INTOXICATING SUBSTANCES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, inhalant abuse in Singapore was first detected in 1980. In that year, only 24 cases were detected. But inhalant abuse soon became a serious problem affecting mainly our young citizens. At the end of June this year, over a period of 7 1/2 years, the cumulative number detected was 3,302. Unless the problem is effectively contained early, it will soon become unmanageable.

For the first half of this year, more inhalant abusers were detected compared to the corresponding period last year - an increase of 21.5%. The increasing trend is alarming and the spread of inhalant abuse must be checked. We have to ensure that it does not become the alternative to drug abuse.

Besides the alarming growth in first-time inhalant abusers, there is also a corresponding increase in the number of repeaters detected each year, rising from 11% in 1982 to 27% in 1986.

A survey of more than 3,000 abusers detected from 1980 to June 1987 showed that 21% of them were below 15 years of age and nearly 63% between the ages of 15 and 19. In other words, Sir, more than 83% of the abusers were under 20 years of age.

Inhalant abuse is a destructive habit. The volatile vapours are toxic to the body organs and they cause rapid and irreparable damage to the brain. Other organs which can be affected include kidneys, lungs and the heart. Acute intoxication can also lead to "sudden sniffing death". Indeed, there have been 20 deaths related to inhalant abuse, with seven of these cases detected in the first half of this year alone. Whilst under intoxication, six persons drowned, three persons hung themselves, six persons fell off from tall buildings, one person was killed in a road accident and four persons died in other situations. In addition, 11 glue sniffers are known to have suffered permanent brain damage. The Central Narcotics Bureau has also detected several cases of violent behaviour which is associated with glue sniffing.

Sir, Members of the House are already aware of the problems of inhalant abuse in Singapore because it is a subject on which either my colleague, the Minister of State, or I have given status reports to this House periodically during the past two years. As recently as 28th July, 1987, the Minister of State gave an assessment of the situation in response to a question from the Member for Bo Wen.

Members of the House have also been informed that an Inter-Ministerial Anti-Inhalant Abuse Coordinating Committee was set up in late 1984 to study this problem and it recommended, amongst other things, that legislation be enacted to deal with inhalant abuse. Sir, many distraught parents have, in fact, appealed to the respective agencies dealing with the problem for more effective measures, including treatment and rehabilitation.

Sir, I make no apology for having taken some time to come up with this legislation. First, we had no effective model from other countries to base our legislation. We did study the inhalant abuse legislation of other countries but they were not very helpful because they did not focus on the rehabilitative aspect. As was the case with the Misuse of Drugs Act, we are therefore breaking new ground.

At the same time, Sir, we had to take care and to remember that we are dealing with young persons. Members will note therefore that there are two important aspects where the measures in this Bill differ significantly from the approach in the Misuse of Drugs Act. In the first place, a person detected as an inhalant abuser will not immediately be subject to compulsory treatment and rehabilitation but will be put on a supervision order. It is only a repeater and those who breach the supervision order who will undergo treatment and rehabilitation. A comparison under the Misuse of Drugs Act, as Members know, a first-time addict can be subject to compulsory treatment and rehabilitation.

The second aspect which is different is that an inhalant abuser can be subject to compulsory treatment initially for a six-month period which can be extended by periods of three months but subject to a maximum of 12 months. Compared to the Misuse of Drugs Act, in that law, a drug addict can be subjected to institutional treatment for 36 months.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the approach in this law may appear to be less strict and less harsh a regime but we believe, Sir, that putting the first-timer on a warning or notice period and subjecting only repeaters to treatment for a shorter period will be an effective approach.

Another area which was problematic, Sir, was how to regulate the misuse by shops and retailers. The approach in the Misuse of Drugs Act, namely, a strict prohibition of sale of the substances, was impractical. Unlike heroin and other hard drugs, the chemical substances in the problem of inhalant abuse are just contained in too wide a variety of household, commercial and industrial products. We therefore, Sir, decided to make it an offence only for a person to supply or offer to supply an intoxicating substance where the supplier knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that such substance is likely to be used or inhaled for the purposes of inducing or causing intoxication. This provision is adapted from a recent United Kingdom law. I wish to stress that the prosecution in such an instance will have to prove knowledge on the part of the supplier. It will therefore apply to those blatant cases where suppliers deliberately sell intoxicating substances to abusers for the purpose of inhalant abuse. The penalty is a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding two years or both. The Bill also empowers the Director, CNB, to obtain information relating to intoxicating substances.

