MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Column No : 2095

MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

6.44 pm

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

Introduction

Sir, the Singapore drug situation has improved significantly as compared to a decade ago. The number of drug abusers arrested dropped from over 6,000 in 1994 to less than 800 in 2005. The number of new abusers also dropped from about 1,300 in 1994 to around 450 last year. In addition, the total drug abuser population in the Drug Rehabilitation Centres, or DRCs, which was at a record high of around 8,900 in 1994, has decreased to only about 190 in 2005. The relapse rate of drug abusers has declined from 68% in 1994 to just about 5% last year.

But as I have said many times before, the war against drugs is not over. While the overall drug situation has improved, there is the emerging threat of synthetic drugs such as 'Ecstasy', Ketamine, Methamphetamine, and Nimetazepam. Indeed, the trafficking and abuse of synthetic drugs continues to be a major concern in the region. Some countries in the region have become major producers of methamphetamine. Last year, clandestine laboratories used for the production of methamphetamine and 'Ecstasy' were dismantled in some of these countries, including one laboratory

with a production capacity of 100,000 'Ecstasy' tablets per hour. Sizeable drug storage facilities were also discovered.

Our proximity to these countries makes us vulnerable to potential spillover effects. In fact, synthetic drug abusers made up about three quarters (78%) of the drug abusers arrested in Singapore last year. We must therefore continue to keep our local drug situation under control, as the worsening drug situation in our neighbouring countries can have an adverse impact on us.

Sir, the objectives of the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill that I am presenting today are to provide for better drug enforcement and deterrence, particularly against synthetic drugs, and to enhance the operational efficiency of the Central Narcotics Bureau. Let me now explain the key amendments.

Key amendments to the MDA

Stiffer penalties against trafficking in Ketamine

First, the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) amendments provide for stiffer penalties against trafficking in Ketamine.

Ketamine was first listed as a Class B controlled drug in September 1999. As a Class B controlled drug, the penalties for trafficking in Ketamine are three to 20 years of imprisonment and three to 10 strokes of the cane.

From year 2000 to year 2003, both the number of Ketamine abusers and traffickers saw significant increases. The number of Ketamine abusers increased from 78 in 2000 to 497 in 2003, while the number of traffickers increased from 23 in 2000 to 152 in 2003. In 2004, the Ketamine abuse situation registered an improvement for the first time with a drop of 38% in the number of Ketamine abusers to just 306, while the number of Ketamine traffickers arrested remained relatively constant at about 150.

The Ketamine situation continues to show an improvement in 2005. The number of abusers decreased from 306 in 2004 to 201 in 2005. The number of Ketamine traffickers has also decreased from 150 to 102 in 2004 and 2005 respectively.

However, although the abuse and trafficking of Ketamine has declined in 2005, Ketamine abusers and traffickers continue to form the majority of abusers and traffickers arrested. Indeed, Ketamine abusers formed the largest proportion of abusers arrested at 26%, while Ketamine traffickers formed 24% of traffickers arrested in 2005. In addition, despite the improved situation in Ketamine abuse, the seizure of Ketamine in 2005 increased to 8 kg as compared to 4.7 kg in 2004, that means, despite the numbers of traffickers and abusers going down, the quantity of Ketamine being supplied to the market and seized actually went up.

To deter would-be offenders from trafficking in Ketamine, clause 12 of the MDA Bill amends the First Schedule to upgrade Ketamine from a Class B to a Class A controlled drug. This would increase the penalties for trafficking in Ketamine to five to 20 years of imprisonment and five to 15 strokes of the cane.

In addition, clause 5 of the MDA Bill amends section 17 to extend the presumption clause for trafficking to Ketamine. Any person who has in his possession of more than 113 grammes of Ketamine shall be presumed to be in possession of Ketamine for the purpose of trafficking and the onus is on him to prove that his possession of Ketamine was not for that purpose. This amount of 113 grammes of Ketamine is equivalent to 100 times the estimated daily dosage of the drug for an abuser. This basis is the same as that used for deriving the presumption amounts for other drugs, such as methamphetamine, 'Ecstasy' and heroin. Just to give you an idea of what 100 shots of Ketamine cost. 113 grammes of Ketamine cost about $8,000 in market value. This means that if a person needs to spend $8,000 on Ketamine for himself, then he cannot be doing for himself, he must be trafficking. That is the basis for the presumption.

These changes will bring Ketamine on par with the other synthetic drugs like methamphetamine and 'Ecstasy', which are already Class A controlled drugs.

Long-term imprisonment regime for recalcitrant synthetic drug abusers

Let me now turn to the next key amendment, which is the proposed long-term imprisonment regime for recalcitrant synthetic drug abusers.

The long-term imprisonment regime for recalcitrant heroin abusers was first introduced in 1998. Under this regime, heroin abusers who do not change after two admissions into the Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRCs) will be charged in court if they are arrested for the third time or more. If they are convicted, they will be sentenced to prison for five to 13 years and given three to 12 strokes of the cane.

The long-term imprisonment regime was a major factor in breaking the heroin problem. This tough policy achieved its purpose of taking recalcitrant heroin abusers out of circulation to prevent them from contaminating others in becoming drug abusers. It also stopped hardcore heroin abusers from continuing with their drug-taking habits.

