You want Casino?
-
Can sgforum organise a mass protest for those who reject a casino to the PMO?
-
oie do anything you like, just dun say that you are representing sgforums. You want to protest, fine, do it among yourselves,. Do not involve sgforums.
-
First, I think we all should read what goh meng seng had wrote in the very beginning of this thread. I find it quite precise and to the point.
Read carefully and digest what "NGISC" had commended about casino.
Yes, we all want Singapore to succeed, to bring in tourist dollars, to create jobs for Singaporean and so on.
Why is it that a Disney Amusement type of development cannot be developed in Singapore basically because of the population mass? The population of Singapore and tourists from Malaysia, Indonesia and transit passengers through Changi Airport will not be able to sustain this type of development on a long run.
Similarly for casino to be successful in Singapore, they need the repeat visits by Singaporean. Eventually, you will find the door to the casino will be flung open to all Singaporean. Yes, just like the Turf Club - in the accessibility to Singaporean.
There are differences between Turf Club and casino. Who run the Turf Club? If you trace it all the way back you will know what I mean.
Yes, Turf Club and casino are gambling places but again there are differences. Just imagine the row and row of slot machines giving off incising "clinking" sound in the casino and the amount of bets you can put down in so short a time. The way the casino will be set up with the immediate gratification etc. Where as for Turf Club you have only so many races per session and the amount you can bet is sort of "controlled".
So try to reason out who is behind the Turf Club, the Big Sweep, 4D, Toto and so on, and you will find that they are very "Singaporean owned" but not so for the Casino. -
oops, so sorryOriginally posted by CenturionMBT:oie do anything you like, just dun say that you are representing sgforums. You want to protest, fine, do it among yourselves,. Do not involve sgforums.
-
Thank you Patrick.
You have hit the right points.
Read the reports commissioned by the US govt. Then you decide whether you still want a casino.
China is looking into having a casino when it sees billions going to Macau every year. That will be the mentality of our neighbours if we ever want to build a casino. Then every countries around us will build a casino; who will be the suckers eventually?
People who want to compare 4D Toto (classified as "Convenient Gambling") and Turf Club to Casino, I guess you need to realize that there are fundamental differences between them. Casino is more addictive and most pathological gamblers evolved out of patrons of Casinos. Turf Club may have similar effects but at the very least, there are just that many runs that you could have within a week. The frequencies of repeated gambling is important in formulating an addictive behaviour.
In fact, there are "safe guards" like "cooling off period" recommended for casino patrons.
The obvious facts remain; not many people will go to loan sharks just because they want to buy 4D or Toto; some who gamble on the race course will do that. But MANY who patronize casinos will go to loan sharks!
It is not possible for us to be "MORE ATTRACTIVE" to tourists with a casino in Singapore. People would rather go to HK's Disneyland then take a short boat trip to Macau. Even Bali in Indonesia would be a much better place to build casinos! There are just too many tourist attractions in Indonesia and Malaysia which they could make it into Tourist attractions cum a casino! We will lose out in the end and we will become suckers eventually.
This is not even from a moral point of view. Nobody is curbing anybody's rights to gamble in a casino... you could just take a boat trip to Batam or just get a ticket onto the cruise to nowhere. This is never an issue for casino. The issue is that after you invest billions of dollars into this venture and eventually find out that your neighbours will outdo you, you will have no choice but to open up for Singaporeans inorder to get your investment sustainable in the long run! That's the problem. When that happens, casino will become the parasite industry of Singapore. You want that to happen? Think again.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by PatrickLTH:First, I think we all should read what goh meng seng had wrote in the very beginning of this thread. I find it quite precise and to the point.
Read carefully and digest what "NGISC" had commended about casino.
Yes, we all want Singapore to succeed, to bring in tourist dollars, to create jobs for Singaporean and so on.
Why is it that a Disney Amusement type of development cannot be developed in Singapore basically because of the population mass? The population of Singapore and tourists from Malaysia, Indonesia and transit passengers through Changi Airport will not be able to sustain this type of development on a long run.
Similarly for casino to be successful in Singapore, they need the repeat visits by Singaporean. Eventually, you will find the door to the casino will be flung open to all Singaporean. Yes, just like the Turf Club - in the accessibility to Singaporean.
There are differences between Turf Club and casino. Who run the Turf Club? If you trace it all the way back you will know what I mean.
Yes, Turf Club and casino are gambling places but again there are differences. Just imagine the row and row of slot machines giving off incising "clinking" sound in the casino and the amount of bets you can put down in so short a time. The way the casino will be set up with the immediate gratification etc. Where as for Turf Club you have only so many races per session and the amount you can bet is sort of "controlled".
