Introduction
1. Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their support for the Bill and their suggestions.
2. They raised important questions which I will now address.
Enhance the Operational Effectiveness of Our Casino Regulatory Regime
3. First, on enhancing the operational effectiveness of our casino regulatory regime.
4. Dr Syed Harun asked about the need to distinguish a promotional game from casino gambling.
5. Promotional games are a form of casino promotion. Examples include lucky draws or “pick-and-win” giveaways. Compared to casino games, they pose a lower risk of gambling harm as they do not involve a wager.
6. We use therefore a lighter hand to regulate promotional games. Although the Gambling Regulatory Authority’s (GRA’s) approval is still required before a casino operator conducts promotional games, certain regulatory requirements which are imposed on casino games, are not imposed on the promotional games. For example, there is no need for the promotional games to be conducted by licensed casino employees.
7. Ms Ng Ling Ling asked if the amendment to expand the scope of gambling activities in casinos that GRA can regulate, to include betting and lotteries, would inadvertently encourage casino operators to consider offering such activities.
8. The intent of this amendment is to future-proof our regulatory regime, and to clarify in the law that GRA’s approval is required for any gambling activities offered in casinos in Singapore, including betting and lotteries. There are already casinos in other countries that offer betting and lotteries. With this amendment, it will be clear that a casino operator must get GRA’s approval before offering any new gambling activity, including betting and lotteries.
9. GRA has not received any requests from the casino operators to offer betting or lottery-based products. Should they do so, GRA will carefully consider the proposal, including law-and-order and social concerns.
10. Mr Louis Chua raised the issue of how GRA will be able to ensure that the deployment of gaming software is restricted to the casino premises, should it be approved by GRA.
11. GRA intends to allow the casino operators to offer gaming only on mobile devices provided by the casino operators, and within the casino. They must demonstrate how they would ensure that the gaming software cannot be used outside the casino, for instance, using geofencing technology.
12. Ms Ng Ling Ling asked if virtual assets, such as cryptocurrency, are within the scope of wagering instruments that GRA would be able to prescribe as chips for casino gambling.
13. The amendment empowers GRA to prescribe any wagering instrument to be used as chips for casino gambling. The intent of this is to future-proof the regime to allow for new modes such as cashless gaming. An example is where a patron may place wagers at either the gaming tables or gaming machines by drawing down virtual credits directly from his cashless gaming account or e-wallet. GRA has no intention of allowing cryptocurrency to be used as chips for casino gambling as this presents money laundering risks.
14. Mr Louis Ng and Ms Sylvia Lim asked how we arrived at the assessments that the Minister for Home Affairs would be better placed than GRA to approve divestments and acquisitions relating to main shareholders, and that GRA would be better placed than the Minister to manage decisions relating to controllers and substantial shareholders.
15. The main shareholders regime is the principal upstream lever for the Government to decide who should be allowed to operate the Integrated Resorts (IRs) and the casinos within. The current main shareholders for Marina Bay Sands and Resorts World Sentosa are Las Vegas Sands Corp. and Genting Singapore Limited respectively. These are operators whom we have assessed are aligned with Singapore’s strategic objectives for the IRs.
16. Members would recall that the Government’s decision to develop the two IRs was based on the need to reinvent Singapore’s tourism industry and the economic spinoffs such as job creation. It is therefore more appropriate for the Minister, rather than GRA, to be the authority to approve divestments and acquisitions relating to main shareholdings, to ensure continued alignment between the IRs and the Singapore Government’s strategic objectives. This will also bring it in line with the existing policy where it is the Minister who decides on the entity to be designated as the main shareholder of the casino operator in the first place.
17. Decisions relating to controllers and substantial shareholders, however, have different considerations. The key is to ensure that they do not have undesirable backgrounds, so as to ensure that the operation of the casino will be free from criminal influence or infiltration. When the Casino Control Act was introduced in 2006, we took reference from the Banking Act, where it is the Minister who approves changes to controllers and substantial shareholders. We have reviewed this holistically. Given the context of the Casino Control Act which has the concept of a main shareholder, unlike financial institutions under the Banking Act, we assess that decisions relating to non-main shareholders can be made by GRA, and that GRA is well-placed to do so.
18. I would like to reiterate that the objective of these changes is to enhance the operational effectiveness and future-readiness of our casino regulatory regime. Since taking up the mantle of Singapore’s casino regulator in 2008, GRA has done well. This is evidenced by the low crime rate and problem gambling rate in casinos. Our casino operators appreciate the spirit, intent and reasons for our regulations, and have a good track record in compliance. Notwithstanding, we continue to review our regulations. We are hence taking this opportunity to rationalise, such that functions that relate to the Whole-of-Government at the strategic level are overseen by the Minister, and regulatory functions are overseen by GRA.
