<div align=left><span style="FONT-SIZE: 13pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><p>

I urge the Government to have a Code of Conduct for Ministers and MPs, civil servants and even directors of listed companies to be barred from gambling in the casino. Other associations, like the teachers' unions, can also make voluntary pledges.

We require good records to be kept on the patronage of the casinos and we have a law that considers unexplained wealth to be ill-gotten gains. It is not just gambling that we should be concerned about, but the related effects of corruption, money laundering and organised crimes that come with it. We must protect and safeguard the integrity and reputation of Singapore's financial centre status.

I would like to see the rules on casinos to be legislated rather than merely regulated. No flexibility should be given to the Government of the day to decide. I am confident of the present Government to manage and run the system, but as a safeguard for future generations, appropriate legislation should be instituted so that we can delay the ill-effects of gambling and other vices breeding its ugly head on our society.

As we are proceeding to the next step of Requesting for Proposals, I would like the Government to have the ability to walk away and say "no" if there is a huge discrepancy between the concepts and the proposals submitted. Many house buyers would have experienced this - the house they receive at the end of the day is not what the one they saw in the drawings and design models. Therefore, we have to be alert and vigilant.

Remember, if we enter this realm, we are at the mercy of expert gamblers. On our side are politicians and civil servants who are, I think and hope, novices in this game.

Sir, I rest my case.

Column: 492

Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim (Nominated Member): ( In Mandarin ): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on the proposal for the establishment of integrated resorts with casinos. The Government announced on 18th April 2005 that it will develop two integrated resorts with casinos. In the past three days of the Parliament debate, many Ministers and MPs have raised many points. I have declared that I do not support the building of casinos in Singapore during the debate on the Presidential Address. Now, I would like to declare that I do not support the proposal for the development of two integrated resorts with casinos in Singapore. I have a few points to raise here for discussion.

In the debate on the Presidential Address, I mentioned that the setting up of a casino will be a source of all evils and this will be very bad to our social ethos. Where gamblers gather, there will be prostitutes, illegal moneylenders and drug traffickers. Incidents of drug-trafficking, kidnapping, vices and other forms of crime will be doubled, tripled or even quadrupled. In the past three days of the Parliament debate, many of the Ministers and MPs agree with this point.

As analysed and agreed by the media, the arch crime is the setting up of a casino. It will bring about a whole lot of social problems, such as broken families, increased number of suicides and many children may have to stop their study, etc. In last month's Budget debate, the Minister for National Development introduced regulations to prevent people from cashing in by reselling their HDB flats, so as to ensure that they have enough money for their old age. Does the Minister know that in many of these cases, these people have cashed in to pay for their mounting gambling debts? These social problems will increase manifold. In the debate over the past few days, we all agree that such problems will increase.

Column: 493

In the past three days, some Ministers and MPs have talked about their own gambling experience, and they said that they could exercise restraint or choose not to place any bets at the casino. Some MPs have also said that with the development of the integrated resorts with casinos, Singaporeans can choose not to enter the casinos as nobody forces them to enter the casinos to gamble. As mentioned earlier by an MP, if you lead a horse to a river and the horse does not wish to drink the water from the river, you cannot force it to drink the water from this river. However, it is easier said than done. For people who have lived a comfortable life and have strong will power, they can exercise self-control. However, for those people who may have slightly weaker will power, they may not be able to resist the temptation of going into the casino and become addicted to gambling. Why is this so? This is because for the poor and the lower-income group of people, this is a dream-seeking world. With the escalating cost of living, besides working on a few jobs to pay for the living expenses, the people in the poor and the lower-income group can only put their hope on gambling. The poorer they are, the more they would want to gamble, with the hope of changing their destiny. Whenever they buy a 4-D or Toto ticket or play at a gambling table, they are buying a dream - a dream to clear up their housing loans, a dream to provide for their children's university tuition fees, a dream to give their parents a better life. Every time when the 4-D or the Toto result is out, thousands of dreams were shattered.

During my younger days (I was born after 1965, which was different from the generation of MM Lee, but I do know what is " chap ji kee ". I also know what is "four-colour cards", the " si sek bai "), I have seen and experienced for myself the damage done by gambling of this nature.

Column: 494

When I was small, I always wondered why we had to have porridge with soy sauce vegetables for our meals and I really could not understand the causes of this. Those people who have not experienced or seen such gambling would not be able to understand that feeling. They could say very lightly, "The people are free to choose whether to frequent the casino or not, nobody is forcing them to go to the casino!�? I would not say that. With the casino just a few minutes' drive away, the poor and the lower-income group of people would want to go and try their luck there with the hope of winning some money from the gambling tables.

The Ministers said that the Government is confident that we could build world-class integrated resorts with casinos and, at the same time, keep the social cost and crime rate at a minimum. Are we being too optimistic?

I have said before that some people are commenting why Singapore is always pushing to be the "first" in the world in everything we do - Number One airport, Number One sea port, Number One medical centre in Asia, etc. Do we really believe that Singapore is a superman, and we could excel in everything we do? Even before building the integrated resorts, we are already claiming that they are going to be world-class. Are we too optimistic and over confident in ourselves?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am a worrier, I am not so optimistic. The Government has considered and would implement a series of measures, such as the MCYS would set up all kinds of councils to prevent Singaporeans from going into the casino, and the Ministry of Home Affairs has also various measures to reduce or minimise crimes arising from gambling. All these measures would be set up as a safety net. However, all these measures and safety net are purely theoretical, that is, they are just on paper.

Column: 495

Whether these measures will prove to be effective or not, nobody knows!

Based on various reports, the Government speculated on how the social problems and crime rate will increase if the integrated resort with a casino is built. However, these speculations are just purely theoretical. The ill effects of casinos are like an octopus with all the 10 tentacles reaching out to every node and corner of the society. At this moment, we do not really know the actual and full extent of the negative impact the casino would bring about.

One thing is certain: the casino will definitely bring with it negative impact on our society. However, we cannot be certain that the integrated resorts will really create 35,000 new jobs. This is just a theoretical speculation. We can be sure that Singapore will have to pay a price but we cannot be sure whether the so-called "huge" economic benefits will outweigh the social cost that we have to pay. At the moment, all these economic gains are mere theoretical speculation.

Hence, Singaporeans want to know whether the Government has any contingency and back-up plans to deal with unforeseen consequences.

At a lunch that SM Goh hosted for the NMPs, I spoke to SM Goh on the question of building a casino. I told him that as we take the first step, we should have already thought of the 10th step. He agreed with me. As such, I hope that the Government would share with the people the contingency and back-up plans. For example:

(1) If the number of people addicted to gambling is many times more than what the Government has predicted, what is the Government's back-up and contingency plans?

(2) If the crime rate is increased many times more than predicted by the

Column: 496

Government, what will be the Government's back-up and contingency plans for that?

(3) If the gambling ethos cause such adverse impact on our young people that many do not continue to pursue their education or career, and try to make a quick buck from working at the casinos, what kind of a contingency plan do we have? This is already a hot potato in Macau.

(4) At the same function, I also raised the point that we have to deal with the social cost arising from the opening of the casino. We agreed that we need to look into the incremental cost involved. Yesterday, SM Goh said that the social cost will not be too high. I am very worried, as I am a pessimistic person. I would like to know, if the cost for these measures to deal with the crime and social problems is an exponential increase, the Government has formulated any contingency and back-up plan to deal with this possibility.

