Saturday, April 30, 2011

Zainul Abidin's speech on the casino

Zainul Abidin's speech on the casino
Extract from Parliament Report (20 April 2005):
(Emphasis mine)


The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this discussion.


     Sir, the MM has spoken, and with such force, and we all know it is not easy to disagree with the Minister Mentor.  But I think MM will also be one person who will agree that concerns remain and it will be very difficult actually to convince those who disagree with the idea of having casinos or IRs.  But this is not a small number, and we have to find a way to make sure that we will not end up dividing our Singapore society.  When MM speaks, many listen, not only in Singapore, the region, but all over the world.  And MM asked what signals are we sending to the world, to investors and non-investors alike.  But I would also like to ask what signals do we understand from this discussion?  Do we really understand the signals which I think the Government is sending to us Singaporeans about the change that has taken place, about the challenges, the elements of competition, with emerging China and India, and what other opportunities and options do we have to make Singapore to continue to succeed and prosper?


     I think our discussion is also drawing a lot of attention across the causeway in Malaysia.  Many Malaysian media, newspapers, television stations, even leaders, have responded to this.  Many are positive, some negative, some even cynical.  And for those who are positive, they agree that the IRs will be good for tourism in the region.  I was told that even the Chairman of the tourism board and the Secretary-General of the Tourism Ministry was quoted on CNA last night about growing the regional tourism pie, and I am sure this is in fact the reason the Singapore Government has opted for this approach to IRs, and this is in fact our hope too.


     Let me quote the Secretary-General of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mr Ng Yeow Song, who said that the Singapore Government was probably keeping up with the current trend to attract more tourists to the republic.  He said, in fact, Johor could also benefit from it if Johor were to protect its environment, ie, it would raise the state's tourism potential.  Also, the President of the Malaysian Chinese Tourism Association, Mr Chay Ng, felt that the impact of Singapore IRs
on Malaysia would be insignificant.  Instead, it would probably boost Malaysia's tourist industry.  He said tour operators should view the matter with foresight and should not be close-minded. To quote him, "Tour operators, including the Tourism Ministry need not worry about the issue but should instead face it with an open mind." So I would also like to urge our Singaporeans to approach this issue of IRs with an open mind.


     But let me say at the outset that, as a Muslim, my position has to be no for religious considerations.  But I am troubled in the sense that I live in an environment where it is a secular society, it is multi-racial and multi-religious.  Can one community dictate the needs and decisions of the others, as Minister Yaacob Ibrahim has said on Monday?  I think we have to be pragmatic, realistic and rational in our approach towards this issue.


    I am also troubled in the sense that when I look around the world, I do see quite a number of Muslim countries - Malaysia, Cairo, Morocco - have casinos.  But, at the same time, I do not see them coming out of a situation, becoming so immoral as a society, so degrading as a society.  They also use that as a tool to attract tourists to their countries.  I think many of us also realise that in fact, some of the best gamblers, if you like, those who patronise casinos all over the world, are Muslims.  They may be good customers to the casinos but bad examples or models for the Muslim community.


   Sir, for sure, we Singaporeans have been proud of our safe, clean and green image. That is something worth fighting for to upkeep. The question now is whether we are going to soil our image and go amber with IRs, what with the casinos thrown in.  Risks are there for sure, especially the understandable concerns regarding the increased social ills, or even increase in crimes related to gambling.  Clearly,  some Singaporeans who are sincerely opposed to having casinos in Singapore will be disappointed and they might even say that there is no point in discussing the issue anymore as it looks like 'head I win, tail you lose' for the Government.  But to these fellow Singaporeans, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, I appeal to them to keep their minds open and see how the decision on IRs could be turned into a win-win situation for Singapore.  Rest assured that judging from PM and Ministers' speeches and assurances, those concerns expressed have not completely fallen on deaf ears.


     Sir, undoubtedly, the decision to go IRs was not an easy one for Singapore. It took Singapore 40 years to do so. Surely, when we became independent, with so scarce natural resources, a casino would have been an easy choice. After all, Singapore was and is at the geographical crossroads of Asia. It would have been a convenient oasis for one.  But no, Singapore, thanks to our pioneering leaders of independent Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his strong views, in particular, avoided that option. Be it industrialisation, import substitution, export promotion, assembly of components, simple manufacturing, high technology, life sciences, financial  services and developing Singapore as medical and educational hubs, we have been there. Why then now? In many eyes, this is a drastic change in position as far as casinos are concerned.


     Is the economy that bad?   Are we throwing in the towels with competition through the tested ways? Are we lost on ideas to fight competition from China and India and other emerging economies?  Or indeed,  are the IRs our new additional tool to meet those challenges? I believe the latter is the reason why our Government has chosen to do so. We need all hands on deck and all tools possible to meet the new challenges of  globalisation and the new wave of competition confronting us. It is a new world that demands a new and creative approach to meet them.


