Hansard, Tuesday, 7 October 2014

The following question stood in the name of Mr Hri Kumar Nair –

1 To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs what steps has the Government taken to secure our borders and prevent the unauthorised entry of people and goods into Singapore following the incident where three foreigners entered Singapore illegally in August 2014 via the Raffles Marina.

Question No 1, Madam.

Mdm Speaker, on 19 August 2014, a private boat carrying three foreigners arrived at Raffles Marina outside the operating hours for its Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) clearance. Two of the persons then disembarked from the boat and entered Singapore illegally, while the boatman sailed the boat away. The two who disembarked in Singapore were arrested on the same day, while the boatman was arrested the following day when the private boat re-entered Singapore waters.

Before I describe the maritime security situation at sea and how we secure our maritime borders, perhaps, I should make some general comments about our borders as a whole.

Our land, aviation and sea domains have quite different characteristics. The land and aviation domains are areas where we can funnel and control the movement of persons entering or departing Singapore via a very small number of immigration checkpoints at the airport, Woodlands and Tuas. This arises because we are an island.

And also because we are an island, the maritime domain is far more complex. Our coastline is 197 km long, and the distance between our international boundary and the shoreline is short, in some places less than 500 m, compared to the length of our shoreline. Along the shoreline, there are 180 wharves and jetties. Many of these wharves and jetties are within private premises, such as shipyards and marinas. The volume of sea traffic is also

Page: 17

high and they fall into multiple categories.

In 2013 alone, about 140,000 foreign vessels called into Singapore ranging from large passenger and cargo vessels, to small pleasure, trading and fishing craft. Apart from that, Singapore vessels also travel within our own waters departing and calling at various of our own landing places. These vessels do not require CIQ clearance but they are traversing through the same waters as the foreign vessels which come into Singapore.

Foreign vessels are also permitted under international law to pass through our territorial waters on transit or innocent passage, without CIQ clearance, when they do not call into Singapore. Hence, there are also foreign vessels in transit; sometimes, passing through the same waters, but because they do not call into Singapore, they do not require CIQ clearance. This large number and variety of vessels within and across our waters pose a daily challenge for our maritime agencies.

To keep the sea borders secure, our maritime security agencies, comprising the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN), Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA), Police Coast Guard (PCG) and ICA, have adopted a coordinated and multi-layered security regime which we have been improving and tightening over the years. The RSN and PCG patrol our waters to detect and intercept unauthorised vessels. They make use of radars and optical devices to carry out surveillance of our waters. The PCG also conducts joint operations with ICA regularly to check on vessels for illegal activities or persons.

Where feasible, we have put up physical structures to deter illegal landings at vulnerable areas. For example, there are currently 63 km of land- and sea-based physical barriers, such as fencing and floating sea barriers, around our shores and PCG has plans to erect another 80 km of such barriers over time. These will cover 143 km of our 197 km of coastline deterring and preventing illegal entry and channelling vessels. This allows our security agencies to focus their attention on areas and vessels that are more likely to pose a threat. Such barriers and fences are not practical in places where sea traffic actually calls into Singapore at wharves, jetties and other landing places. These security measures have proven to be generally successful.

In the three years from 2011 to 2013, 46 vessels were seized for intruding into Singapore. In the same period, PCG arrested 144 persons for entering Singapore waters illegally or attempting to land illegally by sea. Last year alone, 2,890 vessels were detected and stopped from entering Singapore's Territorial Waters. Most of these vessels had strayed off course and complied with instructions when duly advised. In the same period, 49 persons were arrested for entering Singapore waters illegally or attempting to land illegally by sea.

Page: 18

Mdm Speaker, our security agencies have made significant progress over the years, and MHA will continue to review and tighten the security processes with relevant agencies and, importantly, private partners, including studying this incident for useful lessons. In particular, the owners and occupiers of vessel landing points also have a responsibility to ensure that there are adequate security measures on their premises. This is for the safety and security of persons and property on their own premises, apart from contributing to our overall national security effort.

Our sea-faring and coastal community can also do their part to alert authorities of any suspicious vessels or activities occurring within our territorial waters. In the coming months, the Home Team agencies and their maritime security partners will further review the security regime and work closely with stakeholders to put in place any needed additional measures to keep our waters and borders safe and secure.

2 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs in view of the recent beheadings carried out by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), whether there is an increased security threat to Singapore.

Mdm Speaker, in July this year, I informed this House about the increased terrorism threat posed by foreign fighters in Syria and the potential impact on our social cohesion if Singaporeans are involved in or support violence there. The escalation of violence in Syria and Iraq over the last three months has further increased these threats to Singapore.

The group that calls itself Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) which I referred to in July, continues to actively recruit foreign fighters, including Southeast Asians. Its brutality has not been confined to beheadings of Westerners, but also to the killing of other Muslims and minority communities in Syria and Iraq. A US-led coalition of more than 40 countries including several Arab states is now taking counter-action against ISIL. In response, ISIL is encouraging its supporters in other countries, including self-radicalised extremists and returnee fighters, to kill military personnel and civilians from the coalition countries. Australia, which is a coalition member, recently arrested several ISIL supporters who were planning to behead some random person in Sydney and video the act. The US, UK and French authorities have also recently made arrests.

We currently have no information of any specific threat to us arising directly from the beheadings by ISIL or as a result of the anti-ISIL threats. However, our assessment remains that the expansion of the ISIL threat beyond Syria and Iraq has raised the threat not only to countries who are part of the US-led coalition but also to Singapore. As with the threat from

Page: 19

Al-Qaeda, even if Singapore is not itself a target, foreign interests here may be targeted. This House may recall that Al-Qaeda, working with the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), had planned to bomb the US and other embassies in Singapore in 2002.

There are reports that some Malaysians and Indonesians who fought for ISIL have formed a militant group called Katibah Nusantara Lid Daulah Islamiyyah or Malay Archipelago Unit for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. If this group expands in Southeast Asia, it will pose a regional terrorism threat like the JI terrorist network, which had also aimed to set up a South East Asian Islamic Archipelago that encompassed Singapore, through the use of violence and terrorism.

The Indonesian and Malaysian governments have taken action against their citizens who support ISIL or who have gone to Syria or Iraq to fight. The Indonesian government has banned the teachings of and support for ISIL and has said it would revoke the citizenship of Indonesians who join the group. The Malaysian government has designated ISIL as a terrorist group.

Our security agencies are working with our security partners to monitor the situation in Syria and Iraq closely through the exchange of information and will cooperate with them to counter the threat posed by foreign terrorists to Singapore.

At the same time, we are taking measures to prevent Singaporeans from getting involved in the violence there or from carrying out activities in support of ISIL. We have co-sponsored the United Nations Security Council resolution on foreign terrorist fighters that requires all nations to adopt laws that would make it a serious crime for their nationals to, among others, join extremist groups such as ISIL and AQ affiliate Al-Nusra Front. Any Singaporean who assists, supports, promotes or joins violent organisations like ISIL would have demonstrated a dangerous tendency to support the use of violence. Such a person poses a real threat to Singapore's national security and will be dealt with in accordance with our laws.

Our approach will be carefully calibrated to the specifics of each case. Where necessary, the Internal Security Act (ISA) will be used in order to pre-empt and neutralise these terrorism threats to the security of our citizens and our country. A handful of Singaporeans have gone to Syria to take part in the fight and are last known to still be there. We will continue to investigate anyone who expresses support for terrorism or an interest to pursue violence.

Everyone can play a part in protecting our country against the terrorism threat.

Page: 20

First, Singaporeans should help to safeguard family and friends from becoming radicalised. Alert the authorities early, so that those dear to you can be assisted and prevented from going down the path towards violence and doing themselves and others harm.

Second, Singaporeans must remain united and cohesive and not let any fallout from the violence adversely affect our national cohesion. Communal backlash is often seen after major terrorism-related incidents. In Brisbane, in Australia, there were cases of abusive messages spray-painted in mosques and retaliatory vandalism at Christian churches following the arrests of the ISIL supporters.

In July, I met leaders from the various community and religious groups in Singapore to discuss the Government's concerns over the Syrian conflict and the potential impact on our social cohesion. I am happy to note that various collaborative community initiatives have since been established to counter ISIL's radical rhetoric. The Religious Rehabilitation Group, for example, plans to produce online videos to debunk ISIL's ideology to better reach out to Internet-savvy youths who are most at risk of being radicalised via social media. Bona fide channels are also available for Singaporeans who wish to provide humanitarian aid to those in Syria and Iraq.

All members of the public can also play their part by being alert to suspicious persons, objects and activities. A timely call to the authorities could well save many innocent lives. By working together, we can make Singapore a safer place for everyone.

I thank Deputy Prime Minister Teo for the comprehensive reply. I understand that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has just returned from the United Nations Assembly and the topic of ISIS was also discussed. Could the Deputy Prime Minister share with the House if Singapore or any of the ASEAN members had been invited to join the US-led military actions against the ISIS? If Singapore was invited, would the Government consider sending military personnel to assist?

Mdm Speaker, Singapore has always played its part in countering terrorism by working together with its international partners in various ways. We cooperate fully and in accordance with our capabilities. It is not appropriate for me to comment on any specific areas of cooperation at this time. Foreign Affairs Minister Shanmugam will be taking a related question later and I am sure he will be happy to answer any other points that Members may have.

Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Page: 21

Madam, I have a clarification for the Deputy Prime Minister. I recall the Deputy Prime Minister's answer which said that there were some Singaporeans in Syria. I would like to know how many Singaporeans are there. What is their background: are they new citizens and how many of them are Singapore Citizens and how many of them are PRs?

When I said that there were Singaporeans, I meant Singapore citizens. We know of two specific individuals who are there. We do not know exactly where they are. We believe that they are still there.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his reply earlier. I am also glad to note that the Deputy Prime Minister is already working with the IRG and various Muslim groups. Based on MHA's assessment today, does MHA see any threat or risk to our social fabric today, based on what has happened in that people may associate the radical behaviours with the Muslim community, for example, and certain tensions may have occurred in other countries. Has MHA assessed such threats so far in what we see today?

Mdm Speaker, this possibility is always there and we must be alert to it. That is why earlier this year, when we saw the threat from ISIL increasing and we saw the ways in which it was reaching out particularly to young people all over the world, to attempt to radicalise and motivate them to go and fight in Syria and Iraq, we were very concerned.

So, we had discussions with the leaders of our Muslim community in Singapore, and shared with them our concerns. And our Muslim leaders in Singapore were also very concerned about this. We developed various ideas and programmes in order to see how we can neutralise and counter these radical ideas which were coming out from ISIL and, at the same time, see how we can provide legitimate and safe avenues for those who were concerned about the suffering of the innocent people in those countries, so that they could contribute in a meaningful way and we were able to do that.

Subsequent to this, we then had a meeting in July, as I mentioned, with all the different community group leaders in Singapore, so that we could together understand this issue and the other community leaders in Singapore could understand what the Muslim community in Singapore was doing to counter the threat and also to express their concerns and to empathise with those who are suffering. We had a very good discussion and there was good mutual understanding. In fact, at the end of the discussion, quite a number of the leaders of the other communities felt very heartened and reassured and commended our Muslim leaders for taking these proactive steps. A number of them also stepped forward as they too were concerned about the suffering of the innocent people in those countries and made

Page: 22

some contributions also to this effort.

I would say that the threat is always there but we have to continue to work hard together to bring people together and help them understand the problems and that our Muslim community is taking proactive and real steps to deal with this issue.

3 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether Singapore will denounce, at the international level, the acts of oppression and persecution being perpetrated by the self-declared Islamic State (IS) in Iraq against innocent civilians, including Christians and other minorities; and (b) what diplomatic pressure can be galvanised at the international level to condemn and prevent such oppressive actions and provide assistance to innocent victims.

Mdm Speaker, Singapore has strongly condemned the terrorist actions of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), or IS as it now calls itself. The group's violent campaigns against minority and other groups in Iraq and Syria, the brutal murders of Muslims and non-Muslims alike, the abduction and murder of innocent civilians and the widespread abuses of human rights expose the true nature of IS and the threat it poses to the world. Unless stopped, IS will continue to target any group that does not conform to its extremist agenda.

On 15 August 2014 this year, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed Resolution 2170, which not only condemned in the strongest terms, the terrorist acts and violent extremist ideology of IS and other radical groups in Iraq and Syria, it also urged all UN member states to take appropriate measures to combat terrorism. We strongly supported the Resolution. Muslim religious leaders around the world have come out to condemn IS. For example, the Grand Mufti of Egypt has said that, and I quote, "an extremist and bloody group such as this poses a danger to Islam and Muslims, tarnishing its image as well as shedding blood and spreading corruption".

The threat is not limited to the Middle East but extends to the rest of the world. Many foreigners, with some estimates of more than 15,000 people from at least 80 countries, have joined IS and other radical groups fighting in Iraq and Syria. This is the largest mobilisation of foreign fighters since the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s, which drew in thousands of foreigners and led to the creation of Al-Qaeda.

Many countries have begun to recognise the dangers posed, in the form of returning terrorists, to national security and social cohesion. The danger is real. In Belgium, the authorities have foiled several attacks in the past months planned by terrorists returning

Page: 23

from Syria. Australia launched a massive counter-terrorism operation to detain a number of people, who were planning to carry out attacks around the country. Our region is not immune. Members will recall Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean informing Parliament in July 2014 that some Singaporeans had gone to Syria to participate in the conflict and he repeated that earlier today.

There are other Singaporeans who have expressed interest in joining the terrorists but were stopped before they were able to travel to Syria. There are also reports of Indonesians and Malaysians fighting in Syria and Iraq today. Some of these terrorists have taken to social media platforms like Facebook to chronicle their activities on the ground. Another concern for everyone is that radical groups, including some in our region like Abu Sayyaf, have pledged allegiance to IS as well. This is a threat that has to be taken seriously.

On 24 September 2014, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2178, which we co-sponsored. It obliges member states of the UN to work together to counter the violent ideologies that fuel radicalisation and cut off the supply of foreign terrorist fighters, who plan to commit terrorist acts in other states. During the UN Security Council Summit on Foreign Terrorist Fighters, chaired by US President Barack Obama, on 24 September 2014, we also delivered a strong statement. We expressed our readiness to play our part to combat the threat of global terrorism. We also welcomed the formation of an international coalition, led by the US, to eliminate the threat from IS.

I would like to make a few additional points. First, the international community has to work together to combat this threat. A united approach by the international community sends a strong signal to IS that the world rejects its extremist agenda. It is significant that several Arab nations have joined or supported the international coalition.

Second, IS exists in both Iraq and Syria and has to be dealt with as one entity. Any overall strategy has to include a political solution to end the conflict in Syria. As for Iraq, there has to be strong political will to develop an inclusive and tolerant polity. Both situations are complicated and there is no quick fix. Military force is necessary to blunt IS on the ground, but missiles and rockets alone cannot and will not bring peace.

This brings me to my third point – the true fight has to be in the arena of ideas. We have to counter the extremist ideology, which is used to recruit foreigners to terrorism and fuel their violent agenda. The Singapore Government has supported and worked with our religious leaders, community groups and individuals to rehabilitate terrorist detainees and to de-legitimise radical ideologies. This must continue and we must remain vigilant. Our Mufti Dr Mohamed Fatris Bakaram has stated that what is depicted in the videos and reports by IS are against Islamic teachings, because they are propagated by misinterpretations of the

Page: 24

teachings, and/or are in support of a certain agenda.

Mdm Speaker, to counter the threat of IS and deal with the foreign terrorist fighters issue will require the joint effort of the international community. All of us must do our part to combat this threat.

4 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) if he will explain why the film "To Singapore, With Love" was classified as "Not Allowed for All Ratings" (NAR) and which aspects of the film are found to be a threat to national security; (b) whether MDA plans to provide guidelines relating to productions or alternative representations of Singapore's history and if different standards will be applied for different media formats; (c) what are MDA's plans to improve public awareness of the events and other controversial issues depicted in the film; and (d) whether MDA plans to produce a documentary depicting its own version of events for public education.

5 Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether MDA has engaged the director of the documentary "To Singapore, With Love" before deciding on an NAR classification; (b) what is the process to explain the rationale for a particular classification to the director; and (c) whether a discussion can take place between MDA and the director to reach a compromise before the film is given an NAR classification.

6 Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what was the due process undertaken to ascertain that the documentary "To Singapore, With Love" undermined national security; (b) whether the documentary can be reclassified for highly restricted viewing since "screenings to one's own family members or personal friends" is permissible by MDA, publications by political exiles are available in the public domain and public talks by ex-MCP members have been allowed before; and (c) what are the Ministry's OB markers for film productions containing alternative narratives about Singapore's history.

