Hansard, 2005-04-21

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) Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang 06 May 10 May 07 Jun 27 Jun Dr Warren Lee 08 Jun 14 Jun 15 Jun 19 Jun 29 Aug 04 Sep 24 Sep 28 Sep 22 Oct 26 Oct

CHEW HENG CHING Deputy Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on item No. 1 in the Order Paper for today be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 48(3) to enable the Ministers who have spoken, to speak again in this debate. This will allow

the Ministers to respond to the questions raised by Members.

I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of Members to so move?

indicated assent.

Resolved,

That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the proceedings on item No. 1 in the Order Paper for today be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 48(3) in respect of Ministers' speeches. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

1. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports what is the possibility of the introduction of a comprehensive incentive package for the middle-class, middle-income, middle-age working adults, especially singles, to look after their aged parents similar to the comprehensive marriage and procreation package for parents.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Singapore, the family is the cornerstone of support for the elderly. Family ties are strong. From the 2003 Survey on Social Attitudes of Singaporeans, 98% of Singaporeans felt that they had the duty to give financial support to their family members. 99% of Singaporeans also agreed that children should regularly spend time

with their elderly parents, and about 87% of the elderly in Singapore live with their families. These figures show a strong sense of filial piety, and a belief in family being the first line of support.

On its part, the Government puts in place various measures to help families take care of their elderly members. We serve as a facilitator, and provide support in a few ways: first, by introducing financial measures to alleviate the burden of caring for elderly parents; second, by working with the Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) to ensure adequate provision of services that elderly persons need; and, third, by providing various forms of support services for caregivers.

With regard to financial measures, the Government has focused its limited resources on the needy and low-income, rather than the middle-income. This is as it should be, as the needy are the ones who need help most. Nevertheless, the Government has also put in place various financial measures, such as tax relief and reduced foreign domestic worker levy to help relieve the load on families who care for their elderly members. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, in his Budget Speech, has announced more help for families in this aspect. Medisave top-ups will be given to all adult Singaporeans, the largest share of $350 going to senior citizens aged 60 and above. To help older Singaporeans save more for retirement, the Government will also top up the Central Provident Fund Special Accounts or Retirement Accounts of Singaporeans aged 50 and above by $100. Foreign domestic worker levy has also been further reduced to $200 if the employer or spouse is a Singaporean aged 60 and above. This lower levy is also available to families with a Singaporean parent, parent-in-law, grandparent or grandparent-in-law aged 65 and above staying in the same household.

Financial measures aside, a comprehensive range of eldercare services is important in enabling the elderly to age in

place. By tapping on community-based eldercare facilities, such as day care centres, home help and community case management services, the load on the caregivers will be lessened. My Ministry will continually review and improve eldercare services to meet the needs of the elderly and their families.

The Government is also mindful of the fact that family caregivers carry a heavy load in providing care for their elderly dependants, regardless of financial background, age and marital status. Many of them have to balance work and family responsibilities, besides providing care for the elderly. Some may be the sole caregiver for their elderly parents.

Caregivers need our support and attention. The TOUCH Caregiver Centre provides a one-stop source of information to meet caregiver needs. In addition to what is available, as mentioned in the Committee of Supply debate, my Ministry will pilot a caregiver support programme. This provides for 10 care coordinators to be located at eldercare facilities across the island to support family caregivers in their caregiving role. Also, the Ministry of Manpower has set aside $10 million for initiatives that help companies develop family-friendly practices, including flexible working hours.

Various forms of support schemes and programmes are therefore already in place to help families in their care responsibilities. Going forward, the Government will continue to monitor and enhance our support for caregivers of elderly members.

Sir, I am glad that the Ministry has a range of eldercare support services, schemes and programmes. However, there are many people and the general public who do not know. I would like to know whether the Ministry has additional publicity effort to make all these schemes known to the general public.

I totally agree with Prof. Ong. My Ministry will work together with the CDCs, CCCs, grassroots organisations and VWOs to try to disseminate this information.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether the Ministry will support a suggestion that exemption be granted, in terms of tax for the maid levy for families also, to single women taking care of aged parents. Because they also actually need a maid to help them take care of their families.

Sir, I think singles can take advantage of the lower foreign maid levy available to families which have a Singaporean parent, parent-in-law, grandparent and grandparent-in-law aged 65 years and above staying in the same household.

Sir, I am aware of that. What I am asking is about the tax relief.

Yes, singles can also enjoy the parents' tax relief for the maintenance of one's parents, parents-in-law, grandparents, great grandparents as long as they qualify under the IRAS conditions. So the tax relief also applies to the singles.

The Minister has misunderstood my question. Is the maid levy tax relief applicable to singles?

Yes, I mentioned that singles are also entitled. The Government has reduced the maid levy to $200, and as long as the parents, grandparents or great grandparents stay in the same household, whether you are a single or married person, you will get the same entitlement.

I am talking about the tax relief. Currently, if a

married woman has a maid, she gets double the maid levy, in terms of the tax relief. But this is not available to the singles.

It is only the maid levy, not the tax relief. The tax relief is for them to stay together and they are entitled to that.

The question is: will the Ministry support the request for tax exemption for singles who are taking care of aged parents and who have a maid?

Order. Mdm Halimah Yacob, can you pose your question and let the Minister of State reply?

I mentioned just now that the Ministry will always look into various ways and means to help the families to take care of the elderly. Because we believe that the family is the first line of support instead of institutional care. Therefore, I am sure the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Health and my Ministry will always look into ways and means to help. But at this moment, they are not entitled to that.

I know they are not entitled to that. But as the Ministry responsible for looking at all these issues holistically, would it be prepared to make that recommendation to the relevant Ministries to support the same benefit to be extended to single women?

As I explained just now, actually the Ministry has carried out a lot of measures to help the family take care of the elderly, like home help, befriender and eldercare daycare centres, neighbourhood link, and so on. The budget, together with MOH, is about $98 million for financial year 2005 which is an increase of about 4% or 5% every year. So the Ministry will definitely work

together with the people sector, the families and the communities to do whatever we can. There is an inter-ministry committee, which looks into these various ageing issues. It is chaired by Dr Balaji and my Parliamentary Secretary, Dr Maliki. I am sure they will take all the suggestions into consideration and they will release the report at the end of this year.

2. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Education in view of the strong cultural bias towards students in a certain stream after the streaming in primary school, how will the Ministry make streaming passive so that it does not stress the students and their parents.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, streaming in schools is a practical approach to help students with different abilities and learning styles so that they can develop as best as they can. We do this for the best interest of the children.

There are some students in each cohort who are unable to cope with the regular primary school curriculum, despite the best efforts of the teacher and student. They benefit from taking a simpler curriculum, which helps them sustain an interest in learning instead of failing repeatedly in their subjects.

Parents whose children are in the EM3 stream, which I presume is what Prof. Ong is referring to, have the choice of putting their children in the regular Primary 5 curriculum as well as EM3. They choose to have their children in the EM3 stream because they believe that it benefits them.

We are introducing greater flexibility into the streaming system where it is practical and educationally beneficial to do

so. EM3 students who are strong in their mother-tongue can now offer Mother Tongue Language, instead of Basic Mother Tongue Language. In addition, schools are taking a more flexible approach to see how they can deliver the EM3 curriculum. EM3 students nowadays join the same class as their peers for specific subjects where there is educational benefit in doing so. In fact, just a few days ago, I believe that in Zaobao, there was a report of how the two groups of students are working together and enjoying each other's company. This is similar to the way the schools are banding students in the regular classes according to their strengths and weaknesses in specific subjects. So I believe issues, like cultural bias, and so on, should not arise with such flexible approaches.

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.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, many Singaporeans, who feel strongly against the casino, have voiced the view that the IR is a camouflage for the casino. Like many of these Singaporeans, I too had my initial objections to the idea of a casino in Singapore because of my religious convictions.

I may not have direct experience with the negative impact of gambling. I grew up observing the bonding effects that mahjong games and "si sek" (the 4-colour cards) have on family members and relatives of a close friend. I remember vividly how my close friend's family look forward to every weekend, where her mother would be doing major cooking and

baking for her children, in-laws, grandchildren and close friends who would gather at her home for mahjong gaming first thing in the morning on weekends. Whoever was the winner at the end of the day would pay for the food. There was monetary transaction in all these games, although the stakes were small.

Sir, from this perspective, the game of mahjong was a vehicle in bringing the family members to spend time together. Nonetheless, if gambling arises out of greed to enrich oneself and the whole mind is consumed by this indulgence then we are in trouble! In one feedback session with professionals, housewives and retirees

who voiced strongly on the social ills of casino gambling, I was awakened by the stories of how gambling has caused so much agony to families. I can empathise with those who feel strongly against gambling of sorts and I respect their viewpoints. However, taking a more in-depth approach into the subject matter, I began to develop a better understanding of the rationale for the IR in Singapore.

Whilst I still have my own personal convictions about the ills of gambling, I have shifted my paradigm to accept the economic rationale for the set up of an IR. It is not about the casino in the IR. But in wanting to remake Singapore into a global city, we simply cannot remain as a cultural and economic backwater. As spoken by many of my parliamentary colleagues, neither do we have a good reason to reject the potential 35,000 jobs that can fill the 35,000 empty stomachs.

I had an interesting conversation two evenings ago with an old grassroots leader on this recent debate. This gentleman, who is about 70 years old, grew up in a farm and plantation in old Jurong with his extended two-generation family members. He told me that the re-making of Singapore and the change that we are going through now is very similar to what he experienced in the early

1960s. He related the strong kampong opposition in old Jurong in the early 60s when the Government started its re-settlement programme to re-house kampong dwellers to high-rise flats. These farmers felt dislodged from the comforts of their kampong life and resented being pigeon-holed in the high-rise public housing. There were outcries that big families were being separated by this resettlement programme which would lead to erosion of extended family ties, "gotong-royong" spirit and, instead, nurturing of self-centredness and selfishness because the family nucleus was now much smaller and the pigeon-holed dwelling encouraged each to keep to his own.

There was also a need to retrain themselves for other vocations as they could no longer do farming. Other laments included the ills of living in high-rise flats as they provided convenient suicide platforms for people to jump down. This reminds me of a remark my parliamentary colleague Gan Kim Yong made to me during the recent Budget debate. He asked me how I would feel and face the family members whose breadwinner had jumped down due to gambling debts and also if this family happened to be my constituents. Extending Gan Kim Yong's question further, this question should also be posed to the decision-makers who made the decision to build high-rise flats in the 60s in Singapore. In this analogy, high-rise flats have made it easy for suicidal individuals to end their life! Sir, there will be no end as to who is to be blamed for one's final fate.

The casino debate is also being debated among my three children. My 12-year-old daughter, in her pure innocence, uttered, "So bad! How can we allow for gambling in Singapore?" Her two elder brothers responded, "There may

be gambling in Singapore but you are in control of yourself and you have a choice not to join in."

Sir, all indulgences can lead to positive or negative outcomes, depending on our purposes and on how we balance ourselves at the end of the day. This requires self-responsibility and discipline which we owe to ourselves to cultivate. The story that my grassroots leader related is very similar to the transition that we are going through today with the decision to go ahead with the IR. In the early days, it was resettlement that caused uprooting of livelihood, followed by industrialisation, that led to outcries against pollution. Singapore then had to remake itself in order to survive. The outcry todate is that we should remove all undesirable activities from our people and insulate them. Just like in the 60s, Singaporeans were not too sure then, whether we would make it, in the remaking. But we did.

Sir, Singapore has proven time and time again that it can survive against the odds. Surely we cannot be saying that the social and moral fabric of our nation is so flimsy that the introduction of the IRs is going to cause it to disintegrate. I think not. We are made of stronger stuff. It can be a heart-rending decision for many religious individuals when it comes to having to make a choice on matters of the secular world. But we have to look at the big picture and take a discerning and practical step to do what is best for the future viability of our country. The fundamental point really is for us to be able to continue to upkeep our moral values and exercise self-responsibility and vigilance. Yet at the same time, we must be realistic and understand the need to do what is right for the viability of the country. We will continue to have problems, but we must seek and evolve solutions on our own over time.

Opposition MP Chiam See Tong has said that once we officially plant the seed

of gambling in our soil, it is a question of time that it will grow and spread in our land. My rejoinder is that unless we neglect the regular pruning, our growers will ensure that these plants will be properly cropped and contained and will be the pride of our garden. I am sure that the IR will have to evolve to an icon that we can be proud of.

Often, I meet people and when I tell them that I am from Singapore, they say, "Oh, yes, Singapore, nice airport." Because they do not get beyond Changi Airport. Too often, Singapore is seen as a 24-hour stopover enroute to other cities. We need to change that. We need to cultivate, as the Prime Minister referred to, the X factor. But we also need to cultivate the "wow factor" and the "zap factor". In fact, convention organisers have been lamenting that they often are at a blank as to what else to offer to the top-notch business leaders visiting Singapore. We do not just need to remake Singapore; we need a complete makeover for Singapore! At these crossroads, we have to look for new engines of growth for the economy. Whilst China is now becoming the "factory of the world" and India, the "world's back office", Singapore should remake itself into a global service entertainment hub.

