CASINO CONTROL BILL

Column: 2424

CASINO CONTROL BILL: Resumption of Debate on Question (13th February 2006), "That the Bill be now read a Second time." - [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs].

Question again proposed.

2.16 pm

Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim: ( In Mandarin ): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate on the Casino Control Bill. Yesterday, we had one round of debate. Today, I would like to reiterate a few points. First of all, I support the Casino Control Bill which makes provision for the regulation and control of casinos. But supporting this Bill does not mean that I support the opening of casinos. Since the Government has already decided to open casinos, the Government will have the duty to supervise the operations of the casinos.

Last month in Parliament, DPM and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng introduced the Casino Control Bill that provides for a legal framework to regulate the gaming operations and casinos. I would like to highlight a few possible loopholes in this Bill as well as propose a few suggestions for the Deputy Prime Minister to consider.

Part V specifies that all management staff and employees directly involved in the gambling activities must first of all apply to the Casino Regulatory Authority for a "special employee licence" before they can start work. The Authority would then investigate into the suitability of the applicants before the licence is issued.

First, the definition of "special employees" in this Bill is somewhat vague. It does not state clearly whether other groups of supporting staff would

Column: 2425

also be governed by this restriction. The Bill should give a clearer definition of "special employee". The Bill should also state categorically the various groups of supporting staff, such as the cleaners, waiters and waitresses, etc, that should also come under this category. This can prevent undesirable people from being employed as supporting staff and infiltrate the casinos and thus leading to crimes. This can also ensure that the special employee licences will not be exploited by unlawful people, thus keeping the casinos free from criminal influence and illegal activities.

Secondly, the section does not clearly state if a special employee can use his/her special employee licence to freely enter the casinos outside of his/her working hours, to participate in gambling activities. I would like to suggest that the Bill clearly spells out the restrictions on the use of the special employee licence. This can prevent the special employee licence from being abused by the employees to freely enter the casino to gamble and avoid paying the entry levy.

Part VI, Division 1, clause 99 requires the casino layout to comply with the requirements prescribed by the Casino Regulatory Authority. I suggest that this clause should also require that the casino operators ensure that in the layout of the casinos, the time of the day is prominently displayed throughout the casinos, such as the use of large electronic displays, so as to let the patrons be aware of the passing of time. This is a necessary measure as, very often, when too absorbed in gambling, the patrons will lose their sense of time, especially when they are losing money, causing them to indulge in gambling for excessively long periods of time. In Australia , the Queensland Responsible Gambling Code of Practice, the Victoria State Casino Operator Code of Practice,

Column: 2426

and the Adelaide Casino Responsible Gambling Code of Practice have rules that require the casino operators to ensure that the time of the day is prominently displayed throughout the gambling areas.

Part VI, Division 2, clause 106 requires the casino operators to provide assistance to the patrons by providing them with copies of the rules for the games, advice and information concerning those rules, the permissible minimum and maximum wagers pertaining to the games and the odds of winning each wager. Although whether to gamble or not is the right and choice of the individuals, to make a responsible choice and decision, patrons have to be aware of the gambling products and the odds of winning for these various products. Hence, this clause is necessary as casino operators are duty bound to provide patrons with suitable information, so that patrons can make informed decisions on whether or not to gamble, based on their preference and situation. I would suggest that the casino operators provide such information in at least four languages, namely, English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil, to the patrons.

On providing information to the patrons, I would suggest that this clause should also require the casino operators to provide responsible gambling materials to the patrons, in at least four languages, informing the patrons of where to get help on problem gambling. In Australia , the Adelaide Casino Responsible Gambling Code of Practice requires the casino operators to provide responsible gambling information to the patrons through prominently displaying responsible gambling materials, in the form of posters and pamphlets in five languages other than English.

Part VI, Division 2, clause 108 states that the casino operators may provide credits to a person who is not a citizen or a permanent resident of Singapore . The casino operators may provide credit to a

Column: 2427

citizen or a permanent resident of Singapore who has maintained a deposit account with the casino operators with a credit balance of not less than $100,000. This stringent requirement is necessary to ensure that patrons will not be able to to obtain credit for gambling easily. A question to raise here is: should this stringent requirement of a $100,000 deposit also be applied to patrons who are foreigners to ensure that these foreign patrons will not be broke due to gambling, with no travel fund to return to their home country, thus illegally overstaying in Singapore leading to crimes and unnecessary social problems?

Part VI, Division 2, clause 109 prohibits the casino operators from providing automated teller machines (ATMs) within the casino premises. This is to ensure that patrons will not be able to obtain cash easily, as when they lose money, there will be a tendency to go to ATM to obtain more cash to continue to gamble in the hope of winning back the losses, thus unable to stop gambling. However, this clause does not prohibit the installation of ATMs within a certain radius from the casinos. There is a Chinese saying that "at a certain place, there is gold everywhere". Of course, there would not be gold everywhere in the Integrated Resort for the patrons to pick. However, there can be ATMs all over the entire Integrated Resort. Casino operators can locate ATMs in close proximity to the gambling areas or even at the entrance of the gambling areas. This clause will affect those citizens and permanent residents of Singapore who pay the daily entry fee, as when they lose all the cash they have with them, they will not be able to immediately obtain cash so as to continue gambling. However, this clause has no effect on patrons who have paid their annual membership fee to enter the casinos, as they have unlimited entries into the casinos. When these patrons lost all their cash, they can easily go to the ATMs located outside or near the casinos

Column: 2428

to withdraw cash and immediately return to the gambling tables to continue gambling. Hence, it is inadequate to just prohibit casino operators from locating ATMs within the casino premises.

I suggest that no ATMs be allowed to be installed in close proximity to the casinos, eg, within a radius of 100 metres and at the entrance to the casinos. This is a reasonable requirement. The Australia Queensland Voluntary Responsible Code of Practice introduced in 2002 clearly states that casino operators are not to locate ATMs in close proximity to gambling areas or at the entrance to the gambling areas.

