MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.56 p.m.

The Minister for Health and Home Affairs (Mr Chua Sian Chin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill is a consolidation of the Dangerous Drugs Act enacted in 1951 and the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act of 1969. It also incorporates additional provisions to provide for a firm and extensive control on certain dangerous and harmful drugs of addiction as well as heavier penalties. These drugs, defined as "controlled drugs" in this Bill, are known to the pharmacologist as hallucinogens, narcotic analgesics, central nervous system stimulants and tranquillisers. The Dangerous Drugs Act was enacted about 21 years ago and the controls provided therein are grossly inadequate for the 70's, with the introduction of a host of new drugs of medical value if properly used.

Control has been brought in line with those in force in other countries closely concerned with the spread of the addictive use of such drugs within their own countries and the increased international traffic which supplies such demands. The different categories of control as recommended by the United Nations have been incorporated into this Bill.

The Bill will provide adequate powers for law enforcement officers in the Customs, Police and narcotics officers of the Central Narcotics Bureau to exercise close vigilance on all movements of controlled drugs and to seek out the addicts to such drugs. The Central Narcotics Bureau, under a Director, has been recently created to enforce the provisions of the Bill especially in regard to illicit use.

Singapore, by its geographical position and development, is now a strategic centre of communication and international trade. Whilst welcoming trade, visitors and tourists, we must at the same time be constantly on the alert for the trafficker, the addict and the hidden consignment of controlled drugs. Law enforcement officers must be adequately empowered to stop, search any ship, aircraft, train or vehicles whenever there are reasonable grounds to suspect that controlled drugs are hidden and, if found, to seize such drugs and to detain any person found therein. Such vehicle will he liable to seizure under certain conditions.

The ill-gotten gains of the drug traffic are huge. The key men operating behind the scene are ruthless and cunning and possess ample funds. They do their utmost to push their drugs through. Though we may not have drug-trafficking and drug addiction to the same degree as, for instance, in the United States, we have here some quite big-time traffickers and their pedlars moving around the Republic selling their evil goods and corrupting the lives of all those who succumb to them.

They and their trade must be stopped. To do this effectively, heavy penalties have to be provided for trafficking. Clause 15 specifies the quantities of controlled drugs which, it found in the possession of a person unless the contrary is proved, will be presumed to be in his possession for the purposes of trafficking.

The Second Schedule to the Bill shows the various penalties for offences committed under the Bill. For unauthorised traffic in a Class A controlled drug, for example, morphine, opium, heroin, the maximum sentence is 20 years or $40,000 or both, and ten strokes of the rotan. The heaviest penalty will apply to those convicted of unauthorised trafficking in a Class A controlled drug to persons under the age of 18 years. For this offence a maximum penalty of 30 years or $50,000 or both, and 15 strokes of the rotan, and a minimum penalty of five years or $10,000 or both, and three strokes of the rotan have been provided. The existing law on dangerous drugs provides for the offence of trafficking, but there is no distinction as regards the age of the person to whom the drugs are sold. The penalties for the offence of trafficking in the existing law are $10,000 or five years, or both. These penalties are obviously totally inadequate as deterrents,

Government views the present situation with deep concern. To act as an effective deterrent, the punishment provided for an offence of this nature must be decidedly heavy. We have, therefore, expressly provided minimum penalties and the rotan for trafficking. However, we have not gone as far as some countries which impose the death penalty for drug trafficking.

Drug addiction is a problem increasing in size daily. What was once smoking opium and marijuana (the dried plant which is known locally as ganja) or the consumption of opium pills amongst a comparatively small group of middle-aged or elderly people has developed into the taking of methaqualone (known popularly as MX pills) or the smoking of marijuana amongst the younger age group in their teens or early 20's who can be found not only in the street or coffee-shop but also in the school and the university.

The young person falls under the influence of such a drug in a variety of ways. It might be the result of boredom, sense of adventure to know how it feels by taking it or he might be inducted to it before being accepted as one of the circle of so-called "friends". The danger is that when he finds that the effects of such a drug are not too upsetting but rather pleasant in the transient light-headed feeling it induces, he continues to take it.

After this, he so very easily progresses to more potent drugs that will give him that same feeling of euphoria after failing to get it with those drugs which he first used, even in increasing quantities. Once he becomes "hooked" On a hard drug, e.g, morphine or heroin, his path to ruination and disaster is certain. He will not be able to stop taking such a drug as the physical and mental symptoms known as "withdrawal symptoms" following will be unbearable. It is known that once a person is hooked to a hard drug, he will lie, cheat, steal or even kill just to get the drugs. Thus, a drug trafficker is the most abominable of human beings if he can be deemed "human". He is a merchant of "living death" which he brings to a fellow human being. He, therefore, deserves the maximum punishment.

