Hansard, 2005-04-19

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) Mr Heng Chee How 21 Apr 21 Apr Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee 23 Apr 26 Apr Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam 25 Apr 01 May Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat 02 May 08 May

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Education (a) why the difference in tuition fee grants between a local and a foreign undergraduate is only $590 per year; (b) how does the Ministry

justify the tuition fee grant of $12,830 per foreign student regardless of their affordability; (c) whether the Ministry can explain why there is no means-testing when awarding the $12,830 grant per foreign student when means-testing is applied when awarding CCC-university bursary and study loans to Singapore students.

Mr Speaker, Sir, foreign undergraduates in our universities who are under the tuition grant scheme pay fees that are 10% higher than local students. Foreign students who receive the subsidy have to serve a three-year bond upon graduation by working in Singapore, thereby supplementing our workforce. Foreign students add to the vibrancy of our universities, just as they do in other top universities. They provide diversity and alternative perspectives, given their different educational, cultural and social backgrounds. This diversity enriches the university experience of our local undergraduates and add to the international standing of our universities.

In providing a subsidised university education to foreign students, our universities have ensured that the students are admitted on stringent admission criteria. Those who matriculate are of good calibre and serve to spur our local students on. As I have mentioned in this year's Committee of Supply debate in response to Prof. Ong's queries, MOE and the universities will be reviewing foreign students' fees, in particular to consider that there should be differentiated fees for different types of foreign students. But this review would have to consider the larger strategic objectives of our universities.

On the question of means-testing for the tuition grant for foreign students,

Prof. Ong might want to distinguish between the tuition grant and the bursaries and study loans that are provided to students. The bursaries and study loans are means-tested as they are provided for needy students. On the other hand, the tuition grant, which is not means-tested for either local or foreign students, is aimed at ensuring that the universities attract the best local and foreign talents that they need, by keeping fees competitive and affordable.

Sir, I understand the rationale behind having foreign students in Singapore. I also understand the reason behind our universities' bursaries and study loans and to apply means-testing to help the students. However, if you look at the foreign students who make up 20% of the undergraduate admission, and if we were to award approximately $12,000 to every foreign student, and when we apply means-testing to the bursary, the income is capped at, for example, $900 for a study loan ---

Prof. Ong, could you just ask your supplementary question, please? No more speeches.

Would that justify the difference in the amount, when one is $12,000 and the other is like $3,000 or $4,000?

I think these are two quite separate matters. MOE provides each year to the universities a capitation grant for each student they take in. MOE provides a grant that will allow the universities to maintain a high quality of education and also allow the universities to keep tuition fees competitive and affordable for both local and foreign students. That is irrespective of the income background of the student. It is for a fundamental, strategic objective, ie, maintain a high quality education and attract good

students. Bursaries, study loans and the other financial assistance schemes have the objective of making sure that no student is unable to get a university education on financial grounds. The bulk of the recipients are of course local students. But it is a different objective.

2. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Education with regard to foreign undergraduate students who are subsidised with a tuition fee grant of $12,830 per year and who make up about 20% of our universities' enrolment, (a) how many of these students are from our lower-income neighbouring countries; and (b) how many have since returned to their home countries after finishing their 3-year service bonds in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the majority of foreign undergraduates who receive tuition grant subsidies from the Government are from ASEAN, China and India.

We do not track those who have left after serving their tuition grant bonds, in other words, after serving out the three-year period of working in Singapore. But more than 60% of those who were admitted to our universities between 1996 and 1999 - I stop at 1999 simply because those admitted subsequently are either still studying or at a very early stage of serving their tuition grant bond - more than 60% of those who were admitted to our universities between 1996 and 1999 have become Permanent Residents or Singapore citizens since graduating. And, indeed, in the more recent of those years, the figure has been even higher.

Sir, of those students who are from China and all the other lower income countries coming to Singapore, how many could have afforded

to pay or even be willing to pay a higher tuition fee that they are currently paying?

I do not know the answer. We have not looked in detail at the income background of the student. I suspect some would have been able to pay more, and that is one of the reasons why we are reviewing this matter to see whether we should have differentiated fees for different types of foreign students. It is a complex matter. I do not think we want to go the way of Australia which has two classes of students, those who pay higher fees coming in on a less meritorious basis, in other words, they have low admission requirements for students who pay higher fees. I think the universities must, above everything else, maintain high quality and transparency of admission requirements. How much fees you charge and how much financial assistance you provide are the financial strategies of the universities to make sure that they remain competitive as a university and that good talents, local and foreign, are able to gain admission without having to worry about being unable to afford it.

As the Minister has said, more than 60% has since become PRs and Singapore citizens, so this has actually shown that the three-year service bond is a non-issue since they are more than happy to stay behind. My next question is, with the setting up of a fourth university, or even the possibility of a fifth university, and they will be charging fees similar to the campus back home, how would the Ministry and the universities try to compete with the fourth, or even the fifth, university to get these affordable students to pay full fees coming into NUS and NTU?

First, I would not conclude that because more than 60% have become Permanent Residents or Singapore citizens, the three-

Yes, with the fourth university coming in - we have not decided on a fifth - it will change the landscape. It offers the universities an opportunity to rethink their fee strategies. They have to be competitive vis-a-vis both additional local universities as well as the foreign universities that they are already competing with.

year bond is irrelevant. In fact, I think that studying here and then staying on to work here might in fact help more students decide to become Permanent Residents. And I should add that those who do not decide to stay on here, it is not a loss to Singapore. When they go back to their home countries, they remain part of a network with Singapore, and they will remember their years in Singapore with fondness. So it is not as if we are trying to achieve a 100% retention rate as such.

3. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the strong cultural bias and prejudice among the public, the employers and the employees towards certain groups of jobs, which job redesign cannot change, what are the efforts (a) to educate employers to change their bias to pay better salaries; (b) to educate employees not to be prejudiced so that they will take up these jobs; and (c) to change the mindset of the general public so that they will not look down upon such employees.

Sir, some job seekers find it difficult to take up existing low paying jobs because these jobs do not pay enough to support their families. Our response is to help employers redesign the jobs to increase the job worth so that the workers can be paid more. This requires companies to

Part of the effort to redesign jobs includes enhancing the skills and professional image of workers employed in these jobs. For instance, mechanisation, the use of proper tools and better trained workers have helped to improve the public image of cleaning jobs. Apart from employers, we need the help of the media to also change the perception of job seekers and members of the public towards such jobs. We should all respect the dignity of a hard day's work, and not consider some jobs as less dignified or less worthy.

WDA and NTUC will market these jobs to jobless Singaporeans through the Distributed Careerlink Network of job centres as well as through the media. We will organise pre-placement programmes to change perceptions as well as prepare workers mentally to take up these new jobs. We are also providing adjustment and retention incentives to encourage workers to stay and get used to their new jobs.

make an effort to change the way the job is done, including work processes and systems and improve working conditions and the image of the job. WDA has set aside $10 million over two years to support pilot job redesign projects by companies. WDA will be working with NTUC and the Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF) to promote job redesign to companies, including sharing success stories. We will also be highlighting the benefits that companies have reaped from job redesign, such as better results in recruitment and retention of local workers.

4. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Senior Minister if his Ministry will institute

safeguards or a minimum listing requirement period for foreign companies listed here so as to protect minority shareholders from company owners who seek to de-list their stocks from the Singapore Exchange (SGX) at depressed prices way below their initial listing price.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the SGX does not impose a minimum listing period requirement. This is similar to exchanges in other jurisdictions like the United Kingdom or Hong Kong. The issue of whether to voluntarily delist is a commercial decision best left to the company's shareholders. However, SGX has rules to safeguard the interests of minority shareholders in such an event.

SGX rules require a shareholders' meeting to be convened to vote on a delisting resolution. To be successful, the resolution has to be (i) approved by a majority of shareholders representing at least 75% in value held by shareholders present and voting; and (ii) not voted against by more than 10% in value held by shareholders present and voting.

SGX also requires that a reasonable exit offer, which should normally be in cash, be provided; and an independent financial adviser be appointed to advise shareholders on the exit offer.

Taken together, these rules provide sufficient safeguard against minority shareholders being oppressed or forced to exit at unreasonable prices.

Sir, does the Minister know that some businessmen are treating Singapore as the ATM of the East where if they need money, they will come over to draw funds through the listing of the IPO which they will peg it at a very high price and that would subsequently flop over the months? Over time, they would probably acquire a majority of 90% and then demand for compulsory

delisting. This has happened recently in the case of a company that was listed. So would the Minister explain this matter?

The Takeover Code prevents minority shareholders from being abused, whether it is a local company or foreign company. And even if it is a foreign company that does not have takeover rules in its home country, by listing in Singapore, it has to amend its M&A to abide by Singapore's Takeover Code rules. The takeover offer has to be at a price that ensures minority shareholders are not disadvantaged. There are various rules, I think Mr Steve Chia must be familiar with them, ie, the price has to be higher than the last transacted price made by the offeror in the last three months, and so on and so forth.

The rules that I had just mentioned on voluntary delistings ensure that minority shareholders are not disadvantaged. The example he has given is where someone makes a takeover offer, the result of which is that less than 10% free float is available on the market and therefore a compulsory delisting is required. The takeover offer is subject to the Takeover Code and the subsequent compulsory delisting is subject to rules, both in the Takeover Code and SGX

listing rules, which ensure that minority shareholders are not disadvantaged. In any event, market discipline will operate. If the takeover offer was not attractive in the first place, minority shareholders would not have accepted it, and the free float would not have gone below 10%.

5. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) what is the rationale for not allowing the Football Association

of Singapore (FAS) to follow the Singapore Sports Council's code of governance in having its council members democratically and fairly elected by its members, instead of being appointed by the Government, so as to help the FAS run its affairs more efficiently and professionally; and (b) which other sports association currently receives substantial funding from the Government or Singapore Pools Pte Ltd and yet still has its council members appointed by the Government.

The Code of Governance for National Sports Associations (NSAs) is meant to strengthen their governance and ensure the presence of a competent council or board that is able to provide sound direction and guidance to the NSA. Hence, the Government's decision to continue appointing the members of the FAS Council is entirely in line with the objective of the Code. The Government will ensure that competent and committed persons are appointed to the FAS Council to help the FAS carry out its work more efficiently and professionally.

Every year, the FAS receives about $10 million, of which $8 million goes to the S-League, from football betting proceeds of Singapore Pools. This is on top of an average of $2.6 million in operating grants which it receives from the Government. The amount that FAS receives from Singapore Pools is much higher than the normal operating grants that other NSAs would get from the Government. The appointment of the Council by the Government is meant to ensure that these funds are managed well and responsibly.

The Government will continue to appoint the members of the FAS Council, so long as the FAS continues to receive

Apart from the FAS, no other National Sports Association receives such substantial funding from the Government or from Singapore Pools, and has its council or board members appointed by the Government.

substantial funds from Singapore Pools annually.

Sir, I hope not to hear the Minister wrongly. Does it imply that those who are elected are not competent or not professional in the way they handle the job, that is why the Government needs to appoint competent and professional people to be in the Council?

Not at all. Nevertheless, because of the exceptional circumstances under which FAS receives such a large proportion of its money from the football betting proceeds from Singapore Pools, I feel it would be wise for the Government to continue appointing the members of the FAS Council. This should not be misconstrued in any way as a reflection on the election processes in other NSAs.

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [18th April 2005],

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

Question again proposed.

1.55 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, the fact that Prime Minister Lee and four other Ministers spoke for almost two-and-a-half hours yesterday clearly underscores the importance the Government attaches to

The issue which has attracted considerable concern and a more than year-long intensive public debate, Sir, is undoubtedly the incorporation of a casino within the resort. Had casino been the only issue, I am sure the Government's response would have been obvious and swift. However, the nub of the issue is whether a fully integrated resort project, with investments of several billion dollars, should be denied because of the incorporation of a gaming component.

As a Muslim, Sir, my heart goes out with the many Singaporeans of all races and religions who have expressed reservations over the casino because, for one, Islam and most major religions forbid gambling and, secondly, that gambling could inflict considerable harm to society and erode the values that we have painstakingly built as a society. Muslims and, for that matter, followers of other religious faiths, can and should abstain from gambling. We are all entitled to our beliefs and free to exercise our choice as we see appropriate.

Gambling in many forms is not new to Singapore. Lotteries, Toto and horse racing have been around for quite a while. Our religion and values keep us in check. I believe the majority of Singaporeans adhere to the values of our parents and forefathers and have exercised our responsibility, in spite of pervasive gambling already occurring around us.

However, bearing in mind the clarification given by PM Lee and several Ministers that the casino represents only a

No responsible government in the world would give a pass to an investment project of such magnitude without serious consideration of its humongous economic benefits and spin-offs while weighing it against the social impact arising from the gaming component in the proposal. The Government's decision must be in the national interest, and our Government has decided accordingly. Sir, I am convinced that it was a very difficult decision and that thorough consideration of all the pluses and minuses would have been given before arriving at this historic difficult decision.

Economic considerations

Given the recent volatility of our quarterly economic performance, it is apparent that dependence on traditional sources of growth, such as manufacturing and financial services, has become increasingly difficult. New sources of growth, especially one which provides relative stability, need to be considered to complement existing efforts. The IRs, with their potential of stimulating a wide array of tourism-related industries as well as convention and exposition-related businesses and enhancement of our aviation hub position, represent an outstanding platform to complement existing pillars of growth. Its anticipated sustainability will lessen the pressure to operate on budget deficits, as we have done so in the last several years. And, as noted by Mr Nizam Idris of IDEAglobal in the Business Times today, the IRs will

What is also very important for Singaporeans to bear in mind, Sir, is the fact that opportunities for such mega-scale foreign-invested projects without the call-out for any Government subsidy do not often come knocking on our doors. If we do not seize it at this opportune time, others will be more than willing to take it, leaving us with the risk of being left behind. The time to seize it is now, while the window of opportunity is open for us.

Many nations and cities have realised the meaning and power of the tourism dollar and have embarked on many measures to attract tourists to their shores. Apart from well-known cities mentioned by PM yesterday that have re-engineered themselves to remain preferred tourist destinations, there are many other small and large, new and old cities that are also sprucing themselves up to attract the tourist dollar. Suzhou and Ho Chi Minh City which I travel regularly to on business have both become very attractive tourist destinations. My colleagues there regularly remind me to let them know in advance of my visit schedules or run the risk of having no hotel rooms. Such is the intensity of regional competition these days.

Therefore, our choice ahead is whether we truly become a vibrant and bustling cosmopolitan city, as we have collectively envisioned, or be left as just another ordinary Asian city. Besides giving us the platform to become the former with world-class attractions, theme parks and resort hotels, the IRs provide the opportunity to rebrand Singapore with new eye-catching icons with a fresh look

Sir, the creation of 35,000 jobs, including 10,000 direct ones, must have also weighed heavily in the Government's decision to proceed. This is significant job creation, considering the increasingly competitive and uncertain business environment that prevails today. Much of it is likely to be service jobs, which will be here to stay. Unlike manufacturing jobs, which could be quite easily uprooted and transferred elsewhere, mega resorts cannot be simply dismantled and taken to another location. With many billions of dollars expected to be sunk in, the investors will do everything within their means to make the project successful. And this means the jobs are more secure.

Sir, in spite of the Government's repeated stance that manufacturing will remain a key pillar of our economic strategy and is expected to contribute 25% of our GDP, jobs in the manufacturing sector will be scarcer due to the changing profile of the investments. The jobs in this sector will be increasingly more complex and value creation in nature, and will require professionals and people with higher knowledge and skills to fill them. Considering that we still have more than half a million secondary educated workers who will remain economically active for some time, the projected 35,000 jobs are therefore very meaningful to keep our workers employed.

Social implications

Sir, in regard to the social implications of the gaming component, I am delighted that the range of measures announced by PM and Ministers Dr Balakrishnan and Mr Wong Kan Seng are comprehensive to

While the measures are laudable, there is no better approach than first to operationalise the preventive measures rather than finding ourselves having to do fire-fighting at a later stage. Hence, I would urge MCYS to quickly embark on a comprehensive public education programme to strengthen our social safeguards and forewarn people of the detrimental effects of gambling. Prevention in this respect is certainly better than cure. Families, religious and social organisations should also play their part in inculcating and further strengthening moral values within family units, particularly among the young.

I am also enlightened that the Government is spending $20 million to set up the National Framework on Gambling and $40 million annually to maintain the infrastructure. This is demonstration of the Government's seriousness in wanting to control the ill-effects of gambling. It will also particularly benefit those who are currently already trapped in this vice, even as we do not have any casinos at this juncture.

I understand, Sir, that there are only 15 gambling addiction counsellors in Singapore. While training or importing more practitioners will help alleviate the short and medium-term problems, an entirely different set of problems arises when it comes to classification of gamblers. Vulnerable groups from adolescents, the elderly, retirees and the poor, will all require customised and dedicated care. There is, unfortunately, no "one-size-fits-all" type of treatment or cure.

An approach to consider would include a comprehensive plan to develop the

Moving on to the specific measures targeted at casino gambling, while I feel that a $2,000 annual membership fee would only appeal to serious gamblers, I have reservations that the $100 daily membership fee is sufficient enough deterrence for curious young professionals to give it a go in a casino. Once inside,

the proposal to develop integrated resorts with a gaming element in it. In browsing through the Singapore Parliamentary Report, I was not able to find another occasion in the past where the Government had been so thorough in addressing an issue or a Bill in such magnitude and intensity as it did yesterday. small part of the Integrated Resorts proposal - 3% to no more than 5% - is it appropriate for the Government to completely do away with this multi-billion dollar project to be poured in by foreign investors which has the potential to create up to 35,000 jobs, beef up the highly competitive tourism industry and the prospect of adding at least $1.5 billion to our GDP, not to mention the multitude of other peripheral games arising from it? help widen our revenue base, and the more robust fiscal structure would provide the Government with leeway in the future to consider further reductions in tax rates and potentially use it as a tool to address our competitiveness. essential to attract more tourists. The highly respectable and experienced international resort operators, with their global marketing experience and prowess, can help transform Singapore into a "must visit" destination.tackle potential surges in gambling addiction and increases in crime activities. It is apparent to me that much thought has been given by the relevant Ministries to bring forth the announced measures.preventive measures and support services to deal with the problem of gambling. The resources and sector capacity to deal with these are, unfortunately, lacking at this juncture. I hope the Government will immediately begin looking into these areas, now that the decision has already been made to go ahead with the IRs.

who knows what will happen and no sooner than one realises, the poor chap may be a few thousand dollars in deficit. If $100 proves to be insufficient deterrence, would the Government be in a position to review and consider upping this amount? The close proximity of the business district to Marina Bayfront is also a bit of concern as it may lure business executives and people working in the area to squeeze time out from work to gamble. It may lead to a drop in work efficiency in such areas.

Sir, another concern I have is the extent of casino advertisements that would be allowed by the Government. We should not allow casino advertisements to target innocent people and the compulsive gambler through slogans, flashy advertisements and various publicity stunts. Such marketing techniques trigger the subconscious mind. In particular, it affects people who may have stopped gambling and also introduces gambling subconsciously to others. Triggers are obstacles to the environment that can cause one's subconscious to override rational thought. Once a compulsive gambler makes the conscious decision to stop gambling, such triggers could continually influence their rational thought. I would urge the Government to carefully consider the regulation of

I would like to particularly applaud the move to enact legislation that will enable Singaporeans to exclude themselves or empower family members to exclude their loved ones from the casinos.

On that note, Sir, I support the proposal to develop IRs in Singapore.

advertisements to be allowed for casinos. The preference is to completely ban casino advertisements.

Sir, I would like to start by saying that I do not support gambling. I do not gamble and will never encourage anyone to gamble. But as an entrepreneur, I do take calculated risks and I call that judgement or investment. You know what I mean that the specific gambling that we are talking about is the casino type.

Sir, originally, I was not planning to speak. I thought the best way out of this issue was to just keep quiet and not let anyone know what I feel or what my stand is. But I feel I owe it to the voters of Ang Mo Kio GRC and to my community to make a stand on this issue and also explain why. While I am strongly against gambling, I am however firmly behind the Prime Minister on his decision to proceed with the Integrated Resort, even though we have an element of casino included in this Integrated Resort.

Sir, my religion teaches me a number of values and one of them is that you have to work hard for your living. Gambling is never in our vocabulary. The Singapore I grew up in also taught me all of these values and I saw my parents practising it, and in my career, I have also learned that there is no shortcut to success - you just have to work at it.

