Hansard, 2005-04-18

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Name From (2005) To (2005) Dr Balaji Sadasivan 12 Mar 12 Mar 30 Mar 08 Apr 17 Apr 24 Apr Mr Hawazi Daipi 16 Mar 18 Mar 25 Mar 27 Mar Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani 18 Mar 20 Mar Mr Ang Mong Seng 18 Mar 24 Mar 11 Apr 14 Apr 25 Apr 30 Apr Dr Loo Choon Yong 20 Mar 29 Mar Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam 20 Mar 31 Mar 17 Apr 23 Apr Encik Yatiman Yusof 20 Mar 24 Mar 09 Apr 10 Apr Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed 21 Mar 26 Mar 30 Mar 30 Mar 11 Apr 15 Apr Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 22 Mar 24 Mar 26 Mar 05 Apr Column:7 Mr David T E Lim 22 Mar 22 Mar 30 Mar 02 Apr 07 Apr 10 Apr 14 Apr 23 Apr Miss Penny Low 22 Mar 26 Mar 30 Mar 09 Apr Mr Yeo Guat Kwang 22 Mar 25 Mar 01 Apr 04 Apr Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon 22 Mar 26 Mar Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim 23 Mar 23 Mar 30 Mar 30 Mar 06 Apr 06 Apr 28 Apr 28 Apr 04 May 06 May Mr Sin Boon Ann 24 Mar 25 Mar 30 Mar 03 Apr Mr Yeo Cheow Tong 24 Mar 27 Mar 28 Mar 01 Apr 17 Apr 22 Apr Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong 26 Mar 06 Apr Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 27 Mar 30 Mar Mr Lee Kuan Yew 28 Mar 01 Apr 20 Apr 23 Apr 25 Apr 28 Apr Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo 29 Mar 31 Mar 04 Apr 07 Apr 10 Apr 12 Apr 19 Apr 21 Apr 27 Apr 08 May Mr Lee Hsien Loong 29 Mar 31 Mar 22 Apr 23 Apr Dr Ong Chit Chung 29 Mar 01 Apr 04 Apr 06 Apr 20 Apr 21 Apr 03 May 03 May 06 Jun 10 Jun 13 Jun 15 Jun Mr Wee Siew Kim 30 Mar 31 Mar 02 Apr 05 Apr 19 Apr 28 Apr 20 Apr 21 Apr 02 May 08 May 18 May 28 May 19 May 22 May Mr Gan Kim Yong 01 Apr 04 Apr 07 Apr 12 Apr 14 Apr 14 Apr Column: 8 18 Apr 21 Apr 25 Apr 28 Apr Mr Lim Hng Kiang 01 Apr 05 Apr 10 Apr 11 Apr Mr Loh Meng See 01 Apr 03 Apr 05 Apr 10 Apr 13 Apr 17 Apr Mr Chew Heng Ching 02 Apr 06 Apr Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M 04 Apr 08 Apr Mr Ong Kian Min 04 Apr 06 Apr 11 Apr 13 Apr Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat 04 Apr 07 Apr Mr Goh Chok Tong 05 Apr 06 Apr 09 Apr 13 Apr Mr Charles Chong 06 Apr 09 Apr 18 Apr 23 Apr Mdm Ho Geok Choo 06 Apr 09 Apr 16 Apr 17 Apr Mr S Iswaran 06 Apr 09 Apr 20 Apr 22 Apr 02 May 08 May Mr Leong Horn Kee 07 Apr 09 Apr 16 Apr 23 Apr Prof. S Jayakumar 07 Apr 09 Apr Mr Heng Chee How 08 Apr 14 Apr 25 Apr 28 Apr 01 May 05 May 30 May 06 Jun Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng 10 Apr 24 Apr Mr R Ravindran 10 Apr 15 Apr Mr Khaw Boon Wan 11 Apr 15 Apr Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung 12 Apr 15 Apr Ms Indranee Rajah 12 Apr 22 Apr Mdm Cynthia Phua 13 Apr 13 Apr 14 Apr 16 Apr Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee 13 Apr 15 Apr Mr Mah Bow Tan 13 Apr 15 Apr 21 Apr 24 Apr Mr Matthias Yao Chih 14 Apr 14 Apr Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng 16 Apr 18 Apr Mr K Shanmugam 18 Apr 22 Apr Mr Davinder Singh 19 Apr 21 Apr Dr John Chen Seow Phun 19 Apr 22 Apr Column: 9 Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay 19 Apr 22 Apr 09 May 28 May Mr Teo Yock Ngee 19 Apr 23 Apr Mr Zainudin Nordin 19 Apr 24 Apr Mr Abdullah Tarmugi 20 Apr 27 Apr Dr Chong Weng Chiew 21 Apr 22 Apr Dr Geh Min 25 Apr 04 May 29 May 15 Jun Mr Lim Swee Say 25 Apr 28 Apr Dr Lee Boon Yang 28 Apr 04 May Dr Ong Seh Hong 28 Apr 01 May Mr Seng Han Thong 11 May 15 May Mr Chan Soo Sen 24 May 31 May Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee 22 Jun 26 Jun

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry if he will update the House on the progress of the Government's review and deliberation of the various proposals received for the Integrated Resorts and the criteria and process in the selection of the proposal.

2. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether Government tax revenue is the only economic factor in the assessment of the 19 Integrated Resort (IR) proposals that have been received; (b) what are the

other quantitative factors in the assessment; (c) what are the qualitative factors, such as negative social effects, that will be considered in the assessment; and (d) how will the qualitative factors be quantified so that they can be evaluated on the same basis as the quantitative factors in the assessment of the 19 IR proposals.

3. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, as much of the scenario planning on the development of an integrated resort and casino are theoretical, (a) will the Government consider a U-turn policy if the casino does not work out according to plan; (b) under what conditions will the Government consider a U-turn policy; (c) what are the contingency plans if the U-turn is initiated after the integrated resort and casino have been built; and (d) how will the Government remedy the situation if the outcome is disastrous.

Question No. 1, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I have your permission to take Question Nos. 1 to 3 together as they relate to the same topic?

Yes, you may.

Sir, the Prime Minister will be making a Statement later on on the proposal to develop Integrated Resorts. I would like to urge Members to wait for the Statement. I think most of the queries will be addressed during the statement.

4. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Home Affairs with the development of the Integrated Resort and casino (a) whether there will be an

increase in vice, illegal money-lending, money-laundering and drug activities; and if so, (b) what are the safeguards that will be put in place to prevent them.

Sir, I think the Member must have heard the Minister for Trade and Industry. Similarly, the Minister for Home Affairs will be addressing these issues when Members debate the Ministerial Statement on the Integrated Resorts afterwards.

5. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health what is the cause of the outbreak of the vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) at the Singapore General Hospital and what measures have been put in place to prevent a future occurrence of such an outbreak.

6. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for Health (a) if he will provide an update of the vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) outbreak at SGH; (b) what is the source or cause of this outbreak; (c) what are the risks of this outbreak spreading to other hospitals; and (d) what precautions have been or will be taken to reduce the risk of the development of VRE or other outbreaks within and across the different hospitals and possibly even the polyclinics.

7. Dr Tan Sze Wee asked the Minister for Health whether he will consider gazetting vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) as a disease under the First, Second and/or Sixth Schedule of the Infectious Diseases Act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, can I take Question Nos. 5 to 7 together?

Yes, you may.

Sir, several Members have asked about the VRE cases in the Singapore General Hospital. Let me assure Members that VRE is not like SARS.

All perfectly healthy people have billions of bacteria in their large intestines. Enterococci are examples of such bacteria. Normal healthy people also carry bacteria in their nose, mouth and skin. These usually harmless bacteria may occasionally cause infections like pneumonia (lung infection) or septicemia (infection in the blood). Such patients are then treated with antibiotics. Enterococci used to be always sensitive to the antibiotic, Vancomycin. But bacteria mutate and can develop resistance to a specific antibiotic. When bacteria become resistant to an antibiotic, a different antibiotic has to be used to treat infections caused by the bacteria.

The first antibiotic to be used in the world was penicillin. After many years of penicillin use, penicillin-resistant bacteria emerged. The same happened after years of use of Ampicillin and, more recently, Methicillin. Staphlycoccus aureaus - bacteria normally found on the skin which become resistant to methicillin is called MRSA. Not surprisingly, after many years of Vancomycin use, we now have enterococci bacteria that are resistant to Vancomycin - VRE.

VRE was first reported in England in 1986, nearly 20 years ago, and hospital-acquired outbreaks have subsequently been reported in USA and Europe. In Singapore, fortunately, VRE is still rare, with only a handful of cases reported in recent years.

Very few patients actually fall sick because of VRE. Those who do tend to be patients with low immunity because of multiple medical problems such as renal failure, diabetes and cancer. In these patients the VRE may infect sites such as a wound or urinary tract. The enterococci infection is then treated with an antibiotic other than Vancomycin. Mdm Halimah and Dr Amy Khor asked for the source of the VRE cases in SGH. It is still being investigated. We may never know for sure. The bacteria could be bacteria that mutated locally or it could be bacteria brought into Singapore by healthy carriers who carried the bacteria in their large intestines.

The vast majority of patients with VRE are healthy carriers of the bacteria without any symptom. There are no effective treatments for healthy carriers since these bacteria are normal to the large intestines. Hospitals use many antibiotics within the hospital premises and the bacteria that survive and lurk in the hospital setting tend to be those that have antibiotic resistance. Outside of hospitals, the bacteria there tend to be the non-resistant type. So very often a VRE carrier in the hospital setting becomes VRE negative after being discharged. However, as this process may take some time, carriers can continue to shed VRE in their stools for many months. Hospitals have an interest to identify them early so that while in the hospital they can be isolated. This will reduce the risk of VRE spread.

In the current episode, VRE was first identified by SGH on 9th March 2005 in a 75-year-old patient with multiple medical conditions. Through screening his close contacts, SGH identified five other patients with VRE. At that point, SGH decided to screen all its inpatients with a view to identify the carriers so that they can be properly isolated. In parallel, SGH staff were reminded to step up good infection control practices such as

Mass screening of all the inpatients in SGH has so far identified 93 patients with VRE. Of these, only three were found to be infected, with clinical symptoms. They were patients with multiple chronic medical conditions.

To minimise the spread of VRE to other hospitals, we have also reminded them to step up infection control procedures. At the same time, SGH shares with the other hospitals the list of their recently discharged patients so that they can be isolated and screened for VRE if they are admitted there.

So far, one such patient has been admitted to NUH. NUH has since identified another case of VRE in a foreign patient, but this patient was not related to the SGH cases.

Mdm Halimah and Dr Amy Khor asked what precautions have been or will be taken to reduce the risk of future occurrences of VRE cases in hospitals. This is best done through a combination of measures. First, there must be a rational usage of Vancomycin. Second, there must be good surveillance for hospital-acquired infections. Third, there must be strict adherence to sound infection control principles such as prompt isolation of patients with infectious diseases, barrier nursing and hand washing.

These are good hospital practices which all hospitals should adopt. Like penicillin resistant bacteria and MRSA, VRE may eventually become part of our bacterial landscape. If this happens, infections now treated with Vancomycin will have to be treated by other antibiotics. The greatest danger is bacteria that becomes resistant to multiple antibiotics. To minimise this risk,

Dr Tan asked whether VRE should be gazetted under the Infectious Diseases Act. We see no need as VRE is not a community-based infectious disease like tuberculosis or SARS. However, it poses a risk to immune-compromised patients in hospitals. We have therefore included VRE as a target in their infection control programmes.

mandatory hand washing in between patients and stricter compliance of the 2-visitor rule in the hospital. antibiotics must not be used indiscriminately. Doctors should use antibiotics only when indicated and patients should complete their course of antibiotics when it is prescribed to them.

Sir, the Minister did mention that VRE may become part of our eco-system. My question is whether there is a danger of VRE becoming entrenched in our hospitals, like the situation we see in some US hospitals and therefore becoming quite a menace.

My second question is: is there a need for us to educate the doctors and the public on the use of antibiotics because that apparently seems to be the cause and the bacteria become more and more resistant to the use of antibiotics?

Sir, the answer to both queries is yes. In the US, UK and parts of Europe, VRE is now entrenched and the US' experience has been going on for about 20 years. We have been fairly lucky but I doubt that it has a lot to do with luck. It has to do with the practices. And careful usage of antibiotics and making sure that they are not used indiscriminately is one of the key measures besides the usual infection control procedures. We had SARS and that was a period when we reminded everybody about the importance of infection control.

Now, we have the bird flu and VRE and potentially it could be a major risk for

us. I think it will be extremely difficult to eradicate VRE to make sure that it is not part and parcel of our eco-system because we are such an open economy. Just like the NUH case that I mentioned in my reply, it was a foreigner who came in for treatment. We look around the region and we know that antibiotic usage is almost rampant and that is a major risk.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister that if large hospitals like SGH are more susceptible to the spread of infectious diseases, not necessarily just the VRE, because of the volume of traffic, the number of patients and the sheer size of the hospital, are there any additional precautions that are necessary in addition to what has been listed.

Sir, this is one hypothesis. It is not just the size of the hospital but it is also the range of specialties although the two tend to be linked. When you have a large hospital you will also have multiple disciplines, especially tertiary disciplines, with greater mixing of patients. One observation that some doctors made during the SARS period was why is it that SARS became such a problem in those major centres with modern hospitals whereas in the third world, in the villages, somehow it was not a problem. One hypothesis was that it was because of concentrating the multi-specialty patients together. Because of specialisation, the same patient is being handled by different departments and the patient has to go through several departments instead of just going to one place. Therefore, if there is a carrier of the bacteria, you expose the various patients in different parts of the hospital. I think it is a fairly reasonable hypothesis.

Like all things, such as casinos, you open the window and all sorts of things will fly in. So we have to decide whether or not we want to shut the window and if we do so, of course, we will be secluded.

But how do we stay secluded in a modern world?

Sir, the Minister has suggested that there are probably no grounds to consider VRE being gazetted as a disease under the Infectious Diseases Act. But I would like to clarify that it was reported in the papers that SGH had given the names of the patients tested positive for VRE to all hospitals. I agree that there are many good reasons for SGH to do so. However, I would like to know if consent from these patients has been expressly sought. If not, the privacy and confidentiality rights of these patients perhaps could have inadvertently been violated in the process. This is because VRE at present is not a disease on any Schedule of the Infectious Diseases Act and SGH may not be empowered ---

Dr Tan, no speeches. Please ask your question.

I would like to ask, on the grounds of privacy and confidentiality, perhaps the Minister may want to consider gazetting VRE as one of the diseases under the Infectious Diseases Act.

I honestly do not see a compelling need to do so because VRE is not like VD or HIV where there is a stigma associated with it. It is one of those "bad luck" illness, if you get it.

Even with HIV, confidentiality is always preserved by hospital workers, in the sense that when we take a particular decision - in this case, circulate the list - it was purely on a need-to-know basis because, what is the alternative? The alternative is not to inform. Then we are exposing the patients, say, in the private hospitals to a potential spread. So, on this score, our conscience is quite clear, ie, there is nothing wrong in sharing the list for the greater good of society.

May I ask the Minister whether there will be more liberal use of Vancomycin in SGH compared to other hospitals that caused the VRE outbreak in SGH? Has there been a review done on the prescription habits of doctors in SGH, especially on the prophylactic use of strong antibiotics? Should there be better guidelines on such prescription to prevent future recurrences?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not personally aware whether such studies were done. There may be. I would have to check. But it is traditionally very difficult to compare practices between two hospitals, unless they have identical patient profiles. SGH, being our major tertiary institution with multiple specialties, their patients' needs for vancomycin may be higher than the others, everything being equal. But what I can say safely is that we in Singapore, compared to many developed countries in terms of usage of antibiotics, are a lot more careful. And, as I said just now, it is not a result of good luck or whatever. Pricing has to do with it too. Vancomycin, for example, is a non-standard drug and, in countries where they subsidise until everything is free, the tendency to over-prescribe may be greater.

May I ask the Minister whether in view of the fact that VRE infection is a hospital-acquired disease, affected patients will be given free follow-up treatment and are hospitals covered under insurance for such eventualities? May I also ask the Minister whether he really looks for the causative agent or the factor that caused the VRE outbreak so that other hospitals can learn from the mistake?

