Debated in Parliament on 10 Oct 2016.
Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what are the safeguards to prevent an increase in online gambling addiction in light of the pending approval of exempted online providers.
Mdm Speaker, before I answer the Member's question in full, I thought it would be useful to provide a setting because this and the next Parliamentary Question (PQ) involve related issues.
Firstly, from the Government's perspective, we are very clear about the issues concerning problem gambling. For my Ministry, we see the extent of the problems because we deal with the individuals and their families who suffer from it. This is the reality that we grapple with. We do not under-estimate the impact that problem gambling has on individuals as well as families. We are not in favour of gambling; we do not encourage it; and we do not want to promote it amongst our people. We share fairly similar perspectives that many Members have with regard to this issue.
However, taking that position does not preclude the fact that gambling will exist. It is something that others who engage in it have different viewpoints on. Like it or not, it is something that people participate in, in some form or other. By banning it, what will happen? Will it just drive it underground? Our basic concern really is this: as far as remote gambling is concerned, it is an area that is growing. We look at what is happening around the world; it is proliferating; it is growing significantly. In Singapore, where the Internet penetration rate is particularly significant and smart devices abound, there is a very high probability that this is something that would become more of an issue with time.
We share very significant concerns with regard to that, which is why two years ago, we debated in this House the Remote Gambling Act. In that Act, there were the provisions for the exempt operator regime, because we believe that even though we may take a very robust position with regard to managing this space, we are all familiar with the Internet – it is impossible to completely regulate it. There will be ways to bypass – by VPN, proxy sites and so on – for those who wish to engage in online gambling.
We recognise the reality. While we take a very robust position, having a tightly managed, controlled space with safeguards put in place would allow those who continue to gamble online to have a space where at least some level of management can take place.
That is the approach that we are taking with this issue at hand today.
We take a whole-of-Government approach. MSF works very closely with MHA to develop a range of social safeguards for the exempt operators (EOs) to implement, to protect young persons and other vulnerable persons from the harms of remote gambling.
To prevent youth gambling, all account holders must be at least 21 years old before they can open a remote gambling account. The EOs have to carry out stringent checks to verify the identity of the applicant, such as a face-to-face verification at physical outlets with a valid NRIC/FIN and screening of existing casino exclusions with the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG), before an account can be opened.
To protect financially vulnerable individuals, persons who have been excluded from casinos due to family objection or their financial situation will not be allowed to open an individual account. Individuals can also apply to exclude themselves from remote gambling.
To prevent over-spending and addiction, all account holders will be required to set a daily expenditure limit and funding limit before they are allowed to place bets. Funding limit means the maximum amount that can be transferred or deposited into the account per calendar day, while expenditure limit means the maximum amount that can be used for betting per calendar day. Once they have reached their expenditure limits, they will no longer be allowed to place any bets for the rest of the day. As an additional safeguard, any request to increase their expenditure limit will only take place the next day, while requests to reduce their expenditure limit will be effective immediately.
To facilitate informed play, the EOs are required to display responsible gambling messages prominently, such as the time and amount spent, the total win/losses for the day, and alert the individual if he has reached or exceeded 75% of his daily expenditure limit.
Lastly, the EOs will be required to submit all advertising and promotion (A&P) materials to MSF for approval. Advertisements and promotions must not induce gambling.
NCPG has been active in rolling out prevention programmes to complement the stringent safeguards for remote gambling. For example, NCPG partners TOUCH Cyber Wellness and Fei Yue Community Services to deliver cyber wellness roadshows and talks to students and parents. NCPG also launches public education campaigns and videos to highlight the risks of problem gambling. One of the recent videos has a backdrop of sports betting and illegal online betting, to educate youths on spotting the signs of problem gambling and helping their friends in need. Another features popular getai emcee Wang Lei relating his struggles with problem gambling and the importance of family support in helping him recover from problem gambling.
While the Government puts in place stringent safeguards, complemented with NCPG's public education efforts, personal responsibility as well as family and community support are still essential to address this complex issue of problem gambling.
Essentially, what we are doing is to put in place a robust set of laws to have a tightly managed space with safeguards, having an extensive effort as much as possible to raise awareness and have public education and provide support measures for those with these issues. We all understand the ills that come with this. We all would like to take a strong position with regard to this and we do take that, although we also recognise the reality is that, given the Internet space, we would not be able to completely remove the possibility of people gambling online. We believe that having a tightly managed space with safeguards put in place would help at least to ameliorate some of those concerns, even as we continue to work hard on the other measures in place.
Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for the response. May I ask two questions? First, if, after the EOs start their trade, the number of Singaporeans moving into online gambling increases, will the Government review its decision regarding the two exemptions? Secondly, if the number of online gambling addiction cases increases as a result of the exemptions, will the Government reconsider the exemptions?
Mdm Speaker, firstly, with regard to online gambling, today, it is very difficult to track the specific numbers online. We do carry out surveys to have a sense of the number of people who are gambling and how many of them are gambling online. We will track the numbers and see how those compare over time, but we do not have definitive numbers of who exactly are online today. We are not able to fully track that. We will track in terms of survey, in terms of responses and see how those numbers grow and we will assess the situation accordingly.
