CASINO CONTROL BILL

Column: 2313

CASINO CONTROL BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

3.08 pm

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Background

In April last year, the Government announced its decision to invite proposals to develop two Integrated Resorts with casinos in Singapore. This was debated over four days in Parliament during which many Members shared their concerns on gambling, stated their positions and made suggestions concerning casinos in Singapore. The Integrated Resorts was also a subject of vigorous public debate for over a year.

Column: 2314

There were many Singaporeans who supported the proposal for the Integrated Resorts as they will enhance Singapore's tourism appeal vis-a-vis other popular tourist destinations that are also reinventing themselves. The Integrated Resorts would provide a strong boost to our economy and create many new jobs for Singaporeans. At the same time, having casinos could mean more people gambling and getting themselves - and their families - into trouble. Concerns were expressed that crimes, such as loan sharking, money laundering and prostitution, could increase and tarnish Singapore's reputation as a clean, safe and secure place and that casino gambling could also erode values such as thrift and hard work that have underpinned Singapore's success.

Finally, after much debate and deliberation, we decided to act in favour of what would bring more benefit to Singapore and Singaporeans, and to allow the Integrated Resorts to be built. At the same time, we will also take measures to minimise the undesirable effects of casino gambling, and put in appropriate safeguards to deter vulnerable persons from the casino.

Sir, the Casino Control Bill that I have introduced in Parliament is an important milestone in the process of bringing the Integrated Resorts project to fruition. The Bill seeks to put in place a legislative and regulatory framework that will help provide an environment where the Integrated Resorts can succeed and thrive, while enabling us to keep social and law and order problems under control.

Learning from other leading jurisdictions

Since April last year, my Ministry has been studying the regulatory practices of well-known casino jurisdictions in other parts of the world. We studied multi-casino jurisdictions, such as Nevada and

Column: 2315

New Jersey in the United States; and single-casino jurisdictions, such as New South Wales and Victoria in Australia and Macau. I visited casinos and regulators in Las Vegas and Macau to appreciate first hand the challenges and issues of regulating an industry as complex and dynamic as casinos. Apart from Las Vegas and Macau, my officials also visited casino regulators and operators in New Jersey in the US and New South Wales and Victoria in Australia to learn from their experience.

The issues and concerns across the various jurisdictions are not very different from ours. Each jurisdiction has chosen a slightly different approach to tackle specific issues, depending on its historical and legislative context, as well as the resources available. For instance, in the United States, the general practice is to divide the regulatory powers into a Commission, which sets the policies and collects licensing fees, and a separate Casino Control Board, to enforce the policies and conduct investigations. This reflects their preference for checks and balances. In Australia, however, the regulatory powers are centralised in a single agency for effectiveness and efficiency.

Having studied more about the best practices across these jurisdictions, we have adapted the best practices and sound policies appropriate to our unique requirements. We aim to position our Integrated Resorts with the best in the world. Our regulatory standards, therefore, must necessarily be on par with theirs too.

Public consultation

My Ministry put up the draft Casino Control Bill for public consultation from 17th October to 11th November last year. Members of the public were invited to

Column: 2316

give their comments on the Bill. Potential investors of our integrated resorts were also invited to provide feedback on the Bill. We also sent the draft to regulators in the United States and Australia for comments.

Public feedback

The exercise has generated useful feedback from Singaporeans. Most of it pertained to specific social safeguards, such as the entry levy and exclusion orders, and not on crime, corruption or other law and order concerns traditionally associated with casinos. This suggests that there is public confidence in the Government's ability to manage the potential law and order issues associated with casinos. It is interesting to note that while some members of the public suggested that we should remove or lower the entry levy, there were others who supported the entry levy, and even suggested raising it higher and incorporating more entry criteria! On balance, we decided to keep the entry levy fees at $100 per 24 hours and $2,000 per year, as we felt that it should be adequate to discourage Singaporeans from picking up the gambling habit.

Our response to the public feedback was posted on the Feedback Unit's e-Consultation portal on 13th December last year.

Investors' feedback

In comparison, the investors' concerns were whether the various requirements were overly stringent and could affect their ability to raise funds or run their businesses effectively.

We took into account the investors' feedback and suggestions, and decided to relax a number of operational controls on the casino operator that may interfere with their day-to-day operations. They

Column: 2317

include the requirement for the casino operator to seek the regulator's approval for the casino layout, and the powers to stipulate a minimum number or a maximum number of a particular type of game in the casino. The Casino Regulatory Authority's power to limit the number of hours that a casino can operate has also been

removed from the draft. We believe that our supervision and regulation of the casinos will not be compromised by these changes.

In response to feedback, the Government also decided to enact the Casino Control Bill early so that potential investors will have a better idea of our regulatory regime and what they can and cannot do. In addition, through this Casino Control Bill, the Government is committed to a number of measures to provide greater certainty and support to investors of our Integrated Resorts. This is because the Integrated Resorts require heavy investments. We want them to succeed after the investors have committed to spend billions of dollars on the projects. For instance, the casino tax rates will remain unchanged for 15 years. The two casino operators will also enjoy an exclusivity period of 10 years. During this period, no new casinos will be allowed. The lease of the land on which the Integrated Resorts will be sited will be for 60 years and they will be allowed to operate a casino for 30 years, subject to the suitability of the casino operator to run them.

We believe that all these measures will provide greater certainty and enhance the competitiveness and attractiveness of our Integrated Resorts and the investors' ability to raise funds for the project.

Foreign regulators' feedback

In addition to seeking comments from the public and the investors, we also

Column: 2318

sought comments from casino regulators in other jurisdictions. The objective was to tap their experience and expertise as established casino regulators, to help address our own lack of experience in managing the casino industry. I am happy to say that their feedback has been very encouraging. Many cited the Bill as a thorough and sound legal basis to launch a comprehensive regulatory framework. Here, I would like to commend all the officers who have put in a great deal of effort in coming up with the provisions of this Bill. I note that they have covered practically all bases and provided enough provisions in the law to allow for flexibility as well as to allow for regulations to be made so that, as we implement these regulations, we will be able to adapt from our own experience.

Casino Control Bill

Sir, the Casino Control Bill will provide the legislative and regulatory framework to help to ensure that criminal activities associated with casino operation do not take root in Singapore, and to mitigate the potential negative consequences of the casinos on our society.

The Bill comprises 13 Parts and deals with the key aspects of regulating casinos in Singapore.

It has three broad objectives. First, the Bill will provide for the setting up of the casino regulator with the necessary powers to enforce the regulatory regime. Second, the Bill will set out a regulatory regime for the casino operator and related business parties. Third, the Bill will provide for a number of social safeguards to protect vulnerable persons from casino gaming.

I will now describe the key aspects of the Bill.

Column: 2319

Casino Regulatory Authority

The Statutory Board

Clauses 5 to 17 of the Bill will establish a new statutory board called the Casino Regulatory Authority, or CRA for short. The CRA will be supervised by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

As a statutory board, the CRA shall be subject to the same governance standards as other statutory boards of the Government. In particular, the CRA shall submit to the Minister for Home Affairs its annual report and audited financial statements, which will be presented to Parliament. The Board of the CRA shall comprise a Chairman and 4 to 16 members, approved by the Minister for Home Affairs. For transparency and accountability, board members are also required by law to declare their interest in any particular project or transaction concerning the CRA or the casino operator. These are provided for under clauses 18 to 39 of the Bill.

The CRA will be formed 12 to 18 months before the first casino starts operation. The casino operator can take this lead time to seek approval from CRA and apply for the licences for various aspects of the casino that are required under the Casino Control Bill.

Regulatory powers of the CRA

Sir, I shall now touch on the regulatory powers of the CRA. The CRA will be responsible for enforcing the provisions in the Casino Control Bill and regulating the casinos in Singapore. This is inconsistent with overseas practices, where dedicated bodies are set up to regulate casinos.

Firstly, the CRA shall have powers to investigate and probe into the casino

Column: 2320

operator's background, accounts and business links (under clauses 10, 15, 46, 63 and 85). The investigations, which are very thorough and often involve the key directors and management, are standard practice in many well-known overseas casino or gaming jurisdictions. Such comprehensive investigations are also being conducted for the bidders of our Integrated Resorts.

When I visited the Nevada Gaming Commission in November last year, the Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission and members of the Nevada Gaming Control Board advised me to carefully scrutinise the potential casino operators, as it is only through the selection of suitable casino operators with the right people to manage its operations would we be able to keep criminals and fraudsters away from our casinos. This is the reason why we, like other leading gaming jurisdictions, conduct probity investigations on potential investors and operators of our Integrated Resorts. Such checks will ensure that only suitable persons are given the licence to operate casinos in Singapore.

Having been exposed to similar investigations in other casino jurisdictions, foreign bidders of our Integrated Resorts project have cooperated fully with us in the process. However, such comprehensive investigations are new to Singapore companies taking part in the Request for Proposal for the Integrated Resort. Their management may not be used to disclosing so much information about themselves and their companies. These practices are nonetheless necessary to ensure that our probity checks measure up to the standards of respected casino jurisdictions in other parts of the world.

Any company that wants to be involved in the casino industry in Singapore is expected to cooperate with the CRA and be subject to probity investigation. This principle of having the

Column: 2321

industry demonstrate that they can meet the regulatory objectives before being allowed to operate a casino is succinctly captured by the phrase "Compliance first, Commerce later", a policy adopted by the Nevada Gaming Control Board.

Secondly, the CRA is empowered to deal with offences typically committed in casinos. Cheating, forgery, tampering with gaming equipment or attempting to exploit the casino chips as an alternative currency are regarded as attempts to undermine the integrity of the casinos' operations, which will lead to fines or imprisonment or both. These are covered under clauses 171 to 188.

Apart from investigative and enforcement powers, CRA is also the approving authority for the various aspects of casino operations. It will oversee the casinos' system of internal controls and accounting procedures, such as those listed in clause 139. It can also receive and investigate complaints from the casino patrons about unfair gaming. Clauses 111 to 114 of the Bill empower the CRA to adjudicate disputes between the casino operators and their patrons.

In addition, various clauses of the Bill empower the CRA to collect licensing fees and to take disciplinary action against casino operators, key employees and other parties licensed under the Casino Control Bill for any regulatory breaches. Disciplinary actions include fines or the variation, suspension and even termination of their licences. The Authority shall also work closely with the Police to manage the law and order situation in and around the casinos.

