Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1975, the mandatory death penalty was introduced in the Misuse of Drugs Act as punishment for the trafficking of more than 15g of heroin and 30g of morphine.

In each successive significant amendment that we have made to the MDA since, in 1977, 1979, 1989, 1993, 1998 and 2006, the powers and reach of the Act were enhanced and made stricter. The death penalty was extended to cover more and newer drugs which afflicted our society and additional powers were granted to law enforcement agencies to tackle hardcore addicts and fight recidivism. In that period, Singapore earned its reputation for being a place which was unstinting in its fight to keep drugs off our streets and for being unforgiving to anyone caught with the illegal manufacture, consumption and trafficking of drugs.

We had to do this because unlike most other serious crimes, the social ills of drug abuse run deep and they have a pervasive and extended effect on society. Also unlike most other serious crimes, drug trafficking and peddling is a completely premeditated crime. The offender sets out to commit the crime and takes a carefully calculated risk. It is because the rewards could be so extravagantly rich that such risks still continue to be taken despite the strict measures. We needed a culture of zero tolerance even if it meant occasionally straining relations with some of Singapore's closest international allies. As a result, we were largely successful over the years in making our streets as free as possible of drugs including pushers, peddlers and addicts. We gained an international reputation for having tough laws on drugs not only against the offenders who were caught but also as a deterrent against the would-be traffickers who thought twice and perhaps more before even contemplating trying their luck.

In the period between 1994 and 2005, the number of drug abusers arrested dropped almost ten-fold. Of the last 15 years, 2005 represented the low watermark in the number of drug abusers arrested. However, as the Deputy Prime Minister has shown on the slides earlier, in the six years since, we have seen a year-on-year increase in the very same statistics. The number of drug abuser arrests has gone up each year. What is also troubling is not just that there has been an increase but also that the rate of increase has been much faster.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand the logic and rationale of the amendments which are being proposed to the MDA. They seek to draw a very careful, calibrated distinction between the different levels of accountability. It seeks to temper and mitigate the harsh drug laws with compassion. So, for those who are found to be less culpable and involved only in transportation of the drugs, the death penalty would not be mandatory. Under the proposed legislation, the death penalty which was previously mandatory becomes life imprisonment in the case where the offender suffers from an abnormality of mind and to be determined as a matter of discretion by the court where the offender has substantively assisted the authorities in disrupting drug activities.

Page: 1077

Sir, I agree with these amendments but I would like to sound a word of caution in various respects. First, we are proposing these amendments in an increasingly worrying climate in the fight against drugs. I have already outlined the increase in the number of drug abuser arrests in the last five years and I would like to add the following facts and other statistics as observations which are worth considering.

First, in terms of the Singapore market, seizures of the most commonly abused drugs in Singapore, heroin, methamphetamine and cannabis have increased significantly. Heroin, for instance, saw a 48% increase between 2010 and 2011. Just comparing seizures statistics for the first six months, January to June 2012 against the comparable six-month period in 2011, we already see a 13% increase year-on-year. In the case of cannabis seizures, the increase was 62% year-on-year and for methamphetamine it was 137%. It is clearly a sign that the CNB has been very hard at work, or that there have just been more drugs being made available on the market; or more likely, both.

Second, the regional trends which the Deputy Prime Minister has touched on. If you look around us, the trends and developments especially those in the region must be a cause for concern, given Singapore's geographical position and open economy. According to Senior Minister of State Masagos Zulkifli, the regional drug situation has deteriorated and we are seeing an increased supply of heroin in Southeast Asia. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) World Drug Report 2011 reported that more than half of the world's heroin seizures are made in Asia alone. Seizures of opium in Southeast Asia, which is the raw material used for heroin, increased 75% between 2009 and 2010. The 2012 report identified Singapore as one of the expanding and emerging heroin markets along with Malaysia, Laos and Indonesia, all within reach of the Golden Triangle region.

Third, new abusers. It is not just the number but also the age because 65% of the new abusers caught are aged below 30. The number of youths below aged 20 who are arrested for abuse has risen steadily in the last five years. What is of particular concern is that of the youths, the group showing the largest increase within that band, below 30, is the group that is 16 years and below. The new abusers are getting younger and we are also looking at a trend where our young gets easily hooked on lifestyle drugs, synthetic drugs and amphetamine-type stimulants which can be quite readily and easily available in nightclubs and other similar joints. It is a trend that has to be urgently arrested and curtailing supply will go a long way.

Page: 1078

Sir, these numbers and trends tell us that the drug problem will not go away for some time yet. More drugs are making its way to Singapore and the regional developments and trends will have a very direct impact on Singapore. Left unchecked, these indicators could translate into a serious problem for Singapore in the years to come.

In the connection, one might ask why it is appropriate that the amendments to make the death penalty regime less stringent be made now against the backdrop of the worsening regional situation and the prevailing climate of increased supply and arrests.

Sir, if we agree that what underpins the amendments are compassion and a recognition that there are some degrees of culpability which ought not attract the death sentence, then really there is no better time than now. In that respect, I am therefore heartened that the Government has taken the bold steps in these climates to introduce these amendments at this stage. My concern, however, Sir, is that the amendments do not inadvertently send a message or it is misconstrued that Singapore has had a fundamental rethink on our strict anti-drug philosophy. There are already some international publications out there which report this move as a relaxation of our hitherto strict laws which is a fair enough point. But there are yet other commentators who regard this move as a step in the right direction, except that they regard the direction as being one where the death penalty should eventually be abolished altogether for all forms of drug offences. This latter comment, Sir, is not sustainable, particularly in the context of the drug abuse and supply landscape as we now see it. Strong deterrents with the most harsh punishment must still remain a cornerstone principle for our drug enforcement regime.

Sir, in 1975, when the MDA was amended to provide for the mandatory death penalty for trafficking in heroin and morphine, it was also done at a time when it was recognised that Singapore was particularly vulnerable to the Golden Triangle region just as we are facing now. Equally, the Minister then, Minister Chua Sian Chin, was also concerned himself with the increasing number of heroin abusers caught year-on-year. We must therefore remain robust. The uncompromising attitude towards drugs which we have taken has served us well. Our laws are strict and also well-publicised. The severe punishment is not only about retribution for the drug trafficker who has been himself apprehended, the mandatory death penalty itself operates as a strong deterrent, in fact the strongest. It is designed to send a clear message of deterrence to the many out there who are even thinking of trafficking prohibited drugs in Singapore.

Sir, the drug problem is a tragedy. It cannot be measured only in terms of the individual drug abuser who suffers from the addiction and how much it affects his health, his well-being and his societal position. There is a much greater cost to his family, to his friends, colleagues and there is a social and economic cost as well. There is a social cost arising from the break-up of families of addicts, the drop or lack of productivity, the cost of rehabilitation and reintegration into society. All of these erode the carefully-woven fabric of own community. There is also the problem caused by drug-related crimes, commonly stealing, house-breaking and robbery, to support the habit; all of which lend themselves to a less safe Singapore.

Page: 1079

Sir, while I support the Bill, I do hope that the Government can re-affirm our strong anti-drug laws and assure the public that we are not with this amendment going soft on drugs and that this would not put us on a slippery slope towards the erosion of the strong deterrents that underpin our drug laws regime.

Sir, I would like to now move on to some specific points in the draft legislation. The new section 33B(1A) provides that the court may impose life imprisonment instead of the death penalty in circumstances where subsection 2 has been satisfied. Subsection 2 requires the accused to prove on a balance of probability that he has only a restricted role in the trafficking of the drug concerned. If he satisfies that and the public prosecutor certifies that the accused has substantively assisted the CNB in disrupting trafficking activities within or outside Singapore, then and only then the court may order life imprisonment instead of meting out the mandatory death penalty. In other words, it appears necessary that the assistance of the offender must lead to some tangible and effective outcome in relation to the disruption of drug trafficking activities. Hence, whether one has substantively assisted or not could really be the difference between life and death. It is therefore important that we are very clear as to what needs to be satisfied.

I would like to raise some points and also seek some clarifications on the scope of the phrase "substantively assisted". First, under the proposed legislation, it is for the public prosecutor to decide in his sole discretion whether to give the certification or not. Sir, this can brook no argument because the alternative would be to subject the nature, type, content and other details of the offender's assistance to a public scrutiny in the court. That is unacceptable since it will severely compromise our investigative powers and methods. I would imagine that the accused would likewise also not want details of his own assistance to be publicised.

Second, however, and perhaps particularly because it is a certification made in the sole discretion of the public prosecutor and subject to no challenge except for bad faith or grounds of malice, we do have a duty to be clear as to what we regard as being satisfaction of this requirement. By definition, an accused trafficker who satisfies the criteria in section 33B(2) is likely to be a relatively low level transporter or assistant. That person is not likely to be in a position to give any substantive assistance especially if that assistance is to lead to some tangible disruption outcome. All he might well know could be that he was asked to carry a packet from point A to point B, and that he would thereafter be paid some reward without knowing the identity of his instructors or the source of the money. Hence, if by this section, what is required is that there is direct nexus between the assistance that is given by this offender and the disruption of the drug syndicate's activities, then I wonder whether the threshold is not set too high. Such a requirement would likely disadvantage the offender who was sitting at the lower end of the hierarchy with little or no information on the senior members of the inner workings of the syndicate. That would run counter to the objective of the proviso as the intention is to let less culpable members or offenders who are involved only in low-level transportation or couriering avail themselves of the discretion not to have the death penalty imposed on them.

Page: 1080

Further, Sir, as the section is presently drafted, the certification is only issued where CNB gains substantive assistance from the offender leading to the disruption. That could potentially discriminate between the different offenders who commit the same crime but who may for all sorts of reasons have different levels of knowledge and insight into the syndicate's activities. Put another way, that certification which could be the difference between life and death would be dependent on factors which may not necessarily be in the offender's control and which have nothing to do, directly at least, with the gravity of the offences committed. The sub-section could perhaps be revised so that the touchstone for the issue of a certificate is determined by whether or not CNB forms the view that the offender has done all that he or she possibly can in the circumstances to assist in the disruption of the drug trafficking activities.

Sir, one last point. In addition, there is also the question as to the time at which the substantive assistance falls to be considered or certified. Drug syndicates operate at different levels and are usually structured so that it will not be easy to detect or identify its kingpins or the manner in which its activities are conducted. It is possible that the assistance rendered or the information provided by the offender may either not be immediately or be fully appreciated. It is entirely possible that such information or assistance provided by the offender could be useless on its own but when put together with other pieces of information, obtained from other sources at other times, the fuller picture could well be very useful, and this may take several months or even years. In these cases, I seek some clarifications as to what can be done to ensure that no offender is refused certification in circumstances where he or she has assisted, has given substantive assistance but where such assistance has not yet, at least, led to any disruption of drug trafficking activities but could possibly do so in the future. Sir, with that I support the Bill.

Page: 1081

Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment Bill has several purposes. I shall first deal with the application of the death penalty, followed by some queries about other aspects of the Bill.

First, retention of the mandatory death penalty. In July this year, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean told the House that though the Government had been reviewing the death penalty for drug trafficking for some months, it had concluded that "the mandatory death penalty should continue to apply in most circumstances". Indeed, as explained by Deputy Prime Minister Teo just now, this Bill retains the mandatory death penalty for trafficking and importation of drugs, except in two circumstances which I will touch on later.

Deterrence has long been central to the Government's stance on having the death penalty, and making it mandatory for certain offences. However, how far the death penalty actually deters crime has long been the subject of international debate. There have also been conflicting studies on whether the death penalty deters crime or not, though most of these studies were on homicide offences. I would like to ask the Government whether it relied on any particular studies or its own data to conclude that the death penalty or mandatory death actually deters crime and, in particular, drug trafficking.

