Transcript of CNN’s Interview With Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law, on 7 November 2024

Ivan: I’m going to start with some very basic questions. How would you describe your government's approach to narcotics and drug policy?

Minister: If you want one word, it's a tough approach, in one sense. We make a clear distinction between drug abusers and drug traffickers. Drug abusers are treated as people who need help – particularly medical help. If you are a drug abuser and you haven't committed any other offence or any other crime, you get picked up, or you ask for help – what happens is you're assessed. 

If you’re a low-risk offender in the sense that you will not go and take drugs again – certain type of treatment. Otherwise, if you’re medium or high risk, we give you psychological assistance to understand yourself and why you have that drug dependency. We try and give family assistance, we try and bring family together - it requires a lot of intensive intervention. And third, also, we try and give you employment assistance to try and upskill yourself so you can get a good job. And when you are in the job, we try and help you, handhold you, and get the community to come in and help you have self-confidence, keep away from drugs, try and maintain a healthy life, healthy family. So that’s for drug abusers – they should be treated as people who need help, and we help them. 

Drug traffickers – we see them as cynical criminals. They are calculating how much money can I make for a certain amount of drugs that I bring in. And it's completely cynical, and they're not concerned at all about the devastation and misery it will bring to people. So it's a calculated crime – I get so much money. 

For them, we say beyond a certain threshold - for example, heroin. If you bring in enough drugs to feed 180 people a week, that's a lot of misery for a lot of people – not counting the children who are affected, the families who are affected, the crimes that will be committed. So then you face a capital punishment, as simple as that, but otherwise long-term incarceration. So drug traffickers, drug abusers. 

But you know, you can't rely just on law enforcement. A large part of our effort goes to preventive drug education. So all our elementary schools and high schools are fully covered. They go for exhibitions, they are given talks on why drugs are bad. We got to do it in a way that students understand. Survey results came out earlier this year, it was particularly heartening to see, compared with what's happening around the world, that 90% of our young people between the ages 15 to 24 accept that drugs are bad and that they should not use drugs. They're bad for health, they're bad for you. So this 90% – you go above that age group, the percentages go even higher. 

Ivan: You said “compared to what's happening around the world”. What do you see happening around the world when it comes to drug policy and drug prevention?

Minister: I worry a lot and the evidence is staring at us. And I think the world, the countries in the world, are not doing enough to deal with the problem. 

You take the US. I don't by any means seek to compare continental US with Singapore. You know size and everything else is completely different. But it tells you what the scale of the problem is. In San Francisco, every 10 hours someone is dying of overdose. And that's not including the homicides and death-related incidents. Every 14 months in the US, more Americans die than they had since the second World War; all of the America’s wars combined, less people have died than in 14 months, from fentanyl. 100,000 people died last year in the US. And as I said, that doesn't include the homicides and all the other unspeakable horrors, kidnappings and tortures. 

Take Europe, Europol says that 50% of all homicides are drug-related, and 50% of the most serious gangs are also drug-related. A senior person in Sweden says that drug markets of Sweden are being carried in the backpacks of our school children, because children as young as 14 or 15 are being recruited to become drug couriers. I think, over the years, a certain lax attitude has prevailed. And as a result, the drug gangs which make a huge amount – because a lot of money to be made out of drugs – and so they have sunk in their roots into many countries. They are even in a position to have parallel governments. I'm talking about well-governed states in Europe. 

The Belgian Justice Minister has to live in safe houses. The Chief of the largest Dutch Police union says that effectively, they have all the infrastructure of a narco state, and we're talking about some of the wealthiest, best governed countries in the world. So this can happen to all of them. 

Financial Times had an article, I think, earlier this year or last year – 18 out of the 21 countries in Latin America are main source or transit countries for cocaine. So you have this problem. It's very serious.

And in the face of it all, we are standing very firm. Then you contrast that situation with Singapore. In the 1990s, we were arresting about 6000 people. As I said, now we treat them – maybe in the last six, seven years – as abusers, not criminals. Now we are picking up about 3000 people per year on average, and that means 3000 less people are being picked up every year. Over time, has come down. 

Now, Singapore is far richer. Its GDP per capita in this region is the highest. This region is literally swimming in drugs, I’m using the words of the United Nations (UN) - a million meth tablets were seized in 2021, we’re near the Golden Triangle, and yet we are arresting less people. So you know, we are I think, unique amongst many countries in actually having a handle on the problem.

Ivan: How would you describe that strategy? I've seen you use the term ‘zero-tolerance’. Is that what you would call it?

Minister: I would call it zero-tolerance. As I said you should look at it in three pillars. One, your people must buy into it, and must be educated and must understand this well. That is very important. There must be public support for these policies. 

Second, you need to do your best for those who have taken drugs to help them lead a better life, and that requires a lot of community and government resources, money, as well as manpower, and a lot of science. Because, as I said, the intervention is psychology-based. And then we sign up a huge number of employers across the country to employ these people. Then we give them the right skillsets when they are in drug rehabilitation centres. 

The third aspect, which is the law and order aspect, is that we are very tight on drugs coming into Singapore. Our border control is very tight, and they are very, very tough – zero-tolerance on those who get caught for trafficking.

