Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim.

4.27 pm

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, "That the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill be now read a Second time".

Sir, the Bill is linked to the next Bill on the Order Paper, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill. May I propose that the debates on both Bills take place together?

Mr Speaker: Please proceed.

Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, we will still have the formal Second Reading of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill, to comply with the procedural requirements.

The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill also contains two other sets of amendments not related to the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill – one set led by the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) and the other by the Ministry of Finance (MOF).

I will explain the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), MinLaw and MOF's amendments in my opening speech. I will address questions pertaining to the amendments led by MHA and MinLaw. The Second Minister for Finance, Ms Indranee Rajah, will address questions pertaining to MOF's amendments.

Sir, the global drug situation is worsening. Illicit drug supply, drug abuse and the potency of some narcotic drugs are reaching unprecedented levels.

The 2022 World Drug Report published by the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) found that young people abuse drugs more than adults. The UNODC also found that, in many countries, the levels of drug abuse among the youth have reached record levels.

The number of deaths worldwide associated with drug abuse increased by 17.5% between 2009 and 2019, reaching about half a million deaths in 2019.

Drugs cause great harm to individuals, families and the society. Many countries around the world have given up on this fight, because drug trafficking and use have become so prevalent. They cannot stem the tide. For these countries, the only practical approach is to reduce the harm.

In Singapore, our situation is different. Our tough laws have kept the drug situation here relatively under control. We must continue to keep drugs at bay, to prevent the harms from overwhelming us. To this end, we continually review and refine our laws and policies to keep pace with the evolving drug landscape and local trends.

Mr Speaker, in this Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill, we will introduce two key amendments to address emerging trends in the local drug situation. We will be introducing a legislative framework to deal with psychoactive substances. We will also be introducing a tiered punishment framework for the drug possession offence.

Over the last few years, we have seen the rise of a new threat in the drug landscape. New psychoactive substances, or NPS for short, are synthetically-produced substances which mimic the effects of traditional controlled drugs, such as cocaine, heroin and cannabis. Around the world, NPS are proliferating at an unprecedented rate, from just 166 NPS detected in 2009 to 1,150 in 2022, a sevenfold increase in slightly over a decade.

Locally, the number of NPS abusers arrested increased from an average of three abusers per year between 2014 and 2017, to an average of 235 per year from 2018 to 2022. NPS are harmful and their abuse has been linked to adverse physical and psychological reactions and also overdose deaths. These substances are no less harmful than controlled drugs and are similar in effect. NPS are often clandestinely manufactured. The UNODC has reported that NPS users are frequently hospitalised with severe intoxication.

In Singapore, there have been at least four NPS-related deaths since 2016. Because the psychoactive effect that NPS causes is similar to that of a controlled drug, its abuse will also lead to acts of crime and violence. Members will remember some recent cases within Singapore where drug abusers acted violently, such as the lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) abuser, who killed his mother and grandmother in 2019; or the methamphetamine abuser, who attacked two other diners with a knife in a restaurant in 2022 because his food was not ready. We have not seen similar incidents arising from NPS abuse yet. We should nip the NPS problem in the bud.

Currently, we manage NPS in the following way. Once we detect an NPS, we will list its molecular structure in the Fifth Schedule of Misuse of Drugs Act, or MDA. Section 58A of the MDA allows for such listing up to a year. During this one-year period, the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), can seize the substance to prevent its proliferation. CNB will use this time to conduct industry consultations to determine if the substance has any legitimate uses.

During this one year, CNB cannot take any prosecutorial action against a person trafficking in the substance. If there are no legitimate uses, its molecular structure will subsequently be listed in the First Schedule of MDA as a controlled drug. Only when it is listed in the First Schedule, can a person who is found trafficking, manufacturing, importing, exporting or possessing such NPS be prosecuted.

The limitation of the current approach is that we will always be playing catch-up with the syndicates. The ease in modifying the molecular structure of NPS to create new variants means that traffickers can easily overcome our laws by switching to new, unlisted NPS. In fact, drug suppliers are known to tailor the molecular structure of NPS, according to what is not yet controlled through legislation. We need to put in place a more proactive approach.

We studied the drug legislation in the United Kingdom and Australia and adopted parts of them, to develop our own unique framework to tackle NPS. We are proposing a new legislative framework to deal with the NPS threat, based on their capacity to produce a psychoactive effect rather than their molecular structure. This allows CNB to take enforcement action against potentially dangerous and potent NPS, and not have to wait until their molecular structure has been identified and listed in MDA.

The new framework criminalises the manufacture, import and export, traffic, possession and consumption of all psychoactive substances. The first limb of the definition of a psychoactive substance, as inserted by clause 2, is a substance or product which is capable of producing a psychoactive effect if consumed. NPS, in this Bill, will be referred to, generally, as "psychoactive substances".

"Psychoactive effect" is defined to mean the stimulation or depression, whether directly or indirectly, of the individual's central nervous system, affecting the individual's mental functioning or emotional state.

The first limb of the definition of psychoactive substance is broad and may cover substances that are already regulated under other legislation or those with legitimate uses. Therefore, we have created a new Fifth Schedule of "Excluded Substances", which will not be considered as nor regulated as psychoactive substances, as reflected under the second limb of the definition of psychoactive substance.

The new Fifth Schedule will list substances that have the capacity to have a psychoactive effect on an individual, but with legitimate uses; or those which are already regulated under other legislation, such as caffeine, alcohol, food, tobacco and any medicinal product.

I explained the method of temporary listing earlier. The existing Fifth Schedule used to temporarily list NPS will be repealed, since there is no longer a need for temporary listing. To be clear, there is no change to the existing regime for controlled drugs. All controlled drugs listed in the First Schedule will continue to be regulated in the same way as before. That is why controlled drugs are also listed as excluded substances in the new Fifth Schedule.

The punishment framework for these new offences relating to psychoactive substances will take reference from that for Class C controlled drugs, but, generally, with fines, in place of caning. The proposed definition of "psychoactive substances" covers a broad scope of substances with different levels of psychoactivity and, because they are novel, their potential harms may not be as well-documented as those of controlled drugs. This approach, therefore, balances the need for deterrence against the uncertainty over the universe of psychoactive substances, with varying levels of potential harm.

Once the molecular structure of a specific psychoactive substance is identified and industry consultation has been conducted to determine that the substance has no legitimate use, we will list the substance in the First Schedule as a controlled drug. This substance will, at that point, no longer be treated as a psychoactive substance, as defined in the MDA.

In 2019, we introduced offences to criminalise acts of contamination that contribute to the spread of drug abuse and child endangerment through exposure to drugs. Clause 7 introduces the same contamination and child endangerment offences for psychoactive substances. The punishments will be the same as the offences, where Class C controlled drugs are involved, including caning. We propose for caning to be retained for contamination offences, to better protect vulnerable members of society.

Repeat offenders with antecedents of the same nature, whether for psychoactive substances or controlled drugs, will be liable for higher punishments. For example, if an offender has an antecedent for trafficking in a controlled drug and is now convicted of trafficking in a psychoactive substance, he will be considered a repeat offender and will be subject to enhanced punishment.

I will now speak about issues relating to the element of knowledge for offences concerning psychoactive substances. The MDA currently contains statutory presumptions relating to controlled drugs which, when invoked, shift the burden of proof to the accused person to prove otherwise on a balance of probabilities, for example, that he did not have knowledge of the nature of the drug found in his possession. Clauses 10 to 14 extend these presumptions to psychoactive substances.

Clause 15 introduces a new section 22A, which provides that for the purpose of proving that the substance in question is a psychoactive substance, it is sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the substance has the capacity to have a psychoactive effect on an individual if consumed. An accused person who claims that the psychoactive substance is an excluded substance, bears the burden of proving this claim on a balance of probabilities.

For the new offences criminalising the manufacture, import and export, traffic and possession of psychoactive substances introduced in clause 7, it is a defence for the accused person to prove on a balance of probabilities that he dealt with the substance for a legitimate purpose, other than human consumption. The burden for proving this defence, likewise, falls on the accused person.

For example, if a person is arrested with a substance found to be capable of producing a psychoactive effect and claims that he intended to use the substance as a cleaning chemical, he would need to produce evidence to show that he intended to use the psychoactive substance in his possession for cleaning, and not for human consumption.

This is fair, as there is a wide range of substances that have the capacity to have a psychoactive effect on a person if consumed, with an equally wide range of uses for these substances. The person dealing in the substance would know best what the substance is and the intended use of the substance, if it truly has a legitimate purpose other than for abuse.

In addition, clause 15 inserts a new section 22B, which provides that "knowledge that a substance is a psychoactive substance" is established, for the purposes of offences concerning psychoactive substances, if the person knew the substance had the capacity to have a psychoactive effect on an individual when consumed and did not know, or have reason to believe, that the substance is an excluded substance.

For avoidance of doubt, section 22B provides that the person need not have known the exact name or molecular structure of the substance, in order for his knowledge of the psychoactive substance to be established.

Next, we are amending section 16. Scientific certificates issued under section 16 may be used as proof of the matters contained within, relating to controlled drugs, unless the contrary is proved. Clause 9 extends the effect of section 16 to apply to certificates relating to psychoactive substances. Operationally, the Home Team Science and Technology Agency (HTX), will be conducting the relevant tests on seized substances during investigations into an offence relating to psychoactive substances. As such, clause 9 also amends section 16 to allow HTX analysts to sign certificates issued under section 16.

Sir, we will also amend the MDA to extend the existing powers of law enforcement officers, in respect of controlled drugs, to apply equally to psychoactive substances. Clauses 16, 17 and 18 extend officers' powers of search, seizure and arrest to apply in relation to psychoactive substances. Clause 19 amends section 27 to allow for the forfeiture of any psychoactive substance seized under the MDA. Clauses 21, 22 and 23 amend sections 31, 31A and 31B to extend officers' powers to collect urine specimens, hair specimens and oral fluids in cases of suspected psychoactive substance abuse.

