Alvin Yeo
Singapore
“This is important as, while we all want to make Singapore free of organised crime, we do need to respect the rights of individuals who may be accused or suspected but not yet convicted of organised crime offences. Overall, I agree that we need to enhance the measures to combat organised crime and I do support the Bill.”
“I do not see in that any danger that they will suddenly Page: 65 become short-term in their thinking and this somehow undermines their independence. So, far from breaching the protective wall around the independence of the Judiciary, I see these changes as strengthening our Judiciary and, thus, upholding the rule of law.”
“Poorer households should, of course, be spared the need to pay more and should continue to receive subsidies to allow their children to avail themselves fully of these educational opportunities.”
“First cut on ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting. Mdm Chairman, our defence cooperation agreements with other ASEAN countries is an important aspect of our regional security framework.”
“Mdm Chair, on the drug situation, the worsening regional situation has made its impact felt even in Singapore, with the growing use of recreational or party drugs, especially among young adults. Singapore has fought hard to contain the drug menace and it is important that we do not let up on our efforts now.”
“In this way, anyone can rise higher, no matter what his or her starting point or background is. This is a true democracy; this is a true meritocracy; and what our nation is founded upon. It is natural for a nation that has developed as much and as fast as Singapore has done, to want to do more for the disadvantaged in society.”
The complete record
Every one of 183 lines we hold for Alvin Yeo, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“This is important as, while we all want to make Singapore free of organised crime, we do need to respect the rights of individuals who may be accused or suspected but not yet convicted of organised crime offences. Overall, I agree that we need to enhance the measures to combat organised crime and I do support the Bill.”
“To then subject him to the reversal of the burden of proof, where the subject has to justify and explain all his property or otherwise have it presumed that they represent the proceeds of organised crime, can work a severe injustice if he is truly innocent. After all, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is still a fundamental tenet of criminal justice. To presume the subject's property to be the proceeds of organised crime where he has not been convicted or even charged and then acquitted would, in my view, undermine that fundamental principle. Let me make clear that I entirely support that our agencies should have the ability to take civil confiscation proceedings against any subject, even if he has not been convicted of any offence. And I take full note of what the Minister has said that with the upper echelons of organised crime syndicates, they may be at several removes to the actual members who commit the crimes. But it is the reversal of the burden of proof in a situation where no conviction is obtained that I feel gives rise to the potential for injustice. Could the Minister clarify how the risk of such injustice could be reduced, if not eliminated? Could the reversal of the burden of proof only apply when the subject has been convicted of an offence under this Bill or, at least, of a similar offence overseas? Or could the risk be addressed by prosecutorial guidelines which should be publicised, which set out clearly when civil confiscation proceedings could be initiated against subjects who have not been convicted, or even acquitted, of offences under the Bill?”
“This is, indeed, the challenge of combating international criminal networks. Most foreign law enforcement agencies work on the principle of mutuality where they will render assistance to another country's police force, which would do likewise for them. Thus, if out of concern for husbanding our Home Team resources, we define offences which have an effect in Singapore too narrowly, we risk losing the very cooperation internationally that is essential to combat transnational crime syndicates. Could the Minister address this concern and clarify how he will balance with competing aims of not over-exerting our Home Team's resources on one hand with the ready provision of assistance to foreign law enforcement agencies necessary to secure their mutual cooperation? The second concern I have relates to the civil confiscation process which reverses the burden of proof on a subject to prove the legitimacy of his property. In other words, any property which is disproportionate to the subject's known sources of income and which he cannot explain to the Court's satisfaction is presumed to be the benefits of organised crime. Page: 54 This reversal of the burden of proof is similar to that under CDSA. However, CDSA is directed at those convicted of corruption, drug trafficking or other serious offences. In other words, a conviction is necessary before the civil confiscation process, with its reversal of the burden of proof, is triggered. Under this Bill, the subject of this confiscation process need not have been convicted of a criminal offence under the Bill. Indeed, he may have been tried for an offence under the Bill and even acquitted.”
“Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. It is aimed at combating organised crime by equipping our law enforcement agencies with the weapons to pre-empt organised crime activities, pursue their leadership who may be based overseas Page: 53 and deprive them of their ill-gotten gains. There is increasing evidence that OCG here are expanding their links with overseas syndicate. Not only are their networks expanding, their range of criminal activities is also diversifying, resulting in a larger, more complex mix of threats at our very doorsteps. Currently, we may feel that organised crime here is under control, albeit still extant. This may lead to some questioning why we should pass this Bill. But it is precisely because we need to disrupt and stultify the spread of organised crime before it becomes entrenched, before it grows to a point where organised crime threatens public safety and economic stability, that we need this Bill now. I have, however, two queries on this Bill. The first concerns the criteria our Home Team will apply to determine the extra territorial coverage to tackle transnational organised crime. Under the Bill, this requires a tight nexus between the offence in question and the resultant harm to Singapore. The rationale for this nexus requirement is not to overtax our Home Team's resources in requiring them to assist the international community to tackle cases with little or no impact in Singapore. I do not question the logic of this. However, I worry that we draw the line too tightly around what offences have an effect in Singapore. This may affect the cooperation that we need of foreign law enforcement agencies to detect, investigate and apprehend the leaders and key members of syndicates who may be located overseas.”
