You want Casino?
-
PM, which of your viewpoint is really right?
When LHL is a DPM,he opposed 5 day-week.When he is PM,he implemented 5 day-week for govt services.
When he is a minister, he opposed building a casino.When he is PM, he supports 2 IR with casino.
I doubt his ability to make a RIGHT decision.PM,which of your viewpoints is really right?Does your appointment as PM affect your viewpoints? -
Freedom of Speech
On this issue, ministers are allowed to express their true views and the decision making process was disclosed by SM Goh.These shows a small improvement to the style of PAP governance under PM Lee. -
[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.]
in the good, old days when the world was churning much slower, it was easier for a centrally planned economy to see where the world was headed and to try and stay ahead. but in today's increasingly complex world, the govt has already admitted that they are not good businessmen and the debacle in Suzhou just goes to show why the govt's notion of staying ahead might end up straying again.
[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...]
more likely than not, the casino will take root, breed gambling as a social norm in our society, increase the amount of time and money spent on gambling at the expense of productive or meaningful efforts elsewhere thus reducing our long term competitiveness, destroy our honest and hardworking creed that have been the cornerstones for our success, create more tragedies and broken families ...
[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.]
for these short terms gains, what are the eventual long term sacrifices? what are a few more buildings if they are empty or devoid of soul?
[you might as well ask 'what if we dont go ahead with the project and we end up lagging behind?']
before we ask 'what if we dont go ahead ...', shouldn't we be asking are we lagging behind? how far behind? is there nothing else we can do? will this project help us catch up? or will it dragg us behind even more?
[the decision has already been made and we have no choice but to look ahead. dwelling on 'what if' will not lead us anywhere.]
yes decision has been made but why does the systematic indoctrination of the virtues of the decision continues to be inundated on us? -
I thought I ever mentioned before.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
Say the same thing to the same person in different times, you'd get many different reactions.
If you are too bothered by what others think of you, just follow the crowd.
Now here's the problem... Do you aspire to be a clown, a PR or some empty vases to appeal to others?
True, political issues are about people... but generally, Pikamaster, I'd explain to you certain thingy when there is such chance.
-
it will be interesting to know whether this casino resort started before or after the decision www.stamfordplc.com .
-
Elfred,Originally posted by Elfred:I thought I ever mentioned before.
Say the same thing to the same person in different times, you'd get many different reactions.
If you are too bothered by what others think of you, just follow the crowd.
Now here's the problem... Do you aspire to be a clown, a PR or some empty vases to appeal to others?
True, political issues are about people... but generally, Pikamaster, I'd explain to you certain thingy when there is such chance.
*sigh*. Yes, your statements are correct, to a certain extent at least. But I was giving you this advice about Schorznan, not about myself.
commenting about what other people feel is out of context for this (brief) exchange.
You have to understand what other people feel about certain things, so that you can put forward your messages more easily and adequately to them, or absorb feedback for yourself which will help you improve. Robert accepted my last criticism with grace; you, on the other hand, are pretty stubborn about admitting your own faults, even stubbornness.
The problem is not whether pple aspire to be PRs, clowns, or empty vases - in fact, I think it's immature to slap on labels in this manner - but rather whether we are willing to find our own areas of improvement, our own insensitivities.
Regards,
the pikamaster -
Speaking of credibility, the leaders have been talking about plan to increase the population from 1990s but failed. The last year of the dragon saw the highest birth then population growth came back down.
Then came the double whammy to the population growth in the form of migration of the educated due to erroneous elitist education policy.
Thousands are migrating every year to Australia, USA, Canada, even China ..Net population will continue to be insignificant and small.
The post-war baby boomers who started businesses and set up factories during the 1970s and 1980s are retiring at 55-60 in large number from 2001 to 2006. These founding entrepreneurs were not being helped due to high-cost, pro-foreign business policies and government going into businesses to compete against them. Therefore the economy is going to slow down further.
Past economic strategy was to (1) set up Jurong to industrialise --1960s (2) graduate from labor-intensive to capital-intensive --1970s (3) upgrade to value-add sectors -- 1980s.
The economy since 1980s were heavily dependent on foreign investments without pursuit of any parallel plan to build own capabilities. One hundred and one reasons will be given not to help the locals and SMEs. Under such short-sighted economic planning, any value-adding plans would only be nothing but ad hoc or random.
Yet, without an overall economic master plan to leverage our strengths and counter our weaknesses, the economy is basically directionless. The local businesses are suffering and suffering without much help from the government.
As I see it, Singapore past policies are causing the economy to flounder badly during the last two recessions. Other Asian economies are recovering faster than our economy. The standard of living of the people are dropping back to the 1970s due to unemployments, lower salaries and asset bubble bursts.
South Korea has gone through the same Asian Financial crisis and recessions. It has come up on top with better manufacturing growths. Its own MNCs are churning out large number of world-beating products and keeping up the economic race.
The local businesses are dying and MNCs are progressively moving out to less costly destinations.
