EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion)

Column: 368

EXEMPTED BUSINESS:

(Motion): Resolved,

That the proceedings on the Proposal to Develop Integrated Resorts be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 2." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Column: 368

PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP INTEGRATED RESORTS: Debate resumed.

Mr Lawrence Leow Chin Hin (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the Government's decision to proceed with the two Integrated Resorts (IRs).

From a business standpoint, there is no reason to object to the two IR projects as they are expected to bring in a total investment of $5 billion, create some 35,000 jobs and fuel the growth of the tourism industry with spin-offs for the other business sectors.

The economic benefits are substantial. Our economy, particularly the tourism and related sectors like retail and F&B, is in need of a booster. And now, it will come in the form of the IRs. SMEs in these sectors will benefit from the impetus and new opportunities the IRs will bring.

As an economy that is not well-endowed with natural resources, we have to work extra hard to stay competitive and attractive. The IR projects will certainly help to enhance our attractiveness as a business and tourist hub in this region.

While there have been a lot of concerns expressed in respect of the social ills that may accompany the casinos in these IRs, which I would acknowledge are valid concerns, we must trust that the Government

Column:369

would put in place measures to tackle these potential problems. Apart from a proven track record of making sound decisions, our Government is also known to be prudent and conservative in its governance. If one were to consider the fact that even chewing gum has been banned here, it must really mean something for the Government to want to allow casinos in Singapore.

I would say it is a decision which is easier to make against than for, and it is a decision that has been made for, and for the long-term good of Singapore. It is a decision that places greater emphasis on the long-term economic outlook over the potential social cost that may arise out of the casinos, and rightly so. After all, a frail economy would bring about many other forms of social problems. Hence, focusing on building a strong economy has always to be a priority.

I am convinced that the Government would put in place appropriate measures and safeguards to minimise and contain the negative social impact of the casinos. Besides, the casinos are only part of the IRs and there would be entertainment and leisure facilities in these resorts to enrich the social lives and recreational experience of Singaporeans. In this regard, the IRs would also have some positive contribution to the social lives of Singaporean families and that, to a certain extent, would help to mitigate the negative social impact of the casinos.

Sir, I am, therefore, pleased that the Government is proceeding with the IRs.

Dr Tan Boon Wan (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, I support the decision to proceed with the two integrated resorts.

We are moving fast into a new and different era. Singapore cannot continue to do what it had been doing. This does

Column:370

not mean that we have to discard what we have, but we must be prepared to review our position, to modify, add and subtract where necessary. In the process, that differences will arise among our people will be inevitable, but we must not allow this to paralyse nor divide us as a nation. We should look at an issue holistically, evaluating its pros and cons, and rationally make the decision based on the overall long-term interests of Singapore. This, I believe, is and should be the basis of the IR decision and all other decisions.

Ever since the idea of an integrated resort was recently raised, each group has looked at it from its own perspective. Those against it have focused on the anti-social aspects of the gaming component, while those for it have focused on the economic benefits. On Monday, the Prime Minister had brought the various threads together, providing a holistic picture of the issue and explaining the Government's decision. I am sure that with this exposition, many more Singaporeans are able to reconcile their differences.

Sir, I am persuaded by the merits of the projects. Let me recall what resonates most when the Prime Minister spoke on Monday.

The world has changed. Our uniqueness has been eroded. We cannot remain as we were without losing our competitiveness. The integrated resort is part of our overall strategy to stay relevant in this new world. It is only a part, but it is an important part. Furthermore, the gaming portion, the casino, though critical to the success of the IR, is itself a very small part physically, not more than 3-5% of the total physical area.

One of the most persuasive arguments is that the projects are supported by renowned international companies that see the tourism potential in the region, and are prepared to invest $4-5 billion of

Column:371

their own money, without any subsidy from the Government. This is a lot of money and reflects the seriousness that they took of the IRs.

If Singapore rejects the projects, they will build them somewhere nearby. In a globalised world, with easy low cost travel, more people will travel and Singaporeans who want to gamble will find their way there. Hence, we will still be confronted with the problems associated with gambling, but without the ability to manage the problems and benefiting from the other beneficial aspects of the integrated resorts, such as, with more travellers coming through Changi airport, the latter will consolidate and confirm its hub status and SIA will find further growth.

The integrated resorts will add buzz to the city. They will not only do this, but I believe that they will initiate a mindset change among Singaporeans, a renaissance that will arouse and create buzz for the whole of Singapore. It will set up a chain reaction that will permeate the buzz throughout the system. I am confident that it will open up Singapore in both the physical and abstract sense, and will be seen to be so in the eyes of both Singaporeans and the world. I am also confident that Singapore will become a much nicer place to live as a result of this decision. We will have new infrastructure, facilities, events and activities to enjoy, things that we would not have without the integrated resorts. For example, through the involvement of the international companies, we will have quality international shows on our doorsteps. As an MP, I have been privileged to see the various submissions, and like my fellow MPs, I believe that the infrastructure will be iconic and will transform our skyline and add buzz to the city.

The IRs will create many jobs, ones that our less-skilled people can do. On

Column:372

many late MPS nights, many of my residents have waited to see me, to seek my help to find jobs. They are overwhelmed with debts and arrears, worries about where their next meals will come from, embarrassment of being reminded of debts by their relatives, or worse, harassment by loan-sharks, the inconvenience of having the utility supplies disconnected, sadness by their inability to give pocket money to their children, to send their children to school, family quarrels and problems, just to name a few. These social problems, the sense of hopelessness, the desperation, the despair, are probably similar, and as bad as those faced by compulsive gamblers. They said, "Give me financial help, but better still, give me a job." Many were working in factories that had relocated. But output from the manufacturing sector has not shrunk. New manufacturing jobs are being created, but these are out of their reach. Only the well-educated need to apply. I believe that the service sector, especially the tourism sector, will be a good employer for many of our less-skilled. The integrated resort will be an important driver of our tourism sector. A tourist who comes to the resort uses not only the services of the resort but will visit other parts of Singapore, shop, travel, etc. Many jobs will be created for Singaporeans as a result of the integrated resorts.

Sir, the social ills associated with gambling are serious and we must not trivialise them. Personally, I am concerned about the anti-social effects of gambling, but given the tremendous benefits that the resorts promised, could we have rejected the IR projects especially when we could take steps to minimise their downside? With the decision to proceed, have those who opposed the integrated resorts lost their arguments? I say not. If you ask them whether they agree with the economic benefits, I am sure that to a man, or woman, the answer is "yes". But they see the social ills as over-riding to

Column:373

their opposition to the projects. I personally do not have interest in gambling and I am aware of the associated social problems. But it is an activity that will not go away. To most, it is merely a form of entertainment. It is not in itself a bad activity as long as participants do not allow themselves to be carried away by it. Like most things, excesses are bad. I am thus happy with the strong measures that the Government has incorporated into the IRs to contain the ill effects. This development has also strengthened my support for the projects. This is where I give credit to those who spoke out against the casino. I am sure that their strong advocacy against the ills of gambling has strengthened the measures and efforts that have been put in place to contain the adverse effects of gambling on our people. For this, the anti-camp has made their presence felt and we should thank them for voicing strongly their concerns.

