Sun Xueling
Singapore
“We are deploying electric vehicle (EV) chargers in tandem with growing demand, within the constraints of space and electricity. As EV technology is continuously improving, we are also mindful not to overbuild as chargers can become obsolete quickly.”
“I thank Member Dr Choo Pei Ling for raising feedback from her Tengah residents. Currently, two multi-storey car parks in Tengah have EV chargers, and LTA subsidiary, EV-Electric (EVe) Charging Pte Ltd, is in the process of deploying EV chargers in another eight multi-storey car parks in Tengah.”
“The Government targets to deploy 60,000 electric vehicle (EV) charging points by 2030, which comprise 40,000 in public car parks, and 20,000 in private premises. As of March 2026, there are 30,500 EV charging points deployed in Singapore. We are on track to achieving our 2030 target in tandem with the growing demand for EVs.”
“In 2025, about 30% of Build-To-Order (BTO) blocks were completed earlier than their estimated completion dates at the point of flat booking. On average, these blocks were completed about two months earlier.”
“Yes, thank you. We agree with Dr Neo that it is important to bring together the wider ecosystem and we will consult all stakeholders. The Ministry of Transport's immediate focus is to drive the usage of drones more extensively, especially by the public sector and this is because we already have many potential use cases.”
“I thank the Member for her question. Earlier, I mentioned in my reply that the HDB notifies buyers at three junctures. This is to give buyers adequate time to plan. And that is why it is at the one year before, six months before and three months before.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,352 lines we hold for Sun Xueling, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 28.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) does not set a threshold of reach or impact in assessing whether to pre-emptively act against threats of hostile information campaigns (HICs). In the case of 10 inauthentic websites that were blocked on 22 October 2024, the level of exposure of Singaporeans to these 10 websites were assessed to be low. However, based on our investigations, they could potentially be used by foreign actors to mount HICs against Singapore. Most of these websites are associated with global networks of inauthentic news websites that have been reported by cybersecurity researchers to have conducted HICs and influence campaigns in other countries. The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) had considered the MHA’s findings and was satisfied that it was in the public interest to take pre-emptive action and not wait until a HIC is mounted before acting against these websites. Singaporeans should continue to remain vigilant when consuming online content and be alert to such inauthentic websites and the threat that they pose. The directions to Internet Access Service Providers to disable access to the 10 inauthentic websites were issued with the intent of protecting users in Singapore from accessing and potentially being misled by these inauthentic websites. However, if individuals choose to circumvent these protections and use virtual private networks or other means to access dubious content, they do so at their own risk. We cannot protect people who deliberately avoid the protection. Under section 59 of the Broadcasting Act, any licensee aggrieved by any decision of the IMDA may appeal to the Minister.”
“I thank the Member for her supplementary question. To answer her last question first, like I mentioned, the intent we are looking at through this pilot is we are looking to provide an affordable, safe service for infants, a service that is trusted by families with infants. So, the pilot is to test whether there is a market for this service. A successful endpoint would be a good take-up by parents with infants of this service and also a sustainable pipeline of supply of childminders from the operators. As I shared, we are in the midst of discussing with the operators to appoint the appropriate operator. The operators are in charge of recruiting the childminders and when they are looking for these childminders, we will definitely put them in contact with groups, whether it is women groups or the Labour Movement, to extend their outreach to recruit these childminders. We have shared earlier that the childminding ratio we are looking at is one childminder to two or three infants. So, in order to cater to 700 infants, which is our first key performance indicator to achieve in this pilot, we would need approximately 250 to 300 childminders.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary question, as well as feedback and suggestions. As I had mentioned in my main reply, shifting to a five-day work week, fundamentally, is to improve the well-being of our early childhood educators and to make early childhood careers more attractive as well as sustainable. So, this change should not come at the expense of our educators' wages. I also know that the working hours and the wages are really decided between the educator as well as their employer, which is the childcare operator. There are broader moves in the entire early childhood industry to lower the stress levels as well as increase the productivity of our early childhood educators. So, the use of, for example, technology solutions to take away some of the more manual tasks, for instance, when it comes to attendance taking, or in the areas of handling feedback from parents. This is a continuous work-in-progress and I think we are totally on the same page, aligned in our common interests to make sure that we improve the working conditions of our early childhood educators. I take the Member's point on the right to disconnect and I think this is something that the Member has been championing across various sectors and industries for our workers. So, I will share that with ECDA and I thank the Member very much for his feedback.”
“I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. I know that the Member has been a strong advocate for the retail, as well as the F&B industry. So, I take in her feedback and ECDA takes in this feedback seriously. As we have shared, we started this journey very early. ECDA had been sending out letters to the preschool operators to inform them that there is no need to provide Saturday childcare services if there is no requirement to do so. We have also sent out letter templates to these preschool operators for them to send out to the parents of the children to inform them that we will be stopping the provision of the Saturday preschool services starting 1 January 2025. Following from this initiative, we will also be further sharing with the families that they can consider tapping on paid, as well as community-based options, such as the home-based childminding programme by Daughters of Tomorrow as well as other services, such as playgroup and enrichment classes, which are conducted at the community clubs and centres on Saturday mornings.”
“I thank the Member for the question. I do not have the specific numbers that she requested for as the Parliamentary Question (PQ) was originally directed at the Ministry of Digital Development and Information. I will come back to her if the Member were to file a separate PQ on this. But specifically, on her comment as to the publicity around the SMS numbers, the numbers are not new. The numbers have been around for some time. There have been marketing efforts. Every time when we go out and we tell members of the public in times of emergency you can call the hotlines, we also append the SMS numbers. But I think, arising from this incident, we will be even more enthusiastic about putting out the numbers when it comes to the SMS numbers. 1.29 pm”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I will just add to what Senior Minister of State Janil has just shared. When the SCDF and SPF learned of the technical difficulties faced by some callers, the public was informed to contact SCDF via SMS 70995 and SPF via SMS 70999. They could also report incidents via the SGSecure app. The SCDF and SPF are conducting a comprehensive review with IMDA to evaluate additional resiliency measures including the feasibility of telco diversity for our emergency hotlines. Just to also add, arising from that incident, there was no feedback from the public on SCDF and SPF's failure to respond to any urgent or life-threatening incident.”
