Casino Control (Amendment) Bill

Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Bill. There continues to be concerns on the social threats and ills of the casinos in Singapore, and there have been very strong voices on the ills that Mr Seah Kian Peng had so eloquently addressed earlier. But I must say that, as his survey has also shown, there have also been voices, ironically, that have argued that exclusion orders and limits to the visits to the casinos are an infringement of personal freedom.

I, personally, having seen the effect of problem gambling on lives of individuals and, more importantly, their families, at MPS, am glad to see the amendments to this Bill as they further strengthen our social safeguard measures.

The Bill seeks to amend the Act, Chapter 33A, limiting the visits to the casinos of those who are financially vulnerable, and the enhancements of the power of the Committee of Assessors to make provisional family exclusion orders or exclusion orders in the absence of the respondent under certain circumstances and to ask for the relevant information.

Clause 15, section 54 of the Bill also seeks to ensure greater calibration in the regulatory responses to breaches by the casinos. To reflect the seriousness of these breaches, the financial penalties will be raised. For the maximum financial penalty imposed in the event of these serious breaches, from the current cap of $1 million to 10% of the casino's annual gross gaming revenue.

Page: 1382

So, I think it is important for us to continue to stress that there can never be enough safeguards against these social ills and that we have to be vigilant while the safeguards are in place.

The amendment of the Act also allows the enhancements of the Casino Control Act to ensure that the IRs – and I stress the Integrated Resorts – continue to develop and maintain to promote their facilities as world-class attractions, not focused heavily on the casinos. I think that is an important point. As the Minister rightly pointed out, when the IRs was conceptualised, they were conceptualised on the basis that the casinos form a small part, and I think we need to make sure that we keep that as the core.

I would like now to touch on the economic benefits and the impact of the Integrated Resorts in Singapore. While we want to see the continued success of the IRs in Singapore, it would be a real concern if the casinos become the main attractions for tourists to Singapore. We are seeing this trend in countries like Macau, where about 83% or more of the government's total revenue comes from gaming in 2011. And an increasing proportion of the working population are dependent on jobs in the sector. This may result in a reluctance in the future to implement measures to limit the growth of the gaming industry.

So, how can we ensure that our economy does not become overly dependent on gaming revenue? I am glad to see that the Bill seeks to amend section 33A of the Act to include the setting up of an independent evaluation panel to assess the suitability for the grant and renewal of the casino licence, to help in some way to ensure that the IRs in Singapore are constantly developing the non-gaming components.

The IRs have so far brought in significant economic benefits. To ensure sustainable economic benefits to the broader tourism industry, the IRs will need to maintain the quality of their non-casino or non-gaming offerings and their competitiveness globally as compelling integrated tourism developments. We are seeing competition intensifying regionally for tourism spending and investments in the tourism sector. It would be appealing in the short term in the face of such competition for IRs to drive for shorter term gains by emphasising the gaming components or to neglect or dilute the integrated concept of the IR development. Therefore, we must ensure that we can continue to maintain the sustainability of the economic benefits of the IRs to the economy by ensuring that we stay committed to developing the non-gaming aspects and not just focus on the casinos.

In that respect, I would like to ask the Minister to also share on some of the performance indicators that would be used to assess the IRs' performance. A key reason for the Government's decision to establish the IRs was that it would be a significant benefit for the economy. There was an assumption that this would in turn mean the creation of good jobs for Singaporeans and business opportunities for local companies. With the IRs operating for more than two years now, it would be timely and useful to examine whether the IRs' presence has, indeed, translated the tangible benefits for Singaporeans and local SMEs. The Minister did share that more jobs have been created. Could he share how many have been generated for Singaporeans and are these good jobs?

Page: 1383

The Minister has also shared that our local SMEs have benefited from the IRs' presence. Could he also provide more insights on how local SMEs have benefited from the IRs' presence?

Ensuring that Singapore continues to be able to balance the negative impacts of gaming by having robust regulations while benefiting from the growth of the IRs will not be an easy one but, as stressed by Mr Seah Kian Peng, will be a very necessary one and a deliberate one. On a broader note, while we continue to strengthen our social safeguard measures to address the social risks and threats of casinos and gaming, I would like to say that while we benefit economically from the IRs, we must ensure that Singapore's overall growth strategy continues to be diversified and does not become overly dependent on gaming. With that, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the Casino Control (Amendment) Bill. Casino. Control. I understand the idea is, now that we have the casinos as part of integrated resorts, or IRs, and they have been in operation for two years, we should try to better control their effects on our lives, our economy and our society. For example, this Bill adds, as a new factor for consideration in the grant or renewal of a casino licence, an evaluation of the applicant's economic contribution to Singapore. An evaluation panel will be set up to advise the CRA on matters such as "the visitor appeal of the integrated resort" and "the contribution of the integrated resort to the tourism industry in Singapore" in deciding whether to grant or renew a casino licence.

These are the expected benefits of the casinos — mostly economic. What about the costs — mostly social? Could they be evaluated and considered in a similar fashion when deciding whether to grant or renew casino licences? And could that be written expressly into our laws — through the Casino Control (Amendment) Bill, like the evaluation of economic benefits?

Just as the Bill is trying now to help incentivise the IRs to continue to deliver economic benefits for Singapore by making it an express consideration in the grant or renewal of casino licences, we should give the same pride of place to similarly incentivising the IRs to continue to contain and minimise the social costs incurred by the operation of casinos in Singapore.

It is not easy to quantify the social costs of operating casinos, but researchers have tried. There are extant surveys of the number of problem gamblers and pathological gamblers and the number of other people in society affected by them. There are empirical studies that estimate the medical and social costs of gambling which may include the cost of treatment, counselling of gambler and family and other social welfare services, the cost of loansharking and other crimes and the cost of lost employment and reduced productivity. These could all form the evaluation by any panel or decisions by the CRA on whether to grant or renew a casino licence.

Page: 1384

Individual casino operators could be evaluated in a systemic way on how well they do, in an audit of their sponsorship of responsible gambling programmes for consumer protection. If that evaluation is taken into account in the grant or renewal of casino licences, then it will provide enhanced incentives for the casino operators to commit to responsible gambling. Casino operators could also be evaluated on the basis of how the operations stack up against the international best practices, such as those benchmarked in the Responsible Gambling Index developed by Canada's Responsible Gambling Council.

Sir, it is right that the casino operators shoulder their share of responsibilities to help ensure that the social costs of gambling are minimised, just as importantly as that economic benefits are delivered, and that this be reflected in our laws on the grant or renewal of casino licences.

Sir, I support the Bill's objectives of providing more regulatory oversight over the activities of the casinos in our Integrated Resorts. I would, however, like to comment on some provisions. First, the amended section 153 which introduces the concept of a visit limit. I can understand its rationale. It provides the authorities and families with more options to deal with problem gambling and having more options is rarely a bad idea. However, I am not sure what this option actually achieves.

Sir, I can understand the Government being careful about setting restrictions on people visiting the casinos. There has to be some freedom of choice, there has to be an element of personal responsibility. But I think that assumes everyone behaves in a rational manner. But gambling is not a rational activity, and responsible gambling is an oxymoron. Problem gambling is a disease. In my work as a litigator, I have had to deal with several cases where clients have lost money on account of gambling because the employees or agents stole their money to fuel their habit or where they have been exposed to claims from third parties because their employees have stolen from others.

There is one thing these addicts share − one thing they have in common. It is their unshakeable belief even as they sit in their prison cells that if only they had not been caught so soon, if only they had a bit more time, they would have won all their money back. They acknowledge that the house always wins but believe that it will be different in their case. They tell themselves that they have had a run of bad luck and things were going to turn very soon for them. These are all illusions, a symptom of that disease and the desperation it often breeds. The debate may well continue as to whether it is a good idea to bring gambling to Singapore, whether it is a moral activity, but I think you cannot deny that it is really an irrational way to spend your money.

Sir, the Minister spoke of emerging unhealthy trends in gambling in Singapore. So, in relation to the visit limit, do we really think that limiting the visits of our problem gamblers to the IRs will address or mitigate the problem? He is simply going to find some other outlet and he does not have to try very hard because there are so many options today – Internet, or online gambling, cruise ships, football, horse racing, jackpot machines, Singapore Pools, and the list goes on. If the gambler knows his visits to the IR would be limited, would that not give him an excuse to place higher bets, raise the stakes each time he goes there?

One of the emerging trends, as the Minister has referred to just now, was about people who actually place higher and higher bets each time they go. If we are serious about addressing problem gambling, we should not simply limit the number of visits. I would suggest that we should make it mandatory for the subject, the person, to attend counselling. If we have given the family the power to stop the gambler from entering the casino, why can we not give the power to send him for professional help? And if he refuses to go, he should be excluded altogether, or make it a condition of his appeal if he wants to appeal against the limit ban. That would give him the incentive to attend counselling and get help, and that would be a more effective step in identifying and tackling problem gambling.

