Strengthening Singapore's Fight Against Drugs

Yes. Secondly, I would like to also affirm that from the speeches that I get and the Minister's response that vigilance is very important and the vigilance of our Police force has helped a lot to actually contain the drug problems.

Thirdly, I want to address also the issues about the social gaps which I mentioned in my speech. I want to clarify that it was not a statement to critique the system that we have. However, we have heard in the House quite a lot of times that even with all the social nets that we have put in, all the systems that we have put in, there will be people who have fallen through the nets.

In this particular case, a lot of them because of their experience and in that condition, that makes them very susceptible to take up addictions, like drug addictions or alcoholic addictions. So, I am referring to that rather than a critique on the system.

What I am concerned is then, in the end, how can we help these abusers and that is why rehabilitative work, for me, is so important. I want to also reiterate that I have equal and not any lesser empathy for the families of the drug abusers. Again, my experience has told me − I have seen a lot of them − it is that philosophical stand, especially in terms of the death penalty, that I have problems with, personally.

With regard to all the rebuttals that the Minister had in terms of the whole criminal investigation process, I take the Minister's point. I will go back and do more homework. I think that is very interesting, that is something that I am learning. I will take that and go back and work on it. When we have enough time, we can probably have another discussion.

I will. Vigilance, Mr Kok, is not a substitute for other things. We need vigilance, we also need the other aspects that I spoke about. My particular point was on what basis do you conclude that it is the social economic gap that leads some people to go into drugs? If so, what do you think we can do about it or what more do you think we can do about it. But that is a discussion we can have some other time. I note your difference in philosophy on the death penalty. People are entitled to have different viewpoints on that.

Sir, I would like to thank the 11 Members, including the Minister for Home Affairs, for speaking on this Motion and for their support. What they have shared is insightful and appreciated.

As Dr Tan Wu Meng has expressed, "policy choices… set the tone for decades… and shape the lives of a generation." We have to stay vigilant for the sake of those who fall prey to harmful drugs and their families. It is important that the laws send a strong signal to those thinking of trafficking that it is not worth the transaction. As Minister Shanmugam has highlighted − this is a battle − it is regional and it is organised. That is the nature of what we are facing. As Ms Tin Pei Ling has shared, stiff penalties are not something anyone would wish to see applied and yet they are necessary, necessary for deterrence.

Mr Vikram Nair and Mr Alex Yam touched on the importance of our laws which deter the supply of drugs. While they may differ on how the laws should be carried out, there is something in common that binds − the need to ensure that our drug supply laws are relevant enough to stem the supply of drugs. To that end, I had suggested a regular review of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

My first suggestion is to calibrate the punishment of drug trafficking to take into account the harmfulness of cocktailed drugs. Some contaminants increase potency and lower the cost to produce. The consequences of a cocktailed drug can be more devastating to the drug user.

Secondly, as Mr Alex Yam and Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar's points illustrate, it is important that our laws are able to deal effectively with synthetic drugs. It is for this reason that I suggested that the First Schedule be flexible enough to deal with the influx of new psycho-active substances and that the move from the Fifth Schedule to the First Schedule be prompt enough to frame a drug trafficking charge. This does not just restrict but also deter the supply of such drugs before they can gain a sizeable demand.

Thirdly, Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan and Mr Alex Yam highlighted the need to stem the "route" of drugs being shipped in through the Internet. This is why I proposed that a new offence be created with an enhanced punishment regime to tackle trafficking and recruiting through the Internet.

Technology transcends geographical boundaries and, in this instance, it has turned dark. Through the Dark Net, drugs have become accessible. In a BBC documentary, a journalist ordered drugs online. It was an eBay-like user experience, it was in quick order processing time of mere hours and there was a delivery in ordinary-looking packages containing the drugs.

Our region is not spared. This is a headline from the New Straits Times. It reads: "Drug pushers using WhatsApp, WeChat to sell, recruit school kids". This was dated just two months ago, 2 February 2017. We must be wary that social media can turn into a Trojan horse if left unwatched.

Besides the Internet component, the other suggestion is the need to tackle the upward trend of drug abuse among those under 30. This trend has been raised by Ms Tin Pei Ling. As Dr Intan Mokhtar has highlighted through her stories, this is, indeed, a worrying trend. Look at the top graph. Please look at the top of the graph. The top bright blue line snaking out at the top, way above the rest − that is what we should be concerned about. That line shows that the number of drug abusers arrested from between 20 and 29 years of age hit the 1,000 mark and over in 2015 and 2016. This is the situation we are dealing with. We need to do something about it.

