TR EMERITUS

Singapore's casino entry levy debuted in 2006 alongside the arrival of integrated resorts (IRs). The Casino Control Act, passed that same year, paved the way for these resorts with the inclusion of the entry levy to discourage excessive gambling. Initially, a day pass costs $74.41 (S$100), and an annual pass costs $148.82 (S$2,000). However, by 2010, $145 million (S$195 million) was collected in levies, suggesting significant interest despite the fee. This result was a levy increase in 2018, aiming for stronger deterrence: $111.61 (S$150) for a day pass and $2232.25 (S$3,000) annually. We know the history; let’s find out what it actually is and what it was introduced to do: What is a casino entry levy? While Singapore currently stands as the only country with a fully operational, nationwide system, it is important to note that the concept is not unique to Singapore. Sri Lanka charges a flat $100 fee to both locals and foreigners entering any casino, aiming for broad deterrence. Japan is considering a $13.34 (¥2,000) levy targeting both citizens and residents, potentially limiting gambling participation. The Philippines offers a patchwork approach, with some individual casinos implementing entry fees or minimum spending requirements. Vietnam has proposed entry fees for specific casino projects, but nationwide implementation remains uncertain. Who has to pay the Singapore casino entry levy? In Singapore, only the locals pay to play. Citizens and residents fork over $111.61 (S$150) daily or $2232.25 (S$3,000) yearly to enter casinos. This leaves tourists free to play while emphasizing responsible gaming for residents. It is crucial to note that age limits and other restrictions might still apply. Reasons Singapore implemented a casino entry levy The following are some of the reasons Singapore put the casino entry levy in place. Reduce the amount of time spent gambling Dissuading locals from gambling is the top reason why the Singapore government thought to implement entry levies. Other measures to reduce the amount of gambling include self-exclusion programs being offered by the best online casinos in Singapore, support groups and professional help, and, you guessed it, casino entry levies for walk-on or brick-and-mortar casinos in the following three ways: Financial barrier: The levy creates a financial barrier to casual gambling, potentially discouraging people from entering casinos on a whim. Increased awareness: Public discussions surrounding the levy can raise awareness about gambling and encourage responsible behavior. Revenue for responsible gambling initiatives: The collected levy can be used to fund programs and services that support players and promote responsible gambling practices. Helps with revenue generation With the United States –thanks to Las Vegas, Nevada– and Macau, China being the world’s largest gambling industries, casino gambling in Singapore only having found a foothold in 2006 is still only considered to be on the rise. As a result, how much is being generated pales in comparison, and the introduction of entry levies helps the casino duopoly generate extra revenue. Records show that the entry levy collected as far back as 2011 was in excess of $145 million (S$195 million), with the highest ever recorded being $93 million (S$125 million) in 2018. Monies that can be reinvested into other programs to ensure safe and responsible gambling for locals and tourists alike. Control the number of people who frequent casinos The entry levies required by the Casino Control Act aim to reduce the number of people, locals to be precise, that use the casino facilities. This is done in the hopes that it becomes one extra barrier when they consider visiting the casino to enjoy the gaming offerings. However, the numbers show that the introduction of these levies has not worked as planned, as there has not been much of a drop in the number of people who visit these casinos. The effect can even be said to be negative as it casts a worrying shadow on the Singapore gambling industry, one that might keep tourists away and their tourism numbers down. Lastly, while it might reduce foot traffic, it sure encourages high rollers to frequent the casino, and seeing as they are most likely to spend huge, they are most in need of protection from problem gambling. Conclusion Singapore’s casino entry levy serves to deter excessive gambling from the locals without clamping down on its wholesome gambling experience tourists around the world have come to enjoy. It does so by reducing foot traffic in the casino with the added benefit of revenue generation. There are still mixed receptions as far as the initiative is concerned, with many people believing that it currently does not do enough.        Read More →

Britain's House of Commons descended into complete chaos on Wednesday (21st Feb). Ruckus broke out over a motion calling for a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. The chamber was due to debate and vote on a motion for an "immediate ceasefire" by the SNP. Instead, in an unusual move, Speaker Lindsay Hoyle allowed a vote on a motion for an "immediate humanitarian ceasefire" in Gaza by the main opposition Labour Party. This led to a massive clash in the house. The debate ended in a meaningless vote and an unseemly spectacle. The heated discussion saw MPs from all sides passionately arguing their positions, but ultimately, no decision was made. The Tories' withdrawal further added to the confusion and frustration of the proceedings. Despite calls for action, the deadlock continues, leaving the situation in Gaza unresolved. Since the Gaza massacre started, UK has seen numerous protest by its citizens against its unwavering support for the US-led massacre of Palestinians in Gaza.    Read More →