Besides deterrence, capital punishment is sometimes justified from a retributive perspective. In other words, death is considered a just punishment for an offence which is deemed very serious. Which offences "deserve" death may be subjective, and this is a matter of judgment for each society to make. Singapore is understandably tough on drugs, having been through the 1970s when drugs caused untold harm to many families and threatened society in general.

Today, it is not my purpose to canvass the pros and cons of the death penalty per se, but to highlight the real problems caused in our system by its mandatory nature. As the Workers' Party has pointed out in the past, giving the sentencing judge no choice in the sentence is undesirable, as the case outcome is determined by the choice of charge, which vests in the Public Prosecutor. Discretion is thus pushed upstream. Moreover, unlike a judge's decision, which is reached in open court, reasoned and subject to appeal, the Public Prosecutor's decisions are opaque, not reasoned in the public, and unappealable.

Page: 1082

I am certain that the Public Prosecutor (PP) and all his deputies in the Attorney-General's Chambers are very mindful of the consequences of their decisions on the choice of charge in mandatory death cases. Former Attorney-General Walter Woon summed up the dilemma succinctly in a quote published in The Straits Times of 20 October. He said:

*"My problem with the mandatory death penalty is that the hard decisions are taken by the prosecutor when exercising prosecutorial discretion. You cannot imagine the contortions we had to go through to find some way to not charge a person (with a capital crime) because the judge had no discretion but the prosecution did. We did our very best to not charge people with capital offences if we could help it."*

Drug cases highlight the extent of prosecutorial discretion. The PP can decide to prefer heavier or lighter charges based on any set of facts. The PP can even artificially reduce the amount of drugs in the charge to below the actual amount found, to enable the accused to escape death. This practice was expressly recognised as legal by the Court of Appeal in Ramalingam Ravinthran v PP [2012] 2 SLR 49. It would be interesting to find out how many accused facing the death penalty on the facts have escaped death due to the PP's decisions.

As it stands, the inherent discretion of the PP is already very wide. Retaining the mandatory death penalty arrogates to him the additional discretion of determining the punishment the accused should face, which is not his role; it also emasculates the judges whose role it is to mete out justice based on the facts. I submit that if the death penalty was not mandatory but left to the sentencing judge, the system would be seen to be more transparent and open to public scrutiny.

In the alternative, Sir, it would also be open to the Government to provide that, for the most serious crimes, death would be the presumptive sentence, leaving an escape clause for the judge not to impose death in special circumstances. There are many precedents in other countries for using presumptive sentences. For example, in Western Australia, the presumptive sentence for murder is life imprisonment but the relevant section allows the judge not to impose it if that sentence "would be clearly unjust" given the circumstances of the offence and the person; and the offender is unlikely to be a threat to society upon release. The Government could consider such a device for the most serious offences instead of mandatory death.

Sir, next, I move on to the amendments concerning couriers. Under the new section 33B, a courier can escape the death penalty and be sentenced to life imprisonment instead, if his case falls within two strictly-defined circumstances. The first circumstance involves couriers whom the PP will certify have co-operated with the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB). I have some concerns about this provision.

Page: 1083

First, the new section 33B(2) requires the accused to prove that his involvement was restricted to being a transporter, sender or deliverer of the drugs in question. Does this therefore mean that section 33B will only apply in cases where the accused admits or pleads guilty to a capital drug charge? Will this provision be available to those who claim trial but, during the trial, decide to admit to being a courier? Put another way, is the PP prepared to issue a certificate of assistance even when the accused claims trial to a trafficking charge?

Secondly, the PP must certify that the accused has "substantially assisted the CNB in disrupting drug trafficking activities within and outside Singapore". The Explanatory Note to the Bill expressly clarifies that information which does not enhance the effective enforcement of the Act "will not suffice". According to this wording, a low-level courier who knows nothing about the drug network will go to the gallows, while another courier who has more information, and is presumably closer to the higher echelons, can escape death. This would be a perverse outcome, a point which Mr Edwin Tong raised earlier in his speech as well.

In addition, the phrase "substantially assisted the CNB in disrupting drug trafficking activities" suggests that the CNB should show some success in its drug operations based on the accused's information. Is this what is intended? This would not be fair to the accused, as operations may fail due to the information being outdated or due to law enforcement incompetence. Why not simply require full co-operation, without the additional requirement of substantial assistance to disrupt drug trafficking activities?

Thirdly, Sir, the PP's certificate of co-operation cannot be challenged except for bad faith or malice. This means that, in actual fact, the judge's discretion under section 33B is very limited. However, it is foreseeable that some accused persons may not receive the certificate even if they were willing to provide the CNB with whatever information they had. Since this certificate is truly a life and death matter, is it not better for the judge to decide on the question of co-operation if there is a dispute? In other words, if the defence says that the accused co-operated fully with the PP but yet did not receive the PP's certificate, the PP should provide the reasons to the court and the court could make a finding. If there is concern about the sensitivity of operational information given, we could provide for non-publication of the details.

I have one final clarification concerning this category of couriers, and this is relating to cases where the couriers have already been sentenced to death. If the accused had not shared information previously with the CNB, is it open to him to do so now and hence bring himself within section 33B? It would seem just to give him this avenue, since it was not available to him previously for his consideration.

Page: 1084

Next, Sir, I move on to mentally vulnerable couriers. The intention behind this change is good. However, I would like to ask why the Government decided to follow the wording of diminished responsibility in the Penal Code, when this has been the subject of academic criticism and law reform in other countries?

For instance, during a law reform exercise in New South Wales, psychiatrists there felt that requiring them to confirm the specific cause of a person's impairment of mind was too difficult and arbitrary. Instead, the New South Wales law was changed to simplify the defence to require that "the offender's capacity to understand events, or to judge whether his actions were right or wrong, or to control himself, was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition, and the impairment was so substantial as to warrant liability (to be reduced)".

Sir, it should also be remembered that accused persons who may not suffer from any psychiatric condition and yet be vulnerable and easily manipulated. For instance, in the case of Rozman bin Jusoh [1995] 3 SLR 317, an accused of subnormal intelligence was entrapped by CNB officers into delivering cannabis. In other words, CNB officers instigated him to supply drugs to them. Evidence was placed before the court that his cognitive capacity to reason was borderline in that he would be unable to reason things like persons of average intelligence; that he might easily fall into difficulties and even allow others to hurt or misuse him. The Court of Appeal held that he had no defence. Sir, there should be scope in such cases for the death penalty not to be imposed. I would urge the Government to do further review of this provision in due course.

Next, the new offence of arranging or planning gatherings. Clause 4 introduces section 11(A) which makes it an offence to arrange or plan a gathering knowing that a controlled drug was or was to be consumed at the gathering if a gathering of two or more persons takes place. The wording only requires that there is a gathering and not that there is a gathering where drugs are in fact present or consumed. Is it the intention to include cases where so long the gathering takes place, the planner or arranger who thought the drug would be consumed there, would be guilty even if eventually no drugs were brought? I would like some clarification on this point.

Next, Sir, enhanced punishment for influencing young or vulnerable persons to traffic or import drugs. Clause 5 sets out section 12(A) which creates a new offence of procuring a young or vulnerable person to traffic in drugs, which will attract a harsher punishment by way of a stiffer minimum penalty. I agree that an increase is justifiable at this point of time, since the Government has found recent evidence that more young abusers are being introduced to drugs by their neighbours and friends who are repeat abusers.

Page: 1085

Sir, finally, I have a query concerning hair tests. Clause 11 introduces section 31A allowing CNB to conduct hair tests to determine if the suspect should be placed under supervision. The Government has explained that the hair test is superior to the urine test because it has a longer detection window of three months after the drug is consumed, whereas the urine test has a window of about one week. According to Minister of State Masagos' speech at the CNB Workplan Seminar in April, the purpose of introducing the hair test is to "deter CNB supervisees from relapsing into drug abuse as it will be very difficult to avoid detection".

While the Minister of State has stated that hair tests will be used on existing supervisees, it would seem that hair tests can be used on fresh cases as well. Under section 31A, so long as an officer suspects that a person has consumed drugs, he can order him to provide a hair specimen. How would this work in relation to someone who has consumed drugs overseas? Should a Singaporean who consumes cannabis in Amsterdam two months ago expect to have his hair tested upon arrival at the airport? I note that the existing section 8A of the Act criminalises drug consumption overseas by Singapore citizens or permanent residents if their urine tests are positive upon return; however, this amendment Bill does not amend that section to say these returning residents are subject to hair tests too. Could this be clarified please?

Sir, in conclusion, this amendment Bill enhances various tools and punishments to tackle trends of concern, and also takes a step in mitigating the harshness of the mandatory death penalty regime. To that end, it is to be supported. However, as mentioned at the start of my speech, I believe the Government needs to continue its review of the death penalty in particular its mandatory nature. In addition, the courier clauses appear to be problematic and should be monitored closely for further review.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate. Before I launch into my speech proper, I thought I would just like to add this comment that I think I speak for many of the lawyer Members in this House – and you are going to hear a lot of them over the next few days – in echoing the sentiments of the Minister for Law when he read out the tribute of the Government for the ex-Chief Justice.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act are timely to enhance the overall deterrence, enforcement and rehabilitative regime. The introduction of the temporary listing of new psychoactive substances to empower their seizure while further scientific analysis is being carried out on the ill effects allows the CNB to keep up with the new designer drugs being concocted by the drugs syndicates trying to stay one step ahead of the law. Still, another change is the creation of a Community Rehabilitation Centre to cater for the growing trend of young offenders and reducing the risk of influence by mixing them with hardened drug abusers in the DRC. These are all welcomed changes.

Page: 1086

However, the most eye-catching change, and probably the most controversial one, is the introduction of the judicial discretion to not sentence the trafficker to the formerly mandatory death sentence, where the trafficking consisted solely of acting as courier without any further involvement. There is an additional condition of cooperation on mental disability, which has already been commented on at length by other speakers. While harking to this judicial discretion, I think one should not lose sight that if the judge in those two strictly defined conditions are fulfilled, the discretion is to impose in lieu of the death sentence, a sentence of life imprisonment with at least 15 strokes of the cane. Nobody would consider that to be a light sentence, and many would consider that to be as bad, if not, a worse sentence than the death sentence to be meted out.

This particular amendment has attracted the most attention because Singapore has long been known, often praised and sometimes vilified, for its zero-tolerance attitude towards drugs. Many of us have heard from our foreign friends and visitors about the chilling message they hear on the flight into Singapore about the harsh penalties for drug offences. In this regard, I consider that the mandatory death sentence for the most serious drug offences is a vital element of this message. Will this message get adulterated by the exceptions to the rule? After all, it is a powerful statement to simply say that drug traffickers will be sentenced to death than to explain the various technical conditions that have been outlined earlier.

While the professional drug syndicates will be under no illusion that the regime in Singapore is as tough as ever, there may be a drop-off in perception among the general public, both in Singapore or overseas, that Singapore is getting softer on drugs. I would invite the Deputy Prime Minister's take on the effect this change may have on how our zero-tolerance approach on drugs is perceived in future. There has been much talk about the new normal in Singapore. We need to make clear that that does not involve getting soft on drugs.

Another concern I have is that many couriers caught here are foreign citizens. Indeed, it is known to be a common ruse of drug syndicates to have their drug mules change flights in Singapore, so that they arrive at their final destination appearing to have come from Singapore, and would be presumed to have gone through the stringent checks that Singapore is well-known for. The presence of this judicial discretion does raise the prospect that foreign organisations, and possibly even foreign governments, may seek to lobby our authorities to not impose the death sentence on their fellow countrymen. This is particularly so where the foreign country does not itself permit the death sentence to be passed under its own laws. We have had such lobbying in the past, but the point is if there is discretion to not impose the death sentence, will this not increase the pressure, attraction and capacity for such lobbying? Again, is this something our Government is ready for, and ready to push back on?

