I agree with the author when he states that “when we get impatient with slow but steady yield from honest labour and decide to take a short cut to instant wealth, we slay 'Thrift' and 'Industry' with the 'Knife of Pragmatism'.”
There has been a real hot debate on whether Singapore should open a casino? This would be the first, and by the looks of things, it would not be the last too. Building a casino on homeland does have its repercussions, and such social and economic impacts have to be carefully analysed and overlooked. Will building a casino really help Singapore’s economy? This essay explores the different views of opening a casino.
By opening a casino, there is no doubt that the sole purpose in mind is to make money. Indeed, the casino might draw gamblers from overseas and even from Singapore herself, but will it really be an investment worthwhile? Gamblers actively seek for newer places to gamble, the more unique the place is, the better the sensation, regardless of winning or losing money. I feel that only in the near future, once the casino has completed its construction, will the casino make money to offset the costs of the project of building the casino itself. However, as time goes by, gamblers want newer experiences and would “migrate” to other casinos elsewhere. Of course, social impacts are not negligible. By constructing a casino on homeland, as if one in Genting is not enough, it greatly increases the risk of Singaporeans getting addicted to gambling. Singapore is already close to facing an aging population, and our working class is already lacking manpower. If the casino is constructed and people from our working class get addicted, only our economy will suffer. Although the government has set up preventive measures to mitigate these problems, the long term social impact can only worsen if the casino is still here.
Of course, the government has set up measures to prevent our dear residents from being addicted to gambling. I disagree as more people will definitely gamble if the IR is built, leading to more people getting into trouble and more families will only suffer. There are also issues of Singaporeans complaining that there is no reason to exclude locals to gamble in the first place. This only goes to show that our own citizens have a desire to gamble, and by imposing an entrance fee of $100, the government is blatantly “banning” all middle and lower class citizens from entering the casino. Of course, hardcore gamblers would not mind such a small pinch from their pocket if it meant convenience, rather than travelling elsewhere to gamble. Having a high entrance fee of $100 or implementing the system of exclusions will only help remedy the problem for a short period of time, and only to a certain extent. Next, the government claims that some good social outcomes will come out of constructing the IR? By claiming that the money is used for charitable and worthy causes, I cannot help but remember all the past charity shows on television, where hundreds of thousands of people call in to show their support for the needy; however, how many percentage of the money actually goes the needy? Also, the money helps the needy, but it does not help those who lost money because of gambling. Because of these, I feel that the government is sacrificing those who fall prey to their desire to gamble for economic gains, and maybe some meagre social gains, that can barely outweigh the social repercussions building a casino brings about.
With such imposing restrictions like an entrance fee of $100, I believe that over time, many hot debates would be carried out deciding whether the “ban” should be lifted. I feel that in the near future, the entrance fee would definitely be lifted, and by then, Singaporeans would all gather around gambling tables betting their money away while the government laugh their way to the bank. However, this is merely an assumption, albeit possible.
I feel that a better counter to Singaporeans being addicted to gambling would be to utilise the media to educate the public on the social repurcussions of gambling. A good example of an advertisement would be of a little girl clutching on to her piggy bank for her dear life, while daddy promises that after "robbing" her of her savings, he would quit gambling. Certainly touching and impressive!
In conclusion, I feel that a casino should not be erected as simply, the social repercussions outweigh the economic gains that Singapore stand to gain. I feel that such a high-risk gamble on the government’s part should not be carried out; risking the lives of Singaporeans for economic benefits is unquestionably stupid.
No comments:
Post a Comment