Casino Control (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

4.40 pm

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mdm Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

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.

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. Singapore's approach to regulating casinos have worked well.

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. The probable pathological and problem gambling rates among our residents also remain low and stable, at around 1%. The casino operators have not committed any significant breaches of gaming-related requirements.

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.

Our legislative framework must remain relevant and be responsive to these changes. Hence, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) 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.

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

First, to enhance the operational effectiveness and future readiness of our casino regulatory regime; second, it tightens the regulation of casinos and licensees; third, it strengthens protection for vulnerable groups of people; and fourth, it regularises the entry levies collected from 4 April to 7 May 2024. Let me speak about them in turn.

Today, the Gambling Regulatory 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.

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, the 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.

Second, clause 3 empowers GRA to approve gaming software. Today, the 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 the GRA to approve gaming software on its own, for example, gaming software that is deployed on off-the-shelf mobile devices, such as tablets.

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

The next set of amendments relates to the approval of manufacturers and suppliers of casino gaming machines. In recent years, the 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.

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.

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.

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

First, for the main shareholdings regime, clause 4 transfers the powers related to the approval of associated divestments and acquisitions, from the 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 the GRA. Our view is that the Minister for Home Affairs is better-placed to balance whole-of-Government considerations and make these decisions.

Second, for controllers and substantial shareholders, clause 17 transfers the related powers from the Minister for Home Affairs to the 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 the 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.

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 casino operators, 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 casino operators will be subject to GRA's approval.

The fourth set of amendments clarifies the Evaluation Panel's ability to assess the tourism and economic impact of the IRs. The Evaluation Panel provides an independent opinion to the 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.

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

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

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. The Bill introduces three new offences in the CCA.

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.

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, the 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.

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 the 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 the GRA. This amendment will ensure that such persons can also be taken to task.

The Bill also strengthens our ability to prosecute an excluded person, otherwise known as an EP, for entering a casino.

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, the 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.

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.

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

First, whether the casino operator conducts business in a manner which is unethical or will bring discredit to casino gambling in Singapore; and second, whether the casino operator has poor corporate governance practices or weak internal controls. This could include, disregarding whistle-blowing reports which allege employee misconduct.

Next, clauses 10, 26 and 35 empower the 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 casino operators, 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.

Third, on information sharing. Under the Personal Data Protection Act, a casino operator is currently not allowed to share the personal data of a patron directly with another casino operator without the patron's consent. Hence, when one casino operator 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 casino operator, only through the GRA. This arrangement is operationally inefficient and impedes the casino operators from taking timely actions.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Mdm 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.

The casino entry levy was introduced in 2008 as a social safeguard to deter casual and impulse gambling among Singaporean 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 casino operators on their reinvestment 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.

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.

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 the annual levy to $3,000. This was operationalised via the Casino Control (Variation of Entry Levies) Order 2024.

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

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Next, I will outline in Mandarin the key proposals in the Bill that will affect casino patrons.

First, casino-related offences. Although casino-related crime remains low, we continually review and update our offences regime. This ensures that our laws continue to deter casino-related crime and protect the integrity of gaming operations. The Bill will, thus, introduce new offences in the CCA. In particular, it will be an offence to withdraw bets after the result of a game is known and to record non-card games in the casinos.

The Bill also strengthens our ability to prosecute an excluded person for entering a casino. In particular, the Bill makes an excluded person 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 excluded person. 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 excluded person.

Second, there are amendments to strengthen the protection for vulnerable individuals and their families.

Today, the NCPG administers Exclusion Orders and Visit Limits to protect vulnerable groups of people and minimise the impact of problem gambling. The Bill will tighten our regime by criminalising the breach of a Family Visit Limit, such that the breach of any Exclusion Order or Visit Limit under the CCA, except those that are self-imposed, will constitute an offence.

To conclude, our strict but pragmatic approach to regulating casino gambling has delivered good outcomes so far. This Bill will allow us to keep the casinos free from criminal influence, ensure gambling is conducted honestly and minimise the harm from gambling.

(In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

5.03 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill which seeks to enhance the effectiveness of our casino regulatory regime and strengthen protection for vulnerable groups. However, I have some questions and suggestions.

Madam, the Government has done much since the two casinos were established to ensure that casino-related crimes in Singapore are under control. According to statistics by MHA, casino-related crimes constitute just 0.2% of all crimes reported in Singapore. This is a stark contrast when compared to the findings of a January 2024 report published by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, which reported a proliferation of organised crime in the rest of Southeast Asia due to the casino industries in the region. The United Nations (UN) report also highlighted various trends in illegal gambling activities, including the increasing popularity of illegal online casinos using cryptocurrencies and other forms of virtual tokens in an attempt to evade local law enforcement.

I therefore support the Bill's proposal to future-proof our regulatory ambit by providing the GRA with the scope to regulate the entire suite of gambling activities in the casinos, including the ability to prescribe any instrument or thing to be considered as a wagering instrument.

But Madam, our authorities currently do not regulate chance-based loot boxes as gambling as long as there are no in-game monetisation facilities. A loot box is inherently gambling disguised in the form of a game. In the future, games could incorporate the concept of loot boxes and virtual tokens to allow players to gamble for a large sum of the token, which could then be converted into money through a roundabout manner.

In an article published just last month in The Guardian that examined the relationship between online gaming and gambling addiction, the experts interviewed said that research shows that children who play games with loot boxes are much more likely to experience gambling problems when they enter adulthood. This could be because the odds in these games are better, causing them to think that they will have the same likelihood of success in the online gaming world. I hope that MHA can study this in our local context and examine if we need to take a tougher stance on regulating loot boxes.

