Massage Establishments Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

3.53 pm

The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

The Massage Establishments Act regulates massage establishments, by licensing the operators and imposing conditions on their activities. The aim is to prevent massage establishments from being used for vice activities or causing law and order problems.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has reviewed the massage establishment regulatory regime to ensure that it remains effective in the changing landscape. Under the enhanced regime, we will take tougher action against unlicensed massage establishments.

There is a clear case for action. Between 2013 and 2016, there was a 40% increase in the number of unlicensed massage establishments detected by the Police. Many of these were not, in fact, massage establishments but fronts for vice activities, the proverbial "wolf in sheep’s clothing" or what in Chinese we refer to as "挂羊头卖狗肉".

For licensed massage establishments, we will take a more calibrated approach. Today, we have about 1,200 licensed massage establishments that are sited both within residential and non-residential areas. About 300, or one quarter, are found in Housing and Development Board (HDB) housing estates. They include reputable massage establishments that have been operating for a long time.

The evidence is that there is a clear difference between licensed and unlicensed massage establishments. In 2016, Police enforcement found less than 3% of licensed massage establishments to have vice-related infringements. This is significantly lower than the 40% of unlicensed massage establishments with vice-related offences.

Even as we tighten the regulations on higher-risk activities and take stricter and more punitive action against errant operators, there is room to lighten the regulatory burden for the vast majority of low-risk and compliant operators who are meeting a genuine demand for massage services. This differentiated approach will also allow the Police to focus its resources accordingly.

Given the substantial amendments to the Massage Establishments Act, MHA will repeal the existing Act and re-enact it. All existing licences granted under the current Act will continue to be in force, but they will be treated as granted under the new Act, and subject to the new regulatory regime.

I will first explain the provisions to strengthen the Police’s levers against unlicensed massage establishments. We will use a combination of measures to more effectively deter and penalise those who are involved in unlicensed massage establishment operations.

Today, the penalty for unlicensed massage establishment operations is a maximum fine of $1,000. This is grossly insufficient compared to the profits that unlicensed massage establishments can make, especially by engaging in vice activities.

Clause 5 of the Bill increases the penalty for operating unlicensed massage establishments to a maximum fine of $10,000 or two years’ imprisonment or both. For repeat offenders, the punishment will increase to a maximum fine of $20,000 or five years’ imprisonment or both. The significantly higher fines and the inclusion of imprisonment as a punishment will be a stronger deterrent. If the unlicensed massage establishment also engages in vice activities, the operator can be liable for additional vice-related offences under the Women’s Charter. The enhanced penalties will ensure that unlicensed massage establishment operators face serious consequences upon conviction.

However, Court proceedings take time, especially if the unlicensed operator claims trial. There have been cases of unlicensed operators blatantly continuing to operate even after being charged in Court, due to the lucrativeness of their illegal activities. To address such behaviour, clause 19 will empower the Commissioner of Police to issue a premises closure order. This power will be used if the Police have reasonable grounds to suspect that despite ongoing criminal proceedings, the operator continues to operate the unlicensed massage establishment.

The premises closure order will require the unlicensed massage establishment premises to be vacated within a specified time and physically secured thereafter. If the order is not complied with, the Police is empowered to take necessary steps, or use reasonable force, to enforce the closure of the premises. Under clauses 20 and 21, any person who breaks the lock or enters the premises without prior permission from the Police will be deemed to have breached the order. This person could face a maximum fine of $15,000 or three years' imprisonment or both.

The premises closure order is intended to only prevent the continued operation of illegal activities and will not penalise usage of the premises for legitimate businesses. Clause 19, therefore, sets out the circumstances under which the order will be lifted. In addition, under clause 22, the accused may appeal to the Minister against the Commissioner's premises closure order, but the order will remain in force during the appeal process.

The Bill will also deal with the upstream problem of irresponsible landlords who knowingly lease their premises to unlicensed massage establishment operators. We will require landlords to evict tenants who have been convicted of unlicensed massage establishment operations and provide them with early notice. The Police will notify the landlord when their tenant is charged in Court for operating an unlicensed massage establishment. This is a legal requirement under clause 28. Landlords will, therefore, have no reason to be unaware of their tenants’ illegal activities.

After the tenant has been convicted of operating an unlicensed massage establishment, under clause 29, the landlord must require the tenant to hand over possession of the premises within a month. There is typically some time between the tenant being charged in Court and conviction. As such, the early notification under clause 28 will give landlords sufficient lead time to make the necessary preparations.

We recognise that some tenants could be difficult to deal with and may not leave despite the landlord’s request. In these cases, the landlord is expected to take the following steps to discharge his obligations under the Bill.

If the tenant refuses to hand over possession of the premises within a month, the landlord is empowered under clause 29 to terminate the lease or tenancy without being liable for breach of agreement with the occupier. Thereafter, if the tenant still refuses to move out, the landlord should apply to the Magistrate’s Court for a summary order for the delivery of possession of the premises. There will be penal consequences for the tenant if he refuses to vacate the premises.

If the landlord has taken these steps, he will have fulfilled his obligations and no action will be taken against him. Otherwise, the Police will take action against the landlord for the offence of allowing his premises to be used for operating an unlicensed massage establishment under clause 5. This offence carries the same penalties as the offence of operating an unlicensed massage establishment.

The second set of amendments will refocus the regulatory regime on higher-risk activities and reduce the regulatory costs on low-risk activities and compliant massage establishments. At the same time, we will enhance levers and powers available to the Police to deal with the errant massage establishment licensees.

The current definition of "massage or special treatment" under the Massage Establishments Act includes manicure, light treatment for hair removal, fish spas and baby spas. Such activities do not pose the same law and order concerns as traditional massage establishments offering body massages in private rooms.

MHA will amend the definition of "massage" so that these activities no longer require a licence. This will reduce the regulatory costs for such businesses. However, if any person provides massage services under the guise of such low-risk activities, they will face the increased penalties for unlicensed massage establishment operators.

We will also introduce a suite of measures to keep unsuitable persons out of the massage industry. Under the current regime, the Licensing Officer assesses the fitness and propriety of an applicant or licensee when deciding whether to issue or revoke a licence.

Under clauses 7 and 12, MHA will expand this assessment to include other "relevant persons", besides the applicant or licensee, who can influence the decisions of the business. These "relevant persons" include the "responsible officers" of the business entity as defined in clause 2, and all persons with substantial interest in, or have control or direction over, the business.

If the applicant, licensee or "relevant persons" are not fit and proper, the Licensing Officer can refuse to issue a massage establishment licence and revoke an existing one. This will reduce the risk of massage establishments being started or operated by persons who are unfit or improper but are hiding behind a veil of propriety. The Police will publish the criteria and requirements for applicants, licensees and "relevant persons" on their website at a later date.

Under clause 11, the Licensing Officer can immediately suspend a massage establishment licence when the licensee or a "relevant person" has been charged in Court for serious offences that will be specified in the schedule of the Act. Examples of these serious offences include vice-related offences under the Women’s Charter, as well as offences relating to trafficking-in-persons and organised crime. This allows the Police to take immediate action to prevent the licensee from using the massage establishment premises for such serious crimes, without having to wait for the potentially lengthy Court proceedings to be concluded. Under clause 12, when the licensee or "relevant person" is subsequently convicted of the scheduled serious offences, the Licensing Officer will then proceed to revoke the massage establishment licence.

The licensee is also required to seek the Licensing Officer's approval before hiring an employee. Not doing so will be an offence under clause 13. Employees who are not fit and proper will not be allowed to work in a massage establishment. The fit and proper criteria for massage establishment employees will be set out in the subsidiary legislation at a later stage. For example, if any employee has any involvement with vice activities, or has been convicted of serious offences, such as outrage of modesty, he or she will not be allowed to work in the massage establishment. The licensee or employee may appeal to the Minister against the Licensing Officer’s decision, but the decision will remain in force pending the outcome of the appeal.

We have also enhanced the Police’s powers to take swift and effective action against errant licensees. Clause 10 creates a new provision to allow the Licensing Officer to modify licence conditions, in order to intervene promptly against problems and disamenities associated with massage establishments. For example, if a licensed massage establishment poses law and order problems, the Licensing Officer may decide to curtail its operating hours for the remaining duration of its licence term. Clause 10 prescribes the process for modifying licence conditions, which is straightforward and I will not go into here.

The Police have encountered cases where massage establishments lock their doors to obstruct or delay enforcement. Clause 24 empowers Licensing Officers and Police Officers to enter massage establishment premises using necessary force and without a warrant, if there is reasonable suspicion that offences under the Act are being, or have been, committed within.

Clause 4 of the Bill allows the Licensing Officer to appoint suitably-trained individuals, such as Auxiliary Police Officers or retired Police Officers, as "authorised persons". This will provide the Police with deployment flexibility and allow them to conduct more frequent checks.

