| |
The
Straits Times Editorial, 29 Mar 04
Be practical about casino
IT IS hardly surprising the Government's decision to reconsider the
merits of allowing a casino in Singapore to enhance its status as
a tourist destination has stirred debate. For puritans, the issue
is clear-cut. Because a casino comes with all the known evils of gambling,
this road to perdition must never be opened in Singapore. This, after
all, was the main reason why the Government had long given the thumbs
down to the idea of a casino. There were valid reasons to take this
absolutist stand. But times have changed and the new thinking must
be understood in the light of the growing international competition
that Singapore faces as it tries to stay as a player in the big league.
From making computer microchips to becoming an aviation hub or medical
centre, Singapore's neighbours are fast catching up as they develop
their capabilities in offering the same services. One way for Singapore
to stay ahead is to broaden its appeal in international tourism. If
this means having a top-class casino among other holiday resort attractions,
so be it. After all, the idea is to transform Sentosa and the southern
islands into a new tourist draw.
To promote entrepreneurship, the Government wants to move away from
its longstanding rule 'to err on the side of caution and conservatism',
as Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said. 'We used to take
a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach,' he said. 'If a particular
activity was deemed to pose risks - even if only to a small section
of the population - we tended to disallow the activity. But increasingly,
our approach will be to balance the risks and potential problems the
activity might pose to society at large, against our desire to encourage
individual enterprise and initiative. And as long as the activity
does not cause unmanageable problems or harm to others, our default
position would be to allow the entrepreneurial activity with as few
bureaucratic impediments as possible.' This is the right approach
to take. Critics should see the Government's reconsideration of casinos
as a case of cutting another apron string. As far as possible, Singaporeans
must learn to do the right thing for themselves, particularly when
they want the Government to deregulate and liberalise. To placate
those who fear the social problems associated with gambling, there
will be rules to regulate entry for Singaporeans. But beyond the Government's
primary role of ensuring that the casino does not attract organised
crime, it should steer clear of micro-management. The entry rules,
if overly restrictive, are bound to spark controversy. People will
feel insulted, understandably so, if they get designated as 'poor'
and are denied entry. Other than the usual dress code and age restrictions
imposed by casinos everywhere, the business is best left to its own
self-regulation.
Ultimately, whether one steps into a casino or not is a personal decision.
As it is, there is little to prevent anyone from indulging in just
about most forms of gambling, and the reality is that many Singaporeans
visit casinos elsewhere. Look at it in another way: Allowing a casino
to operate in Sentosa, if a decision is confirmed, is not gambling
away Singapore's future. Casinos in other countries are cash cows
for the treasury. They are a lucrative source of revenue and it is
fair game for the authorities to levy taxes on casino takings. For
Singapore, it is estimated that the taxes from lotteries alone make
up a tenth of the Government's $16.5 billion annual tax revenue. With
more money, it can do more for the people. This is another point for
the puritans to ponder. |
|
