COMMON GAMING HOUSES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.18 p.m.

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The main purpose of this Bill, Sir, is to provide for more effective control of public gaming, more especially in coffee shops and places of public resort. The existing law relating to gaming in public is contained in the Vagrancy Ordinance, and has been found to be very inadequate. It is therefore proposed, Sir, following the legislation in the Federation of Malaya, to improve the provisions relating to gaming in public in the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance, and to give wider powers to the police to suppress gaming in public.

There have been many complaints of the noise and nuisance caused by gaming in coffee shops and places of public resort, and it is known that such places are frequented by secret society members.

The Bill provides, in clause 7, for the punishment of gaming in public and for the punishment of persons who instigate, promote or intentionally facilitate the commission of the offence of gaming in public. A person who is the tenant, lessee, occupier or person in charge of any public place which is used for gaming is also made liable to punishment, unless he proves that he has no knowledge that the premises are used for gaming. In order to facilitate proofs of gaming in public, a number of presumptions are created. Where it is shown that the person was playing a game of chance or any mixed game of chance and skill in a public place, it will be presumed until the contrary is proved that he was gaming, that he was playing for money or money's worth. When any article found in any public place is an instrument or appliance for gaming, it will be presumed until the contrary is proved that gaming took place at such public place, that the person had in his possession, custody or control of such article for gaming at such public place, and that the public place was used for gaming.

At present, Sir, a number or prosecutions for gaming in public have failed because it often happens that when the police come on the scene, the persons taking part disperse and run away, and it is impossible for the police to prove the particular game that was played and the part taken by the persons in the game.

The opportunity is also being taken to re-enact, with amendments, the existing provisions of the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance. The principal changes proposed are summarised in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill. The effect of the amendments will be to enable more effective action to be taken against common gaming houses, public gaming and public lotteries.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.22 p.m.

Mr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not against the granting of additional powers to the Minister for Labour and Law. Eight months ago in this House, during the debate on the Common Gaming Houses (Amendment) Bill, the Minister claimed twice that he had enough powers under that Bill to be able to do what he intended to do. Let me quote, Sir, from Hansard, Volume 12, No. 11, col. 723, line 12:

`We have looked very closely into the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance, and we find that the provisions there are sufficient for us to deal with the situation.'

And again in col. 727, line 9, the Minister said:

`We have all the powers that we want. No additional powers are necessary. All that we have to do is to go for them and bring them down.'

Sir, the fact that today he is asking for more powers shows that the problem is more difficult than was anticipated. We know, Sir, that merely by legalising sweepstakes and lotteries under the Turf Club, gambling could not be adequately controlled and reduced. Since the Government maintain that they too regard gambling as a social evil—their purpose is not to increase the revenue but to control the evil—may I suggest something quite constructive, Sir, and if they adopt the suggestion, it will be a proof of their sincerity?

I believe that to control gambling adequately as a social evil, there must also be an educational campaign. The Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Education have in their hands the weapons — propaganda and education — to enable the people to realise that gambling is an evil, and that the poor mugs who buy those tickets will simply be contributing out of their hard-earned earnings to the coffers of the promoters.

If the workers in Singapore are made to realise this, Sir, then it will gradually reduce the gambling evil in Singapore. We will be in wholehearted support of their attempt. We will then say that the Government are really sincere and that their motive is really not to increase revenue. Sir, we are only too pleased to agree to the granting of additional powers to the Government.

3.25 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, we are glad that the Government have now come to this Assembly for additional powers to control gambling. But the Government — and a P.A.P. Government at that — have been wont to say in this Assembly and outside that they always say what they mean and mean what they say. They said not so long ago, as quoted by the Member for Tanglin (to quote the words from Hansard, Vol. 12, No. 11, col. 723):

`We have looked very closely into the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance, and we find that the provisions there are sufficient for us to deal with the situation.'

They always say what they mean. But the Minister now comes to this House and says that what they meant to say was that what they said was not what they meant to say at that time.

Sir, they said they were keen to control gambling. We are with them in that. But we must say this: that instead of controlling gambling, they had, because of their special liking for the Singapore Turf Club, encouraged the opening of shops along the streets of Singapore with signboards saying, "Singapore Turf Club Tickets Sold Here". And we said at that time that if the Government were to introduce this kind of public lottery, it would mean more gambling; it would mean encouraging school children to walk into a shop to buy a ticket for themselves.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is in danger of going back to the old debate on that particular topic. Can he indicate how his remarks arise out of this particular Bill? We are now discussing the principle of this Bill.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: With respect, Sir, what the Government intends to do with this Bill is to see that gambling is more controlled. But the very fact that there are more retailers now of public lotteries means that gambling is not so controlled as the Government want it to be. That is why I try to point out that on the one hand they say one thing, but on the other hand, they do another thing.

Mr Speaker: Mr Byrne, in reply?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there is a misunderstanding by the Members of the Opposition of what this Bill sets out to do. The Member for Farrer Park has not said anything today, probably because he realises the legal position better than his colleagues on the Front Bench!

