Neoliberalism and the regulation of consumers: legalizing casinos in

Singapore
Lionel Wee

Department of English Language and Literature, National University of Singapore, Block AS 5, 7 Arts Link,
Singapore, 117570, Singapore
Singapores recent decision to legalize casinos raises questions such as the following: (i) How
does the state address the relationship between the neoliberal values that rationalize the
legalization of casinos, on the one hand, and the more locally established ideologies of
pragmatism, communitarianism, and multiracialism, on the other? (ii) And since the state
wants to encourage gambling among foreigners but not locals, how does it employ techniques
of governing such as the demarcation of zones and subject categories to regulate
gambling? To answer these questions, this paper analyzes a major speech by the prime
minister where he discusses the decision to legalize casinos. By focussing on the stances
adopted in the speech, the paper shows how the state attempts to allocate responsibility for
the various potential implications of legalizing casinos.
Keywords: citizen; consumer; government; neoliberalism; stance
1. Introduction
Neoliberalism is a political and economic doctrine which holds that the social good will be
maximized by maximizing the reach and frequency of market transactions, and it seeks to
bring all human action into the domain of the market (Harvey, 2005, p. 3). The spread of
neoliberalism, however, has raised interesting questions about its insertion into different
socio-cultural milieus, particularly the issue of how any resulting tensions might be resolved.
In this regard, Ongs (2006) thesis of neoliberalism as exception asserts that even in countries
where neoliberalism is not the general characteristic of technologies of governing, there may
nevertheless be sites of transformation where market-driven calculations are being introduced
in the management of populations and the administration of special spaces (2006, pp. 34).
While such sites may refer to zones that are territorially demarcated, they can also refer to
more abstract subject categories involving specic kinds of persons (e.g. citizen, foreigner,
and investor). The establishment of such sites, where neoliberal values are actively encouraged
and cultivated by the state, is a governing strategy for managing the potential tensions that might
arise as neoliberal values come into contact with other values. In short, the strategic signicance
of these sites lies in their status as political exceptions that permit sovereign practices and sub-
jectifying techniques that deviate from the established norms [since] (n)eoliberal forms articu-
lating East Asian milieus are often in tension with local cultural sensibilities and national
identity (Ong, 2006, p. 12, italics added).
For example, in China, the establishment of Special Economic Zones and Special Adminis-
tration Regions serves to mark out identiable locales where special taxation, investment
schemes, and a higher degree of political autonomy are allowed to hold sway. This move is
ISSN 1740-5904 print/ISSN 1740-5912 online
# 2011 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2011.632137
http://www.tandfonline.com

Email: ellweeha@nus.edu.sg
Critical Discourse Studies
Vol. 9, No. 1, February 2012, 1527
legislated by Article 1 of the Regulations on Special Economic Zones, which proclaims that
(quoted in Ong, 2006, p. 105):
. . . the special zones shall encourage foreign citizens, overseas Chinese and compatriots from Hong
Kong and Macao and their companies and enterprises (hereafter referred to as investors) to set up
factories and establish enterprises and other undertakings, with their own investment or in joint ven-
tures with our side, and shall, in accordance with the law, protect their assets, the prots due them
and their other lawful rights and interests.
And in Singapore, subject categories, such as citizens and foreign talent, constitute a signi-
cant part of the ongoing political discourse between the state and the populace. In this discourse,
the state considers foreign talent critical to Singapores economic growth because it is seen as
having the knowledge and expertise necessary for developing the nancial and biomedical
industries, among others. Many citizens, however, are concerned that the states desire to
bring in foreign talent may lead it to bestow privileges on these foreigners that undermine
the locals sense of worth. Consequently, a major issue of contention surrounds the kinds of
rights and responsibilities that distinguish citizens from non-citizens (Ong, 2006, p. 193):
The dependence on foreign actors has split homeland and dwelling . . . Locals have begun to reect
on what it means to be a citizen, because expatriates seem to have citizenship status, to be cajoled
into becoming citizens even when reluctant to do so. Expatriates are now referred to as citizens
without local roots, while those who are technically citizens are beginning to feel unrooted.
