You want Casino?
-
doesn't bother me a least bit..
-
Casino BIG YES
-
The stewpid gahman always wanted her people to express and share their views on policies issues etc BUT do they really give a DAMN??
So many of us had already expressed our views on the casino issue but WHY?? WHY do they not even listen? IS the FREAKING income to our country MORE important that our societies social views on the casino? How many more families do you wanna see dead like the Tampines family before you decided to close it down?
It simply disappoints me that our all our gahman is thinking is MONEY! Our gahman doesn't even care about people's lives and family bonding. A gambler in the house will never bring joy back to the family.
Even for the MRT deaths, our gahman think it's a waste of money building the barricades doors for the few independent cases.
IS A FREAKING LIFE NOT AS IMPORTANT AS THE BUCKS SPENT TO PREVENT IT?
WE PAID FREAKING TAX EVERY YEAR MIND YOU! WE SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN EVERYTHING TOO! NO?
I'm sadden by the fact that our gahmen is SO COLD-BLOODED. They only think about MONEY... -
It's sad that we have money face government and also act monkey faces too.Originally posted by sweetevil:The stewpid gahman always wanted her people to express and share their views on policies issues etc BUT do they really give a DAMN??
So many of us had already expressed our views on the casino issue but WHY?? WHY do they not even listen? IS the FREAKING income to our country MORE important that our societies social views on the casino? How many more families do you wanna see dead like the Tampines family before you decided to close it down?
It simply disappoints me that our all our gahman is thinking is MONEY! Our gahman doesn't even care about people's lives and family bonding. A gambler in the house will never bring joy back to the family.
Even for the MRT deaths, our gahman think it's a waste of money building the barricades doors for the few independent cases.
IS A FREAKING LIFE NOT AS IMPORTANT AS THE BUCKS SPENT TO PREVENT IT?
WE PAID FREAKING TAX EVERY YEAR MIND YOU! WE SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN EVERYTHING TOO! NO?
I'm sadden by the fact that our gahmen is SO COLD-BLOODED. They only think about MONEY... -
Agree. My view is that it should come sooner. I hope we are not too late. It is actually too late for investors in Tang Dynasty and Sentosa previous investors.Originally posted by tarutaru:Casino BIG YES
Mind u I am not a gambler. I don't even mind if there is none. But in the real world, we need to have it as Singapore doesn't have any natural resources.
Just a simple example, the one across the causeway is created by a muslim country with plenty of oil, etc.
As competition hot up and unemployment set in, the result is history. -
Dun look down on our Sg leader lah. So bad, we are not really depending the Casino as the last ditch effort to relieve the Sg economy.
One must understand that a rich Sg economy doesn't mean a full 100% employment for singaporean. Singapore economy is strong due to her special status as a port in the most important sea trade route in the world, we have successfully becoming the 3rd oil trading centre. More importantly, the Singapore finance hub status has taken off due to the good and sound banking infrastructures and positive Sg gov support. But as mentioned by many in the forum before, banking sectors and biomedical sectors have offer many high pay specialised jobs. But many local talents are not ready, not to say local talent no good enough.
I would say local talents are lacking behind the "top notched" foreign talents that Gov bring in. Employers are more ready to get the specialised foreign talents-
1) their special connections / networks of associate around the world.
2) their salary would not be much more expensive than local talents
3) they can be retrenched easily anytime if the market outlook changes or demand drops or their performance not on par
4) no training is required. employers just hired and fired.
5) no need CPF contribution
6) Gov supportive as this could be a way to boast our Sg population by giving out PR or through inter-marriage
7) Foreign talents could also bring in good money with them as they could be very rich prior coming to Sg to work.
As you can see a lot of specialised jobs are in the hands of the Foreign Talents. Our local talents must be not so contended. So Sg gov must open up new sectors to accomdate the space needed for our precious local talents to fulfil the dream of becoming rich young and retired early lah. How? Open up the service sector lah, attract more tourist $$ **which is usually easy money**. In addition, these create emplyment opporunity for the large pool of Singaporeans laid off by the moving out MNCs, while they also create opporunities for those who want to venture out and become their own boss. But all action plans need time to implement, dun expect any quick fix for our 4%++ unemployment rate. But trust me, time will heal our wound, ands make us stronger. -
Next year~!~!~!~!~!~!~!Originally posted by F Bunta:When will the government announce their decision on the selection of casino design? -
What happen hah......Originally posted by F Bunta:When will the government announce their decision on the selection of casino design?
