Outdated College Rule Plagues Student Life

J. GAMBLING AND GAMING

1. Gambling and gaming in any form is prohibited in the College. Poker, mahjong, pai kou etc are not allowed under any circumstances.

The rule regarding gambling and gaming is clearly written in the college rules last revised in June 2017 and updated (only the wording has been changed) in August 2020. While the potential harms of gambling and addiction are indisputable, banning games entirely is ineffective and even counterproductive. Instead, regulation is the way forward, unless college wishes to allow an underground gambling culture to prosper.

Why target gaming? Gaming is all about skill, gambling is all about chances (for example, playing poker is gaming, playing on slot machines is gambling). With gaming, you don’t necessarily need to play for money. The intention of entirely banning these games is to eliminate any risk of students gambling at all, but you can gamble with pretty much anything: on whether the tree at 82 lives or dies by next year’s time, on which freshmen get sorted onto which floor, and even on what colour shirt Sum Jeh chooses to wear tomorrow (playing black is usually a winning strategy, not that we have experience). Banning games that people traditionally gamble with won’t deter people from betting money if they already had the tendency to do so. It also won’t stop people from being exposed to gambling culture because we will be exposed to it outside of St. John’s one way or another. Besides, students may engage in gambling activities on the outcome of interhall competitions. Following this logic, we should surely ban all distractions within college walls, and also pens (students may stab each other), belts (what if they hang themselves?), or even razors (such a dangerous tool surely cannot be let anywhere near adults).

On a more serious note, allowing students to invest in the stock market is in contradiction with the gaming and gambling rule, as financial markets are nothing more than a giant game where investors hope to make money using their ‘predictions’. How is this not a giant gamble? Another critical failure of the current rule is the lack of appreciation of the more modern forms of gambling. The easiest way to gamble today is to bet online on websites such as Winnamax. Such websites have effectively replaced bookkeepers, and attracted addicts and the occasional gambler alike. Any hall policy which wishes to tackle the issue of gambling should place more emphasis on banning such websites rather than poker or mahjong.

Instead of playing mindless games to get drunk, revision of our gambling policy could even encourage intellectual training and exchange between students. Games such as poker and Mahjong involve a lot of complex thinking. Winning a game fair and square by using your calculations on probability shouldn’t be discouraged. You learn invaluable skills and ways of thinking that you cannot obtain from academic studies. Many students wish to play poker for fun, most of them not for the sake of winning money but simply for the excitement of playing the game. This is why poker sets with chips are popular: they allow players to gamble valueless chips, not money. Where is the harm in this?

Playing Mahjong is also an appreciation of local culture. It is what a lot of Hong Kong people play with their families and friends, especially during Chinese New Year. Why should we deprive this opportunity for the international students to participate in the local culture and bond with locals over the mahjong board? How about for the Malaysians, mainland Chinese, and Hong Kong people to connect further with this common identity?

University students are adults who have to handle most of the responsibilities which come with adulthood. Sheltering them in this way is not doing them a favour. Instead, SJC should nurture responsible future leaders. Ones who have their impulses under control, not ones that stay clear from vice because of a rule.

Instead of banning games, perhaps it is better to come up with an alternative solution where there can be a healthy and positive gaming culture whilst simultaneously regulating gambling. Take the Bridge club as an example, which has a similar nature to that of mahjong and poker. The establishment of such ‘official’ clubs may render our ability to regulate gambling better. What if we had a mahjong and poker room like that of Starr hall? Calling for the efforts of all JMs to brainstorm how we want the policy on gaming and gambling to be revised!

Further Readings:

Gaming Versus Gambling. Is This the Same Thing?

DISCLAIMER: The contents of this website are solely owned by the author of each article and does not represent the views of the Awareness Committee or the Editorial team.