Though Ongs observations are well taken, it should be noted that her discussion has tended to
focus on the states regulation of producers rather than consumers. That is, both the setting up
of special zones in China and the attempt to attract foreign talent to Singapore are intended to
bring in individuals and companies with the relevant expertise or nancial capital to create new
employment opportunities and drive economic growth. Ongs focus on producers raises the
question of how techniques of governing might be applied by the state to regulate consumer
activity. This question is interesting because consumers, unlike producers, are generally encour-
aged to be undisciplined since their capacity for consumption depends on them being constantly
exposed to new temptations in order to be kept in a state of constantly seething, never wilting
excitation and, indeed, in a state of suspicion and disaffection (Bauman, 2005, p. 26). As
Abercrombie (1991, p. 173, italics added) points out:
Producers, and regimes of production are associated with the forces of rationalization and order;
the activities of production cannot be conducted without high levels of organization. Consumption,
on the other hand, especially modern (or post-modern) consumption, is associated with undisciplined
play and disorder; it does not require organization and may, indeed, actively deny it. More
institutionally, any increase in the importance of consumption and consumers involves a diffusion
of authority . . . it is a change from social organization dominated by a relatively small and well-
structured group of producers to one consisting of a more diffuse and much larger assembly of
consumers.
This is not to suggest that establishing special zones and identifying subject categories are not
relevant as techniques of governing. But locales such as malls, museums, or theme parks are
typically intended to be maximally inclusive, drawing in as many consumers as possible,
rather than controlled and exclusive zones of neoliberal exception.
1
And consumer-based cat-
egories such as shopper, diner, or tourist are only temporarily inhabited by individuals in
contrast with producer-based categories such as foreign talent, investor, or migrant
worker, which are attached to specic individuals in a more sustained or durable fashion.
The latter, as a consequence, can become the basis for regulatory activities that are within the
control of the state, such as the allocation of tax benets or work permits. The general point
is that the state can exert greater control over the criteria for ascribing producer subject
categories (e.g. who counts as a foreign talent or investor). In contrast, consumer subject
16 L. Wee
categories are more often than not self-selected by individuals in a more ephemeral and ad hoc
fashion, depending on the particularities of their tastes and the extent of their disposable income
at a given point in time.
2. Pragmatism, multiracialism and communitarianism, and a synopsis of gambling
in Singapore
Bearing in mind the foregoing, this paper explores what happens when a state attempts to intro-
duce a particular entertainment industry that it knows could well lead to a number of social pro-
blems, as in Singapores decision to legalize the operation of casino resorts, also known as
integrated resorts.
We need to rst appreciate that the legitimization of state policies in Singapore is usually
grounded in a variety of ideologies such as communitarianism, multiracialism, and pragmatism
(Benjamin, 1976; Chua, 1995; Pennycook, 1994). Communitarianism emphasizes the prioritiz-
ing of collective interests (the family, the community, or the country) over those of the individ-
ual; multiracialism refers to the position that in order to maintain harmony among Singapores
ethnically diverse population, there must be respect and equal treatment accorded to each ethnic
group; and pragmatism stresses that policy choices must be rationalized by how they can con-
tribute to strengthening the countrys economic competitiveness.
The hegemonic status enjoyed by these ideologies is such that the citizenry has been known
to reject policy initiatives that are perceived as being inconsistent with their normative expec-
tations (Bokhorst-Heng & Wee, 2007). The inuence of these ideologies can also be seen in
the 1990s when the state attempted to articulate a set of Shared Values that are supposed to
be representative of Singaporean society (1). While these Shared Values have no legal
status, they do have institutional and ideological signicance, forcing those who appear to
reject these values to be on the defensive (Chua, 1995, p. 33).
(1)
(a) Nation before community and society above self.
(b) Family as the basic unit of society.
(c) Community support and respect for the individual.
(d) Consensus, not conict.
(e) Racial and religious harmony.
Observe that while communitarianism and multiracialism are reected (1a, b, e), pragmatism
appears to be absent. The reason for this is as follows: Pragmatism is an operational metadis-
course: it prioritizes those values and policy options that are most conducive to economic
growth. The other two are substantive discourses that indicate the content of what Singaporeans
are expected to value. Thus, even communitarianism and multiracialism are, ultimately, them-
selves rationalized on pragmatic grounds: prioritizing the community over the self and maintain-
ing ethnic harmony are essential for the countrys continued economic wellbeing. Even (1d) has
sometimes been justied on the grounds that conict should be avoided because it leads to
political instability and may drive away foreign investment.
While the Shared Values as an institutionalized political project is nowadays seldom
invoked by the state, the specic contents in (1) are still relevant. Because of this, the states
decision to legalize casinos has been described as nothing less than a cultural sea-change
(Smale, 2004). This is because, up until 2004, when the state announced that it was considering
legalizing the operation of casinos and 2006 when the Casino Control Act was enacted, casinos
were illegal in Singapore. Even though other forms of gambling were allowed, these were tightly
controlled by the state. For example, the Singapore Turf Club has specialized in horse racing
Critical Discourse Studies 17
since it was rst set up in 1842 (as the Singapore Sporting Club). In 1988, the state created the
Singapore Totalisator Board to take over racing and 4-D operations from the Singapore Turf
Club. In addition to the Turf Club, there is Singapore Pools, a lottery operator which covers a
wider range of gambling activities, including betting on soccer and motor racing. Singapore
Pools was incorporated by the state in 1968 in order to curb illegal gambling. In 2004, it
became a subsidiary of the Totalisator Board.