Madam, I also support the Bill's proposal to enhance protection for vulnerable groups by criminalising the breach of a Family Visit Limit for casinos. Family Visit Limits are applied when family members are worried about their loved one's potential affliction by gambling and it makes sense to align the breach of these limits to existing Exclusion Orders.

I also fully support the proposal to provide the NCPG and its committees with the operational flexibility to immediately substitute an Exclusion Order with a Visit Limit and vice versa to protect individuals struggling with curbing their reliance on and addiction to gambling.

While we provide NCPG with the operational flexibility to protect vulnerable individuals, we must also ensure that there is an avenue of appeal should the individual disagree with the NCPG's decision. I would like to ask the Minister if the appeal framework for Exclusion Orders and Visit Limits would change in tandem with these new operational flexibilities.

Madam, innocent family members are most affected when a person develops an addiction to gambling. Beyond the Bill's proposals, I hope that we can widen our suite of enforcement tools to prevent vulnerable individuals from receiving unsolicited gambling advertisements. Whenever there is a big global sporting event, such as the recent resumption of the English Premier League, it is common to receive unsolicited text messages encouraging a person to place big bets on unlicensed betting websites. Advertisements that are programmatically pushed to viewers on social media also frequently feature online casinos and sports betting pages.

I hope that the whole ecosystem, from telecommunications companies to social media companies, can lean in to aid both the GRA and NCPG to combat the issue of problem gambling and prevent vulnerable individuals from falling prey to gambling syndicates feeding on their gambling addiction.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill will enhance the effectiveness of our casino regulatory regime and also strengthen protection for vulnerable groups. As new forms of gambling arise through games and illegal websites, it is important that GRA is able to respond to these changes so that we ensure that illegal gambling and its ills will never take hold in Singapore. Madam, I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

5.10 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mdm Deputy Speaker, in the money laundering space, the casino industry is considered one of the non-financial sectors that poses significant risk. This is to be expected, in view of the high volumes of cash transactions that casinos undertake, whether in payments out to patrons or receiving cash in exchange for chips or other goods and services.

Among the 40 recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) on anti-money laundering measures, casinos are singled out for special mention. At Recommendation 28, FATF advises that casinos should be subject to a comprehensive regulatory and supervisory regime that ensures that they have effectively implemented the necessary anti-money laundering and terrorist financing measures. To that end, I see the Bill as another step towards this recommendation.

On the provisions of the Bill, I wish to raise three points: first, on ownership of casino businesses; second, anti-money laundering measures; and third, the drastic increase in punishment for certain offences. Later in this debate, my party colleague Sengkang Member of Parliament Louis Chua will raise questions regarding gambling duties and casino tax rates, the challenge of technology and the retrospective amendment regarding casino entry levies.

First, on approval of ownership changes. FATF's Recommendation 28 on casinos advises that competent authorities should take the necessary legal or regulatory measures to prevent criminals or their associates from holding or being the beneficial owner of a significant or controlling interest, holding a management function in, or being an operator of a casino. Put simply, we need to prevent organised criminal syndicates from profiting from casino businesses and laundering illegal funds through them.

Under the existing CCA, approval of changes in the main shareholders of casinos needs approval from the GRA. Under the Bill, it is proposed that approval of changes in the main shareholder be transferred from the GRA to the Minister for Home Affairs. On the other hand, the opposite is being done for changes in ownership that do not involve the main shareholder. For those who are controllers and substantial shareholders, the Bill removes certain powers from the Minister and transfers them to the GRA.

The Ministry has sought to explain the rationale for these changes. As regards the main shareholders, the Ministry has argued that considerations about the main shareholder should rightly be with the Minister, who can take into account whole-of-Government considerations. As for controllers and substantial shareholders, it is said that the decisions involved are regulatory decisions with operational implications, which are more appropriately undertaken by the GRA rather than the Minister.

Madam, even accepting the Ministry's reasoning, one needs to ask why, in the original Act, the approving authorities were structured the other way round. Could the Ministry please elaborate on this and what has changed?

Next, I move to the specific changes to enhance anti-money laundering measures in casinos. These are seen in clauses 46 and 47 of the Bill.

Under clause 46, the threshold amounts of money which would trigger customer due diligence obligations have been lowered. For both payments out and receipts of money in, the threshold amount will be lowered to $4,000, which is down from the current $10,000 for payments out and $5,000 for payments in.

In addition, there will be a new requirement for the casino operator to expressly consider making a suspicious transaction report. This requirement will be triggered when casino operators do not proceed with the transaction with the patron, whether it is because they are unable to complete the customer due diligence measures satisfactorily or because the patron refuses to provide the necessary information.

Under clause 47, there will be a new electronic information-sharing scheme for casino operators. This scheme will provide for information sharing of the contents of a suspicious transaction report to prescribed persons once the filer is notified by the GRA to do so. In the media release on the Bill, MHA explained that this scheme will enable casino operators to share information directly with each other so that those in the industry can act more quickly to prevent money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing.

Madam, I see these measures as particularly prudent. Already under the current obligations, our casino operators have occasionally fallen short. For instance, it was reported in December last year that one of the casino operators was fined a total of $2.25 million for failing to perform due diligence checks on deposits into patrons' accounts in prior years. Another operator was investigated in Singapore and the United States four years ago into whether it had fully complied with anti-money laundering measures when allowing patrons to transfer monies amongst themselves, known as "third party transfers".