CNN: You mentioned a region awash in drugs. From your perspective, how bad is the drug trade here in Southeast Asia? 

Minister: Pretty bad. We’ve got the Golden Triangle, which is one of the world's big centres of production of heroin. Afghanistan, until recently, was also a major centre for production. And you know, it comes through here, both as an end source – when I say here, I mean Southeast Asia – but also as a transit to other places, so it's easily available.

The law enforcement varies, the level of law enforcement varies in different countries. The attitude towards drugs varies, and so in criminal gangs. Again, the UN says that the criminal gangs treat the Mekong as their playground. 

Ivan: Has the threat that you’ve seen from these narcotics gotten worse in recent years?

Minister: Yes, it's simply because of the availability and the amount of money that can be made. But it's not just here. You see it around the world, Europe, US, Central America, Latin America. 

CNN: What do you think is driving the growth and threat?

Minister: Money. The amount of profits that can be made. People describe it as you take any European government, because you know, so much drugs go into there to circulate all around Europe. The amount of money that the drug cartels can make can help them buy out politicians, buy out civil servants, buy out police officers, which is what they've done in Latin America, and they're trying to replicate that in other places. 

Ivan: But we were talking about the Golden Triangle. You're talking about Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar – these are your ASEAN partners. What's going on there?

Minister: These are big countries. The area that we talk about as Golden Triangle is not easily governed, and Myanmar is facing other issues – there’s a civil war going on. 

So within that framework, it's not as easy to police because large, thousands of square kilometres of jungle, and these are largely unpopulated areas. It's easy for criminals to set up their labs and do things. And to some extent, they do it with the support of various people whom they have suborned. 

I don't think it's official government policy in these countries to support the drug trade. And Thailand has legalised cannabis. They don’t necessarily support the trade of hard drugs. But government policy is one thing, being able to effectively enforce is another. So there are challenges. 

Ivan: What efforts does Singapore make to battle these gangs at the source where they're producing the drugs that are threatening your society?

Minister: It's not easy. We are not like the American Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which has a long arm and go into other countries and provide support. We don't have those sorts of facilities or the ability to do that. And secondly, I don't think that would be welcomed. 

What we do is at the regional level, at the ASEAN level, we try and have common drug policies. We try and take a tough line at international fora together with ASEAN members as to drug issues. That's what we can do. And we share notes, and we have regional cooperation with other enforcement agencies, and that allows us to try and deal with it, if people try and come into Singapore. 

But it's not easy for Singapore to suggest that we somehow manage things better. All along, I think you need a certain humility in this, because Singapore is a small place. It's much easier to deal with issues, and you can't say, therefore we know what to do and tell others. These countries you mentioned are much, much larger, and they have different issues.

Ivan: In Parliament this year, you described the situation as nothing short of war. Do you see this as an existential threat to your country? 

Minister: I see this as an existential threat to the social fabric. The country as a whole may be able to carry on, but how do people live?

95% of Singaporeans feel safe walking home alone at night. Just imagine – you can send your 10-year-old child on public transport in Singapore without having to worry about it. Normalised, our homicide rate is 0.12 for per 100,000 population. I think the comparable figure is five or six for the US, and certainly more than one in the UK. 

So on any matrix, we are a well-governed safe place, and that's how our people want it. If you have drugs, your homicide rates will go up, your kidnappings will go up. As Europol describes, Europe is facing unprecedented levels of violence, kidnappings, tortures, killings from drug gangs. That's Europe. The same thing can happen here.

Ivan: What is your worst-case scenario for Singapore? 

Minister: A lot more people dying. A lot more young people affected. A lot more crime and tearing at the social fabric and the impact on a small place like Singapore – 720 square kilometres, where our main selling point is the safety, security, attracting investors, being a good place for our own people – that would be seriously affected.

Ivan: What are the primary drugs that you and law enforcement here are seizing?

Minister: Heroin, cannabis. We also have new synthetic drugs. You mention drugs, some of it will find its way here. I should say – while I mention all of this – our tough policy is there, including the capital punishment, because we are absolutely convinced that more lives are saved as a result. 

Ivan: Would you argue that having a death sentence for non-violent crimes – drug trafficking – is part of what keeps Singapore, in your eyes, safe?

Minister: The answer is yes, but I wouldn't describe it as a non-violent crime. Because as I said, you need to traffic enough heroin to feed 180 people for a week. 

Again, the evidence is staring at us. You look around the world. Anytime there has been a certain laxity in the approach to drugs, homicides go up, killings, tortures, kidnappings – these are Europol’s words – that goes up, more people die. 

Drugs fuel a lot of other crimes, including crimes you need to do – burglary and thefts – to fund your drug habit. And then, in the context of that, the drug gangs will then take root. So absolutely, no question, that there will be more people dying, more trouble, more disorder and it will be unsafe for a lot of ordinary citizens. The real victims are the innocent families including young children who get killed, who died. Who cries for them?

Ivan: Does the movement towards legalisation of marijuana that we've seen in different countries, places around the world – does that make your zero-tolerance approach more difficult? 

Minister: Absolutely, because we have to keep explaining, both within Singapore, by reference to science, why we should take a different approach from the rest of the world. Because you see it on TV, you see it on media, it's glamorised. “Hey, you know, why are we being so tough? Why are we taking this zero-tolerance approach?” You've got to explain to your people, and you've got to explain it in a way that is credible. It cannot just be ideology. It must be based on science. 