     Obviously, I am not saying, at all costs, especially the social costs, which many Singaporeans are justly concerned about. However, I trust most Singaporeans will be reassured by the approach taken by Government in tackling the issue.  We have heard the assurance given by the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Wong Kan Seng, who himself had shared with us his concerns and what measures his Ministry will embark upon to tackle the crime angle.  The package announced by Minister Vivian Balakrishnan to work with FSCs and community organisations will also help. To those who believe that the Government should not throw the problem arising from gambling to the community they should ask themselves whether in fact that is the right attitude. We face the challenges of making Singapore to continue to succeed and prosper together and we can and should handle the fallouts, if any, together too.
     To quote a friend, Mr Ahmad Isa Rahim, "After hearing PM and the other Ministers spoke, especially Mr Wong Kan Seng, I am convinced that the Government is sincere in tackling the social cost for the IRs." He said it was  a good start.  He, like many other Muslim Singaporeans, and many other Singaporeans too, eg, Catholics and those who do not profess a religion, are also against it.  But he is willing to accept why the Government had to make that decision, as long as we are prepared to tackle the problems that might arise.


     The sincerity is very clear.  Here in Singapore, it is not a case of us going for IRs because we want to benefit a certain group or certain individuals with the kind of opportunities for development of the casinos.  Here, I think the basic principle with which the Government has approached this issue is how do we use IRs to the advantage of Singaporeans and Singapore in general.  That is for the benefit of all.  But having said that, we recognise the problems that might arise. We accept the concerns which many Singapore have raised and we should tackle them collectively.


     Clearly, many Muslims will also be opposed to it but I believe that most Muslim Singaporeans would be able to understand that this is part of the reality of living in a plural and secular society.

     I am also confident that Muslim Singaporeans, even if they are against the idea, would understand the thinking behind Government's move and not confuse the casino issue with the IRs. I know they are inter-related, but while Muslims should choose not to work at the casinos, they should not deny themselves the job opportunities that will be created through the wider concept of IRs.



     Personally, I believe that if I expect others to respect my faith, it is morally and spiritually right for me to give my neighbours and friends, who do not see it as wrong to have casinos in Singapore and IRs in general, the respect and space for them to live life as they chose.


     Having said that, we should not take lightly the differences that have emerged over the issue.  Many Singaporeans, I believe, will be reassured by the approach taken by the PM to reach out to community and religious organisations to explain further the Government decision and to encourage them to work together with the Government in tackling the issue and the problems that might arise.


    We must not allow the decision to go IRs divide the society.  The painstaking efforts we have taken  to make Singapore a more cohesive society should not be put at risk because of this issue.  I would also like to urge community and religious organisations to respond positively to PM's call and work together for the common benefit of our Singapore. This is a win-win formula we cannot afford to lose.   We must work together, whatever the challenges.  Make this a "Uniquely Singapore" experiment.  We have experimented with many ideas and projects which others even shudder to think about - some very controversial policies which we have initiated and followed on earlier on in our independence but proven to be right later on.  But with the need for us to constantly watch what are the challenges and demands in terms of fine-tuning and adjustments that are required to make sure that our initial objective of the good for Singapore is not lost. 


    Let this work too, not only in terms of material gains but also in our managing its social costs.

Friday, April 29, 2011

Loh Meng See (PAP MP) was against the casino

I really respect this guy! He was my MP at one point..