Mdm Speaker, with your permission, can I take Question Nos 4, 5 and 6 together?

Yes, please.

Madam, the film "To Singapore, With Love" must be considered in a historical context. From 1948 onwards, over four decades, the Communist

Page: 25

Party of Malaya (CPM) waged a determined campaign using violence and subversion to install a communist regime in Malaysia and Singapore. Over 8,000 civilians and security personnel were killed or wounded during the insurgency. Communist hit squads assassinated Singaporeans in broad daylight. The CPM also used Communist United Front tactics to infiltrate and take control of open organisations like student bodies, labour unions, political parties and cultural organisations. They used these organisations to foment demonstrations, strikes and riots. They sought to destabilise the country and establish a communist state through illegal means.

This struggle with the communists finally ended only in December 1989, when the CPM signed the Peace Agreements with the Thai and Malaysian authorities in Haadyai and laid down arms. That the CPM ultimately failed was in large measure due to the determination and courage of a generation of stalwarts who put their lives on the line to fight for a non-communist, democratic Malaysia and Singapore. Today, Singaporeans enjoy the peace and progress which that generation secured with their lives.

The CPM's aims, its violent means and its organisation and membership are well-established historical facts and have been written about extensively. The film "To Singapore, With Love" contains untruths and deception about this history. Therefore, it received an appropriate classification which disallowed it for public viewing. Let me elaborate.

The film allowed some CPM members and their Communist United Front sympathisers to whitewash their past actions by re-casting them as the expression of a peaceful and democratic difference of ideology and views. They also purveyed the false impression that the Singapore Government had prevented them from returning to Singapore. In fact, these individuals had been involved in violent and subversive actions to advance the CPM's agenda and had posed a serious threat to the security of Singapore and the safety of Singaporeans. They chose to leave Singapore to avoid being held accountable for their actions.

This life and death struggle with the communists may be a distant memory for many people today. But that does not mean that the individuals who supported and participated in the armed insurrection to overthrow the lawfully elected Government and establish a communist regime and who continue to refuse to renounce violence to this day, should be allowed to absolve themselves without accounting for their past actions and renouncing violence.

Unlike those featured in the film, many former CPM members did return to Singapore by acknowledging and accounting for their past actions. They include former CPM comrades and superiors of those featured in the film. For example, two senior CPM members, Eu Chooi Yip and PV Sarma, returned to Singapore in 1991, together with their family members, some of whom had also worked for the CPM. Eu and Sarma had respectively headed the Chinese

Page: 26

and English sections of the CPM's China-based propaganda radio station, the Voice of Malayan Revolution (VMR). Eu was also a member of the CPM Central Committee and was ranked higher than all the CPM members featured in the film.

The fact that such senior CPM cadres could have returned to and successfully resettled in Singapore with their families shows how the Government has accommodated those who intended to do us harm, but subsequently renounced their past actions. It also shows that it is completely possible for former CPM members to return if they sincerely wish to do so.

Two CPM members featured in the film, Chan Sun Wing and He Jin also known as Lim Kim Chuan, had in fact served under Eu Chooi Yip in the VMR. The VMR was the main source of ideological instruction for members of the CPM and its satellite organisations in Malaysia and Singapore. In the film, He Jin deflected questions about the communists using violence against Singapore; instead he spoke of the CPM's involvement in fighting the Japanese during World War II. His wife, Shu Shihua also known as Su Si Haw, who was also featured in the film, was like him, a member of the CPM. Both of them joined the CPM guerrilla base at the Thai-Malaysia border. Another CPM member of the film, Wong Soon Fong, fled Singapore in 1963 to avoid arrest and later joined the guerrilla base at the Thai-Malaysia border. Two more CPM members featured in the film – Tan Hee Kim and his wife Yap Wan Ping – claimed that they had only joined the CPM after they decided to leave Singapore, when in reality they were already active CPM members before they left. Altogether, six individuals in the film had been or were still with the CPM village at the Thai-Malaysia border.

Two others in the film conveniently omitted mentioning the criminal offences which they remain liable for. Ho Juan Thai had admitted in an open letter in 1982 that he had amended the expiry date of his Singapore passport; he had also committed Exit Permit offences when he left Singapore illegally. Nevertheless, the Government has offered him a Document of Identity on at least three occasions to return to Singapore, but he chose not to do so. Tan Wah Piow left Singapore through illegal channels to evade NS enlistment and travelled to the UK on his expired passport with a forged extension endorsement. Both Ho and Tan can return to Singapore although they cannot expect to be granted immunity if they are found to have flouted the law. Members will agree that nobody can expect to be placed above the law.

The film's one-sided portrayals are designed to evoke feelings of sympathy and support for individuals who in reality chose to leave Singapore and remain in self-exile and who have not accounted for their past actions squarely. It is not a historical documentary presenting a factual account of what happened. It gives a misleading account of these individuals' past and makes no attempt to present an objective account of the violent Communist insurrection that they had participated in and have not renounced. To allow public screening of a film that obfuscates and whitewashes an armed insurrection by an illegal organisation,

Page: 27

and violent and subversive acts directed at Singaporeans, would effectively mean condoning the use of violence and subversion in Singapore and thus harm our national security.

It would also be a gross injustice to the men and women who braved violence and intimidation to stand up to the Communists, especially those who lost their lives in the fight to preserve Singapore's security and stability and secure a democratic, non-Communist Singapore.

Madam, the MDA receives about 10,000 film titles for classification each year and reviews them based on the Films Classification Guidelines, which were developed in consultation with the industry and the community. We do not have specific guidelines on films that deal with historical content, nor do we intend to develop them. The Film Classification Guidelines already state, and I quote, "in exceptional cases, a film may not be allowed for all ratings (NAR) when the content of the film undermines national interest" and that "films deemed to undermine public order, national security and/or stability will be disallowed for all ratings". The guidelines continue to be the yardstick by which the MDA will evaluate films.

Classification aside, given the reach and impact of the film medium, the Government will clearly challenge and refute attempts by individuals who have broken the law or performed acts which posed a threat to Singapore, like acts of violence or terrorism, but who deny in the film that they had done so. We will do the same when individuals perpetuate falsehoods to attack the legitimacy of the security actions that were taken against them in the course of protecting Singaporeans. Not to take any action against films which contain distorted and untruthful accounts would give the wrong impression that there is truth to their claims and that the Government's actions against these individuals were unwarranted. This has serious implications because it would erode public confidence in the Government on security matters even as we deal with current threats like jihadi terrorism.

Ms Kuik asked if the film could be reclassified for highly restricted viewing since "screenings to one's own family members or personal friends" is permissible, publications by political exiles are available in the public domain and public talks by ex-CPM members have been allowed before.

Films and print publications have always been governed differently under different legislation. This is because of the difference in the nature and reach of the two mediums, as well as their impact on audiences. A film can more easily arouse emotive responses and is more likely to reach a wider audience than a book.

Page: 28

The NAR classification does not prohibit the private screening of a film. Whether a screening is private or not will depend on several factors, including how the screening is planned and conducted, as well as who attends the screening. Tertiary institutions can also request for approval to screen NAR-classified films to students of media or related courses for educational purposes, subject of course to the consent of the filmmaker. In fact, MDA had recently agreed to a request from Yale-NUS College to screen "To Singapore, With Love" in a course on documentaries about conflicts. In an academic setting, there are avenues for different views to be heard or presented, and we trust that tertiary institutions will present an objective and balanced account of events to be examined critically by students.

Mr Baey asked if MDA had engaged the director to explain the rationale behind the NAR decision and if a discussion can take place between MDA and the director to reach a compromise for the rating. Madam, as part of MDA's standard process when a film is disallowed, MDA will explain the rationale for the decision to the applicant. In the case of "To Singapore, With Love", MDA had indeed engaged the NUS Museum, which had submitted the film for classification. MDA does meet with filmmakers who want to understand more about classifications while they are developing their films, or the rationale for a classification after a film has been classified. It is then up to the filmmaker to decide whether he or she wants to re-work or edit the film and, if so, submit a fresh application to MDA for classification.

Mr Zaqy Mohammad asked if there are plans to improve public awareness of the events and other controversial issues depicted in the film and if MDA plans to produce a documentary depicting its own version of the events for public education. MDA supports the production of TV programmes or films that explore our history. One recent example is the Channel NewsAsia documentary series, "Days of Rage", which was supported by the Public Service Broadcast funds from MDA. The documentary presented viewers with a good account of tumultuous events, such as the 1964 Race Riots, the Hock Lee Bus Riots, and the Konfrontasi threat which led to the bombing of the MacDonald House in 1965. MDA will support documentaries that provide an insight into Singapore's past, so long as the content does not breach the Films Classification Guidelines.

I would like to ask the Minister this. I noted that this application was made by the NUS Museum, not by the film maker. Given that this film was given the NAR classification, which is supposed to be the most extreme level of classification, would MDA not think that it is necessary to engage the film maker, maybe to understand how or why she made this film – the treatment, story angle and to have a level of engagement with the content creator and also to explain, perhaps, the MDA's rationale for giving such a classification, that perhaps a compromise can be made?

Page: 29

In general, when films are submitted for festivals, if the film maker is a local film maker, would MDA not be able to reach out to these film makers because of proximity, since the film makers are in Singapore versus overseas foreign film makers and, therefore, concerns could be addressed in time?

The last question is – would then, the film maker, Ms Tan Pin Pin, be suspected or accused of white-washing crimes of certain people and, therefore, be liable for prosecution as well?

The answer to the second question is not. This is a film that she has submitted, or at least, in this case, the NUS Museum has submitted and we have classified as NAR. By the way, NAR is not the most extreme classification. The most extreme is prohibition under section 35 of the Film's Act. The question of engagement is something in which we are well aware of and we engage film makers, as mentioned in my reply, at any point during the production of the film. Really, it is the prerogative of the film maker to consult MDA because the classification guidelines are all in place. As I have mentioned in my reply, we receive 10,000 titles every year and it is not possible for MDA to consult every one of them. But certainly, I think, if the film maker is keen to know why such an outcome was given for his or her film, they could easily contact MDA and they have done so in the past, where they had a discussion and we explained.

It is not the role of MDA to tell them how to re-edit the film to meet our classification guidelines, but, on our part, we explain to them where we find that the film has some problems. Because I think the process is transparent and we engage them as and when we think it is necessary and, on their part, if they want to see the film being broadcast or being screened publicly, they should do so earlier on. So, in this case, the museum did not, but we did inform them why is it that we have to give them this classification and if Ms Tan Pin Pin would like to have a discussion with MDA – in fact, she has asked for it and we have met her and we have explained – we will be happy to do so, not only for her, but for other film makers.

The Member's question about festivals – I agree with him that we should try and work together with film makers but it would be up to the local film makers to recognise that we do have classification guidelines. If they feel that they are uncertain about whether or not the film that they are about to put up will meet our classification guidelines, they can meet MDA officials at any time to discuss this.

My question is, this is more a clarification: the exceptions that MDA had made for the screening to be done at Universities, is this a standing exception or is this decided on a case-by-case basis for different types of films?

Page: 30

Let me explain what NAR is all about. NAR means you cannot arrange for public screening. You can have possession of it and that is why after we have classified the film, we returned it to NUS Museum. We say that it is available for private screening. We do make exceptions for educational institutions because we recognise that in such a setting, there is an opportunity for discussion to take place and it is for the purpose of education. In the case that I have mentioned about Yale-NUS, it is about discussion on conflicts. Certainly for NAR, we have allowed this in the past, and we will continue to do so, but we also need to make sure that whoever wants to do so, submits a request. As I have mentioned in my reply, we have to understand the setting and we have to understand who is being invited for the discussion. There are certain conditions. But by and large, it should not be a problem for us.

7 Prof Tan Tai Yong asked the Minister for Education in approaching our 50th year of nationhood (a) what strategies are schools adopting to help students develop a better appreciation of Singapore history; and (b) how do the new history textbooks for lower Secondary students address this.

(for the Minister for Education): Madam, the study of Singapore history is a staple in the History and Social Studies curriculum. All Primary school students learn about Singapore's past through Social Studies. Lower Secondary students study Singapore history in a two-year syllabus. As Singapore celebrates our 50 years of nationhood, the Ministry agrees with the need to deepen students' appreciation of Singapore's past.

The new lower Secondary history curriculum focuses on Singapore's history, starting from its early beginnings in the 14th century and moving on to the pre-colonial period. Students go on to learn that pre-colonial Singapore was a part of a global network and developed as a port city as these connections deepened through the colonial period. Students will learn how the aspirations of people following the Second World War shaped Singapore's journey towards Independence. Lastly, students will learn how Singapore transformed through the collective effort, will and resolve of our people in the first decade of Independence.

Students are taught through an inquiry-based approach, where they are encouraged to reason and draw meaningful inferences using historical sources. There is an emphasis on people and their experiences. This allows our students to draw personal relevance to the history and develop empathy and an understanding of history.

Page: 31

For example, the Secondary 1 textbook features the struggles of the early immigrants, told vividly through extracts of oral interviews. Photographs and illustrations of people, places, objects and events enable the students to picture what Singapore was like, while learning about why they are significant to Singapore.

A history source kit complements the textbooks. The kit provides a multi-sensory experience, enabling students to "touch and feel" artefacts from Singapore's past, including authentic shards dated to pre-colonial Singapore, Japanese Occupation "banana" notes, ration cards and a document proclaiming Singapore's Independence.

Beyond the formal History curriculum, the four NE Commemorative Days – these are Total Defence Day, International Friendship Day, Racial Harmony Day and National Day – are an important part of students' learning experiences in school. Through these, students learn important lessons from significant moments in Singapore's history and reflect on how they can apply their learning to contribute as active citizens.

Schools are also gearing up to celebrate the nation's 50th birthday in 2015. One project will see students reflecting on Singapore's past, present and future and sharing these through more than 60 trails and exhibitions. Students will be researching people, places and events in Singapore – probing into archival materials, collecting memories from people and curating information. They will be telling these stories that reveal the shared memories, life experiences and hopes of Singaporeans. Through all these educational activities, students will develop a keener appreciation of Singapore's history.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for her very comprehensive answer. I have two supplementary questions.

First, teachers will play a critical part in this process of enhancing historical consciousness among our students. How will teachers be primed and equipped for these functions so that they are not mere purveyors of historical content but, more importantly, facilitators of critical inquiry?

Second, while the textbooks are going to be crucial tools in the education of history, will the schools be making fuller use of the external environment – heritage spaces and museums, for instance – to enhance our students' understanding and connections with our past?

I thank the Member for his question. Yes, indeed, he is very correct that teachers play a critical part in any subject, actually, not just history alone, but in history, it is also critically important to make the subject come alive. The Ministry is very aware of this and the teachers will be encouraged to adopt this inquiry-based approach and really,

Page: 32

where you let the students go out, experience, see and draw relevance from that.

This connects to the second question, which whether or not we would make full use of the external environment and the answer is yes, because, really, it goes beyond text books; it is actually seeing what is around you and understanding its relationship to where we are today. That was the thinking, indeed, behind the SG50 trails where the students actually have to go out, ask questions, learn, curate that information and, through that process, hopefully, our 50-year journey will come alive for them.

8 Mr David Ong asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the rationale of the requirement under the Enhanced Lease Buyback Scheme that both lessees of the flat (husband and wife) must be of at least 63 years of age; and (b) whether the Ministry will review this criterion as it penalises couples with a large difference in their ages.

Madam, the qualifying age for the Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS) is set at the CPF draw-down age. This is to ensure that all LBS participants can enjoy immediate monthly payouts under CPF LIFE after topping up their CPF Retirement Accounts with the LBS proceeds.

For those households which do not meet the age criterion, they can consider other options. They may sublet a bedroom or their whole flat for rental income. Alternatively, they may buy and move into a smaller flat or Studio Apartment and enjoy the Silver Housing Bonus if they meet the stipulated requirements.

9 Mr Chen Show Mao asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider tweaking the Enhanced Lease Buyback Scheme to allow the children of the Scheme's participants to buy back the balance of the lease that was sold back to the HDB, at the original valuation price upon the demise of their parents in order to further address the bequest motive and other impediments to taking up the Scheme.

The Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS) is one of several options that elderly homeowners can consider, depending on their preference and circumstances. Under the LBS option, when the elderly owners pass on, any remaining lease will be bequeathed to the beneficiaries. The beneficiaries can either continue living in the flat for the remaining lease, or return the flat to HDB and receive the

Page: 33

residual value of the remaining lease.

