Eunice Elizabeth Olsen
Singapore
“But if we are finding it so hard to find them, despite a more educated and diverse population, perhaps we need to allow for more diversity in Parliament and in our political system. One of the biggest challenges for Singapore will be to nurture a new generation of leaders.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the clarifications. I have two supplementary questions. We are seeing more retrenchment cases involving PMETs. I would like to ask where can this group seek redress if their company is neither paying a severance nor paying them on a period of time stipulated, or if a company winds up.”
“I like to thank the Senior Minister of State. As he said, the Prime Minister previously said we have to treat the Rohingyas humanely, so if they are caught trying to seek refuge in Singapore, will they be treated as all other illegal immigrants, which means that they will be brought to court and face caning?”
“Finally, I would like to ask MOM how repatriation companies are regulated. There have been reports, not just online, but in the media about how these companies forcibly take in workers in order to send them home on their companies' behest. How is this not wrongful confinement?”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I just want to clarify and ask whether he could address my question on whether or not the Ministry is adequately staffed, not only just to deal with but also to speed up the process to resolve the pending cases of the foreign workers because some of them have been known to stay in Singapore for…”
“I thank the Second Minister, and I understand that there have been 10 exceptions made in the past 10 years. I just want to ask the Minister whether he thinks with progress as a nation, for MINDEF to be more visible and flexible about deferments, and if the Minister thinks this can help affirm in the eyes of Singaporeans that administratio…”
The complete record
Every one of 236 lines we hold for Eunice Elizabeth Olsen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 5.
“In particular, the Funds are worth more for neighbourhood schools than for independent and autonomous schools. This worth takes on an important meaning at two levels. First, literally, at double the grant per capita for neighbourhood schools than for their independent and autonomous counterparts. Second, I believe the Funds mean much more to pupils at neighbourhood schools. The reality on the ground is that most children from lower income families, especially the bottom 20th percentile, are studying in neighbourhood schools. Many years ago, maybe when Singapore society was more flat in terms of social stratification, you might find a more even or less unequal distribution among all the schools of children from various backgrounds. As we move from third world to first, an untrammelled capitalism took root. The gap grew between the have and the have-not. With globalisation, this gap has widened further. There is also a new educational context. Life's lessons can no longer be confined to classroom sessions. We read often in the media about the need for global perspectives. Overseas trips are becoming de rigor for schools that hope to open doors for their students. Even on terra firma the range of activities on offer has increased. The upshot is that those with resources have the means to get ahead even if nobody is denied an education because he or she cannot afford it. The question is: what kind of education? In this challenging world, meritocracy, as has been practiced in Singapore for so long, needs a new framework. Advancement based on individual ability and achievement is no longer comparable when the starting line has so irrevocably been redrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. When I spoke last year, my first Budget debate, I had a niggling sore throat but otherwise was quite happy to catch the buzz from the Budget fever. After all, the initiatives did try to target as many people as possible. This year, the Budget has made me feel like it is still the festive season. After all, there are lots of little red packets for those of us living in this little red dot. "Generous" seems to be the word that crops up regularly whenever the Budget and its goodies are mentioned. I agree that the Government has been creative in finding ways to disburse money to the population or electorate, depending on how you look at it. At the same time, many would say it is only fair and right that the good performance of the economy is finally felt by all and sundry and especially by the lower income and the elderly. Only a collective effort, including that of all workers in Singapore, would have complemented the generally sound economic policies in place to produce the results we have seen. It is commendable, therefore, that the Budget will share the fruits of growth with all Singaporeans as the Prime Minister has said. Indeed, there are many fruits to hand out - apples, pears and oranges, lychees, longans and rambutans. The harvest is plentiful. But to me, the durian, the king of Singapore fruits, in this Budget, was clearly apparent. To me, nothing cheered me more than the news of the Opportunity Funds. Let me explain why this is the most delicious morsel in the Budget. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Opportunity Funds are meant for schools to provide more curricula and enrichment activities specifically for needy students.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. Yesterday, in my speech, I mentioned about mandating for the casino operators to implement gaming programmes because I read that Harrah's, which is one of the big players in the industry, have their senior vice president of communications and government relations overseeing the casino operators responsible for gaming programmes. Obviously, they see it as part of their operations. Perhaps, not all the bidders might think this way. Is it not better for us to mandate that, like a gaming programme, in the casino, to educate the public on responsible gaming as the first line of defence for gambling addicts?”
“After all, if the Government can impose levies of $100 and $2,000 in order to deter Singaporeans from gambling at the casino, then it can impose a ceiling on how much non-premium players can lose to the house. If a few years after the IRs have been in operation, and it is apparent that there is a problem of families incurring casino gambling debts, I would think that mere symbolism like the entrance levy and concerns about micro-managing ought to take a back seat to the very real need to nip the problem in the bud, so that more families will not be affected. Even if this is not added to the Bill now, I would like the Government to give an assurance that it will consider the option of capping losses through legislation should the need ever arise. If we are truly sincere about being prepared to deal with the problems that casinos might cause, I think we should consider this. ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE”
“Sir, the second issue that comes to mind is that there is definitely scope for another layer of protection to be added if we are to look out for the interests of Singaporeans. I read with interest the plans that Harrah's has to establish a responsible gambling education programme. What struck me the most was that it was a voluntary proposition. Why is it allowed to be voluntary? Should it not be a requirement? Or are such programmes stipulated for under the Request for Proposals? If it is not, I would be very worried. In any case, I believe that the provision of gambling education and rehabilitation programmes is so important that it should be mandated for any would-be casino operator under the Casino Control Bill. It should not be left optional. Sir, finally, let us get to the heart of the problem when it comes to gambling. It is not gambling per se, but getting into debt that causes so many problems for families and society. For all the measures that are in place under the Bill, as it stands, I am sure that it cannot paper over every crack and stop every Singaporean from gambling more than his or her family can afford. The Government's aim is to have its cake and eat it - that is, to derive all the benefits of an integrated resort for Singapore but none of the documented detriments seen in other countries. If this turns out to be the case, well and good. But if, indeed, our worst fears come true, and if families suffer because of the heavy losses of one family member at the casino, then I would like to ask if the Government would consider the legislative option of setting limits on how much a person can lose at the casino either in one sitting or on a monthly basis, for example.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Bill. Sir, there are three issues I would like to raise. The first is with regard to the social safety net. The Bill states that Singaporeans under social assistance will be excluded from the casino. How is the Government going to ensure that it will be able to track every Singaporean who is on social assistance? There are 1,700 charities in Singapore. Not every underprivileged Singaporean turns to the CDCs when they need help. Is there a way the Government can spread its feelers to all charitable organisations so that Singaporeans who ought to be excluded will come to the attention of the authorities? Sir, I would like to ask whether the current steps to beef up the Government's regulatory oversight of the charity sector will include efforts in this area. Furthermore, the exclusion stipulation in the Bill raises some questions and scenarios. What happens to families who have just stopped relying on social assistance? How will the National Council on Problem Gambling approach and handle families such as these with regard to the exclusion list? Is it a case of once on social assistance it is considered always to be on social assistance and, therefore, they will be kept on the exclusion list? Or will it be that families are to be taken out of the exclusion list the moment they stop accepting social assistance? Or is there an evaluation period? And how is the Council going to monitor all the families either on social assistance or once on social assistance? In fact, it raises the question of how many families currently are receiving social assistance. I would like to seek clarification on this and what guideposts the Council intends to use when it acts with regard to the exclusion list.”
