MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 4.11 p.m.

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

It is in the last few years that drug abuse and addiction has developed into a serious problem in Singapore. In 1972 there were only a few cases of heroin addiction. Today it is estimated that there are as many as 13,000 heroin addicts and abusers. For the seven months since Operation Ferret was launched on 1st April this year, a total of 6,540 addicts and abusers were arrested and most of them were on heroin. 5,108 of them have been sent to the Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRCs) for treatment and rehabilitation. We are now embarked on an all-out effort to tackle the problem.

We are attacking the drug problem on two main fronts, namely, the supply and the demand. On the supply side deterrent penalties, including the death sentence, have already been introduced under the Misuse of Drugs Act. A number of drug traffickers have already been convicted and sentenced to death. The enforcement agencies will continue to intensify their enforcement action against drug traffickers, pushers and pedlars. We have just introduced the use of dogs to detect and sniff out drugs. More dogs are now being trained and will be deployed. A Steering Committee has also been formed by the Ministry of Home Affairs which is working out concerted counter-measures against the problem. There will be no let-up in the efforts to eradicate the illegal supply of controlled drugs in Singapore.

However, equally important in this war against the drug problem is the need to curb the demand for the drugs. As long as there is high demand, there will be some people who will continue to risk the heavy penalties. to meet the demand. It was to curb and cut down this demand that Operation Ferret was launched on 1st April 1977. The Operation has been highly successful, as reflected in the large number of addicts and abusers being arrested and sent to the DRCs. While in the DRCs, the addicts and abusers are given cold turkey treatment, and then physical exercise to tone up their bodies. They are then given work to inculcate in them work discipline and then counselled on the evils of drug abuse. On their release, they are put under compulsory supervision and aftercare to reduce their chances of relapse.

In order that these measures could be carried out more effectively, the Misuse of Drugs Act was reviewed to make it more comprehensive. Hence we have this Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill before the House.

Clause 3 of the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill seeks to provide for the appointment of Advisory Committees for the purpose of assisting in the administration of the Act. The drug problem is multi-faceted and its solution requires the contributions and actions by various Government departments and bodies as well as voluntary organisations outside. The Advisory Committees will help in coordinating the various departmental functions and also in identifying new measures in tackling the problem, particularly those relating to treatment and rehabilitation.

Clauses 4, 5 and 6 are amendments required to bring about more effective and efficient operation by enforcement agencies in detecting and arresting persons who have committed offences under the Act. Since the drug problem has spread to every sector of the population, officers of the Central Narcotics Bureau have to be assisted by the regular and special Police Officers (SCs) and members of the Vigilante Corps to saturate areas and haunts where drug addicts and abusers congregate. The power of arrest has, therefore, to be extended to members of the Special Constabulary and the Vigilante Corps. Clause 6 seeks to extend the power to require a person to provide his urine specimen to a Police Officer not below the rank of Sergeant.

Clause 7 of the amendment Bill seeks to provide for a deterrent sentence of a minimum of three years' imprisonment on any person who has a previous conviction for consuming a controlled drug and who again commits such an offence while under supervision. A previous conviction for drug consumption includes that imposed by a Military Court constituted under the Singapore Armed Forces Act, 1972. This deterrent sentence is necessary to bring the message to recalcitrant drug addicts that the Government does not intend to see that time, money and efforts spent in rehabilitating them should go down the drain. Further, it would also put these recalcitrant drug addicts out of circulation for a longer period, thereby reducing the demand for drugs as well as preventing them from contaminating and influencing others into drug addiction.

Owing to the large number of drug addicts and abusers who have to be sent to DRCs for treatment and rehabilitation, it is necessary that the Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau has the power to delegate part of his responsibility to his Deputy Director. Clause 8 gives him that power.

