BETTING BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for resumption of debate on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

5.46 p.m.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I start speaking on this Bill, please permit me to make a confession in just one sentence. As a woman, I cannot help taking a secret delight in the fact that my choice of dress and my taste in costume jewellery (which - for the information of the Members - costs me next to nothing) have attracted the attention of two Ministers and one Assemblyman!

Coming to the Bill, Sir - when I read this Bill, f wondered whether it was a case of good intentions foiled by a faulty method of implementation, or whether it was a case of an ulterior motive hidden behind pseudo-good intentions.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Lady comes straight up against the Standing Order which says - speaking from memory - that a Member must not impute an improper motive to another Member, and "ulterior motive hidden behind pseudo-good intentions", I suppose, must be improper. Therefore, I think the hon. Lady ought to withdraw that expression.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Sir, I beg to withdraw it.

This Bill, Sir, is intituled "An Ordinance to suppress common betting-houses, betting in public places . . .". But it ends up with an explanation, which reads: "...thereby enabling such exempted club or association to-

(i) lawfully conduct or promote off course betting on racing in Singapore and elsewhere; and

(ii) admit members of the public to its premises for the purpose of betting and allow members of the public to take part in betting."

Sir, no matter how much one stretches one's imagination, it is difficult to reconcile oneself with the conflict that goes on. It is difficult to think of this Bill, which legalises the conducting and promotion of more betting places, which creates more opportunities for betting by legalising betting on races run outside Singapore as well as in Singapore, and which makes it easier for more people to indulge in betting in public places, as an Ordinance to suppress common betting-houses and betting in public places. This, Sir, is a classic example of Government's inconsistency. May I mention in passing, Sir, that only last month we had the "Monogamous Marriage" Bill which legalises all pre 2nd of March polygamous marriages! On the one hand, Government goes all out to get rid of vice, but on the other hand their Party paper advocates the legalising of prostitutes.

Sir, the public are confused by Government's - shall I borrow the phrase of the Minister for Finance? - "rushing from gimmick to gimmick to dazzle the public". They feel that the inconsistencies and contradictions in Government Bills and policies are just an attempt to lead the public up the wrong path. The Government have always boasted that they have the confidence of the people, but these inconsistencies in their Bills and policies will soon shake this confidence.

I am sure the Government is not unaware that many people have become victims of moneylenders as a result of betting, even when betting in public places is an offence. Now they will get themselves more deeply into debt, especially when they can go boldly - and within the law - to a betting shop, perhaps a few yards from wherever they may be, to place their bets legally. One needs no crystal ball, Sir, to foresee office-workers and Government servants getting themselves heavily indebted and getting the sack eventually, thus creating valuable vacancies which can be filled by men whom Government think are more worthy.

Sir, nobody can deny that betting has brought about the downfall of many an office-worker and has brought much misery and unhappiness to the home and the family. I therefore cannot see the sense of introducing a Bill, which, in effect, has every possibility of bringing more misery and more unhappiness to more homes and more families. The argument put forward that because we cannot control betting we must therefore legalise it does not hold water, Sir. The youth of this country are attracted towards joining secret societies. What did Government do? Government did not recognise secret societies. I must compliment the Minister for Labour and Law because he organized, promoted and expanded youth clubs, community activities, etc, to distract these young people from joining secret societies. He does not condone the existence of these secret societies by legalising them. I think the same thing should be done here. Something must be done and Government must surely have the ability to think of ways and means to suppress betting without legalising it, without the risk of getting more people to go and bet.

Sir, not so very long ago, at a time when the Government servants were crying out against the slash in salaries and were complaining that it was causing them hardship, the Government vigorously protested that they were short of funds and could not help it. You will remember that there was a suggestion that the Government should run a State lottery. At that time, the Government indicated that they were against the idea of running the State with revenue obtained from gambling. What is happening today, Sir? The Government is introducing a Bill which cannot be of any use to anybody except to raise its revenue. The rich who can afford to bet will still go to the racecourse. The poor masses who cannot afford to go there to bet will be plunging themselves and their families into disaster if they frequent these betting shops. For whom are these betting shops? The rich will not use them. The poor people will use them to their own detriment.

What crowns Satan with victory, Sir, is the fact that there is no provision in this Bill to stop school children from making use of the betting shops. Probably Government have something in mind to do something about it later on, but according to what we read in the Bill, there is no provision to indicate the age qualification of those who are permitted to enter these betting shops and place their bets. Clause 22 (3) reads:

"It shall be lawful ... to admit members of the public to its premises ...".

Sir, school children and students are members of the public, are they not? If their lives and future are ruined, the sins will be on the heads of all those who support this Bill.

Sir, is it worth the while raising revenue at the price of destroying the peace and happiness of homes? Those who cannot afford to go to the racecourse are invariably the people who cannot afford to bet without putting themselves into trouble and getting themselves into debt. Then why in the name of common sense tempt them with these facilities of more betting houses mushrooming everywhere for them to place their bets legally without any risk and inconvenience? If there are any here who hail this Bill because it makes it legal and convenient for them to spend their pay packets on betting, let them bear in mind, Sir, that they are courting their own downfall and are preparing to hand over their jobs on a silver platter to their rivals.

This Bill, Sir, is based on the Betting Ordinance, the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance and the Federation of Malaya Betting Ordinance, 1953. According to the Comparative Table, there are eight new clauses. Clause 22 is one of them, Sir, and it legalises betting houses for the rich and the poor, the young and the old, to place their bets. Clauses 8, 13 and 15, I am afraid, tend to deprive the people of their civil rights. Singapore citizens have always been proud of the administration of justice by its Courts in that a man is innocent until he is tried and proved guilty. These three clauses, Sir, make people guilty before their trial, and the onus is on them to prove the contrary. Sir, clause 8 reads as follows:

"Any person accepting a -"

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady is going into the details of the clauses, I suggest that the proper place to do so is in Committee. We are now dealing with the general principle of the Bill.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Surely, Sir, this Bill has been introduced to enable the Police to catch and prosecute the guilty, not to incriminate the innocent. To make people guilty before their trial and until they prove the contrary is against all principles of natural rights.

