FREE SHUTTLE BUS SERVICES TO INTEGRATED RESORTS

FREE SHUTTLE BUS SERVICES TO INTEGRATED RESORTS: 9.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister of Community Development, Youth and Sports whether the convenient daily free shuttle bus services running at hourly basis from various HDB towns to Resorts World Sentosa have attracted more Singaporeans to gamble at the casino at a higher frequency and whether it has resulted in an increase in problem gambling cases in the neighbourhoods.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: When the Government decided to allow casinos as part of the Integrated Resorts, the key

Column: 1058

objective was to enhance Singapore’s attractiveness as a tourist destination. We made it clear that the casinos were primarily to attract additional tourists from abroad. However, we would not exclude locals entirely from the casinos, unlike some other countries. Instead, we imposed advertising restrictions and a comprehensive set of social safeguards. Our aim was to minimise the impact of the casinos on locals, to protect vulnerable groups like young persons and dependents, and to prevent the casinos from targeting locals as their principal market. This was the explicit basis on which the operators bid for the two Integrated Resorts projects, and our position remains unchanged.

In the seven months since the casinos opened, there have been more than one million visits by local residents to the two casinos. These numbers fortunately appear to be stabilising as the novelty wears off but we are monitoring the trends very closely.

My Ministry investigated the bus shuttle services provided by both Marina Bay Sands (Sands) and Resorts World @ Sentosa (RWS). Marina Bay Sands was offering a paid premium service at 12 pick-up points covering the Central Business District and Orchard Road. It charged premium fares but these were redeemable at food and beverage outlets, some of which were in the casino.

Resorts World @ Sentosa provided free shuttle bus services at 19 pick-up points, most of which were in the heartlands and Central Business District areas. They were clearly not part of the public transport network. The buses also operated very long hours, up to 10.30 pm on weeknights and up to 2.30 am on weekends and the eves of public holidays. These late hours meant that most of the facilities at RWS were closed, except for the casino.

Column: 1059

In addition, RWS promoted its Genting Rewards programme at heartland shopping malls and the Seventh Month (Hungry Ghost) events. I am very sure they were not trying to entice hungry ghosts to the free food or the cheap food at the casino. Amongst other features, this programme allowed patrons to earn points and accumulate benefits. But these points would have to be earned in the casino. RWS also released stories of casino winners to the media. All these activities contravened the Advertising Regulations and the Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) instructed them to stop.

This pattern of casino promotional activities and the expanding network of bus services to the heartlands and the Central Business District led to the CRA’s decision to order an immediate stop to the bus services offered by both Integrated Resorts. Both Integrated Resorts will now only be allowed to provide transport for passengers from specific tourist-linked destinations which are listed in the Casino Control (Advertising) Regulations and only with the prior approval from the CRA.

Mr Speaker, our action conveys a clear signal to both Integrated Resorts operators to confine promotional efforts for the casinos to tourists only. We will not allow any promotions aimed at Singaporeans, especially in our heartlands. The Integrated Resorts operators have been reminded that they must comply strictly with our rules against casino advertising to locals. These rules will be tightened as necessary in the light of experience.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Sir, I thank the Minister for the reply. The two big casinos have only just started and there is a long road ahead.

I have two further questions. Firstly, are there sufficient measures in place to

Column: 1060

either encourage or even compel the casino operators to look to the overseas markets, given that the Singapore market will always be a low-hanging fruit for them to pick and an easier recurring income for them to look for? Do we need more disincentives for the local market? And do we need more incentives for them to target the overseas market?

My second question is related to the number that the Minister has given – one million visitors. I think there is this concern on the ground and in the community about problem gambling. I would like to ask the Minister whether there is sufficient awareness among the public about problem gambling in Singapore and whether, at the community level, there is enough traction to work with the various community or grassroots organisations to stem the rise of addictive gambling in the neighbourhoods.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the fact that we took this action conveys a very clear signal and I do not think at this point in time we lack the tools to convey clear signals and to enforce strict compliance. As I have said at the end of my reply, we will tighten the rules as necessary in the light of experience.

On the Member's additional point, he is absolutely right. This signal is to reinforce the point that they are not supposed to go after the low-hanging fruit which the local market represents but, instead, focus their efforts on bringing additional tourists from abroad.

