In Parliament: Speech by MP Png Eng Huat on the Casino Control (Amendment) Bill
Published by The Online Citizen on November 16, 2012PRESS RELEASE
In Parliament on 15 November 2012, speech by MP Png Eng Huat on the Casion Control (Amendment) Bill.
Sir, the review of the Casino Control Act is timely after almost 3 years of experience in regulating and managing the 2 casinos.
?
Visit Limit and Casino Entry Levy
- The Casino Control (Amendment) Bill has introduced a new measure called Visit Limit to minimize the social impact of casino gambling.
- Currently, there are 2 social safeguards that deal directly with casino entry ? an exclusion system and the imposition of an entry levy.? The exclusion system is clear cut and easily understood.? The entry levy safeguard, unfortunately, creates a dichotomy between the intention of the day levy and that of the annual levy.
- While the $100 a day levy will make people think twice about making frequent visits to the casinos, the $2,000 annual levy will encourage gamblers at risk to visit the casinos at will.
- If you enjoy gambling, the choice is a no-brainer between paying $100 or $5.50 a day to have a go at lady luck.? And every gambler knows that to recoup the annual levy paid, he would have to visit the casino at least 20 times a year.? So what is the resulting effect of the annual levy?? It encourages frequent visits to the casinos and not the other way around.
- The annual levy makes daily visit to the casinos cheaper than to visit the latest Garden by the Bay attractions.? The average levy per day is even cheaper than a meal at the fancy food courts outside the casinos.?
- The truth is the annual levy is undoing everything the day levy is trying to do; and that is to be an effective social safeguard against problem gambling.? It is not too difficult to see that the new visit limit measure is probably targeted mainly at gamblers who bought the annual levy.
- But Sir, if we know someone is going to get addicted to drugs, do we limit the person?s intake of drugs to address the issue?? What social safeguard will the visit limit achieve in the long run?? If a person is deemed at risk in gambling addiction, would limiting the patron?s visit to the casino help or make any social sense?
- When you mix the convenience of a casino next door with a cheap entry levy in a densely populated place, the resulting concoction is not only potent but extremely harmful; potent to the gaming business but harmful to the society.
- It was reported in the New York Times that the Resorts World Casino New York, which opened last fall, made more money from electronic slot machines than those in any of the 12 casinos in nearby Atlantic City or in Connecticut.
- The article said, ?The success of the casino, the only one in the five boroughs of New York, suggests that no matter how luxurious the accommodations or exciting the entertainment, nothing appeals more to gamblers than a casino that is nearby.?
- The director of the University of Nevada?s Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming said, ?Convenience and location are the driving factors today.? If you put a casino in a high density population like Queens, you?ll do well.? 1
- Sir, we can?t relocate the extremely profitable casinos but we can definitely relook at the ineffective entry levy safeguard.?
- I am not the first to call for the removal of the annual levy and I am sure I will not be the last.? Is the annual levy an untouchable pre-condition cast in stone in the agreement with the operators that this government can do nothing with it except to come up with measures like visit limit to counter the negative impact of the misguided entry control?
- Removing the annual levy would be a better option than to introduce a visit limit to safeguard gamblers at risk.? The fact that this government collected over half a billion dollars in entry levies since the casinos became operational more than 2 years ago can only mean one thing; we need to relook at our safeguards.? The day levy is a safeguard.? The annual levy is a loophole.? I urge the government to seriously consider doing away with the annual levy.?
?
Advertising
- Next, it may be time for us to tighten the issue of soft advertising by the casinos under the guise of sponsorship and donation.? I once came across a residents? corner decked with large red lanterns with ?Resort World Sentosa? printed on it.?
- We all know what Resorts World and Sands are renowned for and it is definitely not about Ferris wheel or Art Museum.? These companies are famous for one thing and one thing only ? operating casinos.
- Do we want to allow these casinos to soft sell their brand name, trade mark or service mark as these are identical to that of the integrated resorts which the casinos are a part of?
