Source: National Archives of Singapore, Ronni Pinsler Collection
(About this post: I have been trying to write about the criminalization of gambling in the context of nationalism in Singapore for a while, focusing on the relationship between place, morality and legality. But the dearth of evidence has made it a very difficult task. I started with public media, parliamentary debates and whatever little I could find in the archives. Then, I found a new trove of materials in the legal records, which prompted me to rethink how to write this story. Suddenly, bits and pieces of evidence that I had discarded earlier started to become significant. The Tikam Tikam man, for example, became a classic figure that tells the story of how petty gambling became monstrous crime in the context of nationalism and through the medium of place (See below for what tikam tikam is). The tikam tikam man operated around schools, street theatres and fairgrounds, but it was in the school that his presence exploded into a kind of national threat. I thought this little episode is a great example of how place matters in our conceptualization of morality and legality. This short excerpt is part of a chapter in my book.)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
In the early 50s, an island-wide campaign was organized to rid “gambling stall racketeers” around schools. These itinerant hawkers on mobile carts were using small make-shift wheels of fortune to entice children to place bets with the hope of winning iced drinks and snacks.[i] In 1968, after the creation of the national lottery, there was a similar outcry when it was reported that teachers had formed “syndicates” to play Toto and the Singapore Sweepstake.[ii] Tuck-shop vendors in schools were also allegedly selling these lottery tickets.[iii] The ministry sent a message via telephone relay to all school principals to remind them to talk to their pupils during school assemblies about the evils of gambling and to take disciplinary actions against offenders. This provoked an immediate response from the Teachers’ Union to the Ministry as they felt that this instruction should have been “confidentially circularized in writing so that there would be neither unfavorable publicity for the teaching profession, nor confusion in the minds of teachers”.[iv] 10 years later, another controversial round of debate ensued in public media after 17 schoolchildren were expelled for gambling in a toilet stall.[v] Though the school principal and Minister defended this decision as the students had been given ample warning, letters to the press show that public opinion was divided. Was the punishment suitable for the crime? Would it not be better to counsel the students than to push the problem out to the streets? A parent did not fail to point out that the “irony of telling children that gambling is bad is that society itself condones it by, for example, legalizing Toto”.[vi]
The school was a mobile zone because school-children and youths radiated an aura of vulnerability wherever they gathered. The same censure of gambling in schools was directed at tikam tikam games, which were essentially petty games of chance where, for the stake of a few cents, the player picked a small envelope and stood to win if the number inside matched the number attached to a prize, which could be money, toys or small domestic items like pens, perfume and tooth-paste.[vii] In 1960, the Ministry of Education received letters from members of the public expressing concern that many hawkers were operating ‘tikam boards’ near schools, tempting children and transforming them into future scoundrels and gamblers. A police report submitted to the ministry alleged that there were 16 manufacturers of such boards in Singapore and they could be easily bought at no less than 90 provision and toy stores along two roads in Chinatown alone. Buyers of tikam boards were mainly Indian cigarette stall holders and hawkers who operated around schools and attracted teenagers and schoolchildren by displaying half-a-dozen of these colourful boards. The moral opprobrium grew from two conclusions in this report – first, at 5 cents per play, schoolchildren were often tempted to spend most if not all of their pocket-money on tikam tikam, thus forfeiting their lunch or bus-fare home; and second, the game was a swindle because the biggest prizes that were displayed often had no corresponding number in the envelopes. As such, these big prizes were never won and served instead to lure children as false advertising.[viii]
