Source : Shutterstock.

The Workers’ Party issued an announcement on Wednesday (28 September) that it notes with concern the applications from Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club (STC) to launch online betting services.

The Workers’ Party said that there are no lack of legal gambling venues in Singapore, including the two casinos and hundreds of outlets accepting bets for Singapore Pools and STC.

It opposes the granting of exemptions to any organisation to operate remote and online betting services and calls on the government to reject these applications.

Here is the full letter written by the party :

The Workers’ Party notes with concern the applications from Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club (STC) to launch online betting services.

There are no lack of legal gambling venues in Singapore, including the two casinos and hundreds of outlets accepting bets for Singapore Pools and STC.

When the government decided to clamp down on remote gambling in 2014, it cited concerns about addictive behaviour and easy access to these games. Should the Government approve their applications, Singapore Pools and STC will have 24/7 virtual betting outlets available in almost every home and mobile device.

This convenience may encourage Singaporeans to take up the habit and possibly become a gateway to more serious gambling. The social costs of gambling on families are well documented, and the number of problem gambling cases in Singapore has been on the rise.

It makes little sense for the government to close one door on remote gambling in order to “protect young persons and other vulnerable persons”, while opening another door that exposes them to the ills of gambling in their homes.

During the second reading of the Remote Gambling Bill in 2014, the Government rejected the Workers’ Party call to send the Remote Gambling Bill – specifically the clauses that dealt with exemptions – to a Select Committee of Parliament for further scrutiny and oversight. Nonetheless, the Government committed itself to step up public education and awareness efforts with a specific focus on online gambling. However, as of today, it remains unclear what are the Government’s specific plans and strategies to address the negative effects of online gambling, especially on young and vulnerable persons.

The WP’s 2015 Manifesto contained five proposals to fight problem gambling, including the complete prohibition of remote and online gambling with no exemptions allowed. Exempting Singapore Pools and STC will undermine the government’s motivations for banning remote gambling in the first place.

We oppose the granting of exemptions to any organisation to operate remote and online betting services and we call on the government to reject these applications.

Read the speeches by WP MPs Png Eng HuatPritam Singh, and Yee Jenn Jong during the Parliamentary debate on Remote Gambling in 2014.

 

Pritam Singh
Assistant Secretary-General
The Workers’ Party
27 September 2016

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

林志蔚解析最低薪金制 经济讲师要工人党先实验政策提案?

上周,工人党盛港候任议员、也是一名经济学者的林志蔚,分析政府渐进式薪金模式和最低薪金制的差异。即便最低薪金制不是毫无疑问的好政策,但却是能改善雇员处境的良好开端,近期的研究,也倾向支持最低薪资制,即时薪资涨幅很大,对于低薪工友的就业问题实则带来冲击微小。 不过,新加坡管理大学经济系高级讲师吴正晓,在《联合早报》的交流站则表示要给林志蔚“两个建议”,认为对工人党的政策如最低薪金制不能“为了同意而同意”;再者也建议若林志蔚认为工人党政策可行,如冗员保险可先在盛港市镇会试行看下效果如何。 由于目前在冠病疫情影响下,对经济和社会造成冲击,他认为林志蔚在电视辩论,却提起最低薪金制感到惊讶,因为大部分经济学家都会反对在失业率上升、经济下行之时,实行最低薪金制。 “林志蔚把视野放到疫情后” 但民众林师顺也在另一篇文章强调,大选不仅仅是为了克服此次疫情举行,也是决定国家未来五年发展由谁带领。“身为在野党一员的林博士,把视野放到冠病疫情后的新加坡,在辩论中有此发言,并不奇怪。” 他认为吴正晓似乎误解了林志蔚,为何在辩论时提出最低薪资和冗员保险等提案。 在新加坡现有的渐进式薪金模式下的低薪员工,也是重要的劳动力,给予他们一定的薪资,应超越学术经济分析,是社会应该在解决贫富差距的课题上所进行的讨论。 吴正晓是在评论中指出,最低薪金制在目前仍有争议,尽管部分经济学家赞同,但大部分都会坚决反对在失业率上升和经济下行时,提高最低薪资。 至于冗员保险,他则分析假设一名员工一生工作40年,大概只有40/280(七分之一)的机会,他能够领取到这个保险赔付。 羊毛出在羊身上。以每月4元的保费,如果想这个保险能够持续可行,那么平均每1万3428÷4=3357个月,也即大约每280年,员工可以拿到一次保险赔付。 他认为低保费,高赔付的保险产品是存在的,只是大部分顾客永远得不到赔付。 “五年以后,在下一次大选的辩论会上,在推荐新政策的时候,如果林博士可以说他们已经“实验过了”(done…

Xenophobia and hypocrisy

~ By Gordon Lee ~ Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP he…

舆论:闭门会议谈话泄露– 本来无良誉 何惧损毁?

人权律师、前政治拘留者张素兰: 对于闭门会议谈话内容泄露,新加坡中华总商会会长黄山忠发表的声明把我逗乐了。信函中他担忧泄露事故会影响该会“崇高声誉”,也对有关偷录音会员的行为表达失望,事件恐影响部长和商会之间的信任。 请允许我在这里给会长先生一些安慰。 别担心被泄露的音频。私人会议上录音政府也常做,贵会会员的行为并不可耻。 其中一例,就是80年代,我在新加坡律师公会一项私人特别大会上发表的致词被未经许可录音。我的演说被秘密录音并逐字转载给当时的总理李光耀先生。1986年的律师专业法令修法,后者试图在国会特选委会听证会上诋毁我(尽管没有成功)。 所以会长先生,别担心。如果政府对待专业团体如律师公会,也可以表现如此卑劣,且在我看来前者比你的商会重要得多,我想贵会员泄露音频的行为相比下算是循规蹈矩了。 再者也不用对于贵会员可能拉低商会声誉感到遗憾。您和商会可能对贵会的“崇高声誉”过于自负。对我而言,贵会对于普通老百姓无所建树。实则贵会只对有钱有势者阿谀奉承。让我举例您如何让老百姓失望。 贵会有座富丽堂皇的礼堂,以贵会创始人暨知名慈善家和社运份子陈嘉庚命名。是开放予会员和民众租用的。 2015年,我代表我的协会–功能八号氏族会租用该礼堂,为陈嘉庚的外孙傅树介的著作《活在欺瞒年代》办推介活动。我付了510元抵押金。数日后我却被告知,贵会理事不让我租用,且没告知理由。 我立即写信给商会希望贵会重新考虑这不明智的决定。我把信件拷贝并电邮给所有有电邮邮址的理事。然而拥有“崇高声誉”的贵会却不屑回应和解释理由,为何不让贵会创办人外孙,在以其外公命名的大礼堂内办著作推介礼。 拜托会长先生,不用再去调查谁泄露陈振声部长的谈话内容啦。就我所知贵会也没有声誉。而且我知道,群众根本不在乎。 (译自原文:https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2020/02/20/dont-worry-about-damaged-reputation-from-the-leak-audio-recording-of-minister-chans-rant-for-you-have-no-reputation-to-begin-with/)

Town council investments: Annual reports do not answer questions

Transparency and accountability still lacking in town councils’ annual reports.