Sir, like my fellow MPs, the response by our people to the IR projects has made me very proud of them. We have shown the world that we are not the docile and passionless people that we were made out to be. We have shown that when it comes to issues and matters that are important to us, we can and will make our voices heard. On this issue, both the pro- and anti-sides have their own good reasons for the stands that they took. In deciding the matter, the Government has taken both views and made a decision that takes into account both of them and is in the overall and long-term interest of Singapore. In so doing, both sides have their positions acknowledged, though not entirely addressed, but to the extent possible. Let us accept the decision, close rank as a people, unite and move on to tackle many other issues that still await and confront us.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (Hong Kah): Sir, this morning, as I was driving my two

Column:374

younger children to school, my 15-year old son remarked, "So mum, we are going to have two gambling dens!" To which my 11-year old daughter added, "Yes, one at Sentosa and the other at Marina!".

Sir, I was somewhat taken aback by these remarks, but regaining my composure, I went on to explain that, "No, we are not having two gambling dens, but two integrated resorts, each with a casino component."

I told them that put simply, if we do not allow the casino component, then they cannot look forward to having theme parks, like Universal Studios, right at our doorstep. Singaporeans would have less business and fewer jobs. But, "As children, mummy and daddy will not allow you to visit the casino, and even when you grow up and are allowed into the casino, you should avoid gambling as far as possible."

Sir, my children understand what casinos are. Last December, I brought them to Disneyland in Anaheim and Universal Studies in LA. Then, as I had wanted to have a look at Las Vegas to better understand the type of IRs we are considering, I also brought them to Las Vegas.

When we were there, we did not gamble. We visited the shops. We went to the games arcade at New York, New York and Circus Circus. The children liked the newer IRs, like Bellagio and Venetian, as they were very grand and beautifully designed, with spectacular water features and great shopping and eating outlets. But

Column:375

they did not like the casinos, with the slot machines and gaming tables, which were literally just right behind most of the hotel lobbies, and which they often had to walk through to get to the other facilities. Many of the casinos were also smoke-filled, because smoking was allowed. The negatives outweighed the excitement, and because of that, my children told me that they did not like Las Vegas, and given a choice, would not want to go there again for a holiday.

Sir, children could be a little confused by this - unable to reconcile what we preach about the ills of gambling and the fact that we will be having casinos on our own shores.

Sir, this is also likely to be one of the key arguments of many anti-casino lobbyists like Mr Fong Hoe Fang, the pioneer of Facts (Families Against the Casino Threat in Singapore). Sir, for them it is not just about the destructive effects of compulsive gambling, but also the moral imperative of our value systems. As Mr Fong noted to the press, "We say one thing and do another. We tell our children gambling is bad, but how are we to answer them when they ask why a casino is allowed in Singapore?"

Sir, I empathise with Mr Fong, and many others like him, as these are genuine concerns and cannot be trivialised. Sir, now that we have decided to go ahead with the IRs with a casino component, we should, among others, kick-start our public education campaign right away.

The public education campaigns launched must be intensive and should at least start from the upper primaries. It should highlight the social ills of gambling and inculcate positive work attitudes. It should target particularly our young, help them understand why we need to allow casinos on our shores, even though we preach against gambling and its ill effects. Besides the schools, parents and religious leaders must, of course, also be involved to reinforce the values we want to inculcate in Singaporeans.

Sir, Mr Fong and some others have expressed the sentiment that they do not think their views have made a difference. Sir, to Mr Fong and others like him, I want to say that I believe they are mistaken and

Column:376

I want to thank them for their efforts. I think that if it were not for their passionate voices, we might not have had such a comprehensive set of social safeguards and multi-pronged approach laid out by no less than three Ministries to address problem gambling.

The Minister for MCYS has pledged that MCYS will enforce the social safeguards strictly and will not compromise on these safeguards at any point in time,

just to improve the economic viability of the casinos. The Health Minister has called upon the IMH to start beefing up its capabilities and expertise to deal with problem gambling and to benchmark itself against the best treatment centres in the world. The Minister for Home Affairs has also pledged that he will do everything possible to minimise any negative impact which may arise from the integrated resorts with casinos.

Hence, I want to say to Mr Fong and others like him, that they should not lose heart, their views do matter a great deal and the missionary zeal they have shown over this issue is a positive sign of a maturing citizenry and civil society that cares for Singapore's future, and wants to play a part in shaping public policies. Active citizens like them could continue to play a role in the future as watchdog on our value systems when other equally difficult and emotive issues arise.

Sir, like many others, I also abhor the whole idea of gambling on both moral principles and religious grounds. I have never gambled at casinos, not even at the one-arm bandits or one-finger muggers, as they are aptly called. I view sitting at the jackpot machine a waste of precious time and cannot see how one can get thrilled over what is almost a certain prospect of losing one's hard earned money in the casinos!

There is a wise Chinese saying which goes " shi du jiu shu ", ie, gamble 10 times

Column:377

lose nine times. In fact, I would even venture to say " shi du quan shu ", ie, gamble 10 times lose all the time, since, as we learn from Chia Teck Leng, the house always wins.

Even though MCYS' recent survey shows the incidence of pathological gambling to be 2.1%, which is comparable to those in Hong Kong and Macau, this is still 2.1% too high. Having casinos on our own soil would conceivably lead to an increase in this percentage, although no one can be sure of the extent of any such increase. But, Sir, having been a real estate professional in my previous incarnation, I am also fully aware that for some time now, both the Government and the private sector are looking at ways to attract more tourists, but they have largely been unsuccessful.

When I was a lecturer at NUS, I used to be in charge of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' training scheme for government officials from developing countries, including China. That was in the late 1990s. Even back then, the Chinese officials would tell me that they came to Singapore to learn about our tax systems, our public housing programme, and so on. But when all the official business was over, they would go to Bangkok, Pattaya and Genting to have fun. They told me that Bangkok, and not Singapore, is a shopping paradise as the goods in Singapore are too expensive. I believe what was true 10 years ago is more true - if there is such a phrase - now. Hence, we have lost our edge as a shopping paradise.

