You want Casino?
-
Kiasu Mentality
According to the govt,we would lose out to other countries if we don't build IR soon.This is the kind of kiasu mentality which PAP govt shows.
Contracdiction
PM & MM said the govt couldn't say no after calling the concept plan proposal because otherwise the govt would lose its credibility to the investors.Didn't they contradict themselves when PM said the govt would decide whether to build IR a month ago?
Respect
PM & SM said they respected those who express views opposing casino.Cheers! -
Oh ho... Any pointers then, Pikamaster?Originally 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
-
Oh, what for [Elfred]?
One thing for sure I shoot way ahead.
I do not target at my target. The target will come under my shot voluntarily. 
This, you need to realise.
And there I'm back just to see your response. Nothing new. As expected, you came right under my Projectile.
Is this pair of eyes big enough?
haha...
Yes, you have discussed. So, what you are trying to say here? What else you want me to read? Or worth me reading?
We have something in common [Elfred], we both have high pride and confidence. Yet, mine is build on my opponent. And I'll never be ashame of admitting my mistakes and learn from a better mind, even from a junior or a child.
C'ya buddy, likely I won't be back here. If you are interested in engaging me, you know where to locate me.
Excuse me [pikamaster], wish you all best. -
why are they so kaisu? Everything want to be top.Casino aslo want top.But our salary where got top?
-
if the govt have not taken an approach of always staying ahead we wouldnt have been where we are today. always remember we are a small country with no natural resources. if any of our neighbouring countries overtake us we are doomed.Originally posted by Meilin86:why are they so kaisu? Everything want to be top.Casino aslo want top.But our salary where got top? -
Today,Humans are used to swing in output because of no resourse in Singapore.There is no difference regardless of whether our neighbours has overtaken singapore. small is not an excuse. Life is still the same,we are still a slave after all. Kaisu mentality need to be change, others may think we are too proud.Originally posted by dragg:if the govt have not taken an approach of always staying ahead we wouldnt have been where we are today. always remember we are a small country with no natural resources. if any of our neighbouring countries overtake us we are doomed. -
there are always pros and cons. you cant have the best of both worlds. most of our neighbours dont think 'highly' of us. all the more we must stay ahead. what do you think will happen if we lose our already fading advantage? many, like yourself, thinks the govt or most singaporeans are pragmatic or kiasu. but who likes to live such a stressful life? many wants to relax too. but we dont have a choice. we are now facing a high unemployment rate. the govt is trying to arrest the situation. of course there is a price to pay.Originally posted by Meilin86:Today,Humans are used to swing in output because of no resourse in Singapore.There is no difference regardless of whether our neighbours has overtaken singapore. small is not an excuse. Life is still the same,we are still a slave after all. Kaisu mentality need to be change, others may think we are too proud. -
It is a long time since I have written anything at the forums
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?
My personal opinion is, it is really difficult to say that the FTA have not added 50,000 jobs to the local job market. According to reports on umemployment, it was stated that in 2004 alone 66,200 jobs were created in Singapore. If we look at the year after the FTA was signed between Singapore and USA, there have been a flurry of activities in the international committees to sign up FTA with each other. Personally I think that the FTA is overall a good policy to improve the economic situation in Singapore. Can I enquire how do you conclude the figure is all bluff ?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/31/bloomberg/sxsing.html
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.
There is a doubt I need to clarify... how do you know that the statistics given by the government were figures given by the casino operators and not from studies from a neutral party ? I do agree with you that the government should provide us with where he get its source of information. Whether is the figure correct, no one can really know but it is probably an approximation to answer questions from the people who demand to know the actual benefits to the economy. On the long term social problems, it really do get mentioned in such as 35,000 jobs added. If asked on the actual figures for the problems, they do states that 2% of the gamblers are expected to be pathological gamblers an more help will be given to these group of people. On whether is any master plan presented, they do tell of scenaros where the IR will become the hype of Asia, the liveliness of the city will increase and more business will be brought in. It had been mentioned, but it is not accepted by the anti-casino people as tey do nto knwo where it comes from. As said before, now the only thing the Gov can do is approximate. The casino is not built yet and any studies done on it by any organisations or people is at best approximation. Please suggest what form of studies should be conducted and by which organisation or people.
