K Shanmugam
Singapore
“Bank accounts are frozen when there is reason to suspect that the bank accounts are involved in illicit activities, including money laundering activities.”
“The Singapore Police Force does not track the requested data. Distinguishing artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content typically requires more detailed forensic examination which may not be necessary in every investigation and may also not be conclusive as to whether AI-generative tools were used.”
“The Building and Construction Authority’s Code on Accessibility provides baseline requirements for accessible and inclusive buildings. It stipulates a minimum width of 1.5 metres or 1.8 metres for primary accessible routes, depending on the building type.”
“The Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Driving Licence) Rules under the Road Traffic Act set out the scope of the medical assessment required for motorists aged 65 and above who wish to retain their driving licences.”
“When a Police report has been made, the Police will investigate to determine if a criminal offence has been committed. If there is reasonable suspicion that a case is scam-related, the Police can direct online service providers to restrict Singapore users' access to the relevant online activity under the Online Criminal Harms Act.”
“Through intelligence sharing and coordinated enforcement actions, the cross-border operation disrupted a transnational drug trafficking syndicate and downstream drug trafficking activities, with the UK arresting seven persons so far and further investigations underway.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,552 lines we hold for K Shanmugam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 79 of 92.
“Twenty twelve was not a year that ASEAN could be particularly proud of. Its unity and credibility were painfully tested by the South China Sea issue during Cambodia's chairmanship. On-going developments in South China Sea Page: 24 will continue to present challenges. The initiation of arbitration proceedings by the Philippines against China was a national decision of the Philippines. ASEAN was not consulted. China has decided not to participate in the Tribunal hearings. But that is not the end of the story. The Tribunal may proceed even without China's participation. We can only hope that all parties will remain calm. ASEAN's and Singapore's positions remain unchanged on these issues. ASEAN's six-point principle issued on 20 July 2012 called for formal negotiations on a Code of Conduct (COC). Singapore's position is as stated in our Press Release of 23 January 2013. ASEAN and China held several rounds of informal consultations on the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties (DOC) in the South China Sea and COC at officials' level over the past year. Senior officials from ASEAN and China will meet next month in Beijing. ASEAN is united in the view that formal discussions between all 10 ASEAN members and China on the COC should begin as soon as possible. It is important for ASEAN to regain unity and credibility by realising community-building targets by 31 December 2015. ASEAN Economic Community and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) present opportunities for Singapore. We will remain relevant and effective, and taking positions on key issues affecting our region, including the South China Sea. It is also important for ASEAN to retain its central role in the regional architecture, particularly in the East Asia Summit.”
“Madam, I thank Members for questions on Singapore's foreign relations. My fellow officeholders and I will answer the questions. Let me start with an overview. The external environment for 2013 will continue to be challenging because the fragile international economic and financial situation will continue. There is a deficit in global leadership. The United States is still the only truly global power. Its leadership role is indispensable for the foreseeable future but it is preoccupied domestically. It needs to overcome its domestic political gridlock to jumpstart the economy. China is reluctant to assume greater responsibilities of global leadership, preoccupied with maintaining domestic stability and sustaining economic growth. If you look at other major countries globally and in the region, the European Union, Japan, Republic of Korea, India, as well as multi-national institutions, they are not yet ready for truly global leadership. We are living through a period of transition and adjustment as relative power balances are adjusted. So, the geopolitical environment will continue to be volatile and, in our own region, that is reflected in enhanced tensions – such as the maritime claims, for example, the China-Japan, South China Sea issues. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Hawazi Daipi, Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about the recent developments in the region, including the South China Sea dispute and its implications on Singapore and ASEAN. Strengthening regional relationships is the key to protecting our interests in this unpredictable environment. ASEAN reflects as well as mitigates diversities inherent in the region. It is strategically vital to Singapore as a buffer as well as an influence multiplier.”
“In 2011, Singapore extended our contributions to the IAI for another four years from 2012 to 2015. This is our fourth pledge of S$50 million, bringing our contributions to a total of about S$170 million. Singapore will continue to do what is within our means, both bilaterally and through ASEAN, to help Myanmar with its reform efforts.”
“The US lifted a nearly decade-old ban on most imports from Myanmar in November 2012, just before a historic visit by President Barack Obama, while the EU earlier announced that it would suspend most sanctions. Japan has decided to waive more than half of Myanmar’s debts. Such steps send a clear signal that the international community wants to help Myanmar integrate into the global system, which would in turn improve the lives of its Page: 129 people. Myanmar will hold the Chairmanship of ASEAN in 2014. This will be an important Chairmanship, coming just before ASEAN's goal of achieving an ASEAN Community in 2015. Myanmar is working hard to ensure a successful Chairmanship year with the support of the ASEAN Member States. On our part, Singapore will continue to provide capacity building programmes for Myanmar officials in preparation for their Chairmanship, and to help Myanmar deliver a successful outcome. These are part of the broader support that Singapore, as a neighbour and a fellow ASEAN member, has given to Myanmar's reform efforts. In January 2012, we signed the Singapore-Myanmar Technical Cooperation Programme MOU during President Thein Sein's State Visit to Singapore. Under this MOU and other existing training programmes, we provide training to Myanmar in economic development, human resource development, and public administration, which Myanmar has identified as priority areas for development. Our bilateral assistance complements the technical assistance that ASEAN continues to provide to Myanmar through the Initiative for ASEAN Integration or IAI. The IAI aims to help ASEAN member states such as Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and indeed, Myanmar, narrow the development gap to achieve the vision of an ASEAN Community.”
