Gambling Duties Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

5.21 pm

The Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Gambling Duties Bill will consolidate the laws on the levy and collection of duties on lawful betting and lotteries. These laws are currently contained within the Betting and Sweepstake Duties Act, or BSDA, and the Private Lotteries Act, or PLA. The consolidated Act will provide for common tax administration, enforcement powers and penalties across the duties on betting and sweepstakes and private lotteries.

The BSDA was enacted in 1950. Since then, we have made improvements in our tax administration and enforcement. The last significant BSDA amendments made were in 2005 but relating to duties and not enforcement or administration. So, this Bill harmonises the tax administration and enforcement provisions between the BSDA and the PLA and aligns the tax administration and enforcement for the gambling duties, with other tax Acts administered by IRAS.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

Let me illustrate with two examples.

For tax administration, the Commissioner of Betting Duties, currently, does not have the power to refund overpaid betting and sweepstake duties, even though that is provided for overpaid private lotteries duty and other taxes administered by IRAS. Clause 19 of the Bill will now provide for the Commissioner of Gambling Duties to do so.

For enforcement of the betting and sweepstake duties, the Commissioner of Betting Duties, currently, may not enter or search premises. However, he may do so for private lotteries duty and all other taxes administered by IRAS. So, clause 25 of the Bill provides for the Commissioner of Gambling Duties to similarly enter and search premises for the enforcement of betting and sweepstake duties.

The Bill also harmonises, for gambling duties, what constitutes an offence; and raises the fines and penalties for the gambling duties which have remained unchanged since the 1950s. Again, let me illustrate with some examples.

Today, for betting and sweepstake duties, it is not a specific offence for a taxpayer to file an incorrect statement. If any prosecution is to take place for false filing of returns for betting and sweepstake duties, we rely on general criminal law, as in the Penal Code, which has a penalty designed to apply generally. On the other hand, the filing of incorrect returns for private lotteries duty and casino tax has each been made a specific offence. Likewise, for the filing of incorrect returns in connection with other taxes, like income tax or GST. So, this Bill proposes that the filing of an incorrect statement for betting and sweepstake duties will be a specific offence with a penalty that is consistent with similar specific offences in the other tax laws.

For example, the fines in BSDA and PLA are, currently, not aligned for the same offences. For failing to file a return, a betting operator could face a fine of up to $500 and a private lottery promoter could face a fine of $1,000. The same offence in the Income Tax Act and GST Act attracts a fine of up to $5,000. This Bill proposes that, for gambling duties, the fine for non-filing of returns will be up to $5,000, aligned with the Income Tax Act and GST Act.

Clauses 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the Bill ensure similar penalty structures across gambling taxes and that the quanta of penalties and fines are commensurate with similar offences in other tax Acts administered by IRAS.

As a related amendment, clause 46 of the Bill makes amendments to the Casino Control Act. I will explain the amendments for the casino tax, and Minister of State Alvin Tan will speak later on the revisions to the exclusivity period and divestment restrictions.

Currently, gross gaming revenue is subject to casino tax rates of 5% for premium gaming and 15% for mass gaming. These rates are not to be changed until after 28 February 2022.

In April 2019, the Government announced the introduction of a tiered casino tax structure from 1 March 2022 with higher tax rates than today and a new 10-year moratorium, subject to the casino operator meeting certain development targets.

For premium gaming, the first $2.4 billion of gross gaming revenue per year will be taxed at 8% and the rest at 12%. For mass gaming, the first $3.1 billion of gross gaming revenue per year will be taxed at 18% and the rest at 22%.

If the casino operator fails to satisfactorily meet its development targets, a flat rate of 12% for premium gaming and 22% for mass gaming will apply instead.

So, clause 46 of the Bill provides for these amendments.

Finally, we will make consequential amendments to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore Act for IRAS to establish a system providing for the electronic service of notices and documents by IRAS on taxpayers, or by taxpayers on IRAS, in connection with the administration of tax legislation administered by IRAS. This will facilitate digitalisation of tax administration. These amendments are found in clause 48 of the Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

5.27 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Gambling Duties Bill, which aims to consolidate legislation for the levy and collection of taxes on lawful bettings.