Members of this House will, however, note that it is not all punishment written into this Bill. A clear distinction has been made between the drug addict and the trafficker and pedlar. I am moving an amendment at the Committee Stage to remove the provision of a minimum sentence of two years for a second or subsequent offence for smoking, self-administering or consuming a controlled drug as provided in the Second Schedule to clause 29, which was inserted as a result of an oversight. For those addicts who wish to stop this vicious habit, there are provisions under clause 33 (3) for them to volunteer for treatment at an approved institution. Any statement given for the purpose of undergoing treatment will not be admissible as evidence against him in any subsequent prosecution. Anyone who has been addicted to any of the controlled drugs and especially those who have had their first acquaintance with such a drug can take advantage of this provision to have himself rehabilitated. Powers have also been provided for the Director, Central Narcotics Bureau, under clause 33, to require any person, whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect to he an addict, to be medically examined and, it necessary, to undergo treatment at an approved institution. All outpatient clinics and centres have been organised to provide for treatment of drug addicts. A referral clinic has been established at the Outram Road Hospital. A second one is planned for Alexandra Hospital. A special ward for the hospital care of addicts will be opened within the year.

Besides the drug trafficker there is also another danger, though on a lesser scale, that is, the tourist drug addict, particularly among the hippies. To seek out such drug addicts amongst the huge and increasing number of tourists entering Singapore, powers have been provided in clause 28 of the Bill for an immigration officer, where he has reasonable grounds to suspect any person to be a drug addict, to request that person to provide a specimen of urine for testing. Entry of any person, other than a Singapore citizen or a permanent resident here, will be prohibited if he refuses to submit to such a test or if the test shows the presence of a controlled drug. It is Government's firm intention to exclude entry of such tourist addicts for their habits are imitative and the youth of our Republic must be protected from it.

The Second Schedule also lists the penalties provided for other offences under this Bill. For instance, any person being the owner, tenant, occupier or person in charge of any premises who permits the use of such premises for the purposes of smoking, administering or consumption of a Class A or B drug will, if found guilty, be liable to imprisonment of up to ten years or a fine not exceeding $40,000 or both the minimum penalty for this offence is two years or $4,000 or both. The current penalty is three years or $10,000 or both. Unauthorised possession on conviction will draw a maximum sentence of ten years or $20,000 or both, with a minimum punishment for a second or subsequent offence of two years or $3,000 or both. The current penalty for possession of raw opium is five years or $10,000 or both, and for a dangerous drug prepared for medical use, three years or $10,000 or both.

A District or Magistrate's Court is empowered to hear and determine all proceedings under this Bill and to impose the full penalties provided.

Clause 34 provides for the making of regulations especially for the trade and use of controlled drugs for licit purposes. Certain professional persons-doctors, dentists, pharmacists, veterinary surgeons and others - who use or handle such drugs in the course of their professions or businesses will be authorised to possess controlled drugs, and in certain cases, where applicable, to supply such controlled drugs. Doctors and dentists will be required to report any person suspected of being a drug addict. The new regulations will provide for the keeping of more detailed records of import, sale, supply and use of controlled drugs so as to provide better means of checking the movement of controlled drugs within the Republic.

The Singapore Association of Social Workers have submitted a memorandum on the Bill. In it, they have recommended that clause 27 (c) of the Bill be amended so that professional social workers be exempted from the law of having to divulge confidential information gained from drug addicts in the course of their work in rehabilitating the addict. This suggestion cannot be accepted since even doctors are not exempt from revealing such confidences if this is required by the Courts. However, clause 32 gives protection to persons acting under authority from any civil or criminal liability. This should be adequate for the protection of the social worker who acts in good faith.

They have also suggested the listing of approved institutions to include non-governmental institutions for the treatment of drug addicts. It is not necessary to do this in the main Act. This can be done under regulations to be made under the Act.

They have also suggested the setting up of an advisory panel of persons to determine the drug pushers from the drug addicts. This recommendation has been made on the assumption that it is difficult to differentiate between the two. Such arm assumption is, of course, not correct. The Central Narcotics Bureau, together with the doctors involved in the rehabilitation of addicts, will certainly know how to make the distinction and act accordingly.

They have also suggested that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee to consider their aforementioned proposals. In view of what I have stated in reply to the Association's recommendations, reference to a Select Committee is clearly unnecessary.

Finally, I wish to state quite categorically here that whatever heavy penalties that are being provided in this Bill, they by themselves are not sufficient to solve the drug problem in Singapore. We shall require all the co-operation from parents, teachers, doctors, social workers and, in fact, the whole public if we are to successfully meet that problem. It is going to be an uphill task all the way. Of course, highly deterrent laws against drug traffickers will help us tremendously in our fight against drug trafficking and addiction.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.15 p.m.

