Singapore Government Press Release, Media Relations Division, Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, MITA Building, 140 Hill Street, 2nd Storey, Singapore 179369

Tel: 6837-9666

SPEECH BY SENIOR MINISTER GOH CHOK TONG IN PARLIAMENT ON WEDNESDAY, 20 APRIL 2005, DURING THE DEBATE ON THE PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP INTEGRATED RESORTS

���������������� I rise to state my position on gambling and the casino issue.

2 I do not approve of gambling but I am not anti-gambling.� I take a practical, realistic and balanced view of life.� There will always be gambling just as there will always be prostitution and alcoholism.� These vices are as old as human civilization.� I do not condone them but I accept them as part of our society.� We cannot eradicate them, so we have to manage them.

3 I have gambled but only infrequently, and I would add, in a most timid way.� When TOTO was introduced in 1968, like many Singaporeans, I played for the fun of it.� But after a few times, the novelty wore off.� I never struck any prize.

4 I have also bought sweepstake tickets.� When I first started work, I had a car loan and housing mortgage to pay.� I had a young family.� I wishfully thought if I could strike lottery once, it would lighten, and perhaps even settle, my loan burden.� I bought one ticket at a time.� I believed that if Lady Luck smiled on you, one ticket would be enough.� If she did not, a hundred tickets would make no difference.� I had no luck.� In all, I probably did not spend more than $100 on sweepstake.

5 I have also played with 4-D on special occasions like when I had a new car.� When I became the Managing Director of Neptune Orient Lines, the company provided me with a Mercedes-Benz.� I bought its licence plate number.� The number never came up.� Instead, the number plate of my Ford Cortina, which I had sold, came up.� My friend who bought the car struck 4-D.

6 Last year, I bought my own car after I stepped down as Prime Minister.� I thought that after having served dutifully as Prime Minister for nearly 14 years, Lady Luck might be a little kinder this time.� I bought the number of my car over four weekends.� I was poorer by $80.

7 I have never gambled on card games.� I make a distinction between card games and number games like TOTO and Sweepstake.� One is active, a waste of time and can be addictive.� The other is passive and less likely to be addictive.

8 Yes, I have been inside a casino - not one but two.

9 The first time was, you will never guess, in Africa.� I had accompanied Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew to Lusaka, Zambia, for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 1979.� Dhanabalan, Lim Chee Onn and Eugene Yap were there too.� We stayed in a hotel while PM Lee stayed in a guest house specially built for the occasion.� Before the meeting started, the four of us felt bored.� There was nothing to do.� We did not stray far from the hotel in case the PM called.� There was a casino in the hotel so we decided to see what it looked like.� The four of us had never been to a casino.� We went in.� It was morning.� There were no gamblers around.� But the croupier, a friendly African, offered to play with us.� I had never heard of Black Jack or Baccarat.� But there was a roulette table.� I thought the game was simple enough - a no-brainer.� Chee Onn and I decided to try our hand at it.� Dhanabalan did not because of his religious belief.� Eugene also did not play.� There was an air of innocence in him.� I picked two numbers and betted a dollar on each.� The friendly African gave the roulette a friendly spin.� The ball gave my numbers a miss.� I tried two more times.� Lost again.� I left the casino, happier for the experience but six dollars poorer.� You might call me a low roller.

10 The second time I went into a casino was in 1989.� I was on an official visit to KL as Minister for Defence.� Tengku Rithaudeen, my Malaysian host and counterpart, took me up to Genting Highlands to play golf.� In our flight were Najib Razak and Ahmad Mattar.� We stayed overnight in Genting Highlands.� That night, the owners of Genting Highlands took me to their casino.� My Malaysian hosts, of course, did not join us.� They would not have been allowed in anyway.� Lim Goh Tong and his son explained to me the various games, security arrangements and surveillance system.� More interestingly, Lim Goh Tong related how he managed to secure the concession for Genting Highlands.� When he saw the mountain ranges in Pahang, he visualised a holiday resort.� But a holiday resort on its own in the cool highlands would not succeed.� There were no roads, no electricity, no water, no infrastructure, just virgin jungle.� So he persuaded Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman to give him a gaming licence in return for developing a resort on Genting.� Tunku Abdul Rahman agreed.� Today, Genting and Malaysia are much better for it.� What was once virgin jungle and uninhabitable mountains have become prized real estate.� Genting Highlands Resort has generated billions of dollars for Malaysia.

