|
The Casino Control Bill 2006, |
2nd Reading Speech by DPM and Minister for Home
Affairs, Wong Kan Seng, Parliament Sitting, 13 February 2006 |
Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, that
the Bill be now read a second time. |
Background |
In April last year, the Government announced
its decision to invite proposals to develop two Integrated Resorts with
casinos in Singapore. |
This was debated over four days in
Parliament during which many Members of Parliament shared their concerns
on gambling, stated their positions and made suggestions concerning
casinos in Singapore. |
The Integrated Resorts was also a subject of
vigorous public discussion for over a year. |
There were many Singaporeans who supported
the proposal for the Integrated Resorts as they will enhance Singapore¡¯s
tourism appeal vis-¨¤-vis other popular tourist destinations that are
also reinventing themselves. The Integrated Resorts would provide a
strong boost to our economy and create many new jobs for Singaporeans. |
At the same time, having casinos could mean
more people gambling and getting themselves ¨C and their families ¨C into
trouble. |
Concerns were expressed that crimes, such as
loan sharking, money laundering and prostitution could increase and
tarnish Singapore¡¯s reputation as a clean, safe and secure place and
that casino gambling could also erode values such as thrift and hard
work that have underpinned Singapore¡¯s success. |
Finally, after much debate and deliberation,
we decided to act in favour of what would bring more benefit to
Singapore and Singaporeans, and to allow the Integrated Resorts to be
built. |
At the same time, we will also take measures
to minimize the undesirable effects of casino gambling, and put in
appropriate safeguards to deter vulnerable persons from the casino. |
Sir, the Casino Control Bill that I have
introduced in Parliament is an important milestone in the process of
bringing the Integrated Resorts project to fruition. |
The Bill seeks to put in place a legislative
and regulatory framework that will help provide an environment where the
Integrated Resorts can succeed and thrive, while enabling us to keep
social and law and order problems under control. |
Learning from other Leading Jurisdictions |
Since April last year, my Ministry has been
studying the regulatory practices of well-known casino jurisdictions in
other parts of the world. |
We studied multi-casino jurisdictions, such
as Nevada and New Jersey in the US; and single-casino jurisdictions,
such as New South Wales and Victoria in Australia and Macau. |
I visited casinos and regulators in Las
Vegas and Macau to appreciate first hand the challenges and issues of
regulating an industry as complex and dynamic as casinos. |
Apart from Las Vegas and Macau, my officials
also visited casino regulators and operators in New Jersey in the US and
New South Wales and Victoria in Australia to learn from their
experience. |
The issues and concerns across the various
jurisdictions are not very different from ours. However, each
jurisdiction has chosen a slightly different approach to tackle specific
issues, depending on its historical and legislative context, as well as
the resources available. |
For instance, in US, the general practice is
to divide the regulatory powers into a Commission, which sets the
policies and collects licensing fees, and a separate Casino Control
Board, to enforce the policies and conduct investigations. This reflects
their preference for checks and balances. In Australia, however, the
regulatory powers are centralised in a single agency for effectiveness
and efficiency. |
Having studied more about the best practices
across these jurisdictions, we have adapted the best practices and sound
policies appropriate to our unique requirements. We aim to position our
Integrated Resorts with the best in the world. Our regulatory standards
must necessarily be on par with theirs too. |
Public Consultation |
My Ministry put up the draft Casino Control
Bill for public consultation from 17 October to 11 November last year.
Members of the public were invited to give their comments on the Bill.
Potential investors of our integrated resorts were also invited to
provide feedback on the Bill. We also sent the draft to regulators in
the US and Australia for comments. |
Public Feedback |
The exercise has generated useful feedback
from Singaporeans. Most of it pertained to specific social safeguards,
such as the entry levy and exclusion orders, and on not crime,
corruption or other law and order concerns traditionally associated with
casinos. |
This suggests that there is public
confidence in the Government's ability to manage the potential law and
order issues associated with casinos. |
It is interesting to note that while some
members of the public suggested that we should remove or lower the entry
levy, there were others who supported the entry levy, and even suggested
raising it higher and incorporating more entry criteria! |
On balance, we decided to keep the entry
levy fees at $100 per 24 hours and $2,000 per year, as we felt that it
should be adequate to discourage Singaporeans from picking up the
gambling habit. |
More..... |
Source:
www.mha.gov.sg Press Release 13 Feb
2006 |
Related Articles: |
-
Genting International and Star Cruises wins Sentosa IR bid |
-
Las Vegas Sands awarded Integrated Resort Project at Marina Bay |
 |
Important
Notice |
Our FrontPage
Editions are a historical record of our Web site and reflect
the changing of the times, and also of our Web site through
time. We do not and will not update the links and stories on
these FrontPages even if they have become obsolete. |
|