After a tiresome year-long debate that tore up such ideological sacred cows as disallowing state-sanctioned gambling, Singapore will have a casino after all - and not just one but two, according to officialdom.

Although the decision must have been a painful and exhausting one, the intense debate behind the proposal had more to do with state ideology than spicing up the humdrum pace of life.

A casino, it is believed, is a certain revenue spinner.

As debate progressed, what became curiously clear was that of all the known vices associated with gambling, 'fun' - or what it was supposed to engender - became a collateral reason for the casino. It came to be assumed that a balance could be struck in an otherwise clinical state like Singapore.

A few reasons stand out as possible reasons for the move.

The Old World - in other words, the world that existed before the arrival of India and China and which allowed the island-republic to enjoy spectacular economic growth - is no longer around.

The two ancient civilisations are changing global dynamics and stealing the economic limelight in such a way that affairs of state are not quite the same in Singapore.

Indeed, with their giant economies and unbelievably competitive market-places, is it any wonder that traditional businesses that were traditionally poised to enter Singapore now automatically detour and head for Beijing or New Delhi?

At the rate these two nations are gobbling up the global share of foreign direct investment, is it also any wonder that retrenchments - numbering some 70,000 - could result in the republic?

Data emerging from the latest first-half economic forecasts have not been encouraging, with economic growth expected to slow down in the first half of this year, worsening the already tenuous climate.

It must have been a very dire situation, one brought on by the necessities of survival, the factoring in of intense external competition, and need to defuse the time-bomb of unemployment of 3.5 percent of the workforce.

Although the decision to build a casino was presumably made even before any debate, the issue was significant in that it was the single most decisive vote the nation has seen since the idea to moot National Service in 1967.

Economic imperatives

Although concerns over a casino vary, the single largest worry is over the social damage it may cause to the one resource the nation has - its people.

Despite denials of any such potential, niggling fears persist among religious groups and social activists, who see it as an attempt to foist an economically desperate move at the expense of social cohesion.

However, nothing beats saying that a casino will actually be a boon to an economy gasping for breath.

It is estimated that some S$2 billion will flow into state coffers once the casino begins operations. If combined with other ancillary businesses that support a gaming infrastructure, this would generate even greater wealth.

This would also translate into some 40,000 new jobs, which indeed is an envious target. And given that many Singaporeans patronise casinos in Southeast Asia, money that goes to those nations, the reasoning goes, will then remain in the republic and add to its wealth.

So the dice is cast. Come 2009, Singapore will tell casino operators in Southeast Asia that her gamblers are staying home and giving the casinos in Genting Highlands and Macau a miss. If that means these outlets have to lose potentially lucrative spin-offs, it is just too bad.

Charity begins at home, it is said. If keeping a nation's money can go the distance to helping her people, Singapore's decision is all about doing what nations always do - take care of its interest before venturing out to help someone else.

The casino is a statement of what its interest is all about.

JAYA PRAKASH lectures in journalism in Singapore.