“There will also be a specific regime for those foreign lawyers admitted to appear at the new Singapore International Commercial Court as this is the key element to make it an international court of choice. Local practitioners who are wary of this need only hark back to Page: 88 the fears where the arbitration regulations were amended to allow foreign counsels to appear freely in arbitrations here. This liberalisation helps spark a boom in arbitration cases coming to Singapore and local lawyers got their fair share or more of these cases. I turn now to the strengthening of measures to prevent money laundering and its associated evils. This is also a welcome step. Given Singapore's position as a financial centre, lawyers do need to recognise that monies remitted through their firms, ostensibly for commercial transactions, may have a more sinister provenance or more deadly objective. Hence, our lawyers do need to support the effort to combat this modern-day evil with a range of provisions to prohibit receiving monies from anonymous sources to placing onus on lawyers to report suspicious transactions. While this does increase the compliance load on our law firms, they are necessary measures to make the world a safer place for all of us. Singapore is known as the bastion for the rule of law which has been a pillar of our development as a leading international banking and services hub. The legal profession, I believe, is an essential element of that, and the move to strengthen the profession will help ensure that that pillar continues to stand strong. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. 5.30 pm”
“Similarly, they are specifically tailored regimes for the different vehicles through which lawyers practise, ranging from sole proprietorships and traditional partnerships to limited liability partnerships and law corporations. Again, all will be overseen by the DLS in a consistent manner. I do have certain questions arising from the proposed changes. There is a power to make all the partners in an LLP or all directors in an LLC or law corporation jointly liable for unbefitting conduct which cannot be attributed to one or more identified individuals. This is potentially wide liability for what appears to be a generally worded offence. And can I ask the Minister to clarify how this power will be exercised and what would constitute unbefitting conduct? Further, as mentioned above, the Bill provides for the registration of this animal called "regulated non-practitioners". They can, if registered, be directors, partners or shareholders in a law practice. Could I ask which class of persons this provision is aimed at and what purpose it is trying to achieve? So, for instance, is it financial investors who can be registered as regulated non-practitioners or those who practise a different professional discipline, or perhaps a combination of the two? I do recognise that the new framework itself is in recognition of the greatest sophistication of legal practice in the modern day where lawyers avail themselves of different business structures to suit their particular practice objectives. At the same time, it helps to fill a lacuna in the current regime where foreign lawyers, who are estimated to number over 1,000, are likely or hardly regulated here at all.”
“Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. It seeks to introduce a raft of changes which are designed to introduce the new regulatory framework for the legal profession to bring the increasing number of foreign lawyers under the same umbrella and to enhance the measures relating to law firms to prevent money laundering and terrorism financing. In so doing, we strengthen the profession and fortify Singapore's reputation as Asia's legal hub. The new regulatory framework gives effect through recommendations of the Committee to review the regulatory framework of the Singapore's legal services sector. This includes the creation of the new office of Director of Legal Services (DLS) under MinLaw to administer the new regime, applicable to all lawyer practising here, as well as the different Page: 87 legal vehicles which house them. Hence, the framework will cover not just Singapore lawyers practising Singapore law but also those Singapore lawyers practising foreign law. It will also cover foreign lawyers practising foreign law and foreign lawyers who practise Singapore law. It will even cover foreign lawyers who do not practise here but are partners or shareholders in Singapore law firms; and even regulated non-practitioners who cannot be partners or shareholders unless registered as regulated non-practitioners. This is not to say that it will adopt a one-size-fits-all framework, rather, they are tailored requirements for each of these different categories. But all will be overseen and administered by the Director of Legal Services which should better ensure evenness of treatment across the different categories of lawyers.”