Casino operator, related parties and its operations

Let me now turn to the regulatory requirements of the Bill and explain their policy intent.

Column: 2322

Many crimes in the casinos are committed by persons who collude with casino employees. They range from less sophisticated crimes, such as cheating at tables, to high-level schemes between the casino and criminal syndicates to, say, launder money.

To ensure that the integrity of our casinos is not compromised from within, clauses 43 to 56 and clauses 79 to 98 of the Bill will require the casino operators and their key employees to be licensed by the CRA. No one shall be allowed to work or hold key positions within the casino without a licence.

Only suitable persons will be licensed to operate the casino or to work in positions of influence in the casino. The considerations of "suitability" include whether the applicant is of good repute with regard to character, honesty and integrity, and has the ability to work in the capacity that he or she has applied for. For applicants who wish to operate the casino, the applicant must also demonstrate that he has a sound and stable financial background.

Having obtained the licence, the licensee must remain suitable throughout the validity period of the licence. Where there are material changes to the licensee's situation that could affect his suitability, the licensee is required to report these changes promptly to the CRA.

Organising junkets is a specialised and highly lucrative business that is important to the casinos' viability. Junket promoters, or junket operators, bring in high-rollers to the casinos and provide them with VIP treatment in return for a commission. Junket promoters function as the middle man between the casinos and the high-rollers, buying and encashing chips on behalf of the high rollers.

Column: 2323

Because of the large sums of money transacted between the junket promoters, their clients and the casinos, it is important that junket promoters are well-regulated to ensure that the junkets do not provide a cover for crime syndicates to engage in criminal activities, such as money laundering. For this reason, clause 110 of the Bill shall require junket operators to be licensed before they can work with our casinos.

Shareholders and Business Associates

Sir, apart from the casino operators and their employees, shareholders and business associates can also be possible avenues that criminals can exploit to infiltrate casino operations. Hence, in Nevada, for example, share transfers of any amount would require approval from the regulators if the casino is privately held. For publicly listed casinos, regulators are to be kept informed of shareholders who become 5% stakeholders and approval is required for stakes of 10% or more.

As such, under the Casino Control Bill, the regulator will be empowered

to exercise control over such relationships. Shareholders taking a 5%, 12% or 20% stake in the casino operator shall be required under clauses 64 to 71 of the Bill to seek approval from the Minister for Home Affairs. Such shareholder controls are to ensure that persons owning significant stakes in the casino operators are suitable persons to be associated with our casinos, and to ensure that there is no undesirable influence over the casino operations.

The casino operator's relationship with other business partners will also be closely monitored. Under clauses 72 to 78 of the Bill, the casino operator shall be required to seek approval for contracts of significant monetary value or that provide

Column: 2324

critical services to the casino, such as security and surveillance. Such contracts are called "controlled contracts". The objective is to ensure that there is no undesirable influence on the integrity of the casino operations through these contracts. Details of the controlled contract regime, such as the exact value or the specific types of services that will render a contract as controlled, will be prescribed in the subsidiary legislation to be enacted under the Casino Control Bill.

Operations of the casinos and its internal controls

Sir, casinos are highly complex operations. The gaming devices that a casino employs, such as jackpot machines, are highly technical and specialised, and are increasing in sophistication. Clauses 57 and 99 to 105 of the Bill will enable the CRA to supervise casino operations, including requiring the casino operators to seek approval before a game can be conducted in the casino. CRA will study the game rules closely to ensure that the odds are not overly skewed in the casino operator's favour and the integrity of the game is not easily compromised. Jackpot machines shall also be closely regulated for the same reason.

Prostitution and illegal money lending are often associated with casinos. Clause 129 of the Bill will also require the casino operator to take all appropriate steps to ensure that such activities do not take place within its premises. The police and the CRA will work closely with the operators to keep the casinos clean from such undesirable activities.

Huge amounts of cash and chips are constantly flowing within and through the casinos. Strict internal controls and procedures are therefore needed to protect the integrity of the games and the financial transactions against cheats and other criminals. We shall require the

Column: 2325

casino operator to put in place a robust anti-money laundering programme which shall include know-your-customer due-diligence, mandatory reporting for transactions above $10,000, record keeping for transactions above $5,000, mandatory reporting of suspicious transactions, and anti-money laundering training for the employees. These measures, which will be prescribed in the subsidiary legislation under the Act, are in line with international anti-money laundering standards set by the Financial Action Task Force and other leading gaming jurisdictions.

Clauses 138 to 145 of the Bill will also require the casino operator to seek approval for its system of internal controls and administrative and accounting procedures. Of importance would be a comprehensive surveillance system throughout the casino to facilitate the monitoring of operations and the gathering of evidence.

Social safeguards

Sir, what I have described thus far are measures to deal with the law and order aspects of the casino operations. Another key objective of the Casino Control Bill is to minimise the potential for casinos to cause harm to minors, vulnerable persons and society at large. The Bill shall enact the social safeguards that the Government had announced in Parliament in April last year.

Problem gambling

In deciding the appropriate social safeguards, we also need to understand how casual and recreational gambling can lead to problem gambling. In a study conducted by the Commercial Affairs Department on prison inmates who had committed commercial crimes, the interviewees revealed that they got hooked on gambling after experiencing the

Column: 2326

euphoric feeling when they won. Others gambled to escape stress.

As they develop into problem gamblers, they get so consumed by it that they lose interest in everything else, and their family and work lives are affected. They also lie habitually about their gambling habits and conceal their losses. When they lose, they tend to chase after the losses and end up in deeper trouble. Many eventually turn to crime to finance their habits.

Based on this study, there seems to be a point beyond which some casual and recreational gamblers begin to slide down the slippery slope to become compulsive and pathological gamblers. It is, therefore, vital that those who choose to gamble are aware of the vital signs, so that they can seek help before their habits get out of control.

Entry levy

To discourage locals from developing into problem gamblers, clause 116 of the Bill shall require the casino operator to collect an entry levy from Singapore citizens and permanent residents for every consecutive 24 hours in the casinos or $2,000 for an annual membership. The levy will also underscore the message that gambling is an expense and not a means to get rich.

Credit and loss limits

Problem gamblers have a tendency to gamble beyond what they can afford. As a safeguard, clause 106 of the Bill shall require casino operators to provide information about games to patrons as well as a loss limit system that casino patrons may choose to use. This will give patrons an option to commit upfront to a loss amount that they can afford in their gaming.

Column: 2327

Clause 108 of the Bill shall prohibit casino and junket operators from extending credit to Singapore citizens and permanent residents, unless they maintain a credit balance of at least $100,000 with the casino operator at the start of their gaming which would qualify them as premium players.

Automated teller machines (ATMs) shall be prohibited within the casinos under clause 109 of the Bill so that patrons will not have easy access to their savings accounts to gamble continuously.

Minors

Minors are also another potentially vulnerable group who may fall prey to the glamour of the casino, without realising the possible dangers of gambling. Clauses 130 to 137 of the Bill will prohibit persons below the age of 21 years from entering the casinos.

Exclusion orders

Under the Casino Control Bill, various bodies shall be empowered to impose exclusion orders. These are statutory orders that will prohibit a member of the public from entering the casino. The objective is to ensure that certain persons who may be more vulnerable or are undesirable from stepping into the casino. Clauses 121 and 122 of the Bill will empower the CRA to impose exclusion orders in general. In addition, the Commissioner of Police can also impose exclusion orders on criminals or suspected criminals, to deny them the use of casinos as a place to perpetrate their illegal activities.

As Members may be aware, the National Council on Problem Gambling was launched on 31st August 2005 and has started its public awareness campaigns on problem gambling as well

Column: 2328

as specific initiatives to help problem gamblers. The Council will also be empowered under clauses 155 to 168 of the Bill to issue exclusion orders to stop problem gamblers from entering the casinos.

Family members of the problem gamblers can also apply to the Council for exclusion orders to be imposed on their loved ones. The Council may also issue the order on persons who have poor credit records or are on social assistance programmes. This process will help prevent problem gamblers from getting deeper into trouble.

Persons who have a gambling problem can also make a personal application to be excluded. These voluntary exclusion orders can be lodged with the casino operators under clause 120 or with the National Council on Problem Gambling under clause 165. This is an additional service to help those who know that they are vulnerable.

The CRA will work closely with the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports to ensure that the social safeguards, such as entry levy collection and the exclusion orders, are effectively implemented in the casinos.

Casino tax and enforceability of gaming contracts

Sir, let me now turn to the casino tax and enforceability of the gaming contracts. Clauses 146 to 152 of the Bill shall provide for tax rates of 5% and 15% to be levied on the gross gaming revenue from premium players and non-premium players respectively. This is on top of the existing corporate and goods and services taxes that the casino operators shall have to pay. As mentioned earlier, the tax rates will remain unchanged for 15 years as part of our commitment to the Integrated Resorts.

Column: 2329

Clause 202 of the Bill shall also make a related amendment to the Income Tax Act to impose a withholding tax of 3% of the commissions earned by the junket promoters.

Separately, clause 40 of the Bill will allow gambling contracts made in casinos enforceable in courts. To put it simply, the winner can take the loser to court, if the loser does not pay his dues. Similarly, credit extended by the casino and licensed junket promoters to patrons for the purpose of casino gaming in a manner that complies with the Casino Control Bill is also enforceable. This is needed to provide assurance to our casino operators that they will have legal recourse to recover their earnings.

For consistency, clause 201 of the Bill will make a related amendment to the Civil Law Act to also make enforceable, gambling contracts between patrons and other legal gambling operators in Singapore, such as the Singapore Pools and the Singapore Turf Club. However, unlike the casino and junket operators, gambling contracts issued by the other legal operators, ie, Pools and Turf Club, that are based on credit shall continue to be unenforceable. This means that if Pools or Turf Club decides to take bets based on credit and if the patron subsequently defaults in payment, Pools or Turf Club will not be able to take the patron to court to reclaim the payment. This is to ensure that the local gambling operators do not promote gambling to

locals by giving out credit.