Part VI, Division 4, clause 116 requires citizens or permanent residents of Singapore to pay a daily entry fee of $100 or an annual membership fee of $2,000. Casino operators have to collect these entry levies and pay them to the Singapore Totalisator Board within the prescribed time for which it shall be used by the Board for public, social and charitable purposes in Singapore . I would like to raise three points with regard to this clause.

Firstly, an annual membership fee of $2,000 is reasonable. However, if we consider this clause in conjunction with clause 109, a loophole will surface. As I mentioned earlier, patrons who have paid the annual levy to enter the casinos have unlimited entries to the casinos. When these patrons lost all their cash, they can easily go to the ATMs located outside and near the casinos to withdraw cash and immediately return to the gambling tables to continue gambling. Hence, I would like to propose that a maximum number of entries be set for the annual membership, eg, a maximum number of 50 entries into the casinos per year. 50 entries per year is a reasonable limit, as members holding such annual membership will still be able to visit the casinos for almost every weekend of the year.

Column: 2429

Secondly, another more important issue is the effects of gambling on the patrons' working hours and productivity at work. The negative impacts on workers' productivity will cause problems in other economic sectors. Many social work researchers have reported that gamblers will lose certain numbers of work-hours, and even their jobs, due to gambling. A paper published in 2000 in the _Gaming Research & Review Journal _ reported that the average gambler lost 7.5 hours of work a month in Wisconsin, USA, and 9.8 hours of work in Connecticut from the workplace, due to gambling activities. Another paper published in June 2005 in the International Gaming Studies Journal reported that in Ontario, Canada , among the 2,500 participants surveyed, an average 5.6% of the participants had unexplained absences from work due to problem gambling. Setting a maximum number of entries can prevent the hours of work from workplace and the productivity of citizens and permanent residents of Singapore from being affected by gambling activities, causing other economic sectors in Singapore to be affected. I urge the Minister to consider this suggestion.

The annual membership fee with unlimited number of entries into the casinos can be kept, but with a higher fee imposed, eg, $5,000 or $10,000. Anyone who can afford such a high membership fee does not need to work and can well afford to spend all his time in the casinos.

Thirdly, this clause states that casino operators cannot directly or indirectly reimburse the patrons the entry levy. This is a good regulatory measure. However, the Casino Regulatory Authority will face difficulties in the implementation of this regulatory measure. Casino operators can use many camouflaging methods, thus

Column: 2430

indirectly reimbursing the patrons. For example, casino operators can dish out drinks and food vouchers for use in the restaurants in the Integrated Resorts, door-gifts, hotel vouchers, etc. The casino operators can easily group these under part of their marketing strategy, and not violate any law. Hence, I would like to suggest that this clause should list out more precisely and in detail all the possible indirect methods that the casino operators should not use to reimburse the patrons the entry levy.

Part VI, Division 5, clause 129 requires casino operators to take all appropriate steps to ensure that the employees, patrons and other persons within the casino premises do not commit (1) soliciting for purpose of prostitution or any other immoral purposes; (2) unlicensed money-lending or related activities; and (3) drunken, disorderly or riotous behaviour. I would like to propose that this clause should include consumption of drugs and drug trafficking as prohibited acts within the casino premises because, as currently, this clause does not include consumption of drugs and drug trafficking.

Part VII prohibits persons below 21 years of age from entering casino premises. This clause empowers casino operators to request patrons to produce proof of age before allowing them to enter the casino premises. If the casino operator suspects that a person is a minor who is attempting to enter the casino premises, the casino operator can request this person to produce proof of age. This is not enough. I propose that the clause requires casino operators to perform compulsory checking of personal identification documents, allowing only persons above 21 years of age to enter the casino premises. Compulsory checking of age is necessary as some people look more mature than their actual age, while others can even masquerade to look older so as to enter the casino premises. This Bill has

Column: 2431

to include compulsory checking of age so as to mitigate the negative impact and minimise the harmful effects of gambling on youths.

There are also two groups of people who should be prohibited from entering the casino premises. The first group is the foreign students who are in Singapore on a student visa. I hope the Government can consider banning them from entering the casino. Many foreign students with student visas are above 21 years of age, and are also not restricted by the entry levy. For example, in our universities, there are many research students who are on scholarship doing their Masters or PhD, and most of them are above 21 years of age. If we allow these students with student visas to go to the casino, it may affect their studies and some may not even finish their studies here. One Member mentioned

in Parliament yesterday that we can allow the parents of these foreign students to apply for exclusion order for their children. I feel that this proposed measure will not have much effect, as a lot of time the parents of these students are living in their home countries and will not know what their children are doing in Singapore, and many of them who are above 21 years no longer come under the care and control of their parents. So I think all those who are on student visas in Singapore should be banned from entering the casino premises.

The second group is those foreign workers who work as domestic maids in Singapore. I hope the Government can consider banning them from entering the casino. Although the DPM said that the relevant Ministry had studied the practice in other countries when drafting this Bill, I think this is a problem that is unique to Singapore because many families in Singapore engage domestic maids and many of these foreign maids are above 21 years of age. They are certainly not very rich, otherwise they would not have come all the way here to work as domestic

Column: 2432

maids. Although the Ministry of Manpower has not mandated that all the maids should be given a day off every week, it encourages employers to allow these maids to take one day off per week. These maids can make use of their off-day to visit the casino instead of congregating in Orchard Road area. Allowing these foreign maids to enter the casino will give rise to some serious problems. Firstly, in most families in Singapore, the children spend a lot of time alone with the domestic maid at home as both parents have to work, and the gambling habit of the maid may affect the values of the children. Secondly, if these maids run into huge debts due to their gambling and borrow from the loan sharks, these loan sharks may go to the employer's house to harass the employer's family and demand payment, and this will cause unnecessary inconvenience to the families.