I just have three questions. Would the Minister share what has been the average annual gross revenues from local and foreign visitors respectively in premium gaming and mass gaming during the pre-COVID-19 pandemic and in the past two years? What has been the average gaming revenue per local visitor and for each foreign visitor in both premium and mass gaming pre-COVID-19 and in the past two years? What about the expected completion of the two integrated resorts' extension and projected increase in revenue with the expansion and the increase in economic contribution, including all related supporting industries?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.

5.29 pm

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Gambling Duties Act will be a new Act in our legislation although, as I understand from the Bill and from the Minister, that much of the content is not new per se and seeks to largely consolidate the law on levy and collection of duties on lawful betting and lotteries, make related amendments to the Casino Control Act and casino licences through the Betting and Sweepstake Duties Act and make consequential amendments to certain other Acts.

My speech today will focus largely on the related amendments to the Casino Control Act, which I believe to be the most significant change within this Bill. But I will, first, speak broadly about the issue of problem gambling as well as gambling duties in Singapore.

Speak of gambling and some of the images that appear in my mind are the advertisements run by the National Council on problem gambling featuring the 2012 TV commercial where a man was asking his daughter for her piggy bank and saying, "One more try and I will give it all back". Or the other advertisement featuring Andy, whose father bet all his savings on Germany.

All these advertisements were the subject of numerous light-hearted parodies and spoofs, especially after Germany won the World Cup in 2014. The issue of problem gambling and the social ills associated with it are a serious one that deserves our utmost priority whenever the topic of gambling is discussed. To this end, while there may be visible economic benefits from the investment and expansion of the two new Integrated Resorts (IRs), we should always bear in mind the less visible social costs and risks of negative externalities associated with an expanded gambling scene in Singapore.

I recognise that casino entry levies have been raised in 2019, and this has resulted in visits made by Singapore Citizens and PRs falling to 2.7% of the adult population in FY2019 from 4% in FY2018. As a result of COVID-19, however, I wonder if and how much did visitorship increase as a result of border restrictions. Further, to those at higher risk of problem gambling, the higher entry levy could instead spur them to raise their bets to cover the additional cost of entry.

So, I do hope that the Government will continue to tighten the safeguards not just against casino visitorship for locals, but to other forms of gambling as well, particularly online gambling. I have been receiving weekly SMSes and WhatsApp messages inviting me to online casinos, for example, and I am sure a number of Members would have as well. And just last month, the news about three brothers operating an illegal gambling syndicate that collected a weekly revenue of at least $1 million suggests that urgent action needs to be taken to address the shadow gambling scene in Singapore as well.

Moving on to the legalised aspects of things, gambling or betting taxes, alongside tobacco and liquor excise duties, play a not insignificant role in the Government's operating revenues over the years. In absolute terms, I note that betting taxes for FY2019, which is prior to the onset of COVID-19, account for $2.6 billion in Government revenues. Even with the onset of COVID-19, with suspension of betting activity during the circuit breaker period and the sharp fall in tourist arrivals affecting visitorship, the estimated FY2020 betting tax revenue was at $1.8 billion. This is larger than the contribution from tobacco excise duties of $1.2 billion in FY2019 and $1.4 billion in FY2020.

In the Budget Statement last year, the Government shared that betting taxes are estimated to increase by a significant 30.4% to $2.4 billion in FY2021. Yet, at the same time, revenues from betting taxes have been relatively range-bound over the past decade, with contributions from betting taxes not too different in FY2010 at about $2.3 billion. In fact, I observe that the relative share of betting taxes to the Government's operating revenues has broadly been declining over the last 20 years, from close to 6% of revenues in FY2002 to 3% of revenues in FY2021.

Given the social objective of avoiding excessive consumption of areas, such as betting, tobacco and liquor, I strongly believe that there is room for betting taxes to be raised. I recognise, of course, that part of the consequential amendments to this Bill is the raising of casino taxes, a point which I will revisit shortly in my speech. I note that the last time betting duty rates on lotteries were raised was more than seven years ago in July 2014, from 25% to 30% of gross bets. Would the Government consider raising betting duty rates and other associated gambling duty rates in the near-term in this regard?

I will next touch on amendments to the Casino Control Act, the most notable of which, in my view, is the raising of casino tax rates, which are slated to take effect from 1 March 2022. I am supportive of the raising of casino tax rates and my first question is: what are the Government's expectations of the additional revenues from higher casino taxes, not just in the next financial year, but over the next decade?