Sir, the Government decided to allow two Integrated Resorts with casinos to be built in Singapore because we assessed that there are significant economic and tourism benefits if the Integrated Resorts succeed and take off in a big way. We will help provide the environment to help the industry succeed. However, this must not and need not come with heavy costs

Column: 2330

to our society or the law and order situation. MHA, together with the other relevant Ministries and agencies, have tried our best to strike that delicate balance in drafting this Bill.

A sound and comprehensive legislative framework, based on international best practices and with the appropriate safeguards, is therefore necessary to protect our interests and our hard-earned reputation. We will take a strict but fair approach in working with the future casino operators. We shall do our best to ensure that the Casino Control Bill provides a conducive environment for the Integrated Resorts to develop and operate successfully in Singapore.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.45 pm

Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, the Casino Control Bill is a comprehensive Bill or legislation that seeks to regulate casino operations, hitherto considered a very un-Singaporean activity within a very Singaporean context.

The Bill is far ranging, covering, as it does, regulatory aspects, such as the establishment of the Casino Regulatory Authority, licensing of the casino operators and its employees, as well as supervision and control of the casino operators and its operations and internal controls. It also has two peculiarly Singaporean provisions - the imposition of a casino tax and provisions dealing with the National Council on Problem Gambling.

On Parts of the Bill that deserve special commendation, I would think it is the provisions in relation to the licensing of the casino operators as well as the licensing of casino employees. The probity

Column: 2331

and integrity of an establishment, such as a casino, are the sum total of the people who run it and who are employed in it. The provisions in this Bill which deal with the licensing of employees, in particular, are comprehensive and I would commend and support those.

I would like to focus on some of the other provisions that the Bill is directed at. It would not have escaped notice that right in the middle of the word "casino", are the three little alphabets, "sin", and it is symptomatic of casino operations that embedded in the heart of it is the potential for social ills or social risk. Clearly, the draft Bill is aimed at dealing with some of these potential social ills.

The ones that I wanted to focus on are prostitution and illegal money-lending, the provisions dealing with the barring of entry of minors, the casino and money-laundering. Where there are casinos, there is money. Where there is the lure of money, certain types of activities tend to gravitate towards it, and solicitation for prostitution and illegal money-laundering are such potential problems. This is dealt with under clause 129 of the Bill which provides that the casino operator shall take all appropriate steps to ensure that there is no solicitation for prostitution or any other immoral purpose or unlicensed money-lending by its employees, patrons or other persons within the casino. My question is whether these provisions go far enough and whether they are sufficient because casino operators, the very nature of their business is to make money from the casino activities. They have a commercial purpose and objective. Law enforcement and law and order is not their primary function nor is it their primary focus.

When you look at the Bill, this is the only provision that deals with that. And right in the heart of more than over 100

Column: 2332

provisions, it is just this one clause that deals with solicitation for prostitution and illegal money-lending. And the words are that "the casino operator is to take appropriate steps" which sound somewhat vague. What does it mean that they have to take appropriate steps? If the legislative framework is being supplemented by a holistic framework outside of the legislation, in other words, working with various social agencies or working with the Police outside of a legislative context, then perhaps that would help to address the problem. But if everything hinges purely on clause 129, then it does not appear to me that that is sufficient.

The second aspect that I wanted to touch is that of minors. Minors are obviously vulnerable persons. Being exposed to casino activities is a source of concern. This potential problem has been recognised in the Bill and is dealt with in clauses 130 to 137 of the Bill. I would be interested to know though how this would actually work in practice and whether the provisions are sufficient to keep the minors out. I notice that what the Bill requires the casino operator to do is to obtain acceptable proof of age from the minors. At the moment, acceptable proof of age does not have a specific definition. I am curious to know why it is not specified that the proof that is required would be proof of identification with photograph, such as identity cards (ICs) for Singaporeans or passport in the case of foreigners. The way the provision is structured is that it is a defence to disciplinary action if it is shown that the minor was 16 and above and produced acceptable proof of age. If proof of age was an ID document which has a birth date, then he or she should not have been let in at all unless the ID was forged or tampered with. If it was forged or tampered with, then of course, I can understand that would constitute a defence. But the way the Bill is drafted suggests that the acceptable proof of age that is required may not be definitive or

Column: 2333

conclusive which then leaves room for the casino operator to have to make a judgment call on the age of the young person and they may possibly make the wrong judgment call and let the minor in.

The other point relates to clause 133(4) of the Bill which provides that the minors can be removed from the casino premises by the person in charge of the casino, an agent of the casino operator or a casino employee by using no more force than is reasonably necessary. When dealing with minors and young people, the question is whether this should be left to the casino operator and its agents or whether this is something on which the Police's assistance should be enlisted to help remove the minor. Dealing with minors is an emotive issue and I can see here that there will be potential for allegations of assault and battery, ruffling up the minors and bearing in mind that the minors in question may not just be Singaporean young people, but also foreigners and there is also the PR aspect of it. The question is whether it may not be better to have official enforcement agency to deal with it.

I also note that any minor who enters or remains on a casino premises will be guilty of an offence. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether this would be a seizable offence, bearing in mind that some of the minors who contravene the "no entry" rule might be foreigners. We should ensure that our enforcement process is quick and relatively painless. I am not, in any way, suggesting that Singaporean minors should be treated differently from foreigners but it is just that when you are dealing with minors, and particularly having regard to the fact that the Integrated Resorts are intended to be a tourist attraction, the potential for a negative PR when dealing with minors is there and is something that we should be mindful of when we do our enforcement.

Column: 2334

The last point on which I would like some further clarifications from the Minister is whether the provisions of the draft Bill really have sufficient safeguards against money-laundering or at least enabling the authorities to detect money-laundering activities.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.53 pm until 4.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

CASINO CONTROL BILL: Debate resumed.

Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani (Hong Kah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the hon. Member who spoke before me that the Casino Control Bill is a very comprehensive one. Singaporeans would appreciate the effort put into drafting this Bill but there are still some points worth reconsidering.

Sir, clause 2(2) of the Bill empowers the Minister to designate a parcel of land as a casino site for a specified period. In clause 4(1), the Minister may revoke the order for the designated site or cancel the casino licence in the public interest but only after consultation with the CRA. I suggest that to be consistent, the Minister ought to exercise his power under clause 2(2), ie, when designating the casino site and determining the licence period, he should do so after consultation with the CRA.

The Bill does not spell out the qualifications of the CRA's Chairman and

Column: 2335

members. However, looking at its functions and responsibilities, one would expect them to be highly respected members of society with special knowledge, experience and concern for matters relating to casino operations. Members of similar authorities in other jurisdictions are highly eminent persons, such as senior lawyers, ex-senior police officers and senior public servants. There is no doubt that their counsel will help the Minister decide to revoke the order for the designated site or cancel a casino licence, and all the more their counsel will assist the Minister to decide on designating a casino site and the period of licence.

I understand that the CRA cannot now be consulted for the first proposed casino site since the site has already been designated, although there is no CRA as yet. As such, we cannot have a clause in the Bill which compels the Minister to do something which is impossible to do. However, I urge that in future cases, the Minister would so designate a casino site or decide on the period of licence only after consultation with the CRA.

Sir, under clause 51(2), the CRA may redefine the boundaries of the casino premises within the casino site from time to time. I appreciate that this empowerment to the CRA is necessary for operational expediency. However, I wish to urge the Minister to ensure that the redefined premises do conform to the guidelines laid down by this Parliament. In the case of the Integrated Resort, to the best of my recollection, the floor area of the casino shall not exceed 5% of the total floor area of the IR - I stand corrected on this. Another consideration was that the location of the casino shall not make it overwhelm the whole character of the IR. I recall these assurances were made in Parliament and therefore should be reminded to the CRA.

Column: 2336

Sir, clause 116(1) provides that for any Singapore citizen or permanent resident to enter into the casino, he or she shall pay a $100 levy for every period of 24 hours or $2,000 for a valid annual membership. $2,000 annual fee translates into less than $7 a day. While we do not expect more than a very rare few to stay at the casino for every day of the year, the annual membership may be abused if it is transferable, because it would be so cheap and thus undermines the purpose of this provision. May I ask the Minister whether the annual membership is transferable? If it is intended to be transferable, then I suggest that it is a loophole to be plugged. If it is not transferable, then may I ask the Minister to have this clearly stated so as to remove all doubts?

Sir, on exclusion orders, clause 120 provides that the casino operator may issue an exclusion order. Clause 121 provides that the CRA may issue exclusion orders. Clause 122 provides that the Commissioner of Police may make an exclusion order. Under clauses 157 to 168, the proposed National Council on Problem Gambling can issue family exclusion orders via its Committee of Assessors. The concept of the family exclusion order is to enable a family member who is affected by a person's gambling to apply to the Council for an exclusion order against that person.

Sir, the idea underlying exclusion orders seems to be either to protect the casino operator or to minimise worsening of a problem gambling situation on the affected person or to reduce adverse effects on his family members, or a combination of any of them. This is laudable and, where possible, should be enhanced.

In this light, may I suggest that the courts too be given powers to issue exclusion orders. It is quite possible that in family or maintenance cases, the courts

Column: 2337

are furnished with sufficient evidence to suggest that certain persons, usually an income provider, ought to be issued with an exclusion order. Further, the court in criminal cases too may be furnished with such evidence to suggest that an exclusion order is appropriate for rehabilitative purposes as part of a sentence package. Such powers, if given to the courts, would save the need for a separate inquiry to be taken either by the Commissioner of Police, the CRA or the Council.

Sir, I understand this proposal may call for a fairly substantial amount of review of the current powers of our courts, but I believe it is worth the effort and if we need more time to do it, so be it.

Sir, may I now touch on the National Council of Problem Gambling (NCPG) and the provision on the Bill relating to the NCPG. The idea of having this council is good. It shows concern and foresight. Unfortunately, the Bill provides for a Council with very limited scope. Only to hear applications for and issue family exclusion orders, to the extent that the other parts of the Bill are very comprehensive, this is somewhat of a let-down. I believe the Council should also have funding and, amongst its functions, to conduct educational programmes to prevent problem gambling and treatment programmes for problem gambling cases.

Research done in Indiana, USA, shows that "young children, adolescents and senior citizens are especially vulnerable to the glamourising of gambling and should be educated about potential problem gambling." It also noted that Indiana was not confronting the early stages of problem gambling behaviour development among its citizens. It also noted that as gambling activities have become more available, the number of people developing a problem gambling behaviour has increased.