“Suspicious transaction reports were filed in relation to the Rivaton Group after reports appeared in the Japanese media in May 2024. Singapore authorities are in contact with our foreign counterparts, including rendering assistance within the ambit of our laws. We are unable to provide further details at this juncture.”
“The entry levies collected were in line with the higher levies that were imposed since 2019. It was always the intent to continue the higher levies until such time that we assess that there is a need to further adjust the rates. The intent of the moratorium was to stipulate that the levies will not change during the five-year period. The intent was for the rates to be at least maintained thereafter. I do not think that there were expectations that the rates would revert to the earlier lower rate after the five-year period. We have heard many in this House talk about their concerns about problem gambling. I believe that more would be in support of the maintenance of levies imposed since 2019, rather than to lower the levies to what was first set in 2006, and which may inevitably end up encouraging more gamblers. That said, we are not treating this incident lightly. We have been upfront to acknowledge the issue and we have come to Parliament to validate the excess collections during this period. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope I have addressed the Members’ queries. I thank them again for their support for the Bill and I beg to move. 6.27 pm”
“Since 2015, we have blocked more than 3,800 illegal gambling websites, over 270 bank accounts and more than $36 million in payments linked to illegal online gambling. In addition, the Online Criminal Harms Act empowers the authorities to issue Directions to online service providers to restrict the exposure of Singapore users to criminal activities, including illegal gambling advertisements, on their platforms. On Mr Yong’s suggestion regarding loot boxes, our current approach to regulating loot boxes is a balanced one. It aims to safeguard against gambling inducement, rather than gaming. We will continue to monitor the landscape closely. Mr Yong would recall that earlier this year, MHA imposed new restrictions on the value of prizes for games at amusement centres and funfairs, because of the higher risk of gambling inducement when large prizes are offered. Similarly, if we find that loot boxes are becoming a significant driver of gambling inducement, we will review our regulations. Mr Louis Chua asked about the penalties for operators providing unlicensed gambling services, regardless of where they are domiciled. Under the Gambling Control Act, the definition of remote gambling covers situations where the facilities are outside of Singapore, whether in part or in full. An illegal gambling operator is thus liable for an offence and faces the same penalties, even if he resides overseas, as long as the illegal gambling service is accessible by Singapore users. But given the difficulties with enforcing this law against foreign operators, the GRA’s first recourse is to block such illegal online gambling websites. Mr Chua also talked about the regularisation of entry levies collected between 4 April and 7 May 2024.”
“This restriction is still relevant today as there remains a sizeable proportion of patrons who gamble using cash. We do not prescribe any minimum distance between the ATMs and the casinos. The GRA has imposed similar requirements for a "break in play" where electronic payments are used by casino patrons. Where electronic payments are used by Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents who are non-premium players to transfer funds into their deposit account with the casino operators, the GRA has imposed a 30-minute waiting time between the patron’s deposit of funds and the time that the funds are made available to the patron for gambling. Dr Syed Harun also suggested the shortening of the validity period of an entry levy. We thank him for his suggestion. For now, we do not think that there is a need to increase the levies further or to reduce their validity period. Mr Melvin Yong raised the issue of illegal remote gambling activities and unsolicited gambling advertisements on social media platforms. I mentioned in my speech earlier that the regulation of non-casino gambling activities is covered under the Gambling Control Act. As these matters fall outside the scope of this Bill, I will address them very briefly. We take a strong enforcement approach against illegal gambling. In 2023, the Police arrested more than 450 persons for their involvement in illegal gambling activities. About one-third of the arrests were for remote gambling. The GRA carries out blocking of illegal online gambling websites and advertisements that can be accessed in Singapore, as well as payment services linked to illegal online gambling.”
“I will move on to the other issues and suggestions from Members. Mr Louis Chua asked about casino tax rates and noted that the rates were raised recently in March 2022, through the Gambling Duties Act. As this falls outside the scope of this Bill, I will address this only briefly. If the Member has further questions, he can file a Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Finance or Ministry of Trade and Industry. We first introduced the casino tax rates in 2007 and introduced a 15-year moratorium until 2022. This was to provide the IRs with greater certainty, bolster the competitiveness and attractiveness of the IRs, as well as enhance the investors’ ability to raise funds for the IRs. This was important to the IRs, given the significant amount of investments that they would be committing. Since then, we revised the casino tax rates once, upon the expiry of the moratorium in 2022. We introduced a tiered casino tax structure, with higher tax rates than before. The rates were also subjected to a 10-year moratorium. The rates were set with a view to striking a balance between competitiveness and revenue. The tiered casino tax structure and the moratorium are subject to the casino operators meeting development targets and they expire in 2032. We will review the casino tax rates closer to the end of the moratorium. Dr Syed Harun asked about the prohibition of ATMs within the boundaries of casinos and its effectiveness as a deterrent. ATMs are prohibited within the gambling venues of casinos and gaming machine rooms. This creates a "break in play" and injects some inconvenience to the patron. This is to prevent them from having easy and instant access to additional funds for gambling.”
“Ms Ng Ling Ling noted the increase of the fine for minors refusing to give particulars or using false evidence of age to enter casinos, from $1,000 to $10,000, and asked if a probation order would be more appropriate. With a financial penalty, she is concerned that the financial burden would fall on the family. She also asked about the number of cases of minors who had managed to enter the casinos by providing false evidence of age. A minor’s failure to comply with the request by an authorised person such as a Police officer or the GRA inspector to provide his or her particulars shows defiance and prevents the officers from carrying out their duties. Also, the use of false evidence of age by a minor to enter casinos is essentially deceit. These are serious offences which we must deter. That is why we are increasing the penalties. The increase will also ensure parity with the penalties for similar offences under the Gambling Control Act. We note Ms Ng's point that the family would likely end up having to pay the fine on behalf of the minor. This is the case even today, including for other offences outside the Casino Control Act and the Gambling Control Act. The family is responsible for the minor and it cannot completely absolve themselves from the minor's misdemeanours. In the past five years, from 2019 to 2023, three minors were found to have entered a casino using false evidence of age. So far, the GRA has not prosecuted any minor for failing to provide particulars or giving false evidence of age. But in the event that a case is prosecuted and a minor is found guilty by the Court, the Court will consider all available orders, including probation, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case.”