Page: 1087

Members of the House may recall recent cases. One that comes to mind is Yong Vui Kong, where certain human rights activists took up the cudgels on the basis that the death sentence should not be passed against someone who was, among other qualities, not a Singaporean.

Finally, the requirement to prove substantive cooperation with authorities only through a certificate to that effect from the Public Prosecutor, does introduce an element of subjectivity into the whole sentencing process. I do recognise the importance of enhancing the cooperative element with the drug authority. I have full confidence in the integrity of our law enforcement officers. What will happen if an accused person claims that he had rendered his fullest cooperation, but the particular CNB officer chose to not recognise it or not value it? What happens if an accused person says he is a mere drug mule and did not have any information on the ring leaders, although he was willing to cooperate fully?

This sort of accusations, if made enough times so as not to appear isolated incidents, can undermine public confidence in the legal system we are seeking to uphold. Can the Deputy Prime Minister consider how we can make this requirement of substantive cooperation more objective and seen to be as less subject to the judgment or discretion or even the whims of individual officers in the CNB or AGC?

I hope these and other concerns that have been raised by the other two speakers who spoke before me can be addressed. However, I would say that I consider that the merits of calibrating the sentence – and death is the ultimate sentence – with the level of culpability of the wrongdoer, and the need to create an incentive for wrongdoers to cooperate with the CNB, which will in turn aid the war on drugs, are powerful arguments for this judicial discretion. Overall, I do feel the changes are a step in the right direction, and I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill before the House today is a significant one. I welcome the comprehensive review that preceded the drafting of the proposed amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act. Our legal framework for the regulation of illicit drugs must be kept relevant and resilient to the changing realities so that we are well equipped with the drug scourge. It is therefore crucial that the MDA offers effective overall deterrence and vital support to the enforcement efforts on the one hand, while improving the upstream intervention for young abusers and the rehabilitation of drug abusers on the other hand.

Page: 1088

Sir, this Bill also marks a distinct shift in our calibration and approach towards our zero tolerance to drugs, primarily with the creation of the limited discretionary death penalty regime for drug trafficking. To be sure this House is also aware of the calls for the complete abolishment of the death penalty regime, and for us to join the growing list of abolitionist states.

Sir, I would like to focus my remarks primarily on the changes to the mandatory death penalty regime for drug trafficking. Two specific conditions are provided for under which the death penalty will no longer be mandatory for drug trafficking.

The first condition is that the trafficker must have only played the role of courier and must not have been involved in any other activity related to the supply or distribution of drugs. The second condition that must be fulfilled if the discretion is to apply is for either the trafficker to have substantively cooperated with the CNB, or the trafficker has a mental disability, which substantially impairs his appreciation of the gravity of the act of drug trafficking.

Sir, this important move to provide our Supreme Court judges with the discretion to sentence a drug trafficker to life imprisonment instead of death by hanging is to be welcomed. But I believe that we can provide our Supreme Court judges with more discretion so that we can better temper justice with mercy. The proposed amendments do not at all lessen the severity of drug trafficking, but recognise that mere drug couriers are less morally culpable than the drug lords who direct such couriers. However, the proposed amendments strike me as giving our judges discretion very parsimoniously.

Sir, no matter how abhorrent the scourge of drugs is, we should be very mindful of the need for the punishment to fit the crime. The current mandatory death penalty on conviction for drug trafficking, while signalling our society's abhorrence for the untold damage caused by drugs, is probably too blunt a tool. It is probably over-inclusive if our position is that capital punishment should not only be reserved for the most serious crimes. A drug courier, while a crucial part of the controlled drugs supply chain, is guilty of a serious crime. But it is doubtful if the actions of mere drug mule fall into the category of the most serious of crimes. Executing drug mules will not enable us to deal with the root causes of the drug problem.

Constitutionally, our Court of Appeal has consistently ruled that the mandatory death penalty (MDP) regime is constitutional and not in breach of the fundamental liberties guaranteed. The Court of Appeal had also signalled in the case of Yong Vui Kong that whether the existing mandatory death penalty legislation should be modified or repealed are, to quote the Court of Appeal, "policy issues that are for Parliament to determine in the exercise of its legislative powers under the Singapore Constitution. It is for Parliament, and not the courts, to decide on the appropriateness or suitability of the MDP as a form of punishment for serious criminal offences". The Court of Appeal added that, "If any change in relation to the MDP (or the death penalty generally) is to be effected, that has to be done by Parliament and not by the courts under the guise of constitutional interpretation."

Page: 1089

Sir, while customary international law has not evolved to a stage where the MDP is regarded as a cruel and inhumane punishment which also violates the inherent dignity of the individual, it is probably correct to say that the movement is towards the abolition of the death penalty globally. Sir, at this juncture, let me add that I am aware of Singapore's consistent position in the international fora on this issue which includes rejecting the link between the death penalty and torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In our quest to be a global city and to reinforce our rightful place in the community of nations, having the MDP and applying it has been a difficulty status to defend. This is compounded by the fact that it is not at all clear, empirically speaking, that the MDP is really all that an effective deterrent that it has been made up to be.

As such, I see the discretionary death penalty as an expression of the need to maintain the legitimacy of our death penalty regime. It is an expression of our determination to get out of the force of habit, convenience, and reliance on our long-held policy dogma that the mandatory capital punishment, with its set of rebuttable presumptions, is necessary to deal with the drug problem.

Sir, the authorities will always face the problem of proving a counter-factual where the drug problem is concerned. Equally significant is the need for the authorities to show that the mandatory death penalty regime works well. Both abolitionists and retentionists will have immense difficulties proving their case persuasively and compellingly. But we need to go beyond that debate since lives and the well-being of our society are at stake. More important is for our anti-drug regime to remain relevant, resilient and effective. I see the proposed amendments as an attempt in that direction.

Sir, will the Deputy Prime Minister address the perception outside this House, which other Members have raised earlier, that the Bill we are considering today reflects a relaxation of our fight against drugs? Let me explain. For retentionist jurisdictions like Singapore, the attraction and force of the mandatory death penalty is that its purpose is to demonstrate zero tolerance and maximum deterrence through making the death penalty mandatory. That has always been the Government's stand, and one can rightly say that it is this strong stance against crime, demonstrated by among other things by the use of corporal and capital punishment, that has been a showcase policy of the PAP Government since 1959. Therefore, does the proposed move from a mandatory death penalty regime to a discretionary death penalty regime signal our softening approach and dilute the expected deterrence?

Sir, I would like now to address clause 14 of the Bill that grants the court discretion not to impose the death sentence in certain limited circumstances. As mentioned earlier, two conditions must be fulfilled. I would like just to focus on the second condition of substantive cooperation or assistance as set out in subsection 2(b) of the proposed section 33B which would apply to a convicted person, who is not suffering from an abnormality of mind that substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions. To me, that is a relatively more problematic provision. It would require such a convicted person to have "substantively assisted the Central Narcotics Bureau in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Singapore". The Explanatory Statement to the Bill states that "substantive assistance" to the CNB:

Page: 1090

*"may include, for example, the provision of information leading to the arrest or detention or prosecution of any person involved in any drug trafficking activity. Any information which does not enhance the effective enforcement of the provisions of the Act will not suffice."*

Sir, will an ordinary drug courier really be in a position to provide the requisite information to fall on the right side of the proposed section 33B(2)(b)? The very sophistication of drug syndicate operations often means that the drug mules are unlikely to know of anyone else other than their immediate principal. This is to protect the drug lords and their key lieutenants. If a drug courier does have information that can result in the disruption of drug trafficking activities, such a person is unlikely to be a mere drug courier. Given that most, if not all, of these operations are outside of Singapore, that makes it even more difficult for the meaningful provision of information leading to the arrest or detention or prosecution of any person involved in any drug trafficking activity. In short, is the threshold of substantive cooperation or assistance set too high such as to be illusory? Should not substantive cooperation be judged according to whether the person has done all that he can to assist, rather than requiring the assistance to have a tangible outcome?

Sir, let me be clear that I am not making an argument for a low threshold with regard to the requirement for a convicted drug trafficker's substantive cooperation or assistance to CNB. I am concerned that many of the drug mules are likely to possess information which would not enhance the effective enforcement of the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Further, what safeguards are there to ensure that CNB does not abuse the substantive cooperation provision when investigating alleged drug traffickers? Will such persons be pressurised into incriminating themselves in the hope of avoiding a capital charge?

Sir, I hasten to add that I am not questioning the integrity of the CNB but the substantive cooperation provision can be the proverbial trump card that could prejudice investigations or the suspects. In addition, the proposed section 33B(4) also stipulates that the determination of whether a person has substantively assisted the CNB in disrupting drug traffickers "shall be at the discretion of the Public Prosecutor" and such discretion can only be challenged only where the "determination was done in bad faith or with malice".

Page: 1091

This proposed amendment means that the Public Prosecutor would have the prosecutorial discretion of pressing the so-called non-capital "14.99 g charge", with reference to heroin, or proceed on a capital charge but with the issuance of a "Certificate of Cooperation". In the latter case, the courts will then have the discretion to sentence the convicted drug trafficker to either the death penalty, or life imprisonment and caning of at least 15 strokes. Sir, given that the two prosecution routes have different penalties on conviction of an accused person, would the Public Prosecutor proceed on the substantive cooperation avenue, which carries a heavier penalty, or take the non-capital trafficking avenue? Sir, while I appreciate the centrality of the broad prosecutorial discretion, it is hoped that there will be a principled approach towards the preferment of charges so as to enhance public confidence in our administration of justice.

Sir, I would appreciate if the Deputy Prime Minister could also explain what is his Ministry's understanding of "disrupting drug trafficking activities" in the proposed section 33B? Not all good information would necessarily lead to disruption of drug trafficking activities but the information can certainly provide the law enforcement agencies with a better understanding of the ground situation. Given that there are varying degrees of disruption to drug trafficking activities, it would be appropriate and for the avoidance of any doubt spell out the meaning and extent of disruption vis-a-vis the substantive cooperation provision before an accused person has a legitimate claim to a "Certificate of Cooperation".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like now to move on to the other key aspects of the Bill. We should not allow the debates on the Bill to narrowly focus on the proposed shift away from the MDP under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Equally important is the need to ensure that our anti-drug framework is robust enough not only to cope with but also to be ahead of the changing environment. In particular, there is the imperative to ensure that the demand for controlled drugs is kept in check. Drug syndicates, drug pushers and drug addicts will, to varying degrees, seek to entice more people to consume and abuse drugs. This contributes to the demand for such drugs.

Clause 4 of the Bill introduces a new offence of criminalising the organisation of drug gatherings, with heavier penalties for those who organise gatherings involving the young and vulnerable. The extra-territorial reach that clause 6 seeks to provide is also necessary given that offences under the MDA often have an extra-territorial element. So these two clauses I do not think would impose significant difficulty.

The pre-emptive measure of a temporary listing of new psychoactive substances that clause 23 provides will enable the CNB to regulate the never-ending new designer drugs that will always be peddled. Such a power of seizure adopts a precautionary stance of restricting circulation of such psychoactive substances while the relevant scientific analysis and industry consultation are being conducted.

Page: 1092

Sir, the drug scourge imprisons drug abusers, through the force of addiction, for an extended period of time beyond their imprisonment and rehabilitation. I welcome the amendment that provides for the option of detaining young abusers in a Community Rehabilitation Centre as a step-down arrangement after their detention in the Drug Rehabilitation Centre. It can also prevent the young offenders from coming under the contaminating influence of older repeat drug offenders. It is crucial that we focus our attention on the young and vulnerable.