Leaders are not consistent and focused in implementing a creative economic master plan to provide directions to help all to compete in world market. They are truly running out of ideas despite all the claims of their own talents.
The above-stated reasons i.e. loss of economic planning strategy etc, are precisely why we need to go for increasing the population growth, more participation by youths in politics etc. If the fundamental errors as posted are not corrected our leaders will have to do all the unnecessary things like trying to get more babies or set up a casino.
Where is the true leadership and talents among them to grow or nurture more entrepreneurs or overcome our loss of economic competitiveness due to high costs created by them or simply lack of ideas.
Now that the economy is having a "back to the black" correction in 2004 after two prolonged recessions of 1996-1999 and 2001-2003, the leaders will be quick to claim credit for the recovery when actually such a recovery is part of the cyclical up-and-down of world economy.
More ideas are needed to revive the present economy. The first task is to come up with a vibrant economic master plan and produce a strong team to carry out the plan if Singaporeans are to maintain their asset values or earn a better living. -
Aiyo, if no grace, where got talk so nicely with you, Pikamaster?Originally posted by pikamaster:Elfred,
*sigh*. Yes, your statements are correct, to a certain extent at least. But I was giving you this advice about Schorznan, not about myself.
commenting about what other people feel is out of context for this (brief) exchange. You have to understand what other people feel about certain things, so that you can put forward your messages more easily and adequately to them, or absorb feedback for yourself which will help you improve. Robert accepted my last criticism with grace; you, on the other hand, are pretty stubborn about admitting your own faults, even stubbornness.The problem is not whether pple aspire to be PRs, clowns, or empty vases - in fact, I think it's immature to slap on labels in this manner - but rather whether we are willing to find our own areas of improvement, our own insensitivities.
Regards,
the pikamaster
Or what do you expect?
In any case, you can't expect people to just accept. It might sound nice, but when Corn has already gone haywire in such determination, in such environment, just be straight and steadfast with your position.
I understand what you are trying to say, Pikamaster. But obviously, have you ever wonder what is the point if I can '...put my message more easily...'? Human communication in various modes and situation ain't a pile of definite mathematics equations.
My message will never be put across any easier if the recipient is not ready for it, and it's obviously so that I am looking out for those who are more or less ready.
It's similar to talking to the walls, when you shout, without opening your eyes, you can identify that walls are there due to obvious echos. If you try to talk soft to suit the recipient you probably won't heard any. There may be no echo from the wall, but that doesn't mean the message is sent across any more effectively, not to say, to have any meaningful feedbacks other than noise. This is, anyway, rather philosophical, so...
Easy, Boy. -
replica
-
replica
-
*sigh*
-
*sigh*Originally posted by pikamaster:*sigh* -
Focus more on getting across to the right people, than trying to make yourself more presentable.
When you got the right audience, you got your audience.
When you got no right audience, you got no audience.
Regardless what and how the message be put across.
Else, either be PR;
Or say nothing.
As this, I don't expect to accept, but I do expect you to consider.
Accept is no grace, Pikamaster, when one can't even consider properly. -
The figures may not be all bluff. But they are doubtful, same as the 35,000 jobs predicted to be created by casino.
So far some of the figures given by the government may be at most misleading, but it do contain some honest statistically truth in it
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 !!!
I believe in the Gov view, they had already presented the necessary facts and logic to build a casino. It is difficult to conduct studies on the effect of casino on its people when it was not built yet. If I am not wrong, most of the reports are based on studies after the casino were built. Furthermore, different regions report of vastly different conclusion. The result gathered from Las Vegas or Macau may be vastly different from the result gathered from regions which you had described. We do not know if such studies have been done either
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.
I am unclear on these few points... How should the studies be conducted if we do not know what form of casinoes is going to be built ? How accurate will this study into the future 5 years be we do not have a casino ? Will extrapolate results from other regions which varies greatly and which is totally different with the situation of Singapore be an accurate way of assessing its potential for a casino ?
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
I am a bit buffled about the master plan... Does all economy decisions be linked with all the business and major sectors ? If tourism improves, foreigner will come in with their money and therefore give us a better fiscal advantage. This will help all business sector when compared with poorer turnout in tourism.
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
My point is some studies and information to predict the future is hard to collate even by the best of organisations or people and even if it was done, the accuracy is questionable. The most they can provide is appoximation and it is indeed provided in the Gov arguments for a casino.
in the good, old days when the world was churning much slower, it was easier for a centrally planned economy to see where the world was headed and to try and stay ahead. but in today's increasingly complex world, the govt has already admitted that they are not good businessmen and the debacle in Suzhou just goes to show why the govt's notion of staying ahead might end up straying again.
Nowadays, almost every country is facing this problem to a certain extent. Every country is battling hand and foot to improve their economy capabilities and they became competitors with each other at almost all economy front to gain a niche. The other countries notion of staying ahead might also end up straying as well. The best possible action now is to make the best judgement and decision from the infomation available.
more likely than not, the casino will take root, breed gambling as a social norm in our society, increase the amount of time and money spent on gambling at the expense of productive or meaningful efforts elsewhere thus reducing our long term competitiveness, destroy our honest and hardworking creed that have been the cornerstones for our success, create more tragedies and broken families ...
