MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Sir, the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) was last amended in 1979. Since then, the global as well as regional drug situation has changed substantially and further amendments are necessary to our laws if we are to effectively control the menace of drug abuse and drug trafficking in Singapore.

The global drug scene continues to deteriorate. More opium is being produced in the Golden Triangle. And this year's opium harvest is reported to be double that of previous years. Cocaine which is very widespread in the United States and Canada, is spreading to the European countries as well as Australia. And our assessment is that it is only a matter of time before it reaches our region. We also have the problem of marijuana or "cannabis", and the production of cannabis - a 'gateway' drug leading addicts to hard drugs - is also on the increase.

It is therefore in this global context that we must prepare ourselves to deal with the ever increasing threat of drugs. Whilst we have succeeded in breaking up the large scale syndicates, there are still traffickers who for monetary gains will risk arrest and detention and even hanging.

Some of the proposed amendments in this Bill are to facilitate enforcement and rehabilitation while others are meant to enable a more effective administration of our Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRCs).

If I may now turn to the individual main amendments. First, clause 10 of the Bill amends the Second Schedule of the Act to provide for the death penalty for trafficking, manufacturing, importing and exporting of opium, cannabis and cocaine beyond a specified quantum. Currently, Sir, the death penalty in the Act applies only to heroin and morphine. With opium likely to become a cheaper alternative for the heroin addict, the increasing abuse of cannabis as a 'gateway' drug and the expected arrival of cocaine trafficking, we must extend the death penalty beyond cases of heroin and morphine.

Extending the death penalty provision to also include opium, cannabis and cocaine, which incidentally is already provided for in the laws of Malaysia will deter local traffickers and international syndicates from using Singapore for the transshipment of such drugs to other countries.

Next, the tightening of the presumption clause. Clause 2 amends section 17 of the Act to tighten the presumption clause on trafficking in drugs and includes cocaine in the presumption provision. At present, the presumption clause is not completely clear and the phrase "presumed to have had that controlled drug in his possession for the purpose of trafficking" is not exactly the same in meaning as "trafficking". Therefore, the clause has to be amended to achieve its intended purpose.

The presumption will also cover cocaine in excess of 3 grammes.

I now turn to Supervision Orders. Clause 6 of the Bill will provide for Supervision Orders for first-time drug abusers. Currently, Supervision Orders can only be issued to those who have already undergone treatment and rehabilitation and convicted addicts. All first-time drug abusers are admitted to DRC for compulsory rehabilitation. Although the existing approach has been effective, from the experience of the Central Narcotics Bureau, there are some first-timers for whom the stay in a DRC for six months or longer is considered not to be necessary and supervision alone, that is compulsory supervision, should suffice to help them overcome the craving for drugs.

This approach of putting persons on compulsory supervision, in other words, they are warned as to what will happen if they breach the compulsory supervision, has been tried in the case of the inhalant abusers and we have had fairly good success.

The proposed amendment to the Act will enable first-time drug abusers to be put on supervision to help them turn over a new leaf. They will be warned that if they are caught consuming drugs during the period of supervision, they will then be admitted to the DRCs.

Next, the cases of repeat offenders. Clause 10 will impose a mandatory jail sentence for second or subsequent offence of drug possession. While a drug addict can be detained in a DRC for periods up to a maximum of three years, on the other hand, a person convicted of the offence of possession of drugs is usually sentenced to only a fine, even for a second or subsequent offence although the penalty in the Second Schedule of the MDA for a second or subsequent offender is imprisonment of two years or a fine of $4,000.

To ensure that such repeat offenders know that they will be treated severely, it is necessary that the Act be amended to delete the option of a fine for a second or subsequent offence of drug possession.

Then I come to the cases of those who repeat drug consumption whilst on supervision. Another amendment deals with drug offenders - clause 5 which amends section 33(3). I must explain that under the current law, a person who is convicted of a second or subsequent offence for drug consumption whilst under supervision order is liable to a term of imprisonment of not less than 3 years whilst under supervision. But it is the experience of CNB that this provision is circumvented. Because a supervisee with a further drug charge may try to abscond whilst on supervision, so that if he is caught after the period of supervision this provision is not enforceable. When caught, he will escape the punishment because the test is "conviction" during the period of supervision, and not "commission of the offence". The proposed amendment will therefore plug this loophole and also provide for enhanced penalty for repeat offenders who are not under supervision.

Then I come to the question of urine testing. Clauses 3 and 4 amend sections 22 and 31 with regard to the testing of urine samples. Drug suspects are now required to provide two urine samples. One to be tested by the Department of Scientific Services and the other to be stored in what is known as the Urine Bank for a second test upon application by the addict. The suspected addict is detained in a DRC if the first specimen is tested positive for controlled drugs. He can then apply for a second sample to be tested. If the second test is negative, he will be released from the DRC. But by then he might have been detained for as long as six or seven weeks. With the availability now of more advanced urine testing equipment, it is now practicable to analyse the second urine sample immediately if the first sample is tested positive. Both samples will be tested by different chemists with the necessary safeguards.

With this amendment to the Act, a drug addict will be admitted to the DRC only after both urine tests show the presence of drugs. The Urine Bank can then cease operation.

If I may turn to the other amendments on the administration of DRCs. The Prisons Department has been running the DRCs since 1977 when Operation Ferret was launched. Clause 7 introduces a new section to formally vest the Director of Prisons with the general charge and administration of the DRCs.

As for DRC Review Committees, there are currently four DRC Review Committees. The Act provides for a maximum of six members. The amendment in clause 8 is to bring about flexibility to appoint more members to serve on the Committees.

