2024年5月8日，新加坡内政部长尚穆根先生在国会答复武吉巴督单选区议员穆仁理关于如何向新加坡年轻一代宣传禁毒政策的问题。
以下内容为新加坡眼根据国会英文资料翻译整理：
议长先生：有请穆仁理先生。
穆仁理(武吉巴督单选区议员)：议长先生，我赞扬部长阁下阐明他打击毒品的强硬立场。我认为，我们还需要注意到，在采取强硬立场的同时，我们还采取了富有同情心的立场来帮助毒品受害者及其家人。他们的家属出席这次会议，正好清楚表明了这种态度。
议长先生，我想澄清的是，在以下背景下，我们如何向年轻一代的新加坡人，特别是Z世代和Alpha世代宣传这项禁毒政策：第一，他们不一定有亲身经历，因为正如部长阁下所述，我们在上世纪70年代曾面临严重的毒品问题，他们显然不会有这种亲身经历；第二，社交媒体上的叙述。
我注意到2022 年的一篇研究论文，其中强调，在分析的1600 万个帖子中，有75%的帖子对所谓的 “软性毒品 “持正面看法。这篇论文来自澳大利亚。我们的年轻人通过社交媒体获取新闻，他们接触到了这些新闻。那么，我们该如何应对呢？
最后一点是，在处理毒品问题的会议上，新加坡在某种意义上似乎越来越被搁置–这也许是我个人的看法。我本人曾有机会在剑桥举行的一次研讨会上阐明新加坡坚定的禁毒立场。有人说我的观点偏激，新加坡的经验无法在其它地方复制。
因此，这些都是趋势。我们如何确保Z世代和Alpha世代的孩子们理解并内化我们强有力的禁毒政策？
尚穆根先生：谢谢穆仁理先生。关于第一个问题，面对来自多方的攻击，我们如何植入禁毒信息，并提出对禁毒的积极看法？我认为这也与毕丹星先生的问题有关，因为如果你看到正在发生的事情，通过将毒品合法化和提供毒品，人们将赚很多钱，数十亿美元。因此，世界各地都有上市公司希望这样做，它们资助非政府组织，资助宣传，推销软性毒品是好东西、无害的观点。
如果你看看这些国际会议，那些对毒品采取强硬立场的非政府组织通常资金匮乏，他们的材料也不那么吸引人；而另一方面，却有各种浮夸的论据，说明为什么软性毒品、大麻不会对你造成伤害。它只是让你尝试的东西，很酷。
因此，”酷 “的整个概念从媒体、网络、朋友、同侪压力中向我们的年轻人推送；无论你走到哪里，它都在那里，而且如今它被美化了。它经常被美化。你无法摆脱它。因此，如果你问为什么我们的年轻人会出现这种现象？尽管起点较低，答案是显而易见的。我们如何应对？我们不制作好莱坞电影。要抵御这种多方面的攻击是非常困难的。但我认为我们已经做得相当不错了。
在某种程度上，这也涉及到毕丹星先生提出的第二个问题。在联合国和国际会议上，我们是一个异类。我们通常会得到两种反应：一是当我们公布我们的统计数据和情况时，人们会闷闷不乐地保持沉默，因为人们不喜欢；第二种是，”嗯，你知道，是的，我们承认新加坡取得了成功，但你们所做的事情无法在其他地方复制”。我认为是可以的，但我们没有义务在世界其他地方进行斗争。只要别人不对我们指手画脚，让我们独自保护我们的人民，我想这就是我们所能期望的最好结果。
杨莉明第二部长经常参加在维也纳举行的联合国毒品问题会议。我们提出了自己的立场，是的，我们在某种程度上是孤立的。其他一些国家也采取了强硬的态度，但我认为没有一个国家像我们这样提出观点，并提出研究和统计数据。但是，我们确实有一些国家对毒品持反对意见，包括东盟国家。虽然存在意见分歧，但永远不要低估，向本国人民传达我们的信息是处在一个非常艰难的环境，我们都必须继续为之奋斗。
预防毒品教育是一个宽泛的名称，但中央肃毒局和内政部目前正在尝试许多不同的方法，试图更好、更清晰地向更多人传递信息。
我想，如果你去问问那些家有小学生的人，我想他们一定听说过。他们会告诉你他们听说过什么。下一个问题是如何让它深入人心。我认为父母的作用很大。在这方面，我希望我们的 “毒品受害者纪念日 “倡议会有所帮助。我希望我们正在采取的其他措施也会有所帮助。
议长先生：有请维凯先生。
维凯先生（三巴旺集选区议员）：我感谢部长非常清楚地阐述了新加坡的政策，这项政策与许多其他国家的政策不同，但我认为是正确的。
和其他一些议员一样，我关注的是青少年开始吸毒的年龄较小，平均为15.9 岁。在我就读小学时，当局曾推行反对吸食胶水的运动，因为吸食胶水被视为吸食毒品的途径。今天，还有什么其他的 “入门 “物质或毒品是公众应该了解的，尤其是青少年应该了解的？
尚穆根先生（内政部长）：谢谢维凯先生。举例来说，有些人可能会将电子 烟当作入门的一种途径，卫生部将会回答他们正采取的措施。
以下是英文质询内容：
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I commend the hon Minister for articulating his tough stance against drugs. And I think one would also need to take note that, coupled with the tough stance, is a compassionate stance in helping the drug victims and the family. And the presence of the families here in the House is a clear articulation of that approach.
Sir, my clarification is in relation to how do we embed this anti-drugs policy in the younger generations of Singaporeans, particularly Gen Z and Generation Alpha, against the backdrop of: one, the fact that they did not necessarily have personal experience because, as was recounted by the hon Minister, we had serious drug problems in the 1970s, they obviously would not have such personal experience; two, the narratives in the social media.
