Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Casino: The Moral Minefield (updated with some details)
Well, since practically everyone is 'in-putting' their own opinion about this issue, I shall now put-in my very own penny's worth of thoughts =p Prepare for a long read. I wrote this after seeing the announcement on CNA...
First and foremost, I agree to the construction of a casino. Oops, 2 casinos. One in Marina Bay and one in Sentosa, so claims the govt.
A Today newspaper reader wrote:
I feel sad reading Mr Lee Kuan Yew's statement: "I went for high culture. I forgot about pop culture. There is where the money is." If high culture means civility, finesse and good taste, and pop culture means bestiality, unbounded self-indulgence and gross kitsch, then I prefer that we remain civil, polite and human.
How much poorer can we be if we do not have a casino? Or, how much richer will we be if we have one?
Surely we are capable of sustaining a decent standard of living without it. Let all the neighbouring countries have their casinos. Let Singapore be the zone of bliss where the people are famed for their sensibilities, fine graces and good breeding. For so many years, Singaporeans have endeared to Mr Lee for his insistence on issues of conscience and he has imbibed in us the sanctity of high human values.
Let the young leaders decide what they deem apt. As elders, we say "no" for fine human values tell us that a casino is more than just gambling: It brings along an avalanche of debauchery.
The guy who wrote this is Mansor Haji Sukaimi, former MP from 1976-1984.
Firstly, the government may be human, but it is not stupid, thats for sure. I agree that whatever it decides is not subject to public opinion. However the reason the PAP has stayed in power for so long is not because it has threatened people with lawsuits, or any physical removal of opposition, unlike conventional dictators like Hitler or Stalin. It has survived because it is the only group of people worthy of leading a nation. The reason the opposition has faltered is because their leaders are proven unworthy. Look at dear Chee Soon Juan: who would want a leader that raises his voice, behaving in a thug-like manner just to criticise another person? Such an impulsive and unruly person is not fit to rule. Also, this brings to mind a comment made by a former opposition MP (name was sumthing Singh, i can't remember), way back in 1987: "Whyever should we build an MRT? We have no need to go underground.. We are not communists, for goodness' sake." -_-"
Have I proven my point? With some opposition leaders bordering on the brink of mental infirmity, it is obvious that those who are fit are already in power, and will remain in power. If any party is fit to rule, they do not need to spend great sums of money to prove their worth. For example, the Workers' Party has been dominating Hougang GRC for years. They have proven themselves capable of leading, and do not need to go about criticing Mr Lee Kuan Yew about some Borneo loan or hand out free anti-PAP flyers in Orchard Road in order to get votes (read: SDP). I have no qualms about such capable and well organised parties taking the helm of our nation. Therefore, we should trust that before any major decision is made, any economic or social impact has been duly examined in great detail by the people that contributed to the making of such a decision.
Singapore is a country renowned for being well-organised and exceptionally clean, in every sense of the word. Should its leaders, being leaders since its independence, not deserve the population's trust? What reason do we have to not trust the PAP, given that they have been almost flawless in leading our nation? Unless they are dishonest and opressive. Now that is a different story.
Furthermore, unlike what the writer of this Forum entry says, Singapore is not a bastion of social graces and moral finesse. We are far from it. I still remember a guy who wrote in to the Straits Times to complain about how he was verbally abused by a man who asked his high-tide little boy to urinate INSIDE AN MRT CARRAIGE. The writer of the complaint had merely told off the man. Yet, what he got in reply was a string of Hokkien vulgarities. My, how 'graceful'. Couple this with common road rage, pub stabbings, hawker centre fights, and we find that Singapore is not the sunshiny clean city foreigners make it out to be. It is just like any other city, and not a . A casino would not improve, nor exacerbate (hmm, awesome word =)) the current situation.
