| |
The
Straits Times, Society Watch, 20 Nov 04
Tourism Paradice Gambling has always
been part of life here
It's time Singaporeans threw off their casino straitjackets
By Cheong Suk-Wai
FOR so long, the sights and sounds of Singapore at its most familiar
have included the clatter of mahjong tiles in homes everywhere, long
queues at Toto and Singapore Pools outlets and the daily punting on
market stocks, football matches, horse races - and now, Singapore
Idol.
Then came news during Parliament's Budget debate earlier this year
that the Government was considering building a world-class integrated
resort here, housing, among other things, a gentlemen's club-like
casino for high rollers with entertainment draws for families around
it.
The idea of introducing a casino here dates back to 1985 when, in
the throes of recession, some politicians suggested it might be a
way to bump up the bottom line. That was soon drowned by outraged
cries of 'no', right up to the Remaking Singapore endeavour last year.
But the march of competition regionally has since moved the Government
to take a long, hard look at the nays and conclude: Well, now it's
maybe a 'yes'. A furious debate on the social pros and cons of casinos
ensued online, in kopitiams and in this newspaper's Forum pages, with
more than 700 Singaporeans riffing chiefly on the theme that the proposed
casino might be a social menace, destroying all that is pretty, safe
and easy here.
But who are we kidding? Yes, gambling - or at least gambling addiction
- is on the rise here. But so is dependency on drugs, drink, tobacco,
salt, sugar and fat. And, unless one dallies with bloodthirsty loan
sharks or wants to end one's life because of debt, gambling itself
doesn't kill. Gamblers will gamble, casino or no casino, and while
they risk ruining their families if they don't rein in their excesses,
families are being ruined for less, daily.
On recent assignments around casinos in Melbourne, San Francisco and
Toronto, I looked on as casino patrons - mostly elderly folk - pulled
one-armed bandits or threw dice like robots and came away unsure that
gambling was as edgy and enticing as even some in the anti-casino
camp here make it out to be.
To me, The Great Casino Debate does seem like a tempest in a teacup.
I think Singaporeans should rest easy in the fact that the Government
has set such high stakes for itself in getting the project off the
ground. Just log onto www.feedback.gov.sg to see how clearly it is
calling a spade a spade and vowing to dig deep to build a firm foundation
and high fences, as it were, to restrict entry to the dreaded casino.
As Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in his maiden National Day
Rally speech in August: 'It's looking for an appropriate middle way
where we can have our cake and also eat most of it.' How much cake
might there be?
As a gauge, in a 1999 comprehensive nationwide legal and factual study
of the social and economic implications of gambling in the United
States, which was carried out over two years, the United State government's
National Gambling Impact Study Commission found that, among other
things, Las Vegas weathered the 1990s US recession much better than
other American cities, posted the highest employment growth figures
in the country and continued to do well economically even when its
gambling revenues were flat.
In this, I am indebted to reader Yeong Wai Cheong who, in his letter
to The Business Times on Sept 29, cited the commission's report as
something worth scrutinising. Here are some points to ponder from
the same report: Together with mushrooming gambling websites, the
most prevalent forms of gambling are in neighbourhoods, namely lottery
and other types of convenience gambling, and they have proven to be
far more troublesome than, say, casinos because they are easy and
inexpensive, their benefits are negligible - how many win the top
prizes? - the level of regulation is minimal and the likelihood of
abuse is much greater than gambling in casinos. Plus, convenience
gambling tends to be faster-paced and so more addictive, to say nothing
of it being done in the full view of children.
From its phone and face-to-face polls of American casino gamblers,
America's National Opinion Research Centre (NORC) estimated that the
minimum yearly average cost - including unemployment and medical costs
- chalked up by a pathological, or compulsive, gambler was US$1,200
(S$1,975), and US$715 for a problem, or weak-willed, gambler. NORC
also estimated that the minimum lifetime costs - that is, bankruptcy,
divorce and imprisonment costs - were US$10,550 for a pathological
gambler, and $5,130 for a problem one. Overall, the aggregate yearly
costs of pathological and problem gambling was about US$5 billion
yearly, plus US$40 billion in estimated lifetime costs. But that US$5
billion figure is considerably smaller than the impact of alcohol
abuse (US$166 billion annually) and heart disease (US$125 billion
a year) in the US.
Last, but not least, among other things, the commission recommended
that when state and local governments plan for gambling-related economic
development, they should recognise that destination resorts create
more and better quality jobs than casinos catering to a local clientele.
At the end of the day - and shorn of sentimentality and self-righteousness
- I wonder if the focus of The Great Casino Debate should not be this:
Can a casino be attractive without its often-attendant sleaze? On
the cusp of the debate in March, Foreign Minister George Yeo said:
'We don't want to be a Las Vegas, we don't want to be a Macau, we
don't want to have the crime and the sleaze.' But, crime aside, where
does the frisson that gives world-class casino resorts like Monaco,
Antigua and Baden-Baden their kick end, and the notion of sleaze begin?
Also, as Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry Vivian Balakrishnan
pointed out in a speech to Parliament on April 19, international tourism
experts say Singapore is 'so middle-of-the-road that it is in danger
of being bypassed'. But how far to the left or right on the path of
progress should Singapore veer to be a destination of choice?
I think taxpayers here might want to mull over the possible answers
to these questions rather than cast the casino issue in black and
white. Singaporeans may still be largely straitlaced, but it's time
they resisted straitjacketing themselves - and partake of some cake.
E-mail: suk@sph.com.sg |
|
