You want Casino?
-
[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.]
nobody cares how often you go genting. the bottom line is, it's easier to go every week if casino is in town than if it were in genting.
[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 ?]
given the same govt, more or less money makes no difference, they'll tax us just the same (maybe even more). frankly why do you ask me why govt wasting money? are you a tourist?
[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 ?]
in other words to each his own? then why bother talking about black and white here? anyway, nothing to choose. already chosen.
[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 well ]
not bashing govt, just that you choose to see only things you wish to see.
watch movie not waste money, eat ice cream is enjoyment. you spend a $1, you buy a service, value is created, economy prospers. but what is a service? is foot massage a service? is the gambling den providing a service? for any service, there is a value which is the price a person is willing to pay for the service. foot massager charges $10 per hour. people willing to pay then that's the value created. what about gambling den? let's say i play poker for an hour. what price am I willing to pay? $100? $1,000? $1 million? when I loose $100 to the casino, do I walk out a satisfied customer feeling I have bought $100 or more of services? when I loose $1 million, do I walk out feeling like I've gotten $1 million of services?
no, they've taken $1 million from me and I'm feeling miserable. value / services hasn't been created but money has been transferred. zero sum game. before you start asking me what if I win, ask yourself: do people have problems with winning? problem is people don't usually win.
[I think u have think a step much too far. ... If we think like u, then we should not invest on anything. U invest in a hotel for wat ? ... Then we can just die off now.]
not a step too far, you want to invest, you invest wisely. u invest on the wrong thing, you gain nothing but lose your investment, die even faster. if you want to talk about possibilities, we can do that in another thread. this is about casino right or wrong.
[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 ?]
you want me to propose something, we can do that in another thread. you can see it anyway you like. people with common sense get the message.
[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 ?]
why don't you do some statistics? how big are their GDPs? what is their total casino revenues? then you'd know what I mean.
[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 ?]
Las Vegas is still in the middle of a desert, and for that matter much of the rest of California. but LA and San Francisco are in California and if you count the neighbouring states ... it is precisely now that travel restrictions have been lifted that the Chinese are pouring into Macau with a vengence. we never restricted Indonesians or Malaysians to come. they want to come but have no money to buy plane ticket.
[not troublesome enough to pay a $100 for the entry]
$100 in pocket, what's so troublesome? if don't have, ATM machines everywhere.
[Then singapore already have a much established casino liek gamblign area. Wat is the diff if u add in another one ?]
same old thing again? you're not replaying your tape recorder over and over again are you? one gambling den not enough? justifies having another?
[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.]
comparing "making alcoholic out of non-alcoholic" with "making gamblers out of non-gamblers" is apple to apple while comparing "how many bottles of alcohol can you consume a day?" with "how much money can you gamble away on a single wager?" is not?
comparing "making lechers out of normal people" with "making gamblers out of non-gamblers" is apple to apple while comparing "how many RA shows can you watch a day?" with "how much money can you gamble away on a single wager?" is not?
I'm not about to tolerate people who claim to be comparing apple to apple yet insist another person's apple is an orange. you don't even understand what I'm comparing. how many people die of cancer is not the basis of my comparison. In any case, you can even argue that smoking related cancer problems are due to non-banning, non-curbing of smoking.
of course the statistics are different, it illustrates the potentially different impacts of the different vices on the individual.
[3 sins in a row meant tat there is no such thing as a sinfree society.]
no sin free society means we should perpetrate sin?
[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.]
losing money or for that matter becoming a gambling addict is, presume u r normal, something nobody wanna do or be. so my analogy stands perfect and since your answer to the first question is affirmative, it means whenever there's a fight outside your house, you'd invite them into your house.
[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 ?]
clarke quay is on singapore soil, so is mohd sultan. our issue was: gambling on boat bring ashore? for a "normal" person, go JB eat seafood is normal, take boat go gambling is not normal. for a gambling addict, go JB eat seafood still normal, take boat go gambling lagi normal. -
[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 point]
it seems silly because you don't understand what I'm comparing and you're interpreting my words using your own preconceived ideas. consequently what I'm comparing is not what you say I'm comparing. I'm not comparing how many people die of cancer to how many lives squandered away due to gambling. but you can if you want to. how many less people would have died of cancer if smoking were banned compared to how many more lives squandered away with the legitimizing of gambling?
