Strengthening Singapore's Fight Against Drugs

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Madam, I beg to move*, "That this House strengthens the fight against drugs by reaffirming Singapore's strong anti-drug stance and calls on the Government to continue (a) applying tough laws to deter the trafficking of drugs into Singapore; (b) investing in the rehabilitation of drug addicts; and (c) preventing a drug-tolerant culture from being established in Singapore."

*The Motion also stood in the name of Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Vikram Nair.

Mdm Speaker, increased drug abuse in Singapore is a matter of concern. Since 2011, more than 3,000 drug abusers are caught every year, out of which, about 1,000 are new. Among the new drug abusers in 2016, close to two-thirds were below 30 years of age. In 2015 and 2016, the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) admission increased when overall penal admission had decreased. Per the most recent statistics, almost one in three inmates is convicted again within two years.

The brokenness of drugs is more than statistics. I have felt that brokenness on the ground. Before entering politics, I volunteered at the Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association to work with youths-at-risk and speak about the havoc drugs can create in their young lives. Drug addiction, for many, is the death of their drive and ambition.

The Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) and the Singapore Prison Service are sterling institutions, staffed with dedicated and committed officers. Their effort in the fight against drugs is courageous. But, the fight is not only theirs to bear. All Singaporeans have a role to play.

The first point is that we need to deter drug trafficking in Singapore and into Singapore. Stemming the supply of drugs is a critical part of the fight against drugs.

As Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said at an ASEAN Ministerial Meeting, I quote, "We should also prepare well for the international debate on a new global action plan to tackle drugs. … We must not let softer approaches that allow the harm from drug use to spread..."

Minister K Shanmugam correctly said in defence of Singapore's tough laws at last year's UN General Assembly, "For us, the choice is clear. We want a drug-free Singapore, not a drug-tolerant Singapore." These positions, which support a tough stance on drugs, should remain. With your permission, Madam, may I display some slides and photographs on the screens?

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]

Mr Christopher de Souza: In 2014, the amount of cannabis seized spiked by 125% from 15 kg in 2013 to 35 kg in 2014. The next year, 2015, the demand for cannabis increased. For the first time, cannabis became the second most commonly abused drug among new abusers in Singapore. That year, there was about a 26% increase in cannabis seized from 35 kg to 44.3 kg. One year later, in 2016, the amount of cannabis seized continued to rise significantly. According to provisional statistics, during the first six months of 2016, the amount of cannabis seized was almost the same amount for the entire year of 2015. The data showed that over the entire year, the amount of cannabis seized increased by another 22% from 2015 to 2016. Therefore, muscular laws continue to be needed as they are both relevant and necessary.

Stopping drugs from entering Singapore is an important aspect of solving the drug problem. To stem the supply of drugs, we need tough laws to deter the potential drug trafficker. After all, drug trafficking is, for the most part, pre-meditated. It is a coldly calculated risk between potential profit and potential punishment.

What does one stand to gain from drug trafficking? Quick money. It is lucrative.

Driven by greed, the drug trafficker takes the plunge. He lines his pocket with money at the expense of the drug addict, the addict's family and society. These tough laws are needed to deter harm − to deter harm to the abuser and to society. We must hold the line of tough and muscular laws. Let no one weaken it. We must strengthen this line, defend it and protect it.

When a person becomes a drug addict, nothing else matters. He neglects his children, his parents, his job and his own health. For example, the severe condition of "meth mouth" is associated with drug use − multiple teeth decay, teeth breaking completely at the gum line, gum disease and bone loss. Paranoia may result. Even in low doses, permanent brain damage may result: using cannabis as rare as once a week may irreversibly lower one's IQ.

People characterise cannabis as a "soft" drug. What is a "soft" drug anyway? I completely disagree with the term "soft" drug. There is nothing soft about the ill-effects of drugs. Cannabis is harmful. Multiple studies have shown that cannabis can be a gateway drug to heroin and cocaine, especially among young abusers. Compared to the general population, there is a four-fold higher risk of mortality among those with cannabis-use disorder. So, you want to call cannabis soft? To do so is plain foolishness.

To escape the clutches of illicit drug taking, some addicts have to endure excruciating symptoms, such as uncontrollable vomiting and diarrhoea and an unstoppable feeling of insects crawling under his skin.

After overcoming addiction, the ex-addict would still need to battle the lure of drugs that will come back to haunt him throughout his life.

It is not only the drug addict who is harmed. His family and those around him are deeply affected. A drug addict's ability to communicate and maintain good relationships is impaired. His mother, father, husband, wife, son, daughter, employee or employer will be affected. The physically and emotionally absent addict puts a strain on the family unit he is in.

Last year, a picture from Ohio made its round around the world. It showed a four-year-old child left in a car with two adults overdosing and unconscious. A month later, yet another harrowing picture − this time, a 10-month-old infant in the backseat.

To drive the point further on the harmfulness of drugs, let us do some sums.

How many people does one think are affected by a drug trafficker who has trafficked the amount of drugs which may attract the death penalty? Two hundred and fifty grammes of meth feeds 185 abusers for a week and 15 grammes of diamorphine sustains about 180 abusers for a week. If one multiplies those numbers with the number of family members affected, the impact of drug trafficking is severely expanded. Let us say, for each addict, he has a spouse, a parent and two children. That means five people are affected − the addict himself and four family members. Multiplying 180 abusers a week by five, we get about 900 people affected. That is equivalent to about 30 platoons! If a person ran towards 30 platoons with a grenade, should not a lethal shot be fired to protect the 900 people?

We need tough drug laws to prevent the immense harm drug trafficking inflicts on Singaporeans. These families are psychologically crippled over weeks, months, years; slowly, insidiously.

Not only are the drug addict and his family affected by the actions of the drug trafficker, society is affected as well.

Drug addicts need increasing doses of drugs to feel normal or to feel the next high. As a result, many resort to crime to fund their addiction. With an increase in crime rate, the security and peaceful environment we enjoy and take for granted will become threatened.

It is for these reasons that I seek that the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) be reviewed regularly so as to ensure that it contains the legal muscle it needs to deter the supply, that is, trafficking, and the demand, being the consumption − both elements of the drug offence.

I call for a regular overview of the MDA. Why?

Firstly, because of the spike in young drug abusers. The number of abusers arrested under the age of 30 has increased by about 20% since 2014. In 2014, the percentage of young abusers under the age of 30, compared to overall abusers, was 35.1%. In 2016, that percentage increased to 41.1%. Furthermore, in 2015 and 2016, the number of new drug abusers increased. Among the new drug abusers, close to two-thirds are below 30 years of age.

The second reason why I ask for a review of the MDA is that the supply of cannabis is on an upward trend. In 2014, 2015 and 2016, the amount of cannabis seized increased each year by 125%, 26% and 22% respectively. In fact, the provisional statistics for January to June 2016 showed that the amount of cannabis seized in that six-month period was almost the same amount for the entire year of 2015.

Another statistic of concern is the number of penal drug admissions. In 2011, the number of penal drug admissions decreased to an all-time low of 1,742. In 2012, the number jumped by almost 42% to 2,472. This was the highest in six years.

Drug trafficking looks to have increased recently. The reply to a Parliamentary Question in September last year seems to suggest that trafficking has increased from 2011 and that the present figures remain higher than in 2011.

Madam, why is it important to continue having harsh, muscular laws and having a regular review of the MDA? Because drugs kill lives. They destroy futures. Let me share how with real examples, examples similar to families each elected Member of this House has served, examples which show the destruction that drugs bring.

For several years, in the constituency I serve, we helped a grandmother raise her grandson. Her daughter got hooked on drugs and spent time in prison. On top of her work as a cleaner, this devoted grandmother saw to her grandson's needs. Her grandson would often visit us. When he did well in school, we all celebrated. When things got tough, we encouraged. A bond has been built. But there is a missing link − his mother. Why? Drugs. When his mother was going to be released from the DRC, I wrote a letter to her personally. We wanted her to know what her own mother had to go through because of her drug addiction. We wanted her not to return to her old ways. In that letter, we offered her a job − a job that was near her house. We wanted her to be able to support her family and be there for her son. In the end, she thanked us but found somewhere else to work.

I give another real life story. Just five days ago, at my MPS on Friday night, I met an aged grandmother. She requested assistance. Why? Because she was caring for her grandchild. Why? Because her son and her daughter-in-law are in prison. Why? Drug addiction. The grandmother needs to take care of her grandchild's schooling, sustenance.

Let us be completely clear. Drug traffickers destroy lives and such destruction can be inter-generational.

So, I ask this House, do we let the supply of drugs overtake us? Or do we fight back? Do we allow drugs to destroy the lives of Singaporeans or do we say, "No, not on our shores!"?

Therefore, Madam, I propose that we re-examine whether the MDA needs a further review to ensure that it is constantly equipped with the legal arsenal and muscle it requires to deter the supply of drugs into Singapore. It is suggested that we revisit the law regularly. Through such regular reviews, the benefits and possible gaps in existing laws should become more evident.

One aspect to re-examine under a review is whether the law, as presently encapsulated in the MDA, can be better calibrated to address the harmfulness of newer drugs or drug combinations. For example, drugs are often mixed with contaminants or with other illicit drugs. These contaminants may affect the potency and addictiveness of the drugs. One recent example in America was heroin mixed with elephant tranquiliser. This potent mixture caused many to overdose and die. This contamination is driven by greed − more effect, with lower cost to produce.

A common harmful contaminant is meat tenderiser. The meat tenderiser, which is normally used to "pre-digest" meat to make it tender, is mixed with the drug such that it "dissolves muscle and flesh" when administered.

Essentially, we need to look at the detrimental effects of drugs in the raw, in the flesh and without rose-tinted glasses. There is a drug called "krokodil". It is named after the side-effects, crocodile-like skin − green, scaly and bumpy. If it misses the vein, it eats the flesh. It has been described as destroying "body tissue the way battery acid eats through plastic". Yet, this harmful drug made of codeine mixed with lighter fluid, industrial cleaning oil or the like, is three times cheaper to produce than heroin.

This brings into sharp focus why we need to do all we can to ensure that drugs do not get a foothold, in particular. Hence, the MDA should not only be focused on the weight of the drugs trafficked but should also give due consideration to the potential harmfulness of the drug when mixed or cocktailed with available consumables.

The second suggestion is that we would need quicker incorporation of new drugs into the First Schedule. The "First Schedule" should be "flexible" enough to quickly incorporate new drugs not previously outlawed, especially since new concoctions are constantly being attempted at by syndicates.

This slide illustrates that it is important that our laws be able to keep up with New Psychoactive Substances (NPS). What is currently done by the Fifth Schedule which allows for "restricted circulation" is a good measure, but it is imperative for effective control of addiction that the move to make such substances "First Schedule" be prompt, that is, be prompt enough to frame a drug trafficking charge against it.

The third suggestion is to insert a new provision in the MDA, creating a unique offence of sale of drugs over the Internet, attracting a higher penalty.

Most commonly described as the Dark Net, more people are turning to the Internet to get their next fix.

Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean also mentioned at the 5th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Drugs that "illicit dealers… used the Dark Net to attract new drug abusers. Our agencies have worked hard to catch such abusers and hold them responsible for their actions."

The number of people arrested for buying drugs and drug-related paraphernalia online increased significantly from 30 in 2015, to 201 in 2016. That is a 570% increase over the span of one year.

Due to the increasing number of youths experimenting with drugs and the huge potential of the Internet to facilitate sales to youth, we should consider specifically how an aggravated offence can be legislated where the trafficker uses any element of social media or the Internet to entice or procure sales.

For example, an aggravated offence could be created where any act in the series of acts leading up to the eventual sale or potential sale of the drug was performed through the medium of the Internet or any social media platform. This may deter drug traffickers from using the Internet to advertise sales, potentially leading to reduced drug sales to youth.

The fourth suggestion is to make an offence the act of recruiting, via the Internet, to traffic drugs using the Internet and to bring that new offence under an enhanced punishment regime similar to that for recruiting young offenders.

The fifth suggestion is to have another tier of punishment for drug traffickers who possess the aggravating factors of (a) targeting persons under 30 years and (b) using the Internet.

The sixth suggestion is that of defining Internet broadly in the MDA to include websites, social media platforms and applications. In particular, messaging applications, such as WhatsApp, often used by the younger generation, should be covered.

Madam, I have completed the first part of my speech of why we need muscular drug laws to deter drug trafficking in Singapore and into Singapore. Now, I move on to the second point which is why we need to invest in rehabilitation so as to reduce the recidivism rate.

Stopping the supply is one aspect. Helping those who have fallen into drug addiction to get out of it is just as important.

There are several reasons why rehabilitation is important.

First, we must distinguish between addiction and trafficking. Drug trafficking laws need to be tough − deterrence is the main reason for punishment. This is only right for a premeditated, greed-driven crime.

Drug addicts need to be rehabilitated. They need to get out of the clutches of drug addiction. Yes, it is right that we have the Drug Rehabilitation Centre to rehabilitate our drug addicts. Let us remember − it is the Drug Rehabilitation Centre. We have already chosen to subscribe to the philosophy of rehabilitation. For those six months to three years, we have chosen to take custody of the drug addict in order to rehabilitate him.

It is only proper that we give the drug addict the best shot at turning over a new leaf.

Each addict saved means another husband, wife or child saved. Each addict saved means one more valuable contributor to our society. Each addict saved is a life saved − a life saved from misery, self-harm, lost potential. Madam, with your leave, may I ask for the distribution of the handouts?

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]

Mr Christopher de Souza: In order to rehabilitate well, we need to look surgically at our recidivism rate. The current recidivism rate for DRC is 30.1%, almost one in three of our inmates is coming back through the door within the first two years. Furthermore, each year, more than half of the drug abusers arrested were repeat drug abusers.

In 2011, a Task Force on Drugs was formed to "tackle the drug abuse situation." Through its recommendations, the Singapore Prison Service implemented the Community Rehabilitation Centre (CRC) and the Enhanced Drug Rehabilitation Regime. These are all good initiatives and recommendations, but there is a lot more we can do.

Rehabilitation is, by its very nature, always a work in progress and I acknowledge the good work the Prison Service does in this regard. I also accept that there must also be a strong desire on the part of the drug addict to want to rehabilitate. I hope the following suggestions could be taken into consideration, with the mind of developing and adding to the Prison's good work.

The first suggestion is to increase access to effective rehabilitation for lower risk inmates. We should make full use of the window of opportunity while an addict is low-risk. Lower risk inmates have a higher chance of recovery. If that opportunity is not grasped and he did not have the best chance for rehabilitation, he will soon relapse. By then, it may be too late.

This is even more important for young drug abusers. Youthful years are meant to develop a good circle of friends and good peer support. That is why investing in the rehabilitation of young drug abusers is so important. But how can we do this effectively for the young drug abuser, as well as the older drug abuser? The answer lies in reconditioning.

A key method of reconditioning is pleasure replacement. When drugs are used to escape from difficult situations, it is important for rehabilitation that ex-drug addicts experience that there are other healthier ways of getting relief. For instance, physical activity and games help re-write the circuit and show that, yes, there can be relief outside drugs. Such activities also foster motivation through goal-setting and working towards a drug-free life.

One example is Phoenix Multisport in the United States, where recovering, like-minded drug abusers who want to stay sober do exhilarating physical activities together. The idea is pleasure replacement − replacing the pleasure derived from drugs with more healthy activities. We should study to see how such models can be transferred into a DRC setting.

With that, let me move on to reintegration, which is another key factor in lowering recidivism, which is a key component for rehabilitation. In the DRC, counselling on resisting the temptation to take drugs is head knowledge. But once the addict is released, he is plunged into a world where the temptations lurk about. The ex-drug addict needs to have counsellors available to him, post-release, to help him.

One such support mechanism is the Serigaya Methamphetamine Relapse Prevention Program (SMARPP), a work-book based counselling exercise, in Japan. Research on the effectiveness of the Japanese programme found that it "increases a drug abuser's awareness of problems, their motivation for treatment and serves as preparation for group therapy."

