You want Casino?
-
Macau has often been cited as proof of the economic value of the casino industry, which purportedly brings in 16 million visitors each year. Before we jump to conclude that this is sure jackpot for us, we need to ask ourselves where those 16 million come from. If we draw a 500 mile radius around Macau, how many of those 16 million visitors fall outside it? You draw the same circle around Singapore, consider the kind of people residing in the circle and you have a rough idea what kind of market potential we're talking about.
We can't just copy and paste formulas without thinking how applicable they are to us. Casinos make sense for Macau because demand is right at their doorstep. If all that the Chinese wish is to gamble, why fly all the way here when they have Macau? In the end, the potential casino patrons would mostly be Singaporeans than tourists. So the potential for a big bang tourist influx doesn't seem as great as that of a mad Singapore rush and consequently the potential for great economic benefits pale in comparison with the potentially greater negative impacts the casino has on our fellow Singaporeans. -
Others have quoted job creation as reason enough to have a casino. But there's more than meet the eye. When a salesman wishes to sell you something, he packages it such that you believe he's offering you something for your own good, something you really need. Similarly when a government tries to sell its people a policy, it will also take great pains to make them believe it has their concerns at heart. We are made to see that 5000 jobs will be created for us. What we are not told is that that is actually the short end of the stick. Because if you compare 5000 jobs against say $5 billion, who stands to gain more? Ultimately it is our fellow countrymen (gamblers no doubt) who would be employing those 5000 and contributing even more to the state coffers. When the purported good of creating 5000 jobs is compared against nurturing 500,000 gamblers, we should start wondering whose concerns are really closest to their hearts?
A good way to sell something is to appeal to current tastes and fashion. The in-thing now is to "be different", to "try new things" and to be "mature". It appeals to those who do not wish to be seen as either conservative or immature, who readily lap up the slogan and become its walking advocate. But there is another recent slogan which is "to think for ourselves and not always rely on the government". Why then do we regurgitate every word it says without the slightest processing?
If we peel away the packaging surrounding the offering, it is at its very core a merely easy way of making money. As simple as that. What happens when leaders take the easy way out? What does it show of them? -
The apparent jobs being created by the casino are self evident and easy to see. But the indirect job losses in other sectors due to substitution say from clubbing to gambling are much more difficult to fathom and appreciate. In the end there may be no real job creation but mere job shifting from one sector to another. There is no doubt tourism is a major issue but the assertion that "tourism will receive a much needed boost" is questionable. How much boost? Are they worthwhile? If you give your coffeeshop a new coat of paint, it'll definitely look nicer and more people will come. But if the paint costs $2000 but brings in only two extra customers per day, then you're better off leaving the coffeeshop as it were.
If we build a Disney here, yes I agwee people will come from far and wide. But if it's just another resort cum casino, even if it is the best in the world, I doubt so ... which part of the world doesn't have resorts or casinos? Just because we build a lavish toilet here doesn't mean people will travel 200 miles to use it. Building the best casino in the world or for that matter any infrastructure you can think of is what our government is best at. But tourists don't come just because there's a beautiful hotel for them to sleep in. They come because there is something here they don't have back home and the casino is not one of them.
Some people have cited big casinos in Monte Carlo and Las Vegas as reason for their success worthy of our emulation. But we should'nt confuse cause with effect. It is not because Monte Carlo and Las Vegas are big that makes them successful. It is because they are successful (fuelled by demand from their respective home bases) that they have grown big. The reverse may not be true. Just because we build a big casino doesn't mean it is gonna be successful. Just because we built a world class opera theatre doesn't mean it can become a successful one. Are they gonna sustain the esplanade losses indefinitely? Vegas is surrounded by rich Americans, Monte Carlo by rich Europeans, Macau by rich Hong Kongers plus mainland Chinese. We are surrounded by poor Indonesia and not so rich Malaysia. -
It was reported in Today newspaper that Candice, undergrad, name changed was forced to be a prostitute to pay her father debts of S$10,000.
i hope that it will not be the case where more undergrad, JC students have to sell their body to repay their father, brother or mother gambling debts shld the casino be confirmed coming onstream.
One is too many to sacrifice for the temptations of getting rich through such means. -
So sad, fate of country decided by one person ... aren't we supposed to be a democracy?
I remember when they first refurbished Sentosa, they charged exhobitant entrance prices. Nobody went, so they lowered prices. Still nobody went, they made it free entry.
Today casino entry $100. Years later casino not doing well they decide to lower it to $50 ... then $20 ... then free entry ...
Once you agwee to this fundamental change, it becomes so easy to manipulate the rules ... of course it's not up to us to disagwee
Isn't it funny, they're suddenly setting up gambling rehabilitation programmes as if they suddenly discovered their conscience, their social responsibility.
The rule that the wife can ask for court order to prevent husband from going casino. So stupid. If wife can control husband, wife no need get beaten up, some more whole family killed by husband liao.
Another stupid logic. Already got so much illegal gambling therefore gambling should be legalised. Already so much illegal drug abuse therefore drug abuse should be legalised. Already so much people pui chao nua at ... so pui chao nua at ... should be legalised ... -
Gambling is bad.If I'm not wrong,it is even illegal.the govt knows that.The main problem is whether it can adhere to the moral principle and resist the lure of MONEY.
Snow_leopard,
Your arguments are excellent. -
Thank you PRP, some banters to share here ... posts in square quotes are someone's arguments for casino ...
[That's right, us uni grads won't be worrying about jobs. But what about the rest,the diplomas, the A-levels,O-levels,Primary educated, uneducated?]
The casino sounds like a good opportunity for an 'O' level but for every 'O' level the casino employs, another hundred would be tempted to make a quick buck out of it and end up gambling for the rest of their lives.
[Not really. Any growth in the economy tickles down to everybody eventually.]
My boss made $1 million profit recently, yes growth trickled down, he treated us each to a McDonald's hamburger.
[More growth in the economy means more jobs, increases in new businesses, higher pay, better work conditions etc.]
I remember a funny comic long ago. The satirist was trying to poke fun at how we're importing so much sand from Malaysia that in 40 years, Malaysia would shrivel while Singapore would bloat up.
That is the kind of "growth" that results from gambling. Las Vegas prospers at the expense of its neighbouring states, Macau at the expense of neighbouring Chinese. In the end, the casino is nothing more than a vacuum pump, sucking in funds from all around while creating little. There is nothing much to suck from neighbouring Malaysia or Indonesia so we'd end up sucking ourselves. You might find after 40 years, Ang Mo Kio, Hougang and Woodlands have shrivelled while Sentosa has bloated ... shop in Ang Mo Kio close down and reopen in Sentosa, worker in Hougang now works in Sentosa ... what growth?
[It's not possible to expect direct benefits such lower taxes, lower PUB bills etc because of economic growth. Economics just doesn't work that way. Not where in the world does it work like this.]
What kind of economics is that? Supply and demand determine the amount of taxes I pay? How much tax we pay is decided by the very people who'd benefit most from the casino. They want to tax us more, they tax us more. They want to tax us less, they tax us less.
[Having a casino does not necessary mean crime and "social ills". Some fools will of course ruin themselves by gambling but then I am sure they will eventually ruin themselves away one way or another.]
You see one ang moh in Africa and you conclude Africa is ang moh country? Just because our good friend here doesn't gamble doesn't mean everybody else is like him. Casino doesn't create gambling problems for him because he's got better ways of making money. Our 'O' levels would be more tempted ... the very people that were supposed to benefit from it.
I'm sure some people will get knocked down by cars so we might as well legalise jaywalking. I'm sure some women will get cheated by their husbands we might as well legalise cheating.
[So why don't we just shut down the stockmarket? It's a kind of gambling under a different guise and it involves hundread of millions of dollars.]
Yes the stock market is one big gambling den but just because it is doesn't mean we should have another one. Two wrongs don't make a right. One harm on top of another becomes two harms.
Anyway, the stock market isn't in and of itself meant to be a gambling den. Rational investors invest according to their appreciation of the stock's growth potential and underlying fundamentals. But most stock buyers aren't investors but gamblers who rely on hearsay and are driven by herd instincts and turn the stock market into a gambling den.
[And how about those who risk their life savings when starting a new business? Isn't this a kind of gamble? They could be in financial ruin if their business fails.]
