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

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

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

Remote gambling sites are capable of offerings in the gambler's language of choice. Successful operators can afford better payout rates due to its lower overheads after its initial investments. Virtual casino operators have been known to rig the games. And in a highly publicised scandal involving online poker, professionals develop "rogue" software that allows access to third-party computers and accounts to cheat and to view the cards of other customers without their knowledge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arguments in support. Those who are "for" controlled licensed remote gambling, or a partial ban, do so for several reasons. They highlighted the impossibility of totally blocking 100% of all remote gambling sites and in prosecuting especially sophisticated and seasoned overseas providers. They argue that since you cannot beat them and since there will always be some appetite for remote gambling, which will otherwise be driven underground, let us join them and run some exemplary remote gambling sites ourselves, they say. "Better learn how they do it, so that we can be better enforcers" was the argument. And while we are at it, be sure to channel some proceeds from these licensed operators to local charities and social causes! These are the popular arguments to support a partial ban or to allow some licensed remote gambling operators in Singapore.

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

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

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

My third reason for advocating a Total Ban, pertain to evidence that online gamblers are prone to exercise less self-constraint and significantly more likely to be problem gamblers. Remote gambling, because of its direct and blatant use of money as a medium of play, affects not only the problem gambler alone; not only his families; but potentially his network of significant others in his life, including those in his work and social lives. I will not relate the many cases of people and families ruined by problem gambling; there are enough stories highlighted in the media. My question is, why Government should support exempt operators and be part of an undesirable social phenomenon; and then later invest further resources, such as the National Council for Problem Gambling, to thwart its ill effects?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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