So the knife has fallen

I listened to PM Lee's speech on the Casino Issue on the News Radio over the internet yesterday afternoon. These were the main points of his speech.

First, PM Lee clarified it is not so much an issue of whether Singapore should have a casino, but that whether we should have an Integrated Resort. The casino will be a small and vital part of the Integrated Resort, which would include the food, beverage, and entertainment industry.

He then listed four implications of having such an Integrated Resort in Singapore, namely, that there will be more gambling and therefore more suffering; second, that it may tarnish Singapore's brand name; third, that it may undermine values, especially that of the young; and fourth, the opposition to a casino on religious grounds.

To stem the social ills of gambling, he proposed five safeguards, to restrict the admission of locals by price ($100 a day or $2,000 a year), the use of exclusion (for those receiving social welfare, or voluntary exclusion), the banning of extension of credit to locals, the distribution of wealth for social good such as the toteliser board, and the setting up of a National framework to deal with problem gambling.

PM Lee also addressed the other implications of introducting such an integrated resort, by saying that they would not allow garish neon signs, that they would continue to emphasise the moral education of the young (he gave an interesting illustration by Deng Xiaoping at this point, something about opening the window and feeling the breeze and having to fight the mosquitoes, to illustrate that the way to solve porblems is not by cacooning yourself), and that while he respected the beliefs of the religious groups, the government had to maintain a "secular and pragmatic" approach.

PM Lee closed by describing how the Cabinet arrived at this decision on April 9th. He reassured the public that it was not a foregone conclusion from the beginning, but that there had been vigorous discussion and debate in parliament. In fact, it started with a majority opposing the presence of an Intergrated Resort, but when they saw the multi-million proposals, they had "no choice" but to continue. He continued by saying that they decided to have two IRs in Singapore, one in Marina Bay catering to the businessmen, and one in Sentosa catering to families. He argued that having two would compliment each other, creating competition and economic mass without increasing social cost dramatically. Even so, he acknowledged that there were risks involved, and that he held ultimate responsibility for this decision.

All in all, I felt that it was a very rational and balanced speech, taking into account the risks and the social costs of such a venture. I hope they know what they are doing, and that they have done enough balanced research into the best means of creating safeguards and frameworks to cope with the fallout that will come. I will miss the dark, lonely plot of land at Marina South. It has a magnificent view - overlooking Fullerton and the Esplande right by the edge of the water. I'm not sure what it will look like the next time I go back there.