Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) how effective has the casino self-exclusion programme been in keeping gambling addicts away from the casinos; (b) how can the Ministry encourage more foreign workers and their employers to apply for self-exclusion for their workers; and (c) how can the Ministry improve on the current system to prevent those who are under the casino self-exclusion or third-party exclusion programmes from slipping into the casinos using false identification documents.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) what is the profile of a typical Singaporean gambler who goes to Marina Bay Sands versus those who gamble at Resorts World Sentosa; (b) what can casinos do to limit play time and spending amounts; and (c) how can the Ministry ensure that casinos enforce the rules on all local visitors.

The Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 4 and 5 together?

Mr Speaker: Yes, please.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Sir, the casino self-exclusion programme was launched in November 2009. As of 31 January 2012, there were 42,700 self-exclusions in force. About 35,200 were foreigners, while 7,500 were citizens and PRs. Self-exclusion, for both locals and foreigners, is voluntary under the Casino Control Act. We recognise that foreign workers, particularly Work Permit Holders, may need assistance with the self-exclusion process. The National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) has worked with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to allow employers to print self-exclusion application forms via the Work Permit Online System and for the employers to help workers submit the signed form to NCPG. The Migrant Workers' Centre also assists foreign workers who come to their drop-in centre to submit self-exclusion applications.

Page: 2262

NCPG has so far directly reached out to 30,000 foreign workers through talks and roadshows at companies and workers' dormitories, and in partnership with the Migrant Workers' Centre. It also carries out efforts to raise awareness, such as regular reminders to employers through the Work Permit Online system.

For those with a gambling problem, casino exclusion will help them in their recovery. Unfortunately, some patrons may not recognise or acknowledge that they are addicted to gambling. For this reason, we have also provided family exclusion orders to allow families to exclude them. So far, about 900 such orders from families have been issued.

Under the Casino Control Act (CCA), the onus is on the casino operators to keep excluded persons and minors out of the casino premises, and their failure to do so would constitute a breach liable for disciplinary action. The Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) has and will continue to take the operators to task when they fail to comply. Last month, action was taken against both operators for failing to prevent excluded persons and minors from entering and/or remaining in the casino premises. The Government also takes a serious view on impersonation as well as the use of false IDs for the purposes of entry into the casinos. It is an offence under the Penal Code which carries a fine, an imprisonment of up to five years, or both.

Information on casino patrons, including the profiles of Singaporean patrons is owned by the casino operators. We are studying targeted measures to protect the financially vulnerable and introducing "circuit breakers" for local frequent casino gamblers. We will look into extending third party exclusion to more groups under ComCare. These would be over and above the current 24,600 bankrupts and 3,200 Public Assistance and Special Grant beneficiaries.

As for "circuit breakers", we are looking at relevant practices of other casinos and jurisdictions. For example, Holland Casino has a responsible gambling policy that curbs frequent visits by patrons following host interviews while Casino Austria excludes or sets visits limits for patrons suspected to have gambling problems or addiction. Crown Casino runs a help centre for those who may be problem gamblers and also has a Play Safe Limits that sets limits on the time played and betting amounts.

My Ministry, NCPG and CRA will work closely with the casino operators. As Minister Iswaran has mentioned previously, MHA will be, holistically, reviewing the Casino Control Act in the second half of this year. MCYS will work closely with MHA to ensure that any targeted measures we introduce can and will be implemented effectively by the casinos. My ministry has started discussions with both casinos in this regard. Both casinos have indicated their support for targeted measures against problem and financially vulnerable gamblers.

Page: 2263

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I have two supplementary questions. First question: does the Minister think that there is a conflict of interest as casino operators were to bring in more gamblers? How do we make sure that they diligently carry out what they are supposed to do, for example, stop identified frequent gamblers and stop those who are not supposed to go in from going into the casinos? Second clarification is that will the Minister consider subjecting foreign workers to the $100 entrance fee, same as Singaporeans and PRs?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Sir, let me take the first question about the potential conflict of interest. Yes, we recognise that the casino operators would like to have more patrons on their premises. Having said that, the casino operators – there are two in Singapore – are very clear in their RFIs ever since they got into this, that they are not to target the local patrons; that means Singaporeans and PRs. Their efforts are to focus on attracting the foreigners rather than the locals. In this regard, we have spoken to the casinos. They are also forthcoming to acknowledge that it is not in their interest to target the locals. It is also part of their responsible gambling programme to make sure that our locals, especially the Singaporeans and PRs, do not get into trouble. Because they acknowledge that they have a social responsibility towards Singapore and Singaporeans as well. We will step up measures to work with them to see how we can identify those people that may have issues with controlling their gambling habits. We are also looking at the experiences of how other jurisdictions have done this.