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.
There are valid arguments from the pro-casino side as well as valid points raised by the anti-casino sides. Truth is both sides are merely speculating, the pro-casino side painted a very optimistic picture while the anti-casino side painted a bleak one. We can't go on like this debating on what the future is like forever because nobody really knows. A year has gone since the debate on the IR and I believe a quicker response and decisiveness is important to deal with the changing world. In the end a decision had to be made on deciding which is the lesser of the 2 evils, and it was decided to be building the IR. Whether is it a poor decision remains to be seen.
[I]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. [/I]
I don't really see any ramping down on the debate on casinoes. I see many internet forums discussing casineos openly, I hear radios talk shows on the casino and I also watch TVs show on the casino as well. On it being more objective, may I enquire on the means to achieve that.
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.
I thought the stated master plan is that the IRs will add in the vibrancy of the city. Tourism will improve, companies be attracted and so Singapore will overall become a better nation. What else should we need ? May I enquire more details on your idea of masterplan; how long should it be projected, what constitute a master plan, how flexible should the masterplan be in this everchanging environment and how realistic can it be.
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.
Personally this figure appears to be very believable. How many Singaporean had went to Cruise ships and Genting before ? Are a bulk of these people becoming pathological gamblers ? How do you know the figure is presented by the pro-casino sides and not projected from the anti-casino side ?
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.
The Gov is not denying that there may be serious impacts to the casino, and they do propose measures to curb it. Even the anti-casino people acknowledge that a casino do bring in certain advantages to he people as well. Therefore, why not try to harnest the potential good advantages the casino will bring to Singapore while minimising the potential problems linked with it and brought us to more favourable situation. That will be the best scenario to our country isn't it ? -
i should have just read the last paragraph.
-
Originally posted by PRP:
Any discussion with a difference in views can only mean that when actual action is taken, one or more sides will end up disappointed that their views were "not taken up". You can't let your disappointment that you failed to prevent the PAP administration from agreeing to a casino cloud the fact that your views definitely were heard.
Kiasu Mentality
According to the govt,we would lose out to other countries if we don't build IR soon.This is the kind of kiasu mentality which PAP govt shows.
Contracdiction
PM & MM said the govt couldn't say no after calling the concept plan proposal because otherwise the govt would lose its credibility to the investors.Didn't they contradict themselves when PM said the govt would decide whether to build IR a month ago?
Respect
PM & SM said they respected those who express views opposing casino.Cheers!
Whether they did take it into serious consideration is a totally different matter.
For that I am sure they did, because all along our country was opposed to a casino that when the question was tossed in the air again, they surely needed to study the population's reactions to the casino. If there were some really totally violent objections to it, they would have not proceeded with the plan. That said, [I]violent[/I] is relative. My guess is that not enough people have come out against the plan to hurt their interests if they went ahead with the plan.
Though I would mention this fallacy. -
Read 100%, filter 50%, think 30%.Originally posted by Elfred:Oh ho... Any pointers then, Pikamaster?
Listen carefully to what others say. Don't comment on stuff halfway whle reading it.
Skim before you scan.
Remember, everyone has something to learn from anyone; Even the novice has something to teach. in the same vein, don't look down on Academia. They provide the valuable observations which we all need to absorb, especially in politics. Filter out the interpretations if you might, but don't filter out the observations.
Pride comes before a fall: Never be too stubborn.
regards,
the pikamaster
P.S.:
Are you coming online or not? Sign up for a MSN Passport and logon WebMessenger or download MSN Messenger and login. Then, click on "Add New Contact" and type "[email protected]" (tt's my email, jic u haven't realized.)
