|
Source:
www.gov.sg |
Excerpted from |
Ministerial Statement by Prime
Minister Lee Hsien Loong 18 Apr 2005 |
PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP INTEGRATED
RESORTS |
|
"...Today, I will explain how the Cabinet reached
this decision, and the key considerations that caused us to change our
longstanding policy not to allow casinos in Singapore. |
"I also want to acknowledge the concerns of those
who oppose or have expressed reservations about an IR, and explain how we
propose to limit the negative impact of the casinos. |
"Finally, I hope to bring all Singaporeans
together, so that even though we may not all agree on this issue, we
understand and respect each other’s reasons and concerns, and can close ranks
and move ahead..... |
Re-examining Our Opposition |
"When
the idea of an IR was first mooted, my sympathies were with those who opposed
it. The Government’s policy for many years had been not to have a casino, and
we had repeatedly turned down proposals to open one. |
"In 1985, when Singapore experienced a severe
recession, the idea to open a casino on Sentosa came up, not for the first
time. Mr Goh Chok Tong, who was then the First Deputy Prime Minister, turned
down the proposal. |
"In 2002, I chaired the Economic Review Committee
(ERC) looking for new strategies to grow our economy. Mr Wee Ee-chao led the
Tourism Working Group. He wrote to me proposing a “world class gaming
facility”. I replied to him explaining why I was against it. Let me quote from
my letter to Mr Wee: |
" 'There may be economic merits to setting up a
casino in Singapore. But the social impact is not negligible. By making gaming
more accessible and even glamorous, it could encourage more gambling and
increase the risk of gaming addiction. A casino could also lead to undesirable
activities like money laundering, illegal money lending and organised crime.
Although one can try to mitigate these effects, the long term impact on social
mores and attitudes is more insidious and harder to prevent.' |
Changing Circumstances |
"But the issue did not go away. MTI which is
responsible for the economy was getting worried as the competition environment
changed. Two years later, in 2004, MTI put up a case for an IR. Three major
developments caused us to re-examine our position: |
Tourism Trends |
"First, we are losing ground in tourism. Tourism
in Asia is growing phenomenally, especially the traffic from China and India.
Singapore’s tourist numbers are up too, but we see warning signs of problems
ahead. Our market share is declining (from 8% in the Asia Pacific region in
1998 to 6% in 2002). |
"Tourists are spending less time in Singapore.
They used to stay an average of about 4 days in 1991, but now they stay only
for 3 days. In contrast, on average, they are staying for about 4 days in Hong
Kong, 5 days in London and almost a week in New York City. We are losing
attractiveness as a tourist destination..... |
Cities Re-inventing Themselves |
"The second major development is that cities all
round the world are reinventing themselves..... |
"The question we have to consider is: will
Singapore be part of this new world, or will we be bypassed and left behind?
