SINGAPORE — He earns less than S$30,000 a year, yet frequents the casino and spends the family’s money for groceries. The food court assistant also borrows money from loansharks, repaying them when he receives his salary. As he is neither bankrupt nor on social assistance, he is not barred from entering the two casinos here.

From Saturday, the gambler and his family have the option of limiting the number of his monthly visits to the casino.

The Ministry of Social and Family Development announced yesterday that the Casino Visit Limit will take effect from that day, an initiative that it says complements the existing exclusion system. First mooted last July and with legislation passed last November, it will be available to citizens and permanent residents.

The casino visit limit may also be imposed by the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG). About 4,000 to 6,000 individuals identified as visiting casinos six times or more a month could receive letters from next month requesting information on their financial situation. Reminders and proposed visit limits will be sent to those who do not respond, and they will be given “reasonable opportunity” to object to the visit limit.

The NCPG will not check income or credit records without consent from the individual or his family, but a three-member committee of assessors may impose a visit limit in absence of a response. They also have the discretion to issue an exclusion order. Those who sign themselves up for visit limits will be able to select from five options ranging from one to eight per month.

Acting Minister for Social and Family Development Chan Chun Sing stressed yesterday that not all individuals sent letters by the NCPG will end up with visit limits imposed, adding that there is no single frequency of visits that will apply to those affected. Visit limits are “an additional tool” for the Government to combat problem gambling and are not meant to “solve the entire problem”, he said.

Observers said the effectiveness of visit limits remains to be seen. Member of Parliament (Moulmein-Kallang) Denise Phua believes they may be “limited in impact”. She said: “The damage done in even one visit can be major for a financially vulnerable person or a potential addict.” A “plausible solution” to address concerns that visit limits may increase gambling intensity could be to impose additional loss or bet limits on vulnerable patrons, said Sengkang West MP Lam Pin Min.

Asked if there are plans to cap the amount of money patrons are able to bet, Mr Chan said other jurisdictions with such a measure have seen mixed results, and the Singapore authorities would “have to watch this very carefully before we decide”. Problem gambling is a complex issue and besides social safeguards, individuals must realise they have a problem and have family support, he said.

Visit limits could be an easier compromise between gamblers and their families than exclusion orders, said Deputy Director of Thye Hua Kwan Problem Gambling Recovery Centre Gerald Goh, adding that the limit allows gamblers to still visit casinos, while “raising awareness of gambling behaviour and the harm brought to the family before things worsen”.

Neo Chai Chin