“Sir, since the Minister mentioned about Norway, I would like to ask him whether or not studies are being done on comparative countries, ie, countries that do not adopt a free healthcare model, on how they juggle subsidies or how they manage renal failure.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his very detailed response. Since there are figures before 1998 showing that there are quite a number of Singaporeans that have died every year from inability to pay for the cost of dialysis, does it imply that after 1998, almost everybody has been able to afford treatment since there are no figures to show how many Singaporeans have died because of inability to pay for dialysis?”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. I would like to ask the Minister also whether there are other cost saving methods that he and his Ministry are evaluating and whether or not he can share it with the House.”
“Sir, one observation that has been made in the aftermath of the NKF issue is that dialysis subsidies are not as high as people imagine it to be vis-a-vis how much the kidney patients have to cough out of their own pockets. So I would like to ask the Minister whether there is scope to increase subsidies and therefore lower the cost patients have to pay from their own pockets. Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Mr Speaker, the cost figures, I quoted just now, are costs before subsidy. In other words, if the patient is not subsidised at all, whether it is $2,600, $2,800, or whatever, these are the costs that the patients will have to bear. But of course, for most patients treated by VWOs, including NKF, there are subsidies. The subsidies will vary because they do means testing and I think - I am relying on memory here - NKF, out of nearly 1,800 patients that they are handling, 10% pay less than $100 per month. I remember that end of the price spectrum, and there are varying levels of subsidies. The new NKF has pushed for transparency and they have published the guidelines, and also set up a panel of wise men and women to review appeals whenever the patients feel that the charges have been unaffordable.”
“Sir, many of the accused cannot speak English, let alone read it. When they sign any statement, they might not understand what they are signing and, perhaps in this case, it could also refer to people with a mental disability. In addition, any statement recorded and signed would be interpreted by a party affiliated to the prosecuting authority. So, I would just like to ask the Minister: does he not think that access to legal counsel will help to ameliorate this weakness?”
“One might argue that the amendments are introduced to deter fare evaders who misuse concession passes, avoid paying or underpaying fares on the public transport system, and that criminal charges, fines and jail terms are the ultimate resort. I would argue that the criminal process should be a last resort because of the cost of costs imposed on the society as a whole, and Singapore as a whole pays for this, as is clearly stated in the Bill that "This Bill will involve the Government in extra financial expenditure, the exact amount of which cannot at present be ascertained." Sir, there is this expense of prosecuting offenders, the increased case load in the courts and, presumably, more prisoners in jail. Tax dollars should not be used to foot the bill for that, unless it is absolutely necessary and justified. Why is it necessary to have laws and to use public resources and taxpayers' money to deal with fare evasion on behalf of a profit-making organisation? In this case, the tax dollars are going to be spent by the Government to protect the revenue of these profit-making companies, instead of being better spent on helping needy Singaporeans. These PTOs, being profit-making companies, should have their own means to solve this problem and prevent the problem of fare evasion. In Singapore, it seems that criminalising undesirable behaviour is viewed as an easy and tempting solution. But that is seldom the best or even the most effective way. Sir, in conclusion, there is this saying "zhi biao bu zhi ben". This is exactly what this Bill amendment does. It does not solve the root of the problem. 4.57 pm”
“While one might argue that there are transport vouchers given to the needy families to help them with their transport costs, let us not forget that we recently have a transport fare hike, and these transport vouchers were introduced to counter these increases in fares. Needy families remain needy and need to save on every few cents, though they may have been unknowingly overcharged by TransitLink and PTOs many times, as people do not consistently check and record their card transactions by recording how much stored value is left in the card after each transaction. As I mentioned earlier, fare evasion is not a problem peculiar to Singapore only. It happens in cities all over the world, such as New York, London and Melbourne. In some countries, these commuters who do not pay their fare are called "free-riders". In the UK, a commuter who cheats on his fare is called a "fare dodger". However, in many other countries, these fare dodgers and free-riders who get caught are typically penalised around 10 times the amount of fare evaded. The penalty is payable on the spot, at a police station or a transport office. In Victoria, Australia, the fine is $150. In New South Wales, the fine is $200. In Victoria, repeat offenders are subject to graduated fines. For example, fare evasion incurs a fine of $150 for the first offence, $200 for a second offence and $250 for a third and subsequent offences within a given three-year period. Hence, Sir, I would urge the Ministry to consider this option of adopting a similar graduated fine system, instead of a fine of $1,000, $2,000 and even a jail term of six months. Fifth, people versus profit-making organisation.”
“Hence, before we go ahead to impose such penalty and criminal charges, perhaps TransitLink and the PTOs should look into their own system, get their systems engineers to debug the bugs in the system to make it foolproof and design a gadget to ensure that there is only one way of tapping on the card reader. This, in Chinese, is called zhi ben, otherwise we are only zhi biao bu zhi ben. To translate, it means by imposing such penalty and criminal charges, we are not solving the root causes of fare evasion but only reducing or alleviating the symptoms. Fourth, graduated penalty fees. Sir, the fines provided for in the amendments now before this House are heavy, relative to the $1 to $2 average fare for a multi-stage bus or train ride. Failure to pay a penalty fee for paying incorrect fare will attract a fine of up to $1,000, which goes up to $2,000 for repeat offenders. These penalty fees/fines of $1,000 and $2,000 and a possible jail term of six months are unnecessarily harsh. These penalty fees and charges will have a much larger impact on the lower income and poor families. Earlier, we have seen reports in the newspapers of households living in darkness and households without water and electricity supplies because they could not pay their utility bills. Are we going to see more of such cases because these poor families may have been made to pay incorrect fares due to system fault but do not know or do not have the means to challenge such penalty fees and charges and eventually have to pay $1,000 or $2,000 because they could not pay the penalty fees?”