So when the casino debate emerged, I was not supportive of having one in

So as the debate raged on, for one year now, I shifted from not supporting it to one on sitting on the fence. Like everyone else, I too felt that Singapore can do better and does not have to have a casino to create economic success and to make our country a vibrant place for all. We could do other things to create the success that we desire for Singapore. But as I searched for the answer of what we could do today with all the options that we are presented with, I realised that there are very few options left for us. New options may arrive in the future but there are very few now. And can anyone put their hands on their hearts and say that they have a better solution? Sir, I am an entrepreneur. I have many ideas but I cannot think of any one that is going to be as significant as what the IR can create for Singapore.

Therefore, Sir, I have now shifted to the position that I support the Prime Minister and the decision to proceed, and that we have no choice but to have an IR in Singapore. Let me share with everyone what was it that finally convinced me to change my stand twice, from negative to sitting on the fence and to finally supporting it.

Economic contribution

Sir, first of all is the economic contribution. We have seen so many years of poor economic performance. Starting from 1997, the economic cycles are getting shorter and the upsides of the economy are getting narrower while the downturns are lasting longer. In the last 10 years, we have seen very few initiatives which have been able to create the vibrancy in our economy. Yes, life sciences was a good initiative but it is a different ball game, different from the era of the electronics industries which created many jobs for Singapore and which created a buzz about how our economy was going to grow rapidly and how jobs will be created and that there will be many spin-off effects in many parts of the economy for many of our local businesses.

Sir, today, in 2005, after successive tough economic periods, the business community is getting worn out. Every time we expected to see sustained strong economic recovery, they were disappointed because all we saw were actually relatively weak recovery for a short period of time before being hit by another downturn. With very little new excitement created in Singapore about the vibrancy of our future economy, people are losing confidence. Businessmen are feeling tired, losing faith, looking to uproot, go elsewhere, even beyond this region. Put simply, the mood remains bad for a long period of time. And if this continues, it spells disaster for Singapore and for Singaporean businessmen if they lose confidence and for our economy.

The first thing that convinced me was the economic contribution that the IR would make to Singapore's economy. I see two levels of contribution. The first is the level of direct investments that is going to come in from foreigners - $4 billion to $5 billion. And then, the direct recurring contribution of about $1.5 billion to the tourism sector. This is not a small

Sir, second, the tourism industry is starting to wane. We do get tourists, but they do not spend money here. They are going to Genting and elsewhere in the region to spend their time and money. I happen to believe that the indirect impact to the economy will also be very significant, much greater than the $1.5 billion that was quoted by the Prime Minister. When we successfully doubled the tourist arrivals to Singapore and especially when we attract big spending type tourists, we will see an even far greater contribution to the economy, not only their direct spending, but also the impressions that they will have for Singapore, the kind of marketing that they will do for the country when they go back to their home countries. This will not only bring in more tourists but also help bring in other forms of investments because of the affordability and the type of people that we are going to attract down here. So I see a potential of several billions of dollars of future contribution to the economy on top of the $1.5 billion.

Third, I feel that we need to recharge our tired businessmen and our tired local companies who have been battered by so many successive downturns that I mentioned. We need to change the mood. We need to create a new buzz in Singapore. We need to create optimism that Singapore is not getting old and uninteresting, not just for tourists but also for investors. We need boosters to our economy and I do not see any immediate instrument as a booster other than the IR. I feel that by just deciding to proceed with the IR, there will be a whole new buzz created around Singapore, even before we start the project. The businessmen are all getting excited. They will be talking about

Fourth, the number of jobs which could be added to the economy. Mr Lim Boon Heng was quoted as saying that there will be about 10,000 new jobs created. Last Sunday, I was out with about 200 of my residents for an outing and I spoke to some of them. A couple of them came up to me and told me that 10,000 jobs are not significant and we should not proceed with the IR just because of this. I disagree. I think that every 1,000 jobs that we can add to the economy are significant today. You try to tell that these 10,000 jobs are not significant to those Singaporeans who have been without jobs for quite some time. They will be telling you that they are thankful even if one job can be created for them. And now, we are talking about 35,000 jobs. If you look at the level of unemployment that we have today, I think this is a very significant number and it is going to create a big difference in generating employment, not just immediately but also in the future.

Fifth, I see the structure of the Singapore economy changing from one of

Sixth, I am also convinced that if Singapore gives up the IR plans, these same plans will emerge somewhere else nearby. And, worst of all, it may actually even appear in Johore Bahru, Batam or Bintan or in Thailand. All the issues that we are worrying about, the value system, will affect Singaporeans because Singaporeans will anyway be patronising these places that are very easily accessible to them by road, train and budget airlines. If we have given up this opportunity, we will have lost the opportunity to make the money to our neighbours. We end up in a lose-lose situation. We lose the opportunity to add to the economy and we lose the value system argument and also fail to add the safeguards because we would have just dropped this whole thing from the radar screen because we decided not to do the IR. If our people are going to have access to the casinos anyway, why not have them at home, where we can control things, where we can put in place the safeguards and where we can also gain economically? Why let others make that money?

So I am convinced that the Integrated Resort is something that we cannot do without. But have I abandoned my value

The value system and will we erode society?

Sir, the second issue is one of the value system. Will they really erode? I believe that we are just kidding ourselves if we believe that by having casinos in Singapore, Singapore will suddenly become a sin city and that many Singaporeans will suddenly become gamblers. It will never happen. We already have all the opportunities to gamble in whichever way we want - 4D, horse racing, one-arm bandits and, for that matter, the high-roller type gambling like black jack and many others which I do not know the names of. They are at our doorsteps.

We have heard about the Batam illegal gambling dens and Singaporeans were their main patrons.

Singapore because the casinos go against my beliefs and value system and I also want my children to embrace this same value system that I grew up with. I do not want them to grow up in a different type of Singapore. But as the debate went on, I realise that the issue was more than one of a moral issue or our value system. It was about Singapore's future and its ability to compete to remain viable in the long run. And if we could do one in Singapore and yet have all the safeguards so that we do not erode our value system which have created Singapore's past success, I will be inclined to support it. But I wanted to be first convinced that the Integrated Resort will indeed be necessary for Singapore to remain viable and to succeed in the future. amount. I see very few projects in Singapore the size of the two IRs which can contribute to our economy by so much on a yearly basis. Other industries collectively can contribute, but how many the size of the IR can do so? Very few. it. They will talk about potential opportunities they will have, first in the projects to build the IR and to participate on the ongoing servicing of the IR and about how the tourists coming here will benefit them. And then about how they will see new types of businesses that may arise and how they can benefit from future investments that may come in as a result of this. This buzz alone, in my opinion, will help change the mood from a gloomy outlook to something to look forward to, and one from a lack of opportunities to one of many new opportunities coming our way. And even if the final result is that the outcome may not be as significant as everyone might be dreaming of, the mood alone will breathe a new life into the business community. And this is what we greatly need right now. very few significant industries which contribute tens of percentage points to the GDP to one where we have micro industries contributing in a much smaller way to the GDP, but we need all of these micro industries to add up to the economic pie and to add jobs to the economy. So if the tourism industry can add five to six percentage points to the GDP, the life sciences industry adding five percentage points and the education industry adding another five percentage points, I think if we add all of these together, that is what the structure of Singapore economy is going to be in the future. So the $1.5 billion and all the spin-off effects will be very significant for the economy and for the success of Singapore in the future.system and am I less religious as a result? Am I willing to have a different type of Singapore for my children and my grandchildren, if my children have any children? No. I am not. In fact, I am confident that the Government will not allow our value system to erode and will do even more to safeguard the good that we have already built over the last 40 years. I will continue to do the same as long as I can for my family and for my community.

Then, a 4-hour drive can get one to Genting and any clubhouse in Singapore. I am a member of a few of these clubhouses. There are many of these machines. I bring my children to these clubs regularly, but this had not affected my value system. We do the things that we want to do, but we do not gamble. We, in fact, already have a full-fledged casino in Singapore, believe it or not. It is the Star Cruise. It is just a drive to the ferry point and then you are in the casino.

Sir, four years ago, my whole family and the employees of one of my

Sir, my point is this. Despite us having so many gambling opportunities, we still have not seen a nation of gamblers emerging. Just as our religious beliefs have helped us, so have our value system which the Government has strongly upheld, resulting in a Singapore resilient enough not to give up the value of working hard to create success. So, what makes us think that the introduction of an IR with a small casino component is going to suddenly make Singapore any different?

I understand that we may have a few more people who may get sucked into the gambling habit, but I am confident that we will have all the right support systems put in place to first help avoid people getting into the trap and, second, if they do get into the trap, to see how best to bring them out of it, or at the worst, to see how we can help them and their families to handle the situation.

So the real argument for all of us who oppose gambling should be this: what kind of safeguards we want to put in place so that we can continue to keep our high moral standards, so that the value system and religious beliefs we have will not be eroded? I have the confidence in

Sir, I am glad that most of the religious and community leaders have come out hard opposing gambling and, with the decision to proceed with the IR, they should be even stronger in their resolve to discourage their followers and sphere of influence from taking up gambling. But I urge them not to treat the IR as the Government's attempt to promote gambling among Singaporeans. It is really an attempt by the Government to do what is right for the country - to make and keep Singapore relevant, vibrant, economically strong and a place that we can continue to attract people to visit, come to do business, and to live in.

In conclusion, Sir, I have been doing extensive gathering of feedback, particularly from residents in my area about this issue in the last few days. And, from all the feedback that I have got, my conclusion is that many Singaporeans understand why the Government has to proceed with the IR. We have actually widespread support from Singaporeans because they realise that Singapore needs to continue to remake itself if it wants to survive and remain a vibrant country that we have already created and we hope to continue to keep it that way. The

Finally, as an entrepreneur, I have made many judgments and taken many calculated risks as I mentioned, and my take on the IR is this: it is a risk worth taking as the returns will be tremendous, as long as we address the potential risks that Singaporeans might face by putting in place the safeguards. If we miss this opportunity, we will miss the boat and this is one boat that we cannot afford to miss for all the reasons which finally convinced me to make my stand as it is.

Sir, I support the Prime Minister's plans for introducing the IRs in Singapore.

companies, we decided to organise an outing on one of these cruises. It was a "Cruise-to-nowhere" and we spent three days doing a lot of things. When the children were sleeping at night, my wife and I decided to take a walk into the casino. I was shocked. It was full. There was no opportunity for one to come in and I saw some of my Kebun Bahru grassroots leaders, mainly ladies, gambling away. So, to me, gambling is all around us. We are kidding ourselves if we think that the casino that we are going to put in place is suddenly going to erode our value system. In fact, I think this is just a small addition to the many outlets that we already have to gamble. the Government's ability to not only identify what the safeguards might be, but also to implement and enforce them, as the PAP Government has always done in anything that it wanted to enforce. In fact, as we all know, we already have about 2% of Singaporeans classified as compulsive gamblers. This is a significant number. What we do not have today is a structured way of handling this issue. The new positive effect of introducing the IR with all the safeguards is that we will now have a much more systematic way of addressing these problems. Had the IR not been implemented, we could have missed the opportunity to address even this problem. widespread support is from people of all races, not just from the Chinese, who may like gambling more than others.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate.

Sir, as you know I am against the casino. I am somewhat disappointed with the Government's decision to proceed with the proposed Integrated Resort with a casino component. But I am not totally surprised with the final outcome.

Sir, the economic motivation behind the proposed Integrated Resorts is a clear one. They will create some 35,000 jobs and add 1% to our GDP. The projects, on their own, with $4-5 billion of investments, will give a much needed boost to the ailing construction industry in Singapore and they will spur other new developments in the Marina Bay area. More importantly, the Integrated Resorts will serve as a magnet to draw in tourists and business travellers from all over the world. This, in turn, will provide the critical mass for the service industries, hotels, restaurants, entertainment, arts and leisure industries. Undoubtedly, the IRs will bring much buzz into our city and turn Singapore into a first-tier cosmopolitan city of the world.

On the other hand, if our neighbouring countries begin to build casinos ahead of us, which some of them are already thinking about it seriously, then we will lose the initiative and our tourism industry and the services sector will suffer. They may eventually be marginalised in time to come.

There is little argument against the potential economic benefits of the proposed Integrated Resorts. However, I maintain my view that gambling is undesirable and, therefore, I am personally not supportive of the proposed IRs. Although the potential economic benefits are tempting, the potential problems are equally daunting. I have spoken on this subject on several occasions and I would just summarise my three key concerns.

Firstly, it is a moral issue. Allowing casino in Singapore could erode the moral values of the younger generation over time. It could also undermine the moral standing of the Government which has been held in high regard by the people.

Secondly, I believe it would create social problems, weaken family bonding and break up marriages. Yes, these problems exist today, but the casino will inevitably worsen the situation. Yes, we can put in place safeguards to minimise the impact, but some of these impacts are irreversible and cannot be measured in dollars and cents.

Thirdly, the work ethics of the people could be adversely affected and, in turn, investor confidence could be shaken, accelerating the hollowing out of our industries. The long term impact on the overall economy is uncertain. While we gain in tourism-related industries, we may lose out in the traditional manufacturing and services industries.

Sir, although I am disappointed with the Government's decision, I can understand the basis of this decision. Being a

Firstly, we must work together to ensure that the project is a success. After all, having paid the social costs we must reap the economic benefits to make it worthwhile.

Secondly, we must take the necessary measures to address the potential adverse effects on the society. The fact that the recent survey showed that only 2% of the population are gambling addicts should not lead us to complacency. 2% is 2% too much and this will increase with the introduction of casinos in Singapore. We must not trivialise the problem and instead we must address the social issues upfront.

Sir, allow me to elaborate. Firstly, on ensuring success of the project. To be a successful destination we must provide a complete menu of entertainment and leisure facilities. The two proposed IRs should not be an end in themselves, but serve as a catalyst to spur new tourism developments in Singapore and help transform Singapore into a modern cosmopolitan city. We must go on to develop an area like the West End of London or the Broadway of New York, where music, art and cultural performances are held regularly. We must work towards attracting world-renowned

But, Sir, we cannot be just copycats. It would be a mistake if we simply replicate these famous icons in the world. We must do so in our own unique way so that we can offer tourists and business visitors a uniquely Singaporean experience. At the same time, our infrastructure must also be ready - airports, transport system, hotel accommodation, etc, must have the capacity to cater to the expected increase in the number of foreign visitors. Our service quality must be improved to ensure that visitors have a pleasant experience here. Our overseas marketing network must be strengthened to promote Singapore effectively. The Integrated Resorts alone will not be enough to keep Singapore on the first tier. It is not difficult for other countries to catch up in time. We must have a comprehensive action plan to ensure we succeed in transforming Singapore into a unique destination.

Sir, the second key focus, moving forward, is on addressing social issues. In this regard, I would like to make six suggestions.

First, we should undertake a comprehensive and objective study on the potential social impact of the Integrated Resorts. The recent survey was more reflective of the current state of affairs. It is important for us to determine the likely social impact of the Integrated Resorts by

Second, we must strengthen the moral education and character building programmes in our schools. I have, on a number of occasions, stressed that we need to do so, but it is now more urgent than ever. We need to prepare our young and build a strong foundation of moral values in them. This way, when they grow up, they can become responsible and self-disciplined adults.

Granted that the primary responsibility of children's upbringing rests with the parents, but many parents today are both working and are unable to spend much time with their children. They may not be able to help their children effectively. Undesirable as it may be, we need to help fulfil this role through our schools. I would like to suggest that we should consider strengthening our moral studies and even reintroducing religious studies in our schools. Some of these moral values cannot be effectively taught in a formal classroom environment. Therefore, we must be flexible and allow schools to introduce creative ways of teaching this subject.

Third, we need to introduce programmes to strengthen family bonding. As it is, the bonds among young families here are already weak with divorce cases on the rise. The presence of a casino will inevitably lead to greater tension in the

Fourth, we need to encourage greater community support and involvement to address gambling and related problems. Community, grassroots and religious organisations can play an important role in our public education efforts by promoting the right values and strengthening the family bonding.

Religious organisations, for example, have argued strongly against the casino. We accept that the Government cannot make its decisions based on religious grounds as it is a secular Government. But it is important that we engage them and take pains to explain our decision. We must also encourage them to turn their conviction into positive and constructive actions. For a start, I would like to suggest that these organisations can initiate a campaign among their constituent members to voluntarily place themselves into the exclusion list, so that they and their families will abstain from the casino.

secular Government, it must make its decision based on the balance of merits. It is clear that if we do not allow casinos to operate here, they will go elsewhere in the region and they will instead become a threat to our economy. I hope the Government has taken into account the potential downside risks and likely problems before arriving at this final decision. I take comfort that the Government has promised that it will address the adverse effects of casinos thoroughly. Therefore, while I am against it, now that a final decision has been made, I think we should move on. Going forward from here, I think we should focus on two key issues. artists and performers here. We must also build a world class shopping strip like the Champs Elysees of Paris or the Fifth Avenue of New York. Instead of redeveloping Orchard Road, I think it may be better to start afresh on Marina South, where there are fewer constraints. We must develop a cluster of theme parks like the Gold Coast in Australia or Florida in the United States, so that we can cater to the interests of the whole family. learning from the experience of other countries that have introduced casinos in their cities. The study should compare the situation before and after the casino has been introduced. It should cover issues like the impact on family cohesion, work attitude, social fabric, as well as other pertinent factors. The study may not be a precise one as the scenarios of different countries are different. But it will serve as a useful reference for us to pre-empt some of the potential problems and take necessary precautionary measures rather than remedial actions. Prevention is better than cure. families of the gamblers. Even if they are not problem gamblers, their frequent patronage of the casino will undoubtedly put a strain on the family's finance over time. This could translate into strained relationship in the family and may eventually translate into family violence. I am glad that the Government will be enhancing the CAMP programme to help addicted gamblers. However, I think most compulsive gamblers would not admit that they are problematic and they would not seek help voluntarily. It is their family members who are the victims who would need help. Therefore, I would like to suggest that for a start, we should strengthen the present social service support network such as the family service centres to ensure that they are capable of helping family members who are facing problems arising from gambling.

They must also strengthen their education programmes to impart values to their members and come up with assistance schemes for those who may need help. These are some positive

Fifth, I would like to urge the Government to set up an endowment fund with the tax revenue from the casino to help families affected by gambling. The Government could pledge, say, the first three years of gambling tax revenue into this fund. It was announced yesterday that the national framework on gambling will cost some $20 million to set up and another $40 million each year as recurrent expenses. These can be financed by this fund. The fund should not be used to help gamblers settle their debts. It should instead be used to help affected families pay for their children's education, temporary relief for basic living expenses such as food, utilities and healthcare, for a period of time until they are able to get back on their feet. The fund can also be used to finance treatment and counselling services, as well as community efforts, on public education on the adverse effects of gambling.

Sixth, we need to preserve the work ethics of our people. The integrated resort may provide a new engine to our tourism industry, but it cannot replace the entire economy. If we think that with a casino, the economy will boom and all our problems will be solved, and we become complacent, it will be the downfall of Singapore.

Sir, we must continue to maintain healthy and growing manufacturing and services industries. The Government must continue to bring in new investments and create new job opportunities. On the other hand, Singaporeans must continue to adopt positive work ethics and continue to upgrade themselves to keep Singapore competitive. In this regard, the NTUC will play an important role in sending the right message to the people.

In conclusion, Sir, the casino issue has generated much debate among Singapore

But, ultimately, the Government has made the judgement and has decided, after weighing the pros and the cons. We must now accept the decision, and we must move on. We must work to make sure that the integrated resorts are successful and that the potential social problems are addressed. We can only do that if the Government, the community and the people all work together, despite our differences, for the common interests of all Singaporeans.

and tangible ways these organisations can do to help minimise social impact.ans from all walks of life. This shows that it is an issue that is of concern to most Singaporeans. Some feel that it should go ahead as it will have a positive impact on our businesses. Some feel that it will signal a major step towards a more open society and should be encouraged. Others like me are more concerned with the negative impact and feel that we may be better off not having a casino.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as we discuss the decision on the integrated resort development, I want to first make an observation.

I was pleasantly surprised with the depth and breadth of the debate. I saw people representing different points of view putting forward their arguments for and against the casino. Whether it was through letters to the Forum pages of our newspapers, discussions in Internet forums, blogs, or even through car decals, people found ways to express themselves. And they did so without acrimony, without polarising the debate and, thankfully, without the type of dogmatism or violence that we saw elsewhere.

