| General |
| Q1: |
Why are we
considering an Integrated Resort? |
| Q2: |
What is the
type of Integrated Resort we are considering? |
| Q3: |
What are some
of the expected economic benefits of the Integrated Resort? |
| Q4: |
Can't we just
have the Integrated Resort without the casino? Are there other
alternatives to rejuvenate our tourism landscape? |
| Q5: |
Why can't we
focus our efforts on other engines of growth? Let our tourism industry
carry on as it is and focus our efforts elsewhere. |
| Q6: |
Studies have
found that casinos have a negative social impact on the community around
them. Doesn't this clearly state the case against having an IR? |
| Q7: |
What kind of
public consultation has been conducted so far? |
| Q8: |
Our tourism
industry has managed perfectly well without a casino so far. Is it
necessary to make gambling a key part of our tourism strategy? |
| Q9: |
Casinos only
attract gamblers. Why does the Government want to attract gamblers? Are
we sure we can attract many gamblers to Singapore? |
| Q10: |
Casinos rely
on local clientele to survive. Crown casino, for instance, relies mainly
on local patrons. Why should we believe investors who say otherwise? |
| Q11: |
The Government
is overstating the economic case for casinos. Won't casinos cannibalise
and damage surrounding hotels, entertainment venues or convention
facilities? |
| |
|
| Social Safeguards |
| Q12: |
Studies have
found that casinos have a negative social impact on the community around
them. Doesn't this clearly state the case against having an IR? |
| Q13: |
Why should
admission to the casino by Singapore residents be restricted by
membership? Is the $100 levy a sufficient deterrent? |
| Q14: |
Why not
prohibit local participation entirely? |
| Q15: |
Why is the
minimum age at 21 years old higher than the minimum age of 18 years old
for other legal gambling activities (e.g. lotteries, sports betting,
horse racing, fruit machines in clubs)? |
| Q16: |
What is
self-exclusion? Is it effective in reducing problem gambling? |
| Q17: |
What is the
rationale behind prohibiting casinos to extend credit to Singapore
residents? |
| Q18: |
What is the
purpose of having a system of voluntary loss-limits? |
| Q19: |
What is the
rationale of prohibiting casino advertising on local mass media? |
| Q20: |
What is the
purpose of patron education on gambling? |
| |
|
| Law & Order |
| Q21: |
Will the
presence of a casino lead to an increase in law and order problems? |
| |
|
| Request for Concepts |
| Q22: |
Will the
Government be sharing the outcome of the RFC exercise with the
public/media? |
General
| Q1: |
Why are we considering an Integrated Resort?
|
| A: |
The economic and tourism landscape in the region is
changing very rapidly. The growth of the Asia Pacific outbound market,
fuelled by the growing middle class in China, India, ASEAN, and the
emergence of low cost airlines present significant opportunities. Many
countries in the region are moving quickly to develop major tourist
attractions and exciting tourism products. We need to respond and adapt
to the increasingly competitive environment or we will gradually lose
out on our tourism share.
This is a key reason why we studied the feasibility of an Integrated
Resort (IR). An IR will contribute significantly to Singapore's overall
positioning as a premium must-visit destination offering a wide range of
entertainment experiences for the leisure and business visitors. This
resort will be part of a larger spectrum of tourism products we are
developing to enhance our destination appeal.
An IR will generate significant economic benefits for Singapore. First,
the investments in IR developments are likely to be substantial. For
example, US$1.6 billion was spent to develop the Bellagio in Las Vegas
and US$2.4 billion will be spent to develop the upcoming Wynn Las Vegas
resort. In addition, they create significant jobs and economic
spin-offs. Second, IRs boost tourism receipts. Las Vegas, with a
population of less than 2 million, attracts 36 million visitors each
year. Las Vegas is the top convention city in the US and draws in many
business travellers.
We are mindful of the concerns regarding the potential social impact of
a casino and hence have been studying the various issues carefully.
|
| Q2: |
What is the type of Integrated Resort we are
considering? |
| A: |
We do not want a gambling hall in Singapore. We have
studied various models that the Integrated Resort can take. The
Integrated Resort that we envision in Singapore is an iconic destination
resort that offers world-class entertainment and leisure facilities.
Casino gaming is becoming widely available around the world and we have
no intention of developing a gambling attraction to compete in the
gambling market. The Integrated Resort in Singapore will not be like the
gambling facilities in Macau or Australia (which mainly cater to local
patrons).