Sir, I hope that the Government will consider providing more resources to CNB and the Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association (SANA) and other volunteer welfare organisations that work with drug abusers. Drug abusers face a gamut of issues and rehabilitation of such drug abusers has to go beyond counselling to intensive case management and aftercare to address the complex root causes for their turning to drugs in the first place. Even as we strengthen our legal and enforcement framework to deal with the drug problem, we must continue to put more effort and resources into reducing the risk of re-offending by reintegrating former drug addicts into society.

Sir, the fight against drugs is a never-ending one. We have taken the right approach of not seeking to legalise drug consumption as a means of managing the drug problem. At the same time, I sense that societal attitudes towards drugs are perhaps softening, especially among the young. And this casual attitude towards drugs is not unique to any specific socio-economic class. For instance, there are anecdotal accounts of young people, with tertiary educational qualifications, experimenting with drugs while travelling overseas. Some try drugs out of boredom or curiosity or to try to cope with the demands and stress of their jobs. Then there are those who see no harm in being "casual drug users", treating it as a fad, a passing phase with no real harm done. When I asked one such young person recently why she experimented with drugs while visiting Amsterdam, her earnest reply was that it was on her bucket list of things to do! There was also the quiet confidence and bravado in her that she will not be addicted. In a problem that I set for my class on ethics and social responsibility in which I asked, "how do you deal with employees who go overseas to consume drugs casually?", one common response was that the employees are free to do whatever they want in their private time so long as it did not compromise their performance at work.

I sincerely hope the Government will put more resources to public education and public outreach. This is of utmost importance given that the drug situation remains challenging. Once complacency sets in, the fight against the drug problem becomes even more difficult. The CNB reported in August this year of the increasing amounts of drugs seized between January and June this year. Heroin and methamphetamine remain the two most commonly abused drugs, pointing to the complexity of tackling both hard-core and casual drug abusers. With a worsening drug situation and the large number of repeat drug abusers likely to be released in the next few years, we must not let down our guard. Sir, on that note, I support the Bill.

Page: 1093

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Ministry for its efforts to update the Misuse of Drugs Act. While the amendments seek to strengthen the Act and provide an alternative to the death sentence for drug traffickers or couriers, which was a mandatory punishment put in place since 1975, I have several concerns regarding the amendments to the Act which I hope the Ministry will look into.

First, the amendment to section 2 defines a vulnerable person as "any person who suffers from an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain resulting from any disability or disorder which impairs one's judgment". How does an offender prove vulnerability, or how will we decide the offender is truly vulnerable? Will a medical diagnosis be required? In addition, does this amendment also include the elderly who may be duped into committing the drug trafficking offence by confidence tricksters or a friend or family member whom they trust?

Next, the amendment to section 2 also defines a young person as any person under 21 years old. Is the offence by someone who is 21 years old or older, who causes or procures a young person who is between 13 and 21 years old, of the same degree of severity as that of someone who causes or procures a young person who is below seven years old, for instance, to be a courier? I hope that a more gradated treatment of the degree of severity of the offence can be made, depending on how young the courier is; more so if the offender is the adult responsible for the minor who is the courier, such as a parent, step-parent with custody over the minor, or a guardian of the minor.

Sir, I am also concerned that the alternative sentence of a life imprisonment instead of the death sentence may be misperceived by the general public, especially among our young or unscrupulous drug traffickers, that they can be opportunistic when it comes to drug trafficking because of the proposed amendments to this Act. The less informed may think that the drug trafficking offence has become less serious while the opportunists may think that they can get away with a less harsh sentence. Some may think that if they are being classified as a young person below the age of 21 or a vulnerable person when caught as a drug courier, they can claim to be simply a courier, cooperate with the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), and be given a life imprisonment instead of the death sentence, which they hope can be later reduced to several years' imprisonment due to good behaviour. As I said earlier, Sir, I hope that the general public, especially our young, will not have this false belief that the law is softening towards drug trafficking. The seriousness of the drug trafficking offence must be emphasised time and again.

Page: 1094

Finally, Sir, with the possibility that a life sentence is imposed instead of the death sentence and the possibility of the misperception that the law is softening towards drug trafficking, the current drug situation may worsen, especially among our young. As it is, in 2011, there were 123 drug abusers aged below 18 years old who were arrested. This number has more than doubled since 2008 where there were 46 abusers below 18 years old then. In particular, those aged 16 years old and below have shown the largest increase with about 64 individuals arrested in 2011, compared to 15 in 2007. In addition, at the end of 2011, about two-thirds (66%) of locals in our prisons are drug offenders. Out of these, four-fifths (79%) had drug antecedents or are repeat offenders. We also recognise that between 2012 and 2014, some 3,000 of such repeat offenders in our prisons will complete their long-term prison sentences and will return to society. I worry that our drug situation may turn for the worse, more than we initially expected, as a result of the confluence of these few factors I have mentioned earlier.

Besides amendments and additions to existing laws, we need a more holistic approach in dealing with the drug scourge. While the sterling enforcement efforts of CNB through the years have undoubtedly contributed to the current controlled drug situation, the anti-drug efforts on the proactive front may well be the key to eradicating the drug menace altogether. In this regard, I hope that more resources can be allocated towards educational initiatives to increase awareness, thus making our young and the vulnerable more informed, resilient and less vulnerable towards the misuse and trafficking of drugs.

I hope the Ministry will be able to address the concerns I have raised, and will work closely with other Ministries, Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs), grassroots organisations, schools and the CNB so that the drug situation in our society can be managed well. Overall, I agree with the amendments and support the Bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The amendments proposed by the Government are a step in the right direction insofar as it loosens the application of the mandatory death penalty under two specific conditions. However, this move also represents a missed opportunity to remove the mandatory death penalty from our statute books completely.

While there is significant debate in some quarters about the role and significance of the death penalty in our criminal justice system, it is viscerally apparent that many Singaporeans feel a sense of security with its continued existence in the statute books, even as others question the utility of the death penalty as deterrence.

Page: 1095

While the death penalty per se is not of direct relevance to this Bill, it is noteworthy that a video poll conducted by The Online Citizen sometime in 2011, observed that many Singaporeans did not know the difference between the application of the death penalty and the mandatory death penalty.

The distinction is structurally important, especially when understood within the Diceyan separation of powers schema between the executive and judicial arms of Government.

In mandatory death sentence cases, mitigation is irrelevant as are the unique factual circumstances of an accused. The judicial process concludes upon a finding of guilt. Under an offence that carries the mandatory death penalty, our judges are strait-jacketed from exercising the powers they have been vested – to be impartial decision makers in the pursuit of justice, with the power to hear all sides of the case.

All the prosecution has to do is to prove that the accused is guilty of the charge preferred against him or her, and the hands of a judge are tied. This is even if there is evidence that can be brought to bear to suggest that an accused's circumstances warrant a closer look to consider the imposition of a sentence other than the mandatory death penalty.

To this end, I welcome the loosening of the mandatory death penalty for couriers as it returns some judicial discretion in qualified cases, limited though they may be, to our judges. After investing millions of dollars on the development of a world-class judiciary comprising the brightest legal minds, there ought to be no place for mandatory sentences which effectively make the role of the Judiciary administrative, in favour of the Executive arm of the state in the shape of the Public Prosecutor.

This is a systemic anomaly which this Bill ought to have corrected once and for all. As iterated by the former Attorney-General Walter Woon when it comes to the mandatory death penalty, the Prosecutor, an agent of the Executive, takes the hard decisions. What this Bill could have done was to ensure that the Judiciary takes these hard decisions instead. This would have served the interests of accountability and would not only have strengthened the integrity of our criminal justice system, but increased public trust in it as well.

Broadly, while I welcome any move away from mandatory sentences as section 33B of this Bill proposes, I am concerned that with the narrow and selective loosening of the mandatory death penalty regime, focus on the exercise of the Public Prosecutor's discretion will become even more acute going forward.

Page: 1096

In fact, with regard to section 33B of the amendment, the two specific conditions under which the death penalty will no longer be mandatory may well put unwelcome pressure on the Public Prosecutor from members of the public to reveal the circumstances and reasons what specific information was revealed by an accused in the name of "substantive cooperation".

This pressure on the Public Prosecutor is not likely to abate, but more likely brought into distinct relief by the presence of section 33B(4) which makes it clear that no action or proceeding shall lie against the Public Prosecutor on the determination of substantive assistance, unless it can be proved that the determination was done in bad faith or with malice.

In tandem, the circumstances that lead to the issuance of a certificate of cooperation may not be too controversial. But I am concerned that an accused who is unable to provide actionable information or the potentially subjective "substantive cooperation", stands to be at the mercy of the Public Prosecutor's judgment – a state of affairs that is not transparent, and not open to public scrutiny, unlike the situation of a trial judge in open court.

Here, it would have been opportune for the Bill to allow an accused's counsel to make representations when the Public Prosecutor does not issue a certificate of cooperation, and for the trial judge to determine in his/her discretion, the extent and scope of the accused's cooperation with enforcement agencies, including the reasons for the absence of a certificate of cooperation.

This ought to be considered for the following reason: while the Government's move to rationalise the application of the mandatory death penalty is noteworthy, I do not expect the high priests of organised crime to sit idly by and they may well further tighten the compartmentalisation of their operations to ensure that drug couriers only have enough information to incriminate themselves or a small cell group of anonymous drug-pushers, not the controllers and masterminds which the amended Act seeks to target as well.

Allowing a trial judge to determine the extent and scope of an accused's cooperation with enforcement agencies if no certificate of cooperation is issued, would also be in line with the Government's stated position of giving more discretion to judges.

Like many Singaporeans and the Government, I am mindful of the impact of drugs on our people and society. I acknowledge the concerns many have over the slippery slope argument – that any perception of an easing of our drug laws may open the floodgates to negative consequences. But in the same vein, I am also quietly confident that our judges are equally, if not more sensitive and exposed to the wider societal impact of drug abuse, and the range of sentences they are able mete out to combat it.

Page: 1097

This is especially relevant, as any move away from the mandatory death penalty does not preclude our judges from sentencing an accused to death, in the appropriate case.

I note other amendments to the Act which include strengthening the punishment framework for repeat drug offenders and those who traffic drugs to the young and vulnerable, as made out in section 12A and separately the provision of a Community Rehabilitation Centre which gives the Director of the CNB the option of allowing young abusers the option of continuing with their education or employment. The introduction of section 31A, covering the inclusion of hair tests to determine if an offender should be placed under supervision, is also a step in the right direction, as is the decision to target drug parties and the temporary listing of psychoactive substances.

All said, the creation of greater options to deal with drug offenders and the drug menace in a more nuanced and targeted fashion is welcomed and is likely to represent another arrow in the quiver for our enforcement officers.

In conclusion, this Bill leaves me to say a word about the special men and women who work in service of a drug-free Singapore through the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB). In fact, I do believe that it is of vital importance that Singaporeans support and recognise their unique and challenging work so as to engender a healthy trust between citizens and the executive arms of Government, which include the CNB and the Attorney-General's Chambers.

To that end, a criminal justice system that operates to give the judicial arm of Government the discretion to pass judgment on persons charged under the Misuse of Drugs Act would be the preferred way forward. Our prosecutorial and evidence collecting agencies should be left to focus on their important work rather than spending time worrying about legal contortions, and trying to manoeuvre around offences that carry the mandatory death penalty. Let us leave the task of passing judgment to our judges. Mr Speaker, my opposition to the mandatory death penalty notwithstanding, I support this Bill.