Further, can the Government assure Singaporeans that the Government will stand firm on the restriction of Singaporeans to enter the casinos? After some years, if the operators tell the Government that they cannot make ends meet, and request the Government for liberalisation and relaxation of rules to allow more Singaporeans to go into the casinos so as to maintain the integrated resorts, will the Government succumb to such a request from the integrated resorts' operators? Can the Government assure us that it will not compromise on its stand?

Finally, I would like to reiterate that I do not support the construction and development of the integrated resorts with casinos. If the Government introduces casinos into Singapore, then Singapore will and must pay a price for it. This reminds me of a classic phrase in the movie "Infernal Affairs II", which is: " Chu

Column: 497

lai hun de, zong you yi tian shi yao huan de ." I hope the price that Singapore has to pay for the economic gains and development that would be gained from the integrated resorts with casinos will not be too high. I hope our younger generation, our children, our grandchildren will not, in the next 20-30 years, pay this kind of "debt" incurred by the Government. I do not wish to see the Government being accused of leaving behind a heavy load of social debts for our future generations of Singaporeans.

Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. I just have two calls and a question. First, my call.

The call is that for the next big issue that we face as a country, would the Prime Minister and the Government please reverse the sequence - first debate in Parliament, then decide in Cabinet.

The present debate, which I have been following for the last four days, has all the flavour of a post-mortem. We have heard many moving speeches from senior Cabinet Ministers, honourable colleagues, but a decision has already been taken. I recall several years ago, the then Deputy Prime Minister Lee, gave an inspiring speech at the university. He urged our students to take an active role in the movie, not just sit back and be in the audience. So, next time, please, Sir, let us take an active role as actors and actresses in the movie, not just be the first audience. So my call for the next big issue is to let Parliament debate the issue before, and not after, the Cabinet's decision.

Sir, my second call. On this point, I echo hon. Members Mr Chiam, Mdm Halimah, Mr Loh Meng See and Prof. Ong.

Column: 498

Will the Government please commit to the House that in the future it will not relax the conditions on admission of Singaporeans to the casino? We have heard from the Prime Minister, the Senior Minister, Minister Mentor, and others, that there are many plans for integrated resorts with casinos. If they do not come here, or even if they come here, they may set up elsewhere - Bangkok, Phuket, we have heard many places. When this happens, all these would be competing for the same tourist dollars from China, India and elsewhere. It may be that the business for our integrated resorts will slacken, then the management may come back to the Government to say, "Oh, our business is not going so well. Please give us some concessions."

Sir, my call is, please, would the Government commit that there would be no concessions?

Third, my question, Sir, which is related to my previous call: who, if any, will regulate the quality of the other features of the integrated resort? On this point, I also echo hon. Member Dr Loo Choon Yong. Initially, as the Senior Minister has said, we will get Celine Dion, Norah Jones, one of my favourites. We will get Cirque du Soleil. But what if business is not so good? The integrated resort might downgrade. We will get second-rate singers, third-rate circuses. My question is: will the operating franchise specifies standards of performance to ensure that we get only the top-class?

The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Lim Hng Kiang): Mr Deputy Speaker, first, I would like to thank hon. Members for their very candid views of the integrated resort project shared over the past four days.

Many Members have spoken in support of this project. At the same time, many have also given their reservations. The economic merits of the integrated

Column: 499

resort are clear but, at the same time, Members remain concerned about the social impact that casino gambling would have on our society. Many have given very thoughtful suggestions on how to implement and further strengthen the social safeguards against problem gambling. The Minister for MCYS will address these points later on.

What I would like to do right now is really to focus on two key economic questions that have surfaced during the debate. The first group of questions is related to some of the concerns raised by the Members: whether or not the integrated resort is an act of economic desperation. Members have asked: Why now, after 40 years of saying no to casino?

The second set of questions is to address the Members who asked: can we, indeed, have an integrated resort without a casino?

Over the last four days, Members have asked whether we really have no choice. They asked whether we are so economically desperate that we need to have a casino. It seems to me like they are asking whether we are discussing an integrated resort or the last resort. Or, as Mr Low Thia Khiang put it, he said, "Are we saying that if we do not have a casino, our economy will collapse and Singapore will have no future?"

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the answer is, of course, a resounding no. As I explained earlier on, we have to put the integrated resort in its context. This is not the panacea to our economic challenges, but it is a very important element in what we intend to do.

Today, our economy is doing fairly well. We have made many changes and adjustments to the economy and, unless one is a casualty of the dot.com collapse or is in the construction sector or in one

Column: 500

of the retail centres in HDB estates that are not doing well, I think, by and large, the other sectors in the Singapore economy are doing reasonably well.

If I can just take a quick survey of the economy. Manufacturing which constitutes 25%-27% of our economy is fairly robust. Electronics, one of the key sectors in our manufacturing, is doing very well. Electronics and precision engineering contribute around 10% of our GDP. If one looks at the petrochemical sector, it is doing very well because of the very high oil prices and the huge demand for petrochemical products in the world, especially in Asia. If one looks at the pharmaceutical and life-sciences, which contribute around 5% to our GDP, that is also doing well. If one discounts the volatility of the production month-by-month, looking at it over the years, the pharmaceutical and life-sciences are doing well.

Our transport, marine and aviation engineering, overhaul, repairs, these sectors are all doing well. And we have a lot of projects in the pipeline. EDB is very confident of a very strong pipeline of investments. They are very confident that they can attract $8 billion every year over the next few years. And we have been nurturing new areas - displays, medical devices, environmental engineering and alternative energy. These areas may grow and become new clusters of competencies in Singapore.

If one looks at our services, financial services is doing well. That takes up 12% of our GDP. Business services, we have many companies setting up regional headquarters here. The trade in Singapore is strong because our exports are up. The whole range of FTAs that we have signed is giving us a boost. Our position as a transport hub is being strengthened. The throughput in PSA is growing very quickly. For the first quarter, PSA handles the most number of containers in the world.

Column: 501

When we look at the tourism sector, it is just one sector in our whole economy. The tourism sector has been doing well the last few years, but if you look at it from a 10-year time span, we have lost a bit of our market share. This is where the integrated resorts come in. As many MPs pointed out, including Dr Ahmad Magad, as we go into the services sector, tourism, being less volatile, is a good sector to promote. And when you have the Asia-Pacific region growing so strongly, there is no reason why we should not strengthen our position in this sector and reinstate tourism as an important pillar of our economy. So we are going into this not because the economy is in desperate straits, but we are going into this because of the opportunity it presents to us.

A subtext of this question is: Why now? Why after 40 years are we doing this? Again, we are not doing this because we are desperate. We are doing this because this is a window of opportunity. The integrated resort is a matter of economic rejuvenation, not of economic survival.

As I explained in my speech earlier on, the traditional gaming markets of North America, Australia and Europe, are now mature. So the major players in the world are looking for new growth opportunities elsewhere. And they are looking towards Asia. Because of the regulatory and shareholder requirements, these large gaming companies prefer markets that are similar to their home markets, such as a stable political environment, dependable legal structure, comparable gaming regulatory structure and the lack of corruption. Singapore is highly rated in this regard. So we do have a window of opportunity, but the investors would not wait forever at our doorsteps. If we say no, they will not hesitate to take their investments elsewhere in the region because the

Column: 502

demand for integrated resorts will not disappear. So this, to us, is a window of opportunity.