I made you the offer,e I'm willing to have a serius real-time discussion, just not at a coffeshop. So could I pls have your reply ASAP? -
So much for defending the govt's decision on having IRs isn't it?
I've read through everything, everything that is pro-casino and it's all abt the same. "The IRs will succeed, S'pore tourism will improve, jobs will be added, and everything will be fine and dandy! Yeah, high fives man!"
My question is this- what if it fails to succeed? What happens if- obviously after an initial surge of curious visitors for the first few mths- the tourists start to go back to other places such as Bangkok, Malaysia or Macau because they feel S'pore do not offer any variety?
My issue is not about morals by the way- my issue is on two things:
1) The govt has had made their decision 1 yr ago to have IRs. So the debate from that point till last monday was just a wayang. So really since they weren't gonna consider any more, then why have a yr long debate?
2) What if the casinos fail and tourists fail to come back in the long term? Sure some will come back initially because they will get curious abt a casino in S'pore- but I'm talking long term. Because casinos operate on profit- if the tourists decides that there's nothing on offer on a S'pore casino, they will go back to Macau.
Long term means 5 yrs, 10 yrs down the road. And if the IRs fail to attract tourists on a long term basis, then these IRs will be a costly mistake. And who will then bear the burden? Unfortunately, it won't be those at the top- it will always be the people at the grassroots- yes, I'm referring to us. -
Long term means 5 yrs, 10 yrs down the road. And if the IRs fail to attract tourists on a long term basis, then these IRs will be a costly mistake. And who will then bear the burden? Unfortunately, it won't be those at the top- it will always be the people at the grassroots- yes, I'm referring to us.
I am just wondering that if it do fails, it is the problem of the investors and not us
I thought the Government say that it will not invest in it nor offer any subsidies... 
Even if it fails to even draw a single customer, the cost of its building and renting of otherwise empty land will at least help the local construction industry or increase the Gov income for a short time. -
you might as well ask 'what if we dont go ahead with the project and we end up lagging behind?' the decision has already been made and we have no choice but to look ahead. dwelling on 'what if' will not lead us anywhere.Originally posted by timothytsgsg:So much for defending the govt's decision on having IRs isn't it?
I've read through everything, everything that is pro-casino and it's all abt the same. "The IRs will succeed, S'pore tourism will improve, jobs will be added, and everything will be fine and dandy! Yeah, high fives man!"
My question is this- what if it fails to succeed? What happens if- obviously after an initial surge of curious visitors for the first few mths- the tourists start to go back to other places such as Bangkok, Malaysia or Macau because they feel S'pore do not offer any variety?
My issue is not about morals by the way- my issue is on two things:
1) The govt has had made their decision 1 yr ago to have IRs. So the debate from that point till last monday was just a wayang. So really since they weren't gonna consider any more, then why have a yr long debate?
2) What if the casinos fail and tourists fail to come back in the long term? Sure some will come back initially because they will get curious abt a casino in S'pore- but I'm talking long term. Because casinos operate on profit- if the tourists decides that there's nothing on offer on a S'pore casino, they will go back to Macau.
Long term means 5 yrs, 10 yrs down the road. And if the IRs fail to attract tourists on a long term basis, then these IRs will be a costly mistake. And who will then bear the burden? Unfortunately, it won't be those at the top- it will always be the people at the grassroots- yes, I'm referring to us. -
Hahahahaha... Alright, alright. But here, Pikamaster, I don't think I ever look down on you. And... I don't go by a stubborn-basis.Originally posted by pikamaster:Read 100%, filter 50%, think 30%.
Listen carefully to what others say. Don't comment on stuff halfway whle reading it.
Skim before you scan.
Remember, everyone has something to learn from anyone; Even the novice has something to teach. in the same vein, don't look down on Academia. They provide the valuable observations which we all need to absorb, especially in politics. Filter out the interpretations if you might, but don't filter out the observations.
