 |
| Remember this? It is not a new issue in Singapore. |
1. Gamblers will simply turn to other venues for gambling.
The WP have already admitted in their statement that "there are no lack of legal gambling venues in Singapore, including the two casinos and hundreds of outlets accepting bets for Singapore Pools and STC." Those who are already addicted to gambling would have already used either the local casinos or one of the hundreds of outlets to place their bets already. In any case, it has always been legal to 'bet' on the stock market by trading shares, but oh that's businessmen dealing with investments, right? But isn't it the same thing at the end of the day? There seems to be an element of snobbery on the part of the WP when they seem to turn a blind eye to respectable businessmen betting on the stock market whilst making a big deal out of those who choose to use the various services provided by Singapore Pools and STC. And don't get me started on the number of online games where money is involved and there is the potential to make/lose money through those games.
2. 弄巧成拙 - inconveniencing people won't discourage them at all.
Allow me to give you an example of 弄巧成拙 to illustrate why this ban wouldn't achieve what the WP wants. I've lived in Dubai and as it has very strict Muslim laws, you cannot purchase alcohol from shops or supermarkets. There are some licensed venues where you are allowed to purchase alcoholic drinks (such as hotel bars, some clubs and restaurants - mostly frequented by expats and tourists rather than locals). This means that most people would have to make the effort of going to a place such as the Dubai Hard Rock Cafe just to get a beer after work, but since they've made the effort to go all the way there, they're likely to end up staying longer and drinking even more than just one beer. So perhaps the frequency of them going for a drink may reduce because of the inconvenience, but once they start drinking in a licensed venue, they end up consuming a lot more each time. The same problem will arise in Singapore should you ban online gaming - if you make people travel to a venue just for betting, then they less likely to simply place one bet and leave. They will end up spending a lot more time in the betting shop once they are there.
 |
| You're more likely to drink more in social situations. |
3. Making it social rather than isolating gamblers
Staying with the example of drinking in Dubai, drinking then becomes far more social as you're unlikely to go to the Hard Rock Cafe just for a drink on your own. No, you will find other friends who will want to drink with you to go there or you may make friends with other having a drink there. You then say, "alright, that was fun, see you guys back here tomorrow evening after work?" The same thing will happen if you ban online gambling and the people who want to place bets are driven to licensed betting shops during lunchtimes and evenings - it then becomes more of a social occasion for them whereby they see their friends whilst betting and they continue to encourage each other to bet by exchanging tips and discussing strategies. Contrast this to a situation where gamblers are going it online, away from each other, surrounded by their friends, colleagues and family members who are not gambling with them. They would place a bet and then get back to those around them - they are far less likely to become sucked into excessive gambling like that, as they are in the absence of other gamblers encouraging them to gamble more.
4. Education, awareness rather than an outright ban
An outright ban is likely to cause a lot of ill-feeling and be counterproductive. Let's compare this to the situation with tobacco - why do we ban children from smoking altogether but allow adults to purchase cigarettes and smoke if they wish to? This is because we trust adults to make an informed decision about the effects that smoking will have on their health whilst in the case of children, we don't believe that they are educated, mature and sensible enough to make that decision for themselves, so we do not allow them to do so until they turn 18. An outright ban on online betting does tantamount to treating adults in Singapore like little kids, unable to think for themselves, unable to be rational or sensible, unable to control their behaviour. Whilst it may be the case that some adults in Singapore are truly irrational and irresponsible, why do you want to treat all adults like they are total idiots? Surely we can tackle the issue of gambling the same way we have approached the issue of smoking: through an education and awareness campaign.
 |
| Do you want to treat Singaporeans like adults who are reasonable? |
5. It is not gambling per se, but excessive gambling and addiction you need to address
Furthermore, an outright ban on online gambling simply demonizes online gambling without addressing the complexities of the issue. This is like using a sledgehammer approach to the issue is hardly appropriate as it doesn't address the challenges of addiction. We can get addicted to anything - my main concern right now is that my nephew (like so many teenagers his age) is becoming more and more obsessed with computer games and those games are so fun they are highly addictive: would his grades at school suffer as a result? Our approach is not to ban him from playing computer games altogether, but to make sure that other areas in his life (family life, sports, social interactions with his peers etc) are equally rewarding so that computer games are not his only source of satisfaction and joy in life. Because my nephew is precious to my family, we are willing to take the time and effort to address this issue carefully.
Take the case of an alcoholic who is driven to drink because he is so frustrated with his work, getting drunk is his only joy in life and it leads him to a downward spiral of addiction. If you try to break him out of that cycle by banning him from drinking, then he is still going to feel frustrated with his life - you've not dealt with the root causes of his frustrations and he will end up turning to another vice to distract him from his frustrations in life. Likewise, think about an obese person who turns to eating fried chicken in vast quantities to forget his frustrations and problems in his life - even if you were to ban him from KFC, this troubled man would still turn to something else as a source of distraction and joy. Trying to break someone out of that cycle of addiction is not easy as you need to look at the very complex roots of the problem and I'm not sure that the nice people at WP are even prepared to do that. Thus they simplify the situation by imagining that an outright ban would solve the problem, when really, that's no more than a token gesture.
 |
| A vapid token gesture will not solve the problem. |
6. Is this simply a case of 唱反调, opposing for the sake of disagreeing with the PAP?
Whilst the opposition parties are there to keep the PAP in check, I do seriously think that they are barking up the wrong tree on this issue - it seems that they are opposing for the sake of disagreeing with the PAP. Like I have said so many times, I do not like the PAP, but that doesn't mean that you have to disagree with everything they do and say. For the opposition party to be effective, you need to pick your battles and oppose the PAP on issues where you can make the most impact, where you can do the most good for ordinary Singaporeans. Think about all the time and energy the WP will spend fighting the PAP on this issue ('cos you know the PAP will get their way on this matter in the end regardless) and all the other issues on far more pressing matters like health, CPF, education and the environment which they can make a greater impact on. Life is short, our resources are limited, so pick your battles wisely.
