Casino Levy to be raised after Elections?

[championplug]

I on $2000 levy. I visit 3-4 times a week. Sometimes 5 times a week. I finish what I do during the day, I visit the casino after I finish my work. I don't think it has been a problem for me and many others. For people who have problem gambling, they can gamble on any thing, and have problem repaying.

Without IRs, I also make frequent visits to Genting Malaysia.

A person who want to gamble, even you increase to $500 levy, he will still go and find the money.

Yours is a gone case. People like you will go on the cruise ship, genting, macau anywhere to gamble. I don't think the garmen is worried about people like you. It is the fresh new market of hundreds of thousands of the uninitiated who want to try if the barriers of entry is lowered. That's why i think if the garmen is serious about not letting the lower income sinkies from playing, they should increase the levies to $500 or even $1000.

 

[GramStroker]

Yours is a gone case. People like you will go on the cruise ship, genting, macau anywhere to gamble. I don't think the garmen is worried about people like you. It is the fresh new market of hundreds of thousands of the uninitiated who want to try if the barriers of entry is lowered. That's why i think if the garmen is serious about not letting the lower income sinkies from playing, they should increase the levies to $500 or even $1000.

Remember the govt says that "everything is about the elections"

 

[prince123456]

yes.. i agree with them. casino are for foreigners only .. not for locals...
if locals wanna go in .. must be able to afford it....

 

[silverfox@]

If the purpose is to deter yet you have statistics which show that more than 1 million Singaporeans visited in 7 months, then it seems quite obvious that the levy is not having the desired deterence effect.

1 million visits or 1 million unique visits?

You go toilet 5 times a day is 5 of you go toilet or you go 5 times?

 

[silverfox@]

Yours is a gone case. People like you will go on the cruise ship, genting, macau anywhere to gamble. I don't think the garmen is worried about people like you. It is the fresh new market of hundreds of thousands of the uninitiated who want to try if the barriers of entry is lowered. That's why i think if the garmen is serious about not letting the lower income sinkies from playing, they should increase the levies to $500 or even $1000.

Do we really need the govt to run our lives for us? Telling us what can do and what cannot do?

Measurements are already in place.

Are we small kids where our parents say you eat candy I take cane and whip you 1 time? We don't listen and parents say have to whip us 5-10 times? Take 1 candy also kenna whip, Take 5 candies also kenna whip, if I like candies, and the puniishment is so big, I will just take more candies at 1 go. See the big picture.
Every policy here is not dealing with kids but adults but the way we put is we want the govt to treat us like kids


Oh come on, you have to be 21 n above to go into a casino

 

[Frankiestine]

I hope they do away with the levy. Singaporeans who want to gamble away their life savings should be allowed to do so. They have a right to do whatever they want with their own money.

You are right, we should follow the examples of GIC and Temasick whom together has gambled away a big part of our life savings in CPF.

 

[championplug]

Do we really need the govt to run our lives for us? Telling us what can do and what cannot do?

Measurements are already in place.

Are we small kids where our parents say you eat candy I take cane and whip you 1 time? We don't listen and parents say have to whip us 5-10 times? Take 1 candy also kenna whip, Take 5 candies also kenna whip, if I like candies, and the puniishment is so big, I will just take more candies at 1 go. See the big picture.
Every policy here is not dealing with kids but adults but the way we put is we want the govt to treat us like kids


Oh come on, you have to be 21 n above to go into a casino

It is not the individual voices the present garmen is listening to but that of the institutions when they wanted to open the casinos. They promised the religious establishments, the anti-casino lobbyists and what not. So they wayang and make claims that the lower educated and poor will not be enticed and make it difficult for them to gain entry into the IRs but the best they could come out with is a $100 levy.

And yes whether 21 or 71, people are proven to be irrational when it comes to gambling or when there is money to be made i.e. greed. Especially the gullible sinkies. Remember the sinktel ipo which made alot of sinkies who never dabble in stocks to suddenly become experts in the stock market? Many even tot that so long it is a 'trustee' stock it must be bao tan. In the end what happened- I think you know the answer to that.