I'm comparing how devastating gambling can be to an individual over smoking. when people say they can smoke and therefore they can gamble, they're not seeing the potentially more devastating consequences of gambling over smoking. in the context of the individual, how many years of chain smoking before he gets (if he ever gets) cancer? but how quickly can he lose everything including his life (and those of his loved ones) on a single bet? which potentially has graver consequences?
[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.]
most people use guns correctly and wisely, like shooting crows, but a minority like terrorists dun use guns responsibly. that's why even though most people won't abuse firearms, because some might and could cause tragic social consequences, firearms is banned. in the same token, because there will be (and there has always been) people who wouldn't gamble normally and might bring tragedy, banning is necessary.
furthermore, not banning firearms is one thing, setting up a big firearms shop for people to buy firearms is another thing altogether.
[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 ?]
I drink one can of beer and never got addicted, I'm the 99% non alcohol addict? you go genting once and never got hooked so you're the 99% non addictive gambler?
[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 well]
if all our arguments are solely based on how you felt or how you're not affected by gambling, then I see no point discussing further. just because you don't have a drinking problem doesn't mean other people don't have. even if other people have no drinking problems, it doesn't mean gambling is not a problem. is this discussion about singapore or about you?
[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.]
my analogy is perfect, but you need some basic level of intelligence to comprehend it. for your information, tigers don't normally eat man unless they have nothing better to eat. those old, broken toothed, unable to catch prey tigers are the ones that have no choice but to prey on man. why? because sambar is so much tastier. do me a favour if you want to use analogies put some thought into them.
[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 ?]
gambling out on the table, we bring them into the bedroom too?
[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.]
if the govt wants to it can restrict drugs to only integrated drug centres that it owns. so it can still be lucrative if it wants to. so would you ban an integrated drug centre monopolised by the govt?
[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 ?]
nope I didn't ignore, just that you didn't get it. why firearms ban is so effective in singapore and not in USA? because the whole country (USA) is so bloody big. you can smuggle anything you want and won't get caught. singapore is so small and surrounded by waters. control is so much easier. which is the point I'm driving at earlier but you didn't get it. it doesn't matter whether it is firearms, drugs or even chewing gum. what the govt wants to ban, it can ban. ban of drugs is especially effective because of the death sentence. so if your argument for banning is simply good banning, you apply the death sentence to casino operator wannnabes and you get good banning. next time if you dun understand my reply feel free to ask, dun say I totally ignore.
[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]
you already said so yourself, my white is your black, your white is my black, then what's the point of talking about pros and cons. my con is your pro and vice versa. -
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.
Wat r u trying to say ? If I say tat I am setting up a KTV and need to employ people, can u say tat I am going to build a fod court if I don't build a KTV ? Maybe in the end if I am forced not to build a KTV, i will go other country and build one
I'd rather be more white than black ...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?
No, I don't call tat a morally high society, but it sure do bring in the revenues for the people to live more comfortably. The people living in the tourist sector of Thailand sure has a much higher income than the one which isn'tI 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.
Really ? Then wat is yoru definition of vices ? Only gambling is a vice and nothing more ? If an activity do bring about lowering in morals such as being more violent, then isn't tat a vice ?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.
the problem is, I am saying tat u r the one tat don't get my argument, and try to rebuke in such a way tat it is totally off point. Too bad even after posting and reminding u the second time, u still don't get itas 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?
Money is gonna be earned from tourists as well. It also help to prevent fiscal loses to other countries because of their casinos as well. I am not counting on people from Aceh,but people from china or japan to gamble in singapore as it do boosts of one of the few mega resorts tat can compete globally. One of the proposals is from owner of genting casino and universal studio. If they r chosen I certainly believe more tourists r coming our waya 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?
rankly almost all possible means to improve tourism had failed. Even attracting theme parks operator to come over here fails. Asking me how much tourism will improve is as speculating as me asking u how much social harm it will cause to the society. Frankly speaking u can't give a definitive answer to the anove question as wellthat 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.
then singapore already had 500,000 gambling addicts because they can go to floating casineos and turf club to earn a quick buck and getting themselves destroyedsame things, money and self interest, except they have the demand to support the money making machine, we don't.
