The decision by the Singapore government to set up two integrated resorts with casinos has stirred up some debate among its citizens. Some people think that having casinos could mean more people gambling and getting themselves or their families involved in trouble such as crime. From disgruntled vendors to anxious mattress buyers, it hasn't exactly been a graceful exit for Robinsons thus far. And it seems that the drama isn't over yet.Following its announcement on Oct 30. I wish to add a new perspective to the casino debate and to suggest how we can enjoy the economic benefit and minimse its social cost. I visted Genting Highlands recently to attend a conference. It is a large integrated resort, with entertainment shows, shops, food outlets, children games, an outdoor theme park and casinos. By: Gerald Giam Twelve years ago, the national debate on whether Singapore should allow in Las Vegas-style casinos ignited my interest in discussing policy issues that affect country's future. In April last year, the Government announced its decision to invite proposals to develop two Integrated Resorts with casinos in Singapore. This was debated over four days in Parliament during which many Members of Parliament shared their concerns on gambling, stated their positions and made suggestions concerning casinos in Singapore.
For years they've called Singapore the nanny state, not just because the sale of chewing gum was banned but also because the government knows best, controls all and likes everything neat and proper.
Restaurant du casino joa d'etretat. So what would the nanny say about opening a megacasino?
In the past the government insisted it never would happen. 'Over my dead body' is how Singapore's founding leader, Lee Kuan Yew, once put it, rejecting gambling as an affront to the Singaporean ethic of hard work and clean living.
Lee is retired but remains Singapore's elder statesman, and his son is the prime minister. But surprisingly the government is moving to permit casino gambling, even as a good number of citizens remain opposed.
That has led to a second very unusual situation: a vigorous public debate over a sensitive political issue, which in this tightly run city-state is akin to--heaven forbid--talking back to your nanny.
As the government solicits bids from international casino operators, members of Singapore's diverse religious and ethnic community--Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus--are speaking out against the idea, while a citizen group called Families Against the Casino Threat in Singapore has organized a Web site and cell phone text-message campaign. It says it has collected 27,000 signatures opposing the casino.
Singapore's Cabinet, which also is said to be divided over the idea, is listening to the debate and intends to make a decision this spring.
'At the end of the day, it's a bet on whether you think you can control the spillover evil effects and how much confidence you have in the maturity of the population,' Lee was quoted as saying recently at a business conference.
Political observers see different motives and implications in what is happening, with the most fascinating analysis suggesting that Singapore is on the cusp of a new era of openness.
'The casino has mobilized a lot of Singaporeans to work against what's seen as the government's interests,' said Hanshih Lee, a Singaporean magazine editor and former newspaper business columnist. 'Once [the public] gets a taste of this, they will try it with other things.'
Putting it in nanny-state terms, it's as if the government finally may be acknowledging that its charges are growing up.
The debate 'speaks volumes about modern Singapore and the way the government is trying to give its citizens more of a voice in society, distancing itself from the nanny-state style of government that characterized the country's first 35 years,' said a foreign diplomat here who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Before taking office last year, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said it was time to 'cut the apron strings' because 'nanny should not look after everything all the time.'
Nightlife and racy magazines
Looking around Singapore, a tropical nation of 4.35 million people with gleaming office towers and clean streets, there is a bit more of a cosmopolitan feel than a decade ago. The city has a vibrant nightlife scene and several large international bookstores that even sell racy magazines. Two years ago the government made a big deal of permitting a bungee-jumping arcade to open along the river.
In another high-profile move, homosexuals now are recruited for government jobs, though homosexual activity technically remains illegal.
There also is a lot that has not changed in Singapore, a country whose reputation was cemented in 1994 when the government punished 18-year-old American Michael Fay with a caning for vandalism.
The caning incident--which still comes up in conversations here--reflected Singapore's obsession with order and discipline. Those same concerns have colored Singapore's docile brand of democracy, in which directly challenging the government is considered out of bounds. Opposition politicians are all but shut out by the ruling party while the major news media rest in the hands of government friends. A predictable political system is seen as best for developing the economy.
None of that cautiousness is likely to change overnight. It says enough about Singapore-style politics that many observers in Asia think authoritarian China considers Singapore's open-but-closed system as a model for its future.
Gillian Koh, a research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies in Singapore, thinks the main reason the government is encouraging debate over the casino is that it had been on record as opposing the idea and it can protect its credibility by allowing the nation to be swayed by economic arguments for it.
'Very often people say that the government invites public consultation, but you aren't sure if it's for real or icing on the cake,' Koh said. In this instance, she said, 'They can afford to be honest because the Cabinet is split.'
The argument in favor of the casino is that it will boost the economy and stanch the estimated $1 billion in gambling money that leaves the country each year for Macau and other gaming centers.
The proposed casino would be part of a large-scale entertainment and tourism center. To address concerns that the poor will be enticed to gamble, the government would require Singaporeans to pay a $60 daily entrance fee. Foreigners would be exempt.
A bid to reinvent itself
Casino Debate Singapore Official
But the government also sees something bigger in the casino debate. 3 doors down kansas star casino entertainment. Rather than focusing on political openness, it is pitching the casino as part of a broader campaign to reinvent Singapore and cast off the image of nannyhood. For years Singapore has lamented that it had become too strait-laced and was in danger of falling behind in the global economic competition.
Casino Debate Singapore Today
'Really, it is a question of the maturity of our society and the type of society which we want to have going forward,' Vivian Balakrishnan, a government minister, said in an interview. 'We all know that we live in a rapidly changing, highly competitive world--one in which we will need all Singaporeans to grow up, to be responsible, to take responsibility for their own actions, including facing the consequences of their choices.'
