You want Casino?
-
For every constructive criticism...u said pple out of point.....but u cannot put a plausible point....casino 4 casino sake...how naive cld u be...jus govt bashing n out of point....blah..blah..blah....Originally posted by stupidissmart:gov bashing... out of point...
Tell us yr take...why the casino...get us yr argument..why do we need a casino..WHY...for once, show yr brains.. instead of yr ass...its just plain stupidity to keep telling pple the same shit....what shit.. can u come out...pple give a billion $ to government..who in the right mind wld do tat...
If u r not able to put forward yr argument....just shut up, OK.. -
Around the world, Singapore has been renowned for famous for being a clean and green garden city as well as being a family place where they feel safe to let their children run around without worries.
Yah, yah sure!!!! Clean huh????
What a shame, still feel so proud over it!!! Why so clean??? Becos, littering fine $1000, that's why!!!!
Not like overseas in 1st world countries, when people don't get fined, and they still don't litter that much.
Someone still can feel so proud that Singapore is a clean city!!!! hahaha!!! -
Aiya.. Gambling no good lah.. My friend just told me it's those people's faults if they go gambling even if a casino is right behind your backyard since they know on the long run it will suck you dry...But for economy reasons must have casino. like smoking no good, also no need to ban mah... those smoker knows they courting death still willing to pay upto $11 a pack.. so it's the people's mentality,...
So I am think why don't garmen legalised smoking heroine, ganja and ecstasy pills? Can charge high high also ... like heroine 1 small pck sell 200 dollars lah also contribute to economy mah.. rite?
Can invite other people to come to singapore to consume drugs.. then import become legalised lah. heard they always say those heroine smugglng cost like many millions in the market for a few kgs a pck.
BECOS THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT IF CITIZENS HOOKED UP TO GAMBLING HOW??? THEY CARE ONLY THEIR POCKETS !!! HOW TO SUPPORT THEIR MILLION DOLLAR ANNUAL SALARY. -
NO CASINO! i buy toto, buy 4d, but i dun agree on casino. because i dun want to see more broken family in sg.
-
if got casino, will we have more and more cases like the man jumping off in tampines?
he went to genting to gamble...
watmore when we have one right in our backyard...
its not worth the risk... -
For every constructive criticism...u said pple out of point.....but u cannot put a plausible point....casino 4 casino sake...how naive cld u be...jus govt bashing n out of point....blah..blah..blah....
Tis is about whether singapore should have a casino or not. Therefore we should be discussing ont he pros and cons of whether should we have a casino. But for u, u just bash the gov without stating whether should we or not have the casino nor explain the pros and cons involved in it. It just gave me tis impression tat people who hate the gov will hate every of its policies and they oppose just because they don't like the gov. If u want my points and arguments, then clearly my views were here since page one.
Tell us yr take...why the casino...get us yr argument..why do we need a casino..WHY...for once, show yr brains.. instead of yr ass...its just plain stupidity to keep telling pple the same ^%%@....what ^%%@.. can u come out...pple give a billion $ to government..who in the right mind wld do tat...
If u r not able to put forward yr argument....just shut up, OK.. -
March 9, 2005
FROM THE GALLERY
Don't give up battle, even if casino gets nod
By Chua Mui Hoong
..............
If these religious bodies can get all members to boycott the casino,
they may yet get back a casino-less Singapore, given that one-third of
casinos worldwide flop.
.............. -
why don't these religion body just boycott their members from going there ? It is something like genting isn't it ? Malaysia a muslim country have a casino. BTW where do u get the figure for 1/3 ?
-
Why don't the gamblers just go to Genting or take a cruse. You have to ask the reporter who gave the 1/3 figure.Originally posted by stupidissmart:why don't these religion body just boycott their members from going there ? It is something like genting isn't it ? Malaysia a muslim country have a casino. BTW where do u get the figure for 1/3 ?