And again, in international fora as well, we have to stand up and explain our position, when everybody else is going in a different way. Of course, it makes your job more difficult. 

Ivan: You're in a much lonelier position.

Minister: There are countries which take a tough position, but yes, when say the United States stands up and says, “this is the way to go”, and we take a different position,  you've got to be able to justify it.

Ivan: Is it true that it is illegal for Singaporean citizens to use drugs outside of Singapore?

Minister: It is illegal. And when you come back, if there's reason to believe that you have taken drugs, you could be tested and if you have indeed taken drugs, you might go through the same rehabilitation route.

Ivan: This could happen at the airport? 

Minister: It can happen at the airport. Or it can happen if you come back and you confess and you say, “Look, I've done this.” But as I said, they are treated as people who need help, not as criminals, and no criminal record. 

Ivan: When you see now the new government in Thailand talking about rolling back its decriminalisation of marijuana, what's your reaction to that?

Minister: I should be careful about commenting on other government's policies. But obviously, the new government feels that relaxation in the first place was not right. 

And, we can see the evidence. You see photographs of 10-year-old children buying candy with marijuana, and jellybeans and so on. And then, within a short period after the original relaxation was brought in, they tried to reverse parts of it like pregnant women cannot be given this, or you cannot sell within x distance of schools. 

But those are all trying to bolt the lock when the horse has left. Because they can't buy within, say, a kilometre of school they can buy it somewhere else. You don’t know who is using when it's so widely available. 

I obviously welcome the change in policy right now, but I don’t think it's going to be easy to do. People have invested a lot of money into the production facilities, and now, if you change course, they are not going to be happy. People have been used to buying it, some people would have gotten hooked. It's not going to be easy.

Ivan: Are you proud of Singapore's zero-tolerance approach to drugs, to the deterrence of harsh penalties and even the death penalty?

Minister: The adjective is not pride. The adjective is, do I believe that more people in Singapore are living because of this policy. Less people have died - have I saved lives, or have I helped to save lives? Have I helped to save the lives of innocent children, who often are victims? You see it repeatedly everywhere – parents into drugs and they abandon their children, or worse – it’s happened in Singapore too – they kill their children while they are in their drug craze. 

So when you talk about equality, you talk about egalitarianism, what future does a child have growing up, with parents either incarcerated or into drugs? They are in a neighbourhood full of drugs. Even if the child wants to make something of himself or herself. What future? How many obstacles are in the way of such children? 

I look at it and I say these policies were set by previous generation of leaders, I have helped to continue with them, and explain to the public, with the support of the entire cabinet. And I would say that it has undoubtedly saved thousands of lives. I'm not talking about just the policies now but over the years, thousands of lives. So, from that point of view, is this the right thing to have done? The answer is yes. The sympathy should be with a two-year-old child, Nonoi, who was killed by her stepfather because he was into drugs. This young child knew no better. I think that's the kind of victim that you should sympathise with and prevent more “Nonois” from dying. And I think it's misplaced sympathy to look at the drug trafficker who has made a serious calculation and said, “I'm going to make so much money, I don't care how many ‘Nonois’ die.”

Ivan: Who is giving sympathy to drug traffickers? 

Minister: I don’t think they deserve sympathy.

Ivan: But who is offering sympathy?

Minister: There are people around the world. You know, we are often asked about our death penalty for drug traffickers. 

Within Singapore, there is a group which opposes the death penalty, and the way to publicise it, and the way to advance a cause is by trying to humanise individual drug traffickers - “He's got a mother, he's got a father. He grew up in this environment. He's got a sister who's crying for him.” So, they try to humanise and, to some extent, romanticise the drug traffickers. And he is going to face execution.

So I say, look at the other side, how many hundreds have been saved, and look at around the world, how many thousands are dying? 

Ivan: You know, you've drawn a lot of comparisons to Europe, to the US, saying their cities are out of control.

Minister: I didn’t quite say that. I say they face some problems. A small country should be very careful about saying such things about others. 

Ivan: Well, I want to ask about here in Asia though. Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, where I'm from. Hong Kong does not execute people, but I don't see people using drugs in every street corner in Hong Kong. In fact, there was just a seizure of a Hong Kong citizen who came right to Singapore with their large amount of drugs. 

So, how would you describe – like they don't use that quite the same level of deterrence as Singapore, and they still have very low levels of violent crime, and these are societies that are culturally in many ways closer to you – how do you explain that?

Minister: It's a good question. Let's take Hong Kong first. Hong Kong itself doesn't execute people, but it shares its land crossing with mainland China. Mainland China has a very effective enforcement system. When you talk about drug trafficking, a lot of it usually comes through land crossings. That's the easiest which you can bring lots of drugs. 

Ivan: Or ships? 

Minister: Well, ships, it's a bit easier to pick up. Land crossings, because there's simply a vast number of people coming through, it's much more difficult. And so, the land crossings with China – I don't think there's any question about China's law enforcement abilities and willingness to execute.

