Should foreign workers be allowed free entry?

Singapore — One of the first images that Singaporeans saw of the Resort World Sentosa Casino was splashed across the front page of the Straits Times after it opened for business on the 14th of Feb. And it did not take much looking into details of the photo to see that there were a few visitors who were sleeping on the floor outside the main entrance of the casino.

The debate then rang forth: should we classify foreign blue-collared workers in Singapore as ‘foreigners’ who need not pay the levy to enter the casino? Sure enough, most of them are not locals and are here on temporary work permits that require renewal after a short period of time. If they are not Singaporeans or PRs, the argument goes, then they should not be made to pay the levy, since problems – if any to begin with – that could arise from gambling will not seep into the Singapore society, as they would be in the country for a short period of time.

The $100 levy was introduced in the very first place to prevent those living from hand to mouth and on a meager salary to take to gambling as a form of income or as a way to increase their wealth. As any one can easily tell you, the odds are always stacked against you in the casino. The chances are most likely that a person will end up poorer from his visits to the casino in the long-run. If middle-income Singaporeans who earn can barely earn a living end up losing their savings from the casino, then social problems will definitely arise from the legalization of gambling.

The foreign blue-collared workers, although not Singaporeans, should not be allowed free entry into the casino. This is the case even if Singapore society does not stand to suffer any of their problems from poverty.

There have been calls for foreign blue-collared workers to pay the levy resting on the point of them hogging casino space without gambling, or loitering around the casino premises (and even sleeping outside on the stairs) much to the dismay of foreign tourists, the supposed real target segment of the casino. As one reader in the Chinese daily Lianhe Wanbao wrote, most of the foreign workers enter just to obtain ‘the free drinks’ given by the casino and to watch others gamble. According this reader, there would be about 10 onlookers at each casino table, all foreign workers, who would occupy spaces and prevent others from making a real bet.

But the real debate comes when a spokesman from the National Council on Problem Gambling argued that “the casino entrance fee was made solely for Singapore citizens and PRs as a deterrent towards problem gambling.”

Let’s think about this point. If we are all living in the same piece of land, there is no such thing as having peace when the person next to you isn’t. Already there has been reports of a tourist stealing a young female Singaporean’s handphone at the airport after losing heavily at the casino. And this is just an obvious example to make that problem gambling by foreigners in Singapore will have its repercussions on Singaporeans even if the foreigners are going to go home after 6 months. The possibilities of repercussions from problem gambling by foreigners are endless.

There can be steps to tackle this problem. Perhaps the first step can be made to change the rules on who should and should not pay the levy to enter casinos. Rather than just making Singaporeans and PRs pay the levy, why not make everyone, except the tourists, pay it? If you are a foreigner working in a MNC in Singapore, you should be required to pay the levy, even if you do not hold a pink IC. Imagine the simple and very real possibility of a foreigner who works in a MNC in Singapore who loses tens of thousands of dollars on the casino tables, while dealing with very large amount of financial transactions at his workplace. Surely then he might be tempted to commit corporate fraud which may be to the detriment to Singaporeans at large?

There is a real case to be made in changing who should and should not pay the levy.