The One That Didn't

My one post about the casino that was afterall ... a forgone conclusion. Alas, they're still gonna maintain the freakin' $100 "cover charge"!


SCRAP ENTRANCE FEES, OR SCRAP CASINO IDEA ENTIRELY

I have been following the debate on building a casino cum holiday resort in Singapore with cynical interest ever since the idea was brought up. Do not misunderstand. I am not taking any sides on this matter. There are definite pros and cons on this issue. More often than not, proponents and naysayers of a proposed casino resort are inevitably metamorphosed into warriors between good and evil; capitalistic bloodsuckers and social do-gooders.

But why does it have to be like that? When I visit the casino at Genting Highlands, I mentally set aside a certain sum I am willing to lose (come on, in an established gambling house, the odds are always stacked against the visitor) before stepping into the casino. When I toured Las Vegas, I treated the money I lost at the tables as a cover charge to a club. Of course, I hope to make a killing at the tables. However, by simple mathematical logic, the “house” wins most times. So, the money I mentally set aside is like my entry fee to an amusement park, for me to enjoy the ride on the Roulette Table or to watch an “entertainer” demonstrate his deftness in flipping cards on the Blackjack Table, getting thrilled by the money chips doing the cha cha between the players’ and dealer’s compounds. To me, it is just entertainment.

Refer to the Straits Times article, “To Get Into A Casino, Pay $100 A Day or $2,000 A Year”, dated Dec 30, 2004. Having read the article, I was surprised, yet, at the same time, not surprised. Let me explain my conflict of emotions. Having been a Singapore Heartlander all my life, I am comforted by the authorities’ desire to protect the general good of Singaporeans – therefore, I am not surprised by the rather drastic guidelines imposed on the potential gaming operator. Why am I surprised? Well, to say “the entrance fees were a signal that gambling was not a way to make a living” and “Singaporeans are mature and should be entrusted to make responsible decisions” in the same breath does not really go down well with the country’s drive towards a nation of thinking people, whereby involved Singaporeans in a knowledge-based economy act rightfully without any micro-supervision. It seems we Singaporeans are still not trusted to make our own informed decisions.

To pay $100 a day to be able to enter the casino is steep, an amount too exorbitant for me to swallow. Yes, I may be one of them that this weird guideline manages to keep out, but I am definitely not the one that the guideline aims to keep out. This does not make me an impulse gambler, as the guideline seems to imply, but it definitely gives me the impulse to skip visiting the resort altogether. On the flipside, $100 a day would not be able to detract the compulsive gambler who seeks to make a fortune from the gaming tables; in addition, an annual fee of $2,000 is such a big discount from the total summative daily fee that it is such a steal for the gambling addict to pay upfront to secure his seat at the table. Now, having paid a “membership” fee for a whole year, it would be no surprise for a kiasu Singaporean to want to maximize his privilege, thereby putting more money on the table, more often.

In an era where any entrepreneurial startup (a gamble of sorts) requires tens of thousands as seed capital, it seems a no-brainer to “set up shop” for only $2,000 a year; what’s more, one gets to keep his full time job to fuel his new startup or to sustain his lifestyle in case the startup fails. To a compulsive gambler who thinks (everyday) that lady luck has set upon him today, no “fair” amount of entrance fee can prevent him from trying his luck.

So, we can choose to be an elitist nation and allow only the rich and famous, or more blatantly only foreigners, to enter the grounds of this promising world-class resort; or we can choose to really believe that we Singaporeans are indeed mature and be entrusted to make responsible decisions whether or not to enter the mythical (in my opinion) modern day shadow of the valley of darkness.

Let us for once put our money where our mouths are and allow Singaporeans to select their own gambling destinies, to make their own decisions, to choose between a lifestyle or an addiction. Because to prevent us from doing this and that for fear that this or that might happen only reaffirms the idea that latent evil is present (in which case we have a bigger problem at hand). But whatever happened to the goodness of mankind? Whatever happened to the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty? For what is the use of preventing evil from emerging when it is so strongly believed that there is such a diabolical presence within us Singaporeans? For it would most definitely rear its ugly head in another avenue…



redcocoon