Clause 8 also provides for a person who has been ordered by the Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau to be admitted to a DRC to be detained in the DRC for a period of six months for treatment and rehabilitation. This period is normally considered the minimum period required to treat and rehabilitate a drug abuser so that chances of relapse will be minimised. But for relapse cases and hardcore addicts, the period of treatment and rehabilitation may have to be extended beyond six months up to a maximum of two years for any one admission.

The Bill also provides for the appointment, by the Minister, of a Review Committee headed by a medical doctor for each DRC to review the progress of treatment and rehabilitation of each drug addict or abuser. In exceptional cases the Committee can direct releases earlier than six months. It has also powers to extend the period of detention after six months and up to two years. The functions and the manner of working of a Review Committee are spelt out in clause 9. While under detention, drug addicts and abusers can be transferred from one DRC to another to undergo the treatment and rehabilitation programme in stages. The authority to transfer is also provided for under this clause.

Clause 10 seeks to provide for the making of regulations relating to the management, maintenance and inspection of the DRCs; the control, discipline and occupation of inmates of DRCs, and the supervision and aftercare of those who have been discharged from DRCs or who have been convicted for an offence of consuming drugs. Compulsory supervision and aftercare will be extended to those who are convicted in court for consuming drugs and have been sent to the prison or have been fined.

Following the tabling of the Bill for First Reading, a further study of the Bill was made with a view to providing safeguards for any possible abuse or errors by enforcement and other officers in the taking and handling of urine samples and in their analysis. As a result, further amendments have been proposed to build in these safeguards. These amendments are contained in the Notice of Amendments which I shall move at the Committee Stage of the Bill.

However, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to give a brief explanation on the amendments now.

The further amendment to clause 6 of the Bill will enable any person whose urine specimen is found to contain a controlled drug and who is dissatisfied with the result the right to apply for a second test of the specimen which will be stored for the purpose. This is to give the person a recourse if there is a mix-up of his urine specimen in the course of its taking, transportation and testing. Detailed procedures for the taking, collection, delivery and storage of urine specimens from suspected drug addicts will be promulgated in the form of regulations after the Bill has been passed. It also provides for the immediate release of such a person if the second test of his urine specimen is found to be negative.

Further amendment to clause 9 seeks to provide yet another safeguard against wrongful detention of a person in an approved institution for treatment and rehabilitation. An aggrieved person may lodge a complaint to a Magistrate that he is improperly detained by mason of misconduct or breach of duty on the part of any officer in the discharge of his functions under the Act or the regulations made thereunder. The Magistrate acting on such a complaint may himself inquire or direct a Police Officer to inquire into the complaint. On the basis of the inquiry, the Magistrate may order that the aggrieved person be discharged from the approved institution if he is satisfied that the person should not be detained. The Magistrate's decision shall be final.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed. 4.25 p.m.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, in moving the Second Reading of the Misuse of Drugs Bill on 16th February, 1973, the Hon. Minister for Health and Home Affairs said, amongst other things, and I quote: [Hansard, Vol. 32, cols. 415-6]

'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.'

Hence, Sir, heavy penalties were in-corporated in the Second Schedule to the Bill.

However, on 20th November, 1975, the Hon. Minister, in moving the Second Reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill, admitted that: [Hansard Vol. 34, col. 1381]

'... existing penalties under the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1973, have not been a sufficient deterrence to traffickers.'

Sir, the death penalty was then introduced. It is now barely two years and the Minister has brought in another amendment Bill.

In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, the Minister gave a horrifying account of the problem of drug addiction that exists in our society today. In other words, the death penalty has not been a sufficient deterrence to drug traffickers and pushers. To thus enable the House to understand better why this is the case, could the Hon. Minister enumerate the number of drug traffickers who have been given the death penalty? He has pointed out that only a few have been given the death sentence. I wonder how many executions have been carried out. If not, what are the reasons?

In dealing with the problem of tracking down the traffickers, the Minister mentioned: [Hansard Vol. 34, col. 1381]

'Our Central Narcotics Bureau has intelligence information that much of the heroin brought into Singapore has been manufactured in illicit laboratories clandestinely established in a neighbouring country.'

