Strengthening Singapore's Fight Against Drugs

Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of this Motion. I remember, many years ago, as a young junior doctor, looking after a young mother, whose life had been ruined by drugs.

She had been abusing her drugs, injecting herself. Germs got into her blood. Germs went to her heart, eating away one of her heart valves, so her heart could not pump properly. The germs from the injection continued to spread, to her lungs and the rest of her body. That is what drug abuse did to her. A young mother, young children, their future taken away. That is what drugs did to them.

Mr Deputy Speaker, she had no second chance. The drugs did not give her a chance. The person who introduced her to drug abuse, he did not give her a chance. Every person who continued to sell her illegal drugs for abuse, they never gave her a chance. She had no second chance.

And we can also look to other countries like America, to see the extent of the problem. If we look at the statistics from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse, in the year 2015, there were over 50,000 deaths from drug overdose in America.

It has been getting worse over time. In America, the death rate from overdose has more than doubled from 2002 to 2015. This does not even count the rate of drug-related crime: gang violence, robbery, murder, crimes under the influence.

If we look at countries that have taken a soft approach, there is no straightforward way for these countries to roll back the situation because drugs have become so entrenched. You can see it in the United States. You can see it in parts of the West. You can see it in many countries around the world.

And this has deep lessons for us in Singapore because policy choices at the beginning can set the tone for decades afterwards. What we decide today shapes the course of a generation to come. It means a bad choice, an unwise choice, if it cannot be rolled back, will cast a very long shadow for what comes after, for our children and our grandchildren.

We need to care and that means we need to be careful when people call upon Singapore to be tolerant of drugs, to condone drugs. We need to care and we need to be careful when certain propagandists, when certain lobbyists put forward what they claim to be scientific evidence, we need to ask ourselves to evaluate these reports critically, ask ourselves who is funding the research, who stands to benefit from the so-called research. Is there a certain narrative or a certain conflict of interest when these lobbyists claim that drugs are safer; when they claim that harm should be reduced; when they take a stance that it is soft on drugs rather than hard on the dangers that they pose to our people and our children? Because tolerating drugs also means tolerating the harm that drugs do to Singaporeans' lives. It means tolerating the damage to families − husbands and wives, sons and daughters. So, we have to be careful. And it also means we have to care.

Mr Deputy Speaker, for Singaporeans whose lives have already been damaged by drugs, we have to bring hope, in particular, the hope of a future, especially for the children of parents whose lives have been damaged by drug abuse.

At my Meet-the-People Sessions, I have met young mothers, trying to find work − very difficult. Juggling looking after their children, trying to find a job, husband in prison because of drugs.

I have met middle-aged men, released from prison. Because their lives were blighted by drugs. Looking for employment, trying to rebuild their lives and families. Again, disadvantaged by drugs; drugs promoting inequality, poisoning families, damaging the next generation.

So, even as we take a tough stand to prevent drug peddlers poisoning our fellow Singaporeans and their families, we also need to look very carefully at how we can help these families recover, ensure their children still have a fair start in life. So that even as we protect our borders from the scourge of drugs, even as we protect our fellow Singaporeans, those hurt by drugs and their families still can find their way to a better future. I stand in support of this Motion.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank the hon Members who proposed this Motion. It has allowed me to learn a lot and to understand people on the drug issues. And I agree with the Members on the need to be even more proactive in dealing with drug problems in Singapore.

I would also like to pay tribute to officers in CNB for the work that they do in keeping Singapore safe. Our officers often place their personal safety on the line in the course of their work and I think we ought to put on record our appreciation for their sacrifice and bravery.

This Motion covers three important points but I will only address two of them. The first one on the Motion of applying tough laws to deter drug trafficking into Singapore. The second one would be my suggestion for rehabilitative work with drug offenders, traffickers and users alike.

Sir, the first point of this Motion proposes that this House calls on the Government to continue applying tough laws to deter drug trafficking into Singapore and, by that, it would include the retention of capital punishment for drug offences in the form that it presently takes.

First, let me state my position. I do not support the death penalty. It is against my own personal philosophy that I do not believe in a life for another life. I will not want to impose my moral position on this, but I think there are also issues with regard to this matter that I hope we can have more discourse on.

I agree that it is important to have tough laws, but I do not believe that capital punishment, as a demonstration of the tough laws and resolution to fight against drug problems, is something that I can support.

Sir, capital punishment, as we all know, when it takes place, cannot be remedied. Ian Callinan, a former Australian High Court Judge says, "The criminal justice system is fallible. Mistakes occur. Any system that retains the death penalty will inevitably, even if infrequently, cause an innocent person to die. It is not within our capability to avoid the possibility of error. In my experience, the phenomenon of human fallibility is irrefutable and, in my view, must be accorded primacy when weighing the arguments in favour of, and against, the death penalty."

Sir, any criminal justice system in the world, however advanced, will make mistakes. It is not a question of having professional, honest and upright judges, Police officers, prosecutors or defence lawyers. However much trust we have in our system, however much faith we have in the people that operate our system, mistakes are unavoidable because humans do make mistakes and, sometimes, genuine mistakes.

In a capital case, once the execution takes place and the life of a person is terminated, any mistakes made cannot be corrected. The person's life is lost forever. And as the saying goes, "You can release innocent people from prison, but you cannot release them from their graves".

The criminal justice system has itself demonstrated that it is never 100% sure that the person it is sending to the gallows is, in fact, guilty. Secondly, because of the risk factors in the system, even with a very good and disciplined Police force that we have now, mistakes may happen.

In normal cases, our criminal justice system requires a person's guilt to be proven beyond reasonable doubt before he or she can be convicted and, in the context of capital cases, sentenced to death. The law has always made it clear that "proof beyond reasonable doubt" does not mean proof beyond all doubt. But because the death penalty is irreversible, nothing less than proof beyond all doubt would suffice if we are serious about ensuring that no innocent person is wrongfully executed.

Sir, if our judges themselves can disagree over the question of whether the accused persons in some cases were guilty or innocent, we have to ask ourselves whether we can be absolutely sure that we will always send the right people to the gallows. The answer to me is that, no, we cannot.

Just a few weeks ago, our Court of Appeal overturned the conviction of Mr Harven Segar, who was found guilty of drug trafficking by the High Court. But the Court of Appeal was not unanimous. Two of the three judges thought that the Court should acquit the accused, while the third judge thought otherwise.

On top of this, there are various procedures within the criminal process, which increases the probability of wrongful executions that can happen or may happen.

Firstly, a person charged for an offence of drug trafficking or importation is automatically presumed guilty, once the prosecution shows that the accused was merely in possession of the package containing the drugs. As a result, accused persons have to instead prove that they are innocent, and they have to do this without the resources available to the Police. As Prof Michael Hor has pointed out, "where the presumption is employed there can be no doubt that an accused person can be found guilty and executed in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt".

Prof Hor has also pointed out that where there is no access to counsel immediately upon arrest, which could affect the ability of the accused person to defend himself against a capital charge, especially since incriminatory statements obtained by the Police can form the sole basis of conviction, without corroborating or supporting evidence of any kind.

While there is, indeed, a rule that involuntary statements are inadmissible, proof of exactly what happened in the interrogation room and of exactly how statements are obtained depends entirely on witness testimony of the Police and the accused. There is no requirement of recording of any kind, even where no defence counsel is present.

Furthermore, what goes on during the investigation process is especially important because the statements of the co-accused persons can be used against the accused and can also form the sole basis of a conviction without corroborating evidence, even if the statements are subsequently retracted at the trial by the co-accused.

So, in Prof Hor's view: "all these rules and practices taken together must at least cast some doubt on whether there is sufficient due process for the conduct of capital cases."

Sir, if every other advanced criminal justice system in the world has convicted the wrong person, there is no reason to think that Singapore is immune to the problem. Miscarriages of justice have been found in systems, such as Canada, Australia, Norway and many others. Why should we think the situation in Singapore is any different?

Of course, one may ask: have there been any proven cases? Sir, in my view maybe that is really not the right question. Maybe the right question is whether we should wait until someone is wrongfully executed before we decide to change our position.

I would like to speak on the humanity of the families of those executed and those who have their loved ones on death row. While we do not see it, the reality is that our criminal punishment, especially the death penalty, creates a new class of victims in the families of the death row inmates. These family members are innocent people. They found themselves having their loved ones taken away from them through no fault of their own. Most of them are mothers and sisters who have done all that they can to make a decent living for themselves and their families.

In a conversation with a former death row convict who was acquitted by our Court of Appeal, I was struck by the poignancy of how he described the impact of the death penalty on his family. He told me this, "When you sentence me to death, you sentence my family to death too".

Sir, I do not wish to play down the impact of drug abuse on family members of drug abusers. But just as it is important to recognise and address the impact of drugs on the families of drug abusers, I hope we also consider how capital punishment impacts the families of the condemned. Both groups of family members are equal victims in this process.

But if we cannot sufficiently show that the death penalty yields more than a marginal deterrence effect or provide any objective data and evidence, we also have to ask ourselves whether it is necessary, or indeed fair, for us to create a whole new class of victims by carrying out those punishments.

So, do we have good and conclusive data and information that can prove beyond doubt that the death penalty and, by extension, such tough laws, would deter drug trafficking.

In fact, Sir, it appears, and is accepted by CNB itself, that it is active enforcement, both internally as well as joint border operations by our efficient CNB, that remains the best strategy towards disrupting the activities of drug syndicates and in reducing the supply of drugs from entering our borders as much as possible.

Let us also not forget that the reality is that the ones who are being severely punished are largely the drug mules. Drug kingpins that operate beyond our borders, who are well sheltered through a complex network chain, are not going to be the ones personally affected by the harsh drug laws put in place and will continue to send individuals, who are often desperate, to supply drugs into our country.