Part X, clauses 157 to 165 provide the steps for family members of gamblers to apply for family exclusion orders from the National Council on Problem Gambling. The clause states that after the casinos have been set up, the family member of a problem gambler who has neglected his/her family due to gambling activities can apply for family exclusion order from the National Council on Problem Gambling, to bar the gambler from entering the casino premises. The respondent has the right to object to the application made by his/her family member. The family member of a gambler can make an application and state the period of the exclusion if this gambler has, over a period of more than three months, engaged in gambling activities irresponsibly having regard to the needs and welfare of his/her family members, or for a period of less than three months but has caused such serious harm prior to the application. The Committee will hear and determine the applications for family exclusion orders. The respondent is allowed to make an appeal to the Council.

Column: 2433

In clauses 157 to 162, I have a few points to raise. The process of application for a family exclusion order appears to be overly complicated. For every application, the Council will appoint a three-man committee to hear and determine this application. The Committee has the power to set up a hearing, and summon witnesses to provide evidence. However, if the respondent does not agree with the decision made by the Committee, he can even appeal to the Council. If the family member is not able to provide concrete evidence, detailed information and relevant documents, and is unable to find a person to substantiate his/her claims and complaints against the gambler, as the person may not be willing to attend the hearing as a witness for fear of offending the respondent, does this mean that this family member would not be able to bar the respondent from entering the casino premises? I hope the Council will simplify this process of the application for the family exclusion order.

As the Chinese saying goes: "Even an honest magistrate finds difficulty in resolving family disputes." Will the Committee be able to effectively execute its duty, considering that every application for a family exclusion order will, to some degree, involve some family problems? For example, a female MP once told me that she has encountered a case of a lady applying for a Personal Protection Order against her husband. When this lady was beaten by her husband, she vowed to apply for a PPO against her husband. However, a few days later, she came lovingly, hand-in-hand with her husband, to cancel the PPO application!

Application for exclusion from casino premises should not be restricted only to family members. The gambler should be allowed to voluntarily make an application for himself/herself. Since the announcement of the draft Bill and final Bill, the media seems to only focus on reporting

Column: 2434

family exclusion orders, many people are not aware of the provision for voluntary self exclusion orders in clause 165. I suggest that the National Council on Problem Gambling should actively promote and implement self exclusion orders to allow citizens and permanent residents of Singapore to voluntarily make an application for himself/herself. Those persons who know that they have problem gambling behaviour or inclination can apply for a self exclusion order without having to make such an application through their family members. In this way, unintended consequences, such as family violence or strained relationships, can be prevented. A person who has problem gambling behaviour or inclination will not have to go into the casino premises to apply for a self exclusion order as they can now apply from the National Council on Problem Gambling.

Finally, in Part XI, Division 4, clause 120 allows the casino operators to bar certain persons from entering the casino premises, and provide self exclusion facility to patrons. I suggest that the clause should require the casino operators to actively promote self exclusion facility to their patrons who exhibit problem gambling behaviour or inclination. Based on the patron's requirements and request, if the patron requests to be barred from entering the casino or using certain gambling facilities within a specified period, the casino operator should inform this patron of the availability of the self exclusion facility; and provide materials and information on the self exclusion facility, including the steps and procedures involved, the documents to be submitted in the application, as well as problem gambling supporting and counselling agencies and the methods of contacting such agencies. Under reasonable circumstances and at the request of the patron, the casino operator should also assist the patron to stay away

Column: 2435

from other gambling facilities and gambling organisations.

I earnestly hope the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs will consider and adopt the suggestions that I have put forward.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed): Mr Speaker, Sir, can I seek clarification from the hon. Member? When she mentioned earlier on that she wanted the instructions or guidance to be done in four languages, does she mean that it includes Malay ( Bahasa Melayu )? Because this is one area where I think Malay Muslims do not want to demand equal rights, unless the hon. speaker has some Bahasa -speaking high-rollers from the neighbouring countries in mind.

Mr Speaker: When you say "the hon. speaker", you mean Prof. Ong, not me? Prof. Ong, would you like to clarify?

Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim: Just to answer his question.

Mr Speaker: A short one, please.

Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim: We could have tourists from our neighbouring countries and not just Singapore. So we could have tourists from everywhere else visiting Singapore. I think we have to be more general.

2.38 pm

Mdm Ho Geok Choo (West Coast): Sir, in the 2005 Budget sitting, I mentioned the need to look at the big picture and weigh between the negative social impact and economic benefits of the IR project. I am pleased that the emphasis to be given by the Singapore Tourism Board on the proposals will be on the IR as a tourism draw rather than on the gaming component.

Column: 2436

Unlike what NMP Prof. Ong Soh Khim has been talking about, I applaud the Bill on the Casino Regulatory Authority of Singapore as it sets out the framework on which the gaming aspect will be supervised, and it is very comprehensive. But there are areas which I think the Minister may want to consider. I would like to know whether the Authority will restrict the casino operator from offering website gaming in any form to Singaporeans. It does not make sense if someone is banned from the casino but he can get access to the gambling activities through the web. Of course, one may argue that there are many other casino webs, but, at least, we should take due diligence to prevent where we can those who are banned and also young children from gaining access through the backdoor.

Currently, the casinos in the US are big on football leagues and other major sports. Will the Singapore operators be similarly allowed to offer such betting for their operations in Singapore? While I know that Singapore Pools and others have been collecting bets on certain games, the wide following of English and European soccer leagues in Singapore, coupled with the availability of more such gaming opportunities, may well encourage more gambling than in the past. Will areas where big TV screens are put up for betting and where betting billboards are set up to be included in the definition of "gaming areas" under the law?