Sir, some clauses of this Bill defeat the aim of the Bill itself. As I have mentioned before, a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to suppress common betting-houses, betting in public places . . ." should, to say the least, make an attempt to reduce the conducting of betting places and the promotion of betting in public places; and not, as is the case with this Bill, increase, promote and legalise betting-houses and betting in public places. The government of any State, Sir, has always been and is still looked upon as the father of the State and her people. Which father, Sir, would encourage his children to gamble or to bet, especially when he knows that the children cannot afford to gamble without destroying himself and his family? Which father would do it? Perhaps a cruel stepfather might! Now, which father does the P.A.P. Government claim to be? A father to the State of Singapore and her people, or the cruel step-father?

6.03 p.m.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not often that the Opposition have had the opportunity to bask in the glow of superior virtue. But we quite expect that in the course of the debate on this Bill they will try to make the Government look as if they are encouraging what they term "vice". We also have seen, in the instances of the two Opposition Members who have spoken against the Bill, much sanctimonious wringing of hands over the poor, the weak and the foolish, who ruin themselves through gambling. But before I attempt to rebut their arguments, may I first make a disclaimer?

When the Member for Tanglin was holding forth at his usual hilarious best on this Bill, he repeatedly made the point that the Government was moved by financial considerations to pass this Bill; that is, it is the demands of revenue that have made them agree to allow off-course betting under certain conditions. Now, I hasten to add that I am not the villain of the piece, nor are fiscal considerations the over-riding or even the important ones in this issue. The Government of today - and indeed the Government under the previous administration - has to choose between two alter natives. The first is to allow off-course betting under well-controlled, properly regulated conditions; the other is to pretend that bookmakers do not exist, and that the vicious atmosphere in which the illegal bookmaker operates together with the whole apparatus of secret society gangsters does not exist.

Sir, we of the P.A.P. are, above all, realists. We do not pretend that given the imperfections of human nature as they now exist in our present society, we shall be able to suppress completely gambling in all its forms. The only alternative then is to see that such an activity carries on under controlled and well regulated conditions. That is the purpose of this Bill.

The Member for Tanglin expressed great admiration for the previous administrations for resisting repeatedly the temptation to allow off-course betting. But he did not draw attention to the fact that this policy was completely futile because off-course betting was in any case taking place to the detriment not only of persons who were foolish enough to patronise these institutions but also to the loss of public revenue. No one tries to pretend that gambling is not foolish and irrational behaviour. But in a free society, you cannot completely eradicate these manifestations of a very natural instinct, as gambling is, among the people, especially in a commercial entrepot like Singapore. If you are to aim at the ideal and try to eradicate gambling in all its forms, then you will merely reduce the administration of the law to ridicule and contempt. We are therefore taking the courageous stand of admitting the imperfections of human nature, and try to make the best of a bad job.

I want to end on a light-hearted tone. The Member for Tanglin, in the last part of his speech, declared himself to be disappointed at this move of the Government. He said that his previous high regard for our sense of dedication and high sense of purpose received a shock. I have always suspected that the Member for Tanglin has been a secret admirer of the P.A.P. but I would not try to raise his hopes by saying that he has any chance of being admitted into our circle!

Mr Thio Chan Bee: No desire!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I do not know about that. The Member for Tanglin has been a member of many political parties in the past, and I have no doubt that if given half a chance he would ask us for an application form! If he feels so strongly about this issue, he will have one consolation - that in his capacity as one of the leaders of the Moral Rearmament movement, he will have more opportunities for the exercise of his proselytizing zeal.

Mr Speaker: Mr Byrne, in reply?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been quite noticeable for some time now that the Member for Tanglin has moved so often in the rarefied atmosphere of moral rearmament that he tends to get out of touch with reality.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I stated in my speech on the Second Reading of this Bill that the main purposes of this Bill are, 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. I did not hide anything. That was our objective. I also made it clear that although the increased powers which the government sought in this Bill would help it to deal more effectively with bookmaking and betting, we had also taken a realistic attitude, and had taken the view that it is better to control bookmaking and betting where circumstances are such as to make it impossible for us to suppress bookmaking and betting altogether.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have not in any way changed from our socialist principles. We stand on the principle that gambling is a social evil. We are also honest and we recognise the fact that there is gambling on a large scale in our State. We have taken great pains to bring this situation under control. About ten months ago, below the office where I used to work, I remember quite clearly there was a coffee shop. The public went there every day. They were placing bets quite openly. They could place any bet they wanted on any race meeting, whether the race meeting was hold in Singapore or in the Federation of Malaya. A few steps along the same road, there was a gambling parlour - juke boxes, pretty girls - and everybody was tempted to go in. That was the situation, and everyone knew about it. These are facts. It is not the little people who place bets and so on who are really the evil doers. The evil doers are the people who organise all these things and get a profit out of it. They organise it, and they give you a discount on it. They make their money on it. They exploit the situation, and work it for a profit motive. They keep those profits.

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, suppose we carry out our socialistic principles to their logical conclusion. We hound the bookmakers. We logically put the Turf Club out of action. Well, they will go across the causeway and start a gambling paradise there. We will then get back to the situation which the Member for Tanglin referred to 42 years ago, when his father could go across the causeway to take part in gambling. We are realists. We know that that is the position and we have got to face it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tanglin has said that we are now trying to reintroduce conditions similar to those existing during the time of his father. Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 22, sub-clause (1) of this Bill has been on our statute book from 1929, when the Member for Tanglin was 11 years old. By virtue of the exemption provisions in this sub-clause, it is possible for gambling to be restricted to the subscribing and associate members of a particular racing association in Singapore. Does he really honestly believe that the tickets on sweepstakes organised by the Turf Club are not, in fact, being sold outside its membership to the people of Singapore? You can buy the tickets if you want to. You need not be a member.

