EMPLOYMENT ACT (Role of employers in eldercare support)

Column: 266

EMPLOYMENT ACT:

(Role of employers in eldercare support): 3.

Assoc Prof Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Manpower if his Ministry will consider prescribing the role of employers in eldercare support through amendment of the current Employment Act so as to entitle employees, who are caregivers, up to five days of paid eldercare leave per year for the purpose of bringing elderly parents above the age of 70 to clinics or hospitals for routine checks.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower (Mr Hawazi Daipi) (for the Minister for Manpower): Sir, currently, both the public sector as well as many private sector firms already offer leave entitlements beyond the statutory requirements of annual leave, sick leave, maternity leave and childcare leave. These include compassionate leave, marriage leave and family care leave. For instance, in 2004, about 9% of private sector employees are able to use paid family care leave to look after their parents.

While I agree with Nominated MP Ong Soh Khim's point that companies could be encouraged to support employees who need to care for their elderly parents, such benefits need not be legislated. Prescribing such benefits through legislation will impose a fixed standard on all employers regardless of their existing leave structures and benefits policies that they adopt. This could also increase business costs. The better approach would be to encourage employers to provide eldercare leave and other leave benefits for their employees according to their organisational needs and circumstances.

Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim: Can I have the MOS to elaborate more on what are the efforts by the Ministry to encourage employers to provide eldercare leave?

Column:267

Mr Deputy Speaker: He is the Senior Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, we are encouraging employers to practise more enlightened HR policy so that they can help the employees to take care of their children as well as their aged parents. There is a committee which has been formed under MOM that encourages employers to practise more enlightened HR practices and we are working with industry leaders, industry champions as well as industry groups to spread this message of better HR practices because these practices will not only help the employees but also employers and companies to retain and employ good workers.

Column: 267

PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP INTEGRATED RESORTS: Order read for resumption of debate on Question [ 18th April 2005 ],

"That the Proposal to Develop Integrated Resorts be considered by Parliament.". - (Deputy Leader of the House).

Question again proposed.

1.43 pm

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Sir, like some of my other colleagues in this House, I too had to grapple with the issue of licensed gambling when the idea of building a casino started gaining momentum. The arguments against casinos may be boiled down to the question of the social harm that gambling brings not only to the individual, but to the society as a whole; particularly the clean and wholesome image that we worked so hard to build for Singapore over the last 40 years.

Indeed, many of us personally know or have heard of families that have met with the tragedy that gambling brings; the most recent being the tragic murder cum

Column:268

suicide involving Simon Lee and his family. The sight of children dying on account of their father's sin is certainly a depressing thing; it drives home the point that uncontrolled gambling carries very high and dreadful social consequences. If we allow gambling in Singapore, there will be many more Simon Lee tragedies here. Indeed, the recent study commissioned by the Government estimates that 55,000 people or 2.1% of the population will be at risk of being pathological gamblers. Although it was said that the percentage of people at risk is comparable to established cities like Macau and Hong Kong, we should note that it is still higher in the comparison. On a personal front, I was told recently of the sad case of how a Singaporean husband had to write to the management committee of a well-established golf club here to ask for a restraining action to prevent his wife from entering the jackpot room as she was blowing close to $7,000 a month to feed her habit. And I am sure there are many more examples that colleagues in this House can call on that would clearly demonstrate that gambling can destroy lives.

It is through anecdotes like these at a personal level that we are convinced of the evils of gambling. There are also other reasons why many Singaporeans are against gambling. In essence, the moralists object to gambling because: (a) it undermines the virtues of hard work; thrift and prudence; (b) it will create more social ills through the rise of syndicated crimes and prostitution;

(c) it sends the wrong signals to our people that it is acceptable to gamble.

If it was just a pure gaming proposition alone, one would agree that the arguments put forth by the moralists would be difficult to argue against. However, Sir, we know that the proposal of the Government lies in the promotion of an integrated resort, of which gaming is only one necessary component with which it is

Column:269

used to support the other activities to strengthen the viability of the resort's operation. Against this backdrop, the issue becomes more complicated. One would have to balance between the dangers that such a development would pose to those who are indeed vulnerable to being pathological gamblers, and the benefits that the integrated resort would bring to Singapore.

Sir, having cast my net wide to canvass various views and opinions on the issue in recent months, I have come to the view that we can live with the proposition of a gaming establishment as an integral part of a larger undertaking by an investor. This does not necessarily mean that I have changed my views on gambling which, for personal and religious reasons, I still object to. Rather, as a people's representative in this House, I cannot ignore the fact that this is a cosmopolitan society with a diverse range of views and beliefs, and it would not be fair for me to foist my own values and belief onto the wider population. What it finally came down to was to carefully weigh one set of arguments against the other.

The benefits and the economic impact of an integrated resort have been well canvassed by the Prime Minister and members of his Cabinet previously. That it would be beneficial to Singapore, I believe, is not challenged by the conscientious objectors. Against these arguments, one would have to look at the counter arguments that are stacked against it. What are these?

One could argue that gambling undermines thrift and hard work and the family would be at risk if we allowed casinos to be set up here. Sir, that contention would be true if everyone who

Column:270

steps into the casino suffers the same fate. However, and with the greatest respect, we know that the reality is far from the assertion placed by the conscientious objectors. The recent study by MCYS showed that three out of five Singaporeans gambled at least once in the last 12 months and, on the whole, Singaporeans wagered close to $6 billion last year. Against the knowledge of these statistics, can it be said that Singaporeans have since lost their work ethic and virtues of thrift?

Sir, the issue, if one looks at it hard, is not about building casinos or providing opportunities for Singaporeans to gamble. The issue really is about putting the potential pathological gamblers, who make up close to 2.1% of the population, out of harm's way by not having a casino. As the hon. Minister Vivian Balakrishnan had so rightly pointed out the other day, banning the casino is not the solution as, with the advent of cheap travel and easy mobility, it would not be difficult for Singaporeans bent on gambling to find outlets elsewhere for their vices. Indeed, with the proliferation of the various betting opportunities, both official and unofficial, it would not be difficult for the weak Singaporean to fall into the pathological gambling trap. Those of us who have served this country in National Service will know that gambling and betting are the favourite pastimes of servicemen. The vice is so widespread that the servicemen will bet on almost anything, including the last man to go up the three-tonner. The point here, I suppose, would be that you do not need a casino to become a pathological gambler. Opportunities to become one abound everywhere, and anyone who is predisposed towards gambling would have tried out his luck at these opportunities.

Next, the argument that allowing gambling would result in greater social ills. Again, it would be difficult to see how well-run establishments, like the ones we

Column:271

are contemplating, would be a nest for pimps, illegal moneylenders, and prostitutes. The Government has given us much assurance that this project will not be carried out if it thought that the crime and safety of Singaporeans would be seriously compromised.

In reality, Sir, we do not live in a sanitised world where we completely keep our citizens out of harm's way. Our sense of freedom and democracy does not allow us the right to impose our own moral dictates on others. We want to give our people choices to choose from. And that includes giving people the right to choose to take that occasional wager. It is this principle that distinguishes us from dictatorships and religious states. As a democracy that respects the freedom of the individual, we should always strive to balance our decisions to achieve the maximum good for the maximum number of people. Policy decisions cannot always be cast in two-dimensional colours. It would be naive of us to assume that. In a complex world, what is beneficial to some may be harmful to others. If we took the moralist argument in this debate to its extreme conclusion, it would mean that we would also have to close down our cruise facilities, as the ships that berth here operate casinos in international waters; we would have to close down our turf club as we know that many a life has been wrecked through betting on horses. We would also have to ban pubs and KTVs because these are sinful indulgences. To take it even further, does it mean that we should also ban cars on the roads, since these vehicles are polluting the air and destroying our precious environment?

Sir, the issue here is not about gambling but of excessive gambling. However, just because there are some in our society who may be exposed to the dangers of excessive gambling, it is not a sufficient reason for us not to have an integrated resort. The question really is

Column:272

how we minimise the exposure and the dangers to the potential compulsive gamblers when we proceed with the project. The Government has equally reiterated its concerns and has promised control measures, such as public education, credit restrictions and restraint measures, in some cases to stop pathological gamblers from doing more harm to themselves and their families. This is very reassuring indeed.

It is for these reasons, therefore, that I have come to support the proposal of an integrated resort even though at a personal level I do not, as I said earlier, support gambling and I have a natural aversion to it. I have said earlier also that, as a representative of the people, I cannot foist my own personal moral preferences on the wider population, if legitimate individual preferences and rights are to be respected. I do sincerely hope that the moralists will now close ranks with the Government and proceed to give their full support to the development of the integrated resort.

Having expressed my own views on this debate, I would now like to turn to the issues of control enunciated by the Minister, as this will be key in minimising the potential harm to some members of the public.

In his Statement, the Minister mentioned that, in addition to the national framework, the Government will put in place certain social safeguards to protect the interest of the public. These will include measures, such as imposing an entry fee on all citizens and permanent residents, non-extension of credit to residents, no advertising, and exclusion by spouses and family members, and even self imposed exclusion. Sir, as they say, the devil is in the details. Ahead of the Government's detailed announcement on these measures, I would like to raise some preliminary issues.

Column:273

Firstly, the question of the entry levy. I understand that the rationale for the high cost of entry is to remind visitors to the resort that gambling is an expense. This will keep out a majority of Singaporeans who are either not interested in visiting the complex or find the cost of entry rather prohibitive. However, at $100, it will not prevent professionals and other high salary earners from entering the resort. High entry fees would typically require users to wager in bigger amounts to make their visits worthwhile. It does not make sense for a person who is a regular patron to pay a $100 entry fee to wager only on total bets of $200 to $300. The bets would of course have to be larger. If I were a young professional earning $5,000 a month and visited the place on a regular basis, there is a good chance that, with the entry levy, I could end up losing up to more than $500 per visit. If it was $500, it would be 10% of my salary. And chances are that that young professional would be occupying a managerial position in the company. You throw in the managerial decision-making powers, especially over financial matters, and a habit for gambling that, through high entry barriers, bet on bigger amounts, you could possibly end up with more Chia Teck Lengs to come. That is a real danger. Rather than leaving it entirely to market forces, can I also suggest that the Government consider restricting the number of times in a month perhaps that a resident or a citizen can visit the casino, and also limit the total amount that a person can bet, based on a percentage of his monthly income? This would certainly serve as a real circuit breaker for anyone with pathological tendencies to gamble.

Secondly, there is a proposal to allow spouses and family members to exclude persons with gambling problems from entering the casino. While the objective is laudable, I am not sure if it is a realistic option for many when it is available. Sir,

Column:274

we are Asians, with an Asian world view of the family. It would, in our situation, be difficult for a wife or a child to write to the casino to restrain the father from entering one, without hell breaking loose later. Rather than just leaving it to the family, can I also suggest that leaders of the community, such as the CCC Chairman or even the social workers who are familiar with the family condition, be allowed to put in a restraining order under the circumstances, in order to protect the gambler and his family? This would help to take the measure one step removed from those involved, thus mitigating the tension within the family.

Thirdly, the Government has said that there will be no extension of credit to residents. In this regard, casino operators will not be allowed to accept credit cards and post-dated cheques. We know that the human mind is only limited by its ingenuity. Will the restriction on credit stop patrons from engaging in a sale-and-lease-back transaction in order to raise money to feed their habit? Or, for that matter, mortgage their homes? Who will be the watchdog in such a situation?

Finally, Sir, it has been said that advertising will not be allowed for the casino. I do not object to the policy. However, in reality, I wonder how this is going to be implemented. The casino will be part of the integrated resort. I cannot imagine that the restriction on advertising will apply equally to the resort. I am sure it does not and should not. The question then is, how can we effectively do a media blitz on the resort without indirectly promoting the casino? How can we encourage, through advertising, wholesome family fun at the resort without at the same time drawing some attention to the casino? I find this difficult to reconcile.

At the end of the day, this debate is about doing what is right for Singapore, as opposed to personal preferences on

Column:275

moral grounds. Public policy should not be premised on morality alone, but on the interest of the nation as a whole. No doubt, there will be some who will unwittingly fall prey to the snare of compulsive gambling. This unfortunate outcome does not reflect the senseless nature of the policy as it does the senseless nature of one who engages in over indulgence. Fault does not lie with the instrument, but with the weakness of the human character who uses the instrument.

With this, Sir, I would like to urge the nation now to rally behind the Government in giving its full support to the proposal of the integrated resort.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this discussion.

Sir, the MM has spoken, and with such force, and we all know it is not easy to disagree with the Minister Mentor. But I think MM will also be one person who will agree that concerns remain and it will be very difficult actually to convince those who disagree with the idea of having casinos or IRs. But this is not a small number, and we have to find a way to make sure that we will not end up dividing our Singapore society. When MM speaks, many listen, not only in Singapore, the region, but all over the world. And MM asked what signals are we sending to the world, to investors and non-investors alike. But I would also like to ask what signals do we understand from this discussion? Do we really understand the signals which I think the Government is sending to us Singaporeans about the change that has taken place, about the challenges, the elements of competition, with emerging China and India, and what other opportunities and options do we have to make Singapore to continue to succeed and prosper?

Column:276

I think our discussion is also drawing a lot of attention across the causeway in Malaysia. Many Malaysian media, newspapers, television stations, even leaders, have responded to this. Many are positive, some negative, some even cynical. And for those who are positive, they agree that the IRs will be good for tourism in the region. I was told that even the Chairman of the tourism board and the Secretary-General of the Tourism Ministry was quoted on CNA last night about growing the regional tourism pie, and I am sure this is in fact the reason the Singapore Government has opted for this approach to IRs, and this is in fact our hope too.

Let me quote the Secretary-General of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mr Ng Yeow Song, who said that the Singapore Government was probably keeping up with the current trend to attract more tourists to the republic. He said, in fact, Johor could also benefit from it if Johor were to protect its environment, ie, it would raise the state's tourism potential. Also, the President of the Malaysian Chinese Tourism Association, Mr Chay Ng, felt that the impact of Singapore IRs

on Malaysia would be insignificant. Instead, it would probably boost Malaysia's tourist industry. He said tour operators should view the matter with foresight and should not be close-minded. To quote him, "Tour operators, including the Tourism Ministry need not worry about the issue but should instead face it with an open mind." So I would also like to urge our Singaporeans to approach this issue of IRs with an open mind.

But let me say at the outset that, as a Muslim, my position has to be no for religious considerations. But I am troubled in the sense that I live in an environment where it is a secular society, it is multi-racial and multi-religious. Can one community dictate the needs and decisions of the others, as Minister Yaacob Ibrahim has said on Monday? I think we have to

Column:277

be pragmatic, realistic and rational in our approach towards this issue.

I am also troubled in the sense that when I look around the world, I do see quite a number of Muslim countries - Malaysia, Cairo, Morocco - have casinos. But, at the same time, I do not see them coming out of a situation, becoming so immoral as a society, so degrading as a society. They also use that as a tool to attract tourists to their countries. I think many of us also realise that, in fact, some of the best gamblers, if you like, those who patronise casinos all over the world, are Muslims. They may be good customers to the casinos but bad examples or models for the Muslim community.

Sir, for sure, we Singaporeans have been proud of our safe, clean and green image. That is something worth fighting for to upkeep. The question now is whether we are going to soil our image and go amber with IRs, what with the casinos thrown in. Risks are there for sure, especially the understandable concerns regarding the increased social ills, or even increase in crimes related to gambling. Clearly, some Singaporeans who are sincerely opposed to having casinos in Singapore will be disappointed and they might even say that there is no point in discussing the issue anymore as it looks like 'head I win, tail you lose' for the Government. But to these fellow Singaporeans, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, I appeal to them to keep their minds open and see how the decision on IRs could be turned into a win-win situation for Singapore. Rest assured that judging from PM and Ministers' speeches and assurances, those concerns expressed have not completely fallen on deaf ears.

Sir, undoubtedly, the decision to go IRs was not an easy one for Singapore. It took Singapore 40 years to do so. Surely, when we became independent, with so

Column:278

scarce natural resources, a casino would have been an easy choice. After all, Singapore was and is at the geographical crossroads of Asia. It would have been a convenient oasis for one. But no, Singapore, thanks to our pioneering leaders of independent Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his strong views, in particular, avoided that option. Be it industrialisation, import substitution, export promotion, assembly of components, simple manufacturing, high technology, life sciences, financial services and developing Singapore as medical and educational hubs, we have been there. Why then now? In many eyes, this is a drastic change in position as far as casinos are concerned.

Is the economy that bad? Are we throwing in the towels with competition through the tested ways? Are we lost on ideas to fight competition from China and India and other emerging economies? Or indeed, are the IRs our new additional tool to meet those challenges? I believe the latter is the reason why our Government has chosen to do so. We need all hands on deck and all tools possible to meet the new challenges of globalisation and the new wave of competition confronting us. It is a new world that demands a new and creative approach to meet them.

Obviously, I am not saying, at all costs, especially the social costs, which many Singaporeans are justly concerned about. However, I trust most Singaporeans will be reassured by the approach taken by Government in tackling the issue. We have heard the assurance given by the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Wong Kan Seng, who himself had shared with us his concerns and what measures his Ministry will embark upon to tackle the crime angle. The package announced by Minister Vivian Balakrishnan to work with FSCs and community organisations will also help. To those who believe that the Government should not throw the problem arising from gambling to the community,

Column:279

they should ask themselves whether in fact that is the right attitude. We face the challenges of making Singapore to continue to succeed and prosper together and we can and should handle the fallouts, if any, together too.

