Ministerial Statement on the Government’s Position on the Presumptions Under the Misuse of Drugs Act – Speech by Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law

Thank you, Sir.

Introduction

1. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim has filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) for the sitting on or after 14 April this year, asking whether the Government has any plans to introduce amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act, or MDA, in relation to the presumptions under the Act.

2. Mr Zhulkarnain’s question would not have come up for this sitting. But given the importance of the matter he has raised, I have decided to make a Ministerial Statement. There is a case pending before the Courts challenging the presumptions. Thus, we have to be careful on what we say in this House. I will, for my part, only set out the Government’s policy position, which has been stated publicly in the past.

Government’s Position

3. The law, as it stands now, is based on current policy. The Government has seen no reason to introduce any amendments with regard to those presumptions.

4. The MDA presumptions date back to the enactment of the MDA itself in 1973. They were debated in Parliament. This Parliament has also discussed the issue, most recently during the Second Reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill in 2023. The Amendment Bill was passed unanimously.

5. Why are the presumptions in drug cases necessary? Essentially, to protect Singapore from drug trafficking.

6. The MDA presumptions deal with the practical challenges in proving certain facts that are often exclusively within the accused person’s knowledge, or which it would not be practical for the Prosecution to get direct evidence of. For example, the Prosecution will be able to prove that the drugs were in the accused person’s possession. But it would be very easy for the accused to claim that he did not know that they were drugs, and by that way, try and avoid conviction. If he runs that defence, then it may not be easy for the prosecution to rebut that claim, or go get the necessary evidence to prove that the accused was indeed aware that they were drugs – for example, the evidence may be overseas and often quite elusive. Therefore, the presumptions deal with the accused’s knowledge of the nature of the drugs. Under the MDA, the onus is on the accused to prove that he did not know that what was found to be in his possession were drugs, and these are usually facts within his own knowledge.

7. The Prosecution must first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the drugs were in the accused person’s possession, that will then trigger the presumption of knowledge. Also, the Prosecution must still prove all the other elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

8. Let me cite a few examples I gave in 2017, when I spoke in Parliament about the evidential difficulties in drug cases, and the necessity of the legal presumptions. These were the examples I gave amongst several.

First was, I quote what I then said: “A person was arrested at Woodlands checkpoint. He has got 145 grams of diamorphine. He said he travelled to Kuala Lumpur to look for job opportunities. He was introduced to a man known as "Uncle". "Uncle" then passed him 10 packets of substances and taped these on to his body. This chap then claimed he asked "Uncle" what they were for, but "Uncle" showed him three fingers in reply. And he accepted it. He was not aware of the contents, and he came here.”

And then I went on to say, how can the prosecution rebut this? The truth is only in the person’s mind. “This is why our first Prime Minister, who was a lawyer, knew what the problems would be and reversed the onus of proof.”

“Let me give you another example again from the same speech. [There was a] chap, convicted in 2008. He was asked by one "Maren" to deliver items in Singapore. He was told that it was medicine. He was told that it was rare and expensive, that it was wrapped up so that it could not be spoilt by coming into contact with air. And so he went to Johor, met "Maren" and brought it over. You want CNB to disprove this? You think it is possible? Or do you think it is fair that the accused should prove it?”

As I said, “[w]e are dealing with lives here. The life of a trafficker, yes. But we are also dealing with thousands of Singaporean lives. And the person must get a fair trial. Prosecution must prove what was the substance, how much was it, and possession, and any other evidence they can find. If the person has a defence, it is only fair that he proves it.”

9. Sir, that’s what I said here in 2017. That has been the position in law, since 1973.

10. While many other countries have faced huge difficulties in combatting drugs, Singapore has been able to maintain one of the lowest rates of drug abuse in the world. That is despite the worsening global drug situation, and our location at the doorstep of the Golden Triangle, one of the world’s leading areas for the production of illicit drugs. I went into detail on this just last year in my Ministerial Statement on Singapore’s national drug control policy.

11. The presumptions have been an essential part of the legal framework that enables us to deal effectively with the drug problem.

Conclusion

12. Sir, to conclude, as I said earlier, the Government has no plans to introduce any amendments as yet with regard to the presumptions, as the law now stands.

13. Mr Zhulkharnain’s question may have arisen by reason of a specific challenge before the Courts, which I referred to earlier. I can say that the Government will defend the constitutionality of the presumptions. We should be careful not to discuss the specifics of any challenge. That is for the Courts to decide.

14. Thank you, Sir.