To this end, the thrust of my third to sixth suggestions was to introduce new provisions in the Misuse of Drugs Act to deter trafficking and recruitment via the Internet, especially among those under 30 years of age.

Our strong deterrent laws garnered support from Mr Vikram Nair, Ms Tin Pei Ling, Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, Mr Alex Yam and Dr Tan Wu Meng. They agreed that strong deterrent laws continue to be important and have played an important part in Singapore's relative success. While they look at the need for deterrent laws to the drug abuser to stay away from drugs, they also recognised the need to rehabilitate, reintegrate and restore the drug abuser into society.

As Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin puts it quite nicely, we are holding "both punitive justice and restorative mercy in tension", "a strong anti-drug stance against the traffickers paired with an equally strong pro-rehabilitation stance for the addicts."

An integral part and an important part is the family − this is because the family and the children suffer, too, when the drug abuser is put into incarceration for extended periods of time. As Ms Kuik has put it, "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."

Mr Louis Ng expressed the importance of reaching out to the family within the first week.

An important initiative, as mentioned by Minister Shanmugam, is the Yellow Ribbon Community Project. In the second phase of the project, grassroots volunteers reach out to the new inmates' families by visiting them and grafting them into the community through events. They also connect them with much-needed resources and practical support. Accountability and effectiveness are enhanced through regular communication and updates.

Mr Louis Ng had also an interesting insight to share: "The drug consumption might be the symptom of a problem… The lack of strong family bonds might [be] the reason they consumed drugs in the first place."

Supplementing the hon Member's point, I would like to share one example of a type of family therapy that addresses these problems. There is a family therapy intervention exercise described in Friedman and Granick's book entitled Family Therapy for Adolescent Drug Abuse. It seeks to restructure the maladaptive aspects of the family system, such as, crisis management, guilt and the burden of redemption and, thereafter establish a method for controlling or eliminating substance abuse. It also includes education about the effects and dependence process of drug use.

Mr Louis Ng and Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin have given moving examples of how bonding with children may be the best motivation for rehabilitation. One, in particular, that stood out for me is inmate mothers recording bedtime stories for their children. This just shows how a small gesture can go a long way. We should move beyond increased visitation time and increase such precious bonding opportunities to form a cornerstone of rehabilitation.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan has highlighted the need for rehabilitation. Perhaps something that could be looked into, alongside what Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin raised on art-based rehabilitative programmes, is reconditioning, the over-writing of old thought patterns by new ones.

One example is Healing Broken Circles in Ohio, which does rehabilitation programmes in an incarceration setting. "Offered in a safe environment where participants feel they belong, learn concepts [and] master skills", its strength-based programmes provide participants healthy ways of expressing themselves, through art and courses of higher thinking and higher learning. These are important qualities to overcome the hurdles of reintegration. Again, we need not be so liberal in terms of the freedom provided, but it is nonetheless worth a study whether their programmes can fit into an incarceration model like DRC.

Positive peer support can be facilitated. Ms Tin Pei Ling, Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin and Nominated Member of Parliament Mr Kok Heng Leun touched on the importance of accountability even through art − a key component, in my opinion, to good peer support and rehabilitation.

One example is Japan's Drug Addiction Rehabilitation Centre (DARC). It is staffed mostly by those who have recovered from drug dependence. It was reported in 2006 that three quarters of the previous users maintain sobriety. One of the reasons for the high rating from the users is "the companionship from recovered addicts and flexible frameworks to enhance drug addicts' motivation to recover." This is just one example of how positive peer support can be facilitated.

The message to the former drug addict should be, "We want you to come back into the community". As Mr Alex Yam movingly shared, "the most important reassurance to recovering addicts is that they have a place at the table, that they are not abandoned by society."

To have a place at the table, the former inmate must receive post-release support. A good local initiative is Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association's anonymous live chat service on its talk2sana online portal launched just last month. This looks to be widely accessible, yet personalised. More such ground-up initiatives can be encouraged.

On the third point of the Motion, culture, there was broad support to resist pro-illicit-drug propaganda. Mr Pritam Singh emphasised the need for preventive education to deter the pro-drug culture from embedding itself here. I thank Mr Singh for his contribution to the debate. It is significant that we have bipartisan support for this important, collective battle against a pro-drug culture.

Dr Intan Mokhtar, when we heard her talk about her son and what he faces in school, I was reminded again of how close to home this problem of drugs is. It must not have been easy to share, but thank you for sharing.

To add on to Dr Intan's point on the need to reach out to students and post-Secondary institutions, I think that it is important that students be taught the host of ills about drugs from a young age, but not just why they should stay away from drugs but also how to stay away from drugs.