“Mr Louis Ng had a few questions on how NCPG's Committee of Assessors makes its decisions on an Exclusion Order or Visit Limit. I would like to assure Mr Ng that hearings will remain the default practice. The Bill will simply provide the Committee with the option to not convene a hearing if it already has sufficient evidence to assess the case, including documents which the respondent has submitted, or if the respondent has consented to the Exclusion Order or Visit Limit. On Mr Ng’s other questions on the empowering of NCPG to substitute an Exclusion Order with a Visit Limit or vice versa, let me elaborate on the appeal and revocation process. Today, the respondent is already required to provide supporting evidence to help the NCPG make a decision and the NCPG may request additional information. The NCPG will use this information to determine whether the initial order remains appropriate, or where there are changes to the respondent's circumstances, whether it is more appropriate to substitute an Exclusion Order with a Visit Limit or vice versa. Mr Melvin Yong asked if there will be changes to the channels through which respondents can express their disagreement with NCPG’s decision on Exclusion Orders and Visit Limits. Individuals who disagree with NCPG’s decision may appeal against it, or apply to vary or revoke their Exclusion Order or Visit Limit. These channels for recourse remain available. The enhanced operational flexibility to allow the NCPG to substitute an Exclusion Order with a Visit Limit and vice versa, will be incorporated into NCPG’s workflows.”
“They should also encourage the individuals to seek help, including through channels like the NCPG Helpline or Webchat or to apply for self-exclusion or Voluntary Visit Limits to help them control their gambling habit. Dr Syed Harun asked whether an existing Donee or Deputy of an incapacitated person should continue his role if he or she is issued with an Exclusion Order. Individuals can be issued an Exclusion Order for many reasons. When the Office of Public Guardian comes to know of such a case, it will investigate with NCPG's assistance and make a determination of continued suitability. The public can whistle-blow to the Office of Public Guardian on alleged misconduct by Donees or Deputies, including misconduct that may have arisen as a result of their being issued Exclusion Orders. In response to Dr Harun's other questions relating to Donees and Deputies, the Minister for Social and Family Development can appoint suitable persons to apply for a Family Exclusion Order for the incapacitated person. Suitable persons may include Lasting Power of Attorney Donees or Court-appointed Deputies. Ms Ng Ling Ling asked when a fine would be meted out against a person who has breached his or her Family Visit Limit and when a jail term would be imposed. She raised concerns that the burden of a fine would usually fall onto the family members, causing them further financial burden. In considering the punishment, the GRA will assess the facts and circumstances and consult the Attorney-General's Chambers, who will make the final decision. The more egregious cases may be prosecuted. Once the matter is in Court, the Court will assess and mete out the appropriate punishment. To date, no EP has been prosecuted solely for breaching an Exclusion Order or exceeding a Visit Limit.”
“The Visit Limit is generally imposed on less financially vulnerable persons, together with other safeguards in place in the casinos, to help them control their gambling on the ground. As I mentioned earlier, the probable pathological and problem gambling rates among our residents are low and stable, at about 1%. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of our social safeguards. We will take the Member's suggestions into account if there is a future need to tighten them. Mr Keith Chua suggested allowing parents to apply for an exclusion for their children who are below 21 years of age. A Family Exclusion Order is treated seriously. A breach of a Family Exclusion Order is an offence and hence, the family should only apply for it when there is evidence of harm caused by gambling. For parents who are concerned about minors under their care, they should educate them on the harms of gambling and not to start gambling. Parents can encourage their children to apply for self-exclusion when they turn 21. Dr Syed Harun also suggested having a mechanism for doctors or psychiatrists to report problem gamblers to the NCPG for consideration of a Third Party Exclusion Order, likening it to how doctors are obliged to report any illicit drug use today. Problem gambling, unlike drug abuse, is not a crime. There is therefore less ground to override patient-doctor confidentiality and require medical professionals to report individuals whom they suspect to be problem gamblers. Nevertheless, medical professionals should encourage such individuals to exercise personal responsibility and avoid gambling beyond their means.”
“The prospect of an imprisonment term will also be a stronger deterrent against the commission of such offences. I will now deal with the questions on strengthening protection for vulnerable groups of people. Mr Keith Chua raised the issue of deploying more resources to prevent problem gambling and to protect vulnerable groups of people. I would like to assure Mr Chua that the Government does and will continue to devote significant resources to tackle problem gambling. This includes extensive public education campaigns and initiatives and also funding social service agencies that offer gambling rehabilitation services. Mr Chua also asked if the access points to the casinos can be reviewed to minimise exposure to unsuspecting visitors or minors. The GRA imposes regulatory requirements to reduce public exposure to the casinos. For instance, gaming areas cannot open directly into public spaces, visitors and guests should not have to walk through the casino in order to gain access to other IR facilities. There are also other measures to limit the accessibility of casinos, including the entry levy regime and the minimum 21 years age restriction. Taken together, our approach has generally worked well. We will continue to closely monitor the situation through NCPG's regular Gambling Participation Survey. Dr Syed Harun asked about the effectiveness of Exclusion Orders and if there should be further restrictions imposed on persons on Visit Limits. Social safeguards, including Exclusion Orders and Visit Limits, have played a key role in ensuring that problem gambling in Singapore remains under control. A person who is financially distressed will be subject to an Exclusion Order.”
“However, we believe that with the removal of the GRA as the conduit and the casino operators sharing and receiving information directly with each other, the process would be more efficient and the casino operators will be able to take timelier action, with GRA still in the loop, having visibility of the information being shared. The GRA conducts regular and ad hoc inspections on the casinos. If it detects any non-compliance with regulatory requirements, including the failure to share necessary information with the other operator, it will investigate and take appropriate enforcement action. Ms Ng Ling Ling asked what other surveillance or inspection measures the GRA has in place to identify patrons who may pose a high risk of money laundering, terrorism financing or proliferation financing. Casino operators are already required to have in place a framework for the prevention of money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing, which includes identifying and managing high-risk patrons and mitigating the risks associated with these patrons. The operators must take into consideration the profile and behaviour of patrons and establish risk and materiality thresholds for the identification of high-risk patrons. Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the impetus for imposing an imprisonment term for offences that were originally liable for only a fine. The Casino Control Act was last amended more than 10 years ago. Since then, the Gambling Control Act, which brought together all non-casino gambling matters, has come into force, in 2022. The proposed amendments to the Casino Control Act seek to align the penalties with the Gambling Control Act to ensure parity for similar offences.”
