1 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the findings of its review to extend the Working Mother’s Child Relief to single unwed parents; and (b) if the review has not been completed, when will it be available.
2 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the findings of its review to extend the Parenthood Tax Rebate to single unwed parents; and (b) if the review has not been completed, when will the results of the review be available.
\t\tThe Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 1 and 2 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Please do.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mr Louis Ng had asked a similar question at the Committee of Supply in 2020. As MOF explained then, all Singaporean children receive substantial benefits that support their growth and development from the Government, regardless of their parents’ marital status. These include: (a) Child Development Account benefits, including the $3,000 First Step Grant and matched co-savings from Government; (b) $4,000 in MediSave Grant for Newborns; (c) MediShield Life coverage from birth; (d) over $180,000 of education subsidies by the time they turn 16 years old, including pre-school subsidies; and (e) Government healthcare subsidies.
Working mothers, regardless of their marital status, are also entitled to: (a) 16 weeks of Government-Paid Maternity Leave; (b) six days paid Child Care Leave per year for children aged below seven years, or two days for children aged seven to 12; and (c) concessionary Migrant Domestic Worker Levy.
In this way, we support all parents, including unwed working mothers, to give their children education opportunities and good healthcare, so they can realise their fullest potential in life.
The Working Mother’s Child Relief and Parenthood Tax Rebate were instituted to encourage women to continue working after their marriage and childbirth, and to support parenthood within marriage and should be seen in that context. These policies also reflect the prevailing societal norm and values in Singapore.
The Government will continue to work with our community partners to support vulnerable single parents. Those in need of assistance can approach their nearest Social Service Office.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir, and I thank the Second Minister for the reply. Could I just check if a single unwed mother gets married to the father of the child, subsequently gets a divorce, will she then qualify for the Parenthood Tax Rebate and the Working Mother's Child Relief?
Second, I am just hoping again. I have raised this quite a few times now, but I am hoping that MOF looks at this not just from a tax dollar perspective, but from the perspective of whether our policies can result in a more inclusive society. The Minister and I were at the dialogue with single unweds, where they spoke in tears about the stigma they face. So, I hope again that we can change our policies. When the Minister was a backbencher, here, in this House, 16 years ago, she spoke about the concerns, about how single unwed mothers do not feel like they are included in our society.
I hope MOF will review this again and include single unwed mothers and father in our Parenthood Tax rebate and the Working Mother's Child Relief for the mothers.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his clarification or supplementary questions and I commend him for his concern for vulnerable single mothers. I would say this: we too are committed to supporting single mothers. In terms of specific tax measures and how they operate, it is important to remember that certain tax measures were designed originally with a certain social objective. We must be careful not to just transplant or think that a measure that is for one social objective can just be transplanted or extended to meet another social objective.
I think what I can say is this: we will do our best to ensure that single mothers are supported. I am happy to note that the situation now is, in fact, much better than it was 16 years ago when I spoke about this. And we will continue to make it better for them, without, hopefully, distorting the lines too much in terms of where our society feels comfortable in terms of societal values.
I think the takeaway the Member should have is that we will not forget single mothers, working or otherwise. We will make sure that the child is definitely given every opportunity to be supported and we will support the mothers as well.
The specific question that the Member had about the application of the measures, I will check that and we will respond to him. I just want to make sure that the response that is given is accurate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tax Treatment of Revenue of Sale of Non-fungible Tokens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang) asked the Minister for Finance whether the transaction sales revenue of non-fungible tokens are subject to income tax.
\tThe Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, the prevailing income tax rules will apply to income derived from transactions of non-fungible tokens or NFTs. The income tax treatment for NFTs will be determined based on the nature and use of the NFT.
Generally, a person deriving income from NFT transactions or from trading in NFTs will be subject to income tax on such income. However, a person may also derive capital gains from NFT transactions. As Singapore does not have a capital gains tax regime, such gains will not be taxable.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Temporary Electricity Contracting Support Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether EMA will consider extending the Temporary Electricity Contracting Support Scheme (TRECS) beyond May 2022; (b) if so, whether EMA will (i) require all electricity retailers to offer TRECS to consumers and (ii) consider providing guidelines to electricity retailers for TRECS to avoid unfair contractual terms and encourage greater take-up rates by consumers.
\tThe Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tan See Leng) (for the Minister of Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, last month, I shared with this House that the Energy Market Authority (EMA) has extended the Temporary Electricity Contracting Support Scheme (TRECS) from March till May 2022. Thus far, participating generation companies and retailers have been providing sufficient TRECS and retail contracts with significant fixed price components to meet demand, on a voluntary basis.
To ensure that electricity retailers do not impose unfair contractual terms on consumers under TRECS, EMA has worked directly with retailers to ensure that contractual terms such as prices and security deposit requirements are reasonably set. All electricity retailers must comply with the Code of Conduct for Retail Electricity Licensees, called the Code. EMA will not hesitate to investigate and take action against any non-compliance with the Code.
TRECS are one-month contracts. For consumers who want greater certainty, we are also working with generation companies and electricity retailers to offer longer-term, fixed price contracts to consumers who wish to have more price stability. For example, retailers such as Keppel Electric and Sembcorp Power are currently offering longer-term electricity contracts ranging from six-months to three years. Eligible consumers without a retail plan may wish to consider such contracts for greater price certainty.
I would like to assure this House that we are monitoring the energy situation carefully, and are prepared to put in place further support measures, including extending TRECS, should there be a need to.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. I would like to ask the Ministry to clarify whether there is a limit to the amount that generating companies (gencos) can draw on EMA's standby fuel facilities for TRECS. Two, are gencos entitled to draw on EMA standby fuel facilities if they are not participating in TRECS?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Yip for his supplementary question. There is no limit to the amount that can be drawn down for TRECS. If their own gas supplies are disrupted, gencos can also draw on the Standby LNG Facility (SLF) and they have been doing so.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, one business in my constituency recently sought my help and they informed me that they were unable to sign up for TRECS contracts in March, despite applying on 15 February, which it the day that the contracting window opened. They told me that it was fully subscribed that very day. Can I confirm with the Minister, was TRECS fully subscribed for the month of Februrary and if so, how many businesses had to be turned away? Are there plans to increase capacity for TRECS in the months of April and May, given the over-subscription in the month of March?
Lastly, taking into account the current global situation and over-subscribed TRECS, what measures has EMA planned to enhance Singapore's energy security and stabilise Singapore's wholesale electricity market?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Giam for his three supplementary questions. First, if he could get the resident or perhaps Mr Giam himself can write to me, I would be happy to investigate further. Earlier on, I did share in this House that there were 200 megawatts of contracts available for TRECS for February. As of 28 February 2022, there were at least 300 megawatts of contracts that were still available. For his resident who could not get access to the contract, as far as TRECS is concerned, I think there is a bit of a mismatch.
Moving forward, we have monitored it on a very tight basis. Not only do we ensure that we have sufficient capacity as far as TRECS is concerned for the months of March, April and May, EMA has also been negotiating with other gencos to provide for fixed price contracts, on a longer-term basis, between three month and three years, as I shared in my earlier reply to Mr Yip Hon Weng. One of them is Keppel Electric and the other one is SembCorp Power.
Moving forward, in terms of ensuring our energy supplies and energy security, the fact is that there are further plans that are afoot. At this point in time, I am not ready to share these plans as yet. In terms of looking at our standby facilities, in terms of negotiations with imports and so on, our entire team is on it.
To the extent to which we can share, so long as it does not compromise our ability to negotiate these contractual terms, at this point in time, it suffices for me to say that the entire energy team is working on a whole slew of measures to ensure that we do not get any disruptions in our energy supplies.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng: Mr Speaker, I just have a very short supplementary question. Would the Ministry consider making participation in TRECS mandatory for all gencos?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Yip for his suggestion. As the name represents, it is a temporary situation; it is a temporary retail electricity contract scheme. We have made it voluntary because the nature of the generation of electrons is that if you require them to generate the electrons, if there is excess electrons, it gets wasted. Pairing is quite important. You have on the one hand, companies who want to have some form of stability. But there are also concerns about the high prices. TRECS is a short-term measure. What we need is a further, longer-term measure, which EMA has worked on pari passu, in terms of supporting.
Hence, we are quite comforted by the fact that two other gencos, gen retailers have stepped forth to offer longer-term fixed price contracts, ranging from six months to three years, to offer some form of price certainty.
The challenge is that today, TRECS offer the flexibility of a one-month contract, which allows companies to hedge for that one month. Because the prices are quite high today, if they lock themselves for a long term, and if the price should ease off after that, then, it would be very difficult for them to justify that increased cost, moving forward.
Given the volatility that the current situation, the whole world is in today, with a lot of fluctuations happening, I think this is a more nuanced approach. It allows responsiveness and the ability to nimbly work in terms of managing their costs, at least on a month-to-month basis, should the stability return to the market.
\t
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix, unless Members had asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supply Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second and Third Readings read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
In accordance with Article 148(1) of the Constitution, Heads of Expenditure to be met from the consolidated fund and development fund, other than statutory expenditure have to be included in the Bill to be known as the Supply Bill. The purpose of the Supply Bill before Members, is to give legislative approval for the appropriations from the consolidated fund and development fund to meet the expenditure for the Financial Year, 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023.
The Heads of Expenditure and the sums that may be incurred in aspect of each Head, are shown in the Schedule to the Bill. These have been approved by the House in the Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year, 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023, as contained in Paper Cmd No 12 of 2022.
The Supply Bill, when approved, will empower the Minister to issue warrants, authorising Expenditure up to the amount for each Head as shown in the Bill to be paid out from the Consolidated Fund and Development Fund. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time. (proc text)]
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\"
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Second Supplementary Supply (2021) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second and Third Readings read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The purpose of this Bill is to make additional provision in accordance with Articles 148(2) and 148C(2) of the Constitution for expenditure in excess of the sums authorised by the Supply Act 2021. The additional sums have been approved by the House in the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year, 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022, as contained in Paper Cmd No 13 of 2022. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time. (proc text)]
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\"
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Acknowledgement to the Chair ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, it is customary at the end of the Budget process for the Leader to give a speech, being an acknowledgement to the Chair of the House.
We have come to the end of Budget 2022 and the Committee of Supply (COS). Sir, this Budget has been both unusual and memorable for a number of reasons.
First, although we have been battling the pandemic for over two years, this is the first time that it reached the Chamber. Some Members of Parliament (MPs) were close contacts of those who were COVID-positive and took leave of absence out of an abundance of caution even. Special seating arrangements were put in place, so they could feel at ease about still attending.
A number of MPs, myself included, contracted COVID-19 and had to sit out of the proceedings for a while. The virus was not discriminatory. Members of the Ruling Party had it; Ms Sylvia Lim, Ms He Ting Ru from Workers' Party got it; Prof Hoon, a Nominated Member of Parliament got it as well. So, it reached everyone.
But I would like to thank colleagues for their care and concern and expressions of support for all those who were ill. Let me especially thank Mr Louis Ng, who gave the most encouragement and support, primarily because he wanted me to get well in time to answer his Parliamentary Questions (PQs). He did add as an afterthought that he was concerned for my health as well. Thank you, Mr Ng.
Despite this, we did not allow COVID-19 to disrupt our work: 66 speakers spoke over the two and a half days of debate on the Budget Statement; seven days COS in which 639 cuts were filed; we spent a total 73 hours debating the fiscal policy of the Government and the Ministries' Estimates of Expenditures. Approximately 130 PQs were taken in the past two weeks. This is the highest level of participation in the last five years despite the reduced number of Members of Parliament able to attend Parliament.
Second, this Budget was developed against the backdrop of climate change and climate risk which is becoming more urgent by the day.
Third, just as we were about to debate the Budget, the world changed with the situation in Ukraine, reminding us once again that independence, the right to self-determination and territorial sovereignty are precious and should never be taken for granted, and why small countries like Singapore must continue to advocate and uphold an international order that is rules based and principled.
Against this backdrop, we debated and approved one of our most transformative Budgets to date, setting ourselves on a path towards becoming a fairer, greener, more inclusive and overall, more progressive Singapore.
Let me summarise what we have done by approving this Budget.
With this Budget, we will be strengthening our business ecosystem and building stronger Singaporean enterprises. The \"Singapore Global Enterprises\" and the \"Singapore Global Executive Programme\" will help us produce companies and Singaporean talent that are globally competitive. Budget 2022 will also revitalise and support our F&B, retail and tourism sectors. We will continue to press on with our digitalisation journey, while ensuring those less comfortable with technology are not be sidelined.
This Budget affirms our support for our workers, especially low-wage workers. The Progressive Wage Model, Progressive Wage Credit Scheme and enhancement of the workfare income supplement scheme will support and uplift our lower-wage workers. This unique approach is the outcome of intensive effort between the Tripartite partners: the Labour movement, employers and Government.
We can now continue to develop a strong and skilled Singaporean workforce while enabling employers to meet genuine manpower needs by hiring foreigners with relevant skills to complement our local workforce, through the increases in the minimum qualifying salaries for work passes and the COMPASS points-based framework.