I was happy that so many people held so many strong views. The mature way in which they put forward their views signals the growth and maturing of our civic society. To me, it is another positive

Now to the matter at hand. I do not think there is a need for me to recap the arguments in the debate. I have no doubt that the Members of the House are familiar with them. Like many of my fellow Singaporeans, I am concerned and also mindful of the views of those who oppose including the casino in the integrated resort - these concerns have to be addressed. Sir, I am therefore glad that the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports had announced the broad framework and planned to set aside resources to help those in our community who may be affected by the decision.

We have also heard the assurance from the Minister for Home Affairs that the MHA will do its utmost to minimise the possible negative safety and security impact that the casino will have on our society. This is the kind of forward-looking strategy that we have always been familiar with this Government. These assurances, steps and proposed measures that will be put in place are but some of the many other things that, I believe, we will have to continue to do to ensure that we are able to mitigate the concerns of the public.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I would like to do now is to share a perspective from my own experience. I speak as a Singaporean, as a Muslim, and as a father of two young children. I also speak as someone who has had the opportunity of living abroad for some years.

As some of you might know, I was given the privilege of studying abroad in France. When I left Singapore, I was a young man of 24. I spent three-and-a-half years in France from 1986 to 1990. During my time there, I made many close friends, some of whom I am still in touch until today. My classmates were from all over the world. Each one of us brought

Sir, apart from my studies, I also took the opportunity to experience as much as what France and Europe had to offer. I was someone from a very young nation. Europe has a long history. There was much to see, much to experience, much to do. Please do not mistake me - this is not an advertisement to visit France. Bear with me, this is a point which I will come to it soon.

When I was in France, it was a time when Europe was debating whether to convert itself from a European Community to a European Union. There were many discussions, and interest groups sprouted everywhere to take up every imaginable position. Xenophobes on one hand, ultra-liberals on the other, and nearly everyone, it seemed, somewhere in between. People were worried that a European Union would erode individual cultural identities. Governments would not be able to act independently in the interest of their own people. Rich countries would be inundated by job seekers from poorer nations. Comparative advantages would be lost, Europe would crumble under its own weight, and chaos would reign. It was an exciting time.

What finally happened is a matter of historical record. Europeans, I believe, realised that they did not have much of a choice. Against a burgeoning America and thriving Asian economies, Europe was in danger of becoming irrelevant. Strong decision action has to be made. If some initial pain had to be endured, so be it. And so they forged ahead, and established the European Union. Today, we can see the impact of that decision.

During this period, you can imagine, I was bombarded with all sorts of new ideas, new perspectives, new ways of doing things. When I came back to Singapore in 1990, I wondered to myself whether I was a different person. I wondered whether my experience with new things in a new environment had changed me. The answer is both simple and not so simple. Of course, I had changed. Was that not the whole point of going to a foreign environment to learn something? I had learned new skills in my chosen field. I had learned a new language. I had acquired a new intellectual rigour which comes from crossing swords with people from many different backgrounds. This and much more had added to the total sum being of myself.

On the other hand, I really had not changed. I am still my father's son. I am still a Muslim and continue to strive to be a good one. I still maintain my values, my customs, my traditions and my religion. I maintain my Singaporean-ness. In fact, to some extent, my Singaporean identity became much more pronounced, because I was away from home and away from so many things that we took for granted.

I am sure what I have described is not unique to me. Many Members in this House, just like many, many more young Singaporeans, have gone abroad to study, to work, to be part of a "greater Singapore", in a sense. We all come back with new ideas. But speaking for myself, and I am sure for the vast majority of Singaporeans, we come back with our values very much intact. We still come back as Singaporeans.

I wanted to share this perspective because I believe there are some parallels that we can draw. I believe that the

Once again, history has proven the argument to be moot. We are still here today, we are still Singaporeans, our values are still intact, our roots deeply grounded, but our sights fixed on the future. The world will continue to turn whether or not Singapore embraces change. The sun will continue to rise in the east, whether or not there is a casino in Singapore. The tides will continue to ebb and flow, regardless of whether Singapore chooses to tackle its challenges head on or turn its back on them.

The only question we should ponder is whether Singapore will be an engine which helps the world to turn, or whether Singapore will be flourishing in the rising sun, or whether regardless of the ebb and flow of the tides, we Singaporeans have what it takes to hold dear our values, our culture, our traditions and our religious beliefs.

If these fundamentals can be shaken easily, we do not have to wait until we build a casino. If we were so weak, our values would have crumbled many years ago when we decided that ours would be a multi-racial, multi-cultural society, open to the world, forward-looking, yet rooted in the deep traditions of our ancestors.

Personally, Sir, as a Muslim, gambling is forbidden. It is viewed as a vice. That is

Can Muslims or any other groups impose their standards on the rest? To some in the Malay-Muslim community and others who hold similar views, I ask: can we insulate our people by legislation forever? Until when? The world has changed, and we will continue to change. And can we ask our Government to ban this and that because we worry our young adults have little control? Is this not circumventing? Is this not a short-term solution that will not last?

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, the world is far from perfect. As I have stated earlier, based on my travels, I have witnessed the effects of time on societies. Look at Europe and also the old Eastern bloc. Countries have to open up eventually. They could not remain frozen in time and continue shutting their doors. There are clear parallels to be drawn.

We have a situation now within our borders that calls for development and change. To give our economy a boost is our responsibility. Like it or not, the economic benefits of the integrated resorts are immense.

We never had a casino all these years. Perhaps we were not ready then. But I believe that we have reached a level of maturity that allows us to embark on these mega integrated resort projects that will include casinos.

In conclusion, Sir, Singapore is not a Utopic state. Nevertheless, we are exemplary, and I say that humbly. I am proud of how we have handled complicated issues in the past. In terms of coming up with controversial policies or legislation, we have always sought the views of the different groups, religious and other social

We have travelled a distance and survived. Social ills will be there, and we shall always do our best for our society to face such challenges that surface. Having heard the decision by the Government, let us move forward. Let us continue to strive to do the best we can and make these projects successes that we can be proud of. At the end of the day, we can only be stronger and hardier as a nation.

step in our journey in making Singapore a great nation.with us our own set of values, our own customs and practices, our own religious beliefs. Each one of us also had our unique way of looking at the world. Fortunately, my subject was electronics engineering, and because we all spoke in numbers, we could understand each other! Europe stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the rest of the world economy. It is a model economy and also a political unity.casino is not much different from other influences which Singapore or Singaporean has to face. Remember when we decided to change our movie rating system in the 1990s. Yes, it has been almost 15 years. And remember when we debated whether and how to control the negative influences of the Internet, which today is much a pervasive part of our life. I remember clearly how different groups were concerned that such influences would erode our values, and how Singapore would be worse for it. why when my family and I go to Genting Highlands, we enjoy its many features but we do not step into the casino. I choose not to, out of free will, based on my personal beliefs and religious convictions. groups. We weigh our options carefully and give full consideration to the factors that contribute to a difficult decision that has to be made.

Mr Speaker, Sir, unlike the previous speaker, I must say my speech will be less impressionable and colourful.

Sir, I rise to support the IR proposal. My primary reason for this is, I believe, the IR proposal is an important step forward to help raise Government revenue, achieve a balanced budget and keep our taxes low. During the recent Budget debate, I had expressed concern that Singapore has been running on budget deficits for the last three years, and even in the projections for this year's budget, we would have registered another deficit if not for income

generated from past reserves.

Having a balanced budget is critical, as I have argued many times before, as the downsides of long-term fiscal deficits are well known. In so doing, we can continue to keep our taxes low, remain competitive and be a draw to individual and entrepreneurial talent and to international businesses and, in the process, continue to create employment and generate economic growth.

Sir, besides a declining revenue trend, we are also faced with increasing pressure to raise public sector spending to support the many worthy causes in areas, such as health and education, given that

The pressure to raise revenue will be greater should economic growth not meet our expectations in this year's budget. As the first quarter's unexpected slowdown in the Singapore's economy has shown, the cyclical nature of the recovery cannot be fully counted upon now. If the slowdown continues for another two quarters, we might end up with a higher budget deficit than expected for another year. This is a worrying trend.

As such, Sir, measures that can directly contribute to economic activity and raise revenue to help us get a fiscal uplift in new contributions are worthy consideration. The IR proposal, with casino facilities, that will attract tourists and generate economic growth is one such example and should be looked at seriously.

Indeed, even receiving some form of revenue from what has been leaking out by Singaporeans, who make trips to Genting, Batam, Australia, Macau, Las Vegas, or even just hop on a cruise to nowhere for a gambling jaunt, ought to be beneficial to us. These will help plug some fiscal gaps and help us maintain our low tax regime for economic competitiveness and growth.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe we are a nation that has come of age. In deliberating this Integrated Resort proposal, we ought to demonstrate our maturity as a nation to be able to handle the benefits and still have the moral strength and courage to manage any social costs and fallout that may arise.

Sir, let me be clear in that I do recognise the downside of the IR proposal with casino facilities. I am aware of the potential social costs that may be incurred by individuals who do not act responsibly and succumb to temptation, leading to personal and family economic ruin should they develop a gambling addiction. However, my belief is that, ultimately, these individuals should bear personal responsibility.

In addition, we cannot fully control what is already easily accessible, such as gambling on the Internet. We should not pretend that it does not happen just because our citizens cross borders to gamble. Indeed, we are already seeing long queues of people on weekends at the 7-Eleven shops in our neighbourhood buying 4-D, Toto and football bettings, and we often hear of Singaporeans making weekend trips to Batam to gamble.

In fact, another form of gambling - with a more "dignified" term - called "speculation" is already in existence and well patronised by Singaporeans. Our stock market, with its form of contra trading permissible by brokers who facilitate large credit lines for speculators, has over the years created its fair share of bankrupts and destitutes from irresponsible behaviour. Just because some people lose their shirts in the stock market does not mean that we shut it down and lose the other benefits that it brings to the economy. It may be reason to justify some expenditure for investor education, which we do, and regulation to prevent or mitigate such incidences, but neither is it necessary nor sufficient cause to shut down the stock market or prevent its existence.

Sir, as with every opportunity, the use or abuse of such opportunities presented boils down to responsible individual

Sir, I am heartened by the many safeguards the Government will put in place when the IR projects are ready. I would recommend that just as a significant proportion of revenue from Singapore Pools is set aside for community and charitable contributions, a portion of direct taxes of, say, up to 5% generated from activities directly related to the casinos (and this is over and above the $100 levy collection for entry into casinos) be set aside specifically to community and civic organisations to run programmes to educate the public on the pitfalls of unrestrained gambling as well as to provide some form of assistance to families that may be affected adversely by the addictive behaviour of their breadwinners.

The costs of administering such schemes should be kept in check and channelled through community-based organisations, such as the CDCs, so that a holistic approach to such forms of assistance for affected families can be delivered at the grassroots level.

In conclusion, Sir, I support the proposal to build two Integrated Resorts with casino facilities. I base my decision on economic merit ground and I see this as part of our longer term plan to remake Singapore. I believe if we adopt a pragmatic approach, demonstrate our maturity as a nation to be able to handle the benefits of such resorts, have enough

Singaporeans now have higher expectations, and the costs of delivering such services rise over time. These pressures on public spending create fiscal gaps and the fact that we are in a recovering economic environment and still running an operating deficit is certainly a cause for concern. choices. Individuals getting caught in credit card debt or suffering financial setbacks in the stock market do not stop the authorities from allowing credit card facilities or services or an efficient capital market which benefits the majority and fosters economic activity and raises revenue. It is arguable that the casino may not benefit the majority on a monetary return basis, but it is equally demonstrated that the average punter in the stock market does not make money from speculation! safeguards and still have the moral strength to manage any social costs and fallout, we will have what it takes to be a world-class city of choice for visitors and citizens alike, with a sustainable low tax regime, a healthy economy and an environment for responsible Singaporeans to exercise their personal choices.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for many days, I agonised over this issue whether to allow casinos or to maintain the ban. This is not the first time I have had to face this question.

For seven years as Permanent Secretary of MTI, I had taken a clear stand against casinos. The Singapore Tourism Board pushed for this proposal periodically. Each time, I would object to it. I told them not to go for "easy options", but think hard about how we could be special and still bring in the tourists without a casino. They tried: Haw Par Villa, Volcano Land, remaking Sentosa, further remaking of Sentosa when it did not work, and meanwhile, our market share in tourism continued to shrink.

After I left MTI, I had to face this issue again during the Economic Review Committee's deliberations. I chaired the Services Sub-Committee. Mr Wee Ee-chao, as Chairman of STB, and the Tourism Working Group strongly recommended that we allow casinos in Singapore. This time round, he was backed by a strong chorus of private entrepreneurs, both local and international.

I discouraged him. When his Working Group finally submitted his recommendations to my Sub-Committee, I was quietly pleased that casinos did not feature in his report.

My reasons for objecting to casinos are similar to those already put up by

What finally changed my mind was the response to MTI's Request for Concept. I was struck by the quality of the proposals, the strong interest expressed by these prospective investors and their multi-billion dollar bids. The economic benefit is huge and we cannot ignore the many, much needed, jobs that will be created for Singaporeans.

I particularly noted that they were prepared for more than one casino in Singapore. They are not demanding any casino monopoly. They are confident that the rising Asian market is so huge that it can support more than one casino here. It is not possible for two multi-billion dollar casinos to survive in our tiny domestic market. It means that they are confident of drawing in a large number of foreign gamblers to make their huge investments viable.

What does this mean? It means that while they are keen to set up in Singapore, they are likely to set up elsewhere in our neighbourhood if we say "no" to them. So whatever our decision, they are going to be here, in our backyard. It means that world-class casino resorts in Phuket, Bangkok and perhaps even Johor, springing up in the near future are a distinct possibility.

So even if we do not allow casinos here, the social problems brought about by casinos will be with us. I would have still gone for the status quo, if we can be certain that our neighbours will also maintain the status quo. But I will not bet on that. Alternatively, if we can effectively isolate ourselves from the emerging regional casinos, then I will still go for the status quo. Unfortunately, with easy and inexpensive access to these popular tourist destinations of Singaporeans, saying "no" to casinos here cannot isolate us from the social ills of gambling.

It is this realisation which changed my mind about casinos. If casino gambling by Singaporeans and the associated social ills cannot be avoided, then better that we have some influence over the operators than to leave the situation completely to the mercy of the casinos in other countries. And we can exert influence only if the casinos are in Singapore within our jurisdiction.

By legalising casino gaming in Singapore, we can impose the necessary social safeguards on the casino operators. Yesterday, we have heard Minister Vivian Balakrishnan outlined the social safeguards. They are more stringent than in other jurisdictions. This is reassuring to me.

Now that the Government has decided to lift the ban on casinos, on my part, my Ministry will step up our programme that deals with problem gambling, especially pathological gambling.

Pathological gambling, more commonly known as gambling addiction, is a serious mental health disorder. Patients become increasingly preoccupied with gambling. They need to bet more frequently and with larger stakes. They become restless, irritable when attempts are made to stop them from gambling, some sort of withdrawal symptoms. The result is a progressive increase in gambling activity over time, in spite of the harm caused to himself or herself and their family members.

It may be difficult for non-gamblers to understand this affliction, so let me relate

"I feel as though I am hypnotised when playing jackpot. It helps me to relieve my stress. Also, I have a group of friends at the gaming room and we are very supportive of each other."

Another one: "My father used to gamble away the children's milk money.

many Singaporeans who had spoken against it. So I would not repeat them. Hundreds of Singaporeans are already travelling to Genting, Batam and cruising to nowhere every day. In reality, the casinos are already available here today. Except now, we have absolutely no control over these casinos. a few descriptions which some addicts and their relatives have shared with our psychiatrists:

So our family used to eat one egg broken into broth, and served with rice."

Another one: "I can't understand why I keep on gambling. I always lose. But once I pay my creditors back, I return to gambling ... I just can't understand it."

We have all read the tragic path of Mr Chia Teck Leng, whose pathological gambling led him to criminal acts and, finally, into Changi Prison. While his is an extreme case, there are many other cases, of lesser degree, but with equally devastating consequences to themselves and their families. In most countries, some 2%-4% of the people develop gambling problems, while between 1% and 2.5% may become pathological gamblers. The latest MCYS study suggests a similar extent of incidence here.

To deal with this, the Institute of Mental Health runs a Community Addictions Management Programme (CAMP). It is the main centre for addiction treatment, training and public education in Singapore. CAMP is not narrowly focused on gambling addiction. It also treats addiction to substances, such as alcohol and drugs. But many addictions pertain to gambling addictions.

It offers a range of clinical services, treatment, counselling, support for recovery. Last year, we saw about 100 patients for gambling addiction. They receive treatment under the care of a multi-disciplinary team that includes

Asia has lagged behind North America in the treatment and research of problem gambling. Somehow, this has traditionally been neglected or ignored, despite the general observation that Asians seem particularly predisposed to gambling. If the casino operators are correct about the huge appetite for casino gambling among Asians, it would mean a need for several major treatment centres in this part of the world to serve the huge number of addicts.

We have a modest set-up in CAMP. So, I told IMH, "Step up your capabilities. Acquire new expertise and let us not be half-hearted about it."

I asked them to benchmark itself against the best in the world. In the US, the state of Oregon is recognised as a leader in the field of problem gambling services. Its strategy incorporates prevention, outreach and a comprehensive network of local treatment programmes. In Canada, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto is its leading addiction and mental health hospital, with community locations throughout the province of Ontario. It combines cutting-edge treatment with strong community support, education and prevention programmes.

These are world-class benchmarks which we should strive towards. In particular, we should study the peculiarity of the Asian addicts. Let us aim to be among the top treatment centres in Asia. CAMP will be enhanced to develop such capabilities. We cannot achieve this overnight, but we should progressively work towards this target.

Tentatively, we will focus on four key priority areas.

First, a strong focus on multi-disciplinary treatment, with clinical practices based on evidence-based research. As a one-stop tertiary treatment centre, we will provide the full range of services, including screening, assessment, individual and group therapy, structured relapse prevention, family therapy services, as well as legal, credit and financial counselling, and even employment advisory services.

Second, a strong focus on prevention programmes to avoid or reduce the problems of gambling. One emphasis is in early detection and intervention, so that gambling addiction can be nipped in the bud. We will work with MCYS to raise public awareness on unhealthy gambling behaviour.

Third, we will invest in research and training. Training programmes for family service centres, teachers and other outreach partners on screening and intervention skills will be expanded. Research will be conducted on best treatment practices, taking into account the factors that are unique to Asians.

Fourth, the Centre will work closely with our community partners, such as VWOs, and strengthen community action against problem gambling. To encourage such community involvement, we will provide convenient access for addicted individuals and their families to seek help and to continue treatment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am against gambling. I do not encourage gambling. But there will always be gamblers, and there are millions of them here in our region.

When the integrated resorts are set up, Singaporeans may visit them. But my advice is for them to stay away from the 5% gambling spots. By all means go and

We hope not too many Singaporeans succumb to pathological gambling. By regulating casinos here, it is my hope that we can then have a better handle over this undesirable activity. Meanwhile, my Ministry will step up our efforts in managing gambling addictions and raise this to a higher level of competence.

psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors, social workers and nurses. Twelve of their professional staff are trained and certified as Gambling Addiction Counsellors, in accordance with international standards. CAMP also has a distinguished panel of international expert advisers.watch the giant whale that Minister Lim Hng Kiang talked about yesterday. But do not get near any of the "whales" that Chia Teck Leng wrote about, or imitate them. Remember Chia Teck Leng's advice: you can never win against casinos. Casinos always win. That is why a tiny 5% can cross-subsidise the rest of the integrated resort and still yield fat margins for the investors.

Sir, I am against the setting up of a casino in Singapore. My party, the Singapore Democratic Alliance, has already announced that it is against the casino. We are of the view that the permission, when given to establish a casino in Singapore, is the first step down the slippery slope. Singapore has, over the past 40 years, painstakingly developed itself into a clean, honest, hardworking and moral society. All these shall eventually be destroyed or diluted into a form which we may not like our future generations to live in.

Once we officially plant the seed of gambling in our soil, it is only a question of time that it will grow and spread in our land. Now we allow licences for only two casinos. Who knows, in time, there shall be more and more licences issued, if the Government needs the revenue, and also when the casinos shall be the main source of revenue for the Government. Look at London. At first, only a few licences were issued. But over a period of about 40 years, casinos have mushroomed all over that city. Recently, the Labour Govern

According to Chia Teck Leng, based on only one game, baccarat, the punter will make a potential loss of $12,480 a year. A recent MCYS survey revealed that 55,000 adults may be addicted to gambling. If we take only this number, which I think is very conservative, the loss to Singaporeans for just only one game in the casino is $686 million. In reality, the amount which shall be lost by Singaporeans at the casinos shall probably be double or triple that figure. The human cost and suffering shall also be very significant.

