MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Sir, since the last amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) in 1993, both the global and local drug situations have changed significantly. Further amendments to the MDA are now necessary so that we can continue to effectively curb drug abuse and drug trafficking in Singapore.

"Ice" and "Ecstasy"

Firstly, psychotropic drugs are increasingly emerging as a major global threat. The UN International Drug Control Programme has reported that synthetic and psychotropic drugs will be a problem of global concern in the 21st century. Psychotropic drugs are synthetic substances made entirely from chemicals. They act on the central nervous system and have mind-altering effects which can have stimulating, tranquillising or hallucinating effects. Besides inducing adverse changes in behaviour, these drugs can also have extremely harmful effects on the body.

"Ice" and "Ecstasy" are examples of psychotropic drugs. These drugs are easy to produce and can be manufactured from easily obtainable chemicals and raw materials in makeshift laboratories. I am told that "Ice", for example, can be produced using ephedrine, several washtubs and a stove. "Ecstasy" causes hallucinations, anxiety and can cause death by overheating of the body or dehydration. "Ice" is even more harmful and lethal. It is known to cause severe convulsions, hallucinations, liver and kidney damage, cardiac damage, stroke and death. "Ice" abusers are also prone to violent behaviour after abusing it. Although not yet rampantly abused in Singapore, "Ice" currently poses a major threat due to its widespread and growing popularity in the region.

In Singapore, no "Ecstasy" abuser was arrested in 1995. But in 1996, 661 were arrested. The number fell to 403 in 1997 after intensive CNB enforcement. In 1995, no "Ecstasy" was seized. But in 1996, almost 39,000 were seized, and in 1997, almost 55,000 "Ecstasy" pills were seized.

No "Ice" abuser was arrested in 1995 also. But 5 were arrested in 1996 and 82 in 1997. There has also been an increase in "Ice" trafficking activities in Singapore. In 1995, 12.3 grammes were seized and in 1996, 0.69 grammes were seized. But in 1997, 90.3 grammes were seized. But in the first four months of this year, we have already seized about 560 grammes of "Ice", due to the success of major CNB operations like Operation Phantom.

Enhanced Penalties for "Ice" and "Ecstasy" Traffickers

Although the "Ecstasy" abuse situation today is under control, we must act decisively to ensure that it does not gain a foothold in Singapore. Stricter legislation against traffickers of "Ecstasy" and "Ice" will also deter international syndicates from using Singapore as a transhipment point for these drugs.

My Ministry proposes that the Act be amended to facilitate the prosecution of "Ice" and "Ecstasy" traffickers. Clause 7 of the Bill amends section 17 of the Act to extend the presumption clause for trafficking to include "Ice" and "Ecstasy". A person caught in possession of more than 25 grammes of "Ice" or 10 grammes of "Ecstasy" is presumed to be trafficking in these drugs and would be charged with the offence of trafficking Thus the burden of proof against trafficking would rightly be placed on the offender. These amounts, ie, 25 grammes of "Ice" and 10 grammes of "Ecstasy" are equivalent to 100 doses of the estimated daily consumption of these drugs. This is the same basis for deriving the presumption amounts for other drugs such as heroin, opium, morphine and cocaine.

In addition, clauses 21(a) to (c) of the Bill amend the Second Schedule of the MDA to make the death penalty mandatory for anyone who is convicted of trafficking, manufacturing, importing or exporting more than 250 grammes of "Ice". This amount is equivalent to 1,000 doses of the daily estimated consumption of the drug. This is also the basis for deriving the amount attracting capital punishment for the other drugs which I mentioned. Unlike "Ice" which is extremely dangerous, "Ecstasy" is less potent and dangerous. Hence, MHA is not proposing at this stage to introduce the death penalty for "Ecstasy"-related offences. Nevertheless, the penalties are still heavy as "Ecstasy" is a Class A drug. For example, trafficking in "Ecstasy" currently attracts a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane, and a minimum penalty of 5 years' imprisonment and 5 strokes of the cane.

Hardcore Addicts

Let me now turn to the next set of amendments, which are related to the proposed long-term imprisonment and caning for hardcore drug addicts.

Sir, although the overall drug situation in Singapore has improved, the problem of a large number of hardcore addicts who repeatedly relapse still remains. A hardcore addict is one who has been admitted to DRC or Prison for a drug offence for more than two times. In fact, the proportion of hardcore addicts among our total DRC population has increased from 65% in 1994 to 71% in 1997.

It is important that these hardcore drug addicts are not treated as victims. They are bad people. Firstly, to feed their expensive habit, many of them turn to crime. More than 73% of hardcore drug addicts have some form of criminal record, while about 76% of all addicts with criminal records are hardcore addicts. So, they are criminals also. Secondly, these hardcore addicts contaminate the innocent and lead them to experiment with, and consume drugs, thus perpetuating a drug culture. Every addict, especially a hardcore addict, is a potential pusher and trafficker. These hardcore addicts also inflict untold misery on their families and are a financial burden to their family members. They are bad role models, especially if they are fathers or mothers. Long Term Imprisonment and Caning for Hardcore Addicts

That is why the Act is amended to provide for long-term imprisonment and caning for hardcore addicts. This serves a number of objectives. Firstly, by putting these addicts out of circulation for a long time, it will help to protect the public from them, especially as the majority of these addicts turn to crime to feed their habit. Secondly, it is also aimed at deterring drug addicts from persisting in their drug addiction by making the consequences of continued addiction very severe. In the long run, the long-term imprisonment and caning should help to reduce the relapse rate of drug addicts and deter potential drug abusers from falling into the drug trap. Thirdly, it is to punish these recalcitrant addicts for persisting with their drug habit. Public reaction to my announcement that we would enhance punishment for hardcore addicts, has been positive.

Clause 15 of the Bill will introduce a new section 33A in the MDA to provide for this new regime. Upon conviction in Court, hardcore addicts would be given a mandatory imprisonment term of between five and seven years and between three and six strokes of the cane under the first tier penalty. Under the second tier penalty, any addict who has been punished under the first tier penalty and who is arrested again for a drug consumption offence will, upon conviction, be punished with a longer imprisonment term of between 7 and 13 years, and between 6 and 12 strokes of the cane. For the purpose of prosecuting an addict under this new section, the Government will only rely on DRC admissions and drug conviction records on or after 1st October 1992.