“I do not see in that any danger that they will suddenly Page: 65 become short-term in their thinking and this somehow undermines their independence. So, far from breaching the protective wall around the independence of the Judiciary, I see these changes as strengthening our Judiciary and, thus, upholding the rule of law. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“It thus puzzles me to hear opposition from the Workers' Party to these changes, to argue that this weakens one of the pillars of the rule of law by undermining the security of tenure of Judges. We currently have security of tenure of Judges up to age 65. This Bill does not to seek to change that. In many countries which do have security of tenure, there are mandatory retirement ages. For instance, in the United Kingdom, there is a retirement age of 70. In United States, there is life-long tenure for Supreme Court Judges, but this has been criticised by many commentators as, in a sense, giving a Judge a licence to go on for longer than his shelf life. Currently, we do have the provision to extend Judges who reach the age of 65. One example is the ex-Chief Justice, whose sage words Mr Pritam Singh quoted. So, I fail to understand how appointing retired Judges for specific cases for specified periods in some way undermines the protective wall around the independence of our Judiciary. Ms Sylvia Lim also thought that appointing Judges for short terms might have them worrying about being reappointed. But the Senior Judges we are talking about are retired High Court Judges. They are not short-term Judges. They have already been selected and appointed as High Court Judges and served a full career as a High Court Judge, with security of tenure up to age 65. To be able to tap on them, either for a specific period or specific cases, to me, is a cost-efficient way to be able to address shortages in judicial resources when the caseload of the High Court gets too heavy, and to be able to tap on their collective wisdom and qualities for specific cases.”
“It will assure the Singapore community and the international community if well-known jurists from other countries sit on occasion to hear such cases, as the SICC will benefit from the experience and knowledge of cases with international features. It will also send a strong signal that SICC is truly an international forum for the parties to litigate here Page: 64 and the foreign counsels who argue their cases here and the foreign Judges who hear these arguments, together with our Singapore Judges. It is thus a necessary and welcome step to permit the appointment of suitable persons who, in the words of the Bill, have the necessary qualifications, experience and professional standing to be International Judges. But can I ask the Minister to clarify these rather general criteria or, at least, specify the sort of qualifications and experience being looked for? Otherwise, it does seem a very wide brief to be given to the Chief Justice to recommend candidates for International Judges. The appointment of International Judges will be for specific cases for specified periods, so there is little danger of creating a surfeit of Judges. On the contrary, the increased workload of the Supreme Court, if it starts to hear more international cases, will put a strain on our judicial resources. This is where the appointment of retired Judges as Senior Judges again or specific cases for specified periods will help to plug the gap. Our Judges have judicial tenure up to age 65, but many of them still have the energy and commitment to contribute to the legal landscape. It would be a great pity to lose the benefit of their collective wisdom and experience. The appointment of Senior Judges on an ad hoc basis is thus an efficient manner in which we tap on the qualities of our retired Judges.”
“Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. This Bill seeks, among other things, to create the office of Senior Judges and International Judges for our Supreme Court. The backdrop for these changes is the innovative introduction of the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC). This is going to be a new division of the Supreme Court designed to hear international cases, that is, disputes with little or no connection to Singapore other than the parties choosing to litigate here. If the SICC succeeds in its goal to attract international court based disputes, this will cement Singapore's position as a paramount centre for dispute resolution in nature; in the same way that London is the pre-eminent centre in Europe. It will build on the success of our Singapore International Arbitration Centre and enhance the choices available to parties who have disputes to resolve. They can choose litigation, arbitration or even mediation, all in a neutral, modern and cosmopolitan setting, which is designed to make international entities feel they can get justice in Singapore. The last point is vital. International users feel that they will get fair and equal treatment in Singapore even if they have no connections here. It is thus important that we do not overlook the "I" in SICC, which stands for international. Users must feel that this is an international court situated in Singapore, rather than a domestic forum with limited understanding of transnational issues. To that end, the Judges who hear these cases must not exclusively be Singaporeans, notwithstanding the deservedly high reputation of our Singapore Judges.”
“Poorer households should, of course, be spared the need to pay more and should continue to receive subsidies to allow their children to avail themselves fully of these educational opportunities. At the end of the day, we all recognise that there are aspects of our education system we can improve, in particular the heavy pressure on our students, the over-reliance on tuition and the lower priority accorded to more creative pursuits, the arts and sport. We should be prepared to make the necessary investment to create a more conducive environment to allow our students to obtain a truly holistic education. This will better equip our children with the life-skills to meet tomorrow's challenges, and, ultimately, reap the best sort of dividends in our people. Preschool Teacher Training and School-based Student Care Centres”
“Setting aside time for revision and work assignments in school, which can be supplemented by extra teaching on Saturday mornings for weaker or gifted students, is meant to do away with the need for extra tuition and to allow a child to spend sufficient, but not over-extensive, time on his school work. At the end of the school day, the children would go home to the parents and this, in turn, reduces the need for expensive student care facilities. The children would then be free to spend the evenings with their families and enjoy their growing-up years, as they ought to do. There is, of course, the risk that some parents would make their children go for tuition at night or over the entire weekend. There is no way to legislate against such behaviour, but I believe many parents would rather not subject their children to many hours of tuition, if they believe that their children are getting sufficient instruction and that other parents would not behave the same way. All these would require considerable expenditure, as beyond the physical infrastructure, MOE would have to hire many more teachers. In terms of physical infrastructure, our schools have been moving to a single session system anyway. As for teachers, we have a growing percentage of each cohort of Singaporeans entering University each year. The current projection is for that to go up 40% for each cohort. What better way to provide employment for the increasing number of graduates entering the job market than to employ them as teachers. Perhaps, school fees may have to increase by a small amount, but many households pay much more than that for private tuition and enrichment classes Page: 137 for their children anyway.”