To quote a friend, Mr Ahmad Isa Rahim, "After hearing PM and the other Ministers spoke, especially Mr Wong Kan Seng, I am convinced that the Government is sincere in tackling the social cost for the IRs." He said it was a good start. He, like many other Muslim Singaporeans, and many other Singaporeans too, eg, Catholics and those who do not profess a religion, are also against it. But he is willing to accept why the Government had to make that decision, as long as we are prepared to tackle the problems that might arise.

The sincerity is very clear. Here in Singapore, it is not a case of us going for IRs because we want to benefit a certain group or certain individuals with the kind of opportunities for development of the casinos. Here, I think the basic principle with which the Government has approached this issue is how do we use IRs to the advantage of Singaporeans and Singapore in general. That is for the benefit of all. But having said that, we recognise the problems that might arise. We accept the concerns which many Singaporeans have raised and we should tackle them collectively.

Clearly, many Muslims will also be opposed to it but I believe that most Muslim Singaporeans would be able to understand that this is part of the reality of living in a plural and secular society.

I am also confident that Muslim Singaporeans, even if they are against the idea, would understand the thinking behind Government's move and not confuse the casino issue with the IRs. I know they are inter-related, but while Muslims should choose not to work at the

Column:280

casinos, they should not deny themselves the job opportunities that will be created through the wider concept of IRs.

Personally, I believe that if I expect others to respect my faith, it is morally and spiritually right for me to give my neighbours and friends, who do not see it as wrong to have casinos in Singapore and IRs in general, the respect and space for them to live life as they chose.

Having said that, we should not take lightly the differences that have emerged over the issue. Many Singaporeans, I believe, will be reassured by the approach taken by the PM to reach out to community and religious organisations to explain further the Government decision and to encourage them to work together with the Government in tackling the issue and the problems that might arise.

We must not allow the decision to go IRs divide the society. The painstaking efforts we have taken to make Singapore a more cohesive society should not be put at risk because of this issue. I would also like to urge community and religious organisations to respond positively to PM's call and work together for the common benefit of our Singapore. This is a win-win formula we cannot afford to lose. We must work together, whatever the challenges. Make this a "Uniquely Singapore" experiment. We have experimented with many ideas and projects which others even shudder to think about - some very controversial policies which we have initiated and followed on earlier on in our independence but proven to be right later on. But with the need for us to constantly watch what are the challenges and demands in terms of fine-tuning and adjustments that are required to make sure that our initial objective of the good for Singapore is not lost.

Let this work too, not only in terms of material gains but also in our managing its social costs.

Column:281

Dr Warren Lee (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in favour of the integrated resorts.

People who know me as a Christian MP may well wonder why I take this stand. I am well aware that many thoughtful Singaporeans of all faiths and creeds have expressed their strong reservations about letting in the evils of casinos on our own land. Many have tried to persuade me to take a stand against the casinos and were disappointed when I did not. And I made my support for the IRs known to PM Lee sometime ago.

As a pragmatic Christian MP, representing multi-racial and multi-religious constituency in a secular state, I join PM and his Cabinet colleagues and fellow MPs in stating that my stand is taken with a heavy heart and with full recognition of the potential downsides that the integrated resorts and associated casinos may bring. In the end, it is because I feel that the upsides outweigh the downsides and it is because I feel that we are better off, confronting and dealing with the phenomenon of problem gambling, rather than trying to prohibit all gambling and pretending that we are too nice a place for all these nasty things to happen.

Like many others in this House, I have had the subject weighing upon my conscience and my thoughts for many months. I am personally against gambling. I do not gamble and have never as much as bought a Singapore Big Sweep ticket, Toto or 4-D. Like many other Singaporeans, I do take part in lucky draw promotions and support worthy causes with donation draws. But aside from that, no gambling for me.

I have seen the effects of gambling. I grew up in the Bukit Timah area and for many years endured the weekly traffic jams outside the old Turf Club, with its stream of people coming out after the races - the winners in cabs and cars; the

Column: 282

losers in buses or walking home. After the races, few would look happy. Mostly, the faces looked dejected. But they came week after week and I resolved never to join them.

Later, during my NS days in the SAF's drug abuse rehabilitation unit, I met soldiers who had gone AWOL to pay their own or their wives' gambling debts. I realised then that gambling could be an addiction, just like drugs. Later, I got to know residents, friends and colleagues with many sad stories to tell. Someone whose father gambled away their five-room flat; many others educated and not so well-educated who gambled away their businesses; and another whose husband started gambling soon after she became pregnant with their first child and later wrecked their marriage. Residents who came to me with stories of harassment by loan sharks, people forced to put their wives and girlfriends into prostitution to pay their gambling debts. I have heard of a respectable retiree teacher who gambled away $400,000 of retirement gratuity on cruise ship casinos. I have heard of housewives who crammed the 3.30 pm ferry back from Batam to Singapore, getting home just in time to cook for their husbands, having gambled away up to $500 in a day in the casinos in our neighbouring islands.

I know that casinos will bring birds of prey, people who will be looking out for those running short of money - foreign students getting a taste of freedom, call girls and so on.

I hope that Singapore's IRs, when they do come up, will address those questions squarely. Perhaps we should have our plain-clothes policemen looking out for these birds of prey and tackling them as they would tackle organised crime and drug-traffickers.

Yes, there is an undeniable downside, if we were to bring in the casino. Yes, gambling can be a dehumanising addiction

Column:283

that drives people to do desperate and silly things to feed their addiction. Yet, we must see the bigger picture. What would happen if we did not have an integrated resort-type development? What would it take to bring in world-class attractions that would revitalise Singapore as a buzzing place to be?

As a practising pediatrician and diabetes specialist, I often travel overseas to give medical talks and attend medical conventions. I know that what we have in Singapore pales in comparison to many convention centres and facilities abroad. Singapore's largest convention facility can perhaps take in 12,000 people, with 5,000 rooms within so-called walking distance. This sounds very impressive until you know of other places that can take in 18,000-20,000 people for scientific or professional conventions and trade exhibitions and still have room for many more and hotels, food outlets and entertainment nearby to accommodate people on all sorts of budgets and with all sorts of requirements.

When you realise that these convention centres are often fully booked year round, you realise why the MICE (Meetings, Incentives, Conventions and Exhibitions) business is central to the economies of so many so-called second-tier American cities likes Las Vegas, Atlanta, Orlando, San Francisco, New Orleans, and so on. Such events can bring millions into the economy in the space of a few days, with spillover effects for all sorts of ancillary services and businesses, but only if the meetings actually come to town year after year. Yes, we have Changi and the Singapore Expo with their huge halls, but they are far away from the hotel belt and you would need to take the bus or MRT there. And the parking system, as many have found, is not always ideal. In fact, if you hold a meeting in the Suntec or Raffles City belt, you may find that delegates are unwilling even to put up in an Orchard Road belt hotel.

Column: 284

Singapore has been touted as a top MICE destination in the last decade, but I think it would not even make it to the shortlist of mega venues for large events. The competition is hotting up as regional cities realise the potential of such business and gear up their facilities. Ms Ong Sor Chin, writing in the Straits Times, wondered whether having two IRs would adversely affect the business of our existing convention facilities. I think not. Smaller meetings would still benefit from the entertainment options that the two large IRs would bring and the added traffic would add buzz we so sorely need, and increasingly lack. Should a mega meeting come to town, numerous satellite meetings would need all the break-out rooms and hotel rooms we can muster in the downtown region. Remember, Macau is already planning an IR with 10,000 rooms on-site. Conventions for professionals are not like air shows and trade exhibitions. People need to be able to go from their hotels to the lecture theatres in the shortest time possible, while their partners and families get to do something interesting, or go shopping, and then have the whole group come together for a meal or entertainment at the end of the day. These attendees need to be able to mix business and pleasure at the same place. Most would like to dine, wine, shop, be entertained and then often bring home presents for their wives and kids because they feel a little guilty about having had such a good time. If we play it right, they would resolve to bring their family on the next trip, if they had a good and safe time.

In many convention centres with casinos, a visitor would be hard-pressed to tell you where the casino was. But I think that sufficient numbers would visit, have a flutter and patronise the casino to make the cross-subsidies viable enough to support the total complex. As PM Lee had said, the numbers only seem to work out when you have a casino as part of an IR. I would urge the Government, however,

Column:285

to ensure that in evaluating the plans for the IR, that we actually make sure that the convention facilities are not tagged on as an after-thought, but really with the idea in mind of making sure that we become a serious mega venue for future conferences because you need the scale, human traffic, investments, classy shows and top-class museum exhibits to keep people coming back for more, year after year. Then you also need to keep upgrading and improving the facilities every five or 10 years. This then is why I think we have no choice but to build the integrated resorts. We sorely need the next generation of large convention and tourist facilities to attract the MICE business and remain an attractive destination for people, pleasure, planes and ships to visit. And, then we have to manage the downside.

I share Dr Tan Sze Wee's concern that studies have shown that legalised gambling seems to increase the number of social and medical ills. We are all rightly concerned about the 1%, 2% or 3%, maybe more, who will manifest gambling addiction, and so on. Dr Tan has asked whether one more family wrecked by gambling is worth all the money to be made. It is a serious thought. Yet, as a PAP MP, I know as many of my colleagues in this House know, that families are also wrecked by wage-earners losing their jobs and having no employment to turn to. I know that many have turned to gambling when they lose their jobs or when their businesses have gone downhill in an economic downturn. I know that moral and financial ruin can also come from irresponsible hire purchase decisions, ill-advised renovation loans and the pursuit of branded consumer goods and fashion accessories. So while statistics may show that gamblers may manifest more spousal violence, child abuse and so on, I know full well that these ills also increase markedly during an

Column:286

economic downturn. To be fair, we need to dig deeper into many of these statistics to determine conciliaty or, to put it simply, which is the chicken and which is the egg. The prospect of 35,000 jobs, a more vibrant tourist destination, more jobs for retail, F&B, transport and hospitality industries, a more attractive reason to be an air hub, a more lively city for an international workforce, more attractiveness as a commercial hub, these are very strong arguments. I would have to ask Dr Tan and many of my friends how many families must go hungry while we maintain our moral high ground.

Yet I agree that we need to do more for the people who may be affected by this. We need to nip the problem in the bud the moment someone manifests behaviour that suggests that for him or her gambling has gone beyond responsible entertainment to destructive behaviour.

To me, a key measure is the availability of the option to bar oneself or to bar a family member from the IRs, if he or she is at risk. We should perhaps extend this to all forms of gambling and also make this remedy available to medical professionals and community leaders, aware of, and responsible for a person with a gambling addiction. One woman whose ex-husband was a compulsive gambler asked me the obvious question: if I had barred my husband, would my husband have known who barred him? Would it not, as Mr Sin Boon Ann has also pointed out, cause all sorts of havoc at home? This is a real problem, given that many of these compulsive gamblers actually are already prone to spousal violence. So we have to think of a mechanism. Perhaps to say that only the spouse or children have the authority to do so and reveal who these people are may not be the best way. We should be aware that gambling is pre-existent and pervasive in our society and increasingly accessible via the Internet and easy travel options even at this time with no casino in Singapore. I

Column: 287

think recent stories in the papers have borne this out. Hence, we need to emphasise parental advice and example.

Perhaps we can draw a lesson from others. Many years ago, when I visited my cousins in Hong Kong, I realised that the news-stands in their rather upmarket residential area sold pornography quite openly and I asked my aunt how she protected her children from these influences. What she said then, 20 years ago, struck me. She said, "I tell my children, well, this is the way that other people may do things. But this is not the way our family does things." She recognised and confronted the issue and made sure that her children knew right from wrong. They are very successful now, by the way.

However, there will always be people who become problem gamblers and they leave a trail of destruction behind them. How do we protect their family members? We should perhaps pass legislation to protect CPF balances for the non-gambling spouse so that we prevent people from gambling away their retirement funds. It is difficult, but we should find a way to do this because I know that in Australia, one of the big problems is the elderly and retired gambling away their savings. I am heartened to know that ATM withdrawal limits and cash-only terms are measures being considered. But we really should go after the loan-sharks who prey in these casinos.

We need to maintain our squeaky-clean and wholesome image in spite of the decision of casinos in our IRs. We can also perhaps make barring or gambling limits available to not just our own citizens, but hotel guests and their families. This would enhance the image of Singapore as a place where you could safely have a flutter but not lose your shirt. We need to strongly go after all forms of loan-shark activity and treat it as organised crime, so that loan- sharking

Column: 288

becomes a very unattractive profession, just like drug trafficking, because both deal in human misery. We need to protect our womenfolk, perhaps, with new legislation to make sure they are not unwitting victims. We need to have organisations who have made known their opposition to the casinos to come forward and help those Singaporeans avoid and escape all forms of gambling - casino, lottery or otherwise. We need to adequately fund and build up services for those with gambling addiction and perhaps consider treating the worst cases in residential rehabilitation centres, like DRC. I think this can help with both casino and non-casino gambling. In this respect, Mr Deputy Speaker's suggestion yesterday that perhaps some of the taxes should go directly to fund these services, I think, is a laudable one.

I think we need to ensure that winners can bank in their winnings safely, go home safely and live to become loyal repeat customers. We should not let crime rise outside the casino. We need to keep the underworld at bay. We also need to consider the role of junket operators, online gambling and cruise ship casinos in encouraging gambling among Singaporeans who have been kept out, one way or the other, from our own IRs. How do we stop these people from targeting our Singaporeans? We need to be equally concerned about foreign visitors to ensure that, for them, a visit to a Singapore casino will not turn into a financial disaster but a pleasant, if expensive, bit of entertainment. And finally, as parents, we need to show good personal examples to our children. Do we gamble at all? On or off the golf-course? Do we buy 4-D, Toto? Do we allow Internet gambling in our homes? Do we play video poker? Do we allow people to go for 4-D so easily? In fact, some of the people currently affected by gambling, spouses have said they would wish that the Government had a way to control these people.

Column: 289

Finally, when I started asking people about the effects of the resorts, one elderly person said, "Look, look, look, don't talk about that. Where are the 35, 000 jobs? I want to be in line for one of them." So this issue has to be seen in its totality and not just on moral grounds.

On this note, Sir, I support the IRs.

Dr Geh Min (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate.

Singaporeans are divided on the issue of the casino - whether to have it or not. It is quite clear that the House, too, is divided on this issue. I think many of us are divided within ourselves. We are persuaded on some reasons and grounds and we are against it on other grounds. But, there is one aspect of this issue where we are all united. I think I can confidently say this both inside and outside the House and, that is, in deploring the effects of gambling on individuals, families and communities. We are, therefore, also united in wanting to minimise these effects.

I am somewhat reassured by what was said by the Ministers for Home Affairs, Community Development, Youth and Sports, and Health on the precautions and safety nets that will be put in place. I think we all agree that we cannot have too many safety nets, the more the better. We also, I believe, need an independent body to check on these safety nets, whether they are placed where they should be, whether they are working effectively, and whether they are sufficient.

I should therefore like to urge the Government to initiate an establishment of an independent gambling tribunal. It should have multi-agency representation, both from Government Ministries and

Column: 290

departments and from the community, voluntary welfare organisations and religious organisations, and from the Judiciary. And I believe that this should be led by a well-respected leader of not just the community, but of the republic, perhaps the President of the republic himself. This tribunal should have sufficient powers and resources to make policy decisions, enforce and review legislation and regulations on gambling, develop, monitor and enforce strategies and initiate and support services for the management of problem gambling. It should amongst its functions ensure optimum coordination between all agencies, both Government and non-Government agencies, that are involved in the regulation and control of gambling and prevention, mitigation and treatment of the effects of problem gambling. It should be able to handle formal complaints against both casinos and other gambling operators as well as Government agencies which are involved in the regulation of these industries, and it should allow appeals against its decisions of all the above. It should handle feedback from the public, from gambling addicts and their families.

I think one important role that it would have is to ensure the effective implementation of the exclusion clause. Two MPs before me, Dr Warren Lee and Mr Sin Boon Ann, have talked about the exclusion clause. I too am very interested in this clause and how the Government is going to implement it. To my knowledge, we are the only country that is proposing that it be extended to family members. I applaud this. I think this is going to be one of the potentially most effective safeguards that we have in place. I think this is one of the areas where we can really make a difference, as we had before when we embarked on something new. But this is also an area which is potentially very controversial. I am not clear - I do not think anyone is yet - as to which of the family members will be allowed to exercise this. Is it just spouses, children,

Column: 291

parents, grandparents, siblings? And under what circumstances, what evidence do you have to show, how stringently will it be enforced? I can foresee some interesting ramifications, knowing what a kiasu society we are, where parents, perhaps the moment their children reach the age of 21, can put their children's names down for exclusion. Or people, maybe as a condition of getting married, could put their spouses' names down for exclusion.

I think how we implement this and how we draw up the guidelines will be an important exercise. As has been expressed by some of the other Members, I think to give a name directly to the casino would not be the right way to go about it. This is where I think that an independent gambling tribunal would play a very crucial role, an impartial role, and a role that would implement this safety net in an effective and sensitive way as well as protecting families and individuals rather than disrupting them.

