Bosses send foreign workers to gamble

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
#1
It's really a disgusting practice!

The Straits Times
Nov 4, 2011
special report
Bosses send foreign workers to gamble

Workers share in casino winnings, but if they lose too much, they pay

By Elizabeth Soh

A HARD day's work for Bangladeshi construction worker Salim used to mean toiling under the burning sun.

But nowadays, at least once a week, he finds himself assigned to a very different kind of 'job' - playing the jackpot machines in the cool air-conditioned comfort of Resorts World Sentosa.

The 29-year-old is one of a number of foreign employees being sent to the casino to gamble on behalf of their employers to feed their own habit, a Straits Times investigation has found.

Five bosses - some with exclusion orders against them - told The Straits Times that they have been handing workers cash, notebooks and mobile phones, then dispatching them to the casino.

They claimed to know several other employers doing the same thing.

The 'proxy gamblers', dressed mostly in company polo T-shirts and jeans, get a cut of the winnings, but if they lose too much, their pay is docked.

This arrangement allows employers who are barred due to their own excessive gambling a vicarious way to indulge their habit.

The others say it is a way to maximise their chances of winning at the slot machines or roulette tables.

Five foreign workers The Straits Times found gambling at Resorts World Sentosa on a Friday said they were not forced to do it, and were enjoying themselves. The casino's air-conditioned, carpeted halls certainly were a welcome change from sweating in the hot sun.

Instead of welding steel sheets together, Salim walked around the jackpot machines, looking for the right place to spend his $500. His aim was to find machines that had not paid out in a while.

'Boss says to find those with less win, more money,' said Salim, as he scribbled down the amounts.

Next, he proceeded to the roulette table, where he placed bets on four of his employer's favourite 'lucky numbers'. He was with his colleague and fellow countryman Rajib, 32, who has been gambling longer and is entrusted with $800.

Both men had been given strict instructions to write down every bet they made, and their losses and wins. They get 10 per cent of anything they win, but if they lose more than $500, the entire loss is cut from their pay.

The pair work together to make sure that they do not get carried away at certain jackpot machines and meet every two hours to update their boss, subcontractor Edmund Ng, 59, who runs a cabinet and furniture business.

Another proxy gambler, cabinet-maker Ishan, 35, said: 'Boss says, lose too much, unlucky, change machine. Sometimes, we play too long, forget how much we lose, after that then got trouble.'

The Straits Times spoke to five sub-contractors who regularly send their workers to gamble. They said they knew of at least 15 others doing the same. All said they did not force the workers to go to the casino. Three have exclusion orders taken out by family members.

The sub-contractors each send two workers at around 10am. The men take lunch and tea breaks, buying sandwiches or rice dishes from the casino eateries. They do not leave until their employers pick them up at around 10pm, or sometimes as late as midnight.

Mr Eric Leong, 56, sends three workers to the casino once or twice a week.

'I see it as diversifying my chances of winning money,' he said. 'If I play, it's one person. Two persons play, it's twice the chances.'

Mr Leong, who is barred, said that he spends equal amounts betting on horse races, soccer games, and buying lottery tickets. He and his fellow sub-contractors avoid suspicion by getting their workers covered with medical certificates for the days spent at the casino.

'If the manpower officials question me, I will just say my worker is ill and sneaked off to gamble - what can they say?' said Mr Leong, whose company handles minor renovation work such as laminating floors and painting.

The employers said they pick intelligent workers who have been with them for at least three years and whom they trust. The men are given ready answers in case they are questioned.

'If the casino people ask me, why so much money, I say, pay day today,' said Ishan, who is given $700 per trip. 'If they ask, how come I can come to casino on week day, I say (day) off because project finished already.'

To avoid arousing suspicion, they are told not to linger in the free drinks area or cheer when they win.

'We tell them to look neat and tidy so the casino staff don't take special notice of them,' said Mr Wee A. K, 63, who runs a small furniture company.

