On casinos, corrections, and compensation (bonus part 2!)

In my last post,¹ I discussed how:
1️⃣ Singaporeans and PRs need to pay a levy to enter a casino in Singapore;
2️⃣ in 2019, the levy was increased to S$150 per day / S$3,000 per year;
3️⃣ however, the legislation lapsed automatically in April 2024. This was a mistake; and
4️⃣ from 4 April 2024 to 7 May 2024, punters paid the increased levy - even though, as a matter of law, they were required to pay less.

I had wondered whether punters would be refunded, and whether the authorities would take a proactive stance.

Well, as it turns out - the Ministry of Home Affairs ("MHA") has made its intentions clear.

--

From The Straits Times:²

The MHA has introduced a Bill "to validate the higher entry levies collected during the one-month lapse, meaning the money will be deemed as validly collected."

"MHA said it does not intend to refund any part of the entry levies collected during the lapse, as it was always its intention to continue with the higher entry levies until there was a need to further adjust the rates.

...

Laws which apply retroactively can be enacted as long as they do not compromise anybody’s rights, said the law expert.

Said Associate Professor Tan: “I think it would be quite difficult for a casino patron to say that his rights have been unjustly compromised during the period (when higher entry levies were collected).

'It was a procedural lapse, not a case of the authorities blatantly acting without authorisation. The clear legislative and policy intent since 2019 was for higher entry levies to apply.'"

--

Now, I have no skin in the game. I'm not affected - in fact, I've never once stepped foot into a casino in Singapore³ - and I'm not interested in picking a fight.⁴

But I wonder if an affected punter would agree with Prof Tan's comments:

1️⃣ Punters would argue that their rights were "unjustly compromised" by the collection of higher levies during the affected period, since they paid an additional S$50 - S$1,000 or more⁵ when there was no law requiring them to do so.

2️⃣ So what if it was a procedural lapse? If a lawmaker makes a mistake, isn't an affected citizen entitled to insist on the enforcement of the law as it is drafted?⁶

3️⃣ As to whether the authorities were blatantly acting without authorisation, I'm sure they weren't blatant about it. But this sidesteps the key issue of whether the authorities were acting without authorisation during the affected period, and the resulting legal consequences.

4️⃣ Regarding the clear legislative and policy intent since 2019: does this, by itself, have force of law? A Minister can announce an intention to have a certain law passed in Parliament, but until this happens, is it an enforceable law?

--

A universal learning point, perhaps: details matter, and one cannot assume that lapses can be merely hand-waved away.