As such, would the death penalty for drug trafficking yield only a slightly higher deterrent effect than alternative punishments?

Let us be clear here − drugs are a menace to our society and its use should be eliminated as much as possible. Let us also not ignore the fact that the question of drug use is not just a criminal justice issue but a social, political and economic one.

It is a question of the sufficiency of our social and economic structures to ensure that individuals have the social and economic means and support to enable them to lead a dignified and meaningful life such that there is little incentive for them to abuse drugs.

It is most telling when in 2015, out of the 1,400 individuals that were placed in the various drug rehabilitation centres (DRCs), 821 individuals had only Secondary school education, 308 individuals had only Primary school education and six individuals did not have any education at all.

Perhaps the profile of drug abusers might give us some indication that it is in the inadequacy and gaps in our social and economic institutions, rather than the failure of not having implemented more punitive punishment on drug consumption and drug trafficking that the problem lies.

Ultimately, the issue of supply needs to be addressed through the demand lens as well, which I agree with the Members. It goes without saying that if we are unable to effectively reduce the demand for drugs, the supply of drugs will continue to creep into our borders.

Sir, I agree that we must invest in the rehabilitation of drug addicts. I also want to raise another point − that rehabilitation should also be for drug traffickers and not just for the users.

We should also be mindful that many traffickers themselves battle addiction, poverty, unemployment and mental illnesses. In many cases, as recognised by our Courts, they are simply people driven to desperate measures to earn money for their families. They, too, are ordinary people who have fallen through the cracks and are equally capable of rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Let me now speak of the rehabilitative work. Addiction is really very complex. It is not an illness that can be remedied through medication. It is mental, emotional and then it affects the physical being. Once, my company, Drama Box, did a work with inmates in a DRC. In fact, in the work there, what struck us most was their concern, the inmates' concern, of how to find a good support system when they move back to society. In one performance when we moved the play out of the DRC and had it performed by performance actors, an audience member from the public shared his experience of how he helped his relative out of the drug problem. He sent this relative who just left the DRC to work in a logging firm in Brunei, deep in the forest. Over there, the relative learned about discipline which took him away at the same time from his previous social circle. When the relative came back to Singapore three years later, he had enough money to start his business.

The rehabilitative process is a very, very long one.

Visual artist Ms Shirley Soh, who worked with some women drug offenders in her Seeing (from) The Other, a work for the Singapore Biennale 2013, noted this, and I quote, "The most important challenging work with the women inmates was to encourage self- expressions in discovering their own stories of growth, change, inspiration and agency that were equally crucial for these women, many of whom had very low self-esteem and were often poorly educated."

At the end of the process, Shirley noted, "Ultimately, what surprised the women inmates was how much the art process was about life and their own life experience and aspirations that were worthy of sharing with the outside world."

I saw a performance performed by inmates in the prison centre just last year. It was one of the most beautiful performances I had ever seen. The sincerity and commitment, but importantly, when you look at the faces and hear the voices of these inmates, when they first appear on stage, slightly embarrassed but as the performance went on, you know that the experience of working on the performance had made them stronger, more confident, more aware of themselves.

According to Ms Peggy Ferroa, the Arts Educator who worked with them, "Inmates on the programme spend at least six hours a day on week days rehearsing, planning ahead for performances or reflecting. If their minds are occupied with things that require concrete outcomes that they know they can do well in, it is likely that they spend less time thinking of ways to beat the system. When their time is meaningfully spent and they are able to reach their personal goals, they gain confidence and start to think about what they can do for others. Some inmates in the programme have come up with educational workshops using drama for other inmates."

Yes, Arts is powerful in helping the rehabilitative process, of building that resilience in them; to face change, to make change, to be the change themselves. For this to happen, it really needs the Prison Service to be able to invite more of these works. I hope we can look at more of such co-operation as proposed by fellow Members, and, of course, managing the process to allow artists to work with these inmates.

I would like to stress that it is not about making them an artist, so that they can get a skill. Of course, if they are very talented and want to do so, we will be so happy to have more additions to our artistic and creative community. But the programme builds very important soft skills, as well as resilience, which will serve them well when they go back to society. These programmes must not be short workshops but sustainable ones that would focus on the process.

Finally, let me be clear again, Sir, my position on the death penalty is not a dogmatic one. It is not cast in stone and, just as I hope Members who disagree with me would keep an open mind in this discourse, I, in turn, promise to keep an open mind to any new arguments or evidence that my hon friends and other members of society may bring forward. I sincerely hope that the Government would do more to facilitate a more informed public discourse on this subject. I hope to continue this conversation with Members in this House and with my fellow Singaporeans at large.

Deputy Speaker, I would like to first share some stories which I have come to observe and witness first-hand while serving the community. The first story was when I was serving as a grassroots leader in Ulu Pandan. I remember I was still a tertiary student in my second year in University and I was at a Meet-the-People-Session (MPS). It was a very eye-opening experience for me in general but there was this one story that I will always remember and have repeatedly shared.

One night, a young mother came with her children, very young. They were all crying. They were crying because they were hungry. The family had not the financial means, the money, to buy the daily supplies that they needed; that is because the husband, the father of the young children, was a drug addict; he could not hold down jobs, could not even start a job. The young mother, because of her young children, had no choice but to stay around to take care of them. She could not go out to work and, yet, because of the circumstances, they had no savings, no income, no nothing. They managed to somehow make their way, probably by borrowing money, to the MPS to ask for help because of the bills, the arrears, the debts that they had built up.

Fellow volunteers and I were very struck by this. Some of the volunteers immediately took the kids to the McDonald's outlet nearby to buy them a simple meal, so that they can have a full stomach. The rest, some of us stayed back to write letters of appeal and try to find different ways to help her solve her financial distress.

At one point, the then Member of Parliament of Ulu Pandan, none other than Dr Vivian Balakrishnan himself, made a point and I also remember this, that we can give them as much help as we can but we can never be real fathers or real husbands to them. That was something that I walked away with, thinking about it.

As the Government, as a society, there are many things that we can do to help them but, in the end, if someone has been taken down by drugs because drugs have poisoned this person, this person is no longer functioning normally, what we see is a debilitating effect on the innocent lives of people around them, their loved ones, the young ones. This was a very sobering instance. To date, it is something that still sticks with me.

Even within the current community that I serve, I have also met quite a number of drug abusers. A number of them, at least two men I have met, after abusing drugs, even though they are now back in the community, they still suffer psychosis. They are unable to be self-reliant, they are unable to hold down jobs, they have to rely on their siblings or their elderly parents, really aged parents, to still help them, to subsist them. Again, we try to give them financial assistance but there is only so much that we can do. Here we are, we see two able-bodied men basically unable to do anything more productive than just living the days out.

As shared by hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza, we have all seen the photos and the videos that went viral sometime last year in the United States where young toddlers were left to fend for himself or herself at the backseat of the car because the parents were overdosed on drugs. Another one, a little toddler, just sitting next to her mother who had had collapsed because of heroin overdose; just crying, so lonely, so helpless.

As a parent and as any responsible parent in this House and outside of this House, we can all agree that such scenes are simply heartbreaking and we would not want to see it on our own children or, for that matter, on any other child out there because we feel for them. These are real stories of how drugs destroy the lives of those who abuse them and of the innocent people around them.

Illicit drugs remain a scourge of all societies. In the 2016 World Drug Report published by the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, it was estimated that one in 20 adults, or a quarter of a billion people between the ages of 15 and 64 years, used at least one drug in the year 2014 alone.

This is an alarming figure. Drugs never just affect the abuser alone. It is like a voracious vortex pulling family members and the community in a downward spiral. Real harm is inflicted upon the abuser, his family and the wider community. In fact, I can never really understand how the choice of certain individuals in wanting to use illicit drugs can be allowed to destroy the lives and future of so many innocent people out there.

Beyond this, drug abuse and addiction also impose a high cost to the economy, estimated at close to $200 billion annually by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. This includes costs related to crime, loss of work productivity and healthcare expenditures. From an economic perspective, a drug-tolerant society is too high a cost for any society to bear.

We know that drugs destroy families in drug-tolerant countries. Many people started experimenting with illicit drugs to satisfy their curiosity towards the perceived thrill and exhilaration. Often, it is also a result of peer pressure. However, because of the insidious nature of such addictive drugs, users who thought they were just using drugs recreationally may find themselves unable to escape addiction.

Worse, the diminishing effects of illicit drug abuse drives the abuser to consume a greater amount each time just to achieve that same euphoric sensation. And if they do not get that "fix", they suffer terrible withdrawal symptoms. This means that more and more money is needed to finance the drug habit. This can lead to financial exhaustion and, more tragically, death from drug overdose.

It is not uncommon to hear the sad plight of families when the sole breadwinner becomes entangled with illicit drug and is addicted. I described one earlier. We have heard many in this House.

Sometimes, families of drug abusers find themselves trapped in huge debt taken to feed the abuser's drug habit. The families are constantly harassed by creditors and, more heartbreakingly, families get broken up.

The most pitiful victims are none other than children. The United States is a drug-tolerant country. Because of that, over 2.2 million children live with a parent who is dependent on illicit drugs. This is 2.2 million lives that we are talking about. Harrowing to imagine this happening in Singapore. If we are not careful, such heartwrenching scenes as the ones that we have described about toddlers being left alone to fend for themselves, or even like the little toddler in pink pyjamas sitting there crying next to her mother who had collapsed, will become commonplace in Singapore.

Singapore is not invulnerable. Illicit drugs can creep in insidiously and poison young lives. Hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza shared a lot of statistics on drugs and the situation of drugs in Singapore and how drug use among youths is at risk of creeping up further.

Youths are especially vulnerable because, at an adolescent age, they are still developing judgement and decision-making skills. Some get the wrong impression that taking drugs can help to enhance athletic performance or ease anxiety problems. Some are impressionable and give in to peer pressure to feel accepted.