Then I wish to deal with corporal punishment in DRCs. Clause 9 amends section 43 to provide for the administration of corporal punishment for serious breaches of discipline in the DRCs. Sir, the Superintendents of the DRCs at present do not have adequate powers to deal with serious breaches of discipline. In fact, they do not even have the powers which those who are in charge of young juveniles in the reformative training centres have over offenders in the RTC who commit disciplinary offences. Some DRC inmates, especially the hard-core inmates, are extremely difficult to control. Some of them are vicious and knowing that the Superintendents are powerless, do not hesitate to assault fellow inmates or even the staff of the DRCs. Others smuggle drugs into the DRCs or other contraband. Without adequate powers, it is difficult for the Prisons staff to control problematic inmates and to maintain discipline.

To conclude, Sir, these amendments to the Act are necessary to deal with the drug threat, to provide for more effective treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts and to gear ourselves to face the growing threat of new forms of drugs that may spread to this region.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Speaker, Sir, drug abuse as mentioned by the Minister is a world-wide problem. It is threatening whole societies and destabilising whole nations. It is no respecter of national boundaries. Its danger is further enhanced by the fact that bumper crops of several drugs have been produced in the last two years, hence increasing the availability and reducing street price. The changing pattern of abuse, with the widespread use of cocaine in the West is also a cause of concern to us. Soon, as the markets of the West become increasingly saturated, cocaine abuse will make its way to this part of the world. We must be ever vigilant. We must unite as a nation to fight this menace.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Boon Heng) in the Chair]

5.12 pm

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: In Singapore, heroin abuse is still a major problem. The level of drug addiction in Singapore is reverting to the 1970s and is indeed a cause of concern. It is thus timely that this Bill is now introduced.

Sir, on the personal level, drug addiction is regarded as a social-medical problem, ie, the drug addict is a sick person but his illness is contributed by social factors. We recognize that many non-medical factors contribute to the problem, such as the person's ability to deal with what would otherwise be considered as normal stress of daily living, peer pressure, economic and educational status and the home environment. Thus any drug control programme that hopes to be successful must look at the drug problem in its totality, starting from education, prevention, enforcement and going on to rehabilitation.

Sir, I am glad to note that this Bill has the elements that make for a successful drug control programme. Firstly, it has increased enforcement powers. The first step must be to control the availability of these drugs. The Bill now extends the death penalty for trafficking, manufacturing, importing and exporting, to include cocaine, opium or cannabis above a specified quantum. In spite of the death penalty already in place for heroin, we have read time and again of Singapore being used as a transit centre for transshipment to other countries. We must, of course, not be so naive as to think that Singapore itself is not a target. With growing affluence and increasing travel, cocaine is a drug that we must be ever vigilant against.

The second important facet of a successful drug programme is the rehabilitation of the addict. Singapore is amongst the first countries of the world where there is a compulsory rehabilitation programme. As the number of drug addicts increases, the strain on manpower and other resources makes it inevitable that we from time to time review our own rehabilitation programme and central to this programme is the drug rehabilitation centre.

I am glad to note that the present amendment distinguishes between the first-timers from the hard-core repeat offenders, especially those with a criminal record. For the first-timer or experimenter, the aim will be to return him to society as soon as possible after successful treatment. The rehabilitation programme, however, continues with the ex-drug addict under supervision orders. In our GPC visit to the DRCs, the GPC for Home Affairs and Law is also glad to note that the authorities are making strenuous efforts to categorise and separate the addicts so that the hard-core addicts will not be able to assert a negative effect on those more amenable to successful treatment. This I think is an important step forward.

Sir, the introduction of corporal punishment for indiscipline in the DRC is something that I was initially not convinced of. As a doctor, I ask myself: will I cane a patoent who is ill? After much discussion with our experts in the DRCs, I began to see their point of view. In summary, or simply put, self-discipline and motivation are the essence of the drug rehabilitation programme. If discipline breaks down in a DRC, then the DRC will be the worst place in the world to put a drug addict in as the negative effects would be irreparable. The GPC has also been assured that corporal punishment will be reserved for only serious breaches of discipline, eg, for those who assault other inmates or prison staff. This is not unreasonable.

Sir, no rehabilitation programme will be complete until the ex-addict is accepted back to society, accepted again by his family, his friends, and society at large. Central to this, he must be able to gain meaningful employment. As MPs, time and again, we see ex-addicts who have a problem trying to make a meaningful living. The stigma sticks. As many of them have low educational qualifications, one common request is for a taxi licence. The Registrar of Vehicles is reluctant to issue one on the grounds that it is dangerous to have a person driving under the influence of drugs. Yes, we cannot fault that argument. The question is: when is society going to give the ex-addict a chance to prove that he has turned over a new leaf?

May I propose to the ROV a scheme to be administered by the experts in the DRCs? Each ex-addict, before he drives a taxi, has his urine tested before and after his shift. If we can start with, say, 100 taxis or any number that is commercially viable, then maybe SCORE (the cooperative for rehabilitation) can be given the task of administering this programme. As technology advances, now with instant urine analysis available, ie, the instant detectors, we should give this scheme a try. The responsibility is now shifted to the rehabilitation experts and I am sure that they will accept the challenge. I hope the Minister will take this up with the Minister for Communications and discuss this further.

Sir, lest that I be misunderstood, let me elaborate that SCORE has extensive plans to widen its scope of work into many other areas, besides taxis, of rehabilitation to provide our addicts and ex-addicts to find gainful employment so as to complete the rehabilitation cycle.

Finally, Sir, may I close by again appealing to family, friends and the community at large, to give the ex-addict a second chance to lead a normal life. Rehabilitation is a life-long process. They deserve our every support.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Siglap): Sir, I would like to throw in my support for the Bill and I would also wish to convey the support to the Minister of the Malay Anti- Drug Task Force, of which I am Chairman, for this piece of legislation.

Sir, notwithstanding our tough anti-drug laws, thousands of traffickers have been arrested between 1977 and the end of last year. But our drug situation would definitely have been worse had it not been for the severe punishments provided by the law. Even so, Sir, we cannot confidently say that we have licked the drug problem in Singapore.

