Remote Gambling Bill

Mdm Speaker, by any measure, problem gambling is not something we want to see in Singapore. Not only is the offending gambler at risk, his family, loved ones and the extended society around him would likely also be the victims of the social ills associated with a pathological gambler. That is why we have had strict anti-gambling laws in Singapore for many years now, recognising the social concerns, as well as the increased potential for criminal activities to take place in and around the context of gambling activities.

Yet, over the past few years, the published numbers on gambling in Singapore point to a picture that we simply cannot ignore.

The National Council on Problem Gambling, or NCPG for short, conducts regular surveys to assess and study trends in gambling. In its latest report, it tells us that almost half of Singapore residents aged 18 and above have participated in at least one form of gambling activity or another in the previous 12 months. Further, more than half of Singapore residents gamble at least once a week before they reach the age of 30.

The trend may not, in itself, be alarming, but it is notable that seven in 10 people believe that gambling once in a while and socially and not excessively, is acceptable. However, the question always in gambling is: when is it not excessive? When is it that it is time to stop? When one loses half his monthly pay cheque or more, or half his savings?

Furthermore, as the experience of the now famous Andy's dad in the NCPG World Cup advertisement shows, even when you win, you still cannot stay away! So, when is enough really enough?

The 3 February 2014 edition of The Economist ranked Singapore second in terms of the amount of gambling losses per resident adult, with approximately half of this amount being lost in casinos and the other half being spread amongst lotteries, betting and offshore

Page: 60

gaming websites.

It is this latter category of online gaming that is growing at an alarming rate, which concerns us today. An estimated US$416 million was gambled away by local online gamers this year, up by almost 10% from the preceding year. Out of this amount, about 95% end up being paid over as revenue directly to the offshore web operators, often from direct debit from the punter's bank account. This figure is likely to rise over the next few years. In fact, the majority of market trend reports tell us that this growth is likely to be exponential, commensurate with the global trend in a steep upsurge in online gaming.

Madam, the big trouble with online gaming is precisely that it is online. The Internet is pervasive and convenient and online gaming sites can be easily accessed by anyone, regardless of age. There are also so many sites to choose from, reflecting the increase in the number of market players getting into this very lucrative business. These businesses are also borderless and transnational – the online sites can be hosted from anywhere and by anyone – and allow anybody to enter the site and start gaming and our current laws do not allow this to be stopped.

Our children and many young people can be easily online and accessing these sites without restriction, in no time at all. I myself tried accessing a few sites, of course, just to see what it is like. To begin with, it is really easy to get onto a gaming site. On top of that, the gaming options and varieties are endless. On some sites, I could even choose the best looking avatar to roll the dice or deal my cards! All this could be done from the comfort of my own home and, with a few clicks, I could even link my bank account to the web operator so that direct debits could be made to cover any losses. And if all that was not enough to entice one to start, most sites also offer free monetary credits, not credits that you cannot convert but those you can convert to cash or money's worth. Hence, unlike the real casino, where one is already a $100 down, if you are a Singapore citizen, once you get in, in the online version, most people start with a credit – the key word of course being "start". Where you end up is an entirely different story!

Madam, it is very clear that with the advent of the Internet, problem gambling has become a rather different creature from the mischief which our current legislation is designed to deal with. It is, therefore, very clear to me that we need this Bill to be passed, in order to curb the ominous threat which online gaming poses, particularly to the young and vulnerable who are, of course, the largest users of the Internet, but also to our broader community.

As you have heard from Minister Iswaran a short while ago, this Bill seeks to deal with the entire remote gambling eco-system comprehensively. There are three broad aspects of

Page: 61

this Bill which I would like to address.

The first relates to the criminalisation of every facet of online gaming, not just the act of gambling but also in the provision of the platform for remote gambling to take place. The Bill provides for a wide definition of remote gambling activities and it will be an offence to gamble remotely, facilitate others to do so, or transmit, receive or otherwise provide gambling services. This Bill, with these powers, will equip the Police with powers to apprehend anyone involved in the remote gambling chain – agents, intermediaries, operators and syndicates, as long as any part of the gambling activity takes place in Singapore.

The breadth of these provisions, in my view, is vital, especially in the context of the problem we are dealing with. Many sites are operated offshore with many degrees of separation between the true operators of the syndicate and the eventual user. Further, the Internet, being what it is, makes it difficult for the key operators to be tracked down effectively. These provisions, therefore, help enhance the powers and reach of law enforcers in order to ensure that the Police would not only be able to curb the remote gambler but also take steps to disrupt or cripple any syndicates, wherever they may be located, so that the wider social harm can be prevented. On this score, I would digress slightly to note that section 9 of the Bill criminalises the activities of an agent, regardless of whether he operates inside or outside Singapore. Would Minister explain how this provision is envisaged to operate and how it would be enforced since this would invariably involve key ingredients of the offence being committed outside Singapore?

Mdm Speaker, in order to consider and appreciate whether we need these provisions of the Remote Gambling Bill in our armoury to combat problem gambling, it would be useful to quickly look at the state of our current laws. At present, we have the Betting Act, the Private Lotteries Act, the Betting and Sweepstakes Duties Act and the Common Gaming Houses Act (CGHA).

Minister Iswaran has already mentioned the Common Gaming Houses Act which, by its very name, reflects just how out-of-date it is. It was first enacted in 1961 and, most recently, revised in 1985, almost 30 years ago. When it was enacted, the stated main purpose of the Act was to provide and I quote, "for more effective control of public gaming, especially in coffee shops and places of public resort". We are quite a way away from that scenario now. However, that piece of legislation remains today one of the most commonly evoked pieces of legislation when law enforcers need to combat problem gambling. The question is whether these provisions and powers will be sufficient in today's world to deal with the cybercrime and cyber gambling of today.

Madam, a few years ago, in a decision PP v Peh Chye Hong under the Common Gaming Houses Act, the accused was prosecuted for running a physical cybercafé which provided

Page: 62

online casino gaming services. Although in this case the accused was convicted, one can already see how uncomfortably the definition of "common gaming houses" might sit with a cybercafé, even a physical one. However, if one were to replace the physical cybercafé with a virtual online one and with the advent of Internet technology today, it is really not difficult to do so, then even that comparison breaks down and it seems unlikely that such a virtual gambling site could be caught by the Common Gaming Houses provisions, which were enacted at a time when such facilities were not even contemplated, let alone in existence. Further, the current provisions also do not cover the individual who is gambling on the website from the comfort of his own home, and not from a conventional "common gaming house" as defined by the Act.

Apart from this case and a few others under the Common Gaming Houses Act, there have not been any other reported decisions concerning online gambling that I could find. Given that more than US$400 million is estimated to have been spent on online gaming this year, that probably tells us that a lot more online gaming takes place but not in physical premises and not under the scenarios which the Common Gaming Houses Act would have powers to deal with.

The second aspect of the Bill relates to the protection of the public from online gaming sites and proactive steps to block unwelcomed sites from being allowed to provide, facilitate or advertise remote gambling. In addition, payment blocking orders may also be issued to stop any payment instructions issued by a person, who is participating or has participated in remote gambling activities.

Madam, I agree with these steps and I really cannot see any serious objection to them, given that we already currently block a variety of objectionable sites ranging from pornography, to anti-piracy websites and other sites which, like Ashley Madison, promote matters against the public interest. So, this measure is also not exceptional, when compared to the approaches taken in other jurisdictions.

I should add that I also welcome Minister Iswaran's comment on having enhanced penalties for those who invite or facilitate young persons below the age of 21 to gamble remotely and those who employ young persons in connection with the provision of gambling services.

Before moving on, may I please raise three points of clarification from the Minister in relation to the application of section 21 of the Bill. This provision in section 21 sets out the circumstances in which a payment blocking order could be made. Section 21(1), in particular, provides that an authorised officer has to be, and I quote, "satisfied that a person is participating or has participated in any unlawful remote gambling activity", before a blocking order could be made. My three comments are: first, this formulation requires that an offence

Page: 63

has already been, or, is being committed, before the blocking provisions, which are essentially for the protection of the gambler and probably his family as well, can apply.

Would the bar thus be set too high or possibly invoked only at a stage when it is already too late? Second, there are eight factors listed at section 21(4) which has to be taken into account. In fact, the provision says itself weight must be given to all these factors before a blocking order can be made. Again, in the context of the stage at which the provision is being invoked, which is often time-sensitive, would these criteria be too onerous and take too long to be satisfied?

A payment blocking order has to be quickly effected before payment is transacted, failing which it would be rendered nugatory. Third, a payment blocking order under section 21(2) restricts, amongst others, the provision of credit, cheques, bank drafts, electronic fund transfers and the like. Would these provisions be sufficiently wide to also cover "money's worth", which is a term used elsewhere in the Bill, or virtual but convertible money which is often the currency used in online transactions?

Madam, I move on to my third aspect which relates to the exemption regime as set out at Part 5 of the Bill.

Madam, this is probably the most debatable aspect of the Bill since some might argue, that with all the concerns we have expressed over online gaming, why then should we leave the door even slightly ajar for exempt operators to tempt punters? I think the answer lies in acknowledging that no amount of legislation or even strict deterrent sentencing will eradicate gambling. Like drinking, prostitution and drug trafficking, all of which are the subject of some of the toughest laws we have in Singapore, gambling will continue to take place and it will be worse if driven underground, especially given the virtual terrain in which these activities operate which make it inherently difficult to detect. I believe, therefore, that there should be a controlled outlet for online gaming to occur. Take the experiences of Hong Kong, France and Norway, which Minister mentioned, for example. These were studied by MHA prior to drafting this Bill. They have similar, albeit slightly less stringent, I think, laws against online gambling, but each has an exempt operator regime as well.

That said, however, I do share the concern that the exemption should not be lightly given. The operator applying for exemption must be scrupulously reviewed and the conditions to be imposed judiciously as well as continually assessed. I am sure the Government would agree with that.

On this note, I would like to seek some clarification on section 28 of the Bill and this is my last clarification: 28(1)(c) spells out, in my view, one of the most important conditions

Page: 64

before we can allow an exempt operator onto the market, which is, I quote, "to contain and control the potential of remote gambling to cause harm to young persons, vulnerable persons and society at large". This is an important safeguard because every gambling addiction starts with just one punt. I would like to ask the Minister, therefore, how he sees this condition being imposed and, more importantly, to be continually policed. For instance, would an operator be required to verify the age of gamers, or limit the number of times the site is accessed each time by each person, or have to submit regular reports to the authority?

Madam, it bears reiterating that the social ills of problem gambling afflict more than just one gambler. Families can end up broken, children's futures compromised and relationships fail because the ill effects of a gambling addiction are so very destructive. It is all very sad and we cannot ignore the fact that online gambling is even more devastating. We have to act to protect society, particularly the young and vulnerable, from this.