In 2016, researchers attempted to develop a web-based version, which included videos adapted from cognitive behavourial therapy, websites linked to addiction support services and self-monitoring colour-coded calendars, to enhance motivation. Would the good Minister consider issuing a self-teaching workbook to each ex-drug addict upon release as a resource to help him resist the urge to do drugs?

Family, Madam, plays an important role in the reintegration of an ex-drug addict. Families need to be equipped and empowered to fulfil their roles as the anchors they can be. A proactive family may ask these questions: how best to help the ex-offender? How best to interact with him? What to watch out for? Families need to be equipped with the answers. There may be shock, denial, hurt, a sense of betrayal. But, ultimately, who would not want their husband, father, son, or wife, mother or daughter back? Many would.

The suggestion here is that DRC inmates be given more visitation time to facilitate the reintegration process. Family therapy is an initiative that could be looked into seriously within the DRC, attended by the inmates and their families.

Another idea is for more families to attend family-focused workshops, like those conducted in 2006 by the Family Resource Centre. Topics were based on inmates' needs, as identified by their personal supervisors in prison, including parental, marital and reintegration issues. The suggestion here is to have a larger number of joint sessions involving the inmate and his family.

For those with little or no family support, positive peer support can come in the way of Community Befrienders. The volunteer's role is important, especially since a new social network is critical for disengaging from the web of drugs.

Madam, let me now move on to the last and third topic − the third part of the Motion, which is, preventing a drug-tolerant culture from setting root in Singapore.

While muscular laws and effective rehabilitation are needed to combat the supply and demand elements of drug offences, we must also ensure that the overall national attitude or the cultural perception towards drugs remains strongly anti-drugs. We, as a society, must view drug trafficking and consumption with suspicion and disapproval. We cannot afford to slip into a pro-drug culture. We must remain, strongly, anti-drugs.

Many countries have lost the war on drugs. In a defeatist narrative, these countries now proclaim the usefulness of "soft" drugs, such as cannabis. Such a narrative paints these soft drugs as harmless. Such spiel may sound attractive, but what it really indicates is that those countries are on the back foot in their already-weak fight against drugs. That narrative, though false, has permeated through the globe, such that a culture more tolerant to recreational drug use is setting root. Singapore could fall prey to such a culture. We cannot allow that to happen.

We should reveal drugs for what they really are − harmful, addictive, destructive. The drug endemic in America is a prime example of what we should not allow to happen on our shores. There, drugs are not just tolerated but also promoted. Drug usage becomes the new normal. Lives are wasted, potential is wasted − all because of higher tolerance, which blossoms into the acceptance of a drug culture.

In 2015, in the United States, overdoses on prescription and illicit opioids multiplied by four times since 1999. Since the legislation of cannabis, there has been an increase in traffic accidents and fatal traffic accidents in Washington state and Colorado, which have legalised cannabis. Please look, in particular, at the line that extends all the way to 2015 − the percentage of traffic accidents in Washington where drivers have been tested positive for the active ingredient in cannabis. That has steadily increased since 2012 and has climbed rapidly upward. This is something we should not risk.

The prevalence of drug abuse has also impacted the economy of Colorado. Large businesses now have to recruit out-of-state residents to find employees that can pass a pre-employment drug test. As a pre-construction company told The New York Times, "to find a roofer or a painter that can pass a drug test is unheard of."

This slide shows an increase in calls, relating to cannabis, to the Poison Centre in Washington state. This means that even with restrictions on buying cannabis, more people unintentionally ingest cannabis. This is true even among those under 20.

Colorado is also inflicted by this trend. In 2016, the Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics reported that "the rates of cannabis" exposure in young children, many of them toddlers, have increased 150% − this is for toddlers − since 2014 when recreational marijuana products went on the market legally." All of these are totally preventable. Most of the time, the cannabis came from family or friends. Attractive edible cannabis caused half of the known exposures. The pictures on this slide show edible cannabis and they give you an idea of how children can be so easily attracted to it. Do we want to expose our children to this on our shores? We need to expose these pro-drug lies for what they really are − out for profit.

The pro-drug camp wraps lies in a palatable way, with phrases like − "right to do recreational drugs", "victimless crime", "harm reduction." The shift in drug policy around the world is not driven by truth about drugs. Rather, in my view, a drug-tolerant culture is fuelled by those who stand to profit. Cannabis is touted to be "the fastest growing industry in America". It is projected to grow from $3.4 billion in 2015 to more than $10 billion by 2019.

Harm reduction is a subversive slogan that calls for a permissive attitude towards drugs. It is touted as pre-emptive, not punitive, not deterrent. But in reality, it is a mere surrender on the war on drugs − it was exceptionally difficult in those countries to substantially stem the supply of drugs into their borders. This must never happen in Singapore.

How do we ensure this? The first suggestion is that we include clear and informative learning material in our MOE Science syllabus, which should detail the host of ills and harmful effects of experimenting with drugs. Make it examinable material. We need to start young and reinforce it regularly by putting it in the Primary and Secondary school syllabus. Students have to be convinced. They need credible answers. We must address counter-arguments.

Another important aspect of exposing propaganda is not just telling the truth, but also teaching how to find the truth. This is especially important as young people increasingly turn to the Internet as a source of information. Hence, it is important that students be equipped with the skills to (a) find credible sources of information and (b) be alert to the rhetoric used by the pro-drug camp. Pro-drug rhetoric says that drugs will solve problems, but is there another solution? People need to know that there is another solution. They need to be shown this.

Started in Sweden, Mentor International, "provide(s) support, best practices and evidence-based mentoring programs that offer young people the inspiration, empowerment and motivation they need to make healthy life choices and view their futures more positively." The idea behind it is for students to have a guide to navigate through life − this increases the propensity to stay clear of drugs.

Parents play a big role in drug prevention. There are two things that people, generally, and parents, in particular, in my view, need to know even before they are ready to hear any information they need to on drugs. They need to know that: (a) it is a matter that they should be concerned about; and (b) that they matter − that parents matter.

Essentially, family is key. Where the family is dysfunctional, a good peer group is key. If no good peer group exists, then the at-risk youth needs to equip himself with ways to disbelieve that drugs are good. I have given some examples of how the at-risk youth can equip himself. Ultimately, the anti-drug culture must win the war against pro-drug propaganda. The mindshare of Singapore's youth is a key battleground − the pro-drug camp must be defeated there.

Madam, in conclusion, we should fortify the arsenal and weaponry of Singapore in her fight against drugs. We should be at liberty to use the best weaponry for this crucial battle on our shores.

We can build and share a common prosperity or we can disintegrate into a common poverty of spirit, a potential social abyss, which drugs can bring, insidiously, stealthily. The choice is ours. I hope, today, this House will fight against the pro-drug propaganda.

Question proposed.

6.31 pm

Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, I stand in support of this Motion. The drug scourge in Singapore, while numbers are relatively low compared to many developed countries, still remains a cause for concern.

According to our Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) 2016 report on the drug situation in Singapore, there are two trends that merit serious concerns.

First, the number of new drug abusers arrested in 2016 increased by 3% compared to the year before. In 2015, there were 1,309 new drug abusers arrested. This number increased to 1,347 in 2016. Almost two-thirds of these new abusers are below 30 years old. In addition, out of the total of 3,245 drug abusers arrested in 2016, slightly over 40% of them are below 30 years old.

Second, CNB has also seen an increase in online drug peddling last year. The number of people arrested for buying drugs and drug-related items through online means increased significantly from 30 in 2015 to 201 in 2016. This is a five-and-a-half time increase in numbers. The majority of them are between the ages of 20 and 39.

These numbers are worrying, especially when a survey conducted by the National Council Against Drug Abuse (NCADA) in 2016 found that young people below the age of 30 were more open-minded towards drugs, compared to similar findings in 2013.

Such liberal attitudes towards drug use cannot be tolerated. The harmful effects of drugs may not be fully understood by the young people who are using drugs, who may believe that recreational use of drugs is well within their control and that they will not be addicted to it, or that there will not be any damaging long-term effects on their physical or mental well-being.

While CNB may have stepped up its youth outreach efforts through the use of technology and social media, a more targeted approach framework needs to be found to specifically reach out to Primary and Secondary school students and students studying in our post-Secondary institutions, starting with those who are in their early to mid-teens.

My 18-year-old son, who is studying in a local polytechnic, shares with me about two of his friends who are not just smoking cigarettes, but also taking drugs. They are quite nonchalant about it and seem to think it is no big deal. They even offered my son to smoke weed or join them in taking a puff to get high, to which he sensibly and thankfully declined.

One of his friends, also a polytechnic student, smokes weed or marijuana in the polytechnic itself. Another of his friends is an ITE student who was caught for smoking weed. While he is undergoing follow-up checks through routine urine tests, he continues to take synthetic weed, which he claims cannot be detected through the urine tests.

While I must state that these are only two of his many friends who otherwise lead drug-free and healthy lifestyles, I am calling for CNB, the Police, the Health Promotion Board and our Institutes of Higher Learning to go all out to stop such drug use and abuse in our educational institutions, even if the numbers are small and seemingly insignificant.

6.35 pm

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

This outreach, engagement and targeted public education against drug use and abuse should also be done concurrently with the fight against smoking. To me, the addiction to smoking and drug use is one and the same, and should be done in tandem, since the smoking habit seems to create a propensity towards smoking or taking drugs as well. In addition, I hope CNB and Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) can find ways to curb online peddling of drugs more effectively and take tougher enforcement actions on those who are buying drugs online. Never mind that the amount of drugs is small, and never mind that the perpetrators are committing it for the first time, but that they are young. The message must be clear. We do not tolerate drug trafficking and use. At this point, Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to continue in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The war on drugs is a joint effort by all of us. We need pervasive approaches so as to reach out to and educate our young on the damaging and irreversible effects of both smoking and drug use. Support and assistance from influential personalities and positive role models that our young look up to, strengthen this approach. I understand that local personalities, such as Taufik Batisah and Irfan Fandi, have joined in this fight against drug abuse by offering their time and energy. I look forward to more support from such personalities and positive role models for our young.

At the same time, support from home is also important in shaping positive mindsets among our youths in this fight against drug abuse. We need parents to be positive role models for their children − not just by advising them to stay drug-free or smoke-free − but to also role model positive behaviour and healthy lifestyles, free from addiction of any sort.

This reminds me of one of my residents. Ms Lydia is still relatively young, barely 40 years old. But each time I met her, she looked haggard and worried, as though she was over 50 years old. Her husband is incarcerated because of drug abuse even though he is already in his 50s. And this is not the first time he had been in prison because of drugs. They have three children − two studying in primary school and one who is three years old.

Throughout the time Ms Lydia is married to her husband, she did not work and depended on him for financial support. With her husband's recent incarceration, Ms Lydia finds herself with no source of income. We tried our best to help her by providing her with temporary financial assistance. At the same time, we also helped Ms Lydia find part-time work and get a place for her youngest child in a childcare centre so that Ms Lydia can work. Although Ms Lydia is a strong woman who remains undaunted, the social and emotional impact on her and her children, who are now unable to see their father, is quite deep and cannot be easily forgotten. Their family relationship has definitely been affected.

Support from the family is much needed, not just when our children or family member have succumbed to drug addiction or smoking, but even before they become a slave to addiction. Developing positive habits and a healthy lifestyle − such as doing sports as a family, spending time on a common hobby with family members and close friends, or by volunteering and doing meaningful work for our community − will help each and every one of us to keep addiction at bay.

(In English): I must admit that the drug scourge in Singapore is not isolated or that only our local agencies have to step up in terms of outreach, education and enforcement. The drug scourge is certainly a global one.

What is equally worrying is the callous claims by some pro-cannabis and pro-marijuana proponents that small amounts of cannabis use is perfectly alright, or that there are medical conditions, such as glaucoma or Parkinson's disease, that can be managed through daily doses of cannabis or marijuana or ganga, whatever name it is known as. We would also need the help of medical professionals and research experts to verify such claims and, more importantly, to curb the incorrect perception that small doses of drug use on a daily basis are perfectly fine.

Sir, the drug situation is far from rosy and the fight against drug use and abuse is far from over. We would need all parties to come together to do this to help ourselves and our future generations − parents, schools, the Government, popular personalities − all have important roles to play. We need to do this together.

Getting rid of an addiction is certainly not easy. It takes a lot of courage, discipline and inner strength and, of course, support from our loved ones. But it is not impossible.

When it comes to addiction: "I can choose to let it define me; confine me; outshine me; or I can choose to move on and leave it behind me." Thank you, Sir. I support the Motion.

6.41 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, like most Singaporeans of my generation, having been born here and socialised to uncompromising anti-drug messages throughout my growing years, I have not experienced the reality commonplace in other countries where drugs are available to teenagers in schools, or in bars in university campuses without too much difficulty. Singapore's small size, tough laws and the dedication of the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) to their mission have made this possible.

But Singapore is an outlier. The reality of governments in other parts of the world is very different. At best, this has to do with being a larger polity and the difficulty in ensuring that the writ of the state extends across hundreds and thousands of kilometres, different political cultures, different social circumstances and different norms that govern individual freedoms and liberties. At worst, it is a self-evident reality that the world-wide war against drugs has failed.

Whichever perspective one takes, these realities have precipitated a new and different approach now taken globally to deal with the drug problem. A major plank of this new approach calls for the legalisation of drug use, particularly in medical marijuana on health grounds and, in some jurisdictions, the legalisation of recreational drugs per se.

As many Americans went to the polls in 2016 to decide between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton as their next President, a parallel vote took place on the legalisation of marijuana. This resulted in nine states in the US, including California, Florida, Massachusetts, passing laws that allowed for either regulated medical or recreational marijuana use. Today, 44 states in the US have legalised some form of drug use. In 2001, an Economist article titled "The Case for Legalisation" argued that a legal market for drugs would be the best guarantee that drug-taking would be no more dangerous than smoking and drinking, even as it acknowledged that legalisation would not be easy. Fast forward just about 15 years and the first sentence of a piece on the legalisation of drugs in the same publication went like this: "The argument for the legalisation of cannabis has been won." In so far as global trends are concerned, the movement to legalise drugs is now effectively mainstream.

Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a belief that the movement towards legalisation is a western phenomenon. But such an assumption would be wrong. Closer to home, attitudes are shifting, too, mainly with a view to get a better handle on the drug problem and to undermine organised crime. The Senior Vice-Chairman of the Malaysian Crime Prevention Council, Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye, in a piece titled "Consider Less Severe Punishment" in the New Straits Times last year, noted that despite punitive laws against illicit drugs, capital punishment and spending millions to address the problem, the number of addicts in Malaysia was growing. He called on the Malaysian authorities to consider "the road less travelled" and to decriminalise drug use and possession and to treat drug addiction as a medical problem. The writer also reflected on countries like Portugal, which adopted less punitive policies towards drug possession more than a decade earlier and, in doing so, had not experienced any significant increase in drug use, drug-related harm or crime, compared to countries with punitive laws.

Separately, late last year, the Thai Cabinet approved the proposal to allow hemp, a plant which is part of the cannabis family, but with lesser amounts of the psychoactive substance tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to be grown as a cash crop as part of a project to use narcotic plants for medicinal purposes.

Prior to the Cabinet decision, Thailand's Justice Minister General Paiboon Koomchaya was quoted in the Thai media as saying that he was firm in his aim to remove marijuana from the narcotics drugs list and to treat it as a medicinal herb.

The movement towards the gradual acceptance of some drugs, chiefly cannabis, for medical purposes is a powerful catalyst in the case for the legalisation of drugs. Even if medical authorities have not ruled definitively in this area and medical practitioners argued that there are realistic alternatives to medical marijuana, nevertheless, an international industry has already taken form and a stronger lobby is likely to follow.

Late last year, the international New York Times reported that Israel has been a leading player in medical marijuana research as early as the 1960s and that 25,000 of its citizens today hold permits to use medical marijuana to ease symptoms of cancer, epilepsy and other diseases, with the number expected to grow rapidly. In fact, the Guardian has reported research in Israel will transform the medical marijuana industry into, and I quote, "a serious endeavour of pharmaceutical research producing new strains and drugs able to alleviate the symptoms of cancer, Parkinson's disease, insomnia and other conditions." With the advances in technology, many Israeli companies are working to develop medicine that can deliver precise doses of THC so as to allegedly regulate its psychoactive effects, with the view to bring relief to those in chronic pain.