I think the reply to the second question is, yes, we are checking what actually caused this

As to her first question, hospital-acquired infections are now very much acknowledged as one of the complications of being hospitalised in a hospital, not just here but worldwide. Therefore, the practice worldwide, in fact, is not for hospitals to take responsibility for picking up the bills, for the simple reason that the cause of infection is very hard to establish. Is it the fault of the doctor, nurse or the patients themselves? So, instead, the global hospital practice is to look at what is the infection rate. Even in the best-run hospitals, it cannot be zero. It is almost impossible. Instead, what we do is that we benchmark ourselves against others to compare with our incidence rate. I look at those rates occasionally and, by and large, Singapore's situation is not bad. But I wanted to take the next step, which I think I have expressed before. I will be starting to publish some of our infection rates post-surgery, and we go by types of major surgeries, eg, hip replacement, what is the infection rate in Singapore among the various hospitals, and then we can benchmark against the other hospitals. And if we find that a particular hospital has an excessively high infection rate, then, as regulator, I think I would need to step in to perhaps, in extremis, even suspend the operation of that department until they clean up the operation.

cluster. As I said, although VRE is rare in Singapore, it does not mean we have none. All these years, looking at some of the data, each hospital may report one or two cases. It is a handful of cases. The trouble is, this phenomenon has been around for 20 years now and we are so well connected to the rest of the world, one, two or even a handful of cases a year should be considered as a fairly good outcome.

asked the Minister for Health, in order to achieve better risk management against communicable disease outbreaks, will he consider having measures to 'disperse' the risk of large numbers of immuno-compromised inpatients, namely hematology, oncology and renal failure patients, from the Singapore General Hospital by increasing the availability of immuno-compromised clinical specialities in the other public sector hospitals.

Dr Tan Sze Wee suggested that we disperse the immuno-compromised patients, such as hematology, oncology and renal failure patients, among the various public hospitals, instead of concentrating them in the Singapore General Hospital. This is to minimise the risk of a major communicable disease outbreak causing havoc among these patients.

We do spread out such patients. In addition to SGH, these patients are treated in the National University Hospital, KK Hospital and Tan Tock Seng Hospital. However to distribute these tertiary specialties to all hospitals as a policy would not be practical. A tertiary specialty does require a critical mass of expertise, supported by a minimum volume of patient load. Otherwise, there will be wastages of duplication and inadequate opportunity for our clinicians to sharpen their skills.

In any case, there is no excuse for poor standard of infection control practices. This is ultimately the most effective means to minimise such disease outbreak.

asked the Minister for Health whether he will consider limiting the size of all rooms in new public hospitals to at most four beds per room, with an attached toilet and bathroom, as a means of achieving better prevention and control of the spread of communicable diseases in public hospitals.

Dr Tan Sze Wee suggested that we limit the number of beds to four per room in our public hospitals in order to better control the spread of communicable diseases.

While I appreciate his good intention, this would unfortunately mean that such hospitals would have to go without Class B2 and C wards. I know that Dr Tan is a strong supporter of means-testing and it is possible to have all patients in private wards but enjoying different subsidy level in accordance with their income. But this would require a much more intensive form of means-testing than what I have in mind and what Singaporeans, I think, are prepared to accept.

The key point is whether good infection control can be achieved in an open ward. While large open wards pose a greater challenge, a high standard of infection control is still achievable if there is rigorous adherence to infection control practices and work processes, such as hand-washing, barrier nursing and prompt isolation of infectious patients.

During the SARS crisis, Members may recall that Alexandra Hospital, with large open wards, remained SARS-free.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. I refer to the reply that was given to me for the written answer where out of the patients who had VRE in SGH, a significant proportion - in fact, more than 50% - were in B2 and C Class wards. I would

like to suggest that perhaps the Minister consider, in the proposed new northern general hospital, that the wards as well as the bed sizes are so designed that it takes into account the fact that infectious diseases can be spread much more easily when patients are confined in the same space.

I think, for new hospital design, our Class C wards are now much smaller. Alexandra Hospital, which I talked about just now, has as large as 40 beds. But those are I think Florence Nightingale days. Nowadays, if we keep it to 10, 15 and sufficiently "cubicalised", I think we can minimise the problem.

asked the Minister for Health (a) how many Singaporeans have opted out of the MediShield scheme to date; (b) of these, how many are women; (c) what is the profile of these women in terms of their age, marital and employment status; (d) whether the Ministry will consider allowing those who have opted out of MediShield one last opportunity to opt in; and (e) if so, what conditions are likely to be imposed for the opt in.

Dr Amy Khor asked me for some MediShield opt-out data. I have earlier clarified with her that she is actually interested in the number of Singaporeans who have completely opted out of catastrophic medical insurance, and not just MediShield. Besides MediShield, Singaporeans can choose from among 15 private catastrophic medical insurance plans.

We encourage Singaporeans to subscribe to catastrophic medical insurance. Failure to do so may render one in financial difficulty in the event of a major illness resulting in a huge hospital bill. That is why we operate MediShield on an opt-out basis. Its auto-cover feature kicks

At present, about 400,000 adult Singaporeans are not covered by any Medisave-approved catastrophic medical insurance. Of these, nearly 60% or 227,000 are women. Among these women, about 40% are above 60 years old. CPF does not have readily available information on their marital or employment status. Presumably, some opted out of MediShield after they stopped working. But the majority remain insured as they and their spouses see the benefits of continuing coverage.

Singaporeans who have opted out have the opportunity to join MediShield anytime. However, to be fair to those who have stayed loyal to MediShield, CPF would have to subject these applicants to medical underwriting and, hence, medical examinations. Therefore, we strongly advise those who are uninsured to opt in while they are healthy, to avoid future regrets.

in as soon as an individual starts working and contributing to the CPF, unless he or she opts out. Singaporeans appreciate the need for catastrophic medical insurance. Nine in ten working Singaporeans are insured under MediShield or its equivalent private insurance products.

May I ask the Minister whether he would consider a component to encourage people to keep fit and healthy by having incentive premiums for MediShield, eg, annual discounted premiums for those who can maintain their weight or BMI and normal blood lipids and sugar?

In principle, I like those features, because I am a great champion on healthy lifestyle. And if we can shape and influence behaviour that way, we should. The practical problem, of course, is how do we verify. Some of those data may be genetic. For example,

I am genetically predisposed to high cholesterol. To say that just because of high cholesterol, you have a higher premium to pay, many Singaporeans may not find that acceptable. But if you say, "All right, if you do regular exercises, then I will give you a discount", how do you verify? Everybody would put up their hands and say, "I do regular exercise." But when you ask, "What exactly do you do?", you find that self-declaration is very difficult to verify. But I have been encouraging our private insurers to think deeply into this, because they have much more global experiences. Some of them are apparently thinking about incorporating some of these features and I am anxiously looking forward to their products.

I would like to ask the Minister, given that 60% of the 400,000 women who have opted out or are not in MediShield or any other form of catastrophic insurance, whether MOH, say, through the Health Promotion Board, would undertake any programme to encourage the whole lot, but particularly the women, since due to longer life expectancy, to actually come into the MediShield programme.

The short answer is, yes, because the more people are insured under any of these catastrophic plans, it is better, both for the individual as well as the society. The question is how to reach out, and we will do our best. It is always this half-empty half-full sort of phenomenon. We can certainly do better, and I intend to do more aggressively on this front. We are now trying to see where I can locate suitable points to remind.

The younger people, it is easy because, upon registration of marriages, that gives me a useful milestone to remind the couples. But for the elderly, I probably have to work with the People's Association and the various community efforts to try to reach out to them.

The following Question stood in the name of Ms Indranee Rajah -

11. To ask the Minister for Home Affairs, with reference to the case of Raja Izzuwin reported in the Straits Times on 30th March 2005, (a) why it is that the Police did not realise, prior to charging him with the parking offences committed by another person, that the I/C and residential particulars given by him were false, and (b) whether as a matter of general procedure the police checks the photos and thumbprints on the identity cards of suspects against the physical appearance and thumbprints of the suspects in custody.

Question No. 11.

Sir, let me assure Ms Indranee Rajah that Police has systems and procedures in place to verify the identities of persons who are taken into custody. These systems and procedures are constantly reviewed and fine-tuned. Indeed, an enhanced fingerprint identification system was introduced in 2002 to speed up the verification process.

Sir, in this case, the subject, Raja Izzuwin, gave the name and IC number of his friend when checked by Police officers, not realising that his friend was wanted by Police for failing to attend court for various parking offences. At the time of his arrest, he did not have any identification papers with him. Even when Raja Izzuwin discovered that his friend was wanted by the Police, he did not disclose his true identity to the Police. Neither did he do so to the Court when sentence was meted out.

Sir, this episode would not have arisen if Raja Izzuwin had not deliberately attempted to mislead the Police by impersonating to be his friend. He continued this charade even after discovering that his friend was wanted by the Police. Therefore, this case is clearly an anomaly rather than the norm. Nevertheless, it identified a potential loophole in Police's verification process. On discovering this, Police immediately conducted an internal inquiry. Procedures were then further tightened to ensure that this will not happen again.

Once again, let me assure the House that Police will take the necessary steps to address any lapses in its procedures.

While in custody, Raja Izzuwin's fingerprints were screened as part of Police's procedures to verify his identity. The screening did not produce any match with the existing records in the automated fingerprint identification system. At that point, the officer concerned should have applied for an extract of the NRIC record to verify his identity as part of Police procedures. However, he did not do so. This was a lapse on his part. Hence, Raja Izzuwin was able to continue assuming the identity of his friend, Saifuddin, when he was produced in Court.

12. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for National Development whether he is willing to waive all resale levy in relation to all relevant dealings of Housing and Development Board flats whether they are compulsorily acquired under Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme or other Government policies or resale.

Sir, let me first explain the purpose of the resale levy. It

The resale levy is not a "tax" to cream off any profit from the sale of the first flat. It is payable only if a lessee buys a second subsidised flat from HDB. Those who buy private housing or a resale HDB flat, ie, a non-subsidised flat, would not have to pay the levy and they can keep the full sales proceeds from their first subsidised flat.

Lessees whose flats are affected by the Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) receive market compensation for their flats. They are also offered a new replacement flat, which is subsidised, plus an additional discount of up to $30,000, if they are eligible.

If the SERS flat is his first subsidised flat, the flat lessee need not pay the resale levy when he buys the new replacement flat from HDB. However, some SERS lessees had previously sold a subsidised HDB flat, before owning their current flat. These lessees had signed an agreement to pay the resale levy should they buy another subsidised flat from HDB. Thus, they have to pay the levy before buying the SERS replacement flat from HDB. Alternatively, they can opt to convert the resale levy into a premium on the price of the new flat. For those who are eligible for the additional $30,000 discount off the replacement flat, they can also forgo the discount in lieu of paying the levy, which effectively caps the levy payable at $30,000.

Sir, home ownership is an important facet of our public housing policies. The

is a payment imposed on those who buy a second subsidised flat from HDB after they have sold their first subsidised flat. The resale levy reduces the subsidy on the second flat, thus ensuring that public housing subsidies are given more to first-timers, who have not yet enjoyed any subsidy.resale levy ensures that public housing subsidies are allocated fairly and go to those who need them more, in other words, first-timer families. As such, we will not waive the levy. We will, however, review the resale levy regularly to ensure that it remains relevant and meets our overall objectives.

Sir, I have got two supplementary questions. Firstly, in these days of low HDB resale value of flats, many HDB flat owners who even want to downgrade make a loss and this causes hardship to them because they cannot afford even to purchase a smaller flat. Secondly, I would like to ask whether the Minister is agreeable to let an owner of a flat to be charged a resale levy, based on a percentage of the profit made. And for those resale flats that make a loss, the resale levy should be waived altogether.

Sir, the resale levy is, as I have indicated earlier, not a tax on profits made. If it was so, then the Member would be correct to say that if there is a loss, there should be no levy charged. As it is not a tax, but a levy to cream off the subsidy on the next flat, there is no justification for acceding to the request of the Member, which is to charge a levy based on the percentage of profits made. That is to answer his second question.

On his first question, if a downgrader wishes to sell his first flat and buy a second flat, there are several options available to him. First, he can use the proceeds from the sale of the first flat, which is substantial, to purchase a second subsidised flat. Or if he does not wish to pay the resale levy, which I think is what the Member is trying to say, he can always buy a second resale flat, ie, a smaller resale flat, in which case, he can keep all the proceeds from the sale of his first flat. He does not need to worry about paying a levy.

13. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what action will be taken against Ta-Ching Marine Technology for the poor and unsanitary living quarters provided to its foreign workers and non-payment of their wages; and (b) whether there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that employers provide proper accommodation for their foreign workers.

Sir, the Ministry has conducted a joint inspection with the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) on Goldstrong Dormitory, where the foreign workers employed by Ta-Ching Marine Technology were staying.

The inspection revealed that they were industrial premises that were illegally converted into a commercial dormitory. SCDF has fined the dormitory operator $1,000 for breaching fire safety regulations and given it two weeks, expiring today, 18th April, to cease operation. NEA has warned the dormitory operator about the poor sanitary conditions.

MOM has also warned all the employers involved, including Ta-Ching Marine Technology, of their responsibility as part of work permit conditions to provide acceptable housing for their foreign workers. They have been told to take immediate steps to regularise the housing of their foreign workers and inform the Ministry of the alternative housing arrangements made before the dormitory ceases operation. If they fail to do so, they are liable for prosecution under the Employment of Foreign Workers

Mdm Halimah has asked if there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that employers provide proper accommodation for the workers. Last year, the Ministry required employers to register and update the residential addresses of all foreign workers under their employment. The database of addresses has enabled the Ministry to be more targeted in our enforcement actions to ensure that employers provide adequate housing for the workers. Over the past year, MOM has taken action against 105 employers who did not meet acceptable housing requirements for their foreign workers. These cases involved about 1,000 workers. Offenders can be fined or prosecuted under the Employment of Foreign Workers Act. Additionally, MOM is working in conjunction with other agencies to provide more land parcels to build proper housing for foreign workers in Singapore.

Act and the maximum penalty for each breach of work permit condition is a fine of $5,000 and six months' imprisonment. Additionally, they may be barred from hiring foreign workers in the future. As at 17th April 2005, 37 out of 44 employers housing workers at Goldstrong Dormitory have found alternative housing arrangements for their workers.

Sir, in the case of the Ta-Ching incident, one of the things surfaced was that the addresses of the foreign workers were submitted and they were under the impression that it was already approved by the Ministry. The question is: is there a list of approved addresses against which employers can check so that they do not run foul of the law?

The second question is that there seems to be an insufficiency of dormitories to house foreign workers. Are there plans to assist employers by expanding the availability of such

facilities? The third question is: are there rules to regulate the commercial companies when they operate dormitories for foreign workers? Will there be a one-stop service centre because it seems to involve multiple agencies - SCDF, JTC and MOM? It can be very confusing for employers. Are there plans to have a one-stop centre for them on this?

Sir, let me answer the second question first on the lack of housing facilities in Singapore. Currently, we have facilities for about 50% of workers who need proper housing. MOM, as I have said in my earlier reply, is working with the other agencies to provide more land parcels so that more dormitories can be built for foreign workers.

As for Ta-Ching in particular, in fact, all the 44 employers of foreign workers who used Goldstrong Dormitory, MOM has given a list of approved housing for foreign workers for the employers to consider. In a nutshell, we have a list of approved housing which can be used by the employers.

On rules, yes, there are minimum standards that employers and accommodation operators must abide. These are rules set out by agencies like URA, HDB, BCA, NEA and the Singapore Civil Defence Force. There are two main conditions for the standards. One is that off-site accommodation must comply with the approved land use. In the case of off-site housing of foreign construction workers, contractors must house them in either purpose-built dormitories or in quarters constructed on land that is approved by URA or other relevant authorities. The second condition is that it must comply with the environmental health requirements by NEA, safety requirements by the SCDF, and building structural requirements by BCA.

I am not sure whether it is possible to have a one-stop centre for dormitory operators or housing operators for foreign workers so that the needs of their workers can be met quickly. But, as it is now, the various agencies are already working together to ensure that we have proper housing and we have already accommodated 50% of the foreign workers who need housing. And we are working closely now to ensure that more land and more facilities are provided for proper housing.

Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary said that only 50% of the demand is met. Could I ask whether the Ministry has a masterplan to ensure that the other 50% of the demand would also be met soon? If there is no masterplan, how long would the workers have to wait for proper accommodation?

Sir, we are committed to providing a minimum standard of housing for foreign workers in Singapore. They are workers who have contributed to our well-being. We are already working more closely together with other agencies - URA, HDB, BCA and SCDF - to ensure that more facilities could be provided for these foreign workers. MOM is already looking into ways to speed up the construction of more dormitories and, as I said, work has already started with the various agencies.

The following Question stood in the name of Mdm Ho Geok Choo -

14. To ask the Minister for Manpower how will the Central Provident Fund Board manage increases in premiums for the Dependants' Protection Scheme by the outsourced insurers.

Question No. 14.

Mr Speaker, Mdm Ho asked if the privatisation of the Dependants' Protection Scheme, after it is privatised, how would the increase in premiums be protected. Indeed, the privatisation of the DPS enhances the benefits and services enjoyed by CPF members. After the Dependants' Protection Scheme is privatised, members within the scheme will enjoy an immediate increase in the sum assured. Currently, it is $44,000. Under the two private providers whom we have contracted it out to, the sum assured would increase to $46,000, with the same premium. In addition, members aged 55 or older will enjoy a reduction in premiums, which they are currently paying, which is $360. They will pay $260.