Sir, my other parliamentary colleagues have raised their concerns on bad hats, moneylenders and prostitution rings who will lay in wait to leverage, like parasites, on the casino operations. I would like to add a different dimension to the debate and ask what steps will the authorities take to prevent pimps from lurking around the IR. Also, we have a large workforce of lower income foreign workers in Singapore. How are we to monitor and ensure that they do not moonlight in

Column: 2437

dubious activities on their days off on weekends at the casinos?

Part XII, clause 181(1)(b) allows the Authority to obtain information from a casino operator to make available information to the authorities. Video camera is an important element in crime prevention and the gathering of evidence. Will the regulatory authority impose on the operators a minimum timeframe where they have to keep proper records of their videos, surveillance tapes of the activities on their premises, so that in the event of any investigation, the authorities can have access to important evidence?

Sir, this section of the Bill also empowers casino personnel to detain suspected offenders. Will the Authority require that the casino personnel must record in detail the persons detained and the events leading to the detention and immediately call the police? The operative words are "immediately call the police" as, otherwise, an overzealous casino employee may abuse his authority by corruptly seeking gratification for the release of the detained person or to intimidate or harass the detained person without access to his rights under our laws.

Lastly, I want to touch on employment. I hope all the key casino employees who require special licences will be subject to screening by not just the police but also CNB, CPIB and CAD. I note that the Authority is empowered to investigate into the suitability of the applicants. I hope the prescribed fees imposed on each application will be sufficient such that the Government can recover the cost of its investigations, especially since some of the inquiries may require having to contact overseas counterparts to check on the applicants. Also, will the Minister consider stipulating a minimum age for those employees who require special

Column: 2438

licences so that this category of employees are, hopefully, more matured and able to fend for themselves?

As I mentioned in my previous address on the IR issue, Sir, I hope this project will create sufficient jobs to help our older workers who lost their jobs to find opportunities to re-enter the job market. Perhaps, the Government may want to consider sending these older workers who are suitably qualified to be retrained in casino operations at the polytechnics or other institutions.

On this note, I support the Bill.

2.43 pm

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for their questions and comments.

Several Members commented that the Bill, though comprehensive, did not provide the details on many operational issues, such as what is the allowable maximum number of jackpot machines, anti-money laundering measures, advertisement policies, and how the Casino Regulatory Authority will go about performing its role.

Sir, it is simply not practical to state every detail in a piece of legislation, although the important provisions reflecting the policies are incorporated in the Bill. The Bill is already 152 pages and over 200 sections. If we were to put all the operational details into the Bill, it will look like a Police manual. Even then, there is no certainty that every conceivable measure is reflected in this first attempt on the Bill. The Bill defines a general legislative framework and deals with the broad policy issues like all our other legislation in Singapore. The operational details will be covered separately in subsidiary legislation which

Column: 2439

will be promulgated by the CRA in due course. They can also be specified as licensing conditions or as directives from the CRA to the casino operators. Some of these directives may be issued after discussion/consultation with the casino operators to ensure that they are implementable. This is also the practice in other jurisdictions, and so we cannot be any different. It is also the same way we draft our other laws.

Sir, the questions raised by Members broadly cover three areas: social safeguards, casino operations and, finally, casino taxes and funding for the Casino Regulatory Authority and the National Council on Problem Gambling.

Firstly, let me now respond to questions related to social safeguards, as raised by Ms Indranee Rajah, Mr Sin Boon Ann, Mdm Ho Geok Choo,

Prof. Ong Soh Khim, Mr Ahmad Khalis, Dr Lily Neo, Dr Amy Khor, Mr Ong Kian Min, Mr Low Thia Khiang, and Ms Eunice Olsen.

Members will recall that last year in this House, we debated at length the issue of social safeguards to minimise the negative impact of casino gaming on locals. While we need to have these social safeguards, the measures must also be practical and not too onerous for the casino operators to implement.

For example, Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs) will have to pay the entry levy of $100 for every 24 hours, or $2,000 for annual membership, which is not transferable. We will not allow the casino operators to directly or indirectly reimburse the entry levy to the patrons. This means that the moment a citizen or PR walks into the casino just for a look-see, he has already parted with $100. He will have to think very hard about even stepping in. Some Singaporeans suggested doing away with the entry levy. Some Singaporeans also suggested raising it. There are no right

Column: 2440

answers. Some MPs also suggested fixing the number of times a member can visit the casino. I think we should not micro-manage every measure. There will be no end to the number of ways to stop people from visiting the IR. What we have done is to put in some barriers so that Singaporeans can pause and think whether to cross it. We settled for $100 per entry and $2,000 for the annual membership for 10 years, rather than chop and change and cause uncertainty to patrons and investors. Specific details as to what constitutes reimbursement will be worked out later between the CRA and the casino operator.

Mr Low Thia Khiang has asked why the entry levy collected is channelled to the Singapore Totalisator Board and not to the National Council on Problem Gambling. A mandate of the Singapore Totalisator Board is to disburse gambling related monies for public, social and charitable causes. They will be best placed to decide how to use the levy. Mr Low can be assured that the Government will provide sufficient funding to the National Council on Problem Gambling for its operations.

The casino operators will be required to put in place a robust system to ensure that excluded persons and minors are not allowed into the casinos. They are allowed to implement any system so long as it achieves this objective. As part of their submissions for the Integrated Resorts, the investors will be required to propose how they intend to enforce the various social safeguards.

Ms Indranee Rajah and Prof. Ong have also asked about the treatment of minors under the Casino Control Bill. The Bill prohibits persons who are below the age of 21 years old from entering the casino. The patron will be required to provide an acceptable proof of age before he or she is allowed entry. What would constitute an acceptable proof of age will be covered in the subsidiary legislation.

Column: 2441

Clause 133 of the Bill provides a defence for the casino operator to disciplinary action if a minor is above 16 years or older and has produced false evidence that he is not a minor. Minors who are found in a casino or have used the false evidence to gain entry into the casino will be guilty of an offence. These are not seizable offences. The casino operator will be required to inform CRA of any minors found on the casino premises and they are allowed to remove the minor using no more force than is necessary.