-
the debate can go on and on but it's not going to influence the gov's decision.
i bet they've already made a decision but let the public debate to show how 'democratic' they are.
if they're really democratic, why not just have a vote and we'll know what the people think. let the people decide. -
Why don't the gamblers just go to Genting or take a cruse
Atually I have stated why I prefers the gambler to gamble here instead. In short, money will not flow out, tourists will increase, job employment increase, other related industries improve and singapore becomes more interesting. Tat is why I think the gamblers should have a chance to go to the singapore casino instead.
now can u answer these questions ? why don't these religion body just boycott their members from going there ? It is something like genting isn't it ? Malaysia a muslim country and have a casino too. -
ask anot, gamblers will be gamblers. let those religious heads say wahtever they like, it ain't gonna influence those hardcore gamblers. u still see christians and muslims smoking ciggies even though their religion tell them not to, right?
-
If it were just all the plus sides you mentioned, I would have agreed with you.
While the government hopes the casino will draw customers from existing pool of punters, other gambling operators (cruise, Batam, illegal operators) will try to maintain their profit by attracting new local gamblers to compensate for business lost to casino. The incremental social cost can be much bigger.
Other gambling operators (cruise, Batam, illegal operators) have few rules to observe and do not pay gambling tax. They can use these savings to provide better services including but not limited to illegal drugs and sexual services to attract and retain gamblers. This will open up more and different form of social ills.
Consider the fact that the gov has to cut horse betting tax by half to compete with illegal operators and yet people don't think it will work.
Money still flow out!! The casino is operated by foreign investers. They profit from it. They will refer the gamblers to their casinos elsewhere to gamble. The gamblers will still go to Batam, cruise etc because they offer better deals. More money go to gambling less money for other business activities. More businesses close down. People get poorer because more money go to gambling and earned by foreign interests and more businesses close down. Isn't that good enough reasons to against casino in S'pore.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Atually I have stated why I prefers the gambler to gamble here instead. In short, money will not flow out, tourists will increase, job employment increase, other related industries improve and singapore becomes more interesting. Tat is why I think the gamblers should have a chance to go to the singapore casino instead.
now can u answer these questions ? why don't these religion body just boycott their members from going there ? It is something like genting isn't it ? Malaysia a muslim country and have a casino too. -
If it were just all the plus sides you mentioned, I would have agreed with you.
It will depend on the scale of investment on the casino in singapore. If it is multi billion bigger, more luxurious, with a theme park built with it, then I am sure it will pull in more from these other gambling operators than losing business to them. don't u prefer to beg in a more better ambience, beautiful, luxurious, high standard, safer, with a theme park behind if u wanna do other activities and your hotel is next to it than a place where u won't even be sure if u can leave with your money.
While the government hopes the casino will draw customers from existing pool of punters, other gambling operators (cruise, Batam, illegal operators) will try to maintain their profit by attracting new local gamblers to compensate for business lost to casino. The incremental social cost can be much bigger.Other gambling operators (cruise, Batam, illegal operators) have few rules to observe and do not pay gambling tax. They can use these savings to provide better services including but not limited to illegal drugs and sexual services to attract and retain gamblers. This will open up more and different form of social ills.
I hope u realise tat gambler r not necessary pulin in by prostitution and drugs. Furthermore, there r many cruise ships around at offer gambling. if opening up these services is legal and profitable, than they would already have done it long ago. FYI, if they were found to be selling drugs on the ships, the gov can easily blacklist them and prevent from taking customers from singapore againConsider the fact that the gov has to cut horse betting tax by half to compete with illegal operators and yet people don't think it will work.
can u show me the article on tis ?
money also flows in ! Why will they ask them to go to other region when they can ask them to gamble in singapore ? why do u say tat the gambling tax in sigapore is higher elsewhere when it is shown to be much lower than macau ? Why do u think batam etc can offer better deals than singapore ? If their offer is so good then the effecot of their gamblig alrady set in NOW. I don't see a good reason to go against casino. If it fails, he wat have we got to lose fiancially since it is the foreign investors tat sink in the money ?