11 Can we develop a mega holiday resort or a mega Meetings, Incentives, Conventions and Exhibitions (MICE) centre without a gaming component?� If the answer is yes, then the casino question would not have arisen at all.� Unfortunately, the answer is no.� Hence, the debate over the past year.� But the debate is not really over whether we should or should not have a casino.� It is whether we should forgo the Integrated Resort because of its gaming component.� It is about our economic future over the increase in social costs.� It is about families who would benefit from the jobs created versus families who could have their lives destroyed because of gambling.� It is about whether we want to have a vibrant, cosmopolitan and fun Singapore or a fuddy-duddy Singapore.

12 I was not in Singapore when Cabinet deliberated on the issue on 9 April.� I was in Qatar.� But before I left, I emailed PM my views.� He circulated my views to Cabinet.� I was for moving on to the next stage of the project - Request for Proposals.� I gave four reasons:

� Credibility of Singapore and how we are ��perceived;

� Economic benefits;

� Easy access to existing casinos; and

� Manageable incremental social costs.

13 I shall elaborate on the reasons I gave to PM.

14 Right from the beginning I kept an open mind on the casino question.� When the subject was first broached by George Yeo in his capacity as Minister for Trade and Industry, PM and many Ministers were against it.� The project nearly did not see the light of day.

15 But George Yeo persisted.� I was not for or against the Integrated Resort with casino at that stage.� I kept an open mind.� I was aware of the religious, moral and social objections.� But I also knew the economic opportunities we would miss if we were to forgo the Integrated Resort.� More importantly, I was concerned over Singapore�s future as a vibrant, cosmopolitan city.� During those discussions, I said that I would make up my mind only after I knew what kind of Integrated Resorts there would be.� I did not believe in arguing in a vacuum.� I therefore supported George�s proposal to proceed to Request for Concepts stage.

16 On 5 March, together with PM and other Ministers, I attended the briefing on the 19 proposals for an Integrated Resort.� Having seen for myself the scale, boldness, creativity and seriousness of most of the proposals, I support going ahead with the Integrated Resort.

17 At stake are our credibility and how the world will perceive us.� The 13 bidders have put in a lot of time and effort to come up with serious proposals for Integrated Resorts with theme parks or MICE.� They are internationally well-known.� They are global players.� Not to proceed to the next stage now implies that the proposals are without merit, which cannot be so.� It will hurt our international credibility and reputation.� We will be seen to be incapable of making rational decisions.� We will be regarded as timid and not being serious about Remaking Singapore.� We will be seen as lacking boldness in mapping Singapore�s future in a fast-changing world.

18 Second, economic benefits.� Having seen the proposals, I believe the economic benefits are big.� I believe the Integrated Resorts will reinvigorate our tourism industry.� Our tourist attractions are dated and lack excitement.

19 Recently, when I was in Jakarta, an Indonesian businessman asked me whether Singapore was going ahead with the casino.� I told him that we were in the process of making a decision.� He saw no choice for Singapore.� He said that we had no exciting tourist attractions.� He did not bring his family often to Singapore.� Whatever they wanted to buy, they could get in Jakarta.� They have been to our Night Safari and other tourist attractions.� Once was enough.� But if we had world-class entertainment in the Integrated Resort, they would come to see the shows.

20 What he said struck me.� Static tourist sights will not attract repeat visitors.� But the ever-changing scene of world-class entertainment will.� Entertainment never becomes dated if the IR operators can bring in new top rate singers, dancers and other shows.� If the operators can bring in big names, tourists will come from all over the region to listen to the singers and watch the shows.� Big names like Celine Dion, Elton John and Rod Stewart who now perform in Las Vegas, and big shows like Cirque du Soleil from Canada and Crazy Horse from Paris.

