| |
The
Straits Times, 25 Sep 04
INSIGHT:
The Casino toss-up
If a casino is built, will the economy win big? But will society also
lose big? Insight checks out the score in the debate
By Lydia Lim
RETIRED teacher Soh Chiew Peng hates the idea of a casino here
even as she recognises that people already gamble here, like
at the 4-D and Toto outlets scattered all over the island.
'I'm dead set against them too, but when they introduced those
things, they didn't ask us what we thought.' Mrs Soh, 54, says
she knows from personal experience how gambling addictions can
tear families apart. A relative of hers and one former classmate
went to jail after they turned to crime to support their gambling
habits.
'If the Government wants to boost the economy, there are other
ways,' she says. Mrs Soh has the backing of 47 per cent of the
population, according to a recent Straits Times survey.
|
ANY
COMMENT If you are opposed to a casino, will you dissuade
those you know from visiting it or let them decide for
themselves? If you want a casino here, how do you plan
to convince those on the other side? E-mail us at stpol@sph.com.sg
or fax us on 6732-0131.
THERE ARE OTHER WAYS 'Gambling is not the right way to
get money, hard work is. If the Government wants to boost
the economy, there are other ways.' - Mrs Soh Chiew Peng,
54, a retired teacher
IT DOES WONDERS FOR TOURISM 'Australia has casinos in
virtually try state and that has not only done wonders
for tourism and business but, more importantly, has also
not caused Australia to degenerate into some sleazy, crime-ridden
hell hole.' - Mr Tan Eng Hong, 47, an advertising professional
JUST ONE OF MANY AMENITIES 'Public discussion has so far
focused on the casino component of the proposed integrated
resort. However, it is just one of the many amenities
in the resort... For many world-class resorts, it is the
non-gaming amenities that attract large numbers of visitors.'
- Ministry of Trade and Industry, in a reply to Insight |
|
Their reasons for opposing a casino? The belief that it will cause
gambling addiction, family problems and crime to escalate. But the
other half of the population - 53 per cent - see it differently. They
believe Singapore should have its own casino as this will help boost
tourism, generate revenue and create jobs.
In this group is Mr Tan Eng Hong, 47, an advertising professional.
He says: 'Casinos are no longer sleazy, shady gambling dens of vice,
but glitzy and impressive mega tourist attractions.' Just look at
countries like Australia, says the father of two. It has casinos in
many cities and they have not degenerated into crime-ridden hot spots.
Mr Tan is sure a casino's economic benefits will outweigh the social
costs but there's little data to back his view, or Mrs Soh's opposing
one for that matter.
While the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) has been studying the
casino proposal for some months, it has yet to release figures on
potential benefits and costs.
What it would say is that no decision has been made yet on whether
or not to proceed. It reiterated that it is considering proposals
to build an integrated resort with a casino component and not a standalone
casino.
Similar developments overseas have resulted in large investments,
significant increases in visitor numbers and the creation of jobs,
the ministry tells Insight. It says that it is also mindful of the
potential social impact of the casino component and 'will put in place
appropriate social safeguards if we decide to proceed'.
National University of Singapore economist Choy Keen Meng says what
makes the casino decision different from other public policy issues
is the difficulty in carrying out a cost-benefit analysis. 'No one
denies the social consequences of a casino but how do you measure
them? How do you quantify the cost of a ruined family, for example?'
This problem could explain why the Government has for so long resisted
calls from the business community to allow a casino here, he says.
A MINUS?
THE lack of conclusive evidence on how casinos affect communities
is not for want of trying. Researchers in countries like the United
States, Australia and New Zealand have in recent years attempted to
measure casinos' social and economic impact. These studies show that
casinos affect different communities differently and commonly-held
assumptions about how casinos are supposed to help or hurt societies
often do not hold water.
Take for example the view that casinos will cause crime to escalate.
A 1998 study commissioned by the New Zealand Casino Control Authority,
on the impact of newly-opened casinos in Christchurch and Auckland,
found this was not the case. In Christchurch, for example, rates of
certain types of crimes, such as liquor offences, burglary and fraud,
fell after the casino's opening, although it remains unclear what
prompted the better behaviour.
Yet another study, this one funded by America's National Institute
of Justice, covered seven cities or counties in the US where casinos
had opened recently. It too found few consistent trends in crime.
In three of the areas studied, more types of crimes increased than
decreased. In another three, more types of crimes went down rather
than up. In the last city, there was little change for most crimes.