Sir, I will speak mainly on the newly inserted section 33B of the Act. Sir, I support the death penalty for selected serious crimes, such as acts of terrorism, firearms and drug offences. I believe it is still an effective deterrent. However, I do not think that the imposition of the death penalty needs to be mandatory, particularly in the specific circumstances stipulated by the new section 33B, which is that of a drug courier.

I support the amendment to give courts the discretion to mete out the appropriate sentence based on the facts and arguments of the case put forward to the due process of the court. And l support the change to incentivise the courier to offer information that could assist in the fight against drug trafficking activities.

Page: 1098

Technicality aside, I suppose the key concerns with this amendment by those who still have reservations are: firstly, are we signalling that we are going soft on drug offences? Secondly, would we lose the deterrent effect with the death penalty being non-mandatory?

Sir, on closer study of the amendment, it is clear that the conditions set out in section 33B are still fairly restrictive, in particular, the part where the Public Prosecutor would need to establish whether the courier has substantively assisted CNB in disrupting drug trafficking activities within and outside Singapore. This is still an onerous condition to meet. So, I do not see this as a major softening on drug offences. In any case, currently, the prosecutor is already exercising prosecutorial discretion in some ways by taking into consideration cooperation by the courier. The Straits Times reported on 20 October this year that at least 13 individuals have been spared the death penalty in this manner. I am not a legally trained person but, from a systems governance standpoint, I thought it is better to vest this sentencing discretion in the Judge rather than implicitly allowing the Prosecutor to do so.

Even without mandatory death penalty, our penalties on drug offences under the new amendment are still very tough by any measure, and I would say still near to zero tolerance. The ultimate penalty of death is still very much a sentencing option by the Judge. So, make no mistakes about it. If a person smuggles drugs, there is still a high probability that the person could be sent to the gallows. In addition, the Judge also has the option of life imprisonment plus caning of not less than 15 strokes which, again by comparison with most jurisdictions, are also among the heftiest penalties and a very high human price to pay for the offenders.

With the passing of this Bill, there are possibly only two known countries left that have tougher penalty on drug offences than Singapore, and they are Malaysia and Iran. Last month, the Malaysian government has also announced that they are studying whether to do away with mandatory death penalty.

So, are we still tough or are we softer now on drugs with this new section 33B? Well, I believe the deterrent effect is not just about how dreadful the penalties are. What is a more important signal to send out is our resolve and seriousness to fight the drug menace and therefore also the resources we are prepared to commit. We should not be drawn into a false sense of comfort that as long as we have the toughest penalty in the world on drugs, the strong signal that we send in itself will do the job.

People are deterred from committing drug offences not just because of the severity of the death penalty. The higher likelihood of being caught can be an even more effective deterrent than the ultimate penalty itself. There should be no complacency and no let-up in our effort to apprehend drug offenders even with the harshest of penalty that we have in place. It means we will continue to need even better surveillances and intelligence, better investigative expertise and technologies; and resolute enforcement to crack down on the supply of drugs. At the end of day, the battle against the supply of drugs is won over by fighting trench by trench, and not just about setting the toughest penalty in the world you can think of.

Page: 1099

Sir, I welcome the Minister for Home Affairs' announcement in his July statement that there will be more resources put into border checks and enforcement; there will be more investment in technology and intelligence. And given the grim statistics that Deputy Prime Minister Teo had just presented, we clearly need to do more and do it fast. I also support the expansion of the law to cover recruitment of young persons for the drug trade, and to cover the throwing of drug parties. These are all important signals that we need to send.

Sir, under the mandatory death penalty regime, the judge is basically limited to what I would call "digital" judgment outcomes; that is, either mandatory death or acquittal, and nothing in between. There is no discretion for the judges, no option for a more calibrated sentence, and hence, to me, it may lead to a disproportionate sentence being passed. Often, the argument is that if discretion is given to the judge, the judges are likely to go for the soft options; that is, not to go for the death penalty. I disagree with such views.

Firstly, the starting point is that we must trust and have confidence that our judges will exercise high professional standards of judicial judgment and also possess the wisdom, courage and integrity to pass the right sentences.

Secondly, even if the judge were to take into account the human circumstances and pass a sentence other than death penalty, so be it. The prosecution could appeal if it disagrees with the sentencing. Let the system run its course but we should not deprive the judge of such discretion as it is an important component in the entire judiciary system that we operate.

We cannot rule out that there could be certain circumstances where the mandatory death sentence on an individual may come across as too hard and too cold. Personally for me, the most discomforting part about the existing law is that the low-level couriers, who could be among those most vulnerable to exploitation, or being conned or even coerced into carrying the drugs, would end up facing mandatory death penalty while the drug kingpins who mastermind and profit enormously from these trafficking continue to be scot-free.

Mandatory death penalty has been in effect for decades but we all know the drug kingpins are rarely apprehended. Let us be really tough on those who are the head men of the drug syndicates. These are the ones who deserve the ultimate punishment. But for those very low on the food chain like the drug couriers, let us mete out appropriate sentences and I agree that the penalty should still be tough and still a high human price to pay.

Page: 1100

Hence, I fully agree with the insertion of section 33B (2)(b) to take into consideration in sentencing that the person has substantively assisted CNB in going after the drug trafficking network.

Our laws and our capital punishment system must evolve with progress in our society and changes in our values. Nobody can claim absolute wisdom in this matter. If this amendment is seen as a step in humanising criminal law, so be it. Indeed, I saw a little of that with the insertion of section 33(3)(b) on the abnormality of mind or taking into account the state of mind of the offenders.

I applaud the Government for doing the review and for the courage to move this change. It is time to move on this issue and I agree with Deputy Prime Minister Teo that the proposed changes strike the right balance for the Singapore today. Sir, I support the amendments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I would like to start by expressing my support to the Bill in giving discretion to judges under specific circumstances for drug trafficking. Likewise, I support the same in the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill for murder.

I think this measure is a significant step in the right direction. However, I do not think it goes far enough. I would like to advocate for the removal of the death penalty as an ultimate goal, and for full discretion to be given to the courts on the imposition of the death penalty in the interim. I also have specific problems with the circumstances outlined in the proposed section 33B, subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b), what I call the "drug mule" and "substantive assistance" requirements respectively.

Sir, let me start by articulating why I think we should abolish the death penalty. My starting point is that we must believe that every human life is precious, and we need to protect every person from conception to death. Unless it is specifically to save another life, taking a life for no matter how good an intention, is wrong. For the same reasons, I would not support euthanasia.

Having a culture of death has much wider implications than the removal of a burden or threat that we perceive that a particular person may bring. It damages the work that we are all trying to achieve, that is to build an inclusive society. Inclusiveness here is a sense of belonging, of being respected and valued for who you are, and, ultimately, being always treated with equal dignity and compassion, even if you have made mistakes, are terminally-ill, or are perceived as being a burden to society. To treat people otherwise is to treat them as the means, not the ends.

Page: 1101

Fundamentally, what is the type of society that we want to live in? Do we believe in compassion and in allowing people chances to redeem themselves and be rehabilitated, even if they make bad mistakes? Do we believe in second chances?

Sir, I do not condone merely pursuing a utilitarian view of justice, where the ends simply justify the means. According to this view, justice requires the maximisation of the total welfare across individuals in our nation. In sentencing, a utilitarian would focus on the deterrent and security aspects of punishment.

Deterrence is to make credible the threat of severe punishment so that others would think twice about committing the offence; and the security aspect focuses on taking offenders out of circulation through incapacitation so that they can do no more harm to others.

Deterrence and incapacitation are clearly well-intentioned objectives. But we cannot take them to the extreme such that the ends justify the means. We need a sense of proportionality. Society should move towards more humane ways of restorative justice, especially where there is possibility of reforming and rehabilitating the offender.

In this regard, as the death penalty is being maintained, I propose that full discretion be given to the courts on the imposition of the death penalty. The courtroom, rather than the prosecutor's office, is a much more appropriate place to decide on the punishment that best fits the crime, based on the seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the offender.

Understandably, people are concerned that we are on a slippery slope down away from zero tolerance on drugs. And I, too, am concerned about the increase in drug abusers arrested and the increase in drugs seized, as mentioned earlier. But we have to ask ourselves whether the death penalty is the only possible way of effectively defending Singaporeans against drug traffickers. Is it an absolute necessity? I would say not. There are alternative tough sentences, like the life sentence, which is already a very harsh sentence. Abolishing the death penalty and having a zero tolerance on drugs can go together.

In any case, I believe many serious drug traffickers may already be detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, instead of under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA).

As has been already pointed out, research on the deterrent effects of the death penalty is mixed. Some studies in other jurisdictions even show a decline in homicide rates even after the death penalty was abolished, like in Hong Kong, which abolished capital punishment in 1993.

Page: 1102

As United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said in July this year when calling on member states to abolish the death penalty, I quote, "The taking of life is too absolute, too irreversible, for one human being to inflict it on another, even when backed by legal process". The death penalty is too drastic a measure in our modern world, with our modern justice system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, next, I will move on to specific clauses of the Bill.

First, the "drug mule" requirement under the proposed subsection 33B(2)(a) is under-inclusive and may give rise to instances where offenders with similar levels of culpability being given vastly different sentences. For example, it is not clear whether an offender who performs a limited role of packing the drugs under instruction can come under this subsection. Instead of a listing of acts and activities, these offenders should be defined, in my view, according to their relative roles or responsibilities in the drug syndicate.

Secondly, under the MDA, a person found abetting a drug trafficking or importation offence is liable to the same punishment prescribed for the principal offence. Abetment comes in many forms and with varying degrees of culpability. I propose that the courts be given a discretion whether to consider abettors as principal offenders or not.

Thirdly, I have serious concerns about the requirement of "substantive assistance" under subsection 33B(2)(b), as has been mentioned by many speakers before me. It is not well-defined and ambiguous. And if it is based on the actual results of cooperation and receiving high-quality information, there could be potential unfairness because the less culpable, quite often, have less information.

This "substantive assistance" standard is too high, which was also mentioned by Mr Edwin Tong, and has a worryingly strong utilitarian element of collecting better intelligence, and using the threat of death as a bargaining chip. Simply put, whether a person gets a chance to live or not hinges on how useful the offender is to the state in achieving certain ends. I believe the life and death of an offender should not be decided based solely on their utility to the state. Hence, I urge that this subsection be removed.

Sir, in conclusion, I welcome the Government's move towards more judicial discretion and prescribing sentences which are more proportionate to the culpability of the offenders. However, I urge the Government to go further and abolish the death penalty in the future. I understand the strong support by many in Singapore for the death penalty, and that we Singaporeans are rightly proud that Singapore is a safe and secure home, relatively free from drugs and serious crime. These ought to be outcomes we need to work hard to maintain. But where it comes to the death penalty, it is not just about our criminal justice system, which we also want to be proportionate and restorative; it also about the type of society that we want to build – a society that values every person and one that does not give up on its people.

Page: 1103

Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the Government's move towards greater judicial discretion and in prescribing sentences which are more proportionate to the culpability of the offenders. But I feel there should be further improvements in the law. Here, I have a few points of clarifications to seek from the Minister.

First, I would like the Minister to clarify whether section 33B(2)(a) covers offenders who are found to have participated in the acts, such as packing, storing, or safe-keeping drugs, as their culpability may be similar to those who are involved in transporting, sending, or delivering the drugs and should not be excluded from consideration for discretionary sentencing.

I would also like the Minister to clarify whether "substantive assistance" under section 33B(2)(b) is determined by the outcome of the existence of the good faith of the offenders in providing all possible assistance. I think the House also needs clarification on how the public prosecution can assure the public that he has based his/her consideration of "substantive assistance" according to the law, as compared to other factors, other than by assumption of good faith, because reasons are not required to be given, nor is the decision reviewable in court.

Under the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill, the offence of abetting a drug trafficking offender is not covered. I would like to seek the Minister's clarification on why this is the case, and whether the Government would consider amending the Bill to include this.

