Gambling Control Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

1.48 pm

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Tan) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, "That the Gambling Control Bill be now read a Second time".

Sir, the Gambling Control Bill is related to the next Bill, the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore Bill. With your permission, I would like to propose that the substantive debate on the two Bills be taken together now. This will allow for a more efficient and holistic debate and enable Members to raise questions or express their views on both Bills at the same time.

Mr Speaker, Singapore adopts a strict but pragmatic approach towards gambling. Gambling is prohibited unless licensed or exempted. The Government does not encourage gambling, but allows some forms of gambling in a controlled and safe environment. Total prohibition will drive gambling underground and cause more law-and-order and social issues.

These two Bills will not change this approach, which has worked well for Singapore. Gambling-related crimes remain low and the problem gambling situation remains under control with robust social safeguards.

That said, two emerging trends can have a significant impact on the gambling landscape.

First, technology has changed the way people gamble. People can now gamble anywhere and anytime through their smart phones and electronic devices. This has led to an increase in online gambling. The percentage of online turnover for Singapore Pools’ sports betting has grown in the past five years from 30% to 80%.

Second, the boundaries between gambling and gaming have also blurred, which may normalise gambling behaviour, if unchecked. We see new forms of gambling emerging. The younger generation prefers products with an element of skill, compared to just purely based on chance. Businesses have also adapted by introducing gambling elements in products that were traditionally not perceived as gambling, such as mystery boxes.

To keep pace with this evolving gambling landscape, we will amend gambling legislation to establish the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore, or GRA, as the single regulator for all forms of gambling. GRA will continue to work with MSF and the National Council on Problem Gambling, or NCPG, to protect Singaporeans from the harms of gambling. The Singapore Police Force will continue to be responsible for enforcement against illegal gambling activities.

Sir, allow me now to go through each Bill in turn.

First, the Gambling Control Bill. The Bill consolidates the existing laws regulating gambling outside the casinos. It replaces the Betting Act (1960), the Common Gaming Houses Act (1961), the Private Lotteries Act (2011) and the Remote Gambling Act (2014), which will all be repealed. The Bill makes consequential and related amendments to the Casino Control Act (2006) and other Acts.

The Bill seeks to achieve three key objectives.

First, we want to address emerging trends and products, like mystery boxes and loot boxes in video games.

Second, we want to ensure consistency in our regulatory treatment of different products. As mentioned, our current regulatory mechanisms for gambling are presently distributed across legislation enacted over 64 years and they are organised along the gambling products and the modality of gambling.

Third, we want to enhance social safeguards.

In formulating the Bill, we took in feedback from stakeholders engaged between April 2020 and August 2021, including social service agencies, religious groups, industry groups and also the wider public.

Mr Speaker, I will now highlight the main clauses of the Gambling Control Bill.

Part 1 of the Bill introduces the fundamental concepts and the purposes of the Bill. We will amend the definition of gambling to make it technology-neutral to cover existing and emerging gambling products.

Clause 4 defines gambling as betting, gaming activity and participating in a lottery, similar to the Remote Gambling Act.

Clause 5 expands the definition of betting from the Remote Gambling Act to go beyond horseracing and sporting events, to also include the outcome of a race, competition, sporting event or other event or process; the likelihood of anything occurring or not occurring; or whether anything is or is not true.

Clause 5(2) excludes products that MHA has no intention of treating as gambling products, such as investment in financial products already regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore.

To address the transnational nature of online gambling activities, clause 11 states that the definition of remote gambling covers situations where the facilities are outside of Singapore whether in part or in full. The prohibition and offences apply even if the offenders reside overseas, as long as their customers are in Singapore, similar to the Remote Gambling Act.

Currently, physical social gambling is not disallowed under the Common Gaming Houses Act and the Betting Act. Such activities are commonplace amongst many Singaporeans, such as playing mahjong at home. Law-and-order concerns are low.

Clause 12 defines “social gambling” and exempts physical social gambling, as long as it meets the following key conditions. First, the gambling activity must be conducted in an individual’s home. This excludes public places, such as void decks, coffee shops, hotels and chalets. Second, the participants must be members of the same family or know each other personally. Third, the activity must not be conducted for the private gain of any person who is not participating in the gambling or in the course of any business; and no participant should be able to obtain a benefit other than winning. For example, no commission, charge or fee should be imposed or sought from the participants.

