Gambling Control Bill
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, today's Bills update our regulatory approach towards gambling. Together, they work to achieve two goals: the prevention of gambling's social harms and the recognition of some gambling as a form of leisure and socialisation. I have three clarifications on the Gambling Control Bill.
My first point is on the implementation of exclusion orders. Currently, three categories of individuals are prohibited from entering casinos, entering fruit machine rooms in private clubs and opening a Singapore Pools' online gambling account. These three categories are undischarged bankrupts, Public Rental Scheme tenants with six or more months of rent arrears and individuals on Government social assistance and subsidy schemes. These are individuals subject to an "Exclusion by Law".
From 1 June 2022, Exclusion by Law will extend to all tenants and occupiers in the Public Rental Scheme. This extension will significantly expand the number of persons subject to exclusion orders. However, presently the Exclusion by Law operates without notification being given to the individuals subject to the exclusion order. Given that a significant number of new individuals will be subject to the Exclusion of Law come 1 June 2022, can Minister share how he will ensure that appropriate notice is given to individuals newly categorised as excluded persons?
It seems only fair that individuals should be appropriately notified of new orders that they are now subject to. Appropriate notification would minimise unwitting violations of the law and the disputes that they cause.
My second point is on inducing an underaged individual to gamble. Under the new section 34, it would be an offence to send an underaged individual an inducement to gamble. The exception is when the accused proves that they did not receive any benefit for sending the inducement and the inducement was not sent in the cause of any business. Can Minister clarify the rationale for this exclusion?
Surely, we accept that it is wrong to induce an underaged individual to gamble, regardless of whether the inducer benefits from it. The potential harm exists regardless of intent to benefit. So, it is not clear why section 34 is defined so narrowly.
In addition, can Minister clarify why the exception appears to be limited to cases where the inducer actually receives the benefits? One can imagine situations where the inducer is meant to receive some form of benefit from inducing the underaged individual to gamble, but for whatever reasons, the benefit fails to materialise. Why should the inducer's bad luck, in failing to receive the benefit, be their good luck, in managing to avoid an offence under section 34?
My final point relates to the grounds for entry bans. The Commissioner for Police may impose entry bans on an individual if they deem that the individual's criminal history will present an unacceptable risk to maintaining proper standards of integrity of any gambling service. The Agency can also impose an entry ban on the basis that the standards of integrity are likely to be prejudiced by the individual's character, reputation or criminal activities.
In relation to entry bans by the Commissioner for Police, can Minister clarify whether criminal activities refer to actions which there has been a criminal conviction? If not, what would constitute a history of criminal activity? For instance, would a stern warning or a discharge not amounting to acquittal also be considered to constitute a criminal history?
In relation to entry bans by the Agency, can Minister clarify how the Agency will determine the individual's character and reputation? What forms of substantiation of an individual's character and reputation are required to be provided by the Agency to justify the ban?
Can Minister also clarify whether there are any time limits for how long such entry bans will be imposed before they are required to be reviewed?
In conclusion, I seek the Minister's clarifications on notification for individuals subject to exclusion orders, exceptions to the offence of inducing underage individuals to gamble and the grounds for entry bans. Notwithstanding these clarifications, Madam, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Eric Chua (The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mdm Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Development, I thank Members for their views and support for the social safeguards in the Gambling Control Bill. I share the concerns on the harmful effects of gambling as it often goes beyond the individuals and affects families, community and society.
The international gambling landscape is constantly changing and gambling operators are always innovating and looking to new technology and gaming experiences to attract punters. Hence, MSF supports MHA's amendments to the gambling legislation and it is critical to update Singapore's laws for gambling so that they remain relevant as the gambling landscape evolves.
The Gambling Control Bill strengthens the Government's ability to prevent and deal with problem gambling. Even though our social safeguards are amongst the most stringent in the world and have, generally worked well, there are also new risks that we are aware of. For instance, more people are gambling online, which poses relatively higher risks, given its accessibility round the clock.
The changes introduced in the Gambling Control Bill will further strengthen safeguards for vulnerable groups, such as young persons and the financially vulnerable. Research shows that young persons are likely to be more vulnerable to problem gambling. The provisions that Minister of State Desmond Tan highlighted relating to gambling by or with underaged individuals in contravention of the minimum age requirements will prevent early exposure to and normalisation of gambling amongst youth.