Money still flow out!! The casino is operated by foreign investers. They profit from it. They will refer the gamblers to their casinos elsewhere to gamble. The gamblers will still go to Batam, cruise etc because they offer better deals. More money go to gambling less money for other business activities. More businesses close down. People get poorer because more money go to gambling and earned by foreign interests and more businesses close down. Isn't that good enough reasons to against casino in S'pore. -
yes, we r discussing the pros and cons but u need to critically analysis the issues at hand...why do we hve the casino...4 u...casino 4 casino sake...blah..blah...blah...clearly then yr view is myopic..a simpleton tat nvr seen the world...Originally posted by stupidissmart:Tis is about whether singapore should have a casino or not. Therefore we should be discussing ont he pros and cons of whether should we have a casino. But for u, u just bash the gov without stating whether should we or not have the casino nor explain the pros and cons involved in it. It just gave me tis impression tat people who hate the gov will hate every of its policies and they oppose just because they don't like the gov. If u want my points and arguments, then clearly my views were here since page one.
There are good pple in gahment n i do not bash them unneccesary but if they r like u...singapore is dead...cause we need to fit into the world..not the world around Singapore...wat Singaporeans maturity to hve or not to hve the casino..we need casino because of the economy..
Those experience i listed down r true...in fact...just having dinner with a mainland chinese boss, who just came back from holidaying in Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand, he told me tat windows in Genting Hotel are completely sealed, even the hanging fans are removed as many pple hang themselves aft losing money.....mainland women selling their bodies as they piled up debts....
I am not a moralist...but speak the truth 4 goodness sake, hve the casino, tell the pple the truth, tell them how gambling tax money is going to be used in health, infrastruture etc...softsell...not like those shit tat comes frm u.
enough of yr stupidity...really...i cannot believe tat we hve such "bumpkin'' in Singapore... -
That is a big IF and which marketing report leads you to be sure it will pull in more. Gamblers want gambling and good pay-off and easy credit, why would like care about the theme park. They are gamblers, they are taling the risk going to all these places now. If they worry they wouldn't have gone there.
I hope you realize, gambling, drugs and sex are alway good companions.Originally posted by stupidissmart:It will depend on the scale of investment on the casino in singapore. If it is multi billion bigger, more luxurious, with a theme park built with it, then I am sure it will pull in more from these other gambling operators than losing business to them. don't u prefer to beg in a more better ambience, beautiful, luxurious, high standard, safer, with a theme park behind if u wanna do other activities and your hotel is next to it than a place where u won't even be sure if u can leave with your money.
How do they blacklist Batam and local illegal gambling dens. Why gov is not blacklisting casino operating cruise. Sex alone will be enough to ruin families. Drugs and sex are not profitable? Strange? Is gambling legal on cruise? If they can offer gambling what stop them from offering others.
Read the PM budget and you will find it.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I hope u realise tat gambler r not necessary pulin in by prostitution and drugs. Furthermore, there r many cruise ships around at offer gambling. if opening up these services is legal and profitable, than they would already have done it long ago. FYI, if they were found to be selling drugs on the ships, the gov can easily blacklist them and prevent from taking customers from singapore again
Because there is no gambling profit cap in other countries. Where did I say "gambling tax in sigapore is higher elsewhere". I already answered: "Other gambling operators (cruise, Batam, illegal operators) have few rules to observe and do not pay gambling tax. They can use these savings to provide better services including but not limited to illegal drugs and sexual services to attract and retain gamblers." It cost more gambling and social problems. That is the big cost we have to pay with the casino. If it fails, does the gov has the gut to admit failure or it will pump in money and remove all safeguards to keep it afloat to save face. How much money we are pumping in to keep the Durian afloat.Originally posted by stupidissmart:can u show me the article on tis ?Originally posted by stupidissmart:money also flows in ! Why will they ask them to go to other region when they can ask them to gamble in singapore ? why do u say tat the gambling tax in sigapore is higher elsewhere when it is shown to be much lower than macau ? Why do u think batam etc can offer better deals than singapore ? If their offer is so good then the effecot of their gamblig alrady set in NOW. I don't see a good reason to go against casino. If it fails, he wat have we got to lose fiancially since it is the foreign investors tat sink in the money ? -
In case you are not aware, the government has reiterated its stand on restricting gambling only to those who can afford to pay a $100 entrance fee into the casinos. In fact, they were mooting a compulsory ban on locals visiting the establishment — despite it not being done, the entrance fee is enough to deter the gambler who "has nothing to lose": no reasonable person will spend his last $100 just to get into a casino to lose his underwear.Originally posted by sarek_home:If it were just all the plus sides you mentioned, I would have agreed with you.
