SINGAPORE TOTALISATOR BOARD (AMENDMENT) BILL

Column: 2860

SINGAPORE TOTALISATOR BOARD (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

3.15 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Today, all forms of gambling in Singapore are prohibited except for selected products offered by the Singapore Totalisator Board and its two agents, Singapore Turf Club and Singapore Pools. While gambling is not an activity that we want to encourage, it

Column: 2861

is also not something that we can wish away. Imposing a complete ban on gambling will only drive the industry underground and profit the illegal operators.

Our approach has therefore been to allow a limited range of gambling products in a controlled environment, with appropriate safeguards for the vulnerable groups. Together with sustained enforcement action against illegal operators and continuing efforts to raise public awareness of the ills of gambling, we can minimise social concerns. The Singapore Totalisator Board has been using and will continue to use the gambling proceeds to fund programmes and projects for the social good.

The amendments to the Singapore Totalisator Board Act seek to achieve three objectives. First, to allow the Singapore Turf Club more operational flexibility so as to combat illegal horse betting. Second, to provide the Ministry greater flexibility to update the gambling advertising regulations. And, third, to strengthen governance at the Singapore Totalisator Board.

Sir, let me now highlight the key changes.

Moving the Singapore Totalisator Scheme out of the Subsidiary Legislation

The first change relates to the removal of the Singapore Totalisator Scheme from the subsidiary legislation under the Act. The Scheme governs the administrative and operational aspects of horse racing and betting, such as race fixtures, admissions to the racecourse, and bet types. Currently, any variation to the Scheme must be approved by the Minister and published in the Gazette . By removing the Scheme from the subsidiary legislation, and having it administered by the Turf Club under a private contractual arrangement with the Totalisator Board,

Column: 2862

the Turf Club will be able to respond better to challenges posed by the illegal operators by changing their betting rules and bet types. The Turf Club will still need to seek regulatory approval for the introduction of new gambling products or changes to regulatory conditions such as age limit.

This approach is consistent with practices in other jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, the United Kingdom and Western Australia. It is also consistent with the treatment of operational rules governing lottery games and football betting run by Singapore Pools. Clauses 2(b) to 8, 10 and 12 of the Bill provide for this change.

Transferring advertising regulations from main Act to subsidiary legislation

The second change relates to the transfer of advertising regulations from the main Act to the subsidiary legislation. The Act currently allows the Turf Club to publish certain information in the newspapers. This includes the hours of business, address and telephone number of Turf Club's betting outlets, and the names of the race meetings. The Act does not cover advertising by Singapore Pools and the Totalisator Board.

By removing the advertising regulations from the main Act, and empowering the Minister to make subsidiary legislation on advertising, the regulations can be updated more expeditiously, in response to changes in the operating and social environment. We will adopt a balanced approach, allowing the Turf Club some room to enhance awareness of their products and channels so as to divert demand away from the illegal operators, while ensuring sufficient safeguards to protect the youth and other vulnerable groups. We will also extend the regulations to Singapore Pools and the Totalisator Board.

Column: 2863

This is similar to the approach taken for the Casino Control Act. Clauses 2(a), 11, 13 and 15 of the Bill provide for this change.

Increasing the quorum at Board meetings

Thirdly, the Bill increases the quorum at Board meetings from three members to a majority of the members to ensure majority representation and sound governance at the Totalisator Board. Clause 16 of the Bill provides for this.

Other changes

The other changes include removing the need for the Turf Club to seek Minister's approval for by-laws controlling admission to the Turf Club, which are operational in nature; allowing any public officer authorised by the Minister to compound prescribed offences; and consequential amendments to the Betting Act and Common Gaming Houses Act.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, under the existing Act, the Minister's approval is required before the Board can conduct gaming activities and the Minister approves schemes and may impose conditions on any gaming activity. Clauses 4 and 6 of the Bill collectively remove the need for Ministerial approval. It seems that the Board is now given a freer hand to decide what kind of gaming activities are carried out and under what conditions. For instance, it appears that it can decide the rules of the game, how to calculate dividends and what kind of credit facilities will be available.

I would like to ask for clarification on the following:

Column: 2864

(a) What was the original rationale for requiring Ministerial approval in the first place? Was it due to a need to supervise the gaming industry to safeguard the public interest?

(b) By removing the need for Ministerial approval, is the Government giving the Board more liberty to promote gaming as it sees fit? Is it foreseeable that gaming would proliferate society further, more addictive forms of gaming may arise and credit will be made more easily available? Are we putting society at greater risk with this approach?

