BETTING AND SWEEPSTAKE DUTIES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Introduction

The Bill seeks to amend the Betting and Sweepstake Duties Act to introduce a sports betting duty on bets at fixed odds on football games or sporting events held inside or outside Singapore.

Rationale

Legalised football betting would be introduced for the first time on 31st March 1999 together with the 1999 S-League season. The objectives in legalising football betting are to provide a source of funds to support the development of S-League and local football and to promote sports in general and help stamp out illegal football betting. Based on the nature and market for football betting, I have decided on a betting duty of 20% of gross profits on football betting. The tax rate of 20% was decided taking into account the need of the legal operator to compete with illegal operators as well as to give adequate funding for S-League which is in its development phase. This rate would be reviewed after two years when the market for legal football betting is better established. Proposed Amendments

The Bill makes the following amendments to the Betting and Sweepstake Duties Act:

a) Introduction of a new section 2A relating to sports betting duty to put into legislative effect of the 20% tax on gross profits on football betting as well as any other sports events, where the bets received or negotiated are at fixed odds;

b) Repeal of existing section 4 and substitution of a new section 4. Whilst the tax rate on other forms of betting such as horse racing, Toto, 4D and Singapore Sweep is based on gross bets, the tax rate on football betting is based on gross profits. Promoters of football betting are thus required to submit additional particulars such as the winnings paid. The new section 4 provides for this requirement;

c) Miscellaneous consequential amendments to sections 3 and 5 upon the introduction of the sports betting duty.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad (Pasir Ris): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, football sweepstakes will be introduced here soon. A number of reasons have been offered why this has to be provided for. Singapore Pools, which conducts the football sweepstakes, says that the Singapore Football League (S-League) is a national project which deserves to be supported. There is also a need to increase the funds of the football clubs involved to attract more supporters and to eliminate illegal football betting.

Although the S-League football clubs are very supportive of the introduction of football betting, there are others who have expressed their concern and even some who are against the idea altogether. I do not deny and indeed believe that betting in any form is a value that we should not encourage and should be deterred. I also believe that, besides Islam, gambling is also against the major religions in this country, such as Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism and Taoism. However, in regard to the Singapore Pools S-League football sweepstakes, I would like to see this in a wider perspective, in the context of a secular country. There are already various forms of betting such as Big Sweep, 4D and Toto, as mentioned by the Finance Minister just now. Football betting has also been around for some time, although it has been going on illegally. I also believe that the Government certainly does not have the intention to encourage gambling with the introduction of the S-League football betting. Besides, with more effective control and supervision, I believe that the introduction of this Bill will also strengthen the football funds so as to develop this game further to a higher level and to attain our vision to enter the finals of the World Cup football competition in 2010.

The question now is, with the legalisation of the S-League football betting, are we indirectly encouraging more people to gamble? Or by not introducing this, will football betting be eliminated altogether? In my view, the choice depends on ourselves. Just like other things, the individual has the choice. With regard to this, whether to stay away from gambling or to be involved in it, it is up to us.

For Muslims, we play the role of educating our children to stay away from gambling, in whatever form altogether. As a Muslim society in a secular, multi-racial and multi-religious country, this is a dilemma. And this requires that every community seeks its own solution. I believe that no matter what we do, only an effective education can overcome it.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Sir, the Bill is timely, especially we all know that betting is quite prevalent in Singapore. Football betting is something that is not new. Other countries have it. And I think we should have no qualms about it. But the money will be for a good cause. The only concern I have is this. Why has he decided to have 20%, instead of a lower figure? I know he could, by Government Gazette, prescribe another figure. But I thought he could probably start with 15%.

Sir, with that, I support the Bill.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the main purpose of this Amendment Bill is to legalise football betting. The Government's decision to legalise football betting will create a precedence in pegging sports with gambling.

First of all, I would like to know what kind of signal or values are we trying to send to our citizens by this Amendment Bill. Is the Government thinking that gambling can help to rectify the kiasu mentality of our Singaporeans? Do not worry, lay your bets. Give it a try, no venture, no gain!

If the Government's reason is that if football betting is not legalised, people will still bet on football anyway, then there are now, in the market, various forms of illegal gambling in Singapore, for example, the traditional chap ji kee, betting on billiards, betting on bowling, and betting in high class games such as golf. So, is the Government going to consider legalising all these forms of gambling as well?

In fact, the greatest difference between illegal and legal gambling is that the illegal operators do not dare to promote their activities openly and they do not receive bets openly. But the legalised operators can brazenly promote their activities. They can even advertise in the newspapers, which they do. They are licensed to set up betting stations all over Singapore. The extent of influence on our society is certainly different.

