Introduction

Singapore laws strictly prohibit gambling and the advertising or promotion of gambling venues. Only limited exceptions exist. This article looks at the gambling laws in Singapore and how they apply to online gambling. The principal legislation are the (1) Betting Act (“BA”); (2) Common Gaming Houses Act (“CGHA”); and (3) Broadcasting (Class License) Notification (“BCLN”).

Legality Of Online Gambling

There are 2 main issues to online gambling:

1. Whether a user by gambling online commits a criminal offence. Two sub-issues arise here: The first is whether there is a distinction between online gambling in one’s own home and online gambling in “public” places such as Internet cafes. The second sub-issue is whether “casino-type” betting is different from “sports-type” betting.
2. What is the extent online gambling sites may advertise in Singapore. Such advertising is usually either on the Internet itself or in the advertisement sections of paper publications.

The following analysis assumes that the online gambling site is located on a server and is managed outside Singapore but is accessed by a Singapore resident through the Internet or as a dial-up service.

Sports-Type Betting

The Betting Act prohibits betting or wagering on any event or contingency relating to any horserace or other sporting event. Anyone managing or assisting in the management of a Common Betting House or Betting Information Center commits an offence under the Betting Act.

“Common Betting House” means:

1. Any place kept or used for betting or wagering on any event or contingency of or relating to any horse-race or other sporting event to which the public or any class of the public has or may have access;
2. Any place kept or used for habitual betting or wagering on any such event or contingency as aforesaid, whether the public has, or may have, access thereto or not; and
3. Any place used by a bookmaker for the purpose of receiving or negotiating bets or wagers on any such event or contingency as aforesaid whether or not the bets or wagers reach the bookmaker by the hand of the person placing the bet or his agent or the bookmaker’s agent or through the telephone or by post or by telegram or by any other means.

“Betting Information Center” means “any place kept or used for receiving or transmitting by telephone or other means any information relating to any horserace or other sporting event for the purpose of betting or wagering in contravention of this Act”.

An issue arises whether either Singapore Internet sites or a user’s home that is used access an Internet site (whether in Singapore or overseas) to place bets on horse races or sporting event is a “Common Betting House” or a “Betting Information Center” within the meaning of the Betting Act. Offshore Internet gambling sites are unlikely to be illegal under the Betting Act. This is because the Betting Act has no specific provision that they have extraterritorial application. While advertising in Singapore of an Internet gaming or betting site may be illegal, the actual operation of the offshore site is unlikely to be illegal unless managed within Singapore.

The mere act of accessing the site to place wagers from one’s own home would appear insufficient, by itself, to make one’s home either a common betting house or a betting information center since a home is not primarily for betting. However, if a user placed bets for another person, or frequently placed bets or wagers, a court might find that the user’s home is a place kept or used for habitual betting – which is then an offence.

The situation is also different if the Internet gambling site is available at a place that is open to the public, like in an Internet cafe. An Internet cafe that keeps a list of betting websites (it could even be in the browser’s bookmark list) can be said to have abetted the gambling conduct. Under such circumstances, a court could find that such an Internet cafe is either a common betting house or a betting information center.

Section 5(1) of the Betting Act states that unless there is an exemption by the Minister, “. . . any person who bets or wagers . . . with a bookmaker in any place or by means . . . shall be guilty of an offence.” Under the Betting Act, a bookmaker is “any person who, whether on his own account or as penciller, runner, employee, or agent for any other person, receives or negotiates bets or wagers whether on cash or on a credit basis and whether for money or money’s worth, or who in any manner holds himself out or permits himself to be held out in any manner as a person who receives or negotiates those bets or wagers; but does not include a club; its officers or employees operating or conducting a Totalisator or pari-mutuel or any other system or method of cash or credit betting authorised by the Minister under section 22.

Section 5(1) of the Betting Act itself does is not limited to sports betting or wagering and appears to cover all forms of betting and wagering. However the Betting Act is primarily concerned with sports betting and wagering. The Common Gaming Houses Act governs gaming in general. Therefore, a court may interpret Section 5(1) the Betting Act to be limited to sports betting and wagering.

