Hansard, Monday, 12 November 2012

1 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the admission criteria to the Specialised Independent Schools (SIS), such as allowing students from all academic streams (Express, Normal Academic and Normal Technical), to gain admission to the School of the Arts or the Singapore Sports School as long as they qualify for the respective artistic or sporting criteria of the SIS.

Page: 1034

Mr Speaker, the Singapore Sports School (SSP) was started as a four-year Secondary programme aimed at nurturing student athletes with the potential to compete at the national and international levels. With this aim in mind, the SSP caters to a range of academic abilities and provides a flexible curriculum which allows young athletes to follow a rigorous sports training programme. Hence, the SSP already admits students from all academic streams, if they meet the sporting criteria for the School and the academic performance for their stream.

The School of the Arts (SOTA) was set up as a six-year through-train programme to develop students who would go on to provide creative leadership in their chosen field and become champions of the arts, whatever their eventual profession. While SOTA students benefit from a rigorous six-year arts education, the curriculum is intended to provide them with a wide range of options for admission into tertiary institutions of higher learning, and not necessarily a professional arts pathway. To do this, SOTA prepares its students for the well-rounded and internationally-recognised International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP).

Page: 1035

The IBDP is rigorous, and students who pursue it must meet a minimum academic standard. Thus, while artistic potential is a key criterion for admission into SOTA, the applicant's academic ability is also part of the total assessment. To ensure that applicants can eventually meet the requirements of the IBDP, SOTA's academic cut-off is the Express stream. It would not be in the interests of the students if SOTA were to lower its criteria and accept students who later find it difficult to cope with the IBDP, particularly since these students do not take the "O" levels.

Furthermore, SOTA only commenced operations in 2008, and its first batch of students has yet to graduate. It would be in the interest of the school and its students to allow SOTA to consolidate its arts and academic programmes before making fundamental changes to its curriculum and admission criteria.

In the meantime, our mainstream schools with niche programmes in the arts offer many other opportunities for students of all academic abilities to develop their artistic talents.

I thank the Acting Minister for the reply. While I understand that SOTA is likely to cater to students to prepare them for the IBDP, would the Ministry consider introducing alternative qualifications, such as the Workplace Literacy and Numeracy (WPLN) qualification, so that students who do not eventually qualify for the IBDP can have an alternative pathway to move on to the ITE thereafter?

Mr Speaker, as I have explained earlier, SOTA has just started its programmes in 2008. Its first batch of students has yet to graduate. I understand what the Member is asking – whether we can build alternative pathways within SOTA for students. In principle, the answer is "yes", but let us allow for SOTA to consolidate its programmes as it has just started. Also, as I have mentioned earlier, there are other pathways in mainstream schools as well, where students can develop their interest and potential in the arts. There are Arts Elective Programmes and Enhanced Arts and Music Elective Programmes offered in mainstream schools, too. Within SOTA, we will continue to improve but let us consolidate with what we have at the moment.

I would like to ask Acting Minister this: the Singapore Sports School has been in operation for many years. Besides IB, can the Sports School offer some alternative programmes, like diplomas, which are more flexible for our players?

The Singapore Sports School has, indeed, been in operation for some time. As I mentioned earlier, they offer students different streams towards "O" levels: Express, Normal Academic and Normal Technical. They are now looking at the IB programme, which is a diploma-level programme. So, they are also looking at expanding their programmes and offerings to students. If there are suggestions for which we can make these programmes more flexible for the athletes, we can talk to the Sports School and we would be happy to discuss what other ideas we can pursue and how we can make these programmes more flexible. The overall intent of the Sports School is, indeed, to have a programme that would cater to the athletes of different interests. They already have these options at the Secondary level, and they are pursuing it to the diploma level. In fact, they are also talking to Institutions of Higher Learning, like Republic Polytechnic and the Universities, to make sure that there is continuation from the Sports School to these Institutions of Higher Learning. I recognise that some of these linkages and pathways can be improved, and this is a continuing process which we will work on.

Mr Zainudin Nordin, last question.

Page: 1036

Sir, the Acting Minister mentioned about the possible pathway in the niche Secondary schools. May we know the exact amount of resources that are given to the specialised schools, that is, in SOTA and the Sports School, as compared to the niche Secondary schools? Is the amount equivalent or a large difference?

I do not have the specific figures with me. I am not able to give the Member a direct answer now. I would say that, yes, the specialised institutions do cost more. At the same time, we do provide additional resources for students pursuing these different pathways and their interests, whether it is in the arts, sports or music, in the mainstream schools. I do not have the figures for a direct comparison. If the Member would file a separate Parliamentary Question (PQ), we would be happy to take it up then.

Page: 1036

2 Mr Nicholas Fang asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what role sports can play in achieving the declared aims of the new Ministry to engage the youth of Singapore and enhance community ties; and (b) whether this role will dilute the focus on attaining high performance goals.

Page: 1037

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry aims to create an environment where Singaporeans can pursue their aspirations to lead fulfilling lives; build a society based on mutual respect, understanding and care; and foster a deeper sense of national pride and belonging to the nation.

Sports can contribute to each of the areas. The recent Sports Vision 2030 report has set out recommendations on how Singaporeans can live better through sports. In implementing Vision 2030, my Ministry will provide more opportunities for individuals, including youths and students, to participate in sports.

The Singapore National Games and the Community Games are examples of how sports contribute to building community ties by allowing the community to come together to help organise the games, to play, support and cheer each other on.

Through SportCares, another initiative under Vision 2030, we encourage individuals and organisations to reach out to the less fortunate members of our society, including under-privileged youths, through sports.

Our efforts in encouraging community involvement in sports will not dilute the focus on high-performance sports. On the contrary, the broader the base of sports participation, the better our chances of developing talented youth athletes. At the same time, the achievements of Team Singapore athletes will inspire other young people to pursue their passion for sports, whether at the recreational or competitive level.

Sports participation and sports excellence are both integral to the aims of my Ministry. They are complementary and mutually reinforcing. MCCY will continue to strongly support development in both areas.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Acting Minister for the reply. I have one supplementary question. I appreciate the fact that the high performance and high participation aspects of sports can be complementary. Given limited amount of resources, to create committees, for example, the Sports Pathway Committees, which seem to share both those aims – national team development as well as community building – I cannot help but wonder what would be the impact in terms of the division of resources if the amount of resources is not going to be increased. How will these twin aims then be developed? Would it not be better if organisations, such as People's Association (PA), took a more active role in terms of the community aspects of sports development?

I understand where the Member is coming from in terms of the concerns about the allocation of resources. First of all, we would like to have more resources put into sports, overall. Secondly, we have to look at the balance of resources and at which agency does what. For community sports, a lot of the involvement is already done through PA, with PA resources and organisation helping to mobilise the community and the grassroots.

As I mentioned earlier, we will continue to put in more resources to building sports performance and to high performance sports. The Sports Pathway Committee which SSC recently announced is one example. We are also seeking to strengthen our high performance sports training system and framework through the Singapore Sports Institute. That is something that was also recommended in the Vision 2030 Report. It is an idea which we are looking at to see how we can take it forward and strengthen the whole system of high performance sports training. When we look at the whole system, in both participation and excellence, I do not think we want to put an artificial divide between the two.

Page: 1038

Overall, we have to build a stronger system. More sports participation can help to build sports excellence. We will have to look at the resources that we have – ideally, have more resources going into sports, but within the resources that we have, look at how best to allocate those resources so that we can build up the entire system.

Page: 1038

3 Ms Mary Liew asked the Acting Minister for Social and Family Development in light of the Government's plan for 105 eldercare facilities to be built in four years (a) what will be the plan to upskill and build up the manpower resources and capability to meet this requirement; and (b) what more can be done to address the increase in the elderly population beyond 2015.

Page: 1038

Based on estimates by MSF and MOH, we will need about 1,200 Senior Care Associates and 300 Social Service Professionals in community-based eldercare by 2015, and another 350 nurses and 1,300 support care staff in new nursing homes.

MSF is working with the Centre for Enabled Living, National Council for Social Service and VWOs to recruit and train Senior Care Associates and Social Service Professionals. Senior Care Associates are needed for Senior Care Centres and Senior Home Care. The former offer day care, general nursing, physiotherapy and dementia care, while the latter offer personal care and health support services delivered to the elderly at their homes. They will receive training under the Workforce Skills Qualification (WSQ) framework. As they will be higher skilled than today's eldercare workers, they can expect to earn higher salaries.

The next group of workers is Social Service Professionals, comprising largely Social Work Associates and Social Service Assistants to be deployed at Senior Activity Centres (SACs). Most of them are expected to have Diplomas and Higher Diplomas in Social Service provided by the Social Service Training Institute and funded by MSF.

To ramp up the healthcare professional staff needed for the sector, MOH intends to expand the annual intakes for nursing and encourage more mid-career conversions to nursing and allied health. MOH will also support continuing and advanced skills training and upgrading for staff in the intermediate and long-term care sector. MOH and MSF will resource the sector to ensure salaries are competitive.

Page: 1039

To meet the manpower demand for the planned 105 facilities over the next four years, as well as beyond 2015, we will have to look beyond increasing manpower supply to also work with eldercare service providers to raise productivity, through initiatives, such as bulk procurement, process redesign and use of technology. In facilities such as SACs, we will also explore reducing the demand for full-time workers by encouraging retirees and homemakers to work part-time as Home Visit Assistants.

Overall, the number of eldercare facilities which we will be developing should provide sufficient capacity to cater to the increase in the elderly population beyond 2015. MSF will continue to monitor demand and utilisation of the various services, as well as other emerging needs. These will then be further reviewed and addressed under the Ministerial Committee on Ageing.

I have two supplementary questions. I would like to ask the Minister of State what other measures would the Ministry look at to attract more locals to work as Senior Care Associates. The Minister of State just now briefly mentioned about involving retirees and women who wish to return to the workforce. I feel that many of them are natural care-givers but they require training. Could the Minister of State elaborate on this? Secondly, I understand that MSF has also been developing Senior Group Homes. I would like to ask the Minister of State if she could give me an update on the progress of the Senior Group Homes scheme.

I want to thank the Member for asking the questions. On the first question, we intend to do three things. We intend to enlarge the scope of work of the Senior Care Associates, through skills upgrading, so that they can do a lot more work after the skills upgrading training through the WSQ.

Secondly, we intend to deploy the use of more assisted technology, for instance, the use of hoist in moving seniors from the bed to the chair and so on. That also reduces the tedium and the menial part of the work associated with taking care of the elderly.

The third part, as the Member has raised, is a question of how we deploy other resources we have in the community, for instance, back-to-work women, of housewives as well as retirees. What we intend to do and are looking at is how to break up the work that is being done at the Senior Care Centres, as well as in the Senior Activity Centres, to see whether we could then deploy, make use of housewives and retirees in this work, instead of just looking for full-time workers.

On the second question about group homes: group homes basically aim to provide assisted living to encourage our seniors to stay independent and to support their integration into society. We have already opened one at Pipit Road in February this year. We intend to open another – it is on track – in December this year or early next year, 2013. We are also working with MND to identify sites to have more group homes, and also to put the Senior Group Homes as part of the planning parameters for MND when they are planning for development in areas. We have received very good feedback about the Senior Group Homes.

Page: 1040

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Ministry, of the 105 eldercare facilities, whether a pilot could be organised to have eldercare and childcare facilities within the same location for two reasons. First, the children who are taken care of by their grandparents will see that their grandparents also have needs. And, secondly, for the working parents who leave their children with the grandparents, then, the grandparents can be in the same geography as the grandchildren to take care of them.

Thank you. I think that is certainly a very good idea and that is what we want to do and wish to do, to have the integration of the facilities. As the Member said, it is to encourage inter-generational bonding and support. In fact, we have already started one in Mr Seah Kian Peng's constituency. It will be an integrated facility, but that is because we have the premises. The opportunities are, therefore, for us to site the two facilities together. But we will certainly take into account Mr Christopher de Souza's views and we will proactively look at ways to site both the facilities together in order to support each other.

Page: 1040

4 Ms Low Yen Ling asked the Acting Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will review the present guideline for the maximum staff-child ratio, especially for infant care, which is one care-giver to five infants, and supplementing it with educarers or assistants to provide the assurance of good childcare support.

Page: 1040

Sir, the present infant-staff-child ratio is a minimum standard specified under the Child Care Centres Act. In practice, various childcare centres have adopted better staff-infant ratios and employed para-personnel to provide better supervision and support for the infant educarers. This is a more flexible approach in light of the limited supply of infant educarers. Raising the minimum licensing requirements would inevitably raise manpower costs. This, in turn, could deter centres from providing the needed infant care services, or to raise their fees.

Page: 1041

We will continue to ensure that good standards of care and supervision are provided for infants in childcare centres. The Ministry conducts regular visits to centres to ensure that developmentally appropriate practices and standards are in place. We would also advise centres to regularly review their staffing requirements where required. At the same time, we have embarked on initiatives to increase the supply of trained infant carers.

Sir, I thank the Acting Minister. I have two brief supplementary questions. The first one is, with a need to strengthen our childcare infrastructure to encourage family formation, would the Ministry in the medium term have plans to bring down the staff-child ratio for infant care? Number two, like what MSF has put up in its website – quite comprehensive information about the various childcare operators – would the Ministry have the bandwidth to put up at least the details of the staff-child ratio for infant care operators, so that parents can make an informed decision?

Sir, the answer to the first question is, yes, we are regularly reviewing the infant-to-staff ratios. We would make this information available as and when the various centres make it available to us.

Page: 1041

5 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Acting Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry has plans to enact legislation to give more employment rights to low-wage contract workers, such as salary increments throughout the tenure of the contract, statutory benefits under the Employment Act and job security.

Page: 1041

Sir, the Employment Act is the primary legislation that sets out the basic employment terms and conditions in Singapore. Regardless of whether employees are on term or permanent contracts, they are protected under the Employment Act.

All workers covered under the Act enjoy protection of salary payment, protection against unfair dismissal, notice period requirements and conditions pertaining to termination of service. Some of these workers are further covered under Part IV of the Act, which provides for additional coverage, such as rest day, hours of work and annual leave.

Notwithstanding these, we understand that contract workers may feel that they lack employment certainty and job security due to the short tenure of their contracts. While they are protected under the Employment Act, they might not be eligible for certain benefits, such as annual sick leave, if they do not meet the qualifying period of three months due to breaks in contracts.

We encourage employers to consider converting their contract employees into permanent staff, if they are found to be suitable for the job and if the job is expected to be available on a permanent basis. Employees who feel a greater sense of belonging ultimately contribute better to the performance of the company.

Page: 1042

We are working closely with our Tripartite Partners and our stakeholders to review the Employment Act. At this stage, we are considering suggestions and feedback on various issues, including the protection of low-wage contract workers. Ultimately, we wish to ensure that the Act safeguards basic employment standards to those who need it, while still giving employers sufficient flexibility to manage their businesses. We will be sharing more details in due course.

Can the Ministry consider making it mandatory through changes in the Employment Act for the existing or new employers of low-wage workers working for outsourced services contracts to recognise their years in service, and ensure they will not be worse off in terms of salary and other statutory employment benefits, such as annual leave, under the new outsourced services contract?

Sir, the Government has been working closely with the Tripartite Partners to ensure that low-wage workers working for outsourcing companies are treated fairly. We have updated the Tripartite Advisory on best-sourcing practices to encourage service buyers to outsource responsibly, including outsourcing that ensures the basic rights of the workers. However, this is a complex matter, and we suggest dealing with this when we review the Act, and this may come up for discussion maybe later next year.

I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary in relation to my fellow Parliamentary colleague's question earlier on salary increments of low-wage contract workers, could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary update us on the progress of the recent NWC guidelines in recommending the $50 salary increment for low-wage workers? How is the progress in the non-unionised sector?

The suggestion had just been proposed and some companies are already implementing it. We will collate the information. If the Member would like to know more about this, he can file a question on this matter at the next sitting.

Mr de Souza, last question.

On low-wage workers, I understand that there is a probation period and, during the probation period, many of the rights for contract staff are not included, for example, medical leave, compassionate leave and annual leave. So, is there a way in the Employment Act to either reduce the probation period for low-wage workers or to allow contract rights under the contracts for permanent staff to also be included in the probation period?

Page: 1043

Sir, these are some of the elements of the review in the Employment Act that we are now studying. We are already consulting the Tripartite Partners and other stakeholders. There will be two parts in this. The first part will be completed later this year and we will launch the second phase of the study sometime next year, so some of these suggestions given by Members will be taken into consideration.

Page: 1043

6 Mr Alex Yam asked the Acting Minister for Manpower since 2005 (a) how many companies have applied for exemption from section 38(5) of the Employment Act with regard to the extent of overtime work; (b) how many companies have contravened the Act due to overtime work that exceeded the limits; and (c) whether allowing for such exemptions will put workers from low-wage sectors at a disadvantage.

Page: 1043

Under the Employment Act, employees are not allowed to work for more than 12 hours a day including overtime, with a limit of 72 hours of overtime in a month. If employers require their employees to work more than 12 hours a day or more than 72 hours of overtime in a month, they must apply for an exemption from the Commissioner for Labour. Even with the exemption from the 12-hour limit, working hours cannot exceed 14 hours a day. Between 2008 and 2011, an average of 310 employers applied for exemption each year, of which some 270 were approved. Employers are required to re-apply when the exemption expires, if they wish to continue to be exempted.

In granting the exemption, the Ministry takes into account the company's operational requirements and the workers' welfare, particularly their safety and health, to make sure that they are not being compromised. Hence, companies have to satisfy the Commissioner that they, firstly, have obtained the consent of employees in extending their overtime hours; secondly, they have a good track record for maintaining both health and safety as well as employment standards, and, lastly, they have secured the agreement of the unions in the company, if it is a unionised company.

Failure to comply with the working hour provisions is an offence under the law. Between 2008 and 2011, 260 employers were found to have contravened the limit of overtime work. Fifty six of these employers were issued composition fines by MOM, while 21 were prosecuted in court for more serious breaches of the limit of overtime work. For the remaining cases involving mainly minor technical breaches, warnings or advisories were issued.

MOM recognises that in many instances, overtime pay forms an integral part of the low-wage worker's wages. This is particularly the case for some industries, such as the security sector. Long working hours may be neither desirable nor sustainable in the long run. To address this, we are in the process of working with the various stakeholders, including the unions and industry associations, to see how we can uplift wages and reduce overtime hours where they are excessive.

Page: 1044

I thank the Acting Minister for his comprehensive reply. With regard to the statistics given, 270 companies were approved under section 38(V), 260 employers were taken to task. How many of these 260 employers were under the exemption list? Second question is, with regard to the overtime pay being an integral part of the salary for many of our low-wage workers, what are the concrete steps that MOM would be taking up over the next course of review of the Employment Act with regard to this to ensure that low-wage workers are paid a fair wage without having to work long and excessive hours?

I thank the Member for the supplementary question. I do not have the specific numbers, in terms of those who were taken to tasks, how many of them were part of the exemption list. But be that as it may, we take the exemptions quite seriously, so we will review that quite extensively on a yearly basis for those who have applied for an exemption. They need to fulfill those requirements explained earlier.

