Hansard, Monday, 6 May 2019

1 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Education in the past three years (a) how many cases of sexual harassment or misconduct have been reported by undergraduate students in each of the autonomous universities; and (b) how many of such cases have been referred to the Police for prosecution.

2 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Education (a) how many cases of serious disciplinary cases involving students at our institutes of higher learning (IHLs) have there been over the last three years; (b) how many students have been expelled; and (c) how does the Ministry ensure that the disciplinary frameworks for the IHLs are robust and consistent.

3 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education (a) for each year from 2008, how many cases of on campus sexual harassment and sexual assault at autonomous universities were reported to the campus authorities; (b) how many resulted in administrative penalties from campus authorities and no further action; (c) how many resulted in administrative penalties and Police action; (d) what was the nature of the administrative punishments issued; (e) what were the considerations behind determining administrative penalties; and (f) what support was provided to victims in such cases.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I take the next three questions together, please?

Yes, please.

Members have raised three areas of concern. First, the number of sexual misconduct cases across the autonomous universities (AUs) over the years. Second, the adequacy of law enforcement and disciplinary actions in deterring potential offenders. Third, the support systems that have been put in place to help victims in a timely and effective manner that is sensitive to their needs. I will address the first two aspects, while Second Minister Indranee will cover the final aspect.

So, Members may want to pose your supplementary questions after both of us have given our replies.

First, incidence rates of sexual misconduct in the AUs. Over the past three years, the six AUs handled a total of 42 disciplinary cases involving sexual misconduct within campuses. But there were another 14 cases committed by students that happened outside of campuses, making a total of 56 cases. I know that Mr Leon Perera, in his question, referred to cases within campuses. But since the focus of my reply today is on the penalty framework of the AUs rather than campus security, I will refer to all 56 cases today in my reply.

Let me give a breakdown of the 56 cases.

There were 17 cases in Academic Year 2015, 18 cases in Academic Year 2016, and 21 cases in Academic Year 2017 across all six AUs.

Twenty-five out of the 56 cases were from National University of Singapore (NUS); two from Yale-NUS which has its own Board of Discipline separate from NUS; 20 were from Nanyang Technological University (NTU); and six were from the Singapore Management University (SMU). The Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) and Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) had one case each over the last three years. So, the number of cases for each AU is closely related to their student population.

Finally, 37 or about 66% of the cases were related to voyeurism, that is, peeping Toms and filming of people in vulnerable positions.

As the student population changes from year to year, what is more meaningful is to express this as an incidence rate, that is, the number of sexual misconduct cases involving student perpetrators per 1,000 students. That is probably a better measurement. The number was 0.21, 0.21 and 0.20 over the last three academic years, showing no discernible trend.

Let me now talk about penalties for the offenders. Of the 56 cases, the victims in 37 cases made Police reports. Of these 37 cases, four cases are still under investigation and, for two, there was insufficient evidence to make out offences. So, there is a remainder of 31 cases. Out of the remaining 31, 10 cases resulted in jail terms of between 10 days and eight months. And these 10 are serious offences, involving outrage of modesty or multiple instances of voyeurism. These are all arising from Police reports and then Police action. Minister Shanmugam will explain later how the Police deal with these cases.

Separately, apart from Police action, the AUs will carry out their own disciplinary processes through their respective disciplinary bodies and mete out a combination of penalties that is within the AUs’ powers and authority. These range from an official reprimand, which will be reflected in the student’s formal educational record, to suspensions, and expulsion, which is the harshest punishment an AU can administer.

To determine the appropriate sanctions, each case is evaluated by the disciplinary body, taking into account the severity of the misconduct and any mitigating factors, such as how remorseful and forthcoming the offender was during investigations, the potential for rehabilitation and the presence of any mental health issues. For offenders with psychiatric conditions, sanctions will include requiring the offender to start, or continue, with mandatory counselling and psychological treatment.

Of the 56 cases I mentioned earlier that happened over the last three years, five cases are pending disciplinary hearings and four students withdrew from the university before sanctions were imposed. So, out of the remaining 47 cases, 34 resulted in an official reprimand, 26 resulted in suspensions of up to two academic terms and 20 were banned from entering student dormitories. These numbers do not add up to 47 because, typically, an offender received a combination of penalties.

But if we just look at the 10 Police cases involving serious offences which led to jail sentences, there was only one expulsion, which was subsequently reduced to an 18-month suspension after appeal and the taking into account of the offender's psychiatric condition.

I think there is no need for me to repeat my views on the adequacies of the penalties meted out by the AUs, but I will give two strong reasons why the AUs will need to review their disciplinary frameworks with a view to strengthening the penalties.

First, we need to better balance the objectives of deterrence and redress for the victims against the rehabilitation of the offender. Balancing these objectives is important for an education institution, but it should not end up with penalties that are too soft and too lenient. Our AUs are important national institutions that educate and nurture young Singaporeans to be contributing and responsible members of society.

To achieve this, the AUs' disciplinary frameworks should, therefore, be stringent but fair. "Two strikes and you're out" cannot be the standard application. But neither should expulsions be the default for all forms of misconduct. The penalty must continue to fit the offence, but there has to be a significant adjustment at the most egregious end of the spectrum of misconducts when they are serious criminal offences that undermine the safety and security of university campuses. We must ensure that potential offenders know the severe consequences of their actions, including the impact on their future. There has to be a deterrent.

And if the offender is remorseful, accepted and served punishment, he deserves a chance to make good. This is also the spirit behind the Yellow Ribbon project, and this is how we balance deterrence and rehabilitation.

Second reason, we must recognise that voyeurism is a growing concern in Singapore. A recent "Big Read" article by TODAY published last weekend gave a good explanation that this may be because the young are exposed to the Internet from an early age, and technological advances make video-recording easier and more undetectable. This led to some thinking that voyeurism is not a serious offence, and they cannot be more wrong. Coincidentally, the Ministry of Home Affairs is amending the Penal Code, which will be debated this afternoon, to include new provisions on voyeurism.

As our circumstances change, the AUs must likewise keep up with the times and ensure that their policies and processes remain relevant in establishing a safe and supportive environment for all students. I have, therefore, asked all our AUs, polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education to review their disciplinary frameworks.

In the case of NUS, it has convened a Review Committee led by Mdm Kay Kuok, a member of its Board of Trustees, to review its disciplinary framework. I know many students are not excited by Committees, but this is a necessary process to bring about a considered change to an established disciplinary framework.

The Review Committee has started its work and will release its recommendations in stages. The Committee members will release some preliminary recommendations in the middle of May for consultations and aim to complete their work in June this year. In the meantime, NUS management is taking immediate actions to improve the support systems and campus security, which Second Minister Indranee Rajah will elaborate on later.

Ultimately, the AUs are tackling the concern on campus and student safety holistically, involving tougher penalties for offenders, better physical security on campus, and stronger support and greater sensitivity for the needs of victims.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me end with just one last comment. This incident provided an opportunity for us to reflect on the character of our society. And I can see that we are a people with a strong sense of justice, who see the importance of differentiating between right from wrong, and this explains the strong reaction to Ms Monica Baey's situation. We also continue to believe in tough but fair systems of punishment to keep the Singapore living environment the way it has been.