I should now like to move on to the integrated resort concept and what I think of it. The Cabinet has explained why an integrated resort is considered the most economic and viable model for a casino in Singapore. I have no argument against that. But I see it as analogous to a drug company deciding that sugar-coated pills are the most marketable form of drugs. But sugar-coated pills, no matter how fake the sugar is, even if it is 95% or 98%, and the drug component is only 5% or 2%, they are still marketed as drugs by pharmacies. They are not marketed as sweets, and they have the necessary warnings and precautions of their potential risks. In fact, any responsible pharmacist or distributor recognises that they are potentially more dangerous because they can be mistaken as sweets and, therefore, they should be treated with even greater care to prevent them harming the unwary, particularly young children in this case.

Column: 292

Similarly, therefore, the non-gambling component of an IR, even if it comprises a bulk of the IR, does not neutralise the potential for harm of a gambling component. The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports has described the comprehensive network of safeguards, including no advertising in the mass media for casinos. But I would like to raise the question here as to what about advertising for the integrated resorts. I presume you cannot ban advertising in Singapore for the integrated resorts. But extensive advertising of the integrated resort without warning of the dangers of a casino and casino gambling can be as insidious and harmful as marketing sugar-coated drugs and sweets. So, I would urge us all to clearly recognise that the IR does have a potential to do harm because it does have a casino in it and we should have stringent warnings and safeguards in place.

I should like to conclude by asking, hypothetically, what an integrated resort can and cannot do for Singapore. After a protracted debate in the community, and in the House, and a difficult, even painful, decision, we are going ahead with IRs to revive our flagging tourist industry and to create jobs, particularly jobs for older and less well-trained workers. But I should like to ask: how long can we expect these beneficial effects to last? Is this a long-term solution? It is being recognised that Singapore has few natural assets that attract tourists and we have to constantly reinvent and remake ourselves to remain competitive. And I think we have done very well on this front. But, unfortunately, these make-overs can be copied by other countries. They have been copied by other countries. And, of course, in many situations, the copier can improve on the original model. So I believe that integrated resorts can make us the flavour of the month, maybe the flavour of several seasons, I hope. But I very much doubt if IRs will catapult us to the league of great cities.

Column: 293

The Prime Minister spoke about the difference between great cities and wannabes. In my opinion, the difference between a great city and a wannabe is that the former has a definite identity that it is confident and comfortable with. It may wish to refine itself. They often do, as cited. New York cleaned itself up; Paris had the Pyramid put in by I M Pei, a top architect. These do enhance it. But people would still go and visit them, whether they did these refinements or not. And sometimes, if they try to over-refine, like Paris with Euro-Disney, a lot of people think that it actually detracts from the essence of the city.

So, a great city does not have to fundamentally change. It can do a few cosmetic adjustments. But it does not need to do any more. It should not do any more. On the other hand, wannabes are constantly making over themselves. They are changing themselves and copying themselves all the time because they have no core identity. They are always trying to follow someone else. They have no solid foundation. On this, I would say that I somewhat disagree with Mr Philip Ng. I do not think that Singapore is a wannabe. We may not be a great city in all aspects, but I think we have the makings of a great city. In many aspects, we are already successful in that we have these core values that other cities want to emulate or copy.

Maybe I could illustrate with an example. I was in Paris last month. Of course, I had a wonderful time. I enjoyed the museums, the art exhibitions, the food, the architecture. I also had the opportunity to have dinner on my last night with some old friends who had lived in Singapore before. They are Americans, international lawyers. They had lived in New York, Tokyo, Singapore and now

Column:294

they are relocated in Paris. So, among other things, of course, I asked them how they were enjoying Paris and how it compared to Singapore. Well, what they told me was that, of course, they love Paris too. They are great music lovers, they are art collectors, so Paris is wonderful. But they said they missed Singapore. In many ways, they would be happy to continue living in Singapore. I thought they were being polite. But on my last day, I changed my mind. Because as I was checking out of the hotel, I gave my credit card, which I had not used in the last few days when I was in Paris, and it was rejected by the machine. So I used my backup credit card and that was also rejected. I got quite worried at that time. Fortunately, the banks were open. I went out to use my cashcard, and that was also rejected. At that point, I was seriously worried because I had a plane to catch and I could not pay

my hotel bills.

Fortunately, I had the 24-hour hotline. So I called back to the bank and they said, "Sorry. Paris is a high risk city. Unless you give us advance warning, your cards are all automatically rejected." I could not complain because the first time I went to Paris, it was about 20 years ago, on the first day, I was robbed in Notterdam by a bunch of gypsy children. So that is one thing that I appreciate about Singapore. You do not have to be watching your possessions all the time fanatically. Then on the drive to the airport, it was a pretty fast drive because I was already late. We passed the Louvre, we passed Notre Dam, we passed the Seine, everything looked very beautiful. I was admiring the scenery.

But as we got nearer the airport and we were on the highway, in fact, there were grass verges which were actually very beautiful because it was spring and the spring flowers were out, I noticed a lot of rubbish on the verges. And I was thinking, gosh, the city of Paris really did

Column:295

not clean itself up very well. Why were they throwing all this garbage on the way to the airport? I thought that the route to and from the airport is where you always put on a good front to impress visitors. I had not seen this on my way in because I went by Eurorail. I took a closer look at this rubbish because there was a lot of it. It looked like old blankets, old clothes and a lot of cardboards. Then I realised to my horror that it was not just rubbish but that was where all those, but not all, homeless people in Paris slept. We do not have this in Singapore. Even if we have not made it to the ranks of the great cities, I think this emphasises to me more than anything else that Singapore is a wonderful place for everyone to live in. And I realised that is why my friends in Paris regretted leaving Singapore.

Singapore may not have the glitz and buzz to entice short stay visitors, but we certainly have a lot in favour of long-term visitors to locate here for business, education and to work here because of our medical services, fabulous food and clean and green environment. It has all been mentioned. I think it is worth mentioning again.

I should also like to point out that many cities which are attractive for short stay tourists are definitely not attractive for long stay. Who wants to live in Macau or Las Vegas in their right minds? At this point, the Government seems to think that we can have our cake and eat it. We can create buzz and glitz and attract short-term tourists and, at the same time, we would not impair our safe, stable and clean image. Hearing the debate in the House that I too am, if not convinced, fairly optimistic that we will be doing our best to have both, and that we are not in danger yet of falling into the trap of sacrificing our strength for transient lure.

Our Prime Minister quoted this Chinese saying, " shui qing wu yu ", ie,

Column:296

without muddying our water too much, we are also trying to attract fish. I presume we are going to have two watertight compartments, a smaller one for the fish and a larger one for our pure water so that we have enough drinking water. But as time goes on, we may have to have bigger and bigger fish. Can I just detour here and say that I am very disturbed by this account of introducing a whale, not a human, but a marine whale, into our integrated resort? May I please ask the Minister for Trade and Industry to reconsider this? Because I think it would create quite a furore among certain sectors of the community. Keeping a large animal in captivity is now considered generally politically incorrect.

So to get back to our other water, we will try apples, we will have some muddy water for fish but we will have clean water for drinking. But other countries may be having more and more fish, bigger and bigger fish. We may want to go that way, and we may have to muddy more and more of our water. But I presume that we will not be doing that at the expense of our drinking water. And of course, at a certain point where everyone has muddy water with more fish, our pure clean water, which is needed for drinking may be at a premium. So let us not throw out the baby with the bath water simply.

Casinos are businesses which systematically and successfully exploit human weaknesses. And casino operators, despite investing billions of dollars in Singapore, will be prepared to relocate when they have made a healthy profit and if there are more attractive offers elsewhere.

Tourists too have no long-term stay in Singapore, and we know how fickle they are. But we, who are Singaporeans and call Singapore home, do not feel the same way. The Minister Mentor asked us to look ahead 10, 20 years and decide what

Column: 297

we would do now. I believe that if Singapore in 10 years' time is still a good place to live in and if we succeed in both, a good place to live in and a good place to visit for tourists, then the decision would have been a successful one. But if Singapore becomes more attractive for short-term visits than for long-term residents, then I think we have failed.

The Prime Minister said that he would take full personal responsibility for the decision, a courageous and honourable stand that does not surprise any of us. But I believe that we Singaporeans can do no less if we want to make it different. We cannot leave everything to the Government. So I believe that, at this point in our history, everyone of us should resolve to take responsibility for ourselves and our actions to ensure that we preserve the values that we have and that we keep the country that we love unharmed.

The Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for National Development (Mr Lim Swee Say): ( In Mandarin ) : Yesterday in this House, Members expressed their views on the proposal to develop IRs. Regardless of their positions - for or against, we take their views seriously because they spoke with conviction, and they spoke out of personal belief and principle. As they spoke, they put aside their personal and partisan interests. The only concern and consideration on their minds is whether the proposal to develop IRs is good for the development of Singapore and the future of Singaporeans. For that, they deserve our respect and full consideration.

There was, however, one exception - Mr Low Thia Khiang. As I reflected on Mr Low's speech made in this House yesterday, I wondered what was his motivation in saying what he said yesterday. If he and the WP really felt so strongly

Column:298

about the IR, why did they remain totally silent and absent from the public debate for more than one year, and join in only a few weeks ago? Why only now? Why did he never raise the issue in Parliament, and have to wait till Mr Lim Hng Kiang cornered him, before saying anything here? Is that how he fulfils his duty to speak up for Singaporeans as an MP?

Sir, I think the answer is clear. At a time when our nation and our people are concerned with what is best for Singapore and Singaporeans, Mr Low and his Workers' Party are more pre-occupied with what is best for the Workers' Party.

We saw this clearly in this House yesterday. NTUC Secretary-General Lim Boon Heng has strong reservations about gambling, but he cannot get himself to say no to the proposal to develop IR. Why? Because as the labour chief, he could not afford to say no to 35,000 jobs. Contrast that with Mr Low, who as the leader of the Workers' Party, spoke with utter cynicism and a show of simulated righteousness. Did he wrestle with the issue? Did he try to balance the competing considerations? No. He brushed them all aside, and simplistically opposed the development of IRs because he feels that the Singapore economy "will not collapse if we do not have IRs".

Sir, Mr Low and WP do not seem to care at all about the 35,000 jobs the IRs could create directly and indirectly, for the benefit of our people. Mr Low also was not interested in the economic benefits IRs could bring to ordinary working Singaporeans, taxi-drivers and many others as a result of increases in tourist flow and job supply.

Question is, why? Is it because Mr Low and the WP are not aware of the difficulties faced by our retrenched workers in searching for new jobs? Or is it because Mr Low is serious about waiting till the economy collapses, and

Column:299

our workers suffering enough pain of unemployment before the WP will support job creation initiatives? I doubt so.

I believe that for the WP, the real reason for its position on IRs is very much a political one. He was waiting to see how Singaporeans responded to the IR proposal. He saw that some Singaporeans opposed the IR strongly. He thought that general elections were coming soon. So he has decided that the WP had better try to cash in by scoring political points with this group, and ignore the interests of the workers.

In other words, between pushing for the interests of the workers and canvassing for more votes for the party, Mr Low and his WP choose votes over workers. How can he do that? Why does he choose to do that?

Sir, Mr Low wants the WP to be a major party offering alternative visions for Singapore and strategies to Singaporeans. Yet on this important issue with long term implications, Mr Low has no constructive ideas to offer. After a long silence, he now decides to oppose for the sake of opposing - not on principle or in the best interests of Singaporeans, but out of political interest of the WP; not as opinion leader, but as opinion follower. His party motto should be - "follow me, because I am right behind you".

Sir, Mr Low also accuses the Government of proceeding with the development of IR for its own benefits, leaving the people to suffer the consequences. I do not see the logic in its argument. If the Government were interested in short-term political advantage, we would not have raised this difficult subject now. Then we would avoid upsetting Singaporeans who oppose casinos. After all, the consequences of not having IRs would not befall us for another five or 10 years. But five or 10 years from now, we would have fallen far behind, and it would be too

Column:300

late to catch up. It is precisely because we feel a deep sense of responsibility for the long-term interests of Singapore and Singaporeans that we are dealing with this issue now.

In contrast, Mr Low's position is merely a politically expedient one. In March during the COS, Low Thia Khiang took a more honest position. He said, "... the casino issue is not an easy issue, because of diversity of views. Also, we have to consider it from a pragmatic point of view rather from the emotional position ... ". He also said if it is a matter of "... we must have it or else we will have problems economically or in the future we might lose out, then I think we have no choice. But if it is a matter of may or may not have economic benefits in the future, then why should we take the risks?" But yesterday, he took a totally different line. What has made him change his mind, between March and now? Why did he not discuss any of these issues yesterday, instead of just attacking the Government and condemning the project?

Sir, this is not a party political issue between the PAP and the Opposition. It is much more important than that. It is an issue where each person will weigh the pluses and minuses, assess them against his personal values, and reach a judgment. Hence among PAP Ministers and MPs there are different views. We have encouraged PAP MPs to speak up, whether for or against, so the public can understand the trade offs and considerations. Unfortunately, Mr Low has not done this. Surely, WP members are not unanimous in rejecting the IRs. Why does Mr Low not tell us what views the WP considered, and why they decided to reject it?

Sir, it is not my wish to criticise Mr Low today. Mr Low is a rather senior MP. I have been a Member of this house for only about seven to eight years, whereas Mr Low has been in Parliament for a much longer time. I can say honestly that I have

Column:301

a good impression of Mr Low. He has not only a sharp political sense, but also a sense of integrity and patriotism, unlike some other Opposition politicians. But on this important issue of the IRs, he has fallen short of his usual standards. I do not understand why Mr Low decided not to stick to his usual style. It is not too late for him to reconsider his position. I wish he would candidly give our people a good account of what his thinking is.

Yesterday, he said something which was very thought provoking. In deciding whether or not to build the integrated resorts, he used an analogy of whether or not we should have operated on the Nepalese Siamese twins. He said that this is the same type of risk that we are facing. If we did not operate, then the two sisters would have passed away very soon. Then he said that as we have not come to the end of the road, why should we separate the twins?

Mr Low visualises the separation of two Siamese twins when he looked at the proposal to develop integrated resorts. But I look at it from a different angle. I see these Siamese twins as symbolising our country. Forty years ago, on 9th August 1965, when we were born, we were born a pair of Siamese twins. It was a male and a female. On the right hand side is a male and his name is Economy. So his full name is Singapore Economy. On the left hand side is a female and her name is Society. So her full name is Singapore Society. Singapore Economy and Singapore Society were born on the same day. They were twins. Their heads, shoulders, hands and legs were separated, but their hearts were joined together. The Singapore Economy's mind kept thinking of how to enhance our economic competitiveness. But Singapore Society's mind was thinking of how to enhance Singapore's social cohesiveness. When Singapore Economy moved his limbs, he

Column:302

was trying to fight for a bigger space for economic development.

Singapore Society, the lady, was different. When she moved her limbs, she was not trying to fight or compete with others. She was trying to extend a helping hand. Whenever she sees Singaporeans in difficulties, she will go and help them. Yet, the two of them realise very clearly that they share one heart. They share one life. If Singapore Economy cannot survive, then Singapore Society likewise will not be able to survive. But if Singapore Society cannot survive in the long term, then Singapore Economy will also die. They are Siamese twins, they share the same heart and the same life.

When we were having the SARS epidemic, the Singapore Economy suffered a serious illness. He was so sick that he could hardly stand up. But because our Singapore Society was strong, with our strong cohesiveness, she supported the other part of the twins. And they survived. After the Singapore Economy has recovered, the Singapore Society caught the flu. Singapore Economy then come up with some money to set up the ComCare Fund. Singapore Economy and Singapore Society helped each other and they grew up together. They grew up healthy and happy.

As they look forward to the future, Singapore Economy said this to his twin sister, "Younger sister, if we go on like this, I may have some problems." Singapore Society asked, "What is the problem with you? Like what Mr Low has said, you are not going to drop dead tomorrow." Singapore Economy replied, "Every day, I exercise. Every day, I try to reform our economy to improve our competitiveness. But this competition is getting more and more intense. I worry that maybe in five or 10 years, I will not be able to keep up. I do not have enough stamina. If I go on running, I may not be able to take it. What am I going to do

Column:303

about it? The other day, I saw a doctor. The doctor said, "Singapore Economy, I can give you some tonic but this tonic is not a cure for all. It can only give you some impetus so that you will be able to enrich yourself, strengthen your competitiveness in the next three to five years." The sister said, "Very good. You do not have to think twice. Just take this medicine. Take this pill." But Singapore Economy said, "I am worried about you because from what I understand, this medicine may have some side effects. What happens if I take it? Because our hearts are joined together, our blood vessels are joined, it may affect you. You may feel some pain and difficulty. I am worried about you. That is why I am hesistant. I do not know whether I should take this medicine."

Eventually, they discussed and came to a conclusion. "If you cannot survive in the long run, one day, if you have lost your competitiveness, you are finished; I am also finished. So why don't we just do it together. You go ahead. You take your medicine. I will try to take my preventive medicine. We hope that the medicine will come into effect and give the Singapore Economy a big push while causing only minimum adverse effect on Singapore Society."