I am of the view that the IRs will not make gambling any more or less prevalent, provided proper regulations and safeguards are put in place. I am comforted by the announcements by MCYS, MHA and MOH of the frameworks that will be put in place to mitigate the social ills and possible abuses that will be posed by the IRs.

Drawing on research from overseas, experience shows that legalising casinos can actually minimise gambling-related problems, because the methods for controlling and treating gambling addictions are developed and well enforced. Often, gambling related problems arise in

societies where gambling is prohibited because it is only too easy to assume that the problem does not exist. What is important is that we have to continuously ensure that the industry will be transparent and strictly regulated by the Government. The IRs will be a clean and well-run business. Singapore's strong governance will ensure that any IR is run like a corporation, hence minimising potential social ills. Also, with our infrastructure and fine-tuned regulatory system, we are likely to attract tenders from only the most professional of IR operations.

One question that arises is how will the Government balance the interests of investors with those of the public. Other countries, including US and Australia, have gaming commissions to regulate the gaming industry. They also have the power to impose penalties if the casino contravenes those regulations. Have we given sufficient thought as to how we will impose and enforce similar controls in Singapore? As hon. Member Mr Tan Soo Khoon observed, the $100 levy may not be sufficient to deter the hardened gamblers. This is why I think we need to distinguish between two categories of casino users.

Firstly, those people who have the occasional flutter but could otherwise conceivably develop an addiction and, secondly, the hardened gamblers. As far as the latter is concerned, disincentives are not necessarily going to wean them away from their addiction. But, then again, nor is the presence or the absence of a casino in Singapore. We need to have in place different strategies to deal with each of these types of casino users.

The revenue from the levies and other forms of funds that may be invested to develop the national framework for public education, as well as to help with gambling addicts, must be put to good use. What NMP Mr Steve Chia has

suggested with regard to supporting the families of the gambling addicts is a sure way of breeding more gambling addicts. Sir, we must ensure that these monies would not be utilised to support a crutch mentality amongst the indulgents and cause them to be irresponsible to their family members. Whilst we need to provide support to the family members of gambling addicts, we must never end up dishing easy money or else it would only fuel their irresponsibility towards their family members. The monies would be better utilised for public education on the ills of gambling and for establishing safeguards for monitoring and auditing of operational practices and processes so as to ensure that we close all the loopholes.

At this point, I would also like to ask the Government whether there has been any survey carried out to determine the average amount spent per person on legalised bets, jackpot machines, Big Sweep, Toto, 4-D and football bets. It is important that we develop and maintain key economic and social statistics so as to monitor the economic benefits and social costs of gambling in Singapore. This will enable us to better address our future strategies in managing the IR industry.

Sir, the IR would be a boost to job creation and our GDP. Indeed, there will be many types of primary jobs that would be created by the development of the IRs. These jobs will range from security guards and croupiers to executives and managers and other professionals. The spin-off jobs would likely be generated in the SMEs because of the economic multiplier effect. This is largely because IRs source many of their services from SME firms.

An issue that has been raised by many Singaporeans is whether there will be sufficient high-end jobs for Singaporeans. Sir, the high-end jobs are likely to be filled by foreigners in view of the fact that

Singapore lacks expertise within the areas of IR and gaming management. However, these skills are transferable and should be taught to Singaporeans sooner. Will the Singapore Government be setting any timeline for these skills to be transferred to Singaporeans? It is important that the selected IR operators will partner the Singapore Government and other training providers in Singapore to train Singaporeans for these jobs. In this, Sentosa Tourism Academy should reach out to the training providers in Singapore and provide the "Train-a-Trainer" kits, so that we will at the same time ensure that there will be sufficient well-equipped and competent training providers in Singapore to train service providers in people skills and managing human resources skills for this sector. I can envisage a vibrant training industry in this sector evolving.

Sir, at the same time, we must also face the challenge of changing the paradigm of Singaporeans with respect to employment within the IR and casino, especially among those who strongly object to the casino. Here, mindset training is crucial, and we should tap on the established training providers on mindset training to partner Sentosa Training Academy on this aspect of training. My worry is that we can bring the horse to the water, but the horse may not drink it and, if this were so, from structural unemployment, we may now be faced with "mindset unemployment" arising from religious and moral objections to working in the IRs with casinos.

In the light of the thousands of jobs that will be created, either directly or indirectly, the issue, as far as many Singaporeans are concerned, is how many unemployed Singaporeans, including retirees, would be able to find employment in this industry. I hope that, at some point, more information will be shared on how the unemployed, including retirees, can be retrained for some of the jobs in the IRs. One segment of the retail line that would be suitable for retirees

would be souvenir shops in the IRs. I propose that a task force be formed to explore further how we can engage retirees who are still strong and healthy for vocations in the retail line in the IRs.

In conclusion, Sir, the debate on the casino in the IRs over these last few months has provided Singapore with a mirror to reflect on what it must do in going forward. It is just like an ageing individual or, if you like, a maturing individual looking into the mirror and realising, "I am not looking fresh and attractive anymore." Here, these two individuals have two choices.

One is to let it be and age graciously and fade away. I remember my maternal grandmother who, according to my mother, started to don black trousers and blue samfoo and bundled her hair when she turned 40, because that was the right thing to do for somebody who was brought up in a very closed and traditional family. When she was 70, she would tell her visitors that she was waiting to die, even though she was in the pink of health. Finally, she died at the age of 90. She was an old grand lady who refused to change with time, and took pride in that. And for a good 50 years, she bowed prematurely to the twilight years of life and without much excitement.

The second choice is to change the hairstyle, colour the lips and cheeks a little bit, so that the individual continues to look fresh and re-energised and send a signal that life is still young and exciting. But that does not mean that we have loose moral values. Sir, the point is that being seasoned does not mean becoming obsolete. Being seasoned can mean growing and venturing. Author T S Eliot said, "Old man [and I qualify, it includes women too] ought to be explorers."

Sir, in going forward, Singapore should have a blast in remaking itself. At the grassroots level, it is such a paradigm

shift that has made line dancing so popular amongst the senior citizens in community centres today and has given the senior citizens a rejuvenation of not only their hopes and their dreams, but their physical and mental well-being. Surely, Sir, Singapore must choose the second choice.

On this note, I urge that we move on and give our

support to the Prime Minister who will have to shoulder this responsibility of remaking Singapore with a blast in having two IRs.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the casino debate has been a very difficult issue that has given me much grey hair.

To be or not to be, that is the question. To put the issue upfront, I am not for gambling. I know of enough gamblers that put their families through turmoils to convince that gambling traps those who cannot discipline themselves and traps their families and friends along with their habit as well. And for the pathological gamblers, it is all of the bad and none of the good.

In my entire life, I think I gambled four times. One was betting on a 4-D out of good fun at a retreat. The number came out but in reverse order. I lost $2. Another was in Las Vegas while I waited for a group of friends who had been delayed last minute. I have been to Las Vegas and casinos many times but never gambled. I have observed casino operations and the punters throughout these visits, but never quite felt the urge to punt. But that time, as I had time to kill, I decided to change US$5 into coins for the one-arm bandits (jackpot machines) just to understand what sets punters' hearts racing and also to keep myself occupied.

I was on the nickel machines, winning about five cents. I kept winning, and losing and winning again. After about

half an hour, I still had money left. Much as I tried, it was not easy to get rid of the US$5 on the nickel machines. It was a little bit boring for me. I got tired and gave up with a nickel and dimes left from the US$5.

The third and fourth time was at the Turf Club during charity races. I was invited in my capacity as Treasurer of the Equestrian Federation of Singapore and at both charity races, President Nathan was the Guest-of-Honour. Betting on horse races was new to me and it was quite complicated. But as it was a charity race and everyone placed their bets, I did so too. During the first charity event, I bet on two races out of 10. I won one, lost the other, it was a net gain. During the second charity event, I understood the game a little better and I bet on four out of 10 of the races. Lady luck was smiling at me and miraculously, I actually won all four bets and collected quite a tidy sum, not bad at all.

But does that make me want to try again? It is a firm "no". Sir, I guess different folks, different strokes. While travelling off the beaten path, hitch-hiking, water sports and perhaps even extreme sports may set my adrenalin rushing, I felt nothing more than a smile at those wins. Of course, I bet small. I am also a timid gambler. I never believe in easy money nor gambling to wealth. There may be short-term wins, but I have never met a gambler who wins in the long term. Even in the movies like "qian wang zhi wang", "du shen", God of Gamblers or the Godfather, the protagonists never really wins, but suffered great tragedies instead. I believe in hard work and thrift and hence, whether the casino is on-shore or off-shore, whether I am in a casino or out of a casino, it makes no difference to my basic value system and make-up. I believe that there are many people like me who will not be negatively influenced by the existence of casinos.

Then there is also another group who will gamble anyway, if not here, in Batam, Genting, Macau, Las Vegas and somewhere in the cruise to nowhere. In fact, very soon, they will also be gambling in the virtual cyber-world. We need to help this group better manage themselves.

But the group that I am really concerned with is the in-between who may be attracted by the glitz and greed in the casino, who walk into a casino by chance and get hooked by the casino operator's design. Sir, nobody goes to a casino, expecting to lose money, but they end up losing. Most people only wanted to try their luck once or twice but they could not leave thereafter. This is, in fact, how Chia Teck Leng got hooked. Let me quote Chia:

"I started gambling in casinos in 1994. It started innocuously enough. I was simply passing time on board a cruise ship on a lazy afternoon. By pure chance, I had walked into its only casino, to be accosted by alluring colourful lights, attractive croupiers and the magical promise of easy money€¦ Just when I was wallowing in the glamour and triumph of my new found wealth, tragedy struck. I completely lost my footing. I made a goodbye tape in the event. At the point when I was arrested, I was purportedly the second biggest casino gambler in the world."

As we know, he cheated banks of $117 million and has been sentenced behind bars for 42 years.

I am sure that we will never endeavour a Singaporean to be the number one gambler in the world. The question is: how many Chia Teck Lengs will there be and how many mini-Chias can our society handle? If the gambling problem can be confined to himself or herself, then the problem is containable. The truth is that for every gambler, there is at least one family and a social network that is negatively affected.

According to the MCYS' survey, this may be translated to 2.1% or 55,000

gamblers. In other words, even without the casino, we have at least 55,000 affected families or at least 200,000 people or so negatively affected by the gambling ills. This is no small problem. What more with the casino next door operating 24/7 round the clock? Sir, one family affected is one family too many. There is cost on both the social front and the economic front that cannot be ignored.

Last Monday, a 60-year-old resident came to my MPS for the 19th time. Her plea: early withdrawal of her remaining CPF. Her reason: her son had borrowed from the loan sharks and has gone mad from the pressure. He is now, in fact, at the Institute of Mental Health. She is left to carry the burden of repayment and she sobs each time she comes. But over the 19 times that I hear her, I realised that much of the money owed were gambling debts - hers and her son's. Chances are that she is probably still at it.

I shiver to think what might happen to her and many others come 2009. More will come to ask for early withdrawal of CPF. More 55-year-olds who just withdraw their CPF money may also be found at the gambling tables and jackpot machines. This is worrisome as we already face a looming retirement funding issue. Yet, in every MPS, there are people who come to seek help to defer payment of arrears and ask for jobs. In fact, they make up the majority. For every gambling case, there are at least 15-20 cases of job-seekers and payment problems. With no job and many bills to pay, families face hardship and can be a social problem. That is the reality and the dilemma that we face.

Sir, when the debate first started, it looks like a case of economic value versus social values and appears to be a case of which value is more important to us as a society. Frankly, I would rather have a first-class society and live a simpler life

than a first-class economy with third class society.

Those who are against asked: what price economic development? Those who are pro said that gambling is already prevalent and we need to bring back some lost revenue and create more economic avenues at the same time. So who is right or wrong? Through this, no one is right or wrong. It is a judgement call which verdict can only be known in retrospect. What is certain, however, is that this is no easy or hasty decision but one that has been deliberated and decided on by tough minds and warm hearts, all working towards ensuring jobs for Singaporeans and a better living.

Obviously, without a robust economy and a face lift for the landscape of Singapore, many businesses would scout around the region for a lower cost hub that also boasts of good infrastructure and city buzz.

A robust economy and jobs for everyone is critical to Singapore's survival. We have positioned ourselves well in the region and international arena. But we are past the era of a sleepy neighbourhood. In fact, our nearest neighbours are already giving us a run for our money, as India and the China dragon awaken at the same time.