The current intention is to only target the long-term imprisonment regime and caning at hardcore abusers of opiate drugs, ie, heroin, opium and morphine. This is because among the various drugs of abuse, opiate drugs have the strongest physical and psychological hold over their users. Besides, these are the main drugs abused in Singapore, with more than 75% of all addicts arrested each year since 1994 abusing these drugs. However, the Government will carefully monitor the situation and will not hesitate to impose similar measures against hardcore addicts of other drugs, such as "Ice", should the situation warrant it.

A related amendment is to enhance the penalty for failing to provide urine specimen under section 31(2) to that of drug consumption. The former offence, ie, failure to provide urine sample, refers to instances where arrested addicts refuse to provide urine samples for testing purposes without reasonable excuse when asked to do so. This amendment is necessary. Otherwise, suspected drug addicts would rather refuse to provide a urine specimen and be only liable for a lesser penalty of a maximum $5000 fine under section 31(2), than be liable for the harsher penalties of drug consumption. Clause 21(f) would amend the Second Schedule of the Act to equate the penalty for the offence of failing to provide urine specimen with the penalty for drug consumption. For the same reason, clause 14 would amend section 33(3) to include a previous offence for failing to provide urine sample as a previous drug antecedent for the purpose of sentencing.

Hence, the new regime of long-term imprisonment and caning will apply to addicts who are caught for the consumption of opiate drugs or fail to provide urine sample, and have, let me elaborate: (a) at least two previous DRC admissions for opiate abuse; or (b) at least two previous convictions for opiate abuse; or (c) at least two previous convictions for failure to provide a urine specimen; or (d) one previous DRC admission and one previous conviction for opiate abuse; or (e) one previous DRC admission and one previous conviction for failure to provide urine sample; or (f) one previous conviction for opiate abuse and one previous conviction for failure to provide urine specimen.

A previous conviction by a subordinate military court for the opiate abuse will also be considered as a previous conviction for purposes of sentencing.

Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction over Offence of Drug Consumption

I now wish to turn to the issue of consumption of controlled drugs outside Singapore. Currently, only consumption of controlled drugs within Singapore is punishable under the MDA. The Central Narcotics Bureau cannot charge persons who abused drugs overseas, say, in Malaysia, Batam, Bintan or Karimun, or anywhere else, and tested positive for drugs upon their return at our immigration entry points.

There has been a noticeable trend of Singaporeans consuming drugs overseas in recent years. In 1994, 1,402 persons tested positive for drug consumption at our checkpoints. In 1997, the figure was 1,768 persons or a 26% increase over the 1994 figure. With more Singaporeans travelling overseas, the easy access of drugs nearby in neighbouring countries and the proposed harsher penalties for hardcore addicts, it is prudent to plug this loophole. Otherwise, local addicts would intentionally make trips out of Singapore to neighbouring countries to get their fixes to avoid arrest and prosecution in Singapore, and to make a mockery of our drug laws. Clause 5 of the Amendment Bill would create a new section 8A to confer on our Courts the jurisdiction to try the offence of drug consumption overseas by a Singaporean citizen or Permanent Resident whose urine sample was found positive in Singapore and to deal with them as though the act of consumption was committed in Singapore.

1988 UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

While we have taken firm and incisive actions against drug abuse and trafficking domestically, we remain committed to international efforts to stamp out the drug problem. This is because drugs and the proceeds from drug-related activities are global problems that respect no borders.

In this regard, Singapore is committed to tackling international drug trafficking, importing, exporting and manufacturing. It has acceded to the three United Nations drug abuse conventions: namely, the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and, late last year, the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic In Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.

The 1988 UN Convention, or the Vienna Convention, as it is commonly known, is an international co-ordinated effort to make it mandatory for signatory states to criminalise drug-trafficking and its related activities, including money laundering and the use of precursor chemicals in manufacturing controlled drugs. We only formally acceded to it on 21st October 1997 because we wanted to first put in place the legal framework, which is necessary if we are to fully meet our obligations as a signatory state to the Convention.

Clauses 6 and 21 of the Bill would amend the MDA to allow Singapore to give effect to its obligations under the Vienna Convention. For example, we would criminalise the manufacture, possession and distribution of precursor chemicals, controlled materials and equipment intended for the manufacture of controlled drugs. The penalties would be a maximum of 20 years' imprisonment or $200,000 fine or both. A new section 18B of the MDA would empower the Minister to make regulations for various matters relating to the control of precursor chemicals, and controlled materials and equipment, such as the licensing of their import and export, and documentation requirements for their transhipment. A related amendment is clause 23 which amends the First Schedule of the Extradition Act to include offences relating to psychotropic substances and offences relating to benefits derived from drug trafficking as extraditable offences. The latter is one of the obligations of signatory states under the Vienna Convention. Other Amendments

In addition, the Amendment Bill also proposes various amendments that are essential to facilitate drug enforcement and to allow the Prisons Department and the Central Narcotics Bureau to operate more effectively. For example, clauses 8, 9, 13 and 18 of the Bill would strengthen the enforcement powers of CNB officers in relation to investigation, search and arrest of offenders under the MDA and its Regulations.

Clause 12 of the Bill would provide for the mandatory forfeiture of any vehicle used in connection with an MDA offence. This is in line with similar provisions for the forfeiture of vehicles in other legislation such as the Road Traffic Act and the Immigration Act.

Members may also recall last year's ruling by the Court of Appeal that "life imprisonment" should be equated to the natural life of a prisoner, rather than 20 years, as practised by the Prisons. Currently, some MDA offences attract a maximum imprisonment term of 30 years and 15 strokes of the cane. To uphold the original policy intention that the penalties for these offences should be more severe than life imprisonment, which was then taken to be 20 years, clause 20 of the Bill provides for "imprisonment for life" as an additional sentencing option for these offences.

Conclusion

Sir, to conclude, the proposed amendments would allow my Ministry to respond effectively to the ever-changing drug situation and to sufficiently deter drug abuse and other drug related offences. The overall drug situation may be under control today, but we must never rest on our laurels. However, in addition to tough laws and strict enforcement, I wish to assure Members that my Ministry would continue to focus on preventive drug education, treatment, rehabilitation and aftercare of recovering addicts who are amenable to change. Only by adopting a comprehensive approach towards drugs would we eradicate the drug problem in Singapore.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Although the overall drug situation in Singapore remains under control, in fact, since April last year, there has been a decrease in the number of drug addicts being detected. However, as the Minister said, the percentage of hardcore addicts remains high, and this problem has to be addressed urgently, as these addicts not only become a menace to the society, and causing untold anguish to the family, but very often they turn to criminal activities in order to support their habit.

It is also recognised that early conversion of these addicts has a higher rate of success in helping them live a normal life. The longer these addicts get into the habit, the chances of recovery would decrease dramatically. Therefore, the introduction of section 33A(1) and (2) on the enhancement of punishment for this category of third and fourth time offenders is timely.