The employers check the men's pockets and bags at the start and end of the day out at the casino to make sure they are not hiding cash.

The day The Straits Times met them, Salim and Rajib were at the casino from 10am to 8pm. Rajib lost $495. Salim looked downcast at the end of the day, but did not want to say if he lost money.

Salim, who has a wife and two young children to support in Bangladesh, insisted that the arrangement is worthwhile on the whole.

'Sometimes, in casino, I one day can win $700,' he said. 'Every month I earn only $1,000. You tell me, which one is better?'

Migrant rights activists condemned the employers' actions.

'It's very wrong. The men are willing to work at the jobs they were hired for and they should be able to do that work and get paid for it, not used for anything else,' said Mr John Gee, president of migrant workers' rights group Transient Workers Count Too.

'They have no choice but to do as their bosses say and they come away worse off. It is illegal deployment and it is unethical.'

Gambling counsellors said the bosses were putting their workers at risk of becoming gambling addicts.

'When they go into casinos it's not just the gambling - the whole atmosphere, they might be enjoying it and want to go back to forget about their problems and the hardship they are facing,' said consultant psychiatrist Tan Hwee Sim.

'They are a high-risk group - the margins are small and they can easily get carried away, fall into debt, and they have no family support to help guide them away from it.'

esoh@sph.com.sg

--------------------------------

THE WORKER
'If I win big, maybe I can go home'


WHEN a Bangladeshi painter arrived in Singapore five years ago, he had hoped to save enough money to go home for good three years later.

His plans, however, were foiled when he had to pay for his mother-in-law's medical expenses as she battled cancer. Then he had to build a house for his wife and three children, and settle debts owed to relatives back in his village.

So when the painter, who wanted to be called Rajib, was offered a chance by his boss about a year ago to try his luck at the Resorts World casino, he grabbed the offer.

He said his employer sends him to the casino once or twice a week and gives him $800 each time to gamble. He plays mostly at jackpot machines or at blackjack and roulette tables.

If he wins, he gets a 10 per cent cut and usually a tip of another 5 per cent from his boss.

If he loses more than $500, the whole sum is deducted from his monthly pay of about $1,200. If he loses less than $500, the boss will absorb the loss.

'If I win big a few times, maybe I can go home for a long time to see my children, wife and house,' said Rajib who has worked for the same employer for the past five years.

But he let on that he has lost so much that he has not been able to send any money home for half a year. Asked why he did not stop gambling, his sheepish reply was that he could not control himself.

He insisted that he had not been forced or persuaded by his boss to gamble. He described his boss as a good man who helped him pay his family's medical bills and had kept his word at giving him his share of the winnings.

But Rajib has taken his interest in gambling a step further. On his days off, he goes to the Marina Bay Sands casino on his own.

Asked whether his colleagues at his dormitory get jealous because he goes to the casino instead of toiling at a construction site, he said they do scold him for gambling as he is a Muslim.

'But I don't care. Wait until I win big, then I go home first and they'll still be here,' he added with a laugh.

ELIZABETH SOH

---------------------------------------------

THE BOSS
'I'm giving my men a chance to get rich'


LIKE many other investors, businessman Edmund Ng believes that 'money grows money'.

But Mr Ng, 59, says his 'investments' are the foreign employees he sends to gamble on his behalf at the Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) casino.

The father of three described the process as 'creative' and 'multiplying my chances' of making money.

'To me, everything in life is a gamble and a game of chance. Some people put their money in shares, stocks; I choose to put mine in casinos. What's the difference?' said Mr Ng, whoruns a small business manufacturing hardwood furniture, and employs 15 foreign workers.

He also dabbles in other kinds of gambling, especially soccer betting and lottery tickets. He estimates that he spends about $20,000 a month on gambling.

He told The Straits Times that he was one of the first employers to start sending foreign workers to the casino, and that he had 'trained them well'.

'My men don't just walk around and behave like hooligans. They are neatly dressed and they don't make noise like other workers who go and make trouble when they lose,' he said.

