BETTING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.41 p.m.

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's recommendation for this Bill and I beg to move, "That this Bill be now read a Second time."

The Bill has two main purposes, firstly to strengthen the law for the suppression of common betting-houses, betting in public places and bookmaking, and, secondly, to enable off-course betting on racing to be conducted under certain conditions.

The definitions of "access" and "common betting-house" have been amended to bring in persons who carry on bookmaking activities by telephone.

In a Bill like this, Mr Speaker, Sir, if we are to deal effectively with bookmaking, it would be necessary for us to introduce a number of presumptions and we have done so in this Bill.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr G. Kandasamy) in the Chair]

4.42 p.m.

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Clause 2 (3) of the Bill provides:

"A place shall be deemed to be used for habitual betting or wagering if betting or wagering is frequently carried on therein, notwithstanding that betting or wagering is not the primary purpose for which such place is normally used."

Clause 3 (2) of the Bill provides:

"Any person who occupies or has the use temporarily of a place which is kept or used by another person as a common betting-house shall be presumed until the contrary is proved to have permitted such place to be so kept or used."

Clause 8 (1) of the Bill provides:

"Any person accepting or receiving bets, stakes or wagers or found in possession of any books, accounts, documents, telegrams, writings, circulars, cards or other articles which are used or appear to have been used or intended to be used in connection with or which relate or appear to relate to the business of a bookmaker shall be presumed until the contrary is proved to be acting as a bookmaker."

Clause 8 (2) of the Bill provides:

"Any person who settles or pays money or money's worth in respect of bets or wagers relating to a horse-race or any other kind of race shall also be presumed until the contrary is proved to be acting as a bookmaker."

Clause 15 of the Bill provides:

"In all proceedings under this Ordinance any evidence given by a police officer not below the rank of Sergeant that any book, account, document, telegram, writing, circular, card or other article produced before the court had been used or was intended to be used for betting or wagering, shall, until the contrary is proved, he deemed to be sufficient evidence of the fact."

The scale of punishment under the Ordinance, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, has been increased. Thus, for offences relating to common betting-houses, the punishment has been increased from a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both such fine and imprisonment.

Clause 6 of the Bill makes it an offence to publish the results of any public lottery or horse race, but the publication of the results of a horse-race in a licensed newspaper is not affected.

Clause 13 of the Bill gives power to a police officer to arrest on reasonable suspicion and to search the person arrested where he believes that, by delay in reporting, the offender may escape.

Although the increased powers which the Government seeks in this Bill will help it to deal more effectively with bookmaking and betting, the Government has also taken a realistic attitude, and has taken the view that it is better to control bookmaking and betting where circumstances are such as to make it impossible for it to suppress book-making and betting altogether. It is therefore proposed to permit off-course betting on racing under certain conditions.

Clause 22 of the Bill provides a means whereby an approved racing club or association may be exempted from all or any of the provisions of the Ordinance, thereby enabling such exempted club or association to lawfully conduct or promote off-course betting on racing and to admit members of the public to its premises for the purpose of betting.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.46 p.m.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Labour and Law has stated that there are two main purposes in his moving the Bill. The first is to strengthen the law against illegal betting and illegal bookmaking. The second is to enable off-course betting to be held under certain conditions. Sir, we on this side are not opposed to his first purpose, although there are certain defects in the Bill to which my colleague, the Member for Farrer Park, will in due course draw the attention of Government.

Sir, when we read the Bill up to and including clause 22 and the two Bills that are to follow this Bill, we realise that the real purpose of moving this and the following two Bills is not so much to suppress common betting-houses, betting in public places and bookmaking, as to legalise betting shops and provide more facilities for betting and gambling under certain conditions by which Government will be able to increase its revenue. There is nothing wrong - in fact, it is laudable

• for the Government to look for ways and means to increase revenue. But, Sir, there is a limit as to what sort of means should be employed to raise additional revenue. The Minister for Labour and Law has been quoted by the Straits Times in its issue of Thursday, 7th April, as follows:

"Mr Byrne emphasised, 'We have no intention of encouraging gambling in any way.'"

