Is playing poker legal?

Laws about playing poker vary from country to country, but playing a "friendly game of poker" amongst friends in a private residence is usually okay. Seek legal advice if you are in doubt.

In Singapore, there shouldn't be any problem, as the law has been relaxed considerably over the years. When we decided to base our Asia office and warehouse in Singapore, we sought legal counsel and government approval before establishing our business here. We wanted to make sure that playing home poker was allowed and selling products to service this market was also legal. The law governing the playing of games for money (whether or not skill is involved) is called the Common Gaming House Act and the police department division responsible for enforcing it is called the Gambling Suppression Branch.

There are two primary tests, or "limbs," of the CGHA. The first test is rather straight-forward: your poker venue cannot be open to the public. Almost all residences, most private membership clubs, and even many private businesses are pretty much closed to the public so that usually isn't an issue. The second test has been subject to more interpretation: even if your home is closed to the public, it cannot be used for "habitual" gambling. What does "habitual" mean? As you will see below, the court system has intrepreted it to mean that your home, club, or business cannot be used "primarily" for gaming purposes. That is, your Wednesday and Saturday night poker games are fine. On the otherhand, you probably shouldn't host a 10-hour game every single night of the week for "unemployed" strangers. For the typical home game, it should be pretty easy to prove that your game falls within the allowable limits of the law.

As with many laws, the Act is subject to interpretation by the court system, which in effect becomes the new law (depending upon in which court the case is tried). Most, if not all, of the recent case law, has shown a very player-friendly intrepretaion of the law. With the "new law" clarified, the police no longer focus on home games. Some of the cases were even written by the previous Chief Justice himself. Here is one such excerpt from Chua Seong Soi v Public Prosecutor where the Chief Justice acquitted the defendants on appeal (i.e. let them off the hook). You can clearly see that his interpretation of the law and his tone of voice are very player-friendly:

"For premises to be "habitually" used for gaming within the second limb of the definition, it was not enough for the gaming sessions to be frequent. To be a common gaming house, the premises must have been kept primarily for gaming. This was prima facie not the case here. Both companies on the premises were live and substantial companies and had been carrying on business at the premises for about 20 years, and the businesses were genuine and not just a façade for a common gaming house.

It appeared that the trial judge erred, in that he took too literal an approach to the term "habitual gaming." It is not uncommon for a person to invite his friends over for a game of, say, poker. This may happen more than once a week, and may even take place every week. There may even be monetary stakes involved. In such an example, it would not put too much of a strain on the English language to say that the host's premises become a place where "habitual gaming" occurs. However, it is absurd to say that the host by doing this opens himself up to criminal liability under the Common Gaming Houses Act. Not surprisingly, the courts take a purposive approach towards the interpretation of the second limb of the definition of "common gaming house." In R v Fong Chong Cheng [1930] SSLR 139, Stevens J explained that the second limb of the "common gaming house" definition refers to (at p 145):

'...a place which, though barred to the public, is kept or used by the owners or occupiers primarily for the purpose of gaming. I say 'primarily' because I think it is clear that a place does not become a common gaming house merely because gaming habitually occurs in it. A private residence is not a common gaming house because the owner makes a practice of inviting his friends to it to gamble. Nor in my opinion do the premises of an ordinary social club become a common gaming house merely because the club provides facilities for its members to gamble, and some of them habitually use the premises for that purpose...'

It is therefore not enough merely for the gambling sessions to be frequent. The premises must be kept primarily for gambling. This was prima facie not the case here..."

So, I think it is fairly safe to say that playing a typical game of poker in a private residence is legal in Singapore as long as the venue is not open to the public or the venue is not used "primarily" (in the Chief Justice's words) for "habitual" gambling.

One final note. While the Singaporean laws governing home poker games have relaxed considerably over the years, the law continues to be very tough on true gambling dens (venues either open to the public or used primarily for habitual gaming). Please do not buy our products if that is your intended use!