In the last two years, I met many young and successful entrepreneurs from the region who are part of the network called "The New Asian Leaders". They are all under 40 years old and run successful multi-million businesses. When asked if they have been to Singapore, they said "yes". When asked if they would think of expanding to Singapore, the majority said no. Singapore is not on their radar screen, whether for market size reasons, cost factors or competitive reasons. It got me worried.

For a long time, we are a preferred destination. But for this group who will

continue to grow and will become important movers and shakers in the new economy, Singapore is not on their radar screen. I think we need to seriously remake ourselves economically in order to keep our economy humming and bring jobs to the people. The IRs will bring a potential 35,000 jobs and indeed, like Mr Lim Boon Heng said, it is a number that is difficult to ignore.

As the debate progresses, I realise that there is more to the argument of economics versus social benefits equation that meets the eye. It is not just about which value we treasure more. It is about the tone that we want to set for the Singapore society at large. The tone we want to set for our society is in fact the issue that I grapple with a lot.

For decades, we have said no to casino because we do not want to change the ethos and values in our society, which is honest living through thrift and hard work. We wanted to protect our citizens from the negative influences of vices like organised crimes and gambling which erode our ethos. We make sure that they do not enter our shores. Hence, saying "no" to casino was a no-brainer.

Yet, on 18th April 2005, we relented and said "yes". Is it because this generation of leaders have met with unprecedented challenges and gone soft? Are we seeking the easy way out? Is the decision to reap easy profit based on pure economic reasons alone? Or is this what the majority of our people want? But are our people mature enough to decide on such issues which circumstances and information may not be available to them?

In retrospect, this is the critical point for the decision-making. And this is a critical difference between 40 years ago and now. Some 40-50 years ago, information was scarce and so was overseas

travel. Anything which was not on-shore almost had little or no influence on the lives and paradigms of our people. Then, people needed to focus on basic bread-and-butter and all that they know would have a high correlation of what the Government wanted them to know.

Today, the equation is different. There are cable TV, Internet and, of course, the frequent travels that expose Singaporeans to different people, lifestyles, priorities and viewpoints. The Government no longer has a monopoly on his mindset. If a desired lifestyle cannot be found here, many are educated enough and in sufficient demand in the region or the world to uproot and move with their feet.

In that sense, we must offer sufficient space for the individuals to dream their dreams and live the lives that they so desire. Indeed, Singapore and her people have matured well, especially in the last few years. The very challenging circumstances like the discovery of the Jemaah Islamiyah terrorist cell groups in Singapore, the once fiery water and cross-straits issues, SARS, bird flu and, more recently, our reaction to the tsunami disaster, all demonstrate a good degree of resilience and maturing of our society at large.

Collectively, we have proven to be a cool-headed people with a community spirit with a good sense of emergency and positive action to match. We are, after all, 40 years old and it is time to trust our people, have confidence in our people and let them decide. So I set out, at every occasion, when I meet with my residents and grassroots leaders, asking them for their opinion, conducting straw polls on the casino issue. The latest was done on Sunday, 17th April,

and there was an overwhelming number of pro-IR residents. Of course, this is also borne out by the recent newspaper articles. The question is: can they take care of themselves and be disciplined? I think certainly not all

can. But is this what they want? For the majority, yes. Well, then I say, "The ayes have it, the ayes have it."

The IR sets a new tone for society. It is a tone that is more open, one where we trust our people to make the decision for themselves and, therefore, one that expects also responsibility from the people as more choices are put in front of them.

Moving on now to some practical concerns. Sir, the proposals from the two IRs come from world-class players. These are mega gaming boys with international network and clients from all walks of life. Within every IR, there is also a complex eco-system of casino operators, junkets, sharks and thugs, and an unseen financial system that oils the machinery. To tighten the reins and choke the engine may bring an early end to the ventures. To allow the eco-system to grow would negatively impact our ethos. It will not be an easy balance or, even possible, to keep out the bad altogether. World-class IRs will attract world-class organised crimes which are sophisticated. The question is: do you have sufficient tools to deal with them? How far would we go in dealing with them? I would appreciate further clarification on our defence mechanism.

On the other safeguards to be introduced, my sense is that casino operators would also come out with counter-measures to beat them. These are big players with extensive experience in human psychology in attracting punters. In fact, they hire Ivy League professors to design game floor and lure curious onlookers.

Let me give some examples. First, the slot machines, and this goes back to my second experience at gambling at the slot machine with the US$5. It was not that I was lucky that I kept winning, but rather because these are five-cent machines and I was the free labour. How does it work?

Basically, the casinos are designed in such a way that they will try to generate as much noise and buzz, as possible, to passers-by. So, at the fringe of it would be the cheap slot machines - one cent, five cents, and so on. The idea is not for them to lose their money, but for them to create all the ringing sound of money dropping from the slot machines. Then as one progresses inwards, towards the core of the casino, there would then be the 25-cents, the 50-cents, $1, $10 and, of course, ultimately at the core would be the gambling tables. That is the psychology.

Another example. A particular casino operator has come out with a card called the "winner's card". In this winner's card, what they do is to track the identity of the punter with the life-time economic value calculated. Whenever the punter comes to the casino and puts it into the slot machine or their own booth, it would send information through the central computer system to tell and track the winnings or losses of the punter. If they found that the punter is losing quite a bit of money, someone would turn up out of the blue and ask, "Sir or Madam, are you having a good game? Would you like some free vouchers for the theatres, hotels or F&B?" Therefore, the guy goes back happy losing, not knowing that his economic life value is being tracked there.

There are many such examples, but I would like to move on to also voice another concern I have. I am especially concerned about the notion of normalising gambling, especially amongst children. In recent years, children are getting into the betting scenarios, especially with soccer betting. But that is once in four years, or when the World Cup happens. But, maybe they are doing it more now. And with the casino would we further normalise it? I am not sure. But I think what we must do is to strengthen the core values and basic family units that our society stands for and, in fact, to also

strengthen our financial planning principles so that we can be very clear what can be gambled away and what cannot be put on the betting table.

Sir, in all, I think our people have spoken and so did the Cabinet. I reckon that, to be or not to be, was the question. Now that the decision has been made, we need to put our bets on Prime Minister Lee, who has unequivocally assumed the ultimate responsibility of the decision and win big. Be in the winner's circle as a united people. We need to rally behind the decision and make it a success. While PM bears the ultimate responsibility, people must share in the responsibility to make Singapore a success. After all, as the Chinese saying goes, "guo jia xing wang, pi fu you ze".

A successful IR will certainly reap economic benefits which may be re-channelled to treat social ills and promote community strength, while a failed IR would leave us with all the social ills and negative economic equity. We have to get past this stage and focus on the objectives of this landmark decision, which is to transform not just the facade of Singapore, but also the core of Singapore, to inject life, responsibility, self and mutual help of the individual and the community. All eyes are on the IR now and I certainly hope that the IR or the casino will not become the only icon of Singapore. I think we need to complete the painting of our economic and social landscape on the canvas. We need a fuller picture of where we are going tomorrow. May I call on the people to support the Cabinet's decision so that we may move forward together and also on the Cabinet to complete the painting of Singapore's social, physical and economic landscape on the canvas so that our people can track the same path with the Cabinet as one united people.

Sir, after viewing the various proposals submitted by well-known resort operators for the proposed integrated resort at Marina Bayfront and Sentosa, I was impressed by the confidence that investors have in our country, and it made me see the economic benefits that could radiate from this massive project from a different perspective. I have begun to view this project not as a dedicated gaming house but a sight that may position Singapore as a country that has the influence and capacity to reach out to the rest of the world, notwithstanding its limited land size. Before viewing this, I had a very sceptical impression of such a resort, built upon my impression of how Las Vegas casinos started off, and how it subsequently took on a disguised image of a family-destination successfully drawing in the crowds despite being located in desert country.

Personally, I am not in favour of promoting the setting up of a casino in Singapore, in spite of it occupying a small area in the proposed integrated resort, as the ill effects of a casino, apart from the evils of gambling, are well-known. Furthermore, a casino gives a sleazy image to a country that has built its foundation on hard work and with a clean, honest and efficient Government leading it. Many of my colleagues in this House have given examples of how bad the effects of gambling have on people, and I agree with them. We should then try to reach out to as many as possible and inform them not to be lured by the hope of winning big in gambling. The social ills of casino have a tendency of passing through the walls that are supposed to trap the on-goings of casinos within and, if not carefully managed, will creep into the social fabric of our nation, changing the good values cultivated over the years and which has helped bind our different communities together.

The danger of casinos causing a subculture to develop and controlling the

behaviour and thinking of the people and advocating all that the casino offers are something which Singapore as a small country will have to be aware of. As we live in a compact society, it would be difficult for one not to influence the other and, subsequently, collectively let our guards down to the ill effects of such an industry.

As we cannot live in a glass bubble, we must then guard ourselves against undesirable values of the casino which are not conducive to good social values. However, as I have stated earlier, other aspects of the IR cannot be ignored and will need to be recognised especially for its economic values. It has the potential to attract the rest of the world to us and to bring Singapore to the level of other major cities of the world. It has been demonstrated that the operators of the IR has the range of soft capabilities to draw on visitors to Singapore, allowing the latest attraction in entertainment, be it music, film or concerts and other conferences to be staged here. Such a magnetic pull will be important to Singapore as many other countries in the region are also trying to be such a place.

I support the Prime Minister's decision in having the IR for Singapore, as it would create not only more jobs in a big way, but also lift the level of excitement in business circles and introduce new activities for families to enjoy, as in the theme parks. All these and world-class events have been missing since our early history. However, I will, on the other hand, not support any decision to allow the proliferation of casinos beyond what has been committed. We have to be sensitive to the feelings of those who are opposed to gambling, and the Government must gauge the sentiment of the people very carefully, especially when the country is moving towards a more open society. I know it must have been a most difficult decision for the Prime Minister to make to allow the IR to house the casino.

But now that the decision has been made, we must all rally around him and make a success of the IR. The care and intensity that the Government has placed on this subject has shown that it will deal with the future social problems arising from gambling with great concern.

From my discussion with my grassroots leaders on the casino issue, I have the impression that many do not have the correct knowledge of what an IR is made up of. Some still have the impression that the IR looks like a big casino building. Others see it as a row of huge hotel buildings fronting the waterfront, imposing itself on other smaller buildings currently standing in the vicinity of the proposed sites, especially the Sentosa site. Their thoughts are not far from how casinos and resorts look like compared to the images that they have seen over TV and in the papers, who in turn have used pictures of other casinos and resorts in their reports. In contrast, the IR concepts that I have seen are not only futuristic in design, but also conjure a sense of confidence. Surprisingly, it also blends well with the surrounding landscape with hardly any images of a casino on the exterior. So, I would like to urge the Government to consider revealing as soon as possible some images of what the two IRs will, or may look like, so that the casino's images do not get entrenched itself in the public's mind. This will then help the public to concentrate on the positive effects of what the IRs can bring.

If an IR with a casino is the way to go for Singapore to succeed in competing with the rest of the countries in the region, then we must be prepared to live with the ill effects that it will bring. The lure of big monies through games of chance and its social problems will surely permeate into the population. Thus, new measures must be in place to curb as far as possible all ill effects of the casino. Our legal system and police force must be equipped with the powers to prevent

related crimes and money laundering from spreading. The local residents must be shielded from the lure of bright lights of the gaming halls

and entry barriers reviewed regularly to restrict the tempting urge to enter the gates of the casino. Our religious and community groups must improve their moral teaching methods to instil good values to the young and old, so that they will be able to withstand the temptations before them and be able to make the right choices for themselves.

Sir, allow me to digress slightly from the problems of gambling to an observation on transport matters that I feel may cause some irritation to visitors and locals patronising the future IRs. As the two IRs will be located in the south of Singapore and within a few minutes' drive of each other, road congestion will surely be the order of the day. Already the Marina South highway and the roads leading to Sentosa are seeing traffic jams now and then. What more will we see when the two IRs come up? I hope the Ministry of Transport will make a thorough study of the networks of roads leading to the IRs as the volume of traffic will surely increase on a daily basis and will be worse when functions and conventions are being hosted.

Similarly, healthcare cases of pathological gamblers will also increase. Every day, we are faced with addictions in many forms, such as drug addiction and other immoral addictions. Gambling addiction will add to the increase in the number of addicts. Here, I am assured by the Minister for Health that the Health Ministry will be prepared to handle increased problems in this area. Research will have to be updated and immediate action put in place which, unfortunately, will lead to an increase in healthcare expenditure.

Sir, our nation has to move on with the times to be economically successful. At

the same time, we are subjected to all sorts of new temptations daily, sometimes moving us to do things which are against our best moral judgement. We must be prepared as a society to find ways to keep our social values deeply rooted so that come what may, we are still the best country to live in. The different races living together and working together can continue to do so as long as we keep our work ethics intact and the belief that economic success comes from hard work and strong family values.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for the past few days, we have listened to many different voices. I feel that the Government's decision to allow the opening of IRs with casinos is a very important one. I look at this problem in a wider perspective. If we do not have Minister George Yeo's suggestion, we may not have that durian in place today, and we may not have this debate today. I would like to thank him for his two durians and also for this platform to debate on the matter of casino in Singapore.