It can be argued that you may have painted an picture that is too pessimistic. The pro-casino people may be projecting a totally different future scenario such as life in Singapore improves, more fiancial welfare is given to the people, tourism improves, city become more lively and became a global metropolis, local gambling problem tackled by education and restrictions given, long term economy values such as productivity were not affected as what most countries with casino do not experience such problems etc. Truth is no one really knows what will happen in the future. It may really become as bad as you described and it may very well performed as expected by the Gov. Almost every economy decisions involves certain risks. We can not just stop here and never take any risks which may improve on our life. All talk and no actions is a sin by itself. Since the decision is to build casinoes, which to a large percentage of the population is the most sensible thing to do, we should now focus on trying to maximise the advantages that can be gathered from the building of such casinoes and minimise the impact of them.
for these short terms gains, what are the eventual long term sacrifices? what are a few more buildings if they are empty or devoid of soul?
What are the eventual long term sacrifices is unknown, but at least the short term gains are clear. It can be argued that plots of empty land is more empty and devoid of soul than empty buildings.
before we ask 'what if we dont go ahead ...', shouldn't we be asking are we lagging behind? how far behind? is there nothing else we can do? will this project help us catch up? or will it dragg us behind even more?
For your first question, yes. We are lagging behind.
For your second question, in terms of tourism, we are increasing lagging behind since there are no new interesting tourism spot in here.
For your third question, there may really be nothing else that will improve the situation significantly left to do. Maybe you can propose some ideas on how to make tourism in Singapore improves.
4th question, yes it may help us catch up
Last question, maybe it may drag us badly. But staying stationary is slow death and I rather take the plunge -
Elfred,Originally posted by Elfred:Focus more on getting across to the right people, than trying to make yourself more presentable.
When you got the right audience, you got your audience.
When you got no right audience, you got no audience.
Regardless what and how the message be put across.
Else, either be PR;
Or say nothing.
As this, I don't expect to accept, but I do expect you to consider.
Accept is no grace, Pikamaster, when one can't even consider properly.
there goes your self-effacing arrogance again!
I have considered all your points carefully, which is why i provide concrete and detailed replies.
*groan*
the dissappointed pikamaster -
Well, if that's how you will perceive, it's not my problem. If you have what consider my points carefully and what provide concrete and detailed replies, the only thing actually is for you to try doing it inspite of my non-concrete and non-detailed arrogant remarks.Originally posted by pikamaster:Elfred,
there goes your self-effacing arrogance again!
I have considered all your points carefully, which is why i provide concrete and detailed replies.
*groan*
the dissappointed pikamaster
What more can I say?
Have a nice day then.
The Bo-chap Elfred. -
Originally posted by socrates:
We are already staying stationary- for the last 5-8 yrs. It's not that we are in front when comes to tourism- we are behind. It's because of the fact that most PAP ministers decided to be lazy and that's why while other markets are diversing their tourist attractions for the last 5 years, we keep on harping on Sentosa when Sentosa is dying slowly as a tourist attraction.
Last question, maybe it may drag us badly. But staying stationary is slow death and I rather take the plunge
[/b]
Half the theme parks have closed in the last 5 yrs because of the fact that tourists find our theme parks boring. -
The Kiasu Argument
GCT said something like this:The issue is about economic competitiveness for S'pore.All want competitiveness,so IR with casino should be built.
This is a kiasu way of arguing.The govt was deciding whther to build casino.Of course,the issue should be whether casino is good or bad.
To illustrate with an analogy: When someone wants to set up an illegal business,he tells his potential business partners that the issue is whether they can make money.Can this the way to make a decision? -
I enjoyed reading this forum, but I can't say anything since I don't even play a role in this casino business thing and I am only a secondary school student. Well, since when do we have a say in anything anyway?
-
Well tiffanie,
You can play a role. When the IR is opened. Go visit it more often! -
[So far some of the figures given by the government may be at most misleading, but it do contain some honest statistically truth in it]
what is the difference between “doubtful” and “misleading”? “at most misleading” means somewhat misleading. “contain some honest statistical truth” means lacking some other honest truths. don’t waste our time on such silly arguments please.
[I believe in the Gov view, they had already presented the necessary facts and logic to build a casino.]
the govt needs to justify its decision no matter what. to do that, it will present only the ‘necessary’ facts. ‘necessary’ facts will lead you to believe that our world is coming to an end unless we take their magic pill we will surely perish. any other opposing arguments are deemed unnecessary and swept under the carpet.
[It is difficult to conduct studies on the effect of casino on its people when it was not built yet. If I am not wrong, most of the reports are based on studies after the casino were built. Furthermore, different regions report of vastly different conclusion. The result gathered from Las Vegas or Macau may be vastly different from the result gathered from regions which you had described. We do not know if such studies have been done either]
when we see a person die after jumping off from the 10th floor, do we ask things like "he's so fat and heavy that's why he died. i much skinnier so maybe i won't die. he jumped from the 10th floor but i only stay on the 8th floor. his surroundings are concrete but my surroundings are interlocking tiles so maybe not so bad ...