Business may appear like gambling but it isn't. Gambling doesn't involve much thinking and it's useless to think anyway. Whichever number you bet on, the odds are still against you. Business involves a lot of thinking and strategising. You don't just plunge into a business blindly. You do your market research, find out if there's demand, how big is the demand, what is the competition, what is your competitive advantage ... in other words, you take calculated risks and only when you've convinced that the returns are worth the risks would you embark on the venture. When people gamble, they don't think about the odds, they just think about winning.
[Taking risks is a part of life and I think more Singaporeans, esp those who dream of being their own bosses, should learn how to take risks.]
Yes, taking risks is important but what is risk taking? Mindless throwing away of money?
[Gambling provided it is not taken too far, is an excellent way to learn how to take risks. You learn to figure how much you can afford to lose, how to recongise the odds, how to cut your losses etc.]
Maybe for poker or mahjong at least there're some skills to pick up but gambling an excellent way to learn to take risks? How? By sweeping risks under the carpet? By switching off the brain and turning on the adrenaline and impulsiveness? The math is simple, no need to play also can recognise odds. What's there to learn about cutting losses? What's lost is lost, dun want to lose some more just walk away lor.
[Think about it : if a person wouldn't even dare to gamble a bit of money, would he/she have the courage to risk it all in starting their own business?]
I don't see any bravery in gambling, only foolhardiness. Gamblers are not rational. They don't think. They don't walk into a casino thinking about the odds against them, only the possibility of winning big. If they don't see the losses, what is there to fear? A person driven by obssession is not consciously facing fear and therefore cannot be said to be exhibiting bravery. Bravery is not the absence of fear (which is the case of gambling) but the meeting of fear head on and with full understanding of the stakes involved (which is business).
At least in business, we're gambling our own money. Here, they're gambling with our lives ... -
I am not a compulsive gambler, rather I am not a gambler, I betted on Totos only during the CNY, and I had stopped bettings on the SCORE. But why would I still lose RM1500? I am not rich. I brought RM500 to Genting and I drawn RM1000 at Genting with my credit card, and knowingly prior my trip I had told myself I would stop at RM500. All my loses went to Tai-Sai. The odds of winning at impressive 1:1 had simply overwhelmed me.
lets put it tis way. i rather u lose your money in a singapore casino than a malaysia one since the money will largely circulate here if u play here. without a casino in singapore, u already lost RM1500, which is RM1500 lost from our economyYes our government will be collecting more revenues from gaming tax, in return, the government got monies for more air-conditioned bus interchanges, more monies for the 9th and 10th and 11th wonders, more monies for their salary adjustment, more monies to lower the personal income tax.
I guess u have a problem with gov having more money
lets jus say if they made enough tax from gambling, they will have mroe budget to play with and the tendency they use it for something good increase. If they find themselves havign lesser money, than u can be sure some tax from somewhere will increase, making life more miserable than ever.The govt ministers know gambling is no good.But because of MONEY, they would probably approve a cansio.So it would be sacrificing moral principle to get mloney.So u support the govt to do this kind of thing?
The govt ministers know smoking is no good.But because of MONEY, they would probably approve selling cigerrettes.So it would be sacrificing moral principle to get money.So u support the govt to do this kind of thing?
Things r not as simple black or white. There r good things about casinoes as well.For example, let's say father used to bring daughter to the Zoo and buys her an ice cream each time. Now that his money goes to the casino, he can no longer afford to bring her to the Zoo or buy her the ice cream, so both Zoo and ice cream seller suffer (on top of the family that is). Whatever the casino gains is at the expense of the Zoo and the ice cream seller. In other words, notwithstanding the social impact, other parts of the economy suffer even as our casino thrives. The retail industry will suffer because there is less money for shopping ...
actually u r comparing with a family tat have a gambling addict father. wat will happen to other normal families who do not gamble regularly ? Life goes on and the kid get her ice cream. In fact she may get a double scoop of since the father can save money from no increase in tax and her mother working in the casino, increasing their income. The retail industry may, on contrary, improveGambling is a zero sum game, what one loses another gains, in this case what the people lose, the government gains. Unless the losses come from tourists, the country as a whole gains nothing and the casino becomes a futile waste of time and energy. Why should tourists come all the way here to gamble when they have bigger gambling dens in their own backyards?
true. But locals gambling overseas is much worse than they gambling here. The effect on tourism may not be as bleak as u think as well BTW, why do u think all the tourist have bigger casinoes than singapore ? In tat case why don't we build one now since almost all countries have them The casino also purports to create jobs for Singaporeans - a noble claim indeed. What quality jobs are we creating? What value add is there? Does it add to our competitiveness? How much productivity will it add? What if as a result of gambling, people give up other past times like swimming or cycling? The swimming pool closes down? The lifeguard goes out of job? The bicycle kiosk owner starts looking for another job? Without real injection of tourism money, as long as the casino derives its money primarily from our fellow countrymen, the benefits it gains will be negated elsewhere (zero sum game).
I believe jobs from casinoes, hotels and restaurant r not bad jobs. It do adds to our competitiveness in tourism. BTW do u really think tat once the casino opens, then EVERYBODY will become addicts instantly so much so tat the pool have no people ? Then I guess all american r gamblers, all japanese play pinball and no other things and all malysian can't swim because they go to genting every week. Is tat the case we seeing ? Tue, there will be an increase in addicts but your examples just give me the picture tat u think everybody will become addictsOf course there is money to be made from the casino, except it would mostly come from our fellow Singaporeans. Tourists have their own casinos back home and have no need to visit ours. In the end it would be Singaporeans giving money to foreign consortiums + state coffers.
as said before, if all tourists have bigger ones, than why singapore don't have ? u probably acknowledge tat almost the whole world of developed countries have casinoesIs it really as simple as that? You just bring people from the ships to Sentosa while the rest of the island remain largely unaffected? It's more troublesome to clear customs to go on cruises to nowheres so only genuine gamblers do that.
well how troublesome can it get ? As long as u got a singapore passport, 10 minutes of your time is all it need to board the ship, especially it is to nowhere. Whole HDB crowding sentosa ?You bring the gambling den to Sentosa and extend the MRT line to it and you have the whole HDB neighbourhood crowding Sentosa. There is also an MRT to take cruie to nowhere as well
Why, in tat now probably the whole HDB already went to the turf club since there is also an MRT close to it. Do we really see tat happen ?You're making gamblers out of non-gamblers and that's a sin.
Then gov probably shouldn't sell cigerrettes. WHy ? They r making smokers out of non-smokers and tat is a sin. GOv shouldn't sell alcohol. They r making alcoholic out of non-alcoholic. Gov shouldn't show RA films. They r making lechers out of normal people and tat is a sin. Then maybe singapore can start to become a muslim state as well where they force women to cover from head to toe so tat men will not becom rapers out of normal people. Surely u should know wat is free will.Using the same logic, if YOU don't want to smoke heroin that is ur choice. Heroin smokers choose to smoke heroin and we as a democratic society should defend his right to smoke heroin ... coz it simply is the same.
true, but isn't gambling already, in some form exists here ? Heroin is gonna cause much harm to the people and should never take root here. But for gambling, u can get a cruise to nowhere easily everyday already. The only difference when building a casino here is a casino on land -
So you see, they are not entirely the same. You don't get addicted by eating fast food. You do get addicted to smoking, but you don't puff away your lifesavings or borrow twice that amount for your daily dosage of nicotine. The first time you gamble, it's your choice.
u never gonna get cancer from gambling. U neevr gonan affect the respiratory system of your child from smoking. U never drive badly (alcohol) causing accidents when u gamble. U never get a liver failure from gamblign as well. Each ills have its own problems.Second time, perhaps. But once you become addicted ... you're no longer rational enough to exercise your freedom of choice anymore ... and it's really a sin to take away someone's conscious ability to discern right from wrong (his freedom of choice so to speak) in a democratic country.
if u talk about addiction, then smoking, alcohol, heck even super glue can casue addiction. SO we should ban all of them in order for someoen to maintain his conscious ability to discern right from wrong. BTW, wat gives u the right to say tat people who r addicted cannot have any rights to do wat they want ?In the same token, it is not heroin that ruin people, its people who ruin themselves. nobody is forced to take heroin, people take heroin out of their own will. The first time you take heroin, it may be yor own folly. The second time round, not so anymore. You've become enslaved to heroin. Heroin has taken over your body. You have no free will of your own anymore. Same goes for casino. The first time Ah Beng visits the casino, it is his free choice no doubt. But once he becomes addicted, is it still fair to say "no one forced him to go in"? Is it moral for us to hook people onto heroin or casinos and then say it is his free choice not to continue smoking heroin or going into the casino?