Pride comes before a fall: Never be too stubborn.
regards,
the pikamaster
P.S.:
Are you coming online or not? Sign up for a MSN Passport and logon WebMessenger or download MSN Messenger and login. Then, click on "Add New Contact" and type "[email protected]" (tt's my email, jic u haven't realized.)
I made you the offer,e I'm willing to have a serius real-time discussion, just not at a coffeshop. So could I pls have your reply ASAP?
Honestly speaking... never mind. -
Hi Pikamaster,
The problem about such realtime chat is that transfers of files and such connections are usually facilitating virus and trojan exchanges.
The best is give me an email when you decide to have such sessions.
In fact, I discourage ICQ use for my wife. -
Oh, what for [Elfred]?
The problem with you is... Corn, you have lack of the substance of which you claim. See?
One thing for sure I shoot way ahead. I do not target at my target. The target will come under my shot voluntarily. This, you need to realise. When I saw your discussion, I could kinda see how you have missed the certain critical issues, and assume too much.And there I'm back just to see your response. Nothing new. As expected, you came right under my Projectile.
Hahahaha... are you assuming I should necessarily bo-chap you? What projectile are you talking about? Is this pair of eyes big enough?
Then don't read, Corn. As for Moi's issue, it's plain simple and obvious. If you choose to act silly, that's a choice I can't force you to avoid. haha...
Yes, you have discussed. So, what you are trying to say here? What else you want me to read? Or worth me reading?We have something in common [Elfred], we both have high pride and confidence. Yet, mine is build on my opponent. And I'll never be ashame of admitting my mistakes and learn from a better mind, even from a junior or a child.
This I can say 'Wrong'. Remember you talk about what Zhuge what never take part in what Fu Wang Po battle and such thingy? Not only you refuse to realise the plane relevant, nor do you actually know that there was a date given in a more authorised book in which it was on record Zhuge was involved in that battle, which you claimed never happened. San Guo Zhi never mention doesn't mean much (since the issue is not whether he really was involved or not), but that wasn't the focus though.
Not only that, in this Moi issue, your perception once again show that you are on the wrong side of the gun again. Unless you are blind, you can see 1.) Those Chinese users before I posted anything doesn't have such translation, 2.) Robert's reply and mine are similar in presentation, where in fact, Lai CF's posting can be even longer, yet only mine got intruded.
How do I know? Because some forum patrons inform me. FindSingapore.net is losing credibility fast, my dear Corn.
Do you think the entire world is blind to such foolish small malicious acts?C'ya buddy, likely I won't be back here. If you are interested in engaging me, you know where to locate me.
Hahaha... Ok, Corn.
Excuse me [pikamaster], wish you all best. -
is this thread for chit chating?
-
Originally posted by socrates:It is a long time since I have written anything at the forums
[b]RT: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?SOC:My personal opinion is, it is really difficult to say that the FTA have not added 50,000 jobs to the local job market. According to reports on umemployment, it was stated that in 2004 alone 66,200 jobs were created in Singapore. If we look at the year after the FTA was signed between Singapore and USA, there have been a flurry of activities in the international committees to sign up FTA with each other. Personally I think that the FTA is overall a good policy to improve the economic situation in Singapore. Can I enquire how do you conclude the figure is all bluff ?
The figures may not be all bluff. But they are doubtful, same as the 35,000 jobs predicted to be created by casino.RT: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.
SOC:There is a doubt I need to clarify... how do you know that the statistics given by the government were figures given by the casino operators and not from studies from a neutral party ? I do agree with you that the government should provide us with where he get its source of information. Whether is the figure correct, no one can really know but it is probably an approximation to answer questions from the people who demand to know the actual benefits to the economy. On the long term social problems, it really do get mentioned in such as 35,000 jobs added. If asked on the actual figures for the problems, they do states that 2% of the gamblers are expected to be pathological gamblers an more help will be given to these group of people. On whether is any master plan presented, they do tell of scenaros where the IR will become the hype of Asia, the liveliness of the city will increase and more business will be brought in. It had been mentioned, but it is not accepted by the anti-casino people as tey do nto knwo where it comes from. As said before, now the only thing the Gov can do is approximate. The casino is not built yet and any studies done on it by any organisations or people is at best approximation. Please suggest what form of studies should be conducted and by which organisation or people.
