MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT - ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR - 1ST APRIL, 1979 TO 31ST MARCH, 1980
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I start with answering the Member for Kim Seng. The Member has stated quite correctly that although we have contained the problem of drug addiction, we are still a long way off. The picture is not so rosy because it is an enormous problem. May I say that drug enforcement and rehabilitation is a continuing battle. In the event of our succeeding in combating one aspect of it, something else crops up and we have to follow up. It is a battle which we have to wage without any let-up whatsoever. When enforcement against traffickers and pushers results in drying up supplies of heroin and cannabis in Singapore, addicts would cross the Causeway to purchase and smuggle small quantities into Singapore on their return. We therefore deny drug supervisees travel documents. This reduced but could not eliminate the ant trafficker going through the Woodlands checkpoint. So what we have done is to use narcotic detector dogs at the Woodlands checkpoint to help us to intercept. Numerous small amounts of heroin and cannabis are secreted under the seats of passenger buses. We have managed to make it difficult for even small quantities of drugs to come in through the Causeway. But as soon as we have done that, we find that some of the addicts have now switched over to barbiturates, I think the Member for Kim Seng being a medical doctor will understand this. So my Ministry has been in consultation with the Ministry of Health which, in turn, is seeking the cooperation of private medical practitioners to monitor the situation and to prevent drug supervisees from getting hold of barbiturates. From heroin, they have now gone to barbiturates. With regard to drug trafficking and drug pushing, I can definitely say that there has been a decrease of drug pushing and trafficking in Singapore. In 1977, 348 drug traffickers and pushers were arrested. Although there was no let-up in enforcement, only 289 traffickers and pushers were arrested in 1978. The decrease in drug trafficking and pushing is clearly illustrated when one compares the 1978 first half-year figure of arrests to the second half-year figure. In the first half of 1978, 196 traffickers and pushers were arrested whereas in the second half, only 83 such persons were arrested. Sir, since Operation Ferret started in April 1977 up to 15th March this year, a total of 11,411 addicts were sent to drug rehabilitation centres. In addition, 2,557 persons were prosecuted in court and 1,882 were referred to the SAF for further action. The drug pushing network has been disrupted and drug addicts no longer carry out their activities blatantly in public places. However, as I said, some of them have now turned to barbiturates as a substitute which they usually take with alcohol. The abuse of barbiturates became noticeable in August last year when there was an increase in the number of persons admitted to hospitals in a state of coma due to barbiturate poisoning, because barbiturates when taken in large quantities is a poison and can kill. At the peak, in the month of September 1978, there were 45 barbiturate-coma cases a month in hospitals. However, our enforcement action against the abuse of barbiturates by addicts has kept the problem in check and the number of comatose cases, I am glad to say, has now come down to 19 in February this year. Sir, I am also glad to say that we have contained the drug addiction problem in the sense that there are now fewer new addicts joining the drug addict population. I think this is an achievement because unless we are able to prevent new addicts from addiction, we will never solve the problem. May I just give Members some figures with regard to this. During the last Budget debate in March last year, I informed the House that the drug problem had been contained and I gave the figures as follows - the ratio of new addicts, meaning those not on CNB record, to old addicts, meaning those on CNB records. Those figures were: Persons arrested in January 1978, last year, the ratio of old to new addicts was 0.85:1. However, in January this year this ratio has fallen sharply to 0.21:1. In summary, this indicates that the number of persons who become addicts has been drastically reduced and our problem now is primarily confined to dealing with hard-core addicts. That is why I say that we are now emphasising on tackling the problem of rehabilitation. I agree with the various Members, including the Member for Kampong Kembangan, that one of the problems which we have to solve is the employment of ex-drug addicts, in other words, when they are released they should be found jobs. With regard to the question on the policy of Government departments and statutory boards towards taking ex-drug addicts into the service, the new Minister for Trade and Industry, speaking as the Senior Minister of State for Finance in charge of the Establishment, had explained to the House the policy of the Government. This was in answer to the question raised by the Member for Khe Bong. I do not want to elaborate further what he has said. But as the Minister for Home Affairs, I would like to say this: on principle, if a person has been on drugs but he has been rehabilitated, he should be employed. But the question is, where do you employ him? So it is a question of job placement in the various Government departments and statutory boards. You must not put him in sensitive jobs. 6.00 p.m. May I explain what I mean by sensitive jobs? It is just like putting him in a place where we inadvertently put him to some temptation. For example, we employ him and put him in charge of a Government outpatient clinic, or even in the Accident and Emergency Unit. I do not think we should put him there because, as we know, they can have access to things like barbiturates, morphines, and so on. On principle, there is no reason why Government departments and statutory boards should not take them in, but it is a question of the right department and the fight type of job. As far as job placement is concerned, besides the Government departments and statutory boards, the private firms and organisations should also do their bit for the ex-drug addict, because it is a national problem and by helping them with jobs they are helping to solve a national problem. For this, the Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association (SANA) has started a job placement scheme for ex-addicts. By the end of February 1979, SANA was able to get 140 private organisations and firms to pledge employment for ex-addicts. A total of 649 ex-addicts applied for jobs in these organisations. Of the 649 applicants, 158 or 24.3% were successfully placed in jobs, whereas 217 or 33.4% rejected jobs offered to them. That illustrates the point brought up by the Member for Kampong Kembangan. He knows what he is talking about because he himself is involved in helping these people in his constituency. 