| |
The
Straits Times, Forum Page, 26 Nov 04
The Casino Debate
A casino is incongruent with the S'pore brand
THANKS to visionary leaders, we have, against all odds, built a clean,
green, efficient and prosperous nation on the firm foundation of integrity,
justice, meritocracy, racial harmony and family as a cornerstone of
society.
The 'Singapore' brand is firmly values-based and branding experts
would confirm that these are solid fundamentals that will keep us
competitive against larger and more resource-rich competitors. We
have invested much in building our national brand and our response
to a fast-changing world should be to continue developing our key
competencies and differentiating ourselves even more from our competitors.
Singapore is attractive to that exclusive group of discriminating
world-class investors, scientists, bankers, doctors, academicians
and artists who are looking for that rare place where they can settle
down and bring up their families in a safe, healthy and politically
stable environment with good education and government.
For those who are more 'laissez-faire' inclined, thankfully Singapore
shall never successfully compete with the likes of San Francisco,
Las Vegas, Amsterdam, Sydney, Bangkok and Macau.
America is a large country and has the luxury of promoting multiple
brands, viz, Boston for its universities, New York for its financial
services, Las Vegas for gambling and Florida for retirement. Singapore
is a tiny dot of a nation and we need to be extremely watchful of
what our national brand represents.
If family is important, we cannot also exploit gambling and the sex
trade. As a financial-services hub we cannot relax on corruption or
the rule of law. Yes, we do not have the luxury of keeping the cake
and eating it at the same time. A casino, like pornography and society
drugs, is totally incongruent with the Singapore brand.
Without a casino, Singapore is already No. 3 in the world in terms
of gambling per capita. By extrapolating government statistics from
the United States, which has 7.5 million pathological and problem
gamblers, and Australia, which has 740,000 pathological and problem
gamblers, there would conservatively be 60,000-80,000 such problem
gamblers in Singapore. We should begin to address this massive gambling-addiction
problem already present in our midst, instead of seeking to expand
our gambling turnover of $6 billion and taxes of $1.3 billion. A casino
will add to this serious problem by aggressive marketing, glamorising
gambling and deploying the latest highly addictive electronic gaming
machines.
The proposal to develop an 'iconic' integrated entertainment complex
(IEC) with a casino is particularly insidious. There is much research
to show that socialisation of the young in gambling by incorporating
casinos into family entertainment destinations has damning consequences.
Youth exposed to gambling early are five times more likely to end
up with a gambling addiction. The argument that a casino in an IEC
will subsidise world-class shows to boost Singapore's convention and
tourism industry is also flawed.
We are already the world's No. 3 convention centre and will shortly
be embarking on further expansion of our convention facilities. We
have also invested $600 million on the Esplanade. If world-class shows
need to be incentivised to come to Singapore to boost our tourism
and convention industry, let this be done directly by our arts and
tourism agencies without camouflaging it through gambling profits.
Angela Loke (Ms)
Corporate Communications Adviser
Focus on the Family Singapore Ltd
Problem gamblers more likely to batter wives
I WOULD like to draw attention to the editorial of a recent issue
of the British Medical Journal (BMJ). Written by Mark Griffiths, Professor
of Gambling Studies of the Nottingham Trent University in Britain,
it describes several worrying trends that come with liberalisation
and increased accessibility to gambling.
Prof Griffiths writes: 'A study of 286 women admitted to the emergency
department at a university hospital in Nebraska showed that a woman
whose partner was a problem gambler was 10.5 times more likely to
be a victim of violence...' He also cites reports that child abuse
and domestic assaults rose by 42 and 80 per cent, respectively, with
the opening of casinos in South Dakota.
The article also describes a plethora of medical problems faced by
a pathological gambler - from insomnia to headaches to depression.
The editorial paints gambling as a serious health problem and shows
links between opening up of gambling options and influx of serious
problems.
Prof Griffiths concludes: 'What has been shown clearly from research
in other countries is that, for gambling, an increase in accessibility
increases not only the number of regular gamblers but also the number
of problem gamblers - although this may not be proportional. This
means that not everyone is susceptible to developing gambling addictions,
but it also means that the more the opportunities, the more the related
problems. In Australia, Canada and New Zealand, problem gambling has
increased as a result of liberalisation.'
The editorial in the Nov 6 issue of BMJ may be found at www.bmj.com.
Tan Lai Yong Yunnan, China
No reason to add to negative addictions
I REFER to Ms Cheong Suk-Wai's article, 'Tourism Paradice' (ST, Nov
20). Her justification for building a casino is flawed.
First, she writes off the argument against building the casino by
claiming that 'gambling... is on the rise... but so is dependency
on drugs, drink, tobacco...' While this may be true, it does not justify
the building of a casino to increase the avenues for addiction when
one would want to curb such negative addictions.
Furthermore, she over-simplifies the situation by adding, 'Unless
one dallies with bloodthirsty loan sharks or wants to end one's life
because of debt, gambling itself doesn't kill.' The gambling addiction
per se, and the consequent social cost in a loss of valuable time,
is sufficient reason not to build a casino. Loan sharks and debt are
but the worst embodiments of this social cost.
Jared Phau Chong Ee
Nov 26, 2004 Knowledge, not casino, creates wealth
I REFER to Ms Tan Sai Siong's article, 'Betting on the good sense
of S'poreans' (ST, Nov 2).
The argument, that 'saying 'no' to hosting a casino today in Singapore
no longer makes sense', is a non-sequitur as the decision not to host
one in 1964 was based on the conventional wisdom that knowledge, not
casino, creates wealth and this does not have a 'use-by' date.
And thanks to that defining decision Singapore is today a pristine
metropolis, with a First World economy and one of the world's highest
per capita reserves.
More so than now, the need for a casino in the mid-1960s to bring
in the tourist dollar to boost a moribund economy, decimated by the
de-merger and the pullout of the British garrison East of Suez, was
more convincing but this was wisely rejected as a casino only creates
wealth for the private gaming interests while the high social costs
are passed to the community.
Malaysia's sole casino, which started operations in May 1971, has
not created wealth for the nation, judging by its low per capita GDP
today. Neither have the glitzy casinos in Las Vegas and Atlantic City
done any good for the United States. In 1984 it was a creditor nation
but it is now, by far, the largest debtor nation on earth. The claim
that 'a full-fledged Las Vegas-quality casino' could spring up in
Johor Baru is tenuous because, as a rule, Islamic countries are not
enamoured of gambling and are unlikely to interest the US gaming fraternity.
Also, hosting one in JB is a risky bet for the federal government
as it could lead inexorably to the demise of the casino in Genting
Highlands.
In my opinion, the Government should resist the temptation of short-term
gains arising from hosting a casino in Singapore as its high social
cost could one day reduce our social fabric to tatters.
Tan Keng Tat |
|
