| |
The
Straits Times, Forum Page, 26 Mar 04
Should we have a casino?
YES
I'VE always thought it was high time for Singapore to have a casino.
If Singapore seriously wants to promote itself as a fun place, it
has to do better than trumpeting bar-top dancing and reverse bungee
jumping. I visited Las Vegas some years ago and, till this day, I
remember the dynamism and vibrancy of the place, the ebullient vibes.
Singapore has nothing remotely resembling a decent nightlife and is
positively boring, compared to cities such as Hong Kong and Shanghai,
and needs to reinvent itself to remain attractive to foreign MNCs.
I don't foresee how organised crime, long a mainstay of an active
gambling scene and the bane of most governments, can ever abound,
much less take root, given the tightly-policed city state that Singapore
is.
Far from being a hive of criminal activity, a well-run and properly
regulated casino - Genting is an example - can be marketed as a wholesome,
family-oriented experience. Monte Carlo in Monaco with its pristine
and picturesque beaches, resorts and a casino for the rich and pampered,
has developed a reputation for attracting high-rollers, the swaggering
European elite.
What if Singapore can position itself as the Asian equivalent with
Sentosa and the Southern Islands? As competitors go, Singapore has
virtually the entire playing field to itself. Thailand and the resort
islands of Indonesia, namely Bali and Bintan, are almost exclusively
for low-budget backpackers and nature lovers. Hong Kong and Shanghai
have a dazzling entertainment scene but lack the beaches and the idyllic
'island resort' feel. Macau, popular with high-stakes gamblers, is
marred by its association with triads and crime.
Aside from reaping the obvious economic gains of building a world-class,
luxurious playground for the rich and famous, Singapore would be able
to boost its international profile, much like what Dubai has achieved.
Social problems will inevitably arise because gambling can have adverse
effects on the family setup, but I question the impact.
SHANE HUANG JINWEI
IT IS good to see the Government exploring the feasibility of a casino.
It shows that the Government is willing to open its mind even to subjects
that have been considered taboo for the longest time. Granted there
may be social repercussions but a progressive country needs to stop
worrying incessantly about too many things, especially when the pros
outweigh the cons, and the cons are not all that insurmountable.
One of the biggest worries is addiction to gambling and the ensuing
problems. But there are already many outlets to satisfy the urge to
gamble, including the casino ships which may be inconvenient but not
all that inaccessible.
A minister said that one solution is to restrict entry to those of
a certain economic class. But that smacks of elitism and discrimination,
not the done thing for a country that wants to be seen as progressive
and dynamic, judging from the Uniquely Singapore campaign. I remember
visiting a casino that issued entry cards with date and time of entry
marked on them. On each card, there are boxes with denominations from
$5 to $100. Each time you change cash for chips, the croupier would
stamp the appropriate boxes. This is in essence your credit limit
for the night. It also helps you keep track of your losses. I also
remember seeing cards with a helpline you can call if you felt that
you needed help. I believe this was a casino in the United States,
although I cannot remember which as I had visited a fair number in
my reckless youth! Of course, you could also apply for membership
and be given a card for entry without the credit limit.
My point is that it is possible to have measures to minimise any fallout.
Encourage the formation of self-help groups, make it mandatory for
the casino operator to contribute funds for counselling programmes...
It would be a pity to dismiss this potentially lucrative source of
revenue simply out of fear.
ALICIA TAN GEK CHENG (MS) |
|