[Why not conduct a more objective study to make a really good decision]
the whole idea is to not make an objective study Â…
[How should the studies be conducted if we do not know what form of casinoes is going to be built ? How accurate will this study into the future 5 years be we do not have a casino ? Will extrapolate results from other regions which varies greatly and which is totally different with the situation of Singapore be an accurate way of assessing its potential for a casino ?]
we donÂ’t know for sure therefore it doesnÂ’t really matter Â… sounds like sweeping dirt under the carpet isn't it?
[I am a bit buffled about the master plan... Does all economy decisions be linked with all the business and major sectors ?]
you donÂ’t seem to understand his earlier argument. integration means understanding how one component relates to the rest so that if it cannot complement the existing parts, it should at least not cannibalise on them.
[If tourism improves, foreigner will come in with their money and therefore give us a better fiscal advantage. this will help all business sector when compared with poorer turnout in tourism.]
you should examine this statement very carefully before wearing it by your mouth.
the official stance was that the resorts will bring in the tourists, the buzz and the money as well. the other official stance is that the resorts cannot survive without casinos (analogy being NTUC resort unable to survive without jackpot machines). so on the one hand the resorts can bring in the money but on the other hand the resorts cannot survive without support from casinos. so you see the apparent contradiction?
if the resorts can bring in the tourist dollars, then the argument that the casino is needed to continuously maintain these resorts becomes fallacious and consequently we wonÂ’t need the casinos. so why then do we still need the casinos? think about it Â… suspend your emotions and prejudices and give it some serious thought Â…
[My point is some studies and information to predict the future is hard to collate even by the best of organisations or people and even if it was done, the accuracy is questionable. The most they can provide is appoximation ...]
providing an approximation of the negative impacts of the casinos is enough to brush them off? providing an approximation of the ‘potential’ benefits of the casino is sufficient to justify it?
[Â… almost every country is facing this problem ... The other countries notion of staying ahead might also end up straying as well.]
strange isn't it, we're now suddenly concerned about whether or not our competitors will stray. so they stray we also can stray? isn't that following blindly?
[It can be argued that you may have painted an picture that is too pessimistic.]
conversely could it perhaps be that the official picture is overly rosy?
[The pro-casino people may be projecting a totally different future scenario such as life in Singapore improves, more fiancial welfare is given to the people, tourism improves, city become more lively and became a global metropolis ...]
isnÂ’t it funny how earlier, you brushed off the potential negative impacts of the casino by saying they cannot be quantified but now you wholeheartedly embrace all possible positive scenarios even though theyÂ’re just projections?
[Truth is no one really knows what will happen in the future Â… Almost every economy decisions involves certain risks. We can not just stop here and never take any risks which may improve on our life.]
business decisions (i wonÂ’t use economic since it has degenerated as such) requires a balance of returns and risks. we donÂ’t just take risks for nothing. only when returns are worth the risks do we consider taking a step forward and even then, the best foot forward should be the one that gives the most returns while incurring the least risks. since no one really knows, it is as likely the decision may turn out foul as it could turn out well so this is really akin to flipping a coin. the fate of the nation should not be decided by the flip of a coin.
[All talk and no actions is a sin by itself. Since the decision is to build casinoes, which to a large percentage of the population is the most sensible thing to do]
so is half bluff and blind reaction. the reality is that a large percentage of us canÂ’t be bothered while a significant portion aren't as sensible as they should be.
[we should now focus on trying to maximise the advantages that can be gathered from the building of such casinoes and minimise the impact of them.]
perhaps u can start by doing just that - focusing on ways of improving the situation rather than trying so hard to justify the decision.
[What are the eventual long term sacrifices is unknown, but at least the short term gains are clear.]
if the long term is unclear to you but yet you can see the short term clearly, maybe youÂ’re just short sighted?
[It can be argued that plots of empty land is more empty and devoid of soul than empty buildings.]
it can be argued too that our brains are even emptier Â…
[For your first question, yes. We are lagging behind.
for your second question, in terms of tourism, we are increasing lagging behind since there are no new interesting tourism spot in here.]
if you read the proposal in detail, youÂ’d realise that the whole argument about us lagging is that our tourist market share has dropped from 8% to 6%. a slightly lower share of a rapidly growing market means weÂ’re still getting more from a bigger pie. the reason why I asked you to ask yourself how far weÂ’re lagging is to think about whether this 2% drop is grave enough a reason to abandon a moral principle that we have upheld for so long.
[For your third question, there may really be nothing else that will improve the situation significantly left to do. Maybe you can propose some ideas on how to make tourism in Singapore improves.]
that is what the govt wants us to believe. it is their ‘justification’ for setting up another jackpot machine. if you want my ideas about tourism, look under the thread “super global”.