So try to reason out who is behind the Turf Club, the Big Sweep, 4D, Toto and so on, and you will find that they are very "Singaporean owned" but not so for the Casino. -
Casino is meant solely for big gambling
Casino is meant for gambling and it also pull in touristThe same argument can go for the availability of knife, fire, and guns. All can be used for killing, it is people who mis-use them that turn them into tool of destruction. The MATURE THINKING people discern what are their positive and negative potentials and decide only to restrict the availability of gums.
I thought the positive potential had been explained as well. We r talking about the positive and negative aspect of casino isn't it ?The MATURE THINKING people also discern the different form of gambling like 4D and casino and decide the casino has no place in this society and the casino investment will fail.
I think u link yourself as mature thinking people while those who support casino r immature people. Frankly I don't think such a classification is fairAlso, you should hold back the dream of "ringing in big bucks" until you read the business plan and make some MATURE THINKIG to see if it is ecomically viable.
Frankly I never know a casino tat lose moneyWill the casino builder promise at least $500 millions in gambling tax each year for next 10 years and no local earn less than $500K per year can go in? If it is a sure win, why not?
Singapore gov is gonna have a share in it. It is gonna tax it as well. Therefore if the casino earns money, expect the gov to have a generous share in it.The MATURE THINKING people would like to tell stupidissmart that it is not "The general idea is almost similar to gambling".
Ya ya yah... u r mature. Those who r against u r immature. Is tis viewpoint mature or immature ?The basic function of stock investment is sound rational INVESTMENT based on proper research. It is the immature fools who try to gamble with stock.
I have said there r people who treat the stocks exchange as gambling. Even the educated and rich r treating it as gambling. U can say they r immature fools but hey, Even the Barrings banks and CAO folded because of immature fools.If what you said is true, will the casino builder promise at least $500 millions in gambling tax each year for next 10 years and no local earn less than $500K per year can go in? If it is a sure win, why not?
Why don't u give a promise to us tat opening of a casino is gonna harm more than 5% of the population very negatively for the next 10 years before we talk about promises to u on how much it is gonna earn.
"Common Sense" worth nothing. If that "common sense" is so solid, make that at least $500 millions in gambling tax each year for next 10 years promise. This is the acid test for such "common sense".
If common sense is nothing, then the common sense tat casino is gonna result in broken homes also meant nothing. -
Why is it that a Disney Amusement type of development cannot be developed in Singapore basically because of the population mass? The population of Singapore and tourists from Malaysia, Indonesia and transit passengers through Changi Airport will not be able to sustain this type of development on a long run.
So in other words we gave up on tourism and let the hotels close down because we lack population mass ? If u ask me, the way to make singapore more attractive can be by means of casino. Tat is the only practical way it can go about.
Similarly for casino to be successful in Singapore, they need the repeat visits by Singaporean. Eventually, you will find the door to the casino will be flung open to all Singaporean. Yes, just like the Turf Club - in the accessibility to Singaporean.There are differences between Turf Club and casino. Who run the Turf Club? If you trace it all the way back you will know what I mean.
I expect the gov to be "practical" enough to own some shares to it
Yes, Turf Club and casino are gambling places but again there are differences. Just imagine the row and row of slot machines giving off incising "clinking" sound in the casino and the amount of bets you can put down in so short a time. The way the casino will be set up with the immediate gratification etc. Where as for Turf Club you have only so many races per session and the amount you can bet is sort of "controlled".
In clubs there r already row and row of slot machines giving off incising "clinking" sound in the casino and the amount of bets you can put down in so short a time. They r known as jackpot and it is already legal throughout singaporeChina is looking into having a casino when it sees billions going to Macau every year. That will be the mentality of our neighbours if we ever want to build a casino. Then every countries around us will build a casino; who will be the suckers eventually
Then it means tat everybody find tat the lure of a casino is really true and the problems of it is frankly small compared with the benefits. Otherwise why will even the ultra conservative china go about building a casino ? If every country is gonna build a casino, why should singapore be special by not building one itself ? At tis moment of time, there r still attraction for a casino. The sooner we have it, the better we get a share of tis business. If we drag and drag and not react to changes in a society, we r gonna lose out.People who want to compare 4D Toto (classified as "Convenient Gambling" and Turf Club to Casino, I guess you need to realize that there are fundamental differences between them. Casino is more addictive and most pathological gamblers evolved out of patrons of Casinos. Turf Club may have similar effects but at the very least, there are just that many runs that you could have within a week. The frequencies of repeated gambling is important in formulating an addictive behaviour.
