Newsroom

SECOND READING SPEECH BY MS SUN XUELING, MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND MINISTRY OF SOCIAL AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, FOR THE CASINO CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL ON 10 SEPTEMBER 2024

1. Madam Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move that the Casino Control (Amendment) Bill now be read a second time.

Introduction

2. The Casino Control Act (CCA) is the primary piece of legislation to manage casinos in Singapore. It provides the regulatory framework to keep the casinos free from criminal influence, ensure that gambling is conducted honestly, and minimise the harms from gambling. The CCA also helps to ensure that the Integrated Resorts (IRs) make a positive contribution to our economy.

3. Other gambling activities that are not related to the casinos are regulated under a separate piece of legislation – the Gambling Control Act. Taken together, the Casino Control Act and the Gambling Control Act help to ensure that gambling is well regulated in Singapore. Today’s amendments are related to the regulation of the two casinos in Singapore.

4. Singapore’s approach to regulating casinos has worked well.

1. Casino-related crime remains low. In 2023, only 0.2% of all reported crime cases took place in the casinos. This proportion has been stable over the years.


2. The probable pathological and problem gambling rates among our residents also remain low and stable, at around 1%.


3. The casino operators (COs) have not committed any significant breaches of gaming-related requirements.

5. The CCA was last amended in 2012. Since then, there have been changes to consumer preferences and gaming technology. For example, we see new ways of gambling in overseas casinos, including gambling using off-the-shelf mobile devices such as tablets.

6. Our legislative framework must remain relevant and be responsive to these changes. Hence, the Ministry of Home Affairs has worked with the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Ministry of Trade and Industry to review the CCA. This Bill is the outcome of our review.

Objectives and Scope of Bill

7. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Casino Control (Amendment) Bill seeks to achieve four objectives.

1. First, to enhance the operational effectiveness and future readiness of our casino regulatory regime;


2. Second, it tightens the regulation of casinos and licensees;


3. Third, it strengthens protection for vulnerable groups of people; and 


4. Fourth, it regularises the entry levies collected from 4 April to 7 May 2024.

8. Let me speak about them in turn.

A. Enhance the operational effectiveness of our casino regulatory regime

Approval for games, gaming machines and chips

9. Today, the Gambling Regulation Authority (GRA) approves all casino games, gaming machines and chips that are used in a casino. This ensures that casino gambling is conducted honestly. To future-proof these approval regimes, Clause 3 of the Bill amends three aspects:

1. First, it expands the scope of gambling activities that GRA can regulate in the casinos. Today, GRA is empowered to regulate games of chance offered by the casinos, such as table games and games on gaming machines. We propose to empower GRA to regulate all forms of gambling in the casinos, including betting and lotteries. Betting is distinct from games of chance because the former involves placing a stake on the outcome of a process, such as betting on a football competition or a horse race. Lotteries are also distinct, as the distribution of prizes is dependent on chance, for example, the random drawing of lots in TOTO. To be clear, GRA has no plans for now to allow casinos to offer betting or lotteries, but the amendments would make clear that the casinos would need GRA’s approval before they can do so.


2. Second, Clause 3 empowers GRA to approve gaming software. Today, GRA approves casino gaming machines comprising both the software and hardware components. However, manufacturers of gaming machines are increasingly developing gaming software independently from the hardware. This amendment allows GRA to approve gaming software on its own, for example, gaming software that is deployed on off-the-shelf mobile devices such as tablets.


3. Third, Clause 3 empowers GRA to prescribe any wagering instrument to be used as chips for casino gambling, such as virtual credits, if GRA assesses them to be suitable in the future.

Approval for manufacturers/suppliers of gaming machines

10. The next set of amendments relates to the approval of manufacturers and suppliers of casino gaming machines. In recent years, GRA has observed that for any particular gaming machine, there could be multiple manufacturers and suppliers for individual parts of the machine because of outsourcing arrangements.

11. Our policy intent is to regulate the entity that has overall control of the design or production of the gaming machines. Clause 30 updates and streamlines the approval process, to only require approvals for such an entity. Other manufacturers and suppliers will no longer require GRA’s approval.

Regulation of main shareholders, controllers and substantial shareholders

12. The third set of amendments pertains to the main shareholders, controllers and substantial shareholders of the casinos. Only approved persons are allowed to take on these positions; they are required to seek approval for acquisition and disposal of shares exceeding specific thresholds. This ensures that persons with control over the casinos are suitable persons, and there is no undesirable influence over the casinos’ operations.

13. The Bill enhances the approval regime for such persons. There are three aspects:

1. First, for the main shareholdings regime, Clause 4 transfers the powers related to the approval of associated divestments and acquisitions, from GRA to the Minister for Home Affairs. The main shareholders are accountable for the development of the IRs and their long-term commitments in Singapore. Their divestments and acquisitions are currently approved by GRA. Our view is that the Minister for Home Affairs is better placed to balance whole-of-Government considerations and make these decisions.