Mr Sin Boon Ann has suggested lowering the age limit from 21 to 18 years. In Hong Kong and Australia, studies show that the rate of problem gambling among the youths tends to be higher than for adults. This shows that youths are more vulnerable to problem gambling. As compared to other forms of legalised gambling like those conducted by Singapore Pools that are currently available in Singapore, casino gaming involves table games and more sophisticated jackpot machines, which are characterised by rapid play, high re-staking rates and instant gratification. This is what some researchers call "hard gambling" as compared to "soft gambling", like Toto, where after each draw, a person would have to wait a few days for the next draw, thereby creating a break for the punter. Taking all these into account, it would therefore be prudent to set a higher minimum age of 21 years old for casino gambling to protect our young.

Prohibiting automated teller machines (ATMs) in the casinos aims to create a break for patrons who have run out of cash by making them step out of the casinos. Hopefully, this will make them think about whether they should continue gambling. While Mr Ong Kian Min and Prof. Ong are correct in pointing out that the ATMs can be placed immediately outside the casinos, it would not be

Column: 2442

practical to prohibit ATMs outside the casinos since there are other facilities and services within the Integrated Resorts, such as retail shops and restaurants, which are not gaming related. Besides, how far to place the ATMs is far enough?

Dr Lily Neo has suggested having separate sections within the casinos for locals and foreigners so that we can be stricter on locals by imposing further controls, such as shorter opening hours. In effect, such controls would mean creating two casino gaming floors. Ms Eunice Olsen has also suggested mandating a loss limit for patrons and to require the casino operator to provide responsible gambling counselling services. These suggestions will cause operational and enforcement difficulties. All these good-intentioned suggestions also hamper the casinos' ability to manage their businesses effectively and make our casinos different from others. Instead, our approach would be to work with the casino operators to strike a balance between meeting our regulatory objectives and implementability, and at the same time, have regard to some of the social problems which may be created. As regards how to deal with the social problems, we should leave it to the National Council.

Prof. Ong has suggested that the casino operators provide prominently time displays to ensure that patrons do not lose track of time. She has also suggested information about the games and responsible gaming should be made available to patrons in four languages. I think there was an exchange between Mr Zainudin and her. These measures to promote responsible gaming may be considered later when the CRA works with the casino operators on the details of the casino layout and operations. It may go beyond the four official languages. If we have customers coming from Japan, for example, they may have such instructions in Japanese too.

Column: 2443

As with all Government policies, we will monitor and review the various safeguards to ensure that they remain relevant and effective.

Sir, I agree with Mr Ong Kian Min and Mr Sin Boon Ann that having measures alone are not enough. We also need to educate the general public about the dangers of problem gambling and how to recognise the symptoms. This is what the National Council on Problem Gambling hopes to do.

Mr Ahmad Khalis, Mr Sin Boon Ann, Prof. Ong and Dr Lily Neo have asked about the role of the Council and its programmes. I believe the Council has put up its role on the website. Its role is to:

(a) provide independent advice and feedback to the Government on education programmes to promote public awareness on problem gambling;

(b) decide on funding applications for preventive and rehabilitative programmes; and

(c) assess and advise the Government on the effectiveness of treatment, counselling and rehabilitative programmes.

Sir, the Government will fund the initiatives undertaken by the National Council on Problem Gambling, which deals with problem gambling holistically, and not just in relation to the casinos.

The Council has started working on initiatives to help problem gamblers. For instance, it has set up a website containing information on problem gambling as well as help services available to problem gamblers and their families. To raise public awareness, the Council has also funded television programmes featuring real-life cases of problem gambling. It has also made funding available to voluntary welfare organisations to

Column: 2444

organise public education initiatives in the community. The Council will continue to evaluate the response to its current programmes and determine what more needs to be done.

The Council will be empowered to issue exclusion orders against problem gamblers. Families of problem gamblers can apply to the Council for such exclusion orders. In response to Mr Ong Kian Min's question, parents of foreign students studying in Singapore can also apply to the Council for exclusion orders to prohibit their children from entering the casinos. Mr Ahmad Khalis and Dr Lily Neo have suggested allowing our courts, co-workers, healthcare workers to apply directly to the Council to exclude their clients who are problem gamblers. As exclusion orders curb a person's freedom of movement, such orders should not be made lightly. This is why we have limited the parties who can apply directly to the Council for exclusion orders and the Council has to give the respondents a fair hearing. As for the suggestion to exclude bankrupts, clause 165 of the Bill has empowered the National Council on Problem Gambling to exclude them from the casinos.

Sir, the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports has set up a database to capture all social assistance beneficiaries supported by Government funding. This database can be tapped on to check who should be excluded from the casinos, as suggested by Ms Eunice Olsen.

We have also considered the possibility that the family exclusion order could create domestic disputes. As such, the Council intends to work with social workers to help counsel families that apply for exclusion orders. This would allow social workers to intervene and provide assistance to families should there be a need. In addition, the Council will work with the courts and social workers

Column: 2445

on a system of referral protocols for family members to obtain Personal Protection Orders if there is a need to do so.

The Council will consult families, social service, religious and community sectors to ensure that the processes for applying for family exclusion orders are simple and effective. With regard to Prof. Ong's point about the voluntary exclusion orders, the patrons can also apply to the National Council on Problem Gambling for voluntary exclusion orders.

Sir, it is not possible at this early stage to define more clearly what the Council will do or how it intends to conduct its proceedings. There is also no need to enshrine the functions of the Council in the Bill. Unlike the exclusion orders that the Council can issue, the initiatives and programmes of the Council do not impact on personal freedom. Since the Council is set up under MCYS specifically for the purpose of tackling problem gambling, Members can be assured that the Council members, who perform their role, will pool their collective wisdom and experience.