“Borrowing on the concept of private schools in England and the United States, I would like to see our students move to a whole-day single session of schooling from morning till the late afternoon. These extended hours of school are not intended to impose greater pressure on our students, but rather the opposite, and to ensure a healthier, well-rounded approach in education. Page: 136 The morning hours could be devoted to lessons not unlike our current system, but with a longer duration for subject periods to allow for more time for teachers to teach concepts rather than over-stressing content. Class sizes should be smaller than what they are now – in private schools in the West, they are typically not more than 20 – and it is to be hoped that we will move gradually closer to that number from the current high 30s to 40s. The lower teacher-to-student ratio will permit the teacher to devote greater attention to each student, which will reduce the need for tuition to make up for what the students are missing in class. After lunch provided in school, which would also ensure that all students had proper nutrition for their growing bodies, the afternoon would be spent on CCA like art, music, various societies and sport. This could then be followed by a study period for students to do their revision and work assignments. The time spent on sport and the arts would make sure that children have the physical exercise and the outdoor and out of class activities that help in building healthy minds.”
“Mdm Chair, we have a globally-ranked education system that we are right to be proud of – our students are ranked at or near the top in Mathematics and Science, the high level of their bilingual ability is the envy of others, and the extremely low level of school drop-outs is testament to the many pathways, from ITE to Polytechnic to University, that are in place to suit each student's ability. But the question always is: can we do better? There are, after all, several aspects of the education system that are perhaps less admirable. There is the widespread tuition culture, which cannot all be blamed on "kiasu" Singapore parents. There is the relatively lower priority accorded to the arts and literature, and to sports, which mean our students are less outstanding internationally where the subjects are not Mathematics or Science. There is the perception of our students being stronger on content but less innovative. And it is correct that despite our legions of students who obtained straight "A"s at schools and First Class Honours at University, we have yet to produce any Nobel Prize winners and are not readily known for ground-breaking inventions. Finally, there is the heavy pressure that our children come under in our results-oriented system, which even extends to the parents taking leave to coach their 12-year-old children for the PSLE. MOE has been taking steps to address these concerns, including doing away with the banding of schools and the move away from T-scores in the PSLE examination as the means of admission into Secondary schools. These are steps in the right direction. Allow me to raise one further vision for consideration.”
“Mdm Chair, on the drug situation, the worsening regional situation has made its impact felt even in Singapore, with the growing use of recreational or party drugs, especially among young adults. Singapore has fought hard to contain the drug menace and it is important that we do not let up on our efforts now. Given its disturbing developments, could the Minister update the House on how he perceives the current drug situation and the plan that MHA has to deal with new abuses of drugs, particularly among our youth? Drugs”
“First cut on ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting. Mdm Chairman, our defence cooperation agreements with other ASEAN countries is an important aspect of our regional security framework. The ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting (ADMM) and the ADMM-Plus are both relatively new components of our regional security architecture, especially the ADMM-Plus which was established in 2010. Can the Minister provide an update on how the ADMM and ADMM-Plus have progressed and contributed to our regional security? Gulf of Aden My second cut on the Gulf of Aden. The Gulf of Aden has been notorious for piracy incidents which have threatened international shipping. As a responsible member of the international community, Singapore has to do its part to counter the piracy threat. Can the Minister update the House on our contributions to the international counter piracy effort in the Gulf of Aden? Page: 13 Safety Regime”
“Mdm Chairman, may I take my two cuts together?”
