BETTING (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 3.45 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill should really be taken together with the following two Bills, the Common Gaming Houses (Amendment) Bill and the Road Vehicles (Special Powers) (Amendment) Bill, three of which are to be viewed as a package of amendments. I am not sure how Members want to speak on these Bills. It may be better for the adjoining issues for discussion to be on the first Bill, although Members need not be precluded from speaking on the other two Bills, as I will be outlining the rationale in my speech on this Bill.

Sir, the amendments are really a response to an issue of public interest and a response to voluminous public complaints and outcry. I think all Members are aware of the problem which illegal mini-turf clubs pose to the public and to the residents in our HDB estates. Large crowds gather at coffee shops and hawker centres on days when there are races. The proliferation of the illegal mini-turf clubs in housing estates has given rise to concern on the part of residents, concern that has been expressed in various forums, including this House. What is the impact of illegal mini-turf clubs? It has an adverse impact on the quality of life and on the environment in HDB estates particularly. It has ruined the residential environment. It has an unsavoury and an unpleasant effect on the residents, most of whom are law-abiding and want to live in peace and security. The crowds which gather and operators of illegal mini-turf clubs not only frequent the premises but also spill over into corridors and even staircases of the HDB blocks. Members of the public have experienced feelings of insecurity and anxiety and a sense of lawlessness is created.

For the year that has just ended, 1985, more than 1,750 complaints have been received by the Police from individuals as well as organizations, and including Members of Parliament; and more than 50 complaints from RCs and CCCs, urging action to be taken. Is it for want of enforcement action by the Police? No, Sir. The Police have taken action, and in 1985 more than 11,000 raids were conducted. Persons were arrested. But the problem is that there are serious deficiencies in our laws, laws which are subject to amendment today.

There are basically three inadequacies in the law. One is that the penalties which are prescribed in the legislation have not been revised for more than a quarter century. And, therefore, this has made it not a deterrent and the operators of the illegal mini-turf clubs therefore operate without scant regard for the law. Second, there is no offence for running a betting information centre. I shall later distribute a photograph which will give Members an idea of what is the set-up in a betting information centre. Thirdly, Sir, the way in which these mini-turf clubs are conducted. The use of paraphernalia is such that documentary evidence is very difficult to obtain. So these amendments, therefore, are designed to respond to this problem.

Members will recall that this was last raised in this House in early 1985 and I then gave assurance that the matter would be studied in a comprehensive manner. I outlined some of the problems, the inadequacies in the law, and that my Ministry would be presenting legislation later on to tackle this problem. The amendments, therefore, seek to meet this problem and to close the gaps in the laws which are referred to. I would like to stress that no new offences are created except for the offence of running a betting information centre and of obstructing police officers.

If I may now turn to some of the amendments. First, with regard to the penalties. The proposed amendments are aimed primarily at the gambling operators. To deter the bookmakers and their agents, the existing penalties for various categories of gambling offences are enhanced, including the imposition of mandatory prison sentences for those concerned with the management or business of a common betting house or a betting information centre.

Next, the amendment proposes measures against betting information centres. Mini-turf clubs depend on betting information centres to provide information on race results. At present, there are no specific provisions in the law under which persons involved in the running of betting information centres can be prosecuted. It is therefore proposed to amend the Bet- ting Act to introduce specific provisions to deal with the problem of betting information centres and against those involved in the running of such centres.

As far as definitions are concerned, clause 2 of the Bill introduces certain new definitions and refines the interpretation section. In particular, it has included the definition of a betting information centre which is essentially a place "kept or used for receiving or transmitting by telephone or other means any information relating to any horse-race or other sporting event for the purpose of betting or wagering in contravention of this Act." Such betting information centres are a recent development and are not covered in the Act. They are crucial in the illegal bookmaking network in that they supply mini-turf clubs and bookmakers with information on race results. The other new definitions are those of "equipment", "sporting event" and "telecommunication system".

The main thrust of these amendments is against the operators of these mini-turf clubs. Enhanced punishments will be introduced for these offences. The maximum fines will be increased significantly and there will also be minimum fines to ensure that the sentences are adequate as a deterrent. For instance, offences like bookmaking, running a common betting house and operating a betting information centre will carry a fine ranging from $20,000 to $200,000 and mandatory imprisonment which may extend to five years. Although illegal gambling operators will now face these minimum fines as well as mandatory imprisonment, those who use their facilities, the punters, will not similarly face mandatory imprisonment upon conviction. Instead, clause 5 only amends section 5 of the Act dealing with punters who indulge in illegal betting or wagering and provides for an enhanced penalty of a fine up to $5,000 or imprisonment up to six months.

As regards presumptions, the Common Gaming Houses Act as well as this Betting Act have always contained presumption clauses. These pertain to offences like accepting or receiving stakes, dealing in lottery tickets as well as in situations where premises are presumed to be common gaming or betting houses. However, some of these presumptions have been overtaken by the increasingly sophisticated modern illegal gambling operations. They have to be brought up to date. A presumption clause has also to be introduced to deal with betting information centres which are crucial to mini-turf club operations.

At this stage, could I kindly request the Clerk of Parliament to distribute a photograph.

[Copies of photograph distributed to hon. Members.]

Sir, the Police have found difficulty in prosecuting operators of common betting houses and betting information centres because the operators have devised ingenious measures to destroy evidence and frustrate the Police. The presumptions rely on the evidence of gambling paraphernalia to prove that a place is used as a common betting house or betting information centre.

Under the presumption for a betting information centre, a place will be presumed to be a betting information centre if it has three or more telephones or telephone lines and it satisfies one of the following conditions:

(a) It is installed with a telecommunication equipment which is arranged in such a way as to suggest that it is being used for the receiving or transmitting of information relating to horse racing.

(b) A person within the place is found destroying records of results or dividends payable.

(c) Two or more telephone calls were received at the place enquiring about results, commentary or dividends payable. The owner or occupier of the place is presumed to be aware of its use as a betting information centre and anyone found therein is presumed to be assisting in the business of the betting information centre.

Sir, there are other presumption clauses. As I said, the update and refine of the presumptions are to be found in the existing legislation. I would like to stress that all these presumptions are rebuttable and will not apply if the accused person can provide a reasonable explanation.

Sir, as I have said, this is a problem which has plagued residents in HDB estates. Residents have complained and asked for action to be taken. Action was taken but because of the inadequacies in the law, they did not have the desired deterrent effect. I think it is time for us to take action and that is the purport of these Bills.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am basically not a gambler. I do not have any fondness for any form of gambling. I do not like to see my hard earned money taken away from me, neither do I welcome money which comes the easy way. However, I must also confess that I am not entirely stainless and innocent in this particular form of human vice. From time to time, I would have a go at the Singapore Stock Exchange known by many to be the biggest casino of all in Singapore. But that is more for the fun and the excitement of it than for actually making money; the idea being to prove that I am not a born loser and that I too could be as smart as the economist and the city analyst in making forecasts and investment decisions. But I would be boasting if I said that I was making money from the Exchange all the time. Only the other day, I had the misfortune of backing the SIA at the wrong time. I applied for and was actually allotted a few thousand shares. For weeks I have been licking my wounds when its price plunged below the issue price. But now I learn that my fortune has turned and that the SIA is finally taking off.