The Bill confers the necessary powers to the authorities to implement the provisions. A person suspected of being an inhalant abuser can be required to undergo a blood test. A person who has attained 16 years of age is deemed capable of giving consent. A presumption of abuse of an intoxicating substance will apply where the concentration of a chemical compound in the blood exceeds the amount specified in the Schedule.

If, as a result of a blood test, the Director is of the opinion that a person requires supervision, the Director may place the person under a supervision order for a period of not more than a year. In other words, Sir, he is put on notice or warning that should he resume glue sniffing, he may be subject to compulsory treatment and rehabilitation. Any breach of the supervision order constitutes an offence punishable with a fine not exceeding $1,000. A person who is arrested for inhaling an intoxicating substance during or after the period of his supervison (in other words a repeater) can be ordered to be admitted into an approved centre for treatment and rehabilitation.

Sir, inhalant abusers may voluntarily undergo treatment and rehabilitation. A person who has been admitted to an approved centre may be detained in the centre for not more than six months and for subsequent periods of not more than three months at any one time, subject to a maximum period of one year's detention. Review Committees will be appointed to monitor the progress of inmates and may also order the early discharge of an inmate. The Bill also provides for safeguards against improper detention. A Magistrate is empowered, after inquiry, to order the discharge of a person who is improperly detained in an approved centre. It will be an offence for an inmate to escape from lawful custody.

Sir, the Bill also makes consequential amendments to the Children and Young Persons Act to make clear that any inhalant abuser who repeats inhalant abuse, who is below 16 years of age will be dealt with by the Juvenile Court.

Sir, as I said, the Bill is aimed at assisting inhalant abusers to get rid of their habit. The approach contained in the Bill is one that we have taken some time to consider so that the measures will be proportionate to the problem, bearing in mind the youthfulness of most of those involved.

To sum up, unlike drug addicts, inhalant abusers will be first put on supervision. It is only repeaters who may be subject to compulsory treatment and rehabilitation which cannot exceed a period of one year. I hope Members of the House will give this Bill their support. Thank you, Sir.

Question proposed.

12.34 pm

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak in support of the Bill.

The increase in the number of inhalant abusers, particularly among the young, is a matter of grave concern. During my constituency tours, several parents whose children are not victims of this menace felt very strongly that the Government should take positive measures in combatting this dangerous habit.

Sir, it is common knowledge that drug addicts often turn to crime to support their habit. Young abusers, particularly those of an impressionable age, can fall prey to criminal elements who can make use of them in criminal activities. Worse still, such young inhalant abusers may take to crime on their own. We all know the pitfalls inhalant abusers can fall into. But what about those people who willingly or unwillingly entice youngsters into acquiring such habits? Sir, under clause 4(2), the penalty provided for is, in my view, inadequate as a deterrent for this group of people. To be effective, penalties, whether in the form of fines or custodial sentences, should be commensurate with the quantity of intoxicating substances supplied to the addicts. I would therefore suggest that for repeat offenders, that is blatant suppliers, the quantity of intoxicating substances supplied should be cumulative and to be taken into consideration when they are prosecuted in court.

Sir, I would also suggest that inhalant abuse be made a notifiable offence. I believe that under the regulations on communicable diseases, it is mandatory for next-of-kin and doctors to notify the health authorities if such diseases are detected in a family. Perhaps the Government could consider a similar provision to make it mandatory for parents, guardians, or even teachers to notify the relevant authorities if inhalant abusers are detected by them. This will ensure that victims are given early treatment and rehabilitation.

Finally, Sir, I hope that the various measures provided for in this Bill will help to keep under control, if not eliminate, this scourge in our society. Thank you, Sir.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri: ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to say a few words in giving my support to the Intoxicating Substances Bill. In my view, the Intoxicating Substances Bill is very comprehensive as it gives due emphasis to three aspects, ie, supervision, treatment and, as it follows, rehabilitation. But the Government's need to enact this law arises from a much greater motivation, for this has to do with our modern way of life and standard of living.

Inhalant abuse is another of several kinds of habits we encounter that arises from what is termed in English the "counter culture". I would call this (in Malay) "kebudayaan songsang". Counter culture is one of the things that we have had to absorb as we inherit the positive aspects of Western culture. Of course, there are several important factors as to how and why our young people get themselves trapped in inhalant abuse. What is inescapable to us is the great, strong, deep influence of the mass media, particularly the influence of television.

