| |
The
Straits Times, 17 Nov 04
Investors
to be asked to submit resort plans
by Joyce Teo
Pragmatism to guide decision on casino; it must meet social aims
Singapore will take another step towards deciding whether to allow
a casino here in the coming weeks when potential investors will be
asked to submit their concepts for the integrated resort project.
And with it, Senior Minister of Trade and Industry, Vivian Balakrishnan
hopes to shift the debate on the casino issue to whether Singapore
as a society is ready for it. He acknowledged that the idea of having
a casino, first mooted in March, was a "polarising" issue,
with opposing views expressed over the morality of gambling and its
economic advantages as a tourist lure. But rather than set the debate
as "money versus values", he suggested that the real issue
to confront is "what type of society we are". "Can
we trust the vast majority of SIngaporeans to act responsibly? To
exercise common sense and to make their own choices as to how they
wish to spend their disposable income, how they wish to entertain
themselves?"
The fact is that the Finance Ministry collects about $1,300 million
a year, or $3.5million a day, in gaming duties. That's not counting
those who gamble overseas, online or illegally, said Dr Balakrishnan.
There will be the small minority who become gambling addicts and need
help "but the vast majority can make up their own minds",
he ventured. "We can't have a situation where we protect you
even from yourself. If the entire population needs to be protected
from their own choices, then we will be in a very, very sorry state
in the future".
His remarks to reporters on the sidelines of an Istana function yesterday
are the most explicit yet on the government's position regarding the
controversial casino issue.
While the Government has no "ideological opposition" to
having a casino, some fundamentals will hold, he made clear. A more
relaxed attitude towards gambling does not mean the ethic of hard
work and discipline should be abandoned. Gambling is not a way to
make a living, said Dr Balakrishnan, nothing that only casino operators
and the Government which taxes them will make money. Singapore will
still remain a place to bring up families and be a trusted financial
hub with no tolerance for loan sharking and other illegal activities.
Over the past few months, Las Vegas casino operators have expressed
interest in investing in a Singapore casino. Much was mad of the economic
spin-offs in terms of tourist arrivals and job creation. In May, Dr
Balakrisnan led a government delegation to study casino operations
in Las Vegas. Some 6 to 12 operators are interested in setting up
shop here, but the site has yet to be fixed. Both Sentosa and Marina
South have been raised as possible venues.
Dr Balakrishnan, who is also Acting Minister for Community Development,
Youth and Sports, poured cold water on the view that the casino operation
was a "desperate" tactic to bring in tourist dollars, making
it clear that what Singapore was searching for was a total integrated
report with the casino playing a "very, very small" part.
In other words, it will not be "a poky little gambling den"
but an iconic tourist destination with fine dining, theme entertainment,
international shows, high-end retail, convention facilities and the
like as well.
And he would have no qualms walking away from the idea should the
proposals tendered fail to meet economic or social objectives. "If
we decide that the proposals are not of sufficient economic benefit,
we will not proceed. If we decide that the social safeguards or the
social consequences are disproportionate and are basically beyond
the capacity of our society to tolerate, then we will not proceed.
So what I am asking for is a sensible, pragmatic approach, rather
than an ideological approach", he said.
CASINO YES AND NO
Over 700 people have given their views on the casino propopal,
a summary of which was carried in the governnment consultation portal
www.feedback.gov.sg yesterday
For
The most cited reason for having a casino was the additional revenue
generated, which could mean lower taxes and more subsidies for Singaporeans.
It could liven up the tourism industry, stimulate the economy and
create more jobs.
A casino would also elevate Singapore's statues as a cosmopolitan
city and stem the outflow of funds to overseas casinos.
Against
The main concern was that the social reprecussions could outweigh
potential benefits.
Problem gambling could lead to individual ruin and family break-ups,
and erode the work ethic.
Criminal activities such as organised triads, drug trafficking and
prostituion could also flourish together with the casino.