 

[Rogue Trader]

I think the casino levy solution should be evaluated and its effectiveness questioned.

In the levy, the government just implemented the most convenient and profitable solution. With database technology today, there are many alternative options to control and manage this gambling problem besides an entry fee.

 

[Tan Kim Kim]

Do we really need the govt to run our lives for us? Telling us what can do and what cannot do?

Measurements are already in place.

Are we small kids where our parents say you eat candy I take cane and whip you 1 time? We don't listen and parents say have to whip us 5-10 times? Take 1 candy also kenna whip, Take 5 candies also kenna whip, if I like candies, and the puniishment is so big, I will just take more candies at 1 go. See the big picture.
Every policy here is not dealing with kids but adults but the way we put is we want the govt to treat us like kids


Oh come on, you have to be 21 n above to go into a casino

If GMS go into parliament, i bet with you even the most hard core oppositions member will miss the PAP. He will imposed his personal buddhist believes to our secular state. Abolished death penalty, increase casino levy, give priority to certain race etc etc

 

[aurvandil]

1 million visits or 1 million unique visits?

You go toilet 5 times a day is 5 of you go toilet or you go 5 times?

I think it is fairly obvious that the levy is generating a lot of government revenue but not having the desired impact of detering Singaporeans from gambling.

If we do something about it now, the problem will be smaller and easier to fix.

If we sit back and pretend everything is ok, the problem will only get bigger and be a lot more difficult to fix. Good examples of this are the housing buble, the public transport problem, the FT problem etc. These problems were allowed to fester until the empirical evidence was overwhelming before the Minister finally (reluctantly) admitted to it.

 

[jw5]

I think it is fairly obvious that the levy is generating a lot of government revenue but not having the desired impact of detering Singaporeans from gambling.

If we do something about it now, the problem will be smaller and easier to fix.

If we sit back and pretend everything is ok, the problem will only get bigger and be a lot more difficult to fix. Good examples of this are the housing buble, the public transport problem, the FT problem etc. These problems were allowed to fester until the empirical evidence was overwhelming before the Minister finally (reluctantly) admitted to it.

You're assuming that the desired impact was to deter Singaporeans from gambling.
For this lot, I tend to assume that the main desired impact is always to generate revenue.
Economic growth at all costs, even at the expense of the ordinary Singaporean. That's my perception of them.
Their solution to such potential social problems will merely be to isolate themselves and their families from the potential harmful effects.

 

[po2wq]

You are right, we should follow the examples of GIC and Temasick whom together has gambled away a big part of our life savings in CPF.

u prefer u urself gamble away ur own cpf or other ppl gamble away ur cpf? ...

 

[po2wq]

I think it is fairly obvious that the levy is ... not having the desired impact of detering Singaporeans from gambling.

...

levy not heavy enuff 2 deter gambling? ... raise it! ...

raise gst can help ze poor ... raise levy can help gamblers ...

... If we sit back and pretend everything is ok, the problem will only get bigger and be a lot more difficult to fix. Good examples of this are the housing buble, the public transport problem, the FT problem etc. These problems were allowed to fester until the empirical evidence was overwhelming before the Minister finally (reluctantly) admitted to it.

like ah mas lidat la ...

let ppl runaway oredi den oni start 2 ...

not take action ...

but put ze brame on others ...

 

[shOUTloud]

I think it is fairly obvious that the levy is generating a lot of government revenue but not having the desired impact of detering Singaporeans from gambling.

If we do something about it now, the problem will be smaller and easier to fix.

If we sit back and pretend everything is ok, the problem will only get bigger and be a lot more difficult to fix.

Bro, you did not answer Bro Silverfox's question. What would be the ideal number for you?

The RWS opened on 14 Feb (about 198 days till end Aug) and the MBS opened on 28 April (about 126 days till end Aug). Making a simple calculation, that's about 3,100 Singaporeans/PRs visiting the casinos daily.

