You want Casino?
-
Ya ! What new ? OPEN AT EXPO LOH ! SURE WORKS ! ALREADY BUILD ! NEVER USE ! WASTING MILLIONS PER MONTH !Originally posted by dragg:since the casino is already a sure thing why dont all of you just accept the fact and move on. instead of complaining and speaking ill of the government why not come up with some constructive ideas for discussion?
Near the airport. Sure will get customer to gamble there. Sure earn ! OUR PAP GOVERNMENT so stupid. Even simple things also don't know. GIVE ME THE $100,000 salary per month. I can do better than them ! -
just your rubbish talk alone you deserves to be in straitsjacket
-
The govt has only gone to show how much they 'value' the people's opinion. Every press conference, every forum where the people were allowed to air their own grievances were just a slideshow, a stupid wayang opera.
Sure, the IRs will go on- but will it succeed? I have already read so many articles on foreign financial news wires and newspapers and the majority has had said that the success of the IRs and the profit margin of these S'pore IRs are still suspect- meaning the PAP's projections about huge money and huge employment figures may amount to nothing.
Remember this, SM Goh said after signing the FTA with the US President last year that the overall benefits of signing a US FTA will amount to a projection of an increase of 50,000 jobs in the local job market. But what has happened in the year passed the FTA signing and later US congressional approval?
A 100,000 job loss in the local job market. Sure there have been positions available since, but who took up the job vacancies? Not local born S'poreans unfortunately, but FTs from China and India.
So much for job projections. And the PAP. -
i am a neutral as far as this issue is concerned. nobody knows the outcome. there is no denying the decision to go ahead comes with a certain degree of risk. in fact it is a gamble. but it is also evident that we are losing our edge and there are just not enough jobs to go around. unless someone has a better idea....
-
[quote]Originally posted by timothytsgsg:
Remember this, SM Goh said after signing the FTA with the US President last year that the overall benefits of signing a US FTA will amount to a projection of an increase of 50,000 jobs in the local job market. But what has happened in the year passed the FTA signing and later US congressional approval?
Will 35,000 jobs be created by the casino? It is sad that all the statistics and promises do not get fulfilled and government is always talking about honour or their words and their leadership. Go and do more homework and don't just give statistics to suit arguments - work out too how many jobs will be lost due to more people turning to gambling ending up in bankruptcies or employees embezzlements to pay gambling debts.
Sure government has to many scholars to give them statistics. But look again, with such past records of failed projects, can further promises be kept. With all the justification to revive hawpar said to be our treasures what have our ministers done to our treasures? Modernise and add more spaces, spend more monies? Have such spending helped? I believe there is a general lack of creativity and entrepreneurship that is the main problem.
Empty buildings are everywhere built at millions - sheer wasted taxpayers' monies. No wonder we cannot compete with other countries. Words have no values, being worth the costs of papers printed on.
We will not be surprised casino will look good for a while and after a while everyone will lose interest again as the environment will still be unattractive for other reasons like lack of fun with too many regulations or restrictions. Then, what will happen? Another Hawpar and Tang Dynasty right? -
Originally posted by robertteh:
do you have a better suggestion?
[quote]Originally posted by timothytsgsg:
[b]
Remember this, SM Goh said after signing the FTA with the US President last year that the overall benefits of signing a US FTA will amount to a projection of an increase of 50,000 jobs in the local job market. But what has happened in the year passed the FTA signing and later US congressional approval?
Will 35,000 jobs be created by the casino? It is sad that all the statistics and promises do not get fulfilled and government is always talking about honour or their words and their leadership. Go and do more homework and don't just give statistics to suit arguments - work out too how many jobs will be lost due to more people turning to gambling ending up in bankruptcies or employees embezzlements to pay gambling debts.
Sure government has to many scholars to give them statistics. But look again, with such past records of failed projects, can further promises be kept. With all the justification to revive hawpar said to be our treasures what have our ministers done to our treasures? Modernise and add more spaces, spend more monies? Have such spending helped? I believe there is a general lack of creativity and entrepreneurship that is the main problem.
Empty buildings are everywhere built at millions - sheer wasted taxpayers' monies. No wonder we cannot compete with other countries. Words have no values, being worth the costs of papers printed on.
We will not be surprised casino will look good for a while and after a while everyone will lose interest again as the environment will still be unattractive for other reasons like lack of fun with too many regulations or restrictions. Then, what will happen? Another Hawpar and Tang Dynasty right? [/b] -
Dear all,
Condemn the Casinos as you, and myself (since I ain't for it as well), would. There have been all sorts of remarks since the anouncement, and yes there is a great disappointment literally over the outcome.