However, if any companies are found to be in violation of any of these requirements and the standards expected of the companies, they will be taken to task. Those parameters need to be met. In terms of looking at specifically the overtime requirements and so on, as part of the review of the Employment Act, as the Member is aware, we are in the process of working with the unions and employers on this front. This will be an issue that we will have to discuss with the various partners involved. What is quite clear is that we do need to set in place the appropriate parameters which we do have right now. Specifically with some industries for which we know there is a slightly more chronic issue of overtime hours, such as the security industry, we will work with different partners to see how to adjust this from a structural perspective.

I would like to ask the Minister whether his Ministry is considering looking at enhancing the penalties and making them more deterrent for would-be employers who want to contravene the Act, for example, imposing excessive overtime hours especially for low-wage contract workers.

In response to the Member's supplementary question, we do not have a specific plan as of now, in terms of increasing the penalties for those who violate the terms. What we do want to make sure is to continue to police these terms and conditions in a serious fashion and to make sure that our workers are not being exploited in the process.

Page: 1045

Ms Janice Koh, last question.

I would like to ask the Acting Minister if MOM has any plans in the review of the Employment Act to enact legislation that may also protect contract workers with regard to overtime pay and working beyond 12 hours, particularly workers in the creative and media sector.

I would like to thank the Member for her question. I would like to assure her that we are looking at the whole issue of contract workers in the various industries, as we have discussed before with the Nominated Member. There are certain segments that need closer attention. As we all know, contract work spans across a wide spectrum of sectors, and there are very different natures in terms of the contract workers and the different terms and conditions. So, this is something that we will be taking up, and we are actually in the process of looking at it. We are splitting the Employment Act review into two parts. This issue will come in the second part and we will consult and work closely with the different stakeholders on it.

Page: 1045

7 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Defence in light of Singapore's declining birth rate which will translate into fewer soldiers (a) how will the Government ensure that the Singapore Armed Forces will continue to remain a formidable and effective force; and (b) whether the use of military technology will assist our Armed Forces to continue to be effective and formidable.

Page: 1045

Mr Speaker, as National Service (NS) enlistees are drawn from eligible male Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents, the SAF is affected by birth rates and demographic trends. To illustrate, let me give Members some figures. So, if you look at the 1990s, we were drawing in about 15,000 NSmen that were enlisted into the SAF each year. This was in the 1990s. From the year 2000, we experienced higher numbers because the children born to cohorts of baby-boomers came of enlistment age, and this included the males born in the year of the Dragon in 1988. So, as a result, the SAF enlistments increased and reached a peak of about 21,000 in 2011. Going forward, due to an ageing population and declining fertility trends, SAF enlistments are expected to gradually taper and revert to levels in the 1990s, of about 15,000 each year. With these enlistment numbers, our long-term projections till 2040 indicate that the SAF will still be able to mobilise about 300,000 soldiers from Regulars, Full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) and Operationally Ready NSmen (ORNS).

The SAF has taken into account our manpower requirements over the longer term through our transformation towards a 3rd Generation (3G) SAF. Through advances in technology and with more effective systems and platforms, various units within the 3G SAF are now more potent and yet need fewer men to operate.

Page: 1046

Let me give Members some examples. The recently acquired High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) needs only three men to fully operate the system, compared with 12 men needed for other artillery systems with less precision and destructive effects. For the Navy, the Formidable-class frigates need a full complement of about 70 men, a very lean crew compared to similar warships from other navies, which typically operate with about 100 men. The recently acquired Heron-1 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) also gives us greater aerial surveillance capabilities for the same number of people deployed, as compared to older UAVs.

The SAF will continue to invest steadily and prudently in such advanced technologies to sharpen our capabilities and to be more efficient in the use of our manpower resources.

Beyond investing in technologically advanced platforms, we also leverage on technology to network our platforms together to provide us greater synergy in training and operations. So, one example is the recently inaugurated community for Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence.

Another important factor driving up the overall capability and productivity of the SAF lies in the rising quality of our servicemen. Our servicemen are more educated now and also more technologically savvy and are able to train more effectively, as well as operate the sophisticated systems within the 3G SAF.

So, as a whole, the higher quality of our NSmen, combined with the advanced platforms and effective use of technology to network our systems, will ensure that the SAF continues to be an effective military force and a strong deterrent against any aggression.

I thank the Minister for Defence for the assurance. It is certainly reassuring. I have a question arising out of the use of technology. Because of the quick pace of technology advancement, in order for our NSmen who perform ICT, for example, myself, who is still performing ICT, to leverage on that technology and be kept up to speed, would there be refresher courses for men like us, to operate the systems? So, have refresher courses for NSmen to be kept up to speed to fulfil their missions.

The answer to the Member is, yes, and it is a good problem. I will just give two examples, recent ones. Recently, when I visited the division headquarters (HQ), these were NSmen who were in their late 30s and early 40s. For Members who had done NS, you would remember that when you entered in-camp training (ICT) and you were recceing the grounds for the deployment and operations, previously there was a bit of a lag time. The complaint that they gave me was that the moment they entered into ICT, the division HQ was up and running and they were staring at computer screens, the recce was over and done with. Because now you can recce and send images back on the spot without even having to come back. So, it is a good problem and the Member is quite right, some of them are saying that the transition – from civilian life just an hour before, to military operations – is a stark one. And I see that as a good problem.

Page: 1047

Another example is these technical gadgets that we have, we place them on men, or our tanks or various platforms, where you know that you are shot, and that provides realism into the training situation. So, I would say, yes, as the technologically advanced platforms are put into place not only in terms of effect but for training, there is certainly more realism and it does require our men to train more realistically. But the feedback has been that it is a positive one. They like the fact that this is realistic.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one supplementary question for the Minister. It is heartening to note that investments in technology and training will continue to keep our force relevant and effective. Given the changing global security and military environments, is the Ministry reviewing the type of technology and type of training being employed to address counter insurgency, terrorism, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR) requirements that are being placed more and more on militaries all throughout the world, to make sure that the SAF can continue playing a role in that area?

Again, Mr Speaker, yes. The Member has brought up a very relevant point. The SAF is now required to respond to a wider spectrum of threats, not only scenarios of extreme aggression, response to extreme aggression, but, in recent years, as you have seen, response to humanitarian assistance in the Indian Ocean tsunami, in terms of Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar. That calls for a re-look at our capabilities, not only in terms of transport but in terms of integrating our various services. So, this is very much well into our planning process, and we will acquire platforms that allow us to fulfil our missions, that are very cost effective. And yet, at the same time, we are also mindful in terms of our manpower resources to make sure that they are manned very leanly.

Page: 1047

8 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Minister for National Development if the Ministry can clarify the role of Town Councils and constituency Members of Parliament in approving the specific uses of community spaces, such as void decks, by voluntary welfare organisations.

Page: 1047

Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB may allocate void deck spaces to Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) for them to set up non-profit social communal facilities. HDB will require the support of the VWO's supervising Ministry, which will assess the need for such a facility in that area, in consultation with the local grassroots leaders. HDB will also check with the local Town Council. The Town Council's role is to provide information on existing or planned improvement works, such as residents' corners and linkways, which would be affected by the VWO's proposal. HDB will also inform the Constituency Office of the proposal, so that it can highlight to HDB any feedback it may have on the proposal. HDB will assess all these inputs and work with the supervising Ministry before taking a decision on the allocation of the space to the VWO for the proposed facility.

Page: 1048

I would like to ask one question. Who exactly are these "VWOs" and how long have they been operating these welfare organisations in other places? Why is it that only now they choose Potong Pasir to put up these facilities, when Mr Chiam was in Parliament for 27 years? May I ask the rationale behind this?

My second point is that I want to emphasise that SPP is not unhappy that Block 108 is taken by a VWO for residents' welfare, but rather residents should be consulted and an explanation given to them about why the void deck was being taken over. They are stakeholders of their units and, after all, they have been staying there for 30-over years. And will his Ministry make it as an exception and that, in future, whenever they want to take over any void deck for any of these VWOs, could they have this policy to inform and explain to the residents?

I want to assure Mrs Chiam that the request for this void deck space is not unique to Potong Pasir. We have seen VWOs operate in many void deck spaces all over Singapore, and it is really on the basis of need – the need for residents to have access to such services. So, it is not peculiar to this area. Why now? Perhaps, the services are required now because, as I understand it, these services are for day care facilities for elderly residents. As Mdm Halimah just highlighted earlier, there are a lot more services for the elderly that are required. And I really do not think it is peculiar to Potong Pasir.

On whether we consult the residents, whether we engage the residents, I think the process ought to be one of engagement. But at some point in time, the decision will have to be made to serve the larger community. The process is what I had mentioned earlier. The supervising Ministry will have to endorse or support that request. Sometimes, it comes both ways. The Ministry thinks that there is a service that is required in that area. They engage VWOs to operate it. In this case, the VWO came forward and suggested that they wanted to provide a facility. MCYS then, as the parent Ministry, agreed that there was a need for such a service, and then they would engage the grassroots leaders who are residents themselves. And grassroots leaders often times are also encouraged to engage the residents.

Page: 1049

I think the process has been in place and, over time, we want to continue to engage Singaporeans on really the need for social services within the midst of the community.

Sir, may I just state that the VWO was, indeed, there when Mr Chiam was the Member of Parliament for Potong Pasir. The VWO was there for 10 years.

Let us move on. Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Page: 1049

9 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will review the criteria for the award of ASEAN scholarships with a view to (a) scrapping the scholarship for secondary and pre-University students and awarding the undergraduate ASEAN scholarship only; and (b) making the school principal's character assessment of the student as one of the criteria for the grant of the scholarship.

Page: 1049

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore enjoys close ties with our ASEAN neighbours. The ASEAN scholarship is offered to promising pre-tertiary and tertiary ASEAN students to promote mutual understanding and goodwill in the region.

ASEAN students add diversity and vibrancy to our educational institutions. Singaporean students interacting with international students enjoy the opportunity to learn from other cultures and experiences and become more prepared for the global marketplace.

Scholars are selected based on their academic and non-academic achievements, as well as their conduct and character at the point of application. Shortlisted candidates are interviewed by a panel comprising senior management and experienced educators, including school principals.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his answer. May I ask the Minister what are MOE's views on the recent character lapse of an ASEAN scholar who had posted inappropriate content of himself on his own blog in so far as how his character is assessed at the point of time of issuing the scholarship to him? The second question is whether MOE would consider regular reminders to all scholars, regardless of whether it is ASEAN scholar or otherwise, of their obligation to conduct themselves in a manner befitting their status as recipients of a publicly-funded scholarship. My final question for the Minister is that in the interest of transparency, whether MOE would be directing NUS to either disclose the punishment given to errant students or to perhaps send circulars to their students to inform them of the punishment meted out for wrongful behaviour.

Page: 1050

I thank the Member for the questions. I share the concern and disappointment of Members, as well as of the public, on the conduct of the student in question. The conduct of the student is reprehensible and unbecoming of a scholar. The Ministry does not condone this, nor does NUS. I am confident that NUS takes the matter seriously and will do the right thing.

The Member has asked about the selection process. Every panel selecting individuals for particular positions, whether it is for employment, scholarship or entry into professional areas, exercises the best judgement at the point of entry. From time to time, despite the best care that is exercised at that point, lapses do occur. So, companies have to terminate employees and professional bodies from time to time have to take disciplinary action. In the same light, it is important for a proper disciplinary process to be undertaken and for action to be taken and punishment meted out.

The Member has asked whether regular reminders should be provided to students. Indeed, this is something that Universities will do. The Member has also asked about the transparency of the process. NUS has convened a Board of Discipline. The proceedings are governed by the NUS Statutes and Regulations to safeguard the integrity of the disciplinary proceedings. NUS has explained its policy on the confidentiality of the proceedings.

Minister, just to follow up on the Member's question earlier, will the Ministry consider reviewing or terminating, or at least put through a probation period for such ASEAN scholars found involved in undesirable acts that question the character or morals of such scholars because they are looked up to as role models? They are expected to adhere to a certain code of ethics as expected of the scholarship.

I thank the Member for the follow-up question. The punishments that are meted out to specific cases are governed by what is in the University statutes. Therefore, we must respect what is done. At the same time, the Board of Discipline has been convened to deal with such matters and, indeed, those are serious matters which the Board would then have to take into account and, as I said before, I am confident that the university management takes matters seriously and will do the right thing.

Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister to share under what circumstances will scholarships be terminated, and what scope does MOE have under its terms of scholarship to recover monies from scholars for bad behaviour or poor academic performances.

Page: 1051

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe the Member has filed a parliamentary question on this which will be taken up later. But, with your permission, may I answer that part of the question?

Yes.

Mr Yee has asked about the circumstances in which the scholars may have the scholarships terminated. International scholars have had their scholarships terminated or had to pay liquidated damages mainly because many of the scholars were not able to meet the stringent scholarship renewal criteria, and a small number of scholarship holders had been terminated for misconduct.

I would like to thank the Minister for the answers. With regard to NUS' statutes which govern how it disciplines individual cases, I think there is some concern why in one particular case the NUS came out with an explanation as to the disciplinary procedure that it had decided to proceed with against a PRC student who made certain disparaging remarks about Singaporeans. But in this case, NUS has decided to not reveal what disciplinary action had been taken against another student. So, would the MOE consider getting some clarity from NUS as to whether there will be any consistency about the interpretation of these statutes?

I believe NUS has earlier explained the position. In the earlier case, NUS had sent out an internal circular to its students warning the students about the severity of making inappropriate remarks and, in that context, had made mention about what happened to a particular student. So, these are two different cases because the statutes and the way the NUS has been dealing with disciplinary offences is to ensure that sufficient measures are put in place to safeguard the integrity of the proceedings.

Page: 1051

10 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Education in view of the performance of Malay students lagging behind those of other ethnic groups in national examinations despite the efforts made by self-help groups and other community organisations (a) whether the Ministry has addressed the root causes behind this gap; (b) whether factors, such as proficiency in English language, its use at home, socio-economic background and cultural difference, have been studied as to their impact on this gap; and (c) what additional steps can the Ministry take to accelerate improvements to this gap.

Page: 1051

Sir, Malay students are doing better at the national examinations and going further in their educational pursuits. Today, close to 88% of the Primary 1 cohort of Malay students are admitted to post-secondary education. This is a significant improvement from the 75% 10 years ago. Although this is lower than the national statistic, the gap has narrowed steadily. This is the result of concerted efforts of the self-help groups (SHGs), other community organisations and parents, working in partnership with schools and MOE.

Page: 1052

The factors affecting the performance of our students are complex and multi-dimensional. Indeed, proficiency in English is important to access learning in other subjects. Socio-economic background is also associated with performance, and this is also true in other countries. Home support and individual motivation also play a part.

MOE has put in place various programmes to help level up students who require additional help. Our Learning Support Programmes provide specialised support for weaker students at the lower primary levels to close the literacy and numeracy gap as early as possible.

Besides providing support in the academic areas, MOE is also working on improving the quality, accessibility and affordability of school-based Student Care Centres (SCCs), so as to provide additional supervision and guidance for students who may require stronger learning support after school. We have also recently strengthened support for students from low-income backgrounds by enhancing MOE's Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) and our bursaries for students of Institutes of Higher Learning.

Beyond programmes in school, it is important that parents and the community are also involved in reinforcing the learning support provided for weaker students.

In this aspect, the SHGs have been valuable partners to MOE, with SHGs putting in place initiatives that complement school programmes. MENDAKI, for example, provides educational support via programmes, such as the MENDAKI Tuition Scheme. The programme fees are kept affordable to ensure that they are accessible to all students who require the additional support. Another example is the Association for Muslim Professionals' (AMP) Youth Enrichment Programme, which provides tuition in English and Mathematics, and encourages students to participate in enrichment activities aimed at developing their character.

Parents too have an important role to play. For instance, parents and families can support students by motivating them to enjoy learning, and ensuring that they adopt good habits, like reading widely. Parents can also look to MOE's new Parents in Education website for resources to help them support the education and development of their children.

MOE will continue to review how we can help under-achieving students, in partnership with the self-help groups and parents, to enable all our students to maximise their potential.

Page: 1053

I would like to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his clarification and answer. My initial intent of asking this question was really about whether cultural differences play a part in terms of how Malay students have performed over the years. That is why I have asked MOE because, over the years, MOE has also undertaken a lot of efforts in terms of helping weaker students. But has MOE studied whether there is a correlation? For example, if we look at students coming from poorer backgrounds, especially the Malay community, through proficiency in English language specifically, and whether it plans to tweak the way it handles weaker students as part of its learning support programme to accelerate how this community can potentially achieve better and be up to national standards.

Sir, I have said earlier that there are so many factors that affect students' performance in school. Language proficiency is one, whether it is English language as the main medium of instruction or Mother Tongue languages. Socio-economic background, home support and individual motivation – these are all known factors that affect performance of students in general. We find that these are common factors that are also true in other countries. So, I would say that rather than focusing specifically on students from particular ethnic communities, we identify the issues and then help the students holistically. And we do this from a very young age – from lower primary level, that is, Primary 1 and Primary 2. The Learning Support Programme helps the students with weaker foundation in Mathematics and English to strengthen their foundation in the subjects, in literacy skills, so that they will enjoy learning English Language and other subjects later on.

So, I would say, in short, that the factors affecting performance of students are generally true for all societies and quite common in most countries.

Mr Zaqy, last question.

Sir, I hope the MOE is not looking at this and saying, "Let us just take a very race-blind approach to this", because I think, for years, we have known this is a problem. We looked at the statistics, it has been an issue. What I hope is that MOE could review and look at it, and if the data is showing something, we could address it, maybe differently or in a more creative manner. I know the self-help groups and I know that they do have challenges as well, in terms of resources there is not rich, compared to what MOE has in the schools.

Sir, we recognise that some students do face different kinds of problems in education. That is why we work with different self-help groups for various programmes. We want to do this so that our students and their parents benefit. As I said earlier, we are also trying to increase the number of Student Care Centres in Primary schools so that there is further supervision of outside school hours for students who may need assistance, students who may come from certain kind of families who may require additional supervision and assistance in doing their work. Yes, different self-help groups are doing different programmes with schools and we would like to continue with this approach so that students from different ethnic groups, either working together or separately, will benefit from the various programmes run by schools and voluntary organisations.

Page: 1054

A supplementary question, Sir. Maybe the Ministry of Education could also enlighten us on the progress that has been made by the Malay community students. Secondly, how is the response to the extra enrichment programmes in the LSP, if there is any, towards helping the students who are under achieving? How is the response and the result of this help so far?

Sir, I think, generally, our students on LSP have been responding quite well and a sizeable number have progressed and do not need further assistance through the LSP programme per se. However, schools which have been very concerned about the performance of their students and the ability to enjoy learning would want to help their students through other school-based programmes which may be related to or as a progression of the LSP in school for specific groups of pupils. I do not have the specific figures on LSP progress in schools, but I would generally say that, yes, our students are responding well to LSP and many do not need specifically LSP programme beyond Primary 2. However, we are always open to ways in improving our programme for our students.

Page: 1054

11 Ms Janice Koh asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) why did the film "Sex.Violence.FamilyValues" initially receive an M18 rating; (b) why did the Media Development Authority (MDA) convene the Film Consultative Panel based on complaints from persons who had seen the trailer but not the film; (c) why MDA did not consider alternatives, such as an R21 rating with limited screenings or test-audience screenings, before giving the film a Not Allowed for All Rating; and (d) whether such reversal of film ratings will create an uncertain and unfavourable environment for Singapore filmmakers and artists.