This is about 0.06% of the Singapore population. Obviously this amount is too big for you. So what % is ideal? 0% but these people will go to Genting and Macau to gamble. Isn't better that the money stays in Singapore.

The other issue is about the jackpot rooms and the Singapore Pools outlets. Those are also encouraging gambling. We dun see Liang Eng Hwa ranting against the multiple outlets.

The solution is to continue to educate and carry on current safeguards such as self-exclusion clause etc. There will always be pple trying ways and means to gamble so better to contain the problem than to stop gambling totally.

 

[aurvandil]

Bro, you did not answer Bro Silverfox's question. What would be the ideal number for you?

If you read the casino gambling thread, I have been actually been eagarly waiting for the levy to be removed.

Based on the statistics released by the Minister, it is obvious that the levy is not working. We should therefore explore alternatives to control problem gambling.

A good alternative would be for Singaporeans to furnish their CPF/income tax details when they apply for their casino card. The process would be similar to applying for a credit card.

Based on this CPF/income tax details, the person can then be allocated an amount which the person can lose in 1 month (e.g. 10% of monthly income). Once this amount has been reached, the person can then be barred from entering the casino until the next month.

If we apply a system like this, we can effectively address problem gambling and even remove the levy so that all Singaporeans can go in and enjoy the casinos in moderation.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

I have actually thought of this process but have some reservations over the intrusion of privacy.

But I think this may be a good step forward to prevent "over consumption of gaming" if it is being implemented.

Goh Meng Seng

If you read the casino gambling thread, I have been actually been eagarly waiting for the levy to be removed.

Based on the statistics released by the Minister, it is obvious that the levy is not working. We should therefore explore alternatives to control problem gambling.

A good alternative would be for Singaporeans to furnish their CPF/income tax details when they apply for their casino card. The process would be similar to applying for a credit card.

Based on this CPF/income tax details, the person can then be allocated an amount which the person can lose in 1 month (e.g. 10% of monthly income). Once this amount has been reached, the person can then be barred from entering the casino until the next month.

If we apply a system like this, we can effectively address problem gambling and even remove the levy so that all Singaporeans can go in and enjoy the casinos in moderation.

 

[Ramseth]

If you read the casino gambling thread, I have been actually been eagarly waiting for the levy to be removed.

Based on the statistics released by the Minister, it is obvious that the levy is not working. We should therefore explore alternatives to control problem gambling.

A good alternative would be for Singaporeans to furnish their CPF/income tax details when they apply for their casino card. The process would be similar to applying for a credit card.

Based on this CPF/income tax details, the person can then be allocated an amount which the person can lose in 1 month (e.g. 10% of monthly income). Once this amount has been reached, the person can then be barred from entering the casino until the next month.

If we apply a system like this, we can effectively address problem gambling and even remove the levy so that all Singaporeans can go in and enjoy the casinos in moderation.

If you've followed the casino debates before the IRs were built, you might recall Vivi Bala, when presenting the casino levy scheme, unequivocally promised that the levy shall not be removed under any circusmstance. Therefore, political, in order for the levy to be removed, it has to be either Vivi Bala is also removed from MCYS or he cooks up some silly excuses like underestimation and LHL covers his back again.

 

[Green Light]

Singapore will have problems when we have Opposition leaders with reading-cum-logic limitations and a proclivity to factual errors. Here is one very clear example.

Goh Meng Seng, the NSP Sec-Gen, wrote an article titled “Casino levy to be RAISED after the elections?”

First, he gets his facts wrong, even in the opening statement. He stated that according to media reports, “more 1 million Singaporeans have visited the casino in the past 7 months”.

The correct version should have been “more than one million visits by locals”. Although he subsequently got it right, perhaps he uses both interchangeably. We wonder if he understands the basic difference.

Remember what happened to CSJ when he befuddled his healthcare cost data many years ago?

