Published in Straits Times Online
UNLIKE some Singaporeans, I have supported the building of the two casinos in Singapore. I consider gambling to be a part of life.
Many people gamble on 4-D, Toto, mahjong and on sports events. For most people, the biggest gamble is on the stock markets. They speculate on the movement of stock prices, although they think they are making an investment.
In my view, there is nothing wrong when a person gambles away money that he can afford to lose. If he does not spend the money on a bet, he could have spent the same money on other forms of entertainment.
It is a different matter, however, when a person gambles away money that he cannot afford to lose. I was, therefore, shocked to learn that a person could lose $26 million over three days at a casino. It does not take so much money to cause financial disaster for a family. Many people cannot afford to lose a few thousand dollars that are needed for the expenses of their household.
The real danger is not in gambling with cash, but gambling on credit. The Government should forbid the casino from granting credit to patrons. All gambling should be with cash brought in or wired in advance to an account in the casino. This restriction should be extended to all other licensed gambling outlets. I also urge the Government to pass a law to disallow the operation of loan sharks that lend money for gambling. All such loans should be treated as unlawful and unenforceable.
When the real danger, that is, gambling on credit, is dealt with, I suggest the removal of the levy of $100 that has to be paid by Singapore citizens and permanent residents visiting a casino. Do not deprive Singapore residents of the chance to enjoy the excellent facilities of these two casinos when they are made readily available to tourists from our neighbouring countries and from afar.
Tan Kin Lian
Here is another view by Lucky Tan
ADDITIONAL COMMENT
For those who think that each person should be responsible for his own behavior, just imagine what would be your feeling, if your spouse or family member come home one day from the casino and told you that he or she had incurred a big debt. It does not have to be $26 million, but it could be half of your net worth! Can you afford to have this happen to your family? It is so easy for any family to be caught in this situation.
15 comments:
Yes, spending money at the casino should be seen as another leisure pursuit for those who can afford it. The levy should be lifted because it becomes a clear case of disadvantaging the citizen in favour of foreigners.
Gambling addicts have no difficulty finding places and ways to gamble. They are also the people least likely to be put off by the levy.
Yes I agreed with Kin Lian that Singaporean should not be charged $100 upon entering the casino. I often hesitate bring my foreign friends in as I need to pay the $100 levy for nothing though I do not gamble. If the government can enforce the no credit granted law then the $100 levy can be done away with. Please help your locals to enjoy a day at the casino. At least show your little appreciation to your loyal citizens. Your $100 levy wouldn't help at all as the past cases of gambling addicts had shown.
the $100 levy just shows that the govt doesn't trust its people to be responsible! the people needs a levy to remind themselves that gambling can be bad? just like you need to impose a fine of $130 to make drivers to be gracious and give way to YOG vehicles? it is like without levy or fine, singaporeans just can't behave themselves, what a joke! to me the $100 levy is more like an excuse for the govt to collect more money to fund their salaries. for hardcore gamblers, $100 is just one hand. who really go and justify that this levy works or is necessary? we just accept whatever is imposed and that's sad. one should be responsible for their own actions themselves and not due to fines/levy etc. the education is failed in such ways. just like the YOG give way issue, first it is just the talk of being gracious and show our welcome to the foreigners but the fine is later passed to ENSURE everyone gives way. it just shows that education alone is not sufficient, poor thing. we are missing out on the key points by such methods.
Funny when Goh CT told us to trust them why then the PAP government does not trust the citizens that a levy of $100 need to be levied. Trust needs to be both ways in order there exists a healthy relationship.
Apart from its use as a deterrent, the $100 levy acts to control crowd at the casino as well. Not that I am a proponent of the policy, but I am certain many of us, non gamblers, would also like to tour the place, don't we? Sure there are non-gambling foreigners who get a free ride. Nevertheless, it's a small number compared to all locals and PRs who could actually make their way into the casino within 30 mins from the word 'GO!'. When that happens, it would be more like a marketplace!
Alternately, perhaps the levy be replaced by a $100 gambling credit? That way the local visitor doesn't get short-changed, at the same time, keeping the casino conducive for all.
S$100/= for entry into the casino is definitely too heavy a price to pay for Singaporeans who just want to look see, look see and free entry is a big door gift to foreigners who also just want to look see, look see. Imagine the frustration of many Singaporeans who vist MBS and Resort World and being stop at the entrance and to see a lot of foreigners like Banglais, China man and women, Indonesia, etc streaming in freely into the casinoes. To correct this anomalies, Singaporeans should be
allow entry into the casinoes on the following basis:-
1) S$2/= on first entry per year
2) S$50/= on second entry per year
3) S$100/= on third and subsequent entry per year.
In this way, Singaporeans will have a more level treatment vs foreigners on entrance into the casinoes.