Tighten the Regulation of Casinos and Licensees
19. I will now deal with the questions on tightening the regulation of casinos and licensees.
20. Ms Ng Ling Ling asked how information sharing between the casino operators will be initiated, what would be the time difference for this proposed information sharing process as compared to the current process, and how GRA would know if either casino operator has failed to initiate such a process.
21. The new provision stipulates the circumstances under which a casino operator has to share information with the other operator. For example, where an operator has made a suspicious transaction report on a customer, and has declined to establish a relationship with him or her.
22. GRA does not track the time taken for the current information sharing process. However, we believe that with the removal of GRA as the conduit, and the casino operators sharing and receiving information directly with each other, the process would be more efficient and the casino operators will be able to take timelier action with GRA still in the loop having visibility of the information being shared.
23. GRA conducts regular and ad-hoc inspections on the casinos. If it detects any non-compliance with regulatory requirements, including the failure to share necessary information with the other operator, it will investigate and take appropriate enforcement action.
24. Ms Ng Ling Ling asked what other surveillance or inspection measures GRA has in place to identify patrons who may pose a high risk of money laundering, terrorism financing or proliferation financing.
25. Casino operators are already required to have in place a framework for the prevention of money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing, which includes identifying and managing high-risk patrons, and mitigating the risks associated with these patrons. The operators must take into consideration the profile and behaviour of patrons and establish risk and materiality thresholds for the identification of high-risk patrons.
26. Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the impetus for imposing an imprisonment term for offences that were originally liable for only a fine.
27. The Casino Control Act was last amended more than 10 years ago. Since then, the Gambling Control Act, which brought together all non-casino gambling matters, has come into force, in 2022. The proposed amendments to the Casino Control Act seek to align the penalties with the Gambling Control Act, to ensure parity for similar offences. The prospect of an imprisonment term will also be a stronger deterrent against the commission of such offences.
Strengthen Protection for Vulnerable Groups of People
28. I will now deal with the questions on strengthening protection for vulnerable groups of people.
29. Mr Keith Chua raised the issue of deploying more resources to prevent problem gambling and to protect vulnerable groups of people.
30. I would like to assure Mr Chua that the Government does, and will continue to devote significant resources to tackle problem gambling. This includes extensive public education campaigns and initiatives, and also funding Social Service Agencies that offer gambling rehabilitation services.
31. Mr Chua also asked if the access points to the casinos can be reviewed to minimise exposure to unsuspecting visitors or minors.
32. GRA imposes regulatory requirements to reduce public exposure to the casinos. For instance, gaming areas cannot open directly into public spaces, visitors and guests should not have to walk through the casino in order to gain access to other IR facilities. There are also other measures to limit the accessibility of casinos, including the entry levy regime and the minimum 21 years old age restriction.
33. Taken together, our approach has generally worked well. We will continue to closely monitor the situation through the National Council on Problem Gambling’s (NCPG’s) regular Gambling Participation Survey.
34. Dr Syed Harun asked about the effectiveness of Exclusion Orders and if there should be further restrictions imposed on persons on Visit Limits.
35. Social safeguards, including Exclusion Orders and Visit Limits, have played a key role in ensuring that problem gambling in Singapore remains under control.
36. A person who is financially distressed will be subjected to an Exclusion Order. The Visit Limit is generally imposed on less financially vulnerable persons, together with other safeguards in place in the casinos to help them control their gambling on the ground.
37. As I mentioned earlier, the probable pathological and problem gambling rates among our residents are low and stable, at about 1%. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of our social safeguards. We will take the Member’s suggestions into account if there is a future need to tighten them.
38. Mr Keith Chua suggested allowing parents to apply for an exclusion for their children who are below 21 years of age. A Family Exclusion Order is treated seriously. A breach of a Family Exclusion Order is an offence and hence the family should only apply for it when there is evidence of harm caused by gambling.
39. For parents who are concerned about minors under their care, they should educate them on the harms of gambling, and not to start gambling. Parents can encourage their children to apply for self-exclusion when they turn 21.
40. Dr Harun also suggested having a mechanism for doctors or psychiatrists to report problem gamblers to NCPG for consideration of a Third Party Exclusion Order, likening it to how doctors are obliged to report any illicit drug use today.
41. Problem gambling, unlike drug abuse, is not a crime. There is therefore less ground to override patient-doctor confidentiality and require medical professionals to report individuals whom they suspect to be problem gamblers.
