Public Debate and Criticisms
The plan to build the casinos was subject to considerable debate among Singaporeans. Several groups, such as those belonging to the Muslim and Christian communities as well as social workers, openly expressed their disapproval of the casinos. Concerns were raised about the negative social impact of casino gambling, citing worries that the casinos could encourage more gambling and increase the risk of compulsive gambling. Activist groups argued that a casino could also lead to undesirable activities often associated with gambling, including money laundering, loan sharks or even organised crime.
Lee acknowledged the downsides of having integrated resorts and the concerns expressed by the public. He promised that there would be safeguards to limit the social impact of casino gambling. He stated there would be restrictions on the admission of local people into the casinos, for example, family members of a patron of the casino may block him or her from entering and gambling. Lee announced a steep entrance fee of S$100 per entry or S$2,000 per year and a system of exclusions for all Singaporeans. In addition, the casinos would not be allowed to extend credit to the local population.
Lee, who has been prime minister since August 2004, took a significant political risk when he made the decision, with some of his cabinet members against the plan. Nonetheless, Lee decided to go ahead with the decision; he stated:
"As Prime Minister, I carry the ultimate responsibility for the decision."The six-month consultative period gave the opportunity for many sections of the population to voice their opposition to the casinos, including a petition that attracted tens of thousands of signatures. When Lee approved the proposal after such widespread criticism, the opposition said that he had overruled consensus.
The debate over integrated resorts also brought to the public's attention a discussion on the methods and ways government policies should be deliberated in Singapore, and whether they were effective or needed reform. This is especially because the political climate is dominated by the People's Action Party. Low Thia Khiang, the leader of the opposition Workers' Party, warned in a parliament session:
"The Government sought the opinion of the people but it does not go along with the opinion of the people and it has now made a unilateral decision. Eventually, will it turn out to be a blessing or a curse to our people? We have to wait and see. Under the current situation, where a party is dominant and the civil society is very weak, the people cannot sway the Government's decision on such a matter that concerns the fate of the people. If the Government's judgment is wrong, it would lead the nation and our people on to the 'river of no return', where the cost would be very real and very heavy."By the time of the 2006 general elections, however, the decision was already a fait accompli, and the opposition parties made little mention of it.
Read more about this topic: Integrated Resort
Famous quotes containing the words public, debate and/or criticisms:
“The public easily confuses him who fishes in troubled waters with him who draws up water from the depths.”
—Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)
“A great deal of unnecessary worry is indulged in by theatregoers trying to understand what Bernard Shaw means. They are not satisfied to listen to a pleasantly written scene in which three or four clever people say clever things, but they need to purse their lips and scowl a little and debate as to whether Shaw meant the lines to be an attack on monogamy as an institution or a plea for manual training in the public school system.”
—Robert Benchley (1889–1945)
“The sway of alcohol over mankind is unquestionably due to its power to stimulate the mystical faculties of human nature, usually crushed to earth by the cold facts and dry criticisms of the sober hour. Sobriety diminishes, discriminates, and says no; drunkenness expands, unites, and says yes.”
—William James (1842–1910)