Introduction
Mr Speaker, I last spoke about the Gambling Duties Bill and the Gambling Control & 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.
Raising gambling duties and casino tax rates
On the topic of economic interests, I wish to once again raise the point I made during this year’s budget debates that in Singapore, betting taxes as a percentage of GDP have been flat in past years at around 0.5%; and 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 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% and 12% of GGR for premium gaming and 18% and 22% for mass gaming respectively. Macau, the largest gaming market globally imposes a special gaming tax of 35% of 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. Effectively this would bring effective gaming tax rates to much higher than 35%.
It is especially important to place this call for an increase against the context that the two Integrated Resorts here have been reporting very strong profitability, in spite of the higher casino tax rates, where in their most recent half year results, Genting Singapore saw gaming revenues up 28% to S$957.6 million in the first six months of the year, driving adjusted EBITDA 26% higher to S$570.8 million, putting the company on track to beat its “robust 2023 performance” as highlighted by the company at its recent AGM where it saw adjusted EBITDA of more than a billion dollars 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. Furthermore, 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 has since been divested.
Considering that the casino licenses 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 is 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?
Staying ahead of the technology game
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 casino gambling.
In its press release, the 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 out numerous websites, listing down all the different online gambling portals in Singapore. 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, 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 6 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?
Of honest mistakes and retrospective legislation
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, the 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, the 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 5-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 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. PM 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”.
The 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 revenues is a meaningful sum, but it is also significant to the Singaporeans and PRs who were overcharged. Whatever’s one’s views towards those who visit casinos is quite secondary to the principle of the rule of law we are trying to uphold in this country.
Conclusion
Allow me to conclude in Mandarin Mr Speaker.
第一，虽然我们常说‘小赌怡情’，但事实上更多人是‘十赌九输’。所以我认为在追求经济利益的同时，我们也应该维护社会福祉，不断地加强我们对弱势族群的保护。在网络赌博泛滥的时代，我们的网络封锁就算不能做到滴水不漏，但是否能够利用科技超前布局，有效地控管赌博问题？
第二，在我们的综合度假胜地（IRs）赚得盆满钵满的当儿，我认为政府应该慎重考虑对它们征收更高的税，在补充财政收入的当儿，同时还可以遏制赌博活动带来的社会弊病。
第三，总理曾说追溯性立法应谨慎对待，仅在万不得已的情况下采用。既然追溯性立法是例外而非常态，那为何我们现在却用追溯性立法来弥补某人的缺失？这样的作法是否得当？这值得我们所有人深思。