SINGAPORE, Oct 8 — She was not the only Member of Parliament (MP) who argued yesterday for a total ban on remote gambling, but Moulmein-Kallang GRC MP Denise Phua also went a step further to again urge a rethink of casino operations here.

Almost 10 years after the Government decided to allow casinos in Singapore, Ms Phua questioned whether it was time to review its position. “When will Singapore wean itself off the casino industry, reduce the casinos from two to one to nil, especially in light of new potential entrants such as Japan and other Asian countries?

“With the tightening of foreign labour in Singapore, have the casinos now become competitors for manpower from our local small and medium enterprises? … What is our progress in learning skills such as operating the meetings, incentives, conferences and exhibitions (sector) and family entertainment industries, which the integrated resorts have exposed us to?”

While relieved that Singapore has “exercised strong self-restraint” in the brick-and-mortar casino business, it is time for the Government to take a holistic approach to discourage gambling as an economic or social activity, said Ms Phua. “It is not enough to make silo, piecemeal introductions of legislation and policies”, though they may be well-intentioned.

While the long-term place of gambling in Singapore is being reviewed, Ms Phua proposed for more to be done to discourage this activity among Singaporeans — such as by increasing the casino levy and creating an opt-in system, so only those who wish to gamble sign up.

Separately, responding to questions for written answers tabled by Marine Parade GRC MP Seah Kian Peng, Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Teo Chee Hean said about 8 per cent of casino day-entry levies had been paid by Singaporean patrons to extend their stay in the two casinos here. Of these, more than half did so on two occasions or fewer during the year. He added that there are currently no plans to place restrictions on consecutive day-entry levies.

Mr Teo also noted that the day-entry levy is valid for multiple visits within a 24-hour period. “We do not have readily available data on the number who stayed beyond 24 hours in a continuous stretch.”  — TODAY