I, therefore, support the Government's proactive initiative in addressing this through a suite of very comprehensive measures through this Bill, targeted across the whole spectrum of remote gambling activities. At the same time, I would also urge the Government to complement this with effective public education, encouragement, support and to work with and through VWOs, grassroots organisations and other community support groups to help problem gamblers and their families. Madam, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, the Internet age has certainly changed the way we live, work and play in every sense. It has brought a new world into our homes and into our daily lives everywhere we go. It has moved our work online. It has moved our friends online. It has also moved our addiction online. When problem gambling goes online, every Internet-ready device is a potential betting shop or casino for gamblers to get their fix 24/7. An online gambler has this to say, "You don't have to physically walk anywhere. You don't have to take your purse out of your handbag or your wallet out of your pocket to gamble." Who would have thought that lives and families will be destroyed not at the brick-and-mortar casinos or betting shop, but right in the comfort of your own home?

The Remote Gambling Bill is thus a welcomed piece of legislation to address the harm and ills that remote gambling can inflict on the individual, the family and the society as a whole.

Madam, I have some concerns to highlight and clarifications to seek from the Minister on this Bill. First, Part 2 of the Bill makes remote gambling an offence punishable by a fine

Page: 69

not exceeding $5,000, or an imprisonment term not exceeding six months, or both. While the penalties seem hefty enough to be a deterrent, I am not sure if punitive measures alone will make the offender think twice about gambling at remote sites again because the temptation is ever present. Unlike a person who is addicted to brick-and-mortar gambling where there are some forms of structural control in place, such as the punter would need to be present at the betting shop or there are operating hours to observe, a person who is addicted to online gambling has none of the above restrictions.

Online gamblers can play anywhere, anytime, without anyone noticing them doing it at all. The Internet age, together with the mobile revolution, has transformed online gambling into an all-powerful stimulant, right in the palms of your hands, thereby putting people of all ages at risk, regardless of gender, race or social standing. Bearing in mind that persons at risk are exposed to the temptation of remote gambling 24/7, could the Ministry consider making counselling and therapy sessions compulsory, in lieu of the penalties imposed, especially if the person is a first-time offender? I am of the belief that education and counselling should work hand-in-hand with punitive measures, so that online addiction can be adequately addressed and, hopefully, eradicated.

Second, Part 3 of the Bill makes it an offence to advertise and promote remote gambling. An offender would pay a fine not exceeding $20,000. Madam, the mobile revolution has opened up a world of opportunities for entrepreneurs and software developers to market their products and services. It has four million of apps, many of which are provided free-of-charge, but come with advertising. Would software developers be held liable for remote gambling advertisements that may appear in their free apps?

While clause 16(2)(a) provides a possible defence for app developers to prove that such advertisements appearing in their app are accidental or incidental accompaniment, clause 16(2)(b) will weaken their defence because they are actually benefiting directly from the display of such advertisements, especially when users click on them. Can app developers also claim clause 16(3) as a possible defence that they have no control over the nature or content of the communication or data in their apps?

And, on the flip side, there is no way to prevent remote gambling service providers from commissioning fun and entertaining apps targeting at specific demographics at no charge but populated with remote gambling advertisements. I seek clarifications from the Minister on these issues as the intent of the Bill is certainly not to douse the entrepreneurial spirit or limit the imagination of software developers in the mobile app industry.

Third, Part 5 of the Bill is, perhaps, the most worrying part of the legislation. It legalises exempt operators to do what the Bill is supposed to prohibit in the first place. A British-based consultant estimates remote gambling revenue here to hit half a million dollars this year. A

Page: 70

Hamburg-based company projects the online gambling market to grow by 7% to 10% annually in the next few years with mobile gambling, expected to reach over 40% of the total online gambling market by 2018. Another report in 2013 put the number of Internet gambling sites at nearly 3,000 and the annual revenue they had generated at US$30 billion.

All the above reports point to one conclusion – the exuberance for growth in the remote gambling industry is irresistible. It is thus not surprising that not-for-profit and state-run operators like Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club were reported to have indicated their desire to seek exemption, even before this Bill comes up for Second Reading.

Madam, Singapore Pools has about 300 betting outlets conveniently located in the commercial and the HDB heartlands. As mentioned earlier in my speech, the physical location and operating hours of these outlets do offer some form of control to prevent persons-at-risk from being exposed to constant temptation. However, an exempt operator under this Bill will be able to put the betting outlet or casino into every home and open it for business all year round, 24 hours a day.

I note the Minister has stated that no casino-style online games will be allowed for exempt operators. However, the convenience and danger of online remote gambling cannot be understated. A struggling addict said, "I feel defeated as the temptation was constant and a relapse was just a click away." Some may argue that without exempt operators, this Bill will drive online gamblers underground. Madam, everything will be driven underground the moment the Government outlaws it. It is the law of nature.

But unlike the physical world where the border is hard to secure 100% and cash payment is hard to trace, this Government controls the conduit where all online activities and electronic payments flow through. Part 4 of the Bill will prevent access to online remote gambling services and block payment transactions quite effectively. While it is not 100% foolproof, the Bill does make it difficult for persons-at-risk to gamble 24/7 online. So, the question is why does the Bill want to make it easy for these people to gamble online, again, through the exempt operators?

Madam, we already have 4D, Toto, Singapore Sweep, Live Sports betting, phone betting, MobileTote, TeleTote and even operator-assisted betting, in addition to the two casinos operating round the clock in the city area. Do we need a legalised betting outlet in every home as well?

Finally, Part 6, clause 40 of the Bill states that the Minister can also exempt any person or class of persons from the provisions of this Act. I seek clarification from the Minister who

Page: 71

are the people who would qualify for the exemption.

In conclusion, this Bill must send the right message. Are we trying to address the harm and ills of remote gambling or the loss of revenue to unauthorised operators? We certainly cannot have it both ways because gambling addiction does not stop when exempt operators come in. What role can a potential exempt operator like Singapore Pools play to fight online gambling addiction when its sole mission listed on its website is to combat the loss of revenue to unauthorised gambling operators?

Madam, we already have enough legal avenues to gamble. While I support the principle of the Bill, I am of the opinion that Part 5 of the Bill should be re-examined and the Government should proceed with caution on the provisions for exempt operators.

I, therefore, urge the Minister to commit the Bill to a Select Committee to specifically look into Part 5 of the Bill because it has ramifications beyond what we could anticipate. Educating the public on responsible gambling is all good but, at the end of the day, this Bill will be responsible for putting a legal betting shop right in the palm of our hands. Are we taking gambling, responsible or not, too far?

Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong) (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate on remote gambling. I have mentioned many times in Parliament that we need to strengthen our control measures on gambling to limit the escalation of gambling ills. Thus, I rise in support of the Remote Gambling Bill. However, I hope MHA will address the following concerns and suggestions pertaining to remote gambling.

First and foremost, I would like to urge the Government to establish an anti-cybercrime agency to tackle cybercrimes, including unathourised remote gambling. When I requested Senior Minister of State Mr Masagos in Parliament to establish the said agency last month, he was not specific in his reply. With the rapid development of technology and Internet space, we need to train a group of online experts to effectively tackle the various forms of online betting. Even if the Government can block all the existing gambling sites, new ones will continue to pop up. It is like the Chinese saying "new grass will grow again as long as we do not remove the roots". We need the online experts to continuously identify and block these illegal online betting sites, rather than relying on public complaints to identify new illegal sites.

Page: 72

Next, I would like to move on to the most controversial part of the Bill, which is Part 5. I can understand why MHA needs to add sections 26 and 30 to allow Singapore-based non-profit gambling companies to apply for exemptions and provide remote gambling services. The intention is to provide an outlet for Singaporeans to use their phone apps or websites to gamble in a limited way. It is like a safety valve to prevent Singaporeans from resorting to excessive illegal online gambling.

However, I do not understand the need for section 40, which empowers the Minister to allow some persons, or a group of persons, to enjoy exemptions and not be constrained by other sections of the Bill. The Minister has just said that the purpose of section 40 is to allow some charity organisations to conduct online lucky draws. However, the scope of section 40 is very wide. Does it mean that the Minister is considering to allow some rich local residents to gamble online freely? Or is the Minister considering to exempt the current Integrated Resort operators so that they could provide online gambling services? I hope the answer is no, but I would like the Minister to clarify the intention of section 40.

Meanwhile, I hope the Minister can strengthen the control over exempted companies and do not hesitate to exercise the regulating powers strictly. I understand that when the exempted companies fail to comply with the authority's regulations, they could be fined up to $1 million. However, is $1 million a sufficiently strong deterrent? Many people may not know that Singapore Pools has been offering remote gambling services and punters can place bets using their mobile phones. Thus, it is highly likely that Singapore Pools will apply for exemption to provide remote gambling services. Last year, their revenue was more than $6.3 billion with about $600 million profits. Hence, is a $1 million fine a sufficient deterrence to them? Perhaps, the Minister can consider raising the fines quantum but capping it at 10% of their revenue, similar to fines imposed on telcos and casino operators. If the Minister, indeed, grants exemption to Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club in the near future, I hope these two companies can maintain their current online and phone betting services and not rush into dishing out additional remote gambling services. We need some time to observe the impact of the Remote Gambling Act on our residents.

When we legalise more gambling channels, more Singaporeans will likely start to gamble, resulting in more gambling addicts. In order to stem the growth of gambling addicts, we need to nip the problem at its source. One of the ways is to limit the betting amount each resident could place. For that matter, I hope MHA can consider issuing a special player card which is linked to the gambler's bank account that the gambler uses to gamble via the legal channels. We can set up an upper limit on the amount of bet one can place each day, similar to the personalised player card used in Norway and Sweden. Particularly in Norway, the government stipulates that no one can transfer more than US$80 per day or US$440 per month into the player card. With this kind of player card, we can better control the social problems brought about by legal gambling. Thus, I urge the Minister to study the feasibility

Page: 73

of using a player card system to control gambling.

Mdm Speaker, online gambling is increasingly becoming a problem, both globally and in Singapore. In 2013, a news article reported an online survey by MHA which found that three in 10 out of 1,000 respondents had gambled online or through the mobile phone. The article estimated that the size of the remote gambling market in Singapore was $376 million. MHA had also estimated that the revenue of the global remote gambling industry was around US$35 billion in 2012.

A survey conducted in 2011 with Singapore residents by the National Council on Problem Gambling found that 10% of the respondents had gambled remotely in the preceding year and those who did so said they often found themselves spending more time and money than they had intended to. With the wide penetration of the Internet and mobile phone and the increasingly technology-savvy population, remote gambling will rise rapidly, if left unchecked.