In year 2000, I was involved in a study to evaluate the level of interest of local and foreign developers in developing iconic urban entertainment centres in Singapore that will help to draw visitors and add buzz to the entertainment scene. Urban entertainment centres (or UECs)

Column:378

may be said to be a precursor of the large scale integrated resorts we are currently considering. Even in year 2000, the urban entertainment industry was still relatively new but rapidly evolving.

The response to our survey done in conjunction with a US counterpart was at best lukewarm, with only a handful of local and foreign developers, who said that they may consider developing such a project. Their main concerns were, as expected, our high land cost, as well as whether such a project could draw the overseas crowds to make it viable, since the local market catchment is too small. Even reducing the length of the land lease from 99 years to 60 years or 30 years did not significantly improve the financial viability of the project.

I have also been involved in several other projects where potential overseas and local investors have looked at developing large scale theme parks but, without exception, all have concluded that it would be difficult to make such projects viable, without heavy state subsidies. All these projects, of course, did not have a casino component. It would therefore be difficult to attract investors to develop such large scale integrated projects that require substantial capital commitments to the tune of billions of dollars, if their risks are not mitigated in part by the potential revenue from having a casino component.

The integrated resorts with casinos are clearly not the panacea to all our woes. However, I think it is like the icing to an otherwise plain looking but well baked cake, to make it that much more enticing for tourists, investors and foreign talent alike.

The integrated resorts will enhance our efforts that we have made to restructure the economy, such as increasing our focus on the financial services and logistics sector and attempting to improve the tourism sector. Hence, whilst I am

Column:379

against gambling and the casino per se, I understand that if we want to reclaim some of the tourism pie, create new jobs, boost our economy, and stay in the competition, we would have to go ahead with the IRs incorporating a casino component.

So, would having casinos detract from the value of Singapore's brand name as a safe, reliable, well-run country, with a high standard of morality and work ethic, which this Government itself has spent the last 40 years building?

Sir, I believe that having the two IRs with casinos is unlikely to be seen to signal that we have abandoned our virtues of a clean and efficient government, a well-run and well-ordered country. Indeed, having made the decision to proceed, rather than tarnishing the brand capital that is Singapore, the signal we should be sending out is that the best and safest place in the world to have a casino is right here. In fact, Singapore's reputation for a clean government and strict regulation is what makes it so attractive to large IR companies looking for expansion in Asia. Furthermore, far from creating a dent in Singapore's image, most analysts expect this move to go a long way towards changing Singapore's image as a sterile environment into a more "with it" happening place, sufficiently alluring to the talent and capital of the world.

Personally, Sir, I am glad we had rejected the casino idea when it was first brought up in 1985, as back then we would likely have ended up with, what my son would call, a gambling den, if we had allowed a casino then. Because IRs of the scale that we are considering now have not been conceptualised at that point in time.

Again, speaking based on my experience as a real estate professional, I support the Government's decision to have two IRs, instead of one. Whilst I do

Column:380

not believe that the social costs would necessarily double with two casinos, from a real estate point of view, I think the benefits which the two IRs together can provide are likely to be greater than the sum of the parts.

Sentosa badly needs an iconic IR project with theme parks, spectacular waterfront and exciting architecture, which can give it the enchantment and the "wow" factor it needs, to put it back on the list of "must see" attractions, and make it a popular repeat destination for both tourists and locals.

The Marina Bayfront IR, on the other hand, with its mix of convention, retail, food and beverage outlets, entertainment facilities and so on, would quite nicely complement and, indeed, enrich the existing mega developments in the areas such as Suntec City, Marina Square, the Esplanade, as well as future developments in the new Downtown, the Marina Barrage and the second Botanical Gardens. The IR should give the whole area a boost and will act as the catalyst for the development of the entire area, including the massive BFC project.

Having seen some of the proposals submitted for the two sites, I must say that I am thrilled by a number of the proposals which exhibit truly creative and visionary architectural designs and concepts. These proposals should result in iconic developments displaying great architecture, which many experts and laymen alike have often lamented Singapore sorely lacks and needs. In fact, at one recent dialogue I had with students from the NUS, a student actually lamented that our landscape and our architecture are boring. He said that even the Durian is not enough.

Sir, the economic benefits of the IRs, as estimated by the Government, are immense. However, careful execution of

Column:381

the IRs is needed if these envisioned benefits are to be realised, otherwise our vision may just become one big headache! The Government will need to apply the same meticulous and methodical approach it has used to arrive at the casino gaming decision to the evaluation of the request for proposals.

I would urge that the evaluation panel for the subsequent detailed proposals insists on one of a kind concepts, sensitive to our urban setting and tropical climate, instead of a replica of other projects elsewhere, however grandiose. This would then truly make the IRs "Uniquely Singapore". Apart from the design and design expertise, the evaluation panel should also focus on the business sustainability and the track record of continuous innovation to keep the crowds coming back.

Sir, to deal with the concern that the IRs might not be able to adequately draw a large enough foreign clientele, I urge that in the next step of the evaluation and selection process, attention should be paid to detailed analysis of the business case put forward by the bidders - their projections and how they propose to draw the foreign clientele and visitors needed for the casino and the IR.

It is imperative that the IR operators have the international marketing prowess to pull in the tourists, upon which the success of the IRs hinges. Otherwise, the IRs would merely be cannibalising existing businesses.

The condition that no more than 50% of the revenue should come from gaming operations (otherwise there will be a hefty surcharge) as well as the fact that the IRs are wholly private sector investments (ie, zero subsidies from the state) are good, as they should spur the IR operators to work hard to attract foreign clientele. The

Column:382

STB should work together with the IR operators both before and after the opening of these projects to market the IRs overseas and attract the tourists. Both can derive synergies by pooling their resources to market the projects and Singapore.

Finally, Sir, there is worry that a large proportion of the 35,000 new jobs created might go to foreigners, as even now there appears to be many foreigners working in the hotels, F&B and other retail outlets. The first comment one of my grassroots made when the IR announcement was made on Monday was, "Can we make sure that more of our locals would bag the 35,000 new jobs created?"

Sir, as Singaporeans could suffer from some of the incremental social costs, the Government has the duty to ensure that Singaporeans will benefit most from the economic gains, including the jobs created. MOM, through WDA, NTUC and the CDCs, and perhaps even the IR operators when the IRs are awarded, could work together to design and provide skills training for the jobs which will be created by the IRs. This will help to ensure that there will be a ready pool of local workers to take up the jobs offered by the IRs.

Sir, I also fully support the call by my parliamentary colleague, Mr Gan Kim Yong, as well as Straits Times journalist Ong Soh Chin for us to ensure that Singaporeans will be able to provide world class service commensurate with the world class architecture and entertainment we will be developing.