Authorised persons will be empowered under clause 23 to enter and inspect massage establishment premises. Under clause 26, authorised persons can request for records, accounts and other information relating to the massage establishment for purposes of compliance checks. Authorised persons, however, will not be given the more specialised powers that the Licensing Officer and Police Officers have, for example, powers of investigation and the new power of forced entry.

Clause 30 protects Licensing Officers, Police Officers and authorised persons from personal liability, as long as they have acted in good faith and executed their duties with reasonable care.

Finally, we will also increase the penalties for regulatory breaches, so as to deter and penalise errant licensed operators. The penalty today for all regulatory breaches is a maximum fine of $1,000. We will increase the penalty for regulatory breaches to a maximum fine of $5,000 for first-time offenders. Repeat offenders will face a maximum fine of $10,000 or two years’ imprisonment or both.

As part of the review, MHA consulted the Spa Association Singapore, the Spa and Wellness Association of Singapore and the Real Estate Developers’ Association of Singapore on the proposed amendments. The industry associations and their members are supportive of the proposals under the Bill. The Bill allows tougher action to be taken against unlicensed operators and errant licensees, who damage the image of the massage industry. Mr Speaker, please allow me to conclude my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the Massage Establishments Bill will enable the Police to take tougher enforcement actions against errant massage establishment operators while reducing the regulatory burden for compliant operators.

I mentioned earlier that between 2013 and 2016, there was a 40% increase in the number of unlicensed massage establishments. Many of these are, in fact, not massage establishments but fronts for vice activities, the so-called "wolf in sheep's clothing". The Bill will provide the Police with more levers to tackle these unlicensed massage establishments in several areas.

Firstly, the Bill will mete out stiffer penalties for unlicensed massage establishments. Secondly, should the operator continue to operate without a licence even after being charged in Court, the Police can issue a premises closure order. Thirdly, for landlords who knowingly rent out their premises to unlicensed massage establishments, the Police will hold them accountable.

Past cases have shown that licensed massage establishments have a lower tendency for vice activities. The Bill will focus on regulating higher-risk massage activities and introduce several new measures. For example, to ensure that licensed massage establishments are operated by a suitable person, the Police will not only assess the fitness and propriety of the applicant or licensee, but also other relevant persons who are in a position to influence the operation of the massage establishment.

The proposed amendments will strengthen MHA's regulatory framework for massage establishments. Mr Speaker, I recommend we pass this Bill.

(In English): Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.

4.15 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a welcome addition to the laws we have against vice in Singapore and is timely, needed.

While massage establishments can provide valuable health-enhancing services, we cannot shy away from the fact that many have been used as a facade for carrying out vice-related enterprise.

The media have covered this: 19 June 2016, the New Paper reported, "Dhoby Ghaut Spa Almost like a Brothel"; 8 June 2017, Asiaone reported, "Police Raid Five Massage Parlours for Illicit Activities"; 29 August 2017, The Straits Times reported, "79 People Arrested for Offering Sexual Services at Massage Parlours, Gambling and Working without Permits".

The higher regulation embedded in this Bill is needed to target the recalcitrant massage establishments. By taking a less regulated approach to businesses offering manicures, pedicures and the like, the Police are now able to productively deploy and focus resources to clamp down on parlours which are mere shopfronts for vice activities. I hope this law will encourage the Police to prioritise their anti-vice raids on suspicious parlours within residential areas. I have had a complaint of a suspicious parlour along Bukit Timah Road within the constituency I serve, close to schools and homes. As the Police prioritises their anti-vice raids, I would hope officers will first focus on rooting out vice activities near residential areas. Allow me, Mr Speaker, Sir, to speak of certain aspects of this Bill.

This Bill gives the extra teeth necessary to ensure that vice activities can be clamped down swiftly and effectively. How? Firstly, the punishment for operating an unlicensed massage establishment has been increased. It is not just a fine, but there is also a possibility of imprisonment of up to two years. Or even if it were just a fine meted out by the Court, the upper range has been extended from $1,000 to $10,000, or a tenfold increase. If a person re-offends in the same manner, he or she can face a heavier punishment.

Second, the Police Commissioner may issue a premises closure order. Under this order, it is no longer up to the person being charged to decide whether or not unlicensed activities are going on at the massage establishment. The premises can be locked up, secured and disused.

Thirdly, this Bill adds a duty on owners or occupiers to ensure that a person deliver up the premises within one month after conviction of certain offences. Through enhanced punishment, a premises closure order and the determination of a lease, this Bill ensures that massage establishments are robustly regulated.

Allow me, Mr Speaker, a clarification. I note that there has been a change of rule-making power conferred by this Bill. Under section 13(2b) of the current Massage Establishment Act, the Minister could make rules concerning "the standards of hygiene to be observed in establishments for massage". This does not appear under clause 35 of this current Bill before the House. The general clause for rule-making, which is clause 35(1), would probably not extend to hygiene since the only other health-related provision is that of clause 35(2c), a prohibition against employing a person who has not "undergone and passed a medical health screening if required to do so by a licensing officer". As such, would the Minister kindly clarify how the hygiene of massage services is regulated?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, we cannot allow massage establishments to be a vehicle to proliferate vice, and certainly not in our residential areas. Therefore, I stand in strong support of this Massage Establishment Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.

4.20 pm

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, the problem of vice establishments using "massage service" as a mask to hide their activities has been prevalent for a long time. As the Minister has shared, since 2013, there has been about a 40% increase in unlicensed massage establishments in Singapore. The operating terrain also made enforcement difficult.

It is timely to strengthen our laws and regulations to protect genuine massage establishments and penalise those that use this as a cover for vice activities. One important change is the increase in fines from $1,000 to $10,000 for businesses that offer vice-related services, as well as including the possibility of a jail term of up to two years. This sends the correct signal that we are serious in tackling this problem. We also need to go further to weed out all parties that are responsible for letting such businesses thrive. We need to establish stricter rules on landlords, especially those operating within the heartlands.

Besides the guise of massage establishments, there are news reports of those using traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) centres as a guise for sexual offences. Sir, we must guard against having such businesses operating in our heartlands as it could cause security and social problems. Can MHA consider working with the merchant associations to strengthen our intelligence collection against such illegal establishments? What other mechanisms are there in place for HDB to obtain feedback on establishments that flout the rules?

Currently, only massage establishments in the Massage Establishment (ME) Category 1 or those in the Exempted ME category are allowed to operate in residential areas. These are businesses which have CaseTrust accreditation, a capital investment of at least $50,000 and are seen as low risk in providing vice-related activities as they are usually reflexology centres or physiotherapy centres. May I ask the Minister how many of these Category 1 businesses have been found to have flouted the rules due to having vice-related activities on their premises, or for not following regulations, such as having clear windows where all activities can be seen from outside of the shop? Is there a debarment period before these people could operate similar businesses again?

Perhaps it might be useful to limit their operating hours as some of them operate even till midnight. Does the Ministry have any plans to revise these requirements and make it even stricter for massage establishments that want to operate in HDB heartlands?

Sir, while this Bill enhances the responsibilities of the premises owner or landlord for the activities that take place, it could go further and take on a stricter stance to reflect the great responsibility that the landlord has on this matter. With regard to Part 6 clause 28, it seems to suggest that the premises owner is liable only if he or she knows that the place is being used as a massage establishment without a licence. Does this liability extend to sexual and other vice activities done at the premises, which is a breach of the licensing conditions? Does the Ministry have enhanced levels of punishment for multiple infractions? Can we consider the forfeiture of tenancy, especially if it is a commercial space in an HDB estate? Landlords who take “reasonable steps” to evict the operator within a month will not be penalised, while those who do not do so face a fine of $10,000 or imprisonment of up to two years. Could some kind of penalty be imposed on the landlords who repeatedly have such establishments operating on their premises, but still evict and take reasonable steps to evict the operator within a month?

Finally, I would like to know if there are any guidelines on advertising for these types of services in the heartlands. Could restrictions be placed on advertisements of massage establishments in the heartlands?

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

Sir, this Bill is as much about weeding out illegal massage establishment as supporting the genuine ones in developing their industry. All stakeholders need to play their role, especially landlords, who cannot adopt a rent-and-forget approach anymore. This Bill sets it in the right direction. I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.

4.24 pm

Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Massage Establishments Bill. It is timely that a robust set of licensing rules is enacted, given the rapid growth of the massage industry. I support the increase in penalties for unlicensed massage establishments, strengthening of the Police’s levers to take firm actions, whilst taking a calibrated approach to reducing the regulatory burden for low-risk activities.

The proliferation of massage outlets in our HDB and residential estates is of significant concern for many residents. For example, one can spot five massage establishments in a row at just one block in an HDB neighbourhood. Quite a common sight.

The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and the Police licensing regime should regulate the growth of such massage establishments operating in housing estates. I urge the Minister of State to consider limiting the number of massage establishments, how many can be set up within a particular trade radius, really limit it, do not let so many operate. I really cannot see the basis for such concentration of massage establishments in our HDB estates.