Extract from the Hansard (Parliament Debate 2005)
------------------

     Mr Loh Meng See (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this year we will be celebrating Singapore's 40th year of independence.  The Government has on Monday, 18th April, announced its momentous decision to develop two integrated resorts with casinos at Marina Bayfront and Sentosa.
     I have listened carefully to the Prime Minister and Ministers who have spoken on the subject.  Indeed, I can sense the ambivalence they held and the moral dilemma they faced in arriving at this very difficult decision.  I respect their decision, as I have been taught to submit to those in authority who have been empowered and who will be held accountable for the decisions they made.  We will render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.
     But I wish they had decided differently, as I disagree strongly in having a casino in Singapore.  As I reflect on the matter, the question that plays in my mind is: why are we faced with such a Hobson's choice today?  Minister Mentor has said that "the cost of not doing it is even greater".  We have been told that not to proceed with the development is worse than proceeding with it.  We have been asked to pay the perceived minimal cost in human suffering to enjoy the larger economic benefit.  My view is that, after three and four generations, the costs will outweigh the benefits, and many of us here today will not be around to see the consequences, but our children and grandchildren will be.
     Is this the way to measure policy outcomes?  Have we fully explored all alternatives before we ask only casino operators to put the proposals?  Are we sure that we want to put our destiny in tourism and a not insignificant part of our economy in the hands of two foreign casino operators?  Are we sure that the novelty of integrated resorts would not wear out?  Are they fully recession-proof?  Would it not hollow out the other businesses in Singapore if one-third of the casino income is to come from Singaporeans?
     After 40 years of independence, we must adjust our thinking from being fixated with the idea that economic prosperity is all that matters.  There is a very high cost that accompanies with the single-minded pursuit of wealth and prosperity.  We are already a developed economy enjoying a higher average per capita income.  To have an annual economic growth of an average of 3-6% is not insignificant.
     We need the cultural ballast and strong national values and social graces to provide the balance in the way we live.  The world wants us to seek instant gratification and temporary pleasures, but if our people are too stressed out and not having the happiness, peace and joy in their hearts, then it counts for nothing.  What our people need is healthy relationships with their family, neighbours and the community.  Instead, we see dysfunctional families and quarrelling neighbours.  In the lexicon of Thomas Friedman, we are forsaking our olive tree by trading it for a newer and bigger model of Lexus.
     Personally, I am all for economic growth and prosperity.  But I am not so sure whether, if we keep on going the way we are, our communities will not fall apart.  Switzerland and the Nordic countries I hear earlier, have been held as excellent examples of how the Swiss work, live and play.  I like some of what they do.  We should follow the Swiss in keeping the Sabbath in not washing the cars and mowing the grass on Sundays, not flushing the toilets in the night as it could disturb the neighbours, buy and support locally-made goods even if they are more expensive than foreign goods.  For every issue that affects the whole community, they hold a referendum to decide.  The Swiss possess the maturity, strong cultural and social values that we Singaporeans lack.
     We have read the document written by Mr Chia Teck Leng on the casino escapades.  He feels that we ought to go ahead with the casino.  I am not so sure how much weight we want to place on the opinions of a man who has been imprisoned because of his addiction to gambling.  Unfortunately, we do not have a chance to hear the feeling of his wife and two teenage sons.  If we were to hear their side of the story, we would have a different perspective of the untold harm that has been caused.  My real concern is that we will not know whether we have made the right or wrong decision until perhaps 10 to 20 years later.  By that time, the situation in Singapore would have deteriorated beyond recognition.
     I cannot understand the argument put forward that, as gambling is already in existence, the harm is incremental in nature.  Do we not know that two wrongs do not make a right?  The damage and harm to society could be compounding and cumulative in nature and rising exponentially.  With the proliferation of vices, we will be like frogs in hot water, and we do not know that we will be boiled to death.
     The Government has made the decision.  I will respect it.  But I will discourage Singaporeans to contribute their expected one-third share to the casino income and, instead, contribute the money to charity to help the needy and disadvantaged.  When political leaders share their stories of "little" gambling experiences in this House, unwittingly and subtly we are telling the young that it is all right to try and play 4-D and jackpot machines and have some fun.  That, to me, is the thin end of the wedge, the beginning of disaster.
     It is exactly what I am afraid of.  Over time, our people's guard will go down, slowly but surely.  We can explain and rationalise our actions, we get into a mode of denial.  Gambling and other vices become the norm in our society.  Slowly, warm water turns to hot water, then to boiling water.  It is a matter of degree, but it is also the difference between life and death.
     This surely cannot be.  Our young should be taught good moral ethical values.  Gambling is like smoking, something not to be tried in the first place.
     Therefore,I urge the Government to have a Code of Conduct for Ministers and MPs, civil servants and even directors of listed companies to be barred from gambling in the casino.  Other associations, like the teachers' unions, can also make voluntary pledges.
     We require good records to be kept on the patronage of the casinos and we have a law that considers unexplained wealth to be ill-gotten gains.  It is not just gambling that we should be concerned about, but the related effects of corruption, money laundering and organised crimes that come with it. We must protect and safeguard the integrity and reputation of Singapore's financial centre status.
   I would like to see the rules on casinos to be legislated rather than merely regulated.  No flexibility should be given to the Government of the day to decide.  I am confident of the present Government to manage and run the system, but as a safeguard for future generations, appropriate legislation should be instituted so that we can delay the ill-effects of gambling and other vices breeding its ugly head on our society. 
    As we are proceeding to the next step of Requesting for Proposals, I would like the Government to have the ability to walk away and say "no" if there is a huge discrepancy between the concepts and the proposals submitted.   Many house buyers would have experienced this - the house they receive at the end of the day is not what the one they saw in the drawings and design models. Therefore, we have to be alert and vigilant.
    Remember, if we enter this realm, we are at the mercy of expert gamblers.   On our side are politicians  and civil servants who are, I think and hope, novices in this game.
   Sir, I rest my case. 

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Ngiam Tong Dow was against casino

ST Forum
Why Singapore should never have a casinoNgiam Tong Dow
466 words
21 October 2004
Straits Times
STIMES
English
(c) 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
CASINO will be a disaster for Singapore.
The idea was first mooted in 1964 to jump-start tourism in Singapore. At that time, the number of visitors was just 400,000. Today, without a casino, tourist arrivals are reaching eight million.
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and his then lieutenants, Dr Goh Keng Swee and Dr Toh Chin Chye, decided against having a casino. Instead, we took the straight and narrow road and prospered.
Our younger successors touting a casino as a quick fix to lagging tourist numbers should ask themselves this question: Are we a lesser society than Macau without a casino?
Secondly, the Ministry of Finance and Ministry for Trade and Industry should reveal the economic numbers. I am quite certain that the increase in gambling taxes from having a casino will be far less than, say, a 10 per cent increase in the budgets of the Prisons Department, Singapore Police Force, Commercial Affairs Department, Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, Central Narcotics Bureau and Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, which will be left to pick up the pieces of broken families.
It will be the height of irresponsibility on the part of the pro-casino gentry to throw away our hard-earned virtues of thrift, diligence and honesty just for a quick fix.
The Singapore Tourism Board will have to think harder on how to provide more value and attract the rising middle class of Asean, China and India to holiday in Singapore and place their children in our schools, polytechnics and universities.
Las Vegas is only a dot in the Arizona desert. The acid rain of large-scale gambling falls on a continental North America. The social ill effects are totally diluted. In the case of Singapore, we will need to give over the whole tiny island to the moguls of gambling. There is no free lunch.
Not many Singaporeans know that the Economic Development Board had to give up our adolescent dream of having a steel mill because of the physical pollution. Similarly, the Public Utilities Board did not establish a coal-fired power station because the coal dust would be inches thick on every inch of Singapore.
Large-scale gambling Las Vegas-style will be even more insidious and deadly for Singapore.
Finally, I am of the view that our aspiration to be a world financial centre, which requires absolute integrity and honesty of banks and their employees, is the polar opposite of big-timecasino gambling. And casinos have to be big time to pay their way.
As a 67-year-old true-blue Singaporean, I appeal to our younger generation not to fall prey to the siren songs of Las Vegas. You will regret it.