Singapore currently has tough laws on gambling in real-world physical form, but has lagged behind that of other countries in imposing legislation on remote gambling, at least until now. Hence, I support the Government's move to impose tough legislation on remote gambling. Remote gamblers will now face fines and even jail terms, while those who facilitate remote gambling will be subjected to even heftier fines and up to five years in jail.

Industry experts have said that we will have one of the toughest laws in the world against online gambling. While most countries would adopt one or two of the key measures

Page: 74

to control online gambling, Singapore will adopt all three measures with the proposed regulations: one, ban advertisements; two, block access to such websites; and three, block payments to and from gambling sites.

However, a worrying aspect of the Bill is that under Part 5, it provides for exemptions for Singapore-based not-for-profit operators with a proven track record of distributing monies to public, social or charitable purposes in Singapore and with good compliance track records with applicable legal and regulatory requirements.

Our state-run operators, Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club have already been quoted in the press as saying that they will apply for the exemption certificate once the Bill is passed into law. Last year, it was reported that Singapore Pools is already looking to launch the first licensed gambling website that will be based in Singapore. The same report cited sources who said that Singapore Pools had already begun design for a website with online betting functions. In effect, this Bill will create a monopoly for legalised online gambling in Singapore for the existing operators.

Madam, while it is good to have only compliant not-for-profit organisations with charitable outlooks to be considered for exemption, we must not forget that there are very real dangers of people and families that have been and will continue to be destroyed at our existing legalised casinos, turf clubs and betting outlets.

According to a British gambling consultancy, H2 Gambling Capital, Singaporeans are the second biggest gamblers in the world and the average adult resident lost $1,189 in 2013. This ranks Singapore only behind Australia in terms of gambling losses per resident. Half of this amount was reportedly lost in the casinos, with the other half going to other forms of gambling, such as lottery, non-casino gaming machines, bettings and offshore gaming websites.

While the rates of problem and pathological gambling across the board are still considered relatively low, a local study funded by MSF has found that there has been an increase in the gambling participation rates among older adults aged 60 and above. This is consistent with other countries, such as the UK and the US, which also have similar trends. What is worrying about the prevalence of gambling participation among older adults from the study is that none of those identified within the problem gambling and moderate risk groups in the study was seeking professional help. As a result, while there are generally more people seeking help for gambling addiction, there still remains a significant group of people who do not do so, for various reasons, such as being unaware of the problem, or fear of being stigmatised, amongst others. This is a cause for concern not just because this group of people are around retirement age, but also because of the dire consequences that could

Page: 75

befall their families if the problem is not addressed in time.

When we legalised casinos in 2006, we enacted the Casino Control Act which has provisions aimed at protecting vulnerable persons and society at large from the potential harm of casino gambling. Yet we still saw individuals and families being destroyed by the scourge of addictive gambling. This has resulted in amendments to the Bill two years ago to offer further safeguards.

I would like to know what are the lessons learnt from the operations of our legalised gambling franchises that our authorities intend to incorporate to control the negative aspects of addictive gambling. This is especially so when remote gambling is so much more convenient for the gamblers.

While we are legislating remote gambling for the first time in Singapore, there are already some forms of remote gambling by our two state-run gambling operators. As the Minister has said, Singapore Pools already allows phone betting and Singapore Turf Club's MobileTote allows betting via mobile devices. Phone betting allows for the placement of lottery bets by following voice prompts and through data entry using the phone's number pads. It allows for Sports bets through speaking with a customer service representative. The MobileTote allows Telebet account holders to view race day information and place their racing wagers on their mobile phones. Users of these services must first be registered with the gambling operators.

I trust that our authorities have been monitoring these existing forms of legalised remote gambling services. I would like to know if we have examined the frequency of usage of these types of remote gambling, such as the number of bets and amount of bets versus the traditional forms. Have we studied the gambling patterns of those who use these remote gambling services to see if the services had led to an increase in the number and overall values of their betting? What is the size of the existing memberships of these services? This information could be helpful to determine the extent of the danger for legalising online gambling through exempted operators and if these two existing state-owned operators should be granted exempt-status. With the exemption provisions in the Bill, it could open up the floodgates for these operators to be more aggressive in offering a wider range of services with greater convenience, which could inevitably result in more people becoming addicted to gambling.

Next, on verifications and controls needed. With online gambling, one should logically first be registered with a login identity and to have financial details linked to the gaming operators to facilitate payments. If we have to go down the path of having exempt gambling operators, we will need a way to impose controls on the legalised gambling sites, such as exclusion orders, voluntary self-exclusion and limits to gambling tied to financial abilities.

Page: 76

With the current exercise to strengthen SingPass security with two-level authentication, perhaps SingPass could be used as the means for authentication and financial background checks. At the very least, some form of strict authentication of the identity and background of the online gamblers at the initial creation of their account is important. Those on state-funded welfare programmes can be automatically excluded as such information will be readily available about the person. Those already on casino exclusion orders and are bankrupt should also automatically be excluded. Known financial details could perhaps be used to determine gambling limits.

What forms of remote gambling would be allowed for the legalised exempt operators? I am glad to hear from the Minister that there will be no casino-style games as these are potentially more addictive, compared to other forms of gambling. It would also have allowed a loophole to let Singapore residents gamble on casino games without the safeguards of entry levies that physical casinos have.

Another issue that we may have to look at in the implementation of online gaming is live-betting. With live-betting, one can bet on sporting events as they happen, with odds changing by the minutes or even seconds, as the game progresses. Gambling sites internationally have devised all sorts of creative live-bets, such as the number of yellow cards in, say, the first 20 minutes of the game. This can lead to more bets being placed on each sporting event and it also raises the risk for match-fixing. Australia, which has laws regulating online gambling since 2001, moved last year to ban live-betting and live-odds on all sports events, with the exception of horse-racing. Their reasons, amongst others, for this move were to control excessive gambling and to prevent the sporting values of games from being distorted by gambling. I hope live-betting will not be allowed in Singapore.

Mdm Speaker, I understand a reason for allowing exemptions is to allow enforcement through entities that we can better monitor. However, we need to tread this carefully as the ills of gambling are far-reaching, as we have already seen from our experiences with the casinos and other forms of legalised gambling. There need to be constant monitoring of the effects of remote gambling and to restrict participation by vulnerable persons and to also restrict the type of gaming activities allowed.

While I support the broad principles of the Bill to ban remote gambling, I find there are many unanswered questions regarding the exemption provisions. I fear that once we open the floodgates to have legalised remote gambling, we may end up with very high social costs and other unintended consequences in the future. Hence, I also wish to ask for the Bill to be committed to a Select Committee to examine the exemption provisions in detail to convince Singaporeans why exemptions are necessary and, if so, how we can tighten our legislation to implement very strong safeguards.

Page: 77

This Bill comes four years after the Singapore Academy of Law's Law Reform Committee released a report on online gambling in Singapore in July 2010. The Law Reform Paper noted that Singapore had begun to host gaming and gambling events with more frequency, referring to the Betfair Asian Poker Tour and through statutory exemptions to the Common Gaming Houses Act for organisers of private events to organise gambling activities in Singapore. In the words of the report, these developments suggested a more open State policy towards controlled and revenue-generating gambling activities with similar implications for online gambling, even though the local courts have generally taken a more conservative approach with regard to public policy considerations about gambling.

This Bill will clarify the law on online gambling, especially since the four key Statutes that govern gambling in Singapore, namely the Common Gaming Houses Act, the Betting Act, the Private Lotteries Act and the Betting and Sweepstakes Duties Act, do not adequately address the legal regime surrounding online or remote gambling. With regard to online gambling till date, the Common Gaming Houses Act and the Betting Act are generally differentiated with the former dealing mainly with casino-style online gambling and, the latter, with sports-type online betting.

The Bill targets all forms of remote gambling activity and covers individuals and corporate entities from gamblers to betting agents and operators. The law will apply so long as part of the gambling activity takes place in Singapore, regardless of where the bet is placed or where the remote gambling operator is located. It also gives authorities the power to block payments between illegal gambling sites and financial institutions, and block local access to gambling websites that facilitate all advertised remote gambling. All these are very far-reaching measures.

Mdm Speaker, a reading of the Bill in isolation sends the signal that the state subscribes to a restrictive and socially responsible attitude towards remote gambling. This is, however, only until the exemption clauses 26 to 30 to the Bill kick in and this aspect of the Bill is the focus of my speech.

The Minister can issue a certificate of exemption to any operator if it is in the public interest to do so. Clause 28 lists the conditions that the Minister may refer to when deciding to issue a certificate although these are not exhaustive and because the Minister has wide powers to add to, delete or modify the conditions governing the issuance of a certificate of exemption.

Page: 78

I have a few clarifications for the Minister in this regard. While I am supportive of a clear legal regime to deal with remote gambling, I am concerned that the prospect of a certificate of exemption issued to one or more local operators will increase the prospect of gambling in Singapore per se, as there is no clarity as yet on the means by which an operator would seek to contain and control the potential of remote gambling to cause harm to all Singaporeans and not just to young persons and vulnerable individuals. I will cover four main areas in my speech.

First, is it inevitable that a total ban will cause remote gambling to go underground? It was noteworthy that in the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) consultation exercise report on the regulation of remote gambling dated 6 March 2014, some stakeholders advocated a complete ban on remote gambling on the grounds that there were sufficient gambling outlets available to Singaporeans and to prevent easy access to remote gambling, especially among youth who are usually more tech-savvy and potentially at greater risk.

The oft-heard argument about remote gambling is that a total ban will drive activities, such as Internet gambling, underground. This is often the same argument used for the regulation of other vices. In the absence of relevant data and information, I am not convinced that these concerns wholly apply to remote gambling precisely because gamblers can still get their fix at land-based outlets and through some remote gambling options provided to gamblers by operators currently. If so, would it not suggest that rather than gamblers going underground and operating illegally, most gamblers would just go to the existing land-based outlets, such as authorised 4-D/TOTO shops which are completely legal and regulated?

Separately, even if some remote gambling does go underground, there is already acknowledgement by the Minister that even with the passage of this Bill into law, there remain loopholes, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) that can be set up to circumscribe restrictions in this Bill and gamblers could still get their fix through international online gambling sites. I would be grateful if the Minister could inform this House whether his Ministry will be open to look into the efficacy of a total ban on online gambling and not issue a certificate to any operator, until the public knows how restrictive or liberal the remote gambling regime will be in practice, or whether it will increase the prospect of compulsive gambling in Singapore.

