Debated in Parliament on 7 Nov 2016.
Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn."
Question proposed.
Mdm Speaker, I am speaking on this Adjournment Motion as a result of the debate that took place during the Second Reading of the Remote Gambling Bill in 2014. I noted in my speech then that terrestrial and online gambling are two very different realms that would require different approaches to address the problems associated with gambling in general.
To this end, I would like to refer to a section of the speech made by the then Minister for Social and Family Development, Mr Chan Chun Sing, on online gambling, and I quote: "This is an evolving challenge. It is a difficult challenge. We need to stay vigilant to stay ahead of the threat and the challenges. We need to stay ahead and be prepared to strengthen our safeguards as necessary proactively and creatively. And we need concerted efforts by all – individuals, family and society – to keep our eyes on this issue. And we need to make sure that our measures are multi-pronged – upstream, midstream and downstream."
During the last session of Parliament, I directed some supplementary questions at the current Minister for Social and Family Development about these multi-pronged measures that the Government had sought to introduce to check online gambling. The answers did not suggest any specific initiatives introduced by the Government since the debate on the Remote Gambling Bill in 2014 to tackle the online gambling realm any differently from terrestrial gambling, even though the Government has acknowledged that its methods of outreach between terrestrial and online gambling have to be different.
So, I would like to ask the Minister again, what new upstream, midstream and downstream measures has the Government instituted to prevent the scourge of online gambling since the passage of this Bill in 2014. One would have thought that it ought to have been imperative for the Government to go public with these new initiatives well before granting exemptions to Singapore Pools and the Turf Club to offer online gambling services starting from October 2016.
Mdm Speaker, the choice of the usage of the word "scourge" in my speech fulfils a specific purpose. Why do I call online gambling a scourge?
The American Psychiatric Association places pathological gambling in the same category as drug dependency and alcoholism in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). It says that gambling "activate(s) the brain reward system with effects similar to those of drugs of abuse" and that "gambling disorder symptoms resemble substance use disorders to a certain extent."
Numerous academic studies have found that online gambling is more addictive than other types of gambling and that online gamblers have higher rates of gambling addiction than traditional gamblers. The Internet has greatly increased the accessibility of gambling. A 2015 study in Spain found a significant increase in pathological gamblers two years after the legalisation of online gambling in that country. The problem was found to be especially serious among young people – online gambling has become the main form of pathological gambling among people below 26 years old in Spain. These results are unsurprising, since Millennials are more comfortable using Internet technologies than their older counterparts.
Online gambling has another dark side. Problem and pathological gamblers can place bets using their smart phones without their friends and family members even noticing, unlike when they visit the casinos or go to the Turf Club. This removes a very important informal safeguard against problem gambling.
An important part of addiction treatment is for the problem gambler to avoid putting himself in situations which could tempt him to lapse back to his bad habit, for example, by avoiding casinos, jackpot rooms or other physical locations where gambling is available. However, it would be impractical to expect a problem gambler to refrain from using his mobile phone or computer as these are needed for modern day work and personal communication.
A longitudinal study of gambling and problem gambling in the US between 1999 and 2013 found that problem gambling affects the poor more than the rich. The prevalence of frequent gambling is highest in the poorest one-third of respondents and those in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, and it declines dramatically as socio-economic status increases. This could be because some in the lower-income group are motivated to gamble so as to improve their financial situation and status.
The most common reaction I have heard from Singaporeans to the news of the issuing of exempt operator licences is that the Government just wants to "make more money". While I am sure the Minister will refute this accusation vigorously, the fact remains that a large part of legalised gambling revenue goes into the state's coffers. Is providing for exempt operators a way to redirect gambling spending away from illegal overseas operators to local operators, which are owned by the Tote Board? If so, this only fuels public speculation that the Government simply wants a piece of the huge global Internet gambling pie and that this is a revenue-raising exercise done at the expense of Singaporeans and their welfare.
Some have argued that the Tote Board gives money to many charities which help the vulnerable in our society. This is a morally questionable argument that is akin to saying that it is okay to harm some people in order to help others. Since problem gambling disproportionately affects the poor, collecting revenues from online gambling is, in effect, a regressive tax on the most vulnerable in our society.
The Minister said that the Government looked at similar exempt operator regimes in Hong Kong and Norway and found that the problem gambling situation did not worsen. I am not sure what these studies or what the exact findings were. I hope the Minister will be able to share the details of these studies for Singaporeans to examine.
