Introduction
An Integrated Resort is a multi-use construction that houses a variety of amenities such as hotels, restaurants, shopping malls, and a casino. As far as Singapore is concerned, it is a widely acknowledged fact that the term ‘Integrated Resort’ has been deliberately used as a less offensive synonym in place of ‘casino,’ a word that provokes a highly competitive debate in all levels of Singaporean society.
After months of deliberating the potential advantages and drawbacks of building two Integrated Resorts in Singapore, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong confirmed during a Parliamentary meeting on 18 April 2005 that the country would definitely go ahead with the project.
Main body
The Singapore government, which had already called for and received 19 request-for-concept offers by December 2004, ultimately granted the contract to construct the first IR in Marina South to the Las Vegas Sands Company on 26 May 2006. The award came as a surprise to many, who thought that two consortia were the leading contenders. The IR project labelled ‘The Marina Bay Sands,’ is expected to be a prominent landmark of the Marina Bay landscape when it opens in 2009.
The second IR project to be constructed in Sentosa and labelled as ‘Resorts World at Sentosa,’ was awarded to the Genting International/Star Cruises consortium on 8 December 2006. The winner beat two consortia who had also bid for the project.
While heated debate about the IR projects still rages on, it is my contention that they will generate more benefits than disadvantages to the country and its people.
The first argument extolling the IR project states that it will propel Singapore to the forefront of South Asia, enabling it to compete realistically with the burgeoning tourism sectors of other countries in the region. Tourism is growing at a phenomenal rate in the two most populous countries in the world – China and India. Hong Kong is mulling over legalising casinos to compete with the massively developed gambling industry in Macau (Torchia). Thailand is following in Hong Kong’s footsteps. Malaysia already has a thriving casino-cum-theme park on its Genting Highlands (Wikipedia). I think the government is doing absolutely the right thing in tackling international competition head on. A country cannot afford to lag behind others in the same region especially in matters where it is relatively easy to ‘be there’ among the best. The government has realized that the country would become less and less a tourist attraction as compared to its neighbours unless it did something radical to rejuvenate itself – which it did by adopting the casino project.
The second argument in favour of the IR project is that the domestic economy will be hugely benefited in three ways. Firstly, large amounts of foreign exchange from lavishly spending tourists will be injected into the country’s coffers (Torchia). Besides the casinos, tourists will also spend heavily in the other IR components such as the restaurants, shopping malls, museums and convention centres (Wikipedia.org). Secondly, a massive vista of employment (Torchia) involving nearly 35,000 direct or indirect jobs (Wikipedia.org) will be opened for Singaporeans. Thirdly, associated economic sectors, such as the hotel industry, transportation and food sectors will also benefit greatly (Torchia). I feel that this argument is so strong and comprehensive that no Singaporean in his or her right mind can doubt the huge benefit their country and they stand to gain from the casinos project. Singapore is a highly literate country, hence it won’t be very difficult for the people to understand and appreciate the implications of this project.
The third argument in approval of the IR project points out that gambling is not new to Singaporeans. Many of them regularly indulge in horse race betting, using slot machines, and betting on the outcome of games like soccer. In fact, the home based casinos will retain a lot of the country’s money because rich Singaporeans who traditionally gamble heavily abroad in places like Malaysia, Macau and Perth, will prefer to do their gambling in the home country itself (Torchia). In my opinion, this argument is a master stroke that decapitates the ‘socially damaging’ argument of those against the project. It shows that Singaporeans as not ‘babes in the wood’ who do not know what gambling is; many of them have already tasted the ‘bad apple,’ and even if the casinos are not due to open soon, they will continue to go abroad to gamble – and lose more of their own and their country’s hard earned money in the process.