“I would like to reiterate that the objective of these changes is to enhance the operational effectiveness and future-readiness of our casino regulatory regime. It is not to cure any mischief. Since taking up the mantle of Singapore's casino regulator in 2008, the GRA has done well. This is evidenced by the low crime rate and problem gambling rate in casinos. Our casino operators appreciate the spirit, intent and reasons for our regulations and have a good track record in compliance. Notwithstanding, we continue to review our regulations. We are hence taking this opportunity to rationalise such that functions that relate to the whole-of-Government at the strategic level are overseen by the Minister and regulatory functions are overseen by the GRA. I will now deal with the questions on tightening the regulation of casinos and licensees. Ms Ng Ling Ling asked how information sharing between the casino operators will be initiated, what would be the time difference for this proposed information sharing process as compared to the current process and how the GRA would know if either casino operator has failed to initiate such a process. The new provision stipulates the circumstances under which a casino operator has to share information with the other operator. For example, where an operator has made a suspicious transaction report on a customer and has declined to establish a relationship with him or her. The GRA does not track the time taken for the current information sharing process.”
“The current main shareholders for Marina Bay Sands and Resorts World Sentosa are Las Vegas Sands Corp and Genting Singapore Limited respectively. These are operators whom we have assessed are aligned with Singapore's strategic objectives for the IRs. Members would recall that the Government's decision to develop the two IRs was based on the need to reinvent Singapore's tourism industry and the economic spin-offs such as job creation. It is therefore more appropriate for the Minister rather than the GRA to be the authority to approve divestments and acquisitions relating to main shareholdings to ensure continued alignment between the IRs and the Singapore Government's strategic objectives. This will also bring it in line with the existing policy where it is the Minister who decides on the entity to be designated as the main shareholder of the casino operator in the first place. Decisions relating to controllers and substantial shareholders, however, have different considerations. The key is to ensure that they do not have undesirable backgrounds so as to ensure that the operation of the casino will be free from criminal influence or infiltration. When the Casino Control Act was introduced in 2006, we took reference from the Banking Act, where it is the Minister who approves changes to controllers and substantial shareholders. We have reviewed this holistically. Given the context of the Casino Control Act, which has the concept of a main shareholder, unlike financial institutions under the Banking Act, we assess that decisions relating to non-main shareholders can be made by the GRA and that the GRA is well placed to do so.”
“Should they do so, the GRA will carefully consider the proposal, including law and order and social concerns. Mr Louis Chua raised the issue of how the GRA will be able to ensure that the deployment of gaming software is restricted to the casino premises should it be approved by the GRA. The GRA intends to allow the casino operators to offer gaming only on mobile devices provided by the casino operators and within the casino. They must demonstrate how they would ensure that the gaming software cannot be used outside the casino, for instance, using geofencing technology. Ms Ng Ling Ling asked if virtual assets such as cryptocurrency are within the scope of wagering instruments that the GRA would be able to prescribe as chips for casino gambling. The amendment empowers the GRA to prescribe any wagering instrument to be used as chips for casino gambling. The intent of this is to future-proof the regime to allow for new modes such as cashless gaming. An example is where a patron may place wagers at either the gaming tables or gaming machines by drawing down virtual credits directly from his cashless gaming account or e-wallet. The GRA has no intention of allowing cryptocurrency to be used as chips for casino gambling as this presents money laundering risks. Mr Louis Ng and Ms Sylvia Lim asked how we arrived at the assessments that the Minister for Home Affairs would be better placed than the GRA to approve divestments and acquisitions relating to main shareholders and that the GRA would be better placed than the Minister to manage decisions relating to controllers and substantial shareholders. The main shareholders regime is the principal upstream lever for the Government to decide who should be allowed to operate the IRs and the casinos within.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their support for the Bill and their suggestions. They raised important questions which I will now address. First, on enhancing the operational effectiveness of our casino regulatory regime. Dr Syed Harun asked about the need to distinguish a promotional game from casino gambling. Promotional games are a form of casino promotion. Examples include lucky draws or “pick-and-win” giveaways. Compared to the casino games, they pose a lower risk of gambling harm as they do not involve a wager. We use therefore a lighter hand to regulate promotional games. Although GRA’s approval is still required before a casino operator conducts promotional games, certain regulatory requirements which are imposed on casino games, are not imposed on the promotional games. For example, there is no need for the promotional games to be conducted by licensed casino employees. Ms Ng Ling Ling asked if the amendment to expand the scope of gambling activities in casinos that the GRA can regulate, to include betting and lotteries, would inadvertently encourage casino operators to consider offering such activities. The intent of this amendment is to future-proof our regulatory regime and to clarify in the law that GRA’s approval is required for any gambling activities offered in casinos in Singapore, including betting and lotteries. There are already casinos in other countries that offer betting and lotteries. With this amendment, it will be clear that a casino operator must get GRA’s approval before offering any new gambling activity, including betting and lotteries. The GRA has not received any requests from the casino operators to offer betting or lottery-based products.”