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for more effective control of common gaming houses, public lotteries, as well as public gaming. In the past, the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance dealt with common gaming houses and public lotteries. There was a separate Ordinance known as the Vagrancy Ordinance which dealt with public gaming. The purpose of this Bill is to repeal those provisions of the Vagrancy Ordinance which dealt with public gaming, and to bring those provisions within the scope of the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance. In the Federation of Malaya, Mr Speaker, public gaming, common gaming houses and public lotteries are punished under a single Ordinance, and we have, in making these amendments, adopted the same procedure here.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tanglin has just now made a very novel suggestion to the House. He has suggested that, in order to bring public gaming and gambling generally under control, the Government should try to educate gamblers. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the best way to deal with gamblers is to increase effectively the penalties of the law so as to make it not worth their while to continue those pursuits. Mr Speaker, Sir, the penalties for gaming in public have been equated with the penalties provided for other offences under the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance in this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Turf Club recently published its Annual Report on the proceedings of the past year. It was clearly shown in that Report, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the amount of money invested on the totalisator operated by the Club increased from $13 million in 1959 to $23 million in 1960. It was also stated in that Report that, as a result of steps taken by the Club in co-operation with the police, about 1,000 to 1,500 bookmakers were put out of action. Mr Speaker, Sir, that is indeed a creditable performance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill has suggested that far from bringing gambling under control, we have allowed the Turf Club to try to induce members of the public to gamble. He has referred to the notice boards that are placed in shops by the Turf Club, inviting the public to buy lottery tickets there. Mr Speaker, Sir, as a matter of fact, the Turf Club have been very disappointed in their expectations. In fact, there has not been an increase in the sale of their lottery tickets. The people who are interested in that sort of gaming already had the facilities of buying these tickets. It has not in any way increased public gaming. So that all in all, Mr Speaker, Sir, together with the action that has been taken in the past, this Bill will be able to bring gaming under proper control, particularly gaming in public, for which the punishments are totally inadequate under the present Vagrancy Ordinance. I hope I have fully answered the points of criticism raised just now by the Opposition.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Byrne].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

3.36 p.m.

The Chairman: I do not know whether any hon. Member wishes to speak on any particular clause. If there is, will the Member please indicate which clause?

Mr C. H. Koh (Joo Chiat): Clause (2) (b).

The Chairman: I will take clause 1.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2— Question proposed, "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Koh: Mr Speaker, Sir, in its zeal to make Singapore a Utopia, the Government, I hope, will realise that the people's wishes also have to be considered. A good many people may not want to live in a Utopia. The other point is this. What the Government may consider to be a good or bad thing may not meet with the thinking of other people. After all, to grow pretty roses we also need cow-dung.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Labour and Law has stressed the public aspect of gaming. I agree with him that gaming in public should be suppressed. By all means do so. But the definition "gaming" in clause 2 when taken with the definition of "common gaming house" in the same clause makes habitual gaming in private clubs open to prosecution. Mr Speaker, Sir, the definition of "common gaming house" — the second part of it—reads:

`any place kept for habitual gaming, whether the public or any class of the public has or may have access thereto or not,'. That brings in private clubs where habitual gaming takes place. I think I am right there.

` "gaming", with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means the playing of any game of chance or of mixed chance and skill for money or money's worth;'.

If you go to clause (2) (b), the Minister—I take it he will be Minister for Labour and Law—may:—

`declare any game, method, device, scheme or competition specified ... to be a game of chance or a mixed game of chance and skill ... and thereupon it shall be an irrebuttable presumption of law that such game, [etc.] is a game of chance .... as the case may be, for the purposes of this Ordinance.'

There can be no defence then if, for instance, in a private club there is habitually going on a game which the Minister by notification in the Gazette declares to be a game within the Ordinance. There is no defence at all. Now, there is a game which goes on not only in every private club but also in the majority of Chinese private houses, not for one day or for two days in a year, but probably for 300 or more days in a year, and that game is mahjong. Mahjong to the Chinese is what the game of bridge or whist is to the Europeans. There is no question whatsoever that mahjong has some element of chance. I do not deny that. But it is a national game, and if the definition in clause 2 is carried to its logical conclusion by the Minister for Labour and Law, then everyone of us may land in gaol. For that purpose, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister for Labour and Law to give an assurance that, before he uses his powers given in clause (2) (b), he will have a full-dress debate in this House? If he gives that assurance, then I do not think we need have any amendment. Otherwise I would like to move an amendment to paragraph (b).

The Chairman: Of course, the hon. Member is much too late in so far as moving an amendment is concerned.

Mr Koh: May we then have an assurance from the Hon. the Minister for Labour and Law that in the word "game" there, he will not include the game of mahjong?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, in this Bill we have not in any way altered the existing definition of a common gaming house, and it is the law today. Even before this Bill is enacted into law, if any place is kept for habitual gaming, whether the public or any class of the public has or may have access thereto or not, it is a common gaming house and is punishable as such. We have made no changes in the law as far as that is concerned.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of this clause is to enable the Minister to make declarations with regard to lotteries being, say, public lotteries and certain games being games of chance or games of mixed chance and skill. That, as I have said before, is to enable the police to bring public gaming effectively under control. It is not the purpose of this Bill to deny people the right to have an innocent game of mahjong with their friends in their homes even if they do some gambling on the side, Sir!

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 25 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: The amendment to the long title, Mr Minister.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 1, after "consolidate", to insert "with amendments".

Amendment agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.