The last argument in favour of the IR project points to the government’s intention to set up deterrents in the form of state-of-the-art treatment centres for gambling addicts (Torchia), and getting the casinos to strictly implement safeguards like refusal of credit facilities to local gamblers, unreasonably high entrance fees and acceding to the request of a gambler’s family that he or she should not be allowed access to the casino (Wikipedia.org). I applaud this argument as the proverbial ‘Touché!’ It goes to show the honestly, integrity and far sightedness of the government. It does acknowledge that there will be ‘fallout’ from the project and is doing its diligent best to forestall any bad effects that could ensure. What many detractors do not wish to admit is that while these deterrents many not deter hardened gamblers but it will certainly deter the common man. A citizen will have to be uncommonly hard or foolhardy to run the formidable gauntlet that the government has thrown up.
The first opposing argument deplores the high-handedness of the People’s Action Party government. The ‘Families against the Casino Threat’ group put together a petition signed by 30,000 citizens opposed to the project (Wikipedia.org). Even 50% of the PAP ministers were against the project (Torchia). The government did not permit citizens to vote in a referendum, and refused to let the project be turned into an election issue (Gomez). I would like to state that this argument is overblown in proportion. The common man does have a say in the country’s affairs, but this does not mean he can interfere in each and every important issue that comes up before the country. Does the common man have a say in every new infrastructure or international joint venture project that will surely have pros and cons as well? The Casino issue is a purely economic issue, one that does not threaten Singapore’s economy – in fact there is nothing except huge benefit expected from the project.
The second argument of dissent is that it will have a negative effect on Singaporean society (Gomez). High profile gambling will rip open the strict social controls fabric that has been the country’s premier asset (Torchia). The casinos will be easily accessible to all, effectively rendering the entire populace within limits of the casinos’ ‘catchments area’ (Gomez). There is the real possibility of compulsive gambling behaviour becoming widespread (Torchia) along with money laundering, money lending at exorbitant interest rates and even systematically coordinated crime (Wikipedia.org). I feel that this argument too is overblown. It is not as if the people are little children who are being led into doing morally wrong things. They are mature adults, knowing fully well what is right and wrong. Gambling is like any other vice, say smoking. It requires will power to abstain from such vices. Can a smoker blame the country for allowing cigarettes to be sold openly? The same applies to gambling.
The third opposing argument is that the clean image of Singapore will be forever besmirched, leading it to be perceived as synonymous with gambling and its associated vices, especially money laundering (Gomez). In the context of our highly competitive, modern world, this sort of logic is totally out of place. Countries these days have to contend with vastly more important and more threatening issues like AIDS} especially to African countries}, nuclear proliferation and terrorism . A country’s image is now judged by such milestones and not based on an imaginary ‘squeaky clean’ image that you can find in a fairy tale like ‘Snow White’ or ‘Alice in Wonderland.’
Conclusion
The last argument of dissent is that there Singapore’s economy is already in a healthy state. It is not as if the IR project presents a ‘life or death’ alternative. If at all the economy needs to be rejuvenated further, there are many, less harmful avenues to follow (Gomez). This argument has no base in economics. There is no limit to ‘healthiness’ of an economy. However healthy an economy is, there is always room for improvement. The government is doing the right thing in strengthening the economy further in anticipation of possible pitfalls in the future – one example is the ever rising price of oil, which is cutting deeper into the foreign exchange reserves of non-oil producing nations. Is it harmful to save more, and try to safeguard the future generations?
In conclusion, I am convinced that the pros of the IR project outweigh the cons, and is definitely a laudable, far-sighted move on the part of dynamic Prime Minister Lee Hsein Loong. In a strange coincidence, his father, former Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, was also involved in dynamically rejuvenating the country – he was the main force behind moulding Singapore’s exceptional development ever since it became independent in 1965 (Torchia). It does seem that the dynamism trait is inherent in the Lee family. What his father did once, the son is doing again – like father, like son!
References
- “Integrated Resort” Wikipedia.org. 2007. Web.
- Gomez, James. “Workers’ Party Official Statement on Casino.” Newsintercom.org. 2005.
- Torchia, Christopher. “Singapore to go ahead with Plans to build Casinos.” Associated Press. 2005.