“The Bill also strengthens our ability to prosecute an excluded person for entering a casino. In particular, the Bill makes an excluded person liable for entering, remaining or taking part in gambling on the casino premises, if it is proven that he knows or ought reasonably to know that he was an excluded person. This places the responsibility on an individual to ensure that he is not excluded before entering or when remaining in the casino, where there are circumstances in which the individual ought reasonably to know that he is an excluded person. Second, there are amendments to strengthen the protection for vulnerable individuals and their families. Today, the NCPG administers Exclusion Orders and Visit Limits to protect vulnerable groups of people and minimise the impact of problem gambling. The Bill will tighten our regime by criminalising the breach of a Family Visit Limit, such that the breach of any Exclusion Order or Visit Limit under the CCA, except those that are self-imposed, will constitute an offence. To conclude, our strict but pragmatic approach to regulating casino gambling has delivered good outcomes so far. This Bill will allow us to keep the casinos free from criminal influence, ensure gambling is conducted honestly and minimise the harm from gambling. (In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“It has always been the Government's intent to maintain the higher entry levies beyond the five-year moratorium period. In other words, it was always the intent to renew the 2019 order upon its expiry rather than to allow the rate to revert to the lower one after the five-year period. However, MHA overlooked the expiry of the 2019 Order and the entry levies reverted to the previous lower rates on 4 April 2024. MHA acted immediately to remedy this when the issue was brought to our attention. On 8 May 2024, MHA restored in law the daily levy to $150 and the annual levy to $3,000. This was operationalised via the Casino Control (Variation of Entry Levies) Order 2024. From 4 April to 7 May 2024, we collected about $4.4 million more than the lawful entry levy rates at that point in time, that is, the previous, lower entry rates. Clause 95 will regularise this amount collected during that period. This is in line with the Government's policy intent for introducing the higher entry levy rates in 2019. We have tightened our processes to avoid this happening again. I would now like to speak in Mandarin, with your indulgence, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Next, I will outline in Mandarin the key proposals in the Bill that will affect casino patrons. First, casino-related offences. Although casino-related crime remains low, we continually review and update our offences regime. This ensures that our laws continue to deter casino-related crime and protect the integrity of gaming operations. The Bill will, thus, introduce new offences in the CCA. In particular, it will be an offence to withdraw bets after the result of a game is known and to record non-card games in the casinos.”
“With this amendment, the breach of any Exclusion Order or Visit Limit under the CCA, except those that are self-imposed, would constitute an offence. Currently, when there is a change in circumstances for an individual on an Exclusion Order or Visit Limit, the NCPG is only empowered to revoke the existing Exclusion Order or Visit Limit, before imposing a new Exclusion Order or Visit Limit. This process usually takes a period of one to two months. During this period, the individual is not protected by any safeguard. This is not ideal. Clause 75 streamlines the process and allows the NCPG to immediately substitute an Exclusion Order with a Visit Limit, and vice versa. As an illustration, this amendment will allow the NCPG to substitute a Visit Limit with an Exclusion Order seamlessly, to protect the individual by imposing a more stringent safeguard, if necessary. Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me now move on to the last set of amendments. This is to regularise the collection of casino entry levies between 4 April and 7 May this year. The casino entry levy was introduced in 2008 as a social safeguard to deter casual and impulse gambling among Singaporean residents. As part of the Government's commitment to keep problem gambling under control, we increased the casino entry levies on 4 April 2019 for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents from $100 to $150 for the daily levy, and from $2,000 to $3,000 for the annual levy. The Government also introduced a five-year moratorium on the casino entry levies, as part of our negotiations with the casino operators on their reinvestment plans. This was operationalised via the Casino Control (Variation of Entry Levies) Order 2019, which was valid for five years up to 3 April 2024.”
“Under the Personal Data Protection Act, a casino operator is currently not allowed to share the personal data of a patron directly with another casino operator without the patron's consent. Hence, when one casino operator assesses that a patron poses a high-risk of money laundering, terrorism financing or proliferation financing, the patron's personal data can be shared with the other casino operator, only through the GRA. This arrangement is operationally inefficient and impedes the casino operators from taking timely actions. To address this, clause 47 empowers the GRA to require the casino operators to directly share information of patrons with each other, instead of going through the GRA, for the purposes of tackling money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. The GRA will impose measures to safeguard patron information. I now turn to the amendments to strengthen the protection for vulnerable individuals and their families. Today, the National Council on Problem Gambling, otherwise known as the NCPG, administers Exclusions and Visit Limits to protect vulnerable groups of people and minimise the impact of problem gambling. It is an offence for an individual to breach an Exclusion by Law, a Third Party Exclusion Order or Visit Limit imposed by NCPG; or a Family Exclusion Order imposed by NCPG upon application by the individual's family. However, a breach of a Family Visit Limit imposed upon application by the individual's family does not constitute an offence today. We will close this gap. To ensure that the Family Visit Limit acts as an effective protection for vulnerable persons, clauses 3 and 42 will criminalise the breach of a Family Visit Limit.”
“This means that an EP who had breached a Visit Limit and claims that it was because he had miscounted his visits would now be liable for an offence for entering or remaining in the casinos, since he ought reasonably to know when he would exceed his Visit Limit. Second, suitability criteria of the casino operators. The casino operators are expected to conduct their business operations in an ethical and credible manner, and to implement good corporate governance practices. To make clear our regulatory expectations, clause 5 expands the suitability criteria for casino licensees, to allow the GRA to consider two additional criteria when assessing a casino operator's suitability to hold a casino licence on an ongoing basis. First, whether the casino operator conducts business in a manner which is unethical or will bring discredit to casino gambling in Singapore; and second, whether the casino operator has poor corporate governance practices or weak internal controls. This could include, disregarding whistle-blowing reports which allege employee misconduct. Next, clauses 10, 26 and 35 empower the GRA to take disciplinary action against a former licensee for a regulatory breach, if the disciplinary action had commenced prior to the lapse of the licence. This applies to all licensees under the CCA, including the casino operators, special employees, international market agents and international market agent representatives. This amendment will ensure that no licensee evades punishment for contravening regulatory requirements, simply due to the lapse of his licence. Third, on information sharing.”
“This amendment will expand the current offence to cover the recording of non-card games. Third, clause 82 makes it an offence for any person to destroy or falsify documents, knowing that the document is required to be produced under the CCA. Currently, it is an offence for a person to destroy or falsify a document which he is required to submit to the GRA. However, the offence does not cover any other person who handles or has access to the same document, should they destroy or falsify it knowing that the document is required by the GRA. This amendment will ensure that such persons can also be taken to task. The Bill also strengthens our ability to prosecute an excluded person, otherwise known as an EP, for entering a casino. With the exception of a self-excluded person, it is currently an offence for an EP to enter, remain or take part in gaming in a casino. To make out an offence, the GRA has to prove that the EP was aware of his exclusion status when he entered the casino. However, this has been difficult to prove. For example, an EP who had breached a Visit Limit could claim that he had miscounted his visits even though he was aware of his Visit Limit. To address this, clause 42 makes an EP liable for entering, remaining, or taking part in gambling on the casino premises, if it is proven that he knows or ought reasonably to know that he was an EP. This places the responsibility on an individual to ensure that he is not excluded before entering or when remaining in the casino where there are circumstances in which the individual ought reasonably to know that he is an EP.”