However heroin is different because it is physically specially made to be addictive. It is scientifically proven tat certain substance in it will force most nromal people into heroin smoking. and frankly, if they choose to smoke heroin themselves, it is true they r ruining themselves as well.
the difference between heroin and gambling. Fro heroin u have a 60% chance of becoming an addict. For gambling u have a less than 1% chance. U go to a casino before, r u an addict ? I also went there before and lose RM50
but I am not an addict as well. In fact if u ask the people here, most probably went to genting to bet some money and they r all still normal unaddicted people. If u wanna comapre addiction, then compare with alcohol since it too has a less than 1% chance of becoming an addictIt's like someone's digging a big hole in the ground and many people are going to fall into it. But since I'm not affected I say it's people themselves kayu walk into the big hole. Isn't it selfish to watch people fall into the hole while you stand by and watch?
It is like digging a big hole as a tiger trap to make the community safer. Warnings have been given to the residents and they do trap a few tigers. However a person fell into the trap unwittingly. SO should we remove the tiger trap and make the whole village unsafe just for a few individuals ?So you're saying even as you do not wish your child to be a drug addict, you'd still legalise marijuana, heroin ... even if you do not wish to see your child killed by a bullet in school, you'd still legalise firearms in Singapore?
Ahh... tat probably will depends on a few factors. Gambling is already well established here. Banning a casino or not is not gonna help anything. Furthermore a casino do help our economy greatly and therefore it can be considered. Wat about drugs ? there r virtually no drugs in singapore and a ban is effective in protecting my kid. Drug is not gonna make a nation richer or improve the economy as well. The same arguments go for firearms. Therefore I will ban drugs and firearms in singapore, but not a casinoWhile that precept is true, we wouldn't want to become their accomplices in ruining themselves.
we shouldn't be the person who stop people from working or giving hotels/restaurants a chance to earn a profit as well. It is not a black and white issue. If u r kind to the potential addicts, u will be cruel to the hotel owners and jobless people.You've never tasted marijuana, do you feel a strong urge to have it? You see, unlike basic urges for food and sex which we are borne with, the urge to smoke or gamble are not something we are predisposed with. They are acquired and where do we acquire them from? From family and society at large. We can't control the family the least we can do is not let society degrade itself.
true, but on the other side of the coin, we will be seeing our tourist sector becoming from bad to worse. In a sense we r watching our society degrade itself as well. We can't have a win win situation. Most decisions don't have and u have to see which one is mroe critical for continuing the soceityNo place better to go is poor excuse for setting up an activity that is technically a vice. Nothing better to do, smoke marijuana too?
Technicslly speaking, most entertainment outlet r vices. U think a cinema is not a vice when it do propangate children to becoem more violent. U think video games is good for the children since it make them addicts as well. So there is a scale on the harmful effect of certain activities. Casino has its theme parks and it do make a good place to go when u r bored. Frankly I find smokign marijuana or smoking r boring so I will not do them even when I am bored.This is akin to saying "My classmate is better at biology, I dun give up, I try harder to beat him. My classmate is also better than me at telling lies and stealing so I shouldn't give up either but try to outdo him". You put in an honest day's study, you do better at biology. Telling lies and stealing no doubt involve more risk taking but are they worth risking for?
the example u give is completely wrong. I am asking people not to be afraid of competition, to strive to carve out a nich for themselves. As said before, just because finland start to do life sciece we should all back down and stop our own research in tat ? Tat is dumb and suicidal. If I used to be the top student in my class in bio, should I give up reading bio because someone beat me once in an exam ? Your example is refering to something completely different, something about kiasuism and being the first in everything include silly tings like tellign lies (how about being first in no tellign lies ? if u r number one in an area inevitably u r the last in a different category such as if u r the ugliest girl in the class u can't be the most beautiful one at the same time)while the things i have been saying is about not afraid of competition. R u sure u r reading correctly ?
reply more later -
I don't see the point of having a casino other than to boost our already huge reserves. Seriously, a casino on our shores will only increase the number of gamblers and those in debts. The government wants to attract tourists to our shores, but why would we want tourists to know us as another Batam or Genting, places which attract large number of gamblers? What is going 2 make our casinos any different from those two placeS?
-
Peaceful anti-casino march disallowed. I am not surprised by it.
Democracy in Singapore is very subjective to the whims and fancies of the ruling regime.
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw05/050331re.htm -
Macau has often been cited as proof of the economic value of the casino industry, which purportedly brings in 16 million visitors each year. Before we jump to conclude that this is sure jackpot for us, we need to ask ourselves where those 16 million come from. If we draw a 500 mile radius around Macau, how many of those 16 million visitors fall outside it? You draw the same circle around Singapore, consider the kind of people residing in the circle and you have a rough idea what kind of market potential we're talking about.
as said before, if there r no money gonna be earned, then why is there people preparing their proposals to build a casino ? Even if u draw a 500 mile radius, u can find pretty much population as well
We can't just copy and paste formulas without thinking how applicable they are to us. Casinos make sense for Macau because demand is right at their doorstep. If all that the Chinese wish is to gamble, why fly all the way here when they have Macau? In the end, the potential casino patrons would mostly be Singaporeans than tourists. So the potential for a big bang tourist influx doesn't seem as great as that of a mad Singapore rush and consequently the potential for great economic benefits pale in comparison with the potentially greater negative impacts the casino has on our fellow Singaporeans.Others have quoted job creation as reason enough to have a casino. But there's more than meet the eye. When a salesman wishes to sell you something, he packages it such that you believe he's offering you something for your own good, something you really need. Similarly when a government tries to sell its people a policy, it will also take great pains to make them believe it has their concerns at heart. We are made to see that 5000 jobs will be created for us. What we are not told is that that is actually the short end of the stick. Because if you compare 5000 jobs against say $5 billion, who stands to gain more? Ultimately it is our fellow countrymen (gamblers no doubt) who would be employing those 5000 and contributing even more to the state coffers. When the purported good of creating 5000 jobs is compared against nurturing 500,000 gamblers, we should start wondering whose concerns are really closest to their hearts?
so u believes tat the casino do indeed give other people employment. Why don't u try to answer whether will the tourism in singapore improves ? However u feel it is gonna make 500,000 gambler, which meant 1/6 of singaporean will become gambling addicts. How accurate do u think tis is ? Frankly singaporean already use 6 billions on various form of gambling. Do we see 1 in six singaporean being gambler addicts ?A good way to sell something is to appeal to current tastes and fashion. The in-thing now is to "be different", to "try new things" and to be "mature". It appeals to those who do not wish to be seen as either conservative or immature, who readily lap up the slogan and become its walking advocate. But there is another recent slogan which is "to think for ourselves and not always rely on the government". Why then do we regurgitate every word it says without the slightest processing?
If we peel away the packaging surrounding the offering, it is at its very core a merely easy way of making money. As simple as that. What happens when leaders take the easy way out? What does it show of them?
Dun know. Wat does it show on malaysian, japanese, british, american leaders when they started the casino ?The apparent jobs being created by the casino are self evident and easy to see. But the indirect job losses in other sectors due to substitution say from clubbing to gambling are much more difficult to fathom and appreciate. In the end there may be no real job creation but mere job shifting from one sector to another. There is no doubt tourism is a major issue but the assertion that "tourism will receive a much needed boost" is questionable. How much boost? Are they worthwhile? If you give your coffeeshop a new coat of paint, it'll definitely look nicer and more people will come. But if the paint costs $2000 but brings in only two extra customers per day, then you're better off leaving the coffeeshop as it were.
why does clubbing and gambling becoming opposition to each other ? If there is an increase in tourism, in fact it will increase the pool size of the peopel here and increase the business of clubing as well.