The risks are further amplified in Singapore due to the high percentage of casino patrons from overseas. According to Singapore's Money Laundering Risk Assessment Report released in June this year, the majority of casino patrons are foreigners, which would mean, that in most cases, our agencies may have little or no background information about these individuals.

Of course, the effectiveness of these enhanced anti-money laundering measures lies not just in the design but in the implementation. Much work will be needed by casino operators to review standard operating procedures and systems and to train staff to understand their roles. The GRA's role as regulator is critical, as it works with the casino operators to literally raise their game.

Madam, finally, I would like to ask about clause 91 on the increase in punishments for certain offences. The increases in punishments are very significant and it is necessary to understand the rationale behind these changes. For instance, some offences that are currently fine-only offences are being converted to offences which are punishable by significant jail time. These offences include, violating business stakeholding requirements, ignoring directions of the GRA, failing to give information to the GRA or failing to provide certain information to the police within a specified time frame.

The existing law already provides for heavy fines for these offences, ranging from $50,000 to over $100,000 in many cases. The Bill introduces jail as an option, with a maximum jail term of either three years or seven years.

What is the mischief the Government wishes to address with these enhanced punishments? Has there been evidence that hefty fines alone are insufficient to deter these offences and that imprisonment needs to be included? Have casino operators or other persons not been cooperative with the Ministry or the GRA, such as to warrant these changes?

Madam, in conclusion, I support the efforts to enhance our anti-money laundering regime relating to casinos. It is no mean task and I hope we will succeed. That said, I look forward to the Government's clarifications on my queries regarding the swap in the approving authorities for ownership changes and the introduction of harsher punishments.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.

5.17 pm

Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Deputy Speaker, since the Casino Control Act was last amended in 2012, there have been considerable advances in technology and the way gambling and casino operations are delivered. As such, I agree that the amendment Bill to take steps to further deter casino-related crime and protect the integrity of gaming operations is a timely one.

Nonetheless, I will like to raise clarifications pertaining to three areas: one, on Family Visit Limit; two, on future-proofing regulations; and three, on sharing of information among casino operators.

Firstly, under the proposed changes in the amendment Bill, breaching a Family Visit Limit for casinos becomes a punishable offence. An EP can be fined up to $10,000 and jailed up to 12 months if found guilty. A Family Visit Limit can be applied by family members to limit the number of times a person can enter a casino, if his or her gambling behaviour has caused harm to them, including financial and emotional distress, neglect of family responsibilities or relationship breakdowns.

Based on the data shared by the Ministry, there are about five individuals each year on average that breached Family Visit Limits. However, behind each of this breach can be a very broken family situation with severe debts and relational strains to the family members. Currently, it is an offence to breach an Exclusion Order by Law, Third Party Exclusion Order, Third Party Visit Limit or Family Exclusion Order. With the amendment Bill, the NCPG and its committees will be able to immediately substitute an Exclusion Order with a Visit Limit, and vice versa, instead of waiting one to two months under the current legislation.

The Bill proposed to criminalise violation of Family Visit Limit at Singapore casinos. While I support the principle of increasing penalties for deterrent, often, the families with members who are problem gamblers are usually already facing immense financial distress when they need to apply for such a Family Visit Limit on the problem gambling family member. As such, can the Ministry clarify what will be the considerations when a fine is to be imposed or will a jail term be a better deterrent instead. My concern is that the burden of the fine of $10,000 will usually fall onto the innocent family members, causing even more downward spiral in their financial situation, instead of the problem gambler himself or herself.

In addition, penalties may also be increased for minors faking their ages to get into casinos. I will like to ask, how many of such cases have occurred so far. Minors refusing to give particulars, such as their age, or using false evidence of age to enter casinos, may be fined up to $10,000 under the Bill. This is a 10-fold increase from a maximum fine of $1,000 under the current regulations. Again, will a probation sentence be more appropriate for this group of offenders instead of a high financial penalty, which most minors will not be able to afford to pay and the burden will again fall onto the rest of the family who are innocent of the offence.

Next, the proposed changes will also extend GRA's regulation of casino activities to cover betting and lotteries, beyond games of chance. The Bill will also allow gaming software, which can be deployed on mobile devices, to be approved by the GRA if the need arises. This follows the GRA's observation of gaming machine manufacturers developing software, without the hardware, which can be used on off-the-shelf devices, such as tablets.

The GRA can also allow new betting instruments to be used as chips in casinos in future, such as virtual credits, under the proposed changes. To pre-empt future changes in the gambling landscape, the Bill will also expand the scope of activities that the GRA can regulate in the casinos to cover betting and lotteries.

While the GRA has clarified that there are currently no plans to allow casinos in Singapore to carry out such betting and lottery activities, will the provision have a reverse effect of casinos considering such activities within the legislative framework, leading to more gaming activities than what the authorities will foresee, instead, in the casinos.

In addition, regarding the change that will allow the GRA to assess which instruments can be regarded as chips, I would like to clarify whether virtual assets, such as cryptocurrency, can later be deemed a type of betting instrument and controlled by GRA's approval and how is the GRA keeping up with the understanding and supervision of new betting instruments.

Lastly, the proposed changes to the law will allow the two casino operators in Singapore to share patrons' information with each other to tackle money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. The operators are, currently, not allowed to share personal data directly with each other without patrons' consent, due to the Personal Data Protection Act. Instead, the GRA needs to facilitate this exchange, which is mentioned by the Ministry as operationally inefficient and impedes the operators from acting quickly.