Page: 1389

My second comment relates to the amended section 165 which grants the Committee of Assessors the power to exclude or impose a visit limit on a person if it comes to the Committee's attention that the person has a poor credit record. This is a proactive step and I support it. However, my concern is how the Committee may find itself privy to such information. A person's credit record is private and confidential. It is one thing if an individual voluntarily submits such information, though I rarely think it will happen, or a family member provides that information. It is quite another if the Committee receives such information from other sources and acts on it. It seems rather inconsistent that we are nowadays concerned about protecting personal data but appeared to be willing to allow personal information to be used without an individual's consent. Hence, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister regarding the receipt of such information and whether the Committee will act upon information that has not been provided by the individual, or his family members, or at least without his consent.

My final comment relates to the new sections 110, 110A and 110B which collectively set out new regulations pertaining to casino marketing arrangements. I welcome the prohibition against such arrangements involving Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents. However, having junkets or casino marketing arrangements present and operating out of Singapore may lead to an increased exposure to international criminal syndicates and organised crime. I would like to seek clarification as to how such problems may be dealt with under the Act. I would also like to enquire as to what circumstances to justify the suspension of an international market agent licence in the public interest as provided for under the new section 110C.

Sir, there is no doubt that the IRs have provided a tremendous boost to our economy and created many jobs to Singaporeans. Yet, we also concerned by the social costs we have to pay. The fact that the Ministry is taking steps to tighten regulations, including imposing limit visits, suggests a concern over problem gambling, and I hope this is an issue we will continue to keep our focus on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate.

Page: 1390

Gambling has always been a part of Singaporean way of life. From the very beginning, our first resident Major General William Farquhar legalised gambling and issued licences to the operators of gambling dens. Over the years, gambling has grown and we have seen the formation of the Singapore Turf Club in 1842 and, of course, Singapore Pools in 1968. The more popular forms of gambling today include the 4Ds and Toto, which have become an integral part of Singapore betting culture, judging from the long queues whenever there is a big draw on-going.

We have also heard many stories of how families came to ruin and stories of loan shark harassment just because of a gambler in the family. I recall there was a run of a TV series called Show Hand "注定" on Channel U last year. Although it was a television series and the stories were fictional, the show accurately portrayed the issues and the challenges that people living with gamblers had to go through. The addiction to gambling can be so strong that the characters constantly turn back to gambling, despite being given many chances to turn over a new leaf.

Sir, in this regard, I rise to speak in support of the Casino Control (Amendment) Bill. The higher financial penalties and the stronger and better measures are essential safeguards to ensure that Singaporeans do not fall prey to gambling and international junkets or immerse themselves further into the culture of gambling.

These changes are necessary just as the casino and Integrated Resort have become an important and essential part of our economy. Thus, while more jobs are created and our economy becomes more vibrant, we need the CRA to have stronger powers to rein in on the possible adverse effects the casino might have on Singapore society. Let us remember that in history, both in Singapore and elsewhere, that excessive gambling has always been viewed negatively and our pioneers have fought strongly for it to be curbed.

Interestingly, within a short span of two years, the casinos in Singapore combined ranked second after Macau, in terms of revenue, outperforming Las Vegas. There are a total of 42 casinos in Las Vegas strip and 33 in Macau. Yet, with merely two casinos, Singapore is able to catapult to such profitability in such an amazingly short period of time.

The Government has always reassured Singaporeans that the gambling situation in Singapore is under control. I would like to ask the Minister what percentage of patrons to the two casinos are Singaporeans and Singapore Permanent Residents (PRs) and how much of the revenue is contributed by the expenses of Singaporeans and PRs. In this regard, is the $100 levy imposed on Singaporeans and Singapore PRs sufficient and effective in discouraging Singaporeans and PRs from trying their hands in challenging Lady Luck?

While I support the imposition of a limit on the visitations to casinos, I am, at the same time, apprehensive about its effectiveness in curbing gambling activities on vulnerable patrons. Having a visit limit system will not address the concerns of increased gambling losses from increased quantum of bets. In fact, some sceptics believe that the imposition of a visit limit may, in fact, increase gambling intensity. A plausible solution to complement the visit limit system would be to impose an additional loss or bets limits on these vulnerable patrons. Alternatively, the Government should also consider a hardline approach of excluding these individuals altogether, once they have been identified as financially vulnerable, rather than offering such an intermediate option.

Page: 1391

In addition, under section 170B, the Bill has been amended to make the casino operator accountable for a responsible gambling programme at all times. While it is useful for the operator to be accountable for such responsible gaming measures, I am especially concerned as there is an inherent conflict of interest. The casino operator would be more concerned with profit, and the prevention of persons from engaging in more gambling might be a tough call. One consideration is to institute a neutral third party in the arena to identify and counsel potential problem gamblers. This neutral third party can be funded by the casino. The National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) is already doing much with regard to the promotion of responsible gambling. Can it not be granted the powers and funds to do immediate policing on the ground? Maybe we can have NCPG officials police the casino grounds to ensure responsible gaming and identify high-risk individuals.

Sir, I also support the amendment to increase the maximum penalty for disciplinary action against casino operators from the current $1 million to 10% of a casino's annual gross gaming revenue. This is a very strong signal to operators about the Government's resolve in responsible gaming activities in Singapore and would also encourage the casino operators to constantly review and improve on processes to ensure that they are always compliant with the rules and regulations.

The strategy to ensure the Integrated Resorts bring sustained economic benefits to Singapore in the areas of job creation and promoting tourism must be maintained, if not enhanced. There is no doubt that the two IRs, since their opening, have value-added to our economy and created many job opportunities for Singaporeans. However, the IRs need to keep up the development and promotion of non-gaming attractions to remain as a compelling tourist destination. The formation of an Evaluation Panel (EP) to advise CRA on the IRs' performance on the non-gaming aspects is thus timely and essential. This will help ensure the sustainability and attractiveness of the IRs to the tourists from all over the world. We need to look long term into the future and not just take a myopic view of just using the casino gaming to attract tourists.

While the changes to the Act show our seriousness in preventing problem gambling in the casinos, there are other forms of gambling in Singapore which can similarly wreck families and ruin lives.

Page: 1392

Sir, I recently met one resident whose mother was a gambler. He had tried to stop his mother from gambling, but because of the prevalence of jackpot rooms in clubs, she still frequents such legal joints, without having to pay entrance levies. These legal joints – some of which are available in the heartlands – provide gaming activities to the masses, without the usual safeguards seen in the casinos. With the amendments to the Casino Control Act, is it time to also send a more consistent message to these jackpot clubs which are part of the ecosystem of gambling? Should they not be subjected to the same regulations or rules as the casinos?

Similarly, online gambling has been recognised as a growing and popular form of gambling for those who are more IT-savvy. While the amendments introduced in this Bill are noteworthy, more attention should be paid to the dangers posed to the family as a result of addiction to online gambling. A report by the law firm Rajah and Tann also notes that the Betting Act is silent on the controls and measures to be taken with regard to online gambling. While enforcement on the Internet remains difficult, I think much more can be learnt from the US and Europe, where gradual measures are undertaken to control online gaming. In the US, for instance, the US Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in 2006, which makes it illegal for its financial institutions to transfer money to offshore gambling websites or to online payment websites used by such websites. In Europe, the European Commission has also set out an action plan for online gambling, proposing a comprehensive set of actions and common principles on protection, aimed at clarifying the regulation of online gambling and encouraging cooperation between Member States. In comparison, in Singapore, we have not really looked seriously into the issue of online gambling and how such online gamblers can be helped.

In conclusion, Sir, this amendment Bill is necessary to ensure that casino gaming is conducted honestly and the vulnerable persons and society at large are protected from the potential adverse effects of casino gambling. The Government must continuously monitor, enforce and review the casino regulatory regime, and also work with various stakeholders in ensuring that the two IRs continue to value-add to the economy and remain as attractive destinations for tourists. There is also an urgent need to look into measures to control the proliferation of other forms of gambling, including online gambling, which can similarly bring about detrimental effects to the family and the society. With that, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment to the Casino Control Bill is, I understand, our attempt to protect Singaporeans from the lure of gaming.

I am heartened that initiatives have been raised and that our Government has taken much consideration to incorporate these proposed amendments to further protect our fellow citizens from the social fallout from gambling. I speak on this Bill with mixed feelings and I also share the concerns that were raised passionately by the previous speakers.

Page: 1393

Sir, it was many years ago I recall that my whole family woke up one morning and we were shocked to learn that my sister's colleague's whole family perished. They took their lives because of the gambling debts that they had incurred; first, their children and then themselves. So, it really shook my family at that point of time but I believe that many speakers in the House here will share their experience as well in your constituency.