Residents are concerned that such outlets can be used as fronts for illicit vice activities, resulting in law and order and social problems. There have also been complaints about the suitability of advertising materials featuring half-naked women displayed prominently on shop fronts, which operate 24 hours a day. Many outlets make misleading claims about the efficacy of their massage treatments, with the "menu of services" offering lymphoma detox, kidney-care treatment, ovary-care treatment and so on.

Some go on to promote "special services". For example, one spa promotes their "Royal Prostate Package", offering customers two hours of "Prostate Care therapy". The advertisement boasts “comfortable and serene environment, exquisite and professional technique will bring your health to new heights”. It also adds: “Let our young, pretty and experienced masseuses bring back your energy, vitality and loosen up your pressure!!” I think that doctors in this House may agree that the implied service is probably not to treat urological disorders.

I would like to ask that massage establishments be subject to an advertising code of practice that prohibit claims of services that cannot be substantiated and disallow the suggested offer of seductive services. Massage establishments should follow clearly prescribed guidelines on the use of suitable promotional images and messages. This is especially important where the outlets are located near schools and in residential areas. Therapists should not be scantily clad when working, but instead be clothed in proper attire, including uniforms, in order to promote a healthy image for the industry.

The Government should also consider banning hard-sell tactics and touting of massage services outside massage establishments. Passers-by should not be harassed by such practices, especially in busy HDB town centres and tourist sites.

I would also like to ask the Minister what is the rationale for allowing massage establishments to operate 24 hours a day. I recognise that some individuals may like a massage as a stress-reliever after a long day at work, but round-the-clock operating hours may bring disamenities to the local community and temptations for illicit activities in the quiet of the night. I urge the Minister to consider limiting the operating hours to more reasonable timings, especially if the massage establishments are in housing estates.

Given the risk of massage establishments being used as fronts for vice activities, which often involve foreign therapists, I would like to ask the authorities to carefully calibrate the fit and proper criteria for granting approval for massage establishment employees. To ensure transparency of such licensing, all approved employees should be issued with an identification (ID) or certificate that should be prominently displayed at the outlet. This will help identify "approved" employees more easily and help prevent unlicensed masseuses from working illegally.

For approval to be granted, employees must meet minimum qualifications for the services they are licensed to provide, including passing a therapist code of conduct that clearly spells out the "dos" and "don'ts" with clients and the penalties for breaches.

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is well and good that the latest set of amendments strengthens the Police’s levers to take unlicensed massage establishments to task. However, this will only be effective through determined enforcement of the new powers. So, I urge the authorities to take decisive action to eradicate unlawful activities. Robust enforcement plans must be put in place to deal with the alarming increase of 40% in the number of unlicensed massage establishments, as mentioned in the Minister's speech.

Mr Deputy Speaker, whilst the Bill increases scrutiny for "higher risk activities", such as massage parlours, it should concurrently keep an eye on "low-risk activities" that will receive a lighter touch from the regulations. The authorities should monitor these low-risk outlets and ensure that the vice operations are not simply conducted under a different banner.

Sir, I believe with the appropriate set of regulations and enforcement actions, vice activities that hide behind massage establishments can be eradicated. The industry can be repositioned with a more positive image and realise their potential to provide good and meaningful jobs for Singaporeans, including the visually handicapped. I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

4.31 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, it is necessary to increase the penalty for illegal massage establishment operators. According to reports from MHA, the number of unlicensed massage establishments increased by 40% from 2013 to 2016, and most of them were involved in vice activities. The current penalty of less than $1,000 is, indeed, too low.

Although the penalty will be increased to a maximum fine of $10,000 or imprisonment of two years or both, with fines for repeat offenders increasing to $20,000 or imprisonment of five years or both, I still think the penalty is not enough to deter the illegal operators, as their profits far exceed the fines.

Hence, I suggest that besides the penalties, the amount of fines be commensurate with the size and duration of the operation, meaning that with more staff and customers involved and longer period of operation, the fines should increase in tandem.

I also urge the Minister to disallow those operators to register any beauty or wellness businesses, and forbid foreigners who have been proven to be involved in vice activities to enter Singapore. We must strengthen our control and supervision because these beauty or wellness establishments can easily be converted into places for illegal activities. They are often involved in various criminal activities and become the centre for spreading venereal diseases and other diseases, threatening our social security and national health.

There are many shops providing beauty and wellness services and the Police cannot conduct frequent checks on all of them. Strict registration rules can help weed out suspicious operators from the beauty and wellness industries and it is a preventive and deterrent measure.

Another thorny issue is that there are more and more illegal massage groups operating in residential areas. Both HDB and the private estates are facing the same challenge. Recently, the Police have successfully raided illegal massage parlours and brothels. The operators, hence, turn to HDB flats and the private condominiums to continue with their illegal activities. I would like to know how the Minister is going to tackle this trend. Sir, in English.

(In English): The heart of the problem is really vice and related illegal activities. I am in favour of the heavier penalties which are overdue. Measures, such as closing unlicensed premises during criminal proceedings and penalising landlords who knowingly continue to lease their properties, are well and good.

My concern is: how do we deal with the operators who move into residential areas? I have been receiving complaints from a number of my residents who had complained to me about this recurring problem in their estates.

Many of such workers enter Singapore as visitors. How do we nab the illegal workers who may not have gone for the necessary health checks? The proposed penalties are on the establishments but not so much on the illegal workers who are high-risk carriers of sexually transmitted diseases. I do realise that to remain a dynamic and vibrant city, we have to maintain open borders. However, we must also devise strategies to deter and keep out undesirable visitors. I look forward to hearing the deterrent measures the Ministry has in place. I conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

4.36 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which will allow the Police to take tougher actions against unlicensed massage establishments being used as fronts for vice activities, while reducing the burden for compliant establishments. However, I would like to seek some clarifications.

First, I welcome the move to reduce the regulatory burden for low-risk massage activities, such as manicure and pedicure salons, by exempting them from requiring a licence to operate. However, to adapt from the well-known Police advisory – low-risk does not mean no risk. During my time in the Police Force, I have seen hair salons, manicure salons and other supposedly "low-risk" establishments being used as a cover for vice activities. So, I would like to ask: how does the Ministry plan to prevent such allegedly low-risk outlets from engaging in vice once they are exempted from licensing?

Next, I welcome the measures for harsher penalties to be extended to landlords who knowingly lease their properties to unlicensed operators. It is important that landlords play their part in ensuring the activities that are being carried out on their premises are legitimate. However, some landlords are concerned. They want to know how would the authorities determine whether landlords knowingly or unknowingly lease their properties to tenants who engage in vice activities. Can the Ministry clarify on the investigation process and explain the parameters that would determine the landlord's culpability?

There is also the perennial issue of the tenants – the licence applicants being set up as the fall guy. How does the Ministry intend to deal with the same mastermind who works behind the scenes, operating various unlawful massage establishments under the guise of different applicants?

I would like to urge the Ministry to consider imposing a sanction on premises that have been used for vice-related activities. The authorities should bar any massage establishment licences from being granted to the same premises, until at least a year after the conviction. And if it was a case of a low-risk massage establishment being used as a front for vice activities, the authorities should consider making it necessary for any subsequent similar outlets to require a licence before operating from the same premises. This would help to deter the same undesirable activities from taking place in the premises and prevent a vice hotspot from taking root.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as the Member of Parliament (MP) of a constituency with many private estates, I have seen first-hand how such massage establishments and other public entertainment outlets located within mixed-use developments can cause much distress to the residents. Such outlets, as some of my other Parliamentary colleagues have said, are usually a magnet for vice activities and attract various unsavoury characters. This can cause much unhappiness and threatens the social compact between residents and tenants. Worst still, in a Strata Title, there is not much that can be done to deter a defiant landlord.

I would, therefore, like to urge the Ministry to minimise the number of massage establishments in mixed-use developments. I hope the authorities can consider the impact on residents before granting such operating licences. I would also like to propose a strict quota on such massage establishments, especially those that operate 24 hours within a defined locality, particularly within a residential zone.

Next, I would like to touch on the importance of uplifting the negative perception of the massage industry. Would the Ministry consider working with the relevant agencies to provide Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) training for all masseuses, and consider professional certification to be a mandatory aspect in the application for a massage establishment licence? Professional certification would certainly help to ensure that those working in the industry are well-trained, and this will help in uplifting the industry's image. In addition, stiffer advertising guidelines should also be implemented for massage establishments, such as on social media channels, where we can easily find advertisements for massage services which carry suggestive messages and accompanied by pictures of improperly clothed ladies.

Under the provisions in the Bill, licensed massage establishments with good track records will be given a longer licence period. Can the Ministry give a clearer definition of what constitutes a good track record? Perhaps, the Ministry can explore including professional certification of masseuses as part of what a good track record should be. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.

4.41 pm

Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Massage Establishments Bill.