Recently, we read news about a tragic incident in Hungerford, a small town west of London, in which a man killed, without due cause, 16 people. The tragedy provoked anger. And it would be worthwhile for me to quote the response or comments expressed by the country's own Home Secretary, Mr Douglas Hurd, who after hearing of the tragic incident tied it to the influence of television. I quote his view. He said:

'There is a connection between the violence on the television screen and the kind of killing in Hungerford.'

And to further affirm how great the influence of television is, there is a study carried out by the Independent Broadcasting Agency (IBA) which stated that 4% of those interviewed admitted to having violent urges after watching scenes of violence on television.

What we need to stress here is that this influence of violence, as well as the influence of the other elements of the counter culture, including inhalant abuse, cannot be taken for granted. And through the mass media too, we find that there seems to be a decline of the institution of the family, which we as Asians hold in high regard. It is due to the presence of such elements, which tend to weaken the institution of the family, that discipline within the family suffers. This in turn results in the erosion of parents' influence over their children. Added to this is the lack of willpower among the young people of today. Thus, when they are unable to appreciate how confusing, how complex modern living can be and how rapid its pace, they seek a way out - an escapism. Unfortunately, the escape they seek is in the ones portrayed on television and one of these is drug or inhalant abuse.

I fully agree that this Bill presents a number of comprehensive measures to counter this problem. In gist, I would say that to overcome this problem, there must be three approaches, or a three-pronged approach to the problem. The first approach is in preventive measures. Second is an approach that would certainly include punishments, or "punitive measures". And, thirdly, there must be rehabilitative measures. I would like to stress that among these, preventive measures would lie for the greater part on the role and responsibilities of the family.

We know that the family of today, willy-nilly, has to allow some freedom to its younger generation or its young people. But, let us not sacrifice their discipline and future for the sake of giving them total freedom. Let the freedom enjoyed by the young people be bound by proper control. We should see who their friends are. Parents must monitor how they socialize outside the home, find out their movements in the right way. Also, freedom does not mean leaving our children alone without interacting with them. There is an attitude that since our boys and girls have grown up, since they are teenagers now, they know how to run their own affairs. But without interacting with them, we would not know what they have done or what lies behind their actions that we as parents do not know about. And should they by their actions get themselves trapped in undesirable situations, any action then taken by the family would be too late.

So, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill on the grounds and with the hope that this would be one of the measures with which we seek to save the human resources, in particular the youthful resources, that we value so much. For, if the quality and quantity of our human resources are jeopardised, our national development would surely suffer.

Before I conclude, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister concerned, apart from the data that he already has in his Ministry, I would like to know if the Ministry has or has carried out any study on the socio-economic background of the people or young people involved in drug or inhalant abuse. For, with such a study on their socio-economic background, we would get a picture of the type of family, what kind of family, that tend to fall into this problem. I hope if such a study is available, that it could be released to the public so as to increase the amount of information we have on this.

With the hope that it would give effect to the necessary preventive measures, I support this Bill.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not support this Bill and you can see the reason why. I also did not support the amendment to the Constitution.

This Bill is unique in the sense that it is aimed almost entirely at the young citizens of our country. This problem is almost confined to our people who are less than 19 years of age. I look at it not from the criminal point of view. I say that this is a social problem. The last Member who spoke has asked the Minister what studies he has made in regard to the socio-economic problems of those who are engaged in inhalant abuse and perhaps some kind of solution could be found.

We cannot class a social problem like any other criminal problem. If we had not tried to find the root cause first and solve it but merely take the easy way out by implementing a law to take away all those young people who indulge in this kind of abuse and put them away in some kind of a home, I think this is not the best way to solve the problem. We have to ask ourselves what is the root cause of this problem? Have we attempted to solve the problem first before we go on to implementing a law to put them away and fine them? Have we done that? What studies have the Minister made before this Bill is enacted?