This is in line with the efforts to tackle money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. It also fits with Singapore's recent moves to best align with the guidelines of the FATF.

While I agree with the amendments to enhance operational efficiency, I seek the Ministry's clarifications on how the process will be initiated by the casinos and what is the difference in timeline of information sharing compared to the current legislation. How would the GRA know if either casino has failed to initiate such important information sharing and what other surveillance or inspection measures does the GRA have, to identify such risky patrons in the two casinos?

In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, consequences of problem gambling and illegal acts in casinos not only impact the individuals involved but also cause severe hardship to the innocent family members and negative impact to our society. As such, strengthening our casino control legislation will be a step in the right direction.

Madam, notwithstanding the clarifications that I have raised, I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.

5.25 pm

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I last spoke about the Gambling Duties Bill and the Gambling Control and Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore Bill in 2022 and I believe much of what I raised back then remains relevant for the Casino Control (Amendment) Bill before us today.

As we continue to witness the growth and evolution of the gaming industry in Singapore and beyond, it is essential that we take decisive action to enhance the operational effectiveness of our regulatory regime, ensuring it can adapt to evolving challenges. Most importantly, this Bill also seeks to strengthen protections for our most vulnerable groups: families, individuals at risk of addiction and those who could be disproportionately affected. This is a necessary step toward balancing economic interests with our duty to safeguard the well-being of our society.

On the topic of economic interests, I wish to, once again, raise the point I made during this year's Budget debate that in Singapore, betting taxes as a percentage of gross domestic product have been flat in past years at around 0.5%. Given that gambling duties have been unchanged since 2014, there is room to look into raising the relevant gambling duties as a means of supplementing fiscal revenues consistent with an approach of raising taxes on activities with negative externalities. For casino taxes, while I am cognisant that these were raised in 2022, I would argue today as I did back then when we were debating the Gambling Duties Bill, that casino tax rates have much room to grow.

In Singapore, casino tax rates range from 8% to 12% of gross gaming revenue (GGR) for premium gaming, and 18% to 22% for mass gaming, respectively. Macau, the largest gaming market globally, imposes a special gaming tax of 35% on GGR, amid other fixed and variable premiums payable, while also requiring operators to contribute a further percentage of GGR to utilities designated by the Macau government. This would bring effective gaming tax rates to higher than 35%.

It is especially important to place this call for an increase against the context of the two IRs here reporting very strong profitability in spite of the higher casino tax rates. In their most recent half year results, Genting Singapore saw gaming revenues up 28% to $957.6 million in the first six months of the year, driving adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) 26% higher to $570.8 million and putting the company on track to beat its "robust 2023 performance", as highlighted by the company itself at its recent Annual General Meeting, where it also reported adjusted EBITDA of more than $1 billion in 2023. Similarly, Marina Bay Sands saw net revenues up 23% in the first half of the year to US$2.17 billion, with adjusted property EBITDA up 34% to US$1.1 billion. Further, Las Vegas Sands Corp continues to enjoy the highest EBITDA margins in Singapore at 51%, compared to 33% at its Macau operations, despite the higher casino tax rates and this would also have likely been higher than its Las Vegas properties which have since been divested.

Considering that casino licences are renewed with every three years, with the current term expiring in 2025, is there scope for the casino tax rates to be raised in the coming years? Under the recent development agreements signed between the Government and the two casino licensees, what are the maximum casino tax rates that are specified and what are the terms and conditions required before these can be raised in future, assuming the expansion plans of both IRs are completed on schedule? Is the Government constrained in its ability to raise casino and gambling duties in the next few years?

Second, I understand that the Bill seeks to provide for advances in technology and changes to the way gambling and casino operators are carried out. I note that under clause 3, the definition of a "gaming program" is inserted, which refers to a software application designed to be used with an electronic device other than a gaming machine to play a casino game or participate in any other form of gambling.

In its press release, MHA noted that this was in response to manufacturers of gaming machines developing software, which can be deployed on off-the-shelf mobile devices such as tablets. I struggle to see how the GRA can restrict the deployment of such gaming software within the casino premises only, should it be approved.

As it is today and as I have highlighted in my speech in March 2022, illegal online gambling remains a key problem regardless of whether official gaming software is being deployed by gaming manufacturers. When I tried to visit one of the popular online gambling websites of yesteryear, I was greeted by a notice by the GRA saying in bold red font, "Access Blocked", followed by "You have attempted to access an illegal gambling site hosted by an unlicensed gambling service provider. Singapore Pools is the only licensed online gambling operator in Singapore."

However, a simple google search of "online gambling" throws up numerous websites, listing down all the different online gambling portals in Singapore, supposedly. The top link even includes a list of "the best Singapore online casino sites", with the self-styled "gambling expert" claiming that "gambling at online casino in Singapore is becoming more and more popular as the years go by. Because of this, it probably comes as no surprise to learn that there are now loads of options for players to choose from".

I appreciate that while a key part of our strategy to combat illegal online gambling is our blocking measures for illegal online gambling websites and that, yes, no blocking measures are foolproof, but could we better harness technology to stay ahead of the curve and make it prohibitive to access such online gambling portals in Singapore?

Considering that a person convicted of gambling with unlicensed gambling service providers is liable for a fine of up to $10,000 or a jail term of up to six months or both, are there corresponding penalties for operators of unlicensed gambling service providers, regardless of where they are domiciled if they are offering such services to users in Singapore?