Some PAP MPs were against casino - where are they now?

Singapore
MPs urge caution on setting up casino hereM. Nirmala
458 words
21 January 2005
Straits Times
STIMES
English
(c) 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
They feel S'pore's clean image and morals should be valued over economic benefits
THE Government took the right moral decision by banning a planned party for gays and introducing HIV screening for pregnant women, who are increasingly at risk of being infected by their husbands.
But why is it now coming down from its moral high ground and seeking to allow casino operations, asked Mr Loh Meng See (Jalan Besar GRC) yesterday.
In his speech, which dwelt in part on how Singapore was gambling away its morals, he warned: 'Why do we do something to spoil the clean image of Singapore?'
The casino proposal was 'causing confusion to many Singaporeans'. He asked: 'Are we prepared to give up the values that we held dear in the past because of economic benefits?'
Singapore, he argued, had forgone revenue from cigarette advertising because smoking was bad for health.
The Government had also demonstrated, when it brought down Bugis Street, that it favoured preserving moral values over money as the place had a 'bad image associated with transvestites'.
So, he urged: 'Let us be steadfast and not succumb to the seductive arguments and rationalisation of economic benefits of the casino project.'
The casino debate has been raging since the Government announced last March that it was studying the possibility of setting one up here.
Among those who had spoken against it in the House this week was Mr Tan Soo Khoon (East Coast GRC). He had urged the Government to err on the side of caution and ensure that Singapore remains a wholesome place for all.
Yesterday, Mr Gan Kim Yong (Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC) also opposed it.
He said: 'While I can see the economic value of acasino, I too question the wisdom of such a move.
'I would urge the Government to be cautious on this matter so we can all have a home we can cherish.'
The need to uphold the right values was also highlighted by two other MPs.
Mr Ahmad Khalis (Hong Kah GRC) saw the need for Singaporeans to build up values of care, compassion and graciousness.
How Singapore manages its values in a changing society was one of the concerns highlighted by Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines GRC).
Is society prepared to accept singles who adopt babies, single mothers who conceive through artificial insemination or same-sex marriages, he asked.
As a conservative Asian society, Singapore should opt to follow rather than to lead, he said.
'However, this does not mean we will not be confronted with such issues. As a mature society, we should be prepared to openly discuss these issues and take a position for ourselves,' he said.

Tan Soo Khoon said no to casino - where is he now??

Singapore
MPs: Put casino issue to the voteAzhar Ghani
458 words
2 March 2005
Straits Times
STIMES
English
(c) 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
One wants a vote in Parliament; another, a referendum
SOME Singaporeans believe the Government has made up its mind about having a casino here.
Still, two Members of the House want the controversial issue to be put to the vote.
Mr Tan Soo Khoon (East Coast GRC) feels the issue is important enough to be debated further in Parliament, while Nominated MP Loo Choon Yong wants a referendum to be held for Singaporeans to vote on it.
Mr Tan, who stoutly opposed the casino proposal in the House on Jan 17, yesterday suggested MPs be allowed to vote according to their conscience and not be compelled to vote on party lines.
By lifting the Whip during the vote, 'Singaporeans will know where each MP stands,' he said, noting that 'only a handful' of MPs have raised the issue in Parliament.
The veteran MP is also worried that the decision is 'already tilting in favour of having a casino'.
Calling it an integrated resort is a red herring because the casino will still be the centrepiece, he said.
'Otherwise, you can be sure all the casino moguls around the world will not be scrambling here for a piece of the action if it is just to provide wholesome family entertainment,' he added.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said a final decision will be made in mid-April, but the Government has invited local and international companies to outline concepts for the project.
Between 15 and 20 players are said to have submitted proposals by the deadline two days ago, and this has convinced Non-Constituency MP Steve Chia that the Government has decided in principle to allow a casino.
'Their intention to proceed is already clear. What is not decided is whether to accept any of the proposals,' he said.
'It's similar to the way the Singapore Land Authority calls for public tender for state land. Their intention is to sell. All they are waiting for is the right tender price.'
So, Mr Chia wants the proposals to be made public and discussed before a decision is made.
Dr Loo, who favours a referendum, said people have a 'mistaken perception' that the Government has made up its mind.
'Coffee-shop talk is that this (decision) is already 'kelong',' quipped Dr Loo, referring to the local slang for match-fixing in football.
He believes by 'submitting this issue to a binding referendum, the Government can also demonstrate that it really means to have a public debate and that people's views matter.'
Dr Loo said he personally did not believe in 'government by referendum' but felt a vote on the issue would clearly show Singapore's moral stand.