Yet and again, if it's the Casinos we are so against of, it's a decision that the PM has offered his responsibility for. All of us who ain't very comfortable with the Casinos jolly well express our upset again but if the government is ready to make that move it has also openly declared it's willingness to shoulder any responsibilities and handle the liabilities which might occur alongside with the decision.
This is a risky move, especially a political one. Yet, if it's not this government, let's not doubt other governments might not brave the risk amidst such waves of protests to embrace the decision. The fear is outstanding, the concerns are heavy, there is no denial that gambling is a vice and it's coming to our backyard. But here, if the government is prepared to make the decision on the back of such political risk to bring about a possibly better prospect, being too emotional at this moment necessarily helps little. Instead, if the PM is prepared to go through this path of thorns to get the chest of gold for Singapore, there are two general choices Singaporeans can take: 1. To scream and cry at the background or 2. to rally behind and ensure the chest of gold is obtained without much more damages.
Casino is, obviously so, not some of the best ideas. There are many other ideas that Singaporeans obviously held and are prepared to offer for the prosperity of the nation. Yet, as most ideas, Casino is not without risk nor cost. PM Lee is counting on his fellow men and women to see him through, so that risks are being reduced with people's support and costs are minimise with Singapore's blessings. It might not work that well, but how can any idea as this one be expected to reach its maximum benefit without Singapore's blessings and everyone becoming yet another barrier or risk itself?
How many jobs, how much monies to be coming, how much social costs and so on are all more or less anybodies' guess. Forget about other nations' Casinos. Other nations' Casinos don't come with so many well-behaved Singaporeans. If we don't know how much jobs we can create, let's try create as much as possible. If we don't know how much monies would be coming, but you know it won't be your money, and we make sure it won't be our monies be wasted in the Casino. If we don't know how much costs it would result, we do know ourselves. Unless we want it to become anybody's guess, this idea will have to a stake for all of us who are so concern about the idea, now to be concern that the idea will work for us. If we can make the Casinos work, we can make many more ideas work, and we will become uniquely Singapore where other nations can't we can.
To be honest, no rules or laws can best my hesitation towards the Casino. However, having a Casino and relate it to the demise of the perception towards social values and justice is an even worst hesitation. Must Singapore be a Casino? Or a Singapore with two or more Casinos? I mean, if we must necessarily tie the Casino to a twist of justice and moral values, then Singapore must become a Casino itself. Else, since Casino doesn't mean much other than a building or a structure itself where gamblers gamble, such house which holds evil is just as any society which holds good and evil. It may be yet a part of evolution for Singapore.
It is very hard to tell whether it's a religious concern since a building itself ain't gonna subscribe to religions though the gamblers may be. So it would become a religious concern if Singaporeans choose to gamble when they should not be. Yet... Would a religious Singaporean with such concern and strength in faith takes to gambling...? Not to mention, these Casinos are for the pleasure of foreign gamblers whom, if they don't come to us, their monies go to others.
Our Casinos ain't gonna make them sin more if we wouldn't have any Casino, the Casinos would, however, reduce their sins if they can help fund the nation under the world's most corruption-free environment.
So much said hence, but if anything does go wrong, that such concerns raised and acknowledged by the government ain't actually being handled as promised with Singapore backing the government, this we have to ensure responsibility be fulfilled and promises ain't wane.
At this moment, we could perhaps offer some trust and support. If the government can live up to the expectation and fulfill its promises, things will go well, and this structure will remain another brick and mortar. If it can't, given all the support and trust, then we can always make more noises than now.
This is a dilemma. To trust or not to.
Only that Singapore's choice would make the risk riskier or less risky, since PM would go on hugging this responsibility he would carry with or without goodwills from Singaporeans whom he's risking for.
I must admit, I am no pro-casinosie, and this is a choice we all have to make. Singapore a Casino, or Singapore with Casinos. The choice won't make the idea definitely works, but it does help making it more probable to work.
-
I urge you to see through the form to the substance.Originally posted by pkchukiss:Well, the behaviour of some of the forum contributors here certainly indicate that they won't accept a democratic Singapore, if it means that certain things won't go their way. However, I agree that Singapore is more or less a Republican style of governance.
-
Robert,Originally posted by robertteh:What nerves to talk about One Man Vision. The vision was creditable up to a point when HDB flats were sold at S$25,000 - S$60,000 and people were paid higher salaries with more jobs and costs were tolerable, i.e. in the 1980s.
As admitted by the man himself his vision to build a first world country in a third world region has become inadequate sometime ago. Trouble is the man was too proud to admit fundamental error in his style or narrow-vision leadership.