[4th question, yes it may help us catch up]
as a nation-wide initiative concerning the lives of every singaporean, “may” is really unacceptable. given the fundamental mismatch between this initiative and our core strengths and values, the downside risks outweigh whatever possible upside gains.
[Last question, maybe it may drag us badly. But staying stationary is slow death and I rather take the plunge]
when you let your imagination be confined by official arguments, youÂ’d be left with only two choices, take a big gamble or starve to death. if we follow their arguments unquestioningly, we unwittingly end up blindfolded. ask yourself are we really starving to death? there are reasons why they say what they said. itÂ’s meant to simultaneously tug at our heartstrings and numb our brains. -
what is the difference between “doubtful” and “misleading”? “at most misleading” means somewhat misleading. “contain some honest statistical truth” means lacking some other honest truths. don’t waste our time on such silly arguments please.
Lets put it this way. The figures given out by the gov is probably going to be true. They do not have the habit of putting down statistic where people will proclaim it to be false.
the govt needs to justify its decision no matter what. to do that, it will present only the ‘necessary’ facts. ‘necessary’ facts will lead you to believe that our world is coming to an end unless we take their magic pill we will surely perish. any other opposing arguments are deemed unnecessary and swept under the carpet.
If you have read the PM speech, you will see that the other side of the field is mentioned as well. But instead of being pessimistic and conclude the problems of casino as unsolvable, he at least try to implement ways to curb the problem of casino
when we see a person die after jumping off from the 10th floor, do we ask things like "he's so fat and heavy that's why he died. i much skinnier so maybe i won't die. he jumped from the 10th floor but i only stay on the 8th floor. his surroundings are concrete but my surroundings are interlocking tiles so maybe not so bad ...
It is difficult to conduct studies on the effect of casino on its people when it was not built yet. If I am not wrong, most of the reports are based on studies after the casino were built. Furthermore, different regions report of vastly different conclusion. The result gathered from Las Vegas or Macau may be vastly different from the result gathered from regions which you had described. We do not know if such studies have been done either
I don't really understand why your analogy can be an answer to the point I had raised in the paragraph. Care to explain ?
we donÂ’t know for sure therefore it doesnÂ’t really matter Â… sounds like sweeping dirt under the carpet isn't it?
Please clarify who had ever say it doesn't matter ? The comments I have heard so far is "it matters, but building a casino is crucial and therefore we should try ways to minimise the problems of the casino"
you donÂ’t seem to understand his earlier argument. integration means understanding how one component relates to the rest so that if it cannot complement the existing parts, it should at least not cannibalise on them.
Then I guess I have answered it by saying that an added income from tourism will improve most business sector in Singapore.
the official stance was that the resorts will bring in the tourists, the buzz and the money as well. the other official stance is that the resorts cannot survive without casinos (analogy being NTUC resort unable to survive without jackpot machines). so on the one hand the resorts can bring in the money but on the other hand the resorts cannot survive without support from casinos. so you see the apparent contradiction?
if the resorts can bring in the tourist dollars, then the argument that the casino is needed to continuously maintain these resorts becomes fallacious and consequently we wonÂ’t need the casinos. so why then do we still need the casinos? think about it Â… suspend your emotions and prejudices and give it some serious thought Â…
I don't think you are getting my point. Will the IR improves the tourist market here in Singapore ? If it do, then my previous paragraph is true and that an added income from tourism will boost almost all business in Singapore. The casino can be simply patronised by the tourists, which is its original intentions. The IR attract certain tourists. The casinoes also attract certain group of tourists. It doesn't add in any contradiction nor fallacies as you described. May I suggest you to suspend your emotions and prejudice since your tone is a bit confrontational.
providing an approximation of the negative impacts of the casinos is enough to brush them off? providing an approximation of the ‘potential’ benefits of the casino is sufficient to justify it?
The point is there is no other way to know the full extent of the casino other than approximation. Please suggest how and what source of information is further needed
strange isn't it, we're now suddenly concerned about whether or not our competitors will stray. so they stray we also can stray? isn't that following blindly?
I believe you realise that all the Gov in the world are mere human. Other nations are having difficulties in improving their economy, not just Singapore. No gov want to deliberately stray away from their intended target yet it happens. This is not following blindly, this is reality. If your kids fail to be number 1 in the school or your husband fails to take in 10,000 per month, do you blame them for being useless ?
isnÂ’t it funny how earlier, you brushed off the potential negative impacts of the casino by saying they cannot be quantified but now you wholeheartedly embrace all possible positive scenarios even though theyÂ’re just projections?
You should cool down and read slowly. I never say that the scenario mentioned by the Gov will be true, but I do not believe that your impression of an almost collapsed Singapore will materialise as well. The point is no one has the gift of looking into the future, both parties want the best of Singapore and both parties have a different opinion of what the outcome will be. Since the casino was already decided, why don't we try to maximise the potential of the IR while minimising the problems tat tagged along with it ? -
business decisions (i wonÂ’t use economic since it has degenerated as such) requires a balance of returns and risks. we donÂ’t just take risks for nothing. only when returns are worth the risks do we consider taking a step forward and even then, the best foot forward should be the one that gives the most returns while incurring the least risks. since no one really knows, it is as likely the decision may turn out foul as it could turn out well so this is really akin to flipping a coin. the fate of the nation should not be decided by the flip of a coin.
