Statute Details
- Title: Casino Control (Designated Second Site) Order 2012
- Act Code: CCA2006-S154-2012
- Type: Subsidiary legislation (Order)
- Enacting Act: Casino Control Act (Chapter 33A)
- Enabling power: Section 2(2) of the Casino Control Act
- Citation: Casino Control (Designated Second Site) Order 2012
- Commencement: Deemed to have come into operation on 1 March 2007
- Key operative provisions: Sections 1–3
- Designated site provision: Section 2 (Sentosa northern coast parcels)
- Revocation provision: Section 3 (revokes the 2009 Second Site Order)
- Geographic focus: Northern coast of Sentosa (bounded by Sentosa Gateway, Artillery Avenue and Siloso Road)
- Duration of designation: 30 years commencing on 1 March 2007
What Is This Legislation About?
The Casino Control (Designated Second Site) Order 2012 is a Singapore legal instrument that designates a specific location where a casino may be located as a “second site” under the Casino Control Act (Chapter 33A). In practical terms, it identifies the land parcels on Sentosa that are eligible to host a casino, and it does so by reference to a Land Parcel Plan set out in the Schedule.
Although the Order is made in 2012, it is “deemed” to have come into operation on 1 March 2007. This means the legal effect of the designation is treated as starting from that earlier date, rather than from the date the Order was made. The designation runs for a fixed period of 30 years commencing on 1 March 2007.
The Order also updates the legal framework by revoking an earlier instrument: the Casino Control (Designated Second Site) Order 2009. This is a common legislative technique where the government replaces an earlier designation order—often to correct, refine, or consolidate the land description—while preserving the underlying policy of allowing a casino at the designated site for the relevant period.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation and commencement) provides the formal name of the instrument and its commencement rule. The Order may be cited as the Casino Control (Designated Second Site) Order 2012. Critically, it states that it “shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1st March 2007.” For practitioners, this is important because it affects the start date for the 30-year designation and may influence how rights, approvals, or compliance obligations are assessed over time.
Section 2 (Designated site) is the core operative provision. It designates “all those parcels of land along the northern coast of Sentosa” bounded by three specified boundaries: Sentosa Gateway, Artillery Avenue and Siloso Road at Sentosa. The provision then identifies the parcels by lot numbers—Lot numbers 459M, 581C, 424N, 554P, 2740T, 2741A, 2742K, 2743N, 2744X, 2745L, 2746C, 2771T, 2772A, 2773K, 2774N, 2775X, 2776L, 2777C, 2779W, 2787K, 2788N, 2791N, 2793L, 2794C, 2797V and 2798P in Mukim No. 34.
Section 2 further specifies the legal consequence of the designation: these parcels “shall be designated the Sentosa site on which a casino may be located” for a period of 30 years commencing on 1st March 2007. This language is significant because it does not merely describe land; it confers a regulatory eligibility framework. In other words, the casino licensing/approval regime under the Casino Control Act can only contemplate a casino at a site that has been designated under the Act’s mechanism. The Order therefore functions as a gatekeeping instrument: it defines the permissible geographic footprint for a casino as a “second site.”
Section 3 (Revocation) revokes the Casino Control (Designated Second Site) Order 2009 (G.N. No. S 29/2009). Revocation ensures that there is no conflict between the earlier and later designation instruments. For legal practice, revocation also matters for historical interpretation: if a dispute or compliance question arises about which land parcels were designated at a particular time, counsel will need to consider the effective date and the relationship between the 2009 and 2012 Orders, including the fact that the 2012 Order is deemed to operate from 1 March 2007.
The Schedule (referred to in Section 2) contains the Land Parcel Plan that delineates and marks the designated area. While the extract provided does not reproduce the Schedule contents, the Schedule is legally important because it supplies the precise mapping of the boundaries and parcels. In land-related regulatory contexts, the plan can be decisive where there is any ambiguity about the extent of the designated site.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
The Order is structured in a short, conventional format for subsidiary legislation made under a parent Act. It contains:
(1) Enacting formula stating that the Minister for Home Affairs makes the Order in exercise of powers conferred by section 2(2) of the Casino Control Act.
(2) Sections 1–3 covering citation/commencement, designation of the site, and revocation of the earlier 2009 Order.
(3) The Schedule providing the Land Parcel Plan used to delineate the designated land. The Schedule is referenced in Section 2 and is therefore integral to determining the exact geographic scope.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
This Order is not drafted as a regulatory code directed at the general public. Instead, it applies to the casino regulatory framework under the Casino Control Act by designating land where a casino may be located. The immediate “addressees” are, in effect, the licensing and regulatory processes administered under the Casino Control Act—particularly any party seeking to develop, operate, or obtain approvals for a casino at the designated Sentosa site.
Accordingly, the practical impact is felt by casino operators, developers, landowners, and other stakeholders involved in the Sentosa site. However, the Order itself does not set out licensing conditions, operational requirements, or enforcement procedures; those matters are governed by the Casino Control Act and any subsidiary regulations made under it. The Order’s role is geographic and eligibility-focused: it defines where a casino may be located for the stated period.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
First, it defines the permissible location for a casino. Under the Casino Control Act’s scheme, the designation of a site is a prerequisite to the possibility of locating a casino there. For practitioners advising on feasibility, planning, or regulatory strategy, the designation is a foundational legal fact. Without a valid designation, subsequent approvals or proposals may be legally constrained or invalid.
Second, it fixes a time-limited designation. The Order designates the Sentosa site for 30 years commencing on 1 March 2007. This temporal limitation is crucial for long-term commercial planning and for assessing whether future renewals, extensions, or re-designations may be required. It also affects how counsel might evaluate the risk profile of investments tied to the casino’s operational lifespan.
Third, it demonstrates how legislative updates are managed through revocation and replacement. By revoking the 2009 Order, the 2012 Order clarifies the operative legal instrument. Even where the underlying policy remains the same (a Sentosa second site), the replacement mechanism ensures that the legal description is current and that there is a single authoritative designation. In practice, this can matter when interpreting historical compliance, determining which parcels were designated at a given time, or reconciling planning documents with the legal designation.
Finally, it underscores the importance of precision in land delineation. The Order’s reliance on lot numbers, Mukim, and a Land Parcel Plan reflects the legal system’s need for certainty in land boundaries. For disputes or due diligence, counsel should treat the Schedule plan and the boundary description as potentially decisive evidence of the designated area.
Related Legislation
- Casino Control Act (Chapter 33A) — the enabling Act and the primary statute governing casino regulation, licensing, and related compliance obligations.
- Casino Control (Designated Second Site) Order 2009 (G.N. No. S 29/2009) — revoked by Section 3 of the 2012 Order.
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Casino Control (Designated Second Site) Order 2012 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.