12 Mr David Ong asked the Minister for Communications and Information if he can provide more insight into MDA's reversal of an initial M18 rating for the local film "Sex.Violence.FamilyValues" to a rating of Not Allowed For All Rating.

13 Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Communications and Information how the Board of Film Censors and Films Consultative Panel reconcile any differences in their respective film classifications.

Page: 1055

Sir, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 11, 12 and 13 together?

Yes, please.

Thank you. Sir, in December last year, the Media Development Authority (MDA) classified Porn Masala, one of the three films in "Sex.Violence.FamilyValues", Mature 18 (M18) as MDA assessed that it was a satire on racial ignorance and stereotyping. The rating was accompanied by a consumer advice for coarse language and racial stereotyping to enable viewers to make an informed choice.

In late September this year, MDA decided to consult the Films Consultative Panel (FCP) after receiving strong public feedback about the use of racist language in an online trailer for the film.

Significantly, MDA's consultation of the FCP for its views represents part of the robust process of film classification that MDA has put in place. As hon Members would know, the FCP comprises members of the public, representing different age groups, races, religions and professions, including those with knowledge about the film industry.

Twenty-four FCP members viewed the film in its entirety. Twenty of them felt that while the film may be a satire, there were specific comments which were offensive and demeaning to Indians, to the extent that the film should not be given a rating. Only four members felt that the film could be allowed under an R21 rating. None of them agreed with MDA's initial M18 rating. In view of the recommendation by an overwhelming majority to disallow the film for all ratings, MDA decided to revoke the M18 classification and classify it as Not Allowed for all Ratings (NAR).

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me explain the circumstances in which MDA would consult the FCP. MDA classifies more than 13,000 titles a year. So, it is not possible to consult the FCP for all these films. Thus, MDA will generally consult the panel in two instances: Firstly, when it encounters titles which may be potentially contentious and insights into community sentiments would help in arriving at an appropriate classification. Secondly, when there are complaints received about previously classified films.

In classifying films, MDA seeks to reflect prevailing community standards. This means that neither does it attempt to push the boundaries beyond what the community is prepared to accept nor does it seek to defend a status quo when the community has moved past it. As stated in MDA's Forum page letter published in The Straits Times on 19 October, it would not be right for MDA to ignore the FCP when all members who watched the film disagreed with MDA's M18 classification and an overwhelming majority voted to disallow the film.

Page: 1056

Sir, I would like to assure the House that this is an isolated case. In practice, the FCP has not, after reviewing cases referred to it, reached fundamentally different conclusions from MDA. The MDA will continue to evaluate the treatment of theme, content and context when classifying films, and this includes recognising that satire and parody should not be interpreted literally.

In classifying films, the MDA has a delicate task of balancing the interests of different segments of society who hold diverse and opposing views. Every additional step of review, such as a limited screening proposed by Ms Koh, merely prolongs the classification process and will create even more uncertainty. I am sure that in this particular case, had the FCP agreed with MDA's M18 classification, the filmmaker would not have welcomed a request by the complainants to allow only a limited screening. If, during such a limited screening, the audience was offended by the film, and MDA then acted against the FCP's opinion to change the classification, I am sure the filmmaker would object most strenuously.

Sir, in any case, MDA's classification decision is not final. The film distributor is entitled to appeal to the Films Appeal Committee, whose decision is final.

I thank the Minister. I have two supplementary questions. The first is regarding industry engagement. I believe in its response to the 2010 Censorship Review Committee's recommendations, MICA agreed that regulatory processes should involve industry and community engagement. In this regard, the Ministry agreed that industry practitioners, and I quote, "should be allowed to make formal representations to the Advisory Committee to facilitate dialogue". In view of this, was the filmmaker allowed to make a representation to defend his film to the Film Consultative Panel before the NAR rating was given and, if not, why not? And knowing that the panel was being convened so close to the theatrical release date, why wait for this engagement to happen at the Appeals stage, under the intense glare of the media spotlight and public pressure?

My second supplementary question is regarding enlarging the common space. The MDA, in giving the M18 rating, obviously recognised that the film was a satire on racial ignorance and stereotyping. In fact, the Vice-Chair of the FCP stated that the panel is aware of artistic elements, such as satire, and that this decision might be reversed when society has matured. Now, this is not a black-and-white situation, the trailer might be provocative but the film was never intended to be racist. In fact, the film points out that the root of our racist views is ignorance, and exposes our prejudices. Does the Minister agree that by blocking this film, we have actually denied Singaporeans a chance to dialogue on this issue and to grow and mature as a society; and that by blocking this film, we encourage Singaporeans to take sides on an issue portrayed in a film that no one can watch and are, in fact, shrinking that common space and not enlarging it?

Page: 1057

Sir, on the second question as to whether we have reduced the common space, the answer is, no, because film is not only the platform for which we can dialogue such issues. In fact, the Singapore Conversation conducted by Mr Heng Swee Keat is another platform for us to discuss some of the sensitive issues. That is why I do not see this as a step backward. But as I mentioned in my reply, there is a process, the process has proven over time to be effective. So, it is not the end. The filmmaker can still submit an appeal and I understand he has done so. So, we have to wait for the Film Appeal Panel to basically decide on a decision.

On the first question as to whether or not he was given an opportunity, that is the prerogative of the FCP. Really, the process is for the FCP to decide. The reason why this was revealed so late and so close to the screening was because of the two complaints that we received. As the Member has heard in my reply, MDA declared it to be M18 because we deemed it to be acceptable for certain type of audience. But because we received two strong complaints, in fact, a very long complaint by one particular member of the community, we decided to convene the FCP because we think that is how the process should work. It is really up to the filmmaker, as I mentioned earlier, to submit his appeal and we will have to wait and see the decision of the Appeal Panel.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister, given that the vast majority of the FCP had reservations about the film, why was MDA's initial assessment so different by giving it a M18 rating while they could also give a R21 rating. Secondly, has there been a substantial change between what was submitted earlier to MDA and the final production? And, thirdly, I would like the Minister to address my parliamentary question about the standard procedure for films' final classification when there is a difference between the Board of Films Censors and the Films Consultative Panel's assessment. And is the final classification automatically based on the more conservative assessment?

On the Member's final question, the answer is no. At the end of the day, the BFC has the final say on what is the classification to be used, if there is a disagreement, which I mentioned in my reply. Fundamentally, if there are no major agreements, the BFC would have to take into account the views of the FCP. In this particular instance, as I mentioned in my reply, 20 out of 24 disagreed entirely. So, it would be very unwise for us to ignore that particular response from a very diverse group of people. Out of the 20 and 24, in fact, the composition was very, very diverse because we have people from different backgrounds, different races and different professions.

As to his first question, yes, we viewed the film entirely. In fact, there are three films as part of the whole package. We viewed them in entirety last December. Based on what we felt was a prevailing norm and looking at the film the way it was presented, we thought that M18 would be a justified classification. As mentioned in the earlier question by Ms Koh, we did not see any reason to change until we receive those complaints. So the FCP therefore allowed us a second check in case there was some feedback from the members of the community. In this particular instance, we have to convene the FCP because there were complaints and therefore we have to take the FCP's comments into account.

Page: 1058

I thank the Minister for the clarification. The change in classification after a film is produced may send a very negative message to budding and potential filmmakers. I just want to ask the Ministry to shed some light on similar cases where such classification had been changed or reversed. And is there a lack of engagement or perhaps the clarity of MDA's decision-making process to these filmmakers?

I think the second part about engagement is a very good point. I do know that there have been many industry consultations done by members of the BFC. But, ultimately, as I mentioned in my reply, they have to screen over 13,000 titles and therefore it is very difficult for them to go out to the public to get responses every now and then. I do not think this sends a negative message because the number of instances in which we have to change the classification is few and far between. In fact, my record shows in 2010 and 2011, there were no such instances. This year alone, we only have two, of course, the film in question and there was another earlier film which was basically an imported film. So, by and large, we are quite satisfied with the classification process and the way in which we have engaged the filmmakers. But I take the Member's point that as society evolves, we have to continue to relook at our processes and how we can engage a wider cross section of the community so that we can get a better sensing. But, finally, I think we must all agree that when a classification is made, there will be some people who disagree and there will be some people who agree. The job of the MDA and the BFC is really to find that common ground which is as large as possible for us to allow the film to be screened, because we do want to support the film industry in Singapore.

Page: 1058

14 Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will consider extending the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) to all Singapore citizens satisfying the income criteria, regardless of age; and (b) how is the Ministry raising awareness of the scheme for the public to benefit from it and to encourage private clinics to participate.

Page: 1058

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have just enhanced the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) in January this year to benefit more Singaporeans, especially those with chronic conditions, by lowering the age criterion for the scheme from 65 to 40 years old and relaxing the income criteria. We are monitoring the impact of these enhancements and will review the scheme again in due course.

Page: 1059

Since the enhancement of CHAS, we have seen about a 20% increase in the number of participating GP and Dental Clinics to the current 794 clinics. Over 220,000 Singaporeans are now CHAS cardholders, a seven-fold increase from about 34,000 a year ago.

MOH, together with the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) and Health Promotion Board (HPB), will continue to engage private clinics to encourage them to come on board the scheme. We are also reaching out to the community with the support of local Advisors and grassroots leaders to increase awareness and participation in CHAS through various events and activities. Other engagement efforts include clinic visits, island-wide media campaign as well as setting up sign-up booths at our public hospitals and polyclinics.

I would like to ask the Minister: have increases in both the CHAS members as well as clinics on the scheme met the Ministry's expectations? And has the scheme eased the patient volume at polyclinics? Also, is there an annual budget set aside for the reimbursements to the private clinics for CHAS and what is the timeframe that the Ministry is adopting to assess the success of the scheme in order to consider whether to extend the scheme for patients below 40 years old?

As far as the number of patients is concerned, in the first six months of this year, we have seen about 31,000 patients who have made use of their CHAS cards in our various private clinics. That shows that these patients, who potentially could have been treated at the polyclinics, are now going to the private GP clinics. We hope to be able to reach out to more. Some of them have signed for the CHAS card but they have not used it because they are not due for medical review, and some of them may not have chronic diseases yet, but they want to have the card in order to be ready in case they need to use it.

We see the trend growing. This is a significant increase. Every year, we try to estimate how many patients are likely to make use of the card and what is the potential financial commitment from the Government. To date, we have disbursed a total of about $8 million under this scheme to provide for the subsidies. We had budgeted for a little more, just in case more-than-expected number of people are making claims. If we do not have enough budget, I am sure we can go back to the Minister for Finance to ask for more allocation in time to come.

As far as the timing is concerned, let us take this one step at a time. It has barely been one year, so let us review this in time to come. If need be, we will look at the various criteria and see whether we need to tweak them to keep the scheme effective and relevant.

Page: 1060

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a supplementary question for the Minister. Besides the income criterion which the Minister discussed, one of the criteria for CHAS benefits is the annual value of the property that a person lives in. Currently, there is a disqualification for Singaporeans who live in properties of annual value of more than $13,000. In effect, this will exclude most Singaporeans living in private homes. As we know, there are many elderly citizens living in modest homes which they inherited or they bought a long time ago, and they are not cash rich. I would like to ask the Minister whether in his review at some point in time, the Government would re-look at this property annual value criterion to enable some of these Singaporeans to benefit. Afterall, we are talking about healthcare benefits for senior citizens and not handouts.

Sir, CHAS is a Government subsidy scheme and, therefore, the primary target is still the lower income elderly group, is focused at chronic disease management. But I do take Ms Sylvia Lim's point. In fact, there are patients or residents who are living in inherited private houses who may not be of high income. We do consider on a case by case, especially for those who are at the borderline. If Members do come across cases that they think are deserving despite the fact that they live in private properties of annual value above $13,000, or if Members think these residents have big families or do not have high income and have difficulty meeting healthcare financial obligations, do come forward and let us know. We will review these on a case by case basis.

At the end of the day, even if they are not eligible for CHAS, they will still be able to receive subsidised treatment at the polyclinics. That will always be the last resort for our patients who cannot afford private clinics. CHAS is meant for use at private clinics. If you are not eligible for CHAS, you can still be eligible to be treated in our polyclinics. Of course, the purpose of CHAS is that we will hopefully be able to facilitate our patients to seek treatment with a subsidy at the private clinics.

So, we do take into account applicants on a case-by-case basis. Do let us know if Members do come across such cases, and we will review them.

Mr Speaker, I would like to check with the Minister the reasons that certain GPs are not participating in CHAS.

Sir, there are a variety of reasons. We have been engaging them. Some of them were concerned that there would be a lot of administrative work to be carried out especially in an area where they see there are not likely to have many such patients. From their point of view, it may not make sense for them to participate in the scheme, put themselves on the system, and then find that they are able to service only one or two patients. Not all of them will be coming on board.

From the numbers we have, we cover roughly a third of all the clinics in Singapore. This coverage is quite significant. This would work out to about 10 clinics for each constituency. The key now is distribution. The Ministry is looking at the distribution of these clinics. We have close to 800 CHAS clinics, but they are not spread evenly in all areas. In areas that are short of clinics, we try to reach out to them and engage them, and to encourage them to come on board so that we have a more even spread of clinics across Singapore.

Page: 1061

Mr David Ong, last question.

Is there a high number of appeals in terms of income criteria? Some of them are odd job labourers and they work piecemeal, so their income fluctuates. I would like to know if there is a high demand for appeals due to the income criteria.

Sir, I do not have the number of appeals at hand, but if you do come across deserving cases – whether they are odd job labourers or because their income is irregular – if they have been penalised unfairly, do let us know. We will then look into the details on a case-by-case basis, and if they are indeed eligible and ought to be helped, we will extend the help to them. The purpose of this scheme is really to help them, so if they deserve it, we will extend the help to them.

Page: 1061

15 Mr Hri Kumar Nair asked the Minister for Health in respect of persons with mental disabilities (a) what are the criteria for admitting them to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) and Government hospitals; (b) who will bear the costs of their treatment; and (c) whether IMH and the Government hospitals currently have the capacity to admit such persons referred to them and, if not, what steps are being taken to increase their capacity.

Page: 1061

Mr Speaker, most patients with mental health conditions are cared for in the community as outpatients. Patients with more severe mental conditions, such as schizophrenia and depression with risk of suicide, may be admitted for a period for closer monitoring and treatment. Other patients may be admitted for diagnostic investigations, monitoring of responses to treatment and management of concomitant medical or surgical conditions. The decision to admit them is based on the clinical assessment of the patients by their doctors.

For a small group of patients who may pose a risk to themselves or those around them, the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act 2008 provides for involuntary admissions for inpatient monitoring under stringent criteria and protocols.

The 3M healthcare financing framework and subsidy system for patients in our public healthcare system are applicable to patients with mental health conditions as well. MediShield will also be expanded to cover inpatient treatment for psychiatric conditions. Patients can also apply to Medifund for financial assistance where necessary.

Page: 1062

Currently, there are about 2,000 hospital beds across our public hospitals dedicated to mental health patients, with the majority, or 90%, in the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). IMH has an average occupancy rate of about 80% over the past three years and has sufficient capacity for new patients.

Since the National Mental Health Blueprint was rolled out in 2007, my Ministry has worked to strengthen core services for mental health conditions. This includes improving early diagnosis and intervention for mental health disorders, and promoting awareness and understanding of mental health issues. As announced at COS 2012, we are now building on this foundation to develop a new community-based mental health plan. For example, we are developing Assessment and Shared Care Teams (ASCAT), which are specialist-led mental health teams based in the community, in order to improve access to mental health care. We are also developing Community Mental Health Intervention Teams (COMIT) to provide improved access to counselling and psychotherapy services in the community. To better support community service providers who encounter patients with mental illness, we are also developing a helpline, supported by a mobile response team, that they can tap on for information and assistance.

Page: 1062

16 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health whether the Government can consider providing additional assistance, beyond the $50 to $400 one-off Medisave top-ups, to Class C and B2 patients who have to pay MediShield deductibles of $1,500 and $2,000 respectively (a $500 increase) with effect from 1 March 2013.

Page: 1062

Sir, MediShield is a catastrophic insurance scheme designed to cover larger hospitalisation bills. It complements Medisave, which can be used to pay the annual deductible and co-insurance components under MediShield, and any remaining portion of the bill. MediShield will be enhanced on 1 March 2013 and will include an increase of the MediShield policy year claim limit and lifetime claim limit to $70,000 and $300,000 respectively, to enhance coverage of catastrophic expenses.

To keep premiums affordable, the deductibles for Class B2 and Class C will be raised so that MediShield continues to focus on larger bills while smaller bills can be covered by Medisave or cash.

We understand the concerns about the affordability of the higher deductibles, especially the lower income and elderly. Other than the one-off Medisave top-up of up to $400, eligible elderly also receive annual Medisave top-ups of up to $450 under the GST Voucher scheme, while low-wage workers who qualify for the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) Scheme would receive part of their WIS payouts in their Medisave account. In addition, the Government provides ad hoc Medisave top-ups when the budget situation permits, which have totalled $2.2 billion since 2005.

Page: 1063

The Medisave top-ups are part of the Government's targeted efforts to enhance Singaporeans' Medisave adequacy and help the more vulnerable with their healthcare expenses. Those who still face difficulty managing their healthcare bills can apply for financial assistance from the public healthcare institutions via Medifund. We have topped up Medifund by $600 million, as announced in this year's Budget, and this will provide more help for needy patients.

Sir, I thank the Minister for the reply. I would like to point out that on the MOH website, it says that the Medisave top-ups are to offset the premium increases, not so much the deductible increases. In any case, would MOH consider increasing the Medifund provisions such that more people can tap on the Medifund if they do not have enough Medisave to be able to pay the deductibles?

Sir, let me clarify that there are two Medisave top-ups. The first is the one-time top-up which is meant to help our members pay for the increase in premiums. But there is an ongoing annual GST Voucher for Medisave, up to $450 a year. That is a yearly amount that would go toward paying ongoing cost deductibles as well as medical bills. On Medifund, as I had mentioned in my reply, we have announced a top-up earlier this year during the Budget, by $600 million. That would give us roughly about $15 million to $20 million a year, and this amount would be available for us to help the needy patients, including those who cannot afford to pay for the deductibles.

Page: 1063

17 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs in view of the fatal road accidents involving children near schools in January and October this year (a) what additional measures are in the pipeline to boost road safety around school zones; and (b) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the implementation of these measures.

Page: 1063

Mr Speaker, I am saddened by the two fatal accidents in January and October this year involving two school children. I am sure all Members will sympathise with their families.

Both accidents, unfortunately, happened along Sembawang Drive outside Sembawang Primary School. The area outside Sembawang Primary School is already a designated Enhanced School Zone, which means it has a signalised pedestrian crossing, a road hump, an overhead traffic light signal and road divider railings. Following the accident in January, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) installed a pedestrian count-down signal.

Page: 1064

The Traffic Police (TP) has recently conducted daily observations of the road over a 10-day period to determine if there are specific issues on this stretch of road that require further measures to be implemented. TP will also take into account the outcome of the Police investigations into the October accident, which are still ongoing, as well as the findings of the coroner's inquiry into the cause of the January accident.