We are speeding up our transition to a greener, more sustainable society with the review of our climate plan and the setting of more ambitious goals, the increase in carbon tax, R&D into sustainability, cutting emissions, energy efficiency, renewable and clean energy and zero-waste. As this is not without trade-offs and costs, Singaporeans will be engaged in this endeavour so that we can all have a clear understanding of what it will take to achieve our green ambitions even as we move forward on them.
We have renewed and strengthened our social compact. Cost of living, inflation are very much on people's minds. Almost all Members spoke on this in one way or another. Approving the Household Support Package and other help schemes paves the way for us to help Singaporeans through this tough period. We heard assurance from the Minister for Finance during his round-up speech that the Government would \"not hesitate to take further actions to protect jobs, and to help households and businesses deal with increased costs, if need be.\"
We have ensured we can meet and pay for the healthcare needs of our rapidly ageing population. With Healthier SG we have the blueprint for a new model of healthcare of the future, anchored on prevention as well as cure.
We have continued our educational reforms, reducing pressure and stress so our children can focus on the joy of learning – mid-year examinations for all Primary and Secondary levels will be removed by 2023 and streaming would be removed fully 2024.
We are redoubling our efforts to bridge inequality and make sure no one is left behind. Social service delivery will be improved. ComLink will be scaled up nationwide and UPLIFT expanded. There will be more opportunities for the differently abled.
We reaffirmed the importance of family – 2022 will be the year of celebrating families and strengthening support for families.
All these good things cannot come to pass without funding. To enable them to happen, we enhanced and strengthened our tax structure. We will adjust the corporate tax system to take into account BEPS. We increased the progressivity of our personal income tax. We raised wealth taxes through targeted increases in property tax and tax on luxury cars. And we increased GST with a significant package to buffer its impact and adjusted the timing.
Most Singaporeans will not feel the impact of the GST increase for many years because of the support measures we designed. By coupling GST with GSTV, we ensure that the lower income, including many retirees, will continue to pay less GST than the headline rate. We will study further support if the inflation situation worsens.
And in Parliament, the Budget process saw robust debate. The value of robust debate is that it helps to crystalise the issues and it lets people see where Members of Parliament and Parties stand. And I thought it might be helpful here if I just summarise the difference in approach between the Government and the Opposition, in particular, the Workers' Party, not to reignite the whole debate on this again. But just to summarise what the different philosophical approaches are, so that people can look at it and make their own judgements and determination.
On the Government side, the structures that we have put in place are ones we believe are fair and progressive. There is GST; yes, but will not hurt the low-income because of Permanent GST Voucher scheme, and the Assurance Package will help all Singaporean households, not just the lower-income cope with the transition, and the GST Voucher scheme provides permanent assistance.
Everyone contributes, but those who have more, contribute more. Those with less also contribute but a lesser amount and receive more in return. Keeping the tax burden manageable for all, including businesses so that there is incentive for all to work hard, do well and enjoy the benefits of their hard work even as they contribute to our revenues.
We still maintain the protection of our reserves and we use the income on our reserves equitably – 50% for this generation, 50% for the next.
The Workers' Party has a different philosophical approach. They have preferred not not to raise GST. But I do not think there is any dispute that there is a genuine and real need though to fund healthcare, going forward and that there is a need for increased revenue. To achieve additional revenue of $3.5 billion a year, the net effect of their various proposals is to tax large companies more, tax the rich or use more of the reserves. No matter which way you cut it, it boils down to those three things: tax companies more, tax the rich more, or use more of the reserves.
From our perspective, it is too early to adjust corporate taxes as it will depend on the evolving rules for BEPS 2.0. And even if we are able to collect more in corporate taxes from the revenues from BEPS 2.0, we will have to use these revenues for additional measures to enhance our overall competitiveness and ensure that we can continue to attract our fair share of investments.
On taxing the rich, there are ramifications on whether we will drive away talent and wealth, and that will be bad for Singaporeans. In reality, wealth is mobile, higher taxes on a small group of people at the top who are extremely mobile will eventually lead to higher taxes for upper middle-income or even middle-income groups.
Using more of the reserves means leaving less behind for the next generation and imposing higher taxes on them.
So, I just lay this out at the end of the day, so that people can reflect, make their own conclusions and see how they wish to view this. But I thought when all was said and done, and the dust settled after the debate, it is good just to crystallise the two different positions, so that people will have a more meaningful insight as to what the different propositions actually mean.
Next, with more Opposition Members in Parliament, it is natural that our debates will get more robust. That is par for the course. However, in this session, we are also reminded that whilst robust debate is good, it is also important that Members maintain decorum in their actions, both in and outside of the House.
The Standing Orders are there for a reason. Timelines and deadlines are also there for a reason – to enable us to conduct parliamentary business efficiently but also effectively. I, therefore, urge Members to be mindful of this, so that for future debates, we can have all the cut and thrust that we desire but, at the same time, observing all due proprieties.
Mr Speaker, I would like to conclude by thanking everyone who has contributed to Budget 2022. Let me begin by thanking Members of this House for their strong support and active participation in the Budget and COS debates. It has been a tiring but rewarding two weeks.
The Budget was the product of strong input from Singaporeans from all walks of life; we engaged widely, took in feedback. It reflects our citizens' needs, aspirations and does its best to address their concerns.
I would also like to express my gratitude to all of the public servants who have been working so hard on this, on top of their regular work. Many have had to learn on the job, some have taken on additional \"COVID-fighting\" roles over the past two years or so and then have had to deal with Budget. It has been a tiring time for them but they soldier on, because when they signed up for Public Service, they knew they also signed up to serve, even at personal cost in terms of family time and rest.
I would also like to thank the Deputy Leader for covering for me in my absence.
On behalf of the House, I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, and your deputies for presiding over the proceedings with patience and forbearance. We are also grateful to the Clerk of Parliament, the Parliament Secretariat, the staff, the interpreters and translators, all of whom have been working in overdrive these last few weeks. May we show our appreciation for them. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: This is my fifth Budget. Actually, there were more Budgets if you count the multiple Budgets that we had in 2020. But as a wrap-up speech, this is my fifth one.
It is very challenging. Every year, the night before, or two nights before, barely any sleep because you are trying to distil the last one and a half to two weeks’ worth of discussions, discourse, and all the work done into a “Too Long Didn’t Read” (TLDR) version. It is really difficult. People often say, “Government communications cannot make it! Why is it so complicated? Why can’t you keep it simple?”
I can tell you that Government is trying. But the reality is this: when you are in the business of making things work, when you are in the business of actually having to do the real work and the heavy lifting, the details do matter. It is not quite so straightforward.
You cannot just virtue signal. You cannot just bandy about ideas. It is very different when you have to carry them out.
I remember a few years ago, when Chee Meng was Minister for Education, and I, as a parent, as all of us as parents would have a lot of issues about MOE, said “Eh, why is your MOE policy like that?”. Then, I remember Chee Meng replied to me, “Why don’t we switch jobs. You can come and change the policy”.
Suddenly, everything took on a very different hue. I think we all know that. It is easy to critique and it is important for us to critique. It is easy to toss out ideas. But when we actually have to bear the responsibility of translating those ideas, views and opinions into reality, it looks very, very different.
So, in the same way, I would say that it is very difficult to distil everything down into a meme or a TikTok clip. And I would not be able to do that.
Trade-offs are needed; things take time. As we all know, are we able to satisfy every need and want? We can’t. Many of you here who work, you have your own organisation, whether you are the leader of your political party or your company, school – we know that we are not always able to do that. But we endeavour to do our best. So, it is not easy.
The Budget and COS process is very involved. It can be quite colourful. This year, we had blue and yellow featuring, red and white, and of course, green! I do not know whether Minister Grace Fu is wearing green today. She had been wearing green almost every day.
And it can get quite technical as well. But not to worry. I am not going to repeat all that. I am not going to \"BEPS\" you until you \"COMPASS\", or \"TRECS\" you with \"JOY\" or \"HEIDI\".
But what I will do is to take a step back. We have been going through all the details, the technical and all the different things that are required in the Budget to make things happen. I would like to take a few steps back and perhaps survey the woods and not just look at the trees, the weeds, the bushes, important as they be to the whole eco-system, and to consider the world that we are living in.
And really three main themes: the world we live in, the worries and uncertainties that we are grappling with now; the post-truth world that we live in; and the world that we live in in terms of the bigger stories, noting that all of us zoom into the individual stories that we share. It is important, sometimes, to be able to also zoom out and look at the bigger picture and the bigger story.
Firstly, the world we live – the worries and uncertainties.
We certainly live in worrying and uncertain times. We are still in the grips of COVID-19 although, increasingly, we are learning to live with it. Even as we deal with the economic ramifications of this pandemic that has stricken every nation on earth and affected everyone, we are now caught in the grips of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It may seem remote, but we are all feeling the impact immediately, with petrol prices going up. We worry about inflation. Inflation was a worry even before this conflict. If the West were to suspend purchase of Russian oil and gas, what would that impact be on energy prices and on cost of living? This was a recurrent theme that many of you have raised.
We have been jittery for some time because we are living in a fast-changing world. We are living amid a Fourth Industrial Revolution. We are concerned about things changing as our children go to school and universities, and by the time they graduate, is the world going to move on, is it going to be relevant? We are concerned about the geopolitical implications of the clash between the US and China, and how we are caught up in between them. We are worried about demographic trends in Singapore – by 2030, one in four of us will be 65 and above. What does that mean? Will we lose our verve as an economy? Is that going to affect our jobs? And with that longevity, lower birth rates, the burden on healthcare costs? And we worry also about the climate and how is it going to change and affect us, and especially our children’s generation?
But if there is any consolation, it is affecting everyone on Earth. We are not spared; we are not the only ones; everyone is grappling with these issues.
The key thing is how are we able to address the concerns, both for the present and to stage ourselves for the future; and if we have the means and the ability to do that.
The world we live in is also – and many of you would be familiar with this term – a Post-Truth World, whatever that definition might be. We might have different perceptions of it. But essentially, these days, truth might seem indeterminant, malleable. After all, who determines the “truth”? Does Parliament determine the truth? Do you determine the truth? Does the Government determine the truth? Do facts and evidence matter? Or is truth determined by “Well, this is what I believe, what I feel, what I hear”, and therefore it becomes the “truth”? Is it based on whoever says it loudest? Whoever says it more passionately, eloquently, or more coolly? But that is the world we live in.
Many of us zoom in and share stories about how individuals are affected. Stories are incredibly powerful. We use stories to illustrate gaps and concerns so that we can have better policies to help. Some use stories to inspire. But some use stories to indict, to remonstrate.
So, stories are powerful. But we all know that stories can be false. Stories can be half-true. Stories can also be used out of context. And the question for us as leaders and Parliamentarians is, what do we do with these stories?
On the ground, we know how these examples could manifest itself. For example, in my area in Chai Chee, we have rental flats. You can go to a rental flat and some of you who are involved in the work will realise when you come to a flat, it is messy, a lot of stuff that is there. And the smell of stale sweat, urine. And you feel, how on earth can Singaporeans live in such abject poverty in First World Singapore? How have we failed them? How society has failed them. How Government has failed them.
But if you step next door, in the same one-room rental flat, the neighbour, it is clean, tidy. In fact, some of my residents take great pride in explaining to me how they go to Daiso and decorate their house quite nicely with whatever they buy from Daiso. You walk away with quite different impressions. Wow! You are impressed by their resilience, by their ingenuity.
We talk about the metaverse, but this is almost like a multi-verse that we live in. Same, similar facts, stories, but then we walk away with very different impressions. It depends on the context.
For those of us involved in the work, you will know that sometimes, it is because of mental health issues, because of hoarding; sometimes, because of mobility issues – the individuals are not able to upkeep the flats. Whose responsibility would it be? Individuals? Do we then not ask, where is the family in the overall scheme of things? Where are the neighbours? Where is the community? And the Government has a role to play.
But this is how stories can manifest themselves in many, many different ways. We are living in a world where we have more information than ever before. In fact, information is increasing at exponential rates. But we are not necessarily better informed. We are, like I said earlier, the TLDR generation. If it takes a few more swipes left or right, up or down, it just takes too much time, it is just too tedious.
We have so much information we don’t know how to process it. We have so much to distract us: Netflix, Minecraft, K-Drama, and some of you have been playing Wordle or Quordle, which is even worse! The list goes on and on. Many of us are better educated, more critically minded. But if we ask ourselves honestly, how many of us actually read? Or do we just scan? And because we are kind of smart and we have opinions and views about things, do we formulate those opinions very quickly? Or are we just too busy with all the different things distracting us? We go to certain commentators for their distillation of the issues of the day rather than just reading it ourselves. We have “live” broadcast of Parliament today, but how many of us actually go to the source and actually listen to what was said? Or do we listen to what is being said by others? Do we fact-check?
That is the world we live in. You can lament all you want, you can describe it, but that is the reality.