“The Evaluation Panel provides an independent opinion to the GRA on the ability of the IR to fulfil its economic obligations. The GRA takes this into consideration when evaluating the application or renewal of a casino licence. The Evaluation Panel considers several factors, such as how the IRs compare to industry standards and whether they meet prevailing market demand. Clause 6 of the Bill clarifies in law that the Evaluation Panel may also take into consideration an IR's ability to meet future industry standards and market demand, in addition to prevailing standards and demand. This can be and is already being done today. What this amendment does is to expressly state in law. Next, let me address the amendments to tighten the regulation of casinos and licensees. There are three parts. First, casino-related offences. Even though casino-related crime remains low, we continually review and update our offences regime to deter crime and protect the integrity of gaming operations. The Bill introduces three new offences in the CCA. First, clause 80 makes it an offence to withdraw bets after the result of a game is known. Today, it is an offence under the CCA for casino patrons to place a bet in a casino after the result of a game is known, but the CCA is silent on the withdrawal of a bet after the result of a game is known. Hence, the Police have had to use provisions in other laws, such as the Penal Code, to deal with these cases. This amendment will right-site the offence under the CCA. Second, clause 79 makes it an offence to record non-card games in the casinos. It is currently an offence to record cards dealt in the course of gaming. However, non-card games are not covered. Hence, the Police have had to deal with such cases as an act of cheating at play under the CCA.”
“The main shareholders are accountable for the development of the IRs and their long-term commitments in Singapore. Their divestments and acquisitions are currently approved by the GRA. Our view is that the Minister for Home Affairs is better-placed to balance whole-of-Government considerations and make these decisions. Second, for controllers and substantial shareholders, clause 17 transfers the related powers from the Minister for Home Affairs to the GRA. These include, the powers to approve persons as controllers and substantial shareholders or to exempt them from any requirement under the CCA. These decisions are currently made by the Minister for Home Affairs. Our view is that the GRA is better-placed to make these decisions, as these are regulatory decisions in line with GRA's existing responsibility to ensure the suitability of casino licensees and their associates. That said, we will allow persons to submit appeals on GRA's decisions to the Minister for Home Affairs. Third, clause 15 tightens the criteria for identifying associates under the controlled shareholdings regime. Currently, other than the corporate entity with controlled shareholdings in the casinos, all its related corporations are also subject to GRA's approval. This would include related corporations that do not exercise influence or control over the casino operators, such as sister companies. This is not our policy intent. Hence, for consistency with the Companies Act, we will tighten the criteria for identifying associates and ensure that only corporations that are able to exercise influence or control over the casino operators will be subject to GRA's approval. The fourth set of amendments clarifies the Evaluation Panel's ability to assess the tourism and economic impact of the IRs.”
“However, manufacturers of gaming machines are increasingly developing gaming software independently from the hardware. This amendment allows the GRA to approve gaming software on its own, for example, gaming software that is deployed on off-the-shelf mobile devices, such as tablets. Third, clause 3 empowers the GRA to prescribe any wagering instrument to be used as chips for casino gambling, such as virtual credits, if the GRA assesses them to be suitable in the future. The next set of amendments relates to the approval of manufacturers and suppliers of casino gaming machines. In recent years, the GRA has observed that for any particular gaming machine, there could be multiple manufacturers and suppliers for individual parts of the machine because of outsourcing arrangements. Our policy intent is to regulate the entity that has overall control of the design or production of the gaming machines. Clause 30 updates and streamlines the approval process, to only require approvals for such an entity. Other manufacturers and suppliers will no longer require GRA's approval. The third set of amendments pertains to the main shareholders, controllers and substantial shareholders of the casinos. Only approved persons are allowed to take on these positions. They are required to seek approval for acquisition and disposal of shares exceeding specific thresholds. This ensures that persons with control over the casinos are suitable persons and there is no undesirable influence over the casinos' operations. The Bill enhances the approval regime for such persons. There are three aspects. First, for the main shareholdings regime, clause 4 transfers the powers related to the approval of associated divestments and acquisitions, from the GRA to the Minister for Home Affairs.”
“This Bill is the outcome of our review. Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Casino Control (Amendment) Bill seeks to achieve four objectives. First, to enhance the operational effectiveness and future readiness of our casino regulatory regime; second, it tightens the regulation of casinos and licensees; third, it strengthens protection for vulnerable groups of people; and fourth, it regularises the entry levies collected from 4 April to 7 May 2024. Let me speak about them in turn. Today, the Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) approves all casino games, gaming machines and chips that are used in a casino. This ensures that casino gambling is conducted honestly. To future-proof these approval regimes, clause 3 of the Bill amends three aspects. First, it expands the scope of gambling activities that GRA can regulate in the casinos. Today, GRA is empowered to regulate games of chance offered by the casinos, such as table games and games on gaming machines. We propose to empower GRA to regulate all forms of gambling in the casinos, including betting and lotteries. Betting is distinct from games of chance because the former involves placing a stake on the outcome of a process, such as betting on a football competition or a horse race. Lotteries are also distinct, as the distribution of prizes is dependent on chance, for example, the random drawing of lots in TOTO. To be clear, the GRA has no plans for now to allow casinos to offer betting or lotteries, but the amendments would make clear that the casinos would need GRA's approval before they can do so. Second, clause 3 empowers GRA to approve gaming software. Today, the GRA approves casino gaming machines comprising both the software and hardware components.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Casino Control Act (CCA) is the primary piece of legislation to manage casinos in Singapore. It provides the regulatory framework to keep the casinos free from criminal influence, ensure that gambling is conducted honestly and minimise the harms from gambling. The CCA also helps to ensure that the Integrated Resorts (IRs) make a positive contribution to our economy. Other gambling activities that are not related to the casinos are regulated under a separate piece of legislation – the Gambling Control Act. Taken together, the Casino Control Act and the Gambling Control Act help to ensure that gambling is well-regulated in Singapore. Today's amendments are related to the regulation of the two casinos in Singapore. Singapore's approach to regulating casinos have worked well. Casino-related crime remains low. In 2023, only 0.2% of all reported crime cases took place in the casinos. This proportion has been stable over the years. The probable pathological and problem gambling rates among our residents also remain low and stable, at around 1%. The casino operators have not committed any significant breaches of gaming-related requirements. The CCA was last amended in 2012. Since then, there have been changes to consumer preferences and gaming technology. For example, we see new ways of gambling in overseas casinos including gambling using off-the-shelf mobile devices, such as tablets. Our legislative framework must remain relevant and be responsive to these changes. Hence, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has worked with the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Ministry of Trade and Industry to review the CCA.”