In Singapore, it takes some time, you go through a due process. You got to prove and if you can prove your case, you get out. I think people will recognise that in China, you get caught as a trafficker, you're almost certain to face the capital punishment. So that, I think should be factored in when you say Hong Kong itself doesn't have capital punishment. 

Japan and South Korea – Japan is a unique society in many ways, and I don't pretend to be Japanese. If you look at Singapore, what is the closest set of factors that we have to take into account?  What's happening in the region? And you know in order to know, this is not for public purposes, but in order for us to know, I said, let's assess what is the deterrence effect of our capital punishment and our laws. We know that it is, but let's ask ourselves, let's put it to the test. 

So we did a survey in the region among the places for which our drug traffickers largely come from. 86% of the people in the survey said that the death penalty is more effective. And two, as a result of the death penalty, they do not want to traffic drugs into Singapore. And what that means is a large number of people, large number of traffickers will be deterred from coming to Singapore. So, you need to deal with supply. You need to deal with the consumption through education and control, but you need to deal with supply. 

So, you mentioned South Korea. I don't know what the level of drug usage in South Korea and Japan are. But I look at my region, who I'm surrounded by, the number of people who are willing to traffic into Singapore. I look at the region, as I told you, the Golden Triangle. I look at the availability of drugs, and I know that we will be completely swarmed. Apart from anything else, we are much more, together with Hong Kong I guess, much more tuned to Western culture compared to South Korea and Japan. Though I think they are changing too, and I wouldn't draw current comparisons as being relevant in the future. 

Ivan: In your speech, you said that drug arrests have gone up in Singapore 10% last year. Why? 

Minister: Availability of drugs. I think I said it's a fight that you never say you’ve won. It's a continuous fight. It's a continuous work-in-progress. Money, our people can afford it. Two, availability. There are a lot of ways to come in. And now there are other methods, couriers, international parcels and so on. Three, to a large extent, from your earlier questions, a more permissive environment, a drug culture that's glamorised in films, in media.

So we have all of that, and we are actually fighting a very tough battle.

Ivan: We're going to get a chance to look at the prison service. 

When it comes to punishment, how much of a philosophy is driven by the aim of truly punishing a convicted criminal, and making them suffer versus rehabilitating that individual? 

Minister: As I said, we make a clear distinction between traffickers and abusers. So, let's take abusers, abusers meaning people who consume drugs. You haven't committed any other crime. What do we really want you to do? We want you to go off and have a healthy, happy life, a productive life, maximise your opportunities. How do you do that? The fact that punishment is not the primary factor is shown by you don’t get a criminal record. 

A lot of resources are put into you – psychological, family, social. Jobs are found for you. I think over 90% are offered jobs when they come out. So, they are in there for a period where interventions are made. They go for talks, psychological intervention, assessment, self-development, personal development. All of those things are done. Then, they're put into halfway houses, where they go and work and come back, and depending on the progress they make, they get released faster or later. So, you can see the entire focus is on trying to help you. 

If you are a drug trafficker, let's say below the limit which exposes you to capital punishment, the primary focus is still trying to prevent you from reoffending. There is focus on rehabilitation.  All our prisoners, there is a lot of focus on rehabilitation. But there is also the length of sentence to reflect the severity of what we think the crime is. And to that extent, punishment is an important factor for trafficking.

Ivan: And are the conditions in the prison reflective of this emphasis on punishment? 

Minister: I don't believe that they differ for different prisoners. The people who are facing capital punishment are kept separate from the other prisoners. In fact, our Prisons have a tagline called “Captains of Lives”. We've moved away from the old thinking on prisons, that it's there to shut you up, and sometimes throw the keys away in some places in the world.

Here, the Prison officers see themselves as Captains of your lives. They want to get you on to a different path so that recidivism is low. It's about twenty-odd per cent here, and you move on to a better life so that they don't see you again.

Ivan: But you did say punishment was important. 

Minister: Punishment is one of the factors. 

Ivan: Is depriving inmates of mattresses or air conditioning - is that part of that philosophy of punishment?

Minister: It's not so much a part of that philosophy of punishment, it is putting them in, giving them a situation within our climate. We don't give air-conditioning; you are not going to a hotel. You're going in to serve term. 

And without air-conditioning. They have done their tests, certain types of stuff work. Mattresses won't work in our climate, they get mouldy very quickly. But the prison regime, I will say, without any hesitation, is intended to be tough. I told the Prisons to set out what they do in public and let people see for themselves. So, there is a documentary on the prison conditions, and there is a lot of public support in Singapore for those conditions. 

Ivan: We just got a briefing from your colleagues about the people who go to the Drug Rehabilitation Centre, which is part of the same prison complex.

Minister: It’s somewhere nearby, but there are different Drug Rehabilitation Centres.

Ivan: And that the cells for the Drug Rehabilitation Centre are pretty much identical to those for non-drug related problems.

Minister: I wouldn't quite describe it in that way. Drug Rehabilitation Centres are facilities where you do get locked up for part of the time. In that sense, you can broadly call it like a prison cell. But if you look at the way it is organised, it is, I would say slightly different from the way prison cells are organised. But take a look and see.

Ivan: You know, where I come from, many families are personally touched by addiction. My family included. And I have a very personal experience with the damage and pain that that comes with addiction. And I wonder if that is something that factors in with your decision-making - as a member of a family, as a parent, people make mistakes when they're addicts, they commit crimes. Do you think about that? And what could happen with your immediate family, with your children, if they go down this road?

