THE lure of the two casinos proved irresistible for a bored,
elderly family member of mine who quickly became addicted to
gambling, as well as the trappings surrounding it, at the
integrated resorts.
To mask his addiction, he wept and lied about failed stock
investments. Then, he admitted to his addiction, only to deny it
subsequently after my brother refused to give him any more
money.
Finally, he turned aggressive when we warned him that we would
apply to enrol him in the family exclusion scheme.
Little did we realise that we would face just as many problems
over that.
My brother called the National Council on Problem Gambling
(NCPG) helpline and left his contact details. When no reply came, I
called a week later, only to be informed that there were more than
300 applications still waiting to be processed and a counsellor had
to be assigned to each case.
We were told that only one place, the Tanjong Pagar Family
Service Centre, processed all applications and the NCPG would start
considering a ban only after it had received a lengthy report of
some 24 to 27 pages from the centre.
What's more, the hearing to determine the ban would involve the
addicted gambler as well as the family members to argue their
case.
When I sought clarification, such as the need to seek the
addicted gambler's approval in applying for the exclusion, the
reply was that those were the rules.
I sought an appointment but none was given.
I am stumped by the bureaucratic obstacles that stand in the way
of applying for a ban on casino entry, let alone being successful
in it.
What exacerbates my family's frustration is the stark contrast
between the public impression created - that it is easy and
convenient to obtain an order - and the reality that the process is
mired in red tape - from unsatisfactory front-line service to an
apparent lack of manpower in processing applications quickly.
Richard Ho