Finally, can the Minister confirm whether the possibility of making the death penalty fully discretionary for all crimes being studied by the Ministry and whether the Government will consider publishing the studies done in relation to the issue of the mandatory death penalty.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall now focus on the social aspect and the principles of the policy. The death penalty is the ultimate punishment that we have in our laws. It is an extremely harsh punishment, and its irreversible nature means that any error of law discovered after an execution cannot be remedied. It is even harsher to make it mandatory, because it means that offenders are denied a chance to convince the Court why they do not deserve this harsh punishment.

In his answer to Members' clarifications after his Ministerial Statement on the changes, the Law Minister pointed to the fact that the Government continues to support a system of capital punishment in Singapore where it thinks it is necessary. The connection between our low capital crime rates and the presence of the death sentence is inadequately demonstrated and is inadequate to justify its use, or at the very least, making it mandatory. Criminological studies done on the death penalty worldwide have failed to show that the punishment has a deterrent effect on capital crime. More significantly, a study conducted on Singapore and Hong Kong showed that murder rates in both countries underwent a similar decline from 1975 till 2008 despite the fact that one had the mandatory death penalty for murder while the other abolished it in 1993. The study puts the deterrent effect of the death penalty in significant doubt.

Page: 1104

Mr Speaker, it is one thing for us to rationalise the deterrent effect of the mandatory death penalty in our heads. It is another whether the punishment does have a real deterrent effect on crime. The rationale of the death penalty may make sense to us, but how many of us have really been put in the shoes of an offender? We think that offenders make careful calculations before they commit a crime. But the reality is that criminals often are put in circumstances where their choices are not as rational as we would like them to be. Of course, this does not justify their actions. We are not calling for them to be pardoned or to be released. What we are calling for is for them to be given a chance to explain their circumstances to the Court and to let the Court determine the appropriate sentence.

As the Minister for Law put it, "Justice can be tempered with mercy where appropriate, offenders should be given a second chance." Who best to decide on this than the Courts, who are able to make the decision based on the unique circumstances in each case?

Under the current Bill, offenders convicted of drug trafficking or importation will be given a chance to argue in mitigation of their sentence only if they qualify for two very strict criteria. While this move recognises that drug mules are relatively less culpable and do not deserve an automatic death sentence, I share Members' concerns that the criteria may be too strict for reasons which the other Members have elaborated upon.

What I would like to do is to draw the House's attention to the problem of mule's "substantive assistance", the decisive criteria which decides whether a mule gets a chance to have his sentence mitigated. In effect, what this means is that whether a mule receives an automatic death sentence depends on how useful he or she is to us. This goes against the principle that the punishment of offenders should be determined in relation to their culpability.

In the Law Minister's Ministerial Statement to this House on 9 July this year, he made reference to several factors which need to be considered in determining the sentence of an offender. The usefulness of the offender was not one of them. While we accept the legitimacy of the aim of gathering further intelligence to protect our society from drugs, and that it is appropriate for an offender's sentence to be mitigated in relation for having given useful information to the authorities, this should not be the factor which determines whether the mule receives an automatic sentence of death or not.

Page: 1105

This is because the difference between a death sentence and life imprisonment is not just one of degree, but it is of a different category of punishment altogether. Furthermore, drug kingpins are often part of organised crime syndicates. It is not uncommon for mules to be threatened with violent retribution against themselves or their families. In such circumstances, offenders will literally be put in a position where they are faced with an impossible dilemma of choosing between their lives or the safety of their loved ones. This is especially problematic if the offender's family is not in Singapore and is, therefore, outside the protection of the Singapore Police Force.

To reiterate the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs' point in his Ministerial Statement, drug syndicate kingpins are the ones who actively try to recruit mules who are in vulnerable circumstances, to take on the bulk of the risk burden while they themselves control the operations from offshore in a manner which minimises the amount of evidence which can be gathered against them.

Mules also face other pressures, such as financial debts, family problems, lack of proper education, poverty or even threat and coercion. It is, therefore, unfair for them to be sentenced to death and they should be given life imprisonment instead. Again, we are not trying to justify or excuse their actions, but rather for them to be spared from having their lives taken away.

Life is precious. We have only one life − once taken away, it cannot be reversed.

Mr Speaker, like many of those before me, my focus is on clause 14 of the Misuse of Drugs Act dealing with the amendments to the mandatory death penalty in certain cases.

As a young university student, I remember that the mandatory death penalty, especially for drug offences, was one law that I was deeply uncomfortable with. In relation to drugs in particular, I believe that the Government should play a minimal role in the lives of individuals, perhaps this was from a liberal-minded individual. I believe that if individuals want to take drugs, it was their problem, and it might be a silly decision but it was not something the Government should get involved in. Following from this, it seemed quite anomalous to have a death penalty for people who trafficked in drugs.

My view on this matter changed quite dramatically, after I started attending Meet-the-People sessions. It was at that point that I met drug addicts, former drug addicts and their families and experienced first-hand the actual trauma that drug addiction brought to people. Almost all the cases I met at my MPS sessions were people from the lower income groups, often less educated, and quite often the drug they were addicted to was heroin. When I asked them how they started, they usually mentioned it was because of peer influence, friends introduced them to it. The social pressure forced them to get into it and once they started, they were hooked. The drug addiction often haunts them for life. They never really escaped. One sad case I dealt with involved an addict who had been out of prison for about four years, remained reasonably clean, but recently re-offended because his old friends caught up with him again.

Page: 1106

When I joined the GPC for Home Affairs, one area which I was very interested in was the rehabilitation of ex-offenders, and I asked about the recidivism rates for different offences in Singapore. I was very surprised to learn that the recidivism rate for non-drug related offences was actually quite low. However, when it came to drug-related offences, not only was recidivism high, but a good number had convictions for other offences too. It appeared that once they became addicted, the addicts needed to engage in other crimes in order to get the money to feed the habit.

So, if drug abuse is not the root of all evil, it certainly is the root of many evils. If we step back a little further, as a matter of principle, the drug trade exploits some of the most vulnerable people in our society and, at least in the case that I have come across − those with lower income, less education − and hooks them onto a habit that can be cynically exploited for income. I was particularly angry when I heard reports about drug pushers being spotted near the rental blocks in my area, essentially targeting people who already have a whole lot of problems and trying to add more to it. And not only that, many of the people whom they seem to be targeting − and there are a lot of young people who live in these blocks – are the young people. So, it seems that the young people are the ones they are going after. And I think the utter destruction of individuals and families by drugs is what warrants the very tough stance we have taken so far.

When I attended a recent ASEAN Inter-parliamentary meeting dealing with the menace of drugs, I learned a few more things. I learned that the menace of drugs is not unique to Singapore and it is something that all our neighbours are struggling with. And one of the things that I learned from that conference was that many of our neighbours actually respect the regime we have, or at least the parliamentarians mentioned that to me aside. But they may not be able to do the exact same things in their countries. Our rates of drug addiction and offences are much lower than in many of the other countries.

One of the main reasons I support the legislative changes that we have here is that I think it takes a more nuanced approach in dealing with drug pushers. It tries to distinguish between those who might be less culpable drug mules and those who are, in fact, behind the business. It also tries to reward those who cooperate. So, theoretically, it means that the Police are able to arrest people higher up the drug chain. I think arresting the people at the very top will be very ambitious but at least they are able to arrest people slightly higher up, and that would disable the business somewhat.

Page: 1107

Like many of the Members who have come before me, I have several concerns about the Bill as well and how it would actually play out. I would just list four of them. The first, and I think one which many others have mentioned earlier, is the signalling. Are we sending a signal that Singapore is getting softer on drugs? From the language the Deputy Prime Minister used to introduce the Bill, I think it is very clear that this is really not the signal we are intending to send. And I hope that is the message that everyone will get, including those who are intending to bring drugs to our shores.

In terms of how the mechanics of the Bill will work, in relation to certificate of cooperation, I understand the intention of the Bill is to make sure that this does not end up being another football just tossed around in court, so, therefore, it is not really subject to review except in very limited cases. But, in practice, if there is a hope and that certificate is not provided, I think there will be a very strong temptation for any defendant to bring it into challenge. So, the reality is that the certificate might end up in court despite our best efforts with allegations of malice and bad faith being used. So this will be something that the enforcement authorities would need to take into account as well.

On the language used for the defence, I would use the language of diminished responsibility but this is really the unsoundness of mind defence. The language used of the Act is very similar to diminished responsibility defence used for murder. But, of course, a drug offence is very different from murder. So I think it will probably take some time for the courts to develop the jurisprudence on how the diminished responsibility defence that was used in murder would apply in the case of drug offences. I am confident the courts will be able to develop that, but it would probably mean that it would not be exact same types of cases that would fulfil the requirements in both cases. For example, in relation to murder, diabetics who have not taken their medicine could qualify for the defence but that may not be the case where the person is a drug mule.

The last concern, of course, is one of whether or not this might create perverse incentives to exploit the groups that have been described as vulnerable or might fulfil the requirement of vulnerability to become drug mules. Again, this is something which only time will tell and I think we should give this legislation a chance to work out and see what exactly happens.

Going forward, I think this is definitely an important step we are taking and whether it works or does not work is something that we should be alert to see whether or not we move in the right direction. In particular, I think it would be useful to keep track of our rates of drug offences. By drug offences, I do not just mean arrests, because high numbers of arrests may indicate enforcement, but also other figures, such as drug addiction rates and so on, and also to keep an eye on how this compares to other countries. I mean, if other countries are able to reduce their drug addiction rates without using the measures we are using, then perhaps we can learn from them too. But if we compare ourselves to our immediate vicinity and we realise that ours is really the most effective means possible, then we need to be firm and stand by our grounds as well. So, Mr Speaker, I do support this amendment Bill. I have some reservations like many of our speakers, but I think it is a step in the right direction.

Page: 1108

Mr Speaker, I must confess to have been pleasantly surprised by the announcement made by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and Law Minister K Shanmugam when they introduced the proposed amendments in this House in July. Let me at the outset acknowledge and credit the Government for taking the direction it has taken with these amendments with the current mandatory death penalty regime.

By empowering the courts to impose life sentence instead of the mandatory death sentence in prescribed circumstances, there is now room for discretion on the part of the courts, where none existed before. It seems to me that this is recognition that discretion in such situations is not only good to have, but, in fact, it is necessary if our criminal justice system is to be based not only on good law but also on compassion.

Mr Speaker, the portions of the Bill that I am raising relate to the new section 33B. There are several issues that arise from these amendments which I find troubling.

Firstly, the amendments specifically define what acts are deemed "involvement". With respect, this exhaustive list gives too narrow a scope and does not seem very clear in providing for different levels of culpability. In an operation as illicit as this, oftentimes, different people are involved with limited functions to prevent each from being privy to too much information.

Could this definition not be more flexible so that each offender's relative role and responsibility be taken into account? For example, in the Definitive Guidelines of the Sentencing Council of England and Wales, a "mule" is identified for sentencing purposes based on their limited function, their influence on the entire operation, and so on.

I would argue that this more flexible definition is in alignment with the underlying philosophy behind the Government's proposed amendments, which is to provide the courts with discretionary powers.

Secondly, I come to the really troubling definition of "substantively assisted" in the proposed section 33B(2)(b).

While I understand that this is to provide latitude on the part of the Public Prosecutor, these questions arise.

(a) Is it based on the intention and good faith of the offender, or the outcome?

Page: 1112

(b) If it is based on the intention and good faith of the offender, if, for example, the Public Prosecutor is privy to situations where the offender's family members have been threatened and puts pressure on the offender not to reveal such information, would this be taken into account so that the offender gets a chance to fall under the court's discretion not to impose the death sentence?