Illegal horse betting and 4-digit gambling have grown at an alarming speed over the years. They permeate every nook and corner of Singapore. I fully support the argument that this form of gambling, if uncontrolled, would erode and finally destroy the moral fabric of our society and turn our people into a mass of heartless and senseless human beings. It creates a deceptive sense of prosperity and wellbeing when everything is, in fact, not going on well.

I became aware of this phenomenon only in the year before last when, after a long spell of absence from the scene of Singapore, I was asked to organize a reception party for the walkabout of the First Deputy Prime Minister in my constituency. For weeks before the event, I was touring the area quietly myself and sometimes with the CCC members. We went to the hawker centres, markets and shopping areas. We found that even on Sundays at the designated time when the walkabout was supposed to take place, these places were actually bustling with activities. People were shouting, eating, and generally enjoying themselves. So we decided to stage reception points at these very crowded places, hoping to attract the biggest possible crowd for the welcoming ceremony. I thought we could never fail. The places were so packed with people and if we threw in a few lion dances to pull in an even bigger crowd, it would be an instant success. But came the day of the walkabout, I was shocked to find that the places which I expected to be packed with people were actually deserted as if a curfew had been declared earlier on. There were only some small children running about.

Throughout my term as an MP over the last 20-odd years, I have never known these places to be so quiet and peaceful and so lack of fellow human beings. Of course, it did not mean that the First DPM and I had suddenly become unpopular overnight and that people were avoiding us like the plague. It simply meant that the bookies and the 4-digit operators who had been using these places to stage their operations had decided to pack up and declare a holiday for themselves as a gesture of respect for the walkabout. Well, whichever way you want to interpret it. And the hawkers and the shopkeepers very sensibly had also decided to cut losses and to close shop because they knew that with the bookies gone, there would be less customers to serve and they did not want to waste their time. Of course, there were red faces among us all round. But it was an eye-opener for me to see how illegal gambling had taken over and changed the daily pattern of life in the housing estates.

The Government is not entirely blameless in allowing this state of affairs to develop into such a ridiculous situation. The Singapore Turf Club, of course, is the biggest culprit, without which the illegal bookies would not have a base to operate. The other arm of the Government does not help by backing the Singapore Pools Pte Ltd in setting up 4-D centres all over the island. In March last year, the Ministry of Home Affairs was reported by the Straits Times to have called in the representatives of the Turf Club and the Singapore Pools to find out ways and means of making the best out of the punters. The Turf Club's General Manager, Mr Tim Thompson, was later reported to have said that his Club would do its best to help the authorities stop the illegal betting nuisance. Nuisance? Has he got the right to say that word? His Club is causing more nuisance to the public than all the others put together. Ask any motorist who has to return home on a Saturday afternoon after work, and he will tell you the nuisance of the long traffic jam he has to endure along Bukit Timah Road when it is a race day. Ask any houseowner who has the misfortune of having his bungalow situated in the vicinity of the Turf Club, and he will tell you the nuisance he has to put up with on a race day when all accesses to his house are blocked by illegally parked motor vehicles belonging to racegoers.

Millions of dollars of public money has been spent to improve roads leading to the Club, money which should have been better spent elsewhere. If this is not nuisance, what is? And every year we witness the scene of the Chairman or President of the Club playing Santa Claus by giving away cheques to charitable organizations from money which should rightly belong to the Government because the Government gave it the franchise to run races, which is almost equivalent to the right to print money. Of course, not exactly in the way which a former Workers' Party candidate was reported to have done - printing counterfeit American dollars. Now we are faced with a very curious situation.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is simple, Mr Speaker, Sir. That report talks of a charge having been made in court. So it is sub judice, Mr Speaker, Sir. And this Member, who perhaps should know better, does not seem to know anything about this. I thought his sojourn in London might have taught him something. He refers to this case and pronounces the man guilty.

Some hon. Members: No!

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have not got the right of a dictator who can do what the Member for Anson said I was doing. What I merely said, and if he has the ear to listen and understand it, is that this was what was reported in the newspaper. I did not say that he was guilty or not guilty. I said that it was reported in the papers that a former Workers' Party candidate had done this. It was reported in the newspaper.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Alleged.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Well, I don't know if it is alleged. But is it true or not true that the newspaper has reported such a story? Tell me, is it true or not true that a story has been published in the Straits Times on that particular day?

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Member does not seem to understand the use of English.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Sir, let me continue. Now we are faced with a very curious situation in which we are asked to pass laws to put the small operators in the hawker centres and coffee shops under heavy fines, and even to lock them up. But at the same time the Government-backed Singapore Pools and the Singapore Turf Club are busily putting up plans to set up even more betting shops all over Singapore. If you say this is logic, then you can say that black is white and white is black and no one would want to argue with you. What I cannot understand is that when one places a bet in a hawker centre, one is perpetuating, abetting, or even potentially committing a crime. But when one does it in a Government-backed or Turf Club run betting shop, no crime is committed. There seems to be no valid explanation why one is condemned and the other is condoned. I cannot understand it. The Chinese have a proverb for this. It says: Zhi xu zhou guan fang huo, bu zun bai xing dian deng ( ) The county official can set a blaze to the town but the common people are not allowed to light even a lamp.

Gambling like other forms of human vices such as prostitution and alcoholism, should ideally be stamped out. But we all know that it is not possible to do so unless everyone is a saint, which no one is. So we tend to adopt the next best thing to do, ie, to try to control them and prevent them from getting out of hand. In the case of prostitution, I am sure the Anti-Vice Squad knows exactly in what districts it is most prevalent. But they prefer to keep all ears open and one eye closed! They know it is a waste of time to try to track down every prostitute and every brothel keeper in town. But neither will they go hand in hand with brothel keepers to run brothels. But in the case of gambling and betting, very curiously the Government is trying to suppress them on the one hand, but it is also going hand in hand with someone to set up more betting shops on the other.

I think the right solution to this problem lies in proper regulation and control and, if necessary, heavy taxation, because I believe mere suppression will not work. The tragedy of human nature is such that it is always striving to seek excitement, to want to escape from the harshness of reality and to indulge in some sort of a dream. Every nation has its own form of gambling. The Spanish have their bull-fighting. The British have their races. The Filipinos and the Indonesians have their cock fighting. The Thais have their fish fighting. The Chinese have their mahjong. And even the hardworking Japanese have their pachingko. We in Singapore seem to have taken up horse racing and 4-digit betting in a big way, not, unfortunately, without some encouragement from the Government. Remember, Toto and Singapore Pools were set up for just that purpose.