“Supposing an elderly poor individual boards a bus and, being elderly, hence a little absent-minded, forgets to tap his or her card on the card reader before alighting, is the council-appointed inspector going to fine this elderly immediately and, if unfortunately this elderly somehow keeps forgetting to tap his card, are the authorities going to lock this elderly up since, being poor, he would not be able to pay the penalty charges and the fine? It has been said that commuters would be able to appeal to the PTC if they feel that they have been wrongly penalised, fined or even jailed. However, if the bugs in the system are not solved and the bus drivers are not properly trained and there is no idiot-proof way of ensuring that bus commuters have to tap on the card reader before they can alight, and that they have only one way of tapping their card on the reader, many such scenarios will occur and it would be creating needless paper work, wasting precious time and causing unnecessary expenses for the Government and the people. It is a myth that such "smart cards" and ez-link cards will encourage public transport usage and reduce fare evasion. The fact is that these cards actually make it even harder for people to do the right thing and pay the right fare with the requirement to validate twice, when entering and leaving each bus. For the cost of this ez-link card contract, we could possibly put conductors back on our buses, thus creating more jobs for Singaporeans and have money left over to pay for service improvements.”
“Sir, should the amendments in this Bill be passed today and, subsequently, a bus commuter is caught paying incorrect fare, how do the council-appointed inspectors determine at that point in time on that particular bus that the incorrect fare paid by this commuter is due to an act of cheating, system fault, fault of the bus drivers or due to the wrong usage of the card? As the Minister has said earlier, and I repeat, commuters can be under-charged due to system fault. Hence, we end up with a scenario where a bus commuter is being "wrongly fined" or even "innocently jailed". While it seems so far that the public is tolerant of TransitLink making mistakes and over-charging and making up for such mistakes through refunding and providing free bus ride vouchers, no one can make up for the pain that is suffered by a commuter who is innocently jailed, or the hardship that is suffered by a bus commuter who has been wrongly fined $1,000 or even $2,000. Sir, the Virginia Railway Express in the US, in their June 2005 Update newsletter, reported that conductors find themselves in a very difficult and delicate situation when they must confront a passenger who they believe may be fare-evading. Conductors have no way of distinguishing a rider who has his mind on a hundred other important things and mistakenly neglects to validate his ticket before boarding or alighting from a rider who intentionally does not validate his ticket in the hope of getting a free ride. This happens to our bus inspectors as well. Sir, consider this other scenario.”
“The Ministry should conduct separate auditing and verification processes and make known the results. Hence, if the Ministry has not conducted its own independent audit on this claim of lost revenue due to fare evasion, I would urge the Ministry to carry out its own independent auditing process to verify this amount before passing an amendment Bill that will empower the authorities to carry out the penalty and criminal process. Third, wrongly fined and innocently jailed. Sir, as is well-known now, the ez-link system is full of bugs. In the Straits Times report on 21st September 2005, TransitLink reportedly said that system errors accounted for about a quarter of all refunds made in August 2005, and the rest were due to wrong usage of cards, such as commuters tapping their ez-link card incorrectly or failing to tap it when they got off the bus. However, the company again declined to provide the exact figures. Sir, it is essential that we know the actual number of cases of incorrect fares paid due to the wrong usage of the cards, in addition to those caused by the bugs in the system and the negligence of the bus drivers. Sir, many bus commuters have been over-charged because of the bugs in the system. There may also have been cases of commuters being under-charged because of the bugs in the system and the negligence of the bus drivers. In addition, some bus commuters have paid incorrect fares due to these bugs and the wrong usage of cards.”
“8 million in lost revenue, might have been significantly over-stated by the New York City Transit. They found weaknesses in the procedures used for accurately counting fare evaders and preventing fare evasion. In this report, the auditors recommended that the New York City Transit determine the causes of the increase in fare evasion. The auditors also recommended that the New York City Transit develop a methodology for accurately counting fare evaders, as it is essential that they have accurate fare evasion data to be able to reliably determine the actual costs of fare evasion and how much should be expended to prevent it. Sir, this applies to Singapore as well. It is imperative for the Ministry to conduct its own independent auditing process to verify the actual loss of revenue due to fare evasion. Sir, in so far as the general public in Singapore has heard through the media, it is this large figure of $9 million. In the report in the Today newspaper on 7th October 2005, Ms Joan Chang of the Ministry of Transport explained that the estimate is arrived at based on the detection rates and the average amount of fare evaded in the case of underpayment, non-payment and concession abuse as detected through actual ticket checks. The Minister has earlier said, "Fare evaders have a very low possibility of being caught." Hence, has the Ministry verified these detection rates? Is MOT satisfied with the methodology used by the PTOs and TransitLink in accurately counting the fare evasion, assessing and estimating this amount of $9 million? Has MOT found out from the PTOs which are the bus lines that have a high frequency of fare evasion? Has the Ministry checked with the PTOs if they have actually put in proper and sufficient measures to prevent fare evasion?”
“In the Straits Times report of 21st September 2005, TransitLink was not able to provide figures on the number of bus cheats. Sir, if most of the companies were not able to provide figures on the number of bus cheats, then how did they arrive at a figure of $9 million a year? Transparency is the key word here. In order to convince the people of Singapore that it is absolutely necessary to impose such harsh fines and jail terms, the PTOs and the bus companies have to have transparency in their procedures on how they arrived at this amount of $9 million. They should explain in detail how they derived this figure. Second, $9 million and auditing. I would like to ask the Ministry if this amount of $9 million could have been significantly over-stated by the PTOs and TransitLink. Did the Ministry conduct an audit to verify this amount? Sir, before any amendment Bill is made and passed in Parliament that would empower the authorities to slap a fine or penalty charges for those who cheat on bus fares or refuse to pay cabbies, and subsequent offenders would face a fine of $1,000 for the first offence and $2,000 or a jail term of up to six months, it is absolutely necessary that the Ministry has audited and verified the losses, as claimed by the PTO and TransitLink. Fare evasion is not a problem peculiar to Singapore only. It happens in cities all over the world, such as New York, London, Melbourne and Sydney. In a report released by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority in September 1998 on Fare Evasion, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, after conducting an audit, found indications that the fare evasion as claimed by the New York City Transit in the calendar year 1997 of $16.”
“That smacks of a lack of creativity in finding solutions. Travelling times can be made up in other areas, such as improving traffic flow for buses. And in any case, is compromise such a bad thing? Are we that self-centred? Is that what years of economic gain have resulted in? The Prime Minister has said that our efficiency and economic gains should not be an end in itself. I would hope that we bear that in mind the next time someone chooses to raise the counter-argument that disabled-friendly buses are less efficient. It has been more than a year since the notion of an inclusive society and a home for everyone captured the attention of our country. Before this vision fizzles out due to a lack of momentum, let us keep it going. Let us start with this Public Transport Council (Amendment) Bill. 4.44 pm Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I would only like to make a few observations on the introduction of the penalty fee system and I would appreciate that the Ministry could look into them. Sir, the proposed amendments on the introduction of the penalty fee system, as explained by the Minister earlier, is to enable a deterrent penalty fee to be imposed, so as to possibly reduce the incidents of fare evasion. I have five points to raise. First, $9 million and transparency. Sir, it has been widely reported in the media since the September Parliament sitting that PTOs and the bus companies lose an estimated amount of $9 million a year to fare cheats. However, PTOs and bus companies did not disclose how this figure was arrived at, apart from mentioning the ways that travellers cheat.”