In the Bill, the minimum age for legal gambling is set at 21 years old, one of the highest internationally. This applies to casinos, fruit machine gambling and online gambling with Singapore Pools.
Mr Gerald Giam asked if the minimum gambling age can be harmonised to 21 years old. Currently, the exception is for Singapore Pools' physical outlets, which have a minimum age of 18 as other safeguards, such as limited opening hours, are in place to create a break in play. We do not plan to harmonise the minimum age at this point but, nonetheless, MSF recognises that it is important to reduce early exposure to gambling. MSF will work closely with MHA and the Gambling Regulatory Authority to constantly review our social safeguards to minimise the risk of problem gambling and gambling-related social harm.
The Gambling Control Bill will extend the National Council on Problem Gambling's exclusion regime and Exclusion by Law beyond the casinos, the fruit machine rooms and Singapore Pool's online gambling platform.
Currently, Singapore Pools and fruit machine room operators are already required under the exemption and permit conditions to disallow individuals with a Third Party Exclusion Order, Family Exclusion Order or under Exclusion by Law from online gambling and fruit machine rooms. These regulatory conditions have been in place since 2016 for Singapore Pools and 2017 for fruit machine rooms. The extension of the exclusion regime formalises this.
In addition, family members will be able to apply to NCPG for a Family Exclusion Order if their family member has a gambling problem from fruit machine room gambling or online gambling with Singapore Pools. And a Family Exclusion Order will exclude the individual from the fruit machine rooms, online gambling with Singapore Pools and the casinos.
MSF takes an upstream approach to address social concerns. Addressing problem gambling is no different. Thus, we are expanding the coverage of the Exclusion by Law regime which complements the exclusion and visit limit regime administered by NCPG.
While this change will be effected through amendments to subsidiary legislation under the Casino Control Act rather than the Gambling Control Bill, allow me to share my Ministry's plans.
The Exclusion by Law automatically bars financially vulnerable individuals from most gambling venues. Exclusion by Law is not new. Currently, undischarged bankrupts, those receiving ComCare – Short-to-Medium-Term and Long-Term assistance, those on legal aid and tenants of the HDB's public rental scheme with six or more months of rental arrears are already excluded from casinos, fruit machine rooms and Singapore Pools' online gambling.
To strengthen upstream protection for public rental tenants and occupiers, we are removing the need to accumulate six months of rental arrears before they are excluded by law. We do not want to wait until such a point before we take preventive action against problem gambling.
Let me be clear. Most individuals residing in public rental housing do not visit the casinos, fruit machine rooms or have an online gambling account with Singapore Pools. So, this change will not impact them. However, a small fraction of about 4,000 individuals residing in public rental housing, who engaged in at least one of these gambling activities will be impacted.
For example, in 2021, NCPG came across a case of Mr T, who is married, in his 60s, resides in a 2-room rental flat who visited local casinos twice a month. He had a monthly income of less than $1,500 and he owed banks and licensed moneylenders approximately $100,000. As he was assessed to be at high risk due to his income and high unsecured debts, he was imposed with a Third Party Exclusion Order.
The NCPG has given feedback to the Government on the cases they see – individuals who reside in rental housing and can ill afford to gamble and are affected by problem gambling. We have thus taken this feedback onboard. This change will help prevent such situations from happening and to protect individuals like Mr T and his loved ones.
I would like to thank Mr Louis Ng for his question. Mr Ng asked how individuals placed on Exclusion by Law will be informed of their exclusion status. For bankruptcy applications through the Insolvency and Public Trustee Office, either by the individual him or herself, or by a creditor, the individual will receive a letter which states that he or she will be excluded if the bankruptcy order is confirmed.
When individuals apply for ComCare, short to medium-term assistance or ComCare long-term assistance or legal aid, they are notified at the point of application that they will be excluded if the application is successful. When the application is approved, they will be informed of this condition again.
For the extension of Exclusion by Law to all public rental tenants and occupiers in June later this year, all public rental households will receive a letter from NCPG, together with an infographic, to inform them of this change. For new households who sign the public rental tenancy agreement with HDB, the HDB officer will also provide them with the infographic on Exclusion by Law so that they are aware.