While the government hopes the casino will draw customers from existing pool of punters, other gambling operators (cruise, Batam, illegal operators) will try to maintain their profit by attracting new local gamblers to compensate for business lost to casino. The incremental social cost can be much bigger.
Other gambling operators (cruise, Batam, illegal operators) have few rules to observe and do not pay gambling tax. They can use these savings to provide better services including but not limited to illegal drugs and sexual services to attract and retain gamblers. This will open up more and different form of social ills.
Consider the fact that the gov has to cut horse betting tax by half to compete with illegal operators and yet people don't think it will work.
Money still flow out!! The casino is operated by foreign investers. They profit from it. They will refer the gamblers to their casinos elsewhere to gamble. The gamblers will still go to Batam, cruise etc because they offer better deals.
When we target the richer segments of the society, they not only help attract foreign currency into our country, but also helps retain potential huge rich gamblers here, and stems out flow of foreign exchange.
The few who would leave the country to gamble somewhere else would be the small frys, whom cannot afford the facility to pay a premium for the privilege to gamble here — their contribution would have been insignificant anyway.More money go to gambling less money for other business activities. More businesses close down. People get poorer because more money go to gambling and earned by foreign interests and more businesses close down. Isn't that good enough reasons to against casino in S'pore.
Already, money is going towards the illegal gambling establishment in Singapore. The huge number of underground syndicates providing loan-sharking and gambling services provide those whom are denied a legal casino the avenue to spend their money.
A legal casino is akin to legalising prostitution: it allows for proper policing and control, even though it might offend the morals of a small group of people. Would you rather pretend to ban prostitution and close both eyes to the flourishing illegal prositution trade?
A legal casino in our country can only be good for our country. So far, the only arguments against it are not justifiable reasons for not having a casino.
If your morals dictate that you cannot have a casino in your vicinity, you can always move further away. In no way should your morals affect others' personal decision to gamble or not.
Social ills are already present in Singapore, regardless of whether we would have a casino. Why not convert the illegal cash that would flow into criminal organisation into charitable money (Singapore Pools regularly donates the profit from bet collection to charity)?
In no way can a casino in Singapore affect your child's morals, unless you choose to. It is impossible that the current government will allow any casinos (if any) to advertise their services vagrantly, just like smoking already is. -
Are you sure "no reasonable person will spend his last $100 just to get into a casino to lose his underwear"? What do you call those borrow from loan-shark to gamble their llife away?
Please define the richer segment and the small flies in term of income groups. Just want to see if you know what you are talking about. Any statistics on how much the richer segment and the small flies contribute to the gambling pie?
So those go to the illegal establishments are small flies or not? The gov is reseving them for the illegal gambling establishment with the entrance fee? What stop someone who gamble in gov casino to borrow from loan-shark?Originally posted by pkchukiss:In case you are not aware, the government has reiterated its stand on restricting gambling only to those who can afford to pay a $100 entrance fee into the casinos. In fact, they were mooting a compulsory ban on locals visiting the establishment — despite it not being done, the entrance fee is enough to deter the gambler who "has nothing to lose": no reasonable person will spend his last $100 just to get into a casino to lose his underwear.