Lotteries and betting are tolerated by the state because they are largely individual, private,
and bounded acts of gambling: an individual pays a specic amount to buy a lottery ticket or
place a bet, and then waits for the outcome. Thus, the website of Singapore Pools contains
the following advisory (2), where it stresses that gambling should be just a little utter and
not adversely affect your nances or lifestyle.
(2)
Responsible Gaming:
Singapore Pools takes a strong Play Responsibly stand. We wish our customers to have some fun
playing our games. We also wish it is just a little utter [sic]. It should not adversely affect your
nances or lifestyle. Our game rules state that no person under the age of 18 years shall be
allowed to purchase a ticket or claim any prize.
In contrast, the states reluctance to legalize casinos stems mainly from the fact that these are
seen as encouraging gambling on a much larger scale. Gambling in a casino is a social activity
where groups of gamblers come together for a period of time that is in principle open-ended
(since the casinos are open 24 h a day). And because casinos are in the business of making
money, they exist not merely to facilitate a utter but are designed to help the gambler
forget about the world outside. The decor and availability of alcohol are geared toward heigh-
tening the sense of excitement. Finally, casinos also bring with them the increased risk of money
laundering and illegal money lending.
All this makes the legalizing of casinos particularly controversial. As Chong (2006, p. 271)
points out:
The issue stirred up strong views from conservative groups, religious organizations, and economic
pragmatists alike, and it is hard to think of another national issue that has generated the same amount
of pubic interest and participation. Eventually the public debate congealed into a simplistic contest
between the conservative moralists and economic pragmatists with the former associated with soft-
ness and dogmatism, and the latter with hard-headed rationalism.
The states rationale for ultimately deciding to legalize casino resorts, however, is an economic
one, conrming for especially for those members of the public who held anti-casino views that
the government placed greater importance on economic opportunities than on public sentiment
(Chong, 2006, p. 272). According to the state, such resorts are a necessity if Singapore is to
sustain its economic competitiveness and enhance its reputation as a cosmopolitan city that is
attractive to the global community. As the Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, put it, If gambling
is one of the things [tourists] want to do, then maybe we should allow them to do that, nd some
way to do that, and as a result of that over 10 years double the [tourist] trafc volume. I think we
should think about it (Smale, 2004).
These controversies mean that the state has to address the relationship between the neoliberal
values that rationalize the legalization of casino resorts, on the one hand, and the more locally
entrenched ideologies of pragmatism, communitarianism, and multiracialism that have long
been used to warn Singaporeans against the dangers of gambling, on the other. That is, once
the state has decided to legalize casinos, it needs to adopt a set of stances that are designed to
avoid charges that it has abandoned its commitment to the values just mentioned. We now
turn to an examination of these stances.
18 L. Wee
3. The relevance of stance
Because gambling is a consumer-oriented activity, this means that in addition to tourists, locals,
too, can be expected to patronize the casinos. But gambling is associated with a number of social
problems, such as gambling addiction and bankruptcy, which can also have potentially serious
repercussions on the stability of a gamblers family unit. The state therefore needs to nd a way
of making sure that it is not seen as contributing to the rise in gambling-related problems. Thus,
even as the state willingly takes responsibility for licensing the operation of casinos and credit
for any resulting economic growth or rise in employment, it also has to avoid being accused of
encouraging Singaporeans to gamble.
The Singapore situation therefore raises questions such as the following:
(i) How does the state address the relationships between neoliberalism and the locally
established ideologies?
(ii) How does the state employ zoning techniques and subject categories in order to regulate
gambling, especially since it wants to encourage gambling among foreigners but not
locals?
To provide the empirical grounding for addressing these questions, I analyze excerpts from a
major speech by Lee Hsien Loong: the Ministerial Statement on the Proposal to Develop
Integrated Resorts (Singapore Government Press Release, dated 18 April 2005). This speech
is particularly relevant because, as the following extract from the speech shows, Lees goal is
precisely to explain the rationale behind the states decision to legalize casinos, and attend to
concerns about the social problems arising from gambling.
(3)
Today, I will explain how the Cabinet reached this decision, and the key considerations that caused
us to change our longstanding policy not to allow casinos in Singapore. I also want to acknowledge
the concerns of those who oppose or have expressed reservations about an IR [integrated resort], and
explain how we propose to limit the negative impact of the casinos.