Since notice was given two years ago, I understand that there has been a drop in the number of third timers. The reason is that the second timers know that if they persist in their drug taking, they will be faced with a much harsher and more severe punishment. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out this severe punishment as much resources are being committed to help the first and second timers to rehabilitate themselves. And to those who refuse to be helped, the law should come down on them hard. But I would like to urge the Minister to continue to spare no effort in the rehabilitation of this group of addicts so that more of those who are unfortunate enough to be exposed to this deadly habit would have the chance of living a normal life. Because we have to face the fact that those who have been caught taking drugs the third or fourth time would have very little chance to be cured even when they are confronted with the most severe punishment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe I have not come across many anti-drug campaigns being carried out recently. Anti-smoking and anti-crime campaigns seem to be taking the limelight. I would therefore suggest that the Ministry carry on with more active public education on the awareness of the harmful consequence of drug abuse. Although the introduction of more severe punishment of repeated drug addicts is a step in the right direction to deter hard-core addicts from further indulgence in this habit, the most effective way to combat this social ill will still be deterring the would-be drug addict from following this vicious cycle. After all, prevention is always better than cure.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, the Minister wants this House to approve laws which will allow the Government to inflict corporal punishment on repeated consumers of specified drugs. A second time offender under the new section 33A can now be caned up to a maximum of 12 strokes. This makes repeat consuming of specified drugs an offence equivalent to the most heinous and violent crimes. Caning is normally reserved for those who commit heinous and violent crimes, like armed robbery, rape or trafficking in heroin and other illegal drugs.

Sir, in some countries, consumption of heroin is not even a crime. It is classified a social problem. But in Singapore, consumption of heroin is considered a crime. Those who do so can be compulsorily detained for treatment and rehabilitated up to a maximum period of three years. The fact that the Government has to escalate the punishment from non-corporal to corporal ones for repeat drug offenders shows that the Government's treatment and rehabilitation programmes for drug addicts over the last 20 years have probably not been successful. It is now resorting to strong-arm tactics. It virtually wants to impose its will on the drug addicts. It tells the drug addicts: Do not take heroin or other specified drugs again! If you do so, we are going to whack the daylight out of you!

Hopefully, the majority of drug addicts will get the message and stop their old habits of taking drugs. But what happens if a drug addict who is so badly addicted and he is a person of weak character and is unable to give up the heroin habit, even after the second conviction and punishment under the new section 33A? There is no mention in the Bill of further punishment after that. Does it mean that this type of recidivist drug addict has to be locked up forever? Perhaps the Minister can clarify.

I should also like the Minister perhaps to tell this House why the Government's treatment and rehabilitation programmes for drug addicts have not been so successful. Is the Government not putting enough money into the programmes? If not, why not?

I would like to urge the Government to have another look at these treatment and rehabilitation programmes of drug addicts rather than take the easy way out by caning repeat offenders of specified drugs. If Singapore has to resort to caning all social wrong-doers, then I am afraid that Singapore can never be a cohesive society.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Mr Speaker, Sir, before I speak in support of the Bill, there is something which I would like to bring to the attention of the House. When the Minister was speaking on illegal immigrants - I thought I heard him wrongly, but I checked - he said Bangladeshi language. I do not think there is a Bangladeshi language. I hope the Ministry officials who prepared these answers be made aware that the language is Bengali or Bangla. So I do not want Hansard to have that again.

Sir, may I say that I disagree with the point made by Mr Chiam. I think the drug pusher is the worst form of criminal that we can come across.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Consumers, not pushers.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Consumers and pushers are the same class of people. I will come to that later. I will come to Mr Chiam's point later because I think we have come a long way, Mr Speaker, Sir, since we started our efforts to curb drug abuse in Singapore in the 70s. Many critics used to chide us for having such a stringent law. We imposed the death penalty. We introduced mandatory sentences. Even some of our own leaders thought that it was too harsh. Sir, we have come a long way. But despite all the efforts, we have seen how drug abuse has increased not only in Singapore but all over the world. We have in our own newspapers graphic details of the suffering of these young men and women.

Sir, I think the Minister and his officials have responded well by bringing up this legislation. I shall not deal with the details of the Bill as other Members are going to speak. But suffice to say, Sir, for the law to be effective, it is important - and I repeat - it is important that the community must play its role. I urge every Singaporean to play his role. If we have a member of the household or a friend who has gone astray, we must try our level best to persuade him, soft-talk to him, if need be, refer him for professional counselling.

Sir, in the course of my duty in SINDA, I have visited two to three rehabilitation centres. I am really impressed with the dedication with which these volunteers have reformed and rehabilitated drug addicts. And that is why when I was listening to my friend, Mr Kenneth Chen's call for rehabilitation, I thought this is an area that not just the Ministry of Home Affairs but the Ministry of Community Development should work together.

Sir, many of the drug abusers start with soft drugs, I think Mr Chiam was quite right. I saw in a recent trip to India, bhang trees growing like wild bush, and in Singapore if you consume bhang, of course, you are going to be in trouble, but not in India. So my appeal is that we should try to persuade these young people to give up their habit.

Sir, from drugs, many of them move to crime which has very close co-relation. If you have a profile or if you make a study of the drug abusers, you will find most of them have some form of criminal record. It is therefore important that our schools should play a more active role. I would like to congratulate the Minister for Education, who also happens to have the double role of Minister for Defence, for the valuable work that his Ministry does in dealing with drug abuse, both with the regulars as well as the national servicemen. I think the problem should be addressed, and here again I agree with Mr Chen that the campaign should start early.

Sir, our location makes it vulnerable to international drug syndicates. We cannot run away from this fact. Despite the death penalty, people try their luck. I would therefore like to commend our Home Team, the Police as well as the CNB. In this regard, I wonder if the CNB could become a specialised branch of the Police. In this way, we will transfer some of the outstanding Police Officers to do some CNB duties. The Minister may want to study this matter.

Sir, though unrelated to this Bill, it is important that we must also try to win the battle against another form of abuse, and I am speaking of smoking. It is very distressing to see our young smoking. Why do I say this, Sir? Because for many cases, from smoking, it goes to other things. I am not saying all smokers end up in this. But some early smokers start and end up in this. So if we can solve this problem, it will be good for the community, because I see it is just not only in Orchard Road, but also Shenton Way, young ladies puffing their way in coffeeshops. So I would urge that we should be very, very careful that we should not leave this area unattended.