The Government tries to put across to Singaporeans that the licences are given for integrated resorts, with only a small part, about 3-5% of the floor space devoted to the casino. But, in truth, it is the casino or the gambling element that clinches the deal. It is the gambling part that rakes in the money to subsidise the losses that will be incurred by the resort part of the development.

Las Vegas was started as a gambling destination in the 1920s. Gamblers in America and from all over the world flocked to that city to indulge in unrestrained gambling. As a result, Las Vegas boomed. As it prospered, the casinos expanded and became bigger and more glitzy. All the vices like drugs, women, alcohol and gangsterism also surfaced. Soon, Las Vegas was well-known not only in America but all over the world as the sin city. In the 1980s, the city fathers did not like the image that the city was being portrayed, ie, a sin

The casino is the most important part of the so-called integrated resort. The Government should be truthful and not tell the people that the casino is only a small part of the IR. But even this assertion is not quite accurate. The casino may only occupy 3-5% of the total floor space of the IR, but because the total floor space is so large - in our case, several times that of Takashimaya - the 3-5% occupied by the casino is physically a very large area. The Government should tell us the actual floor space to be occupied by the gambling element, and not just gloss over and say that it takes up only 3-5% of the total floor space of the IR.

The other important point touted by the Government is that the casino shall create 35,000 jobs. But academics have voiced uncertainty whether the 35,000 jobs created can be the net gain of jobs for Singaporean workers, or that the majority of the jobs created go to foreigners. I would like the Prime Minister to give an assurance and also how he can assure that the majority of the jobs created are passed on to Singaporeans.

Many Singaporeans are wondering whether Temasek Holdings, through its Government-linked companies, shall go into business with the operators of the casinos. It is of course very tempting for the Government to do so, as casinos all over the world generally make good money. The Opposition, for one, will definitely object to the Government going into the casino business, because there is a conflict of interest. The Government collects revenue from casinos as one of

It was announced that the $100, collected as an entrance fee, shall be donated to the Totalisator Board. I hope that this money can be fairly distributed to all charitable causes, including those which have gone bankrupt for lack of funds. On our part, my party, the SDA, has called on the Government to compensate Singaporeans for the social ills that come with the casinos. The compensation can come in the form of revenues generated by the casinos. The income from the casinos can be made to subsidise public health services and also go to pay for welfare and unemployment benefits to those workers who have lost their jobs.

Many Singaporeans worry that the building of high-class tourist resorts, the increase of tourist trade, the influx of great numbers of tourists and the expensive things sold at the resorts can cause the cost of living in Singapore to go up. Can the Government, with these pressures

ment was pressured to change the law to allow a Las Vegas-type casino to be opened in London. Is that not the initial sign of that city going down the slippery slope? What I am afraid of is that since many Singaporeans have a habit of gambling, the casino may dominate the way of life in Singapore and gambling becomes the ethos of the land. The harm done can be incalculable. city. They decided to change the image of the city by building new infrastructures to attract families to holiday there. They changed the image of Las Vegas from a place purely for gamblers to a place where it was also suitable to bring children for a wholesome holiday. That is the genesis of the resort concept of the casino development. its sources of income. Therefore, if the Government is in business with the casinos, it shall want the casino to make as much money as possible, so that it can collect more taxes from the casinos. A casino can only increase its revenue at the expense of the punters who are members of the public or foreigners. The Government must never go into business with the casino operators. On this matter, the Government must be absolutely transparent.

on the consumer prices, ensure that the cost of living in Singapore remains stable?

My other concern is that, say, in 10 years' time, when we are faced with unmitigated competition from casinos that spring up in China and the neighbouring region and that there is a falling business in our two IRs, will the Government, in such a new situation of falling business, ensure that the restrictions imposed on the operators remain the same or

Another concern relates to existing high-class hotels and the convention centre at Suntec City and the exhibition halls. Will the new facilities at the two IRs not duplicate the existing ones?

accommodate the demands of the casino operators, for example, to open the doors of the casinos wider to local punters?

Mr Speaker, can I be allowed to seek some clarifications from Mr Chiam?

Yes.

Mr Chiam has said that the casino is the first step for us to go down the slippery road. He has also mentioned that in the last 40 years, we have a clean and moral living environment. At the same time, he has asked the Government to be truthful in this matter. Can I ask him to be truthful in this matter? What made him say that in the last 40 years, we have been living in this clean and moral environment? Who had done all the efforts to achieve that? How did he come to that impression that we have done that in the last 40 years?

Before they start their speeches, they can tell us that they have to agonise for four or five days. It is because it is a PAP line. They want a society that is clean, hardworking and does not earn the money the easy way, and be moral. Now suddenly, they want to change and make a U-turn. I think it is difficult, both for the PAP and non-PAP.

Sir, I am a Hindu in my religious beliefs. My religious values and teachings advise on the dangers of gambling. In fact, the great Hindu book, Mahabharatha, explains the

Sir, I thought that only amongst the Chinese gambling had a history. Yesterday, I was looking up the great Indian book written by Thiruvalluvar 2,000 years ago and I noticed that 2,000 years ago, he had dedicated 10 couplets on the dangers of gambling. It looks like that the problem not only existed amongst the Chinese, but also amongst the Indians. In fact, Sir, there is a very famous Tamil proverb, "Soothum Vaathum Vethanai Seiyum", which means gambling and quarrelling bring agony to anyone.

I think all these ancient and religious values highlight that gambling is dangerous and that one does it at his own peril. Sir, I have personally, over the years, had a partner who actually gambled away and ran away from Singapore due to a bad gambling habit. And I have also seen friends who have got into gambling difficulties and I sympathise with many of them.

Sir, one of the positive things that has come out of this casino debate, as I see it, is the greater recognition that we do have a problem of gambling addiction amongst some Singaporeans. I think this greater awareness that has arisen amongst Singaporeans will mean that we can set aside more resources and more programmes to help people who have gambling addiction. I was enlightened and happy to see that the Ministry of Health will be paying greater attention and devoting more resources in this area.

Sir, the first question that I ask myself is: do we really need an Integrated Resort? Sir, as I travel around the world, I see that new cities are getting better in attracting businessmen, tourists and their own people to spend money within their country. Wherever I go, we can see new attractions, whether it is China, India, or Europe. Even in Australia and New

We have set up the Esplanade to attract the arts crowd as another form of tourist attraction. But we could have done much better. One of the complaints we have heard from many of the tourist operators is that because of the cost of land in Singapore, it is not viable to set up attractions in Singapore. As I go abroad, sometimes, I wonder why we do not have a casino in Singapore itself so that the money that is being spent by Singaporeans and tourists in other countries can be channelled towards Singapore, so that we are able not only to keep Singaporeans with various attractions, not only a casino as part of the Integrated Resort, but also continue to attract many of these people who go to these Integrated Resorts and spend money there.

I am very happy that the Government decided to pay attention to the setting up of an Integrated Resort over the last one year. If we do not make ourselves attractive, it is very clear that many of them will pass Singapore. In fact, in the past, I used to tell my foreign friends, "Please spend three days in Singapore." But over the last 1-2 years, I only tell them, "Please spend two days", and maybe spend three days in Malaysia or in Thailand because there are greater attractions there. Perhaps, with these Integrated Resorts and the new facilities that we are going to create, I can go back and tell my friends and visitors, "This time, spend 3-4 days because we have greater attractions in Singapore."

Sir, one of the key things that we have to understand is that we could tell the world and business investors, "Please set up an Integrated Resort without a casino." Some people think that it is very

Sir, we have several examples. If you look at Marina Bay, in the past, we had the Marina Village which was set up about 15 years ago by the famous Mr Elyamani Kamis. It flopped after a few years because it could not make money. Then somebody came up with the Tang Dynasty. Similarly, it failed. And then, we had various other attractions in Sentosa, all of which also failed, because they could not make money and they did not have the numbers.

As we travel around the world, we all want our own Disneyland, Universal Studio and amusement theme parks. But nobody wants to set it up because there is no money in it. So I think the Government's strategy of setting up an

Sir, there is concern which was expressed by the Opposition MP, Mr Chiam See Tong earlier about Las Vegas being a sin city and how gangsters and triad criminals took hold in Las Vegas. The main difference why there was a lot of attraction in setting up a casino in Singapore is that whoever sets up a casino in Singapore knows that they will be well-regulated, the law will be strictly enforced and that we have a system that is not corrupt. This is something very important for these casino operators because when they get the rubber stamp of Singapore as an operator in Singapore, it will open doors for them in many other cities in the world. They know that, unlike Las Vegas or other cities, where laws may be opaquely applied or other advantages they may have, in Singapore, when we say we enforce the law, we will take action against these criminal gangs or syndicates, money-laundering and other forms of criminal activities. We are very serious. Many casino operators are, in fact, happy if they have such an environment, because it means they find the place to be secure, the people who come there to spend money to gamble do not have to be worried about criminals, extortions and how to take their money out of Singapore. It means that we have a perfect setting for these people to come and set up an Integrated Resort and also operate a casino here. The environment that they highlighted, a sin city like in the USA or some other environment, I do not think will arise in Singapore.

For example, if you look at our neighbouring country, Genting casino, I think there are a lot of similarities - same setting, Asian society. Many of the problems that are highlighted by Mr Chiam and other speakers about the many other problems in the context of the casino debate forget that many of these problems have not arisen in the Genting casino. I am confident that many of these problems will not arise here. Some Singaporeans have also expressed concern that there will be an erosion of Asian values. I am not so sure, Sir. If you look at all Asian societies, gambling has actually existed throughout the centuries. The values are so deeply ingrained in the Asian psyche and it is part of our traditional, religious and cultural values that I do not think it could be eroded just because we set up one or two casinos or even three casinos in future - nobody knows.

We should not be overly worried. But, at the same time, I must say that there are concerns. While I was concerned about how this casino will turn out to be, I was invited by the Singapore Tourism Board to have a peek preview of the concepts which were put up for the Members of Parliament. But because of intellectual property concerns, it could not be put up in the public domain. But looking at the proposals that were put up by the people who submitted the Request for Concept proposals, I was truly impressed that we have these world-class structures and facilities to be set up in Singapore.

downfall of the Pandavas due to a game of dice. Zealand, people are always creating new attractions. To be fair, in my own comments, I must say that we are falling back in new attractions in Singapore for various reasons. easy to just get any international investor to put $1 billion and hope that they can make money. I am personally acquainted with two large groups which looked at Singapore over the last five years to see whether they could set up a large amusement centre. Their conclusion is that, "You cannot make money in Singapore." If we set up a huge amusement or a theme park, it is very clear that we do not have the traffic. Neither do we have the number of attractions to make it attractive as a business proposition. Hence, we have to come up with a new strategy whereby someone with that amount of money is able to put that money and allow him to make money out of the business. It was a very careful strategy on the part of our Government to come up with a strategy whereby 95%-97% of the resort facilities can be used by the family, businessmen, tourists and visitors for various other uses, but set aside 3%-5% of the Integrated Resort for the businessmen to make money. If businessmen do not make money, they are not going to invest and we can forget about the idea of setting up a great international resort which is going to attract tourists and other visitors to come here. Integrated Resort as a way to attract these international investors to put money and meet our ambition of making Singapore a great city is the right approach. Sir, I think it will allow them to make money and, at the same time, enable us to meet our own objective of making Singapore a city attractive for tourists and others to come here.

From what I saw, some of the proposals for Marina Bay and Sentosa truly impressed me. This is something which will make a difference to Singapore. Although I was convinced in the beginning by the arguments that a casino in an integrated resort will help, after looking at the actual concept proposals right in front of me and the visual impact that it has on the skyline and sea view, I was truly impressed and feel that it will make a difference. I think

Sir, there are concerns that with the setting up of the integrated resorts some of the problems that may arise will come to the shores of Singapore. For example, many expect that we will have greater addicted gamblers, suicides, vice, money laundering and many other concerns which have been highlighted. These have been studied by many of the developed countries, where casinos have been set up, in great detail. Fortunately for us, we can take a leaf from many of their experiences and I am very happy that our Ministers, both the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports and the Minister for Home Affairs, have come out with detailed measures to see how we can check and help solve many of these problems way before even we set up the casinos. The casino is expected to come up by 2009, but in 2005 we have already highlighted what safeguards we are going to put in place. I am very confident that over the next four years, we will pay greater attention to many of these problems that we anticipate and will nip many of these problems in the bud.

Sir, over the last few months, we had a great debate amongst Singaporeans. Whenever the opportunity arose, I took a straw poll amongst my grassroots leaders and residents to find out what is the support level for the setting up of the casino. I was pleasantly surprised that, on the average, about 70% of Singaporeans whom I have polled in my constituency actually supported the idea of a casino. I asked them why did they support the setting up of a casino and they told me that, "I do not go and gamble. If people want to go and gamble, let them go and gamble." That was their position.

So I think the majority of Singaporeans recognise that it is something that we need to set up for the various reasons that the Government has highlighted, and

Sir, I just wanted to draw a parallel that whatever we do, there will be consequences, but that this Government always puts measures in place to protect the young and the vulnerable. I want to highlight the case of the censorship issue. If you recall, many years ago, there was a clamour on the part of the younger Singaporeans for a more liberal censorship policy. We started the RA scheme. Initially we started showing these movies in HDB estates and, subsequently, because of feedback, we moved these movies into the city. Now, with the RA category, the complaint has gone off and we feel that we have taken the right protective measures.

Similarly, Sir, I am confident that as we move on in this casino issue, just like all other previous matters on which we have put proper safeguards, this Government will put safeguards in place to make sure that the young and the majority of Singaporeans are protected from the effects of gambling.

On that note, Sir, I would like to join many Members of this House in supporting the proposal of the Government in setting up the Integrated Resorts. The benefits have been highlighted by the Government and, I am quite sure, if we all get together and work with this Government we can continue to make Singapore an exciting place, not only for Singaporeans, but for the many others who come to visit us and do business in Singapore.

that swayed the case for me in supporting this integrated casino proposal.that they do not see themselves going to a casino and gamble.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my parents taught me that gambling is a vice. Each Chinese New Year we were allowed to keep part of the "ang pow" that we received. When I was about 6 or 7 years old, I lost it all in a card game in the kampong. When my parents came to

I went to a Catholic school. There I was also taught that gambling is wrong. There was competition among the ice-cream vendors who came by the school. The enterprising ones made themselves more popular by running a "tikam-tikam". Buy a piece of ice-cream between two wafers for 5 cents, one got a chance to try one's luck to win up to 30 cents. But the school chased the vendors away.

I grew up to know that many people gamble on 4-D and Toto. But many among those who do so think that it is still wrong to bet on horses or in the casinos.

In the past few months, I have discussed the subject with quite a few Singaporeans of all walks of life. Some of them are clearly against having a casino. They hold dear the fundamental values of honesty, integrity, diligence and thrift. That is why we have a wholesome living environment where people can move about in the streets all the time, any time of the day, feeling safe. I have met a young man in his early 30s, recently married, who spoke passionately that he identifies this with Singapore. That is what sets us apart from others. He wants Singapore the way it is. He did not want our home corrupted by what may come with the casino.

I met also a businessman who had to start from scratch because his father gambled away the earnings from several lines of business. He too was strongly against having a casino in Singapore. For him, we should continue to earn our living by honest hard work. That was how he built up his fortune.

If the debate is only on whether we should have a casino in Singapore, like

In the discussions of the past few months, there had been suggestions that we could become the Las Vegas of the East, and we could be left behind by Macau and others if we did not move quickly. I wondered what being a Las Vegas would mean. I have never been to Las Vegas. I decided to visit Macau last month, immediately after the Budget debate. There are 17 casinos already in Macau. I visited two of them - the Sands and the Lisboa.

I was told that the newly-built Sands Casino cost US$280 million. Huge queues formed on opening day as punters heard rumours that there would be free chips for the first customers. It turned out there were no free chips, but still the crowds poured in. The ambience is grand. On the groundfloor is a "No smoking" gambling hall, tried out as a first for a casino, and it turned out to be a huge success. On the second level is a huge gambling hall of 160,000 sq ft. The tables and jackpot machines were packed. At higher levels, there were more exclusive rooms for the high-rollers. The Sands Casino had the world's biggest chandelier and the world's biggest video wall. Stage shows run throughout the day to entertain the gamblers. Top class restaurants offered the best steak, the best Japanese cuisine and the best Cantonese cuisine. 5,000 workers kept the casino operating day and night. On Chinese New Year's Day, the takings at this one casino were more than the takings of all the casinos in Las Vegas on their busiest day, New Year's Eve. Little wonder that Sands Casino recouped its US$280 million of investment in 10 months.

I asked what percentage of the gamblers were Macau residents and how long did the non-residents stay in Macau on each trip. I was told that 55% of the patrons came by bus from mainland China

I next visited the Lisboa. Unlike Sands, it was garish, like what one would imagine a casino to be, like what one sees in the movies. It was congested. Every space was used for gambling. On that Saturday afternoon, hopeful gamblers packed the main gambling hall almost shoulder to shoulder. One could hardly move around without bumping into someone else. There were private rooms also for the high-rollers. The Lisboa, too, appeared very successful.

What were the social problems? Our tour guide told us that loan sharks lurk in the casinos. They identify the gamblers who had become desperate and offer them loans. We asked how do they collect the debts when the gamblers lose it all again and left. We were told that the loan sharks beat up the borrowers until they reveal the names and addresses of their relatives. Were there suicides too? Yes, our tour guide told us that since the Sands Casino opened, there had been three suicides. Was there vice? Certainly, but the residents in Macau are used to it.

So I came away from Macau troubled and deeply concerned about the social problems that a casino would bring to Singapore. But, at the same time, I realise that Singapore is not competing to be the Las Vegas of the East if we are talking about one or two casinos, when there are already 17 casinos in Macau, and more are being built there. But it is not only about whether we should allow a casino. It is about what kind of economy we will have in the future. It is about an economy

As other countries open up to foreign investments, we lost competitiveness because our costs have risen. As the old lines of work relocated overseas, we moved up the ladder. We chased higher value-added activities. So now, a company that used to employ 12,000 production workers only employs 5,000 today, but they are 5,000 engineers and not production workers. They still have 600 production workers in order to set up the prototype production line, perfect it, before moving it overseas for mass production.

We moved into other sectors - chemical, pharmaceutical, life sciences, education, medical, tourism. These sectors offer jobs for those with higher education and higher skills. For some years already, the EDB has said that the new investments that they bring in will need more skilled workers and less less-skilled workers, in the ratio of 2 to 1. So, two skilled workers against one less-skilled worker. The Ministry of Manpower recently told the NTUC Central Committee that it projects a shortage of skilled manpower with tertiary education, over the next five years or so, but a surplus of low-skilled workers.

know, I was duly punished. "Gambling leads to broken families", my parents sternly told me. these Singaporeans, my answer would be a clear "No". and 45% of the patrons came from Hong Kong by ferry. They were essentially day-trippers. There was a sprinkling of patrons from Taiwan, Korea and Japan. But Sands is building another complex, much bigger, on the Cotai strip and there would be 11,000 rooms for patrons who will come from further afield, mostly from mainland China. that will generate enough jobs for Singaporeans.

We are trying to reclaim some jobs through job redesign. We aim to recreate 10,000 jobs over the next 12 to 18 months. It is difficult. Even if we succeed, it is not going to be enough. To create enough jobs for low-skilled Singaporeans, we would need a lot more investments and a lot more skilled manpower to generate enough low-skilled jobs.

There is a need for us to develop our services sector. Whilst trade in manufactured goods is fairly liberal and open, the same cannot be said of services. Many others want to take away from us what we have been good at, being an air hub and a sea hub. Many others also

The tourism and hospitality sector had contributed a significant share of our economy in the past. We used to be the shopping paradise with pockets of the third world for tourists to see. Today, we are not a shopping paradise, and the pockets of the third world are gone. We have lost out for lack of re-investment. Investments in tourism projects have to be big to be attractive. We failed to agree to terms with Disney - they went to Hong Kong. The Hong Kong government gave them a huge subsidy.