I had regard to a research paper in 2022 where it was highlighted that in relation to so called “soft drugs”, there were positive perceptions of these so called “soft drugs” in 75% of 16 million posts that were analysed. This paper came out of Australia. Our young consume social media for news and they are exposed to this. So, how do we deal with this?
The last point is the fact that increasingly – and this, perhaps, is my personal perception – Singapore seems to be, in a sense, set aside in relation to conferences dealing with the drugs issue. I myself have had a chance to articulate Singapore’s strong anti-drugs stance in a symposium in Cambridge. I was referred to as having outlier arguments and Singapore’s experience cannot be replicated elsewhere.
So, these are the trends. How do we make sure that our children from Gen Z and Gen Alpha would understand and internalise our strong anti-drugs policy?
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir. On the first question, how do we embed this anti-drug message in the face of an assault from multiple sides putting forward a positive spin on drugs? I think this goes to Mr Singh’s question as well, because if you see what is happening, by decriminalising and making drugs available, people stand to make a lot of money, billions of dollars. So, there are listed companies around the world which want this and they finance non-governmental organisations (NGOs), they finance publicity, which sells the idea that soft drugs are good, they are harmless.
If you look at these international conferences, the NGOs which are taking a tough line on drugs are usually poorly financed, their material is not so attractive; whereas on the other side, there are all these glitzy arguments as to why soft drugs, cannabis cause you no harm. It is just something for you to try, it is cool.
So, the whole idea of the “cool” factor pushed at our young from media, online, friends, peer pressure; wherever you turn, it is there and it is glamourised today. It is frequently glamourised. You cannot get away from it. So, if you ask why is there a jump amongst our young in, albeit from a lower base, the answer is obvious. How do we deal with it? We do not produce Hollywood movies. It is very difficult to stand against this multi-faceted assault. But I think we have done a reasonably good job.
And that goes, in a way, to the second question that Mr Pillai asked, Sir. We are an outlier in the United Nations (UN), in international conferences. We usually get one of two reactions: one, a sullen silence as we put out our statistics and situation, because people just do not like it; the second is, “Well, you know, yes, we accept that Singapore succeeds but what you do cannot be replicated elsewhere”. I think it can be, but it is not for me to fight the fight in the rest of the world. As long as others do not tell us what to do and leave us alone to protect our population, then I think that is the best that we can hope for.
