Debated in Parliament on 19 Jan 2015.
Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry can consider extending the consolidated application form for casino self-exclusions used for foreign workers to that for local workers and religious organisations to enable the signing up of groups of citizens using the same consolidated application form.
Mdm Speaker, the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) administers a self-exclusion system for individuals who wish to voluntarily exclude themselves from the casinos.
Today, Singapore residents can make an application online using their SingPass accounts, which is a fast and effective way to exclude themselves. To make the process more convenient to those without online access, since September last year, NCPG has made available an option for applicants to mail in hardcopy applications. These forms are available at community organisations that provide problem gambling counselling and help services, the casinos, jackpot rooms in selected clubs and the NCPG website. NCPG is also making efforts to make the forms available at more locations.
For foreign workers who have no SingPass accounts, NCPG has provided the option of group submission. This is done through the Work Permit Online account where employers
Page: 36
submit a consolidated application form bearing the signatures of the applicants.
Self-exclusion must be premised on individual decision, ownership and responsibility. The NCPG will work with employers and other relevant social civic organisations to assess the feasibility of having group applications, while preserving the principles of individual decision, ownership and responsibility.
Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for the reply. The basis of my question is really that the current consolidated application form for foreign workers is good, but I would like the Ministry and Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) to consider making a form similar to this one in my hand, that could be extended to locals or Singaporeans. It may be done at the workplace, it may be done in different groups and it may be done in churches, temples or mosques, but this is still on the basis of the self, the individual, wanting to be excluded but just simply making it easier.
Yes, the forms are online, you can log on with SingPass. But my driving principle is: can we make it easier? If we make this available for foreign workers, can we make the same easier for locals?
I have in front of me also the local application form for self-exclusion and for foreigners. Even then, for individuals, the local form requires a few more columns to be filled. Can we make it easier? Can we make it simpler? For those who want to, I think we should make it easier. We do know that if they are excluded, the implications, going forward, would be fewer and better for Singapore.
So, I hope the Minister can consider, firstly, making this consolidated form for foreign workers available for Singaporeans. The Minister may decide whether it could be done at the workplace or at religious institutions or, for that matter, any groups. Secondly, can the Minister consider making the current self-exclusion form for locals even simpler. There are three areas which I find are unique to Singaporeans. We have to indicate race, religion —
Mdm Speaker : Mr Seah, we got the three areas. Thank you very much.
Mdm Speaker, the short answer to both of Mr Seah's suggestions is yes. As I have explained in my answer, we are prepared to work with employers and other relevant organisations to assess and design a form that can allow for group applications. But it must still be premised on the basis of individual ownership, responsibility and individual decision. So long as we maintain these three principles, we will make it as simple as it can be so that the people who are signing up know what they are signing up for, so that in the event that they want to withdraw themselves for whatever reason, they are also conscious of the
Page: 37
fact and they take individual responsibility.
Madam, I would like to go one step further than my colleague Mr Seah. The current system is based on self-exclusion from the casinos. So, if you do not want to enter, you opt out. Would the Minister consider a self-inclusion scheme whereby you are automatically excluded and you apply to opt-in only if you really want to visit the casino? Would the Minister consider that?
Mdm Speaker, today, we have both self-inclusion and self-exclusion. Self-exclusion is for individuals who want to exclude themselves. We also have third-party exclusions where family members may take up a family exclusion order against the person concerned. We also have other forms of third-party exclusions whereby some people, for example, if they are on financial assistance, are automatically excluded. So, this is the exclusion clause.
I think the Member's inclusion clause means that those who want to include themselves in this today, they have to pay an entrance fee. So, that would be how they include themselves. Is that what the Member meant? So, we charge them for going in. Is that what the Member was referring to?
I do not mean the $100 scheme. Since the Ministry or the Government is spending so much money on the demerits of gambling, problem gambling and so forth, so I think it can be assumed that gambling or casino entry is really not something that is encouraged. Therefore, since it is not really encouraged, then why not just have a scheme whereby everybody is excluded from entering the casino and, if you want to be included, then sign up for an opt-in scheme, changing the assumption of the current scheme we have today in our country?
Mdm Speaker : So, Ms Phua, you are suggesting an opt-in scheme plus pay $100?
