| |
The
Straits Times, 8 Nov 04
Serious
issues at stake, so don't simplify debate
MR HARVEY Neo's letter 'Okay, but support system needed to
curb social ills' (ST, Nov 1) raises simplistic and flawed arguments.
First, he questions whether Singapore's economic structure is weak
and its social fibre that fragile. The answer is yes. The vulnerability
of Singapore and the issue of Singapore's survivability have been
central government concerns since independence. As Singapore lacks
natural resources, our economic structure rests heavily on our human
resources, and is supported by social capital such as strong family
units and the work ethic. The older generation grasped the primacy
of hard work and savings - values threatened by aggravating the gambling
urge - to ensure a better life for their children and grandchildren.
Laws exist to draw the boundaries and preserve the framework to sustain
civilised society. Integral to this is safeguarding the social fibre,
which is always at risk given the fallibility of man. We cannot toy
with the need to nurture the crucial intangible of our social fibre
and resilience.
Second, Mr Neo argues that Singapore should diversify its tourist
attractions to keep up with neighbouring countries which have casinos.
If Singapore builds a casino, it will not have a differentiated product
but can only present itself as a destination with a casino just like
the others. Will Singapore gain an increase in tourism when cheaper
alternatives already exist? Why not maintain our distinctive qualities,
that is, a safe, family-friendly environment?
Third, Mr Neo is fatalistic in urging us to simply educate people
to be responsible gamblers and face the inevitable problem of compulsive
gambling head on. Education, while necessary, will feature little
in the gambler's mind. Furthermore, the spectrum of gamblers today
ranges from the less well educated to the highly educated who are
well versed in the ills and dangers of gambling and falsely think
themselves immune. Should our efforts not be directed at constraining
rather than facilitating such irresponsible behaviour which has distinct
and harmful consequences? Pandora's Box, once opened, cannot be shut
and social ills will take a social and familial toll we can ill afford.
Fourth, in saying a strong mature society should be able to help and
support this minority through shared 'communitarian' values of empathy
and altruism, does Mr Neo suggest the public should underwrite the
social and financial costs of irresponsible gambling behaviour? Why
should non-gamblers have to subsidise gamblers, given that casinos
rely heavily on local clientele? Is Mr Neo not averse to a scenario
in which perhaps 80 per cent of Singaporeans have to work hard to
improve the country's GDP, while the remaining 20 per cent gamble
their lives, families and savings away, creating hikes in crime, divorce
and other forms of social ill connected statistically with gambling?
Is this just or wise?
The new leadership has repeatedly urged Singaporeans to take ownership
of their country and express their views and concerns. Mr Neo does
not facilitate the debate by simplifying the matter as between a 'pro'
and an 'anti' camp or dismissing views expressed as repetitive and
tiresome. The issues are complicated and serious. On a matter of fundamental
national importance which will affect generations to come, the debate
must continue so the final decision is based on wisdom, not expediency.
Neo Ling Chien (Ms)
|
|