Second, GMS opines that the existing levy is not having the desired effect of deterring Singaporeans from visiting the casino. Then he demands that the Minister responsible state clearly “if there are no plans to raise the levy”.

He also asks a rhetorical question: “Will the levy be raised after the elections are over?”

GMS is deliberately being ambivalent - is he suggesting an increase in the levy, or challenging the minister NOT to do so?

Perhaps he is simply too shy to tell us what he has in his mind, or what his own proposals are, short of closing the casinos down. It is not very constructive that he quite expectedly proposes nothing in the article.

As for his rhetorical question, we should treat it as plain political rhetoric and grandstanding.

My personal belief is that if the Minister has any plans to increase the levy, he should definitely do it BEFORE the coming elections. The move will be cheered by the majority of Singaporeans, especially the Muslims (whom NSP is trying to cosy up to with the establishment of a Malay Bureau).

Perhaps GMS imagines that the casino levy is like the GST, and that there will be a hue-and-cry with every increase. He is perhaps expecting to gain some political mileage from asking such questions.

But the biggest illogic by the Opposition leader: He said that based on these numbers, it is obvious that the bulk of the record profits reported by the casinos are being earned from Singaporeans rather than foreigners.

Then he contradicts himself by openly asking the Minister for the total number of visits by foreigners to the casinos. He said that this figure is important for us to “assess on whether these casinos are “successful” in attracting MORE foreigners than Singaporeans.”

If he does not know these facts, how did he come to the earlier conclusion that bulk of the record profits are being earned from Singaporeans rather than foreigners?

I suppose this is the type of conjecture we have come to expect from some Opposition leaders of this calibre – grasping at straws when, they don’t even know whether those are straws.

The important question now is this: can we rely such Opposition members to enter parliament to check on the government when their basic grasp of facts and logic is so flawed?

I suppose we don't have much choice because is all we've got. But maybe we should at least advise them to do some homework in sorting out their thoughts before opening their mouths... or tapping on their keyboards.

Bryan Ti

 

[sleaguepunter]

Bro silverfox, there an entrance fee to enter Turfclub lah, of course beri cheap compare to the casino. As for jackpot, most clubs charge non member entrance fee too. according to a colleague who bowl at civil service club, it cost $50 just to play one arm bandit there.
As for the levy, it basically useless as a deterence. If a person want to gamble, he/she can go to great length just to gamble. I strongly believe the anti-gambling commision/agency is not doing singaporean any favour. The worst is the Totalisator Board which screw up the whole industry. While South China Morning Post praise singapore for it lax gaming regulation compare to Hong Kong, the SCMP is just looking skin deep. Due to excessive govt control, the punters are deeply disadvantge. The media make gaming like a big vice that need to strongly regulated while keep mum at the PRC/Pinoy/Indon whores that lines the lorong at gayland, chinatown etc etc..
Gaming regulations shd be further relax, so as to really attract oversea punters/gamers/high rollers to our shore.
Just look at STC biggest international race, the SIA Cup, struggle to attract oversea punters to add into the pool. For the race, it struggle to attract a million bucks in the win pool. I find it a disgrace when HK Jockey Club can easily collect the same amount in it wednesday Happy Valley Class Five race.
In actually fact, many ppl who gamble are responsible gambler, i for one only place bet with my extra money, seldom bet exceeding $200 in a single raceday. Of course now seldom punt as no time to do homework. If those anti gambling ppl really visit these premises, they can see it only a small number of ppl who really need help in their gambling habit. It these ppl that need to be ban from entering casino/turfclub/singpool outlets/jackpot club etc etc... and not ordinary citizen who in control of themselves.
So govt better ask themselves, is the levy a mean to collect extra revenue or really use as a deterence which seriously is not working as many bros here had proof that serious punters will pay the $2000 for a year entrance fee as the $2000 is just chickenfeed to them.

 

[Equalisation]

Agree totally.

The HKJC website is so much sophisticated and advanced, with live track work, on-line totes etc etc than the Singapore Turf Club's.

It is like comparing man with a boy !!!:(