These are characteristics of our society that I am proud of as a Singaporean. But we should always refrain from trial by media, doxxing and resorting to mob justice. No matter how wrong an offender is, we need to respect the due process. During this episode, the harshest punishment for Nicholas Lim came from the social media. I hope that, as a society, we will give his family and him the time and space they need to reflect on his actions, to turn over a new leaf and move forward.

Ms Monica Baey herself has said that, as hurt and affected as she is, her objective in publicising her story was not to seek revenge for the present case, but to ensure fairness for both the perpetrator and the victim in future cases. So, the most important priority now is for the AUs to see how they can do better and take concrete steps to improve campus safety and their victim support frameworks and processes. They are strongly committed to doing so and I am confident there will be swift and meaningful changes, and my Ministry will work closely with them on these aspects.

4 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Education what measures are in place to prevent sexual harassment in all school settings and what will be done to enhance student protection.

5 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Education what safeguards and measures are in place at institutes of higher learning to (i) protect students from sexual harassment or misconduct and (ii) support affected victims and facilitate case reporting.

6 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Education (a) what measures were put in place to reduce sexual harassment and misconduct in autonomous universities and polytechnics after reports of sexualised harassment during orientation activities in 2016; (b) what steps were taken to review these measures subsequently; (c) what were the shortcomings; (d) what steps have been taken to improve; and (e) what further steps are planned.

7 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the forms of training provided at educational institutions to address sexual harassment and assault cases, including support for victims; (b) what are the measures to support victims; (c) what are the policies pertaining to investigating allegations of sexual harassment and assault; and (d) what are the procedures in place to review the effectiveness of such measures and to propose improvements.

Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 4 to 7 together?

Yes, please.

Minister Ong Ye Kung addressed questions relating to the disciplinary frameworks in the institutes of higher learning (IHLs) and the reviews that the IHLs, including the autonomous universities (AUs) are undertaking. I will now address the other questions raised in relation to sexual misconduct in educational institutions.

Ms Tin Pei Ling asked about the prevention of sexual harassment in school settings. Students' safety and well-being are our priority. Schools take a firm stand against sexual harassment and exercise judgement to ensure that disciplinary actions reflect the circumstances of each case. Depending on the facts of the case, a Police report may be made.

Beyond disciplinary measures, students are taught to identify risks to their personal safety and learn to seek help from trusted adults, such as their parents and teachers. Teachers are trained to look out for signs of distress and provide victims first-line help. Both students and teachers are supported by school counsellors and other external agencies, where required. The Ministry of Education (MOE) works with the schools regularly to ensure that support measures are relevant and effective.

The other areas of concern raised by Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap and Mr Leon Perera and which I will now address are what support is currently available in IHLs for the victims of sexual offences and whether it is sufficient, as well as what measures are being taken to ensure a safe environment for all students on campus.

In terms of support, the first and most fundamental thing to understand is that sexual misconduct can have a lasting psychological and emotional impact on victims. The sense of violation and fear that victims, male and female, experience is real and can be crippling. For many, the road to recovery can be long and painful. It takes courage for any victim to come forward and report the incident. There must be strong end-to-end support for victims, starting from the time they step forward to report an incident, to post-incident counselling and psychological support.

The recent case reported by National University of Singapore (NUS) student Monica Baey shows that insofar as NUS is concerned, there were shortcomings in victim support and there were clearly areas which were lacking. NUS has acknowledged this and has committed to doing better. NUS is serious about improving its frameworks and processes and has convened a high-level Review Committee to oversee the implementation of various measures by NUS management. One of the immediate steps is the establishment of a Victim Care Unit.

The other IHLs are similarly concerned and are in the process of reviewing their support for victims, with a focus on ensuring that the support provided is holistic, timely and accessible. For example, some IHLs have in place 24-hour helplines for incident reporting or counselling services. These ensure that victims or any distressed students receive timely support, even if they come forward outside regular office hours.

As the IHLs do their reviews, there are three broad areas of focus.

First, support for victims. All the IHLs have full-time counsellors onsite to support victims, as well as a larger group of staff who are trained as para-counsellors to provide additional support. Counsellors are also trained in managing such difficult situations sensitively.

Our IHLs will look to strengthening these provisions, taking the victim's entire journey in mind. The support must extend beyond counselling and begin at the point that the victim first reaches out for help. We should also ensure victims feel safe to step forward and report cases when they occur and seek help.

A good support system must create psychological safety for victims, guide them through the processes and protocols involved in the management of their case, update them on investigations and ensure that their concerns and questions are addressed along the entire journey. All these must be done sensitively and with empathy.

We also need to recognise that individuals have different resilience and coping levels and that some of the trauma and stress might not manifest immediately. For more severe cases, such as sexual assault, our IHLs will need to be equipped to make judgement calls about the victims’ emotional state and quickly call for external professional help where needed. These are important details that will have to be worked out carefully.

Second, campus security to deter would-be offenders. Currently, closed-circuit television cameras (CCTVs) complement campus security guards to ensure security in common areas, and some institutions take the additional precautionary measure of having controlled access to female bathrooms and toilets.

More will be done. Over this past week, NUS started installing full-height doors and partitions in the restrooms of all its hostels and sports facilities, as well as new locks at the entrances of the hostel restrooms. Additional CCTV cameras are being installed at more locations on campus. NUS will deploy more security guards at its hostels and introduce roving security patrols across campus. These changes will further strengthen privacy and security on campus.

NUS expects to complete these enhancements in the coming months. As part of their overall review of campus security, the IHLs will take steps to address new forms of threats, such as the illegal installation of miniature cameras. For example, SUSS is collaborating with the Singapore Police Force to train its security staff to inspect toilet cubicles or ceilings for such cameras.

Third, ensuring a collective stand against sexual misconduct in a modern age.

At its core, the issue is about respect for others. There are some who mistakenly think that voyeurism and verbal harassment are not serious because there is no physical contact with the victims. And this is, very simply, just wrong. Voyeurism and other unwanted non-physical harassment exact psychological and emotional harm on victims and, similar to other types of sexual misconduct, have no place in our society. Perpetrators are no less culpable just because they did not come into physical contact with their victims.

We can and, therefore, must do better to educate students not only on the importance of respect, but also what constitutes harm and violation. The IHLs are committed to this and will be taking steps to strengthen such education. For instance, NUS will be introducing a course on respect and consent at the start of the new academic year for all students, faculty and staff.

Technology has also amplified the potential for harm arising from sexual misconduct. Take voyeurism, for example. With image-capturing devices becoming ubiquitous, especially on mobile phones, such crimes are no longer contained between the victim and perpetrator, and the potential for mass dissemination is much higher. We are updating the Penal Code to deal with technology-enabled sex crimes. Institutional processes must, likewise, keep up with the times.

Institutions and organisations must also recognise that expectations of how they should respond are changing, not just in Singapore but globally. The “me too” movement is an example. As societal norms and expectations change, all organisations need to keep up with the times, send clear signals that sexual misconduct is unacceptable and equip themselves to deal with sexual misconduct complaints appropriately should they arise.

At the end of the day, the best deterrent and protection in such cases is if we respect others, both in the physical and emotional space, and conduct ourselves accordingly.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. I think it is good to hear about installing more CCTVs, doors and so on. Those are hardware, infrastructure. I would like to ask if there is a more deep-rooted culture of sexual harassment in our campuses. If there is, what action is going to be taken to eliminate this deep-rooted culture of sexual harassment?