Internet Casino Gaming

The Common Gaming Houses Act has 3 provisions directed at “gamblers”:

1. Section 7 of the CGHA prohibits any person from gaming in common gaming house. “Common gaming house” includes any place kept or used for gaming to which the public or any class of the public has or may have access, and any place kept for habitual gaming, whether the public or any class of the public has or may have access, and any place kept or used for a public lottery again whether there is a public access.
2. Section 8 of the CGHA prohibits any person from gaming in public place.
3. Section 9 of the CGHA prohibits any person from buying or depositing money to or with any person concerned in the business of a common gaming house as a stake or buying a lottery ticket. It further states that every lottery ticket bought or introduced into Singapore will be forfeited to the Government. Print-outs of Internet gaming websites could be “lotteries”. Managing or assisting in the management of a Common gaming house is an offence under the CGHA.

Two main issues arise from the above provisions of the CGHA. The first issue is whether either an Internet website or a user’s home is a common gaming house within the meaning of the CGHA. The second issue is under what circumstances a person violates the law by accessing and using an Internet gambling website.

As with the Betting Act, the actual management of the offshore gambling site is unlikely to be illegal under the CGHA unless the person manages the site from Singapore. Further, the mere act of accessing the site to game from one’s own home would presumably be insufficient, by itself, to make one’s home a common gaming house, unless perhaps a user were to place bets for another person or if the person habitually gambles there.

Similarly, if the Internet cafe abetted the gambling conduct by, for example, keeping a list of Internet gambling Web sites, a court could decide that it is a common gaming house.

Sections 8 and 9 of the CGHA are relevant. If the user is accessing the website and gambling from a public place, such as an Internet cafe, such conduct could be found to violate Section 8 of the CGHA. Further, if a user pays or deposits any money or money’s worth to or with the Internet gambling website as a stake in a public lottery or buys a lottery ticket, such conduct could be illegal under Section 9 even if the user is accessing the site from his or her own home.

Advertising

Advertising of common betting houses, common gaming houses and betting information centers is generally prohibited by the Betting Act and the CGHA. The Betting Act specifically refers to the illegality of advertising a common betting house or betting information center, even if the house or center is not in Singapore. The language of the Common Gaming Houses Act is less clear. It prohibits any solicitation that would encourage a person to commit a violation of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of the CGHA. The prohibition on advertising appears to apply to any advertising conducted in Singapore, and would not appear to apply to offshore advertising (which would be difficult to enforce).

Class License Scheme for Internet Regulation

For regulatory purposes, Singapore treats Internet content similar to broadcast media content, such as television and radio. The Media Development Authority (MDA) administers the Singapore regulations relating to Internet content. The MDA, has said that, unlike broadcast media, fully regulating the Internet is impossible and that success of this scheme would depend on industry self-regulation and community support to identify objectionable websites.

Section 8 of the Broadcasting Act provides that no person may provide any licensable broadcasting service in or from Singapore without a broadcasting licence granted by the MDA. A “broadcasting service” includes supplying information over the Internet. Section 9 of the Broadcasting Act provides that the MDA may by notification published in the Gazette grant class licenses for specified licensable broadcasting services. The Broadcasting (Class License) Notification 2001 (“BCLN”) which regulates the provision of Internet related services came into effect on 15 July 1996. The BCLN provides that the following licensable broadcasting services are subject to a class license:

1. Audiotext services;
2. Videotext services;
3. Teletext services;
4. Broadcast data services;
5. VAN computer online services; and
6. Computer online services that are provided by Internet Content Providers (ICPs) and Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

ICPs and ISPs

The class license covers ICPs and ISPs who provide licensable broadcasting services as specified in the BCLN. They will be automatically licensed and be subject to the terms of the licence as set out in the BCLN.

The BCLN defines an ICP to mean either any individual in Singapore who provides any program for business, political or religious purposes on the World Wide Web through the Internet or any corporation or groups of individuals (including any association, business, club, company etc. . . . whether registrable or incorporated under the laws of Singapore or not) who provides any program on the World Wide Web through the Internet.

The Broadcasting Act defines “programme” to mean, broadly, any matter the primary purposes of which is to entertain, educate all or part of the public or any advertising whether commercial or not. The definition excludes any matter that is wholly related to or connected with any private communication.

The BCLN defines an ISP to mean an Internet Access Service Provider (IASP) licensed under section 5 of the Telecommunications Act (Cap. 323) and Internet service resellers who are more specifically defined as Localised Internet Service Resellers and Non-localised Internet Service Resellers. There are currently three existing IASPs Singnet, Pacific Internet and Starhub. Broadly, Localised Internet Service Resellers refer to service providers who provide Internet services to the public at specific locations, for example, Internet cafes, libraries, community centers and schools and Non localised Internet Service Resellers refer to network services that obtain Internet access from IASPs and resell subscriptions to the public.

