National Service is one of the unique and unavoidable aspects of Singaporean life. Some look at it as a transition into manhood as a badge of pride. Therefore it is understandable that some Singaporeans have nothing good to say of draft dodgers. The problem of draft dodging is however, something that cannot be ignored.
How and why do people dodge draft in the first place? While Singaporean males are called up for enlistment at 18, this can be delayed till after they complete tertiary education. In some cases, they may find that they have career opportunities and feel they cannot wait till after NS to take them on. Some of them may simply prefer living in other countries as well. Others emigrate when they are young but are still bound to return to serve NS. In addition, some may change their citizenship when overseas so the government cannot force them to return, though they can be prosecuted if they do return.
Obviously it does not do justice to others that some people who may be talented or rich enough to go overseas to study and live can simply skip NS. On the other hand, some sensitivity must be shown. Not all draft dodgers want to do so but are forced due to the strict laws, to dodge the draft in order to pursue once in a life-time opportunities. In my opinion, the governemnt should consider these on a case by case basis. It should also be more flexible give them the option of serving NS if they come back later. This will remove the dilemma some Singaporeans face where they are forced to live overseas because they will face punishment upon returning. Why should Singaporeans living abroad be alienated because of something like this?
There should also be a revision as to who has to serve NS. Clearly Singaporeans who emigrate when they are young would have no attachment to Singapore. As a result, getting them to serve NS would totally defeat its purpose. After all, these people are likely to go back overseas after NS and Singapore will gain nothing from them.
The whole concept of only males serving NS is also illogical. Countries such as Israel have conscription for both males and females. While it may seem women are too caring to be fighters, NS does not necessarily equate to military service. NS can also include the civil service. With the emphasis on Total Defense in schools, surely this will be merely an extension of this policy. It will also result in greater equality and also be a chance for national bonding.
I feel that while dodging draft is wrong, the system should be adjusted so that people have no chance to correct this mistake.
Thursday, 30 July 2009
swine flu
With the emergence of swine flu, many countries have implemented measures to contain it. Comparisons of swine flu to the Spanish flu of 1918 which killed over 50 million people seem to suggest these measures are prudent. But how effective are these measures? Is swine flu in reality virulent enough to warrant such extreme measures? I will be listing some of the measures as well as their effectiveness.
When the outbreak was first recognised, Mexican authorities closed schools, libraries, museums, concerts and any public gathering place in certain states to try to contain the spread. The government also gave out millions of masks. These measures probably came too late to prevent the virus from spreading to other countries. The virus also spreads so rapidly that these measures probably did not help very much. In any case, given the large economic losses suffered due to this, such measures were probably unsustainable.
At the start of the outbreak, China suspended flights to Mexico. Hong Kong also quarantined a hotel where an infected person had stayed. This forced all guests and staff to remain inside for seven days. Hong Kong also ordered schools to suspend classes for a period of time. The quarantine was probably more effective in China as there was less time for the virus to spread. This approach of course can strain relations with Mexico. Clearly Mexicans would not be pleased that they are being denied a source of tourism, especially since they had already taken swift measures to try and contain the outbreak.
Several countries have slaughtered pigs or banned pork imports to ensure they do not pass on the disease to humans. I feel this is unjustified since while the virus may have originated from pigs (hence leading to the name swine flu), it is now a strain that is only human-human transmittable. This has led to in my opinion unnecessary trouble with pig owners who have their animals confiscated and dispute over the compensation. It also affects pork suppliers since they have reduced business. This can also lead to trade disputes.
In general, most countries have implemented health checks at entry points to screen travelers coming from swine flu affected countries. Countries have also issued travel advisories warning against travel to swine flu affected countries. Most countries also have rooms set aside in hospitals for quarantine. I feel these are more appropriate since they will not cause undue trouble to visitors. These measures may not be full proof since people can be infected without showing symptoms.