That vision has narrowed down and restricted the potential of all the practical talents with all the strait-jacketed one-way garb about meritocracy and elites causing much outflow of its own practical talents.
The self-proclaimed leadeship ability was drummed into the citizens day in and day out by the state press to reach the Swiss Standard of Living. So many believed in the invinsible power of One Man Vision. What happened in the 1980s-1990s. What did the leaders say to the citizens during the last two recessions. Growth was stunted and people were losing jobs and facing many struggles to make ends meet. Costs went up and businesses are not making monies except for the MNCs and foreign and GLCs.
At least the Swiss still has kep up with broad-based education and still stayed competitive enjoying a reasonable higher living standard. For us by the 1990s, our standard of living dropped back to third world but our costs gone up to first world.
The asset bubble burst wiped out the savings of many. Suicides and unemployments were treated with hush hush silence. Bankruptcies were at the all-time high.
So don't talk ONE MAN VISION. It was past or passe. It is bull. There was only dimmed vision based on facts. That is the reason to push for a casino now as the vision was all blurred. No more vision despite paying the overly honored leaders the world most highest salaries.
All that the visionary can say is: region is too competitive for us and there is nothing to be done until all sacrifice another round - social pains from casino.
How visionary can one be. Go and interview the citizens. Don't just watch the state tv or read the papers to see how 90 % of the population of 4 million cope with third world living and first world cost.
That is our so-called visionary's record. So what nerves and audacity to claim credits for past glories.
_________________
Manage complexities in objective-steps processes ? No pain no
leadership has a shelf-life. Just because LKY is useless now doesn't mean that he was a frace back in the '60s and '70s. -
How about calling Disneyland?Originally posted by dragg:you are really amazing. i merely suggested that people come up with constructive ideas instead of complaining about something that is a sure fact. yet you can come up with so many logic just to show you are very sensible.
Read your posting (in red) kindly refrain from saying such things. i am not interested in flaming. and you are over-reacting to my posting!!! -
Elfred,Originally posted by Elfred:Dear all,
Condemn the Casinos as you, and myself (since I ain't for it as well), would. There have been all sorts of remarks since the anouncement, and yes there is a great disappointment literally over the outcome.
Yet and again, if it's the Casinos we are so against of, it's a decision that the PM has offered his responsibility for. All of us who ain't very comfortable with the Casinos jolly well express our upset again but if the government is ready to make that move it has also openly declared it's willingness to shoulder any responsibilities and handle the liabilities which might occur alongside with the decision.
This is a risky move, especially a political one. Yet, if it's not this government, let's not doubt other governments might not brave the risk amidst such waves of protests to embrace the decision. The fear is outstanding, the concerns are heavy, there is no denial that gambling is a vice and it's coming to our backyard. But here, if the government is prepared to make the decision on the back of such political risk to bring about a possibly better prospect, being too emotional at this moment necessarily helps little. Instead, if the PM is prepared to go through this path of thorns to get the chest of gold for Singapore, there are two general choices Singaporeans can take: 1. To scream and cry at the background or 2. to rally behind and ensure the chest of gold is obtained without much more damages.
Casino is, obviously so, not some of the best ideas. There are many other ideas that Singaporeans obviously held and are prepared to offer for the prosperity of the nation. Yet, as most ideas, Casino is not without risk nor cost. PM Lee is counting on his fellow men and women to see him through, so that risks are being reduced with people's support and costs are minimise with Singapore's blessings. It might not work that well, but how can any idea as this one be expected to reach its maximum benefit without Singapore's blessings and everyone becoming yet another barrier or risk itself?
How many jobs, how much monies to be coming, how much social costs and so on are all more or less anybodies' guess. Forget about other nations' Casinos. Other nations' Casinos don't come with so many well-behaved Singaporeans. If we don't know how much jobs we can create, let's try create as much as possible. If we don't know how much monies would be coming, but you know it won't be your money, and we make sure it won't be our monies be wasted in the Casino. If we don't know how much costs it would result, we do know ourselves. Unless we want it to become anybody's guess, this idea will have to a stake for all of us who are so concern about the idea, now to be concern that the idea will work for us. If we can make the Casinos work, we can make many more ideas work, and we will become uniquely Singapore where other nations can't we can.
To be honest, no rules or laws can best my hesitation towards the Casino. However, having a Casino and relate it to the demise of the perception towards social values and justice is an even worst hesitation. Must Singapore be a Casino? Or a Singapore with two or more Casinos? I mean, if we must necessarily tie the Casino to a twist of justice and moral values, then Singapore must become a Casino itself. Else, since Casino doesn't mean much other than a building or a structure itself where gamblers gamble, such house which holds evil is just as any society which holds good and evil. It may be yet a part of evolution for Singapore.
