Legalising online betting defeatist, and could lead to rise in problem gambling

Designating Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club as exempt operators under the Remote Gambling Act is analogous to allowing e-cigarettes. It is a misstep.

We should be minimising gambling opportunities and targeting illegal online gambling, not offering a legal route to would-be and habitual gamblers. The current approach is defeatist.

The National Council on Problem Gambling’s research on the contact points when a non-gambler is exposed to betting should be considered, so that targeted policy measures can be taken to minimise such instances in the life cycle of a potential gambler.

There is poor evidence that offering gamblers a legal alternative reduces illegal gambling. Police investigation into illegal gambling would remain just as difficult.

Previously, when the casino ban was lifted to boost tourism and job creation, it was said in Parliament that the Government must “balance the economic plusses against the social fallout and the intangible impact on values, and make this overall judgment whether to proceed”.

In the present iteration, a law-and-order justification for keeping gambling above board and regulated was cited. Religious groups voiced their opposition in the shared space our secular democracy preserves, but the technocracy prevailed.

I agree with the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore that gambling affects not only the individual but also the family (“Muis urges Muslim vigilance against online gambling”; Oct 15).

A 2011 research paper, “Lottery gambling: A review”, in the Journal of Gambling Studies, states: “The poor are still the leading patron of the lottery and even the people who were made to feel poor buy lotteries.

“The legalisation of gambling has seen a significant increase of young people gambling, particularly in lotteries, and the best predictor of their lottery gambling is their parents’ lottery participation.”

This potentially subverts the post-independence generation’s values, of which we are the beneficiaries. Moreover, a sub-community is affected directly, as gambling affects the poor disproportionately.

In June, the paper “The relationship between the number of types of legal gambling and the rates of gambling behaviours and problems across US states” was published.

Based on telephone surveys of adults conducted in 1999-2000 and 2011-2013, researchers found progressively higher rates of problem gambling and frequent gambling as the number of legal types of gambling increased across different states.

What worries me most is the sense of control one may experience in rationalising online betting habits.

Let us note the trends: We increasingly google via our handheld devices to confirm truth claims or trends. Virtual reality continues to perfect the creation of pain points and the monetisation of solutions. E-payment methods are becoming more instant and accessible.

I would resurrect a mental picture that lacks cultural currency but retains its wisdom: A vice, like a pot of water to boil a frog, achieves its end surreptitiously but surely.

If we continue down this path from casinos to online gambling, new modes of gambling will germinate in our commerce, families, culture and leisure. I pray that a doomsday scenario for my country never happens.