Singapore's National Drug Control Policy

1.32 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, our drug control policies have evolved over the years, to meet the changing nature of the threats from drugs.

I make this Ministerial Statement to set out the framework of our policies; the reasons for our policies; and what more we intend to do. The reason for making this Statement now is this: we have a strict national drug control policy; it is necessary, it is effective and it is well-supported by Singaporeans. I will show that later.

But our approach has been criticised by some who are helping inmates to abuse the legal process. The Courts have said that they try and frustrate the legal process and prevent the penalties from being carried out. I will set out the broader context for the situation – show how these criticisms are without merit. I will also set out what we intend to do about those attempts to abuse our legal process.

I will cover four areas in this Statement. First, I will discuss the global and regional drug situation. Second, I will speak about the threat from the drug trade and our approach to that threat. Third, I will speak about some attempts to spread misinformation and try and undermine aspects of our drug policies. I will also show that, despite these attempts, there is strong public support for our approach and policies, including the death penalty. And fourth, I will set out our plans to further strengthen our drug control policies.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask to display some slides and photos on the LED screens as I speak.

Mr Speaker: You may proceed. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]

Mr K Shanmugam: Let me begin by speaking about the global drug situation. Every region, every region in the world is being affected by drugs.

I start with Europe. European countries, first world countries, have been very hard hit. Europe's ports have been described by a major weekly as "drug hubs" and "safe terrain for narcotics". It also said that in the European Union (EU), half of all homicides and more than a quarter of illegal firearms seizures were linked to drug trafficking. So, Members can consider just how many lives have been lost.

So, let us look at some specific countries. In the Netherlands, a record of over 60,000 kilogrammes of cocaine was seized by Dutch Customs in 2023 alone. I have set out on the slides, some of the quotes from senior people in the Netherlands. In the port city of Rotterdam, children, some as young as 14 years old, are being recruited as "cocaine collectors" to get the drugs from shipping containers.

In January this year, the Mayor of Amsterdam Femke Halsema said the Netherlands risks becoming a "narco-state". The illegal drugs trade has grown "more lucrative, professional and ruthlessly violent". Think of a Mayor of a major European city saying that and what the implications are. The chief of the largest police union in the Netherlands Jan Strujis has said the country had a parallel economy controlled by crime groups, shootings and killings. A former Justice and Security Minister Grapperhaus has said that "excessive violence" against politicians, lawyers and journalists was "no longer taboo".

Sweden, considered one of the safest places in the world, has also been seriously affected by drug- and gang-related violence. Since 2013, the number of fatal shootings has more than doubled. In 2022, there were 391 shootings, 90 explosions, 101 attempted attacks with explosives. These were linked to fights between criminal gangs over drugs and arms.

The then-police chief Thornberg said and, I quote, "citizens are afraid, insecurity is increasing". Young lives in Sweden are being destroyed by this senseless violence. In 2022, 30% of suspects for gang-related violence were between 15 and 20 years old. A lawyer who represents teenage shooting victims and suspects told the BBC: children in Sweden are using their, and I quote, "own bags, not to carry books, but they carry the drug markets of Sweden on their shoulders."

Turning to Belgium, last year, in Antwerp, an 11-year-old girl was killed in a shooting in her own home. It was linked to a drug-related gang dispute. In the last decade, there have been hundreds of such incidents in Antwerp: shootings, grenade attacks, fires and bombings. Many were linked to gang-related violence trying for a piece of the cocaine trade.

The mayor of Antwerp Bart De Wever has described the situation as being a "much bigger" threat than the 2016 Brussels bombings. The Brussels bombings made headlines around the world. When terrorists attack, it becomes big news. But with drug violence, it gets ignored even though it is much bigger and a more continuous threat which affects many more people and, really, this should be taken more seriously.

Last year, the Belgian customs seized a record amount of cocaine more than the customs and border officials in all of the United States (US). Their incinerators in Belgium were not able to burn the seized drugs quickly enough and the confiscated stash has earned the nickname "cocaine-berg".

Customs officials now tell the media that they will never win the war against the cartels. So, Members can ask themselves why are officials in a first-world country saying this: that they cannot win the fight against the narcotic gangs?

In the United Kingdom (UK), the example of Barrow-in-Furness shows how drugs can seriously damage a place. In the last decade, the town has been plagued by drug use and drug-related deaths. In 2018, its opiate-related deaths were double the national average. It became known as the country’s "most infamous brown town". Last year, there was an almost 50% jump in drug offences compared to the previous year.

The situation is dismal: town buildings mostly boarded up and vandalised, broken furniture strewn on the streets, windows smashed. Businesses and residents say that they may have no choice but to leave the town if things do not change. From 2011 to 2021, the town population decreased by 2.4% while England's population increased by 6.6% over the same period.