“Another key challenge is to dispel the notion that the SICC is a national court, as opposed to an international one. The dilemma is how to build on the "Singapore" aspect of the SICC, which has credibility overseas based on Singapore's well-won reputation for professional excellence, integrity and the Rule of Law, while at the same time promoting the "International" nature of the Page: 99 SICC. It has been announced that the SICC will have distinguished international justices serving on its panel of judges, and also will allow foreign counsel registered with it to appear in cases before the SICC. This will go a long way towards convincing international users that the SICC is not just another domestic court. However, the presence of foreign justices, and the admission of foreign counsel, needs to be skilfully managed, so as to preserve the Singaporean nature of the SICC, which will be fundamental, I believe, to its success. Could the Minister enlighten us on what moves are being made to so address these crucial challenges to making the SICC the success it deserves to be? Establishment of the SICC and Singapore International Mediation Centre”
“Mdm Chairman, the setting up of the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) is a good move by Singapore to strengthen its leadership position as a centre for dispute resolution in Asia. Building on the success of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre and Singapore's growing popularity as a venue for international arbitration, this move seeks to position Singapore as the Asian capital for cross-border cases which are determined in Court. If it succeeds, it would serve to enhance Singapore's status as a leading financial and services hub, and will bring benefits to not just our legal sector, but also the commercial services and business tourism industries. There are two key challenges that we need to address. One is the need to ensure that judgments delivered by the SICC are enforceable overseas, particularly in the key markets of China and Indonesia. 4.30 pm One of the pillars underpinning the growth of arbitration is the New York Convention which allows for mutual enforcement of arbitration awards between all signatory countries and is one of the most successful international treaties of all time. India and Singapore, being British Commonwealth countries, enjoy mutual enforcement of Court judgments under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act. The challenge is to extend that reach into non-Commonwealth countries, especially those from where many disputes originate, that could find its way to be resolved in Singapore. The negotiation of free trade agreements, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, affords an opportunity to provide for reciprocal enforcement of court judgments. The continuing moves to liberalise trade barriers within ASEAN is yet another opportunity to do so.”
“In this way, anyone can rise higher, no matter what his or her starting point or background is. This is a true democracy; this is a true meritocracy; and what our nation is founded upon. It is natural for a nation that has developed as much and as fast as Singapore has done, to want to do more for the disadvantaged in society. This is a noble goal which I believe this Government and, indeed, this Budget supports. But we need to remind ourselves that it starts with ourselves, to be self-reliant and take personal responsibility for our well-being. The system will crash if everybody is expecting somebody else or the state to take care of them. We need to guard against a dependence mentality that undermines the work ethic that has brought Singapore thus far and avoid undoing the sterling work of our Pioneer Generation. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget. 6.01 pm”
“It is only in this way that our society can attract talent and allow it to blossom, and, in this way, help advance the country as a whole – whether in terms of winning sporting competitions, achieving scientific breakthroughs, creating a hit movie or song, Page: 133 or simply generating more jobs. The idea that all should be rewarded equally, no matter what their individual output, was an ideal of communist societies, which is perhaps the very antithesis of the kind of corrupt monarchy of Marie Antoinette that my learned colleague Mr Sitoh Yih Pin spoke of. They found to their dismay that rather than everyone doing their best no matter what their abilities, everyone was doing their least no matter what their abilities. Individual output became a case of the Lowest Common Denominator. Unsurprisingly, as an economic model, that has steadily fallen out of favour. We must certainly guard against the politics of elitism. But, equally, we must avoid the politics of envy, where we complain about those who have done well, even when they have properly and legitimately earned it, and try to introduce rules to mandate that all should be equal. It is correct, absolutely correct, that those who have done well should contribute more, and our progressive income and property taxes are aimed in that direction. But we cannot avoid some degree of income disparity if we want to make Singapore a place where talent can bloom, which, ultimately, works to the benefit of all. When we strive for social equality, our focus should be on equality of opportunity so that children from poor homes are able to obtain an education that fulfils their potential, or adults who have got off to a bad start, are able to upgrade themselves.”
“It is, however, more a barometer of income equality, or inequality, and the figures often cited do not take into account various transfers and subsidies, like Workfare. It is correct that the Government should do more to address disparities in income, and efforts like the progressive wage model for cleaners, the moderation of the foreign workforce and wage increases supported by productivity gains, are steps in the right direction. But I believe social equality should be based on social mobility – the means by which any Singaporean, with the ability and the application, can create a better life for themselves. It is about equality of opportunity, rather than equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity is the object of the many scholarship, bursary and other help schemes to enable every child, no matter what their family background, get an education appropriate to his or her abilities. It extends to working adults with little or no skills, or only an intermediate level of education, to enhance their skill levels and achieve higher qualifications, through subsidised retraining programmes. But these schemes can only take the individual as far as their abilities and diligence can bring them. Put another way, all this assistance can bring everyone to the same starting line but it is not possible, nor desirable, to ensure that they all reach the finishing line at the same time. In a meritocracy, we have to allow those who can run faster, jump higher, achieve more to do so and reap the rewards for doing so.”