Where appropriate, abusers of psychoactive substances may be subjected to treatment and rehabilitation, similar to abusers of controlled drugs. Clause 2(b) expands the definition of "drug addict" to include a person who is addicted to a psychoactive substance. This allows the Director of CNB to subject him to supervision, or treatment and rehabilitation, which includes committal to the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC).

We will also amend Article 9(6)(b) of the Constitution. Article 9(6)(b) ensures that laws relating to the misuse of drugs, such as the MDA, that authorise the arrest and detention of any person for the purpose of treatment and rehabilitation, are valid under the Constitution. We propose to include psychoactive substances into this clause, to ensure the constitutional validity of the Director of CNB's proposed powers to commit persons who have abused psychoactive substances to detention for treatment and rehabilitation.

The Bill will make consequential and related amendments to nine other Acts. These are technical amendments needed to align these Acts with the new legislative framework for NPS, such as to update the enforcement powers in those Acts to also cover psychoactive substances.

I will now move on to explain the second key amendment in the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill. In recent years, CNB has seen the modus operandi of syndicates shift towards dealing in larger quantities of drugs per transaction. For example, in September 2022, there was a large seizure of 13 kilogrammes of drugs, which had included eight kilogrammes of cannabis, as well as a seizure of 18 kilogrammes of heroin in May 2022. These were exceptionally large seizures, amounting to millions of dollars in street value.

The current punishments for possession offences are not differentiated by the type of drugs involved and are not tiered based on the quantity of the drugs. It, therefore, does not sufficiently account for the greater harms that could be caused by a person in possession of larger quantities of drugs. Persons who are willing to risk being in possession of such large quantities of drugs contribute significantly to fuelling the local drug market and feeding local drug demand. We need a more deterrent sentencing regime.

MHA, therefore, proposes to increase punishments, which will include caning, for the possession of selected controlled drugs above certain weight thresholds. Clause 34 amends the Second Schedule to increase the penalties for the offence of the unauthorised possession of certain quantities of selected drugs. The drugs for which this amendment will apply are: cannabis, cannabis mixture, cannabis resin, cocaine, diamorphine, methamphetamine, morphine and opium. We scoped the new framework to these eight drugs, based on our assessment that they have the highest potential to cause serious harms in our local context.

Currently, the maximum punishment for possession of any controlled drug, regardless of weight, is 10 years' imprisonment or a fine of up to $20,000, or both. The Bill proposes to tier the penalties according to the quantity of the controlled drug.

In the proposed enhanced punishment framework, for the lowest tier, the punishment is a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment or a fine of up to $20,000, or both. For the middle tier, the minimum mandatory sentence will be 10 years' imprisonment and five strokes of the cane, while the maximum is set at 20 years' imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane. For the highest tier, the minimum mandatory sentence will be 20 years' imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane, while the maximum is set at 30 years' imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane.

I would like to emphasise that this new punishment framework does not affect the policy change that was announced in Parliament in 2019, when we last amended the MDA. Since 2019, we have been diverting "pure" drug abusers to DRC for treatment and rehabilitation, instead of prosecuting them. The Minister for Home Affairs had explained then that "pure" abusers referred to drug abusers who did not commit any other offences besides drug consumption, but who may face other less serious, related drug offences, such as possession of drug-taking utensils or small quantities of drugs.

However, drug abusers found with large amounts of drugs in their possession would not be considered "pure" drug abusers and would not be considered for diversion to the DRC. There is, thus, no change to the approach we take for "pure" drug abusers.

For persons in possession of large quantities of drugs, CNB will continue to conduct thorough investigations to determine if the drugs were meant for trafficking, their own consumption or otherwise. Depending on the facts of the case, CNB will make its recommendations to the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) on the appropriate charges, for example, whether for trafficking or simply possession. The amendments to the punishment framework do not affect this investigation and prosecution process and will only affect the eventual sentence faced by a person who is convicted of a possession offence.

The Bill will also make some technical amendments.

The current definition of "article liable to seizure" in section 2 includes any money, thing, controlled equipment, controlled material, or anything that contains evidence of an offence. This may not apply intuitively to things that "constitute" and do not "contain" evidence of an offence, like jewellery. Clause 2 amends the definition to include the word "constitute". This will align with the language used for a similar provision relating to seizure of evidence in the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, or CPC.

Next, section 11 of the MDA makes it an offence for an owner, tenant, occupier or person-in-charge of any place or premises, to permit that place to be used for drug consumption or trafficking. Clause 3 amends section 11 to clarify that such a person only commits an offence if the drug consumption mentioned in section 11(a) is in contravention of section 8(b) for being unauthorised, which constitutes the drug consumption offence.

Next, section 11C criminalises introducing a person whom he knows is a drug trafficker to another person. Clause 5 amends section 11C to clarify that a person, A, only commits a section 11C offence if A knows or has reason to believe that B intends to procure a controlled drug and the possession of the controlled drug by B or any person B passes it to, would not be authorised under the Act.

Likewise, person A would only be liable for the section 11C offence if he knows or has reason to believe that B intends, without any authorisation under the Act, to smoke, administer or consume the controlled drug.

To illustrate, if someone offers to introduce his friend to a person whom he knows is a drug trafficker, he will only be liable for a section 11C offence if he knows or believes that this friend intends to buy drugs from this trafficker for unauthorised consumption.

We will also make amendments to sections 24, 25 and 26 to clarify that an officer may make seizures based on reasonable suspicion. Clauses 16, 17 and 18 make these amendments respectively. The current sections 24, 25 and 26, if read literally, seem to suggest that CNB can only seize any drug, substance or article which is confirmed to be a controlled drug or substance, article liable to seizure, drug specified in the Fifth Schedule or substance containing any drug specified in that Schedule.

In practice, it is not possible for CNB to only seize such drugs, substances or articles after confirmation of their nature, since this can only be confirmed after the drug, substance or article has undergone scientific analysis, after seizure.

Likewise, section 24 suggests that officers can only seize or detain any vehicle which has been confirmed to be used in the commission of or in connection with an offence under the MDA. However, it is not always conclusive at first instance if a vehicle is linked to the offence and further investigations after seizure are often needed. So, these are operational matters, and we want to make it consistent and practical. These amendments align the position in the MDA with the powers of investigation provided for under the CPC that are conferred on CNB officers when investigating drug offences, which enables seizure based on suspicion.

Another set of amendments pertains to the provisions concerning drug abusers charged under the Singapore Armed Forces Act 1972, or the SAF Act. These amendments aim to clarify the policy intent for provisions in the MDA concerning enhanced punishments and supervision for drug abusers convicted under the SAF Act and improve consistency between both regimes.

Currently, SAF servicemen caught for drug consumption may be charged under section 26 of the SAF Act or section 34 of the SAF Act. Section 34 of the SAF Act may also be used to charge SAF servicemen for drug possession.

Clause 25 amends section 33 of the MDA to clarify that only previous convictions for drug consumption under section 34 of the SAF Act and not for drug possession, will count towards enhanced punishment for drug consumption under the MDA.

Similarly, clause 26 clarifies that only antecedents for drug consumption under section 34 of the SAF Act, will count towards long-term imprisonment under section 33A of the MDA for the repeat consumption of specified drugs.

Separately, section 58(1)(q) currently allows the Minister for Home Affairs to make regulations in respect of the supervision and aftercare of persons convicted of an offence under section 34 of the SAF Act. However, there is no similar provision for the Minister to make regulations in respect of persons convicted of an offence under section 26 of the SAF Act. Clause 30 amends section 58(1)(q) to include those convicted under section 26 of the SAF Act for drug consumption.

Since there is a separate rehabilitation regime implemented by the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) for drug abusers convicted under section 26 of the SAF Act, such offenders would generally not be placed under CNB's supervision. Nonetheless, this amendment will enable the making of regulations to provide CNB with the discretion to do so on a case-by-case basis, if both CNB and MINDEF assess that the individual would benefit from undergoing CNB's supervision regime in addition to MINDEF's.

Section 58(1)(q) is further amended to make clear that the Minister's powers to make regulations providing for the supervision and aftercare of persons convicted under section 34 of the SAF Act, relate only to those convicted under the section for drug consumption and not for drug possession.

We will also make amendments to broaden the scope of the recall provision under section 31(1A) of the MDA. Currently, section 31(1A) allows the Director of CNB to recall any former drug abuser to report for a urine test, throughout the person’s life, to ensure that the person is no longer a drug addict. Clause 21 amends the definition of "relevant person" and "relevant time" in section 31, to include persons convicted under section 26 of the SAF Act for the consumption of a controlled drug or psychoactive substance.

We will also amend section 31 so that a person who has been convicted under section 34 of the SAF Act for an offence involving consumption of a controlled drug or psychoactive substance can be subjected to the recall provision, even if he had not previously undergone CNB's supervision. In short, with these amendments, the Director of CNB will be able to recall and subject any person who has been convicted for drug consumption under the SAF Act to a urine test. Mr Speaker, please allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments to the MDA will help us to stay ahead of the changing drug landscape.

There are two key amendments.

First, we will be changing the approach toward controlling psychoactive substances, so that we can act quicker against them. Second, we will increase the punishment for the possession of large quantities of selected controlled drugs.

Let me first speak on NPS. NPS are a challenge to law enforcement agencies around the world, as drug syndicates are able to quickly alter the molecular structure of NPS to create new variants and, hence, evade the law.

Currently, we manage NPS in the following ways.