There r many experience people workign in tis line who believes the casino is gonna earn them money but u think u r more qualified than them to tell them they r wrong. and even if it fails, wat has it got to do with u ? They r not wasting your money to build the casinoI 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 ...
then I am gonna ask u how big a social impact is gonna affect singaporean. If it is big, how big ? Is it going make 1/6 of singaporean becoming addcits ? R we gonna close our doors to Ah Seng who still gonan go to genting and lose the money tooeven 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.
u r just playing with the figure. Okie lets play with the figure. If it is 2000 a day and then 18 is from your friendly neighbourhood, so wat ? even 20 more customer a day is good for many years compared with the low cost of $2000 -
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?
then wat is the problem to u ? The overseas investor spend the money which will improve our construction business and flow in cash into or economy is a good things. If they fail, tough luck for them. We still earn anyway. I think u r getting confuse, on one hand u say tat other countries have enough demands from their own citizen and it is okie. When we have enough demand from our citizen tat is not okie. So u practise double standard ? For a casino resort, people do travel far and wide to gamble in a more posh casinoes. If u talk about nearest one, then the floating casinoes is always available at our doorstepnot 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.
u get it wrong. They r big, then they become successful. Why do u say otherwise ? There r no small casino tat earn big isn't it ? U don't see small casinoes because small is going to lose the share of their market and lose out to the bigger ones. Even big casino close down simply because there r bigger and more posh casinoes nearby. The peopel who sent in the 19 proposals also know the geography of singapore, and they still decide to invest isn't it ?there are many other ways to liven up the place, boring should not be the excuse to start a gambling den here.
it is not the main reason but one of the reasons. Why don't u propose how to make the place interesting ?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.
and they still remain to be propserous with people working and contributing to society much like any other society isn't it ? Tat is why they have absolutely no problems with bulding more casinoes and other gambling venues. How many las vegas is there in america ? There r a lot of cities with casinoes there for your info. How many casino can poor south east asia support, probably more than 10. The floating casinoes and genting r some of them isn't 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.
so u prefer your boss to be poorer or richer ? If he is poorer and is a lousy boss, then expect him to cut your pay and make u work longer hours for him to make upnope, you didn't get the logic again. if we can't prosper from our neighbours who do we end up prospering from?
Wat if we can prosper and we do not do it ? U r mising out on a golden opportunity isn't it ?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.
then tat will be a topic for another threadthen, 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.
U clearly do not know wat most gamblers r like in there. They truly play for fun and if they earn RM1500 from u, they had earned enough from one individual tat day.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?
if somebody had to scoop up the faeces, I rather do it with a dirty hand than a clean one. Better than u who rather live with an blocked toilet and faeces float everywhere by pretending the toilet is clean.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.
Why will a legal gambling den not reduce the number of illegal ones here instead ?
The not so rich or poor people can also gamble at the posh casinoes as well, there is really not much difference to the payrate but a big improvement to the feel good feeling. Gov lose moral authority ? Then america/japanese/koreans/malaysia has lost theirs as well and they still government nicely. If the illegal ones wanna ask for permits and collect tax for the gov, they will certainly bankrupt since they r competing with a bigger and more posh casino with no edge.
more replies later -
Stupidissmart,
Other countries lose their moral to lead,do u want the govt to do the same. -
A REGRESSSIVE MOVE
That the govt does not ban smoking become Stupidissmart's justification for govt to aprove a casino.If the govt can ban smoking,it would be a progress.Indeed,all countries should ban smoking.
Casino is illegal now.The govt would likely to make it legal.It would be a regressive move.[b][/u] -
Stupidissmart,
or other countries realise tat there isn't any real problem to it. Don't u want our gov to lead better ?
Other countries lose their moral to lead,do u want the govt to do the same. -
That the govt does not ban smoking become Stupidissmart's justification for govt to aprove a casino.If the govt can ban smoking,it would be a progress.Indeed,all countries should ban smoking.
no country ever manage to ban smoking. In fact when u ban cigerrettes, some human rights activist may label u as being anti-human rights insteadCasino is illegal now.The govt would likely to make it legal.It would be a regressive move
Casino issue is not all cons without any pros. IMO it will be a regressive move if we do not have a casino -
Casino promote opportunistic attitude
1. A casino would make some ppl addicted to gambling.2. According to LKY, suicide rate would increase.3. Many ppl would lose money in it.4.Casinoes promote opportunistic attitude rather than value of hardwork.With all these shortcoming (even ppl died) and wrong value it promotes,the govt still want to approve a casino?!