I should have added in Belgium, the Justice Minister, my counterpart, has to live out of safe houses because the police cannot guarantee his safety.

Let us look at South America, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) said that 18 out of 21 countries are now the main sources of transit for cocaine.

Ecuador was once seen as a peaceful country. It has become wrecked with drugs and violence. From 2018 to 2022, its homicide rates increased by four times and the homicide rates are now the eighth highest in the world. There are reports of beheadings, car bombings, assassinations of police officers, children being gunned down. In one hideout used by the drug cartels, the police uncovered a collection of stuffed toys. Gangs are said to have used the toys to attract young children and then recruited them as drug pushers and handed them weapons and forced them into the drug trade.

In Mexico, murders, abductions, forced disappearances are almost daily occurrences due to turf wars between drug cartels. Since 2006, nearly 450,000 people have been killed, a significant number of these killings are believed to be linked to drugs and the drug trade.

We move to North America. In recent years, some places have chosen to decriminalise drugs. They take the position that drug use is a personal choice and it should be destigmatised and allowed under certain conditions. Others say that the problem has gotten out of control and their solution is to allow drug abuse under so-called "safe" conditions. For example, they have decriminalised personal possession of drugs below certain limits. And what are the results?

Consider San Francisco. In 2014, it passed laws to reduce the offence of drug possession from a serious offence to a misdemeanour which is to be dealt with administratively. And you know what police would do then? They de-prioritised, decided that they will not deal strictly with open-drug use and small-scale possession. A decade later, anyone visiting the city now will see people living in slum-like conditions along major streets, looking for their next fix. Last year, San Francisco's death rate from drug overdoses reached a record high. It was more than double the US national average.

Some places, which chose to legalise drugs, have realised that the results were not as promised and have reversed their policies.

In 2020, the US State of Oregon decriminalised use and possession of small amounts of most drugs, including cocaine, meth and heroin. Fifty-eight percent of voters in Oregon supported it. They thought this was the solution. Police can then focus on other work and abusers would feel less stigmatised and abusers will seek treatment.

But people in Oregon soon saw the results of this policy. From 2019 to 2022, the number of drug overdose deaths more than doubled from about 600 to about 1,300. People felt unsafe on the streets, businesses started leaving and the situation got very bad. By August 2023, last year, a majority of people in Oregon wanted to repeal the measure and in 2024 this year, they reversed course. They re-criminalised possession of drugs for even small amounts.

Let me give another example. Last year, the Canadian province of British Columbia decriminalised drugs to try and reduce its overdose rates. Instead, the number of drug overdose deaths increased by more than 5% from the year before. There was also public backlash against the open drug use.

Earlier this year, the provincial government tried to restrict the public places where people could consume drugs. But the Supreme Court blocked the measure, saying it could, and I quote, "cause irreparable harm" to drug users. The Court said that users were at risk of overdosing alone, since they would have fewer public places to consume drugs and where people would be present.

Brad West, a mayor from a British Columbian city, said that the courts were out of touch with the public and blocking the measure, and I quote, "ignored the harm that occurs to others by allowing rampant public use".

Last month, the BBC reported that the authorities in British Columbia were working urgently to re-criminalise the use of hard drugs in public places. My view to Members – when they experiment with laws like this, they are actually experimenting with the lives of people, including the lives of innocent young children.

The policies and u-turns have a long-term impact on the next generation and the impact cannot be easily reversed. Parents and guardians, if they become drug addicts, homeless and unemployed – it is the children who would suffer this proportionately.

Let us look at a sobering personal account of a child who grew up in America with a mother who was a cocaine abuser: "From the ages of seven to 12, we were pretty much on our own. Sometimes, we would be left alone for days at a time. We would not have lights, water or heat. At night, we would huddle around the stove for warmth. It got so bad that we started hiding our mother's keys just to keep her from going to the crack house."

In 2021, Gallup reported that about 32% of Americans say that drug use has been a cause of trouble in their family, one-third of all Americans. That is almost double the proportion since 1999, when it was 17%.

Children and the next generation are the real victims. A study estimated that in 2017, about 2.2 million children and adolescents in the US had a parent with an opioid use disorder or were affected by opioids themselves. The study projected that by 2030, this number would go up to 4.3 million – nearly double.

These children often do not have a proper home to grow up in, no role models to look up to and no stability to anchor their development. Without basic support, they have poorer educational outcomes, increased likelihood of developing substance use disorders and early emergence of chronic diseases.

The cycle will keep repeating itself. Really, one has got to ask: who speaks for the human rights of these millions of children?