One possible model for Singapore is a premium, large scale development
which takes advantage of beach and marina settings to create a truly
get-away holiday feel for visitors. A themed mega-resort is a tourist
destination in its own right. Sited away from the buzz of the city
centre, it has a wide range of entertainment facilities such as hotels,
restaurants, retail outlets, theatres, and themed attractions. The best
example of this model is the Atlantis resort on Paradise Island in the
Bahamas.
Another possible model is one sited within the city as part of a
high-intensity mixed-use development. The facilities usually include
hotels, shopping, F&B, theme attractions as well as cultural amenities
such as concert halls, theatres and museums. They add to the buzz and
colour of the city. Examples are the urban integrated resorts in Las
Vegas.
|
| Q3: |
What are some of the expected economic benefits of
the Integrated Resort? |
| A: |
Let us look at some examples of world-class integrated
resorts overseas. Similar to these developments, we can expect the
Integrated Resort in Singapore to attract more international visitors,
increase our tourism receipts and boost our overall tourism industry.
For example, in the Bahamas, hotel occupancy rose from below 65% in 1993
to a healthy 80% in 2003 after Kerzner International took over an ailing
casino resort on the brink of bankruptcy and transformed it into
Atlantis Resort. Atlantis was instrumental in turning the Bahamian
tourism industry around. Kerzner also became the largest non-government
employer, providing 8% of employment in the Bahamas.
Las Vegas receives 35 million visitors a year. Reports indicate that
5.7mil of them are convention delegates, which is a lucrative market. It
is the largest convention city in the US. 80% of visitors to Las Vegas
were repeat visitors (Source: Las Vegas Convention and Visitors
Authority). 65% of Bellagio's (one of the integrated resorts in Las
Vegas) revenues are from non-gaming components (e.g. retail, dining,
entertainment).
These figures speak for themselves. The casino not only generates
revenue, but also generates a buzz that brings more people to shops,
restaurants, convention venues, entertainment venues and other
attractions.
|
| Q4: |
Can't we just have the Integrated Resort without the
casino? Are there other alternatives to rejuvenate our tourism
landscape? |
| A: |
Overseas experiences have shown that similar
entertainment hubs may not be economically viable if we remove the
casino component. This is because the gaming and non-gaming components
in such complexes are interdependent. Revenue generated from the casino
is used to cross-subsidise the other non-gaming attractions, which in
turn attract the large number of visitors. These facilities leverage off
each other and become viable because of the high volume of traffic drawn
to the wide range of entertainment options available.
One point that has been raised quite often is whether we can have a
similar development, for example a mega theme park without the casino
component. Any private sector developer of a mega theme park without
casinos is more than welcome to participate when we request for
concepts.
Projects like Disney theme parks or the Guggenheim museum in Bilbao
typically require a significant amount of Government co-investment. For
instance, out of the total project cost of S$5.8 billion for
Disneyworld, the Hong Kong Government is committing a total of S$4.8
billion to the project. The Guggenheim museum in Bilbao required the
government to commit more than US$150 million - i.e. US$100 million went
towards construction and US$50 million to develop the collection. This
was topped off with US$20 million to the Guggenheim Foundation. This is
unlike the IR which we are considering, which is expected to be
privately funded.
While our tourism strategy is not dependent on the IR project alone, the
IR would play a very significant role in the overall strategy.
|
| Q5: |
Why can't we focus our efforts on other engines of
growth? Let our tourism industry carry on as it is and focus our efforts
elsewhere. |
| A: |
Our external environment has changed significantly. To
grow and prosper, Singapore needs to adopt a multi-pronged strategy to
seize economic opportunities swiftly.
The development of our tourism industry cannot be viewed in isolation
from other sectors of our economy. Even as we continue growing Singapore
as a healthcare, aviation and life sciences hub, we must enhance our
entertainment quotient and destination appeal to leisure and business
visitors and foreign talent. For example, our status as an aviation hub
depends significantly on how attractive we are to overseas leisure and
business visitors. The growth of our life sciences industry depends on
our ability to attract foreign talent. Hence, our efforts in enhancing
our tourism industry through projects such as the IR would have
wide-ranging impact on other sectors of our economy.
|
| Q6: |
Studies have found that casinos have a negative
social impact on the community around them. Doesn't this clearly state
the case against having an IR? |
| A: |
The social impact of casinos has been studied widely
with varying results. There is no conclusive proof of the link between
casino gaming per se and social costs such as bankruptcies, fraud and
embezzlement, as evidenced in the seminal studies on the effects of
gambling by the US National Opinion Research Centre (NORC) and National
Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC). NORC's 1998 analysis of data
on 100 communities between 1980 and 1997 showed no significant change in
per capita bankruptcy rates in communities where casinos were
introduced. Empirically, the NGISC report also reached no conclusions on
whether gambling increased fraud occurrences in the general population.