216 or 33.3% were found unsuitable for reasons other than the fact that they were ex-addicts. They were not found suitable not because they were ex-addicts but for other reasons. The remaining 58 or 9% are still awaiting the results of their applications. As I said, it must not be assumed that all ex-addicts are eager to work. Among the 217 ex-addicts who rejected job offers, some said that the salary was inadequate. There were also some who considered the workplace too far from home. Nevertheless SANA will continue to persuade more employers to take in ex-addicts as part of their contribution to rehabilitation. I would also like to appeal personally to all employers to do their bit by employing ex-addicts. I also know that the Labour Ministry has also joined in this effort and the Employment Service of the Labour Ministry is now working closely with SANA. They are also trying their best to get employment for ex-drug addicts. May I answer some of the points brought up by the Member for Punggol. He has again raised the matter of confidentiality of information given by members of the public to the narcotics officers. I have stated that the officers have a duty to keep the information confidential and they cannot breach it. If they breach it they are com mining an offence. The Member for Punggol asked me about drug enforcement against drug traffickers, how many have been sentenced to death and how many have been hanged. Since 12th December when the provision for the death penalty was introduced for trafficking of drugs exceeding a certain amount, 16 traffickers have been sentenced to death by the High Court. Of these, two were executed last year. Why only two? As Members know, this is because our legal system allows for appeal right up to the Privy Council, and if the Privy Council turns down the appeal, then the person is executed. Of course, before execution, he can appeal to the President for clemency. That takes time. That is why only two were executed last year. One of them was detained at the President's pleasure because of age. The remaining 13 are awaiting appeal. Another three traffickers have been charged and are awaiting trial in the High Court, and they will suffer the death penalty, if convicted. Let me answer the question on supervision and the number of drug addicts in our rehabilitation centres at the moment. First, the number of addicts who are now in our rehabilitation centres. On 15th March, 1979, there were 3,263 addicts in the DRCs; 3,011 are males and 252 are females. Between 1st August 1976 and the end of January 1979 a total of 9,657 ex-addicts were placed under our supervision scheme. May I explain our supervision scheme? Our supervision scheme for drug addicts is over a period of two years immediately after the ex-drug addict is released from the DRCs. Out of these 9,657 ex-addicts under supervision, a number of these supervisees were subsequently taken out of the scheme. They include those who were enlisted for national service and those who were sentenced to imprisonment for non-drug offences. So there remains after the deduction 8,732 supervisees. Out of this figure, 3,210 have since relapsed. In other words, the recidivism rate is 36.8%, which is arrived at by computing the 3,210 supervisees, who relapsed, as a percentage of 8,732 supervisees. If that is the rate of recidivism, then I say we have done well. In fact, this is only an apparent rate. Let me explain. The 3,210 supervisees relapsed at various points of time during the two-year supervision. Another way of measuring recidivism is to calculate the percentage of supervisees who successfully completed the two-year supervision. That is the point made by the Member for Kampong Kembangan. The longer the period, the more relapses he gets. However, since the supervision scheme has been functioning for only 2 1/2 years, at the moment the number who have completed the two-year supervision period is only 358. Out of the 358, 238 have relapsed, giving the recidivism rate as high as 66.5%. However, it is too early to say that this is the correct recidivism rate, since only a small number has completed the two years. Whatever it is, progress has been made because before this we have recidivism rates of 80% to 90%. As I say, these figures of recidivism are still tentative and I am sure we will get the correct recidivism rate in another six to nine months. I am confident that with all that we are doing, concentrating on rehabilitation, we will get a low rate of recidivism, as far as is humanly possible. The Member for Kim Seng asked whether we have any figures to compare with the experience of other countries. I am afraid we have not got the recidivism rate figures from any other country. But I am told that the recidivism rate in other countries, particularly the developed countries, is very high, 80-90%. So we are now on a frontier subject. We have to pursue it from our own experience. I am quite confident that, now that we have contained the problem, we will put emphasis on rehabilitation. I think we can bring down the rate of recidivism as low as possible. I come to the point made by the Member for Punggol. He asked whether we have got sufficient staff to supervise them well. We use whatever manpower available for supervision. We have been using part-time national servicemen in the Special Constabulary and Vigilante Corps for urine tests when the supervisees come for the test every five days. Of course, we cannot just depend only on part-time personnel to do the work. So we employ 67 full-time supervisee officers to do the work. There again, we found them to be not sufficient. We are requesting the Establishment Division for more posts of supervisee officers. Apart from supervision that is done by the Central Narcotics Bureau, we also have supervisees who are being counselled by SANA volunteer counsellors. In other words, it is again a two-pronged approach. One is strict supervision by supervision officers working under the Central Narcotics Bureau. At the same time we have volunteer counsellors who counsel the supervisees and they are trained and organised by SANA. 6.15 p.m. The Member for Bedok asked me whether a study has been undertaken to find out what happens to ex-drug addicts after rehabilitation and release from the DRCs. No such study has been made. However, it would have been clear from what I have said about recidivism and supervision that my Ministry is monitoring closely the behaviour of ex-drug addicts during their two-year period of supervision after release from the DRCs.