Column: 2338

Sir, I believe that the Government has done at least some research on problem gambling before deciding to go on with the IR project. The nature of problem gambling has to be well understood, how best to prevent it and how best to treat those afflicted with it. We have already debated at length on the possible havoc that problem gambling can cause to individuals and their families.

Sir, I do not think we should wait for the first victim before we start preventive education or establish treatment facilities. The research on problem gambling should continue and intensify. Suitable educational campaigns aimed at vulnerable sectors of society, as identified by our research, can begin. In other words, while the Bill says a lot about keeping vulnerable persons such as adolescents out, not much is said about how not to lure them in. So I think this is an area which we all should look at. We should start to set up treatment facilities and train counsellors to treat problem and pathological gamblers, as such counsellors require much time to be trained. Sir, the Bill is silent on these issues. Clause 155 which is supposed to spell out the functions of the Council does not actually spell it out. Instead it says that the function of the Council is to do all things as required in that part of the Bill which deals mainly, if not solely, with family exclusion orders. I urge the Minister to widen the scope of the Council to include research, preventive education and treatment. If this can be done immediately without legislative amendment, let it be done as such for it should not wait. We owe it to Singaporeans to ensure that the ill effects of having a casino in our midst stay at the very minimum, and we must also clearly state our resolve to do so.

Sir, may I also take this opportunity to ask the Minister on the casino tax? May I ask the Minister to confirm that the casino tax is above and beyond the usual corporate tax imposed on all businesses?

Column: 2339

I believe that many Singaporeans will want to know to what extent the Government allows or gives incentives, if at all, to casino operators. To ensure its success, Sir, much resources will have to be allocated to the CRA including its Committee, inspectors, staff, auditors, assets and operations. Similar resources are also needed for the National Council and even more if it is to include the expanded scope that I have proposed, and this does not include additional resources such as extra law enforcement officers to patrol the casino vicinity and to enforce the provisions of the Bill. May I ask the Minister whether he can assure this House that such extra resources shall be funded by the revenue from the IR and not result in the net depletion of our resources elsewhere? Can the Minister also assure this House that he will keep a close watch and not allow a situation where the State has to sustain the casino control operations to the detriment of its other obligations elsewhere?

4.26 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Mr Speaker, Sir, during the debate in April 2005, I spoke to convey the Workers' Party's position opposing the setting up of casinos in Singapore. The position has not changed. However, given the decision to go ahead has been made, we have looked at the provisions of the Bill with a view to seeing how it can perhaps be tightened to ensure that our casinos do not become magnets of vice.

We note that our suggestions that the Bill should contain provisions to establish an oversight agency to investigate into the background of the casino operators and staff and ensure fair play in the gaming process are found in the present Bill. However, Sir, there are still some gaps which, we believe, need to be tightened.

Column: 2340

First, the independence of the regulatory body from the casino operators. We note that the Bill establishes the Casino Regulatory Authority of Singapore to regulate the casino operators. As mentioned in my speech last year, this Authority must be absolutely independent of the casino operators. The members chosen to sit on the Casino Regulatory Authority should have no dealings whatsoever with the casino business, whether as suppliers, contracting partners or others. Therefore, we are most concerned with the Schedule to the Bill which lays down the procedure for the Casino Regulatory Authority to meet and make decisions. In particular, paragraph 12 of the Schedule actually contemplates a situation that when a member of the Casino Regulatory Authority has had an interest in a contract which a casino operator intends to enter, it requires him to disclose his interest to the meeting and then not take part in the deliberations. But it seems from paragraph 12, sub-paragraph 3, that he will be recorded as being present in the meeting even if he cannot vote or has withdrawn from that meeting. Our objection is that we should ensure that no person appointed to the Casino Regulatory Authority should ever be in that sort of position. And if it were to emerge later, that person should step down from the Casino Regulatory Authority altogether.

Can the Minister not appoint persons who have no possibility of transacting with the casino operator? Or is our pool of possible appointees so limited? Even if the interested member does not vote, the issue is his influence over the regulatory authority, by virtue of the working relationship built up over time. Surely, we cannot undermine the independence of the Casino Regulatory Authority of Singapore as the watchdog for the casino industry.

On a related note, Sir, the composition of the National Council on Problem Gambling should similarly not have

Column: 2341

persons connected with the casino business. As we know, problem gambling is a collateral damage from having casinos, and the persons dealing with problem gambling should face problem gambling honestly and robustly and not be concerned about preserving the casino's reputation or gaming revenues. We would suggest that the Bill incorporate provisions to specify that persons connected in any way with transacting with the casino operators should not be eligible to be members of the Casino Regulatory Authority or National Council on Problem Gambling.

Next, Sir, I would like to look at Part VI on Casino Operations. Clauses 51 and 99 provide that the boundary and layout of the casino will be determined by the regulatory authority. However, the Minister's promise that the floor space of a casino would not exceed 5% of the area of the Integrated Resort is not legislated. Why not? By legislating this, it will ensure that any deviations would have to come to Parliament for scrutiny to ensure that the non-gaming component of an IR is maintained. Similarly, clause 103 states that the regulatory authority will stipulate the maximum number of gaming machines in the casino. Why is the number also not legislated for Parliament to monitor? Under clause 106's caption, "Assistance to Patrons", where information on gaming rules, etc, is stated, should we not also assist patrons to get help if they are problem gamblers? The casino operator should be required to train casino employees to identify potential problem gamblers who should have access to on site counselling.

Regarding the entry levy collected, Sir, clause 116(2) provides that all entry levies be handed to the Singapore Totalisator Board to be used for public, social or charitable purposes. Why does the Minister not consider it appropriate to direct all levies collected to the National Council on Problem Gambling for

Column: 2342

expenditure on its programmes and case management?

Sir, in respect of Part X, National Council on Problem Gambling, under clause 165, NCPG can by itself decide to exclude from casinos those who are on social assistance or under bankruptcy proceedings or have poor credit records. It appears that these exclusion orders will be made on a case-by-case basis. I would like to clarify with the Minister why he does not consider automatic exclusions, eg, for those who are bankrupts. Would this not be administratively easier and more objective? Or is the Minister contemplating that some bankrupts will be barred but some can be allowed to gamble?

Clause 182 provides that any inspector under the Bill is to have police powers for investigations. Therefore, these inspectors are not police officers but they will be given these police powers. If so, who are these inspectors and will they undergo the necessary police training to ensure that they know how to exercise these powers?

Finally, Sir, I wonder if the Minister is not going to amend the Common Gaming Houses Act. I understand that, currently, under section 4 of the Act, it makes running a common gaming house an offence. Section 21 of the Act even allows the Minister to banish from Singapore any foreigner who is a professional gambler. But now, Sir, we want these professional gamblers here to patronise the casinos!

4.35 pm

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, if the thickness of this voluminous 153-page document is any indication, the control measures and social safeguards promulgated in the Casino Control Bill must be detailed and comprehensive. As the Minister has noted, they have been

Column: 2343

drafted after extensive studies of relevant legislation from many other countries. In fact, as testimony of the immense effort that has been put into the drafting of the Bill, the Bill is unique as it even has cross-references of some of its clauses to the relevant sections in the Victoria Casino Control Act 1991, the Nevada Statutes, the New South Wales Act 1992 and the South Australian Problem Gambling Family Protection Orders Act 2004.

But, Sir, until the casinos are up and running in three to four years' time, it would be difficult to determine if these measures fit our own social circumstances, and are enough to serve their purpose of, firstly, minimising the social ills that may arise; and, secondly, keeping out criminal infiltration.

I am of the view that both the Government and the public should keep an open mind, and the Government will no doubt closely monitor the effectiveness and consequences of these control measures with a view to refining them based on the experience gleaned.

There are three particular control measures that I would like to highlight, balancing between the need for toughness to minimise social ills and allowing the casino to operate profitably.

First, the entry levy. Clause 116(1) imposes an entry levy of $100 per day or $2,000 per annum on local patrons of the casinos. Clause 116(3) further states that a casino operator shall not refund, remit or reimburse, directly or indirectly, any entry levy paid or payable. This is to safeguard against any operators who may try to circumvent this rule by, say, returning the equivalent of the levy in the form of perks or chips. The Government has explained that the purpose of the entry levy is to discourage Singaporeans from casual gambling and to remind them

Column: 2344

that gambling is an expense - not a means to earn a living, much less a way to get rich. This levy, which I understand to be unique to Singapore, has attracted much debate and controversy.

The anti-casino camp has called for an increase of this levy to ensure that it is high enough to discourage the poor and vulnerable from frequent visits of the casinos. Yet, others have called for the levy to be scrapped. One argument against the levy - a moral hazard one - stems from the belief that it could lead to perverse selection where the gambling addicts who ought to be kept out do not mind paying the "small" sum of $100 a day or $2,000 a year, which is equivalent to about $5.50 a day, in the hope of winning big.

Of course, in their desire to satisfy their addiction, they forget the principle that the house always ultimately wins. Yet others feel that the entry fee will simply encourage some gamblers to go overseas or simply stay longer to recoup their upfront "investment", defeating the very purpose of the levy in the first place. There are also those who questioned why Singaporean gamblers should be discriminated against.

Sir, in this respect, I support such discrimination, since it will conceivably narrow the road to perdition for Singaporeans whose gambling habits may ruin their families. But, ultimately, only time will tell what effects the entry levy will produce. However, on balance, it would seem that the current proposed levy would help to discourage the casual and impulse gamblers and/or prevent them from becoming habitual gamblers.

As an illustration - and I would like to clarify that I learn this strictly from my grassroots - presently there are operators who bring Singaporeans to a casino operating on a cruise ship stationed some 20 minutes by ferry from Batam. To

Column: 2345

patronise this casino, you take a 45-minute ferry to Batam and another 20-minute ferry from Batam to the casino. The cost of the ferry to and from Batam is $41.50 and those aged 55 years and above get a discount of $20 when they visit the casino. I am told that many elderly Singaporeans regularly visit this casino, despite the inconvenience of getting there as they are enticed by the prospect of making some money with a very low upfront initial investment and also as a means of passing their time. The $20 discount on the cost of the ferry offered by this casino is clear evidence that the elderly make up a sizeable number of the casino's clientele.

