| |
The
Business Times, 17 Sep 04
CEOs' case for S'pore casino not convincing
Letters to the Business Times by Alan Lim, Singapore
I REFER to 'Views From The Top' (BT, Sept 13) which focused on whether
Singapore should open up to the casino gaming industry.
An overwhelming majority of your BT CEO's e-Club support the presence
of a casino gaming industry in Singapore. This is consistent with
how the benefits of the gaming industry are distributed - the profits
are privatised while the costs are socialised.
I would be interested to see responses to the same question when put
to those who have a view of the underbelly of society such as the
police, the judiciary, the official assignee and social welfare organisations.
Casinos are a zero sum game. Total winnings must equal total losses
less the operating cost of the casino and profits. Yes, I agree, there
will be multiplier effects to the tourism, convention and hospitality
industries.
Access to casinos abroad and on cruises require planning and travel.
Not so for Singapore casino. We are talking about a real-time, walk-in
opportunity.
However, I have yet to see a serious study of the likely social ills
accompanying such a move. Perhaps the government should consider giving
a grant to such studies because it does not appear that the gaming,
hospitality or tourism industry is prepared to fund it.
Some suggestions have been put forward to attempt to address the undesirable
aspects of casinos:
Medical treatment of gambling addicts. The problem with addiction
is self-denial. At the growth stage of addiction, the addict does
not believe he/she is addicted and does not seek help. Self-denial
definitively ends with bankruptcy or imprisonment.
Dress code and membership. This will keep the 'undesirable' elements
out. But loan sharks and pimps will still hang around where they can
ply their trade - outside the casino.
Respectable clientele. The problem with casinos is when someone 'respectable'
becomes addicted. He/she draws down on all legal forms of debt: credit
card, unsecured lines, or secured overdraft. Worse still, the individual
in desperation then turns to misappropriating funds from his/her employer
or business.
The strongest argument put forward by the BT CEO's e-Club is that
casinos are available to Singaporeans in neighbouring countries and
on cruises. However, access to these casinos require planning and
travel. Not so for the Singapore casino. We are talking about a real-time,
walk-in opportunity for some serious gambling a stroll away from the
harbour front.
In the absence of a serious study of the likely social ills of setting
up a casino in Singapore, I would like to do some back-of-the-envelope
calculations. Let us ignore, for the moment, all the social costs
associated with broken marriages, neglected children and ruined lives.
I would guesstimate that with the opening of a casino, 3 per cent
of Singapore's 4 million population will visit it. Of that 3 per cent,
only a tiny minority become regulars, say one in a hundred or 0.03
per cent. Of that 0.03 per cent, about a third or 0.01 per cent will
suffer significant financial losses. Of that group that suffers financial
losses, one in ten becomes desperate and misappropriates funds from
their employer or businesses. The outcome of this rough calculation
is that there will be 40 more criminal breach of trust cases. If each
case involves half a million, businesses will have to swallow $20
million in losses due to employee fraud.
This is the true meaning of privatising the gains and socialising
the costs. Your readers might think that these numbers are unreasonably
high. I urge them to look at the number of lawyers, respectable individuals
with an intimate knowledge of the law, that have been caught and charged
with misusing client funds. |
|