To present a good and objective debate on casino, it would be best to keep an open mind. By inviting casino operators so early even before evaluating job gains and job losses and social problems to present their proposals on number of jobs to be created, the debates have missed something very critical. The debates were biased not objective or balanced.
Why not publish the original full survey results regions by regions of negative impacts from casino not just the 2% supposed pathological gamblers given by the ministers. Many existing casinos in UK were not doing well and have to be upgraded or regrouped to make them viable. Has the government considered this fact? It was revealed unwittingly by the ministers that the existing pathological gamblers were already 2 %. Once the casinos were set up, by proximity factor, surely the pathological gamblers will be higher or much higher than 2 % lah. Has the minister Dr. V considered told the complete fact?RT: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.
SOC:There are valid arguments from the pro-casino side as well as valid points raised by the anti-casino sides. Truth is both sides are merely speculating, the pro-casino side painted a very optimistic picture while the anti-casino side painted a bleak one. We can't go on like this debating on what the future is like forever because nobody really knows. A year has gone since the debate on the IR and I believe a quicker response and decisiveness is important to deal with the changing world. In the end a decision had to be made on deciding which is the lesser of the 2 evils, and it was decided to be building the IR. Whether is it a poor decision remains to be seen.
The onus is on the government making the decision to build casino to prove its arguments on facts and logics not the anti-casinosites to do so. The worse decision is to make it and ask the people to try it out to see what happens. Such an attitude verges on downright irresponsible - 72,000 lives in danger of being destroyed !!!RT:[I]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. [/I]
SOC:I don't really see any ramping down on the debate on casinoes. I see many internet forums discussing casineos openly, I hear radios talk shows on the casino and I also watch TVs show on the casino as well. On it being more objective, may I enquire on the means to achieve that.
Why not conduct a more objective study to make a really good decision acceptable to all without getting in the casino operators to pull wools over our eyes. Evaluate the whole gains and losses and then decide at the end indeed whether casino will create 35,000 jobs after offsetting job losses arising from negative impacts, bankruptcies etc over say 5 years. For all anyone knows, casino may lose its attraction after one year as tourists decide that our casinos are not that attractive after all. There is also the question of how many jobs will go to the locals.RT: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.
SOC:I thought the stated master plan is that the IRs will add in the vibrancy of the city. Tourism will improve, companies be attracted and so Singapore will overall become a better nation. What else should we need ? May I enquire more details on your idea of masterplan; how long should it be projected, what constitute a master plan, how flexible should the masterplan be in this everchanging environment and how realistic can it be.
I cannot see integration to tourism in passing as an economic master plan at all. Without a total master plan to integrate to all business or major business sectors to upgrade our economic competitiveness, how can the MM say "without casino, our economy will be worse off" Such utterances were obviously without basis.RT: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.
SOC
A belief is only a belief. The party who makes the decision should substantiate the decision with facts from objective and balanced study not just beliefs or assumptions as being done by MM. If not done, the casino decision will remain a poor decision.
ersonally this figure appears to be very believable. How many Singaporean had went to Cruise ships and Genting before ? Are a bulk of these people becoming pathological gamblers ? How do you know the figure is presented by the pro-casino sides and not projected from the anti-casino side ? RT: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.
SOC:The Gov is not denying that there may be serious impacts to the casino, and they do propose measures to curb it. Even the anti-casino people acknowledge that a casino do bring in certain advantages to he people as well. Therefore, why not try to harnest the potential good advantages the casino will bring to Singapore while minimising the potential problems linked with it and brought us to more favourable situation. That will be the best scenario to our country isn't it ?