“Myanmar's reform efforts over the past year have been significant. At the 14 May sitting last year, I informed the House that the ASEAN Leaders had welcomed Myanmar’s free and fair by-elections of 1 April 2012, in line with ASEAN’s support for Myanmar's implementation of its Seven-Step Roadmap to Democracy. The by-elections brought Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy, into Myanmar’s Parliament for the first time. Since then, the Myanmar government has continued to make progress. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is now an active participant in the Parliamentary and national reconciliation process. Reforms in several areas have been implemented. President Thein Sein has reiterated his government’s commitment to improve governance and bring about people-centred development. Myanmar passed its new Foreign Investment Law last November. Their government has stated that it is committed to the reform process and the socio-economic development of its people. The road ahead, nevertheless, remains challenging due to Myanmar's many developmental needs, particularly in human resource development. The country needs the continued support of the international community to tackle these challenges and maintain momentum for its reforms. For this reason, ASEAN has consistently maintained that sanctions on Myanmar should be lifted to encourage broad-based development and help Myanmar's government to continue on the path of reform. ASEAN is thus heartened that our long-standing advocacy has found resonance with the international community. Many countries have recognised and reciprocated the positive steps taken by Myanmar's government over the past year.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the hon Member for accepting that our position is even-handed, welcoming it, and recognising it as pro-peace. As I have stated before, if the hon Member believes that our voting position should change, he can let us know, and we will give his views serious consideration. I also thank him for his suggestion that our position on this issue be profiled. We have been setting out our position publicly, regularly, including in Parliament. We will continue to do so and see how we can follow up on his suggestions to further profile our foreign policies. Thank you.”
“The current state of good bilateral relations between Singapore and China should not be affected by the change of leadership. Singapore’s good relations with China are anchored by strong and regular institutional links, such as the Joint Council for Bilateral Cooperation, as well as good personal relationships between our leaders and, most importantly, common national interests on a wide range of issues. This is evidenced by frequent high-level exchanges and close cooperation on issues of common interest, such as bilateral projects, for example, the Suzhou Industrial Park and the Tianjin Eco-city, and others at the provincial level, such as the Guangzhou Knowledge City and our Provincial Councils with provinces like Jiangsu and Sichuan. Business and people-to-people links are also robust. Many of the new Chinese leaders are already familiar with Singapore and our leaders. We look forward to continue working with them to strengthen ties between our two countries.”
“It is important that all parties refrain from provocative behaviour that could raise tensions in the SCS. Instead, ASEAN and China should find constructive ways to manage the territorial disputes. One way to do so is to fully implement the DOC, including cooperative projects which will help to build mutual trust and confidence amongst all parties. Another step that we should take is to formally negotiate a COC in the SCS. While a COC cannot and should not be aimed at resolving sovereignty disputes in the SCS, it will provide a rules-based framework to manage the disputes pending the resolution of the claims. ASEAN Member States have called upon China to begin formal discussions on a COC as soon as possible. China has told us that it is still not ready to embark on such discussions. This is China's sovereign decision and since we cannot even begin to discuss a COC without China, we have to respect its position. China has stressed that the DOC should be fully implemented first. The DOC and COC are complementary, not alternatives or sequential. There are advantages to negotiating a COC in parallel with the implementation of the DOC as the latter will build confidence that will facilitate discussions on a COC. We believe it is in the interests of all parties, in particular the claimant states, to begin discussions on a COC as soon as Page: 131 possible. We and other ASEAN Member States will continue engaging the Chinese and hope that they will see it in everyone’s interests to begin formal negotiations on a COC soon.”
“I last addressed this issue in August 2012, after the 45th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting (AMM) in July 2012, where I laid out Singapore's position and interests as well as ASEAN's. I will not repeat Page: 130 Singapore's position at length today, save to highlight two points: we are not a claimant state and we have always maintained that by their very nature, the specific territorial disputes in the South China Sea (SCS) can only be settled by the parties directly concerned. This should be done in accordance with international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. In addition, it remains a common interest for ASEAN, China and all major powers to maintain peace and stability in the SCS. ASEAN needs to work closely with China, a claimant state, to promote cooperation and manage tensions in the area. In this context, ASEAN and China have had several rounds of informal consultations at the officials' level on this issue since August 2012. These include the ASEAN-China Senior Officials' Informal Consultations on the Code of Conduct (COC) in the SCS in September 2012, the ASEAN-China Senior Officials' Retreat in Pattaya in October 2012 and the ASEAN-China Workshop on the 10th Anniversary of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) in Phnom Penh in November 2012. The issue was also discussed at the Track II level at the ASEAN-China Forum held in Singapore in November last year in which senior officials from several ASEAN countries and China participated. The common thread running through all these discussions is the recognition by all sides that we share a common interest and responsibility in maintaining peace and stability in the SCS.”
“We believe this is the best way for us to make a difference to Palestine's development. We have also a S$1 million technical assistance package for Palestine as well as post-graduate scholarships to Palestinian officials. We will continue to provide technical assistance to Palestine in areas most relevant and impactful to their development. Singapore welcomes efforts by the international community to contribute to the humanitarian development and reconstruction of Palestine. We have no current plans to donate to the World Bank's Palestine Reform and Development Plan Trust Fund. We have contributed in our own ways as I explained earlier. Singapore has also made voluntary monetary contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). We have also contributed to the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), in response to the UN agencies' joint-appeal for funds following the 2009 Gaza conflict. Page: 121”
“Nor has there been any suggestion in ASEAN circles that we are obliged to take a common position on all issues. It would be impractical, indeed impossible, in light of our diversity. Each ASEAN Member State continues to make its own foreign policy, based on its national interests. In the ASEAN way, the ten consult on issues. If there is consensus, then we act Page: 120 in unison; if there is no consensus we act nationally. ASEAN has expressed concern about the Palestinian-Israeli situation. When the most recent conflict broke out, the Chairman's Statement of the 21st ASEAN Summit included a call from ASEAN Leaders to all parties to return to the negotiation table and resolve the conflict in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions. However, ASEAN Member States continue to have different views on the best way to achieve peace. As stated earlier, Singapore believes that only a negotiated settlement consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 242 can provide the basis for a viable, long-term solution. In summary, Singapore's position on the issue of Palestinian statehood is based on certain principles and international law. As with all resolutions tabled at the UN, Singapore will vote based on our national interests as an independent and sovereign nation, regardless of the position of others. Our position on this issue is well known to all parties and has not affected our close ties with our ASEAN neighbours. Moving on to Mr Muhamad Faisal's question, Singapore has been contributing to Palestine's development primarily through technical assistance under the Singapore Cooperation Programme (SCP). We have been training Palestinian officials in areas that Singapore is strong in, such as public administration and urban planning.”
