Edwin Tong Chun Fai
Singapore
“These questions have been answered in the reply to Questions Nos 26 to 31 for Oral Answer on today's Order Paper. [Please refer to "Addressing Issues Identified in Legal Profession Sustainability Study", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time secti…”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association. The Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme was first introduced in June 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic with two key objectives: one, to help Singaporean households cope with daily expenses; and two, to support hawker…”
“If the incident is a result of bilateral obligations relating to data protection and inviolability of equipment not being complied with, then the Government will consider all available legal and diplomatic options, in accordance with the bilateral RTS Link treaties, as well as the relevant international law.”
“In 2024, community sentences under part 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (CPC) were imposed in 86 criminal cases handled by the State Courts.”
“It is a five-minute journey across both ways; and with the availability of closed circuit television coverage and the real-time monitoring that will be done by the officers on both sides, we did not think that this will be necessary.”
“The Ministry of Law will provide an oral reply to this Parliamentary Question, together with other Parliamentary Questions which have been filed on this topic at the next available opportunity.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,221 lines we hold for Edwin Tong Chun Fai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 45 of 45.
“Mdm Speaker, since the White Paper was released last week, most debates, discussions and commentaries, in the print or social media, and even coffeeshop talk, have been defined by one number – 6.9 million. That figure represents a population size that is 30% more than what we have today. When this figure was released, a very natural response from Singaporeans was to find a way to relate this to their own experiences. So, people will naturally draw from their own memory, from their own encounters in the crowded train, the traffic jam, the long wait for the HDB flat – and wonder what it might be like if it were to be 30% worse. And they would then conclude that it would not be a very pretty picture. That picture, however, has formed the backdrop of the various debates and discussions which have been going on. Population is an emotional topic and has been for many years, an issue which the Government has grappled with many times in the past. Previously, Singaporeans have been asked to stop at two. Later, it was to have three or more if you can afford it. Singaporeans accepted them. Then there was also the Graduate Mothers' Scheme which was not quite so well accepted. The proposal in the White Paper is an altogether more challenging one. We live on a small island with limited resources. We have just come off the back of an unprecedented population growth fuelled almost entirely by immigration. Singaporeans feel crowded out, and indeed we have been behind the curve in terms of aligning the relative growths in foreign workforce with housing, transport and other infrastructural needs as Members have just heard. The Government has been working very hard to address these concerns, but that Page: 105 still remains very much a work in progress.”
“A form of legal aid existed since 1956, even before the Legal Aid and Advice Bill came forth. There were, of course, criteria set, suitable for that period of time and the development of Singapore then. Free legal representation was provided then when necessary to even persons charged with murder. Then Minister for Social Welfare, Lee Yew Hock, stated that the principle on which the case for legal aid legislation might be based on is in the magna carta which states, "To no man will we deny, to no man will we sell or delay justice or right". There is, after all, a need to provide legal aid and ensure success of the judicial system and its equal opportunity to all; rich or poor. I would like to ask the Minister of State: can we consider perhaps in selective cases, some sort of criminal legal aid assistance. After all, in cases of criminal prosecution, too, the poor and the low income will not be able to afford a lawyer and, indeed, a heavy stake is involved as he could end up in prison, affecting his life, his family and his children's future. Currently, these people can only get assistance under the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme from the Law Society, if they are lucky and, of course, there are no guarantees. Thus, in the name of supporting liberty and livelihood, I would like to propose if we can indeed consider assistance of some sort to these low income, needy and poor cases, maybe even in a more selective manner to start off. With that, Madam, I support the Bill.”
