G
Guile
Guest
Group walked through casino without paying
by Teo Xuanwei
05:55 AM Jun 08, 2010
<script type="text/javascript"> var fontIndex = 2; var fontSize = new Array('0.63em', '0.69em', '0.75em', '0.88em', '1em', '1.13em'); </script> SINGAPORE - The letter of the law is clear: No local residents - save for casino employees and authorities carrying out their duties - are exempt from paying the levy to enter the casinos. Even Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong paid $100 when he and some grassroots leaders visited Resorts World Sentosa "to take a look" a few weeks after it opened.
"No choice, all Singaporeans must buy!" he had recounted in a speech last month. Yet, there remains a question mark - one month after it happened - about the 15 diners who waltzed through Marina Bay Sands' (MBS) casino without paying the levy. Under the Casino Control Act, such an action carries a fine of up to $1,000, plus the levy amount.
MBS, by failing to collect the levies, would have also flouted Section 116 of the Act - which makes it liable to disciplinary action, such as cancellation or suspension of its casino license, a letter of censure or being fined not more than $1 million. In reply to MediaCorp's queries sent on May 6, Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) spokesperson Cheryl Foo said yesterday: "CRA is aware of this incident and is currently looking into the matter."
It is unclear how many of the diners were local residents, but MediaCorp understands none of them have been prosecuted yet. The incident raises questions about whether the law provides for exemptions from entry levies, lawyers said. The diners had patronised one of MBS' restaurants, Imperial Treasure, on May 4. They were on level 2 of the restaurant, but when it was time to leave, they discovered that the two lifts - their only exits on that level - were out of order.
The only other exit was through the casino, but MBS staff told them they would then have to pay the levy. The diners refused and after a 30-minute impasse - part of which one of them recorded and uploaded on YouTube - they decided to walk through the casino without paying. "There may be a technical breach of the law," said Mr Sunil Sudheesan, from law firm KhattarWong.
"But the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) still has the discretion to decide whether or not to charge the individuals or penalise MBS. Frankly, I don't think CRA would take any action in this case." Still, tweaks to the law may be needed to provide for "special circumstances", such as fires, he added. The Casino Control Act currently states only that exemptions may apply to persons "as may be prescribed". The tricky aspects of having an entry levy system are only now beginning to surface.
Member of Parliament Alvin Yeo, who chairs the Government Parliamentary Committee for Home Affairs and Law, said: "It may be that there should be some special provision to cover emergency situations, but the problem is you can't prescribe for every single situation. "If you use language that's so general, it doesn't help the person on the spot because they won't know if it qualifies as an extenuating circumstance."
Mr Yeo believes there should be room for discretion: "I trust that CRA and AGC would take the commonsensical approach in this matter." When asked last month if the lifts were indeed the only exits from the restaurant, an MBS spokesperson would only say that it has "rectified the lift situation and apologises for the inconvenience caused to our guests".