Online social gambling will continue to be disallowed. It is difficult, if not impossible, to establish whether participants are socially acquainted online.

Police will be practical in enforcing social gambling breaches but will be firm against criminal syndicates that exploit the exemption to conduct illegal gambling. We will continue to allow some forms of gambling in a controlled and safe environment. Parts 4 and 5 of the Bill provide for licensing persons providing gambling services and regulating associated aspects, such as the gambling venues, games and gaming machines.

The licensing regime will replace the various gambling permit and exemption regimes under today’s gambling legislation.

Part 4 Division 1 of the Bill allows GRA to issue licences to gambling operators for certain gambling products. These are fruit machines for recreational clubs, Singapore Pools’ products and gambling among members at private establishments, such as recreational clubs and societies.

In granting or renewing licences, GRA will consider the factors set out in clause 54.

To mitigate law-and-order concerns, clause 55 allows GRA to screen operators and their management to assess their suitability.

In particular, MHA will introduce a new licensing regime for gambling among members at private establishments, such as social clubs and clans. Currently, private establishments do not need to apply for a licence in order to have gambling on their premises. They are legally allowed to provide gambling in games, such as mahjong, for their members within their premises through an exemption regime, so long as they meet stipulated conditions, such as the type of games allowed and the number of participants.

While this arrangement has worked well over the years, we are concerned with signs of illegal gambling taking root in private establishments. To address this, we propose to move to a licensing regime. Once the Bill comes into force, private establishments will have to apply for a licence. This will allow us to screen key personnel of their suitability to hold a gambling operator licence. We will also introduce surveillance requirements for the purpose of enforcement to these licensed private establishments. That said, MHA will continue to adopt a risk-calibrated approach to address the risk of criminal exploitation.

Part 4 Division 2 introduces a class licence regime for GRA to regulate lower-risk gaming or gambling products, including mystery boxes, online games with gambling elements and business promotion lucky draws. A class licence regime differs from a licensing regime in that an operator does not need to apply for a licence. The class-licensed operator can operate as long as the stipulated conditions, to be specified in subsidiary legislation, are met.

Clause 140 and the Second Schedule contain the saving and transitional provisions for existing permits and exemptions under the current legislation. We would like to highlight a typographical error in the Explanatory Statement. Persons who are exempt under current laws can continue providing the gambling service for a fixed period of five to 12 months, instead of two to five months as stated.

Let me move on to the provisions that update and harmonise gambling legislation.

We have rationalised the offences and penalties across existing gambling legislation. Part 2 of the Bill sets out the offences pertaining to gambling operations, gambling places, gaming machines and others.

All gambling activities will be prohibited unless they are licensed or exempted, regardless whether it is conducted online or physically. Unlawful gambling activity will be an offence for all persons involved – from the gambling operators, to the agents and the individual punters.

We will apply a three-tier penalty structure for unlawful gambling offences, differentiating between the operators who set up the unlawful gambling activity; the agents who facilitate the conduct of the activity; and the punters who participate in the activity.

The highest penalties will be imposed on operators, as their culpability is highest, followed by agents and then punters. We will enhance the penalties for unlawful gambling to send a strong deterrent signal to criminal syndicates. The Bill imposes mandatory imprisonment for operators and agents of unlawful gambling activities, similar to existing Acts. We will impose higher penalties for repeat offenders who facilitate and operate unlawful gambling services.

We will also criminalise proxy gambling in fruit machine rooms and casinos, in clauses 28 and 135(1) respectively. Proxy gambling occurs when an individual gambles on behalf of another person, thereby circumventing entry checks which is meant to screen out persons specially under entry bans. The offence will only apply to casinos and fruit machine rooms where the law-and-order and social concerns are higher, but not to other gambling settings like Singapore Pools' outlets. For example, in 2018, an individual who was bankrupt and excluded from the casino asked his wife to gamble in the casino on his behalf. We were unable to take them to task at that time, as proxy gambling was not criminalised previously.