Secondly, why do we want to peg betting with sports? Does the Government feel that only by pegging betting with sports can we make Singaporeans love the game of football? If the Government believes that this is the only way to promote the game of football in Singapore and to make more Singaporeans support the S-League Football started by the Government, then I would like to know for those who are crazy over football, are they crazy over the game of football, or are they crazy over gambling?

For fans or spectators who support a certain football team, are they supporting the team from the area where they live to express cohesiveness in the community, or simply because they are betting on the team winning money for them?

Initially when the Government decided to let the Singapore national team drop from the Malaysian Cup football league and started its own Singapore S-League, was it already intending to legalise football betting?

What I am worried is that in future if a certain team loses and causes the football spectators to lose their money and hence their temper, will their feelings run so high as to cause a riot like what had happened in the other countries, and take it out on the footballers after the game? This would be very unfair to the footballers.

If the Government feels that public feeling in Singapore is such that we can only go through gambling which involves personal interest to promote certain sports or events, then will the Government also consider amending the law to allow for the betting on inter-school basketball or volleyball tournaments to promote basketball and volleyball? Later on, will the Government also start a National Election Lottery to receive bets from the people on the results of the General Election and the Presidential Election?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that the only advantage of this Amendment Bill is that the Government would be able to collect a lot of tax money from this new form of gambling and lots of money will go into the coffer. Perhaps, this is the Government's novel idea of opening a new source of revenue in view of the tax reduction due to the current economic crisis!

Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank Mr Ahmad Magad for his support of the Bill, notwithstanding his reservations about the religious aspects of gambling which everybody recognises. It is an undesirable activity but, nevertheless, not one which we can easily eliminate. I think tolerance, understanding and education are the only routes to eventually solve it. The parents should try to dissuade their children from taking up gambling. So his understanding of the issue is very commendable.

Mr Rai asked why 20%, and not 15%. This was based on an estimate of the amount of revenue which will accrue to Singapore Pools for use in promoting football and other sports. Government will take its reasonable share, but we will review this after two years, depending on the actual outcome.

Turning to the more general philosophy expressed by Mr Low, I do not disagree with him that promoting gambling is not a desirable objective nor something which the Government should engage in. Unfortunately, we are dealing with human nature. People, many of them, are inclined to take risks, and gambling is a manifestation of risk-taking. By and large, the majority of people engage in gambling as a form of recreation, small size gambling with $5 on a football match, a golf match, or a private bet on some other event, so that for us, as a Government, to say that there should be no gambling altogether is unrealistic. Of course, it can be done. But I doubt whether we could eliminate human nature. All you would do is in fact push it underground and, eventually, the only people who will profit are the illegal operators.

He has asked what is our objective in legalising football betting. Why not legalise all other forms of gambling, such as chap ji kee or some of the other minor gambling forms? The simple answer is that we try to avoid as much legislation as possible until the activity reaches a level which requires some form of regulation. Football has reached a stage where the activity of illegal gambling in football which is happening now, is quite large. And we do not want to leave the field open to illegal gamblers who will use their revenues to promote bribery and match-fixing. We must do all we can to eliminate this.

So the primary objective, apart from the funds made available for promoting S-League and other sports, is to try and regulate this and try to knock out, if we can, the illegal operators. It may not be possible to reduce them entirely. But by and large, our experience with legalising horse racing gambling and 4-D has proven that this substantially reduces the scope for illegal operators.

On his suggestion that Government has introduced this Bill in order to generate new sources of income, he could not be further away from the truth. We have estimated that, in the first couple of years, the total volume of football betting will probably be around $250 million a year gross. After deduction of bet payoffs and the operating cost, Singapore Pools will be able to provide about $9 million per year of funding for the S-League plus other sports activities, leaving the Government with $4 million a year of new tax revenue. He will understand that this is a very small sum and, obviously, it is not a new revenue source of any consequence.

I think I have answered all the questions.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, based on the Minister for Finance's answer, it seems to me that if any form of gambling has reached a level of popularity, the Minister for Finance might consider legalising it. Chap ji kee is a traditional form of gambling in Singapore with a long history and many old folks like it. If the popularity of chap ji kee increases, would the Minister for Finance consider legalising it?

Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: I think we will have to wait to see what is the size of it. At the moment, as far as we are aware, it is quite small. It is played by some of the older folks. I am not aware of any young Singaporeans playing chap ji kee.

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. - [Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau].

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