Indeed, the worsening drug situation around the world gives us cause for concern. This has been mentioned by the Minister just now. In Colombia, the drug barons have grown powerful enough to wage war against the government. The bountiful harvest in the Golden Triangle creates the potential of more drugs being brought into the market. New and more dangerous drugs are now available. Crack, a derivative of cocaine, has been the number one drug in the United States and poised to take on the world. This drug brings about unprecedented levels of paranoia and violence. All these developments give us cause for concern as we are so open and exposed to the happenings around the world. Firm action against drug offenders, especially traffickers, is therefore not an over-reaction as some liberals would want us to believe.

Let me now touch on some of the main provisions of the Bill. Under clause 2, trafficking, manufacturing, importing and exporting of cocaine, opium and cannabis will be offences punishable by death. This, Sir, is a widening of the list of controlled drugs that come under the death penalty. The dangers of cocaine and opium are well-known. But less widely known are the dangers of cannabis or marijuana. Withdrawal from the drug appears to show no clear abstinence syndrome in most people as with other drugs. Some people who consume it can also stop abusing it at will. It is therefore a misleading drug and particularly dangerous because superficially it does not appear to be addictive.

However, animal studies have shown that taking a joint or two daily for several years destroy the brain cells. Research has also indicated that taking one to three joints a day could produce lung cancer risks comparable to smoking five times as many cigarettes. But there is more. The National Institute of Drug Abuse in the US has found that marijuana now produced is more potent as the amount of THC or Tetrahydrocannabinols - the major psychoactive ingredient in the drug - averaged 1% in 1970. But today it is as high as 3-3(r)% and in some types of marijuana it can go up to as high as 10-15%. So the drug is not as innocent as it seems to be and its inclusion in the new list is therefore justifiable.

But one aspect of the clause, Sir, continues to bother me and that is the presumption clause. Mere possession by anyone of the drugs in this list above the stipulated amounts shall "until the contrary is proved, be presumed to traffic in that controlled drug." My concern is that such presumption may result in the death of people who merely possess such drugs for their own consumption or as a result of the drugs being planted by others on the person. While I can appreciate the difficulty of gathering evidence of trafficking, we cannot rule out the possibility of someone being put to death for a crime he did not commit. I hope the Minister can assure the House and our citizens that such a possibility, remote as it may be, will not happen.

Let me now, Sir, touch on clause 5. I support the move to plug the loophole in the existing law whereby a person cannot be given the maximum sentence for a second or subsequent offence unless he is under an existing supervision order. All the supervisee has to do is to wait out a supervision period before continuing his drug habit or to make sure that he does not get caught for his second or subsequent offence while under supervision. In view of the seriousness of recidivism and the growing number of hard-core addicts, the need to bring down their numbers through stiffer penalties is therefore necessary. Indeed, Sir, there are those who advocate that repeat offenders be caned. It indicates the feeling of desperation and anger of the community against the problem of recidivism.

Finally, I would like to comment on clause 6 of the Bill. I applaud the spirit and intent of this provision. By giving the Director, CNB, the discretion to place a suspected drug addict under a supervision order instead of committing him to an approved institution is tantamount to offering him a second chance.

Sir, being sent to a drug rehabilitation centre is certainly no picnic. But more serious is that ex-inmates suffer a social stigma. This has been mentioned by the Member for Fengshan just now: the social stigma of being in such a centre, a stigma which many employers find it difficult to forget when the former tries to apply for jobs later. By being placed under a supervision order only, the first-time offender is spared the experience of being an inmate of these centres and of being stuck with the stigma that goes with it. For them, the chance to amend their ways, this way is therefore more appropriate than being incarcerated in a rehabilitation centre.

In closing, Sir, I hope the Minister can clarify one final point, and that is, the difference between the drug offenders who will be considered for supervision under clause 6 and those who are sent for the Exit Counselling programme because they appear to be the same type of offenders. 5.29 pm

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill with reservation.

The so-called necessary amendments proposed in the Bill, apart from the urine test amendment, certainly make the Misuse of Drugs Act one of the toughest in the world against drug addicts and drug traffickers. Firstly, any person convicted a second time, as the Minister has already indicated, having smoked or consumed a controlled drug will now be given a prison term of not less than three years, whether or not he was previously under supervision. That appears to me very unfair. This would be especially harsh on an old opium addict who has been taking the drug almost his whole lifetime.

Second, inmates in rehabilitation centres may now be given corporal punishment for breaches of discipline when no such punishment has been given before. The Government seems to take a special delight in inflicting bodily harm and pains with the cane against those afflicted, as Dr Beng has said, with medico-social problems, and at a time when most progressive countries are doing away with using the cane on offenders. Indeed, Sir, it would appear that inflicting harsher and harsher punishments on offenders is the one and only approach of the PAP Government in dealing with social problems in Singapore. For example, vagrants could now be sent to prison for three years when the Government should have gone into why some people have become vagrants. Similarly, the cane is used on illegal immigrants when better supervision by the Immigration authorities could have solved most of the problems of illegal immigrants.

Thirdly, and now in the Bill before us, the death penalty is to be further extended to cover also traffickers of cocaine, cannabis and cannabis resin of certain quantities. Considering the great harm, Sir, that drug traffickers have done to society, it is easily understandable that such punishment be meted out to them. But how many of those arrested are really the masterminds and kingpins of local or international organised drug syndicates? And how many of these drug kingpins have really been arrested? As is well known, most of those arrested and given the death penalty are in fact mere hirelings and tools who have been tempted with big rewards to do errands for the real culprits who continue to remain free of the law.