Part 3 of the Bill sets out the evidence and presumptions to aid Police and authorised officers in effecting arrests and initiating investigations. Many of the presumptions are present in existing gambling legislation.

We have included a new presumption clause 46 in relation to inducement to gamble. A person who is referred to in the inducement for payment or further information is presumed to have sent the inducement unless he proves his lack of consent and involvement in the sending of the inducement. In the case of inducement of underaged students in schools through direct marketing materials, the sender is presumed to have known that the students receiving them were already underaged, unless he proves otherwise. This will allow for more effective prosecution of such persons.

Part 9 of the Bill grants powers to Police and authorised officers, defined in clause 122, to take enforcement actions for gambling-related crimes. These powers include requiring a person to furnish information, as well as the powers of entry, inspection and seizure.

Clause 112 confers powers of arrest without warrant to an authorised officer, such as a GRA officer, over any individual reasonably believed to have committed an arrestable offence under this Act. Unlike Police officers, the power to arrest can only be exercised in specific situations, such as in approved gambling venues.

Clause 123 provides for the appointment of compliance officers by GRA with the approval of the Minister. GRA employs these outsourced private sector experts to assist with compliance audits. We have tightly scoped the powers conferred on these individuals, to only obtaining information for their assessment in clause 110.

Clauses 117, 118 and 120 detail the access blocking and payment blocking regimes related to unlawful online gambling activities, similar to the Remote Gambling Act.

Mr Speaker, I will now explain the provisions that enhance social safeguards.

The minimum age for gambling will remain at 21 years old, except for gambling at Singapore Pools' physical outlets, which will remain at 18 years old, as set out in clause 13. Related to this, we will introduce three sets of offences pertaining to underaged individuals.

Clause 31 criminalises gambling by underaged individuals. This sends a strong deterrent signal to underaged persons that they should not be gambling.

Clause 32 criminalises entering gambling areas by underaged individuals, for example, when an underaged person enters a fruit machine room. Singapore Pools' physical outlets are excluded from this offence, as it is impractical to implement entry checks for these outlets. We will also criminalise opening of an online gambling account with Singapore Pools by underaged individuals.

To better protect underaged persons, we will also criminalise gambling with underaged individuals, with the exception of social physical gambling, in clause 30; inducing underaged individuals to engage in gambling that is not social physical gambling in clause 34; and employing underaged individuals to conduct gambling in clause 35.

Currently, exclusion orders are issued under the Casino Control Act by NCPG, Commissioner of Police and the Casino Regulatory Authority, or CRA.

The Casino Control Act provides that exclusion orders issued by NCPG prevent persons from entering the rooms to mitigate the harm of gambling to the excluded persons and their family. In addition, individuals under NCPG's exclusion orders are also prevented from entering fruit machine rooms or accessing Singapore Pools' online gambling services using operators' exemption or permit conditions, that is, they are barred administratively instead of through provisions in the gambling legislation. That is today.

[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]

Exclusion orders issued by Commissioner of Police and CRA also prevent persons from entering the casinos as these persons pose law-and-order or regulatory concerns. However, there are no legislative provisions to allow Commissioner of Police and CRA to prevent persons from entering fruit machine rooms or accessing Singapore Pools' online gambling services.

Clause 134 codifies the current exemption or permit conditions in law, to allow NCPG to issue exclusion orders to persons to prevent them from entering fruit machine rooms and from betting on Singapore Pools' online gambling products, in addition to being excluded from the casinos.

We will also introduce an entry ban by law enforcement agencies and GRA in Part 6 Division 1 to ban individuals who pose law-and-order or regulatory concerns from entering fruit machine rooms and accessing Singapore Pools' online gambling products.

Advertising. Currently, the Remote Gambling Act, the Betting Act and the Common Gaming Houses Act criminalises advertising and promoting unlawful gambling. However, the threshold for proving an advertising and promotion (A&P) offence, or an A&P offence, for unlawful online gambling today is lower than that for unlawful physical gambling.

For online gambling, the offence can be made out as long as there is A&P for gambling, without the need to prove that the promoted site actually provides gambling.

