Reference : http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20061004/hl_hsn/sundaybluelawslimitalcoholrelatedcrashesdeaths on Sunday Blue Laws Limit Alcohol-Related Crashes, Deaths
For those unfamiliar with the term "Blue Laws", those were US laws that could be traced back Puritanical influence which restricted what one could do, wear, eat and drink etc., on the Sabbath.
Most had been repealled, but many legislations with similar intent are still referred to as Blue Laws today.
"For the first time, we have real data on whether blue laws actually protect public health. Today's study finds that the Sunday ban saved lives and prevented hundreds of injuries and fatalities from alcohol-related crashes," study co-author Garnett McMillan, of the Behavioral Health Research Center of the Southwest in Albuquerque, said in a prepared statement.
The study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Alcohol Substance Abuse Policy Research Program.
In New Mexico, advocates of repealing the Sunday ban on packaged alcohol sales argued that the move would reduce the incidence of alcohol-related crashes and fatalities on Sundays. They reasoned that lifting the ban would divert alcohol consumption from bars to homes on Sundays and therefore reduce the number of impaired people driving home from barsThis study refutes that contention, McMillan said.
"By increasing the availability of alcohol on Sundays, you open the door to more opportunities for drinking and driving and the negative consequences that result," he said.
Reading the article reinforces my prediction that introducing casino in Singapore will bring in new problems and exacerbate some existing ones.
Money attracts criminal-minded. (Yes, that applies also to banking and financial institutions, strong regulations and enforcement are required even today).
Casino operators will do anything to attract and retain "whales" (high-stake punters) by catering to all their whims, including sex (all sorts you can name and more), drugs etc.
I am not sure what the advocates for repealing the ban have to say, perhaps attack the study for being biased as it was funded by a program on Alcohol Abuse Policy Research, but I'm sure they will not admit they were wrong or agree to restoring the ban.
Thus, the day when it was impossible to deny the problems brought in by casinos in Singapore, we will not find the politicians who advocated them volunteering to take responsibility or resign.
And there will come a day when the entry tariffs and other measures for local Singaporeans will either fail to keep addicts out or the entry tariffs will be repealed because casinos complain their business are at risk, no politicians will take responsibility and admit they were mistaken and try to set things right by banning the casinos.
Once the Pandora Box is opened, it will be most difficult to close it back.
Introducing anything seem to cause some problems. One could make a case that video arcades are a source of social problems as well. Should they not be prohibited? What about discotheques and other night pubs which seem to also be places of bad influence according to many. in fact smoking too is certainly a public health danger and have social repercussions as well. Some regard prostitution in the same way. Not to mention alcohol, if ever there was a drink of the devil this is one. The list goes on.
ReplyDeleteAmerica had its own period of Prohibition. The results were actually an increase in organised crime and bootlegging.
When the casinos does arrive, I might visit it just to have a look. I might even throw some money at blackjack just to see how it goes. But that does not make me a gambler. I have never bought 4D in my life. I have never laid a single soccer bet in my life either. I dont even play mahjong. Once a year I play blackjack with my cousins with bets ranging from 10 cents to heart-thumping dollar. All are easily accessible and legal and just about everyone does it. Neither have I secured the services of any professionals in the night-life of Geylang. Oh, and I dont drink either.
Rather than point to these as causes of social problems perhaps the real cause are those who do partake in such activities. Gamblers are gamblers, if you do not allow them to gamble legally they will find the means to do so elsewhere or illegally. All that happens is we drive it underground.
I make no judgements on these activities, I actually think a little of the above is not such a bad thing. I think I can say so without being accused of bias since I do not partake in any of them myself. Perhaps rather than point to these activities as bad (those who think they are) perhaps the solution (working on the assumption they are problems here) is in educating people so that they can make informed choices.
What I am more hesitant to do, is to deprive others of the choice just because I believe it to be a bad thing. It would be bad I think for Singapore to ban alochol, because Muslims and some Taoist/Buddhist sects believe it to be a bad thing. I think as with many things in life its about compromising. We may strongly believe we know what is the right thing to do, we are quick to rationalise problems that arise when we have these strong beliefs. Take for example the PAP. So perhaps we can learn from them how not to be too certain of what we think is right.
But could not that argument that it is ultimately the individual's responsibility be similarly applied to advocating allowing free-for-all ... drugs ... live sex shows ... and here's one that no state has officially allowed : arena fighting with no rules - Dead or Alive, come and see the real thing in sunny Singapore.
ReplyDeleteWe have learnt to live with restrictions within society. Some we agree with, some we do not.
I have several reasons for being anti-casino in Singapore, though that does not mean I do not visit casinos in other countries (visit, not gamble in them).
1. Unconvincing case put forth by the government
2. Circumventing the Parliament
3. No public referendum - if this was done, I'd say at least it was done the right way, even if I disagree it was the right thing.
The founder of Lonely Planet remarked in last Sunday Times that Singapore is no Vegas. I agree. Only gamblers visit Vegas repeatedly just for the "Integrated Resorts". No Grand Canyon to attract passing traffic or the kind of family theme repeat visitors that the authorities were touting.
And certainly no Bahamas either. There's no such glamour, no blue waters luring the rich to cruise around our waters in their luxurious yachts (Yeah, I think Sentosa Cove would be a flop if they thought they'll re-create the Florida/Caribbean swanky scenes there), threats of pirates lurking, congested maritime traffic etc.
I wrote numerous letters to the press but only the articles against casino published were those containing readily-countered arguments.