It is very hard to tell whether it's a religious concern since a building itself ain't gonna subscribe to religions though the gamblers may be. So it would become a religious concern if Singaporeans choose to gamble when they should not be. Yet... Would a religious Singaporean with such concern and strength in faith takes to gambling...? Not to mention, these Casinos are for the pleasure of foreign gamblers whom, if they don't come to us, their monies go to others.
Our Casinos ain't gonna make them sin more if we wouldn't have any Casino, the Casinos would, however, reduce their sins if they can help fund the nation under the world's most corruption-free environment.
So much said hence, but if anything does go wrong, that such concerns raised and acknowledged by the government ain't actually being handled as promised with Singapore backing the government, this we have to ensure responsibility be fulfilled and promises ain't wane.
At this moment, we could perhaps offer some trust and support. If the government can live up to the expectation and fulfill its promises, things will go well, and this structure will remain another brick and mortar. If it can't, given all the support and trust, then we can always make more noises than now.
This is a dilemma. To trust or not to.
Only that Singapore's choice would make the risk riskier or less risky, since PM would go on hugging this responsibility he would carry with or without goodwills from Singaporeans whom he's risking for.
I must admit, I am no pro-casinosie, and this is a choice we all have to make. Singapore a Casino, or Singapore with Casinos. The choice won't make the idea definitely works, but it does help making it more probable to work.
Welcome back! How is FindSingapore? got alot of YP pple there, hey?
Did you read my post on PM's speech earlier in this thread, the one tt's too long to display?
What struck me during the speech was the line that "we are re-assured, because we know that relgiious groups will continue fighting for the protection of social morals." To me, that's a blatant shirking of responsibility on the part of the government.
The entire speech, in my opinion, was a pure rhetorical exercise, no truth there. SO many details were lacking; what kind of transparent disclosure is this?
The government is willing to take a political risk because after 40 years in power, it has grown soft to itself. It treats itself as the Saints of Singapore; Just watch "Up Close" if you don't believe me. Perhaps it's willing 'cos it knows it really has little political risk to take: Gerrymandering and Defamation suits will ensure that it reamins politically supreme, and don't forget the fact that PM and co can stand in polling booths while votes are being counted legally. No Singaporean would dare to oppose the government overtly anymore. And anyway, the press would censor such oppisition.
The IR bidders (let's use the politically-correct term here) stated that they need some SIngaporeans to patronize the I(C)R, but recognizes that the casino patronage must be mainly foreign. The question is, how much is some? 20%? 30%? 40%? Still minorities, but big ones.
Offer trust and support to the govt? Ain't tt wad we been doin for last 20 yrs. And has tt amounted to any TRUE NATION-WIDE improvements, say in the education system or in treatment of opposing ideologies? Sometimes, the govt's responses really baffle me!
But I guess we really have nth to do but to sit back and wait...*sigh*... life in SIngapore's still life in Singapore...never changes...does it?
the concerned pikamaster -
My view on casino as posted before in this forum is a simple one - do not let the casino operators present or help us to present proposals whether or not to set up casino in Singapore. This group of people have an interest in the matter and we wil not make a good decision from their perspective.Originally posted by Elfred:Dear all,
Condemn the Casinos as you, and myself (since I ain't for it as well), would. There have been all sorts of remarks since the anouncement, and yes there is a great disappointment literally over the outcome.
By calling on operators to present, perspective will definitely be biased. We will see casino full of benefits and will end up with a biased positive look-good picture. This kind of approach in decision is not good for debates and if we accept the casino decision, we are in effect supporting casino for casino or casino operator's sake. Our economy cannot benefit very much from such an approach in making the casino decision.
We may end up shutting out or excluding objective arguments and sell our souls and morals to these operators. Looking at the presentation by the ministers of the goodies like 35,000 jobs. It is all hypes. Is the figure correct? Obviously no one know for sure how many jobs will be created.
If our ministers are objective and not to be colored by casino operators' pro-casino proposals, they should allow neutral presentation by parties not connected to the casino operators. There could then be broader and more objective review of all the pros and cons.
Our decision will look at:
(1) How many Jobs will be created
(2) Jobs or future jobs that may be lost due to casino - read my other post on this subject
(3) Long term social problems - assess the total social and other intangible costs over longer term.
(4) Put up a master economic plan from which we assess how to use casino as a catalyst to stimulate our future total business growths.
How the above-mentioned can be considered has been presented to the FU in my past posts.