Second, information on remote gambling in Singapore. The NCPG consultation exercise report on the regulation of remote gambling saw some stakeholders calling on the Government to commission more local research on remote gambling to study the nature and extent of remote gambling in Singapore. I am of the view that access to this information would better equip Members in this debate, rather than to rely on analyst projections from third parties. I hope the Minister can share more information on remote gambling in this

Page: 79

regard, for example, details on the numbers of remote gamblers in Singapore, the frequency of their betting activities and preferred betting activities, such as sports betting or conventional casino-styled gambling, so that Parliament can ensure that the social safeguards with regard to remote gambling are set at an appropriate level.

Third, remote gambling exempt operators: taxation and proceeds. In a USA Today editorial dated 25 September 2014, it was reported that the state of New Jersey was looking to the courts to allow sports betting and the concern was that online sports betting would follow suit accordingly. This may not just mean bets on the eventual results, but live-betting as well, such as the number of red and yellow cards in soccer game for example, raising the prospect of attendent social ills, such as increased sophistication in match-fixing, for example. The fear is that if pressures begin to mount on the bottomlines of exempt operators and even the state as a tax partner, there may well be a desensitisation towards relaxed remote gambling restrictions as a solution. The Bill gives wide powers to the Minister to decline or revoke the issuance of a certificate and I hope the Minister can let this House know what measures are in place to ensure that such a slippery slope does not occur.

In addition, the NCPG consultation exercise on remote gambling proposed that the proceeds of remote gambling products offered by not-for-profit entities should go towards charitable and community causes. This point is also made in clause 26 on the factors that the Minister may consider before issuing a certificate of exemption. I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry has determined what percentage of proceeds from remote gambling would go towards such causes and the operators respectively and how remote gambling will be taxed. Will this figure be made public in due course, and would an expectation of a fixed percentage of proceeds be a criterion for the issuance of a certificate, in addition to the conditions specified in clause 28?

Fourth, responsible gaming regulations for remote gambling. According to a speech made by the Minister at the 3rd Singapore Symposium on Casino Regulation and Crime last year, the total revenue of the global remote gambling industry in 2012 was estimated at US$35 billion, with an expected annual growth rate of about 9% – we have heard a number of Members citing these figures. And this is about five times the expected growth for conventional land-based gambling.

MSF, in a reply to a Parliamentary Question on the implementation of responsible gaming measures adopted by the two Integrated Resorts in October 2013 with respect to the Casino Control (Responsible Gambling) Regulations, said that a casino operator must submit its responsible gambling programme to the authorities for prior approval with some measures, including whether the operators had committed a dedicated committee to oversee responsible gambling efforts, set up a pre-commitment facility for patrons to limit their gambling expenditures and other broad measures, such as responsible gambling

Page: 80

ambassadors providing patrons with information and to assist those who display signs of anxiety or distress.

These measures have not been raised by this Bill but it is envisaged that they would conceivably be similarly raised in subsidiary legislation. However, as the drawing up of such legislation is not subject to parliamentary debate, it would be important for the Minister to flesh out the contours of responsible gaming regulations relevant to remote gambling in Parliament, so that Members can be assured that remote gambling options, as offered by exempt operators, do not end up making it more convenient for gamblers as Singapore is already one of the most wired and connected countries in the world. There is also a legitimate concern that responsible gaming regulations specific to land-based gambling are not easily portable to the remote gambling realm precisely because land-based gambling outlets are viscerally better placed to introduce social checks and monitors.

In view of the ubiquitous nature of remote gambling, the integrity and online security of gambler/gambling-related information and specifically, the greater difficulty to police and influence online activity, can the Minister please share what measures and regulations the Ministry has deliberated upon to ensure that widespread online gambling does not begin to take root in Singapore because of online or remote mediums through regulated operators who have been issued a certificate of exemption?

Separately, in its press release dated 29 November 2013 on proposals to restrict remote gambling, the Ministry stated that, in addition to the changes promulgated in the Bill before the House today, the Ministry will also strengthen public education with regard to remote gambling and gambling simulation games. Can the Minister share how the Ministry intends to do so, how different its public education programme would be for remote gamblers as opposed to land-based gambling and how it plans to gauge the effectiveness of such measures in view of the privacy afforded to a gambler by the Internet and, as iterated earlier, given the nature of the online medium in particular?

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, a number of international studies warn how remote gambling activities can be more dangerous than conventional ones that are already present in Singapore. The British-based Global Betting and Gaming Consultants (GBGC) estimated that the remote gambling industry in Singapore will rake in US$416 million or S$526 million in 2014, up by more than 50% from the US$271.58 million in 2009. More worryingly, according to the Psychological Assessment Journal, it was reported that 40% of online gamblers tend to over-estimate their winnings and underestimate their losses. And NCPG statistics from 2011 showed that those who participated in online gambling were found to have the poorest self-control, gambling longer, more frequently and spending more money than planned.

Page: 81

Mdm Speaker, the phrase, "the devil is in the details", is an oft-heard cliché. This Bill essentially sees the Government proposing a largely restrictive regime governing remote gambling, which is a positive development in principle. To that end, I support the Bill. However, the Bill is also one where the details – of how the Government will ensure remote gambling through exempt operators will not lead to an increased incidence of gambling, especially among the vulnerable groups – are not sufficiently clear. As this is a significant aspect of the Bill with far-reaching implications on gambling norms in Singapore, I ask the Minister to put this Bill before a Select Committee so Parliament can receive additional feedback from Singaporeans, industry experts and, in particular, operators that would potentially qualify for a certificate of exemption, with a view to scrutinise clauses 26 to 30 more closely.

Mdm Speaker, I speak in support of the Remote Gambling Bill. I also declare my interest: I am a lawyer at Rajah & Tann (Singapore) LLP and my law firm advises on gaming law.

Remote gambling has grown significantly over the years. It is a large, highly profitable global industry. Typically, it includes online sports betting, card games and live-casino games. There are numerous websites offering such services and at the moment, there is almost no regulation of this sector. I have heard different numbers being bandied around but I understand that, in Singapore alone, more than $375 million was spent on remote gambling last year.

This Bill introduces some of the strongest restrictions against remote gambling to be imposed by any country. In this context, it is interesting that the debate in this House has focused not on whether this Bill goes too far in restricting remote gambling, but whether it has gone far enough. This suggests that there is a clear consensus that remote gambling should be restricted by the Government. And I think that is a very healthy starting point.

Before we enter this debate, we should actually look at where the starting point of Government regulation should be in the first place because, ultimately, the choice to gamble is an individual choice. You may disagree with that person's choice to gamble, but by and large, assuming he is not addicted, that is his free choice. If he wants to place a bet on his favourite team winning the game, he should be allowed to do so. If he wants to buy a 4D ticket, say, on his birthday or some other special occasion, he should be allowed to do so. Many of us may not believe that is a sensible choice, we may not do the same thing, but by and large, a person who wishes to place small bets, who wishes to engage in leisure gambling,

Page: 82

should be able to do so.

The main justification for Government intervention in prohibiting gambling is because of its highly addictive nature and the social ills that accompany it. I think every Member of this House is aware of that. But once a person becomes addicted to gambling, it is no longer a free choice. It becomes compulsive. And there are companies out there that exploit this.

People who suffer from gambling addiction cause problems not only for themselves, but also their family and loved ones. I have met a great many cases in my Meet-the-People Sessions, people coming for financial assistance. Quite often, when you probe a bit deeper, you realise that somewhere out there, there is actually a gambling story as well which they have not actually told you about. And the gambling story leads to run-ins with illegal moneylenders and potentially other illegal operations too.

For that measure, I agree, by and large, that the Government should intervene and the Government should impose restrictions. In this respect, I think it will be helpful to discuss some of the restrictions imposed by this Bill, just to understand it better. And along the way, I will ask for some clarifications.

First, this Bill actually prohibits all forms of remote gambling activities, unless they are exempted. It also prohibits the advertisement and promotion of online gambling. There are stricter penalties if gambling is promoted to young people. There is also a tightly controlled exemption regime which I will discuss later on in the speech.

This essentially means that all forms of remote gambling which include online gambling and even gambling by telephone will be prohibited. Some of the things that I think might help in clarifying the scope of these restrictions include the following.

In section 26(3) of the Bill, there is a set of criteria which it is said that the Minister may consider in deciding whether or not to grant exemption status to certain operators. I think it is this part of the Bill that has attracted a lot of criticisms because many Members believe that there should be no exemptions at all or there should be stricter controls of these exemptions.

My reading of this is that it looks at whether or not the exempt operator is established in Singapore; whether there is a key director or officer in Singapore; and whether the applicant is not-for-profit. This should hopefully take away the incentive to make money out of this operation. And also finally, whether the applicant has a consistent track record of compliance with legal and regulatory requirements applicable to it.

Page: 83

My understanding of this exemption really is that it seems to be an attempt to make sure that any remote gambling is operated out of Singapore by people that our laws will be able to take hold over. And clearly, the profit incentive is also taken away. What this means is, essentially, we will have non-profit operators providing a service for an individual who wants to place a sport bet by telephone will be allowed to do so. In that sense, it seems to be more that we are tolerating the occasional indulgence in gambling as opposed to promoting gambling.

I understand that this Bill is phrased quite generally. It says these are criteria that the Minister may take into account. I understand in public statements, there have been some statements where the Minister has listed out the criteria that will be taken into account. But perhaps to avoid doubt, the Minister could clarify whether or not, this are, in effect, the minimum criteria under section 26, or the Minister may take into account other criteria as well, in order to make it even tighter.

This, at least, makes it very clear that basically, what we are doing is we are tightening the regime. We are not actually liberalising it in any way. We are not encouraging it in any way.

There are a couple of other areas in this Bill that seems extremely wide. I am not sure if this width is intended or unintended. Perhaps, I will just flag some of these things so that clarifications can be made on whether or not the Bill is intended to go that far.

Among the activities prohibited under section 5(4) is "the provision of facilities for remote gambling by others". This will obviously capture people who try to facilitate direct gambling but would it also, for example, capture people who develop software that might be used in the gaming industry but not necessarily to customers in Singapore? I understand that quite a number of companies that actually develop software in Singapore that might be used by the gaming industry. Similarly, I think section 9(1)(e) also says, "facilitates the participation by others in remote gambling". This might also include potentially software developers as well as those who might provide things like data facilities and routing facilities but not necessarily ISP providers. Some of these businesses are based in Singapore and I guess it is an open question whether or not we do intend to prohibit these activities.

On a related note, section 8 of the Bill, it does not really specify whether or not the individual who gambles in Singapore using the remote gambling service has to be a Singapore citizen or resident, or whether even tourists and transient visitors might be captured. So, this might create a situation where someone who comes from a country where gambling is permitted, carries on gambling in Singapore and then ends up falling foul of the law just because he happens to be gambling in Singapore. But he may not necessarily be aware of the restrictions on online gambling in Singapore. So, the question is, would these

Page: 84

potential individuals also be captured by the prohibitions in section 8 and might they find themselves getting arrested while on holiday which might make for some unpleasant newspaper headlines.

