Weigh pros of legal online betting as it comes at a cost

I refer to the article “Online betting to be allowed via S’pore Pools, Turf Club” (Sept 30).

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) cited Hong Kong and Norway as countries that have allowed authorised operators to offer online betting services.

Could the MHA clarify whether Hong Kong and Norway have experienced a decline in illegal online-betting activities as a result?

Has the MHA also conducted a study to determine what percentage of punters would use the online betting platforms offered by the exempt operators instead of participating in illegal online betting?

We should weigh the benefits of having exempt operators since there are severe social costs arising from easy accessibility to online betting.

Singapore Turf Club will be launching an online betting app on iOS and Android platforms. Currently, illegal online-betting websites do not have apps for players.

If the rationale for the MHA to allow online betting by exempt operators was to provide an alternative to illegal online betting, then why should Singapore Turf Club be allowed to offer online betting apps?

The app would make it more convenient for punters to place a bet, which is against the principle of reducing accessibility to betting in order to curb problem gambling.