Whether the children can buy the tail end of the lease already sold to HDB would depend on their eligibility to buy a HDB flat. For example, they may already be flat owners and under current rules will not be allowed to own a second HDB flat. In any case, any such transaction would have to be conducted at the prevailing price.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Zainal Sapari –

10 To ask the Minister for Health (a) what is the average length of time that a person will be in the transit ward of the Accident and Emergency Department of a public hospital before getting a bed at the subsidised wards; and (b) whether the Ministry can allow patients who are in transit wards to use their Medisave for payment during their stay there.

11 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) which public hospitals charge patients for (i) temporary beds in tents; (ii) beds in the corridors outside the wards; or (iii) beds in the ward corridors but not in ward rooms; (b) how all these rates differ from beds in the ward room; and (c) whether stays in temporary beds in tents and in the corridors, outside and inside the ward, qualify for Medisave use or MediShield Life claims.

Question No 10.

Madam, may I take both Question Nos 10 and 11 together.

Yes, please.

Madam, for 2013, the median time for admission to a ward from the Emergency Department was about 2.5 hours.

Patients at the Emergency Departments are prioritised and attended to based on the severity of their conditions. While patients wait to be admitted to an inpatient bed, they will continue to receive medical treatment, nursing care, clinical monitoring and other services, as well as meals that they may require during this transit period. Their safety and care remain the focus of our care teams at the Emergency Departments.

Page: 34

During the transit period, patients would be charged for services that have been rendered. Medisave and MediShield can be used for these charges if the patients are subsequently warded, subject to the prevailing daily and other limits and the number of inpatient days of stay.

We have received appeals and queries earlier about the computation of Medisave and MediShield claims for patients who received treatment before their inpatient beds were ready. Some hospitals commence inpatient charges only when the patients are transferred to a ward and taken care of by the inpatient team. Ward charges are not imposed during the transit period at the Emergency Department and, consequently, the transit period does not count towards the inpatient days in the computation of Medisave and MediShield claims. Other hospitals consider patients as inpatient once they are taken care of by the inpatient team, even during the transit period. The time during this period contributes towards the length of stay and patients will benefit from higher claims for Medisave and MediShield.

We are reviewing these two ways of computation to see how we can streamline the practices across public hospitals to minimise confusion.

A few supplementary questions. I think the Minister basically has said that different hospitals have different practices right now. Can the Minister clarify which are the hospitals that do charge for the temporary beds and which are those that do not?

For the hospitals that charge for the temporary beds, do they charge at the same rate as for beds inside the wards or do they have a discounted rate? The patients on temporary beds are already putting up with a fair degree of discomfort and inconvenience. Would the Minister agree that as long as the bed is not inside the ward, and inside a room, that they should be eligible for a lower rate and should be allowed to use their Medisave and MediShield where eligible, as well as receive all the C Class ward subsidies? Thank you.

Madam, I thank the Member for the questions. Firstly, he asked which are the hospitals that charge for temporary beds in the transit area. The Changi General Hospital and the Singapore General Hospital consider the patients as inpatients once they are taken over by the inpatient team and, therefore, their stay during the Emergency Department after they have been taken over by the inpatient team will be charged according to the wards.

He also asked whether there are different rates charged. When the patients are transferred to the ward, they receive the same level of care and treatment as all other patients. Generally, they will be subjected to the same charges that are imposed at the

Page: 35

respective wards, whether they are B2 or C Classes. But some hospitals do exercise some flexibility, taking into account the environment and whether there is a need to help the patients. So, some hospitals do offer reduced charges for some of these wards, taking into account various factors.

12 Mr K Karthikeyan asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider the recommendations of National Wages Council to be of mandatory implementation as it will resolve the present wide wage disparity.

Mdm Speaker, since the establishment of the tripartite National Wages Council (NWC) in 1972, the NWC's annual Guidelines have played an important role in setting a framework for collective wage bargaining by unionised companies, and as a reference point for wage increases in the non-unionised sector. This has helped maintain moderate and orderly wage increases that take a broader view of the labour market and economic conditions. The NWC's Guidelines have never been mandatory, as they should not supplant market forces in determining wages for individual companies. Where appropriate, the NWC has used its discretion to include quantitative elements, for instance, recommendations starting in 2012 for a minimum built-in wage increase for employees earning a monthly basic salary of up to $1,000.

In a competitive and tight labour market, there has been improved adoption of the NWC's Guidelines. For example, in 2013, 77% of private establishments gave or intended to give wage increases to their employees earning a monthly basic salary of up to $1,000, up from 60% in 2012. Some 57% of establishments gave at least a $60 wage increase to these workers in 2013 and this is up from 28% that gave the $50 recommended in 2012. This has in turn helped to narrow the wage disparity. From 2012 to 2013, real income growth for full-time employed citizens was 6.7% at the 20th percentile, compared to 4.6% at the median. This is real income growth. A similar trend was observed over the past five years, where annualised real income growth at the 20th percentile was at 2%, which was stronger compared to the median of 1.7%.

The NWC will continue to play an important role in ensuring that real wage movements are sustainable and in line with productivity growth over the long term. The NWC should retain its principles of consensus-building and flexibility for businesses to take into account their business performance, prospects and, importantly, sustainability, because it has a very real impact on employability, on jobs and, ultimately, wages as well. Mandatory wage increases could be detrimental to businesses which do not have the financial means to give the increases, and this will in turn be detrimental to the workers. The commitment of the Tripartite Partners in encouraging the adoption of the NWC's Guidelines has been an

Page: 36

important feature of our wage system and we should continue to work towards sustainable wage increases for all Singaporeans.

13 Mr Mohd Ismail Hussein asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether there are statistics or studies on the number of divorces, suicides and broken homes arising from debt problems with unlicensed or licensed moneylenders; and (b) what are the avenues available for the debtors' children and spouses, who are often silent victims, to seek help.

(for the Minister for Social and Family Development) : Mdm Speaker, oftentimes, the factors leading to divorces and suicides are complex and multifaceted and are not linked to a single cause. Therefore, there is no data on divorces and suicides caused directly by debt problems with moneylenders. Having said that, we are very aware of the problems that debts can cause. Family Service Centres and social workers are, in fact, trained in this area to help the families affected by debt issues.

I am glad to announce that a self-help resource toolkit to address frequently raised issues in this area will soon be made available to all the 43 Family Service Centres (FSCs) islandwide. This toolkit is a result of the collaboration between the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) and the Pro Bono Services Office of the Law Society of Singapore. This toolkit will provide information on how to protect one's assets as well as how to deal with legal issues related to family violence and divorces.

For families who need financial help for day-to-day expenses, they can apply for ComCare assistance at our various Social Services Offices.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the response. I have one supplementary question. But just to give some context to my question, I have attended a support group session for people experiencing debt problems. Invariably, there are a lot of emotions, psychological trauma and shame involved. What strikes me is that the real victims are actually not there and they have declined to come forward. When I say "the real victims", I am talking about the family members. The people that we meet are the debtors. But the people who are experiencing difficulty have declined to come and be counselled. The issue here is the outreach – how can we reach out to these people who are suffering in silence?

I thank the Member for the very thoughtful point that he has made. We work very closely with the 43 FSCs and all the social workers. Having said that, it really

Page: 37

takes two hands to clap. Other than the family members coming forward to the FSCs to seek help, we do need the family members who have issues with debt or maybe issues with gamble addiction, to also step forward. So, we certainly will continue to take a very family-centric approach with regard to counselling or rendering of financial assistance to make sure that the root of the family issue is being solved and divorces or suicides and other issues are minimised.

14 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what safeguards are in place to ensure that persons who execute Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs) under the Mental Capacity Act act independently.

Madam, the Lasting Power of Attorney, or LPA for short, is a legal instrument that allows individuals, called donors, to appoint other persons, called donees, to make decisions for them, should they lose their mental capacity in future. Let me provide a bit of context. Before the Mental Capacity Act was in force, there was no pre-planning instrument available. Families of those without mental capacity had no choice but to go through the Court process in order to make decisions to transact on their behalf. Such court applications can be onerous and costly.

In contrast to the previous regime, the mental capacity legislation of today is one that is facilitative and underpins the roles and responsibilities of donors and donees.

There are a few layers of safeguards in this entire process. Let me start, first, and that is education. It is important that Singaporeans understand the intent and the spirit of the LPA. As such, the most fundamental safeguard would be education on the LPA and the Act, for the donees and the donors to understand their roles, responsibilities and rights. To this end, the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) has conducted more than 600 talks on the subject and we will continue to spread the message. MSF will continue to educate Singaporeans and other stakeholders so that there is greater familiarity with the LPA framework, especially with regard to the rights, roles and responsibilities of the donors, donees and other parties concerned.

Second, making an LPA is a very personal decision. Donors should consider who they wish to appoint as their donees carefully. The person should be someone whom the donor trusts and who knows the donor's interests, preferences and beliefs.

After obtaining agreement of their donees for the appointment, the donor is required to see a certificate issuer as an independent check. The role of the certificate issuer is to certify that the donor understands the purpose of the LPA and is not under undue pressure.

Page: 38

Three categories of persons can be certificate issuers – practising lawyers, psychiatrists and medical practitioners accredited by the Public Guardian. All three parties – the donor, donee and certificate issuer – are to also have read and understood the prescribed information on the LPA form.

Next, the LPA needs to be registered to take legal effect. When an application is submitted to the Office of Public Guardian, various checks are done to ensure compliance to the requirements. These include accuracy checks on the information in the form such as ensuring that if two donees are appointed, it is specified in the form whether they are to act jointly or jointly and severally; and that the signatures of the donor in different parts of the form are consistent.

The Act further provides safeguards to ensure that the best interests of the individual are protected if he or she loses mental capacity. Should a donee not act in the best interests of the donor, the legislation provides for whistle-blowing so that the Public Guardian can investigate and take up an application to court to remove the donee.

Everyone has a role to play and a responsibility to uphold within the LPA framework – the donor in his choice of donee; the certificate issuer in ascertaining the donor's understanding; the donee in acting in the best interest of the donor; and the OPG in its registry and investigative functions. We need the collective cooperation of everyone involved in order to fully realise the intent and potential of the legislation.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Thank you, Madam. I have five supplementary questions for the Minister. The first is that I understand that prior to this year, actually our procedure for registering the LPA had an additional step and that was: the person making the LPA would be asked if there were other persons whom he or she wished to notify about the making of the LPA. This requirement was removed in 2014. So, I would like to ask the Minister why that was the case.

Second, does the Minister not agree that this requirement is actually a good safeguard to ensure that other people, besides the attorney or the proposed attorney, are aware of the LPA being made? And would the Ministry look at bringing back this requirement as a better safeguard for the independence of the making of the LPA?

The third point is about the certificate issuers mentioned by the Minister earlier. Under our current procedure, as he mentioned, there are three groups of people who are professionals who can issue the certificate. You could be a General Practitioner accredited to the Office of

Page: 39

Public Guardian; you could be a psychiatrist; you could be a lawyer with a practising certificate. My concern is that the LPA actually, in our current format, is a standard form and I have gone through one of these myself as an issuer and it does not really take that much time for the issuer to go through the form with the person making the LPA. It is a question of ticking boxes, filling up blanks and professionals can make mistakes in such circumstances in judgement as well.

So, I would like to ask whether the Government would consider an additional check for the certificate issuers when they are certifying the LPA. For example, in Scotland, I understand that even as a professional, the professional will have to indicate whether they are forming an opinion of the donor's independence based on personal knowledge of the donor from the past or by consulting another person who can confirm that the person making the LPA is actually acting according to his or her own wishes.

The fourth supplementary question is this question of vulnerable groups. I think the Government would agree that there would be certain vulnerable groups, especially lonely elderly people, who may be subject to undue influences in issuing the LPA. I think there are studies, including studies, such as the 2011 MetLife Study on Elder Financial Abuse —

Ms Lim, would you please summarise your supplementary questions?

Yes, the last two, Madam. These studies which showed that vulnerable lonely elderly people are particularly susceptible to being pressured to deal with their assets in a way that could amount to scams. So, I wonder whether the Government is concerned about this potential abuse in the LPA system and whether there are additional safeguards that are needed for such vulnerable groups.

Last of all, the Minister did mention that the Public Guardian itself has a role to play as a safeguard. I would like to ask whether the OPG currently acts based just on complaints or does it, of its own volition, investigate suspicious cases?

Mdm Speaker, let me provide a bit of context to all of Ms Lim's questions. As I have spoken at the beginning, we have two sets of things now. In the past, we only had one and, that is, if someone loses his mental capacity, he goes to Court or the relative goes to Court and try and get a deputyship to act. That is always onerous and sometimes costly. I personally have cases that come to me at my Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS), where the relatives of the family could not act in a timely fashion because they did not have LPA and there were no rights for the family members or the relatives to act in a timely manner, like even renting out a property to collect rent in order to pay for the nursing home charges. With that, we have come to the LPA, which is a facilitative arrangement to

Page: 40

help family members avoid all these legal complications so that they can quickly act in the best interest of the person who has lost his mental capacity.

So, for the first question, it is always important to remember this at the back of our mind, because I can always understand and appreciate that when something happens, there is always a desire for us to add more new rules to it. But in adding the rules, we have to find a balance between facilitating the majority of the cases and having a framework that can handle the exceptional cases. And I will explain why our current framework allows the majority of the cases to be handled easily and facilitates decision-making and, at the same time, allows us to catch some of these exceptional cases.

Ms Lim's first question is why did we remove that additional step. The thing was removed with the feedback from the few thousand cases that we had handled in the past and they said that actually, they could still inform their family members if they wished to do so. I must say here, at this point in time, that not everyone wants to inform certain family members of their decision and that is the dilemma. We leave it to the best judgement of the individuals to inform the persons that they want to inform. The current arrangement allows them to do that. If anyone has any special arrangements beyond Form 1, they can put into Form 2 the additional instructions given to the OPG. So, it is still allowed. But I must say that we must not make the assumption that we know who the person, the donor, should inform because the donor has his or her own considerations as to whom he or she may wish or not wish to inform.

Question two is already answered: should we bring back the safeguard? Actually, the safeguard is in place. Form 1 today caters to the bulk of the people. More than 90% of the people will be able to use Form 1 and it will fulfil most of their needs. For the minority of cases who want to have an additional layer of safeguard, that can be specified in Form 2. So, that allows people to do what they wish to do.

Third question: what about the certificate issuer? Whether we have one certificate issuer consulting with another certificate issuer, what has not changed is that I expect the certificate issuer to do his or her job professionally. They are psychiatrists; they are practising lawyers and they are doctors who are accredited with the Public Guardian. So, I have always been very careful ever since I was young. When something has gone wrong, I would ask, "Is the person not doing his job and therefore should I punish the person? Or is the system not working?" If the person is not doing the job and we add additional layers to make sure that the person does his job, I think we should be very careful. Does that encourage the person to do his job better? When many people are responsible for something, it usually means nobody is responsible for anything. So, I would rather have a system where I assign very clear responsibility – if you collect the professional fees, you are expected to do a good job to certify whether the person is acting independently and has the best capacity of mind. I can

Page: 41

appreciate that sometimes a second pair of eyes does help. But we must always be careful not to overly burden the system so that you generate a dissipation of the responsibility and, in the end, no one is fully responsible. And this is the reason why there is a difference between the administrative fee that was waived by MSF – $50 previously – versus the professional fees that are being charged by the certificate issuer, which is not waived.

On the fourth question, should we take more care when it comes to vulnerable groups, especially the lonely? Yes, definitely. There will be a growing population of older people in Singapore in time to come and we can expect that many of these vulnerable lonely elderly will require more help. I have, in this year's Committee of Supply debates, announced that we are looking at strengthening some of the rules and regulations on how we can better safeguard the interests of our vulnerable lonely elderly. Maybe we do not need it now, but we will certainly need it in time to come.

The last supplementary question that Ms Lim asked was what the Public Guardian's role was. The Public Guardian can act either on whistle-bowling when someone makes a complaint or if the Public Guardian has reasonable grounds to suspect that a donee is not acting in the best interest of the donor.