He usually sends two men, and gives them $500 and $800 to gamble with respectively. To avoid suspicion from casino staff, he picks them up in his Mercedes-Benz later on.

Like other employers, he gives them a cut of between 10 per cent and 15 per cent of the winnings, and docks their pay if they lose more than a maximum sum.

'That way they will not lose too much for fear that they will lose their salary.' said Mr Ng, who added that he had at least 10 friends, fellow businessmen, who did the same thing.

'I also teach them how to back off when they are on a losing streak, or bet more when they feel their chances are good. All these things are also life skills.'

Mr Ng did not feel that he was exploiting his workers, saying instead that he was giving them a chance to get rich that they would not usually be able to afford.

'I don't think I am abusing my position as an employer,' he said. 'Anyway, it is much easier to gamble at the casino than sweat in the sun.'
My Value Investing Blog: http://sgmusicwhiz.blogspot.com/
Reply
#2
Me think it's not that simple. Bosses send their workers to the casino to play the jackpot machines, hoping and dreaming that one of those freakish day, one of them may strike the jackpot price of hundreds of thousand or even a million of $$$.
Then what is going to happen if one of them really has one of those freakish day of reckoning?
Is there going to be a headline about murder in the news? Or is there going to be a sensational casino news/gossip about Bangladesh worker sharing million $$$ with his Boss? Or better, news of an overnight millionaire Bangladeshi(by his hometown cost of living standard) worker in Singapore winning the Jackpot $ million price, who is assigned to play the jackpot machine in the casino by his Boss?
Oh my , oh my, i am getting a headache now. My imagination has gone haywire but not wild?
Never say never. Any thing can happen in life if you can imagine it or picture it.
Ha! Ha!
WB:-

1) Rule # 1, do not lose money.
2) Rule # 2, refer to # 1.
3) Not until you can manage your emotions, you can manage your money.

Truism of Investments.
A) Buying a security is buying RISK not Return
B) You can control RISK (to a certain level, hopefully only.) But definitely not the outcome of the Return.

NB:-
My signature is meant for psychoing myself. No offence to anyone. i am trying not to lose money unnecessary anymore.
Reply
#3
very enterprising and creativeness from bosses!! lolz! Big Grin

actually it's win-win situation for everyone!! gov-casino-bosses-workers!

it's a $ merry go-round! Big Grin

Just like singapore pools! Big Grin
1) Try NOT to LOSE money!
2) Do NOT SELL in BEAR, BUY-BUY-BUY! invest in managements/companies that does the same!
3) CASH in hand is KING in BEAR! 
4) In BULL, SELL-SELL-SELL! 
Reply
#4
Simple solution:

Only exempt tourists and business visitors from the daily levy. Everyone else, whether citizen, PR, student visa, employment pass, S-pass, work permit, long-term social visit pass etc should pay the daily levy.

This way the casinos rob the visitors and send them home, while those who are here for the long term, whether to study, work etc will not gamble and go broke, at least not as much. It is high time for the CRA to acknowledge that the current rules do not go far enough to mitigate the social problems the casinos are creating.

Workers especially are a problem - a broke worker is not productive, and the company will have lost perhaps 2 years in training him. It's a lose-lose for the manufacturing economy.

I also think the annual levy package should be removed (to avoid giving a discount) and that the daily levy should increase, but those are separate matters. While Singapore has no need to become even more of a nanny state, those in power have a responsibility not to abuse the inherent weaknesses in human nature, the propensity to gamble being one of them.

As usual, YMMV.
Reply
#5
(04-11-2011, 12:39 PM)d.o.g. Wrote: I also think the annual levy package should be removed (to avoid giving a discount) and that the daily levy should increase, but those are separate matters. While Singapore has no need to become even more of a nanny state, those in power have a responsibility not to abuse the inherent weaknesses in human nature, the propensity to gamble being one of them.
As usual, YMMV.
The terms were already negotiated during the tendering phase and I doubt it is easy for Sing gov to change the term without affecting its business friendly image or being accused of shifting the goal post.




