Bloggers Against Reverse Discrimination (BARD)

With the failure of FACTS – Family Against Casino Threat in Singapore to prevent the government from deciding to 'bulldoze its way' and build casinos (IR)s in Singapore, I have taken it upon myself to form the BARD – Bloggers Against Reverse Discrimination.

Reverse discrimination - Discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group ie Singaporeans in Singapore

Yet again, the Government has demonstrated their arrogant and avaricious nature in this episode. Lets face it, from the moment the casino was announced, only the most naïve among us doubted its eventual implementation. Yet, the Government, like a master puppeteer, managed to pull the strings in their favour once again. Allowing for people to voice out their concerns, allowing for people to speak out against it. That way, the citizens should be 'satisfied' that their voices had been heard and considered. Yet, the refusal to allow a referendum demonstrates their appallingly transparent lack of sincerity on this issue. Paying lip service to our concerns with regards to the feasibility of a casino, and patronising us with contradictory reassurances was the first Insult heaped upon us. Announcing the decision to install not 1 but 2 'integrated resorts' merely doubles the effect.

But assuring us that we are mature enough to have a casino and then imposing a $100/entrance or $2000/annum fee is simply spitting in our faces. I shan't point out the deficiencies of their rationale since it is already quite transparent to the masses and covered in various places.

It is not the quantum of the fees that is the issue at hand here. The fact that there is a tariff for local citizens but not for foreigners is yet another fallacious example of reverse discrimination in Singapore.

It may come to a surprise to Singaporeans, but in a democratic society, a government's primary function is to serve the citizens of the country. In other words, we vote for what we want, and they implement it. In most parts of the world, too, there is preferential treatment given to its citizens, or at the very least, equal treatment.

I reckon, no country, not even countries like North Korea, adopt such self-discriminatory measures – foreigners are not even allowed into North Korea, for example (not that many foreigners would want to go there, but thats another story). Contrast Singapore, where foreigners with the slightest hint of 'talent' are given free reign to reap our fields – and take it back home, leaving us indigenous souls with whatever scraps are left. There is much parallelism which can be observed between the foreign talent policy and the tariff for entry to these casinos.

This imposition is ludicrous because it simply means that we incur a penalty just for being Singaporean. In our supposed home country of Singapore, no less.

We are made to endure the social costs arising from casinos, without the corresponding social benefits. In other words, the government is again exploiting us, at our social cost, for their own economic benefit, as opposed to our (both us and government) economic (and social) benefit. They are installing something that has both positive and negative features, but we must bear the brunt of the 'negativity' and pay a price to enjoy it, while they enjoy the 'positives'.

Even if its 'justifiable' on the grounds that the purpose is to keep out the 'poor' people, which imho is ludicrous, because it simply conflicts with the 'Singaporeans are mature enough to handle a casino in Singapore' rationale adopted by the government, I suggest that such a method is misconceived and prone to backfire. In all likelihood, those predisposed to gambling will find the way to access the casino (eg using desperate measures to secure the amount needed for entrance). Alternatively, they may simply return to their original hangouts in Genting, etc, which also defeats the rationale that a local casino will keep gambling consumption (and hence revenue) within the country's economy.

While I do not agree with the justification of the tariff, if the government has to insist on taking measures to 'protect the poor', alternative measures could be used.

One measure is to actually restrict or admit people in on an individual basis. Naturally, those excluded will include bankrupts and those with evidence of financial incapacity. In addition, the gambling habits of the individuals may be monitored, so as to detect potential compulsive gambling syndrome. Dare I also suggest, to actually imposing a 'cap' on the losses accrued. Once someone loses above a certain amount, he is denied access or asked to leave the casino. (Of course, this will never happen, not even in the few parallel dimensions hovering close to us)

In certain countries, there is the legislative requirement for casinos to ensure that gamblers who have been gambling for some time are asked if they should stop. While mostly this becomes obligatory lip-service, such measures may be well enacted in Singapore's proposed casinos as well.


Conclusion

The imposition of the artificial tariff is ill-conceived and self-discriminatory. The go-ahead for the casino has and will breed some discontent among certain portions of the community. I suggest that the tariff, as an obvious source of reverse discrimination will only serve to breed more resentment and discontent among the citizens. This commentator would also like to suggest that the government, even if it chooses to adopt a purely economical utilitarian approach, should perhaps look a bit beyond immediate economic benefits, and consider the long term economical repercussions which may result from breeding resentment within their own local populace. While Singaporeans are renowned as an apathetic, passive sort, the fact that there has been much public debate and even groups such as FACTS suggests that this is perhaps an unprecedented issue, in the sense of stirring awareness in normally servile Singaporeans. If implementation of the casinos is a must, at least drop the ill-conceived tariff.

*This commentator also wishes to acknowledge that, perhaps somewhat ironically, the imposition of the tariffs may in part be due to acquiescing those who adopt an anti-casino stance. In a way, the measure can be also taken to 'show' the anti-casino persons that 'potentially vulnerable' persons are taken care of (by denying them easy access to the casino).

**Do also note that I do not actually wish to form the 'BARD'. I just thought that it was an amusing acronym. This is a semi-satirical article -so please pardon the harsh tone in certain portions of the essay as well. Cheers.