42. Nevertheless, medical professionals should encourage such individuals to exercise personal responsibility and avoid gambling beyond their means. They should also encourage the individuals to seek help, including through channels like the NCPG Helpline or Webchat, or to apply for Self-Exclusion or Voluntary Visit Limits to help them control their gambling habit.
43. Dr Harun asked whether an existing Donee or Deputy of an incapacitated person should continue his role, if he or she is issued with an Exclusion Order.
44. Individuals can be issued an Exclusion Order for many reasons. When the Office of Public Guardian comes to know of such a case, it will investigate with NCPG’s assistance, and make a determination of continued suitability. The public can whistle-blow to the Office of Public Guardian on alleged misconduct by Donees or Deputies, including misconduct that may have arisen as a result of their being issued Exclusion Orders.
45. In response to Dr Harun’s other questions relating to Donees and Deputies, the Minister for Social and Family Development can appoint suitable persons to apply for a Family Exclusion Order for the incapacitated person. Suitable persons may include Lasting Power of Attorney Donees or Court-appointed Deputies.
46. Ms Ng Ling Ling asked when a fine would be meted out against a person who has breached his or her Family Visit Limit, and when a jail term would be imposed. She raised concerns that the burden of a fine would usually fall onto the family members, causing them further financial burden.
47. In considering the punishment, GRA will assess the facts and circumstances, and consult the Attorney-General’s Chambers, who will make the final decision. The more egregious cases may be prosecuted. Once the matter is in Court, the Court will assess and mete out the appropriate punishment.
48. To date, no excluded person has been prosecuted solely for breaching an Exclusion Order or exceeding a Visit Limit.
49. Mr Louis Ng had a few questions on how NCPG’s Committee of Assessors makes its decisions on an Exclusion Order or Visit Limit.
50. I would like to assure Mr Ng that hearings will remain the default practice. The Bill will simply provide the Committee with the option to not convene a hearing if it already has sufficient evidence to assess the case, including documents which the respondent has submitted, or if the respondent has consented to the Exclusion Order or Visit Limit.
51. On Mr Ng’s other questions on the empowering of NCPG to substitute an Exclusion Order with a Visit Limit or vice versa, let me elaborate on the appeal and revocation process. Today, the respondent is already required to provide supporting evidence to help NCPG make a decision, and NCPG may request additional information. NCPG will use this information to determine whether the initial order remains appropriate, or, where there are changes to the respondent's circumstances, whether it is more appropriate to substitute an Exclusion Order with a Visit Limit or vice versa.
52. Mr Melvin Yong asked if there will be changes to the channels through which respondents can express their disagreement with NCPG’s decisions on Exclusion Orders and Visit Limits.
53. Individuals who disagree with NCPG’s decision may appeal against it, or apply to vary or revoke their Exclusion Order or Visit Limit. These channels for recourse remain available. The enhanced operational flexibility to allow NCPG to substitute an Exclusion Order with a Visit Limit and vice versa, will be incorporated into NCPG’s workflows.
54. Ms Ng Ling Ling noted the increase of the fine for minors refusing to give particulars or using false evidence of age to enter casinos, from $1,000 to $10,000, and asked if a probation order would be more appropriate. With a financial penalty, she is concerned that the financial burden would fall on the family. She also asked about the number of cases of minors who had managed to enter the casinos by providing false evidence of age.
55. A minor’s failure to comply with the request by an authorised person such as a Police officer or GRA inspector to provide his or her particulars shows defiance, and prevents the officers from carrying out their duties. Also, the use of false evidence of age by a minor to enter casinos is essentially deceit. These are serious offences which we must deter, and that is why we are increasing the penalties. The increase will also ensure parity with the penalties for similar offences under the Gambling Control Act.
56. We note Ms Ng's point that the family would likely end up having to pay the fine on behalf of the minor. This is the case even today, including for other offences outside the Casino Control Act and the Gambling Control Act. The family is responsible for the minor and it cannot completely absolve themselves from the minor's misdemeanours.
57. In the past five years, from 2019 to 2023, three minors were found to have entered a casino using false evidence of age. So far, GRA has not prosecuted any minor for failing to provide particulars or giving false evidence of age. But in the event that a case is prosecuted and a minor is found guilty by the Court, the Court will consider all available orders, including probation, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case.
Other Clarifications
58. I will move on to the other issues and suggestions from Members.
59. Mr Louis Chua asked about casino tax rates and noted that the rates were raised recently in March 2022, through the Gambling Duties Act. As this falls outside the scope of this Bill, I will address this only briefly. If the Member has further questions, he can file a PQ to the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of Trade and Industry.