The result is : the debates have been heated without getting any wiser. At the end of three days' debates in parliaments all are not sure whether indeed we will get 35,000 jobs. Against this look-good presentation, there was no realistic study of how many jobs might be lost and what social problems will be created. The people are not left any wiser to decide on the matter.Yet and again, if it's the Casinos we are .....decision that the PM has offered his responsibility for. All of us who ain't very comfortable with the Casinos jolly well express our upset again but if the government is ready to make that move it has also openly declared it's willingness to shoulder any responsibilities and handle the liabilities which might occur alongside with the decision.
Those who have expressed objections against casino have asked many valid questions which are not well answered. All that the ministers are in effect saying is: casino on probability is good and will create jobs. That is all for the pro-casino argument.
It is a poor decision not supported by true objective debates of those who take part in real debates. There may be jobs created but there will also social problems and negative impact of casino on non-tourism sectors. More monies may be drained out to foreigners from Singaporeans over the long term. The anti-casino people are not necessarily wrong.This is a risky move, especially a political one. Yet, if it's not this government, let's not doubt other governments might not brave the risk amidst such waves of protests to embrace the decision. The fear is outstanding, the concerns are heavy, there is no denial that gambling is a vice and it's coming to our backyard. But here, if the government is prepared to make the decision on the back of such political risk to bring about a possibly better prospect, being too emotional at this moment necessarily helps little. Instead, if the PM is prepared to go through this path of thorns to get the chest of gold for Singapore, there are two general choices Singaporeans can take: 1. To scream and cry at the background or 2. to rally behind and ensure the chest of gold is obtained without much more damages.
The government should present the casino debate to the people and not to ramp it down. It can be more objective in its study not colored by casino operators' interests in this matter. The figures of job creation when balanced against potential job losses and social problems, may not be that great to support the casino decision.
A better way to present the casino debates should be to consider it from an overall economic master plan and show how the government will use casino coupled with our excellent location advantages (as compared with other casinos) to stimulate overall economic growth.
For years, since the 1970s, we are not yet guided by a coherent value-adding or up-stream economic strategy. This casino issue gives us another opportunity to re-position the whole economy.
Only when there is a more thorough debates based on overall economic re-structuring will all be able to see a bigger picture whether at the end casino is good or no good. Now they only see biased justifications and judgmental debates influenced by the interest group - the casino operators.Casino is, obviously so, not some of the best ideas. There are many other ideas that Singaporeans obviously held and are prepared to offer for the prosperity of the nation. Yet, as most ideas, Casino is not without risk nor cost. PM Lee is counting on his fellow men and women to see him through, so that risks are being reduced with people's support and costs are minimise with Singapore's blessings. It might not work that well, but how can any idea as this one be expected to reach its maximum benefit without Singapore's blessings and everyone becoming yet another barrier or risk itself?
The casino issue is one which will impact all Singaporeans. In the past, there was little or no accountable processes to hold the government accountable on any major decisions. So it will be the same, now. If casino turns out to be a failure, who are we to blame as the government can easily think up some excuses to deny responsibility.
Don't just decide the issue by the few men in the cabinet and ramp it down the throats of all. Ministers may lose their jobs and may find another but people will lose all they have built, their souls and lives if casino has caused all the standards, values, work ethics and reputation to go down.How many jobs, how much monies to be coming, how much social costs and so on are all more or less anybodies' guess. Forget about other nations' Casinos. Other nations' Casinos don't come with so many well-behaved Singaporeans. If we don't know how much jobs we can create, let's try create as much as possible. If we don't know how much monies would be coming, but you know it won't be your money, and we make sure it won't be our monies be wasted in the Casino. If we don't know how much costs it would result, we do know ourselves. Unless we want it to become anybody's guess, this idea will have to a stake for all of us who are so concern about the idea, now to be concern that the idea will work for us. If we can make the Casinos work, we can make many more ideas work, and we will become uniquely Singapore where other nations can't we can.
People have been informed that the pathological gamblers are about 2% of the gamblers. This figure is hard to believe by common sense. It looks biased as presented by pro-casino camp without the inputs of concerned citizens. A more objective study and presentation has not been given as stated in the forgoing.To be honest, no rules or laws can best my hesitation towards the Casino. However, having a Casino and relate it to the demise of the perception towards social values and justice is an even worst hesitation. Must Singapore be a Casino? Or a Singapore with two or more Casinos? I mean, if we must necessarily tie the Casino to a twist of justice and moral values, then Singapore must become a Casino itself. Else, since Casino doesn't mean much other than a building or a structure itself where gamblers gamble, such house which holds evil is just as any society which holds good and evil. It may be yet a part of evolution for Singapore.