Once we detect an NPS, we will list its molecular structure in the Fifth Schedule of the MDA. The MDA allows for such listing up to a year. During this one-year period, CNB can seize the substance to prevent its proliferation. CNB will use this time to conduct industry consultations to determine if the substance has any legitimate uses. During this one-year period, CNB cannot take any prosecutorial action against a person trafficking in the substance.

If there are no legitimate uses, the molecular structure of this substance will subsequently be listed in the First Schedule to the MDA as a controlled drug. Only when it is listed in the First Schedule, can a person who is found trafficking, manufacturing, importing, exporting or possessing such NPS, be prosecuted.

The failing of the current approach is that we will always be playing catch-up with the syndicates. The ease in modifying the molecular structure of NPS to create new variants means that traffickers can easily overcome our laws by switching to new, unlisted NPS. Indeed, drug suppliers are known to tailor the molecular structure of NPS according to what is not yet controlled through legislation.

Hence, we are proposing a new legislative framework to deal with the NPS threat based on their capacity to produce a psychoactive effect, rather than their molecular structure. This allows CNB to take enforcement action against potentially dangerous and potent NPS, and not have to wait until their molecular structure has been identified and listed in the MDA.

The second key amendment is to increase and tier punishments for possessing large quantities of selected controlled drugs. The new punishment framework will apply to: morphine, diamorphine, opium, cocaine, cannabis, cannabis resin, cannabis mixture and methamphetamine. These are drugs which we assess to be the most dangerous and harmful in Singapore's context.

With these changes to our laws, we can be more effective in our fight against drugs and in keeping our society free from drugs.

(In English): In addition to the amendment related to treatment and rehabilitation for abusers of psychoactive substances, there are two other amendments to the Constitution made through the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill.

Technical amendments are made to clauses (4) and (6)(b) of Article 46, replacing the word "leave" with "permission". This is consistent with the same amendment made in other Acts by the Courts (Civil and Criminal Justice) Reform Act 2021. There is no change to the meaning of the provisions.

Secondly, an amendment is proposed to introduce a legal mechanism to reduce the balance of the Contingencies Fund. Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong had, during the Budget Statement in February, said that the Government will introduce a mechanism to reduce the balance of the Contingencies Funds. The objective is to maintain discipline in how the Government manages its finances.

Currently, there is a combined balance of $16 billion in the Contingencies Funds. In May 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, MOF raised the Contingencies Funds balance from $3 billion to $16 billion to enable the Government to meet urgent and unforeseen spending needs arising from the fast-evolving pandemic. This was done by appropriating monies from the Consolidated Fund through the Second Supplementary Supply (FY2020) Bill.

However, there is no legal mechanism today to effect a reduction of the balances to ensure fiscal discipline as we return to normalcy.

Clause 4 of the Bill amends Article 148C to permit the Finance Minister to reduce the balance of a Contingencies Fund, if he is satisfied, after proper inquiry, that the sum to be withdrawn from the Fund is in excess of what is likely necessary to meet an urgent and unforeseen need for expenditure.

The Minister is also required to present to Parliament a report of every reduction as soon as practicable after it is made. This will keep Members informed of the balance of the Contingencies Funds.

The transfer of sums from a Contingencies Fund to the Consolidated or Development Fund does not provide the Government with additional budget for spending. The Government will need to run a balanced Budget over its term. Any expenditure from the Consolidated Fund or Development Fund must be met by revenues raised and included in a Supply Bill that is presented to Parliament for approval. Such spending remains subject to the Reserves Protection Framework.

As we return to normalcy following the COVID-19 pandemic, it is timely and prudent to reduce the Contingencies Funds balance. The amendments proposed in this Bill will provide the mechanism for us to do so and ensure greater fiscal discipline while preserving the nimbleness to deal with urgent and unforeseen needs. After the Bill is passed, MOF intends to reduce the Contingencies Funds balance from $16 billion to $6 billion and will submit a report to Parliament when that transfer has been made. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

5.09 pm

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of these amendment Bills.

Sir, I will be focusing my speech on two areas, maintaining vigilance by keeping up to date with NPS, taking a tougher stance for large amounts of drugs in possession and to protect vulnerable groups.

NPS have become a global phenomenon with 139 countries affected, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). As at December 2022, more than 1,182 substances have been reported. NPS are just as addictive and mimic the effects of controlled substances, such as cannabis, cocaine and heroin.

NPS is proliferating at an unprecedented rate and poses a challenge for law enforcement worldwide. According to the UNODC Commission on Narcotic Drugs, "[T]he largest number of [NPS] are spread across three regions: Asia, Europe and North America."

In Singapore, there has been an increase in the number of NPS abusers arrested, from an average of three per year in the 2014 to 2017 period to 235 per year in the 2018 to 2022 period. NPS are one of the three most abused types of drugs since 2018; and NPS overtook cannabis in 2019 as the second-most commonly abused type of drugs among new abusers.

Listing NPS as controlled drugs is a challenge in all jurisdictions because we need to keep up with the fast pace of development of NPS. In order for the substances to be listed in the First Schedule of the MDA, the relevant scientific analysis on the chemical structure and necessary industry consultations have to be done to determine whether or not there is a legitimate use for such substances and if there is no such legitimate use, the NPS will be listed. This means that during the interim period when the NPS is unlisted, enforcement and prosecutorial actions cannot be taken against those who deal in those substances.

Moreover, the lag time allows NPS manufacturers time to develop alternative substances or deliberately alter the chemical structures to circumvent our drug control legislation. We, thus, need our legislation to be flexible enough to adapt to NPS in a timely manner. Hence, I welcome the proposed framework which will regulate such substances based on their capacity to produce a psychoactive effect rather than its chemical structure.

I do have two clarifications: one, on the defence for legitimate use; second, the other on the presumptions of possession and knowledge of NPS.

The Bill provides a defence if the psychoactive substance is intended to be used for a legitimate purpose other than for human consumption. Under the new sections 11F to 11P, the person must have the intention or reasons to believe such a legitimate purpose, in various scenarios, including where an accused believed that the other party had intended to manufacture the psychoactive substance for a legitimate purpose.

May I ask, what are the current or future plans of the Ministry and CNB working in concert with other agencies, to regulate the use or manufacture of psychoactive substances for research, teaching or other legitimate use, with reference to accepted standards and expectations? For instance, a person who breaches such regulations or falls short of certain standards should not be allowed to avail himself of this defence of legitimate purpose.

Next, on presumptions. A person who has control or custody of anything containing psychoactive substances or keys to a place where such psychoactive substances are found under the new section 18A, will be presumed to have had those psychoactive substances in his or her possession.

This then triggers separate presumptions of knowledge in the new section 18A(2), read with the new section 22B, namely two separate presumptions: firstly, that person is presumed to have known that the substance has the capacity to have a psychoactive effect on an individual if consumed; and secondly, the person is presumed as not believing nor having any reason to believe that the psychoactive substance is an excluded substance. These are two separate presumptions of knowledge based on an initial presumption of possession.

Hence, may I ask what are the safeguards in place to protect innocent landlords or organisations running shelters from being prosecuted under these presumptions of these sections? What due diligence is one expected to do and conduct in such circumstances? Sir, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] NPS have become widespread all over the world and they mimic the effects of drugs, such as marijuana, opium and heroin. NPS poses new challenges for us. Due to its variable chemical structure, detecting NPS becomes increasingly difficult.

In Singapore, the number of NPS drug users has increased. This legislative framework updates the list of NPS and how new NPS can be detected in the future.

Apart from NPS, drugs, such as marijuana and methamphetamine, are dangerous and threaten the peace and security of our society. Fifteen grammes of diamorphine alone, is enough to satisfy the addiction of 180 people for a week. Imagine how many families and children will be affected by one case alone. We must always be vigilant and determined in eradicating drugs in our society.

(In English): Sir, I welcome this Bill's proposed increased punishments, including caning, for the possession of selected controlled drugs above certain weight thresholds. This toughens our stance against drug abuse and makes clear the already tough sentencing guidelines laid down by our courts since the case of Lai Teck Guan by Chief Justice Menon.

The sentencing must be commensurate to the harm that large quantities of drugs pose. Some may argue that weight of a drug alone is not an accurate factor to determine the level of harm posed, and one should refer to the potency of addiction instead. However, until and unless there is a reliable technology to determine such potency accurately and independently, weight remains a useful barometer.

This tough stance against drugs is needed to protect the vulnerable groups in our society. Recently, last month, it was reported that CNB arrested a 32-year-old woman for drug offences. She was with her two-month-old infant. In June last year, a nine-month-old baby was found with his drug abuser mother in dire living conditions. CNB officers provided childcare necessities and milk powder for the baby. These are sad and tragic cases and I am glad that Singapore adopts a strong stance to protect our vulnerable groups and, hopefully, prevent such cases in future.

The new section 11N sends such a signal. It makes it an offence for exposing a child to any psychoactive substance or paraphernalia. I agree with this.

Sir, another major concern is the softening attitudes among the young towards drugs – in particular, cannabis – including the prevalence of drug abuse depiction in popular culture. According to CNB, 26% of all drug abusers arrested were below 30 years old. Out of all the new abusers arrested, half of them were aged below 30. The number of youth abusers below 20 years old caught abusing cannabis, has also increased threefold since 2021.

This Bill makes it a specific offence for anyone causing or procuring a young person to commit any offence relating to psychoactive substances, under the new section 11Q. This is the correct move to make.

In addition, we need to be wary of the prevalence of the vaping culture trend worldwide. While nicotine is commonly consumed through vaping, these cigarettes can also be used as a way to deliver other controlled drugs, such as methamphetamine and heroin.

In fact, vaping has become a common way of inhaling cannabis. In Canada, 29% of cannabis-using individuals aged 15 years and older, indicated that vaping is their preferred method for cannabis use. There is a strong link and risk between vaping use and drug abuse.

Although it is already illegal here, we need to step up on enforcement and education on the harms of vaping. Vaping instruments also come in various shapes and forms. Some are even small and discrete, making it difficult to detect. Hence, can the Minister of State please share the strategy and actions that MHA will be taking in concert with the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) or other agencies against vaping?

Sir, in closing, I would like to share a story about a young professional I knew who, unfortunately, fell into drugs after a bout of personal difficulties and mental health issues. He was introduced to drugs by people who knew of his precarious emotional state and took advantage of him to lure him into addiction. Once hooked, he had to pay through his nose, sometimes four or five times higher than the drug's street value, in order to avoid being detected or recognised. He has since served his time and rehabilitated himself. He now volunteers in the Anti-Drug Abuse Advocacy A3 Network with the National Council Against Drug Abuse (NCADA) and CNB. As a young and successful professional, he may not fit the mould of a stereotypical drug abuser.

His story shows that our fight against drug abuse must be made on behalf of every segment of our society – our youths, our children, our workers – and we face battlefronts everywhere – our schools, our workplaces, our homes.

Drug traffickers drive addiction to feed their greed for profits, at the expense of families and communities. They will continue to introduce new drugs and new ways to circumvent our laws and influence our people, but just as they are relentless in their ways, we must, similarly, be tireless in our vigilance to protect the minds and safety of our people, steward the future and potential of our youths. In this fight against drugs, we cannot let them win. Sir, I support the Bills.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

5.22 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I will first speak on the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill before moving on to the Constitution.

Sir, the MDA Bill has two purposes – first, to regulate psychoactive substances, and second, to increase the punishments for possession of larger quantities of certain controlled drugs. I shall touch on both these areas.

First, on NPS. Sir, the Workers' Party is aware of the increasing threat posed by NPS. There has been rapid development of new synthetic substances with narcotic or psychotropic effects. These effects are reportedly similar to those of drugs, such as cocaine and cannabis. Most of these substances also carry a risk of addiction.

As these new substances may fall outside the ambit of existing drug laws, those taking them are able to get "legal highs", which accounts for their demand. There is a vast array of new substances, with some more harmful than others. To assist governments to decide which substances to regulate, UNODC has been sharing toxicology information with laboratories and governments, highlighting the substances deemed more harmful to the individual and social health.

Sir, we have had decades of experience with the abuse of controlled drugs. We have seen families whose lives have been upended by drug addiction, with cross-generational effects, such as absent parents and young children growing up in institutional care. We owe it to Singaporeans to minimise such scenarios.

In view of the evidence of the harms caused by NPS, the Workers' Party supports the rationale for regulating NPS in Singapore. This includes providing a regime for the supervision, treatment and rehabilitation of NPS abusers, without charging them in court.

That said, I would like to seek two clarifications on the new framework to regulate NPS.

First, a question on NPS coverage. Out of the thousands of psychoactive substances, how will the Ministry decide which ones to regulate? Besides the UNODC advice, are there other forms of reference? Do we have our own scientific analyses?

My second query, relates to the listing of NPS as controlled drugs. NPS are currently listed in the First Schedule to the Act. The Minister of State earlier stated the Ministry's concern that, due to the rapid emergence of new substances, there will be a time lag of about one year before these substances are listed as prohibited. During this interim, law enforcement and prosecution agencies are currently powerless to act. Hence, the Ministry is introducing this Bill to enable agencies to act on a more general definition of what counts as a psychoactive substance.

Can the Ministry confirm that it is the intention to list every NPS of interest in the First Schedule to the MDA? Put another way, how will we handle cases where someone is investigated for an NPS offence, based on the general broad definition, but the substance concerned is eventually found after industry consultation to have a legitimate use?

It is good for the Minister of State to explain this, because, I think, earlier in his Second Reading speech, he mentioned that if such a legitimate use were to be determined, then such a substance would not be listed in the Schedule to the Act. So, some clarity on this would be quite necessary.

Next, I move to the second thrust of the Bill, to increase the punishments for unauthorised possession of larger quantities of certain controlled drugs. There are eight drugs in question: cannabis, cannabis mixture, cannabis resin, cocaine, diamorphine, methamphetamine, morphine and opium.

As to why this change is being tabled, the Ministry has stated that CNB have observed that abusers were purchasing larger quantities of drugs, which would have "significantly contributed to the local drug demand situation".

These amendments deal with drug possession. The changes will separate the punishments into three tiers, depending on the weight of the drugs. For the lowest tier of weight, no change to the punishment is being made. For the middle and upper tiers, the punishments are being enhanced.

In trying to make sense of this, I studied the changes relating to the possession of diamorphine, or heroin. I note that, under the existing law, there is a presumption that a person is a drug trafficker once he is in possession of more than two grammes of diamorphine. In this Bill, the lowest tier of punishment for diamorphine cuts off at a maximum of 10 grammes – much higher than two grammes. No change in punishment for this tier is being proposed. As for middle tier, the cut-off weight is set at between 10 to 15 grammes, while the upper tier is set at more than 15 grammes. It is worth noting that, under the current law, trafficking in more than 15 grammes attracts the death penalty. For these two higher tiers, the punishments for possession are being increased.

It is important for the Ministry to justify these increases and elaborate on the local drug demand situation. Further, would it be correct to infer that these changes are actually targeted at cases where the suspects are charged with trafficking, but the trafficking charges somewhat fail in court?

Sir, before I end on the MDA Bill, I would like to make a general observation. Our strict anti-drug policies have broad-based support among Singaporeans, especially those who have lived through the earlier years when heroin and opium destroyed many families. However, there appears to be a desire in some segments of the population for a more nuanced approach, especially towards younger people who are influenced by peers to try drugs. It is not an approach I would advocate, but it will be important to engage with such sentiments. I believe the Member Mr Zhulkarnain made a similar point earlier.

I now move to the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. There are two substantive amendments. Clause 2 concerns the amendments to the MDA, while clause 4 seeks to plug what the Finance Ministry sees as a gap in the law.

As regards clause 2, as mentioned earlier, the Workers' Party supports the rationale for tackling NPS. The MDA Bill envisaged a supervision, treatment and rehabilitation regime that may involve the detention of individuals without a court conviction.

Sir, we are always wary of any laws that enable arrest and detention without a court process. Nevertheless, in this specific circumstance, we are able to support the amendment to Article 9 to give effect to the treatment regime for NPS misuse.

I now move on to clause 4 of the Bill. This is an amendment to Article 148C, concerning the powers of the Finance Minister to make transfers between the Consolidated Fund and its Contingencies Fund, and between the Development Fund and its Contingencies Fund.

During the Budget debate this year, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong reminded the House that in May 2020, the Government had raised the Contingencies Funds balance from $3 billion to $16 billion, in anticipation of needing unforeseen and urgent cashflow due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He noted that, with the return to normalcy, he wished to reduce the balance of the Contingencies Funds from $16 billion to $6 billion. He assessed that this would ensure adequate resources for exigencies, while retaining discipline in how our finances were managed. He then highlighted that this Constitutional amendment was needed, as there was currently no mechanism for a reduction of the balances of the Contingencies Funds.

There are two new sub-articles being introduced to Article 148(c).

The proposed sub-Article 5 will enable the Minister for Finance to make transfers out of the Contingencies Funds, back to the Consolidated Fund and Development Fund respectively. This will be allowed if the Minister, after proper inquiry, is satisfied that the sum to be transferred back is an excess of what is likely necessary to meet an urgent and unforeseen need from that Contingencies Fund.

As to how Parliament will be involved in this process, the proposed sub-Article 6 will require the Minister to present a report of every transfer as soon as practicable after the transfer is made.

Logically, there is no reason for us to object to a transfer back of the sums to the Consolidated Fund and Development Fund, if these are assessed to be no longer needed for contingencies. Nevertheless, it is useful for the Minister to clarify the role of Parliament in this process.

In the May 2020 debate on the Fortitude Budget, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat had explained the role of Parliament when it came to drawing on the balance in the Contingencies Funds. He highlighted that any amount advanced by the Minister for Finance to meet urgent expenditure would thereafter be included in a Supplementary Supply Bill or Final Supply Bill, which would be presented to and voted on by Parliament as soon as practicable.

This is an important process as Parliament is briefed on the items being spent on and will vote on whether to pass the Bills or not.

In today's Constitution (Amendment) Bill, we are dealing with a situation where excess monies parked in the Contingencies Funds are being returned to their parent funds. As the reductions in the balances will also require a reporting to Parliament, will the Minister explain what form this reporting will take, such as what information will be provided and how Members can participate in this process?

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

5.31 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): This Bill will introduce a framework to control NPS. Manufacturers of NPS circumvent the existing legal framework by altering the chemical structure of the substances. This results in new substances that have the same effect as illicit drugs, but are now not regulated under Misuse of Drugs laws.

This Bill will allow us to regulate NPS in a nimble way by controlling substances based on their ability to produce psychoactive effects rather than on their chemical structures.

I have three sets of clarifications.

My first point is on excluded substances. To prove that a substance is a psychoactive substance under the new section 22A, the prosecution only has to prove that a product has the capacity to produce a psychoactive effect. The burden is, then, on the individual to prove that the psychoactive substance is an excluded substance on a balance of probabilities. Excluded substances include alcohol, food, health products and herbal medicines.

Can the Minister of State clarify, what exactly it is that the individual is required to prove? Is the individual required to prove that the substance is factually an excluded substance, or is it sufficient for the individual to prove that they had reason to believe that the substance is an excluded substance?

My second point is on the new provisions of "stacked" presumptions. "Stacked" presumptions occur where proof of a single element triggers multiple presumptions. One example of this is section 18A. If an individual has the keys to a place where a psychoactive substance is found, the individual is presumed to have possession of the psychoactive substance. If the individual is presumed to have possession, the individual is also presumed to have known that the psychoactive substance has the capacity to produce a psychoactive effect. The individual is also presumed to not believe that the psychoactive substance is an excluded substance.

Furthermore, the presumptions are not rebutted by proof that the accused never had physical possession of the psychoactive substance. Such stacked presumptions are not new under the MDA. However, they are still concerning because they challenge the traditional position that the prosecution must prove every element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Stacked presumptions may be even more concerning when applied to NPS, which covers non-exhaustive categories of substances. Can the Minister of State clarify, what would be required to rebut stacked presumptions?

My third and final point, is on the enforcement of our drug laws through drug raids. I am glad that we have strong drug laws and that these laws are enforced robustly. However, innocent children may be implicated when their parents are caught up in drug raids. These drug raids can be traumatising for the children.

Will the Ministry work with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and the relevant social service agencies, before and after a drug raid, to ensure that the children in these situations are cared for appropriately? The next generation should not be punished or traumatised because of the wrongs of the previous generation.

Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.

5.35 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill seeking to amend the MDA.

Despite the challenges with taking such a strong stance on drugs, I have always held to my strong conviction that this is the best way to protect Singapore and protect families.

I have spoken before, of our continuing need to review our MDA to tackle new and emerging threats, particularly NPS because of how fast such substances evolve and arrive on our shores. So, I am greatly heartened to see the Ministry grabbing the bull by its horns and pre-emptively creating this new regime and statutory framework to regulate psychoactive substances.

The threat that NPS pose cannot be underestimated – and I speak not just about the situation in Singapore, but globally, because drugs are a transnational issue that we must collectively combat. The number of NPS internationally far exceeds the number of controlled psychoactive substances by almost three times. That is because a simple modification to the chemical structure can result in a new variant.

In the 2022 report by UNODC, it was recorded that there were 1,150 identified NPS across 134 countries, with 50 new ones being recorded since the year before. The report detailed the global increase in countries reporting seizures of synthetic NPS, indicating a far greater geographical spread of trafficking. In 2009 to 2010, only 30 countries were reporting seizures of synthetic NPS. By 2019 to 2020, that number had increased to 57 countries – a jump from 18% of countries reporting, to 41% of countries reporting.

Not only do NPS evolve rapidly, Asia accounts for a large percentage of the NPS being trafficked. In particular, the largest quantities of synthetic NPS seized is ketamine, with a lot of the seizures happening in East and Southeast Asia, in countries like Malaysia, Thailand and China.

While the market for ketamine for non-medical use seems to have decreased in China, there has been a trend of expansion of the ketamine market since 2015 in the rest of Southeast Asia. Plant-based NPS, like kratom and khat, have also been proliferating with more countries reporting seizure. The largest seizures for kratom, has been in Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar.

These are but some of the most seized NPS, but there are many more also used and likely on the rise. Indonesia has seen a sharp increase in seizures of domestically manufactured synthetic cannabinoids and what is known as "gorilla tobacco". The global and regional situation is reflected in Singapore, where NPS are the third most commonly abused drug and there is a sharp increase in seizures of synthetic cannabinoids over the last five years.

This prevalence is highly concerning, especially so, because the global trend is that NPS use is about 2.2% higher among school populations than the general population. In addition, NPS cause just as much harm as other drugs, with physical and psychological reactions, such as paranoia, seizures, hallucinations and even death.

Mr Speaker, I, therefore, strongly support the new regime that has been proposed to tackle NPS. It continues the Ministry of Home Affairs' and CNB's long-standing efforts to combat the rise of NPS. In 2010, we first listed three NPS under MDA. In 2013, we introduced a more generic listing approach, given the chemical similarity between different NPS. Finally, in 2021, we had listed another 13 NPS and a further 13 more in 2022 as controlled drugs, in addition to the 12 generic groups.

So, we have continued to look at our statutory provisions and considered how we may best strengthen them to protect against any tolerance of NPS. The amendment Bill, then, is a welcome addition and I applaud MHA and CNB for their work.

With Part 2 specifically listing out offences relating to NPS, we are able to target the trafficking, manufacturing and importing of NPS. Importantly, this includes offences of exposing a child to NPS or permitting a young person to consume NPS.

I also support the change in the Fifth Schedule. By listing what substances are excluded from the definition of an NPS, it creates a much broader ambit since now any substance not listed within the Fifth Schedule can be captured. This squarely deals with the proliferation of NPS variants such that MDA need not be constantly updated, which would be too lengthy a process and ill-equipped to handle the fast-paced nature of the NPS market.

In relation to that, clause 32 of the amendment Bill seeking to enhance the Minister's ability to amend the Schedule under section 59, will reflect this pre-emptive regime we are putting in place to tackle NPS.

Mr Speaker, even as we debate this amendment to strengthen our laws against NPS, I strongly believe our other pillar of rehabilitation in our policy against drugs is equally important. We must recognise that NPS is a growing market and today's amendment Bill reflects that. But we should also place keen emphasis on rehabilitation so that we build a stronger social compact of individuals who have no desire for any sort of substance.

Earlier, I mentioned the trend of NPS being particularly attractive to the younger generation. I think we have to carefully monitor that, because one in four drug abusers locally is under 30 years of age and that includes more than 50% of new abusers. Therefore, the role of rehabilitation in integrating those who have fallen afoul of our drug laws back into society, by giving them second chances, is crucial. This is done through programmes for the public or education institutions to interact with former offenders and increasing their employability.

At the end of the day, a former drug abuser has to not only leave a physical prison but break out of a social prison in order to reintegrate. Lowering these invisible bars of prejudice and suspicion and providing them opportunities to be mentored will allow young drug abusers to transform and overcome their rough start.

Mr Speaker, this amendment Bill equips our legislation well with the necessary toughness yet flexibility to deal with NPS. It provides for future flexibility to continue to evolve quickly to changes in the illicit NPS market. For all these reasons, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

5.45 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, with the trend of more new types of drugs produced, trafficked and sold in increasing quantities, it is important that we increase the penalties for drug offenders to act as an effective deterrent.

However, such deterrence alone is not sufficient, as we can still see these activities going on with impudence despite the harsh penalties. We will also need to consider how we can successfully flush out such syndicates operating in the region and their distribution channels into Singapore.

This is not easy as many of the syndicates are based overseas, and their masterminds are also not within our jurisdiction. I hope that we can have even closer cooperation with our bilateral counterparts, such as the various platforms within ASEAN that deal specifically with this issue, including the Meetings of the ASEAN Senior Officials on Drug Matters (ASOD).

The UN had repeatedly appealed to governments, especially those in Asia, to consider the problem of the abuse of and trafficking in amphetamine-type stimulants in their entirety, including their prevalence and the reasons why more youths in the region are turning to the abuse of methamphetamine. This problem is a regional issue and every country has a part to play in slowing down this drug epidemic. Are there regional information sharing partnerships that can be enhanced? Can Singapore play a role in committing some resources to such efforts?

There are also shifting attitudes among governments in the region towards drugs, including some showing more tolerance or even acceptance of recreational uses for selected types of drugs, like cannabis. This will invariably undermine existing efforts as the attitudes of youths in the region towards drugs will also shift.

With the advent of NPS, we are not simply saddled with a drug issue, but it also translates into community mental health issues. Studies have also shown that substance abuse and mental health issues are often co-occurring disorders and abusers require longer-term support, treatment and guidance in order to have a better chance at rehabilitation. Therefore, can I request for more comprehensive and longer-term mental health resources and support for drug abusers who have gone through rehabilitation? Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] With the advent of NPS, we are not simply saddled with a drug issue, but it also translates into community mental health issues. Studies have shown that substance abuse and mental health issues are often co-occurring disorders, and abusers require long-term support, treatment and guidance in order to have a better chance at rehabilitation. Therefore, can I request for more comprehensive and longer-term mental health resources and support for drug abusers who have gone through rehabilitation?

(In English): I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Derrick Goh.

5.49 pm

Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Sir, Singapore has been steadfast in its zero-tolerance approach towards drugs. This contrasts with the increasingly softer approach taken by more and more countries globally and in the region, including our neighbours in ASEAN, where Thailand has decriminalised and legalised cannabis. Media reports have highlighted that Malaysia is also aiming to learn from Thailand's cannabis policy.

I read the UNODC report in June 2022. What drew my attention was that the legalisation of cannabis in North America had led to increased tax revenues and fewer arrests. What was even alarming for me was that cannabis use, particularly by the young, increased and co-related with psychiatric disorders, suicides and hospitalisation. It appears that they have traded short-term gains for negative longer-term impact on their society.

This is a path we cannot afford to take. So, I am heartened by MHA's commitment to ensure our drug policies are robust and relevant to deal with evolving trends, such as the advent of NPS, especially given the reopening of borders and the rebound of overseas travel.

That said, I seek several clarifications.

Firstly, the Bill seeks to criminalise dealing and consumption of NPS, unless they are listed in the re-enacted Fifth Schedule as having legitimate uses or controlled under other regulatory frameworks. Given that NPSs are inherently new, can the Minister share what safeguards are in place to ensure that any newly discovered NPS is thoroughly examined before its inclusion or exclusion in the Fifth Schedule?

I raised this as Singapore adopts an evidence-based approach and has allowed the use of cannabis-derived medication in exceptional cases of drug-resistant epilepsy. There have also been efforts to develop synthetic cannabinoids for medical use. Therefore, I seek the Minister's explanation on the robustness and frequency of reviews of the First and Fifth Schedules, to ensure both remain updated for our drug control approach that impedes our scientific and medical research initiatives, yet did not play catch-up with the ever-evolving drug variants.

Next, the Bill provides for an accused to be able to invoke a defence by proving that he/she intended or believed that the psychoactive substance would be used for a legitimate purpose, other than for human consumption. Notwithstanding that the burden of proof is on the defendant, can the Minister clarify if and/or how agencies' resources will be expended in the validation of such claims by accused persons in such a defence, as well as the safeguards against attempts to frustrate justice?

As with all policies, it is imperative for legislation to be coupled with effective implementation to achieve intended outcomes. So, beyond the Bill, what is equally important is to continue strengthening our agencies' detective and intervention capabilities against substance abuse.

On this note, I was glad to hear about the new saliva test kit for drugs, as shared by Minister of State Faishal at MHA's Committee of Supply (COS) debate and its deployment at checkpoints and roadblocks. Can the Minister clarify if the new saliva test kit can detect NPS consumption? If not, are there plans to explore having similar efficient testing methods for NPS, to enhance on-ground detection as well as deterrence?

In addition, a public that is aware of the harms of drugs and NPS remains our first line of defence. As such, I seek the Minister's clarification on the plan to better equip and educate the public on NPS, like how to spot them, so that they too can notify enforcement agencies and amplify efforts to combat the scourge of new forms of drugs.

Lastly, the Minister, earlier, shared statistics on the increased use of NPS. As a matter of record, can he also provide the equivalent number used by our youths, in relation to NPS? These statistics and trends, I believe, may also assist the public engagement effort by driving home the message that NPS are posing a real and credible threat within our society.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill and its tabled amendments. They are necessary to keep Singapore crime rates low and help minimise the impact to the lives of Singaporeans that have been marred by drug abuse.

Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.

5.54 pm

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Liberal and conservative views towards drugs describe little about the underlying human condition that fuels the necessity of today's debate here in this Chamber, namely, addiction.

Regardless of society's personal attitudes and perspectives on drugs, addiction is a problem that needs societal attention going beyond punitive measures. While we seek to tackle the supply-side issues through this Bill, my suggestions are rooted in supplementing the punitive measures with programmes and rehabilitation that tackle the issue of demand fueled by addiction.

Clause 2(b) amends the definition of "drug addict" in section 2 to include a person who, through the use of any psychoactive substance, has developed a desire or need to continue to take that psychoactive substance or a psychological or physical dependence upon the effect of that psychoactive substance. The effect of this amendment is that a person who is addicted to a psychoactive substance may be committed to supervision, treatment or rehabilitation under section 34. This is aligned with existing powers with respect to controlled drugs.

I remember a photograph and some headlines in June 2022, which said that a baby was found in a squalid flat close to his mother during a recent drug bust. It was reported that his mother was a user. I saw some of the online comments. While majority agreed that drugs are harmful and supported a drug-free Singapore, some went further to call the mother heartless, useless and condemned her, among other terms that I cannot reproduce here.

Most people saw, first, a mother who was irresponsible, as she was a user. A few looked at the photograph with a slightly different lens and saw a user who was struggling with her addiction, yet doing the best that she could to still be a mother. I do not know either mother or child. But hope that both are getting the support and care that they need.

If you cannot bond with society healthily because you are traumatised or beaten down by life, you may be born with something else that gives you a sense of relief. People who develop addictions are often looked at society, as being a person that has developed a fatal character flaw. However, research has shown that addiction is a medical condition that is often linked to undesirable conditions that create the disposition in the very first place and has the propensity to develop in the absence of a healthy environment.

A classic study conducted on soldiers integrating back into society post-war in Vietnam by Lee and Robins, followed soldiers who used heroin heavily during the war after they returned home. In order to track if that translated into lifelong addictions, the data in the study found that environmental and social factors had a core relative effect on the soldier's decision to continue to abuse drugs after coming back from the war. Soldiers who came back to families and support structures were less likely to abuse drugs.

In Singapore, drug addiction remains a complex issue, having an adverse impact on individuals, families and society. Over the years, the Government has implemented a range of rehabilitation programmes. For example, in 2014, the enhanced drug rehabilitation regime (EDRR) was introduced for first- and second-time drug abusers. In 2019, the drug rehabilitation regime was further enhanced to commit third-time and subsequent drug abusers who are not charged with any other criminal offences to DRC.

I hope we can continue to enhance our rehabilitative approaches, in particular, programmes need to take into account evolving research and the complex and evolving environmental circumstances of drug addicts in order to provide personalised support.

In our current rehabilitation programmes, such as programmes by the DRC, Community Rehabilitation Centre and the National Addictions Management Service, there is already significant detachment from a one-size-fit-all approach. I welcome this, taking into account the fact that each individual's experience with drugs and addiction is unique and as such, treatment should be tailored to their specific needs. For example, some may require more intensive counselling, some may benefit more from group therapy or medical interventions. This is salient, as research has shown that the lack of personalised support results in a lower success rate for rehabilitation programmes.

I would like to ask if the Government is looking to support and scale initiatives that have proven their ability to offer more personal and cost-efficient support to drug addicts seeking to reintegrate with society? In addition, how does the Government seek to improve the efficiency of these support initiatives by pairing it with harm reduction strategies, like overdose prevention programmes and medication assisted treatment? Further, the lack of sustained longer-term support may lead to an addict's relapse and disappointment by loved ones, ultimately straining relationships and exacerbating addiction. This will create a harmful cycle.

The guiding aim of what I have mentioned will be to provide individuals with the tools to reduce the harm associated with drug use, keeping them safe and consistent as they work towards recovery, as we know that change does not occur overnight.

According to statistics by CNB, drug abuse among our youth has declined since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is positive news, as it suggests that despite the increased social stresses and anxieties brought about by the pandemic, illicit substances were not an avenue that youths turned to, to seek relief.

However, Mr Sam Tee, the current director of CNB added in an interview in November 2021, that abuse among youths of certain substances is quickly returning to pre-pandemic levels. The correlation between mental health challenges and drug use cannot be understated. People self-medicate in an attempt to feel better and often end up exacerbating the symptoms of the very condition that they are trying to sooth.

Collaboration between schools, communities and youth networks may help the development of a "Spot, Identify and Intervene" framework that could prevent the development of addiction to substances. We must also recognise the aetiology of mental health issues, such as inadequate supervision, lack of consistency in home environments, frequent parent conflicts, domestic violence, and so forth. A child growing up in these circumstances will not solely be deterred by the proverbial stick.

Next, I applaud further measures to safeguard our young population from the dangers of drugs and NPS addictions.

In an effort to evade legal restrictions, drug manufacturers have resorted to synthesising substances that mimic the effects of conventional drugs. Moreover, the adolescent demographic may be particularly vulnerable to succumbing to peer pressure or experimenting with illicit substances due to a lack of awareness or understanding of trade-offs. Thus, provisions in part 2(A), such as section 11(n), 11(p) and 11(q), are appropriate.

Attempts to shield our youth from being exposed to drug-related information while important, also needs to be realistic. Information permeates through phones and contradicting narratives and perspectives of drugs can easily be found online. It is helpful to communicate in commonly accepted direct narratives, rather than blanket statements. For example, substance addiction often leaves the addict in a place where they lose agency over their lives.

Efforts such as "Finding Juliana", a TikTok campaign by NCADA illustrate this point well. Titled "What's Your Fix?", the campaign sought to develop an understanding on how addictions develop, and employed social media apps, such as TikTok, to impart knowledge and encourage positive decision-making, rather than scaring our youths.

Also, we need to be proactive in our approach to help those who have not yet fallen prey to drug addiction but are still at risk. Previously, I have volunteered with younger girls in Reformative Training Centres (RTCs) and often left prisons worrying about the conditions that they would meet post-release. Financial challenges and poor familial relations as well as sometimes parents who were users themselves, I hope we can further study the issue of vulnerable youths and inter-generational addiction so that effective and timely support can be extended to them.

According to the 2021 report on youth delinquency by MSF, youth offenders who have experienced adverse childhood experiences are more likely to engage in drug abuse at a younger age and with a greater dependency.

The report also highlighted that family disruptions are a significant factor hindering the social and emotional development of children and increasing the likelihood of substance abuse. As such, I urge this House to also prioritise strategies to support family cohesion and address the underlying issues that contribute to family disruptions, especially where parents are already users, while we introduce these amendments to MDA.

To conclude, it is imperative that policies aimed at addressing misuse of substances continue to account for the multifaceted circumstances that contribute to this. It is only by taking a whole-of-society approach and effectively addressing both supply and demand for illicit substances, that we can protect our people from the pain and suffering cause by substance addictions. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Minister Indranee Rajah.

6.04 pm

Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, Ms Sylvia Lim had a couple of clarifications with respect to the amendment to the Constitution, allowing the monies to be transferred from the Contingencies Fund back to the Consolidated Fund.

As Ms Lim rightly noted, logically, there is no reason to object. But she wanted to know the process. She felt that it would be useful for the Minister to clarify the role of Parliament in the process and what form it would take, and how Members can participate.

The transfer of funds, from the Contingencies Funds to the Consolidated Fund or Development Fund, does not involve the appropriation of funds for Government spending. They merely reflect how we classify the Government's resources for specified objectives, in accordance with the laws governing each fund, for the purposes of accounting and reporting.

As such, it does not need to be specifically voted upon when we are returning it, and therefore, informing Parliament is sufficient, given that Parliament initially authorised the top-up of the Contingencies Fund via the supply process.

So, in specific response to the question, the form it would take would be a Miscellaneous Paper from the Minister for Finance, which would be submitted to Parliament. I do not have the exact wording with me, but it will say something like "There will be a reduction of X dollars from Contingencies Fund returned to the Consolidated Fund", and Members can then, if they wish, ask Parliamentary Questions. That is the form that it would take.

Mr Speaker: Perhaps, Ms Sylvia Lim, we can take clarifications later. Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim.

6.06 pm

Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their support of the Bills. I would like to, first, address an issue raised by Mr Louis Ng on the use of presumptions in the MDA. As Mr Ng pointed out, the use of presumptions and the application of more than one presumption acting on the same set of facts, is not new under the MDA.

We should remember that the fundamental reason for the use of presumptions in drug offences is because the facts, which are being presumed, are often exclusively within the accused persons' knowledge. In the example given by Mr Ng relating to having a key to a place, the presumption places the onus on the person found in possession of such a key to explain why he did not know the drugs were there, in spite of having the key to that particular place.

Where there is no presumption, the burden is generally placed on the prosecution to prove a fact. Our long experience in dealing with drug trafficking syndicates is that without legal tools, such as presumptions, drug traffickers will be able to evade legal responsibility by simply saying that they did not know the drugs were there or they did not know what they were carrying.

The drug mules in the past, and still today, are trained to say certain things upon arrest. CNB knows this. The prosecution, despite having proven that the drugs were in the accused persons' possession, are often not able to prove the accused person's knowledge of the drugs beyond a reasonable doubt, so long as he simply says that he did not know the nature of the drugs.

The presumptions have been in existence since the introduction of MDA in 1973 and they have worked well. Without them, we would not have been able to keep the drug trafficking situation in Singapore under control. We would also have, otherwise, only been able to punish people who came clean and confessed to the offences, while the guilty traffickers who lied to the authorities would go free.

I would add that there are other presumptions, which have also worked well for other offences, such as the presumption that a person whose urine test is positive, is presumed to have consumed drugs. Legally, the presumptions can be rebutted; and, historically, they have been rebutted many times.

Whether the presumption can be rebutted turns on whether the accused's account is to be believed or not. He cannot simply say he did not know, or he did not care. The facts or evidence required to rebut the presumption, would very much depend on the nature of the defence raised by the individual and a credibility of his account.

The issue of more than one presumption acting on the same set of facts has been raised in the past, because the presumptions in the MDA presume different facts. More than one presumption can be triggered in respect of one set of facts. For example, if an individual possesses the keys to anything containing a controlled drug, he can be presumed to have that drug in his possession and also presumed to know the nature of that drug.

However, the presumption cannot be used unfairly to prejudice the accused. For example, the presumptions of possession and knowledge cannot be invoked together with the presumption of trafficking, as these presumptions each serve a different function.

The Courts are careful to ensure that the burden on the accused is not so onerous, that it becomes virtually impossible to discharge. The Court of Appeal has said that, notwithstanding the use of presumptions, innocent persons can prove their innocence without any difficulty; whilst guilty persons cannot avoid liability by merely asserting a lack of knowledge without more, therefore undermining the general policy of the MDA itself.

In fact, the Courts have also said that the MDA presumptions strike an appropriate balance between the rights of the accused persons on the one hand; and the rights of the persons in the wider society on the other, who would otherwise be adversely and directly infected by the availability of drugs on the open market.

Sir, turning to NPS specifically. While I understand Mr Ng's concern, it is incorrect to state that the application of the MDA presumptions is more concerning when applied to NPS. The presumptions operate in the same way, to presume facts that are especially within the accused's knowledge. In fact, the Bill contains specific defences for NPS that do not apply to traditional controlled drugs.

For example, it is a valid defence for an individual to prove that the psychoactive substance is an excluded substance or that he intended to use the psychoactive substance for a legitimate purpose other than human consumption. To address Mr Ng's related question on this, an individual who claims that the substance is an excluded substance can either prove factually that the substance is an excluded substance; or where the section 18A(2) presumption applies, prove that he believed and had reason to believe that the substance was an excluded substance.

These defences are not applicable to traditional controlled drugs. We believe our proposed approach straddles an appropriate balance between ensuring that those who are in possession of NPS for illegal purposes can be dealt with under the law, while, at the same time, ensuring that those who are innocent can show this without an unfair burden on them.

On the same topic of presumptions, Mr Zulkarnain asked about the safeguards in place to protect innocent landlords. During the investigation, CNB will establish who was in the possession of the drugs and how the drugs came to be at a particular location. Landlords who simply rent their premises to others have nothing to fear if they have given the tenants exclusive possession of the property. CNB or AGC do not simply prefer charges against people who own properties and rely on the presumptions to prove their case.

In any event, as we have controlled drugs under the current law, an innocent landlord can easily rebut the presumption of possession by proving on a balance of probabilities that the psychoactive substance was not in his possession. To do so, the innocent landlord could, for instance, point to the fact that a third-party occupier had full access and control over the property in question.

Alternatively, if the innocent landlord was in possession of the item, but did not know of its nature, he could then rebut the presumption of knowledge by, for example, explaining that he did not know that the item has a psychoactive effect when consumed.

To address Mr Zhulkarnain's point about there being two separate presumptions of knowledge based on an initial presumption of possession, I should clarify that the new section 18A(2) represents only one presumption of knowledge. Namely, knowledge that a substance is, in fact, a psychoactive substance.

As I explained in my opening speech, the new section 22B provides that such knowledge comprises two elements – it is established if the person knew the substance had the capacity to have a psychoactive effect on an individual when consumed and did not know or have reason to believe that the substance is an excluded substance.

So, I hope I have addressed all the issues about presumptions.

Next, I would like to thank Mr Derrick Goh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Zhulkarnain for their questions on the new control regime for NPS. As mentioned in my opening speech, with this new framework, all newly discovered psychoactive substances will be subject to the new legislative framework by default. CNB can take action against persons dealing with them unless the substance is excluded under the Fifth Schedule.

Specifically, to address Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Derrick Goh's question on the processes undertaken by MHA before listing newly discovered substances under the First Schedule or Fifth Schedule of MDA. If a newly discovered psychoactive substance intended for abuse emerges in the local market or is identified for international control by UNODC, CNB will, indeed, seek to list it in the First Schedule of MDA.

Before listing, CNB will work with HTX and HSA to conduct rigorous testing and industry consultations to ascertain if the substance has legitimate purposes. If the substance is found not to have any legitimate uses, it will be listed as a controlled drug in the First Schedule. This is the same approach adopted currently for substances we list under the First Schedule.

For example, in June 2022, we listed a synthetic cannabinoid in the First Schedule after it was first detected in circulation in November 2021. This took approximately eight months for the necessary testing, verification and legislative amendments to be carried out.

For completeness, to answer Ms Sylvia Lim's question if MHA intends to eventually list all psychoactive substances that are found to have no legitimate uses and intended for abuse under the First Schedule, the answer is: yes, we do. We hope for MDA to be as comprehensive in its coverage of these harmful substances.

If the new substance is found to have legitimate uses or is regulated under other existing laws or regulations, it will be listed under the Fifth Schedule, as an excluded substance. The frequency of such listings will depend on the emergence of new substances in the market.

If a newly discovered substance is legitimately being used for scientific or medical research purposes and this can be proven with supporting evidence, such research activities would not constitute offences under the new regime.

If, as in Mr Zhulkarnain's example, a person is found to have failed to comply with the expected standards in the handling of a psychoactive substance for legitimate purposes, like for medical research, they will not be prosecuted under MDA. They may, instead, be taken to task by the relevant governing authority or Ministry.

To reiterate, the amendments are not meant to target legitimate substances or activities. Instead, it is aimed at psychoactive substances created for the purposes of abuse.

On Mr Derrick Goh's question of resources expended in verifying an accused person's defence that the NPS he is dealing with has legitimate uses, I wish to emphasise that the current provision specifies that the accused bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the substance, indeed, had legitimate uses other than for human consumption. It would not be for CNB or the prosecution to prove or disprove his claim. This would prevent persons from attempting to employ such a defence without sufficient basis.

Mr Derrick Goh also asked if the new saliva test kits can detect NPS. Presently, the test kits deployed by CNB cannot detect NPS. While there are commercially available test kits that can detect certain classes of NPS, this would not be exhaustive due to the sheer number and diversity of NPS. The test kits used by CNB, are meant as a screening tool and are able to detect the key controlled drugs that are commonly abused in Singapore. Nevertheless, CNB will continue to monitor NPS trends and, with advancements in technology, CNB will be able to assess the feasibility of deploying more comprehensive test kits that are capable of detecting more NPS in the future.

I cannot agree more with Mr Derrick Goh's point on the importance of preventive drug education (PDE) and keeping the public informed of NPS trends. Since the emergence of NPS abuse in Singapore, CNB has been proactively publishing informational brochures on NPS and their harms. CNB also engages the youth within schools and through those in positions of influence over youths, such as parents, counsellors, educators, youth advocates and National Service commanders, to educate them on NPS and their harms.

I would also caution that if anyone is unsure if he is in possession of a psychoactive substance, he should undertake reasonable means to find out what is the nature of and the intended purpose of the substance in question. For example, by asking the person who gave him the substance. If the person continues to be unsure, he should report this to CNB or the Police immediately.

Mr Derrick Goh asked about statistics of youths abusing NPS. In my opening speech, I provided NPS abuse numbers in the last five years. Mr Goh may wish to refer to the annual statistics release published by CNB that provides a more detailed profile of drug abusers arrested by drug type, including NPS.

We cannot afford to be caught on the backfoot and only take action when NPS abuse becomes pervasive in Singapore.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked whether the amendments to introduce a tiered punishment framework for the drug possession offence are targeted at cases where the persons are charged with trafficking but the trafficking charge fails in Court. The short answer is: no. The question of whether charges would be preferred for trafficking or for possession would be determined by the facts, as established by the investigations.

Ms Sylvia Lim also asked for further justifications on why we need to increase the penalties for possession. CNB has observed, in recent years, that drug syndicates are smuggling larger quantities of drugs per transaction. We are concerned that this may drive up demand locally and may cause downstream law and order issues. Hence, that is why we want to be proactive to deter local possession of large quantities of drugs.

Ms Joan Pereira rightly pointed out Singapore's vulnerability to the threat of drug trafficking, due to its transnational nature, and asked if regional information sharing partnerships can be enhanced and the role Singapore plays in committing some resources to such efforts. CNB actively participates in international and regional efforts for information sharing and operations.

For example, CNB is part of the ASEAN Airport and Seaport Interdiction Task Forces, which provide platforms for enforcement agencies to collaborate and interdict drug trafficking in the region. CNB also works closely with its overseas counterparts to share intelligence, and this has resulted in significant arrests and seizures both locally and overseas over the past years.

In 2022, CNB also organised an inaugural workshop on Singapore's Drug Control Strategy for our international counterparts to contribute to their capacity-building and promote cooperation. Such cooperation has been crucial in helping to keep the threat of drugs at bay. Specifically for NPS, information sharing in the region has allowed countries to quickly list NPS for control once they have first been detected in one country. So, this has been very helpful because we want to make sure that we protect everyone. Many countries would like to play a part in this and see how we can reduce the harms to the people and prevent such happenings occurring in our jurisdiction as well.

In fact, MHA and CNB plan to further their commitment to the international fight against drugs by seeking membership at the global Commission of Narcotic Drugs for the 2024 to 2027 term. This will allow us to have a bigger voice in shaping international drug-control policies and sharing our best practices on a global stage.

Mr Louis Ng also asked whether MHA works with MSF and social service agencies to ensure that children of drug-offending parents are cared for appropriately. I will not go into a detailed reply as this topic has been discussed in the House before. In gist, the answer is yes. There is currently a referral process between CNB and MSF. CNB officers can conduct early identification of family members at the scene of arrest and make the necessary referrals to MSF. Even if there remains a caregiver for the child after the arrest, CNB will still alert MSF as long as the child was at the scene of the arrest. This is something that we have been enhancing, deepening; and our relationship with our agencies has become much better, so that we are able to help more and more Singaporeans.

Mr Zhulkarnain asked what MHA is doing in concert with HSA and other Ministries to address vaping. This topic was discussed at MOH's Committee of Supply debate earlier this month. MHA works with MOH, the Ministry of Education (MOE), HSA and other agencies through the National Committee on Prevention, Rehabilitation and Recidivism, NCPR in short, to tackle the problem of substance abuse, particularly amongst youths. This issue is something that we work together on and it is something that, if you look back at the history, we have been doing for many decades and we will continue to enhance this effort.

I would like to thank Mr Christopher de Souza for his strong support on the Bill and for raising very important issues relating to our drug policies. We share his passion and commitment, and we are very happy to have someone like him journeying with us to keep Singapore drug-free. While we strengthen our enforcement framework against drugs with these amendments, MHA is still committed to ensuring that drug abusers receive the rehabilitation they require.

Ms Nadia Samdin asked if the Government can provide more personalised support to recovering drug addicts. Similarly, Ms Joan Pereira asked if more comprehensive and long-term mental health resources and support could be offered to drug abusers who have gone through rehabilitation.

MHA recognises that ex-drug abusers need community support in order to successfully reintegrate and not relapse. Some ex-drug abusers struggle with mental illness or juggle multiple stressors, such as securing employment or managing strained family relationships. The Singapore Prison Service works with various community partners like the Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association, Singapore After-Care Association and religious social service agencies, to provide continual pro-social support and engagement for drug abusers after their release.

During the time that an ex-drug abuser is placed on CNB's supervision, the CNB supervision officer assigned to the ex-drug abuser will regularly check in on his or her well-being and assess their reintegration needs. The supervision officer will make referrals to social service agencies, such as Family Service Centres, to provide further support for their mental, psycho-social and other needs.

As Ms Nadia Samdin has pointed out, our current rehabilitation programmes take a calibrated approach based on the individual's risks and needs. At the same time, CNB and Prisons conduct regular reviews, including with MSF, to determine what more can be done to support ex-drug abusers in their rehabilitation.

Ms Nadia also asked if MHA would consider adopting harm reduction strategies. At the 2018 Committee of Supply debates, the Minister for Home Affairs had set out MHA's position concerning the harm reduction approach. Our position remains the same. As mentioned in my opening speech, we take a harm prevention approach.

In Singapore, our tough laws have kept the drug situation here relatively under control. So, we must continue to keep drugs at bay, to prevent the harms from overwhelming us. Harm reduction strategies have limited application to Singapore's drug situation. Countries which adopt harm reduction measures are focused more on minimising further cost from HIV or other blood-borne infections transmitted through intravenous drug use, rather than on preventing drug use, because they have reached a tipping point where drug use is too pervasive to effectively control. Singapore is not in a state where we cannot deal with the drug situation. Therefore, there is no benefit or need for Singapore to adopt harm reduction measures.

Mr Speaker, these amendments to introduce a new framework to regulate NPS, and to increase the penalties for the drug possession offence, reflect the Ministry's efforts to ensure that our drug laws remain an effective deterrent and to keep our drug situation under control. At the same time, as Members have mentioned, we also focus on educating our public on the harms of drugs and adopting evidence-based approaches to rehabilitation and aftercare.

Against the backdrop of a worsening global and regional drug situation, we must continue to press on in our fight against drugs, to keep our streets safe and our families protected from the perils of drugs. With continued support from Members in the House, our community partners, advocates and members of the public, we will work towards maintaining a drug-free Singapore. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications? Mr Zhulkarnain.

6.32 pm

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim: Thank you, Speaker. I also thank the Minister of State for answering the questions. For clarity in my speech, when I referred to specific focus on youths, I was actually mooting for greater efforts on the part of MHA to prevent drug abuse amongst youths. I do have one clarification for the Minister of State.

Most of our PDE efforts for youths, are in our schools and the Institutes of Higher Learning. But we need resources for parents to cope as well, especially with new drugs and NPS. Would MHA continue to work with Ministries and other independent bodies to help parents cope with these new drugs and new challenges that parents may face? In fact, I think CNB had a publication for parents previously called, "start talking before they start taking"? So, maybe those resources can be updated and there can be a sustained effort for parents as well.

Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the clarification. As I have shared in my answer, we have the NCPR platform where we not only look at efforts across agencies and the different community organisations, but we also look at specific areas that we want to focus on.

One of the areas that we are looking at today is also about youths' addiction issues, substance abuse – that is one aspect. The other aspect, CNB as the Member has shared, has its own PDE efforts. The efforts are not only linked with other organisations, but also look at the different segments of the society – parents, students. At the last MHA COS, I shared that the schools are committed to play a more active role in this aspect, in working together with CNB. We will try to see how we can enhance that effort.

Another thing that we do, if you look at CNB's social media platforms, they are very active. We share various types of resources. One is about our operations; whenever we make arrests, all these, we will share. Secondly, we also share about the harms of drugs. Recently, Mr Christopher de Souza asked about how we can share further, and I shared that it is something that we will continue to do.

Just a few days ago, I shared about the harms of cannabis on my social media platform. This is also what CNB does. We plan all these holistically, so that we try our best to reach out to the people whom we engage and how we can reach out further with others that we may not have engaged.

So, going forward, we are exploring ways to navigate this deeper and expand our outreach. Because at the end of the day, as I have shared, with the global situation, I think the only way to go forward is to continue this journey and get as many partners as possible to be on board this journey and protect as many people as possible, especially in Singapore, from the harms of drugs and at the same time, keep our aspiration high for a drug-free Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Speaker. I would like to have a clarification about the MDA. For MOF, I think I will follow up separately, after I have read in more detail what was said.

My question for the Minister of State of Home Affairs is about the interim period when the Bill allows the enforcement agencies to proceed if a substance is found of a psychoactive effect, even though it has not been listed yet in the MDA First Schedule. It was mentioned that during this period, there would be industry consultations and so on, to determine if there has been any legitimate use for this product. If there is a legitimate use, then it will not be listed in the First Schedule.

So, my question is, will there be any risk that people are arrested, charged or even sent for DRC? I am not sure, based on the general definition of psychoactive substance, based on what they have, but eventually the substance after due industry consultation is found to have a legitimate use and, therefore, it is eventually not listed in the First Schedule. I mean, will there be such cases and how would they be dealt with?

Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, as I have shared earlier, this is not something new. We also referred to overseas jurisdictions – the United Kingdom and Australia.

What I want to assure Members is that, we have a robust and very careful analysis system. We work very closely with HTX and HSA. In fact, since we shared about the need for this amendment a few years ago, we have been working very hard on the ground from the operational point of view as well as our capability aspect, to determine how we can detect NPS.

Like I said, NPS is ever-changing. What is key is that with the capabilities that we have built and those that we have detected before, we will be able to test quickly. But there will be new ones where, if we have not got any confirmation, we will not arrest the person. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister of State for Home Affairs", Official Report, 21 March 2023, Vol 95, Issue 94, Correction By Written Statement section.]

We will have to see how the structure of it and if the psychoactive effect is confirmed, then we will be able to take any action.

In this case, with the new amendment, we will look at the psychoactive effect. There are, from the scientific point of view, procedures involved, to test the psychoactive effect. Once we do that, we will be able to investigate further and work with the industry before we make and carry out any action.

So, I want to assure Ms Lim that we will carry out a robust set of tests and consultations before we take any action. This is consistent with the amendments that we make. We will be looking at the psychoactive effects of the substance.

Mr Speaker: We first deal with the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill.

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. – [Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim].

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