Sir, in this case, may I ask what steps or measures have been taken to obtain the necessary cooperation of the neighbouring country concerned, and whether any information relating to this has been passed on to the neighbouring country for action to be taken? In other words, what has been achieved so far in this respect. Surely the existence of such illegal manufacture of heroin is detrimental both to Singapore and the neighbouring country concerned.

I note the Minister's statement on the two-prong attack against drug traffickers and addicts to counter this menace. Whilst I support the spirit and intention of this Bill, I would like to seek the Minister's assurance that the Central Narcotics Bureau will be relentless in its efforts to track down the traffickers. I would also like to know whether there have been bilateral or multilateral arrangements in tracking down these drug traffickers, and what are the results, bearing in mind the spirit of ASEAN. I am sure that this is also one of the major problems facing these countries. May I add that we should not just be satisfied with our catch of ikan bilis and let the big fish slip away.

Sir, while the Bill deals more with the rehabilitation of drug addicts, at the same time it gives wide powers to the law enforcement officers. It is, therefore, more than clear that drug addiction has reached a critical stage in Singapore. I congratulate the Hon. Minister for introducing this amendment Bill to tackle the menace, and I believe that every citizen has an important role to play in helping to combat this menace.

Sir, before I conclude, I wish to deal with the other details in the Bill. First is this question of cold turkey treatment. The House would appreciate if the Minister could enlighten Members as to the number of cases of such treatment, and what measure of success has been achieved.

I will now deal with the question of powers of arrest. These powers have now been extended to members of the Vigilante Corps and the Special Constabulary. In introducing further amendments to the amendment Bill, the Minister pointed out that the fear of abuse of powers of arrest by law enforcement officers has been taken into account, and that this fear need not arise. I am glad that he has introduced this amendment. But surely in the act of arresting persons, there is the question of the suspect or the drug addict being handcuffed. Would the Minister consider this point sympathetically - if our intention is to rehabilitate drug addicts, then all the more should care and caution be exercised in the act of arrest. In other words, do we really need to handcuff the suspects?

Last, but not least, would the Hon. Minister indicate to this House the number of drug addicts we have got today, quite apart from his answer in the early pan of the afternoon, and how many of them are hardcore addicts? I appreciate the point that the Minister's department has got a very difficult job to play in combating the drug menace on two fronts, the supply and the demand.

On the question of rehabilitating the drug addicts, I wonder whether the personnel concerned are sufficiently trained in drug rehabilitation.

Sir, this Bill has my support.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems to me that the introduction of this Bill is a sad commentary on our efforts to educate our young people on the dangers of drug abuse. Whilst I sympathise very much with the enforcement agencies, we should realise that very substantial powers are being conferred by this Bill on the Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau.

Sir, the urine test which is required of a suspect can be taken by any officer of the Bureau, any immigration officer or any police officer not below the rank of sergeant. Sir, there may be instances where a group of youngsters are apprehended and their urine requested or demanded by the officer in question. What, Sir, if there should be a mix-up in the urine specimens and the wrong person is put under detention? As this is a matter of actual implementation, I am just wondering whether the Minister has considered the safeguards and procedures to prevent any such mix-ups from occurring, otherwise the poor suspect would simply be detained for six months, and if he does not have the money to pay for a lawyer he will not have recourse to a Magistrate.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may reply to the Member for Whampoa first. He has mentioned about the wide powers of arrest, the taking of a urine test by a Police officer not below the rank of sergeant, and the possibility of a mix-up, and what would happen if there had been a genuine case of mix-up. Sir, I have dealt with this point generally in my speech. We have studied this matter very carefully and, as a result, we are putting in safeguards to ensure that, first of all, there will not be any mix-up. But should there ever be a mix-up, there is a remedy, a recourse to a Magistrate for the aggrieved person.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the fact that we have provided that the officer taking the urine for a test should not be any officer but an officer not below the rank of sergeant indicates that we are aware of the possibility of an abuse or a mix-up.