Closer to home, in Southeast Asia, the Golden Triangle, where the borders of Myanmar, Thailand and Laos meet, is a major drug producing region. The UNODC reported in 2022 that East and Southeast Asia are "literally swimming" in meth. In 2022 alone, 151 tonnes of meth were seized in the region.

At the Committee of Supply, I spoke about the situation in Thailand. When cannabis was legalised, it was available immediately almost anywhere you looked – restaurants, convenience stores and even near schools.

Within six months of legalisation, the number of addicts went up four times. There were young teens and children who consumed cannabis-infused cookies, candies and sweets – they thought these were ordinary snacks – but ended up having to be hospitalised. The Thai government recently has announced plans to reimpose a ban on recreational cannabis use by the end of this year. One can see why but it is no longer going to be easy to do because if part of it is legal and part of it is not legal, then, enforcement is never going to be easy.

In any event, businesses which have invested in the industry will likely push back strongly and those who are now addicted to the drug both will find it very difficult to kick off the habit and will need to be supported by the healthcare system. The consequences, in many cases, can be irreversible. The impact will be very long-lasting.

If you look at Malaysia, cannabis seizures jumped from 3,700 kilogrammes in 2021 to 6,200 kilogrammes in 2022, just one worrying statistic – and there are many others.

With that, let me now turn to the situation in Singapore and the threat we face here from the drug trade. We are a big target for drugs that this region is being flooded with. Despite our stiff penalties, some traffickers try their luck because of the profits they can earn. The street price for drugs is much higher in Singapore than many other parts in this region. Our purchasing power is much higher, our gross domestic product (GDP) is much higher, our wealth is much higher, so, it is obvious.

The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) have found drugs at the borders in fire extinguishers, furniture, even fruits. People find many innovative ways of trying to smuggle in. Last year, CNB seized about $15 million worth of drugs and dismantled 25 drug syndicates. The number of drug abusers arrested increased by 10% from the previous year, while the number of cannabis abusers reached a 10-year high.

The Health and Lifestyle survey conducted by the Institute of Mental Health in 2022 showed that the mean onset age of illicit drug consumption in Singapore is 15.9 years old. This is the age of a Secondary 4 student. Members can see that we are not exempt from the problems that other countries face.

Let me now turn to our approach to drug control. We take an evidence-based approach towards drug control. In 2019, we changed our policy to focus on helping persons who are pure drug abusers. If they only abuse drugs and have not committed other offences, they are channelled to receive treatment and do not get a criminal record.

The interventions are based on the risk profile of the abuser. For example, low-risk, first-time adult drug abusers will generally undergo counselling in the community, together with regular urine or hair testing. This minimises disruption to their daily lives while ensuring that their addiction issues are addressed.

Beyond the mandated supervision period, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) continues to work with Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG) and its community partners, to help the drug abusers. For example, YRSG assists ex-inmates with career coaching and job placement.

These efforts have produced some results. From 1993 to 2021, our two-year recidivism rate for those released from drug rehabilitation centre (DRC) decreased by more than two and a half times, from 73% to 27.7%.

There are many examples of ex-drug abusers who have kicked their habit, leading new lives. For example, Francis How. He dropped out of secondary school, joined a street gang at the age of 12. He was involved in drugs and other crimes, including housebreaking and gambling, to feed his drug addiction. By the age of 32, he had already served close to 11 years behind bars, almost all his adult life. But then, he decided to turn his back on drugs and crime. He is now 50 years old, married with four children. He runs his own shipyard repair business. He has stayed clean for more than 17 years.

The journey to recovery is not easy. It is challenging. It requires many helping hands. We should recognise not just the efforts of the ex-abusers to stay drug-free but also pay tribute to their families who support them in their journey.

Today, we have invited several ex-abusers and their families to join us in the Public Gallery. All in, about 120 of them. They show that it is possible to quit drugs and to live a fulfilling life. I ask Members to join me in recognising them. [Applause.]

While we seek to help abusers, we take a tough approach against drug traffickers. We have zero tolerance for those who destroy the lives of others for money. The death penalty is imposed on persons who traffic specified amounts. For example, a person who traffics 15 grammes of pure heroin, which is enough to feed the addiction of about 180 abusers for a week, will face capital punishment. The evidence shows clearly that the death penalty has been an effective deterrent. In 1990, we introduced the death penalty for trafficking more than 1.2 kilogrammes of opium. In the four years that followed, there was a 66% reduction in the average net weight of opium trafficked.

A 2021 study was conducted in parts of the region. We are evidence-based so I told my Ministry let us do a survey from the regions where many of our drug traffickers come from, to see what the population in those areas think about our penalties and are our penalties sufficient deterrent. Because you deal with the drug situation by dealing with both supply and demand. Demand in Singapore – through public education, through control measures, through active campaigning, explaining the dangers of drugs; supply – by controlling the amount of drugs that come in and through the use of deterrents.