What is repeated around the world where fierce debates about legalisation are taking place and have taken place, is the emotionally powerful argument that medical marijuana has eased the suffering of those in pain. It is also fathomable that the research into medical marijuana will have a direct bearing on the use of recreational marijuana for which precise doses could also correspondingly be marketed as a safer means of drug consumption. To that end, a recent Business Monitor online article notes that with the growing legalisation of marijuana for recreational use, entirely new industries for consumer-related companies will be created, including transport and through social media. It assessed that while medical marijuana will be an important part of the market, recreational use of marijuana will create new opportunities for consumer industries, especially food and beverage, with derivatives of marijuana potentially added to beer, chocolates and candy.

What is likely to accelerate the legalisation of drugs worldwide is the potential of regulation and taxation, with recreational usage potentially effectively killing off the profits earned by drug cartels and moving them into state and corporate coffers. The challenge, of course, is setting the appropriate tax rate in many jurisdictions. I would hazard that the attraction of taxation may prove irresistible for those governments that have not been able to successfully keep drugs out of mainstream society in the same way Singapore has been able to.

What the global trends suggest, and I turn to the language in the Motion, is that Singapore will find it even more difficult to keep drugs out of the country and in the consciousness of our children and people, in view of the seismic cultural shifts in attitudes towards drug use for medical and recreational purposes in many jurisdictions around the world. Our tough laws will continue to serve as a deterrent for some drug traffickers but I am concerned we will find it increasingly difficult to persuade younger Singaporeans, particularly those who venture overseas for studies or business, about the dangers of drug abuse. The somewhat emotionally persuasive argument of medical marijuana in spite of a currently more established medical opinion will make this even harder.

At this point, Singapore can and should stick to its time-honoured position of a strong anti-drug policy, in view of the still evolving global environment, our unique circumstances and because we have been able to get a handle on the drug problem and successfully kept drugs out of our schools. However, with a large population of foreigners, many of whom are transient residents, living and working in Singapore, and a significant number of overseas Singaporeans who may have a very different cultural attitude towards drugs, the argument for a drug-free Singapore may also increasingly come under strain.

Nonetheless, we should and must begin preparing for a much tougher environment in the immediate term. This is not only if the research on medical marijuana turns decidedly positive for some reason. As drug syndicates are put out of business because of legalisation, some of them, some drug traffickers or abusers, may paradoxically choose to target Singapore from the confines of other countries if there is money to be made here. Those who will fall foul of our tough drug laws will not be the kingpins but the couriers, many of whom seek to make a quick buck.

We may also expect to see a rise in the number of marijuana abuses. In fact, a Facebook page titled "Singapore cannabis awareness" has already generated close to 4,000 likes. It makes a point to track changing norms about the legalisation of cannabis around the world, recently posting a story about the state of New South Wales in Australia funding the world's first clinical trial for the use of cannabis in alleviating chemotherapy inducing vomiting and nausea. This is not fake news, for such trials are indeed ongoing, but the practical effect of such developments around the world, I fear, will likely result in a more relaxed attitude towards the usage of cannabis.

The rise in the arrest of cannabis abusers, as reported in the CNB's drug situation report of 2016, may portend such a trend. For those who believe that a more permissive environment for recreational consumption of drugs in Singapore would not necessarily be hazardous, I would say, be careful what you wish for.

The research-based evidence is sobering. According to Lancet Psychiatry, in a 2015 article, which revealed annual and repeated cross-sectional surveys on medical marijuana laws and adolescent marijuana use in the US from 1991 to 2014, almost a 25-year period, it found territories which decriminalised illicit drugs or where the laws were generally permissive, saw an increase in drug abuse among teenagers and young adults. And that prospect, should there be arguments made about the drug tolerance regime in Singapore, is scary and wholly unwelcomed. As it stands, the argument for the legalisation of drugs in Singapore, in particular, is not compelling or persuasive at all.

To conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, strict laws can only do so much, even if they host a deterrent effect. Stepping up rehabilitation is the right thing to do. However, in view of the new global approach towards drugs, the Government will have to significantly step up education about the slippery slope of drug abuse and drug abuse per se.

In my ward of Eunos in Aljunied GRC in years past, I have worked with the Central Narcotics Bureau and conducted preventive education talks at our local mosque with the permission of the mosque community and I thank them for their support.

At schools and tertiary institutions, in particular, we will have to significantly step up preventive education and to prepare our children and young adults for the world of tomorrow where access to drugs will be more commonplace than ever before and in our mindshare. The Government would also have to focus more squarely on the permissive attitudes that are hardening in favour of supposedly softer drugs like cannabis. There is nothing soft about cannabis. It is harmful to one's health and not every citizen will have ready access or support from family members to rehabilitative resources. As it is usually the case with illegal drugs, the poor and the low-income will be the hardest hit. We must all say no to drugs.

6.53 pm

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of this Motion. I remember, many years ago, as a young junior doctor, looking after a young mother, whose life had been ruined by drugs.

She had been abusing her drugs, injecting herself. Germs got into her blood. Germs went to her heart, eating away one of her heart valves, so her heart could not pump properly. The germs from the injection continued to spread, to her lungs and the rest of her body. That is what drug abuse did to her. A young mother, young children, their future taken away. That is what drugs did to them.

Mr Deputy Speaker, she had no second chance. The drugs did not give her a chance. The person who introduced her to drug abuse, he did not give her a chance. Every person who continued to sell her illegal drugs for abuse, they never gave her a chance. She had no second chance.

And we can also look to other countries like America, to see the extent of the problem. If we look at the statistics from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse, in the year 2015, there were over 50,000 deaths from drug overdose in America.

It has been getting worse over time. In America, the death rate from overdose has more than doubled from 2002 to 2015. This does not even count the rate of drug-related crime: gang violence, robbery, murder, crimes under the influence.

If we look at countries that have taken a soft approach, there is no straightforward way for these countries to roll back the situation because drugs have become so entrenched. You can see it in the United States. You can see it in parts of the West. You can see it in many countries around the world.

And this has deep lessons for us in Singapore because policy choices at the beginning can set the tone for decades afterwards. What we decide today shapes the course of a generation to come. It means a bad choice, an unwise choice, if it cannot be rolled back, will cast a very long shadow for what comes after, for our children and our grandchildren.

We need to care and that means we need to be careful when people call upon Singapore to be tolerant of drugs, to condone drugs. We need to care and we need to be careful when certain propagandists, when certain lobbyists put forward what they claim to be scientific evidence, we need to ask ourselves to evaluate these reports critically, ask ourselves who is funding the research, who stands to benefit from the so-called research. Is there a certain narrative or a certain conflict of interest when these lobbyists claim that drugs are safer; when they claim that harm should be reduced; when they take a stance that it is soft on drugs rather than hard on the dangers that they pose to our people and our children? Because tolerating drugs also means tolerating the harm that drugs do to Singaporeans' lives. It means tolerating the damage to families − husbands and wives, sons and daughters. So, we have to be careful. And it also means we have to care.

Mr Deputy Speaker, for Singaporeans whose lives have already been damaged by drugs, we have to bring hope, in particular, the hope of a future, especially for the children of parents whose lives have been damaged by drug abuse.

At my Meet-the-People Sessions, I have met young mothers, trying to find work − very difficult. Juggling looking after their children, trying to find a job, husband in prison because of drugs.

I have met middle-aged men, released from prison. Because their lives were blighted by drugs. Looking for employment, trying to rebuild their lives and families. Again, disadvantaged by drugs; drugs promoting inequality, poisoning families, damaging the next generation.

So, even as we take a tough stand to prevent drug peddlers poisoning our fellow Singaporeans and their families, we also need to look very carefully at how we can help these families recover, ensure their children still have a fair start in life. So that even as we protect our borders from the scourge of drugs, even as we protect our fellow Singaporeans, those hurt by drugs and their families still can find their way to a better future. I stand in support of this Motion.

7.00 pm

Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank the hon Members who proposed this Motion. It has allowed me to learn a lot and to understand people on the drug issues. And I agree with the Members on the need to be even more proactive in dealing with drug problems in Singapore.

I would also like to pay tribute to officers in CNB for the work that they do in keeping Singapore safe. Our officers often place their personal safety on the line in the course of their work and I think we ought to put on record our appreciation for their sacrifice and bravery.

This Motion covers three important points but I will only address two of them. The first one on the Motion of applying tough laws to deter drug trafficking into Singapore. The second one would be my suggestion for rehabilitative work with drug offenders, traffickers and users alike.

Sir, the first point of this Motion proposes that this House calls on the Government to continue applying tough laws to deter drug trafficking into Singapore and, by that, it would include the retention of capital punishment for drug offences in the form that it presently takes.

First, let me state my position. I do not support the death penalty. It is against my own personal philosophy that I do not believe in a life for another life. I will not want to impose my moral position on this, but I think there are also issues with regard to this matter that I hope we can have more discourse on.

I agree that it is important to have tough laws, but I do not believe that capital punishment, as a demonstration of the tough laws and resolution to fight against drug problems, is something that I can support.

Sir, capital punishment, as we all know, when it takes place, cannot be remedied. Ian Callinan, a former Australian High Court Judge says, "The criminal justice system is fallible. Mistakes occur. Any system that retains the death penalty will inevitably, even if infrequently, cause an innocent person to die. It is not within our capability to avoid the possibility of error. In my experience, the phenomenon of human fallibility is irrefutable and, in my view, must be accorded primacy when weighing the arguments in favour of, and against, the death penalty."

Sir, any criminal justice system in the world, however advanced, will make mistakes. It is not a question of having professional, honest and upright judges, Police officers, prosecutors or defence lawyers. However much trust we have in our system, however much faith we have in the people that operate our system, mistakes are unavoidable because humans do make mistakes and, sometimes, genuine mistakes.

In a capital case, once the execution takes place and the life of a person is terminated, any mistakes made cannot be corrected. The person's life is lost forever. And as the saying goes, "You can release innocent people from prison, but you cannot release them from their graves".

The criminal justice system has itself demonstrated that it is never 100% sure that the person it is sending to the gallows is, in fact, guilty. Secondly, because of the risk factors in the system, even with a very good and disciplined Police force that we have now, mistakes may happen.

In normal cases, our criminal justice system requires a person's guilt to be proven beyond reasonable doubt before he or she can be convicted and, in the context of capital cases, sentenced to death. The law has always made it clear that "proof beyond reasonable doubt" does not mean proof beyond all doubt. But because the death penalty is irreversible, nothing less than proof beyond all doubt would suffice if we are serious about ensuring that no innocent person is wrongfully executed.

Sir, if our judges themselves can disagree over the question of whether the accused persons in some cases were guilty or innocent, we have to ask ourselves whether we can be absolutely sure that we will always send the right people to the gallows. The answer to me is that, no, we cannot.

Just a few weeks ago, our Court of Appeal overturned the conviction of Mr Harven Segar, who was found guilty of drug trafficking by the High Court. But the Court of Appeal was not unanimous. Two of the three judges thought that the Court should acquit the accused, while the third judge thought otherwise.

On top of this, there are various procedures within the criminal process, which increases the probability of wrongful executions that can happen or may happen.

Firstly, a person charged for an offence of drug trafficking or importation is automatically presumed guilty, once the prosecution shows that the accused was merely in possession of the package containing the drugs. As a result, accused persons have to instead prove that they are innocent, and they have to do this without the resources available to the Police. As Prof Michael Hor has pointed out, "where the presumption is employed there can be no doubt that an accused person can be found guilty and executed in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt".

Prof Hor has also pointed out that where there is no access to counsel immediately upon arrest, which could affect the ability of the accused person to defend himself against a capital charge, especially since incriminatory statements obtained by the Police can form the sole basis of conviction, without corroborating or supporting evidence of any kind.

While there is, indeed, a rule that involuntary statements are inadmissible, proof of exactly what happened in the interrogation room and of exactly how statements are obtained depends entirely on witness testimony of the Police and the accused. There is no requirement of recording of any kind, even where no defence counsel is present.

Furthermore, what goes on during the investigation process is especially important because the statements of the co-accused persons can be used against the accused and can also form the sole basis of a conviction without corroborating evidence, even if the statements are subsequently retracted at the trial by the co-accused.

So, in Prof Hor's view: "all these rules and practices taken together must at least cast some doubt on whether there is sufficient due process for the conduct of capital cases."

Sir, if every other advanced criminal justice system in the world has convicted the wrong person, there is no reason to think that Singapore is immune to the problem. Miscarriages of justice have been found in systems, such as Canada, Australia, Norway and many others. Why should we think the situation in Singapore is any different?

Of course, one may ask: have there been any proven cases? Sir, in my view maybe that is really not the right question. Maybe the right question is whether we should wait until someone is wrongfully executed before we decide to change our position.

I would like to speak on the humanity of the families of those executed and those who have their loved ones on death row. While we do not see it, the reality is that our criminal punishment, especially the death penalty, creates a new class of victims in the families of the death row inmates. These family members are innocent people. They found themselves having their loved ones taken away from them through no fault of their own. Most of them are mothers and sisters who have done all that they can to make a decent living for themselves and their families.

In a conversation with a former death row convict who was acquitted by our Court of Appeal, I was struck by the poignancy of how he described the impact of the death penalty on his family. He told me this, "When you sentence me to death, you sentence my family to death too".

Sir, I do not wish to play down the impact of drug abuse on family members of drug abusers. But just as it is important to recognise and address the impact of drugs on the families of drug abusers, I hope we also consider how capital punishment impacts the families of the condemned. Both groups of family members are equal victims in this process.

But if we cannot sufficiently show that the death penalty yields more than a marginal deterrence effect or provide any objective data and evidence, we also have to ask ourselves whether it is necessary, or indeed fair, for us to create a whole new class of victims by carrying out those punishments.

So, do we have good and conclusive data and information that can prove beyond doubt that the death penalty and, by extension, such tough laws, would deter drug trafficking.

In fact, Sir, it appears, and is accepted by CNB itself, that it is active enforcement, both internally as well as joint border operations by our efficient CNB, that remains the best strategy towards disrupting the activities of drug syndicates and in reducing the supply of drugs from entering our borders as much as possible.

Let us also not forget that the reality is that the ones who are being severely punished are largely the drug mules. Drug kingpins that operate beyond our borders, who are well sheltered through a complex network chain, are not going to be the ones personally affected by the harsh drug laws put in place and will continue to send individuals, who are often desperate, to supply drugs into our country.

As such, would the death penalty for drug trafficking yield only a slightly higher deterrent effect than alternative punishments?

Let us be clear here − drugs are a menace to our society and its use should be eliminated as much as possible. Let us also not ignore the fact that the question of drug use is not just a criminal justice issue but a social, political and economic one.

It is a question of the sufficiency of our social and economic structures to ensure that individuals have the social and economic means and support to enable them to lead a dignified and meaningful life such that there is little incentive for them to abuse drugs.

It is most telling when in 2015, out of the 1,400 individuals that were placed in the various drug rehabilitation centres (DRCs), 821 individuals had only Secondary school education, 308 individuals had only Primary school education and six individuals did not have any education at all.

Perhaps the profile of drug abusers might give us some indication that it is in the inadequacy and gaps in our social and economic institutions, rather than the failure of not having implemented more punitive punishment on drug consumption and drug trafficking that the problem lies.

Ultimately, the issue of supply needs to be addressed through the demand lens as well, which I agree with the Members. It goes without saying that if we are unable to effectively reduce the demand for drugs, the supply of drugs will continue to creep into our borders.

Sir, I agree that we must invest in the rehabilitation of drug addicts. I also want to raise another point − that rehabilitation should also be for drug traffickers and not just for the users.