Over the years, judging from the number of people going to these illegal gambling centres, such as hawker centres, markets and provision shops, there seems to be a demand for these forms of gambling as a pastime. Otherwise, it is not possible to explain why so many people at a given time are prepared to endure the noise and discomfort such as we find in these places. And I do not believe there is any major swindling going on. If there is, it will soon be discovered and discredited. The worst scenario would be when someone gets too lucky and he has placed an unusually large bet and the operator cannot pay up. In that circumstance, the operator would either go bust or abscond. But usually negotiations would take place and settlement would be arrived at for a certain percentage of the winnings to be paid, to the satisfaction of all parties, and life would go on. As far as I know, not many people have been put into financial straitjackets as a result of betting in these centres, legal or otherwise. And no lifeboat fund was ever heard of.

The pattern of behaviour of a gambler is such that if he has surplus cash, or what the economist calls "disposable income", he would bet and cherish a dream. If he has not got the money, he would just stand by the side and watch other people make money, hoping to share in the feast that would come at the end of the session in Happy Valley or in whatever place that is in vogue at the time. In the end, as the saying goes, fools and their money are soon parted.

I am not arguing for the merits or demerits of these illegal gambling centres. My view is that they should be closed down. But so should those run by the Turf Club and the Singapore Pools, if our policies are to be logical and consistent. But since it is not possible to do so, we will have to find a way out.

My point is that since so many people patronize these centres voluntarily and at risk of being caught red-handed and locked up, there seems to be a demand by many people for their money to be parted. If that is the case, I think it is not beyond the ingenuity of the officials in the Treasury to devise a foolproof method in which this disposable cash can be systematically and effectively skimmed off and paid into the Consolidated Fund. What I mean is that apart from the 4-digit and betting centres run by the Turf Club and the Singapore Pools, the Government may consider licensing out certain places to some syndicators to run as 4-digit or horse-betting centres, at the payment, of course, of a huge licence fee by the licensee plus the payment of a large cash deposit to safeguard against defaulting, plus whatever tax we want to impose on them from time to time. This may work out to be to the satisfaction of every one. The gamblers and punters will be happy. They will eventually lose their money. I have no doubt about it. But at least they will have the satisfaction of losing it in peace and in air-conditioned comfort. Later on, when they look back in time they can always console themselves by seeing their losses turned into flyovers, expressways and parks, in which they also enjoy. We, the non-gamblers, will be happy because we will enjoy the fringe benefit of paying less tax, hopefully. The Minister for Finance will be more than happy as this move would effectively have created a new revenue source for him to tap whenever he cannot balance the books. This may prove to be one of the remedies for our present economic woes. Later on when we find the system slightly getting out of control or that the syndicators have made too much money, we can always fine-tune it by increasing the licence fee or the tax or both. What we need is to impose heavy taxes on gambling in the hope to cure the gamblers out of their habit to gamble, to throw away money. The ancient Chinese have a phrase for it, and it is contained in only four characters. It is called yu jin yu zeng, ( ) Impose heavy taxes in order to prohibit certain undesirable activities. Just four characters. Very economical use of words and syntax. That is what is so wonderful about Chinese characters. That is why I always tell the Parliamentary Secretary for Education not to fiddle with them too much. The four characters convey the whole concept, strategy, philosophy and policy, of dissuading, restraining and inhibiting people from doing certain anti-social acts by imposing heavy taxes on such acts.

We do not approve of people drinking. So we impose heavy duties on liquor. We want to dissuade people from smoking. So we have heavy duties on tobacco. Similarly we impose heavy duties and taxes on petrol and the purchase of motorcars. But at the moment although we do not approve of people gambling there seems to be a lack of ways, or at least the present provision is inadequate, for heavy taxes to be imposed on it to restrain people from doing so. What we are doing is simply to close down the centres, fine the operators and put them in jail if they persist. This seems to be a negative way of doing things. A vacuum will undoubtedly be created but the people's instinctive urge to gamble has yet to be satisfied. In the end, the operators would go underground or go over the Causeway to Johore Baru, if what I heard from the grapevine is correct. What we are doing is like the great prohibition in the United States. They simply closed down the breweries and locked up the brewers without satisfying the need of some people to drink. So in the end they encountered all sorts of irregularities and criminal activities, culminating in the abolition of the prohibition.

What I have said or suggested just now is nothing out of this world. It has been practised in other countries, notably in the United Kingdom. There in the main streets of any town centre, you will find bingo halls, Mecca and Ladbrooke gaming houses side by side with supermarkets and boutiques and prestigious restaurants. They call themselves bookmakers, but they do not make books. They only make money out of the punters. They also call themselves turf accountants, but they do not do accounts except fiddling theirs so that the inland revenue officers find it difficult to squeeze more tax out of them. What I have described may or may not be practicable in our environment. The Chinese may prove to be cleverer cheaters than the British and eventually life for our enforcement officers may be hell in those circumstances. But whether or not this is the right approach only time will tell, but it costs us next to nothing to explore and to find out. Some of us on this side of the House may be old. A few chips in our memory might have burst. Sometimes we forget things, sometimes we say the wrong things. But the system is basically intact. The way of thinking and finding out things is still functioning well. And not all what we say is garbage.

I remember it was only a few months ago when the Member for Rochore first suggested in this House to reduce the rate of contribution in the CPF. That drew an immediate rebuttal from the Acting Minister for Labour and there were even calls for the Member to take further tuitions on economics from the Member for Leng Kee. Now, everyone on the other side or shall I say, our side, seems to be harping on the same tune wanting to reduce the CPF contribution. I am not sure whether the Member for Rochore is giving tuition on economics. If he is, I am sure there should be no lack of pupils. 4.24 pm

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

I do not have the answers to the issue of gambling. My learned senior colleague, the Member for Queenstown, has given us a learned discourse and I do not intend to compete with him. Mr Speaker, Sir, my concern is the form in which gambling has taken on today and its consequences to our residents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Housing and Development Board, since its inception about 25 years ago, has placed great emphasis on the planning of our HDB estates. Today more than 80% of our population are housed in these estates.

Our public housing programme has been successful because it is aimed at catering to the social and recreational needs of the residents. In addition to providing the residential units, public amenities, such as schools, food centres, markets, town centres, libraries and parks, are also provided.

To ensure that our residents will be able to adapt to high density living, high rise living, the grassroots organizations such as Block Committees, Residents' Committees, CCMCs and CCCs have been nurtured. These organizations play the important role of ensuring that the human relations factor is not neglected. Programmes such as the Police Neighbourhood Watch Scheme and our Civil Defence programmes provide for security in the neighbourhood and aims at promoting self-help in an emergency. It is this integrated approach that has led to the success of our Public Housing programmes.