Minister Iswaran shared from Ernest Hemingway’s “The Sun Also Rises”. I am less cultured than he is, so I can only share from a book that I find quite telling, “Factfulness” by Hans Rosling. While some might criticise Rosling for being overly positive, my main takeaway is that, as human beings, our nature, are we sometimes not really very evidence-based? We are very much driven by emotions. That is why stories are so powerful. We have this instinct to be negative, “Oh, the world is a lot worse than it is today”. But is it really? We tend to blame, we like to generalise and so on. It distorts the way we look at things.
When we look at the combination of these different things in the world that we are living in today, it has real implications. We see around the world today, for example, the divisions and the polarisation of American society. And I believe that even the storming of Capitol Hill is arguably a physical and violent manifestation of that. BREXIT also happened on the back of a number of fraudulent claims by political leaders. It is a monumental decision. We wish them well. But there are real-life implications to how all these things play themselves out.
The important question for all of us as leaders in this Parliament, in this environment, is to realise that this playbook, sadly, actually works. Which is why you see many politicians using it. The rise of the far-right or even the far-left are examples of that. Playing the anti-foreigner card. We see that happening the world over. Race and religion is an easy game to play because it is so primordial in every society. Do we play fast and loose with the stories we use? Do we just lift “facts” from chat groups, or wherever it might be? Do we use anecdotes recounted to us without checking whether it is true? Do we verify? Or is it a case of what I believe is true and therefore, it is? Also, in this world where we are all politically correct, are we just too shy, too scared to take a stand, lest we be accused of being closed-minded, being cancelled out on social media?
It is happening around the world. This is a reality of the world – it is not going to go away. I think it is just going to get worse, if you will. But the important question both for us as Members of Parliament and Singaporeans at large is what do we do with that? And especially for us in this Chamber, how do we then carry out our roles? Do we exploit these gaps and these trends? Or do we rise above it and take a different course?
We lead only because there is trust and respect. When that erodes, we have no basis to lead. Often, the negativity and misinformation serve to do one thing. To erode trust. What happens then? Do we end up being no different from any Internet forum? That is something all of us need to decide. We need to ask ourselves, is it creeping into our own political discourse?
The last point I would like to end on is the bigger story, the world we live in. We zoom into all these individual stories and like I said, they are important, but as leaders, we must also have the ability to zoom out and sometimes remind ourselves of the larger trends.
We are here debating all these issues. But we sometimes forget all the different things that are happening around us. I would like to thank the many who are involved in Budget and COS 2022 – our Clerks, our ushers, our translators, our cleaners, every day who keep our space clean and hygienic, our security colleagues, our tea ladies who help us with our beverages, Leader, Deputy Leader, Deputy Speakers, our journalists out there who are actively reporting to try to keep everyone informed. And a very big “Thank You” to every single one of you who has made this possible.
I also want to take the opportunity to thank our public officers who continue to serve to the best of their ability, despite the challenging times. Many of them, apart from creating policies, are also at the frontlines because they need to double up, because there are other responsibilities. Dr Tan Yia Swam, Dr Wan Rizal and Dr Janil have talked about being understanding to our healthcare workers. I think it is worth reminding us to bear in mind to treat all our public officers with decency and respect. They are doing their best. No one is perfect. There will be those who fall afoul of what we would expect of them. But for the vast majority of them, they are doing their best to look after all of us. It behooves us to at least accord them that basic dignity and respect.
I remember during the debate on public housing a few days ago, I was quite struck by it. We were discussing about waiting times for HDB flats, eligibility ages, about housing in prime locations, about EIP concerns. Of course, there are areas to improve and there are concerns that we need to assuage. But I am also reminded by my many residents who come to me to tell me that they are going off, some of them getting married, forming new families, they email me, they message me. As we are talking about the different things to improve on, many of our foreign visitors, as you talk to them, are remarkably impressed about our public housing policies: 80 % of Singaporeans live in public housing; 73% – like many of my residents, they are not high-income Singaporeans, they are middle-, lower-middle Singaporeans – 73% of them service their loans with CPF, with no cash outlay. For low-income families, I have a number of rental blocks as well, we have, in total, about 4,500 families in the last five years who have gained home ownership. And another 2,200 who have booked their new flats.
At a wake two nights ago, a senior executive shared – at first, it would seem he was griping that the sandwiched class is not getting anything and only the lower-income gets – that he works in the aviation industry and he was quite candid, that without the Government grants and assistance, he might have lost his job. Many more of his colleagues might have lost their jobs. And in many indirect ways, he has benefited too. I am glad that he acknowledged that. Many of my residents share the same, whether they are running big businesses, small businesses, many of them having jobs in management positions, they are glad that the policies that all of you have created have helped.
The employment figures speak for themselves. Our employment rate for those aged 15 and above, is 67.2% in June 2021. It is the highest on record. In January, our unemployment rate is 3.1%, and it is close to back where it was pre-COVID-19 times. Real income has moved, especially at the lower income level. With all the different steps taken, with Progressive Wage, with Workfare, it will continue to go up. You have seen the projections in terms of where those wages will go.
From a healthcare perspective, I think a lot of us will have views about how the COVID-19 situation should be run. But I guess the question we should ask ourselves is, “If we were in the position of the MTF, what would we do?”. When we have to balance life and livelihood, would it be quite so simple?
The truth is, as you take a step back, you see we have a strong trust among our people, a strong trust between our people and our healthcare authorities, which allowed us to be able to carry out our safe management measures (SMMs); which allowed us to be able to be vaccinated; which had enabled us to keep deaths low and serious illnesses at bay, by and large, and enabled us to move on to the next stage, to deal with the concerns that we have.
Schools remained open, students continued to be educated. On the social front, despite all the challenges, we look at the contributions. Many groups have stepped up to help. President’s Challenge, for example, in 2019, raised $13.2 million. In 2020, it went up to $16.1 million. Slight dip in 2021 but $15 million still. ComChest, normally, $56 million a year. FY20, it is $87 million. Giving.sg, $93.4 million in 2020, $95.6 million in 2021. And the list goes on.
Minister Lawrence Wong was asked, amid all the concerns with cost and inflation and so on, what would we do. I will just end off on this point. It is that we are in good health.
The policies that we have taken are not easy. The easiest path to take for any government of the day is to spend and keep your electorate happy. In my view, it is completely politically naïve to talk about balanced Budget, to talk about tax increases when you have reserves. I do not know what the reserves comprise. Temasek and MAS, we know. And GIC, I am not even going to ask Minister Lawrence what the amount is, but we keep it confidential for strategic reasons. But we do have a fair bit of reserves. And we have seen how that came into play in the last few years. Should the situation arise in the coming years, I have no doubt that MOF would step in and do what needs to be done. But we are only able to do that because we are healthy. We have our powder kept dry. And that is the only powder that we have. We have nothing else.
Which is why a Budget like this is important. As we deal with the present, we also need to deal with the future. As we deal with the individual needs, we also need to step back and look at the bigger picture. It is important that we do that. Be disciplined, do what we can. But all these can only be done when you have the support of the people.
And in Parliament, as we debate this, it is important that we communicate as effectively as we can, win the hearts and minds. We are not going to be able to convince everyone. Not everyone will feel that they benefit equally. But on balance, are we able to uplift lives? Are we able to make things better for Singaporeans? Are we able to make things better for Singapore, for today and for tomorrow?
I believe that we have laid the foundations for this. And I am grateful to all who have contributed to that on both sides of the House to debate the issues. It now leaves for us, as we have passed all the necessary Bills and so on, to execute it and to make it happen, to improve on it, and to build on it, so that we come back again next year and repeat the process, so that we can make the difference.
Of all the countries in the world, as we are all struggling with all the challenges that we face, I think we can be confident that we have the wherewithal to look after our people. And to look after our people well today, and for tomorrow. [Applause.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister of State for Health): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Health, I beg to move that \"The Bill be now read a Second time.\"
This Bill proposes a single amendment, to extend the validity of Part 7 of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020 (CTMA) for an additional year. There will be no other changes to Part 7 of the CTMA, which will continue to enable targeted public health measures to be implemented and adjusted for the purpose of controlling the incidence and transmission of COVID-19, based on the evolving COVID-19 situation.
In the past few months, we have taken a three-pronged approach in our response to the COVID-19 pandemic. First, we have put in place the National Vaccination Programme to ensure that the population is well protected from disease through vaccination.
Second, we enhanced our healthcare capacity to handle the surges in cases and adjusted our healthcare protocols to right-site care. For example, lower-risk individuals with mild symptoms can be managed by their primary care doctors, while those at higher risk are assessed for management or monitoring at a care facility or hospital.
Third, we have continued to implement safe management measures (SMMs), such as limits on group and event sizes, safe distancing and work-from-home arrangements, to ensure community cases do not rise out of control and overwhelm our healthcare capacity.
In recent days, we have seen the number of COVID-19 cases peaking. There are indications that the wave is starting to subside and we are optimistic that with everyone's cooperation in adhering to public health measures, our healthcare system will continue to be able to tend to persons needing care. However, we must bear in mind that the pandemic is not over yet. New variants and new waves remain a possibility – it is quite a natural thing that viruses continue to evolve and mutate over time, as we have seen with previous variants. When such cases and events happen and whether they affect disease transmission and severity, cannot be predicted ahead of time. New variants can break through borders and we have seen this even in countries with strict zero COVID-19 strategies, resulting in forceful measures having to be implemented, painful ones, like lockdowns.
If Singapore’s re-opening is not carefully managed, infections may rise uncontrollably and potentially overstrain or even cause the collapse of our entire healthcare system. Even now, our healthcare workers have been labouring, since the pandemic started, for the past two years. SMMs are still needed for now and we will take a gradual and calibrated approach even as we move towards a greater degree of normalcy in our communities, businesses, workplaces and travels. While we have moved away from lockdowns, which are harmful to the well-being of our people and the economy, we must keep a position where we are nimble and ready to take appropriate measures should the situation worsen or change.
Part 7 of the CTMA (\"Part 7\"), which allows the Minister for Health to make regulations for the purpose of prevention and control of COVID-19 incidence or transmission, therefore remains relevant. As the key legal lever behind various SMMs, Part 7 has served us well by allowing for a multi-faceted public health response to COVID-19. It allowed us to weather the Delta and Omicron waves by slowing transmission.
The Multi-Ministry Taskforce (MTF) had previously announced plans to simplify and rationalise our COVID-19 SMMs to focus on the five most important and effective measures: mask-wearing; group sizes; capacity limits; safe distancing and workplace arrangements. Group size and safe distancing, for instance, limit the number of interactions persons would have at any point in time, especially in higher risk settings. This reduces the overall number of interactions a day and therefore limits disease spread. Capacity limits are important to prevent overcrowding which can lead to superspreading events.
In time to come, as case numbers display a sustained and consistent falling trend and the COVID-19 situation abates, we will ease measures along these five key SMMs by adjusting the relevant regulations.
Sir, a one-year extension of Part 7 of the CTMA will allow us to remain nimble and adaptable to the evolving pandemic situation and face any possible new variants. If COVID-19 ceases to be a threat before the end of this one year, the regulations can be repealed and Part 7 can be allowed to lapse. However, if more variants and infection waves take hold, the regulations under Part 7 will continue to be important for the protection of public health. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to hear the Health Minister mention during the COS debate a few days ago that the current Omicron wave has peaked. I will share three perspectives on this Bill.
First, I would like to propose a more specific modality of extension. The Bill, along with Safe Management Measures (SMMs) and Vaccination-differentiated Safe Management Measures (VDS) have allowed us to react as quickly as we did towards the more infectious Omicron variants, without the need to resort to lockdowns.
This is so that businesses, schools and life in general can go on with minimal disruptions. While we should remain vigilant against possible new variants, I ask whether there is a need to extend the Bill for another full year. What happens next year, if the virus continues to exist and mutate? Do we extend this indefinitely?
From my conversations with my Yio Chu Kang residents, many dread the thought of continued restrictions on social gatherings, economic activities and events. They ask how is this endemic living if we continue to live with these nationwide restrictions that impact social well-being and businesses? I am not suggesting that we do away with the measures. But I hope the Ministry can and will introduce more certainty. Rather than this be given carte blanche, can MOH extend the clauses for a certain period of time only if we hit a certain trigger point, for example, if the R number or the number of deaths go up to a certain rate.
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir , I would like to ask whether the current SMM and VDS measures can be further streamlined. Several Members have spoken about this. I am glad to hear from the Senior Minister of State that MOH is intending to do this although the implementation was delayed, given the current Omicron situation. But we can certainly do more.
An example is the new SMM and VDS measures for coffee shops and canteens. The vendors may have more options now, but I have received feedback from the ground about how confusing the new measures are. Even some young patrons have trouble making sense of them, let alone seniors. Operators, too, have reported hesitancy to adopt the new measures, given that the added hassle and manpower to ensure compliance. I believe the abuse that some hawkers received from angry and confused patrons when VDS was first introduced last year remains fresh in their minds.
I have filed a Parliamentary Question on this matter and I look forward to the Ministry's response. I also believe that entry into markets and sitting arrangements in hawker centres can be standardised to reduce confusion.
Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, we should do more to nudge the unvaccinated people to get their shots. There is a general consensus among healthcare professionals and researchers that unvaccinated persons are in danger of severe symptoms and death, which increase the workload for the healthcare system.