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am telling you this long story because I feel we have to look very seriously into this issue. We should not place our own interest or our Party's interest before the interest of our people. As one community, if we can work together regardless of our race, religion and political party affiliation, we can turn the integrated resorts into the most successful IRs in the world while minimizing the adverse effects on our society. Both will benefit. If we can succeed, then Singapore Economy, the brother and Singapore Society, the sister, with the same heart and the same life, can carry on living happily together. [ Applause ].

Column:304

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, can I have your permission to clarify?

Mr Deputy Speaker: On point of clarification, I let you respond.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, there are many points of clarification.

( In Mandarin ): First of all, I would like to thank Minister Lim for giving me this opportunity to clarify my stand.

Mr Lim remarked that the Workers' Party has taken this position in order to gain some political capital. But I would like to ask him: "Is there really any political capital for us to gain? There is none. There are many people who support IRs, including my constituents. I do not think there is any political capital I can gain from this.

Minister Lim is interested to know how the Workers' Party has come to its position to oppose the casino. When we were discussing this issue, some opposed and some agreed with the proposal. We all know that our economy has come to a bottleneck, we faced competition from within the region and China. We are also very clear in our minds that our people are having unemployment problems, particularly the older workers. But we also read research reports from the United States and Australia. We clearly know that the opening of casinos will give rise to some serious adverse effects on our society. As a political party, we have to listen to different views and find out where the fulcrum point is. With that, we can try and strike a balance to arrive at a win-win situation.

Eventually, we came to a conclusion. We feel that there is no way we can have a win-win situation. We have to pay a price. As I have said, can we have an integrated resort without a casino? I understand we want to attract tourists,

Column: 305

attract more visitors to Singapore, and only then can we have a prosperous economic growth - our airport, air hub and sea hub will then be able to maintain their positions. But do we have to open a casino to achieve the objective? In the past 40 years, we did not have a casino and we also did face serious crises that could threaten our survival. The PAP Government, in the past 40 years, has been able to overcome all these difficulties and successfully led Singapore without having to open a casino or to count on such recreational and leisure activities to promote our economic growth.

Have we come to a point where we have no other alternative? Have we come to a point where we have to "gamble" on having a casino which would damage our families resulting in many broken homes and ruined individuals? Is this a responsible way to govern our country? Of course, some people feel very strongly against the opening of a casino, particularly from the religious point of view. One of our Central Executive members said that the casino is the pinnacle of evil. It is a representation of all evils. So when we open a casino in Singapore, it will be a centre of evil.

But I do not look at it from that perspective. We have to look at it from a secular and rational perspective. As a matter of fact, I firmed up my mind more and reinforced the conclusion that we should not have a casino after I have seen the concept plans. We know that the casino will bring huge benefit. The casino in Marina South can bring about the development of the whole New Downtown. But the problem I have is: do we not have other alternatives? Do we really need to have a casino before we can develop the Marina seafront? My view is, in the long run, the economic benefits, though huge, may not be enough to cover our social costs.

Column: 306

Singapore has been able to overcome all the difficulties over the years. I feel that there is no need for us to depend on the casino which causes problems to our society. I believe that we should be able to work out something. I do not think we have to take this risk to damage our families.

Just now, Minister Lim used my analogy of a pair of Siamese twins and he said that to take this medicine, there may be some side effects, some serious and some not so serious. So it is a question of choice. The Government should, first of all, prove that its decision is necessary and cannot be avoided. I feel that Singaporeans should have this spirit of not being afraid of adversity. I think the opening of the casino is just an easy way out. I do not think this is the only way. With the PAP Government's credibility and trustworthiness over the years, I am sure they will be able to lead Singapore through all these difficulties. There is no need to depend on the casinos to boost our economy. This is why the PAP has been respected by the people. And now that the PAP has decided to take this path, it is indeed regrettable.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Lim, do you want to respond?

Mr Lim Swee Say: ( In Mandarin ): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Mr Low for responding in a positively and calm manner. We can see that on this issue, even though we may hold different opinions, we can still have a positive exchange of views. My Chinese is not so good and there are a lot of concepts I cannot express fully. Recently, I had the opportunity to meet the Deputy Chairman of the All China Federation of Trade Unions and he said something which was very meaningful. I asked him, "As the leader of the trade unions in China, what is your biggest worry?" He said, "Big development, small difficulty. Small development, big difficulty. No development,

Column: 307

most difficult." In other words, if the economy cannot develop and grow, there would be more and more social problems. Therefore, every country, whether a country like China with 1.3 billion people or Singapore with four million people, the challenge is the same, that is, how to sustain our economic development so as to minimise our social problems. So when Mr Low said that it is not possible to have a win-win situation, I hope that Mr Low will not give up his endeavour to look for a solution that would achieve both our economic and social objectives.

My reasoning is that half a success is equivalent to a failure. If we were to build the integrated resorts and we have only half a success - from the economic point of view, the IRs could be very successful but the society has degenerated - then we would have failed. We have to take a bold decision that the only way forward is to go for total success for both sides, ie, economically and socially. I hope Mr Low and the Workers' Party would respond positively. Let us work together to overcome this challenge and let us develop the integrated resorts for maximum benefit to our economy at minimum cost to our society.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, may I be allowed to clarify?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Please make it short because we are behind schedule.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin ): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, the Workers' Party is always prepared to contribute towards the progress of Singapore . We also serve as a channel for different voices. On this issue of a casino, based on our analysis and judgment, we have given our views and taken our stand. Of course, we have to accept that the Government has already made a decision. As I said yesterday, what we can meaningfully do now is to make sure that

Column:308

we could effectively supervise the operation of the casino so as to minimise the adverse effects on our society.

The Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Othman Haron Eusofe): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at the outset, let me state categorically that I oppose gambling.

Sir, the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, and several Malay MPs have spoken about the Muslim community's concerns on the idea of having casinos in Singapore. Sir, at the core, Islam prohibits gambling.

Sir, I share the concerns and the fears of the many respected members of the community on the negative social impact that the casino proposal could potentially bring about. Sir, we do not want to see broken families or our sound values and work ethic eroded away, especially among the younger generation who may be more inclined to experiment, without quite realising or recognising the dangers of their action.

Sir, my wish, therefore, is that we can do without a casino. However, now that the judgment is that there is no choice but to proceed with the integrated resorts with a casino element so that we can operate and compete effectively in this new age, especially to attract more tourists, let us move forward and work together to prevent or minimise the negative social impact.

Sir, we live in a secular society and we have to be aware of the realities of the fast-changing social and economic landscape. There are many other points of view and other considerations which we must be prepared to examine and discuss in a frank and open way. Sir, in this fast-changing and intensely competitive and globalised world, how can we best ensure that we remain relevant and competitive now as well as in the years ahead? So we must be prepared to urgently remake

Column:309

our economy and rebrand or reinvent Singapore to be ready to meet new and difficult challenges. If we fail to do so quickly and decisively, we can impair our competitiveness, and this would also lead to serious social consequences.

Sir, at stake are jobs for our people and also significant business opportunities. The Prime Minister has explained carefully and in great detail on how the Cabinet has decided on a collective basis, despite the reservations of some Ministers, on the need to go ahead with two integrated resorts with casino components.

Sir, I had the opportunity to look at some of the high quality proposals submitted by world-class companies which responded to the request for concepts. Sir, I hope in time, other Singaporeans, particularly our community and religious leaders, will have the opportunity to see these proposals. Sir, this opportunity has helped me to get a clearer understanding of the IRs. Sir, the Bayfront proposal includes hotels, shopping malls, convention and exhibition space, museum and theatres and only about 3% for the gaming area. The Sentosa proposal has theme parks, resort hotels, restaurants and only 5% of the area for the gaming purposes. Sir, I am mindful that although the casino component takes a small part of the IRs, they are the engines that will drive the IRs. Nonetheless the integrated resorts present a real opportunity to tap the growing regional market. They can provide the spin-offs to support the rest of the economy. Sir, I can understand the need to urgently proceed with the integrated resort proposals in a way that can achieve the critical mass to succeed.

Sir, I am happy to note that the Government has closely examined the downsides and is ready to provide the necessary resources to effectively tackle

Column:310

the potential social and criminal problems. The Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports will comprehensively address the social issues, while the Ministry of Home Affairs will come out with stringent enforcement to deal with potential criminal problems. There is some time yet before the casinos come on-stream. Sir, we can start to strengthen our social infrastructure, learn and develop best practices to tackle problems that can arise. Sir, we must work on the basis that prevention is better than cure, to encourage our people to be disciplined and not to be caught up by the gambling bug. We must develop a dedicated and able corps of social and medical counsellors to help those at risk and an effective support system to help their family members.

Sir, I note in the MTI estimates that the two IRs can create some 35,000 jobs with potential spin-offs throughout the economy. They will complement the jobs that we are creating in other sectors, manufacturing, financial services, transportation and so on. Sir, Singapore cannot afford to be confined to the backwaters. We must move ahead to be a vibrant and exciting hub.

Sir, the members of the Muslim community will no doubt be receiving advice to avoid employment or patronising the gaming area. I note that the Muslim Religious Council has come out with a statement to this effect. However, Muslims can consider working in the hotels, theme parks, convention and exhibition centres. And with the increase in tourist arrivals, especially high spending tourists, shops and restaurants outside the IRs can also benefit. In this way, there can be other employment and business opportunities.

Mr Deputy Speaker, some members of the community will continue to have reservations and concerns on religious and other grounds. I understand and respect

Column:311

their concerns. The way in which the Government took the decision to go ahead with the IRs showed that their views are valued. They counted in the decision making. Sir, like Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, I am confident that the Muslim community's resilience and inner strength will see us through this difficult challenge. At the same time, I would like to urge the Muslim community and religious leaders to come out with the same drive and passion to do more to tackle the other pressing social issues that we now face, such as teen marriages, high divorce rates and youth disengagement. I am sure that our community leaders are aware that these social problems pose a much more tangible and greater danger to our community.

Sir, on this note, let us, therefore, move forward positively and make our contribution to enable Singapore to continue to thrive and be more successful.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.05 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.41 pm until 4.05 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm

[

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Chew Heng Ching) in the Chair: ]

Debate resumed.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Sir, it was not without a heavy heart that I greeted the news that two integrated resorts with casinos will be built. Just now, we heard Mr Low Thia Khiang say that the Workers' Party wants to be a channel for different views. But actually, in the PAP, we already have that. We have PAP MPs who have very different views from the Government leaders on the casino issue, and I am one of those

Column:312

who opposes it. I oppose it for three main reasons.

First, I was not entirely convinced that the economic benefits of a casino would outweigh the social costs. Second, I was concerned that a casino would only escalate the gambling-related problems in the society, such as gambling addiction, broken families, suicides as well as crime. Third, it might change the tone of our society, from a wholesome, safe and secure one, a good place to raise children, to one which is more sleazy and perhaps morally loose, with showgirls and prostitutes in tow.

But there was another reason why I felt strongly against the casino and it was a more personal one. I have seen up close how relatives and friends - good people with responsible jobs - could become helpless gambling addicts and lose their savings, their homes and their dignity, and their families suffered.

Sir, I have spoken on this publicly. I have made my concerns known also privately to some Ministers. But just as I wanted the Government to keep an open mind to my views and to listen to my concerns, I have also sought to keep an open mind to its views on the subject. It is only fair and right in an open democratic debate on national issues. It has to be a two-sided conversation aimed at reaching the best possible decision in the interest of the country as a whole. It cannot be that I expect the Government to listen to my views on the issue and to take them seriously while I shut my ears to its views.

So I have listened very closely to the Ministerial speeches over the last two days. It became clear to me that the concerns and fears that I had, which were also voiced by many Singaporeans who were against the casino, were recognised and also shared by the Government. And that, in particular, some Ministers, such

Column: 313

as Mr Lim Boon Heng and Mr Wong Kan Seng, were also deeply vexed about the possible negative effects of a casino, and that the decision to go ahead was not an easy one for them. This gives anti-casino Singaporeans, like myself, the confidence that our views had also been reflected vigorously at the highest level and not brushed aside as being immature, soft or, perhaps worse, as being pre-modern, backwater-loving moralists. This equal respect for the legitimate views of those in the anti-casino camp is important, or else it would breed cynicism and alienation among those who had spoken up because they cared.

Indeed, one of the depressing aspects of this debate is the sense that many people did not - and still do not - believe the Government when it said that it had not made up its mind on the casino issue until the date when the special meeting was held among the Cabinet. Some said that the feedback exercise had been a farce and a waste of time. Sir, why do they think that, despite all the pronouncements to the contrary? I do believe the Government when it said that it did not make up its mind until the moment when a decision needed to be made. One reason, I think, was how the Government framed the argument in the beginning and how the leaders and the people had very different conceptions of what it meant when it said "to open the doors to a casino". I think most Singaporeans have not been to the integrated resorts, with a casino component, in the Atlantis or Bellagio, and we have in mind casinos like the sort that they would have in Las Vegas and Macau. Therefore, we were talking at cross-purposes. And the more the Government pushed the line about whether we are a mature society or not, the more those of us who felt that we do not want a Macau and a Las Vegas stuck to our ground. Sir, there is a sense that we were not being heard, but

Column:314

actually we were just speaking on very different wavelengths.

Another reason, I believe, is the call for a request for concept which provided the casino option for both sites. I felt that if a request for concept for an IR without a casino component for one of the sites, say, the Marina Bayfront, has been called, that means no casinos involved, that would have at least given the public a chance to see if this is indeed a dead idea, a really no-brainer, with no takers, because it would just not be viable. Or perhaps, for all we know, there might have been a few good concepts coming in, perhaps viable, given the prime location of the area and Singapore's brand name. But because we have called for concept proposals for both sites, which include the casino component, or given them the option of including a casino, now we seem tied to the idea. I do not think it gives us much comfort when the Government says that, "Oh, because the concepts with casinos have come in from all over the world, from top brand names, from well-known people, what will the world think of us now if we have to say no?" And so we have to say yes to both. We are also worried about where the investments from the other potential bidders would go, or whether they would go to another region. The question then arises, all the more perhaps, that we should have called for a request for concepts with the casino element for one then, perhaps just in Sentosa. Indeed, I would have liked to start with just one IR with a casino in Sentosa, which is less accessible to Singaporeans and can be considered "overseas", to see the effects and to see if we could manage the social fallout, and to see if such an IR with a small gaming component could be successful in drawing the crowds, especially the tourists, before deciding to open up the area in other parts of the island to more IRs with casinos.

That being said, I must say in all fairness that the Government did put up a

Column: 315

compelling case for opening our doors to an IR with a casino over the last few days. And the clincher for me, like for Mr Lim Boon Heng, is the jobs created. Like gambling addiction, joblessness can also lead to severe social problems such as broken families, bankruptcies, suicides and crime. And I think, for the average Singaporean and the community as a whole, joblessness is a greater scourge than gambling addiction. Indeed, in my meet-the-people sessions, I see more problems cropping up from people not being able to find and keep jobs than from gambling addiction. But that is not to say that we should not go all out to combat gambling addiction. Indeed, I notice that all the Ministers who spoke did not try to minimise the potential social fallout of having casinos. Indeed, they confronted the issues head-on and listed many new and bold initiatives to tackle the problems that may arise from having casinos, including strict law enforcement measures.

At the visit with the MPs to view the concepts and models proposed by the potential bidders late last week, I paid special attention to the location of the casino in the premises of the proposed concepts, its prominence and size. And I was assured to note that, in most proposals, they were understated, very tasteful, and not offered as a key attraction.

All that said, however, I must say I still have some concerns about the decision which I hope will be addressed by the Government. I will highlight three.

The first relates to the economic merits of the case. The entire premise of the go-ahead rests on the assumption that these integrated resorts will be successful in attracting tourists, with the revenue generated mainly from its casinos, and hence create jobs and add to our economic growth. But how confident is the Government that Singapore can sustain two IRs of this magnitude, with such

Column:316

small gaming components, and that the tourists will be able to provide the flow and the numbers? I am not saying, of course, that we should increase the gaming component. But I worry if the resort operators will make a case for it at a later stage for their economic viability, especially since it has been made clear that the casinos will be the economic engines of the IRs.

As Minister Lim Hng Kiang noted, the integrated resort with the smallest gaming component presently is the Atlantis in Bahamas and it has a gaming component of about 25%. What assurance do we have that the operators in Singapore will not one day say that, responding to the changing circumstances and trends, they need to expand the casino in the resorts here? Or, if they prove unable to attract foreigners in droves, and they turn to the Government to relax the rules on the casinos, to attract more Singaporeans to patronise them, can the Government hold firm, especially given their iconic status and the world is watching?

Also, the integrated resorts will be up and running only in five years.

That seems like a long time, enough time for others in the region to join the race to build casinos within integrated resorts and also lure the crowds. What will then be our edge?

My second concern relates to the longer-term demands on our resources to deal with the casino-related problems. Singaporeans will benefit from the jobs created when the integrated resorts first come in, but the problems which may arise in terms of problem gambling, bankruptcies and crime, will only rear their ugly head many years later. Are we prepared to pour in the resources and deal with the problems in the long haul?