Minister: I came into full-time politics in 2008. Before that, I had been a backbencher for 20 years. These policies were set by our founding father Mr Lee Kuan Yew. The laws, presumptions, the death penalty for traffickers. Most of these was set long before I entered politics or when I became a Minister. 

But having seen what happens around the world when I became a Minister, I completely understand. So, without personalising it, policies are designed to benefit the majority of Singaporeans. That has always been so, with a complete acceptance of the entire cabinet right from the beginning. And the death penalty was introduced – not from the beginning, but subsequently – then our laws were changed to cater for how the death penalty may be imposed. All this long before I became involved in any of this.

Ivan: I mean, does somebody convicted of drug trafficking deserve a second chance?

Minister: This is where I think policy has to be driven by a clear head. You need sympathy in your heart, but your head mustn’t be soft. Your head has got to be very clear, and be very analytical. 

If you start going soft on traffickers, that figure I gave you – about 86% of the region say they think the death penalty is more effective than life imprisonment, for example, many of them are not going to come to Singapore. That would change drastically. Because if people say, “Oh, if I can say that I'm from such-and-such a disadvantaged background, I’m this – I’m that, please have mercy on me”. Yes, individual cases, you say I'm showing mercy to you. But then there will be an explosion of trafficking because everyone will think that they can get some mercy. Because they won’t face capital punishment anymore. Then, are you showing mercy to the thousands of people who are innocent, including the hundreds more who are going to die? So where is your mercy to be placed? 

Ivan: Coming back to the example of Hong Kong, because I was struck just this morning. I was looking at statistics - Singapore had 3,100 drug arrests last year. Hong Kong, with a larger population, had 3,400 arrests. 

There are some parallels to the two societies. Hong Kong banned CBD, for example, just within the last two years, which I've learned are legal here – CBD products. But what does that tell you? You've had this very tough line. You're talking about not allowing mercy for somebody who's convicted of drug trafficking. Hong Kong does not execute, and they have almost the same number of drug arrests that you do, and they're a much larger population. 

Minister: Yes, they are a much larger population. The answer is, I don't know the level to which there's prevalence of drugs in Hong Kong, and so I feel that I shouldn’t be commenting too much because to what extent are they arresting on the ground? How prevalent is the use of drugs? Because arrests are one thing, but prevalence is the second issue. 

But third, as I said, we have a very effective enforcer across the land border, and that, I think constricts supply very substantially into Hong Kong. Who will want to bring in? You got to bring in through ships, or you got to bring in through air, and those are much easier to deal with. 

Ivan: But the argument you've made is that being this tough means the streets of Singapore are safe, people can walk them. Hong Kong, doesn’t.

Minister: Somebody else is being tough on their behalf, that’s my point. 

Ivan: Well, Hong Kong doesn’t execute and does not use the cane, for example, and my wife can walk the streets of the city – a larger city – arguably with perhaps more homelessness and some other challenges, at three o'clock in the morning, and I'm not worried about her. So, does that give you maybe some examples? As well as the South Korean and Japanese examples, where they don't have the level of punishment and that deterrence, and yet, those are safe countries and much larger than yours. 

Minister: They are much larger than us. And Japan is a society that we've studied from many different aspects. Our conclusion is that our society, because of where we are situated, our society is not similar to the Japanese society, which is saying the obvious. And the challenges we face are different from the challenges Japan faces, because the drugs can come very easily through our borders with our neighbours. 

Ivan: You're suggesting you're in a very difficult neighbourhood. 

Minister: We are in a neighbourhood where drugs are very prevalent. Very prevalent in the sense that they're being produced from the Golden Triangle, and Singapore is the obvious place for a lot of them to come.

Ivan: They choose this kind of price for drug traffickers in your city. 

Minister: Absolutely. You make much more money if you're trafficking in Singapore – the street price here compared to the street price in some other parts. It's a magnet. 

Hong Kong, I feel, has in some ways, you can use the phrase, “outsourced” its law enforcement in this area to its up north across the land border, which has similar policies. So the flow of drugs is substantially reduced. South Korea and Japan, I feel, are unique societies. We have our own unique challenges in this region.

Ivan: Does your zero-tolerance approach extend to wealthy citizens and residents of your city and party drugs.

Minister: It applies to all. No exceptions.

Ivan: Are you seeing seizures of the kind of drugs that we associate with the nightclub culture?

Minister: We intervene actively and when you find, as I said, drug abusers, whether you are wealthy or not wealthy, you will put through the same rehabilitation programme. And if you are a trafficker, regardless of who you are, you will face the same penalties. But the real kingpins of the drug trade are smart enough to stay overseas.

Ivan: How does Singapore execute criminals? 

Minister: They are hung.

Ivan: And there was a pause, I believe, on executions for some time, and that has ended. Am I correct? 

Minister: There was a pause during COVID-19, and there was a pause when some laws were debated – we said that couriers, or couriers who can give some assistance which allows us to break up drug gangs, we are prepared, in return for the assistance, to commute their capital punishment, or in cases, we would not charge them the capital offence. So, then the pauses for these two events. 