So, we did a statistically, scientifically valid study in the parts from which many of our drug traffickers come from. It showed that 87% of those surveyed, this is nine out of 10, believed that the death penalty deters people from trafficking substantial amounts of drugs into Singapore; 83%, this is eight out of 10, believed that the death penalty is more effective than life imprisonment in deterring drug trafficking; and 86% believed that the death penalty deters serious crimes in Singapore.

The implications are when the drug barons go around trying to recruit people to come into Singapore, people will be very careful. Many would say no and if they do get tempted, they might say, "Well, I will only traffic drugs below a certain threshold amount". So, it makes it much more difficult to traffic substantial amounts into Singapore.

Those who suggest that the death penalty can be replaced by life imprisonment should look at these figures. The deterrent effects of the two penalties are very different.

It is not easy for us – Members, policy-makers, Ministers – to decide to have capital punishment as part of the penalties in law. But the evidence shows that it is necessary to protect our people, prevent the destruction of thousands of families and prevent the loss of thousands of lives. That is why we maintain the death penalty.

Members have to understand – this is nothing short of a war. I say that we are fighting a war and using that analogy, because that is the scale in terms of victims and lost lives. Others in this region have used the analogy of war and that has drawn different sorts of responses. But people know here in Singapore we go on the basis of apprehending the traffickers, dealing with the situations in accordance with laws passed by Parliament and we fight the drug war within that framework.

In the US, every 14 months, more Americans die from abusing fentanyl than from all of America's wars combined since the Second World War, from Korea to Afghanistan, every 14 months. In fact, the life expectancy of male Americans has come down for two reasons. One, the number of shootings, homicides. And second, drugs, opioid abuse. In 2021, the World Health Organization reported 600,000 deaths in 2019 which was attributable to drug abuse. That is more than twice the number of deaths caused by firearms in the same year.

The World Drug Report estimates that in the same year, 31 million years of "healthy" life were lost due to disability and premature deaths as a result of drug use. These are not just statistics. They are lives of fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. That is why I use the analogy of war. I am talking about a war against those who profit off the drug trade at the expense of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.

To put it in the context of fighting a war, let me refer to a point that Bertrand Russell made referencing the Second World War. He pointed out in his 1943 essay titled, "The Future of Pacifism", that "if war is to be prevented, there must be a clearly expressed willingness to go to war for certain ends". In other words, if you want peace, you have to be prepared to fight for it.

I would argue the same applies to the war against drugs. In this war, we will have to decide: do we want to go soft and risk ending up like the countries I have spoken about earlier? Do we want to become a "narco-state", or an "infamous brown town", or a hotbed for drugs and violence?

People may say: no one is asking you to go soft. Impose very tough penalties. Just do not impose the death penalty. And I have said, there is a clear difference between the deterrence effects of the death penalty as opposed to other punishments.

My view, based on the evidence, you remove the death penalty, drug trafficking will go up significantly. There will be more robberies, house breakings and so on, because drug abusers will need money to buy drugs. Evidence shows there will also be more sexual assaults, more homicides and definitely many more people will die in Singapore. That is why we take a strict approach, and our strict approach has saved thousands of lives.

In the 1990s, CNB arrested about 6,000 drug abusers per year. That number has now come down by almost half. CNB now arrests about 3,000 drug abusers per year. All things being equal, the number of drug abusers in Singapore should have gone up in the last 30 years. The supply of drugs in the region has exploded. Our purchasing power has increased significantly. That figure of 6,000 should be two, three times more because more people should be consuming drugs. But instead, the number has gone down.

By that alone, I say we have saved the lives of thousands of potential abusers and we have saved the lives of their families from the consequences of one person in the family taking drugs. Consequences can be, as we see from other countries: homicide, violence, break-ups, poorer outcomes for children. It is a pretty sad situation in many places. We have avoided it.

This is the war that we are fighting in Singapore and if we do not fight it or if we lose it, then thousands in Singapore will suffer. So, everyone who is asking us to go soft on drugs or remove the death penalty, is in fact advocating for a different Singapore – where there will be more people dying; there will be more children affected; there will be more unfavourable outcomes, particularly on people of lower incomes.

I will now move on to deal with attempts by some to undermine our approach. The evidence for our approach is compelling. People can see what is happening around the world, which is why I took some time to explain country by country some of the countries – first-world; South America; the US; this region.