The government did not deny that the social impacts were serious, but it has failed to do sufficient homework by making a more objective study and quantifying potential job losses and social problems. That is the whole point I have made in this post. -
Now that the casino is a certainty, we should urge restrictions on its use. I am waiting to hear details of how it will work but I would like the casino to run on a membership-only basis. Non-members will not be allowed even to step into the casino on pain of huge penalties for the operators.
I also want the right to prevent any of my children from becoming members of the casino. I take the position that the right to gamble is far from a basic human right. If casinos are necessary for the future of the nation, the last thing I want to do is to gamble with the lives of our children, who are the future of our nation. Young people in their early twenties may be legally adults but many will not able to resist the lure of instant wealth. Perhaps it will be possible for any Singaporean to be banned from membership upon application by 2 members of his household?
Leave the gambling to foreigners! -
Look what I found regarding the future integrated resorts, http://www.stamfordplc.com .
-
No, but I'm looking at the matter frm a different angle. The govt didn't even dwell on the issue regarding failure and the consequences of it. They just focus on the positive aspects and therefore the report became unbalanced.Originally posted by dragg:you might as well ask 'what if we dont go ahead with the project and we end up lagging behind?' the decision has already been made and we have no choice but to look ahead. dwelling on 'what if' will not lead us anywhere.
Every matter and every decision needs balancing- a view and evaluation of all pros and cons and every scenario imaginable. But the govt only stuck on one- the most positive scenario imaginable. They refuse to think about the failures and its consequences- and that's wrong.
And I'd like to say this: by reacting to Macau's and the rest of the region's intentions to have casinos is purely a reactive reaction and not a creative one. If the PAP is so good, why didn't they see it coming a few yrs ago and made steps to have one yrs ago? Why didn't they consider the scenario 3-4 yrs ago?
If you want to be one step ahead of your competitors, you need people to think ahead, think foward 4-5 yrs before now and make decisions and discussions on that.
Now Macau will have casinos and therefore we have. So? We have loads of shopping centres, shops and two IRs. Any different from any Asian destination in yr 2010- where there will be a total of 14 casinos in Asia- or even more?
And HK will have Disneyland by 2010 as well.
So how unique can S'pore be when almost all destinations will have shopping centres, mega theme parks and casinos come 2010? Do you think the situation will change for the better 5 yrs from now?
No, it will be the same as today because we followed the crowd- we didn't lead it. Having two casinos in Asia is no longer unique my friend. -
Aiyoo.. this topic has grown mouldy already.
Throw away lah, no use bitching about it. What's decided is decided, and fixed.
Next time, when they ask public for opinion. Don't bother at all. -
What matters is not what you think about what other people think/feel, but rather what the other people think/feel about what you say/do. I learnt tt early on; I think you should too.Originally posted by Elfred:Hahahahaha... Alright, alright. But here, Pikamaster, I don't think I ever look down on you. And... I don't go by a stubborn-basis.
Honestly speaking... never mind.
sincerely,
the pikamaster -
As a forumer, my presence here is to give my views objectively as I see it. The problem is : government people are propagating their views here in the shallow.Originally posted by pikamaster:What matters is not what you think about what other people think/feel, but rather what the other people think/feel about what you say/do. I learnt tt early on; I think you should too.
sincerely,
the pikamaster
We are already suffering from economic stagnation due to a lack of really good competitive economic strategy.
Many problems e.g. lack of entrepreneurs, high costs of living and class divisions were created by over-simplistic or over-pragmatic past policies. Government views are being propagated to emphasise on many unworkable past policies in this forum as well.
Forumers are pressured by pro-establishment views and some become confused. We will need to stay alert and counter these establishment views and examine them even more closely.
Their views on casino are very one-sided like the meritocracy education and non-welfarism policies which will continue to cause many problems. The view of the government that "without casino, we will be worse off" is too shallow and not correct.
If government wants to give their views to support casino here by all means. But personally, I believe that the government views about casino are incorrect and too biased. All forumers should stay collective and alert and try to formulate new thinking and something valuable without feeling pressurd by views to please government.