Small theme parks are not viable. They are not good enough to attract the large numbers of customers needed to sustain operations. Yet to remain attractive, they have to refresh themselves. From the NTUC Club's experience, a facility has to be refreshed every two or three years. The small theme parks do not earn enough to do so. That is why Haw Par Villa, Tang Dynasty Village, Fantasy Island and the Asian Village failed. They were not world class attractions good enough to attract the tourists. They were not good enough to attract repeat visitors from among Singaporeans.

Mega projects have the critical mass, but they also require a bigger mass market. Therefore, business risks of mega projects are high. Even Disney Europe outside Paris struggled for years, even though it drew its customers from a base of 250 million who could reach it by car and it also had special incentives provided by the government.

Miyazaki is a city in south Japan. Its mild climate made it the favourite honeymoon location for young Japanese

The approach that our Government has taken is to put the development of integrated resorts to the market test. The test is whether potential developers will do so without subsidy. Many are keen to invest big money - $4 billion to $5 billion - if they are given a casino licence. These projects are for MICE activities, family entertainment, mega shows, and the like. I estimated that 10,000 jobs will be created directly by these integrated resorts. MTI believes that with the spin-offs, there will be 35,000 jobs. The inflow of tourists will benefit other hotels, shops and taxi-drivers.

Some people have asked me what kind of jobs there will be. Let me use NTUC Club to illustrate. It is not a casino, but it does operate jackpot machines. It operates Downtown East in Pasir Ris (which includes the Escape Theme Park and Wild Wild Wet), six social club lounges (two in the city and four in the HDB heartlands), chalets at Pasir Ris, East Coast Park and on Sentosa, a retirees club with 5,000 members, a children's club, and a sports and wellness club. NTUC Club and its subsidiaries employ about 800 staff, both full-time and part-time (about 630 full-time staff and 170 part-time staff). NTUC Club employs Singaporeans and permanent residents. Its subcontractors (for ground and landscaping and technical servicing) employ another 75 persons. The lessees of the

As the Prime Minister mentioned yesterday, without the jackpot operations, NTUC Club would have to close shop. NTUC Club is almost the only provider of chalets for Singaporeans who want a short holiday with their families here in Singapore. The annual subsidy is $400,000. Seven years ago, the annual subsidy for the six social club lounges was almost $13 million per year. With concerted efforts to raise productivity, this annual subsidy came down to $6 million last year - so still almost $1 million a year for each social club lounge. NTUC Club will open at the former Embassy at the Esplanade in two weeks. The annual subsidy will be about $1 million. Why can we continue to operate? It is because of the subsidy from the jackpot operations. And that is why Embassy failed. It did not have a jackpot room.

To keep Downtown East and other facilities fresh, NTUC Club invested $100 million in the past seven years refurbishing facilities and adding new ones. The investments include the Escape Theme Park and the Wild Wild Wet for which it derives no surplus. Wild Wild Wet is hugely popular, but the collection is just enough currently to meet operating expenses. NTUC Club will invest another $110 million in the next three years to keep itself fresh and appealing.

Is it worth it? When the NTUC Club started in 1987, it entertained 100,000 visitors in one year. When the Pasir Ris Resort opened in 1989, the number shot

But investors in an integrated resort will not think like us. They want a return on their investments. They will need many multiples of the six million visitors that NTUC Club attracts annually, if they are to keep their pricing attractive enough, even with a casino licence. If they succeed, yes, the retail and restaurant sectors will come back to life, and many more taxis will be required. They are putting the money on it. And I know they will need multiples of six million visitors to their facilities. So, it is 12 to 24 million visitors we are talking about. Many of them would have to come from overseas. So if they are putting their money on it and they can attract this volume of visitors, then there would be buzz in Singapore and there would be true benefits to the economy. But if we do not revitalise the tourism industry, and we continue to concentrate only on the higher end electronics, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, life sciences, nanotechnology, finance, education and healthcare, then we would not have enough jobs for the lower-skilled Singaporeans, many of whom are in the older age group. As it is, those in the lower-income group, their wages are stagnating. In fact, for many of them, they suffer a loss in real income, while the cost of living goes up for them. So they need good jobs, and better paying jobs.

I wish we can have integrated resorts without casinos. Casinos come with social costs, and there will be some broken families. But there are also social costs with high unemployment. There are 35,000 jobs to be had. Cabinet decided not to let it pass. But the social costs are

aspire to be one of the top two or three financial centres in our time zone. We will defend our share of this, and aim for more in these areas. But we also have to diversify.couples in the past. But with air travel, younger Japanese couples prefer Hawaii and other overseas locations. So Miyazaki lost out. They tried to reinvent itself. A mega resort, called Segaia, was built with an indoor wave surfing lagoon complete with a sandy beach, and it had also top class golf courses, including the one that hosts the annual Phoenix Open. It did not attract enough visitors. The developer went bankrupt. It has been bought over by an American businessman. Both Disney Europe and Miyazaki did not go for a casino. shops and restaurants employ probably another 200. Of all these more than 1,000 jobs, only 78 are employed for the jackpot operations. So, if you look at integrated resorts, the employment that they generated, be it the 10,000 directly or the 35,000 jobs, if you count the spin-offs, only a small number would be involved in the jackpot and casino operations.up to over one million a year. Last year, the NTUC Club received six million visitors. The patrons are a cross-section of Singapore society, both young and old. NTUC Club is particularly happy that it is able to serve lower income families who can mix with the higher income at its facilities. real, and we have to pay enough attention to this. Only last night, I was reminded that the social costs of gambling are already with us. One young woman came to ask me for help. She and her mother wanted to buy a new HDB flat. Why? They have been harassed by loan sharks. Her mother wanted to divorce the father. And she looked me squarely in the face and said, "All because of gambling." So this is not an easy decision, but when there are 35,000 jobs, I cannot say no.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.01 pm until 4.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, having spoken twice on why we should not have a casino, and having heard yesterday the Prime Minister confirmed what is probably Singapore's worst kept secret, I was actually wondering what I could say today since the Government has already made up its mind.

Nobody can argue with the Government's intentions of wanting to turn Singapore into a vibrant hub with these projects and their iconic architecture, top-class hotels, luxury retail outlets, fine restaurants, convention and exhibition centres, spectacular shows, theme parks and other world-class attractions.

Neither can we deny that an investment of $5 billion will bring about huge gains to our economy. But to many like me, it is still the idea of the casino that gnaws uncomfortably inside me.

Sir, I am not a purist nor a moralist. I am a worrier. I worry about the social fallout and whether we can manage them. I worry whether the safeguards we will put in place are adequate to deal with the problems that we will face when the lure of gambling will now be elevated to a new level of glitz and glamour hitherto not found in 4-D, Toto or horse racing.

It is easy to say that only 2.1% of our population will be addicted to gambling and that we can therefore take comfort in this since this is within the same range as that found in other Asian countries. But 2.1% is 55,000 people, and this is no insignificant statistic. Then again, how do you quantify anguish, agony, broken families, neglected children and a total humiliation of one's esteem when that addiction reaches a point of no return?

So I am not quite sure whether the sum of $40 million a year might be enough to deal with a problem that will affect so many people. Already the Institute of Mental Health has predicted that it will need another eight psychologists to deal with this looming problem, and we know that it is not easy to recruit well-trained psychologists. So this is just one aspect of the problem that faces us when we talk about managing the matter.

Last Saturday, I read in the Straits Times about a 38-year-old man who started gambling when he was a school boy and who is now a bankrupt and jobless. He gambled away his family members' savings and they threw him out. Now, he owes loan sharks about $90,000 and he is hooked on drugs. He then sought counselling and he actually quit gambling seven months ago. He

Do we really think that an entrance fee of $100 or $2,000 a year will keep out the hard core gamblers? I think the question of how the casino operators can overcome this rule by giving away free chips, which has been said many times outside this House, has not been adequately addressed.

Then again, even if we do keep out people who do not have the means to be there in the first place with this $100 a day or $2,000 a year rule, do not forget it is the big fish that we must also pay attention to. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. Someone like Chia Teck Leng, he is in the multi-million-dollar league and he would not be kept out of a casino because of $100, and yet he succeeded in bringing untold damage to himself and his family as well as to the banks he swindled.

Mr Lim Hng Kiang says that Switzerland's reputation has not suffered in spite of the country having casinos. Maybe they have been lucky so far, but we have not. Unfortunately, in spite of our tight policing of our banks, we had quite a colourful record of cheats over the years. As Mr Ravindran reminded us earlier on, you remember Elyamanis Khamis who took our banks for a ride in the 1980s. I think he took away $80 million, if I can recall. Then in the 1990s, there was Nick Leeson operating out of Singapore, but he managed to bring down one of Britain's oldest financial institutions. These were people who did not meet the downfall because of casinos, but in their own way, they were gamblers

So now we have Chia Teck Leng's confessions paraded in the media last weekend - five pages in the Straits Times. But what he tells us is not actually very new. First, he tells us how he was lured by the bright lights and the glamour of the casinos. It is an all too common story of many people who are like him. Next, he relates how the odds are stacked against you in a casino. It does not take a mathematician to tell you that in a casino, the house always wins! This is what I did not quite understand the make-up of the whole story he was telling. Finally, after all this, he says Singapore should go ahead and build a casino! No matter what the economic rationale that he was trying to justify in having a casino at the end of his story, if you see through him again, you will realise that, in his case, it is also a question of a matter of once you are a gambler, you are always a gambler.

His would not be the last swindle we will hear of. Casinos provide the perfect breeding ground for more Chia Teck Lengs who will be out to prove that they can beat the system and get away with it. Perhaps, what Chia Teck Leng could do the next time, if I may say so and if the Minister for Home Affairs permits, is to detail his modus operandi so that the banks can learn from the other side how not to get cheated.

Sir, in the past year, the arguments for and against the casino had been thoroughly exhausted. I cannot recall an issue such as this one which has been so controversial and has mesmerised Singaporeans from all walks of life.

What I found heartening to some extent, most of all, is the openness with which the Government has dealt with the matter. It is probably the first time that I have heard Cabinet Ministers, starting with no less than the Deputy Prime

But, Sir, has what has happened in the past months with all the different views from the Ministers expressed publicly caused any harm to the Government? I do not think so. In fact, in having the Ministers

confesses: "I'm so stupid to have gambled." But then, the report finally says, "When told that Singapore may have a casino, his eyes lit up and he said he would love to go." So, Sir, once a gambler, always a gambler. No, these are not my own words; this is the parting shot of this man. He says, "Once you are a gambler, you always remain a gambler."who lost and were only discovered when it was too late.Minister, Dr Tony Tan, expressing divergent views on a single topic. I think this is the way it should be. I remember that in 2002, when I suggested that Ministers should be allowed to state their individual views outside the Cabinet, I was told by the then Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, that this was not possible because it would undermine the principle of collective responsibility and would suggest a divided Government.

express their different views, and having the Prime Minister relate yesterday how the resistance of some Ministers was overcome, and how they finally realised that the concept of an IR could not be rejected, I think this approach has given Singaporeans an important insight into how decisions at the very top level are made.

I may not have fully agreed with the outcome of all the discussions, but what I would urge the Prime Minister to do is to continue to allow this openness of discussion on other issues. What has happened has not shown that we have a divided Government, but it has shown to Singaporeans that views, other than the Government's, do count in the decision-making process. Whatever the decision is, for better or for worse, as he himself has put it, it is the Prime Minister who carries the ultimate responsibility. But what is also important for us to understand is that when people know that their views do count, it makes the task of setting aside our differences and moving ahead easier.

Sir, finally, may I just say that, as this year-long debate comes to its conclusion, it is not about whether the pro-casino camp has won or whether the anti-casino

camp has lost. In the end, it is Singapore that must win. The Government has made its call, and I can only hope that it has drawn the right card from the deck.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday, the Prime Minister gave us a very comprehensive explanation on the integrated resorts proposal and economic arguments for this. He assured this House that the casino component is small - less than 3% of the total floor area allowed for the Bayfront IR, and 5% for the one at Sentosa. He further assured this House that measures will be taken to mitigate the social impact. This has helped to shed greater clarity on the whole concept. But a lot more can be done to allay the concerns and fears of some Singaporeans who still view the project as nothing but a big casino outfit. It would be helpful if the Government can overcome the objections of bidders and allow Singaporeans to view the designs and models of the IRs, so that Singaporeans will have a better understanding of what the Government is talking about.

Sir, of great significance is also the number of direct and indirect jobs that will be created. 35,000 jobs is a significant number and, for many of us who have been actively involved in the job redesign efforts, and in trying to place structurally unemployed workers, this is no mean feat. Being closely involved with the workers in the electronics sector, Sir, I can see the shift in the kind of jobs that are created in the sector. Most of these jobs now require higher skills, and not all the unemployed fit the requirements. As the economy further restructures, despite huge investments, fewer number of jobs will be created in the manufacturing sector.

Last week, Sir, Panasonic Factory Solutions launched its new name as well as its international headquarters status. At the same time, it also launched a new

I certainly hope, Sir, that these 35,000 jobs that are created will benefit Singaporeans. There have been some concerns expressed that foreign workers may benefit more from this job creation. I know that the Government cannot give any commitment, but at least I think it is important that we bear this in mind, that the 35,000 jobs will benefit Singaporeans.

Sir, let me now come to the views of the Muslim community and also some of my concerns. The views of the Muslim community on the casino issue are clear. Yesterday, Minister Yaacob had dealt on this quite extensively. Like all religions, Islam is against any form of gambling, as it is harmful and addictive. It erodes our society's core values of thrift and hard work. It may project a wrong image of Singapore with our squeaky-clean image, as casinos are associated with all kinds of crimes and other social ills, such as prostitution.

I must say, though, Sir, that I travel extensively to Geneva for my international organisation work, and there are casinos there, but I never had the impression at any time that I was there that Geneva is a sleazy or undesirable city with neon lights flashing all over. In fact, despite its casinos, Geneva has managed to retain a professional and business-like image and reputation as an international convention

As a Muslim, Sir, I am against gambling, and I also have very serious concerns about the social ills associated with the casino. Often, as gambling addiction strengthens its grip on its victims, they lose all sense of balance and priority, and their families suffer. The Government should not try to minimise the problems that we will face as a result of gambling addiction, and I am glad, in yesterday's session, there was a clear acknowledgement of this in both the Prime Minister's speech and those of the other Ministers as well, and their assurances that safeguards will be put in place.

It is important, Sir, that we cast the debate correctly. The debate should not be about the trade-off between economic growth and social development, ie, we should try to tolerate some social ills because of the economic benefits. If we take that line, then I think we will lose a significant number of Singaporeans who are deeply concerned about the kind of Singapore that we want to create and where we want to bring up our children. Rather, we must come up with clear convincing arguments on how both priorities can be met, not only in the short term but also in the long term as well.

Some are concerned that steps to exclude and deter Singaporeans will weaken over time, when there is mounting pressure from the casino operators who want to recover from their hefty investments. Australian casinos, for instance, Sir, have 96% local clientele. In Las Vegas, only 9% of the gamblers are foreigners, although 87% of the visitors gambled. There is also already very strong competition in the region, with Macau having 17 casinos, the Philippines has 11 casinos, and there are casinos in Genting, Batam, Vietnam, Cambodia and Myanmar, and with Thailand planning one as well.

Sir, many Singaporeans have some experience of families affected by gambling. I have come across examples of some of these in my meet-the-people sessions. In one case, a family was torn apart because of the gambling habits of the husband. In the end, the family had to sell their private condominium to settle the debts although he could not settle all the debts. The man's marriage ended in divorce, and the problems at home caused one of his two children to drop out of school. Will there be such cases even without a casino? The answer is probably "yes". Will there be more of such cases with a casino? The answer may also probably be "yes".

There are also other concerns. The Australian Productivity Commission, in its report, had highlighted the adverse impacts of gambling on individuals and the community. An Australian government press release on problem gambling quoted that 290,000 Australians are problem gamblers and account for losses annually of over A$3 billion. Their report shows that gambling does have an impact on productivity at work. As a country, we take great pride in the fact that we have consistently been ranked as the Number One workforce in the world and, surely, this will be a matter of concern to us in terms of how it will erode our work ethics.

Sir, in America, studies have shown that bankruptcy, divorce, child abuse, domestic violence, crime and suicide increased in communities where casinos and slot gaming machines were introduced. According to the FBI crime statistics, crime rates in casino areas are nearly twice the national average. According to some reports, our suicide rate due to gambling is about 4%. But these are some indicators that I think we must monitor carefully to identify the stress signals in our society after the

It is a fact, Sir, that even without a casino, there will be those who cannot resist the lure of gambling, as they can join the cruise ships or go to Batam or Genting. While this is true, the point remains that, with a casino located right here, there is now greater accessibility. The greatest danger with the casino, as some have pointed out, is the element of instant gratification that one gets from participating in the various activities, compared to other forms of gambling where the impact is more delayed and you have to wait for the results which are not immediately known.

Sir, the MCYS' survey shows that 58% of Singaporeans had gambled at least over the last one year, and 40% gambled at least once a week. While this shows that even without the casino, a high percentage of Singaporeans are already gambling. What we do not know is how this compares with the past, before the various forms of gambling, be it 4-D, Toto or football betting, were available to Singaporeans, as there was no base line study before this. If such a comparison is available, then we would have a better picture to determine whether or not the greater accessibility to more gambling opportunities will result in a greater number of Singaporeans gambling, and that would have given us a better idea of the extent of the impact of the casino on Singaporeans. In other words, Sir, will more gambling opportunities encourage more people to gamble? We do not know, because we never had studies done before, and I think this is one area that has to be addressed.

Sir, the MCYS' study also shows that 2.1% or 55,000 Singaporeans are likely to be problem gamblers or become addictive. An Institute of Policy Studies' report said that each problem and pathological gambler was estimated to

Sir, the MCYS has announced a number of safeguards that will be put in place to deal with the problem of gambling addiction. I note that most of these measures are meant to help those who have already become addicts. Some research figures in the US show that only 8% of gambling addicts overcome their addiction. Therefore, I think that it is equally important, if not more important, that we focus on prevention.

This should start in schools. As a recent newspaper report highlighted, even our young are gambling, and mentioned that school gambling appears to be a part of Singapore life. It reported that three in five students aged 18 years and above gamble now and then. Almost four in 10 of those who gamble began the habit when they were between the ages of 18 and 24. This points to the fact that we need to be vigilant, even at the school stage. Our schools should concentrate a lot more on moral education and in inculcating the right values in students, so that they do not acquire the habit of gambling at a young age and do not progress later on to become problem gamblers.

Sir, there is a general feeling that there are not enough counsellors available to deal with the increased problems arising from gambling addiction. We have about 30 family service centres located all over Singapore with differing levels of competence, resources and professional staff to deal with social problems, let alone gambling addiction. These family service

Apart from counsellors, Sir, the Institute of Mental Health's capacity, something which Mr Khaw mentioned earlier on, will also have to be strengthened. Currently, there are only 12 qualified staff members working in the Institute's Community Addictions Management Programme dealing with a whole spectrum of addiction issues, including drug abuse and gambling. The IMH has estimated that more psychologists will have to be trained to meet the increased demand. Again, this requires long-term planning and support, and I hope that the Government will also address these issues.

We also heard yesterday that $40 million will be allocated and various other measures will be put in place. I think all these will incur costs. But I believe the Government must have looked carefully at all the additional costs of training people in psychiatry, treatment in psychology, counsellors and the various contact points of assistance as well as putting in place a whole security system to prevent other vices associated with gambling. I think the Government must have carefully considered those scores and what are the economic costs as well when it decides to proceed with this integrated resort proposal.

machine which it is producing, called the T122. The T122 is a machine that mounts chips at the rate of 0.066 seconds. So, you can imagine how fast the machine is moving, and how very high technology the level of that machine is. And they only have the machines produced in Singapore and Japan. Looking at that machine, I of course remind myself that, clearly, the shift in the kind of jobs created in the electronics manufacturing sector is becoming quite rapid. Hence, the service sector will be the engine of job growth in Singapore, and the IR will be a major contributor to our job pool. centre where many world bodies are located. introduction of the IR, and to come up with appropriate help programmes. affect eight to 15 others, be they spouses, children, extended family and friends. The figures, Sir, are staggering. I do not know whether it is accurate, but I think it is right that the Government does not attempt to minimise the potential social problems that we will face with a casino in place. Unlike other countries, Sir, our only resource is our people, and therefore every individual matters. centres will need a lot more resources to be more effective in their work. A lot more Government funding and support are also needed to train counsellors with the right skills and knowledge at the community level.