Even after it is privatised, the CPF Board will continue to ensure that the premium levels remain affordable and members' interests are protected. Increases in premiums would still be subject to the Board's approval, and it would only be allowed, if both insurers are running losses for at least two years, and it is actuarially established that the premiums cannot be sustained in the long run. In other words, when we asked private providers to bid, there were terms and conditions which they had to comply with.

15. Dr John Chen Seow Phun asked the Minister for Manpower whether he will review the Central Provident Fund (CPF) regulations to allow the transfer of CPF money from the husband's account to that of the wife in divorce cases where the Court has ruled that the matrimonial

assets be shared between the husband and wife.

Mr Speaker, Dr John Chen has asked whether we could review the CPF regulations to allow the transfer of CPF monies from the husband's account to that of the wife in divorce cases, where the Court has ruled that matrimonial assets be shared between the husband and wife.

Let me first say that the CPF monies saved by a couple during marriage do form part of matrimonial assets. This was affirmed in the landmark case of the Central Provident Fund Board v Lau Eng Mui in 1995. However, there is currently no provision in the CPF Act to enable the affected spouse - this is not gender biased, it is either spouse - to withdraw the amount to which he or she is entitled under the court order, or for the amount to be transferred to his or her CPF account. Neither can the Court authorise or direct the CPF Board to do so, because under the CPF Act, withdrawal of CPF savings can only be allowed upon application by the member himself, and a member can only withdraw his or her CPF savings if certain events specified under section 15 of the Act occur, primarily when the member turns 55 years old. A charge placed by a court order is not one of the specified events.

Where the Court has imposed a charge on one spouse's CPF savings, what CPF Board would do is that it would reserve the spouse's entitlement under the charge, until the member turns 55. When the member turns 55, the CPF Board would first set aside the amounts as prescribed by the prevailing CPF Minimum Sum and Medisave Minimum Sum rules. The ex-spouse would get his or her entitlement from the balance that the member is allowed to withdraw.

The current principles are based on the objective of ensuring that each individual

member's retirement needs are met first. Nonetheless, I agree with Dr John Chen that in divorce cases, we should also take into consideration the retirement adequacy of the ex-spouse. I have thus asked the CPF Board to review whether these retirement needs of the ex-spouse could be taken into account when applying the CPF withdrawal rules.

16. Mr Ong Ah Heng asked the Minister for Manpower, in the case of workers who are owed salaries by their employers (a) why does the Ministry require the employers to issue cheques in the names of the workers concerned, who are the claimants, instead of to the Ministry as in the past; (b) whether the workers are given up to only seven days to collect the cheques from the Ministry, after which the Ministry will return the unclaimed cheques to the employers; and (c) whether this is a responsible solution in helping the workers or it is just an easy way out.

Sir, in the past, employers who owed their workers salaries were requested to issue cheques for the salary arrears made in favour of the Commissioner for Labour. The Ministry would then bank in the cheque into its account, and issue a separate cheque with the same amount to the workers concerned. This process is inefficient and involves the unnecessary step of the Ministry collecting the monies in the first instance. As a result, it took longer for workers to get back their money.

Under the new system implemented with effect from February 2004, employers are advised to issue cheques made in favour of the workers directly and deposit the cheques with the Ministry.

Our experience shows that the majority of workers are able to collect their cheques within one week. If any claimant fails to collect the cheque within that period, the Ministry will make further attempts to contact the worker thereafter. In situations where the unclaimed cheque is returned to the employer, the Ministry would ask the employer to re-issue a replacement cheque if the worker were to subsequently turn up to claim his monies. In situations where the cheque is not honoured, the Ministry will help the worker pursue the matter with the employer for payment to be made. Our records show that less than 1% of the 1,137 cheques received in 2004 were not honoured. In these cases, we have helped the workers to take up the matter with the employer. The new arrangement has worked well in the interests of workers who were owed salaries.

The workers are requested to collect the cheque from the Ministry within seven days. This has expedited the process. As a result, workers now are able to receive their payment earlier.

17. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Manpower whether he is aware that there is a marked increase in the number of unlicensed foreign employment agencies operating in Singapore and that they are creating unfair competition to the licensed local ones and, if so, does he intend to take enforcement action against them.

Sir, it is an offence under the Employment Agencies Act to operate an employment agency, or EA, in Singapore without a licence. We take a serious view of unlicensed employment agency operations and have been prosecuting such errant individuals,

MOM has not detected a marked increase in unlicensed EA operations. In 2003 and 2004, we took enforcement action against 21 cases of unlicensed EA operations, including prosecuting 12 unlicensed EA operators. The maximum penalty for an unlicensed EA, as a first offender, is a $5,000 fine. For subsequent conviction, the maximum penalty is a fine of $10,000 and six months' imprisonment. MOM would like to warn unlicensed employment agencies that necessary punishments will be meted out to the offenders.

including unlicensed foreign employment agencies.

18. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) if there are cases of alleged discrimination against pregnant women employees that have been lodged with the Ministry; (b) if so, how many cases were lodged for each of the years from 2002-2004 and the first three months of 2005; (c) how many of these cases were proven; (d) what recourse did these employees have and what penalties were imposed on the employers who were found to have practised discrimination; and (e) how can non-unionised women employees be protected against such discrimination, should it exist.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from 1st October last year, Members will remember that maternity leave benefit for working mothers was extended from 8 to 12 weeks. Subsequent amendments were made to the Children Development Co-Savings Act and the Employment Act. Under these two Acts, female employees, regardless of their position in the company, are entitled to this benefit.

Under both Acts, it is an offence for an employer to dismiss a female employee

For 2002 and 2003, MOM received an average of 20 maternity-related complaints each year. The complaints increased to 36 last year, and were related to termination of the employee's services, questions on eligibility to entitlements or under payment of maternity benefits.

In the first three months of 2005, we received 20 complaints. In other words, there has been an increase since we moved on to the new maternity leave benefits. Indeed, this increase was anticipated. We expected this increase because we enhanced the benefit as well as the accompanying heightened publicity to raise public awareness about the protection provided for under the new law.

From investigations into past cases, we found that some employers were unclear of their obligations. For these, MOM has intervened and advised them to pay the female employee what is due to her. Most employers usually make immediate rectification upon our advice. We have also encountered cases when the employer does not communicate performance problems to the employee in a clear manner. This could cause the employee to surmise that the cause of her dismissal was due to her pregnancy rather than her performance. Hence, in these cases, we have advised employers in such

The majority of employers are reasonable and would not want to lose a valued employee, even if she is pregnant. However, MOM recognises that some concerns of discrimination at the workplace are valid. MOM reiterates that the law protects the rights of the pregnant employees to work and to take maternity leave. We will step up efforts, together with unions and employer organisations, to disseminate information on the legal rights of pregnant employees to companies. Unionised employees who feel that they have been discriminated against can take up their complaints through their unions or directly to my Ministry. Non-unionised employees can lodge a complaint directly with MOM. And, as I said, we will investigate the complaint and take appropriate action against the employer, if the law has been violated.

The extended maternity leave is a newly introduced policy as part of the package of marriage and parenthood measures. We recognise the operational challenges to organisations from these enhanced benefits. This is why MOM set up the Work Life Works scheme (WOW), to help companies adjust their HR policies and processes. Private sector and non-profit organisations can receive up to 70% funding, subject to a cap of $30,000 for each organisation. This fund can be used to defray the costs of training, implementation, staff time and consultancy in developing a work-life strategy to promote marriage and procreation. We will continue to work hard to help employers adopt an enlightened approach in dealing with their pregnant employees. There are many positive examples of successful organisations which can remain competitive despite having pro-family policies.

during her maternity leave period. If found guilty, the employer can be fined up to $1,000 or imprisoned for up to six months or both. An employee who has been dismissed within the three months before her delivery has a right of appeal to the Minister for Manpower. The Minister has the power to order reinstatement, or make an award for compensation. Any employee who feels that she has been unlawfully dismissed should write to MOM, which will investigate the complaint, and take necessary action.cases to review their performance management practices accordingly.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister, whilst the number of complaints has risen, whether there were actually any cases where the employers were found to have been guilty and, therefore, penalised for discrimination. And, if there were, how many were there?

The other question I would like to ask the Minister is that the Minister said that pregnant employees who were actually terminated within three months of delivery could appeal to MOM for compensation or recourse. What about employees who were actually terminated way before the three months of delivery? Are they also covered?

We have no cases, after investigations, where we had to bring the employers to court. As I have said, many of them who have clearly violated the prescribed benefits recognised the errors of their ways and made restitution. We are quite persuasive in that regard.

What happens to female employees who are terminated a day before and, indeed, even within the three months' period, where employers imputed the dismissal not to the pregnancy, but to their performance? I think it is a grey area and I recognise that the law protects them up to three months before delivery. In many other countries, the protection can vary. I think it would be difficult for the law to hardwire such that protection is fool-proof. In this regard, I think we have to approach this problem from a number of ways. One is the legal protection, where it is clearly violating. I think we would have to take measures. But I take that could bring us to a certain point. We would also need to work very hard in terms of facilitating enlightened employers' attitude. And from the companies that we see, there is no shortage of companies in Singapore who could

So I accept the Member's view that there may be grey areas. For those that are clear-cut, we will take action, but I take that we would also need to engage the other fronts, which is why we set up the WOW fund, which is why we continue to promote

good employers, which is why we continue to engage with employers to change their HR policies and processes.

recognise that someone, regardless of his condition, whether she is a female, whether he is elderly, whether he has got particular aspects not attributable to his work performance, that there is no discrimination.

Sir, while I accept and agree with the Minister that most employers are actually enlightened and do not practise discrimination, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry could actually monitor and consider amending the legislation, if such cases of complaints against perceived discrimination continue or are on the rise, and particularly for pregnant employees or as soon as they are pregnant, that employers should bear the responsibility and not fire them. Because it seems that there are so many employers who are enlightened and usually do not practise such discrimination, then I think that it would not be too burdensome to actually impose such a requirement.

The short answer is, yes, we will monitor this and take the necessary action. But let me put this in perspective. We received 20 maternity cases in the first three months of 2005, and an average of 20 maternity-related cases each year in 2002 and 2003, out of our female workforce and pregnant workforce. I assume it is not a large problem. It is increasing, slightly more of this in the first quarter. Let me monitor the figures. There are few obviously very

errant employers and we will teach them the wickedness of their ways. But I think that the greater challenge is to help our womenfolk who want to balance family, not during pregnancy but after pregnancy, to be able to fulfil both their roles and responsibilities within the workplace and at home. I think that is the bigger challenge.

Sir, I think the instances of discrimination do not only involve situations where a pregnant female employee is terminated or dismissed. But it could involve other forms of discrimination as well, in terms of how they are treated at work, in terms of access to opportunities and other areas. So, this actually requires a need to look at having proper effective human resource practices and policies at work pertaining to the employment and retention of pregnant female employees. Would MOM also care to look into that as well and not just the issue of dismissal?

Sir, I completely agree with Mdm Halimah on that point What she is saying is that there can be forms of discrimination which you cannot protect against and yet still occur in the workplace. In other words, you do not give equal opportunities to someone because she is pregnant, or you do not give opportunities to someone because of the colour of the skin, gender, etc.

As I said, this is a larger problem. We will have to continue to work at it. I think the business case to argue for most employers is that it does not make sense to do so, because they can get the most out of their employees. We will continue to promote good HR policies, to allow iconic CEOs to portray them, to publicise their efforts, so that others will follow. These facilitation measures are quite serious, and that is why I set up a fund to help companies change.

19. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Transport whether his Ministry will consider removing the current restriction on the use of weekend cars on Saturdays by allowing their usage for the whole day instead of the current 3.00 pm commencement time as many private sector companies as well as the public sector are now working on a five-day week and lifting the restriction will help to promote greater family togetherness.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Mdm Halimah Yacob asked whether the current restriction on the use of weekend cars on Saturdays can be removed.

The Weekend Car scheme was first introduced in 1991 and it was revamped and replaced by the Off-Peak Car (OPC) scheme in 1994. The objective of the OPC scheme is similar to its predecessor, which is to provide car owners with the option of owning cars at significantly lower costs if they are prepared to use them sparingly.

OPCs enjoy substantial tax concessions comprising an upfront tax rebate of $17,000 and an annual road tax rebate of $800. In return for the tax concessions, the use of OPCs is restricted during certain specified periods. However, owners who wish to use them during these periods can do so by purchasing and displaying a day-licence costing $20 per day.

The total tax concessions for OPCs are equivalent to the cost of 150 day-licences at $20 a licence a day in a year for 10 years. If an OPC owner buys and uses 150 day-licences in a year, he can

The OPC car scheme represents another option of car ownership for those who wish to use their cars less frequently. The OPC tax concessions have been calibrated to allow the car to be used up to a certain number of days before it becomes more cost-effective to take the alternative of owning a normal car. If we were to allow OPCs to be used freely on Saturdays, then it is only fair that we also review and reduce the tax concessions that OPC owners currently receive.

On balance, I think it is best to continue to let OPC owners enjoy the tax benefits under the present scheme. Those who wish to use their off-peak cars on Saturdays during the restricted periods have the flexibility to do so by buying the day-licence.

use his car for up to 213 days each year, inclusive of the 63 Sundays/Public Holidays in a year, before it costs him more than using a normal car.

Sir, I am not suggesting that we remove the day licences - I think that is useful and it serves a purpose - but rather the purpose for restricting the use on Saturdays, which is obviously because of the traffic flow in the morning when people go to work. But now that the majority of companies are operating on a five-day work week, that reason does not seem to apply anymore. Would the Ministry still consider reviewing this requirement so that we can promote greater family-friendly environment, in line with the total Government policy on this?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully appreciate the sentiments of Mdm Halimah Yacob. But I think it is important to recognise the principle here, which is one of maintaining the parity of the ownership between the OPC scheme and normal cars. At such point where too many days are actually allowed for under

the scheme, it will actually swing the balance towards the OPC scheme, and that balance has to be reviewed from time to time.

The following Question stood in the name of Mdm Ho Geok Choo -

20. To ask the Minister for Education (a) if he will update the House on the responsibilities and role of teacher-assistants vis-a-vis teachers; (b) what is the ratio of teacher-assistants to teachers; and (c) what formal qualifications do teacher-assistants have and what training do they go through.

Question No. 20, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, schools hire teacher-assistants or teacher-aides to increase their capacity or support teachers in their tasks. The teacher-aides may be deployed to relieve teachers of administrative as well as non-professional duties. They can also help teachers in classroom management, so that the teachers can focus on teaching or adopt more student-centred strategies.

Although teacher-aides are deployed to support teachers, teachers remain responsible for the planning and delivery of lessons and school activities. Unlike relief teachers, the teacher-aide cannot stand in for teachers in the conduct of teaching and instructional duties.

As the circumstances and needs of schools differ, the Ministry of Education has given schools the autonomy to engage relief teachers or support services such as teacher-aides. These services can be paid from the manpower grant that the Ministry allocates to each school. This year, we have increased the

Schools will ensure that the teacher-aides they hire have relevant skills and qualifications for the tasks they are assigned to. It all depends on what they are hired to do. Based on feedback from schools, teacher-aides generally have at least a GCE "O" level certificate, and some have completed tertiary education. In addition, they are given some foundational training by the manpower agencies who recruit them. For example, EduCare, which is a cooperative by Singapore Teacher's Union, conducts 120 hours of training in various aspects such as handling pupils with learning and behavioural difficulties, communication skills, IT and safety and a further 80 hours of on-the-job training for their staff.

manpower grant to allow schools greater flexibility and capacity to support our teachers. We understand that to-date, around 60 schools have engaged teacher-aides.

21. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Education whether the Government intends to extend the teaching of the Malay Language beyond the five percent top non-Malay students who wish to study the language.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under the Malay (Special Programme) (or MSP), Malay is currently available as a third language to non-Malay students who are within the top 30% of the PSLE cohort, if they also do well in Mother Tongue and English. Over 640 students currently offer MSP at the MOE Language Centre in Bishan.

To encourage more non-Malay students to offer MSP, the Ministry of Education has decided and announced that we are lifting the current criteria so

The Ministry of Education is also increasing its teacher resources to allow MSP to be provided in more schools and centres, where there is a critical mass of interested students.

Many of our schools are also offering conversational Malay lessons to their students. MOE is encouraging more schools to do so, and is looking into how they can be supported.

that students may offer Malay as a third language so long as they have the interest and inclination. Students will be able to do so at the MOE Language Centre from 2007 onwards. Schools that have the resources can also offer MSP within their schools this year.

Sir, the Minister says that the Ministry is extending the number of students beyond the 30% mark of cohort. So, how many percent, please?

Sir, what I was saying was that in the past, only the top 30% within the PSLE cohort could offer MSP. But we have relaxed the criteria so that any student, so long as they are interested and have the inclination, will be able to do so. This is to allow more students to learn Malay as a third language, in addition to English as well as their Mother Tongue.

22. Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether his Ministry will require all Public-Private Partnership providers, Government-owned corporatised entities, and Temasek-linked companies to use GeBIZ in their procurement, so as to enhance Singapore's reputation for business transparency and maximise opportunities for our small and medium

Sir, let me disclose that I am a director and investor in various SMEs.

enterprises to market their goods and services.

Mr Speaker, Sir, GeBIZ is Government's electronic procurement portal through which public agencies procure their goods and services.

Public sector agencies do not dictate how their suppliers should in turn procure their own goods and services. This applies to all suppliers, including Public-Private Partnership (PPP) service providers. After the public sector agency selects its PPP provider, how the provider in turn procures, from whom, and at what terms, is a commercial decision to be made by the provider itself. It would not be appropriate for the Government to intervene in the commercial relationship between our suppliers and their own suppliers. The Government would already have taken its value-for-money decision when it chooses the successful bid above all the competing bids.

Government-owned corporatised entities and Temasek-linked companies (TLCs) are not public sector agencies. Like other private sector entities,

they decide how best to procure their goods and services according to their commercial terms. It would not be appropriate to require them to procure through GeBIZ.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my biggest nightmare is that, one day, the Government will have one big tender and one company will get the one big tender and all the rest in the SMEs will never get any opportunities. Because that one big company will of course give all its business to its subsidiaries and friends, and GeBIZ, which is now populated every

day by hundreds or thousands of new tender projects, would disappear.

What was the Member's question?

The question is: could we study having a working group to keep these opportunities open to our SMEs?

We are in sympathy to ensure that our SMEs have opportunities. But I am not sure that the way he suggests is the right way to go. Because the fundamental question he has to ask himself is whether the Government should mandate how commercial entities that have secured a Government contract or a corporatised entity that has substantial Government ownership procure their supplies. This is really a business decision that we should leave to them. You take an SME, for instance. An SME, if we use his argument, goes through GeBIZ and secures a Government contract. Should we, in turn, ask the SME now that, in order to fulfil the contract, it can only decide its subcontractors through the GeBIZ? I do not think that is the way to go. The way we should try to help the SMEs is to upgrade their capabilities, marketing skills and competence so that their goods and services are more attractive in the marketplace rather than to take a prescriptive approach.

Sir, how about making this requirement that it should be above a certain size of contract? This would be similar to, say, requirements for compliance with quality standards, or environmental standards. Here, we just require compliance with procurement standards. Other countries do it. US has a small business set aside. I am not asking for it to be set aside. I am just asking that we keep those opportunities so that SMEs can compete

on a basis of what they can do, and not who they know.

As I said, the fundamental thing is whether we want to interfere once we have awarded a Government contract to an SME and, in turn, when an SME wants to subcontract it out, whether we want to interfere in that particular decision. I am not in favour of that. In terms of expanding opportunities, there are various ways that we have done so, and we will continue to explore new ways to try to help SMEs expand their market opportunities. I think that is the preferred approach rather than to handcuff one party in order to benefit the other.

23. Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang asked the Senior Minister whether his Ministry will take steps to regulate the sale of club memberships, as is done in Australia and Malaysia, so that sellers provide buyers with full information about the number of memberships, transfer fees, facilities, proprietor's financial resources and commitments, and other factors that will affect the value of such memberships and the ability of buyers to re-sell their memberships.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Prof. Ivan Png asks if we will regulate sale of club memberships to require fuller disclosure of information.

There are two types of clubs - members' clubs and proprietors' clubs. For members' clubs, which are typically registered under the Societies Act, there is less scope or likelihood of fraud from the sale of memberships, as all the proceeds are collectively owned by the members themselves.

But I think Prof. Png was referring to proprietary clubs, as he referred to disclosure of information on the proprietor's financial resources and commitments. The Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act ("CPFTA") which was introduced last year specifically covers the sale of memberships in such clubs. It prohibits the making of false claims, or misleading consumers through the omission of information and other unfair practices. Consumers may seek compensation from the club of up to $20,000 if the club is found to have contravened the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act.

MAS does not intend to require that the offer of club memberships be regulated under the Securities and Futures Act ("SFA") and Financial Advisers Act ("FAA"). The disclosure requirements that are imposed under these Acts are intended for financial products. Strict disclosure requirements are placed on the sale of financial products so as to improve market efficiency and promote investor confidence in the financial markets.

Some people do purchase social club memberships for investment reasons. However, the main reason that most people purchase club memberships is to enjoy the facilities and services offered by the clubs. Regulation of the sale of club memberships under SFA or FAA would impose unnecessary additional costs on the sellers and, indirectly, on the buyers. Given that there are already safeguards under general law, the cost of additional regulation under SFA or FAA would not be justified.

However, clubs may choose to structure themselves as companies and offer shares with membership privileges. Such share offers would be subject to prospectus requirements under SFA.

Clubs are free to offer memberships in this way if they see a competitive advantage in subjecting themselves to higher and legally-binding disclosure requirements.

Sir, I believe that a good and vibrant club sector will contribute to the growth of our leisure industry, which we are trying to develop and is a subject for further discussion today. Would the Minister not consider how to build up this good regulatory environment for clubs as part of the bigger leisure industry sector? How about considering forming a working group to look at this in a more serious way? In the last few years, practically no clubs had been formed. Some would say that, in part, it was because of the weak regulatory regime.

That is a developmental question - whether we should find ways to encourage more clubs to be formed. Intuitively, I think it is a good idea. But as to whether it is lax regulation, or lack of confidence on the part of consumers and investors, that is inhibiting the growth of clubs, I am not so sure. I think the landscape we have is a fairly clear one. For the average consumers, we now have the CPFTA which provides reasonable protection and compensation. For the informed and larger investors, there is recourse through the law; there is recourse under common law and contract law which in fact has been used in the recent past. So I think we do not want to over-regulate. There are one or two other countries which actually put it under the securities regulator, and I am not sure that is the right move for us. Let us put the onus on the part of the larger investor to get more information if he needs it, and otherwise live with the caveat emptor regime, a little messy, but I think it works reasonably well, and the courts are always there to provide recourse.

Would the Minister support forming a working group to look into this further to see what the benefits would be of such regulation vis-a-vis the cost?

I see no reason not to review the matter. I think MAS, MTI and the Ministry of Home Affairs can discuss this. I do not think it is a burning issue. But I see no reason not to review the matter.

2.56 pm

Resolved,

That, in accordance with Standing Order 10(2), the Ministerial Statement by the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance be taken after the Introduction of Government Bills listed in the Order Paper for today. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

"to amend certain statutes of the Republic of Singapore and to repeal the Government Hospitals Act (Chapter 119 of the 1985 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law (Prof. S Jayakumar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 218 of the 2001 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Presidential Elections Act (Chapter 240A of the 1999 Revised Edition)",

presented by Mr Wong Kan Seng; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Registration of Criminals Act (Chapter 268 of the 1985 Revised Edition)",

presented by Mr Wong Kan Seng; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Companies Act (Chapter 50 of the 1994 Revised Edition), to make related amendments to the Trust Companies Act (Chapter 336 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to certain other written laws",

presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order. The live telecast of the Ministerial Statement will start at 3.00 o'clock. I propose to take a break and resume the Chair again at 3.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 2.55 pm until 3.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Speaker, Sir, Integrated Resorts (IRs) are a significant proposal to boost our tourism industry. The Government has been studying this idea for over a year. The issue has been debated intensely, both among the public and within the Government, because the IRs will also include a gaming component, ie, a casino. Many Singaporeans have spoken up both for and against.

To assess the viability of the proposal, the Government called a Request-For-Concept (RFC) in December 2004, to invite interested players to submit concept proposals to develop IRs on two sites - Marina Bayfront and Sentosa. The RFC attracted 19 bids. After studying the bids, and considering all the views expressed, the Cabinet has decided to proceed with the project and to call for firm proposals to develop two IRs, both at Marina Bayfront and Sentosa.

Today, I will explain how the Cabinet reached this decision, and the key considerations that caused us to change our long-standing policy not to allow casinos in Singapore. I also want to acknowledge the concerns of those who oppose or have expressed reservations about the IR, and explain how we propose to limit the negative impact of the casinos. Finally, I hope to bring all Singaporeans together, so that even though we may not all agree on this issue, we understand and respect each other's reasons and concerns, and can close ranks and move ahead.

After my statement, the Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr Lim Hng Kiang, will explain the tourism and economic aspects of the proposal. The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, will explain the safeguards we propose to limit the social impact of casino gambling. And the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Wong Kan Seng, will explain issues of law

Re-examining our opposition

When the idea of an IR was first mooted, my sympathies were with those who opposed it. The Government's policy for many years had been not to have a casino, and we had repeatedly turned down proposals to open one. The proposals go back a long way, but the first one which I was directly involved in was in 1985 when Singapore experienced the severe recession, and the idea to open a casino on Sentosa came up, not for the first time. Mr Goh Chok Tong, who was then Deputy Prime Minister, turned down the proposal. He said there was no need to consider a casino on Sentosa. There was no study.

In 2002, I chaired the Economic Review Committee (ERC) looking for new strategies to grow our economy. Mr Wee Ee-chao, who was then Chairman of the Singapore Tourism Board, led the Tourism Working Group. He wrote to me proposing a "world class gaming facility". I replied to him explaining why I was against it. Let me quote from my letter to Mr Wee:

"There may be economic merits to setting up a casino in Singapore. But the social impact is not negligible. By making gaming more accessible and even glamorous, it could encourage more gambling and increase the risk of gaming addiction. A casino could also lead to undesirable activities like money laundering, illegal money lending and organised crime. Although one can try to mitigate these effects, the long term impact on social mores and attitudes is more insidious and harder to prevent."

This was my attitude in September 2002, and the recommendation did not get into the final report of the ERC.

But the issue did not go away. MTI, which is responsible for the economy, was getting worried as the competition environment changed. So, two years later, in 2004, MTI put up a case for an IR. Three major developments caused us to re-examine our position.

Tourism trends

First, we are losing ground in tourism. Tourism in Asia is growing phenomenally, especially the traffic from China and India. Singapore's tourist numbers are up too, but we see warning signs of problems ahead. Our market share is declining. Tourists are spending shorter times in Singapore. They used to stay an average of about four days in 1991. Now, they stay only for three days. In contrast, on average, they are staying for about four days in Hong Kong, five days in London and almost a week in New York City. So, we are losing attractiveness as a tourist destination.

Why is that so? The feedback we have been getting is that Singapore is seen as unexciting. We have not been investing in tourism infrastructure projects that are crowd pullers. So there are too few things to do that hold the attention of the tourists. Writers from Hong Kong and Taiwan laugh at us. They say that Singapore is 水 清 无 鱼 (shui qing wu yu), ie, the water is too clear, so there is no fish to swim around. If we do nothing about it, visitors from the PRC and India will soon feel the same.

This is not just a matter of chasing tourist numbers. Many jobs are at stake - in the hotel, food and beverage, retail, taxi, exhibition and aviation industries. Our position as an air hub depends on them. Our status as a node in Asia depends on them. As Merrill Lynch observed in their report:

So, that is the first reason, ie, we are losing ground in the tourism business.

Cities reinventing themselves

The second major development is that cities all round the world are reinventing themselves. New York City has been undergoing a renewal - the Big Apple. The current and previous mayors, ie, Bloomberg and Giuliani, have remade the city by cleaning up the streets, and clamping down on crime. New York is rebuilding on the World Trade Centre site, a new and iconic development. They are building a New York Sports and Convention Centre (NYSCC) to draw in more tourists and convention traffic. It is a mega project that will cost US$2.2 billion, and the city and state are contributing altogether US$600 million from government money to the project. New York is also putting up spectacular activities to draw visitors, a recent one being an eye-catching art exhibition or installation art in Central Park called "The Gates". You may have read about it. It is done by Christow comprising 7,500 big saffron banners arranged in the park. They are very colourful, something different, and it brought in the tourists.

Paris is also getting a shake-up, even though it attracts 25 million tourists a year, three times as many as Singapore. The city is redesigning its traffic flow; the mayor has built a very popular artificial beach along the River Seine; and he has

London too is getting a face-lift. New architecture and attractions are sprouting up all over the city, adding more life and colour to an already vibrant and cosmopolitan city. London has had private gambling clubs since the 1960s. The British Government wants to allow Las Vegas-style super casinos to be built. It tried to legislate to allow up to 40 super casinos but, because of opposition from MPs and the impending elections, it had to compromise and agree to build just one super casino somewhere in Britain, to be decided. But, after the general elections, it will try again.

In Asia, Shanghai is full of drive and energy. Hong Kong will open its Disneyland very soon, and is planning a new cultural centre at West Kowloon that is seven times the size of the Esplanade. Hong Kong is talking about building a casino on Lantau, to compete with Macao. In Thailand, Prime Minister Thaksin is likely to move ahead with integrated resorts at Khao Lak in Phang Nga Province. Malaysia is developing the Kuala Lumpur City Centre (KLCC) project, a 40-hectare development which includes the current Petronas Twin Towers. They are also hosting Formula One racing, and Kuala Lumpur is buzzing with tourists from the Middle East.

The question we have to consider is: will Singapore be part of this new world, or will we be bypassed and left behind? We seek to be a global city, attracting talent from around the world, lively, vibrant, and fun to live and work in. We want Singapore to have the X-factor - that buzz that you get in London, Paris or New York. The ideas to do so are

We cannot stand still. The whole region is on the move. If we do not change, where will we be in 20 years' time? Losing our appeal to tourists is the lesser problem. But if we become a backwater, just one of many ordinary cities of Asia, instead of being a cosmopolitan hub of the region, then many good jobs will be lost, and all Singaporeans will suffer. And we cannot afford that.

We need to do many things to become a global city. A casino, by itself, is not essential to this vision. But an IR is not just a casino.

and order and enforcement. Members will then have the opportunity to fully express their views and raise questions on all aspects of the issue.Changing circumstances "The EDB has had successes with its initiatives in the areas of biomedical sciences, education, logistics and supply chain management, and financial services. But it is … (the IR project) … that tips investor mindset toward accepting that Singapore is transforming itself into a diversified service-based economy." started night-long street parties. During the first party, the mayor was stabbed and assaulted. But as he was carried away on a stretcher, he told the crowd to carry on partying. aplenty, but realising them is not so easy. As Mr Philip Ng said in a forum organised by the URA recently: "Singapore is just among the 'wannabes' of sub-global cities."

An Integrated Resort is one significant idea we must consider and that will help us reinvent Singapore.

Not a casino, but an Integrated Resort

This leads to my third point, which is that we are not considering a casino, but an Integrated Resort.

Some of the media coverage on this debate has focused on whether or not the Government will approve "casinos". It is a short hand, but it has given the wrong impression that the IR project is only about building casinos here. We think of a gaming room with slot machines and game tables, maybe with a hotel and some basic facilities. We think of Macao as it used to be, with a sleazy reputation and triad gangs ruling the streets, or Las Vegas in the movies, with organised crime and money laundering. But that is not what we are looking for. IRs are quite different. In fact, they should be called leisure, entertainment and business zones.

The IRs will come with all sorts of amenities - hotels, restaurants, shopping, convention space, even theatres,

Genting gives us some idea what an Integrated Resort would be like. Genting started off as a casino with an attached hotel, but now it has many other amenities: good hotels, numerous food outlets, theatres, a huge amusement park, golf courses, etc. Many Singaporeans go there for short holidays with the whole family, and not to gamble. The IRs we have in mind are much more than what Genting is.

On a smaller scale, we can think of NTUC Downtown East or the SAFRA Clubhouses. These are wholesome family destinations. People go there to swim, eat, golf and enjoy the facilities. But somewhere within the premises, there is a small jackpot room that generates the revenue and helps to keep the place going. NTUC Club generates millions of dollars a year from the jackpot machines, which help to pay to build the rides and other facilities in the Clubhouses. Without this revenue, NTUC Club would close shop.

Understanding the IR in practical terms

For these reasons, the Cabinet decided that we could not dismiss the idea of an IR out of hand, merely because it contained a gaming element. We had to study it seriously. So Mr George Yeo, who

After I took over as Prime Minister, the Cabinet discussed how to proceed. The public feedback showed clearly that some Singaporeans had strong views against the proposal. The Ministers themselves were evenly split. Some accepted the arguments for an IR. Others thought it sounded too good to be true. They also shared the qualms of the public about the social impact. They asked: are the promised spin-offs real or fluff? Are the economic benefits worth the social and law and order fallout? What safeguards can we put in to discourage Singaporeans from gambling? If we discourage Singaporean gamblers, will investors still find the project viable?

I shared these doubts. I did not believe that based on the arguments presented, we could be confident enough to proceed, and override the reservations of a significant group of Singaporeans or Ministers. But neither did I believe that we should reject an IR based solely on first principles, just because it contained a casino, regardless of its economic benefits. To make an informed decision, we needed to understand what exactly an IR would entail. What sort of investment would it be? What benefits would it bring? We needed information to decide.