What is also very worrying is that based on reports from the National Library of Medicine, young people appear to move more quickly through the stages towards addiction than adults.

In today's context, it is no longer youths with disadvantaged family backgrounds who abuse illicit drugs. There are now more cases of youths from privileged backgrounds experimenting with illicit drugs. This is supported by the findings in the World Drug Report 2016 that individuals belonging to higher socio-economic groups tend to have a greater propensity to initiate drug use than lower socio-economic groups.

Furthermore, with growing affluence and connectivity to the Internet, there are now more available options to obtain drugs online. Being Internet-savvy, some youths are able to obtain illicit drugs through the Internet called the "Dark-Net". The "Dark-Net" is a remote part of the Internet which is often used for illegal activities. It has been reported that these websites even offer free samples to bait curious youths into experimenting, knowing fully well that the return on investment from giving a free sample is a very high chance of addiction and subsequent demand for drugs.

Furthermore, with the perceived "anonymity" of the Internet, youths may be less fearful of obtaining illicit drugs. With all interactions made virtually, without physical interactions with the drug traffickers and usage of sophisticated cashless transactions, like bitcoin, youths may feel more at ease to obtain drugs.

A global survey, entitled Global Drug Survey, has surveyed more than 100,000 Internet users, 75% of whom had taken illegal drugs, in 50 countries in late 2014. This survey suggested that the proportion of drug users purchasing drugs via the Internet had increased rapidly from 1.2% in 2000 to 4.9% in 2009, then to 16.4% in 2013 and, most recently, 25.3% in 2014.

An update to the global survey in 2016 showed an increase in users obtaining drugs using online platforms, of which the United Kingdom has the highest rate of novel psychoactive substance purchased among the countries surveyed. What is also startling is that 5% of respondents stated that they did not consume drugs prior to accessing them through these online platforms.

In Singapore, statistics provided by CNB showed an increase of about 600% in people arrested for buying drugs and drug-related paraphernalia online, from 30 people in 2015 to 201 people in 2016. This may be low level compared with other countries, but its rapid rise is the one that should worry us. So, we must ensure that our laws and enforcement are kept up to date to prevent our Singaporeans, especially our young Singaporeans, from getting their hands on drugs via the Internet.

Sir, I have talked about how drugs harm individuals, families and the community. I have also talked about drug addiction continuing to be a clear and present danger, especially with the emergence of online sources. To combat the scourge of drug abuse, we need to focus our concerted efforts on education, deterrence and rehabilitation. A strong system of laws with stiff penalties may be an unpleasant but crucial element in our battle against drug abuse.

I believe that the tough penalties strongly and clearly signal Singapore's zero- tolerance stance towards the use of illicit drugs and we should continue to apply tough laws to deter illicit drug use. To be clear, I hope nobody will ever need to be subjected to such stiff penalties because that will mean that everyone is healthy and is leading a full and happy life but, given how addictive drugs are, hoping for that is simply wishful thinking. We need tough laws and penalties to act as a powerful deterrent.

In addition to creating stiffer deterrence, I have also mentioned how rehabilitation and education are equally important. We need to bear in mind that there are still Singaporeans who have fallen prey to the poison of drugs. We must rehabilitate them and help them to reintegrate into society.

Successful rehabilitation outcomes often depend on the drug user's tenacity and resilience in staying in treatment long enough to reap its full benefits. The two-year recidivism rates of persons released from DRCs fluctuate close to 30%, based on statistics provided by Singapore Prison Service (SPS). It is also important that we help drug users to eventually reintegrate into society.

Firstly, we need to break the social stigma and marginalisation through right public education and messaging. We must help former drug offenders battle the demons of addiction through strong community support.

Secondly, we need to empower these individuals to step forward to speak of their personal experiences in taking drugs and become role models or mentors to struggling drug users who need help. A study conducted for the Swedish National Council of Crime Prevention showed that mentoring at-risk individuals can help to reduce the likelihood of recidivism by about 4% to 10%.

Sir, it is equally important to increase preventive education. The phrase "prevention is better than cure" holds a lot of truth, especially in our fight against drugs. We must also consider teaching the dangers of drug abuse at an early age. It was reported that kindergartens in Germany have started an innovative way of strengthening children against addictive behaviours through a toy-free project, in which children will be placed in a toy-free environment for a short period in the day. It is in a way strengthening mental resilience, conditioning them to be stronger. Perhaps MOE can study the feasibility of such an approach to be used in our local context.

Sir, based on CNB's statistics, the total number of drug abusers arrested has hovered around 3,000 over the past five years, which works out to be a relatively low 0.08% of our entire resident population. Thankfully, this figure is also much lower than many other countries, but we must not be complacent and we must keep this figure as low as possible, in fact, if we can, towards zero. We must do so through education, rehabilitation and, inevitably, deterrence, which means retaining the stiff penalties that we have in Singapore.

Members of this House are aware of the harmful effects that drugs can cause to the live of an individual and to society. As a mother of a 20-month-old toddler, every day, as I watch him grow, as he learns new words, learns new things and the excitement that he derives when he gets praised for little achievements, I rejoice with him. It is my greatest desire and wish to see him succeed in life, to see that he has a healthy life, that he is able to pursue his aspirations and make the best out of the time that he has in this life.

I believe that all parents out there wish the same for their children. And so, I feel a sense of responsibility – and, indeed, I think so, too, the Members in this House and members of society out there – that we must make sure that we create the most conducive environment for our younger generation so that they can grow up with the right values, with good health and have the best opportunities to go forth in their lives and pursue their dreams and aspirations. Therefore, I would like to echo my support to go towards a 100% drug-free Singapore − one that does not tolerate drugs. I stand in full support of the Motion.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will focus specifically on the call to invest in drug rehabilitation. Frankly, I am not that well-versed on the drug issue. So, to prepare to speak on this Motion, I talked to former hard-core drug addicts, as well as people in the social sector who have been helping to rebuild their lives, post-incarceration.

The older ex-offenders confirmed for me that it is much harder for a drug addict today to stay clean because there is an oversupply of drugs in the market and it is true that they have many more avenues, online and offline, to purchase their drug of choice and prices have, indeed, fallen. So, consequently, many of them have seen friends fall back to taking drugs and going back into prison.

I asked them what they personally thought of Singapore's laws on drugs and one former hard-core drug addict put it this way, "The laws are tough and cruel but it is necessary. It scares the crap out of us. We are afraid to go back. If we get a lighter sentence, no second thoughts, sure go back to drugs."

The recovering addicts were not naive about the depths of self-destruction they were willing to go through to feed the beast within. They had come to accept the need for tough rules to help them draw boundaries on their behaviours. I asked them and social workers for insights about what could help former addicts stick to the straight and narrow path of rehabilitation. I will list the top five issues they brought up, as well as their requests and proposed solutions.

The first and most consistently brought-up issue was the need for stable accommodation and a supportive community. This is perhaps the most important factor to pay attention to if we are serious about rehabilitation, because extensive international research does show that early access to stable housing is one of the most critical factors that reduces re-offence.

The tough reality for many recovering addicts when they exit prison is that they may not have family or friends willing to give them a home. They often lack financial resources to purchase a flat and while the option of rental flats is open to them, the waiting list is long. As a consequence, many have no home to go to and end up staying way longer than they expected in halfway houses.

One former drug addict said, "I have many friends who are stuck in halfway houses. Some of them are in their 40s and 50s and still working as a house remover. How long can they do house removing jobs considering their age? If they have their own house, maybe they can move on and explore various career paths." Feeling like you are in personal and professional limbo for too long can be really demoralising and actually raise the risk of these ex-offenders backsliding back to addiction for comfort.

But easier access to rental housing is only one part of the issue because, even for those who do get one, there is another problem. Rules currently require two people to share one rental flat and, as circumstances will have it, a former drug addict will often end up rooming with another former drug addict. Without a community of accountability around them, when one roommate falls back into drugs or crime, it is not uncommon to hear of the other roommate rapidly following suit. So, this simple problem of unstable housing without a supportive community can thus potentially erase years of costly investment into the rehabilitation process.

We need to invest in an innovative public housing solution for our ex-offenders that marries the system of accountability of halfway houses together with the space to live independently within society.

There is already a great model in the social sector that we could learn from − the AWWA Senior Community Home in Ang Mo Kio is Singapore's first seniors' home embedded within two levels of an existing HDB rental block. It is the only one of its kind and only one of its scale, housing 140 people. It has been around since 1976 and is one of the most inspiring public housing innovations I have seen here.

Two to three seniors live in each 1-room rental flat and interspersed in the units, are purpose-built spaces like recreation rooms, laundry rooms, nursing stations and a community kitchen. It even once explored having a retail space for the seniors to sell their products.

This holistic housing solution has allowed people without family support to live within an existing HDB neighbourhood, affirming they still have a place in society, while preserving their desire for independence and providing a supportive community to look out for their needs.

I hope HDB can consider partnering with VWOs with an established track record of rehabilitating ex-offenders to pilot a smaller scale community home. Like the AWWA example, the prototype community home could zone out a few floors in an HDB rental block for ex-offenders to have housing, a supportive programming and a system of strong accountability, all rolled into one.

The second most brought-up issue was on the effects of long-term imprisonment. For hard-core drug abusers who cannot break the habit after going through repeated DRC treatment, they are subjected to long-term imprisonment laws known as LT1 of between five and seven years, and when they re-offend, LT2 of between seven and 13 years.

While the social workers and recovering addicts understood the punitive need for tough laws, they maintained that these long periods of incarceration also produced significant social side-effects that undermined the rehabilitation process.