In a recent case that has caught the attention of many Singaporeans, the Public Guardian has done three things on its own. One, it has come to his attention that the donee may not have acted in the best interest of the donor. It triggered off an investigation with the Commercial Affairs Department. Two, the Public Guardian has asked for a board of visitors to visit the person concerned to ensure that the well-being of the person is kept. Finally, in a dispute like this, the Public Guardian has, last week, put before the Court two requests: one, to set aside the rights of the donee to act on behalf of the donor in that particular case to safeguard her interests; two, to make an independent assessment whether the donor has the capability and the mental capacity to act in her own interest as of now.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Thank you, Madam. Three supplementary questions arising from the Minister's answer. I agree with the Minister that there are two forms currently under the system. But it seems from my observation that Form 1 has become the default form. In fact, I think at the grassroots level, there has been a big concerted effort to get people to issue LPAs – that is the cheaper version, anyway.

My question is this: I do not think it detracts from what the Minister said about giving options and so on. Earlier on, the procedure before this year was that the donor was asked whether you want to notify someone. It is not that you have to, but you are asked "Is there

Page: 42

someone you would like to notify of the making of a LPA". It was always an option given to the maker, but the point is that it was the duty on the part of the person issuing the certificate to make sure that the maker of the LPA addressed this question and addressed his or her mind to the question of whether he or she wanted to notify someone. It still remains an option. I am not really convinced by the Minister's answer that it is cumbersome, because it is just an additional question that you would like the maker to address his or her mind to and at the point of giving the LPA, even if it is in the default Form 1.

The second question is concerning the certificate issuer. The Minister said that by putting too many people into the process will somehow make it such that people are not responsible. I do not really agree with him on that either. In the case I mentioned, which is the Scottish case, what they require is, for example, as a lawyer, if I am making an LPA for my client, I know that client personally, then I can vouch for that client and that this is what that client wants. But if I am meeting a person for the first time, I may not know this person and the LPA process does not take too long. What is so difficult about requiring a check with someone who knows the donor – not a certificate issuer but someone who knows the donor – to confirm that this LPA would be in keeping with what the donor wishes to do?

The third question is about the role of the Public Guardian. The Minister spoke about this current case where the OPG has taken a number of applications. I am not just referring to that but in general, besides this one, has the OPG ever looked into any other case on its own accord?

Madam, on the Member's three supplementary questions, the option is still there and I do not think it is cumbersome if a person requests for someone to be informed. It can just be written down and the donor, understanding his or her own rights, responsibilities and roles, can actually request for that. I do not think that it has been removed. But I must also remind Ms Lim that prior to this, if we just trace back the last one year, we have had nine letters at least to the Forum Page, and many others, asking us to simplify the process because the bulk of the Singaporeans – the vast majority of the Singaporeans – will be able to do with Form 1. For the minority that requires additional instructions, Form 2 is always available. That is how we have designed the system to allow a simple form to cater to the vast majority that do not have complex arrangements. For people who require additional arrangements, there is always Form 2 available. As Ms Lim has said, it is not very cumbersome to do Form 2, if they have additional requirements.

On the second issue about the comparison with other countries, when we designed the whole process, actually, the Singapore's system of LPA is by far much more onerous than that of other countries. In some other countries, including the examples that Ms Lim has mentioned, I am not so sure that everybody abides by the same. We have examples whereby there are countries which would just ask somebody who may not even be a professional to

Page: 43

certify that. We are personally not satisfied with that, which is why we have controlled the number of people who can be certificate issuers to make sure that only professionals who understand the law are able to make that assessment. The Member is right – it is not onerous to do that. But if your certificate issuer is at any time uncomfortable to make that assessment, the certificate issuer has the right and the responsibility to step back from that, rather than to just certify it blindly. I do not think most of the certificate issuers or all of the certificate issuers just do it as if they do not bother with the procedures. I trust that the certificate issuers, being professionals in their own right, must do their duties professionally.

On the last question about the OPG, the OPG will investigate and trigger actions as and when we require, because we will monitor the cases that are put before us and also those that have registered with us.

15 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for Trade and Industry if he will provide an assessment of the impact on economic activity arising from Johor's decision to impose Causeway tolls, especially on SMEs which depend on goods and services rendered from across the Causeway.

Mdm Speaker, the impact of the Causeway toll hikes on economic activity in Singapore is likely to be small. This is because land transport cost constitutes only around 3% and 1% of the total business cost of firms in the manufacturing and services sectors, respectively.

Nonetheless, we recognise that some firms could be more affected than others by the higher toll charges. In particular, SMEs in sectors, such as the food and wholesale sectors, that frequently transport materials and goods across the Causeway would likely see a larger increase in land transport costs. Logistics firms offering trucking services via the Causeway may also pass on the increase in toll charges to SMEs.

This increase in cost could in turn affect the profit margins of SMEs. There could also be some pass-through impact on inflation. In particular, as some of our food imports and lifestyle and furniture products are transported via the Causeway, the higher land transport cost may be passed on to consumers. However, the impact is expected to be small, as the majority of our food imports and lifestyle and furniture products are still transported by sea or air.

On the whole, while some SMEs may be adversely affected by the hike in toll charges, we have also received ground feedback that others have found ways to cope with the higher

Page: 44

charges. This includes improving trip scheduling or consolidating their transport schedules so that fewer trips across the Causeway are needed.

We will continue to monitor the situation. So far, the toll hike has just been implemented. We will work with the trade associations as well, to look at whether SMEs will be greatly impacted by these toll charges.

I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Does the Minister of State envisage that higher toll charges will exacerbate the tight labour conditions that SMEs face, because workers might find it more difficult to come across the Causeway during peak hours? Secondly, will the Minister of State assure the House that the Ministry will do all that it can to help SMEs who are facing problems from the toll charges?

So far, from the general feedback about transportation of the workers coming into Singapore and whether it affects the operations of the companies, we have not received feedback of major issues regarding whether workers have been greatly affected. Operations still go on as per normal but of course, the cost in some way has already been impacted. The cost is higher. That is something to be managed. But as far as operations are concerned, so far, there is no feedback. We will monitor over a period of time to see whether that has adversely affected the on-going operations. We have to work with the associations. Some of the associations have members from SMEs and micro enterprises that do their business in transporting goods across the Causeway. We have to monitor that sector and get some feedback from them over a period of time to see how that can be affected and whether measures are needed to help them.

16 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether CCTVs can be installed at all new BTO flats to increase security in the estate before the residents collect their keys; and (b) how MHA and HDB are co-ordinating efforts to make housing estates more secure.

Madam, as part of the Community Policing System (COPS), Police will install cameras at all 10,000 HDB blocks and multi-storey car parks (MSCPs) by 2016. These include both existing HDB blocks and new HDB blocks that will be completed by 2016. The installation programme is on track and we are currently at the one-third mark, having installed 18,000 cameras in 3,300 blocks. So, I want to thank Members for their support of the installation of Police Cameras in their respective wards.

Page: 45

Police consider a variety of factors, such as local crime trends, community feedback and Town Council recommendations, when deciding on the installation schedule, whether for existing or newly built HDB blocks. To expedite installation in new HDB blocks, Police have worked with HDB to incorporate Police Camera requirements into the design.

Police also work closely with HDB to enhance the safety and security of housing estates. Police crime prevention advisories are featured on the HDB website and publications to raise residents' crime awareness and vigilance. HDB also takes Police security inputs into account when carrying out development or infrastructural works.

In addition, Police actively partner in HDB events organised for residents at new housing precincts. At these events, Police disseminate crime prevention advisories and invite new residents to join Neighbourhood Watch Groups or partner the Police in joint patrols under the Citizens-on-Patrol initiative.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. My question is: for all the future new BTO flats, will the CCTVs be installed at the same time? That means, when the residents collect their keys to these new flats, the CCTVs are already there? At this point, I really have problems answering residents who asked why it was not done when the flats were being constructed.

Madam, I appreciate the Member's question and intent. We are in the transitional period because this is a programme that is being implemented progressively. That is why by the end of 2016, we expect a full rollout. In this interim period, there will be circumstances or certain blocks which may not have their blocks installed with CCTVs yet. For new blocks, as the Member has described, what will happen is, first, provisions will be made. For those that are being built and completed in the next two-year period, cameras will be installed. Beyond that, once we hit a steady state situation, the roll-out can be more in tandem with the development of new blocks.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad.

I thank the Minister for his reply and I am glad to say that for the blocks that have implemented these cameras, we have seen very positive feedback from residents. I would like to ask the Minister if MHA would be prepared to look at expanding the role of security for these CCTV cameras, for example, at bicycle bays. We did a trial with the Neighbourhood Police Post to extend one of the CCTVs to cover a bicycle bay. Residents had always complained that their bicycles got stolen from this bicycle bay. We found that

Page: 46

the number of bicycles that got stolen was reduced significantly. However, there is no existing budget to cover for some of these extended security roles. Since the CCTVs are in place, will the Ministry consider expanding the role of securing our HDB flats?

Madam, I thank the Member for his question. We are in the process of implementing the cameras and we are already receiving requests to broaden the coverage. I would say this: we are cognisant of the fact that there are other needs in the community. Where there is a local priority or concern, Police factor that in, in its consideration when deciding on deployment of cameras geographically. They also take into account Town Council input and local community input. Beyond this programme, when looking at how we can extend it, whether there is a need and how and where it should be targeted, we would certainly take the Member's feedback into consideration.

Order. End of Question Time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 17-19, 22-25, 31, 33, 35-39, 41-43, 46 and 48 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 20-21, 26-30, 32, 34, 40, 44-45, 47 and 49 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 8 October 2014.]

Page: 47

[(proc text) "to amend the Judges' Remuneration Act (Chapter 147 of the 1995 Revised Edition) and to make a consequential amendment to the Pensions Act (Chapter 225 of the 2004 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Teo Chee Hean); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to establish the Pioneer Generation Fund to provide financial and other support to Singapore's Pioneers and for matters connected therewith", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Josephine Teo); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 2014 Revised Edition) and to make a related amendment to the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act (Chapter 86 of the 2005 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Josephine Teo); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Public Trustee Act (Chapter 260 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to certain other written laws", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Reprint) ", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of

Page: 48

Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161 of the 2009 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to the Singapore Academy of Law Act (Chapter 294A of the 1997 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend certain statutes of the Republic of Singapore", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Chapter 322 of the 2007 Revised Edition) to establish the Singapore International Commercial Court, and for other purposes, and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other written laws", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

Page: 49

Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Private Member's Bill to make provisions to prevent the trafficking in persons, to punish offenders who carry out such acts and to protect the victims of human trafficking."

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That leave be given to introduce a Private Member's Bill to make provisions to prevent the trafficking in persons, to punish offenders who carry out such acts and to protect the victims of human trafficking." (proc text)]

Who is prepared to introduce the Bill?

I am, Madam.

Please proceed.

Mdm Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to deter and punish trafficking in persons and to protect and assist trafficked persons, and to make consequential amendments to the Children and Young Persons Act (Chapter 38 of the 2001 Revised Edition)."

[(proc text) Bill read the First time. (proc text)]

Second Reading, what day?

The next available sitting.

So be it.

Page: 50

Mdm Speaker, I beg to move*, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Animals and Birds Act (Chapter 7 of the 2002 Revised Edition)."

[(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the names of Mr Alex Yam, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Vikram Nair and Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai. (proc text)]

Some brief comments, Madam, please. Mdm Speaker, I speak on behalf of the hon Member Mr Yeo Guat Kwang who had accepted Minister Khaw Boon Wan's suggestion for him to set up the Animal Welfare and Legislation Review Committee (AWLRC) in February 2012. I had accepted Mr Yeo's invitation to be part of the AWLRC, as well as to be part of the team of Members in drafting this Bill. I am happy to say that we are now ready to move the Bill following many months of hard work.

Madam, beyond strengthening the legislation, the primary aim of our review is to emphasise animal welfare as a shared responsibility amongst all stakeholders and to continue the ground-up approach taken by the AWLRC.

I also chair the Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration Committee (MSCC), which arose as a recommendation of the ALWRC, to have a platform for stakeholders to share their views, build mutual understanding on animal welfare and collaborate together in promoting animal welfare in Singapore. Ensuring and strengthening animal welfare should not be seen solely as the responsibility of the Government, but the responsibility of everyone who plays a part in an animal's life cycle. To this end, there are three main areas to call attention in this Bill.

The first is requiring owners and persons in charge to provide reasonable care for animals placed under their charge. Those who own and care for animals must bear the responsibility of ensuring the welfare of the animal.

The second is requiring staff working with animals in animal-related businesses to be trained in animal care and handling. This requirement for training would extend to animal welfare organisations and facilities and help to safeguard that carers and handlers in these businesses and organisations have a certain level of training.

Finally, to underscore the severity of animal welfare offences and to increase deterrence, higher penalties are proposed for businesses and repeat offenders to better distinguish between the nature of the offender – whether individual or animal-related – and the type of offence – whether it is first-time or repeat offender. The Bill will also strengthen

Page: 51

the enforcement powers of the Government. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Animals and Birds Act (Chapter 7 of the 2002 Revised Edition)." (proc text)]

Who is prepared to introduce the Bill?

I am, Madam.

Please proceed.

Mdm Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Animals and Birds Act (Chapter 7 of the 2002 Revised Edition)."

[(proc text) Bill read the First time. (proc text)]

Second Reading, what day?

The next available sitting, Madam.

So be it.

Page: 52

[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]

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

Mdm Speaker, the global remote gambling market is large and growing fast. Its size is estimated at between US$30 and $40 billion, with annual growth of 9%. This is about five times the expected growth of conventional terrestrial gambling. And we see similar trends in Singapore.

Compared to terrestrial gambling, remote gambling gives us greater cause for concern for several reasons. First, from a law-and-order perspective, illegal remote gambling operators are typically associated with other criminal activities and syndicated crime. Remote gambling operations are lucrative and can potentially become a source or conduit of funds for money laundering and other illegal activities. These operations are transnational and of a significant scale, taking bets from many players across many countries. They offer credit and operate without any restrictions on the types of games or bets.

Let me cite one example to illustrate the scale of illegal gambling in the region. INTERPOL conducted an operation during the recent FIFA World Cup. It was targeted at illegal soccer gambling networks across Asia. Codenamed Operation SOGA V, law enforcement agencies from China, Hong Kong, Macau, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam made more than 1,000 raids and 1,400 arrests. INTERPOL estimated that these illegal gambling dens, many controlled by organised crime syndicates, handled about US$2.2 billion worth of bets placed mainly through illegal websites over the period of the World Cup.

A second cause for concern is the nature and design of certain games that are offered remotely, lending themselves to repetitive play and addictive behaviour. This is well-documented in both local and overseas research. Remote gamblers tend to have poorer self-control, are more likely to gamble at a higher frequency, for a longer duration and with more money than they had initially planned.

Thirdly, remote gambling is ubiquitous and easily accessible, largely due to the growing reach of the Internet, readily available and affordable mobile bandwidth and the

Page: 53

proliferation of smart devices.

In Singapore, access to the Internet has been growing over the years. In 2013, 87% of households had access to broadband Internet and Singapore's smart phone penetration was around 72%, one of the highest in the world. These trends allow for easy access to remote gambling. Remote gambling is evolving rapidly and several countries have reviewed or are reviewing their regulatory regimes to keep pace.

In Singapore, our current laws, namely the Common Gaming Houses Act (CGHA) and the Betting Act (BA), do not expressly address remote gambling as they were enacted before the Internet era. In developing the Remote Gambling Bill, the Government studied the laws and practices of other jurisdictions. A public consultation exercise was held to seek feedback on the proposed framework. Grassroots organisations, social services, religious groups and industry were also consulted and their views have been taken into account in drafting the legislation.

Mdm Speaker, we have strict laws on gambling to maintain law and order and to minimise the potential harm, especially to the young and vulnerable. We prohibit gambling, unless it is specifically allowed for by way of a stringently regulated exemption or licence. We will adopt a similar approach to remote gambling. We aim to achieve this policy intent through a combination of new legislation, stepped up enforcement and enhanced public education and engagement.

The Bill has two key objectives: first, to tackle the law-and-order issues associated with remote gambling; second, to protect young persons and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by remote gambling.

The Bill will criminalise the entire spectrum of remote gambling, from individual gamblers to facilitators; agents and runners, to operators. The Bill also provides for website and payment transaction blocking measures, as well as advertising bans. It has provisions for exemption under stringent conditions.

Madam, let me now highlight the main clauses of the Bill, starting with the definitions of key terms. Clause 4 defines "gambling" to mean betting, gaming or participating in a lottery. "Gaming" refers to playing a game of chance for money or money's worth. A person games if he has a chance of winning money or money's worth in the process. The definition of "money's worth" includes virtual currencies or in-game credits which can be monetised or exchanged for goods with real value.