But we must also be realistic about the extent to which we can prevent a person from gambling and become a problem gambler. If a person is bent on gambling, no measure will deter him. If he cannot gamble in Singapore, all he needs to do is to take a ferry to Batam, or take a ride to Genting, or go on a cruise. No government, no NGO or social do-gooder can stop him.

Ultimately, the responsibility is his, and the consequence is for him to bear. The unfortunate part is that his irresponsible behaviour will affect his family.

Mr Ong Kian Min and Dr Lily Neo have also asked about casino-related TV programmes and promotional flyers. The Media Development Authority's TV and Radio codes do not allow programmes

Column: 2446

promoting or offering instructions on gambling to be aired on our TV and radio networks. On the issue of promotional flyers, the casino operators will be allowed to conduct direct marketing only to non-Singaporean residents and registered casino patrons who have paid the $2,000 annual casino levy. We will work with the casino operators to see how excluded persons do not receive such promotional flyers.

Sir, let me now address questions raised by Ms Indranee Rajah, Mr Ahmad Khalis, Mr Sin Boon Ann, Prof Ong Soh Khim, Mdm Ho Geok Choo, Dr Lily Neo and Mr Ong Kian Min about our policies on the casino operations.

Members have cited the figure of 5% of the total Integrated Resort area as the total gross floor area for the casino and raised questions on who will decide whether to allow further expansion and how this will be determined. The answers to these questions are found in the offiicial Request For Proposal (RFP) document for the Marina Bayfront Integrated Resorts that was launched on 15th November last year. However, I think Members are not likely to be potential bidders, so they did not get a copy of the RFP.

The RFP document sets out clearly the maximum gaming area of 15,000 square metres within each Integrated Resort. If we compare this to the maximum permissible gross floor area of 570,000 square metres at the Marina Bayfront site, it is a very small component, barely 3%, of the entire development. This is consistent with our intention to develop the Integrated Resorts, albeit with a small component of casino gambling, to support our tourism and economic objectives. The size of the casino floor or total area for casino is also similar to that of the many well-known casinos overseas. We decided to fix the maximum gaming area in square metres, instead of a percentage of the

Column: 2447

gross floor area, to provide clarity and certainty on what is the allowable maximum gaming area. We will work with the casino operators to ensure that the visitors will be able to move within the non-gaming facilities in the Integrated Resorts without having to go through the casinos.

The casino operator may also need to adjust the location of the gaming areas within the Integrated Resorts for business reasons. We can allow the casinos to do so, so long as they keep within the 15,000-square-metre limit for the gaming area, subject to other planning considerations. This is the intent behind clause 51 of the Casino Control Bill. I would like to assure Mr Sin Boon Ann that the Ministry of Home Affairs has no intention of allowing the CRA to administratively increase the 15,000 square metres allowed for each of the casinos. These are not decisions to be taken lightly by the CRA but by the Executive.

Sir, with regard to Dr Lily Neo's suggestion on operating hours, we do not intend to stipulate opening hours for the casinos, as this will interfere with the casino operators' ability to run their businesses effectively. During the consultation exercise for the Bill, the investors have provided feedback that controlling the hours of operation will affect them adversely. The casinos in Las Vegas and Macau which I visited operate 24 hours and seven days a week, 365 or 366 days a year. If ours are to be of a comparable international standard, we should not specify fixed opening hours. We will be short-changing ourselves, when our nearest competitors do not. For that matter, when we first drafted the Bill, we noted that the Victoria Casino Control Act in Australia empowered the regulator to stipulate the number of operational controls on the casino operator, such as the maximum and minimum number of games, detailed control over the casino

Column: 2448

layout, restrictions on the operating hours, etc. For example, they lay out exactly where the gaming machines are to be placed, how many baccarat and blackjack tables, and so on, and that any movement of any of these tables or any addition of the tables and the subtraction of another needs the approval of the regulator. We included some of these restrictions in the draft Bill earlier because we adapted them from the Victoria Casino Control Act and put into our draft consultation Bill. However, after I had visited the jurisdictions elsewhere and learning from the experience of others, we found that these are not universal practices and, therefore, may not be necessary.

This is the background to the context of my statement yesterday when I said we decided to relax a number of operational controls on the casino operator. But, in effect, there is actually no change, in the sense that, in this final draft which is now before the House, we did not include them. We took into account the experience that we gathered from overseas, and decided to remove the provisions which we took from the Victoria example. We believe that our supervision and regulation of the casinos will not be compromised by these changes.

To deal with problem gamblers within the casino, the casino operators will be required to train their staff to detect and deal with patrons whose behaviour clearly suggests that they are at risk of problem gambling.

Sir, I agree with Dr Lily Neo that the honesty of the casino staff and patrons would be critical in protecting the integrity of gaming in our casinos. As such, the casino operators shall be required to submit a set of internal controls for CRA's approval to ensure that our casinos have the necessary controls and measures to guard against scams and frauds. This will include thorough checks on gaming

Column: 2449

equipment before they are allowed on the casino floor. In addition, the Casino Control Bill will impose heavy fines and imprisonment terms on those who are caught cheating at our casinos. The details, such as the frequency of the equipment checks, will be worked out later.

We shall also conduct comprehensive checks to ensure that the key casino employees are suitable to work in the casinos. To Prof Ong Soh Khim's suggestion to include supporting staff, such as cleaners and waiters, as special employees to be licensed, we have decided that, in the initial stages, only key management staff and those directly related to the gaming operations will be licensed. It would not be practical nor is it necessary to check and license every single employee who is not directly or indirectly involved in the gaming component of the casino. We will monitor this and review whether other types of employees should be included later.