Finally, I wish to touch on clause 95, which provides for a validation of amounts purportedly collected as entry levy during the period from 4 April 2024 to 7 May 2024, at the rate set out in section 116(1) as amended by the Bill. Essentially, MHA made a mistake and overlooked the expiry of the 2019 Order to increase casino entry levies for a five-year period and is now enacting retrospective legislation to fix the mistake.

In its press release on 6 August 2024, MHA stated that: "It was always the Government's intent to maintain the higher entry levies beyond the five-year period. However, MHA had overlooked the expiry of the 2019 Order". Curiously, section 2 of the 2019 Order itself merely stated that "The entry levies specified in section 116(1) of the Act are replaced, for the period starting on 4 April 2019 and ending on 3 April 2024, as follows...". In the joint press release made on 3 April 2019, it was stated that "The casino entry levies for Singaporeans and PRs will be raised by 50%, from $100 to $150 for the daily levy and from $2,000 to $3,000 for the annual levy, with a five-year moratorium". There is no indication of the Government's intention after the moratorium – if levies are going to be higher, lower or maintained – except that this levy is to be in place for exactly five years.

Less than a year ago, my Sengkang colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim spoke eloquently in this House of the importance of not treating retrospective applications of the law lightly and how if we routinely amend laws and apply them after the fact, then, we erode the very stability of the rule of law. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong also appeared to agree with this principle and said that and I quote, "Backdating, as Assoc Prof Jamus Lim correctly said, should be done sparingly. It is really the exception rather than the norm and we do it very, very rarely. Why so? Because backdating upsets expectations and prejudices individuals who rely on the existing law".

MHA stated in its August press release that "we have tightened our processes to avoid a repeat of such an incident". But such an incident involving the backdating of laws to fix a mistake should not be treated lightly. When confronted with this issue, one approach is to accept that a mistake was made by the Ministry and enact legislation prospectively, given that it is quite clear in my opinion that there are Singaporeans and PRs who are prejudiced. Yes, S$4.4 million of extra revenue is a meaningful sum, but it is also significant to the Singaporeans or PRs who were overcharged. Whatever one's views are towards those who visit casinos is quite secondary to the principle of the rule of law we are trying to uphold in this country. Allow me to conclude in Mandarin, Mdm Deputy Speaker.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Firstly, although we often say "a little gambling can be fun", the reality is that more often "nine out of ten gamblers lose". Therefore, I believe that while pursuing economic benefits, we should also safeguard social welfare and continuously strengthen our protection of vulnerable groups. In an era where online gambling is rampant, blocking certain sites cannot be completely watertight. Can we utilise technology to stay ahead and effectively control gambling issues?

Secondly, while our IRs are reaping substantial profits, I believe the government should carefully consider imposing higher taxes on them. This would not only supplement fiscal revenue but also help curb the social ills brought about by gambling activities.

Thirdly, the Prime Minister has said that retrospective legislation should be treated with caution and only used as a last resort. Given that retrospective legislation is the exception rather than the norm, why are we now using retrospective legislation to make up for someone's mistake? Is this approach appropriate? It is worth our pondering.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi.

5.35 pm

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, in the context of my comments on the Bill and ensuing queries, I declare that I am a psychiatrist in private practice and have had to treat individuals with addictions and disordered gambling habits.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Casino Control (Amendment) Bill in that it further strengthens the regulatory framework around casino and gambling operations to keep pace with technology and contemporary challenges in regulating this particular space. This includes enhancing protection against money laundering and criminal conduct, as well as strengthening internal controls and corporate governance for casinos.

Secondly, it strengthens the protection of individuals affected by or are at risk of problem gambling, including minors and family members affected by the ill-effects and consequences of gambling by another family member.

The obvious and direct harm of problem gambling is that it causes financial harm, which can spiral into debt accumulation, asset loss and even bankruptcy. While some may find some joy and thrill from a momentary, once-off gamble and win, the truth is that it is a fine line and easily a slippery slope towards habitualised problematic gambling, to the extent where financial losses are compounded further from an inability to walk away or exercise self-control, where social relationships are torn from the unfounded preoccupation for the next winning gamble, a loss of trust and an inability to fulfil personal, family and vocational responsibilities and where chasing losses and desperation can contribute to behaviours with legal consequences.

A person seized with problem gambling is not only at risk of being impacted with mental and physical health concerns but, as covered by the Bill, families and loved ones are at risk and vulnerable to the extended harm a person's problematic gambling habits can bring. This is so much so that where it was formerly known as pathological gambling, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders, in its fifth edition, DSM-5, has re-categorised it as gambling disorder. So, from pathological gambling to gambling disorder, to become the first recognised non-substance behavioural addiction in DSM.

This was also to reflect growing evidence that gambling behaviours activate reward systems in the brain similar to those activated by drugs of abuse and alcohol and can produce behavioural symptoms comparable to those produced by substance abuse.

I hope this tells us that we can never let our guard down when it comes to the harms of gambling and, by extension, that the amendments, through this Bill, to the Casino Control Act, must keep pace with any emerging evidence of harm that gambling and casino operations can potentially contribute to an individual and his/her family.

With that as a preamble, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have several queries that I hope the Ministry can address.

