Members of the Second Standing Committee of parliament have questioned the authority governing junket contracts being divided between two different officials, committee president Chan Chak Mo said yesterday.
While considering the draft legislation of the Casino Gaming Operation and Business System bill, colloquially known as the junket operation bill or junkets bill, members of the committee could not understand the junkets bill’s proposals to empower the Secretary for Economy and Finance to approve junket operation contracts and the director of the Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau (DICJ) to approve the alteration or amendment of such contracts.
Yesterday, while representing the committee, Chan told the press that although procedurally the DICJ director may consult their superintendent, the secretary, prior to the approval of alterations or amendments, the proposal does not designate the secretary as the approving entity. This has raised questions among committee members, who agreed that the secretary should have authority over important matters.
Earlier, Chan disclosed that the committee wanted to cross-reference the junkets bill with the gaming law amendment bill, as it considers them to be closely connected. As of yesterday, however, the committee had not received the second draft of the latter bill.
The committee found discrepancies yesterday between some of the junkets bill’s proposals and relevant proposals in the gaming law amendment bill, such as the linkage of a junket operator and a gambling concessionaire, as well as junkets only being able to earn money from commissions. It will thus request that the government make adjustments to remedy these discrepancies.
The level of commissions and calculation methodology will be determined by the Secretary for Economy and Finance. Chan thinks that raising the level of commissions is certain to benefit junket operators, but will increase the burden on gambling concessionaires if the tax rate is not lowered.
It is also proposed that junkets be banned from accepting monetary deposits from any party, but Chan pointed out that the parliament’s legal consultants had found discordance between this and the proposals in the gaming law amendment bill.