Did these studies prove that having an exempt operator regime reduces gambling harm more than a complete prohibition of online gambling? If not, was the Government too eager to rush to exempt operators before more conclusive results are found?
Mdm Speaker, we should not be gambling with the lives of Singaporean families. In the aftermath of the National Council of Churches of Singapore's (NCCS's) dialogue with the Government, it was reported the carve-out created for exempt operators to legally provide online gambling facilities was based on studies relating to the social impact of gambling that the Government had documented, and its assessment of possible scenarios with and without the "valve" of controlled exempt operator. NCCS noted that the research on this area is still new. To this extent at the very least, the Government should publish its research in this area, especially since the Government will reportedly be meeting up with NCCS leaders in three to six months' time.
The Minister has argued that exempt operators provide an "outlet" for gamblers and allow the Government to manage crime associated with gambling. The assumption behind this argument is that gamblers who were gambling on illegal overseas gambling websites will switch over to the exempt operators' websites or apps.
Has the Government found any studies to show that people will actually switch over to exempt operators? More likely, local gambling apps that have a stamp of approval by the Government will attract people who have previously never gambled online. It may include many young people who may not relish queuing up at Toto outlets or going to the races at the Turf Club but may experiment with gambling for the first time from the privacy of their phones. The legalisation of online gambling will thus expand the gambling market, rather than provide a safe outlet for existing gamblers. Once started, online gambling, like soft drugs, could be a gateway to more serious gambling addictions.
In its meeting with NCCS, it was reported that the Government told NCCS that it was not sending conflicting signals with the partial lifting of the ban on online gambling because the exemptions had already been written into the Bill in 2014.
It would appear these exemptions were written specifically with Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club in mind. A quick review of the timeline of events is as follows:
October 2014: Remote Gambling Bill passed.
July 2015: Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club (STC) applied for exemptions.
July 2015: Straits Times reported that Singapore Pools had hired OpenBet to replace its website with one that can offer sports betting, and the contract is estimated to be worth $10 million.
September 2016: Singapore Pools and STC were reported to be running final tests on their new online betting websites.
September 2016: The Government granted exemptions to Singapore Pools and STC.
October 2016: Singapore Pools launched new online betting website, although this was not widely reported in the mainstream media.
Ten million dollars is no small sum. It would be a huge gamble to sink $10 million into a contract without knowing whether it would pay off. Yet, more than one year before the exemptions were granted, Singapore Pools appeared to have done exactly that. In the eyes of the public, it would seem that the year-long evaluation of the applications was conducted with one outcome in mind – to find a way for Singapore Pools and the Turf Club to carry out online gambling operations. Was the process meant to determine whether or not the applications should be approved, or to determine how they could be approved?
To this end, will the Minister inform this House under what circumstances the Government will review the exemptions granted currently to Singapore Pools and the Turf Club and how it plans to review them in an ongoing manner?
During the 2014 debate, I asked the Minister to put the Bill before a Select Committee so as to scrutinise the exemption clauses. This request was turned down as the House was told that the Government had already engaged in consultations. However, in its recent meeting with NCCS, the Government cited its consultations with social service leaders and religious representatives as justification for the exemptions. Was NCCS part of the "religious representatives" consulted in drafting the Bill? Did they agree to the exemptions? If so, why have they changed their position and, if not, why were they not consulted before?
While feedback through the Government channels, any Government channel, should not be discouraged and, in fact, encouraged, we should remember that they are not subject to the same degree of Parliamentary scrutiny in terms of the range of opinions consulted and the extent of public scrutiny. On Bills that provoke as much controversy as this one, should we not take the extra step to establish relevant Select Committees to go over the implementation and provisions with a fine-tooth comb? In exchange for a bit more time, we gain the opportunity to deepen public engagement and generate greater support for our laws.
The Government says that there are safeguards in place to prevent gambling addicts from harming themselves and their families. These include self-exclusion and third party exclusion. However, self-exclusion is only practical for those who recognise that they have a problem. As for third party exclusion, a family member has to cross several difficult hurdles to get his or her loved one placed on the exclusion list. This includes being interviewed by a panel and having to show proof of the family member's gambling addiction. The surreptitious nature of online gambling addiction means that such proof will be hard to obtain.
International studies have found that each problem gambler negatively impacts an average eight to 10 family members, colleagues and friends. Also, most problem gamblers do not seek help until they hit rock bottom, for example, if they have wiped out all their family savings. These suggest that the numbers affected by problem gambling are much higher than official statistics may show.