Sir, while this Bill has introduced marketing restrictions for the casinos, I believe that there is still more that can be done to protect the community from the gambling ills. There has been positive publicity in the media on how the casinos have contributed to Singapore's economy through their tax contributions. The Minister shared earlier on that as well. I understand that they have contributed about probably 2% of the Singapore GDP and also created many jobs for Singaporeans, directly and indirectly. But what I hope to see though would be the active participation and contribution by the casinos towards corporate social responsibility for Singaporeans who have inadvertently fallen victim to the social gaming disease.

Although it may be ironical for casinos to participate in CSR programmes that discourage gaming, but what about pockets in our community who have suffered from these social issues associated with gaming, just so that these foreign casino operators can profit from their gaming operations in our country. I am aware that we cannot exit the casino industry at this point. I, therefore, urge consideration be given for a greater proportion of tax collection from the casinos be allocated to help our community to combat the gambling ills.

The amendments to this Bill also extend the scope of Exclusion Orders to protect our Singaporeans from the vulnerable exposure to the social problems that stem from the inability to control oneself from gambling. The introduction of visit limits that constrain the individual's access into casinos has been proposed as an intermediary alternative from a total exclusion.

The visit limitation proposal serves the wider interest of protecting not just an individual, who is vulnerable to financial harm resulting from visiting casinos, but also their immediate and extended families, who inevitably have to shoulder the financial liabilities and subsequent social and economic problems incurred from problem gambling.

Sir, while section 165 comprehensively provides a set of legislative criteria used either by the Committee of Assessors or the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) in determining the vulnerability of the individual to financial harm, it also allows for families to make provisional exclusion for problem gamblers, or impose a visit limit. It therefore seems that the visit limitation can be imposed either voluntarily by the individual or through application from family members.

Page: 1394

I would like to seek clarification from the Minister on the rationale for availing visit limitation as an intermediary alternative for persons demonstrating financial vulnerability. While it is logical that persons on social assistance programmes or Government-funded subsidy schemes be excluded from the casinos altogether, should not individuals who are financially vulnerable also be totally excluded?

Why is an individual who is deemed to possess a poor credit record, or has an inability to pay debts as they fall due and is deemed by the Committee of Assessors to be vulnerable to financial harm, be given even a single opportunity to enter the casino to place a wager, with the odds heavily stacked not in the individual's favour? Is it not possible that with the visit limitation imposed, the individual may still make that single visit per month and, during that single visit of no return, incur greater debts or liabilities and bring grief to their family?

While I appreciate the intention to introduce the visit limitation for those seeking voluntary inclusion into this proposed scheme, I would like to suggest that persons deemed by the Committee of Assessors to be financially vulnerable, be automatically excluded from the casinos instead of having their visits to the casinos limited.

Sir, in South Korea, they have a relatively large casino gaming market in Asia Pacific, yet their casinos are only open to foreigners, and this was done to protect their locals. I would like to ask the Minister to reconsider and look into how best we can further protect our local Singaporeans.

I would like to urge the Government to continue to monitor closely and keep track on any increase in the number of our local gambling addicts and to provide every assistance and help not only to the individuals but to their families and loved ones to go through this very difficult time. With these comments, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me state categorically that I have always been strongly against having casinos in Singapore, and I have held this view long before I entered politics.

Before the Government allowed in casinos seven years ago, I had written several letters to the Government voicing my strong objections. I took part in feedback forums and even organised a petition to urge the Government not to proceed with the casino. Regrettably, the Government proceeded to issue not just one but two casino licences despite strong objections from many Singaporeans. It was a dark day for many who felt that we were sacrificing some of our cherished values on the altar of economic growth.

Page: 1395

Regardless of the economic benefits of the casinos, one ruined life, one bankrupt individual, or one broken family caused by casino gambling is one too many for Singapore. Gambling, and in particular casino gambling, is a scourge to society. According to a Straits Times' report last September, seven in 10 gamblers who sought help in counselling centres for their addiction said the casinos were the main reason for their money woes.

The Australian Productivity Commission (APC) found that five to 10 people are affected for every individual who is a problem gambler. These include spouses, children, parents, co-workers and employers. In a survey conducted last year, Singapore's National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) found that 2.6% of Singapore residents are problem or "probable pathological" gamblers. This translates to over 98,500 Singapore residents. Multiplied by six, which is on the conservative end of the APC estimate, there could be well over half a million people in Singapore who are directly or indirectly affected by problem gambling.

Now that the casinos are already on our shores, we need to make every effort possible to minimise the many negative social effects caused by them. This will be the focus of the rest of my speech.

The Bill introduces the concept of a Visit Limit, which allows individuals, their families or third parties to apply to limit the number of visits to the casinos by a gambler within a given month. One of the key concerns about the Visit Limit expressed during the public consultation is that it may inadvertently increase a patron's gambling intensity during his limited visits. To mitigate this risk, I propose that an Expenditure Limit order be imposed together with the Visit Limit. Once the expenditure limit is reached, no more bets may be placed, even if the visit quota for the month has not been reached.

I am also concerned that the Visit Limit may be used as a substitute for an Exclusion Order. Instead of taking out an Exclusion Order, the parties may go for the "soft" option of a Visit Limit. Hence, the problem gambler's habit continues to be fed, albeit at a more controlled pace. If we introduce the option of a Visit Limit, then there should not be a heavy burden on the family to prove that the respondent is a problem gambler. I hope that applications will not be easily rejected against the desires of the family members. As such, could the Minister clarify, with examples, what constitutes "gambling activities in disregard of the needs and welfare of the respondent's family members", as worded in section 163A subsection 4(a)?

This brings me to my next concern about both the Family Exclusion Order and the Family Visit Limit: are the application procedures too onerous to be useful in practice? According to the NCPG website, family members can take up a Family Exclusion Order only through Tanjong Pagar Family Service Centre (FSC). The Committee of Assessors convenes only once a month and would need to prove that "serious harm" was inflicted on the family due to gambling before approving the application. The Committee may also summon to a hearing "any person whom it may consider able to give evidence" (section 158(4)).

Page: 1396

This poses high entry barriers to family members who may wish to take up an Exclusion Order for their troubled loved ones. They might deem the process too troublesome or intrusive. It is no wonder that only 900 family exclusions have been issued as of January this year, compared to 42,700 self-exclusions, which can be obtained online instantly with a SingPass. Nine hundred family exclusions make up barely 0.9% of the estimated number of problem and probable pathological gamblers in Singapore. This hardly makes a dent on the enormity of this problem.

Sir, for the Visit Limit applications, will families have to go through this same process? Given that a problem gambler can lose thousands of dollars a day at the casinos, one month may be too long a wait for the order to come into effect.

May I propose that Family Exclusion and Family Visit Limit applications be provisionally granted immediately upon an application by the family member? Close family members would, in the vast majority of cases, have the respondent's best interests at heart. They would be in the best position to gauge whether the respondent has gambling problems which are affecting the family. Only if the respondent disputes the Exclusion Order or Visit Limit would a hearing need to be convened to make an assessment on the appeal, and repeal the order if the application is deemed to be frivolous. This would encourage more families to apply and ensure that their relative is immediately prevented from doing more harm to himself and his family.

How then do we prevent frivolous applications? Firstly, I do not think we need to put too many checks and counter-checks in place to prevent these very unlikely situations. How many frivolous applications were received by NCPG in the past three years that had to be rejected?

Secondly, the rare frivolous application can be easily reversed with an appeal by the respondent and a decision by the Committee of Assessors. Being barred from the casino is not a death sentence. In fact, it will do most people's pocketbooks some good, and one month would not be too long to wait for the order to be overturned.

Self-exclusion is a good preventive measure which should be encouraged and promoted. However, I have found that most people are not aware of this self-exclusion facility. I would suggest that schools, social service and religious organisations encourage their students and members to apply for self-exclusions, just as some employers do for their foreign workers. The NCPG should better publicise these schemes so that people know they exist and are taught how to apply.

Page: 1397

Next, self-exclusion. Self-exclusion should not carry a social stigma of being a problem gambler. For the record, my wife and I excluded ourselves as soon as the facility was made available, even though we do not gamble.

The current casino entry levies for Singaporeans and PRs stand at $100 for a daily entry levy and $2,000 for an annual entry levy. I am disappointed that this Bill contained no review of the levies, and even more disappointed to discover that section 116(4) locks in the current levy amounts for 10 years.

If the Government is serious about putting in place effective social safeguards against problem gambling, it should do away with the annual levy. The levy of $2,000 amounts to only a paltry $5.50 per day, and is equivalent to only 20 daily entry levies. Effectively, regular gamblers get a "discount" off their levy, while occasional gamblers have to pay a higher levy per visit. This sends the wrong message that regular gambling is preferred over occasional gambling. An annual entry levy, regardless of amount, will lead to a "buffet syndrome"; people will be incentivised to visit the casinos more just to get their levy's worth.