Sir, I can understand the disappointment felt by the Muslim community over the decision to proceed with a casino because of our deeply held values and beliefs. Although gambling addiction is not a serious problem in our community, the MCYS' survey shows that only about 12% of Malays gamble. Nevertheless, as the community faces other challenges, the

Sir, I urge the community, now that a decision has been made, to move on, and not allow this issue to divide us or create a rift between us and the Government. There are many issues that command our attention and we have much work to do. We should not be spending endless hours debating over this issue and diverting our focus and attention from other important challenges in education, employment or marriage.

On the casino issue, now that we are in the midst of re-modelling our mosques, equipping our mosques with people who have the competence to deal with social issues, including gambling, should be one of our focus areas. I hope that our mosques and other Malay-Muslim organisations can work with the MCYS and other relevant Government agencies, dealing with the problem on gambling addiction, to work out programmes to safeguard our community.

Since there is an exclusion option available to gamblers, their families or those who are at-risk of gambling, the Muslim community, if we feel strongly about this, could encourage our members who feel that they or their families are at risk or are vulnerable, to opt for these exclusions. You could even facilitate this by offering the service to the mosques or the Malay-Muslim organisations.

Sir, we should also take this opportunity to strengthen our religious and moral values as this is the strongest safeguard that we can provide to prevent someone from getting trapped in gambling or other social ills. I also call upon our Malay-Muslim organsiations to refocus their efforts in combating social ills in our community. We need a social action plan

There is a perception, Sir, that the Government is leaving it to the welfare groups to pick up the pieces arising from gambling addiction problems once the casino is introduced. This is not true, Sir. The Government has outlined its programmes yesterday and also today and it has held itself fully accountable. But it seeks to do this with other partners who are close to the ground for it to be fully effective. If I may quote what the Prime Minister said. He said, "I carry the ultimate responsibility for the decision." This, Sir, is an important commitment, and we as a community should work closely with the Government to see how we can benefit from the integrated resort but, at the same time, not compromise our values or succumb to gambling or other associated vices.

4.50 pm

concern is whether this will be yet another serious issue for us to contend with.in our community where the re-modelled mosques, the re-engineered Malay-Muslim organisations and the various helping hands from the Government to assist the community can be synergised so that the community can march ahead with the other communities in Singapore. We could achieve this together within the wider context of the community of excellence leadership forum.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am anti-gambling. As a child in primary school, I saw my father become a problem gambler for several years. I watched many quarrels between my father and mother. He wanted her jewellery to pawn and gamble on "21" or black-jack to win back his losses. Fortunately for us, he gave up gambling. I have never gambled. An exception was during the war in January and February 1942. For several weeks, I had to stay up all night at Raffles College, working as a MAS (Medical Auxilliary Service) orderly, waiting to go out to tend to injured persons. I played poker with fellow

May I diverge to answer many of the points made by speakers in this House? What is a gamble? A gamble is where you place a bet and you have absolutely no control of the outcome - where the roulette ball will land, what cards you will get in a black-jack, or whatever. Every business you start carries risks and is a gamble. But it is a different kind of a risk which I would not call a gamble. It is risk-taking which venture capitalists and banks will finance on the basis of probabilities.

During the war, with little to do in the evenings, I would wander around the Great World Amusement Park, which has now been demolished, where there was a gambling farm. The Japanese encouraged gambling farms. They encouraged opium, gambling, all the things which would keep the population docile and preoccupied. And they gave the licence to Shaw Brothers. I was fascinated to watch how totally absorbed and engrossed the gamblers were. The most popular game was "Fan Tan": the croupier would place a handful of black and white beads in a pile and half cover the pile with a bowl. You then bet, whether if divided by four, the end result would be 1 or 2, or 3 or 4 beads. When all the bets had been placed, the croupier would use an 18-inch long curved bamboo stick and, as a very skilful and delightful exercise, he would deftly move four beads at a time so that everybody would watch and see that there was no cheating, leaving everybody in suspense as to the final result with his last few strokes of the bamboo stick. I did my calculations, and I majored in Mathematics in Raffles College, that if I bet 10 "banana" in Japanese dollars, and they bet by the thousands of Japanese dollars, on every number 1, 2, 3 and 4, then on an even playing field, I would not win; I would not lose, I would get my

In the 1950s, as a young lawyer, I defended clients who were arrested for running "chap ji kee". This generation does not know what "chap ji kee" is. But it was prevalent. All housewives bet on "chap ji kee" and it is amazing how they were skimmed. They placed bets on certain numbers and at closing time, the "banker" would open up all bets and declare the winning number. He opens the bets first. He knows where the bets have been placed and he chooses the number with the lowest number and that is the winning number. How can the "banker" lose? So he pays for all his runners and when they get caught, he pays for lawyers like me to defend them. It is part of the cost of running a business.

When the PAP took office in June 1959, over half of our supporters were young Chinese-educated left wing types. They were fired by the anti-yellow culture movement in Communist China. And they believed it was a sure way to be rid of decadence and corruption. My Minister for Home Affairs was Mr Ong Pang Boon, also Chinese-educated, from the Confucian High School, Kuala Lumpur. And responding to grassroots sentiments, he banned all pornographic books, magazines, lighted up all the dark cubicles in bars, closed down gambling dens and arrested triad societies that supported prostitution and gambling. But I held him back from doing the impossible - to stop prostitution or gambling. I reminded him that from the founding of Singapore in

But when I was Prime Minister, I allowed the Turf Club to continue, Toto and 4 digits. There was no open fraud. I do not know jockeys are bribed, or horses are doped, that is another matter. On several occasions, my business friends in Hong Kong suggested that Stanley Ho, who ran casinos in Macau, would be happy to start one in Singapore. I ruled it out. I did not want to undermine Singapore's work ethic and breed the belief that people can get rich by gambling, something that is impossible because the odds are against you. I have not changed my mind nor my basic values. But I have had to change my attitude to casinos in Singapore when it is part of an integrated resort. They said 3%-5%. It makes no difference whether it is 3%, 5% or 15%. What is important is: will it be a total plus for the economy and is it worth the price we have to pay in social cost?

Whether we should proceed with an integrated resort is for the present generation of leaders to decide. The Prime Minister and the majority of his Cabinet have decided to go with two IRs.

undergraduates. But poker is a contest of nerves, at least, that is what I told myself, of psychology, not simply a game of chance. money back. But, no, you would lose because when you win, you would not get 40 dollars back. You would get 35 dollars, maybe 34, 33 or 32 dollars, depending on the banker, because he took his cut. He had got to pay for the croupier, he had got to pay a lot of people, from Japanese officers down to policemen, etc. So it was a business in which the "house" (banker) never loses, but the gambler collectively must lose. So I thought gambling is a mug's game. 1819, seamen from all over the world looked for creature comforts when their ships were in Singapore harbour. So we left these red light districts be. But from time to time, they moved into Joo Chiat and we chased them off. But we managed. However, I supported him in smashing the gambling syndicates, "chap ji kee" and other fraudulent cheats.

There was no unanimity. As a rule in Cabinet, you do not discuss differences because otherwise it is not possible to run a coherent government. And you will totally confuse your followers if each and every argument on every important issue, you have dissenting voices put across to the public. At the end of the day, you close ranks and carry out the policy. That debate is within the Government. If

Once upon a time, there were no cruise ships. When I said, "no", there were no Genting, and no casinos in Batam. Now, Singaporeans fly to casinos in Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, Queensland, Las Vegas, Britain, Australia, Canada, Europe. Indeed, a British Labour government last year wanted their parliament to allow 25 major Las Vegas-type integrated resort casinos. In the 1940s and 1950s, when I was a student there, that was impossible. No casinos, except in Monaco. Now it is commonplace. And, as you have heard from Mr Lim Hng Kiang and Mdm Halimah Yacob, even Switzerland has casinos - neat and tidy Switzerland. China has allowed Macau to expand its casinos by inviting Las Vegas companies and allowing mainland Chinese, by the tens of thousands, to go every day into Macau to keep the casinos prosperous and Macau booming. India has casinos in Goa. That is in India that prohibits alcohol because it is afraid

On the 22nd of March I was briefed on the projects. That was the day I launched the Marina Barrage opening. After that I went straight for the briefing. I was briefed on the 19 projects. They are serious proposals by world-class operators with world-class concepts and architects. They are going to build an integrated resort costing $2-3 billion each. Eleven out of the 19 - this is crucial for me - said that they would proceed, whether it is one or two casinos. Indeed, several said that two casinos would be better because there would be variety and competition. When people lose money at one casino, they would blame it on their bad luck at that casino and go to the next one. So both will prosper. These companies understand the psychology of gamblers.

I am convinced that two integrated resorts in Singapore must depend on tourists because they cannot survive if they were to depend on Singaporeans. The projects show that potential investors expect, on the average, to earn more than two-thirds of their revenue from foreign tourists. If they turn out to be wrong, they stand to lose $2-3 billion each. And, we are not changing the rules to bail them out. This is not our money. One project required us to put in 30% of the capital. That project is out. This is a total bet by the gaming companies. Let me list out the companies. They are all on the New York Stock Exchange and some on NASDAQ - Harrah's Entertainment, MGM Mirage, Las Vegas Sands Corps which has long experience in gaming, and Wynn Resorts listed on NASDAQ. These are hard-headed business decisions. It tells me that their research leads them to bet, and they are betting as bankers, not as gamblers, that the number of visitors for an integrated resort will be huge. As people in Asia,

Whatever we do, we can be sure that the other ASEAN countries will do. This has happened with airports, container ports, convention centres. We have one, they say, "Right. Must be a good bet." A few years later, they have one. Do we want to be second, third, fourth in this game? Most interesting for me was that Genting Berhad put in two bids, one for Marina South and another for Sentosa. They have teamed up with international partners, Universal Studios, to run a theme park for Sentosa. For Marina South, they and their sister company, Star Cruises, are prepared to commit $3 billion for the integrated resort to help establish a resort and a cruise centre in Singapore. What does it mean? It means that they must be prepared to sink $5-6 billion and watch their investments in Genting become secondary as we draw in the crowds.

Therefore, I believe that the Prime Minister and the majority in Cabinet have made the right decision for Singapore's future, not just for the casino. To say, "no", after the worldwide publicity of our arguments for over a year, Singapore will be sending out the wrong signal, that we are staying put, the same old Singapore, neat and tidy like Switzerland, better than Switzerland - no chewing gum, no

My question is: can we make it? I believe, yes, if we are open to change and willing to accept new ideas. This integrated resort is only a small part in the remaking of Singapore. We will have to build a new downtown, adding lustre and colour to the present CBD, with beautiful parks, an interesting waterfront, outstanding buildings, excellent transportation and the buzz of night life. We must play host to cultural troupes from Asia and Europe. We must be the place where artists, musicians, sculptors of South, Southeast and East Asia will come to display and market their works of art.

I have watched London from the 1940s till the 21st century. Up to 1960s, London was the capital of the British empire. Important. But when the British empire was dissolved by the 1960s, London was reduced to just the biggest city of the British Isles. Then London remade itself. It has been able to retain its status as a financial centre, although the pound sterling is no longer a reserve currency. By being the first to liberalise banking laws, London pre-empted other

anybody feels strongly enough, then he leaves the Government, which is what people do when they feel strongly enough, just like Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, resigned from his job when President Jimmy Carter sent his forces to rescue the American hostages in Teheran. Before the action failed, he decided that it was wrong. Whether this difference reached that point was dicey, but, in the end, everybody realised that it was a very difficult decision to make. We are not bound by ideology or by religion. Each and every Minister has strong personal beliefs and convictions of what is good for his family, for Singapore, for the kind of society they want. At the same time, you ask yourself, if you say no, and this is but one of many steps Singapore must take to keep abreast of the rest of the world, how do you keep ahead of the rest of the region to be a vibrant, exciting, interesting city to visit. We have to decide in this present world whether Singapore should still reject an integrated resort because it has a casino. people will become alcoholics. Ask ourselves: should Singapore change? Should Singapore still reject an integrated resort because it has a casino? I was in two minds. especially in China and India, become wealthier, they will travel and visit integrated resorts. Several said that their Singapore integrated resort would be their flagship project in this part of the world. The reasons are obvious. This is a clean, attractive, well-policed, safe city, a financial centre; no money laundering, no muggings, no thieves, no drugs. And we have to keep it that way. If we turn down their proposals, surely they will go elsewhere in the region. In any case, even if we give out two licences, the others who do not get licences will go elsewhere. Thailand? Burma, not likely. Philippines? I think, if Singapore says "no", the next best place is Thailand. smoking in air-conditioned places, no this, no that, no fun of a place to visit. The old model on which I worked was to create a first world city in a third world region - clean, green, efficient, pleasant, healthy and wholesome, safe and secure for everyone. These virtues are valuable but no longer sufficient. Now we also have to be not just economically vibrant, but an exciting, fascinating city to visit, with top class symphony orchestras, concerts, dramas, plays, artists, singers and popular entertainment. These are lifestyles of international professionals and executives who locate in Singapore working in multi-national banks, finance houses and other MNCs. And we want those companies who manage these entertainment troupes to include Singapore in their tour of cities around the world.cities in Europe to become the home of the Euro-dollar. Many American, European, Japanese, foreign banks and security firms gravitated to the city of London. And because the Americans with the world's biggest banks and the world's biggest currency resources and the biggest economy

use English, now all EU banks use English for their international business; and all EU banks print their company reports in English. So British lawyers, accountants and professionals are valuable support for London's financial hub. It is now most difficult for any European city to displace London. So, incidentally, by going into English, we have given ourselves an advantage as a financial hub.

When I visit London today, I see a city totally different from the London I lived in as a student in the 1940s. Then it was very British, all white, except for a sprinkling of coloured peoples from the empire. Today, the city is full of Americans, French, Germans, Europeans, Arabs, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, anybody and everybody who want to be a player in the financial services industry and many other businesses. And Singaporeans now own hotels, restaurants, bus and taxi companies in London. Tourism is flourishing. London, with 14 million people, sets out to be and is cosmopolitan, a world metropolis.

On a smaller scale and in a different part of the world, Singapore must travel a similar route. To remain only as the cleanest, greenest, safest, most efficient and healthiest city in Southeast Asia, the "with it" world will pass Singapore by.

When I went to Australia in 1965 for the first time, its cities had no buzz; there was no zing in the air. They were provincial towns, comparable to the British provincial towns. Today, Australians proudly proclaim themselves as multicultural and multiracial. Sydney projects itself with its Sydney Opera

Mr Speaker, Sir, we live in a different and an ever-changing world. Singapore must become more lively, more exciting, more of a fun place, and at the same time retaining its virtues - clean, green, safe and wholesome. We can learn to limit the social fallout. In any case, we cannot prevent the outside world from affecting us. Our people travel. If we do not allow an integrated resort with a casino in Singapore, Singaporeans will still become victims frequenting casinos elsewhere, as Mr Chia Teck Leng who wrote a 20-page memorandum did. That was his story, an Asia Pacific Breweries executive who was sent to 42 years in jail for embezzling $117 million. There was no casino here. He went on cruise trips. He gave a detailed analysis of why the casino banker can never lose, that the players must collectively lose. Yet he played, knowing that the odds were against him. He explained how human weaknesses which he had, brought him down despite the clear mind that he had. Gambling pathology, like AIDS or SARS or Avian flu, cannot be prevented from affecting Singaporeans, as we all know. But we have to take measures to keep Singapore safe and clean, despite these dangerous viruses. And we have the determination and ability to handle these social problems. Yes, we have problems. We have two casinos here, we have more problems. Double? I don't think so. By one-third? Maybe. By one-half? If we are unfortunate. But look at it another way. Suppose we say no. Then there is a big casino in Phuket or Khao Lak, an integrated resort by the seaside.

Ask ourselves: must we insist that alcohol be banned and Singapore go "dry" like India, because some Singaporeans will become alcoholics? Or take an extreme

We have to develop our high culture: symphony orchestras, ballet, arts, paintings, sculptures, museums and so on, which we have been doing. But we must also develop our popular culture: pop singers, TV dramas (reality TV, MTV and sitcoms) - I don't watch them; sports on cable TV: football, rugby, cricket, swimming, tennis, golf, Formula One racing, whatever people find joy in watching and doing. These are activities which I do not watch. Unfortunately for me, they draw huge numbers of young and not-so-young people to participate in or watch on TV. And in today's global village, we have to be a part of it. Whatever entertainment that is watched on TV screens by millions around the world, companies will pay to advertise their products and themselves on it. Hence, cities now compete to hold the Olympics because they can sell the TV rights and the cities will advertise themselves to the world for two weeks of the duration of the games. Only two decades ago, before global TV advertisements directed at the global consumer market made it profitable, cities that hosted the Olympics lost money. Nobody then wanted to host the Olympics.

Singapore has to reposition itself in this world. We have to study London, Paris, New York, San Francisco, Sydney. Nearer home, I say, watch Shanghai and compare it with Tokyo. Because Tokyo is more Japanese and less open, Tokyo has not become a cosmopolitan international city. Tokyo has not become an international banking and financial centre, in spite of being the second largest economy in the world next to the US. Maybe it does not aspire to be one. So, although the Japanese have first class Japanese painters, sculptors, excellent symphony orchestras, outstanding artists and musicians and conductors, Tokyo has not become an international cultural centre, like New York, London or Paris.

In 30 years, Shanghai will probably be the most international city of Asia. China wants Shanghai to reclaim its pre-war eminence as the cosmopolitan centre of the Pacific. We cannot compete with Shanghai on that big canvas. There are 500 million people in a catchment area around Shanghai. The whole of China's talent is drawn towards Shanghai. But we can become a gem of an island with a vibrant economy for six, maybe seven, million people by 2030, a throbbing, exciting fun place for businessmen and for tourists, and where parents can bring up children in wholesome and safe neighbourhoods. They do not have to go to Harrah's or MGM's integrated resort; there are many other fun places.

For the next 20 to 30 years, the international economic forces favour us. The US is likely to remain the dominant power and will maintain security in this region. Our economy is closely linked with the three big economic centres - US, Japan, EU. Now we will have India and China to pull up the economies of ASEAN, and also those of Australia and New Zealand. Singapore is at the heart of ASEAN, and it can play a special role in

House as an icon of an international city. They have hosted the Olympics. Perth has a casino and also attracts many migrants from Southeast Asia, India, China and Europe. example, Osama bin Ladin's Al Qaeda hates the intrusion into the Muslim world of American culture with its pre-occupation with sex and immediate gratification of desires, its wild rock music, its materialistic, consumerist money-minded culture. These Al Qaeda Islamic extremists believe that by repeated and huge suicide bombings, they can drive the Americans out of the Middle East, destroy America and frighten Europe, and thereby keep their Muslim societies pure and pious, as in the seventh century. They cannot succeed, because technology will continue to develop and change our economies and our lifestyles, whether we are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists or agnostics. this economic renaissance of Asia. If we reject these integrated resort projects, the world's investors and players will mentally scratch us off from the list of countries that will be good for them for their business, for their leisure and entertainment. Ask ourselves, everyone of us, after all the heart-wrenching stories, and anecdotes, if you are in charge, if you are responsible for Singapore's future, for its well-being, for its vibrancy, for the kind of life Singapore can provide its people in 10, 20 years, can you say no? That is the question you have to answer. If I were the Prime Minister, and I was challenged - I was challenged on many issues when I was a younger man and had a lot of energy - I would take every challenger on and set out to convince Singapore that this is right, that the price is high, but the price of not having the Integrated Resorts is even higher. This is your choice. Surely we must move forward and keep abreast of the top cities in Asia and the world.

Sir, the Government has stated strongly that the proposed Integrated Resort (IR), which includes a casino, is part of the overall set of initiatives that aim to promote tourism and to improve the conducive environment of businesses in Singapore.

in the Chair]

5.30 pm

At the heart of the matter is the need to reinvent Singapore so that it will become an exciting metropolis for both foreigners and locals to stay. This issue has definitely brought about much heated debate from various Members of the House, to which I hope all our views will be taken seriously as we go ahead for the building of the IR with the casino in Singapore.

However, I would like to share some of the findings, as a medical doctor, on

The United Kingdom relaxed its Gaming Act of 1968 to allow increased opportunities and access to gambling, as mentioned before by various speakers. Las Vegas style casinos have been introduced in many areas of UK, such as Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool, Blackpool and London, in fact. The deregulation of gambling was also coupled with the advent of many new media to allow people to gamble freely, which includes even the Internet, interactive TV and also mobile phone gambling.