“Recently, Today published letters from readers who felt it was not worth spending money to make public transport equally accessible for their countrymen with disabilities or that the needs of the able, ie, faster travelling times, should not have to take into account the needs of the disabled. This is the sorry state of our society. Some Singaporeans - not all, but some - should finally drill it into their heads that people with physical disabilities can and do contribute equally to society. And Singapore does not belong only to the able. In other developed countries, the elderly and the wheelchair-bound may also be a small proportion of the population, but the people are accustomed to seeing them out and about and moving around. Accessibility of public transport has an important part to play in that. For years, the Government has rejected the idea of making public buses accessible to the wheelchair-bound. Early this year, media reports suggested that various options are being explored to finally change things in Singapore. Sir, if we are to be a truly developed country and great city we aspire to be, then there is no better time than now to do something about it. I would like to ask the Minister if the PTC may impose conditions relating to the provision of accessibility for the disabled and requiring the licensee to submit an undertaking to improve accessibility for the disabled. Sir, we can see that steps are finally being taken to improve access of public transport for families, the elderly and people with disabilities. Train stations are being upgraded with lifts and tactile guides for the visually handicapped, for example. We should build on this. Equal accessibility does not necessarily mean travelling times can only be compromised.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. Sir, one of the things the amendments to the Public Transport Council Act seeks to do is to provide for the regulation and licensing of bus service operators and ticket payment services. In particular, the Bill sets out the requirements for an application for the grant or renewal of a bus service licence and provides for the PTC to take into account the needs pertaining to passenger demand in determining whether to issue a licence. In effect, the Bill expands the powers of the PTC to impose conditions on the general level of services provided by a bus service licensee. Sir, I welcome this step. Many Singaporeans rely on public buses and many, I am sure, would welcome better services from the transport operators. This Bill would give the PTC more oversight to look into and respond to concerns raised by the public - either directly, or in the media - when it is time for the operators to renew their licences. The Bill lists some matters to be considered by the PTC in granting or renewing such a licence and the conditions the PTC may impose. I shall not repeat all of them, but I believe something is missing in that list - the provision of bus services for people with disabilities. And I would like to echo and support the hon. Members, Dr Amy Khor and Mdm Cynthia Phua, with regard to making our public transport system more disabled-friendly. It is an understatement to say that the transport needs of the elderly and the disabled are not being met satisfactorily. What we have now is some level of door-to-door services, which is more expensive, and, more important, perpetuates the out-of-sight, out-of-mind mentality that is being manifested in our society.”
“This seventh priority is for the Board to review the NKF's relationships and communications with its patients. Sir, besides taking good care of the patients in the clinical aspect, there is a need for NKF to treat their patients and beneficiaries with utmost respect and dignity. Have the suffering and the mental and physical distress of these patients been exploited by NKF in the fund-raising charity shows and publicity? Has NKF, in its communications withits patients, unknowingly pressurised, or perhaps misled and/or instilled a fear in these patients, such that these patients have been emotionally blackmailed into coming forward to participate in the publicity of the charity shows? Sir, these apply to other charity bodies as well when carrying out large-scale charity shows over the TV media.”
“" Sir, these are large-scale charity shows by NKF exploiting the patients to play on the sympathy and guilt of the public to make the donation phonecall, that donation cheque. These charity shows do not seem to be in line with the set of best practices that has been recommended by the Council on Governance of IPCs in May 2004 on the conduct of charity shows, ie, not to stir the feeling of guilt in the publicwho may not wish to donate. The Health Minister informed the House yesterday that the Media Development Authority's Free-to-Air Television Programme Code requires all TV programmes, including charity shows, to observe standards of good taste and decency. Sir, I do not think that making the patients cry and showing them in a state of pain is "in good taste". Will the relevant authority take a more stringent control before approving such charity shows in future? Yesterday, I also asked the Minister if there have been patients who have been psychologically threatened to come out and participate in the publicity of the charity shows; otherwise, they would not receive subsidy from their respective charity bodies. And, whether those patients who have volunteered to participate in the publicity campaigns of the charity shows been briefed in detail of what exactly would come out and how their story would be portrayed on national TV. Sir, I am of the same opinion as the Health Minister that it would be totally unethical and unacceptable if patients have been pressured to feel obliged to participate in these publicity activities for the charity shows. Yesterday, the Minister, in his Ministerial Statement, announced six top priorities for the NKF Board. Hence, I would like to propose a seventh priority for the Board to address.”
“Sir, there is a need to set guidelines to prevent VWOs from exploiting patients, whether canceror kidney disease patients, by wheeling them out in public places and large-scale charity shows for publicity campaigns or "show-casing" them in their donation soliciting campaigns, such as mailers and letters. Sir, many of these charity shows that we have seen recently are effectively selling the pain, suffering and sad stories of these patients to obtain more donations. Some of these shows made the patients cry and show them in a state of pain. Many of these shows have crying patients appealing for donations. This is a cruel act aspatients, though sick, are humans and need to have some minimum self-respect and privacy. In the Straits Times on 16th July 2005, Ms Tan Sai Siong, a former editor of the Business Times, wrote, and I quote: "My ignorance about how much NKF collects, spends and squirrels away from the donation pie is mostly my fault. This is because while I want to help those I perceive to be less fortunate, I am reluctant to get too close, as heartbreaking tragedies make me uncomfortable. So I am a perfect target for those tear-jerking letters describing unimaginable misfortunes that dog NKF beneficiaries. I speed-read their tragic accounts without too much absorption or analysis and sign a cheque to assuage the guilt I feel at my own lucky escape from the caprice of fate. I quickly switch channels whenever the images of their saddest cases flash on the TV screen but, to compensate for my refusal to hear out yet another gut-wrenching hard luck slice of life, I quickly make that donation phone call.”
“However, looking at the root of the problem, should gifts even be offered in the first place in exchange for donations? Sir, by providing such gifts to students in exchange for donations, we are not cultivating the correct attitude towards donations in our young minds in schools. Hence, Sir, we need more stringent rules and regulations on the methods of soliciting donations. Fourth, lottery-based charity shows. The Common Gaming Houses Act allows Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs) to conduct no more than one public lottery per year, via charity shows or otherwise. Those which wish to conduct more shows need to apply for a waiver and there are criteria to be satisfied before a waiver is granted. In the case of the recent NKF Cancer Fund charity show, it was carried out in three parts, which was as good as three lotteries. It has also carried out a similar lottery-based charity show for its April charity show for its kidney dialysis patients and would probably be intending to carry out another similar lottery-based charity show for its Children Medical Fund Show. How is it possible that NKF can carry out more than three lottery-based charity shows in a year? Sir, can the Minister for Health inform the House under what conditions will a waiver be granted and why has NKF been granted a waiver in each instance? Are the criteria sufficiently stringent? The Health Minister said that donors should "vote" with their donations. However, given the overwhelming numbers of such large-scale lottery-based charity shows, it might not be easy for donors to vote correctly with their donations. Fifth, on exploiting patients and stirring feeling of guilt in public.”