I ask this because, back when the two IRs were awarded, the Government had committed not to raise the casino tax for at least 15 years. As we are coming to the end of the moratorium in February 2022, the Government will also be providing a moratorium on the new casino tax rates, this time, for a 10-year period. As such, I believe the Government would, presumably, have conducted a comprehensive assessment as to the effect of the higher casino tax rates, as this rate cannot be changed in the next decade.

Therefore, a second related question is whether the Government can share its key considerations and deliberations before finally arriving at the current tiered casino tax rates of 8% and 12% of the gross gaming revenue (GGR) for premium gaming and 18% and 22% for mass gaming respectively. The recency of COVID-19 and the significant curtailment of visitor arrivals into Singapore could lead some quarters to question the sustainability of the higher casino tax rates, in the sense of whether or not the tax rate increase could place an onerous burden on the two casino operators, amidst ongoing uncertainties, given the effects of COVID-19. But if we take a step back, I would argue that higher casino tax rates are not only long overdue but could have room to grow in future.

I am reminded of the buzz that surrounded the opening of the two IRs back in 2010, which have, no doubt, enhanced Singapore's position as a tourist destination and the two operators have also done well for themselves, surprising many back in those days, given how both IRs have achieved success very early on in their operations.

According to an article in My Paper in June 2010, the late Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew shared that Marina Bay Sands will probably take three to seven years to reach a capacity that can help spur Singapore's tourism and convention industries. The late Mr Sheldon Adelson, former Chairman of Las Vegas Sands, however, said that Minister Mentor Lee was being a little too pessimistic and the property would be up and running at full speed the next year.

Mr Adelson was proven right in the end and, I believe, even surpassed his own expectations. He shared in a statement in 2011 that Marina Bay Sands (MBS) had generated over US$1 billion of adjusted property EBITDA in just its first 12 months of operation, which is a record not only for any property in the history of Sands, but a record for any property in the history of the industry.

Fast forward to today, I estimate that both IRs have, over the period from 2010 to 2020, generated a cumulative EBITDA of more than S$30 billion – more than double the $15 billion that they have invested in 2006, and counting. Both properties continue to generate strong earnings and cash flow today, which will, in all likelihood, recover alongside Singapore's tourism industry.

Macau, the largest gaming market globally, imposes a special gaming tax of 35% of GGR, amidst other fixed and variable premiums payable, while also requiring operators to contribute a further percentage of GGR to utilities designated by the Macau government. In this context, could there have been room for our casino tax rates to be higher? This, considering also the strong profitability of both IRs, where the recent impact from COVID-19 notwithstanding, both IRs have, historically, generated 40% to 50% EBITDA margins since their opening.

As a reference point using Sands, given that it has operations across Macau, Singapore, as well as Las Vegas, I estimate that, in pre-COVID-19 FY2019, Sands enjoyed the highest EBITDA margins in Singapore at 54%, compared to 36% in Macau and 26% in the US.

The third point I would like to raise in relation to the Casino Control Act is related to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) I filed in November where I had asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, given COVID-19 disruptions to the hospitality industry, whether there are any changes to the timeline investment commitment and nature of the S$9 billion combined investment commitment by the two IRs. Back in 2019, the Government noted that, in view of the substantial investment of $9 billion by the two IRs and to provide business certainty, the Government had agreed to extend the exclusivity period for the two casinos to end 2030, if no other casinos are to be introduced during this period,

Minister Gan Kim Yong shared in a reply to my PQ that the IRs remain committed to delivering on their expansion plans, but both have indicated that there will be potential delays in the completion of their projects. That much is clear, given Sands has shared that they may not be able to meet the target 2025 completion deadline they had previously indicated, even though completion was only required by April 2027; while Genting Singapore had announced in early 2021 that it would delay development of its RWS 2.0 expansion project until 2022.

While COVID-19 has, indeed, created significant disruptions and delays for the construction industry, how much leeway is the Government prepared to give the two IRs? Are there any revisions to the Government's required completion dates and what sort of timeline would be deemed reasonable?

I am sure, for Singaporeans looking forward to the new attractions and the IRs themselves alike, regulatory clarity and certainty on key deadlines would be much appreciated, not least because a flat tax rate will be applied if the IRs fail to meet their investment commitments.

