Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Collection of casino entry levies falling

  1. #1

    Default Collection of casino entry levies falling

    Published September 26, 2013

    Collection of casino entry levies falling

    Novelty factor wearing off, tighter curbs on local visits cited as reasons

    By Grace Leong [email protected]

    CASINO entry levy purchases and the amount of levies collected have been dropping annually, due to the casino novelty factor wearing off and the impact of social safeguards including exclusion orders, and more recently, casino visit limits to curb problem gambling.

    The Casino Regulatory Authority, in an annual report yesterday, disclosed that Singaporeans and permanent residents forked out $174 million in casino entry levies in 2012. That's down from $195 million in 2011 and $216 million in 2010.

    "After seeing spikes in the initial months of the opening of the casinos, the number of entry levy purchases have been decreasing every year," CRA chairman Richard Magnus said in the annual report. "Since 2010, the annual and day levy purchases have, on average, dropped by 20 per cent and 8 per cent yearly, respectively."

    But the number of annual and day levies purchased annually over the past three years hasn't been disclosed as it is commercially sensitive.

    According to the CRA, the daily average of casino visits by Singaporeans and permanent residents have dropped to about 17,000 in 2012 from 20,000 when the two casinos first opened. These figures take into account repeated visits within a day. Only 7.7 per cent of local adult population visited the casinos more than once in the last three years.

    Some gaming analysts say they aren't surprised by the drop in entry levy purchases and levies collected, because of the impact of tighter measures, including visit limits on financially vulnerable locals, on local visitation. Both casinos here are also not allowed to market themselves to Singaporeans and PRs.

    Visit limits capping the number of times an individual may frequent the casinos at both integrated resorts started on June 1. The limits, which complement earlier safeguards such as casino exclusion orders, can be voluntarily applied for by an individual as well as by family members. Gamblers with poor credit records or who are financially vulnerable can also have a third-party visit limit imposed on them by a Committee of Assessors (COA) appointed by the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG).

    Macquarie Group analyst Gary Pinge said that the introduction of tighter gaming curbs sends a clear message to the casinos that the government doesn't want them focusing on the locals.

    And although local visitation has dropped, the overall gaming market in Singapore is still growing in the low single digits, he noted.

    "That shows the casinos are doing the right thing to attract overseas visitation and tourists. What the IRs are delivering is pretty impressive in terms of world-class attractions and putting Singapore on the global stage for gaming; and also in the interests of what the government wanted."

    For fiscal 2012 ended March 31, the CRA collected $25.9 million in casino licence fees, compared with $25 million in the previous year; and $1.82 million in fines, up from $954,300 a year ago. It collected $1.99 million in application fees in fiscal 2012, up from $740,070 a year ago. The application fees refer to various fees payable for applications for Special Employee Licences and International Marketing Agent (or junket operator) licences.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2008


    I find this bullshit - "But the number of annual and day levies purchased annually over the past three years hasn't been disclosed as it is commercially sensitive."

    But the gamblers deserve it if they lose. Everyone knows Casino always win.

  3. #3


    Most important is they "SONG" coz its a entertainment. Those who loose their pants deserve it coz they never control themselves. Like the saying goes House always win.
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.


Posting Permissions