Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

2.57 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Last year, there was a Parliamentary Motion filed by Mr Christopher de Souza. It was titled “Strengthening Singapore’s Fight Against Drugs”. A number of good observations were made. There were suggestions on how we can respond to challenges in the fight against drugs in the drug situation that we were and are facing. Several Members also made good suggestions on how we can improve our approach to rehabilitation, how we can involve families more in the rehabilitation process and how we can provide better support for abusers after they have been released.

Sir, there have been changes in the operating environment, feedback from Members and stakeholders, we have looked at these carefully and we have been analysing the situation, also looking at the evidence that we have collecting in our dealings with abusers both in DRCs and post-release. And the current amendments arise from that set of factors. So, these amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) have two primary focuses in broad categories.

First, we will enhance our anti-drug framework. They will make some additional actions offences, they will give some greater enforcement powers. The second part of it, they will give a much greater focus on rehabilitation and move away a little bit from the philosophy of long-term detentions.

Sir, if I can deal with the first point first, on the enhancement of the anti-drug framework and the increase in the enforcement powers. We will make some actions, including actions which we will categorise as contamination offences. There is a range of contaminative behaviours that may not meet the current definition of trafficking or abetment, but they contribute to the spread of drug abuse. And in that way, they harm others.

So, clause 3 introduces a new set of offences which targets acts of contamination. The proposed new section 11C will make it an offence if you introduce a person to a trafficker, and if you know or have reason to believe that the person intends to procure or consume drugs and the trafficker is likely to supply them. One example would be a student who offers to introduce friends to a trafficker to buy cannabis. The student himself does not take cannabis, did not take part in the transaction, but he facilitated his friend's drug consumption. We have to try and deter such conduct.

Section 11D(1) will make it an offence if you were to teach, instruct, provide instructions to another person, on the carrying out of drug activities. They could be activities like consumption, cultivation, manufacturing, trafficking, importing and exporting, knowing or having reason to believe that the person intends to carry out such drug activity.

Sections 11C and 11D(1) will have a mandatory minimum imprisonment sentence of two years for subsequent convictions and a maximum imprisonment of 10 years. There will be no mandatory minimum for the first conviction.

Now, supposing the perpetrator has no knowledge of the recipient’s intent to commit a drug activity, nevertheless, the perpetrator has still caused harm. He has spread information on the carrying out of drug activities. So, clause 3 will have a section 11D(2), which will make it an offence to disseminate or publish information on the carrying out of any of the drug activities – those which I mentioned earlier.

So, this can cover a range of behaviour, from the irresponsible – like putting out or posting information on how to manufacture drugs, and if you were to put it up on social media where others can see it, to the downright malicious, like trying to teach and influence friends into taking drugs with one. And I think we have to try and stop such behaviours.

Section 11D(2) will impose a maximum imprisonment of five years or a fine up to $10,000 or both, for first-time convictions. If there are second or subsequent convictions, there will be a mandatory minimum sentence of one year.

When you criminalise with this framework, you need to provide a proper set of defences. Defences would include legitimate purposes, like administration of justice, science, medicine, education, art. So, if you did this for any purposes of any of those, then there could be exemptions. Subsidiary legislation will set out scope of authorised activities which will not be caught by the contamination offences I just spoke about and clause 20 provides for that.

Clause 3 introduces new offences. This is aimed at better protecting our children. So, if you would look at section 11B – if an adult possesses illicit drug and then, knowingly or recklessly, leave it within the reach of a child, access of a child, that would be an offence.

If an adult permits a young person to consume drugs which are in the adult's possession, or does not take reasonable steps to prevent that from happening, that would also be an offence – the young person is under 21.

One example: in October 2016, or two years ago, we had two young children, aged two and four; they accidentally consumed their father’s drugs, fell unconscious and they were rushed to A&E.

The new offences would carry imprisonment of up to 10 years for first-time convictions, and a mandatory minimum imprisonment of two years for subsequent convictions.

Moving on to a different point, we will also mandate that parents and guardians of young drug abusers where the young drug abusers are under CNB’s supervision order, the parents/guardians must attend drug counselling. Clause 19 will provide for this.

At present, parents and guardians are required to attend counselling, but some parents persistently absent themselves. CNB will, even after the new legislation comes into force, understand their context, try and understand why they do not want to come, and will use these powers very sparingly. But as a last resort, if the parents and guardians refused to be involved in their children's counselling without reasonable excuse, then they can potentially be exposed to charges.

When there is a young drug abuser, the impact is on that person, and on the rest of the society. It cannot be just the State's responsibility. The parents must bear some responsibility too, and they must come in and try and help. The State provides the counselling, so they should come in and take the counselling and see how they can help their children.

Next, we move to hair analysis and oral fluid testing. In 2012, we introduced hair analysis in the MDA as an alternative drug detection tool. Urine tests are able to detect only drugs that had been consumed within the week. Hair analysis goes further back; it can detect drugs which had been consumed earlier. Hair analysis now applies to the monitoring of those under supervision. HSA, in its research and science, has enhanced the effectiveness and reliability of hair analysis. So, we will expand its use.

Clause 18 gives the Director of CNB the power to subject an abuser to rehabilitation and supervision based on the positive result of a hair analysis. So, if you are tested positive on hair analysis, you can be directed for rehabilitation and supervision orders.

If a person fails to provide hair specimens, then he or she will face with the same punishments and liabilities as a failure to provide urine specimens.

So, these persons, if they intentionally refuse to provide the required specimens for testing with no reasonable excuse, then they can face charges.

We are also introducing the use of oral fluid, saliva, to test for drug abuse. This is clause 15 of the Bill with a new section 31B. So, enforcement officers can require a suspected abuser to provide oral fluids for the purpose of testing. The punishment can be a maximum of two years' imprisonment, a $5,000 fine, or both, if there is a failure to provide.

But the testing of oral fluids is for the purpose of immediate and effective and efficient screening of suspects, particularly in the context of a mass raid or large crowds. Officers can then prioritise individuals who require further hair or urine testing.

Oral fluid tests will be an efficient method of screening; they will not be used for prosecution or emplacement on rehabilitation or supervision. So, they are screening tests. We will continue to rely on urine or hair tests for the purposes of rehabilitation orders or supervision orders.

Those are the aspects in which the Act is proposed to be changed in terms of increasing the powers, enforcement powers, or adding in some new offences.

Now, let me move on to the rehabilitation aspect of the Bill. Drug abusers today, arrested for the first and second time, go through rehabilitation, which is mandatory, in DRC. We call it DRC1 and DRC2, first time and second time.

It is done through orders made by the Director of the CNB under section 34 of the MDA. There is no criminal record for DRC1 and DRC2.

The Long-Term Imprisonment (LT) regime was introduced in 1998. That targeted hardcore abusers, who, at that time, formed three-quarters or more than three-quarters of the abusers who were being arrested. The purpose was to punish, but also to deter their drug use because everything else has been tried, but it was not possible to keep them away from drugs. They were getting into drugs, and they were contaminating others, and the problem was spreading. So, it was to protect the public from abusers who turned to crime to feed their drug habits as well.

So, third-time abusers face mandatory imprisonment of five to seven years, and three to six strokes of the cane. Fourth time and beyond: seven to 13 years in LT. In LT2, six to 12 strokes of the cane.

So, from the beginning of the LT regime, together with other efforts on the enforcement side as well as the rehabilitation side, the drug situation in Singapore has improved. The number of drug abusers arrested each year: in 1996, roughly, just under 6,000 to now, slightly over 3,000 in 2017. So, you can say, it is about halved, which is, as I have said in other fora, quite a remarkable record because all things are not equal. People's ability to afford drugs has increased, the amount of drugs being produced in the region and available internationally has increased, so, all things being equal, the number of arrests should have gone up, not gone down. So, it is a testament to the way CNB has worked, but it is not just CNB, the entire framework has worked to help our people keep off drugs. Education, prevention, a strong enforcement, an efficient CNB, an efficient legal framework – all have worked together. And the strong support that has been given, both in this House and outside, by the public, for the stand we have taken.

At the same time, over these years, Singapore Prisons Service (SPS) and SCORE have stepped up support for abusers. They include high-intensity psychology-based programmes, especially for those with a higher risk of re-offending. They were also given skills training and work programmes. In 2014, we introduced the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme. So, we target the higher risk offenders, and they will be given compulsory structured programmes even after they are released. After their release is when they are at the highest risk.

Throughout this period, the evidence that we have been collecting, we have been studying how to bring down recidivism down even further. Our assessment is that for pure abusers, we can now afford to focus, shift our balance quite decisively, and focus more on rehabilitation as opposed to detention. We all know that long periods of detention can affect the abusers' employability after they are released. They are in for seven years, or 12 years, or 13 years; when they come out, their ability to reintegrate back into society, their ability to hold down a job — there is a lesser ability.

So, really, the question is, how do you strike the balance. What is the risk of allowing them into the community without long-term detention versus the consequences of keeping them in long-term detention?

In 1998, we said, looking at the numbers and the way the problem was going, we have to go for long term, and one or two other number of significant factors then too. Today, looking at the numbers and the profile of detainees, and looking at how we are managing, we think we can afford to take the risk and let them out from DRC into society faster, without going the long-term detention route.

The answer as to where you strike the balance depends on a variety of external factors. Our view is that the situation has now changed compared to 1998. So, SPS has been studying this. Our two-year recidivism rates for LT inmates are encouraging. The recidivism rate for the 2015 cohort is 27%. That is down from 35% for the 2008 release cohort. Significant. But, unfortunately, the five-year recidivism rate for LT inmates remains high at over 60%. What that means is that within five years of their release, six out of 10 of the LT inmates will be back in prison.

Addiction is a complex problem. Staying clean is ultimately dependent on a variety of factors including the resolve of the abuser. But it is a difficult journey for the abusers. Often, they become estranged from their families, communities and the workplace. It is harder for them to reintegrate once released. A number get back into bad company, on drugs, and then they get re-arrested at various points; the cycle repeats itself over and over again.

So, we have decided, let us try and distinguish between those who only consume drugs – I call them the "pure" abusers – from those who also face charges for other offences. For example, trafficking, property offences, violent offences. So, if they have abused drugs and they have committed some of these other crimes, we put them in one category. We put those who only abused drugs in one category.

For the second group, those who consume drugs and commit other offences, they will continue to be charged for their drug-consumption offences as well as the other offences. If they are liable, they will be sentenced to LT.

For those who only abuse but do not have any other criminal offence, that means they only consume drugs and they admit to their drug abuse, then the general approach, regardless the number of times, would be that the Director of CNB will make the appropriate supervision or detention order, and channel them into the rehabilitation regime.

So, this group of abusers may also include those who have minor consumption-related offences like possession of drug-taking utensils or possession of small quantities of drugs. If AGC agrees with CNB that there is no need to charge the drug abusers for these minor offences, then these persons will also be channelled to the rehabilitation regime.

This will be conditional on the abusers admitting to their drug offences. If they deny their drug abuse despite the evidence, that means they have really not accepted the need for rehabilitation, they are likely to be charged in court, if AGC concurs.

These changes, as Members will appreciate, are quite significant. Around 50% of LT-liable abusers could now be channelled to the rehabilitation regime. That means one out of every two for those who are going into LT could now go into a pure DRC regime.

And, really, to benefit as many persons as possible, CNB, with the concurrence of AGC, will generally not charge abusers, who meet the criteria I have explained, from tomorrow, 16 January 2019, on the assumption that the Bill is passed today.

We also want drug abusers to come forward voluntarily for rehabilitation. So, moving forward, drug abusers who voluntarily submit themselves to CNB will be considered for a shorter detention in DRC. We will do a risk analysis but based on that, they can and will be considered for shorter detention.

The abuser will still need to undergo operational and risk assessment before he or she can be considered for this. All abusers will be given two surrender opportunities in their lifetime. These are administrative under the MDA.

I will now highlight the key features of this enhanced rehabilitation regime. In general, first-time drug abusers assessed to be of low risk of further abuse, will be put on the Enhanced Direct Supervision Order (EDSO). That is a non-custodial supervision order with compulsory counselling. A case manager will provide dedicated support to these persons and their families.

Higher risk first-time abusers, as well as repeat abusers, will undergo intensive, mandatory rehabilitation in the DRC, because that is a secure environment run by the Prisons. It maintains strict discipline. The interventions will be based on their assessed risk and needs of the abusers. These will include psychology-based correctional programmes. So, in order to correct it, you need to target the underlying attitudes and drug addiction issues. So, that is one: psychology-based correctional programmes.

Second, we will also run family programmes, so that, in a sense, they will be taught how to have better relationship with their loved ones. Because, by and large, a significant number would have very strained relationships.

We will also give them skills training and employment assistance. This is to improve their employability upon release.

Third time and subsequent drug abusers, the Prisons will be introducing DRC43 and DRC4. The periods will be longer than DRC1 and DRC2. Clause 18 of the Bill increases the maximum period of detention for rehabilitation; to be increased from three years now to four years. That will apply to high-risk repeat drug abusers who are going to require a longer period of rehabilitation.

Those who are assessed to be ready to be discharged from DRC to move into Community-based Programmes, they will be put into a halfway house, or a day release scheme from a community supervision centre. Or they could be allowed to go home with electronic-tagging.

So, from DRC released into Community-Based Programme (CBP), where you could be leaving in the morning, going and doing your work, coming back at night, really to keep you in as safe an environment as possible. Last week, I just opened the first Prisons-run halfway house. There are other halfway houses, so we work with partners and we financially support them as well. They work quite well.

So, after Community-based Programme will be the supervision phase. During this phase, the abusers – ex-abusers, hopefully – will be required to report regularly to CNB for urine and hair testing.

Prisons, SCORE and CNB will also work with community partners. This is to try and help the abusers in areas such as job training and support, casework, counselling and befriending.

We have been devoting a lot of resources to the post-release support and that is why we feel confident that we can move ahead with this.

The risk of recidivism is highest in the first two years. I have given you the figures for five years. If they can be clean for five years, then the recidivism rates drop quite sharply, particularly for those who are able to keep a job.

The current supervision period is two years. So, I have decided that that should be increased. Clause 18 will increase the maximum supervision duration to five years. So, you are released but you are subject to supervision for five years, which hopefully will help in keeping you clean.

So, the changes, taken as a whole, mean that if you have abusers who only consume drugs and admit to their drug use, they will undergo shorter but more intensive rehabilitation in the DRC as opposed to LT. And then, they will be placed on CBP, and then they will report for a longer period of supervision of up to five years.

During the period of Community-based Programme and supervision, the abusers will be encouraged to hold a stable job, strengthen their relationship with their families and build better ties with the community.

So, really, the aim is successful re-integration back into society and to reduce re-offending. The journey is not an easy one for abusers but we want to give them the best possible chance and we want to motivate them to stay drug-free, and also put in the infrastructure like a longer period of supervision, which can help them in the long term.

Clauses 13 and 14 gives Director of CNB the power to require abusers who have completed their rehabilitation, supervision or imprisonment to still report to CNB for urine or hair tests when required. If the person fails to comply, then it is an offence, and the penalty could be an imprisonment or a fine, or both.

With the changes we implement, we obviously will track the recidivism rates very closely. If necessary, we will adjust our approach or change.

What are the consequences of this? A very substantial number, maybe up to one out of every two persons who are arrested, who would have gone to LT, could now go through this rehabilitation route that I have sketched out. Some will still be charged in court. As I mentioned earlier, those who could be charged would likely be persons who face other criminal charges or deny their drug use.

Sentencing trend for first-time drug consumption is usually six to eight months. With one-third remission, the period in custody will come down to four to five months. That is shorter than detention in DRC. Those charged and punished with imprisonment should serve a sentence that is more reflective of the strong deterrent stance against drugs. They should not serve a period which is less than what a person in DRC would serve.