So we decided that as a first step, we would initiate a Request For Concepts (RFC). This is a process whereby interested bidders would present concept proposals for the IR, not full proposals but concept proposals. The concept proposals are not binding offers, and the Government is not obliged to proceed with the project after the RFC. The purpose is to give the Government a clearer idea of what is possible. If the RFC showed that the idea of an IR was not viable, or that investors were only

Results of RFC

Outcome

The RFC was a success. Many of the bidders were leading companies in the industry, companies which had built high quality IRs elsewhere, and had solid track records and international reputations to protect. They had formed consortia with world renowned architects and creative firms, and obviously put in a great deal of effort into their proposals. These were major projects, involving about $5 billion of investment for the Bayfront and Sentosa sites together. Several bidders said this would be their flagship project in Asia.

Before making a decision, the Ministers viewed the designs and architectural models, and were briefed on the proposals. We found this very helpful in understanding what the IRs were about. I wanted to display the designs and models publicly, so that Singaporeans could see the high quality of the proposals and appreciate the impact of the IRs on our city. Unfortunately, the bidders did not agree. They wanted to protect their intellectual property, keep their best ideas secret and not allow their competitors to see their plans. So as a next best step, and with the permission of selected investors, we have made all Members of Parliament (MPs) sign non-disclosure agreements, including the Opposition MPs, NCMP and NMPs, and we have shown the designs and models to them, so that Members know what we are

I believe most Members who have viewed the proposals will agree with the Government's assessment that the RFC has attracted some high quality proposals which deserve serious consideration. Let me describe briefly what the proposals entail.

The Bayfront and the Sentosa sites attracted two very different types of proposals. The Bayfront is suitable for a large business and convention facility. The target market are MICE visitors - ie, people who are coming for Meetings, Incentive tours, Conventions and Exhibitions. When you put them together, you call them MICE. This is a high value market, because MICE visitors spend much more per person than other tourists. The Bayfront site is larger than Suntec City. Investors are prepared to put in $2 billion to $4 billion to develop the entire area, filling it with hotels, shopping malls, convention and exhibition space, even museums and theatres.

The scale is large. If we take a typical proposal: it will have as many hotel rooms as the three 5-star hotels at Marina Square combined; more retail and F&B space than Ngee Ann City, ie, Takashimaya plus all the shops and restaurants surrounding it; plus ample convention and exhibition space.

The Bayfront is a prime site in the New Downtown. Singaporeans would worry if it became a sleazy development, right in the heart of the city. We are very mindful of this. We want to see an iconic development, of excellent architectural design, one that will enhance the city skyline, and complement our role as a business and financial hub. We will subject the Bayfront IR to the same

Without the IR, it might take us 15 years or more to tender out the land in individual parcels, and to develop the area on the same scale. But if we build an IR, within four years, the Bayfront will be developed. This will complement other major developments such as the Esplanade, the new Sports Hub in Kallang and the Marina Barrage, to bring new life and excitement to the New Downtown and our city.

Sentosa, on the other hand, is suitable for a family-style resort, attracting families and tourists who are coming for a holiday. At Sentosa, investors are also prepared to spend $2 billion to $3 billion to develop an Integrated Resort. This will transform an area that is equivalent to the size of the Zoo and the Bird Park combined. It will bring to Sentosa a large scale, high quality anchor attraction which it has so far lacked. There will be theme parks, resort hotels, restaurants, shopping and many other attractions, enough to satisfy the critics who say there is not enough to do in Singapore. Here too gaming will occupy less than 5% of the total floor area allowed.

Assessment

The conclusion from the RFC is that not only will the IRs be viable in Singapore, but there is a major market opportunity waiting to be tapped. The Bayfront and Sentosa developments complement each other. Each will attract

museums and theme parks. They attract hundreds of thousands of visitors per year. The great majority will not be there to gamble. They may be tourists, executives or businessmen, who go to enjoy the resort, or to attend conventions or conferences. But within this large development and slew of activities, there is one small but essential part which offers gaming and which helps to make the entire project financially feasible. And as a result, there is no need for Government grants or subsidies to the Integrated Resort. The investors will put in the money, and take the commercial risk. was then Minister for Trade and Industry, floated the idea in the Committee of Supply last year in March and this started the current debate. interested in opening gambling joints, then the Government would say no. But if the RFC proved that an IR is viable, and that investors are keen to build high quality IRs here, then we could weigh the clear economic benefits against the social costs and intangible factors, and make an informed decision one way or other. talking about in this debate. I believe Mr Chiam was unable to come but both Mr Low and Mr Steve Chia came. But if Mr Chiam is interested, we will still arrange for this for him. stringent urban design standards as other projects in the New Downtown. In fact, an IR at the Bayfront will mostly offer the same activities that we would bring to the area even without an Integrated Resort, namely, hotels, conventions and exhibitions, shopping, restaurants, entertainment, galleries and museums. The only difference is the gaming area itself, but this is only a small part of the whole development - less than 3% of the total floor area allowed. a different type of visitor, and together, they enable Singapore to provide a broader range of offerings for tourists. Significantly, most of the investors stated that they would not reduce their investments even if we awarded both projects instead of one. Some even preferred two projects, because this would create critical mass and attract more visitors. This showed that they were not worried about competing for a finite local market. They intend to grow the market, to draw on the huge regional business, by bringing in new visitors to fill their IRs.

The IRs will change our downtown skyline and transform Sentosa into a truly high-quality resort destination. They will make Singapore a centre for tourism, business and conventions, and attract hundreds of thousands more tourists each year. There will be spinoffs to the rest of the economy, because not all the visitors to the IRs will stay there. Altogether, MTI estimates that the two IRs will create about 35,000 jobs, counting jobs within the IRs, plus spinoffs throughout the economy. These jobs in the hospitality sector will complement the jobs we are creating in other sectors, such as manufacturing, financial services or transportation.

The positive response from the IR operators is a tribute to Singapore's reputation, but it also reflects the attractiveness of the regional market. By acting now, we seize a window of opportunity to get ahead of our competitors. If we say no, the best proposals for the IR, together with the investments and the jobs, will most likely not disappear, but go somewhere else in the region. Then we will be forced to play catch up, and be in a much weaker position. As one Forum page letter said: "The issue is not whether we should allow a casino to operate in Singapore. If that was all, the Government's response is obvious. The real issue is whether an

Evaluating the downsides

So from the economic point of view, there is no doubt that the IRs will be a major plus for Singapore. However, our considerations cannot just be economic. We must also address the non-economic issues - tangible minuses like an increase in problem gambling and broken families, and intangible losses, like the impact on Singapore's brand name and social values.

Social implications

The first implication of having the IRs is that people will gamble more, more people will get into trouble, and more families will suffer. This is the paramount and absolute consideration for many who oppose the IRs - social workers, religious groups, family-based VWOs and committees, and people who have had personal experience of family members gambling excessively. They have seen it. They have seen some of the downsides of people who ran into trouble gambling and they said absolutely not. We wish we did not have any such cases, anywhere in our society.

We have to assume that the IRs will increase the amount of gambling in Singapore. The question is, how much? This is not an all-or-nothing issue, because even without the IRs, there is much gambling going on, onshore and offshore, legal and illegal. Some people say it is in our blood. Every year, Singaporeans spend $6 billion on legal gambling in Singapore, six thousand million dollars, and another $1.5 billion estimated in cruises and offshore casinos.

Our estimate is that with two IRs, gambling by Singaporeans in the resorts is unlikely to exceed $1 billion a year, which is only 15% of the current level. But, this does not take into account the IRs displacing other forms of gambling, or reclaiming some of the gambling which now takes place illegally or offshore. So the actual increase may well be less.

More gambling will mean more problem gamblers. But, again, this is not an all-or-nothing issue because we already have problem gamblers today. As the MCYS study shows, we are not so different from other Chinese societies in this respect, like Hong Kong or Macao. The question is what we can do to mitigate the problem, to identify and help problem gamblers and especially their families.

MCYS has studied the experience of many cities with casinos. The extent of their problem varies. It depends on what kind of visitors they are targeting, whether the regulations are effective, and the scale and spread of the gambling activities. But there are best practices which we can adopt to mitigate the problem.

We seriously considered banning Singaporeans altogether from gambling in the IRs, but eventually decided against it. There is no reason to exclude locals who can afford to gamble and would otherwise just go elsewhere. Further, some Singaporeans feel strongly against such discrimination against locals. The operators also told us that they needed some local business, although they know that this cannot be their main market. However, we will put in place

First, we will restrict the admission of locals. We studied many alternative ways to do this, and finally we decided to use price, and charge a high entrance fee, $100 per day or $2,000 a year, if you want the membership. $100 is more than the ferry ticket to Batam, and will deter many casual gamblers. This will apply only to Singaporeans and Permanent Residents.

Second, we will implement a system of exclusions. Those in financial distress, or receiving social assistance, will not be allowed entry. Singaporeans can also exclude themselves or close family members.

Third, the casinos will not be allowed to extend credit to locals, so as to make it harder for them to lose more than they can afford.

Fourth, we will make sure that some social good comes out of the gambling at the IRs. For other forms of gambling like horse racing, Toto and 4D, the profits are channelled to the Totalisator Board, which uses the money for charitable and worthy causes. For the IRs, we will similarly channel revenue collected from the entrance fee to the Totalisator Board for charitable purposes.

Fifth, we will set up a national framework to address problem gambling. This will include a National Council on Gambling, and also programmes to counsel and treat problem and pathological gamblers. The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports will elaborate on these measures later.

Brand name

The second risk of allowing IRs is that we may tarnish the Singapore brand

The operators understand this. In fact, the operators want to come to Singapore because of our reputation for law and order, clean Government and strict enforcement. They want to work in a reputable jurisdiction, so as to enhance their own reputation and satisfy their regulators in their home countries, particularly the American regulators which are very strict. They too have an interest in ensuring that Singapore's brand name remains intact.

We are not aiming to become like Las Vegas or Macao, where gambling is the main industry. We will not allow casinos to sport garish neon displays on the façades, and have jackpot machines everywhere, from the lobby to the toilets. An IR will be as decent and wholesome as a SAFRA resort or an NTUC Club. The gaming area will be separate, so that visitors have to make a conscious effort to go there, and not be tempted to yield in a moment of weakness.

More importantly, we will deal firmly with the problems that tend to accompany casinos, such as organised crime, loan sharks, and money laundering. The Minister for Home Affairs will elaborate on this later on.

Other countries and cities with casinos have maintained their reputations. London, Sydney and Geneva are all respectable places to live, even though they all have casinos. All three are financial centres which depend on their reputations for integrity and rule of law, just like Singapore. We can learn from them how to stay abreast of the times, be

Values

Third, we are also concerned that the IRs will undermine the values of our population, especially amongst the young.

Singapore has succeeded through hard work and perseverance, and never believing that there was a quick and easy way to get rich. It is critical that Singaporeans continue to have the right values, as individuals, as families and as a society, values that will help us make a living for ourselves, live upright lives, and endure as a nation.

If IRs erode our work ethic, undermine our values of thrift and hard work, and encourage Singaporeans to believe that the way to success is to be lucky at the gaming tables, then we are in trouble.

In the past, we could keep Singaporeans insulated from sin and temptation, up to a point, by not allowing undesirable activities in Singapore. It made sense to say no to a casino, because it was not so easy for people to travel to Macao, and not many could afford to go to Las Vegas or Europe. But today the situation is different. Singaporeans make more than four million overseas trips by air and sea a year. What is not available in Singapore is all around us. With or without an IR, we must work harder to keep our values intact, but we cannot do so by cocooning ourselves. As Deng Xiaoping said, when he decided to open up and reform China, we have to "open the windows, breathe in the fresh air, and at the same time fight the flies and insects."

So far, despite Singapore's openness, we have upheld our basic ethos of hard work, excellence, and an emphasis on

Religious objections

Finally, many Singaporeans, though not all, who oppose the IR, do so on religious grounds. The main religious groups have all made their views known. The churches, the Buddhist and Hindu groups, as well as MUIS and Muslim groups, have all stated their views. I have also received letters from many Singaporeans, especially Christians, expressing their objections on religious grounds.

I fully respect the convictions and teachings of the different religious groups. I also respect the religious choices and beliefs of individual Singaporeans. These are personal choices for individual citizens to make. Each person is free to follow his conscience, and abide by the teachings of his faith. But in a multi-racial, multi-religious society, the Government must maintain a secular and pragmatic approach. It cannot enforce the choices of one group on others, or make these choices the basis of national policy.

To those who object to the IRs on religious grounds, no economic benefit justifies allowing a casino here. The

I am confident that despite this difference in perspectives, the religious groups will continue to work for the greater good of Singapore, in the context of our multi-racial and multi-religious society, with tolerance, compassion and mutual respect. Religious faith is a powerful force motivating Singaporeans to help their fellow citizens, not just gambling addicts, but everyone who is in need of help. I particularly hope that the religious groups will work together with the Government to help to build strong families, which are the basic units of a resilient and stable society.

The decision

Building the IRs is a major decision, although not a life-and-death matter. The Cabinet discussed the issues and trade-offs over and over again, both in Cabinet and also at our weekly Pre-Cabinet lunch meetings, before it took a final decision. Vivian Balakrishnan was our staff officer, but we were the ones who had to take the responsibility.

economic investment, comprising an overall tourist integrated investment project, running into billions of dollars, should be disallowed because of a gaming component." And that is the question we have to decide.I ask how much they spend on illegal gambling but, alas, we do not collect the figures. But I think it is substantial. Looking ahead, gambling will become even more accessible, especially offshore, and on the Internet. comprehensive measures to minimise the social impact of casino gambling. name. Our reputation, built up over decades, is one of our most precious assets. Internationally, Singapore is known as being clean, honest, safe, law abiding, a wholesome place to live and bring up a family. We must not let the IRs tarnish this brand name. exciting and cosmopolitan, and still be a safe and well-managed city. families. There are strong countervailing forces against negative influences. Community and religious groups play an important role. Their vigorous response to the IRs shows that they are concerned about values, and will work hard to uphold them. Even though we have to proceed with the IRs against their preference, I am sure they will continue to teach their followers good values, and strengthen our society. For its part, the Government will continue to emphasise moral education in schools and promote wholesome values in our society, while the media play a role in setting the right tone in their reporting. We aim to be a decent and wholesome society, but not a puritanical or hypocritical one. negative is absolute. But the Government has to balance the economic pluses against the social fallout and the intangible impact on values, and make this overall judgment whether to proceed. For the Government, the key consideration is what serves our national interest in the long term.

We took into account feedback from the public, our discussions with MPs, and all arguments for and against. Some members of the public think that we had made up our minds right from the beginning, even before this whole process of public discussion. But they are quite mistaken. In fact, the Cabinet started off mostly against integrated resorts. The views of Ministers mirrored the spectrum of views among the public. Some were for, others against. As we discussed the matter among ourselves, and understood better what the IRs actually involved, our views gradually shifted. When we saw the results of the

We finally took the decision at a special Cabinet meeting convened on 9th April, a Saturday afternoon. Nearly everyone was present. Mr Goh Chok Tong was away in the Middle East, Prof. Jayakumar was on his way back from the Vatican for the Pope's funeral, and I think Mr Khaw Boon Wan was also absent. Everyone expressed his view, for or against. Those who were away had also made their views known. Even after so many discussions, Ministers were still not unanimous.

The first question was whether to have IRs at all. The answer was yes. Having settled that, the next question was whether to have one or two IRs. We decided on two IRs, because the Bayfront and Sentosa projects complement each other, because having two provides competition and critical mass, and because we believe that two projects will bring more economic benefits, without increasing the social cost commensurately.

This is a judgment, not a mathematical calculation. We see the trends, and feel the need to move. Whichever way we decide, there are risks. If we proceed, the IRs may not succeed, or the social fallout may be worse than we expect. If we do not proceed, we are at serious risk of being left behind by other cities. After weighing the matter carefully, the Cabinet has collectively concluded that we had no choice but to proceed with the IRs. As Prime Minister, I carry the ultimate responsibility for this decision.

Moving forward together

Despite our explanations, I do not expect Singaporeans to support the integrated resorts unanimously. Not everyone will accept the Government's

I respect those who oppose the IRs, and their views. We have decided to proceed, but it is not because we think those against the IR are wrong, or their reservations unimportant. Their reservations are valid and shared by the Ministers, even those who support the IRs. These reservations are the reason why the Government has said no to casinos for so long. But now we are confronted by a new situation, and the overriding need to remake our city and our economy.

I will meet the community and religious leaders to explain why we have to move, what safeguards we propose, and to ask them to work together with the Government to minimise the social impact.

I encourage MPs to speak up in this debate. Explain your stand, whether for or against the IRs, and help Singaporeans better understand what is at stake.

I thank Singaporeans for participating in the debate. Your views counted. They helped us to understand your concerns and the potential problems better. They demonstrated that Singaporeans can have a rational and constructive public debate on controversial and serious issues. But from here, whether you were for or against, let us put the differences aside and move on. Let us work together to make the IR a plus for Singapore - by

The IRs are an important step forward, but it is only one of many things we must do to remake our city, and build a new Singapore. This is a larger task, and one which requires the commitment and efforts of all Singaporeans. Let us continue to work closely together to realise this vision, and make ours a vibrant and dynamic cosmopolitan city in Asia.