Last but not least, with casino taxes set to rise, how much of the increased revenues from our raised casino taxes would be diverted towards efforts to mitigate the negative social effects of the continued existence of gambling establishments in this country? I would also humbly suggest that perhaps a fixed percentage or absolute amount of gambling revenues could be dedicated towards gambling safeguards and rehabilitation of problem gamblers.

I also note that in the 2019 press statement, it was revealed that the IRs will conduct a joint study with MSF to understand upstream preventive technologies and options available to promote responsible gaming among all gamblers. What has been the findings of this study, what measures will be introduced following the study and will the report be shared with the public?

All in all, I do support the rise in casino tax rates, though I believe there is still upside room to go when it comes to raising taxes, especially given the social objective of avoiding its excessive consumption. And I hope the Government will consider the points raised in my speech.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

5.41 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will consolidate the laws on duties for lawful forms of gambling. I have three points of clarifications to raise.

My first point is on the remission of gambling duties. The new section 12(1) provides for the remission of gambling duties when the gambling duties are incompatible with the purposes of the Act. Can the Minister clarify under what circumstances will gambling duties be considered incompatible with the purposes of the Act? Further, the Minister may delegate the exercise of his or her powers in relation to remission to a Commissioner or public officer. Can the Minister clarify if there are limits to the categories of public officers to whom the Minister's powers can be delegated?

My second point is on the amount of penalty tax that can be imposed on outstanding gambling duties. The new section 14(2) limits the amount of penalty tax that can be imposed to 50% of the amount of gambling duties outstanding. I agree that the amount of penalty tax should not be excessive for an individual. That said, can the Minister share what enforcement tools are available to the Ministry for the recovery of gambling duties if these remained unpaid even after the maximum amount of penalty tax has been reached? Can the Minister also share what softer measures are available for the Ministry to work with an indebted individual to meet his or her debts?

My final point is the effect of the present Bill on Singapore's public policy on gambling. The position of Singapore's public policy on gambling has been scrutinised in a series of Court of Appeal cases, including Liao Eng Kiat vs Burswood Nominees Ltd and Poh Soon Kiat vs Desert Palace Incorporated.

While the cases concerned the enforcement of gambling debts which were incurred abroad, a relevant issue considered in these cases is the local policy position on gambling. In those cases, the Court had also considered local legislation on gambling, including the Gaming Act, Casino Control Act and Common Gaming Houses Act.

Can the Minister clarify if the consolidation of laws on levies and collection of duties on lawful betting and lotteries have any effect on the public policy position on gambling in Singapore? If so, how should the Government's position on gambling be understood?

In summary, I hope the Minister can shed light on my clarifications relating to the remission of gambling duties, the imposition of penalty taxes and Singapore's public policy on gambling. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

5.43 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Gambling Duties Bill is introduced with the intention of improving the consistency of tax administration and enforcement across gambling-related taxes.

With the unprecedented roll-out of various assistance schemes, free vaccination drives and increased healthcare burden amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, many Singaporeans have come to acknowledge the importance of having adequate Government revenue and savings in our reserves. There is also greater scrutiny of the Government's fiscal policies on how monies are spent and on the sources of income. Detailed bookkeeping is, thus, paramount. It helps to minimise discrepancies and misappropriation of funds. It is part of good governance. I appreciate the details on short levying, erroneous funding and overpayment in the various sections, as well as the recovering and refunding of shortfalls. I have four queries on the Bill.

First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, will the active detection and enforcement of actions against underpayments and other discrepancies require significantly more manpower and resources? How will the Ministry ensure that IRAS is able to cope with the additional responsibilities? How does IRAS fulfil the complex requirements of bookkeeping and following up with discrepancies? Are there plans to deploy smart technology to support their operations? If so, are there safeguards to ensure that such information will only be used for the purposes of collection of gambling duties and that the data is not compromised?

Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, how will this Bill affect Singapore Sweep retailers and vendors? My main concern is for the small-time vendors and franchisees who sell Big Sweep and lottery tickets in the heartlands. Would the amendments to the tax administration scheme require any action on their part? Can the Ministry clarify whether this tax is already incorporated into the costs that they incurred from obtaining the selling rights and tickets from Singapore Pools? How will this affect them, especially with regard to their earnings?

Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, how much more revenue does IRAS project to earn, following the implementation of the Bill?

Lastly, we need to be mindful of the costs involved as a result of the Bill changes. A concern is that costs may be wasted on applications for assessment, reassessment of liability and appeals, based on similar facts from earlier cases. Furthermore, decisions and appeals made publicly available may allow appellants to discern whether to appeal, if the said appellants are made aware of previous decisions and facts hitherto. As such, will information of the appeals and decisions by the Commissioner or the Minister be published and made publicly available?

The Bill is silent as to the costs against assessment, reassessment of liability and appeal. In this connection, would cost consequence against the taxable person be necessary to prevent frivolous applications?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all these queries notwithstanding, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Alvin Tan.

5.47 pm

The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me touch on the provisions of the Bill pertaining to the Casino Licence Exclusivity Period.

When the IRs were first introduced, we provided an exclusivity period of 10 years, during which the Government would not introduce any other casinos. This was necessary as the IRs had made substantial investments and needed some business certainty.

In 2019, the two IRs committed around S$9 billion in investments to build new world-class tourism and MICE facilities. Marina Bay Sands (MBS) will introduce a state-of-the-art entertainment arena which would host world-class performances and an iconic new tower comprising hotel and rooftop attractions. There will also be additional MICE space to host exhibitions and conventions.

Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) will expand Universal Studios Singapore by almost 20% with two new themed zones – Minion Park and Super Nintendo World – and create a new Singapore Oceanarium. It will also redevelop its waterfront promenade and introduce a driverless transport system along the Sentosa Boardwalk to improve accessibility into Sentosa. These investments will enhance the attractiveness and tourism appeal of Singapore, amid stronger competition for travellers post-pandemic. Singaporeans can also look forward to more lifestyle and entertainment options.

To Mr Gan Thiam Poh's question on the potential increase in economic contribution, based on our initial projections, the IRs' expansions are expected to contribute S$500 million annually to GDP in a steady state. The expansions will also create up to 5,000 new jobs directly and benefit local businesses, especially in the construction and services sector.

As an example, last week, I witnessed the launch of the Resorts World Sentosa and the National University of Singapore (NUS) Living Laboratory project. The living lab brings together NUS' capabilities as a leading global research institute and RWS' strengths as a world-class tourism destination. The project focuses on biodiversity and energy conservation and will help preserve and restore our natural heritage. This is in line with our Singapore Green Plan 2030 and Sentosa Development Corporation's plans to transform Sentosa into a carbon-neutral destination by 2030. Again, it will, in turn, enhance Sentosa's appeal as a tourism and conservation destination.

These are hefty investments and a further extension of the exclusivity period was required, as the casino is a small but essential part of the IR in that it makes the larger development and slew of activities which I mentioned earlier financially viable. The duration of the exclusivity period was arrived at after considering factors, such as what the parties could offer, the social impact, competitive dynamics and what the IRs deemed necessary from a financial viability viewpoint.

Clause 46(1) amends section 41 of the Casino Control Act to introduce this exclusivity period. Clause 46(2) amends section 42 of the Casino Control Act to reflect this updated exclusivity period.

For the new attractions and facilities in the expanded IRs to remain commercially viable, the Government also announced in April 2019 that the IRs would be allowed to have additional gaming machines and the option to purchase additional Approved Gaming Area, or AGA. However, even if the IRs fully utilised their options, AGA, as a proportion of total floor area, would be reduced from 3.2% to 2.4%. This is because non-gaming areas will expand by a much larger amount.

As a pre-emptive measure to minimise the social impact of problem gambling, the Government raised the casino entry levies for Singaporeans and Permanent Residents by 50% in April 2019.

In response to Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Louis Chua's questions on the expected completion of the two IR expansions, the IRs remain committed to the expansion plans. However, with the disruption that COVID-19 has had on the construction industry, both IRs have indicated that there will be potential delays in the completion of their projects. And this is not altogether surprising or unique to this project or this industry. COVID-19 has impacted construction timelines, both locally and globally. As the COVID-19 situation continues to evolve and, in fact, is evolving, and the IRs' expansions are complex multi-year projects, the full extent of the delay is not yet clear.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the IRs' expansion aims to provide new world-class tourism and MICE facilities. This will enhance Singapore's tourism appeal, provide more entertainment options and jobs for Singaporeans and benefit local businesses. To this end, clauses 46(1) and 46(2) of the Gambling Duties Bill make amendments to the Casino Control Act related to the exclusivity period.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Lawrence Wong.