Mr L. P. Rodrigo (Serangoon Gardens): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words in support of this Bill, particularly on the problem of drug abuse which this Bill seeks to resolve.

For some time now the mass media have periodically focused attention on the problems of drug abuse and have thereby aroused in the public an awareness of its dangers. Be that as it may, I am not convinced that this awareness alone is an adequate defence against drug abuse. Hence, it is my view that the enhanced punishment in the penalty clauses of this Bill is beneficial to our society.

I am prepared to grant that the enlightened parent in control of the family is a deterrent to drug abuse. The question which then arises is just how many parents are sufficiently enlightened and, more significant still, how many of these enlightened parents have control of their children who are prone to the attractions of drugs and their abuses?

Public knowledge of the dangers of drug abuse is an important step in the effort to construct an effective social defence against drug abuse. The public should be given ample opportunity to acquire this knowledge through the mass media. I do not think we need worry about over-acting to the fears of drug abuse. If we are not alert we may suddenly find the disease firmly rooted in our society. By that time we would he extremely knowledgeable about drugs for we would be in direct touch with the ghastly realities of drug addiction of all kinds. To know of the dangers of drug abuse when the decrepit human remnants of drug addiction surface onto our streets is to know of the dangers too late. I say that the time to worry is now.

The Tri-Border Area of Thailand, Burma and Laos, sometimes known as the `Golden Triangle", has probably become the main source of heroin and other opiates, after Turkey decided to outlaw opium production in its highlands. This change has brought the world's principal narcotics source close to us. Meanwhile, the Vietnam conflict has had the effect of dramatically increasing the demand for narcotics.

In August, 1971, a sub-committee on Public Health and Environment of the House of Representatives in the U.S. conducted investigations into the production and abuse of opiates in the Far East. Members of the sub-committee visited Thailand, South Vietnam, Hongkong and Japan. In that report, the sub-committee estimated that the amount of opium and its derivatives that would be produced for 1971 in the Tri-Border Area would be as high as 1,000 tons. The large bulk of heroin and opiates, which leave Mae Sai in the Thai-Burma border, pass through Bangkok to Hongkong and then to South Vietnam, Okinawa, the U.S, and other countries. It seems to me that with the cessation of the Vietnam conflict and the withdrawal of foreign forces from Indo-China, a large quantity of surplus narcotics in South-east Asia would be seeking new markets. We join other quarters in hoping that the Thai Authorities will record greater success in their effort to contain opium production with the support of the U.N, programme of crop substitution among the tribesmen in the highlands.

Though there is no indication that heroin is presently a much used drug in the country, let us not beguile ourselves with the notion that our society is safe from it. In our society today, the industries are manned by new generations of youthful workers in whom we hope the work ethic of their fathers and forefathers remains unadulterated. This work ethic has accounted for our national growth hitherto, and we naturally hope that our young will retain it to stand them in good stead in the future. However, young generations tend to colour the moral, cultural and social values of their times with their own sense of worth and their own understanding of the rational. Sometimes they even abandon established values altogether.

Two facts may be stressed. First, youth predominate in our society. Secondly, our society is very much exposed to foreign values which, more often than not, are inconsonant with our own way of life. The degree and extent of erosion upon the work ethic of our youthful national work force will be determined by the degree and extent of their response to these foreign values which, unfortunately, reach our youth in a highly attractive and heavily publicised fashion in which drugs feature as the sole instrument of communion with narcotic bliss.

With affluence spreading through the social fabric, work as an ethic may lose its meaningfulness as opportunity for leisure increases and the quest for excitement and euphoria becomes more deliberate. In this situation, drug offers an irresistible invitation to such excitement and euphoria. And to those seeking a momentary escape from the stresses and strains of a successful industrial society, the narcotics dimension offers much solace and recuperation.

When narcotics, other opium derivatives, amphetamines and barbiturates become plentiful in a country, there will manifest the inclination to experiment with drugs. In 1972, for the period January-March, the quantity of various drugs seized by the Customs and Central Narcotics Bureau are as follows:- Ganja a total of about 68 kg. Morphine a total of about 29 kg. Heroin a total of less than 1 kg. Opium a total of about 615 kg. Hashish a total of about 1 kg, and 24,650 MX tablets.

What quantity has passed undetected is left to inference. The larger quantity of drugs being detected may be due to the efficiency of the CNB and/or it may simply be the fact that more drugs are flowing into the country. Whatever the case, it is time for us to sit up and appreciate the potential gravity of the situation.