In my opinion, once it has become clear that the swine flu is quite mild and that it spreads very fast, the measures Singapore has taken are less draconian. Instead of having to go to hospitals to be diagnosed, you can just go to a polyclinic. Also, despite having over a thousand cases, there are no nationwide school closures. Compare this to the SARS outbreak where schools were closed and all cases were only treated at one hospital.
To sum up, I feel most of the measures to prevent swine flu are ineffective since it spreads so quickly. The mild nature of the flu also seems not to warrant very drastic measures.
When the outbreak was first recognised, Mexican authorities closed schools, libraries, museums, concerts and any public gathering place in certain states to try to contain the spread. The government also gave out millions of masks. These measures probably came too late to prevent the virus from spreading to other countries. The virus also spreads so rapidly that these measures probably did not help very much. In any case, given the large economic losses suffered due to this, such measures were probably unsustainable.
At the start of the outbreak, China suspended flights to Mexico. Hong Kong also quarantined a hotel where an infected person had stayed. This forced all guests and staff to remain inside for seven days. Hong Kong also ordered schools to suspend classes for a period of time. The quarantine was probably more effective in China as there was less time for the virus to spread. This approach of course can strain relations with Mexico. Clearly Mexicans would not be pleased that they are being denied a source of tourism, especially since they had already taken swift measures to try and contain the outbreak.
Several countries have slaughtered pigs or banned pork imports to ensure they do not pass on the disease to humans. I feel this is unjustified since while the virus may have originated from pigs (hence leading to the name swine flu), it is now a strain that is only human-human transmittable. This has led to in my opinion unnecessary trouble with pig owners who have their animals confiscated and dispute over the compensation. It also affects pork suppliers since they have reduced business. This can also lead to trade disputes.
In general, most countries have implemented health checks at entry points to screen travelers coming from swine flu affected countries. Countries have also issued travel advisories warning against travel to swine flu affected countries. Most countries also have rooms set aside in hospitals for quarantine. I feel these are more appropriate since they will not cause undue trouble to visitors. These measures may not be full proof since people can be infected without showing symptoms.
In my opinion, once it has become clear that the swine flu is quite mild and that it spreads very fast, the measures Singapore has taken are less draconian. Instead of having to go to hospitals to be diagnosed, you can just go to a polyclinic. Also, despite having over a thousand cases, there are no nationwide school closures. Compare this to the SARS outbreak where schools were closed and all cases were only treated at one hospital.
To sum up, I feel most of the measures to prevent swine flu are ineffective since it spreads so quickly. The mild nature of the flu also seems not to warrant very drastic measures.
Reasons for an IR
The integrated resorts sparked a major debate when they were first proposed, with the government reversing its previous stand against gambling. The government argued that the integrated resorts would help make Singapore a more attractive destination for tourists, thus providing a boost to the economy. It also insisted that the gambling aspect would only be a small section but would nevertheless be necessary to keep the resort profitable. Critics on the other hand, argued that having a casino would lead to gambling related crimes and create social problems.
I agree with the government’s decision. While gambling no doubt brings with it social ills, given today’s interconnected society, Singaporean gamblers can just take a bus to Genting and gamble there. In addition, there is already legalized betting as well as lotteries in Singapore which are also a form of gambling. Thus, having an integrated resort will not do much to increase this problem. Also, if Singaporeans gamble anyway, why not let them gamble at home where the money can be taxed and used to help the government.
Of course, just because the IR brings benefits does not mean the problems it brings can be ignored. Rather, measures must be taken to address them. Some of the problems include gambling addiction as well as a breakdown in the family unit. To tackle gambling addiction counseling centers can be publicized to increase awareness so addicts know where to find help. Also, the IR should ban those with financial difficulties or are gambling addicts from going in to gamble. They should impose an age limit to ensure children do not become influenced by their parents gambling.
In addition, to counter the negative effects of gambling on the family, there should be counseling offered to family members of gambling addicts to help them deal with the emotional and financial problems that may result.