We have to respect the different voices to prevent and stop extreme gambling. First, we must admit that it is a fact that not everybody would have the same opinion and the same voice. Among Singaporeans, there are some who are staunchly against the setting up of casinos. We respect their opinions and we actually listen to their voices. Because we have these pillars in these fast-moving streams, they help us to hold to our value system in our society.

Now, let us listen to different voices and also the different opinions about the IRs. You may have heard about them in the past few days. I think it is worth the while listening to them again. Of course, there is no right or wrong in these opinions. There are some people who actually feel it is all right to gamble on football but object to IRs because of the casino component. Some go to the turf

club for horse betting but they are staunchly against the casino. There is a Japanese businessman who told me that in a golf course you can actually lose or win thousands of dollars but the golfers still do not support the opening of casinos. Some people worry that our reputation of an honest, clean, serious, hardworking attitude and value system will collapse and we will have a society filled with all types of undesirable people and things. Of course, there are those who worry about the social problems that may be brought about by the opening of the casino with the rise in drug-trafficking, prostitution, loan sharks and organised crimes. Some are afraid that Singaporeans may become compulsive gamblers and the percentage will increase from the present 2.1% and jump manifold. Thus, the society has to pay much more for this.

A very close friend of mine told me that she opposed the establishment of integrated resorts with casinos. She feels that everybody is drunk, and she is the only one who is sober. I am not sure if I am one of those who are drunk or I am sober. Of course, there are many people who presume or do not really know that a lot of Singaporeans are already gambling. Some people agree to the IR but are against the casino. Some people doubt if this will really bring about good and new jobs for our people. Some people actually oppose it because of their religion or political standpoints. At the same time, we also hear another voice - a very loud voice.

A few days ago, a colleague in Parliament told me that his women's group fully supports this and they want the Government to set this up as soon as possible. This is because a lot of Singaporeans already go to cruise ships or overseas to gamble. So, there is a huge amount of money flowing out of Singapore. Rather than letting the money flow out, why do we not just let the money remain in Singapore?

Of course, there are people who cannot wait for this project to be completed, so that they do not have to take a boat or bus to Batam or Macau, etc, to gamble. And there are some business people who hope that this project will bring about more opportunities that will boost the tourism services or the property sector.

Some foreign businessmen also told me that they felt that this is a new way to let Singapore reinvent itself. However, there are also some intellectuals who feel that a little gambling is good for the temperament. And this is perhaps why the Chinese people like to gamble. MCYS actually pointed out that a lot of people feel that gambling is a social activity. To them, to have this IR with a casino is just one more place for them to spend their leisure time. There is another voice, which is also a very loud voice, that a little gambling is a way to buy hope. There is another group of people who feel that gambling can make them rich, and these are the people who are most likely to become gambling addicts. However, there are some who say that when they were studying overseas, they have seen students gambling away their tuition fees. But a lot of them actually still work hard and come back with a degree. They have seen all types of IRs with casinos and are well exposed. So they do not think that this is a big problem.

There are others who feel that Singapore has already developed into a mature society, and Singaporeans can think independently and they do not need the Government to "mother" them around. So, they feel that they have to be responsible for their own activities. Others feel that this could be a project that will bring about new job opportunities for the older and low-skilled Singaporeans. For this, I personally feel that this project could bring us new jobs but we have to retrain our workers, particularly the older workers, so that they can take on these new jobs. I have come across many older

workers who try very hard to learn how to operate new machines to clean the floor. It seems that there is no other way. For these older and low-skilled people, I feel that it is a very good opportunity. Some people feel that this could bring about more tax income for Singapore. This is what I hear from our vice-chairperson. For this increase in tax income, it can actually help to tackle the aging problem where health is concerned.

From these supporting or opposing voices, we have to weigh the positive and the negative effects, and make a good decision, to see which decision will impact our economy and our people in the long run. We have to look at the problem positively. We have to use education through the masses to ensure that our society will be protected, and through legal ways to lower the impact that it could bring.

This debate serves to educate not only the future gamblers but also the present gamblers and the people of Singapore in general. My Ministry will start this educational process as soon as possible. We are not going to wait until the casino is set up before we start educating Singaporeans. We are going to start now. The Government will use all its resources through multi-Ministerial cooperation and strategies to help prevent and halt excessive gambling. This should be done through the three Ministries - Home Affairs, MCYS and Health - to set up a safety net to make sure that Singaporeans will not be lured into pathological gambling and give rise to family and social problems. Of course, we cannot totally avoid all these problems. Our well-known so-called "Home Team" led by Minister Wong Kan Seng can curb the problem of loan sharks.

We have to transmit the right values to our people through our education system, the media, the religious

organisations and the VWOs. These will include honesty, hard work and other values. The confession of Mr Chia Teck Leng, who is serving his prison sentence for fraud resulting from compulsive gambling, is a very good material for public education.

Some people think that Singapore is a piece of clean land. If we build a casino, it will increase gambling many times. But, of course, we have to realise that gambling has been in Singapore all along. If we look at the MCYS' report, where gambling is concerned, Singapore is not losing out to Hong Kong or Macau. Singaporeans buy Toto, 4-D, gamble on football, and many even put their bets with illegal operators. They go to Batam and Genting. If you look at Jack Neo's movie, Tu Ran Fa Cai, ie, getting rich suddenly, you can see that during the weekends in the void decks, there are a lot of people gambling. So if you want to help these people, we have to choose a bigger way. A lot of people gamble and they do it socially. Only 2.1% have a problem. And, of course, what we are concerned with is especially this group of people. We know that most Singaporeans are mature and they know how to look after themselves, and are responsible to their family and society. The person who is in charge of Cosner also points out that in America, as long as you actually keep a cap on gambling, we can avoid excessive gambling. In fact, if you look at all those gamblers, they are not that many. Of course, we have to have the risk-taking attitude to cultivate good entrepreneurial spirit. This is good for them, good for the country and it helps to start their own businesses.

In setting up the IR with casino, is it going to make Singapore a third-class city? Let us look at Melbourne in Australia. Since 1861, every year in November, they have the Melbourne Cup. It is just like a carnival. There are men and women who dress themselves up and

they wear beautiful hats. They have a price for the best dressed person, etc. If you look at this horse betting, it is not the focal point, but a place or occasion for the whole family to have a carnival. Last year, I went to Vancouver. Along the two hours' journey from Vancouver to Seattle, there are six different casinos. If you look at these two cities, Melbourne and Vancouver, they are among the best choice cities to live in the whole world. They are ranked among the first few choice cities in the world. Another place is Monaco. It is a country which is smaller than Singapore and it has the very well known Monte Carlo casino.

Whether Singapore will degenerate into a third class society will depend on whether the Government knows how to regulate the operation of the casino and pull the stops whenever necessary. In the 80s, when I was in the NTUC, we had the same problem of whether or not we should have the jackpot machines at our NTUC Club. If not for these jackpot machines, we would have closed down long ago. Of course, we had to have a lot of money to set up all the different activities. At that time, the late Mr Ong Teng Cheong advised us to understand why these people gamble. Most of these workers who go to the Club gamble only on small amounts. He said, "Well, if they want to gamble, why don't we let them gamble the money here?" So we can use this money to have other activities like sponsoring an orchestra to perform at various venues and raise funds for the various activities.

These jackpot machines actually bring in the funds we need. Mr Ong Teng Cheong said that we must make sure that those people who sat there playing the jackpot machines for too long, we must ask them to go home. We must not make gambling become too excessive. If we compare this to the NTUC Clubs, this is quite similar. The strategy is similar. If we want to have large-scale international activities or cultural activities, and we do

not have the money, how are we going to have all these activities? With these IRs, they look at the needs of the society. If we do not want to look at what the society needs, then it is difficult to have an IR and maintain it. Furthermore, the Ministers have already mentioned about helping older people to adapt to the new skills. So I will not talk about this again. This project will bring more job opportunities. We must train our low-skilled older workers to upgrade themselves in order to take on these new jobs. This will bring about more goodwill in the family. With the setting up of IRs, the unemployed workers and retrenched middle management executives alike will have better chances to get a new job. So they can continue to work, save their Medisave and not depend on the children. If you look at China, India opening up with their middle class expanding, we hope that with these two IRs, we will improve our tourism and bring about more opportunities in other areas and sectors.

Now, I would like to look at the long term prospect: what are the IRs going to bring to the Singapore economy? There are people who ask: is there no other way? Must we take the casino way? Of course, what we are taking now is a multi-pronged approach. We have free trade, transport, medical science, and tourism is just one part of it. As Minister Lim Hng Kiang puts it, we are sowing the seed with the hope that it would grow into a big tree. It is also like a little flame. We hope this flame will burn into a much bigger ball of fire and bring about much more vitality, for example, recreation, hospitality, retail, etc. This will make Singapore alive again. I hope that we put in as much passion into the other parts of this IR, not only on the casino.

When we talk about entertainment, it can bring about the reinventing of Singapore. In the 90s, when the Shanghai Pudong area started reinventing itself, I visited the place and I really feared that

Singapore would become a second class city compared to Pudong. Every time when I go to New York, London, Shanghai or Hong Kong, I could feel the vitality of these cities. I asked myself, "Are we going to be like a shooting star that just shoots through very briefly?" Last year, I went to Detroit. It used to be a very famous town for automobiles. Now it is a dead city. I went to Yangzhou which was well known in the past with a lot of historical happenings. But now, Shanghai is the place where most people want to be, and not Yangzhou. Yangzhou has become a second or third class city, and Shanghai has jumped to the top.

When our foreign friends talk about Singapore, they always say that it is a very clean and beautiful city and it has a very clean and honest government. These are advantages. We should not let these pass us. At the same time, with all these international places, have you heard anyone say that Singapore is a fun place? A lot of people say that Singapore is boring and full of man-made things. As advocated by Dr Geh Min, we must have a lot of cultural activities here. We have to get Singaporeans start all these activities and take in all the international cultures. For example, I went to Kunming for a meeting. During the half-day break, I visited the Tourism Board there. Because I spoke Mandarin, we got on very well. I asked the official there, "What is Singapore to you? Is there anything that will attract you?" He said, "Singapore has lost its attractiveness. If I want to go shopping, I will go to Hong Kong. If I want to eat nice food, I can go to Bangkok." So this came from Kunming. It is not even from Shanghai or Beijing. Kunming is only a second class city in China. So I feel that to build an IR with a casino will help to make Singapore into a world-class city with vitality. We have to look further ahead, and spread the flame far and wide. I hope that it will be able to

inject new dynamism into our economy and people.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, three years ago, I saw something known as the WOW Singapore idea. This graceful cultural activity is a new culture. It does not mean that we must discard our old culture. It must be based on the existing foundation to flourish and play up the other cultural characteristics that we have from all over the world. Of course, the project to have an IR is one part of our new culture. We do not depend entirely on this for our civilisation. We must use Singapore as the crossroad between the East and the West and as a multi-racial, multi-religious country, we have all kinds of features from all over the world. Some people suggested that we must have some art galleries in Orchard Road so that they can see the cultural displays along Orchard Road. There is the lighting up of Orchard Road. In the Marina Bay, we have a graceful artistic kind of lighting system. It is like the Bund of Shanghai.

Some three years ago, when I talked about WOW, I praised the lighting system in front of the Fullerton Building. This is the best that we can see in Singapore so far. The Singapore River bank and other places can also match those in Hong Kong. We must allow people to put on neon lights to brighten our city and places of interest. This should not be considered as unhealthy. I suggest that we have a competition for the lighting system so that our country becomes more beautiful and attractive at night. If you go to Shanghai and Hong Kong, if the lights are not turned on, you do not see anything at all. It is very important. Mr Goh Choon Kang already commented on this. I hope he would not say that we are wasting our electricity.

We have to rebuild Singapore and reinvent Singapore with all kinds of attractions so that we can bring in the crowd, visitors and human dynamism and

night life. I hope that StarHub will be able to attract investors from other countries to Singapore. It can be the crossroad or meeting place for the western and eastern cultures and arts. I hope that world class sporting activities, cultural and artistic activities can be conducted here in Singapore. We should also have our Tiger Beer festival to drink beer. I have been to Cambodia to take part in a certain activity. It was not too bad. Why? Because one evening I was taken on a night visit and they said it was Tiger Street. It is a beer street. It is inconceivable that our Singapore brand name of Tiger Street can be hosted in Cambodia. Why can we not do the same in Singapore?