I read a recent study by Economics Professor Ernie Goss and Law Professor Edward Morse on the varying bankruptcy

Column:317

effects over the life-cycle of the casino. This study is the first to look at the impact of casinos over a 12-year period, from 1990 to 2002. It compared the personal bankruptcy rates in casino and non-casino counties and tracked the longer-term consequences of introducing gambling. They found that after an initial increase in personal bankruptcy rates, rates declined and levelled out for an additional two or three years, followed by progressively increasing rates. Compared with a non-casino county, the casino county is expected to have higher overall bankruptcy filings than the non-casino county after the ninth-year of operations, with progressively increasing rates thereafter. The study raises possible explanations for these life-cycle effects. Casinos may have positive economic effects in the initial years as they provide jobs and other economic benefits including a large influx of tourists and non-residents who come to gamble and enjoy in the entertainment complexes. But over time, as the casinos mature and other localities open up competing facilities, they speculate that the number of tourists begins to drop at the same time that the number of problem gamblers increases.

This brings me to the urgent need for independent and rigorous research in Singapore to help us understand better what draws Singaporeans to gambling in the first place, why some become problem gamblers, and how to treat them. And we should carry out these studies before the IRs open in 2009.

The recent MCYS study on gambling is useful in giving us the baseline and a snapshot of the situation today. It found that, as we know, about 58% of Singaporeans aged 18 and above already gamble. A minority of 2.1% are probably compulsive gamblers. This is quite an eye-opener because the percentage of probable problem gamblers is higher than Macau's

Column:318

1.8%. Macau is presently the king of casinos in the region, with 17 casinos. How is it that we seem to have overtaken Macau in producing problem gamblers even before a single casino is built? Even if we allow for statistical error, it would seem too close for comfort.

We need to understand why. I think the prevailing culture and social attitudes play a role. Gambling is very much a part of the Chinese culture. You see the Chinese gambling during the Chinese New Year and at solemn occasions like the funeral wake. You see the children taking part in these gambling sessions, especially over Chinese New Year. If there is a road accident, you can be sure the Chinese are rushing to copy down the car plate licence number to buy 4-D rather than helping out those who are injured. I do not know of any other cultural group which does that. But that still does not answer the question of why we have more probable compulsive gamblers than Macau because we have mainly the same ethnic composition, in terms of the majority Chinese.

Sir, we need to invest more in research to identify in each community: values and attitudes towards gambling, the nature and extent of gambling activities, the prevalence of problem gambling, and the resources and strategies available to mitigate problem gambling. The resulting data will help individual communities to raise people's awareness about problem gambling and to plan for prevention and treatment services. Going by the limited research that is focused on problem gamblers, especially those found in other countries, it is hard to define a personality factor that distinguishes compulsive gamblers from other people. It can be the average Joe. It can be a person who has a very high moral standing in society.

However, studies have found that compulsive gamblers have more irrational beliefs about gambling. For example, they

Column:319

are more likely to believe that they can beat the house. So no matter how much we tell them that they cannot beat the house, they still believe irrationally that they can. We have to find out what works in preventing gambling problems that already exist in Singapore today and those who go to cruise ships and Genting. We have to understand what can we do to mitigate even those problems today. Singapore has much experience in public campaigns and public education programmes to prevent what are considered social ills, such as smoking and drink driving. Can we also apply similar approaches to problem gambling?

Sir, I would urge the Government to see research as a strategic investment to improve our ability to understand how and why some people develop gambling problems and how to use resources most effectively to prevent problems and provide treatment. Investment in problem gambling research will also reflect a tangible commitment to finding solutions for serious problems that affect not only individuals, but also their families and communities.

Sir, this research can be funded directly from gambling revenues received by the Government. Perhaps, the Government can work out a formula which assigns a percentage of the gross slot machine revenues to research. This is being done in some countries like Ontario.

Sir, my third concern revolves around the future that we want to create for Singapore, our home. I feel this is at the heart of the issue. In his Budget speech this year, the Prime Minister has painted a vision of Singapore as a land of opportunity for all, a home with strong community bonds and values worth living for and fighting for. It is a vision that all Singaporeans can share and look forward to. However, more and more Singaporeans find themselves confronted by difficult choices at every turn - having to

Column:320

choose between many competing concepts of family values, sexual morality, and social justice, which they should advocate and defend.

Yesterday's easy choices are today fraught with ambiguous moral tones as the world becomes more globalised and we are no longer insulated from what happens in the most liberal parts of the world. We need to reach a new and fresh consensus on where we want to go, the sort of society we want to become and pass on to future generations.

Many in this House have noted that cities all around the world are reinventing themselves, such as New York, and some, such as London, Sydney and Geneva, already have casinos without damaging their reputations as respectable places. That is true. But note that all these examples quoted also celebrate more liberal and free-wheeling lifestyles. Hence, having a casino in their midst is consistent with their social and traditional ethos. Another important difference: if the citizens of the UK do not like the lifestyle in London or the citizens of the US do not like the life of the Big Apple, they can live elsewhere in their vast countries. And I do have good friends in the UK with strong family values who prefer to live in less exciting places, like Surrey, than in London even though they could well afford to live in the capital.

But Singaporeans do not have such choices as Singapore is both a city and a country. So it is all the more important that all sectors of society be brought on board when deciding on issues such as this which have a bearing on the kind of society we want to become. Otherwise, some might feel that this is not the home they want to live in, and migrate. Also, some people mentioned Sydney. Sydney may be a vibrant and safe city on the surface, but it is in actual fact today grappling with serious criminal activity arising from its popular Star City Casino

Column:321

which was set up nine years ago. Recently, Sydney formed a new Casino Investigation Unit after an inquiry into reports of serious criminal activity at the casino which include claims that loan sharks force women to pay back debts by prostituting themselves. It is reports like this that make you a bit worried.

Sir, if given a choice, I would not want a casino on our shores. But having heard the arguments put forward by the Government, it would appear that we have little choice, not if we want multi-billion dollar investments with tens of thousands of jobs for our citizens and to create the land of opportunity for all with buzz. However, as citizens, we do have a choice in whether we want to be regulars at a casino or not, and in how we can put our best efforts into making sure that the integrated resort will work in the best interest of all Singaporeans, with minimal social costs exacted. Then we will indeed be Uniquely Singapore - fun, vibrant, cosmopolitan, but still distinctly Asian, wholesome and safe.

I was not around when Mr Low Thia Khiang spoke yesterday. But I read in the Straits Times that he likened the resort's proposal to porridge that was being cooked and served to Singaporeans. They were then told to take it as there was special medicine in it and that this medicine could cause some people diarrhoea or dehydration and even lose their lives but to take it, and then the PM would do what is necessary for the aftercare. This analogy is misleading and insidious. This is not what the Government is advocating - to take porridge with, almost like poison laced in it. It is more like a grand buffet. I see it as a grand buffet aimed at drawing big crowds, creating excitement in Singapore. There is one stall that sells something that may not be very healthy for you, and there are barricades. The people there

Column: 322

say, "Don't go and eat there. It is for those who want this sort of food, but it is not good for you. Enjoy the rest of the buffet." There are a lot of things to do, and it is a place that you want to be identified with. But there is this booth, "Don't go. It is bad." I think the Government has made clear over the last few days that it is not promoting casino. It does not want to promote gambling. There was no poison being served to Singaporeans; there was no special medicine with after effects that were meant to cause Singaporeans ill.

Sir, I have no doubt that this Government has made this decision in the best interest of this country and society, after weighing very carefully the pros and cons. I would urge all those who have spoken up against the casino to join PM Lee and the Government to make this work for Singaporeans and to work together to make sure this is a plus for Singapore as a tourist destination and as a home for all citizens.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: May I have your permission to clarify what the hon. Member has just said?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Okay. I will allow one clarification.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: She said that my description of the Government's decision by using porridge is incorrect. I would like to clarify that it is correct in the sense that it is being forced down just like porridge gets down in the throat. She said that it should be more appropriate to describe the situation as a buffet. Sir, that is exactly the danger. I said earlier on that my mind was firmed up after I looked at the concept plans because the whole thing was so attractive. You look at it as a family resort, it is harmless, as what Ms Irene Ng said. You look at the buffet, it is so nice and, inadvertently, you are attracted to it without knowing the danger. You eat the buffet and you also

Column:323

eat something which is harmful to you, or you may be attracted to it later on. How much of it, we do not know. Can Ms Irene Ng tell us that everybody can be insulated from eating just the correct buffet, and not the other one? How does she do it?

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Mr Low has been in the House and he has heard all the social safeguards that will be put in place. The casino will be like this small stall in the corner - no signs, no bright lights - and a clear sign saying it is dangerous, "Please don't go." A barricade with $100 fee to get in and various safeguards to make sure that Singaporeans are not tempted. But we also acknowledge, and it is clear from the speeches made, that there is a risk. Therefore, we must take all steps as a society - and the VWOs should get on board - to make sure that we can mitigate the negative effects. We are not saying that there is none. But we are saying that we will do our best to mitigate it. I think we can.

The Minister of State for Finance and Transport (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for a non-gambler, I certainly have visited quite a number of casino-related developments from the mass market, somewhat un-glam casinos to the imposing integrated resorts similar to those being proposed.

My first introduction was to a casino in Macau almost two decades ago, where I witnessed an unpretentious, raw offering to all and sundry. This left a rather negative imprint on my mind as there was virtually nothing between the tempted and the temptation. I contributed a very small sum to the jackpot machines but my loss was nothing compared to the lives that gambling addiction must have wrecked.

In the late 80s when I was studying in Los Angeles , my husband and I would occasionally cover Las Vegas in our many drives around the country. And we would

Column: 324

sometimes take our two young children in tow, not to the casinos but to the wide variety of family-friendly entertainment. We have been back in between the years and we never cease to be amazed at the way newer and more creative offerings have emerged over time.

Las Vegas was where I was intrigued by the hypnotic effect gambling seemed to have on its victims - I saw how addiction was manifested as a hopeful but dazed looking gambler, lost in time, straddled across two stools in front of two one-arm bandit machines, cigarette or free drink in one hand and the lever in the other. They just would not give up on a machine until they ran out of cash

or they hit the jackpot. While I was feeding mine with nickels literally just for fun, the addict was altogether serious about recouping his losses. For the record, I never ventured beyond the jackpot machines nor lost more than $200 each time.

Everywhere you turn, there is a machine to greet you or, should I say, to tempt you. Even at the border between California and Nevada, there are machines to welcome you. There are also machines to help you out of your guilt trip - you feed in nickels or the five-cent coins, but you can bet in multiples, which somehow beguiles you into thinking that you are gambling small.

Las Vegas is where I saw instant gratification, down to the quickie marriages. Las Vegas is all about easy money, fast bucks, and not about values. Yet, Las Vegas is also where my two young children were able to enjoy circus acts to their fill and had theme park rides aplenty. It is where we caught up with world-class performances, from pop stars to magic shows to musicals.

Sir, some Singaporeans have commented that the day the Government decides to proceed with the casino is a

Column:325

sad day indeed. Sir, I can understand their sadness. As many of my colleagues have articulated, many are objecting to the very idea of a casino operating right here in Singapore for very good and fundamental reasons.

Firstly, on ethical grounds, that it is simply wrong to conduct a business that exploits human weakness;

Secondly, that it propagates the wrong philosophy of easy money and breeds the wrong values;

Thirdly, because of the adverse impact of addiction on families; and

Fourthly, that there will be a permanent dent on our wholesome and upright image.

Let me briefly elaborate on each in turn.

Firstly, the opposition on ethical grounds. Given the addictive nature of gambling, easy access to a casino which operates round the clock, or 24 by 7 in today's language, provides untold temptation for a quick fix. The weaker spirit will not be able to stay away for too long from the casino, unlike other forms of gambling, unless there are barriers to continuous or excessive patronage. Strict enforcement of the entry levy and membership fee will therefore be all-important.

Secondly, wrong philosophy, wrong values. Sir, I share the concern that the very presence of a casino will reinforce the view that one can make a fast buck by simply taking a chance, a gamble, and without having to work hard. Once this sets in, the young will grow up accepting that gambling is part and parcel of modern living or, worse still, the norm. This is already evident elsewhere where some

Column:326

students have gambled away all their school fees. The reality is really the larger challenge of modern living where people increasingly seek to make easy money or instant gratification. It should be noted that the same can be said of hopeful punters at the stock market or speculators during a property boom. The difference is perhaps in the amount of capital needed for reckless risk-taking to set in. In the final analysis, the question is: can we really sterilise or insulate Singaporeans from what they would regard as opportunities to strike it rich?

Thirdly, the adverse impact on the family. The single most heartfelt concern must be found in the plight of the victims of gambling addiction. Without a doubt, women and children are typically at the receiving end. Addiction can reduce an otherwise responsible father and husband to a helpless and desperate criminal or parasite to his family. The shame and suffering, even if it is true of a minority, should not be trivialised. Sir, this concern is valid, and the question is really whether a casino will lead to a sharp rise in addiction that is unmanageable.

Fourthly, on the erosion of our wholesome image. The most endearing feature of Singapore must be our wholesome image, that Singapore stands for safe families and an honest and secure environment. Expatriates frequently cite these as Singapore's distinct advantage when deciding where to locate. Now that we have decided to proceed with an integrated resort with a casino component, what will they think? More importantly, what will our own Singaporeans think? Do they see this as a slippery slope where the introduction of one vice will quickly multiply into other forms, such as prostitution, triad activities or money laundering? Or that once the idea of a casino becomes reality, there will be less resistance to allowing, say, video poker machines, to proliferate everywhere. In

Column: 327

the US, this convenience has hooked many women onto gambling as well.

Sir, against all these concerns, I can understand why there is so much scepticism over the compensating effect of the economic benefits. The question is often asked, "Are we so desperate that we need to sacrifice social values for uncertain economic costs?"

Sir, there is merit in seeing things in perspective. For one, what the Government is approving is an integrated resort development and not a pure casino project. As I have recounted earlier on, my family and I have thoroughly enjoyed ourselves at the non-gaming components of these developments elsewhere. Neither is the IR concept used to camouflage or mask the underlying gambling activity. I am hopeful that when the proposals are finally submitted, it would be quite evident that serious money would be devoted to serious entertainment propositions, and that the gaming component would be a small part.

So, are the economic benefits worth it? This is the very question that the Cabinet has had to grapple with and one to be answered, with national interests in mind. Proceeding with the IR concept does not mean that the Government has trivialised the consequential social ills or disregarded the fears of erosion of social values. And, most certainly, the decision does not imply that the Government thinks opponents to the idea care any less about the economic future of Singapore. In fact, it is precisely because the opponents cared, that they bothered to speak up with such conviction. Sir, this decision is really about the Government taking a pragmatic view of the pros and cons, against a backdrop of real and intensifying competition for the tourism dollar.

So, is this a situation of "If you can't beat them, join them?" Yes and no; yes, because most new tourism offerings are

Column:328

designed to meet the needs of the faster growing segments, especially the MICE segment. Hence, the offerings would have rather similar elements across countries. No, because we are not joining them, as we are imposing strict safeguards even as we are improving our tourism appeal.

So, is the 18th of April a sad day? Sir, I think, not necessarily. It need not be a sad day, because the Government has committed to ensuring that there are sufficient and strict safeguards against any rising social problems. There will be increased employment and more economic activity. It need not be a sad day, because I know that the many people who have spoken out valiantly against this, especially the voluntary and religious groups, will remain committed to supporting families in distress and counselling addicts, and will continue their good work of teaching values to the young, with or without a casino. It need not be a sad day because, ultimately, every one of us has the choice of patronising the gaming activity or not.

But, Sir, much as I have reservations, I know it would definitely be a sad day when it becomes obvious that IRs have worked elsewhere with manageable social consequences, but with Singapore trailing behind without one.

4.40 pm

The Senior Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to state my position on gambling and the casino issue.

I do not approve of gambling, but I am not anti-gambling. I take a practical, realistic and balanced view of life. There will always be gambling, just as there will always be prostitution and alcoholism. These vices are as old as human civilisation. I do not condone them, but I accept them as part of our society. We cannot eradicate them, so we have to manage them.

Column:329

I have gambled, but only infrequently, and I would add, in a most timid way. When Toto was introduced in 1968, like many Singaporeans, I played for the fun of it. But after a few times, the novelty wore off. I never struck any prize. I have also bought sweepstake tickets. When I first started work, I had a car loan and housing mortgage to service. I had a young family. So, I wishfully thought that if I could strike a lottery, it would lighten, and perhaps even settle, my loan burden. I bought one ticket at a time. I believed that if Lady Luck smiled on you, one ticket would be enough. If she did not, a hundred tickets would make no difference. I had no luck. In all, I probably did not spend more than $100 on sweepstake. That is throughout my life, much less than Hwee Hua's visit to Las Vegas on jackpot!

I have also played the 4-D on special occasions like when I had a new car. When I became the Managing Director of Neptune Orient Lines, the company provided me with a Mercedes-Benz. I bought its licence plate number. The number never came up. Instead, the number plate of my Ford Cortina, which I had sold off, came out. My friend who bought my car grinned from ear to ear; he bought 4-D. Last year, I bought my own car after I stepped down as Prime Minister. I thought that, after having served dutifully as Prime Minister for nearly 14 years, Lady Luck might be a little kinder this time. I bought the number of my car over four weekends. I was poorer by $80.

I have never gambled on card games. I make a distinction between card games and number games like Toto and Sweepstake. One is active, a waste of time and can be addictive. The other is passive and less likely to be addictive.

