Q4:Can't we just have the Integrated Resort without the casino? Are there other alternatives to rejuvenate our tourism landscape?
Ans:Overseas experiences have shown that similar entertainment hubs may not be economically viable if we remove the casino component. This is because the gaming and non-gaming components in such complexes are interdependent. Revenue generated from the casino is used to cross-subsidise the other non-gaming attractions, which in turn attract the large number of visitors. These facilities leverage off each other and become viable because of the high volume of traffic drawn to the wide range of entertainment options available.One point that has been raised quite often is whether we can have a similar development, for example a mega theme park without the casino component. Any private sector developer of a mega theme park without casinos is more than welcome to participate when we request for concepts.Projects like Disney theme parks or the Guggenheim museum in Bilbao typically require a significant amount of Government co-investment. For instance, out of the total project cost of S$5.8 billion for Disneyworld, the Hong Kong Government is committing a total of S$4.8 billion to the project. The Guggenheim museum in Bilbao required the government to commit more than US$150 million - i.e. US$100 million went towards construction and US$50 million to develop the collection. This was topped off with US$20 million to the Guggenheim Foundation. This is unlike the IR which we are considering, which is expected to be privately funded.While our tourism strategy is not dependent on the IR project alone, the IR would play a very significant role in the overall strategy.