21 When I was in Kuwait, one of the Ministers also asked me about the casino.� He understood our need for a casino as part of an Integrated Resort.� I asked him whether Arabs gambled.� He said many did and they gambled in London and Europe.

22 I have been visiting China and India regularly for many years.� I have seen the breath-taking transformations there.� I have also been visiting countries in the Middle East.� You should see the ambitions and the pace and scale of developments in places like Dubai and Qatar.� Dubai is growing on the back of Arab oil wealth.� Qatar has plenty of gas and oil and wants to use these resources to build a modern country.� They are not just targeting Arab dollars but tourists from around the world.� So it is not just Singapore competing with Thailand, Malaysia, Hong Kong and China for tourism.� We are also competing against Dubai, Qatar and other countries in the Middle East.

23 Dubai already has many skyscrapers but is constructing the world�s tallest building.� When completed, Dubai Tower, expected to be at least 750 metres high, will be more than 300 metres higher than the Petronas Twin Towers.� Dubai Mall, the world�s largest shopping mall, is also being built.� It has 3.6 million square feet net retail space.� This is equivalent to 6 Suntec Cities.� The mall will have 14,000 car park lots.� In Dubai, whatever they do, they want to be the biggest.� But is Dubai just being vain or after the tourist dollars?� No.� Dubai knows that its oil reserves will one day run out.� It is therefore building a new future for itself, diversifying its economy and lessening its oil dependency.� In fact, Dubai�s model is Singapore � the way we organise ourselves and our can-do attitude.� Whatever we do which are successful, they copy and do it on a larger scale.

24 Qatar, an Arab country of less than 1 million people, is about 10 to 15 years behind Dubai in development.� But it wants to surpass Dubai.� Its attitude reminds me of the lyrics from the song in Annie Get Your Gun:� �Anything you can do, I can do better�.� The Emir of Qatar told me that they did not want to copy Dubai because Dubai is a city while Qatar is a country.� They have more oil and gas than Dubai.� They want to be different and better than Dubai.� They are confident of eclipsing Dubai in 15 to 20 years� time.

25 Dubai is now the aviation hub in the Middle East.� Qatar wants to compete.� It is building a US$5 billion airport with a capacity for 50million passengers.� Qatari Airways aspires to catch up and outstrip Emirates.� These two airlines will put pressure on SIA.� The Dubai and Qatar airports will compete with Changi Airport.

26 To attract tourists and people to live and work in Qatar, Qatar is building The Pearl Qatar to match Dubai�s Palm Island and The World.� This is a US$2.5billion man-made island covering 985 acres of reclaimed land offshore.� Our Marina Centre is only 208 acres or less than one quarter the size of The Pearl Qatar.

27 There are many other big scale projects which Qatar is embarking on.� Money is no object.� Brand names matter.� They want the best so that they can become �the leading centre for business, leisure, sports and education�.

28 Dubai and Qatar are not re-inventing themselves.� They are inventing themselves in a big and bold way.� Fortunately, Dubai and Qatar are not building any casinos.� They are Muslim countries.� If we reject the Integrated Resorts with casinos, we are throwing away a competitive advantage.

29 Nearer home, Thailand will have a casino.� PM Thaksin told that to a leading Singapore banker who told me.� The world is moving on.� It is a wide open world.� Do we want to be left behind?

30 The third reason why I support the Integrated Resort with casino is that gambling in all its forms is already easily available in and near Singapore.� The table games of the casino are not available in Singapore but Singaporeans have easy access to them on cruise ships sailing out of Singapore and in Batam.� In other words, easy access means that casinos are here in Singapore even though they are not physically here.

31 Lastly, I believe that having casinos in the Integrated Resorts will not dramatically increase the social costs of gambling.� I am not brushing aside the social costs, which are real and a price we have to pay.� But we should look at the incremental social costs, not the total social costs, and balance them against the economic benefits and social problems of unemployment.