The authorities take road safety around schools very seriously and will engage local stakeholders. We will look at issues of specific concern that the members wish to highlight, and the relevant agencies would be happy to look into them.

TP will continue to send letters to parents of school-going children to raise awareness of road safety messages. TP is also working with the Ministry of Education to review and develop age-appropriate road safety education schemes to schools. We will release more details once they are ready.

Order. End of Question Time.

Page: 1064

Page: 1064

Mr Speaker, Sir, Members will know that Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong retired on 6 November, after a long and brilliant career in the law. The Prime Minister wrote a valedictory letter to the Chief Justice on 2 November, and there were many other tributes from the Bench, the Bar, and the Academia. It is my honour today to pay tribute in this House to Chief Justice Chan, one of our greatest jurists and legal minds.

Our constitutional framework enshrines the rule of law, the independence of the courts, and the separation of powers. The Constitution establishes the Judiciary as a separate and independent institution, and charges it with the responsibility to interpret the law, and apply the law to cases which come before the courts. In the discharge of its functions, the Judiciary acts independently and impartially. Every person, including the Government, is equal before the law.

Page: 1065

At the head of the Judiciary is the Chief Justice. Through his judgments and extra-judicial writings, his presidency over appellate hearings, and even his personal conduct, the Chief Justice sets the tone for the administration of justice in Singapore. It is a heavy responsibility, and Singapore has been singularly fortunate that, for the past six years, that responsibility has been discharged by Chief Justice Chan.

Sir, the Chief Justice came from a humble background. He lived in a communal house in Ipoh, started his education late because of the war, and could not speak English when he first went to school. But adversity did not slow him down. He was one of the top students in the Senior Cambridge School Certificate in 1955, with eight distinctions.

He could not decide what to read at university. He was not thinking of doing law – he had no idea what a legal career would be like. Happily for Singapore, he was persuaded to do law by his English literature teacher, Dr Etherton, who said that he had a "very crafty mind" – in a good sense. And the rest, as they say, is history – Dr Etherton's intervention proved fateful for Singapore and our legal profession.

Chief Justice Chan joined the inaugural LLB class of '61 in the then University of Malaya, and was one of the top students in a class that produced several other students who went on to hold high positions in the law.

The Chief Justice is probably unique in having to litigate for his own admission to the Bar. He graduated and started serving pupillage before a University of Malaya degree was recognised, and applied for an abridgement of time on this ground. The Chairman of Bar Council resisted the application, arguing that the legislation required "grounds", that is, more than one ground. That technical argument was dismissed by the court, whose judgment is still in the law reports: Re Chan Sek Keong [1962] Malayan Law Journal 88. As the new Chief Justice said last week, Chief Justice Chan was entirely correct in the law, a pattern that was to repeat itself over and over again in the next 50 years.

The Chief Justice practised briefly in Kuala Lumpur before joining Braddell Brothers in Singapore in 1963. He did that because he wanted to continue to be with his then girlfriend, Elisabeth Eber, whom he later married. Later, the Chief Justice joined Shook Lin & Bok, where he rose to become the managing partner and one of Singapore's leading banking and corporate lawyers, with a complete mastery of the law and a keen understanding of commercial and practical realities. He was the counsel of choice for many banks and financial institutions, and drafted many of the standard banking and corporate documents which were used throughout Singapore in the late 1970s and in the 1980s. The advice he gave to clients was not only sound, but also simply and succinctly put forward.

The lawyers in this House will know that it is more difficult to give succinct advice, because you cannot hide behind verbiage. And the Chief Justice never did so. I once had to advise on a guarantee which was drafted by the Chief Justice. It comprised two paragraphs, in a telex. The party which challenged the validity of the guarantee – perhaps because it looked too short to be a guarantee! – later backed down. Though brief, the document was clear and accurate. That was the hallmark of the Chief Justice: in the way he gave his advice, in the way he drafted documents and in the way he wrote his judgments.

Page: 1066

The Chief Justice's skill and expertise as a lawyer was highlighted on a broader canvas during the Pan-Electric collapse of 1985. At the height of the crisis, stockbrokers were unable to settle forward contracts involving Pan-Electric shares. This led to a domino effect and the stockbroking system suffered a liquidity crunch. The Stock Exchange had to be closed for the first and only time in December 1985.

During the closure, the Chief Justice was called upon to draft what are now called lifeboat agreements, to extend credit from banks to the insolvent stockbroking firms. There were no clear precedents, and time was of the essence. Chief Justice rose to the occasion. He did the job quickly and he did it well. The agreements he drafted restored liquidity to the system, ensured the survival of the Stock Exchange and preserved Singapore's standing as a financial centre. This can be said to be the Chief Justice's finest moment as a corporate and banking lawyer in Singapore.

Chief Justice Chan was appointed a Judicial Commissioner in 1986 – the first person to be so appointed. He was later elevated to be a Judge in 1988. During his first judicial tenure from 1986 to 1992, the Chief Justice demonstrated the independence of mind and the keenness of analysis that lawyers today are familiar with. In this period, he heard a fair number of public law cases and, in his own words, "The decisions are fairly divided between those decided for and against the Government."

It was during this period that I started my own career in the law. With Members' indulgence, I will recount a personal anecdote. In 1987, I appeared as a junior, with Mr Joseph Grimberg in a case before the Chief Justice. The precedents were not clear. While Mr Grimberg was making his arguments, the Chief Justice somehow noticed – I do not know how, perhaps it showed in my face – that I was keen for a point to be made. He asked Mr Grimberg to ask me what the point was. I was quite struck that the Chief Justice noticed everything in his court – he was so alert that he even picked up on the thought processes of a junior lawyer, and pursued the point. In the end, the Chief Justice, despite being new on the Bench, was prepared to apply his own assessment of the precedents, rather than simply follow them, because on the facts it was just to do so. His handling of the case, both in the way he conducted the hearing as well as his legal analysis, left a deep impression on me.

Thereafter, I appeared before the Chief Justice in several other cases and, like many members of the Bar, I considered it a pleasure and privilege to appear before him. He had an excellent judicial temperament – no flourish, no hyperbole, no drama. He always cut to the chase, was always succinct. He was usually well ahead of counsel and on top of all the issues – a first-rate, world-class judicial mind. As Chief Justice Menon said last week, Chief Justice Chan was almost always the perfect judge to hear a case – any case.

Page: 1067

In 1992, Chief Justice Chan was appointed the third Attorney-General of Singapore. As Public Prosecutor, he had the constitutional responsibility for instituting and conducting prosecutions. He acted firmly and in the public interest. At the same time, he was also fair to the accused. An example was the case of Louis Pius Gilbert (2003), where the Chief Justice took the view that the High Court had exceeded its sentencing jurisdiction. He authorised a criminal reference to the Court of Appeal to have the law clarified and the sentence imposed on the accused to be reduced.

As Attorney-General, he defined the mission of his Chambers as being to "enhance the rule of law and constitutional government in Singapore by providing sound legal advice and assistance in developing a fair and responsible legal system, furthering good public administration, and protecting the interests of the state and of the people." He enhanced the capabilities of the Attorney-General's Chambers by strengthening the Civil and Criminal Divisions, and setting up the International Affairs Division and the Law Reform and Law Revision Divisions. His successors have built on this strong foundation, and today the AGC has a full-fledged team of first-rate lawyers, numbering about 250, with the breadth and depth of expertise, to discharge its prosecutorial functions and to advise and assist the Government on all legal matters.

The Chief Justice also contributed significantly to the reform of the law. One of his achievements was in relation to the reception of English Law in Singapore, a topic on which he had written as a young lawyer, in 1961. In 1993, he persuaded the Government to amend section 5 of the Civil Law Act and enact the Application of English Law Act. The amendments ceased the automatic reception of English Law which had begun in 1826 with the Second Charter of Justice, while preserving key English enactments on commercial law.

As the first Law Officer, the Chief Justice personally argued five cases in court, four of which were reported. In two of these cases, I was privileged to appear opposite him. All his legal qualities were fully apparent, including his fairness to his opponents in court. In addition, as his speeches showed, Chief Justice Chan thought about a broad range of issues concerning the law, including the state of the Bar and legal practice in Singapore; the social, economic and international conditions in which the legal framework operated; and the higher values of the law and the legal profession.

As Attorney-General, and later as Chief Justice, Chief Justice Chan played a leading role in the Pedra Branca litigation. He presented our case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in a very clear manner, together with Professor Jayakumar, Professor Tommy Koh and others. The ICJ decisively upheld Singapore's sovereignty over Pedra Branca. I should mention that Chief Justice's personal interests – outside of the law, he is a keen student of history – helped substantially in presenting Singapore's case. His collection of South East Asian history books, one of the largest in Singapore, was extensively used for the ICJ hearing.

Page: 1068

Mr Chan was appointed as Chief Justice in 2006. The appointment was received with great enthusiasm by the legal community. Chan Sek Keong the Chief Justice was very much like Chan Sek Keong the man – humble, unassuming, with a powerful intellect and with a keen sense of integrity.

Outside of the courtroom, he demanded that lawyers meet the highest standards of professional conduct, and took decisive measures to safeguard clients' monies from errant lawyers. He constantly encouraged the legal fraternity, from Senior Counsel to law student, to do more pro bono work, to improve access to justice for the less fortunate amongst us. He emphasised the need for competent advocacy in all areas of litigation. He started the Young Amicus Curiae scheme where young lawyers could assist Judges hearing Magistrate's Appeals, and expose themselves to criminal work.

He stressed the need for top tier advocacy in commercial cases. He observed that top Senior Counsels were often retained by large institutions, rendering them unable or unavailable to act against such institutions. The result was that small law firms and individuals who want representation against large institutions could not instruct Senior Counsel. He thus advocated that Queen's Counsel be allowed to appear more freely in our courts, so that small law firms and individual clients could instruct them. He made this point twice, in two separate Opening of the Legal Year speeches.

As a judge, the Chief Justice believed that "judgments should be expressed in a language that a reasonably educated layman can understand" and, indeed, his judgments stand out for their clarity and simple elegance.

He believed in procedural fairness, that, and I quote, "litigants must come away from the court with the feeling that even though they lost, they have had their day in court and have been heard."

He believed that the function of judges was to interpret and apply the law, and not to legislate or make policy in the guise of adjudication. In that sense, he was a legal positivist. At the same time, he also believed that judges had a role in developing the law interstitially, consonant with national values and fundamental principles of the common law. To promote the practice development of Singapore law, he issued a Practice Direction that Singapore cases should be cited in preference to foreign cases. In the course of his judicial career, he wrote almost 380 judgments, or more than 30 a year. His judgments, which span many areas of the law, will continue to influence our jurisprudence for many years to come.

Page: 1069

He believed in justice for the common man. In one case, he ordered the Law Society to investigate a lawyer who had engaged in what he considered to be wasteful litigation over a minor insurance claim.

Above all, the Chief Justice was a firm believer in the rule of law and the duty of the court to uphold the law. In a lecture in 2010, the Chief Justice offered a rebuke to those who doubted the independence of the Judiciary.

Sir, when the boy from Ipoh came to Singapore to study, settle down, start a career in the law, it was Singapore which ultimately benefited. In doing this, the Chief Justice followed in the footsteps of his two illustrious predecessors as Chief Justice. He, like them, was born and bred in Malaysia, but crossed the Causeway to become a proud son and pillar of his adoptive country. In that sense, Chief Justice Menon is our first non-Malaysian Chief Justice.

Sir, the Chief Justice rose from humble beginnings to serve in all the high offices of the law – Judge, Attorney-General and Chief Justice. His tenure has strengthened the Rule of Law in Singapore, and he has cemented his place as one of Singapore's greatest jurists, if not the greatest. He retires with the great respect and warm affection of all who have worked with him and have appeared before him. On behalf of the Government, it is my distinct privilege to thank him for his service to Singapore, in the course of a long and illustrious life in the law, spanning almost 50 years. [Applause.]

Page: 1069

"to amend the Computer Misuse Act (Chapter 50A of the 2007 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to certain other written laws",

presented by the Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr S Iswaran); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

[(proc text) "to amend the Payment Systems (Oversight) Act (Chapter 222A of the 2007 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

Page: 1070

[(proc text) "to amend the Stamp Duties Act (Chapter 312 of the 2006 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act (Chapter 86 of 2005 Revised Edition) and to make related and consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 2008 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Lee Yi Shyan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

Page: 1070

Page: 1070

[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, I addressed this House on 9 July 2012 on the challenges facing Singapore in the trafficking and use of illicit drugs. Let me now recap the key points [Slides were shown to hon Members].

Our firm stand against drugs has led to an improvement in Singapore's drug situation since the height of the problem in the mid-1990s [Please refer to Annex 1 on Pg 1170], with a decrease in the number of drug abusers arrested from 208 per 100,000 of our resident population in 1994 to 88 per 100,000 in 2011. However, we are concerned with recent trends and developments.

On the supply side, we are seeing greater quantities of methamphetamine and heroin being trafficked through Southeast Asia [Please refer to Annex 2 on Pg 1171]. This has worsened the regional drug situation, with a significant number of clandestine laboratories operating in East and Southeast Asia. Just in 2009 and 2010, just two years, 61 laboratories were seized in Indonesia and 27 in Malaysia [Please refer to Annex 3 on Pg 1172]. As recently as June this year, a fire in a factory located at Pekan Nenas, Johor, just half an hour away from the Second Link, led Malaysian authorities to discover a clandestine laboratory producing methamphetamine. About RM$10 million worth of methamphetamine and "Ecstasy" tablets were seized. The drug problem in our immediate vicinity is very real. Globally, new psychoactive substances are also being developed so rapidly that law enforcement agencies are having difficulties dealing with them effectively. These new psychoactive substances mimic effects of controlled drugs such as amphetamines, cocaine and cannabis and have the potential to cause as much, if not more harm.

Page: 1071

On the demand side, the number of drug abusers arrested per year has increased by about 50% from 2,211 to 3,326 in the five-year period between 2007 and 2011 [Please refer to Annex 4 on Pg 1173]. Of particular concern is the increase in young abusers [Please refer to Annex 5 on Pg 1174], with the number of youths below 21 years of age arrested for drug abuse tripling from 103 in 2007 to 326 in 2011.

In addition, about 2,000 repeat drug abusers will be released from the Long-Term Imprisonment regime between 2013 and 2014. Despite measures to help them stay off drugs upon their release, some may return to drug abuse and also influence others to take drugs.

Rigorous and effective enforcement has helped us to stay on top of the drug situation. However, the operating landscape has become much more complex. Drug trafficking syndicates have responded to the increased risks of apprehension by moving offshore, with their leaders controlling their operations remotely. We have to adapt our enforcement measures. For example, we are now working more closely with Malaysia through an MOU signed in June 2012.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I informed the House in July that we would be making changes to our legislation to strengthen our ability to deal more effectively with these new challenges. This Bill proposes important amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), bringing into effect the recommendations of the inter-Ministry Taskforce on Drugs, led by my colleague, Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs Mr Masagos Zulkifli.

In addition, we are making a significant change to the way that the death penalty is applied to the offence of drug trafficking in order to keep pace with the evolving operating landscape and more effectively tackle drug trafficking. The proposed amendments will provide our enforcement agencies more tools to target those higher up in the drug syndicates and to disrupt trafficking networks. While there is broad acceptance that we should be tough on drugs and crime, there is also increased expectation that, where appropriate, more sentencing discretion should be vested in the courts.

Sir, allow me to now take this House through the key provisions of the Bill.

First, listing new psychoactive substances temporarily. As I have mentioned, new psychoactive substances are today being developed very rapidly across the globe. Currently, before a substance is made illegal by being listed as a controlled drug under the MDA, careful study is needed. Research is undertaken to better understand its harmful effects. Industry consultation is also necessary to identify possible legitimate uses. This takes time and, in some cases, the drug may be in circulation, causing harm, long before these processes are completed.

Page: 1072

Clause 23 of the Bill provides for a new Fifth Schedule to the MDA, within which new psychoactive substances can be temporarily listed for up to 12 months, with a possibility of extension for another 12 months. Other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand also use a temporary listing regime to bring new psychoactive substances under legal control. Clauses 7 and 8 amend sections 24 and 26 to allow the Central Narcotics Bureau to seize the psychoactive substances listed in the Fifth Schedule, so that circulation of such substances can be restricted. However, the trafficking, manufacture, import, export, possession or consumption of any substance which is temporarily listed in the Fifth Schedule will not constitute an offence under the MDA, until that substance is removed from the Fifth Schedule and is subsequently listed as a controlled drug in the First Schedule whereupon all these offences will apply.

Second, we will introduce the option of hair analysis to enhance our detection and deterrence capabilities. Currently, drug abuse is mainly detected and confirmed by urine tests. Urine tests are effective in detecting drug consumption for a few days from the time of abuse, after which the urine is less likely to contain sufficient traces of the drug. In contrast, hair analysis can detect drugs months after consumption. However, some time has to elapse after a drug is consumed before the drug and its metabolites which are incorporated into the hair become more clearly detectable through hair analysis. Hair analysis can therefore be a very useful complement to urine testing to detect drug consumption.

Hair analysis is a relatively new technology in Singapore. As such, hair analysis will be used initially as an additional detection tool only for the purpose of making supervision orders. This will allow the Health Sciences Authority and the law enforcement and legal fraternities to build up further experience with the protocols in this area before a decision is taken on extending the use that hair analysis is put to. Clause 11 therefore introduces a new section 31A empowering law enforcement officers to obtain hair specimens for analysis. Clause 15 amends section 34 by empowering the Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau to make a supervision order requiring a person, whose hair specimens have tested positive for drugs, to be subject to the supervision of a CNB officer for a period not exceeding two years. Those who fail to provide hair specimens without a reasonable excuse will be subject to up to two years' imprisonment or a fine of $5,000 or both.

Third, the MDA will be amended to strengthen our enforcement framework.

It is currently an offence if the owner of any premises permits drug activities on his premises. However, it is not currently an offence to arrange or plan a gathering for the purpose of taking drugs. The Taskforce on Drugs found that new abusers are often introduced to drugs by friends at drug gatherings. Clause 4 introduces a new section 11A. Where there is a gathering of two or more persons, any person who arranges or plans the gathering with the knowledge that any controlled drug is, or is to be, consumed or trafficked at the gathering will be guilty of an offence. The punishment for this offence is an imprisonment term of not less than three years and not more than 20 years and caning at the court's discretion. Clause 13 provides for enhanced punishments if young or vulnerable persons are involved at the drug gathering. Young persons are defined in the MDA as persons under the age of 21. Vulnerable persons are defined as those who are suffering from a mental impairment.

Page: 1073

We will enhance punishments for repeat drug traffickers. Currently, there are enhanced punishment provisions for repeat drug consumption in the MDA. However, there is no enhanced punishment for repeat trafficking offences. Clause 13 amends section 33 by providing enhanced punishments for a person who commits a subsequent offence under section 5(1), that is, trafficking or section 7, that is, importation or exportation.

The Taskforce on Drugs recommended stiff punishments for those who target the young or vulnerable. This is necessary, given the rise in young abusers arrested in recent years. Clause 13 provides for enhanced punishments for those who, being above the age of 21, supply drugs to young or vulnerable persons. In addition, clause 5 introduces a new section 12A which makes it an offence for any person above the age of 21 to recruit young or vulnerable persons to traffic, import or export controlled drugs.