However, for physical gambling, there is a need to link the A&P offence to actual unlawful physical gambling. This sets a higher bar and imposes enforcement difficulties.

Hence, to address this difference in thresholds, clause 85 introduces an offence for advertising unlawful gambling where we will apply the threshold that we currently have for online, to physical gambling. Hence, for physical gambling, there is no need to link the A&P to actual unlawful physical gambling.

While this lowers the threshold for physical unlawful gambling, we have provided defences in clause 86, such that any person would not be guilty of an offence if they can prove that they established or they published the advertisement as an accidental or incidental accompaniment to the publication of another matter and did not receive any benefit from the A&P.

GRA will also be empowered in clause 87 to order corrective measures on persons advertising unlawful gambling. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore adopts a strict but pragmatic approach towards gambling. With the advancement of technology, unlawful gambling activities have been moving rapidly online. Criminal syndicates have also increasingly made use of various platforms, such as online games, shopping, and betting websites to induce people to spend irrationally. As illegal gambling can cause serious societal problems, we need to adjust our laws to tighten our regulation control and enforcement over such activities.

We are making several adjustments to gambling legislation.

First, the Government continues to take a stern view of unlawful gambling. We will be raising the penalties for participating in, promoting, and conducting unlawful gambling. Police will not hesitate to take stern enforcement action against such activities.

Second, we will exempt social gambling amongst family and friends in homes. However, Police will take a stern enforcement stance against abuses and illegal gambling operators who take advantage of this exemption.

Lastly, private establishments with gambling activities for their members will be required to apply for licences from the Gambling Regulatory Authority. In the past year, we had consulted the relevant stakeholders, and are heartened by their understanding and support. In the upcoming transition period, we will work closely with them to implement this licensing regime.

(In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will now move on to the Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) Bill.

Gambling regulation in Singapore is currently overseen by various Government agencies. These are CRA, the Gambling Regulatory Unit in MHA headquarters, the Singapore Totalisator Board, the Police and MSF.

We propose to expand the CRA today to form GRA as the single regulator for all forms of gambling, to pool and optimise resources and expertise across the Government.

I will outline the pertinent aspects of the GRA Bill.

Part 2 of the Bill establishes GRA as a body corporate similar to other statutory boards. Clause 5 outlines GRA's functions, which include regulating gambling activities in or affecting Singapore to ensure that it is conducted honestly and free from criminal influence and exploitation; fostering responsible gambling and minimising harms caused by gambling; and setting and maintaining standards and accountability for the conduct of gambling.

Parts 3 to 6 of the Bill contain the corporate governance provisions of GRA, aligned with the Public Sector (Governance) Act.

Part 7 of the Bill contains provisions for the administration and enforcement of the Bill.

Part 8 of the Bill makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts, including the Casino Control Act and the Gambling Duties Act and the Singapore Totalisator Board Act.

Part 9 of the Bill provides saving arrangements in ensuring continuity of matters despite the renaming of CRA and the amendments to the Casino Control Act.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Gambling Control Bill and GRA Bill aim to consolidate and update our gambling regulation and laws. These Bills are necessary to ensure that we continue to address the law-and-order and social concerns arising from gambling and also to keep pace with the evolving gambling landscape. I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

2.10 pm

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.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

2.15 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Madam, as Parliament sits today to debate the Gambling Control Bill and the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore Bill, a fact that should be at the forefront of our minds is this: Gambling may seem like harmless fun for many people, but it can be a scourge on families impacted by problem gambling.

The National Council for Problem Gambling (NCPG)'s 2020 survey found that almost half of Singapore residents aged 18 and above participate in gambling activities, with 6% reporting that they lack self-control when gambling. The survey found that gamblers with poorer self-control are more likely to regret the way they have gambled, have emotional problems and have family quarrels. Worryingly, 37% of Singapore residents with no income reported participating in gambling.

Regrettably, the avenues for Singaporeans to gamble have expanded over the years. Two casinos were opened in 2010 and in 2019, the Government raised the cap on the number of slot machines allowed and increased the floorspace allocated to gambling. In 2016, Singapore Pools and the Turf Club were allowed to operate online gambling services, including sports betting. This remains a concern, as according to the NCPG survey, 23% of gamblers who participated in sports gambling reported poor self-control.