The National Council Against Drug Abuse Youth Perception Survey in 2013 showed that while "96.5% of youths whose parents had spoken to them about drugs and drug abuse reported that those conversations have deterred them from taking drugs", only "less than half of the youths had conversations with their parents on drugs and drug abuse."

This battle for the mindshare of young Singaporeans is not something we can under-estimate. As Dr Intan Mokhtar's account of her son has well illustrated, this battle is not far off. We need to be vigilant. Parents need to know that: (a) it is a matter that they should be concerned about and (b) that they matter − that parents matter.

Mr Vikram Nair raised an important query whether the amendments in 2012 have caused a perception in the minds of potential drug traffickers that we have softened our stance. It is a valid query. Will MHA study this? And if, indeed, MHA forms the view that the discretionary punishment mechanism has caused an increase in drug trafficking, we should seriously consider removing that discretionary mechanism and reverting back to the mandatory punishment regime. Given the consequences of drug trafficking to innocent victims in society, it is a legitimate query and needs to be responded to.

Within this Motion, Nominated Member Mr Kok Heng Leun has questioned capital punishment. As mover of the Motion, I am prepared to tell Mr Kok what I believe in and why.

Firstly, I am not here baying for blood. Nobody here cheers the idea of putting another person to death. Nobody here wants to have to pronounce the death penalty on another person. But I also care about the victims of drug trafficking. We must also speak up for the innocent children of addicts who endure weeks, months, years of emotional neglect, physical neglect and abuse. I also care for the addicts who suffer slow and lingering deaths and the victims of violent drug-related crimes. Introducing people to drugs through drug trafficking results in slow and agonising deaths for them and years of pain for their families.

In response to the Nominated Member, let me provide an explanation on practical grounds first. Then, I will explain the principle and justifications following that. I do not disrespect the Nominated Member's view. It is just that I do not agree with them.

First, the practical explanation. Any discussion on capital punishment must start with a query whether our legal system offers the environment needed to ensure that capital punishment does deter future drug trafficking crimes or, at least, reduces the incidence of such future crimes. No system is perfect. But I believe our system does have the attributes required to ensure that punishments meted out by the Courts, including capital punishment, do deter future crime.

Why do I say this? It is because we are a society governed by the rule of law. What does this mean? Firstly, we have an effective judicial service and an efficient one. Second, the investigative body in the form of the Singapore Police Force and the Central Narcotics Bureau is impartial and efficient. In short, investigations are carried out professionally.

With regard to the insightful point raised by Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, I would respond that where the investigations do not meet the standards required by the Courts to meet the burden of proof, then the conviction is not meted out. Rather, an acquittal is given. This was so in the recent case of Harven vs Public Prosecutor decided just two weeks ago. Two Judges in the Court of Appeal found the burden of proof was not met − Justice Chao Hick Tin delivering the majority decision; Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon concurring. One judge, Justice Tay Yong Kwang found it was met. This is the merit of our system − an independent assessment of the facts by three independent judges. The result, an acquittal.

Developing the ethos behind Asst Prof Mahdev's points, I am open to further safeguards, such as having three judges sit at first instance for capital trials and five judges sitting in the Court of Appeal for all capital appeals. That would make the process even more thorough for the sake of the trafficker. And I hope the suggestion will be considered.

Third, within that rubric of rule of law, the potential offender, in this case, the potential drug trafficker, knows that if he is caught in Singapore, the law will be applied against him. He cannot bribe or manoeuvre out of the reach of the law. So, if the case is proven against him, he will receive the relevant sentence. In that sense, the law is predictable.

Fourthly, when punishments are meted out, they are publicised so the potential drug trafficker knows that if he commits a certain crime, he will be punished. That awareness is important to deter future crime, or diminish the incidence of future crime.

The Singapore legal system is possessed with all of these attributes and so it is a conducive environment for the sentencing rationale of deterrence to operate in. Furthermore, drug trafficking is a rational crime. The drug trafficker weighs profit to himself compared to punishment. And because of the attributes of our legal system, he knows that he will receive the punishment if he is caught and the case is proven against him.

It is not in every country in the world that you have all those positive attributes at play within a legal system and we must work hard to keep those positive attributes.

So, my practical conclusion is that capital punishment can and does deter future crime in Singapore. It is a system that works well now and, until and unless a better and more effective system can be set up, I say we keep the present raft of muscular laws. If we take it away, there is every chance that the deterrence against future crimes will be removed or diminished. I cannot speak for other countries. But as for Singapore, in my view, it deters.

