| |
The
Straits Times, Friday Matters, 11 Nov 04
Casino
decision: A bigger question looms
By Alex Au
AS THE casino question drags on, it is raising questions about the
Singapore model. It's been a while since the idea was raised, and
we appear no nearer to a decision.
Meanwhile, Macau opened a new Vegas-style casino, and Guam and the
Northern Marianas are said to be readying plans for their own. Clearly,
others believe that as China liberalises travel for citizens, there
will be demand for regional gaming holidays.
An open and shut case, you might think, but in Singapore, it looks
like a case of paralysis. For decades, the Government was dead set
against a casino. Despite hordes at the Turf Club and Toto booths,
we were supposed to be a puritan society that believed in discipline
and hard work.
Then, out of the blue, the possibility of a casino was raised. Why?
Tourism was in crisis. It was finally admitted, after years of boasting
about increasing numbers coming to Singapore, that our dollar share
of Asia-Pacific travel had been falling dramatically. Between 1993
and 2002, tourism receipts fell by 21 per cent to $8.8 billion. Singapore's
share of East Asia Pacific tourism receipts fell from 8.2 per cent
to 5.8 per cent between 1998 and 2002.
For a people fed a steady diet of economic success stories, this was
a disgraceful admission. Among remedies suggested was that of a casino.
That's where we were a year ago, and that's still about where we are
today - an idea.
In the months since, voices were raised against admitting this evil
into Singapore. Most focused on the social costs: addiction sets in;
families are ruined. Surveying letters in the press, there have perhaps
been more anti- than pro-casino letters. Moreover, those opposed to
gambling tend to be more ardent in their views than those on the other
side.
If left to popular opinion, we're not likely to see a casino approved.
Yet there may be a lobby within the Government convinced that we need
one. But that lobby appears unable to obtain the necessary consensus
to move ahead. It wrong-footed itself at the outset by using the justification
of attracting tourist dollars. Although honest, it was a weak argument
for public consumption when set against opposition that was emotional,
complete with images of social blight and religious damnation.
Then, in an effort to pacify opponents, the idea of denying citizens
access, except for the rich, was floated. That way, we earn tourist
dollars without low-brow Singaporeans succumbing to temptation. Immediately,
the pro-casino bureaucrats lost the support of the tens of thousands
of eager punters locally, who might otherwise have helped push forward
the plan.
More recently, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong tried to appear neutral.
He said, yes, there are social costs, but there are economic benefits.
Can we find a way to manage the social costs? Can we be convinced
the economic benefits will outweigh the costs?
At this point, the casino question mutates into a question about a
Singapore model. The PM's musing assumed that costs and benefits are
calculable; that a technocratic answer can be found. What if they
are not? How will the question ever be resolved?
Equally, I thought the PM's reformulation of the casino question ran
counter to the Government's calls for more risk-taking and entrepreneurial
adventures. Sometimes, you have to go on a hunch. You can't take your
own sweet time to calculate cost-benefit to the nth degree. Nor can
you wait until the profitability of a concept is proven by someone
else. If so, he's ahead of you in the game.
The external environment is extremely fluid. How fast will China's
market open up? How fast will competitors open their casino doors?
Do we stop at one? Conversely, how many here will lose self-control?
How many families will suffer? How do we have any faith in theoretical
projections? If we are fazed by all these risks and unknowns and say
'no' to the idea, what about those budget airlines that make it ever
cheaper to fly to a neighbouring country endowed with gambling options?
What about Internet gambling? Won't we then still have the social
costs of gambling without the economic benefits of such an industry?
That last question hits the nail on the head. It matters not what
the cost-benefit ratio is. The cost is coming to us anyway. You don't
need a technocrat to see the answer.
The other aspect of the Singapore model being shown up is our decades-long
embrace of morality and social order. We had campaigns against yellow
culture and hippie-ism. We've been disparaging play, escapism and
individualism as antithetical to the discipline and self-sacrifice
that have underpinned Singapore's success.
Now we want a casino? We're going to disown four decades of belief
to hook more tourists? No wonder the idea's stuck. We've been brought
up to believe that the Singapore model - ruthlessly rational and socially
puritan - delivers results. But now, it's leading us to paralysis.
So the question may well be bigger than just that of a casino. Does
the Singapore model itself need to be re-examined?
Alex Au Wai Pang is a social commentator. Chua Mui Hoong alternates
with guest writers in this weekly column.
|
|