“We believe that any unilateral actions, be it by Israel or Palestine, to force a settlement of the issue will hinder rather than facilitate the peace process. We have already seen how such unilateral actions could lead to unintended results. For example, when UNESCO voted to admit Palestine as a member in 2011, the US cut its funding to the organisation. As a result, UNESCO has had to cut back on some of its programmes, given that US funding makes up 22% of its budget. We cannot dismiss the possibility that other organisations to which Palestine is also seeking membership could suffer similar results. Whatever the motivation, such unilateral actions would only politicise these organisations and hinder their primary missions. Similarly, we also do not support Israel's activities that contravene international law, including its settlement activities in the Occupied Territories. We have voted as such at the UN and also made our views known to our Israeli counterparts in bilateral meetings. If Mr Singh believes that we should change our voting stance in any way, in respect of the Palestinian issue, taking into account the answer I have given, and Singapore’s broader economic and security interests, including our economic and security relationships with our neighbours, the US, Israel and, (inter alia) the Arab countries, again he can let us know clearly. We will take careful note of his views when we consider this issue again. Mr Singh has also asked about ASEAN. Given the increasing complexity of global challenges, ASEAN Member States have sought to enhance their coordination on global issues of common interest. However, ASEAN is not the European Union. ASEAN does not have a common foreign and security policy that binds all Member States.”
“There are two questions related to Palestine and I will take them together. With reference to Mr Pritam Singh's question, Singapore’s position on the UN resolution has not made us neither more nor less vulnerable to terrorism. If we had a different position on this issue it would not have reduced the threat to us either. Singapore continues to be vigilant because the threat of terrorism to Singapore, regardless of our voting position on this or other issues, remains a constant challenge. Hon Members will recall that we faced a serious threat from Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) in 2001, the radical group linked to Al Qaeda. The JI's aim was, and remains, the forcible imposition of a pan-Islamic caliphate in Southeast Asia. The Hon Member can let the House know whether he believes that a change in our voting position will make us more secure, and I will take serious note if indeed those are his views. Let me also take this opportunity to make Singapore’s position on Palestine clear. Singapore supports the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland. Singapore issued a statement welcoming the proclamation of a Palestinian state in 1988. Apart from the resolution on Palestine's Observer State status, there are approximately 19 resolutions on various Palestinian-related issues tabled each year at the UN General Assembly. Singapore has consistently Page: 119 voted in favour of all of them. However, Singapore abstained on the Non-Member Observer State resolution because we believe that only a negotiated settlement consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 242 can provide the basis for a viable, long-term solution. Both Israel and Palestine have legitimate rights and shared responsibilities. They must both be prepared to make compromises in order to achieve a lasting peace.”
“The relative weight of China is growing. I am not one of those who believe that the US is in permanent decline. Nevertheless, the respective levels of influence, there will be a relative shift. And Singapore's position has consistently been to be good friends of both. That is in our interest, and that will continue to be in our interest. Would that be a challenge-free Page: 29 approach? It really depends on how the state of relationships between US and China develops. It could develop in a way that makes it challenging for all of us who are friends with both countries, and we will just have to adapt to that.”
“At this stage, of course, we do not have a new Secretary of State or Secretary of Defence. Nominations have been made. If those nominations go through, we have reasons to believe that the American policy towards Southeast Asia and East Asia will continue to be what it has been so far. The policy the last time round was put together by the Administration together with the State department. As I said earlier, these policies are based on national interests, which do not vary from Administration to Administration, and US policy towards Asia has been essentially bipartisan, so we expect that that will continue. As regards the dynamics of the US relationship with China with new leadership in both countries, as the Member might know, I made a major speech in Turkey last week, or the week before, and our own assessment is that the US and China now have many touch-points, many bilateral routes of engagement, and they understand the need to accommodate each other and each other's interests and work out a modus vivendi that would not endanger peace. There are certainly risks. We see in newspaper reports of tensions rising or potential clashes and so on, so let us not underestimate the risks. In fact, over the last few years, the risks have grown. But, fundamentally, we believe that it is in both their interests and our interests that they come to some accommodation. Whether they will indeed do so, whether everything will be peaceful, I cannot assure you. If that does not happen and tensions rise, it can be pretty severe for the region and for us. Regular incidents of naval craft or aircraft confronting each other, of course, impact on how we view the situation.”
“US and China would have to find a way of dealing with each other that does not affect the peace in this region. And we believe that, broadly, that will be achieved. As regards specifically on ASEAN, there would always be a temptation by one country or another to see if they can get closer to some ASEAN countries. Again, we must expect all major countries to act in their own interest, but we have made the point quite forcefully that a united ASEAN better serves the interests of the major powers. Because ASEAN, with 600 million people and growth at about somewhere around 5% or so, and with the regional economy close to US$2 trillion, is poised for take-off. If our ASEAN vision comes through and the connectivity comes through, we will have roads, railroads, better connections, and the economies will become intermeshed. As a result of which it provides tremendous opportunities for the US, Japan and China. So, a united, prosperous, successful ASEAN is in everyone's interest. A divided ASEAN is in no one's interest. And that is the message that Singapore continues to give.”
“First, on the leadership changes and the shifting balances as well as the growing nationalism within the countries, and how that might impact on the region. I think, fundamentally, we must expect all countries to act in their own interest. That must be so for big powers and the way Singapore has put the message across is that peace and prosperity in this region for the last 50 years have been maintained by a number of principles, but, primarily, by making sure that the region is stable. And stability has been Page: 27 brought about by a strong American presence as well as an acceptance by everyone that open trade, free trade and building up linkages, creating an ASEAN architecture and regional architecture on that base, have been the fundamentals of prosperity. And that should continue. That is in America's interest, as well as in China's interest – that we have a strong and credible ASEAN and that we have freedom of navigation across both sides. We are putting forward a number of ideas for that, for example, encouraging the claimant countries, the various countries which are claiming in the South China Sea, to agree to a Code of Conduct that everyone can be a party to. The issues relating to sovereignty – who owns what – are not likely to be resolved in our lifetimes. So, really, the approach is to try and put that on the back burner, and agree on a way in which countries can relate to each other and co-operate with each other, and what can be done and what cannot be done. That would preserve peace. And we welcome the growth of China. It has been an unmitigated positive for all of Asia. We have over $50 billion invested. China's growth is a continued fundamental for our own success and for the region's success.”