Let me now move on to the explanation based on principle. I first had to analyse the issue of capital punishment as a judicial officer assisting the Court of Appeal and as a prosecutor in the Attorney-General's Chambers when I first started legal practice. I had to deal with capital cases. They were never easy cases. We had to search our minds; we had to search our inner selves, to do what was right by society and the individual alleged offender.

In the AG's Chambers, I remember prosecuting a capital case. The offender had murdered his landlord. Why? Because he wanted to steal money from his landlord to fuel his drug addiction. Drugs and drug trafficking destroy lives. Let us be completely clear about that. In this case, drug trafficking supplied a man with drugs and he eventually killed, murdered to fuel his addiction. He received capital punishment. So, I have been there. I knew that the consequences of a case proven will lead to capital punishment. It is never easy but it is required.

As a judicial officer, I worked closely with the Court of Appeal, then-Chief Justice Yong Pung How and Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin. Capital appeals would go up for hearing and I would support the judges by analysing the arguments on appeal with them. I remember one case clearly where the capital punishment decision was reversed and the offender was given 10 years' imprisonment. In other cases, capital punishment was upheld. In each instance, all those individuals, all those involved, had to think deeply about what was right in each case.

From those experiences, I now know the importance of what we discuss and debate in this House when we make laws for our land. I am convinced that we should not remove a needed legal weapon, in the form of capital punishment, in our fight against drug trafficking. To remove it, in my view, would be to harm even more innocent victims.

Fifteen milligrammes of diamorphine sustain 180 abusers for a week. Assuming four members per addict, that is 900 people affected. As regards my example of 900 people, for how long are they affected? If the drug is highly addictive, that addict would be on it for years, psychologically killing himself and his family, slowly, over weeks, months, years. Nine hundred people. That is equivalent to 30 platoons.

The real question we have to ask ourselves today is whether we, as a society, want to risk a potential increase in the supply of life-destroying drugs into Singapore, higher number of addicts, higher number of innocent families destroyed if we remove capital punishment for drug trafficking.

Protecting the hard, muscular position against drug trafficking protects even more innocent victims plunging into the horrendous clutches of addiction. As Deputy Prime Minister Teo mentioned in the 2012 Misuse of Drugs Amendment (MDA) debate, and I quote, "We know that the mandatory death penalty has a deterrent effect because drug traffickers deliberately try to keep the amounts they carry to below the capital punishment threshold." So, for these principled reasons, in addition to the practical reasons that I have laid out, I do not think it wise, for the sake of the innocent victims, to go soft against traffickers.

I would also like to ask a few questions. What if drugs were offered to your children in the playground, any of our children in the playground? What if drugs were offered to your or our children in school? Once they consume them, there is every chance their health, their mental well-being, their futures will be destroyed.

How many of us have actually seen a drug addict, met with a drug addict? I have. I have visited the DRC on more than one occasion and seen addicts desperately trying to overcome addiction.

In the DRC, one addict shared with me that he started consuming drugs when he was 13 years of age. Compassion for the trafficker who trafficked to him − a 13-year-old? He was nearly 20 years old when we spoke. You want to have compassion against a trafficker who trafficks to potentially 13-year-olds?

When I studied in England and when I took a train from King's Cross, St Pancras, I saw a drug addict on the sidewalk. Her fingers were bitten through. Flesh was present where her fingernails should have been. I saw her offering herself as a prostitute so she could fuel her drug addiction. It left a deep impression on me to see a life of promise so devastated by drugs.

In the constituency I serve, in Singapore, just on Friday night, I met a former drug addict. He came to my MPS. He wants to stay off drugs and pass his urine test. He showed me a photo of himself in his youth, full of promise and health. He now looks a totally different picture − tired, worn.

So, you want to have compassion? Yes, compassion for society, compassion for innocent children of addicts, compassion for families.

In closing, Sir, drug trafficking is a coldly calculated crime. Tough laws today save lives. Loosen the laws, multitudes of innocent families will suffer. What we debate today is a key decision. What we must hold today is a crucial line − tough laws against drug traffickers; investing in the rehabilitation of drug addicts and preventing a drug-tolerant culture from being established in Singapore. I trust and hope that the House will hold, protect and defend that line today. [Applause.]

*Question put, and agreed to.*

*Resolved, "That this House strengthens the fight against drugs by reaffirming Singapore's strong anti-drug stance and calls on the Government to continue (a) applying tough laws to deter the trafficking of drugs into Singapore; (b) investing in the rehabilitation of drug addicts; and (c) preventing a drug-tolerant culture from being established in Singapore."*