With Big Money Comes Big Responsibility

Following De Maitre’s post on the nouveau riche in Singapore, I have come across other stories about the rich in other parts of the world, which can tell us a lot about what could happen to our society and the effects of money on our conscience.

Channel NewsAsia reported a South (S) Korean man who decided to sue the casino he patronised for fuelling his addiction on gambling.

According to the article, between 2003 and 2006, Chung, 67, a former head of a leather products company, had lost 30 billion won (S$ 23.5 million) at the casino.

He alleged that the casino did nothing while he placed bets above the legitimate limit.

But then again, he said that he knew nothing about gambling until six years ago, from that point he kept gambling in the hope of recouping his losses.

Here I quote him: “I still get the feeling that I can win back the money at the casino.”

So you have the typical problem gambler. Someone who gambles into addiction because he thought he could recoup his losses, and when things go wrong, sue the casino for the money back.

Since Singapore is going to have its own casinos soon, I thought this might be an interesting issue to discuss.

Actually, the problem isn’t with the petty gamblers, who are content with their lottery every week. The real problem is with the nouveau riche and the upper class, who patronise these casinos and spend thousands of dollars at once. Any one of these can be like the S Korean man in my case study.

The question is, should casinos be responsible for the irresponsibility of their patrons?

I don’t deny that casinos and the state in particular should protect society as a whole from the effects of problem gambling.

But can the casino and the state protect everyone? Certainly there are people who refuse to heed advice, only to regret when they lose everything.

The second point is that of the attitudes of the nouveau riche gamblers. The key characteristic about the nouveau riche is that they want to be accepted amongst the upper class. To do so, they believe they have to engage in conspicuous consumption to express their financial wealth and social status. But that certainly does not mean that they have the financial discipline and the maturity of thought not to over-indulge in ostentatious spending.

Therefore, they may not understand the fundamental rule in casino patronage: that it is impossible to win. If they don’t have this understanding and the necessary discipline in their finances, they won’t know when to stop.

And when they get into trouble, they might just end up like that S Korean man: sue the casino, only to expose his own irresponsibility.

Spending money in the spirit of noblesse oblige, for philanthropy, for community service, for charity, is much better than squandering them away in a casino, and then spend yet more suing the casino for fuelling your own lack of self-discipline. It only puts one further from the cultured class.

If money is power, then big money does come with big responsibility.