Gambling operators are also required to screen their patrons for exclusion status before allowing them to enter or use their gambling services. This will minimise unwitting violations of the law.
Mitigating the harm of gambling requires the combined efforts of individuals, families, the community, the Government and gambling operators. The Gambling Control Bill will give powers to the Gambling Regulatory Authority to set conditions or standards in relation to responsible gambling to minimise the risk of problem gambling for those who choose to gamble.
Today, the casino operators are obligated under the Casino Control Act regulations to put in place responsible gambling measures to minimise the potential harm of gambling. These include assisting patrons who display signs of problem gambling and providing patron education on responsible gambling behaviours, such as setting a budget or time limit on the gambling.
Similarly, Singapore Pools is required to implement responsible gambling measures, such as setting monthly betting limits, providing its online account holders a monthly win-loss summary, providing a voluntary self-assessment tool and messages to nudge account holders towards safer betting.
We are encouraged that a significant portion of Singapore Pools' account holders know about and make use of these tools to manage their gambling behaviour. In fact, a majority has found these measures useful in promoting self-regulated play.
The majority of fruit machine room operators have voluntarily implemented responsible gambling measures since 2020. We would like to acknowledge their commitment to towards responsible gambling and their partnership with MSF.
To emphasise the importance of responsible gambling and to ensure a baseline standard of responsible gambling across fruit machine rooms, MSF and the new Gambling Regulatory Authority will be making responsible gambling requirements mandatory. These requirements include educating patrons on problem gambling and how to gamble responsibly, informing patrons of the NCPG helpline number and help services and ensuring fruit machine room staff are trained to assist patrons who display signs of problem gambling. This change complements the Government's tightening of the fruit machine room regime over the years which resulted in the number of fruit machine rooms reducing by about 25%, from 61 in 2017 to 46 in 2021.
Mr Gerald Giam asked if there will be greater educational efforts to discourage Singaporeans, particularly young people, from participating in gambling activities and delaying their first gambling experience.
The NCPG conducts public education programmes and campaigns on problem gambling awareness throughout the year to ensure that Singaporeans understand the risk of gambling. One of their target audience is the youth. NCPG engages youth through public education campaigns conducted in schools and online to encourage them not to start gambling.
To Mr Gerald Giam's query on teaching students about the ills of loot boxes, the NCPG has stepped up efforts to educate youth, parents, educators and the public on the potential connection between loot boxes and gambling. For example, NCPG partnered MediaCorp in 2021 to produce a CNA insider documentary episode to raise awareness among parents, educators and youth on loot boxes.
Parents can monitor their children's online gaming behaviours to manage the risks of gambling addiction posed by loot boxes in games, for example, to be aware of the type of games that children play, set boundaries on the time spent on gaming and delink credit card from mobile games where possible.
NCPG also creates awareness of the issue via social media posts and advertisements in popular youth digital platforms like Spotify. NCPG also partners Fei Yue Community Services to conduct school talks and workshops on gambling elements in games. The intent really is to educate our young ones to be able to identify the possible gambling elements in online games, protect themselves when gaming and to seek help if necessary. We will explore how we can strengthen our collaboration with MOE on educating our young ones on loot boxes.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, these proposals are part of the Government's ongoing efforts to mitigate the harm of problem gambling. MSF will continue to work with NCPG to provide preventive education targeting youth and ensure accessibility of help services to the population at large. MSF will also continue to partner MHA and the Gambling Regulatory Authority to monitor the gambling situation in Singapore and to study gambling trends to ensure that our safeguards remain relevant.
I urge Members to support the Bill.
Mr Desmond Tan (The Minister of State for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, first, let me thank Members Mr Louis Ng, Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Louis Chua and Mr Yip Hon Weng for their support for the two Bills. Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua has addressed Mr Louis Ng's and Mr Gerald Giam's questions and suggestions on social safeguards and public education efforts. Let me now address the remaining comments and queries.
Mr Gerald Giam asked about the exemption on physical social gambling. As Mr Gerald Giam pointed out, currently, physical social gambling is already not disallowed. Such activities are commonplaces amongst many Singaporeans, such as playing mahjong at home, especially during the Chinese New Year festival, and law-and-order concerns in this aspect are low.