“Many new Chinese leaders are already familiar with Singapore and our leaders. Our relations are built on a foundation of strong, regular institutional links, for example, the Joint Council for Bilateral Co-operation, and we have common interests on a wide range of issues. The strength of our relationship is evidenced by the frequent high-level exchanges and close co-operation on several bilateral projects, for example, the Suzhou Industrial Park and the Tianjin Eco-city, and others at the provincial level, for example, the Guangzhou Knowledge City, as well as the Provincial Councils with provinces like Jiangsu and Sichuan. The business-to-business as well as people-to-people links are also robust. We look forward to continue working well with the new Chinese leaders to further strengthen ties between the two countries.”
“Mdm Speaker, Dr Lim asked about the implications for Singapore in respect of the outcome of the recent US Presidential Election as well as the leadership renewal in China. First, if I may look at the US. Singapore and the US have consistently enjoyed good relations through successive Administrations. The relationship is anchored by strong cooperation. We have many areas of common interests across a range of issues. The institutionalisation of the US-Singapore Strategic Partnership Dialogue in 2012 is an example of the ever-strengthening bilateral links. Both sides continue to engage each other and carry out high-level exchanges to maintain the good personal relationships that already exist at several levels. And we will continue to further broaden and deepen the current state of good bilateral relationships. The US' continued presence in Asia has contributed to the region's prosperity and security. One strength of the US' Asia-Pacific strategy over the last 30 years has been that it is essentially bipartisan and remaining steady and consistent through successive Administrations. With President Obama's re- Page: 26 election, we can expect continuity on US' policy on Asia and the President's first overseas visit after re-election was to our region, amongst others to attend the Seventh East Asia Summit and the Fourth ASEAN-US Leaders Meeting. That sent a strong signal of his Administration's continued commitment to this region. We hope that the new Secretary of State will also make an early visit to the region and participate in ASEAN meetings. Now, looking at China, we enjoy a close co-operative relationship with China and we do not expect the relationship to be affected by the leadership transition. Indeed, we expect it to be strong.”
“Mdm Speaker, the actions by some of the SMRT drivers from China have been and are being dealt with in accordance with our laws. Our laws apply equally to all Singaporeans and foreigners residing in Singapore. So, we see this strictly as a matter of law enforcement and do not expect the incident to affect relations between Singapore and China.”
“China and Japan are the second and third largest economies in the world respectively. Both are also bound to the largest economy, the US, by intimate and complex ties of interdependency. Any prolonged period of political tensions between China and Japan that affect their economic relationship is, therefore, bound to have an eventual impact on the world economy and thus on all countries, including China, Japan and, of course, Singapore. At this point, the extent of the impact is as yet uncertain. But given the fragility of the world economy, we hope that they will settle their differences as soon as possible. This is in their own interests and in the interests of the international community as a whole. Page: 1301”
“The processes in the Bill which involve the President are technical in nature. Asst Prof Tan has used phrases like "rubber stamp" and so on. But it is the Constitution that sets out the role of the President, including that on these issues. The Constitution provides that he acts on the advice of the Cabinet and that has a very specific technical meaning, which is, perhaps, not often understood by laypersons but which Asst Prof Tan would well appreciate. It means that the President has to act in accordance with the advice given by the Cabinet and not in his discretion. Where the Constitution intends to give the President specific powers to act in his own discretion, it says so expressly. There is no intention of changing that, nor would we be able to change that through ordinary legislation. The President will continue to act on the advice of Cabinet in deciding clemency petitions, as required under the Constitution. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] Page: 1279 [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. − [Mr K Shanmugam]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)] Page: 1279”
“I think we want to give the broadest possible flexibility to the Court of Appeal. If you have a strict requirement that the Court of Appeal should hear both parties, in a situation where neither party has filed an appeal, that could frustrate what the Court of Appeal is trying to do. Here, what we are trying to do is something good, which is to introduce an additional safeguard, and I am sure that the Court of Appeal will observe the rules of natural justice and, where it is necessary, hear both parties. Sometimes, it may not be practicable or possible to hear both parties. But I think we can leave that to the discretion of the Court of Appeal. Our intention is to give the Court of Appeal a broad discretion with the understanding, of course, that the Court of Appeal will act in accordance with the rules of natural justice. You have seen the framework. As for Asst Prof Tan, if I follow him rightly, the point he made was whether we can go back to the system of two Judges. This was something which we changed at the request of the Courts – to have one trial Judge instead of two. We have certainly not had a request from the Courts to revert to the old system. The last time we reviewed it, we were of the view that it is adequate to have a system with a single trial Judge whose verdict is reviewed by the Court of Appeal. We have not seen anything to change that view but we will keep in mind what you have said. Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene: Would the Minister be able to clarify the role of the President in the review process?”
“There was no intention of changing that. That is why I say it is syntax: whether it should be carried out includes whether it should or should not be carried out. I have said that openly here in Parliament. I know that it reads "whether it should be carried". The Member's concern is, previously, it was slightly broader in language. I can confirm that there is no intention of changing that.”
“Sir, I thank the Members who spoke. Ms Lee welcomes the amendments, as do Ms Lim and Asst Prof Tan. Ms Lim had a couple of questions. For the first question, I am not sure I followed very carefully. The current requirement is that the trial judge must, within a reasonable time after a period had lapsed, send to the Minister, a copy of the notes of evidence taken at the trial with a report in writing signed by him stating whether, in his opinion, there are any reasons and, if so, what are the reasons why the death sentence should or should not be carried out. What is now happening is that the Court of Appeal is inserted in the middle because even if there is no appeal, the matter must go to the Court of Appeal. Page: 1277 The new requirement under subsection (c) is that "the trial Judge who tried the accused must, within a reasonable time after the sentence has been pronounced, prepare a copy of the notes of evidence taken at the trial and a report in writing signed by him stating whether, in his opinion, there is any reason (and, if so, particulars of the reason) why the death sentence should be carried out." The trial Judge must forward to the Court of Appeal the notes of evidence and report referred to in paragraph (c) within a reasonable time and so on. It is just a question of syntax, there is no substantive change. Can I know what the second question was, please? As I was following the first point, I forgot what the second point was.”