The results were also mixed when the researchers compared suicide
and divorce rates in these communities against rates in similar communities
without casinos. However, personal bankruptcies went up significantly
in five of the seven casino communities when compared to the control
groups.
Another big worry among critics of casinos is that they will cause
more people to become addicted to gambling. This was indeed the top
concern among the 47 per cent who said 'no' to a casino in the recent
Straits Times survey.
The New Zealand study found that the number of people seeking help
for gambling addiction did in fact increase after the two casinos
opened. But part of this jump could have been due to increased publicity
on problem gambling and the support services available, researchers
said.
A similar upsurge in the number of gamblers seeking help can be expected
if a casino opens here, says Dr Munidasa Winslow, who heads the Institute
of Mental Health's Community Addictions Management Programme. That
has been the trend whenever a new form of gambling is legalised, he
says, and, for that matter, whenever local newspapers run stories
on problem gambling.
Whether a casino will significantly increase the number of gambling
addicts is in his view difficult to tell. It will depend on whether
the casino enlarges the total pool of gamblers or draws largely on
the existing pool of regular gamblers, he says. 'Studies show that
when people take part in potentially addictive activities like drinking
or gambling, the percentage of those who develop problems is always
about the same. 'So the higher the total number of gamblers, the more
addicts there will be.' That is why Dr Winslow thinks there is a basis
for restricting casino access to minimise impulse gambling, which
is what can cause the pool of gamblers to swell.
OR A PLUS?
THE economic benefits of casinos may be easier to quantify but the
interpretation of the results can spark a debate that is as open-ended
as the one over social costs.
Of those polled in the Straits Times survey, 53 per cent said 'yes'
to a casino here because they expect it to boost tourism, revenue
and job creation. Gaming industry players certainly agree with this
reading. Those in Singapore recently, for a conference on gaming,
projected that by 2010, Asians will spend US$23 billion (S$39 billion)
a year to gamble in the region and beyond.
So is it a matter of build it and they will come? Dr David Marshall
of the Australian National University's Centre for Gambling Research
doubts so. Singapore will face tough competition from established
casinos in Macau and Australia and new casinos being planned in countries
in the region, such as Thailand and the Philippines, he points out.
'So the question is why would tourists who want to gamble choose to
go to Singapore instead of somewhere else?
'Furthermore, in terms of encouraging non-gambling tourists to gamble,
well, maybe that could occur but generally, it is agreed that casinos
do not necessarily produce extra spending but simply displace spending
from other sectors,' he tells Insight via e-mail.
And while tourism is often used to justify the building of a casino,
Dr Marshall says that from what he knows, the bulk of casino earnings
in Australia comes from locals. In South Korea too, where the revenue
from the one casino that admits locals exceeds the total revenue of
the 13 foreigner-only casinos.
MTI is distancing itself from the experiences of such standalone casinos
by emphasising that its proposal is for an integrated resort that
will also feature world-class entertainment shows, theme attractions,
convention facilities, luxury retail outlets and fine dining.
It is these other amenities that are likely to draw larger numbers
of international visitors to Singapore, it says, especially now that
casinos are being legalised in so many parts of the world. 'For many
world-class resorts, it is the non-gaming amenities that attract large
numbers of visitors,' it says. The gaming and non-gaming facilities
complement each other, it adds, and become viable because of the number
of visitors drawn to the wide range of entertainment options.
Examples of such integrated resorts include Atlantis on Paradise Island
in the Bahamas, a tropical resort with a marina, giant water park
and spa; and the luxurious Bellagio complex in Las Vegas, with its
opulent lobby and fountains, world-famous restaurants and shows by
Cirque du Soleil. About 7.2 million people visit Bellagio every year
while Atlantis draws one million visitors annually. The revenue for
Bellagio is close to US$1 billion a year, and it is just over US$500
million a year for Atlantis. The resorts employ 8,000 people each.
MTI says major international investors have expressed keen interest
in developing a similar resort here. It plans to invite proposals
from them within the next few months. In line with Prime Minister
Lee Hsien Loong's promise that the Government will consider all views
before deciding, the Feedback Unit has been conducting dialogue sessions
with various parties, including religious groups, grassroots leaders
and the business community.
Given the strong arguments on both sides, and the fact that the population
is split almost right down the middle, this is one issue that will
surely test the Government's powers of persuasion. Its challenge is
to forge a final compromise that is acceptable to most, if not all,
Singaporeans. |
|