Sir, I agree with him. I wish he had also said, "We wish to discourage gambling." I wish he had indicated that the desire of the Government is that, although it may not be possible to suppress gambling completely, they would try their best to limit and to reduce gambling to the smallest scale possible. But he went on, as if he had surrendered to the situation:

"But we must accept the fact that gambling is now taking place in Singapore on a large scale, and much of the profits",

you will notice, Sir, that the capitalist mentality seems to be creeping in there -

"from this gambling goes into the pockets of bookies and gambling racketeers. No income tax is ever paid on these profits."

The Minister added:

"If there is to be gambling on this large scale, we might as well take the opportunity to see that the State gets its proper share of the revenue."

Sir, that sort of reasoning is rather dangerous. There is a lot of kidnapping going on. Since it is impossible to stop or prevent kidnapping, the Minister for Labour and Law is practically suggesting to his colleagues, "Say, you chaps. We cannot stop or prevent kidnapping. Huge ransoms are being paid to the kidnappers. The State may as well go into the business. Get a few fellows kidnapped, and then we can get additional revenue." Sir, it is dangerous to encourage that sort of reasoning in the State. It is like saying that since secret society activities cannot be totally suppressed, the Government should organise their own secret society for the sake of increasing the State revenue. I am sure the Minister would not do that, but there is a danger in that the young people in Singapore may be encouraged to reason along those lines. A wrong thing does not become right just because it is made legal. A bad egg remains bad, although one may paint it white, black, red, green, or yellow.

We, Sir, agree that we should not encourage gambling. We should discourage it and limit it.

The Prime Minister: That is what we are doing!

Mr Thio Chan Bee: But I am afraid, Sir, the purpose of this Bill is not to do so. It is to expand gambling, and the main purpose behind it is to increase the revenue of the State. This decision of Government has come as a shock to many people. Many have praised Government for their anti-vice drives. Their moves to close down juke boxes, certain massage parlours, and other methods of recreation regarded as yellow culture, although perhaps made too drastically, were commended by, I would say, the majority of the people. But what will they say when, in place of the jukeboxes, they see betting shops; when, instead of gambling on a small scale, they see gambling on a big scale? That seems to be a great come down from the lofty perch established by the Minister for Home Affairs. Instead of following the socialist line, they have taken to the capitalist line and beyond.

Sir, imagine in future, visitors to the State of Singapore looking around. They see coffee-shops and trading shops. They then come across certain shops and, not knowing what they are, they ask the Singaporeans, "What are those?" The answer they get is, "Oh! Those are betting shops." Is this the Government's new industry? Are we to see more and more, betting shops year by year? is Singapore to be converted from the emporium of South-east Asia to the gambling den of South-east Asia? Surely this is contrary to the declared policy laid down by the People's Action Party in its Five-Year Plan against immoral and yellow culture.

Sir, when I was a boy, about 42 years ago, my father talked about a gambling den across the Straits of Johore. There was then no gambling den in Singapore. There had been gambling on the five-foot ways during Chinese New Year, but that had disappeared too. Now, 42 years later, this Government has decided that we should go back, to the most backward period of the colonial era, and reintroduce public gambling places. It is regrettable.

The idea of raising State revenue by legalising betting shops is not a new thing. Ever since 1947, officials in the Treasury have suggested to the Government that an easy way of replacing the lost revenue from the Government opium monopoly was this way. Time and again the subject was brought up, and Government at that time could have forced the issue by using their official votes. But, Sir, we must give credit where credit is due. Although the Government at that time, in the post-war period, had the majority, they listened to the views of the minority and restrained their hand. Betting shops were not legalised; public lotteries were not introduced. And so the old Government lost the chance of making millions of dollars. But today with Singapore in the hands of a Party which is supposed to make self-government a success, we find that in their desire to raise more revenue, they have decided to go back and reintroduce those measures which are regarded as unworthy of a Government and which have demoralising effects on the citizens of this country.