First, relating to the distinction between promotional gambling and casino game, is there a reason or utility for distinguishing "promotional game" in the context of a casino from "casino gambling and casino games"? It appears that the distinction is drawn only when there is a wager of money or casino chips. I would argue that the fundamental harm and psychological impact comes from participating in the game of chance itself, whether wagered on money, chips or otherwise.

In the context of a casino, such a promotional game is a precursor and an encouragement to the actual casino gambling and casino game itself. My view is that a promotional game in the casino should be treated the same as per any casino game, without having to distinguish it and suggesting that it is of a lesser harm under the Act. Within the changes to the Bill, this distinction is only made under Part 1, section 2 of the Act under the subheading of Interpretation. However, practically, under the relevant sections for Exclusion Orders, this harm is, indeed, recognised as with the same weight and grievance regardless whether they be promotional or casino games and all manner of games, promotional games inclusive, are prohibited. I would like to seek clarification whether this distinction between promotional or casino games is, indeed, necessary at all for the purposes of this Bill.

Second, relating to the prohibition of automate teller machines (ATMs) within boundaries of casino premises, I would like to clarify if this law is mainly maintained on principle or are there well-grounded reasons of deterrence for this? Under current practice or regulations, is there a prescribed distance as to where ATMs can or cannot be to a casino? I ask this because within close locality of, for example, the Marina Bay Sands casino as an example, an online search suggests the availability of ATMs of different banks located close within the vicinity outside the casino.

Are there similar legal provisions for locality of ATMs at other gambling type of establishments, for example, Singapore Pool lottery outlets? And in the era of online payments and transactions, does the proximity prohibition of ATMs remain an appropriate and effective deterrent at all?

Third, regarding increasing the cost per entry to casinos, I am in support of the increase of entry levy for both per entry period or annually and that this gives direct support to the Tote Board for public, social and charitable purposes.

I wonder though whether we can tighten further and consider reducing the visit duration to less than 24 hours, for example, over 12 or 16 hours per visit. Practically speaking, a 24-hour period may encourage a person to gamble comfortably over two calendar days depending on the start of the 24-hour window.

Fourth, also on a related note to the previous point, regarding Exclusion Orders in general, for a person who is already imposed a Visit Limit due to known problematic gambling behaviours, I wonder if he or she should still be granted the same privilege of a continuous 24 hours per visit as someone who is not on such a Visit Limit.

When considered under an Exclusion Order and a prescribed Visit Limit, can each visit be restricted further to one entry and exit only, or be restricted to a specified lesser number of hours, rather than for the person imposed on a Visit Limit be allowed to spend a continuous period of 24 hours at the casino just like any other person?

Fifth, regarding family exclusion and third-party Exclusion Orders, could the Ministry perhaps give an update as to whether these continue to be effective and whether the intent of such Exclusion Orders is met and fulfilled in that it supports the recovery of the individual and has prevented further harm?

Specific for Third Party Exclusion Orders, like addictions to drugs where doctors are obliged to report illicit drug abuse, can there be a mechanism where doctors or psychiatrists who find someone with a gambling disorder and puts himself, herself or others at risk of financial harm, be reported to the Authority for consideration of Third Party Exclusion Orders?

Finally, in terms of application on behalf of an incapacitated person to trigger a family Exclusion Order under section 161, may I confirm that an assigned Lasting Power of Attorney Donee or Court appointed Deputy, even if he is not a relative of the incapacitated person, can be allowed to apply the order on the incapacitated person's behalf to protect himself or herself from financial harm?

Further to this and as a related question, is there a mechanism where the Courts or the Office of Public Guardian is informed if someone who is an existing Donee or Deputy to an incapacitated person is himself being imposed an Exclusion Order, that his suitability is reviewed with expedience and that he is not allowed to fulfil the role of Donee or Deputy, especially for property and affairs, of that incapacitated person?

Today, I believe this only applies to undischarged bankruptcy and I wonder whether the same rule should apply, at the very least, for the duration where a person remains under an Exclusion Order, with the intent of protecting the interests of the incapacitated person to which he is Donee or Deputy to. Notwithstanding my comments and clarifications, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Keith Chua.

5.44 pm

Mr Keith Chua (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the issue of problem gambling is not new. Gambling addiction has long been a matter of social concern and can destroy lives of individuals, families and friends.

In my growing up years back in the 1960s, I became aware of relatives with gambling issues and recall how this distanced them from family and, in turn, often, family from them. I was then too young to fully appreciate the realities. Though I do recall with some detail that there was a constant search for money to pay debts, including dealing with the demands of debt collectors, sometimes these were quite intimidating.

When we awarded the two casino licences, there was understandable concern over the social impact, in particular, for the vulnerable and potentially those who had worked hard to build up savings that could be placed at risk. I acknowledge the various initiatives in response to the concerns and directed to minimise the consequences on various groups. I am encouraged that the relevant authorities constantly review protection for individuals affected by or at risk of problem gambling. In addition, I do support the broader objectives of this Bill to continue to stay relevant to the changing landscape.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The report from NCPG indicated the existence of over 340,000 active Exclusion Orders as of June 2023. Taking a closer look at the statistics, exclusions by law total just over 117,000 or just about a third, and self-exclusions at about 185,000 for casinos include about 157,000 foreigners, and this is the majority group for this category.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the insidious nature of gambling suggests that anyone can be vulnerable. The active Exclusion Orders aim to protect more harm from being done, though it would seem that damage has already happened in perhaps several instances. As a society embarking on a renewed social compact, we should continue to look at how we prevent problem gambling at the earliest stages.