The next question which Members raised is: why not have an integrated resort but without a casino element? I think here we can refer to the experiences recounted by the other Members. For example, Mr Lim Boon Heng explained why we need a big theme park for theme parks to succeed. In the past, we have had several experiments with small theme parks, but they have not done well. The reason is because, as Mr Lim Boon Heng explained, to run the theme park you need to refresh it every two or three years. So you need a sizeable theme park, so that while the rest of your theme park is in operation, you can devote one segment of it to come up with the new attraction. So we need a big theme park. We have tried many times to attract theme park operators to Singapore, without a casino element, but without success.

I think yesterday you have heard Dr Amy Khor, in her real estate professional experience, her company had tried bringing in investors in theme parks. Mr Ravindran also mentioned that he tried to bring in investors, but there were no takers. Why is that so?

I think there are several reasons. We ourselves have tried in the 1990s, talking to Walt Disney and Universal Studios, and we understand a little bit of their business. First of all, theme park operators are actually content companies. They only provide the software, intellectual property and brand. For that, they do not want to put too much of their own money. They take very little financial risk. So, first, they earn a development fee, even before the theme park operation starts. This is to bring in their brand and attractions. Then when the operation starts, they earn a management fee, top-line, not bottom-line, not only when you make a profit. They have a top-line

Column:503

management fee and they take a cut of the gate-takings. This business model is not unique to just theme park operators but, in fact, to all major international content providers.

When we were negotiating with the theme parks in the 1990s, I remember somebody told me that we should look at Walt Disney not only as a theme park operator, but also as a real estate player, because they want a big piece of land to build their theme park and then as the theme park becomes successful the capital value of the surrounding land appreciates and they make the capital gains of that land. For example, Walt Disney built Tokyo Disney over 70 hectares.

But when they were negotiating with us in the 1990s, they wanted 300 hectares. Seventy hectares for the first phase to build the first set of attractions, but they promised us that they would build Phase II and Phase III, and they wanted the other pieces of land for future expansion. We earmarked a piece of land in Seletar for them to look at. We even offered to build a MRT station between Yio Chu Kang Station and Khatib Station so that visitors can go to the theme park. We have Seletar Expressway, so transport is very convenient. It is a lovely site with the reservoir as a backdrop. But we were not prepared to pay the very high price needed to give away 300 hectares of land at a very low cost, development fee, management fee, etc. So the deal fell through. But we are constantly interacting and talking to the various theme park operators to continue to attract them. Unless we are prepared to put in a very high equity stake and fund many of these attractions, the theme park operators are not likely to come in.

If you look at the Hong Kong example, in Hong Kong Disney, the Hong Kong government in effect owns 57% of the whole operation. Their investment is 57% and the ownership can go to as high as 75%, depending on the various

Column: 504

scenarios. So this is not the kind of model which we are prepared to go in because we believe that a theme park should be run essentially by the private sector. It should not be owned by the Government. The reason why we prefer the private sector to run it is not just because of the investment upfront but because the private sector brings with them the expertise, the connections, the network, the ability to bring in celebrities and to keep the attractions fresh.

Also, in answer to Dr Geh Min, it also releases the Government and the Ministers of having to make difficult decisions. So if the operator introduces a whale, that is the operator's choice, not because I want to have a whale swimming in the aquarium. And if the operator has very excellent foie gras or shark's fins in its fine restaurants, well, that is his business. Those who object to shark's fins or foie gras will not lobby the Government. So that is another good reason why we should leave it to the private sector to do these projects.

So these are the two key areas that I would like to address: first, we are in this because it is an opportunity, not because we are desperate; second, we have explored many times the option of an integrated resort without a casino. And as many Members here would have experienced - Mr Lim Boon Heng, Dr Amy Khor and Mr Ravindran - this is not an easy task, and it is better if we are able to attract investors to do this entirely.

Before I end, I would like to also mention some of the comments about social safeguards. These would be addressed by Vivian, but I would like to respond to some of the points raised.

I would like to say that the analogy given by Dr Geh Min of a sugar-coated pill is not an apt analogy. I prefer the description put up by Ms Irene Ng - that this is really a buffet and you have many

Column: 505

attractions to go to and you need not go to the casino. A sugar-coated pill means that you have got to take everything in one swallow, and this is not the case.

I acknowledge the many reservations that Members put up about the exclusion clause. I think there are many suggestions. We will go through these suggestions. But, for me, I think the exclusion clause is a very simple and a sensible way to let families deal with the problem of gambling. Some of you say that it may lead to family difficulties and problems within the family. Well, in my family, my wife is dead set against gambling. So we have decided that when the time comes, both of us can send in our exclusion forms. The only concession I get from her is that I need only send in my form after I have attended the opening ceremony. We have two boys, and they have just turned adults. Under the rules, they have to send in themselves, we cannot do it for them. So my wife has decided that at her next birthday, she will tell the two boys that as a present for mummy, why don't they send in the forms for her.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, two clarifications. One, what is the projected number of tourist arrivals the two IRs are expected to attract? The second clarification is: what is the Government's expected split for tourists and Singaporeans alike with regard to the gaming and non-gaming revenue for the proposed integrated resorts?

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Let me explain that we are only at the stage of request for concepts. The next stage is request for proposals, by which time the prospective investors would put up their plans and they would have to commit to those plans, and it would be a contractual commitment. Right now it is a concept. They have given us some projections of

Column: 506

what they see - the different gaming and non-gaming components, etc. Because there are 19 proposals, there is a wide range. As I have also explained previously, for some projects, if you are closer to the Atlantis model, then the gaming component could be 25% and the non-gaming component could be 75%. If you are not at that far end, then it could be 30:70 or 40:60.

So we will not know for sure because this is only at the request for concept stage. But the proposers all know where we come from. We are looking at that end of the spectrum. If they come with a proposal later on, a commitment, a contract proposal which, from our analysis, would show that the gaming component is very high, then we are not likely to award. I think the prospective investors know that we are looking for an integrated resort, one which draws in the tourists, and we are looking for one that has a good balance between gaming and non-gaming. So, at the next stage, when they put in their bids at the request for proposals, this would be what we will be looking for.

Dr Geh Min (Nominated Member): Sir, I would like to clarify my analogy to the Minister. I would like to thank the Minister for his reply first. When I used the analogy of a sugar-coated pill, I was not using the analogy as a choice for individual Singaporeans. I was using it as an analogy for the whole of Singapore. Singapore has to accept both parts - the integrated resort with the casino. So this is different from Ms Irene Ng's analogy where she talks about every Singaporean visiting the casino and being faced with a buffet. My analogy is that Singapore has to take, or so we have been told, the sugar-coated pill.

The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports and Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I listened with profound respect and

Column: 507

sympathy to the speech by my colleague, Mr Loh Meng See. His is a view shared by many Members in this House as well as many people outside in our society. In this view, gambling is an absolute vice. Some people even go so far as to say this is a source of all evil and it is not something you can even dabble with or, as Mr Chiam says, you risk going down the slippery slope. This is an absolute view which has the beauty and attraction of simplicity. But it is not a view which I think any of you can say is universally accepted by all members of our society. There are many members of our society in which gambling addiction or gambling gone too far - that is the problem - rather than gambling itself. And the truth is 40 years down the road, Singapore has never had an absolutist, prohibitionist approach to gambling, to alcohol, or even to prostitution.