5.53 pm

Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Louis Chua and Mr Louis Ng for their support for the Bill. Let me address their comments and queries in turn.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked whether the Bill will create significant additional resourcing needs for IRAS. It will not. First, the Bill consolidates and streamlines laws that are, currently, contained within the BSDA and PLA. So, many of these functions are already performed by IRAS today. Second, where there are new functions like electronic serving of notices, or the ability to enter and search premises for the enforcement of betting and sweepstake duties, these functions are not new to IRAS. IRAS, currently, performs these functions for the other taxes that it administers and has the requisite capabilities.

Mr Yip Hong Weng also asked if IRAS has plans to use smart technology to support its operations. IRAS already does this and will continue to do so. The consequential amendment to the IRAS Act in this Bill to provide for an electronic service system paves the way for e-services for betting and casino operators and private lottery promoters. More generally, IRAS is developing new artificial intelligence applications to enhance and automate key processes for the taxes that it administers. IRAS will continue to improve on its administration and enforcement to keep it efficient and effective. In fact, fiscal year 2020, across all taxes, IRAS has kept its cost of collection low, at less than one cent for every dollar of tax revenue collected.

Mr Louis Ng asked what enforcement tools are available to IRAS for the recovery of unpaid gambling duties and where the maximum penalties have already been reached. He also asked what softer measures are available for an indebted individual to meet his tax obligations. The taxpayers for the three types of betting taxes – casino tax, private lotteries duty and betting and sweepstake duties – are business providers of gaming and, generally, not individuals acting in their individual capacity. So far, these taxpayers have been compliant. If the need arises to recover unpaid betting taxes, the tools available for IRAS include suing the taxpayer or appointing someone who holds money for the taxpayer, such as a bank, to pay the sum to the Commissioner. If an individual is indebted, IRAS will explore a payment arrangement with the indebted individual to meet his or her debts.

As to Mr Yip Hon Weng's suggestion to require an appellant to pay costs to prevent frivolous applications for assessment, reassessment of liability and appeals, such frivolous applications are not an issue, currently, for betting taxes. So, we do not charge taxpayers who apply to IRAS for revising their tax assessments.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how we protect taxpayer data. Clause 43 of the Bill ensures that all taxpayer data collected by IRAS for the gambling duties will be regarded as secret and confidential. A corresponding provision already exists in most other tax Acts. It is an offence to share confidential information except in certain specified circumstances. Authorised persons who are granted access to taxpayer data are required to make and subscribe to a declaration of secrecy. Even without a specific confidentiality provision, taxpayer income information is protected by the common law duty of confidentiality, the Official Secrets Act and the data protection regime under the Public Sector (Governance) Act.

Mr Louis Ng asked about the remission of gambling duties. This pertains to clause 12(1) of the Bill which provides for remission when the gambling duties are incompatible with the purposes of the Act.

This Ministerial power to remit taxes is a provision that is present in other existing tax Acts like the GST Act, the Income Tax Act, the Property Tax Act and the Stamp Duties Act. So, it is a generic provision that we have in our tax Acts. While it is unlikely that such remission power will be invoked for gambling duties, we have, nevertheless, provided for this remission power for gambling duties in the remote event that such an unforeseen situation should arise.

Now, let me touch on the broader impact of the Bill.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked whether small-scale vendors and franchisees, especially those who sell Big Sweep and lottery tickets in the heartlands, will be affected. The changes only affect the betting operator or the private lottery promoter, rather than retailers. For the individual retailers, the amendments do not require any additional action on their part and, because there is no change in the rates of duty, the amendments will also not impact their earnings.

Mr Louis Chua asked if the Government would consider a raising of betting taxes, particularly with regard to sweepstakes and private lotteries. These are not being contemplated as part of this Bill. There is no change that we are proposing for now, but we will continue to review the betting tax regime, as we do for other taxes on a regular basis. Our objective is to ensure that betting taxes are high enough to manage gambling demand and, at the same time, that operators and promoters can compete effectively against illegal gambling operators.