In my opinion, the IR should not be scrapped merely because of a casino component, especially considering how other gambling alternatives already exist.
I agree with the government’s decision. While gambling no doubt brings with it social ills, given today’s interconnected society, Singaporean gamblers can just take a bus to Genting and gamble there. In addition, there is already legalized betting as well as lotteries in Singapore which are also a form of gambling. Thus, having an integrated resort will not do much to increase this problem. Also, if Singaporeans gamble anyway, why not let them gamble at home where the money can be taxed and used to help the government.
Of course, just because the IR brings benefits does not mean the problems it brings can be ignored. Rather, measures must be taken to address them. Some of the problems include gambling addiction as well as a breakdown in the family unit. To tackle gambling addiction counseling centers can be publicized to increase awareness so addicts know where to find help. Also, the IR should ban those with financial difficulties or are gambling addicts from going in to gamble. They should impose an age limit to ensure children do not become influenced by their parents gambling.
In addition, to counter the negative effects of gambling on the family, there should be counseling offered to family members of gambling addicts to help them deal with the emotional and financial problems that may result.
In my opinion, the IR should not be scrapped merely because of a casino component, especially considering how other gambling alternatives already exist.
Advertisements
Advertisement is a reality of modern life than none of us can escape from. Turn on the TV and there will be a commercial break at least every thirty minutes. There are even advertisements within programs such as sponsorships. Advertisements also appear in newspapers and at bus-stops. With advertisement ever present, is it beneficial to us, the consumer? In my opinion, no. Advertisements give little, misleading and skewed information, how this information does not go unchallenged, how the advertiser usually only benefits and how advertisements can target just your emotions.
Advertisers may flaunt promotions or give out vouchers as rewards for spending a certain amount. While these may seem to be a win-win situation for both consumer and seller/ advertiser, the supposed benefits to the consumer are likely negligible. Promotions may turn out to be merely a few percent and offering vouchers for redemption is not much better either. Usually, the amount of money in the voucher is usually meagre compared to the amount spent. There are also other catches such as expiry dates or having to go to a certain place to redeem the voucher. All this adds up to the inconvenience of the consumer and gives the advertiser a higher chance that the voucher will not be redeemed, thus saving money.
In addition, most will not bother to investigate the information in advertisements. Given that we are bombarded by them all the time we have no way to keep track of it all. In any case, advertisements can come between shows and it is not likely a person will miss the show to verify the information. While we will most likely dismiss the product as something we will never buy, skewed information from the advertisement will unconsciously slip in. This may eventually influence us to buy the product, basing our decision on inaccurate and unconsciously obtained information.
Advertisements also do not always give us information. Advertising also includes sponsorship by stars. This form appeals directly to emotions and not to logic as it includes no information. Sponsorship merely tries to get people to buy based on them wanting to be like their star. An example would be how AIG, an insurance company, spends millions to sponsor Manchester United, a football club, despite football having no relation to insurance.
Finally, advertisements may give us information, but it would be naive to simply trust this. Advertising may not necessarily be false but they can be misleading. For example, they can overstate the importance of some of their attributes. Dettol is one example. It advertises its soap as anti-bacterial, however normal soap is already sufficient to kill most bacteria. Also, advertisers will obviously not highlight the shortfalls of their products. Even if they do, these may be only mentioned briefly and with little details, for example vaguely mentioning “terms and conditions apply”. There are other clear examples. Tobacco companies for example, had to be legally bound to clearly print warning labels on cigarette packs. Despite the known health risks, tobacco companies obviously did not clearly reflect these dangers, thus having to be forced to do so. Another example involves the manufacture of asbestos and its incorporation into various products. There had been reports from as early as 1898 that prolonged exposure to asbestos (such as to workers) had health hazards. Yet, asbestos continued to be manufactured until the 1980s when it was banned. Clearly if advertising reflected this risk, asbestos would have been phased out long before.