“I referred her to LAB for assistance, only to be given a rejection after several weeks. I re-appealed, of course. Somehow, the reply came with the same fate. Thus, I made a referral to the then MCYS, only to be told she needed the services of a pro bono legal representative from The Law Society, understandably. She, then, saw the legal representative from the Law Society, who then told her she should go back to LAB, as her case should be handled there! And, of course, she came back to me. It has been some four times since she has come to see me and the case continues, now into its twelfth month, going back and forth. The reason for rejection given by LAB was due to the fact that she herself has a life insurance policy whose surrender value is $40,000. She had purchased this a long time ago when she started working. The surrender value of the policy has to be taken into consideration when assessing her assets. However, you and I know that this is not fluid cash for her and her family at this point in time. I certainly hope something positive can come out of this amendment Bill to assist people like her, instead of having them go round and round like this. Now, with the "disregard of up to $46,000 of the surrender value of life insurance policies", under disposable income, it will benefit others in a similar predicament. Page: 61 Now, Madam, the new Bill will also cover proceedings, previously heard before the Commissioner of Labour, cases for workman injury compensation and also Syariah court appeals. However, what is still lacking is coverage for criminal legal assistance. Sir David Marshall, then Chief Minister of Singapore, said that a service like that provided by the LAB is "essential in every democratic society to help the poor".”
“This is in line with the vision of Legal Aid Bureau, which is blazing trails in the compassionate practice of law. It is also welcomed by many of my residents who have had their cases rejected due to not meeting the previous criteria. With this amendment Bill, more people will qualify for legal aid assistance. It is thus anticipated that Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) will be seeing an increase in the number of applications. What will be its strategy to manage this increase? Will it be possible to get more qualified volunteers or will LAB likely have to work with private companies and Page: 60 volunteers and also the Law Society through its pro bono services? Along the same lines, can I enquire on the average number of referrals annually to LAB for the last three years? How many were approved? And of the rejected cases, what were the circumstances? Are these due to not meeting eligibility criteria or other reasons? Also, what proportion of the referred cases were matrimonial-related or divorce-related cases? For cases involving minors, Madam, the Bill states that the Director will have the discretion in decision making. I would like to ask, should we not at least set some minimum, flexible guidelines or criteria, as a reference? Now, let me share an anecdote based on a real case in my constituency. A single parent who lived in my ward passed on, leaving behind two children who were in Primary school. Her sister, who was going to take charge of the children, came to see me to seek advice on legal procedures for formal guardianship. This happened in February 2012. One year ago. She had already taken the children in and was taking care of them and looking after them. She herself has got aged parents to look after and she works in the clerical line.”
“Would the Minister consider requiring our law students in our two law schools to undergo a mandatory programme on pro bono activities in order to sensitise them to the value of this unique service to society? Such a public interest lawyering programme need not necessarily be about clocking hours performing service, given the safeguards on the rendering of legal advice under the Legal Profession Act. Rather, such a programme should nudge our aspiring lawyers to appreciate the centrality of legal aid and pro bono work in the well-being of our society's administration of justice, and how that helps to keep the various legal actors accountable in a system of justice that strives to be built on the rule of law. Mdm Speaker, it is my hope that our framework and process of legal aid would more extensively involve non-lawyers as well, such as mediators and social workers. Access to justice need not necessarily be confined to access to a lawyer. While the Ministry of Law has actively promoted alternative dispute resolution (ADR), there is also the perception that ADR is all about compromise, or even the displacement of rights, even in relational disputes. This perception must be arrested to ensure greater confidence in ADR. Finally, I would urge the Government to review the means test more regularly, perhaps every two to three years. The means test must keep pace, not lag behind, the change in the cost of living, as well as any other factors that may contribute to more persons of limited means requiring legal aid. Madam, I support this Bill. 3.46 pm Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Madam, I support the Bill and the expansion in the criteria for eligibility and coverage.”
“Mdm Speaker, the responsibility for the legal aid scheme cannot just rest with the Government. To be sure, the State's provision of a well-funded legal aid scheme is necessary. But that is insufficient to develop and sustain a compassionate legal aid scheme. For the legal aid scheme to function purposively and with compassion, the role of assigned solicitors is extremely important. And I say this while also recognising the important role that the legal officers in the Legal Aid Bureau play. Not many legal officers would choose a posting to the Legal Aid Bureau, which is typically not regarded as glamorous. So, in this regard, legal aid must epitomise the best of the legal profession and what the law and the legal system can do to ensure that fairness and justice are not just motherhood statements but are lived realities in our society. Money alone is grossly inadequate in delivering the quality of legal aid and advice to those who need such help most and, in the most serious cases, protecting a person's fundamental right of access to justice, be it in the civil or criminal arenas. In this regard, I welcome the formation of the Pro Bono Development Unit within the Legal Aid Bureau in 2011 and I hope that more efforts will be made to encourage pro bono work. Mdm Speaker, I hope that the legal fraternity would fully embrace pro bono work, looking at it not so much as a form of social responsibility but – more importantly – to regard it as a noble privilege and a tangible commitment to the sustenance of a legal system that is accessible to all and to ensure that one's Page: 59 rights are sufficiently protected.”