So I think it is very important that as each of us struggles with our conscience, our values, the lessons taught by our parents, that we put this debate in its proper perspective. The Government has decided to proceed. It has decided to proceed on the basis of a practical and pragmatic approach. In this approach, one key question, setting aside morality, is whether the casinos will undermine our foundational values as a society. You know we believe in fairness, meritocracy, integrity and especially hard work. Singapore is what it is today because of hard work and perseverance. And we say that hard work will be rewarded, and we do not want this to change. This is a social, political perspective - nothing to do with morality and ethics. And the truth is I do not think anyone of us here wants this to change.

Let me also tell you that when we estimate that there will be 35,000 jobs generated directly and indirectly by this project, these 35,000 jobs are honest, decent jobs - jobs that will ensure that our people continue to make an honest

Column: 508

living in the midst of stiff international competition, jobs that many of us, especially those who are older or less skilled, can take and pursue even as we restructure our economy.

So, really, as far as the social ethic or hard work and an honest day's living are concerned, we are not changing and we are not compromising that. And I think it is important that we take that on board. Even as we say we do not want to change our core foundational values, the majority of us have acknowledged that we need to upgrade and change our image, and we also need to enhance our ability to pursue opportunities, even if those opportunities come at a price of a higher risk. These two IRs represent opportunities, but they also represent higher risks. Consequently, the debate in this House of the last four days has focused to a very large extent on the social safeguards that we can and will implement to address the potential social problems.

One question which has recurred is: will our safeguards prevent problem gambling? That is prevention. Dr Ahmad Magad is absolutely right when he said that "prevention is better than cure". Dr Ong Seh Hong echoed that. The key preventive measure is education and the inculcation of values. Let me talk about education first.

My Ministry will set aside $1 million to fund public education and prevention programmes to be run by the voluntary welfare organisations and the community groups which will be targeting specific groups, whether they are the young, especially the young, the elderly, the lower-income groups and other vulnerable segments of our society. We will set up the National Council on Gambling

and it is this National Council that will advise MCYS on how to allocate these funds to the groups performing its public educational role.

Column: 509

Dr Wang Kai Yuen and Mr Gan Kim Yong stressed the importance of inculcating values and moral education in our young, in building upon what their parents teach at home. And I echo this. The National Council on Gambling will work through the MCYS' School Family Education programme and other school-based programmes to reach out to students. MCYS will also work with the Council to use TV and other media to make sure the message is heard. But, ultimately, let me tell you, it depends on us as parents, what we say and how we act in front of our children. Just this week on Monday, when I got back, my children discovered that we have now allowed an IR with a casino. It forced the family discussion on what a casino is and how they should approach it and the dangers. That same family discussion which I now had to have with my children has to be replicated in the million households in Singapore. That is our duty as parents. That is not something the Government can do. That is not something MCYS can do.

Why is it so important that parents do it? Because, ultimately, our children are going to face the casino, whether it is in Singapore or anywhere else in this world. This is not a pristine, perfect, cocoon world. Our children will have to face the world and they have to be prepared for it, and preparation is in parental teaching, the inculcation of values and education. And we should not wait three or four years down the road for an integrated resort to be put up before we start this. This is something which we will have to start, and start now.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen also suggested raising the age limit from 21, I think he mentioned 26 or 27. Today, as it stands, the age limit for gambling in Singapore is 18. So by increasing it to 21, we are already setting it at a higher standard.

Column: 510

Many MPs have asked whether the social safeguards will really deter gambling addicts. Mr Sin Boon Ann, Mr Tan Soo Khoon and Dr Ahmad Magad and in fact many Members said that $100 will not deter a compulsive gambler. Sir, that $100 levy, or $2,000 a year, is not designed to achieve that. The entry levy is a signal that gambling is an expense and not a way to make money. It is meant to deter casual gambling, the office workers in Marina who decide to nip down for lunch to feed the slot machines. That levy will deter such a person.

If we set it at a higher level, we could. Some Members have suggested $200, $500 or $1,000. Let me tell Members how we have arrived at $100, apart from the signalling effect. We basically did not want to create a situation where the IRs would mean that the casinos are more accessible to Singaporeans than today. Today, many Members have shared how to go to Batam or Genting. It would cost you less than $100 upfront. So by pitching it at that level, it allows me to honestly tell you that we are not making it more accessible. But let me also tell you that, very frankly, no amount of levy will deter a compulsive gambler. This is where the exclusion measures come in, and the exclusion measures are tripwires to identify those who are at risk or those who are already addicts, and then to keep them out of the casinos.

Mr Sin Boon Ann also suggested restricting expenditures or even restricting the number of times a Singaporean could enter a casino. This is something we will study. But, quite frankly, if we have to micro manage a person to that extent, perhaps you might as well just exclude him in the first place. My working assumption behind all these safeguards has to be that the majority of Singaporeans can exercise personal responsibility and can manage their finances. But if you belong to that minority who cannot, either because you

Column: 511

are addicted or because you just cannot be bothered, then you are at risk, we want to identify you and we want to keep you out of the casino.

Many of you have also asked: how will the casino exclusion measures work? Like most jurisdictions, I said that we will have self-exclusion. But we also know that the self-exclusion system may not be enough because many addicts will not own up to their problems. The National Council on Gambling will be given the authority, through legislation, to automatically exclude those who are in poor financial situation, bankrupts, poor credit records and those who are receiving financial assistance from the State.

We will empower families, and we have defined them as spouses, children, parents and siblings. If your loved one has a problem, you go to the National Council on Gambling, inform that you want him to be excluded and the Council will look into this, and if the complaint is valid, then it will invoke its authority to exclude such a person from the casinos. I recognise that there will be many practical difficulties, and I also recognise that we need to make this process as simple as possible.

Mr Sin Boon Ann said that it is very hard for family members to exclude his spouse or child, especially if he is grown up. It can cause family discordance. Some Members have even talked about family violence. He has asked that social workers and community leaders be given the authority instead. Let me put responsibility where it first belongs. First, is self responsibility. If you cannot do it, the next line of responsibility must be the family. Because, after all, it is the family that has the most to suffer if one member becomes an addict. Our intention is to emphasise the role of the family in solving problems and to provide a means for the family to signal for help, if the family needs help.

Column: 512

Dr Geh Min suggested that we set up a Tribunal that will conduct hearings similar to a court. Let me describe to you the system in South Australia. They have a simple process whereby a complainant lodges an application with the Independent Gambling Authority. A minimum of two members of the Authority would then interview the complainant, respondent and other relevant persons. This Authority is not bound by the normal rules of evidence and will make a decision. This has worked well for them so far. We are thinking of a similar interview process in which we will have a panel which is appointed by the National Council on Gambling. It will listen to the complaint and make a decision. If there is an appeal, the appeal will go to the full National Council on Gambling and its decision will be final. Politicians and Members of Parliament will not be involved in this process. This will be peer review, wise men and women of society acting to advance the interest and protect the interest of families within society itself.

We want our system to be simple, efficient and a low-cost one so that they will work. Let me also assure Members, however, in the spirit of consultation, that what I have just put on the table would be subject to further refinements as we consult the family, religious and community sectors in order to improve this further.

Next, many Members have asked: will we relax our safeguards over time? Or conversely, should we increase them now in order to curb problem gambling? Sir, the social safeguards that we have proposed are already very strict, if not stricter than other jurisdictions. We will review them from time to time and adopt the best practices that have proven to be effective in minimising problem gambling. However, we must avoid over-regulation and unnecessarily undermining the

Column: 513

viability of the integrated resort. So my position on this is clear.