Your spouse, friends or relatives can also come back home and say they have choked up enormous credit card expenses and blew their credit limit for all 10 cards! Or they can become addicted to horse racing, drugs, drinking or womanizing all sorts of other vices...Where is that going to stop? Can we ban all the vices?
However, i think that the casino (and to a large extent credit card) is possibly more addictive because of the marketing efforts to entice individuals. This i think, calls for greater regulation and supervision. Unfortunately, i don't see that happening. I also can't see what good does the S$100 levy serve? To a gambler, they are always optimistic that they can win back that S$100 levy and many times more!
I support Mr.Tan's suggestion to remove the levy of S$100 that has to be paid by Singaporeans and PRs. It's a nonsense that our elected government can think of such a policy of restricting the people choices when the foreigners are allowed to enter casinos freely for a 'look see' and enjoy some free drinks offered by the operators.
Why the government, suddenly lost faith in their own people on their abilities and judgements to choose wisely?
During the colonial period in late 1950, I remembered MM Lee had told British Empire that we could govern this little 'red dot' much better than them. People agreed and responded. Today and together, we have built a prosperous and progressive Singapore that all of us are now proud to call it 'a home'.
Again and recently, PM Lee asked Singaporeans to welcome 'FT' with open hearts. Hence, the policy of imposing S$100 levy for them to gain entry to take a look on these two well-established casinos is contradictory to the principle of open hearts.
The government role is to govern justly and firmly. In this case, such restrictions are NOT justifiable. So please remove it soonest possible. Singaporeans have matured long ago.
Lastly, it is good to remember that Never Shortchange Singaporeans. The government and the people are a team - A real Singaporeans dream.
By making the compulsory $100 entrance levy fee, and then allowing credit to gamblers, what does it show.
It means the Govt wants the levy solely as an additional revenue source. Whether people could restrain themselves at the gambling table is none of their business.
We have to tighten our security, as there would be nore house break-ins, robberies, muggings, financial cheats and cyber or white collar crimes henceforth. Singapore is no longer as safe as before. Police have their hands full dealing with casino crimes, leaving the rest of the population
to protect themselves.
Very soon we would hardly see the face of the Police on the streets.
Reply to JRT
Your spouse or family member is not likely to spend $10,000 on a credit card. But, it is easy for them to lose $10,000 or more on credit in a casino. If someone can lose $26 million over 3 days, you can see how dangerous it is to allow people to gamble on credit.
Hi Mr Tan,
I think your idea to enforce a regulation that protects gamblers from losing what they cannot afford to lose is a very good one.
What drives problem gamblers to suicide is when they owe an unserviceable amount of debt to dangerous people (loansharks). This is also the point when the problem spreads to other innocent members of the family who have to help pay the debts. When you owe money to dangerous people who do not respect the law, declaring bankruptcy is not a solution because loansharks will either threaten bodily harm or harass the whole family non-stop. If this happens to my son, I will most likely sacrifice my nest-egg to save him like most fathers would.
The casinos have introduced a terrible risk to every family in Singapore. This includes the families of the elites who allowed the casinos to be built right here in the first place. This is not a risk to be dismissed lightly because many of us have heard of a distant relative being destroyed by the gambling addiction.
I certainly hope our government elites will seriously consider your suggestion. After all, their own children and children's children will not be immune from the risks and evils of the casinos.
The SGD100 levy meant to discourage Singaporeans from visiting the casinos actually work against them once they are in the casino. Once you pay SGD100, you will be tempted to stay longer to fully utilize that SGD100. When the odds are against you, the more you play, the likelier you will to lose. It is questionable that the levy actually works to the favour of Singaporeans.
The $100 levy will need to be revised and modified. It is a matter of time. Don't you agree?
One way is for the govt to issue free personal day-pass to the two casino for all eligible citizens once every two-year?
Hi Mr Tan,
With regards giving credit, what are your views for the following:
i) Margin trading (shares and forex) where you are actually using leverage which is the same as speculating with money that is on credit
ii) Speculating in property (Down payment of 20%, but you are betting on the increase of the other 80% of the property price, which is the credit given to you by the bank) for those yet to TOP new property.
iii) Credit cards - Borrowing twice your salary or getting a loan using cashline / unsecured credit. We can do that and gamble the amount away as well.
Banks give credit for people in need of funds or to speculate in stock market. The only reason banks do their credit assessment and proper due dilligence is that they are worried the customers cannot pay and they will incur credit lossses after the customers
lose money in stock market.
Finally, it appears that the $26 million person probably can afford to pay, otherwise the casino will not give credit anyway.
If he can't pay, the casino will definitely have no reason to grant the credit as there are no benefits to them or else why wouldn't they grant the same magnitude of credit to me.
Post a Comment