Goh Chok Tong said yes to the casino

Prime News
Cabinet made decision on casino last SaturdayAzhar Ghani
435 words
13 April 2005
Straits Times
STIMES
English
(c) 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
KUWAIT CITY - THE Cabinet reached a decision on whether Singapore should have a casino last Saturday, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong revealed here yesterday.
He kept mum about the final verdict, but said he welcomed the opposition to the casino idea as a sign that Singapore had moral ballast.
Speaking to the Singapore media at the end of his four-day visit to Qatar and Kuwait, he said: 'I gave my view to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong before I left. There was a meeting last Saturday where they took a decision on the casino.' The decision will be announced in Parliament next Monday.
Mr Goh was also asked about the reported split in the Cabinet over the issue. Could it be along generational lines as there were indications that older Singaporeans seemed to be against thecasino?
Mr Goh said the split was not by age. 'Some older members support, and some argue against, thecasino on principle because of the social costs,' he said.
The split emerged in late January when Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew spoke of the divide between the 'moralists' and the 'pragmatists'.
On his own stand on the issue, Mr Goh told the media that he would make it known later, 'probably in Parliament' following Monday's announcement.
His position was based on the longer-term good of Singapore, after balancing economic benefits against social costs, he said.
He also told the media he was 'very happy' to see the number of people strongly opposed to thecasino. Describing them as 'people who give ballast to the country', he said he would have worried if very few people had protested.
'That means we have become so practical that we forget about the social costs, about the moral and religious values, ' said Mr Goh.
The Government has to give weight to such views, but it has to ask whether Singapore can continue to attract tourism investment. The decision is not something one can make on costs and benefits.
'It's a judgment.'
Ground is good
"I would say Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has done very well. He has reached out to younger people and he has also been able to reassure the older people... There's a certain resonance to his approach to governance. In that sense, if he wants to go for elections early, I think the ground is good for him. If he wants to go later on, the ground may be better. "
SM GOH, on whether this is a good year to call for elections

Lee Hsien Loong said YES to the casino

Prime News
How ministers were won over to the IRsSue-Ann Chia
644 words
19 April 2005
Straits Times
STIMES
English
(c) 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
Most were resistant initially but came to realise consequences of rejecting concept
THE Cabinet discussed the issues and trade-offs in having integrated resorts 'over and over again' before reaching a final decision.
Although not a life-or-death matter, it was a major decision, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday.
Giving an insight into the decision-making process, he said the ministers talked about it during their Cabinet and lunch meetings.
'We took into account feedback from the public, our discussions with MPs, and all arguments for and against,' he said.
Members of the public who believe the ministers had made up their minds right from the start, even before inviting feedback, are 'quite mistaken', PM Lee said.
Initially, most of the ministers were against the integrated resorts (IRs).
'The views of ministers mirrored the spectrum of views among the public,' he said.
But as they discussed the matter and understood better what IRs actually involved, their views gradually shifted.
He said that when they finally saw the concept proposals submitted by the various developers, they realised they had to take the bids very seriously.
And if they said 'no' to the proposals, there would also be serious consequences.
They took a final decision at a special Cabinet meeting convened on April 9, a Saturday afternoon.
Nearly everyone was present and all expressed their views - whether for or against.
Three ministers were travelling and could not attend - Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar and Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan. But they had already made their views known earlier.
'Even after so many discussions, ministers were still not unanimous,' Mr Lee revealed yesterday.
They first discussed whether to have IRs at all.
The answer was 'yes'.
The next question was whether to have one or two IRs.
They decided on two because the Marina Bay and Sentosa projects complement each other.
Two resorts also provide competition and critical mass.
They also believed that two resorts would bring more economic benefits without increasing the social cost by much more or, as he put it, commensurately.
'This is a judgment, not a mathematical calculation,' he said.
'We see the trends and feel the need to move. Whichever way we decide, there are risks.'
Mr Lee conceded that the IRs could fail. The social fallout could also be worse than expected.
However, after weighing the matter carefully, the Cabinet had 'collectively concluded that we had no choice but to proceed with the IRs'.
'As Prime Minister, I carry the ultimate responsibility for the decision,' he said.
He also said he knew that not everyone would be convinced by the Government's reasons.
He said he respected the convictions of those who opposed the IRs for religious reasons.
But in a multiracial, multireligious society, the Government had to maintain a secular and pragmatic approach.
'To those who object to the IRs on religious grounds, no economic benefit justifies allowing acasino here.
'But the Government has to balance the economic pluses against the social fallout and the intangible impact on values, and make an overall judgment whether to proceed,' he said.
'For the Government, the key consideration is what serves our national interest in the long term.'
Mr Lee will meet community and religious leaders to explain the move and discuss the proposed safeguards.
He will also ask them to work with the Government to minimise the social impact, he said.
Thanking Singaporeans for taking part in the debate, he said: 'Your views counted.
'They helped us understand your concerns and the potential problems better. They demonstrated that Singaporeans can have a rational and constructive public debate on controversial and serious issues.
'But from here, whether you were for or against, let us put the differences aside and move on.'

Yaacob says approach casinos with pragmatism

Prime News
Muslims urged to view decision with pragmatism285 words
19 April 2005
Straits Times
STIMES
English
(c) 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
THOUGH many Muslims in Singapore are likely to be disappointed with the Government's decision on the casino, they have been urged to approach it with pragmatism.
In the months leading up to yesterday's announcement, several Malay-Muslim organisations had voiced their opposition to the casino proposal. They included Singapore's highest Islamic authority - the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore.
In Parliament yesterday, Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Yaacob Ibrahim expressed confidence that the Muslim community would respect the difference between public and private morality.
Their customarily pragmatic approach, he said, has enabled the community to be both good Muslims and good Singaporeans in a multiracial and multi-religious Singapore.
Dr Yaacob said that while there are many aspects of life in Singapore that Muslims would consider to be vices, these have been accepted as 'part of the wider landscape'.
'We understand that in our multi-ethnic and multi-religious society, it is not tenable for government policies to be dictated by the views of any one group or groups.'
The objections of certain religious groups to matters such as abortion and the use of contraception have not led to them being banned here, he pointed out.
A recent Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports survey found few Malays were involved in gambling, which is prohibited under Islam. Those values will play a large part in Singapore's efforts to minimise the social costs of allowing casinos here, Dr Yaacob said.
'What we believe is good and right for society, we should share with others in a gracious and respectful way through dialogue and education, without imposing on others,' he said.
AZHAR GHANI