The Australian Productivity Commission on the other hand, highlighted
that the main causal factor of problem gambling was not the casinos, but
the proliferation of Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs) in the community.
Among the major gambling forms, gaming machines and lottery products
were the most accessible. Casinos came last. The study identified a
correlation between states with higher access to EGMs and the prevalence
of problem gambling. For example, Victoria and New South Wales, which
both had the widest spread of EGMs especially in clubs, also had the
highest prevalence rates of problem gambling. By contrast, Western
Australia, which had banned EGMs (other than in Perth's Burswood
Casino), had the lowest prevalence rate.
As Singapore's context may differ from the Australian and US experience,
neither the NGISC's nor the APC's estimates would be a conclusive gauge
for Singapore.
Any cost benefit analysis should focus only on the incremental change.
More than $6 billion are already being wagered every year by
Singaporeans in local betting outlets. An estimated US$900 million is
gambled away by Singaporeans in casinos around the world. These figures
do not include Internet gambling by locals. Clearly, there would already
be a significant baseline social cost associated with this group,
regardless of whether the IR is built or not. The cost we should be
concerned with should therefore be the incremental social cost
associated with new local gamblers. If the impact of the IR is
largely drawn from the existing pool of punters while attracting few new
local gamblers, the incremental cost of an IR would be limited.
|
| Q7: |
What kind of public consultation has been conducted
so far? |
| A: |
The government consulted widely and considered all views
before arriving at a decision. We appreciate the significant number of
feedback that has been given through emails, letters and the forum
pages. In addition, the Feedback Unit organised
dialogue sessions
with various stakeholders (e.g. religious groups, grassroots leaders,
business community) to understand their concerns and gather their views
and suggestions.
|
| Q8: |
Our tourism industry has managed perfectly well
without a casino so far. Is it necessary to make gambling a key part of
our tourism strategy? |
| |
The IR project is one of the strategies that Singapore
is pursuing to boost its tourism appeal and generate economic growth.
The Singapore Tourism Board is actively working on many other tourism
initiatives such as branding, marketing, capability development, as well
as developing new attractions, pursuing new market segments and
streamlining regulations. Whilst our tourism strategies are not
dependent on the IR alone, it is an important project that can
significantly enable Singapore to capture our fair share of the growing
Asia-Pacific tourism pie.
|
| Q9: |
Casinos only attract gamblers. Why does the
Government want to attract gamblers? Are we sure we can attract many
gamblers to Singapore? |
| |
Our aim is to target tourists and overseas visitors, not
gamblers. Depending on the product offerings of the IR, the type of
customers can vary widely. Las Vegas and Atlantic City are two foremost
destinations in the US with casinos. However, they attract very
different types of customers. Las Vegas offers a wide range of iconic
destination resorts, whereas Atlantic City has smaller gaming
establishments with limited world-class amenities. In a study of
visitors to these two cities, almost 90% of visitors to Atlantic City
state that they visit primarily to gamble. In contrast, only 5% of
visitors to Las Vegas in 2003 do so because of gaming. Please refer to
figure 1 below.
Another example is in Bahamas. Casinos have been legal prior to 1994
when Kerzner International transformed Atlantis in the Bahamas into a
destination resort. The example of Bahamas prior to 1994 show that
having casinos to attract gamblers will not work in boosting the tourism
industry. What is needed is a world-class resort. This is what Kerzner
did in 1995, and revenue per available room night (RevPAR) rose sharply
from US$43 in 1994 to US$201 in 2003. In addition, hotel occupancy rose
from below 65% in 1993 to a healthy 80% in 2003. Please refer to figure
2 below.
|
| Q10: |
Casinos rely on local clientele to survive. Crown
casino, for instance, relies mainly on local patrons. Why should we
believe investors who say otherwise? |
| |
There are different IR models and not all IRs are the
same. For example, the Venetian in Las Vegas is significantly different
from Crown Casino or the gambling halls in Macau. The IR we envision in
Singapore is similar to those in Las Vegas and the Bahamas. We envision
a distinctive world-class development with a comprehensive range of
amenities such as hotels, convention facilities, entertainment shows,
theme attractions, luxury retail and fine dining. Different products
attract different clientele. This is revealed by the revenue sources of
the various casinos. Crown Casino derives more than half of its revenue
(about 70%) from gaming, unlike the Venetian or Atlantis where gaming
makes up 43% and 26% of the total revenue respectively. Please refer to
Figure 3 below. In addition, Crown Casino's clientele is predominantly
locals, as compared to the Venetian and Atlantis which attract a
significant number of tourists. The key is to ensure that we have the
right IR development.