Despite that, in recent years, there has been a small group of people who attempt to mislead the public with misinformation on drug traffickers and the death penalty. They seek to evoke sympathy by presenting an image of an unfair criminal justice system stacked against drug traffickers. They publish videos, pictures, stories from the traffickers' childhood, sharing interviews with family members. He has got a brother; he has got a sister; he has a child; he had a childhood. Poor guy. And portraying the trafficker as a victim of unfortunate circumstances. He did not have money and therefore, he trafficked in drugs.

But they leave out the facts of the cases. They leave out the accounting of the harms caused to the victims of the traffickers. They glorify the trafficker. They do not give any voice to the victims, the number of lives lost or wrecked by drugs; and the reason the traffickers were trafficking the drugs in the first place, which is to make money. The victims also have wives, sisters, children, parents. All of these people will also suffer.

If you face financial difficulties, if you need money, get a job. You do not have to traffic in drugs to make money.

Earlier, I recounted some stories of drug abuse overseas. We have seen shocking stories in Singapore too. Early last year, a man was convicted of committing incest with his 17-year-old daughter after sharing methamphetamine (meth) with her. She became reliant on him for sustaining her addiction and did not come forward with the truth for months.

In another case last year, a 31-year-old man: he had consumed various drugs, went on to drive under the influence of drugs, crashed his rental car into a public bus, killed himself; injured seven other passengers in the bus.

The next slide shows photos of a crime scene, where a man who was under the influence of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), brutally stabbed his own mother and punched his grandmother to death. Drug abuse is not victimless and all of these are caused by the drug traffickers, whom people glorify.

The next slide shows a heartbreaking case where a life was taken even before the victim had any voice of her own. The remains of a two-and-a-half-year-old girl. She was assaulted to death by her own father, who was a meth abuser. The man burnt the body and hid it in a pot to conceal his crime.

Several studies have shown that the harms of drugs are far-reaching into the next generation. A recent literature review by the KK Women's and Children's Hospital, found that drug abuse by pregnant women can cause serious harms to the foetus. Their babies could be born with congenital defects, such as respiratory distress syndrome or smaller brain matter. The newborns may also suffer from drug withdrawal, increased risk of disease and even infant death.

A 2020 study by the Ministry of Social and Family Development found that children whose parents had committed drug offences, were five times more likely than other children to unfortunately come into contact with the criminal justice system in the future.

But these facts and images are usually missing from the speeches, posts of those who campaign against the death penalty. Instead, there are baseless allegations, one-sided claims and half-truths. These baseless allegations are also made in relation to prisoners awaiting capital punishment – I will call them PACPs. They cast doubt on the process, the legal process. They cast doubt on the convictions and the sentences.

For instance, in May 2023 last year, Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, or POFMA, directions were issued against 10 social media posts and two online articles for containing false statements about a capital sentence meted out by the Courts. Five parties – Transformative Justice Collective, The Online Citizen Asia, Andrew Loh, Kirsten Han, M Ravi – continued to make false statements alleging that a PACP was denied an interpreter during the recording of his statement. This, despite the Court's clear statement to the contrary – a blatant, false attack on the criminal justice system.

Some of these activists have helped to file unmeritorious legal applications on behalf of convicted drug traffickers. Applications are often filed at the last minute and those who help with these applications often hide behind the PACPs and their families. In one case, there were seven post-appeal applications, all dismissed by the Courts because they were all without merit. Seven, one after the other, no basis, after the substantive appeal was dismissed. In the seventh post-appeal application, the correspondent's email address – kirstenhan@hey.com – was provided by a family member to the Court.

This obviously does not belong to the family, but to perhaps an anti-death penalty activist. The Court dismissed that application, said it was a blatant and ill-disguised application to disrupt the carrying out of the sentence. In other words, a clear abuse of the process.

The person, with the email account by the name of Kirsten Han, if she was involved, was helping in the abuse of process.

Based on what the Court said, you can see what the persons who were assisting in the applications were trying to do.

As a result of many such applications today, we have PACPs whose sentences have not been carried out, despite their cases being decided more than a decade ago.

One such PACP is Iskandar bin Rahmat. He is not a drug trafficker, but his applications are somewhat illustrative of the point I am making. He killed a father and son – brutal murders. I think people remember them as the “Kovan double murder case” – a 67-year-old father and a 42-year-old son. In fact, one of the victims was even dragged almost one kilometre along Upper Serangoon Road. And he did it for money. He was sentenced to capital punishment on 4 December 2015 by the High Court. His appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in February 2017, seven years ago. Since then, he has filed nine applications. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister for Home Affairs", Official Report, 08 May 2024, Vol 95, Issue 136, Correction By Written Statement section.] Some of them are still ongoing and I make no comment whatsoever about those which are currently before the Courts. Those that have been dealt with, have all been dismissed. And quite clearly, unmeritorious and an abuse of process.

