Chuan Jin – logically speaking

“Even without the IRs, people will find a way to gamble if they want to gamble — like going on online gambling sites, or going to neighbouring countries,”
Chuan Jin was at a forum in Ngee Ann Polytechnic and a question thrown to him was whether the two casinos at the Integrated Resorts (IRs) have brought more social ills into the country. The above statement was his answer to the question.
 
Does this look like going with the flow? Or is it like, since they would do it, why not let them do it here, and we can control the numbers? And since people are going to Batam and Bintang to spend their CPF savings, why not convert some southern islands to be like Batam and Bintang? Stretching this kind of logic further, since people are going to take drugs, why not?
 
Can there be a better explanation for the existence of the two IRs here when some quarters of the population were against them for the social ills that they would cause? Don’t bet on it that the two IRs would be closed. Like the CECA, no chance of turning back the clock, no chance to unwind as there are legal implications and cost involved. You cannot simply strip away a multi billion dollar set up with thousands of jobs at stake even if many are foreigners, directly or indirectly.
 
When a decision is made on a difficult basis or difficult to defend premises, the more one tries to explain it away, the more ridiculous it will look. It is best to take it by the horns and tell the hard truths and be less embarrassing explaining something by using funny logic, or is it power logic at work?