Similarly, with gambling addiction, we find through surveys, the overall numbers have largely remained quite stable. We do see more coming forward to seek treatment. That, we believe, is also due to greater awareness and public education. Again, in terms of data, as we begin to track some of these things more definitely, we are able to then detect trends and patterns to see how we can deal with it accordingly. If we need to tighten measures and review policies, we will continue to do so.
Mr de Souza, you have another question?
I am grateful, Mdm Speaker. I thank the Minister for the response. In my view, there is actually a basis for comparison. The Bill was debated in October 2014; it came into force in February 2015; it is now October 2016. That would mean 20 months of a total ban. So, there is a comparison. My question is: how many were gambling online illegally during that 20-month total ban period? My suggestion is to compare that figure with the numbers after the exemptions. That is a possible test, in my humble view.
My questions are: if the online gambling cases go up, would the Minister consider removing the exemptions and implement a complete ban?
Mdm Speaker, I am not sure how the Member believes that we would be able to know exactly how many people are illegally gambling online. We are not able to track all of them. Those that we are able to track, we have taken some operations. MHA will be able to elaborate on some of the details and actions against those who have violated the laws.
What we have are indicators in terms of the overall market and how it is growing globally. This is not just a problem that is faced by a local market. The online gambling space is international. What we have are participation rates from surveys, from when we survey Singaporeans on how many of them are engaged in some form of gambling and, for those who are gambling, how many of them would engage in some form of online gambling. Obviously, when they do that, they would be in an illegal space. That is something we will track. But in terms of his specific position, that we have been able to know the specific numbers in the course of the last one year plus, we would not be able to do that. Those who are gambling illegally online, we are not able to track every single one of them. We would track in terms of survey numbers; we look at how things develop.
I would highlight this: our objective is to see how best we can look after the well-being of our people. I know that from a specific individual perspective, we may like to take a stronger position and say that we ban it and send a very clear signal that way. We share the same objective. The issue now is how to deal with a very real and practical problem, which is that people are gambling online. Even with the ban being put in place, with MHA taking very active steps to ban new sites coming online, it is the nature of the Internet that we are not able to completely seal off that space. We know that there are people gambling because there have been people and associated individuals arrested as a result of gambling illegally.
For those who are actually gambling online, when there are no safeguards, no safety valves, no safety measures put in place, they are being exposed to very real dangers. One of the biggest concerns we have is criminal elements. What we do see, and we have arrested, is that it is not just the virtual gambling space, it extends to a very real world problem. There are punters, bookies, runners, agents collecting bet monies and extending credit lines. A lot of them, unfortunately, are involved with syndicated crime. It is not trivial from that perspective as well. That is a real thing that is happening today in the course of the last many months after the Remote Gambling Act was put in place.
How do we best deal with it? We believe that having a tightly managed space with social safeguards would help, but if it turns out that there continue to be issues, we will have to take a look at how best to deal with this.
Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask two supplementary questions. The Minister just mentioned that there are lots of ills of gambling,we cannot track and cannot seal it totally online. I would like to ask this: by giving the licences to two operators, how does the Government solve the problem of online gambling? Are you not encouraging more people to go online gambling by making it legitimate? The second question is: comparing total ban and now we have two operators who are licensed, what are the benefits that you are trying to achieve?
Mdm Speaker, in the real world today, what is happening is that even with the ban in place, there are people who are gambling. The global market for online gambling continues to grow. Internet penetration, as I have mentioned, is pervasive in Singapore and that will continue to grow as well. We all know that no ban on the Internet will completely seal things off. The reality is that there are Singaporeans who are gambling online and they are gambling in a space where there are no social safeguards, no monitoring. Those that we are able to monitor, we will be able to take some action. But it is a very large space and it is impossible to be able to completely ban that space.
What happens to Singaporeans who are out there, who still feel that they want to be online and gambling and getting their fix in some shape and form? It is not just the social ills that come with that. It is also a very real concern with law and order issues because, as I have mentioned, criminal elements are involved. When you are betting online, whether on 4D, Toto, horse-racing and so on, there are bookies who collect the monies. There are agents who are there to promote. There are agents who are there to extend unlicensed moneylending facilities.
The real issues that we are concerned with do not really go away. Are we seeking to encourage? No. That is not our position. Our position is not to encourage. Our position is recognising a reality, which is that there are Singaporeans in that space. We are concerned that the numbers may grow as the space continues to proliferate and as the Internet continues to grow in terms of accessibility. So, for those who are there, we can at least provide some form of a safer space to manage that.
Members would remember, in the earlier years in the 1960s, we had a lot of illegal gambling, triad links and so on. Then, we put in place Singapore Pools, the Tote Board, Turf Club, not-for-profit organisations. All the existing illegal online operators are there for profit and to exploit as much as they can. But the whole issue here is to really recognise that some of these vices will not go away.
How do I deal with a real world problem? How do we look out for the best interest of our people? It is not to encourage gambling. We will continue to discourage it. We will want to continue, through public education and raising awareness, to dissuade Singaporeans from gambling in the first place and particularly online gambling. But for those who are in that space, can we provide some form of outlet where there are safeguards put in place?