The exemption will regularise this current practice and provide clarity to the public that social gambling is allowed when it is with family and friends at home. This includes social gambling with minors. Social gambling will only be allowed in a person's home and will not be allowed in places like hotels and chalets, which Mr Louis Chua was asking about, and since covering non-residential places under the exemption could be exploited by criminal elements.
The exemption on social gambling does not change the Government's approach towards gambling. In fact, we are tightening. And why is this so?
Today, physical social gambling is not disallowed. So, we see in commonplaces people playing mahjong and card games. But with this Bill, we are actually making it clear that social gambling is allowed, subject to conditions. And these conditions, as I have mentioned earlier on, are currently not present in law. Actually, these conditions, if you think about it, act as social safeguards. Individuals should exercise personal responsibility in deciding whether to allow underaged individuals to engage in such activities.
Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Louis Chua both asked how the amendments to gambling legislation would impact the management of cross-border online gambling and illegal online gambling. Similar to the Remote Gambling Act, the Gambling Control Bill will cover situations where the facilities are outside or partially outside of Singapore.
A key part of our strategy to combat illegal online gambling is our blocking measures for illegal online gambling websites as well as advertisements that can be accessed in Singapore, as well as the payment services that are linked to illegal online gambling. GRA will continue to have the powers to carry out these blocking measures if necessary.
But no blocking measures are foolproof, as the Members also highlighted. Hence, the blocking regime has to be complemented by strong enforcement by the Police on illegal online gambling activities which happen in Singapore and allowing Singapore Pools to offer legal online gambling services which, in turn, allows us to have better control of the services provided.
As for the text messages promoting illegal gambling activities cited, for example, for illegal football betting by Mr Louis Chua, Police will continue to take enforcement action against them. Members of the public can also help by reporting them through the Police i-Witness portal.
Mr Louis Ng asked about the defence in clause 34 on inducement to underaged individuals to gamble. The offence of inducement to gamble in clause 34 has strict liability. This means that a person commits an offence once he sends out any inducement to gamble and with no need for the prosecution to prove the intent to induce. We need to structure this offence as a strict liability offence to allow for more effective prosecution. Illegal gambling operators who send such inducements will often claim that they had unintentionally sent an inducement to underaged individuals.
However, on the other hand, it is not our intention to cover scenarios where sending the inducements do not benefit the accused and are not sent in the course of business. What this means, for example, is that a person without any links to the illegal gambling operator could have forwarded a screenshot of gambling inducement to a Whatsapp group with underaged individuals inside and he does it as an educational or warning material to warn the group members on the harms of illegal online gambling. Hence, the defence clause allows the accused to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he or she did not benefit from the inducement or the messages that were sent out.
Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Gerald Giam asked how chance-based loot boxes in online games will be regulated. In particular, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about how our laws on gambling advertisements will apply to activities with an optional gambling element, such as loot boxes, in online games.
Currently, our laws and regulations do not consider chance-based loot boxes as gambling as long as there are no in-game monetisation facilities. So, as long as they do not have these facilities that allow players to exchange virtual prizes for real-world payouts, such as money or merchandise. This position is set out in IMDA's 2015 advisory on the scope of the Remote Gambling Act. It does not matter whether the loot box is optional or intentional.
Correspondingly, the prohibition on gambling advertisements would not apply if these online games are not considered illegal gambling.
Mr Gerald Giam asked if loot boxes will be considered as a lottery if virtual rewards cannot be monetised in the real-world. Since these virtual rewards have no real-world value, such loot boxes will not be considered gambling under the Gambling Control Bill. This is in line with our current approach, which has served us well in trying to strike a balance between leisure and entertainment and safeguarding against gambling inducement.
We agree with Mr Yip Hon Weng that a blanket restriction on the advertisement of online games would not be practical, especially since these games are perceived by many as leisure and entertainment. We will be reviewing the landscape of online games of chance. This will include how to regulate advertisements of online games of chance that fall in the definition of gambling under the Gambling Control Bill.
Let me talk a bit on the entry bans.
Mr Louis Ng asked for more details on the entry bans. The Commissioner of Police entry ban is issued to persons to prevent or to reduce criminal influence or exploitation in the management and operation of regulated gambling activities and to maintain gaming integrity in the gambling services. It is targeted against persons who pose law-and-order concerns. Law enforcement agencies will consider the individual's criminal records, as well as other criminal history, including warnings and discharges not amounting to an acquittal. For example, this could include persons previously convicted of offences related to syndicated criminal activity.