Now, in the amendments to the Bill, which are being proposed, we are providing for the possibility of an application for a second urine test. In other words, if there has been an error or a mix-up in the first urine test, then a second urine test will be done to prove it one way or the other. As I have said in my speech, what we are proposing to do, as soon as the Bill is passed, is to promulgate detailed regulations to enable such a procedure to be implemented. In other words, instead of taking one urine specimen, we are proposing to take two urine specimens. The first urine specimen will be sent for analysis by the Department of Scientific Services, while the second specimen will be stored under lock and key. If there is claim of a mix-up in the first specimen, then we can fall back on the second specimen. In that way, we can ensure that any possibility of a mix-up is reduced to the minimum.

We are also building in the safeguard against a mix-up or abuse of power on the part of enforcement officers. The aggrieved person can go to a Magistrate and swear in a complaint, whereupon the Magistrate shall inquire into the allegations. However, Sir, this is not a court of law where the aggrieved person may need lawyers to represent him. It is just an inquiry. So my reply to the Member for Whampoa is that he does not need a lawyer for the inquiry.

As for the Member for Punggol, his first point is that I had found it necessary to move amendments to the Bill in 1975 to introduce the death penalty for trafficking more than a stated amount of heroin or morphine. He asked whether this has got any deterrent effect. Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot give the exact number, but round about eight or nine persons have already been sentenced to death to-date. As you know, Mr Speaker, Sir, in accordance with our judicial system, the trial takes place in the High Court, and if the person who is found guilty of this offence is sentenced to death, there is a recourse for appeal. From the High Court the case goes to the Court of Criminal Appeal. That takes some time. From the Court of Criminal Appeal, if it is a case involving the death penalty, the appeal will go to the Privy Council, which is in London, and that also takes time. So the period between the actual death sentence and the appeal being disposed of in the Privy Council may be from 18 months to two years. As the House knows, since this death penalty was introduced in 1975, only one case for appeal went to the Privy Council and the Privy Council had turned it down. And even if the Privy Council should turn down an appeal, there is yet another avenue - the aggrieved person can appeal to the President. That is the reason why to-date there has not been any execution.

There are also other cases still awaiting trial. They number about more than 10 to 15 persons and their cases involve the death penalty.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although it is too early to say whether it has a deterrent effect, we can safely say that without the death penalty drug trafficking would have been more rife.

With regard to close cooperation between Singapore and its neighbouring countries in connection with the drug trafficking menace, I can say that the enforcement agency in Singapore is in close cooperation with the enforcement agencies in our neighbouring countries. In fact, some joint operations have been conducted and there has been some success in the detection and arrest of some quite big-time traffickers.

With regard to ASEAN, sometime last year we had a conference of drug enforcement officers from ASEAN countries. I think it was held in Hyatt Hotel here in Singapore. So there is close cooperation and exchange of intelligence between the enforcement agencies in Singapore and the neighbouring countries, particularly between ASEAN countries.

The other point is about the number of cases under "cold turkey" treatment. May I just explain what "cold turkey" treatment is? Everybody who is a drug abuser or addict would have to undergo cold turkey. Cold turkey simply means that the drug abuser or addict is put in a room. He is not given any drugs, and he begins to suffer from withdrawal symptoms. That is all. There is no medicine. There is no treatment. He is just denied drugs. This is a very good way to try to wean a person from drug addiction. Of course, the withdrawal symptoms will depend on the particular individual, and how hardened he has been on drugs. If he is deep on drugs, then he will suffer acute withdrawal symptoms. If he is just an experimenter or has just started taking drugs, then the withdrawal symptoms will be quite mild.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Punggol has brought up the question of suspects being handcuffed. Well, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no alternative. When an officer makes an arrest, he has to handcuff the suspect, who will otherwise run away. There have been cases where Customs officers, who had no handcuffs had been given the slip by their suspects who scooted off. In fact, some of the suspects were not only drug addicts but pushers as well. So these pushers had escaped arrest.