Clause 16 provides mandatory minimum sentence of one year for first-time conviction for drug consumption. Previously, there was no mandatory minimum. The mandatory minimum sentence will also apply for first-time conviction for failure to provide a urine specimen or hair specimen.

We have also reviewed the antecedents which count towards enhanced punishment for second-time abusers who are convicted in court and LT.

For abusers convicted in Court, clauses 16 and 17, they will receive enhanced punishment or LT, whenever is applicable, if the current offence of which they are convicted is one of drug consumption, or failure to provide urine or hair specimen and their antecedents include any of the following: a previous conviction for drug consumption; a previous conviction for failure to provide urine or hair specimen; a previous admission into an approved institution for rehab; and a previous conviction for drug consumption under the SAF Act.

I will now briefly summarise the other amendments, which are really of a more operational or technical nature. Clause 5 repeals and re-enacts section 13 to clarify that the punishment for abetting an MDA offence in Singapore from outside of Singapore carries the same punishment as the primary offence abetted.

Clauses 7 and 8 remove the powers of Vigilante Corps members for MDA offences, as they are no longer involved in drug operations. They also extend the powers of "Special Police Officers" to conduct search and arrest for MDA offences, they often involved in ground patrols or operations which may entail the arrest of drug offenders. Special Police Officers will include full-time National Servicemen and Operationally-Ready (OR) National Servicemen during their periods of service.

Clause 2 sets out the different categories of transport devices to make clear the different types, including unmanned craft, that enforcement officers may seize in the course of investigations.

Clauses 6 and 8 defined the related powers of search and seizure.

Clauses 9 and 11 set out the processes and requirements for forfeiture, return and disposal.

Clause 13 allows appointed Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) enforcement officers to collect urine specimens from persons subject to military law, if these persons are suspected abusers.

The current practice for suspected abusers is to be committed by Director CNB to a specified place for a maximum of seven days for medical examination or observation. Clause 18 codifies that. It also extends the initial period to which a person may be detained or rehab and the period for which this may further be extended from the previous six months, now to 12 months. This is really to make it more streamlined, when now the detention order of every single abuser in our institutions needs to be extended every six months. But the total detention will not exceed four years, as I have stated earlier.

Lastly, or finally, clause 20 provides the Minister with regulatory powers to provide for the supervision and aftercare of persons who have been convicted under the SAF Act for drug consumption or for failure to provide urine or hair specimens.

So, we intend for these groups, like all other groups, to undergo post-release supervision to encourage them to stay drug-free. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.34 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, we have an exceptional anti-narcotics force in the form of the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB). CNB officers, working with the wider Home Team, risk life and limb to deter the trafficking and consumption of drugs in Singapore.

It is only right that anti-drug laws are amended and updated to give the team of officers needed powers and tools to deter and fight against pro-drug activity in Singapore.

Therefore, significant amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act, being debated today, are timely, useful and relevant.

Compared to many jurisdictions around the world, it can be said that Singapore does have the upper hand in the fight against drugs. But, there is no reason why we should not continue making that upper hand more robust, more strong – we can do this by training our focus and resources on the threats at hand.

In 2017, four out of 10 total drug abusers were below 30 years old. Also, 40% of total drug abusers were new drug abusers. Of those, about two-thirds were below the age of 30. These are the kind of proportions we have been looking at year on year since 2015. As the use of drugs leaves an indelible mark on the life of a person, the proportion of new drug abusers is particularly concerning.

What is also of concern is the increasing number of youths who take on a drug-tolerant attitude towards drugs. According to the National Council Against Drug Abuse’s Youth and Public Perception Survey, the proportion of youths aged 16 to 21 who agreed with statements such as "I do not mind trying drugs when I am overseas" and "I would try taking drugs if it was not illegal" rose from 11% in 2013 to 16% in 2016.

This attitude towards drugs was more prevalent in older youth segments, that is, NSFs, University students and young working adults – than in younger youth groups, that is those from Secondary school, Junior College, Polytechnic, ITEs and out-of-school youths. Over 33% of youths up to 30 years old misperceived cannabis as less harmful or non-addictive.

One suggestion I have in addition to the amendments proposed today is that we include clear and informative learning material in our MOE Science syllabus, which should detail the host of ills and harmful effects of experimenting with drugs. Make it examinable material. We need to start young and reinforce it regularly by putting it in the Primary and Secondary school syllabus. For University students, students travelling to places where drugs are more accessible, pre-exchange briefings, for example, could be arranged to remind them that drugs are not just illegal but also harmful.

To supplement drug prevention education efforts, this Bill introduces new offences in new sections 11C and 11D to prohibit introducing a drug trafficker to another person or instructing a person to cultivate plants from which cannabis can be extracted; manufacturing or consuming drugs.

Even as this offence provides tools to clamp down on contaminative actions and contain the spread of drug abuse, we cannot let this lull us into a sense of comfort. We still need to continue to be vigilant in equipping people with the skills to (a) find credible sources of information and (b) guard against the rhetoric used by the pro-drug camp.

There are also other offences introduced by this Bill that seek to limit exposure and contaminative acts. New section 11B introduces a new offence to protect our children against the harms of drug abuse. This is to be welcomed. In particular, it requires a person who possesses drugs or drug paraphernalia not to leave them lying around where a child may unknowingly take it. This is a crucial amendment. Why do I say this?

In April 2017, in Utah, a girl was born – born a drug addict. Her mother had used drugs heavily during her pregnancy. But lest we think that this can only happen in Utah, here are some stories from newspapers that let us catch a small glimpse of how children are impacted by their parent’s drug abuse in Singapore.

One, in February 2018, a one-year-old boy was rescued from suspected drug traffickers after his caregiver left him in their care. When his mother was found later, she was four months pregnant and had tested positive for drugs.

Two, in June 2018, a four-year-old girl was discovered with her mother – within reach of sachets of methamphetamine.

Three, in August 2018, a three-month old girl was found in a unit with a suspected drug trafficker and drug abuser, with preliminary investigations showing that "ice" was abused during pregnancy and after the child was born.

These are real-life stories of how drugs ruin lives, including that of innocent children. Therefore, this new offence is important to protect children from harmful exposure to drugs. Singapore must continue to take a firm and tough stance against drugs and questionable pro-drug narratives.

While these amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act will put another tool in the legal toolbox for grappling with contamination and exposure to drugs, I would suggest that the medium of the Internet should be given special consideration. This is because the Internet poses unique concerns. The Internet makes it easier to commit an offence and there is a greater potential for harm. This is especially true when it comes to buying drugs online where the convenience and relative ease of accessing the Dark Net in the "comfort of one’s own home" makes it little more than a click away.

Therefore, to counterbalance these factors which make drug trafficking over the Internet easier, lucrative, and also more harmful, we should have targeted offences or aggravated offences if the medium of the Internet is used. Additionally, with the increase in online purchases, we need to make sure that our capacity to detect drugs in parcels will be able to match the volume being sent and received domestically and internationally.

Another suggestion is that the Misuse of Drugs Act gives due consideration to the potential harmfulness of the drug when mixed or cocktailed with available consumables. We should not just be concerned about the weight of the illicit drug. This is because using such contaminants or mixers could make the cocktailed drug more addictive, more harmful.

Related to this issue, there is a rapid proliferation in number, type and availability of New Psychoactive Substances worldwide. We need to ensure that they are reclassified quickly into a First Schedule drug so that charges for trafficking, manufacture, import, export, possession or consumption can be made. Could the Minister consider this? This will help reduce the demand for and supply of such drugs – that is, through deterrence.

Besides preventing the spread of drug abuse and a drug-tolerant culture, it is important to step up rehabilitation efforts. I support these key and important steps of promoting rehabilitation of drug addicts.

This Bill seeks to support rehabilitation efforts in a few ways and build on the on-going excellent work of the Prisons Officers, Counselling staff and VWOs and NGOs who put in tireless effort in the area of rehabilitation.

Firstly, clause 19 empowers the Director to require the parent or guardian of a supervisee under 21 to attend any counselling session. This is good in that it goes further to try to ensure that low-risk youths in the non-residential Youth Enhanced Supervision (YES) scheme are given the best shot at rehabilitation. This amendment also recognises the importance of family in rehabilitation. Because family can play an important role in providing not just practical support but also morale, encouragement, and purpose in life, I hope that older drug abusers would also be given opportunities to engage their families such as to help drug abusers reconcile with their families who could be their pillars of support upon release. Would the Ministry consider the possibility of having more open visits such as that reported by The Straits Times during the Children's Day in 2017 for suitable cases, especially for inmates with young children?

Secondly, clause 18 increases the length of time for rehabilitation and supervision. Instead of six months, there will be a minimum of 12 months rehabilitation. The maximum duration has also been increased from three years to four years for rehabilitation and from two years to five years for supervision. This increases the amount of time that our captains of lives have to work with drug addicts to rehabilitate and decrease recidivism. This is excellent as there is greater support and accountability for a longer time during the integration phase.

With this longer supervision period, it is also important that supervision is not too disruptive so that the ex-offender's studies or employment will not be too affected. With the possibility of hair tests, how often does an ex-offender need to report for testing? For long-term resilience, could the Ministry consider providing some opportunities for physical activity or games so that former or recovering drug addicts can experience that there can be meaning to life and relief without drugs.

Besides increasing the time of the supervision order, to decrease recidivism, would the Ministry consider giving a workbook for the ex-offenders to record and review what they have learnt in therapy sessions in relation to staying off drugs? For example, how they themselves can better cope with stress or how to replace drug cravings with sports. This would provide them with a resource that they can have on hand whenever they may need to refer to it so as to assist in quashing the urge to take drugs.

Also, because this Bill allows a supervision order to extend up to five years, it would be useful if the recidivism rate is tracked at the one-year, two-year, three-year, four-year and five-year marks. Would this be considered?

Currently, under section 34, the Director may require any person whom he reasonably suspects to be a drug addict to be medically examined or observed by a Government medical officer or medical practitioner. This Bill extends the power to committing the person to a place specified by the Director for up to seven days. Could the Minister please expand on the purpose behind this amendment and why seven days was chosen?

Thirdly, there seems to be greater differentiation between drug abusers as a result of this Bill's amendments. This is to be welcomed.

At paragraph 19 of MHA's press release relating to this Bill, it reads, and I quote, "However, drug abusers who commit other criminal offences and harm society will continue to be dealt with very strictly. They will be charged in Court and be liable for imprisonment and caning, including LT." Is this differentiation between those who commit other offences and those who do not, the reason why clause 16 introduces a tiered minimum punishment for consumption and possession offences?

Let us be clear that these amendments do not mean that Singapore's stance against drugs has softened. We are still treating drug abuse as a clear menace which needs to be eradicated, not tolerated. In fact, if we look at the Bill closely, the changes are actually mixed in strategy but single in purpose. We want a drug-free Singapore. Clause 13 allows "random spot-checks" to ensure that ex-addicts stay off drugs while long-term imprisonment is still on the books. Clause 16 introduces minimum punishment for those charged and convicted for consumption or possession offences even though it is their first time.

So, what is clear is that while some amendments are rehabilitation-focused, the law does not hesitate to be harsh when it needs to be.

Sir, as we step up rehabilitation efforts, we cannot lose sight of the reason why Singapore is so hard on drugs in the first place – drug abuse itself is harmful. By consuming drugs, a drug user is harming himself or herself, his or her family, his or her community, and society. Even cannabis, which has been legalised in some countries is harmful.

Even though patients try to minimise the consequences of cannabis, treatment providers say that many report feeling isolated, paranoid and are unable to effectively interact with the outside world, and experience psychosis and hallucinations.

In Colorado Springs, marijuana has even been called, and I quote, the "gateway drug to homicide" by a district attorney. In 2016, eight of 22 homicides had a "marijuana nexus." And I quote again, "In most cases, robbery of marijuana was a motive or the victim was killed during a marijuana narcotics transaction." Homelessness had also increased by 50% since marijuana was legalised.

The impact is so great that there has been much local response to the harm marijuana is causing. Out of 64 counties in Colorado, 61% have prohibited or have a moratorium on recreational marijuana and out of the 243 municipalities that have taken action on this issue, about 69% have prohibited it. In Netherlands, the Hague has become the first Dutch city to outlaw smoking cannabis in and around its city centre, central railway station and major shopping areas.

So, why do we want a drug-free Singapore, not a drug reduced Singapore, not a drug tolerant Singapore, but a drug free Singapore? Why? Because drugs are harmful. No insidious pro-drug camp should deter us from our view that drugs are indeed harmful – harmful to the abuser, to families, to society and to a country's human potential. Indeed, Minister Shanmugam has taken this clear line on the international stage and I support it.

Last year, Canada legalised recreational marijuana.

I do not agree with questionable groups who push pro-drug rhetoric.

Singapore is on the right path in its tough stance against drugs.We must continually be on our guard, never taking a defeatist attitude. We have to look at threats beyond our shores in order to guard our shores.

Regionally, there has been a surge of synthetic drug manufacturing in the Golden Triangle, especially for methamphetamine. There has also been international concern that the drug gangs there will diversify into other kinds of synthetic drugs, such as ketamine and fentanyl – highly addictive, highly destructive.

Sir, in conclusion, our resolve to fight against drugs in Singapore will not be diluted. Rather, with legal amendments such as these, the resolve is made even more steely. As this Bill adds steel to Singapore's determination to deter a potential drug menace, I support it.

3.52 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act represents an important philosophical shift to some aspects of the fight against drugs while reinforcing the uncompromising stance against drugs in Singapore.

Almost 20 years ago, the Ministry took a very specific approach towards hardcore addicts through the Misuse of Drugs Act, initiating long-term mandatory imprisonment and caning for hardcore drug addicts. A hardcore addict being warned, defined, as having been caught more than twice for drug consumption.

Back then, the priority was not on framing drug addiction as a social issue afflicting drug addicts but a behaviour that has been criminalised. Addicts who consume drugs for the third time face up to seven years' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane while addicts caught four times or more face up to 13 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane.

In introducing the long-term regime, the then Minister, moving the amendments, noted that the proportion of hardcore addicts amongst the total drug rehabilitation centre population has increased from 65% in 1994 to 71% in 1997.

In his Second Reading speech, the Minister also referred to hardcore addicts as "bad people" who are likely to become drug pushers and traffickers too. The position revealed the state's philosophy that was focused on an uncompromising stance towards drug addicts, towards hardcore drug addicts, with rehabilitation openly seen as having its limits. In the words of the then Minister, I quote, "Sometimes, despite all the good-heartedness, the love and the hardwork put in by volunteers in halfway houses, some of these volunteers do feel disheartened that these addicts just do not have the discipline to take the treatment. But the Government will do what it can to help them, that is, both the recovering addicts as well as the halfway houses. In terms of financial support, I think if we can justify a case to ask for more money, we will look at it but the Government does not just spend money, throwing good money after bad money to people who do not want to change."

One of the main amendments proposed today is to finetune the LT1 and LT2 regimes and circumstances where the drug addict does not have concurrent criminal charges. In parallel, the amendments raised the time an addict can spend in the DRC from three to four years, along with the longest supervisory window from two to five years to submit himself or herself at random to the authorities for urine tests or to provide a hair sample.

Speaker, I am supportive of the aforesaid changes and commend the significantly more enlightened attitude taken by policy-makers to shift the focus on helping selected repeat drug offenders in a more purposeful and surgical manner through the calibration of the Misuse of Drugs rehabilitation regime. This is no mean feat given the risks that some members of the public may erroneously construe this shift as a relaxation of attitude towards hardcore drug addiction.