True, there r fundamental differences between a turf club and casino. But u need to look at different side of the picture. u talk about gambling conveniently, it is already legal in 4D toto. U talk about addiciton turf club have it. U talk about jackpot all country clubs or other misc clubs have it as well. U talk about serious casino gambling, singaporean r not shield away from gambling cruise ships or genting either. How expensive is it to go to genting and cruise ship ? Less than a hundred and less than a day with the availiability of chepa airlines now. In fact some cruise ship let u go for free. I mean we r just making it tat little bit easier to gamble. With proper control of casino, the end result may be similar. We r not making radical changes.The obvious facts remain; not many people will go to loan sharks just because they want to buy 4D or Toto; some who gamble on the race course will do that. But MANY who patronize casinos will go to loan sharks!
People going to cruise ships will still borrow money from loan sharks as well. Turf club is a major place where people loses big money as well. Maybe a better solution is to curb loan sharks instead.It is not possible for us to be "MORE ATTRACTIVE" to tourists with a casino in Singapore. People would rather go to HK's Disneyland then take a short boat trip to Macau. Even Bali in Indonesia would be a much better place to build casinos! There are just too many tourist attractions in Indonesia and Malaysia which they could make it into Tourist attractions cum a casino! We will lose out in the end and we will become suckers eventually.
In short we give up on tourism and let hotels fold down ? If singapore make sentosa a big entertainment resort, it may make things different. Lookng at malaysia, wat is the most fun thing about them ? Isn't tat the sand and the theme parks ? If we make a theme park with a casino, we may at least have a chance.This is not even from a moral point of view. Nobody is curbing anybody's rights to gamble in a casino... you could just take a boat trip to Batam or just get a ticket onto the cruise to nowhere. This is never an issue for casino. The issue is that after you invest billions of dollars into this venture and eventually find out that your neighbours will outdo you, you will have no choice but to open up for Singaporeans inorder to get your investment sustainable in the long run! That's the problem. When that happens, casino will become the parasite industry of Singapore. You want that to happen? Think again.
Tat is right. Going to gamble in a casino is already tat simple. We r just making it slightly easier only. So why stop it ? Since singaporean r gonna gamble, might as well spend the money in our own casino than other countries casino. Other countries do not fear the repurscussion of a casino. Even malaysia, who is suppose to be more religiously against already have one donkeys years ago. R they not afraid of soceity ills ? -
no money, got casino also can't go and play.
-
just a simple question:
who profits from a casino? -
anyone miss me?
-
who profit from the casino ? The person who owns the casino is gonna earn money from it. If singapore gov earns money, it is almost similar to us earning money as well. (Actually I support the gov to solely own the whole casino... then it will just be a distribution of weath to singapore) The person who plays it small is gonna enjoy himself as well. To some people, there is no bigger excitement compared with gambling. Just think of it like an admission fee for an entertainment outlet. The person opening cinema is gonna earn money so we close it down meh ?
-
the gabrament is not going to earn any money if the gabrament has to spend more money combatting the social ills that come with a casino, is it?
anyhoooo... when push comes to shove, would you like your tax to increase to pay for it?
the only people who will profit, i think, are those who own the casino..
i was looking for any others that will..
so far, there is none..
btw, i see your theory to "distribution of wealth via gabrament taxes" needs a little bit of tweaking -
the gabrament is not going to earn any money if the gabrament has to spend more money combatting the social ills that come with a casino, is it?
I don't really think tat "social ills cost" is gonna increase to such an extent since otherwise why will malaysia and other nations build casino ? Even china, according to goh meng seng is intending to build a casino. gov is not gonna lose money in a casino and they r not tat dumb -
big BIG thing everyone who argues that is fudging:
if you build one here, it's gonna be here...
if they build one there, it's WAY over there and you gotta travel to get there...
near = convenient = i can go there every evening...
far = i have to plan to go there, take leave from work, and all that...
just because the gabrament is filled with people who were scholars, does not negate the possibility that they screwed up.. or worse, someone in there has a vested interest in seeing the casino built...
from what is being whispered, some in there do have a vested interest... but there is currently no proof... and, sadly, i won't put it past them...Originally posted by stupidissmart:I don't really think tat "social ills cost" is gonna increase to such an extent since otherwise why will malaysia and other nations build casino ? Even china, according to goh meng seng is intending to build a casino. If gov is not gonna lose money in a casino and they r not tat dumb -
big BIG thing everyone who argues that is fudging:
Is genting far ? I guess in some countries going to their casino is further than us going to genting. Is trip to nowhere far ? U just need a weekend, nope a day is enough and u can go over to there as well. I admit tat a casino will be nearer to home, but then again it is not going to be a radical difference from current sitution now. Since u have a computer with an internet connection in front of u, u can even gamble in internet as well. U can gamble everyday if u want, big games with almost instant result.
if you build one here, it's gonna be here...
if they build one there, it's WAY over there and you gotta travel to get there...
near = convenient = i can go there every evening...
far = i have to plan to go there, take leave from work, and all that...just because the gabrament is filled with people who were scholars, does not negate the possibility that they screwed up.. or worse, someone in there has a vested interest in seeing the casino built...
