SINGAPORE: The Singapore government has no plans to introduce any amendments to presumptions in the main law for drug offences, and will “defend” the constitutionality of these presumptions, said Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam on Tuesday (Apr 8).
He was responding to a question from Member of Parliament Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (PAP-Chua Chu Kang) who asked if the authorities had any plans to introduce amendments to the presumptions in the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Delivering a ministerial statement, Mr Shanmugam said the presumptions date back to the enactment of the Act in 1973, and have been debated in parliament.
Members of Parliament discussed the issue most recently during the second reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill in 2023, with the Bill passed unanimously, Mr Shanmugam said.
“The law, as it stands now, is based on current policy. And the government has seen no reason to introduce any amendments with regard to those presumptions,” he added.
In the Act, these presumptions include those of possession of controlled drugs; of knowledge of the nature of the controlled drug; and that possession was for trafficking, among others.
Mr Shanmugam noted that there was a case currently pending before the courts, challenging the presumptions of the Misuse of Drugs Act. He did not name the case in question.
Pannir Selvam Pranthaman, a convicted drug courier on death row, successfully had his execution stayed a day before his scheduled execution on Feb 20.
He was convicted on May 2, 2017 on a single charge for importing no less than 51.84g of diamorphine into Singapore and received the mandatory capital punishment.
He sought permission to make a post-appeal application before the Court of Appeal.
Representing himself, Pannir had made the application based on three grounds, including a constitutional challenge regarding the presumptions in certain sections of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Judge of the Appellate Division Woo Bih Li, who heard the application, had found that there was a "reasonable prospect of success" for Pannir's application based on these grounds.
Mr Shanmugam said that the presumptions in the Act address 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 obtain direct evidence of.
In such cases, the prosecution will be able to prove, for instance, that the drugs were in the accused person’s possession. However, the accused could easily claim that he did not know they were drugs, and seek thereby to avoid being convicted, said Mr Shanmugam.
It may not be easy for the prosecution to rebut this claim, or get the necessary evidence to prove that the accused was aware they were drugs.
"Therefore the presumptions deal with the accused’s knowledge of the nature of the drugs," said Mr Shanmugam.
"Under the MDA (Misuse of Drugs Act), 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."
Mr Shanmugam said that the prosecution must first "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that the drugs were in the accused person’s possession, before the presumption of the accused’s knowledge can be triggered.
The prosecution must still prove all other elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, he added.
Mr Shanmugam cited a few examples he had previously raised in parliament in 2017, on the “evidential difficulties” in drug cases, and the “necessity” of the legal presumptions.
In one case, a man was arrested at Woodlands Checkpoint with 145g of diamorphine. He had allegedly travelled to Kuala Lumpur seeking job opportunities, and was introduced to a man known as "Uncle".
The man passed him 10 packets of substances and taped them onto his body. He claimed that when he asked what they were for, the man showed him three fingers in reply, and he accepted it. He was hence not aware of the contents when he came to Singapore.
"How can the prosecution rebut this? The truth is only in the person’s mind," said Mr Shanmugam, referring to his previous comments.
“This is why our first prime minister, who was a lawyer, knew what the problems would be and reversed the onus of proof.”
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, Mr Shanmugam pointed out.
“This 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,” he added.
“The presumptions have been an essential part of the legal framework that enables us to deal effectively with the drug problem.”
Mr Shanmugam added: “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.”
Continue reading...
He was responding to a question from Member of Parliament Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (PAP-Chua Chu Kang) who asked if the authorities had any plans to introduce amendments to the presumptions in the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Delivering a ministerial statement, Mr Shanmugam said the presumptions date back to the enactment of the Act in 1973, and have been debated in parliament.
Members of Parliament discussed the issue most recently during the second reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill in 2023, with the Bill passed unanimously, Mr Shanmugam said.
“The law, as it stands now, is based on current policy. And the government has seen no reason to introduce any amendments with regard to those presumptions,” he added.
In the Act, these presumptions include those of possession of controlled drugs; of knowledge of the nature of the controlled drug; and that possession was for trafficking, among others.
CASE BEFORE THE COURTS
Mr Shanmugam noted that there was a case currently pending before the courts, challenging the presumptions of the Misuse of Drugs Act. He did not name the case in question.
Pannir Selvam Pranthaman, a convicted drug courier on death row, successfully had his execution stayed a day before his scheduled execution on Feb 20.
He was convicted on May 2, 2017 on a single charge for importing no less than 51.84g of diamorphine into Singapore and received the mandatory capital punishment.
He sought permission to make a post-appeal application before the Court of Appeal.
Representing himself, Pannir had made the application based on three grounds, including a constitutional challenge regarding the presumptions in certain sections of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Judge of the Appellate Division Woo Bih Li, who heard the application, had found that there was a "reasonable prospect of success" for Pannir's application based on these grounds.
NECESSARY TO PROTECT AGAINST DRUG TRAFFICKING
Mr Shanmugam said that the presumptions in the Act address 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 obtain direct evidence of.
In such cases, the prosecution will be able to prove, for instance, that the drugs were in the accused person’s possession. However, the accused could easily claim that he did not know they were drugs, and seek thereby to avoid being convicted, said Mr Shanmugam.
It may not be easy for the prosecution to rebut this claim, or get the necessary evidence to prove that the accused was aware they were drugs.
"Therefore the presumptions deal with the accused’s knowledge of the nature of the drugs," said Mr Shanmugam.
"Under the MDA (Misuse of Drugs Act), 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."
Mr Shanmugam said that the prosecution must first "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that the drugs were in the accused person’s possession, before the presumption of the accused’s knowledge can be triggered.
The prosecution must still prove all other elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, he added.
Mr Shanmugam cited a few examples he had previously raised in parliament in 2017, on the “evidential difficulties” in drug cases, and the “necessity” of the legal presumptions.
In one case, a man was arrested at Woodlands Checkpoint with 145g of diamorphine. He had allegedly travelled to Kuala Lumpur seeking job opportunities, and was introduced to a man known as "Uncle".
The man passed him 10 packets of substances and taped them onto his body. He claimed that when he asked what they were for, the man showed him three fingers in reply, and he accepted it. He was hence not aware of the contents when he came to Singapore.
"How can the prosecution rebut this? The truth is only in the person’s mind," said Mr Shanmugam, referring to his previous comments.
“This is why our first prime minister, who was a lawyer, knew what the problems would be and reversed the onus of proof.”
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, Mr Shanmugam pointed out.
“This 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,” he added.
“The presumptions have been an essential part of the legal framework that enables us to deal effectively with the drug problem.”
Mr Shanmugam added: “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.”
Continue reading...