The Domino Effect

In 2005, after a protracted parliamentary session to debate the topic of casinos in Singapore, the Lee Hsien Loong government announced the decision to construct Integrated Resorts (IR)[1] – one on the main island of Singapore and the other in Sentosa. It was a compromise of the initial casino concept, taking in the economic requirements of the nation and the concerns of the public.

The national debate began when the government floated the idea of bringing casinos into Singapore and decided to seek feedback from the public. It was suggested as a means to stimulate the economy and to help the tourism industry compete against Singapore’s South East Asian neighbours. The resulting brouhaha was reported and discussed globally.

Three years on, with the global financial meltdown affecting the economic situation of the whole world, it is a good time to review the IR decision. The IR was an idea conceived and initiated in a bright economic bubble that now seems doomed to be implemented in a darker, more trying reality. The monetary income that it was slated to bring now seems doomed to decrease tremendously while the assault of societal problems show no signs of abating.

It cannot be denied that the central attraction of the IR is the casino. The first thought that comes to mind when one thinks of the Venetian, Genting Highlands or Las Vegas Sands is the gambling in these places. Mammon again rears its ugly head when we think of the IRs. The casino industry is however very volatile business, dependent on the spending ability of the prospective clientele, which is in turn tied to the global financial situation. Three years ago, this concern (of a lack of spending) did not exist. Today, however, the stock market collapse of 2008/09 has affected the main body of the casino’s clients; even Macau is struggling with its gambling industry.

Business-wise, Singapore can only depend on the IR to post good figures initially (because of its novelty, but considering that it is not a dedicated casino only, how many high-rollers would continue to spend money here), and cut down on unemployment anywhere from 7,000 to 60,000 based on different sources. Regardless of the number of jobs on offer, a major portion of them belong to the casino operation (croupiers, machine maintenance, management etc) and, the casino industry requires specially trained persons in its workforce, of which Singapore has few. The government has obtained an in-principle agreement from the two Resort operators, Genting International and Las Vegas Sands that as many Singaporeans as possible would be employed. Yet how much of the skilled casino workforce can be local? For the sake of argument, let us assume that all the jobs are given to Singaporeans. With the good work that the vocational institutions and polytechnics are doing, many new graduates as well as other young ‘re-vocationalist’ will be able to find jobs in this industry. At the same time, there are many new programs that the government has initiated to make employees more attractive to current and prospective employers. However, what about the more mature workforce, those in their 40s and 50s? What about the unemployed who are unable to pay to upgrade their skills?

It has been reported that once Singapore opens its IRs the Japanese will follow suit with at least 7 all across Japan. Hong Kong and Thailand are also watching the Singapore situation. With so much more competition, the client pool will merely be spread even thinner, equating to lesser income than expected per IR.

But what happens socially is far more problematic.

Singapore’s sterilised image is an aberration in her history. During the colonial period she was commonly known as “Sin-galore”, where corruption, secret societies, gambling, opium, prostitution and other vices were visible parts of daily life. It was only recently that these vices and underhand business methods have been combated against with relatively more success and now enjoy a less viable existence. A casino actually promotes the traits that we have only recently begun to repress. The casino vices and methods are not as malleable to the will of the authorities as the weekly Toto and 4-D[2], and the aforementioned problems will be brought back and on a more professional level – white collar and organized crime. Desperately poor peoples will try their luck with all their money, few if any will earn back and increase that money. Even gamblers without proper temperance can end up spending more than they expected to. Families will be torn apart, individual lives and Singaporean society forever changed. Our social compact of meritocratic reward for hard-work will face even stronger direct competition from greed for instant success. Even with the National Council Problem Gambling (NCPG) trying to blacklist people, what is to prevent them from making the short trip up north to gamble now that the attraction is even more present and the temptation is more “in your face”?

To make a bad situation worse, a recent study by the Institute of Mental Health has shown that as many as 15 percent of gambling addicts have made an actual suicide attempt at some point in their lives[3].  This is a higher percentage than those with alcohol or substance abuse. What sort of disturbing impact would this have on Singapore?

It can be said that we are going full circle back to our vice-filled days. With the understanding that much of the attraction to Singapore is in our honesty and the integrity of our system, this is very disturbing news indeed.

For all that has been written, and in spite of the contention made, is it possible that the effects of the casino on Singaporean society have been subject to aggrandizement and exaggeration?