We should also be mindful that many traffickers themselves battle addiction, poverty, unemployment and mental illnesses. In many cases, as recognised by our Courts, they are simply people driven to desperate measures to earn money for their families. They, too, are ordinary people who have fallen through the cracks and are equally capable of rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Let me now speak of the rehabilitative work. Addiction is really very complex. It is not an illness that can be remedied through medication. It is mental, emotional and then it affects the physical being. Once, my company, Drama Box, did a work with inmates in a DRC. In fact, in the work there, what struck us most was their concern, the inmates' concern, of how to find a good support system when they move back to society. In one performance when we moved the play out of the DRC and had it performed by performance actors, an audience member from the public shared his experience of how he helped his relative out of the drug problem. He sent this relative who just left the DRC to work in a logging firm in Brunei, deep in the forest. Over there, the relative learned about discipline which took him away at the same time from his previous social circle. When the relative came back to Singapore three years later, he had enough money to start his business.

The rehabilitative process is a very, very long one.

Visual artist Ms Shirley Soh, who worked with some women drug offenders in her Seeing (from) The Other, a work for the Singapore Biennale 2013, noted this, and I quote, "The most important challenging work with the women inmates was to encourage self- expressions in discovering their own stories of growth, change, inspiration and agency that were equally crucial for these women, many of whom had very low self-esteem and were often poorly educated."

At the end of the process, Shirley noted, "Ultimately, what surprised the women inmates was how much the art process was about life and their own life experience and aspirations that were worthy of sharing with the outside world."

I saw a performance performed by inmates in the prison centre just last year. It was one of the most beautiful performances I had ever seen. The sincerity and commitment, but importantly, when you look at the faces and hear the voices of these inmates, when they first appear on stage, slightly embarrassed but as the performance went on, you know that the experience of working on the performance had made them stronger, more confident, more aware of themselves.

According to Ms Peggy Ferroa, the Arts Educator who worked with them, "Inmates on the programme spend at least six hours a day on week days rehearsing, planning ahead for performances or reflecting. If their minds are occupied with things that require concrete outcomes that they know they can do well in, it is likely that they spend less time thinking of ways to beat the system. When their time is meaningfully spent and they are able to reach their personal goals, they gain confidence and start to think about what they can do for others. Some inmates in the programme have come up with educational workshops using drama for other inmates."

Yes, Arts is powerful in helping the rehabilitative process, of building that resilience in them; to face change, to make change, to be the change themselves. For this to happen, it really needs the Prison Service to be able to invite more of these works. I hope we can look at more of such co-operation as proposed by fellow Members, and, of course, managing the process to allow artists to work with these inmates.

I would like to stress that it is not about making them an artist, so that they can get a skill. Of course, if they are very talented and want to do so, we will be so happy to have more additions to our artistic and creative community. But the programme builds very important soft skills, as well as resilience, which will serve them well when they go back to society. These programmes must not be short workshops but sustainable ones that would focus on the process.

Finally, let me be clear again, Sir, my position on the death penalty is not a dogmatic one. It is not cast in stone and, just as I hope Members who disagree with me would keep an open mind in this discourse, I, in turn, promise to keep an open mind to any new arguments or evidence that my hon friends and other members of society may bring forward. I sincerely hope that the Government would do more to facilitate a more informed public discourse on this subject. I hope to continue this conversation with Members in this House and with my fellow Singaporeans at large.

7.18 pm

Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Deputy Speaker, I would like to first share some stories which I have come to observe and witness first-hand while serving the community. The first story was when I was serving as a grassroots leader in Ulu Pandan. I remember I was still a tertiary student in my second year in University and I was at a Meet-the-People-Session (MPS). It was a very eye-opening experience for me in general but there was this one story that I will always remember and have repeatedly shared.

One night, a young mother came with her children, very young. They were all crying. They were crying because they were hungry. The family had not the financial means, the money, to buy the daily supplies that they needed; that is because the husband, the father of the young children, was a drug addict; he could not hold down jobs, could not even start a job. The young mother, because of her young children, had no choice but to stay around to take care of them. She could not go out to work and, yet, because of the circumstances, they had no savings, no income, no nothing. They managed to somehow make their way, probably by borrowing money, to the MPS to ask for help because of the bills, the arrears, the debts that they had built up.

Fellow volunteers and I were very struck by this. Some of the volunteers immediately took the kids to the McDonald's outlet nearby to buy them a simple meal, so that they can have a full stomach. The rest, some of us stayed back to write letters of appeal and try to find different ways to help her solve her financial distress.

At one point, the then Member of Parliament of Ulu Pandan, none other than Dr Vivian Balakrishnan himself, made a point and I also remember this, that we can give them as much help as we can but we can never be real fathers or real husbands to them. That was something that I walked away with, thinking about it.

As the Government, as a society, there are many things that we can do to help them but, in the end, if someone has been taken down by drugs because drugs have poisoned this person, this person is no longer functioning normally, what we see is a debilitating effect on the innocent lives of people around them, their loved ones, the young ones. This was a very sobering instance. To date, it is something that still sticks with me.

Even within the current community that I serve, I have also met quite a number of drug abusers. A number of them, at least two men I have met, after abusing drugs, even though they are now back in the community, they still suffer psychosis. They are unable to be self-reliant, they are unable to hold down jobs, they have to rely on their siblings or their elderly parents, really aged parents, to still help them, to subsist them. Again, we try to give them financial assistance but there is only so much that we can do. Here we are, we see two able-bodied men basically unable to do anything more productive than just living the days out.

As shared by hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza, we have all seen the photos and the videos that went viral sometime last year in the United States where young toddlers were left to fend for himself or herself at the backseat of the car because the parents were overdosed on drugs. Another one, a little toddler, just sitting next to her mother who had had collapsed because of heroin overdose; just crying, so lonely, so helpless.

As a parent and as any responsible parent in this House and outside of this House, we can all agree that such scenes are simply heartbreaking and we would not want to see it on our own children or, for that matter, on any other child out there because we feel for them. These are real stories of how drugs destroy the lives of those who abuse them and of the innocent people around them.

Illicit drugs remain a scourge of all societies. In the 2016 World Drug Report published by the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, it was estimated that one in 20 adults, or a quarter of a billion people between the ages of 15 and 64 years, used at least one drug in the year 2014 alone.

This is an alarming figure. Drugs never just affect the abuser alone. It is like a voracious vortex pulling family members and the community in a downward spiral. Real harm is inflicted upon the abuser, his family and the wider community. In fact, I can never really understand how the choice of certain individuals in wanting to use illicit drugs can be allowed to destroy the lives and future of so many innocent people out there.

Beyond this, drug abuse and addiction also impose a high cost to the economy, estimated at close to $200 billion annually by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. This includes costs related to crime, loss of work productivity and healthcare expenditures. From an economic perspective, a drug-tolerant society is too high a cost for any society to bear.

We know that drugs destroy families in drug-tolerant countries. Many people started experimenting with illicit drugs to satisfy their curiosity towards the perceived thrill and exhilaration. Often, it is also a result of peer pressure. However, because of the insidious nature of such addictive drugs, users who thought they were just using drugs recreationally may find themselves unable to escape addiction.

Worse, the diminishing effects of illicit drug abuse drives the abuser to consume a greater amount each time just to achieve that same euphoric sensation. And if they do not get that "fix", they suffer terrible withdrawal symptoms. This means that more and more money is needed to finance the drug habit. This can lead to financial exhaustion and, more tragically, death from drug overdose.

It is not uncommon to hear the sad plight of families when the sole breadwinner becomes entangled with illicit drug and is addicted. I described one earlier. We have heard many in this House.

Sometimes, families of drug abusers find themselves trapped in huge debt taken to feed the abuser's drug habit. The families are constantly harassed by creditors and, more heartbreakingly, families get broken up.

The most pitiful victims are none other than children. The United States is a drug-tolerant country. Because of that, over 2.2 million children live with a parent who is dependent on illicit drugs. This is 2.2 million lives that we are talking about. Harrowing to imagine this happening in Singapore. If we are not careful, such heartwrenching scenes as the ones that we have described about toddlers being left alone to fend for themselves, or even like the little toddler in pink pyjamas sitting there crying next to her mother who had collapsed, will become commonplace in Singapore.

Singapore is not invulnerable. Illicit drugs can creep in insidiously and poison young lives. Hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza shared a lot of statistics on drugs and the situation of drugs in Singapore and how drug use among youths is at risk of creeping up further.

Youths are especially vulnerable because, at an adolescent age, they are still developing judgement and decision-making skills. Some get the wrong impression that taking drugs can help to enhance athletic performance or ease anxiety problems. Some are impressionable and give in to peer pressure to feel accepted.

What is also very worrying is that based on reports from the National Library of Medicine, young people appear to move more quickly through the stages towards addiction than adults.

In today's context, it is no longer youths with disadvantaged family backgrounds who abuse illicit drugs. There are now more cases of youths from privileged backgrounds experimenting with illicit drugs. This is supported by the findings in the World Drug Report 2016 that individuals belonging to higher socio-economic groups tend to have a greater propensity to initiate drug use than lower socio-economic groups.

Furthermore, with growing affluence and connectivity to the Internet, there are now more available options to obtain drugs online. Being Internet-savvy, some youths are able to obtain illicit drugs through the Internet called the "Dark-Net". The "Dark-Net" is a remote part of the Internet which is often used for illegal activities. It has been reported that these websites even offer free samples to bait curious youths into experimenting, knowing fully well that the return on investment from giving a free sample is a very high chance of addiction and subsequent demand for drugs.

Furthermore, with the perceived "anonymity" of the Internet, youths may be less fearful of obtaining illicit drugs. With all interactions made virtually, without physical interactions with the drug traffickers and usage of sophisticated cashless transactions, like bitcoin, youths may feel more at ease to obtain drugs.

A global survey, entitled Global Drug Survey, has surveyed more than 100,000 Internet users, 75% of whom had taken illegal drugs, in 50 countries in late 2014. This survey suggested that the proportion of drug users purchasing drugs via the Internet had increased rapidly from 1.2% in 2000 to 4.9% in 2009, then to 16.4% in 2013 and, most recently, 25.3% in 2014.

An update to the global survey in 2016 showed an increase in users obtaining drugs using online platforms, of which the United Kingdom has the highest rate of novel psychoactive substance purchased among the countries surveyed. What is also startling is that 5% of respondents stated that they did not consume drugs prior to accessing them through these online platforms.

In Singapore, statistics provided by CNB showed an increase of about 600% in people arrested for buying drugs and drug-related paraphernalia online, from 30 people in 2015 to 201 people in 2016. This may be low level compared with other countries, but its rapid rise is the one that should worry us. So, we must ensure that our laws and enforcement are kept up to date to prevent our Singaporeans, especially our young Singaporeans, from getting their hands on drugs via the Internet.

Sir, I have talked about how drugs harm individuals, families and the community. I have also talked about drug addiction continuing to be a clear and present danger, especially with the emergence of online sources. To combat the scourge of drug abuse, we need to focus our concerted efforts on education, deterrence and rehabilitation. A strong system of laws with stiff penalties may be an unpleasant but crucial element in our battle against drug abuse.

I believe that the tough penalties strongly and clearly signal Singapore's zero- tolerance stance towards the use of illicit drugs and we should continue to apply tough laws to deter illicit drug use. To be clear, I hope nobody will ever need to be subjected to such stiff penalties because that will mean that everyone is healthy and is leading a full and happy life but, given how addictive drugs are, hoping for that is simply wishful thinking. We need tough laws and penalties to act as a powerful deterrent.

In addition to creating stiffer deterrence, I have also mentioned how rehabilitation and education are equally important. We need to bear in mind that there are still Singaporeans who have fallen prey to the poison of drugs. We must rehabilitate them and help them to reintegrate into society.

Successful rehabilitation outcomes often depend on the drug user's tenacity and resilience in staying in treatment long enough to reap its full benefits. The two-year recidivism rates of persons released from DRCs fluctuate close to 30%, based on statistics provided by Singapore Prison Service (SPS). It is also important that we help drug users to eventually reintegrate into society.

Firstly, we need to break the social stigma and marginalisation through right public education and messaging. We must help former drug offenders battle the demons of addiction through strong community support.

Secondly, we need to empower these individuals to step forward to speak of their personal experiences in taking drugs and become role models or mentors to struggling drug users who need help. A study conducted for the Swedish National Council of Crime Prevention showed that mentoring at-risk individuals can help to reduce the likelihood of recidivism by about 4% to 10%.

Sir, it is equally important to increase preventive education. The phrase "prevention is better than cure" holds a lot of truth, especially in our fight against drugs. We must also consider teaching the dangers of drug abuse at an early age. It was reported that kindergartens in Germany have started an innovative way of strengthening children against addictive behaviours through a toy-free project, in which children will be placed in a toy-free environment for a short period in the day. It is in a way strengthening mental resilience, conditioning them to be stronger. Perhaps MOE can study the feasibility of such an approach to be used in our local context.

Sir, based on CNB's statistics, the total number of drug abusers arrested has hovered around 3,000 over the past five years, which works out to be a relatively low 0.08% of our entire resident population. Thankfully, this figure is also much lower than many other countries, but we must not be complacent and we must keep this figure as low as possible, in fact, if we can, towards zero. We must do so through education, rehabilitation and, inevitably, deterrence, which means retaining the stiff penalties that we have in Singapore.

Members of this House are aware of the harmful effects that drugs can cause to the live of an individual and to society. As a mother of a 20-month-old toddler, every day, as I watch him grow, as he learns new words, learns new things and the excitement that he derives when he gets praised for little achievements, I rejoice with him. It is my greatest desire and wish to see him succeed in life, to see that he has a healthy life, that he is able to pursue his aspirations and make the best out of the time that he has in this life.

I believe that all parents out there wish the same for their children. And so, I feel a sense of responsibility – and, indeed, I think so, too, the Members in this House and members of society out there – that we must make sure that we create the most conducive environment for our younger generation so that they can grow up with the right values, with good health and have the best opportunities to go forth in their lives and pursue their dreams and aspirations. Therefore, I would like to echo my support to go towards a 100% drug-free Singapore − one that does not tolerate drugs. I stand in full support of the Motion.

7.35 pm

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin (Nominated Member): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will focus specifically on the call to invest in drug rehabilitation. Frankly, I am not that well-versed on the drug issue. So, to prepare to speak on this Motion, I talked to former hard-core drug addicts, as well as people in the social sector who have been helping to rebuild their lives, post-incarceration.

The older ex-offenders confirmed for me that it is much harder for a drug addict today to stay clean because there is an oversupply of drugs in the market and it is true that they have many more avenues, online and offline, to purchase their drug of choice and prices have, indeed, fallen. So, consequently, many of them have seen friends fall back to taking drugs and going back into prison.

I asked them what they personally thought of Singapore's laws on drugs and one former hard-core drug addict put it this way, "The laws are tough and cruel but it is necessary. It scares the crap out of us. We are afraid to go back. If we get a lighter sentence, no second thoughts, sure go back to drugs."

The recovering addicts were not naive about the depths of self-destruction they were willing to go through to feed the beast within. They had come to accept the need for tough rules to help them draw boundaries on their behaviours. I asked them and social workers for insights about what could help former addicts stick to the straight and narrow path of rehabilitation. I will list the top five issues they brought up, as well as their requests and proposed solutions.

The first and most consistently brought-up issue was the need for stable accommodation and a supportive community. This is perhaps the most important factor to pay attention to if we are serious about rehabilitation, because extensive international research does show that early access to stable housing is one of the most critical factors that reduces re-offence.

The tough reality for many recovering addicts when they exit prison is that they may not have family or friends willing to give them a home. They often lack financial resources to purchase a flat and while the option of rental flats is open to them, the waiting list is long. As a consequence, many have no home to go to and end up staying way longer than they expected in halfway houses.

One former drug addict said, "I have many friends who are stuck in halfway houses. Some of them are in their 40s and 50s and still working as a house remover. How long can they do house removing jobs considering their age? If they have their own house, maybe they can move on and explore various career paths." Feeling like you are in personal and professional limbo for too long can be really demoralising and actually raise the risk of these ex-offenders backsliding back to addiction for comfort.

But easier access to rental housing is only one part of the issue because, even for those who do get one, there is another problem. Rules currently require two people to share one rental flat and, as circumstances will have it, a former drug addict will often end up rooming with another former drug addict. Without a community of accountability around them, when one roommate falls back into drugs or crime, it is not uncommon to hear of the other roommate rapidly following suit. So, this simple problem of unstable housing without a supportive community can thus potentially erase years of costly investment into the rehabilitation process.

