Neoliberalism and the regulation of consumers: legalizing casinos inSingapore

Lionel Wee∗

Department of English Language and Literature, National University of Singapore, Block AS 5, 7 Arts Link,Singapore, 117570, Singapore

Singapore’s recent decision to legalize casinos raises questions such as the following: (i) Howdoes the state address the relationship between the neoliberal values that rationalize thelegalization of casinos, on the one hand, and the more locally established ideologies ofpragmatism, communitarianism, and multiracialism, on the other? (ii) And since the statewants to encourage gambling among foreigners but not locals, how does it employ techniquesof governing – such as the demarcation of zones and subject categories – to regulategambling? To answer these questions, this paper analyzes a major speech by the primeminister where he discusses the decision to legalize casinos. By focussing on the stancesadopted in the speech, the paper shows how the state attempts to allocate responsibility forthe 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, Ong’s (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. 3–4).

While such sites may refer to zones that are territorially demarcated, they can also refer to

more abstract subject categories involving specific 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 significance

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 identifiable 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, 15–27

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 HongKong and Macao and their companies and enterprises (hereafter referred to as ‘investors’) to set upfactories 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 profits due themand their other lawful rights and interests.

And in Singapore, subject categories, such as ‘citizens’ and ‘foreign talent’, constitute a signifi-

cant part of the ongoing political discourse between the state and the populace. In this discourse,

the state considers ‘foreign talent’ critical to Singapore’s economic growth because it is seen as

having the knowledge and expertise necessary for developing the financial and biomedical

industries, among others. Many citizens, however, are concerned that the state’s 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 reflecton what it means to be a citizen, because expatriates seem to have citizenship status, to be cajoledinto becoming citizens even when reluctant to do so. Expatriates are now referred to as ‘citizenswithout local roots’, while those who are technically citizens are beginning to feel unrooted.

Though Ong’s observations are well taken, it should be noted that her discussion has tended to

focus on the state’s 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 financial capital to create new

employment opportunities and drive economic growth. Ong’s 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 undisciplinedplay and disorder; it does not require organization and may, indeed, actively deny it. Moreinstitutionally, any increase in the importance of consumption and consumers involves a diffusionof 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 ofconsumers.

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 specific 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 benefits 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 gamblingin 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 Singapore’s decision to legalize the operation of casino resorts, also known as

‘integrated resorts’.

We need to first 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 Singapore’s

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 country’s 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 influence 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 significance’, 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 conflict.

(e) Racial and religious harmony.

Observe that while communitarianism and multiracialism are reflected (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 country’s continued economic wellbeing. Even (1d) has

sometimes been justified on the grounds that conflict 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 specific contents in (1) are still relevant. Because of this, the state’s

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 first 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 specific 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 flutter’ and

not ‘adversely affect your finances or lifestyle’.

(2)

Responsible Gaming:

Singapore Pools takes a strong Play Responsibly stand. We wish our customers to have some funplaying our games. We also wish it is just a little flutter [sic]. It should not adversely affect yourfinances or lifestyle. Our game rules state that no person under the age of 18 years shall beallowed to purchase a ticket or claim any prize.

In contrast, the state’s 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 ‘flutter’ 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 economicpragmatists alike, and it is hard to think of another national issue that has generated the same amountof pubic interest and participation. Eventually the public debate congealed into a simplistic contestbetween the conservative moralists and economic pragmatists with the former associated with soft-ness and dogmatism, and the latter with hard-headed rationalism.

The state’s rationale for ultimately deciding to legalize casino resorts, however, is an economic

one, confirming 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, find some

way to do that, and as a result of that over 10 years double the [tourist] traffic 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 gambler’s family unit. The state therefore needs to find 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, Lee’s goal is

precisely to explain the rationale behind the state’s 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 causedus to change our longstanding policy not to allow casinos in Singapore. I also want to acknowledgethe concerns of those who oppose or have expressed reservations about an IR [integrated resort], andexplain 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) defines 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 field’. 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-

nificance. 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 one’s utterance – is central because speaker positionality

is built into the act of communication’. So, even in those parts of Lee’s 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 Lee’s speech how the state attempts to

de-emphasize the specificity of casinos by framing them as zones that are in fact family-friendly

Critical Discourse Studies 19

in nature. And where the specific 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 first observe that pragmatism and neoliberalism are generally

compatible with each other, and so it is not surprising that the state’s 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-specificity, 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 ina particular region are determined entirely in terms of the economic growth picture at a specific pointin time. The justification for intervention is always contextual and never based on principles of pol-itical philosophy.

Neoliberalism provides a specific 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, efficiency, 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. 6–7; 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, refusetheir allegiance to any one of the infinite choices on display – except the choice of choosing betweenthem, that is.

The combination of pragmatism and neoliberalism has been used by the state to argue that the

legalizing of casinos is a contextually specific 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 Minister’s 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 first mooted, my sympathies were with those who opposed it. The Gov-ernment’s policy for many years had been not to have a casino, and we had repeatedly turned downproposals 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 asSingapore . . .