Perhaps S'pore should build a big foreign hospital or university instead.Any more creative ideas? -
Stupidissmart,
S'pore govt can ban smoking because it has about 98% of parliamentary seats.Where are human right activists in S'pore?
As i've shown,approve a casino is a regressive step.Intelligent as u (really!),why can't u see it?Can u say casino is good?If it is,then gambling dens are also good.Then gambling should be legal in S'pore. -
A casino would make some ppl addicted to gambling.According to LKY, suicide rate would increase.Many ppl would lose money in it.Casinoes promote opportunistic attitude rather value of hardwork.With all these shortcoming (even ppl died) and wrong value it promote,the govt still want to approve a casino?!
a casino has its disadvantage, tat one is clear. A casino also have its advantages, such as boosting the economy and tourist sector. U have to look at both sides of the coin. Casino also promote risk taking as well, which appears to be more useful for our economy now.Perhaps S'pre should build a big foreign hospital or university instead.Any more creative ideas?
there is already many hospitals and universities here -
Stupidissmart,
It won't because they understand the problem of smoking and if they banned them, they might as well kill the smokers. They won't international committe is gonna target singapore for being anti-human right. U see tat r both side of a coin to a problem and we should not just look at things as black and white
S'pore govt can ban smoking because it has about 98% of parliamentary seats.Where are human right activists in S'pore?As i've shown,approve a casino is a regressive step.Intelligent as u (really!),why can't u see it?Can u say casino is good?If it is,then gambling dens are also good.Then gambling should be legal in S'pore.
U don't really show it I can say tat casino is good, in the sense of tourism and economy. Gambling dens is not good because it is too small and nobody wanna break the laws going to a mere illegal gambling den. Gambling in the form of turf club, 4D, toto and floating cruise ships r already legal in singapore -
[Wat r u trying to say ? If I say tat I am setting up a KTV and need to employ people, can u say tat I am going to build a fod court if I don't build a KTV ? Maybe in the end if I am forced not to build a KTV, i will go other country and build one]
it says as it reads. you don't know how to build a food court without a KTV, that's your inability. if a salesman wants to sell you something, he will always say "buy quickly or I go somewhere else". you get so taken in you end up buying what you never intended to buy.
[No, I don't call tat a morally high society, but it sure do bring in the revenues for the people to live more comfortably. The people living in the tourist sector of Thailand sure has a much higher income than the one which isn't]
so money over morals? have we become so poor that we have to sell our souls to fill our bowls? if there's famine and starvation and not enough to feed our stomachs, then there is case for bending principles. but with all the opulence around? surely we've not reached that stage?
[Really ? Then wat is yoru definition of vices ? Only gambling is a vice and nothing more ? If an activity do bring about lowering in morals such as being more violent, then isn't tat a vice ?]
you can ask the vice president of the united states (he is the president of vice)
[the problem is, I am saying tat u r the one tat don't get my argument, and try to rebuke in such a way tat it is totally off point. Too bad even after posting and reminding u the second time, u still don't get it]
i got your point but you didn't get mine. that's why you couldn't appreciate the argument and whatever you cannot understand or appreciate you deem as off point.
[Money is gonna be earned from tourists as well. It also help to prevent fiscal loses to other countries because of their casinos as well. I am not counting on people from Aceh,but people from china or japan to gamble in singapore as it do boosts of one of the few mega resorts tat can compete globally. One of the proposals is from owner of genting casino and universal studio. If they r chosen I certainly believe more tourists r coming our way]
how many tourists? people from china and japan nothing better to do come here to gamble? compete globally? george bush fly half way round the globe here to gamble? get universal studios without genting, then there's cause for rejoice. haven't u or can't u?
[rankly almost all possible means to improve tourism had failed. Even attracting theme parks operator to come over here fails. Asking me how much tourism will improve is as speculating as me asking u how much social harm it will cause to the society. Frankly speaking u can't give a definitive answer to the anove question as well]
it simply shows you are not doing your job well. govt shouldn't pay top bucks to people who can't think of anything better than to follow the crowd. how much tourism will improve is a risk the govt doesn't bear. why? because the casino can feed off the people. how much social harm is caused to society is again largely borne by the people. so why should the people bear the risk of tourism failures on top of the social harms that the casino brings? which ever risk is more speculative is immaterial because ultimately losses fall squarely on the people while gains accrue almost entirely to the govt.