Registration

Besides the automatic licensing of ICPs and ISPs providing specified licensable broadcasting services, the conditions of the class license impose a registration requirement on ISPs and certain ICPs. All ISPs must register with the MDA. ICPs need not register except an ICP who is or the MDA decides is:

1. A political party registered in Singapore providing any program on the World Wide Web through the Internet;
2. A body of persons engaged in the propagation, promotion or discussion of political or religious issues relating to Singapore on the World Wide Web through the Internet;
3. In the business of providing an online newspaper for a subscription fee or other consideration; or
4. An individual providing any program for the propagation, promotion, discussion of political or religious issues relating to Singapore on the World Wide Web through the Internet.

Such licensees are required to register with the MDA within 14 days of commencement of their services.

Obligations of Licensees

The conditions of the class license set out in the Notification require a licensee to, among other things:

1. Comply with the laws of Singapore.
2. Help the MDA investigate any breach of its license or any alleged violation of any law committed by the licensee or any other person and produce any information as the MDA may require for the investigations;
3. Inform the MDA of any intention to broadcast its service on a radio frequency, any spare capacity or sub-carrier on a television or radio channel or television lines in the vertical blanking interval;
4. Keep and furnish to the MDA all information relating to the provision of its services as the MDA may require;
5. Use its best efforts to ensure that its service complies with such codes of practice as the MDA may issue and is not used for any purpose and does not contain any program that is against the public interest, public order or national harmony or offends against good taste or decency;
6. In the case of an ICP who provides a Web page on the World Wide Web through the Internet to which other persons are invited to contribute or post programs, such an ICP shall use its best efforts to ensure that such programs conform with such applicable codes of practice as the MDA may issue; and
7. Remove or prohibit the broadcast of the whole or any part of a program if the MDA informs the licensee that the broadcast is contrary to a code of practice or is against the public interest, public order or national harmony or offends against good taste or decency.

A licensee providing audiotext services, videotext services, teletext services, broadcast data services, and value-added network online services must :

1. Ensure that its service is not used for or further games and lotteries, the conduct of which is an offence under the Common Gaming Houses Act unless the licensee is exempted from the provisions of that Act; and
2. Avoid the broadcast of horseracing analyses, commentaries or tips, other than horseracing results, for the purpose of gambling.

The MDA has said that the failure to comply with the conditions of the class license may result in warning letters and fines. The BCLN does not specify any penalties.

Part VIII Broadcasting Act

A mechanism in part VIII of the Broadcasting Act allows the MDA to deem a foreign broadcasting service unacceptable if the MDA considers it to include matter that prejudice the public interest or order, national harmony or offends against good taste and decency. Section 30 of the Broadcasting Act makes it an offence of any person in Singapore to advertise or promote such a service, or to supply equipment or programming in that connection.

The MDA has confirmed that where individuals put materials on the Internet that are not on local politics, religion or for business, for example, on an individual home page, such materials will not come under the class license scheme, nor fall within the MDA jurisdiction. However existing local laws will apply and other enforcement agencies will take action if necessary. The MDA also confirmed in the industry guidelines that e-mail, is considered to be private communication and would not be regulated by the scheme. The MDA did note that in certain cases fell outside its jurisdiction, it could ask ISPs to remove objectionable material and to help investigate cases where the law has been breached.

The MDA has required ISPs in Singapore since 15 September 1996 to use filtering mechanisms to block sites deemed to be objectionable by the MDA. The MDA has clarified that the requirements on ISPs is to limit access to objectionable sites and that the ISPs need not use proxy servers. ISPs are free to use other filtering mechanisms apart from proxy servers. However all three ISPs in Singapore have identified the proxy servers method as a more efficient way of meeting the MDA’s requirments. In addition to the MDA blacklist, all three ISPs have a “safe-surf” programme for subscription by its users who require such services.

The MDA also has clarified that its rules on filtered access applies only to bodies that provide services to the public. It excludes corporations that provide Internet access solely to the employees for business. This means that employees of companies that have high speed telephone lines, leased by the ISPs will have unrestricted access.

The Ministry of Information and the Arts established the National Internet Advisory Committee (NIAC) in August 1996 to help the MDA regulate the Internet in Singapore. The NIAC consists of people from different professions appointed for a two-year term. The NIAC will look not only at information provided on the Internet but also at other electronic information services including foreign news wire services, electronic bulletin board and mobile networks.