Sir, we are sorry that this Government, starting with high ideals, has been sorely tempted because of its need for funds to do what they have condemned. During the debate on the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill, they condemned the tax evaders for doing something which is not quite right for the sake of profit.

Sir, I would like to ask the Government to answer five questions. I hope the answers will be given without any hurling of abuse. The first question is: has the Government changed its policy, as indicated by the Minister for Home Affairs, in its campaign against vice and yellow culture in Singapore? If a chap ji-ki promoter is caught, he is imprisoned or banished. Those who participate or help the promoters are liable to suffer the same fate. But after these three Bills are passed those people who promote gambling on a big scale under the protection of this Bill will be honoured, because they can contribute a big slice to the State revenue. So, on the one hand, you have the chap-ji-ki promoter and his supporters getting a prison sentence or being banished, and on the other hand, you have gambling promoters getting the kudos. If this kind of policy goes on, the Government will very soon introduce legalised prostitution. Later on they will reintroduce the Government opium monopoly because there is money to be found there. Sir, the Government of the country is supposed to set an example to its citizens as to what is right and wrong.

Sir, the children in schools are told that they should not gamble. When they gamble on the school premises or even outside, the police are informed. Now what are the teachers to say to the children when these betting shops operate openly? There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that there is going to be an age limit for a schoolboy to place his bets.

Government will be setting an unsavoury example to the citizens, especially the young citizens. Is this exchange worthwhile - $10 million extra for the public coffers, but the young manhood of the nation is being spoilt?

I believe, Sir, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister warned public servants not to bet outside office hours, but he also implied that there was too much betting during office hours, because he said that the phones were continually engaged. Does he want to encourage betting to the extent that people who are in Government offices regard betting as an honourable game? If they get into debt because they participate in this new game introduced by the Government, are they liable to be sacked?

Sir, may I now ask the Minister for Labour and Law to answer the second question? Does the Government truly and sincerely believe that legalised betting :shops should be encouraged - because such gambling will be good for the welfare of the people of Singapore? Sir, I have a random selection of quotations from the local Press. The Singapore Free Press of 24th February, 1960, has this to say on betting. Perhaps they said it without knowing that the Government was about to introduce this Bill:

"Betting is a mug's game

Complaints by punters at the Bukit Timah amateur meetings when they got back only $5 for their winning $5 tickets after backing the winner just prove again that betting is a mug's game.

Twenty per cent of all the money going on to the tote disappears in Government tax and club commission before the horses start.

And dividends are paid out to the nearest dollar below the actual dividend, all the cents from one to ninety-nine being broken money and retained by the Club.

If you bet long enough you lose all you start with."

And the Government makes $10 million!

And here is one from the Sunday Times of January, 20th, 1957.

"Coroner denounces gambling. It led to the death of two."

[Laughter] Sir, it is not a laughing matter, because these two people were valued teachers in educational institutions, but because they became enamoured of the craze for lottery tickets, there was a misunderstanding between two good friends, and one was shot and the other committed suicide.

Sir, one might say that even this additional revenue is blood money. It is blood money because it led to the death of citizens who should have continued to live and contribute valuable services to the country. Sir, now and again we read of people who are well educated members of the Bar and who, I am sorry to say, sometimes were tempted because of this

• I would not mention names -

The Prime Minister: The one who has just got suspended, I suppose!

Mr Thio Chan Bee: One was tempted and used the client's money. A former clerk was tempted because he fancied he would gain $16,000. His fancy did not come off, and he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Another, who was a salesman, said that he punted on horses and that led him to misappropriate gold ornaments worth $12,000. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 13 months' imprisonment.

That is what happens to many unlucky fellows who become enamoured of the idea that they could make money out of betting. There are only two parties who are sure of making money on betting, and they are the organised and the Government.

Sir, in the face of these misfortunes, can the Government maintain that the provision of more betting facilities and more opportunities for gambling would be for the good of the people of Singapore?