In analyzing the speech, I focus on the stances adopted by the Prime Minister. Du Bois (2007,
p. 163, quoted in Johnstone, 2009, p. 31) denes stance as a public act by a social actor,
achieved dialogically through overt communicative means, of simultaneously evaluating objec-
tions, positioning subjects (the self and others), and aligning with other subjects, with respect to
any salient dimension of the sociocultural eld. Moreover, any stance comprises three key
aspects of social life: act, responsibility and value (Du Bois, 2007, p. 173). Stance is therefore
a public communicative act that carries social consequences, stance involves accountability or
ownership toward what is being communicated, and stance is about something of normative sig-
nicance. This makes a focus on stance ideal for understanding how the state attempts to allocate
responsibility for the various potential implications of legalizing casinos.
We will see that as Lee moves through different parts of his speech from explaining why
the state has decided to legalize casinos to describing what steps the state is taking to handle any
concomitant social problems the stancetaker shifts from a personal I to an all encompassing
We that includes both the state and citizens to a less encompassing We that distinguishes the
state from citizens. As Jaffe (2009, p. 1) points out, Stancetaking taking up a position with
respect to the form or the content of ones utterance is central because speaker positionality
is built into the act of communication. So, even in those parts of Lees speech where no explicit
stancetaker is represented, the concept of stance is nevertheless still relevant. It is simply imposs-
ible to communicate without taking up some kind of a stance.
As regards techniques of governing, we will see from Lees speech how the state attempts to
de-emphasize the specicity of casinos by framing them as zones that are in fact family-friendly
Critical Discourse Studies 19
in nature. And where the specic activity of gambling is concerned, we will see that the state
attempts to tie the possibility of participating in this activity to more durable subject categories,
such as foreigners, citizen, and permanent resident.
4. Responding to market competition
In this section, we examine how the state attempts to assure Singaporeans that the legalization
of casinos is consistent with pragmatism, leaving a discussion of multiracialism and commu-
nitarianism for later. We rst observe that pragmatism and neoliberalism are generally
compatible with each other, and so it is not surprising that the states rationale for legalizing
casinos draws upon both these discourses. Recall that pragmatism emphasizes the importance
of continuous economic growth such that it is the singular criterion for initiating and
assessing all government activities, in terms of how an act will aid or retard this growth
(Chua, 1995, p. 68). Pragmatism also contains a high degree of contextual-specicity, in
that the state is able to argue against the constraints of general principles and instead for
the need to respond selectively to market opportunities as and when these arise (Chua,
1995, p. 69):
Since all regions of social life are open to state administrative intervention, selective interventions in
a particular region are determined entirely in terms of the economic growth picture at a specic point
in time. The justication for intervention is always contextual and never based on principles of pol-
itical philosophy.
Neoliberalism provides a specic interpretation to pragmatism by asserting that institutions and
individuals perform their best within the demands of the free market economy (Harvey, 2005),
and emphasizing the ability to optimize choices, efciency, and competitiveness in turbulent
market conditions (Ong, 2006, p. 6). The result is a consumer society (Du Gay, 1996,
p. 76; Rose, 1990, p. 102), where choices exercised by sovereign consumers exert a high
degree of control over what is produced (Keat, 1991a, pp. 67; see also Corner & Harvey,
1991, p. 11; Keat, 1991b, p. 227). Accordingly, (Bauman, 2005, p. 26):
They [the consumers: Author] are the judges, the critics and the choosers. They can, after all, refuse
their allegiance to any one of the innite choices on display except the choice of choosing between
them, that is.
The combination of pragmatism and neoliberalism has been used by the state to argue that the
legalizing of casinos is a contextually specic response to consumer demand, in this case,
demand from tourists, and it has nothing to do with any demand from locals.
Thus, consider the following statements from the Prime Ministers speech. He begins by
making clear that he was originally himself opposed to the legalization of casinos and had
been for many years (4). This serves to frame the current move to legalize casinos as a decision
that was reluctantly arrived at only after much serious thought and deliberation.
(4)
When the idea of an IR was rst mooted, my sympathies were with those who opposed it. The Gov-
ernments policy for many years had been not to have a casino, and we had repeatedly turned down
proposals to open one.
He then goes on to elaborate on the factors that have led him to reconsider his position, giving
particular attention to how other cities are already reinventing themselves. Note that there is no
explicit stancetaker present in (5). There is simply a series of declaratives with cities as subjects
that are not mitigated by any hedging (New York City has . . ., Paris is . . ., Hong Kong is
. . .). The effect of these declaratives is to present the developments involving other cities as
unadulterated and unavoidable facts.
20 L. Wee
(5)
. . . cities all round the world are reinventing themselves.
New York City has been undergoing a renewal . . .
Paris is also getting a shake-up, even though it attracts 25 million tourists a year, 3 times as many as
Singapore . . .