2. Second, for controllers and substantial shareholders, Clause 17 transfers the related powers from the Minister for Home Affairs to GRA. These include the powers to approve persons as controllers and substantial shareholders, or to exempt them from any requirement under the CCA. These decisions are currently made by the Minister for Home Affairs. Our view is that GRA is better placed to make these decisions, as these are regulatory decisions in line with GRA’s existing responsibility to ensure the suitability of casino licensees and their associates. That said, we will allow persons to submit appeals on GRA’s decisions to the Minister for Home Affairs.


3. Third, Clause 15 tightens the criteria for identifying associates under the controlled shareholdings regime. Currently, other than the corporate entity with controlled shareholdings in the casinos, all its related corporations are also subject to GRA’s approval. This would include related corporations that do not exercise influence or control over the COs, such as sister companies. This is not our policy intent. Hence, for consistency with the Companies Act, we will tighten the criteria for identifying associates and ensure that only corporations that are able to exercise influence or control over the COs will be subject to GRA’s approval.

Evaluation Panel

14. The fourth set of amendments clarifies the Evaluation Panel’s ability to assess the tourism and economic impact of the IRs.

15. The Evaluation Panel provides an independent opinion to GRA on the ability of the IR to fulfil its economic obligations. The GRA takes this into consideration when evaluating the application or renewal of a casino licence. The Evaluation Panel considers several factors, such as how the IRs compare to industry standards, and whether they meet prevailing market demand.

16,.Clause 6 of the Bill clarifies in law that the Evaluation Panel may also take into consideration an IR’s ability to meet future industry standards and market demand, in addition to prevailing standards and demand.

17. This can be and is already being done today. What this amendment does is to expressly state it in law.

B. Tighten the regulation of casinos and licensees

18. Next, let me address the amendments to tighten the regulation of casinos and licensees. There are three parts.

Casino-related offences

19. First, casino-related offences. Even though casino-related crime remains low, we continually review and update our offences regime to deter crime and protect the integrity of gaming operations.

20. The Bill introduces three new offences in the CCA:

1. First, Clause 80 makes it an offence to withdraw bets after the result of a game is known. Today, it is an offence under the CCA for casino patrons to place a bet in a casino after the result of a game is known, but the CCA is silent on the withdrawal of a bet after the result of a game is known. Hence, the Police have had to use provisions in other laws, such as the Penal Code, to deal with these cases. This amendment will right-site the offence under the CCA.


2. Second, Clause 79 makes it an offence to record non-card games in the casinos. It is currently an offence to record cards dealt in the course of gaming. However, non-card games are not covered. Hence, Police have had to deal with such cases as an act of cheating at play under the CCA. This amendment will expand the current offence to cover the recording of non-card games.


3. Third, Clause 82 makes it an offence for any person to destroy or falsify documents, knowing that the document is required to be produced under the CCA. Currently, it is an offence for a person to destroy or falsify a document which he is required to submit to GRA. However, the offence does not cover any other person who handles or has access to the same document, should they destroy or falsify it, knowing that the document is required by GRA. This amendment will ensure that such persons can also be taken to task. 

21. The Bill also strengthens our ability to prosecute an excluded person (EP) for entering a casino.

1. With the exception of a self-excluded person, it is currently an offence for an EP to enter, remain or take part in gaming in a casino. To make out an offence, GRA has to prove that the EP was aware of his exclusion status when he entered the casino. However, this has been difficult to prove. For example, an EP who had breached a Visit Limit could claim that he had miscounted his visits even though he was aware of his Visit Limit.


2. To address this, Clause 42 makes an EP liable for entering, remaining, or taking part in gambling on the casino premises, if it is proven that he knows, or ought reasonably to know that he was an EP. This places the responsibility on an individual to ensure that he is not excluded before entering or when remaining in the casino where there are circumstances in which the individual ought reasonably to know that he is an EP. This means that an EP who had breached a Visit Limit and claims that it was because he had miscounted his visits would now be liable for an offence for entering or remaining in the casinos, since he ought reasonably to know when he would exceed his Visit Limit.

Suitability criteria for COs

22. Second, suitability criteria of the COs. The COs are expected to conduct their business operations in an ethical and credible manner, and implement good corporate governance practices. To make clear our regulatory expectations, Clause 5 expands the suitability criteria for casino licensees, to allow GRA to consider two additional criteria when assessing a CO’s suitability to hold a casino licence, on an ongoing basis.

1. First, whether the CO conducts business in a manner which is unethical or will bring discredit to casino gambling in Singapore; and


2. Second, whether the CO has poor corporate governance practices or weak internal controls. This could include disregarding whistleblowing reports which allege employee misconduct.

23. Next, Clauses 10, 26 and 35 empower GRA to take disciplinary action against a former licensee for a regulatory breach, if the disciplinary action had commenced prior to the lapse of the licence. This applies to all licensees under the CCA, including the COs, special employees, international market agents and international market agent representatives. This amendment will ensure that no licensee evades punishment for contravening regulatory requirements, simply due to the lapse of his licence.

Information sharing between COs

24. Third, on information sharing. Under the Personal Data Protection Act, a CO is currently not allowed to share the personal data of a patron directly with another CO, without the patron’s consent. Hence, when one CO assesses that a patron poses a high risk of money laundering, terrorism financing or proliferation financing, the patron’s personal data can be shared with the other CO only through GRA. This arrangement is operationally inefficient and impedes the COs from taking timely actions.