Ivan: And your staff have described kind of data-driven policies. How would you break down the demographics of people facing the death penalty? Are they Singaporean citizens or foreigners? Do they tend to come from wealthy backgrounds, or they come from poverty?

Minister: Many of them are Singaporeans. Majority of them are Singaporeans. The backgrounds, I think, vary, but you would consider many of them, particularly those who come from outside of Singapore, to be from backgrounds which are the lower socioeconomic circle. If you're wealthy, you are unlikely to take the risk of the capital punishment and traffic large amounts. They might bring in smaller amounts of drugs.

Ivan: And the Singaporean citizens, where do they fit into your society?

Minister: You know it depends on your definition, but they are probably likely to be also below the median. This is a society where 90 per cent own their own homes. I find that many of them are from families where homes are owned, but I would say they are more likely to be in the lower-socioeconomic category.

Ivan: In the US, people can be on death row for years and years and years before finally facing execution. What's the norm here in Singapore?

Minister: They are held while the investigations go on, which can be a year, a year plus, sometimes even longer. Then, the legal process, it doesn’t take very long, but it depends on what kind of defences are put out there. There’s the appeal to the Court of Appeal. After that, there is potential to appeal for clemency. So, all of this can take a year and a half to two years, and there can also be last minute challenges. Then you can be looking at six, seven years, or even longer in some cases, because of repeated applications to the court.

Ivan: I saw that you've introduced legislation because you have accused activists of abusing the legal system in Singapore. What are they doing to abuse the legal system in your eyes? 

Minister: I don't want to say activists abuse the legal system. What's happened is some of those in the death row, with the help of some activists, have applied repeatedly, on grounds which have been dismissed, essentially a day before the capital punishment is to be imposed, they have applied to court.

We consulted with the ground, we consulted with the Law Society, and we consulted with the judiciary. And two years ago, laws were passed in Parliament which had certain number of requirements if you want to apply, but at any point in time after all your appeals are disposed of, when do you need to explain to the Court of Appeal. So you go direct to the Court of Appeal and explain why are you getting this application. You set out on document in court: what are your grounds, whether these grounds were previously argued, are they new grounds – and if they are new grounds, why were they not argued. So you put all this out to the court, and the Court of Appeal will decide whether or not you will be allowed to make a further application. So it's a way of looking at your application carefully, because, look, there might be some cases where genuinely there is something that was unknown, or there's something new that needs to be looked at, and we ought to give them a chance. But if it's a repetition of what's already going on, then it's also a process by which the Court looks at it and says, well, I have heard of all these arguments, I made my decision, and there is no point coming back to me unless the Court takes a view that there is a point in coming back. 

Ivan: You specifically mentioned this individual, Kirsten Han. Why was she singled out? 

Minister: You mean in my Ministerial Statement? I mentioned, I think, a number of organisations, I mentioned Kirsten Han. She is one of those who romanticises the people on the death row. So I wanted to contrast that you can romanticise the drug trafficker who is dealing in misery and death, merchants of death; or you can look at the real victims, who are the victims of the drug trade. 

I pointed out that there are these activists who do these things, and people ought to be aware that there are all these efforts. It's part of our public education exercise. 

Ivan: Being opposed to the death penalty, in your eyes, equals romanticising?

Minister: No, no I did not say that. I said that she was actually romanticising. And if you want, I can send to you some material, on what she has posted in the past. Once, this person was not a drug trafficker, this person was a murderer, and she talked about how she felt he has a family – imagine growing up with his childhood, all of those things. I think the public reaction was, hey, look, what about the guy who this chap killed, he also had family, he also had a child, he also had dependants. 

I think in public debate, you ought to be able to deal with these issues openly. If you want to talk about people on the death row, that's how people respond. People say you are doing all these things, but these are the people you ought to look at. And then all of this is in public. She's not committing an offence by saying what she's saying, but if you want to enter into that debate, you must be prepared to engage in that debate. And Singaporean public ought to know that there are two sides to it.

Ivan: It sounds to me that this war on drugs that you are leading is a very personal crusade for you.

Minister: I wouldn't say it's personal. I wouldn't say it's war on drugs that I’m leading. Our Ministerial Statements, for example, are cleared through cabinet. This is government policy. I want to make it clear that the policy was all settled long before I became Minister, and much of the policy was there even before I came into Parliament. This is government policy, Singapore Government policy. This is not my policy. I'm simply carrying on government policy.

Ivan: And you've made clear to point out that polls and surveys show tremendous popular support for these policies. If that changes, do you think policy would change?

Minister: I have said that we are elected by the people, and in the end, we are answerable to the people, and popular opinion is relevant in two ways. One, you have to decide what's the correct policy as a leader, as leaders; and then you have to, if popular opinion is not in favour of you, you have to then try and persuade public opinion that this is the way to go. 

Supposing you don't succeed, then you have to ask yourself, can you, with a clear conscience, change the policy? Because are you in this public office, to be in public office or are you in this to help people, to do the right thing? And if you can't persuade people that it's the right thing, but you yourself are convinced that it is the right thing, then I think the right thing to do is to leave office. 