The drug commonly abused by some sections of our youth is ganja. They do not regard this drug as harmful and sometimes equate it with the permissible intoxicates, such as brandy and whisky. `This, I think, is due to the fact that the dangers of ganja abuse is not common knowledge among our youth, which should not be the case. There is sufficient material by the experts which assert that ganja or marijuana is an "initiation drug." While it does not develop in the person a physical dependence on the drug, it does so psychologically. It initiates the consumer into the narcotics experience and to a life of warp, irrelevant, wasteful and anti-social values. He may not he drug-dependent; but he is drug-oriented. Whether he subsequently degenerates to addiction to hard drugs will, I think, depend on whether there is in him a moral, cultural and social ballast.

Which brings me to what I believe is the second requisite to an effective social defence against drug abuse, that is, parental control of children. By control, I mean that kind of relationship between parents and their children which stems from an enlightened authority that is vested in the parents through common love and respect, on which authority members of the family depend and to which they respond. It is authority which is the result of close and concerned management of sons and daughters through childhood and adolescence undertaken within the cohesion of the family.

In present times a number of social trends and actions militate against family cohesion. Pressured by the demands of daily living, the family is in a state of constant motion. The motion is centrifugal in relation to the home, tearing members of the family away from the home and each other disintegrating the family unit. If this, development is not checked somewhat, our society is going to be that much weakened; for moral, cultural and social values can only inhere in members of the family which live in harmonious and intelligent cohesion. I believe that, in the last analysis, the moral, cultural and social ballast in the individuals of our society constitute in its totality our most effective social defence against drug abuse.

In this connection, I have on a number of occasions urged parents to retain or recover this family cohesion by insisting upon all members of the family to daily-gather around for dinner This will, at least in my view, ensure that once in every day, the family will assemble and the unit becomes intact. This moment will provide opportunity for communication, understanding and inspiration, all of which make for family cohesion. The family that eats together, I say, stays together.

The fact that the law is finding it necessary to severely punish with imprisonment up to 10 years persons who consume or have in their possession a controlled drug may be regarded as an indictment against parents. If this realisation jolts complacent parents to a more responsible action and supervision of their children's affairs, this Bill will succeed in launching a drug alert in our country, and in co-operation with the law we will effectively combat drug abuse in our society.

4.29 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill. The introduction of this Bill, I believe, will be supported by people from all walks of life. It cannot be denied that our society is facing the problem of drug addiction. There is a small number of people who indulges in this drug abuse. These drug addicts live an unrealistic life and do not engage in any form of production. They day-dream all day long, and become useless. This will not only incur displeasure and cause worry to their parents but will also pose a serious problem to our society.

The reasons for drug addiction are many and varied. Some drug addicts have been easily influenced by their social environment and their friends. Some of them have been influenced by tourists from abroad, who have brought these drugs with them. For example, some hippies have been known to have done this. We must therefore take steps to prevent them from entering our country.

The Minister emphasised just now that the Government is taking a serious view of this matter and is empowering Immigration officials to prohibit the entry of any person whom they suspect to be drug traffickers. If hippies from abroad are allowed to come in to spread the use of drugs, it will have serious effects on our society or will cause serious repercussions in our country.

In order to eliminate this problem, I think it is necessary not only to introduce the various measures as provided in this Bill but also to deal with it in a two-fold manner. Firstly, I would suggest to the Minister that every year we should hold an anti-drug campaign on a big scale, similar to what he has done for the Ministry of Health, i.e, the Keep Singapore Clean campaign. This anti-drug campaign should be conducted in the various constituencies in order to bring home the lessons of the harm and ill-effects of drugs. In this way parents will be more aware of the dangers and they will be able to face the problem properly. Secondly, I would like to suggest that the Minister should pay special attention to the youth in our country. The Ministry of Health and the relevant departments, for example, the Police Force, should establish more contacts with the people in our society. Contacts between the Police and the people on a wider scale will help the Police to be "in the society", so that they will know where the drug addicts are and where the drugs are to be found. This will help reduce the phenomenon of drug addiction. This, I think, is a better and a more positive measure of dealing with the problem.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are a young nation. Sixty per cent of our population are below the age of 21. We should therefore take special steps and pay more attention to the problems of youth in our society. We should protect them from all evil influences. If we are concerned with their problems, we can help them to become a more rugged, strong and firm generation, so that they can contribute towards our nation building.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have anything more to add, except to thank the two speakers who have very strongly supported the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the BiIl.---[Mr Chua Sian Chin].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

4.35 p.m.

Clause 1

The Chairman: There is a note, in page 1, line 6, to leave out "1972" and insert "1973". This will be done.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 28 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 -

The Chairman: There is a further note, in page 10, line 29, to leave out `canning" and insert "caning". This will he done.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 30 to 36 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

First Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Second Schedule -

The Chairman: There is an amendment in the name of the Minister for Health and Home Affairs, which is subject to the general assent of the Members. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendment be moved?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Amendment made: In page 18, lines 9 to 12, to leave Out "Minimum for second or subsequent offence 2 years or $3,000 or both". -- [Mr Chua Sian Chin].

Second Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.