| |
The
Business Times, 7 Apr 04
Make
that casino decision wide awake
By Tang Weng Fai
GAMBLING arouses deep passions - both among those who indulge and
those who don't. A recent story I wrote about the likely economic
fallout from a casino here drew some strong responses from readers,
one of which BT printed.
Clearly concerned, a reader wrote: 'What is this article trying to
say? If a casino could create 1,000 jobs, contribute taxes and contribute
money to community projects, then it is a worthwhile thing to have?'
The reader went on: 'Would you justify in the same way promoting,
say, a prostitution or narcotics industry? Can something be okay just
because some people, including a minister, say so?'
To put the record straight, I took no position in my article on whether
a casino is a good thing to have. And it's unclear whether all the
pros and cons of having a high-end casino in Singapore have been fully
debated. But what is clear is that casinos have the potential to cause
a lot of damage.
Simple and effective techniques are used to maximise the 'yield' from
gamblers. For instance, Australian casinos have slot machines that
allow people to play for very little at a time - just a few cents.
And despite the odds being stacked against them, this encourages punters
to keep pumping in small sums until they run out of money. Casinos
also go as far as carting free food and drink to the slot machines
so gamblers don't have to leave their seat if they're hungry or thirsty.
The implication? Maximise the net spend per gambler and squeeze the
punters dry.
Closer to home, regular gamblers on floating casinos such as those
of Star Cruises get free offers on the luxury ships, valid for a year.
Everybody knows that, once in international waters, the on-board casinos
are the most patronised areas of these ships.
So far, economic factors seem to be the main rationale for a casino
in Singapore. Even the carefully-couched wording of the initial idea
from Minister of Trade & Industry George Yeo revealed that a casino
is an economic phenomenon. That's not surprising.
Utilitarian ideas of the greatest good for the greatest number - however
defined - are likely to win the day if the government eventually gives
the nod for a casino. Pro-casino advocates already have some idea
of the type and size of the expected benefits.
For example, the siting is no accident. Sentosa has suffered poor
visitorship for many years, despite the plans for it to draw $5 billion
of investments during the next decade and so on. A casino, if built
on the island, would be a draw card that would attract and anchor
interest and visitors.
The anti-casino camp has less to get a grip on when arguing its case.
What's especially difficult is that it's not easy to make a 'no' case
using non-economic arguments. How does one measure the heartache of
broken families or stunted lives?
A current example: Forty-four-year-old Chia Teck Leng, formerly a
finance manager at Asia Pacific Breweries, was sentenced to 42 years'
jail last week for cheating four banks of large sums of money to finance
his gambling habit and lavish lifestyle. At the last count, he had
gambled away $62 million before he was arrested in September 2003.
Is Chia a one-off? Unlikely. Is his case part of the 'cost' of gambling?
Certainly.
Reader Alan Lim refered to studies in the United States that have
linked gambling to child abuse, alcoholism, crime, prostitution and
so on. And it's precisely because the social impact is mostly non-economic
that we must insist that other criteria, as well as economic measures,
are given due weight in any decision on a casino.
Those in favour of a casino say locals already have access - for example,
on Star Cruises ships and at Genting. But they are missing the point:
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Given the potential social fallout, the decision on a casino has to
balance the 'good' (jobs, tax revenue, spillovers into hospitality
and other sectors, etc) against the obvious 'bad'. It won't be an
easy choice.
But I, for one, won't have to wait for reliable estimates on the 'costs'
of a casino before I conclude whether the idea is good or bad. As
they say: If you see a hole and still step inside just to see how
deep it is, you have only yourself to blame. |
|