When we target the richer segments of the society, they not only help attract foreign currency into our country, but also helps retain potential huge rich gamblers here, and stems out flow of foreign exchange.
The few who would leave the country to gamble somewhere else would be the small frys, whom cannot afford the facility to pay a premium for the privilege to gamble here — their contribution would have been insignificant anyway.Originally posted by pkchukiss:Already, money is going towards the illegal gambling establishment in Singapore. The huge number of underground syndicates providing loan-sharking and gambling services provide those whom are denied a legal casino the avenue to spend their money.
A legal casino is akin to legalising prostitution: it allows for proper policing and control, even though it might offend the morals of a small group of people. Would you rather pretend to ban prostitution and close both eyes to the flourishing illegal prositution trade?
A legal casino in our country can only be good for our country. So far, the only arguments against it are not justifiable reasons for not having a casino.
If your morals dictate that you cannot have a casino in your vicinity, you can always move further away. In no way should your morals affect others' personal decision to gamble or not.
Social ills are already present in Singapore, regardless of whether we would have a casino. Why not convert the illegal cash that would flow into criminal organisation into charitable money (Singapore Pools regularly donates the profit from bet collection to charity)?
In no way can a casino in Singapore affect your child's morals, unless you choose to. It is impossible that the current government will allow any casinos (if any) to advertise their services vagrantly, just like smoking already is. -
Ok, so having a Casino in Singapore can be good in terms of Tourism Dollars.
But what about the man who murdered his entire family, and jumped to his death because of gambling???
I guess, the Tourism Dollars, over-rules this fact.
Lets all go back to the past then. The government shouldn't ask us for our opinions if they're not listening to us. Just implement, don't ask. And watch us "go away". -
Ok, so having a Casino in Singapore can be good in terms of Tourism Dollars.
But what about the man who murdered his entire family, and jumped to his death because of gambling???
I guess, the Tourism Dollars, over-rules this fact.
Lets all go back to the past then. The government shouldn't ask us for our opinions if they're not listening to us. Just implement, don't ask. And watch us "go away". -
Ok, so having a Casino in Singapore can be good in terms of Tourism Dollars.
But what about the man who murdered his entire family, and jumped to his death because of gambling???
I guess, the Tourism Dollars, over-rules this fact.
Lets all go back to the past then. The government shouldn't ask us for our opinions if they're not listening to us. Just implement, don't ask. And watch us "go away". -
Ok, so having a Casino in Singapore can be good in terms of Tourism Dollars.
But what about the man who murdered his entire family, and jumped to his death because of gambling???
I guess, the Tourism Dollars, over-rules this fact.
Lets all go back to the past then. The government shouldn't ask us for our opinions if they're not listening to us. Just implement, don't ask. And watch us "go away". -
Ok, so having a Casino in Singapore can be good in terms of Tourism Dollars.
But what about the man who murdered his entire family, and jumped to his death because of gambling???
I guess, the Tourism Dollars, over-rules this fact.
Lets all go back to the past then. The government shouldn't ask us for our opinions if they're not listening to us. Just implement, don't ask. And watch us "go away". -
yes, we r discussing the pros and cons but u need to critically analysis the issues at hand...why do we hve the casino...4 u...casino 4 casino sake...blah..blah...blah...clearly then yr view is myopic..a simpleton tat nvr seen the world...
u mean u r going to critically examine the issues by basing gov in a casino topic ?
so u think the gov is lousy, and so ? Had anyone deny tat casino will bring in money from tourism ?