In short, it boils down to calculated risks. No one knows for sure, but they tend to believe that the chances of a successful casino with minimal impact on society outweighs the other. Given such a situation, surely we should take the plunge and build the IRs
so is half bluff and blind reaction. the reality is that a large percentage of us canÂ’t be bothered while a significant portion aren't as sensible as they should be.
Well, if people do not subscribe to what you believe, it doesn't means they can't be bothered or not sensible. I don't believe you are a perfect being where your judgement is absolute and those who have a different opinion are deemed as mistakes, or can't be bothered or not sensible. Everybody deserves to have their own opinions
perhaps u can start by doing just that - focusing on ways of improving the situation rather than trying so hard to justify the decision.
Then what about you ? Why are you trying so hard to force the decision to appear to be wrong ? Is it just because you want to bash the gov ?
if the long term is unclear to you but yet you can see the short term clearly, maybe youÂ’re just short sighted?
Heh... I am indeed having myopia but I guess that is better than having my eyesight deterioting due to old age and can see nothing clear
it can be argued too that our brains are even emptier Â…
That seems to be a personal and irrelevant answer to the paragraph above
if you read the proposal in detail, youÂ’d realise that the whole argument about us lagging is that our tourist market share has dropped from 8% to 6%. a slightly lower share of a rapidly growing market means weÂ’re still getting more from a bigger pie. the reason why I asked you to ask yourself how far weÂ’re lagging is to think about whether this 2% drop is grave enough a reason to abandon a moral principle that we have upheld for so long.
Personally, I think situation is indeed bad since 25% of our market share is lost. Furthermore, there are lesser and lesser things we can do to imporve our tourism sector. If we don't fix it now, then when should we fix it ?
that is what the govt wants us to believe. it is their ‘justification’ for setting up another jackpot machine. if you want my ideas about tourism, look under the thread “super global”.
I have briefly browse through and if I am not wrong, you are trying to say that we should drop off tourism and focus on other economy isn't it ? Personally, I think that there is room for improvement in our tourist sector and having a more diversified economy (including tourism) will aid Singapore in the long run. Tourists money will be increasing from this point onwards due to increasing affluent people in the world and cheaper airfare. It will not be prudent to forsake this pie
as a nation-wide initiative concerning the lives of every singaporean, “may” is really unacceptable. given the fundamental mismatch between this initiative and our core strengths and values, the downside risks outweigh whatever possible upside gains.
"May" is the answer for almost all economy decisions. There is really no such things as "confirm win" in the world we are living in now. As said before, you believe that the downside outweigh whatever possible upside gains. But there are many people, such as me myself, believes that the upside gain beats whatever downside disadvantages.
when you let your imagination be confined by official arguments, youÂ’d be left with only two choices, take a big gamble or starve to death. if we follow their arguments unquestioningly, we unwittingly end up blindfolded. ask yourself are we really starving to death? there are reasons why they say what they said. itÂ’s meant to simultaneously tug at our heartstrings and numb our brains
Personally, our standard of living here is stagnant for a long time. We are not starving to death (only the very poor country suffer this), but we are pinning for increase in pay, improve in bonus and increase in employment for a long time now. And frankly, either it is the mismanagement of Singapore Gov in the past or because our resources are really too limited, I don't think we have any good solutions to our economy problems where MNC are continuously moving away from Singapore. A casino indeed do help our economy and it may acts as rain to a land facing drought for a long time now. If we don't make any bold decisions, we are indeed dying a slow death. -
SL:what is the difference between “doubtful” and “misleading”? “at most misleading” means somewhat misleading. “contain some honest statistical truth” means lacking some other honest truths. don’t waste our time on such silly arguments please.
SOC:Lets put it this way. The figures given out by the gov is probably going to be true. They do not have the habit of putting down statistic where people will proclaim it to be false.
REPLY: Partial statistics have been given by the leaders to support its decision to build two casinos: i.e. 35,000 jobs will be created conveniently leaving out the corresponding figures of jobs and alternative investments that will be lost due to negative impacts from casino including eroding work ethics, business failures, bankruptcies etc.
It is a shame that incomplete and partial statistics were given to suit the government decision to build casino ignoring the negative impacts from casino as found in many studies in many countries.
SL:the govt needs to justify its decision no matter what. to do that, it will present only the ‘necessary’ facts. ‘necessary’ facts will lead you to believe that our world is coming to an end unless we take their magic pill we will surely perish. any other opposing arguments are deemed unnecessary and swept under the carpet.