Is the boost worthwhile ? Well then it may very well be so. If u spend $2000 on upgrading the coffeeshop and everyday 200 more customers arrived, then why not ?If we build a Disney here, yes I agwee people will come from far and wide. But if it's just another resort cum casino, even if it is the best in the world, I doubt so ... which part of the world doesn't have resorts or casinos? Just because we build a lavish toilet here doesn't mean people will travel 200 miles to use it. Building the best casino in the world or for that matter any infrastructure you can think of is what our government is best at. But tourists don't come just because there's a beautiful hotel for them to sleep in. They come because there is something here they don't have back home and the casino is not one of them.
then tat is the starneg thing, u say tat almost all the world have casinoes, why not singapore ? Do uthink the gov of other nations r idiots and wanna see their citizen die becoming gambling addicts ? Why doesn't a casino cum resort works ? I can see many peopel going to genting or las vegas isn't it ? So wat works ? volcanoland, tang dynasty or haw par villa works ? -
Some people have cited big casinos in Monte Carlo and Las Vegas as reason for their success worthy of our emulation. But we should'nt confuse cause with effect. It is not because Monte Carlo and Las Vegas are big that makes them successful. It is because they are successful (fuelled by demand from their respective home bases) that they have grown big. The reverse may not be true. Just because we build a big casino doesn't mean it is gonna be successful. Just because we built a world class opera theatre doesn't mean it can become a successful one. Are they gonna sustain the esplanade losses indefinitely? Vegas is surrounded by rich Americans, Monte Carlo by rich Europeans, Macau by rich Hong Kongers plus mainland Chinese. We are surrounded by poor Indonesia and not so rich Malaysia.
U think u got it wrong. It is common sense tat casinoes be big in order to pull in people. It is they being big which make them successful. Why do u say otherwise ? If u r right, then surely there should be some small casinoes beign successful as well, where r they ? And if the casino fails, then why does it concern u ? It is the problem of the casino builders isn't it ? U think they don't know the geography of singapore ?I remember when they first refurbished Sentosa, they charged exhobitant entrance prices. Nobody went, so they lowered prices. Still nobody went, they made it free entry.
tat is right. Why ? because has sentosa fallen to such a state ? Because it is boring. So wat should we do ? Make something attractive.
Today casino entry $100. Years later casino not doing well they decide to lower it to $50 ... then $20 ... then free entry ...Another stupid logic. Already got so much illegal gambling therefore gambling should be legalised. Already so much illegal drug abuse therefore drug abuse should be legalised. Already so much people pui chao nua at ... so pui chao nua at ... should be legalised ...
really ? got a lot of illegal drugs here meh ? Got a lot of people pui chao nua meh ? I do see a lot of peopel becoming gays, so gays inded has sort of become accepted as well BTW, there r indeed a lot of gambling venues such as floating casinoes.The casino sounds like a good opportunity for an 'O' level but for every 'O' level the casino employs, another hundred would be tempted to make a quick buck out of it and end up gambling for the rest of their lives.
Then if going by yoru logic, probably all americam, japanese, malaysia r gamblers now. Why do the whole world build casinoes if wat u say r true ? Tis is because the real gambling addicts r really rare and few in between. Most people r casual gamblers.My boss made $1 million profit recently, yes growth trickled down, he treated us each to a McDonald's hamburger.
tat is your boss. If your father get 1o million, will u get any benefits from it ?That is the kind of "growth" that results from gambling. Las Vegas prospers at the expense of its neighbouring states, Macau at the expense of neighbouring Chinese. In the end, the casino is nothing more than a vacuum pump, sucking in funds from all around while creating little. There is nothing much to suck from neighbouring Malaysia or Indonesia so we'd end up sucking ourselves. You might find after 40 years, Ang Mo Kio, Hougang and Woodlands have shrivelled while Sentosa has bloated ... shop in Ang Mo Kio close down and reopen in Sentosa, worker in Hougang now works in Sentosa ... what growth?
I think u get it wrong. as Vegas is probably bigger in signapore. So if going by your logic, singapore will propers at the benefit of its neighbouring countries. Singapore is so small for your infoWhat kind of economics is that? Supply and demand determine the amount of taxes I pay? How much tax we pay is decided by the very people who'd benefit most from the casino. They want to tax us more, they tax us more. They want to tax us less, they tax us less.
the amount of money gov had will affect on how tax is collected from singaporean. U prefers gov to be poor meh ?You see one ang moh in Africa and you conclude Africa is ang moh country? Just because our good friend here doesn't gamble doesn't mean everybody else is like him. Casino doesn't create gambling problems for him because he's got better ways of making money. Our 'O' levels would be more tempted ... the very people that were supposed to benefit from it.
why do u think "o" levels r more likely to be gamblers ? isn't it the case of seeing one ang mo in africa and saying africa is an ang mo country ? Most gamblers r like u and me. They play for fun.Yes the stock market is one big gambling den but just because it is doesn't mean we should have another one. Two wrongs don't make a right. One harm on top of another becomes two harms.
looking at another angle, if your current situation is already bad, might as well make use of it and let it become an opportunity instead. If your hand is dirty, might as well use it to do more dirty jobs while u r at it. If u can't walk properly with one broken high heel shoes, might as well break the other so u can walk more comfortably to the shoe shop. If your business can't earn much money, might as well sell it off to prevent loses. -
Dear All,
The following is my speech presented at the WP's 5 March Casino Forum.
Goh Meng Seng
A very good afternoon to James, my fellow comrades and citizens who have gathered here today for this casino forum.
I am tasked to present the reasons and rationale behind the anti-casino movement. Before I go on, I would like to comment on the online petition initiative by FACTS. Their slogan screams through the net, “Do you want your children to grow up learning that it is OK to gamble?” I have my personal slogan, “If you don’t want your children to be a gambler, why would you support the casino that makes others’ children to become gamblers?” Many proponents of casino will cry foul at such slogans and term them as “Moralist garbage”. Nevertheless, this “Moralist garbage” does appeal to many Singaporeans. At least twenty-seven thousand Singaporeans have signed against Casino in Singapore via FACTS web site so far. Their social activism is really commendable.
Many people thought that putting up a case against casino is a very simple task. It is definitely not so. We have to tackle the issue from a multi-dimensional platform. Throwing slogans around is just not enough. As members of a socially responsible political party, we have to be answerable to everyone, including those who are unemployed and hopeful about the prospects that a casino in Singapore would bring to them.
There are two main objectives in wanting to build a casino.
1) To earn Tourist money with little Social Cost. The most successful casinos are those who attract more foreign patrons as compared to locals. 80% of the patrons to casinos in Nevada are foreigners or from other states. Only 20% are locals. Similar composition applies to casinos in Macau.
2) To curb outflow of local gambling money. It is said that Singaporeans have gambled away US$900million in casinos worldwide. It is thus the primary reason why we want our own casino to capture part of this gambling money.
I would like to present the three main perspectives (apart from the moralist stand) that we think that are appropriate to address the casino issue.
1) Social Cost & Economic Benefits Analysis (The one in Yellow boxes)
2) Economic Viability & Problems (The one in Blue Boxes)
3) Dynamic Analysis (The one in Red Boxes)
The most common argument arises from the first perspective: Social Cost & Economic Benefits Analysis. It is not an easy analysis to start with. Our well paid ministers and civil servants have chose to sidetrack away from this analysis simply because social costs and economic benefits are difficult to estimate. How do we actually quantify the cost to society when someone takes his own life due to debts derived from casino gambling?
We should not take our citizens as mere digits. They are our brothers and sisters sharing this same piece of land with us. But it is inevitable for us to use statistical findings to counter those proponents of casino as they only understand “facts and figures”, nothing else. I will refrain from presenting all those mind-boggling statistics but concentrate on the findings and conclusions.
The fundamental root of Social Cost is addiction to gambling. Professor Gary Loveman, CEO of Harrah’s Entertainment, one of the key players in the US gaming industry, said that, “If 100 Singaporean residents walk into a casino, they are not equally likely to become addicts. In fact, virtually none of them will ever become addicted, because psychiatrically, they’re just not predisposed to addictions.” (This is reported in Business Times 8th Jan 2005.) I beg to differ. I would like to demonstrate how addiction arises out of gambling. People gamble because of greed, no matter how little there is. When one gamble, you either win or lose. When you win, you would think that lady luck is with you and you will want to win more. More greed, more gamble. If you lose, you are annoyed and think that you could win back what you lose. So, you continue to gamble. When the frequency of engagement on the gaming table increases, the attachment on winning more or winning back increases. Thus, no matter you win or lose, you will develop intense attachment to gambling. It is true that there are people who are more resistant to addiction but most people would fall into gambling addiction with intensified enticing through the gambling process. This addiction is one of the biggest sources of income for casinos. According to the “National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report” commissioned by the US government, more than 30% of casino revenues are generated from problem and pathological gamblers.