For the GRA entry bans, the reference to the individual's character or reputation is to cater for cases where the person has displayed a pattern of disregard for the law that might actually undermine the regulatory regime. These could include persons investigated by GRA who repeatedly refused to come forward to assist with investigations, for instance.
The time periods of entry bans will be calibrated based on the seriousness of the law-and-order concerns and the gaming integrity concerns that the person presents.
Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua spoke about the upstream education efforts targeted at underaged individuals, addressing Mr Gerald Giam's questions on the age requirements on various gaming products. Let me touch on the other safeguards for underaged individuals that are covered in the Bill.
First, there are safeguards to prevent underaged individuals to gambling, or exposing them directly to gambling activity. For example, there is a minimum age of gambling. The Gambling Control Bill introduces offences on underaged individuals gambling or entering gambling areas. This sends a strong deterrent signal to underaged individuals that they should not be gambling.
The Gambling Control Bill also introduces an offence for proxy gambling, which will deter underaged persons from circumventing the entry bans or entry controls.
The GRA will also impose conditions on class-licensed products, such as mystery boxes, to address the normalisation of gambling. The details will be released later when we introduce the subsidiary legislation.
Second, safeguards to limit inducement of underaged individuals to gambling. The Gambling Control Bill criminalises the inducement of underaged individuals to gamble, as I have covered earlier. We will also continue to impose controls on advertisement and promotion.
Mr Louis Chua asked about how casino operators are going to help enforce against proxy gambling. There are various ways today to detect proxy gambling in casinos and casino staff are actually trained to detect it. Some indications include players constantly checking their mobile phones and appearing to be receiving instructions while gambling. Casinos will be liable to regulatory action, like financial penalties, if they fail to enforce this.
Mr Yip Hon Weng pointed out about non-fungible tokens (NFTs) could be considered as gambling due to the amount of speculation involved. Mr Chua also spoke about this topic. NFTs are a form of digital token, where each token has distinct and unique features that are verified and secured by blockchain technology. MAS takes a technology-neutral stance and "looks through" to the underlying characteristics of the token to determine if it is to be regulated. Most NFTs currently do not fall under MAS' regulatory remit, as they are used mainly to tokenise digital art and other collectibles. But should an NFT have the characteristics of a capital markets product under the Securities and Futures Act, it will be subject to MAS' regulatory requirements and therefore exempted from the definition of betting in Clause 5 of the Gambling Control Bill.
Creating or trading NFTs is not considered gambling, unless there is an element of chance involved in their creation or trading. However, gambling services that use NFTs as stake or prize will be covered in our gambling legislation.
Mr Chua asked how GRA can stay ahead of the developments and innovations in online games. We agree, that is why the formation of GRA will give us the capabilities and expertise to monitor this landscape for new gambling products and update our regulations if required.
Mr Yip asked for details on the consolidation of gambling regulatory functions across various agencies. As I had mentioned earlier, gambling regulation is currently overseen by various Government agencies. For example, CRA regulates the casinos; the Gambling Regulatory Unit in MHA today regulates online gambling services and fruit machines; and the Singapore Tote Board governs Singapore Pools' physical gambling services.
There will be synergies from consolidating gambling legislation and regulation. As the single regulator of all forms of gambling, GRA will be able to pool resources and expertise together to deal with the issue. This will allow GRA to keep pace with trends in the gambling landscape more effectively and take a more holistic and coherent approach to gambling policies and issues.
The establishment of GRA will be resource neutral across the Government. Manpower will be transferred together with the transfer of function. This will not lead to an excess of employees. In addition to overseeing existing regulatory regimes, GRA will also oversee new regulatory regimes, such as the new licensing regime for gambling in private establishments and class-licence regimes for low-risk gambling products.
Mr Speaker, by establishing the GRA and updating our gambling laws, the Bills will go a long way to ensure that we continue to be able to minimise the social and law-and-order concerns arising from gambling activity in Singapore. Once again, I thank Members in this House for their support. Sir, I beg to move.
Source: Hansard
