How has Singapore responded to the opening of the IRs?

Tobacco, Alcohol and Gambling are sometimes referred to as the ‘sin industries’. Not withstanding the theological implications of that word, these industries are sometimes presented in an unfavorable light because, if not properly regulated, they can provide the context for undesirable behavior.

As a society we have an obligation to oversee the interests of all Singaporeans who are engaged in all forms of recognized employment and within all industries and to offer guidance if necessary.

The American Gambling Association developed the Code of Conduct for Responsible Gaming (Sept. 2003). As well as protecting the public at large it focused on protecting casino employees. Research has demonstrated that this group of employees are statistically more vulnerable than the general population in developing gambling related problems.

There are also the physical dangers emanating from second hand smoke, violent and intoxicated customers, sexual harassment and other undesirable side features of the gaming industry. We should also bear in mind that many of those employed in the gaming industry will be young people as, as such, more at risk.

The National Environment Agency said that the nationwide smoking ban would not apply to the casinos. However the operators have to draw up house rules to protect non-smokers. Also the smoking ban will continue to be enforced in the other parts of the IRs including restaurants and bars.

Statistics show that as many as 85% of gamblers smoke. Research in the US has shown that a smoking ban enforced in casinos could reduce takings by 20% and result in job losses.

According to Mr. Ramachandar Head of the International Casino School in Singapore, one option is to install glass walls and partitions separating smokers from non-smokers. At the same time the NEA has not spelled out the provisions designed to protect casino staff.

At another level there is also the wider more complex issue of personal morality and values to consider. Equus Design Consultants is one of a handful of companies that turned down an offer to work on IR related projects.

When they opened, their brief was to produce brochures and printed material for a property development company’s IR bid. The reason – the company’s business ethics dictated that they should have no involvement with the gambling industry.

Another corporate communications company headed by Peter Zheng, a devout Christian also turned down the opportunity to take on a public relations role for one of the casino operators ‘Gambling is a vice and I do not believe that its right for me to become involved in something that will lead to the erosion of family values and the destruction of lives’.

Equus have also turned down deals relating to the sales of military equipment, embryonic stem cell testing and tobacco products. Adhering to their code of ethics has cost them an estimated $100,000 in lost revenue. Last year they rejected a deal to market a karaoke lounge.

According to Aexis Security Management’s CEO, Tay Eng Hock, ‘if there is a tender for security at the casinos, we won’t be going for it’.

Not withstanding these viewpoints, the work culture is bigger than the individual and sometimes employees have to accept aspects of a job that they don’t like as part and parcel of their employment. At the same time, where should we draw the line? Employers have a moral as well as a legal obligation to protect their staff from unwarranted behavior such as sexual harassment and from physical hazards such as second hand smoke.

At the same time it should be remembered that an industry isn’t necessarily responsible for all undesirable features that are associated with it. To put it another way, the fast food industry didn’t create obesity, obesity is an undesirable spin-off of the fast food industry.

Taking a broader perspective and taking the Macao experience as a reference point, many young people are finding that they can earn more working as croupiers than they would if they were to join many of the typical graduate professions.

Given that we have always prided ourselves as a society that has been able to nurture and provide direction to our young people, how can we best reconcile and integrate these new influences into mainstream Singaporean values.

As I recall saying three years ago when arguing in favour of the IRs, 'as a society we must move on', but at the same time, we must ask ourselves how can we best manage the cultural shift so that we don't undo that which we have already created and can be justly proud of?

A sense of balance is required. Singapore needs the two IRs and thousands of Singaporeans are benefiting from the jobs that they create both in the immediate term and in the longer terms are a result of the new industries that they will nurture.

Education and regulation is the key. Also we shouldn’t make the mistake of confusing morals with ethics. Morals reflect what we think. Ethics dictate how we behave. It is not for us to impose a moral code but to provide help and guidance and codes of practice when it is needed.

Paul FitzPatrick is author of three books, a journalist and runs creative thinking programmes for companies.

Email Paul Fitzpatrick at [email protected]