32 I am aware of the social costs.� Recently when I was in London, I met a New Zealander who is working for Nestle.� He is married to a Singaporean who is a friend of my daughter.� He asked me about our proposed casino.� I explained why we were considering it.� I asked him for his views.� He was against it.� He explained that he was posted to Sydney many years ago.� He lived near the Crown Casino.� There was almost a suicide every week in the casino car park.� He was against the casino because of the high social and human costs.� If we could do without the casino, it was better to do without it.

33 Two of my friends just came back from Las Vegas.� They are professionals.� They went with some Singaporean high rollers to enjoy the perks provided by the casino for high rollers.� My friends played golf in Shadow Creek.� It is a most exclusive course reserved only for high rollers and their friends.� The golf course is built into the desert, and is one of the most beautiful golf courses in the world.

34 They had good food.� They enjoyed the top class entertainment.� Yes, they also gambled and won a tidy sum of money.

35 I asked them what advice they would give me regarding our casino.� To my astonishment, they advised me against it.� Their main worry is that a casino will undermine our work ethics.� In Las Vegas, money talks.� Everyone is chasing after money the easy way.

36 I am relating these personal anecdotes to illustrate the point that there are no easy answers, one way or another.� There are social and human costs in proceeding with the Integrated Resorts with casinos.� But assuming that we do not proceed, does that mean we will have no social problems?� I do not believe so.� We have been remaking the Singapore economy to stay ahead.� The Integrated Resort proposal is a key component of our overall strategy.� If we cannot keep our economy vibrant and create enough jobs for Singaporeans, what is there to stop the better qualified ones from leaving permanently?� Those who cannot leave are stuck here.� Singapore will stagnate.� If that happens, what will be the fate of our sons and daughters?� Do they have to work overseas as guest workers, and work under difficult conditions?

37 The dilemma we face is similar to Britain�s.� I sat next to Mrs Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State (Culture, Media and Sport) when I was in London for the Singapore Season in March.� She is the Minister in charge of the mega casino project amongst other duties.� She agonized over the same issues as we are now.� She and the Labour Government had come to the same conclusion that Britain had no choice but to go for Integrated Resorts with casinos if they wished to generate growth in the tourism sector.� I asked her about the social costs.� She said that they had to manage them.� For example, casinos operate for 24 hours in artificial light.� Gamblers therefore lose track of time.� She was thinking of requiring casinos to have skylight so that gamblers could tell night from day.� I do not know whether this will help but the point is we can minimise and manage the social costs.� And we must find ways to do so.

38 I am now no longer the Prime Minister.� PM Lee is the man in the hot seat.� As Cabinet was divided on the issue, I told him that the burden of the decision rested on his shoulders.� If the majority was against going ahead with the Integrated Resorts, he should go with the majority.� But if the majority was for going ahead, he should not simply follow them.� He had to weigh the views of those who object carefully against the economic benefits.� But whichever way he decided, we would support him.� The PM has decided.� As he told you on Monday, he is the one who has to ultimately carry the burden of the decision.

39 The Government�s decision affects the lives of all Singaporeans and the future of our country.� Nobody can say that we have made the right decision or not until years later when we have the benefit of perfect hindsight.� But having made the decision to have the Integrated Resorts with casinos, we must now focus on minimising the social costs, while maximising the economic benefits.� It is within our power to make sure that the decision turns out right.� And the people who can play a bigger role here are exactly those who object to the casino.� They must help us minimise the social costs of our decision, taken after long and hard deliberations, in the best interest of our country.

40 We have had an open and passionate public debate.� On an issue like this which engages very deeply our personal values, there can be no unanimity of views.� I welcome the strong stand taken by those who opposed the casino idea.� These Singaporeans give Singapore its moral ballast.� If there were little objection to the casino, I would be even more worried.� For it would mean that we have become so blas� about life and have lost our moral bearing.

41 I do believe that we can manage the social costs of the two casinos.� Our family, social and religious institutions are strong.� Have faith in the judgment of the Government and the strength of Singaporeans.

____________