In the last few years, however, one disruptive factor has appeared on the scene, namely, gambling. Initially, and these were the years when the hon. Member for Queenstown was away, this was done discreetly in public places such as the void decks, markets, coffee shops and hawker centres. Over the last two years, however, the scene has changed. What is the situation today? Large groups of people, sometimes up to 70-80 persons, now converge at various centres during the weekends on race days, to carry on what has been termed as mini-turf clubs. These public areas, eg, hawker centres or coffee shops, are no longer safe nor accessible to the public. There are many complaints from our residents, as has been mentioned by the Minister, members of the public, and even the operators of coffee shops and hawker stalls. Police raids were increased, but became increasingly ineffective because the operations are now more sophisticated. Look-outs, mainly teenagers, were employed and this is the most worrying as our young are involved. The presence of even unmarked police cars, I am told, could be detected. Sophisticated telecommunications equipment are used. These illegal activities in a nutshell are being carried out openly in total defiance of the law and with total disregard for the interest of the majority. What is emerging is the picture of organized crime. Violence and even a stabbing incident was reported. If we look at the photograph that has been provided by the Minister, it would show definitely that this is the work of organized crime. It is against this background of organized crime that one must see the new measures to combat these mini-turf clubs being introduced.

What is the issue before us today? Is it an issue of whether gambling is right or wrong? The answer to me is no. The issue is one of protecting our living environment. The issue is whether we want our neighbourhood, the public places, to be safe and accessible for all to use, or whether we allow a minority, the organized syndicates, to ruin our environment for their own selfish ends. It is this transformation of the mini-turf clubs to an organized operation that alerts us all to the urgency and seriousness of this problem. The revision of the laws will result in severe penalties for the operators of these syndicates. For the operators, in addition to heavy fines, there will be mandatory jail sentences. It is good that mandatory jail sentence has been reserved for the operators and not for the punters, for the aim should be to wipe out the operators.

However, in view of the organized nature of these operations, we can expect that there will be intimidation of coffee shop owners or stall holders to allow their premises to be used for gambling. These persons may feel helpless or fearful of organized syndicates. I urge these persons to make police reports to protect themselves and their businesses. Not to do so may implicate themselves as part of the gambling operations with very serious consequences. In return, the authorities must be forthcoming in their reassurance to all who make these reports and provide them with adequate protection. This will be a dilemma to the innocent and I seek the reassurance of the Minister of offering protection and assistance to the innocent who are intimidated. I also urge parents to exercise care in that their teenagers will not be unwittingly involved in these activities. Even the "look-out" boys will face mandatory jail sentences.

In summary, may I reiterate that the main aim, to my mind, of these amendments is to protect our living environment. To this end, the penalty for involvement in gambling operations now carry a mandatory jail sentence. While we aim at the "big fish", our law enforcement officers must be sensitive to those who face intimidation by the gambling syndicates. This will indeed be a dilemma for the innocent. I await the reassurance of the Minister in this respect.

Dr Aline K. Wong (Changkat): Mr Speaker, Sir, with due respect to the Member for Queenstown, I beg to differ from the way he presented the issue before the House, especially at the beginning of his speech. What is discussed here is not the question of the small-time operators versus the big operators. The issue is really one of what advantages or, put another way, what practical considerations can be made with regard to the stamping out of illegal gambling.

Many of us here do not condone gambling and I think we are not discussing the right and wrong of gambling here. Many of us would teach our children not to gamble. We would not condone these activities. But given the fact that every nation seems to have its own game of gambling, as the Member for Queenstown has put it, and given the fact that it is extremely difficult to wipe it out, I think we have to think of some practical requirements to contain the problem. The proposed amendments to the Bill would really give the Police the enhanced power to contain the problem. But we should note that the circumstances surrounding the introduction of the amendments were not only because the Police needed more power but also because members of the public have been complaining about this problem and have been repeatedly voicing their dissatisfaction.

I am very glad to hear that the quality of the living environment is given so much due emphasis here, and this has not only to do with the nuisance, the littering, the gathering of crowds, the disturbance, and that our children who grow up in this environment might somehow obtain a very tainted picture of society, but also the fact that members of the public have been voicing their opinion about the care of their own environment which is significant to me. So I want to bring the Government's attention to this point: in future when the Singapore Pools revolutionizes the techniques of gambling by computerization, then, when they consider the need to increase the number of outlets (and some of them would be in the housing estates), I do plead with the Government to give due consideration to the opinions of the residents as to the location of all these outlets and to the manner under which these outlets should be regulated. Because the right to a clean, good living environment belongs to the Housing Board residents as much as it belongs to the private housing estate residents, I therefore beg the Government to carefully consider the opinions of the public and the residents in future when this programme of computerized gambling is put into operation. The Town Councils, which might be instituted, should also consider the regulation of the social environment as one of its areas of concern, rather than just the physical environment as such. 4.35 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I also make my position quite clear: that I am not a gambler nor do I favour gambling in any form. But what I do want to question here is the motive of the Government in the introduction of this Bill.

I say this because, as has been pointed out, there is legalized gambling. Last year, plans were announced of steps being taken to popularize legalized gambling and, as the Member for Changkat has pointed out, plans were announced of setting up betting centres for the Singapore Pools, even in housing estates. I do not want to repeat all that has been said by the Member for Queenstown and by the Member for Changkat. But it is these double standards of this Government that I find so abhorrent. What this Government appears to be doing is to say to our citizens: You must practise what I preach but you must not practise what I do.

I see that the Minister, however, did not put it on a moral plane. This is why I am questioning the motives. He proposed to put it purely on a social problem, an environmental problem. He said that this illegal gambling was posing an environmental social problem in housing estates. I would be the first to agree that that is something which we could do without in our housing estates. We do not want this environmental problem mushrooming in all housing estates. But if that is the only concern of the Government, then of course there is an answer to it and, that is, to allow, as the Member for Queenstown has said, people who wish to promote public lotteries or games of chance to set up their centres outside housing estates, license them and then collect the revenue from them for that. So I do not know why the environmental problem is posed as the main reason because, as has been pointed out, the Turf Club presents a problem, an environmental problem, to the people living there and to motorists, and the proposed setting up of Singapore Pools betting centres in housing estates will equally present a problem. So it would appear that what the Government is saying to our citizens is: You may gamble with us but you may not gamble with anybody else. If you want to have a flutter, the only persons with whom you can have a flutter is us.

I would ask the Minister to consider what has already been said and to try and be logical and consistent in the application of Government's policies and to state quite clearly what is the reason for this Bill. If it is a question of revenue, because the Government is losing revenue as a result of illegal gambling, then the answer is to license them, away from housing estates, and collect the revenue. Or is the motive of the Government to drive more and more gamblers to the Turf Club and to the Singapore Pools so that more revenue may be collected?

