Interesting words from an MP
I am usually not too convinced when member of parliament make their speeches ... but this one by MP Loh is a pretty well reasoned piece - let's hope more of our politicians take up the intellectual mandate instead of making simplistic statements. By the way, I won't be posting any more casino stuff - enough has been said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the last speakers in the debate, MP Loh Meng See (right) of JalanBesarGRC yesterday voiced strong opposition to having casinos here. He chidedministers for talking about their gambling habits, saying that it was thethinend of the wedge'I RESPECT the decision as I have been taught to submit to those inauthoritywho have been empowered and who will be held accountable for the decisionstheymade. We will render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. But I wish they (the ministers) had decided differently as I disagreestrongly with having a casino in Singapore. Why are we faced with such aHobson's choice today? Minister Mentor has said that 'the cost of not doingitis even greater'. We have been told that not to proceed with thedevelopment isworse than proceeding with it. We have been asked to pay the perceived minimal cost in human sufferingtoenjoy the larger economic benefit. My view is that after three or four generations, the costs will outweighthe benefits and many of us here today will not be around to see theconsequences, but our children and grandchildren will be. Is this the way to measure policy outcomes? Have we fully explored allalternatives before we asked only casino operators to put up the proposals?Arewe sure that we want to put our destiny in tourism and a not-insignificantpartof our economy in the hands of two foreign casino operators? Are we sure that the novelty of integrated resorts will not wear off?Arethey fully recession-proof? Will it not hollow out the other businesses inSingapore if one-third of the casino outcome is to come from Singaporeans? Personally, I am all for economic growth and prosperity. But I am notsurewhether, if we keep on going the way we are, our communities will not fallapart. My real concern is that we will not know whether we have made the rightorwrong decision until perhaps 10 to 20 years later. By that time, thesituationin Singapore would have deteriorated beyond recognition. I cannot understand the argument put forward that as gambling is alreadyinexistence, the harm is incremental in nature. Do we not know that two wrongs don't make a right? That the damage and harm to society could be compounding and cumulativeinnature and rising exponentially? With the proliferation of vices, we will be like frogs in hot water - wedonot know that we will be boiled to death. The Government has made the decision. I will respect it, but I willdiscourage Singaporeans from contributing their expected one-third share tothecasino income, and instead encourage them to contribute the money tocharity tohelp the needy and the disadvantaged. When political leaders share stories of their 'little' gamblingexperiences,unwittingly and subtly we are telling the young it is all right to try andplay4D and jackpot machines and have some fun. That to me is the thin end ofthewedge, the beginning of disaster. It is exactly what I am afraid of. Over time, our people's guard will godown, slowly but surely. We can explain and rationalise our actions, we getinto a mode of denial. Gambling and other vices become the norm in oursociety. Slowly, warm water turns to hot water, then to boiling water. It is amatterof degree, but it is also the difference between life and death. This surely cannot be. Our young should be taught good moral, ethicalvalues. Gambling is like smoking - something not to be tried in the firstplace. Therefore, I urge the Government to have a code of conduct, forministersand MPs, civil servants, even directors of listed companies to be barredfromgambling in the casino. Other associations such as teachers' unions can also take voluntarypledges... Remember then, if we enter this realm, we are at the mercy of expertgamblers. On our side are politicians and civil servants - who are, I thinkandhope - novices in the game.'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the last speakers in the debate, MP Loh Meng See (right) of JalanBesarGRC yesterday voiced strong opposition to having casinos here. He chidedministers for talking about their gambling habits, saying that it was thethinend of the wedge'I RESPECT the decision as I have been taught to submit to those inauthoritywho have been empowered and who will be held accountable for the decisionstheymade. We will render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. But I wish they (the ministers) had decided differently as I disagreestrongly with having a casino in Singapore. Why are we faced with such aHobson's choice today? Minister Mentor has said that 'the cost of not doingitis even greater'. We have been told that not to proceed with thedevelopment isworse than proceeding with it. We have been asked to pay the perceived minimal cost in human sufferingtoenjoy the larger economic benefit. My view is that after three or four generations, the costs will outweighthe benefits and many of us here today will not be around to see theconsequences, but our children and grandchildren will be. Is this the way to measure policy outcomes? Have we fully explored allalternatives before we asked only casino operators to put up the proposals?Arewe sure that we want to put our destiny in tourism and a not-insignificantpartof our economy in the hands of two foreign casino operators? Are we sure that the novelty of integrated resorts will not wear off?Arethey fully recession-proof? Will it not hollow out the other businesses inSingapore if one-third of the casino outcome is to come from Singaporeans? Personally, I am all for economic growth and prosperity. But I am notsurewhether, if we keep on going the way we are, our communities will not fallapart. My real concern is that we will not know whether we have made the rightorwrong decision until perhaps 10 to 20 years later. By that time, thesituationin Singapore would have deteriorated beyond recognition. I cannot understand the argument put forward that as gambling is alreadyinexistence, the harm is incremental in nature. Do we not know that two wrongs don't make a right? That the damage and harm to society could be compounding and cumulativeinnature and rising exponentially? With the proliferation of vices, we will be like frogs in hot water - wedonot know that we will be boiled to death. The Government has made the decision. I will respect it, but I willdiscourage Singaporeans from contributing their expected one-third share tothecasino income, and instead encourage them to contribute the money tocharity tohelp the needy and the disadvantaged. When political leaders share stories of their 'little' gamblingexperiences,unwittingly and subtly we are telling the young it is all right to try andplay4D and jackpot machines and have some fun. That to me is the thin end ofthewedge, the beginning of disaster. It is exactly what I am afraid of. Over time, our people's guard will godown, slowly but surely. We can explain and rationalise our actions, we getinto a mode of denial. Gambling and other vices become the norm in oursociety. Slowly, warm water turns to hot water, then to boiling water. It is amatterof degree, but it is also the difference between life and death. This surely cannot be. Our young should be taught good moral, ethicalvalues. Gambling is like smoking - something not to be tried in the firstplace. Therefore, I urge the Government to have a code of conduct, forministersand MPs, civil servants, even directors of listed companies to be barredfromgambling in the casino. Other associations such as teachers' unions can also take voluntarypledges... Remember then, if we enter this realm, we are at the mercy of expertgamblers. On our side are politicians and civil servants - who are, I thinkandhope - novices in the game.'
posted by Benjamin Ho at
7:30 AM
0 Comments