We must change the mindsets and attitudes of Singaporeans towards the service industry and equip them with the skills necessary for them to provide high quality world class service in the retail, leisure and entertainment industry. In fact, just as we would need to benchmark our

Column:383

containment measures against the best in the world, and do even better, we must also benchmark our IR operations and the services we provide against the best in the world and strive to top them, to create compelling success stories, like what we have done in the case of SIA.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in many ways, the economic imperative compels us to take such a decision on the IRs. I support the decision to go ahead with the IRs, but with adequate safeguards to deal with the social fallout. Of course, the decision can be construed by moral purists as sacrificing long-cherished values at the altar of mammon. But that is really putting it too starkly and simplistically. If mammon can be had, and its demons held at bay, why not? Hence, the key to the political success of the two IRs lies, in my view, in the containment measures to minimise the social ill consequences.

The decision to proceed is only the beginning of a major calculated game - pardon the pun - we have taken for the long term economic well-being of the nation. Like all bets, no one can be sure if this will turn out well in the long run, although the odds seem to be in the favour of this decision now. Much work needs to be done to enhance the chance of success, maximise the benefits and minimise the costs, which should not be trivialised.

Although this decision is not a unanimous one, my sense is that if put to a national referendum, the ayes will outnumber the nays. Whatever our stand, ultimately, we are collectively responsible for the long term good of Singapore and, hence, I urge all Singaporeans to work together with the Government to make this succeed, both economically and socially, now that the decision has been taken. This is a calculated gamble which we can scarcely afford to lose.

Sir, I support the decision.

Column:384

Mr Ang Mong Seng (Hong Kah): ( In Mandarin ): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since Mr George Yeo raised the idea of an integrated resort with a casino, it has given rise to a big debate in Singapore, and some even suggested that we should hold a referendum to decide on the issue. Like many Singaporeans, I am also concerned about the IR proposal and the subsequent debate.

As a Member of Parliament, I need to understand how our people and my constituents feel about an IR. Hence, I conducted a total of four surveys on four separate occasions. The first one was a survey at a dinner after a golf game where 91% were in favour and a very small percentage of those present were against the idea. The second occasion was a martial arts "wushu" event attended by about 600 people; about 85% were in favour and about 10% against. Next, I set up a neighbourhood committee of about 50 people from all stations of life, and about 82% supported the idea while 12% were against. The last survey was during Minister Yeo Cheow Tong's visit to our constituency. The Minister explained the rationale to the Malay, Chinese and Indian residents who were present. A survey conducted thereafter showed that about 92% of the people were in favour and 6% were against. All these four surveys show that an average of about 87% of the people from different walks of life were in favour of the IR, including a casino. With such a high percentage of support from the people, we know that for a small country like Singapore to compete internationally, we should have some breakthrough projects to lay the foundation for greater competitiveness.

Recently, I went on a business trip to China and saw for myself the rapid transformation in China. A friend of mine suggested visiting Xin Tian Di which is a very famous tourist attraction in

Column:385

Shanghai. He was under the impression that as long as we could find the large public park next to it, we would be able to locate it. We walked for almost half an hour, yet we were unable to find it. Eventually, we asked some passers-by for the way, and we were told it was right in front of us. We found that the original park had already made way for many high-rise buildings, so much so that it has become unrecognisable. The site of Xin Tian Di used to be some low-rise buildings with low economic value. The Shanghainese converted them into restaurants. With the establishment of Xin Tian Di , it brought about the economic development of the surrounding areas. This shows that the Shanghainese are full of creativity and they are capable of reforming and reinventing themselves. If this were in Singapore, I do not think our people would be so creative. The Chinese people are very bold in creating, reinventing and innovating. If we want to convert the ordinary shops and buildings into a big restaurant, it would not be so easy. So the rapid development of Shanghai is well known to all.

China, with about 35 provinces and hundreds of cities and towns, is developing faster than us. Singapore is very small, in many ways, we cannot compete with China. Nonetheless, we have to compete not only with China as a nation, we also have to compete with each and every one of its provinces and cities. So we have to change our way of doing things. Otherwise, we would be left behind.

Singaporeans are more conservative and as the Teochews say, "If one's grip is too loose, the bird will fly away. Yet, if the grip is too tight, the bird will be killed." This is how conservative we are. So we have not been able to develop Singapore as rapidly as Shanghai or Shengyang. After visiting the lift companies in Shanghai and Shenyang, I asked

Column:386

a Director of the Shanghai lift company what the company's strengths were. He told me that whatever features other companies had, so did they. However, what his company had, the others might not have. This is very enlightening. Since there are many IRs outside Singapore, if we want to build one or two in Singapore, we have to build something different from the others. Whatever others have, we should have too. But what we have, they may not have. So we must have something unique in Singapore to attract and compete with others.

As to whether the IR must necessarily contain a casino, it is very controversial. Genting in Malaysia has been around for more than 20 years now, and Penang is also planning to open a casino. The Philippines and Indonesia already have casinos. Last year, I went to Hanoi, Vietnam. It is a communist country. I stayed in a hotel run by Singaporeans. I asked one of them whether there was any casino in Hanoi. He told me that there was a casino in the basement of the hotel. They had a casino! There were a lot of jackpot machines and some gaming devices.

Last month, I went to Ho Chi Minh City and there were casinos operated by Singaporeans. Thailand is also considering setting up a casino. There are casinos in Europe, Macau, Australia, South East Asia, and many other countries.

Mr Low Thia Khiang asked yesterday: if we do not have a casino, will our economy just collapse? The answer is definitely no. Because we have a good Government to manage the country, he can be reassured of a well-run country. If we decide not to have an IR, with a casino, all these excellent projects would be diverted to other neighbouring countries. Five years, 10 years, 15 years later, what would happen? The problems we worry about will appear in Singapore. So we have to prepare before the rainy days

Column:387

come. We should not wait until the rainy days come, as by then it will be too late. We cannot start digging for a well only when we are thirsty. Setting up a high class IR will lay the foundation for our further development so that we will have more job opportunities. I believe the Singapore Government is farsighted. If we do not build the IR with the casino, of course, we may not collapse right away. But if we have the IR, we will have more economic benefits and create 35,000 more jobs for our people. Some people say that if you have an IR including a casino, you must make sure that it brings in a lot of investments, otherwise the economic benefits may not be adequate to pay for the social costs incurred. If it is well managed, it will contribute much benefits to our country, the operators and our people. It will be a win-win situation for all concerned.