So, to deal better with this situation, to deal better with unmeritorious applications being filed at the very last minute before capital punishment is carried out, this House passed an Act, the Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act, or PACC. That Act will come into force very soon, within a few weeks. The Act will seek to safeguard the administration of justice and the rule of law. It introduces new requirements to reduce potential delays to proceedings.

For example, if the PACP had already had his or her sentence upheld by the Court of Appeal, then he or she will be required to apply for permission to make a PACC application. There will be a streamlined procedure under which only the Court of Appeal may hear PACC applications and grant a stay of execution. As part of the application, the person will be required to state the grounds of the application and the reasons for not filing the application earlier.

But even before the law has come into force, a post-appeal application was filed by 36 PACPs in September last year to challenge the constitutionality of that law. The application was dismissed by the Court of Appeal recently. The Court of Appeal said the PACPs had no standing to bring such a challenge and the fact that such a challenge has been brought at all, spoke only to the PACPs' abuse of the process of the Courts.

Just one day after the appeal was dismissed by the Courts, 36 PACPs, of whom 34 were the same parties involved in earlier post-appeal applications, filed another post-appeal application, relying now on some other matter. I make no comment on the merits of those current applications. My comments about unmeritorious applications, abuse of process, all other similar comments, apply only to applications which have been determined by the Courts and dismissed. And I rely on what the Courts themselves have said.

This is not the first time that large groups of PACPs have jointly filed applications to the Court, after all avenues of appeal and clemency have been exhausted. In the past few years, there were at least five other such jointly filed applications, each involving more than 10 PACPs. The PACC Act, when it comes into force, will deal with many such applications.

We are now considering, what else needs to be done to make sure that this new legislation can be properly supported. We will come back to the House, if necessary. And I wish to make it clear to Members and Singaporeans: be assured, we will take all necessary steps to ensure that this sort of abuse of process is dealt with.

I will now speak about the strong public support for our drug control approach.

There is broad support from our population because we have been upfront and open about the rationale, circumstances and the safeguards on the use of the death penalty. Surveys conducted the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) show that support for the death penalty has, in fact, gone up in the last two years.

In a 2021 MHA survey, 74% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the death penalty should be used for the most serious crimes, including drug trafficking. We redid that survey last year, in 2023. It now shows that 77% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed. This is a statistically significant increase of about three percentage points.

The 2021 survey also found that about 66% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the mandatory death penalty is an appropriate punishment for trafficking a significant amount of drugs. In the 2023 survey, last year, 69%, almost seven in 10, agreed or strongly agreed, again, a statistically significant increase. MHA will be publishing the full report later this year.

This is quite remarkable because Members might sometimes come across activists and others saying: the death penalty is controversial, support for it is weakening and so on. In fact, on the contrary, we are seeing the reverse. Support for the death penalty has, in fact, increased in a statistically significant way. It shows that Singaporeans understand the need for the death penalty to deal with the most serious crimes.

I will refer to yet another survey. In 2023, the National Council Against Drug Abuse (NCADA) conducted a survey. Almost 91% expressed support for Singapore’s drug-free approach. This is last year. And 87% agreed that our drug laws are effective in keeping us relatively drug-free. We have these high levels of support because Singaporeans trust the Government to do the right thing and to do right by Singapore.

My colleagues and I have engaged thousands of Singaporeans on this issue in just the past year alone. So, when Mr Richard Branson comes in to argue, he does not realise that we take our duties seriously, we are accountable to Singaporeans, we speak with thousands of them every year and we know what Singaporeans support. And the vast majority of Singaporeans know and understand the facts and reality, and why the Government says the death penalty is necessary.

Mr Speaker, let me now say something about my Ministry’s plans for the coming years, specifically our upstream efforts to address the drug problem amongst the young.

We formed the Inter-Ministry Committee (IMC) on Drug Prevention for Youths last year. I spoke about this at the Committee of Supply debate. Members of the IMC have started running anti-drug programmes to enhance awareness on the harms of drugs and mobilise key community leaders and amplify our anti-drug messages. Let me share some examples.

SportSG has begun to incorporate preventive drug education in its programmes and curricula for our young athletes and to reinforce positive life values to remind our youths about pursuing excellence while keeping their minds and bodies healthy.

Our schools will cover drug-related topics in their school curricula by extending it to other subjects, such as General Paper, for example. And in our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), these messages will be reinforced at various junctures, such as orientation sessions and pre-departure briefings before students go on overseas trips.

And starting this year, we will introduce a “Drug Victims Remembrance Day”. This is for our communities to rally together to remind ourselves of the harm, hurt and trauma which the families and loved ones of drug abusers suffer and have suffered. Our aim is to drive home the message that the harms drugs cause are far-reaching and require a strong response from society.

