All is lost when Government compromise the moral values and virtues for higher revenue.
Second Minister for Home Affairs and Trade and Industry S Iswaran has said the government is fully committed to contain the social impact of gambling.
He said there's an ongoing review of the regulatory framework and social safeguards for non-casino gambling, including gambling via online channels.
This will include studying carefully developments in other countries like the United States and the United Kingdom before drawing up the framework.
Mr Iswaran was addressing concerns raised by MPs as Parliament debated the amendments to the Casino Control Bill on Friday.
One key amendment is the introduction of new social safeguards in the form of a visit limit to the two casinos in Singapore.
Mr Iswaran said Singapore already has one of the world's most extensive social safeguards regime. It will continue to stay vigilant and ensure that vulnerable segments of society continue to be protected from the harms of gambling.
He said the value proposition of the Integrated Resorts is the economic benefits they bring and their roles in making Singapore a vibrant and dynamic economy. The two IRs also aim to create real opportunities for Singaporeans and Singapore companies.
Mr Iswaran said: "We want the IRs to continue to reinvest and upgrade their attractions and facilities, stay ahead of regional competitors, and remain compelling world-class tourist destinations. This way, they will create jobs for Singaporeans, attract more tourists and increase business opportunities for local SMEs.
Barred here? I'll go to Genting
Mention the word "curbs" along with casinos and it's guaranteed to raise brows of concern and worry among heartlanders.
"Don't treat us with kid gloves."
Don't get them wrong, because most of those I approached actually applaud the initiatives to curb gambling habits.
Indeed, 36 out of 42 heartlanders this correspondent spoke to this week admit to being gamblers at heart, and they say they can accept the more stringent social safeguards to keep some people out of the casinos.
The amended Casino Control Bill will require the two Integrated Resorts to do more in the area of promoting responsible gambling, alongside Government measures of imposing visit limits on the financially vulnerable.
Casinos are now required to draw up a responsible gambling programme based on best practices elsewhere. The Casino Regulatory Authority will need to approve it and the Authority will be further empowered to audit these measures to gauge their effectiveness, said Second Minister for Home Affairs S Iswaran on Friday.
Heartlanders like Mr Neo Aik Liang, 55, put it succinctly: The measures are good, as long as they don't affect him.
"I don't like the idea of visit limits. I don't think we should be nannied," he says.
You see, Mr Neo does not think he belongs to the "financially vulnerable" - and he does not want to reveal exactly what he earns. But he is a frequent gambler, having paid the annual entry levy to both casinos.
"I am a frequent visitor, so how, what will they do to me?" frets the manager, who spends an average of 20 days and up to $10,000 a month at both casinos. He is worried because some Members of Parliament have suggested that the annual levies may have encouraged gambling problems, because when spread out over the year, the amount is insignificant.
His friend, Tan Wei Kiat, 60, who is with him at the Clementi food centre, says snidely: "Luckily I didn't buy the annual levy."
But the retiree may fit the gambler profile that worries the authorities - he has lost about half of his savings from his regular fortnight visits to the casinos. Not just in Singapore, but also in Malaysia.
Yet he says: "That's nothing lah. It's not like I have lost my entire savings.
"And it's not like I've had to borrow money from legal or illegal moneylenders. If I am barred from entering the casinos here, I can always go to Genting Highlands or even on cruises. Who is going to stop me?"
Second Minister for Home Affairs and Trade and Industry S Iswaran has said the government is fully committed to contain the social impact of gambling.
He said there's an ongoing review of the regulatory framework and social safeguards for non-casino gambling, including gambling via online channels.
This will include studying carefully developments in other countries like the United States and the United Kingdom before drawing up the framework.
Mr Iswaran was addressing concerns raised by MPs as Parliament debated the amendments to the Casino Control Bill on Friday.
One key amendment is the introduction of new social safeguards in the form of a visit limit to the two casinos in Singapore.
Mr Iswaran said Singapore already has one of the world's most extensive social safeguards regime. It will continue to stay vigilant and ensure that vulnerable segments of society continue to be protected from the harms of gambling.
He said the value proposition of the Integrated Resorts is the economic benefits they bring and their roles in making Singapore a vibrant and dynamic economy. The two IRs also aim to create real opportunities for Singaporeans and Singapore companies.
Mr Iswaran said: "We want the IRs to continue to reinvest and upgrade their attractions and facilities, stay ahead of regional competitors, and remain compelling world-class tourist destinations. This way, they will create jobs for Singaporeans, attract more tourists and increase business opportunities for local SMEs.
Barred here? I'll go to Genting
Mention the word "curbs" along with casinos and it's guaranteed to raise brows of concern and worry among heartlanders.
"Don't treat us with kid gloves."
Don't get them wrong, because most of those I approached actually applaud the initiatives to curb gambling habits.
Indeed, 36 out of 42 heartlanders this correspondent spoke to this week admit to being gamblers at heart, and they say they can accept the more stringent social safeguards to keep some people out of the casinos.
The amended Casino Control Bill will require the two Integrated Resorts to do more in the area of promoting responsible gambling, alongside Government measures of imposing visit limits on the financially vulnerable.
Casinos are now required to draw up a responsible gambling programme based on best practices elsewhere. The Casino Regulatory Authority will need to approve it and the Authority will be further empowered to audit these measures to gauge their effectiveness, said Second Minister for Home Affairs S Iswaran on Friday.
Heartlanders like Mr Neo Aik Liang, 55, put it succinctly: The measures are good, as long as they don't affect him.
"I don't like the idea of visit limits. I don't think we should be nannied," he says.
You see, Mr Neo does not think he belongs to the "financially vulnerable" - and he does not want to reveal exactly what he earns. But he is a frequent gambler, having paid the annual entry levy to both casinos.
"I am a frequent visitor, so how, what will they do to me?" frets the manager, who spends an average of 20 days and up to $10,000 a month at both casinos. He is worried because some Members of Parliament have suggested that the annual levies may have encouraged gambling problems, because when spread out over the year, the amount is insignificant.
His friend, Tan Wei Kiat, 60, who is with him at the Clementi food centre, says snidely: "Luckily I didn't buy the annual levy."
But the retiree may fit the gambler profile that worries the authorities - he has lost about half of his savings from his regular fortnight visits to the casinos. Not just in Singapore, but also in Malaysia.
Yet he says: "That's nothing lah. It's not like I have lost my entire savings.
"And it's not like I've had to borrow money from legal or illegal moneylenders. If I am barred from entering the casinos here, I can always go to Genting Highlands or even on cruises. Who is going to stop me?"