We need to invest in an innovative public housing solution for our ex-offenders that marries the system of accountability of halfway houses together with the space to live independently within society.

There is already a great model in the social sector that we could learn from − the AWWA Senior Community Home in Ang Mo Kio is Singapore's first seniors' home embedded within two levels of an existing HDB rental block. It is the only one of its kind and only one of its scale, housing 140 people. It has been around since 1976 and is one of the most inspiring public housing innovations I have seen here.

Two to three seniors live in each 1-room rental flat and interspersed in the units, are purpose-built spaces like recreation rooms, laundry rooms, nursing stations and a community kitchen. It even once explored having a retail space for the seniors to sell their products.

This holistic housing solution has allowed people without family support to live within an existing HDB neighbourhood, affirming they still have a place in society, while preserving their desire for independence and providing a supportive community to look out for their needs.

I hope HDB can consider partnering with VWOs with an established track record of rehabilitating ex-offenders to pilot a smaller scale community home. Like the AWWA example, the prototype community home could zone out a few floors in an HDB rental block for ex-offenders to have housing, a supportive programming and a system of strong accountability, all rolled into one.

The second most brought-up issue was on the effects of long-term imprisonment. For hard-core drug abusers who cannot break the habit after going through repeated DRC treatment, they are subjected to long-term imprisonment laws known as LT1 of between five and seven years, and when they re-offend, LT2 of between seven and 13 years.

While the social workers and recovering addicts understood the punitive need for tough laws, they maintained that these long periods of incarceration also produced significant social side-effects that undermined the rehabilitation process.

Extended and repeated periods of incarceration are a time of great vulnerability for offenders and their families, and it is during this time that spouses grow apart, divorce happens and children start to exhibit even more dysfunctional and distancing behaviours. On top of that, given the speed of change in Singapore, five to seven years in prison is a very long time for someone to be taken out of market. So, those who get incarcerated younger have a better chance of making something of their lives. But for mid-life offenders who emerge out of prison in their late 40s to 50s, their relevance and marketability of skills would have significantly diminished.

To come out of prison to such personal and professional failure again is crushing and some do turn back to drugs and return to prison because they feel they really have nothing left to lose. The stated objectives of the Long-Term Imprisonment laws are to (a) provide greater security and safety to the rest of society; (b) deter individuals from continuing to abuse drugs; and (c) reduce the crimes committed by drug addicts.

If the length of incarceration is a non-negotiable due to the first objective of security, then can we consider investing in a lot more targeted rehab solutions for long-term prisoners to help them achieve the second and third objectives of deterrence? We must increase the outreach and frequency of family-bonding programmes that help keep parent-child relations resilient throughout the long period of incarceration.

There is the VWO New Life Stories where volunteers help incarcerated mothers record themselves telling bed-time stories so that their pre-schooling kids can listen to it at home and maintain connection. There is also the Reading with Dads programme run by the Centre for Fathering. In the first run in Changi Prison, eight fathers had the rare chance to just sit on the floor with their kids and hug them and read books with them. One of them, a father of five shared that it was the happiest day of his life and it was like a dream. Grown men were crying − and I am not talking just about the inmates − but the prison officers watching.

We should also consider investing more in arts-based programmes as well. I do not think enough credit is given to how the arts does do deeply healing work, helping people surface the deep stories and emotions that do lie beneath their behaviours. One arts educator who works with prisons told me of a young offender who told her very sternly, "Madam, don't ever stop this programme. I kena rotan many times I never cry. I get scolded I also never cry. But in your class, I cry because you make me feel something again."

In our line of empathy-building work, I can tell you tears are one of the most powerful KPIs we pay attention to because they tell you something in the heart has shifted.

A lot of change can happen in five to seven years, especially for prisoners with young children. Incarcerated parents, fathers especially, must be given more bonding time, so that both parents and children do not lose faith that they are still wanted and still loved. The last thing we want is for kids to grow up motherless or fatherless, which, in turn, increases the next generation's risk of falling into similar patterns of drug abuse and incarceration. There is much we can gain if we invest in creative, innovative programmes that help to rebuild trust between long-term prisoners and their families. The strong punitive element of the LT1 and LT2 schemes must be counter-balanced with equally strong restorative elements.

The third issue they raised was length of detention time spent in halfway houses. The Prisons Halfway House Scheme currently allows offenders without strong family support to spend their last stage of detention at a halfway house and offenders only spend an average of the last six to eight months of their detention there.

Some of the halfway houses I spoke to believe that this period may be too short to yield sustainable results. They have requested that, for better rehabilitative outcomes, it might be more useful to consider extending the period of detention that offenders can serve out in halfway houses to one-and-a-half, and even two to three years.

The fourth issue is the lack of publicly available statistics on rehab issues. There is a desire among halfway houses and other VWOs involved in rehab work to design better solutions. However, many of them are going only by a mix of gut instincts or learned experience. They do not have the resources to commission or conduct base-line research into how well various rehabilitation efforts and programmes are working out in Singapore. Follow-up studies tracking how housing needs, Prison School and other in-prison programmes impact employment rates and recidivism rates can give useful feedback to the VWOs.

So, the request from the ground is for the Government to commission studies that can provide the social sector more information to design better interventions. Fresh and openly available data will help us better figure out what is working, what is not working and where change is most needed.

The last issue has to do with quality of in-prison education programmes. I saved this for last because I wanted to end this on a strong affirmation to Singapore Prisons that there is much good being done on this front.

Prisoners actually love the learning and employment opportunities they have been getting. Many look forward to the academic, vocational training and arts-based programmes that have been brought in. So, the issue here is more of a happy one. They say, "Can we have more of the good stuff please?" We should encourage their hunger to learn.

Is there a SkillsFuture vision and roadmap for our lifelong learners in our prisons and halfway houses because I believe there are unique strengths and talents that our former drug addicts and ex-offenders do bring to the table? I asked ex-offenders for vocational training programme suggestions and one of the most intriguing suggestions I got was this: "Why can't we train up more ex-offenders to take leadership in halfway houses?" This was his brutally honest take: "Social workers in this field are not effective at all. A drug addict only listens to a drug addict. Halfway house leaders must be an ex-convict, not just a highly educated psychologist."

I personally believe there is definitely still a place for educated social workers and psychologists at halfway houses. But he is also right in pointing out there is a unique career opportunity here for ex-convicts. It might be worth considering a leadership programme that talent-spots high potential former drug addicts and ex-offenders to pick up social work-based skills that can enable them to support rehabilitative work in the future. What was once the ex-offender's greatest weakness on his resume − his experiences of incarceration and addiction − could then become his unique asset.

I also want to flag up the voice of another key stakeholder in the rehab process: external vendors who run programmes in prison. The best of them love the charges that they work with and are deeply passionate about partnering with Singapore Prisons to work on the rehab process. That is why some of them struggle greatly with seeing how the GeBIZ procurement process sometimes ends up awarding programmes to the lowest bidder or a new bidder for the sake of trying out a new vendor. Some share that it hurts to see meaningful projects gaining ground with the inmates get derailed simply because of what they saw as a procurement process. They felt that contracts sometimes ended up going to vendors that did not have a genuine interest in rehabilitation.

Those who do rehab work seriously do not want to be treated or accessed as short-term vendors but rather long-term partners in a healing process. Their request is for the Government to consider refining the procurement process for prison programmes to guard against fly-by-night vendors who may pitch on programming contracts because it is another way to make a buck, rather than an opportunity to change a life. These programming providers believe that it is counter-productive to put high-stakes human-centric programmes at the mercy of an open call tender on GeBIZ. As one programming provider stated very passionately to me, rehabilitative work that impacts so many lives should not be judged by the same matrixes of cost-effectiveness and novelty for change that we use to decide between contractors for chairs and tables.

I believe, for rehab programmes, it would be far more impactful to invest our taxpayers' money on long-term re-collaborative partnerships with providers that have a heart to commit to long-term rehab goals with the Singapore Prison Service.

Madam, I do support the Motion to reaffirm Singapore's strong anti-drug stance. But I also believe we will gain more ground in the fight against drugs when we become equally known for the things we are for, rather than just known for the things we are against.

A strong anti-drug stance paired with an equally strong pro-rehabilitation stance is an unusual policy combination in the world. It challenges us to hold both punitive justice and restorative mercy in tension. It is a difficult position but I believe it is also the most useful way forward.

I say so not based on theory but because that is how I have seen it play out in the transformed lives of people I know who have done their time in prison and walked down that hard road of rehabilitation. Our former drug abusers can be so much more than their past mistakes.

Preparing to speak on this Motion actually reminded me that I happen to be friends with a few recovering addicts and ex-offenders. It took me a moment to remember because I had long gotten used to just seeing them as loving husbands and kind fathers, humble pastors and compassionate counsellors, successful entrepreneurs and talented creatives.

I have seen the evidence of investment in rehabilitation in ordinary lives. It is arduous and it is costly but it works. There is gold in each of us, even the worst of us, that can be revealed through grace. The cure for addiction is not condemnation. It is connection. Let us do what we can to help our recovering addicts stay connected to their families and their hopes for the future.

7.49 pm

Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Deputy Speaker, the recent United Nations Committee on Narcotic Drugs (CND) meeting in Vienna in the middle of March threw up several interesting perspectives on how the East and the West view drugs and laws regarding its consumption and trafficking.

The facts are on the table. Drug trafficking is a multi-billion dollar global illicit trade. According to the World Drug Report, heroin consumption alone amounts to a staggering 340 tonnes and it is estimated that a total of almost 246 million people between the ages of 15 and 64, use illicit drugs.

This dependence on drugs places a heavy burden not only on the individual but also their loved ones, public healthcare systems and security agencies.

At that same meeting, it was galling to note the nonchalance towards the drug menace displayed by some countries. Some European countries took turns to conflate drug use with human rights. Such lofty words and ideals!

At the same conference, Russia talked about compulsory drug tests for teenagers while the US and Canada talked about reconciling the legislation and legalisation of marijuana with UN's drug conventions. Canada and Uruguay even spent long hours discussing the important issue of quotas for how marijuana bushes should be allowed to be grown per household!

There are those who justify that softening the drug stance is because current drug control policies are failing and the rising numbers of drug consumers − you cannot even call them addicts anymore − drug consumers. But I say, just because your system has failed does not mean your next solution is something everyone else should accept.

In Singapore, our strict laws against drug consumption and trafficking have kept us safe over the years. Our streets are safe from drugs and crime. And, so, I add my voice to the many Members, including the hon Member, Mr Christopher de Souza, in calling on the Government to continue to apply tough laws to deter drug trafficking into Singapore and combating the scourge of drugs.

While we are relatively safe from drugs, I am still worried. The idea of soft drugs, as many Members have mentioned, recreational drugs, as some people call them, I think we must acknowledge drugs cause harm, whether they are soft or hard, whatever name you call it, they are drugs.

The National Council Against Drug Abuse reported that many more of our younger Singaporeans below the age of 30 are now open-minded about experimenting with drugs as opposed to a few years ago. You look at programmes, you look at drama series from overseas, the glamorisation of a lifestyle filled with drugs, perhaps that is affecting mindsets as well. The increase in the number of new drug users attests to this as well. Therefore, I do not believe there is a difference between hard drugs and soft drugs. There are only drugs. They both cause harm and should be prevented with equal measure and equal vigour.

In our open data age, availability of drugs online and its ease of shipment are something we should really be concerned about. Many have spoken about the Dark Net and, therefore, I hope that the Government will be able to look more at the measures to stem this rot to prevent more younger Singaporeans from taking the easy route in obtaining drugs.

Another cause for concern is the trafficking and consumption of synthetic drugs, including stimulants like amphetamine, methamphetamine and ecstasy-types of substances. Their proliferation and easy availability have made them the second most widely used drugs in the world, with levels exceeding those of heroin and even cocaine, so says the World Drug Report.

Although some say that they are not considered as dangerous as heroin or cocaine, sustained consumption still causes damage to oneself and loved ones. Many of us would have come across drug addicts, drug abusers in our communities and the damage that it causes to them and their health, as well as to their families. Therefore, we should have more prevention and education measures, especially for our young, to stem the tide of synthetic drugs as well and tighten the regulations.

Justice is important. It is important that there is just punishment for those who traffick drugs for those who use drugs that they have an opportunity to recover.

While I urge the Government to be firm in maintaining deterrence, I also believe that justice must be tempered with mercy. Many traffickers, for example, are far down the hierarchy of crime syndicates and some are forced by circumstances. I, therefore, urge the Government to do whatever is in its power to combat the drug problem at the source and also step up efforts to target the drug barons, the people who truly benefit exclusively from this illicit trade and yet are unremorseful at the fate of their helpless and often hapless runners who take on all the risks.

I must state very clearly at this point that I believe that capital punishment has been one reason that has kept us free from the worst of the drug problems that have plagued other countries, but I also have a strong personal moral dilemma in not wanting capital punishment to be enforced, especially when the ultimate perpetrators of the crime are often not the ones standing frightened at the gallows. As the trap doors open, the absoluteness of this punishment cannot be turned back.

When you look at the jurisdictions that mandate the death penalty for drug crimes, I think we can also conclude that it is not just the threat of capital punishment that prevents drug trafficking and reduces drug crime in a country. But in Singapore's example, it is a strong, trustworthy and effective Police force, an incorrupt system of Government, a general intolerance of drug culture and a fair society where no one needs to resort to drugs as a first recourse for problems they face in life. Other countries have capital punishment, too. But they are still plagued.

I, therefore, welcome the 2012 amendments to our laws such that the mandatory death penalty for those convicted of drug trafficking or murder was lifted under certain specific conditions, with discretionary powers provided to judges to sentence such offenders to life imprisonment.

I also, therefore, urge the Government to do more to rehabilitate our drug addicts and free them from this new form of slavery. Many of them are wounded by circumstances or bad choices in life and, therefore, the most important reassurance we can give to them is that they have a place at the table, that they are not abandoned by society, cast aside because of a bad choice.

At the recent Narcotics: Problems and Solutions of this Global Issue Conference, Pope Francis was the keynote speaker, he said, "Every addicted person brings with them a distinct personal history, which should be listened to, understood, loved, and, where possible, cured. We cannot fall into the injustice of classifying them as if they were objects or broken junk; rather, they should be valued and appreciated in their dignity in order to be cured. They continue to have, despite their crimes, more than ever, dignity as persons."

There is a lot of good work done by the Youth Enhanced Supervision Scheme, community rehabilitation centres, drug rehabilitation centres and our halfway houses, but society itself must be able to see our drug abusers beyond their mistakes and ensure that they do not just recover but also reintegrate into society and, therefore, have no reasons to return to drugs.

Examples, such as Asher Quek, who recovered from an early life of drugs. His first encounter with drugs was at the age of 13, spent time in prison. But because he was inspired and challenged by counsellors in prison, he now volunteers himself as a counsellor to other drug abusers. This perhaps is one example of how a good rehabilitation and support system can work.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, watermelons. Not related to drugs. But in 2014, I met three young children in my estate. One very young girl, just started Primary 1, her brother was in Primary 2 and older sister was in Secondary 1. I met them because their uncle came to approach me, asking for a job.

I realised that these three children were not his. Probing deeper, it was revealed that their parents, both mother and father, were incarcerated because of drug offences. The older sister took it upon herself to look after her younger siblings. Although the mother is out of prison today, she feels and suffers from withdrawal symptoms and we do what we can. But the thing that really inspires her is her younger daughter who has never given up on her parents. And when I last met them, she simply said to me, "There are many things I love in life. Sweet red watermelons and my parents, whatever they have done." Family support is important. A society that accepts them for their weaknesses is important. A society that tempers justice with mercy is also important.

Singapore has remained relatively drug-free and we should endeavour to remain so and do whatever we can to do so. What works elsewhere would not necessarily work here. Tough deterrent measures have kept us and our families safe. But we must continue to do more to break the supply chain, ensure that we do not go soft on drug use, reminding our young Singaporeans that drugs have a tremendous negative impact on them. Targeting international criminal gangs and ensuring the uplift of vulnerable communities outside of Singapore and coupled with a robust rehab and reintegration regime – these will continue to keep us safe for the long haul. Sir, I support the Motion.

