| |
The
Straits Times Forum, 6 Dec 04
The Casino Debate
Betting targets crucial to gauge social impact
SIGNS indicate that a Las Vegas-type casino resort, which will cost
$1 billion or more to build, is on the cards. Investors will want
to make sure the project stands out as an icon in the region and there
is a critical mass or economies of scale to make it viable in the
long run. Correspondingly, the size of the casino operation will have
to be enormous.
What betting targets are these investors thinking about? This is a
crucial parameter for researchers who want to gauge the social impact
of the project on our nation. A Singaporean economist at the recent
forum organised by the Institute of Policy Studies said the project
will create 3,600 jobs.
How big will the casino resort be in terms of built-up area, gaming,
resort and accommodation areas, gaming and non-gaming revenue in order
to generate 3,600 jobs? How many of these jobs are gaming jobs? What
is the gaming revenue target?
Gaming experts have said openly that mass participation by the local
populace is crucial to sustain the viability of the project. In Australia,
casinos depend heavily on participation by the local populace. Foreign
tourists account for less than one-fifth of gaming revenue. Tourist
arrivals number 5.2 million a year, compared to a population of 20.2
million. In Malaysia, tourists account for slightly more than one-fifth
of casino gaming revenue.
If we are to build a big casino, can the gaming experts tell us the
proportion of local participation required for the casino to stay
viable, considering we have a much larger base of tourists than Australia
- about seven million a year? Also, suppose we need local participation
of 60 to 70 per cent to make the project viable. Can a limit be set
on the number of Singaporeans who enter the casino so the number of
local gamblers can be managed? Will casino investors agree to this
condition? Will it be challenged under international laws when the
environment changes in the future? For those who want to evaluate
the negative impact of casino gaming in quantitative terms, Australia
presents a good study case.
The following is just a summary of the problem. Australia is the world's
leading gambling problem nation and the situation is not improving.
About 2 per cent of the adult population have gambling problems. The
average duration of gambling problems is nine years. Between five
and 10 other people are affected by the behaviour of each problem
gambler.
With regard to the other side of the coin, we should ask ourselves:
Can we afford not to have a casino? How great is the opportunity cost
of not having one? This is another angle to look at the 'benefits'
of the project. The opportunity cost depends on many factors and assumptions,
such as how much Singaporeans will gamble overseas in the future (currently
$1.2 billion a year), how many new casinos will be built in neighbouring
countries, the Government's proposed tax rate on casino gambling,
and the size and content of the proposed project. One must also take
into account our tourist base of seven million. If we can attract
a fraction of them to stay one extra day in the casino resort, even
without gambling, the extra spending may amount to $1 billion or more.
To understand the full impact of the casino project on the various
dimensions of our life and our nation, and in order to have a more
productive debate on the various related issues, we must not act like
the six blind men who try to figure out what an elephant looks like.
Ng Ya Ken
Mature on casino issue but not in other areas?
WHEN I traced back how the casino debate started, one argument in
favour was because mainland Chinese tourists flock to Macau and other
places to gamble. The Chinese do love to gamble, and a casino makes
economic sense if we want to attract the yuan.
However, there is a strong opposing voice based on moral grounds.
To counter this moral groundswell, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan took the
debate to a personal level by challenging the maturity of Singaporeans.
He said Singapore does not need a casino to attract the tourist dollar.
This is great news. For a moment, I was concerned we would have to
stoop so low to attract the tourist dollar. According to one casino
consultant, the project will not be viable if the local population
is not allowed to patronise the casino. In other words, the casino
will need more than tourist dollars to survive. It will need Singapore
dollars from the working class, who can least afford to gamble.
Dr Balakrishnan raised a very pertinent issue. Are Singaporeans mature
enough to mind our own affairs or do we need the Government to protect
us from every risk? For many years, I have urged the Government to
allow HDB flat owners, who have fully paid up their mortgage, to use
their flats as collateral for business purposes. Repeatedly, this
has been rejected on the grounds that the Government needs to ensure
that one's roof is not taken away if one's business fails.
