Buses Disappear and Credit Claimed
- Intended reaction to this exercise: “Government is doing something about the gambling problem.”
- Result: Success
A Particular Group is Unhappy
The news that Singaporeans are losing their money at the casinos did not go down well with the vocal group who opposed the presence of casinos in our country in the first place.
This opposition forms a rather large group, due to it being related to religion or otherwise. In the end, economic interests (i.e. money) won over citizen needs.
IR = Casino?
When the authorities explained why IRs were great for the country’s economy, the point that the “casino is only supposed to be a small part of the IR” was often repeated.
It is fair to assume that a majority of the heartlanders are taking the free shuttle buses to go to the IR for other activities besides gambling.
Patching the Problem
Another often-heard point: If citizens gambling is truly undersirable to the country, then why bring the problem to the country in the first place only to patch it up with a $100 entrance fee, and now removing the convenient shuttle buses?
It’s obvious that Singaporeans who can afford to go to the casino are:
- Rich enough to afford the $100 entrance fee
- Rich enough to own a car to drive to the casino
Now, if a heartlander without a car is determined to go the casino, all he needs to do is to take the world-class MRT to one of the still-available pick up points in the city and hop on the free shuttle bus.
Claiming Credit
How this whole thing played out in the media is interesting in itself.
RWS, a private entity, was faster than the civil service to take action. They issued a statement to the media saying that they were “voluntarily withdrawing its shuttle services in the spirit of collaboration with the Singapore Government.” (ref: Today, ST)
They were obviously not pleased that they were forced to do this and lose business from the heartlands.
Then came the news from the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) that they will issue a directive to stop shuttle buses to the heartlands. (ref: ST)
A better outcome would be for the directive to be issued, then the IRs react to the directive, thus proving the effectiveness of the directive.
Channel NewsAsia did do their part by completely rewriting their report to remove the fact that RWS withdrew their services voluntarily. It now masterfully points out that the IRs were “told to stop free shuttle services immediately” and reporter Dylan Loh throws in some further justification:
Some have said that it is alright to have free shuttle bus services to the integrated resorts as long as people are brought to the entertainment outlets and not the casino.
But take a look at the layout of Resorts World Sentosa, for example. The entertainment outlets are situated all around the casino. So even if a visitor does drop at the resort to catch a show, the gambling tables are not too far away.
Which raises even more questions:
- If the vice of gambling is such a concern, why was RWS allowed to situate the casino near the entertainment outlets?
- Why have a casino in the first place?