In July last year, the Prisons Department implemented a new rehabilitation regime in the DRCs, specially tailored to the treatment of first and second-time synthetic drug abusers. These include abusers of 'Ecstasy', Ketamine, Methamphetamine, and Nimetazepam. However, while a rehabilitative approach is taken for these synthetic drug abusers, there is also a need to deal firmly with recalcitrant abusers for persisting with their drug habit and to deter potential drug abusers from falling into the drug trap.

Hence, clause 8 of the MDA Bill amends section 33A to place synthetic drug abusers who are arrested for the third or more time on the long-term imprisonment regime. Similar to the current long-term imprisonment regime 1 (LT1) for heroin abusers, these synthetic drug abusers will be sent to prison for a minimum of five years and a maximum of seven years, and will be given a minimum of three and a maximum of six strokes of the cane. Those who relapse upon their release from LT1 will be sentenced to imprisonment for a minimum of seven years and a maximum of 13 years as well as a minimum of six and a maximum of 12 strokes of the cane. Essentially, this new approach means that, regardless of whether it is heroin or synthetic drugs, abusers will be subject to the same penalty regime.

Inclusion of 'Foxy' (5-MeO-DIPT) as a Class A drug

Sir, the next amendment is the inclusion of a new synthetic drug called 'Foxy' as a Class A controlled drug.

In August 2004, there were two seizures of the synthetic drug 'Foxy' at Zouk Disco. This drug belongs to a class of chemicals known as Tryptamines. It is currently not controlled under the MDA, although several other Tryptamines have already been listed as Class A controlled drugs in the Act. 'Foxy' abusers will typically experience a multitude of effects, which include hallucinations, euphoria, dilated pupils, visual and auditory disturbances or distortions, and emotional distress. The Health Sciences Authority, or HSA, has advised the Central Narcotics Bureau, or CNB, to consider including it as a Class A controlled drug.

The Singapore Medical Council and the Centre for Drug Administration, or CDA, have no objections to include 'Foxy' as a Class A controlled drug in the MDA. The Centre for Drug Administration also pointed out that there is no known medicinal or clinical use for this substance. Hence, clause 12 of the MDA Bill amends the First Schedule to include 'Foxy' as a Class A controlled drug.

DNA profiling of drug abusers committed to DRCs and drug supervisees

Sir, I will now address the issue of DNA profiling of drug abusers committed to DRCs and drug supervisees.

DNA profiling is widely used in forensic investigations in many countries. Our Registration of Criminals Act was amended in 2002 to provide for the establishment of a DNA database of criminals convicted in courts. Further, in year 2004, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions), or CL(TP), Act was amended to provide for the taking of body samples for DNA profiling, in addition to finger impressions and photographs, of persons arrested, detained or placed on supervision under the CL(TP) Act.

However, there is currently no provision in the MDA for the taking and keeping of body samples for DNA profiling, in addition to finger impressions and photographs, for drug abusers committed to DRCs and drug supervisees. As drug abusers have been known to turn to crime to feed their habits and addictions, it is important that the DNA profiles, finger impressions and photographs of these drug abusers are collected and stored for purposes of investigation.

Hence, clause 10 of the MDA Bill inserts new sections 40A to 40D into the MDA to provide for the taking and keeping of body samples for DNA profiling, finger impressions and photographs of drug abusers committed to DRCs and drug supervisees. A similar amendment will be made to the Intoxicating Substances Act, which I will cover later during the Second Reading of the Intoxicating Substances (Amendment) Bill.

Other amendments to the MDA

Sir, I now turn to other amendments to the MDA to enhance the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the CNB. Let me highlight the more important ones.

Extension of the period of supervision for drug abusers

Sir, the Director of CNB is currently empowered under the MDA to make a supervision order on drug abusers for a period not exceeding two years. However, there is no provision in the MDA to empower him to extend the supervision order which may be necessary if the order is disrupted when the supervisee commits a drug or penal offence and goes into prison, or stays overseas on employment. So clauses 9 and 11 of the MDA Bill thus amend sections 34 and 58 respectively to empower the Director of CNB to extend the period of supervision of drug abusers for a period not exceeding two years, if these abusers did not successfully complete the two years of supervision because they absconded or were imprisoned for other offences.

Engagement of other service providers for conducting drug analysis

Next, clause 4 of the MDA Bill amends section 16 of the MDA to allow CNB to employ the services of other laboratories, other than the Health Sciences Authority (HSA), to conduct drug analysis.

This amendment is made because, currently, the MDA states that a certificate signed by an analyst employed by the HSA shall be admitted as prima facie evidence for an offence under the respective Acts. If CNB engages the services of other laboratories to conduct drug analysis, the findings of these laboratories will not be deemed as prima facie evidence and may be subject to challenge in court. Hence, these amendments will ensure that CNB is not restricted to rely only on HSA for conducting drug analysis. Similar amendments will also be made to the Intoxicating Substances Act, which I will explain later when I move the Second Reading of the Intoxicating Substances (Amendment) Bill.

Conclusion

Sir, to conclude, although the overall drug situation remains under control, we must press on resolutely with our efforts. In particular, if the new generation of Singaporeans see synthetic drugs as fashionable and acceptable, we will be down a very slippery slope. There is therefore a need to continue to be vigilant and to inculcate zero tolerance against all forms of illegal drugs at all levels of our society.

In this context, these amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act will provide for better drug enforcement and deterrence and enable us to gear up for the new battlefront of synthetic drugs in our war against drugs.

Sir, I beg to move.

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.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr S Iswaran) in the Chair]

The Chairman: The citation year "2005" will be changed to "2006" as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

Clauses 1 to 16 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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