Extended and repeated periods of incarceration are a time of great vulnerability for offenders and their families, and it is during this time that spouses grow apart, divorce happens and children start to exhibit even more dysfunctional and distancing behaviours. On top of that, given the speed of change in Singapore, five to seven years in prison is a very long time for someone to be taken out of market. So, those who get incarcerated younger have a better chance of making something of their lives. But for mid-life offenders who emerge out of prison in their late 40s to 50s, their relevance and marketability of skills would have significantly diminished.

To come out of prison to such personal and professional failure again is crushing and some do turn back to drugs and return to prison because they feel they really have nothing left to lose. The stated objectives of the Long-Term Imprisonment laws are to (a) provide greater security and safety to the rest of society; (b) deter individuals from continuing to abuse drugs; and (c) reduce the crimes committed by drug addicts.

If the length of incarceration is a non-negotiable due to the first objective of security, then can we consider investing in a lot more targeted rehab solutions for long-term prisoners to help them achieve the second and third objectives of deterrence? We must increase the outreach and frequency of family-bonding programmes that help keep parent-child relations resilient throughout the long period of incarceration.

There is the VWO New Life Stories where volunteers help incarcerated mothers record themselves telling bed-time stories so that their pre-schooling kids can listen to it at home and maintain connection. There is also the Reading with Dads programme run by the Centre for Fathering. In the first run in Changi Prison, eight fathers had the rare chance to just sit on the floor with their kids and hug them and read books with them. One of them, a father of five shared that it was the happiest day of his life and it was like a dream. Grown men were crying − and I am not talking just about the inmates − but the prison officers watching.

We should also consider investing more in arts-based programmes as well. I do not think enough credit is given to how the arts does do deeply healing work, helping people surface the deep stories and emotions that do lie beneath their behaviours. One arts educator who works with prisons told me of a young offender who told her very sternly, "Madam, don't ever stop this programme. I kena rotan many times I never cry. I get scolded I also never cry. But in your class, I cry because you make me feel something again."

In our line of empathy-building work, I can tell you tears are one of the most powerful KPIs we pay attention to because they tell you something in the heart has shifted.

A lot of change can happen in five to seven years, especially for prisoners with young children. Incarcerated parents, fathers especially, must be given more bonding time, so that both parents and children do not lose faith that they are still wanted and still loved. The last thing we want is for kids to grow up motherless or fatherless, which, in turn, increases the next generation's risk of falling into similar patterns of drug abuse and incarceration. There is much we can gain if we invest in creative, innovative programmes that help to rebuild trust between long-term prisoners and their families. The strong punitive element of the LT1 and LT2 schemes must be counter-balanced with equally strong restorative elements.

The third issue they raised was length of detention time spent in halfway houses. The Prisons Halfway House Scheme currently allows offenders without strong family support to spend their last stage of detention at a halfway house and offenders only spend an average of the last six to eight months of their detention there.

Some of the halfway houses I spoke to believe that this period may be too short to yield sustainable results. They have requested that, for better rehabilitative outcomes, it might be more useful to consider extending the period of detention that offenders can serve out in halfway houses to one-and-a-half, and even two to three years.

The fourth issue is the lack of publicly available statistics on rehab issues. There is a desire among halfway houses and other VWOs involved in rehab work to design better solutions. However, many of them are going only by a mix of gut instincts or learned experience. They do not have the resources to commission or conduct base-line research into how well various rehabilitation efforts and programmes are working out in Singapore. Follow-up studies tracking how housing needs, Prison School and other in-prison programmes impact employment rates and recidivism rates can give useful feedback to the VWOs.

So, the request from the ground is for the Government to commission studies that can provide the social sector more information to design better interventions. Fresh and openly available data will help us better figure out what is working, what is not working and where change is most needed.

The last issue has to do with quality of in-prison education programmes. I saved this for last because I wanted to end this on a strong affirmation to Singapore Prisons that there is much good being done on this front.

Prisoners actually love the learning and employment opportunities they have been getting. Many look forward to the academic, vocational training and arts-based programmes that have been brought in. So, the issue here is more of a happy one. They say, "Can we have more of the good stuff please?" We should encourage their hunger to learn.

Is there a SkillsFuture vision and roadmap for our lifelong learners in our prisons and halfway houses because I believe there are unique strengths and talents that our former drug addicts and ex-offenders do bring to the table? I asked ex-offenders for vocational training programme suggestions and one of the most intriguing suggestions I got was this: "Why can't we train up more ex-offenders to take leadership in halfway houses?" This was his brutally honest take: "Social workers in this field are not effective at all. A drug addict only listens to a drug addict. Halfway house leaders must be an ex-convict, not just a highly educated psychologist."

I personally believe there is definitely still a place for educated social workers and psychologists at halfway houses. But he is also right in pointing out there is a unique career opportunity here for ex-convicts. It might be worth considering a leadership programme that talent-spots high potential former drug addicts and ex-offenders to pick up social work-based skills that can enable them to support rehabilitative work in the future. What was once the ex-offender's greatest weakness on his resume − his experiences of incarceration and addiction − could then become his unique asset.

I also want to flag up the voice of another key stakeholder in the rehab process: external vendors who run programmes in prison. The best of them love the charges that they work with and are deeply passionate about partnering with Singapore Prisons to work on the rehab process. That is why some of them struggle greatly with seeing how the GeBIZ procurement process sometimes ends up awarding programmes to the lowest bidder or a new bidder for the sake of trying out a new vendor. Some share that it hurts to see meaningful projects gaining ground with the inmates get derailed simply because of what they saw as a procurement process. They felt that contracts sometimes ended up going to vendors that did not have a genuine interest in rehabilitation.

Those who do rehab work seriously do not want to be treated or accessed as short-term vendors but rather long-term partners in a healing process. Their request is for the Government to consider refining the procurement process for prison programmes to guard against fly-by-night vendors who may pitch on programming contracts because it is another way to make a buck, rather than an opportunity to change a life. These programming providers believe that it is counter-productive to put high-stakes human-centric programmes at the mercy of an open call tender on GeBIZ. As one programming provider stated very passionately to me, rehabilitative work that impacts so many lives should not be judged by the same matrixes of cost-effectiveness and novelty for change that we use to decide between contractors for chairs and tables.

I believe, for rehab programmes, it would be far more impactful to invest our taxpayers' money on long-term re-collaborative partnerships with providers that have a heart to commit to long-term rehab goals with the Singapore Prison Service.

Madam, I do support the Motion to reaffirm Singapore's strong anti-drug stance. But I also believe we will gain more ground in the fight against drugs when we become equally known for the things we are for, rather than just known for the things we are against.

A strong anti-drug stance paired with an equally strong pro-rehabilitation stance is an unusual policy combination in the world. It challenges us to hold both punitive justice and restorative mercy in tension. It is a difficult position but I believe it is also the most useful way forward.

I say so not based on theory but because that is how I have seen it play out in the transformed lives of people I know who have done their time in prison and walked down that hard road of rehabilitation. Our former drug abusers can be so much more than their past mistakes.

Preparing to speak on this Motion actually reminded me that I happen to be friends with a few recovering addicts and ex-offenders. It took me a moment to remember because I had long gotten used to just seeing them as loving husbands and kind fathers, humble pastors and compassionate counsellors, successful entrepreneurs and talented creatives.

I have seen the evidence of investment in rehabilitation in ordinary lives. It is arduous and it is costly but it works. There is gold in each of us, even the worst of us, that can be revealed through grace. The cure for addiction is not condemnation. It is connection. Let us do what we can to help our recovering addicts stay connected to their families and their hopes for the future.

Deputy Speaker, the recent United Nations Committee on Narcotic Drugs (CND) meeting in Vienna in the middle of March threw up several interesting perspectives on how the East and the West view drugs and laws regarding its consumption and trafficking.

The facts are on the table. Drug trafficking is a multi-billion dollar global illicit trade. According to the World Drug Report, heroin consumption alone amounts to a staggering 340 tonnes and it is estimated that a total of almost 246 million people between the ages of 15 and 64, use illicit drugs.

This dependence on drugs places a heavy burden not only on the individual but also their loved ones, public healthcare systems and security agencies.

At that same meeting, it was galling to note the nonchalance towards the drug menace displayed by some countries. Some European countries took turns to conflate drug use with human rights. Such lofty words and ideals!

At the same conference, Russia talked about compulsory drug tests for teenagers while the US and Canada talked about reconciling the legislation and legalisation of marijuana with UN's drug conventions. Canada and Uruguay even spent long hours discussing the important issue of quotas for how marijuana bushes should be allowed to be grown per household!

There are those who justify that softening the drug stance is because current drug control policies are failing and the rising numbers of drug consumers − you cannot even call them addicts anymore − drug consumers. But I say, just because your system has failed does not mean your next solution is something everyone else should accept.

In Singapore, our strict laws against drug consumption and trafficking have kept us safe over the years. Our streets are safe from drugs and crime. And, so, I add my voice to the many Members, including the hon Member, Mr Christopher de Souza, in calling on the Government to continue to apply tough laws to deter drug trafficking into Singapore and combating the scourge of drugs.

While we are relatively safe from drugs, I am still worried. The idea of soft drugs, as many Members have mentioned, recreational drugs, as some people call them, I think we must acknowledge drugs cause harm, whether they are soft or hard, whatever name you call it, they are drugs.

The National Council Against Drug Abuse reported that many more of our younger Singaporeans below the age of 30 are now open-minded about experimenting with drugs as opposed to a few years ago. You look at programmes, you look at drama series from overseas, the glamorisation of a lifestyle filled with drugs, perhaps that is affecting mindsets as well. The increase in the number of new drug users attests to this as well. Therefore, I do not believe there is a difference between hard drugs and soft drugs. There are only drugs. They both cause harm and should be prevented with equal measure and equal vigour.