Ha..ha..I already anticipated that it will not happen so smoothly. If the casinos and IR are to be delay further. when the crude oil hit 85 to 95 dollars. It may cost 7 billion to build and commission....and to complete by 2009?....I very in doubt. Maybe completion of phase 1 to 3 out of 5 or 6.
Good for nothing. -
Here's a map of the new downtown area in Marina South courtesy of Tamago from the buses forum. Where do you think the casion will be located?
-
i extracted this from the straits times forum.
The Casino Regulatory Authority of Singapore (CRA) has decided that Singaporeans must pay either $100 per day or $2,000 per year to gamble in the proposed casino.
The average middle-class Singaporean who plays at the Singapore Pools spends probably $300-$400 a week on gambling. $100 is but pittance for the bigger casino gaming thrill.
The entry fee of $100 per day multiplied by 365 days a year is $36,500. The huge 95 per cent discount given for an annual pass of $2,000 sends the message that season passes for more frequent patronage of the casino by Singaporeans is encouraged.
It appears that the CRA is not sincere in trying to discourage Singaporeans from a casino gambling habit or addiction. If anything, the occasional visitor should not be penalised.
It would make more sense to have increasing rates as the frequency of patronage rises. For example, $50 for the first time, $75 for the second time, $100 for the third time, and so on.
In addition, there should be no annual fee payable, for that is saying: Just fork out the one-time payment and then throw caution to the winds. One doesn't have to think of paying entry fees subsequently.
On the contrary, one is spurred on to go to the casino as much as possible in order to get the most out of the fee that was paid.
Pamela Chong Kwang Ngo -
If I am not mistaken even PRs have to pay the entrance fee.
You think any PR will write in to complain?
-
they just want to make a bundle out of the entrance fee.
$100 per day. 10000 people will make them a million.
i seriously doubt it serves as a deterrent. -
I'm all for Casino ,
It will be a great attraction for SEA Tycoons to come and Wash their money, while enjoying themselves, We're such a country where any money that comes thru here becomes cleaner.
-
extracted from straits times forum.
I REFER to the article, 'Govt drops cap on casino earnings for IRs' (ST, Oct 1
.
The proposal to have an entry levy of $100 per day or $2,000 per annum for Singapore citizens and PRs might result in adverse selection.
The levy, included in the Casino Control Bill, is intended to be a barrier or disincentive for Singaporeans to gamble.
As the gambling institutions would be unable to distinguish and filter out 'true gamblers' from 'recreational gamblers', the proposed entry fee would act as one of the many prongs of social safeguard applicable to all.
However, in my view, the 'recreational gamblers' are not likely to fork out $100 to possibly lose $500 more, while the 'true gamblers' would not mind paying a small sum in order to win big (why do you think they are called gamblers?).
In short, the people who are willing to pay are the high-risk ones - hence the issue of adverse selection - and these are the people the casino should restrict.
In order not to discriminate, perhaps a lower fee of $20 (or maybe even no fee), could be levied and this could be coupled with having people sign in and producing their ICs when changing money.
The information would then be captured in a database, and action taken if any unhealthy visiting or spending patterns are observed.
This way, casinos will be accessible to more Singaporeans and only the inveterate gamblers would be monitored.
Alwin Low Mun Kit
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam -
This argument is totally flawed!
For high risk gamblers, no matter what "safeguards" you put, they will want to gamble. The gamble addiction is already high.
Putting a $20 fee would prevent them from gambling in casinos? Would that make a difference?
What we should prevent is for "innocent" recreational visitors from becoming problem gamblers! Thus, as the author has correctly put, the $100 fee will prevent them from "trying their luck" that would eventually "turning into gambling addicts"!
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by dragg:extracted from straits times forum.
I REFER to the article, 'Govt drops cap on casino earnings for IRs' (ST, Oct 1.
The proposal to have an entry levy of $100 per day or $2,000 per annum for Singapore citizens and PRs might result in adverse selection.
The levy, included in the Casino Control Bill, is intended to be a barrier or disincentive for Singaporeans to gamble.
As the gambling institutions would be unable to distinguish and filter out 'true gamblers' from 'recreational gamblers', the proposed entry fee would act as one of the many prongs of social safeguard applicable to all.
However, in my view, the 'recreational gamblers' are not likely to fork out $100 to possibly lose $500 more, while the 'true gamblers' would not mind paying a small sum in order to win big (why do you think they are called gamblers?).
In short, the people who are willing to pay are the high-risk ones - hence the issue of adverse selection - and these are the people the casino should restrict.
In order not to discriminate, perhaps a lower fee of $20 (or maybe even no fee), could be levied and this could be coupled with having people sign in and producing their ICs when changing money.