In Yunnan, there are all kinds of flower exhibitions. Why can we not do the same since we are a garden city in the world? We believe that we have a lot of orchids that we can use for cultural or floral festivals which should be well known in the world. We can have a lot of things. We also have a mega exhibition of tropical fishes. We are the second biggest exporter of tropical fishes in the world. Why can we not have a similar kind of competition and exhibition in Singapore? We have been to the great cities in the world, Shanghai, Bangkok, Melbourne, Toronto and so on. Apart from a lot of high class entertainment centres, they have the Victoria Market, and Sydney has Fisherman's Market and Beijing has the Fisherman Port, and you also have such places in Shanghai. So I hope that when we are promoting our high class and mega scale exhibitions, we should have, for example, a Little India or Chinatown, to explore the characteristics that we have inherited from different types of culture, so that we will have a lot of world-class possibilities and potentials. When we explore this kind of mega-projects, we must not forget our cultural heritage. One Italian friend told me he wanted to set up an Italian restaurant and he spent a lot of money to bring a few gondolas to

Singapore. Actually, he wanted to ply the Singapore River. But our officials did not agree to this. They disapproved this project because gondolas cannot be compared with our tongkangs in the Singapore River. It is not allowed. Between China and Japan, you have historical baggage. But, in Singapore, we can absorb all kinds of foreign talents, foreign restaurateurs and other cultures. So, we have everything from the world. Germans have the beer festival, and the Japanese can also have the best restaurants in Singapore.

Sir, I hope that after this debate, we will be able to focus on how to reinvent Singapore so that we can cherish this kind of sentiment and passion, and we will be able to succeed in a big way.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the proposal to build integrated resorts with a casino in Singapore. I can feel the pain of the unemployed people. These IRs, with a casino, will be able to create 35,000 jobs. So, how can I fail to support this kind of proposal? Losing a job is not the fault of the workers. They were born into poor families, so they were not able to receive a higher education for better skills to enable them to secure good jobs. They are part of our country. They have a family and children to feed. Although the opening of casinos may cause the breaking up of some families and create some social problems, this is the result of inveterate gambling. So, it has nothing to do with the majority of our workers. It is not something that can really be controlled by the Government. The most important thing is that a lot of our workers are unemployed for a long time.

Sir, I entirely agree with Minister Vivian Balakrishnan that gambling is already prevalent in Singapore. But it does not mean that every gambler will go into a frenzy. Most people do not get into problem with gambling. I understand

from my constituents that there are two Toto draws a week, three 4-D draws a week, one Big Sweep draw every month, and horse racing two to three times a week. In addition, we have also football matches where you can place your bets on almost every day. Yes, we have all kinds of legalised gambling going on in Singapore already.

Some of my constituents told me that they can go to Batam and enjoy a free boat ride. They can go there every day. They say that a lot of housewives wait for their husbands to go to work and then they would go to Batam to gamble, and come back in the afternoon ahead of their husbands. So, nobody knows that these women had been to Batam. Recently, for more than a month, there were some problems that caused the closure of casinos in Batam. People told me that we can gamble every day in Singapore. The question is whether you want to gamble and have the money to gamble. Gambling is going on every day right here in Singapore. You can play mahjong. Yes, it is a healthy pastime for many. At our void decks, we have senior citizens playing card games. They have nothing to do, so they entertain themselves this way. We have all kinds of gambling going on right in front of us, day and night. As shown in the survey done by MCYS, 2.1% of these inveterate gamblers can go underground and gamble, if there is no proper channel for them to gamble.

Some old people told me, "Wherever you have Chinese, you have gambling." This is what the senior people told me. Since we have all kinds of gambling going on right here, can we say that our social ethos have already degenerated? Have our morals also gone down the drain though we are still maintaining the image of being a very clean, moral and honest Government? We are still getting praises, world acclaim for our image as a clean

and organised society. Gambling is going on not only in Singapore but everywhere in the world. The question is: how do we control the ill effects of gambling? Since gambling is so prevalent, then the ills that gambling brings are just small little problems in our society.

Having heard Minister Wong Kan Seng, Minister Khaw Boon Wan and Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, they have already agreed to set up a safety net in our society. I would not be as pessimistic as those anti-gambling people. I can judge from the Ministers' speeches that the social problems created by gambling will not have a very great impact on us. They are still within control of our social network.

The Shin Min Daily News interviewed some people for their views on the setting up of casinos, and one of them, a 30-year-old lady answered, "Will the opening of a casino lead to bad social ethos and affect our younger children? I think it depends on the examples set by their parents. If we teach and educate our children the correct and right values and inculcate these in them properly, then there is no need to worry." A 25-year-old graduate said, "Unexpectedly, there are two, not one, IRs to be built, but I believe that these two IRs will inject more dynamism into Singapore and will create more jobs for Singapore. As for the social ills brought about by gambling, I think we are mature enough to control such ills." These two persons interviewed by the Shin Min Daily News represent our new generation of people. If there are more young Singaporeans who think like these two persons I have quoted, together with our effective measures to control the ills of gambling and the protective safety net, then the casino will not bring about very serious problems in Singapore. I think it will be very minimal. Of course, gambling is bad. But to some other people, it brings a light of hope.

Sir, one morning, I went to the dry market at Blk 761 to meet my constituents. I met one familiar face. She had just come out from a Singapore Pools betting centre. I asked her, "You buy 4-D too?" She said, "Yes. You buy, then you have some hope. Otherwise, what hope do the poor people have?" A lot of people in the lower income group are poor but their ambition is still there. They do not blame the Government. They do not blame anybody. They accept their fate. But they hope that they will one day strike the first prize in the Toto draw so that they can provide a better life for their children.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will never oppose gambling, because I know gambling will give some people some hope and the hope to survive. Big gambling is bad, but small gambling will certainly give some hope to some people.

Sir, MM Lee told us that if we continue to remain as the safest, cleanest and the most efficient country or city in the world, then Singapore will miss the opportunities created in the new world. SM Goh also mentioned that if we do not do anything now, we will be bypassed in no time. So, the question is: do we want to seize the opportunities as they come along, or do we want to let others bypass us, and fall behind them?

Sir, Deng Xiaoping's opening up of China and his reforms have already transformed China. MOS Mrs Yu-Foo went to Shanghai recently and she was very impressed by the spectacular developments in Shanghai. But we know that the Chinese have already paid a very high social cost. Do you know how much they have paid socially? After Prime Minister Lee announced the setting up of two IRs in Singapore, and I went to the coffeeshops in my constituency, everybody put up their thumbs and said "Good". Is it because they are gamblers? Is it because they are addicted gamblers? It is because they do not want the

opportunities to bypass us, because these are the people who are lagging behind the rest of the society, so they will have hope from the casinos. They believe that the future generation, their children and grandchildren will benefit from this project.

Sir, when Deng Xiaoping advocated opening up and transforming China, he had not met with any opposition. Even if there was, he would have succeeded anyway. So, I would appeal to everybody to put away their differences and give full support to the decision of the Prime Minister. Even in the dark, we are just like a small boat sailing in the darkness. No matter how much time we have to traverse the ocean, after the darkness phase, we will see the dawn of light. We cannot be travelling forever, 24 hours a day, in darkness. The time of dawn will come.

Sir, I fully support the Prime Minister's proposal.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the question of having a casino in Singapore has been well

debated in and outside of Parliament and including my home. My husband and I had stood on the opposite position until the details of the resort concept were disclosed.

I just want to state my position on the casino. To do so, I would like to share a little of our arguments at home. There were strong religious objections to contrast against a backdrop of supportive reasons that were based on economic values. In our humble opinion, we perceive these arguments from two platforms: one from a secular standpoint and the other from a divine or religious perspective. For me and my family, on the religious perspective based on our faith as Catholic Christians, it would compel us to stand against the setting up of the casino within the shores of Singapore. However, there is a need to understand that we are living in a secular community of diverse

religions and backgrounds. The arguments for or against the casino must therefore also take on a secular and national perspective on the economics and future of Singapore. Our argument at home ends in this manner. For the religious within us, we quote from the Bible, "The human mind plans the way, but the Lord directs the steps." Let us then allow the "human minds" do our part for the society. For that, I would support the move to set up an integrated resort and casino.

My reasons are straightforward. It is a question of economics. It is about creating jobs for Singaporeans, not 1,000, 2,000 but 35,000 jobs. There is more than the jobs: the spin-offs from the integrated resorts, world-class architecture and design, development and construction activities, real estate market and values, retail opportunities, services, hotels, food and entertainment, trade expositions, exhibitions, recreational activities, night life, spending and its multiplier effects, and many others to follow. The economic spin-offs are immense.

Yes, I am equally concerned with some of the negative impact from gambling addiction, drug trafficking, money laundering and the other social impact on family life in our community. These are my real concerns. I am also particularly concerned for the housewives and the retirees. There will be people who will fall prey to glib-tongue racketeers and their fellow travellers. My fear is that local syndicates may lure these housewives and retirees, using underhand tactics and strip them of their hard-earned savings. They can be enticed into parting with their money under the guise of, say, a sure win bet, or they may be misled by some other quick return schemes. There must be awareness programmes of the dangers of gambling for the housewives and the elderly.

Thus far, from the measures announced by the Government, they are very generic and I hope that there will be special focus groups that will take care of the housewives and retirees, particularly the elderly group. Our own band of illegal money-lenders will, I am sure, be looking to cash in on the situation, and I urge the authorities to come down hard on them. Only last week, one young man came to seek for advice. He borrowed $6,000 from the loan shark and had paid $12,000 over the past six months, but the loan shark is still after him.

As for public education, I am glad that Mrs Yu-Foo has just informed us that MCYS would start the public education now, even before the casino is up. I believe we should educate the very young who are in our primary school so that when they grow up, they are fully aware of the dangers of gambling. This will have to be done in earnest and continually reviewed so that it remains relevant to the changing situation. Grassroots organisations should also be mobilised to use their network to reach out to everyone in the heartlands by holding discussions and forums to explain the pitfalls of gambling and how to stay away from falling into the trap.

I am pleased that the Government is setting up a National Council on Gambling and those who are opponents of the casinos will be invited to sit on the council to advise the Government on measure to mitigate the effects of gambling.

I know in Singapore, we have the infrastructure to tackle some of the scourges related to casino operations. Where we need to, we are beefing up or putting up new Government agencies to look into these issues. I also support the move for an integrated resort because I am confident that the Government, with its well-oiled machinery at its disposal, will put in place the necessary filters to

cushion the negative impact of gambling in our society.

I hope and believe that I am in effect speaking for many Singaporeans when I say: I too have faith in the strength of our various cultures as well as in our people. We will not be a city of gamblers. We will not be what we are not.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, like many before me, I too take a practical and realistic view of life. I do not approve gambling but do enjoy betting on Toto and 4-D occasionally with my friends, staff and my grassroots. In fact, on many special occasions, my grassroots would want me to pick the numbers of 4-D and Toto because they believe I got some luck. But so far, the winnings are small. I do hope that they will strike big one day.

Many speakers before me have spoken on the social ills of gambling. I share many of their concerns and I will not repeat what has already been said. I look at this debate from a global perspective and how the future holds for us. Many speakers, including the Prime Minister, SM and MM, have painted what future directions Singapore should take to avoid becoming a dull and unexciting place.

When I first entered this House in 1980, Singapore was obviously well ahead of many countries in the region. In fact, Singapore was an exciting place and our infrastructure was excellent, we have good airports and seaports, we got many visitors. There was less competition from the surrounding countries. China and India were not featured at all. Malaysians, Indonesians, Filipinos and Thais came here to shop and take in the sights. Tourism was indeed booming. Our main competitor then was Hong Kong. Life was simpler then and the tourist demand was less.

But over the last 10 years, I see changes happening at a very rapid pace.

The Shanghai I visited in 1987 and the Shanghai of today are vastly different. There are so many modern buildings and highways and the city is buzzing with activities, event happenings and conventions. Also, I can see changes in Australia; the Opera House and Darling Harbour are star attractions for many tourists.

Come closer to home is Malaysia. Only last week, I visited KL and Putrajaya and I can see that the changes that took place in KL and Putrajaya are really remarkable. The Twin Towers and KLCC complex, with its large shopping malls, convention centres, hotels and even a beautiful park for the busy businessmen to relax in between meetings, were established for them to enjoy. And I believe KL's night life is very trendy and hot. So Singapore is no longer that special for the tourists. It is becoming a stop-over place for the tourists, as mentioned by many in this House. They would not stay here long. The competition is heating up and Singapore must quickly change to meet the expectations of the modern tourists.

Yesterday, we heard many speakers mentioning how London changed, how New York changed, how the new iconic buildings in many countries are catching the attention of the modern tourists. The changing pattern of air travel, including cheap budget airfares, has brought a new dimension to the tourist trade. There are now many choices and many exotic destinations to go. So like what the Prime Minister and other Ministers have said, we have to take a critical look at ourselves, at our value systems we hold so dear, our past beliefs, our prejudices and compare them with the future needs of the country. It is a balancing act but we have to find the right mix. While we imbibe in new ideas, we have to watch carefully that we do not go overboard.