Ms Indranee has asked about our measures to combat money-laundering. As mentioned earlier, we shall put in place a comprehensive set of measures based on the recommendations by the Financial Action Taskforce and the best practices in other gaming jurisdictions. We take this seriously, because Singapore is an international financial centre and we do not want to be classified as a centre for money-laundering.

Ms Indranee Rajah, Mdm Ho Geok Choo, Mr Sin Boon Ann and Mr Ong Kian Min have noted that undesirable activities, such as solicitation for prostitution and loan sharking, are often associated with overseas casinos and asked what we will do to ensure that our Integrated Resorts are wholesome places to visit. As I mentioned earlier, clause 129 of the Bill will require the casino operators to take all appropriate steps to ensure that

Column: 2450

undesirable activities, such as prostitution and illegal money-lending, do not take place within their premises. We need not define "appropriate" steps upfront, because we cannot envisage all situations. If necessary, these will be made known in subsidiary legislation and the CRA directives. The police and the CRA will work closely with the casino operators to keep the casinos free from such undesirable activities. Police has since last year begun to implement a series of enforcement measures against loan sharks.

In addition, Members should not see clause 129 of the Bill in isolation. It should be viewed holistically with our other existing laws, such as the Penal Code, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act, etc, that deal with solicitation, loan sharks and other criminal activities. Police is also studying the various strategies to help ensure that the overall law and order situation in the vicinity of the Integrated Resorts remains under control. Police is setting up a Casino Investigation Branch to deal with the potential law and order challenges from the casinos. Let me assure Members that the police will take the necessary enforcement actions to ensure that the Integrated Resorts, including the immediate vicinity of the Resorts, remain wholesome places to visit.

Sir, Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked about video surveillance in the casinos, the casino operators' powers to detain suspected offenders, and the types of games which we will allow in the casinos. We shall require the casino operator to provide comprehensive video surveillance for the gaming area and key locations, such as the count room, where they count the money. The police and the CRA will also work out procedures to guide the casino operator in handling and detaining suspected offenders to ensure that there are no excesses.

Column: 2451

The casinos will not be allowed to offer sports betting, as it is known in the United States. This is already reflected in the Marina Bayfront Request For Proposal document which was launched on 15th November 2005. The casino operator will also not be allowed to offer remote gambling services that extend beyond the casino boundary. However, the casino operator will have the flexibility to decide on the number of jackpot machines, subject to a maximum of 2,500. This is because, if you look at the size of the casino, ie, 15,000 square metres at the most, 2,500 jackpot machines should be adequate. We will also allow them the flexibility to decide on the number of blackjack or baccarat tables and so on, as these are business decisions best made by the operator and not the regulator.

Sir, Mr Low Thia Khiang has suggested that we should not appoint Board members to the CRA or the National Council on Problem Gambling who have a direct or indirect interest in our casinos. This is not practical. What matters is that we put in place good corporate governance standards and we make sure that only persons of integrity and with the necessary expertise are appointed to serve. This is also the practice in many other jurisdictions. Mr Low knows full well that no system can prevent a person from taking advantage of his position, if he does not have integrity. Maybe Mr Low would like to volunteer, because he has no connection with any of the IRs, to serve on the National Council on Problem Gambling, and I shall ask the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports to invite him.

With regard to inspectors, Mr Low may wish to know that these are the CRA employees, not the casino operators' employees, and they will be given the necessary training, including attachments to foreign casino operators or regulators, to ensure that they are up to the task and

Column: 2452

to learn from other people's experience. They will also be given the necessary powers to carry out their duties.

Sir, I will now turn to the queries raised by Mr Ahmad Khalis and Dr Geh Min about the casino taxes and funding for the Casino Regulatory Authority and the National Council on Problem Gambling. As I mentioned earlier, the casino operator will have to pay the casino tax and the corporate taxes. This is a standard practice in most casino jurisdictions.

We will levy a 15% casino tax on the gross gaming revenue. Gross gaming revenue generated from the premium players will be levied a 5% casino tax. The premium player market is highly selective and the casino operators need to find ways to attract them. Hence, the lower tax rate for premium players is to incentivise the casino operator to bring in more high rollers. This is also the practice elsewhere in many other jurisdictions. Commonsense tells us that 5% of a large sum of money from a select pool of high rollers is more in absolute terms compared to the 15% of the money put in by small-time player mass market.

One operator in Las Vegas told me, when I visited them last November, that premium players can possibly account for 75% of the gaming revenue. To Dr Geh Min's suggestion to have different tax rates for locals and foreigners, I think the casino operators would find it onerous to keep track of their revenues based on nationality. Dr Geh Min will know that there are, at most, four million "sitting ducks" in Singapore, even if we include every child or baby. But if you were to include all the "moving ducks" around the region, there are tens, if not, hundreds of millions of them. If you just depend on Singaporeans, that will not be enough to sustain the business. In fact, we want our casino operators to go out and get foreigners so that they can boost our

Column: 2453

tourism traffic and, at the same time, to spend money in Singapore and also to provide the variety of entertainment that Singaporeans may also be able to benefit from when the foreigners come here to watch the shows.

The additional tax revenue from the casinos will go into the Government's Consolidated Fund. As they will more than cover the funding of initiatives undertaken by the National Council on Problem Gambling, there is no need to earmark a portion of it for the social programmes, as suggested by Dr Geh Min. This should be up to the discretion of the Ministries and agencies. Besides, it is not the Government's policy to earmark revenue for specific purposes.

