| |
The
Straits Times, 30 Dec 04
To
get into a casino, pay $100 a day or $2,000 a year
by Glenys
Sim and Kelvin Wong
 SINGAPOREANS
and permanent residents will have to pay $100 a day or $2,000 a year
to get into the casino if one is built here. The Trade and Industry
Ministry yesterday said that the entrance fees were a signal that
gambling was not a way to make a living. The measure is among the
'social safeguards' spelt out for investors interested in developing
an integrated resort on Sentosa or in Marina Bay.
To protect the young, the age bar has been set at 21, and to stop
Singaporeans from gambling away their future earnings, casino operators
cannot extend credit to them unless they are 'premium players' who
can put at least $100,000 up front. Casino operators must also find
a way to allow people to indicate they want relatives who are chronic
gamblers barred from their premises.
Yesterday's announcement on the proposed casino's key parameters marked
the next stage in the nine-month debate on if one should be built.
Investors have until the end of February to submit their concepts,
which must also indicate the size of their investment and the potential
economic benefits.
Casino operators are piqued at the requirement to levy day or annual
membership fees, but they appear satisfied with the proposed gaming
tax rate. This has been set tentatively at 15 per cent of their gross
gaming revenues, which is lower than Malaysia's 26 per cent and Macau's
close to 40 per cent tax.
The social safeguards, however, do not go far enough to placate opponents
of the casino proposal, as they want the idea canned or, at the very
least, local residents banned. But Senior Minister of State for Trade
and Industry Vivian Balakrishnan told reporters at a press conference
yesterday: 'Singaporeans are mature and should be entrusted to make
responsible decisions.'
Singapore is unique in requiring casinos to levy such entrance fees.
Malaysia requires Genting casinos to ban Muslims, while South Korea
allows just one of its 14 casinos to admit local residents.
Dr Balakrishnan argued that the entry levies would be enough to deter
impulse gambling. At any rate, charging more would not deter chronic
gamblers, he added, 'because they can easily go to Batam instead,
where a round trip's travelling expenses are less than $50'.
Dismissing the talk that the Government would go ahead with the project
whatever happens, he reiterated that the casino proposal was not a
'desperate measure' to boost tourism. The eight million-plus visitors
who came to Singapore this year poured nearly $9.7 billion into the
economy, he disclosed, besting the official tourism receipts target
by $1 billion.
He made it clear that he was prepared to walk away from the casino
proposal. He was also ready to consider a holiday resort without a
casino, although he would not say if any such a proposal had been
made.
In recent months, United States gaming giants such as MGM-Mirage and
Harrah's have indicated that they want in, and are bandying about
investment figures of US$1 billion (S$1.65 billion) to US$2 billion.
If the Government decides to give the casino resort the go-ahead,
the successful investor will get a 30-year gaming licence with a 10-year
exclusivity period.
Regulatory controls against money-laundering, vice and illegal money
lending will also be imposed. |
|
