| |
The
Straits Times, 1 Dec 04
The many guises of gambling
Lee Han Shih
Even if casino plan is killed, Singaporeans can put their money in
lotteries, jackpots and stocks
WHAT is it about a casino that has got the religious bodies in Singapore
so riled up? The Government floated the idea in March of allowing
one or more casinos to be set up here to help stimulate the economy.
Almost immediately, the objections began.
Leading the charge were established religious bodies such as the National
Council of Churches in Singapore (NCCS), Muis (the Islamic Religious
Council of Singapore) and Pergas (the Singapore Islamic Scholar and
Religious Teachers Association). And also others such as Focus on
Family, a US-based pro-family Christian group, and the fundamentalist
Covenant Evangelical Reformed Church. In letters to the press, speeches,
sermons and person-to-person lobbying, they have worked tirelessly
against what they see as the impending introduction of gambling, casino-style,
in Singapore.
Two weeks ago, they redoubled their efforts after Acting Community
Development Minister Vivian Balakrishnan suggested the casino debate
be shifted from one of "money versus values" to whether Singaporeans
can act responsibly in the face of a new avenue for gambling. . Taking
his words to mean that the Government had as good as decided to go
ahead with the casino, the religious bodies made what seemed like
a last ditch fight to block the move before it becomes reality.
"Why should we stop?" asked NCCS president Bishop John Chew, who intends
to keep trying even if his protests fall on deaf ears. In a media
interview, Mr Tan Thuan Seng, who heads the Singapore branch of Focus
on Family, said: "Just because it is a 95 per cent done deal, it doesn't
mean the 5 per cent won't change the situation."
Persistence in the face of near certain defeat is admirable. Given
how unpredictable life — and politics — can be, the religious bodies
might even beat the odds and succeed in getting the casino proposal
killed.
But to what avail? Even without a casino, there are other ways for
Singaporeans to gamble their money away. There's horse-racing, 4-D,
Big Sweep, Toto, betting on football matches, jackpot machines in
"private clubs" — the list goes on. Then, of course, there is the
stock market, which is a casino in all but name.
In a recent press report, remisier Charlie Lau said he had given up
gambling in casinos "because you can't beat the house". Instead, he
now focuses on investing in shares. This gives the impression that
the stock market is less risky than casinos. Nothing is further from
the truth. The odds in casinos are clearly defined; those in stock
markets are murky. Rules in casinos are followed strictly. In the
stock market, going by the fiasco at China Aviation Oil, even "irrevocable
agreements" given to listed companies can be overturned at whim. Reports
by the Central Provident Fund Board show that a large number of its
members who invested their hard-earned savings in the stock market
have lost money. This includes those invested through professionally
managed unit trusts. As a whole, there are probably more people who
have lost money playing shares than in any other forms of gambling.
The religious bodies have never protested as strongly or as openly
against gambling as when the casino proposal came along. What is more
surprising about the vehemence of their objections, however, is that
the casino was never meant to be for the general public. As proposed,
any casino in Singapore would be for the moneyed elite. It would not
be run along the lines of Las Vegas or Genting, where all and sundry
are welcome. One guess is that 90 per cent of Singapore will not qualify
for admission.
So the protests, sermons, letters and lobbying over the past six months
were really aimed at stopping the wealthiest 10 per cent of Singaporeans
from playing in a casino should one come into being. These are the
same people who have the means to visit casinos in other countries,
and many frequently do.
Seen this way, it is a waste of energy and resources for the religious
bodies to focus their efforts on protecting a fraction of the population
from the evils of casinos. If they are against the whole notion of
gambling, shouldn't they be trying to prevent the other 90 per cent
from indulging in the many other forms of this activity that are already
so prevalent in Singapore? . .
The writer is a freelance journalist. |
|