Sir, in conclusion, we have studied and adapted the best practices in other jurisdictions to our unique circumstances to deal with the potential social and law and order impact of the casinos on Singapore. As we move ahead, we will continue to review and fine tune our policies to ensure they remain relevant and effective. We are confident that the Casino Control Bill will help to provide an environment where the Integrated Resorts can succeed and thrive while, at the same time, enabling us to keep social and law and order problems under control.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister. I would like to know what is the Government's consideration for not putting in the maximum percentage allowable for casinos within this legislation.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, there is no need to do so because it is already in the RFP document and it is a point already clearly made to the potential bidders.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Will there be any likelihood that the Government might

Column: 2454

change its mind or, on the request of the IR operators, the CRA might, one day, decide to allow the increase in the floor area, and thereby Parliament will not know exactly whether it is 5% or even more?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, as I have said earlier, this is not a decision to be taken by the CRA. If any decision like that is to be taken, it will be taken by the Government.

Sir, I will give Members an idea of what is 15,000 square metres out of the total size of gross floor area that we have. I mentioned that it is less than 3%. I have been to casinos in Las Vegas. I have been to four of them - Sands, Caesars Palace, Wynn Resorts and Bellagio. The biggest I have seen is probably in Caesars Palace. It is about 170,000 square feet. Anyone who has been to Caesars Palace would know that it is very large, compared to the total gross area that they have in that place. And for the others, the casinos are about 110,000 and 120,000 square feet. If we are going to put it in terms of metres, 110,000 square feet is about 10,000 square metres. Bellagio is also quite big. For those who have been to Bellagio, can you imagine what is 15,000 square metres? So there is no need for us to go beyond 15,000 square metres as far as we can see.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the Minister said that it is not for the CRA to make the decision. If, in the event, there is a need to increase, it is for the Executive to decide. Is he saying that if there is a need to increase, it is for the Executive to decide and not for Parliament, and thereby, there is no need to legislate the maximum number?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Because it is not in the Act, therefore, there is no need to come to Parliament. But it is a public issue and certainly, the Government cannot make such a decision in a quiet manner

Column: 2455

without it being known. The operators will know, the public will know, somebody will know.

Dr Geh Min (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his comprehensive reply. But may I clarify a few points? One of them is with regard to casino taxation. I did ask the question yesterday. It was said that the casino tax of 15% and 5% respectively would not be increased for the next 15 years. I asked the Minister whether it means that it could be decreased, or is the intention that it will be unchanged. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify whether it is the intention of the Bill to allow for a decrease within the next 15 years.

Secondly, I would like to go back to the question of the annual membership. I understand, from what the Minister has said, that this is just a legislative framework and you cannot macro-manage it. And as the Minister has also said, we cannot enshrine all the functions of the Council into the Bill. My question is: why are we enshrining this $2,000 annual membership into the Bill when it seems to me that it contradicts the $100 levy? To me, I just do not see how this can expand the functions of the $100 levy because, as I have mentioned, the moment you have put down $2,000, you would be tempted to gamble more rather than to gamble less. So it seems to me like the sort of incentives that the casino operator would be tempted to put in or request to be put in, rather than an extension of what the $100 levy is. It seems, to me, to neutralise the $100 levy, rather than to reinforce it.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, if a member wants to go and use the place for more than 20 times a year, let him be. Whereas when we say $100 per entry, every time when he walks in, it is $100. But for convenience, for people who want

Column: 2456

to visit more often, we fix a fee at $2,000 a year. There is no need to equalise number of visits of a member's fee of $2,000 with $100 per entry. That is the point I want to make that there is no need to go and put in all these barriers just to stop people from gambling. If people find that $100 is too much, they will not go. If those who find that $2,000 a year is too much a commitment, they may not put up that $2,000. Such decisions should be left to the individual. We put in this mechanism of per entry or annual membership to provide the convenience to those who want to go there more often. Whether the 15% or 5% tax will be unchanged, it is quite clear that we commit to 5% and 15% for the next 10 years.

Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim: Sir, I would like to seek a clarification. During my speech, I mentioned about proposing to exclude foreign workers who are working as maids in our households because many of our households in Singapore do have maids. The Deputy Prime Minister has not replied to my proposal on this.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, if these foreign maids think that they want to spend $100 going there and lose another $300, let them decide. Why are we going to do that job for them? They are adults.

Mr Ang Mong Seng (Hong Kah): May I ask the DPM whether there is any plan to allow the operators to have a one-day open house of the casino before it goes into official operation? This would allow Singaporeans to have a look-see of the casino.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I think many people wish to have a free open house. I think such a decision should not be made now. Maybe, for good business reasons, they may want to open the casino and say, "Please come and see, but no

Column: 2457

gambling". But who knows? I do not want to decide that for them. I am not the operator.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: I would like to clarify with the Minister. Singaporean PRs are not allowed to go into the casino unless they pay $100, but foreign workers and domestic home-makers are allowed to go into the casino without paying $100. Is that the case? Because maids are allowed to go into the casino without paying the $100.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: It sounds like Mr Chia is equating our domestic home-makers to domestic maids. Is he saying that? It means that he thinks that all our wives at homes who are not working are maids. I would object strongly to that. As I have said, if the maids want to do that, let us not be their nanny.

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen (Nominated Member): Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. Yesterday, in my speech, I mentioned about mandating for the casino operators to implement gaming programmes because I read that Harrah's, which is one of the big players in the industry, have their senior vice president of communications and government relations overseeing the casino operators responsible for gaming programmes. Obviously, they see it as part of their operations. Perhaps, not all the bidders might think this way. Is it not better for us to mandate that, like a gaming programme, in the casino, to educate the public on responsible gaming as the first line of defence for gambling addicts?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: We will leave it to the good conscience of the operators to decide what to do. Those who believe that they want to be good corporate citizens and it is their normal duty or even

Column: 2458

to do it as a social mission, we should give them the flexibility. But I am not going to put it in the law to say that we must have that social programme.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, I would like to clarify that it is foreign domestic workers, not domestic home-makers.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I thought he was talking about maids. So the maids he talked about are foreign domestic workers, whether we should stop them from going in.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: What I mean is: do they need to pay the $100 if they want to go in?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Are they foreign or are they local?

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Foreign domestic workers.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: The answer is in the law.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.