Public Cynism

Some friends have queried me on whether sometimes our citizens are over-critical over government policies. It follows the comments made by a friend some time back about the casino debate in Myopic Singapore. I suppose the attached article would bring some insight on the public cynism:

Why many are betting the casino will roll January 29, 2005
By Warren Fernandez, Foreign Editor of The Straits Times

IN MOST people's minds, the die has already been cast, the game is already in play.

Yes, we're talking about the casino, and the seemingly endless rounds of debate on whether Singapore should have one.

Although government leaders insist that no decision has been made on the issue, most people believe the odds are a casino will be up and rolling here before long.

Why bother debating, one cynic said to me recently, when the outcome is obvious.

Others, less easily deterred, have been pushing their 'no casino' case with renewed vigour. 'No! No! No! No! CaSINo!' read one bumper sticker I saw on a car in town this week.

This struck me: When was the last time you saw a bumper sticker here exhorting a stand on any local issue?

Yet, the fire-and-brimstone terms in which the casino debate has been cast give me a sense of deja vu. It reminds me of a similarly heated debate in the early 1990s over government proposals to ease up on censorship.

Then, as now, responding to public calls for less heavy-handed government, the authorities proposed a gradual liberalisation of censorship rules and the introduction of a film classification system.

The reaction was swift. Moral conservatives began crying out against such a plan, arguing that Singapore society was not ready for this, perhaps never would be.

There was much dark talk about lewd films degrading the moral tone of society, undermining its values and work ethic, and corrupting its youth. There would be more rapes and molestation cases, even more marriages breaking down, the argument went.

Never mind the fact that more Singaporeans were travelling abroad and being exposed to all manner of films and entertainment, with not a few rushing to savour such 'forbidden fruit' while overseas.

Never mind the fact that the Internet was then beginning to bring such fare into people's homes, forcing them to make choices over what to tune into, daily, in their own living rooms.

Singaporeans, it was suggested, had to be shielded from this, as they were too fragile, upright or innocent - or just plain dumb, to put it starkly - to make up their own minds.

Thankfully, the authorities decided against this head-in-the-sand approach.

Today, Singapore, like so many other societies, has a film classification system under which its people can, and do, make choices over what to watch, without society falling apart in the process.

The parallels with the casino debate are clear. After all, the proposal for a casino is not some new government brainwave.

Instead, committee after committee set up over the years to look for ways to boost tourism and the economy invariably included a call for casinos to be set up among their proposals, only to be rejected by the Government.

The 'casino is sin' argument is also a familiar one. Its advocates continue to believe, more than a decade since a similar view was advanced by pro-censorship exponents, that Singaporeans still need to be protected against themselves, or society will surely come apart.

I very much doubt it. Sure, some will fall victim to the gambling bug. Some will have a go, and move on, with the vast majority of Singaporeans being sensible enough not to go overboard.

Then, there is what might be called the 'if, also' argument. If the Government believes that Singaporeans are now mature enough to deal with the temptations of a casino, then it should also allow them other freedoms, such as the right to invest or spend their own Central Provident Fund savings, the contention goes.

This argument is, of course, spurious.

For its exponents must surely know that it can just as readily be applied in reverse.

If anti-casino advocates are correct that Singaporeans are not mature enough for a casino here, then they must also believe that Singaporeans need to be protected from other forms of betting, and other vices as well, such as alcohol or smoking.

While at it, perhaps we had better turn the clock back, tighten up on censorship, close pubs earlier, ban bar-top dancing, block Internet access, raise the voting age, and so forth.

Surely no one is seriously advocating anything remotely resembling such an absurd absolutist position?

After all, change in this society, and most others, has always come in an incremental, gradualist fashion, an approach which most Singaporeans, I think, consider sensible.

So long as the general direction of that change is towards giving Singaporeans more choice and say over their own lives, most people here would support it.

Indeed, it seems odd to me that having pushed for years for the Government to 'back off' and give Singaporeans more room to exercise choice and initiative, some of the very same groups of vocal Singaporeans now seem to stand on the opposite side of the argument.

How has this happened?

No doubt, the Government bears some responsibility for this.

Having taken such a strong stance against casinos for so long, it is hardly surprising that many in society are now somewhat taken aback by its seemingly sudden change of heart.

To be fair, the case for the casino has been made in a piecemeal sort of way by various government leaders in recent months. But to be frank, its tentative 'no decision has been made, let's hear the arguments' line is beginning to wear thin.

Sooner rather than later, the Government would do well to come out and make a fuller, positive case for the casino.

It will have to spell out its economic benefits, weigh these up against the social impact, assure the public that it has thought through how it will deal with this, and explain how it has come round to the view that society is now ready for a casino.

If it does not do so, and in a convincing fashion, then I wager that the outcome will be as predictable as it would be unfortunate, namely, greater public cynicism over the much-talked-about consultation process. Want to bet?