SETTING UP OF CASINO

Column: 2725

SETTING UP OF CASINO:

. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the specific factors leading to the Government's decision to now consider the possibility of setting up a casino when it was against the idea for many years; (b) whether it will consult the broad range of Singaporeans and weigh the social costs and implications before making a decision on the matter; and (c) when will the decision be finalised.

The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Column: 2726

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the Committee of Supply, Minister George Yeo said that we are prepared to consider having a casino as part of an international resort and residential development on the Southern Islands and Sentosa.

For a long time, the Government has been averse to having a casino in Singapore because of its potentially negative social impact on our local population. This concern remains valid. Should we decide to have a casino, access to it by Singaporeans will have to be controlled. In many countries, locals are not allowed free access to casinos. For example, in London ,

only members are allowed and the membership criteria are very strict. In Korea and Monaco, locals are not allowed entry at all. We will have to do a careful study of the regulations in other countries before deciding on what we will do here.

The reason we are now prepared to consider having a casino is because of the rapidly changing tourism landscape in the region. Billions of dollars are now being invested in Macau to make it a Las Vegas of the East. Thailand is considering new laws to allow casinos. Cruise ships have already become floating casinos in international waters, with cruises to nowhere during weekends. In Batam, we all know there are many casinos operating. With the rapidly growing affluence in Asia, we have to upgrade and broaden our tourism product offering in Singapore. In the coming years, we will make major investments in the tourism industry so that it continues to be an important generator of jobs for Singaporeans. While we do not want to be a Las Vegas or a Macau, we need to consider all possibilities. At one end of the spectrum, budget airlines will make air travel cheaper, for which we need to build more 2- and 3-star hotels. At the other end of the spectrum, we must be able to attract our share of the rich and famous, for whom casinos may

Column: 2727

be an attraction. However, I want to stress that we will not rush into a decision on casinos, but will first study the implications carefully and consult widely.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, would the study that the Ministry will be conducting also include a study on what would be the social implications of having such a casino on Singaporeans, in particular, their indebtedness, and how that would affect families?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, Sir, we are all painfully aware that there are potential social implications and, as I alluded to earlier in my answer, when we construct the rules and regulations around any potential casino that we have in Singapore, our key objective must be to minimise the potential negative social impact on the more susceptible members of our population.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Sir, the Minister of State did not answer the third part of my question, which is when would the decision be finalised. Also, there have been reports that MTI is already consulting some major casino operators. Can I ask whether this is true?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The decision will be made, hopefully sometime in the next two or three quarters, but I cannot be more definite about that.

As far as consultation is concerned, she would have read a lot in the press. The press tends to indulge sometimes in speculation. We are still having internal discussions first. Of course, we would also be seeking the advice of Singaporeans who have had ˆ’ I am not sure whether it is the advantage or disadvantage of actually patronising casinos ˆ’ but we have not entered into any formal consultations with any casino operators to date.

Mr S Iswaran (West Coast): Column: 2728

Sir, the Minister has outlined eloquently the alternatives available to Singaporeans who wish to gamble. Given these readily available alternatives, with the indications that there may a different treatment of Singaporeans versus non-Singaporeans in terms of access to this casino that has aroused a lot of passion among several groups of Singaporeans, it is the principle, not the effect, as it were, I would like to ask the Minister, in the examples he has cited, like in London, etc, are these decisions made by the private operators in the interest of their business in terms of controlling access, or are they licensing conditions imposed by the authorities?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: There are two parts to this question. I will deal with the latter part, about London. I am not aware of the detailed regulations there, but I presume that, to a large extent, these are licensing impositions made by the authorities.

The earlier part of his question refers to alternatives which, unfortunately, exist even today as we talk about it. People can go to cruise ships, they can go across the causeway to Genting, they can go to Batam or travel overseas and do it. There is a limit to how much we can protect, insulate or prevent people from making these decisions. We can do our best to educate, advise and immunise, but we cannot have an absolute barrier.