I would like to touch on three main points. Firstly, the Bill has spelt out and detailed the actions and penalties against offenders, including the owners of those properties used as massage establishments. What about the so-called masseuses who provide non-massage services? I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister what action will be taken against that in the context of this new Bill.

The new Bill states that landlords of unlicensed massage establishments should evict the operator. Landlords who take "reasonable steps to do so will not be penalised", states the Bill. Could the Second Minister elaborate on the term "reasonable steps" and what it will constitute? During the course of investigations, massage establishments could also be closed till the end of Court proceedings under clause 19. This is a welcome move but I would like to further urge the Minister to take one step further to confiscate properties used for vice activities if the landlord is found complicit in the activities at the conclusion of the investigation. Only then would we be able to send a strong signal to owners and operators of such illicit massage establishments that their activities are not tolerated.

Also, making a distinction between massage establishments and low-risk activity centres, like nail salons and hair removal centres, is noteworthy and removes the requirement for licensing for low-risk massage establishments. However, I wish to seek clarification from the Second Minister with regard to TCM clinics offering therapeutic massage, whether they are also similarly covered under the Bill. I have seen a proliferation of reported TCM establishments operating as tui-na or massage centres, some with rather dubious operators. As such TCM clinics are not registered with the Ministry of Health, is this a potential loophole for such operators?

Also, there are many such massage establishments in plain sight. In fact, many are advertising openly in tabloids online and many are still operating, despite this open knowledge. I, therefore, hope that with this renewed Bill, there will be greater impetus to shut down such shady establishments.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

4.44 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Massage Establishments Bill.

This Bill introduces provisions for closer control of massage establishments. This will have a greater deterrent effect on those who operate massage establishments as fronts for prostitution, vice and other illegal activities. The approach taken in this Bill mirrors the changes made to the Public Entertainment Act in May this year. These objectives deserve our support. I take this opportunity to comment on and seek clarifications on four areas of the Bill.

First, I seek clarification on the ambit of the matters that the licensing officer may take into account to decide whether or not to grant the licence under clause 7 of the Bill. One specific issue that has arisen in my constituency is the concentration of massage establishments within a relatively small area, a point that the hon Members Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Melvin Yong made as well.

In Bukit Batok Single Member Constituency, over the past year, there are 14 massage establishments, three of which are 24-hour spas. All of these establishments are in close proximity to residential areas.

In the past year, there were four applications to open new massage parlours. One 24-hour spa has since closed due to Police enforcement action. My residents are appreciative of the close monitoring enforcement on these establishments by the Police. However, they are naturally concerned that there should not be a proliferation of such establishments as there is the potential for the character of their neighbourhood to change. The Planning Act provisions referred to in clause 7(3)(d) and (e) of the Bill are not necessarily engaged as these establishments operate from HDB shophouses.

I would be grateful if the Minister could please confirm that the licensing officer would be able to take into account factors, such as the character of the neighbourhood and concentration of existing massage establishments under clause 7(7) of the Bill, in deciding whether or not to grant new massage establishment licences as well as to restrict the hours of operation of the massage business. If so, given that the Police are basically a law enforcement agency, may I please ask how the licensing officer would be able to get reliable inputs on these factors?

A connected practical issue concerns the liaison between HDB and the Police. The hon Second Minister mentioned there are about 300 HDB shophouses where massage establishments have been running from. From time to time, HDB would be approached for written permission to change the use of HDB shophouse premises of which it is the head lessor to that of a massage establishment.

Last year, on noting that HDB has issued written permissions for conversion of several shops into massage parlours in Bukit Batok, I suggested that HDB coordinate these efforts with the Police to establish a workflow in relation to such matters, obtain relevant inputs and then make the necessary assessment before issuing written permission. With a well thought out workflow, there is potential to cut down redundant steps and make it user-friendly for the applicants, too.

One specific issue that I wish to ask is whether the Police would process an application to operate a massage establishment at an HDB shophouse before an applicant obtains written permission from the HDB to effect the change of use. Would the Police take the cue from HDB or vice versa?

In my personal view, issues, such as concentration of massage parlours within HDB shophouses in a particular area, may equally be considered and handled at HDB's end with inputs from the Police through the lever of written permission. In this way, the problem can be nipped in the bud. I would be grateful for the hon Second Minister's view on the preferred approach to be taken.

Second, I note that under clause 32 of the Bill, the Minister has powers to exempt any premises from applying for a licence. Under the present regime, the Minister has issued exemption orders with respect to premises in which only curative massage is administered personally by a physiotherapist who is a member of the Singapore Physiotherapist Association, a person who is a registered TCM physician with a practising certificate, or an occupational therapist who is a member of the Singapore Association of Occupation Therapist. Exemptions are also granted for premises where certain forms of massage, such as traditional massage, are administered in full view of the public. Does the Ministry intend that these exemptions will continue under the regime introduced by this Bill?

Additionally, I am aware that the Ayurvedic Practitioners Association Singapore has long sought for exemption status to carry out Ayurvedic massages of their patients which, for practical purposes, cannot be done in full view of the public. May I please seek an update of this matter from the hon Second Minister? Is there an intention to extend exemption status to other forms of curative massage?

Third, I note clause 5(2) of the Bill prohibits any person from advertising or representing that he or she provides massage services in an establishment for massage unless the person holds a valid licence to do so at the premises. The Public Entertainment Act also has a similar provision. It is provided in section 12 of the Public Entertainment Act that the licence issued by the authorities must be prominently displayed at the premises. This statutory requirement does not appear to be reproduced in this Bill. The advantage of such a requirement are twofold.

Firstly, it will be an added deterrent against the operation of unlicensed massage establishments as the lack of licence would be glaringly obvious; and secondly, it would provide some form of consumer protection as the public would be able to easily ascertain whether the massage establishment is licensed or granted exemption status. I would recommend that the Minister consider imposing a similar requirement under this Bill requiring operators to prominently display the licence or instrument conferring exemption status at massage establishments.

Finally, the proposed Bill introduces welcome provisions to regulate the use of premises as massage establishments, the primary aim of which is to control and deter vice activities that may be associated with such services. Notwithstanding that failure to comply with any condition of a licence is an offence, I wonder if the Ministry would consider introducing a system for awarding demerit points in respect of incidents or breaches of condition of licence which will then be taken into account for subsequent renewal or applications to operate a massage establishment at either the same or different premises? This would give the authorities greater control over repeated breaches by operators of massage establishments.

In this regard, I note that section 15 of the Public Entertainment Act provides for a similar system. Notwithstanding the queries I raised, I agree with the need for our authorities to exert greater control over massage establishments. I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

4.51 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill proposes to deter unlicensed massage establishments by increasing the penalties. While this is necessary as a deterrent, it is even more important to step up enforcement with more effective checks and frequent raids on such outlets. I would like to ask the Ministry how responsive its departments are to tip-offs from members of the public and the whistleblowers who provide information about suspected establishments. For buildings with a higher concentration or recurrence of seedy providers, is it possible to require them to install closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras along the corridors and entrances to help deter illegal activities?

The Bill will also penalise landlords who knowingly continue to lease premises to unlicensed massage establishment operators. I would like to ask what conditions would qualify as "knowingly". Based on my understanding of the Bill, lessors are expected to take reasonable steps to evict the tenant after conviction. The lessors will have some time to prepare as the Police will inform the lessors once their tenants are charged.

I would like to suggest that we require landlords to be more proactive in checking on their tenants. They should be required to submit evidence of periodic surprise checks, at least twice a year, to prove their diligence in ensuring that their properties are not being used for illegal activities.

Provisions in the Bill have been made to regulate employment at the massage establishments, such as the stipulation of the minimum age and the necessary medical health screenings. I would like to recommend that we take steps to professionalise this sector by setting up a body to issue licences for the individual practitioners. Only certified personnel will be allowed to practise in such massage establishments, and practitioners may face revocation of their licences if breaches are made. This body will also regulate and protect the employment rights of the practitioners, coordinate and provide training and upgrading programmes. With that, I conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

4.55 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, let me start by saying that I stand in support of this Bill. With a 40% increase in the number of unlicensed massage establishments in the past three years, this is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed.

These unlicensed massage establishments taint Singapore’s image. These are sentiments which are echoed by netizens who posted comments on my Facebook page.

Mr Zain Kazmi said, "Singapore's reputation has been diminished by the operation of such sleazy businesses. We cannot afford to allow such vices to continue unabated, as it tarnishes the name of genuine massage parlours and the country at large".

Many have argued, and I agree, that a fine of $1,000 is too low to deter the operators of these massage parlours who can simply pay the fine after they are caught and set up a new place soon after.

Thus, I welcome this Bill. By increasing the penalties by at least tenfold and introducing a jail term, we are sending a very strong message that we want to clamp down on these vice activities. This was my first impression when I read this Bill and started drafting the speech. However, as I looked into it and researched further and met with the sex workers themselves and with Project X, a non-profit which provides social, emotional and legal support for sex workers in Singapore, I realised that the amendments here are just part of the equation. It is only tackling the supply side and not the demand.

