DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL (Particulars)

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will give the numbers of persons detained without trial in Singapore as of the 15th of February, 1982 under (i) the Misuse of Drugs Act; (ii) the Immigration Act; and (iii) any other written law other than the Internal Security Act and the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and the periods of their detention spaced at five year differentials; and what safeguards are provided to ensure that innocent persons are not detained under these laws.

Prof. S. Jayakumar (for the Minister for Home Affairs): The Misuse of Drugs Act 1973

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me point out at the outset that under the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1973, drug addicts are committed to approved institutions, which are not detention centres, for compulsory treatment and rehabilitation. They are not detained for criminal offences. The Act provides for committal for treatment for six months at a time, subject to a maximum of 36 months. As of 15th February, 1982, 3,356 persons were receiving treatment in Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRC). None of them had been detained for more than five years.

Compulsory treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts is similar to the compulsory isolation and treatment of those suffering from infectious diseases as well as those committed to mental institutions for violent behaviour. We consider drug addiction to be a pernicious disease which, if not checked, will erode the very fabric of our society. It is necessary to commit drug addicts for treatment and rehabilitation because drug addiction, like an infectious disease, spreads rapidly. If drug addicts are not identified and sent for treatment swiftly, they will continue to spread the habit to others in our community.

Safeguards

There are adequate safeguards to ensure that non-addicts are not committed under the Misuse of Drugs Act. First, under the Act, the Director and the Deputy Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) can order a drug addict, who has been confirmed to be a drug addict either through a positive urine test or by the medical doctor through medical examination and observation, to be admitted for treatment and rehabilitation at a DRC for a period not exceeding six months. Secondly, an addict's further stay in the DRC will be assessed by a Review Committee which is chaired by a medical doctor. This Committee will either transfer him to the Day Release Scheme or extend the committal period.

The third safeguard is an elaborate system of collecting two urine samples from suspects and this has been in operation since 1977. The system is fully laid down in the Misuse of Drugs (Urine Specimens and Urine Tests) Regulations, 1977. Under this, a suspected addict whose first urine test is positive can apply for a second urine test on the same sample. It ensures that no mistakes occur during urine collection.

Fourthly, a drug addict can make a complaint under the Act, to a Magistrate pursuant to section 33D of the Misuse of Drugs Act that he has been improperly committed for rehabilitation. The Magistrate will conduct an inquiry into the complaint and he can order the discharge of the inmate from a DRC.

Fifthly, as a further safeguard, of course, any person, through his counsel, can file a writ of habeas corpus in the High Court for the release of an inmate from the DRC on grounds of improper committal.

The Immigration Act

Persons detained under the Immigration Act are prohibited immigrants, illegal immigrants or persons remaining unlawfully in Singapore. As of 15th February, 1982, there were 10 persons detained under this Act. Of this number, only one has been in detention for more than five years. Prohibited and illegal immigrants have to be detained. They have no right to be here and should not be allowed to stay here. Singapore cannot. be a haven for those who may be a burden to society and are unable to qualify for entry under the normal immigration regulations. Detention is an effective deterrent.

As regards safeguards, there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that innocent persons are not detained under the Act. Each case is thoroughly examined and investigated to determine whether the person should be detained pending removal from Singapore. The person is brought before a magistrate in Chambers who authorizes the Detention Order signed by the Controller of Immigration if he is satisfied that the detention is lawful and valid. The Immigration Department reviews the detained cases regularly. Where the identity card and nationality of the detained person can be established, the appropriate foreign mission in Singapore is approached and requested to issue a travel document to facilitate repatriation.

As far as other laws are concerned, 88 persons were isolated and given treatment for infectious diseases, such as cholera and enteric fever under the Infectious Diseases Act in 1981, and as of March 1982 there were 46 "violent" patients being isolated and treated under the Mental Disorders and Treatment Act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in closing, I think it is necessary for me to draw the attention of the House to a matter concerning certain information which was given to a foreign newspaper, the International Herald Tribune, published on 15th March, 1982. Members will recall that the Minister for Home Affairs had supplied a written answer to the Question for Written Answer by the Member for Anson concerning persons under preventive detention. This was tabled in this House on 3rd March, 1982. Subsequently, on 3rd March, an Oral Answer was given here to the question by the Member for Delta on whether preventive detention for secret society gangsters and drug traffickers was meeting its objective, and now we have another question.