Unlike other vices like alcoholism and drug abuse, the costs associated with problem gambling are borne almost entirely by family members, who often end up paying off the debts of the gambler. The embarrassment associated with problem gambling means that the gamblers and their families rarely talk about their problems in public. Because of this, there is a tendency for policymakers to overlook the real social impact of problem gambling.
As part of its ongoing review of the exemptions, the Government should look into implementing more stringent "circuit breakers", for example, tying expenditure and daily funding limits on online gambling to an individual's salary or a scale of that salary, and to deliberately set as a low percentage of one's salary or removing the user-defined funding and expenditure limits.
Separately, Singapore Pools and the Turf Club should be required to collect detailed statistics so that the Government and the public can better study the trends of online gambling.
Anecdotally, many cases of loan sparking "runners" are linked to problem gambling. There should be better statistics gathered on such tragedies to better establish the extent of their links to problem gambling. This will enable a proper assessment of the impact of the exemptions on the rates of gambling and problem gambling.
We need to look further downstream to prevent gambling habits from taking root. Particular focus should be on young people. It would appear that many young men are introduced to the habit during their National Service days through army mates, or at their workplaces. More targeted public education is needed, especially among young people, if we are to prevent the scourge of gambling, especially online gambling, from spreading in our society.
The best safeguard is to lessen the avenues for Singaporeans to get introduced to gambling. Legalising online gambling is a step in the wrong direction.
To conclude, Mdm Speaker, there has been a glaring lack of clarity as to how the Government is making preparations to address the scourge of online gambling downstream, midstream and upstream in a directed and committed way. This is in spite of the Government's open admission that online gambling is, I quote, a "difficult challenge". It would logically follow that the issue would demand significant attention from the authorities.
However, one cannot help but get the feeling that it is business as usual, and that online gambling is just another game to gamble on, or just another sport for the public to take a bet on. I am concerned that it is much more ominous than that.
Senior Minister of State Desmond Lee.
Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for raising concerns about the exempt operator regime that was discussed and debated in 2014, in which the Member and many of his colleagues from the Workers' Party actively participated, as did a number of them in the last Parliamentary session in October.
The Member has raised numerous questions and made rather serious allegations about motivations of the Government, whether it consulted certain parties, whether this is the Government trivialising the risks posed to Singaporeans by online gambling.
All in all, I am rather disturbed by the picture the Member has painted, notwithstanding all that we have put up, public statements and all the things that the Government has put in place to tackle precisely what he has said about the scourge of gambling and scourge of online gambling.
Madam, we could spend a lot of this evening and more looking at each of the reports and studies that we have highlighted in the previous sessions, last month and previously in the 2014 debate and before; comparing and contrasting, picking through the data and methodology, both in relation to precedents that we have looked at as well as local data.
This is by no means an unimportant task. The Member is calling for transparency, but I think it is better suited to written replies to Parliamentary Questions, which the Member can file. In fact, I understand that Mr Leon Perera had filed some questions about the experience in both Hong Kong and Norway, which were meant for today. And in the interest of ensuring that everything comes out today, if the Member is prepared to allow it to come out, we have a comprehensive reply for him.
I propose we use the remaining time to keep our eyes focused on the big picture, precisely what the Member is concerned about. Both the Government and the Opposition agree that online gambling addiction poses serious concerns that we are all concerned about, notwithstanding the Member's assertion that the Government is completely unconcerned and is trying to make money out of this; the most disturbing thing I have heard this evening.
Madam, individuals can be seriously addicted and has caused harm to themselves, their family and society. Members from across the aisle have also spoken about the harm. I think Members like Ms Denise Phua would be very concerned if the impression is given that she and other Members are not concerned.
From a law and order perspective, illegal online gambling has links and associations with syndicates and organised crime, including transnational organised crime. In November 2015, the South China Morning Post reported that Chinese police had busted a multinational online gambling syndicate which allegedly generated more than US$78 billion in bets and served nearly a million registered members in China alone. Mind you, this is a multinational syndicate.
So, how big is this problem? Let us run through some of the key points again, as we had raised them previously. First, there is a large global market for online gambling, estimated at some US$40 billion in 2015, growing annually at 6% to 8% over the last five years. And if this carries on, it will double in a matter of years.
With Singapore's high Internet and smartphone penetration rate and tech savvy population, I do not think we will be spared from this global trend. Since 2015, for example, the Police have arrested more than 120 people for illegal online gambling in Singapore. I think the Member would have heard this data last month.