The other part of the equation that we are not tackling in this Bill is equally important. The 40% increase in unlicensed massage parlours must be in part due to an increasing demand. I do understand that the Ministry of Education's current Sexuality Education programme already has elements to mitigate youth paying for sexual services. But I feel there is more we need to do and, perhaps for a start, launch a detailed study and research to understand this demand before we can come up with further legislative and policy amendments.

If we do not address the root of the problem, we will always be one step behind. We are now clamping down on massage establishments. If the demand continues, which I am quite sure it will, the vice activities will just move on to the next place.

We already know from media reports that sexual services are offered at some TCM clinics. The current amendments do not cover TCM clinics and perhaps this is where the vice activities at massage establishments will be heading. Of course, we can then legislate again and cover TCM clinics. But I hope Members see where I am heading. We will always be one step behind. And if there is demand for something, there will always be supply.

Worse still, we might drive these activities further underground. This was the fear of former Home Affairs Minister Mr Wong Kan Seng who said this in Parliament in 1999 in relation to a question about prostitution, "And it is better that the Police know where these areas are and enforcement action can be taken, rather than to disperse these brothels to the whole of Singapore and we then have a cat-and-mouse game chasing after them or, worse still, drive them underground, and they will be operating everywhere." Minister Wong also said, “Criminalising prostitution will only drive such activities underground, resulting in crime syndicates taking control over such activities.” And I wonder whether crime syndicates have taken control of some of these unlicensed massage establishments.

Do some of these unlicensed massage establishments have links to other criminal elements and activities by organised criminal syndicates which finance the presumably high initial set-up costs of such massage establishments? Again, a detailed study will allow us to further understand the underlying complex ecosystem driving this trend of the growing number of unlicensed massage establishments.

Sir, we also need to look at the supply side not just in terms of the penalties but also understanding why people become sex workers. As I mentioned earlier, I met up with the sex workers – Singaporean sex workers. I met a young Singaporean who has been a sex worker for two years and is also currently pursuing her diploma. She uses the money earned to pay for her education and is intending to pursue her degree as well and is saving up for that. I met a single lady who is a sex worker to help pay for her parents' medical fees.

I went into that meeting with an open mind to listen and to try and understand their viewpoints. To listen to their concerns and the dangers they faced working as a sex worker and how they worry about their safety. I listened to how lonely they felt at times, working in this industry. At the end of the day, there is no quick fix, no easy solution. But the way forward is for us to study this issue holistically and engage all the parties concerned.

Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. This is a complex issue and I hope that this Bill is a start, and we can look into this issue much further.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Kok Heng Leun.

4.59 pm

Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): Deputy Speaker, I will come to the introduction of this Bill as it is clear that the old Act had been insufficient at targeting non-compliant and unlicensed massage parlours which are often used as fronts for vice. This Bill shows the Government's commitment to ensure that massage parlours are held to the highest standards, which is a move away from previous Acts where parlours can continue to operate even when they have been fined for being non-compliant.

That said, I do have my concerns. I would like to thank my fellow Member Mr Louis Ng for voicing some of those concerns that I have. I will be talking along those lines.

In my following speech, I would use the term "massage workers" to refer to masseuses who provide a happy-ending service in massage parlours. Based on the Ministry's press statement, the Bill's primary intent seems to be to eliminate vice from massage parlours. The logical extension of this would be that the Bill's secondary intent is to force massage workers to leave the trade. However, this would pose a few problems and questions.

Firstly, just because the Ministry wishes for the elimination of vice from massage parlours, it does not mean that it will happen. It is clear that, historically, it is impossible to eradicate vice from any society. The Member Mr Baey Yam Keng was quoted in The Straits Times in 2010 saying that the raids of Geylang have led to vice spreading out into the neighbourhoods. The same article quoted an ordinary citizen saying that Geylang is very quiet now compared to the past. In the past few months, newspaper headlines have been dominated by the raids on brothels in HDB estates, unlicensed massage parlours and fake TCM practitioners.

Separately, in the past, there used to be these health centres where sexual services were provided alongside massage. Most of these health centres were not allowed to renew their licences. The shutdown of these health centres led to the proliferation of smaller parlours set up by the people who used to work at these health centres. From interviews with massage workers, the proliferation was also because smaller parlours were harder to apprehend for sexual services. If this Bill serves only to push it somewhere else, does the Ministry have long-term plans to ensure that the vice does not happen where we do not want it to be?

Secondly, and this relates to a theme that I have always touched on, especially in my previous Budget debate, on the displacement of the marginalised. Massage workers provide sexual services due to their personal circumstances and, to them, it was the most viable way to earn a substantial living through their own labour and to support their families.

Project X, which hon Member Mr Louis Ng mentioned, is a local non-government organisation (NGO) that works with sex workers to ensure their safety, physically and emotionally. They have spoken to many Singaporean massage workers doing this for anything between two years and 30 years. The one thing they have in common is that they do not possess the sort of educational qualifications that are privileged in the society we live in, and a job anywhere else would be one with long hours and little pay. Providing sexual services can increase their salaries from between 100% and 500%, or even more.

I would like to ask the Ministry if it expects these Singaporean massage workers to leave the trade, are there plans to support them in the transition? And, importantly, transition into a job where they can earn a commensurate amount of money in order to successfully support their family?

Thirdly and correspondingly, through the experience of Project X, I have come to understand that, for many, it is immensely hard to leave the trade but there are amazing success stories of women leaving that industry. There are many factors that determine that: a supportive family, good business and finance acumen, will power and opportunities all played a part in that.

In the face of criminalisation, stigma and occasional violence, it creates a series of setbacks, disempowering them. That said, this is based on the assumption that all massage workers want to leave their jobs. We know of women who have done this for most of their lives and absolutely cannot imagine anything different. To be clear, these women do not want to be dishonest or break the law. I will quote some of them who said, "We want to apply for licence but we cannot. Without a licence, we cannot apply for Central Provident Fund (CPF). We cannot apply for Workfare. There is no security. We are all Singaporeans. We have worked here for seven, eight years". Even the Thai worker is also Singaporean, married to Singaporean but her husband does not want her anymore and she has to work and look after the children.

There is another one I spoke with who has five kids; she had no place to live, so she lives in those backpacker hostels. She has no money to rent. We had to buy Maggi noodles for her. But now, she has finally found a place to live and it is because she does this job that can help her to support her children.

Echoing her voice, another massage worker shared that "Those working here are Permanent Residents (PR) or citizens. We work for whom? We work for our family. My friend has younger daughters. I myself have two kids and have to support them. One of them was a Mathematics Olympian. My husband earns $1,800 a month as an electrician. He works from 8.00 am to 5.00 pm. After work, he goes to the childcare centre and picks up my kids. But I work here at night to earn money for the family".

A common theme among many of the women was that they all felt that they would not be doing this kind of work if they did not have to. Many do this so that their children can have a bright future, one that will hopefully be starkly different from their own. These women are textbook cases of the woman who sacrifices for her children.

One of the massage workers who was also her own boss said, "Our business here does not affect others. We operate here which is common for this line of business and not in housing areas nor close to schools. Being a PR or citizen, the money we earn stays in this country and it is spent on our family and children who will grow up and contribute to the country in the future. Without much qualifications, this is the only industry we can work in. It is not committing crime, we never "杀 人 放 火 " or set fire or kill. We also care about safety and hygiene despite being in the business. The penalty is too heavy".

I am recounting this sharing to the House only to remind us that the displacement is real and genuine and should be looked at and considered.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the past, there was a common understanding that we all did what we needed to do to survive. People could empathise with one another through their shared hardships. However, now that we have progressed significantly, society writ large seems to look down and despise people who have not made it, even though they may have different backgrounds and opportunities.

The stigma on sex workers and other forms of manual labourers remains rampant and it only fuels discrimination and sometimes even violence. We need to be able to treat all citizens equally and work together to create an equitable society.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.

5.08 pm

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, as the MP for Geylang Serai, which covers the upper lorongs in Geylang, I stand in support of the Bill. I have been working with the authorities, the multi-agency task forces and the anti-vice department for at least a dozen years now. I am quite happy with the results that I have gotten in Geylang.

I stand in support of the Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have several issues and clarifications to make. With this Bill, we are dealing with an industry that requires enhanced regulation and stricter enforcement. It is not going to be a walk in the park because of the multitude of factors. As all the nine speakers before me have shared, there are many, many issues, indeed, to be considered.

For one, just look at the types and numbers of massage available currently – body massage, manicure and pedicure-related massage, chiropractic light massage, electric massage, vapour massage and other baths-related massage, foot reflexology, slimming massage, spa services, head massage, traditional massage, curative massage, and even physiotherapy massage. It is thus becoming a lot easier to actually have non-approved and illegal activities under the guise of some of these services because it is so wide-ranging.

