Singapore netizens challenge Critical Spectator’s controversial assumptions on lotteries’ spending and cost of living

The Polish blogger Michael Petraeus, better known as ‘Critical Spectator’, recently stirred up controversy again by making disparaging remarks about everyday Singaporeans.

On Monday (19 Nov), Petraeus on his Facebook page shared a news article from the Straits Times detailing the Tote Board’s annual report.

The report revealed that punters spent a staggering S$10.3 billion on lotteries and sports betting in Singapore during the financial year ending March 2023.

This amount marked a 12% increase from the previous year’s S$9.2 billion, largely driven by heightened activity during the World Cup held in Qatar from November to December 2022.

This latest figure represents the largest sum wagered in the past decade, surpassing even the financial year ending in March 2019, which also coincided with a World Cup.

In response to this news, Petraeus remarked, “Seriously? S$10 billion spent on lotteries and betting?”

He added, “I don’t want to hear a single complaint about living costs anymore,” seemingly dismissing concerns about the cost of living.

Adding to the perplexity, Madam Ho Ching, former CEO of Temasek and spouse of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, shared the post made by the ‘Critical Spectator’.

It remains unclear whether Madam Ho Ching endorsed the Critical Spectator’s views, which implied that ordinary Singaporeans spent a significant amount on lotteries and betting, suggesting there should be no complaints regarding the cost of living.

Netizens challenge Critical Spectator’s assumption on lotteries spending and cost of living

However, upon examining the comment section of Critical Spectator’s Facebook post, it becomes evident that several netizens have challenged his viewpoints.

Some have highlighted that the Critical Spectator seems to have overlooked crucial aspects regarding the data concerning people’s expenditure on the lottery.

Various netizens emphasized the importance of understanding the context that leads individuals with lower incomes to invest in lotteries.

For many, buying these tickets symbolizes a beacon of hope for a better life. Furthermore, some suggested that the recent surge in the cost of living has potentially pushed some individuals into making desperate bets, clinging to the prospect of a windfall to alleviate their pressing financial hardships.

A comment highlighted that Individuals situated on the lower tiers of the socio-economic pyramid might find themselves restricted to betting on the lottery, while wealthier individuals opt for casinos to seek a more luxurious experience.

Another comment underscored the increased spending on the lottery could indicate a perception among people that the economy is either in a poor state or worsening for them personally.

“People who have little to no money and those who feel like they do not have as much money as they used to, will spend more on the lottery than they would in better economic times,” the comment wrote.

Pat Low, a Singaporean blogger, notably entered the debate, criticizing Mr Petraeus’s comment for displaying a lack of understanding of the struggles faced by the less fortunate.

Furthermore, Low challenged Petraeus by questioning whether his assumptions were based on thorough research.

Netizens raise doubt on Mr Petraeus’s assumption

Some comments have highlighted a fallacy in Mr Petraeus’s assumption.

In fact, Singapore Pools, the sole licensed operator of lotteries and sports betting services in the city-state, chose not to disclose a breakdown of bets placed on various games, citing commercial confidentiality.

As a result, doubts were raised regarding the origin of the S$10 billion spent.

There’s scepticism about the assumption that the entire sum came from individuals with limited financial means.

And true enough, a 2021 survey conducted triennially by the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) revealed that the median monthly betting amounts among gamblers decreased from S$30 in 2017 to S$15 in 2020, with 89 per cent of gamblers betting S$100 or less per month.

In response to a netizen’s query, Petraeus defended his viewpoint, emphasizing that the focus should be on the relative value of the money rather than its sheer quantity.

He acknowledged that a significant portion of the total amount likely came from wealthier individuals.

However, he then continued by delving into further bias, stating, “which isn’t that surprising given how Chinese people like to gamble. But they can afford to lose that money.”

He further repeated his comparison about individuals who complain about minor expenses, such as an additional 50 cents for a meal, while simultaneously spending hundreds of dollars annually on Toto.

A netizen brought up an essential argument that if the government aimed to eliminate gambling behaviors, it could dismantle Singapore Pools, similar to the approach taken with the turf club.

Additionally, the government could enforce a ban on cigarette smoking, mirroring the prohibition of e-cigarettes, if there is a will. However, the netizen highlighted the reasons behind the government’s reluctance to take such measures.

“Firstly they are stopping poor people from buying a hope. The poor have their lotteries while the rich has their investment schemes. “

“Secondly, they are denying the people of a choice in life. “

The netizen pointed out that, ultimately, this move would also hinder substantial revenue collection for the government, leading to increased expenditure on shutting down illegal outlets.