A casino would tarnish Singapore's "clean" image and class
segregation could widen if entry was limited to the rich.
Safeguards
Some suggested that if a casino was to be set up, safeguards such
as entry quotas and membership requirements should be in place.
$2B FUND TO MAKE SINGAPORE TOP TOURIST DESTINATION
It will be used for best infrastructure, but not for proposed casino
resort
A $2billion tourism development fund will be set up for use over the
next 10 years to invest in world-class infrastructure and tourism
products, said Senior Minister of Trade and Industry, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan,
yesterday. However, none of it will go towards a proposed resort with
gaming activities, which will be funded entirely by investors.
The $2 billion is for the Singapore Tourism Board's (STB) Tourism
Masterplan 2015, to ensure Singapore has enough world-class infrastructure
and tourism products to compete with regional countries. Unveiling
the masterplan in May, Dr Balakrishnan said then that Singapore would
be open to new activities, especially if the people proposing them
were investing their own money.
Some resort operators have estimated that US$300 million (S$499 million)
per resort would be a typical minimum investment. And this could go
as high as US$1 billion, three times as much as the Esplanade-Theatres
on the Bay.
Dr Balakrishnan mentioned the fund to make clear that the proposed
integrated resort is not a desperate move to attract tourist dollars,
as some may think. It is "not the be all or end all of our tourism
strategy. It is just one option." he said.
Echoing this sentiment earlier yesterday at a polytechnic forum, Minister
in the Prime Minister's Office, Lim Swee Say, said: "I think
it would be very sad for the tourism industry in Singapore if the
only way out for it was to bulid a casino."
Dr Balakrishnan yesterday made it clear that the Government was "not
interested in a gambling hall, or a little pokey gambling den."
"What we would consider would a large-scale, iconic, integrated
entertainment resort which would be a tourist icon, which would put
us on the tourist road map." He envisages high-end dining and
retail shops, convention facilities, theme parks and the like.
At the government portal www.feedback.gov.sg, the Trade and Industry
Ministry said the proposed integrated resort here would not be like
gambling facilities in Genting, Macau or Australia, which mainly cater
to local patrons. It suggested Atlantis on Paradise Island in the
Bahamas, with its beach and marina settings, as a possible model.
Atlantis Resort was instrumental in turning the tourist industry around,
raising hotel occupancy in the Bahamas from below 65% in 1993 to 80%
last year. Its operator, Kerzner International, is the largest non-government
employer, the feedback site noted.
Another possible model is Las Vegas in the US which the site described
as an urban integrated resort. Las Vegas receives 35 million visitors
a year, eight in 10 of whom are repeat visitors. It is also the largest
convention city in the US.
Overseas experience shows that gaming and non-gaming components are
interdependent in a complex entertainment hub. Revenue generated from
gaming is used to cross-subsidize the non-gaming activities, which
in turn attract more visitors.
Last week, an international panel of experts advising the STB unanimously
backed the plan for an integrated resort with a casino here to ensure
SIngapore remained a prime tourist destination in the region.
Singapore is set to exceed the Board's targets of 7.6million visitors
and $8.7 billion in tourist receipts for the year. STB's deputy chairman
and chief executive, Mr Lim Neo Chian, said yesterday that more details
on the Tourism Development Fund would be announced later.
CASINO HERE IS NOT A MATTER OF MONEY VERSUS VALUES
The question is whether Singaporeans are mature enough to host a casino
and exercise responsible choices, said Senior
Minister of Trade and Industry, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan. Below
are excepts of what he told reporters yesterday.
Gambling scene here
"The Ministry of Finance collects about $1.3 billion a year in
gaming duties. That's about $3.5 million a day. This doesn't even
include people who are gambling overseas or indeed, over the Internet,
or event those engaging in illegal forms of gaming. Gambling is not
a means of earning money or making a living. If you go to a casino,
only the casino owner and the government who taxes the casino owner
are sure to make money. Everybody elese in the long run loses money.