|
| Q11: |
The Government is overstating the economic case for
casinos. Won't casinos cannibalise and damage surrounding hotels,
entertainment venues or convention facilities? |
| |
Not all casinos are integrated resorts. The type of
integrated resort we are looking for is one that will attract more
international visitors and grow the tourism pie. This will grow the
economic opportunities for other businesses. The case study of Atlantis
in the Bahamas is instructive. A few years after Kerzner International
transformed Atlantis in the Bahamas into a destination resort in 1995,
visitor arrivals increased. Tourism expenditure steadily increased to
US$1.67 billion by 2000, compared to about US$1.33 billion in 1994, and
the revenue per available room night also increased sharply over the
years from US$43 to US$138 over the same period. Other properties,
following Kerzner's successful example, began to upgrade. The total
number of completed construction projects also increased significantly,
peaking at US$512 million in 1998. (See figure 4 below).
|
Social Safeguards
| Q12: |
Studies have found that casinos have a negative
social impact on the community around them. Doesn't this clearly state
the case against having an IR? |
| A: |
The social impact of casinos has been studied widely
with varying results. There is no conclusive proof of the link between
casino gaming per se and social costs such as bankruptcies, fraud and
embezzlement, as evidenced in the seminal studies on the effects of
gambling by the US National Opinion Research Centre (NORC) and National
Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC). NORC's 1998 analysis of data
on 100 communities between 1980 and 1997 showed no significant change in
per capita bankruptcy rates in communities where casinos were
introduced. Empirically, the NGISC report also reached no conclusions on
whether gambling increased fraud occurrences in the general population.
Please refer to Annex A for more details.
The Australian Productivity Commission on the other hand, highlighted
that the main causal factor of problem gambling was not the casinos, but
the proliferation of Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs) in the community.
Among the major gambling forms, gaming machines and lottery products
were the most accessible. Casinos came last. The study identified a
correlation between states with higher access to EGMs and the prevalence
of problem gambling. For example, Victoria and New South Wales, which
both had the widest spread of EGMs especially in clubs, also had the
highest prevalence rates of problem gambling. By contrast, Western
Australia, which had banned EGMs (other than in Perth's Burswood
Casino), had the lowest prevalence rate.
As Singapore's context may differ from the Australian and US experience,
neither the NGISC's nor the APC's estimates would be a conclusive gauge
for Singapore.
Any cost benefit analysis should focus only on the incremental change.
More than $6 billion are already being wagered every year by
Singaporeans in local betting outlets. An estimated US$900 million is
gambled away by Singaporeans in casinos around the world. These figures
do not include Internet gambling by locals. Clearly, there would already
be a significant baseline social cost associated with this group,
regardless of whether the IR is built or not. The cost we should be
concerned with should therefore be the incremental social cost
associated with new local gamblers. If the impact of the IR is
largely drawn from the existing pool of punters while attracting few new
local gamblers, the incremental cost of an IR would be limited.
|
| Q13: |
Why should admission to the casino by Singapore
residents be restricted by membership? Is the $100 levy a sufficient
deterrent? |
| A: |
The objective of having membership requirements on
Singapore residents is to underscore the point that gambling is not and
will never be a way to earn a living. Instead it is an expense which
they should think over carefully before participating in. Admission
requirements also reduce impulse gambling. A higher levy will not
be more effective in deterring problem gamblers because they can easily
go to Batam instead (where round trip travelling expenses are less than
$50).
|
| Q14: |
Why not prohibit local participation entirely? |
| A: |
Singaporeans are mature and should be entrusted to make
responsible decisions. The vast majority are not predisposed to
developing problem gambling. The social safeguards should thus not be a
blanket ban on all local participation.
|
| Q15: |
Why is the minimum age at 21 years old higher than
the minimum age of 18 years old for other legal gambling activities
(e.g. lotteries, sports betting, horse racing, fruit machines in clubs)? |
| A: |
It would be prudent to set a higher minimum age for
casino gambling to protect the young. Casino gaming involves table games
and jackpot machines, which are characterised by rapid play, high
re-staking rates and instant gratification. These characteristics make
casino gambling appealing to the young. A higher minimum age also
protects young persons whom research has shown to be more susceptible to
problem gambling1.
|
| Q16: |
What is self-exclusion? Is it effective in reducing
problem gambling? |
| A: |
Self-exclusion provides a person who is at risk of
developing problem gambling the opportunity to voluntarily exclude
himself from the casino. The self-identified problem gambler can then
abstain from gambling, and seek assistance to control his problem.