Singapore in the past was run on one-man judgmental approach. Many of such judgmental decisions have turned out wrong but everyone will just have to accept the errors as honest mistakes. The autocratic judgment on this issue as presented to parliament is: without casino Singapore will have even more problems. I can only say that his guess is as good as mine or anyone else. Who can go by such judgment. Why should this be the case if there is no proper study made in a more objective manner thereby missing out all other possible views as stated in the foregoing.
Let more neutral party or citizens conduct the study and the debates would be more supported by the people. An one-man vision has been found wrong or over-done in many cases as admitted in MT/CL1 in education, pro-foreign investment, non-welfarism (over-implemented to result in high cost), and asset enhancement etc.It is very hard to tell whether it's a religious concern since a building itself ain't gonna subscribe to religions though the gamblers may be. So it would become a religious concern if Singaporeans choose to gamble when they should not be. Yet... Would a religious Singaporean with such concern and strength in faith takes to gambling...? Not to mention, these Casinos are for the pleasure of foreign gamblers whom, if they don't come to us, their monies go to others.
Our religious bodies have no choice but to agree with the party line because those bodies came under the portfolio of the ministers in charge and could not express the views objectively. It is not just religious but overall socio-economic reasons to consider. So Dr. Yacob's narrow interpretation to parliament should be corrected.Our Casinos ain't gonna make them sin more if we wouldn't have any Casino, the Casinos would, however, reduce their sins if they can help fund the nation under the world's most corruption-free environment.
The government does not deny that gambling is wrong and sinful so far. So why should anybody want to make gambling less sinful.So much said hence, but if anything does go wrong, that such concerns raised and acknowledged by the government ain't actually being handled as promised with Singapore backing the government, this we have to ensure responsibility be fulfilled and promises ain't wane.
If government has the concern of citizens at heart, it should come clean. Do not present the whole issue through the casino operators' perspective or proposals received. Be more objective and neutral by letting non-casino people conduct their own arguments based on facts and studies done which clearly show that casino has a serious impact on population. Let the facts be more clearly presented in perspective and not so constrained by cabinet's own desire or wishes.
At this moment, we could perhaps offer some trust and support. If the government can live up to the expectation and fulfill its promises, things will go well, and this structure will remain another brick and mortar. If it can't, given all the support and trust, then we can always make more noises than now.
This is a dilemma. To trust or not to.
Only that Singapore's choice would make the risk riskier or less risky, since PM would go on hugging this responsibility he would carry with or without goodwills from Singaporeans whom he's risking for.
I must admit, I am no pro-casinosie, and this is a choice we all have to make. Singapore a Casino, or Singapore with Casinos. The choice won't make the idea definitely works, but it does help making it more probable to work.
Which ministers and MPs will risk speaking against the forceful view of the one man vision all over again after what has happened in so many past cases. Tan Soo Koon for example is silent now on many matters. In fact, Singapore can still do better without a casino. If will do worse if gambling is introduced in a bigger way here just to keep up with the joneses.
If the government is really concerned about the economy, it should not study the whole issue on casino-tourism perspective. It should present a total economic master plan one which will be more creative and entrepreneurial governing of the country over the next 10 years. Only then will the people accept the final outcome whether or not to accept setting up of a casino if the decision should be made. -
Elfred,
I have decided to exit that forum after the site moderator/s infringed their version of freedom on my freedom once too many times. Look the way my postings have been 'intruded', pointless translations which are pointless since who'd catch the point from those translation, and the reply to Robert go literally haywire. I have early on told Patrick I don't trust that Moi/Mosh. How can you have a childish chap in charge and not expect to mess up?
Welcome back! How is FindSingapore? got alot of YP pple there, hey?
As for other YP members, that's not my problem.Did you read my post on PM's speech earlier in this thread, the one tt's too long to display?
To be true, I scan through.What struck me during the speech was the line that "we are re-assured, because we know that relgiious groups will continue fighting for the protection of social morals." To me, that's a blatant shirking of responsibility on the part of the government.
What I can say is a leader would say what is required of him.
The entire speech, in my opinion, was a pure rhetorical exercise, no truth there. SO many details were lacking; what kind of transparent disclosure is this?
The government is willing to take a political risk because after 40 years in power, it has grown soft to itself. It treats itself as the Saints of Singapore; Just watch "Up Close" if you don't believe me. Perhaps it's willing 'cos it knows it really has little political risk to take: Gerrymandering and Defamation suits will ensure that it reamins politically supreme, and don't forget the fact that PM and co can stand in polling booths while votes are being counted legally. No Singaporean would dare to oppose the government overtly anymore. And anyway, the press would censor such oppisition.
The IR bidders (let's use the politically-correct term here) stated that they need some SIngaporeans to patronize the I(C)R, but recognizes that the casino patronage must be mainly foreign. The question is, how much is some? 20%? 30%? 40%? Still minorities, but big ones.