Next question: will we commit adequate resources to tackle problem gambling? I have already said that the Government is committed to do whatever it takes in order to tackle problem gambling in our society with or without a casino and with or without an integrated resort.

The Deputy Speaker, in his speech, recommended channelling 5% of the casino's gaming tax revenue to fund national programmes. I do not see the need to ring-fence revenue in this manner. Funding should be approved on a needs basis, and not dependent on revenue collected. Because if you opt for that model, then you are well and truly hooked onto the casinos' viability and dependent on the casinos supplying money to the authority that is trying to solve problems. At this moment, we estimate that we need $40 million annually. If we need more, I will ask the Minister for Finance for more. You will have my assurance on that.

Further, Mr Arthur Fong reminded the House yesterday that every single dollar collected at the entry levy will go to the Tote Board and then it will be spent on charitable causes. We will not take any of those monies into the Consolidated Fund.

But, beyond all this, it is worthwhile putting things in perspective, and let us also remind ourselves that gambling is not the only problem or the biggest social problem facing us. There are many other things that we need to fix, many other things that we need to spend money on as well.

Next question: what is the role that the social sector will play in the national

Column: 514

gambling framework? I announced on Monday that I hope the Family Service Centres and CDCs would play a critical role. We have not wasted any time. Tomorrow, the Community Addictions Management Programme (CAMP), IMH and my Ministry will run its first training programme for FSCs and CDCs, not next year. The objectives of this programme will be to help our staff understand how gambling addictions develop, to be aware of common signs and symptoms, how to screen for problem and pathological gamblers. For FSC staff, they will be trained to provide basic intervention.

On Monday, I also said that we would be trying to identify one or two service centres which would serve as specialised counselling centres for problem gambling. As of today, four centres have already volunteered and we would work with them to enable them to provide this role. CAMP, MCYS and NCSS will come up with the full training programme for all our staff. And to show that we mean business, as Mayor Othman Haron Eusofe has recommended, we will not flinch from benchmarking our services against international standards.

Another question: will we do more research? Yes. More research is necessary. We will repeat our baseline study at regular intervals, and we will monitor the trends, and we will share it with this House.

We will also work with CAMP and specialist Family Service Centres to develop a better understanding of local problem gamblers. This will include in-depth studies on issues, such as help-seeking behaviour and the associated problems which they face, and the needs of these affected families. We need good local data. This will enable us to put the appropriate education and treatment regimes in place.

What is our timeline for all this? On Monday, I said we will set up the National

Column: 515

Council on Gambling in the second half of the year. Over the last few days, through the email I have already received, several people who are volunteering to serve on this. I will aim to set up the Council by July or August this year. The Council can then start work, especially focusing on public education in its initial phases. We will also start equipping our FSCs and CDCs. And as I said earlier, the training programme begins tomorrow.

As for building the specialist centres in the community and enacting legislation for the National Council on Gambling, these will take more time to refine. But we will certainly have to come to the House because it is legislation.

So let me assure this House that we will keep up the momentum and we will do whatever it takes in good time to deal with the potential problems, which are already here or which may surface in the future.

I am deeply heartened that all MPs, both Opposition and PAP, have agreed that we all need to work together to address the social ills of problem gambling. I give you this commitment that we will ensure that everyone who needs help can and will get help. We will put in place in typical Singapore fashion the best framework possible to combat problem gambling. And in this way, we will ensure that we always remain a good place to bring up our children, have strong families even as we pursue economic opportunities, and even when these opportunities come with some risks.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, point of clarification. The Minister did not answer my question regarding the counselling services provided by FSCs and medical treatment provided by IMH for problem addicted gamblers. Would it be free?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Services which are provided in the community by FSCs,

Column: 516

CDCs and the voluntary welfare organisations are heavily subsidised and sometimes free. But let me actually pin Mr Chia down on this, because the working assumption behind his stand is that, if someone is an addict, it is someone else's fault. Yesterday, in his speech, he said that it will be the Government's fault because the Government allowed an IR-to-be and, therefore, needs to be compensated. And his call for free service is really a call for compensation.

Let me put things in perspective. If you become an addict, you are at fault, and you should recognise that, and you should pay a penalty for it. Should your family pay a penalty for it? Regardless of how much help the Government extends, the truth of the matter is that your family will still be affected. So, let us not run away from this. Let us not duck responsibility. Every gambling addict has to own up to his own responsibility and be held accountable for it and pay the penalty for it. So, let us not get caught by red herrings about whether services will be free and whether compensation will be awarded. That is the wrong attitude to it. That would be akin to saying that, because I got photographed with my pants down, I want to sue the manufacturer of the camera for providing such technology. That makes no sense.

So, let us put things in perspective. We will help, but we will not let people duck their responsibilities.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Clarification, Sir. Does that mean that, for me, or any person who is an addicted gambler who has run into big financial problem because of gambling, he cannot go for treatment in this case because he cannot afford to pay the money for the treatment, or that the family members will have to pay the money for him to get treated?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: We will be very happy to treat him in the Institute of

Column: 517

Mental Health, but we will not bail him out of his financial problems, otherwise he will have moral hazard, and every time someone faces problems, he will declare himself to be an addict and collect the whole lot of freebies which Mr Steve Chia would like to give away.

Dr Geh Min: Point of clarification with the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports.

Minister Lim Boon Heng addressed the issue of jobs, especially for the structurally unemployed. I think that is one of the most compelling, in fact the most compelling, reason for having integrated resorts. Dr Balakrishnan has also reiterated that point. My concern is this. To my knowledge, both integrated resorts and casinos tend to employ young people. I have not been to that many, but I have asked various people and they confirmed this impression. So, is the Government going to make sure that they employ the older, less educated workers? The Minister for Trade and Industry said earlier that the Government has no influence on the IR operators on whether they have a whale or not, and whether they serve foie gras or not. Let me clarify that at this point my concern is for workers, not the whales.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Geh Min, can you come to your point? Raise your clarification.

Dr Geh Min: My point is: can the Government assure us that these integrated resort operators, although they have freedom of choice as to whether they have a whale, can they ensure that it is the workers who need the jobs who will get them, ie, Singaporeans who are structurally unemployed, the old and the less educated?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: We will treat the integrated resort operators the way

Column: 518

we treat all businesses in Singapore, which means whatever rules and regulations or moral suasion which the Ministry of Manpower and NTUC apply on our employers will also apply to them. This means that the majority of jobs will go to Singaporeans, because they will be subject to the same quotas that apply in the service sector.

Beyond that, I think these are points which we can discuss in the House, but I do not want to over micro-manage the situation. If at that point in time we change our rules and our approach to the employment of older workers, then naturally these must apply across the board to all employers. But this is the subject of a tripartite committee which I believe has been formed between NTUC, the Government and employers. Let us wait for its recommendations. The problems of unemployment for older workers is a much bigger and more fundamental one which we need to fix and not just resort to a quick fix.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Prof. Ivan Png. One last clarification. I think we have to move on.

Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang: Sir, the Ministers have not answered my question, ie, if the operators of the IRs come back and ask for relaxed conditions on admission of Singaporeans, will the Government commit that it will not relax these conditions.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I said earlier that we would review our conditions from time to time.

Let me just put things again in perspective. Why are we doing this? We are doing this because we want to attract tourists. If the integrated resorts are unable to attract tourists and they are going to have to depend on locals, we might as well let them go bankrupt.