“I thank Mr Leong for his supplementary question. First and foremost, I thank him for confirming the PSP's stance to keep Singapore open to foreigners and to visitors, because that is critical to Singapore's economy and to continue to have Singapore be a vibrant place for residents and visitors alike. On transnational crime, there are various aspects to it. There is human trafficking, drug trafficking; there are online scams. Burglary is not exactly a transnational crime, but I think when Mr Leong referred to it, he meant it in terms of foreigners who may come to Singapore to commit such crimes. Over the years, we have been revising our Criminal Procedure Code and Penal Code to enhance our measures to take into account all these offences. Mr Leong would also be familiar with the whole slew of measures that we have undertaken recently and also moving forward when it comes to online scams. So, I take Mr Leong's point that with increasing number of visitors and not only that, with the increasing use of technology to commit transnational crimes, that we must always monitor and review our laws to make sure that they take into account the evolving nature of crimes.”
“The sector also contributed, on average, 3% of Singapore's gross domestic product (GDP) over the last 10 years, from 2014 to 2023, excluding 2020 to 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to being an important economic contributor, tourism plays an essential role in reinforcing Singapore's status as a vibrant global city that is a magnet for capital, businesses and talent. It also enhances the quality and diversity of leisure options for local residents and helps to create a living environment that Singaporeans can be proud to call home. There is no way to realise these ambitions if we erect walls and keep visitors out. Our neighbours, Malaysia and Thailand, have also rolled out initiatives to boost tourism. For instance, to attract Chinese visitors, they have implemented visa exemption, increased flight frequencies and promoted cultural and entertainment experiences that appeal to Chinese travellers. The mutual visa exemption with China was a carefully assessed and weighed decision, that the security, criminal and immigration risks were manageable, that the economic and bilateral benefits would be significant and that, overall, it is in Singapore's interests to have this arrangement with China.”
“Because checks are now further upstream and we leverage technology even more extensively. Pre-arrival, ICA uses advanced passenger information, including flight manifests and information from the SG Arrival Card, to conduct data analytics and a risk assessment of travellers through its Integrated Targeting Centre. Upon arrival, all travellers, including those at the automated lanes, are screened against a watchlist of persons of interest as well as those who have been flagged by ICA's Integrated Targeting Centre to be of higher risk. Such individuals are stopped for more stringent immigration and security checks. ICA's automated lanes are supported by biometrics. Repeat travellers, including those who had committed crimes in Singapore, who try to enter via a different identity, will be flagged by our biometric database because we would have captured their biometrics on their previous visit. Because we have automated more processes, more ICA officers can be deployed to conduct profiling of travellers at the automated immigration lanes, which complements the back-end risk assessment. Those spotted to be exhibiting suspicious behaviour will be sieved out for questioning. Mr Leong's questions may have been prompted by fears of foreigners committing crimes in Singapore. The only way we can be sure that foreigners will not commit crimes here is to close our borders to them. But doing so would destroy Singapore's economy. Singapore and Singaporeans benefit from the tourism revenue and employment opportunities that foreigners, including those from China, bring. Just as an example, the tourism sector contributed $27.2 billion in tourism receipts in 2023 and employed more than 71,000 workers as of December 2023.”
“Mr Speaker, Mr Leong Mun Wai's question may have been prompted by the recent burglaries which appear to be linked to foreign syndicates involving Chinese nationals. The Police had previously provided a comprehensive update on this issue. Three Chinese nationals have been arrested. Another 14 Chinese nationals are of interest to the Police, but they remain overseas. To answer Mr Leong's question directly, there has been no increase in the number or percentage of short-term visitors from China arrested in Singapore since the mutual visa exemption arrangements were implemented in February this year. Even if we take into account the 14 Chinese nationals I referred to earlier, the percentage of Chinese visitors arrested in Singapore would be lower than the corresponding percentage last year. A visa regime is not a foolproof way to keep unwanted characters away. It enables us to pre-screen individuals before they travel to Singapore. If they have antecedents of concern, their visa application will be rejected. The need to apply for a visa and to submit supporting documentation also acts as a deterrence. But no visa regime will completely weed out undesirable visitors and neither will it stop them from committing crimes here. The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) adopts a risk-based, multi-layered approach to assess a foreign traveller when he is at our checkpoints. Over the years, the systems have been upgraded, the checks have become more robust and the overall level of security has been enhanced. It may surprise Mr Leong to know that the percentage of travellers who are refused entry into Singapore has, in fact, increased with ICA's new clearance concept and automated clearance. Why?”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. We monitor the online space and we will not hesitate to use appropriate levers, including the use of our FICA directions. For national security reasons, we are not able to disclose details of operations against foreign interference in Singapore.”
“Sir, there was low reach in our local information space. After 10 May 2024, we did not detect any further posts from the network of 95 accounts carrying malicious narratives on Singapore's leadership transition. Our investigations have not found any evidence that Singaporeans or persons based in Singapore are responsible for the 95 accounts. [Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair] This episode is a reminder that Singapore is vulnerable to Hostile Information Campaigns (HICs) because of our small, open and highly digitally connected society. The ubiquity of technologies, such as the Internet, social media and artificial intelligence (AI), has made preparing for and carrying out HICs much easier. HIC tactics range from polarising societies by exploiting fault lines and manipulating public opinion on sensitive issues, to undermining trust in the Government and institutions. Legislative levers, such as the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or FICA, to prevent, detect and disrupt HICs, are important. However, this alone will not be enough. Public vigilance against foreign interference is equally important. We urge Singaporeans to be discerning when consuming and disseminating information online. We should always fact-check the information, to see if it is accurate and authentic, against a credible source.”
