The Straits Times
Published on Dec 06, 2012

Banned gambler's repeated access remains unexplained


THE reply by the Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) ("Repeated visits by banned gambler: Regulator replies"; Monday) did not answer Mr M. Lukshumayeh's key question captured in the headline ("How did man enter casino 20 times despite ban?"; Nov 22) about how Tan Hiang Seng entered the casino on 20 different occasions with another person's identity card.

Instead, the reply alluded to Tan's conviction for the offence under the National Registration Act and the recent amendment to the Casino Control Act.

The reply added that the CRA has and will continue to act against the casino operators where they have breached their duties in this regard. If that is so, wasn't there a breach of duties involving Tan? The CRA's reply suggests not and if that is so, I beg to differ. There must have been a clear lapse on the part of the operators that allowed a banned gambler to sneak in repeatedly.

I am thus puzzled as to why the CRA did not take the operators to task and instead asked them to step up the checks at the entry points of the casino which the operators "agreed" to, obviously.

Rajasegaran Ramasamy