Column: 519

5.52 pm

The Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, over the last four days, Parliament has had a constructive and very fruitful debate. The MPs have offered many insights. They have shared their personal experiences on gambling, whether winning or losing, and stated their positions and concerns. They have shown their personal convictions and well thought out stands, whether these are for or against the integrated resorts or, more specifically, against the casino component of the integrated resorts.

It is not the end of our journey, but it is a significant milestone after more than a year of debate. Now, what we have to do is to make the IRs work - to yield the economic benefits, to generate the jobs and, and at the same time, to limit the social fallout.

I have tried to explain the process by which we had reached this decision to proceed - how our thinking evolved, why we changed our long-standing policy, what we are still worried about. Usually, we avoid agonising over policies in public, wringing hands, wondering what to do before we make up our minds. Our preferred approach is to settle the main lines of a policy, explain the package, and then, if necessary, finetune as we go along, because we do not want to confuse people, we want to present a clear stand, and have the direction we are heading towards more or less worked out. But in this case, it has been important for us to talk about how we got here, in order to carry people along and understand our thinking.

We have been on a journey. The Government started out being against the integrated resorts. We had to review the evidence, confront the facts, rethink our conclusions and, in fact, re-examine our values and predispositions as we found

Column: 520

our way forward step by step, as the phrase goes, feeling your way stone by stone across the river, and gradually crossing the river and reaching a new point. And to bring the population and the MPs along with us, we had to explain how we got here, how we took these steps forward, why we changed our minds and why we are now here today.

The hardest thing for us to do is to change a policy which is still working. The problems are not yet obvious; the new policy involves risk and uncertainty; so why not carry on until the problems become more serious? Maybe we will not have to change. Whereas if the problem is already on your head and you are already in a deep hole, there is no question you will have to do something about it. But it is the Government's responsibility to look over the horizon, anticipate problems which are not yet looming large but which are visible in our telescope, and persuade people that we need to change now and to support the necessary change. So, what we are doing here is to look ahead 10 years, maybe 20 years, a responsibility that the Government takes very seriously.

Our economic policies today are working. In manufacturing, we are moving up the value added and technology ladder, and going upmarket. In electronics, bio-sciences, petrochemicals and fine chemicals, the industries are all doing well. We are getting new investments in research and development. Our financial sector is doing well, driven by the private banking and fund management industries. In fact, private banking is growing by 20% per year - the same market, by the way, which the IRs hope to target. Many more people are coming here from around the region, all the way from the Middle East to China, for education and health care.

We are trying to tap the growth of the countries around us and make a quantum

Column: 521

leap in all of these areas. We want to become a leading centre for high-end manufacturing in Asia. We want to offer the best education and health services to clients from the Middle East to China, South Korea and Japan; to reinforce our role as a key logistics hub: to entrench our position as a major centre for entertainment and conventions, different from Macao and Las Vegas. We are not trying to be a strip with 17 or 19 casinos, with flashing lights, tempting sounds and images, but attractive and special in our own way.

We are developing ourselves to become the most cosmopolitan, most open, and also the safest city in Asia, where women and children can walk along the streets all hours of the day and night without fear. We have to preserve our brand as a well managed city, Asian at its core, but open to change and willing to try bold new ideas.

So, the decision on the IRs concerns the interests of Singapore over the next 10 to 20 years. It is not a short-term problem. For the next five years, the IRs are not going to make any great difference to the economy. Maybe the construction sector will benefit. But if we do not move now and do not have IRs up and running four or five years from now, by 2009, other countries would have moved ahead, we would have been left behind, and it would be too late to catch up. You can see where the others are but you are far behind. In Chinese, we say, wang cheng mo ji, ie, watch the dust and you are not in range to catch up.

In the short term, we have to overcome some political resistance. Many Singaporeans are opposed to the idea. They are not the majority, but they are passionately and sincerely against the idea, and we have to persuade them to accept it or, at least, to let them

Column: 522

understand the reason why we have to move, even though we know they do not agree with the decision.

Finally, the Cabinet considered it carefully and we decided we cannot say no, we have to move now. In the long term, the IRs are an essential part of remaking Singapore. It is a judgement. Are there downside risks as Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked? Yes, of course. There are upside risks too. We do not know how it will work out. Maybe, if it is too successful, we may get frightened of it because it is such an irresistible temptation. But we have to weigh it and decide the upside and the downside to the best of our ability and judgement. Does it look like it is a good decision for Singapore? Our judgement, as a Cabinet, is yes, it is a decision which we have to make.

Other countries are already taking note of our move. It is reported all over the regional newspapers, The Herald Tribune has it, the Asian Wall Street Journal has it, the Financial Times has it. The Malaysians are watching us carefully. Their media is reporting on this. Mr Zainul Abidin mentioned this yesterday. They are asking if this is a plus or minus for them. Some people say it is a minus, business will go out. Some people say it is a plus, because, then, there will be more tourists coming to the region who will visit both Malaysia and Singapore. Because having visited the integrated resorts in Singapore, why not go visit Genting too? I watched the Chairman of the Malaysian Tourism Board on television and she took that attitude that it is a plus. They welcome it. So did the Secretary-General of the tourism ministry in Malaysia. I think that is the right attitude for neighbours in Southeast Asia to take.

But the reaction is not just from Southeast Asia. The Chinese are watching us. Shanghai is watching us. The China Daily , which is an English newspaper in

Column: 523

China, devoted half a page of its business segment reporting on our integrated resorts on Tuesday after I made the statement on Monday. One of our Singapore CEOs happened to be in Shanghai and met the Shanghai government officials. The officials told him, "Singapore, while small, has made such a tremendous impact regionally ... This decision [talking about the IRs] is another example of long-term planning that will no doubt improve Singapore business stature." So they are watching us. They are studying which way we go and I have no doubt that they are asking themselves, "Is it something which we should consider? If so, when should we move?" Because Shanghai has moved forward on many fronts and, in some areas, they are well ahead of Singapore, and this is not something unthinkable.

I am convinced that the majority of MPs and, I believe, majority of Singaporeans, support the idea of an integrated resort. I draw this conclusion based on the debate these last few days, my soundings with MPs and their grassroots, and feedback I received myself, visiting the constituencies, talking to the grassroots leaders and their residents. There is support for it. And after the debate and the explanations in the House, I am confident that the support level will go up. But the basis for this decision is not the popularity of the proposal, otherwise we could have done a straw poll or referendum, as Dr Loo Choon Yong suggested, and then gone with whatever the straw poll said. The right basis is what is right for Singapore in the long run. That is what we have to judge and decide.

Most MPs who have spoken disapprove of gambling, or, at least, they disapprove of excessive gambling. Some oppose it because of their upbringing, like Mr Arthur Fong, whose father left him an indelible experience, or their religious faiths, like Mr Loh Meng See, who spoke

Column: 524

just now. Some oppose all forms of gambling, because of personal experiences of family members who are gambling addicts. And when you have gone through such an experience, that also leaves an indelible impression on you, and you say, "I do not want this ever to happen. Let there not be such an evil on the earth." Others have done their calculations and found that gambling is pointless because the house always wins, as the Minister Mentor explained.