This implies that any financial deterrent to keep out casual gamblers will have to be fairly substantial in order to work. It will have to be more than, say, the cost of the ferry which is $41.50 or $21.50 with the discount, coupled with the inconvenience caused by the casino's relative inaccessibility. One can well imagine that without the $100 entry levy, many elderly and even housewives with time on their hands may be tempted to frequent the upcoming casinos which are easily accessible. Hence, to me, doing away with the levy is certainly not an option that we can afford to take.

Nonetheless, it is imperative that the Government closely monitors the impact of the entry levy on local gamblers as against Singaporeans who travel to other places in the region to gamble. Also, for the entry levy to be effective, it is crucial that the Government keeps a close tab to ensure that this is not circumvented by the casino operators.

In this respect, I would like to ask the Minister what disciplinary action would the casino operator be liable for under clause 116(6) if he contravenes clause 116(3) by devising some ingenious way to circumvent the levy, as this has not been explicitly stipulated in the Bill. I

Column: 2346

would urge for strong penalties if this law is flouted as we should adopt an uncompromising stance against the casino operators to ensure the effectiveness of the social safeguards.

Furthermore, clause 116(4) stipulates that the levy may be varied by the Minister after 10 years from the date of gazette. While I appreciate that this fixing of the duration for the amount helps the operator in their budgeting and assessment of the potential catchment, there could be policy weakness issues downstream. I would like to ask the Minister if subsequently it is found that the current proposed levy does not achieve the purpose for which it was intended, whether the levy can be varied before the expiration of the stipulated 10 years. If not, would we be tying our own hands with regard to the effectiveness of the social safeguards imposed by this clause?

On the other hand, there has also been speculation in the press that with only four potential bidders for the Marina IR site, these bidders would have stronger bargaining power and may push for the scrapping of the $100 a day or $2,000 a year levy on local gamblers. I would like to ask the Minister to comment on this possibility to assure Singaporeans that it does not succumb to economic pressure and thereby compromise on the social safeguards.

Secondly, on exclusion orders. In addition to third party exclusion orders, which bar those on state-funded social assistance programmes, bankrupts and those who have bankruptcy petitions filed against them as well as people with poor credit records, the Bill also provides for family exclusion orders. I understand that apart from South Australia, we are the only jurisdiction to have such a family exclusion clause which prevents family members from entering the casinos. Whilst I support this move to minimise the

Column: 2347

untold distress and harm that a gambling addict may bring upon his family members, like many others, I am wary of the possible violence against family members that may be perpetuated by the member against which the exclusion order applies.

Whilst clause 163(2)(a) states that the Committee of Assessors under the National Council on Problem Gambling may refer the respondent for counselling or rehabilitation, it does not necessarily follow that the respondent would oblige. If the respondent does not oblige, what recourse, if any, does the Council have? For example, if the family ties with the respondent become acrimonious because of the family exclusion order and the respondent turns violent, what protection and assistance would the family members have? How can the police effectively and speedily render assistance to such cases?

I would also like to ask the Minister how effective has this family exclusion order been in South Australia which provided the model for our own family exclusion orders. Did this exclusion order lead to a discernible increase in family violence in their case and how were family members who suffered from such resulting violence protected and assisted?

Finally, on loan shark and vice activities. There is also considerable concern from the public on the potential increase in loan shark and vice activities. Clause 129 of the Bill requires the casino operator to take the appropriate steps to ensure that criminal activities, such as soliciting with a view towards prostitution and loan sharking, do not take place within the casino premises. Presumably, this is in accordance with international standards.

However, I am told that there are always loan sharks hanging around even

Column: 2348

at the children's playgrounds at Genting and that

there are many prostitutes milling around even in high-end casinos in Las Vegas. Whilst the Government has enacted tougher laws against loan sharks, I would like to ask the Minister what added measures would be taken to minimise criminal and vice activities that may arise due to the existence of these casinos. For instance, how would it ensure that we do not have similar situations of loan sharks and prostitutes milling in the areas around the casinos and control the increase of such criminal activities?

Sir, I note that the Government has carried out thorough studies and sought extensive consultation before finalising this Bill. Rightly so, because as we embark on this journey, fraught with economic opportunity but also with social ills, we need the experience of other countries to guide us in our own formulation. But there are still many concerns about the effectiveness of the control measures and, in reality, we can never be sure that these controls, no matter how stringent, would do the trick. In this regard, I urge the Government to monitor the situation carefully and remain open to fine-tuning the safeguards and policies where it is warranted. Of course, this should also take into account the fact that they must not be too onerous and unfair to the casino operators who have embarked on the project with a given understanding and set of parameters.

With these comments, Sir, I support the Bill.

4.48 pm

Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Casino Control Bill. Sir, this is an important Bill as it sets out regulations to ensure that casinos in the Singapore Integrated Resorts will function in an acceptable manner and in accordance with the law, thereby, main

Column: 2349

taining the transparent and well-regulated environment of Singapore and thus Singapore's credibility. This Bill will also stipulate requirements to lessen the harm to minors, vulnerable persons and society at large. I especially welcome the safeguards provided in this Bill to tackle gambling addiction. This reinforces the Government's assurance to address such recognised social ills of casinos.

Sir, I applaud the Government in taking the most conservative stand, in comparison to other countries, for pegging the minimum age for gambling at 21, and for imposing entry charges for locals at $100 for 24-hour access and $2,000 for one-year membership, as well as for disallowing operators to reimburse or remit any of such fees. Sir, this will send a clear signal that entering a casino is not as casual as entering any other resort but is a consciously deliberated choice. This will address the issue concerning introduction of gambling to unintended groups who may attribute and even blame the IRs for their exposure to gambling as a result of a chance visit. Furthermore, in view of the IRs being in near proximity to residential and business areas here, these measures may minimise the social ills and low work productivity by deterring housewives, workers and business executives from gambling in these places.

Research indicates that youths are at a greater risk to become pathological gamblers. Research also hints that genetic or role model factors may play a role in predisposing youths to pathological gambling and the earlier a person begins to gamble, the more likely he or she is to become a pathological gambler. Sir, youths are not only more vulnerable to gambling problems, they can also suffer the harshest consequences of pathological gambling. The US Commission relates many cases of child abuse and neglect that include cases of children locked in cars for extended periods of time while

Column: 2350

their parents gambled as a result of pathological gambling.

This Bill provides for the establishment of the Casino Regulatory Authority, or CRA. The question is whether CRA will ensure strict scrutiny by casino operators to screen entry and identity of minors. Spot checks should be conducted by the CRA within and at the entrances of casinos to prevent the entry of minors. Parents should be educated on the prohibition of minors into casinos.

Sir, there is no mention of the opening hours of casinos in this Bill. According to the Deputy Prime Minister who spoke earlier, this part of opening hours was removed from the original draft. But the 24-hour operation is detrimental to gamblers. The longer a gambler is engaged in continuous gambling, the more likely he will lose due to wrong decisions as a result of fatigue.

Will CRA require casinos here to have distinct sections for local punters and foreigners and the local sections should observe restricted hours of operation similar to what is being done in some casinos overseas?

In order to minimise the risks of a gambler losing more money than he can afford, thereby leading to desperate situations, will CRA consider setting gaming table limits in the section for locals? Should CRA also consider restricting certain age quota to certain games and differentiating games of chance and games of skill (as games of skill may disadvantage the unskilled players) and should CRA also require casinos to educate patrons on the two classifications of games so as to create awareness to the aptitude required and the win-loss probability of certain games?

Some casinos train their staff to detect and refer clients showing signs of problem gambling. Should CRA recom

Column: 2351

mend this to casino operators here and disseminate information about problem and pathological gambling on their premises?

Sir, in Singapore, about 2.1% or 55,000 gamblers are at risk of being addicts and another 2% are probable problem gamblers, meaning they are also starting to show problems. Problem gambling is a progressive behavioural disorder in which an individual has a psychological uncontrollable preoccupation and urge to gamble. The principal features are emotional dependence on gambling, loss of control and interference with normal functions. The first step to finding a solution is to recognise the problem. Surprisingly, problem gamblers are very often the last ones to realise what is happening to them in spite of mounting consequences and increasing emotional impact. The longer the gambling problem continues, the more severe the impact will be. For this reason, problem gamblers need professional counselling as early as possible to address the many negative consequences of the gambling behaviour. The challenge is to identify the problem gamblers before they become desperate. Co-workers are often the first line of defence as gambling and gambling-related activities are frequently carried out during work hours; the workplace may be used as a shield to hide. May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the National Council on Problem Gambling, or NCPG, will accept referrals for exclusion orders, apart from family members, from people, such as co-workers, doctors and social workers? NCPG can then appoint Committees of Assessors to determine the merits of each referral and to determine whether to classify the referred cases as problem gamblers or potential problem gamblers.

Will NCPG provide for not only the problem gamblers but also the preventive

Column: 2352

measures to detect the 2% probable problem gamblers? NCPG may recommend limited hours of entry instead of a complete ban for those identified potential problem gamblers. Identification may be through win-loss records collated by electronic identification process. Those in this list whose win-loss ratios are at dangerous levels may be either refused entry or recommended for counselling.

It is necessary to make the availability of counselling and specialised treatment services widely known and these establishments must be comprehensive and conveniently accessible and attainable. Can NCPG provide help processes and systems to be made to problem gamblers through workplaces on application of self-exclusion, greater media exposure, Internet website and advertisements? Sir, it is worth noting that help centres are also best set up within casinos so that immediate help can be administered. Administration of help avenues should be made simple and under one umbrella so as to prevent confusion as to which agency to approach when in need. Will the Deputy Prime Minister consider providing gambling counselling free of charge? Will he allow the levy collected for casino entry to provide for such service and treatment for problem gamblers? The therapists and other professionals in this field agree that problem or pathological gambling, because of its novelty and the lack of information about its root cause, is a difficult disorder to treat. Its treatment is costly and time-consuming; there is no quick fix and there is a high degree of recurrence.

May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister how would the Casino Regulatory Authority, or CRA, enforce the non-entry rule for excluders? How would the casino identify those in the self-exclusion list? Will CRA also require gaming operators to remove self-excluders from all mailing lists?