Another concern – I think the Minister clarified this – was raised by the International Social Games Association (ISGA) in a letter which I believe was sent to quite a number of Members in this House. And this was really pointing out that the definition of "money or money's worth" includes "anything that recognises as equivalent to money and includes virtual credits, virtual coins, virtual tokens, virtual objects". I think their concern is that many social games, including Candy Crush and Farmville, use things like farm coins and Candy Crush gems as virtual currency. But the Minister has clarified that it is not intended to capture these games. So, I guess those of us who do have these social games on our handphones can still go ahead playing it without falling foul of the law.

Let me go to a slightly more, I guess, serious topic, and these are the law-and-order concerns. Remote gambling operations where they are unregulated are not always benign. In the US, the US Attorney charged about 34 members and associates of two Russian-American organised crime syndicates with operating International Sportsbooks that allegedly laundered more than US$100 million. Earlier in his introductory speech, the Minister mentioned that illegal sports, bets placed during the World Cup in Asia alone amounted to some US$2.2 billion in dirty money which might be laundered as well in the black market.

In this regard, it might also be helpful if Singapore made consequential amendments to our anti-money laundering provisions to include offences under the Remote Gaming Act which will be part of the Second Schedule to the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act as offences that are to be treated as "serious crimes". These would basically allow us to go after all these remote gambling operators but also the proceeds of remote gambling as essentially the proceeds of money laundering offences. This would give much more teeth to bite as well.

The final part of my speech is on the enforcement measures and I am a big fan of the enforcement measures. I think the blocking orders both against web operators, ISPs as well as financial institutions are potentially quite effective because that way, in theory, you cut both access to websites as well as access to payment.

My only concern, of course, is this. I understand some other countries such as France and Norway have actually tried these blocking practices. I am curious to know how effective this has been because one concern is that people might be able to circumvent these measures, like blocking of websites, by using proxy servers or blocking of bank accounts by using foreign P.O. boxes. I assume that these are simple circumventing techniques that have

Page: 85

been tried many times by individuals and whether there are any ways or measures we can use to prevent such circumvention and perhaps also using more serious penalties if people try to circumvent these blocking measures.

Having said all that, overall, I strongly support this Bill. I believe the scourge of gambling and widespread and easy availability of remote gambling necessitate this. Some gambling for leisure and recreation, where it is monitored by trusted operators such as Singapore Pools, in a tightly controlled environment can be permitted. And, of course, the benefit of permitting this under tight Government scrutiny is that we can then manage addiction and obviously if further measures are needed to control such exemption orders, I would also support those. I think the main advantage is we will have greater control over gambling and greater knowledge of the type of people who engage in it and also, therefore, greater ability to deal with it further, if necessary. At the moment, I believe this Bill strikes a fair balance. Most of my questions relate to the manner in which the various unique features of this Bill might play out in practice and I would be grateful for any clarifications that the Minister can provide.

Mdm Speaker, gambling is recognised as an activity that needs to be monitored and regulated closely by the authorities. It has been of particular concern due to its addictive nature, especially when it involves vulnerable persons like youths.

Therefore, I am in broad support for the Bill but seek clarification as to the thinking, justification and rationale behind the exemption, which under Part 5, which I will return to

Page: 90

towards the end of my speech.

In recent years, with the unprecedented access to Internet broadband and the widespread prevalence of smartphones amongst Singaporeans, remote gambling is starting to take root amongst our Singaporean population. Remote gambling is essentially gambling through electronic means such as the Internet, telephone or other kinds of technology for facilitating communication. It was noted in 2013, that the size of the remote gambling market in Singapore was estimated at around $375 million and was expected to grow by about 6% to 7% annually.

However, our current laws, this Bill notwithstanding, do not expressly cover remote gambling. This unchecked proliferation of remote gambling and the unregulated access to it is of particular concern for three reasons. First, unlike traditional forms of terrestrial gambling like 4D or Toto, remote gambling websites can be accessed at any time of the day, from anywhere and often without any charge. This is unlike gambling at one of Singapore's two casinos where there is an age-requirement and a $100 levy imposed on Singaporeans seeking to enter the casinos.

Further, with younger generations being more tech-savvy and connected to the Internet, the issue of remote gambling amongst youths is an even greater concern. Unless parents are vigilant and create safeguards, as Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has just said, against their children accessing such sites, youths can easily get caught in the vicious cycle of online gambling without fully understanding the consequences.

Secondly, companies currently providing remote gambling services in Singapore tend to be located beyond the jurisdiction of Singapore, allowing them to escape local regulation and restrictions. There is also a risk that these sites may also become a source or conduit of funds for illegal activities like money laundering or syndicated crimes.

Lastly, the nature and design of games that are commonly provided on remote gambling sites, like poker and blackjack, lend themselves to repetitive play and addictive behaviour. As such, remote gamblers may find themselves in a vicious cycle, inescapable cycle, of problem gambling that they find difficult to break out from.

Taken together, it is clear that remote gambling has become an increasing concern that cannot be ignored.

Therefore, to address this gap, the proposed Remote Gambling Bill outlines the legislative framework that will help to regulate remote gambling activities in Singapore. First, it will define and prohibit remote gambling activities in Singapore. Moreover, it will maintain

Page: 91

law and order with respect to remote gambling and will try to protect vulnerable person, like youths, from being harmed or exploited by remote gambling.

This Bill sends a clear signal and decisive signal – these Parts 1 to 4 – regarding the regulatory stance of Singapore against remote gambling and its negative consequences. By outlining what forms of remote gambling activities are prohibited, the Bill will provide clarity on the scope of offences and will act as a clear sign of the Government's stance against remote gambling in Singapore.

For example, the Bill makes it an arrestable offence for an individual to engage in gambling within Singapore using a remote communication device and with the use of a remote gambling service that is not provided by an exempt operator and imposes a penalty of a fine or imprisonment, or both, for individuals found to have contravened these provisions.

Beyond just going after the individuals that engage in remote gambling, the Bill also seeks to empower the Police with more powers to deal with agents, operators and syndicates all along the criminal value chain, which are operating both inside and outside of Singapore. First, the Bill will cover persons that organise, facilitate or assist in the participation of illegal remote gambling activities, as well as those involved in the distribution of prizes or money in connection with remote gambling activities. The Bill will also allow authorities to go after persons outside of Singapore who provide a remote gambling service with "a Singapore-customer link."

Lastly, to protect young persons, who are particularly vulnerable to remote gambling, a separate and more stiff penalty is imposed on offenders that invite or facilitate young persons below the age of 21 to engage in remote gambling, or those that employ such young persons in the provision of remote gambling services in Singapore. This is in recognition of the particularly vulnerable disposition of young persons to such activities and reflects the greater severity of such offenses.

Taken together, these provisions will provide a holistic and comprehensive approach to criminalising remote gambling in Singapore. However, could the Minister clarify how the provisions of the Remote Gambling Bill will be enforced in practice? Will a specialised unit be set up to monitor and deal with remote gambling activities? Also, will the Police engage in proactive policing of unlawful remote gambling activities through active surveillance, or will enforcement be reactionary in nature, based on complaints received?

Moving on to a separate subject, the Bill augments the criminalisation of illegal remote gambling activities in Singapore by introducing two main forms of blocking measures –

Page: 92

website access blocking and payment blocking. First, the Bill will implement website access blocking measures, which will empower an authorised officer to direct MDA to issue an Internet Service Provider (ISP) with an access blocking order. This order will require the ISP to take reasonable steps to disable access to a particular website or online location, which has the purpose of providing Internet users in Singapore with access to an "unlawful remote gambling activity", publishes remote gambling service advertisements or promotes unlawful remote gambling activities.

The Bill also provides that if an authorised officer is satisfied that a person is participating or has participated in any unlawful remote gambling activity, the officer may direct MAS to issue a financial institution a payment blocking order or may directly issue a payment blocking order to a financial transaction provider, that will freeze and block all financial payments being transacted through the bank accounts of that person.

To complement and enhance the effectiveness of these blocking measures, the Bill will also make it an offense to advertise or promote any form of remote gambling activity and this offence extends to both electronic and non-electronic forms of media.

Together, these blocking measures and the prohibition against the advertising and promotion of remote gambling will act as a strong deterrent against individuals engaging in unlawful remote gambling.

Although the access blocking measures may prove effective against casual remote gamblers, a determined, tech-savvy gambler may be able to easily circumvent these measures. Further, problem gamblers could set up bank accounts overseas so as to circumvent the payment blocking measures. In light of these potential problems, could the Minister clarify what safeguards will the Ministry put in place to monitor the remote gambling situation in Singapore and to ensure that these protection measures are not circumvented?

Lastly, Mdm Speaker, the Bill lays outs the conditions and criterion that may be considered by regulatory authorities for the issuance of a certificate of exemption from the prohibition of the provision of remote gambling in Singapore. This is where it gets a bit difficult.

On the one hand, we have enforcement and punishment which righty says that remote gambling should be deterred. Yet, we are also saying that there can be a medium through which remote gambling is legitimate. While we are saying that it is wrong and therefore we need to need to deter, but we are also saying in the Bill that perhaps, it can also be all right

Page: 93

if done through the correct channel.

Therefore, I would seek the Minister's clarification to find out the thinking and rationale behind the exemption and how the Minister seeks to ensure that by having the exemption, we do not inadvertently encourage remote gambling.

Would the Minister also elaborate on what other social safeguards, both formal and informal, will be put in place to protect vulnerable persons, like youths, and the society at large from the potential consequences of remote gambling? For example, will families be able to apply for family exclusion orders against members that may have caused or are in danger of causing serious financial harm to the family? By this, I mean should an exemption be given to an operator, will the exclusion orders be available to the family to exclude a fellow family member from going to a licensed operator who has received that exemption? Such measures will be essential to protect our community as problem gamblers are often unable to control themselves alone and need the help of their families and the community to kick their gambling habits.

In conclusion, Madam, the Remote Gambling Bill should be viewed as being part of a wider effort by MHA to ensure that its legislative and policy levers remain effective to deal with emerging challenges like syndicated and organised crimes in Singapore and in the region. Therefore, the introduction of this Bill is timely, as it will ensure that our laws are kept up-to-date and continue to remain sensitive to changing times. It will act as both a helpful deterrent and a signal of Singapore's strict regulatory stance on remote gambling and other syndicated crimes. However, I would be grateful if the good Minister could explain the rationale behind the exemption and how the Bill will not inadvertently encourage remote gambling through it.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

I would also like to thank all the Members for their various suggestions on how we can move forward with the Bill and how to strengthen the social safeguards and the control measures with respect to this difficult issue. We will certainly look into many of the suggestions and we have every intention to look at them seriously to see how we can manage this difficult issue.

