Debated in Parliament on 6 May 2019.
Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how much casino entry fees have been collected from Singapore citizens and permanent residents since the fees were introduced; (b) how effective have the entry fees been in deterring problem gambling; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider doing away with the annual entry fee to further discourage compulsive gamblers.
Since 2010, the total amount of entry levies collected is around $1.3 billion. The proceeds are channelled to Tote Board which funds social and community programmes that benefit the public.
The daily and annual entry levies serve to deter casual and impulse gambling by locals and are part of a holistic suite of social safeguards. Between 2010 and 2018, the number of local visitors to the casinos declined by 50%. Based on the most recent gambling participation survey conducted by the National Council on Problem Gambling, the probable problem and pathological gambling rate decreased from 2.6% in 2011 to 0.9% in 2017.
On the Member's question, whether we should do away with the annual entry levy, we considered this carefully and think the levy can remain for now. The data is quite clear. Annual entry levy holders tend to have higher incomes. For these affluent individuals who want to visit the casinos more often, such as Premium Players, the annual entry levy provides convenience.
Keep in mind that the levies are not our only measure of deterrence. We have also put in place social safeguards targeting individuals who are at risk of problem gambling. Frequent visitors to the casinos are identified by the National Council on Problem Gambling. If they are assessed to be financially vulnerable, a visit limit or exclusion order will be imposed on them.
Mr Speaker, I thank the Second Minister for her response. With regard to the annual entry fee, I know that Second Minister had said that most of those who are on this entry permit tend to be from higher income groups. However, if it is a problem of problem gambling, then the factor of income should not come into play. Problem gambling, regardless of your background or your income level, should still be combated, which is why I continue to make to make the call to do do away with the annual entry fee. Because if we acknowledge that problem gambling plagues people from all backgrounds, then having a higher disposable income should not be a criterion to keep entry permit on an annualised basis.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the Member. In fact, some of our social safeguards go beyond that. There are visit limits, for example; and we can even impose an exclusion order. And so, it is not a matter of paying the levy and then being able to enter the casinos. If you are under the exclusion order, then no amount that you offer will get you through. There is also a follow-up question relating to social safeguards and I believe that the Minister for Social and Family Development will be addressing it, so I think we should let him share with us.
PAPERCUTS