Is the Government not stifling entrepreneurship and trying to protect
us from ourselves in such an instance? I find it strange that, on
the one hand, the Government tells those who want to take the risk
of business enterprise they can't. Business is risky and you may lose
everything, including your house. We don't think you're mature enough
and we need to protect you from yourself.
On the other hand, to support its case for a casino, the Government
says to the same group of people, hey, it's okay to gamble. We think
you're mature enough and we don't need to protect you. If we really
want to test the maturity of Singaporeans in managing their financial
affairs, let's promote more business risk-taking instead of gambling.
More than 80 per cent of the population live in HDB flats. Make HDB
flats an acceptable security for collateral. Let flat owners pledge
their flat as security for business purposes. People will become more
enterprising and we will have a more vibrant small and medium enterprise
sector. Sure, some will fail. But so what if some lose their HDB flat
and have to rent? That is part and parcel of risk taking. Someone
once said: 'The day I was dead broke was the day I knew I would be
rich.' There are many stories of successful businessmen who have failed
and lost everything only to come out better.
In any event, is it not better for someone to lose his flat trying
to build a business than lose his flat from gambling? From the language
of Dr Balakrishnan and by asking for proposals from casino operators,
it is apparent some minds have already been made up about a casino
in Singapore. I ask all who are opposed to join me in sending a petition
to their MPs. Let our collective voice be loud and clear.
Patrick Tan Siong Kuan
Religious groups should speak with louder voice
I REFER to Ms Sue-Ann Chia's article, 'Sizing up the casino critic'
(ST, Nov 26). I was present at the forum on the casino proposal organised
by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS).
While many from religious groups attended, few spoke up from the floor.
While some professed to have a religion, including one pro-casino
advocate, none I can recall spoke from a religious perspective. Many
of the quotes on gambling and religion journalists (including Ms Chia)
obtained from religious figures were the result of private interviews.
They were not aired on the floor of the forum.
This absence of religious perspectives during the forum perhaps reflects
the discomfort by Singaporeans over the airing of religious views
in a public discourse. Perhaps it also reflects the consensus that
in Singapore religion is largely a private matter and religious arguments
have no place in discussions of economic issues and social morals.
This is not to say religious groups have been totally silent. They
have issued press statements, but more to announce their position
to the faithful and the interested than to engage in public debate.
This is unfortunate and Singapore is poorer for it.
Religious groups bring two additional perspectives: They have a long
track record in dealing with vice, evil and immorality and their effects
on society. They run welfare agencies and their welfare arms have
an insight into problems caused by these social ills.
The IPS forum turned out to be centred largely on economic arguments.
On balance, it did not throw up any compelling argument for a casino
in an integrated resort. Instead, the following points came up: While
tourist arrivals have risen in the past 20 years, spending per visitor
has declined over the same period. This is caused by the convergence
of tourist destinations, that is, other Asian cities offer the same
shopping, sightseeing and hospitality experience as Singapore. If
Singapore introduces a casino in response to proposals in Thailand
and South Korea to build one, it won't distinguish itself as a tourist
destination. Singapore needs to be more focused in the kind of tourist
it wants to attract and then package its attractions accordingly.
If an investor ploughs in $1 billion to build an integrated iconic
resort, the best way to recoup the investment is to encourage Singaporeans
to overgamble. Singaporeans are already a nation of gamblers with
the third highest per capita waged. Gambling is already a problem
by international standards. Yet the social infrastructure to deal
with gambling addiction is largely absent and no data exists on its
cost to the Government or voluntary welfare organisations. A successful
integrated resort will bring in additional tourists (like Las Vegas).
A less successful casino destination (like Atlantic City) will flood
the market with surplus hotel rooms priced below the market because
of the subsidy by the casino. It will pull down the pricing structure
of the hotel industry. Las Vegas has abandoned the integrated family
resort concept because of the problem of exposing children to gambling.
Instead, it has focused on the adult con- vention and incentive travel
market. Singapore is already the No. 3 city globally for conventions.