In our open data age, availability of drugs online and its ease of shipment are something we should really be concerned about. Many have spoken about the Dark Net and, therefore, I hope that the Government will be able to look more at the measures to stem this rot to prevent more younger Singaporeans from taking the easy route in obtaining drugs.

Another cause for concern is the trafficking and consumption of synthetic drugs, including stimulants like amphetamine, methamphetamine and ecstasy-types of substances. Their proliferation and easy availability have made them the second most widely used drugs in the world, with levels exceeding those of heroin and even cocaine, so says the World Drug Report.

Although some say that they are not considered as dangerous as heroin or cocaine, sustained consumption still causes damage to oneself and loved ones. Many of us would have come across drug addicts, drug abusers in our communities and the damage that it causes to them and their health, as well as to their families. Therefore, we should have more prevention and education measures, especially for our young, to stem the tide of synthetic drugs as well and tighten the regulations.

Justice is important. It is important that there is just punishment for those who traffick drugs for those who use drugs that they have an opportunity to recover.

While I urge the Government to be firm in maintaining deterrence, I also believe that justice must be tempered with mercy. Many traffickers, for example, are far down the hierarchy of crime syndicates and some are forced by circumstances. I, therefore, urge the Government to do whatever is in its power to combat the drug problem at the source and also step up efforts to target the drug barons, the people who truly benefit exclusively from this illicit trade and yet are unremorseful at the fate of their helpless and often hapless runners who take on all the risks.

I must state very clearly at this point that I believe that capital punishment has been one reason that has kept us free from the worst of the drug problems that have plagued other countries, but I also have a strong personal moral dilemma in not wanting capital punishment to be enforced, especially when the ultimate perpetrators of the crime are often not the ones standing frightened at the gallows. As the trap doors open, the absoluteness of this punishment cannot be turned back.

When you look at the jurisdictions that mandate the death penalty for drug crimes, I think we can also conclude that it is not just the threat of capital punishment that prevents drug trafficking and reduces drug crime in a country. But in Singapore's example, it is a strong, trustworthy and effective Police force, an incorrupt system of Government, a general intolerance of drug culture and a fair society where no one needs to resort to drugs as a first recourse for problems they face in life. Other countries have capital punishment, too. But they are still plagued.

I, therefore, welcome the 2012 amendments to our laws such that the mandatory death penalty for those convicted of drug trafficking or murder was lifted under certain specific conditions, with discretionary powers provided to judges to sentence such offenders to life imprisonment.

I also, therefore, urge the Government to do more to rehabilitate our drug addicts and free them from this new form of slavery. Many of them are wounded by circumstances or bad choices in life and, therefore, the most important reassurance we can give to them is that they have a place at the table, that they are not abandoned by society, cast aside because of a bad choice.

At the recent Narcotics: Problems and Solutions of this Global Issue Conference, Pope Francis was the keynote speaker, he said, "Every addicted person brings with them a distinct personal history, which should be listened to, understood, loved, and, where possible, cured. We cannot fall into the injustice of classifying them as if they were objects or broken junk; rather, they should be valued and appreciated in their dignity in order to be cured. They continue to have, despite their crimes, more than ever, dignity as persons."

There is a lot of good work done by the Youth Enhanced Supervision Scheme, community rehabilitation centres, drug rehabilitation centres and our halfway houses, but society itself must be able to see our drug abusers beyond their mistakes and ensure that they do not just recover but also reintegrate into society and, therefore, have no reasons to return to drugs.

Examples, such as Asher Quek, who recovered from an early life of drugs. His first encounter with drugs was at the age of 13, spent time in prison. But because he was inspired and challenged by counsellors in prison, he now volunteers himself as a counsellor to other drug abusers. This perhaps is one example of how a good rehabilitation and support system can work.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, watermelons. Not related to drugs. But in 2014, I met three young children in my estate. One very young girl, just started Primary 1, her brother was in Primary 2 and older sister was in Secondary 1. I met them because their uncle came to approach me, asking for a job.

I realised that these three children were not his. Probing deeper, it was revealed that their parents, both mother and father, were incarcerated because of drug offences. The older sister took it upon herself to look after her younger siblings. Although the mother is out of prison today, she feels and suffers from withdrawal symptoms and we do what we can. But the thing that really inspires her is her younger daughter who has never given up on her parents. And when I last met them, she simply said to me, "There are many things I love in life. Sweet red watermelons and my parents, whatever they have done." Family support is important. A society that accepts them for their weaknesses is important. A society that tempers justice with mercy is also important.

Singapore has remained relatively drug-free and we should endeavour to remain so and do whatever we can to do so. What works elsewhere would not necessarily work here. Tough deterrent measures have kept us and our families safe. But we must continue to do more to break the supply chain, ensure that we do not go soft on drug use, reminding our young Singaporeans that drugs have a tremendous negative impact on them. Targeting international criminal gangs and ensuring the uplift of vulnerable communities outside of Singapore and coupled with a robust rehab and reintegration regime – these will continue to keep us safe for the long haul. Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, after hearing the hon Members who have spoken before me, I am reminded that we live in a scary world. An addictions specialist − his name was Dr Munidasa Winslow − recently noted that an increase has happened in clients buying drugs on the Internet and receiving them by postal mail. He suspects that the numbers of persons purchasing synthetic drugs online will rise in the coming years. Drug abuse should not be taken lightly. I support the hon Members' suggestion of including new offences within the Misuse of Drugs Act which are aimed at these new ways for kingpins to peddle in drugs and to take decisive action against them.

I would, however, Sir, like to add a note of caution when it comes to young Singaporean offenders. They deserve not only to be seen through the battle-hardened prosecutor's lens of specific deterrence, but also with a keen eye towards rehabilitation, which is why I am happy that rehabilitation is also a part of this particular Motion.

This Motion has been characterised as involving different imperatives. Mr Christopher de Souza spoke of the importance of law and order; of weeding out a transnational scourge: drug addiction; of having muscular laws. At the same time, young first-time drug offenders deserve to be treated fairly and, in appropriate cases, compassionately as well. It is the duty of the sentencing judge in a Misuse of Drugs Act case to assess and balance these competing concerns and to strike an appropriate balance between the two.

In the final analysis, the public interest to be tough on drug crimes and the interests of young first-time offenders are not mutually exclusive. Our Courts give special regard to cases involving young offenders and it is about this that I would like to speak about today.

First, I recall that as early as in 1999, the Singapore High Court held that, in cases of a young first-time offender, there can rarely be any conflict between his interest and that of the public's. The public have no greater interest than that he become a good citizen. For young, first-time offenders, inclusive of drug offenders, rehabilitation should often play a dominant role in determining the appropriate sentencing option.

Rehabilitation does not only mean sending an offender to the DRC. In deserving cases, it can and should involve, Sir, probation or reformative training. A decade ago, I had the privilege of being the defence co-counsel in one such case. We represented Mr Ridzuan bin Hanafi on a pro bono basis against his charge of trafficking 20 tablets of ecstasy.

A 20-year-old NSF at that time, Ridzuan took responsibility for his mistake. We met his family at the hawker centre where his mother ran a nasi campur stall. We learned that Ridzuan's eldest sister had been diagnosed with cancer and that, to supplement his NSF stipend, he worked two other odd jobs. His unwavering care and support for his family was clear. He saved this money prudently and contributed in whatever way he could. After realising that this was not enough to take care of his sister, he slipped.

His heart was set on equipping himself to provide a good future for himself and his family. Despite not having completed his course of study at ITE, he had expressed a genuine wish to further his studies in the field of audio engineering upon completion of National Service. Ridzuan then obtained a deferment and enrolled in the Singapore Audio Engineering Institute. As a filial son to his mum, Ridzuan's greatest concern had been to ensure that his ageing mother, who has sacrificed the better part of her life to take care of her children, did not have to continue to work so hard at her nasi campur stall and, therefore, jeopardise her health as well in supporting herself and her daughter.

Ridzuan loathed the idea of depending on his mother and his family. He confessed to selling the ecstasy pills for cash and we learnt all of this from several visits to his home, to Queenstown Remand Prison, where he was also serving pre-trial detention at the place and we asked in Court for probation as the appropriate sentence for the sentencing judge to consider and to sentence him.

When determining whether or not an order of probation is required or appropriate, a sentencing judge may call for a pre-sentence or probation report, as the judge did in Ridzuan's case. A probation report provides a comprehensive profile of the offender and is obtained mainly from interviews with the offender, his family, significant people which, in this case, included people he was working with in National Service, his superior officers, social service agencies and so on. It gives a picture of that drug offender so that the drug offender is not just a digit, not just one person accused of a crime of consumption or trafficking, but there is a larger contextual, social and historical nature to the offence and the offender.

Sir, probation is not a gesture of leniency. It provides the Court with an alternative method of dealing with that first-time young offender who may otherwise have to be committed to a corrective penal institution. It involves the conditional suspension of punishment when the offender is released under supervision and the personal care of a probation officer. A probation order imposes on the probationer certain obligations in the form of conditions. If any of those conditions are not met, the probation order lapses and the probationer has to face real jail time.

Ridzuan's Probation Officer found his family members were willing and stable to assist in his rehabilitation. His youngest sister was willing to defer her overseas education just to take care of him. The Probation Officer also looked at the unwavering reports from his superiors in National Service. Ultimately, Ridzuan was convicted and sentenced by the District Judge and placed under two years' probation, six months of which were intensive, 18 months of which were supervisory.

The prosecution, of course, appealed against this decision at that time. I draw attention to this not because the prosecutors were doing something wrong. It was their job to appeal against it because it was the first time probation had been awarded against a drug trafficking charge. But I take issue with the way in which the sentence and the offender were characterised. In the Magistrate's Appeal, this is what the prosecutors said and these were their words, not mine, Mr Deputy Speaker:

"The drug menace still abounds in Singapore even though our drug laws are enforced vigorously. Drug trafficking is the scourge of our society, family and the individual drug abuser. As such, peddlers in this evil trade must be dealt with severely to alert those in this pernicious enterprise that they too will be prosecuted and punished severely."