The information would then be captured in a database, and action taken if any unhealthy visiting or spending patterns are observed.
This way, casinos will be accessible to more Singaporeans and only the inveterate gamblers would be monitored.
Alwin Low Mun Kit
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam -
you're another product of government brainwashing. well done ol'chap.Originally posted by archon1234:Dun look down on our Sg leader lah. So bad, we are not really depending the Casino as the last ditch effort to relieve the Sg economy.
One must understand that a rich Sg economy doesn't mean a full 100% employment for singaporean. Singapore economy is strong due to her special status as a port in the most important sea trade route in the world, we have successfully becoming the 3rd oil trading centre. More importantly, the Singapore finance hub status has taken off due to the good and sound banking infrastructures and positive Sg gov support. But as mentioned by many in the forum before, banking sectors and biomedical sectors have offer many high pay specialised jobs. But many local talents are not ready, not to say local talent no good enough.
I would say local talents are lacking behind the "top notched" foreign talents that Gov bring in. Employers are more ready to get the specialised foreign talents-
1) their special connections / networks of associate around the world.
2) their salary would not be much more expensive than local talents
3) they can be retrenched easily anytime if the market outlook changes or demand drops or their performance not on par
4) no training is required. employers just hired and fired.
5) no need CPF contribution
6) Gov supportive as this could be a way to boast our Sg population by giving out PR or through inter-marriage
7) Foreign talents could also bring in good money with them as they could be very rich prior coming to Sg to work.
As you can see a lot of specialised jobs are in the hands of the Foreign Talents. Our local talents must be not so contended. So Sg gov must open up new sectors to accomdate the space needed for our precious local talents to fulfil the dream of becoming rich young and retired early lah. How? Open up the service sector lah, attract more tourist $$ **which is usually easy money**. In addition, these create emplyment opporunity for the large pool of Singaporeans laid off by the moving out MNCs, while they also create opporunities for those who want to venture out and become their own boss. But all action plans need time to implement, dun expect any quick fix for our 4%++ unemployment rate. But trust me, time will heal our wound, ands make us stronger. -
shouldnt people be allowed to do what they want? by restricting and controlling gambling aren't you exhibiting nanny-like behavior aka the present government?Originally posted by goh meng seng:This argument is totally flawed!
For high risk gamblers, no matter what "safeguards" you put, they will want to gamble. The gamble addiction is already high.
Putting a $20 fee would prevent them from gambling in casinos? Would that make a difference?
What we should prevent is for "innocent" recreational visitors from becoming problem gamblers! Thus, as the author has correctly put, the $100 fee will prevent them from "trying their luck" that would eventually "turning into gambling addicts"!
Goh Meng Seng -
people have their own agendas.
some wanted it to be free because they want to frequent the casinos.
the govt only wants to make money out of it. -
Dear vito_corlene,
Your argument could be extended, why would we control illegal usage of drugs like opium or heroine or "ice"? Aren't we restricting what they want to do? Similarly, the argument could be that if people could travel to overseas to take these drugs, why should we ban it here?
Similarly, for underage sex, why should we ban it? If the child and the adults are "willing" partners, why should we restrict people do what they want to?
In my view, your argument would only be valid if there isn't "BAD externalities"; for every actions one takes, there may be impact on others, be it good or bad. Thus, the litmus test should be whether the "restrictions" have any "positivity" or not. Or rather, the things that are being "restricted" have "bad externalities" or not. "Bad externalities" could mean moulding an unhealthy mindset, social norm or atmosphere.
You are making a sweeping statement here. There are distinctive differences between what I advocate and what PAP advocates. I base my views on the impact on society while sometimes, PAP bases its views on its self interests. Though there might be similar areas that PAP and I hold similar views, but it doesn't mean we are totally the same.
And for gambling, I definitely hold very different views from PAP govt; they wanted a casino, I am ANTI-CASINO. They would allow 4D Toto betting outlets to be set up all over Singapore, I am AGAINST such moves. How could you ever conclude we are the same?
As for this present issue, I am merely pointing out the flawed argument of the article, nothing else. For a set of conditions made (i.e. casino is to be built), what's the next best actions to be taken. I will still fight for NO-TO-CASINO but if you ask me what's the mechanism to minimize the negative social impact on Singapore, I would still provide my views.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by vito_corleone:shouldnt people be allowed to do what they want? by restricting and controlling gambling aren't you exhibiting nanny-like behavior aka the present government? -
Formal dress codes yes. No smoking yes. $100 entrance fees no.