This is what is happening in Hong Kong and Norway as well. They have also studied very closely the effects of what they have done. What they have found from their assessment is that it has not proliferated and encouraged online gambling in a very big way, but it allows them some space to manage that. And that is the way we want to approach it.
So, we share very similar concerns as Members do, which is to deal with the excesses of online gambling. But how best to deal with the issue? We believe that having this fairly controlled, tightly managed space with social safeguards will be one way to deal with it.
I just want to remind Members that Question No 2 will address some of the issues that you are also raising, so you can also reserve your supplementary questions for Question No 2. Mr Pritam Singh.
Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I have a few supplementary questions for the Minister. Firstly, during the Second Reading of the Remote Gambling Bill, the then Minister for Social and Family Development said that, minimally, exempt operators would be expected to include measures for self-exclusion, employee training, patron education, amongst others. In view of the differences between online and terrestrial gambling, what are the new measures – and I emphasise, new measures – that have been undertaken by the Ministry beyond the baseline measures to address the negative effect of online gambling at all levels – upstream, midstream and downstream?
The second question: at the Second Reading of the Bill, the then Minister for Social and Family Development also spoke of the prospect of online counselling. Can the Minister please brief this House as to whether such measures, specific to online gambling, are going to be introduced? And in this vein, as the Minister just mentioned, what are the expenditure and funding limits for online gambling on a daily basis, in specific numbers?
Thirdly, beyond the requirements that are outlined in the Act, has the Government imposed any additional or specific directions on the Turf Club or Singapore Pools, in relation to the conduct, supervision and control of remote gambling in Singapore? Finally, how long are the exemptions for the Turf Club and Singapore Pools valid for, and on what basis does the Ministry assess these exemptions in an on-going way?
Mdm Speaker, I will leave some of these details to be taken up by my colleague who will address the second PQ. Let me respond to some of the questions raised by the Member.
In terms of the measures that are being put in place to deal with online gambling, the whole list of these has been highlighted. Let me highlight some of these. For example, we have mentioned that, in terms of age limit, you have to be at least 21 years old to open a remote gambling account; persons with relevant casino exclusion will be prohibited from opening an account; the exempt operators will conduct periodic checks with NCPG and account holders who are found to be on any of the relevant casino exclusions will have their accounts closed; relevant casino exclusions include the Family Exclusion Order, the Third Party Exclusion Order and also Automatic Exclusion by law. As at 30 June 2016, approximately 51,000 individuals are under the relevant casino exclusions and will be prohibited from opening a remote gambling account.
What are the daily funding and expenditure limits? Well, the funding limit will be $300, $500, $1,000 and part of it will be user-defined. Expenditure limits are $50, $75, $100, $125, $150, $200, $250, $300 and user-defined. As an additional safeguard, as I have mentioned, any increase in limits takes effect from the next day, while decisions to decrease the limits will take effect immediately.
In terms of the Remote Responsible Gambling Programme, the exempt operators are required to implement remote responsible gambling programmes which would promote responsible gambling and informed play amongst players. Requirements are as follows: (a) display of responsible gambling messages, which means they need to display responsible gambling messages on all remote gambling web pages; (b) players must acknowledge a warning message of the risk of problem gambling before logging in; (c) display of a time counter to indicate the time spent since the player logged into the account; and (d) the provision of information to players to facilitate informed play, for example, a pop-up message indicating the player's total wins/losses for the day is displayed at log-out, an additional pop-up message indicating the player has exceeded 75% of his daily expenditure limit, and the player can access online monthly or weekly statements of the player's past gambling activities to allow for informed play.
Just to illustrate: today, when someone goes to the outlet to buy 4D or Toto, he usually does not track, depending on whether he keeps his own excel spreadsheet or whatever he does to track his expenditure. He actually may have no clue how much he has been spending accumulatively over time. When they are online, that is something that would be made available and made obvious to the individuals concerned. That could have a salutary effect, possibly for some of them.
For the operators themselves, there will be training of the staff. The training programme will be put in place to train them to recognise the signs and harms of problem gambling. Staff would be trained to promote responsible gambling and develop protocols for existing players who request for assistance, or to detect signs of problem gambling.
Additionally, there is a prevention of gambling inducement via advertising and promotions, so the exempt operators have to submit all materials, as mentioned earlier, for advertising and promotions to MSF for approval. Essentially, no inducement of gambling, no depiction of gambling as a positive avenue, no misleading or false statements about chances of winnings, no appeal to vulnerable groups, including youths.
These are measures that we are looking at putting in place. We will constantly review them in terms of their effectiveness and whether things need to be tightened, or if there are new measures to be introduced. That is something that we will track. In terms of the provision of counselling of various sorts, we will continue to look at whatever measures that may be possible. The existing measures will continue to be there, but we will also explore different ways of providing support for the individuals who may need counselling and that would include online counselling. But that is something that we are still looking at in terms of how that may take place.
Ms Chia Yong Yong.
Madam, I will defer my question to the second PQ.
Mr Edwin Tong.
PAPERCUTS