May I refer, Mr Speaker, Sir; to this article which appeared in the Intemational Herald Tribune where the Member for Anson is quoted as follows:

'But someone must say . . . that there are 5,000 detained people in Singapore who have not had a trial. People don't really know what is happening in Singapore. They see the clean streets and the tall buildings and they don't know people are starving here.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to emphasize the statement, "there are 5,000 people detained in Singapore." Now, perhaps the Member for Anson could clarify his arithmetical skills. From the information that the Ministry has already supplied to this House - there are 17 people detained under the Internal Security Act, 1,019 detained under Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act for secret society activities and drug trafficking, which comes to no more than 1,036. Yet the Member for Anson has alleged in an overseas publication that 5,000 people are detained here. Let us leave out the mental patients. But what baffles my imagination is that, before the answer to the question was given, he had already worked out a figure which is far from the truth, Perhaps he has lumped in, for good measure, the drug addicts who are being treated and rehabilitated. Even then, we do not get a figure of 5,000. Perhaps it is his intention that all those who are presently being treated and rehabilitated should be sent to the courts, convicted and sentenced so that they are burdened with a stigma for the rest of their lives, without solving the drug addiction problem. I would be interested to know how he arrived at the figure of 5,000.

It seems to me that these different questions for information on statistics under any other laws also, are a vain hope that somehow the information would tally with his figure which he had given before the answer was given in this Chamber. I am sorry to say that I am unable to doctor the figures to suit his predetermined figure. And perhaps it would also be interesting for him to justify, either now or on some subsequent occasion, where are the starving thousands in Singapore.

Some hon. Members: Rumours!

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I answer the Hon. Minister of State on his comments, may I ask my questions first? The Minister speaks of sufficient safeguards for persons detained under the Misuse of Drugs Act. He says they are either given a urine test or subjected to a medical examination. Would he tell this House whether there are any persons who are detained, whose urine tests have proved to be negative and whose blood tests have proved to be negative? There are persons who are detained, for whom neither a urine test nor a blood test was done. Would he also tell this House what is the medical examination that is conducted of a person before an order is made by the Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me respond to that question. I think it has been pointed out in this House by the Minister, and certainly pointed out on many occasions outside this House, what the difference is between a situation where a suspected drug addict is subjected to a urine test and where a suspected drug addict may have a medical examination. The answer to this question, if I may summarize everything that has been said before, is as follows.

The law is very clear. A person could be sent for treatment and rehabilitation either on the basis of a urine test or on the basis of a medical observation and examination under section 33 of the Act. That is the first point. It is not a urine test and medical examination/observation but a urine test or medical examination. And there are very good reasons for this, Mr Speaker. Let me enumerate them. The first is that certain kinds of drugs which are addictive by nature will not appear and are not traceable in a urine test. This has been made very clear before.

Secondly, even where a urine test is conducted, the time factor is crucial. If there has been a lapse of more than six days between the time the drug was consumed and the administering of the test, it will not show in the urine test. This is why it is absolutely essential to have a medical examination.

The third reason why it is important to have a medical examination, and why a medical examination is indeed ordered, is that through a medical examination, properly trained specialized doctors can observe withdrawal symptoms, which are indicative of drug addiction. For these reasons, it is possible that a person may ,have a urine test with a negative result. But that does not mean that he is not a drug addict. Indeed, if it has passed the six-day period or if he is on a drug which is not traceable in a urine test, but the medical examination shows that he is indeed exhibiting symptoms of drug addiction, the law has provided, and quite properly so, that he should be sent for treatment. That answers the question by the Member for Anson.

I believe he asked for the details or the precise nature of the medical examination. These are matters, Mr Speaker, Sir, which are properly within the scope of the professional acumen and expertise of the doctors. It suffices for me to say that the two doctors have experience in this area, and I would like to leave questions of judgment on medical matters to them.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question on the safe- guards under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Minister states that the law is very clear. That it is clear is plain to anyone who reads the law. The question is: is there not a danger of innocent persons being detained under this law?

