Hon. Faiszer Musthapha, PC

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the proposed Gambling Regulatory Authority Bill.

¶ 02 Casinos and gambling have already been legitimized; the question is whether this Bill ensures oversight, accountability, and responsible governance.

¶ 03 The global casino market was valued at USD 287 billion in 2022 and projected to reach USD 477 billion by 2031. Gambling is a necessary evil; unless we are geared, we will lose out on tourism. Personally, I would prohibit gambling, but to attract tourists and foreign exchange, we must manage it. We are not promoting gambling among locals, but enticing foreign nationals to bring in forex.

¶ 04 Historically, pre-colonial gambling existed. The first regulatory framework—the 1889 Gaming Ordinance—criminalized unlawful and common gaming; horse-race betting was separately regulated. Post-independence, while discouraging gambling, the State promoted lotteries. With the 1977 open economy, casinos emerged, initially illegal, yet taxed via the 1988 Betting and Gaming Levy Act—effectively tacit acceptance.

¶ 05 True legitimacy came with the Casino Businesses (Regulation) Act, No. 17 of 2010, introducing licensing. In 2013/14, James Packer proposed a USD 350–400m casino; apart from social objections, there was an egregious economic issue: tax holidays for 10 years, implying about USD 1 billion revenue loss over a decade. In 2015, the Government cancelled permits and concessions; the project ended.

¶ 06 Currently, operators receive no concessions; even a foreign operator who invested USD 125m is under the same taxes and levies—a level playing field. However, the 2010 Act had weaknesses: inadequate anti–money laundering monitoring and loopholes leaving gaming under-regulated.

¶ 07 This Bill is a step in the right direction but has shortcomings to fix. In 2010, the Finance Minister had absolute discretion to grant licences—requiring political patronage. The present Bill creates an Authority, with appeals to the Secretary and then the Court of Appeal—a transparent process for refusals or suspensions.

¶ 08 The Bill also addresses online casinos—a USD 110 billion global industry accessible via smartphones. I urge stringent laws for online gaming; brick-and-mortar casinos create jobs and tourism; online gaming leaks revenue offshore and can be addictive.

¶ 09 On autonomy: Clause 77(1) empowers the Minister to give directions mandatory for the Authority, potentially infringing autonomy. For a regulatory authority, ministerial dictates can undermine independence. Please revisit this Clause. Overall, this Bill is more transparent than 2010.

¶ 10 Given our focus on foreign tourists, the Authority should include a representative from the tourism sector.

¶ 11 Clause 22’s “main cash desk” should not be interpreted as a physical desk in a digital age; it should mean a centralized system accommodating electronic transactions. The term “currency” in Clauses 22 and 59 should include electronic fund transfers; otherwise it creates issues for auditability and travelers.

¶ 12 Definitions—“digital gambling,” “gambling software,” “prohibited gambling machine,” “junket,” “junket operator,” “casino game”—need clarity, preferably via regulations, to reduce ambiguity and align with international norms.

¶ 13 Casinos have operated here since 2010. The debate should focus on transparency and accountability of the Authority. Please consider our suggestions to resolve ambiguities and attract reputable operators, as Singapore did—after initial resistance, they studied, legalized, and saw GDP increase by 1–2% and tourist arrivals by 50%.

¶ 14 Thank you.