Members of Parliament (MPs) and industry watchers are concerned that the levies imposed on local visitors to the integrated resort (IR) casinos are not achieving its desired effect.
A whopping S$130 million in levies were collected from both IR casinos between April and November last year alone, The Straits Times reported.
It seems the idea of losing S$100 even before hitting the tables has not deterred a few thousand Singaporean and PR visitors from entering the casino daily, based on the above figure.
Mrs Lim Hwee Hwa, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office and Second Minister for Finance and Transport, said the S$130 million collected is already being recycled back into the community via the Singapore Totaliser Board (Tote Board).
The Tote Board is given all the money collected and hands them out as grants to community projects, Mrs Lim added.
Just last week, Singapore’s two IRs registered more than a million visits combined during the first few days of the Chinese New Year.
Marina Bay Sands (MBS) alone courted some 885,000 visitors — both locals and tourists — who celebrated CNY from 3 to 6 February.
Initially, the Government introduced the S$100 daily levy, or an annual one at S$2,000 to minimise the social impact of the casinos on Singaporeans and permanent residents (PRs).
But four out of seven MPs contacted by The New Paper on Sunday were concerned with the significant revenue collected and said there should be a review of the current levies.
Denise Phua, MP for Jalan Besar GRC, thinks it may be a good idea to increase the daily levy to deter gamblers.
“Maybe we should also think about getting rid of the annual levy,” she said. “This merely encourages more frequent attendance to spread out the levy by the gambler.”
MP for Jurong GRC, Madam Halimah Yacob, added, “The fact that we’re collecting S$130 million means that a lot of Singaporeans are going to the casinos. So the question we need to ask is: Is this a novelty factor?”
The situation requires close monitoring, and if the levies collected still remain high in two or three years’ time, then there would be a need to review it or think of other deterrents, she said.
She added, “But we need to look beyond the levy, there are other measures to educate Singaporeans. We should also make sure the IRs do not target Singaporeans.”
Mr Liang Eng Hwa, MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, feels the levy amount should not be cast in stone.
“We should review it from time to time in light of data related to problem gambling,” he explained.
MP for Aljunied GRC Madam Cynthia Phua said there was a need for more meaningful information, such as how many Singaporeans and PRs are visiting the casinos before reviewing the levy.
“To me, it’s still very early, some of them may visit out of curiosity. We should monitor this trend. So far, the ground impact has not surfaced very seriously,” she said.
Mr Tony Compton, who lectures on casino management at the Boston Business School here, agrees.
He said, “The levy was put there by law to deter those who just want to go to the casino for fun or those who are half-hearted about paying S$100 to go in. Those who want to go in to gamble will not be deterred by a higher entry levy.”
Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry S Iswaran said last December that it was still too early to tell the full extent of the social impact that casinos are having in Singapore.
He added that the Government is monitoring the situation closely and will take additional measures if necessary.
But are there plans to raise the levy amount?
When contacted, the Ministry of Community Development, Youth & Sports (MCYS) declined to comment.
The casino levy, announced in December 2004, was among a basket of “social safeguards” spelt out for investors interested in developing the IRs. It was to serve as a signal that gambling was not a way to make a living.
The then Second Trade and Industry Minister Vivian Balakrishnan explained in Parliament in 2005 that the levy was set at S$100 because it is more than what Singaporeans must fork out to travel to Batam or Genting – the two nearest casino destinations.
“So by pitching it at that level, it allows me to honestly tell you that we are not making gambling more accessible. But let me also say frankly that no amount of levy will deter compulsive gamblers,” he said.
Singapore is unique in requiring casinos to collect the levy.
Malaysia requires Genting casinos to ban Muslims, while South Korea allows just one of its 14 casinos to admit local residents.
Do you think the Government should raise the casino levy at our IRs?
It seems the idea of losing S$100 even before hitting the tables has not deterred a few thousand Singaporean and PR visitors from entering the casino daily, based on the above figure.
Mrs Lim Hwee Hwa, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office and Second Minister for Finance and Transport, said the S$130 million collected is already being recycled back into the community via the Singapore Totaliser Board (Tote Board).
The Tote Board is given all the money collected and hands them out as grants to community projects, Mrs Lim added.
Just last week, Singapore’s two IRs registered more than a million visits combined during the first few days of the Chinese New Year.
Marina Bay Sands (MBS) alone courted some 885,000 visitors — both locals and tourists — who celebrated CNY from 3 to 6 February.
Initially, the Government introduced the S$100 daily levy, or an annual one at S$2,000 to minimise the social impact of the casinos on Singaporeans and permanent residents (PRs).
But four out of seven MPs contacted by The New Paper on Sunday were concerned with the significant revenue collected and said there should be a review of the current levies.
Denise Phua, MP for Jalan Besar GRC, thinks it may be a good idea to increase the daily levy to deter gamblers.
“Maybe we should also think about getting rid of the annual levy,” she said. “This merely encourages more frequent attendance to spread out the levy by the gambler.”
MP for Jurong GRC, Madam Halimah Yacob, added, “The fact that we’re collecting S$130 million means that a lot of Singaporeans are going to the casinos. So the question we need to ask is: Is this a novelty factor?”
The situation requires close monitoring, and if the levies collected still remain high in two or three years’ time, then there would be a need to review it or think of other deterrents, she said.
She added, “But we need to look beyond the levy, there are other measures to educate Singaporeans. We should also make sure the IRs do not target Singaporeans.”
Mr Liang Eng Hwa, MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, feels the levy amount should not be cast in stone.
“We should review it from time to time in light of data related to problem gambling,” he explained.
MP for Aljunied GRC Madam Cynthia Phua said there was a need for more meaningful information, such as how many Singaporeans and PRs are visiting the casinos before reviewing the levy.
“To me, it’s still very early, some of them may visit out of curiosity. We should monitor this trend. So far, the ground impact has not surfaced very seriously,” she said.
Mr Tony Compton, who lectures on casino management at the Boston Business School here, agrees.
He said, “The levy was put there by law to deter those who just want to go to the casino for fun or those who are half-hearted about paying S$100 to go in. Those who want to go in to gamble will not be deterred by a higher entry levy.”
Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry S Iswaran said last December that it was still too early to tell the full extent of the social impact that casinos are having in Singapore.
He added that the Government is monitoring the situation closely and will take additional measures if necessary.
But are there plans to raise the levy amount?
When contacted, the Ministry of Community Development, Youth & Sports (MCYS) declined to comment.
The casino levy, announced in December 2004, was among a basket of “social safeguards” spelt out for investors interested in developing the IRs. It was to serve as a signal that gambling was not a way to make a living.
The then Second Trade and Industry Minister Vivian Balakrishnan explained in Parliament in 2005 that the levy was set at S$100 because it is more than what Singaporeans must fork out to travel to Batam or Genting – the two nearest casino destinations.
“So by pitching it at that level, it allows me to honestly tell you that we are not making gambling more accessible. But let me also say frankly that no amount of levy will deter compulsive gamblers,” he said.
Singapore is unique in requiring casinos to collect the levy.
Malaysia requires Genting casinos to ban Muslims, while South Korea allows just one of its 14 casinos to admit local residents.
Do you think the Government should raise the casino levy at our IRs?