We live in a very stressful society, an urban, commercial and industrial society. Divorce cases are on the rise. The number of broken homes is on the increase. Crime is on the rise. Our schools are under pressure. Enrolment in the classroom is higher than what is best for them. Sir, there are all kinds of problems. When there is a recession, the parents lose their jobs and they bring all their problems back to their homes. All these problems that are found in the home will be reflected on the young people. It is quite normal. How can the young people avoid these stressful conditions? They mix with their peers. And if they are not taught or trained to use their leisure time properly, they will probably get involved in this kind of activity. As the last speaker has said, it is a form of escapism, no more, no less. They have their problems. They cannot solve it. They find the easy way out by taking to glue sniffing.

Sir, we know the problems and I think the Government should tackle it at its root source. Until such time as they find that there is no way out, then perhaps we can go on to legislation. Somebody has already said that Singapore has got too many laws. We tend to solve every problem by legislation. But on this particular problem we cannot employ this method in the first instance. I think we should give it a try. Like in Japan, they always have got a community effort. When there is a problem, the whole community will chip in and try to solve that problem. I think this particular problem is a good chance for the Government to have a campaign to get the community to come together to solve this problem. And if this can be done, it will certainly create harmony and better understanding in our new estates and other HDB estates. So here is a chance to get the people of Singapore to solve the problem. Has this been done? I do not think so.

They say that idle hands are bedfellows of crime. What has the Government done or what has the Ministry of Community Development done to provide more recreational facilities, more social facilities, for the young people of Singapore to get them away from bad habits? As far as I know, in Potong Pasir Estate we have got only two badminton courts. And when I write in for more badminton courts, of course, the standard answer is no. I have made a request, not just simply for the HDB to provide more badminton courts, but I said that perhaps the people could chip in and pay for the construction of the badminton courts. But again the answer was, of course, no.

I think there are many things that can be done before we come to solving it by more legislation. Perhaps the schools, the educators, can help. Has the Minister for Home Affairs got the cooperation of the Ministry of Education on this problem? Perhaps he could let us know.

Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Eunos): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to join my other colleagues, the PAP Backbenchers, in supporting this Bill. Not only distraught parents but many concerned Singaporeans can now sigh a big relief.

I disagree with the Member for Potong Pasir who said that this is just a social problem. Because inhalant abuse is more than a social and health problem as already elaborated by the Minister for Home Affairs. It is also an enforcement problem, judging from the number of detected cases and the number of repeat cases. Inhalant abuse is not a passing fad and I can vouch for this too. Two years ago in my constituency there were no detected cases. But now I have been told that there are 44 such cases.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What have you done?

Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed: Maybe the Member for Potong Pasir has not been paying too much attention on what has been done by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Education and other related agencies in this field. I can :rly remember that preventive and education programmes have already been launched in schools, especially primary schools, to disseminate information about the dangers of inhalant abuse. And I am a bit surprised to hear that he is asking the Minister what has been done.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What have you done about alternative activities?

Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed: I will leave it to the Minister to reply. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I may carry on.

I must commend the Ministry of Home Affairs for coming up with this piece of legislation after a thorough and careful study. The caution and warning approach provided for in this Bill is a positive one as our aim is to assist the family in coping with the problem.

I also agree with the Minister that the detention order of six months plus a subsequent period of an additional six months is proportionate, bearing in mind that we are dealing with young people and it reflects the authority's concern for the future of the young by not imposing a prolonged sentence.

I am also pleased, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to note that the rights of retailers are also adequately protected under this Bill and that those who are found guilty can only be prosecuted based on proven knowledge. Sir, I am also aware that presently inhalant abusers are being placed in existing Government institutions for treatment and rehabilitation. What I would like to know from the Hon. Minister is whether there are plans to set up a separate inhalant abuse rehabilitation centre when this Bill becomes law in due course.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this Bill is timely. The figures given by the Minister are horrifying in my view. Over 7 1/2 years of monitoring from 1980 when the number of abusers was only 24, we have now reached the figure of 3,302. When we consider the fact that inhalant abuse is a very dangerous habit leading to permanent health damage, we can see how serious this matter is. There will be damage to the peripheral and central nervous systems, liver, kidney, blood damage leading to anaemia and even leukaemia, damage to the heart and also sudden deaths due to laryngospasm. So far, 20 deaths have been recorded as the Minister has said, and it is shocking to hear that 7 deaths were recorded in the first half of this year.

Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir has said that not enough education has been done. But SANA has been carrying out a prevention programme and many of us in our constituencies have participated in this inhalant abuse prevention programme. Yes, this is indeed a social problem. Parents complain of having to live in constant fear of children who turn abusive, demanding and threatening. They are a constant source of embarrassment to the family. I am told of a case that an abuser even attempted to rape members of his family. Do we need more evidence that this is a serious problem requiring very firm action? Prevention and education are, of course, the best answers. But now we have reached the situation where we need to turn to treatment and rehabilitation. This Bill will empower the Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau on confirmation after a blood test to commit the patient to compulsory treatment and rehabilitation after a second offence. I think this is indeed good for the young person.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. It is 1.00 pm. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 2.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before we adjourned I was speaking on the merits of the Bill in providing for treatment and rehabilitation of the inhalant abuser, ie, the treatment of the abuser as a patient and not as a criminal.

Finally, Sir, I would like to turn to the problem of the easy availability of these inhalants. Of all the inhalants used, I believe the most commonly used is glue. Will the Minister comment whether it is practicable to add into the glue an obnoxious smelling additive so as to make it unattractive to the user.

Dr Vasoo: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

The Bill in itself helps many helpless parents to deal with their children who are inhalant abusers. At the moment many parents that I know of are at their wit's end in dealing with this problem. I feel that this Bill is timely as it helps many parents who are in such a dilemma.

Sir, it is pointless to go into the root cause of the problem because there are many variations and many issues related to the whole cause of people indulging in inhalant abuse. What is important is to address this problem because we have a problem at hand and it is a community problem. Therefore, an effective solution has to be found to deal with this problem. Hence this Bill will address this issue.

What I am concerned about is, in anticipation that a large number of young people are going to be apprehended and put under supervision, I am wondering whether there will be adequate manpower and other related resources to be deployed to deal with those who are involved in inhalant abuses. For any rehabilitation programme which requires supervision to succeed, it must be manpower-intensive. I hope that the Ministry will make adequate preparations to have such manpower available to deal with the issues of supervision.

The other important area that I would like to seek clarification from the Minister is this: At the moment older drug addicts are admitted into different rehabilitation centres. I am wondering whether there will be separate provisions to deal with the rehabilitation of young offenders. It is important because currently our drug rehabilitation centres do not have adequate provisions to deal with younger persons. So I am clarifying whether careful discrimination will be made to treat the large numbers of young persons who will be taken in and to be cared for in approved centres.

The third aspect is the area of coordination. The Ministry of Community Development also deals with juvenile delinquents who are dealt in under the Children and Young Persons Act. I am wondering to what extent there will be coordination between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Community Development to effectively combine joint forces to deal with this whole issue at hand.

Mr Bernard Chen (Clementi): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my colleagues in the GPC for Home Affairs have elaborated on some of the provisions in the Bill. I would just like to touch on a few of the provisions not covered by my colleagues.

First, on the supply of inhalants under clause 4, there is difficulty in defining what exactly inhalants are. As the Minister has said just now, it involves household products which can be bought anywhere any time. There may be a temptation on the part of those who enforce the law to be a bit more generous with an interpretation of this category of products. There could be undue alarm on the part of those who supply these products in thinking that they are breaking the law. I was wondering whether we can arrive at a more precise definition of what these inhalants are and, hopefully, if we can get a list of these products, the suppliers will have the confidence that they are not, in fact, treading on soft ground.

The other provision relates to supervision orders. I am not too clear how different this supervision of the inhalant abusers would be compared to the normal supervision orders against, for example, criminal law detainees. Bearing in mind that many of these offenders would be young persons, we should perhaps have a slightly revised supervision system. For example, can we have officers who are supervising these inhalant abusers to be specially trained to handle this category rather than using the same officers who have been supervising drug addicts, because the nature of the offence is different, the people are different, and they probably need a different approach.

As the Minister has stated just now, most of the offenders are young, below 19, and the pressures of society have been probably added on to make them turn towards the easy way out. I see this as potentially more serious than the drug problem that we have seen in the last 10 years. Firstly, because inhalants are more easily accessible. It is an everyday product that people can buy. It is cheap and therefore it is within the means of most of these youngsters. And given the influences from the media, from peer pressure and so on, it will be a difficult task to minimize this problem in the foreseeable future if we only depend on the Government and the law to take its course. This is a problem for every one of us, whether we are parents, members of the public, or Government officers in enforcing the law.

