Saturday, March 05, 2005

Nanyang Girls' High students join in on casino debate

Nanyang Girls' High students join in on casino debate
By Cheryl Fox, Channel NewsAsia

SINGAPORE: You're never too young to join in on the casino debate, and that's what some students from Nanyang Girls' High School have been doing.

It started out as a class assignment responding to the "for and against casino" arguments in MediaCorp's TODAY newspaper.

The students, a group of 15-year-olds, obviously felt strong enough about the casino issue to have written in to the TODAY newspaper.

What are their opinions and why they feel the way they feel?

"Personally I am against because I don't see any obvious benefits that would outweigh the disadvantages of actually having a casino in Singapore," student Sara Adam Ang told Channel NewsAsia's Cheryl Fox who visited Nanyang Girls' High School.

"Unless there is really an urgent need for a casino to be built, we shouldn't introduce the vices that would come along with the casino."
said Michelle Lim, another student of Nanyang Girls' High School.

The girls were mostly against having a casino in Singapore, saying that gambling was a social evil.

They felt the government has a duty to protect people who might be vulnerable to a gambling addiction.

But like most of Singapore, there were also differences in opinion among the girls.

"I just wish to think that we are a country that is pampered quite a lot, we are spoon fed, we are monitored quite closely. I think this is one of the few times that we should take a leap of faith....not everyone who likes entertainment is going to be addicted," student Ng Chu Ting told Cheryl Fox.

"For the longest time, we are known to be a very strict country, kind of upright. We don't have things like guns, casinos. Suddenly, bring a casino into the picture, it changes the country's image," said student Maria Kang.

"There are negative effects but if we don't take risks, no pain no gain," said Chu Ting.

"Maybe we should take risks to find out. But is a casino too big a risk? Maybe, not taking a casino is a risk as well. By not having a casino, we are potentially losing the benefits that a casino might bring. That itself a risk too. But maybe that's the risk that we should take," said Sara.

Whatever their views, the girls agreed that making their voices heard was the most important thing. - CNA
=============================================

Lol...Don't think there's any point at all if the voices heard weren't heeded, unless....

Looks like CNA has an interesting way of reporting interviews.

1 comment:

Chen Xinzhan said...

hm...
if building a casino is a risk and not building is also a risk then how???

gov encouragin ppl to be less risk adverse... so to build or not to build??? since both r risky.

should the gov be protectin us??? from everything??? or they wanna see which big spenders haf been throwing millions outside n tax them???

with the obvious social ills associated with it and veri obvious economical benifits. should we really earn these SIN$. *haha pun intented...*

who knows??? the casino might really bring in money. singaporeans might haf the will to not give into temptation. or the casino might be an(other) white elephant which onli locals feed with their salaries.

hm... nobody knows... much less these kids not pass their puberty. *no offence to them but there is more to life then life*

*one of my few more deep comments*
meow...