The discontinuation of the Special Account( SA) for individuals aged 55 and above, is set to take effect next year. Historically, CPF members employed a “shielding” strategy to maximize their savings’ interest income. By transferring funds to their SA, members benefited from a higher annual interest rate of 4.08%, compared to the Ordinary Account's (OA) 2.5%. However, the upcoming changes will render this strategy ineffective for those above 55, as their ability to keep funds in the higher interest-earning SA will be eliminated. However, it may be good to understand the likely possible implications of the change. The cessation of the SA for individuals over 55 could inadvertently result in some CPF members, accruing interest at the OA’s lower rate of 2.5%, if they do not opt to transfer their OA funds to their RA after the SA closure. Firstly, we may need to note that most members may have met their BRS through their RA, leaving little to no balance in their SA. This scenario primarily affects those whose retirement planning strategies did not involve actively managing the transfers between their accounts to optimize interest earnings. It can be well expected that some senior CPF members passively manage their CPF accounts. Consequently, the shift of SA funds to the OA could result in lower interest income for a portion of CPF members, should they decide against transferring their OA funds to their RA following the SA’s closure. As for those who manage their CPF account, such as those who practice the “shielding” strategy and have met the BRS, they may in a sense, be denied of a long-term, high-interest, low-risk investment option and may opt to withdraw the sum to be invested elsewhere (instead of 2.5% in OA), to avoid transferring their money to the RA. It is not “the same” to say that after your SA is closed and transferred to your OA you can always transfer it to your RA, to still get the higher 4.08% interest of your closed SA. Because under the SA, you can withdraw all your funds at any time, if you have met your BRS. In contrast, under the RA, funds can only be withdrawn as a monthly annuity through CPF Life or the old CPF Minimum Sum Scheme. One should note the "withdrawal anytime after age 65, for those born after 1 Jan 1958" - Additional 20% of your retirement savings, less the $5,000 withdrawable from 55" - "Based on your Retirement Account balance at age 65 and any CPF Life premium balances at 65. Any amount not withdrawn or used to increase your monthly payouts will be transferred to your OA for your future withdrawals in the same month you start your monthly payouts" - "excluding any cash top-ups or CPF transfers as well as government grants such as CPF LIFE Bonus or Deferment Bonus as they are designed to boost your retirement payouts". Additionally, if you select the CPF Life Standard Default Plan, all accumulated interest from age 65 will be absorbed into the CPF Life pool upon death. Consequently, most CPF members who wish to leave their accumulated interest to their nominees might opt for the Basic plan, which offers a lower monthly payout, instead of the default Standard plan. For instance, the accumulated interest lost upon death at age 80, with a Full Retirement Sum (FRS) of S$192,000 (in 2022), could be about S$160,000 (accumulated interest from 65 to 80). For those deferring their payouts to age 70 under the Standard Plan, the relative loss of accumulated interest upon death may be even higher. And also, for those who opt for the ERS which has just been increased to up to 4 times of the BRS in the Budget– similarly, the accumulated interest lost may be even higher. Another possible implication of the change may be that there are 249, 000 CPF members who have invested $5.8 billion( invested sum– not the current value) from their SA, as of 4Q2023. So, for those who liquidate after age 55, does it mean that the proceeds may be returned to the OA( 2.5%), instead of the SA( 4.08%) previously, for those who have met their BRS? The removal of the SA after 55 may lead to less interest to those who choose not to have their money transferred to RA from their OA, after their SA closure. For those who choose to transfer to RA- they may arguably, lose the flexibility of withdrawal under the SA after 55, if they have met the BRS. For those who are working after 55- their CPF contribution portion which goes into SA previously, will now go to OA, at 2.5%, instead of SA's 4.08%, for those who have met their BRS. For example, with the 1.5% increase in the CPF contribution rate for age 55 to 65- the current 31% contribution rate for age 55 to 60 becomes 32.5%. Currently for age 55 to 60- 8.5% goes to SA. How much of the 1.5% increase announced in the Budget will go into the OA, for those who have met their BRS, since the SA will be closed?   Leong Sze Hian    Read More →