Fourth, the MDA will be amended to enhance upstream intervention for young abusers. Currently, young abusers arrested who are assessed to be of low risk are placed on a Direct Supervision Order, while those assessed to be of higher risk are placed in Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRCs). The Taskforce on Drugs recommended the setting up of a Community Rehabilitation Centre (CRC) as a step-down arrangement for young abusers after they had served a short period of detention in the DRC. The CRC regime will comprise a structured residential component with counselling programmes in the evenings, while allowing the youths to continue with their education or employment during the day. This will minimise disruption to their daily lives and mitigate the risk of contamination from repeat abusers at the DRC. Clause 19 repeals and re-enacts section 38 to allow abusers to be transferred from the DRC to a CRC after the initial detention period.

Finally, I will speak about the changes to the death penalty regime. Clause 14 introduces changes to the death penalty regime for drug trafficking and drug importation or exportation under sections 5(1) and 7 of the MDA. Under the new section 33B, the court will have the discretion to decide whether to impose a sentence of life imprisonment and caning, or the death sentence, if the following two specific conditions are both met [Please refer to Annex 6 on Pg 1175]. First, the offender must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his role in the offence is restricted only to that of a courier which, in essence, is a person whose role is confined to transporting, sending or delivering a controlled drug, and who does not play any other role within the drug syndicate.

Page: 1074

Second, if having satisfied this first requirement, in order for the mandatory death penalty not to apply, either the Public Prosecutor must have certified that the person has substantively assisted the CNB in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Singapore, or the person must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he is suffering from such abnormality of mind that it substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in relation to the offences he has committed.

The Bill uses the same formulation as that for the defence of diminished responsibility which applies to the offence of murder under the Penal Code. Those who are only drug couriers and are determined to have been acting under such an abnormality of mind will be sentenced to life imprisonment.

The aim of the "substantive assistance" condition is to enhance the operational effectiveness of the CNB, by allowing investigators to reach higher into the hierarchy of drug syndicates. "Substantive assistance" in disrupting drug trafficking activities may include, for example, the provision of information leading to the arrest or detention or prosecution of any person involved in any drug trafficking activity. Assistance which does not enhance the enforcement effectiveness of the CNB will not be sufficient. In order to ensure that this significant power is used judiciously and in a fair manner, the Public Prosecutor will determine whether there is in fact "substantive assistance" in any particular case. The new section 33B of the MDA provides that where the Public Prosecutor certifies that the defendant substantively cooperated with the CNB, the court will have the discretion to sentence the convicted person to life imprisonment with caning of at least 15 strokes, or death.

Clause 27 relates to saving and transitional provisions. A person who has already been convicted of a relevant offence, that is, an offence under section 5(1) or 7 or an attempt to commit an offence under section 5(1) or 7, can elect to be considered for re-sentencing under the new regime in new section 33B.

Clause 28 makes a related amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). Section 258 of the CPC provides that a statement recorded from an accused person may not be admissible if it is caused by a threat, inducement or promise by a person in authority. Operationally, the CNB will inform the accused person upon his arrest of the conditions under which the death penalty may not be applied. Section 258 of the CPC will be amended to provide that any statement subsequently taken from him will not be rendered inadmissible merely because he was so informed.

Page: 1075

Finally, the Bill also includes a number of miscellaneous and consequential amendments which are technical and administrative in nature.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the threat posed by organised drug syndicates is a very serious one. The global drug situation is worsening, with the number of drug users across the world increasing from 180 million to some 210 million over the last decade. Within our own region, the drug problem has become worse. Illicit drugs draw thousands of people every year into a web of addiction and despair. Their family members and the rest of society also pay a heavy price.

Those who trade in illegal drugs are still attracted by the huge financial gains to be made, and deterring them requires the strictest enforcement coupled with the severest of penalties.

We deal with the drug problem comprehensively by tackling both the demand and supply factors. On the demand side, we educate the young about the harmful effects of drugs, and impose severe penalties, including long-term sentences, on those who abuse drugs. This helps repeat drug abusers to break the cycle of addiction, and also prevents them from influencing others in the community, especially the young, to take drugs. For those who have a genuine desire to rid themselves of their addiction to drugs, we will provide the support and close supervision to help them to do so.

On the supply side, our enforcement efforts against drug syndicates have inhibited drug supply and pushed up the street price of illicit drugs in Singapore. This is significant, especially given our close proximity to major source countries, and the fact that some 500,000 travellers enter or pass through Singapore every day. Our firm stand against drugs has helped us to keep drug abuse under control, at a time when other Southeast Asian countries have seen their drug problems worsen significantly.

The measures in this Bill will send a strong deterrent message and enhance operational effectiveness of our enforcement agencies. They strengthen our ability to curb the demand for and the supply of drugs, in particular our ability to act against and deter those who target the young.

At the same time, the Bill will introduce an element of discretion in the sentencing of drug couriers. The mandatory death penalty will continue to apply for drug traffickers in most circumstances. The changes to the mandatory death penalty will only apply if tightly defined and specific conditions are met. We believe that the measures strike the right balance given the current operating environment. However, we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the Misuse of Drugs Act and make other changes or tighten the provisions, if necessary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, today, Singaporeans enjoy a safe and secure environment because of our firm stance against drugs and crime. We have long taken a "zero-tolerance" approach against the drug menace. The amendments proposed in this Bill will strengthen our ability to do so in our new operating environment, and allow us to continue doing all we can to keep our streets safe and to protect our children from the scourge of drugs. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Page: 1076

[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1975, the mandatory death penalty was introduced in the Misuse of Drugs Act as punishment for the trafficking of more than 15g of heroin and 30g of morphine.

In each successive significant amendment that we have made to the MDA since, in 1977, 1979, 1989, 1993, 1998 and 2006, the powers and reach of the Act were enhanced and made stricter. The death penalty was extended to cover more and newer drugs which afflicted our society and additional powers were granted to law enforcement agencies to tackle hardcore addicts and fight recidivism. In that period, Singapore earned its reputation for being a place which was unstinting in its fight to keep drugs off our streets and for being unforgiving to anyone caught with the illegal manufacture, consumption and trafficking of drugs.

We had to do this because unlike most other serious crimes, the social ills of drug abuse run deep and they have a pervasive and extended effect on society. Also unlike most other serious crimes, drug trafficking and peddling is a completely premeditated crime. The offender sets out to commit the crime and takes a carefully calculated risk. It is because the rewards could be so extravagantly rich that such risks still continue to be taken despite the strict measures. We needed a culture of zero tolerance even if it meant occasionally straining relations with some of Singapore's closest international allies. As a result, we were largely successful over the years in making our streets as free as possible of drugs including pushers, peddlers and addicts. We gained an international reputation for having tough laws on drugs not only against the offenders who were caught but also as a deterrent against the would-be traffickers who thought twice and perhaps more before even contemplating trying their luck.

In the period between 1994 and 2005, the number of drug abusers arrested dropped almost ten-fold. Of the last 15 years, 2005 represented the low watermark in the number of drug abusers arrested. However, as the Deputy Prime Minister has shown on the slides earlier, in the six years since, we have seen a year-on-year increase in the very same statistics. The number of drug abuser arrests has gone up each year. What is also troubling is not just that there has been an increase but also that the rate of increase has been much faster.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand the logic and rationale of the amendments which are being proposed to the MDA. They seek to draw a very careful, calibrated distinction between the different levels of accountability. It seeks to temper and mitigate the harsh drug laws with compassion. So, for those who are found to be less culpable and involved only in transportation of the drugs, the death penalty would not be mandatory. Under the proposed legislation, the death penalty which was previously mandatory becomes life imprisonment in the case where the offender suffers from an abnormality of mind and to be determined as a matter of discretion by the court where the offender has substantively assisted the authorities in disrupting drug activities.

Page: 1077

Sir, I agree with these amendments but I would like to sound a word of caution in various respects. First, we are proposing these amendments in an increasingly worrying climate in the fight against drugs. I have already outlined the increase in the number of drug abuser arrests in the last five years and I would like to add the following facts and other statistics as observations which are worth considering.

First, in terms of the Singapore market, seizures of the most commonly abused drugs in Singapore, heroin, methamphetamine and cannabis have increased significantly. Heroin, for instance, saw a 48% increase between 2010 and 2011. Just comparing seizures statistics for the first six months, January to June 2012 against the comparable six-month period in 2011, we already see a 13% increase year-on-year. In the case of cannabis seizures, the increase was 62% year-on-year and for methamphetamine it was 137%. It is clearly a sign that the CNB has been very hard at work, or that there have just been more drugs being made available on the market; or more likely, both.

Second, the regional trends which the Deputy Prime Minister has touched on. If you look around us, the trends and developments especially those in the region must be a cause for concern, given Singapore's geographical position and open economy. According to Senior Minister of State Masagos Zulkifli, the regional drug situation has deteriorated and we are seeing an increased supply of heroin in Southeast Asia. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) World Drug Report 2011 reported that more than half of the world's heroin seizures are made in Asia alone. Seizures of opium in Southeast Asia, which is the raw material used for heroin, increased 75% between 2009 and 2010. The 2012 report identified Singapore as one of the expanding and emerging heroin markets along with Malaysia, Laos and Indonesia, all within reach of the Golden Triangle region.

Third, new abusers. It is not just the number but also the age because 65% of the new abusers caught are aged below 30. The number of youths below aged 20 who are arrested for abuse has risen steadily in the last five years. What is of particular concern is that of the youths, the group showing the largest increase within that band, below 30, is the group that is 16 years and below. The new abusers are getting younger and we are also looking at a trend where our young gets easily hooked on lifestyle drugs, synthetic drugs and amphetamine-type stimulants which can be quite readily and easily available in nightclubs and other similar joints. It is a trend that has to be urgently arrested and curtailing supply will go a long way.

Page: 1078

Sir, these numbers and trends tell us that the drug problem will not go away for some time yet. More drugs are making its way to Singapore and the regional developments and trends will have a very direct impact on Singapore. Left unchecked, these indicators could translate into a serious problem for Singapore in the years to come.

In the connection, one might ask why it is appropriate that the amendments to make the death penalty regime less stringent be made now against the backdrop of the worsening regional situation and the prevailing climate of increased supply and arrests.

Sir, if we agree that what underpins the amendments are compassion and a recognition that there are some degrees of culpability which ought not attract the death sentence, then really there is no better time than now. In that respect, I am therefore heartened that the Government has taken the bold steps in these climates to introduce these amendments at this stage. My concern, however, Sir, is that the amendments do not inadvertently send a message or it is misconstrued that Singapore has had a fundamental rethink on our strict anti-drug philosophy. There are already some international publications out there which report this move as a relaxation of our hitherto strict laws which is a fair enough point. But there are yet other commentators who regard this move as a step in the right direction, except that they regard the direction as being one where the death penalty should eventually be abolished altogether for all forms of drug offences. This latter comment, Sir, is not sustainable, particularly in the context of the drug abuse and supply landscape as we now see it. Strong deterrents with the most harsh punishment must still remain a cornerstone principle for our drug enforcement regime.

Sir, in 1975, when the MDA was amended to provide for the mandatory death penalty for trafficking in heroin and morphine, it was also done at a time when it was recognised that Singapore was particularly vulnerable to the Golden Triangle region just as we are facing now. Equally, the Minister then, Minister Chua Sian Chin, was also concerned himself with the increasing number of heroin abusers caught year-on-year. We must therefore remain robust. The uncompromising attitude towards drugs which we have taken has served us well. Our laws are strict and also well-publicised. The severe punishment is not only about retribution for the drug trafficker who has been himself apprehended, the mandatory death penalty itself operates as a strong deterrent, in fact the strongest. It is designed to send a clear message of deterrence to the many out there who are even thinking of trafficking prohibited drugs in Singapore.

Sir, the drug problem is a tragedy. It cannot be measured only in terms of the individual drug abuser who suffers from the addiction and how much it affects his health, his well-being and his societal position. There is a much greater cost to his family, to his friends, colleagues and there is a social and economic cost as well. There is a social cost arising from the break-up of families of addicts, the drop or lack of productivity, the cost of rehabilitation and reintegration into society. All of these erode the carefully-woven fabric of own community. There is also the problem caused by drug-related crimes, commonly stealing, house-breaking and robbery, to support the habit; all of which lend themselves to a less safe Singapore.

Page: 1079

Sir, while I support the Bill, I do hope that the Government can re-affirm our strong anti-drug laws and assure the public that we are not with this amendment going soft on drugs and that this would not put us on a slippery slope towards the erosion of the strong deterrents that underpin our drug laws regime.

Sir, I would like to now move on to some specific points in the draft legislation. The new section 33B(1A) provides that the court may impose life imprisonment instead of the death penalty in circumstances where subsection 2 has been satisfied. Subsection 2 requires the accused to prove on a balance of probability that he has only a restricted role in the trafficking of the drug concerned. If he satisfies that and the public prosecutor certifies that the accused has substantively assisted the CNB in disrupting trafficking activities within or outside Singapore, then and only then the court may order life imprisonment instead of meting out the mandatory death penalty. In other words, it appears necessary that the assistance of the offender must lead to some tangible and effective outcome in relation to the disruption of drug trafficking activities. Hence, whether one has substantively assisted or not could really be the difference between life and death. It is therefore important that we are very clear as to what needs to be satisfied.

I would like to raise some points and also seek some clarifications on the scope of the phrase "substantively assisted". First, under the proposed legislation, it is for the public prosecutor to decide in his sole discretion whether to give the certification or not. Sir, this can brook no argument because the alternative would be to subject the nature, type, content and other details of the offender's assistance to a public scrutiny in the court. That is unacceptable since it will severely compromise our investigative powers and methods. I would imagine that the accused would likewise also not want details of his own assistance to be publicised.

Second, however, and perhaps particularly because it is a certification made in the sole discretion of the public prosecutor and subject to no challenge except for bad faith or grounds of malice, we do have a duty to be clear as to what we regard as being satisfaction of this requirement. By definition, an accused trafficker who satisfies the criteria in section 33B(2) is likely to be a relatively low level transporter or assistant. That person is not likely to be in a position to give any substantive assistance especially if that assistance is to lead to some tangible disruption outcome. All he might well know could be that he was asked to carry a packet from point A to point B, and that he would thereafter be paid some reward without knowing the identity of his instructors or the source of the money. Hence, if by this section, what is required is that there is direct nexus between the assistance that is given by this offender and the disruption of the drug syndicate's activities, then I wonder whether the threshold is not set too high. Such a requirement would likely disadvantage the offender who was sitting at the lower end of the hierarchy with little or no information on the senior members of the inner workings of the syndicate. That would run counter to the objective of the proviso as the intention is to let less culpable members or offenders who are involved only in low-level transportation or couriering avail themselves of the discretion not to have the death penalty imposed on them.

Page: 1080

Further, Sir, as the section is presently drafted, the certification is only issued where CNB gains substantive assistance from the offender leading to the disruption. That could potentially discriminate between the different offenders who commit the same crime but who may for all sorts of reasons have different levels of knowledge and insight into the syndicate's activities. Put another way, that certification which could be the difference between life and death would be dependent on factors which may not necessarily be in the offender's control and which have nothing to do, directly at least, with the gravity of the offences committed. The sub-section could perhaps be revised so that the touchstone for the issue of a certificate is determined by whether or not CNB forms the view that the offender has done all that he or she possibly can in the circumstances to assist in the disruption of the drug trafficking activities.

Sir, one last point. In addition, there is also the question as to the time at which the substantive assistance falls to be considered or certified. Drug syndicates operate at different levels and are usually structured so that it will not be easy to detect or identify its kingpins or the manner in which its activities are conducted. It is possible that the assistance rendered or the information provided by the offender may either not be immediately or be fully appreciated. It is entirely possible that such information or assistance provided by the offender could be useless on its own but when put together with other pieces of information, obtained from other sources at other times, the fuller picture could well be very useful, and this may take several months or even years. In these cases, I seek some clarifications as to what can be done to ensure that no offender is refused certification in circumstances where he or she has assisted, has given substantive assistance but where such assistance has not yet, at least, led to any disruption of drug trafficking activities but could possibly do so in the future. Sir, with that I support the Bill.

Page: 1081

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.00 pm until 4.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment Bill has several purposes. I shall first deal with the application of the death penalty, followed by some queries about other aspects of the Bill.

First, retention of the mandatory death penalty. In July this year, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean told the House that though the Government had been reviewing the death penalty for drug trafficking for some months, it had concluded that "the mandatory death penalty should continue to apply in most circumstances". Indeed, as explained by Deputy Prime Minister Teo just now, this Bill retains the mandatory death penalty for trafficking and importation of drugs, except in two circumstances which I will touch on later.

Deterrence has long been central to the Government's stance on having the death penalty, and making it mandatory for certain offences. However, how far the death penalty actually deters crime has long been the subject of international debate. There have also been conflicting studies on whether the death penalty deters crime or not, though most of these studies were on homicide offences. I would like to ask the Government whether it relied on any particular studies or its own data to conclude that the death penalty or mandatory death actually deters crime and, in particular, drug trafficking.

Besides deterrence, capital punishment is sometimes justified from a retributive perspective. In other words, death is considered a just punishment for an offence which is deemed very serious. Which offences "deserve" death may be subjective, and this is a matter of judgment for each society to make. Singapore is understandably tough on drugs, having been through the 1970s when drugs caused untold harm to many families and threatened society in general.

Today, it is not my purpose to canvass the pros and cons of the death penalty per se, but to highlight the real problems caused in our system by its mandatory nature. As the Workers' Party has pointed out in the past, giving the sentencing judge no choice in the sentence is undesirable, as the case outcome is determined by the choice of charge, which vests in the Public Prosecutor. Discretion is thus pushed upstream. Moreover, unlike a judge's decision, which is reached in open court, reasoned and subject to appeal, the Public Prosecutor's decisions are opaque, not reasoned in the public, and unappealable.

Page: 1082

I am certain that the Public Prosecutor (PP) and all his deputies in the Attorney-General's Chambers are very mindful of the consequences of their decisions on the choice of charge in mandatory death cases. Former Attorney-General Walter Woon summed up the dilemma succinctly in a quote published in The Straits Times of 20 October. He said:

[(proc text) "My problem with the mandatory death penalty is that the hard decisions are taken by the prosecutor when exercising prosecutorial discretion. You cannot imagine the contortions we had to go through to find some way to not charge a person (with a capital crime) because the judge had no discretion but the prosecution did. We did our very best to not charge people with capital offences if we could help it." (proc text)]

Drug cases highlight the extent of prosecutorial discretion. The PP can decide to prefer heavier or lighter charges based on any set of facts. The PP can even artificially reduce the amount of drugs in the charge to below the actual amount found, to enable the accused to escape death. This practice was expressly recognised as legal by the Court of Appeal in Ramalingam Ravinthran v PP [2012] 2 SLR 49. It would be interesting to find out how many accused facing the death penalty on the facts have escaped death due to the PP's decisions.

As it stands, the inherent discretion of the PP is already very wide. Retaining the mandatory death penalty arrogates to him the additional discretion of determining the punishment the accused should face, which is not his role; it also emasculates the judges whose role it is to mete out justice based on the facts. I submit that if the death penalty was not mandatory but left to the sentencing judge, the system would be seen to be more transparent and open to public scrutiny.