With the various gambling opportunities available now, it was found that 1% of the population in Britain had severe gambling problem, and the rate was twice as high in adolescents, particularly as a result of access to the slot machine gambling.

In the United States, the prevalence of problematic gambling has increased and it is estimated that up to 3% of the population has pathological gambling habits.

The MCYS released this report on 14th April which estimated that 2.1% or 55,000 of the Singapore population were classified as "probable pathological gamblers" in Singapore. There is also a 2% being labelled as "probable problem gamblers" as well. This is the current base line rate that we have in Singapore, even before we introduce the IR with a casino in Singapore. We must understand that, from the baseline, every 1% increase will amount to about 20,000

In comparison, Macau has a prevalence rate of 1.8% and Hong Kong 1.95% of pathological gambling.

Pathological gambling has been characterised by unrealistic optimism on the gambler's part to which all bets are made in unrealistic manner so that you want to recoup your loss. We know that they would try to even bet against the house. Unfortunately, as pointed out by Mr Chia Teck Leng's case in his article, we all know that the house always wins.

The result is that, instead of cutting their losses and walking away, gamblers get deeper and deeper into debt, guided by a delusion that a big win will recoup all losses and solve all their problems.

Compulsive or pathological gamblers will tend to lose control of the amounts they risk and cannot stop gambling even when they continue to lose. Money may be important but they lose sight of their losses as they often say they are looking for "action", an emotional state similar to a drug addict when they are "high"on drugs, and this keeps them going on irrationally, and they are hooked on gambling.

They always use gambling as a means to escape from problems of daily life, and from feelings of depression or anxiety. Eventually, compulsive gamblers may engage in vice activities, such as fraud,

This is clearly evident from the recent reports that we read of commercial fraud in China banks, where employees siphon off money to perhaps gamble in Macau. Closer to home, we have our own incidents of professionals, senior company executives in blue-chip companies and banks, stealing funds to support gambling debts incurred in Australian casinos.

Sadly, this thrill from the "high" of gambling action may have what induced Mr Simon Lee back to his gambling tables at Genting before his poor family's untimely death.

The health costs of problem gambling are large at both individual and societal levels. Personal costs include displays of stress related disorders, problems with personal relationships, irritability, depression, anxiety and suicidal tendencies. A lesser well-known fact is that there is a correlation between problem gambling and domestic violence. In a study of 286 women admitted to the Emergency Department of a Nebraska Hospital, it was reported that a woman whose partner was a gambler had 10 times risk to be afflicted with violence than a woman whose partner is not a gambler.

Furthermore, in 2003, the National Coalition Against Legalised Gambling in the United States reported that with the opening of casinos in South Dakota, child abuse and domestic assaults rose by 42% and 80% respectively. This was directly attributed to the increase in casino gambling.

Opportunities to gamble will similarly increase if a casino is introduced in Singapore. Research from other countries

It means that the more the opportunities, the more the problems. There is clear evidence in Australia, Canada and New Zealand that problem gambling has increased as a result of the introduction of casinos in these countries. For example, Australia is currently facing a tough situation where tackling problem gambling has become a priority for the Howard government, after legislation was passed allowing the establishment of casinos and "pokie" machines in various key states. The Federal Government is now asking Australian banks to test restrictions and have limits to amounts withdrawn on ATMs at gaming venues, in a bid to help problem gamblers. Yet, I believe that these steps are a small and insignificant attempt at giving a plaster "cover" situation and will not solve the issue of problem gambling.

Because gambling is a hidden addiction, the health and social problems arising from pathological gambling will not be immediately known. It would take about two to three years after the introduction of the casino before the full impact of the problems be known. By then, the social and health costs to our society may outweigh the economic benefits.

Is one family worth sacrificing for the projected boost to the economy? How many more broken families or the untimely deaths of the innocent little ones before we realise the consequences? Every Singaporean counts and every Singaporean that gets into trouble is a Singaporean family affected.

Projected economic gains are not worth pursuing at the cost of lives affected by the influx of other social ills

With that, Sir, my stand is a firm "no" to the proposed integrated resorts with casino in Singapore.

the health and social issues of gambling. I would like to share an article from the British Medical Journal. In 6th November 2004 editorial, titled "Betting your life on it: Problem gambling has clear health related consequences" by Prof. Mark Griffiths of the Gambling Studies at the International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, UK. population adults. However, it is not just one single person, as brought up by Mdm Halimah before me. It may be up to eight to 15 people who are collaterally involved if a person is a gambler. My own personal experience with this has been that you cannot ring-wall a person because when he goes down due to gambling, the whole social network, ie, the friends and families, will want to rescue him, but everyone gets dragged down together with it. theft, and other crimes to provide more money to continue gambling, also to alleviate a desperate financial situation resulting from gambling losses. has clearly shown that the increase in accessibility not only increases the number of regular gamblers, but also the number of problem gamblers although it may not be directly proportional. the integrated resorts with casino are expected to bring.

Mr Speaker, Sir, even though this question in front of the House refers to integrated resorts, it is clear that the debate is about the casino component of the IR. No one would object to the infrastructure improvements that would be brought about by the construction of the IRs. In fact, many have asked whether we could have the IRs but without the casinos.

By now, Sir, the pros and cons of the casino have been exhaustively examined and analysed. In my view, Sir, this national soul-searching in this House about casino is not just about gambling and the social ills such as debts, prostitutions, others associated with casino. It is so because even today, gambling is readily accessible to anyone in Singapore. Every one of the social ills is already present in Singapore today in one form or another. Singaporeans could readily travel to casinos outside Singapore in the neighbouring countries or on cruise ships. For those who are inclined to be problem gamblers or pathological gamblers, they would have or could have gotten into trouble already. Chia Teck Leng and Simon Lee are tragic examples.

We all agree that having casinos on our shores will exacerbate these social ills. To eradicate these social ills, we need to totally eradicate gambling of all forms in Singapore, both officially sanctioned as well as illegal ones. Sir, obviously, as a society, we have gone too far down the path to revert back to such puritanical lifestyles.

So, why is there such a strong and, at times, vehement opposition to casinos? The opposition is particularly strong from

Why? Why would Dr Tan in his speech mentioned a definitive "no" against pathological gambling? In the run-up to this debate, the Feedback Unit (FBU) has received many feedback on this topic. It has also conducted focus groups on the subject of casinos with many groups, including religious organisations. I think it is useful for me to share some insights into the dialogue with the religious organisations. As expected, all religious groups oppose gambling on moral ground. In the discussion of safeguards for casino, it became clear that the perspectives of the political leaders and religious leaders on this issue are totally different. We politicians only think of the negative impact of gambling or casinos on Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents and we could propose measures to mitigate this impact on the locals. To us, foreigners who indulge in gambling would continue to do so, bet away their fortunes with or without casinos in Singapore. Religious leaders view the negative impact differently. They are very inclusive. Everyone is included in this debate, Singaporean residents or foreigners alike.

There is no national boundary when it comes to saving a soul. Take job creation, for example. One objection that was raised in our dialogue was that young Singaporeans working as croupiers in casinos would be objectionable. It is not proper and not right to teach young Singaporeans the art of gambling, even though as croupiers, they do not gamble on the job. So when I proposed that perhaps to overcome this problem, only

Sir, in the feedback dialogue, what becomes clear is that the grandeur of the IRs itself is also an affront to the religious leaders. In a way, so long as the social ills such as prostitution are diffused and below the radar screen, people learn to live with it or ignore it. However, the grandeur of the integrated resort by its very nature seems to elevate the problems. In a way, while our political leaders have their views on IR changed because of the quality of the

those who oppose the decision based on religious grounds. Are the opponents blind to the existence of such social ills in Singapore at this very moment? And for those who care to look, they will find this place of ill repute, like prostitution here. Yet, when the idea of a casino is floated, the chorus of opposition gathered strength. non-Singaporeans would be employed as croupiers, the participants replied that their concerns extend to all young people, not just Singaporeans. Similarly, even if we exclude all Singaporeans from the proposed casinos, the religious groups would still oppose the set up of casinos simply because it will be immoral to profit from the gaming loss of other human beings.

proposals, religious leaders would seem to be even more affronted. Perhaps it goes down to the roots of religion. All religions erect places of worship. Often-times, these are impressive buildings exalting the virtues of the human spirit and the holiness of God. Be they churches, temples or mosques, these are iconic structures. They represent goodness in the human nature. Casinos or integrated resorts, on the other hand, glorify the baser nature of human beings. Integrated resorts, by their sheer size, are also iconic, but they represent the seductiveness of the evil, the power of the devil. The grander the scale, the louder it screams out its message of decadence. So, when I viewed the more garish IR proposals presented by the Singapore Tourism Board, it does remind me of the City of Gotham of the Superman comics. Clearly, this divide between the two perspectives could not be bridged by the consideration of economic benefits of the casino, the engine within the IRs.

Sir, I do not object to casinos on religious ground. But I am concerned about the message that we, as leaders, are sending to our people, in particular, our young. In the past, we have insisted that Singaporeans must strive hard to make a living. We taught our children to be diligent and disciplined. We discouraged all pursuits of easy money. Thus, when this Government decides to issue two licences, the question we should ask ourselves is whether we are signalling to our people that Singaporeans need no longer pursue this model of hard work and diligence, that the Government is prepared to bend its principles, to pander to the baser instincts of man and to pursue the easier options. Are we sending a message to our young people that it is acceptable now to profit from other people's weaknesses, even though they are foreigners? The Prime Minister, in his statement, has emphatically said "no". Nonetheless, I think it is necessary, besides the other Ministers who have spoken, for the Minister for Education to assure this House that, in our education of our youths, the ballast against the seduction of the casinos be fortified in them.

Sir, I am also concerned about the impact of the availability of easy money on the moral fibre of society and on our Government. Singapore has acquired a reputation of a clean Government. This is a result of many years of single-minded focus in the pursuit of meritocracy in all our endeavours. Recently, Miss Penny Low and I participated in a meeting of South East Asian Parliamentarians Against Corruption in Manila. The admiration and the praise of the other participants regarding the achievement of Singapore in stamping out corruption in our society made us very proud to be Singaporeans. After the IR, would the tsunami of easy money erode our stand on corruption?

The casinos, Sir, will generate a new stream of taxation to the Government's

Sir, personally, I am against gambling. I do not fancy any game that is stacked against the player in the long run. It is also not that I have not been exposed to casinos or gambling. I first got into contact with casinos as a graduate student in the US 30 years ago. I went there first together with another Singaporean to Las Vegas to visit the casinos. Since we were poor graduate students, we would stay in the cheapest hotel and eat in the cheapest restaurant. In the hierarchy of casino visitors, with "whales" being the highest life form, we were the lowest. We would spend hours standing by blackjack, roulette, crab and baccarat tables, watching gamblers play. Not once were we tempted to join in. We basically verified the odds of the games we read in the books, and we observed human nature in the interaction between the croupiers and players. On the other hand, I did spend some good money on the tickets to the world-class shows at the MGM and other resort casinos. Because we ate at the local eateries and shopped at the convenience stores, we got to see the locals and the employees of the casinos on their way to and from work. They were just ordinary folks making an honest living, albeit in a different vocation. There was nothing glamorous about their jobs. I remember making a mental note to myself that casino is not a productive human endeavour. Nothing of value is created in these activities. Casino jobs are not those

Sir, about six years ago, I visited Macau for the first time. Those were the days before the Sands Casino in Macau. At that point in time, Macau was still very much a seedy place. It was not a place also for you to visit to lift your spirit.

Coming back to the debate on casinos in Singapore, the severe recession that we are still emerging from since 1997 causes me to pause and think about casinos as part of our tourism strategies. Sir, the recession is the outcome of a convergence of several trends which continue to transform the economic landscape for Singapore.

Firstly, the emergence of China as the factory of the world has basically pulled the rug out from under Singapore as we try to transit from a low-tech to a high-tech manufacturing centre. At one time, Sir, we assumed that we would have a lead time of 10-15 years to make this transition. But this time period vaporised right in front of our eyes.

Secondly, Sir, our cost of doing business has increased to a point that renders us uncompetitive. Even our vaunted geographic location no longer shelters us, as PSA lost two of its key customers to Tanjung Pelapas. The lack of growth also led to the lack of optimism among Singaporeans. In the debate on the President's Address, I had spoken about the difficulties of Singapore gaining mindshare of the decision-making of multinational companies when they consider where to put their investments. Many of my acquaintances are senior managers in the MNCs. They are Singaporeans and, therefore, would have naturally pitched for Singapore in such discussions. But more and more of them are commenting that Singapore no longer stands even a mention in such discussions. In other words, there is no mindshare, as far as Singapore is

Another dampener in our drive towards the new Singapore is our aborted attempt to develop a home-grown infocomm technology industry. A*STAR has basically given up funding R&D in ICT and shifted its focus to life sciences. What does this mean? To me, it means that, in the race for the information age, Singapore cannot make its mark against the competition of India and China.

I believe, Sir, in our transformation, we have hit an inflection in our industrial development. Structural unemployment is now with us and will remain with us for many more years. The press reported that about 78,000 people are stuck in structural unemployment. I have said earlier that structural unemployment is a very nice term. But what is structural unemployment? In layman's terms, Sir, it means basically that these people who are structurally unemployed will be unemployable for the foreseeable future. As our economy continues to restructure, more will join the ranks. As Members of Parliament, we are in touch with the pulse on the ground. It is indeed heart-wrenching to see heads of households breaking down as they struggle with the social stigma and the financial burdens of being out of work.

Sir, as a society, we are not unique in encountering such issues of industrial restructuring. The US has endured such problems for several decades now, as free trade and globalisation led to obsolescence of its uncompetitive industries, such as consumer electronics, garment and steel. In their place, the service industry is becoming more important. In fact, the literature many years back used to lampoon the creation of low-skilled jobs

Sir, it is also over this period that more and more counties in the US legalised casinos. Twenty-five years ago, legalised gambling was confined to Nevada, Atlantic City, New Jersey and a few race tracks and two or three state lotteries. Since then, the US has added almost 400 commercial casinos and 248 tribal casinos to the gambling landscape. In recent years, commercial casinos generated adjusted gross revenues of US$19.7 billion in 1999, which increased to US$26.5 billion in 2002, a 10% increase every year. In other words, Sir, gaming is now considered an economic activity in a post-industrial economy. Many people view gaming as a legitimate avenue for leisure and recreation.

Sir, in Singapore, data from MOM already show that new jobs being created are primarily in the service sector. Thus, to take up the slack of job creation and to enable us to take a crack at structural unemployment, it is paramount that we explore all avenues to create service jobs in our economy. Thus, if an integrated resort with a casino could give our tourism industry the required boost, I think the Government would be derelict in its responsibility to reject it out of hand.

Sir, as we struggle with our recession, Singapore has more or less stagnated over the last few years. We have also become less optimistic about our future. Yet, the world around us has moved ahead. In the debate on the President's Address, I had held up the example of the Palm Island of Dubai and urged our Cabinet to be bold

I am glad that the Prime Minister has left no stone unturned in exploring all avenues for Singapore. It is reassuring that he did not just reject the casino proposal out of old instinctive reaction. By so doing and re-examining the whole issue, he has shown himself to be able to revisit old issues with a fresh mind. This could only be good for Singapore as the new team of Cabinet Ministers grapples with the challenges facing Singapore.

Mr Lim Hng Kiang has earlier mentioned

coffers. As the Government, we must guard against the availability of such money and such an easy taxation source and develop a dependency on these revenues, even if we make use of these monies for socially desirable activities. Perhaps we must think of a way to earmark such revenues for tourism development rather than allowing it to go under the Consolidated Fund. If we allow it to do so, perhaps we would develop this so-called dependency on easy money. that lift one's spirit as a productive job on an assembly line would. concerned. Many are getting concerned about the future of Singapore, particularly the future of their children living and working in Singapore. in the US, deriding them as hamburger flippers. Nonetheless, the value of service jobs should not be under-estimated. WalMart, one of the biggest employers of low-skilled workers in the US, points out that these workers, besides making an honest living in their job, are also given a chance to learn valuable skills in working in a corporation, skills that will stand them in good stead in the future. and imaginative in formulating a new vision for Singapore.

the total job creation of 35,000 with the IRs. I think this would make a significant dent in the structural unemployment problems in Singapore. To me, this is a very important consideration. Given that so many families will benefit from the jobs created, I support the Government's decision to allow the casino as part of the IRs.

Sir, nonetheless, we should not underestimate the social ills of a casino or two will bring. A study by the National Opinion Research Centre at the University of Chicago found that pathological gamblers generate 15% of the industry's gross revenues in casinos. And each pathological gambler ultimately burdens the society with a cost of close to US$10,000 over his or her lifetime. It is appropriate that the Government has taken into consideration all the feedback from the ground and proposed certain guidelines, including exclusion by self or by families. Further, in a study by two professors from the Creighton University, the impact of casinos was gauged using bankruptcy rates as a proxy for social ills in 250 counties in the US. This study compared counties pair-wise, one with and one without casino, with the pairing chosen to match the counties in other parameters as closely as possible. The results showed that the number of bankruptcies in those counties with

How do we do this, Sir? Many jurisdictions have gone down the road of the casinos. We can benefit from learning from them. This the Government has done, having sent many missions abroad. The proposed safeguards are some of the most thorough proposed.

Sir, let me touch on one exclusion to be implemented by the Government. The Government proposes to exclude everyone younger than 21 years old. The question is whether this age is the appropriate age. For instance, should it be higher?

Recently, I went to a parliamentary conference in Manila and met a young Singaporean working there. He was a former investment banker. He mentioned that, as a young man, he dabbled in casino gambling while a student in Australia and learnt through hard lessons not to take unnecessary risks in life. Sir, he was the lucky one. Many of his friends from the gambling circle in those days were not so fortunate. Some have gotten into so much debt that they simply disappeared. Others dropped out of school and were deported out of Australia. Still, others got into organised crimes. He estimated that out of 10 persons he knew who got involved in gambling, only three managed to graduate or to move on in life. Thus, the cost is very high. He believes that while gambling does make one sharper and gives one an edge, it takes a lot of discipline and self-control to be able to cut loss.

Many young people have a bravado in them and cannot bear to lose. They do not have a good understanding of the theory of probability and even have little self-control. Thus, he believes that it is vital that the younger generation of Singaporeans be educated on the perils and pitfalls of gambling. From his experience, he feels that the age limit should be higher, say, 26 or 27.

Sir, now that the decision has been made, we have to make the best of it. STB has conducted a preview of the IR proposals to the MPs. I am confident that when the winner entries are announced, Singaporeans will also come round to support the establishment of the IRs.

Hopefully, by 2010, when the casinos have been in operation for one year, we will be in a happier situation when we conduct a review of the casinos.

Why do I say that? A study done by the Problem Gambling Research Group of the Psychology Department at the University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada, in 1996, one year after the casino opened in the city, showed no statistically significant difference in either problem or pathological gambling levels. Furthermore, the casino approval rate increased from 54.2% of the population to 65.1% one year after they opened, with the disapproval rate decreasing from 30% to 18.6%. I hope Singapore will be in that happy situation then.

Sir, the decision to go ahead with two casinos must have been made on the assumption that we could manage the downside of social ills while benefiting from the upside of an economic boost of the IRs. The Prime Minister has stated that he would take ultimate and full responsibility for the decision. This burden is a heavy one. I urge all Singaporeans to close ranks and support the Government

casinos is double of those without. On the other hand, the study also disclosed that the cumulative rate of change in business bankruptcy rates in the casino counties was, on average, 35.4% lower than those in the non-casino counties. In a way, this study reinforced the economic benefits of casino for business and also the negative impact on the individuals. So we should guard against and try to have our cake and eat it as well.on this very difficult decision. I am confident, with proper safeguards and rigorous efforts by the Government and civic groups in inculcating the right value system, Singapore will be able to ride the crest of the tourism boom and yet remain immune to the ills of casino.

Resolved,

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

Debate resumed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the pot of porridge that was being cooked by the MTI Minister one month ago is now ready and is being served on the dining table. The Government said that certain medicine with special efficacy has been added to the porridge, and it can better fill our stomachs.

Notwithstanding the fact that this special medicine may cause some of our people to suffer diarrhoea, dehydration and even lose their lives, PM Lee said that for the collective interest of our people, even if they have objections, they have to swallow it and he will do what is necessary for the after-care.