Khaw Boon Wan supported casinos

Singapore
Naysayers change their mindsLi Xueying
538 words
20 April 2005
Straits Times
STIMES
English
(c) 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
THEY belong in the converted camp.
For seven years, Mr Khaw Boon Wan resisted repeated calls for Singapore to set up casinos.
As the Trade and Industry Ministry's permanent secretary from 1995 to 2001, he fended off regular lobbying by the Singapore Tourism Board for acasino.
'Each time, I would object to it,' said Mr Khaw, now the Health Minister.
'I told them not to go for 'easy' options, but to think hard about how we could be special and still bring in the tourists without a casino.'
He again rejected the idea when he chaired the Economic Review Committee's services subcommittee from December 2001 to August 2002.
Yesterday, Mr Khaw, a staunch Buddhist once 'dead against' casinos, was one of two MPs who spoke about how they had changed their stance from being naysayers to ones willing to cast their chips for the integrated resorts (IRs) with casinos. The other was Mr Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio GRC).
Mr Singh said, in the course of the past year, he had shifted from objecting vehemently, to sitting on the fence, and finally to 'fully supporting' the IRs.
The father of two had feared casinos would threaten society's values. 'I did not want my children growing up in a different type of Singapore,' he said.
So what changed the minds of the two politicians?
For Mr Singh, it was the realisation that it was 'more than a moral issue'.
'It was about Singapore's future and its ability to compete,' he said.
Initially, he felt Singapore 'does not have to resort to a casino' for economic success. So he tried to find alternatives. 'But as I searched for the answer... I realised there were very few options for now.'
After successive downturns, the economy is in dire need of a booster shot, said the entrepreneur.
'The business community is getting worn out. The mood is bad, has been bad, and if this kind of mood continues, it will spell disaster for Singapore,' he said.
'We need boosters to our economy and I don't see any immediate instrument as a booster other than the integrated resorts.'
Like Mr Singh, Mr Khaw believed Singapore had no choice but to say 'yes'.
It cannot afford to ignore the huge economic benefits and the 'many much-needed jobs' the IRs can create.
For Mr Khaw, the turning point came when he saw the plans from bidders.
'I was struck by the quality of the proposals, the strong interest by these prospective investors, and their multi-billion-dollar bids,' said Mr Khaw.
Even then, he would still have held out for the status quo if Singapore could have been 'certain that our neighbours will still maintain the status quo'.
'But I will not bet on this,' he said.
The investors would have looked elsewhere in the neighbourhood, perhaps as near as Johor. Singaporeans would still have flocked there and the social costs to the country would still have been incurred here.
With the IRs, said Mr Singh, at least Singapore is putting in place a more systematic way of addressing problem gambling, an issue which otherwise would have dropped off the radar.

Zainudin Nordin says casinos won't affect values

Singapore
Muslim MPs: Decision won't affect valuesAZHAR GHANI
357 words
20 April 2005
Straits Times
STIMES
English
(c) 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
SINGAPOREANS who fear that the decision to allow casinos here will threaten their values should have more faith, Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) said yesterday.
In fact, the experience will be no different from when communities faced up in the past to potentially negative influences, he said.
He made the point by drawing from his personal experience as a student in France. The 3 1/2-year stint affected him in many ways but he still retained his Singaporean identity and his values as a Muslim, he said.
He also recalled how Singaporeans had once agonised over a new rating system for films and were concerned about policing of the Internet.
'Once again, history has proven the argument to be moot. We are still here today, we are still Singaporeans, our values still intact, our roots deeply grounded but our sights fixed on the future,' he said. Having casinos here would not be any different.
With the world constantly changing, he said asking the Government to intervene and ban 'this and that' was not an answer and could only be a short-term solution.
'Can Muslims or any other groups impose their standards on the rest?' he asked. 'Can we insulate our people by legislation forever?'
Mr Zainudin was one of three Muslim MPs who spoke yesterday. All three - Madam Halimah Yacob (Jurong GRC) and Dr Ahmad Magad (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC) were the other two - stated Islam's stand against gambling.
Madam Halimah urged Muslims here not to let thecasino decision divide the community, or put distance between them and the Government.
She also cautioned them against being distracted from other important challenges facing the community in areas such as education and employment.
She believed, in any case, that mosques and other Muslim organisations here are equipped to deal with any potential problems within the community arising from gambling. They could also work closely with the Community Development, Youth and Sports Ministry.
And, if needed, worried Muslims could also fall back on government safeguards, which include barring vulnerable family members from entering casinos.

Chiam See Tong was against the casino.