With the data from actual transactions over the past two years, the Government would know how many times each annual entry levy holder has visited the casinos in a year. Anecdotally, I know that most hard-core casino gamblers buy the annual pass, rather than the daily pass. Hence, doing away with the annual levies could be a very effective step in combating excessive gambling in our casinos.

Currently, the entry levy applies only to Singaporeans and PRs. The Government should extend the entry levy to all foreigners who are here to work or study in local schools, as well as Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) holders.

The rationale for casinos targeting tourists, and not locals, is to prevent residents from developing gambling issues and causing problems in their homes and our community. However, foreign workers, including foreign maids, are effectively part of our community, unlike tourists who are here today and gone tomorrow. If foreign workers patronise the casinos and develop gambling problems, their work performance will suffer and this would affect their co-workers, employers or the families they work for.

Most foreign students in our local schools receive large tuition grants from the Ministry of Education; some are here on full scholarships. Singaporean taxpayers have made a large investment in them. They should therefore be discouraged from patronising the casinos and gambling away our investments.

Lastly, LTVP holders are often married to Singaporeans and many are not earning an income. Their gambling problems will therefore affect local families. This is why they should also be subject to the casino entry levy.

Page: 1398

Next, about responsible gambling. The new section 170B mandates that the casino operator shall establish and implement a responsible gambling programme. But can casinos really be trusted to run these programmes effectively, when it is neither in their vested interests to do so, nor is it part of their core business? Why not outsource these programmes to independent, social service organisations specialising in responsible gambling? These organisations will have an interest in reducing not just problem gambling, but gambling in general.

Compared to its counterparts in Australia, Canada and the US, the NCPG seems rather underfunded, understaffed and underdeveloped. It is now a council of 13 members supported by a secretariat from the Ministry of Social and Family Development. The NCPG does not provide help directly. It re-directs problem gamblers to third parties. This is inadequate for the implementation of a comprehensive responsible gambling programme.

Sir, the NCPG needs to be transformed into a national centre run by professional staff providing research, outreach education, help services, programmes and best practices consultancy all under one roof.

Next, I would like to comment on the amended regulations of casino junkets – or "international market agents" as the Government now calls them. Junkets are essentially casino promoters, tour agents and moneylenders rolled into one. They have a notorious reputation of often being associated with organised crime, which is probably why the Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) has moved so tentatively in granting junket licences until now.

The CRA recently granted licences to two junkets. These two junkets seem to have been approved because they are small operators with limited impact. Is the Government thinking of opening up the market to more junket operators? Would this be a slippery slope down to the situation in Macau, where junkets are responsible for a lot of the loansharking and other organised crime? Does the CRA have the capacity and capability to regulate an increasingly complex casino business, made more complicated by the junkets?

Our casinos are already among the most profitable in the world. Is there a need for more junket operators to prop up demand?

This brings me to my final point about the Bill. A new section 45A was added to empower the Minister to appoint an Evaluation Panel to evaluate the casinos on visitor appeal, international value of attractions, meeting prevailing market demand, and contribution of the casinos to Singapore's tourism industry. The evaluation report will be used by the Government to decide whether or not to renew casino licences.

Sir, why is the Evaluation Panel only focused on the economic benefits of the casinos? Should it not also evaluate the social and crime situation caused by the casinos? This would provide a more comprehensive report of the impact of the casinos, and enable a more holistic evaluation when assessing the applications for renewal of the casino licences.

Page: 1399

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, problem gambling is a terrible scourge in any society, cousin to alcoholism and drug abuse. The introduction of casinos seems to have sent a wrong signal that gambling can be glitzy and glamorous, or worse, part and parcel of a total family entertainment package.

Some 200,000 Singaporeans visited the casinos in 2010. We already have the dubious honour of the second highest gambling losses per capita, according to the Economist magazine. We must significantly step up our efforts to stem this rising tide, or risk seeing more and more people falling prey to gambling addiction at the hands of our two casinos.

Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. There have been many stories of broken lives and families due to gambling. One of my middle-aged residents had turned to loan sharks, unfortunately, to finance his gambling habit at the casinos. When he could not repay his debts, he was then forced – according to him – to let them use his bank account for illegal money-lending activities. He was then arrested and imprisoned. He has since lost his life-long livelihood as a security guard due to his criminal record. We are presently trying to help him regain a livelihood.

Not just middle-aged residents, but even youths who are non-gamblers have been drawn into the gambling web. They act as loan shark runners, collecting debts from gambling addicts. The prevalence of easy and fast loans from banks and licensed or even unlicensed moneylenders also act as a magnet for feeding the gambling habit.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to show a slide? This is a picture that I took at the foot of a 1-room HDB flat two weeks ago, indicating a banner "moneylender, at 1.5% per month" – indicating the phone number.

The lure of easy money is too tempting for gamblers looking to feed their addiction. We need a concerted approach to tackle the social ills brought on by the problems of gambling.

In addition to the proposed amendments, I would like to urge the Ministry to extend public education of the problems of gambling to youths and children, not just the vulnerable group. This could help increase their awareness of the potential pitfalls caused by gambling and prevent them from being recruited by loan sharks when the opportunity arises. Youths, generally, are especially vulnerable as they are at the life-stage where owning material goods or branded stuff and peer pressure exert the most influence.

Page: 1400

So, whether it is through mass media, schools or libraries, we need a targeted drive to reach not only our youths, but also the children with warning that gambling can be addictive and can destroy lives and their future. Equipping our youths with such knowledge can help prevent them from falling into such situations when they are older. Children can also be a positive influence on parents or family members addicted to gambling.

In addition, I would like to request for the Ministry to share with us if there are plans for the NCPG and the Ministry of Law to work together with the Singapore Moneylenders' Association to prevent gamblers from getting into deeper debt. This could be in the area of public education concerning the risks of debt associated with gambling and highlighting the available resources of help for troubled gamblers.

I would also like to request the Ministry to look into how to extend further public awareness of the gambling hotline. Are there provisions under the CCA that would require the two operators to prominently display the helpline for troubled gamblers and list the help services available? We need to extend the reach of the helplines and information to places where gamblers congregate.

If we could further strengthen the whole-of-Government approach, which is happening today, in dealing with the problem and social ills of gambling, we can build an even tighter net of protection around vulnerable families and individuals. I hope the Ministry of Home Affairs – not just Ministry of Home Affairs – Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), Ministry of Education (MOE), also, Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and NCPG can work closely to make this happen. There is certainly a shared responsibility between the gambling industry, the Government and those who gamble to work together to develop policies and procedures that limit harm from gambling. Next, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech on Pg 1433.]  The ills of gambling are so prevalent that even youths who are non-gamblers have been drawn into the gambling web. Some of them act as loan shark runners, collecting debts from gambling addicts and some help put up moneylending advertisements. The prevalence of easy and fast loans from banks and licensed moneylenders also act as a magnet for feeding the gambling habit. There is not much of a problem in getting the money, but trouble starts subsequently.

I would like to ask the Minister for Home Affairs if there are plans for the NCPG and the Ministry of Law to work together with the Singapore Moneylenders' Association to prevent gamblers from getting into deeper debt. This could be in the areas of public education concerning the risks of debt associated with gambling and borrowing, and highlighting the available resources of help for troubled gamblers.

Page: 1401

If we could take a whole-of-Government approach in dealing with the problem and social ills of gambling, we can build a tighter net of protection around vulnerable families and individuals from being preyed upon by those unscrupulous people. I hope the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Ministry of Social and Family Development and NCPG can work closely to make this happen. There is a shared responsibility between the gambling industry, the Government and those who gamble to work together to develop policies and procedures that limit harm from gambling. We cannot rely on luck to tackle the gambling problem. Victory shall be ours as long as we put in concerted efforts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Ministry for its efforts to update the Casino Control Act. While the proposed amendments seek to strengthen the Act and ensure that casino gambling in our society can be even better managed, I do have several concerns, particularly from the social perspective that I hope the Ministry will be able to address.

First, the amendment to section 155 to include visit limits is a welcome move, especially for families of problem gamblers or those who may harbour the fervent hope that Lady Luck will be on their side soon, very soon. However, how will the limit be determined? Will it be decided based on the individual's prior gambling habits? Or will it be decided based on the amount of debt that the individual has incurred? Can the limit be decided based on the possibility that the individual may end up with problem gambling, as anticipated by concerned family members, relatives or close friends?

In addition, Sir, I had wanted to ask if the application for a Visit Limit can be made on behalf of a family member or individual by a concerned or authoritative member of the community such as from a voluntary welfare organisation (VWO) or a grassroots organisation (GRO) who is well aware of the problems faced by the family or individual because of the individual's gambling habits or propensity towards gambling. I am glad to hear from the Second Minister for Home Affairs earlier that grassroots leaders can do so.

Sir, I have met residents whose families have been torn apart or forced to live through dire circumstances because of one family member's problem gambling habits. Some of these problem gamblers have gone to the extent of borrowing the pocket money of their school-going children just to finance their gambling habits. However, the family members do not wish to apply for the family exclusion order either because of the hassle in doing so or possible embarrassment to the family. Hence, it is good if a Visit Limit or Exclusion Order can be imposed on the gambler by concerned and significant others.