In the alternative, Sir, it would also be open to the Government to provide that, for the most serious crimes, death would be the presumptive sentence, leaving an escape clause for the judge not to impose death in special circumstances. There are many precedents in other countries for using presumptive sentences. For example, in Western Australia, the presumptive sentence for murder is life imprisonment but the relevant section allows the judge not to impose it if that sentence "would be clearly unjust" given the circumstances of the offence and the person; and the offender is unlikely to be a threat to society upon release. The Government could consider such a device for the most serious offences instead of mandatory death.

Sir, next, I move on to the amendments concerning couriers. Under the new section 33B, a courier can escape the death penalty and be sentenced to life imprisonment instead, if his case falls within two strictly-defined circumstances. The first circumstance involves couriers whom the PP will certify have co-operated with the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB). I have some concerns about this provision.

Page: 1083

First, the new section 33B(2) requires the accused to prove that his involvement was restricted to being a transporter, sender or deliverer of the drugs in question. Does this therefore mean that section 33B will only apply in cases where the accused admits or pleads guilty to a capital drug charge? Will this provision be available to those who claim trial but, during the trial, decide to admit to being a courier? Put another way, is the PP prepared to issue a certificate of assistance even when the accused claims trial to a trafficking charge?

Secondly, the PP must certify that the accused has "substantially assisted the CNB in disrupting drug trafficking activities within and outside Singapore". The Explanatory Note to the Bill expressly clarifies that information which does not enhance the effective enforcement of the Act "will not suffice". According to this wording, a low-level courier who knows nothing about the drug network will go to the gallows, while another courier who has more information, and is presumably closer to the higher echelons, can escape death. This would be a perverse outcome, a point which Mr Edwin Tong raised earlier in his speech as well.

In addition, the phrase "substantially assisted the CNB in disrupting drug trafficking activities" suggests that the CNB should show some success in its drug operations based on the accused's information. Is this what is intended? This would not be fair to the accused, as operations may fail due to the information being outdated or due to law enforcement incompetence. Why not simply require full co-operation, without the additional requirement of substantial assistance to disrupt drug trafficking activities?

Thirdly, Sir, the PP's certificate of co-operation cannot be challenged except for bad faith or malice. This means that, in actual fact, the judge's discretion under section 33B is very limited. However, it is foreseeable that some accused persons may not receive the certificate even if they were willing to provide the CNB with whatever information they had. Since this certificate is truly a life and death matter, is it not better for the judge to decide on the question of co-operation if there is a dispute? In other words, if the defence says that the accused co-operated fully with the PP but yet did not receive the PP's certificate, the PP should provide the reasons to the court and the court could make a finding. If there is concern about the sensitivity of operational information given, we could provide for non-publication of the details.

I have one final clarification concerning this category of couriers, and this is relating to cases where the couriers have already been sentenced to death. If the accused had not shared information previously with the CNB, is it open to him to do so now and hence bring himself within section 33B? It would seem just to give him this avenue, since it was not available to him previously for his consideration.

Page: 1084

Next, Sir, I move on to mentally vulnerable couriers. The intention behind this change is good. However, I would like to ask why the Government decided to follow the wording of diminished responsibility in the Penal Code, when this has been the subject of academic criticism and law reform in other countries?

For instance, during a law reform exercise in New South Wales, psychiatrists there felt that requiring them to confirm the specific cause of a person's impairment of mind was too difficult and arbitrary. Instead, the New South Wales law was changed to simplify the defence to require that "the offender's capacity to understand events, or to judge whether his actions were right or wrong, or to control himself, was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition, and the impairment was so substantial as to warrant liability (to be reduced)".

Sir, it should also be remembered that accused persons who may not suffer from any psychiatric condition and yet be vulnerable and easily manipulated. For instance, in the case of Rozman bin Jusoh [1995] 3 SLR 317, an accused of subnormal intelligence was entrapped by CNB officers into delivering cannabis. In other words, CNB officers instigated him to supply drugs to them. Evidence was placed before the court that his cognitive capacity to reason was borderline in that he would be unable to reason things like persons of average intelligence; that he might easily fall into difficulties and even allow others to hurt or misuse him. The Court of Appeal held that he had no defence. Sir, there should be scope in such cases for the death penalty not to be imposed. I would urge the Government to do further review of this provision in due course.

Next, the new offence of arranging or planning gatherings. Clause 4 introduces section 11(A) which makes it an offence to arrange or plan a gathering knowing that a controlled drug was or was to be consumed at the gathering if a gathering of two or more persons takes place. The wording only requires that there is a gathering and not that there is a gathering where drugs are in fact present or consumed. Is it the intention to include cases where so long the gathering takes place, the planner or arranger who thought the drug would be consumed there, would be guilty even if eventually no drugs were brought? I would like some clarification on this point.

Next, Sir, enhanced punishment for influencing young or vulnerable persons to traffic or import drugs. Clause 5 sets out section 12(A) which creates a new offence of procuring a young or vulnerable person to traffic in drugs, which will attract a harsher punishment by way of a stiffer minimum penalty. I agree that an increase is justifiable at this point of time, since the Government has found recent evidence that more young abusers are being introduced to drugs by their neighbours and friends who are repeat abusers.

Page: 1085

Sir, finally, I have a query concerning hair tests. Clause 11 introduces section 31A allowing CNB to conduct hair tests to determine if the suspect should be placed under supervision. The Government has explained that the hair test is superior to the urine test because it has a longer detection window of three months after the drug is consumed, whereas the urine test has a window of about one week. According to Minister of State Masagos' speech at the CNB Workplan Seminar in April, the purpose of introducing the hair test is to "deter CNB supervisees from relapsing into drug abuse as it will be very difficult to avoid detection".

While the Minister of State has stated that hair tests will be used on existing supervisees, it would seem that hair tests can be used on fresh cases as well. Under section 31A, so long as an officer suspects that a person has consumed drugs, he can order him to provide a hair specimen. How would this work in relation to someone who has consumed drugs overseas? Should a Singaporean who consumes cannabis in Amsterdam two months ago expect to have his hair tested upon arrival at the airport? I note that the existing section 8A of the Act criminalises drug consumption overseas by Singapore citizens or permanent residents if their urine tests are positive upon return; however, this amendment Bill does not amend that section to say these returning residents are subject to hair tests too. Could this be clarified please?

Sir, in conclusion, this amendment Bill enhances various tools and punishments to tackle trends of concern, and also takes a step in mitigating the harshness of the mandatory death penalty regime. To that end, it is to be supported. However, as mentioned at the start of my speech, I believe the Government needs to continue its review of the death penalty in particular its mandatory nature. In addition, the courier clauses appear to be problematic and should be monitored closely for further review.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate. Before I launch into my speech proper, I thought I would just like to add this comment that I think I speak for many of the lawyer Members in this House – and you are going to hear a lot of them over the next few days – in echoing the sentiments of the Minister for Law when he read out the tribute of the Government for the ex-Chief Justice.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act are timely to enhance the overall deterrence, enforcement and rehabilitative regime. The introduction of the temporary listing of new psychoactive substances to empower their seizure while further scientific analysis is being carried out on the ill effects allows the CNB to keep up with the new designer drugs being concocted by the drugs syndicates trying to stay one step ahead of the law. Still, another change is the creation of a Community Rehabilitation Centre to cater for the growing trend of young offenders and reducing the risk of influence by mixing them with hardened drug abusers in the DRC. These are all welcomed changes.

Page: 1086

However, the most eye-catching change, and probably the most controversial one, is the introduction of the judicial discretion to not sentence the trafficker to the formerly mandatory death sentence, where the trafficking consisted solely of acting as courier without any further involvement. There is an additional condition of cooperation on mental disability, which has already been commented on at length by other speakers. While harking to this judicial discretion, I think one should not lose sight that if the judge in those two strictly defined conditions are fulfilled, the discretion is to impose in lieu of the death sentence, a sentence of life imprisonment with at least 15 strokes of the cane. Nobody would consider that to be a light sentence, and many would consider that to be as bad, if not, a worse sentence than the death sentence to be meted out.

This particular amendment has attracted the most attention because Singapore has long been known, often praised and sometimes vilified, for its zero-tolerance attitude towards drugs. Many of us have heard from our foreign friends and visitors about the chilling message they hear on the flight into Singapore about the harsh penalties for drug offences. In this regard, I consider that the mandatory death sentence for the most serious drug offences is a vital element of this message. Will this message get adulterated by the exceptions to the rule? After all, it is a powerful statement to simply say that drug traffickers will be sentenced to death than to explain the various technical conditions that have been outlined earlier.

While the professional drug syndicates will be under no illusion that the regime in Singapore is as tough as ever, there may be a drop-off in perception among the general public, both in Singapore or overseas, that Singapore is getting softer on drugs. I would invite the Deputy Prime Minister's take on the effect this change may have on how our zero-tolerance approach on drugs is perceived in future. There has been much talk about the new normal in Singapore. We need to make clear that that does not involve getting soft on drugs.

Another concern I have is that many couriers caught here are foreign citizens. Indeed, it is known to be a common ruse of drug syndicates to have their drug mules change flights in Singapore, so that they arrive at their final destination appearing to have come from Singapore, and would be presumed to have gone through the stringent checks that Singapore is well-known for. The presence of this judicial discretion does raise the prospect that foreign organisations, and possibly even foreign governments, may seek to lobby our authorities to not impose the death sentence on their fellow countrymen. This is particularly so where the foreign country does not itself permit the death sentence to be passed under its own laws. We have had such lobbying in the past, but the point is if there is discretion to not impose the death sentence, will this not increase the pressure, attraction and capacity for such lobbying? Again, is this something our Government is ready for, and ready to push back on?

Page: 1087

Members of the House may recall recent cases. One that comes to mind is Yong Vui Kong, where certain human rights activists took up the cudgels on the basis that the death sentence should not be passed against someone who was, among other qualities, not a Singaporean.

Finally, the requirement to prove substantive cooperation with authorities only through a certificate to that effect from the Public Prosecutor, does introduce an element of subjectivity into the whole sentencing process. I do recognise the importance of enhancing the cooperative element with the drug authority. I have full confidence in the integrity of our law enforcement officers. What will happen if an accused person claims that he had rendered his fullest cooperation, but the particular CNB officer chose to not recognise it or not value it? What happens if an accused person says he is a mere drug mule and did not have any information on the ring leaders, although he was willing to cooperate fully?

This sort of accusations, if made enough times so as not to appear isolated incidents, can undermine public confidence in the legal system we are seeking to uphold. Can the Deputy Prime Minister consider how we can make this requirement of substantive cooperation more objective and seen to be as less subject to the judgment or discretion or even the whims of individual officers in the CNB or AGC?

I hope these and other concerns that have been raised by the other two speakers who spoke before me can be addressed. However, I would say that I consider that the merits of calibrating the sentence – and death is the ultimate sentence – with the level of culpability of the wrongdoer, and the need to create an incentive for wrongdoers to cooperate with the CNB, which will in turn aid the war on drugs, are powerful arguments for this judicial discretion. Overall, I do feel the changes are a step in the right direction, and I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill before the House today is a significant one. I welcome the comprehensive review that preceded the drafting of the proposed amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act. Our legal framework for the regulation of illicit drugs must be kept relevant and resilient to the changing realities so that we are well equipped with the drug scourge. It is therefore crucial that the MDA offers effective overall deterrence and vital support to the enforcement efforts on the one hand, while improving the upstream intervention for young abusers and the rehabilitation of drug abusers on the other hand.

Page: 1088

Sir, this Bill also marks a distinct shift in our calibration and approach towards our zero tolerance to drugs, primarily with the creation of the limited discretionary death penalty regime for drug trafficking. To be sure this House is also aware of the calls for the complete abolishment of the death penalty regime, and for us to join the growing list of abolitionist states.

Sir, I would like to focus my remarks primarily on the changes to the mandatory death penalty regime for drug trafficking. Two specific conditions are provided for under which the death penalty will no longer be mandatory for drug trafficking.

The first condition is that the trafficker must have only played the role of courier and must not have been involved in any other activity related to the supply or distribution of drugs. The second condition that must be fulfilled if the discretion is to apply is for either the trafficker to have substantively cooperated with the CNB, or the trafficker has a mental disability, which substantially impairs his appreciation of the gravity of the act of drug trafficking.

Sir, this important move to provide our Supreme Court judges with the discretion to sentence a drug trafficker to life imprisonment instead of death by hanging is to be welcomed. But I believe that we can provide our Supreme Court judges with more discretion so that we can better temper justice with mercy. The proposed amendments do not at all lessen the severity of drug trafficking, but recognise that mere drug couriers are less morally culpable than the drug lords who direct such couriers. However, the proposed amendments strike me as giving our judges discretion very parsimoniously.

Sir, no matter how abhorrent the scourge of drugs is, we should be very mindful of the need for the punishment to fit the crime. The current mandatory death penalty on conviction for drug trafficking, while signalling our society's abhorrence for the untold damage caused by drugs, is probably too blunt a tool. It is probably over-inclusive if our position is that capital punishment should not only be reserved for the most serious crimes. A drug courier, while a crucial part of the controlled drugs supply chain, is guilty of a serious crime. But it is doubtful if the actions of mere drug mule fall into the category of the most serious of crimes. Executing drug mules will not enable us to deal with the root causes of the drug problem.

Constitutionally, our Court of Appeal has consistently ruled that the mandatory death penalty (MDP) regime is constitutional and not in breach of the fundamental liberties guaranteed. The Court of Appeal had also signalled in the case of Yong Vui Kong that whether the existing mandatory death penalty legislation should be modified or repealed are, to quote the Court of Appeal, "policy issues that are for Parliament to determine in the exercise of its legislative powers under the Singapore Constitution. It is for Parliament, and not the courts, to decide on the appropriateness or suitability of the MDP as a form of punishment for serious criminal offences". The Court of Appeal added that, "If any change in relation to the MDP (or the death penalty generally) is to be effected, that has to be done by Parliament and not by the courts under the guise of constitutional interpretation."

Page: 1089

Sir, while customary international law has not evolved to a stage where the MDP is regarded as a cruel and inhumane punishment which also violates the inherent dignity of the individual, it is probably correct to say that the movement is towards the abolition of the death penalty globally. Sir, at this juncture, let me add that I am aware of Singapore's consistent position in the international fora on this issue which includes rejecting the link between the death penalty and torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In our quest to be a global city and to reinforce our rightful place in the community of nations, having the MDP and applying it has been a difficulty status to defend. This is compounded by the fact that it is not at all clear, empirically speaking, that the MDP is really all that an effective deterrent that it has been made up to be.

As such, I see the discretionary death penalty as an expression of the need to maintain the legitimacy of our death penalty regime. It is an expression of our determination to get out of the force of habit, convenience, and reliance on our long-held policy dogma that the mandatory capital punishment, with its set of rebuttable presumptions, is necessary to deal with the drug problem.

Sir, the authorities will always face the problem of proving a counter-factual where the drug problem is concerned. Equally significant is the need for the authorities to show that the mandatory death penalty regime works well. Both abolitionists and retentionists will have immense difficulties proving their case persuasively and compellingly. But we need to go beyond that debate since lives and the well-being of our society are at stake. More important is for our anti-drug regime to remain relevant, resilient and effective. I see the proposed amendments as an attempt in that direction.

Sir, will the Deputy Prime Minister address the perception outside this House, which other Members have raised earlier, that the Bill we are considering today reflects a relaxation of our fight against drugs? Let me explain. For retentionist jurisdictions like Singapore, the attraction and force of the mandatory death penalty is that its purpose is to demonstrate zero tolerance and maximum deterrence through making the death penalty mandatory. That has always been the Government's stand, and one can rightly say that it is this strong stance against crime, demonstrated by among other things by the use of corporal and capital punishment, that has been a showcase policy of the PAP Government since 1959. Therefore, does the proposed move from a mandatory death penalty regime to a discretionary death penalty regime signal our softening approach and dilute the expected deterrence?

Sir, I would like now to address clause 14 of the Bill that grants the court discretion not to impose the death sentence in certain limited circumstances. As mentioned earlier, two conditions must be fulfilled. I would like just to focus on the second condition of substantive cooperation or assistance as set out in subsection 2(b) of the proposed section 33B which would apply to a convicted person, who is not suffering from an abnormality of mind that substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions. To me, that is a relatively more problematic provision. It would require such a convicted person to have "substantively assisted the Central Narcotics Bureau in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Singapore". The Explanatory Statement to the Bill states that "substantive assistance" to the CNB:

Page: 1090

[(proc text) "may include, for example, the provision of information leading to the arrest or detention or prosecution of any person involved in any drug trafficking activity. Any information which does not enhance the effective enforcement of the provisions of the Act will not suffice." (proc text)]

Sir, will an ordinary drug courier really be in a position to provide the requisite information to fall on the right side of the proposed section 33B(2)(b)? The very sophistication of drug syndicate operations often means that the drug mules are unlikely to know of anyone else other than their immediate principal. This is to protect the drug lords and their key lieutenants. If a drug courier does have information that can result in the disruption of drug trafficking activities, such a person is unlikely to be a mere drug courier. Given that most, if not all, of these operations are outside of Singapore, that makes it even more difficult for the meaningful provision of information leading to the arrest or detention or prosecution of any person involved in any drug trafficking activity. In short, is the threshold of substantive cooperation or assistance set too high such as to be illusory? Should not substantive cooperation be judged according to whether the person has done all that he can to assist, rather than requiring the assistance to have a tangible outcome?

Sir, let me be clear that I am not making an argument for a low threshold with regard to the requirement for a convicted drug trafficker's substantive cooperation or assistance to CNB. I am concerned that many of the drug mules are likely to possess information which would not enhance the effective enforcement of the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Further, what safeguards are there to ensure that CNB does not abuse the substantive cooperation provision when investigating alleged drug traffickers? Will such persons be pressurised into incriminating themselves in the hope of avoiding a capital charge?

Sir, I hasten to add that I am not questioning the integrity of the CNB but the substantive cooperation provision can be the proverbial trump card that could prejudice investigations or the suspects. In addition, the proposed section 33B(4) also stipulates that the determination of whether a person has substantively assisted the CNB in disrupting drug traffickers "shall be at the discretion of the Public Prosecutor" and such discretion can only be challenged only where the "determination was done in bad faith or with malice".

Page: 1091

This proposed amendment means that the Public Prosecutor would have the prosecutorial discretion of pressing the so-called non-capital "14.99 g charge", with reference to heroin, or proceed on a capital charge but with the issuance of a "Certificate of Cooperation". In the latter case, the courts will then have the discretion to sentence the convicted drug trafficker to either the death penalty, or life imprisonment and caning of at least 15 strokes. Sir, given that the two prosecution routes have different penalties on conviction of an accused person, would the Public Prosecutor proceed on the substantive cooperation avenue, which carries a heavier penalty, or take the non-capital trafficking avenue? Sir, while I appreciate the centrality of the broad prosecutorial discretion, it is hoped that there will be a principled approach towards the preferment of charges so as to enhance public confidence in our administration of justice.