8.02 pm

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, after hearing the hon Members who have spoken before me, I am reminded that we live in a scary world. An addictions specialist − his name was Dr Munidasa Winslow − recently noted that an increase has happened in clients buying drugs on the Internet and receiving them by postal mail. He suspects that the numbers of persons purchasing synthetic drugs online will rise in the coming years. Drug abuse should not be taken lightly. I support the hon Members' suggestion of including new offences within the Misuse of Drugs Act which are aimed at these new ways for kingpins to peddle in drugs and to take decisive action against them.

I would, however, Sir, like to add a note of caution when it comes to young Singaporean offenders. They deserve not only to be seen through the battle-hardened prosecutor's lens of specific deterrence, but also with a keen eye towards rehabilitation, which is why I am happy that rehabilitation is also a part of this particular Motion.

This Motion has been characterised as involving different imperatives. Mr Christopher de Souza spoke of the importance of law and order; of weeding out a transnational scourge: drug addiction; of having muscular laws. At the same time, young first-time drug offenders deserve to be treated fairly and, in appropriate cases, compassionately as well. It is the duty of the sentencing judge in a Misuse of Drugs Act case to assess and balance these competing concerns and to strike an appropriate balance between the two.

In the final analysis, the public interest to be tough on drug crimes and the interests of young first-time offenders are not mutually exclusive. Our Courts give special regard to cases involving young offenders and it is about this that I would like to speak about today.

First, I recall that as early as in 1999, the Singapore High Court held that, in cases of a young first-time offender, there can rarely be any conflict between his interest and that of the public's. The public have no greater interest than that he become a good citizen. For young, first-time offenders, inclusive of drug offenders, rehabilitation should often play a dominant role in determining the appropriate sentencing option.

Rehabilitation does not only mean sending an offender to the DRC. In deserving cases, it can and should involve, Sir, probation or reformative training. A decade ago, I had the privilege of being the defence co-counsel in one such case. We represented Mr Ridzuan bin Hanafi on a pro bono basis against his charge of trafficking 20 tablets of ecstasy.

A 20-year-old NSF at that time, Ridzuan took responsibility for his mistake. We met his family at the hawker centre where his mother ran a nasi campur stall. We learned that Ridzuan's eldest sister had been diagnosed with cancer and that, to supplement his NSF stipend, he worked two other odd jobs. His unwavering care and support for his family was clear. He saved this money prudently and contributed in whatever way he could. After realising that this was not enough to take care of his sister, he slipped.

His heart was set on equipping himself to provide a good future for himself and his family. Despite not having completed his course of study at ITE, he had expressed a genuine wish to further his studies in the field of audio engineering upon completion of National Service. Ridzuan then obtained a deferment and enrolled in the Singapore Audio Engineering Institute. As a filial son to his mum, Ridzuan's greatest concern had been to ensure that his ageing mother, who has sacrificed the better part of her life to take care of her children, did not have to continue to work so hard at her nasi campur stall and, therefore, jeopardise her health as well in supporting herself and her daughter.

Ridzuan loathed the idea of depending on his mother and his family. He confessed to selling the ecstasy pills for cash and we learnt all of this from several visits to his home, to Queenstown Remand Prison, where he was also serving pre-trial detention at the place and we asked in Court for probation as the appropriate sentence for the sentencing judge to consider and to sentence him.

When determining whether or not an order of probation is required or appropriate, a sentencing judge may call for a pre-sentence or probation report, as the judge did in Ridzuan's case. A probation report provides a comprehensive profile of the offender and is obtained mainly from interviews with the offender, his family, significant people which, in this case, included people he was working with in National Service, his superior officers, social service agencies and so on. It gives a picture of that drug offender so that the drug offender is not just a digit, not just one person accused of a crime of consumption or trafficking, but there is a larger contextual, social and historical nature to the offence and the offender.

Sir, probation is not a gesture of leniency. It provides the Court with an alternative method of dealing with that first-time young offender who may otherwise have to be committed to a corrective penal institution. It involves the conditional suspension of punishment when the offender is released under supervision and the personal care of a probation officer. A probation order imposes on the probationer certain obligations in the form of conditions. If any of those conditions are not met, the probation order lapses and the probationer has to face real jail time.

Ridzuan's Probation Officer found his family members were willing and stable to assist in his rehabilitation. His youngest sister was willing to defer her overseas education just to take care of him. The Probation Officer also looked at the unwavering reports from his superiors in National Service. Ultimately, Ridzuan was convicted and sentenced by the District Judge and placed under two years' probation, six months of which were intensive, 18 months of which were supervisory.

The prosecution, of course, appealed against this decision at that time. I draw attention to this not because the prosecutors were doing something wrong. It was their job to appeal against it because it was the first time probation had been awarded against a drug trafficking charge. But I take issue with the way in which the sentence and the offender were characterised. In the Magistrate's Appeal, this is what the prosecutors said and these were their words, not mine, Mr Deputy Speaker:

"The drug menace still abounds in Singapore even though our drug laws are enforced vigorously. Drug trafficking is the scourge of our society, family and the individual drug abuser. As such, peddlers in this evil trade must be dealt with severely to alert those in this pernicious enterprise that they too will be prosecuted and punished severely."

By itself, there is not something too greatly wrong with that paragraph. But the next paragraph is stark:

"[Ridzuan] has a dismal academic track record. He shows excessive indulgence in clubbing, has sold cigarettes in his army camp to his friends in order to support his clubbing habit. There is hardly any evidence that he has a bright future ahead of him unless a fledging interest in sound engineering (which is a euphemism for being a music disc-jockey) constitutes a potentially sound career or a safe life choice that would not throw him back into the clubbing culture."

This was how the prosecution had characterised him. It was just not the prosecutors. It would be the investigators and everybody who was part of the criminal justice system looking at one young first-time drug offender who was standing before them.

I take issue with this, Mr Deputy Speaker, with conflating the crime, as reprehensible as it may be, with the prospects of the young offender. Unfortunately, once you label a crime as being "evil", it is a short step before you demonise the criminal as well, regardless of his young age. Should the young offender's prospects of reform and rehabilitation be a foregone conclusion that prosecutors alone can make? My response would be an emphatic "no".

We must be wary, Mr Deputy Speaker, of what the Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin cautioned just last month in a case that Mr Kok Heng Leun referred to earlier. In a Court of Appeal case, Judge of Appeal Chao held that "it was vitally important not to view the actions and words of an accused person in a case like this in the lenses of someone who is familiar with the practices of the drug trade, unless there are facts warranting that conclusion." With young first-time Singaporean drug offenders, we cannot assume that all of them are familiar with the practices of the drug trade.

That was only one of two cases just held last month by the High Court and the Court of Appeal where the charges were found to be unsubstantiated and the cases were ultimately found to be unwarranted. Both of them were acquitted after lengthy trials.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a few questions.

How will young potential offenders be better encouraged to abstain from resorting to drugs in the first place and before the criminal justice system itself is involved?

Two, how should options for rehabilitation, including but not limited to the drug rehabilitation centre, be approached? I note that Mr Christopher de Souza has some very intelligent ideas in the paper that he has provided. I would like to ask whether we would actually be using this very soon.

Third, would the Ministry support a "rehabilitate-first" approach towards drug trafficking for young first-time drug offenders? If there were refinements to the Misuse of Drugs Act, could we also involve lawyers who have represented these young first-time drug offenders from the Law Society, from the Association of Criminal Lawyers and other organisations and law firms? Will we be able to invite social workers and probation officers to also be involved in how these amendments are being included or proposals being put forward?

Three, should CNB investigators and misuse of drugs prosecutors be sent for sensitisation training and diversity management training so that when they first meet or deal with young offenders, they take a "rehabilitate first" approach instead of an approach which tends towards "prosecute at all costs"? Will they be required to spend time conversing with under-privileged people and those who are most prone to substance abuse?

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I note that academics at NUS and SMU have recently, on the basis of empirical research, asked whether capital punishment should remain on the books and whether that ultimate deterrent should still be relevant for every case for which it is put forward.

Allow me to conclude by saying that as we examine the Motion which asks us to think harder on being tough against drug crimes, we must also think of humanising those people who are drug offenders, especially those who are young, first-time Singaporean drug offenders. I support the Motion and hope that the hon proposer as well as the Ministry will take these comments into consideration as the law is amended.

8.16 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, given the lateness of the hour, I am just going to give a short speech to say that I agree with everything Mr Christopher de Souza has said. But maybe, I will just add a few brief points.

The first is this. I am glad that in this House, we have not really had a debate on one issue and, that is, the seriousness of the drug threat. Everyone here has agreed that drugs are a menace and we have to find a way to deal with it.

Before we look at what we want to change, I think we need to look at what Singapore has done well. The incidence of drug abuse in Singapore is one of the lowest in the world. As a percentage of the population, I believe it is below 0.001% of the population.

In contrast, if we look at the latest UNODC report, it said one in 20 people in the world has used drugs and that translates into a quarter of a billion people. So, if you talk about overall statistics, Singapore is doing very well.

My own view – and I suspect this is shared by many others in the House – is that this is not because of any one measure. There is no silver bullet, but rather the suite of measures. So, if we look at the big picture, I think Singapore is doing a good job in its fight against drugs and the low incidence of drug rates contrast favourably with many other countries. In fact, the rates of drugs are so low that many people may not even have encountered drug addicts in their lives.

My first encounter was after I started as a Member of Parliament and I met a gentleman who came to the Meet-the-People Session (MPS) who was telling me very badly why he needed cough mixture. I did not really understand why he was having difficulty getting cough mixture until he told me that he had actually been banned from buying cough mixture and his name was with several doctors. That was when I realised, as he told me more and more, he also asked me to write a letter to excuse him from urine tests. As I spoke to him more, his thoughts were disjointed but, basically, it finally emerged that he was actually an addict and he was an addict who had served his sentence. He had come out but he was in danger of re-offending and very likely had re-offended which is why he did not want to go for his upcoming urine test. Later on that evening, he brought his wife along to help make the argument for him. But when he moved away, his wife said, "please make sure that he does not get any more cough mixture." So, it is quite clear the families of addicts suffer along with the addicts. But there were many more stories after that.

In my community, we have a programme where we reach out to ex-offenders just before their release from prison. And one of the things that strikes me is that ex-offenders who have the biggest difficulty coming back in are those who have drug antecedents. These are also the ones who are most likely to have offended before and to have committed other offences.

These are the ones that we really have to make a special effort to reach out to, to try and make sure their families still accept them which is also a difficulty because, in some cases, the family is outside, may have divorced the inmate, may have moved on. These are all the challenges that I think drug addicts face.

The biggest issue, of course, is that they became addicts in the first place. I think we should do everything we can to prevent that happening and I believe the tough measures we have taken have achieved that effect.

In this regard, there are just two points I would address. I do not wish to address the whole system, but the two trends of concern that the CNB raised in its latest report.

The first is that of the rising number of young drug users below the age of 30. This was a bit different because the typical profile of many of the other drug offenders who use heroin – and many of the other offenders are from the lower income groups – and they use drugs like heroin and meth which are a lot more damaging. But the young users tended to be from a different social profile, including more affluent people, and they are using more cannabis.

Cannabis has developed a reputation in some other countries or, at least, it has been marketed in some countries as being a perfectly harmless drug and has been legalised. I would not make the argument Mr Christopher de Souza has made earlier. I think he has quite comprehensively covered the programmes in these countries where it has been legalised and shown that it actually has caused harm. It is not really a harmless drug.

The tough measures that we have against cannabis are actually generally quite helpful and relevant.

There is one additional suggestion I have and I think this also relates to the point about rehabilitation of young offenders. One of the countries that had a very successful programme on rehabilitating of offenders which we can learn from, I believe, is Iceland.

Between 1998 and 2016, Iceland ran a programme specifically for youths. And there are two things to observe. I will just read the figures first. This was a study of Icelandic youths between the ages of 15 and 16. Over the course of the 20-year study, the rate of alcohol abuse fell from 42% to 5%. The rate of cigarette smoking dropped from 23% to 3% and the rate of people who use cannabis fell from 17% to 5%.

I would make two points about this. First of all, of course, Singapore's figures are nowhere close to these. We do not have addiction rates of 17%. I think it would be quite shocking if we hit that. The point is that we should not adopt everything they have done wholesale, but I think their rehabilitation programmes specifically probably have things that we can learn from.

The main thrust of their programmes involves promoting alternative recreational facilities, strengthening family ties, improving self-sufficiency and building social competency for youths who were identified as being at risk. The key purpose was to reduce delinquency. I understand that we have a lot of programmes targeted at this by different agencies. But I believe that there might be something useful to learn from these programmes. The main focus of these programmes is to keep at-risk youths occupied, usefully engaged and socially involved.

The second issue which the CNB highlighted was online drug peddling. This has risen from 30 arrests in 2015 to 201 in 2016. Although the numbers are still small, the total rise is very significant. I agree with Mr Christopher de Souza's suggestions for stronger penalties and enhanced penalties if drugs arer peddled online. This would add an additional deterrent.

I also note from the CNB report that most of the arrests were against people who were buying drugs. I would suggest that CNB take additional steps against those who are selling drugs, maintaining websites and are in any way part of this dark net. They are difficult to detect but, once detected, I think harsh penalties should be taken. Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Motion.

8.23 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. In particular, I would like to focus on how we need to improve our rehabilitation process and how we need to strengthen our focus on family support during the rehabilitation process.

While we strengthen our fight against drug consumption and ensure that people do not consume drugs in the first place, we must remember that almost 60% of drug abusers arrested are repeat offenders. That is almost two-thirds and, if we can improve our rehabilitation process, then we will effectively solve two-thirds of our problem.

I raised this previously during the COS debates and I said that, and I quote, "A significant focus of the rehabilitation process is to ensure that inmates are able to secure a job when they are released. However, I feel that an equally important factor is whether they have family support when they are released."

Parliamentary Secretary Amrin Amin replied that, and I quote, "Singapore Prison Service (SPS) partners with Fei Yue Family Services and Lakeside Family Services to provide structured family programmes for inmates − workshops to help better understand the impact of their crimes on their families and build their parenting and communication skills.

The Prison Service also works with community partners like Salvation Army to conduct family sessions in prison. During these sessions, family members are allowed to enter prison to spend time with the inmates and they are designed to encourage bonding between inmates and their children and they serve as powerful reminders to inmates that they need to turn their lives around. These family sessions are also held during special occasions, such as Mother's Day, Father's Day and Children's Day.

Other than helping inmates, Singapore Prison Service also helps their families. The grassroots-led Yellow Ribbon Community Project (YRCP) was established to help the families and children of inmates cope, by connecting them to the national social support networks. They have assisted more than 5,000 families. They recognised that family ties are vital to inmates' rehabilitation and family support is especially important after the inmates' release, and thus, the community's long-term involvement is vital to ensure continuity in these efforts."

We are currently indeed emphasising the important role of family support in rehabilitation. But the statistics show that there is still a problem and there is always room for improvement.

From 2014 to 2016, only about a third of DRC inmates received two family visits per month. I understand that additional requests for family visits by DRC inmates or their family members are rare. The lack of visits by family members is a tell-tale sign that there are problems. If the family bond is strong, then, surely, there will be more family visits.

Drug consumption might be the symptom of the problem. So, while we focus our efforts on tackling the symptom of the problem, we also need to remember to tackle the root of the problem. The lack of strong family bonds might be the reason they consumed drugs in the first place.

The other even more worrying statistic is that the more times we incarcerate someone for drug offences, the higher the chances he or she will be incarcerated again. In 2013, the recidivism rate for DRC inmates was 28.3% and for LT2 inmates, it was 42%. In 2014, the recidivism rate for DRC inmates was 30.1% and for LT2 inmates, it was 36.5%.

It should be the other way around where the recidivism rate should be higher for someone incarcerated once as compared to someone incarcerated for the fourth time. I understand that one of the reasons for the higher recidivism rate for LT2 inmates is that they find it harder to reintegrate back into society. I am certain that one of the other factors is again the lack of family support.