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is the situation, and we think it is better to acknowledge that that situation exists and try to place gambling under proper control. We can do it by extending the provisions of clause 22 (1) . Everybody knows that any member of the public can go to the Turf Club and take part in punting if he so desires. There is such a membership as the subscribing membership and it is known that subscribing members transfer their badges to one another. It is quite easy for any member of the public to go to the race course if he wants to. So let us not be hypocritical about these things. Let us acknowledge the facts. If we do that, we can reconcile these two apparently conflicting objectives. In this Bill we are taking determined steps to put the bookmakers out of action. We mean everything we say. We have introduced very hard presumptions. Why have we done it? It is because it is very difficult to detect and bring the bookmakers to book for what they do. That is why we have to depend on these presumptions. The Member for Mountbatten has said that we are seeking to change the law and to alter our liberal tradition by making persons who are innocent guilty. These are ordinary presumptions which, we have to introduce if we are to mean what we say. I have mentioned that in the speech I made earlier on. I have drawn the attention of the House to these presumptions. They are hard presumptions. They are intended to be hard presumptions so that we can deal with this situation effectively.

I have also pointed out that it is our intention to raise the penalties for this type of offence, and we have so proposed in this Bill. It is no use people blinking facts and charging us with all sorts of things, accusing us of inconsistency and saying that we are jettisoning our principles. They do not believe the things that they say.

The Member for Mountbatten has referred to our monogamous marriage Bill. She said, "Look at it. This Bill which seeks to introduce monogamy is the same Bill which legalises prostitution. What is all this about?" Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 3rd March, when this Bill was introduced. I remember meeting the Member for Mountbatten in the Hokkien Huay Kuan. The women of Singapore had called a public meeting to express their views on this Bill. I remember the Member for Mountbatten was there and she asked permission from the ladies to speak. She went on to the platform. I was curious to hear the things she would say about this Bill. She welcomed, it and said: "Dear sisters, in Singapore we have now come to the position where at last we women have got our freedom." She spoke for three-quarters of an hour, and I clapped her. For I then believed that a great change had come over her. But when I heard her later in the House, I was so stupefied that I even forgot to remind her of what she had said at the Hokkien Huay Kuan a few weeks before. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not that sort of people. We are not chameleons. We do not change our colours.

Mr Speaker: Order. That is a direct reference to a Member of this House. To call a Member a chameleon is unparliamentary. Perhaps the Minister would like to withdraw that word.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, I realise I was getting very near to the rocks and the shoals.

Mr Speaker: Will the Minister withdraw?

Mr Byrne: I do withdraw, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, in all things we have got to be honest with ourselves first. We must understand the situation in which we find ourselves. We cannot blink facts. We must not try to distort facts.

The Member for Tanglin was in his element just now when he talked of the exploits and achievements of the past Government with which he was so closely associated. Mr Speaker, Sir, if he was a realist, and if he really understood the social position, he would have agreed that the best way to deal with the situation would be not to blink facts but to accept the position as one finds it and try to resolve the difficulties as best one can. And that is what we have proposed in this Bill. That is the solution we offer.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there was the charge made against us that we were increasing the opportunities for betting; that we might have good intentions but that those good intentions were foiled by faulty methods of implementation. That we might, after all, have ulterior motives behind these pseudo-good intentions. Is that a fair charge to make? Does this Bill really and honestly encourage gambling and increase the opportunities for betting? If it did, we would not have introduced those presumptions. Why did we? It is because we are realists, we really intend to deal with the situation and with those who make profits out of gambling and keep those profits for themselves, that we have introduced these measures.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it was also pointed out that there is nothing in this legislation to stop students and school children from going to the betting shops. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think the Members who made that charge really understood the provisions of clause 22. It is clearly stated in that clause that:

"The Yang di-Pertuan Negara may by notification in the Gazette, either generally or in particular cases, exempt from all or any of the provisions of this Ordinance the members and officers of any racing club or association in respect of any totalisator or pari-mutuel betting or any other system or method of cash or credit betting...".

Mr Speaker, Sir, the organisation that is exempted under the provisions of this clause would be exempted under conditions, and it would be well within the organisation's power to restrict children and school children from entry into such premises. They could easily make those restrictions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to point out that under clause 22 (3) of the Bill we have provided that all bets received must be placed on the totalisator. We have provided that it would be unlawful for any such organisation to run its own private book. That is the protection, which we have sought, and that is the safeguard, which we have entered in this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I notice that earlier on the Member for Tanglin referred at length to various newspapers on the evils of gambling and so on. As luck would have it, I was also referred today to a newspaper report. This report appears in the Singapore Free Press of Thursday, 12th May. What does the report say:

"Off-Course Betting In Britain by July

London, Thurs.-The House of Commons lust night passed a Government Bill to legalise cash betting on horse races in betting shops to be set up all over the country.

The voting was 211 to 42 - a Government majority of 169.

The Bill, expected to become law by the end of July, now goes to the House of Lords."

Mr Speaker, Sir, probably there are people elsewhere in the world who are realists like ourselves. They look at a particular situation, they see it to be what it is, and they are willing to move with the times. But there are some people who are so bound up with the colonial tradition that they can only think in terms of that colonial tradition. They believe that a person who is part and parcel of that system can do a thing only in a certain way and believe it to be right for all time. Now we are not like that. We do not have those mental blinkers. We see the situation as it is and we are determined to find a solution for the difficulties that we meet. That is why we have proposed this Bill.

I have been challenged to answer five questions. The first question is: Have we changed our policies as announced by the Minister for Home Affairs against vice and yellow culture? I say we have not changed our policies. We are still against vice and yellow culture.

Does the Government truly and sincerely believe that legalized betting shops should be set up because gambling would be for the welfare of the people of Singapore? The answer is that gambling is a social evil. There are people who still want to gamble, whatever you do, Even in co-operative organisations you will find that situation. You will find the thrifty lending money to the improvident. Now, most of the improvident have got very firm contacts with moneylenders. But nevertheless that sort of thing goes on. The provident earn dividends from that situation. That is how the co-operative and thrift and loan societies run.