With this in mind, I would like to sound a note of caution about any further expansion of the space for gambling in Singapore. Social gambling is not disallowed by current legislation. This Bill explicitly legalises social gambling in Singapore. On one hand, the Government has said that in the past, the law can and should reflect social norms and attitudes. As a matter of logical consistency then, should the Government not be cautious about making social gambling explicitly legal, so as to avoid being seen as issuing an official stamp of approval for gambling?

On the other hand, as a practical matter, since social gambling has never been illegal, what is the concrete policy gain in providing this inadvertent signal of acceptability? I would therefore like to understand the Government's reasons for explicitly legalising social gambling.

The Bill also does not proscribe social gambling by minors. May I ask the Minister of State, why there will be no restrictions on minors engaging in social gambling? I hope this does not mean the Government condones gambling by minors. How does the Government intend to communicate to children, adolescents and their parents that it discourages gambling by minors? I am also concerned how explicitly permitting gambling for children could provide a gateway for more problem gambling habits later in their lives.

Current policy to prevent gambling by minors is inconsistent. While the minimum age is set at 18 for certain types of gambling, such as 4D, Toto or placing horse racing bets, it is set at 21 for casino gambling. In recent years, the Government has raised the minimum smokeing age from 18 to 21, so as to denormalise the use of cigarettes among adolescent youths, especially since most cultivate the habit between the ages of 18 and 21.

The NCPG survey similarly found that 35% of Singapore residents had their first gambling experience between the ages of 18 and 24, the highest among all age groups. With this evidence in mind, can MHA consider taking the same approach as with smoking and harmonise the minimum gambling age to 21 across the board? This could ameliorate the pernicious effects of gambling on not just young people but also on their families and society.

I would now like to discuss the particularly challenging issue with respect to combatting gambling by minors, which is loot boxes. Loot boxes are virtual items within games that can be purchased and redeemed to receive another random desirable virtual item. Gaming companies have been pushing loot boxes in their games, especially in mobile games, leading to increased gaming spending and debt. Many consumers of loot boxes are children. Research from the UK has found that of the 93% of children who play video games, 25% to 40% have made loot box purchases. Other research has found consistently and unambiguously a link between loot boxes and problem gambling.

This being so, I would like to ask the Minister of State as to how the Gambling Control Bill intends to regulate loot boxes in online games. Clause 9 of the Gambling Control Bill defines a lottery as a scheme to distribute prizes based on luck and prizes here refer to money, or money equivalents or anything of value. Can I ask the Minister of State whether the Gambling Control Bill considers such virtual rewards to be things of value, even when they cannot be monetised, such that operating any loot box system would be considered operating a lottery? If so, what will the regulatory regime for online game operators be like?

Several other countries have already sought to regulate or restrict loot boxes in online games. Belgium's gaming commission has declared loot boxes to be gambling and hence, illegal. The Netherlands' gaming authority issues a legal opinion that some loot box system contravene the Dutch betting and gambling act, hence, requiring the relevant game developers to change their mechanics or face fines or even game prohibition. In Asia, China has imposed daily limits on the number of purchased loot boxes that a player can open, while Japan has banned complete gacha, which is a system that offers rare prizes to players who successfully obtain a complete set of items through random draws.

Of course, game developers can and do find ways to circumvent these restrictions. But this is no reason to do nothing. The Government will just have to ensure that regulation is sufficiently nimble to keep up with technology.

I have spoken of law and policy thus far, but no amount of regulations and restrictions will be able to completely eliminate gambling activities in Singapore. In fact, one argument against prohibition is that it might drive gambling activities underground. We therefore need active educational efforts to discourage gambling among our population. With the introduction of the Gambling Control Bill, will there be greater educational efforts to discourage Singaporeans, particularly young people, from participating in gambling activities and delaying their first gambling experience?

I am glad to know that schools have since 2021 been trying to teach students about the ills of loot boxes. I would urge MOE to continue to assess the efficacy of such programmes. Have such educational efforts been found to genuinely reduce loot box use among youths? And if not, how can such outreach be improved?