I completely understand how difficult it is for family bonds to be strengthened during the rehabilitation process, considering that these bonds would have been further damaged as a result of the incarceration.

I completely understand how lost someone must feel when their loved ones are incarcerated. I have met many residents who come to my MPS, appealing for help after their loved ones were incarcerated. I recently met a mother of five who had to now single-handedly support the whole family while her husband is in the DRC. She was thrown into the deep end and this will not be an easy chapter in her life.

I completely understand the immense guilt a drug offender must feel when he or she leaves their family behind to fend for themselves. We need to do more to strengthen our rehabilitation process and we need to view the rehabilitation process more holistically and focus on how we can rebuild the broken family bonds and focus on a more family-oriented rehabilitation process.

As mentioned earlier, Singapore Prison Service is already providing workshops to help inmates better understand the impact of their crimes on their families and build their parenting and communication skills. However, can we do more workshops where it is attended by both the inmate and their spouse or loved ones? I appreciate the possible security and logistics concerns but I believe the pros outweigh the cons.

Can we also look into developing more counselling programmes for families of inmates even before their release from prison, to help their families to be better prepared to receive them upon their release and to support them in leading drug-free lifestyles?

With regard to the family sessions conducted in prison, can we increase the number and duration of such family sessions? As I have suggested during the COS debates, can we consider introducing a programme where children get to spend a whole day behind bars with their parents? This is perhaps the most powerful rehabilitation tool.

In my earlier speech, I said, and I quote, "I watched fathers in tears as they realised how much they missed their children and perhaps how their actions have hurt their children. I saw in the eyes of the fathers a resolve to be rehabilitated so that they can reunite with the children − not just for a day but for the rest of their lives. And I also saw what that one day meant for the children, as ultimately the children are indeed the real victims."

Can we also be more proactive in reaching out to the families and children of inmates? I understand from the mother of five children whom I mentioned earlier that nobody reached out to her. Do we have the resources to ensure that we reach out to them during the first week of incarceration of their loved ones? That is the crucial period and the help we can provide will be essential.

We already recognise the need for family support. There are, in fact, individual anti-addiction programmes for ex-offenders at halfway houses, such as HighPoint, Pertapis, Green Haven, just to name a few, and at hospitals, such as the Raffles Counselling Centre and the National Addictions Management Service.

These programmes do bring in family support at some stage of the rehabilitation process. However, the extent to which the family is brought into the rehabilitation process depends on the individual programmes. It also requires the ex-offenders taking the initiative to first enrol in these programmes. Will MHA consider spearheading a unified national approach towards a family-centric rehabilitation process?

I believe we should draw inspiration from the Taskforce on Youth and Drugs in 2014, convened then by Mr Masagos Zulkifli. The Taskforce had recommended developing more targeted strategies to address youth drug abuse, such as toolkits for parents, educators, counsellors and NS commanders and introducing rehabilitation programmes for youths.

This led to CNB developing a guide for parents of children recovering from drug abuse titled "Staying Drug-Free". A similar targeted national action plan should be drawn up towards rehabilitating all drug-offenders.

Sir, our prison officers, our Captains of Lives, do amazing work and I have seen this first-hand when I visited our DRC last year. I must end this speech by saying that I completely understand how disappointing it must be for them when they see a drug offender return to prison again and be under their care repeatedly.

It must not be easy for them and I sincerely hope we can help break this cycle, strengthen our rehabilitation process and strengthen family bonds. Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Shamnugam.

8.31 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank Mr Christopher de Souza for moving this Motion and the Members for giving their views and supporting generally the very strong stand that we take. This Motion is a timely reminder for us to remain vigilant, continue to be tough on drugs and make this a national priority.

As we debate the way forward, what do we do next? Mr Pritam Singh talked about international currents. Others talked about the mood within Singapore, young people. As we assess how we move forward, I think it is useful for Members to understand a little bit about how the history of our fight against drugs evolved and really look at the period between the 1960s and 1980s. In a snapshot, what did we have then? We had high crime rates. We had abusers stealing, committing crimes to feed their addiction. We had traffickers exploiting the abusers' dependence. We had broken families. If I give some numbers, I think Members will be shocked and I will give some numbers in a minute.

To tackle this, CNB was set up in 1971. It does not pre-date 1971. We saw it as a menace and we said we had to fight it; which is why in every speech I make, I emphasise it is not a single solution, not just the death penalty. It is a whole suite of factors. CNB was set up, empowered. The legislative framework was put in through the MDA in 1973. And then Operation Ferret was launched to reverse the momentum. You can guess from the name what it meant. So CNB, the Police Force, they coordinated their efforts, flushed out the abusers. If we had not done that, the law and order situation today in Singapore that we take for granted would be very different.

In the early 1970s – mark this – we were arresting less than 10 heroin abusers a year. We could have kidded ourselves and believed that that was the true situation. But after we set up CNB and after we started Operation Ferret, by February 1978, 26,000 abusers had been arrested. That is the picture before and after. So, for people outside this House and for the hon Nominated Member of Parliament who advocates a softer approach, suggests that our laws are too tough, remember these figures. When you do not enforce, you get one picture; and 26,000 people by 1978.

In the 1980s, we still had more than 8,000 in DRC. In 1993, our DRC recidivism rate was 73%. That is where we were and, today, everyone accepts, even The Economist accepts, that we have the drug situation under control, perhaps the only country to be able to say that openly and directly and backed up by the facts.

We set up a committee to improve the drug situation in November 1993 with a comprehensive anti-drug strategy − preventive drug education in the schools, tough laws backed up by tough enforcement, rehabilitation, aftercare. It is a whole context of factors. That is the background. We have had a good run for 20 years but now consider the global situation and how that might impact on us.

UNODC estimates in 2014 that there are nearly 250 million drug abusers in the world. And 200,000 died from drug-related causes. That probably does not include the type of cases that Mr Christopher de Souza talked about, where people under the influence of drugs caused traffic accidents and killed others. These are people who died as a result of drug abuse − 200,000.

Mr Pritam Singh is right that global conversation is about a softer stance on drugs, seductive arguments using pseudo-science and glamorising drugs, and they do create a challenging environment for us to keep Singapore drug-free.

If you look at the evidence, you look at the US, opioid abuse, the prescriptions went up three-fold since 1999, fuelled by people relying on and accepting questionable evidence that these are benign pain remedies. Going into diversions and misuse, thousands get hooked on to it, and then guess what happens? They moved on to heroin. Now, New York Times reported that there were 33,000 deaths per year.

For those with bleeding hearts who talk about inmates on death row, I think they should think about these 33,000 deaths. What percentage do you want in Singapore? What about their families, the children? Why not spend some time with them rather than just crying with the people in the death row? This is, as Mr Christopher de Souza pointed out, a trafficker engaging in a crime of cynicism or crime with cynicism for profit. He knows what he is doing, he is coming in for money and there is nothing on the spur about it.

The same arguments that were used to try and get opium allowed are now being used for cannabis legislation. The arguments, if you look at them, are evocative but little clinical evidence. There is some suggestion – Mr Pritnam Singh talked about it, others talked about it – about how people are now going into medical marijuana and medical cannabis and so on.

I said at the United Nations I do not want human rights groups preaching to me about the medical value of cannabis. If a respectable medical association is prepared to tell me that this ought to be prescribed as medicine, we will look at it. What does the American Medical Association say? That there is no proven record for this. There can be no objection to any substance being prescribed by a doctor based on scientific evidence. I think there is every objection to a blanket legislation allowing free use of cannabis or opium on the basis of some questionable medical suggestion which no medical association worth its salt is prepared to back up.

Mr Pritam Singh is right: legalisation around the world is gaining ground. He quoted Malaysia, Thailand and Israel, but my point is, a large majority of Singaporeans stand by what is right, stand by our position. Even internationally, when I went to the UN, we brought along a doctor who had pored through a substantial amount of medical literature on substance abuse, cannabis abuse, in particular, and was prepared to stand up and present that this is the impact cannabis has on your brain structure and it makes you dependent. Stacks of medical evidence.

Science is always evolving and if science evolves to a different stage, we are practical people and we rely on facts. But, today, this is the science. I thank Mr Pritnam Singh for the strong stand he took in terms of supporting the position we take in Singapore against drugs.

Mr Christopher de Souza pointed out how drug abuse has worsened in Colorado since they legalised cannabis. It is serious. And who is pushing it? The pharma companies are pushing it. Why? It is obvious why. Even when we go to these international conferences, the NGOs which support legalisation come out with brochures which are glitzy, which are very attractive, evocative. They are all financed by the pharma companies. Those who oppose legalisation, those who take a stand similar to Singapore's, if you look at the material, you would not want to look at them again because no one is financing them. There is a huge commercial motive for legalisation and that is driving this in many countries.

There are other factors. Many countries have lost the fight. They cannot control domestic drug abuse. So, after having lost tens of thousands of lives, they move to focusing on public health issues, HIV. So, you get an alliance with a commercial interest and countries saying we cannot handle this anymore. They are now saying let us create a new international norm. Well, I do not have a problem if they change their rules; but I do have a problem if they want to change international norms and say every country should follow that. We will not be pressured.

That is the international situation; that is the background. What is the local situation? We have some challenges. The first challenge is increased supply. I have said this before, we are near the Golden Triangle, which is the second largest opium source in the world. Afghanistan has become a major producer. In order to get its stuff on to the West, sometimes or quite often, they seem to want to take the road through Southeast Asia.

Our region is the fastest growing meth market. We are a major transport hub, 200 million people go through our airport, shores, land checkpoints. Because of the wealth factor, our people can pay, therefore, it is an attractive destination, both for transhipment and as a destination source. That is one major challenge.

The second major challenge is drug peddling sales online. You can have anonymous transactions, you can have parcels coming in from any part of the world; that creates a challenge.

We also face a challenge from new drugs, new psycho-active substances, where people take drugs and mix them with contaminants to lower the costs. We have real chemists who modify pharmaceuticals.

CNB, for example, in the past two years, has seized more than 3.5 kilogrammes and 4,000 tablets of new psycho-active substances, which have been falsely marketed as both being legal and safe.

Another separate challenge is the new attitudes of our young people. There is a certain perception, glamorised through media outside of this country, that drugs are cool and cannabis are non-addictive. If we are not careful, they can become our next generation of abusers. There is a changing profile of abusers. Last year, 40% of those who were arrested were abusers, were less than 30 years old. The mix − the students, professionals, people who are well-educated, good jobs and a new group of Singaporeans trying drugs.

Parents may think it is not their children but, in the past three years, we have picked up 350 students, all levels from Primary school to tertiary and all backgrounds, as well as without a background of substance abuse in the family. Last year, for working professionals, more than 70 professionals, managers, including accountants and engineers. And the drug abusers committed 12% of other crimes. That is another worrying statistic.

Eighty-three percent of those in our prisons are in there either for substance abuse or they have a history of substance abuse even though the particular crime they committed was not related to drugs. So, you can see how much drugs can impact our lives. It destroys you. These are all statistics, facts.

Let me give you an example – what it does. We call him Edy, a young boy, six years old, both parents were jailed for drugs. He happened to be in the care of another person called Johan. Johan was also a drug abuser, forms an ecosystem, a separate subculture. Johan slapped around Edy, stomped on him repeatedly, on the six-year-old boy, killed him and dumped his body by the Kallang River.

You know there are thousands of such cases, not in Singapore but around the world. Most Members might have heard of Noinoi. She had a stepfather, Mohd Johari, abusing cannabis, cough syrups, brought her home as a shield to hide his own abuse, thought that having her there, bringing her with him will prevent detection. She was only two years old. She was crying, he could not take it, he dumped her in a pail and killed her.

Those who think we should go soft on drugs, on punishment, what is your solution to the thousands of "Edys" and "Noinois" around the world who are neglected, abused and suffering?

If you look at the trend, if I give a summary, you have a new generation of abusers. They are younger, they have different profiles, backgrounds and the situation can again become more troublesome, even if it does not get out of control. Our primary duty must be to protect our society and our people and stand up together as a country.

Most Members' suggestions are in line with where we want to go. And I agree with Mr Christopher de Souza as well as the others who spoke. We will maintain a tough stance and we will step up. We will review our strategy for the new challenges. It will be targeted. It will differentiate between those who supply and cause harm versus those who are abusers and, where possible, we will employ a data-based, science-based approach.

Our first line of defence has got to be education, preventive drug education. We have worked for decades with MOE − school talks, lesson plans, so that our young people will understand. A Member mentioned Iceland. Coincidentally, we have also looked at Iceland. Our people are going over to Iceland to look at how they send their messages across, because this is a generation that when you tell them "do not do this", they might go and do it. So, you need different approaches and Iceland does seem to have an approach that seems to work, but their problems are different, the scale is different. But we never believe that we have found the ultimate solutions for anything. We will always seek to learn.

And we have to work with parents because the parents are key influencers.

The NCADA survey shows that if a parent interacts with the children, they talk to their children, the risks that the child will take drugs is much lower. We have produced a parents' toolkit for that. Young people are also heavily influenced by peer and environmental influence. So, we need to grow a pool of anti-drug advocates amongst their peers, amongst young people's peers. And we need volunteers, we need more individuals, we need more organisations, civil societies, interest groups, businesses. CNB will launch United Against Drugs Coalition later this month and also review the way it puts across messages. We need to mobilise the ground.

Second, effective enforcement and tough laws are part of it. Last year, CNB crippled 23 drug syndicates. We will have to increase partnerships with overseas counterparts and we will have to tackle the new online supply menace, as Mr Christopher de Souza and others have mentioned. We will partner ICA, we will partner courier companies, postal companies, and we will move quickly.

Last year, ICA detected a suspicious parcel and alerted CNB. Within a matter of hours, CNB arrested the intended recipient and seized more than one kilogramme of cannabis. Without that, that one kilogramme would have flowed on to the streets and destroyed more lives.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan talked about the recent acquittals and how it will affect sentencing approach. Keeping our laws effective for deterrence, enforcement is a top priority. We will relook at the comments made in those cases. We have started doing it and will ensure that investigations are conducted thoroughly and impartially. AGC will help us study the Grounds of Decisions on that.

The NCADA survey that I referred to also shows a very strong support for our tough laws. People want us to be tougher on those who harm society, those who bring drugs in, those who provide it to others, especially young people, and those who encourage others. We will have to study how we deal with the issue of new psycho-active substances, how we amend the Schedules and what we need to do.

Members spoke about the amendments in 2012 to the Mandatory Death Penalty Scheme, in the context of drugs and drug trafficking, and whether they have been helpful. We gave the Courts more discretion, where the trafficker is certified to have helped CNB. It has been helpful. The information provided has contributed to the arrest of almost 90 drug traffickers.

What role does the death penalty play in this? It is an important part in our comprehensive anti-drug regime. And as I have said, part of an overall approach, which will not work on its own but it is a part of an overall set of measures − good judicial process, rule of law, enforcement, tough laws, education, rehabilitation and also DRC and LT.

Remember, this fight is never won. We are in a difficult situation, being close to drug-producing countries and we have maintained the death penalty as deterrence against trafficking. The quantity of drugs that you need to have in your possession before the death penalty kicks in, presumptions kick in, is enough heroin to supply 180 people for seven days. That is a large amount of drugs. That is a large number of people that you are going to destroy the lives of. And you multiply that by the number of family members.

What is the regional situation? In Malaysia, the registered drug abusers numbered 280,000, as reported by the New Straits Times. In Indonesia, there are 5.9 million drug abusers. What is the nature of the drug trade today? The finance comes from one country, could be manufactured somewhere in some terrace house, somewhere nearby Singapore, and couriers are easily available because they want to make some money.

Do you believe that the death penalty has deterrent value? If you knew and you are outside of Singapore, you are in Malaysia or Indonesia, and if you knew that the likelihood of being caught is pretty high and that if you are caught with that amount of drugs, that you are most likely to face a death penalty, does that or does not amount to a deterrence? It is a matter of common sense. Why do you think the drug kingpins are not in Singapore? Mr Kok Heng Leun wants me to prove; how do you want me to prove? Go and ask them, "You will not come into Singapore because of the drug death penalty?"