Yes, I have been inside a casino - not one but two. The first time was - you

Column: 330

will never guess - in Africa. I had accompanied Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew to Lusaka, Zambia, for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 1979. Dhanabalan, Lim Chee Onn and Eugene Yap were there too. We stayed in a hotel while PM Lee stayed in a guest house which was specially built for the occasion. Before the meeting started, the four of us felt bored. There was nothing to do. We did not, and we dared not, stray far away from the hotel, just in case PM Lee called us for a meeting. There was a casino in the hotel, so we decided to see what it looked like. The four of us had never been inside a casino. We went in. It was morning. There were no gamblers around. But the croupier, a friendly African, beckoned us and offered to play with us. I had never heard of Black Jack or Baccarat. But there was a roulette table. I thought the game was simple enough - a no-brainer - just put some coins on some numbers, you roll and you would strike it, if you are lucky. Chee Onn and I decided to try our hand at it. Dhanabalan did not because of his religious belief. Eugene also did not take part. There was a certain innocence in him. I picked two numbers and betted a dollar on each number. The friendly African gave the roulette a friendly spin. The ball gave my numbers a miss. I tried two more times. Lost again. I left the casino, richer for the experience but six dollars poorer. You might call me a low roller.

The second time I went into a casino was in 1989. I was on an official visit to Kuala Lumpur as Minister for Defence. My host and counterpart, Tengku Rithaudeen, took me up to Genting Highlands to play golf. In our flight were Najib Razak and Ahmad Mattar. We stayed overnight in Genting Highlands. That night, the owners of Genting Highlands took me to their casino. My Malaysian hosts, of course, did not join us.

They would not have been allowed in anyway. Lim Goh Tong and his son explained to me the various games, the security arrangements and the

Column:331

surveillance cameras and systems that they had in place. More interestingly, Lim Goh Tong related how he managed to secure the concession for Genting Highlands. One day, when he saw the uninhabited Genting Highlands or mountain ranges in Pahang, he visualised a holiday resort. But the holiday resort on its own, even in the cool highlands, would not be economically successful. There were no roads, no electricity, no water, no infrastructure, just virgin jungle. So he persuaded Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman to give him a gaming licence in return for developing a resort on Genting. Tunku Abdul Rahman agreed. Today, Genting and Malaysia are much better for it. What was once virgin jungle and uninhabitable mountains have become prized real estate. Genting Highlands Resort has generated billions of dollars for Malaysia.

Can we develop a mega holiday resort or a mega Meetings, Incentives, Conventions and Exhibitions (MICE) centre without a gaming facility? If the answer is yes, then the casino question would not have arisen at all. Unfortunately, the answer is no. Hence, the debate over the past year. But the debate is not really over whether we should or should not have a casino. It is whether we should forgo the integrated resort because of its gaming component. It is about our economic future over the increase in social costs. It is about families who would benefit from the jobs created versus families who could have their lives destroyed because of gambling. It is about whether we want to have a vibrant, cosmopolitan and fun Singapore or a fuddy-duddy Singapore.

I was not in Singapore when Cabinet deliberated on the issue on 9th April. I was in Qatar. But before I left, I sent an email to Prime Minister Lee giving him my views. He circulated my views to Cabinet. I was for moving on to the next stage of

Column:332

the project, which is Request for Proposals. I gave four reasons:

- Credibility of Singapore and how we are perceived;

- Economic benefits;

- Easy access to existing casinos; and

- Manageable incremental social cost.

I shall elaborate on the reasons which I gave to PM.

Right from the beginning, I kept an open mind on the casino question. When the subject was first broached by George Yeo, the Minister for Trade and Industry, PM and many Ministers were against it. The project nearly did not see the light of day.

But George Yeo persisted. As the Minister in charge of the economy, he had to persist. I was not for or against the Integrated Resort with casino at that stage. I kept an open mind. I was aware of the religious, moral and social objections. But I also knew the economic opportunities we would miss if we were to forgo the Integrated Resort. More importantly, I was concerned over Singapore's future as a vibrant, cosmopolitan city. During those discussions, I said that I would make up my mind only after I knew what kind of integrated resorts there would be. I did not believe in arguing in a vacuum. I therefore supported George's proposal to proceed to Request for Concepts stage. Therefore, those people who think that we have already decided on the casino were wrong. Many of us did not decide until we had seen the bids from the potential investors.

On 5th March, together with PM and other Ministers, I attended the briefing on the 19 proposals for an Integrated Resort. Having seen for myself the scale, boldness, creativity and seriousness of most

Column:333

of the proposals, I support going ahead with the Integrated Resort.

At stake are our credibility and how the world will perceive us. The 13 bidders have put in a lot of time and effort to come up with serious proposals for Integrated Resorts with theme parks or MICE. They are internationally well-known. They are global players. Not to proceed to the next stage now implies that the proposals are without merit, which cannot be so. It will hurt our international credibility and reputation. We will be seen to be incapable of making rational decisions. We will be regarded as timid and not being serious about Remaking Singapore. We will be seen as lacking boldness in mapping Singapore's future in a fast-changing world.

Second, economic benefits. Having seen the proposals, I believe the economic benefits are big. I believe the Integrated Resorts will reinvigorate our tourism industry. Our tourist attractions are dated and lack excitement.

Recently, when I was in Jakarta, an Indonesian businessman asked me whether Singapore was going ahead with the casino. I told him that we were in the process of making a decision. He said that he was ambivalent about the casino but he saw no choice for Singapore. He said that we had no exciting tourist attractions and he himself did not bring his family members to Singapore often. Whatever they wanted to buy, they could buy in Jakarta. They have been to our Night Safari and other attractions but he said once was enough. But if we had world-class entertainment in the Integrated Resort, he said he would come often with his family members and friends to enjoy the entertainment.

What he said struck me. Static tourist sights will not attract repeat visitors. So

Column: 334

we are after repeat visitors, not just visitors coming here once and never come back again. But the ever-changing scene of world-class entertainment will. Entertainment never becomes dated if the IR operators can bring in new top rate singers, dancers and other shows. If the operators can bring in big names, tourists will come from all over the region to listen to the singers and watch the shows. Big names like Celine Dion, Elton John and Rod Stewart who now perform in Las Vegas, and big shows like Cirque du Soleil, that is, a circus without animals but with human beings performing in a very interesting manner, from Canada and Crazy Horse from Paris.

When I was in Kuwait, one of the Ministers also asked me about the casino. He understood our need for a casino as part of an Integrated Resort. I asked him whether Arabs gambled. He said many did and they gambled in London and Europe.

I have been visiting China and India regularly for many years. I have seen the breath-taking transformations there. I have also been visiting countries in the Middle East. You should see the ambitions and the pace and scale of developments in places like Dubai and Qatar. Dubai is growing on the back of Arab oil wealth. Qatar has plenty of gas, oil, sand and land and wants to use these resources to build a modern country. They are not just targeting Arabs but also tourists from all over the world. So it is not just Singapore competing with Thailand, Malaysia, Hong Kong and China for tourism. We are also competing against Dubai, Qatar and other countries in the Middle East.

Dubai already has many skyscrapers but is constructing the world's tallest building. When completed, Dubai Tower, expected to be at least 750 metres high, will be more than 300 metres higher than the Petronas Twin Towers. Dubai Mall, the world's largest shopping mall, is also being built. It has 3.6 million square feet

Column:335

net retail space. This is equivalent to six Suntec Cities. The mall will have 14,000 car park lots. In Dubai, whatever they do, they want to be the biggest; size matters. But is Dubai just being vain or after the tourist dollars? No. Dubai knows that its oil reserves will one day run out. It is therefore building a new future for itself, diversifying its economy and lessening its oil dependency. In fact, Dubai's model is Singapore - the way we organise ourselves and our can-do attitude. Whatever we do which are successful, they copy and do it on a larger scale.

Qatar, an Arab country of less than one million people, is about 10 to 15 years behind Dubai in development. But it wants to surpass Dubai. Its attitude reminds me of the lyrics from the song in Annie Get Your Gun: "Anything you can do, I can do better". The Emir of Qatar told me that they did not want to simply copy Dubai because Dubai is a city while Qatar is a country. They have more oil and gas than Dubai. They want to be different and better than Dubai. They are confident of eclipsing Dubai in 15 to 20 years' time.

Dubai is now the aviation hub in the Middle East. Qatar wants to compete. It is building a US$5 billion airport with a capacity for 50 million passengers. Qatari Airways aspires to catch up and outstrip Emirates. These two airlines will put pressure on SIA. And the two airports, Dubai and Doha in Qatar, will compete with Changi Airport.

To attract tourists and people to live and work in Qatar, Qatar is building The Pearl Qatar to match Dubai's Palm Island and The World. This is a US$2.5 billion man-made island covering 985 acres of reclaimed land offshore. Our Marina Centre is only 208 acres or less than one quarter the size of The Pearl Qatar.

There are many other big scale projects which Qatar is embarking on.

Column:336

Money is no object. Brand names matter. They want the best so that they can become "the leading centre for business, leisure, sports and education".

Dubai and Qatar are not re-inventing themselves.

They are inventing themselves in a big and bold way. Fortunately, Dubai and Qatar are not building any casinos. They are Muslim countries. If we reject the integrated resorts with casinos, we are throwing away a competitive advantage over Dubai and Qatar.

But nearer home, Thailand will have a casino. Prime Minister Thaksin told that to a leading Singapore banker who told me. The world is moving on. It is a wide open world. Do we want to be left behind?

The third reason why I support the integrated resort with casino is that gambling in all its forms is already easily available in and near Singapore. The table games of the casino are not available in Singapore but Singaporeans have easy access to them on cruise ships sailing out of Singapore and in nearby Batam Island. In other words, easy access means that casinos are already here in Singapore even though they are not physically here in Singapore.

Lastly, I believe that having casinos in the integrated resorts will not dramatically increase the social costs of gambling. I am not brushing aside the social costs, which are real and a price we have to pay. But we should look at the incremental social costs, not the total social costs, and balance them against the economic benefits and social problems of unemployment.

I am aware of the social costs. Recently when I was in London, I met a New Zealander who is working for Nestle. He is married to a Singaporean who is a friend of my daughter. He asked me about our proposed casino. I explained why we were considering it. I then asked him for his views. He was against it. He explained

Column:337

that he was posted to Sydney many years ago. He lived near the Crown Casino. There was almost a suicide every week in the casino car park. He was against the casino because of the high social and human costs. If we could do without the casino, it was better to do without it, so he advised me.

Two of my friends just came back from Las Vegas. They are professionals. They went with some Singaporean high-rollers, and these are really high-rollers who roll something like $1-2 million a night, to enjoy the perks provided by the casino for high-rollers. My friends played golf in Shadow Creek. It is a most exclusive course reserved only for high-rollers and their friends. The golf course is built into the desert, and is one of the most beautiful golf courses in the world. They had good food. They enjoyed the top class entertainment. Yes, they also gambled and won a tidy sum of money. I asked them what advice would they give me regarding our casino. This was before we had decided on going ahead with the casino. To my astonishment, they advised me against it. Their main worry is that a casino will undermine our work ethics. In Las Vegas, money talks. Everyone is chasing after money the easy way.

I am relating these personal anecdotes to illustrate the point that there are no easy answers, one way or another. There are social and human costs in proceeding with the integrated resorts with casinos. But assuming that we do not proceed, does that mean we will have no social problems? I do not believe so. We have been remaking the Singapore economy to stay ahead. The integrated resort proposal is a key component of our overall strategy. If we cannot keep our economy vibrant and create enough jobs for Singaporeans, what is there to stop the better educated Singaporeans from migrating? Those who cannot leave will be

Column:338

stuck here. Singapore will stagnate. If that happens, what will be the fate of our sons and daughters? Do they have to work overseas as guest workers, and work under difficult conditions?

The dilemma we face is similar to Britain's. I sat next to Mrs Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, at dinner when I was in London for the Singapore Season in March. She is the Minister in charge of the mega casino project amongst other duties. Like us, she agonised over the same issues. She and the Labour Government had come to the same conclusion that Britain had no choice but to go for integrated resorts with casinos. They already have casinos, but these are small casinos in hotels. So they have decided that they must go for mega resorts with casinos to generate growth in the tourism sector. I asked her about the social costs. She said that they had to manage them. For example, casinos operate for 24 hours in artificial light. Gamblers, therefore, lose track of time. She was thinking of requiring casinos to have skylight so that gamblers could tell night from day. I do not know whether this will help, but the point is we must think of all ways to minimise and manage the social costs.

I am now no longer the Prime Minister. PM Lee is the man in the hot seat. As Cabinet was divided on the issue, I told him that the burden of the decision rested on his shoulders. If the majority was against going ahead with the integrated resorts, he should go with the majority. But if the majority was for going ahead, he should not simply follow them. He had to weigh the views of those who object carefully against the economic benefits. But whichever way he decided, we would support him. The PM has decided. As he told you on Monday, he is the one who has to ultimately carry the burden of the decision.

Column: 339

The Government's decision affects the lives of all Singaporeans and the future of our country. Nobody can say that we have made the right decision or not until years later when we have the benefit of perfect hindsight. But having made the decision to have the integrated resorts with casinos, we must now focus on minimising the social costs, while maximising the economic benefits. It is within our power to make sure that the decision turns out right. And the people who can play a bigger role here are exactly those who object to the casino. They must help us minimise the social costs of our decision, taken after long and hard deliberations, in the best interest of our country.

We have had an open and passionate public debate. On an issue like this which engages very deeply our personal values, there can be no unanimity of views. I welcome the strong stand taken by those who opposed the casino idea. These Singaporeans give Singapore its moral ballast. If there were little objection to the casino, I would be even more worried. For it would mean that we have become so blase about life and have lost our moral bearing. I do believe that we can manage the social costs of the two casinos, otherwise I would not have supported the project. Our family, social and religious institutions are strong. Have faith in the judgment of the Government and the strength of Singaporeans.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: A clarification from the Senior Minister.

Mr Deputy Speaker: No reference was made on you. What clarification do you need?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: A clarification on what he said just now.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Okay, I will allow one clarification.

Column:340

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Is the Senior Minister saying that the Cabinet was somewhat caught after the request for concept plans and they have to proceed because these people had spent so much money on the concept plans and, if not, the international reputation of Singapore would be affected? That is what I thought he said just now.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: That was what I said. But that is not necessarily the Cabinet's view. That was one of the reasons why I thought we should go ahead with the next stage. It was my personal view.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to participate in this debate. Before I proceed, I just want to say that I do not understand Minister Lim's point just now about the Workers Party and Mr Low Thia Khiang politicising the whole issue. He said he is not criticising Mr Low but then he spent the next 25 minutes criticising the Workers Party and Mr Low Thia Khiang. If that is not politicising the whole issue, then what is it about?

Sir, the big decision had been made. Singapore is going ahead with two casinos. To borrow Minister Lim Hng Kiang's illustration about cooking porridge which was also mentioned in this debate, what I and many Singaporeans are interested to know is this: will they get a share of this cooked porridge - " nang ming wu hoong bor "?

Although the SDA is morally against the idea of having a casino in Singapore, I do not want to repeat and belabour the many strong arguments brought up by the anti-casino supporters in this House. The decision to cook the porridge has been made, so let us move forward towards ensuring that the maximum number of Singaporeans will benefit from this

Column:341

project, possibly at the expense of some addicted gamblers and their families, and we will try to keep the number of "sacrificial lambs" down.

Sir, the focus of my speech today will be on three main points. One, the safeguards against addiction, increased crime and suicides. Two, the economic benefits accrued from the casino going to Singaporeans and Singapore society. Three, and my last point, now that the additional vice of the casino has come into Singapore, where do we go from here?

Sir, as some Members have spoken quite correctly, 18th April is a sad day for many anti-casino Singaporeans. They had worked and argued hard in the hope that their moral, social and health arguments will persuade the Government from setting up a casino in Singapore. It seems certain to many anti-casinoians that all calls to debate are all hogwash - a big PR exercise. At the end of the day, the Government will always proceed with whatever decision it had made, all in the argument that it will ultimately benefit Singapore.

Sir, the argument "that it will ultimately benefit Singapore" is a very deceptively attractive argument. How can any sensible Singaporean object to any initiatives that the Government says "will ultimately benefit Singapore"? How can anyone answer to MM Lee's question "can we afford not to" persuasively? Either these people are not sensible, or they will be construed as religious people or high moralists.

But, Sir, could it also be that these people see beyond the arguments put forward by the pro-casino camp as deceptive? As the Prime Minister had rightly pointed it out, their concern is not about economic advantage. Rather, it is

Column:342

about stopping the gambling vice from taking root in Singapore. It is about preventing people from getting addicted to a Government-sanctioned vice. It is about preventing a rise in organised and petty crimes in our society due to the gambling addiction. It is also about preventing family breakdowns and suicides due to problem gambling. In short, it is about the preservation of our society as we know and hold dear to.

Now that the vice of gambling is going to be introduced here, the people have every right to question how effective can we expect the additional measures and safeguards announced by the Government on 18th April to prevent gambling addiction, increased crime and suicides will be. More importantly, we want to be assured that none of our friends, family members and loved ones will ever become addicted to gambling, resulting in bankruptcy, crimes and/or even suicide, like Simon Lee's case. Thanks, but no thanks to the casino, integrated or not, whatever.

Sir, consider that at present, even without a casino, the police are already having real big problems dealing with and eradicating the illegal loan-shark syndicates and the problems it creates among the cash-strapped. With a casino, it will only get from bad to worse. Higher penalty and installing CCTV at the innocent victims' premises will not make the problems go away. What more can the Government do to eradicate this problem? More police action will also not make the problem go away if there is huge money to be made.