We have decided to move with the tide of change and bite the bullet and

accept the new changes that are happening around the world. But there are always consequences. Our Singaporeans were shocked when they heard that there were two instead of one mega integrated resort project. But I believe the decision was carefully and thoroughly researched. You can see three Ministries put forward their plans to cushion the possible social ills and security measures to ensure its success. This shows the determination of the Government to assure Singaporeans that the IR projects could be managed well and 35,000 jobs will be created.

These IR projects are enormous and mind-boggling. 95% of these projects will be theme parks of fun and games, with convention centres, hotels, and only 5% for casino. So why is it that Singaporeans are concerned about the 5% casino element? One, they are not aware of the other 95% in the first place. They have no idea of what the 95% is going to be like. They have no details. They were merely told. In fact, some of them were concerned that they have to pay $100 to enter into the complex. It shows that the communication is not so clear. In other words, they were not excited enough.

Of course, the media went to town on the casino issue. So, day in and day out, we read in the newspapers on how casinos are functioning and they only feature the bright lights of the casino.

But the most important reason is that the casino hits at the very virtues that this Government has always strived for - clean, safe, non-corrupt way of living. They fear that the casino will change our clean lifestyle and image, and I share their concerns.

At this juncture, I would like to thank the many Singaporeans who emailed me their concerns and fears. Let me read out an excerpt of one such letter. It is from a gentleman by the name of Daniel Koh Kah

Soon and this is what he said, and I quote, "Clearly the libertarian/utilitarian consideration has prevailed, but those who hold virtue ethics are saying that worthwhile virtues take a long time to cultivate and nurture. The virtues, which we have inherited and nurtured should not be eroded by an over-emphasis on libertarian/utilitarian concerns that may allow for vices like gambling to sneak in and undermine time-tested virtues, required and so necessary for any community to flourish as people of good character."

The thrust of his concern is shared by many. Personally, I think it is good that Singaporeans hold such views. Yet these virtues, I believe, built and nurtured in the family and Government, should put us in good stead to face the challenges the new Singapore we want to reinvent. I cannot imagine how the strong character that we have developed over the past would succumb to the temptations for the bright lights of the casinos so easily. But some may, although the majority will not. I think the reality of living in a big exciting global city is you have to live with the good and the bad. How we manage ourselves in the new global city that Singapore wants to aspire is a test of our resolve and strength. I am sure we are not gullible and naive.

Let me digress a bit to highlight a point. In the 1980s, in the old Parliament House, there was a heated debate on the report on the healthcare of the elderly. It was a report written by Mr Howe Yoon Chong, the Health Minister then. It was a good report, detailing how Singaporeans should examine the problems of the aged and called for many changes to the healthcare delivery system to meet the demands of an ageing population. But a small paragraph calling for a rethink on the CPF withdrawal at age 55 years was hijacked, and it became the central issue for that debate and the real virtue of that report was thrust aside. I see some

similarity in today's debate. So we must be careful. We must stay on course, explaining and extolling the virtues of these projects and yet detailing and assuring Singaporeans on the measures that we will be taking to cushion the social ill effects, the safety and security aspects of the casino project. I think this is very important. This assurance must be given to all Singaporeans.

We must keep to this thrust of argument and let Singaporeans understand the true benefits of the project. Get them excited through roadshows, and the media should help, and I am sure Singaporeans can come on board with us. So if anyone wants to hijack the casino element and turn it into a political potato, Singaporeans would have seen the merits of the projects and not be easily persuaded.

However, a resort would get outdated because land and money can build one. It would be slowly trumped by another one in time, but culture, arts and science create jobs for the long haul. Why do you think France and Spain are up there? They put a premium on creativity. Talent will go where they can contribute, not where they can be a consumer. So while we go for the IR, we must continue to build on our other institutions for the arts, science and culture.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this debate is not just on integrated resorts but on how Singapore can position herself as a global city of excellence and distinction, how she can draw people of talent, tourists and businessmen, to this city, showcasing the arts, science, theatres, culture, and to events and activities. To do this, amongst others, we need to build activity-based iconic structures like the integrated resorts and the Esplanade and supported by an environment of good educational, health, cultural and business institutions. How we can find the right mix to excite the visitors to want to come back to our city and spend that tourist dollar is a

challenge not only for the Singapore Tourism Board but for all of us here in this House and for Singaporeans at large.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we heard many passionate speeches the last few days. Singaporeans outside this House have been treated to references to "whales", "sharks", "porridge", cooked and uncooked, with or without tonic. I think they will be forgiven if they have the mistaken belief that we are talking about where to get the best fish porridge in town.

But on a more serious note, having seen the exhibits of the RFC proposals, I wish that URA had obtained prior permission from the developers to enable the public to view these exhibits. Alternatively, the URA planner could actually have drawn up some concepts of integrated resorts as examples for public viewing so that the debate would have taken place with greater clarity.

As my colleague, Ms Irene Ng, has noted yesterday, there is a wide gap in perception and understanding of many people. Many people have not been to an IR, and even if they have visited the attractions, they may not realise that they have actually visited an IR.

What is "Shi jie ji zhong he du jia shen di"? Mr Low Thia Khiang, the consummate politician, used the words "du chang". In Hokkien, it is "geow geng". These words conjure up images of seedy gambling joints and expectedly would draw strong gut reactions from people about the evils of gambling.

Because of the lack of clarity of concepts, the debate has at times gone off-tangent.

Like other colleagues who have viewed the exhibits, I have been impressed with a few of the proposals submitted. The impression is one of iconic buildings, attractions, convention facilities, hotel rooms, some offices and shopping malls. The casino part has been

intentionally tucked away to make it as inconspicuous as possible. Hence, it is clearly not the seedy gambling den or "du chang" that one sees on Channel 8 drama serial about old Shanghai in the 1930s. About the casino proposal, I was a member of the Economic Review Committee and its Services Sub-committee. I remember the first draft report of the Tourism Working Group recommended having a casino on Sentosa as a "iller App". Mr Wee Ee-chao, an astute businessman and experienced property developer, was then Chairman of Singapore Tourism Board and he was chairman of the working group. He had been working and thinking about the various options available to Singapore to revitalise our tourism sector. He saw clearly what was needed to be done. He felt that we need to have resorts on a scale that would draw in the tourists. Better still, these resorts should have gaming casinos. He was prepared to challenge the then conventional wisdom of not permitting casinos. He is clearly ahead of his time.

Like others on the subcommittee, I preferred the less controversial option of having performing and visual arts to draw tourists. Well, the Esplanade has been built and Singapore Arts Museum has been around for some time, but our tourism industry is still not strong, and hotel and retail trades are still very weak.

Sir, my constant concern for Singapore has been our long-term sustainability and viability as an economy. Without a sustainable and robust economy, our nationhood and sovereignty will easily be undermined. Our vision to make Singapore a land of opportunity for our children and our grandchildren will never materialise. When our young feel that there is no future for them in Singapore, we will quickly lose them to other countries. Despite what we may

say of our education system, our young are well-trained, talented and very mobile. Many countries welcome them.

In these last few years, our economic fundamentals have changed. We can no longer rely on manufacturing alone to create jobs. We need more service sector jobs. We have had to make many 'U' turns. To grow the service sector, we have to open up our education sector and we are promoting ourselves as the medical hub.

The stakes are high. It is about our long-term survival. As Minister Mentor said in this House earlier, we cannot afford to be left out of the global circuit and global network. We cannot afford to risk becoming irrelevant in this new world. We must not risk being bypassed.

Some have asked, "Are we that desperate that we need to 'U' turn and accept a casino on our soil?" No, we are not that desperate now, but in my own view, there is a grave risk that we may be bypassed by the world, and then it will be too difficult and too late to get back into the circuit. We have no control over these externalities. On the other hand, we can at least do something to minimise and alleviate the incremental social problems that we anticipate.

We must also not fall into the trap of complacency and slow death. We have only recently got our wake-up call in the last recession to keep our economy competitive. Yes, this is a difficult decision. I know the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues agonised over this decision. I think, like myself, many colleagues in this House had to search our own conscience to decide our own stand on the issue.

The issue is difficult because an estimated 55,000 persons are at risk of becoming problem gamblers. To me, these are 55,000 problems too many. In

my work as a doctor and social worker, I have seen many families wrecked by gambling, just like many families have been wrecked by illicit drugs, alcohol and other addictions. These are all very painful situations, and I am sure my colleagues here have all experienced this sort of scenarios, helping constituents, friends, and sometimes relatives, going through such hard times.

But Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must also remember that joblessness and business failures can wreck many homes too. It has. Many families begin to dysfunction and disintegrate when the breadwinner loses his job. Children drop out of schools. We have more than 300,000 Singaporeans between 45 to 64 years old who have only primary education or less. How are we going to provide them jobs? Even when we get them, today's manufacturing jobs are highly computerised and they require training or retraining which these workers with minimal education may find hard to cope. I am very touched by Mr Lim Boon Heng's compassion for Singapore workers. As NTUC chief, he must intimately know what life is like for the retrenched worker and his family, especially when they have little education for retraining. He courageously went ahead to support the proposal for IR because he "could not ignore the opportunity for creating 35,000 jobs". The Prime Minister quoted Deng Xiaoping. Yes, we need to open our windows, lest we suffocate. But, we can keep the flies and other pests out with appropriate netting. In this way, only very small insects can get through, for which we must prepare a whole host of pesticides and antidotes. Better still, we immunise our population against these bugs, through public education about the dangers of gambling.

I appreciate the responsible manner with which Ministers of Home Affairs,

MCYS and Health are preparing to deal with the expected problems.

Yes, we certainly need a strong regulatory regime to ensure that the casino does not become a seedy gambling den, infested with loan sharks, money launderers, pimps, and drug peddlers. We need to set up a Council of wise men and women to help our society deal with this challenge. For those who still succumb, MOH has prepared plans to upgrade CAMP to help those with gambling problems.

I believe this is a responsible way of dealing with the anticipated incremental social problems. And I am confident that with these efforts, we can substantially reduce or minimise the problems. Religious and community organisations can play useful roles to assist Singaporeans to prepare for this challenging new environment. They can also mobilise their members, followers and other Singaporeans to voluntarily exclude themselves from the casino, an option which Minister Vivian said will be made available. With all these preventive efforts and perhaps more, I hope we will be able to have an IR or two IRs where religious groups may feel comfortable enough to have their functions there and parents will feel safe enough to bring their young for fun at the attractions. Then we would have been successful and have our cake and eat it too. Some people have asked, "Have we lost our soul?" "Are we destroying our values?", when we proceed to have casinos on our soil. I think Singapore's moral DNA is one that upholds and celebrates hard work, thrift, and integrity. Yes, we eschew "get rich quick" schemes. Hence we are uncomfortable with having casinos at the IRs as some feel our values of hard work and honest living will be eroded. However, let us remember that pragmatism, responsiveness, and hard-headedness are also our enduring, if not so endearing, attributes. And these are values helping us to

consider having casinos in the IRs. But all these wonderful attributes are not our soul, but different manifestations of it. To me, our soul as a society is our collective resolve to remain as an independent and sovereign nation with our distinctive values, multi-racial and multi-religious way of life.

Nordic countries like Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland all have casinos but their people continue to work hard and continue to be creative and come up with new technologies. As I shared with this House previously, they are small nations capable of sustaining their economies. Despite having casinos, I believe their fundamental values and integrity have not been eroded. Their social fabric has not been torn asunder or weakened. So there is no reason why we cannot survive this.

Sir, with all these reassurances given by the Prime Minister and other Ministers, I support the decision to proceed with two integrated resorts with casinos. Having decided to proceed with the IRs with casinos, we must ensure that we obtain as much economic benefits as possible. The IRs and casinos are expected to create 10,000 new jobs. The spin-off effect is expected to add another 25,000 jobs. I am concerned that the developers may be tempted to focus on the gaming profits and neglect the attractions. This is important as the spin-off effect of economic boost and job creation can only happen if the attractions are truly world class and draw large numbers of tourists to Singapore. These attractions are likely to be loss-leaders and it makes great business sense for developers to do the minimum necessary.

I propose, therefore, that the Government, as it works out the details, ensure that the maximum casino revenue to be retained by the operator should be pegged

to certain multiples of revenue of other attractions or tourist arrivals to the IRs. In this way, we will ensure we obtain the anticipated economic spin-offs. My second proposal is that as the IRs will be built over a few years, developers will certainly try to complete the casino portion first and operate for gaming revenue as soon as possible, just as they did in Macau. This would be a very bad start. We will then be having casinos without IRs for a few years. So I suggest that we must insist that gaming not be allowed until the IRs are substantially completed and the other attractions in operation.