“The Court of Appeal will then examine the record of proceedings and the grounds of decision to satisfy itself of the correctness, legality and propriety of the conviction for which the death sentence is imposed; and of the imposition of the death sentence, where this is discretionary. The Court of Appeal may choose to hear parties if it deems that to be necessary. After examining the record, the court will either confirm the sentence of death passed upon the accused; or set it aside, and it can make such further orders as it deems fit. Page: 1274 Clause 7 makes a related amendment to section 313, to provide that the warrant of execution must be issued by the Court of Appeal. This need for appellate confirmation was suggested by our current Chief Justice, Mr Sundaresh Menon, when he was the Attorney-General, as an avenue to provide another safeguard in our capital punishment regime. The remaining clauses make minor and technical amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code. Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 5.12 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill makes two key changes to criminal procedure. The first is to the appellate procedure. Clause 10 amends section 374 to provide that no appeal can be filed against a conviction until sentence is passed for that offence. Clause 11 amends section 377 to provide that the time for filing an appeal against conviction, or against conviction and sentence, starts running from the date of the sentence. These two amendments ensure that appeals against conviction and sentence are brought and heard together, consistent with what is already the practice today. Also, with the amendments, an accused no longer has to file a notice of appeal against conviction while waiting for sentence to be passed, but can instead wait until sentence is passed before making a decision. The second key change is to require confirmation by the Court of Appeal before a sentence of death can be carried out. Clause 12 amends section 383 to provide that sentences of death shall not be carried out unless confirmed by the Court of Appeal in an appeal by the accused; or a petition for confirmation by the Public Prosecutor where there is no appeal. This petition for confirmation is a new procedure created by clause 13 which introduces a new Division 1A in Part XX of the Criminal Procedure Code. The process is triggered when no appeal is filed within the time allowed for an appeal, and 90 days have expired after the time allowed for appeal has elapsed. Once the process is triggered, the Public Prosecutor will be required to lodge a petition for confirmation.”
“In this case, for the reasons that I have given, we believe that it is also right at this time to keep section 300(a) as it is, and I thank Asst Prof Tan for his views. I am not quite sure if he had any specific questions. I think he encouraged us to continue with law reform, which we will do. Sir, in conclusion, I have said in July that the changes we are making will ensure that our sentencing framework will better balance the various objectives – justice to the victim, justice to society, justice to the accused and, in appropriate situations, mercy to the accused as well. We hope that we are on the right track to try to achieve that. Page: 1273 [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr K Shanmugam]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)] Page: 1273”
“I quote: "While it is true that a great majority of murder convictions since 1972…has been technically based on section 300(c), a study of the relevant facts and circumstances reveal that in almost all of them, a conviction under one of the other three subsections (section 300(a), (b) and (d)) would have been likely." That, of course, is not a complete answer to why you should keep section 300(c). I accept that and, in fact, there was a significant body of opinion among those we consulted that section 300(c) ought to be deleted or moved to some other place. The second point is, in the short period between the completion of the latest review in July and putting up the Bill now, I did not think we should take such a major step. The key reason is that we are now giving the Judges the discretion to impose life imprisonment. So, a High Court Judge who decides to impose the death sentence in a section 300(c) case would, in fact, have been satisfied that the death sentence, as opposed to life imprisonment, was warranted on the facts. That is a significant factor to bear in mind when we talk about section 300(c). The third point I want to make is, yes, we are looking at a number of provisions, including section 300(c). If we believe that it ought to be moved or amended in some way, we will let the House know. Senior Minister of State, Ms Indranee Rajah, has been asked by me to look at section 300(c). Now, I think Asst Prof Tan accepts section 300(a) as it stands now. Our assessment is that most people in society also believe that for cases which come within section 300(a), the mandatory death penalty should apply. That said, and as I have said on more than one occasion, while we look at what the majority of the society want, we also look at what is right.”
“I think Ms Lim was also supportive of the amendments and welcomed them. She made a number of points. First, on section 300(a). It is a fair point to say that many different types of cases can fall within section 300(a). A cold-blooded, deliberate, planned, gangster-style execution on the one hand; on the other hand, someone who finds out that his wife had betrayed him and then goes out and decides to kill. But the fact is, even in the latter situation, it is deliberate, cold-blooded, intentional killing. If it is done out of provocation, on the spur of the moment, there is a defence. Ms Lim knows that. And there are other defences as well: self-defence and so on. But I can see that another approach is to have a presumptive death sentence and let the accused show why it should not apply. That is a possible approach. On balance, looking at section 300(a) today, our assessment is that society sees this as extremely serious – intentional, cold-blooded, deliberate killing – and that in such situations, the mandatory death penalty should apply. But for section 300(b), (c) and (d), we are making a significant change. The balance is a question of judgment, I accept that. On the suggestion that there should be further reform, we continuously review these areas. Specific to section 300(c), I do know that it has attracted a lot of commentary and a lot of attention. Likewise, it has received a lot of attention from us as well and the group of people we consulted. I think the list has been circulated. Let me make three points on section 300(c). Page: 1272 The first is, when we consulted, the submission that the academics gave was that the repeal of section 300(c) is not likely to, in any significant way, affect the manner in which homicide offences are dealt with.”
“Sir, I thank all the Members who spoke. I think all support the amendments. I think that is a fair summary of their speeches. Mr Yeo suggested that the Ministry of Law review all mandatory sentences in our books and I think he made particular reference to the mandatory sentence that is imposed on landlords who rent out their properties to illegal immigrants. Mr Yeo may know that, when I was a backbencher, I was one of those who were very uncomfortable with the mandatory nature of that sentence and spoke up against it. That has been my own philosophy, and we try to put that in place where possible, but I have to tell Mr Yeo that it is beyond my purview to look at all legislation, most of which are not under the Ministry of Law or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. But I will pass his message on to the Ministries concerned, and I thank him for his suggestion. I think that it is, in principle, a sound policy and one which we try to institute. We regularly look at our criminal legislation, particularly those which carry severe penalties, not just the mandatory death penalty, but severe penalties. So, we thank him for that suggestion and we will remind ourselves of the importance of that approach. As for Ms Lee, I think the question at the end of her speech was whether we can educate Singaporeans to understand the nature of the amendments and that our society and country will continue to be safe and secure. We will try. We will do our best. I think our citizens' understanding of safety and security issues depends on a whole framework of factors, and the Ministry of Home Affairs, I am sure, will continue to pass the message on crime rates and how we keep ourselves safe and how these amendments impact society.”