London too is getting a face-lift . . .
In Asia, Shanghai is full of drive and energy. Hong Kong will open its
Disneyland very soon, and is planning a new cultural centre at West Kowloon that is seven times the
size of the Esplanade. Hong Kong is talking about building a casino on Lantau, to compete with
Macao.
Singapore is therefore competing with other cities to attract tourists. At this point, Lees speech
now contains an explicit stancetaker, the all-inclusive we (6). This serves to indicate that tough
choices need to be made not just by him personally, but by the state and Singaporeans as a whole,
in order to ensure the countrys continued economic prosperity. Failure to make the right choices
will affect everyone (If we do not change . . ., If we become a backwater . . .). The need to
make these difcult decisions is conveyed via strong deontic modality (We cannot stand
still, We cannot afford that . . ., We need to do many things . . .).
(6)
We cannot stand still. The whole region is on the move. If we do not change, where will we be in 20
years time? Losing our appeal to tourists is the lesser problem. But if we become a backwater, just
one of many ordinary cities in Asia, instead of being a cosmopolitan hub of the region, then many
good jobs will be lost, and all Singaporeans will suffer. We cannot afford that . . .
We need to do many things to become a global city.
This is why the state is prepared to reconsider its ban on casinos: the casino legalization is part of
Singapores aim to be a global city. But this is a matter of urgency, since hesitation will lead to
the loss of competitive advantage (7). This need to act quickly is conveyed by the use of strong
epistemic modality (. . . the best proposal . . . will most likely go somewhere else . . ., Then we
will be forced to play catch up . . ..).
(7)
By acting now, we seize a window of opportunity to get ahead of our competitors. If we say no, the
best proposals for the IR, together with the investments and the jobs, will most likely go somewhere
else in the region. Then we will be forced to play catch up, and be in a much weaker position.
Taken together, (47) make clear that legalizing casinos is a decision not lightly taken. The
stances conveyed in the specic extracts from hard-nosed decision-making to market-savvy
entrepreneurialism show how Lee is able to dovetail neoliberalism with pragmatism. He pre-
sents the decision as necessary if the country is to continue competing with other cities in attract-
ing tourists. This is ideology of neoliberalismat work, where a social actor in this case, the state
and citizens of Singapore (recall the inclusive We) is presented as competing for its share of
the tourist market. The actor most able to quickly adapt and respond to consumer demands wins.
The argument is also pragmatic because the basis for the move is purely economic, a thriving
tourism industry can help to make sure that jobs and investments continue to come to Singapore.
To summarize, we have seen that as the speech moves toward describing the acceptance of
casinos, the stance adopted by Lee gradually broadens. The initial opposition to casinos is
recounted by the adoption of a personal stance in (my sympathies) (4). But when discussing
the factors that have impelled the state to reconsider its ban, the stance is more inclusive, as
in (67) (We cannot stand still, We need to do many things to become a global city). This
Critical Discourse Studies 21
progressive broadening of stance allows Lee to gradually invite his audience to share in the
responsibility for the decision to legalize casinos.
5. Addressing religious concerns
Lee also needs to show that this decision will not pose serious problems for the society at large.
In particular, he has to reconcile the decision to legalize casinos with some opposition that has
been expressed by the various ethnic and religious communities, which effectively means that he
has to address the relationship between neoliberalism and multiracialism.
According to Hill and Lian (1995, p. 5), multiracialism in Singapore is subsumed within a
political discourse which underscored economic development, competition and the meritocratic
principle. As a result, the state aims to designate equality of opportunity in the public domain
and the practice of multiculturalism in the private domain so that ethnic groups do not have
political or economic signicance; they only enjoy cultural rights (Hill & Lian, 1995,
p. 101; citing Rex, 1986).
The following extracts bear out Hill and Lians observations. In (8), Lee once again adopts a
personal stance to express his respect for the different beliefs of individual Singaporeans (I
fully/also respect . . .).
(8)
I fully respect the convictions and teachings of the different religious groups. I also respect the
religious choices and beliefs of individual Singaporeans. These are personal choices for individual
Singaporeans to make. Each person is free to follow his conscience, and follow the teachings of his
faith.
Having made this clear, Lee shifts toward a more impersonal stance where the stancetaker is now
the Government (9). This shift is accompanied by the use of deontic markers of obligation (the
Government must . . ., It cannot . . .) to emphasize the point that personal preferences or cul-
tural and religious beliefs have no place in public policy, which must instead be grounded in
a secular and pragmatic approach (9).
(9)
But in a multi-racial, multi-religious society, the Government must maintain a secular and pragmatic
approach. It cannot enforce the choices of one group on others, or make these choices the basis of
national policy.