“In addition, look at the stacks of vouchers, claimed to be worth hundreds of dollars for each set, which were sent to the donors from NKF as "an appreciation of their support". If these vouchers are indeed worth the amounts claimed, why not channel the money back to NKF? On these TV charity shows, if one actually pays closer attention, one would notice that the host of these shows, eg, in the recent NKF show, would always be shouting out a number for the viewers to call to make donation, and that number that he shouted out each time was incidentally not the call number to make the minimum amount of donation, eg, $5, but a number to make a donation of, say, $50. Sir, there was insufficient information being displayed to help the viewers differentiate the amounts of donations that would be made with different call numbers, neither did the host specify that the number that he had just shouted was for a donation of $50 rather than $5. Sir, is this not a form of misleading the viewers and the donors? In the case of donation cards being distributed in our schools, I recalled once when my niece came back from school with a NKFdonation card. And with her young mind, she insisted that I made a 3-digit donation on her card, so that she could receive a gift which was an electronic gadget. On further queries, my niece also reluctantly disclosed that there was peer pressure among her classmates to each go home and request for donations from their parents so that each could receive such a gadget. And my niece felt very disappointed that her classmates would receive such a gadget except her if she could not get that 3-digit donation on her donation card! Sir, perhaps one would argue that the teachers need to explain to the students.”
“By assessing whether a charity body has a genuine need to carry out a large-scale fund-raising TV charity show before approving such activities will allow a more even flow of such donation dollars among the various charity bodies in Singapore, as well as give a chance for the more needy charity bodies to canvass for such donation dollars, as opposed to what is happening now when NKF has a large slice of this donation pie and is keeping this large slice of pie in its fridge, ie, as reserves. Sir, I hope the relevant authorities can review their current guidelines and regulations and jointly come up with a set of more comprehensive and stringent guidelines to prevent the exceedingly large number of such charity shows which, in a way, is wasting the precious donation dollars as expenditures for such charity shows are high. As has been reported in the Straits Times today, 21st July 2005, in the case of NKF, for every $1 donation received, 24.3 cents go to the fund-raising expenses. Sir, more unnecessary large-scale TV charity shows will waste more precious donation dollars although the expenses have been kept at 30%. Sir, if there are no proper checks for assessing the needs to carry out such fund-raising activities and charity shows, no proper control over the numbers and quality of such shows, these can lead to unhealthy competition among the charity bodies to compete for the "fixed" pie. Third, on the methods of soliciting donations, some of these large-scale TV charity shows have become lottery shows rather than charity shows, with mega prizes, such as $500,000, condominiums and cars to be won, so that callers will call in as many times as possible. Some have even commented that the odds are better for the charity shows than buying lottery!”
“(2) Is it because Singaporeans do not have enough savings or medical insurance coverage to meet such needs when illnesses strike? (3) Is it because the charity bodies are not receiving enough subsidies from the Government? (4) Is it because the current subsidies received by each charity body have not been used optimally to serve its beneficiaries? Sir, I can go on and list out many more "is it" questions. Sir, we need to look at this problem from a broader perspective rather than simply just focusing on the NKF saga alone, so as to find out the root causes. Quality of large-scale charity TV shows Yesterday, the Health Minister informed the House that there are rules that guide the organisation of large-scale fund-raising activities, namely, the Media Development Authority'sFree-to-Air Television Programme Code requires all TV programmes, including charity shows, to observe standards of good taste and decency. Sir, I havea few queries here: (1) What are the specific requirements and criteria, besides good taste and decency, that a charity body has to satisfy before it is allowed to carry out a fund-raising large-scale charity show over the TV media? (2) At the point of applying to carry out a fund-raising large-scale TV charity show, do the charity bodies have to submit a statement of their financial standing for the relevant authorities to assess whether they have a genuine need to carry out this activity? And which are the relevant authorities that assess the needs of these applications to determine if these applications for fund-raising are genuinely in need of funds, and what are the criteria in the assessment? Sir, the "donation pie" in Singapore is fixed, as there can only be that much of donation dollars in Singapore.”
“I would like to still focus on the fund-raising activities, ie, the large-scale charity shows, as well as the "show-casing" of patients in such activities. Toomany large-scale charity TV shows Sir, I am of the opinion that we have too many large-scale charity TV shows. Yesterday, during Question Time, I asked the Health Minister on whether there are any regulatory guidelines for VWOs to carry out large-scale charity shows through theTV and the radio media, as recently there have been a great number of such large-scale charity shows, leading to a donation fatigue syndrome in the general public. Sir, the NKF Cancer Fund charity show this month was carried out in three parts, effectively three charity shows, and the coming President's Star Charity show will be carried out in two parts. Earlier in April this year, we had the NKF Charity show for the kidney dialysis patients, and in the pipeline are the Singapore Cancer Societyshow, the NKF Children's Medical Fund show and theHeartCharity show for the Singapore Heart Foundation. On the average, we are having about 10-12 such charity shows per year. A friend from Hong Kong told me that the average number of charity shows in Hong Kong is about five per year.Sir, besides the large number of charity shows, these are in addition to the numerous flag days, fund-raising activities and distribution of donation cards in our schools. Sir, we need to analyse why the charity bodies in Singapore, especially NKF, need these large numbers of charity shows,whether there are genuine needs for these large numbers of charity shows. Sir, many Singaporeans have many questions unanswered. (1)Is it because the cost of medical treatments and dialysis services in Singaporeis too high, such that Singaporeans cannot afford?”
“Charities are one of the best vehicles to bring help to those who need it and charities cannot survive without public funds. The underprivileged wouldbear the brunt if the public were to extrapolate that the practices in mostVWOs are similar to those in NKF. Even so and even now, Ido not doubt that donations to NKFultimately do benefit their dialysis patients. Maybe, this is an opportunity forSingaporeansto become more informed donors, not to make it difficult for VWOs when they raise funds, but for us to take greater interest and perhaps, get more involved in causes which we believe in sincerely. This way, our money goes a longer way and has more impact.This way, we can play a part in determining whether another NKF will happen again.Perhaps, this entire saga could pave the way for Singaporeans to step forward and volunteer with the organisations that serve the community to which we all belong. For it is when people volunteer that they truly appreciate the importance of giving. I can still remember the Prime Minister's Budget speech and the plauditsit received for expanding the scope and raising the profile of volunteerism in Singapore. It would be a pity, though, if we allow this NKF incident to detract from the ideals of becoming a more compassionate society, one which is determined to forge a true sense of nationhood. That would be the biggest disfavour we could do for ourselves. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak and comment on the MOH's Ministerial Statement on NKF.Many hon. Members ahead of me have spoken on many issues related to the governance and the transparency of NKF and I will not repeat those points and issues again.”
