BETTING AND SWEEPSTAKE DUTIES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the President's recommendation to introduce the Betting and Sweepstake Duties (Amendment) Bill. I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Betting and Sweepstake Duties Ordinance (Chapter 158 of the Revised Edition)."

Bill read the First time.

Second Reading

Mr Speaker: Second Reading, what day?

Mr Lim Kim San: Now, Sir. I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of this Bill.

Certificate of Urgency handed in.

Mr Speaker: The Certificate is in order. Are typed or printed copies of the Bill available for the use of Members?

Mr Lim Kim San: Yes, Sir. Copies are with the Clerk.

Printed copies of the Bill distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Betting and Sweepstake Duties Ordinance, as it stands now, does not provide discretionary powers to exempt any sweepstake from duty. This was appropriate when all sweepstakes were organised for the direct benefit of racing clubs or associations. But where a sweepstake is organised for the purpose of raising much needed money for approved public welfare projects of one kind or another, the old provisions are obsolete and it becomes necessary to provide discretionary powers to enable sweepstakes to be exempted from duty so that the proceeds may be applied directly to the approved objects of the Sweep.

In this regard, Mr Speaker, Sir, I may say that owing to the increasing demand for funds to finance welfare and other charitable organisations in the State, the possibilities of a Public Welfare Lottery were explored as long ago as November 1965. The growing needs of voluntary welfare bodies in Singapore were stressed by the Singapore Council of Social Service in a letter to the Minister for Social Affairs dated April 6, 1966, which expressed support for any move to set up a Public Welfare Lottery. Subsequently, it was agreed that the Singapore Turf Club may run a Singapore Sweep in place of one of the Club's usual unlimited sweeps.

Arrangements are under consideration to ensure that all funds will be utilised for public projects, such as a national stadium or for welfare purposes, and the exemption now provided by way of clause 2 of this Bill will enable this to be done. But powers are provided for the Minister not only to exercise discretion but also to impose such conditions as may be deemed fit to ensure that exemptions are applied in respect of the proper purposes only.

In view of constitutional changes, the opportunity is also taken in clause 3 (a) to delete the reference to "the Colony" in section 3 of the Ordinance and substitute it by the word "Singapore", whilst clause 3 (b) provides for the transfer of the power to grant extensions of time for the payment of duty - an act of an administrative nature - to the Commissioner of Stamps.

Finally, clause 4 of the Bill makes unpaid duty a debt due to the Government of the Republic of Singapore in conformity with the other duties collected under the provisions of other revenue laws in the Republic.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.36 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very astonished to know that the Minister for Finance intends to introduce this Bill on a Certificate of Urgency. It is as if Singapore is facing an immediate invasion that such a Bill must be passed in this Parliament with such an urgency. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not believe that any government in the world which professes and believes in socialism will promote gambling.

Mr Lim Kim San: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. This is not a Bill to promote gambling. It is a Bill to give me power to exempt duty on sweepstakes run by the Club with a certain objective.

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree it is not a Bill

Mr Speaker: Mr Ho, the Minister's point was that you should confine yourself to the narrow ambit of the Bill.

Mr Ho See Beng: Even if it is not a Bill but an amendment to the Betting and Sweepstake Duties Ordinance, I think it still runs counter to the belief that the P.A.P. professes and believes in socialism.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fail to see the need for the Government to introduce this Bill on a Certificate of Urgency. This method of a Government-sponsored lottery, even though it is for a praiseworthy cause, is a rather controversial topic. I am not speaking here only as the Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C., but also as the Member for Bras Basah Constituency. You may be aware of the view of the N.T.U.C. in relation to any form of gambling, that it does not, in principle, support the idea of the Government of Singapore sponsoring a lottery. As you may also be aware, I have recently conducted a series of house-to-house visits in my constituency. In the course of such visits, I have been given to understand by a substantial number of my constituents that they are not very happy over the question of Government sponsoring a lottery. What will happen is this. On the day of the drawing of this so-called welfare lottery, you will -

Mr Lim Kim San: On a point of order, Sir. This is not a welfare lottery. This is a Singapore Sweep.