Let me first of all be very clear that, personally, I am under no illusion, no illusion whatsoever, that this Bill by itself alone will eradicate gambling in general or remote gambling in particular. I am also under no illusion that this Bill, as it stands, will address all current and future issues if it stays static.

The nature of gambling in general and remote gambling in particular is that it is a constantly evolving challenging. It is an evergreen challenge that we will have to tackle today, tomorrow and forever. Our only hope is to make sure that in order to stay safe, we have to stay alert to the challenges that emerge every day and to stay abreast of the technological changes and the evolving challenges.

From the social safeguard perspective, let me say that we cannot solve this problem with any one measure alone. We need a multi-pronged approach to manage the issue of problem and pathological gambling. We need upstream preventive measures, we need midstream mitigation measures and we need downstream remedial measures. And, as Er Dr Lee Bee Wah said, we need the individual to take responsibility, we need their family and friends to play a part, and we need the society to come together to keep our eyes on this challenge.

Let me start with upstream preventive measures. Many Members have spoken about the need to educate our young upfront. And indeed, it is so. Education is the first line of defence to help our own people understand the dangers of gambling and remote gambling in particular.

Remote gambling is a very difficult issue because it can start from some seemingly harmless social games. We have no intention to deny Singaporeans from enjoying their social

Page: 95

games but we have serious issues if the social games are designed to groom the young to take on a gambling habit whereby they start learning and appreciating how to buy and sell credits and eventually how to monetise some of these credits. This process of grooming is insidious and we have seen this in many other countries. So, this is what we have to be very careful about.

The dangers of lack of self-discipline and the dangers of temptation will always be there. While I agree with many Members that we need to start young and we need to start in the school, I will go further and say that this cannot stop at the school. If anything, I am more comforted by the fact that we have structured programmes and structured channels of outreach in the schools. We must never think that just because we have done a good job in the schools, the problem will never emerge in the lifetime of the individual ever again. If anything, we have to be even more concerned with the fact that once a person leaves school, we do not have the same structured platforms and channels to reach out to them to continue to reinforce this message of the dangers of gambling in general and remote gambling in particular.

And as Mr Pritam Singh has said, indeed, the methods of outreach have to be different, which is why many of the NGOs have started exploring counselling beyond face-to-face counselling. It goes to counselling on the web, on the Internet platform and we will have to continue to innovate, to find new channels to reach out to those people who use the Internet for remote gambling.

Similarly, NCPG is working with Fei Yue Community Services and Touch Community Services to draw up new programmes to reach out to our students in the school. Many of these programmes start from the basis of having good cyber-wellness programmes, good cyber habits so that they do not fall prey to those unscrupulous operators who try to use social games to try to groom our young to take on the habit of gambling when they become older.

Yes, I agree that we need to do much in the schools and we will do so, but we cannot stop at the schools. My worry goes beyond the schools; my worries go to the young who have since left school and who have now acquired their own financial means to enter this market if they so lack the discipline and fall into temptation.

But education cannot stop just at the individual level. Education must also reach out to family members and friends because that is our next line of defence. Family members and friends play an important role to try to pick up danger signs should someone fall into temptation or succumb to the evils of gambling. Education must also encompass information on where people can seek help should some loved ones fall into the trap of being a problem

Page: 96

gambler or a pathological gambler.

Likewise, for upstream measures, this is the reason why the Bill imposes very strict measures on the issues of advertisement and promotion. If we do not stop this and if we allow this, then whatever efforts we do in the school will be negated. And this is the reason for the strong measures within the Bill to outlaw advertisement and outreach to the targeted audience, especially the Singapore audience.

What about midstream mitigation? Many Members have also mentioned that today, we impose very stringent responsible gambling measures on the two casino operators and also on Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club. We will expect ourselves to do no less for the remote gambling sphere. If anything, the remote gambling sphere is more difficult because there is a lack of a human interface. In the terrestrial casino, there is a human interface but in the remote gambling sphere, there may not be a human interface.

We would want to strengthen our social safeguards by making sure that we block all the sites unless otherwise exempted. The question is, does this send a message that we are inadvertently accepting it or encouraging it? I think the answer is no. We know that, for practical reasons, it may not be possible for us to block every site, but we are determined to block all sites unless there is a specific exemption. This is our determination to send a strong signal that we do not encourage remote gambling in our system.

The question that many Members have spoken passionately about is: will this exemption regime work? Will it open a slippery slope for people to go into what they might think as a sanctioned way for them to gamble?

It is a difficult topic. Many of you have spoken of the fear that if we ban it totally, it will create a substitution effect whereby they go to other means to gamble. Yes, those concerns are valid. Some of you have spoken up about how it would be driven underground. Yes, again, those are valid concerns.

Some of you asked: can it work for a determined gambler? Would he be able to use technology to bypass the controls? Again, we know that for a very determined person, he may be able to do so. But we are still nevertheless determined to do what we can to block the advertisement and also the promotion of such activities in our system.

Then, there is this thing that we need to ask ourselves. As some of you have mentioned, we know that this issue will not go away and that some people will fall to temptation. Our issue from the social safeguard perspective is what is the best way for us to manage this issue? How can we best help our people should they fall and to help them to get out of the

Page: 97

situation that they are in? If we know that, there is at least a way for us to help them. If we do not know at all, either because they substituted their habits through other means or if they go underground, then it is also very difficult or, if not, impossible for us to monitor and render help where necessary.

Arguably, even for the terrestrial casino operators now, we have some ability to monitor those who go there and that ability allows us to translate it into help for those who need help. The question is not whether we can ban it or not ban it. The question is not so much as to whether we want to ban it or not want to ban it. The question is, which is the best way for us to manage this very difficult problem where we know that some people will have such a habit. How can we detect them? How can we render help and as far as possible protect their families from falling into harm's way. That is the real challenge.

So, what are some of the social safeguards that we can envisage for these exempt operators? From MSF's perspective, it is much better than what the situation we are in today. Today, anybody, literally anybody, can open an account without much prior checks. Tomorrow, if anybody desires to be exempted, we are able to set in place the hurdles required for them to cross before we even consider them.

And like what was suggested by Mr Ang Wei Neng, we can look at some of the measures that other people have implemented. The Norwegian example is one. How can we set criteria that protect our people? For example, before someone gets a membership with the exempt operators, can we verify the age? Can we make a request that he shows and demonstrates that he has not brought financial harm to his family? Does he have the means to engage in this habit? We can also check from our terrestrial casino controlled measures. Has he been excluded from the terrestrial casino?

Today, we cannot even do that. Tomorrow, we have every intention to do that. There should be no difference. If you are excluded from the terrestrial casino because of self-harm or because of third party exclusion, there should be no reason for us to grant you the ability to join the remote gambling scene. Indeed, there are best practices elsewhere from Norway that suggest that you can impose expenditure limits. You can impose bank transfer limits. You can impose conditions that there is no betting on credit.

Mr Ang Wei Neng asked if we should implement a player's card. Actually, for remote gambling, we can achieve all the things that we want even without a player's card because we can monitor closely the habits of the gamblers and to pick up the people who may need help.

Page: 98

So, we have every intention to look carefully at what other people do and to seriously look at the safeguards before we even consider granting any exemption. And it is incumbent on whoever who wants an exemption to prove to us that they have the necessary safeguards in place before we entertain their request.

Having said that, having all the upstream measures, the midstream measures, we accept and we acknowledge that despite our best efforts, some will fall. And this is where we need to strengthen our system to make sure that help is available to those who fall. We have already brought in place a system for self-exclusion for people to understand their own limits and to put in exclusion for themselves if they are afraid of breaching their limits. We have also brought in place Third Party Exclusions and all these will be similarly applied to the remote gambling scene.

But for those who fall, we have the National Addictions Management Service (NAMS), we have the Thye Hwa Kwan Problem Gambling Recovery Centre and Family Service Centres to provide counselling services to help these people get back on their feet again.

But I must say this. Rehabilitation is not just about a point in time. Rehabilitation is a long journey for many and for all who have walked through this path. Rehabilitation and constant support to stay away from gambling is a long journey that requires the help of not just the counsellors but also their families and their loved ones who are walking the journey with the problem of pathological gamblers. And this is how we intend to continue to strengthen our social safeguards.

Let me now touch on the responsibilities that Er Lee Bee Wah had mentioned. Indeed, we need the individual to be responsible. We need the family members to play a part and we need society to play its part as well.

For the individual, we agree that it is the first and also the final line of defence. The individual must know the harm which problem gambling brings to himself and his loved ones. He must know his own limits; he must know his own weaknesses and his own vulnerabilities. Only so will he be able to set limits for himself to prevent himself from succumbing. And this is why the cyber-wellness programme is so important, not just only to our youth but also to our people who have gone out of the school system.

But beyond the individual, their friends and families play an important part. Er Lee Bee Wah talked about parents setting a positive example. Yes, it is true. Parents need to set a positive example. Parents and friends need to help look out for each other to look out for signs of trouble so that we can alert the person to seek help where necessary. Very important and very often, in an Asian context, people do not feel that they want to interfere in someone

Page: 99

else's affairs. But we have to overcome that and to encourage the problem gambler to seek help. But most importantly, family members and friends should not feed the habit. I have come across cases of those who try to help a person who already has a problem gambling habit out of goodwill, by trying to lend him some money to try one more time, thinking that this habit will go away. It would not.

At the societal level, the most important thing is never to be complacent. We need to keep abreast of the evolving threats. We need to keep abreast of the technological changes and the methods which the operators might be pushing onto our society.

For operators who are in this country, if they do not abide by the rules and regulations that we have set out to the letter of the law or to the spirit of the law, we know what to do with them. This is why it is incumbent upon us as a society to work together such that even if there is one local operator who is exempted from this, we make sure that we hold them to the high standards and account for their behaviour. Because if you do business locally and you do not abide by the spirit of the law, not just the letter of the law, then I think we know what to do with you.

At the same time, I must say this. We must never think that this Bill is the be all and end all. The technology will change. The methods will change and we must be prepared to evolve our social safeguards according to the needs. And from the experience of how we manage the terrestrial gambling issue, we have never shied away from evolving our social safeguards according to needs and we must continue to do so even on the cyber front. And the role of the Government and the NCPG is to continue to work closely with our community stakeholders on the upstream, midstream and downstream measures. The day that we are complacent about this challenge, the day that we pass this Bill and think that we have solved all the problems will be the day we go down the slippery slope.

Let me conclude. 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, families 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.