The insertion of section 165B subsection (2) states that the visit limit shall specify the maximum number of visits in aggregate that the person may make to any casino in each month. May I find out from the Ministry how has this been or will be checked or documented, and how does this apply to overseas casinos or those on cruise ships that commence gambling sessions on international waters? In addition, how does this apply to online casinos? Is there a way to place a check on these casinos that can one can gain entry to anytime, anyplace?

Page: 1402

I am glad to see the amendments to be made to section 165A to exclude from casinos not just those who are on any social assistance programmes, but also those who are on any subsidy schemes funded by the Government or any statutory board. I once met a resident who had just applied for ComCare. He was about 60 years old, unemployed and taking care of his aged mother who was about 80 years old and also unemployed – just the two of them. I felt that he was eligible for the Public Assistance Scheme and suggested to him that I will help him apply for that. But he was quick to decline it. I was surprised and asked him why. He replied that if he was on Public Assistance, he could not gain entry to the casinos here and he would rather try his luck there than depend on handouts. I was not sure whether to be amused or annoyed by his remark. Here, may I also suggest that the Ministry work closely with VWOs or GROs to possibly exclude from casinos, individuals who may be receiving financial or social assistance from these organisations as well, the VWOs or the GROs, and not just from the Government or Statutory Boards.

Sir, the Ministry might also want to consider to exclude those who may have records of having borrowed from loan sharks, unless they are able to prove that they are no longer in debt with such illegal moneylenders; or those who have been having payment arrears for housing mortgage or rentals, or utility bills. I have met residents who face financial problems and are in payment arrears even though they are working and earning rather substantial monthly salaries. Upon chance meetings with their family members, neighbours or grassroots leaders who know them well, I found out that these residents are either compulsive or fervently hopeful gamblers who feel that their life can turn around only if they can strike it rich through gambling. The situation is even worse if they have borrowed from loan sharks to finance their gambling habits, as the victims of loanshark harassments extend to beyond just the borrowers or their immediate family members.

In conclusion, Sir, while those who have been placed on exclusion orders or visit limits can apply for their names to be removed from the list, I am glad to see that it is required for them to first participate in counselling, rehabilitation or special education programmes, or undergo clinical assessments. However, may I suggest to the Ministry that their family members, relatives, trusted friends or social workers familiar with their case be included in these programmes as well to their support. While problem gambling may stem from one person, its impact extends to beyond the individual. Hence, in reversal, the social or family support that can be extended in the road to recovery can certainly help expedite the process for the individual to get back on track in life.

Page: 1403

In the spirit of strengthening safeguards against social ills that are a result of problem gambling, I support the amendments.

Sir, the review of the Casino Control Act is timely after almost three years of experience in regulating and managing the two casinos. The Casino Control (Amendment) Bill has introduced a new measure called "Visit Limits" to minimise the social impact of casino gambling.

Currently, there are two social safeguards that deal directly with casino entry – an exclusion system and the imposition of an entry levy. The exclusion system is clear cut and easily understood. The entry levy safeguard, unfortunately, creates a dichotomy between the intention of the day levy and that of the annual levy. While the $100 a day levy will make people think twice about making frequent visits to the casinos, the $2,000 annual levy will encourage gamblers at risk, to visit the casinos at will. If you enjoy gambling, the choice is a no-brainer between paying $100 or $5.50 a day to have a go at Lady Luck. And every gambler knows that to recoup the annual levy paid, he would have to visit the casino at least 20 times a year. So, what is the resulting effect of the annual levy? It encourages frequent visits to the casino and not the other way around. The annual levy makes daily visits to the casinos ever cheaper than to visit the latest Gardens by the Bay attractions. The average levy per day is even cheaper than a meal at the fancy food-court outside the casino.

The truth is the annual levy is undoing everything the day levy is trying to do, and that is to be an effective social safeguard against problem gambling. It is not too difficult to see that the new Visit Limit measures are probably targeted at mainly gamblers who bought the annual levy. But, Sir, if we know someone who is going to get addicted to drugs, do we limit the person's intake of drugs to address the issue? What social safeguard will the Visit Limit achieve in the long run? If the person is deemed at risk in gambling addiction, will limiting the patron's visit to the casino help or make any social sense? When you mix the convenience of a casino next door with a cheap entry levy in a densely populated place, the resulting concoction is not only potent but extremely harmful – potent to the gaming business but harmful to the society.

It was reported in the New York Times that the Resorts World Casino New York, which opened last fall, made more money from electronic slot machines than those in any of the 12 casinos in nearby Atlantic City or in Connecticut. The article says the success of the casino, the only one in the five boroughs of New York, suggests that no matter how luxurious the accommodation or exciting the entertaining, nothing appeals more to gamblers than a casino that is nearby. The Director of the University of Nevada Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming said, "Convenience and location are the driving factors today. If you put a casino in a high density population like Queens, you will do well."

Page: 1404

Sir, we cannot relocate the extremely profitable casinos but we can definitely relook at the ineffective entry levy control. I am not the first to call for the removal of the annual levy and I am sure I will not be the last. Is the annual levy an untouchable pre-condition cast in stone in agreement with the operators that this Government can do nothing with it except to come up with measures like Visit Limit to counter the negative impact of the misguided entry control? Removing the annual levy would be a better option than to introduce a visit limit to safeguard gamblers at risk. The fact that this Government collected over half a billion dollars in entry levies since the casinos become operational more than two years ago can only mean one thing: we need to relook at the safeguards. The day levy is a safeguard. The annual levy is a loophole. I urge the Government to seriously consider doing away with the annual levy.

Next, it may be time for us to tighten the issue of soft advertising by the casinos under the guise of sponsorships and donations. I once came across a residents' corner decked out with large red lanterns with Resorts World Sentosa printed on it. We all know what Resorts World and Sands are renowned for and they are definitely not about ferris wheel or art museum. These companies are famous for one thing and one thing only – operating casinos. Do we want to allow these casinos to soft-sell their brand name, trademark or service mark, as these are identical to the Integrated Resorts which the casinos are a part of?

The Casino Regulatory Authority must state clearly what the casinos can do under the guise of sponsorship and donation; more so when their names are synonymous with casino gambling. It is for this same reason we do not see Philip Morris or Marlboro lanterns in our estates. We are dealing with seasoned casino moguls here. I am sure these people will not hesitate to try their luck at anything to have market share and they have a deep pocket to do so.

While I do believe we should allow some leeway for the casinos to promote the non-gaming parts of their business, we must be mindful that beneath the façade of the family-oriented Integrated Resorts lies a vice that has brought untold misery to many families around the world. In this instant, the CRA must be clear on what the casinos can do in the area of soft advertising.

Sir, while the review of the Casino Control Act is timely, the Government must also review the economic benefits promised by the casino operators. When this House debated on the casino proposal in 2005, both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade and Industry had said that the two casinos will create 35,000 jobs of which more than 10,000 are direct employment jobs. Almost three years have passed since the casinos opened their doors to roaring business. How many Singaporeans have they hired? What kind of jobs have they given to Singaporeans? To date, those numbers remain a mystery.

Page: 1405

A year ago, we were told in this House that employment figures for casinos, breakdown by foreigners, PRs and Singaporeans, are protected under the Statistics Act and Singaporeans only need to know that 70% of the direct hire by the casinos are locals, a term which refers to Singapore citizens and PRs. A year later, we found out from the press that 70% of the direct hire by the casinos are actually all Singaporeans. The reports even break down the numbers by casino.

My question is: could the Acting Manpower Minister verify these numbers which are supposedly protected under the Statistics Act, as mentioned by his predecessor in October 2011? If yes, I find it unacceptable that such information cannot be revealed in Parliament under the guise of the Statistics Act while the press is free to report on these numbers. And why are we protecting these numbers in the first place? If we allowed the casinos to make money here, surely it is of public interest to know if they are making money at the expense of jobs for Singaporeans.

We are not alone in worrying about jobs for our own people when a casino comes to town. A recent report in the New York Daily News said the Resorts World Casino New York City fell short of the promise it made in mid-2011 to hire 70% to 80% of its staff from the borough of Queens. The Daily News investigation also found that residents do not get a proportionate share of high-ranking management jobs at the casino.

Is this Government keeping a close watch over the promises made by the casinos to create jobs for Singaporeans? I urge this Government to release casino employment data in a term that all Singaporeans can understand and appreciate. Telling the people that the casinos hire 22,000 employees does not square well with the Government's initiative to make the distinction between Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans sharper. And what other benefits have the casinos brought on? Can the Government publish more data to substantiate the benefits? How many local SMEs and suppliers are doing roaring business with the casinos? What is their percentage share of the supply chain in dollars and cents? Can the Government be more transparent in providing regular updates on gaming revenues and social impact caused by the casinos?