With regard to the number of drug addicts in Singapore, I have stated that we estimate it to be around 13,000 of which we have arrested 6,000.

The other question is: what is the percentage of hardcore addicts? Sir, from our statistics and from our experience of those 6,000 who have been arrested and have undergone "cold turkey", I am glad to say that most of them are not hardcore addicts. In other words, they had only mild withdrawal symptoms. Only a small percentage are hardcore addicts. Many of them have just started on drugs. This means, Sir, that it is incumbent upon us to go all out at this moment to prevent others from getting hooked on drugs, and to prevent known addicts becoming hardcores. If we move now and move effectively, I believe that we have a chance in controlling the problem.

That is the reason why, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have come to this House to seek all the powers necessary for these effective measures that we are going to implement. And I can assure this House, the Member for Punggol in particular, that we are very conscious of the fact that there could be abuse of power or a mistake made at the lower level of enforcement officers, and that is the very reason why we have taken the trouble to have these built-in safeguards. If ever there is such an abuse there is recourse, a remedy, and the persons responsible for the abuse will be brought to book.

Mr Ivan Baptist (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek a number of clarifications from the Minister on the answers he gave just now. Whilst I am in support of the Bill and want to ensure that drug addiction does not become an almost uncontrollable menace in Singapore,( believe that the powers given under this Act are so tremendous that possible abuse is very clearly seen. From the answers the Minister gave just now, he failed to satisfy me in regard to the second urine specimen. As I understand it, a specimen of urine is taken within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed and a second test of the same specimen is made if there is an application by the person aggrieved. From what the Minister said just now, two urine specimens are taken. Are they taken in two separate containers? Are they taken in the same place for that matter? Because if there was a mix-up before this amendment and if now the specimens are taken in the same place and two containers are used at the same time, the possibility of a mix-up will surely still exist. I have had a number of cases of my constituents approaching me in regard to this mix-up, and invariably their applications were turned down when I wrote to the Minister.

In addition to that, there is this business of detaining a person, who is aggrieved, just by a urine specimen test or an observation by the Director, CNB, or his officers. Most certainly, this can lead to quite a lot of abuse. No lawyer is required at the inquiry as the Minister has stated, and that means the person cannot defend himself. He is accused of something that he has done which would mean his detention; in other words, imprisonment and then, of course, "cold turkey" and all the rigmarole. I know we do not want our Singaporeans, especially our young Singaporeans, to be involved in drug-taking. But do we want them to be unfairly treated? Can we not give them some opportunity of defending themselves in court after the urine specimens are taken? And when we talk about 13,000 people, the number itself will mean greater abuses. If we have just a few, the chances of abuse are limited. Here we must consider not only the drug-takers, most of them young, but also the trauma that their parents will undergo. I would like some clarification on these points, Sir.

Mr S. Dhanabalan (Kallang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like a clarification on the second urine test. It is not unknown that even in medical laboratories and hospitals where the staff are specially trained to conduct tests that there are cases of mix-up. Here we have cases of people who are not specialised to take such samples, and I think we would appreciate the Minister's assurance that very detailed methods of taking test samples would be laid down. Of course, it is not possible to have a foolproof system but I think a detailed system of taking test samples which would minimise the incidence of mix-up would be appreciated.

Secondly, Sir, in the proposed amendment where a complaint on oath of wrongful detention can be brought before a magistrate, the Minister's remarks seem to imply that the complaint must be made by the person detained. My reading of the amendment does not indicate so, and I would appreciate if the Minister could clarify whether the parents or relatives of the detained person could make such a complaint.