60. We first introduced the casino tax rates in 2007, and introduced a 15-year moratorium until 2022. This was to provide the IRs with greater certainty, bolster the competitiveness and attractiveness of the IRs, as well as enhance the investors’ ability to raise funds for the IRs. This was important to the IRs, given the significant amount of investments that they would be committing.
61. Since then, we revised the casino tax rates once, upon the expiry of the moratorium in 2022. We introduced a tiered casino tax structure, with higher tax rates than before. The rates were also subject to a 10-year moratorium. The rates were set with a view to striking a balance between competitiveness and revenue. The tiered casino tax structure and the moratorium are subject to the casino operators meeting development targets, and they expire in 2032. We will review the casino tax rates closer to the end of the moratorium.
62. Dr Syed Harun asked about the prohibition of ATMs within the boundaries of casinos and its effectiveness as a deterrent.
63. ATMs are prohibited within the gambling venues of casinos and gaming machine rooms. This creates a “break in play” and injects some inconvenience to the patrons. This is to prevent them from having easy and instant access to additional funds for gambling. This restriction is still relevant today as there remains a sizeable proportion of patrons who gamble using cash. We do not prescribe any minimum distance between the ATMs and the casinos.
64. GRA has imposed similar requirements for a “break in play” where electronic payments are used by casino patrons. Where electronic payments are used by Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents who are non-Premium Players to transfer funds into their deposit account with the casino operators, GRA has imposed a 30-minute waiting time between the patron’s deposit of funds and the time that the funds are made available to the patron for gambling.
65. Dr Harun also suggested the shortening of the validity period of an entry levy.
66. We thank him for his suggestion. For now, we do not think there is a need to increase the levies further or reduce their validity period.
67. Mr Melvin Yong raised the issue of illegal remote gambling activities and unsolicited gambling advertisements on social media platforms.
68. I mentioned in my speech earlier that the regulation of non-casino gambling activities is covered under the Gambling Control Act. As these matters fall outside the scope of this Bill, I will address them very briefly.
69. We take a strong enforcement approach against illegal gambling. In 2023, the Police arrested more than 450 persons for their involvement in illegal gambling activities. About one-third of the arrests were for remote gambling.
70. GRA carries out blocking of illegal online gambling websites and advertisements that can be accessed in Singapore, as well as payment services linked to illegal online gambling. Since 2015, we have blocked more than 3,800 illegal gambling websites, over 270 bank accounts and more than $36 million in payments linked to illegal remote gambling.
71. In addition, the Online Criminal Harms Act empowers the authorities to issue Directions to online service providers to restrict the exposure of Singapore users to criminal activities, including illegal gambling advertisements, on their platforms.
72. On Mr Yong’s suggestion regarding loot boxes – our current approach to regulating loot boxes is a balanced one. It aims to safeguard against gambling inducement, rather than gaming. We will continue to monitor the landscapeclosely. Mr Yong would recall that earlier this year, MHA imposed new restrictions on the value of prizes for games at amusement centres and funfairs, because of the higher risk of gambling inducement when large prizes are offered. Similarly, if we find that loot boxes are becoming a significant driver of gambling inducement, we will review our regulations.
73. Mr Louis Chua asked about the penalties for operators providing unlicensed gambling services, regardless of where they are domiciled.
74. Under the Gambling Control Act, the definition of remote gambling covers situations where the facilities are outside of Singapore, whether in part or in full. An illegal gambling operator is thus liable for an offence, and faces the same penalties, even if he resides overseas, as long as the illegal gambling service is accessible by Singapore users. But given the difficulties with enforcing this law against foreign operators, GRA’s first recourse is to block such illegal online gambling websites.
75. Mr Louis Chua talked about the regularisation of entry levies collected between 4 April and 7 May 2024. The entry levies collected were in line with the higher levies that were imposed since 2019. It was always the intent to continue the higher levies until such time that we assess that there is a need to further adjust the rates. The intent of the moratorium was to stipulate that the levies will not change during the five-year period. The intent was for the rates to be at least maintained thereafter. I do not think that there were expectations that the rates would revert to the earlier lower rates after the five-year period.
76. We have heard many in this house talk about their concerns about problem gambling. I believe more would be in support of the maintenance of levies imposed since 2019, rather than to lower the levies to what was first set in 2006; which may inadvertently end up encouraging more gamblers. That said, we are not treating this incident lightly. We have been upfront to acknowledge the issue, and we have come to Parliament to validate the excess collections during this period.
Conclusion
77. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope I have addressed the Members’ queries. I thank them again for their support for the Bill, and I beg to move.
78. Thank you.