The Prime Minister said in 2005 that "to make an informed decision, we needed to understand what exactly an IR would entail. What sort of investment would it be? What benefits would it bring? We needed information to decide."

Mr Speaker, seven years have passed and the casinos are fully operational. Singaporeans, too, needed information now to decide if the casinos have made an impact in their lives and in the society. The reality today is that the Government has asked Singaporeans to gamble big on the success and benefits of having casinos on our shores. What are the odds of Singaporeans winning the lion's share of the jobs and contracts available at the casinos or is it going to be the same old story again – the house always wins?

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon) (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech on Pg 1434.]  Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendment Bill, so long as it strengthens the safety net, ensures that Singaporeans who enter the casinos can afford to take the risk of losing and will not cause unnecessary duress to their families.

We have witnessed how greed has destroyed the future of many. Despite repeated warnings by the Government on fraud cases and the perils of seeking instant benefits, many people still succumbed to temptations at gambling tables. It appears that there are some who will risk everything and believe that this is a quick way to make a fortune.

Our two integrated resorts are not just gambling resorts. When Singapore decided to build the integrated resorts, it has stated clearly that the gambling component is mainly targeted at tourists, and not Singaporeans. Of course, there are also some Singaporeans who will choose to try their luck at casinos.

The Casino Control Act also provides safety measures so that families can apply for exclusion orders. At the same time, among various new additional measures, I am pleased to see that the National Council for Problem Gambling will be authorised to limit the number of visits to casinos by Singaporeans.

In my opinion, there is another group of people who should be banned from the casinos, and they are the loan sharks and all others related to loan sharks, for example, their debtors and runners.

The law should ban loan sharks involved in illegal moneylending activities from entering the casinos. These unscrupulous people are likely to target gamblers who have lost money and engage in illegal lending activities.

Another group that should be banned from casinos are debtors who have borrowed money from loan sharks before. These debtors turn to illegal lenders precisely because they are facing financial difficulties. Some residents tell me, many of their relatives, friends and business partners who are addicted to gambling turn to loan sharks, and lose interest in their work and business. Recently, another resident lamented that he has been harassed by loan sharks for the past 10 years, not because he borrowed money or owed money, but because his neighbour next door often borrowed money to visit the casinos. He does not understand why the Government cannot ban people like his neighbour from entering the casinos.

Page: 1407

Hence, for their sake, and for the sake of their families and neighbours, the law should ban these people who borrow from loan sharks from entering the casinos.

Finally, we should also consider imposing a ban on those who have acted as runners for loan sharks, to prevent them from entering the casinos. Some have been forced into acting as runners, while others have done it voluntarily, both should be banned from the casinos. They have displayed weaknesses in their character and allowing them to continue gambling will cause them to repeat their mistakes. We may not be able to find a perfect solution to prevent undesirable individuals from entering the casinos. Most importantly, Singaporeans must stay away from the casinos on their own initiative. I still hope that the authorities can ban loan sharks, loan shark runners and those who borrow money from them from entering the casinos.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for this opportunity to participate in the debate. I was studying in the US when we made the decision to allow casino gaming in Singapore and I recall being visibly disappointed. If today's debate is anything to go by, it shows that there is still a lot of controversy over the subject matter, but I think we have to make do given that we have made the decision.

So, it is timely to review the Casino Control Act comprehensively now that we have had benefit of practical experience with regard to the regulatory regime for the casinos in the past three years. I do hope that there will be regular and robust reviews of the regulatory regime governing the casinos, and that the Government will not shy away from making timely and regular amendments to the laws, if need be.

Page: 1409

Sir, while I agree that the economic dimensions of the Integrated Resorts must be maintained and even enhanced, I believe it is important in any evaluation for the renewal or grant of a casino licence that the Integrated Resort's track record in complying with the regulatory framework should be made a factor in the evaluation process. Clause 10 of the Bill should not only emphasise the IRs' economic obligations but also require the evaluation panel to consider how the economic obligations are being fulfilled. For example, how compliant was the IR operator in the case of the IR operator seeking to renew the licence? How compliant were they with regard to the social safeguards?

Sir, the IR operators have various routes by which they can choose to develop, maintain and promote the IRs as compelling tourist destinations, and if we focus narrowly on the economic aspects, then I think we run the risk of short-changing ourselves. We need the IR operators to be mindful of their social responsibilities. They should be fully sensitised to the realisation that their legal and social licences to operate in Singapore is very much tied in to how shared value is created by the IR operator for itself and Singapore generally.

My second point is that we should not be unduly concerned about the pre-emptive nature and, perhaps some might say, paternalistic approach towards imposing social safeguards. Hence, I welcome clauses 84 to 90 that relate to exclusion orders generally. The casinos must not be allowed to prey on local, financially vulnerable casino patrons who visit the casinos frequently. Neither should such persons be tempted in the first place to see casino gaming as a quick-fix to their financial woes. As such, enabling the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) to issue visit limits to individuals and also for families and individuals to apply for such visit limits – in addition to the current family and voluntary self-exclusion – are to be welcomed.

Sir, could the Minister elaborate more on the Responsible Gambling (RG) requirement that the IR operators are required to demonstrate commitment to? Are the approved Responsible Gambling programmes and their outcomes subjected to external audit? Are such Responsible Gambling programmes pro-forma exercises that the IR operators engage in because they are mandated to? How does the Casino Regulatory Authority measure the effectiveness and efficacy of the RG programmes? In short, it is important that such programmes have both form and substance.

Sir, there is much to commend in this Bill. The decision to permit casino gaming in Singapore was a controversial one. The economic benefits have been reported regularly in this House and the mass media but once the novelty factor wears off, the challenge increases for the IR operators and, in a way, that also adds pressure on the Government to show that its decision was right in the first place. This impacts upon the Government in that the economic largesse was one of the key selling points of having not just one but two casinos in Singapore.

Sir, the barometer of the "rightness" of the decision to allow casino gaming will be whether the Government can regulate and manage the attendant social ills that come from the operations of the two casinos and, with it, the easier and increased access to gambling. This is something that requires strict scrutiny and a no-nonsense approach, given the known social downsides that inevitably accompany the casino gaming industry.

Page: 1410

I reckon that, in time, there will certainly be a definitive rise in problem gambling and the attendant social ills and law-and-order ills. It is the nature of the beast of casino gaming. Casino gaming also brings in the foreign elements and so the crime control apparatus here has to be able to be on top of these challenges.

My other concern is whether in creating a robust regulatory regime that we might unwittingly "normalise" or reduce the stigma of gambling, resulting in more Singaporeans letting down their guard vis-a-vis gambling. When you go to the Integrated Resorts, we have sort of successfully merged the family entertainment component with the casino component. So, going to the IRs is like going to another shopping mall and I think that may perhaps lead some people to let their guard down. There is a good chance, given the easy availability of legalised gambling in Singapore, that the social attitudes towards gambling may become lax. Once that happens, we would have sown the seeds of more problems down the road.

Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate. Please allow me to speak in Malay before I continue my speech in English.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech on Pg 1436.] I support the amendments to this Act because it will protect even more Singaporeans, especially those who are vulnerable and can easily succumb to gambling. I would like to urge that this group be forbidden from going to the casino. This will help to preserve the sanctity of their lives and their families. Fortunately, the problem of gambling is not so widespread among the Malay community. Islam, just like many other religions, forbids or discourages gambling.

Gambling is a social ill that can make someone place their hopes on luck or striking it rich that comes from false hopes. It can discourage someone from working hard and doing noble deeds. I hope that our community will continue to avoid this gambling habit and will not be easily deceived by stories of luxurious life supposedly enjoyed by gamblers.

(In English): An Italian philosopher, Niccolo Machiavelli, born in 1469 and died in1527, once said, "A ruler should encourage gambling among his enemies, and put it down by military force at home".

I support the call by my fellow parliamentarian, Ms Denise Phua, for us to work towards a future where there are no casinos on our shores.

Gambling is a sin passed down through many generations and has wreaked havoc on many lives and families. It undermines the social fabric of society. Yet, the urge to gamble is so universal and, as a nation, we are placing our bets that its benefits will far outweigh its sinfulness.

Sir, despite the curbs and steps taken to minimise the undesirable social impact on society, there are still real concerns about the adverse social effects of the casinos on individuals and families. I am saddened to hear of stories shared by many speakers earlier of families affected by gambling. One family affected by a compulsive gambler's behaviour is one family too many. Sir, I would like to urge for a study to be done on the economic and social costs of gambling in Singapore so that we can further understand the implications casinos have in Singapore. Perhaps, if the social cost can be quantified, we can then objectively weigh the pros and cons of having a casino here.

