转载:
SINGAPORE PLACES ITS BETS
CASINOS,FOREING TALENT
AND
REMAKING A
CITY-STATE
Introduction
Few countries have witnessed such
rapid changes to their physical landscape, economy and society
within the space of a decade, as has Singapore. Since the late
1990s, Singapore experienced the sort of changes driven by
technology and economic necessity that have at once excited and
unsettled its citizens. In wanting to “remake” itself so as to stay
relevant in a highly competitive, globalised world, Singapore may
have unleashed forces that could irrevocably change the nature of
the country and its people. Within the space of a decade
Singaporeans have heard of the need for their country to be a
knowledge-based economy(KBE), a “Renaissance city of Asia”, the
“Monaco of the East”, and many other things in-between. The
“remaking” of the country has thus run the gamut of being at the
forefront of cutting-edge technology, to embracing highbrow arts
and culture, to indulging in the glamour and
glitz of high-end gambling, and the far less glamorous and glitzy
aspects of that vice.
The most curious thing about these
aspirational objectives is that every time Singapore has “remade”
itself, it has assumed a new identity without actually discarding
its previous identities. In consequence, Singapore has become a
country with multiple identities; it has attempted to be all things
to everyone. It could well be that by assuming multiple identities
Singapore is essentially hedging its bets, instead of placing all
its chips on a single identifying characteristic that would allow
it to coast through the 21st century as a successful state. Should
one aspiration fail, Singapore can always claim that it was never
reliant on it for its economic survival, as it has an economy that
is diverse and multifaceted in nature.
The many changes that were part of
the “remaking” of Singapore came on the back of the Asian economic
crisis of 1997-98. That crisis made it imperative
for Singapore to come up with new initiatives that would cushion
the domestic economy from the deleterious effects of another
economic downturn prompted by external developments. The April 2005
announcement, that Singapore would allow two casinos as part of
“integrated resorts”, seemed like one such initiative.
By dint of fate, the construction
of the two resorts proceeded directly into the global economic
headwinds of 2008-09, as the Singapore economy experienced yet
another shock, this time from a US-originated financial crisis. On
the one hand, it seemed that the integrated resorts project was
rather ill-timed. On the other, it is arguable that the apparent
regularity of financial crises provided justification for the
on-going search for continued diversification of the Singapore
economy. In fact, as job retrenchments began to mount in all
sectors of the Singapore economy during 2008-09,the job recruitment
drives by the two casino operators in advance of the phased opening
of Marina Bay Sands and Resorts World Sentosa (both expected in and
around the first quarter of 2010), provided welcome relief for
several thousand job-seekers. That seemed to be the obvious upside
of the integrated resorts project, even in advance of their actual
opening.
It can be argued that allowing
casino gambling via integrated resorts was the most significant
change to emerge from all the “remaking” that Singapore has
embarked on in recent years. The significance lies
not merely in the economic impact. The
announcement by the Government in April 2005 to have casino
gambling generated a great deal of surprise from many quarters for
reasons other than the likely effect this would have on the
economy. The fact of the matter is that, though gambling is a
favourite pastime of many Singaporeans, the ruling People’s Action
Party had for many years deliberately put at arms length the
high-end form of this vice-casinos. This was because of the many
ramifications casinos could have on Singapore society and, not
least, the Singapore brand name internationally - a name associated
with an upright, albeit (in the opinion of some) bland, image. The
decision to allow the establishment of two casinos an part of
integrated resorts was therefore a reversal of a four-decade-long
policy. Although the Government was clear about the benefits that
would accrue to the economy from the resorts, while also being
cognisant of the social costs, the people of Singapore were less
clear about the issue. The country was essentially divided between
proponents and opponents of casino gambling. The divisiveness of
this issue in public discourse is noteworthy and deserves detailed
examination in its various dimensions.
The issue of allowing casinos
within a densely populated city-state is, therefore, given a
suitable degree of breadth of coverage and depth of analysis in
this book. Arguments for and against the integrated resorts, and
the potential for the resorts achieving their
objective of increasing tourist dollar receipts as Singapore
repositions its economy, to one that is more service-oriented are
given extensive analysis. The casino resorts may be said to be the
sharpest manifestation of the move to a more service-oriented
economy. By that very fact, four out of six chapters are devoted to
examining various aspects of the IR project in their economic and
social dimensions. Examples are drawn from other jurisdictions
where casino gambling has been introduced, to provide a comparative
perspective and some possible lessons that may be germane to the
Singapore context. That is one of the methodologies employed in
this book. The main methodology, however, is to look at themes and
concepts that put conventional thinking to the test, instead of
providing a descriptive, chronological account, which would serve
little purpose. In all cases, being agnostic, instead of having
preconceived notions, is the best way to approach any policy that
is likely to have a significant socioeconomic impact.