- The Casino Regulatory Authority must state clearly what the casinos can do under the guise of sponsorship and donation; more so when their names are synonymous with casino gambling.?? It is for this same reason we do not see Philip Morris or Marlboro lanterns in our estates.
- We are dealing with seasoned casino moguls here. ?I am sure these people will not hesitate to try their luck at anything to have market share and they have a deep pocket to do so.
- While I do believe we should allow some leeway for the casinos to promote the non-gaming parts of their business, we must be mindful that beneath the fa?ade of the family-oriented integrated resorts lies a vice that has brought untold misery to many families around the world.? In this instant, the CRA must be clear on what the casinos can do in the area of soft advertising.
?
Jobs and Benefits Data
- Sir, while the review of the Casino Control Act is timely, this government must also review the economic benefits promised by the casino operators.
- When this House debated on the casino proposal in 2005, both Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade and Industry had said that the two casinos will create 35,000 jobs of which more than 10,000 are direct employment jobs.
- Almost 3 years have passed since the casinos opened their doors to roaring business.? How many Singaporeans have they hired?? What kind of jobs have they given to Singaporeans?? To date, those numbers remain a mystery.
- A year ago, we were told in this House that employment figures for casinos, breakdown by foreigners, PRs and Singaporeans, are protected under the Statistics Act and Singaporeans only need to know that 70 per cent of the direct hire by the casinos are locals; a term which refers to Singapore citizens and PRs. 2? A year later, we found out from the press that 70 per cent of the direct hire by the casinos are actually all Singaporeans.? The reports even breakdown the numbers by casino. 4
- My question is ? could the Acting Manpower Minister verify these numbers which are supposedly protected under the Statistics Act as mentioned by his predecessor in October 2011?? If yes, I find it unacceptable that such information cannot be revealed in Parliament under the guise of the Statistics Act while the press is free to report on these numbers.
- And why are we protecting these numbers in the first place?? If we allowed the casinos to make money here, surely it is of public interest to know if they are making money at the expense of jobs for Singaporeans.
- We are not alone in worrying about jobs for our own people when a casino comes to town.? A recent report in the New York Daily News said the Resorts World Casino New York City fell short of the promise it made in mid-2011 to hire 70% to 80% of its staff from the borough of Queens.? The Daily News investigation has also found that residents do not get a proportionate share of high-ranking management jobs at the casino. 3
- Is this government keeping a close watch over the promises made by the casinos to create jobs for Singaporeans?? I urge this government to release the casino employment data in a term that all Singaporeans can understand and appreciate.? Telling the people that the casinos hire 22,000 employees does not square well with the government?s initiative to make the distinction between Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans sharper.
- And what other benefits have the casinos brought on?? Can the government publish more data to substantiate the benefits?? How many local SMEs and suppliers are doing roaring business with the casinos?? What is their percentage share of the supply chain in dollars and cents?? Can the government be more transparent in providing regular updates on gaming revenues and social impact caused by the casinos?
?
Conclusion
- The Prime Minister said in 2005 that ?to make an informed decision, we needed to understand what exactly an IR would entail. What sort of investment would it be? What benefits would it bring?? We needed information to decide.?
- Mr Speaker, seven years have passed and the casinos are fully operational.? Singaporeans too needed information now to decide if the casinos have made an impact in their lives and in the society.
- The reality today is that this government has asked Singaporeans to gamble big on the success and benefits of having casinos on our shores.? What are the odds of Singaporeans winning the lion share of the jobs and contracts available at the casinos or is it going to be the same old story again ? the house always wins?
- Thank you.
????
REFERENCES ???
- 23 Oct 2012, New York Times, ?Simple but Local, Queens Slots Are Hurting Gambling Meccas?
- Parliament ? 21/10/2011
- 1 Oct 2012 ? New York Daily News, ?High roller Resorts World Casino craps out on hiring pledge to Queens residents?
- 10 Nov 2012, Today, ?Weighing the economic benefit of the IRs?
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
moonshine news channel 4 radar weather morosini death jacoby ellsbury jacoby ellsbury lionel richie
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.