Why are they calling it a "debate"?

So, the green-light has been given for a casino (well, 2 of them!) in Singapore. Oh, sorry ... I meant to say "Integrated Resort", of which the casino is only a small part. Less than 5% of each IR floorspace will be taken up by the casino. I think I would like to know another figure. What proportion of investments is expected to be channeled to developing the casino part of the IR? I bet (haha, "bet", get it?) the figure would be a lot higher than 5%. Here's another number I would like to know. What proportion of the IR profits is expected to be derived from casino operations? Odds are (there I go again, with the gambling terms!) the figure would be closer to 95% than it is to 5%.

What I don't understand is why the media persists in calling the parliamentary proceedings a "debate" over the casino issue. Isn't it more or less dried and dusted and now in the process of a highly civilised discussion to ensure collective consensus? The word "debate" suggests opposing points of view. It hardly seems to apply here, when firstly, the go-ahead to build the casinos has been given, and secondly, everyone seems to agree that the analysis supports this decision. What exactly is being debated here?

All debate over this issue has been taking place in the last few months, in civil society and the public sphere. Opinions have truly been split on this and the discourse between parties has resembled real debate, with valid points being raised on both ends. The case against the casino has been largely social, the case for has been largely economics. Unfortunately, I think the decision hinged on choosing one over the other, which reduced a complicated issue to overly simplistic terms.

Now that the decision has been made, does this signal a victory of economics and money over social and family values? Certain petitioners who rallied against the casino might be tempted to think so, in their disappointment. I sympathise, but of the many aspects of national wellbeing that a government must provide for, I think the most crucial are legal and economics. These are the basis for jobs, health, peace and order. Social and cultural policing is as much the responsibility of the individual and family unit, as it is the government's.

I think gambling can be likened to drugs, tobacco and alcohol, in that it is potentially addictive and hazardous. Drugs are illegal (and trafficking is punishable by death in Singapore and Malaysia), but smoking and drinking are not. The ostensible reason is that the health hazards of drugs are far better established medically, than those of tobacco and alcohol. The cynic in me believes that might have something to do with the political clout of cigarette and alcohol manufacturers, especially in the US. That said, the point is this - drinking and smoking, which introduce toxicities directly into the body, are not banned. The social ills of gambling addiction are easy to anecdotise, but impossible to empiricise. Without indisputable proof, a secular government cannot deny its citizens their civil liberties and criminalise the act of gambling. And if a government is to allow gambling, it might as well reap the economic benefits of having a home-based casino.

Do I sound like a casino apologist? To be honest, I was leaning towards the "against" camp in the initial debates. In part, this was because I have little faith in people's abilities to practice self-control and not fall prey to the temptations of a remote "chance at glory". I don't know how much we understand about the psychology of gambling addiction. My hunch is that those who are succeptible will give in the minute the opportunities to gamble are presented, like a chemical trigger in the brain. Self-control might not even be a factor, because it's an intinctive response like animals fending for themselves in the wild.

It seems cruel to provoke these people who are predisposed to gambling addiction. The studies show that 55,000 Singaporeans fall into this category. This works out to around 2% of the population. Putting on my statistician's hat, we could argue that the likelihood of having a gambling addiction is no worse than having a peanut allergy. Peanuts are not banned because of this 2% of people who are allergic. To protect allergic people, there are food labelling laws to indicate all ingredients in food products. To protect potential gambling addicts, there are the proposed safeguards of substantial entry fees and family intervention. These are not perfect, but better than nothing. I suppose the point is that the problems of 2% should not negate the harmless enjoyment of the other 98%.

And yet, every time I hear about someone committing suicide after losing everything they own in a casino, it is hard to be completely objective. Therefore I remain sympathetic to those who oppose the casino, even whilst I agree with the government's decision.

See, a DECISION was announced yesterday in Parliament. A decision is not debated. A PROPOSAL is debated. And this passed the proposal stage ages ago. In fact, there are some who might say that it was never really a proposal, but a decision-in-progress, because it was economically inevitable.