Written on February 24, 2010 by Christopher Ong

Singapore — According to a report, there has been a rise in the applications for self-exclusion from the gambling tables of our casinos since Resort World Sentosa opened its doors on the 14th of Feb.
Some 100 applications have been received since the 12th of Feb, constituting roughly 40% of the total new applications so far. In all, the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) has received a total of 264 self-exclusion applications since it started receiving them in November last year.
However, the right attitude to approach the statistics would be to ask the skeptical question: Is it really enough?
Given that several thousands of people visited the casinos in its opening weeks, that only a hundred new applications are received should be considered a paltry number.
It is clear that a large majority of new visitors to the casinos, or potential ones, are not signing up for the self-exclusion order.
That there has been a rise of applications for self-exclusion should not come as a surprise.
On this issue, it surely should not be cited as an example that measures to control problems arising from gambling have been working.
Think about it this way. An ailing store that has problems with their profit margin announce that there is a 70% percent sale storewide on their items. A week later, the store reports a $100 profit compared to the previous week.
That there is a profit of a $100 for the store should come as no surprise given that there is sale. Surely business would pick up when a sale on its items has been introduced. But to claim that the 70% storewide sale is an effective measure to deal with the ailing profit margins is another assertion altogether.
We should definitely not praise the efficacy of anti-gambling measures just because there is a spike in applications, just as we should not argue that a storewide sale is a viable option to combat the ailing profit margins of a departmental store just because it has brought in a paltry increase in profit.
Rather, the right question should be asked is: Is it really enough?
It all seems well and jolly at the casinos, but for every report that the casinos has contributed to the well-being of our economy, there could be many more of families broken, lost savings and gambling addiction problems: stories that go unreported and unseen by the public eye.
It is important that we take gambling statistics with a pinch of salt. And rightly so.
One Comment on "Rise of self-exclusion applications: Is it enough?"
Other Reviews
Proper Reasons for Orchard Flood, please
Did he obstruct justice or did he not?
Should new citizens serve compulsory time at the grassroots level?
OTHER NEWS HEADLINE
Feature
MORE STORIES
Are Singaporeans becoming more easily irritable?Are Singaporeans becoming more irritable? Why do little things now seem to spark the ire of Singaporeans, than previously before?
Have Your Say
HAPPENING ABOUT TOWN
NUS Dance Ensemble - Lights offPoll
The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 25 Feb 2009 on Thu, 25th Feb 2010 11:57 am
[...] City – The Kent Ridge Commen: Rise of self-exclusion applications: Is it enough? – Chemical Generation Singapore: Sands on the Way – Reuters: UPDATE 2-Sands boost coming with [...]