I understand that many Singaporeans gamble on occasion. However, the risk of problem and pathological gambling and its often accompanying financial ruin, is very real. On balance, the job of public policy in the area of gambling is to maintain moderation. To allow responsible adults to take part in this activity, but not so much that they ruin themselves and to discourage impressionable children from taking up the habit in the first place.

In summary, I would like to call on the Government to reassess its position on social gambling and to take a strong stand against gambling by children, especially in the area of loot boxes. We should complement policy levers with better education against gambling. More generally, I call on Parliament to take a stronger stance against gambling. I hope the Minister of State will be able to address the concerns I have raised in the Bills, but not withstanding these concerns. I support the Bills.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.

2.23 pm

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I spoke on the Gambling Duties Bill last month where I shared my thoughts on the higher casino tax rates and raising betting taxes, especially given the social objective of avoiding its excessive consumption. I have also raised concerns about the issue of problem gambling and of dedicating additional resources towards gambling safeguards and rehabilitation of problem gamblers. Pertinent points which I would like to reiterate today as we debate the Gambling Control and Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore Bills.

In my view, these Bills are positive steps to stay ahead in the ever-changing gambling landscape with an increasingly blurred boundary between gambling and gaming. The reconstitution of the Casino Regulatory Authority with the rationalisation and consolidation of other Government agencies, such as the Gambling Regulatory Unit, Singapore Tote Board, departments within the Police and MSF that are addressing social gambling problems to establish a single unified Gambling Regulatory Authority is an important step of consolidating resources to address gambling, not just from narrow, segregated lenses, but taking a holistic approach to gambling policies and issues.

One issue, which I believe warrants attention, is the blurring boundaries between gambling and gaming. Business models have adapted to changing customer preferences by introducing gambling elements that are traditionally not perceived as gambling, such as loot boxes in both physical gaming arcades and in virtual games, which my colleague, Aljunied Member of Parliament, Mr Gerald Giam, has spoken about earlier. However, while physical gaming arcades are waning in popularity and ubiquity in our shopping malls today, with some game developers, such as Epic Games, removing loot boxes from Fortnite and other games, we can be sure that gaming developers will be moving fast, faster than regulators globally in trying to innovate their ways to higher profits.

One particular area of concern in my view, is that of non-fungible tokens or NFT gaming. As it is, Electronic Arts (EA)'s FIFA Ultimate Team packs, which are a form of loot boxes or surprise mechanics, in the words of the company, have their benefits restricted to the in-game experience. And indeed, I note in the public consultation last year that the current regulations do not consider games of chance with virtual prizes as gambling as long as there are no in-game monetisation facilities that allow players to exchange virtual prizes for real-world payouts.

However, when a picture of a monkey looking bored can cost as high as a few million dollars and potentially having benefits in the physical world, then you know that the stakes and potential financial rewards from being successful in an NFT game are significantly much higher. NFTs may also be sold for cryptocurrency, typically Ethereum, which can then be sold for fiat currency eventually.

On the more simplistic level, there are also actual gambling facilities in particular games where you can lose in-game currency purchased with fiat currency, like the casino in GTA Online. May I ask if the GRA has dedicated resources looking at not just loot boxes, but other evolutionary forms of games of chance or gaming activity and how does the Ministry intend to get ahead of the curve in monitoring developments in this area?

This brings me to my second point on illegal online gambling. Even as recent as last week, I have received SMSes from local mobile numbers and WhatsApp messages inviting me to online casinos or to set up betting accounts for football or horse racing. May I ask, how is the Ministry looking to clamp down on such activities, particularly as some of them may not be physically operating such syndicates within Singapore, but yet are clearly targeting locals.

Next, I note the new offence of proxy gambling, which I understand was to close a loophole where there was a case in 2019 in which the individuals could not be taken to task as proxy gambling was not previously criminalised. In 2016, when proxy gambling was banned in Macau, it was reported in Forbes that the business had migrated to other countries within Asia. What safeguards and regulations are being rolled out to ensure that the two casino licensees are proactively assisting the Government to enforce the ban on proxy gambling and what penalties could be imposed if they are found to be negligent or even abetting such practices?