Request for Concepts, we knew that we had to take the bids very seriously, and that if we said no there would be serious consequences. reasons. The split is not between the old or the young, the rich or the poor, or the PAP or the Opposition. The views are deeply held and personal. As the Ministers hold different views, so too do MPs, and so too do members of the public. I have received many emails and letters from citizens, for and against the IRs. Some are from my personal friends, who feel strongly against the IRs and wanted me to know their views. bringing in more tourists, creating more jobs, and teaching Singaporeans about the risks and follies of gambling.

Pursuant to Standing Order No. 44, I beg to move,

That the Proposal to Develop Integrated Resorts be considered by Parliament.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has explained clearly why the Government has decided to proceed with two Integrated Resorts, or IRs, after very serious deliberation. I wish to elaborate on the tourism and economic considerations.

Tourism has always been an important sector for the Singapore economy and not simply for the tourism receipts that visitors generate. The more attractive we are as a tourist destination, the easier it is for us to develop our convention and exhibition industry, and grow as an aviation hub.

However, our tourism sector has faced major challenges over the past decade. Our total arrivals and tourism receipts have declined. Between 1993 and 2002, visitor arrivals stayed relatively stagnant at about 6.5 to 7.5 million visitors. Over the same period, tourism receipts fell by 17%, from S$11.3 billion to S$9.4 billion. The tourism sector has not been keeping up with the growth in the rest of the

These developments did not take place because the prospects for tourism in the region had dimmed. On the contrary, tourism traffic grew strongly in the Asia Pacific, at about 6.4% each year. With our tourism earnings falling at a time when the regional tourism market is expanding, this means that our slice of the tourism pie is getting smaller. Singapore's share of the Asia-Pacific tourism receipts fell sharply, from 13.1% in 1993 to 6% in 2002.

How do we explain this? One key reason is that we have not been investing sufficiently in quality tourism products. Remember, we start off with a handicap. We cannot boast breathtaking scenery or spectacular wildlife. Being a young nation, we do not have historical relics or world heritage sites. We do not even enjoy seasonal variation that gives rise to specialty attractions like the sakura in Japan, the foliage of New England or the ice sculptures of Harbin. Under such conditions, having compelling man-made tourism products becomes vital in attracting visitors.

Apart from a number of sizeable investments in cultural attractions such as the Esplanade and the museums, we have not made major investments in tourism attractions over the past decade. The last significant investment in a tourist attraction was really the Night Safari in 1994. Moreover, several tourism investments made in the early 1990s turned out unsuccessful, like the Haw Par Villa, Tang Dynasty, Asian Village and Fantasy Island.

At the same time, our competitors are not standing still. Many cities have been aggressively investing in new tourism products to attract visitors. Some of our innovative "success formulas" are being

Other destinations are coming up with ever bigger and bolder plans to "wow" tourists. Hong Kong's Disneyland is due to open later this year. Dubai is having its own version called "Dubailand" - a comprehensive tourism, leisure and entertainment city.

We have been successful so far as a convention city but others are catching up. Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok aspire to be successful convention cities. Macau has reclaimed land for the COTAI Strip where a total of 10,000 hotel rooms are planned for Phase 1 development. Venetian Macau, the centrepiece of this COTAI Strip, will have 1 million square feet of convention and exhibition space, a 2,000-seat theatre, and a 15,000-seat arena. Macau will also be a major Meetings, Incentives, Conventions and Exhibitions (MICE) competitor to Singapore once the COTAI development is operational in 2007. So, to keep ahead, we cannot afford to make merely incremental improvements.

The clear trends emerging in the global tourism industry showed us that the number of tourists from this region will double by 2015. This is fuelled by the growth of the middle class in China and India, as well as the falling costs of air travel.

Opportunity is knocking on our door. We can take full advantage of this opportunity, but only if we are prepared to act boldly. It is in this context that the Government decided to proceed with the two IRs.

It is worthwhile, at this juncture, to paint once again the picture of the sort of Integrated Resort that the Government is considering. In the course of the nation-wide debate on the IR, it became clear at times that people were talking at cross-purposes because they had different mental pictures of the IR. Many drew conclusions based on their personal experiences at the old Macau, Genting, Batam, Australia, or just on the cruises to nowhere.

Let me be clear. The Government is not interested in a stand-alone gambling hall that offers only table games and slot machines. In fact, if we were building just a gambling hall, we would not be able to attract large numbers of tourists. Tourists would not fly many hours to visit a casino that can be found nearer their homes. So what would make tourists come to Singapore?

If you look at casino developments around the world, you would find that they form an entire spectrum. At one end of the spectrum, you would find the exclusive gambling clubs in London or the exclusive casinos in Monaco. Next in the spectrum would be casinos situated in hotels like in South Korea. Then you have stand-alone casinos like those in old Macau. They can be more upmarket or downmarket. Next, in the spectrum, some operators would include some entertainment elements in their casino

economy and consequently tourism's contribution to our GDP was reduced by half, from 6.1% in 1993 to 3% in 2002.copied. For example, Night Zoos can now be found in Guangdong, Sichuan, Malacca and Cairns, with another soon to open in Chiangmai. The Underwater World in Sentosa was novel when it first opened in 1991, but such aquariums now exist in many cities. Some are bigger than ours. I must emphasise that the two IRs are by no means our only response to the challenges we face in growing the tourism sector. The Singapore Tourism Board has been hard at work, attracting other investments in the tourism sector. It is also leading efforts to revitalise the Singapore River and Orchard Road. Having an IR, therefore, will complement our many efforts to remake Singapore as a tourist destination.facilities like on cruise ships, in Genting, Perth or Melbourne. At this end of the spectrum, you would find large scale entertainment developments with a small gaming component in it, like some of the recent developments in Las Vegas.

This is what an IR is all about.

The Integrated Resort that we envisage in Singapore is a large-scale development offering multiple world-class attractions. We are not talking about one or two hotels of several hundred rooms with a casino attached. We are talking about an entire complex of classy hotels, luxury shops, fancy restaurants, spectacular shows, convention centres all found in one single destination. The gaming component will occupy not more than 3-5% of the total area of the IR development. Visitors are drawn to the resort not because of gambling, but because it offers a wide range of world-class leisure and entertainment choices, with something for everyone. Casino gaming is an important part of the mix, but only a part. Examples of overseas IRs that we are looking for include the Bellagio and Venetian in Las Vegas, as well as the Atlantis in Bahamas.

More importantly, we are looking for IR operators with the "software" to market the resort extensively and transform the world's view of Singapore as a tourist destination. This involves high-end, innovative marketing and distribution that secures international prime-time media coverage, and access to an exclusive network of top artists and performers. The best IR operators can secure world-famous celebrities to grace their resort, and persuade TV executives and film-makers to use their resort as a backdrop. This maximises the global exposure of the destination and ensures that it is one of the first things that come to people's minds when they plan a vacation. This kind of marketing ability will greatly boost our own efforts at branding Singapore, such that it becomes

As the Prime Minister explained, we received a total of 19 submissions when we conducted a Request for Concepts (RFC) to test the viability of an IR in Singapore. This showed that there is serious interest from world-class companies. Many of these companies have extensive and impressive track records for developing, managing and marketing successful world-renowned Integrated Resorts.

We also learned from the RFC exercise that the economic benefits from this project are substantial. The proposals envisage investments in the order of $5 billion for the two IRs, direct employment of more than 10,000 jobs.

Critics may point out that Singapore is also capable of landing investment projects of this order of magnitude in the other sectors, such as manufacturing. This is true. But, as I had earlier described, success in tourism will stimulate many other sectors of our economy. The IR will help to revitalise our tourism sector and enhance our appeal in hosting conventions and exhibitions, and strengthen our status as an aviation hub. This is why the economy-wide impact of two IRs, taking into account direct and indirect effects, is huge. With the two IRs, the incremental annual GDP is estimated to exceed S$1.5 billion and total incremental employment is about 35,000 jobs.

In addition, our analysis suggests that the consequent growth in the tourism pie would be more than what the Integrated Resorts alone could absorb. Therefore, overall, there will be a net positive benefit for existing players, with spin-offs for the whole tourism industry and the overall economy. This addresses concerns that

Some of the prospective investors have released elements of their proposals to the media. Architects like Daniel Libeskind; museums like the Guggenheim; theme park operators like Universal Studios. I am not at liberty to divulge what is not already in the public domain so as to safeguard the proposers' competitive and intellectual property interests. But I can say that what the prospective investors have not divulged is as impressive and exciting as those elements which they have made public.

Another reason why Singaporeans may find it hard to imagine the impact that an IR would create has to do with scale. Let me illustrate with an example. If I were to say that one of the attractions in the IR would include an aquarium, the average man-in-the-street might think of the seawater aquarium in the basement of Wisma Atria, or the Underwater World in Sentosa, and think, "Well, that doesn't sound so extraordinary." But what if I said the aquarium would be large enough for a whale to freely swim around? That gives you an idea of the scale of the project that we are looking at.

Scale, innovation and top-class creative talent are key to the IR's appeal. These are the elements that will produce a "distinctive and lasting visitor experience". What exactly does this phrase entail? It does not just mean having a good time for a couple of days. It does not just mean building something that is hip, chic, cool, or happening. It means keeping millions of individuals, groups and families entertained, excited and intrigued. It means creating happy memories that people will cherish and share enthusiastically with all their friends and relatives. It means people will actually regret if they cannot make it to Singapore.

I am confident that among the concepts that have been proposed to us

During the course of the debate on the pros and cons of having an IR, some people have asked me, "Why can't we have an IR without the casino?" If investors are willing to develop a similar entertainment product without a casino on their own, we warmly welcome these investments. But, in reality, none of them have done so because these large-scale projects are not viable without a casino or some form of government funding. For example, out of the total project cost of S$5.8 billion for Disneyworld in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong government is committing a total of S$4.8 billion. This is unlike the Integrated Resorts that we are attracting which will entirely be driven by private sector funding.

We should not be surprised by this finding. If indeed it is true that non-gaming amenities are viable on their own, savvy investors would have jumped on this opportunity already. They could trigger any site on URA's reserve list, or approach the URA or Sentosa Development Corporation directly, but none have done so. Even for the RFC exercise whereby investors were not required to include a casino, none of the submissions came without the gaming component.

This is because the casino is the economic engine that generates the bulk of the profits for the resort. The higher profits from gaming are used to offset the lower profits of the non-gaming attractions, which are vital to drawing large numbers of visitors to the resort. This will in turn feed traffic to the casino and generate gaming profits. It is this symbiotic relationship between the gaming and non-gaming components that keeps the Integrated Resort viable independently.

Mr Speaker, Sir, today, we face a small window of opportunity. Only recently have top IR operators started looking at expanding their operations to Asia because their own home markets have matured. Just a few years ago, we would not have garnered the same level of interest from them even if we were prepared to consider establishing an IR. Now, Singapore could be an early-mover in the region to develop an iconic, world-class Integrated Resort.

With this decision, we can now move on to the next stage and launch a Request for Proposals (RFP) in the second quarter of 2005. The RFP would close in the third quarter and we would award by the end of 2005. This would mean that Integrated Resorts would be operational around 2009.

We have seen that the economic benefits of the IRs are considerable. While there are valid concerns about the social impact of casino gaming, the Government is prepared and committed to put in measures and resources to control and mitigate it. This leaves us still with one important consideration.

A sentiment voiced directly or indirectly by a large number of Singaporeans goes beyond its social ills of gambling. They are concerned that a casino would change the tone of society that we have so carefully nurtured over the years.

I am sure we will debate this point thoroughly over the next few days. I can only say that if the Integrated Resort would put the future of Singapore as a safe, wholesome society at grave risk, then we would not have supported it. The Swiss Minister for Economic Affairs was in Singapore two weeks ago. Switzerland allowed casinos five years ago. The Swiss Minister told me that they decided to allow casinos because

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Integrated Resort is neither the panacea to all our economic challenges nor will it destroy our social and moral fabric, or the strong foundations on which Singapore is built. We have to adopt a holistic and realistic perspective, look at all the relevant facts, make sure the economic benefits are real and not fluff, and put in place the necessary measures to contain the downside social impact. This pragmatic approach has served Singapore well in the past, and we should approach the Integrated Resort in the same manner.

The Integrated Resort is one of the many strategies that Singapore is pursuing to boost its tourism appeal and generate economic growth. Whilst it is not the only strategy in our tourism masterplan, the two resorts will serve as the engine of our leisure sector and bring in significant and widespread benefits for Singapore. We should move boldly and swiftly, and seize this opportunity to entrench our hub status, before it is too late.

widely recognised as a leading city in the Asia-Pacific, the way New York, Paris and London are regarded as leading cities in the West. the Integrated Resorts would negatively impact on existing businesses.are projects that are capable of creating this "distinctive and lasting visitor experience" for all those who visit us.casinos were already freely available across their frontiers. They decided they cannot stay put. I think we are in a similar position. We cannot stand still either. Has the reputation of Switzerland as a trusted financial centre, a land of hardworking people, or a wholesome society suffered as a result of having casinos? The answer is no. So I am confident that with adequate safeguards, we too can preserve our societal values with the Integrated Resorts.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.35 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.12 pm until 4.35 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.35 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, over the past one year, the Integrated Resort project has weighed very heavily on my mind and conscience. I share all the anxieties and the reflex discomfort which many Singaporeans have expressed so sincerely and candidly. In fact, this intense passionate debate that we have had shows that Singaporeans care deeply for this country, their families and, indeed, we care for each other.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all forms of gambling, taken to excess, have the potential to destroy the lives of those who become addicted. This is a clear and present danger. The MCYS study showed that 2.1% of our population may be at risk of addiction. However, for those individuals who are afflicted by this addiction, that statistic is meaningless. For that person and that family, the figure may as well be 100%. Every Singaporean destroyed by gambling addiction is one too many. And it is not possible to place a dollar value on one life or one family's happiness lost.

At the end of the day, therefore, I had to be sure that our society as a whole could withstand the social impact, and that we were not going to make things worse overall. What became clear to me very early on was that simply banning a casino was not the solution.

Firstly, many Singaporeans already gamble and have easy access to casinos. Almost six out of 10, ie, 58%, have gambled at least once in the last 12 months, and 40% of all Singaporeans gamble regularly at least once a week. And Singaporeans will have even more options, as new mega casinos are built in

Secondly, and I believe more importantly, not all Singaporeans are vulnerable. Whilst many participate in gambling, the vast majority do not develop problems, and only a small minority is at risk. This figure of 2.1% did not come as a surprise to us. It is comparable to the rate in Hong Kong (1.9%) and Macau (1.8%), and all these three societies are majority-Chinese urban societies. Hong Kong does not have a casino; Macau has many. Yet, the prevalence in all these three places is almost identical. It is not clear how many more Singaporeans will gamble just because casinos are available locally, especially when we have imposed onerous entry restrictions. But what is clear is that there will always be a vulnerable segment of our population. Our approach therefore is to focus on this vulnerable segment, on this group at risk, and to implement specific targeted measures to identify, treat and mitigate the negative social impact on this group. We will, therefore, put in place both generic measures to deal with all forms of gambling, as well as specific measures for the casinos within the integrated resorts.

Using such an approach, I believe Singapore can reap the benefits of the integrated resorts with properly regulated casinos, whilst dealing with problem gambling in the minority of our population who are exposed to gambling anyway. My Ministry, together with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Home Affairs,

First, public education; second, counselling and support services at the community level; third, the availability of professional medical treatment for compulsive gamblers; fourth, more research on the social impact of gambling; fifth, the establishment of a national council on gambling; and, sixth, the establishment of a strict regulatory and enforcement regime.

The Minister for Home Affairs will speak more about the regulatory and enforcement regime, so I will elaborate on the other elements.

First, on increased public education. Our most immediate task is to raise public awareness of problem gambling. In this respect, this healthy and passionate debate that has been going on outside this House has been very useful. It has put the spotlight on the dangers of problem gambling and it will, hopefully, help warn people about the risks of falling prey to gambling addiction.

Mr Speaker, it is much better to have a well-informed population capable of exercising responsible choices rather than to hope that people will not gamble simply because of a lack of opportunity.

Next, we would need to work with our community partners who will have a crucial role to play. We have asked all our 36 Family Service Centres (FSCs) and the five Community Development Councils (CDCs) to provide more information on gambling addiction to the public. The staff at the FSCs and CDCs will be trained to check for compulsive gambling symptoms amongst their clients, and they will also be able to provide basic counselling and advice. If they detect a significant gambling problem, they will refer the gambler to more specialised services.

