Short term, it will be minimal. But what sort of global city will emerge in the long term is another matter.

The decision has run into unexpectedly strong public opposition at a time when the government is preparing for general elections.

Will the unhappiness translate into many lost votes for the ruling People’s Action Party?

From the general quieting down of the debate, it looks unlikely to become a big election issue.

One reason is that the anti-gambling voice tends to come from older and conservative Singaporeans, including the staunchly religious, the pro-family traditionalists and, of course, housewives who fear their menfolk may be led astray.

Generally, these had been the PAP’s strongest supporters and remain so today. Although they hate gambling and fear its damaging impact, few are angry enough to want to vote against the party.

It will also not be a one-way street. While some supporters will switch away from the PAP, a number of antagonists will swing to its camp in support of the promising opportunities and jobs the resorts will create.

In the next four years, as S$5bil worth of investment works itself into the system, the benefits will be felt and confidence will grow.

For now the impact may be small, but it will be significant in the longer term when the “fun” global city takes root. Not only will Singapore change, but its politics as well.

The political leaders have repeatedly talked of turning Singapore into another New York, London or Tokyo, a creative lively cosmopolitan able to attract world-class talent.

The latest to do so is its founding father Lee Kuan Yew, 81, who said he was confident that Singapore could have a vibrant economy of six to seven million people by 2030.

I believe that will happen. That’s some 25 years or five general elections away. A new generation will have grown up by then.

But Singapore cannot be a vibrant global city without a vibrant people free of today’s controls. In other words, the politics will have to change – albeit gradually.

Of late, Lee has thrown himself behind Singapore’s economic restructuring, even dismantling some of his old policies. Lifting the ban on casinos is just one.

Keenly or reluctantly, he has agreed to a little social opening up by his conservative PAP, including less censorship on films, bars, the performing arts and nightlife in general.

The civil service and half the 2.2 million workers now work a five-day week; nightclubs close at 3am, some movies and restaurants open 24 hours, and gays are given jobs in the bureaucracy.

Talk has become freer and government more responsive. In the early 80s when I was a newspaper editor, advocating safe sex to prevent AIDS was forbidden; it was “encouraging” permissiveness.

How minds have moved! While they represent a milestone, the transformation is regarded by many liberal youths as too little too late.

Lee, known for “head cracking” enemies in his younger days, has himself changed.

A university student recently lashed out at the lack of political check and balance in Singapore and called Lee “a despot” to his face, without getting even a raised eyebrow from him.

But the top-down, highly regulated system that he assembled is under increasing pressure. Younger Singaporeans want to see freer politics and a less controlled press.

Some observers see the mega casino resorts as a catalyst for a new Singapore with less political control.

Their rationale is this: For Singapore to become a thriving, creative place that Lee envisages, its politics has to loosen up to match the world’s top cities. Vibrancy has to describe the people, too.

To remain just another small modern city in Asia is one thing, but if it were to challenge the liveliness of New York or Paris, it certainly would require a less restrictive environment.

Not everyone agrees that this world greatness will necessarily bring about a change in politics. Creative hub or not, global city or not, some observers do not see the possibility of the current control on politics or the media being removed.

PAP leaders have always considered China’s economics-before-politics strategy as superior to the former Soviet Union’s chaotic push for democracy first before developing its economy.

Some cynical observers believe political controls will remain despite the larger migration of Singaporeans abroad.

“They’ll just replace them with more foreigners and life goes on,” said a lawyer.

I do not agree. Nothing remains the same for too long and Singapore is no exception. When people change, politics will follow.

Actually, top PAP leaders have themselves spoken of changes but said it would be in an evolutionary – nor revolutionary – way as the people mature. It has, however, fixed no programme or timetable for it. Lee had always feared that doing it too precipitately could result in multi-racial Singapore’s failure.

The gradual change will allow a civil society to develop in which people no longer need laws to behave. Western Europe is regarded as a general model.

For the conservatives, especially parents, too much personal liberties may spell trouble. The casino discussion has revealed how divided the society has become. It’s only one example.

As the younger set gloats over the newfound social freedoms, many heads of families are increasingly anxious when they read recent news reports about teenage students visiting brothels in Geylang or couples organising group sex in Housing Board flats.

The new-generation Singapore that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong speaks about could bring both good news and bad. The people will enjoy more resources and opportunities. But society will become more divided because there are forces pulling it in different directions.

o Seah Chiang Nee is a veteran journalist and editor of the information website littlespeck.com

                                                      Home