To me, Sir, the real issue before us should in fact be how best to deal with the drug problem. But Government has taken the easy way out. It seems to believe that the death penalty is a solution to the problem. But is it? Singapore has imposed the death penalty for drug traffickers over the last 12 years. Yet despite the death penalty, now and again we find that more and more drug traffickers have been arrested with more than 15 grammes of heroin on them. Experience, therefore, shows that the death penalty has not proved to be a real deterrent. And certainly it has not solved the drug problem which now and again would surface to become a growing menace to society. Neither has the death penalty been able to solve the problem of small-time pushers called "ant traffickers". Thus, the death penalty as a deterrent clearly does not work.

Moreover, there is always the danger of the court making a terrible mistake, as has already been touched on. In the UK, such mistakes have been publicly admitted and the government has to make substantial compensation for wrongful imprisonment of innocent persons. And in Singapore recently, we have also an instance in which the Privy Council in the UK has pronounced that grievous wrongs have been done to a famous lawyer/politician by the courts in Singapore.

It is understandable and generally accepted by many people that the death penalty may be given for murders and certain horrible crimes committed, for armed robbery, hijacking, kidnapping, and so on. But if I may also quote from the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

"It has not been proved to be a better deterrent or to protect the community better than does life imprisonment."

And that is why by the 1970s the death penalty has been eliminated as a statutory punishment in many Western and even South American countries. Moreover, some religions are also opposed in principle to the taking of life in giving retribution. And today the world is moving away from the death penalty towards a more humane method of punishment.

Singapore has instituted compulsory treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts who have been arrested. But what else has the Government done to get to the root of the problem? There is much talk about a global context in supply and demand, about our geographical exposure and vulnerability as published in magazines and articles, about poor family life and so on. But has the Government conducted an official survey to really find out why many people take to drugs? Or what steps the Government may take to improve the social environment and other factors so that the would-be drug addicts may be directed away from the drugs to more healthy channels of development?

Sir, drug problems are problems of people who use drugs as a relief or means of escape from reality on the one side, and of those who hope to gain financially by supplying drugs to the drug addicts on the other. We therefore support Government's efforts to deal with the drug suppliers. And we also support the death penalty for real kingpins of organised drug syndicates. But we feel that the Government has not done enough on the drug problem as a whole. We believe that Government should not concentrate so much attention on punishments and deterrents. Imposing the death penalty is no answer to the problem. We feel that it should put more efforts into finding out the root causes which drive people to drugs so that Government may adopt the appropriate measures of prevention instead.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Encik Yatiman Yusof): ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to support the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill.

When Parliament first passed the Misuse of Drugs Act, the objectives were very clear. It was intended to introduce statutory measures to prevent drug trafficking and provide for mandatory rehabilitation through the detention of addicts in the Drug Rehabilitation Centres or DRCs. The main targets were drug traffickers who peddle death and trade in the suffering and misery of our citizens.

Now, as a result of the enforcement of this very effective law and the stiff measures we have taken, we have been able to arrest many big-time traffickers and crushed their drug syndicates. But now, the types of drugs trafficked and the patterns of drug trafficking have changed, as the Minister for Home Affairs has described. Have drugs like heroin, opium, morphine, diamorphine and cannabis stopped coming into the country? The answer clearly is no.

Mr Deputy Speaker, just like other criminals, drug traffickers are very resourceful in their attempts to escape and circumvent the law. Among the measures they take is, firstly, in view of the fact that Malaysia imposes the death penalty for cannabis trafficking, Singapore has now become an alternative cannabis market for them. But it is no secret that cannabis is the gateway drug for drug "undergraduates" who later become "graduates" by moving on to more hard drugs like heroin and morphine.

Secondly, since the quantity of drugs trafficked would eventually determine the severity of the punishment they would face if caught, they have changed their tactics by appointing or recruiting small-time drug pushers. It is very simple to do. Hold a party. Give away drugs for free and make the party-goers new addicts. Once hooked, they would be prepared to become small-time traffickers to maintain their habit. So it is no surprise that we have today what are known as ant traffickers.

Thirdly, aware of the rather large number of former addicts who have returned to their habit, the traffickers and their cronies would form what one could call "goodwill squads". The members of these squads would visit the homes of those just discharged from the DRCs to "renew old ties". The aim is to draw these former immates back into the drug trap.

Mr Deputy Speaker, considering that the amendment moved by the Minister for Home Affairs is aimed at addressing this problem by dealing with the question of quantity of drugs trafficked, as in clause 2, by providing for faster urine testing as in clauses 3 and 4, by providing for supervision as in clause 6 and by providing for corporal punishment for serious breaches of discipline by DRC inmates as in clause 9, I support this amendment. It is a measure intended to tighten our anti-drugs law and make it more effective.

However, Mr Deputy Speaker, my attention is drawn to clause 9 of the Bill, concerning corporal punishment. Allow me to say something on this. When the drug problem began to spread into the Republic, we decided then that addicts were really people with a psychological problem. So they were treated as medical cases, and the preventive measures taken were also along that line. But when this approach was found ineffective, drug trafficking was deemed to be a social ill and a social problem, and hence a different line was taken. As a result, addicts were no longer brought to court. Only traffickers were deemed to have committed a crime by trafficking in drugs and thus caning was imposed only on them. The effect of such a view was that we employed two different approaches between addicts and traffickers. We use the social or soft approach for addicts and the "hard" approach for traffickers. Since addicts were, supposely, suffering from a social problem, a social ill, we dealt with them by detaining them, counselling them and giving them training, and persuading them to kick their bad habit. Because of our "soft" approach, we have failed to affectively and satisfactorily eradicate, the drug problem. In the Tampines GRC itself, as with a number of other constituencies, the number of drug addicts is very alarming. As at the end of August, for example, there were more than 450 addicts in my constituency, covering those still under rehabilitation, 237, and those under supervision, 240. At the national level the trend is also very alarming and this has been explained by the Members for Siglap and Fengshan.111

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think the time has come for us to review the effectiveness of our approach in tackling the drug addiction problem. I would like to propose that we take a more hard-line approach. Perhaps we need to introduce caning for hard-core or recidivist drug abusers who return to the habit even after being given the chance to turn over a new leaf. The Member for Siglap has voiced the desire of some community leaders in this regard, and I would like to stress here that such desire is well-placed.

Those who are caught in the drug trap for the first time might have reasons for being in that position. I also believe we could forgive them, for it is after all their first offence. The second time they are found abusing drug, we could still perhaps consider giving them a final reprieve. But if they do it a third time, I think something drastic has to be done. I would like to propose that they be given the cane.

Sir, why do I make this proposal? Firstly, the soft, humanitarian approach has clearly not worked for them. Something harsh has to be done. Secondly, in my meetings with parents and members of the families of drug addicts, it is evident that many of them have simply washed their hands off the problem. They alienated the former addicts from the family circle. They disown them and simply leave it to the authorities to handle the problem. Some are happy when their children are arrested and sent back to the DRC, because that would mean being relieved of a burden. Some would even say, "Do whatever is best. If it is necessary to cane them, cane them." Such a negative attitute is a matter of concern to us and must be dealt with. Thirdly, some might say that caning is only imposed in criminal offences. But we also impose caning on those who commit vandalism on public property. In fact, in today's Bill, caning would be imposed on those detainess who commit serious breaches of discipline, including acts of violence and vandalism on public property in the DRCs.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the drug problem and its spread into all levels of society, even among school children, has come to such a critical stage that it is very difficult for us to say it has no potential to lead to social crimes. The view put across by the Non-Constituency Member, that we are gong back to the Dark Ages while other societies are becoming more progressive by not practising such harsh measures to tackle the drug problem, has to be answered with a question: Are the so-called progressive countries more successful than us in tackling this problem? I think the statistics speak for themselves.

Sir, let us compare this with what some hardcore addicts have done - some of them have for example drove their own wives to turn to prostitution, threatened their parents with death, the very people who brought them into this would, threatened to kill the wives who love them, threatened to harm the children that they brought into this world. Is this form of tyranny not as terrible, not as severe, as if the law is applied on them?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore depends fully on its human resources. The drug addiction problem and the range of issues related to it are a threat to our social endurance and economic viability. Something has to be done and I would like to urge the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs to consider my proposal seriously. Thank you.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tiong Bahru GRC): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate.

Sir, I support the Bill. The amendments are timely in the sense that the drug situation in the region, particularly drug trafficking and abuse, is becoming worse. We need to take preventive action, particularly because many of our vulnerable young are victims of drug traffickers. If we make a survey of many countries where there are liberal programmes for dealing with drug abuse and drug enforcement, we will realise that many of their programmes have failed. The results are not very positive. The drug abuse situation has in fact worsened in many of these places. I must say that in the Singapore context the drug abuse situation is well under control. Perhaps, we can do better.

Sir, the question is, should we let traffickers off? Many drug traffickers live on the miseries of many young people. They break many lives. They destroy their future. Should we condone the actions of drug traffickers? I feel that taking very positive and deterrent measures against drug traffickers will in a way help to reduce demand. In the Singapore context, drug trafficking is directed at creating demand. If we do not attempt to deal with the drug traffickers and take deterrent action against them, I think we would not be able to solve the problem. Therefore, deterrent sentence is essential to deal with the drug abuse problem and drug trafficking in Singapore.

Sir, the enforcement programmes that we have launched does help to curb drug abuse. It is also essential to look at how we can strengthen our drug rehabilitation and supervision programmes. I feel that side by side with this approach, if we have a strong programme directed at helping drug addicts in ensuring that they do not relapse, we will be able to do more justice in that area. I see that there is a need to strengthen this aspect of services. I hope that the Ministry will take a more directed action in terms of strengthening the rehabilitation programmes. I would like to ask the Minister what efforts and attempts would be made to strengthen the drug rehabilitation and supervision programmes.

Sir, discharged drug addicts need a closer supervision. There is a need to strengthen our supervisory and rehabilitative services so that there lapses can be reduced. In the light that we are taking harsher sentence on second and subsequent offences, I am concerned about the manh younger drug addicts who are undergoing supervision. Care should be exercised so that we do not unnecessarily criminalise the very young. I hope that the Ministry will be able to decide very objectively as to whether the younger drug addicts, particularly those who are below 21 are not unnecessarily criminalised through subsequent sentences.

Sir, the other area that I would like to seek clarification is that the provision for corporal punishment in the rehabilitation centres. Corporal punishment is appropriate if we are going to deal with drug addicts who are causing tremendous diswelfare within these outfits. They become destructive and they work against the whole drug rehabilitation efforts. However, the administration of such punishment poses difficulties. It is therefore important that proper guidelines are drawn up for implementing corporal punishment in the various drug rehabilitation centres.

I would like to know whether these guidelines will be drawn up by the Ministry so that the officers who are administering corporal punishment will be able at least to administer this judiciously.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Encik Sidek bin Saniff): ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to welcome the measures proposed today, which show how serious the Government is in addressing this problem. I would like at the same time to congratu- late the Ministry, which has been intensifying its efforts. I am sure the people of Singapore feel that these latest efforts including the initiatives of the Ministry's Political Secretary, are sound and positive. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been told that this year, there are 505 new addicts, which is a reduction of 12% from the figure for the same period last year. However, I note also that there are 2,165 relapse cases. In view of what is happening in Colombia, where addiction has led to trafficking which has in turn led to crime, I feel the measures to be taken are very appropriate. But now I would like to ask the Minister to seriously consider some plans for the next three years, some form of monitoring to ensure that this problem would not deteriorate into something much bigger. Before I go on, I would like to quote the words of Dr Ong Teck Hong, Senior Lecturer in Psychology and a volunteer in SANA. I quote this from Mirror of 1st October 1989, volume 25, No. 19. He said:

'Drug abusers are generally escapists. They are ill-equipped to tackle problems, have a low threshold of frustration and are emotionally and easily anxious. They differ from non-abusers also in plural self-concept and the possession of a greater tendency to seek pleasure and to take risks'. That is the view of a volunteer and a doctor.

I now quote the President of SANA, Baey Lian Peck. Baey Lian Peck spoke of how tough it is for the addict to free himself from the shackles of addiction. He said, I quote:

'Once addicted, it is very difficult for an addict to give up drugs, no matter how hard he himself wants to.'

Mr Deputy Speaker, in view of these two quotations and in view of the 2,165 relapse cases and in view of the 10-30% addicts who turn traffickers, I would like to appeal, as I have said earlier, that the Ministry monitor the situation for the next three years. If, having put these measures into effect, we do not see the expected results, I appeal that my suggestion be considered seriously. Three years from now, if things get really bad, please take my suggestion.

I have often heard people saying we should cane our young people only if they commit a second or subsequent offence. The Minister is a man of law, and I remember once a judge said: "If I do not punish this young man as he deserves, today it might be theft, the next time it will be robbery and eventually he will be facing the gallows." That is why I ask that this idea be considered. I look at the drug problem like a house with a leaking roof. Water leaks into the house and collects on the floor below. We try all sorts of things to clear the water on the floor, but what is most important is the roof, perhaps we ought to change it, from attap roof to zinc, from zinc to tile. Because if we only look at the problem down below, and just get a machine that can clear the water in one minute, but fail to repair the leaking roof, the best of machines will not serve any purpose.

With due respect to Dr lee, I am not inhumane. It is not out of capriciousness that I make this suggestion to do something harsh. Really, I make this suggestion with sorrow, with sadness in my heart. And it is simply because I love our kids, our young people, and I sympathise with their parents. If we take what Baey Lian Peck and the doctor, I think it is right that we look into this at its proper perspective. My suggestion is, three years from now, if there is no convincing change in the situation, I propose that the first-time addicts, if found guilty, should be caned and I say this very reluctantly. I think it is better to see the scars on his back than to let the addict turn to trafficking, to be caught, and have the scars on his neck, ie, for him to go to the gallows. If this could be throughly studied, I am confident parents would be more careful, teachers would always try to spread the message in school and the children themselves would always be aware of this aspect, and their awareness, their cautiousness, would be far greater than before.

To those who might say that they are not criminals for us to cane them, I think, our Minister is himself a lawyer. He knows well enough, that there are hundreds, even thousands of acts that are now deemed as criminal that a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago were not. This is because we have jurists who interpret the law according to time and circumstances. We have the tradition of legal men who exercise their minds, people like Dicey, Fitzgerald Lord Denning, Diplock, Scarmen, people who adapt the law changing to circumstances. Why? Because time and the society are ever-changing, and, thus, the desires and expectations of society also change. Society is no longer as simple as it was before. The Society has become more complex. Before, we used to hear only of small-time addicts and traffickers, but now Colombia has shown us the proportions of crime at its worst. So it would be only prudent to take a close look at this. Particularly this decision is not made just by the judges but by the House, by Parliament, by people with thorough knowledge of the problem, who put the interests of the country, especially our children, at the highest level of importance. 6.05 pm

Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Eunos GRC): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the proposed amendments to the Act.

I am a bit shocked and surprised to hear the NCMP say that Singapore has the toughest law in the world, that we concentrate on punishment and deterrents and we enjoy inflicting bodily harm on people. But does he not acknowledge that we have been successful in containing our drug problem because we have opted for stiffer penalties? What is his solution for the long standing problem of increasing drug addicts throughout these years? He has not offered any.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, although the enhanced measures appear severe, we cannot deceive ourselves but come to grips with the drug problem and accept the harsh realities. The recent statistics have shown that we are reaching the 1970s' epidemic despite 12 years of fighting the drug war. Are we then not convinced that the drug menace is here to stay and the battle against drug abuse is unending? Is it therefore improper to introduce additional deterrent penalties so that the authorities could tackle more effectively the various aspects of the problem?

Sir, I welcome the move to impose mandatory death penalty for cocaine, opium and the cannabis drug traffickers. It is indeed a move in the right direction since its significance lies in the fact that it will make it less attractive for international drug syndicates to use Singapore because of our strategic location as a transit centre for drug trafficking.

On the amendment to put first-time drug abusers who are experimenters on supervision, I consider this in line with our sincere and serious efforts in wanting to rehabilitate first-time offenders, in that we recognise that drug victims are sick persons and not criminals. What they require is plenty of guidance and counselling over a reasonable period of time to enable them to progressively kick the habit.

Finally, Sir, with regard to corporal punishment for serious indiscipline in the DRCs by hard-core repeaters, I am all for it because it would be a mockery if inmates who indulge in extreme indiscipline get away with light penalties. After all, the objective of any penal institution is to inculcate a strong sense of discipline for its inmates so that when they are released they could become better citizens.

On this note, Sir, I once again support the Bill.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri (Aljunied GRC): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to join in the debate.

Firstly, I welcome this amendment simply because it reflects the Minister's foresight in anticipating the arrival of the potential drug, cocaine, from the west to the east and the relevant amendments to the sections of the Act will be able to plug the various loopholes in the area of enforcement and rehabilitation. But, Sir, the problem of drugs does not solely rest on these two aspects of enforcement and rehabilitation. It also includes, amongst other things, supervision, counselling and education.

I must admit that because of our stringent laws our enforcement agencies have worked very hard to contain the drug problem here. But even in spite of this, we have figures to show that the number of drug addicts is on the increase. And what is more disturbing to me and to my other Malay MPs is that a preponderance of these drug addicts are Malays.

I just like to focus on one area and that is the revelation from the report that more than 90% of the drug addicts are pre-school leavers. I am just wondering whether this problem has been properly addressed. In other words, when a student drops out from school, has there been any follow-up action by either the Ministry of Education or by other relevant authorities? Because if the number of pre-school leavers is there, it is only natural that they will slowly drift into this area. They have a lot of time. They have a lot of energy. They will gravitate to their own peers. Unfortunately, if they mix with the wrong company, they will graduate, as Encik Yatiman says, from drug addicts to drug pushers.

May I just make this simple plea that the Ministry of Home Affairs work together with the Ministry of Education and, that is, is it possible for the Ministry of Education to identify who these pre-school leavers are? They should get their addresses and inform the Ministry of Home Affairs so that the relevant agencies can work together with the Ministry of Community Development. Between them, they can send their social workers to work on these pre-school leavers so that they will not gravitate into anti-social behaviour. The details and the mechanics can be worked out later. This is a group of students or pupils who are potential dangers and if there is nothing meaningful to nip the problem in the bud they will unconsciously or consciously drift into this menace. Perhaps this is an area that could be looked into. In other words, we have to mount a positive intervention in this crucial area to prevent the increase of pre-school leavers drifting to drug addicts.

Secondly, Sir, the Minister has just returned from Malaysia on his goodwill visit and it was reported that he had discussions with the Malaysian Deputy Minister for Home Affairs on the question of forfeiture of assets of those involved in drug transactions. I am just wondering what is the outcome of his visit in terms of discussion in this area. Is he contemplating to incorporate this feature into this amendment, if not now, but later on? Perhaps he can enlighten us on this matter.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Members who have contributed to the debate. Before I touch on some of the individual points that have been raised, I may make the general comment that the views which have been expressed show that there is no single way to solve the drug problem and those who have been following events in other countries know that in other countries they are also having a big debate. In the west, in some of the countries the drug menace has reached almost epidemic proportions that they have practically thrown in the towel. They are talking of legalising the drugs.

We have opted for a different approach. We cannot let drugs take on an epidemic proportion in Singapore. We have a drug problem. Our priority is to contain it and control it as best as we can which is not easy because, as I said, the world-wide supply and trafficking of drugs is on the increase. There is a lot of money to be made and they are powerful, as you can see from what is happening in Latin America. So just to stay on top of the situation itself and keep it in check is a major exercise.

Even with the number of speakers who have spoken, we can see that there are diverse approaches. Dr Lee Siew-Choh frowns upon corporal punishment, which is not for all drug addicts. Corporal punishment in this Bill is only for addicts who commit serious breaches of discipline in the DRCs. Whereas on the other side of the coin, we have had Encik Yatiman Yusof and Encik Sidek Saniff urging the House to go beyond what is in the Bill, and to consider imposition of caning on drug addicts as a whole.

Let me now touch on the individual points that have been raised. Dr Arthur Beng supported the Bill. His main point was a plea for greater understanding of the problems of discharged drug addicts inmates, in their desire to fit into society and to obtain employment. I fully share his concern. In fact, CNB, the Superitentent of the DRCs and the Ministry of Home Affairs' common position is that to facilitate rehabilitation and to prevent drug addicts from relapsing, it is essential that they obtain employment as early as possible. So any move that would increase their chances of getting employment is to be welcomed. And just to demonstrate this, the Ministry of Home Affairs, together with SCORE, has worked towards the establishment of a new cooperative under the auspices of SCORE, which is to cater for employment of newly discharged inmates and prisoners who may have initial difficulties in getting employment. This is part of the process.

But Dr Arthur Beng is right that the community as a whole must have this approach. Because if they are stigmatised and barred from all jobs even if they have kicked the habit, then you are going to have a vicious cycle where they will never be employed and chances are that they will relapse, and we have the problem going round in cycles. Therefore, with regard to his specifc point about taxi licences and so on, I assure him that I will discuss this with my colleague, the Minister for Communications, and see whether this additional idea can be followed up either indepedently or as part of what the new cooperative plans to do.

Mr Abdullah Tarmgui has raised two points. His concern was over the presumption clause and he said that a person could be wrongly convicted because the amount of drugs that he has may be for his personal consumption. This is most unlikely to be the case because the quantum that you find specified in the Schedule which would lead to the death penalty, is worked out with the Department of Scientific Services of the Ministry of Health so that the amount which is specified, let us take heroin, is based on thousand doses. If you take heroin, one dose for daily consumption, I am told, is 0.015 grammes. The amount stipulated is 15 grammes. That is a dosage of a thousand times. By no stretch of the imagination or logic can a person claim that that amount is for his personal consumption.

As for safeguards, I can assure him, first of all, that the amended presumption provision is an improvement over the previous presumption clause. Because section 17, as it stands, has two presumptions as it were worked into it. It says:

'Any person who is proved or presumed to have had in his possesion .... shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have had that controlled drug .... for the purpose of trafficking'.

We have in this approach moved away from that so that it must be proved that he had it in his possession, and then only a rebuttable presumption arises.