While it is accepted that a casino will be positive for GDP and employment,
these factors can be exaggerated because of the high import content
of expertise and equipment.
Lim Eng Cheng
Moral well-being too important to be ignored
I REFER to the editorial, 'What odds a 'safe' casino?' (ST, Nov 15),
which I thought was a letdown. This is because I usually expect a
high standard of editorial content and argument from ST leader writers.
I thought your declaration that in building a casino, 'our position
takes no account of morality of gambling' was a copout. Not to take
a stand is to take a stand. The ST editorial has decided moral issues
are not of paramount importance when considering the proposal to build
a casino in Singapore.
Against such a view, may I suggest the moral well-being of our society
is too important to let any new project or policy undermine it, or
to leave it to good luck. Not everyone who is against building a casino
within an entertainment complex is unreasonable. All we ask is to
be shown what a gambling culture can contribute to the moral development
of our society. Convince us a casino or any gambling culture that
comes with it can enhance community life and our common good. We are
aware that gambling cannot be eradicated. The door to gambling, and
other vices for that matter, cannot be closed completely. But what
we must not do is open the door wider and let the camel and the parasites
it carries enter the tent.
When it comes to moral issues, the wise will listen to tested traditions
and the moral values such traditions have worked hard to transmit
for the benefit of the wider society. Foolish is the country that
allows supposed 'experts' from the gambling and entertainment world
to have a decisive say in what is best for Singapore, especially if
many of those experts are not Singaporeans.
Who would seek the expert advice of a South American drug syndicate
on whether cocaine should be legalised? Address moral and social issues
related to gambling. Do not leave such important issues to chance
and in so doing gamble our future away.
Daniel Koh Kah Soon
Gambling addict father used to beat up mother
I REFER to the article 'Problem gamblers more likely to batter wives'
(ST, Nov 26) and cannot agree more.
My father was a gambling addict. To get money to feed his ever-losing
gambling streaks, he would come home and force my mother to give him
all the money she had, up to the last cent of household expenses.
When she refused, he would shout vulgarities and even beat her up.
I remember vividly he once threw the telephone at her and threatened
to burn down the house.
When my mother was later diagnosed with cancer, did he change for
the better? No! Instead, he tried to get her to sign documents to
sell the house so he could have even more money for gambling.
From my own experience, I just want to highlight the damage compulsive
gamblers can do to their family. A casino may not turn all who visit
into obsessive gamblers, but there will be some who will fall into
the never-ending cycle.
Angie Chow Yee (Ms)
Opponents have nothing new to say
WHAT new arguments or evidence have the naysayers offered in the past
month?
They have given up the economic argument and now focus solely and
repeatedly on society and personal morality or anecdotal evidence.
Ultimately, they are fighting not only a losing battle but also, unfortunately,
the wrong one.
It is incredible to suggest that Singapore is not already a gambling
society or one without its fair share of gambling problems. Gambling
is already legal and sanctioned. We have 4D, soccer and horse race
betting, and Toto. People go abroad to gamble, whether on cruises,
to overseas resorts, during the festive season or even in illegal
dens. Gambling addicts and problems associated with gambling have
been around since the dawn of Singapore. Hence, any 'devaluation'
of our 'image' or values (family, Asian, religious or otherwise) must
come directly from the casino itself. If so, the logical solution
(but one they have chosen to ignore) is that the casino should have
reasonable safeguards. Better still, perhaps this will spur the Government
and civic society to embark on a mission of harm reduction and tackle
the real problem, which is not gambling but associated and attendant
harms already in existence.
In my opinion, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan has already dealt with changing
societal mores and the need for society and individuals to debate
and accept change. Furthermore, this serves as a litmus test on how
'ready' our society is to take responsibility for our future. Hence,
while it is admirable to see the effort put in by the naysayers, unless
they plan to ban all forms of gambling, their enthusiasm is misplaced.
Better to set up a Gamblers Anonymous instead.
Shaun Lee Wei Han
|
|