“Despite spending 17% of its GDP on healthcare, the average US citizen arguably gets no better level of medical care than do our citizens at a fraction of their cost. We have to work hard at our jobs, because nobody owes Singapore a living and we need to inculcate a similar mentality in our children. Otherwise, a dependence mindset where we expect some government agency to step in and take care of us – regardless of whether we can take care of ourselves – will lead ultimately to the breaking down of what has been built so far. We need to work hard so that our nation can continue to grow and have the means to look after those in society who genuinely cannot look after themselves. We cannot just spend more on social measures by drawing on the reserves, because, one day, even those reserves will run out and what would future generations be saddled with? One just has to look at certain developed countries with generous welfare systems which their governments are deeply in debt for. Their economies are marked by both high taxation and high unemployment. The middle and upper classes pay high taxes and, yet, many young people are out of jobs, as their countries scramble to keep the many Page: 132 social programmes afloat. This is the vision for Singapore if we allow good intentions to blind us to the need for our citizens to be self-reliant. Yes, the state should look after those who cannot take care of themselves, but this can only work if all of us strive, in the first place, to look after ourselves. There has been much talk recently about social equality and how that is somehow lacking in our society. The high Gini coefficient relative to other developed nations is often cited as proof of that.”
“Yet, there are some Singaporeans who feel we have already arrived; that the need to work is somehow less than before, perhaps because we can raid the reserves or resort to higher taxation of the better-off; that our wages should go up even without being more productive, by keeping foreigners out of Singapore; that we are all "entitled" to more healthcare, more subsidies, more Page: 131 welfare, without due regard for how these are to be paid for. Many of those wishing for more benefits to be provided are motivated by a genuine desire to help those who are considered to be in need, or perhaps simply less well-off. However, there is a well-known saying that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". We need to continue to take a long hard look at these wishes to see if we can afford them and whether they take Singapore to where we want to go. Examples abound of well-intentioned measures that have created disincentives to self-reliance and have impoverished governments. The United Kingdom provides free medical service to all without applying any means test. Anybody, rich or poor, can avail themselves of this largesse. The drain on their National Health Service has led to long waiting times, even for necessary operations, and erratic quality of treatment. Those who feel that subsidy should be given without any form of means testing would be wise to take note of the example in other lands. The UK's unemployment benefits in the past were generous enough to entice those who could find jobs to stay jobless – the so-called "unemployment trap". The United States Medicare system has unfunded liabilities that would make it bankrupt within a matter of decades unless the whole system is overhauled.”
“Mdm Speaker, this year's Budget has been described in various glowing terms as generous, caring and rewarding to deserving recipients. Highlighting the give-aways is the Pioneer Generation Package, which many speakers have spoken of – rightfully so. This year's Budget continues the trend of recent Budgets of increasing social spending, in fulfilment of the Government's pledge to strengthen social safety nets, and share the fruits of inclusive growth with others. What has attracted less attention is a short but significant passage in his Budget speech where the Deputy Prime Minister stressed the importance of self-reliance and the need to balance personal responsibility with collective responsibility. It is this aspect of the Budget that I would like to focus on. At first blush, the need for every able-bodied Singaporean to work hard to look after himself or herself, and his or her family, is self-evident common sense. Singapore would not be where it is now, transformed from Third world status to First, if the Pioneer Generation had not been self-reliant and not taken personal responsibility for their own well-being. We have no natural resources to speak of – no oil or gold, no vast land to grow crops, no large labour force to make goods cheaply. We have succeeded through the vision of our leaders and by the sweat of our own brow. The demographics of our ageing population add to the pressure, where there will be, in the not-too-distant future, fewer and fewer working adults to support the young and elderly. This should point to us having to, at the very least, continue working as hard and avoid resting on our laurels.”