Sir, in this whole year's long debate, I have been impressed with the openness of the process. In the Budget debate, I called for a binding referendum even though this is not a life and death issue. I did that because I wanted the Government to demonstrate clearly that it has not made up its mind and that it seriously considers the views of religious and social groups and others opposed to the idea and are prepared to take a vote on it. Notwithstanding that, I am glad that this usually efficient Government has been "uncharacteristically inefficient", taking more than a year to come to this decision. I am glad that the Government has not rushed into this decision. The deliberations have been worth it. Like Mr Tan Soo Khoon, I applaud the process of open public consultation. I applaud the "inclusiveness" of the public consultation, where we listened to every person's view and weigh its merits regardless of his background, race, language, or religion, and in the case of Chia Teck Leng, regardless of his current status or residential address.

In fact, I have always been arguing that the PAP Government should be the last to fear public consultations and debates. We all know that it has a stable of fierce debaters - super heavyweight,

heavyweight, bantamweight, etc. But it is also good to acknowledge from time to time that the Cabinet does not have a monopoly on all wisdom, definitely not in this debate, as it is quite clear that Chia Teck Leng has exhibited greater expertise and experience in casino gaming than the Cabinet. I hope we are witnessing the "greening of Singapore" - whether the Government initiating more public consultations and debates, or people being more willing to express their views and ideas. This is something a whole generation of thinking and caring Singaporeans have been hoping and waiting for.

I also like to join issues with Mr Tan Soo Khoon and Minister Mentor about Cabinet, Government and collective responsibility. I believe that Government Ministers who publicly disagree with expressed Government policy, without the Prime Minister's approval, need to leave the Cabinet. Such is the convention in Constitutional Law and I see no good reason to depart from it. However, I see a distinction between a Minister's personal view and his view as a Minister. I see a distinction between a Minister adhering to collective responsibility and showing his views, thoughts and feelings on certain subjects and issues in his personal capacity. I believe that such sharing would be important for our society, as it helps our people to relate to the ways decisions are being made. Minister Mentor, Senior Minister and other Ministers have said clearly that they are against gambling. But for Singapore's future, as Cabinet Ministers, they support the IRs with casinos.

I would urge the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues to share their personal views and feelings on public issues more freely. In this way, more people will know that their views are being shared by the leaders, considered and deliberated. There is pluralism in views, but decisions are ultimately made on a rational basis with all these views

taken into consideration. I believe, in this way, our political fabric will be strengthened and Singaporeans need not fear expressing their personal views, and we will be richer for it.

Sir, having made our judgement on this difficult decision, we should close ranks and move on. 18th April 2005 need not be a sad day for Singapore. I applaud the Prime Minister's intention to meet with religious and social groups opposed to casinos in Singapore. Just like he has persuaded many of us here, I believe that his candour, sincerity and compassion will persuade these leaders that this decision is in the long-term interests of Singapore and all Singaporeans.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.55 pm until 4.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm

Debate resumed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when I first heard that the Government was studying the possibility of setting up an IR with casino, my immediate reaction was that the opening of a casino here is not a good thing, although personally I am not against gambling. But after a year of getting views from all quarters, and understanding what an IR is all about, its economic benefits and possibility of creating jobs, I have changed my stand on it.

From religious and moral standpoints, gambling is not a good thing. But if you think in a deeper level, you will realise that the problem is not on gambling but on the people. If people become compulsive gamblers, they will bring about other social problems. I come from a low income family. Those around me used to engage in various forms of gaming, such as mahjong, cards, etc. There were old people who played the four-colour cards and young people who played various games with the poker cards, such as the three old men, blackjack, rummy, and so on. They also played number games. Some actually engaged in underground, illegal gambling or 4-D. Every weekend, a lot of them indulged in horse betting or other games. From young, I learned a lot about all these games. When I was younger, I played with cards. As I grew older, when I was in junior college, I started playing mahjong. I realised that mahjong is a highly skill-based game. But it is also very easy for one to get addicted, especially when you are young, you can play it through the night. Later on, I realised that this was not healthy. So I decided that I should play not more than eight rounds of the so-called "healthy mahjong". Small gambling is good for temperament, but do not indulge in big gambling.

Ever since I became an MP, I have less time to play mahjong. I have been to casinos. The first time when I went to a casino was after my graduation. I went to Genting. I played the jackpot machines then. Very quickly, I realised that I had lost about 200 ringgit. For me, at the time, that was a big sum of money. After that, whenever I had a chance to go to a casino, I would set a limit on how much I would spend on the jackpot machines. If I lose $50 or $100, I would stop playing the game. If I manage to hit the jackpot, I would leave immediately. This actually helps me not to get addicted.

As for betting on the gaming tables in the casino, I only did it once and that was in Gaborone, the capital of Botswana. I was attending the Commonwealth Ministers' Conference and there was a casino at the hotel where we stayed. It was a very far out place and there is no other place to go during our leisure time. So I took the time between the meetings to take a walk in the casino. It was not a very big casino. It was more like a club. But there were a lot of Chinese there. In fact, almost all the gamblers were Chinese. This was because there were a lot of Chinese going there to set up clothes manufacturing factories. I stood near to a table to watch them playing blackjack. I saw there were three Chinese gamblers. Lady luck was apparently not smiling at one of them. He lost all his money and started borrowing from his friends. Soon, all three of them lost all their money. I set down and started playing. In fact, my luck was pretty good. I won about $30-$40. Then I stood up to go. The three gamblers looked at me enviously. They said, "Your luck is so good. Why don't you continue?" Of course, I did not continue to play because I knew if I had continued to play, I would end up losing back all that I had won, and I would lose my own money as well.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the question is why there are people who get addicted to gambling and why I did not. For example, Senior Minister Goh and other Ministers have gone to casinos but they did not get addicted. There are few reasons for that. First, we all know that the attraction of gambling, whether you are buying 4-D or you are playing on the jackpot machines or blackjack, the odds are not good for the gamblers. The chances of winning are very low. I am lucky that when I was in school, we actually learned permutation and combination in our mathematics. We can calculate and hence realise how difficult it is for one to win. Secondly, during my school days, we were taught good values. There is no free lunch in

this world. So we have to work hard to make a living. I am a Buddhist and I know we are not supposed to have greed and to get ill-gotten money. But there are many other Singaporeans who aspire to have a better life. I am like them too.

When it comes to gambling, to me, it is a game. I know as a fact that it will not bring about great wealth. For me, small gains are good for the temperament. I can lose a few dollars, a little bit of money. That, I can afford. People oppose the opening of casinos because they believe that people will rush to the casino and become addicted to gambling. In Geylang, there are brothels and prostitution. They have been in existence for decades. That does not mean that everybody will go there to frequent the prostitutes. No doubt, even if there is only 1%, 2% or 3% of the population addicted to gambling, it will be bad for our society. At the moment, we do not know exactly why people become compulsive gamblers, but we do know that some of these people like to take risk. Some may be so because of their family background or have some psychological problems, like depression, drug addiction, personality problem, alcoholism, etc. From scientific research, we found that neuro transmitters are closely linked to addiction. Some found that in gambling, it stimulates the production of dopamine which is a neuro transmitter. This neuro transmitter, once stimulated, will make the people feel high. That is the reason why these people go for the games and get addicted in the process.

Some scientists are studying to find out which part of the gambling brings about the release of dopamine. They used monkeys to do the experiment. During the experiment, they put a monkey in front of the computer screen and on the screen, you can choose five different designs, just like the jackpot machine. There are some combinations of pictures, and you can win a prize if you strike any

one of them, for example, a mouthful of fruit juice. Then they found that when there was a certain combination where the monkey could not guess what was coming up next, not knowing what prize it was going to win, the dopamine secretion becomes more. So if the monkey can guess whether they will win or lose, the dopamine secretion becomes lower. This means that during expectation and guessing, the stage between the two, the brain is stimulated to secrete more dopamine. That is how people get addicted. We need to have some preventive measures. Of course, the Ministry of Health will set up funds to conduct research in the Institute of Mental Health. We are very happy to learn that they are going to do this.

From here, we can see that not everyone will get addicted. Just because we are going to have a casino, it does not mean that everybody is going to become a compulsive gambler. It is not quite possible to ban gambling completely. The Chinese have been known to be a race of people who love gambling. This is not a question of right or wrong. From the Chinese history, we know that gambling has been banned before. In the warring states, if any ordinary citizen gambled, he would be fined three gold coins. If the prince gambled, he would be caned. During the Han Dynasty, the founding Emperor Lui Pang stated that if a senior official gambled, he would not only be removed from his position, but his possessions would also be confiscated. During the Sung Dynasty, those who gambled would have their hands chopped off. Despite all these severe punishments, gambling still remained within the Chinese community.

Here, we need to adopt a more practical attitude to face the problems which gambling will bring about. On the one hand, we need to strengthen our values. On the other hand, we have to reduce the number of people who are

likely to become compulsive gamblers. It is very good that the family can stop certain people from going to the casinos. I do not think an entrance fee of $100 will really serve to deter the gamblers. This can be improved. When we levy this entrance fee, it is to prevent Singaporeans from going there every now and then, and thus becoming compulsive gamblers. But there are some Singaporeans who may want to go there once in a while, for example, those who go to Genting or Batam. For those who are already addicted, $100 is not going to deter them. They will go anyway. They can go to the neighbouring countries to gamble, or they may pay the yearly fee of $2,000 and go there more frequently to make full use of the subscription. This may encourage them to go there more often. It is not going to help. To the ordinary Singaporeans who want to go on a cruise or to Genting to gamble once or twice a year, then $100 is a big sum. If they go to Genting, the trip may cost less than $100. When you do that, the money will flow out to the neighbouring countries. We want to keep all this money within Singapore. It is better.

I suggest that we change this entrance fee to a sliding scale, for example, for the first time, it is a minimum sum, for the second to fifth times, $100, more than six times, you need to pay $200 or $300, and the annual membership fee should be $10,000. This will deter those who like to go to a casino frequently. At the same time, we can allow those people who like to go for a spin-around in the casino a chance to do so.

Next, I would like to talk about gambling among the youths. What can the Government actually do to help them? I know that we have a lot of measures to prevent gambling from getting excessive. But we do not have anything which actually pinpoints at the youths. For

example, in America, some studies have shown that students in universities have very serious gambling problems. Youth gambling problems are much higher than the adults, and some studies have also found out that if you start younger, there are more chances of becoming problem gamblers. I have also seen that in China, from the Internet, they also have such problems with the youths. In Singapore, I do not have any real figures to look at. But when I talked to some of the students, I find that football gambling is prevalent among them. Some of them even buy 4-D. If they are under-aged, what they will do is that they will get their older friends to buy or to put the bets down for them and to get the winnings from them.

Another problem is that, with the Internet becoming more widely used, there are more and more problems of Internet gambling. Our youths always log on to the net. What they face on the net is even greater. I hope that the Government will have some measures to help them. This may entail the Ministry of Education, etc. We should have some funds to study whether the youths have such a problem and how bad it is, and we have to find preventive measures for those youths who are already addicted to gambling and find ways to help them overcome their addiction.

Secondly, we must also step up moral education in schools. I find that, especially when we want to build casinos, it is very important the schools should continue to infuse the right moral values into the students so that we will not lose our forefathers' honest and hardworking values. We should also have more activities to let the students have better and more wholesome activities and not spend their time on gambling instead.

Thirdly, we must look at the problem of gambling squarely. We must also teach the students what gambling is

about, and not just to scare them. For example, when I was young, even though I came into contact with a lot of these gambling activities, I could withstand the temptation to gamble because I understood the dangers of gambling. The chances of losing are more than winning, so it means that the odds are never in favour of the gamblers. That will prevent us from being trapped into indulging in gambling. We will be a little bit more objective when we look at gambling. Through education on gambling, the students will know that gambling is not an activity that will bring about economic gains. So, when they grow up, if they really want to gamble, they should do it more for leisurely or entertainment purposes. I hope that strict measures could be adopted to punish those who abet youths to gamble.

Fourthly, Internet gambling. I know this is not very prevalent or a very big problem in Singapore as yet. I hope that we could look at it and study this and enact some laws to prevent such activities because when you go into Internet gambling, you do not have to pay an entrance fee. The problems that it brings about in the future could be even greater than the problems brought about by the two casinos in the IRs.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this year we will be celebrating Singapore's 40th year of independence. The Government has on Monday, 18th April, announced its momentous decision to develop two integrated resorts with casinos at Marina Bayfront and Sentosa.

I have listened carefully to the Prime Minister and Ministers who have spoken on the subject. Indeed, I can sense the ambivalence they held and the moral dilemma they faced in arriving at this very difficult decision. I respect their decision, as I have been taught to submit to those in authority who have been empowered

and who will be held accountable for the decisions they made. We will render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.

But I wish they had decided differently, as I disagree strongly in having a casino in Singapore. As I reflect on the matter, the question that plays in my mind is: why are we faced with such a Hobson's choice today? Minister Mentor has said that "the cost of not doing it is even greater". We have been told that not to proceed with the development is worse than proceeding with it. We have been asked to pay the perceived minimal cost in human suffering to enjoy the larger economic benefit. My view is that, after three and four generations, the costs will outweigh the benefits, and many of us here today will not be around to see the consequences, but our children and grandchildren will be.

