COMMON GAMING HOUSES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.56 p.m.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Prof. Wong Lin Ken): Mr Govindasamy, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill seeks to amend the Common Gaming Houses Act (Chapter 96 of the 1970 Revised Edition) in the following ways:

(a) To increase the penalty provided for the offence of assisting in carrying on a public lottery and all other offences relating to public lotteries;

(b) To make provision to allow competent police officers irrespective of rank to give evidence on documents pertaining to any public lottery produced before the court;

(c) To insert a new clause under section 13A to provide for the arrest and search of persons without a warrant when there is reasonable ground for believing that they have on their persons appliances for gaming; and

(d) To repeal and re-enact section 23 giving powers to exempt organisations from the provisions of this Act, to the Minister. Such powers are now vested with the President.

Mr Govindasamy, Sir, to begin with the amendment to section 4. As the law stands at present, a person found guilty of assisting in carrying on a public lottery and all other related offences shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $6,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or to both such fine and imprisonment. It is felt that this punishment is grossly inadequate to assist the police in their efforts t) suppress the operation of illegal lotteries in Singapore, the commonest forms of which are the so-called "10,000 Characters Lottery" and the "Chap-Ji-Kee Lottery".

These lotteries are persistent in Singapore and the police have found it extremely difficult to eradicate them. Running public lotteries is very profitable. They are so profitable that their promoters are not deterred by fines imposed presently. Experience has shown that the fines imposed on offenders have varied substantially from court to court, and in some instances they have been so low as to be unrealistic. These variations in fines have not in any way contributed towards eradication and suppression of these lotteries. At present the maximum fine of $6,000 is "chicken feed" to the big-time promoters and hardly serves as a deterrent.

It is a well-known fact that invariably promoters pay the fines imposed on the runners and collectors, and it is very rare that anyone is imprisoned for non-payment of a fine. With the raising of the minimum fine to $2,000 and the maximum fine to $20,000, the promoters will find it difficult to sustain payment of fines, as the running of these lotteries would become less lucrative.

Let me cite some statistics to drive home this point. First, the statistics on raids on "Characters Lottery". During the years 1966 to 1970 the police conducted 3,077 raids. A total of 1,399 persons were arrested, of whom 1,165 persons were convicted. The total fines for all these five years amounted to $479,315. In the last year alone there were 659 raids, 303 arrests, 214 convictions, with a total fine of $146,595.

Let me cite the statistics on the raids on "Chap-Ji-Kee Lottery". During the same period, that is to say, from 1966 to 1970, there were 2,116 raids. A total of 1,007 persons were arrested, of whom only 831 were convicted. The total fine amounted to only $391,277. The fines imposed were very low indeed.

Let me cite the fines imposed on persons who were convicted of running "Characters Lottery". During the years 1966 to 1970, the fines per person ranged from only $295 to $685. For the same period, the fines imposed on people caught in running "Chap-Ji-Kee Lottery" ranged from $291 to $686. These fines were very low indeed. The fines imposed, as may be gathered from the statistics I have cited, were negligible. More often than not, they were paid by the promoters. Taking the 1970 convictions in respect of the "Characters Lottery", if a minimum fine of $2,000 had been imposed, the fines would have totalled nearly half a million dollars as against the figure of about $147,000. This would have adversely affected the profitability of running these lotteries.

At present the law does not provide for a minimum fine, and the discretion to impose such a "minimum fine" is left to the discretion of the Magistrate who, more often than not, is left in a quandary. The fines are normally based on the value of documents seized. This is an unsatisfactory method as, in some instances, big-time operators have got away lightly as the value of documents seized has been negligible.

Although the police have managed to exercise a certain amount of control over these types of offences, the amendment would be an added weapon to them in their fight against this social problem which affects every level of our society, particularly the lower income groups who fritter away their earnings to bet on these illegal lotteries. The amendment of this particular section will also bring it in line with the punishment provided for book-makers under section 5 (3) (a) of the Betting Act (Chapter 95 of the 1970 Edition) which provides a minimum fine of $2,000 and a maximum of $20,000.

Let me now move on to the amendment of section 10. With the amendment of subsection (2) of section 10 of the principal Act by deleting the words "not below the rank of Sergeant" appearing therein, provision is sought to allow competent police officers irrespective of rank to give evidence on documents pertaining to any public lottery that are produced before the courts. At present, the law stipulates that the evidence given by a police officer of and above the rank of Sergeant competent to be a "gaming expert" is accepted. This has resulted in the inability of the Gambling Suppression Branch to provide sufficient "experts" to meet the needs of the whole Force. The Branch is only staffed with an O.C., one inspector, one detective staff sergeant, one detective sergeant, three detective corporals and 14 detectives. The expert is not only required to give "expert evidence" in court but is also required to examine all documents seized by the Gambling Suppression Branch and the Divisional Police.

At present, there are police officers in the Gambling Branch who would make competent "gaming experts" if not for their being below the rank of Sergeant. The amendment would greatly alleviate the existing difficulties in obtaining the services of competent and experienced police officers in giving evidence on documents produced before the courts.

Now, with reference to the new section 13A, the powers sought by this amendment to the Common Gaming Houses Act (Chapter 96 of the 1970 Edition) are similar to those accorded to the police under section 13 of the Betting Act (Chapter 95 of the 1970 Edition). The amendment will remedy the present defect in the Act which does not empower a police officer to search a person who is reasonably suspected of being in possession of instruments or appliances for gaming, without a warrant, although there may be very good grounds for believing that the delay in obtaining a warrant may result in the escape of the offender, or the disposal of the instruments or appliances in question. This amendment, therefore, will greatly strengthen the hand of the police, particularly in their efforts to curb illegal lotteries. The present legal requirement to obtain a search warrant to make a physical search of anyone reasonably suspected of committing an offence under the Act is not practical. This frustrates immediate police action and enables the offender to escape the law in good time before a warrant could be obtained.

Finally, let me proceed to the repeal and re-enactment of section 23. This re-enactment seeks to transfer the power from the President to the Minister to exempt organisations referred to in the amendment from the provisions of the Act. This is purely for administrative convenience.

Sir, I beg to move.

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. - [Prof. Wong Lin Ken].

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