“As I mentioned earlier, the foreigners can go to any country which their passport or travel document allows them to go. So, for the eight subjects who had already been deported, they had chosen to be deported to Cambodia or Japan.”
“As I mentioned earlier, the foreigners can go to any country which their passport or travel document allows them to go. So, for these 10 subjects, they had chosen to be deported to Cambodia or Japan, at least for these 10 subjects. [Please refer to "Factors Considered in Deciding Deportation Destinations for Foreigners Who Have Served Their Sentences in Singapore", Official Report, 2 July 2024, Vol 95, Issue 137, Oral Answers to Questions section.] [(proc text) Written statement by Ms Sun Xueling circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)] I wish to make the following factual correction to the reply given for Question No 36 during Question Time at the Sitting of 2 July 2024. My statement should read as follows:”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for your indulgence. Earlier, in my response to Ms Sylvia Lim, I had shared with her that I would confirm the passport status of the three individuals that she had referred to. [Please refer to "Factors Considered in Deciding Deportation Destinations for Foreigners Who Have Served Their Sentences in Singapore", Official Report, 2 July 2024, Vol 95, Issue 137, Oral Answers to Questions section.] I have since confirmed with my Ministry that the three individuals that she referred to do not hold Cambodia passports. However, they each hold a valid passport or travel document that meets the admission requirement into Cambodia. From the Ministry's standpoint, our main focus is to effectively and quickly deport the foreigners once they have served their sentences, and that is why it is important for us to make an assessment of their admissibility into the country.”
“Yes, the forfeited assets have been placed with the consolidated account under the Accountant-General's Department. On the point as to whether or not foreign parties can still assert a claim, foreign jurisdictions can make a formal request to Singapore for mutual legal assistance. Through this process, they can assert a claim to seize assets. Singapore can provide mutual legal assistance to foreign jurisdictions which include sharing information in relation to the movement of the assets, the enforcement of foreign confiscation orders and we can also work together with foreign authorities on issues of assets sharing and the return of assets on a case-by-base. Yes, the funds are in the consolidated account. Yes, there is still an open process by which foreign jurisdictions can still make a formal request to Singapore for mutual legal assistance.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir. To date, there have not been any competing claims to the forfeited assets lodged with the Courts, by foreign governments or parties.”
“I think you are using the term "choice" rather loosely, because the offender can indicate which country he or she would like to be deported to, but it cannot just be, "I choose and therefore I will be sent there". There needs to be an assessment by the Ministry as to whether or not the individual can be admissible to the country based on the travel document that he or she holds. I hope that helps address the question.”
“I thank the Member for her questions. To answer the second question first, whether or not there was an extradition treaty between Cambodia and China was not part of the decision-making process that the Ministry undertook. I think what is important is that where subjects hold multiple passports, there is an assessment by the Ministry, as to whether or not they are admissible to the country based on the travel documents that they have. So, I think we do not want a situation where we try to deport an individual and actually the country to which we are deporting the individual to, does not accept the individual. Therefore, I think there is an assessment: firstly, based on the passports that they hold, which are the countries they can be deported to; secondly, obviously, if they have multiple passports, we would have to, well, whether or not the term is "choose", but we would have to decide which country that they have the greatest likelihood of being admissible to. We make that assessment and then we successfully deport them. I hope that helps address the questions.”
“For the avoidance of doubt, to be clear, convicted foreigners can go to any country which their passports or travel documents allow them to go. So, for the subjects that we are discussing right now, seven convicts have been deported to Cambodia, while one convict has been deported to Japan. Specifically, on the question on three of the subjects as to whether or not they hold Cambodian passports, I can check back with my Ministry on this point. I have shared what I understood about this matter in my earlier reply. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister of State for Home Affairs", Official Report, 2 July 2024, Vol 95, Issue 137, Clarification section.] Sorry, could I get the Member to repeat her last point again, please?”
“I thank the Member for her questions. First and foremost, to start off with, the examples that she shared about previous instances could be a case whereby the subject did not hold multiple passports. And therefore, the only country in which the subject could be deported to, was the subject's home country. In this case, the 10 subjects hold multiple passports. As I alluded to in my main reply, the foreigners can go to any country to which their passport or travel document allows them to go. On the second question that she had, about three of them not holding Cambodian passports, I am not aware of this situation. I would find that quite odd, because when we undertake deportation processes, we would look at whether or not they are admissible to the country of their choice. And that would include whether or not they hold a passport that allows them to enter the country. The third and last question the Member had was why they were not deported back to China, right? As I mentioned earlier, the foreigners can go to any country which their passport or travel document allows them to go. So, for these 10 subjects, they had chosen to be deported to Cambodia or Japan, at least for these 10 subjects. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister of State for Home Affairs", Official Report, 2 July 2024, Vol 95, Issue 137, Correction By Written Statement section.]”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, such foreigners can go to any country to which their passport or travel document allows them to go. This applies similarly to the convicted foreigners in the $3 billion money laundering case.”
“I thank the Member for his question. Indeed, the IMC is undertaking rigorous work to ensure that corporate structures in Singapore are not being abused by money launderers. Secondly, we are also working closely with our financial institutions to make sure that they enhance their controls, they do their due diligence on their customers' backgrounds to be able to identify the sources of their funds. I also earlier mentioned other gatekeepers in the system, such as real estate agents, lawyers, precious stones and metals' dealers and corporate service providers. All these actions would help us better guard against potential money launderers trying to launder their monies through Singapore's ecosystem.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Indeed, money laundering and the methods employed by money launderers have become increasingly sophisticated. They undertake multiple layering processes to hide their tracks. And obviously, with greater digitalisation, different categories of assets, it is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between legitimate and illicit fund flows. Earlier in my response, I had mentioned that we are taking a whole-of-Government approach to strengthen our monitoring and sense-making capabilities. This would include looking into areas of cybercrime. So, I hope that helps address the Member's question.”