DRUG TRAFFICKING (CONFISCATION OF BENEFITS) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate resumed.

Mr Harun bin A. Ghani: (In Malay): Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to join in this debate.

It is timely that the proposed amendment to the Drug Trafficking (Confiscation of Benefits) Act to include corruption practices and other serious crimes be introduced to safeguard the interest of our country. Singapore has come a long way to be what it is today and it is vital that we equip our law enforcement agencies with a more effective legislation to combat corrupt practices and other serious crimes.

I believe that with the amendment Bill there will be a positive effect on the political, social and economic aspects of our country. Those who have the intention of committing drug trafficking, corrupt practices and other serious crimes at the expense of the interest of Singapore will have to think twice before committing such crimes. With the amendment Bill, the relevant authorities will have the powers to confiscate the proceeds acquired by the criminals through their criminal activities and hit them hard in their pockets. This will also deter others from committing such offences.

Sir, I strongly support the Drug Trafficking (Confiscation of Benefits) (Amendment) Bill on the following grounds:

(a) It is hard on the criminals and deters others from committing such crimes.

(b) It helps to maintain low crime rate and enhance the confidence of foreign investors.

(c) It helps to maintain political, social and economic stability of our country. In doing so, it could help to create more employment opportunities in Singapore.

(d) It helps to achieve our vision in making Singapore a safe and best home for everyone.

The amendment Bill not only benefits both Singaporeans and foreign investors alike, it also enhances Singapore's image at the international level. I believe that this amendment is necessary if we were to see stability in our country. Evidently, it is vital that the amendment to the Drug Trafficking (Confiscation of Benefits) Act be amended to include corrupt practices and other serious crimes for the interest of our country.

Mr Shriniwas Rai (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity.

Sir, the Minister has given the background why this legislation is necessary. I am generally in support of most of the provisions. I have some reservation on some of the clauses which I will come to later.

First, let me address the basic philosophy why we need to have this legislation. We had for a long time in the early 70s taken seriously the question of drug and drug trafficking. It is important that our legislation takes care of drug trafficking and money laundering. In many parts of the world, drug trafficking is becoming an acute problem. We need to have legislation that will take care of this, and I am glad that the Government has taken the step. I am a little unhappy that under new section 43 the fine is only $30,000. $30,000 is a paltry sum for traffickers and those who are helping the traffickers. I hope that this will be reviewed in future.

Sir, I am also concerned with clause 22. As a lawyer, knowledge is a very important factor in a crime. But I am prepared in this instance to support the proposed amendment because we have to seek from actual knowledge to one where there is a reasonable ground to believe, and I think the court will no doubt take a great deal of pain to see that this is observed. Initially, I have my doubt whether this piece of legislation should be worded this way. But after carefully considering the fact, I am prepared to support the provisions in the Bill.

Sir, initially I have also reservation on increasing the penalty from $100,000 to $200,000. But I support again because I think it is timely to increase the fine from $100,000 to $200,000. In fact, I would have been happier if it was higher, but let us go stage by stage.

Sir, generally, we have a balanced legislation here, and I hope that the whole House will join me in supporting the Bill.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I thank the speakers for supporting the Bill. I have explained why we have pegged the penalty of $30,000 for those who were convicted of tipping off information to the people concerned. This is actually consistent with section 44 of the current DTA. So we are not doing anything new. Similarly, for the other provisions, it is also consistent with the current DTA, and we have from experience no reason right now to increase that penalty. And on some subsequent occasion if we need to do that, we will consider the change.

As to whether we should have imposed "actual knowledge" instead of "reasonable ground to believe", the latter is a standard set in many other countries, and I do not believe that we should be more stringent than the other countries. Since we are part of the international community in this area, we should therefore be in line with what the other countries are doing. We are not doing more; we are not doing less than what others are doing. We are in keeping with the international mood and climate and the trend as required of the other countries.

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.