Column: 2353

Sir, the importance of public education on gambling cannot be over-emphasised. This should also include information about the actual odds of winning. Providing objective, reliable public information about gambling addiction can help problem gamblers and their families see the problem as a mental health disorder rather than a financial problem or a character weakness. Recognising their behaviours as warning signs, and discovering that they are not alone, can go a long way towards helping them break through the denial and fear that have kept them from reaching out for help.

Sir, clause 102 of this Bill deals with the approval of gaming equipment but it does not stipulate the frequency of the checks on gaming equipment in casinos. Will random checks be conducted regularly by CRA on the approved machines? Will CRA require casinos to make known gaming rules to all patrons and to be transparent about dealing in games of skill and chance? In Nevada's Audit Division for Gaming Control Board, electronic engineers and computer programmers look into the source code for slot machines to ensure randomness of results and machine's "returns" are in line with payback limits of the casino control Act. Nevada has a 75% payback limit for slot machines. Will there be any stipulation on this area by CRA?

Sir, enforcing the honesty and integrity of legalised casino gambling games requires an ability to prosecute those who engage in activities that constitute illegal offences, for example, cheating at games. Cheating can involve the patrons of a casino as well as individuals involved in operations, such as dealers. Attention must be paid to assuring that appropriate and clearly enforceable criminal statutes exist to prosecute gambling cheaters. Public confidence and trust can be maintained only by strict regulation of all persons, practices, associations and activities

Column: 2354

related to the operation of licensed gambling establishments. Codes of conduct and ethical issues should be spelt out, for example,

prohibiting regulators from any form of financial relationship with regulated entities or the acceptance of any gratuity or courtesy of anything of more than incidental value from a regulated individual or entity. May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether this Bill has encompassed all the provisions that deter the various forms of improper gambling activity?

I hope the Deputy Prime Minister can enlighten this House on the issues raised.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Chew Heng Ching) in the Chair]

5.00 pm

Mr Ong Kian Min: Mr Speaker, Sir, the bids for the two integrated resorts have presented us with an enticing array of goodies. We have been offered the expertise of leading convention marketeers to bring in more tourists for meetings, incentive tours, conventions and trade exhibitions, star celebrity chefs for the ultimate dining experience, and exciting international shows and entertainment. Not forgetting that the soul of every memorable city is nourished not by fine food alone but its appreciation of art and history, there has also been a mention of world-famous museums, such as the Guggenheim Museum and the Pompidou Centre, being housed in the Marina IR. With the rosy prospects of job creation, a steady growth in the construction and tourism industries, all expected to stem from the construction and operation of integrated resorts of this scale, we have some very exciting times ahead of us.

To allow us to take full advantage of the benefits that these integrated resorts bring and yet at the same time minimise the negative consequences of gambling, it is important that we have a legislative and

Column: 2355

regulatory framework that provides a means for the Government to ensure that the casinos that come with these resorts are regulated in accordance with the values of our Singaporean culture and lend an international appeal to the integrated resorts.

Sir, I have visited a number of such casino resorts in other countries, not to participate in gambling but merely to look-see whatever attractions they have to offer and to enjoy the fine dining restaurants and entertainment outlets that are available there. Much has been said, both inside and outside this House, but I would like to raise just a few points in relation to the operation and consequences of casinos, some of them based on my observation of what went on in other cities.

First, I think the image of casino gambling will change as time goes by. Way back in the 1950s and much of the 60s, buying 4-D was a clandestine and illegal activity conducted in whispers behind closed doors. People who engaged in 4-D did so secretly through illegal runners, bookies and underground betting syndicates. Since the legalisation of lottery in 1968 when Singapore Pools was set up and, later, in the 1980s, with the setting up of legal 4-D outlets in every part of Singapore, our citizens have gradually come to accept lottery games and, now, even football betting games, as part of everyday life. Over time, the stigma once associated with lottery games has disappeared. Many people have no qualms about being seen standing in long queues. In fact, the $10-million Hong Bao Draw last Friday saw week-long queues at all betting outlets. At weddings and birthdays, enthusiastic guests can be seen circulating among the tables, openly offering to buy numbers for their friends and relatives, and people buy numbers for fun and for luck. I am sure, with the

Column: 2356

legalisation of casinos, casino gambling will gradually gain more acceptance in time to come.

Sir, perception can influence and determine a person's habits in a big way, especially of the young. Let us take smoking as an example. In spite of our high duties imposed on cigarettes in Singapore which make smoking an expensive habit, we can still see many fashionably-dressed young people walking down Orchard Road or hanging out at the latest nightspots with a cigarette resting between their fingers. From their point of view, it is hip to smoke. I wonder if the high cost of smoking in Singapore has given an elitist edge to smoking. Compared with Thailand, where cigarettes are much cheaper, one sees a different picture. My brother-in-law, ie, my wife's brother, works as a general manager in Thailand in an environment with 50 blue-collar workers. I was very surprised when he told me that he was the only one who smokes. The local Thai workers, although blue-collar, have no interest in smoking, partly because they do not view it as a glamorous activity. What is "cool", what is "hip" and what is " lame " is really a matter of perception among our peers. In an effort to restrict access to the casino by imposing a levy on Singapore citizens and permanent residents, are we inadvertently elevating the public perception of the casino, making it appear even more exclusive and tempting than it is? We must take extra care to strike the right balance between cautioning our people against the ills of gambling addiction on the one hand, and promoting the casino as an attraction on the other. The solution would be to educate the public on the dangers of gambling addiction. Where the young are concerned, we should learn and know their ways of thinking, ie, what is "cool" and what is " lame " in their eyes, so that we can reach across to them at the right level in their formative years.

Column: 2357

Second, Sir, relates to foreigners who are here to pursue their education. During a recent holiday to Melbourne, Australia, my family and I stayed at the Crown Entertainment Complex for the wide array of facilities they have there. We walked through the thriving casino in the complex and were perturbed at the number of young male Asian students taking their chances at the gaming tables, while their bored girl friends hung on listlessly by their sides. I immediately commented to my wife that we should think twice about sending our children on their own to study in any city with a casino. I am, therefore, concerned that having two casinos will affect or be contradictory to our quest to be an international education hub. Singapore is being promoted as a global education centre offering a diverse range of educational choices that include tertiary education, corporate training, private commercial and specialty schools. Yet, at the same time, we are building new casinos where adults can try a hand at their luck in glitzy surroundings. I am concerned that these casinos will spell a dangerous distraction and addiction to our foreign students and damage our image.

Consider the situation that foreign students are in. A good number will be over 21 years of age and, therefore, eligible for entry into the casino. They are in possession of substantial sums of money for their education and living expenses. As many overseas graduates know, the heady combination of having money and being away from parental guidance or, to many students, interference, is one that requires responsibility and discipline on the part of the students. Some of these students may lose their control when they step into the casino. How can we ensure that foreign students who come here to study do not fritter away their time in the casino and gamble away the funds that their well-meaning parents have given to them for their education? Can parents of foreign

Column: 2358

students apply to exclude their children from entering the casino?

Third, Sir, relates to the proximity and connectivity of the casino premises to the other areas of the integrated resort. Will the IR design render it necessary or more convenient to walk through the casino premises to gain access to the other areas of the resort? In some resorts in Las Vegas, visitors to other parts of the resort, such as restaurants, shops or even the washrooms, have to walk through the jackpot machines and gaming tables to access these outlets. For some restaurants, patrons waiting for their tables have to stand in line at the fringe of the gaming area, having full view of the excitement and activities that go on in there. Even if there are alternative routes available to avoid the casino premises, artful planning can ensure that the easiest access brings one close to or into the attractions of the casino. What is our planning policy? Will it be mandatory for the casino and gaming activities to be separated and distanced from the main thoroughfares?

Fourth, Sir, I am concerned about illegal or immoral activities that may take place just outside the casino premises. The Bill stipulates certain proper and regulated conduct within the casino premises. For example, there must be no soliciting for the purpose of prostitution. However, even as we control the casino operators and compel them to take appropriate steps, we must be mindful of the goings-on that can take place right at the doorstep of the casino. On a recent visit to Las Vegas, I found some stretches of the main streets of Las Vegas lined with pushy touts dishing out calling cards with scantily-dressed women offering escort services, striptease acts and so on. Every available space along the main thoroughfares, eg, on telephone booths, junction boxes, lamp-posts, etc, was stuck with colourful stickers and cards offering sexual and other personal

Column: 2359

services. Even though many Las Vegas hotels hold themselves out to be family resorts that cater to all, the sleaze in some parts of the main streets of Las Vegas shouts a different message, and a message to the contrary.

I would like to know what measures will be taken to prevent such a troubling scenario from developing just outside the casino premises. I believe the Government's response will be that such a situation can be controlled in Singapore. We just have to look at the stickers that are plastered on the walls of our HDB lifts by contractors, such as window and aluminium contractors, and the junk mail in our letter boxes to see that it is not easy to contain these exuberant touts and their advertising and marketing efforts.

Fifth, Sir, is on illegal money-lending, eg, loan sharks, and the methods they use to enforce repayment of their loans. We have all come across cases where the loansharks supposedly lent money to a former occupier of a flat and then harassing the new owner to repay the money that he never borrowed, or the borrower might have used someone else's identity card and gave the loan shark the wrong address. These loan sharks seek to embarrass and damage the property of whoever is occupying the flat since they cannot locate the actual borrower. I think this is tantamount to extortion, where one demands money from an innocent person who has no previous dealings with the lender. I hope the police will classify and treat such loan shark activities accordingly as serious criminal offences.

Sixth, Sir, I would like to touch on clause 109 of the Bill which provides that ATM machines are not allowed within the casino premises. But if we look at our existing private clubs that have a jackpot room, chances are that we will find an ATM machine just a few steps away

Column: 2360

outside the jackpot room. Similarly, I will not be surprised to find ATM machines within a chip's throw of the casino premises. This makes a mockery of the proposed clause 109.

Sir, I shall now move on to my final point, ie, how to play and win at roulette, baccarat and blackjack. Will these become the subject of kopitiam conversations once the casino gets going? In some hotels I have come across abroad, gaming lessons form part of the free in-house entertainment on TV, available in the privacy of one's room at the lightest touch of the remote control button. The entry of casinos in Singapore will bring with it a natural curiosity and desire on the part of our people to learn more about gaming. In addition to the TV programmes I mentioned, we may also be inundated with tips and gaming instructions from the Internet, newspapers, magazines and advertisements brought right into the comforts of our home. Should there be control over such publicity that teaches the rules of the casino games and how to play them?