Sir, I would appreciate if the Deputy Prime Minister could also explain what is his Ministry's understanding of "disrupting drug trafficking activities" in the proposed section 33B? Not all good information would necessarily lead to disruption of drug trafficking activities but the information can certainly provide the law enforcement agencies with a better understanding of the ground situation. Given that there are varying degrees of disruption to drug trafficking activities, it would be appropriate and for the avoidance of any doubt spell out the meaning and extent of disruption vis-a-vis the substantive cooperation provision before an accused person has a legitimate claim to a "Certificate of Cooperation".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like now to move on to the other key aspects of the Bill. We should not allow the debates on the Bill to narrowly focus on the proposed shift away from the MDP under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Equally important is the need to ensure that our anti-drug framework is robust enough not only to cope with but also to be ahead of the changing environment. In particular, there is the imperative to ensure that the demand for controlled drugs is kept in check. Drug syndicates, drug pushers and drug addicts will, to varying degrees, seek to entice more people to consume and abuse drugs. This contributes to the demand for such drugs.

Clause 4 of the Bill introduces a new offence of criminalising the organisation of drug gatherings, with heavier penalties for those who organise gatherings involving the young and vulnerable. The extra-territorial reach that clause 6 seeks to provide is also necessary given that offences under the MDA often have an extra-territorial element. So these two clauses I do not think would impose significant difficulty.

The pre-emptive measure of a temporary listing of new psychoactive substances that clause 23 provides will enable the CNB to regulate the never-ending new designer drugs that will always be peddled. Such a power of seizure adopts a precautionary stance of restricting circulation of such psychoactive substances while the relevant scientific analysis and industry consultation are being conducted.

Page: 1092

Sir, the drug scourge imprisons drug abusers, through the force of addiction, for an extended period of time beyond their imprisonment and rehabilitation. I welcome the amendment that provides for the option of detaining young abusers in a Community Rehabilitation Centre as a step-down arrangement after their detention in the Drug Rehabilitation Centre. It can also prevent the young offenders from coming under the contaminating influence of older repeat drug offenders. It is crucial that we focus our attention on the young and vulnerable.

Sir, I hope that the Government will consider providing more resources to CNB and the Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association (SANA) and other volunteer welfare organisations that work with drug abusers. Drug abusers face a gamut of issues and rehabilitation of such drug abusers has to go beyond counselling to intensive case management and aftercare to address the complex root causes for their turning to drugs in the first place. Even as we strengthen our legal and enforcement framework to deal with the drug problem, we must continue to put more effort and resources into reducing the risk of re-offending by reintegrating former drug addicts into society.

Sir, the fight against drugs is a never-ending one. We have taken the right approach of not seeking to legalise drug consumption as a means of managing the drug problem. At the same time, I sense that societal attitudes towards drugs are perhaps softening, especially among the young. And this casual attitude towards drugs is not unique to any specific socio-economic class. For instance, there are anecdotal accounts of young people, with tertiary educational qualifications, experimenting with drugs while travelling overseas. Some try drugs out of boredom or curiosity or to try to cope with the demands and stress of their jobs. Then there are those who see no harm in being "casual drug users", treating it as a fad, a passing phase with no real harm done. When I asked one such young person recently why she experimented with drugs while visiting Amsterdam, her earnest reply was that it was on her bucket list of things to do! There was also the quiet confidence and bravado in her that she will not be addicted. In a problem that I set for my class on ethics and social responsibility in which I asked, "how do you deal with employees who go overseas to consume drugs casually?", one common response was that the employees are free to do whatever they want in their private time so long as it did not compromise their performance at work.

I sincerely hope the Government will put more resources to public education and public outreach. This is of utmost importance given that the drug situation remains challenging. Once complacency sets in, the fight against the drug problem becomes even more difficult. The CNB reported in August this year of the increasing amounts of drugs seized between January and June this year. Heroin and methamphetamine remain the two most commonly abused drugs, pointing to the complexity of tackling both hard-core and casual drug abusers. With a worsening drug situation and the large number of repeat drug abusers likely to be released in the next few years, we must not let down our guard. Sir, on that note, I support the Bill.

Page: 1093

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Ministry for its efforts to update the Misuse of Drugs Act. While the amendments seek to strengthen the Act and provide an alternative to the death sentence for drug traffickers or couriers, which was a mandatory punishment put in place since 1975, I have several concerns regarding the amendments to the Act which I hope the Ministry will look into.

First, the amendment to section 2 defines a vulnerable person as "any person who suffers from an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain resulting from any disability or disorder which impairs one's judgment". How does an offender prove vulnerability, or how will we decide the offender is truly vulnerable? Will a medical diagnosis be required? In addition, does this amendment also include the elderly who may be duped into committing the drug trafficking offence by confidence tricksters or a friend or family member whom they trust?

Next, the amendment to section 2 also defines a young person as any person under 21 years old. Is the offence by someone who is 21 years old or older, who causes or procures a young person who is between 13 and 21 years old, of the same degree of severity as that of someone who causes or procures a young person who is below seven years old, for instance, to be a courier? I hope that a more gradated treatment of the degree of severity of the offence can be made, depending on how young the courier is; more so if the offender is the adult responsible for the minor who is the courier, such as a parent, step-parent with custody over the minor, or a guardian of the minor.

Sir, I am also concerned that the alternative sentence of a life imprisonment instead of the death sentence may be misperceived by the general public, especially among our young or unscrupulous drug traffickers, that they can be opportunistic when it comes to drug trafficking because of the proposed amendments to this Act. The less informed may think that the drug trafficking offence has become less serious while the opportunists may think that they can get away with a less harsh sentence. Some may think that if they are being classified as a young person below the age of 21 or a vulnerable person when caught as a drug courier, they can claim to be simply a courier, cooperate with the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), and be given a life imprisonment instead of the death sentence, which they hope can be later reduced to several years' imprisonment due to good behaviour. As I said earlier, Sir, I hope that the general public, especially our young, will not have this false belief that the law is softening towards drug trafficking. The seriousness of the drug trafficking offence must be emphasised time and again.

Page: 1094

Finally, Sir, with the possibility that a life sentence is imposed instead of the death sentence and the possibility of the misperception that the law is softening towards drug trafficking, the current drug situation may worsen, especially among our young. As it is, in 2011, there were 123 drug abusers aged below 18 years old who were arrested. This number has more than doubled since 2008 where there were 46 abusers below 18 years old then. In particular, those aged 16 years old and below have shown the largest increase with about 64 individuals arrested in 2011, compared to 15 in 2007. In addition, at the end of 2011, about two-thirds (66%) of locals in our prisons are drug offenders. Out of these, four-fifths (79%) had drug antecedents or are repeat offenders. We also recognise that between 2012 and 2014, some 3,000 of such repeat offenders in our prisons will complete their long-term prison sentences and will return to society. I worry that our drug situation may turn for the worse, more than we initially expected, as a result of the confluence of these few factors I have mentioned earlier.

Besides amendments and additions to existing laws, we need a more holistic approach in dealing with the drug scourge. While the sterling enforcement efforts of CNB through the years have undoubtedly contributed to the current controlled drug situation, the anti-drug efforts on the proactive front may well be the key to eradicating the drug menace altogether. In this regard, I hope that more resources can be allocated towards educational initiatives to increase awareness, thus making our young and the vulnerable more informed, resilient and less vulnerable towards the misuse and trafficking of drugs.

I hope the Ministry will be able to address the concerns I have raised, and will work closely with other Ministries, Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs), grassroots organisations, schools and the CNB so that the drug situation in our society can be managed well. Overall, I agree with the amendments and support the Bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The amendments proposed by the Government are a step in the right direction insofar as it loosens the application of the mandatory death penalty under two specific conditions. However, this move also represents a missed opportunity to remove the mandatory death penalty from our statute books completely.

While there is significant debate in some quarters about the role and significance of the death penalty in our criminal justice system, it is viscerally apparent that many Singaporeans feel a sense of security with its continued existence in the statute books, even as others question the utility of the death penalty as deterrence.

Page: 1095

While the death penalty per se is not of direct relevance to this Bill, it is noteworthy that a video poll conducted by The Online Citizen sometime in 2011, observed that many Singaporeans did not know the difference between the application of the death penalty and the mandatory death penalty.

The distinction is structurally important, especially when understood within the Diceyan separation of powers schema between the executive and judicial arms of Government.

In mandatory death sentence cases, mitigation is irrelevant as are the unique factual circumstances of an accused. The judicial process concludes upon a finding of guilt. Under an offence that carries the mandatory death penalty, our judges are strait-jacketed from exercising the powers they have been vested – to be impartial decision makers in the pursuit of justice, with the power to hear all sides of the case.

All the prosecution has to do is to prove that the accused is guilty of the charge preferred against him or her, and the hands of a judge are tied. This is even if there is evidence that can be brought to bear to suggest that an accused's circumstances warrant a closer look to consider the imposition of a sentence other than the mandatory death penalty.

To this end, I welcome the loosening of the mandatory death penalty for couriers as it returns some judicial discretion in qualified cases, limited though they may be, to our judges. After investing millions of dollars on the development of a world-class judiciary comprising the brightest legal minds, there ought to be no place for mandatory sentences which effectively make the role of the Judiciary administrative, in favour of the Executive arm of the state in the shape of the Public Prosecutor.

This is a systemic anomaly which this Bill ought to have corrected once and for all. As iterated by the former Attorney-General Walter Woon when it comes to the mandatory death penalty, the Prosecutor, an agent of the Executive, takes the hard decisions. What this Bill could have done was to ensure that the Judiciary takes these hard decisions instead. This would have served the interests of accountability and would not only have strengthened the integrity of our criminal justice system, but increased public trust in it as well.

Broadly, while I welcome any move away from mandatory sentences as section 33B of this Bill proposes, I am concerned that with the narrow and selective loosening of the mandatory death penalty regime, focus on the exercise of the Public Prosecutor's discretion will become even more acute going forward.

Page: 1096

In fact, with regard to section 33B of the amendment, the two specific conditions under which the death penalty will no longer be mandatory may well put unwelcome pressure on the Public Prosecutor from members of the public to reveal the circumstances and reasons what specific information was revealed by an accused in the name of "substantive cooperation".

This pressure on the Public Prosecutor is not likely to abate, but more likely brought into distinct relief by the presence of section 33B(4) which makes it clear that no action or proceeding shall lie against the Public Prosecutor on the determination of substantive assistance, unless it can be proved that the determination was done in bad faith or with malice.

In tandem, the circumstances that lead to the issuance of a certificate of cooperation may not be too controversial. But I am concerned that an accused who is unable to provide actionable information or the potentially subjective "substantive cooperation", stands to be at the mercy of the Public Prosecutor's judgment – a state of affairs that is not transparent, and not open to public scrutiny, unlike the situation of a trial judge in open court.

Here, it would have been opportune for the Bill to allow an accused's counsel to make representations when the Public Prosecutor does not issue a certificate of cooperation, and for the trial judge to determine in his/her discretion, the extent and scope of the accused's cooperation with enforcement agencies, including the reasons for the absence of a certificate of cooperation.

This ought to be considered for the following reason: while the Government's move to rationalise the application of the mandatory death penalty is noteworthy, I do not expect the high priests of organised crime to sit idly by and they may well further tighten the compartmentalisation of their operations to ensure that drug couriers only have enough information to incriminate themselves or a small cell group of anonymous drug-pushers, not the controllers and masterminds which the amended Act seeks to target as well.

Allowing a trial judge to determine the extent and scope of an accused's cooperation with enforcement agencies if no certificate of cooperation is issued, would also be in line with the Government's stated position of giving more discretion to judges.

Like many Singaporeans and the Government, I am mindful of the impact of drugs on our people and society. I acknowledge the concerns many have over the slippery slope argument – that any perception of an easing of our drug laws may open the floodgates to negative consequences. But in the same vein, I am also quietly confident that our judges are equally, if not more sensitive and exposed to the wider societal impact of drug abuse, and the range of sentences they are able mete out to combat it.

Page: 1097

This is especially relevant, as any move away from the mandatory death penalty does not preclude our judges from sentencing an accused to death, in the appropriate case.

I note other amendments to the Act which include strengthening the punishment framework for repeat drug offenders and those who traffic drugs to the young and vulnerable, as made out in section 12A and separately the provision of a Community Rehabilitation Centre which gives the Director of the CNB the option of allowing young abusers the option of continuing with their education or employment. The introduction of section 31A, covering the inclusion of hair tests to determine if an offender should be placed under supervision, is also a step in the right direction, as is the decision to target drug parties and the temporary listing of psychoactive substances.

All said, the creation of greater options to deal with drug offenders and the drug menace in a more nuanced and targeted fashion is welcomed and is likely to represent another arrow in the quiver for our enforcement officers.

In conclusion, this Bill leaves me to say a word about the special men and women who work in service of a drug-free Singapore through the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB). In fact, I do believe that it is of vital importance that Singaporeans support and recognise their unique and challenging work so as to engender a healthy trust between citizens and the executive arms of Government, which include the CNB and the Attorney-General's Chambers.

To that end, a criminal justice system that operates to give the judicial arm of Government the discretion to pass judgment on persons charged under the Misuse of Drugs Act would be the preferred way forward. Our prosecutorial and evidence collecting agencies should be left to focus on their important work rather than spending time worrying about legal contortions, and trying to manoeuvre around offences that carry the mandatory death penalty. Let us leave the task of passing judgment to our judges. Mr Speaker, my opposition to the mandatory death penalty notwithstanding, I support this Bill.

Sir, I will speak mainly on the newly inserted section 33B of the Act. Sir, I support the death penalty for selected serious crimes, such as acts of terrorism, firearms and drug offences. I believe it is still an effective deterrent. However, I do not think that the imposition of the death penalty needs to be mandatory, particularly in the specific circumstances stipulated by the new section 33B, which is that of a drug courier.

I support the amendment to give courts the discretion to mete out the appropriate sentence based on the facts and arguments of the case put forward to the due process of the court. And l support the change to incentivise the courier to offer information that could assist in the fight against drug trafficking activities.

Page: 1098

Technicality aside, I suppose the key concerns with this amendment by those who still have reservations are: firstly, are we signalling that we are going soft on drug offences? Secondly, would we lose the deterrent effect with the death penalty being non-mandatory?

Sir, on closer study of the amendment, it is clear that the conditions set out in section 33B are still fairly restrictive, in particular, the part where the Public Prosecutor would need to establish whether the courier has substantively assisted CNB in disrupting drug trafficking activities within and outside Singapore. This is still an onerous condition to meet. So, I do not see this as a major softening on drug offences. In any case, currently, the prosecutor is already exercising prosecutorial discretion in some ways by taking into consideration cooperation by the courier. The Straits Times reported on 20 October this year that at least 13 individuals have been spared the death penalty in this manner. I am not a legally trained person but, from a systems governance standpoint, I thought it is better to vest this sentencing discretion in the Judge rather than implicitly allowing the Prosecutor to do so.

Even without mandatory death penalty, our penalties on drug offences under the new amendment are still very tough by any measure, and I would say still near to zero tolerance. The ultimate penalty of death is still very much a sentencing option by the Judge. So, make no mistakes about it. If a person smuggles drugs, there is still a high probability that the person could be sent to the gallows. In addition, the Judge also has the option of life imprisonment plus caning of not less than 15 strokes which, again by comparison with most jurisdictions, are also among the heftiest penalties and a very high human price to pay for the offenders.

With the passing of this Bill, there are possibly only two known countries left that have tougher penalty on drug offences than Singapore, and they are Malaysia and Iran. Last month, the Malaysian government has also announced that they are studying whether to do away with mandatory death penalty.

So, are we still tough or are we softer now on drugs with this new section 33B? Well, I believe the deterrent effect is not just about how dreadful the penalties are. What is a more important signal to send out is our resolve and seriousness to fight the drug menace and therefore also the resources we are prepared to commit. We should not be drawn into a false sense of comfort that as long as we have the toughest penalty in the world on drugs, the strong signal that we send in itself will do the job.

People are deterred from committing drug offences not just because of the severity of the death penalty. The higher likelihood of being caught can be an even more effective deterrent than the ultimate penalty itself. There should be no complacency and no let-up in our effort to apprehend drug offenders even with the harshest of penalty that we have in place. It means we will continue to need even better surveillances and intelligence, better investigative expertise and technologies; and resolute enforcement to crack down on the supply of drugs. At the end of day, the battle against the supply of drugs is won over by fighting trench by trench, and not just about setting the toughest penalty in the world you can think of.

Page: 1099

Sir, I welcome the Minister for Home Affairs' announcement in his July statement that there will be more resources put into border checks and enforcement; there will be more investment in technology and intelligence. And given the grim statistics that Deputy Prime Minister Teo had just presented, we clearly need to do more and do it fast. I also support the expansion of the law to cover recruitment of young persons for the drug trade, and to cover the throwing of drug parties. These are all important signals that we need to send.

Sir, under the mandatory death penalty regime, the judge is basically limited to what I would call "digital" judgment outcomes; that is, either mandatory death or acquittal, and nothing in between. There is no discretion for the judges, no option for a more calibrated sentence, and hence, to me, it may lead to a disproportionate sentence being passed. Often, the argument is that if discretion is given to the judge, the judges are likely to go for the soft options; that is, not to go for the death penalty. I disagree with such views.

Firstly, the starting point is that we must trust and have confidence that our judges will exercise high professional standards of judicial judgment and also possess the wisdom, courage and integrity to pass the right sentences.

Secondly, even if the judge were to take into account the human circumstances and pass a sentence other than death penalty, so be it. The prosecution could appeal if it disagrees with the sentencing. Let the system run its course but we should not deprive the judge of such discretion as it is an important component in the entire judiciary system that we operate.

We cannot rule out that there could be certain circumstances where the mandatory death sentence on an individual may come across as too hard and too cold. Personally for me, the most discomforting part about the existing law is that the low-level couriers, who could be among those most vulnerable to exploitation, or being conned or even coerced into carrying the drugs, would end up facing mandatory death penalty while the drug kingpins who mastermind and profit enormously from these trafficking continue to be scot-free.

Mandatory death penalty has been in effect for decades but we all know the drug kingpins are rarely apprehended. Let us be really tough on those who are the head men of the drug syndicates. These are the ones who deserve the ultimate punishment. But for those very low on the food chain like the drug couriers, let us mete out appropriate sentences and I agree that the penalty should still be tough and still a high human price to pay.

Page: 1100

Hence, I fully agree with the insertion of section 33B (2)(b) to take into consideration in sentencing that the person has substantively assisted CNB in going after the drug trafficking network.

Our laws and our capital punishment system must evolve with progress in our society and changes in our values. Nobody can claim absolute wisdom in this matter. If this amendment is seen as a step in humanising criminal law, so be it. Indeed, I saw a little of that with the insertion of section 33(3)(b) on the abnormality of mind or taking into account the state of mind of the offenders.

I applaud the Government for doing the review and for the courage to move this change. It is time to move on this issue and I agree with Deputy Prime Minister Teo that the proposed changes strike the right balance for the Singapore today. Sir, I support the amendments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I would like to start by expressing my support to the Bill in giving discretion to judges under specific circumstances for drug trafficking. Likewise, I support the same in the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill for murder.

I think this measure is a significant step in the right direction. However, I do not think it goes far enough. I would like to advocate for the removal of the death penalty as an ultimate goal, and for full discretion to be given to the courts on the imposition of the death penalty in the interim. I also have specific problems with the circumstances outlined in the proposed section 33B, subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b), what I call the "drug mule" and "substantive assistance" requirements respectively.