And yes, Ur, outlawing casinos, drugs and porn would not prevent people from getting them.
As the Minister of Info & Comms himself said several years before about Singapore's censorship on print, media and internet - we can't stop it, but we don't have to make it easy for them.
Moral arguments aside, there are several economic and commercial issues that was never addressed.
1. No casino can hope to rake in big bucks with only the whales. They depend on "petty gamblers". The type of IR touted by government is not the equivalent of budget carriers in the aviation industry - it is more akin to full-service airlines with top notch premium class services. And in the airline industry, no major airline can survive without their economy "cattle-class" passengers. There's certainly a niche for very rich flying in luxurious Lear jets, just like there's the really exclusive casinos where a single bet calls for no less than 5 digit sums. Guess where these type of casinos are located? Singapore tends to overestimate its own attractiveness.
2. Service - when it comes to service, Singapore just don't make the mark. Most of those good in the service industry aren't local Singaporeans. The IRs in Bahamas got good service and very friendly genuine smiles, the culture and economics of the Bahamas are very different from Singapore.
How much will ordinary Singaporeans desperate for jobs benefit if the IRs are going to rely on foreign imports for blue-collar labour and foreign talents who'll dominate the executive positions, since the players will be foreign investors?
If we were to look at the casinos in Malaysia and Macau, we'd note that many execs are local because the industry was *homegrown*.
And last but not least - the government promised measures against the social ills associated with casinos. But really, it is not the ministers who'll shoulder the responsibility when things go in unplanned directions.
Already, some interested foreign investors withdrew because they cite the rules laid down as being the cause in their evaluation that the investment would not be profitable enough.
When reality bites, it is the safeguards touted by the government which would be dismantled. Who'd take responsibility for broken promises?
As of now, the profit limit due to gaming has been revised in favour of the operators even before the casino is built.
Oh I do agree about restrictions. The question is as always one of compromise within that society. But perhaps compromise is not the right term here. What I meant is where do we draw the line, do we outlaw alcohol as well, how about smoking? My hesitancy is for outlawing certain acts which are deemed morally wrong by some cultures on everybody else. Let's assume however the objections now are not moral ones. See my next post.
ReplyDeleteNow from a-ethical point of view:
ReplyDeleteNeither was I particularly convinced that Casinos are a great idea from an economic point of view. But as I am no economist nor particularly perceptive, I could not say this is a bad idea as well.
As for circumventing Parliament you might have a case here, it perhaps highlights the fact that our constitution and the system surrounding that needs to be reviewed and tightened. I am not an advocate of strict by the book interpretation, at the same time we should accord something like this the utmost respect. Any deviation should in fact be a grave matter.
As for Public Referendum - same concerns as above. And yet, this has been much of the case with Singapore politics. So from this point of view, it points more to unhappiness with the process, rather than the result. At present our only true recourse would be to be vote in a new government.
See next post for continuation.
In terms of economic success of the venture, again as I said I really don't know. Maybe it would be a failure, maybe it won't.The PAP has embarked on many ventures in the past, some have been successes others failures, costing the country billions of dollars. We have a method of holding the government accountable and that is at the polls. If we feel strongly enough we should vote them out, and let someone else take over the job and see if they can do better. This I think is the best way for making them take responsibility for their actions.
ReplyDeleteAgree about service and yet certainly this is an area we can improve.SIA stewards/stewardess may not have the best service in the world but as an ex-frequent flyer of SIA I think they are not bad at all. Fake smiles aside the service is usually more than satisfactory. I believe with the right training it certainly can be done. A service culture can cultivated.
For executive level jobs, some will be foreign some will be local as with most companies, it is simply cheaper for them to hire locals than to transplant the entire executive level from overseas, but who knows perhaps the IRs will prove the odd one. In terms of blue-collar labour (I assume you mean the service staff) I think the situation will be similar to the hotels here, a mixture of local and foreign. As for the Singaporeans desperate for jobs frankly I don't think they are desperate enough since there are jobs yet still unfilled according to the Ministry of Manpower, so perhaps it is not so much there isn't jobs out there to be filled but they consider the job beneath them or the conditions of the job not to their liking.
I just finished a project with a local telecom company here in Singapore and part of my work requires me to interact with frontline staff at their call-centre. Despite offering higher than average customer service officer pays they still had a high turnover and constantly had difficulty hiring and retaining staff.
In conclusion, from an economic point of view, you may well be right, it is not viable and this will sink and again the country will lose billions of dollars in a losing venture. Time will tell if you are right.
I agree very much on this point.
ReplyDeleteAs a Christian, I am as much against imposing Christian morals on others as I am against non-Christian values and rules being imposed on myself.
My address was part of the Holland Village-Buona Vista constituency for donkey years harking back to 4 digit postal code, and suddenly, last GE, it became part of Tanjong Pagar.
ReplyDeleteElections in Singapore is a joke, but Singaporeans themselves also got to shoulder the responsibility.
I choose to focus on feeding my family rather than running for Parliament when I see no worthy candidate running to represent myself.
The difference between losing billions of dollars in this venture as compared to losing billions of dollars in overseas venture is that unless the government did a U-turn, the Pandora box will remained open.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I know I am not MP or minister type of material, I'm too emotional.
I'll demolish the SMU and have them put back the old National Library at Stamford Road in a heart's beat if I could.
I concur with this.
ReplyDeleteI don't know. I would have liked an MP or minister who was emotional enough to say, no, let's preserve the old National library back then.
ReplyDeleteI had fond memories of that library. But then I am a bookworm.