Unvaccinated people also increase the risk of emergence of new variants. This is why VDS remains relevant. However, they cannot continue indefinitely as these measures also pose a burden to businesses, institutions and organisations. Can the Ministry share what are the plans to nudge the remaining unvaccinated individuals to get vaccinated, especially those who are not medically exempted? We can now leverage on non-mRNA vaccines with high efficacy, like Novavax and oral anti-viral medication, for treatment of patients who are at risk of severe disease.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand and support the need to continue enforcing COVID-19 safe management measures. There is continued evidence that our existing public health measures help to reduce transmission even within the same household. There is still much we do not know much about COVID-19. Studies continue to reveal new possible long-term health complications associated with the virus, such as cognitive decline.
As we move towards improved vaccines and treatment, avoiding or delaying an infection is important. We are not yet out of the woods. Our healthcare workers continue to struggle with large numbers of COVID-19 cases and they deserve a long overdue break.
Our residents are also frustrated and weary. This has been a long drawn-out battle. While things have definitely been looking up in the past year with the vaccines and boosters, we are still extending and introducing COVID-19 management measures. We need more specific goal posts and simplified measures. This is so that the light at the end of the tunnel does not seem out of reach. I support the Bill.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to extend the operation of Part 7 of the COVID-19 Temporary Measures Act for a year, from 8 April this year to the same date next year. Part 7 of the Act concerns the making of control orders by the Minister for Health for the purpose of preventing, protecting against, delaying or otherwise controlling the incidence of transmission of COVID-19 in Singapore.
Sir, the Act was first enacted in April two years ago, at the start of the pandemic. Two years on, some other parts of the Act are no longer in force or will expire soon. This is a welcome indication that the general direction is to move towards normalcy in our lives and interactions.
On Part 7, the proposal in the Bill to extend its operation by another year appears to be prudent, since COVID-19 is still spreading widely in Singapore. Furthermore, in the months ahead, we do not know whether any variant of concern may emerge. It is, therefore, sensible to empower the Minister for Health to issue control measures, if assessed to be necessary to protect public health, including not overwhelming healthcare services.
Nevertheless, looking at where Singapore stands today, it is a matter of time before control measures should be further rolled back or discontinued altogether. Two years on into the pandemic, we are in a much stronger position on health impacts.
Firstly, COVID-19 is probably endemic now. Our official case numbers, as of today, stand at more than 885,000, or 16% of the Singapore population. Taking into account cases not officially reported, the percentage of the population who have contracted COVID-19 is probably significantly more.
Secondly, there is wide vaccine coverage of our population today. As at 9 March, the MOH reports that 91% has been fully vaccinated, with about 69% having received booster jabs.
Further, there are more prevention and treatment options, including a wider range of vaccines, including non-mRNA ones, as well as anti-viral oral drugs to treat COVID-19 patients. That said, the fact that COVID-19 is spreading widely through our population, even with such high vaccination rates, should lead us to continue to review whether the control measures we currently have in place remain fit for purpose. They also add significant cost to businesses and entities which need to implement them and inconvenience members of the public.
Sir, all in all, we are in a much better position to deal with the health impacts of COVID-19 than at the start of the pandemic. As such, while I support the Bill as prudent, the next one year should ideally see Singapore continue to move significantly towards normalcy. There are promising signs here and elsewhere, with the reopening of international borders, and I note that the Minister for Transport announced this week that Singapore is aiming to restore international air travel through Changi Airport to at least 50% of pre-pandemic levels this year.
Indeed, regular reviews on the efficacy and necessity for any control measures are warranted, so that our people and businesses can return to vibrant economic and social lives as soon as practicable.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, I thank both Members who spoke for their support of the Bill and I totally agree with some of the sentiments they have about challenges we face, how far we have gone and some of the things that we should look forward to in the year coming. Members of the House, however, have also sought clarifications on some issues and allow me to take the House through some of them.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how we can do more to encourage persons who are sceptical of the mRNA vaccines to take up vaccination to protect themselves. As previously highlighted in Parliament, the Novavax Nuvaxovid vaccine has been authorised by the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) and recommended by the expert committee on COVID-19 vaccination for use under our National Vaccination Programme, as an alternative to the mRNA vaccines.
The first batch of Nuvaxovid vaccine is expected to arrive sometime in the months ahead, barring any shipment delays. This will provide those who may have hesitancy receiving the mRNA vaccine an alternative and I hope they do take this seriously and consider getting themselves vaccinated. Even though Omicron causes less severe disease than the Delta strain, during this recent Omicron wave, the 3% of adults who were partially or unvaccinated contributed to 20% of our ICU cases, occupied two-thirds of our ICU beds and caused about 30% or so of the mortality that we see.
So, they do pose a significant load on our healthcare resources and, therefore, VDS is still necessary to protect the unvaccinated and prevent our healthcare system from being overwhelmed. Once the Omicron wave has subsided, we will be in a better position to ease our measures further.
COVID-19 therapeutics were mentioned by Ms Sylvia Lim and, indeed, they have been authorised by HSA. But I must explain that they are meant to mitigate the risk of progression to severe illnesses from COVID-19 infection. Whereas vaccination serves as a more preventive role, that goes further upstream to prevent COVID-19 infection and not allow severe illnesses to take place in the first place. Therapeutics are, therefore, complementary and not substitutes for vaccination.
Let me share some data, which are actually quite compelling. Non fully-vaccinated adults infected with Omicron variant, which supposedly is already milder than Delta, are up to 18 times more likely to end up in ICU and 38 times more likely to die from COVID-19 infection, compared to vaccinated and boosted adults.
In fact, we see that the unvaccinated children between zero to 11 years old are at risk of Multi-System Inflammatory Syndrome for Children (MISC), that some Members may have read about in the newspapers as well. The incidence in an unvaccinated child can be as high as 470 cases per million infections.
Even for the adult population of all age groups, an unvaccinated person is at risk of a one-in-10 chance of getting long COVID-19 after a COVID-19 infection and it has been proven time and again that vaccination can reduce this risk significantly. So, vaccination is still key to us remaining safe, both on a personal level and at the system level.
Mr Yip Hon Weng also sought clarification on the rationalisation of SMMs that the MTF recently announced and whether they can be further simplified. In fact, as explained, this rationalisation is, itself, a way to simplify the SMMs into just five key parameters. It makes it easier for the public to understand and, in the coming weeks, as we see the cases continue to show a sustained decline, we can then further ease measures along these key parameters.
I note Mr Yip Hon Weng has actually filed a Parliamentary Question on the restrictions at coffee shops and canteens. So, I seek the Member's understanding that my colleagues at MSE will look into this and address it at a subsequent Sitting.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if we might consider a shorter period of extension of Part 7 and base the extension on specific indicators. Ms Sylvia Lim also mentioned that the control measures should be constantly reviewed and make sure that they are fit for purpose. I agree with her. In fact, we monitor the weekly infection growth rate, the R number, as an indication of virus transmissibility as well as other matrices, like mortality rate, hospital occupancy and our healthcare manpower.
But each variant, as we have seen in the past two years, has somewhat different characteristics and slightly different behaviour, compared to each other and, therefore, no single set of parameters can be solely relied upon and we have to remain nimble and take all factors into account in designing any of these restrictions.
As mentioned in my opening speech, we take a calibrated approach in the control measures and have made progressive adjustments to the SMMs as the COVID-19 situation evolves. Members will certainly recall, when the pandemic first started, we actually went into a circuit breaker and, subsequently, a series of Heightened Alert phases, as we cautiously, gradually, tried to reopen social and economic activities to manage the infection risk in our largely unvaccinated population at that time.
With good progress in our national vaccination efforts towards the end of 2021, our collective resilience and immunity and defence against the virus were strengthened. So, we were able to ride through the wave of Delta infection without resorting to a circuit breaker again and, therefore, we have calibrated some of the measures in dealing with this virus as our own situation evolves.
When this current Omicron wave hit us, our population had achieved a high vaccination and booster rate, allowing us to then continue on with our progressive reopening and our move towards endemicity, without further tightening of restrictions.
Such a move would have been unthinkable one-and-a-half years ago and our healthcare system at that time could well have been overwhelmed if the same numbers of daily infections were to be seen at that point.
So, this clearly attests to the effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines and the trust and unity of our people in responding to the call to get vaccinated and boosted. Our adjustments to Protocols 123 and the maintenance of some SMMs have allowed us to ride through this wave currently without causing our healthcare system to collapse.
Like Members, I, too, hope that we can eventually dispense with the restrictions. In a best-case scenario when COVID-19 ceases to be a threat before the end of 12 months, regulations that are no longer relevant can be repealed and Part 7 can be allowed to lapse. In the opposite scenario, if a variant that can cause more severe illness takes hold, the regulations under Part 7 will continue to be important for the protection of public health.
Sir, a one-year extension will provide the flexibility for us to adjust and calibrate COVID-19 measures accordingly and I thank Members for their support of this amendment. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Koh Poh Koon)]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Gambling Control Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Tan) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, \"That the Gambling Control Bill be now read a Second time\".
Sir, the Gambling Control Bill is related to the next Bill, the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore Bill. With your permission, I would like to propose that the substantive debate on the two Bills be taken together now. This will allow for a more efficient and holistic debate and enable Members to raise questions or express their views on both Bills at the same time.
Mr Speaker, Singapore adopts a strict but pragmatic approach towards gambling. Gambling is prohibited unless licensed or exempted. The Government does not encourage gambling, but allows some forms of gambling in a controlled and safe environment. Total prohibition will drive gambling underground and cause more law-and-order and social issues.
These two Bills will not change this approach, which has worked well for Singapore. Gambling-related crimes remain low and the problem gambling situation remains under control with robust social safeguards.
That said, two emerging trends can have a significant impact on the gambling landscape.
First, technology has changed the way people gamble. People can now gamble anywhere and anytime through their smart phones and electronic devices. This has led to an increase in online gambling. The percentage of online turnover for Singapore Pools’ sports betting has grown in the past five years from 30% to 80%.
Second, the boundaries between gambling and gaming have also blurred, which may normalise gambling behaviour, if unchecked. We see new forms of gambling emerging. The younger generation prefers products with an element of skill, compared to just purely based on chance. Businesses have also adapted by introducing gambling elements in products that were traditionally not perceived as gambling, such as mystery boxes.
To keep pace with this evolving gambling landscape, we will amend gambling legislation to establish the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore, or GRA, as the single regulator for all forms of gambling. GRA will continue to work with MSF and the National Council on Problem Gambling, or NCPG, to protect Singaporeans from the harms of gambling. The Singapore Police Force will continue to be responsible for enforcement against illegal gambling activities.
Sir, allow me now to go through each Bill in turn.
First, the Gambling Control Bill. The Bill consolidates the existing laws regulating gambling outside the casinos. It replaces the Betting Act (1960), the Common Gaming Houses Act (1961), the Private Lotteries Act (2011) and the Remote Gambling Act (2014), which will all be repealed. The Bill makes consequential and related amendments to the Casino Control Act (2006) and other Acts.
The Bill seeks to achieve three key objectives.
First, we want to address emerging trends and products, like mystery boxes and loot boxes in video games.
Second, we want to ensure consistency in our regulatory treatment of different products. As mentioned, our current regulatory mechanisms for gambling are presently distributed across legislation enacted over 64 years and they are organised along the gambling products and the modality of gambling.
Third, we want to enhance social safeguards.
In formulating the Bill, we took in feedback from stakeholders engaged between April 2020 and August 2021, including social service agencies, religious groups, industry groups and also the wider public.
Mr Speaker, I will now highlight the main clauses of the Gambling Control Bill.
Part 1 of the Bill introduces the fundamental concepts and the purposes of the Bill. We will amend the definition of gambling to make it technology-neutral to cover existing and emerging gambling products.
Clause 4 defines gambling as betting, gaming activity and participating in a lottery, similar to the Remote Gambling Act.
Clause 5 expands the definition of betting from the Remote Gambling Act to go beyond horseracing and sporting events, to also include the outcome of a race, competition, sporting event or other event or process; the likelihood of anything occurring or not occurring; or whether anything is or is not true.
Clause 5(2) excludes products that MHA has no intention of treating as gambling products, such as investment in financial products already regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore.
To address the transnational nature of online gambling activities, clause 11 states that the definition of remote gambling covers situations where the facilities are outside of Singapore whether in part or in full. The prohibition and offences apply even if the offenders reside overseas, as long as their customers are in Singapore, similar to the Remote Gambling Act.
Currently, physical social gambling is not disallowed under the Common Gaming Houses Act and the Betting Act. Such activities are commonplace amongst many Singaporeans, such as playing mahjong at home. Law-and-order concerns are low.
Clause 12 defines “social gambling” and exempts physical social gambling, as long as it meets the following key conditions. First, the gambling activity must be conducted in an individual’s home. This excludes public places, such as void decks, coffee shops, hotels and chalets. Second, the participants must be members of the same family or know each other personally. Third, the activity must not be conducted for the private gain of any person who is not participating in the gambling or in the course of any business; and no participant should be able to obtain a benefit other than winning. For example, no commission, charge or fee should be imposed or sought from the participants.