The other point is presumptions. I know the Minister says glibly that the presumptions are rebuttable. But it has been observed, Mr Speaker, Sir, by many a Judge and no less than by Lord Devlin, a very distinguished jurist in England and I am sure the Minister for Home Affairs knows this, who has gone on record as saying that presumptions are odious. They reverse the burden of proof. Our system of law is that an accused person is innocent until he is proved and found guilty. Presumptions reverse this. It is, of course, very convenient, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the Police and for the Prosecution if our statutes which regulate or punish criminal activities are full of presumptions. Then you throw the burden on to an accused person. He has got to prove himself innocent. This is something completely alien to the system of justice that we have observed in this country. I know presumptions have been introduced before and this is not the first time. But there seems to be a growing tendency to pack our criminal Acts with presumptions.

I understand that the Law Society has presented a memorandum to the Minister. I take it that it was with his concurrence that they presented a memorandum to him. I hope that the Minister will give due consideration to what is set out in that memorandum, and perhaps will agree that this Bill should now be referred to a Select Committee so that the representation of the Law Society and others who are interested may be considered. We were only told this morning, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the draft of the proposed new Securities Industry Bill was sent to the Stock Exchange as far back as May for their comments and somehow they were not happy about it and so nothing was done. I am tempted to ask: Why is the Committee of the Stock Exchange given such special treatment? Here is the Law Society which has submitted a memorandum, I understand. Would the Minister agree that the Bill should now be referred to a Select Committee so that the Law Society may present its views and be heard on it and anyone else may present their views on this problem?

Finally, about the punishment. Mr Speaker, Sir, we glibly talk about punishing the operators. Everybody knows that the people who get caught are the small people, people who are employed by these operators. It is the runners who collect and settle bets or those who assist a bookmaker, an agent. And now at this time of recession, when many are thrown out of employment, some of them may be forced to seek employment in this sort of thing. It is of course illegal but, as has been pointed out, it will be legal if they go and work for the Singapore Pools betting centres. What we are proposing to do is to punish these people, not the big operators, but the small people who are runners, who are agents, and who assist the promoter in any way to run a lottery.

Under the law as it stands now, Mr Speaker, Sir, a runner on conviction is subject to a minimum $500 fine. With the amendment, he is subject to a fine of $20,000. Likewise, an agent, who is subject to a minimum $500 fine under the present law, will, after this Bill becomes law, be subject to a minimum fine of $20,000; and it may go up to $200,000. Are these people, runners and agents, in any position to pay these fines? The result will be that they will be sent to prison. And there will be an overcrowding of our prisons, if you are going to enforce this Act with all the severity that this Government is capable of. So I hope more thought will be given to the purpose and the motive for this Bill, and that it should be considered not only by a Select Committee but also outside.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to give my qualified support to the three Bills in question. Other hon. Members have spoken of the bad social effects of gambling. In fact, Sir, there was a report in the newspapers recently about the aftermath of the introduction of the California State Lottery. It was found that some months after the introduction, the grocery stores in California reported a serious drop in their business. In other words, one can infer from that that many people were saving on their grocery bills in order to indulge in their gambling passion.

But so far nobody in this House has defined what is meant by "gambling" and who qualifies to be called a "gambler". Although many Members have claimed that they are non-gamblers, but if one were to look more carefully at the definition and some of the activities of hon. Members, one would find that there are many more gamblers than they would like to admit.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Can you define it?

Dr Augustine Tan: Yes, I will. A gambler is one, first of all, who has a short-time horizon. He is impatient to get some gains. Moreover, he is one who is prepared to incur high risk in the hope of very high returns. If one were to use this definition of "gambling" and a "gambler", one would find that Singapore is full of them. In fact, I believe that part of our economic difficulties stems from the fact that we have produced a very speculative environment in Singapore. If one wanted to, Sir, one could spend one's whole life-time gambling in Singapore, quite legitimately. There is the stock exchange, as the Member for Queenstown mentioned, there are the commodity markets, the futures markets, FOREX trading that one can engage in, many, many forms, including Singapore Pools and Toto, the Turf Club, and so on. One does not have to go to an illegal betting shop in order to gamble.

But what does this do for us here in Singapore? I think it is bad, economically, because people are not putting their funds into productive investment. People want quick returns. They are willing to incur high risk in order to get it. So there is something fundamentally wrong with the attitude of the Singaporean. And something must be done in the educational system.

I have complained, Sir, in this House that we have all kinds of campaigns run year after year. But so far there has been no campaign against gambling. I do not know of any attempt in the schools to teach students the consequences of gambling. Are parents making the effort? But how could they, if they themselves are gambling on the stock exchange? We heard this morning of how Pan-El got so heavily involved in forward trading,and the stockbrokers are heavily involved in it to the tune of $600 million, and the whole system was on a point of collapse, but for Government intervention. The whole economy could collapse if one were to apply these principles or allow these principles to be operated without check.

But then, Sir, laws when they are instituted must be obeyed. But we find that people will obey those laws which they construe to be just and not unjust. If I were a gambler, I would find it very difficult to obey the set of laws that are being promulgated here today. Because, as the Member for Queenstown and others have asked, "Why is it right for the Government to run gambling institutions, and why is it wrong for private individuals to run gambling institutions? Why are licences not given to private individuals and firms that want to run these shops? Why not give them the licences?" These would be questions that they would pose to the Government. I think this must be resolved because people have a grievance against the Government. If the Government were to close the Turf Club and the Singapore Pools tomorrow, then people will obey the law. They at least feel that they can obey because it is a just law. I have complained of this double standard, and just because the Opposition Member uses the term, it does not mean I would not use it. Yes, there are double standards, and I think the Government better wake up to it.

Now clause 7, if I may refer to some details of the Bill. I am afraid, Sir, that sometimes in our zealous attempts to overcome problems, we might go overboard and innocent people and firms might be caught in unfortunate circumstances. If you read the provisions of clause 7, you will find that if I had a company that had more than three telephones and if any of my employees were to get information on the telephone twice, or two employees get information about the Turf Club operations for a particular day then, under the law, I am liable to prosecution or my firm is liable to prosecution; all the assets liable to be seized. And I am guilty unless proven otherwise. I think something must be done to restrict the scope of clause 7.

Finally, Sir, clause 10 seems to restrict the power of the President. There has been some concern in this House that we want to extend the powers of the President. So why are we reducing his power?

Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Jalan Kayu): Mr Speaker, Sir, a lot has been said about double standards of the Government. Here, I would like to say that is really not the key point that is at issue.

Basically the Minister has come with the complaints that he has received as well as comments from grassroot and community leaders that the present law is inadequate to deal with illegal gambling and the mini-turf clubs. He is simply asking this Parliament to amend those laws. Whether legal gambling is moral and illegal gambling is immoral is not really the issue. In this respect, legality has nothing to do with morality. But I also join in the chorus to say that the Government should have no business in the provision of gambling. Perhaps they can put the controls, exercise the necessary supervision, as well as institute the necessary taxes and licence fees to be collected. The Government can, therefore, collect revenue through the normal way of taxation and should not be responsible in providing the instrument for gambling. In this respect, I would like to go as far as to say that the Government should perhaps close down the Singapore Pools Pte Ltd or even privatize gambling to the extent of allowing enterprising businessmen, if they want to, to enter into this business.