By itself, there is not something too greatly wrong with that paragraph. But the next paragraph is stark:

"[Ridzuan] has a dismal academic track record. He shows excessive indulgence in clubbing, has sold cigarettes in his army camp to his friends in order to support his clubbing habit. There is hardly any evidence that he has a bright future ahead of him unless a fledging interest in sound engineering (which is a euphemism for being a music disc-jockey) constitutes a potentially sound career or a safe life choice that would not throw him back into the clubbing culture."

This was how the prosecution had characterised him. It was just not the prosecutors. It would be the investigators and everybody who was part of the criminal justice system looking at one young first-time drug offender who was standing before them.

I take issue with this, Mr Deputy Speaker, with conflating the crime, as reprehensible as it may be, with the prospects of the young offender. Unfortunately, once you label a crime as being "evil", it is a short step before you demonise the criminal as well, regardless of his young age. Should the young offender's prospects of reform and rehabilitation be a foregone conclusion that prosecutors alone can make? My response would be an emphatic "no".

We must be wary, Mr Deputy Speaker, of what the Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin cautioned just last month in a case that Mr Kok Heng Leun referred to earlier. In a Court of Appeal case, Judge of Appeal Chao held that "it was vitally important not to view the actions and words of an accused person in a case like this in the lenses of someone who is familiar with the practices of the drug trade, unless there are facts warranting that conclusion." With young first-time Singaporean drug offenders, we cannot assume that all of them are familiar with the practices of the drug trade.

That was only one of two cases just held last month by the High Court and the Court of Appeal where the charges were found to be unsubstantiated and the cases were ultimately found to be unwarranted. Both of them were acquitted after lengthy trials.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a few questions.

How will young potential offenders be better encouraged to abstain from resorting to drugs in the first place and before the criminal justice system itself is involved?

Two, how should options for rehabilitation, including but not limited to the drug rehabilitation centre, be approached? I note that Mr Christopher de Souza has some very intelligent ideas in the paper that he has provided. I would like to ask whether we would actually be using this very soon.

Third, would the Ministry support a "rehabilitate-first" approach towards drug trafficking for young first-time drug offenders? If there were refinements to the Misuse of Drugs Act, could we also involve lawyers who have represented these young first-time drug offenders from the Law Society, from the Association of Criminal Lawyers and other organisations and law firms? Will we be able to invite social workers and probation officers to also be involved in how these amendments are being included or proposals being put forward?

Three, should CNB investigators and misuse of drugs prosecutors be sent for sensitisation training and diversity management training so that when they first meet or deal with young offenders, they take a "rehabilitate first" approach instead of an approach which tends towards "prosecute at all costs"? Will they be required to spend time conversing with under-privileged people and those who are most prone to substance abuse?

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I note that academics at NUS and SMU have recently, on the basis of empirical research, asked whether capital punishment should remain on the books and whether that ultimate deterrent should still be relevant for every case for which it is put forward.

Allow me to conclude by saying that as we examine the Motion which asks us to think harder on being tough against drug crimes, we must also think of humanising those people who are drug offenders, especially those who are young, first-time Singaporean drug offenders. I support the Motion and hope that the hon proposer as well as the Ministry will take these comments into consideration as the law is amended.

Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. In particular, I would like to focus on how we need to improve our rehabilitation process and how we need to strengthen our focus on family support during the rehabilitation process.

While we strengthen our fight against drug consumption and ensure that people do not consume drugs in the first place, we must remember that almost 60% of drug abusers arrested are repeat offenders. That is almost two-thirds and, if we can improve our rehabilitation process, then we will effectively solve two-thirds of our problem.

I raised this previously during the COS debates and I said that, and I quote, "A significant focus of the rehabilitation process is to ensure that inmates are able to secure a job when they are released. However, I feel that an equally important factor is whether they have family support when they are released."

Parliamentary Secretary Amrin Amin replied that, and I quote, "Singapore Prison Service (SPS) partners with Fei Yue Family Services and Lakeside Family Services to provide structured family programmes for inmates − workshops to help better understand the impact of their crimes on their families and build their parenting and communication skills.

The Prison Service also works with community partners like Salvation Army to conduct family sessions in prison. During these sessions, family members are allowed to enter prison to spend time with the inmates and they are designed to encourage bonding between inmates and their children and they serve as powerful reminders to inmates that they need to turn their lives around. These family sessions are also held during special occasions, such as Mother's Day, Father's Day and Children's Day.

Other than helping inmates, Singapore Prison Service also helps their families. The grassroots-led Yellow Ribbon Community Project (YRCP) was established to help the families and children of inmates cope, by connecting them to the national social support networks. They have assisted more than 5,000 families. They recognised that family ties are vital to inmates' rehabilitation and family support is especially important after the inmates' release, and thus, the community's long-term involvement is vital to ensure continuity in these efforts."

We are currently indeed emphasising the important role of family support in rehabilitation. But the statistics show that there is still a problem and there is always room for improvement.

From 2014 to 2016, only about a third of DRC inmates received two family visits per month. I understand that additional requests for family visits by DRC inmates or their family members are rare. The lack of visits by family members is a tell-tale sign that there are problems. If the family bond is strong, then, surely, there will be more family visits.

Drug consumption might be the symptom of the problem. So, while we focus our efforts on tackling the symptom of the problem, we also need to remember to tackle the root of the problem. The lack of strong family bonds might be the reason they consumed drugs in the first place.

The other even more worrying statistic is that the more times we incarcerate someone for drug offences, the higher the chances he or she will be incarcerated again. In 2013, the recidivism rate for DRC inmates was 28.3% and for LT2 inmates, it was 42%. In 2014, the recidivism rate for DRC inmates was 30.1% and for LT2 inmates, it was 36.5%.

It should be the other way around where the recidivism rate should be higher for someone incarcerated once as compared to someone incarcerated for the fourth time. I understand that one of the reasons for the higher recidivism rate for LT2 inmates is that they find it harder to reintegrate back into society. I am certain that one of the other factors is again the lack of family support.

I completely understand how difficult it is for family bonds to be strengthened during the rehabilitation process, considering that these bonds would have been further damaged as a result of the incarceration.

I completely understand how lost someone must feel when their loved ones are incarcerated. I have met many residents who come to my MPS, appealing for help after their loved ones were incarcerated. I recently met a mother of five who had to now single-handedly support the whole family while her husband is in the DRC. She was thrown into the deep end and this will not be an easy chapter in her life.

I completely understand the immense guilt a drug offender must feel when he or she leaves their family behind to fend for themselves. We need to do more to strengthen our rehabilitation process and we need to view the rehabilitation process more holistically and focus on how we can rebuild the broken family bonds and focus on a more family-oriented rehabilitation process.

As mentioned earlier, Singapore Prison Service is already providing workshops to help inmates better understand the impact of their crimes on their families and build their parenting and communication skills. However, can we do more workshops where it is attended by both the inmate and their spouse or loved ones? I appreciate the possible security and logistics concerns but I believe the pros outweigh the cons.

Can we also look into developing more counselling programmes for families of inmates even before their release from prison, to help their families to be better prepared to receive them upon their release and to support them in leading drug-free lifestyles?

With regard to the family sessions conducted in prison, can we increase the number and duration of such family sessions? As I have suggested during the COS debates, can we consider introducing a programme where children get to spend a whole day behind bars with their parents? This is perhaps the most powerful rehabilitation tool.

In my earlier speech, I said, and I quote, "I watched fathers in tears as they realised how much they missed their children and perhaps how their actions have hurt their children. I saw in the eyes of the fathers a resolve to be rehabilitated so that they can reunite with the children − not just for a day but for the rest of their lives. And I also saw what that one day meant for the children, as ultimately the children are indeed the real victims."

Can we also be more proactive in reaching out to the families and children of inmates? I understand from the mother of five children whom I mentioned earlier that nobody reached out to her. Do we have the resources to ensure that we reach out to them during the first week of incarceration of their loved ones? That is the crucial period and the help we can provide will be essential.

We already recognise the need for family support. There are, in fact, individual anti-addiction programmes for ex-offenders at halfway houses, such as HighPoint, Pertapis, Green Haven, just to name a few, and at hospitals, such as the Raffles Counselling Centre and the National Addictions Management Service.

These programmes do bring in family support at some stage of the rehabilitation process. However, the extent to which the family is brought into the rehabilitation process depends on the individual programmes. It also requires the ex-offenders taking the initiative to first enrol in these programmes. Will MHA consider spearheading a unified national approach towards a family-centric rehabilitation process?

I believe we should draw inspiration from the Taskforce on Youth and Drugs in 2014, convened then by Mr Masagos Zulkifli. The Taskforce had recommended developing more targeted strategies to address youth drug abuse, such as toolkits for parents, educators, counsellors and NS commanders and introducing rehabilitation programmes for youths.

This led to CNB developing a guide for parents of children recovering from drug abuse titled "Staying Drug-Free". A similar targeted national action plan should be drawn up towards rehabilitating all drug-offenders.

Sir, our prison officers, our Captains of Lives, do amazing work and I have seen this first-hand when I visited our DRC last year. I must end this speech by saying that I completely understand how disappointing it must be for them when they see a drug offender return to prison again and be under their care repeatedly.

It must not be easy for them and I sincerely hope we can help break this cycle, strengthen our rehabilitation process and strengthen family bonds. Sir, I support the Motion.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank Mr Christopher de Souza for moving this Motion and the Members for giving their views and supporting generally the very strong stand that we take. This Motion is a timely reminder for us to remain vigilant, continue to be tough on drugs and make this a national priority.