As all applications and approval for licences are regulated, does the authority have the ability to regulate the number of such premises that are allowed within certain areas? For example, I have come across seven such premises within one and a half blocks located near a private residential area and a secondary school. And mind you, this is not in the Geylang lorong vicinity; it is up north in my constituency, therefore, the concern from the residents in the vicinity. How did that happen? Seven premises within one and a half blocks? Should there be better coordination and oversight of this? In fact, Mr Deputy Speaker, with this Bill, I still do not see this being addressed specifically, thus, my concern.

On the Police licensing website, it is clearly written that massage establishments, some of them are not regulated by the Massage Establishments Act. Perhaps, these are the establishments that may go negative. Can we actually monitor these and, perhaps, they should also come under the oversight and regulation of this Bill? Something for us to consider.

Also on the website, I note that a foreigner is eligible to apply for a Massage Establishment licence as long as he holds a valid Work Permit or Employment Pass. Should the Ministry be reviewing this as well, as they may actually open up a can of worms, perhaps something else may come about, especially when some of our foreign friends may open TCM centres in the guise of providing massage.

Pertaining to the term "fit and proper person" in Part 2, clause 7.4, I understand the licensing body will look out for certain criteria. However, of greater concern is that the persons who are not fit and proper or have been blacklisted before, may apply for the licence through a third party, a family member or a friend. Once the licence is granted, that is when the problem starts. The modifications happen, the partitions will come up, and the operations at the premises can go off course, and the illegal way, of course.

Are there innovative ways to circumvent and stop this problem from happening? This is actually one of the problems that we are facing in some of the establishments. One suggestion would be to have regular and conscientious follow-up and checks on these premises on a more sustainable basis. One of the Members who spoke earlier mentioned perhaps twice a year. This is also where feedback from the surrounding community and the public plays an important part and the authorities can work in partnership with them as well.

I do support the stricter action on penalties with a tenfold increase in the fines and a longer jail term as well. The previous summons of $1,000 and $50 per day for unlicensed massage parlour operators, as long as they continue operations, is really just a slap on the wrist, and no wonder they keep coming back again and again, and circulating in the industry, giving it a negative connotation.

Can I also find out if the authorities will consider a demerit points system for massage establishments, especially similar to the existing one for pubs and bars?

Can the Minister also update us on the current magnitude of the problem, that is, how many unlicensed massage establishments, on average, are detected or raided per month? What is the number of such establishments operating in Singapore currently? Also, numbers like repeat offenders as these are usually of concern to us as well.

As there are plans for the Ministry to work with the trade associations for the beauty and wellness industry, with this upcoming implementation of the Bill, they may actually form partnerships to assist with increased compliance and understanding as well as assist with some level of surveillance, I feel. Are there specific steps that the Ministry is going to implement pertaining to this?

The beauty and wellness industry, Sir, is an interesting and dynamic one. Whilst there are many kosher operations which benefit the health of many in a variety of ways, there are some bad apples circulating and using the industry for their own needs and illegal activities. The clean-up requires collaborative efforts by parties concerned and stepped-up, organised and conscientious enforcement. I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Second Minister Josephine Teo.

5.14 pm

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the 11 Members for speaking in support of the Bill. They have raised many useful points which I will try to address. Let me start with massage establishments within residential areas.

Several Members raised concerns about massage establishments in residential areas, including Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Melvin Yong and Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, who rightly pointed out that it is not a walk in the park. Mr Christopher de Souza said that the Police should prioritise anti-vice enforcement efforts in residential areas. Mr Murali Murali asked whether the Police will engage relevant stakeholders in deciding whether to grant new massage establishment licences and take into account land use considerations when assessing licence applications. Mr Desmond Choo suggested working with merchant associations to strengthen intelligence on illegal establishments and gathering feedback on licensed massage establishments that flout the rules.

MHA understands and shares the underlying concerns of our Members. Mr Kok Heng Leun said that "massage worker" refers to masseuses who provide happy-ending services in massage parlours. He added that under the current Act, massage establishments can continue to operate even when they have been fined for being non-compliant. Let me correct that misconception.

Masseuses are not sex workers. Massage workers can earn a living without providing sexual services. That is the first thing we have to acknowledge. Not all masseuses are trying to provide additional services. They perform massage services. It is their livelihood. There is nothing untoward about that.

I will state categorically also that when it comes to vice and other illegal activities in massage establishments, the Police have zero tolerance, especially in residential estates. Their licences are liable to be revoked. So, that is the baseline.

The Police and HDB take all feedback, all complaints from residents and the community seriously. We will assess each feedback and take necessary actions to enforce our laws.

To mitigate the risks of vice and disamenities due to massage establishments, the Police take a much stricter licensing approach for massage establishments in residential areas, compared to those that operate outside residential areas.

Firstly, when assessing a new massage establishment application, the Police work closely with the URA and HDB. The agencies will assess the suitability of the location. We will not allow new massage establishments in an area if the existing massage establishments are problematic and pose law and order issues, so we do not add to the problems.

The agencies will also assess whether the proposed massage establishment will cause disamenities to the surrounding areas. In residential areas, we take into account feedback from the community. Clause 7(3) of the Bill now expressly specifies that the Licensing Officer must take into account URA's or HDB's planning considerations. This will ensure that the various agencies' processes are fully coordinated. They are not as coordinated as they need to be now. But clause 7(3) of the Bill now makes that a requirement, clearly specified.

Secondly, even if a location in an HDB estate is assessed to be suitable for a massage establishment, the licence applicant must meet more stringent qualifying criteria than if he planned to operate elsewhere. So, as some Members have noted, licensed massage establishments in HDB estates must obtain what is known as a Category I licence under the Police licensing framework. So, what assurances does this give us?

The more stringent criteria for Category I licence include the need to obtain CaseTrust accreditation which indicates good business practices covering areas, such as regulatory compliance, safety and hygiene, which Mr Christopher de Souza asked about, and consumer protection. Another criterion is a minimum capital investment of $50,000, which provides some deterrence against fly-by-night operators hoping to roll over the quick profits of a massage establishment. Such criteria help to ensure that the applicants are bona fide operators who have put in the effort and investment to run legitimate massage businesses.

Thirdly, the Police impose specific conditions to reduce the potential disamenities from massage establishments in residential areas. Ms Foo Mee Har gave suggestions on more stringent licensing conditions that could be imposed on massage establishments situated within residential estates. Several of these are already in place today. For instance, employees of licensed massage establishments are required to wear uniforms that are approved by the Licensing Officer. Pretty strict. There is a uniform. It is approved and if you are not wearing the uniform, you have breached the licensing condition. So, if you know of any instance where someone is not dressed appropriately, that cannot be an approved uniform, let us know. We will enforce. They are also prohibited from touting for business outside the massage establishment premises.

Mr Desmond Choo and Ms Foo Mee Har asked if the Ministry would consider limiting the operating hours of massage establishments located in housing estates. The Police have, indeed, started to restrict the operating hours for massage establishments in HDB estates, and only allow them to operate from 6.00 am to 11.00 pm daily. This applies to licences granted or renewed since August this year.

What about existing licences? Under clause 10 of the Bill, the Licensing Officer will be empowered to modify existing licence conditions. So, the restricted operating hours will be fully implemented for all licensees within HDB estates after the re-enacted Act comes into force. So, if you are in an HDB estate, once this new Bill comes into force, the limited, curtailed operating hours will apply.

Mr Desmond Choo, Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Melvin Yong highlighted concerns about inappropriate advertisements by massage establishments and urged the Ministry to subject massage establishments to advertising guidelines. We understand the concerns. The Police intend to impose a new licensing condition to prohibit licensees from displaying indecent advertisements. We will need some time to work out the specific details but the intent is clear, advertisements will have to be within certain guidelines.

Mr Desmond Choo asked about the number of licensed massage establishments within residential estates with vice-related infringements, and whether they will be allowed to operate massage establishments in future. In 2016, about 3% of licensed massage establishments in HDB premises were found to have vice-related infringements. If a massage establishment has vice-related infringements, the licensee will no longer be considered fit and proper to hold a massage establishment licence. The Licensing Officer will revoke the massage establishment licence, and he will not be granted a new massage establishment licence.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will next address the main problem we face in the massage establishment industry today, that is, the risks posed by a growing number of unlicensed massage establishments, many of which are fronts for vice activities.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about the number of unlicensed massage establishments in Singapore. In 2016, the Police detected close to 300 unlicensed massage establishments which we already know is a 40% increase from 2013. But so as not to cause undue alarm, let me clarify that the vast majority of these unlicensed massage establishments were found in non-HDB properties. A relatively small 7% of the unlicensed massage establishments were found in HDB properties. To say it another way, most unlicensed massage establishments were not in HDB properties and most licensed massage establishments in HDB properties did not have vice infringements, less than 3%. So, we should not assume that all of them are somehow involved in vice.

Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Louis Ng asked about the Police's enforcement plans against such unlicensed massage establishments. We will not tolerate such errant operators that exhibit a flagrant disregard for the law. Where specific feedback is received about suspected unlicensed massage establishments and their illegal vice activities, the Police will assess the information and take necessary actions. The Police naturally have to work within their resource constraints, but the intention is to maintain the enforcement pressure against unlicensed massage establishments.

To share with Members, in 2016, on a monthly basis, Police carried out more than 100 enforcement checks, more than 100 every month. This Bill will provide the Police with the levers to act more effectively against the unlicensed massage establishments which take up a lot of time.

Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Louis Ng cautioned that "low-risk activities" do not mean "no-risk". They are worried that these are not required to obtain massage establishment licences and yet, they could still be fronts for illicit massage or vice activities. The situation today is not quite like this, except for a very small number of bad hats. As I shared in my opening speech, vice activities are far more prevalent in unlicensed massage establishments, not even in those that are exempted.

We may be reducing regulatory costs for bona fide operators but they would not be getting a free pass to use their businesses as a facade for something else. If a business purports to be providing low-risk services like manicure and pedicure but, in effect, is offering massage services, it will have to apply for a licence. And if it fails to do so, the business will be treated as no different from any other unlicensed massage establishment and penalised.

Ms Joan Pereira asked whether the revised fines for unlicensed massage establishments would serve as sufficient deterrence, given the lucrativeness of their illicit activities. We are doing more than raising fines. We are adopting a suite of measures, as Mr Christopher de Souza puts it, that gives the "extra teeth necessary" to clamp down on unlicensed massage establishments.

First, the fines are significantly higher. And more than that, the offenders can now face imprisonment. Second, should an unlicensed massage establishment continue to operate even after the operator has been charged in Court, the Police can order the closure of premises. Third, we will go upstream to tackle the supply of premises, by taking irresponsible landlords to task if they knowingly lease their premises to unlicensed massage establishment operators.

Mr Desmond Choo asked if harsher penalties can be imposed on the landlords who repeatedly have such establishments operating on their premises. Indeed, this is our intent. Under clause 5(4)(b), irresponsible landlords will be liable for fines up to $20,000 or five years' imprisonment or both, if they re-offend.

Ms Joan Pereira also said that convicted unlicensed massage establishment operators should be disallowed from subsequently operating any beauty salons or health centres, given the ease with which these premises can be reconfigured for illicit vice activities. Given their history of non-compliance, convicted unlicensed massage establishment operators who intend to run beauty salons or health centres that offer massage services will not be considered "fit and proper" to hold a massage establishment licence. So, that is very clear. You tell us that you want to operate a massage establishment and your track record is that you had been non-compliant, you had been convicted before, you are not "fit and proper".

If they offer massage services without a licence, then the same penalties as operating an unlicensed massage establishment applies, even if they call it a beauty salon or a health centre. It does not matter what they call it. We will look at what actual activities are taking place.

But if Ms Pereira is suggesting that they be prevented from operating a bona fide beauty or health business, for example, doing facials or selling organic supplements, then from a Yellow Ribbon perspective and also considering the comments by Mr Kok Heng Leun and Mr Louis Ng, that may be going too far.

Some Members spoke on tackling vice more generally, beyond massage establishments. Ms Joan Pereira is concerned about the possible displacement of vice activities to residential areas. She raised concerns that many of these vice workers are foreign nationals who have entered Singapore as visitors, and suggested that entry bans be imposed on foreigners involved in vice-related activities. Mr Kok Heng Leun asked about the Ministry's plans to ensure that vice does not happen where we do not want it to. Mr Alex Yam also asked about action that can be taken against masseuses found to be providing illegal sexual services.

Over the past five years, about 12% of offenders caught for abetting vice activities were involved in illegal brothels operating from HDB flats. An offender convicted of managing a brothel under the Women’s Charter faces a fine of up to $10,000, or up to five years' imprisonment, or both. The Police keep a close watch on the vice situation in Singapore and will not hesitate to take the necessary enforcement actions to stamp out vice activities that spring up in residential areas.

In cases where the Police have received complaints and detected brothels in HDB flats, the Police will also investigate the owner of the flat. The Police will also notify HDB, which will then take stern action if the flat owner is found to have misused his flat, including imposition of fines, and possibly, compulsory acquisition and debarment from buying another HDB flat. Quite stiff.

Mr Louis Ng and Mr Kok Heng Leun talked about the personal circumstances of Singaporean sex workers. Prostitution is not a crime per se and there is no intention to criminalise their actions in this Bill. But for providing sexual services in a massage establishment, the person will cease to be fit and proper and will no longer be allowed to work in a massage establishment. For those who wish to transit to other types of work, I appreciate it really may not be easy for them, but help is available and we are most willing to reach out to them.

Foreign nationals who are arrested for vice-related activities will have their work passes or visit passes cancelled. They will be removed from Singapore and may not be allowed to re-enter.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now address queries on other provisions within the Bill. Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Alex Yam and Mr Gan Thiam Poh sought clarifications about the proposal to punish landlords who knowingly lease their premises to unlicensed massage establishment operators.

I have addressed these points earlier in my speech. In summary, a landlord will know about the charge against his tenant through the Police’s notification. The landlord would not be in a situation that he is caught unaware. Once a person is charged, we will inform them. After the tenant has been convicted of operating an unlicensed massage establishment, the landlord must require the tenant to hand over possession of the premises within a month. Thereafter, the Bill allows the landlord to terminate the lease without any contractual liability. If the tenant still refuses to move out, the landlord should apply to the Magistrate’s Court for a summary order for the delivery of possession of the premises. And if the landlord takes these steps to evict the tenant, the Police will not take action against him.

Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Alex Yam and Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested imposing additional obligations on landlords, such as placing the onus on landlords to proactively check whether their tenants have massage establishment licences, putting in place sanctions on premises that have been used for vice activities, or confiscating such properties. We do expect responsible landlords to check whether their tenants have valid massage establishment licences, both before and during the tenancy agreement. However, we must also recognise that this is not always possible.

There could be mala fide unlicensed massage establishment operators who mislead the landlord into believing that the premises will be used for legitimate businesses. It can happen. Other tenants may decide to operate a massage establishment midway through its tenancy agreement, without first informing the landlord. They change their plans. In such cases, it will not be fair to penalise the landlord. But bear in mind that egregious landlords can be imprisoned, which is likely a stronger deterrent than any sanctions on the property.

Mr Desmond Choo asked if the provision to penalise landlords who knowingly lease their premises to unlicensed massage establishment operators can be extended to premises with licensed massage establishments that are involved in vice activities. He also asked whether termination of tenancy can be considered if the premises is an HDB commercial property.

In holding landlords responsible, we try to strike a balance. If the landlords have done their due diligence by leasing the premises to only licensed massage establishments, it may not be fair to take them to task for something that occurs within the licensed massage establishments which they are genuinely not aware of.

In addition, as I have shared in my earlier speech, the incidence of vice in licensed massage establishments is significantly lower than that in unlicensed massage establishments. As such, the main problem that this provision seeks to tackle is that of irresponsible landlords who have contributed to the problem of the increase in unlicensed massage establishments. Nevertheless, if unlawful vice activities are detected within HDB commercial properties, HDB can take action to terminate the tenancy.

Mr Melvin Yong and Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef raised the point that persons who are not "fit and proper" may apply for the licence via a third party, such as a family member or friend with a clean record. Clause 7 of the Bill seeks to address this by expanding the assessment of licensee suitability to other "relevant persons" in the business. At the point of licence application, the Police will carefully screen the background of the applicant and other persons with influence over the business. If any relevant person is assessed to be not fit and proper, the Police will reject the licence application.

This seeks to prevent errant operators from hiding behind clean applicants to continue to operate massage establishments. But Members who have been in law enforcement know how difficult it can be to detect persons who deliberately hide. At least with this provision, the Police is clearly empowered to act to reject an application if they suspect that it is being made by a bad hat operating behind the scenes. This will empower the Police to say that they suspect this is not a clean applicant and someone is hiding behind this. The law says that the Police can now reject the application, whereas previously, it was left unsaid.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef also surfaced concerns that after the licence has been granted, there may be illegal operations at the premises. The Police conduct regular enforcement checks to ensure that massage establishments comply with the regulations. I shared earlier more than 100 enforcement actions a month. Licensed operators who run afoul of the law will face increased penalties under the Bill.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested that massage establishments in buildings with a higher concentration or recurrence of seedy massage establishments be required to install CCTVs along the corridors and entrances to deter illegal activities. Clause 10 of the Bill will allow the Police to modify licence conditions to address this concern. Should licensed massage establishments pose law and order problems, the Police can intervene quickly and impose additional licensing conditions. One such condition could be the installation of CCTV cameras to deter crimes in and around the massage establishment and to facilitate investigations into any such crimes that take place.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me deal with some other queries that have been raised. Mr Murali Pillai and Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked whether we will consider a demerit points system for massage establishments, similar to that for the public entertainment licensing regime.

