COMMON GAMING HOUSES (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Second Reading read.

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

In my earlier speech I have spoken at length on the problem generally and therefore I would not be repetitious but say that, as a consequence of the amendments to the Betting Act, amendments to the Common Gaming Houses Act are also necessary to bring the penalties into line. Otherwise, the suppression of mini-turf club activities might also see a surge in the offences covered under this Act. The penalties under the Act are also more than 25 years old and are totally inadequate to serve as a deterrent.

Clauses 2 and 4 of the Bill enhance the penalties for those involved in operating or financing common gaming houses.

Clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill provide for enhanced penalties for the offences of gaming in a common gaming house, gaming in public, etc, which will carry fines of up to a maximum of $5,000 or imprisonment up to six months.

The main culprits in illegal gambling are those who assist in the carrying on of an illegal public lottery or allow any public place to be used for gaming or promote gaming in public. Clauses 3 and 6 of the Bill enhance the penalties particularly for these offences.

The punters themselves will not face mandatory imprisonment upon conviction. Clauses 5 and 6(a) repeal and amend respectively sections 6 and 7(2) of the Act which deal with punters - punters gaming in a common gaming house or gaming in public. They will face enhanced penalties of a fine of up to $5,000 or optional imprisonment for up to six months. Clause 7 of the Bill likewise also enhances the penalty for the offence of purchasing illegal lottery tickets.

Section 15 of the Common Gaming Houses Act deals with the situation where a place is presumed to be a common gaming house. Currently, if a police officer is obstructed whilst trying to gain admittance to a place or if gaming implements are discovered therein, or if people are observed escaping from a place on entry of the Police, it is presumed that the place is a common gaming house. However, under the amended section 15, a place will be presumed to be a common gaming house if gaming implements are discovered therein and any person found in such place or escaping from it shall be presumed to be gaming therein. However, obstructing a police officer is now treated as a separate offence.

Clause 9 of the Bill gives the District and Magistrates Courts the jurisdiction to hear and determine all proceedings under the Act and to impose the full penalties as provided in the amended Act.

The other amendments are basically drafting changes. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am just a little concerned that the raising of the financial penalties to a level which is much higher than hitherto might give opportunity for the gamblers to bribe police officers, and what measures does the Minister intend to take in such cases.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, here my concern is not so much with the mini-turf clubs which I think one really sees that are big time operators. But very often neighbours get together to gamble for the fun of it. They can also actually fall under the term of "common gaming house". I am sure we have heard many stories where gaming in one neighbour's house can lead to some form of arrest. Here, I am therefore very concerned with the enhanced penalties on the common gaming house both in terms of the minimum amount of fines as well as the mandatory jail sentences. Would the Minister please assure the House that this clause is not meant for such situations?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not going to repeat what I said when talking on the Betting (Amendment) Bill but, of course, I stand by all that I said and it applies with equal force here. I again make the call - I know it will not be heeded - that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.

Finally, may I make the point which has already been made about the enhanced penalty now for those who gamble in public. Previously the maximum fine was $500 and they were normally fined about $100 or $150. Now the maximum is lifted to a $5,000 fine. It seems to me to be unduly severe.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Whampoa raised a question as to whether the enhanced penalties would lead to a situation where police officers may be bribed. I think I can give him the assurance that, as a Minister as well as the Government, we take a very serious view of any form of bribery of any public servant and he will know, as well as the Members of the House will know, that the Government has never tolerated this at any level, whether under this law or any other existing law or whether under the proposed changes to the law, adequate steps will be taken, guidelines will be given and operational procedures will be taken to ensure that this risk is kept to an absolute minimum. And if it ever happens, of course, stern action will be taken.

The Member for Jalan Kayu has raised a question but I think I have covered it in my opening speech that the main thrust of this is against the illegal operators, ie, managers of gambling establishments.

The Member for Anson asked that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. I have already touched on this point.

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 Deputy 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.