The Minister talks about medical examination. He is not able to tell this House what exactly the medical examination consists of. As I understand it, Mr Speaker, Sir, the examination is left in the hands of one doctor who is attached to the rehabilitation centre. What is the precaution taken against the diagnosis of this doctor being wrong? Would the Minister tell this House what safeguards has a man got, who thinks he has been wrongly accused of being a drug addict when he knows that he has never consumed any drug in all his life? What safeguard is there of challenging this doctor's opinion? Is there an appeal to a medical tribunal consisting of people who know something about drug addiction, besides the doctor at the drug rehabilitation centre?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, before I answer to the substance of the question, let me answer the innuendo that is hidden in the question, namely, to raise shades of innocent persons being sent to detention. Let me disabuse the Member for Anson of this innuendo.

First of all, let us recall that it cost the Government an incredible sum of money maintaining these rehabilitation centres. It cost us a great deal of energy - deploying staff, including professional people, to run these rehabilitation centres - and indeed if all the people in the rehabilitation centres were not drug addicts, they could be usefully deployed to assist the Ministry of Labour in meeting the severe labour shortage. So there is no reason whatsoever for this Government, in view of these points which I have mentioned, not to close down these rehabilitation centres and to do away with them if the situation warranted it. If there were no more persons who are genuine drug addicts, nobody could be happier than this Government. But in the interest of the nation and to prevent drug addiction from spreading, we have to take these drastic measures,

The possibility of abuse, let me say, is a theoretical possibility in any exercise of governmental power. The theoretical possibility of abuse is not a good reason for denying power to meet this dangerous threat to our society. I have already enumerated the safeguards. I have spelt out five to six safeguards.

In addition, let me point out that the Member for Anson is wrong again on his understanding of the facts. There is not just one doctor. There are two full-time doctors. Furthermore, I do not think he listened to me when I -pointed out the safeguards. I said that there are review committees which meet every six months to review the cases. And the chairmen of these review committees are medical practitioners.

So if the Member is not satisfied, he should tell us on some occasion how he proposes to deal with the serious problem of drug addiction. What plans does he have? How would he attack this problem? Release all the drug traffickers who are now under preventive detention? Release all the drug addicts so that for the rest of their lives they will be in misery and also subject others to misery? This is a serious problem we are talking about. The Government has tackled it and has seen it fit also to provide five to six safeguards. If the Member says that these safeguards are not enough, let him come out with the plans.

The Minister of State of Education (Dr Tay Eng Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have the opportunity to ask a supplementary question but I want to direct the question at the Member for Anson. Yesterday in this House, he spoke about our rugged society and went on to sneer about the ragged society, casting a slur on the people of Singapore. Now we hear that he has reported or alleged to have reported to an international newspaper that there are 5,000 detainees in Singapore and that the people of Singapore are starving. I think he owes us and the people of Singapore an apology. Will he apologize publicly to the people of Singapore?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask a supplementary question? I am indebted to the Minister of State but I am afraid he has not answered my question. He has given us a very lengthy statement. We all know the old game that if you cannot answer a question, you put another question to the man who asked you the question.

My question is this, if I may repeat again, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is there not a serious danger of this doctor being wrong in his diagnosis? And what is the safeguard provided in such a case? Is there an appeal to an independent medical tribunal which will look into this matter and satisfy itself that the diagnosis is correct?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we have a problem. It is not so much an inability or an inadequacy of my answer, but I think it is an unwillingness on the part of the Member for Anson to accept an answer which somehow does not tally with his predetermined intentions of tallying information with his figures. Perhaps we can sympathize with him.

To respond to his supplementary question, the answer is, of course, there is no danger. I have pointed out the whole panoply of the safeguards. For there to be abuse, there will have to be collusion between the apprehending officers, the Director and his Deputy Director, further collusion with the two full-time medical doctors, and yet even further collusion with the chairmen and members of the two appeal committees. Perhaps he might also want to suggest, I guess, that there has to be collusion with the magistrate later on. I think this is ridiculous, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Furthermore, there is no doubt that here we have to challenge the professional competence of the medical doctors. I for one and the Ministry have no reason to suspect the integrity or the professional competence of either of the two medical practitioners. If the Member for Anson has a solid reason or evidence which casts serious doubts in any one particular case on the professional competence or the personal integrity of either of these two doctors to warrant the kind of investigation which must follow, then let him say so and let him supply us with the particulars.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, it must be plain to anybody that there does not have to be any collusion for a man to be wrong in his diagnosis. Why are we evading this issue? I take it that the Minister is not going to answer this question.