On the second issue, about the $100 entry fee, we have done this many years ago, when we first started the casino because we wanted to send a very clear signal to all Singaporeans that gambling at the casino is not a way to make a living and to deter our people from getting into this habit where they frequent the casinos. On the issue as to whether we would impose the $100 entry fee to the foreign workers, especially those on work permits, we will have to consider that holistically as to where we draw the line between which groups of foreigners we allow exemption from entry fee, and there are also implications on what are our contractual arrangements with the casino operators.

But what we can do before that step is: we will step up measures to encourage the employers of the work permit holders to actively encourage the work permit holders to apply for the self-exclusion orders, where possible, when they apply for the work permits. So we are trying to make it a seamless process – when you apply for your work permit, there is a mechanism there for you to easily apply for the exclusion order in just one more step.

Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Sir, I understand that the casinos are not supposed to target local residents. However, the foreign workers on work permits also belong to a vulnerable group. Could Minister consider having an automatic exclusion for all foreign workers that have applied for work permits unless they opt in to remove the exclusion order?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir. We thank Mr Ang Wei Neng for the question. At this stage, we have not gone down the road to implement what the Member has called the automatic exclusion. But we believe that, at the end of the day, whichever exclusion method that we use, the individual must have a sense of ownership of that decision and the responsibility. Otherwise, we also risk running into another set of problems where people try to circumvent the exclusion orders imposed upon them, which is why we started off on this basis of working closely with employers to encourage work permit holders – the foreigners – to take ownership of this entire process. If we do it the other way, it is not impossible, but there are also side effects that we have to be concerned with.

Page: 2264

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Sir, I would like to ask Minister what else can be done in terms of enforcement. I received feedback from employers that they have applied for self-exclusion for their foreign workers and yet foreign workers end up in the casino and affect productivity in the company.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Er Lee Bee Wah for the supplementary question. Indeed, this is a concern for us. If the foreign workers and foreign work pass holders have applied for the self-exclusion order and after that, still enter the casino, this means they are either breaking the rules or circumventing it by other ways, this is a serious problem, which brings me to two points. First, it goes back to the point I mentioned just now about the sense of ownership. Even if we force people to sign the exclusion order, if there is no sense of ownership, then that individual might find all sorts of way to circumvent this which is unhealthy.

The other part of the equation, as the Member has rightly alluded to, is that we will need to strengthen our enforcement to make sure that when such cases happen, we will have to take serious actions because they are not taking care of themselves and, at the same time, affecting the wider environment.

How to detect this? There are few layers, as the Member has suggested. One, if the employer knows the individuals concerned breaking this rule – that means they are going to the casinos, despite the fact that they have signed on to the self-exclusion orders – then the employers can work very closely with us to make sure that these names are given a higher signature so that we really look at them very carefully and take a serious look.

The other measure that we would need to step up is with the casino operators to make sure that their list of exclusions are kept up-to-date and that it is always the latest that they can possibly have and to step up the enforcement. We will need to do a few steps in order to manage the problem. But at the end of the day, I must emphasise that we want to do all these to protect our people, to help the vulnerable groups. But the people involved must also take a certain sense of ownership. It will be very sad for us to see those examples that the Member had given, whereby they sign the self-exclusion order, yet they find all sorts of ways to bypass the exclusion orders themselves. Because the larger issue is not just casino or not casino. The larger issue is one of gambling. How do we manage and help curb the irresponsible gambling behaviours of some individuals.

So, on one hand, casino is the obvious form of gambling that we would like to seek to control. On the other hand, we must not rest on our laurels and be complacent that if we just resolve and manage the casino issues, that the rest of the other issues will not be there. Of concern to us, going forward, would be things like online gambling, which is even more addictive, does not have an entry levy, can be done anywhere, anytime. Those are things that we really have to take a serious look to see how we manage this, to manage the entire gambling habits.

Mr Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang. Last clarification, please.

Page: 2265

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Is there penalty for casino operators who fail to enforce the exclusion orders? And how does the Ministry supervise or scrutinise the operators to see whether they seriously enforce the exclusion order?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Low for the question. The answer is "yes". There are penalties and fines for them. That is why recently we found out that people have breached their exclusion orders – that means people who are not supposed to be in the casinos were found inside a casino. When such data is available, we take them to task. The answer to the Member's question is "yes". There are penalties and we do spot checks to make sure that whoever they let in are not inside the exclusion list because they have the data for us to sample.

11.26 am

Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.

Bills Introduced