Gary Loveman also said that there is only about 1 to 2 per cent of the casino customers will become psychologically addicted to gambling. This is inaccurate as in the NGISC report, it is reported that there is about 1 to 2 percent of TOTAL ADULT POPULATION in US that are considered to be pathological gamblers. Pathological gamblers are individuals with very serious mental disorder in terms of psychological addictions. There is another category of problem gamblers whom may not suffer grave mental disorder but yet are potential source of social problem and cost. If we take this group into account, the potential size of problem and pathological gamblers is about 5% to 9% of TOTAL ADULT POPULATION. More importantly, NGISC felt that they might have underestimated the real situation when it is expected for respondents to hide their gambling problems.
There are more interesting findings from NGISC:
1) If there is a gambling facilities or casino within 50 miles of the community, the incidence of problem and pathological gamblers are doubled.
2) Seven of the nine communities investigated stated that the number of problem and pathological gamblers increased after the introduction of nearby casino gambling.
3) Male, young people and those with lower educational level are more prone to become problem or pathological gamblers.
The problem of gambling addiction manifests itself by affecting those surrounding the problem or pathological gamblers. The multiplier effect is believed to be 4 or 5. This means that more than 20% to 30% of the population would be affected.
There are studies that tried to quantify the social-economic cost into dollars and cents but most of them are deemed as understating the cost. There is one study done in 1998 which come to a conclusion that on average, the social cost is about S$20,000 per compulsive gamblers per annum. This is a very conservative estimate but when applied to Singapore, it may cost as much as S$0.7 billion to S$1 billion of social cost per annum. At this moment, I must say it is really inhuman to quantify human sufferings into dollars and cents but we have to do it for argument sake.
The PAP government has never refute the fact that casino may impose great significant social cost. It has instead tried to divert public focus to our own maturity. When that failed, they have chosen the path of moderation by coming up with a list of safeguards. It would be very unattractive to casino operator if we ban Singaporeans from Casino. There are casinos in Korea that banned local Koreans but they barely survive. Thus, to the government, the next second best solution is to impose safeguards.
Imposing safeguards may compromise our second objective of curbing the outflow of gambling money. Furthermore, the safeguards may not be effective at all. If one has to pay to get into the casino, it is natural for one to “optimize” his stay in the casino! That may result in more gambling and create more problem or pathological gamblers in the end. How to execute these safeguards in practice would be a challenge to both the authority as well as the casino operator. The safeguards are unlikely to be sustainable. Would the government promise not to relax the safeguards even when the whole casino-integrated resort start to lose money? Most likely, with government vested interests in the whole project via GLCs, it would be forced to relax such safeguards ultimately.
One school of thought argues that the casino-integrated resort will not be beneficial to us simply because it would cannibalize on our local economy and create problems. Monies that might have been spent on other stuffs would have end up in the casino. Tourists would have spent less on local retail outlets. Singaporeans have already spent one of the highest per capital amount on convenient gambling. The casino will aggravate the situation further.
If the casino-integrated resort provides free or subsidized hotel accommodations to its patrons, existing hotels and hospitality sector ‘s business would definitely be affected.
There are research done in US that put doubts on the economic contributions claimed to come from casino. It is not difficult for us to believe that the initial investment would make contributions to our economic growth. However, in the long run, this may not be the case when the casino-resort cannibalized on other sectors and cause loss of productivity by creating problem or pathological gamblers. Work ethics may be adversely affected.
More importantly, casino will create some economic-financial problems to the economy. Money laundering will increase and the casino would become a great place for briberies to be channeled effectively. Loan sharks business will definitely enjoy a boom while bankruptcies will increase. These are the potential negative externalities of having a casino here.
The viability of the Casino-integrated resort will depend heavily on the projected regional economic development as well as how our neighboring countries react to our set up. There is basically no entry barrier for any countries to build similar Casino-integrated resorts. We will lose our niche if our neighbors so decide to build their own versions of Casino-integrated resorts in one of their renowned tourist spots. And if that happens, we will face a big problem as demonstrated in our dynamic analysis.
Our neighbors will be attracted by the very same reasons as we did, to go into casino business as they will not stand there and do nothing to stop all the gambling money coming to us. As we know, the Casino integrated resort is a high stake and high-risk project. The non-gambling attractions may not be economically viable without the cross-subsidies from the casino. We may end up losing money when our neighbors decide to compete with us. They have the inherent endowed advantages with many tourist spots available in their land. We may be forced to do away with all the safeguards so to make up for the lost revenues and thus the social cost burden on the society will increase tremendously. If not, our billion-dollar investment in this Casino-integrated resort will end up bleeding us to death. As shown in the slide, the Nash equilibrium will mean that we all end up as suckers. It is the casino operators who will gain all. This region is considered as a new territory for the gaming industry. Are we stupid enough to allow ourselves to be used by the gaming industry as the thin edge of the wedge to open up this region as their new market? I hope not.
I have just provided a summary of most of the points that has been brought up by the anti-casino camp. My conclusion for the above points is very simple.
If anyone talks about Freedom of choice, about how matured citizens on this land would deal with a casino, he has missed the point totally. Nobody is curbing anybody's rights to gamble in a casino. You could just take a boat trip to Batam or just get a ticket onto the cruise to nowhere. This is never an issue at all.
The argument against casino made here is not from a moral point of view. The moral perspective is merely a small part of the whole argument. The biggest issue is that after we have invested billions of dollars into this venture and eventually find out that our neighbours will outdo us, we will have no choice but to open up the casino for Singaporeans in order to get your investment sustainable in the long run! That's the problem. When that happens, casino will become the parasite industry of Singapore.
It is simply not possible for us to be "MORE ATTRACTIVE" to tourists with a casino in Singapore. People would rather go to HK's Disneyland then take a short boat trip to Macau. Even Bali in Indonesia would be a much better place to build casinos! There are just too many tourist attractions in Indonesia and Malaysia where they could build casinos to make them more attractive! We will lose out in the end and we will become suckers eventually. We will be stuck with a multi-billion dollar Casino-Trojan horse that would require us to sell our soul in order to save us from bleeding big. More families would be affected adversely, more people young and old would suffer in silence or agony.
Gambling will erode the moral fabric of our nation. Our people must be taught that wealth is accumulated through hard work, not via lady luck. If PAP government think that they could do a quick fix to their dismay economic performance in creating jobs by building this Casino-integrated resort, they would be making the biggest honest mistake ever. They are just simply putting the whole nationÂ’s welfare as a stake on the gambling table. -
I guess u have a problem with gov having more money lets jus say if they made enough tax from gambling, they will have mroe budget to play with and the tendency they use it for something good increase. If they find themselves havign lesser money, than u can be sure some tax from somewhere will increase, making life more miserable than ever.
One shouldn't assume that the casino would always bring in more monies. If the casinos bring in billions only in the first couple year, and our gov had rewarded themselves with a fat raise, are we going to sacrifice more chao kwey teow when the billions stopped coming in? -
When a cansino is built,there would be more illegal casinos flourishing just like there are illegal prostutues in Geylang area where there are many MOH approved brothels.
-
[lets put it tis way. i rather u lose your money in a singapore casino than a malaysia one since the money will largely circulate here if u play here. without a casino in singapore, u already lost RM1500, which is RM1500 lost from our economy]
how often does he go genting? once a year? with a casino in singapore, he can go every week. it may be another five years before he goes genting again but he can lose $1,500 in Sentosa every week ...
[I guess u have a problem with gov having more money lets jus say if they made enough tax from gambling, they will have mroe budget to play with and the tendency they use it for something good increase. If they find themselves havign lesser money, than u can be sure some tax from somewhere will increase, making life more miserable than ever.]
he doesn't have a problem with gov more money, just gov wasting money on the wrong things. if gov keep wasting money, no amount of taxes will be adequate to play with and the tendency to waste funds is more likely than the tendency to do something good with it.
[The govt ministers know smoking is no good.But because of MONEY, they would probably approve selling cigerrettes.So it would be sacrificing moral principle to get money.So u support the govt to do this kind of thing?]
you don't support what can you do? say out? do we have a say? just like this casino issue, at the end of the day all we can do is say.
[Things r not as simple black or white. There r good things about casinoes as well.]
better to be more white than black. the good not worth the bad.
