| |
The
Straits Times, Insight, 26 Nov 04
PEOPLE & POLITICS
Sizing up the Casino Critic
By Sue-Ann Chia
Who are the people who make up the vocal minority in the casino debate
and why is their voice so loud?
Insight pieces together a profile
BUSINESSMAN and church elder Yong Teck Meng is a man on a mission,
busy spreading the word that a casino will ruin Singapore. He has
e-mailed Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, and Dr Vivian Balakrishnan,
Senior Minister of State (Trade and Industry). He has penned letters
to The Straits Times, at least twice. He believes it is vital for
various parties to share their feelings openly. 'Being apathetic is
itself a political stance. If people don't care, then the Government
may factor that in the casino decision,' says the 42-year-old.
Mr Yong is part of a growing voice of protest against the idea of
incorporating a casino into a high-end integrated resort to attract
the world's wealthy to Singapore. They are making their positions
known at public forums or through letters written to the media, with
some engaging the Government directly. Their voices are adding to
the choruses of 'nays' which seem to be reverberating far louder these
days, almost drowning out the casino proponents.
Who are these casino critics and what drives them to take up the cause?
The picture that emerges, drawn from the critics themselves and interviews
with academics, shows that most used to belong to the silent majority
who were comfortable with the Government's usually conservative and
cautious stance on social issues.
Safe platform
BUT faced with recent radical economic reforms that have social consequences,
some now feel compelled to voice their views. Furthermore, the Government
has welcomed feedback on the casino issue, emboldening Singaporeans
who would ordinarily have no inclination for public debate. The casino
issue 'provides a safe platform to participate in politics with little
danger of crossing some out-of-bounds marker,' says sociologist Tan
Ern Ser.
The casino opponents now form what can be called a vocal minority
- a label once reserved for liberals who push for more freedom of
expression or tolerance of gays. In contrast, the casino critic, who
spans all age groups and economic class, prefers to rein in what he
fears is the loosening of morals and values.
Dr Tan says: 'The issue provides a platform and test case for expressing
more fundamental concern about the feared erosion of moral values.
'It also reflects a concern that social values may be sacrificed at
the altar of economic rationality.'
Strong conviction
MOST of these critics are usually people of strong religious conviction.
If they are married, they will most likely have children and a firm
sense of family values. Like Mr Yong. The long-time activist is chairman
of Habitat for Humanity Singapore, a Christian-based non-profit organisation
that helps to build homes for the poor. 'My reasons for opposing the
casino stems from my values which are shaped by my Christian ethos
and education,' says the father of two daughters, aged seven and 13,
who hopes they will grow to be upright adults.
At a recent forum organised by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS),
religious groups were strong in attendance. Views came from the National
Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS), representing Anglicans, Methodists
and Presbyterians, among others; and the Singapore Islamic Scholars
and Religious Teachers Association (Pergas). Both groups had issued
media statements in the past and repeated their condemnation of casinos
at the forum. They are not stopping there.
Pergas executive director Murat Aris says the group registered its
views in a private discussion with the Minister for Muslim Affairs,
and intends to write to the Feedback Unit. Anglican Bishop John Chew,
who is the NCCS president, says sermons have been preached about the
ills of casinos and the council encourages its members to speak up
publicly as well. Other churches are said to have done the same.
But this conservatism does not reside only in the faithful church-
or mosque-going communities, notes political science lecturer Kenneth
Tan. In a paper he presented at the IPS forum, he said that Singaporeans
have been socialised through the nation-building process and the Asian
values debate, both of which have all added to a desire to protect
society's prevailing structures and order.
Activists from non-profit organisations that deal with family issues,
for example, oppose the casino because of the potential social cost.
Thus, Mr Tan Thuan Seng, president and founding director of Focus
On Family Singapore, views it as 'part of his mission' to oppose the
proposal. He has sent letters to 20 to 30 ministries and MPs. 'Until
it's clear that it's a done deal, why should we stop?' says Mr Tan,
whose group is coincidentally Christian-based.
Bad experiences
ACTING on a similar impulse are individuals who have had direct traumatic
experiences with gambling, like engineering undergraduate Liena Tan.
One friend lost $20,000, part of her university fees, in an Australian
casino. And her grandfather gambled away his fortunes and died in
a Genting casino. The 20-year-old, who wrote to The Straits Times
and intends to share her views on online forums and perhaps with ministers
through e-mail, just wants to offer caution. 'I used to think it was
okay, but it was a sobering experience when I saw how it affected
family and friends,' she says. 'I hope others don't have to face it
before realising too late that a casino should never have entered
our shores.'
Those who are driven mainly by their religious beliefs also focus
their fire on social costs - because they don't want to appear to
impose their own moral views on secular society. Dr Lee Soo Ann, a
fellow at the Trinity Theological College, who spoke up at the IPS
forum, says it is to counter what he describes as the 'vocal minority'
which appears to be getting supportive attention due to the casino
being tied up with tourism. His argument is simple: The Singapore
economy is built on the premises of 'something for something', such
as the hard work ethic, or 'something for nothing' like volunteerism.
But gambling is 'nothing for something' which is the very antithesis
of what Singapore should represent. He knows that Singapore is already
a gambling nation. But a casino gives 'gambling a social sanction
which is not deserved'. 'It is like having a 'smoke all you can day'
or an 'alcohol week',' he says.
While Dr Lee attended the IPS forum as an NCCS representative, individuals
such as lawyer Thio Su Mien went on her own accord and, at one point,
had paid the $100 fee for the right to speak up.
Defining values
SHE did so several times. She used economic arguments, saying that
other cities with casinos faced the 'hollowing out' effects of other
sectors. She also raised the social costs argument and also her interest
in helping others. 'I invest in the lives of people devastated by
broken relationships, particularly that of parents, which have an
insidious, adverse multiplier effect,' says the founding partner at
TSMP Law Corporation who is also a staunch Christian. 'An expansion
of gambling in Singapore with the endorsement of the Government will
aggravate the situation very drastically.' The former law faculty
dean has also written letters to the media on the issue of homosexuality,
and intends to forward her thoughts on the casino to her MPs from
Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC.
But how will all this dissonance influence the casino decision?
For one, the growing debate has proven to be a soul-searching exercise
to define values, a shift from the usual diet of economic pragmatism
that Singaporeans have grown accustomed to. The Government probably
realised it as well. Dr Balakrishnan said as much recently when he
noted that the debate was not one of morals versus money, but one
which seeks to determine what kind of society Singapore should be.
Casino proponents have also been swift to appeal to central values
in social life such as tolerance of diversity of lifestyles and activities,
and exercising responsibility and control over one's own life.
But how the debate between the 'for' and 'against' casino camps, both
seen to be vocal minorities, will play out is not clear. Mr Yong,
however, doesn't believe in being confrontational. Nor will he organise
any anti-casino demonstrations. 'This is not how it works in Singapore,'
he says. But he intends to urge others to speak up. 'I have said enough
publicly and done everything I can, it's now time to galvanise others,'
he says.
And if the anti-casino lobby doesn't succeed? 'If, at the end of the
day, a gleaming casino is built, at least I can tell myself I tried,'
he says. 'And if problems begin to surface, at least I can say, 'I
told you so'.'
|
|