SOC:If you have read the PM speech, you will see that the other side of the field is mentioned as well. But instead of being pessimistic and conclude the problems of casino as unsolvable, he at least try to implement ways to curb the problem of casino
REPLY: I have read PM's speech on the casinos. He has relied on fear or paranoid factors in giving the go-ahead decision on casinos. Facts and full informations are essential to such a decision but he had only given only the half of statistics that suits his arguments to build the casino. The views of those against the casinos were completely ignored.
SL:when we see a person die after jumping off from the 10th floor, do we ask things like "he's so fat and heavy that's why he died. i much skinnier so maybe i won't die. he jumped from the 10th floor but i only stay on the 8th floor. his surroundings are concrete but my surroundings are interlocking tiles so maybe not so bad ...
SOC:It is difficult to conduct studies on the effect of casino on its people when it was not built yet. If I am not wrong, most of the reports are based on studies after the casino were built. Furthermore, different regions report of vastly different conclusion. The result gathered from Las Vegas or Macau may be vastly different from the result gathered from regions which you had described. We do not know if such studies have been done either
SOC:I don't really understand why your analogy can be an answer to the point I had raised in the paragraph. Care to explain ?
REPLY: In the first place, if the government sincerely wanted to engage all Singaporeans in a thorough or robust debate, it should be prepared to lift up the parliamentary whip and allow all MPs to debate and vote on conscience.
It is sad that after challenging people to robust debates, the government has shied away from such debates by resorting to assumptions as the MM has done that "without casinos, the economy will be worse".
What kind of arguments are these? No wonder Snow Leopard is full of sarcasm by comparing such sidetracking of social problems as jumping off their 10th storey flats. You have rubbed salts into the wound by commenting different impacts on different landing hardness..
SL:we donÂ’t know for sure therefore it doesnÂ’t really matter Â… sounds like sweeping dirt under the carpet isn't it?
SOC
lease clarify who had ever say it doesn't matter ? The comments I have heard so far is "it matters, but building a casino is crucial and therefore we should try ways to minimise the problems of the casino"
REPLY: Under the circumstances of your dismissing his call for more factual and logical basis in the casino decision, SL is not wrong in saying that your arguments in justifications of all the foregone decisions as sweeping of dirts under the carpet.
SL:you donÂ’t seem to understand his earlier argument. integration means understanding how one component relates to the rest so that if it cannot complement the existing parts, it should at least not cannibalise on them.
SOC:Then I guess I have answered it by saying that an added income from tourism will improve most business sector in Singapore.
REPLY: You have not contributed to providing a more logical factual basis in the casino decision so far except to repeat what the PM and MM have said: "casino will create 35,000 jobs" and "tourism will improve".
As stated in the foregoing, without objectively quantifying potential investment and job losses due to negative impact of casino and social problems likely to affect 72,000, the government has only presented a biased argument to support its decision to build 2 casinos.
SL:the official stance was that the resorts will bring in the tourists, the buzz and the money as well. the other official stance is that the resorts cannot survive without casinos (analogy being NTUC resort unable to survive without jackpot machines). so on the one hand the resorts can bring in the money but on the other hand the resorts cannot survive without support from casinos. so you see the apparent contradiction?
if the resorts can bring in the tourist dollars, then the argument that the casino is needed to continuously maintain these resorts becomes fallacious and consequently we wonÂ’t need the casinos. so why then do we still need the casinos? think about it Â… suspend your emotions and prejudices and give it some serious thought Â…
SOC:I don't think you are getting my point. Will the IR improves the tourist market here in Singapore ? If it do, then my previous paragraph is true and that an added income from tourism will boost almost all business in Singapore. The casino can be simply patronised by the tourists, which is its original intentions. The IR attract certain tourists. The casinoes also attract certain group of tourists. It doesn't add in any contradiction nor fallacies as you described. May I suggest you to suspend your emotions and prejudice since your tone is a bit confrontational.
REPLY: Further assumptions and justifications how casinos will improve tourism or other sectors will be just pure conjectures as well without proper objective studies on both pros and cons being conducted in the first instance.
SL:providing an approximation of the negative impacts of the casinos is enough to brush them off? providing an approximation of the ‘potential’ benefits of the casino is sufficient to justify it?
SOC:The point is there is no other way to know the full extent of the casino other than approximation. Please suggest how and what source of information is further needed
REPLY: If the PM and MM really believe in good corporate government or robust debates, they should study the negative impacts on work ethics, jobs and investments arising from casinos including the perpetual social problems. Supplementary reports on these omissions should be given to the people as soon as possible.
SL:strange isn't it, we're now suddenly concerned about whether or not our competitors will stray. so they stray we also can stray? isn't that following blindly?
SOC:I believe you realise that all the Gov in the world are mere human. Other nations are having difficulties in improving their economy, not just Singapore. No gov want to deliberately stray away from their intended target yet it happens. This is not following blindly, this is reality. If your kids fail to be number 1 in the school or your husband fails to take in 10,000 per month, do you blame them for being useless ?
REPLY: More justifications like other nations are having difficulties with their economy as well do not make the casino decision any better too.
Such attitude only serves to confirm the worse fear of all: the government has lost enthusiasm or run out of ideas to solve our economic problems. May be this is the ultimate result of complacency caused by their self-approved high salaries and their current comfortable lives.
SL:isnÂ’t it funny how earlier, you brushed off the potential negative impacts of the casino by saying they cannot be quantified but now you wholeheartedly embrace all possible positive scenarios even though theyÂ’re just projections?
SOC:You should cool down and read slowly. I never say that the scenario mentioned by the Gov will be true, but I do not believe that your impression of an almost collapsed Singapore will materialise as well. The point is no one has the gift of looking into the future, both parties want the best of Singapore and both parties have a different opinion of what the outcome will be. Since the casino was already decided, why don't we try to maximise the potential of the IR while minimising the problems tat tagged along with it ?
REPLY: The leaders should cool it and simply admit the fundamental errors in judgments not to resort to more justifications or afterthought assumptions of all kinds that casinos will solve all the economic problems painted which they alone have created or failed to solve in the first place. -
[Lets put it this way. The figures given out by the gov is probably going to be true. They do not have the habit of putting down statistic where people will proclaim it to be false.]
figures taken in and of themselves don't show everything. 35,000 jobs created can mean 30,000 jobs lost in similar industries elsewhere. with a new convention centre in bayfront, we would expect suntec to suffer. slew of hotels, restaurants and shopping centres built in sentosa would snatch business away from other hotels, restaurants and shopping centres leading to closures and retrenchments.
[If you have read the PM speech, you will see that the other side of the field is mentioned as well. But instead of being pessimistic and conclude the problems of casino as unsolvable, he at least try to implement ways to curb the problem of casino]
the other side of the story is mentioned for the purpose of unjustifiably throwing them out of the window or sweeping under the carpet. the problem with over optimism is you underestimate the seriousness of those social impacts while acquiring a false sense of confidence that you can deal with a problem bigger than yourself.
[I don't really understand why your analogy can be an answer to the point I had raised in the paragraph. Care to explain ?]
whatever the variation in those reports, the fundamental conclusions are the same, that casinos lead to undesirable and often irreversible degradation of the quality of social well being. similarly, with whatever variation you jump, as long as you jump, the end result is the same.
[Please clarify who had ever say it doesn't matter ? The comments I have heard so far is "it matters, but building a casino is crucial and therefore we should try ways to minimise the problems of the casino"]
when you casually brush off something, that something cannot matter much to you, can it? if it really matters would we have gotten statements from ministers like "it's your own responsibility, your own maturity (you die your own business cos really i don't care)". it matters only as far as it doesn't become a political liability ...
[Then I guess I have answered it by saying that an added income from tourism will improve most business sector in Singapore.]
that answer assumes income from tourism which no one can guarantee and consequently improvement is questionable while cannibalisation is a definite possibility.
[I don't think you are getting my point. Will the IR improves the tourist market here in Singapore ? If it do, then my previous paragraph is true and that an added income from tourism will boost almost all business in Singapore. The casino can be simply patronised by the tourists, which is its original intentions. The IR attract certain tourists. The casinoes also attract certain group of tourists. It doesn't add in any contradiction nor fallacies as you described.]
your point is like those of many others. if the resort improves tourism here to the point of adding income and boosting all businesses then why would it still need a casino? if the real intention is for casinos to only serve tourists, then why the fervent justification by comparing with toto, 4D, horse racing or cruises? you see, they're treating the casino as another toto, 4D or horse racing. remember what bala said? gambling is already here (we're just providing them greater variety).
[May I suggest you to suspend your emotions and prejudice since your tone is a bit confrontational.]
i'm fine socrates thank you. if you detect confrontation, that's because we're standing on opposite sides of the fence.
[The point is there is no other way to know the full extent of the casino other than approximation. Please suggest how and what source of information is further needed]
the point is, using approximation, you can cover up the full extent of the negativites of the casino. you want me to prove those negativities you might as well first prove that tourists would indeed come ... and in herds.
[I believe you realise that all the Gov in the world are mere human. Other nations are having difficulties in improving their economy, not just Singapore. No gov want to deliberately stray away from their intended target yet it happens. This is not following blindly, this is reality.]
still sounds like herd instinct ... blind herd instinct.
[If your kids fail to be number 1 in the school or your husband fails to take in 10,000 per month, do you blame them for being useless ?]
no i won't but i would feel sad if my son cheats to score well or my husband (if i were a woman) resorts to peddling drugs to bring in the $10,000.
[You should cool down and read slowly. I never say that the scenario mentioned by the Gov will be true, but I do not believe that your impression of an almost collapsed Singapore will materialise as well.]
i'm reading fine. you're leaning onto the govt scenario and not buying into the social degradation scenario and in doing so, you brushed off those potential negative impacts by essentially saying they aren't quantifiable.
[why don't we try to maximise the potential of the IR while minimising the problems tat tagged along with it ?]
that's fine with me, but if anybody insists on espousing the 'virtues' of the decision, he has to accept that they would be questioned.