There are good pple in gahment n i do not bash them unneccesary but if they r like u...singapore is dead...cause we need to fit into the world..not the world around Singapore...wat Singaporeans maturity to hve or not to hve the casino..we need casino because of the economy..Those experience i listed down r true...in fact...just having dinner with a mainland chinese boss, who just came back from holidaying in Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand, he told me tat windows in Genting Hotel are completely sealed, even the hanging fans are removed as many pple hang themselves aft losing money.....mainland women selling their bodies as they piled up debts....
did he tell also u tat genting used to be a village and the people there were poor. Now they were beter off with employment and malaysia manage to bring in much money from tourism ?I am not a moralist...but speak the truth 4 goodness sake, hve the casino, tell the pple the truth, tell them how gambling tax money is going to be used in health, infrastruture etc...softsell...not like those #&!& tat comes frm u.
they will tell u in every year's budget. If there is no casino, then the budget we get from every year will be lesser.enough of yr stupidity...really...i cannot believe tat we hve such "bumpkin'' in Singapore...
I guess being rude is a way u like to communicate huh ?That is a big IF and which marketing report leads you to be sure it will pull in more. Gamblers want gambling and good pay-off and easy credit, why would like care about the theme park. They are gamblers, they are taling the risk going to all these places now. If they worry they wouldn't have gone there.
they like to care about the theme park as wel. There r many people going to genting and these people do visit the theme parks as well. Gamblers r not crazy fanatic tat only want to gamble and not do other things such as playing in a theme park or eating. I tell u gamblers r like people around u. They do not go there becauise they r addicted but they go there for som fun or escape from a stressful life.I hope you realize, gambling, drugs and sex are alway good companions.
No, I don't realise why does gambling be associated with drugs and sex. U think gamblers r bad hats with tattoos and gangs tat go around having sex and taking drugs ?How do they blacklist Batam and local illegal gambling dens. Why gov is not blacklisting casino operating cruise. Sex alone will be enough to ruin families. Drugs and sex are not profitable? Strange? Is gambling legal on cruise? If they can offer gambling what stop them from offering others.
i am saying banning the cruise ships if they provide drugs to the people there. If they just provide proper gambling, then why ban them ? Gambling is legal on cruise. The authority can stop them from operating in singapore if they r offering other dubious services such as providing drugs.Because there is no gambling profit cap in other countries. Where did I say "gambling tax in sigapore is higher elsewhere". I already answered: "Other gambling operators (cruise, Batam, illegal operators) have few rules to observe and do not pay gambling tax. They can use these savings to provide better services including but not limited to illegal drugs and sexual services to attract and retain gamblers." It cost more gambling and social problems. That is the big cost we have to pay with the casino. If it fails, does the gov has the gut to admit failure or it will pump in money and remove all safeguards to keep it afloat to save face. How much money we are pumping in to keep the Durian afloat.
u think batam do not pay any tax to anyone ? Why do u think sex and drugs will be better service, if they get to offer it at all ? And did u answer why does a bigger and more posh casino fails to attract gamblers but a lousy small old one can ? Why do u think these the casino here will not attract people when experienced casino operators bvelieved it do ? Why do u extrapolate so far as saying singapore has to pay to keep a foreign casino from operating ? Why do u think the durian is a failure ? There r people going there occasionally to go for the performance and play etc. Why do u compare the casino to the durian ?Ok, so having a Casino in Singapore can be good in terms of Tourism Dollars.
Before the casino is here there r already people jumping off floors and killing themselves. U think by not building one singaporean will not gamble ? They still go to genting as well isn't it ?
But what about the man who murdered his entire family, and jumped to his death because of gambling??? -
OK. Then don't control drugs in Singapore then. People should know what's good for them, and what's bad for them. So no need to control drugs.
We should not lean on our governement, so we all shold know better than to take drugs right?
Question: is gambling a vice, or not a vice? Is there such a thing as Legal Vice?
I know gambling itself isn't dangerous, but is dangerous to those who knows no limit. But why put temptation at their fingertips?
Likewise for cigarettes; I'm a smoker myself, and I'm all for the move to ban smoking in public places. In fact, instead of increasing cigarette prices like crazy, and making exorbitant revenues, why don't just ban it in one fell swoop? I will welcome it, because I know that's the only way I can quit, and live a little longer in this sorry world.