Moving on, this ex-MP says that "Surely we are capable of sustaining a decent standard of living without it. Let all the neighbouring countries have their casinos. Let Singapore be the zone of bliss where the people are famed for their sensibilities, fine graces and good breeding." This is equivalent to suicide for the tourism industry. The casinos are meant to literally absorb the money of tourists. A casino in this nation will plaster our names straight across news headlines in every major global city, in a manner no expensive advertising campaign for a 'unique singapore' can ever accomplish. Right now, foreigners mock us for being staid and boring. We must accept that foreigners love vices like these. A Briton even commented that he refused to come to Singapore, having heard it is a 'city with no life'. Until he heard that we actually had a red-light district, that is. Same goes for the pretty building called a casino. Las Vegas would still be a dusty remote desert town had it not built The Strip.
No matter how many theme parks, zoos, or other 'conventional' tourist attractions we can build, we can never ever compete with any of our rivals. Look at Genting, and look at Escape theme park. Look at Sentosa's Fantasy Island, then look at Atlantis resort in the Bahamas. Or even Sunway Lagoon. Look at UK's Eden gardens, then look at Botanic gardens. How interesting can a Duck ride down a Singapore River flanked by restored shophouses be? The truth is, we can never compete with the big players. Singapore's culture as an attraction wIll get old one day. To keep tourists coming back and spending money in this land, we must admit that we cannot compete with the big players. Unless a big player comes here! We have already received so many proposals for giant casino-operating firms to build a grand complex here that is promised to surpass even Atlantis in scope and size. With such a juicy carrot dangled in fornt of us, we certainly would be stupid to decline. Such an installation will officially make us a big player, and would do more than boost tourism; tourim would skyrocket. A casino is what we need to complete our nation as a tourism hub. A casino need not be a dirty place of vice and immoral activities.
Also, what social costs? A casino is a flashy place full of gold, extravagant decorations, and expensive shows. It is not meant for blue-collar factory workers in singlets and slippers with hungry families to squander off their hard-earned monthly wages. They belong to their neighbourhood 4D betting outlet, not a place where the rich and famous gather to have some entertainment. Furthermore, Singaporeans are already spending money in casinos aboard cruise ships and in Genting. Shouldn't the nation get all the money instead? Also, even if the rich and famous become poor through unecessary gambling, these cases are few. It's just that such cases are reported on a large scale (i.e. that ABC breweries guy). I am sure the government would put in place measures to curb social impacts before it happens, and not after ---> 'help centers' or 'helplines'. (latest update: the twin casinos will be family-focused, based on the Atlantis model. Basically, it will be a fun place for the entire family, complete with world-class water theme parks, which we currently do not posses. AND only 3-5% of floor space is dedicated to gaming. That means Singaporeans can go to the resorts to enjoy wholesome family fun~!)
In addition, jobs. A recent Channel NewsAsia show featured Diana Ser interviewing Macau residents. One guy said: 'Our people do not go there to gamble, we work there.' When Diana asked a classroom of teenagers if their relatives worked in casinos, 8 out of only 20+ teens raised their hands. Undoubtedly, Macau's economy is very dependant on its casinos. In a reasonably prosperous and stable economy like Singapore's, a casino where the rich come to spend money would certainly give us an unimaginable raise for our treasury. A fact that Sukaimi (writer of Today forum extract above) strangely fails to see. Coupled with the new mega-yatch marina, the two flashy new casinos, worth a total of $5 billion, would certainly make Singapore a major port of call for the rich and famous. Singapore's very positive global reputation as a safe haven would want to make people come down and 'try out' the new casinos. Furthermore, we will obviously send out personal invitations to major casino clients. If our casino is well run and entertaining, it will result in a perpetual and stable source of income for many families, and also national reserves.
Practically all religious groups blast the decision because it breaks up families, and solely because it breaks up families. What if it doesn't? These said twin casinos would give a much-needed boost to keep Singapore relevant in the tourism industry, while giving our nation a valuable source of income, and many, many jobs (35,000, estimated). Also, with little social costs. What could be better? Think about it. =)))
jOhn thought at 3:42 AM