In partnership with CNB, schools and IHLs will be organising various activities, such as lessons, exhibitions and talks on the Remembrance Day. There will also be an essay competition for youths in post-secondary educational institutions to encourage conversations and reflections on the impact of drug abuse. This is a major step that we are taking. By this, we hope to bring across to a larger segment of the population, particularly the young, in a very impactful way, or as an impactful way as possible, the harm that drugs cause.

An inaugural observance event will be held at the Ngee Ann City Civic Plaza on 17 May this year. We will be holding a candlelight display to remember the victims of drug abuse, not only from Singapore but from all around the world, because victims from around the world deserve our sympathy and thoughts.

But of course, it will include victims in Singapore, including the elderly mother and grandmother brutally murdered, the two-year-old toddler who was senselessly assaulted to death by her own guardian, and the countless family members whose lives have been upended by having a loved one going to drugs. These are the people who deserve our sympathy.

The event will be followed by roving exhibitions across eight different locations around Singapore from May to July. I strongly encourage Singaporeans to visit the exhibitions, participate in these activities, to be aware of the global and local drug situation and to show solidarity in our fight against drugs.

Sir, to conclude, our drug control policies have been effective. But the drug situation continues to be challenging, abroad certainly, but at home as well. And we have to respond robustly to these challenges so that we do not have a generation caught up with drug addiction, so that our children can inherit a country that is safe and free of drugs and have the same environment that we enjoy today. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Order. We will now have clarifications on the Statement. I would like to take the opportunity to remind Members that pursuant to Standing Order 23, Members may seek clarifications on the Ministerial Statement but there is no debate that should be allowed thereon. Members can seek clarifications by way of asking questions. So, I seek Members' understanding to keep your clarifications clear and concise. Likewise, I would ask the Minister to also keep his answers clear and concise. Mr Pritam Singh.

2.24 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. Just a few questions for the Minister.

First, with regard to the latest CNB Drug Situation Report 2023, which observes an 18% increase from 2022 of new drug abusers in Singapore, can I enquire from the Minister what new initiatives is the Ministry and, more specifically CNB, looking at to ensure that this number does not increase further? Specifically, I understand the same report covered some information on preventive education and efforts taken at preventive education. What other new initiatives can we expect with regard to the increasing number of abusers?

Related to this, there has been a significant jump in new psychoactive substances which have been seized by CNB. Is there a particular reason why there has been an evolution from other drugs, which are classified in the report, to these new psychoactive substances being abused in Singapore? It would be helpful if the Minister could share with us whether this is across the board or are there specific communities that are consuming these new drugs?

The second question refers to the slide that the Minister put up on the two-year recidivism rate. Would the Minister also share if the five-year recidivism rate generally follows those same percentages – 73%, I believe, as recorded in 1993 to 27% in 2021?

The final clarification is with regard to the recently passed Post-Appeal Applications in Capital Cases Bill. I think the Minister suggested that we may come back to the House to see what else needs to be done. Is the Minister suggesting that there are some gaps in the Bill, which has not even come into force yet, which may require an amendment to the Act as it stands?

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, on the last question, I was not suggesting that there were gaps. What I was suggesting is that as we see how people file their applications, we learn. And looking at the methodology, for example, if there is a constitutional challenge – and there was last year – we may have to consider whether we need to amend the Constitution to make sure that any future constitutional challenges of such a nature will not succeed. And I look forward to support from Mr Singh if we were to come for that, since this is a fight that all of us have to take seriously.

So, the answer is, we looked at what we needed to do and we passed the Bill. We have seen how the applications have evolved and I have directed my Ministry – I have not said there are any gaps – to look to see whether we need to do anything more, given in particular that there was a constitutional challenge.

Second, Mr Singh has asked about the 18% increase in youth drug abuse. This is the approach we take. We disclose everything, we put the data out there and be transparent. There is a problem, and CNB and my Ministry said that there is this problem. What new initiatives? We need to do even better at preventive drug education. We need to focus on the parents as well to understand the messages. And the other new initiatives, I have spoken about them in my Ministerial Statement earlier.

The question on psychoactive substances – why is there a jump? Sir, the answer is actually quite simple. These were not available previously. Now, you can alter chemical properties and create drugs fairly easily and they become easily available. Every time you identify a compound, someone else can very quickly alter one or two chemical properties and come out with a technically different compound but with the same impact as the original compound. So, it is a continuous chase and you have to continuously deal with it. And because now it can be produced in a lab, as it were, it is also much easier to produce larger quantities and some of it have properties that some of our young find attractive.