Sir, right now, the tourist arrivals are declining. Why is that? Because we lack new attractions. We cannot get tourists to come to Singapore. Those who have already come, may not come again. In other words, there will be very few repeat tourist arrivals. We know that China and India are very large sources of tourist arrivals. If we have these people coming from China and India, then we will be able to increase our tourism revenue. In the past, the Chinese tourists visited Thailand, Malaysia and then Singapore. Now, we realise that when they come to Singapore, their spending is very little. That is because after they have been to Thailand and Malaysia, they would have already spent most of their money in these two countries. So the Tourism Board tried to reverse the situation by letting the Chinese tourists come to Singapore first and then go to Malaysia and Thailand. But the situation did not change. When they come to Singapore, the Chinese tourists think that they had better keep their money in their pockets for better bargains in Malaysia and Thailand. They are buying so many things using the Chinese

Column:388

currency Renminbi that our hawkers are now accepting Renminbi . Many of my Chinese business friends told me that after completing their business affairs, they would be travelling to Malaysia, Australia and Macau. I asked them why they were in such a hurry to get out of Singapore. They said that there were many exciting tourist attractions in these countries, and they also wanted to try their luck in the casinos there. I feel that Genting in Malaysia is one of the good attractions for tourists to visit Malaysia.

We believe that we will get eight million tourist arrivals this year, but our new target is 16 million. Our other attractions like the Bird Park, Sentosa and Night Safari have already lost their lustre. Since we do not have new attractions, we must have something else to attract the tourists. We know that the world is changing very fast. We must try harder and charge into the new world where we can compete globally. What I want to emphasise is that the main idea of IR is to attract tourists who can spend more money in our country. It is said that the Chinese people spend about $600 million a year on gambling overseas. We will have many other facilities in the IR, apart from the casino, so that we can also attract our local visitors. Some people said that they go to Las Vegas but not to gamble, like Mr Chan Soo Sen, who highlighted to me that in the United States, one pays an average of US$100 per night for an ordinary hotel and about US$20 for breakfast but at Las Vegas, he stayed comfortably at a hotel for US$50 per night and paid only $5 for breakfast. This is only half the usual price. I believe if Singapore has an IR with good brand name, the operators will use the same kind of concessions to attract the tourists to stay in the integrated resorts. Singaporeans should learn from Mr Chan Soo Sen to take advantage of the low hotel rates. We must have a lot of facilities, hotels with special concessions for Singaporean visitors. They do not have to

Column:389

go for a short holiday overseas. They can spend their money in Singapore. There will be an even greater economic impact.

Must the integrated resort necessarily include a casino? That is a controversial question. For example, if we go to an ordinary restaurant and order a $200 set meal which does not include abalone, it is like spending $10 million or $20 million to build a simple integrated resort without a casino. However, if we go to a high-class restaurant and order a $2,000 dinner and it does not include abalone, then the dinner would lose its lustre, like a billion dollar integrated resort without a casino. If we invest billions of dollars in the IRs, but without a casino, it is doubtful whether the business will be viable for the operators. I believe that the operators' investments may amount to billions of dollars and the ultimate objective is to have good business and make good profits, and the Government will be able to get some tax revenues from these benefits.

Minister Lim Boon Heng also mentioned the NTUC Clubs. They are all viable because of the revenues from the jackpot rooms. Without the jackpot machines to support them, the NTUC Clubs will have to close down long ago. So, we all know that the casino in the IR plays a very important role in contributing to revenue. We have already stressed that the IR, including a casino, is for attracting foreign tourists and not locals. These integrated resorts in Singapore, of course, will hopefully attract high-spending tourists and they will also boost our other industries like transportation, hotels, retail and so on. The IR will also help develop much of the software for our tourism business and attract mega conventions and meetings to Singapore. We know that we will be able to enhance our reputation and create 35,000 new jobs.

Column:390

Mr Chiam See Tong asked whether all these jobs will be taken up by Singaporeans. Of course, we will have this opportunity to employ more Singaporeans. I am sure that MOM or NTUC will provide various training opportunities to our people to equip them with the necessary skills to take up as many of these 35,000 jobs as possible. Even if we cannot take up 100% of the jobs, 60% of the jobs would provide 20,000 jobs for Singaporeans. Now, our working population is about two million. 20,000 will mean about 1%. We all know that we have 3.5% unemployment rate. If we can reduce it by even 1%, our unemployment rate will be at 2.5%, and Singapore would achieve a full employment rate. With the 20,000 jobs available, is it a big or small number? Let me give you an example.

Recently, due to the problem of unemployment, especially among the elderly, we set up a working committee in my Town Council with a big budget, and as a result we created about 600 new jobs to cater to our lowly-educated and older workers. With 600 jobs, is it a big number? Of course, to you it is not very big. But we put in a lot of effort, consideration and hard work to create these 600 jobs. So, I think 20,000 is a very large number. It is a great breakthrough.

Sir, when Minister Lim Boon Heng mentioned the 35,000 jobs created, he became very, very emotional because, as the Minister in charge of trade unions, his responsibility is to create more jobs for our workers. We can appreciate his sentiments. He wants to create more jobs for our Singaporeans. So, if we decide not to build an IR with a casino, then our job opportunities will be zero. So, it is zero versus 35,000. I think this is a potentially huge contribution to the creation of more jobs and employment.

Of course, the opening of these casinos may bring about some social problems. Many MPs have already spoken

Column:391

about it. So I do not want to go into this anymore. But I want to emphasise that I support the Government's proposal to set up a gambling council to mitigate the social costs in the same way that we have the drug council to look after drug addicts. Gambling addiction can also be treated. So we will go through different channels to educate our people to ensure that they do not fall into the problem of gambling addiction. Through schools, we will also educate our children to have proper attitudes. Next is community education. Mass education to educate our people on the ills of gambling may be conducted via the grassroots organisations. We all know that you cannot win when you gamble. We must inculcate this in our students. Next, is to go through religious education to teach the children not to take up gambling, not to become gamblers and gambling addicts. So, religious bodies will make their followers understand the ills of gambling, so that they understand that the IR is built to attract foreigners and not to attract our locals to become gamblers.

Sir, we must let Singaporeans know that the casinos are to cater to foreigners whom we want to attract to Singapore to boost our tourism and related industries. They are not meant for the locals. Of course, we cannot ensure that all Singaporeans can be prevented from going into the casinos. As a small country, we have to do our best to face the competition. We cannot remain with the status quo. We must seek to make a breakthrough. We must be bold enough to accept the challenges and to look squarely at the changes surrounding us. We have to think of ways and means to succeed and we should not find excuses for our failures. Only then will we be able to consolidate our position as a hub and to contribute to our continued progress.

Mr Wee Siew Kim (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate.

Column:392

The proposal to build an integrated resort with a casino has attracted much discussion from Singaporeans of all walks of life. The detractors are vehemently opposed, many for good reasons. Many have seen close members of their families afflicted by gambling woes and are permanently scarred. Many, from their religious or familial values, cannot even bring themselves to see any other possibility. Others dread that Brand Singapore would be irretrievably damaged. There is only one expectation - that Singapore will never be the same again.

A week ago, a Secondary 3 student told me that she would deeply miss the Singapore she had grown up in. She feared that when she grows up, she would inherit a Singapore that is a less desirable place to live in. Contrary to what one may expect from a young person, she is not interested in a hip and happening glitter land. Buzz is not important to her. Her vision for Singapore is that of an incorruptible nation with high moral values and a strong social fabric. If it is a little staid and restrictive compared to other countries, the benefits far outweigh the costs. She said that her generation would have to pay a heavy price for the lifting of restrictions on gambling. She dreaded the accompanying vice activities. A Pandora's box would have been opened.

But, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the economics is compelling. We live in a rapidly changing world, one that would pass us by, if we do not adapt and not only keep pace, but leap ahead of others. Globalisation is here to stay. Large numbers of Singaporeans travel on a regular basis. Keeping our borders sanitised and sterile no longer offers the guarantee of immunity that we enjoyed in the less connected world of the past. Avoidance is no longer an option. We might as well take the benefits and manage and mitigate the risks. That would be the pragmatic approach, the same pragmatic approach that has brought us thus far.

Column:393

I believe that if there is any country that can attempt to soak in the benefits of the IR and casino, alleviate the potential ill effects on its citizens, and project a vice-free image to the world, Singapore can. This bold statement can only be made in the light of what we have achieved in the past 40 years. Hence, allowing a casino today signifies a belief that our reputation, our systems, our whole national psyche are robust enough to take in this new development. We have all heard the measures that are being put in place to handle and remedy the concerns of many Singaporeans. I believe that they are all well thought out. In order that the concerns of the Secondary 3 girl and many other Singaporeans are well attended to, let me implore the Government to be resolute in its implementation and thorough in their execution. It is going to be an unrelenting task that has no end point.

Like many hon. Members who have spoken before me, the acceptance of an IR with a casino is a gradual one for me. Over the course of the past year, I began to accept that it is worthwhile doing, as long as the safeguards are in place. Hearing from MHA, MCYS and MOH Ministers gave me a substantial measure of comfort.

We are all well aware of the potential social costs. What I think many people fail to acknowledge, that even now the IR has yet to reach our shores, the social costs of gambling are already being borne by society. We must be careful not to under-estimate these costs. We must be unsparing of the manpower, financial and other resources to mitigate the negative consequences. Gambling and its woes had always been around, and even as the presence of the casinos would see an increase in the level of affliction, I believe that it is only now that substantial

Column:394

resources would be applied to address this problem. This, in itself, is a great improvement from the scant attention that is paid to the existence of pathological gamblers. On top of what had been announced, I am very happy to note that the Government is putting aside a portion of the revenue from the casinos and channelling these funds to charities and grassroots organisations for programmes to help gambling addicts and their families.

55,000 potential problem gamblers is a frightening number. 55,000 families in crises would be devastating. As part of the many-helping-hands, the VWOs and GROs should be geared up to lend a hand. I urge the Government to derive a formula which would ensure a generous and sustainable flow of funds from the casino revenue to our GROs and community causes.

From the little that I have seen and heard about the IR proposals, I dare say that the two IRs would remake our city. These are premium proposals undertaken by the most savvy of operators. The resulting product would appeal to a wide audience. It would be one more piece of the mosaic that would lend credence to our aspiration to be a Global Metropolis, one of several Global Cities that would be the key centres of business, culture, entertainment and for living

a real magnet for the movers and shakers, a haven where wealth is made.

There are risks, but as the decision is made, how our society will turn out depends wholly on the implementation. Executed well, Brand Singapore would be enhanced. To the Secondary 3 student who had spoken to me a week ago and who boldly voiced her fears, Singapore could possibly turn out even more desirable - great jobs and opportunities for our next generation. But, she, like every Singaporean, has a part to play.

Column:395

With this, Sir, I support the Prime Minister's statement.

Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani (Hong Kah): Sir, the decision on this issue was not unanimous, but it had to be made. Now, we have to move on. In moving on, we should consider the arguments raised prior to the decision and those raised in this debate. This helps us to conduct our moving on in a wiser way.

Over the last 12 months, like many MPs, I sought the views of many people. I had also expressed my views in informal gatherings, dialogues and sessions with Ministers, though not always publicly. Among the residents in my constituency, my sense is that slightly more than half, but visibly so, approve of the IR. They are not pro-gambling. They think that if we have an IR with a small casino facility, with safeguards to minimise its social ills, with many more jobs for the people by having it than by not having it, it is all right. It is important that this be made known. But personally, I am not in favour of the Government allowing a casino facility, wherever place, in Singapore. I have religious grounds for this. However, I accept that my personal religious belief is not the sole factor in deciding this issue. Similarly, the standpoint of any one religious community cannot be the sole determinant. The views of all communities, religious or otherwise, have to be taken into account. The Malay/Muslim community acknowledges this reality.

The fact that the Government approves of the IRs with gaming facilities is not a defeat for those who objected, nor is it a victory for those who supported. We must not allow ourselves to be divided on this account. Now that the Government has decided to go ahead, the objections and reservations raised earlier become even more relevant. Ministers have announced that measures to contain any negative spillovers and mechanisms to deal with the social ills of gambling will

Column:396

be enhanced. Sir, Singaporeans will closely monitor the effectiveness of these measures, given that many think, and thought, that had we not had the casino, these measures would not have been necessary in the first place.

Members of this House have dealt with many aspects of the casino that are of grave concern. I intend to touch on only one or two of them.

I understand that the big names would not invest in the IR if the gaming aspect was not totally forbidden. So they come here and the tourists will also come here, partly because the casino, though restricted, is not totally forbidden. I do hope, Sir, that when tourists, foreigners and investors come here, they will remember our gardens and our clean roads. They will remember that it is safe to have supper anywhere, even after midnight and the people are friendly, the food is sumptuous, varied and cheap. They will remember our recreational and cultural activities, that one can travel by bus, MRT, taxi, hassle-free, that children go to good schools and good clinics are within reach, and the working environment is conducive. Sir, I hope they will remember all these. My wish is that Singapore is known and remembered for the right things. Happenings, yes, but not unsavoury happenings.

Recently, while in the Middle East, an MP there said that the term "Singapore" has become an adjective or verb. As an adjective it denotes a desirable situation for a community to strive forth. It carries characteristics such as "visionary leadership", "efficient administration", "effective service" and "placing a premium on people development". So when they want to develop a country, an estate or a province, instead of describing it in detail, they just say, "Let's Singaporise it." Singapore has developed not just a brand, but a character. I do hope, Sir, that we

Column:397

will not place too much reliance on the role or attraction of the gaming facility. It can alter our character. This means that we should put in even more efforts to improve the other aspects of our nation such as our reliable workforce, quality education, creative designers, efficient business services, vibrant cultural scene, and so on.

