http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_484043.html
http://www.raterenterprise.com/GGS/images/GGS/jackpot.jpgQuote:
Jan 30, 2010
Taxpayers should not fund the policing of casinos
I REFER to Thursday's report, 'Special training for police unit fighting casino crime'.
I am puzzled as to why the Singapore Police Force is setting up a unit, funded by taxpayers, to investigate crimes and fraudulent gambling in the casinos in the integrated resorts. The police should preserve law and order, and enforce the property rights of common citizens. Taxpayers' money is used to fund the force because all citizens stand to benefit from law, order and property rights.
A police force in any country is funded by taxpayers' money because the public at large stands to gain more than any individual.
However, the only beneficiaries from the prevention of fraud in casinos are the casino operators, and there are no visible spillover benefits to general law enforcement from police officers being trained to detect fraudsters in casinos, because the casinos are a specialised setting.
If the police did not have a casino crime unit, the only losers would be the casinos themselves, and being profit-seeking organisations, they would naturally pay for detection of such fraud, such as by training their own investigators to detect fraudulent gambling.
In other words, enforcement of honest behaviour in casinos is not a public good, from an economic point of view, and the casinos can pay for it because they are the only ones who stand to gain from preventing fraud. Public funds are being used unfairly to pay for the protection of private interests of the profit-seeking casinos. This injustice is exacerbated by the fact that casinos typically earn outrageous profits, and it is only right that they pay to protect their own interests.
Tan Jiaqi
Comments:
As far as I am concerned, taxpayers should not fund the policing of casinos as Ms tan suggests. She observes the function of the police very clearly, public benefits, which is why it is funded by taxpayers. Besides, I don`t think that she is opposing the investigation. In fact, Ms. Tan affirms that proper investigation is a necessity, not by the police, but the casino operators themselves. After all, they are making benefits all the time. In western countries, the casinos are under surveillance by the trained crew of their own or hired. Not only should the casino operators take good care of themselves, but also it is more efficient and convenient to protect the order of casinos with their own crew.
However, in spite of what Ms. Tan states, I would like to propose opposition since this implementation by the government is still reasonable. This is the very beginning for setting up casinos in Singapore, which we all know that it is actually for attracting more tourists. Imagine that if the casinos here are notorious for the fraudulence, how much will they be expected as places of interest? How much can they be expected? Losing credits will be fatal for places like casinos and bankrupting is just a matter of time if it ever happens. In order to protect the world recognition, it is understandable that the government should share the responsibilities. Moreover, as for Singaporean citizens, they have the right to have fun in the casinos, but whether they will enjoy the right is the matter of their own. At this point, the government should of course protect this public right and we can see that the effort is being made. Therefore, I understand this policy though do not really agree with it.
Last week’s reflection: Draco, Catherine and Yvonne
I think you have stated your point of view quite clearly and the ideas are quite balanced. Since the forum was talking about whether the taxpayers should fund the policing of casinos, you have dissussed further and more deeply on this point. In this sense, I think your ideas and reasons are resonable and logically.
回复删除However, if we focus on the policing of casinos itself, in my opinion, the significance of its funding by government is more important than the money thing. Either the government or the casinos in charge aims at proventing the casinos from crime. Compared with the casinos themselves, I think the government is more fit at taking this responsibility. On the one hand, the casinos also need to be supervised. It must be ensured that they operate legally and properly. This is an impoetant reason why the goverment wants to manage the casinos. On the other hand, though the casinos are able to manage themselves, they may not have the ability of dealing with the problems related to casino crime which can have bad effects on the sociaty. For instance, the casinos may not be able to solve the problem of gambling addiction among certain people in the sociaty. They may also not be able to deal with the crime happened outside the casinos but caused by the crime inside the casinos such as revenge among gamblers. You also have mentioned other reasons for the government to take the responsibility in your reflection. From my point of view, it may be more practicle for the government to manage the casinos.
I chose the same forum to comment. I also do not support the idea that the taxpayers pay for the fund of the casinos. On one hand, the casinos belongs to personal properties and so the security has nothing to do with the public. That is to say, taxpayers do not have the duty to support the gambling. On the other hand, the casinos will definately bring social problems, such as fraud. Since the problem is brought by the casinos themselve, it is needless to say that they should cope with the negative sides themself. The owners of the casinos should mind their own business.
回复删除--Helen