Debated in Parliament on 12 Feb 2015.
Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs what is the rationale behind imposing fines on Marina Bay Sands and issuing censures to Resorts World Sentosa in the recent enforcement actions for social safeguard breaches when both are repeat offenders.
The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr S Iswaran)(for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs):Mdm Speaker, the Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) is empowered under the Casino Control Act to impose disciplinary actions on the casino operators for contravening the provisions of the Act or casino licence conditions.
Page: 31
CRA considers various factors in determining the appropriate disciplinary actions to impose. These include the circumstances of the breach, the culpability of the operators and whether the operators have taken suitable preventive measures.
In addition to imposing disciplinary actions, CRA also requires the operators to implement corrective actions to prevent the recurrence of such breaches.
I just have one supplementary question. The two casino operators together have allowed more than 200 persons without valid levies, even excluded persons and minors, into the casinos for the past two years or so. So, is there a reason to show such leniency to these operators who are obviously not very good at implementing our social safeguards?
Madam, as I have said, the CRA has to take into account various factors in deciding what is the appropriate penalty to impose, assuming a breach has been disclosed. That includes the nature of the breach and also what measures the operators have put in place. The Member cites a number of 200. That, I think, is over a period of several years, and the Member has to compare that against a base load of how many visitors who go to the casinos, the number of repeat visitations they make. And when we take it as a proportion of that, it is probably in the third or fourth decimal place in terms of frequency or occurrence. We must ensure that the penalties we impose are proportionate.
The CRA has, at its disposal, a range of levers available to it and this is the judgement that is being rendered by the CRA Management and Board.
I thank the Second Minister for his clarification. Just a quick question. The number may not be huge, as the Minister said. But the question is: is the CRA or Ministry satisfied that the systems are in place, that when these breaches happen, these are already in the system or that they were not deliberately allowed to go in? Is the Ministry satisfied that the systems are in place to prevent future breaches?
Madam, to answer the Member's question: that is why culpability is a key factor, whether it is a knowing commission or something that happened incidentally. In general, the casino operators have been fairly responsive in implementing safeguards and enforcing them.
They are not necessarily fool-proof, as the case is apparent from some of the instances, but, by the same token, I think no matter how strong a system is, a determined individual would probably find a way to get around it. On balance, the penalties that have been
Page: 32
imposed are proportionate to the seriousness of the offences that had been disclosed.
PAPERCUTS