| |
Public
Consultation on Integrated Resort
Please
send your feedback on the possible impact of the plan on our
shores http://app.feedback.gov.sg/integrated_resort/index.asp
Links and more info
Some details on the Government
Consultation Portal page on the Public Consultation effort are
reproduced below...
Media article on the Public Consultation
effort
Feedback sent to the Government Consultation Portal online forum on
the casino held in Apr
Selected responses that touched on nature
in the Southern shores
23 Mar and earlier | 24-26
Mar | 27-30
Mar | 31 Mar-8 Apr | 9-12
Apr | 15-16 Apr |
The
full thread
Other feedback and comments
More details from the Government
Consultation Portal page
Launched on 17 Nov 04 the effort includes extensive background on
the issue
The Government is currently studying the development of an integrated
resort in Singapore. Similar to major resorts in places such as the
Bahamas and Las Vegas, the proposed integrated resort will be a distinctive
world-class development with a comprehensive range of amenities such
as hotels, convention facilities, entertainment shows, theme attractions,
luxury retail, fine dining and casino gaming.
Examples of these "similar major resorts" given were:
Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas
Venetian, Las Vegas, USA
Bellagio, Las Vegas, USA
(wildsingapore comment: The Venetian and Atlantis both artifically
reproduce settings that already exist naturally elsewhere)
Our strategic objective is to develop a must-visit destination resort,
which will attract a larger number and wider range of international
visitors to Singapore. The individual leisure products in an Integrated
Resort are not unique on their own. What makes them unique when integrated
into one product is the total leisure experience that it offers. This
is necessary to meet the rising expectations of tourists, especially
repeat visitors, who may choose between many competing countries.
This widens the range of tourism products available and enhances Singapore's
reputation as a premium lifestyle destination.
This project is just one of the many strategies that we are pursuing
to widen the range of entertainment options in Singapore, boost our
tourism industry and generate economic growth. The Singapore Tourism
Board is actively working on many other tourism initiatives such as
branding, marketing, capability development, as well as developing
new attractions and building new market segments.
This is a complex and major project, with potentially significant
economic benefits and social implications. We therefore have to carefully
examine all the various issues involved and consider public views
and feedback.
Speeches
PM Lee Hsien Loong's National Day Rally Speech, 22 August 2004
Let me give a controversial example. It's quite a controversial one,
some people told me don't raise it, your first rally speech, very
dangerous, but I'm going to do it anyway. It's to do with the casino.
We said 'No' to the casino for a very long time. I've said 'No' to
the casino for a very long time. In 1985 we had a recession. I remember
the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan wanted the casino, argued for it. We said
'No'. We didn't proceed. This time round we had an Economic Review
Committee, the subcommittee has put up the proposal for a casino.
On the ERC I said 'No', a majority of the members said 'No', we didn't
recommend it.
But the subject didn't die. And we have to reconsider because the
argument comes up, the situation changes. Why is the situation different?
Because there are cruises to nowhere. More and more cruising to nowhere.
Some don't even cruise, some anchor nowhere. You can go to Batam.
I'm told there are 13 down there. I haven't been there but Wong Kan
Seng has been. He told me it was by accident. And Singaporeans go
there, so Singaporeans are already doing this, right?
Then you want tourists. There are millions of tourists because the
Indians have money to spend, the Chinese have money to spend, every
tour group to Singapore goes to Genting. Macau is opening up. Now
they have broken the monopoly, new operators, more shows, more games.
If we want to grow our tourism traffic and double the number of tourists
to Singapore, we don't just want them to come here because of gambling,
but if gambling is one of the things they want to do, then maybe we
should allow them to do that in Singapore, find some way to do that.
And if, as a result of that, I get over 10 years double the traffic
volume, I think we should think about it.
So MTI has come with a new proposal, not just casino but an integrated
resort, entertainment centre. So you have shows, you have family entertainment,
you have food, restaurants, art, all sorts of things and in the middle
of course you also have this place. Should we say no? Well, I think
we take a deep breath and think about it carefully.
I know many Singaporeans have expressed concerns and very strong concerns
and the religious groups particularly have very strong views. And
their objections are not irrelevant, they are valid objections. It's
because of these objections that for so long we haven't done this.
But I think we shouldn't just say no. I think we should consider can
we have the casino and still contain the social problems? Let's study
it, let's see if there's some way to do it.
So I think what we are going to do is to request for proposals. Let's
put out to say we are going to impose the following restrictions:
Singaporeans below a certain income, you don't go. I mean, if they
want to travel all the way to Batam, that's them but we will not make
it easy for people to go broke and ruin their families in Singapore.
But if a millionnaire wants to bring another millionnaire friend from
China or India, I don't think I should say no to him. It may help
lessen my other taxes. So I think we will find a reasonable restriction,
draw a line, call for the proposals, test the market.
Let's see what proposals come in. If it makes sense and people think
that this is worth doing commercially, we make a judgment, we proceed.
If it's not worth it, not worth the downside risk, then we will call
it off. We will consider all views before deciding.
Finally, if we decide against, then I think we will have had a valuable
debate in our society, a valuable discussion and sent a strong signal
that we are prepared to discuss all sorts of things and reopen long-settled
issues. But if we decide to proceed, then the final solution which
we implement will have to address the valid concerns which Singaporeans
have raised.
So it's not a black and white. I mean, it's looking for an appropriate
middle way where we can have our cake and also eat most of it.
Senior Minister of State Vivian Balakrisnan at Parliament Sitting,
19 April 2004
During the Committee of Supply, Minister George Yeo said that we are
prepared to consider having a casino as part of an international resort
and residential development on the Southern Islands and Sentosa. For
a long time, the Government has been averse to having a casino in
Singapore because of its potentially negative social impact on our
local population.
This concern remains valid. Should we decide to have a casino, access
to it by Singaporeans will have to be controlled. In many countries,
locals are not allowed free access to casinos. For example, in London,
only members are allowed and the membership criteria are strict. In
Korea and Monaco, locals are not allowed entry at all. We will do
a careful study of the regulations in other countries.
The reason we are now prepared to consider having a casino is because
of the rapidly changing tourism landscape in the region. Billions
of dollars are being invested in Macao to make it the Las Vegas of
the East. Thailand is considering new laws to allow casinos. Cruise
ships have already become floating casinos in international waters
with cruises to nowhere during weekends. In Batam, there are many
casinos operating.
With rapidly growing affluence in Asia, we have to upgrade and broaden
our tourism product offering in Singapore. When the International
Advisory Council for Tourism met in Singapore last year, one feedback
was that "Singapore is so middle-of-the-road that it is in danger
of being bypassed". In the coming years, we will make major investments
in the tourism industry so that it continues to be an important generator
of jobs for Singaporeans. While we do not want to be a Las Vegas or
a Macao, we need to consider all possibilities.
At one end of the spectrum, budget airlines will make air travel cheaper
for which we need to build more two and three star hotels. At the
other end of the spectrum, we must be able to attract our share of
the rich and famous for which casinos might be an attraction. However,
we will not rush into a decision on casinos but will first study the
implications carefully and consult widely.
Comments Minister Lim Hng Kiang at a dialogue with Bishan-Toa Payoh
North residents, Sunday 24 Oct 2004 "We are still studying the
issue, but what we have decided so far is we are not going to dismiss
the idea completely and we are prepared to go to the private sector
and ask for a request for proposals." "We can study them and from
there, determine the costs and benefits to Singapore in a more sensible
manner. Based on that, we will make a decision. So the status is,
we are not completely shutting the idea down." "There is a different
group of casinos, what we call the integrated entertainment complex.
An example is the Atlantis Resort in the Bahamas. If you look at the
complex, it is really a water theme park. They have hotels, and a
casino and the casino revenue is about 40-50% of the complex." "For
the developer, they can make money from the hotel but cannot make
much from the other entertainment so they have casinos which bring
in 30-50% of the revenue and this more or less subsidises the entertainment.
Because of that, the whole complex is profitable and viable? this
is the kind of proposal the government is thinking of - where casinos
are built simply to make the entire resort viable." "When we are ready,
we will call for a RFP (request for proposal). When we get the proposals
and are able to study all these factors (costs and benefits), the
government will make a decision."
Minister George Yeo at a dialogue with Bukit Batok constituents,
21 March 2004
"For a long time, the Singapore government has said that it will not
have casinos in Singapore. The reasons are very clear to us: Gambling
can be addictive. If husbands go there after work, housewives go there
and gamble with their family money - the money that is intended for
the kitchen and to look after the house and their children - then
there will be problems." "While we want to attract international gamblers,
wealthy people to come here, I don't think we want to encourage Singaporeans
to go and patronize the casino when they cannot afford it." "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."
Feedback gathered via other channels
We have consulted widely and gathered views and feedback from a wide
spectrum of Singaporeans on the Integrated Resort project through
various channels including emails, letters and dialogue sessions.
We have received more than 700 letters, emails and faxes since March
2004. A few independent polls and surveys have also been conducted.
In September 2004, the Feedback Unit commissioned a telephone cum
face-to-face survey with 903 Singaporeans on the Prime Minister's
National Day Rally Speech 2004 to find out the public's reactions
to PM Lee's maiden rally speech on 22 August 2004, which included
sentiments towards the casino issue. Close to half of the respondents
agreed that operating a casino would contribute to Singapore's economic
and tourism development. Opinion was divided over whether the benefits
of setting up a casino outweigh the social costs. Seven dialogue sessions
were also organized by the Feedback Unit between August to October
2004 to seek views from various groups, such as religious groups,
family advocacy groups, grassroots leaders, youths, older adults,
businessmen and industry professionals, as well as gamblers and their
families.
FAQ page
on the Integrated Resort
Q1: Why are we considering an Integrated Resort?
Q2: What is the type of Integrated Resort we are considering?
Q3: What are some of the expected economic benefits of the Integrated
Resort?
Q4: Can't we just have the Integrated Resort without the casino? Are
there other alternatives to rejuvenate our tourism landscape?
Q5: Why can't we focus our efforts on other engines of growth? Let
our tourism industry carry on as it is and focus our efforts elsewhere.
Q6: How do we minimize the potential social impact and criminal problems
that may arise from the casino?
Q7: What is the progress of public consultation and what are the results
so far?
Links to
research
Media
articles: govt plans
| biz news | social
impact of casinos | all articles
|
|