But it doesn't apply to every policy. There are policies that you might say, well, I believe it should be this. Majority opinion is this, and they really want to change. What kind of damage would it do? It doesn't damage too much. If there are other steps that can be taken, then I think you can change. But I think changing the drug policy would tear Singaporean society apart – that's my own view.

Ivan: Do you think that other countries around the world have something to learn from Singapore's zero-tolerance approach to drugs?

Minister: I don't know that everything we do can be applicable elsewhere. But I do think that the central philosophy that drugs are not good for society; drugs do a lot of damage; drugs kill a lot of people – I think that is something that countries can take more note of and then decide how best to deal with the problem. 

San Francisco declared a state of emergency, and I think British Columbia has also declared a state of emergency if I’m not wrong. Oregon, Portland is reversing the course. But I would say these are things we need to have exchange of viewpoints on, driven by data, driven by evidence, and talk to each other a lot more, and we are guided by the science. 

Ivan: And what could other governments around the world do that would make your job easier?

Minister: I think, where they are growing weed and other drugs, the governments can for a start, try and stop that. The countries that serve as transit points, can try and stop that. Countries that are major consumers, can try and change their position. As you can see, it's a tall order. 

Ivan: And what would you say to people in some of these societies where marijuana is now legal and they hear, wow, in Singapore, you can be executed for buying, and selling marijuana.

Minister: For transporting and selling and giving it to others. Well, I would say, you look at my statistics, you look at the number of people who are now on drugs compared to how many there were. You look at the fact that 9 out of 10 Singaporeans support this policy. This works for me. If you think it doesn't work for you, I understand. But you know, we are a sovereign country. This is what our country is. 

Ivan: Your government has a somewhat nuanced approach to marijuana, because it is legal here for some medicinal purposes, right? 

Minister: Yes, I’ve made this very clear. Even heroin, opium, can be administered, under hospital conditions. My point is this, as I said at the UN, if a respectable medical association, or the doctors say you need it, we will support that. But I don't want the businesses which are making money out of this, or NGOs which are supported by such businesses, to be telling me that this is needed for medical purposes. If a doctor certifies in the hospital, we will allow the administration. 

Ivan: The former leader of Mongolia is part of a campaign against the death penalty. I’m sure you have seen comments to that effect and has tried to make that case to you. What is your response to that?

Minister: A lot of people have made their case to us. And our response is, this has the support of our people. We believe that this is the correct policy, and it works for us. And until you can show me a better way, we are not ideological about this, we are happy to change. Show me a better way – show me a way that works around the world, to be safer and better, or at least as equally safe.

Heather: Following up from previous years ago, when in Malaysia, when Khairi Jamaluddin was still the Health Minister. I think there were talks about him and the Malaysian government looking into decriminalising cannabis, like what Thailand is doing. Could you kind of reiterate the point that whatever we do in Singapore is completely separate from what they do in Malaysia, like abolishing the death penalty and decriminalising drugs and stuff. Just to kind of make that distinction, because that's kind of like a very common thing that I usually get – saying that we’re from Singapore and Malaysia is doing this.

Minister: Well, there are number of strands to that question. One, does what happen in Malaysia impact Singapore? Absolutely – there’s no question. What happens in Thailand, what happens in Indonesia, what happens in Malaysia, impacts on Singapore, and I drew that distinction between us and Japan, Hong Kong or South Korea – we are in very different neighbourhood.

Two, does that mean we have control over what happens in any of these countries? No. 

Three, does that mean that they are not dealing with the problem effectively? No, I don’t say that. In an answer to Mr Watson I said, “Look, these are big countries. They have their challenges. They have different drug policies – they are sovereign countries, they are entitled to.” 

I can understand their challenges, but I have to take my steps in the context of the challenges. Some of them in this region have tough anti-drug policies. Some of them are more lax. Take Thailand for example – they changed their laws, and we just have to accept the world as it is.

So when Malaysia was talking about potentially decriminalising, of course it would have had a huge impact on Singapore, because Malaysia is 45 minutes away. People can go over there.

Ivan: In meetings with the Thais, does your government lobby for rolling back the decriminalisation?

Minister: We have meetings not just with the Thais. We have meetings with all our neighbours, and we tell them what our position is, and we tell them what we feel is good for this region. But I cannot pretend to have control over their respective policies, right? So coming back to the question earlier about Mr Jamaluddin. Yes, it was then, and we had frank discussions with Malaysia, but all along knowing that our viewpoints are going to have little or no impact on policies in Malaysia – domestic policies.

Heather: Like, at the end of the day, I guess it's just kind of the point that whatever people would say that, “You know, Malaysia is taking this direction. And why is like Singapore doing that?” I think at the end of the day, could you still say that, our sovereignty, would be…

Minister: It's not just sovereignty. It’s people said that, and Thailand changed. We were told that, “Oh, Thailand has changed. Why aren't you changing?” 

And the point is, Thailand's government thinks that that route is better for Thailand. Malaysian government thinks that a certain route is good for Malaysia. But Singaporean government is obliged to the people of Singapore. We have a fiduciary duty to do our best for our people, and we have to look at our country. It's not just, “Oh, we are sovereign. We will do whatever we like.” 

No, we are elected. We are elected on the promise that we will do our best for Singaporeans. 

