Southern Shores of Singapore
about our shores: galleries | stories & visitor info | media articles
 
The Straits Times, 25 Sep 04

INSIGHT: The Casino toss-up
If a casino is built, will the economy win big? But will society also lose big? Insight checks out the score in the debate
By Lydia Lim

RETIRED teacher Soh Chiew Peng hates the idea of a casino here even as she recognises that people already gamble here, like at the 4-D and Toto outlets scattered all over the island.

'I'm dead set against them too, but when they introduced those things, they didn't ask us what we thought.' Mrs Soh, 54, says she knows from personal experience how gambling addictions can tear families apart. A relative of hers and one former classmate went to jail after they turned to crime to support their gambling habits.

'If the Government wants to boost the economy, there are other ways,' she says. Mrs Soh has the backing of 47 per cent of the population, according to a recent Straits Times survey.
ANY COMMENT If you are opposed to a casino, will you dissuade those you know from visiting it or let them decide for themselves? If you want a casino here, how do you plan to convince those on the other side? E-mail us at stpol@sph.com.sg or fax us on 6732-0131.

THERE ARE OTHER WAYS 'Gambling is not the right way to get money, hard work is. If the Government wants to boost the economy, there are other ways.' - Mrs Soh Chiew Peng, 54, a retired teacher

IT DOES WONDERS FOR TOURISM 'Australia has casinos in virtually try state and that has not only done wonders for tourism and business but, more importantly, has also not caused Australia to degenerate into some sleazy, crime-ridden hell hole.' - Mr Tan Eng Hong, 47, an advertising professional

JUST ONE OF MANY AMENITIES 'Public discussion has so far focused on the casino component of the proposed integrated resort. However, it is just one of the many amenities in the resort... For many world-class resorts, it is the non-gaming amenities that attract large numbers of visitors.' - Ministry of Trade and Industry, in a reply to Insight

Their reasons for opposing a casino? The belief that it will cause gambling addiction, family problems and crime to escalate. But the other half of the population - 53 per cent - see it differently. They believe Singapore should have its own casino as this will help boost tourism, generate revenue and create jobs.

In this group is Mr Tan Eng Hong, 47, an advertising professional. He says: 'Casinos are no longer sleazy, shady gambling dens of vice, but glitzy and impressive mega tourist attractions.' Just look at countries like Australia, says the father of two. It has casinos in many cities and they have not degenerated into crime-ridden hot spots. Mr Tan is sure a casino's economic benefits will outweigh the social costs but there's little data to back his view, or Mrs Soh's opposing one for that matter.

While the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) has been studying the casino proposal for some months, it has yet to release figures on potential benefits and costs.

What it would say is that no decision has been made yet on whether or not to proceed. It reiterated that it is considering proposals to build an integrated resort with a casino component and not a standalone casino.

Similar developments overseas have resulted in large investments, significant increases in visitor numbers and the creation of jobs, the ministry tells Insight. It says that it is also mindful of the potential social impact of the casino component and 'will put in place appropriate social safeguards if we decide to proceed'.

National University of Singapore economist Choy Keen Meng says what makes the casino decision different from other public policy issues is the difficulty in carrying out a cost-benefit analysis. 'No one denies the social consequences of a casino but how do you measure them? How do you quantify the cost of a ruined family, for example?'

This problem could explain why the Government has for so long resisted calls from the business community to allow a casino here, he says.

A MINUS?

THE lack of conclusive evidence on how casinos affect communities is not for want of trying. Researchers in countries like the United States, Australia and New Zealand have in recent years attempted to measure casinos' social and economic impact. These studies show that casinos affect different communities differently and commonly-held assumptions about how casinos are supposed to help or hurt societies often do not hold water.

Take for example the view that casinos will cause crime to escalate. A 1998 study commissioned by the New Zealand Casino Control Authority, on the impact of newly-opened casinos in Christchurch and Auckland, found this was not the case. In Christchurch, for example, rates of certain types of crimes, such as liquor offences, burglary and fraud, fell after the casino's opening, although it remains unclear what prompted the better behaviour.

Yet another study, this one funded by America's National Institute of Justice, covered seven cities or counties in the US where casinos had opened recently. It too found few consistent trends in crime. In three of the areas studied, more types of crimes increased than decreased. In another three, more types of crimes went down rather than up. In the last city, there was little change for most crimes.