. . . For the Government, the key consideration is what serves our national interest in the long term.
In short, the use of the impersonal stancetaker (the Government) emphasizes the different
responsibilities that accrue to the state, on the one hand, and ordinary Singaporeans, on the
other. The latter have a responsibility to ensure that their particular and varied religious beliefs
do not inuence the public sphere. The former, correlatively, has a responsibility to act in a
manner that is free from such beliefs and instead open to pragmatic and neoliberal rationality.
6. Integrated resorts: a case of lexical framing
While objections to the casinos on ethnic or religious grounds can be dealt with on the grounds
that the public sphere ought to be secular and pragmatic, the state still cannot dismiss or ignore
the social problems that gambling might pose for the community in general. To address these
potential social problems that might accompany the legalization of casinos, Lee appeals to
lexical framing.
Lakoff (2004, pp. 34) points out that the choice of lexical items can evoke frames that can
go on to inuence public discourse, as in the phrase tax relief:
22 L. Wee
Think of the framing for relief. For there to be relief there must be an afiction, an aficted party, and
a reliever who removes the afiction and is therefore a hero. And if people try to stop the hero, those
people are villains for trying to prevent relief.
When the word tax is added to relief, the result is a metaphor. Taxation is an afiction. And the
person who takes it away is a hero . . .
Lees use of lexical framing aims to emphasize that what is being legalized are not casinos per
se, but integrated resorts. According to Lee, the key difference is that as resorts, the latter are
leisure, entertainment and business zones and gambling is integrated into a whole slew of
activities, so that it constitutes just one small but essential part (10). Notice also that although
the stancetaker is represented as we, this use of the pronoun refers to the state and does not
include the citizenry.
(10)
. . . we are not considering a casino, but an IR an integrated resort.
Some of media coverage of this debate has focused on whether or not the government will approve
casinos. This has given the wrong impression that the IRproject is only about building casinos here . . .
IRs are quite different. In fact, they should be called leisure, entertainment and business zones.
The IRs will have all kinds of amenities hotels, restaurants, shopping, convention space, even thea-
tres, museums and theme parks . . . But within this large development and slew of activities, there is
one small but essential part which offers gaming and which helps make the entire project nancially
viable.
This lexical framing is an adaptation of the zoning technologies that Ong (2006) has described.
But rather than highlight the casinos as a zone where neoliberal tendencies might be given free
rein, Lee instead attempts to de-emphasize the specicity of the casinos as a zone. He presents
them as just one among many other amenities that the integrated resort will offer, including
convention space, museums and theme parks.
The termresorts is also much more family-friendly than casinos and, indeed, Lee goes on to
present an analogy with existing Singaporean resorts, which are wholesome family destinations
despite the presence of a small jackpot room (11). Thus, terms such as amenities and whole-
some are all used in order to reduce the salience of the casinos, and neutralize their negative
connotations. In trying to persuade Singaporeans to accept his analogy, Lees use of we now
shifts back to being all-inclusive, i.e. it refers to both the state as well as the citizenry.
(11)
On a smaller scale, we can think of NTUC Downtown East or the SAFRA Clubhouses. These are
wholesome family destinations. People go there to swim, eat, golf and enjoy the facilities. But some-
where within the premises there is a small jackpot room that generates the revenue that helps to keep
the place going . . .
An IR will be as decent and wholesome as a SAFRA resort or an NTUC Club.
But even as Lee attempts to downplay the signicance of the casinos by insisting, via lexical
framing, that the projected entertainment zone is actually family-oriented, he also acknowledges
the need for specic initiatives to deal with the possible social problems that might arise from
gambling. In the next section, we consider these initiatives.
7. Tying consumer behavior to producer subject categories
Lee points out that the state (the exclusive we) had at one point considered banning Singapor-
eans from the integrated resorts, but rejected this on the grounds that they would just go
elsewhere (12).
Critical Discourse Studies 23
(12)
We seriously considered banning Singaporeans altogether from gambling in the IRs, but decided
against it. This is because there is no reason to exclude locals who can afford to gamble and
would otherwise just go elsewhere. Further, some Singaporeans feel strongly against such discrimi-
nation against locals. The operators also told us that they needed some local business, although they
know that this cannot be their main market. However, we will put in place comprehensive measures
to minimise the social impact of casino gambling.
The effect of this revelation is to emphasize that the integrated resorts are ultimately motivated
by the need to respond to the tourist market and not the local market. But the revelation also
serves as a stance of condescension: the state could have taken a much stronger and more
draconian position, but decided against instituting this sweeping ban on Singaporeans. This is
in contrast with what might have been sets the stage for the measures
2
that the state will actually
introduce so that, by comparison, the latter emerge as relatively moderate. These measures
(below) attempt to regulate the consumption of gambling by deliberately making it more expens-
ive for locals than for foreigners. And because the measures are being imposed on Singaporeans
by the state, it is unsurprising that the stancetaker in these extracts is the exclusive we.