[actually u r comparing with a family tat have a gambling addict father. wat will happen to other normal families who do not gamble regularly ? Life goes on and the kid get her ice cream. In fact she may get a double scoop of since the father can save money from no increase in tax and her mother working in the casino, increasing their income. The retail industry may, on contrary, improve]
doesn't matter whether the father is addict or not or whether he goes only once, or once every week. each $1 he gives to the casino is a $1 lost to his family. the $1 that daddy gave casino gets used for other priorities like minister's pay so there's no change in daddy's tax and hence no savings for him. consequently daughter's left with no scoop, let alone double scoop while mother works her butt off to pay off gambling debts. the retail industry hence suffers.
[true. But locals gambling overseas is much worse than they gambling here. The effect on tourism may not be as bleak as u think as well BTW, why do u think all the tourist have bigger casinoes than singapore ? In tat case why don't we build one now since almost all countries have them]
we should look at the context of everyone at stake. it is not just the gamblers that are affected, the rest of the country are involved too. you bring the gamblers back, you tempt many more others who would otherwise not be bothered to go overseas to gamble. tourists have bigger casinos because their populations are sizeable enough to support them. we can't be like them because we don't have that kind of population and our neighbours are simply too poor.
[I believe jobs from casinoes, hotels and restaurant r not bad jobs. It do adds to our competitiveness in tourism. BTW do u really think tat once the casino opens, then EVERYBODY will become addicts instantly so much so tat the pool have no people ?]
they are not bad jobs but they can be better. you must be kidding, you can't understand an illustration when you see one? the point isn't about instantly or over many years or one person or everybody, it illustrates that because of subsitution, other industries suffer and consequently we gain nothing.
[Then I guess all american r gamblers, all japanese play pinball and no other things and all malysian can't swim because they go to genting every week. Is tat the case we seeing ? Tue, there will be an increase in addicts but your examples just give me the picture tat u think everybody will become addicts]
of couse that's not the case we're seeing and why? because there are so many more americans and japs around they have enough people doing just about everything. every singaporean crowd in the casino, what happens to the rest of the city?
[as said before, if all tourists have bigger ones, than why singapore don't have ? u probably acknowledge tat almost the whole world of developed countries have casinoes]
said too before, tourists come from much bigger, more populous and richer countries. now you're finally gettin somewhere. yes, casinos mostly reside in populous and rich regions but ours is not.
[well how troublesome can it get ? As long as u got a singapore passport, 10 minutes of your time is all it need to board the ship, especially it is to nowhere. Whole HDB crowding sentosa ?]
troublesome enough. to that effect yes.
[Why, in tat now probably the whole HDB already went to the turf club since there is also an MRT close to it. Do we really see tat happen ?]
yes it happens every week ... and it's so crowded it's like the whole HDB is there ...
[Then gov probably shouldn't sell cigerrettes. WHy ? They r making smokers out of non-smokers and tat is a sin. GOv shouldn't sell alcohol. They r making alcoholic out of non-alcoholic. Gov shouldn't show RA films. They r making lechers out of normal people and tat is a sin. Then maybe singapore can start to become a muslim state as well where they force women to cover from head to toe so tat men will not becom rapers out of normal people. Surely u should know wat is free will.]
three sins in a row justifies a fourth? how many cigarettes can you smoke a day? how many bottles of alcohol can you consume a day? how many RA shows can you watch a day? how much money can you gamble away on a single wager? surely you know the numbers.
[true, but isn't gambling already, in some form exists here ? ... But for gambling, u can get a cruise to nowhere easily everyday already. The only difference when building a casino here is a casino on land]
Gambling berthed just outside our docks makes it right for us to bring it ashore? people fighting along the corridor we invite them to fight inside our house? at least with ship you still have to take the trouble to clear customs, so only genuine gamblers bother to do so. you bring the gambling den ashore and extend the MRT line to it, you make it so much easier for our fellow countrymen to become gamblers.
[u never gonna get cancer from gambling. U neevr gonan affect the respiratory system of your child from smoking. U never drive badly (alcohol) causing accidents when u gamble. U never get a liver failure from gamblign as well. Each ills have its own problems.]
so just because gambling doesn't give you cancer it is a lesser evil than smoking? just because you can smoke irresponsibly infront of your child therefore you can gamble and squander away his future? just because you might drive irresponsibly due to excessive alcohol you're not wrong to gamble away your family fortune? just because gambling doesn't exhibit the ills of other vices it should be allowed? just because an ill doesn't kill us a hundred and one ways it should be condoned?
[if u talk about addiction, then smoking, alcohol, heck even super glue can casue addiction. SO we should ban all of them in order for someoen to maintain his conscious ability to discern right from wrong. BTW, wat gives u the right to say tat people who r addicted cannot have any rights to do wat they want ?]
not banning super glue gives you the right to sanction gambling? what makes you think that addicted people still know what they want? you know what is addiction or not?
[However heroin is different because ... Fro heroin u have a 60% chance of becoming an addict. For gambling u have a less than 1% chance. U go to a casino before, r u an addict ? I also went there before and lose RM50 but I am not an addict as well. In fact if u ask the people here, most probably went to genting to bet some money and they r all still normal unaddicted people. If u wanna comapre addiction, then compare with alcohol since it too has a less than 1% chance of becoming an addict]
1% based on what? first encounter? you go genting once a year, maybe 1% chance addiction. you go sentosa every week, still 1%? so just because I can be addicted to alcohol I might as well get addicted to gambling as well? -
[It is like digging a big hole as a tiger trap to make the community safer. Warnings have been given to the residents and they do trap a few tigers. However a person fell into the trap unwittingly. SO should we remove the tiger trap and make the whole village unsafe just for a few individuals ?]
tigers have their own jungles, even if you set the biggest trap in the world, they won't bother to come. why swim across oceans just to catch a mousedeer when there are plenty of sambar deer at home? trap a few wild boars maybe. so for the sake of one tiger you have no qualms about trapping all other forest inhabitants? just because you set up warning sign gives you the right to set up snares? in fact, the more appropriate analogy is that you're inviting a tiger to come and prey on us ...
[Ahh... tat probably will depends on a few factors. Gambling is already well established here. Banning a casino or not is not gonna help anything.]
gambling is already lurking in some dark corners so we bring them out for everyone? does not help so we encourage instead?
[Wat about drugs ? there r virtually no drugs in singapore and a ban is effective in protecting my kid. Drug is not gonna make a nation richer or improve the economy as well. The same arguments go for firearms. Therefore I will ban drugs and firearms in singapore, but not a casino]
the drug ban is effective because drug trafficking carries the death sentence. you try imposing the same death penalty to gambling operator wannabes and you see if it is not as effective.
if drug is not lucrative why are people willing to drug traffic and risk the death sentence? why are there juntas who specialise in selling drugs to finance the country? in any case what you're saying is that as long as there's money in it, you won't ban it, so morality isn't an issue here then? then drugs being lucrative, you also would not ban.
[we shouldn't be the person who stop people from working or giving hotels/restaurants a chance to earn a profit as well. It is not a black and white issue. If u r kind to the potential addicts, u will be cruel to the hotel owners and jobless people.]
there are already enough hotels and restaurants to go around. let's say I can set up a food court and employ people. but I don't want to set up a food court but instead want to set up a KTV lounge. when people tell me not to set up the KTV lounge, I say they are stopping people from being employed by my KTV lounge. but I won't tell them that I can still employ those people if I choose to set up the food court.
I'd rather be more white than black ...
[true, but on the other side of the coin, we will be seeing our tourist sector becoming from bad to worse. In a sense we r watching our society degrade itself as well. We can't have a win win situation. Most decisions don't have and u have to see which one is mroe critical for continuing the soceity]
you're not seeing the picture right. you cannot equate tourism to a society's moral values. Bangkok has a booming tourist industry driven by prostitution. you call that a morally high grade society?
[Technicslly speaking, most entertainment outlet r vices. U think a cinema is not a vice when it do propangate children to becoem more violent. U think video games is good for the children since it make them addicts as well. So there is a scale on the harmful effect of certain activities. Casino has its theme parks and it do make a good place to go when u r bored. Frankly I find smokign marijuana or smoking r boring so I will not do them even when I am bored.]
I think you are not technically attuned enough to speak technically, the way you define vices, even the vice president of united states can be a vice. there may be a scale but we all have a commone sense judgement of what constitutes or does not constitute a vice.