Singapore
Chiam: Tell us how big the casinos will be285 words
20 April 2005
Straits Times
STIMES
English
(c) 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
BE TRUTHFUL and tell Singaporeans just how large the casino space will be in the two integrated resorts (IRs), veteran opposition MP Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir) challenged the Government yesterday.
And don't just 'gloss over' it by saying casinos will occupy only 3 to 5 per cent of the entire IRs, he said.
Give the exact floor space, he added.
'As the total floor space of the integrated resorts is so large, in our case, several times that of Takashimaya shopping centre, the 3 to 5 per cent occupied by the casinos is physically a very large area,' said Mr Chiam.
'The Government should be truthful and not tell the people that the casino is only a small part of the IR.'
Mr Chiam, who is chairman of the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA), reiterated his party's opposition to the setting up of casinos.
It is the 'first step down the slippery slope', he said. 'Once we officially plant the seed of gambling in our soil, it's only a question of time that it will grow and spread in our land.'
Mr Chiam was also worried about three other potential dangers.
The Government may not stop at two casinos. 'Who knows, in time there shall be more and more licences issued if the Government needs the revenue,' he said.
Second, the Government may loosen restrictions when competition hots up from other casinos in the region, and allow operators to open the doors wider to local punters.
And lastly, he sought the Government's assurance that most of the 35,000 jobs created by the integrated resorts will go to Singaporeans, not foreigners.

Low Thia Khiang didn't support the casino

Singapore
Govt just eyeing profits: WP chief464 words
20 April 2005
Straits Times
STIMES
English
(c) 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
OPPOSITION MP Low Thia Khiang blasted the Government for its readiness to make Singaporeans suffer by serving up the idea of integrated resorts with casinos here.
Its real intention is to reap profits from the gains that a casino and increased tourism would bring, said the Hougang MP, whose Workers' Party (WP) opposes the decision.
The WP chief, who spoke in Mandarin, likened the resorts proposal to porridge that was being cooked and served to Singaporeans. They were then told to take it as there was special medicine in it.
The Government, he continued, was saying the medicine 'can better fill our stomachs'. This is 'notwithstanding the fact that this special medicine could cause some of our people to suffer diarrhoea or dehydration and even lose their lives'.
'PM Lee said that for the collective interest of the people, even if they have objections, they have to swallow it and he will do what is necessary for the after-care,' he said.
He charged that the authorities were willing to allow Singaporeans 'to suffer the damage that may be brought about by the casino'.
'On the other hand, the Government will just sit back and reap the harvest, without having to pay a single cent.'
The decision was made unilaterally and without considering the views of those who opposed the move, he charged.
He said the Government had argued that thecasino would form only a small part of an integrated resort, and that the resort would be 'a trump card in the development of tourism'.
If the resort was the most important component, the decision should have been to just have a resort. By then saying a resort without a casinowas not viable, the Government showed that its key consideration was the casino, he said.
And for that, it was willing to have Singaporeans suffer the consequences.
Its supposed rationale: a Community Development, Youth and Sports Ministry survey which found that, while six in 10 Singaporeans gamble, only 2.1 per cent are at risk of becoming addicts.
'So the logic is that, since they are gambling, whether they gamble at the casino or at the betting stations or Turf Club, there's no difference,' he said.
But there was a difference between just playing the lottery, and 'the attraction, the excitement and the thrill' of gambling in a casino, he said.
Values and the work ethic here would also be eroded, despite the assurance that safeguards would be in place, he added.
Singapore should learn from others and put in place controls and restrictions on the gambling industry. These would include public education to discourage gambling, and implementing suggestions by Chia Teck Leng, currently in jail for swindling banks to feed his gambling habit.
Document STIMES0020050420e14k00015

George Yeo supported the casino

Prime News
Mega boost likely: George Yeo306 words
15 April 2005
Straits Times
STIMES
English
(c) 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
A CASINO could provide a mega-boost to the economy, Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo said last night.
But, whatever the decision, no effort will be spared to minimise the social costs of gambling here, he added.
He was commenting on a survey which indicated that one in every 50 adult Singaporeans risked becoming problem gamblers.
Mr Yeo, as then-Trade and Industry Minister, first broached the casino idea in Parliament during the Budget debate last year.
Explaining the rationale for the proposal, he said last night: 'We are talking about millions of dollars' worth of investment, thousands of jobs and the possibility of increasing annual tourism inflow into Singapore by hundreds of thousands a year.'
He gave his comments to reporters at the launch of a poll for a Housing Board upgrading programme in Bedok. He was not surprised by survey results indicating that some 55,000 adult Singaporeans could become addicts.
'We know there are always problem cases that can lead to occasional family tragedies, whether or not there's a casino.'
People could, for instance, be addicted to horse-racing. 'So whether or not we proceed with this integrated resort, we should make sure we find ways to minimise the social costs.'
Measures could include barring those on public assistance schemes from a casino. Family members could also be empowered to prevent those with a gambling problem from entering casinos.
Still, admission procedures should be simple: 'We should also not make it so complicated that we create a bureaucracy to monitor who can enter the casino.'
As for his personal stand, he said: 'The Cabinet has taken a decision, so we will go by the collective decision.
'Of course, I announced it a year ago in Parliament... and the economic benefits are not trivial.'
RADHA BASU

Tony Tan was against the casino..

