The Ministry of Finance has moved to dispel claims that the MADANI administration has been lenient on gambling operations, asserting categorically that no new gambling licenses or permits have been granted since the government took office at the end of 2022. The clarification, issued through an official statement, underscores the administration's position that all currently active gambling licenses and permits remain grounded in approvals dating back several decades, with no expansion of the licensed gambling premises network during its tenure.
The statement emerged as a direct response to remarks made by Kedah Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor regarding gambling licenses within his state. The Finance Ministry contended that the Kedah leader's comments were misleading and created a false impression that the federal government had abandoned oversight of gambling activities or had sanctioned the opening of new establishments. This public clarification represents an attempt by the federal government to distinguish its governance approach from narratives that might suggest regulatory slackening.
Central to the Finance Ministry's position is the imposition of stringent conditions on all current licensees as a mechanism for controlling the sector. These regulatory measures form part of a broader framework designed to maintain oversight of gambling operations while ensuring compliance with established rules. The specification of strict conditions indicates that the government views licensing not as a passive arrangement but as an active mechanism requiring continuous monitoring and enforcement of predetermined requirements.
The history of special draws—high-frequency lottery events—illustrates the shifting regulatory approach across successive federal administrations. During the 2020 to 2022 period, the Pakatan Harapan government initially reduced the frequency of special draws from 22 to eight times annually. This was subsequently reversed by the following administration, which raised the frequency back to 22 times per year. Upon taking office, the MADANI government reversed this increase, implementing a reduction back to eight special draws annually starting in January 2023, signalling a tighter regulatory stance on gambling activities.
The Finance Ministry emphasised that throughout the federal government's administration from 2020 to 2022—a period when PAS, the current ruling coalition partner, was also part of the federal government—there was neither a proposal nor a decision to implement a nationwide ban on licensed gambling or to revoke existing licenses. This historical note serves to contextualise the current government's position within a continuum of policy decisions rather than presenting it as a sudden shift. The statement suggests consistency in approach across multiple administrations regarding the maintenance of existing licensing structures.
A significant legal development has strengthened the hand of state governments seeking to restrict gambling operations. In August, the Federal Court rejected the Kedah State Government's application for leave to appeal a previous court decision that had ordered the state not to issue or renew gambling business premises licenses. The court panel, chaired by Datuk Rhodzariah Bujang alongside Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah and Datuk Azmi Ariffin, rendered a unanimous decision on the matter and ordered the state government to pay legal costs of RM50,000. This judgment carries implications for the distribution of regulatory authority between federal and state governments on gambling matters.
Following the Federal Court decision, Sanusi clarified the institutional division of responsibilities in the licensing process. According to his explanation, the Ministry of Finance holds authority over approving gambling licenses and permits, while local authorities bear responsibility for issuing premises licenses after operators have secured federal approval. This delineation of responsibility between federal and state tiers of government has become an important point of contention, with the Kedah leadership advocating for greater state control over gambling operations within its jurisdiction.
For Malaysian readers, the implications of these policy positions extend beyond administrative detail. The stance taken by the MADANI government reflects broader questions about gambling's role in Malaysian society at a time when concerns about problem gambling and its social costs have gained prominence. The decision to reduce the frequency of special draws to eight times annually suggests a prioritisation of public welfare considerations alongside fiscal revenue needs. This balancing act is particularly relevant in Malaysia, where gambling operations contribute to government revenue streams while simultaneously generating social challenges that state and federal authorities must manage.
The Finance Ministry's commitment to limiting licensed gambling activities while intensifying action against unlicensed and online gambling operations indicates a multi-pronged regulatory approach. The acknowledgement of illegal gambling as a persistent problem requiring heightened enforcement attention reflects the reality that prohibition or heavy restriction of licensed activities can drive migration toward unregulated markets. The government's stated strategy therefore attempts to balance formal sector regulation with suppression of illegal alternatives.
The regional context also matters. Southeast Asian governments have grappled with similar tensions between regulating licensed gambling and combating underground gambling networks and cross-border online gambling operations. Malaysia's approach, emphasising continued licensing within strict parameters while targeting illegal operators, represents one response to this challenge. The federal government's positioning of itself as the appropriate authority for approving gambling licenses, coupled with state-level implementation responsibilities, reflects federal Malaysia's constitutional division of powers on matters of commerce and local governance.
For businesses and investors, the Finance Ministry's clarification provides assurance regarding the regulatory environment: no new gambling licenses will be issued under the MADANI administration, existing operators must comply with strict conditions, and enforcement against unlicensed gambling will intensify. This creates a stable, if constrained, regulatory landscape for licensed operators while signalling that expansion opportunities within the legal framework are effectively closed.
Looking forward, the government's approach suggests that gambling policy will remain contested terrain between federal and state authorities, particularly in states like Kedah where political leadership has sought greater control over gambling operations. The Finance Ministry's reassertions of federal licensing authority and the courts' support for state government restrictions on premises licenses indicate an evolving balance of power in this policy domain. For Malaysian stakeholders—whether businesses, civil society groups concerned about gambling's social impact, or taxpayers dependent on gambling-related government revenue—these regulatory questions will likely remain subjects of ongoing political and administrative attention.