Offer trust and support to the govt? Ain't tt wad we been doin for last 20 yrs. And has tt amounted to any TRUE NATION-WIDE improvements, say in the education system or in treatment of opposing ideologies? Sometimes, the govt's responses really baffle me!
But I guess we really have nth to do but to sit back and wait...*sigh*... life in SIngapore's still life in Singapore...never changes...does it?
the concerned pikamaster -
After all, we already have brothels in Singapore, using the same argument given by the government. And it's good money too. The porn industry is worth billions of dollars. It is said that despite the collapse of the dot.com bubble, porn sites continue to do well. Perhaps the National Computer Board and EDB should go into the porn business next.
I'm waiting for the Singaporean Playboy Magazine!!!! Oh come on! What's wrong with it, all man have needs right????
-
I dont know what's wrong with Singaporean & the PM nowadays, there's no need to have 2 CASINOS, you know what I mean, why are they so greedy???Originally posted by goh meng seng:It is strange indeed. Nobody in his right mind would want their children to be gamblers but there are people who would support Casino!
Never mind about that. For those who want a casino here, have you done your research thoroughly? Don't just write off "social cost" so easily; PAP knows they could not argue against the apparent high "social cost", thus, they just say it is not about social cost vs economic gains. That's cool and neat but simply put it, they are just sweeping the dirt below the carpet!
Of course, with a twist, they say it is about OUR MATURITY as a society! Cool. Nobody wants to be seen as "immature" and not agreeing to have a Casino would be seen as "IMMATURE"! Hahaha. That's strange. If you know the odds of losing in a casino, any MATURE human being will not be visiting the casino! Then, the most important question to ask is, why have a casino in the very first place to hoodwink those "IMMATURE" ones?
I would suggest for those who thinks Casino could bring in all the monies, do some research first. Try to do a search on googles with "NGISC", short form for "National Gambling Impact Studies Commission". This is a study commissioned by the world's most liberal govt on earth, USA. See for yourselves what's in it for us if we go ahead with a casino.
And strategically speaking, we will all become suckers in the end of the day. I will touch on this later.
Goh Meng Seng
-
Let's face it, even before it start to build and operate, our garment are making our money oredi tho it sound nice that they are trying to get us the jobs.
but please, the garment did not GRANTEE around 35,000 jobs will goes to Singaporean. they oni say around 35,000 jobs will be created full stop and that all.
detail can be found here
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050420/5/singapore143431.html
Sentosa Tourism Academy to train students for work in IRs -
Down to bottom line is all for their own good Pap....Without casinos ...how pap government drawing rocket high salaries????? And most singaporeans will be working for gov and of course votes will not be a problem?
-
S'pore is a virtual empty shell of a country. There's no culture or no spirit, or at least very little of it. S'pore used to have it, during the early yrs, the 60s and the 70s. But it has been replaced with an empty artifical shell. Just look at Chinatown.Originally posted by dragg:do you have a better suggestion?
In the early 90s, Chinatown was still good even if it didn't look that good. I still remember my visits as a kid with my mum and it was still charming back then. Not because of shopping but a sense of belonging, a sense of spirit and culture. But now, with all the artificial visibly renovated buildings, the spirit has disappeared for a culture aimed at money and money only.
I have since never really visited Chinatown- I still don't like going there because there's nothing there. Shops, shops and more shops. As if we don't have enough shops in our own neighbourhood areas.
My aim is to restore that culture, that feeling, that spirit. Bangkok have loads and that's why Bangkok is the tourist capitial of South East Asia. Angmohs love to go there and go back many times, asians also love the place. Sure, it's not as developed as Singapore and the traffic jams are notorious but people love the place, they love the nightlife and they just love the simple, Thai attitude that all thais display for fellow thais and tourists.
One of my suggestions is perhaps to clear some areas in Orchard Rd, preferably those dead shopping centres, and make it a big wide open space. In that space, we can have summer rock festivals, music festivals for all s'poreans to enjoy regardless of age, sex, religion etc. All regional, local and international acts will be invited to join in and to sweeten the pot, international companies are allowed to sponser these rock festivals.In addition, we can also have some extreme sports competition, both local and international- such as the ESPN X-games or even live telecast of ESPN Winter X-games from America and Europe.
Then we demolish the need for street performancers to have a license whenever they want to stage a live display on the streets of Orchard Rd. We had it a few times before- let's do it again. Only this time, there's no need for a license if it's a short term thing.
There are so many ways to do it- and we don't really need artifical shells like casinos and big mega shopping centres to draw in tourists- for a fact that Thailand and Malaysia already has cheaper shopping centres and that Macau will be the Las Vegas of Asia in 4 yrs time. It's getting there as I write this. -
that has always been our main problem. money, money and more money.