“Ina case like the NKF, where there may or may not have been a breach of the Charities Act or the law, but definitely a breach of public trust, might it not be better for the authorities to keep closer watch on the VWOs -especially the 47 large charities whose income exceeded $10 million, representing more than 80% of the $5 billion in total income of all registered charities in 2004?I agree with the Minister for Health that the bigger VWOs should and could observe higher compliance standards. In fact,with only 47 out of about 1,750 charities receiving 80% of all donations, there is definitely a need for differential regulations. This way, the smaller VWOs will be unencumbered by unnecessary regulations which could hamper their fund-raising and the good they do for their beneficiaries. I would also like to ask the Government to make public the charities whose incomes exceed $10 million a year. Sir, like the other hon. Members, I would like to urge VWOs not to shy away from transparency and greater scrutiny. I would imagine that these will be seen as plus points for fund-raising, more so now and going forward than ever before. VWOs should put their financial and profile information online as soonas possible and strive to bring forward the targets for good charity governance. They should inform the public on how donations are used and share their plans with donors. A VWO should educate its volunteers and fund-raisers to be able to know enough of its work to provide information to potential donors. As for the public, I hope they still believe in helping those who are less fortunate. Speaking as a volunteer, I can testify that whatever amount you donate, no matter how small, can really make a marked difference in a person's life.”
“I would like to ask which agencies these are and how specifically MOF is promoting good governance practices. I would add my reservations that nine field visits a year, when there are about 1,750 charities,are hardly adequate.If I may, I have one suggestion as to how we can encourage best practices within charities. Why not recognise VWOs for these practices, regardless of the charity's size, to make it easier for those charities with a seal of excellence to gain the public's trust when they raise funds? This is one way to encourage VWOs to strive for the highest of governance standards. Mr Speaker, Sir, I read the Prime Minister's remarks that he does not see a need to adjust the guidelines for charities now and that it is the personnel that matter.Well, I admit I looked at the Charities Act and it was quite lengthy. Butif Singapore's biggest charity, the one touted to be the most professional of them all,has fallen victim to questionable practices, then I say if we can do more, we should do more. Andin the first place, how is the public to know that VWOs are abiding by the guidelines? I would like to ask what will be done in this regard and what public education initiatives can be introduced so that people better understand the roleof VWOs and the ways in which they function. In addition to tightening the regulatory framework, we should take a leaf from the Monetary Authority of Singapore. I recall from Tuesday's sitting how the Monetary Authority of Singapore is focusing on a supervisory approach, for example, towards the banks.”
“I recall it was only in February that the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs was giving this House an update on the aid to Aceh and he said that the Singapore style is to be very transparent and gives as much information as possible. Now, unfortunately, the truth is many people believe that the NKF epitomises the Singapore style and vice versa. Sir, I firmly believe that what needs to be done starting from today is to reassure the public that what has gone on at the NKF is not the norm for VWOs. In some ways, I am sure people recognise how unique is the NKF's fund-raising machinery and professional, corporate set-up. But their greater concern, it would seem, is public accountability of public funds and good charity governance. I would like to ask how the Government intends to play its part in attending to these two concerns. If the State wants to adopt the "many helping hands" approach as its social safety net for the underprivileged, it must recognise that if one of those hands -in this case, that belonging to its VWO partners - is weakened, the social cracks in our nation will widen. I was looking at the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Charities for 2004, which is, by the way, a grand total of two and a quarter pages and all of nine paragraphs plus two appendices -which is not that inspiring - and I notedthere were only nine field visits for the entire year to better understand the VWOs and their operations, and to advise them on how to meet the regulatory requirements. There was no increase in the number of visits from the year before. The report also said the authorities would continue to work with other regulatory agencies and the Ministry of Finance to promote good practices in charity governance.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. First of all, I would like to declare my interest as a volunteer to a few voluntary welfare organisations in Singapore. This past week, it has been almost impossible not to walk past groups of people without overhearing snatches of conversation that mention the National Kidney Foundation, Mr T T Durai and peanuts. It is no surprise, given the generous space the media has devoted to this issue, the courtroom revelations and comments about the NKF and the resultant public emotion that has been stirred up. I can understand why people have been so demonstrative about this issue, although I shall not go into the merits or demerits of the NKF's practices. Many people have already either defended or criticised the NKF, and many more will continue to do so. My concern is how the aftermath of last week's lawsuit will impact other voluntary welfare organisations in Singapore, especially with regard to the implications for their ability to raise funds for their beneficiaries. I would like to look at how the Government, the VWOs and the public can each play a part to contain the fallout from this incident. First, let me cite two examples. A friend recounted how, whilst she was in a cab last week, the taxi driver commented the NKF episode illustrated why he only donates to hischurch, which does volunteer work overseas, but not to Singapore charities. Last week, when I spoke to someone from one of the VWOs, I was told that when its members tried to collect donations for a walkathon, members of the public had reservations about the intent behind the fund-raising.”
“Sir, because this act of having sex with minors is so frowned upon in Singapore, and it has also been said in the papers that Singapore is well placed to do something about the problem and, by enacting a law, would it not then show that we really are not condoning such an act and by making a statement saying that we do not want our citizens who are going overseas to do something like that? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, to answer Ms Oslen, this is a situation that requires concerted action by everybody, and whatever steps that are taken or laws that are enacted should be effective laws. For example, if a law is enacted and a country acts where this takes place and if the law enforcement officers seriously enforce those laws and secure convictions that are publicised, as have been done in some cases, I think that would be a strong disincentive. On our part, let us continue to monitor whether having extra-territorial laws in Singapore would be effective.”
“Sir, I understand the constraints, like it is hard to gather evidence and all that. But in the same way that Singapore has extra judicial powers over Singaporeans consuming drugs overseas, then is it possible for the Government to do the same for an offence where victims are actually innocent children? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the two situations are not really on all fours. Because for these Singaporeans who are caught consuming drugs overseas, the evidence is that when they enter Singapore, they are tested positive for drugs. In terms of evidence, it is already there. While I see the point that Ms Olsen makes, really those offences, where there is extra-territorial jurisdiction, are very serious offences like corruption or terrorism. So we have gone beyond the domestic jurisdiction principle for these very serious offences. Like I have said, it is not a never, never answer, because it is an evolving situation.”
“I think he also suggested putting up notices at entry points to some of these countries to remind visitors that it is an offence to have sex with minors. In Singapore, on the law side, let us continue to review our laws and monitor the situation. Because, as you know, in Singapore, when we have laws, the question of enforceability is a key point. We do not want to have laws which are difficult to enforce. At the same time, more can be done to highlight this problem, I suppose, even in terms of peer pressure not to do it, that can also work on the ground.”
