Lim Boon Heng 'I supported casino in 2005, bec unemployment was high'
A difficult decision
IN 2005, when Mr Lim Boon Heng backed the Cabinet's decision to allow two casinos in Singapore, unemployment was high.
That made it 'particularly difficult' for the Minister in the Prime Minister's Office to say no to the integrated resorts (IRs), even though he is personally against using gambling as an industry and a source of income for Singapore.
Mr Lim had choked up when he spoke during the April 2005 casino debate in Parliament, when he said his decision hinged on the 35,000 jobs the IRs would create.
But unemployment is no longer a problem today - and the potential social costs of gambling on families continue to weigh heavily on Mr Lim.
The casinos have only been around for a year, yet there are already accounts of people who have blown fortunes, Mr Lim said in response to reporters' questions: 'If it is people who have a lot of money, I would not worry too much, but if it has also affected families, then I think it's not good for Singapore.'
He also explained why it was not a good idea to make public the debates on sensitive matters, including industrial relations, which he oversaw as labour chief for 13 years.
'If you want to come to a rational solution or good compromise, then you want to do it so that no party loses face. The trouble is, if you have a public debate on some matters that can be very sensitive, somebody would have to lose face,' he said.
The PAP's approach of bringing in people from different backgrounds and with strong opinions and good minds, and engaging in an internal process of debate, 'would allow us to get the best policies for Singapore', he said.
Yet, Mr Lim also conceded that in a small number of cases, as with the casinos, he continued to question the final decision taken by Cabinet.
'Life is not perfect... we have to accept that there are certain things that when we decide as a Cabinet, we have to take collective responsibility. So it's a price that we all have to pay,' he said.
A difficult decision
IN 2005, when Mr Lim Boon Heng backed the Cabinet's decision to allow two casinos in Singapore, unemployment was high.
That made it 'particularly difficult' for the Minister in the Prime Minister's Office to say no to the integrated resorts (IRs), even though he is personally against using gambling as an industry and a source of income for Singapore.
Mr Lim had choked up when he spoke during the April 2005 casino debate in Parliament, when he said his decision hinged on the 35,000 jobs the IRs would create.
But unemployment is no longer a problem today - and the potential social costs of gambling on families continue to weigh heavily on Mr Lim.
The casinos have only been around for a year, yet there are already accounts of people who have blown fortunes, Mr Lim said in response to reporters' questions: 'If it is people who have a lot of money, I would not worry too much, but if it has also affected families, then I think it's not good for Singapore.'
He also explained why it was not a good idea to make public the debates on sensitive matters, including industrial relations, which he oversaw as labour chief for 13 years.
'If you want to come to a rational solution or good compromise, then you want to do it so that no party loses face. The trouble is, if you have a public debate on some matters that can be very sensitive, somebody would have to lose face,' he said.
The PAP's approach of bringing in people from different backgrounds and with strong opinions and good minds, and engaging in an internal process of debate, 'would allow us to get the best policies for Singapore', he said.
Yet, Mr Lim also conceded that in a small number of cases, as with the casinos, he continued to question the final decision taken by Cabinet.
'Life is not perfect... we have to accept that there are certain things that when we decide as a Cabinet, we have to take collective responsibility. So it's a price that we all have to pay,' he said.
Perhaps he is talented in his own way and could have risen far in his original NOL posting but the point is that money-wise he is still overpaid for the "little" he did; factoring his perks, pension, bonuses etc. Finally, having read what you said about him rising up the NOL ranks through his own merits, perhaps I've been too harsh on him! He deserved a more senior position than "junior executive."
