Casino ban extend to another 15K S'poreans & PRs
-
SINGAPORE: Another 15,000 financially vulnerable Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs) will be barred from entering the two casinos in Singapore.
From July 2012, the third-party casino exclusion will be extended to 12,000 individuals who are receiving short to medium term ComCare assistance.
ComCare provides social assistance for low-income individuals and families.
These recipients are mostly unemployed or in financial need.
From August, 3,000 individuals paying subsidised rents for their HDB rental flats, and who have chalked up rental arrears of six months or more, will also be barred.
The Community Development, Youth and Sports Ministry (MCYS) said this is part of its move to strengthen existing social safeguards and to protect the financially vulnerable from casino gambling.
There are currently 28,000 persons who are excluded from the casinos under third-party casino exclusion.
They include undischarged bankrupts and those receiving long-term public assistance and special grants.
The third-party casino exclusion is administered by the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG).
The intent to extend casino exclusions to more financially vulnerable persons was earlier announced by Acting Minister for MCYS Chan Chun Sing in February.
Mr Chan said: "We want to protect the financially vulnerable who can ill afford casino gambling. The 2011 NCPG Gambling Participation Survey showed a small but increasing proportion of low income gamblers who betted large amounts. We want to move proactively to address this."
NCPG Chairman Mr Lim Hock San said: "We are heartened to see the government taking measures to protect the financially vulnerable. On its part, NCPG will continue its efforts in creating greater awareness of problem gambling."
MCYS said it is working with other government agencies to review relevant legislation and regulations to beef up social safeguards.
Apart from third-party exclusion, the other two types of casino exclusion are voluntary self-exclusion and family exclusion, where a family member can apply to bar a loved one from entering the casinos.
- CNA/ck -
sounds like they treating adults as kids!lol
think they should extend it to shopping centres,restaurants and places that people spend money unwisely.
-
A good way to protect this group of Singaporeans. It will be better if local clubhouses can stop non-members from gambling in their slot machine room. Presently anyone can be a sign-in guest when they visit the slot machine room at some local clubhouses. There are a few regular members loitering there. They will sign in for anyone who approach them because they will get tips when non-members win money. Perhaps local clubhouses should also tighten up this area.
-
Integrated resort is not casino ok?
-
Slot machine addiction is the worst form of gambling addiction. And it is easily accessible to vulnerable Singaporeans. Pay a visit to the local clubhouse which most Singaporeans are members if you want to know and understand the current situation.
-
Courts shouldn't "undermine intent for casino self-exclusion order"
SINGAPORE: Given that Parliament had decided not to criminalise breaches of casino self-exclusion orders, the courts should be mindful not to undermine the self-help regime as intended by the lawmakers.
Too harsh a punishment for an offence, which consists of breaching or attempting to breach a self-exclusion order, will only dissuade those vulnerable to the temptation of gambling from applying for a self-exclusion order in the first place.
Chief Justice (CJ) Chan Sek Keong made these points in a written judgement released on Thursday as he explained why a man's two-month jail term was "wrong in principle, inappropriate and manifestly excessive".
Xu Zhaohe, 41, was caught on September 4 last year for attempting to use his wife's identity card (IC) to enter the casino at Resorts World Sentosa, which is an offence under the National Registration Act.
Xu's son had applied for a self-exclusion order in Sept 2010 on Xu's behalf, out of Xu's "own fear that he would be unable to resist the temptation of gambling in a casino".
Xu was sentenced to two months of jail by a District Judge, who felt a deterrent sentence was warranted.
CJ Chan had allowed Xu's appeal and substituted the sentence with a S$3,000 fine.
In his judgement, CJ Chan said he disagreed with the District Judge as he felt this was a case where "a judge should have some understanding of the nature of the offence" committed by Xu and why he had committed it.
Although the use of another person's IC without lawful authority or reasonable excuse is an offence, CJ Chan said the gravity of this offence must depend on the purpose for which the IC is used, and the sentence imposed by the court must in turn reflect the offence's gravity.
The Chief Justice reiterated that Parliament's decision not to criminalise breaches of self-exclusion orders is "highly material" to the determination of the proper punishment in such cases.
The court must bear in mind enforcement measures that have already been implemented in the Casino Control Act, which places the onus on casinos to conduct "stringent checks to ensure that excluded persons do not enter their premises", CJ Chan said.
"Criminalising breaches of self-exclusion orders will, in any event, lead to an absurd outcome," he added.
"The result will be that an excluded person who has the foresight to apply to lift his self-exclusion order before going to a casino to gamble is not a criminal, but an excluded person who momentarily succumbs to temptation and enters a casino to gamble despite the self-exclusion order in force against him is."
CJ Chan said deterrence should also be "sensitively applied" for family exclusion orders.
"Severe sentences for offences which consist essentially of breaching or attempting to breach a family exclusion order may inadvertently lead to greater internal conflict as the offenders concerned may blame their punishment on the family member who applied for the exclusion order," he added.
- TODAY