25. To address this, Clause 47 empowers the GRA to require the COs to directly share information of patrons with each other, instead of going through GRA, for the purposes of tackling money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. GRA will impose measures to safeguard patron information.

C. Strengthen protection for vulnerable groups of people

26. I now turn to the amendments to strengthen the protection for vulnerable individuals and their families.

Criminalise breach of Family Visit Limit

27. Today, the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) administers Exclusions and Visit Limits to protect vulnerable groups of people and to minimise the impact of problem gambling.

28. It is an offence for an individual to breach an Exclusion by Law, a Third Party Exclusion Order or Visit Limit imposed by NCPG, or a Family Exclusion Order imposed by NCPG upon application by the individual’s family. However, a breach of a Family Visit Limit imposed upon application by the individual’s family does not constitute an offence today.

29. We will close this gap. To ensure that the Family Visit Limit acts as an effective protection for vulnerable persons, Clauses 3 and 42 will criminalise the breach of a Family Visit Limit. With this amendment, the breach of any Exclusion Order or Visit Limit under the CCA, except those that are self-imposed, would constitute an offence.

Substitution of an Exclusion Order with a Visit Limit, and vice versa

30. Currently, when there is a change in circumstances for an individual on an Exclusion Order or Visit Limit, the NCPG is only empowered to revoke the existing Exclusion Order or Visit Limit, before imposing a new Exclusion Order or Visit Limit. This process usually takes a period of one to two months. During this period, the individual is not protected by any safeguard. This is not ideal.

31. Clause 75 streamlines the process and allows the NCPG to immediately substitute an Exclusion Order with a Visit Limit, and vice versa. As an illustration, this amendment will allow the NCPG to substitute a Visit Limit with an Exclusion Order seamlessly, to protect the individual by imposing a more stringent safeguard, if necessary.  

D. Regularise collection of entry levies

 32. Madam Deputy Speaker,  let me now move on to the last set of amendments. This is to regularise the collection of casino entry levies between 4 April and 7 May this year.

33. The casino entry levy was introduced in 2008 as a social safeguard to deter casual and impulse gambling among Singapore residents. As part of the Government’s commitment to keep problem gambling under control, we increased the casino entry levies on 4 April 2019 for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents from $100 to $150 for the daily levy, and from $2,000 to $3,000 for the annual levy. The Government also introduced a five-year moratorium on the casino entry levies, as part of our negotiations with the COs on their re-investment plans. This was operationalised via the Casino Control (Variation of Entry Levies) Order 2019, which was valid for five years up to 3 April 2024.

34. It has always been the Government’s intent to maintain the higher entry levies beyond the five-year moratorium period. In other words, it was always the intent to renew the 2019 order upon its expiry, rather than to allow the rate to revert to the lower one after the five-year period. However, MHA overlooked the expiry of the 2019 Order, and the entry levies reverted to the previous lower rates on 4 April 2024.

35. MHA acted immediately to remedy this when the issue was brought to our attention. On 8 May 2024, MHA restored in law the daily levy to $150 and annual levy to $3,000. This was operationalised via the Casino Control (Variation of Entry Levies) Order 2024.

36. From 4 April to 7 May 2024, we collected about $4.4 million more than the lawful entry levy rates at that point in time, that is, the previous, lower entry rates. Clause 95 will regularise this amount collected during that period. This is in line with the Government’s policy intent for introducing the higher entry levy rates in 2019. We have tightened our processes to avoid this happening again.

III. Conclusion

37. I would now like to speak in Mandarin with your indulgence, please.

38. 接下来，我将以华语重点概述修正法案中影响赌场顾客的几项主要提案。

39. 第一是与赌场相关的违法行为。虽然与赌场相关的罪案维持在低水平，但我们不断审查和更新相关的违法行为，确保我国法律继续遏制与赌场相关的罪案，以及维护赌场业者的诚信运营。

40. 因此，修正法案拟议将更多行为列为违法，包括在得知赌局结果后撤回赌注，以及在赌场内摄录非牌类赌博活动的行为。

41. 修正法案也将加强我们起诉禁门令者违法进入赌场的能力。

42. 修正法案拟议，只要确认当事人知道或理应知道自己接获禁门令，便必须为自己进入或逗留赌场，或在赌场内赌博承担责任。

43. 接下来，我将说明修正法案如何加强保护易受赌博危害的群体和他们的家人。

44. 目前，全国预防嗜赌理事会实施禁门令和入门次数限制令，以保障易受赌博危害的群体及降低嗜赌造成的影响。

45. 修正法案拟议进一步收紧赌场管制法令，将违反家属入门次数限制令列为违法。这样一来，除了自愿禁门令者和自愿入门次数限制令者，违反赌场管制法令的任何禁门令或入门次数限制令，都构成违法行为。

46. 总的来说，我们以严格而务实的方式管制赌场的赌博活动，至今取得了良好成果。

47. 修正法案将进一步确保赌场远离罪案、保持赌场业者诚实运作及降低赌博的危害。

48. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.