“Because our understanding is that whilst we can have these laws in place, it is very difficult to implement them principally because there will be legal and very serious practical problems of gathering evidence and putting up a strong case in court. But like I had said last year, it is something that we have on our monitor. We will continue to monitor the situation, especially on how these laws work out in these countries and make reviews along the way. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether Singapore should take a clear stand in terms of a clear message to Singaporean men that it is totally not acceptable for them to be going overseas to exploit young women, if not through law, then perhaps through a campaign. I know we have an aversion to campaigns now. But, perhaps, with all this publicity, it would be useful for us to stress the message as it would also help us to maintain Singapore's image and reputation as a society that is wholesome. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I think more can be done to highlight this problem, but it need not only be done by the Government. So I think that this is where welfare groups outside of Government can highlight this problem. In Singapore, of course, you know that we take a very tough stand against those who have sex with minors. This matter has been raised in public and international fora, which is the need for home countries to do more. That is why recently at a conference, this has been highlighted, and the ASEAN Secretary-General said that home countries are doing more in terms of publicity, public education and poverty eradication.”
“Sir, I just like to make a reference to a quote by an article in Today on 27th April: "Singaporean sex tourists are reported to make up the largest number of sex tourists visiting Indonesia's Riau Islands, where many of those they sexually exploit are under the age of 18." So may I just ask the Senior Minister of State: does the Government intend to do anything to help tackle this problem that is plaguing the region, and how does the Government propose to stop Singaporeans from destroying the lives of young children overseas? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, people on the ground may know of more of such cases. I think Ms Olsen's question was specifically on how the numbers of cases have come to our attention through the authorities. So these numbers are cases that have come to the notice of Government through our embassies overseas. There could be more Singaporeans going overseas for sex, including some with minors. I had taken this question in the House before, last year, as to whether more could be done. My response then was that, first of all, for those who organise sex tours overseas with minors, they are committing an offence because they would be abetting an offence. Here, in Singapore, the act takes place, even though the actual act of having sex is overseas, but the preparation is done here. So they are liable. But from Police's information, there have been no such organisers of sex tours with minors. Sir, the question really is what more can be done. We are aware, of course, that there have been countries overseas that have implemented laws with extra-territorial application. I think this probably is what Ms Olsen is referring to. The answer we gave last year was that we would continue to monitor how these laws work out in these countries that have enacted them.”
“This would make it mandatory for him or her to undergo counselling if he or she chooses to go to the casino. The person would also have a lower loss limit. The counsellors can decide if the person on this watch list is a problem gambler and can decide to take him or her off the list if it is not the case. As for other safeguards, I simply urge that they are not dropped in the years to come. Many of the just proposed measures to tackle gambling problems in Singapore should have been implemented a long time ago. Our citizens are gambling $6 billion every year and $1.5 billion overseas, and we have decided only now to form a National Council of Gambling and mount public education programmes on gambling. Either the casino is surely going to cause a lot more problems or these have been designed to serve as sweeteners to help the decision on the IRs to go down better. Because, surely, we could not have been bo-chap all this while. At least, I hope not. Whatever the measures, my fear is that they can only lessen the number of families that will be adversely affected by the two casinos in the two IRs. There still would be families who will fall by the wayside because of this decision. I encourage the Government to set aside sufficient funds from the revenue of the IRs to guard against gambling and other social problems. Nothing less is expected by the public, whom I urge to continue to take interest and play an active role in this issue so that many years on, we do not look upon this decision with regret. ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE Resolved, That the debate be now adjourned. - [Mr Lim Swee Say].”
“This addresses what is the root danger of gambling - getting into debt, losing everything. We protect Singaporeans more by limiting their losses at the end of their gambling session rather than penalising them with a $100 fee at the start. Besides, to inveterate gamblers, $2,000 is not likely to be a deterrent. If game chips are needed for all casino games, then it is possible for operators to control how much one person can change and lose if they keep records of each customer. After all, we intend to require the operators to record all transactions above $5,000. Why not keep track of how much a gambler loses in a month and cut him or her off after they cross a certain amount? What that limit should be and whether it should vary for those of differing income levels can be something to be decided in the months to come. If we are truly sincere about dealing with the problems the casino might cause, I think we should consider this. Secondly, I am concerned about the exclusion measures that spouses and family members can employ to prevent someone from going to the casino. I would think that it is likely to cause other domestic problems. What about families who are so-called kiasu and decide to anyhow ban family members, even if they are not problem gamblers? It may breed resent and spark off quarrels within families where there is no need to do so. Or a gambler, angry that he has been barred from a casino, may force his family to take him off the list. He may resort to violence to get his way. And it does nothing to address his addiction. Would it not be better for these families, rather than to call to ban their family member, to call to inform the relevant authority that their family member is a risk?”
“We do need to overcome our disappointment and stay constructive, especially with regard to the proposed social safeguards for the casino. However, I would also like to say that if these passionate Singaporeans were to be disappointed by Government decisions too many times, it would be hard to get them on board to make things work in Singapore. For now, all the objecting and protesting, the huffing and puffing will not blow the casino house down, or reverse the decision. The stakes now lie on the safeguards, which have been promised will come with the casinos. One of the proposals is that a $100 daily access fee, or a $2,000 annual membership, be levied on Singaporeans while foreigners get in for free. I think that is neither effective nor right. The biggest problems about gambling are that a person could get addicted and eventually get into debt. Debt, per se, not gambling, is the cause of many social problems, such as illegal money lending and crimes of desperation. So what if gamblers have to pay $100 a day or $2,000 a year? It is an easy way out. They can pay, go in, and gamble away all their savings, but I do not see anything in the safeguards to stop that directly from happening. In fact, many have commented that it would make a person gamble more than usual, as he or she would want to win back the entry charges. Furthermore, some have said that not only is this a double standard, it is a double standard that penalises Singaporeans. If we are to have double standards, then I say it should be in favour of Singaporeans, not against them - double standards that are effective and protect their interests, not those that encourage them to gamble. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the best way to do so is to cap their losses, possibly on a monthly basis.”
“They should not be the source of our vibrancy. Being a global city requires a holistic effort, which also means if we pass up the chance to have the IRs, we are not necessarily going to become a backwater. The IRs may give us a headstart in this region. It will act as a booster. But there are many laps to go. Boosters can only get you so far. I agree with the Prime Minister that the IRs are only one of the many things we must do to remake our city and build a new Singapore. I certainly expect and look forward to hear more about what else will be done, especially in the next couple of years. I would also like to ask how many of the 35,000 promised jobs will go to Singaporeans. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to say that my views are representative of all the youths in Singapore, but I cannot. The proposal - now a decision - to allow casinos in Singapore has polarised our country, including our youths. Many of them may want the IRs and casinos to be built here, but many youths also believe this is not in Singapore's best interests. Most of those I have spoken to are not in favour of the casino. I have also received passionate emails opposing the setting up of a casino here. Perhaps more important than their views on this debate is the fact that, like many Singaporeans have demonstrated, they did have a view and were not afraid to show it. The youths and Singaporeans are not as apathetic as we think. I hope the Government can continue to cultivate this passion and show of care by our citizens for our country. I think the Cabinet realises it has disappointed a considerable percentage of the population. Probably, it would be hard for any decision on an issue as divisive as this to please everyone.”