The second question: I think what we need is education, or even a campaign on zero tolerance towards sexual harassment. So, in this aspect, is there anything that can be done?

The first question is whether there is a deep-rooted trend of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a type of sexual misconduct. There are several types: outrage of modesty, sexual assault, sexual harassment. At the AUs, the big bulk, about two-thirds, is still voyeurism. Based on the data I gave just now, there has not been a rising trend in the last three years. However, I do also acknowledge all the explanations that some of the literature has given, including the "Big Read" article in TODAY that I mentioned earlier, that the young today grow up with the Internet, they are exposed to pornographic websites, they know of miniature photography and recording devices, and sometimes, they get these materials through their WhatsApp. Over time, they may have the idea that "Actually, this is no big deal". This is what we worry about. It has not manifested in terms of higher incidence rates, at least not over the last three years. But we do worry about this underlying trend.

I do agree with the Member that we need to send a strong signal. It has to be a combination of measures between what I and Second Minister Indranee Rajah have talked about, tougher penalties, education, improving the physical security as well as better support for both the victims as well as, sometimes, for the offenders in counselling them and helping them turn over a new leaf.

Miss Cheryl Chan.

I have two questions for Minister Ong Ye Kung. The first is, had this incident not been taken on social media and gained so much attention, would the Ministry and AUs have taken actions to review the disciplinary framework? The second question is, the Minister mentioned that the AUs are now undergoing this full review. When they are ready, would the Ministry ensure that the revisions are adequate and serve their purpose?

Sorry, I did not catch the Member's first question because I thought we just announced that they would review their framework.

It is true. The thing is that if this incident was not taken to social media and had not gained that much attention, would the Ministry and the AUs already have undertaken this review since in the last three years, there was no increase in rates?

Okay, I see. Should we not have done this earlier, in other words. The AUs do review their disciplinary framework from time to time. NUS' framework was reviewed about five years ago, and it was probably due for review. But I think what this incident has taught all of us is that there is a stronger concern and also some underlying trends. I think we do need to make it tougher at the egregious end of the offence. Should we have done this earlier? I wish we had. But I think there are many things that we do, sometimes, ahead of time, and we are also being questioned, "Why do you do it now?", "Aren't you going to open up other problems?" In this case, unfortunately, that did not happen. But I think what is more important is immediate action is being taken now. I am confident that there will be swift and decisive actions.

The second question is how we would know if the measures will be adequate. I think after this furore, the AUs all understand the implications of this. I have given them my written advice and policy guidance that they have to do a thorough review. I am sure all of them will take it very seriously.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Mr Speaker, I just wanted to ask the Minister, I thought 37 cases of voyeurism over three years was quite a lot. Frankly, I am quite disappointed that the AUs did not take earlier action to review their processes to better deal with the complaints. I am wondering would the Minister review why the AUs did not take further action, having seen the number of cases that have been reported over the three years. If we do not get to the root of the problem, then whatever we do, the AUs will not do anything to review the process until the matter goes up to social media. That is one point. Two other queries.

Can the reported cases of voyeurism be publicised in campus newsletters to alert students of the extent of the problem?

And also, whether the Minister will consider asking the AUs to publicise the punishment of offenders to students in the AUs, so that there is also a learning message for everyone that there is some deterrent effect. Potential offenders must know that there would be appropriate punishment for them.

The first question is again, looking back, why did we not realise that was serious? Of course, we wish that there was a realisation that these are serious offences. Voyeurism is a rising concern. But having said that, today, after this incident, I believe that the AUs are all very aware and I am confident that they will do something swift and decisive. I am confident of that. And we will work closely with them.

As to publicising the punishment, NUS has actually been publicising the cases, the sexual misconduct cases and the punishment that has been meted out to them. It is available on their student website, which is why after the latest incident, there were several press reports about past cases, because it was publicly available within the NUS website. I think we can publicise but, fundamentally, as what I have mentioned, the penalties are just not stiff enough. We just need to toughen them up and send a strong signal that at the most egregious end of the offences, there must be very stiff punishment.

Mr Leon Perera.

I have one supplementary question for Second Minister Indranee Rajah. Minister Indranee Rajah alluded to the infrastructural changes that are happening in the NUS now, the retrofitting of the shower cubicles, the locks, additional security cameras and so on. It is a shame that it took this incident of Ms Monica Baey coming forward before these changes are actually made, given the number of voyeurism offences that have taken place in the previous years. My supplementary question would be, are these infrastructural changes to enhance security being done across the board for all the IHLs? And is there a timeframe for this to be carried out?

The short answer is that all the IHLs are reviewing their security arrangements. In the case of NUS, they have already embarked on it. They are expected to be completed in the coming months. For the other AUs, they will have to complete their review. But the short answer is that they are all looking at it and their priority is to make sure that the campus is safe for students.

Ms Anthea Ong.

Can I ask the Minister, given that this is happening across all the AUs and maybe other IHLs, are we looking to introduce codes and standards to universities and IHLs to help them prevent and manage sexual harassment on campus? The second question is, are we considering, given the numbers that the Minister has shared, a kind of cross-campus body that would help to manage such incidents? I am wondering because a student does not stay in a university if he has been found to have committed a misconduct or act. Would he then go to another university? And so, is there this cross-campus sharing of information and, therefore, that warrants a body to be set up?

I think the first thing to remember is that it does not take codes and regulations to understand that taking videos of somebody bathing is wrong. That is not rocket science. It just needs certain fundamental values, which are that you must respect other people, respect their privacy, respect their physical space, respect their emotional space. So, we can, and the AUs will be embarking, as I had mentioned in my earlier response, on better education for the students. But fundamentally, it boils down to values. That is a function partly of parents, partly schools and teachers and the individual himself or herself. Because if you adhere to that, you do not actually need to have codes and regulations.

The key thing is really making sure that individuals understand that something like this is not a light offence, is not a light thing. It will be taken seriously, and it will be dealt with seriously and appropriately as well. There is also the other aspect which is rehabilitation. In some cases, either they have a problem that needs to be dealt with, and it may require counselling, it may require additional treatment for those who are mentally not well. So, that is another aspect that we will be looking at.

Values, education, rehabilitation.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Mr Speaker, I have a follow-up question for Second Minister Indranee Rajah on the security arrangement at the hostels. I understand that the student in the controversy of this NUS Peeping Tom incident said that he was at the hostel after midnight with the intention to stay over at his girlfriend's hostel room, even though he was not a resident of the hostel. I would like to ask: what is the security arrangement for the NUS hostel and the hostels at the other universities? Would they allow people to go into the hostels after midnight and what is the response from the universities?

The students can and do visit their friends in other hostels. So, I think that this particular incident will be cause for the universities to reflect on how that arrangement should be managed. Obviously, you do not want to prevent friends from coming to see one another, but the proper recording and the security arrangements for that should be in place. So, in short, as a result of this, I think the universities will be reviewing much more closely.

I just want to add that we need to take some firm measures but be careful not to overreact to the extent of not allowing students to visit one another or staying over. These are, after all, university campuses. I think we can have a lively campus without having all the dangers and security lapses, which we will tighten up.

Ms Foo Mee Har.

