IN the longer term, the proposal to reduce the penalties for laundering drug money in order to be able to reduce the standards of proof needed for a conviction may turn out to be the right one. So far, there have been no convictions under the drug laundering provisions of the Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance, because the prosecution has to prove not only that the person accused of assisting a trafficker to launder money has benefited from drug trafficking, but also that he entered intoan agreement with the trafficker. The burden of proof has been such that the law has been unenforceable. Anything that makes it easier to convict those profiting from the drug trade is a step in the right direction.

The immediate impact of the proposal, however, is likely to be negative. Long before the amended ordinance is put into law, the signal to the drug world is that the Government is preparing to soften its stance. Even to the money men who profit by covering the tracks of the Mr Bigs, the prospect of a $5 million fine and 14 years in prison would not be a risk to be taken lightly. The news that the punishments may be lessened dramatically, simply because the drug barons have the resources to circumvent the law, will have the criminal fraternity laughing all the way to the bank.

The criticism of the drug laundering law has, until now, been that it is ''vague and weak''. Law drafters should be looking for ways to make it more effective, and not proposing to weaken it still further.