Continuing: Logically the same arguments may be used by them : alcohol is no less a social vice as gambling – excessive alcohol like gambling is also social problems for all religions and races, and have lead to many family and marriage breakdowns – and both may be proscribed under Local Government Act to preserve the municipality’s safety, health and convenience. If Penang could do it so can Selangor etc.

To accede more would however compromise DAP’s position of secular pluralism.

To vociferous objectors of gambling but staunch supporters of S’pore and its version of secular pluralism, it should be noted that the PAP in S’pore changed its past reservations to now allow regulated and licensed gambling by the Casino and even night grande prix. Though gambling – and alcohol – are acknowledged social vices its Ok provided its licensed and regulated (with S’poreans having to pay more to enter) to mitigate problems, a position taken by Western secular countries as well.

In a democracy, individual choice is also important – the freedom to choose to do good and abstain from vice as well as freedom to do otherwise provided it harms no one else other than one own self.

A suffocating nanny and paternal state (ie a state behaving like one’s father) where govt tells citizens not to do this or that (from gambling to alcohol and from there down further the slippery slope to no holding hands between the sexes in the public parks) for their own good is suffocating to individual freedom cherished by free peoples believing in secular principles. On the other hand a laissez-faire attitude on the government’s part allowing its people to do anything they wish also causes many social problems. The question as always is where to draw the line and strike the balance based on practical and fair considerations.

This is the dilemma the Dap faces and will face in how on each occasion to strike the balance against the pressures exerted by its coalition partners of the predominantly Malay/Muslim orientation like the same way MCA to UMNO within BN. Real politik means that they have to take cognizance of majority Malay Muslim aspirations represented by these parties to keep the unity, peace, and collaboration of the Opposition coalition intact, failing which they have no chance singly and individually to dislodge the BN.

The question is where, in this process of give and take, to draw a line and avoid going down that slippery slope like (say) the MCA until the majority of its traditional supporters desert it for deferring too much to theocratic Islamic aspirations.

LGE’s stance is hence based on pragmatic political calculations and compromise than strict dictates of what DAP’s traditional secular pluralistic principles will dictate. He must have figured that most traditional supporters of DAP have also higher threshold of tolerance for it (at this moment in time) to make accommodation for reason that they have reached the limit of their disenchantment and would like to see the dislodgment of BN at all costs.

///I think there are lots of dishonesty in the management of gambling licences and industry in this country…They only issue the licences to their cronies or through bribery/// – LimKamPut

Thats not just an opinion but a fact.

“I think the number of outlets and the frequency of draws are really getting excessive and betting, especially among the lower income groups, are getting out of hand”.

Thats an opinion. I do not know if its a fact.

///It is not an absolute act. It is a balancing act. We just have to manage it.///

I believe thats an opinion and (to me) a fact.

///For example if Penang is allowed to operate a casino, I am sure the state will not be so dependent on Putrajaya./// #30 by HJ Angus

Not very clear on this. Casino, sport betting or (say) slot machines are licensed at Federal level by Putrajaya. Wonder how much of financial benefits go to state coffer (unless one’s talking of fees from licensing premises).

Yearly licensing fees would go to MOF; corporate taxes from profits made go to IRD.

Thats the official side.

On unofficial side if theres any “greasing” it goes to officials.

Unofficially one can also ask any beneficiary of potential huge profits from ‘a very difficult to get’ monopolistic licence to do one or more of things : hold as proxy equity stake for those who have a public face of piety; hive some of the huge profits to contribute to slush funds to pay for off balance sheet items that political patrons require.

How will PR state govts’ own coffers really benefit? I wonder. Indeed if its ever true money can be used to solicit defectors its a threat to PR state govts….