Thirdly, Sir, it is also proposed that evidence taken at such hearings before the magistrate are not admissible in a civil or criminal proceeding if improper conduct has been proved. May I know what is the purpose of affording the officers such protection?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just clarify the points raised by the Member for Kallang? I shall also reply to the Member for Potong Pasir as regards the second urine test. The Member says that because we realise that there is a possibility of a mix-up, that is why we are taking two urine specimens. The two specimens will be taken at the same time. We have already worked out the full procedure but it cannot be incorporated in this Bill. It will be incorporated in regulations which will be promulgated after the Bill has been passed. I will give Members an idea of what we are proposing to do. When a urine specimen of a suspect is going to be taken, he will be given two containers. He himself will put his urine in the two containers. The two containers will be sealed by him and they will be put into two boxes which will be locked. The suspect will put one urine sample in a plastic bottle in one box and the other sample in another box.

An hon. Member: The boxes are not marked!

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, maybe in Potong Pasir the ballot boxes are not marked! But the boxes for the urine samples will be marked. One box will be marked "For Storage". The other will be marked "To be delivered to the Department of Scientific Services."

Sir, to explain to the Member for Kallang, these tests are not done by medical officers. They are done by scientists. We have scientists in the Department of Scientific Services to do these tests. The Department is the proper authority for doing these tests. Members can be assured that these tests are carried out properly and they can depend on the tests to be accurate.

Sir, I think there is a "mix-up" on the part of the Member for Potong Pasir about the recourse to a Magistrate if a person is aggrieved vis-a-vis that there has been some abuse of power or there have been some mix-up. The person can swear a complaint either by himself or through his relatives and the Magistrate, when faced with a sworn complaint, will have to conduct an inquiry. If the aggrieved person wants to have any number of lawyers to act on his behalf, he can do so. But as I said, it is not necessary because the inquiry will be conducted by the Magistrate himself who is an independent person. He is a member of the Judiciary and he will see that the truth of the matter will be arrived at through fair means.

With regard to the question that proceedings of such an inquiry should not be used as evidence in any court of law, that is the normal practice with regard to any court of law, not necessarily this inquiry presided by a Magistrate. Otherwise people will not want to give evidence freely if, as a result of what he or she says in evidence, there can be a suit against him or her.

Sir, I think I have answered the questions.

Dr Ong Leong Boon (Kim Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I just like to seek clarification in respect of the Minister's reply in regard to the appeals board. I would like to know what is the interval between filing an appeal and for the board to meet? If the board takes six months to convene, then the aggrieved person would have already been in detention for six months.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, the complaint will be speedily dealt with. It is not a board. It is just a Magistrate who will decide what course of action to take when he receives a complaint, and it can be dealt with quite speedily. As regards time, it may take two weeks, three weeks or a month. It should not be more than that. Of course, it depends on the particular case in question.

Mr Baptist: Sir, just another point of clarification. Why can we not charge the drug addicts in court? Why do we detain them without giving them any opportunity to defend themselves? Is it because it is very difficult to make out a case against them that we take this sort of attitude?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason why we adopted this practice is, if we allow the drug addicts to go free, there is a possibility that they may go deeper into drug addiction and infect others. As you know, any person being charged for any offence, can be bailed out. As a result he is free. And he can ask for an adjournment. In the meantime he can infect other people. On the other hand, as far as this procedure is concerned, a person is detained for rehabilitation on the basis of a urine test. I cannot see any other possibility of a wrongful detention unless there has been an abuse on the part of the enforcement officer or there has been a mix-up in the handling of the urine specimens.

Mr Baptist: Mr Speaker, Sir, we can always write into the Act to refuse him bail. Anyway, can he not be given a chance to defend himself? Maybe something went wrong and he was put in detention through no fault of his own. He could have been lured into taking that drug. It could have been put into his drink. So give him a chance to defend himself, and we could refuse him bail, as I said earlier.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: To refuse him bail is the same thing. It might be even longer if there is a trial.

Mr Baptist: He is being detained in prison!