All this goes to show that advertisements cannot be trusted. They only selectively provide information, do not usually give us a good deal and sometimes appeal solely to our emotions. The example of asbestos companies clearly shows that advertising with no regulation can have tragic consequences.
Advertisers may flaunt promotions or give out vouchers as rewards for spending a certain amount. While these may seem to be a win-win situation for both consumer and seller/ advertiser, the supposed benefits to the consumer are likely negligible. Promotions may turn out to be merely a few percent and offering vouchers for redemption is not much better either. Usually, the amount of money in the voucher is usually meagre compared to the amount spent. There are also other catches such as expiry dates or having to go to a certain place to redeem the voucher. All this adds up to the inconvenience of the consumer and gives the advertiser a higher chance that the voucher will not be redeemed, thus saving money.
In addition, most will not bother to investigate the information in advertisements. Given that we are bombarded by them all the time we have no way to keep track of it all. In any case, advertisements can come between shows and it is not likely a person will miss the show to verify the information. While we will most likely dismiss the product as something we will never buy, skewed information from the advertisement will unconsciously slip in. This may eventually influence us to buy the product, basing our decision on inaccurate and unconsciously obtained information.
Advertisements also do not always give us information. Advertising also includes sponsorship by stars. This form appeals directly to emotions and not to logic as it includes no information. Sponsorship merely tries to get people to buy based on them wanting to be like their star. An example would be how AIG, an insurance company, spends millions to sponsor Manchester United, a football club, despite football having no relation to insurance.
Finally, advertisements may give us information, but it would be naive to simply trust this. Advertising may not necessarily be false but they can be misleading. For example, they can overstate the importance of some of their attributes. Dettol is one example. It advertises its soap as anti-bacterial, however normal soap is already sufficient to kill most bacteria. Also, advertisers will obviously not highlight the shortfalls of their products. Even if they do, these may be only mentioned briefly and with little details, for example vaguely mentioning “terms and conditions apply”. There are other clear examples. Tobacco companies for example, had to be legally bound to clearly print warning labels on cigarette packs. Despite the known health risks, tobacco companies obviously did not clearly reflect these dangers, thus having to be forced to do so. Another example involves the manufacture of asbestos and its incorporation into various products. There had been reports from as early as 1898 that prolonged exposure to asbestos (such as to workers) had health hazards. Yet, asbestos continued to be manufactured until the 1980s when it was banned. Clearly if advertising reflected this risk, asbestos would have been phased out long before.
All this goes to show that advertisements cannot be trusted. They only selectively provide information, do not usually give us a good deal and sometimes appeal solely to our emotions. The example of asbestos companies clearly shows that advertising with no regulation can have tragic consequences.
Sunday, 19 July 2009
Is a digital library possible?
In the Internet today, Google’s influence is widespread. Now, Google has plans to expand its influence further by digitizing books and adding them into a digital library. So is this the way of the future? Will libraries as we know them today disappear in the future? After all, a digital library has little overheads, seems easily accessible and has a wide scope. However, I feel this will not happen anytime soon given the portability of paper books, copyright issues, information overload and the impact of paper books.
At first glance, a digital library may seem infinitely accessible compared with a normal library. It is troublesome to go down to a normal library to borrow a book or frustrating to wait until it has been returned. However, the accessibility of a digital library rapidly decreases during travel. Can you imagine how troublesome it would be to lug around a computer just to read a book. Books on the other hand, can be stuffed into your bag and are always handy. Compare this with a laptop which is not only bulky and heavy but also fragile. In any case, there will not always be a power socket available to charge a laptop nor is there always a good wireless connection. This is not to mention that staring at a computer screen (at least for me) is more straining on the eyes compared with reading a book.
We should also look at the mechanics of how a digital library would operate. While there would be no chance of vandalism or books going missing and hardly any overheads, these will be replaced by a much more pressing problem, namely piracy. We can look at how serious movie and song producers are viewing the problem of piracy as well as how rampant piracy is in some places. Would not the problem be even worse for books? After all, there are no issues of resolution or sound quality to worry about. Of course, you can argue that people have no incentive to buy pirated books when they have it free from a digital library. But in that case, would not having a digital library be piracy? Compare this to how seriously the music industry looks at the problem of people downloading songs for free.