As we debate the way forward, what do we do next? Mr Pritam Singh talked about international currents. Others talked about the mood within Singapore, young people. As we assess how we move forward, I think it is useful for Members to understand a little bit about how the history of our fight against drugs evolved and really look at the period between the 1960s and 1980s. In a snapshot, what did we have then? We had high crime rates. We had abusers stealing, committing crimes to feed their addiction. We had traffickers exploiting the abusers' dependence. We had broken families. If I give some numbers, I think Members will be shocked and I will give some numbers in a minute.

To tackle this, CNB was set up in 1971. It does not pre-date 1971. We saw it as a menace and we said we had to fight it; which is why in every speech I make, I emphasise it is not a single solution, not just the death penalty. It is a whole suite of factors. CNB was set up, empowered. The legislative framework was put in through the MDA in 1973. And then Operation Ferret was launched to reverse the momentum. You can guess from the name what it meant. So CNB, the Police Force, they coordinated their efforts, flushed out the abusers. If we had not done that, the law and order situation today in Singapore that we take for granted would be very different.

In the early 1970s – mark this – we were arresting less than 10 heroin abusers a year. We could have kidded ourselves and believed that that was the true situation. But after we set up CNB and after we started Operation Ferret, by February 1978, 26,000 abusers had been arrested. That is the picture before and after. So, for people outside this House and for the hon Nominated Member of Parliament who advocates a softer approach, suggests that our laws are too tough, remember these figures. When you do not enforce, you get one picture; and 26,000 people by 1978.

In the 1980s, we still had more than 8,000 in DRC. In 1993, our DRC recidivism rate was 73%. That is where we were and, today, everyone accepts, even The Economist accepts, that we have the drug situation under control, perhaps the only country to be able to say that openly and directly and backed up by the facts.

We set up a committee to improve the drug situation in November 1993 with a comprehensive anti-drug strategy − preventive drug education in the schools, tough laws backed up by tough enforcement, rehabilitation, aftercare. It is a whole context of factors. That is the background. We have had a good run for 20 years but now consider the global situation and how that might impact on us.

UNODC estimates in 2014 that there are nearly 250 million drug abusers in the world. And 200,000 died from drug-related causes. That probably does not include the type of cases that Mr Christopher de Souza talked about, where people under the influence of drugs caused traffic accidents and killed others. These are people who died as a result of drug abuse − 200,000.

Mr Pritam Singh is right that global conversation is about a softer stance on drugs, seductive arguments using pseudo-science and glamorising drugs, and they do create a challenging environment for us to keep Singapore drug-free.

If you look at the evidence, you look at the US, opioid abuse, the prescriptions went up three-fold since 1999, fuelled by people relying on and accepting questionable evidence that these are benign pain remedies. Going into diversions and misuse, thousands get hooked on to it, and then guess what happens? They moved on to heroin. Now, New York Times reported that there were 33,000 deaths per year.

For those with bleeding hearts who talk about inmates on death row, I think they should think about these 33,000 deaths. What percentage do you want in Singapore? What about their families, the children? Why not spend some time with them rather than just crying with the people in the death row? This is, as Mr Christopher de Souza pointed out, a trafficker engaging in a crime of cynicism or crime with cynicism for profit. He knows what he is doing, he is coming in for money and there is nothing on the spur about it.

The same arguments that were used to try and get opium allowed are now being used for cannabis legislation. The arguments, if you look at them, are evocative but little clinical evidence. There is some suggestion – Mr Pritnam Singh talked about it, others talked about it – about how people are now going into medical marijuana and medical cannabis and so on.

I said at the United Nations I do not want human rights groups preaching to me about the medical value of cannabis. If a respectable medical association is prepared to tell me that this ought to be prescribed as medicine, we will look at it. What does the American Medical Association say? That there is no proven record for this. There can be no objection to any substance being prescribed by a doctor based on scientific evidence. I think there is every objection to a blanket legislation allowing free use of cannabis or opium on the basis of some questionable medical suggestion which no medical association worth its salt is prepared to back up.

Mr Pritam Singh is right: legalisation around the world is gaining ground. He quoted Malaysia, Thailand and Israel, but my point is, a large majority of Singaporeans stand by what is right, stand by our position. Even internationally, when I went to the UN, we brought along a doctor who had pored through a substantial amount of medical literature on substance abuse, cannabis abuse, in particular, and was prepared to stand up and present that this is the impact cannabis has on your brain structure and it makes you dependent. Stacks of medical evidence.

Science is always evolving and if science evolves to a different stage, we are practical people and we rely on facts. But, today, this is the science. I thank Mr Pritnam Singh for the strong stand he took in terms of supporting the position we take in Singapore against drugs.

Mr Christopher de Souza pointed out how drug abuse has worsened in Colorado since they legalised cannabis. It is serious. And who is pushing it? The pharma companies are pushing it. Why? It is obvious why. Even when we go to these international conferences, the NGOs which support legalisation come out with brochures which are glitzy, which are very attractive, evocative. They are all financed by the pharma companies. Those who oppose legalisation, those who take a stand similar to Singapore's, if you look at the material, you would not want to look at them again because no one is financing them. There is a huge commercial motive for legalisation and that is driving this in many countries.

There are other factors. Many countries have lost the fight. They cannot control domestic drug abuse. So, after having lost tens of thousands of lives, they move to focusing on public health issues, HIV. So, you get an alliance with a commercial interest and countries saying we cannot handle this anymore. They are now saying let us create a new international norm. Well, I do not have a problem if they change their rules; but I do have a problem if they want to change international norms and say every country should follow that. We will not be pressured.

That is the international situation; that is the background. What is the local situation? We have some challenges. The first challenge is increased supply. I have said this before, we are near the Golden Triangle, which is the second largest opium source in the world. Afghanistan has become a major producer. In order to get its stuff on to the West, sometimes or quite often, they seem to want to take the road through Southeast Asia.

Our region is the fastest growing meth market. We are a major transport hub, 200 million people go through our airport, shores, land checkpoints. Because of the wealth factor, our people can pay, therefore, it is an attractive destination, both for transhipment and as a destination source. That is one major challenge.

The second major challenge is drug peddling sales online. You can have anonymous transactions, you can have parcels coming in from any part of the world; that creates a challenge.

We also face a challenge from new drugs, new psycho-active substances, where people take drugs and mix them with contaminants to lower the costs. We have real chemists who modify pharmaceuticals.

CNB, for example, in the past two years, has seized more than 3.5 kilogrammes and 4,000 tablets of new psycho-active substances, which have been falsely marketed as both being legal and safe.

Another separate challenge is the new attitudes of our young people. There is a certain perception, glamorised through media outside of this country, that drugs are cool and cannabis are non-addictive. If we are not careful, they can become our next generation of abusers. There is a changing profile of abusers. Last year, 40% of those who were arrested were abusers, were less than 30 years old. The mix − the students, professionals, people who are well-educated, good jobs and a new group of Singaporeans trying drugs.

Parents may think it is not their children but, in the past three years, we have picked up 350 students, all levels from Primary school to tertiary and all backgrounds, as well as without a background of substance abuse in the family. Last year, for working professionals, more than 70 professionals, managers, including accountants and engineers. And the drug abusers committed 12% of other crimes. That is another worrying statistic.

Eighty-three percent of those in our prisons are in there either for substance abuse or they have a history of substance abuse even though the particular crime they committed was not related to drugs. So, you can see how much drugs can impact our lives. It destroys you. These are all statistics, facts.

Let me give you an example – what it does. We call him Edy, a young boy, six years old, both parents were jailed for drugs. He happened to be in the care of another person called Johan. Johan was also a drug abuser, forms an ecosystem, a separate subculture. Johan slapped around Edy, stomped on him repeatedly, on the six-year-old boy, killed him and dumped his body by the Kallang River.

You know there are thousands of such cases, not in Singapore but around the world. Most Members might have heard of Noinoi. She had a stepfather, Mohd Johari, abusing cannabis, cough syrups, brought her home as a shield to hide his own abuse, thought that having her there, bringing her with him will prevent detection. She was only two years old. She was crying, he could not take it, he dumped her in a pail and killed her.

Those who think we should go soft on drugs, on punishment, what is your solution to the thousands of "Edys" and "Noinois" around the world who are neglected, abused and suffering?

If you look at the trend, if I give a summary, you have a new generation of abusers. They are younger, they have different profiles, backgrounds and the situation can again become more troublesome, even if it does not get out of control. Our primary duty must be to protect our society and our people and stand up together as a country.

Most Members' suggestions are in line with where we want to go. And I agree with Mr Christopher de Souza as well as the others who spoke. We will maintain a tough stance and we will step up. We will review our strategy for the new challenges. It will be targeted. It will differentiate between those who supply and cause harm versus those who are abusers and, where possible, we will employ a data-based, science-based approach.

Our first line of defence has got to be education, preventive drug education. We have worked for decades with MOE − school talks, lesson plans, so that our young people will understand. A Member mentioned Iceland. Coincidentally, we have also looked at Iceland. Our people are going over to Iceland to look at how they send their messages across, because this is a generation that when you tell them "do not do this", they might go and do it. So, you need different approaches and Iceland does seem to have an approach that seems to work, but their problems are different, the scale is different. But we never believe that we have found the ultimate solutions for anything. We will always seek to learn.

And we have to work with parents because the parents are key influencers.

The NCADA survey shows that if a parent interacts with the children, they talk to their children, the risks that the child will take drugs is much lower. We have produced a parents' toolkit for that. Young people are also heavily influenced by peer and environmental influence. So, we need to grow a pool of anti-drug advocates amongst their peers, amongst young people's peers. And we need volunteers, we need more individuals, we need more organisations, civil societies, interest groups, businesses. CNB will launch United Against Drugs Coalition later this month and also review the way it puts across messages. We need to mobilise the ground.