“It would be helpful if they are able to enjoy concessionary rates of tax for a specified period of time, for example, five or 10 years, and subject to renewal upon review by the relevant authorities. This is akin to the Pioneer Tax status we give for strategic industries which we are trying to encourage. It may even be more helpful if they are allowed to carry forward losses sustained in the initial years to offset against future profits to reduce or even extinguish their tax liabilities. All this, of course, pre-supposes that these social enterprises generate enough profits to be able to be subject to tax. In terms of the expenses they incur, as training is a key aspect of any business that employs those under disability or with other disadvantages, double deductions for skills training courses or special equipment required by those under disability should also be extended. If we consider that social enterprises are something that is worth building, let us give them all the help we can towards developing into a sustainable business which will help the disadvantaged play a fulfilling role in society. Sustainable Fiscal Policy”
“Not only is it better for the individual's sense of personal dignity, it reinforces the culture of taking steps to help oneself, rather than to wallow in one's personal misery. However, it should be recognised that those who start social enterprises are not all seasoned men or women of business. There are, it is true, successful entrepreneurs who are motivated to start such enterprises. However, there are also those who are not experienced in running start-ups but who take the plunge nonetheless out of a motivation to help others. At the same time, those who are employed by social enterprises may not be able to work at the same pace over the same output on account of personal disability. Or they may simply need more time and training to get up to the same productivity level as those employees without disability. All this means is that the first few years of the social enterprise are very challenging. This is true for any business, but particularly so for social enterprises, given the factors I have mentioned before. There are many sources of funding available for social enterprises. Obtaining funding is not a critical problem at this point in time. These funds include the ComCare Enterprise Fund, the Golden Opportunities! Fund, the Page: 128 Enhanced Open Door Fund, catering to different segments and different social interests. Many of these provide seed funding up to a specified cap and for a fixed duration like two or three years. The funding options are clearly a great help. However, in order to build a sustainable social enterprise, one which will not fail after a few years, it is important that it gets support after the initial years, to be able to carry on as a viable business.”
“However, because their donation was in the form of materials and services in constructing the centre, it attracted no tax relief for the real cost of constructing the centre. So, we have two civic-minded organisations doing their part to help those in need but with very different outcomes in terms of receiving the Government's encouragement in the form of tax relief. Page: 127 Do we really want such different results when the charitable intention is present in both cases? Do we want to force private entities to go through circuitous means to obtain the tax relief that their good work merits? Would charities attract more donations if these could be rendered in kind or in the form of services and treated the same in terms of tax relief? The last question is perhaps the most significant, and I believe the answer is yes. Like Mr Laurence Lien, I do believe that difficulties in valuation of such services can be addressed as issues of valuation are, in other aspects, the tax scope. I would, therefore, urge the Government to widen the net of donations which attract tax relief and better foster the spirit of giving. Promoting Social Enterprises Madam, social enterprise is a business that is not only focused on profit but also aims to benefit the needy, disadvantaged groups and achieve overall social change. It is a revenue-generating business, not a charity. This is the definition taken from the website of ComCare Enterprise Fund. I believe social enterprises can play a larger role in the levelling up of different stratas of society. This is because, fundamentally, those who are disadvantaged prefer to work to support themselves rather than to rely purely on handouts. It is the spirit of self-reliance which we should encourage.”
“Thank you, Mdm Chair. My first cut is on charitable donations in kind. As Singapore's success leads to rising prosperity and a growing middle and upper class, it is vital that we do not leave anyone behind. We all bear responsibility to ensure that the destitute and the disabled and those unable to fend for themselves get the support that they need. To that end, we have to foster a culture of the more able helping the less able in society. Nor is it sufficient to simply pay our taxes, whether it be income, property, vehicle taxes or GST, and leave it to the state to look after the needy. There will always be gaps in what the Government agencies can provide and always supplementary assistance that private individuals and organisations can offer. To that end, I would urge the Minister for Finance to enhance the conditions under which private entities and persons can make donations to worthy causes. Currently, charitable donations in monetary form attract 2.5 times tax relief and it is indeed heartening to note that the amounts of donations are rising each year. But donations in kind, apart from a very limited category, as enumerated by Mr Laurence Lien, or in the form of services, do not attract any relief at all. This has led to some odd results. In the high profile case brought by the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) against its former Chief Executive, a leading law firm was civic-minded enough to represent the NKF for free. But the way they had to do it was to render invoices for their legal work and then donate the fees received back to the NKF so as to obtain the proper tax reliefs. In another incident, the same charitable organisation, the NKF, had a new dialysis centre built for them by a leading construction company who charged them the princely sum of $1.”
“A point of clarification. My reference to the decisions was actually "quixote" as in Don Quixote, rather than "chaotic", as in chaos. I apologise for my poor enunciation.”
“Page: 1264 At the end of the day, the empirical data shows that Singapore has a significantly lower crime rate, especially for serious crimes. A lower recividism rate for ex-convicts, a lower rate of drug addiction and abuse. Our criminal justice regime includes the death penalty and mandatory sentences as key features. We would temper with that at our own peril. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. 4.37 pm”
“Hence, we have mandatory death sentences for drug trafficking because Parliament considers the serious damage that drugs can cause to many, many victims, including their families, demands that wrongdoers pay the ultimate penalty. Similarly, the mandatory sentences for rape and sex crimes against children are underpinned by the regard, the concern for their welfare and the imperative of deterring criminals who seek to prey on them. We do not have those sensational outcomes that you read about from other countries where perpetrators walk away from a serious crime unscathed in part because Parliament has seen fit to mandate the punishment to fit the crime. This is not to say that all mandatory sentences are good things and I was heartened to note that the Minister for Law, in his opening speech on the Penal Code amendments, said that they are the exceptions rather than the rule. One may recall the attempt to clamp down on the harbouring of illegal aliens by imposing jail terms. This was under the Immigration Act on offenders even when they have been misled by the illegal aliens as to their credentials. Unless the persons who had led them into their home had checked his original passport and work permit, the courts had no choice but to sentence them to jail. And among those who suffered imprisonment before the law was changed were a priest and an elderly grandmother. So, I do hope that the Ministry of Law not stop at the mandatory death sentences for murder but carry out a wholesale review of the mandatory sentences in our Penal Code and other penal statutes to see if they are properly calibrated for the interest they seek to protect or simply to see whether or not some of them may have outlived their usefulness.”