The specialised treatment services will be available at the Institute of Mental Health under the programme with the acronym CAMP, which stands for Community Addictions Management Programme. This centre currently provides treatment and counselling for gambling addicts. The team consists of psychiatrists and psychologists, and this team and their services will be expanded over the next few years. They will also be able to provide other forms of counselling and support that compulsive gamblers may need, such as financial counselling. The Minister for Health will elaborate more on the plans for the expansion of CAMP later on.

MCYS and the National Council for Social Services (NCSS) will work with one or two family service centres to provide specialised intervention services and programmes at the community level. These specialised intervention centres will handle referral cases from other family service centres, and they will also provide step-down care for stabilised cases from the Institute of Mental Health. Social workers will work with the gamblers and their families to deal with their addictions within a community setting. They will also facilitate the formation of self-help groups like Gamblers' Anonymous, which is akin to Alcoholics' Anonymous. Some of these groups will begin under the CAMP programme but, as the members improve and increase in their ability to deal with the problems, these groups will then move out to the specialist family service centres or the counselling centres. Both CAMP and these specialist agencies will set up and jointly operate a hotline for gamblers and their families, so that anybody who feels he needs help can do so.

Research is important and we need to have accurate reliable data in order to formulate our policies and implement our plans in the future. The recent survey which we conducted is a case in point,

Next, we will set up a National Council on

neighbouring countries. A "prohibitionist" approach is not realistic in this day and age. If we ban casinos altogether, we would only end up missing out on the economic benefits, and yet not achieve any insulation against casinos. We would still have to pay the social costs, but worse, we would not have the ability to control or regulate these casinos right at our doorsteps. will be developing a national framework to address problem gambling, and there are six elements to this framework. and we will be repeating such surveys at regular intervals, so that we will be able to better characterise and quantify the prevalence and impact of gambling in Singapore.

Gambling this year to advise the Ministry on the public education programmes. It will also decide on the allocation of funding for preventive and rehabilitative programmes initiated by the social service sector. It will coordinate with the Institute of Mental Health on the treatment programmes for gambling addicts as well as assess the overall effectiveness of the treatment, counselling and support programmes.

This Council will have 10 to 12 members with expertise and experience in public communications, counselling and rehabilitative treatment and services. The members will be appointed by MCYS for a two-year term. I hope that some social leaders who have worked so hard to highlight the dangers of gambling during this debate over the last one year will consider serving on this council. Their insights and contributions will be valued by us.

Overall, our preliminary estimate is that the start-up cost will be about $20 million and that there will be an annual recurrent expenditure of $40 million. And these costs also include the cost of the regulatory agency as well as the expansion of the CAMP programme.

This national framework that I have outlined will apply to all forms of gambling. Now, let me focus on the casino within the Integrated Resorts specifically.

The project team studying the potential development of the IRs visited several major jurisdictions with casinos.

Let me assure this House that we have put together a comprehensive set of social safeguards - safeguards that are more stringent than those in many other jurisdictions and safeguards which we will enforce strictly. I also want to reassure this House that we will not compromise on the social safeguards at any point in time, just in order to improve the economic viability of the casino. Let me highlight four of these safeguards.

Firstly, we will impose a casino entry levy on all citizens and Permanent Residents. The levy will be $100 per day or $2,000 for annual membership. This levy is intended to send a clear message that gambling is an expense. Each time you enter the casino and show your membership card or pay the $100, we want to remind you that gambling is not a way to make a living. At $100 a day, this levy will also discourage impulse gambling. I would also like to remind this House that every dollar that is generated from this entry levy would go to the Tote Board and would be used for charitable purposes for our society.

Secondly, we will have an exclusion system because I recognise that for an addict, simply levying a $100 will not be enough of a deterrent. So we will allow spouses and family members to implement an exclusion clause. This is in addition to the person himself being able to bar himself from entering the casino. We will be the only major jurisdiction, apart from South Australia, to have such a family exclusionary clause. MCYS will

In addition, we will also exclude from the casino persons who are receiving publicly funded social assistance programmes, persons who are bankrupts and persons with a poor credit record. The operational details for such exclusions will also have to be formulated carefully and sensitively.

We will enact legislation to implement these exclusion measures. The Ministry of Home Affairs will set up a casino regulatory agency. Members of this House can be rest assured that these measures will be enforced strictly.

Thirdly, we will prohibit the extension of credit to residents who gamble in the casinos. Future earnings should not be used for gambling. The casino operator will not be allowed to accept credit cards or post-dated cheques, nor will they be permitted to extend credit to local residents. The only exception would be for resident premier players. But to qualify as a premier player, you will have to deposit no less than $100,000 upfront.

Finally, we will not allow any form of advertising of the casino in our local mass media. This is because we do not want advertisements to promote gambling. If you do gamble, do so on your own account with your own money and realise that it is an expenditure, realise that gambling should never come ahead of the more important needs of your family.

Sir, the reality today is that many Singaporeans do gamble. They gamble in casinos nearby, on cruise ships or they gamble on sports, horse racing, 4D, Toto and many other gambling products, both legal and illegal. Fortunately for us, most Singaporeans do not develop problems with their gambling habits. Most Singaporeans are able to exercise self-restraint and to fulfil their responsibilities to their families.

Nevertheless, there have been tragic incidents when families have been ruined or lives cast away because of this addiction. It is our job to acknowledge this and the Government is therefore committed to specifically identifying and helping these addicts and their families.

Sir, we are not embarking on this project lightly or blindly. We will put in place a national framework to deal with problem gambling. We will impose stringent social safeguards for the casino. We will monitor and enforce these safeguards strictly. We will also commit all the necessary resources to help the more vulnerable members of our society.

We went to Nevada, Bahamas, Macau, Australia and London. We held in-depth discussions with Ministers, policy makers, regulators and research bodies in these countries. We studied carefully their social safeguards, their legislation and their regulations with a view to implementing the best of its kind within Singapore. consult the family sector on how best to operationalise such a measure.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the idea of a casino was first raised a year ago, I was not for it. My reason against a casino then and now is not one of personal morality or religious belief. Rather, my concern is over the change in the ethos and tone of our society which a casino may bring about.

I am concerned whether a casino would erode the Singaporean work ethic. Our achievements as a nation over the past four decades have been built on hard work and a meritocratic system. We do not want to promote the idea that depending on luck at the gambling table, rather than personal diligence in doing an honest day's work, is the route to making money.

I am concerned that Singapore's image as a safe and secure place will be tarnished. People know us as a safe, secure and wholesome place to bring up families. We have a gold standard reputation which is admired by many who desire a safe and secure home. With a casino, there could be an increase in organised crime and law and order issues, like illegal money lending, prostitution, money laundering and criminal gangs.

Another concern is that a casino in Singapore would increase the incidence of problem gambling. Apart from more families having problems and more individuals facing bankruptcies as a result of casino gambling, there is a strong possibility that such people with gambling problems will turn to crime to feed their gambling habit. A recent study on gambling by the Commercial Affairs Department of the Police found that many pathological gamblers turn to crime to feed their addiction.

One high profile case is Chia Teck Leng, the former finance manager of Asia Pacific Breweries, who was sentenced to 42 years in jail in Singapore's biggest ever case of commercial fraud. He embezzled more than $110 million as he got deeper and deeper into debt while gambling in casinos around the world.

Recently, Chia wrote a paper "Taming the Casino Dragon" to share his thoughts on the casino debate. This was published in the newspapers a couple of days ago. Chia provided an interesting insight into the operations of the casino business. He also suggested various safeguards for the Singaporean punter and against casino-related crime. Chia has had a bitter experience which he has paid dearly in personal and material losses. In a dispassionate manner, he set out the negative impact of a casino on the social and crime fronts. But despite all these, his conclusion is that a casino will have an enormous positive impact for our economy.

The economic case

Sir, the question for Singapore, therefore, is whether we can afford to

The Cabinet decided that we should explore, in more tangible terms, whether there is an economic case for an Integrated Resort, so that we could more clearly appreciate how the potential benefits stack up against the potential social cost.

The Singapore Tourism Board's invitation for concepts attracted 19 submissions. Having seen these submissions, the possible investments to be made and the jobs to be created, I can see the potential attraction of the Integrated Resort as an economic case to revitalise our tourism attractions which have become lacklustre over the years. If two Integrated Resorts are built, the prospective investors could invest up to some $5 billion and create about 35,000 jobs for the whole economy. I found the economic case compelling and concluded that these Integrated Resort proposals cannot be lightly dismissed.

The decision

Frankly, a safe option is to maintain the status quo and not to proceed. This way, we defer the issue and avoid making those who have personal, moral or religious objections to the casino unhappy. I understand and respect the views of those who have expressed strong moral, ethical or personal objections. However, I must also take into account the wider and strategic long-term interests of Singapore and all Singaporeans.

What is clear to me is that in an intensely competitive and dynamic economic environment, we cannot afford

The world has undergone great changes and so has our region. For instance, with China booming and its citizens travelling abroad in the millions each year, and with the numbers growing as they become wealthier, I am concerned that we will miss out on the opportunities to attract them to Singapore. We cannot afford not to take steps to advance our economic interests and stay ahead of our neighbours. Just as there are risks in proceeding, we must be clear that there are also costs to Singapore for not acting. Moreover, if we do not try, we will never know whether we would have generated significant economic benefits and, at the same time, managed the social costs.

Both Singaporean and foreign criminal elements may think that they can exploit the situation to perpetrate their criminal activities. ignore the very significant economic potential of an Integrated Resort with a casino as a boost to our tourism industry. Right from the start, there was consensus in Cabinet that if it was just purely a stand-alone casino, then it was a "no-go". to ignore opportunities for growth. If Singapore sticks to safe options, with tried and tested solutions, we will stagnate. If we fail to seize and act when a window of opportunity opens, we may regret taking such a cautious approach if the projects go to other cities in the region.

Sir, it is finally a judgement call, and on the balance of probabilities, we need to act in favour of what brings more benefit to Singapore and Singaporeans. There is no doubt that considerable risks are involved. The robust debates we have had in the media and even in Cabinet show that most of us are aware of that. Having heard all the arguments and studied the economic case, putting aside my personal views, and taking the national perspective, I thought seriously about the options we have and the cost of having or not having an Integrated Resort with a casino. Personally, I am still ambivalent about having the casino. But the significant economic and larger national interests at stake persuaded me that we must give the Integrated Resort with casino option a try.

The PM and Cabinet have taken a decision. I share in the collective

Managing the impact

Sir, since last year, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Police have been studying the possible impact of a casino on the law and order situation in Singapore. Some research studies in other countries have shown that the casino factor has accounted for an increase in crime rates. For example, the Australasian Centre for Policing Research found what appears to be a causal link between excessive gambling behaviour and criminal activity. The nature and frequency of criminal activity seem to be directly related to the extent and duration of involvement in gambling activities.

On the other hand, other studies have shown that communities with casinos are not worse off compared to those without casinos. The United States National Gambling Impact Study Commission's 1999 report analysed data from 100 communities with varying degrees of proximity to casino gambling, and concluded that casino gambling has had no effect on the rates of serious, violent or property crimes.

The evidence from the various research studies is, therefore, inconclusive. It would appear that, while having a casino in Singapore raises the possibility that there could be a negative impact on the law and order situation here, it is not a foregone conclusion. Study visits by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Police to various jurisdictions with casinos in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom seem to suggest that, with proper controls and adequate resources, casino-related law and order problems are manageable and can largely remain under control.

Singapore's record in dealing with crime

Sir, Singapore has been able to deal with other social vices and negative addictions in the past. Our response to narcotics and illegal drugs, which are highly lucrative businesses controlled by international syndicates, has been decisive and effective. Sustained action against secret societies and organised crime has kept the situation under control.

We will adopt the same strategy of comprehensive, tough and decisive action against any threats to our law and order situation arising from the casino. We will also work closely with the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports and the Ministry of Health to implement the comprehensive national framework to deal with the social impact of gambling, including casino gambling. While the Ministry of Home Affairs will oversee the regulatory and enforcement aspects of casino gambling, the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports will cover the social safeguards and preventive public education aspects. In addition, the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports and the Ministry of Health will look at the treatment of those with gambling problems. All three Ministries will work closely together to implement this framework.

MHA's plan of action

Sir, let me now highlight what the Ministry of Home Affairs plans to do to deal with potential law and order issues relating to the casino.

Singapore will not be the first country to have a casino. We can, therefore, benefit from benchmarking ourselves against other jurisdictions that have much more experience in regulating casino operations. The Ministry of Home Affairs

Casino Regulatory Authority

One of the key institutions to help manage the social impact of having a casino in Singapore will be the casino regulator. The Ministry of Home Affairs will set up a new regulatory agency to regulate the casino. The casino regulator will put in place a strict regulatory regime to ensure that the casino remains free from criminal influence and that illegal activities on the premises are kept under control.

The full details on the casino regulatory regime are still being worked out. Today, I shall highlight some key measures that the regulator will implement to regulate the casino operations.

Sir, we recognise that having the right owners, managers and employees will be important to pre-empt the infiltration of criminal elements and money laundering syndicates into the casino operations. The regulator will, therefore, screen the principal shareholders, directors, key managers and employees involved in gaming, not just once-off, but over regular intervals.

The regulator will also monitor the casino's relationship with its vendors, suppliers and agents. Contracts between the casino and its vendors and suppliers above a certain threshold will be scrutinised. The regulator will have the right to require that the casino does not enter into contracts with vendors and suppliers which are deemed unsuitable,

To combat money laundering activities, we will adopt international best practices in tracking suspicious transactions. The regulator will require the casino to record transactions of S$5,000 and above. Transactions of S$10,000 and above and all other suspicious transactions will have to be reported to the regulator. The casino will also be required to keep all relevant records for a minimum period of seven years. In addition, the casino will be required to set up a dedicated security team and a comprehensive CCTV surveillance system to ensure security within the casino premises.

The regulator will also work closely with the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports to ensure that the social safeguards are strictly enforced. The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports has elaborated on these earlier on.

Enhanced law enforcement

Sir, the regulator will work closely with the Police to manage the law and order situation within the casino. In addition, the Police will implement measures to ensure that the overall law and order situation remains under control.

Police will set up a dedicated Casino Investigation Branch within the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to detect and investigate crimes that take place in the casino. We will have Police presence on the periphery of the casino to deter robbery and snatch theft cases, as well as prevent the proliferation of vice and illegal money lending activities. Where necessary, CCTV systems will be installed in the surrounding areas to enhance

Police will take sustained enforcement actions against prostitution, adopting a zero-tolerance approach towards women soliciting in the areas around the casino. The casino will also be required to take the necessary measures to prevent women from soliciting within the casino.

On the issue of illegal money lending, we will take a holistic approach to tackle the situation. The Ministry of Home Affairs has been studying this issue for some time now. Last year, independently from the casino debate, Police established a dedicated taskforce to look into measures to deal more resolutely with illegal money lending and harassment activities. We are exploring the introduction of tougher legislation to deal with illegal money lenders. Other measures being studied include tightening the change of address procedures and installing CCTVs when innocent victims are harassed by illegal money lenders.

Strong action will be taken against any criminal syndicate leaders, whether local or foreign, who try to exploit the presence of casino operations. If necessary, we will detain them under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and confiscate all ill-gotten gains using the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act. In addition, we will consider enacting new laws or amending existing ones to deal with any threat to the law and order situation.

On problem gambling

However, we must also proactively develop our understanding on how we can prevent or minimise the risks of those for whom harmless, recreational gambling can become compulsive and pathological.

As part of the Ministry's efforts to assess the potential impact of casino gambling, the Commercial Affairs Department recently interviewed ten prison inmates who had committed commercial crimes like criminal breach of trust, money laundering, cheating and forgery and who had gambling problems. The study aimed to gain a better understanding of the factors that led such persons to become pathological gamblers and eventually resort to crime. More of such studies need to be conducted.

Singaporeans must be aware of the dangers and the warning signs so that they can keep themselves, as well as their family members and friends, out of trouble by seeking timely help in counselling and treatment when needed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, dealing with casino-related criminal activities will be a new and challenging task for the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Police. We will be scaling up our capabilities and preparing ourselves to deal with the situation. Our study of other jurisdictions with casinos shows that, with proper controls and adequate resources, casino-related law and order problems can be kept under control. Also, our proven track record in clamping down on secret societies and drug syndicates gives us a measure of confidence that our police officers can deal firmly with these problems.

I would like to assure this House and the people of Singapore that my Ministry will spare no effort to help ensure that Singapore remains a safe and secure best home for all Singaporeans.

responsibility for this decision. I will do everything possible to minimise any negative impact which may arise from the Integrated Resort with casino.and the Police have studied the structures and strategies of law enforcement agencies in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom. We will adapt the best practices for Singapore. As we gain greater experience, we will refine them to fit our social context and circumstances.due to suspicious backgrounds, or known involvement in criminal activities. Casino agents or junket operators who bring in premium players from overseas will also be screened and licensed.security. Police will also build up its intelligence capabilities and strengthen cooperation with other police forces to exchange information and intelligence on gaming syndicates and other related criminal activity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would first like to thank the Prime Minister for his detailed explanation on the Government's decision on the Integrated Resort, and the rationale for

Sir, the Singapore Muslim community has built up our way of life founded on Islamic beliefs and principles, and the Singapore system has provided opportunities for all. We have worked diligently over the years to contribute to Singapore's success. We have striven to preserve our values and, at the same time, made practical adjustments amidst changing social circumstances. Our approach, which is true to our religion, and yet pragmatic in its outlook, has enabled us to live as good Muslims in a multi-racial and multi-religious society, and contribute to Singapore's economic and social development over the years.