Gambling in this respect as many have said, including the Member for Queenstown, is like drinking, maybe like smoking. There is nothing wrong with it in moderation. It is only in excess that we find problems. The Member for Whampoa quoted an example of the aftermath of the California State Lottery and the drop in the business of the grocers. If my memory serves me well, I think it was not so long ago that the former Member for Kreta Ayer and the former First Deputy Prime Minister once said in this House that you can take two sets of completely unrelated factors and create a correlation from them. While he is entitled to his inference that people are diverting money from the grocery bills to indulge in gambling, I think that is a matter that is very much open to -

Dr Augustine Tan: Point of clarification, Sir. The hon. Member like other Members of this House obviously does not listen carefully to what I said. I merely reported what the newspapers said. I did not make any personal inference.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think he did say that you can infer from this. In any case, I fully support these three Bills because I think it will give more teeth to the Police to try to eradicate illegal gambling. I think we should bear in mind that it is not that gambling is wrong but that illegal gambling has many connections with crime. We should take a lesson from the USA when they had its prohibition and the business of providing drinks was left basically to the hands of organized crime. Historians today have said that it was during that period -

Mr Jeyaretnam: You have got it all mixed up.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: It was this period that gave the very strong financial foundation to the Mafia, and to this day they have used that money to good use according to their objectives.

Sir, I do agree that presumptions in law are something that are quite odious and we should try to avoid as much as possible. Nevertheless, I think even with cur- rent legislation having the presumptions, the Minister has come to this House to say that they are not sufficient, that the operators and the organizers of such mini-turf clubs have been caught by the Police and have, in fact, laughed at us in our courts and willingly paid the fines, and then next week go back to such operations.

Sir, should we therefore tie the hands and legs of our Police, other enforcement agencies and our courts to such an extent that we cannot move at all? Looking at the presumptions, I would say that if really you are not in the business of providing outlets for gambling or of running betting information centres, there is sufficient proof in other ways to show in court that you should not come under this legislation. After all, many of our legitimate organizations - the banks, the finance companies, and other businesses - have many many telephones in their offices, and I am sure they are not the ones to worry about the existence of three or more telephones. 5.00 pm

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would support the hon. Member for Anson to bring these amendments to the Select Committee for further consideration. And even as I follow the debate today, many Members here have shown concern. If we accept all the amendments here, there may be legal and social ramifications that may not have been intended by the House.

There are many important principles involved in these amendments. First, as has been drawn to the attention of this House, is presumptions. Normally, in a court of law, a person is innocent until proven guilty. But in this particular case, the onus of proof is placed on the accused person. Take the example of houseowners or occupiers of houses. If any appliance or instrument connected with gambling is found in his premises, it is for him to prove that the house is not used as a common gaming house. So house owners are in a very precarious position if we accept this kind of statute. I am sure there are many houseowners in this House. If you rent your house through the agents, you do not know whom he rents the house to. And one day you receive a telephone call, "Look here, there are instruments connected with gambling found in your house." I am sure you will get a decent shock of your life. Many people may not have the time to look into the tenancy of their house personally or who they rent it to? They leave it to the agents.

This kind of a presumption has got serious implications. Of course, under the previous Act, the Police will give notice to the owner of the house and say, "Look here, your house is used as a common gaming place." So presumption introduced into the Act is very dangerous, and I would draw the attention of the House to the presumptions which they have to be aware of.

As has been drawn to the attention of this House, another presumption is if you have three or more telephones in your premises. Nearly all offices in town would have three or more telephones, which includes connections. If somebody goes there and makes two calls in regard to gambling, there you are, you have to prove to the court your innocence, that the place is not being used as a betting place or a common gaming house. So these presumptions have got really serious implications. So much for presumptions.

The other serious matter, of course, is punishment. The punishment has been enhanced many times, a maximum of $200,000 and mandatory jail sentence. These are for bettors, for bookmakers, agents and runners. Why so serious a punishment? These are not drug offences or offences connected with dangerous weapons. And worse still, there is a minimum sentence imposed. This is another important principle which the attention of the House has to be drawn to. Because the Judges in our courts are affected by us, by Parliament, they cannot exercise their own discretion. They are there. They are the people who dispense justice. They can hear the case and they can decide for themselves. But when this law is passed, that discretion is taken away from them. Once a person has been found guilty, the Judge must impose a minimum sentence. From experience, heavy sentences meant to deter a crime do not normally work that way. Despite increasing the sentences, crimes do rise. This has been borne out by statistics. So why the heavy fine? Why the heavy sentence when it does not deter gamblers?

As has been pointed out in this House, gambling does not seem to be an issue because gambling is allowed by the State. What this Bill attempts to do is to wipe out illegal gambling. In other words, what is the heavy penalty for? For the revenue that the Government is deprived of.If it is legal, the Government will get the revenue. If it is illegal, the Government cannot lay its hands on the earnings of gamblers. So they are punished for it. Is that the reason? Perhaps that would answer the question of the Member for Queenstown. He says there is no valid explanation why betting in Government approved centres are allowed and those at the hawker centres are not allowed. Is it because that the Government cannot lay its hands on the revenue of these illegal gamblers?

Of course, with custodial sentences, people who are caught gambling will naturally try to contest the case. Because if they plead guilty, they will be jailed. So there will be more court cases arising from arrests. In other words, there will be a clogging up of our courts. There will be more such cases, and that means more manpower ---

Prof. Jayakumar: A point of clarification, Sir. Would the Member for Potong Pasir please clarify whether the views he is expressing are his own or whether he is, in fact, not reading from a representation of the Law Society which was submitted to me? And whether or not the notes that he has are, in fact, contained in the memorandum submitted by the Law Society? Can he answer that question?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is, in fact, the representation of the Law Society. I am bringing it up because the Minister has earlier said that there was no new offence created. In fact, if he had read the memorandum of the Law Society, he would have known that the Law Society has pointed out to him that there is a new offence created. The offence is one of loitering in places -

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, has he got a copy of my reply to the Law Society which has dealt with this point? And has he got the authority of the Law Society to divulge the contents of its memorandum in this Chamber?

Mr Chiam See Tong: The representation of the Law Society and my views are similar. And I feel that this House must be aware of the seriousness -

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, each Member of this House has been elected by the people of Singapore in different constituencies, presumably, to express his own views according to his conscience and according to the values and principles which he upholds.