-
Elfred: I have decided to exit that forum after the site moderator/s infringed their version of freedom on my freedom once too many times. Look the way my postings have been 'intruded', pointless translations which are pointless since who'd catch the point from those translation, and the reply to Robert go literally haywire. I have early on told Patrick I don't trust that Moi/Mosh. How can you have a childish chap in charge and not expect to mess up?
Dear [Elfred],
As for other YP members, that's not my problem.
Haha... funny isn't it. Isn't it pointless too if your counterpart do not understand that language? So what's your purpose when you "too", agree it is haywire?
[Elfred], let's see who is really childish in behaviour.
Anyway, don't worry, I've found you, just saying HI and bye~.
From FindSingapore Forum
Dear [Elfred],
You understand what is it all about? Was your post trimmed? Why you'll always retreat in such manner? Why was your post trimmed then (by ISD?)? When you are stating your point(s), why not stick with the language and not try to escape to another language to put forth your point(s)? Don't expect others to understnad that language. That's perhaps basic courtesy don't you agree? Did you expect [robertteh] to understand that?
Kao-Zai-Mai?
That's you, always. Once you find your thinking is not in same tune as others, you retreat.
Now, some comment on your bias statement.
Elfred wrote:
If you elect the leaders, you have to realise that if you trust them, you elect them. If you don't don't elect them. But don't ever assume them to be gods. Politics is not just admitting errors or covering one, it's still whether if some issue corps up (eg), how leader would choose to handle them that they still maintain the lead.
Yes, in the 60s 70s and even 80s, Singaporean elect them because Singaporean trust them. What happened then? Tell me, when was GRC introduced? When the start of the drawing GRC here and GRC there start intop action? Kia-Su izzit?
Did I ever elected them because I trust them? My big foot [Elfred], I don't even know how that silly little piece of paper look like (don't worry, I've shift home, I'll have my chance and PAPA will have my TRUST of me voting mosquitos).
So, how leaders handle the cocked-up issues? The way they handle Nicole High Way "accident"? Or the way they handle the Dunking saga? Or how they handle the $380million honest mistake.
Com'on, are Singaporean being treated like kids or slaves?
Elfred wrote:
Then SM Lee had, if I don't recall wrongly, made the issue of Suzhou alongside with mainstream media public. If you were to be in China, would such issue be publicized? There's no such leaders that'd guarantee to made nil mistakes.
Hahaha... He made an issue? Haha.... [Elfred] you are treating dumb Singaporeans like kidz? I've said that before and I'll say that again, MM Lee do not go public to tell facts or stories or for an issue. He'll make sure he creates an impact. From here, your understanding of such political issue is pretty naive.
Money losing in SuZhou is not a sudden thingy. Many people knew that, news creeps in here and there. By going public himself, MM is throwing his cards.
oh [Elfred]... keep running, you are juz hidding from yourself. -
Hmm... are you atheist??Originally posted by AntiAnti:I'm waiting for the Singaporean Playboy Magazine!!!! Oh come on! What's wrong with it, all man have needs right???? -
Hi szhcornan,Originally posted by szhcornan73:
welcome to SGForums? Rmb me? hmm, p'raps you don't. I was at YP BBs and Sintercom, as well as Sammyboy for a while. Hope you make yourself at home here! But try to moderate your views a little too.
I don't think much of moshi. I think both he and Elfred are childish in their own ways, but perhaps he is significantly more childish.
regards,
the (objective) pikamaster -
*2Originally posted by dragg:that has always been our main problem. money, money and more money. -
Thanks for the welcome [pikamaster]. I may or may not recognise you if your nick was changed.
In anyway, I'm just passing by, likely will not be back here again. So need not worry, my views are limited .
Cheers
SzhcornanOriginally posted by pikamaster:Hi szhcornan,
welcome to SGForums? Rmb me? hmm, p'raps you don't. I was at YP BBs and Sintercom, as well as Sammyboy for a while. Hope you make yourself at home here! But try to moderate your views a little too.
I don't think much of moshi. I think both he and Elfred are childish in their own ways, but perhaps he is significantly more childish.
regards,
the (objective) pikamaster -
Don't be silly Corn, read my post up there carefully. And open your eyes big big before talking rubbish. My reply to Robert is about as long as his reply to me, which is obvious and also without Chinese characters, but after so many days, only mine got edited.
When you talk something, please think before shoot, Corn.
Never mind, I have discussed it with Patrick and he's aware of the situation.
It's not my problem, it's Patgoh's site anyway.