Hopefully, these fears are but moonshine. Nevertheless, we should not be ignorant of the social decay associated with the propagation of any sort of vice. Brothels may be situated at fixed locations and sexually-explicit images may be restricted to the legally aged, but it is apparent that the idea of sex as a transaction has pervaded Singaporean and global culture (under-aged sex, teen pregnancies and promiscuous sexual behavior). The same argument goes for Gambling. When we officially allow gambling to sink its roots, society becomes progressively less opposed, and the culture it promotes is more likely to make their way into the social fabric of the nation. Temptation to excess is not something that is easily guarded against (please see previous article, The Problem of Pride and Excess), and when vices become elevated to the level of industry the guard against its effects drops even further.

It must be accepted that the decision will not and cannot be reversed. The Prime Minister had put his own credibility on the line with the IRs and any retreat from this stance would severely damage his standing with all parties (global political leaders, business leaders, electorate, within his own party etc). Also, too much money has been sunk into this endeavour (approximately $10 billion) for it to be abandoned without tremendous outrage from the public, and damage to Singapore’s business reputation.

Still, the reality of the situation is not something can be merely wished away. Considering the impending increase in societal problems as well as the prospective failure of the IRs to live up to their economic potential, what strategies would have to be adopted to cope with the predicted deluge of problems?

While the decision remains, the socially debilitating outcome can be averted (or at least minimized), as long there is a firm political will. The strategies involved must ensure that the social repercussions are minimized while economic contribution is not adversely affected.

Firstly – battling the excesses of gambling. The current methods of the NCPG have to be transformed from passive to proactive. Much of what is currently in place is a flaccid wait for people to respond. However just like all criminal activity, the immoderate gambling of one person affects families and by extension all of society. Holding to the principle of common good, gambling hence needs direct juridical intervention. The sort of legal limitations that should be put in place could include a maximum cap (for locals) on spending in the casino based on monthly income and the banning of peoples who spend beyond their financial limits. The protestations common in the West over an infringement of personal sovereignty would not be a major issue in Singapore because she, unlike the West, is not faced with the conflation of freedom with unbridled liberty. Certainly, in Asia, the rights of the community trump the rights of the individual.

Secondly – tackling the expected increase in crime. Singapore’s current police force is about 12,500. It represents about 1 law enforcer for every 376 citizens. Short of turning Singapore into a police state, the size of the force could be increased slightly (perhaps through diversion of National Servicemen from the Singapore Armed Forces or Singapore Civil Defence Force) to achieve a ratio of 1:350 with an increase in the Commercial Affairs Department such that more eyes are monitoring the crimes where the casino culture could cause an increase.

Thirdly – combating the culture of windfall luck. An intelligent public education campaign must be introduced and supported by religious institutions especially those that initially campaigned against the impact of the casinos at first.

Fourthly – enforcing the culture of meritocracy and giving hope to the poor. Those most possibly tempted to risk all with gambling are the financially unstable. Hope must be given to remind them that the route out of their financial problems is not through ‘all-in’ at the croupier’s table but by working hard. To that end, educational sponsorships for financially-needy students could be considered (different in that there is no promise of a job, but merely help in paying for school fees, books, uniforms etc).

Finally – maintaining the revenue stream. The main source of income for the casinos should not be from the average Singaporean but from foreign tourist and rich locals (as was originally intended). A great number of other attractions must be added to the IR such that the gambling theme is diluted and the client pool is expanded to include non-gamblers[4].

We cannot turn back the clock, and reverse a decisions already made, we can only act to protect its effects against us. The five strategies mentioned should hopefully prevent Singapore from lapsing into a past with no future.

---

[1] Intergated Resorts or IRs are Casino-Theme Parks, somewhat similar to a mixture between Ocean Park in Hong Kong and The Venetian in Macua.

[2] Toto and 4-D are officially sanctioned lotteries run by the government that were introduced in the 1960s as a means to try and control illegal betting.

[3] The New Paper, Friday, 25 September 2009 page 8, “More New Gamblers Addicted, Gambling linked to suicidal tendencies”

[4] It is heartening to note that this is what the Sentosa IR is trying to do, see The Straits Times, Friday, September 25 2009, page A12, “Sentosa IR banks on Mega Hits”