For Singapore, it is apparent that
only by embracing-instead of forestalling-change, no matter how
unsettling it may be for its population( as in the reversal of the
longstanding ban on having casinos), can the island- nation keep
the spectre of failure at bay. That seems to be uppermost in the
policy of a government ever conscious of Singapore’s small size
and, therefore, its narrow room for manoeuvre. It should be
stressed that in absolute terms, by most metrics Singapore is a
great success story. In comparative terms, in relation to its
neighbours in Southeast Asia, Singapore is an even greater success
story. None in Southeast Asia can match the degree of security,
efficiency and incorruptibility that Singapore
offers its people and foreign nationals who choose to live and work
in the city-state. Singapore has therefore carved out a niche for
itself within Southeast Asia. When foreign direct investments from
multinational corporations or the wealth of the ultra-rich scans
Southeast Asia for a suitable home, almost by default Singapore is
their initial choice. But Singapore can no longer rely on its
performance in relation to its Southeast Asian neighbours to see it
through to the next stage of its development. In a globalised world
the competition is global in nature. More to the point, an Asian
city-state cannot possibly compete on equal terms with one of the
main sources of competition-Asian giants, in the form of China and
India.
The ascendancy of the two Asian
behemoths-with their critical mass of population-is changing the
geoeconomic and geopolitical landscape of the Asia Pacific region.
Instead of competing with these behemoths in areas where they have
a clear comparative advantage, the smarter move by Singapore has
been to attempt to leverage or capitalise on their growing economic
strength and potential. This has been done in a multipronged
fashion. At one level, Singapore Government-linked corporations
have funnelled hundreds of millions of dollars in, for example, the
Chinese property and Indian technology sectors.
Singapore investment dollars have also flowed into other areas of
growth potential in both China and India, and in smaller-sized
emerging economies, of which a significant on is Vietnam. On
another level, Singapore has attempted to entice skilled Chinese
and Indian nationals to work, live and take up permanent residency
in the city-state. Some proportion have also applied for, and been
given, Singapore citizenship. This relatively liberal policy to
attract foreign talent has also been extended to citizens of other
countries, thus creating a more diverse population-ethnically,
linguistically and culturally. Besides economic rationale, this
policy to attract large numbers of foreign talent has been one way
Singapore has attempted to counteract the effects of a falling
birth-rate among Singaporeans and an attendant
rapidly aging population. It has also been an attempt by the
Government to increase the overall resident population, with a set
target of 6.5 million, or a 50% increase on the 2005 figure, to be
reached at or around the year 2050. A population with greater
critical mass has obvious economic, among other,
advantages.
To many Singaporeans, the
Government’s foreign talent policy and the goal
of expanding the resident population have been controversial. The
arrival of foreign nationals to the city-state has not been
gradual, but instead has been at a rapid pace, being compressed
into a short span of time. This has already
generated a degree of social tension with Singaporeans, even
as the resident population at 4.99 million (in
June 2009) is still well short of its target of 6.5 million. The
reasons for such tension will be examined in detail in Chapter 6.
Even as foreign talent has arrived in Singapore in droves, some
Singaporeans have decided to seek their livelihood and happiness
outside their country of birth. This phenomenon, added to the heavy
stress on economic development, which is perceived in some quarters
as having been elevated above all else, and is
almost a cause unto itself, has changed the very
character of Singapore from what it was during the first three
decades of its independence (1965-95). This is so much so that the
questions arises in the minds of some whether Singapore is a
“nation-state” in both the letter and spirit of the term, or
whether Singapore has evolved to being purely an economic entity in
its functionality and character.
To some of those Singaporeans who
have become estranged from their country, the answer is obvious. To
the man others who have an abiding attachment to Singapore, the
future holds great promise. Whatever the situation, Singapore,
having assessed the risk and rewards, has played its
cards in the cutthroat global economic game. Now,
all that remains is the test of time to see whether
the gamble pays off.
加载中,请稍候......