Taking measures to curb the social ills of gambling is one side of the coin. On the other side, there must be measures to enhance our capacity to develop our economy using means other than having to resort to gaming facilities. I urge the Government to do this. I also urge the people of Singapore to help the Government do this.

Sir, we have heard of wives being beaten, children dropping out of schools, and families going asunder due to gambling. But the same scenarios are now being played out where the family has no income for long periods. I know of a lady who has four children - the youngest is unable to go to the kindergarten, two of them in primary school but not attending it regularly as they do not have pocket money, the eldest who is 14 is not able to buy soccer boots and does not attend religious classes due to lack of funds and is now playing truant. The father does not gamble but he lost his job more than a year ago and had not been able to secure another one. He is depressed and his family is stressed. At this moment, if I see a glimmer of a job for him I would grab it first and think later. If we reject the casino and, with it the IR proposal, there will be some pain. We will not have as many jobs as we could have. The number of families and children who suffer as a result of their parent's unemployment would not be reduced at the same rate. Every child who drops out of school is one too many. It makes no difference to

Column:398

him whether it is because his parent is a gambler or unemployed.

I do not agree with the IR that includes the casino on religious grounds. But I also consider it my religious and moral duty to do my best as an MP, which includes looking after the welfare of my residents and to make sure that they get jobs sooner rather than later. The distinction between right and wrong is not so clear cut. Do I subscribe to the view that noble ends justify ignoble means? No. Sir, where I disagree with the casino, I am willing to bear the consequences, if we decide to reject it. But the many people who expressed their objections to the IR with casino, I am not so sure whether they are willing to bear the consequences. Very few have said so in clear and unequivocal terms. Is the Government's decision something that I cannot live with? To borrow Minister Mentor Lee's reference, would I do a Cyrus Vance? No, and no. I think that within the constraints, I can still be true to my beliefs and serve the people, but via the Government.

I believe the Malay/Muslim community, as a whole, feels the same way. Mdm Halimah said yesterday that there are more pressing issues that the community should address and we should not be distracted. I completely agree with her. There is disappointment. That is only to be expected. But the Malay/Muslim community and others who disagree should move on. We shall continue to express our views to persuade and to debate. Best decisions are derived that way.

The Government supports the idea of personal self-exclusion, even family self-exclusion. There has been a suggestion that Muslims be excluded from the casino facility - community self-exclusion. Immediately one can think of problems with this idea - opening floodgates, not practical, etc. But, like the idea of the IR itself, we should not dismiss it outright.

Column:399

There is some merit. It reflects the desire of the community to uphold some values which it regards as important enough. It signifies a wish not to aggravate the many shortcomings that it already has to overcome. We can think of means to reduce the demerits of community self-exclusion. We may even consider community self-exclusion with an opt-out scheme. That would be quite interesting. But this idea needs refinement. The point is that I hope the Government would consider this suggestion and not dismiss it outright.

Sir, we do this, we participate in dialogues, give ideas and debates because we care for our country. We love our home. We cannot completely separate or insulate ourselves from the IRs, unlike in the US, Switzerland, France, Australia, Thailand, even in Malaysia. They are big countries, points alluded to by my colleagues before me. From the top of UOB Building in five years' time, one can probably see both the IRs and the rest of our island. That is how closely we live together. So I do hope that the Government shall ensure that the character of our home remains one that all of us are happy to stay in.

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak in this debate.

I suppose when the Government decides to reverse a 40-year policy in Singapore, it is bound to trigger a debate. Over the past year, we have heard from both sides of the Great Casino Debate. Listening to those views, to the ministerial statements on Monday, and to the hon. Members of this House thus far, I think it is safe to say that the decision to build a casino within an integrated resort comes with many shades of grey. What do you say to a family who has suffered because of a parent's gambling addiction when they ask, "Why a casino?"? On the other

Column:400

hand, what do you say to a family who is suffering because of a parent's unemployment when they say, "Why not an IR?"? These are the two simple questions that have got me quite torn on this issue. It would not be easy, but if Parliament had been given the right to make the decision, if I were forced to choose, I reckon I would vote "no" on the two IRs and their casinos.

I would do so not out of religious reasons or moral principles but because I think that it would not be in Singapore's best interests to have the IRs. They may represent some $5 billion in investments but the real price tag of having casinos in Singapore is one that our society and our families should not have to pay. I do not intend to go into all the arguments against casinos or gambling as they have been raised many times before. I will simply try to keep it as real as possible by relating two personal examples.

Some years ago, one of my friends accompanied her boyfriend to Genting for what she thought would be a little flutter. But "a little flutter" became "a lot" when he gambled away $10,000 in savings. All he had left in his bank account was $50. Then, "a lot" became "too much" when he insisted on withdrawing that last $50 for one last throw of the dice. Can you imagine my friend then had to tear the note in front of him just to stop him?

On another occasion, I had accompanied my aunt to the Star City casino in Sydney whilst visiting her two sons there. My mission, she told me, was to make sure that we had enough money to take a cab back to the apartment. While she was playing the slot machine, I went to get some hot chocolate for both of us. As the vending machine was dispensing the drinks, I turned around to the man waiting in line to apologise for getting an extra drink. His reply left me bereft of words. In a really nonchalant tone, he said, "It is no problem. I can wait. That's what we're all here for anyway. I've lost my wife, my

Column:401

children, my house and my car, but I'm still here. So take your time."

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is no lack of such stories anywhere there is a casino, even in places like Sydney, which has a well-publicised cessation programme for gamblers. But, try as these programmes might, to reach out to the gamblers, they are always one step behind the problem. And the biggest problem is that it is not just gamblers who suffer, but also the people around them - their families. So why we would want to have and hear more of such stories right here in Singapore is beyond me. Every Singaporean counts, as the Prime Minister has said before.

Some Ministers have said that the economic benefits need to be weighed against the social costs. Which is why I am struck by how the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports is also the Second Minister for Trade and Industry. It would seem rather unfair on the Minister, who has been very involved in this year-long issue, to carry out the responsibility of developing Singapore's community interests while having to advocate for the integrated resorts. After all, Minister Lim Hng Kiang had said that he would be in the wrong job if, as Trade and Industry Minister, he did not advocate the integrated resort. But what happens when the economic arguments are in direct odds with community interests?

In my mind, the overriding principle should be to make decisions that protect the interests of Singaporeans.