Self-exclusion policies are also in place in US and Australia.
Exclusion by a close family member allows family members to request
exclusion of a problem gambler from the casino. This empowers a family
that is adversely affected by a problem gambler to seek assistance in
curbing the problem behaviour of the gambler.
We will also ask operators to implement consumer protection measures
such as staff training on problem gambling identification and a system
to allow gamblers to voluntarily specify loss limits upfront to reduce
the risks of excessive gambling.
|
| Q17: |
What is the rationale behind prohibiting casinos to
extend credit to Singapore residents? |
| A: |
This prevents Singaporeans from gambling on their future
earnings or beyond their means. It is an extension of our current policy
of not allowing existing gambling operators (i.e. Singapore Pools and
Singapore Turf Club) to issue credit. Australian casinos are prohibited
by statute from extending credit to residents.
|
| Q18: |
What is the purpose of having a system of voluntary
loss-limits? |
| A: |
A voluntary loss-limit system is a consumer protection
measure which allows casino patrons to voluntarily set a gambling budget
or limit their losses up-front in order to avoid over-gambling and
chasing of losses. This system can be implemented with smart-card
technology. Such a system has been put in place in the Crown Casino in
Melbourne for its gaming machine patrons.
|
| Q19: |
What is the rationale of prohibiting casino
advertising on local mass media? |
| |
Currently, we restrict gambling advertising in the local
mass media in a manner similar to smoking and tobacco. The same
treatment would apply to casinos. The intention is to prevent
glamourising gambling and inducing people to gamble.
|
| Q20: |
What is the purpose of patron education on gambling? |
| |
The purpose is to educate the public about the risks of
problem gambling and where help can be obtained, as in the case for
consumption of alcohol and tobacco. These measures would raise awareness
among gamblers on the signs and consequences of problem gambling and
encourage responsible gambling behaviour. Public awareness on problem
gambling also empowers friends and relatives of individuals at risk of
problem gambling to seek help for the gambler. Training for casino
employees will enable them to identify patrons who show obvious signs of
problem gambling and refer them for help.
Jurisdictions in the US like Nevada require casinos to display
information on problem gambling and help services in the gaming areas.
They also have to implement staff training on problem gambling.
|
Law & Order
| Q21: |
Will the presence of a casino lead to an increase in
law and order problems? |
| A: |
The government has conducted study visits overseas and
our law enforcement counterparts in other jurisdictions, such as Nevada,
Australia and UK, have informed us that with a robust and stringent
regulatory regime, casino-related crime can be kept under control. This
is also borne out by findings that there is no relationship between
crime and legalised gaming. In fact, the 2000 Public Sector Gaming Study
Commission suggested that casinos are more of a crime deterrent than an
instigator because the security on the premises of gambling facilities,
the multiple layers of regulatory control and the economic and social
benefits are effective deterrents to criminal activity.
The New Jersey Control Commission also reported that in Atlantic City,
the adjusted crime rate actually decreased from 69.9 per 1,000 visitors
in 1977, to 52.6 in 1996. This was remarkable considering that the
number of visitors increased by 400% during that period.
For Singapore, we will put in place stringent regulatory controls such
as imposing a tight licensing and screening regime for operators, and
measures against money laundering, vice and illegal money lending. These
would be similar to those imposed in leading gaming jurisdictions around
the world which have successfully kept casino-related law and order
problems under control.
|
Request for Concepts
| Q22: |
Will the Government be sharing the outcome of the RFC
exercise with the public/media? |
| A: |
To safeguard our competitive interests and to protect
the uniqueness of ideas and concepts of potential investors, we cannot
disclose details of the RFC plans. Any information, if released, would
be on an aggregated basis.
|
Source: Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI).
Note:
In Hong Kong, the underaged (below 18 years) register a
higher rate of pathological gambling compared to adults - 2.6% compared to
1.9%. (Source: Study of HK People's Participation in Gambling Activities
2002, Hong Kong Polytechnic University), 64% of a Hong Kong treatment
centre's clients who are pathological gamblers started gambling between
16-25 years old (Source: Caritas and Tung Wah Group of Hospitals, HK). The
Australian Productivity Commission also found that young males aged 18 - 24
years are more vulnerable to problem gambling.
|