(c) If it is based on the outcome of the case for CNB, would this not be too much to ask of each offender, seeing that oftentimes such offenders are very low in the chain of command and control, and very rarely would have been privy to substantial information?

(d) Also would not each piece of information given by each offender build upon the next piece in the puzzle, so to speak, which begs the question, which piece of information is "substantial" and which offender would qualify as having "substantively assisted"?

(e) Next, the issue of the Public Prosecutor (PP) being given the right to "certify" whether an offender has "substantively assisted". It is strange to me that the party with the task of prosecuting is also given this power to decide, which should rightfully belong to the court and its discretionary powers, and all the obligations it has to provide the grounds of decision to the public.

(f) What is also troubling is the fact that the PP's decision in making that certification is not open to question, unless it is done with bad faith, and as we all know, that would be a tough one to prove. Does this not give rise to issues of lack of transparency on the part of public officials?

(g) Lastly, with due respect, Mr Speaker, if the definition of "substantively assisted" is to be based on outcome, it seems that only offenders who are "useful" may fall under the court's discretion not to impose the death sentence. Surely, there are moral and ethical issues that, as a society, we should be concerned with here when we have such a utilitarian paradigm of human beings in our judicial system. Here, I echo Mr Lawrence Lien and Mrs Lina Chiam's comments in making this statement.

My third point relates to section 33(B)(3) which specifically provides that the mandatory death penalty sentence be lifted for offenders with "abnormality of mind". This is a very laudable move. My only concern with this provision is that since "abnormality of mind" has been defined following the case of PP vs Rosman bin Jusoh as a "recognised psychiatric illness", could the definition not be broadened to cover offenders who may not be diagnosed as such, but who is, for example, intellectually challenged?

Sir, we are now on the threshold of a major and much welcomed reform in our criminal justice system. I am in no way urging the Government to be less tough on such crimes. I am also mindful of the destructive consequences of such crimes not only on drug abusers, but also the untold tragedies of their families, their children, and to our society at large.

Page: 1113

At the same time, I realise that these are incremental steps and the Government is not ready yet to do away with the death penalty altogether. In fact, the mandatory death penalty has been credited for our low drug crime rates which has been the reason given for why it should stay.

In this regard, there are a few more points I wish to ask the Government. I would welcome the Government's evidence to show this causal link between the low crime rates that we are said to have and the mandatory death penalty to help the public understand better the Government's position on keeping the death penalty. The publication of such data and information that we have carried out would be in line with the Government's commitment under the UN Human Rights Council to make available such information on the death penalty. It would also be in line with the Government's greater willingness to be responsive and transparent in its decisions to members of the public.

Based on these troubling questions, especially with the definition of "substantial assistance" as the only way for an offender to obtain the court's discretion, I would argue that more needs to be done.

There is a vast difference between a life sentence and the death penalty which, by its nature, is irreversible. Between the long period of time that a convicted person is in remand, things can change. The offender may change for the better, and may well prove to be a different person, useful to society. In a compassionate society, that person is given a second chance, even as we send a strong message of the severity of the consequences of his actions. It does not have to be a zero-sum game.

Lastly, Sir, while harsh penalties are indeed a way of dealing with the drug problem, and, yes, we must send a strong message of the dire consequences and punish those who destroy the fabric of our society through their drug trafficking acts, the challenge, in my opinion, is to always remind ourselves to take a more holistic view of the issue.

I am reminded of this line by American naturalist John Muir. He said: "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else." Surely, it is not just about foreign citizens bringing drugs into Singapore and our citizens being mere victims. We have to reflect upon what is lacking in our society and why people turn to drugs because surely there is a connection. For this, we must all take back that collective responsibility beyond meting out punishments by asking ourselves some really hard questions and the lives that we are leading that make it attractive for young people to turn to such activities to find solace.

I realise, of course, that this is not a simple issue, and the reasons vary widely. Yet, I cannot help but feel that more needs to be done to provide not just our young people but everyone in all our community and society in tackling this problem at its very root. My concern is how we can support these people and help them understand that there is little need to escape or seek acknowledgement of the self through such destructive acts.

Page: 1114

Perhaps, this is a good time to relook at how we are delivering the anti-drug message beyond the "Say No to Drugs" campaign which, in my opinion, seems to be based on fear. It is a doom-and-gloom scenario which, to me, does not seem to deal with the fundamental issues at hand.

Perhaps, it is time for a more life-affirming message through a creative public education and awareness through providing structured positive life skills in our schools and communities, so that we all have healthier coping mechanisms, especially our young people, to draw upon, and would be less inclined to seek validation outside of ourselves.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a saying: "If you start taking drugs, you would most likely kill your brother". Statistics have shown that new drug abusers are influenced by experienced abusers. Efforts to curb the misuse of drugs can be achieved by reducing the supply of drugs or reducing the demand for drugs. The introduction of temporary listing of new psychoactive substances and strengthening the punishment framework for repeat drug traffickers are examples of efforts to reduce potential supply of drugs. However, I would like the authority to do more to reduce the demand for drugs. It is important that more aggressive efforts be taken to reduce the number of new drug abusers and to have a more effective regime in helping existing drug offenders. There is an increasing trend of new drug abusers, and the proportion of repeat abusers remains significant.

I would like to ask the Minister whether there are any plans to revamp and develop new programmes for the treatment and rehabilitation of problem drug abusers and to promote prevention of drug abuse through education, given the increase in new drug abusers, especially among the youth, and the continued rate of relapse of existing drug abusers.

Can the Ministry consider the provision of an extensive and highly developed network of treatment services that is customised to the abuser's sex, religion and culture to ensure rehabilitation effectiveness? Unless more is being done, the impact of the amendment to the Bill is likely to be limited, due to the large number of users remaining untreated, the high rate of relapse, the variable effectiveness of current treatment and the continual influx of new users. Demand for drugs will continue to be high.

Mr Speaker, we are at war with drugs. People who misuse drugs or cause harm to others must be dealt with decisively. Death sentence for drug traffickers must stay. Real help must also be given to drug offenders who repent. Unless we do both to kill the supply and rid the demand for drugs, we are only chopping one hand of the drug trafficker and allowing him to continue using the other hand.

Page: 1115

Mr Speaker, please allow me to continue my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech on Pg 1180-1181.] Sir, the proposed amendments will make the death penalty non-mandatory for drug trafficking offences. Instead, life imprisonment can be imposed for these offenders under certain conditions.

I would like to urge the authorities to provide further explanations that is clearer on the meaning of "giving substantive assistance". Considering that this is a new change, can the Minister assure us that clearer details will be provided so that this law will be applied strictly, and the exemption from the death penalty will be given only for certain cases, where the information given is truly valuable in an operation to shut down a drug syndicate?

I am concerned that this flexibility on the death penalty for drug trafficking will present an opportunity for drug traffickers to take advantage of certain people who face personal problems, such as health, financial or emotional problems, in order to carry on their criminal activities. Drug traffickers may approach and encourage such people to smuggle drugs, and they may be under the impression that they will not face the death penalty because of their personal problems.

Sir, the drug problem can be controlled by reducing drug supply or by reducing the demand for drugs. I am of the view that more can be done to reduce the demand for drugs.

Statistics have shown an increase in the number of new drug abusers. In 2005, 453 new drug abusers were arrested. In 2010, the number increased to 1,327.

There is also an increasing trend among relapsed drug offenders. In 2005, 240 of them were arrested. In 2010, the number had risen to 1,560. The data clearly shows that we need to intensively revamp the prevention programmes because the existing rehabilitation and treatment programmes find it difficult to prevent these abusers from returning to their old habits.

Sir, I also support the proposal to make the organisation of drug parties into an offence. We must take steps to protect our young people from the influence of drugs because once trapped, it is hard for them to get out of the vicious cycle of drug addiction. The number of youths under the age of 21 who were arrested for drug abuse has also increased. In 2006, 106 youths below 21 years old were arrested. In 2010, the figures increased to 257.

Page: 1116

These figures show that the demand for drugs is still strong. I urge the Government to take more aggressive steps in drug prevention programmes to prevent the rise in new abusers in this country, particularly among our youths. The Government should also revamp our drug rehabilitation programmes to ensure its effectiveness and to ensure that the demand for drugs will reduce.

The Malay community has taken the appropriate measures to eradicate the drug menace among Malays, but the Malay community continues to be haunted by this scourge. The number of new abusers arrested shows that more are coming from the Malay community.

As suggested by the hon Member of Parliament, Mr Faisal Manap, I would also urge the authorities to take more specific efforts to understand and overcome this problem faced by the Malay community. A different approach, based on religion and culture, may be necessary to eradicate the drug scourge among the multi-racial communities in Singapore.

Sir, when someone is involved in the supply, distribution and delivery of drugs, that person is participating in an activity that can destroy not just the lives and serenity of many individuals and their families, but it also undermines our community. The community needs to be educated that drugs is a scourge, it is filthy and must be avoided completely. If we manage to successfully inculcate this value in every person, a large part of our battle against drugs would be won. The objective of preventing drug abuse is important to ensure that our young generation will become a dignified and respected community.

Drugs orphan children. Drugs destroy families. I feel it a duty to the residents and constituents whom I serve to raise my concerns about some of the amendments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before entering politics, I volunteered at the Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association. Why? So that I could reach out to youths at risk and speak about the havoc drugs create to their young lives. Some Singaporeans fall prey to drug addiction. That, for many, is the death of their drive and ambition. I repeat – that, for many, is the death of their drive and ambition.

I find it odd that so much of the debate is centred on the compassion society should have on the drug trafficker. That, to me, is skewed. Let us not forget who the victim here is. It is not the trafficker. It is the society; it is the many families broken by drug addiction. We should have compassion for this brokenness, too. The way to do so is to maintain immensely strong and muscular measures to deter drug traffickers from targeting Singapore.

Why do I feel so strong about this? Why do I take a position which seems to go against the tide of the debate in the House? Let me share. As a Member of Parliament, I have seen the devastation drugs have had on families. These are not hypothetical examples; they are real examples. For several years, we have helped a grandmother who lives in Ulu Pandan raise her grandson. Why? Because her daughter got hooked on drugs and spent time in prison. On top of her work as a cleaner, this devoted grandmother saw to her grandson's needs. Her grandson would often visit us. When he did well in school, we all celebrated. When things got tough, we encouraged. A bond has been built. But the missing link is his mother. Why? Drugs.

Page: 1117

I give another real life story. Two grandparents, one suffering from severe diabetes, the other very aged. They are caring for their grandchild. Why? Their daughter and their daughter's husband are in prison. Why? Drug addiction. We are helping the grandparents with vouchers, food rations and home visits.

I feel for these families. Do we all not? Should we all not?

Let me give the House one more example. Before entering politics in 2006, I served as a DPP at the Attorney-General's Chambers. I was handed a prosecution file. Case? Murder? Who was murdered? A landlord. Who murdered the landlord? A drug addict. Why was the landlord murdered? Because the drug addict wanted to ransack the room for money to satisfy his drug craving. We prosecuted the case and the culprit was convicted of murder.

Drugs fuel crime. In this case, drugs made a man murder.

What we are debating today is not child's play. It is very serious business. We mis-step, open the flood gates, our war on drug falters. We cannot afford to mis-step, we cannot afford to open the flood gates.

I have concerns about three of the MDA amendments.

