literally or through their parents being in jail, the amount of sadness and impact on the social fabric of society that those who are on the ground see every day. The headlines never focus on the victims of crime. If you look at it – the number of people who are impacted and how tough you need to be to try and save the society as a whole – then you need to send out a clear and consistent message. And the clear and consistent message is that if you deal in drugs in a quantity that is enough to support 300 people or more, then you face the death penalty. That has been the message we have been giving.

So, if those are aspects that we do not need to consider, supposing we do not need to think of society, we do not need to think of the victims, we do not need to think of the young children, we do not need to think of all the wives and daughters who are going to be impacted, and we only need to think of the courier, then I agree with her point. But if you believe that it is right also to think of these people, and that it is right for Singapore not to become like some other cities where you cannot walk on the streets and where needle exchange centres are now a reality, then I think you need to think of these things.

So, it is never an easy debate. It is not because we like the death penalty. It is not because we think it ought to be imposed for no reason. It is not because we want to simply be tough. It is imposed with the duty of ensuring the safety and security of every single Singaporean who goes out on the streets. We feel there is no choice but to have this framework, and that is the conversation that we should continue to have. Thank you.

Bill Introduced