(Originally published 17 April 2005)
so the straits times, the ever-subservient voice of the government, have been preparing the wider public for the inevitable conclusion - singapore will, and i promise you we will, be home to two casinos, at marina bay and sentosa.. in the last few days, the straits times have been presenting the benefits of having casinoes in singapore in a not-so-subtle attempt to win the public over to the government's side.. the creation of 10,000 jobs, the boost that casinoes will bring to the tourism industry, etc.. even mm lee got in on the act, as he bared his heart and soul and shared with the rest of singapore his deep regret for saying 'no' to run run shaw's offer of building a casino here 30 years ago.. i was so touched i felt molested..
the straits times have also shared with us the 'horror' stories, tales of men and women who have succumbed to the evils of gambling addiction.. those stories however were conveniently juxtaposed with reports of measures that the government will be taking to prevent such social ills.. beautiful..
i have two issues with the whole affair.. i'll start with the obvious: ask for the people's opinion only to totally ignore them? that's just rude.. 10,000 signatures were collected by families against the casino threat in singapore opposing the government's proposal.. persuading anyone, let alone 10,000, to sign any form of document against the government's word is no easy task.. it's reasonable to assume therefore that they had serious concerns.. and the government's answer to the social and moral issues raised by such opposers, a tagline that conveniently sidesteps those issues: "can we really afford not to?"
my second issue is one that's closer to the heart.. i have no objections whatsoever with singapore having casinoes.. i believe anything, even the vices, is acceptable in moderation.. what i object to is the government's hypocrisy when addressing social and moral issues.. education minister tharman shanmugaratnam said that if singapore wants to be a leading global city 10 to 15 years from now, new attitudes towards governing and being willing to try new things will be required.. yet this tolerance they speak of seems to only apply to social and moral issues that are economically viable.. gays for example, who have as much right to existence as others, are still the unacceptable 'other'.. perhaps if they, in being gay, were contributing more directly to singapore's economy, our government would stop blaming them for the rise in the number of aids cases here..
dear minister: how about legalising pornography next? it's a multi-billion dollar industry, the economic advantages of which will more than pay for the social and moral consequences.. and yes, there is the whole exploitation of women issue.. but your government, with its notorious disregard for human rights, is more than capable of sidestepping the issue with yet another convenient tagline..
how about: "got milk?"..
oh wait, that one's been done..
so the straits times, the ever-subservient voice of the government, have been preparing the wider public for the inevitable conclusion - singapore will, and i promise you we will, be home to two casinos, at marina bay and sentosa.. in the last few days, the straits times have been presenting the benefits of having casinoes in singapore in a not-so-subtle attempt to win the public over to the government's side.. the creation of 10,000 jobs, the boost that casinoes will bring to the tourism industry, etc.. even mm lee got in on the act, as he bared his heart and soul and shared with the rest of singapore his deep regret for saying 'no' to run run shaw's offer of building a casino here 30 years ago.. i was so touched i felt molested..
the straits times have also shared with us the 'horror' stories, tales of men and women who have succumbed to the evils of gambling addiction.. those stories however were conveniently juxtaposed with reports of measures that the government will be taking to prevent such social ills.. beautiful..
i have two issues with the whole affair.. i'll start with the obvious: ask for the people's opinion only to totally ignore them? that's just rude.. 10,000 signatures were collected by families against the casino threat in singapore opposing the government's proposal.. persuading anyone, let alone 10,000, to sign any form of document against the government's word is no easy task.. it's reasonable to assume therefore that they had serious concerns.. and the government's answer to the social and moral issues raised by such opposers, a tagline that conveniently sidesteps those issues: "can we really afford not to?"
my second issue is one that's closer to the heart.. i have no objections whatsoever with singapore having casinoes.. i believe anything, even the vices, is acceptable in moderation.. what i object to is the government's hypocrisy when addressing social and moral issues.. education minister tharman shanmugaratnam said that if singapore wants to be a leading global city 10 to 15 years from now, new attitudes towards governing and being willing to try new things will be required.. yet this tolerance they speak of seems to only apply to social and moral issues that are economically viable.. gays for example, who have as much right to existence as others, are still the unacceptable 'other'.. perhaps if they, in being gay, were contributing more directly to singapore's economy, our government would stop blaming them for the rise in the number of aids cases here..
dear minister: how about legalising pornography next? it's a multi-billion dollar industry, the economic advantages of which will more than pay for the social and moral consequences.. and yes, there is the whole exploitation of women issue.. but your government, with its notorious disregard for human rights, is more than capable of sidestepping the issue with yet another convenient tagline..
how about: "got milk?"..
oh wait, that one's been done..
No comments:
Post a Comment