Digital libraries will be able to accumulate vast amounts of information, but this can be a drawback. Imagine how long it will take to load the data. In addition, the sheer amount of information in the digital library will be overwhelming, making it practically impossible to browse for books. Just imagine scrolling through a list of a few hundred books just starting with the letter A. In normal libraries, there is the luxury of wandering around and randomly flipping through books, occasionally finding something interesting to read. In a digital library, due to the sheer amount of information, one would only be able to find a book if you have a very specific focus. There would be no room to exercise your curiosity and find new areas of interest in reading.
The core of the digital library, the e-book may not be able to recreate the effect of having a real book. For example, the impact of a picture book will not be the same if it is downsized to fit into a computer screen. In addition, the feeling of handling a old and antique book cannot be recreated in a mere digital image.
In conclusion, a digital library may bring down overheads and be easily accessible from home, however it can be hard to access during travel, does not have the same impact as a paper book, can create an information overload and has copyright issues.
At first glance, a digital library may seem infinitely accessible compared with a normal library. It is troublesome to go down to a normal library to borrow a book or frustrating to wait until it has been returned. However, the accessibility of a digital library rapidly decreases during travel. Can you imagine how troublesome it would be to lug around a computer just to read a book. Books on the other hand, can be stuffed into your bag and are always handy. Compare this with a laptop which is not only bulky and heavy but also fragile. In any case, there will not always be a power socket available to charge a laptop nor is there always a good wireless connection. This is not to mention that staring at a computer screen (at least for me) is more straining on the eyes compared with reading a book.
We should also look at the mechanics of how a digital library would operate. While there would be no chance of vandalism or books going missing and hardly any overheads, these will be replaced by a much more pressing problem, namely piracy. We can look at how serious movie and song producers are viewing the problem of piracy as well as how rampant piracy is in some places. Would not the problem be even worse for books? After all, there are no issues of resolution or sound quality to worry about. Of course, you can argue that people have no incentive to buy pirated books when they have it free from a digital library. But in that case, would not having a digital library be piracy? Compare this to how seriously the music industry looks at the problem of people downloading songs for free.
Digital libraries will be able to accumulate vast amounts of information, but this can be a drawback. Imagine how long it will take to load the data. In addition, the sheer amount of information in the digital library will be overwhelming, making it practically impossible to browse for books. Just imagine scrolling through a list of a few hundred books just starting with the letter A. In normal libraries, there is the luxury of wandering around and randomly flipping through books, occasionally finding something interesting to read. In a digital library, due to the sheer amount of information, one would only be able to find a book if you have a very specific focus. There would be no room to exercise your curiosity and find new areas of interest in reading.
The core of the digital library, the e-book may not be able to recreate the effect of having a real book. For example, the impact of a picture book will not be the same if it is downsized to fit into a computer screen. In addition, the feeling of handling a old and antique book cannot be recreated in a mere digital image.
In conclusion, a digital library may bring down overheads and be easily accessible from home, however it can be hard to access during travel, does not have the same impact as a paper book, can create an information overload and has copyright issues.
The importance of the GEP
I am writing this in response to the article “A gift of a programme”. In it, the author expresses support for the Gifted Education Programme (GEP), noting its success and refuting the allegation that it is elitist and GEP students are snobbish. I wholeheartedly agree with this and would like to add on further about how GEP is necessary, meritocratic and not elitist. Of course, being a ex-GEP student, I may be biased. However, I feel I have adequate reasons.