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 thesize of the Esplanade. Hong Kong is talking about building a casino on Lantau, to compete withMacao.

Singapore is therefore competing with other cities to attract tourists. At this point, Lee’s 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 country’s 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 difficult 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 20years’ time? Losing our appeal to tourists is the lesser problem. But if we become a backwater, justone of many ordinary cities in Asia, instead of being a cosmopolitan hub of the region, then manygood 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

Singapore’s 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, thebest proposals for the IR, together with the investments and the jobs, will most likely go somewhereelse in the region. Then we will be forced to play catch up, and be in a much weaker position.

Taken together, (4–7) make clear that legalizing casinos is a decision not lightly taken. The

stances conveyed in the specific 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 neoliberalism at 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 (6–7) (‘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 significance; they only enjoy “cultural” rights’ (Hill & Lian, 1995,

p. 101; citing Rex, 1986).

The following extracts bear out Hill and Lian’s 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 thereligious choices and beliefs of individual Singaporeans. These are personal choices for individualSingaporeans to make. Each person is free to follow his conscience, and follow the teachings of hisfaith.

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 pragmaticapproach. It cannot enforce the choices of one group on others, or make these choices the basis ofnational 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 influence 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. 3–4) points out that the choice of lexical items can evoke frames that can

go on to influence 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 affliction, an afflicted party, anda reliever who removes the affliction and is therefore a hero. And if people try to stop the hero, thosepeople are villains for trying to prevent relief.

When the word tax is added to relief, the result is a metaphor. Taxation is an affliction. And theperson who takes it away is a hero . . .

Lee’s 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 IR project 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 isone small but essential part which offers gaming and which helps make the entire project financiallyviable.

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 specificity 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 term ‘resorts’ 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, Lee’s 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 arewholesome 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 keepthe 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 significance of the casinos by insisting, via lexical

framing, that the projected entertainment zone is actually family-oriented, he also acknowledges

the need for specific 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 decidedagainst it. This is because there is no reason to exclude locals who can afford to gamble andwould 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 theyknow that this cannot be their main market. However, we will put in place comprehensive measuresto 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 measures2 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, andfinally decided to use price, and charge a high entrance fee, $100 per day or $2000 a year. $100is more than the ferry ticket to Batam, and will deter many casual gamblers. This will apply onlyto 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 system of exclusions. Those in financial distress, or receiving social 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 tolose more than they can afford.

By way of closing, we can make the following observations. First, the modality of Lee’s 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 state’s 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 individual’s 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 state’s 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 individual’s 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 specifically concerned with regulating entry

into the casinos, i.e. ‘served with exclusion order’.

8. Concluding discussion

This case study of Singapore’s 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-

pore’s 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 state’s 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.

Singapore’s 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 find it harder to adopt the same strategies as Singapore though

other (Asian?) societies that are modeled on Singapore’s unique brand of political authoritarian-

ism and state-led capitalism may face less difficulties.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 conflicts 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 flow of traffic.

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 justified 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 NationalUniversity of Singapore. His research interests include world English, language policy, and general issuesin 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 UniversityPress).

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, NorthKorea (‘The Unreal World of North Korea’, by Sami Sillanpaa. Helsingin Sanomat InternationalEdition, 18 August 2007, www.hs.fi/english/article/The+unreal+world+of+North+Korea; accessed 11April 2010).

2. Lee discusses five measures, but I focus here only on the first three, since these are more relevant to theissue of subject category. The fourth and fifth are, respectively, making sure that revenue generated fromthe IRs goes toward charity and the setting up of a National Council on gambling, with counseling forthose with an addiction to gambling.

3. ‘MCYS defines categories of persons for third-party exclusion under the Casino Control Act’ (MCYSMedia 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.), Enterpriseculture (pp. 171–185). London: Routledge.

Bauman, Z. (2005). Work, consumerism and the new poor (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.Benjamin, G. (1976). The cultural logic of Singapore’s ‘multiracialism’. In R. Hassan (Ed.), Singapore:

Society in transition (pp. 115–133). 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), 324–343.Chong, T. (2006). Singapore: Globalizing on its own terms. Southeast Asian Affairs, 2006, 265–282.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. 139–182). 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. 1–28). Oxford:

Oxford University Press.Johnstone, B. (2009). Stance, style and the linguistic individual. In A. Jaffe (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic

perspectives (pp. 29–52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

26 L. Wee

Keat, R. (1991a). Introduction. In R. Keat & N. Abercrombie (Eds.), Enterprise culture (pp. 1–17).London: Routledge.

Keat, R. (1991b). Consumer sovereignty and the integrity of practices. In R. Keat & N. Abercrombie (Eds.),Enterprise culture (pp. 216–130). London: Routledge.

Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. Vermont: ChelseaGreen.

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.