The problem is in the demand, and a casino in our little island will definitely drive up demand.

Consider also how people get addicted to cigarette smoking, alcohol drinking and the consumption of recreational drugs. It always gets socially started innocently among friends having fun. But, over time, months or even years, the neural pathways in our brains get more established

Column:343

and a bigger, stronger dosage is needed. Before he knows it, the person becomes addicted. It is the same for recreational gambling. It takes a person of great will power and determination not to fall into addiction and to get out of it if he does. The problems and damage it caused are tremendous to the suffering addict and his or her family.

Sir, I like gambling, and I know I would be easily tempted to go to the casino to gamble when it is set up. But, Sir, I also know that the Government has no legal and moral rights to introduce temptation for other innocent people to fall into these addictions - be it gambling or drugs. Flee from temptation. Nobody can fight temptation. Teach a cat not to be tempted by a fish, or a drug addict not to be tempted by the substance in front of him? It is not possible. You are addicted, you would want to.

But since the Government has decided to officially sanction gambling in the IR proposal, I want to ask the Government: how will public education, counselling and support services, medical treatment, research and the setting up of a National Council on Gambling ever help to prevent weak-willed people from getting addicted to gambling in the first place?

These are helps given to people after they have become addicted, not before. It will not help to prevent people from falling into addiction, or suffering financial loss due to a game of chance. And if addicted persons go for gambling treatment and counselling - and they are always financially strapped severely - will it be totally and completely free? The Government and its service providers have no legal or moral right to charge even one cent for the rehabilitative services provided by the IMH or the counselling service providers. This is because the problems of addiction are a direct consequence of the temptation endorsed by the Government. Also, will the future Government be sued in the

Column:344

distant future for bringing in the temptation in the first place?

As for suicides, it greatly troubled me that the Government knows full well that the suicide figures will shoot up after the casino is set up and it will level off after a few years. This means that we should expect more people jumping off buildings or onto on-coming MRT trains to commit suicides. Yet, the Government still refuses to put up glass barriers at open platform MRT tracks to prevent all these possible suicides, citing cost.

The Government seems prepared to sacrifice some citizens in pursuit of its economic objectives, but not bear the cost of installing these physical and costly safeguards. I hereby demand that a lot more resources be channelled to social service providers - those that provide counselling and suicide prevention services. Social workers are the worst paid lot among the professionals. This is most regrettable.

The Government must increase its compensation structure to attract and retain good qualified social workers, just like how it increased the allowance of MPs to attract more people to come into politics. These social work professionals provide an important essential counselling service to help our society, especially so after the casino is being set up, because there is going to be increased demand for its service. So, we need to pay good price to attract these professionals to come in to provide these essential services.

Also, I propose a compensation fund to be set up to compensate and care for the dependent family members of gambling victims. The dependants of gambling victims, especially if it is a gambling suicide case, cannot be left to fend for themselves after their primary care providers fall into addiction and/or crime.

Next, the Government must also compensate Singaporeans and Singapore

Column:345

society from the accrued economic benefits gained from the casino resort - for the expected rise in crime and social ills. It must increase its social expenditure and greatly subsidise the essential services - like healthcare and transport, just to name a few - from the rise in the GDP and revenue collections expected.

As I said in the Committee of Supply debate, the Government must also look into relaxing the tax burden on the people and business further. The additional economic push and revenue collected from the casino resort and tourist receipts must not be reasons for the Government to increase its budget on the other Ministries and salaries. For that matter, Ministers and senior civil servants should be penalised for becoming complacent in the booming years of the early 90s, and failing to introduce key initiatives that will help promote tourism competitiveness to Singapore. We have grown complacent and ignored the importance of the tourist industry until high unemployment sets in, and the carpet is pulled from under our feet. Where is the helicopter vision that is so often touted of our Ministers?

Now that it is going ahead with the casino IR project, the Government should allow and encourage an investment fund to be set up by interested Singaporeans to co-invest a substantial stake in this casino project. We should not let the big foreign players have 100% ownership of this casino project. As the Chinese saying goes: " fei shui bo liu wai ren tian ". It is important that part of the profits of the venture be earned by Singaporeans. As we all know, Singapore is the ATM of the East. So, why should it all go to the foreign investors when raising cash for viable investments is never a problem in our affluent Singapore?

Lastly, now that there is an additional vice coming to Singapore, what is next?

Column:346

Where do we go from here? Will there be no other bigger and better integrated casino resorts sprouting up around Asia in the not-too-distant future? I do not think so. As Minister Mentor had said yesterday, whatever Singapore does, many other countries will follow. If we do not, they may not. But, if we do, they will do. Our intention to get into this vice trade will serve to persuade our neighbours to do likewise. Otherwise, how can they catch up?

So, if the competition gets too intense and our casino project becomes less viable, and the Singapore society becomes more acceptable to the ills of gambling, will future Government then relax its social restrictions on Singaporeans to go there for a punt?

If China - our main tourist target group - gets into problem or imposes travel restrictions for its citizens to get into the casino here, then what is the Government going to do about it? Allow Singaporeans easier access too? When the two casinos are operating, what will happen to NTUC, SAFRA and all the country clubs' gaming machines and their jackpot rooms? They will not have enough profits to sustain their operation. Will they also ask and demand for the roulette and baccarat tables too?

Lastly, are there any more creative wholesome ideas being considered for the future growth of Singapore, after the casino? How about having a world-class F1 racing circuit to bring in the tourists too? Or a Jurassic Park? In short, Sir, start thinking and exploring the next big exciting project for Singapore now before we get complacent again and get caught in the next big economic downturn with our pants down - like now. Tourism market share drops from 23% to 13% from 1993 to 2002. Whose fault is that?

To conclude, Sir, the controversial decision has been made. Plans are now

Column:347

under way to call for tenders. Whether we personally agree or not to the idea, it is time to move forward. The Government can really do a lot more to alleviate the fears and anxieties of the socially concerned by putting more money and resources to address these social concerns. We must always be prepared and willing to explore other helpful ideas and initiatives that seek to preserve the work ethos of our society.

More importantly, Sir, there is no room for complacency and sitting on our laurels, like the Government had done in the thriving 90s. Profits can go up, revenues must go up, but cost and asset enhancement schemes must never be allowed to escalate out of hand in our new economic environment. Do not overplay the political agenda at the expense of our economic prosperity.

Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate.

May I, first, address some of the points that the hon. Member, Mr Steve Chia, had mentioned earlier. May I ask Mr Chia whether he supports or does not support the IRs after all that he had mentioned in his long speech? Does he support the need to create 35,000 jobs, and also the need to enhance the livelihood of Singaporeans? He asked whether there was enough rice ( muai ) for our fellow Singaporeans to be shared. I do not know if Mr Chia was in the House when the Minister for Trade and Industry talked about the economic benefits of the IRs and the potential contribution to our GDP - I think $1.5 billion - the revenues and the taxes. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr Lim Hng Kiang had elaborated on the economic benefits and I will leave Mr Chia to read that speech once again, and also PM's opening speech.

He was talking about share of taxes and all that. We have already heard the

Column:348

Ministers mention that our long-range objective is to keep our taxes down, and this is a stream of revenue. And talking about jobs, I could not understand Mr Chia's point just now. Also, he talked about whether the money was to be used for counsellors and family service centres. If Mr Chia was in the House and was awake, when Minister Vivian Balakrishnan was talking about the social exclusions and social safeguards when the IR is in place, it was very clear that he also mentioned that the levy collected would be channelled to the Tote Board, and the Tote Board would also contribute to all these organisations that will take care of gambling addiction and the social ills. Later, Minister Khaw Boon Wan had also talked about that.

Sir, I think we have a very passionate debate. It demonstrates that Singaporeans are now prepared to discuss this issue openly, even if they may not see things from the same perspective. I think it is a good sign, as the Minister had mentioned. It demonstrates that our society has matured. We are prepared to listen and respect alternate views. But what is definitive is that the Government and the people of Singapore are concerned about our future, our prospects

and the kind of society we want to have. I think that thus far, the Government has shown that, in its decision to go ahead with the two IRs, the Government has not thrown caution to the wind for economic gains in respect of the ills that Government has already recognised and it has come up with plans to take care of them. It has taken Singapore many years of careful and well-timed decisions to get to where we are today. In my opinion, if the costs of the IR are deemed to be too high, we can still survive without it, but how well, that is another question. Mr Chia seemed to mention all these problems and ills will come about if the casino or IR fails. But he forgets that we have other engines of the economy. It is precisely because we

Column:349

have the other engines of the economy that we need to augment. We have been talking about the manufacturing sector which may not produce many more jobs and we are squeezing that. We are pushing ahead with our biomedical hub and education hub. So this is not the only engine. The IR is not the end-all and the be-all solution.

An IR, however, presents many opportunities for Singapore. Having considered the advantages and costs, I am convinced that the IR is indeed timely. We have from time to time talked about the Singapore brand. If you talk to branding specialists, they will tell you that a brand needs to adapt and change its image to keep its current users and entice potential users. This is an opportunity for us to augment, to update if you will, the Singapore brand. If we hesitate too long on a decision to develop an IR, the rest of the region will pass us by and overtake us. We will be no more than a little red dot, boring and sleepy. Regional competition from Hong Kong, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand are all considering IRs. I understand from a Hong Kong friend who said that Hong Kong had to bend their knees for the Disneyland project. Can we afford to opt out, hold fast to our principles against the ills of gambling, while Singaporeans and tourists travel elsewhere to exciting IRs set up in the region? Will Singaporean values be threatened and the society, as we know it, disintegrate if an IR is set up?

I was brought up by strict parents by adhering to certain traditional values - work hard, respect your peers and elders, contribute to the community, and make an honest living. I remember when I was young, like Mr Lim Boon Heng had mentioned, I played the game of "tikam-tikam". I used to run around Swatow Street, Bugis Street, Hylam Street at North Bridge Road - I think we called it Tong Lam in Cantonese - and I played

Column:350

"tikam-tikam" at the street stall. Some of you will recall this game. It was a game of chance. I picked a number, and if you are lucky, you win a prize. Anyway, I won a package of chocolates that looked like a package of cigarettes.

However, having won the prize, I went back to my maternal grandfather's home, my father was there and I had, I would call it, public caning actually, the biggest shelling by my father and I thought to myself the next day that the cane marks were permanent. Aside from the chocolate package that looked like cigarettes, the game of "tikam-tikam", although seemingly harmless fun, was in fact gambling. This was what got me into trouble with my folks. To my parents, gambling was a big no-no. They frowned upon it and did not want me to think it was okay, even if the stakes were low. So, since young, I did not care much about card games. Gambling to me is a non-event. It does not give me a rush. I am probably one of the few Cantonese I know who do not know how to play mahjong .

I am also very curious at this point when Mr Chia declared that he liked gambling, how he keeps good control. Perhaps, when the gambling addiction organisation or body is set up, maybe Mr Chia could share a few of his controlling techniques. Even so, I am in support of setting up an IR in Singapore. I came to this conclusion simply because the decision to sit out this opportunity and do nothing will hamper our continued development as a country. The IR would have iconic status in keeping with Singapore's vision to be one of the great cosmopolitan cities in the world. It would present to the world that Singapore is still at the pinnacle of many things, like our much vaunted public housing, CPF and ERP system. We have been at the forefront with many firsts. Our short journey from independence to first world was no fluke, it was pure determination and true grit. Internationally, that is our image.

Column:351

How do we see ourselves then? We have strict but fair laws, we have had many firsts among the world in how we do things. Again, I mention the ERP, chewing gum ban and perhaps even secretly proud that these "firsts" by Singapore have been considered or emulated in whole or in part by other more developed nations.

In this competition for the tourist dollar, no one will be remembered for being second place. I think recently we hear that the Hong Kong International Airport was voted Most Friendly Airport and Changi Airport came in No. 2. These are warning bells already. At the same time, Singaporeans will declare that our social mores have matured, and we are not a staid backwater, but a confident, vibrant and forward looking society.

We are in a position to become the jewel (or as MM has called yesterday the "Gem of Asia"), an eclectic mix of business and entertainment. With an increase in Chinese tourists, up to 56% in 2004 over 2003, and others from Japan, Hong Kong, Europe and US, we can expect a spillover in hotel, F&B, airline, transportation, retail, MICE industries, 10,000 jobs directly related to the two IRs when it starts operating.

Singaporeans have voiced valid concerns regarding the ills of the IRs. I urge them to reflect on the record and style of this Government. At no time in our past has the Singapore Government embarked on a decision with similarly far-reaching consequences without weighing the costs and benefits carefully. For a country like Singapore, we learnt early on that we need to be nimble and to constantly seek or create options and examine and implement them carefully, and later finetune.

The inclusion of a casino as part of an integrated resort will not mean we become a cowboy town where suddenly an explosion of vice, money laundering

Column:352

and gambling addiction will be the order of the day.

As a financial centre, we have come thus far as a choice among global wealth managers as a booking centre. Top-tier banks want to service their customers from Singapore. We know that the Government is committed to the push towards establishing ourselves as a pre-eminent financial centre. It is unimaginable that a responsible government will give up this engine of the economy or let the image be tarnished.

On the banking aspects, specifically, the money laundering guidelines put in place and the regulatory supervision in all aspects of money laundering are strict, though even-handed. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure Mr Chia will agree with me being formerly a member in the financial industry. He only knows too well that the money laundering guidelines are very strict and the banks are very serious about this. This makes banks, wanting to operate and continue to operate in Singapore, put anti-money laundering a priority along with running a profitable franchise.

On drug enforcement, we have shown, and we are known, to be tough on drug trafficking and drug abuse. While we have been at the brunt of some human rights activists due to our harsh laws, we have been steadfast to our core values and recent reports by CNB have shown just how successful we are. Regional and international drug enforcement agencies sit up when we are mentioned.

At a recent conference on drug enforcement that I attended with fellow hon. Member Mr Ahmad Khalis in Laos, some member countries were eager to learn and apply our laws. But they were also very quick to point out that even as they want to apply our laws, Singapore has put in place concrete strategies to reduce both drug demand and supply of

Column:353

narcotics. This says a lot of how we do things in Singapore. Passing a law is only part of it, as we have the system and complementary strategies to remove the scourge of drug abuse and opportunities for trafficking. The law comes in then to enforce and deter such acts.

We have thus shown how the Government's process and perspective is in tackling problems of such nature that can strike at the very social fabric of our life of Singapore. Therefore, the ability for such resorts to operate and maintain its reputation under strict laws will in fact count towards brownie points for such companies to set up operations elsewhere. They come in here fully aware of the kind of regulatory compliances to adhere to.

To me, the potential ills of an IR can be averted through careful planning and execution. However, at the moment, I think the Government has to acknowledge there are some challenges before it. Firstly, many Singaporeans are not convinced that the multiplier effect or spillover benefits mentioned will have a direct impact on them. Singaporeans have been told in broad and general terms that the IR will have many economic benefits, for instance, jobs will be created through the IR development and the tourism industry will receive a boost. However, they get the feeling that many of the concerns about the casino arise because Singaporeans do not fully understand as yet the full scope of the development within the IR apart from the hotly debated casino.

Secondly, if jobs are to be created, then my unemployed residents have asked me what kind of jobs will there be, and how many will there be for them. They want to know how they can get those jobs so that they can climb out of unemployment. Our Government may wish to convey to Singaporeans how the

Column:354

job creation related to IR will address our unemployment problem. How will these jobs trickle down to our unemployed? Whether specific training programmes will be developed so that those who are interested may re-skill themselves through appropriate training? I think we have a four-year lead time for that.

Mr Lim Boon Heng had already spoken on this, maybe MOM in time will also share with us their strategy on how we can prepare 10,000 people for these 10,000 jobs as well as the 25,000 downstream jobs.

Lastly, in Minister Balakrishnan's statement on Monday, we were reassured by his mention of the various safeguards to be put in place. However, the Government can do more to set Singaporeans at ease by detailing and providing the specifics on these safeguards, such as what are the processes required by a family member to exclude one from the casino. Looking at the profile of the problem gambler, his family members may not be savvy or resourceful enough to utilise the "exclusion" provision. I felt that the statement was perhaps at this time short on details that could otherwise give Singaporeans a better grasp of the safeguards to be put in place. Some other questions could be: what does the implementation time-line look like for the various help groups to be set up and staffed? Where do you begin with all these good and well-intentioned education programmes on gambling addiction? How relevant will $100 per day or $2,000 per year be in the year 2009? Will the Government then stipulate a fixed review period for such a levy?

I hope the Government can elaborate on these. But I understand that it is still early time. This will help dispel some anxiety and hence allow Singaporeans to better understand the Government's proposed measures towards countervailing the social ills envisioned.