Allow me to state for the record that I am not pro-gambling, I am not a gambler at all (and I even turned down a chance recently to gamble for a pay rise) but I can spot a flawed argument when I see one. I'm certainly not criticizing the WP just because I want to tear down any party that oppose the PAP but in the absence of a more credible opposition, the PAP is just going to stay in power for a long time to come and the frustrated Singaporeans will simply end up leaving if there isn't a credible opposition to support. Do let me know what you think. Many thanks for reading.
Yes, there are so many other betting options but I feel Singapore Pool should not take it online. It had made people much easier to gamble, through a reputable platform endorsed by Singapore government. An example is I cut down on eating junk food by not having it in my house in the first place, it reduces the temptation. Similarly, I believe if is not so convenient to gamble, people will gamble less.
ReplyDeleteNo Jonathan, compare it to fried chicken: if you consume it excessively, then it will make you obese. The fact that KFC is everywhere doesn't mean that Singaporeans will give in to temptation and stuff their faces till they're fat. Are you like a 14 year old kid or something (cos I get loads of young people reading my blog) - you can't expect the government to ban everything from KFC to online gambling. Otherwise it would be like living in North Korea - we need such things to keep our economy thriving (otherwise Orchard Road would be a ghost town if you ban half the things that could lead to addiction - ooh such as shopping). In the real world, we need to treat adults like they are reasonable, responsible people, not stupid kids. I find it bizarre that you actually want the government to treat everyone like they are indeed dumb kids. In any case, there's plenty of legal online betting options already available in Singapore - those are for the trading stocks. Major blindspot for you, methinks.
DeleteI do agree for hardcore gamblers, nothing will stop them to gamble. I am referring to the group of people who will gamble only when tempted. There are already some countries who believe in taxing fast food chains and soda companies. I believe both education and restriction are important.
DeleteJonathan - let me give you a good example that will illustrate my point. We are very careful about the food we sell in a primary school tuckshop because we do not trust young children to make their own decisions when it comes to healthy food choices. But with adults, we don't ban hawker centers or fast food restaurants just because someone might be tempted. No, we allow them to make their own choices and if they are bad ones, then so be it. They will become fat. The government cannot treat all adults like they were primary school students.
DeleteIn short, there's a difference between an adult and a child.
Point taken, cheers. :) Just being curious, do you think all countries should legalized drugs for adults like what the Dutch is doing?
DeleteI think you're mistaken about the Dutch approach - the Dutch are not allowing 6 year old kids to buy crack cocaine in their school playgrounds along with candy. They are regulating it, rather than allowing anyone to do what they want. And the problem with drugs is that when it is illegal, it is also unregulated. In the UK, most drug related deaths/serious injuries are associated with people taking tainted drugs (ie. the drugs are impure and are contaminated) and that leads to people collapsing as a result and having to be rushed to hospital after taking a dodgy dose. Regulating the industry monitors this problem and eliminates it - can you imagine if Singapore outlawed painkillers just because you could get addicted to them. One day you have a splitting headache and you're offered an illegal, unregulated aspirin but you don't know what is in the pill - it may cure your headache but it may kill you as well. That's the problem that the Dutch have solved. As for addiction, the Dutch have dealt with that through education.
DeleteSo before I pass any kind of judgement on the Dutch system, I need you to understand exactly what you are dealing with here - I don't think you truly understand the details of what the Dutch government have done on this issue.
Actually the WP does pick their fights. They do not really have a case on everything and in some instances netizens feel they say too little. This happens to be one of the things they make a case on, and I guess it's for us to judge whether the case is therefore valid.
ReplyDeleteAnother argument that netizens like to use is that certain things are not banned because it brings in revenue, like tobacco and alcohol. And more recently you hear about Pokemon Go. I find it weird that on the one hand people do not want to make it their own responsibility to decide how much to drink, smoke and game, yet on the other hand claim to be against draconian measures and talk helluva big about freedom of choice and speech.
But where do you draw the line then? Should we ban hawker centers, food courts, fast food restaurants because it makes it too easy for Singaporeans to get access to fattening food - thus leading to obesity? Do you want to shut down Orchard Road just because shopping is fun and thus addictive and can lead to so many Singaporeans getting into debt?
DeleteThe question I wanna ask is why so many Singaporeans want the government to treat them like complete idiots, incapable of any self-control, incapable of taking responsibility for their own decisions like adults. Like maybe they are such complete idiots themselves (ref: Jonathan Ng's comment above) but good grief, not everyone's a fuckwit idiot.
This is a rather tacky issue. It is similar to the issue of decriminalizing drugs, somewhat counter-intuitive but yet leading to results of the decrease in overall consumption of said drugs in certain case studies. There is more to the human behavior than what most expect. Outright ban on the other hand, just leads to higher chances of illegal means of satisfying that behavioral itch.
ReplyDeleteExactly: I believe in education, prevention and awareness as opposed to bans.
DeleteI live in Brunei and it is illegal to buy alcohol, cigarettes and gamble of any kind. But yet there are drink driving accidents, open smoking areas and illegal gamble houses plus online gambling. If there is a demand, there will be a supply, legal or not.
ReplyDeleteExactly. Bans don't work - adults who want to gamble will find a way, that is why it is better to regulate it, so the government can at least retain some control over the way that industry functions.
Delete