Page: 1414

I am heartened that this Bill seeks to introduce even tighter controls on some aspects of patronising casinos, especially for financially vulnerable Singaporeans. One of the proposed amendments is to provide an option for a visit limit per month that can be imposed by an individual's family, by the individual himself, or by a Committee of Assessors on a person with bad financial record or if the person is seen by the committee to be in a financially vulnerable position due to gambling. I would like to know if the definition of "financially vulnerable" would be different for Singaporeans who are banned from entering casinos, compared to those who will be given the option of having a visit limit every month.

Sir, like many speakers before me, I find it difficult to appreciate the need for a visit limit option. A visit limit could lead to an increase in gambling intensity. If someone is a compulsive gambler, even one visit can do a lot of harm. What if one gambles away all of his money in one visit? Imposing a visit limit after that would do little for the person and his family as the damage has been done. Would the Minister consider putting a cap on the amount one can gamble if one is already on the visit limit list? This would be more effective in ensuring that a gambler does not put all his eggs into the same basket at the same time and have them all or mostly crushed.

Sir, I would like to call for even tighter measures on Singaporean gamblers at our casinos. Currently, the casinos can extend credit to non-Singaporeans and Singaporeans who are "premium players". I would like to urge the Ministry to prohibit the extension of credit to all Singaporean players. Perhaps, we should heed the advice of Machiavelli that I quoted earlier and be more draconian by totally banning Singaporeans from entering the casino, as what is being done by Vietnam where locals are prohibited from entering casinos. The argument that "Singaporean gamblers will go elsewhere and do it anyway" is not convincing enough for allowing them to gamble in our casinos. While it is true that gamblers will go the extra mile to do so, it takes more effort for them to travel to another country do so as opposed to having the option of doing it so easily in our country.

Sir, a legendary US gambler said, "Don't be a gambler; once a gambler, always a gambler". In this regard, we must take pre-emptive strike to protect our young children and teenagers from acquiring this gambling habit. Our youths have unlimited access to the Internet – 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They are at risk to Internet gambling sites. In a study done by University of Connecticut, it showed that as many as three in four pre-teens and teens in the United States who are exposed to Internet gambling eventually became addicted. I would also like to know how the law intends to deal with new forms of gambling, such as interactive gambling services as well as other modes of gambling outside of the casino, including online gambling, which can adversely impact the young.

Page: 1415

Unfortunately, the Casino Control Act does not cover this area. It was reported by the Law Reform Committee in 2010 that the current legislative framework in Singapore addresses land-based gambling activities but it is inadequate to deal with the whole range of online gaming and gambling activities. I would like the Ministry to look at this potential problem to protect our youths. Gambling is not a social skill we want our children to acquire. Let us try our best to stop it from influencing our innocent and gullible youths.

Sir, it was reported in 2010 and 2011 that the opening of casinos had no major adverse impact on law and order in Singapore, and crimes reported in the casinos comprised less than 1% of overall crime. How about crimes related to gambling? The hon Member, Ms Low Yen Ling, had earlier shared a story of how one of her residents was imprisoned and the root cause of it was his gambling habit.

Has the number of gambling-related suicides increased? What about crimes such as loan sharking? It has been reported that the loan sharks are going online and using mobile gadgets to advertise their services. Gamblers who are desperate for cash could easily fall prey to these tactics. How equipped are our authorities in meeting the rise of "new crimes" associated with gambling?

Sir, it has been over two years since the opening of the two casinos in Singapore. Both casinos have been money spinners and have raked in a total of close to US$6 billion last year. Analysts predict that Singapore might become the world's second biggest gaming destination in the world, after Macau. Let us not be too dependent on gambling as an engine for economic and tourism growth. If we continue, we will soon have to build more casinos.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Since the opening of the two Integrated Resorts (IRs) in 2010, they have contributed 1.5% to 2% of the GDP in Singapore. The two IRs have paid about $1.1 billion in taxes in FY2011 and have supported more than 60,000 jobs, 62,000 to be precise, as stated by the Second Minister for Home Affairs, throughout the economy.

Based on two and a half years of financial results, Marina Bay Sands (MBS) and Resorts World Sentosa's (RWS) earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation or EBITDA is about S$4 billion each. The two IRs are well on track to recover their entire investment of about S$6-7 billion each within the five years of operations or even earlier. If we rely solely on the economic figures, even the critics would agree that the two IRs are a success. Thus, I am not surprised that the Australians are trying to follow Singapore's footsteps to build a second casino in Sydney.

Page: 1416

However, the two IRs also have to be socially responsible beyond the taxes that they have been paying. Thus, I applaud the Bill to amend the Casino Control Act on many levels. In particular, I support the new section 45A on the formation of the new evaluation panel to evaluate the casino's licence suitability for renewal. Renewal of the casino licence is conditional on the applicant's suitability to develop, maintain and promote the integrated resort of which the casino is a part. This will go a long way to ensure that the two IRs run the business on values of profit-orientation and social responsibility.

Minister has repeatedly said that the casino is a small part of IRs. This may be true in terms of physical size, but it is not true in terms of revenue share. Currently, more than 75% of the MBS' revenue is derived from gaming activities while that of RWS is more than 80%. I am keen to know if the Minister is setting a target ratio of gaming revenue to non-gaming revenue for the IRs when they reach the mature state, which means that all the planned non-gaming facilities are operational within a promised timeframe. If not, would the Minister consider setting a target? Such a target is quantitative, objective and can be used to supplement the subjective measures used by the evaluation panel to form an opinion on the IRs.

I was heartened by Minister of State Josephine Teo's reply to my Parliamentary Question on casino levy in July early this year. She said that the Government is "not short on the commitment to resourcing" anti-gambling measures and safeguards to be put in place. Following the reply, I went on to seek assistance from various organisations to help my residents who are distressed by gambling habits, gambling debts, and other debts from legal and illegal moneylenders. The journey of seeking help is not a smooth one and I would like to share the experience briefly with the House.

The first case is about one resident of mine who is indebted to a number of legal and illegal moneylenders to the tune of $90,000. His family is constantly harassed by the legal and illegal moneylenders. Thus, I requested the Police to install CCTV outside his residence. However, I was made to understand that the waiting period could be a few months due to lack of resources and funding.

In this case, Sir, despite my best efforts, the wait was almost two months.

While waiting for the CCTV to be installed, this resident wanted to declare bankrupt but he was asked to pay a deposit of $1,600 to the Official Assignee. This resident's monthly income is about $1,200 and he has five children to feed besides the debt that he has to service. Naturally, he cannot afford the deposit. Thus, I wrote to Insolvency and Public Trustee's Office to request for the waiver of the deposit but it was to no avail. I wrote to CDC to ask to help him to pay the bankruptcy fee but they told me that they have constraints.

Page: 1417

The second case is about raising funds for my residents who have recently shifted into two new rental blocks in my constituency. Many of these residents could not afford basic household appliances, such as refrigerators, stoves or even rice cookers. Quite a number of them are also affected by gambling ills. Thus, I decided to raise funds to help the rental flat residents and wrote to various organisations, including appeal letters to the Tote Board and the IRs. I have some successes from some individual donors but not the rest. One of the IRs replied to say that, "while your cause is an interesting and important one", however, they still refused to donate even a single cent despite earning more than $4 billion in 30 months. As for the appeal to the Tote Board, there was tremendous red tape. Even after multiple email exchanges for the past three months, Tote Board still could not commit to provide any funding. Sir, it is mind-boggling to say the least that despite collecting $195 million of casino entry levies in 2011 and $134 million in the first nine months of 2012, Tote Board is unable to help the Singaporeans in distress.

Thus, I would like to urge the Minister to consider setting up an anti-gambling fund. The Government could channel the monies from the fines imposed on the IRs for violating the rules under the Casino Control Act as well as some of the casino entry levies into this fund. This proposed anti-gambling fund could then, amongst others,

(a) Fund the Police to buy more CCTVs or pay the local CCTV contractors more to install CCTVs urgently at residences that are harassed by legal and illegal moneylenders.

(b) Pay for the ad hoc fees, such as the bankruptcy fees, which CDC and the various Government agencies are reluctant to fund or waive.

(c) Provide quick relief money to family members affected by gambling addicts in the terms of food vouchers, utility and rental rebates, especially for deserving households with per capita income exceeding $550 but owed money to multiple legal and illegal moneylenders. The CDC is less willing to help this group of people due to the crude means-testing guidelines.

(d) Provide more generous funding to programmes that benefit low-income families, especially low-income families with school-going children, of whom The Straits Times Pocket Money fund can only provide assistance for a year or so.

The proposed anti-gambling fund can be administered by the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPC) or the CDC. The main purpose is to provide additional funding over and above the budget of the Police, the CDC, Insolvency and Public Trustee's Office and the various Government agencies to better help Singaporeans that are affected by gambling ills. As the proposed anti-gambling fund is supported by fines imposed on IRs and casino entry levies, though I would not say it is easy money – tempted as I would be – perhaps one can be more generous and flexible in the usage of this kind of fund. After all, the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPC) is already spending more than $3 million on public education over the mass media every year as reported in its 2011 annual report.

