| |
The
Straits Times, Letter to the Forum Page, 19 Nov 04
The Casino Debate
Respect the views of the people on the casino issue ...
I refer to the article, "Casino here is not a matter of money
versus values" (ST Nov 17). I find the views expressed a little
disturbing. Senior Minister for Trade and Industry Vivian Balakrishnan
said his own sense is that the majority of Singaporeans can be trusted
to act responsibly even when there is a casino nearby to entice them
to gamble. On what basis does he form this view? The fact that we
are mature enought to be allowed bar-top dancing?
My concern is that once the casino is opened, it is going to be difficult
to contain the social consequences. At the moment, those who visit
a casino may be there for pure entertainment. After all, the casino
is not exactly at their doorstep. For ordinary people like me, we
have to take leave from work and travel to another country or board
a cruise liner in order to visit the casino. The hassle of having
to travel to another country may be sufficient to deter most people.
However, if we have a casino at our doorstep, what is to stop us from
visiting it ever so often and becoming addicted to gambling?
If gambling is only a very, very small component of a large-scale
iconic, integrated entertainment resort, can we have the assurance
that when the casino makes a lot of money, this very, very small component
will not slowly become a very small component and then a small component?
And if it is really such a very, very small component of a larger
picture, is it necessary to have it at all?
Can we have the assurance that when it is shown that the casino has
an adverse effect on the lives of ordinary folks, the Government will
take prompt action to close it? Or will it be too profitable by then
to consider such a move?
I agree it is not a question of money versus values. It is a question
of the people taking responsiblity for their lives and if the people
feel that a casino is a no-go because they believe that their lives
will be adversely affeted by its presence, then their views should
be respected.
I am sure Singaporeans are mature enought to make this decision for
themselves, and if money is not an issue with the Government, there
is really no need to push for a casino.
Janice Maria Chia
Zhao Shan (Ms)
London
When consequences are dire, allow no choice
In the report "Casino here is not a matter of money versus values"
(ST Nov 17), Dr Vivian Balakrishnan contends that Singaporean should
be trusted to be mature enough to be responsible for their own decisions,
that we would be "in a very, very sorry state in the future"
if the Government had to keep protecting us from ourselves.
His arguments sound sensible but I believe that in many cases we (not
just Singaporeans, but humans in general) are simply too fallible
and weak to justify such a faith. On this particular issue, we are
not just talking about a simple one-time choice that we can easily
turn away from. Gambling, like cigarettes and drugs, can be a powerful
addiction.
My father has always been a responsbile man for as long as I have
known him. With hardly any education, he worked hard at various menial
jobs not only to bring up the family, but also put all three of his
children through university. Now in his old age, his lifelong addiction
to smoking has all but eaten away not just his lungs, but also his
very desire for a healthy body. I so wish we could just ban smoking
altogether. The power of addictions can overcome even the strongest
of wills and the most rational of minds.
Yes, we should trust ourselves to make responsible choices, as far
as possible. But for some bad choices, the consequences can be so
unforgiving that it is better not to even offer a choice.
Sng Swee Keat
Don't be pragmatic at the expense of ideology
I refer to the article "Investors to be asked to submit resort
plans" (ST, Nov 17). I am deeply saddened that Dr Vivian Balakrishnan
is asking for a "sensible, pragmatic approach", rather than
an "ideological approach" to the question of whether or
not to build a casino.
While the man in the street often has to take a pragmatic view of
things, we should not ever lose sight of the fact that it is ideology
that makes an organisation great. We strive to bring up our children
to be men and women of honour who will, at the crossroads, choose
integrity over gain. We respect multinationals which choose the most
costly option in the interest of environmental preservation, or which
pour hard-earned dollars into Third World programmes that have no
hope of repaying the benefactor.
If this is so, why are we saying in this case that we should put aside
our ideas of right and wrong and make a decision based on the economics
of it? A ship without a rudder will sway with the waves. If our momentous
decision are made on pragmatic grounds without deference to any higher
code, we will come to resemble the rudderless ship, swaying with the
next money-making idea.
I am not saying that we should not entertain money-making ideas. I
am just appealing to the Government to remember that we answer to
a higher call than Mammon's, whatever our religious persuasion.
Ong Chooi Peng (Mrs)
Look before we leap
The Government, which sees it as its duty to protect the people from
kaing the wrong choices, has been legislating many areas of our lives,
even though the majority are prudent enough. Banning the use of prohibited
drugs, movie censorship and making it mandatory to wear seat belts
are shining examples.
Would the people begrudge the Government if it now seeks to protect
them from being addicted to gambling by refusing to allow a casino
to be set up?
With juvenile deliquency on the increase and a new generation preferring
soft options, we have to think of how the next generation will be
affected by the major decisions that we make today. Let's not jump
on the bandwagon without knowing the destination.
Tan Lam Siong
Most are mature enough to decide for themselves
I agree with Dr Vivian Balakrishnan that the debate on whether to
build a casino in Singapore is not a matter of money versus values
(ST, Nov 17). I believe most Singaporeans are mature enough to decide
for themselves. Besides, the casiono will be just a small part of
the integrated resort plan. Let's not make a mountain out of molehill
about those minor social ills.
I suggest the carion be built at Marina South to ease the heavy traffic
flowing into Sentosa. In addition, it should be open to Singaporeans
of all classes.
Loh Ching Tiam
A night of fun at the races--and all for $50
Most of us are not reckless or foolish enough to put all our assets
on the gambling table. We have other similar gambling outlests, like
the Singapore Turf Club, and we do not see untold harm from this quarter.
With the Internet, there is no way to stop those who wish to gamble.
I was recently invited to the Peak/STC cocktails/dinner at the Singapore
Turf Club. All I put aside for the races was a mere $50 which gave
me some fun till the end of the races, as some winnings were lost
at the end of the day. I just treated the loss as the price of my
dining and wining, what I would have incurred had I gone to a restaurant.
Going to the races -- or casino -- is more to relax and entertain
ourselves after a hard day's work. In any case, we would have to pay
for other forms of entertainment.
Anna Wong Su-Yin (Ms) |
|