For the last few months, Singaporeans, including the Workers' Party, who opposed this idea have expressed their concerns. All that needs to be said has already been said. The Government sought the opinion of the people but it does not go along with the opinion of the people and it has now

When the Government announced this decision, it tried to package it and had brought forward some specious arguments. First, the Government said that the casino is only a small portion of the integrated resort. We cannot reject the IR just because of this casino component, considering that the IR is the trump card in the development of tourism. This is just an attempt to divert the people's attention. If the IR is the most important part, then why do we not just have an integrated resort? If it is said that building an integrated resort without a casino is not feasible, then the key consideration is really on the casino. In other words, the investors' real interest is in the casino that can bring huge profits to them. So long as the Government allows them to build the casino, it will have an integrated resort to boost tourism without having to pay a single cent.

However, the PAP Government, which has never allowed its people to have free lunches, should know very clearly that nothing can come so cheap and easy to them. If you allow them to build a casino, you have to pay a social cost and the Government is prepared to pay the cost, allowing our people to suffer the damages that may be brought about by the casino. On the other hand, the Government will just sit back and reap the harvest without having to pay a single cent and yet have this integrated resort to boost its tourism.

Secondly, the Government said the problem that can be brought about by the casino is not a big one. We have not seen the problem, but the Government is already saying that the problem is not great. The Government bases its premise on a survey that shows only 2.1% of our people are problem gamblers. Furthermore, in any event, Singaporeans are already gambling. It is just that we do not

In 1999, a report by National Gambling Impact Study Commission, appointed by the United States Government, pointed out that within the radius of 50 miles, the number of pathological gamblers is double that of the national average. The Australian Productivity Commission also published a report in 1999 confirming that proximity of the casino to the residential areas has a direct effect on the rise of social problems relating to gambling.

Thirdly, the Government said that we will have adequate measures to mitigate the impact of gambling on our people. We all know that the PAP Government has all along been practising stern and serious governance, adopting the policy of having the family as a nucleus and advocating the Confucian traditional values in our society. Now they are allowing casinos. In future, if they are pressurised because of the changing environment, will the Government not relax the safeguards, citing pragmatic need and people's maturity as its rationale? Moreover, by that time, people are used to frequenting the casinos and accustomed to all the problems that are created by the casinos. They will accept the fact that this is a matter of course. This will indeed be lamentable!

A few days back, PM Lee's younger sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling wrote to the

No doubt this separation of the twins was a breakthrough in our medical sciences in Singapore and we have made a reputation in the world-wide medical fraternity. But the ultimate duty of a doctor is to safeguard the well-being of the patients. Judging from the suffering of the sisters and their family members, this surgery is really a mistake from the beginning. Analogically, a government has the responsibility to maintain good social character and value, and the people's well-being should be the ultimate consideration in deciding whether to go ahead with the casino project.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, who was then the CEO of the Singapore General Hospital, is now in the Cabinet which collectively made the decision to open the casinos. This casino decision is similar to that of separating the twins, the difference is that the sisters may leave this world soon if the procedure was not carried out, but are we saying that if we do not have a casino, our economy will collapse and that Singapore will have no future?

Just like the Singapore General Hospital has its own consideration at that

The Government has always emphasised that family unit should be the fundamental core to our society, thus it has been harsh in implementing policies such as barring single mothers from applying for HDB flats and negating homosexuality, etc. Then, why is the Government now taking this risk to open casinos in Singapore which could destroy thousands of families here?

Not long ago, I asked the Government to review its social safety net and enhance the welfare for our people, The Government said that it would erode our people's work ethics and bluntly brushed it aside. Would not the opening of the casino undermine the diligence of our people too?

The Government also argued that by having a casino, it will encourage our people to be responsible individually and enhance our maturity as a society. Again, the Government has abdicated its responsibility to safeguard good social character and value.

From all this inconsistent logic, we can see that the basic trait of this Government is one which will weigh economic profit above everything else.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are now being pushed into the surgical theatre although there is no life-threatening crisis, and we are even not given the right to

In 1997, Michael Belletire, the Chairman of the Illinois Gambling Effects Commission, concluded that the government should legislate to regulate the casino operators, and that such regulations should include the following:

Establish an independent agency to over-see the gambling industry, such as issuing of licence, promulgation of regulations, etc;

Control the expansion of the gambling industry, and strictly confine the casinos to certain localities;

Investigate into the political and financial background of the casino operators to ensure that they are proper;

Approve the list of casino management staff, and allow the regulator to investigate into their background;

Issue permits for suitable people to work at the casino;

Strictly ensure that the operators abide by the regulations laid down by the authority;

Empower the regulator to conduct surprise raids on the premises;

Punish and indict anyone who violates the regulations;

Supervise to ensure fair-play in the gambling process to protect the interest of the customers;

Require the operators to disclose the source of their capital; and

Carry out public education to prevent gamblers from being addicted. Counsel and help the addicts. This may include mandatory public education and counselling of the casino staff.

I think the Government should also look into the confession of Mr Chia Teck Leng, the former Financial Manager of Asia Pacific Breweries, who wrecked his future through compulsive gambling, and his suggestions based on his own painful experience.

Since the people are unable to stop the Government from opening the casino, what we can do now is to try our best to ensure that the Government will proceed with and complete the legislation to regulate the casino. Yesterday, the Minister for Home Affairs said that the Government would set up a supervisory agency to oversee the operation of the casino. Why not legislate in Parliament instead of administrative supervision? Is it because the Government wants to make it easier to amend the rules, whenever necessary, without having to come to Parliament to publicly justify any amendment in the future?

PM Lee said that in order to be an outstanding cosmopolitan city, we need to have the X-factor. Now that we have decided to open the casino, maybe allowing casinos is the X-factor we need to make ourselves a cosmopolitan city. Now I understand that gambling for everyone is the X-factor.

Over the past one year, our people have been very active and vocal in giving their views on the opening of the casino in a so-called consultative exercise initiated by the Government. Now a full-stop has been inserted to end all the discussions. We should pause to reflect

made a unilateral decision. Eventually, will it turn out to be a blessing or a curse to our people? We have to wait and see. have a casino here yet. The logic is that since they are gambling, whether they gamble at the casino or at the betting station or the Turf Club, there is no difference. If we use the same logic, then since our people are smoking, we should also allow the people to take drugs and legalise it. We all know that there is a great difference in the attraction, excitement and the thrill between buying lottery and gambling in the casino, just as smoking and taking drugs are two different matters altogether. Straits Times' Forum page. She openly criticised the so-called "successful" surgery carried out in the Singapore General Hospital in 2001 to separate a pair of Nepalese Siamese twins and said that it was indeed a mistake. This could serve as a useful reference in the casino case. The sisters are now five years old. One became a vegetable and the other has yet to walk. The grandfather of the sisters said that their future is very bleak. Dr Lee felt that at that time, had we allowed the sisters to pass away naturally, the family would be better off. They could have gone along to have more healthy children and live a normal life without having to go into the predicament they suffer today. time, but ultimately, the risk was undertaken by the patients. Would the economic benefit that is going to be brought about by the casino in the long term cover the social costs? We cannot tell. The Government would have no control over it. In order to attract more tourists, more budget surpluses, the Government is leading our people into taking this risky path. Do we have no other alternative but to open a casino, without which we would have to just sit still and wait for the end of our day?sign a consent form, forced to undergo a surgical operation which shows no definite long term benefit but high risks. We try hard to struggle but failed to escape. The only thing we could do now is to take care of the aftercare work and mitigate the adverse effect of gambling on our people. We should actually learn from other countries. on this consultative exercise. Under the current situation, where a party is dominant and the civil society is very weak, the people cannot sway the Government's decision on such a matter that concerns the fate of the people. If the Government's judgment is wrong, it would lead the nation and our people on to the "river of no return", where the cost would be very real and very heavy.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr Low Thia Khiang mentioned that Minister Lim Hng Kiang's porridge was ready to be served, but it may cause some people to have diarrhoea. I know Mr Low is a Teochew and he has been so for many decades. Minister Lim is also a Teochew. So am I. Teochew people love porridge, and we all know that porridge does not cause diarrhoea.

There are different types of porridge. There is one type which is more watery. After taking it, you may have to go to the toilet more often - to pass water, but you would not have diarrhoea. It is only when you take too much salted egg with the porridge that you may have diarrhoea. I think he must have forgotten. As a Teochew, he must have taken a lot of porridge. He should know better.

Mr Low alleged that when the Government was talking about the integrated resorts, it was trying to divert the people's attention. This morning I attended an interview at the TV station and they were asking me why the Government did not mention about the integrated resorts right from the beginning, and all the time the Government has talked about the casino without any reference to the integrated resorts. I told them that this was because the Government is very concerned with the people's feelings on the casino component while realising that in other

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I remember when I was young, there was a hawker selling duck rice in my neighbourhood. On one occasion, I saw a resident buying duck rice from him. He paid 30 cents for a drumstick and was offered a chance to play the dice against the seller. He won, and had the drumstick for free. The hawker was not happy and he urged the resident to play once more. The resident played on and won two drumsticks instead of one. Eager to recover his loss, he asked the resident to stake his two drumsticks for half a duck in another round of dice-throwing. Again, the resident won. Desperate to win back his day's earnings, the hawker challenged the resident to go for a final round, double or quits. The resident obliged and ended up winning the whole duck. A big crowd gathered, and was treated to a free meal of duck meat. The hawker lost his duck and did not know what to tell his wife when he went home. I felt sorry for the poor hawker. Should this happen every day, the hawker would not have the money to maintain his family and pay for his children's education.

Recently, I met the son of this duck rice seller, and he is none other than the Chairman of Koh Brothers. There was a function where a number of property developers gathered. This Chairman of

More than 20 years ago when I was an interpreter in the courts, every Monday was always the busiest day of the week, because over the weekend, the gamblers, illegal bookies, 4-D collectors, would be arrested and charged in court on Monday morning. Most of the accused persons were Chinese. That is why there is this saying that out of 10 Chinese, nine are gamblers. The one who is not gambling is a reserve. It may be a bit exaggerated but if you go to the casino in Macau you will see that this saying is not far from the truth.

I went to the Lisboa Casino in Macau and it was crowded. A man was asking why his friend did not come into the casino. His friend answered that he could not squeeze himself in. This was the situation.

We cannot prevent the people from gambling. When I was a reporter, I received a call one day that there were a lot of people gambling at the Lim Tua Tow market. I went to investigate and to my amazement they were gambling on whether the digits on the number plate of the next vehicle turning into the lane were an odd number or an even number. There was a huge following. Another group was betting on whether the next person to walk up the slope would be a male or a female. That is the Chinese community. That is their culture. I think we have to face the reality. We cannot avoid it. It happens everywhere. It happens in Singapore, it also happens in Hougang, in fact, everywhere. But we know how to tackle the problem.

Has Mr Low Thia Khiang forgotten that a lot of Singaporeans go to Genting,

When PM Lee announced that Singapore would build two integrated resorts, many heartlanders were concerned that the casinos may have adverse effects on our people. The fact remains that those who want to gamble would have gambled anyway. They may not rush to the casinos here because they have to pay $100 each to get in. They can go to Batam because the ferry ticket is cheaper. For those big timers, they would not want the Government to know that they are gamblers. They would have gone to other countries. We want to attract the foreigners. So if we want to do it, we have to do it well. We want to attract tourists from all over the world. We want to have a world-class casino and we want to attract the big gamblers from other countries to come here.

In fact, generally, the people have three types of views on PM's announcement to allow the opening of casinos in Singapore.

First, since it is such a big project, would it succeed? Would it be successful? A lot of people feel that they have not seen these projects. As Members of Parliament, we are very fortunate. We were invited by the Singapore Tourism Board to see the master plan of this project. Mr Low Thia Khiang was standing beside me. His eyes were wide-open. He was shocked to find that the project was so huge, and although he did not ask many questions then, I am sure he was very surprised that the project was so huge. Eventually, when we decide on the developer, we should announce this plan to all the people so that they will know what it is.

Thirdly, there are concerns that the safeguard measures proposed by the Government may not be adequate. I think this is a matter of personal opinion. Of course, over time, these measures may need to be adjusted. The people can be rest assured that the opening of the casino will not result in many broken homes.

Whether you are a big-time gambler or a small-timer, you need to have chips to gamble. Just now, Minister Mentor said that our chips are that we have political stability, transparency and a relatively drug-free environment. Our crime rate is low, and we have no laundering here. When foreign investors come here, they also need to have the chips, and they come with $5 billion worth of investment. They know that Singapore is a good place to invest in. I believe that when the other cities announce such a plan, they would not attract so many proposals. In Singapore, we attracted 19 proposals.

PM Lee said that some people had commented that our water was so clear that there was no fish in it. But these big-time investors do not come here to fish in muddy waters. They come well prepared and well informed. I think we should all work together to make the integrated resorts a great success.

parts of the world a casino is needed to support the integrated resort. The Government is looking squarely at the subject and is not trying to divert the attention of the people. Mr Low also said that the Government was playing down the problems arising from the opening of the casino by claiming that the problem would not be too great. His allegation is not true because the Government has openly told the people about all the anticipated problems, and has announced the results of the survey on the effect of gambling on the people's life. It is left to the people to decide whether they want to gamble or not.Koh Brothers pointed at the map and said, "Look at this piece of land. They are going to develop a casino there. My father used to gamble so much that he lost almost everything. If you are a compulsive gambler, you may lose everything.�? on cruise-to-nowhere or to the casino in Batam? Not long ago, PM Lee said that Mr Wong Kan Seng accidentally went to the Batam casino. Mr Wong Kan Seng is a famous person. I am not. But when I went in, I would hear some people saying, "Ah, the MP from Ang Mo Kio is here". So there are a lot of Singaporeans there. Secondly, some people are sceptical about the 35,000 job opportunities. Would there be any chance of Singaporeans taking the jobs or would they go to foreigners? I think we have to give the assurance to our people and to convince them that serving in the service industry is also a good option. We should put more priority on it and let our Singaporeans know that the service industry can pay them better and offer them better working conditions. Also, in other countries, even if they have the proposals, they may not be of such a huge magnitude. But as Minister Mentor has said, they are investors, not gamblers. They have made very careful calculations and made informed decisions.

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-six

Minutes to Seven o'clock pm.

asked the Minister for Transport in view of LTA's announcment that foreign vehicles can enter Singapore free of charge during weekdays from 5.00 pm onwards (a) whether his Ministry has monitored the traffic conditions to determine if these foreign vehicles have resulted in a surge of traffic entering Singapore and (b) whether this surge of foreign vehicles have caused traffic congestion during the peak hours between 5.00 pm and 7.00 pm, when many people are travelling home from work.

I would like to assure Assoc. Prof. Ong that my Ministry has been monitoring the traffic conditions. Prior to the implementation of the change in the VEP operating hours, LTA had conducted a trial in January 2005 to test the impact of reducing the VEP operating hours on Fridays. During the trial, it was found that traffic conditions had remained satisfactory. There was no impact on traffic on the major expressways and roads near the checkpoints and within the Central Business District.

Given the positive results from the trial, LTA and the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) jointly announced the early lifting of the requirement to pay VEP charges from 5.00 pm instead of 7.00 pm on weekdays, with effect from 4th February 2005.

Since its implementation, LTA has continued to monitor the traffic conditions. To-date, the LTA has not observed any adverse impact on traffic conditions at the checkpoints and on roads in Singapore, despite some increase in the arrival of foreign vehicles. The daily arrival of foreign registered cars has increased by about 13% from 4,800 for a typical week prior to the implementation of the changes to the VEP scheme to 5,500. In fact, the early lifting of VEP from 5.00 pm has helped to spread out the peak traffic inflows at the checkpoints from the post 7.00 pm peak to the new 5.00-7.00 pm VEP-free time slot when traffic is less congested in Singapore.

While we have not noticed any adverse effect on traffic conditions in Singapore, the LTA will continue to monitor the situation and make changes to the scheme if necessary.

asked the Minister for Transport since it has been revealed that the four main taxi operators have failed their safety standards, (a) what are the root causes of these low safety standards; (b) is there an oversupply of taxis leading to a drop in the safety standards; (c) what are the measures to raise the safety standards of our taxi operators; and (d) will there be tougher control of taxis for parking haphazardly, misusing hazard lights, and making emergency stops to drop and pick up passengers.

The current accident rate standard is based on the number of accidents involving taxis that result in injury or fatality per 10 million km travelled. The traffic accident statistics over the past 5 years show that the accident rate deteriorated from 1.9 in both 1999

There are many possible reasons for the deterioration of the road safety performance of taxis from 2001 to 2004. The main cause of road accidents, according to the Traffic Police, is a disregard of road safety rules by one or both parties involved in the accident. There is no clear evidence that the increase in taxi supply has contributed to the corresponding fall in the road safety performance of taxis. For example, the accident rates in 2002 and 2003 were higher than in 2004 even though the taxi population was smaller in those years.

To improve taxi safety standards, a multi-pronged approach has been undertaken. Besides the penalty framework of the Taxi Operating Licence, in which taxi companies are fined for failure to meet safety standards, the taxi companies have implemented various initiatives to encourage safe driving. For example, most of the taxi companies provide incentives to taxi drivers with good driving records and penalise the unsafe drivers. SMRT Taxis has recently launched a safety campaign which encourages taxi drivers to inform the company of safe and unsafe driving habits of fellow colleagues.

LTA is also setting aside a seed fund of $100,000 for the Singapore Taxi Academy (STA) to set up a safety training course for taxi drivers who have poor safety records. The Academy will develop the training course with the Traffic Police, driving centres and taxi companies to raise the safety standards of the industry.

On whether there are adequate checks against errant taxi drivers, there are already stringent regulations and frameworks in force to govern the conduct of taxi drivers. Like all motorists, taxi drivers are required to abide by all traffic regulations.

In addition, taxi drivers are subject to fines and given demerit points if they breach the rules of conduct under the Vocational Licence Points System (VLPS) for taxi drivers. Under the VLPS, taxi drivers can be fined for offences such as dropping off a passenger at an unauthorised place. Customer complaints against taxi drivers are also investigated and relevant disciplinary action taken to ensure that taxi drivers maintain good and safe driving habits.

LTA will continue to monitor the accident rate situation closely with the Traffic Police and work with the taxi companies and the STA put in place measures that can help taxi drivers improve safety standards.

and 2000 to 2.7 in 2002 and then 3.1 in 2003. With the enforcement of the accident rate performance standard under the Taxi Operator Licence regime in June 2003, the accident rate improved - going down to 2.6 in the year 2004. However, it is still not up to par with the accident rate standard of no more than 2 accidents per 10 million km travelled.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the awarded tender price of $279 million by Chip Eng Seng for the 1,848 units of the Pinnacle@Duxton project translates to a construction cost of around $151,000 per HDB unit; (b) whether the average selling price of $380,000 per unit will translate to a sizeable profit of more than $100,000 per unit for the Ministry (after taking into consideration land cost) and, if not (c) what is the actual breakdown of the Government profit or subsidy on the cost of each unit.

The reply to (a) is no, as the tender price does not include other construction-related costs, such as consultancy and project management fees and financing costs.

The answer to (b) is also no, because like all flats sold by HDB, the flats at The Pinnacle@Duxton were sold below their market value. The difference between what buyers paid HDB for their flats and the market value of the flats is the market subsidy provided by HDB.

As for (c), HDB flats are priced according to affordability considerations, rather than based on costs. As such, HDB does not compare its costs and sale proceeds on a project-by-project basis.

asked the Minister for Health whether (i) there is a rising trend of hand, foot and mouth disease among young children over the last 24 months; and (ii) his Ministry will make known to the public (through the media, onsite location or websites) the location, date and time when the disease last occurred.

In the past three years, the average weekly notifications of hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) among children aged six years and below have varied from 273 cases in 2002, to 92 cases in 2003 and 106 cases in 2004. This year, the weekly average has gone from 163 cases in January to 180 cases in February and 382 cases in March. For the first week of April, the number has declined slightly to 347.

HFMD is generally a mild and self-limiting childhood disease. Most of the cases reported so far had mild illness, requiring only outpatient treatment. The virus that caused the HFMD-related deaths in 2000 and 2001, Enterovirus 71 (EV 71), has not been detected in the HFMD cases this year.

MOH works closely with MCYS, MOE and NEA in the prevention and control of HFMD in childcare centres, preschools and kindergartens. The measures undertaken include the enforcement of high standards of personal and environmental hygiene, and the early identification and isolation of infected children. In the affected childcare centres, notices of HFMD outbreaks will be posted and parents would be informed via letters. MOH also provides weekly epidemiological updates to the public on its website at: http://www.moh.gov.sg/corp/publications/idbulletin.