Are there ethnic components to new psychoactive substances? I do not think there is a clear correlation, but we have seen a slightly higher level of Chinese participation, as it were, the number of Chinese who take these new psychoactive substances compared with the traditional drugs, if I can so refer to them.

As to whether the five-year recidivism rate has come down over the 30-year period, I would ask the Member to file a Parliamentary Question and we will deal with it.

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I commend the hon Minister for articulating his tough stance against drugs. And I think one would also need to take note that, coupled with the tough stance, is a compassionate stance in helping the drug victims and the family. And the presence of the families here in the House is a clear articulation of that approach.

Sir, my clarification is in relation to how do we embed this anti-drugs policy in the younger generations of Singaporeans, particularly Gen Z and Generation Alpha, against the backdrop of: one, the fact that they did not necessarily have personal experience because, as was recounted by the hon Minister, we had serious drug problems in the 1970s, they obviously would not have such personal experience; two, the narratives in the social media.

I had regard to a research paper in 2022 where it was highlighted that in relation to so called "soft drugs", there were positive perceptions of these so called "soft drugs" in 75% of 16 million posts that were analysed. This paper came out of Australia. Our young consume social media for news and they are exposed to this. So, how do we deal with this?

The last point is the fact that increasingly – and this, perhaps, is my personal perception – Singapore seems to be, in a sense, set aside in relation to conferences dealing with the drugs issue. I myself have had a chance to articulate Singapore's strong anti-drugs stance in a symposium in Cambridge. I was referred to as having outlier arguments and Singapore's experience cannot be replicated elsewhere.

So, these are the trends. How do we make sure that our children from Gen Z and Gen Alpha would understand and internalise our strong anti-drugs policy?

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir. On the first question, how do we embed this anti-drug message in the face of an assault from multiple sides putting forward a positive spin on drugs? I think this goes to Mr Singh's question as well, because if you see what is happening, by decriminalising and making drugs available, people stand to make a lot of money, billions of dollars. So, there are listed companies around the world which want this and they finance non-governmental organisations (NGOs), they finance publicity, which sells the idea that soft drugs are good, they are harmless.

If you look at these international conferences, the NGOs which are taking a tough line on drugs are usually poorly financed, their material is not so attractive; whereas on the other side, there are all these glitzy arguments as to why soft drugs, cannabis cause you no harm. It is just something for you to try, it is cool.

So, the whole idea of the "cool" factor pushed at our young from media, online, friends, peer pressure; wherever you turn, it is there and it is glamourised today. It is frequently glamourised. You cannot get away from it. So, if you ask why is there a jump amongst our young in, albeit from a lower base, the answer is obvious. How do we deal with it? We do not produce Hollywood movies. It is very difficult to stand against this multi-faceted assault. But I think we have done a reasonably good job.

And that goes, in a way, to the second question that Mr Pillai asked, Sir. We are an outlier in the United Nations (UN), in international conferences. We usually get one of two reactions: one, a sullen silence as we put out our statistics and situation, because people just do not like it; the second is, "Well, you know, yes, we accept that Singapore succeeds but what you do cannot be replicated elsewhere". I think it can be, but it is not for me to fight the fight in the rest of the world. As long as others do not tell us what to do and leave us alone to protect our population, then I think that is the best that we can hope for.

Second Minister Josephine Teo goes very regularly to the UN conference on drugs in Vienna. We put forward our position and, yes, we are somewhat isolated. There are other countries which take a tough approach, but I think none put forward the arguments quite in the way that we do, presented with research and statistics. But we do have a group of countries that take a view against drugs, including in ASEAN. There are differences of view, but never underestimate, it is a very tough environment to get our message across to our own people and we will all have to continue to fight on it.

Preventive drug education is a broad title, but CNB and MHA is trying many different things now to try and get the message across even better, even clearly and to more people.

I think if you go and ask, those of you with primary school children; ask them, I think they would have heard about it. They will tell you what they have been told. The next question is trying to get it to be imbued in. I think parents have a big role. And there, I am hoping that our initiative on Drug Victims Remembrance Day would help. The other steps that we are taking, I am hoping will help.

Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): I thank the Minister for a very clear articulation of Singapore's policy, which is different from many other countries' but I think the right one.

The area that I have concern with, like some of the other Members, is that the age at which children start taking drugs is relatively young – an average of 15.9 years. When I was in primary school, there were campaigns against glue sniffing, which was seen as a gateway drug. Are there any other gateway substances or drugs that the public should be aware of and which the youths in particular should be aware of today?

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir. Some might, for example, refer to vaping as a gateway and for that, the Ministry of Health will answer as to what steps they are taking.

2.38 pm

Mr Speaker: Are there any more clarifications from Members for the Minister? I do not see any. Order. End of Ministerial Statement. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Order of the Day.