“Those who have not exhausted their appeals against conviction can also bring an appeal at the same time. The new requirement for the Court of Appeal to confirm sentences of death which will be introduced by the next Bill, the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill, will also apply to these transitional cases. At the end of the appellate process, those still under a sentence of death will go through the clemency process. Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 4.27 pm”
“We are making the changes in the context of the homicide rate in Singapore which is low – 0.3 cases per 100,000 population. In these circumstances, we think it right to introduce more judicial discretion in deciding whether the death sentence ought to be imposed for murder. That, as Members will appreciate, is our starting point, as I stated in the earlier debate on the amendments to the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill. Where possible, where practical, where it is realistic, and where it does not substantially impact our crime control framework, we must move towards giving greater discretion to the courts. In fact, that is the case for the vast majority of our laws. Mandatory sentences are and should be the exception. Sir, in this process of changing our laws, we have consulted a number of academics and criminal law practitioners. Their names are set out in the Annex to my speech. We are grateful for their contributions. After these amendments, all accused persons will be eligible for sentencing in accordance with the amended law. The transitional provisions are in clause 4. They work as follows. The court which last heard the case will clarify the limb of murder under which the accused is guilty. Before the court does so, the prosecution or the accused may apply to the court to adduce further evidence as to the limb of section 300 under which the accused is guilty. After the court clarifies that, it will affirm the death sentence for section 300(a) cases. For section 300(b), (c) and (d), there will be re-sentencing by the High Court, which will decide whether to impose the death penalty or life imprisonment, and whether there should be caning in the latter case. The High Court's re-sentencing decision can be appealed against.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, in July this year, Deputy Prime Minister Teo and I made two statements in this House announcing proposed changes to our laws on drug control and murder. The amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act, which had just been passed, implement the changes announced by Deputy Prime Minister Teo. The Penal Code (Amendment) Bill will implement the changes announced by me. Sir, murder is defined in section 300 of the Penal Code, which is taken from the Indian Penal Code of 1860, as culpable homicide committed with one of four mental states: (a) the intention to kill; (b) the intention to cause injury, coupled with the knowledge that such injury is likely to cause death; (c) the intention to cause injury, and the intended injury is objectively sufficient to cause death; and (d) knowledge that the act by which the death is caused is so eminently dangerous that death is virtually certain or likely to result. Section 302 provides that murder shall be punished with death. Clause 2 amends section 302 such that murders committed in a manner other than as set out in section 300(a) will hereafter be punished with death or life imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. In addition, where the court orders life imprisonment, it is also given the discretion to order caning. For consistency, clause 3 repeals and re-enacts section 304 to remove the option of a fine when life imprisonment is ordered for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In other words, when the court orders life imprisonment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, it can still order caning but not a fine. Page: 1261 Let me explain the rationale for these changes, Sir. It was set out in July.”
“He knew what he was doing was wrong, and that the low intellect in that case was not of a level for the Court to conclude that he did not know what he was doing. It is difficult, without having gone through, say, the detailed case notes and so on, to go into minute analysis. We have to go by what the law report says. But, as I said earlier, Rozman's case, as well as many other cases, was considered when we were developing the framework which is before the House. And that framework permits the Court to impose life imprisonment in cases of diminished responsibility. Page: 1250 [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. − [Mr Teo Chee Hean]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)] Page: 1250”
“However, these considerations whether singly or collectively do not constitute a defence to the charge; nor can they in any way be said to eradicate Rozman's mens rea in trafficking in the drugs which he had agreed to sell to Tan." (proc text)] Page: 1249 And at paragraph 35, the Court of Appeal said: [(proc text) "Rozman was not of unsound mind, nor was he mentally retarded at all material times. He may be a person of low intellect or subnormal intellect. But, as the learned judge held, and we agree, low or subnormal intellect is not unsoundness of mind and is not a defence to a criminal charge, and an educationally subnormal person can be criminally culpable for his actions. Now, even accepting the assessment of Rozman as given by Ms Wuts, Rozman was not really so intellectually disabled as to be incapable of knowing the nature of his act or of discerning that the act was either wrong or contrary to law. True, Ms Wuts expressed the opinion that Rozman might not have been able to discern right from wrong. But this opinion is itself inconclusive; it seems to be neither here nor there. On the contrary, on the evidence, including his own evidence, Rozman knew it was contrary to law to sell drugs; he knew the consequences that would be visited on him if he sold drugs. In our judgment, Rozman's ‘low intellect' and his disposition of being easily susceptible to manipulation by others is not a defence to a criminal charge. Nor can such low intellect and malleable disposition diminish or eradicate the presence of mens rea." (proc text)] Members would know that each case turns on its own facts. These are the facts as the Court of Appeal has set them out. The Court of Appeal said he knew what he was doing.”
“Soon thereafter, Rozman turned up at the KFC restaurant where Tan had been waiting and brought along bundle A in a paper bag and pointed the content of the bag to Tan with a view to effecting delivery. Now, what clearly emerged from these facts were as follows: first, Tan and Rozman, notwithstanding that each did not speak the language of the other proficiently − the learned judge gave little credence to the conversations which Tan alleged had taken place − had made themselves understood to each other, whether using Malay, English or Hokkien or a combination of them, and arrangement had been made for the sale and delivery of one kilogram of cannabis to Tan; secondly, Rozman knew what he was doing: he negotiated with Tan on the price for one kilogram of cannabis and thereafter acted consciously and purposefully to procure the cannabis to sell to Tan; and thirdly there was no force or coercion exerted on Rozman such that his will was overborne by the CNB operatives. Indeed, there was no evidence to show that Rozman had either been manipulated by the CNB operatives or that they had taken an active role in persuading Rozman to sell the drugs without his willing and active participation. In particular, there was no evidence that Tan had taken an excessively active and overpowering role in persuading Rozman to sell the drugs. Rozman might have been easily induced or instigated by Tan and the agent informant at the first meeting to sell the drugs to Tan; he might have benefited only in a small way from this transaction and in that respect he might have been made use of and exploited by his supplier (whoever he might be) who would receive the bulk of the profits.”
