CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 3.53 p.m.

The Minister for Law, the Environment and Science and Technology (Mr E.W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, you will recall that my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs and Education, at the Second Reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill, informed the House how serious the problem of drug abuse and addiction had become. As compared with the few cases of heroin addiction in 1971, we now have as many as 12,000 heroin addicts and abusers. The Act, which was enacted to deal with this pernicious problem, provides for the necessary powers of arrest and detention of these drug addicts and abusers for treatment and rehabilitation in approved institutions, subject to certain safeguards.

A constitutional problem, however, arises in regard to the Act, vis-a-vis Article 5 of the Constitution of Malaysia in its application to Singapore. Article 5 lays down the constitutional requirement that a person, who is arrested and detained, should be informed of the grounds of his arrest, should be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner, and should be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest. Whilst the importance of this fundamental right is recognised, it, like any other fundamental right, cannot be absolute and may have to be qualified in the interest of public order, safety or security. A departure from the normal constitutional requirements is necessary to deal effectively with the grave drug problem. The Bill before this House ensures the constitutional validity of the Misuse of Drugs Act, in so far as that Act authorises the detention of drug addicts and abusers in approved institutions for treatment and rehabilitation.

Part V of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, which authorises the arrest and detention of any person in the interest of public safety, peace and good order, was enacted in the year 1955. When Singapore became a state within the Federation of Malaysia in 1963, the fundamental liberties clauses (including Article 5) of the Malaysian Constitution became applicable to us. These clauses were retained in our Constitution when we separated from Malaysia in August 1965. It may be arguable that Part V of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act infringes Article 5 of the Constitution. The Bill before this House will ensure the constitutional validity of Part V.

In all the circumstances, which I have related, it is necessary to make this Bill both prospective and retrospective.

Question proposed. 3.58 p.m.

Mr S. Dhanabalan (Kallang): Mr Speaker, Sir, the constitutional provision that no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except in accordance with the due process of law as laid down in Article 5 of our Constitution is a provision that is basic to the system of government and way of life that we have adopted. But, as with other liberties, it must be conceded that it is not absolute. It is an ideal that we should not however deviate from without most careful deliberation.

We would all agree that there are some problems in our society that cannot be dealt with in strict accordance with the principle that no person should be detained without an open trial. In fact, to insist on strict adherence to the principle in such cases will only serve to undermine and destroy the very fabric of our society. One such case is that relating to secret societies and their activities. The ruthlessness of those engaged in such activities and the nature of these organisations ensure that nobody will testify publicly in such cases. To insist that the process laid down in Article 5 of the Constitution be followed will only serve to protect such criminal activities and make a mockery of the process of law and justice. As long as we have secret societies, it is necessary to have the provisions of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act in operation and it is proper that the Constitution be amended as proposed in the new clause 6(a) to make the validity of such laws beyond doubt.

Clause 6(b), however, deals with quite another matter and the reason as far as I can make out for this amendment is very different. The motive appears to me to be one of administrative expedience. In the case of misuse of drugs it has not been claimed, as far as I can remember, that it is difficult to obtain evidence. There are established medical tests which can provide the evidence. But the drug problem has grown at such an alarming rate that I understand the administrative machinery in terms of courts, magistrates and prosecuting officers cannot cope with the number of arrests being made. Since the problem is acute and cannot wait for the administrative resources to be strengthened before the problem is tackled, an interim solution is necessary. Thus, reluctantly we have to deviate from the fundamental liberty principle laid down in the Constitution.

I assume, though I cannot be certain, that other solutions were explored before it was concluded that arrest and detention without trial is the only feasible immediate method of dealing with the problem. This method of dealing with the problem must however be conceded to be a temporary one. It will be difficult to maintain that given some time, the administrative machinery cannot be strengthened to deal with arrested drug abusers in the normal way. Would the Minister, therefore, be prepared to consider an amendment to provide that any law relating to the misuse of drugs which authorises the arrest and detention of a person without trial for the purpose of treatment and rehabilitation will have a definite life of, say, three years? Such an amendment would ensure that steps are taken within the period to enable the problem to be dealt with under the process laid down in the present Article 5 of the Constitution. It may even turn out, happily, that the number of drug addicts may be so reduced at the end of the period that they can be easily dealt with by the courts. In any case, at the end of the life of the Act, if circumstances require an extension, a Bill can be presented to Parlia- ment to extend the Act and, at such an occasion, Parliament will have the benefit of considering the details of action taken and progress achieved to find a permanent solution and the reasons for the extension.

Alternatively, if an amendment is not possible, I shall be grateful if the Minister will give an assurance that this particular aspect of the law to deal with drug misuse will be reviewed periodically and that action will be taken as soon as possible to revert to the system of dealing with drug abusers through the courts.