One of the measures involves charging Singaporeans and Permanent Residents an entrance
fee of $100 per day or $2000 per year, simply to enter the casinos (13). This fee does not apply to
foreigners. But since the admission of locals is only restricted as opposed to the outright ban
that was considered initially (see (12) above), this again is a reference to the stance of condes-
cension mentioned earlier.
(13)
First, we will restrict the admission of locals. We studied many alternative ways to do this, and
nally decided to use price, and charge a high entrance fee, $100 per day or $2000 a year. $100
is more than the ferry ticket to Batam, and will deter many casual gamblers. This will apply only
to Singaporeans and Permanent Residents.
And even if individuals are willing to foot the daily or annual entrance fee, they can still be
denied entry if they have been served with an exclusion order (14).
(14)
Second, we will implement a systemof exclusions. Those in nancial distress, or receivingsocial assist-
ance, will not be allowed entry. Singaporeans can also exclude themselves or close family members.
There are different types of exclusion orders:
3
voluntary self-exclusion, family exclusion (where
a family member can apply for the order to be served to a relative), and third party exclusion
(which applies automatically to bankrupts and those receiving public assistance).
Finally, unlike foreigners, locals will not be extended credit by the casinos (15). Again, this
reinforces the point that the casinos are mainly targeted toward the market of foreigners/tourists
rather than locals.
(15)
Third, the casinos will not be allowed to extend credit to locals, so as to make it harder for them to
lose more than they can afford.
By way of closing, we can make the following observations. First, the modality of Lees stance
in presenting these measures brooks little or no opposition, unlike his earlier, more conciliatory
remarks when acknowledging reservations about the legalization of the casinos. The repeated
pattern use of will in the active (13, 14) as well as the passive voice (15) marks future
intention, making clear that the state has already made up its mind about the implementation
of these measures. This is intended to project the states decisiveness and commitment to limit-
ing any negative impact that might arise from the presence of the casinos.
24 L. Wee
Second, these measures mean that responsibility for dealing with social problems related to
gambling are distribution across different parties. The state plays a role in ensuring that the
measures are effectively implemented. But the casinos also have to cooperate by making sure
that they observe the credit limits imposed on locals. Finally, locals themselves are encouraged
to take personal responsibility by either volunteering for self-exclusion, or by taking steps to
ensure that a vulnerable family member is excluded.
Third, these measures emphasize the importance that the state still attaches to communitar-
ianism. Because the individuals decision to gamble can be overridden by a family exclusion
order, this move in particular demonstrates that individual choice may be curtailed (where
necessary) in order to protect the sanctity of the larger collective.
Fourth, recall that the category of consumer is far less tractable from a governance perspec-
tive than producer. The states solution to this is to tie consumer activity (i.e. gambling at the
casinos) to more durable subject categories. Thus, the ability to enter the casinos (the precondi-
tion for even participating in casino gambling) is dependent on the individuals occupation of
more stable categories such as Singaporeans, Permanent Residents, bankrupts, receiving
public assistance, and their complements (foreigners, not receiving public assistance).
Moreover, in some of these cases, the occupation of some of these subject categories can lead
to the imposition of yet other categories that are specically concerned with regulating entry
into the casinos, i.e. served with exclusion order.
8. Concluding discussion
This case study of Singapores efforts at regulating the consumption of casino gambling
represents an initial step in what is an increasingly important issue, namely, the broader
question of how consumption activities in general might actually be governed. In Singa-
pores case, the combination of neoliberalism, multiracialism, and commmunitarianism is
able to work, thanks largely to the presence of an authoritarian and active state that has con-
sistently insisted on the overriding importance of pragmatism as a metadiscourse. As a con-
sequence, the states adoption of a communitarian ideology, for example, provides little
space for the conceptualization of individual rights (Chua, 1995, p. 195), allowing the
state to play an active and indeed, authoritarian role in Singaporean society. Even so,
there appears to be the beginning of the institutionalization of the right to be consulted,
especially for interest groups (Chua, 1995, p. 195), and this raises questions about how long
the measures adopted by the state can be sustained should the pressure for open consultation
continue to grow.
Singapores case nevertheless contrasts with more Western interpretations of neoliberalism,
which usually carry an implicit reference to an absent state.
4
Societies that operate from more
liberal premises will clearly nd it harder to adopt the same strategies as Singapore though
other (Asian?) societies that are modeled on Singapores unique brand of political authoritarian-
ism and state-led capitalism may face less difculties.