In a demerit points system, the licence infringements are less reprehensible and the offender is given several chances to avoid more serious consequences. But because of the kinds of concerns that Members have spoken about, we actually prefer a stricter regime for massage establishments, to serve notice that even the first infringement could attract very serious consequences, such as the immediate revocation of licences. Repeat offenders also face the risk of imprisonment. So, I hope Members see the comparison. This is stricter than the demerit points system – one strike and you could be out.

Mr Murali Pillai said that all licensed massage establishments should be made to display their licences, which would serve as a deterrence against the operation of unlicensed massage establishments and provide some form of consumer protection. We agree. Today, under the licensing conditions, massage establishment licensees are already required to prominently display the massage establishment licence within the premises to ensure that patrons and inspecting officers can easily identify licensed massage establishments. Failure to comply with this requirement is a breach of the licensing conditions, and licensees will face stiff penalties under the updated regulatory regime. What I can also share with Members is that, in fact, the Police have taken operators to task for failing to display their licences.

Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Gan Thiam Poh said that all masseuses hired at licensed massage establishments should meet minimum professional qualifications. Today, in deciding whether to grant a massage establishment licence or to grant written approval for an individual to work in a massage establishment, the Licensing Officer already considers whether the employee possesses the necessary recognised qualifications or certifications. This is made clear in clauses 7(3) and 15(1) of the Bill. In other words, not anyone is allowed to work in a massage establishment. There are "fit and proper" criteria, and an assessment of the employees' qualifications. Of course, if they do not have those, the operator will have committed a breach and we take them to task.

Mr Melvin Yong asked for a clearer definition of what constitutes a "good track record" that will entitle the licensee to a longer licence validity period. By "good track record", we refer to compliant operators without any adverse records or infringements over several years.

Mr Murali Pillai asked whether existing exemptions will continue under the updated regulatory regime. Mr Alex Yam asked if TCM services will be covered under the Bill, while Mr Louis Ng mentioned that the current amendment does not cover TCM clinics. The principle remains unchanged. We will continue to exempt massage establishments that are assessed to be providing low vice-risk activities. These include outlets where treatment is personally administered by a registered medical professional.

So, if you have a shop front that says TCM clinic, you go inside, the practitioner has got a registration under the TCM Practitioners' Act that is issued by the TCM Board and that practitioner personally administers the treatment, that can be exempted. But not otherwise. Not if you are not personally administering the treatment, you have got someone else doing it, or if, in fact, you call yourself a TCM practitioner but you do not have a licence, you do not have a registration with the TCM Board. So, that is quite clear.

We can also exempt open-concept massage establishments where everything is within visibility. Nothing is behind closed doors, no curtains. You can see everything that is going on in the premises. That is what is known as open-concept massage establishments.

Mr Murali Pillai asked about curative as well as Ayurvedic treatments. If they do not take place in an open-concept type of premises, then they need to get a licence. They cannot say, "We do not want a licence. We are not high-risk". They need to get a licence because it is not open-concept, we cannot see what is going on. So, they need a licence.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef suggested that we work with the industry trade associations for the upcoming implementation of this Bill. MHA has consulted the Spa Association Singapore, the Spa and Wellness Association of Singapore and the Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore and obtained their strong support for the proposals under this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope I have addressed Members' concerns. The Massage Establishments Bill is important in ensuring that our regulatory regime continues to remain effective and relevant. But as Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef reminded us, it is really not a walk in the park. A lot of work to be done. Members know from what I said earlier – advertising, requirements, some of the other licensing conditions – all of these we will have to proceed to implement. But with the support of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Kok Heng Leun.

5.46 pm

Mr Kok Heng Leun: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Second Minister for her clarifications and answers. I have three points. The first point I would like to clarify is that in my speech, I did not intend to say all massage workers are actually providing sexual services. I made in the context of the speech what I wanted to talk about. And exactly what I said was, "In my following speech, I would use the term 'massage workers' to refer to masseuses who provide a happy ending service in massage parlours". So, it is within the context of my speech. So, if there is any misunderstanding, I would clarify that and say sorry to those who felt that what I said have caused injustice to them.

The second point is that I am glad to hear that MHA would like to engage sex workers to help them. I would also urge the Ministry to work with the NGOs with regard to that. I can help to do the bridging if need to.

Thirdly, I just want to hear MHA's response to this because, from my research on this issue, a lot of time, the men who go to the massage parlour, the male clients, they, in fact, expect such so-called "happy services" from the masseuses. And sometimes, they may even coerce that to happen. What will MHA be doing in such a situation in order to protect the masseuses as well as the massage parlours?

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the Member for his clarifications. I think I had better also clarify. When the Member said that he was happy that MHA will engage the sex workers, that itself sounds wrong. So, I should say that if there are masseuses who feel that they are compelled to provide sexual services, then I think we can work with the NGOs to give them the assurance that that is not the case. Perhaps they are suitably qualified and they want to find proper work in licensed massage establishments, or they need to get the skills and the qualifications to move into these proper establishments, then I think that there must be ways of helping them to do so. So, I would like to give that assurance.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.

Ms Foo Mee Har: I thank the Second Minister for very, very comprehensively addressing many of the clarifications and concerns we have. So, I thank the Minister.

I have two outstanding queries for the Second Minister. On the concern about concentration, why do we find eight massage establishments in HDB estates within, like three minutes' walk? The Second Minister did say that MHA will consider that in the licensing, but she was not explicit on whether there will be a quota or a limit that will be set within a particular trade radius so that the HDB estate can be more diverse in shops, so that MHA does not approve every massage establishment licence that comes through as long as it is a not a problem. I hope the Ministry would encourage that diversity and limit the number of establishments per HDB precinct, just like Minister Khaw Boon Wan had done for foreign workers renting HDB flats. I think that was a very effective measure. So, if the Second Minister could consider that. And that is the common complaint that comes from residents.

The second one is that the Second Minister clarified that it is by law that the massage establishments must display their licence. So, that is understood. But my reference is actually the approved employees themselves must wear an identification to say that "I am an approved employee" because that will easily identify them and prevent those who are not approved from working illegally in that massage establishment.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the Member for raising those two supplementary questions. I have explained earlier that we have a zero-tolerance approach towards vice in massage establishments and the stricter licensing approach for massage establishments in residential areas. In this way, we have already curtailed the number of massage establishments in each residential area while allowing legitimate and well-run massage establishments to operate.

To impose a limit or a quota, you need a number and it will be arbitrary. Each residential area has different characteristics, residents and businesses, as the Member correctly pointed out. Whatever number is set, it could still be too high for some areas, for example, if it is right next to a school. Unless that number is zero, which means then this quota is zero.

We can also end up in a situation where there is an argument about how big the trade radius ought to be for this number to be applied. In some areas, 200 metres, very sparsely populated; in some areas, 200-metre radius, a lot of people staying there. So, it is not quite so cut and dried, not so straightforward to determine a number; not so straightforward to determine what the trade radius is. But I do take the Member's point. We do not particularly want to see so many massage establishments around even if they are licensed. That point is well taken.

The better approach is to assess the potential disamenities in each area, taking into account the feedback from the community. Then we decide whether to allow a new massage establishment to come in, or when the licence of an existing massage establishment is up for renewal, whether we want to continue to renew it. So, I think that those measures are available to the Police.

Then, to the Member's second question about the employees. The way in which we want to operate is that the licence holder, the operator, has to be accountable for the activities within the premises and he has to be the one that is taken to account. So, that is why the requirement is placed on them to display the licence and not on the individual employees. We accept the fact that, actually, in all kinds of businesses, employees come and go. Today, you may have one staff, she has worked here three months; another day, you may have another who has just joined. The more important thing is that the operator takes his licence seriously and ensures that no one who is not licensed works there. So, even if a person wears a badge and so on, it is not possible, it is not so easy for the individual customer to determine the validity of that employee's pass. But the enforcement officer is in a stronger position to decide whether the licence is valid or not. An individual cannot quite tell. Just wearing any tag does not actually give us that much protection and reassurance.

Mr Deputy Speaker: A last clarification. Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Thank you, Sir, just a quick one. I would like to ask the Minister whether MHA will be studying this issue further so that we are not just tackling the supply side but also the demand and really study this holistically, so that we do not get into this cat-and-mouse game that the former Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng was talking about in Parliament almost 20 years ago.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Deputy Speaker, we are not just studying. We are taking action. And the Member pointed out that Mr Wong had talked about this 20 years ago. I am quite sure even 20 years from now, there will still be vice activities that we will have to tackle in different forms. So, it is always going to be a challenge. It is always something that we have to keep learning to tackle more effectively.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mrs Josephine Teo.]

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.