Prime News
Gaming minuses worry DPM TanSandra Davie
590 words
15 April 2005
Straits Times
STIMES
English
(c) 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
'55,000 potential gambling addicts' is no small matter, he says of findings
THE fact that up to 55,000 people here risk becoming gambling addicts is no small matter and cannot be dismissed, Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan said yesterday.
Commenting on a Community Development, Youth and Sports Ministry survey of gambling habits, he said he was 'appalled' that a newspaper headline dismissed the number as insignificant:
'I don't think it's insignificant. Every Singaporean is important. Every Singaporean that gets into trouble means one family that is destroyed. It cannot be a matter of small concern to the Government.'
He offered his views after a ceremony for the National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School.
Noting that the survey of 2,004 people found that 2.1 per cent risked becoming problem gamblers, he said it may appear a small number. But this could translate to as many as 55,000 of the total adult population here.
'Even if you take half that number, you have 20,000 problem gamblers a year,' Dr Tan said.
'This means 20,000 whose lives have been destroyed, 20,000 Singaporean families who have been devastated by gambling.'
He decided to comment as a newspaper he read yesterday, which he did not identify, had asked 'where is the problem?'
'You can't dismiss people's lives like that,' he said.
His comments stemmed from a headline in Today: 'What gambling problem?'
Its secondary heading read: 'Only 2 in 100 adults at risk of addiction: MCYS'.
The survey findings came five days before the Government's Monday announcement on whether to go ahead with an integrated resort with a casino. The Cabinet has already made a decision.
Dr Tan would not be drawn into disclosing more. He said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong would announce it in Parliament.
But he said there had been a healthy debate, including in Cabinet.
'I'm not going to tell you what the decision will be today. But whatever the decision is, once it is made, we should move on. We should make the decision work, give our ideas,' he said.
'If we are going to have casinos in Singapore, we must see how we can get the maximum benefit and how to minimise the social cost.'
Dr Tan added: 'We can't dismiss the social cost as some journalists apparently believe that we can, which I think is gravely wrong. As I said, even if 5,000, 10,000 Singaporeans are affected, to me it is a matter of concern.
'And it is a matter of concern for the Government. My Cabinet colleagues and I worry about every Singaporean who gets into trouble.'
Dr Tan was one of the first ministers to speak on the issue. He said in February it should not be assumed Singapore will reap economic benefits from a casino here.
There were also economic disadvantages to consider, including the effects a casino could have on the value of Singapore's brand name. So while there may be some economic value, people may also not look at Singapore in the same way again.
Dr Tan said the Cabinet considered all aspects and balanced the economic benefits against possible damage to Singapore's values and principles.
'We have to make sure the decision we make is in the best interests of Singaporeans as a whole... And I think the Cabinet has taken all the views in and has made the best decision for Singapore.'

Mr Low Thia Khiang’s Open Letter to Voters of Hougang and Aljunied GRC (English)

Low Thia Khiang’s Open Letterto Voters of Hougang and Aljunied GRC
Dear Fellow Singaporeans
Leaving Hougang is one of the hardest decisions I have ever made in my life. Hougang has been such a huge part of me. It was the Hougang people who gave me their vote of confidence to represent them in 1991. Over the next 20 years, they courageously supported me despite the ‘carrots and threats’ from the PAP government. I am grateful for their unwavering support. I am honoured and proud to have been their MP. Personally, if I have a choice I would continue to stay in Hougang where I have made many friends and have many fond memories of people there.
However there are times when all of us have to make tough decisions. For the Workers’ Party and I, the time is now. We are at the crossroads of Singapore’s political development. Both the PAP and opposition have to focus on renewal of our party leadership. The new PM is likely to be among this batch of PAP candidates. WP too needs to ensure a credible and responsible batch of leaders to work towards a First World Parliament where the government is accountable to the people.
While I may feel a sense of satisfaction that the government has to answer my questions in Parliament, there is still no effective check and balance mechanism on an excessively strong Executive. The government can choose to ignore our concerns and we are helpless.
The single most important tool used by the PAP government to keep our political landscape stagnant is the GRC system. This system totally dilutes your vote by ushering in a group of PAP candidates on the coat-tails of one or two PAP heavyweights.
The constant gerrymandering also prevents Singapore from developing a First World Parliament. For example, the recent redrawing of electoral boundaries transferred more than 29,000 voters of Aljunied GRC to Ang Mo Kio GRC (the prime minister’s ward) and some other wards! Clearly the purpose is to disperse the supporters of WP into different constituencies to prevent WP candidates from being elected and posing a challenge to them in Parliament.
This Divide and Rule strategy helps the PAP to ensure that the process of ‘check and balance’ remains weak in Parliament. This is totally immoral and against the spirit of democracy.
I am already 55 years old and as the Secretary General of WP, I have a responsibility to the Party and the people who have supported WP. This is a heavy decision and we have mulled over it many times. I am aware of the danger that we might end up with totally NO elected MPs in Parliament but ultimately it is not a choice of ‘playing it safe or taking a risk’. We are only being true to WP’s vision of “Power to the People”. The government must be transparent and account to the people.
To do this we need a breakthrough in the GRC system. We must entrench more WP voices with full voting rights in Parliament. We need a First World Parliament. WP and I have therefore made the important decision that I should lead a team to contest Aljunied GRC.
I hope the people of Hougang will understand and support this important decision for the long-term good of our country. I hope the people of Aljunied will support us too.
WP seeks your support to take this step with us towards a First World Parliament. We offer you a team of responsible and credible candidates who will represent you in Parliament. You have the power to decide what kind of future you want to build for yourselves and your children.
Vote Workers’ Party, Towards a First World Parliament.