Second, effective enforcement and tough laws are part of it. Last year, CNB crippled 23 drug syndicates. We will have to increase partnerships with overseas counterparts and we will have to tackle the new online supply menace, as Mr Christopher de Souza and others have mentioned. We will partner ICA, we will partner courier companies, postal companies, and we will move quickly.

Last year, ICA detected a suspicious parcel and alerted CNB. Within a matter of hours, CNB arrested the intended recipient and seized more than one kilogramme of cannabis. Without that, that one kilogramme would have flowed on to the streets and destroyed more lives.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan talked about the recent acquittals and how it will affect sentencing approach. Keeping our laws effective for deterrence, enforcement is a top priority. We will relook at the comments made in those cases. We have started doing it and will ensure that investigations are conducted thoroughly and impartially. AGC will help us study the Grounds of Decisions on that.

The NCADA survey that I referred to also shows a very strong support for our tough laws. People want us to be tougher on those who harm society, those who bring drugs in, those who provide it to others, especially young people, and those who encourage others. We will have to study how we deal with the issue of new psycho-active substances, how we amend the Schedules and what we need to do.

Members spoke about the amendments in 2012 to the Mandatory Death Penalty Scheme, in the context of drugs and drug trafficking, and whether they have been helpful. We gave the Courts more discretion, where the trafficker is certified to have helped CNB. It has been helpful. The information provided has contributed to the arrest of almost 90 drug traffickers.

What role does the death penalty play in this? It is an important part in our comprehensive anti-drug regime. And as I have said, part of an overall approach, which will not work on its own but it is a part of an overall set of measures − good judicial process, rule of law, enforcement, tough laws, education, rehabilitation and also DRC and LT.

Remember, this fight is never won. We are in a difficult situation, being close to drug-producing countries and we have maintained the death penalty as deterrence against trafficking. The quantity of drugs that you need to have in your possession before the death penalty kicks in, presumptions kick in, is enough heroin to supply 180 people for seven days. That is a large amount of drugs. That is a large number of people that you are going to destroy the lives of. And you multiply that by the number of family members.

What is the regional situation? In Malaysia, the registered drug abusers numbered 280,000, as reported by the New Straits Times. In Indonesia, there are 5.9 million drug abusers. What is the nature of the drug trade today? The finance comes from one country, could be manufactured somewhere in some terrace house, somewhere nearby Singapore, and couriers are easily available because they want to make some money.

Do you believe that the death penalty has deterrent value? If you knew and you are outside of Singapore, you are in Malaysia or Indonesia, and if you knew that the likelihood of being caught is pretty high and that if you are caught with that amount of drugs, that you are most likely to face a death penalty, does that or does not amount to a deterrence? It is a matter of common sense. Why do you think the drug kingpins are not in Singapore? Mr Kok Heng Leun wants me to prove; how do you want me to prove? Go and ask them, "You will not come into Singapore because of the drug death penalty?"

Just remember that trafficking is a cold calculated offence. It is a transaction. The person decides to take a risk with his life, when he comes to Singapore for the sake of money. So, do not tell me they are poor, impecunious and desperate. They made a calculation. They do not mind impacting the lives of 180 people each time.

Mr Kok Heng Leun suggested that we change some of our laws. As we consider how we proceed, why not consider the countries which have adopted your approach? And then compare and contrast. Why not look around? Let us not argue this in a vacuum. See what is happening in countries which have poor enforcements or have legalised drugs. I entirely accept Mr Kok's good intentions and the honesty of the views he has put forward. But frankly, they will lead to the loss of many more lives and they will lead to more tragedy and serious grief for thousands.

Let me back that up. In the early 1990s, we were arresting between 6,000 and 7,000 people per year. Today, we are arresting between 2,000 and 3,000 per year; over a 20-year period. Even if you take the lower end of those figures, say, 3,000 now and 6,000 then. That is 3,000 less per year, over a period of 20 years and assuming it came down, you are talking about tens of thousands, maybe 40,000, 50,000 lives saved because our enforcement ability has not gone down but we are arresting less people. That means, our drug situation, that demand for it has gone down. Every person not arrested who has not become an abuser is a life saved. So, we have saved maybe 40,000 or 50,000 lives or maybe more.

If all things were equal between the 1990s and today, we were arresting 6,000 to 7,000 then, the number should be higher now, because we are wealthier now. The drug production has increased, it has become more of a multinational enterprise, so perhaps, it should have been doubled; we should be arresting 15,000 people or maybe 18,000 people. But we are actually arresting fewer people. We have saved lives. How do you argue against that?

If you look at what you have said, first, you said that a person charged for an offence of importation is automatically presumed guilty once the prosecution shows that the accused was merely in possession of the package containing the drugs. Do you really believe that, Mr Kok?

Because that, as a statement of law, makes no sense. It is an incorrect statement. I do not know whether you wrote the speech, but that is simply not correct.

You have also suggested: there is a rule that involuntary statements are inadmissible but we do not really know what happens in the interrogation room; how statements are obtained on witness' testimony; and there is no requirement of recording of any kind. In a drug case, Mr Kok, what needs to be proven? Possession. What the drug is is a matter of scientific evidence; quantity is a matter of scientific evidence. So, what are you suggesting would happen in witness' rooms that might lead to these suggestions that you have implied in your speech?

I do not know if you know how it works, but the prosecution will have to prove those things. The defence will have to prove that the person did not know what it was, which is usually a defence that is run by many people, and you complained about that as well in your speech, because you say the onus must be on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the ingredients of the offence.

Let me tell you what the difficulties are in going down that route, because these people come from overseas. The usual variety of defences and let me read out to you a couple. A person was arrested at Woodlands checkpoint. He has got 145 grams of diamorphine. He said he travelled to Kuala Lumpur to look for job opportunities. He was introduced to a man known as "Uncle". "Uncle" then passed him 10 packets of substances and taped these on to his body. This chap then claimed he asked "Uncle" what they were for, but "Uncle" showed him three fingers in reply. And he accepted it. He was not aware of the contents, and he came here. Now, you want the prosecution to rebut this? This is why our first Prime Minister, who was a lawyer, knew what the problems would be and reversed the onus of proof. You talked about an "Uncle" you met in Kuala Lumpur; you show to the judge that there is such an "Uncle" and the "Uncle" told you all these things; and what was in your mind? So, again, I do not know whether you drafted this part of the speech or some lawyer drafted it for you, but you got to look at it in context. How does CNB go and prove?

Let me give you another example. This chap, convicted in 2008. He was asked by one "Maren" to deliver items in Singapore. He was told that it was medicine. He was told that it was rare and expensive, that it was wrapped up so that it could not be spoilt by coming into contact with air. And so he went to Johor, met "Maren" and brought it over. You want CNB to disprove this? You think it is possible? Or do you think it is fair that the accused should prove it?

I have a favourite term for defences of this nature. I call them as someone saying it is a shampoo for my pet toad that I got and I brought it into Singapore. So, if that is what you want to say, go and prove it. We are dealing with lives here. The life of a trafficker, yes. But we are also dealing with thousands of Singaporean lives. And the person must get a fair trial. Prosecution must prove what was the substance, how much was it, and possession, and any other evidence they can find. If the person has a defence, it is only fair that he proves it.

So far, all these points, while I may disagree with the Member, I can see where he is coming from. But the next point he makes, and let me quote him, he said he would like to "speak on the humanity of the families of those executed and those who have their loved ones on death row. While we do not see it, the reality is that our criminal punishment, the death penalty, creates a new class of victims in the families of the death row inmates. The family members are innocent people. They found themselves having their loved ones taken away from them. In conversation with a former death row convict who was acquitted by our Court of Appeal, I am struck by the poignancy of how he described the impact of the death penalty on his family."

But should not our hearts also go out to the victims, the "Edys" and the "Noinois", the girl who was four months old that Mr Christopher de Souza described, who was in the car locked up while her mother was dazed by drugs? Now, you spoke with someone who was in this situation. I have spoken with many of the victims and their families − a lot of them. And I do not want them to suffer and I do not want more people to suffer as a result of someone making a cynical calculation between his life and getting a few hundred ringgits.

And everyone has families. Victims have families, too. So, for every one person who brings in the drugs, there are several hundred people who suffer. The Prof Michael Hor that Mr Kok Heng Leun quoted was my classmate. And he knows and he has said – in the same conference that Mr Kok referred to – he knows this Government and he does not see that it will change its position on drugs. He knows me.

The question then is: do you want to take the risk of dismantling one key part of the deterrence that we have and take a chance? You also say in one part, Mr Kok: is the approach really to put in tougher laws? But at the same time, you also say you accept that the current enforcement is good and the current legal framework is good, other than the death penalty. Again, it appears contradictory. So, I am not sure quite exactly what you mean. And you tell us, of the 1,400 individuals that were placed in 2015 in DRC, 820 had Secondary education, 300 had Primary education, six no education. And you said this gives some indication that it is the inadequacy and gaps in our social and economic institutions, rather than the failure of not having implemented more punitive punishment on drug consumption and drug trafficking that the problem lies.

What are the inadequacy and gaps in our social and economic institutions that lead to this drug abuse? I hope you will clarify exactly what social institutions you are referring to, what economic institutions you are referring to, and what gaps and, causatively, how they relate to the drug problem. I think you should, when you make a statement like that. And I mean causatively. Tell me what the gaps are in the social institutions, which ones, what are the gaps in economic institutions and how do they really lead causatively to these 821 people getting into drugs.

I told you the backgrounds vary, their education backgrounds vary. There are professionals being picked up. And if you go and look at the backgrounds in other countries, you will see a whole strata of people getting into drug abuse. It is not restricted. You go soft, that is what will happen.