This problem has surfaced itself since 1980/81 and successive years have shown that it is getting more serious. I think we should perhaps reinforce the various campaigns we have on inhalant abuse in terms of exhibition and counselling. But more important, I think we must draw the attention of the parents of these young abusers to the role that they have to play in ensuring that their children do not fall by the wayside. There can be only so much that the law can do, especially in this case where the law will never be precise enough to identify the culprits, the suppliers of these inhalants and the preventive measures are, at best,half successful if the parents do not play their part. Given the young age, I think it would be much easier and much more effective if parents start the education at home. After all, it is their own children they are looking after. Rather than depending on the law itself to provide all the answers, I think we should ensure that the parents themselves are given adequate means to prevent their children from developing this habit.

I understand that some parents have, in fact, approached the Ministry to see whether their children can undergo voluntary supervision or rehabilitation. Perhaps more of this can be done voluntarily because if it is done this way then at least the youngsters themselves would not develop the kind of anti-establishment or anti-society feelings as has been the case when we talk about the hard drugs.

Finally, I think the implementation of this law will require very careful attention on the part of the Ministry officials. The key is that these young people are not criminals, as has been stated by many of my colleagues here. They are young people who probably have not found a way to release their energies. If we can assure them that there are better ways to live their life than fall into this habit, then I think we should be able to achieve the final aim of this legislation. On that note, I support the Bill.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken and may I respond to the points that they have raised.

The Member for Toa Payoh expressed concern over the adequacy of the fines. I understand him to feel that probably the quantum of the fines could have been more severe. This is a matter which we will be able to review after the Act has been put into operation. The fines which are contained in the provisions in our view and in the view of the Attorney-General Chambers would be proportionate and adequate for the mischief, but should it prove to be inadequate, then under subsequent review we can reconsider the matter. But I would first like to see how it works in practice.

He has asked whether glue-sniffing, inhalant abuse, can be made notifiable, in the sense that infectious diseases are notifiable. My response is that we have already a system where the Ministry of Health has an arrangement in which doctors, both in private and in Government practice do give information and feedback to the Ministry of Health where it is collated and made available to the Central Narcotics Bureau. But this is an informal system and I think it should be allowed to work before we consider more mandatory and obligatory methods akin to the notifiable communicable diseases law.

One of the Members mentioned that it is important that family background and socio-economic factors are also considered. We agree that this is important but the fact is that all this information was highlighted in the report on measures to curb inhalant abuse in Singapore, a report which was well publicised and distributed. Members will recall that in that report reference was made to the profile of inhalant abusers, and so perhaps I would not repeat all that was said in that report, but suffice it for me to say that, as in the case of drug addicts, so also in the case of inhalant abusers, family background, family support and the guidance given, particularly in the younger days, is instrumental.

The Member for Fengshan asked whether we could inject or introduce some foul-smelling, noxious substance in these products. We had, in fact, considered this approach but there are rather practical difficulties, the most important of which is that most of these products are imported from abroad and it is not entirely within the means of exercising jurisdiction on the manufacturers in Singapore. Nevertheless, I would ask my officials to consider, if there are sufficient quantities being produced in Singapore, whether this is a practical measure. It may put off the glue-sniffers but it may also put off legitimate users.

The Member for Bo Wen asked whether the necessary manpower will be made available for the effective implementation of this Bill. I would like to assure him that we are aware of the importance of additional manpower and the necessary requests have been made and we are confident that it will be forthcoming. He would also have noted that there is another Bill before the House to amend the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitation Enterprises Act which should also be relevant in the rehabilitative process because that will give SCORE powers to be involved in rehabilitation of inhalant abusers.

As far as segregation is concerned, the point is taken and indeed those who are treated for inhalant abuses will indeed be separated and segregated from other categories, such as addicts or prisoners. Further factors will be taken into account such as the first-timers who are being treated and separated from the repeaters or chronic abusers. So I take his point on that.

As far as coordination between the Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Narcotics Bureau and others is concerned, I would like to say that coordination between the various Government departments and other voluntary bodies like SANA has already been established. This coordination began many years ago when the different departments were brought together for the purposes of studying this problem and thereafter I am glad to say that coordination has continued. In fact, it would be not correct to perceive the law and the package of measures which have been recommended before as being entirely the work of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Credit must also go to the various other Ministries - Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Community Development and others who have studied the problem closely with the Ministry of Home Affairs and arrived at a set of recommendations, part of which is now being implemented through this law.