Sir, this is a difficult question to answer. On the one hand, such instruction is educational. So, if one is going to gamble, one better know the rules of the game and learn how to play it. On the other hand, knowledge can be tempting and entice people who would otherwise not have been interested to give it a try and to actually try their hand in a casino.

Sir, on this note, I support the Bill.

5.15 pm

Dr Geh Min: Mr Deputy Speaker, my first point is on the entry levy. We have heard from the Minister that this has excited a lot of comments and public feedback and we have also heard a lot from other Members of the House.

Column: 2361

Although I agree with Members and the members of the public who feel that it is difficult to finetune the sum of the levy, I support the purpose of the levy, which is to discourage Singaporeans from gambling and to emphasise the fact that gambling is an expense and not an easy way to get rich. But I would like to query clause 116(1)(b). If the purpose of the levy is really to deter Singaporeans from gambling, how does the $2,000 for a valid annual membership work? Does that give 20 times the protection that a $100 levy gives, or does it protect you for the whole year? I would argue that, in fact, that is the opposite. It is equivalent to a "jumble discount package". In fact, anyone who does simple sums will find that if you have already put down $2,000 downpayment, to make your money worthwhile, you have to gamble at least 20 times, or at least 20 days. And if you do more than that, you get a bargain. It is like these club or hotel memberships for a year where you pay a membership fee and you get discounts at all the hotel and F&B outlets. So you have a captive clientele. I would therefore ask the Minister to delete this $2,000 annual membership because it is working in contradiction to the whole purpose of the levy, as stated by the Minister.

I should also like to comment on clause 116(4). As has been recognised, the levy and the sum that have been fixed are an experiment. To maintain it for 10 years without any possibility of varying it is, I believe, an unnecessarily inflexible mechanism. I think we could finetune it. I do not think we should be lowering it, but we should have a provision to be able to increase it, if necessary, within 10 years.

I should now like to move on to the casino tax under Part IX, clause 146. My question here is: why is there a tax differential between premium players and other players and why is the tax differential so high? Although I have not travelled around the world and studied

Column: 2362

casinos, I gathered that most casino operators would prefer premium players if they can get them because they are better value for their investment. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be a rational practice for a casino operator to target premium players. So why do we have to offer a tax incentive and such a large differential - a 10% differential - to get them to do what they might or would do under ordinary business practices?

In addition, we have other measures in place, like the $100 levy and the restriction on casino floor space. These would again reinforce the preference for premium players. We are also giving these two IRs, prime or premier locations, which would therefore attract premium players.

I understand that some other countries do give tax incentives to premium players, but only tax incentives to premium players coming from Asian countries. We are part of Asia, so we are geographically already advantaged. I do not think, like the US or Australia, we have to give a tax incentive to get premium players to come here.

My concern again for this differential between premium players and other players is that not only might this be unnecessary, but it might even be a subsidy to the casino operators for something that they would do under normal business practices. So it might actually be a dangerous thing to have this tax differential.

The distinction between premium players and other players is quite clearly stated in the Bill, but the distinction in real life is not so clear. Not everyone who can have a deposit of $100,000 can necessarily afford to lose that sum of money. I think there is a grey scale. And if we give such a big tax differential, might we not be giving an incentive to casino operators to create more premium players than actually exist?

Column: 2363

This would, of course, lead them down the slippery slope to problem gambling because, as we know, problem gamblers start off small. They not only start frequenting the casinos more often, but they also start putting larger and larger sums of money. And if the casino has a tax incentive to push them into putting larger sums of money, this is potentially a very dangerous practice that might result in this tax differential. So I would therefore urge that there should be no distinction. The tax should be 15% for both premium and other players. If for some reason or other, a tax differential is required, can I suggest that we should consider one between Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans? This would give the necessary incentives for casino operators to encourage tourists rather than locals and, therefore, boost the tourist sector which is, after all, what was cited as one of the main reasons for having Integrated Resorts with casinos in Singapore. This seems to me, therefore, to be a far more logical way of having a tax differential.

I know that the tender documents have stated that the main weightage (40%) of the selection process would be based on whether an Integrated Resort can attract tourists. But how can you design an Integrated Resort that will attract tourists rather than locals? How can you make the distinction? If I were on the judging panel, I think I would be hard-pressed to make a distinction because Singaporeans are tourists too. They will be visitors to the casino. This is something new for those who have not gone abroad to a casino. And anything that is attractive enough to bring tourists here will certainly be attractive enough to attract Singaporeans who do not have, for example, to pay the additional airfare. Even if you have more hotels in the Integrated Resorts - where existing hotels in Singapore have already been giving special packages - a lot of their

Column: 2364

clientele are Singaporeans, particularly in the F&B outlets. So although I applaud this 40% weightage in the tenders, I do not think this will succeed in making the Integrated Resorts attract more tourists than Singaporeans. The best way to do that is to have a tax differential.

Of course, you may argue that it seems discriminatory and why should we treat our visitors so badly. The answer to that is that Singaporeans, because they live here, are "sitting ducks", whereas tourists, who come for a short period, will be moving targets. Therefore, unless there is a tax differential, I, as a casino operator, will be tempted to target a "sitting duck", ie, a Singaporean. It is easier to get Singaporeans to the casino.

However, I share the concerns of the Member - Mr Ong Kian Min - who spoke before me about foreign students and other long-term visitors. May I say that they - anyone who comes to Singapore for some other reason, particularly students - should be in the category that is not a tourist category.

I would like to move on to clause 146(3). It says here that, "The rates of tax specified in subsection (2) shall not be increased for a period of 15 years." To me, "increase" means it could be unchanged or decreased, but I gather from what the Minister said that it will be unchanged. He did not say anything about decrease. Can I therefore suggest that "unchanged" should be substituted with "shall be unchanged for a period of 15 years", if that is what is intended.

Finally, still on the casino tax, clause 146(6), the formula for taxation, ie, "gaming revenue", is A minus B minus C. B is defined as the amount paid out as winnings on all games by the casino operator. I am told that casino operators can have a very creative definition for the amount paid out as winnings. They could include commitments, rebates or other

Column: 2365

incentives. Could this be spelt out more clearly? I cannot find a definition of it in the Bill.

I should like to move on to the casino tax and use of the levy to benefit society. Let me commend the Bill here for stating that the levy will go to the Singapore Totalisator Board. However, it does not mention anything about where the casino tax will go or, at least, whether a portion of the casino tax will be used for social and charitable causes. I think that we should have a percentage of the casino tax, with perhaps a specified minimum sum, that also goes to benefit society directly.

While the levy may go to the Singapore Totalisator Board, I believe that on the principle of "polluter pays", a section of the levy, or the casino tax or both, should fund problem gambling, and the expenses of the National Council on Problem Gambling and the Casino Regulatory Authority. These have been touched on by other Members, so I will not go into details on these except to support them in this proposal.

I should also, in conclusion, like to talk on the National Council on Problem Gambling. Like other Members before me, I am very disturbed to see that most of it, if not all, deal with the family exclusion order and there is really nothing in this Bill that seems to provide for an overall integrated strategy to deal with the problem of pathological gambling. The Minister has said that the National Council has done research and has already started on public education. This is very commendable, but it would be good if we knew that they would sustain this, that the Bill provides for this, and that there is an organisation which will research, track, prevent and, if possible, remedy problem gambling. Above all, we need an integrated approach to the social problem.

In conclusion, may I say that I know that having casinos here in Singapore is a

Column: 2366

new development. We are learning as we go along. While this Bill serves many purposes,

I think the priority should be given to minimise social harm rather than be tilted towards making sure that the casino operators get maximum profits from their investment. If there is any doubt, I believe that we should err on the side of caution, and emphasise the protection aspect rather than the profitability aspect.

5.30 pm

Mr Sin Boon Ann: Sir, at the onset, I should declare my interest in the debate on the Casino Control Bill as I am currently advising a client on the tender for the Integrated Resort project. With your indulgence, Sir, I seek permission to proceed, as what I am about to say relates to the wider concerns of Singaporeans on the matter.

The current Bill before us broadly reflects the general policy enunciated earlier by the Government on the establishment and operation of casinos in Singapore; one where we try to strike a balance between the social excesses of licensed gambling in our society and the need to develop Singapore as a world-class attraction for tourism and conventions. By and large, I should add that the Bill faithfully represents the broad compass that Parliament has debated and agreed to last year on the setting up of casinos here.

This Bill, therefore, represents the nuts and bolts of the policy and the framework by which Government's intent is carried out. It would not serve any purpose for us now to revisit the merits of having casinos in Singapore. Rather, we should look at the particular details in the Bill. In this regard, I have three specific comments to make.

First, the potential insidious expansion of casino activities under the Bill.

Column: 2367

Currently, the Bill provides specifically that there should only be two casinos in Singapore. The number of casinos, it seems, is specifically limited by a statute of Parliament rather than by administrative fiat through an exercise of executive power. This seems rather unusual, as in many countries, the decision of whether or not to license the setting up of a casino is left very much to the regulator rather than to the legislators. In our case, clause 41 of the Bill specifically provides that the regulator shall not allow more than two casinos in Singapore within a specified period of time. This provision, one would suppose, is to give much assurance to the rather apprehensive Singaporeans of our serious intent in not allowing casinos to proliferate in our country as a soft option of bringing in more of the tourist dollars. Under the present arrangement, the Government will have to come back to Parliament for permission if it wants to have more than two casinos than is currently provided for. This is indeed quite assuring for us.

However, I am not sure if this assurance of limiting the number of casinos to two is somewhat negated by the provision in the Bill which allows for the expansion of the space of the casino within the Integrated Resort. In this regard, I share the concerns of my fellow colleague, Mr Ahmad Khalis, who earlier expressed some reservations on the matter.

Clause 51(2) of the proposed Bill provides that the Authority may, from time to time, redefine the boundaries of the casino premises within the designated site for which the casino licence is granted as it thinks fit, on its own motion or on the application of the casino operator. This provision seems to suggest that the area to be occupied by the casino operator, ie, the size of the facility, may be expanded at the absolute discretion of

Column: 2368

the Authority to take in more crowd. While it is the current intention of the Government not to allow the size of the casino operation to exceed, I believe, 3% of the total area of the resort, it is technically possible for the Authority to designate the entire resort as one big casino by an administrative decision.