After the Remote Gambling Act was brought into force, Singapore now has one of the most extensive and proactive set of measures in the world against online gambling – blocking of sites, blocking payments, blocking advertisements, criminalising users who go onto online websites.
Yet, as the Member also accepts, in 2014, with virtual private network (VPN) and other technology, with new sites popping up every day, illicit online gambling still exists in Singapore. I mentioned the South China Morning Post report. That syndicate is alleged to have operated more than 500 sites at the point of investigation.
Some analysts estimates that in Singapore in 2015, online gambling amounted to as large as S$461 million. The Ministry of Home Affairs continues to see Internet traffic from Singapore to blocked sites and new sites. The Police have observed the trend over recent years of organised crime syndicates in Singapore moving from the terrestrial gambling sphere to online gambling. So, they are moving their modus operandi. And arrests continue to be made for illegal gambling, both syndicates and punters alike.
In 2015, 90% of those who were arrested for illegal football betting were involved in online football gambling. And more than one-third of those arrested for illegal lotteries were involved in online remote lotteries. So, I do not think the Member is right to suggest that we are unaware of the risks of online gambling. In fact, all that has been in place since 2014 is to deal with this scourge of online gambling that envelopes the work.
To make things worse, online gambling sites are attracting younger Singaporeans, as the Member also accepts. A study prior to the passage of the Remote Gambling Act found that about two-thirds of respondents who had participated in remote gambling were between 25 and 44 years old.
Our assessment, Madam, is that this problem will still grow in Singapore and a total ban on its own will not be sufficient to deal with this problem, however much we may believe that to be so.
So, we do need to ask Mr Singh and his colleagues from the Workers' Party: do you accept that the global trend of illicit online gambling is growing worldwide? Do you accept that given how open and wired Singapore is, we will not be spared from the problem? Do you accept that, even with extensive blocking systems as is the case now, illicit online gambling is still present in Singapore, and the problem can still grow?
If the answer is "yes", and I am not sure what the Member's answer will be, then the question is what the solution ought to be. The Government's view is that a comprehensive system is needed to tackle this dimension, as the Member says – upstream, downstream, midstream – which has both a law and order dimension, as well as a social dimension, and we have to tackle both.
So, what we have put in place is a broad and extensive prohibition against online gambling, and an exempt operator valve that comes with social safeguards and an exclusion system set amidst public education and outreach and counselling.
Madam, with your permission, may I ask the Clerk to distribute a one-sheet summary of some of our education and outreach efforts, including some of the new efforts that have been put in place to tackle online gambling?
Yes, please. [Copies of the handout were distributed to hon Members.]
Madam, our concern is that a total prohibition will only drive the problem further underground – harder to detect, problems surfacing too late. Trends and observations show that. This broadly mirrors the approach that we have taken for terrestrial gambling. So, we need a valve – legal, run by non-profit organisations where people have to sign up so we know who they are, with mechanisms to promote responsible gaming for us to intervene early before the problem gets out of hand.
We also intend to work with the exempt operators to study the impact: whether there is displacement; what is the online gambling prevalence after the scheme is put in place; and then whether further tweaks, adjustments and changes to policy need to be undertaken.
What has been the Workers' Party's proposals on the online gambling problem thus far? In 2014, during the Second Reading of the Remote Gambling Bill, many Members of the Workers' Party in this House spoke and opposed the exemption regime but did not offer many details of alternative solutions to eradicate social ills caused by online gambling.
Mr Pritam Singh, in particular, pushed for a total ban on online gambling and he does not believe it will push the problem underground.
Mr Yee Jenn Jong made suggestions on how the exempt operator regime could be tightened if it was implemented.
In the 2015 manifesto, the Workers' Party had one line or a couple of lines on online gambling – prohibit all online gambling; no exceptions, and its aim was, I quote, "to eradicate the social ills caused by online and remote gambling". So, we presume, in 2015, the Workers' Party's objective and proposal to Singaporeans was to drive online gambling in Singapore to zero, through a total ban. In its 27 September 2016 press release, the Workers' Party opposed the granting of exemption to any organisation but did not offer a solution to eradicate the social ills caused by online gambling.
Madam, the Workers' Party says a complete and total ban is the best. No need for a valve with social safeguards. They say that these safeguards generate money. We should not tax. We should not put it to good use. We should not allow it. We should not get involved in having any safety valves, any social safeguards. But, Madam, their position is not clear for a number of reasons which I shall submit.