Yes.
Mdm Speaker : So, Minister, please.
I thought you opt-in because you pay $100; if you do not opt-in, you do not pay $100. If you go and buy the ticket, you pay $100, you opt in. The Member is asking for one extra step. That means, when you buy the ticket, you opt in, and then you pay $100. That would be the same as buying the ticket at $100. Or is the Member suggesting – I just want to clarify – that we have a membership scheme, which I think the Member is not
Page: 38
suggesting?
It should not be so easy that if you want to enter, just go to the counter and pay up $100. I think if something is not encouraged, why not just opt everybody out of it as a natural exclusion and, if you want to enter, then you go and apply for what Mr Seah Kian Peng has recommended?
Let me try to clarify this with the Member offline because I would have thought that, today, if you want to go in, you have to pay $100 and that is your act of inclusion. But the Member is suggesting that, on top of paying $100, you get an extra form to apply for inclusion.
And then, pay $100 to enter.
So, both?
Yes.
I see.
So, would the Minister consider that?
I am just trying to think through the mechanics of this. Let me take this back and think through the mechanics of the Member's suggestion. But I just want to clarify that the Member is not suggesting a membership scheme when she talked about having an "opt-in" scheme. Because, personally, I will not be very supportive if you say that there is a term membership or opt-in scheme where, once I sign that, then I can go anytime I want. I do not think the Member is suggesting that.
There are schemes that are based on either one – opt in or opt out. For the human organ donation scheme, for example, everybody is in unless they want to opt out. So, I guess I am suggesting schemes like these.
In other words, the Member is suggesting all Singaporeans are prohibited unless they sign something to opt in, plus they pay $100. So, Minister, that is the point she wants to ask you to consider. So, Minister has said he will think about it. Now, we move on to Mr Seah Kian Peng.
Page: 39
I just want to seek a clarification from the Minister. He mentioned that there is already a form and is prepared to work with groups for Singaporeans to be excluded from entering the casinos. I just want to clarify that that would be a similar form like this form in my hand that will come up as a result, allowing, whether it is at the workplace, churches, temples, mosques to organise their members to fill up this simple form for the individuals to be excluded as a whole and not singly.
Whether the form is exactly the same, I think we can work on it. By and large, the philosophy is that whoever opts to be excluded, they can opt-in to be excluded. Whoever chooses to be excluded may do so, so long as the application is premised on the principles of individual responsibility, accountability and individual decision. Whether it is all in one form or the organisation can help us distribute a set of forms to each individual and then we put it together for submission, I think those are mechanics that can be worked out. But as a philosophy, if an organisation – be it a church group or an employer – wants to conduct a session to encourage his or her employees or members to come and collectively sign up together, even today, we have no objection to such a practice.
In fact, some organisations already do that. They may not have one consolidated form, but they will give out the forms individually to their members – and we have seen that before – whereby they compiled them and passed them on to us.
So, philosophically, no difference. The issue is just how to simplify the amount of information gathered, bearing in mind that the person always makes a conscious decision because, subsequently, if the person decides to withdraw himself or herself from the scheme, then there is a basis for us to act.
Mdm Speaker : Mr Gan Thiam Poh, last question.
I have a supplementary question for the Minister. May I ask whether the Ministry keeps track of Singaporeans who are excluded but travel overseas to gamble?
May I clarify: when the Member said we take care of those people who travel overseas to gamble, what does he mean? Oh, how do we keep track of people who go overseas and gamble if they have excluded themselves? Unfortunately, at this point, I must admit that I do not have jurisdiction beyond Singapore even if I would like to.
I understand what the Member means. On a more serious note, I think for those who have excluded themselves, whether it is local or overseas, the question is whether we can
Page: 40
have the proper family and community support structures to help them kick the habit.
For very determined or pathological gamblers, they can always find some ways to circumvent this. But if we can have the family and the community all playing a part to try and come together to help the individual, then I think we will have another layer of defence rather than just depending on a policing system to do that. Increasingly, in the new forms of gambling, we are most concerned about not just terrestrial gambling, like casinos or gambling dens, but the issue of cyber addictions. We are most concerned about that.
PAPERCUTS