Question No. 3 was: Does the Government regard betting shops as a good source of raising money for the State? We have never wanted to raise money by this method. We have said that there are many people making money out of bookmaking and keeping that money, running these rackets for their own purposes, giving discounts, giving credits and earning -huge profits. Now we say that we want to put all end to that, to stop them from doing it. We will so reorganise it that this money will come to the Government. But we do not do this primarily for the, reason that we want this money. If they take those pro, fits in that way, it is but right that they should be stopped from doing so: that we, as the Government, should avail ourselves of that money. Question No. 4. Does the Government honestly believe that betting shops will reduce rather than stimulate gambling? I do not think you can make the situation worse than it is today. It is on a very large scale. It is already stimulated out of all proportions and the only thing to do is to keep it under control.

Question No. 5. Will these legalized betting shops mean less crime in Singapore? I would venture a guess, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if we bring this situation under proper control, we will be able to reduce the incidence of crime. It is well known that many bookmakers are given protection by secret societies. They carry on these operations with the protection received. If all this is brought under proper control, I could say that we would be able to reduce crime.

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would say that we have good intentions, we have no ulterior motives in introducing this legislation, and we do not ever try to conceal ulterior motives under pseudo-good intentions.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Byrne].

Bill considered in Committee.

6.37 p.m.

Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6-

Question proposed, "That clause 6 stand part of the Bill".

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, this clause seeks to provide:

"Any person who announces or publishes or causes to be announced or published, either orally or by means of any print, writing, sign or otherwise, the result of any public lottery or horse-race shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars:".

Mr Speaker, Sir, my understanding of the words, "announces or publishes" is this: if one person mentions by word of mouth or in writing to a second person, then that is announcing or publish. ing within the meaning of the clause. So that this position could easily arise. I go to the Bukit Timah Race Course. Having lost all my money after the third race, I retire and come back. On the way I meet Mr X, who is anxiously awaiting a bus to get to the Turf Club. He says, "Hey, what is the matter with you? Why are you back so early?" I say "Well, I lost my Bets on the first three races. Such and such a horse won the first race. I did not back it. Such and such a horse won the second race. I did not back it. Such and such a horse won the third race. I did not back it." That, Mr Speaker, Sir, is announcing or publishing within the meaning of this clause, as I see it. Is it the intention of the Government that such a person should be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000?

The second point I wish to make is on the proviso, which reads:

"Provided however that this section shall not apply to anything published or forming part of any announcement in any newspaper relating to any horse-race or the result thereof if such newspaper has been printed or published under a licence in that behalf duly issued in accordance with the provisions of the Printing Presses Ordinance.".

That means, I take it, Mr Speaker, that the right to publish or announce, as prohibited in the main clause, is only available to any newspaper and that only to any horse-race or the result thereof. Although the main clause talks about a public lottery, the proviso does not say anything about it. The subsequent Bills which will come up before the House will enable public lotteries to be run. So, does the Government then intend this position - that newspapers can only publish the results of horse-races but they may not publish the winner of a lottery ticket?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, the intention is to prohibit oral communication of the results of horse-races. Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been found that when the Turf Club recently removed all facilities with regard to public telephones and when the Rediffision broadcasts of races were stopped, there were teams of people running between the Turf Club and neighbouring coffee shops and communicating the racing results to interested persons. It is the intention to prohibit that sort of thing in this clause. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are precedents for this. I would refer the Member for Farrer Park to section 4 (f) of the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance. I will read the section to him:

"Any person who -

(f) writes, prints or publishes or causes to be written, printed or published any lottery ticket or list of prizes or any announcement of the result of a public lottery or any announcement relating to a public lottery;...

shall be liable to a fine not exceeding six thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years.".

On his second submission with regard to the proviso, I think the intention is to permit a licensed newspaper to make these announcements, Sir,It will be necessary, I think, to include in this proviso reference to a public lottery. "The result of any public lottery or horse-race" is contained in clause 6. But for some reason or other, the reference to "public lottery" was inadvertently omitted in the proviso. The proviso should really read:

"...any news paper relating to the result of any public lottery or horse-race".

using the same words in the main clause.

"Any newspaper relating to the result of any public lottery or horse-race".

I suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we refer to the relevant Standing Orders.

6.45 p.m.

The Chairman: If the Minister will resume his seat, I will puzzle this one out.

Mr Byrne resumed his seat.

The Chairman: Does the Minister then wish to seek leave to move an amendment:

In page 5, lines 22 and 23, to leave out "any horse-race or the result thereof" and insert "the result of any public lottery or horse-race"?

Mr Byrne: Yes.

The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that that amendment be moved?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 5, lines 22 and 23, to leave out "any horse-race or the result thereof" and insert "the result of any public lottery or horse-race".

The Chairman: The Question before the House is, "That clause 6 stand part of the Bill."

That is the difficulty I am trying to overcome.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember we have done this before.

The Chairman: Not when the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill has been proposed from the Chair.

Strictly, of course, the procedure is that when the Chair calls a clause, that is the time when amendments ought to be proposed. Thereafter, when the Question is proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill", the debate can only be on the principle of the clause itself. No amendments can be proposed. Any amendments that are thought of can only be made by way of recommittal. But, of course, if there is no dissentient voice, there can always be a suspension of Standing Orders to enable the Minister to move his amendment. Is there any dissentient voice? There being no dissentient voice, will the Minister please move, "That notwithstanding the Standing Orders the amendment proposed to be moved, be moved."

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That notwithstanding the Standing Orders the amendment proposed to be moved, be moved.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the amendment proposed to be moved, be moved.

The Chairman: We will deal with the amendment now. It has been proposed as an amendment:

In page 5, lines 22 and 23, to leave out "any horse-race or the result thereof" and insert "the result of any public lottery or horse-race".

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Byrne: I want to thank the Member for Farrer Park for having brought this to the attention of the House. Otherwise our newspapers will be in a very serious predicament if they publish the result of any public lottery.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: Are there any other amendments? Has the Member for Farrer Park any other amendment up his sleeve?

Mr Rajah: No, Sir.

Question proposed, "That clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister for Labour and Law said that there is a precedent for this particular clause and he quoted a section from the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance relating to public lotteries. Mr Speaker, Sir, that particular section in the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance relates to public lotteries, which are illegal. Public lotteries were not possible in the Colony, but now, as a result of the various amendments to this Bill and to the two subsequent Bills, public lotteries, provided they are conducted in a particular manner, will cease to be illegal. Therefore the publication can take place. I appreciate the motives which have impelled the Minister to frame the clause, but in framing it, the scope of the clause is so wide that it has taken in the case of the man - as I cited - who went to the race-course to bet, came out when the race meeting had gone halfway, and said to his friend, "My horses did not come in. Some other horses came in," and he mentioned the names of the horses. It seems to me that he is certainly guilty under this clause, because he has announced the results of a horse-race. If the Minister gives the assurance that it is not the intention to prosecute such a person and the Police have instructions to that effect, then I think it would meet the case.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, surely it must be presumed that the Government acts reasonably in these matters.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8-

Question proposed, "That clause 8 stand part of the Bill."

The Chairman: I understood that the Member for Mountbatten wished to say a few words on clause 8. This is the time to say them.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Sir, I believe that the clause has been framed with this in mind,; that the person charged is guilty. Let us take the other side of the picture. Supposing the person charged is not guilty. There are many a book, many an account, a document, telegram, writing, circular, card or other article which may easily 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, and the person may be entirely innocent. What then if the law presumes that he is guilty? There are sometimes cases, Sir, when it is difficult to prove yourself innocent although you are innocent. What happens in that case?

Mr Byrne: It is an ordinary legal presumption, Mr Speaker, Sir. On a given set of facts, the presumption arises. It does not mean to say that the person is guilty, but until he proves the contrary he would be deemed to be acting as a bookmaker. These are ordinary presumptions of law, Mr Speaker, Sir,I do not wish to take up the time of the House. If the Member for Mountbatten will have a little talk with the Member for Farrer Park, I am sure he will be able to explain it to her.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 to 12 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13-

The Chairman: I do not know whether the Member for Farrer Park has an amendment up his sleeve in this case.

Mr Rajah: I have given notice that I will be speaking on the clause, but I am not doing so.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15-

Question proposed, "That clause 15 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, this clause is borrowed from section 37 (i) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Chapter 137). This particular clause 15 says:

"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, be deemed to be sufficient evidence of the fact."

It is said that this clause has been inspired by section 37 (i) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. That section in the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance relates to opium pipes, opium utensils, smoking lamps, opium rags, etc, which, on the face of it, quite obviously can only be used for smoking opium. The question on which the presumption will arise is whether these articles were, in fact, used in that particular case for smoking opium. But the presumption arises by the very nature of the articles, which can only be used for smoking opium. Here, Mr Speaker, the position to my mind is quite different. This police officer not below the rank of Sergeant brings along any book, account, document, telegram, writing, circular, card or other article, produces them in Court and says that they were intended to be used for betting or wagering. And the presumption shall arise. Now, a book by its very nature can be used for all sorts of purposes. Similarly, an account, a document, a telegram, a piece of writing, a circular, a card, or any other article. While appreciating the elusiveness of the bookmaker and the anxiety of the Minister to bring him down in a legal tackle, I feel, Mr Speaker, Sir that, the presumption is so wide in its scope and its nature that it could very easily be refuted. I think a presumption of this nature will not cause the person, against whom the presumption arises, any difficulty in rebutting it.

7.00 p.m.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would refer the Member for Farrer Park to a more recent precedent. It was not long ago that the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance was amended in this House. On that occasion, Mr Speaker, Sir, there was an amendment to section 9, which is very much on similar lines. If I may read this to the Member for Farrer Park - the amendment reads:

"Where evidence is given by a police officer not below the rank of Sergeant that any document produced before the court is a lottery ticket of any public lottery or is an account, memorandum, or record of stakes or wagers in or relating to any public lottery, the court shall presume that such document is a lottery ticket of such public lottery or an account, memorandum or record of stakes or wagers in or relating to such public lottery, as the case may be."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have got the Hansard report on my Second Reading speech in regard to that amendment Bill, and I remember that I pointed out to the House then that by this clause the Court is required to accept the evidence of a police officer not below the rank of Sergeant, that the document produced before it is a lottery ticket or an account, memorandum or record of stakes or wagers in or relating to a public lottery. On that occasion, I think the Member for Farrer Park did not pay very much attention to this clause, but rather he sought to suggest that the Minister might be very much tempted to abuse his powers under another amendment - an amendment to section 2 - which gave the Minister power, by notification in the Gazette, to declare any game, method, device, scheme or competition to be a lottery for the purposes of the Ordinance. He suggested that the Minister might even think of declaring football to be a public lottery. Now, mark you, he was aware of that clause then and took no objection to it. This provision is not new. It is a similar presumption.

Mr Rajah: With respect to the Minister for Labour and Law - that particular section which the Hon. Minister quoted just now was in reference to "public lottery". The position then was quite different. There would be numbers on it to indicate that it was part and parcel of a public lottery. Therefore the presumption arises. The position here is that any book, account, document or telegram received by some person or other and when produced by a police officer is presumed to be intended to be used for betting or wagering. It could be that the document, on the face of it, has nothing whatsoever to do with betting or wagering. All that need happen is a statement by a police officer that that ,particular book or account is used for betting or wagering. In those circumstances, the presumption could easily be rebutted by the accused saying, "I bought it to keep my accounts", or something like that.

The Prime Minister: If the book was bought to keep an account, I am quite sure the evidence would be rebutted and the accused acquitted. As the Member for Farrer Park knows, what happens in these matters is this. A junior police officer or a junior Inspector has been in charge of some investigation into a minor gambling racket. A sergeant, who is usually an expert in that particular line, goes to Court and, rather than go through the whole rigmarole, "I am a Sergeant. I have been in the Police Force for the last 25 years. I have been chasing gamblers in chap ji-ki and 4-digits - now the latest craze - for the last five years. I can therefore prove that five bottles here really means five points, and that half a bottle means I put half a dollar either way.". you just cut the whole proceedings short and say, "Look, here is an expert. He is presumed by law to be an expert. He says it is what it is. If it is not, then I am not quite sure." The person who is charged can rebut it. If, in fact, he says, "It really means I am going to buy two bottles of catsup and a bottle of beer," there should not be any difficulty in proving it.

Mr Rajah: All I am saying to the Minister, in this particular instance is that the net is being cast so far and so wide that the fish is going to escape. That is all I am saying.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16-

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 9, line 23, to leave out "wilfully".

I believe that it was at about this time yesterday that we were debating the word "wilfully" and we are back again today at the same time on the word "wilfully". I distinctly remember the Minister for Finance saying how very difficult it was to prove "wilfully". Might I say here how very difficult it would be to prove "wilfully" here again? Here is a case where the Court, if it believes that the informer wilfully made in his information a material statement which he knew or believed to be false or did not believe to be true, may require the production of the original information and permit an inquiry and require full disclosure concerning the informer. This is a very desirable clause, particularly when the person against whom the information is given is going to get into a great deal of trouble.

I would have thought, Mr Speaker, Sir, if the clause read:

"...believes that the informer made in his information a material statement which he knew or believed to be false or did not believe to be true..."

then the consequences should ensue. I would have thought that to be enough, because somebody moving against the informer would have to show that he knew or believed it to be false or did not believe it to be true. If in those circumstances, he made a statement, I think the consequences envisaged in that clause should ensue. But why the State insists that it should also be made "wilfully", I am at a loss to understand.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, this, in fact, is a vintage section of the Ordinance. The word "wilfully" appears in section 9 of the existing Ordinance, which became law in 1934, having been introduced by the Betting (Amendment) Ordinance in 1934. This word "wilfully" has been in the law for the past 26 years, and we have made no changes to the existing section.

Mr Rajah: All I can say to the Minister for Law is that it is high time that he took the cobwebs off some of our laws. I am suggesting, in all seriousness to the Minister, that this is one of the sections which should be changed. Merely because it has remained in our Statute book for 26 years does not make it sacrosanct. When it is clearly bad legislation, then, when we are bringing about amending legislation, it is time when these imperfections should be eradicated. I am suggesting to the Minister that the word "wilfully" should be taken out. I suppose in those days it was necessary for the Police Force to function efficiently to have these informers and give them full protection. But nowadays we do not need these informers. The Minister himself has said so, "Our Police are not go- ing to depend on informers but on their own two feet" - big feet. So I feel, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is time the word "wilfully" went out. To give protection to the informer, all that need be said is, "That he made a material statement which he knew or believed to be false, or did not believe to be true". If he did any of those things, surely then the consequences envisaged there should ensue. Why should a person, who seeks to prove that a false statement has been made on top of that, have to prove that, "He did it wilfully."? One has to prove mens rea.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, must we keep repeating ourselves all the time? The point I made just now was that this word "wilfully" was imported into the section by an amendment Ordinance enacted in 1934. And there were good reasons why that amendment Ordinance was introduced.

Mr Rajah: Well, this is a new Bill and I take it that it is intended that the various clauses in this new Bill should stand or fall on their merits. It is no use the Minister trying to bolster his case by saying that an amending Ordinance previously introduced this word "wilfully". No doubt there might have been very good reasons for introducing it 26 years ago when colonialism was in its hey-day. But when we have got self-government by people rooted in the masses, I think we should really view these things properly and kick the informer where he deserves to be kicked. He does not need such protection. It may be that in the old days the informer had to be protected on all sides, and the Crown made it very difficult for him to be got at. Whereas now, if an informer gives information which gets a private citizen into trouble and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the information given was false, and the informer knew that it was false, then I think the consequences envisaged should ensue. The person who is moving against the informer, in other words, the accused, should not, in addition, be called upon to prove that the informer acted wilfully and maliciously - that is what it means, wilfully and maliciously.

Mr Byrne: The Member for Farrer Park is a practising lawyer and has been practising law for many, many years. He knows that this very same clause appears in many of our laws where similar protection is given to informers. That very same clause is written into many of our laws.

The Prime Minister: I do not want to belabour the point, but does it really make all that difference whether the word "wilfully" is in or out of the clause? In deciding finally whether or not the informer had offended against this particular provision, the Judge must make up his mind whether the informer knew what he said was false. And when he put his mind to that particular point, the informer would have had it. If it was a material point and the Judge came to the conclusion that the informer was fully compos mentis when he made it, then the presumption must arise that he was wilful. Like so many other elegant amateurs in the art of legislation and draftsmanship, it sounds better if you say "wilfully or maliciously to have done so-and-so" than to leave the bare bones and skeleton of the verbs by themselves. If the Member for Farrer Park takes offence at the inelegancies of parliamentary draftsmanship, then perhaps at some subsequent date, when we have more leisure, we might listen to an essay on the subject from him. But right at the moment, it really does not count whether it is in or out. That is the way it was drafted years and years ago. There is no good reason why a cricket bat which has been cut into that shape for years and years should be altered. That is not a very good reason.

Mr Rajah: Sir, might I remind the Prime Minister that in the recent boat race between Oxford and Cambridge, Cambridge put a hole in their oars' blades, and so lost the race?

I think the Prime Minister himself supports my argument. I do not want to attempt an essay on parliamentary draftsmanship - that is not my function in this House. As I understand the interpretation of statutes, Mr Speaker, every word is deliberately intended to be there and must be given its natural meaning. If the word "wilfully" is put in deliberately in the clause, in addition to the words "which he knew or believed to be false", then the courts must give a meaning to the word "wilfully". To say that "which he knew or be lieved to be false or did not believe to be true", exactly equates with the word "wilfully", Mr Speaker, I am unable to accept. As the word "wilfully" is put in there deliberately, then the courts will interpret that to mean that it should be given a meaning over and above the other words which follow it. If the Prime Minister thinks it does not matter whether "wilfully" is in or out, could he not concede the point to the Opposition and say, "Let us have it out"?

Amendment negatived.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17-

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 9, line 32, to leave out "or heard".

This is a presumption against the house and the occupiers. That is what the marginal note says. Can I seek the indulgence of the House to read the clause:

"If any books, documents, telegrams, writings. circulars, cards or other articles used as a subject or means of betting or wagering, or in connection therewith, are found in any place entered under this Ordinance, or upon any person found therein, or if persons are seen or heard to escape there from on the approach or entry of a Magistrate or police officer not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent...",

then the presumption arises. I can understand a presumption arising, Mr Speaker, Sir, if a man is seen escaping from the premises. But I am at a loss to understand how a presumption is going to arise if somebody is heard escaping. You hear with your cars, you see with your eyes, and on these you give evidence. If I hear somebody escaping, do I know who has in fact escaped? All I can say is that somebody has escaped. But I cannot say who he is. So I would, with great respect, suggest to the Minister that the words "or heard" are quite meaningless and will not bring about any presumption.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, 1 think the Member for Farrer Park lacks imagination. If in a dark night I were to hear somebody scampering away in the back lane, and hear the somewhat stentorian voice of the Member for Tanglin saying, "Chabot, chabot!," and he is caught subsequently, then I can presume that, being a person of reasonably good auditory function, I can give evidence that I heard a voice which not only sounded schoolmasterish and authoritative, but quaintly agitated, and I say, "This is the man." On the contrary, if I were to hear a lady-like and feminine voice saying, "Lari, lari! ", then I can, if I am sufficiently acquainted with the dear Lady from Mountbatten, say, "Well, she is the one that scooted!" When you hear, it does not mean that you hear just noises. It means recognisable noises, either by the daintiness of the feet or the gentleness of the voice, or otherwise.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may add to what the Prime Minister has already said. I think we can agree that our forefathers were endowed with the same auditory sense as we have, and this very section has been in our existing law from the 23rd December, 1912, that is, when the Member for Tanglin was 12 years old.

Mr Rajah: May I suggest, with respect to the Prime Minister, that had he been appearing in a court of law, that is not the sort of argument that he would have put up to the court. It might work in the Assembly, but it would not work in a court of law.

I merely point out the absurdity of those two words in that particular clause, and if the Minister for Labour and Law thinks it is not absurd, it is entirely up to him.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18-

Question proposed, "That clause 18 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Rajah: Sir, the point I wish to raise here is this. As I understood it, the normal practice, Mr Speaker, Sir, - here I am subject to correction by the Minister for Labour and Law - is that when there are two or three or more accused involved in a particular crime, then it is up to the Crown to decide which one shall give evidence for the Crown, and that person will then be put up as a witness for the prosecution. It is not within my knowledge where this duty is cast on a trial judge. Sub-clause (1) seeks to impose such a duty on the Judge. Sub-clause (1) reads:

"Whenever two or more persons are charged with any offence under this Ordinance, the Magistrate's Court or District Court may require one or more of them to give evidence as a witness or witnesses for the prosecution."

This, to my mind, is a very unusual procedure. Is there any reason why the prosecution, before prosecution proceedings are instituted, could not have picked on one or the other accused to do it? To call upon the trial Judge to perform the function is something, which I do not think is in the interests of justice.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, a similar provision exists in all our laws. I checked back on this and found that this section was introduced into our laws by an Ordinance No. 16 of 1912. That is when the Member for Tanglin was 12 years old.

The Chairman: I trust the repetition will not become too tedious!

Mr Rajah: If the Minister for Labour and Law considers it an undesirable provision, then this is the time to deal with the situation. But if he considers it a laudable one and he approves the framing of such a law, then, of course, the remedy is in his hands.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 19 to 21 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22-

Question proposed, "That clause 22 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, under clause 22, may I ask the Minister for Labour and Law whether betting and gambling facilities would be controlled and reduced, or controlled and increased? It seems to me, Sir, that this clause will give more opportunities for gambling. Sir, like the Minister, we face realities, but with a difference. We want to face realities with the desire to control, limit and reduce gambling facilities. We do not want them to be increased and exploited to the tune of $10 million. Sir, under clause 22, at page 10 of the Bill, in the last line, the word "any" in the phrase "any racing club or association" could mean that the Government would be prepared to approve racing clubs or associations not only for horse racing, but also for greyhound racing, motor racing, cycle racing and other kinds of races. Could the Minister for Labour and Law give us the assurance that approval would be given only to such racing associations as have the present facilities under the law, and to no other racing club or association, thereby at least limiting the evils?

Then, Sir, under sub-clause (3), I read:

"It shall be lawful at any time for any racing club or association exempted under the provisions of subsection (1) of this section to admit members of the public to its premises when racing takes place...".

"at any time". Would that mean that there would be racing the whole day long? Then the admission of members of the public. The Minister has assured us that there would be some kind of ruling so that school children and children under a certain age limit would not be admitted to these places. Would he give us the assurance that under this sub-clause school children and children under a certain age limit would not be admitted? But even then this is going to expand and increase the facilities for betting and gambling.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to wear the House down by repeating what I have already said.

7.30 p.m.

I only wish to remind the Member for Tanglin that the clause means what it says. The intention is to restrict these activities to a single organisation.

As to the admission of children and students to betting shops, I have already said that it is our intention to ensure that that does not happen, and I stand by the assurance that I have given to the House.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, supposing that particular association wants to increase the number of its race meets during the year in order to have more occasions for betting, would the Minister give his approval?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member is referring to the same association as I have in mind, it is common knowledge that they have 23 racing dates a year in Singapore and 72 elsewhere. It is not the intention in any way to increase those facilities.

The Prime Minister: The horses may die!

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Sir, the Government's intention to see that bookmakers do not escape paying a licence or tax or whatever be the charge, and that they should not swindle the Government of revenue, is laudable. But the position is this. Let us face realities. Let us say, for argument's sake, that there are 10 bookmakers operating in 10 places. Instead of scoundrels working on it and benefiting by it and Government losing on it, the Government says "Let us have 10 places in the hands of a legal and licensed association and they will be paying Government revenue." But what happens to the 10 places that have been operated by the bookmakers? Are they going to be extinguished just like that because the legalised association has opened 10 new places? I believe bookmakers offer a discount or whatever they call it. They do offer some sort of competition. Now what competition will be offered by the organisation that is legalised to carry on this business? Would we not be returning to a position worse than the position; that of having 10 bookmakers running legally and these l& others still running illegally? Is it not better to get hold of the 10 that are now functioning illegally than to set up a competition with 10 others that are running legally? I think we are going round in a vicious circle and returning to where we started.

The Prime Minister: That is all common sense!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I would have thought the answer to the point raised by the hon. Lady is very obvious - that the 10 bookmakers would be arrested, locked up and put out of the way.

I want to refer to the comments made by the Member for Tanglin when he sought an assurance that it would not be the policy of the Government to increase public betting. I have no doubt that when the Member for Tanglin said those words he had in mind an increase in the visible forms of betting, i.e., the number of bets put on the tote, the number of people attending race meetings and so forth. But, may I suggest that a fair comparison is not between what is the level of legal betting now and in the future, but between the total of legal and illegal betting now against the total of legal betting in the future?

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, already we see a conflict of opinions and interpretations. The Minister for Labour and Law has indicated that there will be a limit to and a reduction in the visible evidence of betting and gambling facilities. Then the Minister for Finance says that there is a difference and there could be an increase in the visible evidence. Sir, I do not know who would implement the policy. But under this clause, there are definitely powers to enable the facilities to be increased. Not only the members of the racing association would be admitted, but members of the public generally with or without payment of a fee would be admitted. So if the visible evidence is not reduced in any way but rather increased, and the invisible evidence is not going to be reduced, then it means that there is going to be more and more betting and more and more gambling. We on both sides face reality. If we both agree on the principle that we should try to reduce if we cannot eliminate, then I hope the Minister will agree to limit also the visible evidence of the betting and gambling facilities.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: When I said the visible evidence of an increase in betting as against the invisible forms of betting in illegal bookmaking, I was trying to make the point that if in future there is an increase in Government revenue from this form of controlled betting, then the Member for Tanglin cannot claim that that there has been-an increase in the total amount of betting, because the increase in stakes put on the tote would mean for the greater part a transfer of betting now going through illegal bookmakers to the proper controlled channels.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, at the moment, I believe the particular racing association has only one town office where the betting can take place. Now, under clause 22, not one but a hundred places can be set up, or even a thousand -

The Prime Minister: Or even a million!

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Yes. How then can the Minister maintain that the facilities will not be increased? The facilities will be increased and, with more facilities, there is no doubt that there will be more gambling. If there is only one coffee shop, you would expect a certain number of people to patronise it When you have got 1,000 coffee shops, one cannot say that there will be less people taking coffee.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek some information from the Minister who now appears to be quite an expert in horse-racing and the payment of dividends on the totalisator. According to clause 22, there is no restriction on the residential qualification of a racing club. In other words, any racing club in Malaya or outside Malaya can still apply for exemption. If, let us say, the Perak Turf Club wants to open a betting shop in Singapore, can they apply? Or is it intended that only the Singapore Turf Club can open betting shops for races run in the Federation? If that is so, how are they going to operate on the totalisator?

The Chairman: Mr Byrne, is there any reply?

Mr Byrne: No.

The Chairman: Perhaps the debate could be wound up?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance said that the answer is obvious. The bookmakers will be arrested and put in gaol. Why cannot we do this without increasing, promoting or legalising betting shops all over Singapore? Cannot we do it now? Cannot we arrest them and throw them into gaol? Government's answer, I suppose, will be that when the public are deprived of the means of betting, there must be a substitute for them. Sir, the Turf Club will serve the purpose. Those who cannot afford to go to the Turf Club evidently cannot afford to bet without getting themselves into debt. Why is Government providing facilities for such people?

The Minister for Labour and Law has just now mentioned that if we do not have betting places here, people will go to Johore, as happened 42 years ago. I would like to remind the Minister that the Singapore Turf Club is situated between Johore and Singapore and there is no reason why they should go to Johore when they can go there. The Minister has also mentioned that this will make it easier for people to buy lottery tickets. They go to Johore and buy lottery tickets. I do not think we have heard of cases where the purchase of lottery tickets has brought about the downfall of a worker. It is usually his placing bets, and not his buying lottery tickets, that causes his downfall.

To suppress betting houses, I think we need to tighten up the laws and get at the present culprits, rather than try to compete with them by promoting and legalising betting shops.

The Chairman: It seems to me that there is repetition, which is becoming tedious. I wonder if the Prime Minister would like to add to the debate?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the reasons why the present bookmakers cannot be caught and thrown into gaol is that it is difficult to catch them. Therefore, many of these provisions have been introduced - all the presumptions about account books, telegrams, documents and so forth - so that we can deal more efficaciously with them. I am quite sure that with the blessings of all sides of this House, the police force will be spurred on to greater efforts to bring them to book.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, we on this side can meet rational arguments. But we find it difficult to meet fanatical arguments -

The Chairman: Order. I thought something like that would happen. I do not think the Hon. Minister can allege that anything fanatical has been said in this House. Perhaps he would like to withdraw the word "fanatical"?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, can I substitute the word "tenacious"? Mr Speaker, Sir, we make it clear that we do not wish to increase the opportunities for gambling. That is not our intention at all. We have the powers to deal effectively with bookmakers and we intend to use those powers. That is all we propose to do.

Regarding the other matter, which was raised by the Member for Cairnhill as to how this Betting Bill will operate, that will become apparent in due course. I do not propose to say anything about that at this stage.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 23 and 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.