However, I see it as an example of rational and sensible policy-making. In fact, this policy shift is significant, considering the LT regime was introduced the mere 20 years ago and to cover even more offenders when the Act was amended in 2006. Notwithstanding my support on these points, I have some clarifications I want to seek from the Minister.

The first clarification is a request for information. In 1998, the then Minister, in introducing the LT regime, shared that more than 73% of hardcore drug addicts have some form a criminal record. I originally intended to ask how the percentages have changed over the years and what the figures were today and with specific reference to the amendments, how many drug addicts imprisoned under the LT1 and LT2 regimes currently face concurrent criminal charges when they were originally sentenced to long-term detention.

But the Minister earlier shared that the figure was about 50% now. But the Minister also shared that, given easy access to funds and a general rise in access to drugs in the region, in view of these realities, and the latest statistics provided by the Minister in his Second Reading speech, would the Minister be able to share the family background and income levels of those with criminal charges and those without under the current LT1 and LT2 regimes?

Separately, to give the public a better sense of the rehabilitation task ahead, can the Minister share, out of the inmates committed to DRCs, how many are repeat offenders to date?

My second clarification, while the amendments do not foresee any increase in public expenditure, how much more support will be given to counsellors and the halfway house employees and volunteers, to help keep recidivism numbers low? The reality, when we speak of rehabilitation and the new calibrated approach is that someone somewhere will be on the delivery end of the outcome sword, far fewer repeat drug addicts compared to the current regime.

So, the proposed changes are likely to put an acute focus on the people behind rehabilitation as they endeavour to get drug addicts out of a dangerous situation for good. What sort of training and support will these individuals undergo so that they do not feel disheartened about addicts who do not respond well to treatment, such that they can continue plugging away at the hugely important task of rehabilitation. This is likely to become more significantly as a large part of rehabilitation involves the reintegrating the addicts into the community and in gainful employment, something that may be even more challenging in this age of economic destruction. It is vital that maximum support is extended to the volunteers, workers and supporters throughout the drug rehabilitation chain, from DRC staff to uniformed officers, CNB officers and to families and parents that need help and assistance to in turn help their loved ones and individuals under their care to kick the habit for good.

Clause 3 of the Bill introduces a number of new laws that are far-reaching and reflective of the state's uncompromising and continued hard stance against drugs. Amongst other things, it criminalises act of contamination which facilitate or promote drug use including actively introducing a drug trafficker to another person, knowing that the trafficker is likely to supply him with drugs. A person should also be guilty of a contamination offence if he teaches, instructs or provides information to another person of how to cultivate, manufacture, consume, traffic, import or export controlled drugs such cannabis, for example, knowing or having reason to believe that the other person intends to carry these activities. It makes it an offence for an adult to leave drugs or drug utensils within easy access of a child, knowing that the child is likely to be in proximate range of a drug or drug utensils.

Mr Speaker, what is needed is for knowledge of these new laws to be widely disseminated within the community so that they help send a strong deterrent message. I would like to ask the Minister what measures would be taken to make these new laws well-known, particularly amongst foreigners who may not be familiar with the minutiae of our various laws on drugs and amongst high-risk individuals like former drug addicts.

Finally, I would suggest that more preventive education across platforms on these amendments as introduced in clause 3 would be particularly important because of the rising permissiveness and attitudes across the region on drug consumption and the general relaxation of the laws against drugs in the region. Mr Speaker, I support the amendments to the Act.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting. I will take the Chair at 4.20 pm. Order. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.01 pm until 4.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate resumed.

4.20 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, despite repeated efforts by law enforcement agencies, the problem of drug trafficking and drug abuse is still an issue in Singapore. A whole menu of drugs from cannabis, heroin, methamphetamine and others are commonly abused by the teens and older persons, including women. In light of this, it is indeed timely to review the Bill and implement much needed revisions to address the issue. In 2018 a number of large drug seizures, including one 8.8 kg of heroin, the largest heroin haul in three years, and a 5 kg haul of cannabis in June that year. Drug offenders nabbed by various CNB-led operations included Singaporeans and foreigners. The number of new drug abusers also remained high.

But what is even more worrying, however, is the increasingly liberal attitudes towards drugs abuse among young people. A news report in 2017 revealed that in line with rising trends of drug abuse among young people, more of them expressed that they are willing to experiment with drugs for a new experience. Among youth aged 13 to 21, 16% of those polled held such views, up from about 11% in 2013. Furthermore, one-third of the correspondents had misconceptions about cannabis, believing it to have medicinal properties and overlooking its harmful side effects. This would not come as a surprise as more prolific use of social media means exposure to pop-media and a large population of youths in the West that normalises drug use. And, with more youngsters travelling, studying and working abroad where drugs are more accessible and even legal, certainly they would be able to find more opportunities to consume drugs.

The Bill seeks to criminalise acts of contamination, which include teaching and instructing others about drugs that could lead to the person carrying out drug-related crimes and usage, and introducing a drug trafficker to the person. I am happy to know that it is an offence for parents to consume drugs in the presence of their young children. In fact, I have seen young parents, both father and mother, go in and out of prison because of the drug-related offences and that is why I brought up in this House recently, asking if there is any systematic ways of following up with those who have young children at home to make sure that their well-being is not compromised. Criminalising such acts of contamination is a form of deterrence that could save the lives of many young people who could potentially become drug offenders.

However, I am concerned about how this can be effectively enforced. We do not expect an offender to engage in a conversation, say, on how to use drugs, in an open setting. The conversation is likely to be held in private, and would only come to light if there is a whistle blower. Perhaps, the only time this would come to light would be when the offence has been committed and the perpetrator squeals while under interrogation and there are records of text messages as evidence. Otherwise, I think it is difficult to enforce.

So, in the case of young children who do not know what their parents are doing but then they are exposed to drugs because their parents are drug abusers, so, I just wonder in cases like these, how is this law going to take action?

Having said that criminalising this act could serve as a deterrent to get people to think twice before intentionally influencing others to be involved with drugs. The question that arises then, what is the definition of instruction? What if someone asks a question about manufacturing drugs and another person gives answers. Would that constitute an act of contamination? I am sure the authorities do not mean to restrict genuine public education to create awareness as a deterrent against drug abuse. But we must also be aware that those who are curious about drugs can turn to the internet where there is an abundance of materials to get information. So, how will the Ministry address this?

I am pleased to note that the existing rehabilitation programmes will be improved. Drug addicts and offenders will certainly benefit from the increased counselling, supervision and longer detention.

However, do we have sufficient resources and skilled counsellors to execute these programmes? How many prison counsellors do we currently have versus the population of drug abusers? How many more will we need to meet the requirements of the amendments? Prison counselling is intensive work, so I wonder if we have the relevant support networks for our prison counsellors? I know someone who does prison counselling work, and the nature of her job is such that she sometimes gets negatively affected, getting insomnia and even depressive feelings. I hope our prison counsellors and other professionals have a good care network as we have to ensure that their mental well-being is not being compromised in order for them to do their work well.

Additionally, what kind of benchmarks will be used to determine whether one is completely rehabilitated and ready to commit to a life that is completely drug-free and thus no longer requires supervision?

The Bill introduces some thoughtful new measures to enhance rehabilitation programmes and curb drug abuse through peer influence. But we have to get to the root of the problem. It is far more important to equip young people with the correct mindset and knowledge about drugs. It is far more impactful if they make the decision to say no to drugs, rather than for authority figures to make the decision for them. In Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Surveys show that young Singaporeans are more and more liberal towards drugs, with 16% of them indicating that they are willing to try it out while one-third of the respondents think that marijuana is harmless. As young people these days can easily access online information and more and more people are going overseas, they can easily be tempted by drugs. I believe this trend will become increasingly salient in the future.

Therefore, it is wise to amend the law to prohibit the act of introducing drugs to others. Although such behaviours are difficult to spot, having such laws would serve as a deterrent. At the same time, we should also pay attention to drug information that are originating from the internet. Even without an introducer, someone who has his mind set on finding drug information will be able to find it on the net. The correct way is to equip the young people with sufficient information so that they can decide for themselves to stay away from the drugs.

More counselling will help the drug addicts to kick the habit. However, do we have enough Prison counsellors, do we have enough support for the mental health of the counsellors themselves. Please clarify the above points. I support this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Irene Quay.

4.30 pm

Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as President of the Pharmaceutical Society of Singapore.

I salute to our Government for maintaining strict control over the misuse of controlled drugs in Singapore, especially with the recent and timely amendments to the Misuse of Drug Act to hold accountable, any person knowingly or recklessly leaving controlled drugs exposed within a child's reach.

We have seen many tragic stories of children ingesting such controlled drugs by accident which had resulted in overdose cases ending up at hospital emergency departments.

At my recent attendance at the World Pharmacy Congress in Glasgow, I learned from pharmacists practising in Africa, Canada, the UK and the United States about the world-wide issues regarding drug abuse. The situation is currently out of control, resulting in countries no longer looking to curb the problem, but instead resorting to setting up needle stations to try to, at the very least, prevent abusers from contracting HIV or Hepatitis C infections. Such a defensive approach does not attack the root cause of the problem. The harm caused by the abuse of these substances on the abusers, their families and the society at large is devastating.

First and foremost, even though the situation is much more controlled in Singapore due to our strict laws regarding drug trafficking, I still have my reservations and concerns for potential abuse in prescribing of controlled drugs in Singapore.

According to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) Annual Report from 2012-2017, there is an average of two to three cases of errant prescribers who were being censured, fined and suspended every year due to inappropriate prescribing or sale of hynoptics, codeine-containing preparations or controlled drugs. Could this be just the tip of the iceberg?

I quote Prof Tay Boon Keng, Emeritus Consultant and SMC Council member, who is also the Chairperson of the MOH Opioid Guidance workgroup: "These past errant cases are all from the private health sector and tremendous expense was taken to take action (mostly legal) against these practitioners. In contrast, prescriptions in public hospitals and polyclinics are limited by IT system restriction and second layer of screening by pharmacists, this problem is almost non-existent."

Are there plans for MOH or MHA to consider dispensing separation for controlled drugs and other drugs of abuse – including hypnotics and codeine-containing preparations, to de-conflict prescribing and dispensing of such drugs with potential for abuse?

Such a move will allow pharmacists to provide oversight of such prescriptions, evaluate for appropriateness of use and duration of treatment, as well as contribute to national aggregated information to flag out high-risk prescribers or patients. The dispensing separation will add additional barriers to access for addicts and hence reduce opportunities for abuse, prevent unintended addiction to a significant extent by the general public and safeguard physicians from such malpractices.

Secondly, over the years, there has been an increase in the use of cannabis by drug abusers worldwide. Cannabis is now legalised for recreational use in Uruguay, Canada and eight other states in the US, while decriminalised in Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Jamaica, Slovenia and Columbia within recreational limits.

With such ease of access to such substances overseas, how can we heighten public awareness, especially for our children going abroad to study during their formative years, so that they are more prepared for the potential risks. Can we incorporate such awareness program with "rehabilitated ex-offenders sharing their experiences" into briefing sessions for students before they go abroad? Should we conduct more studies to find out the risk factors and reasons as to why these kids pick up such habits when they were away from home?

To add on, cannabis may be the active ingredient in many non-medicinal products presented in a myriad of formulations, such as cigarettes, vaporisers, herbs, lotions and oils. Some may mistakenly purchase these items innocuously, without knowing that the active ingredient is prohibited in Singapore. How can we ensure that the public is well informed of these risks when they travel overseas and avoid unknowingly bringing in these illegal products when they return home? Can we include a mandatory inflight education video/booklet for people departing and returning to Singapore?

Lastly, with medicinal cannabis now legalised in 44 countries worldwide, each claiming their benefits for certain intractable medical conditions, though yet to be proven but there are increasing clinical trials, how do we plan on handling patients prescribed with First Schedule Class A drugs, for example, cannabis for medicinal purposes if they intend to enter Singapore? Notwithstanding my proposal and concerns above, I stand to support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Rahayu.

4.35 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to begin my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I had relatives who were involved in drug addiction. I have personally seen how the drug problem can destroy someone's life and affect the family of the addict. I understand and frequently hear about the challenges faced by addicts and their families.

We often discuss the drug problem in terms of statistics, policies or programmes but the reality of is very different for the addict and his family. As the Malay saying goes, as hard as it is to watch, it is even harder to the one shouldering the burden. It is certainly difficult when one makes a mistake and falls into drug addiction. It is extremely tough to kick the destructive habit, and the impact of the addiction can also affect the lives of families and the future of innocent children. What usually happens is that when the addict leaves the rehabilitation centre, he finds it hard to return to normal life. Sometimes, these addicts have a hard time finding suitable jobs or they encounter challenges at the workplace due to stigma from society. They will once again look for friends who will lead them back to drugs or they begin to get involved in other crimes to sustain their nasty habit. It will be more complicated and more difficult to help the addict return to the right path. It will be good if we can stop this addiction and help former addicts rebuild their lives early on.

Therefore, I truly welcome this amendment which remains firm with anti-drug efforts, and yet at the same time, will hopefully further strengthen efforts to rehabilitate drug addicts. I agree that all the current legislation in place have done much to help prevent the drug problem from becoming prevalent. Tough laws are important in instilling fear to commit crime, described in English as having a deterrent effect. However, with a harsh and lengthy punishment, it will be more difficult for an addict to return to the workforce and reintegrate into society. I hope that through experience, data and knowledge about rehabilitation, we can enhance the rehabilitation programmes in drug rehabilitation centres and continue giving support, if necessary, after the addict is released.

I think that this amendment, which carries a specific approach towards addicts with the objective of reforming them, is an encouraging one. It is hoped that this approach, as well as the joint efforts of our people, will help former addicts and their families continue to strengthen efforts to curtail the drug problem in Singapore. I support the amendment.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, in English. Singapore has always had a tough anti-drug stance and it is a position I fully support. I believe this Bill can further enhance the management of the misuse of drugs and addiction in Singapore.

In particular, I note that in this Bill, there is a targeted and calibrated approach towards pure abusers who do not commit other concurrent offences. I appreciate the refreshing approach towards the issue of drug addiction. I have seen personally how challenging breaking the habit is for drug addicts and how severe addiction adversely impacts families. Drug addiction is the root cause of many social problems and it is important that we give enough attention to rehabilitation efforts. I am glad that the Ministry is working towards strengthening the rehabilitation regime and I hope that this effort translates to further reductions in the recidivism rates among addicts.

I appreciate that some may see this as a softening in the approach towards addicts. The fear is that addicts may not be deterred from abusing drugs because the penalty is not harsh enough and that these addicts can continue to be stuck in a loop and will remain social problems for the community. I can appreciate these concerns. However, I believe that the targeted approach in building on the rehabilitation efforts could be a better long-term solution. The effort in studying the rehabilitation process and building on our experience with drug rehabilitation centres can strengthen the rehabilitation regime and allow for more addicts to break the habit and have a new lease of life.

In addition, I am also not sure if we can say that imposing harsher penalties will yield better results. What we want to achieve is a drug-free society, a society that is resilient and improves over time. Whether we like it or not, these addicts are part of our community. The better option may be to work at the problem at its root and break the addiction to the best of our ability, by providing the best recovery pathway and community support. I am therefore supportive of the proposed changes in this Bill that will allow for more focus on rehabilitation and reintegration of drug abusers into the community.

The other aspect of this Bill which I would like to commend on are the provisions relating to the criminalisation of acts of contamination and acts exposing children and permitting young children to consume drugs. In the course of my volunteer work in the past, I have come across anecdotes of children of addicts or those who live in the vicinity of drug abusers. These unfortunate young people are more likely to be influenced and entrapped into the unsavoury world of drug addiction.