“' Having made these findings, he held that these factors affected or lessened ‘the degree of guilt' of Rozman with respect to the charge of trafficking and as a result ‘a grave doubt arose as to whether he could be criminally responsible to warrant the mandatory death sentence'. With the utmost respect, we think that the learned judge has confused the presence of mens rea, which is an essential element in a criminal offence, with the mitigating factors in the punishment for the offence." (proc text)] If I may skip the next few sentences, I am going to paragraph 33: [(proc text) "We think that it is absolutely essential to bear in mind the facts, primary and inferential, that have been established. In relation to the first charge, the following facts have been established and are not really in dispute. On the afternoon of 24 November 1993, Tan [a CNB agent] met Rozman at Rochor Centre and negotiations took place between them for the sale and purchase of cannabis. Rozman agreed to sell one kilogram of cannabis [that is a pretty substantial amount] to Tan at the price of $1,800 with delivery taking place on the following day. On 25 November 1993 they met again at Rochor Centre at about 5.30 pm and further discussion took place. It was agreed that they should meet later at the bus stop opposite Bukit Timah Shopping Centre. Later, Razali as the rider of the motorcycle with Rozman as the pillion rider brought the drugs to a spot near the bus stop. There Tan and Rozman met again, and it was agreed that the drugs would be delivered at the KFC restaurant at Bukit Timah Shopping Centre.”
“Sir, this is on the case of Public Prosecutor v Rozman bin Jusoh. I have looked at it. This was actually among the cases that were considered quite extensively in the run-up to our changes and the way we have tried to work out a structure. So, we looked at diminished responsibility and that is why low IQ at a certain level could potentially become such that the Court makes a finding that the person did not know or could not distinguish between right and wrong. Specifically, in the context of Rozman's case, I should quote a few paragraphs, with your leave, Sir, from the Singapore Law Reports, 1995 − paragraphs 32 to 35 are the key paragraphs – and then we can go through it and see what it says. The Court of Appeal said: [(proc text) "It seems to us that the core of the learned judge's reasoning for reaching the conclusion, as he did, is (a) his acceptance of the assessment by Ms Wuts [the clinical psychologist for the defence] that Rozman being intellectually disabled could be easily manipulated into committing the offence, and (b) the active operation of entrapment carried out by the CNB operatives. On the basis of Ms Wuts' assessment of the intellectual capacity of Rozman, the learned judge's crucial findings were: that Rozman was subnormal and ‘may not be able to discern right from wrong' and could be easily manipulated and that he was a ‘guileless simpleton' and ‘would not have embarked upon this expedition for a mere $100 … if not for his feeble mind which seemed to have been overborne by the CNB agent and the CNB operative.”
“We spoke with the agencies, we spoke with the Courts, we spoke with the Attorney-General's Chambers and the result we have come to – which is the result every time we look at it over the last several years, we have always come to − is that the structure we now have is probably the most effective for the problems we now face. If the situation changes, then we must relook at the facts.”
“On the point about giving a broad discretion to the Courts. In a sense, if I may suggest, that is passing the buck to the Courts, because somebody has to make a decision when it comes to the death penalty. It really ought to be Parliament. If you give broad discretion to the Courts, first of all, I think Members have heard me say that it is quite unlikely that the Courts will then take it upon themselves to say that in these cases, the death penalty is justified; and in these other cases, that it is not justified. That is the first problem. The second problem is, if they try and define criteria − because that is the way the common law works and that is the way the Courts work − it cannot be palm tree justice. It has to be based on precedents, and over a period of time, precedents will build up. You go back to the same problem. I think Members will appreciate that this is a very difficult problem. We have tried looking at it from many different angles, and Members are welcome to make suggestions. Philosophically, we are ad idem, but, in the context of drugs, as I said, as long as you give the Courts broad discretion, you will find that, de facto, you will have a serious qualification to the deterrent value of the death penalty. Which is why I was happy to hear suggestions at the end of my speech. If there are other suggestions, I am happy to hear them as well. But, in reality, we have consulted extensively before we put this Bill up. We looked specifically at this quite comprehensively.”
“Let me check the facts and come back to her. Now, on the presumptive death sentence, this goes back to the point I made in my speech. Our instincts are similar in that we want to try and find the way in which we can on specific facts do more justice or show more compassion to the accused. But let me walk through this with the Member. Presumably, you will have to say death sentence applies "unless". And then you would have to set out, and what would you set out? I think I gave Members some idea of what we might have to set out: youth, family circumstances, maybe young unwed mothers, impecuniosity, and you know what the consequences of setting that out would be? You will get a lot more traffickers who fit that profile. Effectively, you will get a qualification to the deterrent effect. So, you see, it is unlike a violent crime or a murder where you can say there could be different circumstances under which the crime is committed. Here, you have to understand the crucial distinction between the manner of committing the crime which is fairly straightforward – you hide the drugs, you bring them across the causeway, you traffic them, they are above a certain limit. And that is to be contrasted with the background factors which do not change. Once we legislatively set the background factors which will displace the death penalty, then you will get a lot more traffickers fitting that profile. And we have to think whether that is what we want. That is the difficulty. It is not something that we rule out but we must accept that it is a serious difficulty.”
“If I may, I will take those two points, or one point in two tranches. Could she tell me the name of the case where CNB officers —”
“I would suggest we ask whether the changes we make are going to help the victims, or if they are going to hurt the victims. Approach the question with firmness, clarity of purpose and compassion, to both offenders as well as the victims. [Applause] 2.35 pm”
“Referred to MCYS in 2007 when his mother and stepfather were imprisoned for drug offences. Both had a long history of drug abuse. His father was also a drug abuser. Ricky was admitted to a children's home, with emotional issues and suicidal tendencies. His father was released from prison recently, but has now defaulted on his urine tests. Last case: "Girl A". Arrested at the age of 16 for possessing methamphetamine. The drugs were given to her by her half-sister, now in jail for drug consumption, and also her mother's boyfriend. When her mother's boyfriend was caught, she turned to her mother, who gave her heroin regularly. She has three half-brothers now doing time for drug consumption. Five of her mother's friends are also in, for consuming drugs at her half-sister's home. A group of 12 in total, caught in the snare of drugs. Page: 1237 We want to show mercy and compassion to the traffickers. But we also need to show mercy and compassion to the Nonois, and the Roses, and the Nellies, and the Rickys in this world, and thousands of others like them. Young lives, full of promise, destroyed in their prime. None of us, really, is here cheering for the death penalty or the mandatory death penalty. It has to be a careful calibration of the risks that society faces and the punishment that can be imposed. If we want to go a particular route, let us do it without hiding the truth from ourselves, and without assuming that nothing else will change, while we change certain penalties. When we change certain penalties, there will be consequences. Ask yourselves if we are prepared for the consequences. And if we honestly are prepared for the consequences, then we change.”