The prosecution of Lai Chee Chuen, a Singapore citizen, for possession of pornography that he had downloaded from the Internet raised a considerable degree of concern within the local Internet community that its use of the Internet was being or would be actively monitored by the MDA. The MDA (in its previous incarnation, the Singapore Broadcasting Authority) had given assurances that it is not an offence merely to visit a pornographical site on the Internet. The statement said that the MDA and ISPs did not monitor what individual access on the Internet in the privacy of their own home. The MDA was concerned mainly with purveyors and distributors of pornography and was taking the same approach as with videos, firms and publications. Similar to the prohibitions against interfering with postal and telephone communications, the statement stressed that no one should interfere with an individual’s communications on the Internet.

The three ISPs have said that they do not monitor the type of material accessed by each subscriber. However, they said that they would cooperate with law enforcement authorities where possible if they receive requests for information on the type of files downloaded by their subscriber.

What About Related Service Providers?

As this is an important area for businesses like payment gateway providers, networks providers and other e-services providers, we have set out the text of the relevant statutes first with what we believe to be how these provisions will be interpreted.

Section 5(a) of the CGHA provides that “Any person who …. assists in the carrying on of a public lottery …. shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $20,000 and not more than $200,000 and shall also be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.”

Section 2(1) of the CGHA defines “lottery” as including “any game, method, device, scheme or competition whereby money or money’s worth is distributed or allotted in any manner depending upon or to be determined by chance or lot, whether the same is held, drawn, exercised or managed within or without Singapore”.

It further defines “public lottery” to mean “a lottery to which the public or any class of the public has or may have access, and every lottery shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to be a public lottery”.

Under paragraph 15 of the Schedule to the BCLN, “A licensee who provides any licensable broadcasting service ….., shall: (a) ensure that its service is not used for, or in furtherance of, games and lotteries, the conduct of which is an offence under the Common Gaming Houses Act (Cap. 49) unless the licensee is exempted from the provisions of that Act; (b) avoid the broadcast of horse-racing analyses, commentaries or tips, other than horse-racing results, for the purpose of gambling; ….”.

Thus service providers in Singapore (like payment gateway providers or internet access providers) who knowingly provide services that would “assist” an Internet gambling website could be prosecuted for an offence under Section 5(a) of the CGHA.

Unlike Section 5(a) of the CGHA, there does not appear to be any similar provision in the Betting Act concerning “Sports-type betting”.

Conclusions

The developments describes above, and the views expressed by the MDA should be of interest to the Internet gambling industry for several reasons.

First, the MDA, unlike the regulatory authorities in some Asian countries, does not appear to view itself as having extraterritorial jurisdiction over ICPs and other service providers that are not in Singapore, even if those services are accessible to the Singapore public. This is consistent with the MDA stated intention to regulate broadcast, not user access, and is consistent with ordinary notions of extra-territoriality.

Second, while ISPs must limit access to websites that the MDA deems objectionable, the MDA has provided assurance to the Internet using public that it has no intention to monitor the use of the Internet by user, nor does it intend to interfere with a home user’s ability to access the Internet. Although the MDA can extend the list of websites, it does not appear to have done so. Assuming that the MDA’s position that merely visiting a pornographic website is not an offence does not change, it may also apply to to visiting gambling websites from within one’s home. However actual gambling on such Websites may be view differently.

Further, other law enforcement authorities in Singapore may view actual gambling differently and prosecute under different legislation. Mr Lai Chee Chuen was discovered to have downloaded pornographic materials resulting from an Interpol investigation into child pornography in Singapore. He was prosecuted under the Films Act for possession of such materials.

As the ISPs have said that they would comply with law enforcement requests for information regarding data downloaded by their customers, home users have to be cautious. If the law enforcement authorities were clamp down on Internet gambling, the downloading by a Singapore resident of any software needed to access the gambling website could be evidence of gambling activity and could be monitored by the ISPs for the relevant authorities.

An area to watch out for would be mobile gambling. If the mobile gambling is not carried out through a website, then because there is no “single” location in mobile gambling, location-based legislation (like the Betting Act and the CGHA) may not be applicable. Further the BCLN may not apply to mobile services, unless it falls within the definition of “broadcast data services”, which would be unlikely if it is not carried out through a website. Regulations of content directed to mobile-phones may not be within the perview of the MDA since it may not be a “broadcast service”. Since it is not “infra-structure”, it also may not fall within the perview of IDA.