Some of the shrewdest and wealthiest businessmen in Singapore do not gamble. They could be a whale if they wanted to, but they think it is foolish, and a waste of money. Mr Ong Beng Seng is one of them. I have got his permission to tell you his story. He said that he found out that the house always wins. So he must have played and eventually concluded that it is a mug's game, the player always loses. So he had a solution. He decided to be on the other side. He bought the house, and later sold it for a good profit. The shrewdest businessmen, the ones who are smartest at making money, will tell you, "If you want to make money, this is not the way to do it." This attitude towards casinos and gambling is a good one. I do not believe that having the integrated resorts will shift this basic attitude. This is an attitude and is the immune system in our society which will inoculate us against succumbing to excessive gambling.

But we also have to be realistic. Even without IRs, many people are already gambling, as Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon and Mr Ong Ah Heng pointed out just now. They work with the unions so they know the ground, people's habits and how they behave. The MCYS' survey confirmed what we knew - 58% of Singaporean adults gamble. But what was interesting was also the amounts which they gamble. Median expenditure per gambler per month is $83; average is $244. If you base it on one year, the median

Column: 525

expenditure is almost $1,000 and the average is nearly $3,000. This is what an average gambler in Singapore will spend. Most of these will be social and recreational gamblers, but a few will get into trouble.

I am not a gambler myself. I have been lucky. I have not experienced the problems of gambling, either me or my family. My family does not gamble. I was going to tell you all about my non-gambling occasions, but they paled in comparison with Senior Minister's and other stories which the House has heard, but I will just tell you one.

On a rare occasion, we were at a very serious meeting in Canberra in 1989, the first APEC Conference, and it happened to coincide with the Melbourne Cup. I was there with George Yeo. Everything came to a stop. This was in the middle of the day. The Prime Minister, then Bob Hawke, flew from Canberra to Melbourne to attend the race, congratulate the winner and come back to Canberra the same day to receive us at dinner. We had to stop doing business because the whole country ground to a halt. All the Australian staff and officers were going to watch, so we had better watch too. Our attitude was, if we are going to watch, we might as well put some money on it. So we passed the hat around. This being APEC, we decided on a collective bet, 12 countries. It was not a big sum, so we bet one horse. My job was to name the horse. We chose the "Empire Rose". I cannot remember why, but I remember the name - there was a profound political reason. It lost. That has not been an indelible lesson, but it is a vivid example of how difficult it is to be smarter than the other guy and smarter than the house. So never believe that one can gamble to earn a living or to get rich. I have seen in MPS,

Column: 526

families who are in trouble because of gambling, just as I have seen in MPS families who are in trouble because of other reasons, drinking or just being dissolute or unable to manage their finances. It is very sad and every case you see is one case too many.

Like everybody else, I would like to protect our people and our own children from ruining their lives through gambling. But I do not believe we can solve the problem by banning gambling. I also do not believe that gambling is something which we can completely outlaw. We take that attitude with drugs. There is no such thing as recreational use, whether it is cannabis, heroin, cocaine. For consuming drugs, you go to jail or the drug rehabilitation centre.

But we do not take that attitude with other social vices. We do not ban cigarettes, which are extremely harmful. All we can do is to tax them heavily so, at least, some public good comes out of a private addiction. You can also become addicted to alcohol, which can break up families and ruin lives. But we do not ban alcohol, because that does not work. We allow alcohol to be sold, and we tax it. And there is such a thing as a social drinker - you drink wine or beer, it is part of socialising, it is normal. Muslims do not. Some other people feel that they do not want to, but drinking is accepted within society.

Prostitution is a sin. It is wrong, but it is a reality. As the MM explained, we are a port city, if we do not allow it, you drive it underground. So we allow it, we regulate it, we have a system of health checks, and everybody knows the even numbered Lorongs are different from the odd numbered Lorongs .

Gambling opportunities now are far more prevalent than they ever used to be. It is a fact of life. We have to accept it. Cruises to nowhere are common. Singaporeans go, grassroots leaders go, and MPs go with them because it is part of

Column: 527

bonding amongst the grassroots. And the MPs tell me that when you go on a cruise to nowhere, before you can cross the international boundary, there is a queue outside the casino. The moment the doors open, people rush in. If you were not there and you were eating a chicken wing at a buffet, and you hear the PA system announce, "The doors are now open", you will drop your chicken wing, half-eaten, and run.

On the Internet, gambling is available readily. You do not have to visit the sites, the sites visit you. Because you may be at some perfectly innocent site and up it pops and says, here's a casino, try your hand at black-jack, or whatever it is, with bright flashing lights - a private casino in your own home. I was doing some research - I assure you - a few days ago, preparing for this debate and up came a site. So I decided to click on it. The site is called popebetting.com because a new Pope was being elected, and here is the chance for you to put some money on the candidates. There was a whole listing of the cardinals and the odds, the first one of which was Cardinal Ratzinger, 3:1. I regret I did not click on the next link. So the temptation is all around you. You have to teach people how not to gamble excessively and we have to have safety nets to catch and treat those who become gambling addicts.

We have to get our people to learn, and particularly the next generation to learn, that it is stupid to think of gambling as a way to get rich. If you have to gamble, treat it as a consumption item, and set a budget to spend. If I am going to have a fling this evening, here is $50 or $100 I am going in with, that is what I am going to spend. When it runs out, I go home. It is like going to the movies or on a holiday. It is spending money. If you lose, do not try to earn it back. That is disastrous, as Chia Teck Leng found out. I have had very intelligent, very well

Column: 528

educated professionals explain to me how, if you are smart, you can outsmart the house. I have tried to explain to them that, mathematically, it is not possible, this is a well-known paradox, you may think double, double, double, and you will come ahead, but before that you will go bankrupt. But they say, "No. If you are not greedy, you can make just a little bit of money." The glint is in their eyes, but they are quite wrong, and we have to get this message home, so Singaporeans know that if you are doing this, you are a sucker.

It is better for people to have the right values inculcated in them from young so that they can form their own right judgments. Then they can deal with many risks in the world which they are going to meet, more dangerous than integrated resorts on Sentosa or Marina South.

We teach pupils in schools, through civics and moral education, which already covers the virtues of thrift, hard work and being responsible to the family. The challenge is not to have more homilies and lectures. The challenge is to deliver this message effectively and interestingly, whether or not we have a casino. You have to do it through stories and parables, maybe some real life examples, or a visit to the casino. Then you know what it is about and you have some mental image of how to deal with it.

Families too play a role. Parents need to teach values, and also the basic facts about gambling. I know of one family who happen to be opposed to the casino, but they teach their children how to gamble because they want their children to understand it. So every Chinese New Year, their children play these games. As you all know, Chinese New Year is one of those ancient traditional family occasions where these are among the family pastimes. In this case, the elder sister was playing with the younger brother for a piece of cake. The elder sister won and

Column: 529

so gave chance. Younger brother played again. Elder sister won again, gave chance again. Played a third time, elder sister won again, she promptly ate the cake, and younger brother burst into tears. That is the sort of lesson which we want to teach people and which will stay with them for a long time. That is what elder sisters are for.

Religious and social work groups also have a role to play - to exhort their followers to live upright lives, to have their social networks, so you know who is in trouble, who may be wandering too far, and to counsel and help those who get into trouble. So I hope that those who oppose the IRs on moral or religious grounds will continue to engage themselves and exert a positive force on society. With the right values, people can choose and decide - either not to go to the casino or if they must gamble, then not excessively. They have to live their own lifestyles, maintain their own values, abide by their own rules, as Singaporeans have to do when they go overseas and live in a different society. As Mr Zainudin explained to us on Tuesday, what he had to do when he visited France and lived there for three years, and he still comes back as a good Muslim.