Secondly, Mr Tarmugi also asked how would we differentiate between the drug addicts who would be put on compulsory supervision and those drug addicts who may be subjected to earlier release under the exit counselling programme. This must depend on an assessment by the Central Narcotics Bureau together with the other authorities in the same way that an assessment has to be made as to whether a drug addict is amenable to be put on the exit counselling scheme. Various circumstances of course have to be taken into account - the circumstances in which he was found to be consuming drugs, whether it was the first time, the amount that he had consumed, the place where it was found, the company, and the whole set of circumstances. A determination has to be made whether he will be benefiting from compulsory supervision. And this determination will have to be made just as similar decisions will be made on the exit counselling progrmame.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh was most unhappy with the death penalty. He supports it, I think, for what he called the kingpins. Of course, one can argue that the death penalty should be only for the kingpins. But does it mean that if we do not have the death penalty for others that the level of trafficking would be what it is today? I have no doubt at all, and our enforcement authorities have no doubt, that if we did not have the death penalty, the level of trafficking in Singapore would be manifold times what it is today; in fact, it will reach epidemic proportions. In other words, whoever it is, whether the kingpin or a courier, he knows when he takes a risk what is the consequence if he is caught.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh says that death penalty, in his view, should be reserved for murderers. That is a point of view which some may have. I respect that point of view but I disagree. Because in my view and the view that the Government has taken over the years is that the drug trafficker really should be considered worse than a murderer who kills an individual person for the reasons that were spelt out by Dr Vasoo. A murderer kills one person. It is very unlikely he is going to repeat. He deliberately does it for crimes of passion or in the course of robbery and so on. But a drug trafficker has an insidious, pernicious effect on society, on the individual. He is rendered useless to himself, to his family, and to society. And every Singaporean who becomes a drug addict, his potential contribution to himself, family and society is robbed. In that sense, the drug trafficker deserves even less mercy than what I would call an ordinary murderer.

I do not want to dwell too long on Dr Lee Siew-Choh's point because in the Comittee of Supply and other occasions, we have spelt out that it is not true that the sole thrust of the Government's drug enforcement and rehabilitation programme rests with the death penalty. The Government's efforts rest on a whole panoply of policies which are designed on the one hand to reduce supply and on the other hand to reduce demand. So we have the death penalty, we have prosecution in a court of law, where we cannot prosecute we detain them under the Criminal Law detention, we have the DRCs, we deny passports to known traffickers and hard-core addicts, and to foreigners who are trafficking we deny them entry into Singapore, just to name a few. And on the addict side, detention, compulsory treatment, counselling, after-care, educational programmes in schools and so on. So it is a wide range of policies. And the fact is that they work. When we have visiting delegations from other countries who expressed the wish that they had similar programmes in those countries. But alas, they pointed out that it was too late for them.

On corporal punishment, it is not as Dr Lee Siew-Choh points out that they are patients who will be caned. As I pointed out, the persons who will be subjected to corporal punishment are those who commit serious breaches of discipline.

If I may go on to the points raised by Encik Sidek Saniff and Encik Yatiman. Both of them made a common point, ie, that the Government should consider caning for drug addicts. In other words, I take it that their point is that this Bill does not go far enough. Encik Sidek Saniff's variation of Encik Yatiman's point is that we should consider this in three years' time. Perhaps we ought not to be so pessimistic that this law will not have its effect. Like all laws, we always continuously review it. I am not sure whether the proposal to cane drug addicts per se is necessary at all. I take note of their point that this, in their view, is not going as far as it should. But I will suggest that we approve these measures now. Corporal punishment is for a very limited category. And down the road in later years if indeed there has to be a review of all these measures, let us review them. But perhaps for the time being, I would urge colleagues to give support to these measures as spelt out in this Bill.

Dr Vasoo urged that there be a strong rehabilitation programme. The details of our rehabilitation programme have been spelt out in this House before. All I want to say is that the Government can do its part, the DRCs, and so on. But rehabilitation of drug addicts cannot be a job to be done only by the Government. The community must play its role and the family of the drug addict must play their role. Because all of our studies have shown that where the family neglects or ostracises the addict, that addict is bound to come back to the DRC. So I take note of his point that we pay attention to rehabilitation. But for rehabilitation efforts by the Government to work, there must be support from the community and the family. Community must help by more volunteers and counsellors coming forth.

What are the safeguards for corporal punishment? First of all, the safeguards are that in fact they will be confined to a narrow category of what I call "major breaches of discipline" and this will be spelt out in the regulations. This will consist of, for example, bringing drugs into the DRC. The drug addict is incarcerated in the DRC so that he will not have a supply of drugs and it is absurd if drugs are supplied; we must consider it to be a major case of indiscipline. Aggravated or repeated assault on other inmates or on DRC staff, that is a major indiscipline. If we cannot control it, the whole system of rehabilitation will break down. Wilfully vandalising DRC property is another serious offence. So it will be confined to very serious offences of that nature. Secondly, the procedures, the guidelines, will be spelt out. There must be an inquiry. He must have a chance to be heard before the final decision is taken.

The other safeguards like persons over 50 years cannot be caned, females cannot be caned, the presence of a doctor, all these well-established safeguards, I can assure the Member, will be in the Bill.

Finally, Encik Wan Hussin asked about the programmes for the pre-school leavers. I take it that he means drop-outs.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri: Mr Deputy Speaker, I meant the pre-mature school drop-outs, not pre-school leavers.

Prof. Jayakumar: Of course, I do not think we want to send out questionnaires and interviewers to every home of a drop-out. Because although a large percentage of drug addicts may be drop-outs, it does not follow that all school drop-outs are drug addicts. Let me say that the profile of the drug addict and the profile of the drug addict population are carefully examined by the authorities in designing the strategy, both in terms of rehabilitation and also as to which should be the target groups to pay attention and priority. So Encik Wan Hussin's point will be borne in mind here.

He asked about assets seizure law. The discussion we had in Kuala Lumpur was really more an exchange of views and to find out how they have in fact implemented their assets seizure law. As for what we are doing in Singapore, this is one of the legislative ideas that are being explored, but asset seizure law is quite a complicated piece of legislation. My Ministry will have to discuss with other Ministries, particularly the Ministry of Finance, which has got an interest in regard to the protection of banking secrecy and other such laws, so that the views of all Government agencies will be taken into account before any decision is taken on whether to proceed with such a law. In this regard, we must examine how other countries have enacted such laws, what safeguards they have, and what problems they have experienced in the practical implementation of such laws.

I think I have answered most of the questions, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

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. Jayakumar].

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