The Member for Clementi who is the Chairman of the GPC for Home Affairs asked if the definition would result in temptations to err on the generous side. I would think not, and there is a good reason because the definition specifically links it with what is mentioned in the Schedule. If you look at the definition contained in the Bill, there is a direct reference to the definition and the Schedule. So it must be the substance referred to in the Schedule that would have to be established first before a person can be subjected to supervision order or treatment. He spoke on the nature of the supervision, namely, that the supervision must take into account the nature of the problem. I can say now that the supervision will be oriented towards helping and counselling the inhalant abuser. His other points are that of reinforcing the campaigns. This is an on-going process which will not cease. He has asked for some care to be taken in implementing the provisions and I would like to assure him, as I have said in my speech, that we are mindful of the fact that we do not want to treat the inhalant abusers as criminals and it is for this reason that we have taken the approach in this Bill as well as in the Constitution (Amendment) Bill.

Finally, may I reply to the Member for Potong Pasir but unfortunately he is not here. I must conclude from all the points that he has raised that he is totally unaware of all the previous statements and reports which my colleague, the Minister of State and I have given to this House and all the reports, including the reports by the Coordinating Committee which have been very well publicized and widely distributed. First, he said that we should not treat the inhalant abuser as a criminal. This is precisely the point that I made and this is precisely the reason why I sought the agreement of this House to the passage of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill.

Secondly, he asked whether any studies have been made, whether we have had campaigns, whether other departments had been contacted and whether I had been in touch with other departments. The fact of the matter is, Sir, that not only have I been in touch with other departments but other departments were actively participating in this effort to do something about this problem, including members of the Coordinating Committee involving representatives from my Ministry, Ministries of Education, Community Development, Health, the Singapore Armed Forces and SANA. So many different organizations have put their heads together to do something about this problem.

Have campaigns and studies been done? Again, if he had read the report, which I am sure other Members have done, he would have noted that more than one study has been done and undertaken. Surveys have been carried out and the results are summarized in the report which has been widely publicized.

What are the measures which have been tried out by the various agencies? SANA has held national anti-inhalant abuse campaigns and it is an on-going campaign. The Ministry of Education has held anti-inhalant abuse campaigns in schools which included handouts of materials on the dangers of inhalant abuse. The Ministry of Education has also been counselling and is involved in the aftercare of students by the Guidance and Social Work Unit. Special campaigns have been carried out for vocational institute trainees. The Ministry of Community Development has been counselling young inhalant abusers and in terms of activities, there are many activities for youngsters organized by PA, youth groups, RCs, community centres and so on. The Central Narcotics Board is involved with the informal supervision and counselling of inhalant abusers and their parents and this has been going on for some time.

The Member for Potong Pasir must have also seen various TV slots. Just a few examples, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to show that all that the Member for Potong Pasir wanted us to think about have been thought about. All that he wanted us to do has been done. In 1985 and 1986, I said that although the Inhalant Abuse Coordinating Committee recommended legislation, while we implemented all the other measures on prevention, education, counselling, we held back the legislation, for more than a year. I said that legislation should be a matter of last resort, and I explained in my speech why we had been slow and cautious in bringing about the legislation. But the Member for Potong Pasir tells us, "Do not legislate."

He is not here but I wish he will answer the question on some other occasion or maybe to the press. The question is: how many more deaths does he want to take place? How many more of our young citizens does he want to see perished before we act? I have given an account of our study of other countries. They have thrown their hands up in despair. They are unable to tackle the problem. The Member for Potong Pasir does not give any concrete suggestion except to say that this is a community problem. Indeed it is, and that is why we have tried to involve the whole community in these campaigns and educational programmes. I have yet to see or hear the Member for Potong Pasir give one speech exhorting youngsters to stay away from inhalants and not to be inhalant abusers. I may be wrong but if he had done so, I will be interested to know. [The Member for Potong Pasir entered the Chamber]. He has missed everything else so I might just repeat the tail-end of my conclusion.

The question is: how many more deaths does the Member for Potong Pasir want to see occur? How many more young citizens does he want to see perish before we legislate? He has talked about community support. I have given a detailed account of all that was done which has been publicized in the Inhalant Abuse Coordinating Committee's report. He has obviously not read that. But if he sincerely believes that this is a community effort, which we agree with, then I would like to know whether he has ever spoken out at any function exhorting the youngsters to stay away from inhalants and such volatile substances. I have not heard him but if he has, I stand corrected.

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. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar].

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