Recently, I attended a focus group discussion on youth and a volunteer shared that that one of the children he was supervising at an after-school care centre told him that he was offered drugs by a group of men, presumably addicts, on his way back from school. Apparently, this is not an uncommon story in that particular area and other participants in the group also shared about young people they know who had access to drugs. These young people may not have the maturity or savviness to respond appropriately to the influences. I am therefore pleased that efforts are being made to curb the irresponsible conduct of exposing and giving drugs to young people and those who commit these acts that could ruin the future of our young ones would receive the necessary punishment.

I believe that the implementation of this Bill will preserve our strong anti-drug position and allow for a more meaningful management of misuse of drugs in Singapore. I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

4.41 pm

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. I will deliver my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]Sir, the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill that is tabled intends to further enhance preventive, eradication and rehabilitative measures so that the current efforts to manage the drug menace will be more effective overall. I would like to give some views and suggestions with regard to this amendment Bill.

First, I would like to refer to sections 11B (1) and (2) that are being introduced via Clause 3. Section 11B (1) is meant to punish adults, that is, individuals who are 21 years old and above, who expose children to any prohibited drug or paraphernalia that is used to consume prohibited drugs. In addition, Section 11B (2) is meant to punish adults who allow a child to use any prohibited drugs and adults who did not take any steps to prevent the child from doing so. Sections 11B (1) and (2) were introduced because the Bureau had faced situations during their operations, whereby addicts left the drugs or paraphernalia used to take drugs, which were exposed to children. The exposure of children to such situations may eventually cause these children to also take drugs.

The irresponsible behaviour of the adults mentioned earlier is truly deplorable. As an adult, especially as a father or head of family, it is their responsibility to inculcate positive values in a child. Unfortunately, such individuals not only neglect their responsibility, but in fact the actions mentioned earlier will or can cause damage in the young life of the child, as described in a Malay proverb which means "the one responsible for giving protection instead destroys what it is supposed to protect." Therefore, the introduction of sections 11B (1) and (2) is timely and appropriate.

Sir, I would like to suggest that information on the laws to be introduced, that is, sections 11B (1) and (2), are disseminated to schoolchildren through brochures and briefings by the CNB during school visits so that these children know and are aware that if they encounter the situations mentioned in sections 11B (1) and (2), the adults who commit these offences must be reported to the authorities because they have committed a crime.

Sir, clauses 13 and 14 made amendments to sections 31 and 31A, which empowers the Director of the Bureau to order certain individuals to report at certain times to undergo a urine test (under section 31) and a hair test (under section 31A) to ensure that they no longer use prohibited drugs.

Regarding this issue, I hope that individuals who are ordered to report themselves, are given the flexibility to choose the reporting time so that it does not affect their working hours. I have heard from several individuals, who are daily-rated employees, that they had to forgo their income for the day because they had to report for the test. Sir, the majority of these individuals face difficulties in getting a regular job and they have no other choice apart from taking on any available jobs. For these individuals, forgoing the daily income results in a huge loss and it also impacts their family’s daily expenses.

These individuals usually have a less stable psycho-social condition. They need a more supportive environment that gives them an opportunity in their efforts to make a fresh start in life by becoming a responsible breadwinner. However, Sir, for these individuals, they will see a situation, where they lost their daily income because they have to report for the tests, as an obstacle and it will result in them feeling that the authorities are hindering them from performing their responsibility to take care of their families. Although this matter may be seen as a minor issue by some, it is not a minor issue at all to the affected individuals. For this group, even the smallest emotional disturbance can cause excessive stress to them.

Sir, I now turn to the amendments made to section 33. This amendment separates and differentiates the rehabilitation path or process for first time offenders with low and medium risk, with those who are at a high risk of re-offending. I welcome this amendment because I believe that this new approach will result in more specific and effective efforts for each group. I also welcome the increasing use of psychology and psychotherapy approaches in the current rehabilitative programmes. I would like to suggest that the psychology and psychotherapy approaches are combined with spiritual values to make it more effective. The use of appropriate and specific approaches for these two groups will result in a more satisfying outcome. For example, the approach taken for first time offenders with low and medium risk should give emphasis on being remorseful about the offence committed, and at the same time, plant the seeds of hope in the offender whereby they can still work towards a better future.

Sir, the new section 34A empowers the Director of the Bureau to require the parent or guardian of individuals who are under supervision, to attend any counselling session. I agree with this approach because an individual’s transformation process requires the involvement of immediate family members so that they understand their role in facilitating the offender’s transformation process. For the same reason, I hope that this requirement will also include the husband or wife of a young offender who are married or individuals who have a family with their partners. I also request for some flexibility whereby a suitable time to attend counselling sessions can be given to offenders and their family members so that it does not impact their efforts to earn income.

Sir, the effort to fight the abuse and trafficking of prohibited drugs is a continuing effort and it requires the involvement of all levels of society, including the Government, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), voluntary welfare organisations, the public and families. Each and every one of us can play a part and contribute towards this effort. For the Malay community, we are grateful to have individuals and organisations who are committed and are actively involved in efforts to tackle the drug problem. For example, the late Mr Harun Ghani, a highly respected individual in the Malay community. I have personally heard from ex-addicts who paid tribute to the sincere efforts and selflessness of the late Mr Harun Ghani in helping them and their families throughout his life.

Even though he is no longer with us, his efforts are still continuing in the form of the Harun Ghani Education Fund (HGEF), which is a fund to help the children of drug addicts, ex-addicts and also counsellors who are actively involved in helping offenders. This is described in a Malay proverb, which means, "the good deeds of a man will never be forgotten."

The Hira Society is a voluntary welfare organisation established and managed by Ustaz Razman bin Saridin. As previously shared by Ustaz Razman himself, he was previously involved in drugs but has turned his life around and he embarked on this noble effort to help those caught in the world of drugs to rebuild their lives. Sir, with this, I support this amendment Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Chia Shi-Lu.

4.50 pm

Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore has been described by many as having the toughest laws against the misuse of drugs in the world. And we continue to be unrelenting in our fight against drugs in a global environment which seems to be going in the opposite direction, becoming more liberal towards drugs, with more countries considering or already implementing drug decriminalisation.

Singaporeans are travel addicts and have access to information and news from all over the world. It is inevitable that we compare our nation with other regimes, particularly the west. In fact, for many of us who fly in to Singapore, we are often given the announcement, in no certain terms, that Singapore has very harsh penalties against drug offences. So, in this respect, some of us may ask, are our drug laws too antiquated, too draconian?

As a doctor, I cannot emphasise enough the damage illicit drugs can wreak upon one's body, much of which is irreversible. But you do not need a doctor to tell you this. It is the Government's duty to protect its people from harm and hence, its firm stance on drugs should be supported and applauded. Our traditional position had been to set firm and harsh penalties for those involved in drugs to serve as a deterrent. So far, our measures had been quite effective for an open economy which welcomes visitors and free flow of goods and services. Our statistics and results speak for themselves.

The Ministry is now attempting a more calibrated approach to segment drug abusers who only take drugs from those with other concurrent criminal offences. I would like to take this opportunity to express my concerns about the new rules for detention or rather, the lack thereof.

Currently, drug abusers arrested for the first and second time undergo rehabilitation at the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC).

Under the new proposed framework, first-time abusers assessed to be of low risk will, instead, be placed on the Enhanced Direct Supervision Order (EDSO), a non-custodial supervision order, get assigned a case manager and undergo counselling.

Only first-time abusers with moderate or high risk of further abuse, as well as those arrested for the second time and above will go through programmes of varying degrees of intensity and durations at the DRC.

The plan is, of course, to better help all drug abusers break this vicious cycle of addiction and reintegrate into society sooner.

While I fully support the decision to focus more on rehabilitation and move away from penalties for first-time offenders, I am concerned that this approach may be perceived to be soft – a slap on the wrist – and may send the wrong signal to those tempted to experiment with drugs.

I am particularly worried by the results of the 2015 survey commissioned by the Government's Task Force on Youth and Drugs. It found that even some young with good academic results from middle and upper middle class families are abusing drugs. In the past, most drug addicts were dropouts from school or from troubled or lower income families.

We also have anecdotal feedback from CNB and lawyers who observe more youths of both genders, across wider income and education spectrums, testing positive for drugs after returning from overseas trips or studies.

If they perceive that they would be treated more leniently because they are first offenders, would not they perhaps be more open to trying out drugs? Would harsher penalties, such as detention, be more effective deterrents so they do not get started on drugs at all?

I do support this more calibrated approach in principle and welcome the increased focus on rehabilitation for drug offenders, but would seek the Minister's assurance that these amendments still signal a firm approach towards drug abuse. Finally, I would like to ask the Minister if he could elaborate on the appeal processes for those charged with drug offences. I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

4.54 pm

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this debate. I will speak on the welfare of the family, which is a key goal of our drug policy. Before I discuss my specific concerns, I wish to commend the Government for devoting a significant part of this Bill and policy to focusing on the rehabilitation of the drug abuser. Rehabilitation is the only way to restore the lives of those affected by drug abuse.

This Bill implements a new section 11B which makes it an offence to expose or permit young children to consume drugs. Protecting our youth against exposure to drug abuse must be a central plank of our drug abuse policy. We must take a stern view of family members who abuse their position of trust by encouraging drug abuse in the youth.

My concern is that section 11B(1) sets an extremely low bar for criminalising reckless exposure of drugs to youth. As worded, an abuser who merely hid their drugs at home in a place accessible by a child, but without lock and key, would have committed an offence punishable with a term of up to 10 years. The examples given in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill confirm that 11B(1) is aimed at deterring drug abusers from casually or recklessly exposing youth to drugs in a family setting even when there is no intent to encourage the youth to consume said drugs.

This raises several issues. First, there is the question of risks versus benefits to the family unit. I agree that all measures should be taken to prevent exposure of the youth to drugs. At the same time, the drug abuser subject to section 11B(1) is a family member who may be a parent or a breadwinner. Having that family member at home, provided they are not actively abusing drugs, is likely to be beneficial to the family. The problem is similar to that of child abuse and neglect, where we must decide whether the child is better served by removal from the family. In fact, research by economist Joseph Doyle, published in the American Economic Review in 2007, shows that at-risk children have better long-term outcomes when they remain at home instead of being fostered. Of course, if the drug abuser is encouraging drug consumption within the family, section 11B and all measures should be employed to separate the drug abuser from their family. But otherwise, the aim must remain the rehabilitation of the drug abuser to restore the functioning of the family unit as soon as possible.

Second, there is the issue of disparate impact. Drug abuse is a problem that cuts across all strata of society. However, drug abuse is particularly hard on the less well-off who have fewer resources to cope in general. Our less well-off drug abusers may live in family settings not because they want to expose their family to drugs, but because they cannot afford separate living quarters. Their family may be torn between the risks of living with a drug abuser and their desire to support a family member. There is disparate impact if a financially able drug user who can afford separate living quarters, is under no risk of being charged under section 11B(1), but a financially impoverished drug abuser may offend under section 11B(1) because they must live in a family setting.

Now, unlike some criminal justice systems, Singapore has been careful to avoid drug policies that criminalise to a disparate extent drugs associated with under-privileged socio-economic classes or minorities. This is important because it ensures that our drug policies have broad support, and they are not seen as a policy that targets specific communities. We must do everything we can to ensure that our drug policy targets all abusers, regardless of class or status. I would like to know what measures the Ministry may take to ensure that section 11B(1) does not have a disparate impact on more underprivileged communities, notwithstanding that differences in drug abuse rates may affect this.

Third, we have existing laws that may already apply to the problem of youth exposure to drugs, and I would like to understand the Minister's views on why these may be insufficient. Part II of the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) already criminalises acts that contribute to the delinquency or endangerment of children. In addition, the proposed section 11B(2) criminalises permitting or failing to take reasonable steps to prevent a young person from consuming controlled drugs. So, is this an issue of the penalties under the CYPA not being sufficient, or the threshold for prosecution under the proposed section 11B(2) being too high? In addition, as a matter of policy, would offenders in section 11B(1) also be subject to prosecution under the CYPA?

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is important that our policies be evidence-based to have the best chance of achieving the policy intent and to attain broad public support. Policies such as section 11B must be based on empirical evidence from drug abuse policing and intervention that shows a causal link between reckless exposure and subsequent drug abuse by the youth. So, I hope, in this regard, the Minister can discuss the evidence on the number and proportion of drug offenders in family settings where children are at risk; proportion of cases where investigating officers found that the drug offender was recklessly exposing their family to drugs and the number of youths whose drug abuse appears to be linked to such family exposure.

Next, section 11B must also deter reckless exposure to be effective. Unlike the question of drug trafficking, where the offence is premeditated, the offence of reckless exposure may by definition result from thoughtless negligence. A drug abuser may have no intention of encouraging their children to consume drugs, and yet, they may fail to take necessary care when securing their own drugs. The question is whether the Ministry's experience in the field is that 11B(1) is likely to motivate drug offenders to take strong precautions to limit harm to their family members. While I understand estimating a counter-factual outcome is difficult, I would like to hear the Minister’s views on the deterrent effect of 11B(1).

Finally, I would like to understand what policies would be adopted in enforcement to ensure that section 11B(1) is judiciously used to promote the welfare of the children and family unit. For example, it could enhance welfare if the CNB and Public Prosecutor would, before deciding whether to proceed with a charge under 11B(1), call for a report from MSF Child Protective Service or other relevant authorities. Such a report would evaluate the extent of recklessness involved, and the ability of the drug abuser to contribute meaningfully to the family unit. In addition, if we are prepared to enact stronger legal measures against the drug abuser who puts his family at risk then we must also be prepared to provide further assistance for that family, especially if a breadwinner may be incarcerated for a longer period. Combating drug abuse must be a whole-of-Government problem.

Sir, I believe there is broad social support for Singapore’s zero tolerance policy for drug abuse. That social support is based on the principle that we are protecting society – which includes drug abusers and their families – from the harms caused by drug abuse. I hope the Minister can outline how the stronger measures in 11B(1) are based on the evidence that such reckless exposure to young children is prevalent, increases the risks of youth drug abuse, and it can be effectively deterred by 11B(1) for the greater welfare of the families affected. In particular, I think both the Ministry and society would benefit from more public research by Singapore-based academics on our criminal justice system. Notwithstanding these concerns, I support the Bill.

5.03 pm

Mr Mohamed Irshad (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker and hon Members of Parliament, allow me to begin my speech with greetings of well wishes to Singaporeans who are celebrating the Tamil festival of Pongal.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] May I wish Happy Pongal to all those who celebrate the Pongal festival. May your homes and hearts be filled with joy forever.

(In English): I support this Bill as it enhances and strengthens the Misuse of Drugs Act to effectively and comprehensively tackle the issue of drug abuse in Singapore.

Today, I wish to speak on two areas of concern: prevention and integration. Based on statistics by CNB, 3,091 drug abusers were arrested in 2017; 40% were new drug abusers and two-thirds of the new abusers were under the age of 30.

These statistics seem to underline a growing trend among young in taking a more liberal attitude towards drug abuse, influenced by pro drug-related content. This was one of the conclusions drawn by the Youth and Public Perception Survey by the National Council Against Drug Abuse (NCADA). Online peddling of drugs has also been flagged out as a rising concern by CNB.

What efforts are undertaken by the authorities to counter these influences and online drug peddling? Are there plans to flag out and perhaps block such contents or access to websites promoting the use of harmful drugs?

Unlike the past, more of today’s drug abusers hail from middle and even upper middle class families, with parents having no history of drug abuse. Undergraduates, full-time National Servicemen and young working adults are taking drugs, with some even going overseas to consume drugs thinking they can evade detection and prosecution.