Online social gambling will continue to be disallowed. It is difficult, if not impossible, to establish whether participants are socially acquainted online.
Police will be practical in enforcing social gambling breaches but will be firm against criminal syndicates that exploit the exemption to conduct illegal gambling. We will continue to allow some forms of gambling in a controlled and safe environment. Parts 4 and 5 of the Bill provide for licensing persons providing gambling services and regulating associated aspects, such as the gambling venues, games and gaming machines.
The licensing regime will replace the various gambling permit and exemption regimes under today’s gambling legislation.
Part 4 Division 1 of the Bill allows GRA to issue licences to gambling operators for certain gambling products. These are fruit machines for recreational clubs, Singapore Pools’ products and gambling among members at private establishments, such as recreational clubs and societies.
In granting or renewing licences, GRA will consider the factors set out in clause 54.
To mitigate law-and-order concerns, clause 55 allows GRA to screen operators and their management to assess their suitability.
In particular, MHA will introduce a new licensing regime for gambling among members at private establishments, such as social clubs and clans. Currently, private establishments do not need to apply for a licence in order to have gambling on their premises. They are legally allowed to provide gambling in games, such as mahjong, for their members within their premises through an exemption regime, so long as they meet stipulated conditions, such as the type of games allowed and the number of participants.
While this arrangement has worked well over the years, we are concerned with signs of illegal gambling taking root in private establishments. To address this, we propose to move to a licensing regime. Once the Bill comes into force, private establishments will have to apply for a licence. This will allow us to screen key personnel of their suitability to hold a gambling operator licence. We will also introduce surveillance requirements for the purpose of enforcement to these licensed private establishments. That said, MHA will continue to adopt a risk-calibrated approach to address the risk of criminal exploitation.
Part 4 Division 2 introduces a class licence regime for GRA to regulate lower-risk gaming or gambling products, including mystery boxes, online games with gambling elements and business promotion lucky draws. A class licence regime differs from a licensing regime in that an operator does not need to apply for a licence. The class-licensed operator can operate as long as the stipulated conditions, to be specified in subsidiary legislation, are met.
Clause 140 and the Second Schedule contain the saving and transitional provisions for existing permits and exemptions under the current legislation. We would like to highlight a typographical error in the Explanatory Statement. Persons who are exempt under current laws can continue providing the gambling service for a fixed period of five to 12 months, instead of two to five months as stated.
Let me move on to the provisions that update and harmonise gambling legislation.
We have rationalised the offences and penalties across existing gambling legislation. Part 2 of the Bill sets out the offences pertaining to gambling operations, gambling places, gaming machines and others.
All gambling activities will be prohibited unless they are licensed or exempted, regardless whether it is conducted online or physically. Unlawful gambling activity will be an offence for all persons involved – from the gambling operators, to the agents and the individual punters.
We will apply a three-tier penalty structure for unlawful gambling offences, differentiating between the operators who set up the unlawful gambling activity; the agents who facilitate the conduct of the activity; and the punters who participate in the activity.
The highest penalties will be imposed on operators, as their culpability is highest, followed by agents and then punters. We will enhance the penalties for unlawful gambling to send a strong deterrent signal to criminal syndicates. The Bill imposes mandatory imprisonment for operators and agents of unlawful gambling activities, similar to existing Acts. We will impose higher penalties for repeat offenders who facilitate and operate unlawful gambling services.
We will also criminalise proxy gambling in fruit machine rooms and casinos, in clauses 28 and 135(1) respectively. Proxy gambling occurs when an individual gambles on behalf of another person, thereby circumventing entry checks which is meant to screen out persons specially under entry bans. The offence will only apply to casinos and fruit machine rooms where the law-and-order and social concerns are higher, but not to other gambling settings like Singapore Pools' outlets. For example, in 2018, an individual who was bankrupt and excluded from the casino asked his wife to gamble in the casino on his behalf. We were unable to take them to task at that time, as proxy gambling was not criminalised previously.
Part 3 of the Bill sets out the evidence and presumptions to aid Police and authorised officers in effecting arrests and initiating investigations. Many of the presumptions are present in existing gambling legislation.
We have included a new presumption clause 46 in relation to inducement to gamble. A person who is referred to in the inducement for payment or further information is presumed to have sent the inducement unless he proves his lack of consent and involvement in the sending of the inducement. In the case of inducement of underaged students in schools through direct marketing materials, the sender is presumed to have known that the students receiving them were already underaged, unless he proves otherwise. This will allow for more effective prosecution of such persons.
Part 9 of the Bill grants powers to Police and authorised officers, defined in clause 122, to take enforcement actions for gambling-related crimes. These powers include requiring a person to furnish information, as well as the powers of entry, inspection and seizure.
Clause 112 confers powers of arrest without warrant to an authorised officer, such as a GRA officer, over any individual reasonably believed to have committed an arrestable offence under this Act. Unlike Police officers, the power to arrest can only be exercised in specific situations, such as in approved gambling venues.
Clause 123 provides for the appointment of compliance officers by GRA with the approval of the Minister. GRA employs these outsourced private sector experts to assist with compliance audits. We have tightly scoped the powers conferred on these individuals, to only obtaining information for their assessment in clause 110.
Clauses 117, 118 and 120 detail the access blocking and payment blocking regimes related to unlawful online gambling activities, similar to the Remote Gambling Act.
Mr Speaker, I will now explain the provisions that enhance social safeguards.
The minimum age for gambling will remain at 21 years old, except for gambling at Singapore Pools' physical outlets, which will remain at 18 years old, as set out in clause 13. Related to this, we will introduce three sets of offences pertaining to underaged individuals.
Clause 31 criminalises gambling by underaged individuals. This sends a strong deterrent signal to underaged persons that they should not be gambling.
Clause 32 criminalises entering gambling areas by underaged individuals, for example, when an underaged person enters a fruit machine room. Singapore Pools' physical outlets are excluded from this offence, as it is impractical to implement entry checks for these outlets. We will also criminalise opening of an online gambling account with Singapore Pools by underaged individuals.
To better protect underaged persons, we will also criminalise gambling with underaged individuals, with the exception of social physical gambling, in clause 30; inducing underaged individuals to engage in gambling that is not social physical gambling in clause 34; and employing underaged individuals to conduct gambling in clause 35.
Currently, exclusion orders are issued under the Casino Control Act by NCPG, Commissioner of Police and the Casino Regulatory Authority, or CRA.
The Casino Control Act provides that exclusion orders issued by NCPG prevent persons from entering the rooms to mitigate the harm of gambling to the excluded persons and their family. In addition, individuals under NCPG's exclusion orders are also prevented from entering fruit machine rooms or accessing Singapore Pools' online gambling services using operators' exemption or permit conditions, that is, they are barred administratively instead of through provisions in the gambling legislation. That is today.
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
Exclusion orders issued by Commissioner of Police and CRA also prevent persons from entering the casinos as these persons pose law-and-order or regulatory concerns. However, there are no legislative provisions to allow Commissioner of Police and CRA to prevent persons from entering fruit machine rooms or accessing Singapore Pools' online gambling services.
Clause 134 codifies the current exemption or permit conditions in law, to allow NCPG to issue exclusion orders to persons to prevent them from entering fruit machine rooms and from betting on Singapore Pools' online gambling products, in addition to being excluded from the casinos.
We will also introduce an entry ban by law enforcement agencies and GRA in Part 6 Division 1 to ban individuals who pose law-and-order or regulatory concerns from entering fruit machine rooms and accessing Singapore Pools' online gambling products.
Advertising. Currently, the Remote Gambling Act, the Betting Act and the Common Gaming Houses Act criminalises advertising and promoting unlawful gambling. However, the threshold for proving an advertising and promotion (A&P) offence, or an A&P offence, for unlawful online gambling today is lower than that for unlawful physical gambling.
For online gambling, the offence can be made out as long as there is A&P for gambling, without the need to prove that the promoted site actually provides gambling.
However, for physical gambling, there is a need to link the A&P offence to actual unlawful physical gambling. This sets a higher bar and imposes enforcement difficulties.
Hence, to address this difference in thresholds, clause 85 introduces an offence for advertising unlawful gambling where we will apply the threshold that we currently have for online, to physical gambling. Hence, for physical gambling, there is no need to link the A&P to actual unlawful physical gambling.
While this lowers the threshold for physical unlawful gambling, we have provided defences in clause 86, such that any person would not be guilty of an offence if they can prove that they established or they published the advertisement as an accidental or incidental accompaniment to the publication of another matter and did not receive any benefit from the A&P.
GRA will also be empowered in clause 87 to order corrective measures on persons advertising unlawful gambling. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore adopts a strict but pragmatic approach towards gambling. With the advancement of technology, unlawful gambling activities have been moving rapidly online. Criminal syndicates have also increasingly made use of various platforms, such as online games, shopping, and betting websites to induce people to spend irrationally. As illegal gambling can cause serious societal problems, we need to adjust our laws to tighten our regulation control and enforcement over such activities.
We are making several adjustments to gambling legislation.
First, the Government continues to take a stern view of unlawful gambling. We will be raising the penalties for participating in, promoting, and conducting unlawful gambling. Police will not hesitate to take stern enforcement action against such activities.
Second, we will exempt social gambling amongst family and friends in homes. However, Police will take a stern enforcement stance against abuses and illegal gambling operators who take advantage of this exemption.
Lastly, private establishments with gambling activities for their members will be required to apply for licences from the Gambling Regulatory Authority. In the past year, we had consulted the relevant stakeholders, and are heartened by their understanding and support. In the upcoming transition period, we will work closely with them to implement this licensing regime.
(In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will now move on to the Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) Bill.
Gambling regulation in Singapore is currently overseen by various Government agencies. These are CRA, the Gambling Regulatory Unit in MHA headquarters, the Singapore Totalisator Board, the Police and MSF.
We propose to expand the CRA today to form GRA as the single regulator for all forms of gambling, to pool and optimise resources and expertise across the Government.
I will outline the pertinent aspects of the GRA Bill.
Part 2 of the Bill establishes GRA as a body corporate similar to other statutory boards. Clause 5 outlines GRA's functions, which include regulating gambling activities in or affecting Singapore to ensure that it is conducted honestly and free from criminal influence and exploitation; fostering responsible gambling and minimising harms caused by gambling; and setting and maintaining standards and accountability for the conduct of gambling.
Parts 3 to 6 of the Bill contain the corporate governance provisions of GRA, aligned with the Public Sector (Governance) Act.
Part 7 of the Bill contains provisions for the administration and enforcement of the Bill.
Part 8 of the Bill makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts, including the Casino Control Act and the Gambling Duties Act and the Singapore Totalisator Board Act.
Part 9 of the Bill provides saving arrangements in ensuring continuity of matters despite the renaming of CRA and the amendments to the Casino Control Act.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Gambling Control Bill and GRA Bill aim to consolidate and update our gambling regulation and laws. These Bills are necessary to ensure that we continue to address the law-and-order and social concerns arising from gambling and also to keep pace with the evolving gambling landscape. I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, today's Bills update our regulatory approach towards gambling. Together, they work to achieve two goals: the prevention of gambling's social harms and the recognition of some gambling as a form of leisure and socialisation. I have three clarifications on the Gambling Control Bill.
My first point is on the implementation of exclusion orders. Currently, three categories of individuals are prohibited from entering casinos, entering fruit machine rooms in private clubs and opening a Singapore Pools' online gambling account. These three categories are undischarged bankrupts, Public Rental Scheme tenants with six or more months of rent arrears and individuals on Government social assistance and subsidy schemes. These are individuals subject to an \"Exclusion by Law\".
From 1 June 2022, Exclusion by Law will extend to all tenants and occupiers in the Public Rental Scheme. This extension will significantly expand the number of persons subject to exclusion orders. However, presently the Exclusion by Law operates without notification being given to the individuals subject to the exclusion order. Given that a significant number of new individuals will be subject to the Exclusion of Law come 1 June 2022, can Minister share how he will ensure that appropriate notice is given to individuals newly categorised as excluded persons?
It seems only fair that individuals should be appropriately notified of new orders that they are now subject to. Appropriate notification would minimise unwitting violations of the law and the disputes that they cause.
My second point is on inducing an underaged individual to gamble. Under the new section 34, it would be an offence to send an underaged individual an inducement to gamble. The exception is when the accused proves that they did not receive any benefit for sending the inducement and the inducement was not sent in the cause of any business. Can Minister clarify the rationale for this exclusion?
Surely, we accept that it is wrong to induce an underaged individual to gamble, regardless of whether the inducer benefits from it. The potential harm exists regardless of intent to benefit. So, it is not clear why section 34 is defined so narrowly.
In addition, can Minister clarify why the exception appears to be limited to cases where the inducer actually receives the benefits? One can imagine situations where the inducer is meant to receive some form of benefit from inducing the underaged individual to gamble, but for whatever reasons, the benefit fails to materialise. Why should the inducer's bad luck, in failing to receive the benefit, be their good luck, in managing to avoid an offence under section 34?
