This has brought up the touchy issue of gambling addicts. Many people blame the government for making the situation worse by allowing the creation of Integrated Resorts.
While I am anti-PAP on many issues, I tend to disagree with the conservative majority on this one issue and reluctantly side with the government on the construction of the casinos.
Why don't I object to the opening of the IRs? Because opening the casinos is not the same as forcing people to gamble.
Actually I don't think the casinos are economically viable and would object to the construction based on economic considerations. But my objection is not based on the grounds of morality that most people feel; which is the whole point of this post.
Look at the recent case. While it was sad that the man killed himself and his family, you have to remember that no one put a gun to his head to gamble. The responsible party was him and him only. We can blame the government for many things but not our lack of will power.
I enjoy the occasional visit to the casinos but why should I be denied this form of entertainment because a small minority of people can't control themselves. It is like banning alcohol because some people are alcoholics or chocolate because some people are chocoholics.
The problem is that we Singaporeans have a warped mentality that demand the government solve every single problem. We see the problem with gambling and demand they stop creating the casinos and maybe even ban our Toto and 4D games. The government can ban these legal activities but they cannot legislate away human behaviour. People will always gamble, the only difference is that they would do it more secretly.
To me, letting the moral majority dictate whether or not I can gamble is no different from them meddling in the personal lives of homosexuals. After all, don't you believe in the freedom of choice?
8 comments:
Singaporeans are rich!!!!!!!
http://www.straitstimes.com/print/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_452508.html
Nov 10, 2009
Household wealth at $1trn
By Gabriel Chen
HOUSEHOLDS in Singapore have generally weathered the financial crisis well, with net wealth rising to an all-time high of $1 trillion as at end September after slumping to $895 billion in the first quarter of the year.
The record figures, which were released in the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS) annual Financial Stability Review on Monday, go a long way to explain why the recession that has just ended seemed less painful than previous downturns.
The recovery in the stock and property markets since the first quarter is one reason, but Singaporeans are also richer as they saved, invested and paid their debt.
The global economic recovery has meant a strong rebound in net wealth - assets minus liabilities. Take property assets.
The MAS data showed that real estate holdings have turned around - they were up by an estimated nine per cent to $537 billion in the three months to Sept 30, from $491 billion in the second quarter.
There are many other ways to create jobs. Why did the government choose this path?
I am going to disagree with you. There is such thing call bad influence. I do not believe anyone in their right mind would want their teenage children to be exposed to this kind of environment.
Unlike other countries, Singapore is a small, people cannot choose to live in other cities without this kind of "learning" environment for teenagers. This is base on the fact that there becoming an addict due to peer influence is within walking distance.
If given this opportunity, anyone (even the adult) on the road can become a gambler overnight.
I see IR as an increase in opportunity of getting oneself addicted to gambling.
"This is base on the fact that there becoming an addict due to peer influence is within walking distance."
*Edit
"Hence, it is possible that becoming an addict is a result of peer influence and within walking distance"
Hi tiredman,
So you are saying that anything bad that can happen will happen. So we should stop it from happening right.
For example, a person is more likely to die in a car accident than become a gambler.
So should we ban driving because of the minority bad drivers who got involved in accidents?
Because some people get negatively affected by something means that other people who have self control shouldn't be allowed near it. That goes against the idea of freedom of choice. my 2 cents..
"Look at the recent case. While it was sad that the man killed himself and his family, you have to remember that no one put a gun to his head to gamble. The responsible party was him and him only. We can blame the government for many things but not our lack of will power."
If say, several years down the road, the same kind of sad incident were to happen to any of your own brothers or sons because of their own 'lack of will power' not to gamble at the IR casinos, would you still not blame the government for allowing the casinos to be built in the first place ?
It's so much easy to say it's sad especially if you do not feel the pain of the man's family.
Hi Alan,
I agree that it is sad that such a tregedy happens, but I suppose we should not put all the blame on the garment, isnt it? As a garment, I suppose they should not take responsibilities for each and every social issue that occurs... their responsibilities are to ensure that the well being of the majority (at least 95%), and not every single one. I would classified such tragedy as outliers... perhaps out of 100 similar cases, only 1 of them will take such drastic actions.
Unless the problem is pandemic, I do not think we should blame the garment.
In this case, if the garment can maintain the standard of security and safety, as well as ensuring that the prevalence of vices do not increase out of hand after the casinos started operation, I would think that the garment has done little wrong. Of course, it would be a big challenge to ensure that, especially now that the garment has turn a blind eye on the resurgent of loan sharks cases in Singapore.
The crux of the problem is not to ban gambling... instead it should be on how to manage gambling, so as to ensure that the well being of the vast majority will not be compromise.
I have used words such as "possible", "opportunity". That should answer your question.
cheerz...
///Actually I don't think the casinos are economically viable and would object to the construction based on economic considerations. But my objection is not based on the grounds of morality that most people feel; which is the whole point of this post.///
I agree with you that people should be given the choice. I support the IR, although I might be tempted to go there and lose big time.
I also base my reasoning on economics instead of morals. However, I disagree that casinos are not economically viable. Casinos, being casinos, are literally cash cows. And if you know how the Singapore government works, you will know that every project they undertake will be about dollars and sense. They have even overcome their own decades-old reservation and abhorrence to casinos as they can see the economics of it all.
Post a Comment