Can I propose that the authorities introduce a mandatory anti-drug course as part of National Service. Having just completed my reservist, I believe NSmen can also benefit from this training. In tertiary educational institutions, can I suggest we have organisations such as NCADA step up engagements with students by tying up with student bodies and training these youth to be Anti-drug Ambassadors in campus?

There are currently many efforts aimed at addressing this growing pro-drug trend, including the recent media campaign launched by NCADA and the ongoing Dadah Itu Haram campaign, as well as the annual activities and efforts by CNB. But, based on my interactions with youth from all spectrums, I have found that these campaigns are quite effective at reminding the mainstream youth but not as effective at targeting the youth who are more at risk of drug abuse, due to gang influence or other delinquency issues.

It is a challenging issue to address. One step towards targeting those youth-at-risk is this Bill’s efforts to criminalise acts by adults who expose children to the risks of drug abuse. Often these adults are the children’s own parents. Parents who do not seem to care that if you expose a child, who does not know better, to drugs, you condemn him to a life of misery and addiction. I agree wholeheartedly with this new provision. We must protect our vulnerable young from reckless parents or adults.

In the same light, I would also like to support this Bill’s move to grant the Director of CNB the power to require possibly negligent parents or guardians to attend counselling to rehabilitate low-risk youth abusers. As they say, it takes a village to raise a child. I say we must do our part to fight and stamp out drug abuse, starting with the young.

I also understand that Singapore is studying successful models of engagement from Iceland and Finland to tackle the drug issue effectively. Can the hon Minister share if Singapore will be adapting or implementing these models or have drawn lessons from them to improve our local efforts?

On integration, Minister K Shanmugam recently announced that the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) will look into assigning inmates the same case officer from the start of their sentence until they are fully integrated into the community. He also shared of plans to have counselling sessions via video-conferencing and an App containing self-help resources and a database for jobs for former offenders. This is a welcome move to better rehabilitate former offenders and it shows the commitment of our officers.

Drug offenders who have been released from prison or the DRC face a lot of obstacles in their efforts to reintegrate themselves into society. They navigate a world with a stigma on their backs, while coping with their obligations to report for mandatory urine tests at designated police divisions while trying to avoid some of their peers who may draw them back into drugs. I have learnt from ex-drug-offenders that they have to report at fixed timings where they are clustered into batches to take their urine test. Although efficient, this posed some problems.

Firstly, I understand that sometimes due to processing delays, these test may take longer than the stipulated one hour which the supervisees have to report for. This affects the livelihood of these former drug offenders as they have to take time off work to take the urine test, sometimes up to three times a week. Many of these supervisees work simple jobs as delivery or dispatch riders on part-time basis. Due to inflexible reporting timings or delays in taking their urine test, their jobs are affected and in some extreme cases they are laid off. Some of these supervisees are even putting off finding a job just because the potential employers cannot accommodate them taking time off for urine test.

Secondly, clustering the supervisees in batches to take their urine test provides an opportunity to meet other former drug offenders. Such gathering points while waiting to take urine tests provides a platform for ex-offenders who may be still active in illicit drug activities to prey on fellow ex-offenders. Even if a person wants to stay clean and away from drugs, the lure of bad company might lead them back to drugs.

Therefore, is there a possibility to allow the supervisees to report for urine test at flexible timings without being clustered into groups? I hope that MHA looks into this issue to make the process less painful for those who are sincerely and genuinely trying to turn over a new leaf and find a stable employment.

Support from the community remains an integral part in the fight against drugs. I commend efforts such as CNB’s United Against Drugs Coalition (UADC), an anti-drug coalition made up of local organisations and business enterprises. I also would like to highlight the good work undertaken by ReviveSG. A ground up initiative formed in 2017 by a group of former drug-related offenders and renounced gang members. ReviveSG not only provides support and counselling to youth-at-risk, they also conduct recovery programmes and educational programmes for parents, educators, employers and the public.

I would like to ask if there is funding to support other similar ground-up initiatives. Through such programmes, I hope more former drug offenders will come forward to help and perhaps mentor and even serve as a role model to those struggling with drug addiction to overcome and reintegrate back into the society.

In light of the daunting journey that a former drug offender faces after he leaves prison, I commend the pro-rehabilitation changes proposed in this Bill. I think we have a good regime in Singapore that balances deterrence and strict enforcement against drugs while providing as many opportunities as possible to drug offenders to turn around their lives.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill and the wider efforts to ensure a drug-free Singapore.

5.12 pm

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join the debate. The world drug situation remains challenging. Every country is affected by the scourge of drugs. In some countries it has, in fact, worsened. Singapore is a transport hub. We can expect ourselves to be repeatedly targeted by syndicates as a transit point as well as a market for illicit drugs. The need to protect Singapore from drugs is even more critical now.

While I welcome the amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act, we must ensure that, first, there must be no softening of Singapore’s anti-drug zero-tolerance stance. And second, that a more finely calibrated rehabilitation approach will be useful in addressing our drug situation in the longer run. This is a careful balance to manage but critical if we are to continually improve our drug situation.

First, we must ensure that we continue our zero-tolerance approach to drugs. We have adopted a comprehensive, and consistent approach to tackling both drug supply and demand. It has worked for us. In 2015, the number of drug abusers arrested comprised less than 0.1% of our population. Would-be and current drug offenders know that the consequences are dire whether the offences are committed in Singapore or overseas.

Yet, a no-compromise approach to drugs does not mean that we cannot and should not evolve towards better means of improving the overall drug situation. The proposed amendments are founded upon distinguishing between abusers who only consume drugs and those who concurrently commit other offences of harm to society. I will like to seek a couple of clarifications. First, what are these offences of harm to society? And second, if an offender commits drug and unrelated criminal offences sequentially but within a short time frame, would he still be eligible for the Enhanced Direct Supervision Order (EDSO)?

The move towards greater focus on rehabilitation recognises that we must focus on helping the offender to kick the habit as a longer term outcome. Yet, we must calibrate this against the potential harm to society as well. There are two important points in the anti-drugs policy. One, to prevent would-be offenders from getting started on drugs. Two, to deter repeat offenders.

Under the non-custodial EDSO regime, how can we position this publicly so that it is not seen as a light-touch approach for young people wanting to experiment with drugs?

For the drug offenders, the term "LT" or "Long Term Imprisonment" is much feared. The punishment of long minimum imprisonment sentences and mandatory caning can deter addicts from continuing their habits. I have often heard from offenders at my MPS or even when I was a police officer that they will tell me "No more drugs already, next time it is LT." It also protects society from potential harm from sustained demand for drugs feeding a drug market. Under the proposed amendments, a repeat offender who does not commit other criminal offences would only go through the DRC regime without LT. By removing the threat of LT from these drug offenders, would this send a conflicting signal from our zero-tolerance policy? Would MHA consider setting a cap on the number of times an offender can go for the DRC regime before LT sets in? In addition, is the time limit of one year in DRC for first-time abusers too short or can we consider longer sentences for subsequent offences?

Furthermore, we know that offenders in jail must follow rules and adhere to a rigid regime. It has been suggested in some research that, for drug addicts, their isolation from society for a period of time, where they go cold turkey, might make recovery easier. Those who enter the DRC track have a whole host of other challenges to manage. They must find a job, go for urine tests, and learn how to say "no" to friends who ask them to do drugs again. So, are we prepared to also explore a policy whereby both imprisonment sentences and DRC work hand-in-hand in order to achieve a better longer term outcome?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a more rehabilitative approach for drug abusers shows that we are prepared to evolve our anti-drug measures for even better outcomes. Yet, we must balance this carefully. People who are tempted to try, and who become addicted to drugs are robbed of the opportunity to live life to the fullest. Families lose their livelihood. Children suffer. Let us ensure that our top priority is still a zero-tolerance anti-drug policy. With this, I support the Bill.

5.17 pm

Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important Bill. It is a very timely one, particularly with the new year festivities just over a couple of weeks ago where several police arrests over drug abuse and dealings had been made in several countries.

For instance, at the recent end-of-year Field Day Festival in Sydney, Australia, there were more than 150 arrests made of young people abusing drugs at the festival, with six arrests due to drug supply and trafficking. Over the new year weekend in Louisville, Kentucky in the US, a group of 40 people were arrested for drug abuse. Out of the 40 people, 14 were below 18 years old. In Belfast, Ireland, five deaths were recorded involving young people in their late teens to late 20s due to a prescription drug overdose during the Christmas period. The Belfast Mater Hospital claimed that there has been a spike in the number of cases of prescription drug overdose in young people, some as young as 13 years old. These prescription drugs, such as Xanax and Lyrica, are sold illegally on the streets. These incidents are a serious cause for concern. It does not help that illicit drugs are now also available through the dark web, as well as in some jurisdictions that have relaxed their legislation against personal or recreational drug use.

In addition to the relatively easier availability of drugs on the streets or through online means, access to drugs in the home exacerbates the problem of drug abuse by minors and children. I quote Dr Mike Males who is a senior researcher for the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in the United States, and a former professor at the University of California Santa Cruz: "California’s and America's drug fatality crisis is firmly centred in whites and middle-agers. California's 5.7 million white men aged 25 and older account for 40% of drug deaths. That is more than the total drug deaths among the state's 24 million Latino, African and Asian Americans of both sexes and all ages. True, many adult drug problems began in teen or young adult years. However, adult drug and family abuses are major factors in teens abusing drugs. The problem is circular and must be addressed with integrated strategies across families and communities."

The role of significant adults – parents, guardians and teachers – in a child's life cannot be underestimated and will have substantial impact on how that child turns out. This is also true when it comes to developing lifelong and life-changing habits. The struggle with marijuana abuse by Nick Sheff has been shared widely by his father, American journalist David Sheff. In his first revelation about his son's struggle with marijuana abuse that was published in the New York Times Magazine, David shared that "Indeed, when he was 12, I discovered a vial of marijuana in his backpack. I met with his teacher, who said: ''It's normal. Most kids try it.'' Nick said that it was a mistake – he had been influenced by a couple of thuggish boys at his new school – and he promised that he would not use it again. You can read David's article published in the NYTimes Magazine dated 6 February 2005, titled "My Addicted Son" or you can watch the movie "Beautiful Boy" to feel the pain and anguish both David and Nick went through in trying to overcome Nick's marijuana addiction.

It may be easy to point fingers at his then 6th grade teacher, or even at David himself, who smoked recreational marijuana with his son Nick. The fact remains that significant adults in a child’s life have that role and responsibility to ensure our children stay away from drugs and have significant influence towards a child's propensity and attitude towards drug use.

Hence, I strongly support clauses 3 and 19 of this Bill. Clause 3 of the Bill places greater emphasis on the responsibility needed by the adults within the family to ensure the home remains a safe and drug-free place for our children. Our home must remain a warm and loving sanctuary for our children, and not a worm hole to hell.

Clause 19 requires the involvement of parents and guardians to be included in the counselling sessions, not to punish them, but to ensure the rehabilitation process remains an integrated and positive approach involving the significant adults in a young person's drug recovery journey. However, may I clarify the following. Under clause 3, particularly sections 11B and 11C, will enforcement actions be taken only on the drug abuser or will other adult family members who are non-drug users within the household also be convicted if drugs are found within the reach of a child or minor within the home? Under clause 19, section 34A, how many counselling sessions will the parents be involved in? Why do we not make it compulsory for the counselling sessions to involve both the parents and the young drug user or supervisee? Why leave it as "whether or not together with the supervisee"? To me, having both the parents and the young drug user go through the entire counselling process and rehabilitation journey together will be useful in addressing the causes of drug use in the first place, and not merely addressing the symptoms.

In addition, while I support the emphasis on rehabilitation for young drug abusers, may I seek the Ministry’s assurance that it does not mean we are going soft on drug abuse and related crimes and that enforcement action will continue to be robust and will be meted out without fear or favour?

I am confident that with these new measures being legislated, proactive and educational approaches will also be enhanced to ensure we can keep our children safe from drugs through awareness and prevention, rather than just through the enforcement of enacted laws.

I also support clause 13 that confers powers on certain SAF servicemen to assume the role of enforcement officers and request for urine samples from suspected servicemen for urine tests to be conducted. I recall meeting a couple who are parents at my Meet-the-People session more than a year ago, who shared about their son’s foray into drug use while serving National Service. Through their appeal to MINDEF, they asked for stricter enforcement in requiring servicemen to be tested for drug use, even though the drug use was not in the camp itself.

However, I would like to ask if there are even stricter enforcement actions to be taken if the drug use is discovered within any of our MINDEF premises or camps by SAF servicemen or regulars? At this point, Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]Drug abuse is an issue that continues to haunt us. Although drug offences carry harsh punishments, where the offenders can be jailed for life or given the death penalty if found guilty of drug trafficking, the number of drug abusers and drug traffickers in our community is still high. More than what we want it to be.

I have met my constituents at the Meet-The-People sessions who shared stories about their husbands or wives being nabbed by the CNB for taking drugs in their own homes. What’s more worrying is the presence of their small children in the house, whereby the father or mother are taking drugs right in front of their children and those drugs are within easy reach to these children.

Therefore, I welcome the amendments to this Act whereby Clause 3 underlines the responsibility of adults in the family to ensure that our homes stay drug-free for the sake of our children. A heavier punishment will be given those found guilty, for instance, for allowing drugs in the house to be easily reached by their children, especially those who are minors.

As adults, we cannot neglect our responsibilities towards our children in shaping their habits or lifestyle, especially in instilling them with positive behaviour and helping them stay away from bad habits or addictions like drug abuse. We are the pillars of the family, and as the Malay saying goes, the sap from the leaf will trickle down its stalk (children will imitate what their parents do).

(In English): In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the perils of drug abuse are very real and no sufficient amount of legislative changes can fully protect our loved ones from the dangers of drugs. We still need preventive education, awareness and an abundance of love and care and continued vigilance to keep drugs at bay. Nonetheless, these legislative changes we are debating today are needed to ensure there is protection for our loved ones and that the necesary enforcement action can be taken to ensure that very protection for them. Notwithstanding the questions and clarifications I have, I support the amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act.

5.26 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I first declare my interest as a practising lawyer who occasionally handles criminal cases, including drug cases.

Singapore has always taken a hard stance on drugs. Hon Members who spoke before me support this stance. This is a reflection of our understanding of the pernicious effects that drugs and drug addiction have on our communities, and the need to ensure that drug consumption does not become an entrenched habit in our society. There is also a recognition in recent years that whilst it remains necessary to ensure that our laws deter drug trafficking, possession and consumption, there is also a need for a broader range of measures to rehabilitate offenders to mitigate the risk of relapse.

The proposed amendments to the Act serves these two purposes – enhancing our enforcement powers against drug-related activities, especially where young children are concerned and, at the same time, strengthening the drug rehabilitation regime by taking a more calibrated approach vis-a-vis drug abusers. I support the aims of the Bill. I have a few queries.

First, the Bill proposes a new section 33(3A), which prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence of one year for first time offenders of a section 8 offence of drug possession or consumption. This represents quite a shift from the status quo currently where there is no prescribed minimum sentence and, therefore, a court is entitled to impose a sentence of a fine and/or a jail term of less than one year.

The present sentencing norm for first-time drug consumption is between six and eight months’ imprisonment. Taking into account remission, the length of imprisonment is approximately between four and five months. At the same time, the present regime also contemplates rehabilitation in the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) for first-time offenders with no criminal record – this is generally a term of approximately eight months.

I understand that the proposed amendments would address the existing disparity, namely, that a first-time offender who is unsuitable for DRC – for example, if he had committed other offences, together with a drug consumption offence – and is sentenced to imprisonment, he would serve a shorter term than a first-time offender who is deemed suitable and sentenced to undergo treatment at a DRC.