If you choose to gamble, I want you to do so knowing full well that
yes, you are actually in fact spending money to entertain yourself,
not making a living out of it".
Setting issues in perspective
"I think you can't have a debate trying to balance money on one
hand versus values on the other hand. The two cannot be put on the
same weighing scale. So I want to set this debate in perspective.
I think the real question which we need to confront is what type of
society we are or, to be more accurate, are we now a more mature society
than say decades ago, meaning can we trust the vast majority of Singaporeans
to act responsibly, to exercise common sense and to make their own
choices as to how they wish to spend their disposable income, how
they wish to entertain themselves?
My own sense of it is Singapore is now a much more mature society
and, generally, the vast majority of Singaporeans can be trusted to
make up their own minds, exercise their choices and act responsibly.
The fundamental question is, are we ready as a society to let people
make choices of their own, take responsibility for their actions and
face the consequences?
If we are indeed ready, then we can consider taking more risks in
a sense, with new and innovative and radical plans. This issue of
an integrated resort with a casino is just one such example.
But there are many more challenges and issues which we will ahve to
face in the future for which there will be no easy answer, no consensus
answer. But we need the public, Singaporeans, to understand the new
world and the new challenges that we face.
What we do need is to remind everyone now that you have to live with
the consequences of your choices. We can't have a situation where
we protec tyou, even from yourself. If the entire population needs
to be protected from their own choices, then we will be in a very,
very sorry state in the future."
Some things don't change
"Even if we were to have a more relaxed attitude to gambling,
I don't want people to think that our ethic of hard work and discipline
should be abandoned, thrown overboard. The second point I want to
emphasise is that we have a good reputation to maintain of being a
good, wholesome place to bring up families and of being a trusted
financial centre in South-east Asia and the world.
Again, whatever additional entertainment facilities we provide must
not be allowed to erode our position as a trusted financial centre
in the world. Even if we were to move in this direction and allow
a casino to be developed, we would not tolerate vice, loansharking
and petty crime within our premises.
If you stop and think about it, the reason why so many international
operators are keen to come to Singapore is precisely because of our
good hygience factor. They know that this is a safe, clean, proper,
fair place in which to do business and in which to provide entertainment."
The resort Singapore wants
"We are not interested in a gambling hall, or a little pokey
gambling den.
What we would consider would be a large scale iconic, integrated entertainment
resort which would be a tourist icon, which would put us on the tourist
road map; for people to say, yes I want to see it and I want to participate
in what it offers. And what it offers, the gambling facility, must
be a very, very small component of a much larger whole. What do I
mean by a much larger whole? I would include things like fine dining,
themed entertainment, international shows, high-end retail, convention
facilities and the like.
I want to emphasise that, at this stage, I am quite happy to walk
away if I find the proposals do not fulfil our objectives.
I want to add, in case there are some people who think the move is
a move of desperation, that this is not a move of desperation. Our
tourism sector is doing very well this year. In fact, we have just
decided to set aside up to $2 billion in a tourism development fund,
which we will use over the next 10 years to invest in world class
infrastructure and tourism products for Singapore.
So it's not as if this integrated resort is the be all and end all
of our tourism strategy. It is just one option.
How a decision will be made
"If our conclusion is that Singapore is not mature, then we cannot
proceed with this proposal.
If we decide that the proposals are not of sufficient economic benefit,
we will not proceed. If we decide that the social safeguards or consequences
are disproportionate and are basically beyond the capacity of our
society to tolerate, then we will not proceed.
So what I am asking for is a sensible, pragmatic approach, rather
than an ideological approach. Don't be trapped by ideology, don't
be trapped by the old ways of doing things just because we have already
done it that way...don't be stuck in that groove.
We now live in a time where we need to be prepared to explore all
options, but to do so sensibly, to do it with our eyes open and to
cross each bridge as we come to it...
To me, the direction in which our society is progressing is irreversible." |
|