5
Whatever strategies are ultimately adopted by particular societies, the issue of how consumer
activities might be governed is an important one, deriving from the fact that the neoliberal
emphasis on consumer-driven markets may well lead to conicts with other ideologies and
values (including assumptions about how active the state ought to be). For example, the con-
sumption of cigarettes may over time lead to an increase in healthcare costs, and the uncontrolled
private ownership of vehicles may have adverse effects on the environment or the ow of trafc.
And of course, as this paper has demonstrated, participation in casino gambling gives rise to con-
cerns about the possible impact on families and on the community in general, concerns that the
state in Singapore cannot afford to ignore.
Critical Discourse Studies 25
The management of these concerns is particularly challenging for any society that is becom-
ing more complex and diverse, not least because the effect of globalization is to open up societies
economically, socially, and culturally, leading to changes in the prevailing social order that must
be grappled with. In this regard, it is critical, from a social governance perspective, to start giving
greater attention to how the consumer may be regulated, especially since under the logic of
neoliberalism, producer activity is usually justied as a response to consumer demand.
Notes on contributor
Lionel Wee is an associate professor in the Department of English Language and Literature at the National
University of Singapore. His research interests include world English, language policy, and general issues
in pragmatics and sociolinguistics. His articles have appeared in Applied Linguistics, English World-Wide,
Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, Journal of Sociolinguistics, Language & Communi-
cation, Language in Society, and World Englishes. His recent books include Language Without Rights
(Oxford University Press) and English in Singapore: Modernity & Management (Hong Kong University
Press).
Notes
1. For a state to set up a mall or restaurant meant exclusively for tourists and from which locals are pro-
hibited from entering except as workers is not unattested. But it is relatively rare outside, say, North
Korea (The Unreal World of North Korea, by Sami Sillanpaa. Helsingin Sanomat International
Edition, 18 August 2007, www.hs./english/article/The+unreal+world+of+North+Korea; accessed 11
April 2010).
2. Lee discusses ve measures, but I focus here only on the rst three, since these are more relevant to the
issue of subject category. The fourth and fth are, respectively, making sure that revenue generated from
the IRs goes toward charity and the setting up of a National Council on gambling, with counseling for
those with an addiction to gambling.
3. MCYS denes categories of persons for third-party exclusion under the Casino Control Act (MCYS
Media Release dated 22 January 2008).
4. I thank an anonymous reviewer for this observation.
5. I thank an anonymous reviewer for this observation.
References
Abercrombie, N. (1991). The privilege of the producer. In R. Keat & N. Abercrombie (Eds.), Enterprise
culture (pp. 171185). London: Routledge.
Bauman, Z. (2005). Work, consumerism and the new poor (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Benjamin, G. (1976). The cultural logic of Singapores multiracialism. In R. Hassan (Ed.), Singapore:
Society in transition (pp. 115133). Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.
Bokhorst-Heng, W., & Wee, L. (2007). Language planning in Singapore: On pragmatism, communitarian-
ism and personal names. Current Issues in Language Planning, 8(3), 324343.
Chong, T. (2006). Singapore: Globalizing on its own terms. Southeast Asian Affairs, 2006, 265282.
Chua, B.H. (1995). Communitarian ideology and democracy in Singapore. London: Routledge.
Corner, J., & Harvey, S. (Eds.). (1991). Enterprise and heritage. London: Routledge.
Du Bois, J.W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity,
evaluation, interaction (pp. 139182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Du Gay, P. (1996). Consumption and identity at work. London: Sage.
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hill, M., & Lian, K.F. (1995). The politics of nation building and citizenship in Singapore. London:
Routledge.
Jaffe, A. (2009). Introduction. In A. Jaffe (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 128). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Johnstone, B. (2009). Stance, style and the linguistic individual. In A. Jaffe (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic
perspectives (pp. 2952). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26 L. Wee
Keat, R. (1991a). Introduction. In R. Keat & N. Abercrombie (Eds.), Enterprise culture (pp. 117).
London: Routledge.
Keat, R. (1991b). Consumer sovereignty and the integrity of practices. In R. Keat & N. Abercrombie (Eds.),
Enterprise culture (pp. 216130). London: Routledge.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Dont think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. Vermont: Chelsea
Green.
Ong, A.H. (2006). Neoliberalism as exception. Durham: Duke University Press.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman.
Rex, J. (1986). Race and ethnicity. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Rose, N. (1990). Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self. London: Routledge.
Smale, W. (2004, August 23). Singapore signs up to global casino club. BBC News Online Business
Reporter. Retrieved April 12, 2010, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business
Critical Discourse Studies 27
Copyright of Critical Discourse Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.