“Three to five percent of total floor area for a casino may not seem much but considering, for example, that the Sentosa project is 47 hectares - equivalent to the size of the Zoo and the Bird Park - that is no small jackpot room. The gambling revenue, which could include a family's life savings, will be the driving force for the jobs to be created and the driving force for any boost to our economy. It really does come down to that, and having seen what casinos can do - we all read about what had happened to Simon Lee and his family - the question is: are we willing to accept that some families will have to break down for us to get that economic boost? I just do not think that is in Singapore's interests. I can understand that the Prime Minister says the decision to have the IRs is a judgement. I also agree that the IRs will bring economic benefits to Singapore. What I am doubtful of, however, is how big those benefits will be. One newspaper said that the IRs would create the buzz of a global city. This is what I am afraid of. I can understand why some people are concerned about the effect of the IRs on our brand name. I do not think we want Singapore to be known and remembered because of the IRs alone. And if it were that easy to be a global city with a buzz, all cities would have been building them in the one year we were taking to debate on this issue. Singapore's buzz should come from its people and from the talents they display. Singapore's buzz should come not as much from the physical attractions it builds but more from the spirit and the soul that infuse the bricks and mortar of this nation. This is what we should be most proud about. I am 100 percent sure the IRs will boost tourism in Singapore, but we should not pin our hopes on the IRs alone.”
“It would seem rather unfair on the Minister, who has been very involved in this year-long issue, to carry out the responsibility of developing Singapore's community interests while having to advocate for the integrated resorts. After all, Minister Lim Hng Kiang had said that he would be in the wrong job if, as Trade and Industry Minister, he did not advocate the integrated resort. But what happens when the economic arguments are in direct odds with community interests? In my mind, the overriding principle should be to make decisions that protect the interests of Singaporeans. As I considered the merits and demerits of the IRs, I ask myself what should be the most important thing to our Singapore society. To me, the answer has to be our families. The family unit is the cornerstone of our nation. We should do all we can to nurture our families. I can see how families can benefit from the jobs that the IRs can create. I can see how, at a time when unemployment in Singapore will remain higher than what it used to be before, these jobs are important. The potential of the IRs seems grand indeed. Yet, what makes this entire project financially viable is the casino. None of the 19 bidders submitted a concept proposal that did not include a casino. All the planned attractions would have to close shop without a casino. So, if the IR is the flashy sports car that gets all the attention on the road, the casino is the engine that makes it work and without which it would go nowhere. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think we should downplay the gaming component of the IRs, especially considering the scale of these projects.”
“Then, "a lot" became "too much" when he insisted on withdrawing that last $50 for one last throw of the dice. Can you imagine my friend then had to tear the note in front of him just to stop him? On another occasion, I had accompanied my aunt to the Star City casino in Sydney whilst visiting her two sons there. My mission, she told me, was to make sure that we had enough money to take a cab back to the apartment. While she was playing the slot machine, I went to get some hot chocolate for both of us. As the vending machine was dispensing the drinks, I turned around to the man waiting in line to apologise for getting an extra drink. His reply left me bereft of words. In a really nonchalant tone, he said, "It is no problem. I can wait. That's what we're all here for anyway. I've lost my wife, my children, my house and my car, but I'm still here. So take your time." Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is no lack of such stories anywhere there is a casino, even in places like Sydney, which has a well-publicised cessation programme for gamblers. But, try as these programmes might, to reach out to the gamblers, they are always one step behind the problem. And the biggest problem is that it is not just gamblers who suffer, but also the people around them - their families. So why we would want to have and hear more of such stories right here in Singapore is beyond me. Every Singaporean counts, as the Prime Minister has said before. Some Ministers have said that the economic benefits need to be weighed against the social costs. Which is why I am struck by how the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports is also the Second Minister for Trade and Industry.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak in this debate. I suppose when the Government decides to reverse a 40-year policy in Singapore, it is bound to trigger a debate. Over the past year, we have heard from both sides of the Great Casino Debate. Listening to those views, to the ministerial statements on Monday, and to the hon. Members of this House thus far, I think it is safe to say that the decision to build a casino within an integrated resort comes with many shades of grey. What do you say to a family who has suffered because of a parent's gambling addiction when they ask, "Why a casino?"? On the other hand, what do you say to a family who is suffering because of a parent's unemployment when they say, "Why not an IR?"? These are the two simple questions that have got me quite torn on this issue. It would not be easy, but if Parliament had been given the right to make the decision, if I were forced to choose, I reckon I would vote "no" on the two IRs and their casinos. I would do so not out of religious reasons or moral principles but because I think that it would not be in Singapore's best interests to have the IRs. They may represent some $5 billion in investments but the real price tag of having casinos in Singapore is one that our society and our families should not have to pay. I do not intend to go into all the arguments against casinos or gambling as they have been raised many times before. I will simply try to keep it as real as possible by relating two personal examples. Some years ago, one of my friends accompanied her boyfriend to Genting for what she thought would be a little flutter. But "a little flutter" became "a lot" when he gambled away $10,000 in savings. All he had left in his bank account was $50.”
“Sir, can I make a clarification on the previous topic? I would just like to ask two things. I went through this and I really appreciate how the Ministry is going one step further instead of stopping at the feedback aspect and getting youths involved. I just want to know whether there will also be platforms for the youth to be more global-oriented, and whether there will be more platforms to involve more exchanges, perhaps, between youths here and youths overseas and to build relations, at this point in time, with the youths of our neighbours. And, perhaps maybe even the forming of a Young ASEAN where maybe Singapore could take on that initiative. The second point is, and I really support what the hon. Member Miss Penny Low has said, that the youths might not be able to go to Orchard Road all the time. The parents might not allow them too. Also, I think giving them a space in the estate would give them ownership. We talk about giving ownership in our community. Even if you do it in small incremental changes, just allocating spaces in certain estates, give them a chance to say, "Okay, what is it that I want to do with this space in my estate", give them more involvement, I think that would be direct involvement in the community.”
“A point of clarification, Sir. Since the Ministry cannot grant two days of paid leave, I would just like to ask if MOM intends to encourage companies to offer paid leave for volunteer work and, if so, how. Because, like in the UK, the Government is encouraging employers to do this, and Government departments are actually taking the lead. Maybe our civil service could do the same.”