[then singapore already had 500,000 gambling addicts because they can go to floating casineos and turf club to earn a quick buck and getting themselves destroyed]
they haven't (but they may) because they (on the edge but not as yet hardcore) are too lazy to take a boat and because the horses run only once a week.
[There r many experience people workign in tis line who believes the casino is gonna earn them money but u think u r more qualified than them to tell them they r wrong. and even if it fails, wat has it got to do with u ? They r not wasting your money to build the casino]
because they are in this line and you are not, they know they're gonna fleece you into lamb chop.
[then I am gonna ask u how big a social impact is gonna affect singaporean. If it is big, how big ? Is it going make 1/6 of singaporean becoming addcits ? R we gonna close our doors to Ah Seng who still gonan go to genting and lose the money too]
in this case, it is the govt who is asking the people if it can build the casino. that being the case, the onus is on them to show us the money and assure us there would be no problems.
just imagine you propose something to me. you tell me you don't know how much money there is in it. then you tell me you don't know how much harm it is gonna inflict upon me. you think i'd be silly enough to say yes go ahead?
in any case you dun have to ask for my permission. you're the elite remember? you trust your business instincts, go ahead and just do it. you dun need me to give you assurance that you're doing the right thing.
[u r just playing with the figure. Okie lets play with the figure. If it is 2000 a day and then 18 is from your friendly neighbourhood, so wat ? even 20 more customer a day is good for many years compared with the low cost of $2000]
no need to play figures. zero sum will always be zero sum. for $2,000, the whole neighbourhood gains only 2 new customers. that's the problem, you are seeing the issue as if you are the shop keeper. you don't care if patrons come from far or from neighbourhood. you claim to bring 20 new customers to benefit the whole neighbourhood but in the end, you're just feeding off your very own 18 friendly neighbours.
[then wat is the problem to u ? The overseas investor spend the money which will improve our construction business and flow in cash into or economy is a good things. If they fail, tough luck for them. We still earn anyway.]
the problem is when the investor succeeds, it succeeds at the expense of the people. the govt earns no doubt, but the people lose.
[I think u r getting confuse, on one hand u say tat other countries have enough demands from their own citizen and it is okie. When we have enough demand from our citizen tat is not okie. So u practise double standard ?]
no that's not what i'm saying so do not be confused or put words in my mouth. what i'm saying is that by virtue of their size, population and wealth, even if they have a few casinos, the effects would be spread thinly over a much larger base. we being so small, any effects would be concentrated on ourselves. still can't see it?
[For a casino resort, people do travel far and wide to gamble in a more posh casinoes.]
this statement, taken in itself is meaningless because there are so many other things to consider. let's talk about the chinese first. they want to gamble, plain easy gambling. you build a posh casino, they'd still go Macau because they don't give a hoot about poshness (not nearly as much as the ang mohs that is). then let's talk about europeans, yes they do value poshness but they have poshness right at their doorstep why fly half way round the globe?
you see, you want to succeed you want to win, you got to come up with something better than just big or posh, coz big or posh taken in the context of the existing situation counts as nothing.
[If u talk about nearest one, then the floating casinoes is always available at our doorstep]
floating casinos do not bring in the chinese in throngs. -
[u get it wrong. They r big, then they become successful. Why do u say otherwise ? There r no small casino tat earn big isn't it ? U don't see small casinoes because small is going to lose the share of their market and lose out to the bigger ones. Even big casino close down simply because there r bigger and more posh casinoes nearby. The peopel who sent in the 19 proposals also know the geography of singapore, and they still decide to invest isn't it ?]
unless you've demonstrated a clear understanding of the other person's point of view and sincerely attempted to see from his perspective, you have no right to say right or wrong. unless you're the judge or the authority, you have no right to make judgement calls.
only when we've decided to build a casino does the question of big or small become material, and when that happens, the question becomes a no brainer not worthy of discussion.
but what are we discussing now? you say we build a casino so let's build a big one, then there's nothing else to talk about.
what we're talking about now is should we or should we not build a casino and one of the reasons someone gave for building a casino is that we can be assured of success if we build a big one. this assertion, that big is sure guarantee for success assumes amongst other things that big is the only condition for success, which is obviously not true. because amongst the many things that determine success or failure are more important factors such as demand. you might have the biggest casino in the world but if it's lying in the middle of antarctica who would come?
so you see, big may be one of the many conditions for success but not in itself a sufficient condition for success. without the presence of other more important pre-requisites, big or small makes no difference.