My final point relates to the grounds for entry bans. The Commissioner for Police may impose entry bans on an individual if they deem that the individual's criminal history will present an unacceptable risk to maintaining proper standards of integrity of any gambling service. The Agency can also impose an entry ban on the basis that the standards of integrity are likely to be prejudiced by the individual's character, reputation or criminal activities.
In relation to entry bans by the Commissioner for Police, can Minister clarify whether criminal activities refer to actions which there has been a criminal conviction? If not, what would constitute a history of criminal activity? For instance, would a stern warning or a discharge not amounting to acquittal also be considered to constitute a criminal history?
In relation to entry bans by the Agency, can Minister clarify how the Agency will determine the individual's character and reputation? What forms of substantiation of an individual's character and reputation are required to be provided by the Agency to justify the ban?
Can Minister also clarify whether there are any time limits for how long such entry bans will be imposed before they are required to be reviewed?
In conclusion, I seek the Minister's clarifications on notification for individuals subject to exclusion orders, exceptions to the offence of inducing underage individuals to gamble and the grounds for entry bans. Notwithstanding these clarifications, Madam, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Madam, as Parliament sits today to debate the Gambling Control Bill and the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore Bill, a fact that should be at the forefront of our minds is this: Gambling may seem like harmless fun for many people, but it can be a scourge on families impacted by problem gambling.
The National Council for Problem Gambling (NCPG)'s 2020 survey found that almost half of Singapore residents aged 18 and above participate in gambling activities, with 6% reporting that they lack self-control when gambling. The survey found that gamblers with poorer self-control are more likely to regret the way they have gambled, have emotional problems and have family quarrels. Worryingly, 37% of Singapore residents with no income reported participating in gambling.
Regrettably, the avenues for Singaporeans to gamble have expanded over the years. Two casinos were opened in 2010 and in 2019, the Government raised the cap on the number of slot machines allowed and increased the floorspace allocated to gambling. In 2016, Singapore Pools and the Turf Club were allowed to operate online gambling services, including sports betting. This remains a concern, as according to the NCPG survey, 23% of gamblers who participated in sports gambling reported poor self-control.
With this in mind, I would like to sound a note of caution about any further expansion of the space for gambling in Singapore. Social gambling is not disallowed by current legislation. This Bill explicitly legalises social gambling in Singapore. On one hand, the Government has said that in the past, the law can and should reflect social norms and attitudes. As a matter of logical consistency then, should the Government not be cautious about making social gambling explicitly legal, so as to avoid being seen as issuing an official stamp of approval for gambling?
On the other hand, as a practical matter, since social gambling has never been illegal, what is the concrete policy gain in providing this inadvertent signal of acceptability? I would therefore like to understand the Government's reasons for explicitly legalising social gambling.
The Bill also does not proscribe social gambling by minors. May I ask the Minister of State, why there will be no restrictions on minors engaging in social gambling? I hope this does not mean the Government condones gambling by minors. How does the Government intend to communicate to children, adolescents and their parents that it discourages gambling by minors? I am also concerned how explicitly permitting gambling for children could provide a gateway for more problem gambling habits later in their lives.
Current policy to prevent gambling by minors is inconsistent. While the minimum age is set at 18 for certain types of gambling, such as 4D, Toto or placing horse racing bets, it is set at 21 for casino gambling. In recent years, the Government has raised the minimum smokeing age from 18 to 21, so as to denormalise the use of cigarettes among adolescent youths, especially since most cultivate the habit between the ages of 18 and 21.
The NCPG survey similarly found that 35% of Singapore residents had their first gambling experience between the ages of 18 and 24, the highest among all age groups. With this evidence in mind, can MHA consider taking the same approach as with smoking and harmonise the minimum gambling age to 21 across the board? This could ameliorate the pernicious effects of gambling on not just young people but also on their families and society.
I would now like to discuss the particularly challenging issue with respect to combatting gambling by minors, which is loot boxes. Loot boxes are virtual items within games that can be purchased and redeemed to receive another random desirable virtual item. Gaming companies have been pushing loot boxes in their games, especially in mobile games, leading to increased gaming spending and debt. Many consumers of loot boxes are children. Research from the UK has found that of the 93% of children who play video games, 25% to 40% have made loot box purchases. Other research has found consistently and unambiguously a link between loot boxes and problem gambling.
This being so, I would like to ask the Minister of State as to how the Gambling Control Bill intends to regulate loot boxes in online games. Clause 9 of the Gambling Control Bill defines a lottery as a scheme to distribute prizes based on luck and prizes here refer to money, or money equivalents or anything of value. Can I ask the Minister of State whether the Gambling Control Bill considers such virtual rewards to be things of value, even when they cannot be monetised, such that operating any loot box system would be considered operating a lottery? If so, what will the regulatory regime for online game operators be like?
Several other countries have already sought to regulate or restrict loot boxes in online games. Belgium's gaming commission has declared loot boxes to be gambling and hence, illegal. The Netherlands' gaming authority issues a legal opinion that some loot box system contravene the Dutch betting and gambling act, hence, requiring the relevant game developers to change their mechanics or face fines or even game prohibition. In Asia, China has imposed daily limits on the number of purchased loot boxes that a player can open, while Japan has banned complete gacha, which is a system that offers rare prizes to players who successfully obtain a complete set of items through random draws.
Of course, game developers can and do find ways to circumvent these restrictions. But this is no reason to do nothing. The Government will just have to ensure that regulation is sufficiently nimble to keep up with technology.
I have spoken of law and policy thus far, but no amount of regulations and restrictions will be able to completely eliminate gambling activities in Singapore. In fact, one argument against prohibition is that it might drive gambling activities underground. We therefore need active educational efforts to discourage gambling among our population. With the introduction of the Gambling Control Bill, will there be greater educational efforts to discourage Singaporeans, particularly young people, from participating in gambling activities and delaying their first gambling experience?
I am glad to know that schools have since 2021 been trying to teach students about the ills of loot boxes. I would urge MOE to continue to assess the efficacy of such programmes. Have such educational efforts been found to genuinely reduce loot box use among youths? And if not, how can such outreach be improved?
I understand that many Singaporeans gamble on occasion. However, the risk of problem and pathological gambling and its often accompanying financial ruin, is very real. On balance, the job of public policy in the area of gambling is to maintain moderation. To allow responsible adults to take part in this activity, but not so much that they ruin themselves and to discourage impressionable children from taking up the habit in the first place.
In summary, I would like to call on the Government to reassess its position on social gambling and to take a strong stand against gambling by children, especially in the area of loot boxes. We should complement policy levers with better education against gambling. More generally, I call on Parliament to take a stronger stance against gambling. I hope the Minister of State will be able to address the concerns I have raised in the Bills, but not withstanding these concerns. I support the Bills.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I spoke on the Gambling Duties Bill last month where I shared my thoughts on the higher casino tax rates and raising betting taxes, especially given the social objective of avoiding its excessive consumption. I have also raised concerns about the issue of problem gambling and of dedicating additional resources towards gambling safeguards and rehabilitation of problem gamblers. Pertinent points which I would like to reiterate today as we debate the Gambling Control and Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore Bills.
In my view, these Bills are positive steps to stay ahead in the ever-changing gambling landscape with an increasingly blurred boundary between gambling and gaming. The reconstitution of the Casino Regulatory Authority with the rationalisation and consolidation of other Government agencies, such as the Gambling Regulatory Unit, Singapore Tote Board, departments within the Police and MSF that are addressing social gambling problems to establish a single unified Gambling Regulatory Authority is an important step of consolidating resources to address gambling, not just from narrow, segregated lenses, but taking a holistic approach to gambling policies and issues.
One issue, which I believe warrants attention, is the blurring boundaries between gambling and gaming. Business models have adapted to changing customer preferences by introducing gambling elements that are traditionally not perceived as gambling, such as loot boxes in both physical gaming arcades and in virtual games, which my colleague, Aljunied Member of Parliament, Mr Gerald Giam, has spoken about earlier. However, while physical gaming arcades are waning in popularity and ubiquity in our shopping malls today, with some game developers, such as Epic Games, removing loot boxes from Fortnite and other games, we can be sure that gaming developers will be moving fast, faster than regulators globally in trying to innovate their ways to higher profits.
One particular area of concern in my view, is that of non-fungible tokens or NFT gaming. As it is, Electronic Arts (EA)'s FIFA Ultimate Team packs, which are a form of loot boxes or surprise mechanics, in the words of the company, have their benefits restricted to the in-game experience. And indeed, I note in the public consultation last year that the current regulations do not consider games of chance with virtual prizes as gambling as long as there are no in-game monetisation facilities that allow players to exchange virtual prizes for real-world payouts.
However, when a picture of a monkey looking bored can cost as high as a few million dollars and potentially having benefits in the physical world, then you know that the stakes and potential financial rewards from being successful in an NFT game are significantly much higher. NFTs may also be sold for cryptocurrency, typically Ethereum, which can then be sold for fiat currency eventually.
On the more simplistic level, there are also actual gambling facilities in particular games where you can lose in-game currency purchased with fiat currency, like the casino in GTA Online. May I ask if the GRA has dedicated resources looking at not just loot boxes, but other evolutionary forms of games of chance or gaming activity and how does the Ministry intend to get ahead of the curve in monitoring developments in this area?
This brings me to my second point on illegal online gambling. Even as recent as last week, I have received SMSes from local mobile numbers and WhatsApp messages inviting me to online casinos or to set up betting accounts for football or horse racing. May I ask, how is the Ministry looking to clamp down on such activities, particularly as some of them may not be physically operating such syndicates within Singapore, but yet are clearly targeting locals.
Next, I note the new offence of proxy gambling, which I understand was to close a loophole where there was a case in 2019 in which the individuals could not be taken to task as proxy gambling was not previously criminalised. In 2016, when proxy gambling was banned in Macau, it was reported in Forbes that the business had migrated to other countries within Asia. What safeguards and regulations are being rolled out to ensure that the two casino licensees are proactively assisting the Government to enforce the ban on proxy gambling and what penalties could be imposed if they are found to be negligent or even abetting such practices?
And finally, the Gambling Control Bill has specifically provided an exemption regime for social gambling among family and friends conducted in homes. I believe many households, especially during Chinese New Year, would be relieved to hear that mahjong, \"ban-luck\" or blackjack sessions are not illegal per se. By extension, however, Singaporeans have taken to staycations and if my memory does not fail me, I recall mahjong sets and tables being part of items that are available for a loan at holiday chalets back in the day. Would social gambling at such non-home locations, among family and friends, fall under the exemption? At the same time, while it is not the Government's intention to babysit individual behaviours at home and most social gambling involve low quantum, low-risk bets placed on a recreational basis, I wonder what form of safeguards and support mechanisms are in place for families where there could be serious and regular high-stakes games in social gambling sessions or excessive social gambling sessions that results in gambling addiction. This could still have social costs which would just be as undesirable as other form of gambling.
While gamblers themselves, or their family members, can call the Gambling Addiction Hotline to restrict themselves from the casinos, we probably cannot ban people from entering other people's homes on a daily basis. Mdm Deputy Speaker, allow me to close in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] According to the National Council on Problem Gambling survey on Singaporeans' participation in gambling in 2020, 44% of Singapore residents aged 18 and above have participated in at least one type of gambling activity in the past year. While this may appear to be an improvement from 52% in 2017, COVID-19 restrictions may be one of the main reasons behind this. Since 2005, the gambling rate in Singapore has hovered around 50%.
Even as we restructure the CRA into a new GRA to strengthen the regulatory framework for gambling, we must also look squarely at the issue of problem gambling and continue to invest additional resources to strengthen social protection against problem gambling.
Of course, I am also aware of the Chinese saying \"A small amount of gambling is entertaining\". The Bill also clearly states that it is not illegal for friends and relatives to play mahjong at home. I understand that the police will crack down on any syndicate that takes the advantage to engage in illegal gambling activities. However, I also hope that we can provide more support and protection for families that need help, to prevent their family member from turning to problem gambling or pathological gambling from social gambling.
(In English): I support the Bill.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the gambling landscape has evolved greatly. Modern and emerging forms of gambling, enabled by technology, make youths and even young children, susceptible to its insidious nature. Our seniors are also increasingly vulnerable as they are consuming more online content. We must ensure that our regulatory approach towards gambling is up-to-date and forward-looking.
Regulation and enforcement of gambling laws is sometimes like a cat and mouse game. Despite laws and resources to conduct enforcement, illegal service providers and gambling addicts will try to circumvent these regulations. They will also search for ambiguities to evade the rules. The constant stream of unsolicited text messages touting illegal betting activities comes to mind. I support the consolidation of regulation bodies under a single Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) to regulate all forms of gambling activities. This will allow for a more holistic and cohesive management of gambling policies, as well as the emerging trends and products related to gambling. In doing so, we can better identify and minimise loopholes in the system. In my Budget debate speech last week, I called for more efforts to streamline processes and reduce redundancy in the public service, to cut out unnecessary costs and resource wastage. Consolidating agencies and regulations is a step in the right direction. I have four queries on the Bill.