Sir, I welcome the new definition of "manufacture". It now covers transformation of one drug into another. And I think a valuable area has been taken care of and the loophole has been covered. Under the new section 8A, Sir, the law on consumption of drugs outside Singapore is to be welcomed. It is extra-territorial. But I think we have other legislation, like the Women's Charter where bigamy is punished, whether it happens in Singapore or outside. So I think Members should not be surprised at this legislation.

Similarly, under section 17, new drugs will come under the control of this Bill. The Minister has given detailed history of them. I do not propose to go over them. I end, Sir, with this thought for the Members. A murderer only kills one person at a time while a drug pusher kills many. He brings about disaster to the family of the drug addict, besides the drug abuser himself, and which we have no sympathy for him at all. He is the worst form of criminal. We should show our total abhorrence for this activity.

With that, I support the Bill.

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh (Nominated Member): Thank you, Sir, for giving me this opportunity to speak on a topic which I think all of us as parents must give serious attention to because it can affect our teenage children.

Having just had the last Parliament debate on enhanced penalties for maid abuse, my first reaction to this Amendment Bill was a hesitant one as I questioned why we are debating yet another harsh Bill about longer jail sentences and more strokes of the cane for drug addiction. Have we become a society able to prevent delinquent behaviour only by corporal punishment and incarceration and not by non-coercive means?

I consulted some officers from NCADA, SANA, SCORE as well as half-way houses like Taman Bacaan, New Direction and several family service centres and volunteers dealing with drug addicts and I would like to share with this House my reflections.

The first is the recognition that this Bill is a tough love policy. Everyone I have talked to supported the Bill, in particular enhanced penalties on Ice and Ecstasy traffickers. It was on the basis of balancing compassion with pragmatic efficacy that drug prevention advocates, therapists and ex-addicts themselves came to accept long jail sentences and caning as effective deterrents to drug offence. There was some sympathy, however, for those offenders who only hurt themselves and had no other criminal record.

Caning is spared for the first two convictions. In some other countries, a first offender is in fact whipped. The general feeling is that there is ample warning to first-time offenders. It was pointed out to me by a drug prevention officer that, in the past, we punished too little and too late. This lenient approach led to the growth of addicts from 500 in the 70s who were incarcerated on St. John's Island to 10,000 registered today, without counting those still in hiding.

Some officers who were talking to me even recommend longer incarceration to include a longer stay at half-way houses from the current stipulation of six months to 18 months so that inmates undergo a more intensive individual and family treatment programme in a user friendly environment away from prison cells. At the same time, they also learn work and social skills which will enable them to re-integrate into society. Social integration, Sir, and work are the best relapse control factors.

Sir, I am persuaded to support this Bill because I believe that implementing a harsh Bill now will send a strong message to those who are experimenting with drugs for the first time to quickly seek help in order to avoid the pain of the cane. In fact, there are in recent weeks more volunteer walk-ins for treatment because they got to know of the enhanced penalties in this Bill.

While we accept that a harsh law cannot make the 20% of all addicts who are hardcore, turn around and be good again, it will deter the 80% who are at the early stages of experimentation. More important, it will be a deterrent for those who have never tried drugs.

In my research, I was awakened to a reality of drug abuse fraught with tremendous pain and coping difficulty. The nature of the drug addiction is such that we have to adopt this "tough love" policy to tackle the illness square on. A tough love policy includes compassion tempered by discipline and deterrents.

My second reflection though is the recognition of this Bill as a limited component in the overall drug prevention programme. The Bill takes care of keeping offenders safely away from contaminating others, but what programmes are offered during incarceration and after release to enable these offenders, many of whom still young with families, integrate into mainstream society and lead independent lives?

We recognise that the Home Affairs Ministry has taken the lead to reorganise the drug management sector by coordinating prevention and rehabilitation programmes in the various Ministries, detention centres and help agencies. The recent national seminar on "Alliance Against Drug Abuse - A Community Approach" was a case in point. I also read reports on the advances in the management of drug addiction using medicines like Naltrexone and Trexan for treatment and relapses control; 12-step counselling method used to restore an addict's control over his impulses as well as the setting up of the Industrial Services Cooperative Societies Ltd (ISCOS) to find jobs for these addicts.

These are commendable programmes, Sir. I was told, however, that the prison curriculum adopts very much an inmate focus characterised by chemical correction, physical drill, confinement and rough handling. While this is necessary to start the detoxification programme, the use of physical and psychological humiliation, Sir, cannot restore dignity and sustain motivation towards recovery in the long run.

That leads me to the third reflection - a need to shift focus from addressing the nature of drug addiction to the socio-psychological context of drug addicts and their families to identify the reasons for the occurrence of drug abuse and recurrent relapses.

The 1995 Inter-Ministry Report on Dysfunctional Families, Juvenile Delinquency and Drug Abuse cited dysfunctional family conditions and relationships as the main cause. The Report also submitted a list of recommendations in tackling drug abuse which I hope the various Ministries would act on. During my contact with social workers during the last few weeks, I met and learnt about many cases: a 9 year old girl who grew up in a delinquent culture of broken homes and poor education; a 11 year old boy who was jailed because he stole a car; a 16 year old boy who is heading the household because both his parents are in the drug rehabilitation centre (DRC); several others who were released from half-way houses but had no homes to return to because they were rejected by spouses and family members; a whole family of drug addiction because family members could not emerge from the culture of delinquency and hopelessness and were driven to drugs for psychological relief; young female addicts leaving babies in the care of relatives serving their jail terms while their husbands are also serving theirs; and many more recovering addicts who could no longer adjust to normal living because they have lost touch with friends and work environment due to long incarceration. I could go on and on with these tales of disabling families.

That leads me to my fourth reflection - a need to strengthen family support rehabilitation programmes. We read in the literature that the most successful addicts-on-recovery are those who are highly motivated, employed and are in stable relationships. Among these, the family is a crucial pillar of support. This is not the case in most of the families of drug addicts. They lack this critical support, and with time they forget the fear and the pain of caning and jail confinement as well. Therefore, it is no surprise that recidivism is high.

How can we bring the family into the rehabilitation programmes during and after incarceration? There are some suggestions from the community. The first is support a family therapy model by involving the family in the rehabilitation programme conducted in prisons. Detention institutions, such as DRCs and SCORE, conduct a pre-release family counselling programme. Experts feel that this is too brief and too late in the detention. Family counselling sessions should be instituted right from the start during incarceration to restore a sense of ownership and family participation so that when the addict returns home, there is less emotional adjustment. In the long run, could the Ministry consider converting some old HDB blocks to rehabilitation centres whereby families can stay together during appropriate treatment phases?