True, they do screw up sometime. But then according to goh meng seng, a lot of countries r building casino. Is america screwed up ? Is british screw up ? Is malaysia screwed up ? Is australia screwed up ? -
yup... those cities where the casinos are built screwed up...
read what Gedenken has said about melbourne after crown casino was built... people leaving their children in the cars in the parking lots (mind you.. summer there can be about 40 degrees in the shade) to gamble... the cost of helplines, counselling and more for the gambling addicted...
then there is petty crime, loss of productivity, bankruptcies.. the list goes on...
well, if you don't wanna face the realities of a casino, so be it...
and yes.. Genting is a long way away... if you wanna travel there, you get on a coach and it's a few hours... you take a passport with you... you have to book a hotel room... you have to.... lots of things...
if the casino is here, you take the MRT to the station nearest the place and take probably a feeder bus (i'll bet the casino will do that, gratis) right into the heart of it...
but, nevermind..
you don't wanna see it, do you? -
and yes.. Genting is a long way away... if you wanna travel there, you get on a coach and it's a few hours... you take a passport with you... you have to book a hotel room... you have to.... lots of things...
u can take a cheap budget flight. U can get there within hours. there r so many hotel rooms there u don't even really need to book. If not how about trip to nowhere ? U don't even need to pack and going on board a ship is as convenient as going to sentosa. How about internet gambling ? All these things r already here. We r not making radical changes to the system now. ALl these elements r already here
u don't see don't u ? -
read what Gedenken has said about melbourne after crown casino was built... people leaving their children in the cars in the parking lots (mind you.. summer there can be about 40 degrees in the shade) to gamble... the cost of helplines, counselling and more for the gambling addicted...
there r many social ills concerning alcohol as well. After drinking people fight, counselling increase for alcohol, people doing crazy things like driving after drinking. So do we ban alcohol ? Frankly u talk about all these problems in gambling, which the turf club itself already had. People may leave their children in the carpark when they gamble in turf club. People get addicted, they get counselled etc. Nothing radical had formed. -
so, you wanna make things easier for them?Originally posted by stupidissmart:there r many social ills concerning alcohol as well. After drinking people fight, counselling increase for alcohol, people doing crazy things like driving after drinking. So do we ban alcohol ? Frankly u talk about all these problems in gambling, which the turf club itself already had. People may leave their children in the carpark when they gamble in turf club. People get addicted, they get counselled etc. Nothing radical had formed.
-
so, you wanna make things easier for them?
u rather want them to waste money on other countries and not used them here ? -
One cannot ignore that a Casino does have social cost to it. And at the same time there is $$ to be made from building a Casino. Big question is how much is each?
Just as all drugs are not the same in terms of how harmful it is, all forms of gambling are also not the same in terms of how harmful it is. It is not right to equate all forms of gambling equally.
Big question is still how much can we earn and how much damage can it cause? -
you think they would go as often as they would here?
besides, there WILL be a bunch of things that people here will end up paying for.. in terms of combatting social ills and stuff...
the police cost money
the programs to aid addicts cost money
the crimes cost money
and that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg... it was calculated that after a certain time, the community will make a huge economic loss because of the casino.. and for what? gambling?
strange how "money will not go to other countries" make it sound very noble to have an establishment meant for fleecing the public..Originally posted by stupidissmart:u rather want them to waste money on other countries and not used them here ? -
you think they would go as often as they would here?
frankly a casino will make them go more often. But however the difference is "going a lot" or "going more often". To me, they both meant the samebesides, there WILL be a bunch of things that people here will end up paying for.. in terms of combatting social ills and stuff...
True, but then the money earned is gonna be substantial as well. As said before, u think the effect of gambling is not felt by the society now ? There r already a lot of people gambling on genting or cruise ships. Face it, I think more than 50 % of the peopel here had gamble on these casinos at one point of time. There r not really radical changes to gamblign scene in singapore and I don't expect to have radical increase in combatting these social ills
the police cost money
the programs to aid addicts cost money
the crimes cost moneyand that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg... it was calculated that after a certain time, the community will make a huge economic loss because of the casino.. and for what? gambling?