It hurts my feelings when I find myself being discriminated against in my own homeland, and being treated like a kid.
I appeal to the government to remove the entrance fees. The moment we decide to have a casino is the moment we say to the people, have fun and make your own decisions on where to draw the line between gaming and gambling.
I personally do not agree that more Singaporeans will fall prey to gambling addiction if we allow free entry to the casinos. Just like the R(A) movies, the novelty will wear off. Non-gamblers will remain as such because it is in their nature to feel the pain of loss. Gamblers will continue to gamble whatever anti-gambling measures are put in place against them, as there are countless alternative avenues to gamble.
The aim of the IRs and Casinos are to attract tourism. Many Singaporeans have foreign friends, business associates, and relatives who visit Singapore regularly. The IRs and Casinos will encourage them to visit Singapore more often. We should create an atmosphere of fun and games for all visitors and for the Singaporeans who are accompanying them. I dread to see the unhappy face of a Singaporean who has to pay for bringing his guests to the casinos. His chest will sink at the entrance of the casino.
Singapore will have to live with its decision to have casinos. There is no right or wrong. Every interest group will have its own perspective. The yes-no phase if over. The point is, once decided I feel that we should go all the way and make it a roaring success. Whilst it is necessary to have regulations to minimize collateral damage from the decision, we should not over-regulate, just like over-medication. This is usually counter productive.
We should all look forward to the next chapter of Singapore's history where the IRs/Casinos are one of the key pillars of our economy. Thank you. -
Imagine you have foreign friends coming to visit you in Singapore.
Friend: Hey, let's go visit your casino. Heard a lot of things about it.
You: Sorry, can't follow you in there. I have to pay $100 just to step in there.
Friend: Wtf? This casino is for whom? Tourists only?
You: ... -
You got the right point, bro.Originally posted by charlize:Imagine you have foreign friends coming to visit you in Singapore.
Friend: Hey, let's go visit your casino. Heard a lot of things about it.
You: Sorry, can't follow you in there. I have to pay $100 just to step in there.
Friend: Wtf? This casino is for whom? Tourists only?
You: ... Stupid government -
You got the right point, bro.Originally posted by charlize:Imagine you have foreign friends coming to visit you in Singapore.
Friend: Hey, let's go visit your casino. Heard a lot of things about it.
You: Sorry, can't follow you in there. I have to pay $100 just to step in there.
Friend: Wtf? This casino is for whom? Tourists only?
You: ... Stupid government -
Hi Gioh meng Seng,Originally posted by goh meng seng:It is strange indeed. Nobody in his right mind would want their children to be gamblers but there are people who would support Casino!
Never mind about that. For those who want a casino here, have you done your research thoroughly? Don't just write off "social cost" so easily; PAP knows they could not argue against the apparent high "social cost", thus, they just say it is not about social cost vs economic gains. That's cool and neat but simply put it, they are just sweeping the dirt below the carpet!
Of course, with a twist, they say it is about OUR MATURITY as a society! Cool. Nobody wants to be seen as "immature" and not agreeing to have a Casino would be seen as "IMMATURE"! Hahaha. That's strange. If you know the odds of losing in a casino, any MATURE human being will not be visiting the casino! Then, the most important question to ask is, why have a casino in the very first place to hoodwink those "IMMATURE" ones?
I would suggest for those who thinks Casino could bring in all the monies, do some research first. Try to do a search on googles with "NGISC", short form for "National Gambling Impact Studies Commission". This is a study commissioned by the world's most liberal govt on earth, USA. See for yourselves what's in it for us if we go ahead with a casino.
And strategically speaking, we will all become suckers in the end of the day. I will touch on this later.
Goh Meng Seng
are u from Workers' Party??
i support the view of casino in sg...
look at the revenue and jobs it will generate... -
Dear Arena,
There is no free lunch in this world, so says PAP.
We must look at the whole issue in proper perspective. Look at both sides of the coin.
It is a matter of judgement for everybody to decide whether he/she supports or against casino. But the primary critera for one to make a wise judgement or at the very least, informed judgement, is for one to understand both the pros and cons of the issue.
You could find some links in my blog singaporealternatives.blogspot.com to be specific, two foreign links to comprehensive studies on the (both positive and negative) impact of Casino resorts in US and Australia. The Australian govt commissioned a study on the impact on productivity. The US govt commissioned a study on a broader base.
And yes, I am a member of Workers' Party.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by Arena:Hi Gioh meng Seng,
are u from Workers' Party??
i support the view of casino in sg...
look at the revenue and jobs it will generate...