Mr Deputy Speaker, first, let me thank the Members who have spoken on the Bill. And I would say, in general, that they are supportive of the intent, policy and legislative, but with some qualifiers which I hope to address in the course of the next 15 minutes or so.

Members have expressed their views and raised queries on a range of issues. Minister Chan has spoken on the social concerns associated with remote gambling and how MSF and the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) will step up public education and awareness efforts.

Let me address the issues that have been raised and broadly fall into four themes: the need for a Remote Gambling Bill; how the Bill will be enforced; blocking measures; and finally, the exemption regime.

Several Members have spoken on their concerns associated with remote gambling and there are good reasons for this. The growth of remote gambling worldwide has been aided by advances in technology. Anyone who has a smart phone or Internet access is a potential customer. And we share the concerns of Members.

First, fundamentally, from the law-and-order perspective, experience shows that there is a material link between illicit remote gambling activities and international criminal syndicates – money laundering, match fixing and corruption.

Let me cite a few examples to illustrate the nature of the problem. In an illegal online gambling raid in June 2013, the Chinese and Hong Kong Police arrested more than 50 people, nine of whom were involved in organised crime. And it was estimated that the online syndicate laundered more than US$32 million.

Closer to home, in early 2010, a male Singaporean was arrested in an island-wide Police operation against an unlicensed money-lending syndicate. Investigations revealed that he was not just an unlicensed moneylender but also involved in illegal soccer betting activities as an agent and a punter with an overseas remote gambling operator.

In 2012, Police arrested a male Singaporean, who was the headman of a secret society gang during an island-wide operation against illegal soccer betting activities. He was involved in illegal soccer betting activities as a master agent and accepted illegal soccer bets from his five agents and numerous punters through a remote gambling website.

There are also social concerns which Minister Chan has elaborated on. The young are particularly vulnerable as they are more tech-savvy and therefore more able to use

Page: 101

technology. So, we need robust legislative and regulatory levers to deal with remote gambling and its associated ills. I am grateful that Members, such as Mr Tong and others, have acknowledged and support the need to have broad provisions given the nature of the challenge that we face.

Criminalising the entire spectrum of remote gambling activities is necessary to give our enforcement agencies the wherewithal to deal with and deter syndicates from targeting or operating in Singapore. But some have asked whether the Bill is too broad in its scope, both within the House but also without.

Sir, we have deliberately sought to be comprehensive in the Bill's coverage. If not, it will lack the efficacy and currency in regulating a sector which is innovative in the extreme, fast-changing and quick to adopt new technology.

Remote gambling has profoundly altered the terrain and factors, as many have observed, as it allows a person to gamble anywhere, any time. Moreover, remote gambling operators are increasingly using virtual currencies such as Bitcoin even though it is a recent and somewhat controversial innovation and has yet to gain widespread traction in the real world. It is precisely such disruptive developments and innovations that can potentially and easily circumvent any remote gambling legislation if it is cast too narrowly. That is why broad provisions are vital, to use Mr Edwin Tong's language.

Mr Vikram Nair has asked whether the Bill will cover social games, such as Farmville, Candy Crush, Monopoly and the like. There is a wide spectrum of games that could be considered social games, ranging from those that are free to play to social casino games. And I just want to give Members a sense, a flavour of the continuum. There are freemium games, in other words, games which you can get in for free but in-game, you have to buy additional facilities. This is where players can purchase in-game credits to improve the game playing experience, for example, to outfit an avatar with a new costume. Others have developed virtual currencies of their own which can be used to buy or redeem other entertainment products such as games of other developers on music or even movies.

Yet others allow their virtual currencies, credits and points to be traded with possible value in the real world. Social casino games are of particular concern as they are designed to simulate real world gambling, such as Slots and Poker, and they replicate the experience of the casino. The only difference is that in-game credits are used.

Sir, the fact is, and it is quite clear that the space is diverse and there is a large penumbra. And not all social games are as innocuous as some may make them out to be. I think we need

Page: 102

to bear this in mind when we make such arguments.

The fact is that the line between social gaming and gambling is increasingly becoming blurred. What may appear benign today can quickly morph into something a lot more sinister tomorrow in response to market opportunities and consumer trends. That is why the legislation is cast broadly.

However, as a matter of principle, the Bill does not intend to cover social games in which players do not play to acquire a chance of winning money and where the game design does not allow the player to convert in-game credits to money or real merchandise outside the game. So, games like Farmville, Candy Crush and Monopoly in their current form would fall into this category. They are not the target. MDA has issued a statement that the Bill will not impede the development of legitimate gaming businesses. We will work with MDA and the industry to clarify the application of the law.

Let me now turn to enforcement actions. Several Members have asked about enforcement actions by the Police. The primary focus of enforcement actions under this Bill will be on the operators of illegal remote gambling services as they are most likely to be associated with or be used to support criminal activities. They rely on complex structures of master agents, agents and runners to market their services, set up accounts and manage bets locally in target countries, while the remote gambling operator or the agent is based in another country where such activities could well be deemed legitimate.

The Police, as part of on-going operations, have the capabilities to proactively detect, monitor and take enforcement actions against such persons and organisations. For those who operate from overseas, Police will continue to collaborate with its counterparts to provide and share evidence of unlawful remote gambling activities with a view to prosecuting these persons. Other options would include possible extradition to Singapore under applicable treaties and arresting these agents if they were to arrive in Singapore.

The Police will also take into account any complaints or feedback that is received in the community. And in response to Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, there is a hotline and Police CrimeStopper, which is an online link and Police feedback email and other sources. So, there are multiple channels through which members of the public can alert the Police if they see anything untoward.

The Bill also prohibits remote gambling operators from establishing operations in Singapore even if they do not offer their services to the Singapore market. This is necessary to address the risk of associated criminal activities and other spill-over effects from taking root in Singapore. It will deter remote gambling operators from using Singapore as a base

Page: 103

for their operations, which could subsequently be a conduit for other criminal activities. We think it will send a clear signal to criminal syndicates and their associates who are minded to think otherwise.

Some Members have expressed concern that Singapore-based companies which provide services for online gaming would be prohibited under the Bill. And I want to be clear about this. Remote gambling syndicates operate through these myriad structures that I have described and they rely on a whole suite of service providers. Clause 9 of this Bill is aimed in particular at agents who play a critical role in remote gambling networks and are associated with other criminal activities. That is the focus. Enforcement will be targeted at those who are deeply involved in and provide core and critical services in support of the illegal activities of the unauthorised remote gambling operators. The focus and the emphasis are to preserve law and order and it would not impede legitimate activities in Singapore.

Mr Vikram Nair asked whether it is an offence for tourists to gamble remotely while in Singapore. Firstly, if it is an offence in Singapore, then it applies equally, whether you are a foreigner or a local. I would say that the possibility of a tourist engaging in remote gambling activities in Singapore should be significantly reduced by the fact that we will undertake blocking measures and therefore, the access would be significantly hampered. Having said that, I also want to assure the Member that Police will take a calibrated approach and exercise judgement in enforcing the provision. The primary focus again is on unlawful remote gambling operators and agents, less so on individual gamblers per se.

Let me now move on to elaborate on the blocking measures which most Members have voiced support for. Some have asked how we would ensure effective enforcement of the blocking measures.

A unit has been formed within MHA to develop our capabilities to monitor gambling websites and related payment mechanisms. It would also make use of appropriate third party resources and build on existing collaborations with regulators in other jurisdictions to track remote gambling trends and learn from regulatory best practices. The blocking list will be reviewed and updated regularly. We will also block websites of Virtual Private Network (VPN) service providers that offer services openly aimed at bypassing our blocking measures for remote gambling. This unit will be working closely with the Police.

Mr Png Eng Huat has asked for clarification on the defence of the publication of in-app remote gambling service advertisements by mobile application developers. I was intrigued by Mr Png's argument because on the one hand, he is greatly concerned over the problem of remote gambling; yet, he did not want to douse the entrepreneurial flame of social game developers who may have access or may be facilitating access to remote gambling. So, I think we need to be clear about this. You cannot expect that the developers who derive revenue

Page: 104

from such advertisements should be provided with the defence, because it requires the conscious act of clicking on the pop-up or whatever it is in your app, that will then lead to you getting your revenue from that particular remote gambling service. So, if you are getting the revenue, then you must be aware that this is happening. So, I think we have got to be clear about it.

The intent here in offering the defence is to ensure that where it is incidental and accidental, such advertisements, such promotions; and that is where the defence applies. For example, if you are broadcasting a soccer match and some of the players are wearing something on their jerseys which promotes a remote gambling service; that is something that is incidental or accidental and that is an appropriate defence. But where you get a clear economic benefit from this activity, then I think surely it is quite self-evident that the individual or the entity must be held accountable.

Mr Edwin Tong has sought clarifications on the proposed payment transaction blocking orders and whether they would cover virtual currencies. The orders can cover virtual currencies though the virtual currency economy is still at a relatively nascent state of development in Singapore.

The House may recall that MAS announced in March 2014 its intention to regulate virtual currency intermediaries to address the potential money laundering and terrorist financing risks. So, we will work with MAS and monitor developments closely but the way the legislation is framed, it will cover virtual currencies.

I think Mr Tong will also appreciate that payment blocking is quite a serious form of intervention. And that is why we have a higher threshold for the imposition of such orders. But I want to assure Mr Tong that MHA will be quick to act to issue payment transaction blocking orders once it is clear that a website is targeting Singapore. The clause is phrased broadly to allow the authorities to decide which factors are material. So, there is a list of factors. But if you read the clause carefully, it also makes it quite clear that the enforcement officer has the flexibility to decide on which factors are material in evaluating a particular case and assign the weights accordingly. Factors, such as the presence of advertisements and promotions, directed at those in Singapore and the use of Singapore domain names or even the Singapore flag to attract patrons will certainly be taken into account.

We will be introducing a comprehensive and restrictive set of measures as part of this proposed remote gambling regulatory regime, perhaps, one of the most restrictive in the world. However, these measures cannot be fool-proof and there is really no silver bullet, as many Members have observed. We cannot have a silver bullet against a particular individual or a remote gambling operator who is determined to circumvent the system. It is the nature of the terrain. It is a game of cat and mouse, but the collective adoption of these blocking

Page: 105

measures will be ample signal to the vast majority and it will significantly disrupt and impede the remote gambling activities of the few who may be recalcitrant. I think that is the approach we want to emphasise.

It is also important that we consider the proposed measures in their entirety. So, it is not just about enforcement or blocking measures, but it is also about public education and engagement initiatives to raise awareness and emphasise personal responsibility, which is a point which Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has made passionately and I think it is something that we all believe in.