The second suggestion is increased funding for half-way institutions from $16 per capita to $25 to allow weekend accommodation of children and family members with recovering inmates. In Taman Bacaan half-way house for women drug abusers, family living together providing emotional support to recovering addicts proved to be most effective for recovery and relapse control.

The third suggestion is to make parents pay a small amount, even $1 a day or 50 cents a day, to half-way houses to restore a sense of responsibility towards the offenders and a sense of ownership of a family problem.

The fourth suggestion is to relax the electronic monitoring system by not stipulating that offenders under probation must be at home in the evenings, so that they can attend self-help groups or individual counselling sessions organised by social service centres in the evening. What is needed is close supervision to ensure behavioural compliance with curfew times at identified hours without sacrificing opportunities for group-work activities.

The last suggestion is to spend money to strengthen counselling skills for all officers dealing with addicts. These counselling skills must include, Sir, an intense criminal assessment programme to identify the appropriate treatment schedule that will restore a sense of control in the addict and tap the resource of his family to create an enabling climate for his recovery. The plans for strengthening alumni support and setting up Narcotics Anonymous for after-care recovery are commendable efforts which must be given priority attention.

That leads me to my last reflection - a need for our realistic acceptance of an addict's capacity to lead responsible lives. Sir, we cannot hope that, with this Bill, the drug addicts, subjected to its harsh punishment, will "turn over a new leaf". Not many of them will become "robust" again who are able to pick up their pieces and move on like any normal Singaporean. The journey is hazardous and an uphill one, thwarted by factors from psychogenic to familial and socio-structural ones, including gang and secret society influence from drug syndicates which are ever ready to tempt them once again. I personally learnt of a case when a peddler was at the family's door-steps on the very day of the release of a drug addict.

Addicts will be in and out of DRCs and half-way houses because they simply lack the skills in taking responsibilities for their actions. The crippling family factors do not just vanish while they are in jail, Sir. After some years of normal living, they feel lonely again and become re-addicted by succumbing to peer group pressures. By contextualising the drug addicts in the larger picture of a delinquent culture characterised by low education, low self-esteem, poor problem solving skills, inadequate parenting and limited resources, we have to accept that the solutions to drug offence which this Bill sets out to address are more than what one legal tool can achieve.

Advocates in the sector call for the adoption of a more tolerant attitude and a comprehensive perspective by the authorities in meting out appropriate sentences and developing matching treatment models for drug addicts.

In a tough love policy, Sir, let this Bill take care of the tough part, but the rest of the prevention and rehabilitation agencies must focus and be supported by the State and the community on the "love" part to fit the pieces of these damaged lives together and give them a second chance. And here, I support Mr Chiam's call earlier on for more reinforcement in preventive rehabilitation programmes. I believe if we prioritise attention and resources on developing care programmes that will initiate cognitive, emotional and behavioural changes in disabling individuals and families, in the long run, there will be no need to exercise the instruments of this Bill. That is my hope.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no quarrel with the measures taken to deal with drug traffickers and manufacturers of drugs, although I was a bit alarmed to hear one Nominated Member equating a consumer with a drug pusher. We are getting new definitions. But I am concerned, as Mr Chiam has been concerned, with the approach taken by the Ministry towards drug addicts and users of drugs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think, as has been emphasised by more than one speaker, the consumption of drug is a social evil and not to be categorised as a crime like crimes under the Penal Code are. My objection to the clause introducing a new section 33A is that it is bad on two counts. One, it has the blanket approach without any regard for the particular circumstances or situation of the offender. It is just a blanket approach. No two cases are ever the same, Mr Speaker, Sir. There are persons who suddenly find themselves caught in a situation where they slip in a drug and there are others who return knowingly to consume drugs. The Minister more than once kept referring to hardcore addicts. Who is a "hardcore addict"? Is a man who previously had had a conviction for using a drug - or perhaps even two convictions - some years in the past and has tried very hard to keep off drugs and has succeeded for a good many years, but suddenly he finds himself caught up in a situation with his friends, whom he least suspects, are consuming drugs and on the spur of the moment, he slips into his body one of these drugs, by then it is too late. Is he a hardcore addict? Or is he just a victim of an unfortunate incident? This Bill does not seem to cater for those who might find themselves in that situation and who perhaps find themselves caught for having taken a drug unwittingly. I know myself of such cases.

Sir, it is wrong, in the case of punishments, to treat every case as though it is the same. They vary, as I said, from one individual to another. And related to this, of course, it is bad in principle because it tends to deprive the courts of their function. Mandatory sentences should be kept to the minimum. Because under the Constitution, the judicial power in Singapore is vested with the courts. And judicial power, of course, includes not just finding persons guilty of offences but deciding on the appropriate sentences that have to be passed. So this increasing tendency to deprive the courts of their proper function under the Constitution is to be regretted. The courts are placed in the best position to judge what sentence is adequate and necessary in the case of the offender before it, not this House. Because when we pass the Bill, we cannot contemplate the myriad of situations that might arise. We can only stipulate the approach that should be taken and then leave it to the courts to decide on the specific sentence that should be passed.

If you look at this new section 33A, Mr Speaker, Sir, it proposes to punish not just hardcore addicts. I wish the Minister had tried to define what he meant by "hardcore addict" but people who fail to provide a urine specimen with enhanced punishments. The Minister was singling out persons who are arrested and who refuse to give their samples of urine for testing. I would like to know from the Minister does it not also include persons who miss out perhaps once from attending at the police stations or CNB for their urine tests where they are under a supervision order? A person may miss out on one of his urine tests for a great many reasons. But if he is to be sent to prison for five years just because he has had a previous conviction or admission and he has failed in one particular instance to report for his urine test, it seems to me to be unusually harsh and, may I say especially with the caning, totally inhumane. It does not take into account at all the situation of the person concerned. So it is my concern that the new punishments violate, as I said, the principle that no two offenders are in the same position and should be treated differently and, secondly, far more importantly, they encroach on the jurisdiction and function of the courts.

I would urge that the Ministry consider a proviso to this section, allowing the courts to inquire into the circumstances which led the person to miss out on a urine test, or to take the drug for which he is charged. And if there are special circumstances which warrant that the court should not pass the mandatory sentence, the court should be empowered to do so. We have a similar provision in the case of drivers who have to be disqualified for offences under the Road Traffic Act or for using motor vehicles without insurance. There the courts are given the power not to order disqualification of a year or more where, in the view of the court, there are special circumstances that warrant not passing the term of disqualification.

