Statute Details
- Title: Casino Control (Exemption from Exclusion from Casino) Order 2013
- Act Code: CCA2006-S82-2013
- Legislation Type: Subsidiary legislation (Order)
- Authorising Act: Casino Control Act (Cap. 33A), section 165A(1A)
- Enacting Minister/Authority: Mr Chan Chun Sing, Senior Minister of State (charged with responsibility for the Minister for Social and Family Development)
- Citation: Casino Control (Exemption from Exclusion from Casino) Order 2013
- Commencement: 13 February 2013
- Key Provisions: Sections 1–3 (Section 4 deleted)
- Current Status: Current version as at 26 March 2026
- Notable Amendments: Amended by S 489/2013; S 433/2022; S 618/2022 (with effective dates shown in the extract)
What Is This Legislation About?
The Casino Control (Exemption from Exclusion from Casino) Order 2013 is a targeted exemption instrument made under the Casino Control Act (Cap. 33A). In plain terms, it addresses a specific situation where certain non-citizens would otherwise be subject to exclusion-related restrictions affecting casino access and participation in gambling activities.
Under the Casino Control Act, the regulatory framework includes mechanisms to exclude individuals from entering casinos or participating in gambling, typically to protect the integrity of the casino industry and to manage social risks associated with gambling. However, the Act also empowers the Minister to carve out exemptions in appropriate circumstances. This Order is one such exemption: it allows a defined category of non-citizens—those on a particular legal aid scheme connected to international child abduction—to enter or remain in casinos and to take part in gaming and remote gambling, despite the general exclusion regime.
Practically, the Order is not a broad “general permission” for non-citizens. It is narrow and conditional. It applies only to persons “referred to” in section 165A(1)(a) of the Casino Control Act, and only where the person is (i) on the legal aid scheme under the International Child Abduction Act 2010 and (ii) is not a citizen or permanent resident of Singapore. The exemption is therefore best understood as a procedural fairness and access-to-justice measure, ensuring that legal processes involving international child abduction do not become practically impossible due to casino exclusion rules.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation and commencement) establishes the formal identity of the instrument and its effective date. The Order may be cited as the Casino Control (Exemption from Exclusion from Casino) Order 2013 and came into operation on 13 February 2013. For practitioners, this matters when assessing whether a particular casino-related event occurred before or after the exemption became available.
Section 2 (Definitions) provides interpretive guidance. The extract shows that the term “permanent resident” is defined by reference to section 5(6) of the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1995. This cross-reference is important because the exemption turns on whether the person is a citizen or permanent resident. If the person’s status is disputed, counsel will need to confirm the legal meaning of “permanent resident” under the Legal Aid and Advice Act framework.
Section 3 (Exemption of non-citizen on legal aid) is the operative provision. It states that a person referred to in section 165A(1)(a) of the Casino Control Act who meets both conditions below is not excluded from certain activities:
- Condition (a): the person is on the legal aid scheme under the International Child Abduction Act 2010.
- Condition (b): the person is not a citizen or permanent resident of Singapore.
Once those conditions are satisfied, the person is not excluded from:
- entering or remaining on casino premises;
- taking part in any gaming on casino premises;
- taking part in gaming in any gaming machine room; and
- engaging in all manner of general remote gambling.
From a legal analysis perspective, the breadth of the exemption is notable. It covers both physical presence (entering/remaining) and participation (gaming in casinos and gaming machine rooms), as well as remote gambling. The inclusion of “all manner of general remote gambling” suggests that the exemption is intended to remove the practical barrier created by exclusion orders, even where participation occurs through remote channels.
Section 4 (Deleted) indicates that an earlier provision existed but has been removed. While the extract does not show the content of the deleted section, the deletion means that practitioners should not rely on any former text. Instead, the current legal effect is primarily governed by sections 1–3.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
This Order is structured as a short, three-part instrument (with a deleted section). It follows the typical format of Singapore subsidiary legislation: an enacting formula, followed by provisions on citation/commencement, definitions, and the substantive exemption.
Section 1 is procedural (citation and commencement). Section 2 is interpretive (definitions, including the cross-referenced definition of “permanent resident”). Section 3 contains the substantive rule: the exemption and its conditions and scope. Section 4 is deleted, meaning it no longer forms part of the operative legal framework.
Because the Order is an exemption from exclusion, it is best read together with the relevant provisions in the Casino Control Act, particularly section 165A(1)(a) (which identifies the class of persons to whom the exemption applies) and section 165A(1A) (which provides the power to make such an exemption order). The cross-references are central to understanding the legal “hook” that brings the Order into play.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The exemption applies to a specific class of individuals: persons who are referred to in section 165A(1)(a) of the Casino Control Act. While the extract does not reproduce section 165A(1)(a), the structure indicates that section 165A(1)(a) identifies persons who would otherwise be excluded from entering or remaining in casinos or participating in gambling activities.
Within that class, the Order further narrows eligibility to those who are (i) on the legal aid scheme under the International Child Abduction Act 2010 and (ii) not a citizen or permanent resident of Singapore. Therefore, the exemption is not available to citizens or permanent residents, even if they are on the same legal aid scheme. It is also not available to non-citizens who are not on that specific legal aid scheme.
In practice, counsel should expect that eligibility will turn on documentary proof of legal aid status and the person’s immigration status (citizen vs permanent resident vs other non-citizen category). The definition of “permanent resident” by reference to the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1995 underscores that status determinations should be anchored in the relevant statutory definition rather than informal understanding.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
This Order is important because it demonstrates how Singapore’s casino regulatory regime can accommodate access-to-justice considerations. Exclusion from casinos is a serious restriction with real-world consequences. By carving out a narrow exemption for non-citizens on legal aid for international child abduction matters, the law reduces the risk that exclusion rules could undermine the ability to participate in legal processes that may require attendance at or interaction with casino-related facilities.
For practitioners, the key value of this Order lies in its precision. It is not a general waiver; it is a conditional exemption tied to a particular legal aid scheme. That means lawyers should treat it as a fact-sensitive instrument. When advising clients who may be subject to exclusion, counsel should check whether the client falls within the section 165A(1)(a) category and whether the client is on the International Child Abduction Act 2010 legal aid scheme. If both are satisfied, the Order provides a clear basis to argue that the client is not excluded from casino entry, gaming participation, and general remote gambling.
The Order also has practical implications for compliance and enforcement. Casino operators and relevant authorities must respect the exemption’s scope. The inclusion of remote gambling indicates that compliance systems should not assume that exclusion only affects physical entry. Where the exemption applies, the person should not be blocked from “all manner of general remote gambling,” which may require operational adjustments in how remote gambling access is controlled.
Finally, the amendment history signals that the legal framework has been updated over time (including changes effective in 2021–2022 and the deletion of section 4). Practitioners should therefore verify the current version and effective dates when advising on events occurring around amendment dates.
Related Legislation
- Casino Control Act (Cap. 33A) — in particular section 165A(1)(a) and section 165A(1A)
- International Child Abduction Act 2010 — legal aid scheme referenced in section 3
- Legal Aid and Advice Act 1995 — definition of “permanent resident” referenced in section 2
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Casino Control (Exemption from Exclusion from Casino) Order 2013 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.