Closed satellite casinos will not be permitted to reopen, despite the government’s recent U-turn in a legislative amendment, Secretary for Economy and Finance, Lei Wai Nong, said yesterday.
In yesterday’s parliamentary question session, the senior official was questioned by lawmakers on various aspects of the closure of the satellite casinos, such as the employment market and economic impact following the closures.
For example, lawmaker Ella Lei questioned how the government would manage the impact of the in-depth adjustment of the casino market.
Satellite casino is a colloquial reference to the non-legal practice of casinos operating on premises not owned by gambling concessionaires. An example is the casino building in Macau Fisherman’s Wharf. The ownership of the building is registered with businessman David Chow’s operation but is operated by SJM Resorts, S.A.
When the government submitted to the parliament the draft of the amendment to the gaming law over a month ago, the local community was unsettled by the government’s proposal that all casinos must be operated in properties owned by gambling concessionaires.
The international market, meanwhile, was also monitoring future options.
Despite a three-year buffer period being proposed, the government’s proposal led to heated debates, considering the existence of approximately two dozen such establishments across the city.
Several satellite casinos have announced that they will close following the government’s proposal and its apparently initially inflexible stance, which has caused worries that a serial shutdown may lead to further strife in the already tough job market.
About two weeks ago, it was suddenly announced by the parliamentary committee responsible for studying the amendment to the law that the government had altered its proposal. The new proposal, if made into law, would allow gambling concessionaires to rent casino spaces from non-licensees.
In response to lawmakers’ questions, the Finance Secretary doubled down, insisting that owners of closed satellite casinos “should not consider” reopening the establishments. This completely neglects the fact that the closure of a casino requires a prior application to the Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau (DICJ) and such a decision may not be reversible.
He also commented on the U-turn for the first time.
“The reason why the government made adjustments to [its proposal] is because it hopes to achieve a win-win situation,” Lei told the parliament. “Of course, the government hopes satellite casinos will remain open and hopes to create healthily manageable conditions [for them].”
Commenting on the impact of the city’s satellite casinos possibly preparing for a complete shutdown on the job market, Lei opined that cutting all non-local workers at a single stroke was not an ideal response.
He added that casino property owners are responsible for the employment and related issues concerning their employees. He suggests affected employees, if faced with employment disputes, should approach the Labour Affairs Bureau (DSAL) for assistance.
Moreover, the official emphasized that any business closure is a commercial decision and that the government will not intervene. He added that gambling concessionaires must absorb croupiers who work at their satellite establishments.
Adding to his comments on employment, Lei said if non-local workers become surplus to requirements due to the shrinking scale of the business, they should be considered after the local workforce, meaning that they should be dismissed prior to local workers.
However, lawmaker Becky Song was not convinced. She pointed out that gambling concessionaires may not have the power to replace non-local workers with a local workforce. They may simply eliminate the positions.
On the other hand, Lei did not respond to lawmaker Ron Lam’s question on the government’s view of Wynn Resorts Macau, S.A.’s partial substitution of salary with company shares.
Lawmaker Lo Choi In asked whether the government would consider reviewing the unemployment subsidy scheme. Lei reiterated that DSAL is doing job-matching every day, implying that having a job is better than living on subsidy.