The results were also mixed when the researchers compared suicide and divorce rates in these communities against rates in similar communities without casinos. However, personal bankruptcies went up significantly in five of the seven casino communities when compared to the control groups.

Another big worry among critics of casinos is that they will cause more people to become addicted to gambling. This was indeed the top concern among the 47 per cent who said 'no' to a casino in the recent Straits Times survey.

The New Zealand study found that the number of people seeking help for gambling addiction did in fact increase after the two casinos opened. But part of this jump could have been due to increased publicity on problem gambling and the support services available, researchers said.

A similar upsurge in the number of gamblers seeking help can be expected if a casino opens here, says Dr Munidasa Winslow, who heads the Institute of Mental Health's Community Addictions Management Programme. That has been the trend whenever a new form of gambling is legalised, he says, and, for that matter, whenever local newspapers run stories on problem gambling.

Whether a casino will significantly increase the number of gambling addicts is in his view difficult to tell. It will depend on whether the casino enlarges the total pool of gamblers or draws largely on the existing pool of regular gamblers, he says. 'Studies show that when people take part in potentially addictive activities like drinking or gambling, the percentage of those who develop problems is always about the same. 'So the higher the total number of gamblers, the more addicts there will be.' That is why Dr Winslow thinks there is a basis for restricting casino access to minimise impulse gambling, which is what can cause the pool of gamblers to swell.

OR A PLUS?

THE economic benefits of casinos may be easier to quantify but the interpretation of the results can spark a debate that is as open-ended as the one over social costs.

Of those polled in the Straits Times survey, 53 per cent said 'yes' to a casino here because they expect it to boost tourism, revenue and job creation. Gaming industry players certainly agree with this reading. Those in Singapore recently, for a conference on gaming, projected that by 2010, Asians will spend US$23 billion (S$39 billion) a year to gamble in the region and beyond.

So is it a matter of build it and they will come? Dr David Marshall of the Australian National University's Centre for Gambling Research doubts so. Singapore will face tough competition from established casinos in Macau and Australia and new casinos being planned in countries in the region, such as Thailand and the Philippines, he points out. 'So the question is why would tourists who want to gamble choose to go to Singapore instead of somewhere else?

'Furthermore, in terms of encouraging non-gambling tourists to gamble, well, maybe that could occur but generally, it is agreed that casinos do not necessarily produce extra spending but simply displace spending from other sectors,' he tells Insight via e-mail.

And while tourism is often used to justify the building of a casino, Dr Marshall says that from what he knows, the bulk of casino earnings in Australia comes from locals. In South Korea too, where the revenue from the one casino that admits locals exceeds the total revenue of the 13 foreigner-only casinos.

MTI is distancing itself from the experiences of such standalone casinos by emphasising that its proposal is for an integrated resort that will also feature world-class entertainment shows, theme attractions, convention facilities, luxury retail outlets and fine dining.

It is these other amenities that are likely to draw larger numbers of international visitors to Singapore, it says, especially now that casinos are being legalised in so many parts of the world. 'For many world-class resorts, it is the non-gaming amenities that attract large numbers of visitors,' it says. The gaming and non-gaming facilities complement each other, it adds, and become viable because of the number of visitors drawn to the wide range of entertainment options.

Examples of such integrated resorts include Atlantis on Paradise Island in the Bahamas, a tropical resort with a marina, giant water park and spa; and the luxurious Bellagio complex in Las Vegas, with its opulent lobby and fountains, world-famous restaurants and shows by Cirque du Soleil. About 7.2 million people visit Bellagio every year while Atlantis draws one million visitors annually. The revenue for Bellagio is close to US$1 billion a year, and it is just over US$500 million a year for Atlantis. The resorts employ 8,000 people each.

MTI says major international investors have expressed keen interest in developing a similar resort here. It plans to invite proposals from them within the next few months. In line with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's promise that the Government will consider all views before deciding, the Feedback Unit has been conducting dialogue sessions with various parties, including religious groups, grassroots leaders and the business community.

Given the strong arguments on both sides, and the fact that the population is split almost right down the middle, this is one issue that will surely test the Government's powers of persuasion. Its challenge is to forge a final compromise that is acceptable to most, if not all, Singaporeans.

  website©ria tan 2003 www.wildsingapore.com