I turn now to Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Gan Thiam Poh's questions on the revenue collection associated with the changes in this Bill.

On the casino tax, Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the gaming revenue from local and foreign visitors for premium and mass gaming. We do not collect data on the proportion of casino tax from local and foreign visitors. This is because casino tax does not differentiate between whether the individual concerned is a local or a foreigner.

I am unable, unfortunately, to share the details of casino tax collections. As there are only two casinos in Singapore, the Government is unable to disclose the amount of casino tax revenue or the breakdown between premium and mass gaming. Casino tax revenue is included under a broader classification of betting taxes which also includes taxes from lotteries, horse and sports betting and fruit machines. The total revenue from all betting taxes was $2.6 billion in FY2019 and $1.8 billion in FY2020. The numbers are still being finalised for FY2021 but we do not expect them to recover to pre-COVID-19 levels in the short term.

As for Mr Gan Thiam Poh's question on the projected increase in revenue with the expansion and increase in economic contribution, I believe this has been covered by Minister of State Alvin Tan when he talked about the expected economic benefits of IRs in his speech. The increase in tax revenue would depend on how well the IRs do after their additional investments.

Finally, in response to Mr Louis Ng's query, this Bill consolidates the existing laws on the levy and collection of taxes on lawful betting and lotteries but it does not impact what Singapore's public policy position on gambling is. We have, on multiple occasions, articulated our approach towards problem gambling and this position remains unchanged.

Mr Louis Chua also asked about resources to address this and I would like to assure him that the Government will ensure that sufficient resources are set aside to deal with problem gambling.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe I have addressed Members' concerns and questions and I beg to move.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Are there any clarifications? Ms Denise Phua.

6.01 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask both the Minister and Minister of State about the overall prognosis and relevance of the physical IR business model. I have several reasons for asking.

Number one is, with COVID-19, whether endemic or pandemic, there is a lot less travel, especially in business travel. So, I wanted to know, in terms of jobs created and the MICE industry and tourism management expertise that we were supposed to acquire as a result of the IR policy – how has this physical IR model actually benefited the Singapore economy.

The second is that we all know that there is a rapid rise of online gambling. And I wanted to ask the Minister how the gambling duties for this rapidly rising source of gambling revenue are collected and whether more attention is applied to the space of online gambling because, actually, over the last 10 to 15 years, a lot of things have changed, in fact.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Alvin Tan.

Mr Alvin Tan: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Ms Denise Phua for her question. This is with regard to the overall tourism strategy and our strategy with regard to MICE. I would say that, as Members are aware, the tourism sector, be it the aviation sector or the associated sectors, have been hard hit by COVID-19 due to travel restrictions and safe management measures (SMMs). But that does not mean that we should hold back or not invest in our tourism capabilities and capacity for the long run. This is because the tourism landscape, as I mentioned earlier, is getting competitive and we must position ourselves for when tourism upticks, for when regular travel resumes and for when events, such as MICE, tourism, start to resume some form of normalcy.

Last year, we were preparing the tourism and MICE sectors for such an eventuality and, so, we undertook four MICE pilots and those pilots went well. This puts us on a strong footing.

With regard to the IR expansions, these are also necessary, as the Member noted earlier, to put the IRs in a good position as a tourism enabler for Singapore in the long run. And that is why the IRs are expanding. And most of the offerings are catered towards tourism and developing this capability for when tourism and travel resume. And we must be prepared to take that uplift and we must be prepared to carry that wind when it comes.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Lawrence Wong.

Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Deputy Speaker, in response to the query from Ms Denise Phua on online gambling, indeed, the trend is moving more towards online gambling. However, our concern is not about the regulated space but over the illegal space. And if technology continues to make it easier for people to gamble anywhere and everywhere, then such illegal online gambling may continue to grow. I think Mr Louis Chua also highlighted this in his speech.

I think a fuller exposition on all the safeguards that the relevant authorities have put into this is probably worth a separate airing, not related to this Bill, because this comes under various agencies, including MHA. But I would assure the Member that the Government pays close attention to this and we continue to keep a close watch to monitor the issue of problem gambling, including problem gambling online.

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. – [Mr Lawrence Wong].

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