Page: 1418

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the third topic of my speech today is about provisional family exclusion order as provided in section 164 of the Bill.

On 1 December 2010, the NCPC reduced the processing time of family exclusion application from six weeks to two weeks. However, two weeks is still a long time as reckless gambling addicts could do a lot of harm in a couple of days or even hours. Hence, I urge the Minister to consider approving the family exclusion application within the same day provided that the NCPC appointed counsellor is satisfied that the family member with a gambling addiction has caused serious harm to other family members.

For the purpose of verifying serious harm, family members could provide evidence that the gambling addict is seriously in debt, drawing large amounts of cash from ATMs near the IRs, harassed by loansharks or show proof that his failure to provide for the family due to gambling is causing hardship for his children or other family members.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are many good provisions in the Casino Control (Amendment) Bill. As with any implementation, the devil is in the details. Hence, I reiterate my call to the Minister to consider setting up the proposed anti-gambling fund to smoothen possible kinks during implementation, especially in instances where the safeguards might not be able to achieve the best intended results.

Sir, I would like to make six points. One, facilitating anonymous applications for family exclusion orders. Sir, the National Council for Problem Gambling (NCPG) reported that as of 31 October this year, there was a total of about 130,000 exclusion orders. This is an increase of about 7,000 from the preceding month and is a good overall sign that the safeguards may be gaining traction and acceptance on the ground. But if we drill down into these figures, we notice that of these 130,000 exclusions, about 1,300 or just about 1% are family exclusion orders. There are over 85,000 active self exclusions, but of these, the majority, 88.9%, are foreigners – mostly foreign workers. The other 9,500 are Singaporeans and PRs who applied to exclude themselves. Third-party exclusions, which include auto exclusions, number some 43,000.

There may be many reasons why the number of family exclusions is apparently low, relatively speaking. One possibility could be embarrassment or pressure within the family not to file for family exclusion orders against each other. I would, therefore, like to ask if the Minister would consider allowing anonymous applications for exclusion orders or visit limits by family, colleagues and friends of people who may be at risk of problem gambling. This may encourage more people to step forward to flag out their concerns for their loved ones, but to prevent abuse, applicants may be required to file a statutory declaration or to provide some proof to support and substantiate their relationship with the respondent as well as the basis for their claim or to face some form of penalty if the application was found to be frivolous or vexatious or without basis.

Page: 1419

Sir, two, expansion of third-party and auto exclusion list. We have heard Mr Ang Wei Neng speak earlier about the residents in his rental block who face gambling debts. Sir, there are about 45,600 households living in HDB rental flats with 2,400 on the waiting list. These households earn $1,500 or less, representing the lowest 20% income households. Another 1,600 families are putting up in Interim Rental housing. Many other receive some form of assistance from the Government or from statutory bodies, such as the CDCs. These individuals and families are socially and financially very fragile and deserve added protection. I, therefore, support the amendment clause 86 to allow the NCPG to make exclusion orders or impose visit limits on people with poor credit records or who are vulnerable to financial harm because of gambling as well as the amendment clause 87 to expand on the exclusion to people on prescribed Government social assistance and subsidies.

However, Sir, I would like to propose that the Ministry consider extending the list on auto exclusion to the following groups of people so as to enhance the umbrella of protection.

(a) Those who receive social and financial assistance under prescribed schemes provided not by Government but by VWOs, charitable foundations and other non-governmental entities.

(b) Persons who file or against whom bankruptcy petitions have been filed.

(c) Persons who applied to the Insolvency and Public Trustee's Office to be placed under the debt restructuring scheme (DRS).

(c) People who borrow beyond certain thresholds from licensed moneylenders.

(e) People who report to the Police or who are credibly reported to have borrowed money from unlicensed moneylenders.

(f) Those with significant assistance with utilities, HDB or service and conservancy arrears, and,

(g) People in arrears of maintenance payments to children, parents or former spouses.

Page: 1420

Three, enhancement of self exclusion framework. Sir, under the amended section 165A, subsection 4, a person who wishes to have a self exclusion order revoked may be required to undergo counselling or harm assessment. I would recommend that this be refined further so that visit limits can, in addition, be imposed if necessary. This will provide the half step or a halfway house position between full exclusion and total freedom to gamble.

I would also like to ask the Minister, when a family member applies for a visit limit, can the NCPG instead impose an exclusion order if it thinks fit and vice versa. In short, does the NCPG have sufficient flexibility under the Bill?

Further, I would like to ask the Minister about clause 90, sub clause A, which amends section 167, subsection 1. The effect is that the family exclusion order, provisional family exclusion order or visit limit must be served on the gambler before it is effective. The only exception provided in the Bill is when order is made against the gambler under section 165C, sub section 1, sub paragraph C, which is when the gambler cannot be found or is overseas.

Sir, my question is whether section 165C, sub section 1, paragraph A and B should also be included in this exclusion. This would cover the situation when an exclusion order or visit limit is made in the absence of the gambler but where a summons to appear or notice to object has already been served on the gambler and he either, one, refused to respond or, two, failed to turn up.

Alternatively, why not impose an obligation on the casinos to serve that order immediately on the gambler if he were to turn up on the premises? These procedural tweaks will ensure that our exclusion order and visit limit framework is not undermined.

Fourth point, strengthening the protection for Singapore families. I would urge the Minister to extend the protection currently given to Singaporeans and PRs to cover foreign spouses and dependants of Singaporeans and PRs as well. These foreign spouses and dependants may be on long-term visit pass or even on work pass. How do you extend coverage? I give three examples.

(a) Extend the entry levy requirement in section 116 to cover these foreign spouses and dependants.

(b) Prohibit the giving of credits in section 108 not only to Singaporeans and PRs but also their foreign spouses and dependants, and,

(c) Prohibit casinos and junket operators under section 110 from targeting these spouses and dependants.

Fifth point, introducing mandatory pre-commitment limits. I urge the Ministry to study whether to implement mandatory pre-commitment limits for casino gamblers in the next round of amendments. Pre-commitment limits refer to limits that gamblers set for themselves in terms of how much they can spend in the casinos even before they start gambling. This idea was raised by stakeholders during the consultation period. In their response, NCPG pointed to the current regime which is instead entirely voluntary and remains so. I would urge the Ministry to reconsider for the following reasons:

Page: 1421

(a) Exclusion orders and visit limits only deal with one dimension of problem gambling, which is the temporal damage. This is inadequate. The 2011 gambling participation survey found that the proportion of low-income gamblers who bet large amounts has increased, and that probably pathological gamblers were found to have higher gambling frequencies and poorer self control, in terms not only of duration and frequency of gambling but, more importantly, also the size and quantum of their bets.

(b) When a gambler realises that he needs or a family member realises that he needs an exclusion order or visit limit, it may often be too late. Serious damage may already have been done to the family. Better, therefore, to mandate that all gamblers set sensible loss limits before they even start.

(c) There are well sought out reports and studies that support the idea of mandatory pre-commitment limits. See, for instance, the very comprehensive 2010 Inquiry Report on Gambling published by the Australian government's productivity commission. Mandatory pre-commitment has also been introduced in Norway and Sweden with relatively successful outcomes being reported.

Last point is on widening safeguards for responsible gambling. Sir, I would urge the Minister to consider widening the safeguards in the Casino Control Act for other forms of gambling in Singapore. I believe this has been a point made by other Members as well. On 21 October 2011, the Acting Minister for MCYS had, in response to a Parliamentary Question by Mr Christopher de Souza, said and, I quote, "The National Council on Problem Gambling has also engaged other legal gambling operators to implement exclusions. For example, individuals can already apply to exclude themselves from jackpot rooms in Singapore. These include those run by SAFRA and NTUC. They can also exclude themselves from the telebet accounts of Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club. Families that have requested for casino exclusion for their family members are informed of these other exclusion options." Informed of these other exclusion options, I would like to ask if the Ministry would study the feasibility of extending the framework for exclusion orders and visit limits and, hopefully, also mandatory pre-commitment limits to these gaming outlets as well automatically as a matter of operational arrangement.

Next, although it may be operationally difficult to do so, I would urge the Ministry to also study how responsible gaming can, in future, also be introduced into TOTO and 4D and gambling-like methods. It is indeed true that people can easily circumvent the measures by getting other people to buy for them, but the Ministry could consider either (a) making people play TOTO or 4D on their own accord or, (b) more realistically, require that they take responsibility for ensuring that the people they buy for are permitted to gamble. They can do this by screening their names and NRICs with the Singapore Pools operators, which I presume would be linked by system to the central database.

Page: 1422

Sir, in closing, this Bill is a clear sign of the Government's strong commitment to continually review, refine and enhance the regulation of casinos and of gambling in general in order to protect and strengthen the protection of all Singaporeans. In that light, Sir, I support the Bill.