The follow-on question to that line of reasoning then is that since there are alternatives, why bother to put any resistance at all in the way of Singaporeans. I must say I am not totally persuaded by that line of argument because, although something is available, it does not mean we need to go out of our way to facilitate it. Given the fact that we know that some people would be more susceptible, and perhaps unwisely so, I have made it very

Column: 2729

clear in my answer that our objective, if at all we do embark on this, is to address the tourism market and, therefore, it is focused on tourists and not on our local market. As far as our local population is concerned, our chief preoccupation has been and remains the social impact of gambling on some susceptible members of our population.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Sir, would the Minister agree, while this is purely for tourists, that the intention is for tourists, that it would have an impact on Singaporeans, as there will be a class consciousness being created, as we are creating a playground for the rich, and one of the pleasures of living in Singapore is that the rich do not flaunt their wealth?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, Sir, we run a free economy in which people's access to goods and services consumed are affected by their earning potential or the assets that they have. This is an immutable fact of a free economy. So, we are not doing this to set up class consciousness. We are doing this, as I said earlier, if at all we do decide to go ahead with this, to broaden our tourism appeal to a wider segment of people.

As far as tourists are concerned, I have also said that we are trying to attract a wide spectrum of tourists. We will build more 2- and 3-star hotels, because we recognise that, with the onset of low-cost carriers, it is quite likely, indeed we hope, that more tourists of perhaps a humbler background will also choose to come to Singapore. But we also have to recognise that there are other types of tourists who have, in a sense, money to burn or money to lose. And if they are going to lose that money, and lose it our way and in that way create jobs and help strengthen our own economy, then this is something which we should not, as a matter of reflex,

Column: 2730

ignore. If we do so, we do so at our loss. So, all I am saying is that there are strong arguments, both for and against. There are good reasons to be cautious, but let us go into this with our eyes wide open, being very clear of our objectives, being very clear of the dangers, and also being very clear that there are some practical measures which we have to take.

This is not a time to indulge in creating or highlighting class consciousness or looking for social dispartity or creating cleavages within our population. I think if we adopt this in our uniquely Singaporean manner of being pragmatic, realistic and sensible about it, we might be able to fashion a win-win solution, although that is not typical of gambling.

Mr Gan Kim Yong (Holland-Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, it appears to me from the Minister's argument that the main motivation for allowing a casino in Singapore is an economic one, ie, to attract tourists. I would like to ask the Minister in this regard whether casino operation is a fundamental element of a successful resort or tourism industry, and whether the Ministry has explored other possible models before we jump into a conclusion to allow casinos in Singapore.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I thank the hon. Member for that question. No, it is not a fundamental pillar of our tourism industry. If indeed it was, I would be very, very worried. But what we are saying is that we are at a point of our development when we need to have our options open, and we need to broaden that spectrum of attractions which we have. And if this is one end of that spectrum which we can tap, and tap carefully, then we should consider it. But it is not the centrepiece of our strategy. And that is why I said we have no intention of becoming the Las Vegas of Asia. We have no intention of transforming Singapore into a Macau. Singapore must remain uniquely ours, with certain attributes which have

Column: 2731

brought us thus far. But if we can add on other attributes and thereby broaden our appeal and accelerate the pace of our development, then we will go ahead.

So, I want Members to have no doubts in their mind that this is not a panic reaction or a hastily-conceived idea. This is just one of many proposals which we are considering carefully.

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam: Sir, could I ask the Minister, in this considered and cautious approach, whether some studies will be done on the vice rings around the gambling prospect, in particular relating to prostitution and drugs?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I thank the Member for that question. Members will recall a statement made by the Minister for Home Affairs that they would obviously take a very close look at any other potential criminal or undesirable behaviours which may accompany such a development. Again, I would stress to the House that, in our own pragmatic Singaporean way, we will find ways to minimise the impact of such negative activities or vices.

Assoc. Prof. Ngiam Tee Liang (Nominated Member): As part of the feasibility study, I am just wondering whether we have estimates of the potential revenue impact on the Government and the potential job growth rate for such a project to see if we are really talking of a sizeable potential investment that has a lot of benefits for Singaporeans at the end of the day.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: No, I do not have any firm estimates on potential revenue and jobs but, as the Member has correctly stated, these should be part of our points for consideration before we make any final decision.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Sir, I find it hard to be persuaded that we can insulate

Column: 2732

Singaporeans if we have a casino for foreigners only. Since it also involves creating jobs, Singaporeans would have to go to casinos to work in jobs like croupiers, blackjack dealers, showgirls and what-nots. Therefore, there will be social implications, no matter how hard we try to insulate it. Hence, I would urge the Minister to kindly consider this very carefully and take into account the various studies all around the world that show that casinos do lead to higher family breakdowns, bankruptcies, gambling addicts and other social ills.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I will certainly take the Member's warnings on board. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: I think we have "gambled" enough time on this question. Dr Amy Khor, your next question, please.