We seek to be a global city, attracting talent from around the world, lively,
vibrant, and fun to live and work in. |
"We want Singapore to have the X-factor – that
buzz that you get in London, Paris or New York. The ideas to do so are
aplenty, but realising them is not so easy. As Mr Philip Ng said in a forum
organised by URA recently: “Singapore is just among the ‘wannabes’ of
sub-global cities.” |
"We cannot stand still. The whole region is on the
move. If we do not change, where will we be in 20 years’ time? Losing our
appeal to tourists is the lesser problem. But if we become a backwater, just
one of many ordinary cities in Asia, instead of being a cosmopolitan hub of
the region, then many good jobs will be lost, and all Singaporeans will
suffer. We cannot afford that. |
"We need to do many things to become a global
city. A casino by itself is not essential to this vision. But an IR is not
just a casino. An IR is one significant idea we must consider, that will help
us reinvent Singapore. |
Not A Casino But An IR |
"This leads to my third point, which is that we
are not considering a casino, but an IR – an integrated resort. |
"Some of media coverage of this debate has
focussed on whether or not the government will approve “casinos”. This has
given the wrong impression that the IR project is only about building casinos
here. |
"We think of a gaming room with slot machines and
game tables, perhaps with a hotel and some basic facilities. We think of Macao
as it used to be, with a sleazy reputation and triad gangs ruling the streets,
or Las Vegas in the movies, with organised crime and money laundering. But
that is not what we are looking for. IRs are quite different. In fact, they
should be called leisure, entertainment and business zones. |
"The IRs will have all kinds of amenities –
hotels, restaurants, shopping, convention space, even theatres, museums and
theme parks. They attract hundreds of thousands of visitors per year. The
great majority will not be there to gamble. They may be tourists, executives
or businessmen, who go to enjoy the resort, or attend conventions or
conferences. |
"But within this large development and slew of
activities, there is one small but essential part which offers gaming and
which helps make the entire project financially viable. As a result, there is
no need for government grants or subsidies for the IR. The investors will put
in the money, and take the commercial risk..... |
Results of Request For Concepts (RFC) |
"The Bayfront and the Sentosa sites attracted two
very different types of proposals. The Bayfront is suitable for a large
business and convention facility. The target market are MICE visitors – i.e.
people who are coming for Meetings, Incentive tours, Conventions and
Exhibitions. This is a high value market, because MICE visitors spend much
more per person than other tourists. |
"The Bayfront site (12.2 ha) is larger than Suntec
City (11.7ha). Investors are prepared to put in 2 to 4 billion dollars to
develop the entire area, filling it with hotels, shopping malls, convention
and exhibition space, even museums and theatres..... |
Assessment |
"The IRs will change our downtown skyline and
transform Sentosa into a truly high-quality resort destination. They will make
Singapore a centre for tourism, business and conventions, and attract hundreds
of thousands more tourists each year. |
"There will be spin-offs to the rest of the
economy, because not all the visitors to the IRs will stay there. Altogether
MTI estimates that the two IRs will create about 35,000 jobs, counting jobs
within the IRs, plus spinoffs throughout the economy. These jobs in the
hospitality sector will complement the jobs we are creating in other sectors,
such as manufacturing, financial services or transportation..... |
Evaluating The Downsides |
Social Implications |
"We must assume that the IRs will increase the
amount of gambling in Singapore. The question is how much. This is not an all
or nothing issue, because even without the IRs, there is much gambling going
on, onshore and offshore, legal and illegal. |
"Every year, Singaporeans spend $6 billion on
legal gambling in Singapore, and another $1.5 billion in cruises and offshore
casinos. Looking ahead, gambling will become even more accessible, especially
offshore and on the internet. |
"Our estimate is that with two IRs, gambling by
Singaporeans in the IRs is unlikely to exceed $1 billion a year, or 15% of the
current level. This does not take into account the IRs displacing other forms
of gambling, or reclaiming some of the gambling which now takes place
illegally or offshore. So the actual increase will probably be less..... |
"We seriously considered banning Singaporeans
altogether from gambling in the IRs, but decided against it. This is because
there is no reason to exclude locals who can afford to gamble and would
otherwise just go elsewhere. |
"Further, some Singaporeans feel strongly against
such discrimination against locals. The operators also told us that they
needed some local business, although they know that this cannot be their main
market. However, we will put in place comprehensive measures to minimise the
social impact of casino gambling. |
"First, we will restrict the admission of locals.
We studied many alternative ways to do this, and finally decided to use price,
and charge a high entrance fee, $100 per day or $2,000 a year. $100 is more
than the ferry ticket to Batam, and will deter many casual gamblers. This will
apply only to Singaporeans and Permanent Residents. |
"Second, we will implement a system of exclusions.