Reply
#6
(04-11-2011, 12:39 PM)d.o.g. Wrote: Simple solution:

Only exempt tourists and business visitors from the daily levy. Everyone else, whether citizen, PR, student visa, employment pass, S-pass, work permit, long-term social visit pass etc should pay the daily levy.

This way the casinos rob the visitors and send them home, while those who are here for the long term, whether to study, work etc will not gamble and go broke, at least not as much. It is high time for the CRA to acknowledge that the current rules do not go far enough to mitigate the social problems the casinos are creating.

Workers especially are a problem - a broke worker is not productive, and the company will have lost perhaps 2 years in training him. It's a lose-lose for the manufacturing economy.

A very good suggestion! Any way to forward it to the relevant decision makers for their consideration?

<Joke> : I don't see why foreign workers should get this 'benefit' to enter the casino for free when the citizens have to pay to enter! Tongue

Luck & Fortune Favours those who are Prepared & Decisive when Opportunity Knocks
------------ 知己知彼 ,百战不殆 ;不知彼 ,不知己 ,每战必殆 ------------
Reply
#7
(04-11-2011, 12:39 PM)d.o.g. Wrote: I also think the annual levy package should be removed (to avoid giving a discount) and that the daily levy should increase, but those are separate matters. While Singapore has no need to become even more of a nanny state, those in power have a responsibility not to abuse the inherent weaknesses in human nature, the propensity to gamble being one of them.

I think there was some discussion on raising the entry levy to $300 per day, but the final details have not been worked out yet.

And yes, I do agree with you on scrapping of the Annual Levy. I think such a levy defeats the purpose of preventing locals from entering casino!
My Value Investing Blog: http://sgmusicwhiz.blogspot.com/
Reply
#8
Maybe this is one of the perks offered to FTs.Huh
Reply
#9
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/di...;whole=yes
Quote:116.
—(1) Subject to subsection (3), a casino operator shall not allow any person who is a citizen or permanent resident of Singapore to enter or remain on the casino premises at any time on any day unless the person has paid to the casino operator an entry levy of —
(a)
$100 for every consecutive period of 24 hours; or
(b)
$2,000 for a valid annual membership of the casino.
(2) All entry levies collected by a casino operator under subsection (1) shall be paid to the Singapore Totalisator Board within the prescribed time and shall be used by that Board for public, social or charitable purposes in Singapore.
(3) A casino operator shall not refund, remit or reimburse, directly or indirectly, any entry levy paid or payable by any person under subsection (1).
(4) The Minister may, after the expiration of 10 years commencing from the date on which a second site for a casino is designated by an order made under section 2(2), by order published in the Gazette, vary the entry levies specified in subsection (1).

They cannot anyhow change the levy.. The levy will stay till 2018 or 2019?
Reply
#10
Quote:I also think the annual levy package should be removed (to avoid giving a discount) and that the daily levy should increase, but those are separate matters. While Singapore has no need to become even more of a nanny state, those in power have a responsibility not to abuse the inherent weaknesses in human nature, the propensity to gamble being one of them.

Indeed, it should be removed. The annual levy makes things worse for Singaporeans. If a Singaporean paid thousands of dollars for the levy, wouldn't he make full use of it by visiting the casino as frequent as he can? The casino always has the house edge. With the odds against the Singaporean, the law of averages will guarantee that he loses money if he visits the casino frequent enough. Since gambling is addictive, the more a person gambles, the deeper the addiction.

Collecting tax revenues from casino is another set of perverse incentives for our civil servants. The government becomes richer as more Singaporeans visit the casinos and risk becoming problem gamblers. The government should avoid putting themselves in a position that benefit by putting citizens' in harm's way. It is a conflict of interest.

------------------------------------
Trust yourself only with your money
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)