May I move on to something else and, that is, the Immigration Act. The Minister says that one man has been detained for more than five years under the Immigration Act. May I ask how long it is intended to keep this man in detention? Until he dies?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me respond to that question. Once again, the question is pregnant with implications.

An hon. Member: Innuendoes.

Prof. Jayakumar: Innuendoes. Let me give Members of the House a proper perspective. Sometimes when listening to this question we tend to forget which country this legislature is located. We think we are located in a country with vast expanse of land endowed with abundant mineral and agricultural resources, sparsely populated, so that we must bend over backwards to accept every illegal immigrant. But the truth is to the contrary. We are a legislature in Singapore and our immediate and over-riding obligation - and we will be abdicating our responsibility if we were to forget this obligation - is to our people, Singaporeans, Singapore citizens. That is the first preliminary observation I wish to make.

The second preliminary observation is that we have laws, like any other sovereign country has laws, concerning immigration. Who can come in? Under what conditions, with what travel documents, for how long, and so on? What happens when people violate these regulations concerning our immigration? This is the crucial point. If a person violates our immigration regulations, should we condone it and tell him, "OK. If you manage to sneak through, good luck. You can stay in Singapore for as long as you like." Obviously not. We cannot bestow on persons who have wilfully violated our immigration regulations the fruits of their illegality. That is the second preliminary observation.

Concerning this person, I do not, of course, have all the details about him. Let me say that he came back to Singapore despite the fact that he was subject to a Prohibition of Entry Order. In other words, this is a person who not only did not comply with the immigration laws but he also violated a Prohibition of Entry Order served on him previously. For further information, before the Prohibition of Entry Order had been served on him he had been engaging in nefarious secret society activities in Singapore and, in fact, had been detained for such secret society activities. He was detained, served a Prohibition of Entry Order which he violated. As far as I understand he has refused to go back to the country of origin. In fact, he has refused to disclose information and refused to give documents as to the country from whence he came. The question then is this: what do we do? He had lost his documents. In fact, many people deliberately lose their documents in the hope that hiving told us that they have lost their documents they would be let in Singapore for free. All I can say is that I cannot conjecture his future.

But let me indicate the principles on which we deal with this case and the principles are the most important to be considered. The first principle is, that no person should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of his illegality, in this case, illegal entry into Singapore compounded by the fact that there was a Prohibition of Entry Order served on him. Furthermore, as to whether he can be released in the immediate future, we will have to investigate in the light of his violation of the Prohibition of Entry Order and in the light of the fact that he had been involved in criminal activities. Should he be released into our Singapore society? This matter will have to be looked into by the Immigration authorities, particularly as to whether he will produce documents which will enable the Ministry to expedite his return to his country of origin.

The Minister of State of Defence (Dr Yeo Ning Hong): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister if he is aware of any relationship between the Member for Anson and this particular individual whom he is championing?

Prof. Jayakumar: I am not aware.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, again I am indebted to the Minister for his very lengthy statement about the principles. No one is quarrelling with the principles. Let us get that clear. What I want to know is: what is the Government proposing to do with this man? They have had five years of investigation, five years of asking for his documents but he has not produced them. What do you propose to do? Just give us a plain answer.

Prof. Jayakumar: I thought I have made myself clear, Mr Speaker, that this is a case which has resulted in detention on very special and unusual circumstances. I myself cannot see how the Member for Anson wants me to give a categorical decision now as to whether this person is going to be released tomorrow or the day after, for that would spell a lesson for everybody else who is 9 potential violator of our immigration laws. Some people might think: "Well, four years' detention, OK. Five years' detention, it might be worth while living in Singapore for the rest of our life." I am certainly not going to indicate in this House that we are going to release a person who has violated the immigration laws after X number of years. I think it will be contrary to our national interest to do so.

I will be surprised if the Member for Anson presses the Government for an answer on this case for he, in fact, would be encouraging all those who are thinking of violating our immigration laws to make a mathematical calculation, probably more accurate than he, that it might be worth while for them to violate our laws.

Mr Speaker: I think we have spent too much time on this question. Let us go on to Question No. 3.