Sir, let me start by articulating why I think we should abolish the death penalty. My starting point is that we must believe that every human life is precious, and we need to protect every person from conception to death. Unless it is specifically to save another life, taking a life for no matter how good an intention, is wrong. For the same reasons, I would not support euthanasia.

Having a culture of death has much wider implications than the removal of a burden or threat that we perceive that a particular person may bring. It damages the work that we are all trying to achieve, that is to build an inclusive society. Inclusiveness here is a sense of belonging, of being respected and valued for who you are, and, ultimately, being always treated with equal dignity and compassion, even if you have made mistakes, are terminally-ill, or are perceived as being a burden to society. To treat people otherwise is to treat them as the means, not the ends.

Page: 1101

Fundamentally, what is the type of society that we want to live in? Do we believe in compassion and in allowing people chances to redeem themselves and be rehabilitated, even if they make bad mistakes? Do we believe in second chances?

Sir, I do not condone merely pursuing a utilitarian view of justice, where the ends simply justify the means. According to this view, justice requires the maximisation of the total welfare across individuals in our nation. In sentencing, a utilitarian would focus on the deterrent and security aspects of punishment.

Deterrence is to make credible the threat of severe punishment so that others would think twice about committing the offence; and the security aspect focuses on taking offenders out of circulation through incapacitation so that they can do no more harm to others.

Deterrence and incapacitation are clearly well-intentioned objectives. But we cannot take them to the extreme such that the ends justify the means. We need a sense of proportionality. Society should move towards more humane ways of restorative justice, especially where there is possibility of reforming and rehabilitating the offender.

In this regard, as the death penalty is being maintained, I propose that full discretion be given to the courts on the imposition of the death penalty. The courtroom, rather than the prosecutor's office, is a much more appropriate place to decide on the punishment that best fits the crime, based on the seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the offender.

Understandably, people are concerned that we are on a slippery slope down away from zero tolerance on drugs. And I, too, am concerned about the increase in drug abusers arrested and the increase in drugs seized, as mentioned earlier. But we have to ask ourselves whether the death penalty is the only possible way of effectively defending Singaporeans against drug traffickers. Is it an absolute necessity? I would say not. There are alternative tough sentences, like the life sentence, which is already a very harsh sentence. Abolishing the death penalty and having a zero tolerance on drugs can go together.

In any case, I believe many serious drug traffickers may already be detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, instead of under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA).

As has been already pointed out, research on the deterrent effects of the death penalty is mixed. Some studies in other jurisdictions even show a decline in homicide rates even after the death penalty was abolished, like in Hong Kong, which abolished capital punishment in 1993.

Page: 1102

As United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said in July this year when calling on member states to abolish the death penalty, I quote, "The taking of life is too absolute, too irreversible, for one human being to inflict it on another, even when backed by legal process". The death penalty is too drastic a measure in our modern world, with our modern justice system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, next, I will move on to specific clauses of the Bill.

First, the "drug mule" requirement under the proposed subsection 33B(2)(a) is under-inclusive and may give rise to instances where offenders with similar levels of culpability being given vastly different sentences. For example, it is not clear whether an offender who performs a limited role of packing the drugs under instruction can come under this subsection. Instead of a listing of acts and activities, these offenders should be defined, in my view, according to their relative roles or responsibilities in the drug syndicate.

Secondly, under the MDA, a person found abetting a drug trafficking or importation offence is liable to the same punishment prescribed for the principal offence. Abetment comes in many forms and with varying degrees of culpability. I propose that the courts be given a discretion whether to consider abettors as principal offenders or not.

Thirdly, I have serious concerns about the requirement of "substantive assistance" under subsection 33B(2)(b), as has been mentioned by many speakers before me. It is not well-defined and ambiguous. And if it is based on the actual results of cooperation and receiving high-quality information, there could be potential unfairness because the less culpable, quite often, have less information.

This "substantive assistance" standard is too high, which was also mentioned by Mr Edwin Tong, and has a worryingly strong utilitarian element of collecting better intelligence, and using the threat of death as a bargaining chip. Simply put, whether a person gets a chance to live or not hinges on how useful the offender is to the state in achieving certain ends. I believe the life and death of an offender should not be decided based solely on their utility to the state. Hence, I urge that this subsection be removed.

Sir, in conclusion, I welcome the Government's move towards more judicial discretion and prescribing sentences which are more proportionate to the culpability of the offenders. However, I urge the Government to go further and abolish the death penalty in the future. I understand the strong support by many in Singapore for the death penalty, and that we Singaporeans are rightly proud that Singapore is a safe and secure home, relatively free from drugs and serious crime. These ought to be outcomes we need to work hard to maintain. But where it comes to the death penalty, it is not just about our criminal justice system, which we also want to be proportionate and restorative; it also about the type of society that we want to build – a society that values every person and one that does not give up on its people.

Page: 1103

Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the Government's move towards greater judicial discretion and in prescribing sentences which are more proportionate to the culpability of the offenders. But I feel there should be further improvements in the law. Here, I have a few points of clarifications to seek from the Minister.

First, I would like the Minister to clarify whether section 33B(2)(a) covers offenders who are found to have participated in the acts, such as packing, storing, or safe-keeping drugs, as their culpability may be similar to those who are involved in transporting, sending, or delivering the drugs and should not be excluded from consideration for discretionary sentencing.

I would also like the Minister to clarify whether "substantive assistance" under section 33B(2)(b) is determined by the outcome of the existence of the good faith of the offenders in providing all possible assistance. I think the House also needs clarification on how the public prosecution can assure the public that he has based his/her consideration of "substantive assistance" according to the law, as compared to other factors, other than by assumption of good faith, because reasons are not required to be given, nor is the decision reviewable in court.

Under the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill, the offence of abetting a drug trafficking offender is not covered. I would like to seek the Minister's clarification on why this is the case, and whether the Government would consider amending the Bill to include this.

Finally, can the Minister confirm whether the possibility of making the death penalty fully discretionary for all crimes being studied by the Ministry and whether the Government will consider publishing the studies done in relation to the issue of the mandatory death penalty.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall now focus on the social aspect and the principles of the policy. The death penalty is the ultimate punishment that we have in our laws. It is an extremely harsh punishment, and its irreversible nature means that any error of law discovered after an execution cannot be remedied. It is even harsher to make it mandatory, because it means that offenders are denied a chance to convince the Court why they do not deserve this harsh punishment.

In his answer to Members' clarifications after his Ministerial Statement on the changes, the Law Minister pointed to the fact that the Government continues to support a system of capital punishment in Singapore where it thinks it is necessary. The connection between our low capital crime rates and the presence of the death sentence is inadequately demonstrated and is inadequate to justify its use, or at the very least, making it mandatory. Criminological studies done on the death penalty worldwide have failed to show that the punishment has a deterrent effect on capital crime. More significantly, a study conducted on Singapore and Hong Kong showed that murder rates in both countries underwent a similar decline from 1975 till 2008 despite the fact that one had the mandatory death penalty for murder while the other abolished it in 1993. The study puts the deterrent effect of the death penalty in significant doubt.

Page: 1104

Mr Speaker, it is one thing for us to rationalise the deterrent effect of the mandatory death penalty in our heads. It is another whether the punishment does have a real deterrent effect on crime. The rationale of the death penalty may make sense to us, but how many of us have really been put in the shoes of an offender? We think that offenders make careful calculations before they commit a crime. But the reality is that criminals often are put in circumstances where their choices are not as rational as we would like them to be. Of course, this does not justify their actions. We are not calling for them to be pardoned or to be released. What we are calling for is for them to be given a chance to explain their circumstances to the Court and to let the Court determine the appropriate sentence.

As the Minister for Law put it, "Justice can be tempered with mercy where appropriate, offenders should be given a second chance." Who best to decide on this than the Courts, who are able to make the decision based on the unique circumstances in each case?

Under the current Bill, offenders convicted of drug trafficking or importation will be given a chance to argue in mitigation of their sentence only if they qualify for two very strict criteria. While this move recognises that drug mules are relatively less culpable and do not deserve an automatic death sentence, I share Members' concerns that the criteria may be too strict for reasons which the other Members have elaborated upon.

What I would like to do is to draw the House's attention to the problem of mule's "substantive assistance", the decisive criteria which decides whether a mule gets a chance to have his sentence mitigated. In effect, what this means is that whether a mule receives an automatic death sentence depends on how useful he or she is to us. This goes against the principle that the punishment of offenders should be determined in relation to their culpability.

In the Law Minister's Ministerial Statement to this House on 9 July this year, he made reference to several factors which need to be considered in determining the sentence of an offender. The usefulness of the offender was not one of them. While we accept the legitimacy of the aim of gathering further intelligence to protect our society from drugs, and that it is appropriate for an offender's sentence to be mitigated in relation for having given useful information to the authorities, this should not be the factor which determines whether the mule receives an automatic sentence of death or not.

Page: 1105

This is because the difference between a death sentence and life imprisonment is not just one of degree, but it is of a different category of punishment altogether. Furthermore, drug kingpins are often part of organised crime syndicates. It is not uncommon for mules to be threatened with violent retribution against themselves or their families. In such circumstances, offenders will literally be put in a position where they are faced with an impossible dilemma of choosing between their lives or the safety of their loved ones. This is especially problematic if the offender's family is not in Singapore and is, therefore, outside the protection of the Singapore Police Force.

To reiterate the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs' point in his Ministerial Statement, drug syndicate kingpins are the ones who actively try to recruit mules who are in vulnerable circumstances, to take on the bulk of the risk burden while they themselves control the operations from offshore in a manner which minimises the amount of evidence which can be gathered against them.

Mules also face other pressures, such as financial debts, family problems, lack of proper education, poverty or even threat and coercion. It is, therefore, unfair for them to be sentenced to death and they should be given life imprisonment instead. Again, we are not trying to justify or excuse their actions, but rather for them to be spared from having their lives taken away.

Life is precious. We have only one life − once taken away, it cannot be reversed.

Mr Speaker, like many of those before me, my focus is on clause 14 of the Misuse of Drugs Act dealing with the amendments to the mandatory death penalty in certain cases.

As a young university student, I remember that the mandatory death penalty, especially for drug offences, was one law that I was deeply uncomfortable with. In relation to drugs in particular, I believe that the Government should play a minimal role in the lives of individuals, perhaps this was from a liberal-minded individual. I believe that if individuals want to take drugs, it was their problem, and it might be a silly decision but it was not something the Government should get involved in. Following from this, it seemed quite anomalous to have a death penalty for people who trafficked in drugs.

My view on this matter changed quite dramatically, after I started attending Meet-the-People sessions. It was at that point that I met drug addicts, former drug addicts and their families and experienced first-hand the actual trauma that drug addiction brought to people. Almost all the cases I met at my MPS sessions were people from the lower income groups, often less educated, and quite often the drug they were addicted to was heroin. When I asked them how they started, they usually mentioned it was because of peer influence, friends introduced them to it. The social pressure forced them to get into it and once they started, they were hooked. The drug addiction often haunts them for life. They never really escaped. One sad case I dealt with involved an addict who had been out of prison for about four years, remained reasonably clean, but recently re-offended because his old friends caught up with him again.

Page: 1106

When I joined the GPC for Home Affairs, one area which I was very interested in was the rehabilitation of ex-offenders, and I asked about the recidivism rates for different offences in Singapore. I was very surprised to learn that the recidivism rate for non-drug related offences was actually quite low. However, when it came to drug-related offences, not only was recidivism high, but a good number had convictions for other offences too. It appeared that once they became addicted, the addicts needed to engage in other crimes in order to get the money to feed the habit.

So, if drug abuse is not the root of all evil, it certainly is the root of many evils. If we step back a little further, as a matter of principle, the drug trade exploits some of the most vulnerable people in our society and, at least in the case that I have come across − those with lower income, less education − and hooks them onto a habit that can be cynically exploited for income. I was particularly angry when I heard reports about drug pushers being spotted near the rental blocks in my area, essentially targeting people who already have a whole lot of problems and trying to add more to it. And not only that, many of the people whom they seem to be targeting − and there are a lot of young people who live in these blocks – are the young people. So, it seems that the young people are the ones they are going after. And I think the utter destruction of individuals and families by drugs is what warrants the very tough stance we have taken so far.

When I attended a recent ASEAN Inter-parliamentary meeting dealing with the menace of drugs, I learned a few more things. I learned that the menace of drugs is not unique to Singapore and it is something that all our neighbours are struggling with. And one of the things that I learned from that conference was that many of our neighbours actually respect the regime we have, or at least the parliamentarians mentioned that to me aside. But they may not be able to do the exact same things in their countries. Our rates of drug addiction and offences are much lower than in many of the other countries.

One of the main reasons I support the legislative changes that we have here is that I think it takes a more nuanced approach in dealing with drug pushers. It tries to distinguish between those who might be less culpable drug mules and those who are, in fact, behind the business. It also tries to reward those who cooperate. So, theoretically, it means that the Police are able to arrest people higher up the drug chain. I think arresting the people at the very top will be very ambitious but at least they are able to arrest people slightly higher up, and that would disable the business somewhat.

Page: 1107

Like many of the Members who have come before me, I have several concerns about the Bill as well and how it would actually play out. I would just list four of them. The first, and I think one which many others have mentioned earlier, is the signalling. Are we sending a signal that Singapore is getting softer on drugs? From the language the Deputy Prime Minister used to introduce the Bill, I think it is very clear that this is really not the signal we are intending to send. And I hope that is the message that everyone will get, including those who are intending to bring drugs to our shores.

In terms of how the mechanics of the Bill will work, in relation to certificate of cooperation, I understand the intention of the Bill is to make sure that this does not end up being another football just tossed around in court, so, therefore, it is not really subject to review except in very limited cases. But, in practice, if there is a hope and that certificate is not provided, I think there will be a very strong temptation for any defendant to bring it into challenge. So, the reality is that the certificate might end up in court despite our best efforts with allegations of malice and bad faith being used. So this will be something that the enforcement authorities would need to take into account as well.

On the language used for the defence, I would use the language of diminished responsibility but this is really the unsoundness of mind defence. The language used of the Act is very similar to diminished responsibility defence used for murder. But, of course, a drug offence is very different from murder. So I think it will probably take some time for the courts to develop the jurisprudence on how the diminished responsibility defence that was used in murder would apply in the case of drug offences. I am confident the courts will be able to develop that, but it would probably mean that it would not be exact same types of cases that would fulfil the requirements in both cases. For example, in relation to murder, diabetics who have not taken their medicine could qualify for the defence but that may not be the case where the person is a drug mule.

The last concern, of course, is one of whether or not this might create perverse incentives to exploit the groups that have been described as vulnerable or might fulfil the requirement of vulnerability to become drug mules. Again, this is something which only time will tell and I think we should give this legislation a chance to work out and see what exactly happens.

Going forward, I think this is definitely an important step we are taking and whether it works or does not work is something that we should be alert to see whether or not we move in the right direction. In particular, I think it would be useful to keep track of our rates of drug offences. By drug offences, I do not just mean arrests, because high numbers of arrests may indicate enforcement, but also other figures, such as drug addiction rates and so on, and also to keep an eye on how this compares to other countries. I mean, if other countries are able to reduce their drug addiction rates without using the measures we are using, then perhaps we can learn from them too. But if we compare ourselves to our immediate vicinity and we realise that ours is really the most effective means possible, then we need to be firm and stand by our grounds as well. So, Mr Speaker, I do support this amendment Bill. I have some reservations like many of our speakers, but I think it is a step in the right direction.

Page: 1108

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will deliver my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech on Pg 1176-1178.] Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak in this debate.

As we know, the issue of drug abuse is a never-ending one. This challenge of drug abuse is difficult to overcome, and it requires the involvement and efforts from all parties, including Ministries, Government agencies, welfare bodies, the general public, families and the drug abusers themselves. In short, it requires a holistic and collective effort.

Sir, I would like to refer to section 36(a) which touches on the "Administration of Community Rehabilitation Centres".

I fully support the idea to set up the Community Rehabilitation Centres (CRCs) as announced by the Senior Minister of State, Mr Masagos Zulkifli, during the Central Narcotics Bureau's WorkPlan Seminar in April 2012.

In his speech, Mr Masagos explained that the centre will function as a step-down arrangement for young abusers who committed their first offence, where these new young abusers will be referred to such centres after undergoing short-term detention at the Drug Rehabilitation Centre. The main aim of this plan is to give an opportunity for these moderate-risk young offenders to continue their education or occupation during the day.

Sir, the setting up of the CRCs will send a signal to these new young abusers that they will still be given a second chance and will still be accepted by society, even though they have made a mistake. This can encourage these abusers to work hard to make up for their mistakes.

Sir, in this regard, I would like to propose that the CRCs be managed by welfare bodies that are spiritually based, especially for Malay offenders.

I think that this is not an exclusive request because there are already a number of social centres and halfway houses administered by Malay/Muslim organisations, such as Jamiyah, Pertapis and the Hira Educational and Social Services Centre, that conduct programmes and counselling for offenders and their families.

Page: 1109

My reason for emphasising the necessity of such efforts is that based on my observations and experience as a counsellor, I noticed that many drug abusers have poor resilience and self-identity, and this comes from a lack of determination. I believe that with an injection of spirituality, the abusers can become more determined, and this will produce a strong and resilient identity within them.

Sir, the drug problem has shackled the Malay community for so long. Although many initiatives and efforts have been implemented by the Ministry itself or through cooperation with welfare bodies, I believe that more can be done.

Here, I would like to ask whether the Ministry has any plans to set up a special committee, specifically for the Malay community, to combat the drug menace. Sir, I feel that the formation of such a committee is necessary to further strengthen and refine efforts to combat the drug menace among the Malay community.

The composition of the committee should include representatives from the Malay/Muslim bodies, especially those that are already active in these efforts, such as the Hira Education and Social Services centre, Jamiyah, Pertapis as well as individuals who have long contributed their efforts and energy to address the drug phenomenon, such as Islamic religious teachers who provide counselling services at the DRCs.

Sir, I feel that the main functions of the committee should include, firstly, the strengthening of the cooperation network between Malay/Muslim bodies focusing on this issue, so that they can share their expertise, experience and resources more effectively. Secondly, this committee can be used as a contact point for the Ministry, by providing advice and views on trends that are unique to the Malay community, on the issue of drug abuse.

Sir, the Malay community has Mendaki, which works with several ministries, to lead efforts in raising educational levels. The Syariah Court and the Registry of Muslim Marriages too, working under the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, lead efforts in addressing the issue of divorce. Hence, I feel that we should set up a committee to lead the efforts against drug abuse in the Malay community.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your leave, in Mandarin, please.

Page: 1110

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech on Pg 1179.] Mr Speaker, I support the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill.

The Misuse of Drugs Act is an effective legal framework to control the use of hazardous and harmful drugs. Under the Act, trafficking, manufacturing, importing, exporting, possession or consumption of prohibited drugs are all criminal offences.

In recent years, we have seen the emergence of younger drug abusers. Many people, including myself, are gravely concerned with this trend. Is it because we have not done enough to educate our people, or is it because the unscrupulous dealers who sell these harmful drugs know how to evade the police and other enforcement officers to lure innocent youngsters into the misery of drugs?