Those in financial distress, or receiving social assistance, will not be
allowed entry. Singaporeans can also exclude themselves or close family
members. |
"Third, the casinos will not be allowed to extend
credit to locals, so as to make it harder for them to lose more than they can
afford. |
"Fourth, we will make sure that some social good
comes out of the gambling at the IRs. For other forms of gambling like horse
racing, Toto and 4D, the profits are channelled to the Totalisator Board,
which uses the money for charitable and worthy causes. For the IRs, we will
similarly channel revenue collected from the entrance fee to the Totalisator
Board for charitable purposes. |
"Fifth, we will set up a national framework to
address problem gambling. This will include a National Council on Gambling,
and also programmes to counsel and treat problem and pathological
gamblers..... |
Brand Name |
"The second risk of allowing IRs is that we may
tarnish the Singapore brand name. Our reputation, built up over decades, is
one of our most precious assets. Internationally, Singapore is known as being
clean, honest, safe, law abiding, a wholesome place to live and bring up a
family. We must not let the IRs tarnish this brand name..... |
"We are not aiming to become like Las Vegas or
Macao, where gambling is the main industry. We will not allow casinos to sport
garish neon displays on the façades and have jackpot machines everywhere from
the lobby to the toilets. |
"An IR will be as decent and wholesome as a SAFRA
resort or an NTUC Club. The gaming area will be separate, so that visitors
have to make a conscious effort to go there, and not be tempted to yield in a
moment of weakness..... |
Values |
"In the past, we could keep Singaporeans insulated
from sin and temptation, up to a point, by not allowing undesirable activities
in Singapore. It made sense to say no to a casino, because it was not so easy
for people to travel to Macao, and not many could afford to go to Las Vegas or
Europe. |
"But today the situation is different.
Singaporeans make more than 4 million overseas trips by air and sea a year.
What is not available in Singapore is all around us. With or without an IR, we
must work harder to keep our values intact, but we cannot do so by cocooning
ourselves. As Deng Xiaoping said, we have to 'open the windows, breathe in the
fresh air, and at the same time fight the flies and insects.'..... |
Religious Objections |
"Finally, many Singaporeans, though not all, who
oppose the IR do so on religious grounds. The main religious groups have all
made their views known. The churches, the Buddhist and Hindu groups, as well
as MUIS and Muslim groups have all stated their stands. I have also received
letters from many Singaporeans, especially Christians, expressing their
objections on religious grounds. |
"I fully respect the convictions and teachings of
the different religious groups. I also respect the religious choices and
beliefs of individual Singaporeans. These are personal choices for individual
Singaporeans to make. Each person is free to follow his conscience, and follow
the teachings of his faith. |
"But in a multi-racial, multi-religious society,
the Government must maintain a secular and pragmatic approach. It cannot
enforce the choices of one group on others, or make these choices the basis of
national policy. |
"To those who object to the IRs on religious
grounds, no economic benefit justifies allowing a casino here. But the
Government has to balance the economic pluses against the social fallout and
the intangible impact on values, and make an overall judgment whether to
proceed. For the Government, the key consideration is what serves our national
interest in the long term..... |
The Decision |
"Some members of the public think that we had made
up our minds right from the beginning, even before this whole process of
public discussion. They are quite mistaken. |
"In fact the Cabinet started off mostly against
the IRs. The views of Ministers mirrored the spectrum of views among the
public. Some were for, others against. As we discussed the matter among
ourselves, and understood better what the IRs actually involved, our views
gradually shifted. When we saw the results of the RFC, we knew that we had to
take the bids very seriously, and that if we said no there would be serious
consequences..... |
"This is a judgment, not a mathematical
calculation. We see the trends, and feel the need to move. Whichever way we
decide, there are risks. If we proceed, the IRs may not succeed, or the social
fallout may be worse than we expect. If we do not proceed, we are at serious
risk of being left behind by other cities. |
"After weighing the matter carefully, the Cabinet
has collectively concluded that we had no choice but to proceed with the IRs.
As Prime Minister, I carry the ultimate responsibility for the decision....." |
Full Text of Speech |
Source:
Singapore Government Press Release 18 Apr 2005 |