And finally, the Gambling Control Bill has specifically provided an exemption regime for social gambling among family and friends conducted in homes. I believe many households, especially during Chinese New Year, would be relieved to hear that mahjong, "ban-luck" or blackjack sessions are not illegal per se. By extension, however, Singaporeans have taken to staycations and if my memory does not fail me, I recall mahjong sets and tables being part of items that are available for a loan at holiday chalets back in the day. Would social gambling at such non-home locations, among family and friends, fall under the exemption? At the same time, while it is not the Government's intention to babysit individual behaviours at home and most social gambling involve low quantum, low-risk bets placed on a recreational basis, I wonder what form of safeguards and support mechanisms are in place for families where there could be serious and regular high-stakes games in social gambling sessions or excessive social gambling sessions that results in gambling addiction. This could still have social costs which would just be as undesirable as other form of gambling.

While gamblers themselves, or their family members, can call the Gambling Addiction Hotline to restrict themselves from the casinos, we probably cannot ban people from entering other people's homes on a daily basis. Mdm Deputy Speaker, allow me to close in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] According to the National Council on Problem Gambling survey on Singaporeans' participation in gambling in 2020, 44% of Singapore residents aged 18 and above have participated in at least one type of gambling activity in the past year. While this may appear to be an improvement from 52% in 2017, COVID-19 restrictions may be one of the main reasons behind this. Since 2005, the gambling rate in Singapore has hovered around 50%.

Even as we restructure the CRA into a new GRA to strengthen the regulatory framework for gambling, we must also look squarely at the issue of problem gambling and continue to invest additional resources to strengthen social protection against problem gambling.

Of course, I am also aware of the Chinese saying "A small amount of gambling is entertaining". The Bill also clearly states that it is not illegal for friends and relatives to play mahjong at home. I understand that the police will crack down on any syndicate that takes the advantage to engage in illegal gambling activities. However, I also hope that we can provide more support and protection for families that need help, to prevent their family member from turning to problem gambling or pathological gambling from social gambling.

(In English): I support the Bill.

2.31 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the gambling landscape has evolved greatly. Modern and emerging forms of gambling, enabled by technology, make youths and even young children, susceptible to its insidious nature. Our seniors are also increasingly vulnerable as they are consuming more online content. We must ensure that our regulatory approach towards gambling is up-to-date and forward-looking.

Regulation and enforcement of gambling laws is sometimes like a cat and mouse game. Despite laws and resources to conduct enforcement, illegal service providers and gambling addicts will try to circumvent these regulations. They will also search for ambiguities to evade the rules. The constant stream of unsolicited text messages touting illegal betting activities comes to mind. I support the consolidation of regulation bodies under a single Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) to regulate all forms of gambling activities. This will allow for a more holistic and cohesive management of gambling policies, as well as the emerging trends and products related to gambling. In doing so, we can better identify and minimise loopholes in the system. In my Budget debate speech last week, I called for more efforts to streamline processes and reduce redundancy in the public service, to cut out unnecessary costs and resource wastage. Consolidating agencies and regulations is a step in the right direction. I have four queries on the Bill.

First, will the Ministry share details about how the merger of the different regulatory bodies will be conducted? How will the Ministry ensure that there are synergies between the different agencies that are being converged? Will this move lead to an excess of employees, who will have to be redeployed to other departments or agencies?

Second, how will the consolidation of gambling control measures impact the management of cross-border remote gambling? Despite good efforts from our Singapore Police Force to reign in illegal remote gambling, it is getting increasingly rampant. There have been several reports about remote gambling operations being uncovered in Singapore. It is also common to receive text messages from unknown sources that promote illegal gambling activities. Some elderly residents have asked me about the constant flow of texts they had received about horse and soccer betting. The borderless nature of remote gambling makes it clandestine. Compulsive gamblers would use Virtual Private Networks to access blocked websites and apps. Some countries have introduced or updated their remote gambling laws, including Germany, the UK and Switzerland. They would license some commercial remote gambling platforms, and subject them to gambling duties.