[it is not the main reason but one of the reasons. Why don't u propose how to make the place interesting ?]
I wouldn't even consider that a reason, a poor excuse maybe. interesting is a function of two things, the object and the beholder. no matter how interesting a place is, if the beholder is uninteresting, he can never find interest in the place. but if you wish, it can be another thread.
[and they still remain to be propserous with people working and contributing to society much like any other society isn't it ? Tat is why they have absolutely no problems with bulding more casinoes and other gambling venues.]
exactly, they have absolutely no problems absorbing their problems by virture of their sizes but not us.
[How many las vegas is there in america ? There r a lot of cities with casinoes there for your info. How many casino can poor south east asia support, probably more than 10. The floating casinoes and genting r some of them isn't it ?]
needless to say but are they las vegases? read my sentences carefully. you want to build a half past six casino? how many las vegases can we squeeze into southeast asia? probably more than 10? you consider floating casinos las vegases? might as well build a big boat and float it into the south china sea.
[so u prefer your boss to be poorer or richer ? If he is poorer and is a lousy boss, then expect him to cut your pay and make u work longer hours for him to make up]
no, i expect him to sack those people who are not measuring up to his expectations and not doing justice to his generosity. instead employ me, double my pay and let me deliver what those blokes couldn't.
[Wat if we can prosper and we do not do it ? U r mising out on a golden opportunity isn't it ?]
even the authorities have finally acknowledged that it is not a sure win thing. even if it is golden opportunity, is it golden enough reason to kill our golden goost?
[U clearly do not know wat most gamblers r like in there. They truly play for fun and if they earn RM1500 from u, they had earned enough from one individual tat day.]
they are not gamblers. to quote you, they are "play for fun". gamblers don't play for fun, they play to win.
[if somebody had to scoop up the faeces, I rather do it with a dirty hand than a clean one. Better than u who rather live with an blocked toilet and faeces float everywhere by pretending the toilet is clean.]
you must be kidding, you don't know how to use the flush? and if you're thinking about clearing the sanitary system, think about reducing all that excretion we're getting from upstairs first.
[Why will a legal gambling den not reduce the number of illegal ones here instead ?]
because it increases overall demand (former non gamblers becoming hooked) and as demand increases, supply (illegal) increases to meet them.
[The not so rich or poor people can also gamble at the posh casinoes as well]
that's why gambling problems will increase. that's why your $100 is unlikely to be effective. more people will get hooked. patrons are your friendly neighbours. massive influx of tourist becomes a myth.
[Gov lose moral authority ? Then america/japanese/koreans/malaysia has lost theirs as well and they still government nicely.]
they haven't really, as i've said before, they've got enough mass to take the pain but we don't. furthermore in comparing anything do we compare with the good or the bad? -
[or other countries realise tat there isn't any real problem to it. Don't u want our gov to lead better ?]
other countries do realise that there is a real problem to it but are blinded by money. you call forsaking morality 'leading for the better'?
[no country ever manage to ban smoking. In fact when u ban cigerrettes, some human rights activist may label u as being anti-human rights instead]
no country ever manage to ban chewing gum too. In fact when u ban chewing gum, some human rights activist may label u as being anti-human rights instead.
[Casino issue is not all cons without any pros. IMO it will be a regressive move if we do not have a casino]
it is not all cons but one big con. people who have no sense of moral obligations will have nothing to feel regressive about.
[a casino has its disadvantage, tat one is clear. A casino also have its advantages, such as boosting the economy and tourist sector. U have to look at both sides of the coin. ]
disadvantage is clear no doubt but boosting economy and tourist sector are as yet unclear. look is one thing but look and not see is another. look and see but ignore is yet another.
[Casino also promote risk taking as well, which appears to be more useful for our economy now.]
how? by teaching them to switch off their brains and turn on their adrenalin? gambling is mindlessness but risk taking is not mindless throwing away of money.