If we believe this is the best, then we factor in what is happening in the region, because that may change our calculations. It has an impact. But after that, if we nevertheless conclude that our policies still ought to be maintained, then you explain to your population. 

Ivan: Can I ask about organised crime? Is there anything you can tell me about the criminal syndicates that are behind the drug trade, the kingpins that you would like to see brought to justice?

Minister: They are transnational. They come not necessarily from the region. They come from further afield too…

Ivan: The ones in the Golden Triangle?

Minister: Because it's a huge business, multi-billion dollar business. People with money from areas beyond the Southeast Asian region get attracted. And what happens in this region is no different from whatever is…

Ivan: Are you telling me Mexican cartels are investing in Cambodia?

Minister: I'm not quite talking about Mexican cartels. I don't have that kind of detailed knowledge, but I know that other big groups from other Asian countries get involved beyond Southeast Asia, and they finance it. 

It's a sophisticated operation. Somebody brings the finance, somebody does the meth, set up somewhere, somebody runs the sort of transport operations. 

Ivan: Can you tell me the names of some of these gangs or organisations?

Minister: I prefer not to go into that. What I can tell you is that it's got all these parts. And as with other parts of the world, then officials get drawn into the net along the way, the supply chain. People are paid to close their eyes towards the production and the transport until it reaches Singapore. 

And it's not just people in this region. It's money that flows in from outside, from other Asian countries. 

Ivan: This wasn't necessarily something we were planning on discussing. My curiosity - I’ve been doing some reporting on this that some of these groups in the region you're discussing, have branched out into other businesses involving fraud – kind of internet/crypto fraud on a massive scale, with trafficked people doing the fraud for them. Is that something you're dealing with too?

Minister: That’s something that we are dealing with, and it doesn’t come as a surprise. They make money out of drugs, then they recycle it both into legitimate businesses and other sorts of businesses. What do they normally go into? Prostitution, they traffic people,

all sorts of unspeakable cruelty. Young people, young children get trafficked. You get into all of this, and it's happening everywhere.

Ivan: Is this something you want to sound the alarm about since it’s happening in your backyard? 

Minister: We are one of the places where Interpol has an office. Scams on their own are a big issue, a transnational issue.  Cybercrime is a big issue. The Interpol office here is focused on these sorts of issues – internet crime, cybercriminals and so on. 

Trafficking in persons, trafficking young girls, trafficking young children. Who does this? The people with the money and people with the connections. There’s organised crime, there’s organised crime with drugs too. It's not as if the boundaries are very clear, and if I do drugs, I don't do anything else.

We talk about this. The real problem, Mr Watson, at the end, is that there's so much money to be made out of drugs, that Singapore talking about this has an impact, but the money talks a lot more. 

Tom: In Singapore, cannabis is classed as a Class A Drug, which is the same category as heroin, same category as fentanyl, same category as methamphetamines. And listening to you speak, you used examples such as Noi Noi who was killed, the person that killed her was not under the influence of cannabis. What would you say to some of the critics who feel you should have a look at not legalising cannabis, not even decriminalising it, but perhaps re-categorising it so that you could not look to death for trafficking of cannabis. 

Ivan: Does marijuana deserve to be the same classification as heroin and methamphetamines?

Minister: The answer to that question, the real essence of the question is: should there not be a distinction between marijuana and heroin? And there is. Because the amount of marijuana you need to traffic before you face the death penalty is far, far larger than heroin. 

And again, it comes back to, I forget the figures now, but a very large number of people would have to be affected by your trafficking. If you traffic for your own consumption, we will treat you as an abuser but if you bring it in to sell in sufficient quantities to feed a lot of people. Then, to me, that's damaging us. 

So the distinction is there. And it doesn't come out by classifying it as some other classification. It comes about by weight.

Ivan: You know, the entire conversation we're having is about again, drug policy, death penalty – you have a small country that is at the top of all of these international indices when it comes to life expectancy, literacy, and on and on. Yes, all of these things that are the envy of the world, arguably. And yet, when you're flying into Singapore, you get a warning that you face the death penalty. 

You get this on the plane as you're landing. I know that your country, that people are proud of their country and of its reputation. But is there a cost to, on the one hand, portraying yourself as modern and tech savvy and educated and then, imposing a death penalty on somebody who traffics marijuana or caning somebody? Is there a contradiction there? Do you see these all functioning well together as part of the image of your country?

Minister: If you view it from an ideological lens – if your question is, would someone viewing it ideologically think that it is jarring, the answer is yes. If you ask yourself, would someone who is coming in fresh would think, we ought to change our policies, then the answer is yes. 

But if you ask, “Minister, can these policies be correlated? Is there a central organising philosophy?” Then the answer is, there's no conflict. The safety and security is linked inextricably to our low crime. Our low crime is linked to our zero drug tolerance. Zero drug tolerance also saves lives. That's the primary purpose of the zero drug tolerance. Keep people away from drugs, keep deaths low. More people will die if we didn't take that approach. 

So across the board, there is a central good reason for all of these, and the fact that some people like some parts of what we do, but not others, is that they have not understood what's in our best interests. But our people, by and large, understand. And in the end, the government is here not to go and get credit from would be travellers. The government is here to do the right thing for Singaporeans. 

CNN: Thank you for this conversation.