| |
The
Straits Times, Forum Page 19 Mar 04
Casino 'means testing' a bad idea
I read with horror the statement of ministers George Yeo and Wong
Kan Seng that if and when a casino resort is built in Singapore, only
the well-heeled, or Singaporeans of a 'certain economic class' will
be able to gain entry.
I am not an advocate of gambling and I am not writing in support of
having casinos in Singapore. I am writing because this is the latest
example of how the Government is not allowing Singapore society to
mature beyond a nanny state where the government makes decisions on
its citizen's behalf.
A cornerstone of the present-day success of Singapore is the concept
of meritocracy, regardless of family wealth. Minister Wong himself
is a shining example of this, having come from a humble background.
That's such a wonderful testament to our meritocratic society.
The comments about having income thresholds for casino patrons, and
the unrelated moves by the Ministry of Health to apply means testing
for subsidised hospital wards are combining to nudge us towards a
wealth-conscious, class-based society.
In effect, Singapore is being turned into a society where the size
of your wallet will determine where you are permitted to go. If you
are rich, you are not allowed to stay in C-class wards. If you are
poor, you are not allowed into casinos ('Rich' and 'poor' being defined
by the Government, and it might be different for different purposes.
There could well be a group that is deemed too rich to stay in C-class
wards, but too poor to gamble.)
For the purpose of discussion, imagine the resulting scenario if we
proceed down this path where the Government sets an income threshold
for Singaporeans intending to visit casinos. I, a Singaporean, would
have to prove that I am worth of entry, while my friend, a Hong Konger,
would not have to undergo such a humiliating test.
In fact, for ease of administration, separate entrances may be built
at the casino entrace, for Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans. This
is discrimination, and we would become second-class citizens in our
own country. And what if it involves a group of Singaporeans? We could
go to the casino only with friends who also cross the income threshold.
Friends of low-income would be left behind.
What about the stay-at-home mother who is not allowed into the casino,
unlike her husband? (She heeded the call to have three children and
she is staying home to care for them, while running a small break-even-only
business on the side.)
Can we think of any country that applies a test on its citizens to
determine their eligibility to enter restricted places? (I can think
of one, but apartheid's been out of fashing for some years now.)
What I am objecting to is the application of an income test to determine
access into a place, any place. Income testing may well result in
the most unlikely bedfellows: hospitals and casinos.
If the authorities decide that a licenced casino resort is to be permitted
in Singpaore, then the accompanying social issues will just have to
be tackled in a head-on, mature fashion. If the authorities decide,
on a balance of things, that the accompanying social ills far outweigh
the projected economic benefits of a casino resort, then keep to the
status quo. At present, people who want to gamble simply head for
cruise ships which go nowhere. There are no income checks and certainly
no one deciding for them whether they are rich enough to gamble.
After the recent efforts by the Government to remake Singapore, it
is disheartening that there are signs that the nanny-state mindset
is still prevalent. If the Government continues to make decisions
on behalf of its citizens, we will never learn to make them for ourselves.
Loh Li-Yen (Ms)
The reply to her letter from the Ministry
of Home Affairs. |
|