His next question was whether there is sufficient awareness. There will always be a need to improve awareness of problem gambling in the community. And the National Council for Problem Gambling (NCPG) needs the active support and the participation of our grassroots organisations in the heartlands, so that the message reaches everyone who needs it and people who are vulnerable, especially

Column: 1061

people who are affected by problem gamblers within the family, know where to get help and know what avenues are available. There is much work to be done in the months ahead.

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Thank you, Minister, for your response

.: A million Singaporeans going to the casinos, shuttle services until 2.30 am, free stays in the hotels at the casinos – the Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) seems to be reactive rather than proactive in this. What can be done to ensure that the CRA is more proactive in the future? What are the repercussions for breaches of orders and has that been made clear to the IR operators?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, I would not agree with the assertion that the CRA has been reactive instead of being proactive. We knew full well when we embarked on this project and I speak from experience, having been involved with this project since 2004, when I was Minister of State in the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and led the project team which proposed allowing Integrated Resorts with casinos. We knew full well this was going to be a difficult challenge. We knew full well that we could prepare, we could make all the necessary preparations, we could set the legislative framework, we could set and transmit the rules and we could explain and re-explain the principle behind those rules to the operators. However, from time to time, they will test those boundaries. If and when they test the boundaries, we need to respond appropriately, decisively and quickly. If nothing else, this episode has shown that the CRA will act decisively, and will act quickly, if the need arises. But we are not just going to wait for other problems to arise. It is far more important to make sure that there is a robust system of rules and regulations and that the operators understand the thinking behind these rules.

Column: 1062

Nevertheless, because the profit motive is so strong, I do not believe there will ever be a final solution. There will always be a series of border incursions and a need to redraw and re-emphasise that line. What I am saying now is that our position, as the Government, remains unchanged. That line is where it was always meant to be. If they transgress that line, we have the necessary tools and penalties to impose on them. And because we are reviewing those rules where parts of them need to be tightened, we will tighten. I think both operators take the CRA very seriously.

Mr Speaker: Mdm Halimah, last question.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Just two short questions for the Minister. My first question is that the two casino operators have obviously violated the law, other than asking them to stop, will there be any other penalties being imposed on them? My second question is to ask the Minister whether he is aware of the concern on the ground about work permit holders patronising the casinos and gambling away their hard-earned money, which is obviously not the raison d'etre that they are here, and also the concern as to how this would impact their work ethics. Is the Minister aware of these and will any measures be taken to address these concerns?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, I cannot speak for the Casino Regulatory Authority, whether they are contemplating any penalties to be imposed. There is a due process and they will make appropriate decision at the regulatory level. I am not in a position and I should not be in a position to make pronouncements on decisions of the Casino Regulatory Authority.

Her second question is on work permit holders frequenting the casinos. She is right. Our current regime of social

Column: 1063

safeguards and the $100 levy were targeted at protecting Singaporeans, especially vulnerable Singaporeans, young persons and dependants, and also a reminder to the casino operators not to have local promotions. For work permit holders, my Ministry and the Ministry of Manpower will facilitate them making use of the self-exclusion orders which the work permit holders can sign onto and then it would be operationalised, so that they will not enter the casinos. I think it is in the interest of both the worker as well as the employer to encourage the work permit holder to self-exclude himself or herself from the casino.

Mr Speaker: Mr Seah, last question.

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Sir, I note that the National Council on Problem Gambling –

Mr Speaker: Mr Seah, you have two minutes left.

Mr Seah Kian Peng: – is under his Ministry, while the Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) comes under the Ministry of Home Affairs. I wonder whether both Ministries should come together and think about whether, from a regulatory viewpoint and from the point of managing these problem issues, they should be parked under one Ministry. Perhaps both Ministers can consider this point.

Mr Speaker: Two minutes, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I think Mr Seah has highlighted the need for better communication and coordination. It is a suggestion that I accept. In fact, it cannot be parked under any single Ministry because, even for this issue that arose, it involved the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Trade and Industry and MCYS. What we

Column: 1064

will do is to have another committee, this time chaired by Senior Minister of State Iswaran, which will also have the requisite representation from all the other Ministries, so that such issues in future will be looked at holistically and comprehensively, taking into account the relevant concerns of all the different Ministries. I think an inter-agency/inter-Ministry approach will be more effective in the long run.

3.00 pm

Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question time.

[ Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 18, 21-22, 31and 32 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Question Nos.10-17, 19-20, 23-30 and 33 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament .]

*Cols. 1153-1160.