May I also question, as Mr Chiam has done, the need to impose caning? This new sentence provides for a minimum of three strokes and also for a minimum of six strokes. It used to be the law at one time that caning should only be ordered when the criminal himself has resorted to violence. But we, in Singapore, would appear to be lashing out for every offence. I know this is not popular with the establishment but may I remind the Government that in other enlightened societies, caning is strictly forbidden. The European Court of Human Rights has held more than once that caning degrades the human being, the individual, and is illegal under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As has been stressed by many a speaker, and particularly by Madam Chiang, drug taking is a social problem, not only to be dealt with by just lashing out but also by taking positive steps to rehabilitate and to keep people off drugs. Very little is being done, it would appear, on that level. Youths turn to drugs because they are bored, because they have no jobs, because there is nothing better for them to do to get out of the depression in their lives except to take something which will make them high. What is being done socially to make our young people see the wrongdoing of resorting to drugs and opening up new opportunities for them where they can direct their energies and put them to use? Is it a reluctance on the part of the Government to spend a bit more money on this and to leave it entirely to private organisations? We should like to know more from the Minister, as has been asked, as to what exactly the Government is doing.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: Sir, thank you for allowing me to say a few words.

First of all, I would like to support the Bill. However, I find that it is interesting to listen to the views of Mr Chiam See Tong, Madam Chiang and the like, and that is to make this Bill full of compassion. I think there are sufficient agencies in Singapore, whether it is rehabilitation, prevention or other social agencies, to take care of the emotional and compassionate part of it. Let us be very relevant and focused today. We are dealing with the misuse of drugs. If he were to study history and learn about the Opium War, then Mr Chiam would not want to make that kind of comment, so compassionate to the drug pushers, traffickers and, indeed, the recalcitrants. We must ask this question: at the end of the day, this particular Bill, when it is enacted, would it serve the purpose of prevention and deterrence? To me, at the end of the day, it does. We must be cruel to be kind. We are dealing with a lethal weapon which is sufficient enough to destroy the well-being of a society. Therefore, I believe that the introduction of new section 33A is a good section to deter people from abusing drugs. Indeed, I would make a further suggestion. There is no need really to differentiate a Class 1 consumer and a Class 2 consumer, ie, those who are caught under section 33A(1) and those who are caught under section 33A(2). I think we should just go straight to make them suffer by giving them not less than seven years of imprisonment, of course not more than 13 years, and give them six to 12 strokes of caning. In this way, we would be able to send a very strong message to the nation and to the people of Singapore: Do not even come near it. That is most important and let us not take the emotional aspect of it in dealing with this particular Bill. Let us be really focused. Let us take into consideration the well-being of the great majority of Singaporeans and the progress and prosperity of Singapore into consideration. By being very friendly to the users, pushers and traffickers, we are doing a misdeed to Singapore.

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin: Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak. Certainly, the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill has two main aims. One is tackled by the Bill specifically, which is deterrence, punishment and prevention. That has been adequately addressed. But to lend support to my other colleagues, which has been mentioned earlier, I feel obliged to stand up and highlight the other point of rehabilitation and through our own way of doing it, which is through self-help, religious and ethnic mix of organisations. This is a very serious problem which even the Government on its own would not be able to solve the problem of rehabilitation. As far as deterrence is concerned, the provision for long term prison sentences is indeed welcome. We should be harsh with such an abuse that has wide social implications. Many have become victims and uncured throughout their life. Anyone reading this Bill would indeed be frightened, in view of the severity of the punishment. On the one hand, we should not be tempted to take a soft stand on this issue. On this matter, I therefore support the Bill.

One implication of this Bill is the provision for longer prison sentences. I do hope that the longer time the inmates spend in prison could also be spent in rehabilitation. In view of the complexity and difficulty of rehabilitation, one nagging problem of this issue is the high level of relapse among abusers who undergo rehabilitation. I have a number of suggestions.

One is for more effective rehabilitation programmes. I hope the rehabilitation of these inmates can start early from the day they are identified right to the day they are completely recovered. I would like to ask the Minister whether the involvement of ethnic-based and religious groups can be provided early in the rehabilitation programme even while the inmates are in prison. If this is so, I would like to ask the Minister whether he would consider giving more help to these groups in terms of professional assistance and help in managing and organising half-way houses. I have found through my work in SCORE that most of these religious and ethnic-based organisations are indeed very enthusiastic and motivated, largely due to their evangelical work. But they are usually in dire need of financial and professional help, especially when the problems of drug abuse are usually associated with complex social and psychological problems. I certainly know that this problem is indeed one that has occupied many Malay/Muslim organisations, in view of the severity and a number of problems of Muslim addicts. They have the right motivation and enthusiasm, but certainly professional and financial help is indeed welcome.

I would therefore also like the Minister to provide other help and assistance in terms of strengthening the role and capability of half-way houses to deal with this aspect of the problem of rehabilitation.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I thank the Members for making their contributions to debate this Bill. Some no doubt have done a lot of serious work because, from their speeches, I know that they have spent time talking to people. Some even have personal experiences from people they meet. Indeed, they are serious speeches which I would take seriously. There are also some speeches which are tedious because they are just a rehash of some of the themes that I have heard in this House from time to time and I would try to respond to them as well.

Generally, the concerns of Members here can be classified into several areas, and let me take them one at a time. First, take the question of rehabilitation. I think those who are involved in the work of drug prevention, rehabilitation and education will know that over the last few years, we have indeed put in a lot of time, effort, money and resources in helping the various groups to improve their capabilities in rehabilitating addicts who want to recover. Setting up of half-way houses, for example, was done many years ago, but in the last few years we have intensified this effort and the Government has also given them funds to help these addicts and to help the management of half-way houses manage the half-way houses. We have also helped half-way houses to look for property and premises where they can build facilities for these recovering addicts. Now, I believe we have 14 such half-way houses. In fact, the capacity in some of them are not even full. Some still have capacity left. Even to stay in a half-way house requires discipline, determination and the will power of the addict to say, "I want to remain in the half-way house to be rehabilitated." Sometimes, despite all the good-heartedness, the love and the hard work put in by volunteers in half-way houses, some of these volunteers do feel disheartened that these addicts just do not have the discipline to take the treatment. But the Government will do what it can to help them, ie, both these recovering addicts as well as the half-way houses. In terms of financial support, I think if they can justify a case to ask for more money, we will look at it, but the Government does not just spend money, throwing good money after bad money to people who do not want to change. Ultimately, whether an addict wants to recover or not, must depend on the person himself or herself. No amount of love, no amount of harsh punishment, no amount of money we throw at him or her, can make a person change if he does not want to change. I think volunteers who have seen these people will know that some of them are just desperate cases. Let me assure those who are helping in half-way houses and those who are involved in voluntary programmes that indeed we will continue to provide assistance where necessary. In fact, if Members will recall, when I announced some of these measures in this House more than a couple of years ago, I said that we are going to set up a dedicated unit in SCORE (Singapore Cooperative and Rehabilitative Enterprises) to counsel drug addicts. Indeed, such a unit had been set up. Today, we have more than 30 professional full-time counsellors. These full-time counsellors will not only counsel addicts who are in prison or the DRCs or those who need assistance, but they also provide professional assistance to those half-way houses and other counsellors who want additional back-up or training. Indeed, I have always encouraged them to share their resources, their expertise and the knowledge that they have gained in such counselling sessions with anyone who is interested. But again, sometimes people's patience can be very thin and despite the help that we give, addicts do not want to change, and volunteers simply give up. If Members recall, years ago, SANA used to have many voluntary counsellors. Today, many of them have given up because they have seen how difficult it is to change a person.

I have also mentioned in this House examples of addicts who have been in and out of the DRC and prison a number of times, some even more than a dozen times, and they have not learnt their lesson. So why do we have an amendment like this in our law? It is for these people who just simply refuse to change. Rather than letting them go to the DRC every time we arrest them, and then letting them out again after a few months, or even after a maximum of three years, then before long they are caught again, back to the DRC, after they have served their time, rehabilitation in the DRC, they went out again, but they are caught time and again; rather than wasting our time, resources and CNB's professional resources on such people, we have decided that the only way to treat these addicts is to imprison them for a long time. When I served this notice in 1996 that we would imprison these addicts for a long time, ie, a minimum of five years to seven years, if they are caught again the third time, many parents, self-help groups and volunteers really welcomed this measure. In fact, their view was that this was long overdue and ought to have been done much earlier. Then we would not have a situation as I have reported in this House in 1994 when we had more than 8,900 addicts in our DRCs. Even for the addicts themselves who were serving in the DRCs at that time, my Director of Prisons told me then that when this announcement was made in 1996, many of them were very worried. They were worried that since they have got one record, or two records, and if they went out again and get caught repeatedly, they would be in for these new measures. Indeed, from the statistics that I see today, there has been an improvement in the number of first time and second time drug addicts that we arrested recently.

Let me take an example. In 1994, when I reported to this House, we had about 8,900 addicts in our DRCs, of which 17.3% were first timers, that means, they were caught the first time and were in our DRCs. It does not mean that they were only abusing drugs for the first time they were caught. These are very different. It just happened that they could have been using drugs for some time and finally got caught by the CNB, and we classify them as first timers. Mind you, they may have been taking drugs for, who knows, three years, five years, and not caught, and they were lucky to get away with it. We had 17.3% of these first timers in 1994 in the DRCs.

But in 1997, that number had dropped to 10.9%, and up to March this year, that number had dropped to 10.7%. In other words, we now see a decline of the first timer drug addicts in our DRCs. This is despite the very rigorous enforcement actions that the CNB has been taking in the last few years, the number has been going down. Since 1996/1997, CNB has had Operation Dragnet and all kinds of code names that they used to arrest these people. You have read them in the papers. And this has been going on for a long time. Despite such rigorous enforcement action by the CNB, the number of first timer addicts arrested has gone down.

I also monitor the number of new addicts. The number of new addicts caught for the first time has also gone down. What about the second timers? The same situation appears. In 1994, for second timers, those who were caught for taking drugs a second time round, they could have been after being released, having been caught the first time, maybe undetected for two years, three years, one year, or six months, for who knows how long, arrested again the second time, there were 17.4% of them. But in 1997, they were just about the same, 18.2%; March 1998, about the same, 18.2%. But those who were arrested the third time or more has increased from 66.3% to 71.1%, and this was out of an addict population in the DRCs of 5,500 in 1997. In other words, the number of drug addicts in our DRCs saw a decline from about 8,900 to about 5,500, and today, I am talking about May, the number has even gone down further, despite rigorous CNB enforcement actions.

So, just the announcement of the new measures has already had an effect on the addicts. Why do we cane them? I think they really cannot learn. Some of them just do not want to learn. Some of them just have no will and no determination to learn. So, by keeping them in the prison for a long time, we will actually save them from the clutches of the drug traffickers. That is one. Secondly, we also could save them from committing crime and be punished under other laws. And thirdly, certainly they ought to be in there to reflect and be rehabilitated.

What rehabilitation programmes do we have for them? They will be treated like any other prisoners. We rehabilitate our prisoners, we give them work, we give them training. Those who want to study actually attend courses - you may not know that - they can do GCE "O" level, "N" level, "A" level, ITE, if they have the will and the interest to study. But not many want to do that because, I suppose, they just gave up their studies and that is why they went to do other things, like committing crime or taking drugs. So I think we have to be really tough in order to be kind to them. And I do not think there is any other way to treat them.

If these measures succeed in bringing down the number of drug addicts, I think it will serve the nation's purpose, it will serve the community's interest, and it will serve their families' interest, because then the family will know that indeed this person hopefully can be changed. Indeed, we also involve the family in the counselling and rehabilitation. Recently, in fact, Taman Bacaan, for example, has introduced a family education programme for the new addicts. Before they are released, their parents are brought in. But, mind you, not every parent is interested in his son or daughter who has taken drugs. Some simply refuse to have anything to do with them; some do not want to turn up; maybe some are too busy to turn up. But SCORE, Prisons or the voluntary half-way houses will try to involve the parents in the rehabilitation efforts, wherever possible. However, not all cases are possible; some cases are just impossible.

Let me now try to deal with some of the specific comments. Before I get into that, let me talk about campaigns. Mr Kenneth Chen and Mr Chiam said that maybe we should have more public education, more campaigns, etc. Indeed, we have. There have been a lot of campaigns in recent years to inform the public about the drug problem. Since I raised this problem in 1994, we have had a series of seminars, workshops, even concerts to publicise this problem that we have. And we had a seminar a couple of months ago, and we have a concert against drug abuse at the end of this month. For those people who are interested in helping us to publicise the message of drug abuse, we have got such a concert planned. Similarly, we have also worked with the schools. The CNB officers and Police officers have gone to the schools to talk about the problem and to talk to students who are likely to fall into the trap of being a drug addict, and try to explain to them the dangers of drug abuse. All these efforts have been going on and the schools have indeed been very happy with the education programmes that CNB has worked together with them in publicising the drug abuse message.