“Madam, I have three questions at this juncture for the Minister. First, could the Minister enlighten the House on the considerations that drove the review of the Act and the means test, as well as how the quantum of increase in disposable income before a person would qualify for legal aid was arrived at? Second, could the disposal income level be increased before a person is eligible for legal aid? For example, to qualify for legal aid after the proposed amendments, the indicative income level for a person with no dependant is a gross monthly income of $1,666.67, or about $20,000 per annum, after taking into account the permitted deductibles. This is an increase from the current existing rates. Would the Minister elaborate how this minimum threshold Page: 58 income is determined? Why $10,000? Why not a figure which is higher? A third question is: why are Singapore Citizens and permanent residents treated equally when it comes to the provision of the grant of legal aid and advice? Should permanent residents not be required to satisfy a higher threshold when it comes to means testing? I welcome clause 21 of the Bill which refines the means test for matrimonial cases in which minors are involved. Minors should be adequately protected and the limited means of their parents should not compromise their rights and interests. This Bill also seeks to provide for the Director of Legal Aid to have greater discretion and flexibility in the administration of the legal aid scheme. I support this provision to give the Director of Legal Aid greater discretion. Our legal aid scheme cannot be so overly rigid if the Legal Aid Bureau is to meaningfully fulfil its mission of "blazing trails in the compassionate practice of the law".”
“In fact, today's amendments recognise specifically that, to take the example that the earlier Member cited, for the deduction of rental relief that has gone up from $1,000 to $20,000, taking into account today's prevailing open market rates for HDB housing. This shows that there could be really large swings in the threshold levels between the time Page: 57 that the Act is amended to update these threshold levels. Giving the Director a broader discretion would mean that the Act does not have to be amended each time the qualifying criteria become outdated or need to be amended. And it would certainly also reduce the risk of an applicant falling foul of the means test for no other reason than because market rates have moved on. Madam, with that, I support this Bill. 3.39 pm Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene: Mdm Speaker, the proposed amendments before us today will help improve access to justice, and reinforce the principle that every Singapore Citizen must be afforded justice, in both substance and availability, regardless of one's financial status. We cannot have a legal system in which access to justice is divided between the "haves" and the "have-nots". The means test was last revised in 2007. This review and revision is needed so that the means test is kept sufficiently robust to ensure that the rise in income levels and costs of living do not result in fewer deserving people qualifying for legal aid. Madam, I welcome the proposal to expand the coverage of legal aid for persons of limited means. The deductions applicable when calculating disposable income would increase to $6,000, from $4,500, for the legal aid applicant; and $6,000, from $3,500, for each dependant. These are significant increases and I welcome them.”
“In fact, in 1995, when the then Minister for Law introduced this provision into the Act, he cited as an example of a public interest exception, the victims of the Spyros incident which took place in 1978 in Singapore. And that, we know, was one of the largest industrial accidents in Singapore. Hence, I would echo the earlier Member, Mr Hri Kumar, in suggesting that the Legal Aid Director be given a broader discretion to consider all relevant circumstances in a situation where the applicant has not passed the means test. This would not be an altogether new proposition as the comparable legislation in Australia and the UK already provide for the relevant authority there to have discretion to decide, based on a range of relevant circumstances and criteria which evaluates not only the financial means for that particular applicant but also the complexity of the legal case in question and what other serious alternatives to litigation that the applicant might have. Under section 8(3) of the Act, the Director is already conferred a discretion to deny the grant of legal aid even if the means criteria have been satisfied. What I am seeking is to ask: why not give him a similar discretion the other way round – to consider the grant of legal aid, notwithstanding that the means test has not been satisfied. In such a situation, the grant could be on a limited basis, or possibly on an enhanced co-payment basis so that only genuinely needy cases would be assisted. Having an unbending financial means criterion which just looks at numbers alone does not always meet the ends of justice. The last amendment to the Act, as the Minister pointed out, was done in 2007. Income levels, inflation rates move.”