Sir, it does seem odd to me that while we took pains to ensure that Parliament decides on the number of casinos that are allowed to operate in Singapore, we are quite prepared to allow the Authority the complete discretion to decide on the expansion of the size of the facility which, at the end of the day, may have the effect of providing more opportunities for the people to gamble. This approach to policy would seem rather inconsistent with our stated policy of limiting the number of casinos here to two.

Let it not be forgotten that while we may have allowed the establishment of casinos in this country, we do not and should not allow the issue of further expansion of gambling facility to be dealt with lightly here. Certainly, I do not think that the matter of the expansion of the casino facility should be left in the hands of civil servants alone. Any expansion of the gambling facility of the resort should be a matter of concern to the public and should be carried out only after due consultation with the stakeholders who have an interest in the process. This would include not only the operators but also the National Council on Problem Gambling and the other voluntary welfare organisations that are concerned with the problem of gambling in Singapore. We are not calling for Parliament to interfere in the process, as this would prove too cumbersome. Rather, we should at least go through the process of consultation to ensure that any decision taken to expand the facilities of the casino would be taken only after due consideration is given to all who may be directly or indirectly affected. And this should be written into our

Column: 2369

statute books to ensure compliance. For this reason, Sir, I am not too happy with the existing clause 51 of the Bill and would ask that the Government consider amending it to include a formal process of consultation with all interested parties if further expansion is required for the existing casino operation.

Secondly, the artificial nature of the restriction to entry. Currently, the proposed restriction of access and entry into the casino is limited, amongst others, by age and levy. The underlying principle of this restriction lies in the protection of minors and a certain segment of our society who are not able to look after themselves financially. I do have some difficulty with these suggested barriers to entry as there is an element of arbitrariness about them. Under the proposed provision, minors are not allowed to enter a casino. Minors in the Bill are defined as those under the age of 21. Now, Sir, I find this rather odd, especially in the context of Singaporean males. I say this is rather odd because, in the context of Singapore, our boys, who enlist at the age of 18 and who are considered old enough to bear arms and to kill in defence of our country, are not considered old enough to enter a casino. Is it an irony? I would suggest that, to streamline this anomaly, we should consider allowing those who are 18 the right of entry into casinos.

Similarly, it also seems inconsistent to me that while we prevent people who cannot afford the $100 per entry levy or $2,000 annual membership fee from blowing their hard-earned money or savings in a casino, we make no effort at preventing Singaporeans from spending a fortune on buying Toto, patronising jackpot rooms at the various clubs, going on cruise ships that have floating casinos or even making a visit to the Singapore Turf Club which, to my mind, is another form of legitimised gambling. Why should this be so? Sir, the issue is not about

Column: 2370

whether we should not allow poor Singaporeans the right of entry, but rather about problem gambling. It would be presumptuous to think that poor Singaporeans have limited or no self-control. Poor Singaporeans who are minded to gamble are not discouraged by the $100 levy, which the authorities intend to impose. Serious gamblers, no matter how poor they are, will be able to meet the obstacle easily. And even if they are prevented from patronising the casino by the levy, they will have other means to feed their habit. There are many Singaporeans, especially the poorer ones, who have limited or no opportunity to travel overseas but who would like to visit the casino for the experience. The integrated resort should be seen as an asset for all Singaporeans to visit and to enjoy, including the casino. Nobody is going to have a serious problem with someone who visits the casino as part of an outing and punts the odd dollar at the gaming machine. Imposing a levy on entry coupled with an openly stated policy of protecting the low-income from the snares of gambling as a justification for the levy puts us in an unwarranted position of being seen to be engaging in class discrimination. Sir, there is absolutely, to my mind, no basis for assuming that those who can afford the entry levy are better able to exercise self control and look after themselves than those who could not; or that those who can afford the levy will not end up losing their pants at the gambling table as with those who could hardly afford to enter the casino.

The way to deal with it is not to restrict entry but to place the burden on the operator to rely on their software to fish out those who run the risk of problem gambling. The operator would be in a position to pick this out very easily by tracking the patrons on a daily basis and the amount they spend. Such information can be channelled to the Council who would then be in a position to seek out those at risk. Alternatively, an upper limit

Column: 2371

on gambling could also be imposed on those who choose not to furnish information on their financial standing.

Sir, while the Bill has also taken pains also to ensure that those who could ill afford it are prevented from entering the casino, I believe more could be done to prevent those who enter the premises with the sole purpose of perpetrating evil. I am referring to the loan sharks and those who are intent on prostitution and other forms of illegal activities.

One of the pillars of concern in relation to casino activity has to do with loan sharking and illegal prostitution. In fact, all prostitutions are illegal, to begin with. And for all our concerns, I am surprised that the present Bill only confines such restriction to just one particular section, and that is to be found in clause 129 of the Bill. In the way that it is drafted, clause 129 leaves very much to the imagination of how one can take all appropriate steps to ensure that these illegal activities are not carried out in the premises. I am concerned that the Bill itself did not do more to set out the standards and the measures by which a casino operator can take appropriate steps. And I would hope that, at some future point of time, the regulator and the authorities can provide further guidance on what is considered to be adequate or appropriate steps that they can take to minimise or to prevent such activities from taking place.

Finally, Sir, greater clarity and guidance for the National Council on Problem Gambling. It is laudable that the Government has taken the proactive measure of setting up a National Council on Problem Gambling. This is done in recognition of the potential harm that gambling may bring not just to the individual, but also to his family and his loved ones. In as much as living with a

Column: 2372

casino in our front yard and may be new to us, the Council, in its initial stages, will be left very much to finding its own compass in virgin territory. This Bill has attempted to chart some directions by clarifying some provisions. These relate, for instance, to clarifications within the legislation on the nature of serious harm to the family and the circumstances under which the Council should have reasonable apprehension. While such efforts should be lauded, it is unfortunately insufficient. I can, for instance, think of situations where the Council will no doubt have to formulate its own guidelines as a compass. For instance, would a spouse under the Bill include a common law husband or wife? Under clause 162(2), what would the needs and welfare of the respondent's family members be? I can understand the application of this policy in the context of a family that can hardly afford to make ends meet. Does the same also apply to the family where the man is blowing 20% of his $20 million net worth to gambling? Can his wife and children come before the Council to ask for an exclusion order on the grounds that their needs and welfare are being substantially reduced because of his gambling habit? It would help if the Ministry could provide clearer guidelines on these matters as it serves to, firstly, guide the Council in coming to a decision and, secondly, to provide better guidance to members of the public on the circumstances where help from the Council may be sought.

Sir, this is a very comprehensive Bill on casino control and I applaud those who had a hand in drafting this Bill. This is a Bill which I support. From the debate that we have had in this House, it is clear that our concerns, as Singaporeans, go much wider than the nuts and bolts of the policy that this Bill has come to represent. Of necessity, we accept that we have to take this route with Vice for company. While we may be fellow partners in this journey and do all we can to prevent an over intrusion of Vice into our lives, we

Column: 2373

must never forget that this Vice can be evil and will not hesitate to consume us if we are not careful.

5.42 pm

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Bill.

Sir, there are three issues I would like to raise. The first is with regard to the social safety net. The Bill states that Singaporeans under social assistance will be excluded from the casino. How is the Government going to ensure that it will be able to track every Singaporean who is on social assistance? There are 1,700 charities in Singapore. Not every underprivileged Singaporean turns to the CDCs when they need help. Is there a way the Government can spread its feelers to all charitable organisations so that Singaporeans who ought to be excluded will come to the attention of the authorities? Sir, I would like to ask whether the current steps to beef up the Government's regulatory oversight of the charity sector will include efforts in this area.

Furthermore, the exclusion stipulation in the Bill raises some questions and scenarios. What happens to families who have just stopped relying on social assistance? How will the National Council on Problem Gambling approach and handle families such as

these with regard to the exclusion list? Is it a case of once on social assistance it is considered always to be on social assistance and, therefore, they will be kept on the exclusion list? Or will it be that families are to be taken out of the exclusion list the moment they stop accepting social assistance? Or is there an evaluation period? And how is the Council going to monitor all the families either on social assistance or once on social assistance? In fact, it raises the question of how many families currently are receiving social

Column: 2374

assistance. I would like to seek clarification on this and what guideposts the Council intends to use when it acts with regard to the exclusion list.

Sir, the second issue that comes to mind is that there is definitely scope for another layer of protection to be added if we are to look out for the interests of Singaporeans. I read with interest the plans that Harrah's has to establish a responsible gambling education programme. What struck me the most was that it was a voluntary proposition. Why is it allowed to be voluntary? Should it not be a requirement? Or are such programmes stipulated for under the Request for Proposals? If it is not, I would be very worried. In any case, I believe that the provision of gambling education and rehabilitation programmes is so important that it should be mandated for any would-be casino operator under the Casino Control Bill. It should not be left optional.

Sir, finally, let us get to the heart of the problem when it comes to gambling. It is not gambling per se, but getting into debt that causes so many problems for families and society. For all the measures that are in place under the Bill, as it stands, I am sure that it cannot paper over every crack and stop every Singaporean from gambling more than his or her family can afford. The Government's aim is to have its cake and eat it - that is, to derive all the benefits of an integrated resort for Singapore but none of the documented detriments seen in other countries. If this turns out to be the case, well and good. But if, indeed, our worst fears come true, and if families suffer because of the heavy losses of one family member at the casino, then I would like to ask if the Government would consider the legislative option of setting limits on how much a person can lose at the casino either in one sitting or on a monthly basis, for example. After all, if the Government can impose levies of $100 and $2,000 in order to deter

Column: 2375

Singaporeans from gambling at the casino, then it can impose a ceiling on how much non-premium players can lose to the house. If a few years after the IRs have been in operation, and it is apparent that there is a problem of families incurring casino gambling debts, I would think that mere symbolism like the entrance levy and concerns about micro-managing ought to take a back seat to the very real need to nip the problem in the bud, so that more families will not be affected. Even if this is not added to the Bill now, I would like the Government to give an assurance that it will consider the option of capping losses through legislation should the need ever arise. If we are truly sincere about being prepared to deal with the problems that casinos might cause, I think we should consider this.