| |
The
Straits Times, 29 Nov 04
Free will's a gamble
By Tan Seow Hon
THE debate over whether Singapore should have a casino has turned
from the contest between moral values and social repercussions, on
the one hand, and economic values on the other, to whether Singaporeans
can be trusted to act responsibly.
Put another way, the issue now seems to be whether the approach should
be paternalistic, with all its connotations of the nanny state protecting
the individual from himself. But is some paternalism necessarily undesirable?
What fuels paternalism in legislation and public decisions anyway?
At one extreme is 19th century English philosopher John Stuart Mill,
whose work On Liberty argued for maximum liberty where no other person
is harmed by an individual's action. In his view: 'Over himself, over
his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.' Society should
not attempt to compel or control the individual, whether through laws
or public opinion.
Was Mill right? A 20th century philosopher, H.L.A. Hart, pointed out
that underlying Mill's fear of paternalism was a conception of the
normal human being which did not correspond with facts. Mill, Hart
said, endowed the individual with 'too much of the psychology of a
middle-aged man whose desires are relatively fixed, not liable to
be artificially stimulated by external influences; who knows what
he wants and what gives him satisfaction or happiness, and who pursues
these things when he can'. Mill's argument against paternalism is
justifiable if most people indeed make their choices in the ideal
fashion - with 'adequate reflection or appreciation of the consequences',
not 'in pursuit of merely transitory desires; or in various predicaments
when the judgment is likely to be clouded', or under more subtle pressures.
In real life, however, there are many external forces exerting their
influence on individuals. These operate through the media or through
commercial organisations, for example. So while the state should generally
give the individual freedom to decide life plans, if it does not uphold
certain fundamental values, other players - commercial or otherwise
- will arise to fill the vacuum. These players may be concerned only
with economic profits and may promote undesirable values. This presents
us with an alternative view of paternalism: it is not the antithesis
of liberty, constraining an individual's freedom, but that which protects
an individual from external influences that restrict his true liberty.
Speaking at a recent seminar, National University of Singapore philosophy
professor Ten Chin Liew noted that casinos often have the power to
reduce a person's free will and control over himself. Surrounded by
hardcore gamblers, engulfed in the garish lure of roulette wheels
and fruit machines promising them a fortune that could change their
mundane lives and encouraged by the crowd to gamble more - and beyond
their means - it is easy for the individual to lose his power of real
choice. And you do not need to have gone to a Las Vegas casino to
realise this. Just look into the eyes of some of those at a jackpot
machine or lining up to buy 4D.
Or consider the behaviour of those who were inspired by the tragedies
of Huang Na (murdered) or Yeong Poh Heong (swept away by flood water)
to buy lottery and to obsess over the significance of various winning
numbers seen as associated with the events. Their reaction testifies
to a deep-seated gambling streak and an inclination to irrational
behaviour.
Singapore has often cited our social and cultural circumstances as
an argument against adopting wholesale certain practices in other
parts of the world. It would be ironic if, after years of circumspection,
we look readily towards the experience of other countries to support
the case for a casino. Las Vegas or other states cannot aid the case
for a casino here, because even if social repercussions are minuscule
in these places, Singapore's small size and concentration of population
makes a casino built in any part of the island accessible to all.
Unlike other countries, we may also not have a buffer for the social
ramifications.
Taken together, easy accessibility and the preoccupation that many
Singaporeans have with gambling will mean that the notion of free
and rational choice is unrealistic in practice. Gambling is an addiction
for many here; they will cease to act rationally, some homes will
be broken and some will be desperate enough to kill themselves over
gambling debts. True, the state cannot protect all from all vices.
Still, some paternalism is necessary. The state has always drawn the
line somewhere - in relation to pornography, soliciting, drugs and
so on.
Those in favour of a casino here may argue that the gambling addicts
are in the minority and it is their choice if they want to muck up
their lives. Really? The saner ones among us may have decided never
to gamble - so it is not our liberty we are fighting for. But when
we say 'yes' to a casino, are we advocates for the liberty of others
who want to gamble or are we choosing to sacrifice those who would
fall prey to the vice and destroy their lives for some economic gains
we would receive?
The writer teaches jurisprudence at the National University of Singapore
Law School. The views here are her own. |
|