“In my view, it continues to be relevant to this very day. Page: 1263 What about mandatory sentences and whether we should give judges unfettered discretion to impose the particular sentence for each case? In a parliamentary sovereign nation like Singapore, it is for Parliament to enact the laws of the land and the courts to apply them. If Parliament considers something important enough that it should require a breach of the law to be punished in a certain way, it not only can but should do so. The paradigm example is the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking which has engaged this House in vigorous debate from Monday to today. In my view, it has played an integral part in our overall zero-tolerance approach to drugs that has kept Singapore largely drug-free, especially compared to other developed nations and even some of our neighbours in the region, and the Minister for Law had some sobering statistics to refer to in his reply on the Misuse of Drugs Bill. Yet, another example, lest one thinks that mandatory death sentences are only confined to death penalty, is the mandatory imprisonment for rape offences. Many of us would have come across cases in other countries where convicted rapists walk free with a fine or suspended sentence because the particular judge felt there that that was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Amidst all the outrage and protests that such decisions provoke, one cannot help but think that the problem would have been averted if judges did not have that much discretion. What lies at the heart of mandatory sentences is the interest which Parliament deems so important to protect that it cannot be left to the discretion of individual judges.”
“Another Member pressed for the removal of mandatory sentences generally, arguing that the courts should have full discretion to mete out punishment according to the facts of each case. I respect those views coming from Members who are speaking from their conscience but I do not agree with them. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Law, in their responses on the Misuse of Drugs Bill, spoke powerfully and eloquently on those topics, and allow me to add my brief comments to that debate. First, whether we should continue to have the death penalty. We are not the only country to have such a penalty and certainly not the only developed nation which has this on our Statute books. It is said to be barbaric, based on medieval concepts of retribution, and that we should temper justice with mercy in not putting the worst offender to death. But I believe that justice and mercy are a two-way street. While we should rightfully have concern for the position of the convicted murderer or drug trafficker, what about their victims? Are they not entitled to protection under the law as well? Does this protection not require that the punishment fit the crime? And does this protection entail that the punishment be severe enough to deter others from going down the same lawless route? It is, afterall, deterrence, not retribution, that guides modern sentencing policy, and the paramount objective is to protect future victims from suffering a similar fate. Seen against that backdrop, the death penalty serves a vital purpose of deterring by simply scaring would-be criminals from carrying out the most serious of crimes. In that regard, the Deputy Prime Minister referred to the sharp drop in offences for kidnapping and firearms after the mandatory death penalty was introduced.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amendments to the Penal Code centre on the introduction of the judicial discretion to not impose the death sentence for non-intentional killing. This marks a significant change to the former penalty regime where all forms of murder were punished with the mandatory death sentence. Page: 1262 I welcome this change. There is a difference between someone who intends to commit murder who will still be sentenced to death and one who does not but should know that the injury he intends to inflict may very well cause death. Although still wrong, it reflects a lower level of culpability which should, in the appropriate circumstances, be met with something less than the ultimate sentence of death. Sometimes, judges are faced with the moral dilemma of whether to apply the law in its strictest sense, and convict someone who did not intend to kill or murder, knowing it will attract the harshest sentence on our Statute books. This has sometimes led to the occasional odd result where the criteria for the accused to be convicted of the lesser offence of manslaughter, which does not carry the mandatory death penalty, to be applied in an uncharacteristically liberal way. This is not to criticise our courts as, in such cases, both prosecutor and defence counsel can perceive the horns of the dilemma that the courts are perched on. The proposed amendments would, hopefully, put an end to such quixotic decisions. In the debate on the Misuse of Drugs Bill – which also introduced a judicial discretion to not impose a death sentence – in that case, for the less serious forms of drug trafficking, there were calls by one Member of the House to do away with the death penalty altogether.”
“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 4.59 pm”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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 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".”
“" 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.”
“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: 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.”
“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. 4.42 pm Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): 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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”