The third question is this. Does the Government regard betting shops as a good socialist method of raising money for the State? The People's Action Party claims to be a democratic, non-communist, socialist party. Is it socialist to resort to a means of raising revenue for the State whereby those who are poorest are made to contribute the most in proportion to their income? This is an indirect way of taxing the people, so that more money come from the poor than from those who can afford it. The rich go to the races; they buy lottery tickets, and they bet for fun. If they lose, they can stand it. It is nothing to them. They know that the chances of winning are very meagre. But the poor are tempted because of their poverty, forgetting that their chances of winning are meagre. They bet, and they bet more heavily than they can afford to, which means that many will lose money that could have been better spent on food for their children and on clothes. Of course, it could be said that these poor people should not bet. If they cannot afford it, they should not bet. It is like a fisherman who dangles a tempting bait to the fish and he says to the half-starved fish, "Do not take the bait. Let the fat ones take it." Sir, that is against human nature. The fat ones are not likely to take the bait. But the hungry will do it. And the poor in Singapore will be the ones most tempted to take the bait and most tempted to lose money on it.

Sir, I thought that this Government, when it came to deciding between the temptation of getting more money and losing its conscience, would be prepared to lose the money and keep its conscience. Apparently it is just like any capitalist government. It is worse than the post-war Government which resisted the temptation for the sake of the people of Singapore. One argument is this: if it could be done in Australia and certain other countries, why cannot we do it here? They forget that in Australia and New Zealand the standard of living is so high that every worker could afford to lose some money. Here the standard of living is not that high and yet, with increased unemployment, the Government say to the unemployed, "Come along. Even with your dole you can give a portion back to the State."

Sir, the fourth question is this. Does the Government honestly believe that betting shops will reduce rather than stimulate more gambling in Singapore? The argument is that, by having these betting shops, business would be taken away from the illegal bookmakers and from those who take part in chap-ji-ki gambling. Those who like chap-ji-ki will continue to gamble on the chap-ji-ki. Those who like football will continue to play and watch football. It is not going to be easy to say to them, "We give you this new game; give up the old game. We give you the legalised betting shops; give up the chap-ji-ki" it is not so easy. So the result would be that, in addition to all these old gambling faci1ities which have been regarded as illegal, there will be these new facilities provided by the Government as a result of the legalisation of betting shops and more sweepstakes and lotteries. If there is to be gambling on this scale, we might as well take the opportunity to see that the State gets its proper share of revenue. Its proper share of revenue - that seems to be the chief aim of this Bill.

The fifth question. Will legalised betting shops mean less crime in Singapore? The Singapore Police officers have consistently maintained that more gambling means more crime. More betting shops and more gambling facilities will mean more crime.

Sir, when the Party in power contested the last elections, it did not say that it was going to introduce more gambling. In fact, the impression created was that if this Party was put into power, it would never resort to anything that would be regarded as vice or yellow culture. Many voted for this Party because they said, "Well, this Party will be more honest and cleaner, etc., etc." I am sorry to say that this is a big come-down for the Party in power. This Bill will cause the Party to lose the respect that some people had for them. For the sake of more revenue, it is willing to give up its old policy, its anti-vice drive, its closure of juke box shops. They are now finished. It is a new policy. Vice is dishonourable when it is not legal. But vice becomes honourable when it pays its contributions to the State coffers.

Sir, I know that Government has got the votes to push this Bill through, but is it really earnest about the Will of the people? May I suggest that the Government do one thing? Let there be a re ferendum. Let the Government ask the people whether they wish this Government to have more and more gambling in order to raise more revenue. Some will vote for it. But if the people think of and care enough for their children, they will prefer to lose the $10 million extra revenue and let the Government find it in some other way, rather than have this Bill passed and have harm done to the character of the young citizens. Some will say, "Why should there be all these moral scruples?" A man is honest because he has moral scruples. A Government is honest and it acts honestly because it has moral scruples. If we are to throw away our moral scruples for the sake of more revenue, what sort of policy are we going to introduce for this country? I am sorry, Sir, the respect which I had for certain policies and measures of the P.A.P. Government has received a great shock.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I shall suspend this sitting until 5.45 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.19 p.m. until 5.45 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.45 p.m.