Mr Ho See Beng: Never mind. It is the raising of funds by means of a lottery. We are all aware that only the poor people will contribute towards buying these lottery tickets, and you will find that 20,000 to 30,000 housewives will buy lottery tickets and they will curtail their expenditure on marketing and food. What happens is this, Mr Speaker, Sir. When the husband comes home, he will find that variety in the food on the table is missing, and the so-called Sweep ticket, instead of assisting the poor, I am afraid is going to bring about unhappiness in all the families.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you will agree that if you take money from the rich and give it to the poor, that is a credit. But here, we are taking money from the poor and giving it to the poor. I do not see any credit. But some of you may take the cynical view that I am criticising for the sake of opposing. This is not so. Because it is the man who has interests in the Party will only criticise. A number of my constituents who are unhappy and who object to the Government sponsoring a lottery may be misunderstood that they are only voicing their apprehension in order to defend their own illegal livelihood. But before any of you come to the wrong conclusion that such persons are objecting to the idea of the Government sponsoring a lottery with an ulterior motive, I wish to impress upon you that these persons are responsible and respectable citizens who are engaged in making an honest living and are also members of civic organisations.

It is for these reasons that I am of the firm opinion that this Bill relating to the proposed Social Welfare Lottery, or whatever name it may be called, should be exposed to a thorough public debate, but not on a Certificate of Urgency as if we are facing an immediate invasion from our neighbours. And one way to gauge public feeling on this matter of the Government sponsor ing a lottery is to let the Bill be dealt with by this House in the normal manner. By introducing such a Bill on a Certificate of Urgency, the Government is, in effect, preventing Members in this House from discharging their obligations to their respective constituencies. It is impossible for them to ascertain the feelings of their constituents towards the Social Welfare Lottery Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir ----

Mr Lim Kim San: Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. This is not a Social Welfare Lottery Bill.

Mr Speaker: I think it is purely a question of force of habit on the part of Mr Ho.

Mr Ho See Beng: That is why I say it does not matter under what name it is called! It is raising money. A rose by any name smells just as sweet. I am sure it is not the intention of the Government of Singapore to rush the proposed Bill through this House in order to forestall the marshalling of public opinion against its passage. I say this with confidence because the Government subscribes to the practice and doctrine of socialism.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the essence of democratic socialism is that there should be, as far as possible, an equal distribution of wealth, and one way of achieving such an equal distribution is by minimising the possible range of income. In this society where a person is allowed to enjoy an unearned income, that is, income from a lottery which is not given to him because of his work or occupation but because of the windfall from the lottery there is a basic contradiction between the concept of sponsoring a lottery to raise funds for social objectives and the concept of promoting any measure that would enable a person to enjoy an unearned income. In Singapore as it is, we have quite a number of lotteries and games of chance where a person is given the means to obtain such an unearned income. We have, for example, horse racing, the illegal four digits, the Chap Ji Kee. And I know that the only argument that the Minister for Finance can put is, "Oh, because we cannot stamp this out, we cannot control this illegal gambling, so we must make it legal." That would be the answer.

Mr Lim Kim San: He is putting words in my mouth!

Mr Ho See Beng: He will say it is because Singaporeans go to Johore to buy lottery tickets. Is that a valid argument? Are you going to tell me that because we cannot eradicate gangsters so we must legislate and give them a licence so that they can go openly to members of the public and extort money from them? Is this going to be the reply to my criticism?

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Are you going to buy tickets yourself?

Mr Ho See Beng: Oh no, no. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Government wishes to legislate on the proposed Social Welfare Lottery, it would appear that its objection to the running of an illegal lottery by private individuals or syndicates is based not so much on principle as on the fact that it is deprived of certain revenues, in which case it is inconsistent for it to treat those persons who are convicted of running illegal lotteries and games of chance as criminals, because their offence is not the crime of running a lottery or games of chance but the withholding from Government of certain revenues which they have collected as profit. If the Government deems it necessary to issue a Certificate of Urgency in respect of the Bill on the proposed Social Welfare Lottery, then it should make it a matter of urgency to remove the offence of running illegal lotteries or games of chance from the Criminal Ordinance or the Revenue Ordinance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the more I think of this, the more I come to the conclusion that the Government has issued this Certificate of Urgency because it realises that the proposed Social Welfare Lottery will be a financial success. But I will say this - and I will prove it to the Minister for Finance - that there will be 20,000 to 30,000 unhappy families on the day of the drawing. I have been given to understand that the million-dollar sweepstake lottery organised by the Singapore Turf Club has met with a response exceeding the expectations of the organisers. I am quite sure that the Government has issued this Certificate of Urgency in order to cash in on the bonanza. While it is praiseworthy for it to find all means of obtaining more revenue, I think there is a limit to which a responsible government, especially one which subscribes to the principle of socialism, can afford to promote gambling in order to bring in more revenue. I am not objecting to this proposed Bill for the sake of objecting, but a lottery, while giving rise to expectations of a sudden windfall, may in the end leave the poor poorer and the rich richer, because a lottery is a game of chance, and the more tickets you buy the greater are the chances of winning the jackpot. The poor may strain their meagre resources, like the public daily-rated employees to whom the Minister for Finance has refused to give even one cent. They may be tempted to buy and you make them poorer. So the poor may strain their meagre resources to buy for themselves such chances as are possible of winning the jackpot, but they will not be able to compete with the rich who are in a position to buy many more chances of winning the jackpot and who, furthermore, are in a position to afford it. Because of all the considerations which I have mentioned, I strongly oppose the discussion of this Bill by this House on a Certificate of Urgency.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to express my views on this Bill. Just now I have listened to the Member for Bras Basah's views on it. He says that a lottery is contrary to the principle of democratic socialism, and that the introduction of this Bill will cause a lot of unhappiness to many families. But I am of the view that it will not necessarily bring about this unhappiness. If the Member's reasoning could hold water, then I will enumerate two facts to counter his arguments. Do you remember that nine years ago when Singapore was in Malaya there was the Social Welfare Lottery? Even now there is the running of a Social Welfare Lottery. Many people even go to Johore Bahru to buy lottery tickets. These people go over there to buy tickets because of economic reasons. Some buy only two or three tickets. This will not be seriously detrimental to their economic situation. If they are lucky enough, they may get some prizes which may help increase their income. It may help them economically.

The other point is that we know that for several years Singapore has horse-racing. If the Member for Bras Basah argues that horse-racing causes many families to be unhappy, then, according to his calculations, there will be many hundreds and thousands of families who are very unhappy. But, on the other hand, we see Singapore developing all the time. According to a World Bank Report, the standard of living of Singapore is the third highest in the whole of Asia. Whether or not the issue of lottery tickets is contrary to the tenets of democratic socialism, I will say this that in many socialist countries there is also the practice of running lotteries.

We have also heard the Minister say just now that the proceeds from this lottery will be devoted to social welfare and charitable organisations. It is meant to benefit the public as a whole. A dollar from each person will accumulate into a large sum, which will help our development and assist in the work of social welfare. It is because of this that I am not of the view that running a lottery will be detrimental to the nation, or to the economy or livelihood of the people. On the contrary, it will contribute to the social welfare work of our country.

Mr Tay Boon Too: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to express my views on this Bill. I agree very much with the sentiments expressed by the Member for Bras Basah. At the same time, I beg to differ from what the Member for Sembawang has said, and make some criticisms of his speech. Our Government is a socialist government. We understand what is the final aim of a socialist government; that is, to give to each his due and to extract from each his ability. If you get one dollar from each man so that in the end the money comes to fifty or five million dollars, then it will be contrary to the policy of our socialist Government. It will be to misunderstand our principles. So I agree with the Member for Bras Basah that this Bill should be debated by the public before it can he introduced into this House,

Mr Lim Guan Hoo: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of lotteries and sweepstakes, I have some views of my own. I would also like to express my disagreement with certain statements of a certain Member here. The Minister has given reasons and explanations which are not entirely satisfactory or sufficient. Recently we have heard some Ministers saying that wages should be in accordance with the productivity of the person concerned. In other words, it should be measured according to a person's effort and performance, and this seems to be contrary to the principle of this Bill. If the Government does not clarify the situation further, then the public will be led to think that the Ministers are inconsistent, and I feel this is regrettable. So I hope some Ministers can give explanations to enlighten us all. In view of the Finance Minister's inadequate explanation, and also in view of Members' arguments just now, there has been a certain psychological reaction to this Bill. I feel that the idea of getting some benefit out of a lottery is the normal thinking of any ordinary person. If we can be more practical in the analysis of human psychology, then we can understand that the urge and desire to get a windfall through buying lottery tickets is a kind of economic as well as a psychological manifestation. A windfall can be got through various illegal or criminal methods, such as robbery or stealing or smuggling. Through such methods, one can overnight get some unjust windfall. That is practical. It is more easily put into practice than running a lottery. But if you say that it is fair and just on socialist grounds that a person can get a windfall by striking a lottery, then I do not quite understand the meaning of "windfall" because from the standpoint of socialism, we feel that there are certain contradictions and discrepancies there. We see that nowadays it is difficult to voice our thoughts on socialism, namely, from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need. In the situation here in Singapore, most of our people have regular employment. The Member for Bras Basah has said that the housewives have to look after their households, and the breadwinners are the husbands or some other members of the family. If these breadwinners have no means of sustenance, or if they do not depend on their employment but on some windfall to look after their families, then it is unwise to spend too much money on lotteries and we should adopt measures appropriate to deal with these cases. But if people who are regularly employed look for an opportunity to get a windfall through some unjust or shameful or illegal or criminal methods, then I say this is contrary to the normal means of earning a living. Also it cannot be 100 per cent sound or reasonable to support the running of sweepstakes. We must urge that our socialist policies should be implemented. Singapore cannot be isolated from other countries. We cannot build a wall around it so that other countries cannot get our people's money to spend on their lotteries. But, on the other hand, if we can run our own lottery, of course, it will prevent our people's money from being drained into other territories. The Member for Bras Basah has said that the rich get the money from the poor by striking a lottery, and then they spend it on the poor again. That, I think, is difficult to understand. Is it really justifiable to get money from the poor and spend it back on the poor? I do not quite see his argument. We are used to hearing very often the name of the N.T.U.C. in his talks. I do not understand what is his purpose in saying this. Is he trying to enhance his prestige by calling on the name of the N.T.U.C.? Whether it is of any use in doing this in this House I do not quite know. It will have to depend on the Speaker to decide.

If it is intended that some poor people in Singapore can overnight become millionaires -- but the chances of this happening are very remote, only one out of one million, and this is perhaps also not in keeping with socialist principles - we can perhaps increase the number of prizes by reducing the amount of the first prize to, say, $100,000. Perhaps this will provide more opportunities for more people to get rich, and therefore it may be a bit fairer. But in the past, from the point of law, if people ran illegal lotteries and they were caught, they would have to suffer the consequences. From the point of law, in the past, there was no practice to regard the winning of a lottery as a criminal act if the practice was allowable under the law. So we cannot credit or discredit the issue of lottery tickets. In principle, we may support this Bill, hut what we hope is that in practice there should be necessary arrangements to ensure that the lottery system in Singapore will not have any undesirable evil consequences or any disadvantages which will make many people change their correct concept of life or lead them to believe that we are indulging in gambling. So this is what the Government should pay attention to. This is what I hope the Government can do. Finally I would like the Minister concerned to clarify what I have asked him to clarify.

Mr S. Rajoo (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand not to support this Bill because we know that betting and sweepstakes is a social evil, no matter whether such betting is done by an organised club or association or an individual, or whether it has the blessing of Government. For a democratic government dedicated to socialist principles to have the idea of running a sweepstake or lottery for the purposes of raising funds is very much deplorable. We have a stable government and an able Minister for Finance who knows ways and means of how to squeeze money in the way of taxes from the general public. Yet the idea to have some extra measures of free betting and sweepstake to find more money will mean that he is trying to sneak through the backdoor and induce poor housewives to spend more money, and lately day-dreamers to find extra money from their already over-burdened budget and eventually making them poor. We believe in the socialist principle of making men equal to one another economically, but not in making the poor poorer and the rich richer. When our neighbouring country was running the Social Welfare Lottery, the buying and selling of these lottery tickets was banned in Singapore on the grounds that this breeds evil. I wonder how, all of a sudden, the so dedicated socialist government of Singapore found fit to introduce this free betting and sweepstake to find money for social welfare purposes. I hope we in Singapore are trying to make hard-working, law-abiding and good citizens of our people and not more gamblers and bookmakers, as I feel this amendment will eventually bring about.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Bras Basah has two basic objections to this Bill: (1) that it is being introduced on a Certificate of Urgency; and (2) because he says it is a betting Bill. I can assure the House that the Government is well aware that because there is no Opposition in the House - the Barisan Sosialis having resigned or attempted to resign from their seats and having been derelict in their duties - we must be very careful not to introduce Bills if we can on Certificates of Urgency. For instance, if we were to introduce the Land Acquisition Bill or any Bill on the Constitution on a Certificate of Urgency, that would be most reprehensible. But we have not done that. When important Bills come up, because there is no Opposition, we send them to Select Committee, so that members of the public will have an opportunity to present their views and the Committee an opportunity to consider them. This is what has happened to the Land Acquisition Bill which will be read a Third time today.

But this Betting and Sweepstake Duties (Amendment) Bill is not a Bill to introduce betting in Singapore. If we have no horse-racing and no sweepstakes, and this is a Bill to introduce gambling for the first time in Singapore, then we will never do it this way. But if the Members who object to this Bill read it carefully, they will note that it is a Bill to give the Minister powers to exempt any sweepstake promoted, organised, administered or operated by any racing club or association from all or any of the provisions of this Ordinance. It does not give him power to start a sweepstake. We have those powers and we have had them for many a year. All this Bill does is to give him power to exempt "The Singapore Sweepstake" - if you like to call it that - from paying 30 per cent tax that should go to the Singapore Government. And I cannot see why we cannot bring it in on a Certificate of Urgency. The tickets are, at the moment, being sold in Singapore and the first draw will be held in early December. Hence the urgency for this Bill.

When the People's Action Party came to power in 1959, it was a puritanical Party. It appears to me, after hearing some of our Members today, that we are still semi-puritanical. There was a day when rock-n-roll was banned in Singapore. I myself like rock-n-roll and I saw no objections to rock-n-roll. Today, our youngsters like to do the Twist. I do it once in a while, but perhaps I am getting too old for it. But I think there is a new thinking now. We have to cater for our youths and every year there are 90,000 to 100,000 more voters, and we have to cater for their taste. And if our youths like to do the Twist, I say good luck to them. The days of the pigtailed school-girls are over, and if the Barisan Sosialis depend on them, I think they have not got a hope. I only hope that members of our Party will also move with the times.

6.19 p.m.

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel very uplifted listening to the Back-benchers and realise that they still have a lot of idealism left in them. But I would like to congratulate the Member for Bukit Merah who has idealism tinged with realism. And I would like to inform my friend, the Member for Bras Basah, who happens to be missing here, that in my trip through Bulgaria recently -it is a very socialist country - I found that they run sweepstakes every week. That is a very strong socialist country, but they have learnt that idealism must he tinged with realism. And I hear from my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that in his trip to Russia and several other Central European socialist countries, they too run their own lotteries. I agree that we should not encourage betting or gambling if Members who object to it can assure me that even without allowing betting or gambling under control in Singapore, our people would not gamble at all and that the 20,000 or 30,000 housewives would not feel sorry or would not buy tickets from across the Causeway.

To reply to the Member's criticism that we are afraid to have a public debate on the pros and cons of allowing lotteries to be run in Singapore, I think my colleague has answered in some measure the reasons why the amendment Bill to the Betting and Sweepstake Duties Ordinance is introduced on a Certificate of Urgency.

I resent very much the accusation of the Member for Farrer Park who feels that we are introducing gambling through the backdoor by bringing about an amendment Bill to the Betting and Sweepstake Duties Ordinance. If it was my intention to introduce, allow or encourage gambling through the back-door, I would not have made any amendment to the Ordinance at all, because I would be able to get money simply by telling the Turf Club, "All right, you run it, pay the tax and give us the profits." That would be an easier way of doing it than by coming here and seeking approval for this amendment Bill.

As I said, if I can be assured that if we do not allow the Turf Club to run this sweep and the population at large would not spend their money on gambling, then I would agree that we stop gambling here entirely. But human nature is such that even if we do not allow gambling, a large amount of money will be spent on gambling - and illegal gambling at that - which will encourage gangsterism, protection rackets and all sorts of crimes.

Mr Ho See Beng: What are the police doing?

Mr Lim Kim San: I see that our friend is back here! The police have not only to look out for gambling but they have also other jobs to do. But can the Member for Bras Basah tell me that it is possible to eradicate gambling? If he can say that, then we will give it a try. I think it has been found that it is not possible at all to eradicate gambling. So if we allow it to go underground, more evil consequences will follow than if we allow it in the open.

I cannot understand the argument of the Member for Bras Basah and also the argument of the Member for Farrer Park that the poor will get poorer and the rich will get richer because of the sale of lottery tickets. Do they mean to say that in every instance where lottery tickets are sold, it is only the rich who strike a prize? I think the Member for Bras Basah contradicts himself when he says that the chances for the poor are less for the simple reason that they cannot afford to buy more lottery tickets than the rich. If that is so, then more of the money will come from the rich than from the poor!

Mr Rajoo: On a point of explanation, Sir.

Mr Lim Kim San resumed his seat.

Mr Rajoo: On what I said that the rich will become richer and the poor will become poorer - it is a possibility. A rich man buys about 1,000 tickets in a sweepstake, whereas a poor man buys ten tickets. So the chances of a rich man winning a lottery are a hundred times more than those of a poor man. Therefore, it is a possibility that a rich man will become richer and a poor man will become poorer.

An hon. Member: Then good luck to him!

Mr Lim Kim San: That is exactly what I said. The Member for Bras Basah contradicts himself. He said that all the money will come from the poor. If that argument is right, then most of the money will come from the rich! [Interruption] And he says, "Well, look, it is so successful, from what we hear, the sale of tickets is more than what was expected by the Turf Club," it means that there is a need for this here, that the majority of the public are not of the same opinion as he. I think it is important for me to say that no one is under compulsion to buy these tickets. Therefore, if we want to eradicate gambling, it is not by shutting our eyes to it or wearing blinkers in order not to see that the evil exists, but through education. That is my reply to the Member for Bukit Merah. It is through education in the long run that we will be able to change the nature of our population. But until then, let us tinge our idealism with a little bit of realism and see that whatever money is spent by the people in gambling does not leave this country.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Lim Kim San].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.