I fear that if there be no limitation to the period of operation of such laws or if there be no undertaking to review such laws, there will be no incentive to strengthen the administrative machinery to deal with the problem. I fear further that if it is not made clear that short cuts to legal processes are only to be used as a last resort and that too with severe limitations, there will be great temptation to use short cuts where process of law or fair play or justice is expensive in terms of time, manpower and other resources. The administration, once it has found a cheap and easy way of doing things, seldom abandons it.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: Sir, I remember when taking our seats as Members of Parliament, among other undertakings, we swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. It is therefore disturbing to note that the House is being asked to approve an amendment to the Constitution because of an apparently ultra vires act on the part of the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs and Education when he last moved the amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act in this House on the 9th November, 1977. What we are now asked to do may be likened to closing the stable gate after the horse has bolted. A rather more serious implication, Sir, to my mind, is that, as law makers, we would appear to have shown no respect for the law and in this particular case, the most sacred of all, our Constitution. Whatever the justification, the action on the part of the Hon. Minister is inexcusable. I do hope that this is the first and last time that such a thoughtless act is allowed to be committed.

As for the Hon. Minister for Law, I would like his assurance that all future Bills, prior to submitting to Parliament, will be thoroughly vetted to ensure that they are not inconsistent with or in contravention of any existing provisions under either the Constitution or any other statutes.

Mr E.W. Barker: Sir, the Member for Kallang has made many good points in his speech, but the better part of his speech should have been made last year when he spoke on the Second Reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill. But let me assure both hon. Members that other solutions were carefully explored before it was concluded that arrest and detention without trial was the only practical method of dealing with the drug problem. My colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, has explained in detail the reasons for the act. Sir, the spread of drug abuse was somewhat like the spread of an infectious disease like cholera, of which I am in charge, and had to be dealt with expediently and drastically. We could not wait. To take thousands of drug abusers to court would have meant delays. If the accused claimed trial and was granted bail, as is the usual practice, he would continue to take drugs and make himself even more addictive, Sir, it is not just a question of not enough courts or magistrates or administrators. We can set up special courts purely to deal with the drug abusers, as we have with the two traffic courts dealing with traffic offenders. But that is not the solution. Hence it was felt that drug abusers should be detained for rehabilitation without trial even before the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill became law.

The Member for Kallang has asked me to consider an amendment to provide that any law which authorises the arrest and detention of drug addicts without trial should have a definite life of, say, three years. I hope he is not suggesting that the present amendment to the Constitution which I am moving should be a temporary one, because it is not usual for amendments to the Constitution to be made of a temporary nature. Sir, the Constitution (Amendment) Act, which is the enabling Act, the principal Act, leads to the other two Acts. The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act lasts for five years. At the end of that five years, it has to be renewed. The Member for Kallang has a point when he said that the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill should have been made of a temporary nature, perhaps for three years or five years when we should come back here to discuss and debate it in Parliament. But again, if he has that suggestion, I am afraid he is a little out of time. The suggestion should have been made when the Bill was debated in the House last year. Unfortunately, the Member, not having the advantage of a study of the law, did not know that the Act was ultra vires the Constitution. But, as I said before, the Minister in charge had to deal with a rather drastic situation. When you have thousands of drug addicts on your hands, you cannot sometimes wait even for a parliamentary sitting.

As for future assurances, like the Member for Jalan Kayu, I myself swore to defend and uphold the Constitution. But sometimes amendments to the Constitution have to be made; in fact, there have been very few in the last 12 years since we gained independence and adopted some of the provisions of the Constitution of Malaysia.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Education (Mr Chua Sian Chin): Sir, may I clarify the point made by the Member for Jalan Kayu? But before doing so, I would like to thank my colleague, the Minister for Law, for his reply to the queries raised.

As to the point of clarification, let me put it this way. The implication of the statement made by the Member for Jalan Kayu is that this constitutional amendment was an after-thought after the Misuse of Drugs Act was introduced and passed in this Parliament. May I assure the Member that this was not the case. It was not an after-thought. We knew that this Bill which was introduced earlier would require an amendment to the Constitution of Singapore. If hon. Members will remember, before the Second Reading of the Misuse of Drugs Act, this Constitution (Amendment) Bill was introduced for First Reading in this Parliament. So it was not an after-thought. It was not a case, as was vividly put by the Member for Jalan Kayu, of closing the stable gate after the horse had fled. In fact, the horse is still in the stable when we try to close it. It is not a case of the horse having bolted. It is still in the stable.

The other point of clarification is that this is not a straightforward case of detention without trial of secret society gangsters. This is a case where a drug addict is being detained not for purposes of imprisonment but for purposes of treatment and rehabilitation. As my colleague, the Minister for Law, has aptly illustrated his point, we are not only fighting an epidemic, an epidemic which is called the "heroin" epidemic where the addicts not only require treatment and rehabilitation as quickly as possible, but we also have to prevent them from infecting other people, just like small pox or cholera cases. So we owe a duty not only to the drug addict, of treating and rehabilitating him, but also to the community of preventing the drug addict from infecting other unsuspecting youths.

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 E.W. Barker].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

4.14 p.m.

Clause 1 -

The Chairman: The citation year will be altered from "1977" to "1978".

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 -

The Chairman: The citation year will be altered from "1977" to "1978".

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.