First, will the Ministry share details about how the merger of the different regulatory bodies will be conducted? How will the Ministry ensure that there are synergies between the different agencies that are being converged? Will this move lead to an excess of employees, who will have to be redeployed to other departments or agencies?
Second, how will the consolidation of gambling control measures impact the management of cross-border remote gambling? Despite good efforts from our Singapore Police Force to reign in illegal remote gambling, it is getting increasingly rampant. There have been several reports about remote gambling operations being uncovered in Singapore. It is also common to receive text messages from unknown sources that promote illegal gambling activities. Some elderly residents have asked me about the constant flow of texts they had received about horse and soccer betting. The borderless nature of remote gambling makes it clandestine. Compulsive gamblers would use Virtual Private Networks to access blocked websites and apps. Some countries have introduced or updated their remote gambling laws, including Germany, the UK and Switzerland. They would license some commercial remote gambling platforms, and subject them to gambling duties.
Third, can the Ministry provide further clarification on products and services containing financial risk elements, which are being excluded? For example, the Ministry clarified that there are no intentions of treating investments in financial products as gambling products, as those are already regulated through other legislations and fall under the purview of MAS. Likewise, the Ministry also stated the exemption for physical social gambling among family and friends at home. What about products like non-fungible tokens (NFTs), which are not regulated? Some have likened it to gambling because of the amount of speculation involved.
Lastly, how will the updated Advertising and Promotion (A&P) laws apply to activities containing an optional gambling element, including mobile games with mystery boxes? I note that the Gambling Control Bill seeks to introduce consistency with regards to treatment of A&P offences across all types of gambling. In Singapore, A&P for gambling activities is not allowed, unless specifically approved by the authorities. Currently, we still see such mobile games being advertised on mainstream media and outdoor advertising platforms.
Admittedly, a blanket restriction on A&P could come across as harsh for games, where the main gameplay has no gambling elements. Publicity for online games tends to be driven through player communities. Therefore, reducing exposure through A&P also has limits to practicality. Ultimately, education and awareness, along with laws and enforcement, are important to curb gambling. Parents too must do their part to impart financial literacy to their children and pay heed to their online activities.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will conclude in Chinese.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As the saying goes, there are no father and son at the gambling table. This shows that gambling is merciless. During my Meet-the-People sessions, I see residents who are addicted to online gambling and lost a lot of money. They do not know what to do. Hence, it is right to have a single agency to manage gambling activities holistically. I support the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua) (on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mdm Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Development, I thank Members for their views and support for the social safeguards in the Gambling Control Bill. I share the concerns on the harmful effects of gambling as it often goes beyond the individuals and affects families, community and society.
The international gambling landscape is constantly changing and gambling operators are always innovating and looking to new technology and gaming experiences to attract punters. Hence, MSF supports MHA's amendments to the gambling legislation and it is critical to update Singapore's laws for gambling so that they remain relevant as the gambling landscape evolves.
The Gambling Control Bill strengthens the Government's ability to prevent and deal with problem gambling. Even though our social safeguards are amongst the most stringent in the world and have, generally worked well, there are also new risks that we are aware of. For instance, more people are gambling online, which poses relatively higher risks, given its accessibility round the clock.
The changes introduced in the Gambling Control Bill will further strengthen safeguards for vulnerable groups, such as young persons and the financially vulnerable. Research shows that young persons are likely to be more vulnerable to problem gambling. The provisions that Minister of State Desmond Tan highlighted relating to gambling by or with underaged individuals in contravention of the minimum age requirements will prevent early exposure to and normalisation of gambling amongst youth.
In the Bill, the minimum age for legal gambling is set at 21 years old, one of the highest internationally. This applies to casinos, fruit machine gambling and online gambling with Singapore Pools.
Mr Gerald Giam asked if the minimum gambling age can be harmonised to 21 years old. Currently, the exception is for Singapore Pools' physical outlets, which have a minimum age of 18 as other safeguards, such as limited opening hours, are in place to create a break in play. We do not plan to harmonise the minimum age at this point but, nonetheless, MSF recognises that it is important to reduce early exposure to gambling. MSF will work closely with MHA and the Gambling Regulatory Authority to constantly review our social safeguards to minimise the risk of problem gambling and gambling-related social harm.
The Gambling Control Bill will extend the National Council on Problem Gambling's exclusion regime and Exclusion by Law beyond the casinos, the fruit machine rooms and Singapore Pool's online gambling platform.
Currently, Singapore Pools and fruit machine room operators are already required under the exemption and permit conditions to disallow individuals with a Third Party Exclusion Order, Family Exclusion Order or under Exclusion by Law from online gambling and fruit machine rooms. These regulatory conditions have been in place since 2016 for Singapore Pools and 2017 for fruit machine rooms. The extension of the exclusion regime formalises this.
In addition, family members will be able to apply to NCPG for a Family Exclusion Order if their family member has a gambling problem from fruit machine room gambling or online gambling with Singapore Pools. And a Family Exclusion Order will exclude the individual from the fruit machine rooms, online gambling with Singapore Pools and the casinos.
MSF takes an upstream approach to address social concerns. Addressing problem gambling is no different. Thus, we are expanding the coverage of the Exclusion by Law regime which complements the exclusion and visit limit regime administered by NCPG.
While this change will be effected through amendments to subsidiary legislation under the Casino Control Act rather than the Gambling Control Bill, allow me to share my Ministry's plans.
The Exclusion by Law automatically bars financially vulnerable individuals from most gambling venues. Exclusion by Law is not new. Currently, undischarged bankrupts, those receiving ComCare – Short-to-Medium-Term and Long-Term assistance, those on legal aid and tenants of the HDB's public rental scheme with six or more months of rental arrears are already excluded from casinos, fruit machine rooms and Singapore Pools' online gambling.
To strengthen upstream protection for public rental tenants and occupiers, we are removing the need to accumulate six months of rental arrears before they are excluded by law. We do not want to wait until such a point before we take preventive action against problem gambling.
Let me be clear. Most individuals residing in public rental housing do not visit the casinos, fruit machine rooms or have an online gambling account with Singapore Pools. So, this change will not impact them. However, a small fraction of about 4,000 individuals residing in public rental housing, who engaged in at least one of these gambling activities will be impacted.
For example, in 2021, NCPG came across a case of Mr T, who is married, in his 60s, resides in a 2-room rental flat who visited local casinos twice a month. He had a monthly income of less than $1,500 and he owed banks and licensed moneylenders approximately $100,000. As he was assessed to be at high risk due to his income and high unsecured debts, he was imposed with a Third Party Exclusion Order.
The NCPG has given feedback to the Government on the cases they see – individuals who reside in rental housing and can ill afford to gamble and are affected by problem gambling. We have thus taken this feedback onboard. This change will help prevent such situations from happening and to protect individuals like Mr T and his loved ones.
I would like to thank Mr Louis Ng for his question. Mr Ng asked how individuals placed on Exclusion by Law will be informed of their exclusion status. For bankruptcy applications through the Insolvency and Public Trustee Office, either by the individual him or herself, or by a creditor, the individual will receive a letter which states that he or she will be excluded if the bankruptcy order is confirmed.
When individuals apply for ComCare, short to medium-term assistance or ComCare long-term assistance or legal aid, they are notified at the point of application that they will be excluded if the application is successful. When the application is approved, they will be informed of this condition again.
For the extension of Exclusion by Law to all public rental tenants and occupiers in June later this year, all public rental households will receive a letter from NCPG, together with an infographic, to inform them of this change. For new households who sign the public rental tenancy agreement with HDB, the HDB officer will also provide them with the infographic on Exclusion by Law so that they are aware.
Gambling operators are also required to screen their patrons for exclusion status before allowing them to enter or use their gambling services. This will minimise unwitting violations of the law.
Mitigating the harm of gambling requires the combined efforts of individuals, families, the community, the Government and gambling operators. The Gambling Control Bill will give powers to the Gambling Regulatory Authority to set conditions or standards in relation to responsible gambling to minimise the risk of problem gambling for those who choose to gamble.
Today, the casino operators are obligated under the Casino Control Act regulations to put in place responsible gambling measures to minimise the potential harm of gambling. These include assisting patrons who display signs of problem gambling and providing patron education on responsible gambling behaviours, such as setting a budget or time limit on the gambling.
Similarly, Singapore Pools is required to implement responsible gambling measures, such as setting monthly betting limits, providing its online account holders a monthly win-loss summary, providing a voluntary self-assessment tool and messages to nudge account holders towards safer betting.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
We are encouraged that a significant portion of Singapore Pools' account holders know about and make use of these tools to manage their gambling behaviour. In fact, a majority has found these measures useful in promoting self-regulated play.
The majority of fruit machine room operators have voluntarily implemented responsible gambling measures since 2020. We would like to acknowledge their commitment to towards responsible gambling and their partnership with MSF.
To emphasise the importance of responsible gambling and to ensure a baseline standard of responsible gambling across fruit machine rooms, MSF and the new Gambling Regulatory Authority will be making responsible gambling requirements mandatory. These requirements include educating patrons on problem gambling and how to gamble responsibly, informing patrons of the NCPG helpline number and help services and ensuring fruit machine room staff are trained to assist patrons who display signs of problem gambling. This change complements the Government's tightening of the fruit machine room regime over the years which resulted in the number of fruit machine rooms reducing by about 25%, from 61 in 2017 to 46 in 2021.
Mr Gerald Giam asked if there will be greater educational efforts to discourage Singaporeans, particularly young people, from participating in gambling activities and delaying their first gambling experience.
The NCPG conducts public education programmes and campaigns on problem gambling awareness throughout the year to ensure that Singaporeans understand the risk of gambling. One of their target audience is the youth. NCPG engages youth through public education campaigns conducted in schools and online to encourage them not to start gambling.
To Mr Gerald Giam's query on teaching students about the ills of loot boxes, the NCPG has stepped up efforts to educate youth, parents, educators and the public on the potential connection between loot boxes and gambling. For example, NCPG partnered MediaCorp in 2021 to produce a CNA insider documentary episode to raise awareness among parents, educators and youth on loot boxes.
Parents can monitor their children's online gaming behaviours to manage the risks of gambling addiction posed by loot boxes in games, for example, to be aware of the type of games that children play, set boundaries on the time spent on gaming and delink credit card from mobile games where possible.
NCPG also creates awareness of the issue via social media posts and advertisements in popular youth digital platforms like Spotify. NCPG also partners Fei Yue Community Services to conduct school talks and workshops on gambling elements in games. The intent really is to educate our young ones to be able to identify the possible gambling elements in online games, protect themselves when gaming and to seek help if necessary. We will explore how we can strengthen our collaboration with MOE on educating our young ones on loot boxes.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, these proposals are part of the Government's ongoing efforts to mitigate the harm of problem gambling. MSF will continue to work with NCPG to provide preventive education targeting youth and ensure accessibility of help services to the population at large. MSF will also continue to partner MHA and the Gambling Regulatory Authority to monitor the gambling situation in Singapore and to study gambling trends to ensure that our safeguards remain relevant.
I urge Members to support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Desmond Tan.
Mr Desmond Tan: Mr Speaker, first, let me thank Members Mr Louis Ng, Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Louis Chua and Mr Yip Hon Weng for their support for the two Bills. Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua has addressed Mr Louis Ng's and Mr Gerald Giam's questions and suggestions on social safeguards and public education efforts. Let me now address the remaining comments and queries.
Mr Gerald Giam asked about the exemption on physical social gambling. As Mr Gerald Giam pointed out, currently, physical social gambling is already not disallowed. Such activities are commonplaces amongst many Singaporeans, such as playing mahjong at home, especially during the Chinese New Year festival, and law-and-order concerns in this aspect are low.
The exemption will regularise this current practice and provide clarity to the public that social gambling is allowed when it is with family and friends at home. This includes social gambling with minors. Social gambling will only be allowed in a person's home and will not be allowed in places like hotels and chalets, which Mr Louis Chua was asking about, and since covering non-residential places under the exemption could be exploited by criminal elements.
The exemption on social gambling does not change the Government's approach towards gambling. In fact, we are tightening. And why is this so?
Today, physical social gambling is not disallowed. So, we see in commonplaces people playing mahjong and card games. But with this Bill, we are actually making it clear that social gambling is allowed, subject to conditions. And these conditions, as I have mentioned earlier on, are currently not present in law. Actually, these conditions, if you think about it, act as social safeguards. Individuals should exercise personal responsibility in deciding whether to allow underaged individuals to engage in such activities.
Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Louis Chua both asked how the amendments to gambling legislation would impact the management of cross-border online gambling and illegal online gambling. Similar to the Remote Gambling Act, the Gambling Control Bill will cover situations where the facilities are outside or partially outside of Singapore.
A key part of our strategy to combat illegal online gambling is our blocking measures for illegal online gambling websites as well as advertisements that can be accessed in Singapore, as well as the payment services that are linked to illegal online gambling. GRA will continue to have the powers to carry out these blocking measures if necessary.
But no blocking measures are foolproof, as the Members also highlighted. Hence, the blocking regime has to be complemented by strong enforcement by the Police on illegal online gambling activities which happen in Singapore and allowing Singapore Pools to offer legal online gambling services which, in turn, allows us to have better control of the services provided.
