CasiYes or CasiNo

FACTS or Families Against the Casino Threat in Singapore (haha what a 'clever' abbrieviation) have created a site for people to petition against the establishment of the casino in SG.

I was quite surprised that there were people who actually bothered to start a petition and even more so when thru Mr Brown I realised that the call for petitioning is quite successful going by the numbers who signed the petition.

Now, there are 2 issues which immediately came to my mind. Rather than focus on the debate whether a casino should be built or not, see shianux for a rebuttal to the petition, I decided to see for myself FACTS purported motives which would perhaps also uncover other collateral motives. So I headed down to their site.

Basically, the gist is that they assert a casino will bring 'negative energy' to Singapore, without further explaining how and why a casino brings 'negative energy' nor caring to define what 'negative energy' encompasses. Nevertheless casinos are usually depicted in popular mediums as seedy places ruled by the underworld with a good dosage of vices such as prostitution and money laundering where innocent victims are caught in a whirpool of debt and deception. As such I would take it that both the petitioners and the readers are supposed to adopt such a preconception of casinos, which, to be fair, is not too difficult.

Then I take a look at the 'founding members'. They are in sectors of employment which reputation and influence counts a lot. Starting a morally upright petition will certainly boost their goodwill and standing among people who may be important in their fields. Perhaps this petition will generate awareness both ways then, which is a very positive outcome indeed for the parties involved. But of course, this could be purely incidental as well and their status as family men is probably their actual justification for starting the petition.

Another issue which bogged me was – weren't they afraid of repercussions? Campaigning against government policies may be commonplace in other democracies but not in Singapore. Then again, this is not a direct attack; rather, it is a concern for their own welfare.

Indeed, FACTS is a unique and funny example of how the Government's conservative policies actually backfired on itself! Usually, it is the People who are more liberal than the Government, but in this situation, it is the other way round! It looks as if the Government's conservative policies have succeeded all to well there. Perhaps, when radicals called for the Government to adopt more liberal policies, the Government was right to state that change must take place slowly.

That said, it is almost likely that the Government will proceed on with its plans for a casino. While most conservatives may cry foul over the soiling of their lands with the taint of casino's 'negative energy', i suggest that their fears are over-exaggerated. A single casino on an offshore island will not have enough influence to drastically change the social climate. It would be of course different if there is a proliferation of casinos in every estate of Singapore. A point of note is that casinos are ubiquitous in most cities but there is no evidence of a link with increased social problems.

If the casino's generation of income would result in lower income taxes for us, I would be more welcome to the idea of a casino in SG. However, somehow, just somehow, I fail to see this happening.

In summary, discussion of a (1)casino's establishment and the (2)purported perils are very much a moot point since (1)there is no doubt that it will be established, opposition to it notwithstanding, however, opposition's fears are misplaced because (2)the impact of its establishment will be far lesser, even to the point of being negligible, than what people fear.