If the focus is to address this disparity, why not put this before the court, rather than impose a mandatory minimum sentence? The court will then have a discretion to impose a sentence that suits the circumstances of the case, for example, drawing a distinction in sentencing between the consumption of a Class A drug, which is more serious, versus Class C drug.

After all, the sentence should take into account the circumstances of each individual offender, to distinguish between their differing degrees of criminal culpability. The existing provisions allow the courts this flexibility.

This is encapsulated by a High Court decision, where the Court said, "Adopting this wider spectrum of sentencing options for first-time offenders will allow adequate regard to be duly given to the many imponderables involved when such offences are committed, such as: What was the amount of drug(s) consumed… what was the occasion that led to the act of consumption; was it planned or incidental to some other event… was any payment involved; is the accused a first-time drug consumer, a casual consumer or an addict? While this is by no means a comprehensive or exhaustive list, it is intended to highlight some of the thought processes a sentencing judge should apply when determining the appropriate custodial sentence for drug consumption offences. Given that not all offences of consumption are the same, it follows that not all acts of consumption ought to be punished identically with a rigid, immutable starting point that constitutes an end by itself."

This is not to say that the Courts would treat drug possession or drug consumption lightly. In the same case, the court expressly recognised that a fine may be imposed in very limited instances where a young offender with no antecedents is involved, and even then this cannot be an invariable practice for all young offenders.

Additionally, there need not be parity between the DRC regime and imprisonment, in terms of the length of time, given that the serve different purposes. We are not necessarily comparing apples with apples. A DRC incarceration is not a conviction, and the primary purpose of DRC is to rehabilitate, which understandably requires some time. In contrast, a person dealt with by the Courts, convicted and sentenced will have a conviction record. And the aims of imprisonment also includes retribution and deterrence; rather than a pure focus on rehabilitation.

My concern is that there could be situations where it does not make sense for a person to be sentenced to a DRC, and yet it may not make sense for the person to be sentenced to a one-year imprisonment term. For example, a foreign national who commits a drug offence while on a social visit pass. There is little utility in sending him to a DRC for rehabilitation given that he is not resident in Singapore, but with the amendments, the Court will now have no choice but to sentence him to imprisonment for at least one year, even if the offence may be on the relatively less culpable side.

May I please ask: what is the policy consideration for the decision to impose a minimum mandatory sentence for drug consumption and possession, regardless of the circumstances, and remove judicial discretion in this regard?

I now move to section 34. Section 34 deals with the increased duration of supervision from two years to five years. I understand from the hon Minister's speech that this is because the focus is on making sure that the drug addict is fully rehabilitated and the chances of recividism is reduced. I support this aim. As I understand, if a drug addict beyond the five-year mark does not take drugs, then, the chances are, he would not take drugs in the future. This would be a good objective to realise because families fractured by their members who take drugs can then have a chance to be wholly reunited again.

I note that the Explanatory Note suggests that there is no increase in public expenditure arising from amendment to this Bill. However, I would imagine that there would be resourcing and staffing issues given that the contemplated extension of supervision is for a period of up to five years. May I please ask what are the plans the Minister has in this area?

Before I end, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to pay tribute to the good work of the CNB officers over the years since CNB was established in 1971. We had a serious problem with drugs then. This is a stark memory for me because as a young boy, I grew up in a neighbourhood where I played football almost every day with some very talented footballers who could perform mesmerising tricks. They could have made it into the national squad. In fact, some of my team mates did. But they could not make it into the national squad because they became addicted to drugs and their whole lives were wasted.

It was the Government and CNB's tough and uncompromising stance against drugs that allowed us to emerge from that dark situation to now enjoy a relatively drug-free and low-crime environment. I highlight low crime because there has always been a link between drug-taking and crime. Many drug addicts resort to crime to be able to fund their habit. There is also a positive economic impact arising from the successful tackling of the drug problem. We managed to ensure that the people who would otherwise be snagged by the lure of drugs, would be economically active and contribute to their families and our country.

In contrast, a good number of countries have gone the opposite way. I had occasion to listen to the speech of Ms Bridget Brennon, the Special Prosecutor for Narcotics in the city of New York, USA, last year at the Economic Crime Symposium in Cambridge, UK. She reported that in the US, life expectancy has gone down for three consecutive years and she attributed it to the serious drug problem her country has. She also found that opioid addiction has led to less economic participation amongst her people. The situation has been exacerbated by the advent of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl which is very addictive and only a fifth of the cost of heroin.

I highlight this not to gloat but really to join in the suggestion that the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza made, in terms of highlighting these cases to people who may otherwise take a softer stance to drugs. Given our geographical proximity to the centres of production of controlled drugs, higher levels of drug production, as the hon Minister said, as well as our status as an international transport hub, we could easily be in the same situation as in the US, if not for our dedicated and courageous officers working in tandem with other Government agencies, and critically, with the whole-hearted support of Singaporeans. The job that our CNB officers do on a day-to-day basis is clearly not for the faint-hearted, as the people that they deal with, especially the drug traffickers, tend to be more desparate and violent given the stakes should they get apprehended. We owe them a debt of gratitude. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

5.37 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. It is important to review the existing framework to ensure that we are up to date with the evolving drug landscape.

I would like to seek a few clarifications and offer some suggestions.

I am happy to note that the proposed amendments, as a whole, reflect a move towards strengthening rehabilitation for drug offenders, and the whole-of-family approach especially when it comes to younger drug offenders.

Just last week, at a visit to the new Selarang Halfway House, Minister Shanmugam announced a three-pronged approach to better rehabilitate ex-offenders. This includes assigning inmates to the same case officer for the entire period of incarceration, focusing more on correctional programmes targeted at individuals, and getting more family and community support. These amendments will codify the rehabilitative approach and align our legislative framework with ground initiatives.

I note that section 33 will be amended to introduce mandatory minimum sentences for offences of consuming controlled or specified drugs, failing to provide urine specimens and failing to provide hair specimens. Further, section 33A on enhanced penalties for repeat offenders will be expanded.

In light of the refocus on rehabilitation, can the Minister clarify the rationale behind introducing mandatory minimum sentences and enhanced penalties and how this might be consistent with the broader strategy for addressing repeat commission of drug offences? Both legislative and executive action should be aligned to present a coherent message on our renewed commitment to rehabilitation and re-integration.

The family as is an important part of the rehabilitative process. At the DRC, I understand that only a third of inmates use their full quota of two 30 minutes visits per month. This is already a clear sign that inmates lack family support and this problem might have existed prior to the drug problem. Strained family ties were perhaps one of the reasons they consumed drugs in the first place. The new section 34A will require parents and guardians to undergo mandatory counselling together with young offenders. This is a positive step forward.

In the same vein of embracing a more whole-family approach, I hope we will also consider a greater push towards a more forgiving and rehabilitative approach to all drug offenders. Beyond focusing on young offenders, we should also help inmates currently serving their sentence to maintain social connections with their immediate family. The family serves as an important social safety net upon the inmates release. Families help to support inmates’ efforts to change, re-integrate into society as responsible citizens and reduce the re-offending rates. Research has shown that family support is a key factor that prevents inmates from reoffending.

I have suggested this before and I hope that we can consider removing the glass panel between inmates and their children more often. Today, family bonding and interaction with inmate’s children is too limited. Family support, especially interaction with their children, could strengthen the resolve of inmates to change their lives for the better. Stopping parental contact with their child could cause resentment, a sense of abandonment on both sides and weaken the social support structure for an inmate. This works against our objective of a supportive rehabilitation process and also negatively affects the child.

There is precedence to remove the separation by glass panel on special occasions. On Children's Day in 2017, some inmates at the Tanah Merah Prison were allowed an open visit where they could hug and hold their loved ones. Some of the inmate had not seen their children for four years until that visit. Having physical contact with their families can be a strong reminder for inmates to turn over a new leaf for their families. As stated by the spokesperson for Focus on Family Singapore, “Humans thrive when we know we are loved. When inmates connect and are reconciled with their families, there is a lower chance of them reoffending."

I would also like to take this opportunity to applaud MHA for increasing support for ex-offenders. The Development and Re-integration Programme is promising, and aims to help inmates upon their release. It provides continuity of care from prisons to the community, to help the inmates better reintegrate and prevent re-offending. Beyond the support offered after ex-offenders are released, I also hope we can provide more support to inmates while they are in prison, especially during the initial incarceration phase and especially by ex-offenders who have managed to turn their lives around.

I had raised this before during the Committee of Supply debates and I hope the Ministry could consider including more programmes featuring ex-offenders and imparting life-changing strategies at this initial stage, especially during the initial two to three months when inmates are most motivated to change and commitments are more sustainable. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

5.42 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the proposed measures to counter the harmful impact of drugs upon our society and applaud our Government in standing firm in their policies and measures to protect our citizens.

Drug addiction turn healthy people with potential into zombies. Drug dealers are not interested in killing their sources of income. Their best customers are addicts who manage to stay alive, keep buying for a while and help recruit new customers.

Criminalising acts of contamination which facilitate and promote use of drugs is necessary to stop the transmission of the “infection” which is the spread of drug use and addiction. I also fully support the amendments which criminalise acts which expose children to drugs and allow young persons to consume drugs.

One of my greatest worries is how we deal with the ease of accessing drug suppliers through the Internet, social networking and messaging platforms, such as WhatsApp, which provides end-to-end encryption. I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister on whether our Police and intelligence teams are empowered to access encrypted messages on these online messaging platforms.

Another issue I am deeply concerned about is how drugs still manage to find their way into Singapore despite our strict laws. Would the Minister elaborate on measures at our checkpoints to prevent the entry of drugs into Singapore? How thorough are our checks on items being transported in?

Last, I noticed a focus in this Bill is to enhance rehabilitation of drug abusers and to ensure that they stay drug-free. May I ask if we have enough case managers and counsellors to assist addicts and whether these professionals have sufficient training and support to stay updated in this field so as to render the needful help. I conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Anthea Ong.

5.45 pm

Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is clear that this Bill, among other things, seeks to introduce new offences to deter the promotion of certain drug-related activities. This is evident through the introduction of the new sections 11B, 11C and 11D.

I am in general support of these amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act. They are in line with the current framework of statutory prohibition against drug misuse. I would like to take this opportunity to express my support in particular for the new section 11B which, to my mind, tackles the undesirable but unfortunately rampant phenomenon of intergenerational drug use.

We are beginning to see a more nuanced and calibrated approach to drug rehabilitation by MHA. MHA's intention is clear. There is a continued focus in helping durg abusers break the cycle of addiction more effectively and re-integrate into society sooner. I commend this intent, especially given that we all agree neither criminalisation nor imprisonment is viewed as the miracle solution.

However, our drug rehabilitation regime still tacitly acknowledges the stigma associated with drug use and addiction. Even without the World Health Organization declaring that addiction to illicit drugs is the most stigmatised, it is not hard to surmise that social isolation and marginalisation hampers the effectiveness of even the most effective rehabilitative efforts.

Mr Deputy Speaker, with the current amendments, I believe we now have an excellent opportunity to reinforce the statutory framework on the prohibition of drug misuse with concerted, Government-led efforts to de-stigmatise drug addiction. Public education and policy realignment in the direction of de-stigmatising drug addiction can and should complement institutionalised drug rehabilitation. Allow me to elaborate.

At the moment, it would not be a misstatement to say that illicit drug use and addiction is met with great social disapproval. Commonly held perceptions of persons with drug addictions are that they are weak in resolve, irresponsible and out to have a good time at society’s expense. In short, addiction is viewed as a moral failing, and he associated harms of addiction considered wholly self-inflicted.

I believe that it is time we challenge the common wisdom that shame, a fundamental element of stigmatisation, is the best way to respond to undesired social behaviours and habits. Especially in light of advances in neurobiology research which validate the characterisation of addiction as a brain disease tied to changes in brain structure and function.

Advances in the field of neurobiology show that addiction causes deficits to the functioning of the prefrontal cortex. While I have been informed that these studies have not been researched in our local context, some have been co-published by researchers hailing from, amongst others, our very own Department of Pharmacology at the Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Yale University, Imperial College London and the National Institute on Drug Abuse in the US. In lay terms, addiction impairs the brain in ways which weaken brain regions involved in executive functions such as decision making, inhibitory control and self regulation.

It is easy to surmise, given this impairment, that stigma or externally-imposed shame would only provide very minimal, if at all, effective support or incentive for individuals who are seeking to quit their drug addictions. Additionally, according to a study published by the US National Institute on Drug Abuse, stigma towards addiction also externalises in practical ways for example lower priority in healthcare policies such as insurance.

Conversely, I believe that if we are able to align (a) the public’s understanding of drug use, (b) our public health policies on drug misuse, as well as (c) our institutionalised drug rehabilitation programmes with the brain disease model of addiction, we could start creating the right conditions for decreasing, or who knows, even preventing, drug misuse and addiction. Similar recommendations have been made in studies published by researchers on drug abuse.

For clarity, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not saying that Singapore must soften its stance on the statutory prohibition of drugs. Rather, I am very encouraged by the widespread success of our whole-of-Government effort on War on Diabetes. That effort addresses the misconceptions and stigma, and has also begun to make headway in structural changes within business and community to influence social behaviours and habits. Learning from this, I urge the Government to consider commissioning an inter-ministerial task force for our "War on Drugs" to undertake the following.

One, conduct a large-scale public education campaign to (a) educate the general public on the newly-introduced provisions, their underlying rationales and the increased severity of drug offences to ensure the deterrent intent of the amendments is well understood, and at the same time, (b) encourage de-stigmatisation of drug addiction to complement our calibrated rehabilitative approach.

Two, commission research based in Singapore which can be used to guide, strengthen and reinforce, our national policies on drug misuse, ensuring they are aligned and remain up to date with neurobiological advancements and upstream prevention through public health education on substance abuse and mental health conditions. This would also support our public education programmes as shared earlier.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I now move on to more technical queries and proposals addressing specific clauses in the Bill.

First, the offences set out in section 11B apply to persons of or above 21 years of age in relation to exposing or permitting a child to drug use. The section also defines “child” to mean any person below 16 years of age. I would like to ask the Minister if this provision was intentionally drafted in such a way as to omit any legal effect on of persons between the ages 16 and 20 years old. If this was the case, why? If this omission was unintentional, may I then ask the Miinister what effects this drafting might nonetheless gives rise to.

Second, clause 16 both (a) introduces minimum sentences for some offences where there was previously none, and (b) enhances punishment of an offender convicted of certain offences. Further, clause 17 introduces enhanced penalties for a person who is convicted of certain offences under the Act and has certain antecedents. Aside from a clear and continued emphasis on the severity of drug-related offences, I wish to ask the Minister what specific goals these amendments are intended to achieve and how they do so. Further, I wish to ask the Minister if and how these amendments strike an appropriate balance between criminal penalty and rehabilitation.

Third, with regards to clause 18(a), I wish to ask the Minister how the number of seven years was arrived at for determining the period not exceeding which any person reasonably suspected to be a drug addict may be committed for the purposes of medical examination or observation. Further, I would like to ask the Minister if it would be more appropriate and prudent for the broad phrasing of the proposed section 34(1) which states “to any place specified by the Director for the purpose of any medical examination or observation” to be amended to (a) reflect a schedule or pre-determined list of places, and (b) reflect that the medical examination or observation be for the purposes of determining whether traces of drug remain in a person’s body?

And lastly, clause 19 requires a parent/guardian to attend any counselling session with a supervisee who is below 21 years of age. I wish to ask the Minister what type of counselling this section envisions. Further, in what ways does this provision ensure that the psychosocial support programmes, if any, put in place with a view to include parents and guardians are able to serve their intended purpose?

Mr Deputy Speaker, the challenge of drug use is a complex one because it is a human one. Studies have found that illicit drug users and persons with drug addiction are unable, due to social stigma, shame and guilt, to connect in healthy ways with fellow human beings thereby impeding their recovery and social integration. Perhaps this is why it has been said that the opposite of addiction is not sobriety, it is human connection.

I commend the Ministry for taking the first steps in the right direction with a more human-centred approach with these new amendments. Yet beyond taking the legal, medical and institutionalised approach, we must have a concerted community response to this adaptive challenge of drug misuse and addiction. Social integration without destigmatisation is a job half done! We must remain open to evolving strategies as well as new social and scientific research that continue to put the human in the centre of our laws and their implementation on drug misuse and rehabilitation efforts. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

5.56 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. As a former Police officer, I have seen how the problems associated with drug abuse extend beyond just the individual. It affects family, friends, and ultimately, harms society. Singapore needs to continue with our firm stand of zero tolerance towards drugs abuse.

According to statistics by the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), 40% of drug abusers arrested in 2017 were new abusers, and about 64% of these new abusers arrested were below 30 years of age. It is therefore timely and crucial that we review the Misuse of Drugs Act and make necessary amendments to safeguard public interest and prevent the rise in first-time abusers. However, I do have some questions and suggestions.

First, I agree with the measures introduced to make it an offence to expose children to drugs and permit young persons to consume drugs. Exposing the young to drugs causes addiction to become inter-generational and we must strive to eradicate such cases in Singapore. However, the young are not just the only ones susceptible to the temptation of drugs, if drugs are left easily within reach. There seems to be an increasing trend among the public displaying more liberal attitudes towards drugs, as evidenced through the 2015/2016 survey conducted by the National Council Against Drug Abuse. This is an alarming trend and those who have not seen first-hand how destructive the use of drugs may be tempted to try if drugs and drug paraphernalia are within easy reach. Given that a significant number of new abusers arrested were below 30 years of age, would the Ministry consider making it an offence to expose persons below 30 to drugs and drug utensils, rather than just confining to young children?

On the topic of inter-generational addiction, I would like to suggest that the Ministry make it compulsory for all immediate family members to be counselled, if there is a young drug abuser in the family. Under the new measures, parents or guardians of youth abusers will be required to undergo mandatory counselling sessions. However, siblings of these young drug abusers need to be counselled too, to explain to them the ills of drugs abuse and what might have pushed their sibling to consume illegal drugs. This could go some ways to help prevent the siblings from turning to drug abuse as well.

For adult offenders, I would also like to suggest mandatory counselling for immediate family members below the age of 21. It is important that we let these youths understand the ills of misuse of drugs. CNB can work with the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE) to use these counselling sessions to teach them on how to rehabilitate their family member back into society upon release.

Mr Deputy Speaker, drug abuse has been trending upwards globally, and the introduction of synthetic drugs has made the problem even more complex and hard to contain. Let us continue our stand of zero tolerance on drug abuse, and do more to stop the rise of first-time drug abusers and inter-generational addiction. With that, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sun Xueling.

6.00 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken. Many of them strongly support Singapore's comprehensive anti-drug strategy. I thank them for their views and their support as we continuously enhance our enforcement efforts, calibrate rehabilitation approaches towards drug abusers and penalise actions which can lead to the spread of drug abuse.

The amendments to the MDA are significant and I will like to first touch on the areas which relate to how we are better protecting our children and youths from the dangers of drug abuse.

Members have shown strong support for the creation of new offences relating to the exposure of children to drugs and permitting young persons to consume drugs. Mr Christopher de Souza has reminded us about the episodes which happened last year, where a one-year-old boy was rescued from suspected drug traffickers after his care-giver left him in their care; where a four-year-old girl was discovered with her mother, with sachets of methamphetamine; and a three-month-old girl found in a unit with a suspected drug trafficker and drug abuser and preliminary investigations showed that "ice" was abused during pregnancy and after the child was born. These are all shocking, sad and true. We need to move quickly to protect our children and prevent tragedies from happening.

Dr Intan asked, whether aside from the abuser, other adults in the household will be implicated if drugs are found within a child's access in the home. CNB will carry out due investigations to establish the ownership of the drugs found in the household.

Any adult who is in possession of the illicit drugs and knowingly or recklessly leaves the drug exposed, knowing that the child is likely to have access, may be prosecuted for this offence.

Assoc Prof Theseira asked why we have decided to take this strong stance, given the alternatives and trade-offs.

In the cases that Mr Christopher de Souza has cited, this is what our officers see on the ground – young children found in drug dens. They were put in danger, some by their own parents. Others, passed around among caregivers who were either drug abusers or traffickers.

Paraphrasing what Dr Intan said – as adults, we cannot ignore our responsibility towards our children. This is regardless of means or wealth. There is a basic baseline safety that must be upheld and children from all backgrounds are deserving of that same protection.

Assoc Prof Theseira asked why we decided to create this specific provision in the MDA rather than rely on other Acts. This is because of the specific trends and issues we have observed in the course of drug enforcement.

The provisions in the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA), for instance, require that the offender has a custodial relationship with the child. Whereas in the cases we see, there are scenarios such as a parent leaving his child at a friend's house. The friend then abuses drugs, and the child is exposed to the drugs left openly around. Under the CYPA, the friend may not be liable, having no relationship with the child, even though his behaviour has put the child in danger. The MDA hence provides specifically for such permutations of scenarios on the ground and the punishments correspondingly reflect the great capacity for harm that drugs can have, especially on children.

Assoc Prof Theseira has valid concerns about how this ultimately works towards the welfare of the child.

The purpose of section 11B is first and foremost for deterrence, as we do not wish to see innocent children harmed because of the bad choices others make. Nevertheless, please rest assured that our enforcement agencies will also work together with the AGC, MSF and other relevant authorities to assess how to best safeguard the family's welfare.

To answer Mr Melvin Yong's and Ms Anthea Ong's question on the age cut-off of 16 years old, section 11B(1) is intended to protect younger children who may not understand the dangers of drugs, and are at higher risk of accidental ingestion.

That said, we are concerned about older youths as well, and as Mr Melvin Yong observed, more liberal attitudes, combined with easy access to drugs, means that they may be more likely to give in.

Hence, there is also a section 11(B)(2), which makes it an offence for an adult who permits, or does not take reasonable steps to prevent, a young person under 21 from consuming illicit drugs in the adult's possession.

As Mr Faisal Manap has mentioned, education about these offences are important and raising general awareness will help deter such irresponsible actions. We will continue to educate all members of the public through our various preventive drug education platforms.

Next, to support youth drug abusers and get them to turn over a new leaf, the support of their parents and guardians is critical. On the topic of compulsory counselling for parents/guardians of youth drug abusers who are under CNB's supervision order, Ms Anthea Ong and Dr Intan have asked for further details.

CNB has worked with social service providers to structure the counselling programme. It consists of a minimum of 25 sessions and lasts up to a year – it will differ for each abuser and this is calibrated to the abuser's, and his family's specific needs. Some sessions will involve only the youth abuser, some only the parents and others are joint sessions. Each family is different, hence the rehabilitation process must have the flexibility to cater to the unique circumstances and needs of these different families.

Sometimes, the counsellors need to counsel the parents privately, to address complex issues affecting their child. As the Minister mentioned earlier, parents/guardians today are already required to attend the counselling sessions, just that some persistently absent themselves. Hence, we have now made clear in the MDA that they have a legal responsibility to attend counselling, which is key to supporting their child's or ward's rehabilitation. Failure to do so will be an offence and we intend for this to come into force by first half of this year.

Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Mr Desmond Choo had asked whether the focus on rehabilitation and the perceived lack of penalties may encourage more young abusers to experiment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, our criminal justice system places a lot of focus on youth rehabilitation because as far as possible, we want to give them a chance to turn over a new leaf, so they do not ruin the rest of their lives. We want to intervene early and effectively, to allow them to continue to study and be with their families where possible.

I would like to assure Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Mr Desmond Choo that currently, youth abusers already undergo specialised risk-based interventions and this does not change under the amendments.

For youth abusers under 21 years old, we have the Youth Enhanced Supervision for low-risk abusers. We have the Community Rehabilitation Centre for moderate-risk abusers and we have the DRC for high-risk abusers. So, it is not that experimentation with drugs is cost-free for the young.

I also want to emphasise that we are not becoming more permissive about drugs. Drugs come at a high cost to society, and suffering behind every abuser is a family. We have no reason to go soft, and we must not. What we are doing is keeping abreast with new research and developments, to inform and refine our approach, to help us better achieve our aim of reducing overall drug abuse.

Even as we undertake these new initiatives to better protect our children and youths, we must guard against individuals who undertake contaminated practices, to spread the use of drugs and cause others to abuse drugs. They can harm not only our young but also others.

On the introduction of contamination offences, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked whether someone replying to another person's question about manufacturing drugs constitutes a contamination offence.

This will depend on the context in which the question is asked, and also the answer given. The proposed section 11(D)(1) requires that the person who provides the information knows, or has reason to believe, that the recipient intends to carry out the manufacturing. It is also not intended to target the provision of information for legitimate purposes or licensed activities, for example, staff in a pharmaceutical company licensed to manufacture medication, providing information to each other as part of the manufacturing process.

The Minister has explained earlier that we have provided for defences in the Act and subsidiary legislation will set out the scope of authorised activities.

There is also a lot of information on the Internet on carrying out drug activities. While we cannot police the whole Internet, if a person in Singapore disseminates or publishes such information online, without any legitimate purpose, he can be investigated for an offence under section 11(D)(2).

We are now building upon the success of past efforts in addressing re-offending. The Taskforce on Drugs was formed in October 2011. Chaired by then-Minister of State for Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs Mr Masagos, one of the key recommendations was the implementation of a structured aftercare regime with more scaffolding for offenders, tighter supervision and enhanced community support.

The Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS) was piloted in 2012 and operationalised in July 2014. Under the MAS, higher risk offenders, including Long-Term (LT) inmates go through structured stepdown interventions like compulsory counselling, case management and supervision.

It has only been a few years since the MAS was implemented but the results are encouraging. The two-year recidivism rates for LT offenders have come down from 38% for the 2012 release cohort to 27% for the 2015 one.

Ex-inmates have also provided feedback that having counsellors and officers walk with them in their re-integration journey has helped them stay accountable and provided them with a source of support when they struggle with life outside.

Given how instrumental post-release support is in helping repeat offenders turn over a new leaf, we are doing more on this front, including increasing post-release supervision for abusers to a maximum of five years.

Mr Desmond Choo asked whether the DRC length is too short and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah also asked how we determine when a person no longer requires supervision. CNB and SPS track the person throughout his detention, and the Community-based Programmes phase as well as the supervision phase.

What Mr Desmond Choo mentioned are rough indicative ranges but each individual is different – so their own risk and progress will determine the length of each phase. If the person shows very poor progress, he may be detained for up to four years in DRC for rehabilitation, coupled with five years of supervision. Regular reviews are done to assess rehabilitation progress. It is a step-down approach. As he shows improvement and stays clean, he can be considered for progressively lower frequencies of urine/hair testing until he is assessed suitable for release from his supervision.

The journey is difficult; and ultimately, the ability of the person to stay clean depends on his own resolve. But we are doing more to provide support where we can. In that respect, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Murali, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Ms Joan Pereira have asked whether there is adequate support and training for counsellors.

All of SPS' correctional rehabilitation specialists possess qualifications in relevant disciplines and SPS also provides on-the-job training. It is a very meaningful, rewarding but challenging calling. Thus, there are also senior staff there to provide guidance and help them avoid burnout. SPS also has an in-house team of psychologists that they can turn to, for mental or emotional support. The SPS also collaborated with the Social Service Institute to introduce training modules last year that will help build up capabilities of case managers and counsellors.

As several Members have noted, all these rehabilitation initiatives can be resource-intensive but we use digital technology to help, where possible, and the app and video-conferencing initiatives, mentioned by Mr Mohamed Irshad will go a long way to benefiting inmates, including drug offenders.

Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Louis Ng provided other good suggestions for inmates such as having more open visits, providing them with more workbooks and healthy physical activities, and providing them with more support during the initial incarceration phase.

These are some of the good practices SPS has already put in place and they will continue to work on them.

Mr Melvin Yong also spoke about early interventions for abusers’ families. We recognise the importance of families to the rehabilitation process, hence SPS will be restructuring family programmes in the prisons and working with MSF to identify inmates’ family needs early, provide intervention, and increase family involvement in inmate rehabilitation.

We will also continue working with community partners to ensure that abusers’ children who are at-risk are referred to the proper channels for assistance and counselling where required. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, the amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act are significant. There is a sizeable section in the amendments that is devoted to protecting our children and our youths from drug abuse. The examples Mr Christopher de Souza brought up early in his speech are shocking, sad and true. The new amendments to the MDA will thus make it an offence for an adult who possesses illicit drug to knowingly or recklessly leave it within the access of a child. It will also be an offence for an adult who does not take reasonable steps to prevent a young person from consuming illicit drugs in the adult's possession.

Our children are innocent. We cannot allow them to have their lives ruined just because of the bad choices adults make with regards to drugs, or their irresponsible behaviour, for example, leaving the children in the care of care-givers who are drug abusers or drug traffickers. The new punitive measures will prevent these tragedies from further happening.

We are also ensuring better support for young drug abusers and helping them turn over a new leaf by making it compulsory for parents/guardians of youth drug abusers who are under CNB's supervision order to attend counselling. Family support is important in our rehabilitation efforts for drug abusers. For inmates, the Singapore Prisons Service will continue to work with families and also the MSF to identify the needs of their families, provide intervention and increase family involvement in inmate rehabilitation.

Members Lee Bee Wah and Pritam Singh have highlighted the importance of ensuring adequate resources for the counsellors and also their psychological well-being. These are the important points which I have highlighted. But we must also guard against the external influences which propagate the use of drugs and help those who have been negatively influenced, to prevent more people from taking drugs.

The introduction of contamination offences moves to stem this. We share Member Lee Bee Wah's concerns about the availability of information on drugs online. And that is why Singapore has a comprehensive harm prevention strategy against drugs where preventive drug education is our first line of defence, then coupled with tough laws and vigorous enforcement against drug traffickers and structured rehabilitation and supervision to help abusers kick the drug habit.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, my colleague, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin, will now be addressing some of the other issues that Members have raised.

6.19 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Amrin.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will now address the following questions raised by Members.

The first, the mandatory minimum sentence for drug consumption; second, hair analysis; third, international cooperation in cross-border drug enforcement; and fourth, cannabis and our preventive drug education.

Drug addiction is a complex issue, as what Ms Anthea Ong has noted. It is a confluence of biological, psychological and social factors, and we adopt a multi-pronged approach to tackling drug addiction. Robust laws, a fair criminal justice system, evidence-based rehabilitation framework, community and family support, all play an important part.

Mr Pritam Singh asked about how many of the DRC inmates are first-timers. Based on the end-2017 DRC inmate population, around 55% or 750 are first-timers.

Mr Pritam Singh has also asked for family and income profile of DRC inmates. We do not have the information currently, and may I invite the Member to file a separate Parliamentary Question on this.

The key challenge is to ensure that our people do not even start on drugs and get entangled in this complex issue.

Mr Murali, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Anthea Ong has asked what the policy consideration to impose the mandatory minimum sentence for drug consumption was. The primary intent of the mandatory minimum sentence is to reflect the strong deterrent stance against drugs. This is a deliberate policy decision by the Government.

The Courts still retain discretion in the following ways: sentencing above the prescribed one-year – that is the Court can impose a sentence from one to a maximum of 10 years; and when a person is also charged with other criminal charges, the Court retains the discretion to order the drug consumption sentence to run concurrently or consecutively with that of the other charges.

The mandatory minimum sentence has to be seen against the larger context of the rehabilitative framework of drug abusers.

We have introduced various calibrated rehabilitative programmes for both youth and adult drug abusers. These programmes cater to the different circumstances and risk-levels of the individual abuser.

So, the reality today is that not all offences of consumption are treated the same. There is no rigid, immutable starting point as an offender can be directed to the newly-introduced Enhanced Direct Supervision Order or the DRC, and for youths – Youth Enhanced Supervision, Community Rehabilitation Centre (DRC), and as Minister earlier said, we are also introducing a surrender regime. So the programmes are varied and tailored to the need of the offenders.

Given the many varied and expanded options, the mandatory minimum sentence for drug consumption is important in maintaining the Government’s firm stance against drugs.

On hair analysis, Mr Christopher de Souza has asked how often how often a person needs to report for hair testing. Hair testing will complement urine testing, and generally, the abuser will need to report to CNB once every month.

Mr Irshad and Mr Faisal Manap have also provided some feedback on the supervision process. We are aware of this and are monitoring closely. We will see how we can leverage on technology, like hair analysis, which could reduce the frequency of reporting.

Mr Deputy Speaker, many drug trafficking operations are transnational, so cross-border collaboration is crucial.

Ms Joan Pereira asked about border security and how we work with other organisations to keep drugs out of Singapore, in particular, she has asked about checks at our Checkpoints. The reality is that there is a very high volume of people and goods that cross our border, and so, it is not feasible for us to check, or to subject each and every person, and each and every vehicle to extensive checks.

But that said, the CNB works closely with the ICA on joint operations and conduct intel-led checks. CNB also share information on latest regional drug trends and modus operandi of trafficking syndicates. CNB also collaborates with partners across the world including the Narcotics Crime Investigation Department of the Royal Malaysian Police and INTERPOL to investigate and dismantle cross-border drug trafficking syndicates.

Last year, CNB took part in a number of operations with foreign agencies including Operation Lionfish, an INTERPOL-coordinated operation across 93 countries, which led to a combined seizure of more than 55 tonnes of illicit drugs and the arrest of 1,300 suspects.

Members have also spoken about how the Internet facilitates cross-border drug trafficking.

We will continue to maintain the tough laws against trafficking, across all mediums whether the offence is facilitated via physical meet-ups, or the Internet.

Ms Pereira asked whether our intelligence teams are empowered to access encrypted messages. Authorities are empowered under the Criminal Procedure Code to access computers and encrypted information as part of investigations. CNB uses its forensic capabilities to extract and access encrypted information in suspects’ phones and computers.

On the issue of cannabis, when dealing with the international drug situation, enforcement is only part of the story. The battle for the hearts and minds is equally tough, and thus, we have been stepping up on our Preventive Drug Education (PDE).

As Mr Christopher de Souza and Ms Irene Quay observed, other countries have softened their approach towards cannabis. This is accompanied by misleading media messages. Our children can be misled into thinking that cannabis is harmless.

CNB works closely with the Institutes of Higher Learning to conduct regular pre-trip briefings for students who are going abroad. This is to remind them of the harms of drugs, and also that Singaporeans and Permanent Residents who consume illicit drugs overseas can be dealt with as if they consumed them in Singapore.

We make sure we provide such timely reminders. But it actually starts much earlier. In December last year, I launched a storybook with an anti-drug message for lower primary school children. The books are available at public libraries and primary schools.

CNB works closely with MOE to provide PDE throughout primary, secondary and tertiary education. As Er Dr Lee Bee Wah observed, fundamentally, our children need perceptiveness and resilience against drug misinformation.

We also know how important peer influence is, and so, CNB has set up an Anti-drug Abuse Advocacy Network comprising more than 500 youth leaders, educators, influencers and other members of the community, who use their voices to help encourage others to lead drug-free lives.

As Mr Mohamed Irshad mentioned, NS is another important touchpoint. Besides educating servicemen in both Home Team and SAF through mandatory talks, commanders are also equipped with PDE toolkits that they can use to educate servicemen on drug abuse.

We encourage good ground efforts. The National Council Against Drug Abuse has a DrugFreeSG Fund that organisations can tap on for funding support of anti-drug initiatives, including awareness campaigns and ad-hoc activities. By continuously engaging youths at various stages of their development, we want them to internalise the facts about the harms of drugs, so that they will be smart and resist bad influence and reject misinformation.

We will also continue to study others’ best practices to see what we can improve, for example, the Icelandic Model, which promotes dialogue between those in research, policy and practice.

The National Committee on Prevention, Rehabilitation and Recidivism set up in April 2018 is one such avenue to bring together policymakers, practitioners and researchers to co-create solutions to prevent offending, re-offending and enhance rehabilitation.

With the inclusion of cannabis in many non-medicinal products sold overseas like cigarettes and oils, Ms Quay also asked about how we can ensure the general public are well informed of risks when they travel overseas. CNB issues public advisories to remind the public of these risks and not to bring in cannabis products. We will continue to do so via traditional and social media platforms.

CNB also closely monitors the importation and sale of cannabis products in Singapore and will take tough actions against those who engage in these activities.

Ms Quay asked how we handle travellers who are legitimately prescribed with scheduled drugs if they intend to enter Singapore. Travellers visiting Singapore are allowed to bring in or import their prescribed medications, but depending on the specific type, an approval to import is required before the person arrives in Singapore. Detailed information and application procedures can be found on HSA’s website. Specific to travellers who request to bring in cannabinoid medications, these applications are considered on a case-by-case basis, and they must be pharmaceutical cannabinoids which are prescribed by qualified medical practitioners.

As Mr Pritam Singh has said, it is important that the general population, and even foreigners, are aware of our laws, including new ones, and we will continue to expand our outreach efforts.

On New Psychoactive Substances (NPS), this is another global challenge with the rapid emergence of NPS, and this is what Mr Christopher de Souza had spoken about. Syndicates and rogue chemists quickly churn modified products, marketing them as a safe and legal high, profiting off others’ misery. MHA has been proactive in listing NPS as controlled drugs under the MDA.

CNB is also working closely with partner agencies such as HSA to expand the range of NPS that can be tested and shorten the time taken to develop these testing capabilities. This has led to a significant increase in NPS abusers and traffickers arrested in 2018, and we are monitoring the situation very closely.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now address the other issues Members have raised. Mr Christopher de Souza and Ms Ong asked about the medical observation period of up to seven days. Such medical observation is for the purpose of determining whether a person has consumed drugs, and is meant to provide legal clarity for existing practices. This period is for doctors to observe the person, like his withdrawal symptoms; as how fast this appears is dependent on type of drug and how heavily addicted the suspected abuser is, and when he last consumed the drugs.

Ms Quay also asked if there are plans to consider dispensing separation for controlled drugs and other drugs like hypnotics and codeine-containing preparations. MOH currently manages the risk of errant prescription by practitioners through legislative controls, guidelines in supply, prescription and dispensing of drugs. This is coupled with random ad-hoc audits of the records of the dispensing of drugs in licensed healthcare institutions. We will study the suggestion.

Dr Intan asked how the SAF deals with drug abuse. MINDEF and the SAF take a zero-tolerance approach towards drug abuse, and work closely with CNB to deal with drug abuse in the SAF. In line with this zero-tolerance approach, SAF servicemen who are caught abusing drugs will be charged in the military court and receive custodial sentences, the duration of which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Dr Chia asked about appeal processes for those charged with drug offences. The processes are no different from other appeal processes and an application can be filed with the courts. Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This is an important amendment that will help to enhance our whole strategy in the fight against drugs. We are grateful for the support from Members of Parliament on our tough stance towards drugs.

I would like to highlight three things. First, a more calibrated approach towards offenders. Those who only take drugs and admit to taking drugs, can be placed under the rehabilitation regime.

They will undergo intensive rehabilitation at the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) and a longer supervision period of up to five years. This allows them to be supervised, but also gives them an opportunity to get a stable job and improve relations with their families and society.

Second, we will target acts of contamination to strongly deter behaviour that can propagate drug abuse and harm others. For example, it is an offence to teach others how to take part in drug activities like taking drugs, making drugs and distributing drugs, with the knowledge that the person intends to carry out those activities.

Third, we will double our efforts to protect our children. It will be an offence for adults who possess drugs, to either on purpose or otherwise, allow the drugs to come within reach of children. It will be an offence for adults who allow young persons (under 21 years old) to consume drugs owned by that adult. We will also require parents and guardians of youths who abuse drugs to attend counselling.

I agree with the suggestions from Dr Intan, Ms Rahayu and Mr Faisal Manap about the dangers of drugs. Drug abuse can destroy families and have a significant impact on the chiledren. Tough and appropriate action must be taken.

Together with our community partners, we will work towards freeing Singapore from the drug scourge.

Debate resumed.

6.36 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank all the Members for their support. Everyone who spoke welcomed the Bill and it was across party lines. I will just deal with a couple of points which are slightly more philosophical or, perhaps, a matter of principle.

First is Mr Pritam Singh's point going back to the speech when LT regime was introduced in 1998. I thank him for the support of the Bill. The LT regime – LT1/LT2 – was introduced at a point when the situation was quite dire. We had about, I think, between seven to eight thousand in DRC. Three quarters of them were hardcore opiate users. They repeatedly went back to heroin, morphine, opium and many were using crime to feed their habit.

I can talk about a few other factors but, essentially, we were facing a very difficult situation. And if we did not deal with it decisively, the sense was that it could have gotten much worse. In the context of the very serious concerns that the Ministry then had, the LT regime was conceptualised.

The proposals received very strong support from Members and the larger community, and also the people who worked with the addicts. They were very concerned because they could see that many of the addicts they were working with did not change their attitudes. So, decisive action had to be taken, it was taken, and what the LT regime did was to keep away from society many of the hard-core users who could have infected many others, who could have induced many others to come into the drug trade and drug abuse situation.

So, together with strong enforcement, more preventive education, improvements in rehabilitation and the LT regime, I think we dealt effectively with the situation. As I said earlier, from nearly about just under 6,000 people being arrested in 1996, we are now to just about 3,000. So, you can say roughly it has fallen by half. So, we are in a much better situation, but we are in this situation because of the actions that had been taken in the past. At least that is my conclusion.

Mr Singh is right in asking the question. Profile of the abusers over the 20 years have changed, with the profile change of the general population as a whole, though I do not have the figures right here to give. The other point is that the drugs of choice have changed as well, from the very hard-core heroin to more New Psychoactive Substances (NPS), and so on.

Today, nearly two-thirds of the new abusers are under 30 years old. Again, a different situation compared with what we had 20 years ago – many with higher educational qualifications, professionals; many of them use drugs like "Ice" and NPS.

Also, over a period of time, we have built a substantive body of evidence-based work on rehabilitation based both on international experience and local research, counselling techniques, psychological interventions, evidence-based programming and technology, and the importance of family involvement, stable employment and the crucial nature of extended post-release support.

So, today, we decided that we will make this move. As Mr Singh and other Members have said, it is not without risks. One of the risks is, of course, how people might characterise it, but people must be slow to characterise the Singapore Government as being weak or soft on drugs. Some people might take that view but I think we have to do the right thing.

The knowledge and experience built up over the last 20 years enables us to take a risk-based approach which, as far as possible, take into consideration an individual's risk and protective factors, so that the intervention is most effective and appropriate.

Fundamentally, our philosophy of a drug-free Singapore has not changed. But we will continue to take an evidence-based approach. We will see what is it that we can improve, and we will have no hesitation in refining or even changing our policies based on evidence.

If I may deal now with the points, again slightly more philosophical nature, raised by Nominated Member of Parliament Ms Ong. She suggested that it is a habit to do with brain structure and could be beyond people's control. I think it will be wrong of the Government to say we will not consider certain things or we will not accept certain things. It is not a hard line which precludes consideration of evidence. We have to, when we deal with public policy, deal with evidence and base our policies on evidence and science.

But I will caution against taking approaches which are fashionable – I am not suggesting the approaches the Member suggests are fashionable – and which have been thoroughly discredited if you have looked at the evidence from the countries which have taken that approach. I think their experience shows these approaches to be thoroughly discredited. We will be quite stupid if we blindly follow because the arguments are attractive but not backed by evidence.

So, I think there is scope for saying that we will look at research, we will look at evidence and we will manage our policies accordingly. At the same time, we also have to believe in individual responsibility until evidence shows us otherwise.

The suggestion that we have to put human beings in the centre of our policies, I do not think we can agree more. Though if I could decode what Ms Ong was saying, I think, in context, she was talking about the drug abuser and putting that human being at the centre of our policies, which is usually how debates in this field are often structured. When I say I agree completely, I would add this caveat that I will put also the victims of the drugs at the heart of our policies. And, usually, the victims far outnumber the drug — let me put it slightly differently. There are victims on both sides. The drug abusers are victims, the drug traffickers, in some way, are the people who are benefiting from it. But there are a lot of people who are innocent bystanders who suffer as a result of other people's drug habits.

Let me give an example. These people do not find mention in many of these debates which centre on drugs. A few years ago, there was a little girl – I think she must have been four or five – called Noi Noi, charming, a life full of hope and expectation. Her adult relative, a drug abuser, killed her. She is a victim of drug abuse. She does not enter the statistics in the context of debates on drug abuse.

We could well put the drug abuser who killed her in the heart of our policies, but I think we should also spare a thought for the Noi Nois of this world.

It is often pointed out by the Singapore Government, in the context of the death penalty, the 15 g of diamorphine or pure heroin that a trafficker brings in, is enough to feed around 180 drug abusers for one week. Those are all victims too. The reason why, and I have said this many times, for those of us who have children, you will let your 10-year-old child go on public transport in Singapore, but you will not let that child take public transport in many other first-world cities, is because we are safe, and we are safe because of our drug policies. Let us not forget that. Let us not be seduced by the liberal arguments. Liberalism is not an unfair word. Where it makes good science, we will take it, as you can see from major aspects of this policy. But where it makes sense, we must be ready to stand our ground.

So, we want to achieve the core goal of reducing drug abuse in Singapore. As Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Pritam Singh and other Members pointed out, there is a risk of these changes being characterised as we are going soft. We will distinguish between abusers who only consume drugs from those who also face charges for other offences and we will point out that the approach we are taking is based on evidence. It is not going hard or going soft. There is no particular merit in being hard for the sake of being hard or soft for the sake of being soft, or attaching labels like right-wing, left-wing, liberal. Actually, all of that is irrelevant. What is relevant is the evidence, how we deal with it, what is in the interest of our society. And we deal with it openly and debate it openly. We set out the facts and we try and come to an agreement. That is the preferred approach, not ideology.

Those who face additional charges for other offences will continue to be charged for their drug consumption offences as well as their other offences. For those who only consume drugs and admit to their drug abuse, rather than staying in LT, as we said, they will undergo a shorter but a more intensive rehab in a DRC which could be up to four years, and then be placed on Community-based Programmes and then a longer supervision period.

To make sure we are able to intervene as soon as possible if they do relapse, even after they are released from supervision, Director of CNB can require abusers who have completed their rehabilitation supervision or imprisonment, to still report to CNB for urine or hair tests, when required. We will do this in a measured, targeted fashion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we have introduced offences to protect children and young persons from the reckless acts of older people. We have to give the next generation the best chance of leading a drug-free life. Young people who have already on drugs, we must provide them with the support to get out of that cycle as quickly as possible. Hence, the change to mandate parents and guardians of young drug abusers to attend counselling.

So, we thank Members for the many useful suggestions, especially during last year's Parliamentary Motion on drugs and today. Together, we will continue to work towards maintaining a drug-free Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr K Shanmugam].

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