Mr Speaker, I have three supplementary questions for the Minister. I appreciate the discretion that the respective AUs have to review their procedures in the light of Monica Baey's ordeal. I would like to ask the Minister: would the Minister think that there is room for some form of minimum standards that MOE could prescribe to the respective boards that are reviewing the different measures to ensure they have some kind of minimum standards to which disciplinary actions that will be meted out? This is to send that strong signal that the Minister referred to.

Secondly, on the safety measures, what would be some minimum standards where people who live in the Halls would have to observe? Last but not least, what would be some of the minimum standards on training and imparting of skills for the counsellors dealing with this sensitive matter of people being subjected to sexual harassment?

I think we also need to respect the fact that they are AUs having their own boards and governing themselves in a fairly independent way, separate from MOE. So, for us to issue standards or codes or rules to the universities would not be appropriate. We can do that for polytechnics because they are Statutory Boards, and we can do that for ITE. But for AUs, they are differently incorporated and structured.

Having said that, when I first issued my public statement that the penalties are manifestly inadequate, I think they all understood the standard that I was looking for. I am sure we will work together, not by MOE issuing rules and regulations but through discussion, moral suasion, I am sure we can come up with something feasible, workable and effective.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Mr Speaker, just two questions for the Minister. The first is on the issue of standards. The concern here is that what attracts a suspension in one university might only attract a reprimand or expulsion in another. Then, there would be a sense of injustice that the universities differ significantly on the standards. And that is why I think it is important that MOE to come in with this suasion and coordinated approach.

The second question is: when we look at the disciplinary committees, there is some concern that they may not have the right expertise or skills to discharge all of their functions because, frankly, they are not the Police or the Attorney-General's Chambers. They are not professional adjudicators or finders of facts. So, what can the Ministry do here to ensure that these committees have the skills necessary to interview the parties concerned, to investigate and to assure the public that justice is being done here?

The first question of inconsistencies across AUs, I would not call it inconsistencies. Different AUs may well have slightly different disciplinary actions, just as different companies would have different disciplinary actions when there are offences. Having said that, researchers and academics stick to the discipline of peer review very closely and I have no doubt in this aspect that there will be some peer review going on.

The second question is expertise. The disciplinary boards of the review committees will need to have certain members, including having student representatives. But of course, if they need enforcement or legal advice, I am sure they can ask for it and they are able to tap on it. After all, it is a university; lots of different talent in different expertise. So, I think we need to give them some time, some space, to get their work done.

8 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) for each year from 2008, how many cases of campus sexual harassment and sexual assault at autonomous universities were reported to the Police; (b) of these, how many resulted in warnings and how many resulted in criminal prosecution; and (c) what were the considerations behind determining the nature of the action taken in such cases.

9 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the Police report made by an NUS student against a person who took a video-recording of her in the bathroom (a) how do the Police assess whether a person should be given a conditional warning; (b) what percentage of suspects given a conditional warning in similar cases have been rehabilitated; (c) what percentage of suspects went on to re-offend; and (d) whether there is any review of this practice after this case has been discussed widely.

10 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will consider a public education campaign where people are educated not to watch or circulate voyeur videos or photos even if they do not contain nudity but which sexualise young people without their consent.

Sir, with your leave, can I take the next three questions, Question Nos 8, 9 and 10 together?

Yes, please.

At the outset, Sir, let me say this: no woman or man should have to suffer the indignity of her or his modesty being insulted or outraged. That is not acceptable. As a society, we must make sure these values are maintained. People must feel safe, as they go about their life. Our laws must and enforcement must underpin these values.

The questions by Members relate to: (a) the statistics relating to sexual offences in our universities; (b) the way in which the Police and the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) exercise their discretion in deciding to prosecute or not prosecute an offender, and the general approach taken by Police and AGC on cases relating to sexual misconduct. Let me deal with the two points.

Mr Leon Perera and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah have asked about the cases of sexual misconduct in the AUs that were reported to the Police. Earlier, the Ministry of Education had informed Parliament that from Academic Year (AY) 2015/2016 to AY2017/2018, 56 cases of sexual misconduct were reported to the AUs and 37 of these cases were reported to the Police. There was insufficient evidence to make out offences in two cases, and investigations in another four cases are ongoing. Of the remaining 31 cases, 16 were prosecuted in Court. There were jail sentences in 10 cases. Supervised probation was imposed by the Courts in four cases and a discharge not amounting to an acquittal was given by the Court in one case. And the sentencing for one case where the offender has been convicted is still pending.

So, that leaves a remainder of 15, out of the total of 31 cases. In 13 of these cases, a conditional warning was given. Two others were given a stern warning. Fourteen of the 15 students who were administered warnings, or 93%, did not re-offend. The one National University of Singapore (NUS) student who re-offended had originally been issued with a conditional warning for a voyeurism offence he committed in 2015. He re-offended in 2017, and the Police prosecuted him in Court for both his 2015 and 2017 offences. He was sent to jail for eight months and fined S$2,000.

So, beyond these 56 cases, there were an additional eight cases reported directly to the Police. Of these eight, there was insufficient evidence in six cases, and investigations in another two cases are ongoing.

The Police had earlier also clarified some factual inaccuracies in media reporting of cases for AY2015/2016 and AY2017/2018. There were 25 cases of sexual offences brought before the NUS Board. Of these 25, 17 were reported to the Police. Nine of the 17 were prosecuted in Court. The Courts handed down imprisonment terms in five of those cases; they gave supervised probation for three cases and gave discharge not amounting to an acquittal in one case. In another seven of the 17 reported cases, the Police administered conditional warnings. And the last case is pending investigation.

One of the media articles had also erroneously published that there were 13 repeat offenders. Based on Police records, there was only one repeat offender, and I had referred to that case earlier.

These numbers show that some have been prosecuted. Depending on the facts, others have been given a second chance. There are no "free passes" to university students or anyone else.

Let me give some background to our approach. I had, some time ago, asked the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to review sexual offences, in particular, offences against: (a) children – people will remember the Joshua Robinson case; and (b) women – outraging modesty, insulting modesty and other offences.

And I had also given directions to toughen our laws in these areas.

Following the review by the Penal Code Review Committee as well as my Ministry, we decided that some new offences should be specified in law and sentences for some existing offences should be enhanced.

We have proposed new offences to deal with sexual exploitation of minors. We have also proposed new standalone offences for voyeurism, distribution of intimate images, commonly known as "revenge pornography"; and sexual exposure over the Internet, commonly known as "cyber-flashing". Voyeurism is now dealt with under "Insulting the Modesty of a Woman" in the Penal Code. The proposal is to make it a standalone offence and increase the penalties. We have also proposed the updating of some existing offences to deal with technological developments which enable predatory behaviour.

This is all set out in the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, tabled in Parliament in February. It will be debated later today. If Parliament passes the Bill into law, then voyeurism, usually known as "Peeping Tom" behaviour, as well as the making, possessing, accessing and distributing of voyeuristic materials, will all be criminalised as specific offences. It will be presumed that the victims in such recordings did not consent to being recorded. That deals with the evidential challenge sometimes of identifying victims in such recordings, and the penalties will be enhanced.

Because of Parliamentary rules, I should not go into any further detail on the proposed changes. But we will be debating it and, of course, these changes were conceptualised, put through, drafted and tabled in Parliament before the latest discussions on these issues.

The proposals show the Government’s underlying approach and philosophy towards sexual offences where the victims are, of course, predominantly women. We take it very seriously, we want to send a very strong signal that would deter would-be offenders and protect victims, who, as I said, are predominantly women. The Penal Code changes have been thought through for over a year now.

All of this – being tough, taking a no-nonsense approach – does not mean that every offender must be or will be automatically charged in Court. The Police and AGC must look at the facts of each case and exercise discretion.

Let me give an example. There was an NUS student, he had taken videos of children in a toilet in a shopping mall, which happened over two days in 2015. He was caught, arrested by the Police. He was charged. After he was charged, the Police and AGC received a medical report from his doctor at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). The assessment was that his risk of re-offending was low and he would benefit from continual mental health treatment. If he was put in jail, that could get affected. The fact that he did not have any prior history was also relevant. In the end, AGC directed the Police to withdraw the charges and he was given a 24-month conditional warning. He has since completed the 24-month warning period; no further re-offending, and he has remained crime-free.

The data I have shown indicates in several other cases prosecutions were carried out for offenders.

We must have tough laws. In fact, we are going to make them even tougher if Parliament agrees. We are creating new laws as well but we must also enforce them appropriately.

When a woman’s privacy has been violated, the follow-up actions must ensure that she is treated with dignity and respect, and her concerns must be addressed and she must be supported. The criminal legal framework must deal with the offender in a way that ensures the specific victim’s safety, deal with the specific offender and deter other would-be offenders.

In this respect, when such violation takes place in, say, NUS, there are actions that NUS has to take and there are actions that the Police have to take. Police will investigate, decide on the best course of action after investigations, whether to prosecute, not prosecute, and what is the right thing to do on all the factors, ensure that their decision will protect the victim and uphold deterrence and safety.

Sir, Singapore is one of the safest places in the world for women and children. Our laws and the way we enforce our laws have ensured that.

Let me give some brief statistics. Based on the Police's 2018 Public Perception Survey, the perception of overall safety and security in Singapore among locals was 93%. How do women feel? Specifically, women and their perception of safety in their neighbourhood – 87% – nearly nine in 10 feel safe in their neighhourhood. Seventy-four percent of women feel safe walking alone in their neighbourhood at night. These figures have been consistently high over the years, and we want to make sure that that continues. Women ought to feel safe.

Members can be assured that the Government is committed to continue keeping the environment safe and being tough on such offences. That is why, as I said earlier, we have reviewed the Penal Code provisions, and are proposing new offences and seeking to enhance penalties.

Let me now answer the questions on how the Police and AGC exercise discretion in such cases. Broadly, the approach is to consider the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the severity of the offence, including the evidence, and aggravating or mitigating factors.

The Police will also consider how other similar cases had been treated to ensure consistency. In the interest of fairness, like cases should be treated like other like cases. The Attorney-General, as the Public Prosecutor, makes the final decision based on his prosecutorial discretion.

Specific facts, and I say this by way of illustration, could include previous criminal record, if any; level of remorse, whether the offender comes clean, cooperates; and whether any videos of the victim have been posted online or otherwise shared.

The Police also assess the likelihood of rehabilitation. The Police make such assessments regularly, when making decisions. This is part of their professional craft. They will then recommend the course of action: to prosecute, or give a conditional warning, or a stern warning, or to take no further action. AGC will make the final decision.

I should add that in these cases, the assessment of future conduct and possible rehabilitation is quite important. This is so even when the offender had done similar acts previously, which will, of course, weigh against him. The Police will look at all the factors, including the level of remorse, whether he owned up voluntarily, the likelihood of reform and the likelihood of re-offending. They will also, of course, consider the circumstances of the victim, the impact of the offence on the victim and the need for deterrence.

Generally, there would be no reason for the Police to show any leniency, if the following aggravating factors are present: (a) a person has previous convictions or was warned for similar offences; (b) premeditation and deception in committing the offence, for example, by using hidden pinhole cameras, masking his face, covering closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras, or other means to evade detection; (c) the video had been shared or circulated; or (d) the perpetrator was not remorseful or had been uncooperative in the investigation.

Let me illustrate by reference to a case in 2015. A 23-year-old man filmed a woman showering at Republic Polytechnic. The accused had committed the offences over a period of four months. He tried to evade detection by covering his face with a towel, covering up CCTVs in the vicinity and did not own up voluntarily. The man was charged and sentenced to 10 weeks’ imprisonment.

Another illustration: five men were jailed between six months and three years for engaging in serial acts of voyeurism and sharing videos of their victims in an online forum.

There had been questions on conditional warning. A conditional warning means that (a) an offender has been put on notice; (b) he would know that the authorities have enough evidence and are prepared to press charges against him if he does not reform; (c) if he commits a fresh offence during this period, he would be liable to be prosecuted for both the current offence and the subsequent fresh or new offence; in other words, he is not let off the hook for the earlier offence; he will pay for both.

Members have not specifically asked about Mr Nicholas Lim’s case, involving Ms Monica Baey. Let me, nevertheless, point some of the facts out by reference to the broader position I put out.

Mr Nicholas Lim is on thin ice with his conditional warning. The factors that were taken into account in his case were set out in the Police statement. If he offends within the period of 12 months, he will be charged for the offence relating to Ms Monica Baey and the new offence.

The case has been dealt with. So, it is, therefore, best that I do not go into it in detail on the factors. But briefly, there were factors which could have justified charging him, the primary one, of course, being that he had done something very wrong. These factors were weighed against other factors, which would justify giving him another chance. The Police weighed both sets of factors and decided that a conditional warning was appropriate. It was one of those cases, quite usual, normal for the Police, where the decision was based on judgement. Police assessed him to be remorseful and likely to reform. He confessed voluntarily within minutes of the offence being committed and well before any Police report was made. He was cooperative with the Police. He had not circulated the video. That had been deleted. Other factors have also been mentioned in the Police statement.

A conditional warning has been an effective deterrent for offenders who have had good propensity to reform. Even after the stipulated crime-free period, the warning remains an internal record for calibrating future prosecutorial decisions. Perpetrators who receive warnings are told in clear terms that if they re-offend, they will face serious consequences. As the cases at the AUs show, most who were given conditional warnings did not re-offend. Out of the 15 who received warnings, one student re-offended, and he was dealt with severely; he went to jail.

Sir, we take a very stern view of sexual misconduct. Several perpetrators have been prosecuted and put behind bars. But the rigid meting out of uniform penalties will not serve the wider public interest.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah also asked about victim care and public education. One area which we continuously review is how to further improve on the support given to victims of sexual crimes who experienced emotional, psychological damage and stress.

Over the years, we have made significant improvements to Police processes and the way Police officers interact with victims. We have trained a group of specialist investigation officers to handle sexual crime cases. We have rolled out the One-Stop Abuse Forensic Examination (OneSafe) Centre, where victims of rape can undergo interviews and forensic medical examinations at a single private location without having to go between the Police station and the hospital. We have a response framework to ensure that victims of sexual crimes are attended to quickly and a victim care programme that provides emotional support.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked if we would consider a public education campaign about the harms of taking and distributing voyeuristic videos. We certainly will, but I think a very good public education campaign will be if Parliament passes the amendments later today. That will be given concerted publicity, to raise awareness about the new sexual offences, including voyeurism, when it is classified as a standalone offence, and the enhanced penalties.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Sir, I have three supplementary questions. First, who is the qualified person to make the assessment on the accused's suitability for rehabilitation? Is this process applied to all accused persons?

And there is strong public outcry. Many felt that MHA gave more consideration to the offender than the traumatised victim as the future of perpetrators was mentioned. But what about the potential long-term or even possible permanent damage to the victim? How can MHA ensure that victims are given fair consideration, if not more?

The third supplementary question: it is not just about Monica Baey and Nicholas Lim. We need to send a strong signal to everyone that we have zero tolerance for sexual harassment. I agree with the Minister that we need tougher laws, but I disagree that, in sentencing, we compare like-for-like. In fact, the sentencing should be heavier, compared to the previous one. So, I hope, the Minister will consider that.

Let me try and answer that. Who makes the decision on assessment for rehabilitation? I went into the factors in some detail just now. The investigating officers and their superiors make the Police assessment. They do this every day. It is not just for victims of sexual offences, but other offences, too. But of course, within the framework of the law. That is why you take into account the severity of the offence, the impact on the victim, the need to deter others. It is a whole set of frameworks. Within that, you also look at the offender and you make an assessment based on how cooperative he has been. You are sitting down, you are talking to him, you see whether he confessed or he tried to hide. What does his conduct show about him? It does not mean that the assessments will be perfect. But these are highly trained officers who do this every day; they make an assessment. That is then discussed with the AGC, which makes the final decision, taking into account the legal framework and the overall set of factors.

Sir, it is a careful process. It is not often that MHA or the Singapore Government is being accused of being soft on these sorts of issues. Usually, the complaints are the reverse, that not enough mercy is shown. We have made that an article of faith that we are tough. We are tough on crime, we are tough on the causes of crime and, as the fact that we are putting up amendments to the Penal Code shows, there was never any intention and never any practice of being soft. I think we err on the side of being tough. At the same time, you look at the facts of each case and, where it is possible to exercise discretion, you do it. That is done by the Police as well as by AGC.

The second point is that MHA gives consideration to the offenders, when, really, more concern and care should be given to the victims. I absolutely agree. The impact on the victims is very important. Not just for the victim but also to deter similar conduct and it will protect others. The reason why the crime rate in Singapore is so low is because people generally understand a few things: one, if you commit an offence, it is likely that you will be caught; second, if you are caught, there is a very high likelihood that you will be charged, depending on the offence. If you are charged, there is a very high likelihood that you will be found guilty because the investigation will be thorough, the facts will be presented, there is a professional set of lawyers dealing with it and the Courts are staffed by highly trained lawyers. So, if the evidence is presented, properly assessed, then it is likely to result in a conviction. But, of course, if there is no evidence, or the evidence is weak, it will be thrown out. In fact, AGC would often not even proceed on the basis of there being no adequate evidence.

So, this framework is well understood on the ground. Which is one of the reasons why the crime rate is low as well in Singapore. You cannot do something and get away with it, by and large. How is it balanced, what were the factors that are taken into account, I have said in specific cases in my answer. But I agree that as a method of approach and principle, yes, of course, what has happened to the victim is extremely important and nothing I say detracts from that.

Third, we have to send a strong signal. What I meant by "like-for-like" was this: you have a set of facts, a certain decision was taken to prosecute or to give a conditional warning. You then have another case, with a similar set of facts. I think fairness requires that, in both cases, the outcome is similar, so that there is consistency. Consistency does not mean leniency, please do not mistake me. Consistency means you have decided to charge, then you will decide in a subsequent case to charge. If you have decided to give conditional warning and the factors are broadly similar, then you will tend towards giving a conditional warning. But, of course, you will look at whether there are any other factors. So, it is more that there has got to be a certain consistency in the way the law is applied and processed, not just in the Courts. Of course, we can look at the precedence for consistency, but also from the perspective of the Police and AGC. That is what I meant.

11 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how much casino entry fees have been collected from Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents since the fees were introduced; (b) how effective have the entry fees been in deterring problem gambling; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider doing away with the annual entry fee to further discourage compulsive gamblers.

Since 2010, the total amount of entry levies collected is around $1.3 billion. The proceeds are channelled to Tote Board which funds social and community programmes that benefit the public.

The daily and annual entry levies serve to deter casual and impulse gambling by locals and are part of a holistic suite of social safeguards. Between 2010 and 2018, the number of local visitors to the casinos declined by 50%. Based on the most recent gambling participation survey conducted by the National Council on Problem Gambling, the probable problem and pathological gambling rate decreased from 2.6% in 2011 to 0.9% in 2017.

On the Member's question whether we should do away with the annual entry levy, we considered this carefully and think the levy can remain for now. The data is quite clear. Annual entry levy holders tend to have higher incomes. For these affluent individuals who want to visit the casinos more often, such as Premium Players, the annual entry levy provides convenience.

Keep in mind that the levies are not our only measure of deterrence. We have also put in place social safeguards targeting individuals who are at risk of problem gambling. Frequent visitors to the casinos are identified by the National Council on Problem Gambling. If they are assessed to be financially vulnerable, a visit limit or exclusion order will be imposed on them.

Mr Alex Yam.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Second Minister for her response. With regard to the annual entry fee, I know that the Second Minister had said that most of those who are on this entry permit tend to be from higher-income groups. However, if it is a problem of problem gambling, then the factor of income should not come into play. Problem gambling, regardless of your background or your income level, should still be combated, which is why I continue to make the call to do away with the annual entry fee. Because if we acknowledge that problem gambling plagues people from all backgrounds, then having a higher disposable income should not be a criterion to keep entry permit on an annualised basis.

Mr Speaker, I agree with the Member. In fact, some of our social safeguards go beyond that. There are visit limits, for example, and we can even impose an exclusion order. And so, it is not a matter of paying the levy and then being able to enter the casinos. If you are under an exclusion order, then no amount that you offer will get you through. There is also a follow-up question relating to social safeguards and I believe that the Minister for Social and Family Development will be addressing it. So, I think we should let him share with us.

12 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the casino-related crime situation in Singapore since the casinos commenced operations in 2010; and (b) what steps are taken to ensure that casino-related crime in Singapore will be kept in check.

Mr Speaker, the casino-related crime situation in Singapore is under control and has continued to improve since the casinos commenced operations. Between 2010 and 2018, the annual number of casino crimes fell by 58%, from 299 to 126 cases.

The Police and the Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) actively manage the law-and-order concerns relating to the casinos. To prevent infiltration of criminal elements into the casinos, CRA licenses casino employees and subjects them to stringent checks. The Police exchange information with their counterparts in other countries on the latest casino-related crime trends and persons of interest.

The Ministry of Home Affairs has put in place tough penalties for casino-related crimes and the Police adopt a zero-tolerance approach towards such crimes. The Police and CRA also work closely with the casino operators to deter crime through regular surveillance and patrols.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Second Minister for her comprehensive answer to my question. I have a few supplementary questions. Firstly, in relation to the crime, how much of it is committed by organised crime syndicates? Secondly, given that the casino businesses are doing relatively well, should we not accept that casino businesses will continue to be targets for organised crime syndicates? And what can we do to deter these syndicates, particularly the foreign crime syndicates, from coming over to Singapore and ensnaring Singaporeans as well?

Mr Speaker, I appreciate the Member's concern. He has a particular worry that organised crimes, especially by foreign syndicates, will enter Singapore through casinos. If we look at the pattern of all the offences, the cases that I talked about, the vast majority of crimes committed in the casinos are mostly opportunistic and petty in nature. Actually, the number that relates to organised crime groups is very few.

Among all the offences, theft and cheating account for the most. For the theft-related cases, they mostly involved theft of gambling chips belonging to other patrons at the game tables. So, this is not quite the behaviour of organised crime syndicates. Other common scenarios include theft of cash, valuables, unattended bags and wallets from patrons. So, there is a pattern and these types of theft offences are not representative of organised crimes.

The cheating-related cases usually involve the past posting of bets. In other words, the outcome of the game is revealed and some of the patrons decide to try their luck, in case the croupier was not paying attention. They would place a bet on a location which would suggest that they won but, in fact, they did not. So, such cases also are one of the more common ones. There have also been cases where counterfeit chips were used by patrons.

So, that gives us a sense. Since 2010, ever since we started the tracking when the operations commenced, there have been fewer than 20 in total that are related to syndicates. If you look at the amounts of money involved, they were between $14,000 to $1.3 million. But the Member's concerns are very well noted. We will continue to keep a close eye.

In this instance, the operators obviously have an interest. They have fiduciary interest and so they are minded to work with the Police to stamp out the possible infiltration of organised crime.

13 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether he can provide an update on problem gambling in Singapore; (b) what is his assessment on the effectiveness of the social safeguards introduced since the entry of the Integrated Resorts in 2005; and (c) what new safeguards will be considered going forward.

Mr Speaker, based on the Gambling Participation Survey (GPS) conducted by the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG), every three years, the probable problem and pathological gambling rate of Singapore residents in 2017 was 0.9%. In 2011, it was 2.6%.

Our casino safeguards are among the most stringent in the world. We take a preventive approach by disallowing the most financially vulnerable people from entering the casinos. For example, undischarged bankrupts, those who are receiving financial aid from the Government, such as ComCare Social Assistance or legal aid, and those living in Housing and Development Board rental flats who have six months or more of rental arrears, are automatically excluded. This means that they are barred from entering the casinos, fruit machine rooms in private clubs and from betting online with Singapore Pools.

NCPG also has powers under the Casino Control Act to limit the number of visits an individual can make to the casino each month. Under the Third Party Visit Limit regime, NCPG can do so when it notices individuals visiting the casino frequently and gambling beyond their means. In addition, if the individual has incurred debt due to gambling, NCPG may even bar the person from entering the casino by issuing a Third Party Exclusion Order, that is, the person cannot enter the casino at all.

Many locals have also chosen under the Self-Exclusion Scheme to voluntarily exclude themselves from the casinos or fruit machine rooms in private clubs, or from opening an online account with Singapore Pools.

The objective of the existing social safeguards is to try to minimise the negative impact of gambling by targeting the problem gamblers and the financially vulnerable. As a result, problem gambling is estimated to only affect slightly under 1% of the resident population. Having said that, every family that suffers harm because of problem gambling is one case too many.

Therefore, we will continue our efforts to address problem gambling by putting in place even more upstream and preventive measures. For online gambling offered by Singapore Pools, we have already taken steps by requiring punters to set limits on their expenditure, and we will review how to improve this. For casino gambling, with effect from 4 April this year, the casino entry levies for Singaporeans and Permanent Residents have been raised by 50%, from $100 to $150 for the daily levy, and from $2,000 to $3,000 for the annual levy.

We will also be working with the Integrated Resorts (IRs) to implement technology measures to provide patrons with information to allow them to make informed decisions on their bets and better control their gambling expenditure. We will also work with the IRs to strengthen training for casino gaming staff to identify persons at-risk of gambling problem and offer help to such patrons. This is an additional measure.

14 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the reasons for providing Marina Bay Sands and Resorts World Sentosa with the option to increase their Approved Gaming Area by 2,000 square meters and 500 square meters respectively; (b) whether a study has been carried out to examine whether an increase in gaming area would cause a rise in problem gambling; and (c) what further measures will be put in place to help ensure that problem gambling will be deterred.

15 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry why the expansion of gaming areas for the two casinos by 2,000 square meters for Marina Bay Sands (MBS) and 500 square meters for Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) and the increase in gambling machines from 2,500 to 3,500 for MBS and 3,300 for RWS are necessary for the commercial viability of the proposed expansion of the Integrated Resorts.

16 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) why did the Casino Regulatory Authority allow MBS and RWS to increase their approved gaming area by 13% and 3% respectively, and their slot machines by 40% and 34% respectively; and (b) prior to the approvals, were any stakeholders consulted in respect of the possible social implications on Singaporeans arising from the proposed increases and, if so, who were these stakeholders.

17 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how does the Government ensure that the land cost to be paid by the existing Integrated Resort (IR) operators is fair without calling for a public tender; (b) what is the estimated increase in tax revenue that both IRs are expected to generate with the additional investment; (c) whether the increase in tax revenue will be able to support the increased healthcare needs of Singaporeans; and (d) whether the increase in casino entry fees can be channelled to meet the increased healthcare needs of Singaporeans.

18 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how much land has been allocated for the proposed expansion of MBS and RWS; (b) how much will MBS and RWS be paying for the land; and (c) how much additional land cost will each have to pay for the expansion of the gaming areas of the casinos.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 14 to 18 together?

Please do.

Thank you, Sir. The business model of an Integrated Resort (IR) combines a controlled proportion of gaming activities with a wide range of high-quality non-gaming amenities, such as theatres, theme parks, museums, hotels, Meetings, Incentives, Conferences and Exhibitions (MICE) facilities, restaurants and retail shops. Gaming activities are an important source of revenue for the operators, contributing more than two-thirds of their total revenue. The gaming revenue makes it commercially viable for them to offer the non-gaming facilities, as one integrated package.

The two IRs have not decided to activate their additional gaming options. If both IRs exercise their options for additional gaming area in full, gaming area as a proportion of total floor area will drop from 3% today to 2.3%, as the expansion of the non-gaming area is much larger. The IRs have also stated that the additional gaming provisions will be targeted at higher tier, non-mass market players, who are mostly tourists.

Based on the Gambling Participation Survey conducted by the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG), the probable problem and pathological gambling rate of Singapore residents has decreased from 2.6% in 2011 to 0.9% in 2017. This includes all forms of gambling, such as casino, horse racing and online gambling.

The Government takes a serious view on tackling problem gambling and will continue to work closely with our community partners to help affected individuals and families. We had discussed with them before making the announcement. The Government will also be strengthening our social safeguards. Minister Desmond Lee has explained earlier how we are doing so in his reply to Mr Seah Kian Peng.

Sir, the S$9 billion investment by the two IRs will introduce additional world-class attractions and experiences for both tourists and locals. These are expected to attract an additional 500,000 international visitors each year and contribute S$500 million annually to Singapore’s economy. The investments will also create up to 5,000 new jobs directly and increase business opportunities for Singapore companies.

When there are substantial investments that can benefit our economy and our workers, the Government is open to directly allocate land to these investors. This is a long-standing policy that has been extended to both local and foreign companies across different industries. The IRs will pay fair market value for their land, as determined by the Chief Valuer in accordance with market conditions and established valuation principles.

The expansion site for Marina Bay Sands is 3.3 hectares, at a cost of $1.3 billion. Resorts World Sentosa has set aside a budget of $1 billion to intensify the use of existing land and purchase around one hectare of new land.