Mr Chua Sian Chin: No. he is not detained in prison. He is being detained for treatment at a rehabilitation centre. If he is genuinely aggrieved, there is a Magistrate before whom he can go to, and the Magistrate can inquire into it speedily and arrive at the truth. The essence of the whole measure is speed, which is very important to both, from the point of view of the drug addict himself and the community at large.

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 Bill. - [Mr Chua Sian Chin].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

5.05 p.m.

Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 -

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 3, after line 29, to insert -

'(b) by inserting immediately after subsection (3) thereof the following subsections: -

"(4) Any person who has been required to provide a specimen of his urine for a urine test under subsection (1) of this section may, within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed, apply for a second test of the specimen of his urine which is kept for that purpose in accordance with any regulations made under this Act; but except as provided by subsection (5) of this section no such application shall affect any order made by the Director or the Deputy Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau under Section 33 of this Act.

(5) If as a result of any second test which has been conducted on the application of any person under subsection (4) of this section it is found that there is no controlled drug in the specimen of his urine, he shall be immediately discharged from any approved institution in which he is detained." '.

The reasons for this amendment have already been given in my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: Consequential amendments will have to be made,

In page 3, lines 16 to 18, to reset as follows:

"6. Section 28 of the principal Act is hereby amended -

(a) by deleting subsections (1) and (2) thereof and substituting therefor the following: -".

In page 3, line 29, to leave out the full-stop where it secondly occurs, and insert "; and".

These will be done.

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 -

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 7, to leave out lines 1 to 5 inclusive and insert -

"(3) The Superintendent of an approved institution may enter into an arrangement with the Superintendent of another approved institution for the transfer of any inmate to that other institution and, subject to any directions given by the Director or the Review Committee, may carry out any transfer in accordance with such arrangement.".

The reason for this amendment is to give more flexibility to the transfer of addicts from one drug rehabilitation centre to another.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 7, after line 5, to insert - "Power of 33D.-(1) Where a complaint is made Magis- on oath to a Magistrate that any person is trate to improperly detained in an approved inquire institution by reason of any misconduct into com- or breach of duty on the part of any plaints officer in the discharge of his functions of mis- pursuant to this Act or any regulations conduct made thereunder, the Magistrate may or breach either inquire into the complaint himself of duty. or direct a police officer to make an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint and report to him the result of the inquiry. (2) Every inquiry under subsection (1) of this section shall be conducted in private but, save as aforesaid, the procedure for conducting any inquiry shall be such as the magistrate considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case. (3) A Magistrate or a police officer conducting any inquiry under subsection (1) of this section shall have all the Cap. 113. powers conferred on him by the Criminal Procedure Code in relation to the attendance and examination of witnesses, the taking of evidence and the production of documents. (4) If after considering the result of any such inquiry the Magistrate is satisfied that any person who is detained in an approved institution ought not to be so detained he may make an order for the discharge of that person from the approved institution and that person shall be discharged accordingly. (5) Any order or decision of the Magistrate made under this section shall be final. (6) No evidence taken for the purpose of any such inquiry shall be admissible in any civil or criminal proceedings except where the person who gave such evidence is charged with giving or fabricating false evidence.".

The reason for this amendment is already explained in my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill.

Question proposed. "That the new section 33D proposed to be inserted, be there inserted."

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refer to the proposed section 33D, subsection (1)? This subsection does not stipulate the time for the Magistrate to act, and the word "may" in the sixth line* confers discretion on the Magistrate in question. Would the Minister consider amending the word "may" to "shall immediately"? This would provide a further safeguard to the person under detention.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, this word "may" gives the Magistrate discretion. Discretion ought to be given to the Magistrate. I do not think we need to include the word "immediately" because the Magistrate knows his job. In the interest of justice he will inquire into it immediately. I do not think it is necessary to make such a stipulation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment accordingly agreed to.

The Chairman: Consequent upon the addition of new section 33D, the marginal title to clause 9 will be amended to read "New sections 33A to 33D.".

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.