As I considered the merits and demerits of the IRs, I ask myself what should be the most important thing to our Singapore society. To me, the answer has to be our families. The family unit is the cornerstone of our nation. We should do all we can to nurture our families. I can see how families can benefit from the jobs

Column:402

that the IRs can create. I can see how, at a time when unemployment in Singapore will remain higher than what it used to be before, these jobs are important. The potential of the IRs seems grand indeed. Yet, what makes this entire project financially viable is the casino. None of the 19 bidders submitted a concept proposal that did not include a casino. All the planned attractions would have to close shop without a casino. So, if the IR is the flashy sports car that gets all the attention on the road, the casino is the engine that makes it work and without which it would go nowhere.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think we should downplay the gaming component of the IRs, especially considering the scale of these projects. Three to five percent of total floor area for a casino may not seem much but considering, for example, that the Sentosa project is 47 hectares - equivalent to the size of the Zoo and the Bird Park - that is no small jackpot room. The gambling revenue, which could include a family's life savings, will be the driving force for the jobs to be created and the driving force for any boost to our economy. It really does come down to that, and having seen what casinos can do - we all read about what had happened to Simon Lee and his family - the question is: are we willing to accept that some families will have to break down for us to get that economic boost? I just do not think that is in Singapore's interests.

I can understand that the Prime Minister says the decision to have the IRs is a judgement. I also agree that the IRs will bring economic benefits to Singapore. What I am doubtful of, however, is how big those benefits will be. One newspaper said that the IRs would create the buzz of a global city. This is what I am afraid of. I can understand why some people are concerned about the effect of the IRs on our brand name. I do not think we want Singapore to be known and remembered

Column:403

because of the IRs alone. And if it were that easy to be a global city with a buzz, all cities would have been building them in the one year we were taking to debate on this issue. Singapore's buzz should come from its people and from the talents they display. Singapore's buzz should come not as much from the physical attractions it builds but more from the spirit and the soul that infuse the bricks and mortar of this nation. This is what we should be most proud about. I am 100 percent sure the IRs will boost tourism in Singapore, but we should not pin our hopes on the IRs alone. They should not be the source of our vibrancy. Being a global city requires a holistic effort, which also means if we pass up the chance to have the IRs, we are not necessarily going to become a backwater. The IRs may give us a headstart in this region. It will act as a booster. But there are many laps to go. Boosters can only get you so far. I agree with the Prime Minister that the IRs are only one of the many things we must do to remake our city and build a new Singapore. I certainly expect and look forward to hear more about what else will be done, especially in the next couple of years. I would also like to ask how many of the 35,000 promised jobs will go to Singaporeans.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to say that my views are representative of all the youths in Singapore, but I cannot. The proposal - now a decision - to allow casinos in Singapore has polarised our country, including our youths. Many of them may want the IRs and casinos to be built here, but many youths also believe this is not in Singapore's best interests. Most of those I have spoken to are not in favour of the casino. I have also received passionate emails opposing the setting up of a casino here. Perhaps more important than their views on this debate is the fact that, like many Singaporeans have demonstrated, they did have a view and were not afraid to show it. The youths and Singaporeans are not as

Column:404

apathetic as we think. I hope the Government can continue to cultivate this passion and show of care by our citizens for our country. I think the Cabinet realises it has disappointed a considerable percentage of the population. Probably, it would be hard for any decision on an issue as divisive as this to please everyone. We do need to overcome our disappointment and stay constructive, especially with regard to the proposed social safeguards for the casino. However, I would also like to say that if these passionate Singaporeans were to be disappointed by Government decisions too many times, it would be hard to get them on board to make things work in Singapore.

For now, all the objecting and protesting, the huffing and puffing will not blow the casino house down, or reverse the decision. The stakes now lie on the safeguards, which have been promised will come with the casinos. One of the proposals is that a $100 daily access fee, or a $2,000 annual membership, be levied on Singaporeans while foreigners get in for free. I think that is neither effective nor right. The biggest problems about gambling are that a person could get addicted and eventually get into debt. Debt, per se, not gambling, is the cause of many social problems, such as illegal money lending and crimes of desperation. So what if gamblers have to pay $100 a day or $2,000 a year? It is an easy way out. They can pay, go in, and gamble away all their savings, but I do not see anything in the safeguards to stop that directly from happening. In fact, many have commented that it would make a person gamble more than usual, as he or she would want to win back the entry charges. Furthermore, some have said that not only is this a double standard, it is a double standard that penalises Singaporeans. If we are to have double standards, then I say it should be in favour of Singaporeans, not against them - double standards that are effective and

Column:405

protect their interests, not those that encourage them to gamble.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the best way to do so is to cap their losses, possibly on a monthly basis. This addresses what is the root danger of gambling - getting into debt, losing everything. We protect Singaporeans more by limiting their losses at the end of their gambling session rather than penalising them with a $100 fee at the start. Besides, to inveterate gamblers, $2,000 is not likely to be a deterrent. If game chips are needed for all casino games, then it is possible for operators to control how much one person can change and lose if they keep records of each customer. After all, we intend to require the operators to record all transactions above $5,000. Why not keep track of how much a gambler loses in a month and cut him or her off after they cross a certain amount? What that limit should be and whether it should vary for those of differing income levels can be something to be decided in the months to come. If we are truly sincere about dealing with the problems the casino might cause, I think we should consider this.

Secondly, I am concerned about the exclusion measures that spouses and family members can employ to prevent someone from going to the casino. I would think that it is likely to cause other domestic problems. What about families who are so-called kiasu and decide to anyhow ban family members, even if they are not problem gamblers? It may breed resent and spark off quarrels within families where there is no need to do so. Or a gambler, angry that he has been barred from a casino, may force his family to take him off the list. He may resort to violence to get his way. And it does

Column:406

nothing to address his addiction. Would it not be better for these families, rather than to call to ban their family member, to call to inform the relevant authority that their family member is a risk? This would make it mandatory for him or her to undergo counselling if he or she chooses to go to the casino. The person would also have a lower loss limit. The counsellors can decide if the person on this watch list is a problem gambler and can decide to take him or her off the list if it is not the case.

As for other safeguards, I simply urge that they are not dropped in the years to come. Many of the just proposed measures to tackle gambling problems in Singapore should have been implemented a long time ago. Our citizens are gambling $6 billion every year and $1.5 billion overseas, and we have decided only now to form a National Council of Gambling and mount public education programmes on gambling. Either the casino is surely going to cause a lot more problems or these have been designed to serve as sweeteners to help the decision on the IRs to go down better. Because, surely, we could not have been bo-chap all this while. At least, I hope not.

Whatever the measures, my fear is that they can only lessen the number of families that will be adversely affected by the two casinos in the two IRs. There still would be families who will fall by the wayside because of this decision. I encourage the Government to set aside sufficient funds from the revenue of the IRs to guard against gambling and other social problems. Nothing less is expected by the public, whom I urge to continue to take interest and play an active role in this issue so that many years on, we do not look upon this decision with regret.