Third, can the Ministry provide further clarification on products and services containing financial risk elements, which are being excluded? For example, the Ministry clarified that there are no intentions of treating investments in financial products as gambling products, as those are already regulated through other legislations and fall under the purview of MAS. Likewise, the Ministry also stated the exemption for physical social gambling among family and friends at home. What about products like non-fungible tokens (NFTs), which are not regulated? Some have likened it to gambling because of the amount of speculation involved.

Lastly, how will the updated Advertising and Promotion (A&P) laws apply to activities containing an optional gambling element, including mobile games with mystery boxes? I note that the Gambling Control Bill seeks to introduce consistency with regards to treatment of A&P offences across all types of gambling. In Singapore, A&P for gambling activities is not allowed, unless specifically approved by the authorities. Currently, we still see such mobile games being advertised on mainstream media and outdoor advertising platforms.

Admittedly, a blanket restriction on A&P could come across as harsh for games, where the main gameplay has no gambling elements. Publicity for online games tends to be driven through player communities. Therefore, reducing exposure through A&P also has limits to practicality. Ultimately, education and awareness, along with laws and enforcement, are important to curb gambling. Parents too must do their part to impart financial literacy to their children and pay heed to their online activities.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will conclude in Chinese.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As the saying goes, there are no father and son at the gambling table. This shows that gambling is merciless. During my Meet-the-People sessions, I see residents who are addicted to online gambling and lost a lot of money. They do not know what to do. Hence, it is right to have a single agency to manage gambling activities holistically. I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.

2.37 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua) (on behalf of 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.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

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 Speaker: Minister of State Desmond Tan.

2.51 pm

Mr Desmond Tan: 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.

Mr Speaker: Clarifications? Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I thank Minister of State Desmond Tan and Parliament Secretary Eric Chua for the comprehensive answers to my questions and concerns. Can I just ask two clarification questions? Can I confirm first that under this Bill, there is no minimum age for social gambling? And secondly, what will NCPG's approach be to discussing social gambling with minors, for example, will NCPG actively discourage children and youths from gambling even at home?

Mr Desmond Tan: I thank the Member for the clarification. The first question, the answer is yes, there is no minimum age for social gambling within homes and that is the reason why we have mentioned that we wanted to put social gambling under the exemption regime precisely, and also to state the conditions. And so the conditions as mentioned, there are threefold. One, is that it has to happen in a home and not outside of the home; secondly, it has to happen within the context of a family, as well as friends, people acquainted with each other; and thirdly, there ought to be no gains, financial gains, from this social gambling.

I understand where the Member is coming from in terms of youths. I mentioned in my speech that when it comes to social gambling, especially during the festival period, we know and we recognise that this is something that is happening and this is something that is a tradition for some of the families as well. And we really urge that actually family members ought to also play a role to ensure that as we allow such social gambling to happen, it will not lead to undesirable behaviour and subsequently some kind of gambling addiction for our youths.

Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua has mentioned earlier on that the schools and NCPG have rolled out many programmes and we are mindful that actually our youths are vulnerable, they are exposed to possible inducement to gambling. That is why we have also strengthened our levers to ensure the inducement are minimised and we continue to work with agencies, with MOE as well as NCPG, to roll out different programmes to educate our people about social gambling. More importantly, going forward, as you have rightly pointed out, also about online gambling and online gaming activities, which is gaining traction among our young people.

Mr Speaker: Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.

Mr Eric Chua: I thank the Member Mr Giam for his question. I think NCPG's approach is that of a broad stroke, because to tackle the problem of youth gambling, we want to not just look at youth. We want to look at the family as well. I am sure you remember during the Chinese New Year period, we had Wang Lei on various YouTube advertisements and advertisements on TV as well, espousing the messages of, "Are you still gambling right now?" That was in Mandarin, by the way.

And specifically to youths, the message is Be Smart, Don't Start. And I cited the example of the CNA documentary series earlier about loot boxes. So that is the position of NCPG and they will continue working on the messaging for telling youth not to get started with gambling, and that is the key message and they will keep going at it. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Anymore clarifications?

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. – [Mr Desmond Tan].

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