By design, casinos are embedded within world-class convention facilities, entertainment, food and beverage, retail and related attractions. Hence, the venues themselves will attract persons of all age groups. In fact, the two IRs attract significant local and foreign visitors daily, who are there to enjoy the excellent facilities. These facilities and attractions are not offered at subsidised levels to the general public. So, the operators in these two locations can, therefore, refrain from any efforts to attract such visitors to the casinos without any loss of revenue.

Some may feel that there is little harm trying out a casino experience. Would we have any data on whether this seemingly innocent step has led some on the path to problem gambling? How are we monitoring this? Can we consider requiring the two casinos to review the casino access points such that these are not directly from public areas of retail, food and beverage, entertainment and attractions? The purpose of this would be to shield unsuspecting visitors and protect exposure to children. I am again here making a guess that random visitors would not be core sources of revenue for the casinos and, therefore, this would not significantly affect their current operating revenues. Unlike specialised casino destinations like Las Vegas or Macau, Singapore casinos are located within our integral day-to-day landscape and, therefore, remain a facility for many who are not drawn to these facilities for gambling.

Some years back, there was a private initiative for Singaporeans and PRs to protect oneself by voluntarily signing up for self-exclusion, even if one felt there was no known interest or likelihood in gambling. This pre-emptive approach could be a protective step that at least enables a first level check and balance. In particular, this could provide individuals protection from impulsive situations. The current statistics on self-exclusion indicate there are 28,000 Singaporeans and PRs in this category for self-exclusion from casinos.

There may also be parents and families who are concerned about the risk of gambling affecting their children when they turn adults and gain access to casinos and other forms of gambling. Can we provide a mechanism for parents to apply for Exclusion Orders while their children below 21 years of age are under their charge and on a voluntary basis and even without any existing evidence of any gambling problem?

The introduction of the IRs has shown the economic benefits. Initially, we had to handle the social fallout that accompanied this. Gambling takes many forms and we need to continue to look into all forms of gambling as we look at prevention. Tax revenues from legal gambling are sizeable and can we consider deploying more resources to the matter of prevention and protection?Social service organisations, such as We Care Community Services and other similar service providers, can be better or should be better resourced to initiate preventive programmes. We would also want to keep up our efforts to engage our youths at risk of problem gambling. Our family service centres can also be increasingly resourced to tackle frontline prevention.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we need to continue to help those who struggle with gambling problems and, at the same time, we need to continue to seek preventative efforts to minimise any further rise in problem gambling.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

5.52 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): This Bill will improve the effectiveness of our casino regulatory regime, tighten the regulation of casinos and licensees and strengthen protection for vulnerable groups. MHA shared that our regulatory regime has worked well and these amendments are part of MHA’s regular reviews of our laws. I am glad that we are proactively reviewing our laws to ensure our legislative framework is able to meet anticipated developments in the gambling landscape. I have three points of clarification to raise.

My first point is on the responsible entity or individual for approving changes in main shareholders. For main shareholders, section 42 will be amended to require the Minister’s approval, instead of GRA's approval, for the divestment and acquisitions of shareholdings relating to main shareholders. In its press release, MHA explained its rationale: “The Minister for Home Affairs would be better placed than the GRA to take into account whole-of-Government considerations, in deciding whether to approve divestments and acquisitions relating to main shareholdings.”

Can the Minister of State clarify what whole-of-Government considerations will the Minister for Home Affairs take into account when approving divestments and acquisitions of main shareholders? I ask this question because the GRA has long been entrusted to make complex assessments on long-term viability and economic prospects when deciding on casino licence applications. It is unclear why the GRA is now a poor fit for making considerations about main shareholders. How are considerations related to main shareholders different from considerations that the GRA must already take into account when approving casino licences? Can the Minister of State provide some examples of whole-of-Government considerations that the Minister for Home Affairs is better placed than the GRA to take into account?

My second point is on the removal of the requirement for a hearing before Exclusion or Visit Limit Orders are made. A number of provisions, including sections 157, 158, 164 and 166, will be amended to remove references to a “hearing”. The effect of these changes is that the NCPG or one of its committees does not always need to hold a hearing for applications. The amended provisions still require the NCPG or its committees to give a person a reasonable opportunity to object to an application for an order against him or her or to make representations.

Can the Minister of State explain the rationale for removing the requirement for a hearing? Can the Minister of State clarify whether following the amendments, by default, the NCPG or committee will not hold a hearing for applications? Are there situations where the NCPG or a committee may nonetheless decide to hear an application? If so, what are the types of cases where a hearing may be deemed necessary?

My third and final point is on the powers of the NCPG to substitute an Exclusion Order with a Visit Limit, and vice versa. The new section 166A lists the types of substitutions that can be made and sets out the tests for when the NCPG may make a substitution. MHA explained that this amendment is to address the inefficient current situation where NCPG or the committee can only revoke an existing Exclusion Order or Visit Limit, and subsequently impose a new Visit Limit or Exclusion Order. This process usually takes one or two months. The new section 166A(3)(c)(iii) requires NPGC, before making a substitution for a third-party Exclusion Order or a Third Party Visit Limit, to be satisfied that it is in the best interests of the respondent and his or her family members. Given that it is no longer a requirement for hearings to be conducted, can the Minister of State explain how the NCPG will obtain all evidence necessary to determine whether a substitution is appropriate?