The Member for Potong Pasir began a long speech without divulging to us that he has received, whether officially or unofficially, a copy of the memorandum of the Law Society which was referred to by the Member for Anson. Until I could see the similarity in the points, although a distance away from my chair, and I asked whether he was, in fact, reading points from the memorandum of the Law Society to which I have already given a reply. As Minister, I respect confidence with the Law Society in regard to my correspondence with them. They had given me a memorandum. I have replied to it. The Law Society has not made the exchange public. Neither have I. In fact, I would prefer the correspondence with the Law Society to be made public because it contains very serious errors, inaccuracies. I would leave it to the Law Society whether they want to publish their memorandum and my reply, side by side. But if the Member is relying on the Law Society's memorandum to point out legal points, I would say that he had better ask the Law Society for sight of my reply before he relies on it because I will have to demolish those points in the same way as I have done in my reply to the Law Society.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is, in fact, the memorandum of the Law Society.

Prof. Jayakumar: You don't have views of your own?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, I am coming to that.

Prof. Jayakumar: Did you get it from the President of the Law Society?

Mr Chiam See Tong: No, not officially.

Prof. Jayakumar: By what surreptitious means did you get it?

Mr Chiam See Tong: No. I just asked the secretary and the secretary forwarded a copy to me. And I found that these are very serious points brought up by the Law Society and I feel that the House must be made aware of them. I would support the Member for -

Prof. Jayakumar: Did you see a copy of my reply?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am unaware that you have replied.

Prof. Jayakumar: Did you ask for my reply?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I was unaware because we only received the notice yesterday afternoon. And I want all Members of the House to know the seriousness of the matters that have been raised by the Law Society. I think these amendments should go to a Select Committee for further representation by the Law Society. And I agree with the Member for Anson because of the seriousness of this matter. I would say that it is an overkill, over-react amendments. Because there are many accepted principles involved which are just thrown aside.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, if there is a document from which he is reading, I think it behoves the respect and decorum of the House for him to table this document which will enable me to table my reply to the Law Society. He should express his own views if he has any.

An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr Chiam See Tong: As I have mentioned earlier which the Minister probably did not grasp, it is the seriousness of these amendments. There are many serious principles involved, presumptions. And then we have got fettering of our courts. If this practice is continued, then I do not know what the Judges are doing in our courts. This is a very serious matter and, in fact, which has been brought up by the Law Society in regard to the fettering of the court with the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code. It would appear that the Minister does not take the Law Society seriously.

I would like to tell the House that these are the representations of the Law Society. And perhaps if the Minister so wishes, I think it is appropriate for him to show how he has demolished the arguments of the Law Society. I must put it on record that I am not the representative or speaking on behalf of the Law Society.

Mr Speaker: You are their spokesman?

Mr Chiam See Tong: No, I am not their spokesman. These principles are principles which this House must be made aware of. Principles like presumptions. Does anybody know?

Prof. Jayakumar: Do you have any views of your own?

Mr Chiam See Tong: All the things about gambling have already been spoken. But no one has touched on the seriousness of the fettering of the powers of the court. Does the Minister agree with me that this is a serious principle which these amendments will curb?

Mr Speaker: This document has not been made public?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the position is that although the First Reading of this Bill was more than two months ago, the representation of the Law Society was received two or three days ago. Although it was received late, I have replied to the President of the Law Society in some detail, commenting on many of the points raised therein. And, in fact, pointing out that some of their representations are founded on gross inaccuracy and error, in not having compared the amendments side by side with the existing law. So I think it will be foolhardy for the Member for Potong Pasir to repeat points on which I have commented. And since it is not a public document, I would leave it to the Law Society whether they want to disclose both the memorandum and my reply publicly.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said, this piece of legislation that we are about to approve has got very many implications which are serious in respect of principles which we should not lightly throw away. Therefore, I would support again the call by the Member for Anson to refer this matter to a Select Committee so that the Law Society and perhaps other members of the public could make further representations.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the various Members who have spoken.

First, let me reply to the Member for Queenstown. Unfortunately he is not here. Perhaps I will wait for him to come back and deal with the Member for Potong Pasir, since it is fresh in the memory of all those present here.

It is really regrettable, Mr Speaker, Sir, that a Member comes here pretending to express views of his own until it is pointed out that it is not so. That he is relying on some document presented to the Minister, I think he should have in all conscience -

Mr Chiam See Tong rose -

Prof. Jayakumar: I am not giving way, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: The Minister is not giving way.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I would apologize. I should have revealed the source of it.

Prof. Jayakumar: Can I proceed, Mr Speaker, Sir. I think it is very misleading for a Member of the House to rely on an unpublished document sent to me as the Minister because the Minister himself has not revealed for the reason that I respect the correspondence I have with the President of the Law Society. I do not know on what basis the Law Society or its Secretary has chosen to pass a copy to the Member for Potong Pasir when it was not passed or distributed to any other Member here. If I am not mistaken, other Members have not received it. That is a separate matter which I hope the Law Society will choose -

Mr Jeyaretnam: That is a matter for the Law Society to look at.

Prof. Jayakumar: Right. But the question is, whether it was given to the Member for Potong Pasir and whether the Member for Potong Pasir has sought clearance for it to be divulged in this House. I have asked him on several occasions and he did not answer the question whether he had the authority to divulge it in the House. He, together with the Member for Anson, and certain other Members in this House are Members of the House and they are also members of the legal profession. Certain correspondence and certain information to which they may be privileged recipients, as members of the legal profession, but other Members may not be privy to it. And for him to rely on it, point by point, as if this was a great exposition of views of his own until I had to intervene and say that this was not so, it is a very disappointing conduct of a member of the House. And it is just fortuitous that, although my eyesight is growing old, I could see some resemblance between his speech and the document that I have seen.

He made a big song and dance about the presumptions. He said that I am wrong in saying that apart from betting information centres and obstruction of police officers, no new offences are created. He says "This is wrong. The Minister is wrong." Why? He refers to the Law Society memorandum and says, "Ah, a new offence of loitering is created. The Minister is wrong." I will not divulge everything that I have said to the Law Society. I will just quote one portion to show how foolhardy it will be for him to rely on that his allegation, based on the Law Society memorandum, is that a new offence of loitering is created. My reply is as follows:

'It is erroneous to say that a new offence of loitering has been created for the purpose of betting or wagering or bookmaking. The Law Society has failed to note that this offence in fact already exists, section 5(3)(b) of the Betting Act. The proposed amendment is merely a drafting amendment to reflect the position more clearly.'

If Members have any doubt, let me point out section 5(3)(b) of the existing law, and I quote:

'Any person who, inter alia, for the purpose of bookmaking or betting or wagering or settling bets frequents or loiters ...'.

So how can it be said that a new offence of loitering has been created when, in fact, this amendment recasts and re-enacts the offence of loitering which already is to be found in the existing law? I shall stop there, Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as my reply to the Law Society is concerned. I think the Member for Potong Pasir should have checked with the Secretary of the Law Society as to whether there was a reply from the Minister and whether he had the Law Society's sanction to refer to both.