[there is already many hospitals and universities here]
so your lack of creativity in finding better things to do or build gives you the moral right to harm people?
[U don't really show it I can say tat casino is good, in the sense of tourism and economy. Gambling dens is not good because it is too small and nobody wanna break the laws going to a mere illegal gambling den. Gambling in the form of turf club, 4D, toto and floating cruise ships r already legal in singapore]
or you dun wish to see it? you can say what you want but the casino is not going to be the magic pill for tourism and economy, but it will be the seed for social degradation. -
Decision has been made by cabinet on Sat, refer to today's paper.
-
I now place my first bet on the casino table - decision is to build casino.Originally posted by sbst275:Decision has been made by cabinet on Sat, refer to today's paper. -
i want casino and i hope they have pontoon
-
i think they will going to build casino too.
all the blah blah talking by balakrishna on helping singaporean who has grambling addiction with or without casino is talking rooster.
some survey show 2% of singaporean could have gambling addiction survey out of 2000ppl. and he say not this 2 % has serious problem, it could be less. but i want to remind him. this survey only 2000ppl. the possibility could be 5-10%. wake up bala. dont sweet talk to singaporean. we bochap but we are not stupid! -
dear Snow leapard,
well wriiten, surprise to find someone who not only against the idea of casino but raise up few rational pointers challenging the reason given by our very govt.
1. job creation of 5000 for singaporean??? to be frank lotsa hotel already employing many foreign such as malaysia because singaporea shunt away from hoteling industry. maybe only 2500 got to singaporean and rest benefits to the foreigners.
2. govt already long decided about this issue since day 1. but spend time try to convince fellow singaporean about the benefits of it. but fail to address the backlash of the social issues. im not surprise the decision made today is for casino.
3. you are right indeed i think singaporean casino will be serving singaporean mainly after a year or two hooha year. rich businessman may go for the perth casino or darwin as a alternative or macau for the casino cum KTV double joy.
let hope we build similar redlight district in sentosa to draw more customer who favour double joy.
good work snow leapard, but i afraid we have lost the battle. and i am utterly disappointed with our govt decision that has an impact in me for my decision in the next GE. -
Wrong attitude of the PAP govt
The PAP govt ministers don't smoke.They tell the ppl smoking is harmful to health.Cigarette pakages have to show horrible photos of consequences of smoking.But the govt still allows ppl to smoke.They keep increasing taxes to discourage smoking but whether it is effective is another story.The govt collect so much cigarette taxes that it may not be possible to ban smoking because it would not be able to balance the budget.
Such attitude is smilarly adopted to gamble.The ministers probably don't gamble (of course they've no necessity to gambe since they get such high pay).They know gamble is not good, yet the govt operate many forms of gamble and get a lot of taxes from them.Is this moral or ethical?Can a religious organisation operate a casino?
The only exception to this attitude is on gay parties.The govt says gay party is not good to the public so it would not allow.Perhaps the money involved is small so the govt can forego.If there was big sum of maney for the govt to gain,probably it would adopt similar attitude.
To conclude, THE GOVT MINISTERS ARE MORAL BUT MANY PPL WHICH IT GOVERNED ARE GAMBLERS.IS THIS GOOD OR SUCCESSFUL GOVERNANCE?IS THIS A GOOD COUNTRY? -
There are so many legal forms of gamble such as horse racing,TOTO.4D,football game betting & lottery which are operated by the govt.Can the PAP govt say it does not promote gamble?Can it deny it is not responsible for the gambling habit of the ppl?
-
The govt has structural deficit in the budget.So allowing a casino is an easy way to solve the problem.Would the govt clarify?
-
Wow, been knock out cold as i was sick in China....great to see forummer like Snow leopard lick the shit outto of Stupid....this dude is really naive, ill-informed, nvr been outto Singapore..except 4 his holiday trip...tads why his argument is one-sided...nvr being able to see the social cost of casino...only the pros...of course...keep the post coming man...
Goto goback to sleep...just taken my medicine... -
Hey,
Now stupid is tloking abt pros n cons...good job..snow leopard...b4 tat...he is just toking abt the pros only...really idiotic....at least now he sees the folly of his argument n tok abt pros n cons now....