The idea of having a casino in Singapore has met with considerable concerns within the Muslim community. As Muslims, we are against gambling. Many respected members of the community have rightly expressed concerns on a possible casino because Islam prohibits gambling. Others have also pointed to the possible social ills that this proposal could potentially bring about and have, therefore, opposed the proposal.

Hence, having raised our concerns, many in our Muslim community will be disappointed with the decision to proceed with the proposal. Nevertheless, there are many things that exist around us which we do not agree with as Muslims, but accept as part of the wider landscape. Gambling, drinking and other activities that Muslims consider vices are not banned in Singapore. We understand that in our multi-ethnic and multi-religious

Along these lines, the way we approach the casino issue should be consistent with the way we have approached similar issues, such as the consumption of alcohol. We recognise that it is haram or forbidden,

having a casino as part of the resort. Sir, I have met with various groups in the Malay/Muslim community and heard many views on this issue. Taking into account these views, I would like to respond on what this decision means for our Muslim community here, going forward.society, it is not tenable for Government policies to be dictated by the views of one or any groups. If we go down that road, then should we ban abortion or the use of condoms because some religious groups are against them? Or, should we ban the sale of meat in line with the convictions of groups who believe that animals should not be slaughtered for food? It is in the interest of all Singaporeans that policies are not dictated by the views of any group.

socially undesirable, but nonetheless an accepted social practice in some communities. Is it tenable, therefore, for the Government to go all out and ban such vices? No. Does Government limit access to and educate us against such vices? Yes. Does it protect vulnerable members of society from such vices? The answer again is yes. In the case of alcohol, for example, licensing requirements and age requirements restrict access to alcohol consumption. Likewise, regulatory provisions will apply to casinos. Age requirements, provisions for the exclusion of vulnerable individuals and other measures will restrict access to the casino and protect vulnerable members of society. As with other addictions, the Government will also provide social services and rehabilitation support to gambling addicts and their families.

In examining the casino issue, we must also be mindful of the realities on the ground. Gambling - be it 4D, soccer betting or mahjong games - has been part and parcel of life in Singapore for many years. Hence, the argument that the casino will radically erode moral values is quite debatable. People who currently do not engage in gambling activities, due to firmly held moral or

As for the Malay/Muslim community, we know that we have the choice both as a community and as individuals not to engage in gambling. We will continue with our efforts to educate and inculcate in our community sound spiritual and moral values through the various Malay/Muslim community organisations. MUIS has, for instance, been enhancing its religious education programmes to guide our children and youth to live as good Muslims and integral members of society. It will continue to address various social challenges through its Friday sermons or khutbahs. At the same time, Muslims as individuals have a choice and a duty to shun all activities we consider as vices, including gambling. We can and should live according to sound principles and values, derived from our religion as our spiritual and moral ballast amidst changes around us.

While the casino debate is important, we should keep the big picture in view. The casino targets tourists and those who can afford it. MCYS' survey shows that, in comparison to the other communities, the vast majority of Malays are not involved in gambling. The community's priorities lie in addressing issues such as education and employment, and social issues such as youth development and drug addiction. Just as many Malay/Muslim organisations have raised strong concerns against the casino, I hope we can be equally passionate about lending support towards our on-going efforts to deal with critical challenges such as divorce and youth disengagement. These pose a much more tangible and greater danger to our community.

In recent weeks, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong has welcomed the voices of concern raised against the casino project, saying that this shows that Singapore has citizens with values that will provide the moral ballast to the country. Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan has expressed confidence that the Muslim community's religious values and practices are an asset to the nation. And we have heard earlier our own Prime Minister stating the positive role that religious groups have in Singapore. These are signals to the Muslim community that we have a role to play in shaping the moral and cultural landscape of our country, and that the role is respected. In the coming months, there will be many opportunities for Singaporeans to contribute to the efforts to minimise the social costs of the proposed casino. The Malay/Muslim community will do its part. Our values have a place as Singapore moves ahead. But we must distinguish between personal and public morality. What we believe is good and right for the society, we should share with others in a gracious and respectful way through dialogue and education, without imposing on others.

It was not easy for the Government to come to its decision on the casino issue. And in arriving at this decision to proceed with the integrated resort, our Government has been mindful of the potential social effects the casino can have on Singaporeans and our families. Deliberations have been long and thorough. The Government is putting in social safeguards primarily because it has a duty to protect the vulnerable in our society. The Government does not intend to promote gambling, and is in fact fully aware of the possible social costs of having a casino. It is not about to sacrifice 40 years of achievements in nation-building. But we recognise that there are changes in the social and economic landscape that require a difficult decision to be made now. There are new economic imperatives which have

The Muslim community cannot agree to gambling, but it will also not stand in the way of the Government's decision. The integrated resort involves creative, worthwhile offerings for the whole family, and the casino is just one small part. We will not reject the integrated resort, just because of the presence of the casino. The community will have to take responsibility and ownership of this new challenge, and ensure that members of the community are educated on the social ills associated with gambling. With our collective efforts, we can be confident that we can maintain our values and our way of life as a community. We can be confident of the ability of Muslims to make the right choices and be good Muslims at all times, in any environment. More than that, we can be confident that the community will continue to be a positive influence on, and a contributor to, the wider society. The presence of a casino will not change this. Our resilience as a community has seen us through many challenges over the past decades. I

Sir, there is a Malay proverb that says "Usul menunjukkan asal". What this means is that the Muslim community's response on this issue will go to show our own unique identity as a community in a wider Singaporean family.

religious convictions, will not suddenly decide to gamble even if there is a casino. On the other hand, those who enjoy gambling are already doing so in Singapore and offshore. They will continue to do so, whether or not we have a casino. compelled us to revisit our assumptions. The integrated resort with a gaming facility will create new opportunities for Singapore, along with a new set of challenges that need to be addressed squarely. am confident it will see us through this challenge as well.

Resolved,

That the debate be now adjourned. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Resumption of debate, what day?

Tomorrow, Sir.

So be it.

Resolved,

That Parliament do now adjourn. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Adjourned accordingly at

Twenty-three minutes past Five o'clock pm.

asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether he will review all Chinese district and street names so that the names are intuitive and consistent in the Chinese translation, for instance (i) changing "邓 波 街" (deng bo jie) to "庙 街" (miao jie) for "Temple Street"; "里 巴 巴 利" (li ba ba li) to "河 谷" (he gu) for "River Valley"; and "马 林 百 列" (ma lin bai lie) to "海 旁" (hai pang) for "Marine Parade"; (ii) deciding whether "Bukit" should be translated to "山" (shan) as in "红 山" (hong shan) or "武 吉" (wu ji) as in "武 吉 巴 督" (wu ji ba du); and (iii) reconsidering whether "Jalan" should be translated as "路" (lu) rather than "惹 兰" (re lan).

The naming of streets and places is under the purview of the Street and Building Names Board (SBNB), chaired by Mr Chan Soo Sen, Minister of State for Education.

The Chinese names for some streets and roads are based on the English pronunciation rather than the meaning of the words. This is to recognise the popular and actual usage of the street names. These names were used naturally by people regardless of their spoken language. The translation of "Marine Parade" to "马 林百 列" and "River Valley" to "里 巴 巴 利" are two such examples.

The existing Chinese street names should generally be retained. Many of the names, including those that the Member had cited, have been in use for a long time and are now widely accepted and familiar to Singaporeans. To change the Chinese names now would confuse the public.

The translation of street names in Chinese is guided by the Report of the Committee on the Standardisation of Street Names in Chinese which was released in 1970. Following a review of all the existing street names in Chinese, the Committee set out these general principles:

- To provide more readable street names in Chinese.

- For the purpose of transliteration, Mandarin pronunciation should generally be taken as the basis.

- Wherever possible, the characters chosen should bear the same or similar pronunciations in all the major Chinese dialects spoken in Singapore.

- Care should be taken in the choice of Chinese characters to avoid such homonyms that if pronounced in Chinese dialects, might carry undesirable connotations or lend themselves to such interpretations.

- As far as possible, transliterations should not only be a faithful rendering by sound but should also be elegant and meaningful.

- Unstressed consonants may be omitted in the Chinese renditions so as to reduce the rendering to the minimum number of words.

- Where a street name should be transliterated, the descriptive terms could be translated (for example, Bedok North is "勿洛北").

The Committee also provided a list of the standardised names to ensure consistency in the Chinese translation. For instance, "street" should be translated to "街" and "hill" should be "山".

asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Leader of the House if live webcasting of parliamentary proceedings and video-on-demand of video recordings of previous parliamentary sittings can be provided on Parliament's website.

The need for webcasting of parliamentary proceedings to members of the public was discussed in the House previously. In 1992, there was a live telecast of the Budget debate for 10 days during a trial period, but less than 1% of the people viewed the programme. In view of the low viewership, the idea of a live public webcast was shelved.

Those who are interested in the detailed proceedings in Parliament can attend its sittings. If they want to get a summary of the proceedings, they can watch the television summary at night or read the newspapers the following day. In addition, they can log on to the Parliament website to access the Hansard.

Nevertheless, I will ask Parliament to study whether there is demand for a live public webcast service.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many cases of illegal moneylending and harassment had been reported over the last one year; (b) is the number of reported cases increasing; and (c) what measures have been taken to give better protection to those being harassed by illegal moneylenders.

In 2004, about 5,800 cases of illegal moneylending (IML) and harassment activities were reported. This was an increase of about 460 cases from 2003. Compared to the increase of about 2,300 cases from 2002 to 2003, the IML situation has improved. In fact, the situation has stabilised since April 2004. The average number of cases reported per month from May 2004 to December 2004 was about 420. This is a decrease from the same period in 2003, which averaged 520 cases per month.

Enforcement efforts

The Police takes a serious view of all reported cases of illegal moneylending and harassment. Its priority is to cripple syndicates involved in illegal moneylending activities.

Police has now established a taskforce dedicated to tackling IML and harrassment activities and is exploring several measures to curb them. These include the use of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act to detain not just syndicate leaders but loanshark runners as well, the Income Tax Act to prosecute illegal moneylending syndicate leaders, and the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Serious Crimes Act to confiscate their assets and to deny them the illicit proceeds to re-start their IML activities when they are released from jail.

Police has discovered that illegal moneylenders have made use of foreign workers to open bank accounts and purchased pre-paid phone cards under these workers' names to allow the loansharks to operate freely and harass debtors, making it difficult for the authorities to trace them. Police is thus working with telecommunications firms and banks to implement measures to curb the ability of loansharks to use such tactics.

In addition, Police will continue to give priority to investigations involving illegal moneylending and harassment cases, particularly those involving innocent victims who are not debtors, and step up enforcement efforts against runners and syndicate members who harass debtors. On the ground, Police is studying the use of Closed Circuit TVs and the Community Safety and Security Programme to deter and apprehend "harassers". In addition, Police is exploring introducing mandatory minimum sentences for illegal moneylending and harassment in order to press for deterrent sentences. The Police will continue to leverage on the Vandalism Act which provides for the caning of loansharks who vandalise public property.

Other measures

Apart from enforcement measures, the Police is also working with various government agencies to explore upstream measures to deal with this problem. This would include studying the impact of our moneylending legislation, social policies and public assistance schemes on the IML situation. Other initiatives being considered include enhancing public awareness on prudent financial planning as well as increasing the scope and accessibility of credit counselling services and mandatory credit advice for borrowers of large loans. These measures would help to reduce the demand for illegal moneylending and the downstream consequences such as harassment.

In 2004, Police successfully crippled five moneylending syndicates. The total number of persons arrested for both IML and harassment activities has increased from 330 in 2003 to about 390 in 2004.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in respect of tourists visiting Singapore (a) what are the root causes for the decline of tourism revenue; (b) what are the average spending of tourists from the various Asian countries; (c) what is the typical tour itinerary of a Chinese tourist; (d) what are the typical patterns and trends in the tour itineraries of the tourists from the various Asian countries; (e) what are the main cost factors making hotel stay in Singapore expensive such that tourists are whisked off to Johor Bahru after a day's travel here.

Between 1993 and 2002, tourism receipts fell by 17 percent from $11.3 billion to $9.4 billion. There are several reasons for the decline.

Under-investment in tourism products

Firstly, there has been a lack of investments in quality tourism products. Apart from some sizeable investments in cultural attractions such as the Esplanade and museums*, there were no major investments in tourism attractions over the past decade. On the other hand, regional destinations have improved their tourism product offerings.

Change in visitor profile

Secondly, there has been a shift in our visitor profile with the number of visitors from China, India and ASEAN overtaking traditional source markets such as Japan, Europe and the US. These visitors have different preferences and spending patterns. Our tourism industry has to adjust its products and services to better serve these customers.

External factors

Thirdly, external events such as the Asian financial crisis, September 11th, SARS and bird flu have taken their toll on the tourism.

Growth opportunities

However, looking ahead, there are good reasons to be optimistic about the future of the tourism industry. As part of the Tourism 2015 vision, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) will step up its efforts in attracting and developing world-class tourism products, organising a wide variety of events, and enhancing tourism marketing and promotion.

It will pay special attention to the fast growing Asian market. One key target market is China. Last year, we welcomed 880,000 Chinese visitors to Singapore and they generated $612 million in tourism receipts, up 33 percent increase compared to 2002. They have become our second largest visitor market after Indonesia. The STB will intensify its efforts to attract more Chinese visitors.

Quality tour products

Firstly, we must enhance the Singapore experience for visitors. Many first-time Chinese visitors to Asia come on a Singapore-Malaysia-Thailand (新 马 泰)group tour, which includes one to two days' stay in Singapore as well as visits to our local attractions and ethnic precincts. However, such tours only provide a fleeting glimpse of what

Better customer segmentation

Secondly, we will focus our developmental and marketing efforts on targeted segments of visitors such as families, business travellers and students. We will capitalise on our multi-ethnic and cosmopolitan appeal, our quality education services and our strength as a business hub to position Singapore as a premier destination of choice for these visitors. These efforts are already beginning to bear fruit. For example, in January this year, some 1,200 top performing executives from pharmaceutical firm AstraZeneca in China were in Singapore for a week-long incentive trip.

Improved accessibility

Thirdly, we must continue to make Singapore even more visitor-friendly. From January this year, China Unionpay RMB cardholders can withdraw cash at selected Automated Teller Machines (ATM) in Singapore and use our Point of Sale systems at shops and restaurants. We will also provide more multi-lingual signages to make it easier for Chinese visitors to get around in Singapore.

Hotel room rates

Although our hotel room rates are higher than Johor, they are among the lowest in Asia, as indicated by a recent study by Horwath, a hospitality consultancy company**. In any case, we cannot compete based on price alone, but must provide a quality experience so that visitors feel rewarded for their time and money spent here. There are some encouraging signs - the average length of stay of all tourists in Singapore has risen from 3.08 days in 2002 to 3.2 days in 2004. STB will work to further increase visitors' length of stay in Singapore.

__________________________

* Asian Civilisation Museum, Singapore Art Museum and Singapore History Museum.

**The Horwath Asia Pacific Study which shows the comparative average hotel room rates for Asian cities was reported in a Straits Times article dated 4th March 2005.

Singapore has to offer. To give Chinese visitors a more enriching experience in Singapore, STB is actively working with Chinese tour operators to develop quality tour packages. STB is also promoting Singapore through a Chinese drama that was filmed here featuring our local attractions.

asked the Minister for Health, in view of the recent outbreak of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) infection, how many persons now have VRE and what is the breakdown of these in terms of (i) symptomatic patients and asymptomatic carriers (ii) immuno-compromised patients (ie, diabetic, renal failure, haematology and oncology patients) and non-immuno-compromised patients and (iii) bed class status.

6. Dr Tan Sze Wee asked the Minister for Health, in view of the reported deaths of four patients in the Singapore General Hospital, whether vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) is a contributing cause of these deaths and, if not, was there any other infection that was present in these patients.

As at 14th April 2005, 88 patients have been found to have vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE). Of these, only three have symptomatic clinical infection while 85 have asymptomatic colonisation.

Of the 88 patients with VRE, 78 can be classified as "immuno-compromised" (ie, diabetic, renal failure, haematological or oncology patients) while 10 are not.

The distribution of the patients by ward class is as follows:

Class B1 - 2

Class B2 - 25

Class C - 61

Seven patients found to have VRE have died but none of the deaths are related to VRE. They all were elderly and had multiple chronic medical conditions. Two died from acute myocardial infarction, three of pneumonia and two of septicaemia from different bacterial infections.