Now, the Member for Anson. It is really incredible that he can make such a fast about-turn. Not so long ago he said that "he appreciates the need for the Police to take action against any form of illegal bookmaking." I repeat "any form of illegal bookmaking." Now he comes here and says, "No, this is wrong. This is double standards." Well, I see he has a very quizzical look on his face.

Mr Jeyaretnam rose -

Prof. Jayakumar: You do not have to stand up.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask you, first of all, to say what I said this afternoon?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I proceed?

Mr Speaker: Carry on, Prof. Jayakumar.

Prof. Jayakumar: On 25th March, 1982, if he checks the Hansard, col. 1610, in a discussion again on mini-turf clubs, he started off his exposition with this phrase: 'All I want to say is that whilst I appreciate the need to stamp out any illegal bookmaking, would the police take steps to ensure that innocent persons ...' are not caught at the same time?

I repeat, "All I want to say is that whilst I appreciate the need to stamp out any illegal bookmaking", now an about-turn. And he questions the motives.

Mr Jeyaretnam rose -

Prof. Jayakumar: He may reply later on, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right.

Prof. Jayakumar: He questions the motives of the Government. I have already stated very clearly and these have been re-stated by other Members of the House. He attacks the presumptions. Except for a very few of the amendments, most of the provisions on presumptions in the Bills are, in fact, redrafts of existing presumptions in the statutes. He has failed to understand that.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have the preposterous argument that, because of the recession, we should allow illegal activities. Really, Mr Speaker, Sir. The effect of the argument is, please permit the flouting of these laws. What next? Perhaps he will argue that because of the economic downturn we should allow shoplifting to be carried out in supermarkets. Allow illegal bootlegging in contravention of our liquor manufacturing laws. And perhaps even printing firms -

Mr Jeyaretnam: A complete distortion.

Prof. Jayakumar: - should be allowed to print counterfeit money to solve their cash flow. [Laughter.]

Mr Jeyaretnam: You are not only going blind, you are going senile.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I come to the points raised by other Members.

The Member for Queenstown is still not here. His speech was interesting but rather contradictory because on the one hand he started off by saying that he is, in fact, against gambling. He wants the Singapore Turf Club and the Singapore Pools to be closed down. Shortly thereafter in his speech he advocated the establishment of more legalized outlets. Tax them, have a fat licensing fee, and so on. Perhaps there is some merit to the suggestion of the Member for Queenstown, and I think advocated by a few others, that there should be more legalized outlets. In a sense, this is a direction in which the Government has gone in that, like other countries, there is legalized and illegal gambling. Although I am prepared to consider the approach advocated by the Member for Queenstown, I think one point should be very clear. Having more legalized outlets, even privatizing them, is not going to solve your illegal gambling. Because there will be persons who will want to stay out of your controls of licensing, your controls of license fees, your controls of taxes, and the higher you raise the taxes, the more you have licensed outlets, there will be corresponding increase in illegal gamblers and a mushrooming of illegal gambling establishments. So it is a futile dream to think that the approach suggested by the Member for Queenstown, although it has merits and should be considered seriously, will be the solution to illegal mini-turf clubs. Therefore, even if we adopt the suggestion, there will still be illegal gambling and action will have to be taken because of the menace in the residential estates that I have mentioned.

The Member for Fengshan referred to the provisions of the Bill. I am grateful for his support. He asked for assurance that those who are intimidated will be given protection. Indeed the operators of illegal mini-turf clubs do have connections with organized crime and secret society activities, and I do know of persons who have made reports to the Police that they have been intimidated and the Police have given protection. I give him that assurance that the Police will continue to do so.

The Member for Changkat referred to the Singapore Pools decision, and I think she counselled that in future extension of operation of Singapore Pools should have due regard to the sentiments of the residents. If I am not mistaken, the Minister for Finance did give an indication along these lines the last time this was discussed.

The Member for Whampoa, I have answered his point about the legalized outlets - that this is a way which can be considered.

As to his point about the three telephones, let me point out, first, that the very purpose why I distributed the photograph is to give Members a clear indication of what is the kind of situation which is going to be the target of police operations. Why is it three telephones and not 10 telephones or eight telephones? Because three telephones are the minimum for illegal mini-turf clubs to operate. One for receiving calls on the race results and at least two to transmit the results to the network of mini-turf clubs which the betting information centre is involved with.

Let me point out also that on that particular clause 7, the presumption is triggered off only when the police have entered the premises. So it is not a blanket provision where all offices are automatically presumed to be betting information centres if they have three or more telephones.

As to clause 10, I think there is nothing sinister here. The present position is that the President, when he makes the Gazette notification, in fact, acts on the advice of the Minister. So this is really to streamline the situation. It makes no real substantive difference. The Minister, in fact, at the moment advises the President and the President acts on advice.

Mr Speaker, I think I have dealt with most of the points.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has not told the House whether he agrees to send this matter to a Select Committee. I think there is enough concern to show that it should be sent to a Select Committee. From what I can see, it is definitely an over-reaction on the part of the Government to wipe out a social problem. If there is to be an overkill legislation, this is perhaps the legislation which can be classified as an overkill. So would the Minister please tell the House whether he would just stay the matter and have more further discussions on it?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry but may I reply to this complete distortion? As I said, it is probably the Minister is getting a bit too old. I thought he was going to reveal something so completely inconsistent with what I said this afternoon, but then what do we find? I thought he was going to bring something out of his bag. Instead we find a statement that I made - that whilst I support the Government's efforts to stamp out illegal gambling, I would urge the Government to take care that innocent people are not caught in the net. What have I said this afternoon that is inconsistent with that? Perhaps the Minister is unable to comprehend what I said. I am not advocating illegal gambling. I was questioning the motives and the double standards of the Government. That is what you should answer - the double standards which say that you can have a flutter with us, you can gamble with us, but you cannot gamble yourself. If you think that is something to live by, well, so be it; that is the Government's policy: double standards.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is really no necessity to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. This Bill was published more than two months before this sitting. Ample time has been given for anybody who has an opportunity to read it, who has views on it, to give their views, and I do not see any need for reference to a Select Committee. In fact, Members would agree with me that we have to take action quickly before the problem gets out of hand. I do not think it is necessary for me to reply to the Member for Anson, as I have already replied previously.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I clarify with the Minister that he has completely misunderstood the suggestion that it be referred to a Select Committee? The merit in referring it to a Select Committee is that a body of this House considers the recommendations. We know that the Law Society have made recommendation to the Minister, which he has rejected. But he is not the Select Committee. The Select Committee considers the recommendations and it gives an opportunity to others, besides the Law Society, to make recommendations. I am astonished that the Minister cannot see the difference.

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. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1 -

The Chairman: The citation year will be altered from "1985" to "1986".

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 10 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Mr Speaker: Order. I am suggesting that we have a break now. I suspend this Sitting and will take the Chair again at 6.05 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.35 pm until 6.05 pm. Sitting resumed at 6.05 pm