Column:355

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I would like to share with Members an article I read in the April issue of MacWorld , a magazine dedicated to Apple computer users. It is an article I thought could be quite related to our talk and debate on the IR. Steve Jobs explained the success of Apple in an interview. When Adobe refused Apple's request to jointly develop a consumer video editing software for Mac, Apple had to go at it alone. That resulted in Apple starting the Applications Software Division that now boasts a thousand engineers that resulted in its hugely successful i-Tunes software. Singaporeans who use MP3 players would be very familiar with this. Steve Jobs said that he "felt like a dope" for not moving quicker. Back in 2000, he was so distracted by perfecting video editing on the Mac that he did not notice that people were using computers and CD burners to make audio CDs and downloading MP3s from illegal online services, such as Napster. Jobs was quoted as saying, "I thought we had missed it. We had to work hard to catch up." Fortune reporter Brent Schlender wrote that, "Yes, even Steve Jobs, the technological visionary of his generation, occasionally gets caught looking the wrong way."

Singapore cannot afford to look the wrong way or even not look at how the IR could place us in the global village. We look the wrong way and someone will come along and clobber us out of the running. Staying on top, staying attractive for visitors, vying for attention and consideration for investment dollars is all competition. In any competition, I believe we compete to win. Sir, I think Singaporeans need to compete with others for the IR. We have been early adopters and must continue to be early adopters. I am confident that Singapore's confidence in the values that we have been instilled will pass on and preserve

the kind of society we have come to be so proud of. I am confident that an able Government that has put high on its agenda since

Column:356

independence of hard work, honesty and integrity while building our nation will preserve these same values with the IRs on our island state.

Sir, I support the establishment of IRs.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, a small clarification.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Steve Chia, you have made your speech.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: I have four points of clarification that were addressed to me.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I think we have no time for clarifications.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: I know, but they were addressed to me.

Mr Deputy Speaker: OK, I will allow one clarification. Just one.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, very briefly. The Member asked for my answer whether or not I support the casino. If the hon. Member Arthur Fong can answer my two questions:

(1) Will the Government promise to cut taxes and/or increase social expenditure?

(2) Are we putting this whole debate to a vote?

If he answers these two questions, I will tell him what is my position on the casino.

Regarding the distribution of rice, I just want to say that it is not that it is not enough ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Steve Chia, I disallow the clarifications. I think it is not relevant. Do you want to state your stand

Column:357

whether or not you support the IR? That is the question he raised.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: But he asked me the question ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: I thought you were standing up to answer that. You cannot throw another question to him. Either you answer or you do not answer. We have to proceed to the next speaker. Are you prepared to make your stand on whether or not you support the IR?

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Yes, provided my two questions are addressed.

Mr Arthur Fong: Take your stand.

Mr Deputy Speaker: OK, Prof. Koo, you are next.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence and Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Sir, Mr Chiam See Tong spoke in the House - unfortunately, I was not in, but I heard the discussion outside and read about it in the media - and he said that 40 years of PAP virtues were flushed down the drain in one fell swoop. He implied that the PAP changed direction for the sake of changing. The question here is whether did we change for the better, or we turned our backs on principles.

Sir, Einstein is one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century. He changed his mind many times. When confronted by a brilliant scientist in a conference, Einstein answered, "I change my mind when the facts change. What would you do?" Professor Stephen Hawking is one of the most brilliant minds living today. He is the Professor of Theoretical Physics in Cambridge. He did not win a Nobel Prize,

Column:358

but that is because Nobel Prizes for Physics are not awarded for Theoretical Physics. Sometime in the 1980s, he wrote a book called A Moment in Time . He postulated many theories. One of the theories was that the black hole in the universe is so dense that nothing ever passes through it. Even gravity cannot flow through it. Recently, Stephen Hawking, still alive and brilliant as ever, said he was wrong. Gravity might be able to pass through it. Two brilliant minds, cleverer than most of us here, in fact maybe all of us combined, whose minds expand the universe, changed their minds because, when the facts change, they change.

Deng Xiaoping is my hero. He survived three ups and three downs. In his late 70s and close to the 80s, he made a momentous shift. He started this gai ge kai fang. Basically, he was shaking loose the chains of communism, at a great risk, because at his age at late 70s, he could just cruise and be honoured by the communist system, but he did not. He took another risk. His comrades asked him. Millions of Chinese had died for the cause of communism. It was capitalism that threw China into darkness for 200 years. And before that, China was a shining light. The West overtook China because of corruption and capitalism. In the Long March, where Deng Xiaoping followed with Mao Zedong, millions of gallons of blood were drained down the valleys. Deng Xiaoping told them that "Communism, as we know it, did not work for China." Millions starved. In the Cultural Revolution alone, in the wen ge period, it was estimated that 30 million Chinese died of starvation, something that communism promised to overcome. It did not. And Deng Xiaoping told his comrades, and later we knew it through his books, he said, "If we open the windows, the flies will come in. If we shut the windows, we will suffocate and die. With the flies, we can survive. They will be a nuisance. Some of us may suffer from

Column:359

diseases, some might die. Without opening the windows, we will all die."

When the economic conditions change, politicians must change. A politician's job is to look after the people's welfare. It is to give them jobs when they have no jobs. It is to look after their welfare when they cannot make ends meet. Today, in Singapore, in spite of the low unemployment statistics, it is still too high for us. It is too high historically because we have never crossed 2% unemployment for a long time until the last few years. Too high for us because we really have no welfare, other than HDB public housing. Many of us, in our weekly MPS - and tonight is my MPS, after this I will have to go - we are confronted with people who come to us, young and old, asking us for jobs.

I remember this guy. He was into jail for petty theft for six months. He came out, he could not get into his rental flat because he owed arrears, so HDB did not allow him in. He owed Singapore Power money because he did not pay his bills. He could not get in. Out from jail, without a home, he could not get a job. What did he do before? He was a driver. But we know that every unemployed person today tries to be a hawker, driver or taxi driver. There are just not that many people to take taxis or to be driven around. There are not that many people to frequent F&B outlets. So, you see taxi drivers sitting around, working longer hours trying to make ends meet. We owe a responsibility to these people who are unemployed to give them gainful employment. Every time I give him an NTUC voucher, he took it, but he told me, "I want a job. I do not want NTUC vouchers." These are young people. He is a young man. I write to the Ministry. The Ministry tried placement positions. But there are just not enough placements.

In this House, we have heard many arguments about the worth of retraining.

Column:360

Many MPs have a valid point. You ask our retrenched workers to go for retraining. Will there be jobs at the end of the retraining? It is a valid question. If you ask 100 workers to go for retraining, to be IT-competent, but you only have 30 jobs waiting for them, 70 people will still be unemployed. I have no answers. We need to grow the economy. Have we reached a cul-de-sac, a dead end? I think not. There are many options for us. We can fire all the other engines - life sciences, banking, education - and we must never exclude an integrated resort.

I heard Irene Ng saying that Chinese are compulsive gamblers. It has always been said. And Chinese tend to believe that. It was also said that gambling is wired into the Chinese DNA, so there is nothing you can do. Many eminent Ministers here have said that they have gambled a few hands but they are not addicted gamblers, they are just casual players. But we are humans. We control our genes. Recently I saw a National Geographic documentary programme. The geneticists said that the genes, the DNAs, make up our physical person and control us. But in the case of human being, our brains control the DNA. There is a saying in life sciences that we, as humans, can ask the DNA to go jump in the lake. I think we must not succumb to the belief that Chinese are compulsive gamblers and that there is nothing we can do. Yes, Chinese are more prone to gambling, and this is a fact in every society where Chinese exist. But in Singapore, I think the Chinese live under a benevolent Government that is, I am sure under the MCYS Minister's guidance, determined to minimise the impact of social gambling.

And I think we must measure the success of these IRs, as Mr Lim Swee Say mentioned, not just by the economic gains, but also by how much social damage we can contain. I am a scientist. So, if we have more gambling avenues, the social impact must go up. It is not

Column:361

likely to go down. But it will not disappear without the IRs. Our challenge for the Minister for MCYS is actually to ask him to account for the number of pathological gamblers year after year after the IRs have opened their doors. Today, without the IRs, we have something like 55,000 addictive, problem and pathological gamblers. Ask him to account for the numbers in 2009, 2010, and measure the success of our IRs and weigh it against the economic gains.

I believe that this Government can contain the social impact and make the IRs, together with the casino component, a kind of IR with these Singapore Government or PAP Government characteristics, just like Deng Xiaoping was able to fashion capitalism with socialist characteristics. If we look at China today, it is still a communist country. But in a way, it is very capitalist. Billions of Chinese have been lifted from poverty within a short space of 20 years. Deng Xiaoping took the correct course of action. History today has vindicated him. In the case of Singapore, I think the decision to go ahead with the IR will also vindicate us. Time will tell. But I think this Prime Minister is determined to succeed.

For a long time, we have believed that Singapore fetches a premium, that people will come to us because we are an efficient place to do business. We are. There is law and order. If you do business, you might want to come to Singapore, because things get done, laws are transparent, rules are enforced. But if you are on holiday, if you are a tourist, you need not come to Singapore. You can bypass Singapore. Jet travel has diminished the problem of time and space. It is only a matter of cost. Budget travel means the death of cost. Today, with budget travel, you can go anywhere at a fraction of what it used to be. This means that more people will bypass Singapore, if

Column:362

there is no reason to make Singapore an end destination or an important transit stop. In the past, when I was a student in Australia in the early 1970s, whenever Australians want to go to Europe, they would stop in Singapore and shop, because we were a shopping paradise. Today, Australians do not. They may transit, because Qantas, SIA and British Airways stop by and they will stay in the transit lounge.

Not because we are not a shopping haven; we are. Branded goods in Singapore are still among the cheapest. If you read the International Herald Tribune , there is always an arbitrage section where they highlight, say, a particular electronic product and say how much it costs in Hong Kong, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, etc, and Singapore is always among the cheapest place to buy that particular product. But the differential in price between Singapore and the most expensive is really quite marginal. So you do not come to Singapore to buy a particular product, nor even by the way, because that product is on the Internet. At the click of the button, you get instant gratification. So what do they come to Singapore for? Not much actually. All 5-star hotels are the same, whether it is in Inner Mongolia, Dubai, Auckland or Santiago. They all look the same. If you check into a Sheraton, they look the same. If I blindfold you and fly you round the world and put you back into Singapore, you will think you are in Santiago.

Mr Lim Hng Kiang said that we must make the IR a place where tourists will regret not coming here. I believe it is something that we should aim for. Many years ago, when I was still teaching in the university, a few of us, together with one MP who is still in this House today,

decided to invest in Kuala Lumpur in an apartment. At a time where Singapore was saying, "let us go north and invest there", the growth triangle strategy.

Column:363

It was the worst investment of our lives. The capital value of the property in Kuala Lumpur tanked 30%-40%, even by today's standard. We bought it in the 1980s. The ringgit value fell 30%. Together, we have lost quite a fortune. Had I put the same money in the 1980s in Singapore, even with the housing downturn from 1997 to now, we would be much better off.

For a long time, we did not go to Kuala Lumpur. The apartments we had were gathering dust. We were just paying property taxes and the management fees. So we decided, since we could not sell, we might as well go and use the property. In the last few years, my family went up to stay together and we found KL a completely different place. What you can get in Singapore today, you can get in Kuala Lumpur, at half the price because of the ringgit exchange.

With their octopus-like network of highways, KL is now a very accessible city, very friendly. The Kuala Lumpur City Centre (KLCC) is really quite a piece of marvel. Those of you who have been to KLCC would know that from the KLCC, it just takes a 40-minute sprint to Genting on the uphill run. On the downhill run, because there are fewer cars and you can travel at higher speeds, it takes only 30 minutes. There is a non-stop highway that links KLCC to Genting Highlands. It is remarkable, and the highway is the best in Malaysia, four lanes on each side with very safe barriers.

The last time I visited Genting was last year, but before that, many years ago. So there was a gap for a long time. Genting has become a totally different place. Genting is now a theme park, an integrated resort of sorts. I call it a poor man's Disneyland. The rides are fabulous. The weather is excellent and the pricing is a fraction of what you might pay anywhere else, including Downtown East.

Column:364

Genting attracts 17 million people every year and a few millions must be from Singapore. Only half of them gamble in the casino. I have never been inside the casino in Genting. I do not know where it is, they have a few now. I only go to the theme park with my children, but most of the time, I am in mid-hill in the Awana region with my family because we like the cool weather.

But Genting is a success and many people benefit from Genting for short holidays. Those who do not gamble benefit a lot because the facilities are reasonably priced. In fact, I would say very cheap and it is very good value for money.

If we can copy Genting's formula, but upgrade it many notches up, Singapore, as an end-destination or an important transit stop, will go up many notches. It will benefit many Singapore families to have reasonably priced entertainment. Today, Singaporeans travel overseas for entertainment. There is a huge loss of revenue for us. If we can plough back some of those losses, I think we are all better off. We can do many more things.

We have heard of suicide problems and families in distress through gambling. That is true. I personally know a few. But I am sure we also know of families who run into problems because of unemployment. Newspapers highlighted some cases of people jumping down because they could not feed the family, not because of gambling. If we can strike a balance between helping those who are jobless or those who are unemployed by giving them higher value-added jobs and containing the social fallout, I think this integrated resort idea is worth pursuing. If we were to pursue the idea, we should do it well.

Finally, before I leave, many MPs who spoke against the casino or who expressed reservations about the IRs said,

Column:365

"Is this the last resort? Do we have any more ideas? Is this the end of the road for us?" I do not think so, but it is an important road for us to travel. You do not know which route will succeed. The life sciences road is a very difficult one to travel. But at the end of it, if we succeed, there will be a big pot of gold. But as in research, sometimes, when you want to find something, you cannot find it; when you do not want to find it, it is there.

Crick and Watson discovered DNA because they were doing something else. In fact, Crick was a PhD student in UCL where he was doing Physics. He was studying the viscosity of molecules. When the war came, his laboratory was demolished. He went away from London. Then, he went to Cambridge to do Chemistry. Through a series of accidents and directions from other scientists, he discovered DNA. So in the case of life sciences, we can put in money, we hope to get something, we have to try. It is not sure.

In manufacturing, what we can do, the Chinese can do better. It is a matter of time. The only concern is the intellectual property rights which we guard zealously. But over time, I think that advantage might be eroded. But at least, there is a tremendous advantage for us.

Why not go into the integrated resort? It is a legitimate business. The casino operators are also transparent. Every casino is not a swindling shop, in the sense that you do not know the odds. You know the odds. You know that the house always wins and for every game, the house advantage. It is a transparent and honest operation. Whether we enter the casino or not really depends on us.

MM said yesterday that whatever we can do, our neighbour would do, maybe do it even bigger. KL's International Airport at Sepang seems to be bigger. I have

Column:366

never been there as I always drive to Malaysia. But Changi Airport is still the number one, maybe because we are more efficient, but because we have the first mover advantage. We are the first airport hub in this part of the world, the sheer momentum that airlines and tourists come here.

What we can build, they can build, maybe better. But what they have, we do not have. It is a one-way traffic. Our advantage lies in the first mover advantage. We must move in first and do it well. If we do not do it first, I think we have lost it. If somebody else, for example, Bangkok, does an integrated resort, let us say, a fabulous one, and then we follow suit, I think our IR might not succeed the way it would, as is envisaged now.

The Prime Minister spoke of us being an efficient society, our water is so clean, there is no fish. He used the Chinese phrase, "水清无鱼" ( shui qing wu yu ). Let me tell you something that I heard. Three overseas students from different countries, one from Singapore, had lunch in Singapore. The Singapore student asked his friends. He said, "Come to Singapore. We should not meet once in a long while like that. Come here more often for holidays." One of his friends said, "Singapore is so clean, nothing to do. I come because you are my friend, "你们水清无鱼" ( ni men shui qing wu yu ). The Singaporean said, "It is not true. Once in a while, you put the line in, you can catch a fish." He said that in June, we have our Arts Festival and then we have our Great Singapore Sale in July - big fish. This guy said, "Well, I can consider coming in June, but other than that, you do not have much. What else do you have?" The second guy said, "Why do you not come to my country? 我们不是水清无鱼，我们是混水摸鱼 ( wo men bu shi shui qing wu yu, wo men shi hun shui mo yu ). So the Singaporean asked, "What do you mean by that?" He said, "Our water may not be as clean as

Column:367

yours, a little bit muddy, we are not as clinical, but the moment you put your hand in, you catch a fish, big one. There are fishes all year round. There is always something to do in my country. It is not just in June or July where you have big events. Come any time. Any time is a good time." The third friend said, "After having heard the two of you, I advise you not to come to my country, 因为我们鱼多无水 ( yin wei wo men yu duo wu shui ) . He said, "We have so many fishes that they are struggling to get into the water." What he is trying to say is that they have so many events, day and night, all year round, and you will have problems booking the hotels and airlines. The roads will be choked with cars, shopping centres, with the cash registers ringing, will deafen your ears. Of course, it is an exaggeration, but in one place, you have so many people, it is hard to book a hotel and this is a real city. The second example is that they have events all year round. And here, we have mega events once in a while.

When the Esplanade was built, many of us hope that it would be an icon in Singapore, that tourists would come to see Singapore because of the Esplanade.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Prof. Koo, can you please sum up now? You have used up much of your time.

Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: Many people want to go to Australia just to see the Opera House, not to see the play inside there. But the icon is a beautiful piece of architecture. It has attracted a lot of overseas tourists, but it is not enough. It is not the icon that people recognise as an icon. We need a real icon that attracts thousands or millions of people to come to Singapore. Why? Why do you come here? Because it is there.

The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I know that this is a subject which many

Column:368

Members feel very passionate about. I hope they can make their speeches brief so that they can sustain our attention.