Is this the way to measure policy outcomes? Have we fully explored all alternatives before we ask only casino operators to put the proposals? Are we sure that we want to put our destiny in tourism and a not insignificant part of our economy in the hands of two foreign casino operators? Are we sure that the novelty of integrated resorts would not wear out? Are they fully recession-proof? Would it not hollow out the other businesses in Singapore if one-third of the casino income is to come from Singaporeans?

After 40 years of independence, we must adjust our thinking from being fixated with the idea that economic prosperity is all that matters. There is a very high cost that accompanies with the single-minded pursuit of wealth and prosperity. We are already a developed economy enjoying a higher average per capita income. To have an annual economic growth of an average of 3-6% is not insignificant.

We need the cultural ballast and strong national values and social graces to provide the balance in the way we live. The world wants us to seek instant gratification and temporary pleasures, but if our people are too stressed out and not having the happiness, peace and joy in their hearts, then it counts for nothing. What our people need is healthy relationships with their family, neighbours and the community. Instead, we see dysfunctional families and quarrelling neighbours. In the lexicon of Thomas Friedman, we are forsaking our olive tree by trading it for a newer and bigger model of Lexus.

Personally, I am all for economic growth and prosperity. But I am not so sure whether, if we keep on going the way we are, our communities will not fall apart. Switzerland and the Nordic countries I hear earlier, have been held as excellent examples of how the Swiss work, live and play. I like some of what they do. We should follow the Swiss in keeping the Sabbath in not washing the cars and mowing the grass on Sundays, not flushing the toilets in the night as it could disturb the neighbours, buy and support locally-made goods even if they are more expensive than foreign goods. For every issue that affects the whole community, they hold a referendum to decide. The Swiss possess the maturity, strong cultural and social values that we Singaporeans lack.

We have read the document written by Mr Chia Teck Leng on the casino escapades. He feels that we ought to go ahead with the casino. I am not so sure how much weight we want to place on the opinions of a man who has been imprisoned because of his addiction to gambling. Unfortunately, we do not have a chance to hear the feeling of his wife and two teenage sons. If we were to hear their side of the story, we would

have a different perspective of the untold harm that has been caused. My real concern is that we will not know whether we have made the right or wrong decision until perhaps 10 to 20 years later. By that time, the situation in Singapore would have deteriorated beyond recognition.

I cannot understand the argument put forward that, as gambling is already in existence, the harm is incremental in nature. Do we not know that two wrongs do not make a right? The damage and harm to society could be compounding and cumulative in nature and rising exponentially. With the proliferation of vices, we will be like frogs in hot water, and we do not know that we will be boiled to death.

The Government has made the decision. I will respect it. But I will discourage Singaporeans to contribute their expected one-third share to the casino income and, instead, contribute the money to charity to help the needy and disadvantaged. When political leaders share their stories of "little" gambling experiences in this House, unwittingly and subtly we are telling the young that it is all right to try and play 4-D and jackpot machines and have some fun. That, to me, is the thin end of the wedge, the beginning of disaster.

It is exactly what I am afraid of. Over time, our people's guard will go down, slowly but surely. We can explain and rationalise our actions, we get into a mode of denial. Gambling and other vices become the norm in our society. Slowly, warm water turns to hot water, then to boiling water. It is a matter of degree, but it is also the difference between life and death.

This surely cannot be. Our young should be taught good moral ethical values. Gambling is like smoking, something not to be tried in the first place.

Therefore,

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

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

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

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

Sir, I rest my case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. I just have two calls and a question. First, my call.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, first, I would like to thank hon. Members for their very candid views of the integrated resort project shared over the past four days.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I listened with profound respect and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Services which are provided in the community by FSCs,

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

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

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

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

We will be very happy to treat him in the Institute of

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

Point of clarification with the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports.

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

Dr Geh Min, can you come to your point? Raise your clarification.

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

We will treat the integrated resort operators the way

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

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

Prof. Ivan Png. One last clarification. I think we have to move on.

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

I said earlier that we would review our conditions from time to time.

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

5.52 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Catholic Archbishop Monsignor Nicholas Chia told the BBC that he

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved,

That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 2. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Debate resumed.

Clarification, Sir. I would like to ask the PM or the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Government intends to introduce a Casino Bill in this House so as to legislate the necessary safeguards.

Sir, we are studying the various legislative issues concerning the regulation of the casino. We will need to have a casino regulatory agency. Whether that agency will be a statutory board, whether it will be called a commission, or whatever - these are issues that are still being studied, although we have some rough ideas about them now. We will have to have the powers in order to enforce the rules. To have the powers, we must have the law in place. And to do that, we need to come to Parliament later.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just a point of clarification from the Prime Minister or from the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports. Is the $100 levy charged per entry into the casino or per 24 hours?

It will be $100 per day.

24 hours?

Yes. You do not get to stay in there forever.

Multiple entries within the 24 hours?

Per day.

Pursuant to Standing Order 44(2), the motion to consider the Proposal to Develop Integrated Resorts lapses at the conclusion of debate.

Order for Second Reading read.

6.33 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Background

Sir, IRAS was set up in 1992 when IRAS was restructured from an MOF department into a statutory board. IRAS' functions as the tax authority of Singapore, as set forth in the IRAS Act, include the administration, assessment and collection of tax payments, and provision of valuation services for immovable properties.

The Bill will amend the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore Act to allow IRAS to:

raise loans from the Government;

raise loans through credit facilities for purchase of goods or services; and

raise loans from any source within or outside Singapore with the approval from Minister for Finance, including:

mortgages, overdrafts or other means, with or without security;

charges on any property vested or on any other revenue receivable; and

debentures, bonds or any other instrument.

Sir, I shall now explain the proposed amendment.

Expansion of borrowing powers

Currently, the IRAS Act restricts IRAS to borrowing only from banks and other financial institutions but not to issue bonds, even though IRAS could issue bonds at lower interest costs.

The proposed amendment will give IRAS more options to raise funds from the capital markets. This will allow IRAS to be more cost-effective as it will be able to choose the option with the lowest borrowing costs to fund its projects. As a safeguard, loans from non-governmental sources will be subject to the approval of the Minister for Finance.

The same powers had been granted to NUS (National University of Singapore), NTU (Nanyang Technological University) and PUB (Public Utilities Board) when their Acts were amended last year.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mrs Lim Hwee Hua].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The purpose of this Bill is to establish a Register for Advanced Practice Nurses, so that we can systematically develop this category of clinical nurses with a "Master in Nursing" degree, to contribute to our healthcare system.

Background

This is not a new idea. In 1999, the Nurses and Midwives Act provided for the setting up of a Nurse Specialist Register. The objective was identical. It was to promote the development of nurse specialists who can, through formal training, acquire the necessary knowledge, skills and competencies to play a greater role than that traditionally performed by nurses. Over the years, some of our nurses have, on their own efforts, acquired such expertise and many more have expressed an interest to pursue such advanced training.

My Ministry encourages this trend. First, it raises the status of the nursing profession. Second, it recognises and maximises the potential for some nurses to take on added responsibilities. With proper training, such nurses can competently perform tasks like: physical assessments of patients; ordering and interpreting diagnostic tests; and initiating treatment according to an approved protocol.

Internationally, such a development is not new. In the US and the UK, such a category of clinical nurses has evolved over 30 years to become an important player in their healthcare systems.

Increasingly, they have also switched to call such nurses "Advanced Practice Nurses" instead of "Nurse Specialists".

This Bill will essentially update and amplify the existing provisions in the Nurses and Midwives Act, which pertain to the certification and regulation of nurse specialists. In so doing, we shall re-name nurse specialists as "Advanced Practice Nurses (APNs)", in line with international nursing nomenclature.

Benefits of APNs

APNs bring benefits to patients, doctors and nurses. International experience suggests that APNs are effective in initiating management of common acute illnesses and injuries. APNs are also valuable in managing stable chronic conditions with particular emphasis on health promotion and disease prevention. They can promote better patient compliance with treatment.

Many studies have been conducted to gauge the quality of care provided by APNs. Early studies found that in an appropriate setting, patient care and outcomes were of equivalent quality to that provided by doctors, and patients were satisfied with their care. More recent studies have shown that APNs' intervention and care contributed to shorter length of stay, fewer hospital admissions, reduced re-admission rates and therefore healthcare costs.

Such outcome studies confirm the positive impact of APNs and establish them as cost-effective caregivers of quality healthcare.

For doctors, the services provide by APNs complement their care. This makes APNs useful partners. APNs' extended scope of practice allows them to take on some of the routine duties of the junior doctors. This frees up the junior doctors

to spend more time on patients who require their higher level of expertise.

As an example, in primary healthcare setting, APNs can work with family physicians to manage nurse-led follow-up clinics for patients with chronic diseases. They can also conduct patient education and counselling sessions which will include re-enforcement of self-management skills, emphasis on medication compliance and evaluation of treatment.

For the nursing profession, the APN Register opens up an alternative career track to allow experienced and skilled nurses who have the necessary advanced qualifications to remain in clinical setting without compromising their career development. This is one way to retain good nurses in the profession.

To prepare for this development, the National University of Singapore started its "Master in Nursing" programme in 2003. This was a milestone in local nursing education. It launched our APN training programme. The first batch of 14 graduates will complete their one year internship next month. They will then be eligible for appointment as APNs.

Main features of the Bill

Let me highlight the key amendments.

Advanced Practice Nurses

Part V of the principal Act has been repealed and re-enacted in the Bill. This will amplify the existing provisions relating to the certification and regulation of the practice and conduct of APNs. It covers the use of job titles, qualifications, training, education, standards and scope of practice, professional conduct and ethics of APNs.

The nomenclature of nurse specialist or nurse specialist register has been

updated to Advanced Practice Nurse or Advanced Practice Nurse Register, wherever it appears in the Act.

Continuing Professional Development

The Nursing Board intends to implement mandatory Continuing Professional Development for the renewal of the APN Practising Certificate. This is similar to mandatory Continuing Medical Education for doctors.

As nurses enlarge their roles, it is essential that they uphold the quality of nursing care by keeping abreast of the changes and developments in medical science. Clauses 7 and 22 of the Bill amend sections 18 and 44 of the Act to mandate such a requirement. The new provisions will also allow the Nursing Board to exercise this requirement for other categories of nurses, if and when the need arises in the future.

Other amendments

Sir, let me now move on to the other amendments which will enhance the administration of the Act.

Establishment and membership of Board

Currently, the Nursing Board comprises 14 appointed members (including 11 nurses) and three ex-officio members. The ex-officio members are the Director of Medical Services, the Director-General of Education or his representative and the Chief Nursing Officer.

Traditionally, the Board is chaired by the Director of Medical Services. In this House, Dr Lily Neo has previously argued for the Board to be led by a nurse. I support her view on this. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for the Director of Medical Services or his representative to be a member of the Board. This technical

amendment in clause 4 will facilitate such a development.

Administrative/civil sanctions

Clause 8 of the Bill amends section 19 to increase the range of disciplinary actions that the Nursing Board may take. The range of penalties includes issuing of warning, censure, imposing a financial penalty, suspension or cancellation of registration. This would give the Board greater flexibility in administering disciplinary actions.

Clause 21 empowers the Board to prescribe compoundable offences and to compound offences. Clause 6 will enable it to decriminalise minor offences such as the failure to inform the Registrar of a change in address or other particulars. This is in line with the move to promote the greater use of administrative and civil sanctions.

Disclosure of information

Currently there is no explicit provision for the Board to disclose information to Government organisations for policy planning purposes. The new subsection (6) in clause 6 of the Bill will allow the Board to release such information. This is similar to the provision in the Medical Registration Act which allows the Registrar of Singapore Medical Council to disclose the information in the registers as prescribed by regulations made under the Act.

Power to invest funds

At present, the Act does not allow the Board

to invest its surpluses. Clause 20 of the Bill amends section 42 to empower the Board, with the approval of the Minister, to invest its funds. This would allow for prudent management of reserves.

Sir, this year, the Singapore nursing profession celebrates its 120th

Anniversary. Over this long period, the profession has made significant progress.

Our nurses have kept up with the rapid advancement of medical science and technology. Their job scope has grown in breadth and complexity. They have become valuable partners of our doctors and other healthcare professionals. Some of the credit for the high standard of healthcare in Singapore should go to our nurses. The critical role played by our nurses in the battle against SARS is still fresh in our memory.

For the profession to remain valuable partners in our healthcare team, they must continue to upgrade and keep in step with global development. This Bill will help to contribute to this.

Advanced Practice Nurses can potentially become a key player in our drive to keep healthcare cost affordable while maintaining quality. Let us actively embrace them and incorporate their services into our healthcare delivery systems for the benefit of our patients.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.