Let me now address the exemption regime on which several Members have spoken. Mr Edwin Tong has pointed out that no amount of legislation or enforcement can completely eradicate gambling and there is a need for a controlled outlet as a consequence. On the other hand, Ms Denise Phua and Mr Png Eng Huat opined that the exemption regime puts in the wrong signal and have asked why we are not imposing a complete ban on remote gambling.

Sir, we have always adopted a prohibitive stance towards gambling and this has not changed and certainly, this Bill has not changed it. All gambling, regardless of the channel or medium, is not permitted unless authorised, licensed or exempted. Such exemption is not new or unchartered territory for us. I am puzzled when Mr Christopher de Souza says there is a contradiction. Because today in our terrestrial gambling regime, the laws are very clear that this range of activities is illegal but there are exempt service providers in the terrestrial gambling regime under the Common Gaming Houses Act and the Betting Act. So, the regime is consistent and we have taken this approach. And why do we do that?

We granted exemptions in the 1960s to Singapore Pools and the Singapore Turf Club even as we were dealing with triads, illegal gambling syndicates and underground gambling. These fundamental law and order concerns have not changed. One cannot easily dismiss the risk of underground criminal activities as some kind of inevitable consequence of any law that renders an activity unlawful. The greater the extent of the underground illegal activities, the greater the risk to law and order and I would say, most importantly, the greater the danger to individuals who might for one reason or another be involved in that.

If you have a complete ban, it would simply enlarge the prize and probably create larger incentives for criminal syndicates to target Singapore, but that in and of itself is one argument. The key point is this. When you look at our experience, what we have done in the terrestrial gambling environment, we seek to maintain law and order. We have criminalised the range of activities, but we have allowed a very tightly controlled valve, not because we wish to promote it, not because we condone it but because it is there as part of an ecosystem that seeks to minimise the law and order concerns and the social consequences that we are

Page: 106

concerned about. That is the objective of the exercise.

Those who argue, like Mr Pritam Singh, that they need evidence and they argue for the counter-factual, that if we have a complete ban, then the problem will be no worse, I would ask you to produce the evidence. Because our evidence is our experience, what we have done over the last five decades and this is the outcome. So, if you believe a complete ban can produce a superior outcome, then please produce the evidence.

We are not unique in terms of having a tightly regulated exempt operator, in terms of this kind of legislation. Jurisdictions like Hong Kong and Norway, which have some of the most restrictive gambling regimes, have allowed tightly controlled regime with comprehensive safeguards. This has been administered without exacerbating law and order concerns or social concerns.

Sir, we have held several rounds of consultation with stakeholders such as community groups, religious groups and social workers on remote gambling and the issues of exemption. The views were varied, not unlike what we have heard in this Chamber today. Some advocated a complete ban, others thought that it would be better to have a tightly controlled regime offering very limited gambling products and subject to stringent conditions. Some even opined that a tightly controlled regime would provide a safer gambling environment.

I want to say upfront that I acknowledge and respect the strong views expressed by several Members of the House and others in the wider Singapore society on gambling and, specifically, in this context, the issue of exemption. These stem from deeply held personal beliefs and I respect that. Equally though, there are others who hold quite the contrarian view and argue that these matters should be left to individuals to decide. Yet others advocate a pragmatic approach that curtails but does not eliminate the avenues of gambling, while minimising the risk of social harm. So, there is a spectrum.

Ms Denise Phua made a passionate case and she says that by having an exempt operator, we are dignifying, ennobling or condoning remote gambling. I fail to see this. We are criminalising the spectrum of remote gambling activities. We are introducing stiff penalties for those who are engaged, not just the operators, not just the bookies and agents, even the individuals are engaged. It is quite clear that we see this activity as something that resides in the penumbra of society. So, how does this in any way ennoble the activity? What it does do is send a very clear signal on where we stand on the issue and then gives us the wherewithal to deal with the problems. That is the approach.

This Bill neither condones nor encourages gambling. Indeed, that would be entirely inconsistent with the prohibitive stance, not just in this Bill but, in general, with other existing

Page: 107

gambling-related legislation that we have.

The exemption provision that we have in this Bill must be seen for what it is – a tightly controlled exception within a regime that prohibits remote gambling, impedes access and payments, undertakes strict enforcement and promotes awareness and personal responsibility through public education and engagement. That is the context.

In formulating policy and legislation, the Government has to take into account the diversity of views that are deeply held by our citizens, various segments of our society, while addressing the larger public interest that pertains to law and order and concerns over social harm. That is what we have sought to achieve in this Bill.

Several Members have asked about the criteria for exemption and I want to spend some time going through the methodology, because I think this is legitimately a matter of interest for Members and I think we need to explain this with some clarity.

So, what are the criteria? Interested entities will first have to apply and then be assessed to have met a strict set of criteria, which is clearly legislated in the Bill, before we will even consider whether a Certificate of Exemption is to be considered. It is a very tight sieve and only not-for-profit entities that return surpluses to the community can apply or potentially qualify. That limits the universe tremendously. Neither is it a forgone conclusion that Singapore Turf Club or Singapore Pools will meet the criteria. They will have to apply for the exemption like anyone else, be assessed on individual merits according to the criteria and be subject to strict conditions that will be applied. Mr Chan Chun Sing elaborated on some of them in terms of social safeguards.

There is a suggestion that perhaps there is a large revenue collection possibility here. Let me be very clear about this. If revenue collection was the motivation, the approach would be very different. There are other regimes in the world like France and the UK which have many licensed remote gambling service providers offering a wide range of gambling products. France issued 31 licences to 20 remote gambling service providers offering a wide variety of products. This was last year. The contrast is day and night.

Even if exemptions are to be granted under the proposed legislation, we will – and we are clear about this – impose strict conditions on the operator and operations. The exempt operators will be required to put in place robust social safeguards and responsible gambling measures, as well as measures to maintain gaming integrity and address law and order concerns. These would minimally include responsible gambling measures such as self-exclusion, employee training and patron education that already exist for terrestrial gambling.

Page: 108

In addition, drawing from the best practices in other jurisdictions and our own experience, other control measures could be introduced. We will seriously examine these, for example, some of the suggestions have come from Members like Mr Ang Wei Neng, but also in terms of the kind of products that can be offered and specific social safeguards for potential customers. We will certainly restrict the number and type of products that will be permitted. Casino-type games or Poker will not be allowed. I want to emphasise that and we will curtail the range of options available significantly.

Additional social safeguards could include allowing only pre-registered account holders to access the service, imposing a minimum age requirement for registration and not granting betting on credit. Exemptions will be valid also for a stipulated period of time and the exempt operators will be assessed on an on-going basis for compliance to the stringent conditions that will be imposed.

The Bill provides for a comprehensive list of sanctions ranging from a Letter of Censure, variation of the condition of the Certificate of Exemption, financial penalties, restriction of business and, ultimately, to revocation or suspension of the Certificate of Exemption. I would add that the option for a renewal of Certificate of Exemption, even if one is granted, is not assured either.

So, Sir, I have elaborated at length on our approach to the exempt operators and why we have embarked on it. I have clarified this because I think it is of material and important concern for all Members and, indeed, the wider Singapore society. This is not about trying to create a new and large channel for gaming online. Mr Yee Jenn Jong used the term "floodgates". Hardly, I would think, given the kind of constraints and conditions we are imposing.

So, fundamentally, it is a regime that is prohibitive with a comprehensive set of measures. The exempt operator, if any, will be subject to very stringent criteria. We expect few to qualify and their operations will be constrained. It will be for a restricted set of games. I do not see the need, given our consultation, the position that I have outlined and the provisions in the law, for any referral to a Select Committee as some Members have asked for.

Before concluding, let me address some specific questions that Members have raised. There is a question from Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Png Eng Huat on clause 40 which allows the Minister to make specific exemptions.

This provision is not intended to exempt persons from clause 8(1) where it is an offence to gamble remotely in Singapore. So, it is not about giving you a carte blanche to go ahead

Page: 109

and offer a remote gambling service. Nor is it intended to allow existing Integrated Resort (IR) operators to offer online gambling. As a matter of fact, the IR operators will not meet the criteria set out in clause 26 to qualify for a Certificate of Exemption. The last I checked, they are firmly committed to the profit motive still.

Instead, clause 40 is meant to provide ad hoc exemptions for various specific products that may be available for a short period of time. What do I mean by this? For example, this could be online lotteries or lucky draws organised by charities or businesses and they want to use an online platform because of the way they have conducted their business or that particular activity and for the purposes of promoting the sales of their products. This is, in some ways, no different to when we allowed lucky draws or donation draws in the terrestrial world with our current legislation as well. That is the focus of this clause.

Mr Yee Jenn Jong has also asked about the operations of existing of terrestrial operators. Singapore Pools' account holders can only place bets over the telephone, while Singapore Turf Club's account holders may do so through a mobile app as well. These services are available only to registered account holders. In other words, you must go through a registration process, give certain information, before you can be considered. One cannot simply pick up the phone, download the app and start gambling. That is not how it works. The turnover from these services account for less than 10% of Singapore Turf Club and Singapore Pools' total turnover. So, it is relatively modest in size and it is not something that has proliferated based on the experience of these two entities.

Dr Benedict Tan asked how Singapore Pools can be compelled to level up its competitiveness and whether IRs, Singapore Turf Club and Singapore Pools will channel more funds for social causes. Sir, the Bill's objective is to tackle law and order and social concerns that are associated with gambling. With or without this Bill, the IRs, Singapore Turf Club and Singapore Pools should be encouraged to contribute to social causes on an on-going basis. From a governance point of view, the Tote Board is under MOF and I will convey the Member's sentiments to the Minister.

Mr Vikram Nair has also suggested that an amendment be made to anti-money laundering provisions to include offences under the Remote Gambling Act in the Second Schedule of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act. It is the intention of the Ministry to do this after the Act is passed.

Sir, let me conclude. This Bill is consistent with our current prohibitive approach to gambling, which is also reflected in existing gambling legislation. We must recognise, however, that remote gambling is materially different from conventional terrestrial and casino gambling. The law-and-order issues and social concerns it raises are more challenging, given the rapidly evolving and transnational nature of this industry. That is why we are

Page: 110

adopting a multi-pronged approach.

We are introducing comprehensive legislation, stepping up enforcement, implementing a range of blocking measures and broadening public education and engagement. This is a significant change from the status quo where remote gambling is unregulated and unfettered. These measures will help us in no small way to deter illegal remote gambling operators with criminal associations from targeting Singapore.

With the support of the community, we also want to raise awareness of the dangers of remote gambling and emphasise the need for personal responsibility for each individual to know his limits, act responsibly and seek help, if necessary. Sir, I beg to move, and I urge Members of the House to give their support to the Remote Gambling Bill.

*Question put, and agreed to.*

*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*

*The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr S Iswaran]. (proc text)]

*Bill considered in Committee.*