I am encouraged that MPs, despite personal reservations, understand the reasons why the Government has to proceed with the IRs. So too Singaporeans. Many have written to me to express their understanding and support since this debate began. After hearing our explanations, they realised the scale of the integrated resort and the benefits it will bring to the Singapore economy. They said the Government should have presented the IR concept more clearly earlier. If we had explained it like this, it would have been easier. Actually I should tell MTI that if they had explained it to the Cabinet like this, then Ministers might

Column: 530

have been persuaded earlier. But we started off with this gambling component, and we must not lose sight of that, but we should see it in perspective.

Some people who wrote to me were struck by the descriptions of what other cities are doing and they said we better move too. They understood that the Government had made this decision after wrestling with its conscience, and was doing this to grow our economy, create job opportunities and renew Singapore. There were some who have strong religious beliefs who said that they themselves will not step into a casino, but they understand why we are moving, and they will devote their time and energy to help counter the negative impact. For example, one Muslim wrote to me, and I quote him, "I reject the idea of having a casino in Singapore, but as a secular Government, the decision can't be taken based on religious faith but for the sake of national interest. I have to respect the Government's decision. I also thank the Government for respecting religious faith ... and I trust that the Government is making a sound decision and I support the IR project and I hope other Singaporeans will also see it the same way."

I am also heartened that many social welfare and religious groups who had opposed the IR, and still disapprove of it, are prepared to cooperate with the Government to help to tackle problem gambling. For example, the associate general secretary of the National Council of Churches of Singapore was quoted by AFP to say, "We are still opposed to gambling and all the effects of that vice. But the Council would encourage its member churches to educate their flocks against gambling. Christian churches would cooperate with the Government in dealing with the social fallout and offer counselling for people with gambling problems."

The Catholic Archbishop Monsignor Nicholas Chia told the BBC that he

Column: 531

understood the economic arguments, but, of course, he was still very much against it, and he said and I quote, "We are very worried about the cost of human, family and social well-being. We will try to dissuade people from being addicted and educate people on the ill-effects of problem-gambling."

The Muslim groups too have spoken out. For example, the Darussalam Mosque Management Board Chairman, Abdul Mutalib Hashim, expected IRs to cause problems for Muslims, but he said that the mosque planned to enrich its mosque counsellors with comprehensive knowledge about gambling - not only basic knowledge, but also laws and the social impact of gambling.

Mr Ramli Puteh, who is President of the Ain Society, a Malay welfare group, hoped that Malay/Muslim organisations can work together to handle gambling-related problems later on, such as alcoholism and domestic violence.

We are very grateful for the understanding of these religious leaders, and we will make full use of their resources, networks and sense of mission to tackle the side-effects of problem gambling.

This has been an important exercise in public consultation and active citizenry. The public discussion has been, on the whole, calm and rational. It has been a passionate debate, but I am not surprised at that, because in every other country or city considering a change in gambling policy, it has been a hot subject. Every society includes a range of views on gambling, and if we did not have a group of people who have strong reservations and are prepared to speak up, I think an important component would have been missing from our social immune system.

Some people have said that the Government was in a no-win situation. If it does not consult, it is seen as not consultative. If it consults, but then

Column: 532

decides to proceed, it is seen as not taking in opposing views, and some people will say that the Government had decided already. I do not think that this is a decisive factor, because for an important issue which Singaporeans feel strongly about, I am convinced that this way is the right way to go - to consult, air, debate and, finally, to make a considered decision.

As Mr Tan Soo Khoon said, the Government having decided to proceed, it does not mean that one camp has triumphed over another. We have had to debate this, weigh this and, finally, we have had to find a position which we think is right for Singapore and which we can carry. That is what we have tried to do. We deeply respect views, like Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim's or Mr Loh Meng See's, which treat gambling as an absolute no, no. But, as I have explained, that is not the society's view, it is not the Government's view. We have to operate on a secular basis, taking the national interest at heart and recognising that people will feel very strongly that they do not want to participate and they wish others also would be prevented from taking part. We can respect the first part, but we cannot prevent others from taking part.

The inputs did influence our deliberations. It gave us a sense of what people were worried about, what was acceptable, and it helped us decide what safeguards to take. For example, we took some time to come up with the entrance fee proposal. We floated other ideas. What about a total ban for Singaporeans? That was a no go. What about some cut-off in terms of income levels? I think that would have been offensive to many Singaporeans. Who are you to say that because I am poor, I cannot look after my own money? Or entrance fee based on credit cards? We found that there would be too many. What about gold cards? But gold cards can get cheaper; even

Column: 533

platinum cards get devalued. So, finally, we settled on this entrance fee. Whether $100 is the right or wrong number, time will tell. I believe it is the right number. It will work in deterring casual gamblers from just wandering in and then getting hooked. It will not deter problem gamblers. They are already hooked. But for problem gamblers, we need a different solution.

Why do I think it works? Because I have asked around. How much money are people playing when they go to these jackpot machines? If they go to Batam, they carry with them maybe $200-$300. I asked how much do they come back with, and I am told, usually zero. If they go to NTUC Club, the operator tells me they come with $200-$300 too. They may go back with two-thirds of that, so the Club makes maybe $100 out of them. I asked NTUC Club: what if I levy $100 on you? He said NTUC Club will die. I think he knows what he is talking about. This is not a trivial levy. Time will tell, but the test is: is it cheaper to go to Marina South or is it cheaper to go to Genting or Batam? I think, based on the price we intend to set, Genting and Batam are cheaper. If that changes, we will have to look at the situation again.

We have had a substantive debate. We have come to this House after the Cabinet has decided. Prof. Ivan Png would like us to come to this House before the Cabinet has decided. We are prepared to explain our position even before we have taken a stand. But there has to be a certain ripeness in our policy, a certain crystallised proposal to focus the House's discussion so that when you debate it, you know what you are for, or what you are against. Our approach is to take soundings, assess, and come here with a proposal. There are views and ideas which we have taken in these last three days. We will study them, and

Column: 534

where they are relevant and constructive, we will take them in. But there has to be a proposal to focus on and the decision really lies with the Cabinet, what we are going to do, because finally we are the ones who take the responsibility and carry that and have to answer for the consequences of making this decision.

This will not be the last time we have to go through such debates, and decisions have to be made which not all Singaporeans will agree with. We will continue to take a consultative approach on important issues that matter to Singaporeans, even though on some of these, we will not reach unanimity. Then we will have to manage the debate so that we do not polarise ourselves and end up with a deeper cleavage in our society, which is harder to bridge. This has happened in Western societies. If you discuss abortion or gay rights, there is no possibility of meeting of minds. The extremes have polarised and we must not let that happen on divisive issues in Singapore. We have to develop the maturity for the Government to be open to modifying proposals to take in new ideas, and for the public to accept that consultation does not mean every input will become policy, particularly when there are different views among the public.

Now that the decision has been made, we have to move on, close ranks, and work to make the IR succeed for Singapore. The upside and the downside are not just matters of guess work, but they depend on how hard we work to get the upside and to limit the downside. As one young Singaporean wrote in an email to me: "Whether it is the Government, the gambler, or you, we are all a family walking and sleeping in the same piece of land. The best idea won't work if no one supports it. The worst one will work if everyone works towards a common goal." A very sensible young lady wrote that. So let us all work towards a successful

Column: 535

project, a clean and safe, but vibrant and dynamic Singapore.