While the amendments require the NCPG to provide the party concerned a reasonable opportunity to make representations on the relevant matter, since a hearing is no longer required, there is a higher risk that the NCPG may not hear from a party. Where a party does not make representations, can the Minister of State share if the NCPG will proactively request material or evidence from the relevant agencies or individuals to ensure it has the full information to make the determination? Notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Sun Xueling.

5.57 pm

Ms Sun Xueling: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their support for the Bill and their suggestions. They raised important questions which I will now address.

First, on enhancing the operational effectiveness of our casino regulatory regime. Dr Syed Harun asked about the need to distinguish a promotional game from casino gambling. Promotional games are a form of casino promotion. Examples include lucky draws or “pick-and-win” giveaways. Compared to the casino games, they pose a lower risk of gambling harm as they do not involve a wager. We use therefore a lighter hand to regulate promotional games. Although 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.

Ms Ng Ling Ling asked if the amendment to expand the scope of gambling activities in casinos that the GRA can regulate, to include betting and lotteries, would inadvertently encourage casino operators to consider offering such activities. 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. The GRA has not received any requests from the casino operators to offer betting or lottery-based products. Should they do so, the GRA will carefully consider the proposal, including law and order and social concerns.

Mr Louis Chua raised the issue of how the GRA will be able to ensure that the deployment of gaming software is restricted to the casino premises should it be approved by the GRA. The 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.

Ms Ng Ling Ling asked if virtual assets such as cryptocurrency are within the scope of wagering instruments that the GRA would be able to prescribe as chips for casino gambling. The amendment empowers the 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. The GRA has no intention of allowing cryptocurrency to be used as chips for casino gambling as this presents money laundering risks.

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 the GRA to approve divestments and acquisitions relating to main shareholders and that the GRA would be better placed than the Minister to manage decisions relating to controllers and substantial shareholders.

The main shareholders regime is the principal upstream lever for the Government to decide who should be allowed to operate the 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.

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 spin-offs such as job creation. It is therefore more appropriate for the Minister rather than the 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.

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 the GRA and that the GRA is well placed to do so.

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. It is not to cure any mischief. Since taking up the mantle of Singapore's casino regulator in 2008, the 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 the GRA.

I will now deal with the questions on tightening the regulation of casinos and licensees.

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 the GRA would know if either casino operator has failed to initiate such a process.

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.

The GRA does not track the time taken for the current information sharing process. However, we believe that with the removal of the 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.

The 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.

Ms Ng Ling Ling asked what other surveillance or inspection measures the GRA has in place to identify patrons who may pose a high risk of money laundering, terrorism financing or proliferation financing. 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.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the impetus for imposing an imprisonment term for offences that were originally liable for only a fine. 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.

I will now deal with the questions on strengthening protection for vulnerable groups of people.

Mr Keith Chua raised the issue of deploying more resources to prevent problem gambling and to protect vulnerable groups of people. 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.

Mr Chua also asked if the access points to the casinos can be reviewed to minimise exposure to unsuspecting visitors or minors. The 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 age restriction. Taken together, our approach has generally worked well. We will continue to closely monitor the situation through NCPG's regular Gambling Participation Survey.

Dr Syed Harun asked about the effectiveness of Exclusion Orders and if there should be further restrictions imposed on persons on Visit Limits. Social safeguards, including Exclusion Orders and Visit Limits, have played a key role in ensuring that problem gambling in Singapore remains under control.

A person who is financially distressed will be subject 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. 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.

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. 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.

Dr Syed Harun also suggested having a mechanism for doctors or psychiatrists to report problem gamblers to the NCPG for consideration of a Third Party Exclusion Order, likening it to how doctors are obliged to report any illicit drug use today. 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.

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.

Dr Syed 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. 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.

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.

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. In considering the punishment, the 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. To date, no EP has been prosecuted solely for breaching an Exclusion Order or exceeding a Visit Limit.

Mr Louis Ng had a few questions on how NCPG's Committee of Assessors makes its decisions on an Exclusion Order or Visit Limit. 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.

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 the NCPG make a decision and the NCPG may request additional information. The 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.

Mr Melvin Yong asked if there will be changes to the channels through which respondents can express their disagreement with NCPG’s decision on Exclusion Orders and Visit Limits. 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 the NCPG to substitute an Exclusion Order with a Visit Limit and vice versa, will be incorporated into NCPG’s workflows.

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.

A minor’s failure to comply with the request by an authorised person such as a Police officer or the 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. 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.

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.

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, the 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.

I will move on to the other issues and suggestions from Members.

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 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Finance or Ministry of Trade and Industry.

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.

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 subjected 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.

Dr Syed Harun asked about the prohibition of ATMs within the boundaries of casinos and its effectiveness as a deterrent. 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 patron. 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.

The 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, the 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.

Dr Syed Harun also suggested the shortening of the validity period of an entry levy. We thank him for his suggestion. For now, we do not think that there is a need to increase the levies further or to reduce their validity period.

Mr Melvin Yong raised the issue of illegal remote gambling activities and unsolicited gambling advertisements on social media platforms. 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.

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.

The 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 online gambling.

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.

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 landscape closely. 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.

Mr Louis Chua asked about the penalties for operators providing unlicensed gambling services, regardless of where they are domiciled. 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, the GRA’s first recourse is to block such illegal online gambling websites.

Mr Chua also 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 rate after the five-year period.

We have heard many in this House talk about their concerns about problem gambling. I believe that 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, and which may inevitably 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.

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.

6.27 pm

Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications from Members for the Minister of State? I see none.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Sun Xueling].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.