in sentencing. Actually, mandatory punishment, for example, mandatory imprisonment, it means that the Court has to jail a person. But within that power, there is a range where the Court can jail a person either for "x" years or "x plus y" years. In that sense, the Court will still have some discretion, taking into account the mitigating circumstances of the case. That is his key point. Whether it removes the Court's ability to take into account mitigating circumstances, the answer will be no, because still the Court can consider that. Many MPs, in fact, have highlighted the fact that we have imposed minimum mandatory punishment. I think as this House knows, we do not do that lightly as a government. We do it when the situation warrants it. And that is why at this point in time when we have to send a strong message, we have included some mandatory minimum punishment in the Bill, I am sure the message will sink in. let us keep the current position because it is a new approach insofar as moneylending is concerned. Under the Bill, safeguards have been built in because the Minister must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to do this. The Minister can only issue a freezing order if he has reasonable cause to believe that the property or funds in the account are proceeds from the detained loanshark's loansharking activities. There are safeguards because anyone who is affected by the Order can apply to Court to get it lifted and, also, we have made provisions where someone who is affected, family members, for example, can ask the Minister to give a licence to deal with the money. ground. Let me assure him that insofar as use of CCTVs is concerned, yes, more are being deployed because it may have a deterrent effect. Police also has acquired more sets and this would be deployed on the ground as necessary. As to whether there is a need to paste the photos of known loansharks or syndicates on the notice boards, I think the current approach really is that the call for information is, in fact, more dispersed – through TV, the printed press, and in cases where publicity is required, it is not of the loansharks. It is of people who are caught on CCTV – these are your possible harassers. In that sense, I think it is better to disperse it because the guy may not be just living in that block. He is probably from all over the place. Actually when Police started doing this about three years ago, there have been some good results where arising from these publicity outreaches, information that has been rendered has led to arrests. Public Prosecutor to authorise the Police to inspect documents containing information of suspected loansharks as well as the spouses, sons, daughters, trustees and agents. So using this power, Police can, when they are investigating a case, track the accounts and fund movements. And when they do this, they will glean insights into the syndicate's network and the identity of its members. This provision, of course, will exist alongside current existing provisions under, for example, the STRO (Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office), where I think Mr Sin, as a lawyer, will know that financial institutions are obligated to report a suspicious transaction. So I think this combination of provisions is good enough because we also need to maintain a balance, not to over-reach in this tracking.