Just remember that trafficking is a cold calculated offence. It is a transaction. The person decides to take a risk with his life, when he comes to Singapore for the sake of money. So, do not tell me they are poor, impecunious and desperate. They made a calculation. They do not mind impacting the lives of 180 people each time.

Mr Kok Heng Leun suggested that we change some of our laws. As we consider how we proceed, why not consider the countries which have adopted your approach? And then compare and contrast. Why not look around? Let us not argue this in a vacuum. See what is happening in countries which have poor enforcements or have legalised drugs. I entirely accept Mr Kok's good intentions and the honesty of the views he has put forward. But frankly, they will lead to the loss of many more lives and they will lead to more tragedy and serious grief for thousands.

Let me back that up. In the early 1990s, we were arresting between 6,000 and 7,000 people per year. Today, we are arresting between 2,000 and 3,000 per year; over a 20-year period. Even if you take the lower end of those figures, say, 3,000 now and 6,000 then. That is 3,000 less per year, over a period of 20 years and assuming it came down, you are talking about tens of thousands, maybe 40,000, 50,000 lives saved because our enforcement ability has not gone down but we are arresting less people. That means, our drug situation, that demand for it has gone down. Every person not arrested who has not become an abuser is a life saved. So, we have saved maybe 40,000 or 50,000 lives or maybe more.

If all things were equal between the 1990s and today, we were arresting 6,000 to 7,000 then, the number should be higher now, because we are wealthier now. The drug production has increased, it has become more of a multinational enterprise, so perhaps, it should have been doubled; we should be arresting 15,000 people or maybe 18,000 people. But we are actually arresting fewer people. We have saved lives. How do you argue against that?

If you look at what you have said, first, you said that a person charged for an offence of importation is automatically presumed guilty once the prosecution shows that the accused was merely in possession of the package containing the drugs. Do you really believe that, Mr Kok?

9.00 pm

Because that, as a statement of law, makes no sense. It is an incorrect statement. I do not know whether you wrote the speech, but that is simply not correct.

You have also suggested: there is a rule that involuntary statements are inadmissible but we do not really know what happens in the interrogation room; how statements are obtained on witness' testimony; and there is no requirement of recording of any kind. In a drug case, Mr Kok, what needs to be proven? Possession. What the drug is is a matter of scientific evidence; quantity is a matter of scientific evidence. So, what are you suggesting would happen in witness' rooms that might lead to these suggestions that you have implied in your speech?

I do not know if you know how it works, but the prosecution will have to prove those things. The defence will have to prove that the person did not know what it was, which is usually a defence that is run by many people, and you complained about that as well in your speech, because you say the onus must be on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the ingredients of the offence.

Let me tell you what the difficulties are in going down that route, because these people come from overseas. The usual variety of defences and let me read out to you a couple. A person was arrested at Woodlands checkpoint. He has got 145 grams of diamorphine. He said he travelled to Kuala Lumpur to look for job opportunities. He was introduced to a man known as "Uncle". "Uncle" then passed him 10 packets of substances and taped these on to his body. This chap then claimed he asked "Uncle" what they were for, but "Uncle" showed him three fingers in reply. And he accepted it. He was not aware of the contents, and he came here. Now, you want the prosecution to rebut this? This is why our first Prime Minister, who was a lawyer, knew what the problems would be and reversed the onus of proof. You talked about an "Uncle" you met in Kuala Lumpur; you show to the judge that there is such an "Uncle" and the "Uncle" told you all these things; and what was in your mind? So, again, I do not know whether you drafted this part of the speech or some lawyer drafted it for you, but you got to look at it in context. How does CNB go and prove?

Let me give you another example. This chap, convicted in 2008. He was asked by one "Maren" to deliver items in Singapore. He was told that it was medicine. He was told that it was rare and expensive, that it was wrapped up so that it could not be spoilt by coming into contact with air. And so he went to Johor, met "Maren" and brought it over. You want CNB to disprove this? You think it is possible? Or do you think it is fair that the accused should prove it?

I have a favourite term for defences of this nature. I call them as someone saying it is a shampoo for my pet toad that I got and I brought it into Singapore. So, if that is what you want to say, go and prove it. We are dealing with lives here. The life of a trafficker, yes. But we are also dealing with thousands of Singaporean lives. And the person must get a fair trial. Prosecution must prove what was the substance, how much was it, and possession, and any other evidence they can find. If the person has a defence, it is only fair that he proves it.

So far, all these points, while I may disagree with the Member, I can see where he is coming from. But the next point he makes, and let me quote him, he said he would like to "speak on the humanity of the families of those executed and those who have their loved ones on death row. While we do not see it, the reality is that our criminal punishment, the death penalty, creates a new class of victims in the families of the death row inmates. The family members are innocent people. They found themselves having their loved ones taken away from them. In conversation with a former death row convict who was acquitted by our Court of Appeal, I am struck by the poignancy of how he described the impact of the death penalty on his family."

But should not our hearts also go out to the victims, the "Edys" and the "Noinois", the girl who was four months old that Mr Christopher de Souza described, who was in the car locked up while her mother was dazed by drugs? Now, you spoke with someone who was in this situation. I have spoken with many of the victims and their families − a lot of them. And I do not want them to suffer and I do not want more people to suffer as a result of someone making a cynical calculation between his life and getting a few hundred ringgits.

And everyone has families. Victims have families, too. So, for every one person who brings in the drugs, there are several hundred people who suffer. The Prof Michael Hor that Mr Kok Heng Leun quoted was my classmate. And he knows and he has said – in the same conference that Mr Kok referred to – he knows this Government and he does not see that it will change its position on drugs. He knows me.

The question then is: do you want to take the risk of dismantling one key part of the deterrence that we have and take a chance? You also say in one part, Mr Kok: is the approach really to put in tougher laws? But at the same time, you also say you accept that the current enforcement is good and the current legal framework is good, other than the death penalty. Again, it appears contradictory. So, I am not sure quite exactly what you mean. And you tell us, of the 1,400 individuals that were placed in 2015 in DRC, 820 had Secondary education, 300 had Primary education, six no education. And you said this gives some indication that it is the inadequacy and gaps in our social and economic institutions, rather than the failure of not having implemented more punitive punishment on drug consumption and drug trafficking that the problem lies.

What are the inadequacy and gaps in our social and economic institutions that lead to this drug abuse? I hope you will clarify exactly what social institutions you are referring to, what economic institutions you are referring to, and what gaps and, causatively, how they relate to the drug problem. I think you should, when you make a statement like that. And I mean causatively. Tell me what the gaps are in the social institutions, which ones, what are the gaps in economic institutions and how do they really lead causatively to these 821 people getting into drugs.

I told you the backgrounds vary, their education backgrounds vary. There are professionals being picked up. And if you go and look at the backgrounds in other countries, you will see a whole strata of people getting into drug abuse. It is not restricted. You go soft, that is what will happen.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Shanmugam, you are close to your time limit. Deputy Leader, would you like to move the exemption?

Debate resumed.

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Now, if I put together the points that Mr Kok has made: first, it is the fault of the socio-economic gaps; second, we should make our laws less strict; third, we should do away with the death penalty; and, fourth, we should give a lot of empathy to the drug abusers and their families.

Pray tell me where that will lead us and how that will solve the drug issues. You think the drug kingpins who want to make millions out of bringing drugs into Singapore will then be deterred? The couriers who want to make money by bringing it into Singapore, they will be deterred because we show them a lot of empathy? And the abusers in Singapore will be transformed as well? You just have to look at the example of other countries.

In all of these, in public policymaking, you need a soft heart; you need compassion and that is what defines a civilised human being. But you can never have a soft head. If the heart alone rules policy, you are done for. I will say this: as a parliamentarian, you have a right to make these points. But as Minister for Home Affairs, I do not have the right to give effect to any suggestion which I believe will harm thousands of people and ruin our society. In fact, it is my duty to do the reverse.

Support for our penalties amongst our population, as Members know, is very high. When REACH did a poll last year, 80% supported retaining the death penalty, 10% wanted to abolish it, 10% had no position or refuse to answer. Also, 82% agreed that it was an important deterrent to keep Singapore safe from serious crimes.

NUS conducted a survey on public opinion in 2016. Again, even in their survey, public support for the death penalty was very high − 70% of the respondents were in favour. But asked specifically what the penalty should be for intentional murder, trafficking in illegal drugs and discharging a firearm, the proportion in favour of the death penalty was even higher, ranging from 86% to 92%. But the NUS survey also presented a nuanced picture of public support for the death penalty. The support dropped when this question was asked, that if it can be shown that the death penalty was no more effective as a deterrent to others like life imprisonment, or a very long prison sentence, that means it is not effective and you can substitute it with something else; if you ask people that question, yes, the support then drops. If it is suggested that innocent people could have been executed, then the support drops.

If a certain framework is put into the question and then you get a number and you come to the Government and say, "Therefore, change your policy", we have to look at the questions you asked. But in any event, this is one of those areas where the Government has the duty to assess the facts carefully, the data carefully, and come to the best judgement that it can.

As I have said in public, no Government glorifies in having the death penalty or imposing it on anyone. How can anyone be happy about it? If they do it, they do it with a heavy heart. But you do it because of the greater public good. And you do it based on your best judgement and assessment, not on the basis of advice given by people who argue from an ideological point of view. We are not dogmatic about this. We will listen to arguments. We will listen to people. We will listen to anyone with a good point of view, and we will make up our mind.

Next, we move to rehabilitation. Abusers, as Mr Christopher de Souza and others have said, must be committed to kicking the habit. As Nominated Member of Parliament Kuik Shiao-Yin said, can we consider shortening the incarceration period because of the impact it has on the families? The incarceration periods are looked at regularly, whether it is for DRC, or whether it is for LT1, LT2. There is a set of reasons why we have structured it as DRC and then LT1 and LT2. There is some methodology behind it and we continuously review the methodology.

But in the end, it has to, first, serve as a deterrence; second, keep society from being harmed by that individual; and third, what is necessary for that individual to rehabilitate him. The environment that is chosen will depend on what the individual needs, and I will explain that in a while.

Every abuser has different risk levels and different motivational factors. Our Prison Service tailors rehabilitation accordingly. Other programmes include family programmes, skills training and religious services. For lower risk inmates, they have a day release programme, they go for work or study during the day, minimises disruption. They are placed on community-based programmes to reconnect to the community, to help them transition to normal life. Some are at halfway houses, some go home and community support is instrumental, we recognise that.

Since 1995, 15,000 DRC inmates have gone through the community-based programme with an 85% completion rate. Some Members mentioned rehabilitation for young people, including Asst Prof Mohan. Again, we look at the young people, if they are lower risk, then they go for what we call the youth enhanced supervision scheme which involves counselling and case work. Others go to the Community Rehabilitation Centre (CRC) which I have just talked about.

But we will also look at some of the suggestions that Members have mentioned.

Mr Kok Heng Leun suggested Arts programmes. Rehabilitation is something the Singapore Prison Service is very passionate about, as can be seen from the Yellow Ribbon programme. We think we should try to pick them up even before they commit an offence based on some profiles and we should try to change behaviour before. If we fail in that and they come in, we should try to change behaviour inside. But when they go out, we should also try to support them. And anything that works, based on science, based on evidence, we will be prepared to consider.

People talked about family and community support. I accept it is crucial to help abusers stay strong when they come out. There are structured family programmes in prisons, skills to strengthen the bonds, joint sessions with the family. I am not saying by any means that it is perfect and that it cannot be improved or that we are where we want to be. But we have thought about these things, we have introduced these and they continue to be refined, changed, worked on.

Families may also need help. So, the Singapore Prison Service has set up a Family Resource Centre, it has got the Yellow Ribbon community project to encourage families to visit abusers in DRCs. Family relationships are complex, different families, different types of relationships. It requires long-term effort, even after release. We have volunteers who continue to follow up via the Yellow Ribbon Community Project. We have talked to the Association of Muslim Professionals who have said they will come in to provide family casework in their new rehabilitation programme.

Let me share a story, this is in the context of what Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin said about halfway houses.

Salim started abusing substances in his teens, 20 years, two decades. He abused heroin, ice, alcohol. At one point, he lost his family support. He could not even face himself. Then, he went to Pertapis halfway house. Things changed. He was moved and struck by the unwavering support from the staff of Pertapis. He has now been clean for more than 10 years. He is paying it forward as Chairman of the family support group for Pertapis. He strongly believes in not giving up on abusers even when their families have given up on them. He himself has experienced how community support can change lives.

Asst Prof Madhev Mohan said rehabilitation is important. I think I have made the point. It may be that, in Singapore, our message on deterrence and our tough laws have been so strong that the fact that we put a lot of emphasis on rehabilitation probably has not come through. But you can take it that we put a lot of effort on rehabilitation.

He also referred to a specific case where he felt the prosecutors made submissions which were perhaps not appropriate or a bit too harsh. The Member knows that I do not control prosecutors' submissions; nor should I, nor would you want me to. But I will certainly pass on what you said to the AGC.

For young drug abusers, the emphasis has to be on rehabilitation, so that they can have a drug-free life ahead of them. We have a variety of programmes. If they are below the age of 21, they undergo counselling and casework management for a period of six months, and that is non-residential. If they are of moderate risk, they are then sent to the Community Rehabilitation Centre. We call them CRCs. They started operations in 2014 and that allows them to continue with their education and employment in the day with minimal disruption. Higher risk young people will require more intensive rehabilitation, they will be in the DRC. Even in there, we have split them into low risk, moderate risk and high risk with different types of treatment for the three categories.

We also started the Anti-Drug and Counselling Engagement or ACE, programme which was started last year for young drug abusers who have confessed to drug abuse but, for one reason or another, they have tested negative in the urine test. This is a three-month programme and includes counselling and we equip them with skills to cope with their addictions. We get their parents involved. But two hands need to clap. Often, we find that the parents are not willing to come forward. I have asked my people to consider whether, legislatively, we can do something, that the parents also have a duty.

Coming back to some of the points that Members have made, on the international front, we do not want to be isolated. Within ASEAN, yes, members, in their domestic situation, may take different approaches. But they sign up to refusing to accept the legalisation of drugs. They continue to support criminalisation and there is an ASEAN coalition supporting it and there are a few other countries which adopt the same approach. We cooperate together in the international arena. We have to have a sensible dialogue with others of a different persuasion and perhaps agree that they have their viewpoint and we have our own viewpoint. Different countries should be allowed to have different viewpoints.

In conclusion, if I may say so, Sir, we face international challenges, we face different types of local challenges, we will step up our efforts, we will review our drug strategy. But we need the community's support and it must be a national priority to keep drugs under control.

Today's Motion and the speeches of the Members, even Mr Kok Heng Leun's speech, give me considerable comfort because I think we are on the same page, that this has to be taken seriously and you reflect the perspectives in the world of the people in many ways. Given that there is a broad variety of viewpoints that have been expressed, almost everyone consistently supporting a strong stand, save for some difference on the part of Mr Kok relating to specific penalties. I think that shows where the weight of public opinion stands on this. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Kok Heng Leun.

9.27 pm

Mr Kok Heng Leun: I would like to thank the Minister for the response to my points. I would like to now then also respond.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Please seek your clarification and not make another speech.

Mr Kok Heng Leun: Yes, but I think some things I need a bit of time to articulate.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Kok, that would be out of order.

Mr Kok Heng Leun: Yes, okay, can. I think I did articulate in my speech that I do think that a strong stance is important in dealing with drug issues. My personal experience when I was young living in Geylang in the 1970s where the back alleys had so many gangsters and drug problems. I have gone through the experience with my mom telling me not to go out by the back alley because it is dangerous. So, those experiences are real for me to say —

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Kok, you are making another speech.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr Kok. Minister, would you like to respond to that? Please keep it brief.

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

9.31 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An integral part and an important part is the family − this is because the family and the children suffer, too, when the drug abuser is put into incarceration for extended periods of time. As Ms Kuik has put it, "The last thing we want is for kids to grow up motherless or fatherless which in turn increases the next generation's risk of falling into similar patterns of drug abuse and incarceration."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put, and agreed to.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker: I would like to thank all Members present in this Chamber for their endurance and tolerance.