Singapore's casino debate a case of real engagement

Geh Min, The Straits Times, Asia News Network/Singapore

There are two casino debates: One on whether to have a casino, and the other on whether there was genuine public consultation on the issue. For many Singaporeans, myself included, the "Other Casino Debate" was always the more interesting of the two.

Some cynics maintain the answer to the two questions came in tandem, that "yes" to a casino meant "no" to real public consultation. But most people would perceive this view as far too simplistic and so the questions remain.

Was there genuine public consultation or was it just a public relations exercise?

How much did public opinion influence the Cabinet decision?

Will this be the model for future public consultation?

It would be helpful here to take a step back to look at the state of public consultation before the casino debate; in particular, to compare it with that other milestone of public consultation, Chek Jawa.

Nature lovers had sought to preserve Chek Jawa from reclamation plans that were being drawn up by the National Development Ministry.

Many parallels can be drawn between the two debates.

Both were "hot topics" that generated tremendous public interest and strong civil activism.

Debates on both took place over a period of about a year before a Cabinet decision was made.

Both were cited by policy- makers as examples of a consultative government.

But the Chek Jawa issue was initiated by civil society; the casino debate was initiated by the government.

Chek Jawa was held up as an example of public consultation only after its reprieve; the casino debate was named a public consultation exercise from the onset.

Policy deliberations were totally closed-door affairs in the Chek Jawa episode, thus making the unexpected Cabinet announcement about preserving it a dramatic denouement.

In contrast, everyone knew beforehand that a Cabinet decision on the casino issue was pending.

The most significant difference, however, is the way opinions were polarised. In Chek Jawa, there was a clear demarcation between members of the public and civil society who were hoping for its survival, and policymakers who had slated it for land reclamation.

The government, in its dramatic announcement of a last-minute reprieve, created a win-win solution which reflected well on all parties involved and, of course, pleased everyone.

The casino debate differs fundamentally from Chek Jawa in that the polarisations were within, not between, groups.

Therefore, it would have been impossible to reach a decision that would have pleased everyone or even a large majority. There could not be a clear win-win solution.

It appears to me that the government consulted people on the casino issue because it genuinely wanted their views.

What else could account for a public consultation exercise that was sure to lead to large numbers being disappointed once a decision had to be made?

But the answer to the key question as to how much weight public opinion was given in the final decision is something we will probably never know.

Of course, holding a referendum would have resolved the problem of polarisation and also shown sceptics that the government was truly consultative.

But would a referendum have been a good solution from society's point of view? Would it really have given the public the best means to give constructive feedback and make a difference?

I think not. A referendum would have been a quick fix; an easy way out for both government and people. By resorting to a referendum, we would have lost all the nuances and shades of opinion, as well as the important details of informed feedback.

We would have lost the essential third dimension of a constructive dialogue by replacing it with a simple yes/no equation.

A referendum has its place in public consultation but, in this debate, it would have been the semblance, rather than the substance, of a true public consultation.

The sine qua non of true engagement between two parties is mutual respect and trust.

Respect does not always entail doing what the other party wishes and the reverse also holds true.

Obedience to demands does not always imply respect; sometimes the opposite. Giving way to the demands of an obstreperous infant is a case in point.

The degree and quality of respect accorded to public opinion in the casino debate is perhaps best encapsulated in Minister in the Prime Minister's Office and Second National Development Minister Lim Swee Say's moving allegory on the conjoined twins, elder brother Economy and younger sister Society, who had two heads but shared a heart.

Obviously, the government identifies itself with Economy, though one must hasten to add that this is a responsible and caring big brother and not the Big Brother in the Orwellian sense.

It has taken great care in listening to Society and even greater pains in explaining its stand. In that sense, it has acknowledged that Society is mature and rational enough to be reasoned with.

Society, on her part, has proven herself in this debate to be not just mature and rational, but also capable of independent thought and constructive suggestions.

When and whether Society can ever attain an equal status is something that only the future can determine. But this does not mean we should wait passively for events to unfold, or for the government to take the initiative.

If the casino consultation is merely a modus operandi or blueprint for future public consultation, as suggested by writer Catherine Lim, then the public is justified in feeling disenchanted and disengaged.

However, I see no compelling reason for such pessimism.

As an isolated case of public consultation, it does not have the dramatic appeal of Chek Jawa; but against the backdrop of expanding consultation, characterised by the public's growing desire to see the big picture and the government's increasing willingness to share it, we have good reason to view this as a milestone towards a closer and more equal engagement.

The writer is a Nominated MP who is president of the Nature Society (Singapore).