First, they do not cite any precedent or any country in the world where a complete ban has solved this growing problem of online gambling addiction.
Second, they do not explain why Singapore's approach, and those, such as in Norway and Hong Kong, which have adapted from our system, and which have valves, are inferior.
Third, the Workers' Party's rationale is problematic. During the Second Reading of the Bill in 2014, Mr Singh said that a total ban will not drive online gambling underground, whereas Mr Png Eng Huat contradicted him in the very same debate where he said categorically that a ban will drive the problem underground, and I quote, "It is the law of nature."
So, Madam, what is the Workers' Party's true position on this matter? Even after this evening, even after the allegations have been made about the Government's intentions, I do not think we are any wiser.
Mr Singh's explanation, Madam, is that, with a total ban, most gamblers, he says, would just go to the existing land-based outlets, such as authorised 4-D or Toto shops, which are completely legal and regulated. But this is not the view of the professionals, the Police, who have seen the problem go underground and who say that this will happen, and it is happening.
So, it is imperative, as Minister Iswaran has said in 2014, for Mr Singh making these assertions, flying in the face of what the Police, the professionals, have observed and said it is happening, to provide evidence instead that a total ban will not drive illegal activities underground but will instead drive it to the land-based Toto shops.
Fourth, apart from what we have just talked about, there are no details in their manifesto, media releases and speeches on how their proposal of a total and complete ban will solve this real problem inflicted on many Singaporeans, some of whom we have met at Meet-the-People Sessions. And this after two years of debate since the Act was enacted in 2014.
First, we invite the Workers' Party to make clear what its position is. Is it an objection in principle, against all gambling? If it is a matter of principle, then state that it is so, both land and terrestrial. But if it is against online gambling, then it is an assessment of where the risks lie. And as I have said earlier, we have the views of the Police and the professionals.
In such a case, it would be good if the Workers' Party can put on the table specific suggestions on how it would enact a total ban to solve the problem and make it drive the problem from online to the land-based terrestrial outlets that Mr Singh had categorically said in 2014. For example, does Mr Singh support a complete ban on VPN and technology that skirts around blocking measures?
Second, we know, Madam, that law, as a deterrence, is not just about the law and deterrence, but the likelihood of getting caught. Are they proposing to have apps or tracking devices uploaded on computers or smartphones to monitor people and further detect that they are going onto illicit sites and, perhaps, after that, do you propose to make it mandatory for counselling? Or are you proposing to increase penalties and up prosecution rates and to ask for deterrent sentences? If so, what do you suggest? How will you make the prohibition and the enforcement of the prohibition, such as to promote the flow of people from the illicit sites online to the Toto and Singapore Pool sites on land? Or are you proposing to expand outreach and education and mandatory counselling and, if so, do you believe that it will solve the problem?
Madam, we have circulated that flyer with some of the things that we have been doing and, perhaps, the Member can suggest how those can concretely be further improved.
Madam, the Government is not able to solve complex social problems through making speeches alone, nor by lamenting a problem. We know it is a problem.
Senior Minister of State Lee, you only have one minute left.
We are expected to put forward workable solutions for consultation and debate, and we have to implement a solution for Singaporeans. It has to be practical. It may not always be popular but we have to try to solve the problem pragmatically and, most importantly, be prepared to adjust our solution along the way, based on experience and our findings.
Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, online gambling is a global phenomenon. It grows at a very fast rate. It is not a problem outside Singapore. It is right here on our shores, in our homes, in people's pockets when they walk around, when they work, when they are at home. It poses law and order and social problems, like I said before.
And online gambling is associated with syndicates and organised crime. Banning it will help slow the pace of growth. On its own, it is inadequate, because the problem will go deeper and we will simply be burying our heads in the sand. A valve may allow people who intend to gamble online to do so in an environment with some social safeguards, and we can track the size and shape of the problem and implement further policies.
Senior Minister of State Lee, you have to conclude. Time is up.
Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, for those who do not want their loved ones to even visit these regulated sites, speak to them, put them onto the exclusion list. For those of us in this House and outside who have moral objections to gambling, including some of us who are speaking, do not visit, discourage your friends and family, and help the National Council on Problem Gambling and voluntary welfare organisations who work hard day after day to tackle these social aspects and the scourge of the problem.
Please end your speech, Senior Minister of State.
Yes. Thank you, Madam.
Order. The time allowed for the proceedings has expired.
The Question having been proposed at 7.08 pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mdm Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at 7.38 pm.
PAPERCUTS