[the example u give is completely wrong. I am asking people not to be afraid of competition, to strive to carve out a nich for themselves. As said before, just because finland start to do life sciece we should all back down and stop our own research in tat ? ... R u sure u r reading correctly ?]
the example I gave directly rebutes your argument, just that you didn't get it. in justifying our competition in the casino arena, you used the example of our competition in life sciences. competition in one area automatically justifies competition in another? the counter example I gave is meant to illustrate the ludicrousness of your argument.
[as said before, if there r no money gonna be earned, then why is there people preparing their proposals to build a casino ? Even if u draw a 500 mile radius, u can find pretty much population as well]
as I've said before as well, money gonna be earned but from our own people. their proposal is to fleece us commoners. you can't seriously be just looking at absolute numbers did you? you mean you'd count those people in Aceh who don't have enough food to eat let alone the money to come to Singapore as our potential casino patrons?
[so u believes tat the casino do indeed give other people employment. Why don't u try to answer whether will the tourism in singapore improves ?]
a casino can give jobs doesn't mean a theme park or for that matter any other entreprise cannot. also, we shouldn't be so narrow minded as to see only the jobs being created without considering impacts to the rest of the country. why only ask such a simple question as to whether tourism will improve? instead why not ask, by how much? at what costs?
[However u feel it is gonna make 500,000 gambler, which meant 1/6 of singaporean will become gambling addicts. How accurate do u think tis is ? Frankly singaporean already use 6 billions on various form of gambling. Do we see 1 in six singaporean being gambler addicts ?]
that is the figure given by the govt, that there are 500,000 lowly educated people, people who would be most tempted to make a quick buck and have their lives (and those of their families) destroyed.
[Dun know. Wat does it show on malaysian, japanese, british, american leaders when they started the casino ?]
same things, money and self interest, except they have the demand to support the money making machine, we don't.
[why does clubbing and gambling becoming opposition to each other ? If there is an increase in tourism, in fact it will increase the pool size of the peopel here and increase the business of clubing as well.]
I quote you "If there is an increase in tourism" - a very big "if" indeed. how much increase? what happens if they don't come in sufficient numbers for the "big" casino you're planning. are we not gonna open doors wide for Ah Beng who would have to decide whether to go clubbing or gambling ...
[Is the boost worthwhile ? Well then it may very well be so. If u spend $2000 on upgrading the coffeeshop and everyday 200 more customers arrived, then why not ?]
even if it were to be 20 more customers, maybe only 2 will come from far while the rest would be your friendly neighbours who would be the ones footing the $2000 renovation costs. -
[then tat is the starneg thing, u say tat almost all the world have casinoes, why not singapore ? Do uthink the gov of other nations r idiots and wanna see their citizen die becoming gambling addicts ? Why doesn't a casino cum resort works ? I can see many peopel going to genting or las vegas isn't it ? So wat works ? volcanoland, tang dynasty or haw par villa works ?]
every prosperous region in the world has its own casino, our region simply doesn't have enough demand except from our own people. they're not idiots, their society is large and rich enough to absorb their casino cities. we have nothing around us to absorb, we end up absorbing ourselves. because people travel far and wide for attractions they don't have at home whereas for casinos they go to the one nearest to them. you think it is as simple as copying and pasting genting or vegas? what about the underlying demand?
[U think u got it wrong. It is common sense tat casinoes be big in order to pull in people. It is they being big which make them successful. Why do u say otherwise ? If u r right, then surely there should be some small casinoes beign successful as well, where r they ? And if the casino fails, then why does it concern u ? It is the problem of the casino builders isn't it ? U think they don't know the geography of singapore ?]
not that I'm wrong but you don't understand. all we need is a big casino for success? so simple? big doesn't ensure success but successful casinos will grow big, that should be the common sense. you don't see small successful casinos because successful casinos don't stay small. how many big casinos have come and gone? they don't even stay long enough for you to remember their names. when a casino does well, it grows and expands, as simple as that. it is possible to start with a loud bang and die a sudden death. It concerns me because we are building a big casino on the assumption that it will definitely bring in lots of tourists but when it doesn't our own people will end up supporting it. it is precisely because they know the geography of singapore that they've decided not to bring Disney here.
[tat is right. Why ? because has sentosa fallen to such a state ? Because it is boring. So wat should we do ? Make something attractive.]
there are many other ways to liven up the place, boring should not be the excuse to start a gambling den here.
[really ? got a lot of illegal drugs here meh ? Got a lot of people pui chao nua meh ? I do see a lot of peopel becoming gays, so gays inded has sort of become accepted as well BTW, there r indeed a lot of gambling venues such as floating casinoes.]
isn't that what you guys are shouting about? acceptance of gay means acceptance of casino? people steal your wallet means they should rob you too?
[Then if going by yoru logic, probably all americam, japanese, malaysia r gamblers now. Why do the whole world build casinoes if wat u say r true ? Tis is because the real gambling addicts r really rare and few in between. Most people r casual gamblers.]
nope, you're not following the logic correctly. the yankees and japs have their fair share of gambling problems but because their nations are so populous and wealthy, those problems can be adequately absorbed. how many las vegases are there in america? can you have a las vegas in every american city? how many successful casino cities can southeast asia support? poor southeast asia that is, not rich america.
[tat is your boss. If your father get 1o million, will u get any benefits from it ?]
oh I'm sure my father would be more generous. that's why I never get the fatherly feeling from the govt ... he's more like a boss.
[I think u get it wrong. as Vegas is probably bigger in signapore. So if going by your logic, singapore will propers at the benefit of its neighbouring countries. Singapore is so small for your info]
nope, you didn't get the logic again. if we can't prosper from our neighbours who do we end up prospering from?
[the amount of money gov had will affect on how tax is collected from singaporean. U prefers gov to be poor meh ?]
the govt's appetite is so big, even if there's more food on the table, he'll still gobble up everything and we're left with only the crumps. I dun want him to be poor just less selfish that's all.
[why do u think "o" levels r more likely to be gamblers ? isn't it the case of seeing one ang mo in africa and saying africa is an ang mo country ? Most gamblers r like u and me. They play for fun.]
then, you don't know what a gambler is. if casino was to depend on gambler like you, then it had better not open in the first place.
[looking at another angle, if your current situation is already bad, might as well make use of it and let it become an opportunity instead. If your hand is dirty, might as well use it to do more dirty jobs while u r at it. If u can't walk properly with one broken high heel shoes, might as well break the other so u can walk more comfortably to the shoe shop. If your business can't earn much money, might as well sell it off to prevent loses.]
your hands dirty therefore you would scoop faeces from the toilet bowl? my hands are not dirty but your brain is not engaged enough to come up with better ideas so you choose to dirty my hands instead? -
When the govt wouldn't lead by example .....
If a casino was built,there would be more illegal gambling dens flourishing in S'pore.While the legal casino caters for the rich,the illegal ones cater for the no so rich or the poor.The govt would have lost moral authority to tell ppl not to gamble because it approved one.Since the govt can abondon moral principle to approve a casino for the sake of money,operators of illegal gambling dens also do likewise.They would tell the govt give them permits & they can collect taxes for govt too.That would be the problem the govt would face when it wouldn't lead morally. -
how often does he go genting? once a year? with a casino in singapore, he can go every week. it may be another five years before he goes genting again but he can lose $1,500 in Sentosa every week ...
If I want, I can go to genting every week. It is because it does not interest me tat is why I go there, well, probably once a year.he doesn't have a problem with gov more money, just gov wasting money on the wrong things. if gov keep wasting money, no amount of taxes will be adequate to play with and the tendency to waste funds is more likely than the tendency to do something good with it.
So given the same gov, is more money for them better or worse ? If they have no money, they will increase the tax to earn back tat amount. And frankly, why do u say our gov is wasting money ? DO they spend money differently when compared with other countries ?better to be more white than black. the good not worth the bad.
it is good for a decision to go for more benefit than problems. But then which one gives off more benefits ? U say for casino the black is more. I say with a casino the white is more. So which to choose ?doesn't matter whether the father is addict or not or whether he goes only once, or once every week. each $1 he gives to the casino is a $1 lost to his family. the $1 that daddy gave casino gets used for other priorities like minister's pay so there's no change in daddy's tax and hence no savings for him. consequently daughter's left with no scoop, let alone double scoop while mother works her butt off to pay off gambling debts. the retail industry hence suffers.