First, the amendments allow for the option of death or life imprisonment. I have a question about this. When a trafficker is caught, say, at the Causeway or at the airport, what will his holding charge state? That he faces the prospect of the death penalty or that he faces the prospect of death or life imprisonment? I ask this because traffickers are deterred more by death than by life imprisonment. This can be seen from Deputy Prime Minister Teo's speech which indicated that some traffickers deliberately bring in less than 15 grams, signalling a likely intent to avoid the death sentence. Therefore, in order to keep the deterrent nature of the MDA still in play, as I understand the intent of MHA to be, then the potential trafficker must know, arising from this debate, that the presumption is that he is liable for the death penalty unless, and only unless, he can prove the elements which qualify him for life imprisonment. Would the Deputy Prime Minister confirm this?

Why this is important is because drug trafficking is largely a highly rational crime. Very often, it is a cost-benefit analysis. The risk of punishment is weighed against the financial reward. In that process – in that rationalisation – the punishment must be adequate to deter. I say again, drug trafficking is largely a commercial, rational crime.

Page: 1118

My second point on the amendments proper is that the substantive assistance criterion must contribute to apprehending the wider drug network. My view is that assistance should be construed strictly, such that it leads to concrete outcomes (1) helping or resulting in the dismantling of syndicates or (2) assist in dismantling of syndicates, or (3) assisting in dismantling in whole or in part a drug network. This is especially important given that these networks and syndicates are primarily based overseas, with Singapore as the "crown jewel" for supply purposes.

We cannot have and must guard against varied interpretations and definitions of assistance. This will have the very dangerous consequence of diluting the policy intent of these amendments, that is, to continue to have harsh measures to deter drug trafficking while creating a useful tool that will attack the syndicates upstream.

Let me be blunt. If there are different definitions of assistance, then we may run the risk of ineffective deterrent measures coupled with an inability to neutralise the syndicates upstream. This will be a disaster. So, would MHA give the assurance that the policy intent is to retain a high threshold of assistance and that this will be given effect to by the enforcement agencies?

A final point, Mr Speaker, I would like to make concerns the criterion of mental disability. I agree that no man or woman should be punished if he or she did not have the mental capacity to appreciate the consequence of his or her crime. But, if loose interpretations of mental disability are allowed, a legal case may boil down to a fight between the psychiatrist for the prosecution against that for the defence, with the judge being forced to weigh one psychiatrist's assessment over the other's.

We need to pause and realise that a distinction must be drawn between diminished responsibility in the context of murder as opposed to drug trafficking. Killing can be a spontaneous act, especially for non-premeditated cases. Drug trafficking, on the other hand, is often rational and calculated. It is seldom spontaneous.

My view is that the more rational, calculated or pre-meditated the nature of the crime, the less scope there should be for considerations for mental disability or any other such forms of diminished responsibility. Why? Because there is an increased likelihood that the trafficker has internally weighed the cost-benefit analysis of the crime. Correlatively, it is my hope that the Courts should be very strict in interpreting such provisions, or risk opening the backdoor for the offender to escape harsh punishment notwithstanding his or her understanding of the consequences of the crime.

Page: 1119

In conclusion, Sir, essentially, the amendments in the MDA must wed the policy intent behind them. That is to continue to retain an armory of muscular legislation to deter drug traffickers while inventing a new and useful tool that could potentially dismantle syndicates upstream. If that policy is not diluted downstream, then we would have a winning formula. Time will tell. For my part, I will watch and follow the execution of the policy as it takes its course. We cannot afford to mis-step.

If we all remain focused on the intent, and not let the eddy currents of conflicting interpretations of limbs water it down, then, Mr Speaker, we would have the prospect of a good victory. We would have taken the initiative a step forward and advanced in our battle on drugs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, recently, I met a young man who had just come out of a drug rehabilitation centre (DRC). With some help from a community leader, he quickly found a fairly well-paying job. Things were okay for about two months. But with weak will-power, bad company, and insufficient family support, he very quickly got caught up with drugs again. Who knows when he will finally quit?

I have also met dysfunctional families – grandparents in their 70s looking after young grandchildren, because their parents are both in prison or DRC because of drugs. Drugs blight families and destroy lives. In my view, there can be no compromise on our tough stance against drugs and against those who peddle death for profit. At the same time, Sir, we need to strengthen public education to find new ways to reach out to our young people and protect them from the temptation to experiment with drugs. Otherwise, more of our young people will fall prey to drugs. I therefore support this Bill, but made seven brief points.

First, the significant enhancement of penalties and creation of targeted new offences, as set out in clauses 4, 5 and 13. This is consonant with our zero-tolerance approach. But equally important are upstream innoculation and education, as well as downstream counselling and post-release supervision. Can I ask the Minister to share with us his assessment of how effective our current public education, offender counselling and rehabilitation, and post-release supervision regime has been so far in reducing and tackling drug recidivism?

Second, the Taskforce on Drugs, led by Senior Minister of State Masagos, has proposed a framework of recommendations with six key pillars. These include: (i) targeted drug prevention education, (ii) enhanced deterrence and enforcement, (iii) upstream intervention, (iv) more comprehensive supervision and rehabilitation, (v) deeper engagement with communities and families, and lastly (vi) enhancing local coordination and international cooperation. Can I also ask the Minister to provide us with a brief update on the implementation of these recommendations and whether there has been any early progress?

Page: 1120

Third, the introduction of Community Rehabilitation Centres (CRCs). I support this move, as it reduces the risk of new drug abusers being influenced or contaminated by more hardcore repeat abusers in the DRC. Because the emphasis is on rehabilitation, it also gives young offenders a second chance without the stigma. But, Sir, the danger is that first time offenders may get the wrong impression that drug abuse is not a serious matter. How will the Ministry structure this regime so that the response to first-time drug abuse is not seen as "soft"?

Fourth, the discretion that sets out clause 10 of the Bill would allow CNB officers to either discard the remaining urine samples if the instant urine test (IUT) shows up negative, or send these samples to Health Sciences Authority (HSA) for testing nevertheless. I presume in the first scenario, the case against the suspected abuser will be closed because the IUT is negative. But in the second scenario, because the samples are sent for more accurate testing, there is just that chance that charges may still be brought against the suspect. If this is indeed the case, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister how the CNB intends to exercise this discretion in a fair, transparent and even-handed manner.

Fifth, the new method of hair sample testing set out in clause 11. This provision gives CNB the power to take hair samples if it suspects that a person has consumed drugs. As Minister has explained, hair sample tests may reveal drug use over a longer window period than urine testing since drugs metabolise over time and are less likely to be detected in urine tests, whereas our hair keeps a record of drug usage over a longer time-frame. This could mean that a person who faces a hair test might face more drug consumption charges than a person who is asked to give urine. I appreciate Minister's explanation earlier that the positive hair sample testing results will, for a start, lead only to supervision orders. But this will be reviewed after some time. Therefore, can I ask how CNB intends to rationalise the use of both hair sample testing and urine testing over the long term?

Sixth, the power to temporarily list drugs in the Fifth Schedule. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reports that the pace with which new psychoactive substances have come onto the illicit drug market has "accelerated considerably". These drugs are engineered to remain outside international control. Last year alone, 49 new psychoactive substances were reported to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. The approach of temporarily listing these drugs, which would allow CNB to search and seize these drugs, is therefore a very important legislative and enforcement innovation. This will help CNB keep up with the ingenuity and engineering of drug syndicates.

Page: 1121

My first question, Sir, is about how effective our sentinel system is in Singapore. How long will it roughly take from the time a new designer drug reaches Singapore's shores before it is detected and put on the Fifth Schedule? And then roughly how long before we make up in our minds to put the drug on the First Schedule as a controlled drug?

My next question is about the liability of these first movers, that is, those persons who blatantly traffic in these new designer drugs. During this time, although the drug can be seized and confiscated by CNB, these first movers who traffic these drugs technically commit no crime, and cannot be detained or punished. Of course, if the drugs have a therapeutic purpose, then they can be charged technically under the Medicines Act or Poisons Act, but penalties there are not very severe. More likely, if the drugs have no therapeutic purpose, then no offence is committed. For example, Sir, I understand that the drug known as methylene-dioxy-pyro-valerone (MPDV) is the primary ingredient in so-called bath salts. But it is a central nervous system stimulant, and is taken by drug abusers in order to produce a cocaine- or methamphetamine-like high. I would therefore like to ask the Minister whether MHA would consider enacting a residual catch-all offence in the Misuse of Drugs Act to criminalise the import, manufacture or trafficking of any drug, if this is done for the purpose of drug abuse. This will apply to all drugs, whether on the Fifth Schedule or not.

Although this runs contrary to the approach in the Misuse of Drugs Act of specifically listing each and every controlled drug, the underlying premise for my proposal is that no one should ever have a licence to peddle or traffic any substance or drug for the purposes of abuse. It may be harder to prove intent under this approach, but, at the very least, it will allow CNB to take firm and decisive and early action to stamp out these drugs before they can take root in Singapore. I hope the Minister would consider this.

Finally, Sir, on the major pre-occupation of the House so far – the discretion being given to the Court, in clause 14, not to impose the death penalty in certain circumstances. Under the current regime, Sir, the Public Prosecutor already has the discretion to do justice where the circumstances of the case demand. But giving the Courts discretion in the limited sense, in my view, is a move in the right direction and strikes the right balance. It recognises that while drug trafficking is often a deliberate, calculated and rational choice, vulnerable people can and do get exploited to take enormous risks as drug mules. It also gives drug traffickers a strong incentive to turn the tables against their syndicates, their bosses and their handlers. Hopefully, this will deter drug syndicates and turn the tide against the flow of drugs into Singapore.

I do, however, have a few concerns that I hope the Minister can help address. These largely relate to the appropriateness of the criteria for substantial cooperation and whether certain cases may fall through the cracks.

Page: 1122

First, at a conceptual level, as many Members have raised today, it is quite unlikely that genuine drug mules would have very much information to share with CNB. On the other hand, a person who seems to know quite a lot may not really be a drug mule.

Second, while the exception gives drug mules a strong incentive to turn against their syndicates, we need to be careful that it does not create a perverse incentive for them to falsely accuse other people, in the hope of saving themselves. Desperate people can and often do desperate things. While it may be easy to prove an allegation false against a perfectly innocent man, it may be harder to do so in relation to a person who is already tainted in some way. For instance, if a drug addict is falsely fingered by an accused person as a drug trafficker or local mastermind, it will be a harder task for CNB to disprove it. How will CNB hedge against such risks?

Third, how will CNB measure "substantive cooperation"? Some tip-offs may result in instant success; others may take a long time to bear fruit. Sometimes, it depends on luck or the skill of the investigator or the level of cross-border cooperation. How long will the authorities wait before charging an offender and deciding whether he ought or ought not be issued with a certificate of cooperation?

Fourth, substantive cooperation is determined on the basis of whether the offender had "assisted CNB in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Singapore". This may be a bit too narrow and constrain Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) from giving certificates in appropriate cases. For instance, what if the offender's cooperation led to an arrest of a large number of drug addicts, or the seizure of drug paraphernalia or drug manufacturing equipment, or the arrest of gang robbers who commit robbery to fuel their drug habit? All these instances fall outside the definition of "drug trafficking" as set out in section 2 of the Act.

Fifth, under the new section 33B(4), the determination of whether there was substantive cooperation is solely at the Public Prosecutor's discretion. Can I ask, Sir, from a procedural point of view, whether the accused person will be permitted to lead evidence, whether during the trial or at mitigation, whether in open court or "in camera", on the nature of assistance he had rendered to CNB and why he thinks he had substantively cooperated?

Sir, finally, for the prisoners already sentenced and awaiting review, if and after this new law is passed, my question is: will they be given an opportunity to cooperate if they have not done so previously, or will they be confined to their conduct prior to trial?

I hope the Minister will be able to address these operational concerns, so that this new law, this new innovation, can be implemented fairly, effectively and beyond reproach, both to temper justice with mercy for the vulnerable, and to help in our war against illicit drugs. Sir, I support the Bill.

Page: 1123