“It is not our intention to extend this to those who do not suffer from a recognised and proven psychiatric condition. Sir, let me conclude by making some broad points. I have spoken several times about weighing the consequences in realistic terms, before deciding what we do. Let us look at some real cases to see what I mean. First, the case of "Nonoi". In 2006, Mohd Johari was charged for the murder of his two-year-old step-daughter, Nonoi. Her photograph was all over the newspapers. He admitted to slapping her and repeatedly immersing her in a pail of water. He was a father at 17, a marijuana smoker, cough syrup abuser, an immature, deficient parent. He said that he sometimes brought Nonoi home with him as he thought that she would help him avoid detection by CNB. She is a victim, maybe he is also a victim, of the drug traffickers and the drug lords. The question for this House: how many Nonois do you want? Then look at "Tony", aged 51. Long history of drug abuse. First admitted to DRC at age of 16. Eight subsequent DRC admissions. Lived with his mother, who took out a protection order against him for violent behaviour. Imprisoned in 2007 for breaching the order. Later imprisoned for drug trafficking and causing grievous hurt. He often beat up his father, who committed suicide. He was picked up for vagrancy in 2010, and now lives in a welfare home. This is typical of the many, many cases we deal with. Look at "Nelly" and "Rose". Nelly, aged 6, was placed under foster care after her mother, uncle and grandfather were arrested for drug consumption. She had been cared for by multiple caregivers. She witnessed her mother taking drugs. Her sister, Rose, a newborn baby, was also placed under foster care in 2010. Look at "Ricky". Nine years old.”
“And the death penalty will then not be imposed and you know what will happen to the deterrent value. Operational effectiveness will not be enhanced. Will we be better off? Will we be worse off? As I started out saying, in these things, it is not as if there is one clear answer one way or another. It is what we in this House consider to be important for our society, after weighing the costs and the benefits. If you believe that couriers, even if they tell us stories, ought to go free, then that is a choice we make. But when you make that choice, do not fool yourself that there are no trade-offs. Page: 1232”
“This is the first exception – the couriers who have substantively assisted CNB in disrupting drug trafficking activities could be spared capital punishment. In looking at this, if the question was, and again looking at the speeches, it seems to me that Members may have asked themselves the question: what can we do to help couriers avoid capital punishment? If that was the question, we do not need to make these amendments. The solutions are very easy. The issue is not what we can do to help couriers avoid capital punishment. It is about what we can do to enhance the effectiveness of the Act in a non-capricious and fair way without affecting our underlying fight against drugs. Discretionary sentencing for those who offer substantive assistance is the approach we have taken. For those who cannot offer substantive assistance, then the position is as it is now. Some Members have asked: would it be better to say that the courier has done his best, that he has acted in good faith − should he not qualify? I think Mr Edwin Tong, Mr Alvin Yeo, Asst Prof Eugene Tan, Mr Laurence Lien, Mrs Lina Chiam, Ms Faizah Jamal, all made this point. The short answer is that it is not a realistic option because every courier, once he is primed, will seem to cooperate. Remember we are dealing not with an offence committed on the spur of the moment. We are dealing with offences instigated by criminal organisations which do not play by the rules, which will look at what you need, what your criteria are and send it to you. So, if you say just cooperate, just do your best, all your couriers will be primed with beautiful stories, most of which will be unverifiable but on the face of it, they have cooperated, they did their best.”
“You go down this route – in effect you might have de facto abolition of the death penalty. So, pose the question in realistic terms: do you want a complete elimination or at least a substantial reduction in the deterrent value of the death penalty? I am not saying you cannot put forward that position. But let us be clear-minded and hard-headed about this, and look at the hard issues: on the one hand, the drug issues and the risks which we face, and on the other hand, whether we have the death penalty. You weigh the risks, you decide. Prof Woon said at the same forum I referred to: "Judges very seldom go for the maximum. In this, they are like University lecturers who never give you the maximum marks. They sort of hover around the centre. There is a tariff for most cases." Quite understandable – Judges are reluctant to impose the ultimate sentence. And you also have the drug lords sending you the couriers who fit the criteria for not imposing the death penalty. What is the result? De facto abolition. Page: 1231 So, those are the terms of the debate. And in these terms, then, the question for Members is: is this a risk you are prepared to take, to remove a key component of our strategy, in light of the global situation? And a word about couriers. There are many misconceptions about this. Let us be clear. They do this for money. They know what they are doing is wrong. They hide the drugs in secret compartments, all sorts of places, and try and traffic through our checkpoints. Fifteen grams is not little. It is 2,200 straws – you can feed the addiction of 300 abusers for a week. Let me now move on to cooperation, a question that has been raised by quite a number of Members.”
“Page: 1230 First, the quantum, 15 grams of diamorphine – do we agree this is a serious threshold, or do we say it should be some other threshold? Once you agree on the threshold, and if the elements of offence are made out, that is, trafficking over 15 grams, then how would you have the court exercise discretion? I will be happy to hear Members' views on this. Can we conceive of a discretionary sentencing approach which maintains the deterrent value of the death penalty across the whole spectrum of drug trafficking activities? With the best of intentions, it will be difficult – I think it is impossible. That is the view which we came to after discussing and considering the matter carefully, with the agencies, with the various Attorneys-General, and with the courts. Consider what factors you will set out for exercise of discretion: would you say age, youth? Would you say young mothers? Would you say impecuniosity? Would you say, see if the trafficker was baited with love? Or would you look at other family circumstances? You set out the criteria, whatever they are, and the drug lords will send you any number who will satisfy those criteria, who will perfectly fit the profile. This is because you are looking at background factors; the circumstances of the crime become less important. So, while it is attractive in broad terms to talk about giving discretion, look at it in detail and see whether it is workable. For murder, yes. You can look at it to see if it's a crime of passion, you can look at the motive, you can look at the circumstances. How do you do that for drug trafficking? How do you do it in a way that does not affect the fundamental deterrent effect of the death penalty? So, let us be very clear.”