I think there has also been some mis-reading of some of the new sections of the Bill. For example, Mr Chiam said that for a second timer drug offender, he would be caught and caned. I think that is not right. We only catch people who are third timers. In other words, they are caught the third time. [Mr Chiam See Tong interjected.] No, third time. Let me assure him that - read this carefully - it is only for the third time.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You have got section 33 for the second timer.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Please read this section carefully, and listen to me carefully. I will come to you afterwards.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Rai asked whether CNB Narcotics Officers should not be part of the Police Force. I think they are doing a very good job. There is no need to include them as part of the Police Force. But they do have certain powers of the Police officers and they have the same scheme of service as Police officers. Of course, they have other kinds of allowances. And it is better that in order for us to deal with this problem, we target this specially ---

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Minister, I was just thinking whether there could be a transfer of Police officers to CNB and vice versa.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes, whenever necessary, and if need be. In fact, we do not have a system of closed service. Police officers who are interested to become CNB officers could join the CNB or if there are certain posts that we need to fill but we cannot find enough officers, we will find officers from other services. For your information, the Director of CNB is a Police officer, and there are also others like him in the Force.

Mdm Claire Chiang talked about social integration and work. I think she has also found out that indeed ISCOS, together with SCORE, do help these recovering addicts find jobs, and they have a section to help them look for jobs and, in fact, they do have work for them to keep them away from their previous company as far as possible. But really it is up to the individual who wants to change. But whether we should lift the curfew for those under electronic monitoring system or not, I think we have to consider this very carefully. Because for some of them, they really need a period of curfew. They need to stay at home, particularly during the vulnerable times in the evenings after work, they ought to stay at home with their family rather than to be tempted to mix up again with their former peers, and therefore be susceptible to drugs again. But she has also made other suggestions which I will ask my officials to look at and, if they are workable, certainly we will implement them. But we will have to discuss that.

Mr Jeyaretnam said that we should try to define what a hard-core addict is. But I do not know what he was doing when I was explaining what a hard-core addict is. I suppose he can do that by reading the Bill later on if he has the time.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Tell us again.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: All Members here know. I do not think I need to repeat what I have said earlier. If he refuses or did not want to listen or was sleeping earlier on, I see no reason why I should waste everybody's time repeating what I have said.

Mr Jeyaretnam also asked about a case of a person under a supervision order and was required to report at the police station, but did not turn up at the police station and whether he was deemed to have refused to provide a urine specimen. I think if he had listened to my speech, he would know that that is not the person I am referring to. When I said that a person refuses to provide a urine specimen, I meant that when he is required to do so, ie, when he was asked to produce his urine sample, the person says, "I don't want to." Then he would be subject to that regime. [Mr Jeyaretnam interjected.] If he had listened to me and read the Bill carefully, he would not ask me the silly question.

Mr Speaker: Order. Can I ask Mr Jeyaretnam to direct his questions to the Chair?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, Sir, may I ask by way of clarification?

Mr Speaker: Mr Wong, are you giving way?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Under a supervision order, is the man not required to turn up and give his urine, and he fails to turn up? So, what distinction are you making in this section?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: If a person, who is required under a supervision order to turn up to give urine sample, fails to turn up, he will be an absconder. He will be arrested as an absconder.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Is he caught under this section?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I did not say that. If he had listened to me carefully, he would not be asking me this question. So, that is why I said that some people do serious research work before they come to the House; some people just look at the Bill and then ask questions without really taking the time to understand what the law is really all about.

Mr Zulkifli asked about the rehabilitation for his people who are in long term imprisonment. I said that they will be treated like any other prisoners and be rehabilitated like any other prisoners. For the self-help groups that need additional help, professional assistance, etc, we will try to extend to them whatever assistance that can be justifiably made.

The last point, which I forgot to mention, is about Mr Jeyaretnam's earlier example on section 33A, in making distinction between people who were caught a third time because they could have been unwittingly taking drugs the second time and therefore caught under this section. It is very difficult really for the law to make a distinction for different people with different circumstances. I think in this instance, we are very clear. Anyone with a first drug record is a first timer. Anyone with a second drug record is a second timer. And if that person is caught a third time, he is a third timer. In fact, if you ask them why they took drugs the first time, the second time, and the third time, each of them will give you a different grandmother's story. And I think it is very difficult for us to go and ascertain the veracity or truthfulness of their grandmother's story.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask by way of a clarification? The Minister quite rightly says it is very difficult for us, meaning the Ministry. I take it, or this House, to decide whether a person is a hard-core addict or not. We can only go on standard definitions. But would he not agree that if the courts are given the power to inquire, they can make the inquiry, they can call for a report, and then decide on the appropriate punishment? Would the Minister at least concede that the courts have the power and can do it?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the courts will decide based on what is in the law. The law is made in Parliament, and what is proposed in the Bill is a matter of Government policy. The Government has decided that this be the policy for treating hardcore addicts and it will be written down in the law and passed in this House, and the court will interpret it according to the law. I do not think I need to explain in great detail how the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive really work because I think Members ought to know.

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh: Just a point of clarification. I agree with the Minister that we do not need to spend more money and resources on hardcore addicts, and he was right to say that unless they are willing to change, no amount of love or harsh penalties will change them. I am merely urging for more focused attention on first-time offenders and I think we need to look at best practices and treatment models to rehabilitate them. I would like to inform Members of this House that the New Direction, for example, one of the half-way houses, is run by ex-drug addicts. Four of the directors are doing incredibly good work and that is the testimony to early rehabilitation programmes.

On the electronic monitoring system, I agree with the Minister that they need to stay at home but some of the social workers, in doing counselling work, find it difficult to reach them because they cannot come out at night and a lot of the classes and counselling sessions are in the evenings. I think it is a matter of administration. We can monitor them. But, Sir, please consider that during that period when they have to spend time with their family, it is also the period when they need early counselling sessions. The Ministry should see how they could respond to both needs.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, if it is practical to really allow a recovering addict who is on the electronic monitoring system to be out of the home for counselling session, then I would ask my officials to consider that. For rehabilitating first timers, indeed, I think that is a point which we recognise, and that is the effort and focus of attention put in by our after-care personnel, volunteers, professional counsellors in the DRCs as well as in SCORE. We hope that these first timers, people who are caught the first time and went to DRCs, will change after being caught the first time, and that is why we have spent a lot of time trying to talk them out of it and not be caught the second time. So I think the emphasis is correct and we will spend our resources on these people who want to change, and who can be changed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng ].

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

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.45 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.20 pm until 3.45 pm Sitting resumed at 3.45 pm