The period between 1960s and 70s saw several waves of police action against tikam operators. A crackdown was launched in 1960 which accosted 61 offenders.[ix] In this campaign, the police had to exhibit the tikam boards because “many operators and the public did not know it is illegal”.[x] School principals were once again tasked to forbid their pupils from playing this game.[xi] In the mid-60s, there continued to be complaints about tikam operators and a perverse case was reported where the juvenile court had to fine school children found in possession of tikam tikam envelopes.[xii] In 1970, pressing for a deterrent sentence, an Inspector argued that “operating a “tikam tikam’ stall might seem a very minor offence but a lot of schoolchildren have fallen victims of this game”. 12 tikam boards were seized from an operator, along with 180 packets of popcorn, 47 packets of prawn crackers, 220 sweets and 24 toys. In his defense, the operator said that “he did not know that it was an offence”.[xiii] By 1972, the number of tikam tikam convictions had decreased to two. There was however an upsurge in 1975 and the police had to step up enforcement again. 28 persons were arrested that year and a total of $4,287 of fines was imposed.[xiv]
The nefarious figure of a swindler preying on children, armed thickly with popcorn and crackers, exemplify the topsy-turvy world where the correlation between legality and morality had become frayed by the nationalist project. The tikam operator might be the monstrous target, but there were repercussions both perverse and unanticipated, such as when children were expelled or fined for petty gambling, or when teachers suffered collateral damage when their reputation was besmirched in the campaigns. We might never know, from such scant evidence, if the danger posed by these operators was as dire as the media portrayed. There seems to be a paradox where, on the one hand, official discourse painted a scenario of public outrage and moral panic, while on the other hand, members of the public and the operators did not always know that the game was illegal. Indeed, given the impassioned moral tone exhibited in the letters to the ministry and the official reports, the actual number of arrests was disproportionately small. The asymmetry between outrage and punishment, together with the recurring defense of ignorance and the fact that tikam tikam had been popular for more than 20 years since the 1940s, compel us to look past the portrayal of the game and its operator as simply a crime against children.[xv] Rather, this historical episode shows how an economically insignificant activity became symbolically potent and morally intolerable, and how this transition was located in and catalyzed by a specific place – the school. In this place, the concentration of vulnerable subjects distorted the relationship between legality and morality and transformed a minor crime into a moral danger that threatened the future of the nation.
[i] “1st steps in an islandwide campaign to wipe out the gambling racket near schools”, The Straits Times, 27 Jun 1952, 7. [ii] Toto and Sweepstake are legal lotteries run by Singapore Pools (Private) Limited. Toto was introduced in 1968 when the government-owned company was formed. This is discussed in detail in Chapter 4. [iii] “Ministry orders teachers: Don’t gamble”, The Straits Times, 24 Sept 1968, 9. [iv] Letter from Singapore Teachers Union to Ministry of Education, 1 Oct 1968. Encouragement of Gambling and Other Undesirable Activities, NAS 2190/60 [v] “Gambling Students warned …”, New Nation, 9 Dec 1975, 1; “Sack warning was given”, New Nation, 24 Deb 1976, 8. [vi] Sacking of pupils ‘too harsh’, The Straits Times, 17 Dec 1975: 9. See also “Dismayed to see students gambling”, New Nation, 16 Dec 1975: 8; “Expulsion is no solution” New Nation, 22 Dec 1975: 8; “Student sackings easy way out” New Nation, 15 Dec 1975: 8. [vii] “Who’s for strip poker tonight?” The Straits Times, 16 Aug 1964:3. [viii] Report on “Tikam Boards”. Encouragement of Gambling and Other Undesirable Activities, NAS 2190/60 [ix] “Big Swoop on Tikam Tikam operators”, The Straits Times, 24 Nov 1960: 4. [x] “Police war on “tikam’ racket”, The Straits Times, 11 Aug 1962:11. [xi] Edun. 2190/60/3 Ministry of Education, Unnumbered Circular. Encouragement of Gambling and Other Undesirable Activities, NAS 2190/60 [xii] “Court: Act against tikam tikam shops”, The Straits Times. 5 Mar 1966: 7. [xiii] “Tikam Men who prey on school children”, The Straits Times, 29 Jan 1970:7. [xiv] Tikam Tikam Operators (Action Against). Singapore Parliamentary Debates, 23 July 1976, pp. 988-989. [xv] Report on “Tikam Boards”. Encouragement of Gambling and Other Undesirable Activities, NAS 2190/60