As for the text messages promoting illegal gambling activities cited, for example, for illegal football betting by Mr Louis Chua, Police will continue to take enforcement action against them. Members of the public can also help by reporting them through the Police i-Witness portal.
Mr Louis Ng asked about the defence in clause 34 on inducement to underaged individuals to gamble. The offence of inducement to gamble in clause 34 has strict liability. This means that a person commits an offence once he sends out any inducement to gamble and with no need for the prosecution to prove the intent to induce. We need to structure this offence as a strict liability offence to allow for more effective prosecution. Illegal gambling operators who send such inducements will often claim that they had unintentionally sent an inducement to underaged individuals.
However, on the other hand, it is not our intention to cover scenarios where sending the inducements do not benefit the accused and are not sent in the course of business. What this means, for example, is that a person without any links to the illegal gambling operator could have forwarded a screenshot of gambling inducement to a Whatsapp group with underaged individuals inside and he does it as an educational or warning material to warn the group members on the harms of illegal online gambling. Hence, the defence clause allows the accused to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he or she did not benefit from the inducement or the messages that were sent out.
Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Gerald Giam asked how chance-based loot boxes in online games will be regulated. In particular, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about how our laws on gambling advertisements will apply to activities with an optional gambling element, such as loot boxes, in online games.
Currently, our laws and regulations do not consider chance-based loot boxes as gambling as long as there are no in-game monetisation facilities. So, as long as they do not have these facilities that allow players to exchange virtual prizes for real-world payouts, such as money or merchandise. This position is set out in IMDA's 2015 advisory on the scope of the Remote Gambling Act. It does not matter whether the loot box is optional or intentional.
Correspondingly, the prohibition on gambling advertisements would not apply if these online games are not considered illegal gambling.
Mr Gerald Giam asked if loot boxes will be considered as a lottery if virtual rewards cannot be monetised in the real-world. Since these virtual rewards have no real-world value, such loot boxes will not be considered gambling under the Gambling Control Bill. This is in line with our current approach, which has served us well in trying to strike a balance between leisure and entertainment and safeguarding against gambling inducement.
We agree with Mr Yip Hon Weng that a blanket restriction on the advertisement of online games would not be practical, especially since these games are perceived by many as leisure and entertainment. We will be reviewing the landscape of online games of chance. This will include how to regulate advertisements of online games of chance that fall in the definition of gambling under the Gambling Control Bill.
Let me talk a bit on the entry bans.
Mr Louis Ng asked for more details on the entry bans. The Commissioner of Police entry ban is issued to persons to prevent or to reduce criminal influence or exploitation in the management and operation of regulated gambling activities and to maintain gaming integrity in the gambling services. It is targeted against persons who pose law-and-order concerns. Law enforcement agencies will consider the individual's criminal records, as well as other criminal history, including warnings and discharges not amounting to an acquittal. For example, this could include persons previously convicted of offences related to syndicated criminal activity.
For the GRA entry bans, the reference to the individual's character or reputation is to cater for cases where the person has displayed a pattern of disregard for the law that might actually undermine the regulatory regime. These could include persons investigated by GRA who repeatedly refused to come forward to assist with investigations, for instance.
The time periods of entry bans will be calibrated based on the seriousness of the law-and-order concerns and the gaming integrity concerns that the person presents.
Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua spoke about the upstream education efforts targeted at underaged individuals, addressing Mr Gerald Giam's questions on the age requirements on various gaming products. Let me touch on the other safeguards for underaged individuals that are covered in the Bill.
First, there are safeguards to prevent underaged individuals to gambling, or exposing them directly to gambling activity. For example, there is a minimum age of gambling. The Gambling Control Bill introduces offences on underaged individuals gambling or entering gambling areas. This sends a strong deterrent signal to underaged individuals that they should not be gambling.
The Gambling Control Bill also introduces an offence for proxy gambling, which will deter underaged persons from circumventing the entry bans or entry controls.
The GRA will also impose conditions on class-licensed products, such as mystery boxes, to address the normalisation of gambling. The details will be released later when we introduce the subsidiary legislation.
Second, safeguards to limit inducement of underaged individuals to gambling. The Gambling Control Bill criminalises the inducement of underaged individuals to gamble, as I have covered earlier. We will also continue to impose controls on advertisement and promotion.
Mr Louis Chua asked about how casino operators are going to help enforce against proxy gambling. There are various ways today to detect proxy gambling in casinos and casino staff are actually trained to detect it. Some indications include players constantly checking their mobile phones and appearing to be receiving instructions while gambling. Casinos will be liable to regulatory action, like financial penalties, if they fail to enforce this.
Mr Yip Hon Weng pointed out about non-fungible tokens (NFTs) could be considered as gambling due to the amount of speculation involved. Mr Chua also spoke about this topic. NFTs are a form of digital token, where each token has distinct and unique features that are verified and secured by blockchain technology. MAS takes a technology-neutral stance and \"looks through\" to the underlying characteristics of the token to determine if it is to be regulated. Most NFTs currently do not fall under MAS' regulatory remit, as they are used mainly to tokenise digital art and other collectibles. But should an NFT have the characteristics of a capital markets product under the Securities and Futures Act, it will be subject to MAS' regulatory requirements and therefore exempted from the definition of betting in Clause 5 of the Gambling Control Bill.
Creating or trading NFTs is not considered gambling, unless there is an element of chance involved in their creation or trading. However, gambling services that use NFTs as stake or prize will be covered in our gambling legislation.
Mr Chua asked how GRA can stay ahead of the developments and innovations in online games. We agree, that is why the formation of GRA will give us the capabilities and expertise to monitor this landscape for new gambling products and update our regulations if required.
Mr Yip asked for details on the consolidation of gambling regulatory functions across various agencies. As I had mentioned earlier, gambling regulation is currently overseen by various Government agencies. For example, CRA regulates the casinos; the Gambling Regulatory Unit in MHA today regulates online gambling services and fruit machines; and the Singapore Tote Board governs Singapore Pools' physical gambling services.
There will be synergies from consolidating gambling legislation and regulation. As the single regulator of all forms of gambling, GRA will be able to pool resources and expertise together to deal with the issue. This will allow GRA to keep pace with trends in the gambling landscape more effectively and take a more holistic and coherent approach to gambling policies and issues.
The establishment of GRA will be resource neutral across the Government. Manpower will be transferred together with the transfer of function. This will not lead to an excess of employees. In addition to overseeing existing regulatory regimes, GRA will also oversee new regulatory regimes, such as the new licensing regime for gambling in private establishments and class-licence regimes for low-risk gambling products.
Mr Speaker, by establishing the GRA and updating our gambling laws, the Bills will go a long way to ensure that we continue to be able to minimise the social and law-and-order concerns arising from gambling activity in Singapore. Once again, I thank Members in this House for their support. Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Clarifications? Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I thank Minister of State Desmond Tan and Parliament Secretary Eric Chua for the comprehensive answers to my questions and concerns. Can I just ask two clarification questions? Can I confirm first that under this Bill, there is no minimum age for social gambling? And secondly, what will NCPG's approach be to discussing social gambling with minors, for example, will NCPG actively discourage children and youths from gambling even at home?
Mr Desmond Tan: I thank the Member for the clarification. The first question, the answer is yes, there is no minimum age for social gambling within homes and that is the reason why we have mentioned that we wanted to put social gambling under the exemption regime precisely, and also to state the conditions. And so the conditions as mentioned, there are threefold. One, is that it has to happen in a home and not outside of the home; secondly, it has to happen within the context of a family, as well as friends, people acquainted with each other; and thirdly, there ought to be no gains, financial gains, from this social gambling.
I understand where the Member is coming from in terms of youths. I mentioned in my speech that when it comes to social gambling, especially during the festival period, we know and we recognise that this is something that is happening and this is something that is a tradition for some of the families as well. And we really urge that actually family members ought to also play a role to ensure that as we allow such social gambling to happen, it will not lead to undesirable behaviour and subsequently some kind of gambling addiction for our youths.
Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua has mentioned earlier on that the schools and NCPG have rolled out many programmes and we are mindful that actually our youths are vulnerable, they are exposed to possible inducement to gambling. That is why we have also strengthened our levers to ensure the inducement are minimised and we continue to work with agencies, with MOE as well as NCPG, to roll out different programmes to educate our people about social gambling. More importantly, going forward, as you have rightly pointed out, also about online gambling and online gaming activities, which is gaining traction among our young people.
Mr Speaker: Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.
Mr Eric Chua: I thank the Member Mr Giam for his question. I think NCPG's approach is that of a broad stroke, because to tackle the problem of youth gambling, we want to not just look at youth. We want to look at the family as well. I am sure you remember during the Chinese New Year period, we had Wang Lei on various YouTube advertisements and advertisements on TV as well, espousing the messages of, \"Are you still gambling right now?\" That was in Mandarin, by the way.
And specifically to youths, the message is Be Smart, Don't Start. And I cited the example of the CNA documentary series earlier about loot boxes. So that is the position of NCPG and they will continue working on the messaging for telling youth not to get started with gambling, and that is the key message and they will keep going at it. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Anymore clarifications?
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Desmond Tan]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Tan): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Desmond Tan]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.\" — [Mr Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 3.12 pm
1 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Defence (a) what are the details of SAF's COVID-19 rapid containment plans at military camps; and (b) how effective has this measure been in containing COVID-19 outbreaks in camps.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) deploys a combination of COVID-19 measures including vaccination, testing, safe management and quick containment in the event of cases. The measures are broadly aligned with national COVID-19 guidelines, and are reviewed as the COVID-19 situation evolves.
On vaccination, as of 2 March 2022, 99.7 per cent of MINDEF/SAF personnel have been vaccinated, and 91 per cent have received their booster shot. To detect COVID-19 infections early and minimise its spread, the SAF has instituted regular testing and Safe Management Measures (SMM) such as training in smaller group sizes and mask-on policy where possible. As for containment, when service personnel in camp are tested positive, they are immediately sent home. Those who are sick or who are tested positive outside are only allowed to return to camp when they have recovered. Close contacts of positive cases, including those identified by the Ministry of Health's (MOH) contact tracing mechanism, are required to adhere to MOH's Health Risk Notice protocol.
In recent weeks, the SAF's infection numbers have trended generally in line with the community cases, with most of our cases brought in from the community. While there has been limited onward transmission within our camps, and the vast majority of SAF personnel who contracted the virus have exhibited either mild or no symptoms thus far, we are not taking things for granted. Infections have the potential to spread. We are tracking the numbers closely and remain ready to adjust our measures if necessary so as to maintain our operational readiness while keeping our people safe.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requests from Households for Additional Antigen Rapid Test Kits in Past Year","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Health (a) in the past year, whether the Ministry has received requests from households for additional antigen rapid test (ART) kits; (b) if so, what is the number of such requests, broken down by (i) monthly household income and (ii) dwelling type; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider initiating the distribution of additional ART kits to low-income households.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH) has taken various measures to ensure that ART kits are widely available.
We conducted two nation-wide distributions of free ART kits to households in August and October 2021. Persons who test positive and their registered close contacts can collect free kits from ART vending machines located island-wide. We also issued over 200,000 ART kits to all Social Service Offices (SSOs) and 47 Family Service Centres (FSC) since October 2021, to be made available for their beneficiaries. We have also already facilitated more ART kit brands that meet our quality standards to be approved by the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) and made available for sale locally. The average ART kit retail price has thus been reduced from $12 to under $5.
As we go through the Omicron wave, the demand for ART kits is high, and globally, supply is tight. Fortunately, we have secured supply early, and is generally able to meet demand so far. Another nation-wide distribution of ART kits will be welcomed by many, but will not be the best use of our stock at this stage.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Enforcement Actions against Employers for Compelling Work Permit Holders to Work on Rest Days without Prior Written Agreement between 2016 and 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower for each year between 2016 and 2020, how many and what percentage of employers of work permit holders have been (i) investigated (ii) issued with warnings (iii) issued with composition fines (iv) charged or (v) convicted, for compelling their workers to work on their rest days without prior written agreement.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Member should be aware that there is no legal requirement that consent for work on rest day must be given in writing. However, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) advises that if work on a rest day is routinely scheduled, such agreement should be captured in writing to avoid disputes. Workers are entitled to withdraw consent any time.
Between 2016 and 2021, MOM received an average of 20 complaints each year involving work permit holders against employers for not providing one rest day a week. Employers were issued with advisories, warnings or composition fines in most instances and follow up inspections were conducted if necessary. All employers, many of whom were first time SME employers, rectified their employment practices promptly after MOM intervened.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":5021,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Desmond Tan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220311/vernacular-Desmond Tan Gambling 11Mar2022-Chinese(mha).pdf","fileName":"Desmond Tan Gambling 11Mar2022-Chinese(mha).pdf"},{"vernacularID":5022,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220311/vernacular-Louis Chua Gambling 11Mar2022-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Louis Chua Gambling 11Mar2022-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5023,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Yip Hon Weng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220311/vernacular-Yip Hon Weng Gambling 11Mar2022-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Yip Hon Weng Gambling 11Mar2022-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}