If the IRs choose to activate their options for additional gaming area, they will have to pay additional costs for these areas. The amount payable will be determined by the Chief Valuer based on prevailing market conditions when the option is exercised.

Sir, Mr Gan Thiam Poh also asked about funding for healthcare needs. As the Minister for Finance had explained at Budget 2018 and Budget 2019, Singapore's healthcare spending will rise with an ageing population and advances in medical treatment, drugs and technologies. We need to be well-prepared for this, by building additional healthcare capacity and ensuring that we have sufficient financial resources to fund the higher healthcare spending in a sustainable manner.

This will require a structural increase in our operating revenue. Our revenue base is diverse and resilient, including taxes on personal and corporate income, consumption and property. The tax revenue from the two IRs is one of the many sources of overall tax revenue. The diverse sources of revenue are supported by a diversified economy. As we continue to grow Singapore's economy, we will adopt a multi-pronged strategy, with many different sectors and trading partners.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State. My question is regarding the gaming areas. So, am I correct to say that if the gaming area is not expanded, then the world-class attractions would be projected to be loss-making?

Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. The IR business model, as I explained in my answer, means it is an integrated package. You need the gaming activities to come together with the non-gaming activities so that it is commercially viable for the operators.

Currently, more than two-thirds of their total revenue come from gaming. So, for the new facilities, the theme parks, the 15,000-seater arena, these are expensive facilities which, without the gaming provisions, the additional gaming provisions as options for the operators, they may not find it commercially viable to make these additional investments to create these additional jobs. This was actually explained by the Chief Executive Officer of MBS and I quote him, he said, "The casino revenue generation is very important because it pays for things that sometimes lose money, sometimes have a very low return, or that are just very expensive."

Mr Dennis Tan.

Just to clarify with the Senior Minister of State, Mr Speaker. On the second part of my question, prior to the approvals, were any stakeholders consulted in respect of possible social implications on Singaporeans arising from the proposed increases and, if so, who were these stakeholders? May I ask the Senior Minister of State to answer this question?

Sir, we had engaged the National Council on Problem Gambling and also key stakeholders from religious groups and voluntary welfare organisations before the announcement was made. These are our key partners because they are the people who are on the ground dealing with the issue of problem gambling, helping the families and the affected individuals. And when we discussed with them, they told us that they understood why we had to do this in a package. They welcomed the additional social safeguards that the Government will be introducing and, more importantly, there was a commitment that we should continue to work together hand in hand to help tackle the problem of gambling, including online gambling, new types of risks facing Singaporeans. We work hand in hand and we work together to help the affected individuals and their families.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Speaker, just one last clarification. Were there any objections or reservations expressed by any of these stakeholders and, if so, who were they?

Sir, I have explained in my answer earlier. They understood why we had to do this as a package. They noted that the rate of problem gambling has been coming down but, as Minister Desmond Lee explained, just because the rate has come down does not mean that we, therefore, become complacent. We continue to take a serious view on how we can tackle this problem together. So, the community partners, the religious groups, the voluntary welfare groups said that they welcome the additional social safeguards, such as the increase in the levy, the additional safeguards. Importantly, we need to continue to work together to tackle this problem hand in hand.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

I do not think my question had been answered. How do you determine the land cost because this is without tender? The second question is: what is the projected revenue for the additional investments? Is there any projection?

Sir, I have answered the question actually. Land cost will be determined by the Chief Valuer based on the market value. This is again a long-standing practice. The IRs will pay the fair market value as determined by the Chief Valuer.

The second part of the question: of course, we made some projections, in terms of the increase in the number of visitors, tourists, what is the additional value-add to Singapore's economy. I mentioned the number $500 million annually. But the exact number depends also on the global economy, depends on how well we grow our tourism sector because the IRs are not the only thing we are going to develop to grow our tourism sector. We also have Mandai. We also have the Greater Southern Waterfront. We are going to rejuvenate Orchard Road. We are looking at a new tourism site at Jurong Lake District and many others.

End of Question Time. Ministerial Statement. Minister for Defence.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

Minister Ng Eng Hen.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In February this year, I made a Ministerial Statement on the death of Corporal First Class (CFC) National Service (NS) Aloysius Pang which had occurred on 23 January 2019. Therein, I gave as much detail as was known then about the incident without prejudicing the due process as prescribed by the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) Act for an independent Committee of Inquiry (COI) to investigate thoroughly the factors leading to the death. The COI has completed its investigations and, in this Statement, I will present the findings of the COI as submitted to the Armed Forces Council (AFC).

The COI comprised five persons, none of whom is employed by the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) or the SAF. They were a judge nominated by the State Courts as Chairman; a consultant medical specialist; a member nominated by the External Review Panel on SAF Safety (ERPSS); a member drawn from the Workplace Safety and Health Council; and a senior-ranked NSman.

I remind Members that the COIs are convened under the SAF Act empowering it to fact find. The COI has no mandate to determine the culpability of individuals. Indeed, section 8C of the SAF Act specifies that no statements made to the COI shall be admissible as evidence in the Court martial or for any subsequent disciplinary proceedings that may take place. To keep within this remit, I will not provide specific names of other individuals involved in the incident in my Statement, apart from CFC(NS) Pang. Prosecution of any persons will be conducted separately, which I will elaborate later.

Let me first take Members through the COI’s findings. I intend to quote from their report predominantly and the dates and times stated in the report are in New Zealand local time.

"On 5 January 2019, CFC(NS) Pang left Singapore for Exercise Thunder Warrior at Waiouru Military Training Area, New Zealand, as part of his seventh In-Camp Training (ICT) and the unit's eighth ICT. Exercise Thunder Warrior is a live firing exercise. On 19 January 2019 at about 1900 hrs, CFC(NS) Pang sustained an injury while carrying out maintenance work on a Singapore Self-Propelled Howitzer (SSPH) involved in Exercise Thunder Warrior.

CFC(NS) Pang was assisting in maintenance work in the SSPH when the gun barrel was lowered and he was caught between the flick rammer and the slew ring of the SSPH turret". I draw Members' attention to the slide which I made in the Ministerial Statement in February. If you look at the picture on the top left-hand corner, the flick rammer is in the middle of the picture, the slew ring above it. And when the gun is lowered and the flick rammer goes up, he was caught between the slick rammer and the slew ring.

"CFC(NS) Pang was attended to by the Battery Medic on site and evacuated to the Battalion Casualty Station (BCS) at 1910 hours. He was assessed and stabilised at the BCS before being evacuated to the Waiouru Base Medical Centre at 1950 hours. At 2150 hours, CFC(NS) Pang was heli-evacuated to Waikato Hospital where he was operated on at around 0100 hours. CFC(NS) Pang underwent two more surgeries on 21 January and 22 January before his condition deteriorated.

On 24 January 2019, CFC(NS) Pang succumbed to his injuries. CFC(NS) Pang died from severe sepsis arising from his severe chest and abdominal injuries as a result of being trapped between the flick rammer and the slew ring in the SSPH."

The COI next established a detailed chronology of events leading to the injury and subsequent death of CFC(NS) Pang. To recap from my Statement in February – the configuration, the safe positions and location of key features within the SSPH gun accompany the summary of events which we will distribute now, with your permission, Mr Speaker.