Question: What are your views on the Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA) statement on Singapore’s anti-vaping stance?
Minister: I saw what CAPHRA said. They, from our checking, look like a New Zealand-based Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO), and they criticised our tough approach. Look at what they say. They say go for harm reduction. They say nicotine vaping should be allowed, and they say our approach will make the situation worse, by pushing the market underground.
These are the same old tired arguments – which have been used all along to push for legalising drugs. They're usually made by companies which profit from legalisation or their proxies.
We take a tough line on drugs, and has that kept our society safe? Now you have less murders, less serious crime. Thousands of young people saved from drugs.
If we had listened to this sort of balderdash from various organisations, different people telling us, “go for legalisation, go for harm reduction” – basically normalise it and let the government and organisations become the pushers of drugs – our situation will be like many other cities that you see around the world.
So when I hear these arguments, there are usually two questions I ask myself - One, who is saying it. That will give an indication, often, of motive; second, what is being said.
As to who is saying it, CAPHRA, I've never heard of them before this, but I asked my people to go and check, and from what we have been able to find out, it appears to be an activist group. Members are basically there to promote electronic smoking devices (ESDs). So it's an organisation to promote e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products under the banner of tobacco harm reduction. You can put whatever label you like, but they are basically pushers of tobacco.
And they seem to be a lobby group for a tobacco company called, most people know, Philip Morris International (PMI). And they say these ESDs, electronic way of passing on nicotine, are a safer alternative to conventional cigarettes. This is a kind of snake oil that these organisations peddle, and they avoid saying it is harmful in itself.
CAPHRA's executive coordinator seems to be a person called Nancy Lucas, and she frequently speaks at the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (GTNF). GTNF, if you look at who is supporting them, they are all the major tobacco companies – including PMI, British American Tobacco, Imperial Brands, Altria, and Japan Tobacco International.
So my conclusion is they are proxies, essentially paid mouthpieces for the tobacco industry, which is hoping to push nicotine through vapes. And they don't really care if other stuff gets pushed through vapes too. But if you stop vapes, their business gets affected.
So you can see why they will support vapes. It means money. A lot of money. And I think it's fair to say their primary focus is not the health of Singaporeans. But if you look at us, Government of Singapore - for us, the primary focus is the safety, security and the health of Singaporeans and Singapore. Our young people are at risk. And I am not about to listen to some NGO which seems to be funded by tobacco companies and get advice from them on what is good for our society and our children.
Second, if you look at what CAPHRA actually says, these are the typical viewpoints that have been pushed for a long time, as I said earlier, and they don't represent the mainstream view in Singapore. CAPHRA has also campaigned against the World Health Organization's treaty for tobacco control. They don't want control on tobacco, and they promote misleading claims, I quote, “vaping is dramatically safer than cigarettes. E-cigarettes are around 95% less harmful”. Now, nicotine-based vapes deliver four packets of cigarette in one vape. And now, if you have a vape, you can lace it with all sorts of other stuff. And can you actually say that is good for you? So you see, essentially they are tobacco lobby. So you just look at who they are and what they are saying.
Question: What are your views on harm reduction? Does it work?
Minister: Many countries have tried it, are still trying it, and they do say, from their perspective, it's better than the situation was before. But I think it all comes from the perspective – you have got to look at what the situation was previously.
Now, if you are not able to control, maybe large countries have different problems; if you are not able to control the situation, law and order has gotten out of control, lot of illegal drugs, when you have made it illegal, and you are not able to stop the flow, you are not able to stop people from taking drugs – then harm reduction is better than what it was before.
But we are not in that situation. We are in a situation where actually, we are pretty successful in stopping the flow of drugs in the first place. Our legal system works, our enforcement system works. Our police are efficient, our CNB is efficient, and therefore we are able to deal with the problem upfront.
If you are a country which has lost the fight and drugs are everywhere, and you are not able to stop the flow into your country, and the criminal gangs are operating everywhere underground, and they are controlling the market, then you might say, “Oh, well, there's nothing I can do. I might as well go for harm reduction. I provide centres where I provide the drugs, or NGOs provide the drugs and I pay for it.” - so it's normalisation, legalisation, everybody can take drugs but authorised.
I'm not sure it is good, because it does a lot of harm to your body. But if you have lost control, you are not able to control the situation. Maybe you can say this is better for you. I don't know. But for us, we are able to stop it at the first level. By and large, our society is drug-free, and therefore, why should we consider harm reduction?
And you look at the United States (US). Even in the US, there is a pushback now against this sort of harm reduction. Because what happens is thousands and thousands of people just start taking drugs. The cities are turned into very difficult places for people to feel safe.
The New York Times reported just five days ago that several cities in the US are moving away from harm reduction, and that includes cities run by Democrats – San Francisco, Philadelphia; and also states run by Republicans – like West Virginia, Nebraska. And this reversal is happening for them after thousands and thousands of lives have been lost. And we were saying all along, harm reduction was not the right approach, certainly not for us, and we refused to go down this road.
So really, I would say to Singaporeans, just because somebody else says it, we don't need to be colonised in our mind. Just look at the evidence, open your eyes, read. Look at what is happening around the world, look at what is happening in Singapore. Ignore lobbyists who are paid by pharmaceutical companies and self-interested groups. Ignore also persons driven by ideology who will refuse to look at the facts. Whether you're government or you're not in government, I think the starting point is – look at the facts, look at what's happening, and then make up your mind.
Question: An Indonesian official has said that Singapore’s vaping ban is going to boost tourism for Batam – what will happen to Singaporeans if they vape overseas, especially etomidate?
Minister: As I mentioned at the press conference on Thursday, ICA has stepped up checks at all checkpoints to detect the possession or smuggling of e-vaporisers.
We will take action against anyone if they are found with e-vaporisers at the checkpoints and the penalties are set out quite clearly.
Etomidate is now classified as a Class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) from 1 September for a period of six months.
Under the MDA, it is an offence for any Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident to consume a controlled drug, and etomidate will be a controlled drug, whether in Singapore or overseas. That's the law, and you know our laws will be enforced.
I would say that neighbouring countries, they have their attractions. Indonesia has plenty of attractions. It's a great place for tourism, and I'm sure lots of Singaporeans will visit Indonesia, as they will visit Malaysia. These are two countries that can attract a lot of visitors, and I don't think etomidate needs to be the hook to bring in tourists. They've got great natural beauty, cultural beauty, tremendously warm people. It's a great place for tourism. I don't think they need drugs.
Question: Are there any broader steps that will be taken to address the issue of transnational syndicates that are bringing in these drug-laced e-vaporisers?
Minister: You have seen how we have dealt with drugs. Whether it is transnational or whether it is individuals. When we step up, we try and make sure that we stop the flow, and ICA officers, together with the other agencies, will be doing their best to do that at the borders, and of course, enforcement inland too. And as usual, we will rely a fair bit on technology. We will try and see how technology can be brought in.
Question: If anyone is found to possess vapes, how do we differentiate between personal use or for sale?
Minister: That will have to be based on investigation.