“Whilst these revisions go a long way towards ensuring that a broader spectrum of society would not be disqualified on the means test alone – there is also the merits test – I wonder if the Minister would be prepared to consider giving additional discretion to the Director to grant legal aid in circumstances where the applicant otherwise fails to meet the criteria. Mdm Speaker, I raise this because, even after these amendments today, the qualifying criteria remain an absolute one, apart from some additional considerations which the Director already has by virtue of paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule and through the additional amendments that are being introduced today. Paragraph 6, in particular, is limited in application to only certain specific category of persons, and even then, there is a cap on the additional deduction which can be given. The Act otherwise provides no latitude Page: 56 for re-consideration once the criterion is exceeded, however minimally. In the case of my resident, the letter he received from the Legal Aid Bureau stated specifically that the criterion was a statutory requirement and they were unable to waive it. The only other recourse in such a situation is for the applicant to appeal to the Minister. Under section 8(4) of the Act, which was introduced in 1995, the Minister may authorise the Director of Legal Aid to grant aid to any applicant who does not qualify if it is in the public interest to do so. However, it is difficult to imagine a situation where an individual or an applicant would be able to satisfy the public interest element to persuade the Minister to exercise his discretion to grant him legal aid.”
“The objective was to make legal aid and advice more readily available to persons of limited means. Under the present means criteria, the entire amount of an applicant's surrender value on any life insurance policy would be taken into account. In other words, a surrender value of $10,000 or more, even on a life policy, would automatically disqualify an applicant, even if that applicant has got no other assets or is unemployed and has no income. A surrender value of $10,000 on a policy is not very high and, more often than not, taken out at an earlier stage of their lives in order to mitigate against the occurrence of accidents or other unfortunate rainy day incidents. This really ought not count against an applicant when he or she applies for legal aid. More importantly, unlike other forms of disposable capital, such as a motor car or property or shares, an applicant should really not be expected to dispose of his life insurance policy just to fund his legal expenditure. During the debate on last year's Budget, I had inquired if the Minister could consider reviewing the qualifying criteria used for means testing. These criteria have now, through these amendments, been refined and include revising the deductions in income levels to account for the increase in basic living expenditure, and also deductions in rental relief and life insurance policies. These changes would allow the Director, Legal Aid, to better assess the true financial ability of an applicant to have access to legal aid. I, therefore, support these amendments.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Before I begin, I should state that I am a member of the Legal Aid Bureau's panel of solicitors. Mdm Speaker, a few weeks ago, I made an appeal on behalf of a resident who came to see me. He is 51 years old, married with two children of school-going age. He ran a small business which did not succeed. Over the years, he had stopped work to look after his two children. His wife was the sole breadwinner of the family. Last year, after 16 years of marriage, his wife filed papers in Court to get a divorce. She also asked to be given sole care and control of the children. He was served with court papers by his wife through her lawyers. He came to see me because he needed assistance and also legal representation in court. He was, however, denied assistance by the Legal Aid Bureau. He held a life insurance policy where the surrender value exceeded $10,000. Hence, he failed to qualify under one of the double-barrelled means criteria. He went on to get some other pro bono assistance from legal clinics and other sources, but, today, he remains unrepresented in court. Mdm Speaker, this is not too infrequent an occurrence. Access to justice, as the Senior Minister of State pointed out, is a cornerstone-principle of our legal system. It is important for us to ensure that legal costs should never be prohibitive, and should never be a reason for a person to be denied justice. Page: 55 Chief Justice Menon made this point just a few days ago when he spoke at the opening of the 2013 inaugural Litigation Conference. He said, and I quote: "It is cold comfort to those who seek justice to say that we have a great legal system, if it is priced out of their reach." It is with this as its driving purpose that the Legal Aid Bureau was set up in 1956.”
“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”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”