Again, who calculate which place had made a larger economic loss due to casinostrange how "money will not go to other countries" make it sound very noble to have an establishment meant for fleecing the public..
All tourist attractions r fleecing money from the public. If they r gonna spend it I rather they spend it here than there. -
repost:
if you are talking about pure economic sense, this:
Social cost of slot machines said to outweigh benefits
Expect more crime, other ills, expert tells legislators
By Greg Garland
November 14, 2003
Although slot machines would generate tens of millions of dollars for state government, they carry heavy social costs that far outweigh the benefits, an academic expert who studies gambling told Maryland lawmakers yesterday.
"It's not even a close call," said Earl L. Grinols, an economics professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Grinols and Attorney General J. Joseph Curran Jr., a staunch gambling foe, appeared before the House Ways and Means Committee to offer their views on the impact of legalizing slots.
Grinols told lawmakers that allowing thousands of slot machines at horse racing tracks is no different from creating casinos. And, he said, they create the same kinds of problems and costs to society.
Those problems include an increase in robbery, embezzlement, fraud and other crimes, he said, and social ills such as lost productivity in the workplace, bankruptcy filings and gambling-related suicides.
Grinols, whose research findings have been criticized by the gambling industry, said the state can expect $3 in costs for each $1 in benefits.
He also said slots are the "most addictive and most problematic form of gambling," far more than the lottery or horse racing.
"You can't easily lose $30,000 on the lottery in a night, but you can on a slot machine," Grinols said.
Several Ways and Means Committee members questioned Grinols closely about his research.
Del. David G. Boschert, an Anne Arundel County Republican and a slots supporter, said prohibition doesn't work.
"I just feel people are going to do what they want to do if they want to do it," he said.
He and other committee members said Marylanders who want to gamble can cross the state's borders to gamble where slots are legal.
Grinols said that bringing slots closer to Maryland population centers would create many more pathological gamblers in the state because they would be able to make daily trips to nearby slots parlors instead of occasional trips on weekends.
He said a racetrack casino or slots emporium can be expected to draw the vast majority of its patrons from a 35-mile radius.
Grinols said casinos rely on pathological gamblers for 30 percent to 50 percent of their revenues. The cost that each such gambler imposes on society is conservatively estimated at $10,300 a year, he said.
Del. Jean B. Cryor, a Montgomery County Republican, told Grinols that his research seemed to illustrate basic "human frailty." She said people are just as likely to embezzle money "to buy furs, jewels, whatever" or for some other purposes as they are to steal money to gamble, and that some people also abuse prescription drugs.
"What we're not looking at is what this [slots] revenue will do," Cryor said. "We've come a long way from talking about education funding."
Curran said legislators can't look at revenue from slots without also considering costs.
"Clearly, there are downsides, and to suggest there are not is wrong," he told the legislative panel.
Curran also warned that legalizing slots in whatever limited form inevitably leads to proliferation, much as the lottery grew from a single weekly drawing to daily games, instant tickets and Keno drawings every four minutes.
Copyright © 2004, The Baltimore Sun
----------
and this is only from slot machines!! imagine if and when you have Baccarat, Blackjack, and whatnots... -
U look at your report closely and u can see 4 things.
Grinols told lawmakers that allowing thousands of slot machines at horse racing tracks is no different from creating casinos. And, he said, they create the same kinds of problems and costs to society.
firstly, it is not talking about casino, but slot machines and horse race tracks. Both of which singapore already incorporated. If u feel tat tis expert view is important, then he says tat slot machiens and race tracks r casinoes. So according to him he felt singapore already have a casino. So why not just build another one ?
Grinols and Attorney General J. Joseph Curran Jr., a staunch gambling foe, appeared before the House Ways and Means Committee to offer their views on the impact of legalizing slots
second, only 2 guys r against it
Several Ways and Means Committee members questioned Grinols closely about his research.
Del. David G. Boschert, an Anne Arundel County Republican and a slots supporter, said prohibition doesn't work.
"I just feel people are going to do what they want to do if they want to do it," he said.
He and other committee members said Marylanders who want to gamble can cross the state's borders to gamble where slots are legal.
third, the rest of his committee do not agree with his theory or reportDel. Jean B. Cryor, a Montgomery County Republican, told Grinols that his research seemed to illustrate basic "human frailty." She said people are just as likely to embezzle money "to buy furs, jewels, whatever" or for some other purposes as they are to steal money to gamble, and that some people also abuse prescription drugs.
lastly, his report and assumptions r not accepted
Something like evolution. There r some scientist who don't agree to evolution but the rest of the world agree to it. I don't really link tis report to be very informative since it is just... 1 person views...