Page: 54

Some social games, as I understand, facilitate players to purchase credits to enhance their in-game experience but cannot convert these in-game credits or tokens for money or real merchandise outside the game. It is not the intent of this Bill to prohibit such social games. However, it is essential that the Bill is comprehensive in scope in order to stay relevant over time, against the backdrop of a dynamic industry that is continuing to evolve.

Clause 5 defines "remote gambling" to mean gambling using any mode of remote communication, such as through the Internet, mobile telecommunication devices or other forms of technology that facilitate communication.

Madam, let me now highlight the key offences under the Bill.

The Bill will prohibit all forms of remote gambling activities in Singapore unless they are exempt. Hence, persons involved in the entire range of remote gambling activities would have committed an offence. This is from individual gamblers to facilitators; agents and bookies, to the remote gambling operators.

To address the transnational nature of remote gambling activities, this prohibition would apply to facilitators and remote gambling operators even if they reside overseas, as long as their customers are in Singapore.

Clause 8 makes it an offence for an individual in Singapore to gamble remotely with an unauthorised operator. The penalty is a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both. This is consistent with our current laws on terrestrial gambling.

Clause 9 is aimed at persons who may not be remote gambling operators but are involved in some aspects of the operations, such as being an agent of a remote gambling operator.

Clause 9(1) makes it an offence for an agent, whether based in Singapore or overseas, to facilitate an individual in Singapore to gamble with an unauthorised remote gambling operator.

Given the broader law-and-order concerns associated with remote gambling, clause 9(2) also makes it an offence for a person in Singapore to facilitate others overseas to gamble. It will cover agents, who are also known as bookies and runners, operating in Singapore but who may be receiving bets from overseas.

Page: 55

Our aim in clause 9(2) is to minimise the risk that Singapore could be used as a base for criminal activities of remote gambling syndicates.

In the case of support services, the risk is exacerbated when any such support service is core or critical to the provision of an unauthorised remote gambling service. Enforcement will, therefore, be targeted at such persons. The penalty for an offence under clause 9 is a fine of not less than $20,000 and not more than $200,000, or imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both.

Under clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill, it will be an offence for a remote gambling operator, whether based in Singapore or overseas, to provide this service to a person in Singapore. It will also be an offence for a Singapore-based remote gambling operator to provide gambling services to customers outside Singapore. The penalty for such an offence is a fine of not less than $20,000 and not more than $500,000, or imprisonment not exceeding seven years, or both.

The Bill also aims to provide additional protection for young persons, defined as those below 21 years of age.

Clause 12 makes it an offence for a person to employ a young person to carry out remote gambling activities. Clause 13 makes it an offence to invite or cause a young person to gamble remotely in Singapore. The penalty for each of these offences is a fine of not less than $20,000 and not more than $300,000, or imprisonment not exceeding six years, or both.

Madam, the Bill will generally ban remote gambling advertisements and promotions. The prohibition extends to all forms of media, both electronic and non-electronic, including the Internet, broadcast and print media.

Clause 15 makes it an offence for a person to publish or authorise the publication of a remote gambling advertisement in Singapore. Clause 17 makes it an offence to promote or authorise the promotion of remote gambling in Singapore. The penalty for each of these offences is a fine not exceeding $20,000.

Mdm Speaker, other than criminalising various aspects of remote gambling activities, the Bill will provide for powers to block access to websites and payment transactions related to unlawful gambling activities.

Clause 20 provides for powers to issue access blocking orders to Internet Service Providers (ISPs). The orders will require that the ISPs take reasonable steps to disable access

Page: 56

to websites identified by MHA.

An ISP which does not block any website specified in an access blocking order is liable for an offence. The penalty is a fine not exceeding $20,000 for each day or part thereof for each website not blocked, subject to a total of $500,000.

Because financial transfers are key to gambling transactions, we will block payments transactions to and from the accounts of remote gambling operators.

Clause 21 provides for the issuance of payment transaction blocking orders in respect of a remote gambling operator to our financial institutions and other financial transaction providers.

Apart from blocking electronic fund transfers, transactions via credit and debit cards with remote gambling operators will also be blocked.

Failure of a financial institution or a financial transaction provider to comply with a payment transaction blocking order will be an offence punishable by a fine not exceeding $20,000 for each prohibited transaction, up to a total of $500,000 per account.

Clause 25 provides criminal and civil immunity for an ISP, a financial institution or a financial transaction provider for complying with access blocking or payment transaction blocking orders.

Madam, we recognise that these blocking measures may not be foolproof. However, this suite of measures is among the most comprehensive in the world. And, taken together, website blocking, payment transaction blocking and the prohibition of advertisements and promotions, can and will significantly restrict and impede access to remote gambling.

Madam, Part 5 of the Bill makes provisions for a tightly controlled exempt operator regime.

A complete ban on remote gambling might appear straightforward but would likely drive these activities underground and exacerbate the associated law-and-order and social concerns.

Notwithstanding our prohibitive stance on remote gambling and the comprehensive set of restrictive measures, the provision of a strictly regulated exempt operator regime could

Page: 57

help to mitigate these concerns.

This has been our experience with, and approach to, terrestrial gambling. So, too, for other jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong and Norway, which adopt similarly restrictive remote gambling regimes but have also recognised this challenge and provided for a regulated authorised operator.

Let me now cover the key features of the exempt operator regime in the Bill.

A person may apply to the Minister to be an exempt operator to provide a Singapore-based remote gambling service with a Singapore-customer link. A strict set of criteria will be used to assess any application, as specified in clause 26.

The entity has to be based in Singapore so as to aid the enforcement of the exemption conditions. The exempt operator has to be a not-for-profit entity which contributes to public, social and charitable purposes in Singapore.

The entity has to possess a consistent and good track record of compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. The Minister will also consider any other relevant factors in deciding whether to grant an entity a certificate of exemption. The strict qualifying criteria will set a high bar which few will be able to meet.

Should a certificate of exemption be issued, the Minister will impose stringent conditions on the exempt operator in three main areas, as specified in clause 28.

The operator must keep the management and operations of the remote gambling service free from criminal influence, ensure the integrity of the operations and implement social safeguards and responsible gambling measures.

In addition, we will restrict the type of products that may be offered. For instance, casino-style games and poker will not be allowed.

The Minister may also impose directions on the exempt operators in relation to the conduct, supervision or control of the remote gambling operations.

Regulatory sanctions will be imposed if an exempt operator fails to comply with the directions or contravenes the exemption conditions. These sanctions include letters of censure, financial penalties not exceeding $1 million and the curtailment of operations. In

Page: 58

very serious breaches, the Minister can suspend or revoke the certificate of exemption.

Mdm Speaker, the Bill will grant powers to Police officers and authorised officers to enforce its provisions.

Clause 32 allows the Minister to designate relevant public officers as authorised officers to enforce parts of the Bill. Clauses 33 and 34 grant Police officers and authorised officers powers in relation to investigating an offence or a contravention of any provision in the Bill.

These powers include powers to require a person to furnish information, examine a person orally, as well as to enter and search a premise suspected to be connected to the commission of an offence under the Bill.

Clause 40 allows the Minister to make specific exemptions by way of an order published in the Gazette. The exemptions may either be applicable generally or for a particular situation, subject to a set of conditions imposed by the Minister.

For example, online lotteries or lucky draws organised by charities or businesses, for the purposes of promoting the sales of their products, could be exempted by way of an order made under this clause.

Currently, Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club are allowed to provide tele-betting and mobile betting applications for their existing products only to registered account holders under the exemption regime within the CGHA and BA. These remote services will, henceforth, be covered under the RGA.

Clause 42 allows such a currently exempted operator a transition period of up to six months after the Bill comes into effect to either cease operations or apply for an exemption under the new legislation.

Madam, allow me to summarise.

The Remote Gambling Bill seeks to put in place measures to prohibit remote gambling in a manner that is consistent with our overall approach to gambling. It will restrict remote gambling by criminalising the entire spectrum of remote gambling activities and imposing blocking measures.

The Bill will provide our enforcement agencies with the powers to tackle remote gambling and its associated concerns decisively. The Bill will also provide for a tightly

Page: 59

controlled exemption regime with an extensive set of safeguards.

These measures, together with enhanced public education and engagement initiatives, will allow us to address our law-and-order concerns and protect young and other vulnerable persons from the potential harms of remote gambling. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]

Mdm Speaker, by any measure, problem gambling is not something we want to see in Singapore. Not only is the offending gambler at risk, his family, loved ones and the extended society around him would likely also be the victims of the social ills associated with a pathological gambler. That is why we have had strict anti-gambling laws in Singapore for many years now, recognising the social concerns, as well as the increased potential for criminal activities to take place in and around the context of gambling activities.

Yet, over the past few years, the published numbers on gambling in Singapore point to a picture that we simply cannot ignore.

The National Council on Problem Gambling, or NCPG for short, conducts regular surveys to assess and study trends in gambling. In its latest report, it tells us that almost half of Singapore residents aged 18 and above have participated in at least one form of gambling activity or another in the previous 12 months. Further, more than half of Singapore residents gamble at least once a week before they reach the age of 30.

The trend may not, in itself, be alarming, but it is notable that seven in 10 people believe that gambling once in a while and socially and not excessively, is acceptable. However, the question always in gambling is: when is it not excessive? When is it that it is time to stop? When one loses half his monthly pay cheque or more, or half his savings?

Furthermore, as the experience of the now famous Andy's dad in the NCPG World Cup advertisement shows, even when you win, you still cannot stay away! So, when is enough really enough?

The 3 February 2014 edition of The Economist ranked Singapore second in terms of the amount of gambling losses per resident adult, with approximately half of this amount being lost in casinos and the other half being spread amongst lotteries, betting and offshore

Page: 60

gaming websites.

It is this latter category of online gaming that is growing at an alarming rate, which concerns us today. An estimated US$416 million was gambled away by local online gamers this year, up by almost 10% from the preceding year. Out of this amount, about 95% end up being paid over as revenue directly to the offshore web operators, often from direct debit from the punter's bank account. This figure is likely to rise over the next few years. In fact, the majority of market trend reports tell us that this growth is likely to be exponential, commensurate with the global trend in a steep upsurge in online gaming.

Madam, the big trouble with online gaming is precisely that it is online. The Internet is pervasive and convenient and online gaming sites can be easily accessed by anyone, regardless of age. There are also so many sites to choose from, reflecting the increase in the number of market players getting into this very lucrative business. These businesses are also borderless and transnational – the online sites can be hosted from anywhere and by anyone – and allow anybody to enter the site and start gaming and our current laws do not allow this to be stopped.

Our children and many young people can be easily online and accessing these sites without restriction, in no time at all. I myself tried accessing a few sites, of course, just to see what it is like. To begin with, it is really easy to get onto a gaming site. On top of that, the gaming options and varieties are endless. On some sites, I could even choose the best looking avatar to roll the dice or deal my cards! All this could be done from the comfort of my own home and, with a few clicks, I could even link my bank account to the web operator so that direct debits could be made to cover any losses. And if all that was not enough to entice one to start, most sites also offer free monetary credits, not credits that you cannot convert but those you can convert to cash or money's worth. Hence, unlike the real casino, where one is already a $100 down, if you are a Singapore citizen, once you get in, in the online version, most people start with a credit – the key word of course being "start". Where you end up is an entirely different story!

Madam, it is very clear that with the advent of the Internet, problem gambling has become a rather different creature from the mischief which our current legislation is designed to deal with. It is, therefore, very clear to me that we need this Bill to be passed, in order to curb the ominous threat which online gaming poses, particularly to the young and vulnerable who are, of course, the largest users of the Internet, but also to our broader community.

As you have heard from Minister Iswaran a short while ago, this Bill seeks to deal with the entire remote gambling eco-system comprehensively. There are three broad aspects of

Page: 61

this Bill which I would like to address.

The first relates to the criminalisation of every facet of online gaming, not just the act of gambling but also in the provision of the platform for remote gambling to take place. The Bill provides for a wide definition of remote gambling activities and it will be an offence to gamble remotely, facilitate others to do so, or transmit, receive or otherwise provide gambling services. This Bill, with these powers, will equip the Police with powers to apprehend anyone involved in the remote gambling chain – agents, intermediaries, operators and syndicates, as long as any part of the gambling activity takes place in Singapore.

The breadth of these provisions, in my view, is vital, especially in the context of the problem we are dealing with. Many sites are operated offshore with many degrees of separation between the true operators of the syndicate and the eventual user. Further, the Internet, being what it is, makes it difficult for the key operators to be tracked down effectively. These provisions, therefore, help enhance the powers and reach of law enforcers in order to ensure that the Police would not only be able to curb the remote gambler but also take steps to disrupt or cripple any syndicates, wherever they may be located, so that the wider social harm can be prevented. On this score, I would digress slightly to note that section 9 of the Bill criminalises the activities of an agent, regardless of whether he operates inside or outside Singapore. Would Minister explain how this provision is envisaged to operate and how it would be enforced since this would invariably involve key ingredients of the offence being committed outside Singapore?

Mdm Speaker, in order to consider and appreciate whether we need these provisions of the Remote Gambling Bill in our armoury to combat problem gambling, it would be useful to quickly look at the state of our current laws. At present, we have the Betting Act, the Private Lotteries Act, the Betting and Sweepstakes Duties Act and the Common Gaming Houses Act (CGHA).

Minister Iswaran has already mentioned the Common Gaming Houses Act which, by its very name, reflects just how out-of-date it is. It was first enacted in 1961 and, most recently, revised in 1985, almost 30 years ago. When it was enacted, the stated main purpose of the Act was to provide and I quote, "for more effective control of public gaming, especially in coffee shops and places of public resort". We are quite a way away from that scenario now. However, that piece of legislation remains today one of the most commonly evoked pieces of legislation when law enforcers need to combat problem gambling. The question is whether these provisions and powers will be sufficient in today's world to deal with the cybercrime and cyber gambling of today.

Madam, a few years ago, in a decision PP v Peh Chye Hong under the Common Gaming Houses Act, the accused was prosecuted for running a physical cybercafé which provided

Page: 62

online casino gaming services. Although in this case the accused was convicted, one can already see how uncomfortably the definition of "common gaming houses" might sit with a cybercafé, even a physical one. However, if one were to replace the physical cybercafé with a virtual online one and with the advent of Internet technology today, it is really not difficult to do so, then even that comparison breaks down and it seems unlikely that such a virtual gambling site could be caught by the Common Gaming Houses provisions, which were enacted at a time when such facilities were not even contemplated, let alone in existence. Further, the current provisions also do not cover the individual who is gambling on the website from the comfort of his own home, and not from a conventional "common gaming house" as defined by the Act.

Apart from this case and a few others under the Common Gaming Houses Act, there have not been any other reported decisions concerning online gambling that I could find. Given that more than US$400 million is estimated to have been spent on online gaming this year, that probably tells us that a lot more online gaming takes place but not in physical premises and not under the scenarios which the Common Gaming Houses Act would have powers to deal with.

The second aspect of the Bill relates to the protection of the public from online gaming sites and proactive steps to block unwelcomed sites from being allowed to provide, facilitate or advertise remote gambling. In addition, payment blocking orders may also be issued to stop any payment instructions issued by a person, who is participating or has participated in remote gambling activities.

Madam, I agree with these steps and I really cannot see any serious objection to them, given that we already currently block a variety of objectionable sites ranging from pornography, to anti-piracy websites and other sites which, like Ashley Madison, promote matters against the public interest. So, this measure is also not exceptional, when compared to the approaches taken in other jurisdictions.

I should add that I also welcome Minister Iswaran's comment on having enhanced penalties for those who invite or facilitate young persons below the age of 21 to gamble remotely and those who employ young persons in connection with the provision of gambling services.

Before moving on, may I please raise three points of clarification from the Minister in relation to the application of section 21 of the Bill. This provision in section 21 sets out the circumstances in which a payment blocking order could be made. Section 21(1), in particular, provides that an authorised officer has to be, and I quote, "satisfied that a person is participating or has participated in any unlawful remote gambling activity", before a blocking order could be made. My three comments are: first, this formulation requires that an offence

Page: 63

has already been, or, is being committed, before the blocking provisions, which are essentially for the protection of the gambler and probably his family as well, can apply.

Would the bar thus be set too high or possibly invoked only at a stage when it is already too late? Second, there are eight factors listed at section 21(4) which has to be taken into account. In fact, the provision says itself weight must be given to all these factors before a blocking order can be made. Again, in the context of the stage at which the provision is being invoked, which is often time-sensitive, would these criteria be too onerous and take too long to be satisfied?

A payment blocking order has to be quickly effected before payment is transacted, failing which it would be rendered nugatory. Third, a payment blocking order under section 21(2) restricts, amongst others, the provision of credit, cheques, bank drafts, electronic fund transfers and the like. Would these provisions be sufficiently wide to also cover "money's worth", which is a term used elsewhere in the Bill, or virtual but convertible money which is often the currency used in online transactions?

Madam, I move on to my third aspect which relates to the exemption regime as set out at Part 5 of the Bill.

Madam, this is probably the most debatable aspect of the Bill since some might argue, that with all the concerns we have expressed over online gaming, why then should we leave the door even slightly ajar for exempt operators to tempt punters? I think the answer lies in acknowledging that no amount of legislation or even strict deterrent sentencing will eradicate gambling. Like drinking, prostitution and drug trafficking, all of which are the subject of some of the toughest laws we have in Singapore, gambling will continue to take place and it will be worse if driven underground, especially given the virtual terrain in which these activities operate which make it inherently difficult to detect. I believe, therefore, that there should be a controlled outlet for online gaming to occur. Take the experiences of Hong Kong, France and Norway, which Minister mentioned, for example. These were studied by MHA prior to drafting this Bill. They have similar, albeit slightly less stringent, I think, laws against online gambling, but each has an exempt operator regime as well.

That said, however, I do share the concern that the exemption should not be lightly given. The operator applying for exemption must be scrupulously reviewed and the conditions to be imposed judiciously as well as continually assessed. I am sure the Government would agree with that.

On this note, I would like to seek some clarification on section 28 of the Bill and this is my last clarification: 28(1)(c) spells out, in my view, one of the most important conditions

Page: 64

before we can allow an exempt operator onto the market, which is, I quote, "to contain and control the potential of remote gambling to cause harm to young persons, vulnerable persons and society at large". This is an important safeguard because every gambling addiction starts with just one punt. I would like to ask the Minister, therefore, how he sees this condition being imposed and, more importantly, to be continually policed. For instance, would an operator be required to verify the age of gamers, or limit the number of times the site is accessed each time by each person, or have to submit regular reports to the authority?

Madam, it bears reiterating that the social ills of problem gambling afflict more than just one gambler. Families can end up broken, children's futures compromised and relationships fail because the ill effects of a gambling addiction are so very destructive. It is all very sad and we cannot ignore the fact that online gambling is even more devastating. We have to act to protect society, particularly the young and vulnerable, from this.

I, therefore, support the Government's proactive initiative in addressing this through a suite of very comprehensive measures through this Bill, targeted across the whole spectrum of remote gambling activities. At the same time, I would also urge the Government to complement this with effective public education, encouragement, support and to work with and through VWOs, grassroots organisations and other community support groups to help problem gamblers and their families. Madam, I support the Bill.

Madam, Singapore is one of the most wired nations with one of the fastest Internet connections in the world. Its heavy investment in InfoComm and Technology, or ICT, is evidenced not only in its economic policies but also in the education landscape. Singapore's young people are arguably some of the most technologically savvy in the world.

Fueled by the popular use of mobile wireless telcomm devices, such as smartphones, the already $40 million remote gambling industry is all set to soar further, particularly in Asia.

Due to its pervasive nature, remote gambling, left uncontrolled, is predicted to pose a very great threat to people and nations. It is more convenient, more easily accessible and available 24/7. As commonly quoted, one can literally gamble in one's pyjamas in the privacy of one's bedroom.

Remote gambling sites are capable of offerings in the gambler's language of choice. Successful operators can afford better payout rates due to its lower overheads after its initial investments. Virtual casino operators have been known to rig the games. And in a highly

Page: 65

publicised scandal involving online poker, professionals developed "rogue" software that allows access to third-party computers and accounts to cheat and to view the cards of other customers without their knowledge.

Remote gambling is thus a cause for concern and unless Singapore does something with this unregulated sector so far, we are holding a walking time bomb that will hurt lives. In fact, the majority of participants in the public consultations conducted by Ministries, such as MSF, are convinced of the ills of remote gambling and concur that something ought to be done.

My support for Parts 2 to 5 of the Remote Gambling Bill. I, therefore, fully support the move by our Government to tighten the remote gambling sector and to nip the problem in the bud, before this time bomb blows up.

Fronted by MHA, the Bill has been introduced for two key objectives – one, to prevent remote gambling from being a source of crime or disorder; and two, to protect young persons and other vulnerable persons. When adopted, Singapore will be passing what is arguably one of the strictest and most vigorous anti-remote gambling legislation in the world.

Parts 2 to 4 of the Bill put in place a comprehensive multi-pronged regime deploying strong measures in blocking websites, protecting vulnerable players, especially the young ones, regulating financial payments and gambling advertisements.

The biggest contention, however, lies in Part 5 of the Bill. Part 5 provides for the Minister to issue a certificate of exemption that authorises a party to provide a Singapore-based remote gambling service. This is as long as the Minister is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so.

Madam, this provision for exempt operators is not without strong controversy. I was one of the participants who took time to join the public consultations on remote gambling and this is what I noticed. Whilst almost everyone agreed that Singapore must regulate the remote gambling industry and push on with more aggressive public education, not everyone agreed on whether there should be a partial or total ban of remote gambling.

I have examined arguments "for" and "against" the provision of exempt remote gambling operators.

Arguments in support. Those who are "for" controlled licensed remote gambling, or a partial ban, do so for several reasons. They highlighted the impossibility of totally blocking 100% of all remote gambling sites and in prosecuting especially sophisticated and seasoned overseas providers. They argued that since you cannot beat them and since there will always

Page: 66

be some appetite for remote gambling, which will otherwise be driven underground, let us join them and run some exemplary remote gambling sites ourselves. "Better learn how they do it, so that we can be better enforcers" was the argument. And while we are at it, be sure to channel some proceeds from these licensed operators to local charities and social causes! These are the popular arguments to support a partial ban or to allow some licensed remote gambling operators in Singapore.

Now, the other school of thought – arguments against the provision of exempt operators. Singaporeans belonging to the other school of thought, on the other hand, felt strongly that there ought to be a total ban of remote gambling. They want to see a similar position taken, such as the strong stance taken against the entry of Ashley Madison, the renowned online site that promotes extra-marital relationships.

Madam, I subscribe to a total ban of remote gambling with no exemption for several reasons. The top reason is the negative signal we are sending, as a Government, to the entire population, especially our young. It had been said that 40% of online gamblers over-estimate their wins and under-estimate their losses. If, indeed, we believe so strongly that remote gambling is harmful and does no good to either people or nation, then are we legitimising the act of gambling and breeding its acceptance by legally providing for exempt licensed operators in this Bill? Does gambling become more noble when operated by a licensed versus an unlicensed operator? Do two wrongs make a right? Should our lack of sophistication in arresting the savvy gamblers who circumvent the law, stop us from using legislation as an important tool to stem remote gambling? The answer is no. Madam, even if solely for optical reasons, we must not send the signal and message to both young and old Singaporeans that remote gambling is fine as long as it is under a state licence.

My second reason to push for a total ban is my disagreement that in order to learn how to better enforce anti-remote gambling measures, we should provide for local exempt operators. Madam, even if friendly potential gambling companies, such as the Turf Club or Singapore Pools, were to enter the fray of remote gambling, they will face tensions at several fronts. First, they have to be attractive and their gambling offerings need to be comparable to what is in the market today. The management and staff will have to put in their best to lure customers to meet their KPIs of being good or excellent in their trade and become profitable. If they become extremely good, they will no doubt achieve their KPIs and bonuses, but they will also ruin more lives. However, if they are half-hearted in trying to make their remote gambling licence bear financial fruit, then they would be ineffective in helping the State learn the ropes of enforcement. It is a no-win situation.

My third reason for advocating a Total Ban pertains to evidence that online gamblers are prone to exercise less self-restraint and significantly more likely to be problem gamblers. Remote gambling, because of its direct and blatant use of money as a medium of play, affects

Page: 67

not only the problem gambler alone; not only his families; but potentially his network of significant others in his life, including those in his work and social lives. I will not relate the many cases of people and families ruined by problem gambling; there are enough stories highlighted in the media. My question is: why should the Government support exempt operators and be part of an undesirable social phenomenon, and then, later, invest further resources, such as the National Council for Problem Gambling, to thwart its ill effects?

We need to review the place of gambling in Singapore. Madam, beyond the immediate task of debating on the Remote Gambling Bill, however, is the larger question of the place of gambling in the future of Singapore.

I am relieved that Singapore has exercised strong self-restraint in the brick-and-mortar casino business. Our Government did not succumb to the seduction of chasing the trophy held by such casino economies as those in Macau and Las Vegas. However, I believe that it is time for the Government to review and take a holistic approach to discourage gambling as an economic or social activity.

It is not enough to make silo, piece-meal introductions of legislation and policies. While I appreciate MHA's good and timely intent to plug a loophole in the laws which were enacted before the Internet era, it is telling that MHA considers this Bill "to be technically an extension of Singapore's approach to terrestrial or land-based gambling," and that "the provision of gambling is not permitted unless specifically allowed for, by way of an exemption or licence."

Madam, we need a holistic longer-term game plan to reflect our principles and intent. Just as we are bold enough to explicitly stand by principles, such as the family is the first port of call for help, that extramarital relationships are not encouraged, we need to stand by our objections to gambling, whether online or via brick-and-mortar casinos.

It has been almost 10 years since we made the fateful decision of authorising licensed casino operators for the sake of jobs in an economic recession. Ten years down, is it not time to review our position? With the tightening of foreign labour in Singapore, have the casinos now, indeed, become competitors for manpower from our local SMEs? If manpower is so precious, why would we divert precious manpower to learn the casino business, whether in physical establishments or online? What is our progress in learning skills, such as operating the MICE or the meetings, conventions business and family entertainment industries, such as that of the Universal Studios, which the Integrated Resorts have exposed us to? What have we learned?

Page: 68

When will Singapore wean itself of the casino industry, reduce the casinos from two to one to nil, especially in the light of new potential entrants, such as Japan and other Asian countries?

Madam, let us review the long-term place of gambling in our country. In addition, let us continue to exercise self-restraint in the current landscape. Data from 2012 showed 6.2 million visits by locals to the two casinos, and the issuance of more than 13,000 no-limit annual casino entry passes and almost 1.5 million of day passes to the casinos.

Madam, even more ought to be done to discourage gambling by local residents for the immediate future. Let me propose just two for the speech. One, to increase the casino entry fees to the casinos from $100. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew himself had once proposed $500. And two, instead of continuing an opt-out scheme which automatically qualifies all Singaporeans to gamble at licensed casinos, change it to an opt-in system so that only those who wish to gamble sign up.

Finally, to conclude, Madam, next year, we prepare to celebrate Singapore's 50th birthday. We have spoken much about admiration for the grit and diligence of our Pioneer Generation who did not simply take the path of least resistance. It is thus the opportune time to take a bold step and reject gambling, whether remote or on-site, in our economic, social, manpower and education master plans.

Mdm Speaker, the Internet age has certainly changed the way we live, work and play in every sense. It has brought a new world into our homes and into our daily lives everywhere we go. It has moved our work online. It has moved our friends online. It has also moved our addiction online. When problem gambling goes online, every Internet-ready device is a potential betting shop or casino for gamblers to get their fix 24/7. An online gambler has this to say, "You don't have to physically walk anywhere. You don't have to take your purse out of your handbag or your wallet out of your pocket to gamble." Who would have thought that lives and families will be destroyed not at the brick-and-mortar casinos or betting shop, but right in the comfort of your own home?

The Remote Gambling Bill is thus a welcomed piece of legislation to address the harm and ills that remote gambling can inflict on the individual, the family and the society as a whole.

Madam, I have some concerns to highlight and clarifications to seek from the Minister on this Bill. First, Part 2 of the Bill makes remote gambling an offence punishable by a fine

Page: 69

not exceeding $5,000, or an imprisonment term not exceeding six months, or both. While the penalties seem hefty enough to be a deterrent, I am not sure if punitive measures alone will make the offender think twice about gambling at remote sites again because the temptation is ever present. Unlike a person who is addicted to brick-and-mortar gambling where there are some forms of structural control in place, such as the punter would need to be present at the betting shop or there are operating hours to observe, a person who is addicted to online gambling has none of the above restrictions.

Online gamblers can play anywhere, anytime, without anyone noticing them doing it at all. The Internet age, together with the mobile revolution, has transformed online gambling into an all-powerful stimulant, right in the palms of your hands, thereby putting people of all ages at risk, regardless of gender, race or social standing. Bearing in mind that persons at risk are exposed to the temptation of remote gambling 24/7, could the Ministry consider making counselling and therapy sessions compulsory, in lieu of the penalties imposed, especially if the person is a first-time offender? I am of the belief that education and counselling should work hand-in-hand with punitive measures, so that online addiction can be adequately addressed and, hopefully, eradicated.

Second, Part 3 of the Bill makes it an offence to advertise and promote remote gambling. An offender would pay a fine not exceeding $20,000. Madam, the mobile revolution has opened up a world of opportunities for entrepreneurs and software developers to market their products and services. It has four million of apps, many of which are provided free-of-charge, but come with advertising. Would software developers be held liable for remote gambling advertisements that may appear in their free apps?

While clause 16(2)(a) provides a possible defence for app developers to prove that such advertisements appearing in their app are accidental or incidental accompaniment, clause 16(2)(b) will weaken their defence because they are actually benefiting directly from the display of such advertisements, especially when users click on them. Can app developers also claim clause 16(3) as a possible defence that they have no control over the nature or content of the communication or data in their apps?

And, on the flip side, there is no way to prevent remote gambling service providers from commissioning fun and entertaining apps targeting at specific demographics at no charge but populated with remote gambling advertisements. I seek clarifications from the Minister on these issues as the intent of the Bill is certainly not to douse the entrepreneurial spirit or limit the imagination of software developers in the mobile app industry.

Third, Part 5 of the Bill is, perhaps, the most worrying part of the legislation. It legalises exempt operators to do what the Bill is supposed to prohibit in the first place. A British-based consultant estimates remote gambling revenue here to hit half a million dollars this year. A

Page: 70

Hamburg-based company projects the online gambling market to grow by 7% to 10% annually in the next few years with mobile gambling, expected to reach over 40% of the total online gambling market by 2018. Another report in 2013 put the number of Internet gambling sites at nearly 3,000 and the annual revenue they had generated at US$30 billion.

All the above reports point to one conclusion – the exuberance for growth in the remote gambling industry is irresistible. It is thus not surprising that not-for-profit and state-run operators like Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club were reported to have indicated their desire to seek exemption, even before this Bill comes up for Second Reading.

Madam, Singapore Pools has about 300 betting outlets conveniently located in the commercial and the HDB heartlands. As mentioned earlier in my speech, the physical location and operating hours of these outlets do offer some form of control to prevent persons-at-risk from being exposed to constant temptation. However, an exempt operator under this Bill will be able to put the betting outlet or casino into every home and open it for business all year round, 24 hours a day.

I note the Minister has stated that no casino-style online games will be allowed for exempt operators. However, the convenience and danger of online remote gambling cannot be understated. A struggling addict said, "I feel defeated as the temptation was constant and a relapse was just a click away." Some may argue that without exempt operators, this Bill will drive online gamblers underground. Madam, everything will be driven underground the moment the Government outlaws it. It is the law of nature.

But unlike the physical world where the border is hard to secure 100% and cash payment is hard to trace, this Government controls the conduit where all online activities and electronic payments flow through. Part 4 of the Bill will prevent access to online remote gambling services and block payment transactions quite effectively. While it is not 100% foolproof, the Bill does make it difficult for persons-at-risk to gamble 24/7 online. So, the question is why does the Bill want to make it easy for these people to gamble online, again, through the exempt operators?

Madam, we already have 4D, Toto, Singapore Sweep, Live Sports betting, phone betting, MobileTote, TeleTote and even operator-assisted betting, in addition to the two casinos operating round the clock in the city area. Do we need a legalised betting outlet in every home as well?

Finally, Part 6, clause 40 of the Bill states that the Minister can also exempt any person or class of persons from the provisions of this Act. I seek clarification from the Minister who

Page: 71

are the people who would qualify for the exemption.

In conclusion, this Bill must send the right message. Are we trying to address the harm and ills of remote gambling or the loss of revenue to unauthorised operators? We certainly cannot have it both ways because gambling addiction does not stop when exempt operators come in. What role can a potential exempt operator like Singapore Pools play to fight online gambling addiction when its sole mission listed on its website is to combat the loss of revenue to unauthorised gambling operators?

Madam, we already have enough legal avenues to gamble. While I support the principle of the Bill, I am of the opinion that Part 5 of the Bill should be re-examined and the Government should proceed with caution on the provisions for exempt operators.

I, therefore, urge the Minister to commit the Bill to a Select Committee to specifically look into Part 5 of the Bill because it has ramifications beyond what we could anticipate. Educating the public on responsible gambling is all good but, at the end of the day, this Bill will be responsible for putting a legal betting shop right in the palm of our hands. Are we taking gambling, responsible or not, too far?

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate on remote gambling. I have mentioned many times in Parliament that we need to strengthen our control measures on gambling to limit the escalation of gambling ills. Thus, I rise in support of the Remote Gambling Bill. However, I hope MHA will address the following concerns and suggestions pertaining to remote gambling.

First and foremost, I would like to urge the Government to establish an anti-cybercrime agency to tackle cybercrimes, including unathourised remote gambling. When I requested Senior Minister of State Mr Masagos in Parliament to establish the said agency last month, he was not specific in his reply. With the rapid development of technology and Internet space, we need to train a group of online experts to effectively tackle the various forms of online betting. Even if the Government can block all the existing gambling sites, new ones will continue to pop up. It is like the Chinese saying "new grass will grow again as long as we do not remove the roots". We need the online experts to continuously identify and block these illegal online betting sites, rather than relying on public complaints to identify new illegal sites.

Page: 72

Next, I would like to move on to the most controversial part of the Bill, which is Part 5. I can understand why MHA needs to add sections 26 and 30 to allow Singapore-based non-profit gambling companies to apply for exemptions and provide remote gambling services. The intention is to provide an outlet for Singaporeans to use their phone apps or websites to gamble in a limited way. It is like a safety valve to prevent Singaporeans from resorting to excessive illegal online gambling.

However, I do not understand the need for section 40, which empowers the Minister to allow some persons, or a group of persons, to enjoy exemptions and not be constrained by other sections of the Bill. The Minister has just said that the purpose of section 40 is to allow some charity organisations to conduct online lucky draws. However, the scope of section 40 is very wide. Does it mean that the Minister is considering to allow some rich local residents to gamble online freely? Or is the Minister considering to exempt the current Integrated Resort operators so that they could provide online gambling services? I hope the answer is no, but I would like the Minister to clarify the intention of section 40.

Meanwhile, I hope the Minister can strengthen the control over exempted companies and do not hesitate to exercise the regulating powers strictly. I understand that when the exempted companies fail to comply with the authority's regulations, they could be fined up to $1 million. However, is $1 million a sufficiently strong deterrent? Many people may not know that Singapore Pools has been offering remote gambling services and punters can place bets using their mobile phones. Thus, it is highly likely that Singapore Pools will apply for exemption to provide remote gambling services. Last year, their revenue was more than $6.3 billion with about $600 million profits. Hence, is a $1 million fine a sufficient deterrence to them? Perhaps, the Minister can consider raising the fines quantum but capping it at 10% of their revenue, similar to fines imposed on telcos and casino operators. If the Minister, indeed, grants exemption to Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club in the near future, I hope these two companies can maintain their current online and phone betting services and not rush into dishing out additional remote gambling services. We need some time to observe the impact of the Remote Gambling Act on our residents.

When we legalise more gambling channels, more Singaporeans will likely start to gamble, resulting in more gambling addicts. In order to stem the growth of gambling addicts, we need to nip the problem at its source. One of the ways is to limit the betting amount each resident could place. For that matter, I hope MHA can consider issuing a special player card which is linked to the gambler's bank account that the gambler uses to gamble via the legal channels. We can set up an upper limit on the amount of bet one can place each day, similar to the personalised player card used in Norway and Sweden. Particularly in Norway, the government stipulates that no one can transfer more than US$80 per day or US$440 per month into the player card. With this kind of player card, we can better control the social problems brought about by legal gambling. Thus, I urge the Minister to study the feasibility

Page: 73

of using a player card system to control gambling.

I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.10 pm until 4.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.30 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Mdm Speaker, online gambling is increasingly becoming a problem, both globally and in Singapore. In 2013, a news article reported an online survey by MHA which found that three in 10 out of 1,000 respondents had gambled online or through the mobile phone. The article estimated that the size of the remote gambling market in Singapore was $376 million. MHA had also estimated that the revenue of the global remote gambling industry was around US$35 billion in 2012.

A survey conducted in 2011 with Singapore residents by the National Council on Problem Gambling found that 10% of the respondents had gambled remotely in the preceding year and those who did so said they often found themselves spending more time and money than they had intended to. With the wide penetration of the Internet and mobile phone and the increasingly technology-savvy population, remote gambling will rise rapidly, if left unchecked.

Singapore currently has tough laws on gambling in real-world physical form, but has lagged behind that of other countries in imposing legislation on remote gambling, at least until now. Hence, I support the Government's move to impose tough legislation on remote gambling. Remote gamblers will now face fines and even jail terms, while those who facilitate remote gambling will be subjected to even heftier fines and up to five years in jail.

Industry experts have said that we will have one of the toughest laws in the world against online gambling. While most countries would adopt one or two of the key measures

Page: 74

to control online gambling, Singapore will adopt all three measures with the proposed regulations: one, ban advertisements; two, block access to such websites; and three, block payments to and from gambling sites.

However, a worrying aspect of the Bill is that under Part 5, it provides for exemptions for Singapore-based not-for-profit operators with a proven track record of distributing monies to public, social or charitable purposes in Singapore and with good compliance track records with applicable legal and regulatory requirements.

Our state-run operators, Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club have already been quoted in the press as saying that they will apply for the exemption certificate once the Bill is passed into law. Last year, it was reported that Singapore Pools is already looking to launch the first licensed gambling website that will be based in Singapore. The same report cited sources who said that Singapore Pools had already begun design for a website with online betting functions. In effect, this Bill will create a monopoly for legalised online gambling in Singapore for the existing operators.

Madam, while it is good to have only compliant not-for-profit organisations with charitable outlooks to be considered for exemption, we must not forget that there are very real dangers of people and families that have been and will continue to be destroyed at our existing legalised casinos, turf clubs and betting outlets.

According to a British gambling consultancy, H2 Gambling Capital, Singaporeans are the second biggest gamblers in the world and the average adult resident lost $1,189 in 2013. This ranks Singapore only behind Australia in terms of gambling losses per resident. Half of this amount was reportedly lost in the casinos, with the other half going to other forms of gambling, such as lottery, non-casino gaming machines, bettings and offshore gaming websites.

While the rates of problem and pathological gambling across the board are still considered relatively low, a local study funded by MSF has found that there has been an increase in the gambling participation rates among older adults aged 60 and above. This is consistent with other countries, such as the UK and the US, which also have similar trends. What is worrying about the prevalence of gambling participation among older adults from the study is that none of those identified within the problem gambling and moderate risk groups in the study was seeking professional help. As a result, while there are generally more people seeking help for gambling addiction, there still remains a significant group of people who do not do so, for various reasons, such as being unaware of the problem, or fear of being stigmatised, amongst others. This is a cause for concern not just because this group of people are around retirement age, but also because of the dire consequences that could

Page: 75

befall their families if the problem is not addressed in time.

When we legalised casinos in 2006, we enacted the Casino Control Act which has provisions aimed at protecting vulnerable persons and society at large from the potential harm of casino gambling. Yet we still saw individuals and families being destroyed by the scourge of addictive gambling. This has resulted in amendments to the Bill two years ago to offer further safeguards.

I would like to know what are the lessons learnt from the operations of our legalised gambling franchises that our authorities intend to incorporate to control the negative aspects of addictive gambling. This is especially so when remote gambling is so much more convenient for the gamblers.

While we are legislating remote gambling for the first time in Singapore, there are already some forms of remote gambling by our two state-run gambling operators. As the Minister has said, Singapore Pools already allows phone betting and Singapore Turf Club's MobileTote allows betting via mobile devices. Phone betting allows for the placement of lottery bets by following voice prompts and through data entry using the phone's number pads. It allows for Sports bets through speaking with a customer service representative. The MobileTote allows Telebet account holders to view race day information and place their racing wagers on their mobile phones. Users of these services must first be registered with the gambling operators.

I trust that our authorities have been monitoring these existing forms of legalised remote gambling services. I would like to know if we have examined the frequency of usage of these types of remote gambling, such as the number of bets and amount of bets versus the traditional forms. Have we studied the gambling patterns of those who use these remote gambling services to see if the services had led to an increase in the number and overall values of their betting? What is the size of the existing memberships of these services? This information could be helpful to determine the extent of the danger for legalising online gambling through exempted operators and if these two existing state-owned operators should be granted exempt-status. With the exemption provisions in the Bill, it could open up the floodgates for these operators to be more aggressive in offering a wider range of services with greater convenience, which could inevitably result in more people becoming addicted to gambling.

Next, on verifications and controls needed. With online gambling, one should logically first be registered with a login identity and to have financial details linked to the gaming operators to facilitate payments. If we have to go down the path of having exempt gambling operators, we will need a way to impose controls on the legalised gambling sites, such as exclusion orders, voluntary self-exclusion and limits to gambling tied to financial abilities.

Page: 76

With the current exercise to strengthen SingPass security with two-level authentication, perhaps SingPass could be used as the means for authentication and financial background checks. At the very least, some form of strict authentication of the identity and background of the online gamblers at the initial creation of their account is important. Those on state-funded welfare programmes can be automatically excluded as such information will be readily available about the person. Those already on casino exclusion orders and are bankrupt should also automatically be excluded. Known financial details could perhaps be used to determine gambling limits.

What forms of remote gambling would be allowed for the legalised exempt operators? I am glad to hear from the Minister that there will be no casino-style games as these are potentially more addictive, compared to other forms of gambling. It would also have allowed a loophole to let Singapore residents gamble on casino games without the safeguards of entry levies that physical casinos have.

Another issue that we may have to look at in the implementation of online gaming is live-betting. With live-betting, one can bet on sporting events as they happen, with odds changing by the minutes or even seconds, as the game progresses. Gambling sites internationally have devised all sorts of creative live-bets, such as the number of yellow cards in, say, the first 20 minutes of the game. This can lead to more bets being placed on each sporting event and it also raises the risk for match-fixing. Australia, which has laws regulating online gambling since 2001, moved last year to ban live-betting and live-odds on all sports events, with the exception of horse-racing. Their reasons, amongst others, for this move were to control excessive gambling and to prevent the sporting values of games from being distorted by gambling. I hope live-betting will not be allowed in Singapore.

Mdm Speaker, I understand a reason for allowing exemptions is to allow enforcement through entities that we can better monitor. However, we need to tread this carefully as the ills of gambling are far-reaching, as we have already seen from our experiences with the casinos and other forms of legalised gambling. There need to be constant monitoring of the effects of remote gambling and to restrict participation by vulnerable persons and to also restrict the type of gaming activities allowed.

While I support the broad principles of the Bill to ban remote gambling, I find there are many unanswered questions regarding the exemption provisions. I fear that once we open the floodgates to have legalised remote gambling, we may end up with very high social costs and other unintended consequences in the future. Hence, I also wish to ask for the Bill to be committed to a Select Committee to examine the exemption provisions in detail to convince Singaporeans why exemptions are necessary and, if so, how we can tighten our legislation to implement very strong safeguards.

Page: 77

This Bill comes four years after the Singapore Academy of Law's Law Reform Committee released a report on online gambling in Singapore in July 2010. The Law Reform Paper noted that Singapore had begun to host gaming and gambling events with more frequency, referring to the Betfair Asian Poker Tour and through statutory exemptions to the Common Gaming Houses Act for organisers of private events to organise gambling activities in Singapore. In the words of the report, these developments suggested a more open State policy towards controlled and revenue-generating gambling activities with similar implications for online gambling, even though the local courts have generally taken a more conservative approach with regard to public policy considerations about gambling.

This Bill will clarify the law on online gambling, especially since the four key Statutes that govern gambling in Singapore, namely the Common Gaming Houses Act, the Betting Act, the Private Lotteries Act and the Betting and Sweepstakes Duties Act, do not adequately address the legal regime surrounding online or remote gambling. With regard to online gambling till date, the Common Gaming Houses Act and the Betting Act are generally differentiated with the former dealing mainly with casino-style online gambling and, the latter, with sports-type online betting.

The Bill targets all forms of remote gambling activity and covers individuals and corporate entities from gamblers to betting agents and operators. The law will apply so long as part of the gambling activity takes place in Singapore, regardless of where the bet is placed or where the remote gambling operator is located. It also gives authorities the power to block payments between illegal gambling sites and financial institutions, and block local access to gambling websites that facilitate all advertised remote gambling. All these are very far-reaching measures.

Mdm Speaker, a reading of the Bill in isolation sends the signal that the state subscribes to a restrictive and socially responsible attitude towards remote gambling. This is, however, only until the exemption clauses 26 to 30 to the Bill kick in and this aspect of the Bill is the focus of my speech.

The Minister can issue a certificate of exemption to any operator if it is in the public interest to do so. Clause 28 lists the conditions that the Minister may refer to when deciding to issue a certificate although these are not exhaustive and because the Minister has wide powers to add to, delete or modify the conditions governing the issuance of a certificate of exemption.

Page: 78

I have a few clarifications for the Minister in this regard. While I am supportive of a clear legal regime to deal with remote gambling, I am concerned that the prospect of a certificate of exemption issued to one or more local operators will increase the prospect of gambling in Singapore per se, as there is no clarity as yet on the means by which an operator would seek to contain and control the potential of remote gambling to cause harm to all Singaporeans and not just to young persons and vulnerable individuals. I will cover four main areas in my speech.

First, is it inevitable that a total ban will cause remote gambling to go underground? It was noteworthy that in the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) consultation exercise report on the regulation of remote gambling dated 6 March 2014, some stakeholders advocated a complete ban on remote gambling on the grounds that there were sufficient gambling outlets available to Singaporeans and to prevent easy access to remote gambling, especially among youth who are usually more tech-savvy and potentially at greater risk.

The oft-heard argument about remote gambling is that a total ban will drive activities, such as Internet gambling, underground. This is often the same argument used for the regulation of other vices. In the absence of relevant data and information, I am not convinced that these concerns wholly apply to remote gambling precisely because gamblers can still get their fix at land-based outlets and through some remote gambling options provided to gamblers by operators currently. If so, would it not suggest that rather than gamblers going underground and operating illegally, most gamblers would just go to the existing land-based outlets, such as authorised 4-D/TOTO shops which are completely legal and regulated?

Separately, even if some remote gambling does go underground, there is already acknowledgement by the Minister that even with the passage of this Bill into law, there remain loopholes, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) that can be set up to circumscribe restrictions in this Bill and gamblers could still get their fix through international online gambling sites. I would be grateful if the Minister could inform this House whether his Ministry will be open to look into the efficacy of a total ban on online gambling and not issue a certificate to any operator, until the public knows how restrictive or liberal the remote gambling regime will be in practice, or whether it will increase the prospect of compulsive gambling in Singapore.

Second, information on remote gambling in Singapore. The NCPG consultation exercise report on the regulation of remote gambling saw some stakeholders calling on the Government to commission more local research on remote gambling to study the nature and extent of remote gambling in Singapore. I am of the view that access to this information would better equip Members in this debate, rather than to rely on analyst projections from third parties. I hope the Minister can share more information on remote gambling in this

Page: 79

regard, for example, details on the numbers of remote gamblers in Singapore, the frequency of their betting activities and preferred betting activities, such as sports betting or conventional casino-styled gambling, so that Parliament can ensure that the social safeguards with regard to remote gambling are set at an appropriate level.

Third, remote gambling exempt operators: taxation and proceeds. In a USA Today editorial dated 25 September 2014, it was reported that the state of New Jersey was looking to the courts to allow sports betting and the concern was that online sports betting would follow suit accordingly. This may not just mean bets on the eventual results, but live-betting as well, such as the number of red and yellow cards in soccer game for example, raising the prospect of attendent social ills, such as increased sophistication in match-fixing, for example. The fear is that if pressures begin to mount on the bottomlines of exempt operators and even the state as a tax partner, there may well be a desensitisation towards relaxed remote gambling restrictions as a solution. The Bill gives wide powers to the Minister to decline or revoke the issuance of a certificate and I hope the Minister can let this House know what measures are in place to ensure that such a slippery slope does not occur.

In addition, the NCPG consultation exercise on remote gambling proposed that the proceeds of remote gambling products offered by not-for-profit entities should go towards charitable and community causes. This point is also made in clause 26 on the factors that the Minister may consider before issuing a certificate of exemption. I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry has determined what percentage of proceeds from remote gambling would go towards such causes and the operators respectively and how remote gambling will be taxed. Will this figure be made public in due course, and would an expectation of a fixed percentage of proceeds be a criterion for the issuance of a certificate, in addition to the conditions specified in clause 28?

Fourth, responsible gaming regulations for remote gambling. According to a speech made by the Minister at the 3rd Singapore Symposium on Casino Regulation and Crime last year, the total revenue of the global remote gambling industry in 2012 was estimated at US$35 billion, with an expected annual growth rate of about 9% – we have heard a number of Members citing these figures. And this is about five times the expected growth for conventional land-based gambling.

MSF, in a reply to a Parliamentary Question on the implementation of responsible gaming measures adopted by the two Integrated Resorts in October 2013 with respect to the Casino Control (Responsible Gambling) Regulations, said that a casino operator must submit its responsible gambling programme to the authorities for prior approval with some measures, including whether the operators had committed a dedicated committee to oversee responsible gambling efforts, set up a pre-commitment facility for patrons to limit their gambling expenditures and other broad measures, such as responsible gambling

Page: 80

ambassadors providing patrons with information and to assist those who display signs of anxiety or distress.

These measures have not been raised by this Bill but it is envisaged that they would conceivably be similarly raised in subsidiary legislation. However, as the drawing up of such legislation is not subject to parliamentary debate, it would be important for the Minister to flesh out the contours of responsible gaming regulations relevant to remote gambling in Parliament, so that Members can be assured that remote gambling options, as offered by exempt operators, do not end up making it more convenient for gamblers as Singapore is already one of the most wired and connected countries in the world. There is also a legitimate concern that responsible gaming regulations specific to land-based gambling are not easily portable to the remote gambling realm precisely because land-based gambling outlets are viscerally better placed to introduce social checks and monitors.

In view of the ubiquitous nature of remote gambling, the integrity and online security of gambler/gambling-related information and specifically, the greater difficulty to police and influence online activity, can the Minister please share what measures and regulations the Ministry has deliberated upon to ensure that widespread online gambling does not begin to take root in Singapore because of online or remote mediums through regulated operators who have been issued a certificate of exemption?

Separately, in its press release dated 29 November 2013 on proposals to restrict remote gambling, the Ministry stated that, in addition to the changes promulgated in the Bill before the House today, the Ministry will also strengthen public education with regard to remote gambling and gambling simulation games. Can the Minister share how the Ministry intends to do so, how different its public education programme would be for remote gamblers as opposed to land-based gambling and how it plans to gauge the effectiveness of such measures in view of the privacy afforded to a gambler by the Internet and, as iterated earlier, given the nature of the online medium in particular?

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, a number of international studies warn how remote gambling activities can be more dangerous than conventional ones that are already present in Singapore. The British-based Global Betting and Gaming Consultants (GBGC) estimated that the remote gambling industry in Singapore will rake in US$416 million or S$526 million in 2014, up by more than 50% from the US$271.58 million in 2009. More worryingly, according to the Psychological Assessment Journal, it was reported that 40% of online gamblers tend to over-estimate their winnings and underestimate their losses. And NCPG statistics from 2011 showed that those who participated in online gambling were found to have the poorest self-control, gambling longer, more frequently and spending more money than planned.

Page: 81

Mdm Speaker, the phrase, "the devil is in the details", is an oft-heard cliché. This Bill essentially sees the Government proposing a largely restrictive regime governing remote gambling, which is a positive development in principle. To that end, I support the Bill. However, the Bill is also one where the details – of how the Government will ensure remote gambling through exempt operators will not lead to an increased incidence of gambling, especially among the vulnerable groups – are not sufficiently clear. As this is a significant aspect of the Bill with far-reaching implications on gambling norms in Singapore, I ask the Minister to put this Bill before a Select Committee so Parliament can receive additional feedback from Singaporeans, industry experts and, in particular, operators that would potentially qualify for a certificate of exemption, with a view to scrutinise clauses 26 to 30 more closely.

Mdm Speaker, I speak in support of the Remote Gambling Bill. I also declare my interest: I am a lawyer at Rajah & Tann (Singapore) LLP and my law firm advises on gaming law.

Remote gambling has grown significantly over the years. It is a large, highly profitable global industry. Typically, it includes online sports betting, card games and live-casino games. There are numerous websites offering such services and at the moment, there is almost no regulation of this sector. I have heard different numbers being bandied around but I understand that, in Singapore alone, more than $375 million was spent on remote gambling last year.

This Bill introduces some of the strongest restrictions against remote gambling to be imposed by any country. In this context, it is interesting that the debate in this House has focused not on whether this Bill goes too far in restricting remote gambling, but whether it has gone far enough. This suggests that there is a clear consensus that remote gambling should be restricted by the Government. And I think that is a very healthy starting point.

Before we enter this debate, we should actually look at where the starting point of Government regulation should be in the first place because, ultimately, the choice to gamble is an individual choice. You may disagree with that person's choice to gamble, but by and large, assuming he is not addicted, that is his free choice. If he wants to place a bet on his favourite team winning the game, he should be allowed to do so. If he wants to buy a 4D ticket, say, on his birthday or some other special occasion, he should be allowed to do so. Many of us may not believe that is a sensible choice, we may not do the same thing, but by and large, a person who wishes to place small bets, who wishes to engage in leisure gambling,

Page: 82

should be able to do so.

The main justification for Government intervention in prohibiting gambling is because of its highly addictive nature and the social ills that accompany it. I think every Member of this House is aware of that. But once a person becomes addicted to gambling, it is no longer a free choice. It becomes compulsive. And there are companies out there that exploit this.

People who suffer from gambling addiction cause problems not only for themselves, but also their family and loved ones. I have met a great many cases in my Meet-the-People Sessions, people coming for financial assistance. Quite often, when you probe a bit deeper, you realise that somewhere out there, there is actually a gambling story as well which they have not actually told you about. And the gambling story leads to run-ins with illegal moneylenders and potentially other illegal operations too.

For that measure, I agree, by and large, that the Government should intervene and the Government should impose restrictions. In this respect, I think it will be helpful to discuss some of the restrictions imposed by this Bill, just to understand it better. And along the way, I will ask for some clarifications.

First, this Bill actually prohibits all forms of remote gambling activities, unless they are exempted. It also prohibits the advertisement and promotion of online gambling. There are stricter penalties if gambling is promoted to young people. There is also a tightly controlled exemption regime which I will discuss later on in the speech.

This essentially means that all forms of remote gambling which include online gambling and even gambling by telephone will be prohibited. Some of the things that I think might help in clarifying the scope of these restrictions include the following.

In section 26(3) of the Bill, there is a set of criteria which it is said that the Minister may consider in deciding whether or not to grant exemption status to certain operators. I think it is this part of the Bill that has attracted a lot of criticisms because many Members believe that there should be no exemptions at all or there should be stricter controls of these exemptions.

My reading of this is that it looks at whether or not the exempt operator is established in Singapore; whether there is a key director or officer in Singapore; and whether the applicant is not-for-profit. This should hopefully take away the incentive to make money out of this operation. And also finally, whether the applicant has a consistent track record of compliance with legal and regulatory requirements applicable to it.

Page: 83

My understanding of this exemption really is that it seems to be an attempt to make sure that any remote gambling is operated out of Singapore by people that our laws will be able to take hold over. And clearly, the profit incentive is also taken away. What this means is, essentially, we will have non-profit operators providing a service for an individual who wants to place a sport bet by telephone will be allowed to do so. In that sense, it seems to be more that we are tolerating the occasional indulgence in gambling as opposed to promoting gambling.

I understand that this Bill is phrased quite generally. It says these are criteria that the Minister may take into account. I understand in public statements, there have been some statements where the Minister has listed out the criteria that will be taken into account. But perhaps to avoid doubt, the Minister could clarify whether or not, this are, in effect, the minimum criteria under section 26, or the Minister may take into account other criteria as well, in order to make it even tighter.

This, at least, makes it very clear that basically, what we are doing is we are tightening the regime. We are not actually liberalising it in any way. We are not encouraging it in any way.

There are a couple of other areas in this Bill that seems extremely wide. I am not sure if this width is intended or unintended. Perhaps, I will just flag some of these things so that clarifications can be made on whether or not the Bill is intended to go that far.

Among the activities prohibited under section 5(4) is "the provision of facilities for remote gambling by others". This will obviously capture people who try to facilitate direct gambling but would it also, for example, capture people who develop software that might be used in the gaming industry but not necessarily to customers in Singapore? I understand that quite a number of companies that actually develop software in Singapore that might be used by the gaming industry. Similarly, I think section 9(1)(e) also says, "facilitates the participation by others in remote gambling". This might also include potentially software developers as well as those who might provide things like data facilities and routing facilities but not necessarily ISP providers. Some of these businesses are based in Singapore and I guess it is an open question whether or not we do intend to prohibit these activities.

On a related note, section 8 of the Bill, it does not really specify whether or not the individual who gambles in Singapore using the remote gambling service has to be a Singapore citizen or resident, or whether even tourists and transient visitors might be captured. So, this might create a situation where someone who comes from a country where gambling is permitted, carries on gambling in Singapore and then ends up falling foul of the law just because he happens to be gambling in Singapore. But he may not necessarily be aware of the restrictions on online gambling in Singapore. So, the question is, would these

Page: 84

potential individuals also be captured by the prohibitions in section 8 and might they find themselves getting arrested while on holiday which might make for some unpleasant newspaper headlines.

Another concern – I think the Minister clarified this – was raised by the International Social Games Association (ISGA) in a letter which I believe was sent to quite a number of Members in this House. And this was really pointing out that the definition of "money or money's worth" includes "anything that recognises as equivalent to money and includes virtual credits, virtual coins, virtual tokens, virtual objects". I think their concern is that many social games, including Candy Crush and Farmville, use things like farm coins and Candy Crush gems as virtual currency. But the Minister has clarified that it is not intended to capture these games. So, I guess those of us who do have these social games on our handphones can still go ahead playing it without falling foul of the law.

Let me go to a slightly more, I guess, serious topic, and these are the law-and-order concerns. Remote gambling operations where they are unregulated are not always benign. In the US, the US Attorney charged about 34 members and associates of two Russian-American organised crime syndicates with operating International Sportsbooks that allegedly laundered more than US$100 million. Earlier in his introductory speech, the Minister mentioned that illegal sports, bets placed during the World Cup in Asia alone amounted to some US$2.2 billion in dirty money which might be laundered as well in the black market.

In this regard, it might also be helpful if Singapore made consequential amendments to our anti-money laundering provisions to include offences under the Remote Gaming Act which will be part of the Second Schedule to the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act as offences that are to be treated as "serious crimes". These would basically allow us to go after all these remote gambling operators but also the proceeds of remote gambling as essentially the proceeds of money laundering offences. This would give much more teeth to bite as well.

The final part of my speech is on the enforcement measures and I am a big fan of the enforcement measures. I think the blocking orders both against web operators, ISPs as well as financial institutions are potentially quite effective because that way, in theory, you cut both access to websites as well as access to payment.

My only concern, of course, is this. I understand some other countries such as France and Norway have actually tried these blocking practices. I am curious to know how effective this has been because one concern is that people might be able to circumvent these measures, like blocking of websites, by using proxy servers or blocking of bank accounts by using foreign P.O. boxes. I assume that these are simple circumventing techniques that have

Page: 85

been tried many times by individuals and whether there are any ways or measures we can use to prevent such circumvention and perhaps also using more serious penalties if people try to circumvent these blocking measures.

Having said all that, overall, I strongly support this Bill. I believe the scourge of gambling and widespread and easy availability of remote gambling necessitate this. Some gambling for leisure and recreation, where it is monitored by trusted operators such as Singapore Pools, in a tightly controlled environment can be permitted. And, of course, the benefit of permitting this under tight Government scrutiny is that we can then manage addiction and obviously if further measures are needed to control such exemption orders, I would also support those. I think the main advantage is we will have greater control over gambling and greater knowledge of the type of people who engage in it and also, therefore, greater ability to deal with it further, if necessary. At the moment, I believe this Bill strikes a fair balance. Most of my questions relate to the manner in which the various unique features of this Bill might play out in practice and I would be grateful for any clarifications that the Minister can provide.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. The gambling industry is a booming one around the world, not just in Asia. The economic benefits from this are obvious – the combined revenue from our two Integrated Resorts (IRs) was $7.4 billion in 2013; they employ 22,000 staff of which 70% are Singaporeans; and they played a significant part in boosting our tourist arrivals to 15.5 million last year. In FY2013, Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club made surpluses of $598 million and $16 million respectively.

But, as we are aware, there are social costs, namely addiction, broken families and criminal activities such as loan-sharking. In finding the right balance between an absolute ban on gambling and total liberalisation, I strongly feel Singapore should err on the side of being conservative. There are three reasons why I feel remote gambling should be banned. Firstly, other jurisdictions, such as the European Union intend to make online gambling more restrictive for their citizens and this will only drive online gambling operators to target jurisdictions that are less restrictive, such as Singapore currently. Secondly, the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) revealed in its 2011 survey that 47% of residents gambled and notably, online gamblers were the most likely to have poor self-control – they gambled for a longer period of time than they had planned to, gambled with more money and gambled more frequently than they had planned. Thirdly, the revenues from remote gambling are not captured locally, so there are no benefits to speak of that can outweigh the social problems that come with it.

Page: 86

When introducing the Remote Gambling Bill, we need to anticipate the consequences. The Bill aims to block access to online gambling websites, block money transfers to remote gambling services and ban advertisements that promote online gambling. These measures are not watertight and will drive online gambling further underground. Online gambling sites can change their URLs, as was the case during the soccer World Cup earlier this year where operators changed their URLs tens of times during the course of the World Cup. IIlegal online gambling sites use a network of personal bank accounts to pay and receive monies to and from gamblers. These personal bank accounts are often bought or "rented", making it very difficult to trace the individuals ultimately receiving the money. In certain instances when sums are large, these transactions are made face to face, in cash. While the restrictions introduced in the Bill are unlikely to eradicate illegal online betting, I feel the Bill is still worth supporting, even if it only serves to send a message or as a deterrent.

The Bill provides for exempt operators, whereby the Minister may issue a certificate of exemption to a Singapore-based remote gambling service with a Singapore-customer link, after considering certain factors. One such consideration, stated in clause 26(3)(c), is whether the applicant is a not-for-profit entity that distributes part of its funds to public, social or charitable causes in Singapore. May I suggest that this consideration be stipulated as a prerequisite instead? As Singapore already has two IRs, Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club as legal gambling channels, any additional operator should be made to plough back surpluses to benefit the community, otherwise it is hard or impossible to justify exempting them. If the argument for exempting a Singapore-based remote gambling service with a Singapore-customer link is to provide competition for Singapore Pools to increase the attractiveness of its services and offerings, then I would say that we should find other ways to compel Singapore Pools to level up.

With the passing of this Bill, legal gambling channels, namely our two IRs, Singapore Turf Club and Singapore Pools will probably be beneficiaries. I hope that will translate to more funds being funnelled to public, social and charitable causes. Surpluses from Singapore Pools are channelled to the Tote Board and in FY2013, the Tote Board approved $472 million in grants, of which only $7 million went to sports. This year, our sailors created history by winning two Gold medals at the Youth Olympic Games. Our athletes have worked hard to bring glory for Singapore and I hope to see the expected increase in revenues from legal gambling be channelled towards sports and our deserving athletes. Mdm Speaker, on that note, I support the Remote Gambling Bill.

Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

Page: 87

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Gambling is a social evil and we should do our best to prevent Singaporeans from falling into such an abyss. Like drugs, gambling can easily become an addiction and will bring about much negative impact on our society. We have witnessed many people running into financial problems due to gambling and subsequent problems such as broken family and crimes.

Recently, a resident came to seek help from me. She is a housewife with two young children. Her husband was addicted to online gambling and ended up with huge debts. The bank even came to their house to seize the furniture. She did not want her young children to be affected, hence she decided to come out and work. She asked me how to start the divorce proceedings and to help her find a job. I am sure we all have heard of similar cases.

Nowadays, almost every family has access to Internet. We must take actions to prevent online gambling from invading our families, especially families with children.

In recent years, the Government has taken various measures such as advertisements, self-exclusion orders to warn Singaporeans not to become addicted. The Government has imposed restrictions on civil servants and those who frequent the casinos.