The Ministry of Finance has firmly stated that the MADANI administration has maintained strict control over gambling activities since taking over federal government in late 2022, issuing no new licences or permits and adding no additional gambling premises to those already operating. The clarification came in response to recent comments by Kedah Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor, whose statements were deemed by the ministry to have created a misleading impression regarding the federal government's oversight of the gambling sector.
According to the MOF statement released in Putrajaya, all licences and permits currently in operation trace back to approvals granted since the 1990s, with no expansion authorised under the present administration. This represents a clear policy position that the government has not liberalised the gambling industry or introduced new commercial opportunities in this highly regulated sector. The ministry emphasised that it maintains strict conditions imposed on all existing licensees as a core control mechanism.
The matter gained wider significance following a Federal Court decision on August 12, when the court rejected the Kedah State Government's application for leave to appeal regarding gambling business premises licences in the state. The three-judge panel, led by Datuk Rhodzariah Bujang alongside Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah and Datuk Azmi Ariffin, unanimously dismissed the application and ordered the state government to pay costs of RM50,000. This legal outcome underscores the framework within which gambling regulation operates across Malaysia's federal-state jurisdictions.
The governance structure for gambling licences involves a division of responsibility that has become clearer in recent public discourse. The MOF retains authority to approve gambling business operations and issue operational licences, whilst local authorities remain responsible for issuing premises licences once the operator has secured ministerial approval. This dual-approval system reflects Malaysia's constitutional distribution of power between federal and state governments, though jurisdictional tensions have occasionally surfaced, as evidenced by Kedah's court challenge.
Historically, the frequency of special lottery draws has been used as a regulatory lever to manage gambling expansion. During the Pakatan Harapan administration in 2020, the government moved to reduce special draws from 22 times annually to eight. However, this policy was reversed by a subsequent administration, which increased the frequency back to 22 times per year. When MADANI took office at the end of 2022, one of its earliest decisions was to reverse course again, reducing special draws to eight times annually starting January 2023. This shift signals the present administration's preference for tighter gambling controls.
The MOF statement notably reflected on governance from 2020 to 2022, a period when PAS was part of the federal administration. During those two years, the ministry confirmed that no proposal or decision had been made to implement a nationwide ban on licensed gambling or to revoke existing licences. This historical context is relevant for understanding that gambling regulation in Malaysia operates within established legal frameworks rather than through sudden prohibitions, reflecting pragmatic governance that acknowledges existing commercial arrangements whilst avoiding expansion.
The distinction between licensed and unlicensed gambling has become increasingly important in the MOF's regulatory messaging. While the government maintains strict control over licensed operations through existing licences, it has simultaneously intensified enforcement action against unlicensed and online gambling activities. This dual approach reflects international best practices in gambling regulation, where governments typically attempt to channel gambling into regulated channels where taxation and consumer protections can be applied, whilst cracking down on unregulated markets that escape state oversight and often fuel criminal networks.
For Malaysian readers and regional observers, the clarification addresses an important question about the consistency of the MADANI government's stated principles with its actual policy implementation. The administration came to office with commitments to stronger governance and public accountability, and the decision to maintain existing licence restrictions whilst tightening the frequency of lottery draws aligns with these commitments. The fact that such clarifications are necessary suggests that public confusion exists about gambling policy, which itself may indicate a need for clearer communication from policymakers.
The involvement of Kedah in this controversy carries particular weight given that state governments in Malaysia retain significant autonomy over licensing matters affecting their jurisdictions. Datuk Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor's statements and the subsequent legal challenge highlight tensions that can emerge when state and federal administrations have differing perspectives on gambling regulation. The Federal Court's decision affirmed the primacy of federal authority in this domain, a significant point for understanding Malaysia's constitutional hierarchy in regulatory matters.
Looking forward, the MOF's commitment to a firm and responsible approach suggests that gambling regulation will remain an area of careful federal oversight. The government has signalled that it will continue limiting licensed gambling activities whilst intensifying regulation and action against unlicensed operators. This stance acknowledges the reality that gambling exists as a managed economic activity in Malaysia, generating state revenue through taxation and licensing fees, whilst attempting to minimise social harms through controlled access and strict conditions on operators. The challenge for policymakers will be maintaining this balance whilst responding to evolving forms of gambling, particularly online gaming, which transcends traditional state boundaries and regulatory tools.