I think there appears to be some gov bashing in here. Is the gov rerally tat bad tat singaporean r left with no welfare and no money ? If u say tat going to casin oto waste $1 is a waste to the family, then going to cinema to watch movies is also a waste of money to the family. In fact eating ice cream is a waste of money as wellwe should look at the context of everyone at stake. it is not just the gamblers that are affected, the rest of the country are involved too. you bring the gamblers back, you tempt many more others who would otherwise not be bothered to go overseas to gamble. tourists have bigger casinos because their populations are sizeable enough to support them. we can't be like them because we don't have that kind of population and our neighbours are simply too poor.
I think u have think a step much too far. Now they don't have tat big a casino. So we make use of tis opportunity to make money from tat fact. If we think like u, then we should not invest on anything. U invest in a hotel for wat ? In the end the bigger countries is gonna make a bigger hotel as well and they have a bigger population, thus can substain it. Then in the end singapore company will still die because we do not have tat population and our neighbours r too poor. We invest in a company for wat ? Our population will not last tat company and other bigger nations will make similar products. In the end we also die. Then we can just die off now.they are not bad jobs but they can be better. you must be kidding, you can't understand an illustration when you see one? the point isn't about instantly or over many years or one person or everybody, it illustrates that because of subsitution, other industries suffer and consequently we gain nothing.
Then why don't u propose something to make singaporean have better jobs ? On your illustrations, it has gone off to be too exergerrated to the point of being ridiculous. U say tat if a casino is open, then no one will swim ? Isn't tat ridiculous to become out of point ?of couse that's not the case we're seeing and why? because there are so many more americans and japs around they have enough people doing just about everything. every singaporean crowd in the casino, what happens to the rest of the city?
But they certainly have much more casinoes and much more pinball companeis as well. Why do u think every singaporean will become gamblers addicts when not every japanese/american become gambling addicts. The japanese never crowd to their pinballs so much so tat their rest of the cities become empty. Why singapore will become tat ? Japanese r not human meh ?said too before, tourists come from much bigger, more populous and richer countries. now you're finally gettin somewhere. yes, casinos mostly reside in populous and rich regions but ours is not.
Las Vegas is a desert area before. It is not populous not rich then. When Macau started, the area around it is poor as well. U talk about China but they face a very great difficulty in going to macau during those communist years then. They manage to be successful. Singapore is a transit point for many nations. Isn't tat a good point to start off ?troublesome enough. to that effect yes.
not troublesome enough to pay a $100 for the entryyes it happens every week ... and it's so crowded it's like the whole HDB is there ...
Then singapore already have a much established casino liek gamblign area. Wat is the diff if u add in another one ?three sins in a row justifies a fourth? how many cigarettes can you smoke a day? how many bottles of alcohol can you consume a day? how many RA shows can you watch a day? how much money can you gamble away on a single wager? surely you know the numbers
How many people die of cancer from gambling ? How many die from drink driving ? How many lechers becoem molesters and rapers from gambling ? Com'on, the result of each effect is different. U can't compare aple with oranges and talk about totally different statistic. 3 sins in a row meant tat there is no such thing as a sinfree society. -
Gambling berthed just outside our docks makes it right for us to bring it ashore? people fighting along the corridor we invite them to fight inside our house? at least with ship you still have to take the trouble to clear customs, so only genuine gamblers bother to do so. you bring the gambling den ashore and extend the MRT line to it, you make it so much easier for our fellow countrymen to become gamblers.
For your first question. yes. For your second question, the analogy is off. Why ? because casino is something some people volunterrily who want to do it, and fighting is, presume u r normal, something nobody wanna do. It is more like if clarke quay has pubs, why not let places like mohd sultans have them too ? As said before, the custom i as simple as singaporean going to malaysia to eat seafood. The only difference is already as thin as waffle. In short, 10 minutes. Is 10 minutes tat great a deterence ?so just because gambling doesn't give you cancer it is a lesser evil than smoking? just because you can smoke irresponsibly infront of your child therefore you can gamble and squander away his future? just because you might drive irresponsibly due to excessive alcohol you're not wrong to gamble away your family fortune? just because gambling doesn't exhibit the ills of other vices it should be allowed? just because an ill doesn't kill us a hundred and one ways it should be condoned?
no, but I am trying to tell u u should comapre apples with apples. U should compared the problem of smokign with smoking and not problem of smoking with gambling. Tat seems incredible silly. If u talk about gambling and wasting away money, then u should talk about smoking and its cancerous effect. U should talk about drink driving. U shouldn't talk about problem of alcohol with problems of gambling. tat is so out of pointnot banning super glue gives you the right to sanction gambling? what makes you think that addicted people still know what they want? you know what is addiction or not?
No, we do not ban super glues because there r people who use it correctly and wisely. We don't ban alcohol because most drinkers drink properly. tat is why we shouldn't ban casino because there most people gambles normally.1% based on what? first encounter? you go genting once a year, maybe 1% chance addiction. you go sentosa every week, still 1%? so just because I can be addicted to alcohol I might as well get addicted to gambling as well?
Most singaporean probably went to genting and gamble before and now less than 1 % r addictive gamblers. Isn't tat a good enough statistic ? Why will I go to sentosa every week unless i am already addicted to gambling ? And about comparing with drinking, it is because both have a low chance of addiciton. If u felt drinking and its addiciton problem is negligible, than u should feel tat gambling and its addiciton should be negligible as welltigers have their own jungles, even if you set the biggest trap in the world, they won't bother to come. why swim across oceans just to catch a mousedeer when there are plenty of sambar deer at home? trap a few wild boars maybe. so for the sake of one tiger you have no qualms about trapping all other forest inhabitants? just because you set up warning sign gives you the right to set up snares? in fact, the more appropriate analogy is that you're inviting a tiger to come and prey on us ...
u get the whole analogy wrong. Tigers have their own jungles, and the tribes r living in it. If u don't set the traps, they will come over and rip u up. If u don't put traps and risk very very few people felling into the traps, u have put the probability of the whole village safety at risk of being killed by tigers.gambling is already lurking in some dark corners so we bring them out for everyone? does not help so we encourage instead?
Gamblign is already out of the table, like the many people going to turf clubs every week. u just choose not to see it openly. U think by bannign casinoes the people going to turf club will decrease ? The people will stop going to genting ?if drug is not lucrative why are people willing to drug traffic and risk the death sentence? why are there juntas who specialise in selling drugs to finance the country? in any case what you're saying is that as long as there's money in it, you won't ban it, so morality isn't an issue here then? then drugs being lucrative, you also would not ban.
If u r a private dealer, u can earn a lot of money because the demand is much higher than the supply. if u r a gov, u r nto going to earn much money, perhaps just another ciggerrettes tax at best. Furthermore u totally ignore my earlier point saying tat drugs and firearms have been effectively stemmed in singapore and therefore it make sense to continue it. If u think, like US tat firearms is so easily assessible, they can ban firearms evern if they want to ? Furthermore when we decide on a policy, we look at the pros and cons. The pros of a casino is so much more than the pros of firearms and drugs. the cons of casino is also much lower than drugs and firarms. Lets just say it tis way... probably most developed countries have casinoes while very lvery few countries legalised drugs and firearms. Why do u think tis is so ? So it is a different category altogether
more replies later -
By snow leopard:how often does he go genting? once a year? with a casino in singapore, he can go every week. it may be another five years before he goes genting again but he can lose $1,500 in Sentosa every week ...
By stupidissmart:
As I said I am not a gambling addict, I have no intent of travelling for 8h (or 16h for round trip) each week to Genting.
If I want, I can go to genting every week. It is because it does not interest me tat is why I go there, well, probably once a year.
However, while in Genting, I make frequent visits to the Casino, cos Hotel First World is just 15minutes away. Or rather it was from the calling to recover my earlier losses, that triggered me to spend most of my time in Genting in casino.
I had make few trips to Genting, and each trip was to recover my earlier losses in my earlier trip.
So for sure if there is a Genting in Sentosa, I would make more frequent visits to sentosa. -
What is LKY's stand on the casino issue?
-
Think LKY said he and the older generation not for it.
If we want a casino to attract tourist and revenue (and I do believe it will), why not add high class brothels, nightclubs, massage parlours and coffee shops like those in Amsterdam that sell grass as well? The Chinese tourists are the main ones we hope to attract. There is a Chinese saying about the 4 traditional vices of my race: chi1, he1, du3, piao2 (eating, drinking, gambling, whoring).
As PM said, there will be social impact but we can manage it.
Might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb