You want Casino?
-
just wait a few years and you can say all you want!!Originally posted by tiffanie: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? -
[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]
but how do you make those calculations? adjust the numbers until the outcome fits your wishes? if no one knows for sure, then why do they think they know better?
[Well, if people do not subscribe to what you believe, it doesn't means they can't be bothered or not sensible.]
if people can't be bothered, they wouldn't be bothered to come forward and admit they subscribe to your beliefs would they? but if you talk to them, you'd realise they know what's happening but have long since given up. the feeling that some people are not sensible stems not from their disagweement but from the way they regurgitate official arguments without the slightest evidence of understanding the underlying intentions.
[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]
tell that to the authorities.
[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 you notice, after the announcement, my postings on this topic dwindled to a trickle and i even started a new thread to talk about the way forward. and since you are the one suggesting to move on, perhaps you should put your words where your mouth is before asking others to do likewise. as long as you try to rationalise, then you should accept that people would question those rationalisations.
if you notice again, many of my postings are questions rather than statements. my purpose really is not to force an opinion on anything but rather to get people to think about the truth behind those rationalisations. i'm not here to bash anybody, just cannot tolerate ignorance.
[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]
my eyesight is fine thank you and since you know you have myopia perhaps you should consider getting youself a pair of spectacles?
[That seems to be a personal and irrelevant answer to the paragraph above]
personally, it is relevant. an empty plot of land is a garden full of life and promise. an empty soul is a life without purpose and meaning. an empty brain ...
[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 ?]
think of it the other way round. we have not lost market per say but the market has grown by 30% so our share of the expanded market becomes lower. while the situation deserves attention, it isn't grave enough to justify those sacrifices. fixing is important but the last thing we need is apply elastoplast on internal injuries.
[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 ? ... It will not be prudent to forsake this pie]
nope, you read wrong. there is a need to rejuvenate tourism but it shouldn't be used as a pretext to introduce a jackpot machine. we may not have been doing our marketing and value propositions right but that is no excuse for a knee jerk turning towards marketing vice. the prudence is in knowing which parts of the pie we can bite into and how.
["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.]
there are more than one "mays" to every economic decision, and while there may not be a "confirm win" we should strive towards that "mayest may". the "may" that you depicted, based on "nobody really knows" is akin to tossing a coin ... a "may" that may not be the "mayest".
[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.]
it depends on what value you place on different parameters. if you put a heavier emphasis on money over ethics, then a small amount of money can weigh more heavily than to a bag full of ethics treated like feathers.
[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.]
if you can just get the ministers to each take less, we'd all have bigger pay checks and bonuses. if we didn't have senior, senior senior, senior senior senior ministors who by the way take in millions every year, we can all eat better.
[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.]
it is always convenient to blame the previous govt but really the past govt and the present are the same not only in terms of their knee jerk ways but also in terms of their absolutism. there are good solutions if only we know where to find them. if we're always relying on the limited capacity of just a few brains, brains that are not inclined to make good business decisions to make business decisions ... we're doomed.
[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.]
even if tourism were to dwindle to zero, at most we lose 3% of our economy ... dying a slow death is really an over exaggeration. having said that, there is no doubt the situation is serious and we are getting nowhere. but getting nowhere doesn't mean we should get lost. -
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.
Can you elaborate why will there be job lost when IR is opened ? If as said before people becoming gambling addicts, he may be sacked if he embezzled money but even if he was sacked, the job will be opened up for other people. There is overall no job lost in the economy. How do you grade eroding work ethics ? Even when casinoes were opened in other countries, they cannot put any quantitative, nor much importance on eroded work ethics of the people. Another point is, why should there be more business failures ? Generally speaking more tourists will pull in more business and make the whole business scene more vibrant. If one of the person setting up a business become a gambler and lose his whole business, the demand of the market is still around and another related store will earn more due to this lost. In conclusion, may I summed up all the problems you have stated as merely problems of gambling addicts. And I believe that is already covered in the report.
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.
I have asked before on this, how do we get the information which you demanded. Some data and information are nearly impossible nor accurate enough to be used. I believe it is unfair to ask for figures which cannot be given.
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.
I agree with you that if there is a vote, then the system of deciding on the casino will be more balanced. However on whether is there thorough debate in the parliament, I can say that the debate has gone pretty intense and the viewpoints of certain politicians were broadcast fairly out to the public. Personally this issue is debated more than any other issues in the past years. How else do you expect the debate to be better ?
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".
The assumption that with casinos the economy will improve is.. well.. common sense... The plain building up of a billion dollars casinoes had already impoved the economy in a certain sense.
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..
......... why is my point related to people jumping off 10th storey and commenting on the different hardness and the impact ?
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.
I have asked probably for the 5th time in this thread... How to conduct such studies to get the information desired ? I believe I have not receive an answer on this and it seems incredible to me that people ask for statistic that they have no idea on how to get. Isn't that the same as blaming engineers to be incapable of building a car that do not use fuel ?
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.
And how to objectively quantify potential investment and job losses due to negative impact of casino ?
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.
I have to ask this again. How do we get a proper objective studies on both the pros and cons of a casino before it was even built ? If you say that tourism will improve is mere conjectures, then the social problem that a casino brings up till this point in time remains a mere conjectures as well.
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.
If I am not wrong, the negative impacts were discussed by the minister of education, minister of home affair on how to tackle problems such as education and illegal activity such as increase crime rates. Other than that, I have to ask again conduct the studies you require to make an accurate assessment
More justifications like other nations are having difficulties with their economy as well do not make the casino decision any better too.
The previous paragraph is meant to explain to SL that straying off economic targets is something which almost every nation faces and it is inevitable.
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.
I tend to agree with you that the Gov may be running out of ideas to solve our economy problems. But I don't see why does that translate that the Gov is running low on enthusiasm. If you have the enthusaism, why don't you take a run at politics and display to us ideas which can help revive our economy. [/i] -
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.
Personally I believe the figures meant that 35,000 jobs will be created. In short, it means if there is any job losses, after offseting it still means 35,000 jobs is created. About your points on the business snatching from other district to Sentosa, may I enquire overall is there a lost of jobs or a gain or jobs ? According to the Gov perspective, more tourists will be bought in, the tourist pie get bigger and overall more people can be employed to serve these people. I see an overall improvement, nor a "jia ti puay kao" (taking food from the pig to give to the dog) scenario
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.
Please explain how do you know that the seriousness of the social problems were underestimated ? And please watch your tone. I can be polite and at the same time discuss what my personal opinion is about
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.
No really. The conclusion from many regions state an overall improvement to the economy without adverse effect on the population. Much like what the pro-casino people are expecting. There are also some reports that show more adverse effect to the population than the economy benefit that become the scenario where the anti-casino people believe in. The variation is very large.
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 ...
I got 2 questions to ask: Had the Gov stated that the social impact of casino will exists and they place an emphasis and effort to curb these problems ? if a person become a pathological gambler, whose fault is it ? If you answer these 2 questions, then you can understand the difference between these 2 statements
that answer assumes income from tourism which no one can guarantee and consequently improvement is questionable while cannibalisation is a definite possibility.
It can be argued that the social impact of casino cannot be guaranteed as well and consequently problems linked with gamblers is questionable. As said before, no one can read the future. The casino may become a big flop, though I believe it is unlikely. The problems to society may be negligible as well, which is something I find it hard to say.
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).
This is because the casino have to be present in order to have the resorts. No casinoes, nobody is interested in building any resort here. That is the reason why for most of my replies I used the word "casino", not "resort". No one is denying the casinoes is crucial to the success for the integrated resort as well. It is a package deal. In a nutshell, a resort with casino improves tourism. I hope that you will at least agree with this statement
i'm fine socrates thank you. if you detect confrontation, that's because we're standing on opposite sides of the fence.
Ahh... but the reason why both of us are willing to send time to debate on such issues boil down to the fact that we are, in a way, patriotic to the people of Singapore. We want the best for our people and our children. It is just that you believe A will make life better for them while I believe B is more important. That is why we should be use more friendly terms toward each other since I can understand why you feel agitated
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.
If am not wrong, there are certain measures taken to curb down the full impact of a casino. It has not been approximated down to zero and in fact, had taken a serious tone to tackle the challenge. On the issue of proving tourists will come in herds is basically me imagining that if I am a tourist from some other countries such as India, Japan or China, I will find Singapore to be much more interesting and stay more longer if there are IRs around.
still sounds like herd instinct ... blind herd instinct.
Maybe. But you can also be guilty of accusing unneedlessly. That is why I do a comparison with other coutries to see if we are the special cases.
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.
Well, it will depend on your upbringing and viewpoint. You treat Singapore opening casinoes as though they are selling drugs. For me I view it more mildly and I treat it as though my husband (If I am a woman) opens up arcade centers for people to play. It is a legitimate business and I will be proud of him if he earns an extra 10,000
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.
I fear I have given the wrong impression that I am brushing off the negative impacts because they are negligible. I don't believe they are negligible. They can become serious problems in future. But if we demand these statistics to appear before we can decide or debate on a casino, it is unfair and we are delaying progress to the nation.
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
That is fine with me as well.
-
haha, I'm a school student too and am still making comments! ok, I'm a little older - in JC - but then...Originally posted by dragg:just wait a few years and you can say all you want!!
the amused pikamaster -
Socrates,
greetings once again to the self-proclaimed philosopher (who bears nth in common wth his namesake)!
Can you elaborate why will there be job lost when IR is opened ? If as said before people becoming gambling addicts, he may be sacked if he embezzled money but even if he was sacked, the job will be opened up for other people. There is overall no job lost in the economy. How do you grade eroding work ethics ? Even when casinoes were opened in other countries, they cannot put any quantitative, nor much importance on eroded work ethics of the people. Another point is, why should there be more business failures ? Generally speaking more tourists will pull in more business and make the whole business scene more vibrant. If one of the person setting up a business become a gambler and lose his whole business, the demand of the market is still around and another related store will earn more due to this lost. In conclusion, may I summed up all the problems you have stated as merely problems of gambling addicts. And I believe that is already covered in the report.
why will there be job loss? because compulsive gamblers possibly will be fired from their workplaces.
I have asked before on this, how do we get the information which you demanded. Some data and information are nearly impossible nor accurate enough to be used. I believe it is unfair to ask for figures which cannot be given.
The information cannot be given, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be given. And when information is incomplete, the go-ahead to build the casino should not be given.
I agree with you that if there is a vote, then the system of deciding on the casino will be more balanced. However on whether is there thorough debate in the parliament, I can say that the debate has gone pretty intense and the viewpoints of certain politicians were broadcast fairly out to the public. Personally this issue is debated more than any other issues in the past years. How else do you expect the debate to be better ?
hmmm....
perhaps the cabinet deliberations should have been broadcast.
The debate was alot of drama especially from the proponents, but little factual information, or else the same repeated over and over again.
The assumption that with casinos the economy will improve is.. well.. common sense... The plain building up of a billion dollars casinoes had already impoved the economy in a certain sense.
The assumption is too hasty. If everyone is building casinos (or IRs) will the economy really improve, since there is so much competition? And just what is defined by the economy? economics has a social element to it too, you know, although the government often neglects it in any policy debate over the last 10 years.
If I am not wrong, the negative impacts were discussed by the minister of education, minister of home affair on how to tackle problems such as education and illegal activity such as increase crime rates. Other than that, I have to ask again conduct the studies you require to make an accurate assessmen
their coverage was pathetic. In fact, the Minister for Muslim Affairs sounded rather like a laughing stock too. Pretty orinic that the day just after he said that Muslims were now accepting the need to build the casino, along with that hogwash of racial and religious tolerance, (not that i'm agaisnt these principles per se, but they are totally irrelevant to the casino debate), MUIS came up with another letter decrying teh decision to build the IR. MHA was pretty funny too. I can predict that our costs of security would need to increase significantly, since we are about to ring teh enitre casino with police officials and CCTV cameras. under such tight surveillance, which tourist would want to go in? Education was even more of a joke. Our CME program is failing even w/o the casino/IR; izzit expected to succeed miraculously just after the IR is built. I'm a student, and I know that every observation MOE makes about students' attitudes toward ministry policies is totally far-fetched, ridiculous, and false.
I tend to agree with you that the Gov may be running out of ideas to solve our economy problems. But I don't see why does that translate that the Gov is running low on enthusiasm. If you have the enthusaism, why don't you take a run at politics and display to us ideas which can help revive our economy
economy? the problem is society; economic "decline" is just a symptom. And anyway, I believe that economy is always growing at 4.5%; in fact, growth rate estimates always increase. SO where's teh need for revival? or ahs govt been lying to us all this while?
the furious pikamaster -
duplicate post
-
[Personally I believe the figures meant that 35,000 jobs will be created.]
personally, I donÂ’t.
[In short, it means if there is any job losses, after offseting it still means 35,000 jobs is created.]
itÂ’s strange how you canÂ’t quantify the social problems but yet you can somehow quantify how many jobs will be stolen away from existing hotels, restaurants and shopping centres.
[About your points on the business snatching from other district to Sentosa, may I enquire overall is there a lost of jobs or a gain or jobs ?]
what is your definition of overall? narrowly defined in terms of absolute number of jobs created or a wider consideration taking into account the increase in gambling and its associated ills to our society? how many jobs created versus how many more gambling problems would we face?
[According to the Gov perspective, more tourists will be bought in, the tourist pie get bigger and overall more people can be employed to serve these people. I see an overall improvement, nor a "jia ti puay kao" (taking food from the pig to give to the dog) scenario]
is this whole gamble going to rest on the 'perspective' that 'more tourists will (definitely) be bought in'? what if that doesn't happen? dog eat pig? or pig eat dog?
[Please explain how do you know that the seriousness of the social problems were underestimated ?]
officially, social problems are narrowly confined to the existing 2% gambling addicts which can arguably be more. this figure can rise with the setting up of the casinos and we shouldn't underestimate how much it'll increase.
officially too 50% of our population engage in casual gambling but who currently have no easy access to casinos and are too lazy to travel to one. now with our own casino, this 50% bulk would have easy access to casinos and may as a result develop a great deal more gambling problems. it is this 50% component that is seriously missing from the estimation.
[And please watch your tone. I can be polite and at the same time discuss what my personal opinion is about]
if you are unhappy with my tone or find that I am impolite, perhaps it is because you demand more respect from me than you think you deserve? in any case, I do not find myself less polite than you are.
[The conclusion from many regions state an overall improvement to the economy without adverse effect on the population. Much like what the pro-casino people are expecting. There are also some reports that show more adverse effect to the population than the economy benefit that become the scenario where the anti-casino people believe in. The variation is very large.]
you need to understand why reports differ in their conclusions. let's say we have a report that says casinos in las vegas brought more wealth to the city than it caused harm. what does that mean really? you need to understand that most gamblers in las vegas are not from las vegas but come from neighbouring states. the harm goes back to those states when the gamblers return home and vent their angers on their children.
so really the report is not reporting everything and when you consider everything in totality, the social problems always crop up as a sore thumb.
but when you have a casino serving mainly folks within the city, the problems don't go away, they stay within the city itself and that's when problems outweigh economic advantages.
now which model do you think singapore fits?
[Had the Gov stated that the social impact of casino will exists and they place an emphasis and effort to curb these problems ?]
does mere stating of the social impacts absolve the perpetrator of responsibility? if you remember bala’s response on tv, he said things like “social problems is not the major deciding factor in determining whether or not to build the casino”. when a minister says that, what "emphasis" or "effort" is he showing? more like half hearted responses to public demands.
[if a person become a pathological gambler, whose fault is it ?]
you can answer this question with another question. if a man puts his wallet on a table for the sole purpose of tempting another and that other does eventually steal it, is the person who left his wallet on the table completely guilt free?
[It can be argued that the social impact of casino cannot be guaranteed as well and consequently problems linked with gamblers is questionable. As said before, no one can read the future. The casino may become a big flop, though I believe it is unlikely. The problems to society may be negligible as well, which is something I find it hard to say.]
i quote your own words "I don't believe they are negligible. They can become serious problems in future."
so why do you say here that social impacts are not guaranteed and problems questionable? how do you reconcile with "problems to society may be negligible as well"?
the casino may become a big flop but the least we can do is not flip flop in what we're saying.
[This is because the casino have to be present in order to have the resorts. No casinoes, nobody is interested in building any resort here. That is the reason why for most of my replies I used the word "casino", not "resort". No one is denying the casinoes is crucial to the success for the integrated resort as well. It is a package deal.]
in other words 'resort' is but a beautifying word to the word 'casino' and the resort is nothing more than mere decoration to the centre of attraction - the casino. so we're essentially building a casino and that's it. all this hoo har about resort, buzz, tourism is merely bullsheet.
[In a nutshell, a resort with casino improves tourism. I hope that you will at least agree with this statement]
that statement taken in and of itself is meaningless. so what if tourism improves by 2 blokes while casino throngs with many of our friendly neighbours?
[We want the best for our people and our children.]
if i want the best only for my own children, then i would have no problems with the casino as i'm confident they would not be tempted. but i cannot be concerned with only my own children. what about other people's children? what would happen to them if the casino took away their fathers? i cannot, for the sake of my extra dollar, risk the happiness of other children.
[If am not wrong, there are certain measures taken to curb down the full impact of a casino. It has not been approximated down to zero and in fact, had taken a serious tone to tackle the challenge.]
i know $100 is quite substantial but in the eyes of the gambler ... may be of no consequence.
[if I am a tourist from some other countries such as India, Japan or China, I will find Singapore to be much more interesting and stay more longer if there are IRs around.]
if a simple statement like this can justify the supposedly economic miracle, then why can’t another statement like “casinos becoming more easily accessible to our people tempts them to make a quick buck” justify the increased social ills?
[That is why I do a comparison with other coutries to see if we are the special cases.]
do we take comfort in doing what everybody else does? what's the point? it eventually leads to the commoditisation of whatever we're doing.
[I view it more mildly and I treat it as though my husband (If I am a woman) opens up arcade centers for people to play. It is a legitimate business and I will be proud of him if he earns an extra 10,000]
if i were a woman i wouldn't encourage my man to set up an arcade centre. why? because i wouldn't wish to see other people's children squander away their time, neglect their studies and end up at the bottom rung of society when they grow up. even if i wished i could have more money to buy pretty clothes and fashionable handbags, i wouldn't for the sake of these material goods risk the future happiness of those children. -
[I don't believe they are negligible. They can become serious problems in future. But if we demand these statistics to appear before we can decide or debate on a casino, it is unfair and we are delaying progress to the nation.]
in other words, even as we believe that the social problems are significant and can become serious in future, they are secondary to making money.
when we convince ourselves that the casino is a live or die decision then obviously we have to live. but the truth is that the casino is not a live or die decision. the whole argument about tourism and buzz is only 3% of our GDP. not that the figure is trivial but it is not life and death. and in this context to say that the casino is necessary for our nation's progress is simply over-reacting. -
The following are some views, for and against, in BT today.
[quote]
Published April 25, 2005
THIS WEEK'S TOPIC
Let the games begin
How do you, as a CEO and a Singaporean, feel about the proposed integrated resorts?
Email this article
Print article
Feedback
THE integrated resorts intend to offer a variety of entertainment activities and services, of which gambling is but one part. There are relevant social concerns raised with allowing gaming establishments in Singapore. However, on a pragmatic level the direct potential economic spin-offs in the construction/development, employment, tourist, and food and beverage sectors in the long term do seem to outweigh the arguments against having a casino.
- Sandra A Chu
Director
Pacific Healthcare Holdings
MULTIVISION is excited to hear the news and believes that this is a significant step forward to develop Singapore as a major tourist attraction. Compared with what Macau has to offer, we believe that the development of two integrated resorts and casinos in Singapore will generate healthy competition and improve the attractiveness of the offerings to local and foreign visitors. As all the major players are jostling to implement this landmark project, the lobbying in the next few months will be hectic. As a major supplier of security and surveillance equipment to gaming operators, MultiVision is well positioned to contribute.
- Dennis Li
President & Chief Operations Officer
MultiVision Intelligent Surveillance
NOW that the decision has been made, let us close ranks and move on. As Singapore has to pay significant social costs, Singaporeans and Singapore business must reap significant benefits. We must avoid a situation where the IR developers just ship over everything from Las Vegas or somewhere else and hire Singaporeans to fill operating positions. The government should stipulate local content in design, construction, technology, systems, entertainment, and so on. The desired outcome is that our local companies can go develop IRs elsewhere after learning from the Singapore IR experience.
- Lee Kwok Cheong
CEO
NCS
THIS is good news for Singapore. At last we can rival many of the exciting cities in the world. We need to create the 'wow' effect for Singapore and set the city abuzz with more glamour, excitement and fizz. Although we are well-regarded and respected the world over for our good government, airport, port facilities, as a financial centre, aviation hub and safe place to live in, we still lack the quality lifestyle attributes.
If you compare us with Vancouver, Atlanta, Miami, West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, New York, Dubai, Cairo, Melbourne or Sydney, the standard of lifestyle, entertainment and enjoyment in Singapore is lagging behind. Imagine Melbourne without the Crown Casino or Perth without Burswood: what kind of cities would they be like? I am excited about the prospects for the resorts - the multiple spin-off effects for the economy will be tremendous. All sectors of the service industry, food and beverage, building and construction, telecommunications, and others will stand to gain from the investment. In the long run, Singapore will profit from it.
- Tan Ching Khoon
Executive Chairman
Transview Holdings Limited
I MUST congratulate the open-minded, well-rounded and transparent debates instigated and the careful evaluation of all feedback by the government in sizing up the pros and cons of this national project. Despite decades of growth and success, our manufacturing sector will continue its migration out of Singapore to lower-cost countries with large domestic markets such as China, India, the Philippines or Indonesia. Not a lot we can do to stop this global trend. We are faced with a stark choice of being left behind or find alternatives to defend our economic well-being.
The force of globalisation is swift and merciless. Despite decades of prosperity, Hong Kong is now powerless against the harsh reality of becoming a sub-city to Shanghai and Beijing. What choices does Singapore have but to look for a survival model which can carry us through to the next 10 to 20 years?
Singapore's domestic market is too small to sustain the economy via services provided for the locals. Tourism, on the other hand, is our perfect conduit to the world. It enables our services to be 'exported' and significant local employment is generated as a result. Being a tiny, man-made garden city with few natural attractions, our tourist industry can be easily undermined by many better-endowed neighbouring countries. Many are keen to contest for the tourist destination crown in the region by embarking upon mega investment projects such as the Disney theme park in Hong Kong. As pointed out in the PM's speech, Singapore has been losing out to competitors. Unlike manufacturing, the tourism industry can be revitalised. It is worth doing so as many of our vital industries are heavily dependent on it.
A casino is only a small part of a much wider consideration to take Singapore forward into a service-based economy. From this perspective, it is no different from investing in Singapore's education and medical infrastructures to attract overseas students or patients. If we decide to go ahead, which we have done, we must go straight for the top position. There is little reward from being second in this game. A unique, exquisite resort for holidaymakers, families, businesses and exhibitors can galvanise the world's attention. The Singapore government's bold decision to build not one, but two IRs to complement each other is indeed a very smart choice. The wow factor would be loud and clear. It is to be expected that many neighbouring countries will come out to challenge Singapore's position. In the long term, retaining our top position will be even more challenging than achieving it in the first place.
While the risk of social harm resulting from excessive or compulsive gambling is obvious, it is exaggerated somewhat, in my view. The Sars virus killed far fewer people than cancer or car accidents. It was the fear of Sars that caused more damage than the virus itself. Are we putting things in the right perspective? A well-thought-out safety net, prudent policies, tough measures against organised crime, and well-managed casinos will be adequate to curb any such evils from getting out of control.
- Jerry Hui
CEO
BBS Electronics
I WAS surprised that the government decided to proceed with two IRs and not just one. After the speech, I feel that the rationale for the two is well considered and makes sense. As the PM has said, this is a judgement, not a mathematical calculation. I believe the judgement is sound. I am personally excited about the two IRs, the difference they will make to our economy, to our skyline, the buzz that they will add as they help to transform Singapore into a truly exciting global hub. I am positive that the associated social ills can be managed and that the government and the right social groups will step up to ensure that Singapore remains a home that we can all be proud of.
- Poh Mui Hoon
CEO
NETS -
the rest.
Published April 25, 2005
I AM not surprised at the decision to go ahead, but to have two casinos was a surprise.
I think that it is a very good decision. Having two will make them competitive, and create better choices. One could be a high-class Monaco type, and the other a Vegas fun type.
I really hope one of the resorts will be given to the big boys from Las Vegas and make Singapore the Las Vegas of the East.
Singapore, as a tourist destination, really needs an anchor attraction. Now that Hong Kong has Disney, hopefully we can get this going really soon.
- Joey Chang
CEO
AXS Infocomm
I THINK we have lost something as a nation in deciding to go ahead with the casino. I worry that we are becoming more and more a society where the economic argument wins every time, where ideals and values are put aside in the name of pragmatism.
Today, it is the casino; tomorrow, it will be something else. What will we do for the promise of 100,000 jobs next time? In the discussions about safeguards, we focused solely on protecting our citizens. What about others whose lives are ruined because they are attracted to our world class integrated resort and casino?
Do we not bear some responsibility for our neighbours? How can we teach values to our children and warn them about the evils of gambling when our action says it is all right to contribute to the ills of society and ruin other people as long as we benefit and protect our own? In other words, what we are saying is, if the price is right, values can be compromised. So, like Mr Tan Soo Khoon, I worry about Singapore.
- Dr Francis Yeoh
CEO
Green Dot Internet Services
'Wonderful! Let's deal.'
- Jennie Chua
President & CEO
Raffles Holdings
NO one can put hand to heart and pronounce that gambling is good. Neither can we argue that since there are many vices in our system, such as smoking, horse racing and so on, one more would not matter. However, as in all things, we cannot truly view a matter in isolation.
What would it mean if Singapore had decided to reject casinos on its soil? Would we make an important mark, be a guiding light in the world, as though we can operate in a society of perfection where one should not sin? Can we save the many potential gambling addicts from themselves? This has proved not to be the case, as exemplified by high-roller Chia Teck Leng. Casinos around the world will continue to woo people to gamble. There is nothing to stop them and there are certainly no boundaries.
What would we lose as a country if we had chosen not to have casinos? We would miss the opportunity to build a world class and defining entertainment hub, with the drawing power to also bring the best shows to Singapore. Many more Singaporeans would lose out on greatly enhanced entertainment for all the family, compared to the few that might succumb to gambling addiction.
Now that we have chosen to build casinos in Singapore, considerably more tourists from the region will come here, with every likelihood of them staying longer and hence spending more. There will also be more employment opportunities. The image of Singapore as a mature society with responsible citizenship will evolve to a higher plane.
On balance, can we really afford to stand on moral high ground and deny our citizens the benefit of integrated resorts? I believe we have made the right decision.
- Saw Phaik Hwa
CEO
SMRT
IT is a bold decision by the government but a necessary one if Singapore is to stay competitive and attractive. The decision to build two integrated resorts with casinos will definitely boost tourism and bring us closer to the targets of 17 million arrivals and $30 billion receipts annually within a decade. What the government should do now is to garner all the resources needed to make the IRs a success. Since this is a project aimed at attracting tourists to Singapore, developers should preserve the Singapore flavour by incorporating local elements like Singaporean food, artwork, performances and so on. Varied business elements from Singapore such as spas, restaurants and retail brands should also be included. But all these have to be unique and of world-class standard.
Singapore has the potential to be the regional spa hub. The huge number of tourists expected to be attracted to the resorts provides spa operators a wonderful opportunity.
Likewise, organisations or associations of other industries can come together and work out something which can benefit the industry, bring in business for Singapore and boost the dynamism and appeal of the resorts.
While making sure that the IRs work out, the government should not neglect those Singaporeans who oppose having casinos. Even after the decision has been made, the government should make extra effort to ensure that the fears and concerns voiced by these people - for example, the proliferation of social vices such as gambling addiction, corruption, and illegal money-lending - are responded to. Now that the decision has been made, the challenge is to make both IRs uniquely special and truly world class.
- Theresa Chew
CEO & Co-Founder
Expressions International
MUCH to the joy of numerous Singaporeans and the chagrin of an equally large number, Singapore has decided to come of age.
Singapore has been and will remain a country which prides itself on being professionally managed, with high standards of efficiency. The meteoric rise of this island-state to such economic heights has been classic textbook material.
Unfortunately, the recent slowdown in the economy coupled with the neighbours catching up in terms of efficiencies of operation (though they still have a long way to go) and infrastructure development, has resulted in many sectors shifting base to these low-cost destinations. Under these circumstances, one needs to take a more pragmatic view than an idealistic one.
Let us look at what casinos bring to Singapore. First and foremost, it creates jobs. Not only directly, but also indirectly, as many other associated businesses will thrive along with the casinos. By official estimates, this should create an additional 35,000 job opportunities in the economy. For a country with a 4.3 million population, that is adding nearly one per cent to the employment rate.
Casinos will also induce development of related infrastructure, which will also boost the local economy. More important, there is the lure of the tourist dollar.
The repercussions? Well there are quite a few. If legislation is lax, you might have a situation where the social infrastructure is shaken and too many locals fall in the debt trap. There also exists the possibility of the mushrooming of other associated vices.
Is Singapore capable of managing these vices and coming out relatively unscathed? We need to look at Singapore's track record. It is a country with negligible crime, and minimal corruption. Overall, the country is effectively and efficiently, though sometimes, overzealously, micromanaged.
Given this background, it is expected that Singapore will come out with laws to ensure protection of its citizenry, while allowing enough leeway to the casinos to attract foreign players. With strong entry barriers created for locals, it can be ensured that only serious local punters (who would anyway be flying to Las Vegas, or elsewhere) are lured by these casinos.
Given that casinos have come and are going to stay, one should look at how to capitalise on the benefits they bring in.
- Jalaj Dani
Chairman, Berger International
WE are happy the government has given the go-ahead for casinos in Singapore. I am sure it will help to boost the foreign and non-Singapore residents membership and visitorship at our development, ONE 15. I am sure we will also be able to attract boat-owners of the world who want to come here to visit our casino.
- Arthur Tay
Chairman/Managing Director
SUTL Group of Companies -
Just a bunch of 'kissing-the-govt-a$$' type of CEOs. Money can easily make local business CEOs blind. Funnily enough, if these casinos doesn't work, I'd bet these same people will then complain.
-
I won't worry about planting a business in a pro=gambling driven environment.
I worry about planting a family in a pro-gambling driven environment.
Most children will be lured and catch on gambling than business skills.
The last thing a parent want to see is society giving plenty of opportunities for children to learn and inculcate gamble habits.
-
but how do you make those calculations? adjust the numbers until the outcome fits your wishes? if no one knows for sure, then why do they think they know better?
As said before, it is mainly approxmation. Think about it this way, if there is no real economy gain from a casino, why will the gov build one in the first place ? I am sure they want the best for our country too and they will be the one that get the direct blame if things went badly.
if people can't be bothered, they wouldn't be bothered to come forward and admit they subscribe to your beliefs would they? but if you talk to them, you'd realise they know what's happening but have long since given up. the feeling that some people are not sensible stems not from their disagweement but from the way they regurgitate official arguments without the slightest evidence of understanding the underlying intentions
I have read through this reply for 3 times and I have to admit I don't really understand what you are trying to say here.
if you notice, after the announcement, my postings on this topic dwindled to a trickle and i even started a new thread to talk about the way forward. and since you are the one suggesting to move on, perhaps you should put your words where your mouth is before asking others to do likewise. as long as you try to rationalise, then you should accept that people would question those rationalisations.
if you notice again, many of my postings are questions rather than statements. my purpose really is not to force an opinion on anything but rather to get people to think about the truth behind those rationalisations. i'm not here to bash anybody, just cannot tolerate ignorance.
After the announcement, I don't really have this impression your postings had reduced at all. To me it seems that previously nobody had been replying back to your postings. I don't mind people questioning my rationalisations, but personally I just have this impression that people who do not like the Gov are more prone to be people who are against the casino. If one read through your replies, it is inevitably to realise that you have some bad feelings toward them such as asking me to tell authorities to respect other people opinion and insisting they knew nothing about business. It is not about you but about most people who are anti-casino here as well. I don't really see intolerance to ignorance, but intolerance to people who do not subscribe to your belief.
my eyesight is fine thank you and since you know you have myopia perhaps you should consider getting youself a pair of spectacles?
Ahh.. but you can't even see things clearly near and far, which is probably worse off then mopia
personally, it is relevant. an empty plot of land is a garden full of life and promise. an empty soul is a life without purpose and meaning. an empty brain ...
I suggest that you should compare an empty land with a new billion dollars building instead of a person. We should be comparing oranges with oranges and not with apples
think of it the other way round. we have not lost market per say but the market has grown by 30% so our share of the expanded market becomes lower. while the situation deserves attention, it isn't grave enough to justify those sacrifices. fixing is important but the last thing we need is apply elastoplast on internal injuries.
Then when should it be time to justify those sacrifices ? There will be a time lag before implementing ideas and before they start to service. When IR was decided to be built, it will took 4 years before the construction finishes. As such, it is already high time to come out with plans to rejuvenate the tourist business. This is particularly true since it is expected tourism to improve by leap and bound in future as people become more affluent. You can say it is unlike an elastoplast on wound. Another can argue this will be a CPR treatment on a person without a pulse.
nope, you read wrong. there is a need to rejuvenate tourism but it shouldn't be used as a pretext to introduce a jackpot machine. we may not have been doing our marketing and value propositions right but that is no excuse for a knee jerk turning towards marketing vice. the prudence is in knowing which parts of the pie we can bite into and how
Obviously if we have a better alternative, we wouldn't have open up casino. But the fact is, we don't. If we want to sink our teeth into the increasingly succulent tourist pie, we have to remake ourselves to make us more attractive. If we hesistate and refuse to make any changes, we can be certain we will die of hunger and again the Gov will be blamed for not doing anything to solve the problem.
there are more than one "mays" to every economic decision, and while there may not be a "confirm win" we should strive towards that "mayest may". the "may" that you depicted, based on "nobody really knows" is akin to tossing a coin ... a "may" that may not be the "mayest".
And that is where approximation comes in. It has been mentioned many times in my replies isn't it ?
it depends on what value you place on different parameters. if you put a heavier emphasis on money over ethics, then a small amount of money can weigh more heavily than to a bag full of ethics treated like feathers.
Simlarly if you value ethics more heavily than money, then any changes, no matter how necessary in order to survive will be refuted and thrown out. There is why there should be a balance on what should be emphasised, and a large percentage of the people will risk to horde in the money while preserving the errosion of ethics, which is akin to having a pie and eat it
if you can just get the ministers to each take less, we'd all have bigger pay checks and bonuses. if we didn't have senior, senior senior, senior senior senior ministors who by the way take in millions every year, we can all eat better.
Isn't this a clear example of bashing gov which is totally irrelevant to the point I had raise ?
it is always convenient to blame the previous govt but really the past govt and the present are the same not only in terms of their knee jerk ways but also in terms of their absolutism. there are good solutions if only we know where to find them. if we're always relying on the limited capacity of just a few brains, brains that are not inclined to make good business decisions to make business decisions ... we're doomed.
Likewise it is easy to blame other people for not "performing better". Please elaborate on "there are good solutions if we now how to find them". So how do we find them ? -
even if tourism were to dwindle to zero, at most we lose 3% of our economy ... dying a slow death is really an over exaggeration. having said that, there is no doubt the situation is serious and we are getting nowhere. but getting nowhere doesn't mean we should get lost.
The repurcussion of a collapse in tourism is much more than this. Hotel is going to go burst and forced to relocate to other areas. Our airline will be affected and they will go into the red as well. The money from foreigner will reduce and our overall economy will be affected. Unemployment from the tourist sector will increase dramatically and unemployment figures will rise up a few percent. The income of the people will definitely be reduced and this will affect retail since few can afford to spend as much as before. Restaurant will have poorer business since there are fewer customers. In this bad times we are facing it is really slow death. And I got to enquire on this one, if we are getting nowhere, what is the difference between getting lost except on the change of the phrases ?
why will there be job loss? because compulsive gamblers possibly will be fired from their workplaces
A person losing a job is very different from the economy losing jobs. When a person get fired, the employer will recuit another person in to cover his duty isn't it ?
The information cannot be given, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be given. And when information is incomplete, the go-ahead to build the casino should not be given.
When it is impossible to be given, it means no matter how much you desire, the information cannot be gathered. Even if information is not complete fully, it is best for person to do his judgement and take a risk. If we don't make risks because we can never have perfect information then we will never move on. Nobody will be buying shares because they do not have complete information, nobody will be investing in business because they do not have complete information as well. That is not the wise thing to do in this age.
The assumption is too hasty. If everyone is building casinos (or IRs) will the economy really improve, since there is so much competition? And just what is defined by the economy? economics has a social element to it too, you know, although the government often neglects it in any policy debate over the last 10 years.
The point I am trying to raise is even if there is not even a single customer, the mere building of the casino will improve the situation of the construction business in Singapore and it will definitely boost the economy. I beg your pardon but I don't really understand what you are trying to say by economics have a social element in it. Care to elaborate ?
their coverage was pathetic. In fact, the Minister for Muslim Affairs sounded rather like a laughing stock too. Pretty orinic that the day just after he said that Muslims were now accepting the need to build the casino, along with that hogwash of racial and religious tolerance, (not that i'm agaisnt these principles per se, but they are totally irrelevant to the casino debate), MUIS came up with another letter decrying teh decision to build the IR. MHA was pretty funny too. I can predict that our costs of security would need to increase significantly, since we are about to ring teh enitre casino with police officials and CCTV cameras. under such tight surveillance, which tourist would want to go in? Education was even more of a joke. Our CME program is failing even w/o the casino/IR; izzit expected to succeed miraculously just after the IR is built. I'm a student, and I know that every observation MOE makes about students' attitudes toward ministry policies is totally far-fetched, ridiculous, and false.
I just need to clarify certain points here. I believe the policemen you see that ring the entire casino, if there are there are people from Cisco, meaning they are paid by the casino themselves. (The "policemen' you see in the banks are from Cisco) The CCTV is probably monitored by the security staff from the casino. Secondly, why do you have the impression that there will be a lot of policement around the casino when it is open ? If you mention that about education and if you believe that CME education is useless, then maybe you can personally help out by educating the people around you to be wary of the problems of gambling. I guess that is why the gov is asking help from people from all field such as religious body to contain the problem of gambling. Maybe you can suggest more ways to educate the young about the problems of gambling itself.
economy? the problem is society; economic "decline" is just a symptom. And anyway, I believe that economy is always growing at 4.5%; in fact, growth rate estimates always increase. SO where's teh need for revival? or ahs govt been lying to us all this while?
For the past 10 years, our economy is on the whole declining and nobody is denying about this. If economy goes down badly, we can expect more problems such as increase crime rates to surface. -
PAP Govt doesn't want casino
The govt says it is not interested to casino but wants IR with casino.Casino can also create jobs & improve the economy.In fact, casion is the main money earner for IR.So why isn't govts interested wtih casino by itself?Too little money to gain? -
Socrate,
Is the govt run out of ideas except IRs with casinosto improve to the economy?The govt also say it is not desperate to have IR.So why does it want casino (in IR)? -
now i feel so i am so 2nd class.
-
Socrates
A person losing a job is very different from the economy losing jobs. When a person get fired, the employer will recuit another person in to cover his duty isn't it ?
What's an economy made up of, but people??? if many people lose jobs, then the joblessness of the nation as a whole will shoot up, and that will be teh economy losing jobs. The employer might recruit anotehr person, but where will the replacement come from?
When it is impossible to be given, it means no matter how much you desire, the information cannot be gathered. Even if information is not complete fully, it is best for person to do his judgement and take a risk. If we don't make risks because we can never have perfect information then we will never move on. Nobody will be buying shares because they do not have complete information, nobody will be investing in business because they do not have complete information as well. That is not the wise thing to do in this age.
The prospect of economic benefits actually possesses less information than the prospect of social costs. Sure, we can never have completely perfect information, but still any risks taken must be educated, that is based on weighing of information found. Unfortunately, I don't think the government actually weighted it out well enough. What I saw was that the government merely tried to sweep the social costs under the carpet, and hide it behind the noble-sounding oncepts of " maturity" and "multiracial/multireligious harmony". The latter is completely spurious: Notice how many religious groups displayed their discontent; it was not merely the Muslims who did so. Even teh Buddhist Community showed their intense displeasure, and buddhists are meant to be pacifist. The former sounds extrmely plausible, and in fact you imply that in your statement. But if we are so mature, why don't we have free speech and a free press? Why don't we have student unions with real say in school affairs? Isn't that a blatant double-standard for maturity?
The point I am trying to raise is even if there is not even a single customer, the mere building of the casino will improve the situation of the construction business in Singapore and it will definitely boost the economy. I beg your pardon but I don't really understand what you are trying to say by economics have a social element in it. Care to elaborate ?
Building the IR is merely a one-time job. the boost brought to the construction industry is not permanent, unless everyone decides to live near the IR all of a sudden.
Economics has a social element: When you deal with economies, you don't just deal with money and machinery and land, you deal with the people living, working and interacting in these economies. And people have feelings and needs. By reducing them to mere statistics, such as number of jobs created, does not bring the human aspect to the fore. What is the quality of the jobs? Do they fulfill the workers' needs, not just for money, but for proper society?
People's attutides have a deciding impact on the economy. A single firm's production is dependent on Employee's commitment to their job tasks.
So by merely brushing away social impacts of the IR, the government has failed to even try to calculate the entire opportunity cost of building the IR, in terms of what is foregone in terms of people. If the people are of poor quality because of teh existence of the IR, the financial economy will suffer, because the relative financial costs of hiring socially inept workers will increase, and this will diminish profitability of any other business in the country. Humans live in societies; they affect people around them. There is no way to measure the impact caused by a problem gambler on the morale of his coleagues in the workforce, even less than a measurement can be done of the effects on his family. Social costs cannot be permuted accurately in terms of money.
I just need to clarify certain points here. I believe the policemen you see that ring the entire casino, if there are there are people from Cisco, meaning they are paid by the casino themselves. (The "policemen' you see in the banks are from Cisco) The CCTV is probably monitored by the security staff from the casino. Secondly, why do you have the impression that there will be a lot of policement around the casino when it is open ? If you mention that about education and if you believe that CME education is useless, then maybe you can personally help out by educating the people around you to be wary of the problems of gambling. I guess that is why the gov is asking help from people from all field such as religious body to contain the problem of gambling. Maybe you can suggest more ways to educate the young about the problems of gambling itself.
Whether Cisco pays them or the Ministry of the Integrated Resorts (as seems to be the plan of the govt from what I heard on TV) is a non-issue. Tourists won't care where these personnel come from. They will care about the fact that the personnel exist. I have the impression because that is what I heard Minister of Home Affairs say on April 18th.
AS for CME, I am not agaisnt CME as a concept, but I do think that the manner in which it is carried out is ratehr inefective. That is from personal experience, since my friedns have always desired to skip CME, even though they might agree to the importance of good morals. Anyway, I do think that quality of teachers and school administrations needs to be improved first, before CME can be mroe effective.The govt didn't seem to be asking for help, it seemed to be delegating a job, as if the religious bodies are the Minsitry of Moral Affairs.
For the past 10 years, our economy is on the whole declining and nobody is denying about this. If economy goes down badly, we can expect more problems such as increase crime rates to surface
point taken. Have increased crime rates surfaced yet? Perhaps they have already, just that that is not reported on by the pro-govt Straits Times.
Thanks for your sincere reply.
the hopeful pikamaster -
Socrates,
As said before, it is mainly approxmation. Think about it this way, if there is no real economy gain from a casino, why will the gov build one in the first place ? I am sure they want the best for our country too and they will be the one that get the direct blame if things went badly.
And what is the opportunity cost of teh casino or IR?
I have read through this reply for 3 times and I have to admit I don't really understand what you are trying to say here
A brief explanation of what I think SnowLeopard means:
People regard you as insensible because you are always repeating government propaganda. They have tried many times to explain why teh ropaganda is inaccurate, but you refuse to accept alternatives. This has shown you to be totally ignorant of the govt's motives, especially when you claim that everybody is ignoring you, and has caused people to give up talking to you.
Ahh.. but you can't even see things clearly near and far, which is probably worse off then mopia
kindly no flaming please.
Then when should it be time to justify those sacrifices ? There will be a time lag before implementing ideas and before they start to service. When IR was decided to be built, it will took 4 years before the construction finishes. As such, it is already high time to come out with plans to rejuvenate the tourist business. This is particularly true since it is expected tourism to improve by leap and bound in future as people become more affluent. You can say it is unlike an elastoplast on wound. Another can argue this will be a CPR treatment on a person without a pulse.
ANd what are the sacrifices of building the casino? Please look at both sides.
Obviously if we have a better alternative, we wouldn't have open up casino. But the fact is, we don't. If we want to sink our teeth into the increasingly succulent tourist pie, we have to remake ourselves to make us more attractive. If we hesistate and refuse to make any changes, we can be certain we will die of hunger and again the Gov will be blamed for not doing anything to solve the problem.
How about Disneyland? Why were they rejected in 1997?
Simlarly if you value ethics more heavily than money, then any changes, no matter how necessary in order to survive will be refuted and thrown out. There is why there should be a balance on what should be emphasised, and a large percentage of the people will risk to horde in the money while preserving the errosion of ethics, which is akin to having a pie and eat it
hmmm... this is a very dangerous line of thought....
the worried pikamaster -
If the government fails to control the negative social impact or if the casinos fail to bring in the economic benefits they promise, the entire cabinet should commit seppuku. God, I would love to see if they have any guts...
-
personally, I donÂ’t.
That is okay. The only way to really find out is to wait for the casino to be finished
itÂ’s strange how you canÂ’t quantify the social problems but yet you can somehow quantify how many jobs will be stolen away from existing hotels, restaurants and shopping centres.
It all boils down to the word "approximation". Interestingly I find it hard to see why will there be a total lost of jobs in Singapore when the casinoes open
what is your definition of overall? narrowly defined in terms of absolute number of jobs created or a wider consideration taking into account the increase in gambling and its associated ills to our society? how many jobs created versus how many more gambling problems would we face?
My definition is simply on the number of jobs itself. If we link other ills of casino into just the job market, then we will have lost focus on study into this specific area. If you want to talk about the social ills caused, then we will not bundled into the job market as well. Both of them are really mutually exclusive unless it was argued otherwise. After each of the field is defined, then should we compare the different field together to see the pros and cons. At least that is how I see discussion should go about
is this whole gamble going to rest on the 'perspective' that 'more tourists will (definitely) be bought in'? what if that doesn't happen? dog eat pig? or pig eat dog?
It is true that there is a remote possibility that tourists will not come. But if we look from another angle, it appears to have the same probability that there will be no social ills created from the casino as well.
officially, social problems are narrowly confined to the existing 2% gambling addicts which can arguably be more. this figure can rise with the setting up of the casinos and we shouldn't underestimate how much it'll increase.
officially too 50% of our population engage in casual gambling but who currently have no easy access to casinos and are too lazy to travel to one. now with our own casino, this 50% bulk would have easy access to casinos and may as a result develop a great deal more gambling problems. it is this 50% component that is seriously missing from the estimation.
I need to understand your meaning of official. Where do you get the figure of 50% ? How do you define easy assess ? Is having a casino by traveling to a port easy assess ?
if you are unhappy with my tone or find that I am impolite, perhaps it is because you demand more respect from me than you think you deserve? in any case, I do not find myself less polite than you are.
The problem with using rude and harsh words will result in both of us being defensive and start to shout personal insults toward each other. That is why I suggest we try to soften our tones together. If I am disrespectful, then I apologise for it and I will try to reduce my emotions when I reply.
you need to understand why reports differ in their conclusions. let's say we have a report that says casinos in las vegas brought more wealth to the city than it caused harm. what does that mean really? you need to understand that most gamblers in las vegas are not from las vegas but come from neighbouring states. the harm goes back to those states when the gamblers return home and vent their angers on their children.
I suggest we should treat our national interest as the first priority. This is because if we do not have enough money or when our ethics and morals decline, nobody is going two hoots onto us. Even if we don't build casinoes, other nations are building many of such casinoes and it will affect all the global nations together.
but when you have a casino serving mainly folks within the city, the problems don't go away, they stay within the city itself and that's when problems outweigh economic advantages.
Not all reports are broken into either tourists make the bulk of the customers and local forming the bulk of the customers. Almost every country is unique in the sense that some antions already have many forms of gambling in their country and some country have a stronger education and belief in morals and ethics. Some nations are having locals as the customers are reported to have more economic benefit than problems.
now which model do you think singapore fits?
Trully speaking, I do not know.
does mere stating of the social impacts absolve the perpetrator of responsibility? if you remember bala’s response on tv, he said things like “social problems is not the major deciding factor in determining whether or not to build the casino”. when a minister says that, what "emphasis" or "effort" is he showing? more like half hearted responses to public demands.
Personally I think Bala is not a good minister as well.
you can answer this question with another question. if a man puts his wallet on a table for the sole purpose of tempting another and that other does eventually steal it, is the person who left his wallet on the table completely guilt free?
If you ask me, yes. If I see a wallet on the table and even if the person is setting a trap to catch me stealing, I am still equally guilty for stealing the wallet. In fact, the police goes around pretending to be rich people with an easy wallet in order to nap pickpockets in the area.
i quote your own words "I don't believe they are negligible. They can become serious problems in future."
so why do you say here that social impacts are not guaranteed and problems questionable? how do you reconcile with "problems to society may be negligible as well"?
the casino may become a big flop but the least we can do is not flip flop in what we're saying.
I need to emphasis the begining of the sentence "It can be argued". I am not stating what I personally believe instead I am trying to push to you the point that a person can easily claim that there is totally no economic gain from a casino but another person can say that there is totally no social problems from a casino as well. To me, both is equally unbelievable and from a personal belief a casino here will bring in the money as well as bring in the problems. If you insist that it will not make any money, which to me is incredible, than another person can counter your argument by claiming there is no social problem much like what stupidissmart believe in.
in other words 'resort' is but a beautifying word to the word 'casino' and the resort is nothing more than mere decoration to the centre of attraction - the casino. so we're essentially building a casino and that's it. all this hoo har about resort, buzz, tourism is merely bullsheet.
Persoanlly, it have to be a resort, with other themes available to be successful. Just because there is a casino in it doesn't means the resort is umimportant. Lets just think of casino as sugar in coffee. Sugar makes it more palatable to the common taste but it is not the main ingredient to a perfect brew. -
Originally posted by PRP:
Obviously, the idea of a casino is not palatable enough so they have to find another way to spin it
[b]PAP Govt doesn't want casino
The govt says it is not interested to casino but wants IR with casino.Casino can also create jobs & improve the economy.In fact, casion is the main money earner for IR.So why isn't govts interested wtih casino by itself?Too little money to gain?
[/b]
i.e. "We are not building _just_ a casino! It is an _integrated_ resort!"
which to think of it, is quite a tagline.... along with '35000 jobs!"
Seriously, if Singaporeans are so receptive to the idea of a casi.... sorry integrated resort, I find it ludicrous that the government has to make so many speeches and so many tv appearances and err... infomercials on the newspapers to justify something that they are so convinced is in Singapore's best interests... -
Originally posted by socrates:[b]personally, I donÂ’t.
It is sad that the studies did not go show all the above-stated economic review of the status of our competitiveness and with the opening of the casino, we are now telling our local citizens we cannot compete any more except to turn to gambling in a bigger way.Socrate: That is okay. The only way to really find out is to wait for the casino to be finished[/quote]
You mean it is alright to build the casinos first to experience what problems might be created - seeing the citizens as guinea pigs - such as whether some people might lose their life savings or jobs and how many might jump off the 10th storey windows or not. This is a ridiculous and dangerous line of thinking and governing a country.itÂ’s strange how you canÂ’t quantify the social problems but yet you can somehow quantify how many jobs will be stolen away from existing hotels, restaurants and shopping centres.
Soc: It all boils down to the word "approximation". Interestingly I find it hard to see why will there be a total lost of jobs in Singapore when the casinoes open
You mean that after all the denials of negative impacts from the casinos, you are now saying that the 35,000 job creation is only some kinds of approximation. How much is the margin of accuracy ? After such a method of study, and conclusion of such study, so it is now a conclusion based on some approximation ? Very rough or very certain?
By what you are saying the said 35,000 jobs cannot be believed totally after all the denial of necessity to present objective figures for job losses due to erosion of work ethics etcI am at a loss of the logics of such a study or arguments in favor of setting up of casinos.
The totality of the government's projected 35,000 jobs is therefore seen to be aimed at pushing for a "yes" decision to build the casino and thereafter the facts given in one-sided presentation like the 35,000 cannot be guaranteed. In the first place if this is so why push for the decision if the half-facts given in themselves are subjective qualified or less than probable. The quantum of job losses or erosions of work ethics according to you cannot be ascertained until casinos were built. If this is the case then the 35,000 job creation is subjective and not to be believed due to lack of objectivity in the studies then.
The worse aspect of the decision is not only its underlying presumptuousness of selective facts and figures but that at the end not one but two casinos will be built to comfound the exasperating bias.what is your definition of overall? narrowly defined in terms of absolute number of jobs created or a wider consideration taking into account the increase in gambling and its associated ills to our society? how many jobs created versus how many more gambling problems would we face?
Soc: My definition is simply on the number of jobs itself. If we link other ills of casino into just the job market, then we will have lost focus on study into this specific area. If you want to talk about the social ills caused, then we will not bundled into the job market as well. Both of them are really mutually exclusive unless it was argued otherwise. After each of the field is defined, then should we compare the different field together to see the pros and cons. At least that is how I see discussion should go about
Finally it is to be noted that you have admitted that in your definition the overall creation of 35,000 jobs you have not linked this figure to other ills of casino as to do would cause loss of focus on the study in specific area.
Therefore by your own admission it is clearly established that the studies as presented to parliament were less than objective, biased or doubtful.is this whole gamble going to rest on the 'perspective' that 'more tourists will (definitely) be bought in'? what if that doesn't happen? dog eat pig? or pig eat dog?
Soc:It is true that there is a remote possibility that tourists will not come. But if we look from another angle, it appears to have the same probability that there will be no social ills created from the casino as well.
So it is concurred by you that there is a possibility that tourists may not come. May I just on this note just draw to your attention the existing casinos in UK and other countries were deserted after the initial years so much so that the government has finally had to live with the long term social ills created. The UK government even had to come up with rescue or revision plans of all kinds to help existing casinos survive ongoing competitions.
Did our ministers like bala take all the above-mentioned problems with casinos into consideration to avoid the same scenario as has happened with existing casinos elsewhere. In view of past experiences with growth triangles or souzhou perhaps the cabinet or leaders who pushed for casino behind the scene be more circumspect then instead of expecting the people to listen to failing assumptions again.officially, social problems are narrowly confined to the existing 2% gambling addicts which can arguably be more. this figure can rise with the setting up of the casinos and we shouldn't underestimate how much it'll increase.
officially too 50% of our population engage in casual gambling but who currently have no easy access to casinos and are too lazy to travel to one. now with our own casino, this 50% bulk would have easy access to casinos and may as a result develop a great deal more gambling problems. it is this 50% component that is seriously missing from the estimation.I need to understand your meaning of official. Where do you get the figure of 50% ? How do you define easy assess ? Is having a casino by traveling to a port easy assess ?
Isn't it logical that if pathological gamblers are 2% of total gamblers before the casino open here this figure will tend to increase once the casinos are set up aggravating the percentage of addiction beyond the initial 2 %?
Therefore from the above-stated admissions of yours the decision to build the two casinos were not objective, or thoroughly considered containing half-truths and assumptions. Such a decision cannot be enough well-considered as claimed.
The lack of objectivity or thoroughness was aggravated by the leaders' hiding behind the cabinet insisting on disallowing lifting of the parliamentary whip or taking of votes based on conscience.if you are unhappy with my tone or find that I am impolite, perhaps it is because you demand more respect from me than you think you deserve? in any case, I do not find myself less polite than you are.
Soc: The problem with using rude and harsh words will result in both of us being defensive and start to shout personal insults toward each other. That is why I suggest we try to soften our tones together. If I am disrespectful, then I apologise for it and I will try to reduce my emotions when I reply.
It is Good to be objective on both sides of argument. Agreed.you need to understand why reports differ in their conclusions. let's say we have a report that says casinos in las vegas brought more wealth to the city than it caused harm. what does that mean really? you need to understand that most gamblers in las vegas are not from las vegas but come from neighbouring states. the harm goes back to those states when the gamblers return home and vent their angers on their children.
The 72,000 people who will be affected or addicted to gambling could be more except for the lack of sufficiently objective study as stated. The potential negative impact could have been much higher in view of problems with existing casinos in UK and other countries over the long term. As it stands the 72,000 likely gambling addicts is not by any means a small figure. It may be only the tip of the iceberg the way problems have been presented as shown in UK or other countries in post-casino crimes and bankruptcies. Such impacts will produce totally serious social problems of all kinds and will persist for the whole future generations.
We are a dense population centre. The impacts on our citizens living in such dense cities might assume higher proportions. Singaporeans will forever have to cope with all kinds of social problems deeply implanted in the country.I suggest we should treat our national interest as the first priority. This is because if we do not have enough money or when our ethics and morals decline, nobody is going two hoots onto us. Even if we don't build casinoes, other nations are building many of such casinoes and it will affect all the global nations together.
I thought that if our leaders are among the best in the world as claimed and as such they should first show us why they cannot solve our economic problems with other better original ideas and solutions out of their own creativity and entrepreneurship.
In the absence of presentation of a greater new-era economic master plan to show us real facts and figures on our economic strategy for the new age, it can only be concluded that they decided to join countries in turning to casinos for a living because they have run out of ideas or leadership.
It is hoped that the same extra-polation will not be made to assume that we are not competitive still unless we also follow others to open up prostitutions to the whole country since without prostitution, casinos might not succeed that well and other countries are also increasing turning to prostitution.but when you have a casino serving mainly folks within the city, the problems don't go away, they stay within the city itself and that's when problems outweigh economic advantages.
Soc: Not all reports are broken into either tourists make the bulk of the customers and local forming the bulk of the customers. Almost every country is unique in the sense that some antions already have many forms of gambling in their country and some country have a stronger education and belief in morals and ethics. Some nations are having locals as the customers are reported to have more economic benefit than problems.
now which model do you think singapore fits?
Trully speaking, I do not know.does mere stating of the social impacts absolve the perpetrator of responsibility? if you remember bala’s response on tv, he said things like “social problems is not the major deciding factor in determining whether or not to build the casino”. when a minister says that, what "emphasis" or "effort" is he showing? more like half hearted responses to public demands.
[quote]Personally I think Bala is not a good minister as well.Minister bala should have looked into the hosts of issues and problems concerning negative impacts from gambling and not just the positive aspects of casinos.you can answer this question with another question. if a man puts his wallet on a table for the sole purpose of tempting another and that other does eventually steal it, is the person who left his wallet on the table completely guilt free?
If you ask me, yes. If I see a wallet on the table and even if the person is setting a trap to catch me stealing, I am still equally guilty for stealing the wallet. In fact, the police goes around pretending to be rich people with an easy wallet in order to nap pickpockets in the area.
Steeling somebody's wallet was deterred but now our actions suggest that we are encouraging such act.i quote your own words "I don't believe they are negligible. They can become serious problems in future."
so why do you say here that social impacts are not guaranteed and problems questionable? how do you reconcile with "problems to society may be negligible as well"?
the casino may become a big flop but the least we can do is not flip flop in what we're saying.I need to emphasis the begining of the sentence "It can be argued". I am not stating what I personally believe instead I am trying to push to you the point that a person can easily claim that there is totally no economic gain from a casino but another person can say that there is totally no social problems from a casino as well. To me, both is equally unbelievable and from a personal belief a casino here will bring in the money as well as bring in the problems. If you insist that it will not make any money, which to me is incredible, than another person can counter your argument by claiming there is no social problem much like what stupidissmart believe in.
From the beginning to the end, had the casino studies been more objective complete, and whatever figures given more balanced the people might understand the decision better. It is unconvincing after making a decision in the manner seen to try to make all kinds of justifications on other ground like casino is a necessary part of resort to increase tourist arrivals will contribute to a better studies or decision.
in other words 'resort' is but a beautifying word to the word 'casino' and the resort is nothing more than mere decoration to the centre of attraction - the casino. so we're essentially building a casino and that's it. all this hoo har about resort, buzz, tourism is merely bullsheet.
Persoanlly, it have to be a resort, with other themes available to be successful. Just because there is a casino in it doesn't means the resort is umimportant. Lets just think of casino as sugar in coffee. Sugar makes it more palatable to the common taste but it is not the main ingredient to a perfect brew. [/b] -
Socrates,
My definition is simply on the number of jobs itself. If we link other ills of casino into just the job market, then we will have lost focus on study into this specific area. If you want to talk about the social ills caused, then we will not bundled into the job market as well. Both of them are really mutually exclusive unless it was argued otherwise. After each of the field is defined, then should we compare the different field together to see the pros and cons. At least that is how I see discussion should go about
Hmmm... But doesn't this reflect telescopic vision on your part? We need to examine all the various factors together so that we can come up with an integrated solution (no pun intended).
It is true that there is a remote possibility that tourists will not come. But if we look from another angle, it appears to have the same probability that there will be no social ills created from the casino as well.
Those are two possible extremes. but ain't there equal probability that the opposite of both areas might be so, that is that tourists will come and that there will be social ills? In fact, actually, there is very little chance that the casino will not generate social ills, because by itself it is already a social ill.
I need to understand your meaning of official. Where do you get the figure of 50% ? How do you define easy assess ? Is having a casino by traveling to a port easy assess ?
Seems to be from the Straits Times, and assessing it, the real number is possibly higher i.e. the ST might have watered the numbers down.
I suggest we should treat our national interest as the first priority. This is because if we do not have enough money or when our ethics and morals decline, nobody is going two hoots onto us. Even if we don't build casinoes, other nations are building many of such casinoes and it will affect all the global nations together.
national interest? That's a super dubious phrase. I do remember that at the same time when teh government claimed that it was in the national interest to support the Iraq War, there was a report in both ST and TNP that Singaporeans showed absolutely no interest in the war, save a few pockets who were for or against. So then, where was the nation in the national interest?
If we don't build casinoes, we could find other strategies, like perhaps enlarging the Esplanade or something. "Other nations" are very few nations. Is NY building mroe casinoes? Is Paris building more casinoes? Is Cambodia building casinoes? Is Taiwan building casinoes?
Please clarify the last sentence in this paragraph.
If you ask me, yes. If I see a wallet on the table and even if the person is setting a trap to catch me stealing, I am still equally guilty for stealing the wallet. In fact, the police goes around pretending to be rich people with an easy wallet in order to nap pickpockets in the area.
Please, talk about this in another thread. Anyway, such a practice is morally questionable too; we are talking about mental coercion here.
Persoanlly, it have to be a resort, with other themes available to be successful. Just because there is a casino in it doesn't means the resort is umimportant. Lets just think of casino as sugar in coffee. Sugar makes it more palatable to the common taste but it is not the main ingredient to a perfect brew.
The casino can be sugar in coffee. But the question is, how much of this sugar are we adding to the coffee in order to give it taste? Is it going to eclipse the coffee itself? Is one teaspoonful of sugar strong enough to remove the taste of ten teaspoonfuls of coffee?
the questioning pikamaster