From The Electronic New Paper
ABOUT MONEY, NOT MORALS
It all boils down to this, they argue.
Even if 'the world has changed', as pro-casino advocates put it,
Singapore CAN afford to take a different path from regional
competitors like Malaysia and Macau, and yet not be left
behind.
Why? Because, ultimately, long-term risks matter more than
short-term ones. And, yes, they insist - we're talking money here,
not morals.
Even with a resort-cum-casino projected to pull in nearly $5
billion a year in revenues and taxes, adding as much as 1 per cent
GDP growth and spinning off 10,000 jobs or more, the economic
numbers eventually won't hold up.
The simple reason: Long after the high-rolling visitors have left
our shores, the locals will end up mopping the bill for the broader
fallout - bankruptcies, job losses, crime, divorces, dysfunctional
families, rehabilitation programmes.
Australian and US studies, after all, have shown that even if
tourists are the prime targets, some two per cent of locals will
almost always become problem gamblers - with or without 'social
safeguards' in place.
In the Singapore context, according to a government survey released
this week, that adds up to 55,000 residents, not counting the
spillover impact on their families.
So no, society won't 'break down' overnight. But looking ahead, the
casino's detractors stress, it's not a gamble worth taking.
Has the Government heard them loud and clear? Well, their hope is,
once D-Day is over in the next 24 hours, it'll be a case of 'all
bets are off'.
Literally.