Mr Siew Kum Hong: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. I rise in support of the Bill.

Sir, this Bill is intended to rationalise the workings of the Tote Board, which is now responsible for regulating gaming and betting in Singapore and to address certain gaps in the law that currently exist. As such, I only have two points to make.

Firstly, clause 10 of the Bill repeals the existing section 15 of the Act and introduces a new section 15, which essentially provides that it is lawful for any person of or above the age of 18 years to participate in licensed gaming or betting. This is a relatively lower age and is of some concern, given the trend of Singaporeans starting to gamble at a young age. A survey released by the Government in May this year found that a quarter of respondents started gambling when they were less than 18 years old, up 10% from 2005. Setting the legal age for gambling at 18 years risks exacerbating this problem. I would therefore like to ask the Minister to clarify and explain why and how this age of 18 years old was decided upon, especially when this is lower than the age of 21 years which is required for entry into the upcoming casinos under the Casino Control Act.

Column: 2865

On a related note, this new section 15 now makes it explicitly clear that those who are 18 years and above may lawfully gamble with licensed operators, which is something that was previously not so clear. So, this is positive. This also means that, by implication, those who are below 18, who somehow manage to gamble with licensed operators are committing an offence under the Betting Act or the Common Gaming Houses Act. But neither of this Act nor the Betting Act, nor the Gaming Houses Act, imposes any liability on licensed operators if they allow those who are below 18 to gamble. That seems to be a lacuna in the law which should be plugged, so as to drive home to licensed operators the seriousness of their responsibility not to allow young persons under the age of 18 to gamble.

Secondly, Sir, clause 14 of the Bill introduces a new section 20B that empowers the Minister to exempt any person or class of persons from any or all provisions of the Act through Gazette notifications. There is no statement as to the purposes for which such exemptions may be granted. Sir, the debate on casinos shows that gambling remains a sensitive issue in Singapore, which many Singaporeans are greatly concerned about. This broad power to the Minister to grant exemptions is worrying because it potentially deprives Parliament of the opportunity to review and debate proposed exemptions. If the Minister is of the view that this power to grant exemptions is administratively and operationally desirable and necessary, then I would suggest that, at the minimum, the new section 20B should be amended to explicitly state the purposes for which exemptions may be granted.

Sir, with that, I support the Bill.

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the Members for their comments and support of the Bill.

Column: 2866

As regards Ms Sylvia Lim's point about the liberty that is seemingly given to the Minister in varying the Scheme, let me assure her that this is actually a balance between trying to enable the Turf Club to exercise flexibility and to respond better to challenges. But the Club would still need regulatory approval for the introduction of new gambling products or, for that matter, changes to regulatory conditions. So, there would be no concern over the proliferation of newer products. This will just be simply variations of the existing rules that are allowed.

As for Mr Siew Kum Hong's point about the age limit, let me just clarify that currently the Tote Board Act actually already stipulates the age limit for gambling as 18 years. The objective of clause 10 is really not to set the age limit but to make a consequential amendment because of the removal of the Scheme from the subsidiary legislation. And as he has noted, the age limit applies to all gambling activities, except casinos which have a higher limit of 21 years. Eighteen years, if I may add, has been adopted as the age limit for gambling in many other jurisdictions, including Hong Kong, United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. It is also incidentally the same age limit set for the consumption of alcohol and tobacco in Singapore.

As regards the operators' responsibility towards the age limit, Singapore Pools and Turf Club have actually taken very concrete steps to ensure that the products are not offered to the underaged. This is part of their commitment towards responsible gambling. In fact, all the frontline staff and employees are required to undergo training in terms of executing these gambling measures. So, they will do physical control checks and checks of IDs as well. But I take his point that while this has worked well thus far, there may be a case to consider

Column: 2867

making these responsibilities explicit in the legislation. So, we will study this further.

As for his point about clause 14 giving the Minister the power to exempt any person or class of persons from all the provisions, let me assure the House that the Ministry does not intend to abuse the authority provided for by this new section. As I have commented earlier on, any decision taken is really a balance of all the different points. We should note that the gambling industry is a fast-changing one. The illegal gambling operators continue to pose a major challenge today and, therefore, this new provision will enable the Turf Club to be able to respond quickly with once-off exceptional exemptions to be made by the Minister in a timely manner.

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. – [Mrs Lim Hwee Hua].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.