I feel that the GEP is necessary since those who are talented must have these talents developed, otherwise they will simply be wasted. If these students are not challenged, they will end up learning very little from their classes and eventually not bother studying. Worse still, they can end up becoming trouble makers. Mainstream classes are usually geared towards studying for exams. A talented student will have the potential to do more than this. However, a mainstream teacher will be unable to cater towards this minority of students due to the large class size. Just as the academically weaker students are not expected to be able to keep up with the mainstream standard, hence the foundation papers in PSLE, those who are talented should not be required to hold back and accommodate their mainstream peers.
Some might argue that if students are talented, they can develop their interests on their own. However, if these students are always bored during lessons, they may develop negative attributes such as laziness which will prevent them from fully developing their talents.
The accusation that the GEP is elitist is unfounded considering that GEP students have ample opportunity to mix with mainstream students. In addition, even in a normal class, there will be some divide between the better performers and the lower ones. Thus, if there were no GEP, these talented students may only compare grades within their class and come to the conclusion that they are the best, not realising there are others like them. GEP students are also not likely to be snobbish since they can see the amount of money put into the program. I always remember my teachers telling us on occasion to be grateful of this.
In addition, the GEP is no longer as exclusive. The GEP in secondary schools has been replaced by the Integrated Programme (IP). Aside from some modifications, it is effectively GEP offered to a wider group of students (top 10% instead of the top 1% only).
There are also some who may complain that the GEP primarily serves the rich since they can afford tuition and have a head start. However, the GEP selection test tests on higher order thinking skills. These require some talent to pass and not merely blind memorisation. Thus, this filters out a lot of rote learners who are just drilled on past year papers and exam books. Of course, the rich do have some advantage; however, this is a problem intrinsic in the whole education system. If you look at it in another way however, GEP allows those who are too poor to find ways to develop their talents do so.
Therefore, I feel the GEP is necessary since it helps academically talented students develop their talents, is not elitist and is meritocratic.
I feel that the GEP is necessary since those who are talented must have these talents developed, otherwise they will simply be wasted. If these students are not challenged, they will end up learning very little from their classes and eventually not bother studying. Worse still, they can end up becoming trouble makers. Mainstream classes are usually geared towards studying for exams. A talented student will have the potential to do more than this. However, a mainstream teacher will be unable to cater towards this minority of students due to the large class size. Just as the academically weaker students are not expected to be able to keep up with the mainstream standard, hence the foundation papers in PSLE, those who are talented should not be required to hold back and accommodate their mainstream peers.
Some might argue that if students are talented, they can develop their interests on their own. However, if these students are always bored during lessons, they may develop negative attributes such as laziness which will prevent them from fully developing their talents.
The accusation that the GEP is elitist is unfounded considering that GEP students have ample opportunity to mix with mainstream students. In addition, even in a normal class, there will be some divide between the better performers and the lower ones. Thus, if there were no GEP, these talented students may only compare grades within their class and come to the conclusion that they are the best, not realising there are others like them. GEP students are also not likely to be snobbish since they can see the amount of money put into the program. I always remember my teachers telling us on occasion to be grateful of this.
In addition, the GEP is no longer as exclusive. The GEP in secondary schools has been replaced by the Integrated Programme (IP). Aside from some modifications, it is effectively GEP offered to a wider group of students (top 10% instead of the top 1% only).
There are also some who may complain that the GEP primarily serves the rich since they can afford tuition and have a head start. However, the GEP selection test tests on higher order thinking skills. These require some talent to pass and not merely blind memorisation. Thus, this filters out a lot of rote learners who are just drilled on past year papers and exam books. Of course, the rich do have some advantage; however, this is a problem intrinsic in the whole education system. If you look at it in another way however, GEP allows those who are too poor to find ways to develop their talents do so.
Therefore, I feel the GEP is necessary since it helps academically talented students develop their talents, is not elitist and is meritocratic.
Why we need casinos
This blog is in response to the article “Don't slay the goose that lays golden eggs”. In it the author mentions a casino will cause the degradation of the national psyche” by promoting gambling over hard work and that having a casino will not give Singapore anything special since other countries have it. However, I disagree.
It is precisely because other countries have casinos so we should build one to keep up. Singapore needs tourists to come since it has too small a population to sustain its economy. Singapore also does not have many natural tourist destinations and is so small that the casual tourist can visit all the attractions very quickly. Thus, a casino is needed to ensure we do not lose tourists and that they stay longer.
Also, this should not be blown out of proportion. The casino is only a part of the integrated resort. Next, Singapore already has legalised betting and lottery such as 4D. There are even game rooms in certain clubs. Singaporeans already have gambling outlets, any “degradation of the national psyche” will already have occurred. If you have gone to a Chinese New Year reunion, you will likely see some relatives playing mahjong, which is a form of gambling. Yet those gamblers are not necessarily problem gamblers right? Let me relate an example from my own family. Every Chinese New Year, all my father’s family gathers in his hometown to celebrate. This is accompanied by long mahjong sprees. Most of my relatives will play, especially my aunts who can gamble for the whole night. Yet none of them are gambling addicts. They may lose at most a hundred ringgit but they will not go bankrupt. My father as mentioned above, does gamble but he is very firm and draws the line at ‘internal gambling’ i.e. the money stays within the family.
In addition, restrictions against middle and high-income Singaporeans are pointless considering they can afford to simply drive up to Genting and gamble there. Since they will gamble anyway, they might as well gamble in Singapore, where the money they lose can benefit the economy. In addition, family members can ban problem gamblers to ensure they do not spend beyond their means.
In addition, there have been commercials warning of the dangers of gambling (the man trying to get his daughter’s piggy bank). Also, the media can simply not run stories on big winners. There is after all, no compulsion for them to do so.
Lastly, a ‘degradation of the national psyche’ should not be combated by removing all the possible threats to it. It should be countered by proper education and counseling. People should learn self-control, be taught how to manage their finances and know how much money they can afford to spend on gambling.
Thus, a casino should be built to attract tourists, because it will not change things significantly and there are already safegurards.
It is precisely because other countries have casinos so we should build one to keep up. Singapore needs tourists to come since it has too small a population to sustain its economy. Singapore also does not have many natural tourist destinations and is so small that the casual tourist can visit all the attractions very quickly. Thus, a casino is needed to ensure we do not lose tourists and that they stay longer.
Also, this should not be blown out of proportion. The casino is only a part of the integrated resort. Next, Singapore already has legalised betting and lottery such as 4D. There are even game rooms in certain clubs. Singaporeans already have gambling outlets, any “degradation of the national psyche” will already have occurred. If you have gone to a Chinese New Year reunion, you will likely see some relatives playing mahjong, which is a form of gambling. Yet those gamblers are not necessarily problem gamblers right? Let me relate an example from my own family. Every Chinese New Year, all my father’s family gathers in his hometown to celebrate. This is accompanied by long mahjong sprees. Most of my relatives will play, especially my aunts who can gamble for the whole night. Yet none of them are gambling addicts. They may lose at most a hundred ringgit but they will not go bankrupt. My father as mentioned above, does gamble but he is very firm and draws the line at ‘internal gambling’ i.e. the money stays within the family.
In addition, restrictions against middle and high-income Singaporeans are pointless considering they can afford to simply drive up to Genting and gamble there. Since they will gamble anyway, they might as well gamble in Singapore, where the money they lose can benefit the economy. In addition, family members can ban problem gamblers to ensure they do not spend beyond their means.
In addition, there have been commercials warning of the dangers of gambling (the man trying to get his daughter’s piggy bank). Also, the media can simply not run stories on big winners. There is after all, no compulsion for them to do so.
Lastly, a ‘degradation of the national psyche’ should not be combated by removing all the possible threats to it. It should be countered by proper education and counseling. People should learn self-control, be taught how to manage their finances and know how much money they can afford to spend on gambling.
Thus, a casino should be built to attract tourists, because it will not change things significantly and there are already safegurards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)