You want Casino?
-
Before replying to you, I am really interest to know if you agree that:
"Tat is right. Otherwise wat edge do they have ? Before breaktalk htere were already bakeries. Before osim tat is otto, before creative there r other sound card companies. Wat edge do they have ? They don't need an edge to be successful."
and whether Creative invented sound card.Originally posted by vito_corleone:running an industrial park is a totally different thing from running entertainment businesses. my gosh can u use your brain just for once? what you're saying is as good as telling an engineer to learn from a failure in a medical procedure. -
This tell us how SIS thinks. Without checking the facts and yet claims "Surely there r already sound card, or embedded sound card before.".
okay, I mistake the beeping sound to have come from sound card
Isn't it time to rethink if all his arguments came from this type of speculation.
And so ? -
Now SIS knows some casinos go bankrupt. How much more he does not know.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Frankly I never know a casino tat lose money
-
so in short u r resorting to personality attack and not on the points I had made ? Tat is the best u can do huh.....
-
Your mistake. It is never personal. It is always about the points you made. It is always about whether the points come from informative, factual and logical reasoning.Originally posted by stupidissmart:so in short u r resorting to personality attack and not on the points I had made ? Tat is the best u can do huh.....
-
Your mistake. It is never personal. It is always about the points you made. It is always about whether the points come from informative, factual and logical reasoning.
frankly, the only conclusion is
1. I mistake beeping sounds from computer to be from a sound card
Tat is all. Then wat u r doing now is just trying to decredit me for irrelevant points. I don't know wat is tat called but it do make u appear to be going on the wrong focus. -
What ahout you said "Frankly I never know a casino tat lose money" and the fact that casinos can go bankrupt? It appears I am right on track.Originally posted by stupidissmart:frankly, the only conclusion is
1. I mistake beeping sounds from computer to be from a sound card
Tat is all. Then wat u r doing now is just trying to decredit me for irrelevant points. I don't know wat is tat called but it do make u appear to be going on the wrong focus. -
What ahout you said "Frankly I never know a casino tat lose money" and the fact that casinos can go bankrupt? It appears I am right on track.
Why don't u ask other people and see if they do have tis impression or not ? Does tis line have any significant impact to the thread or having a casino in singapore ? I guess I am right about u as well. All your points appeared to have been curbed and the only thing u can do now is resort to attack me. -
need to go. Will reply later tonight
-
http://research.microsoft.com/users/lyn/soundcardhistory.ppt
I do a quick search and guess wat stupidissmart... the earliest sound card for PC is actually Adlib in 1987 before soundblaster in 1988 in slide 25 of the above powerpoint. So therefore... sarek_home also fail to check up on his facts before commenting
-
If these people agree with you that "They don't need an edge to be successful." and that because some casinos make money so why don't we try it without studying the business plans and ideas first, then it is their problem.
You have frustrated me with your speculations and arguments taken out of context rather than "curbed" me in any way.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Why don't u ask other people and see if they do have tis impression or not ? Does tis line have any significant impact to the thread or having a casino in singapore ? I guess I am right about u as well. All your points appeared to have been curbed and the only thing u can do now is resort to attack me. -
I stand corrected. Now, I am really interest to know if you agree with SIS that these companies don't need an edge to be successful?
"Tat is right. Otherwise wat edge do they have ? Before breaktalk htere were already bakeries. Before osim tat is otto, before creative there r other sound card companies. Wat edge do they have ? They don't need an edge to be successful."Originally posted by Tian Mo:http://research.microsoft.com/users/lyn/soundcardhistory.ppt
I do a quick search and guess wat stupidissmart... the earliest sound card for PC is actually Adlib in 1987 before soundblaster in 1988 in slide 25 of the above powerpoint. So therefore... sarek_home also fail to check up on his facts before commenting -
At the moment, Singapore is already heavily involved in gambling at outlets that are organised by Singaporean = governement. Please try to trace back who are behind the Turf Club, 4D, TOTO, big sweep, clubs.Originally posted by Tian Mo:after looking through the replies of stupisissmart and the others, I think he is right in the sense tat singapore is already heavily involved in gambling. opening a casino at least give singaporean more places to go during the weekend. Otherwise I find there are nothing better to do here
Casino will be different. The operator (BIG INVESTOR) can demand the door to be wide open for repeat visits by singaporean to make the venture viable.
Weekend nothing to do? Try to do voluntary work like visiting the old folks home, hospic, etc. It will be very fulfilling. Coming to this Forums also can. Do enjoy yourself here. -
If these people agree with you that "They don't need an edge to be successful." and that because some casinos make money so why don't we try it without studying the business plans and ideas first, then it is their problem.
As said before, if u r worried about markey survey etc, it should not be a worry since other experienced foreign investors do express interest in investing singapore casino. Do u think they go around investing without making business plans and ideas ?
You have frustrated me with your speculations and arguments taken out of context rather than "curbed" me in any way.You have frustrated me with your speculations and arguments taken out of context rather than "curbed" me in any way.
such as ? Is talking about a point, which is not significant, and only meant to attack a person credibility, in context to this discussion ? Who is the person who wanna make a big hoo haa about sound card only to discover himself to be guilty of the things he charged other people about ? I am wondering if your points r informative, factual and logical reasoning.I stand corrected. Now, I am really interest to know if you agree with SIS that these companies don't need an edge to be successful?
I do hope u understand the context of the "edge" here is some extra benefits tat had to do with the land called singapore. Do the land of singapore give creative, breadtalk or osim any edge over other countries ? If not, why do u expect some "edge" to come out from singapore over casino ?At the moment, Singapore is already heavily involved in gambling at outlets that are organised by Singaporean = governement. Please try to trace back who are behind the Turf Club, 4D, TOTO, big sweep, clubs.
If u ask me, I thought it will be some joint venture with the casino operators. I expect singapore gov to have some power over the casino. Is the door for turf club, 4D, toto, big sweep, clubs close for repeat visits ?
Casino will be different. The operator (BIG INVESTOR) can demand the door to be wide open for repeat visits by singaporean to make the venture viable.Weekend nothing to do? Try to do voluntary work like visiting the old folks home, hospic, etc. It will be very fulfilling. Coming to this Forums also can. Do enjoy yourself here.
frankly, average singaporean find tat nothing to do is better than doing voluntary work. In short they want to do something "fun". U can say about forums, heck u can even say the zoo, volcanoland, cinema, shopping centre, picnic etc. But frankly, it seems tat the "fun" things u can and will do r limited. They want quick fun without any work or tiredness. In singapore, quick fun without work or tiredness is only having a meal outside or watching a movie. Or is it only me tat feel singapore has nothing to do after some time ? -
At the moment, Singapore is already heavily involved in gambling at outlets that are organised by Singaporean = governement. Please try to trace back who are behind the Turf Club, 4D, TOTO, big sweep, clubs.
Quote by SIS “If u ask me, I thought it will be some joint venture with the casino operators. I expect singapore gov to have some power over the casino. Is the door for turf club, 4D, toto, big sweep, clubs close for repeat visits ? “
Casino will be different. The operator (BIG INVESTOR) can demand the door to be wide open for repeat visits by singaporean to make the venture viable.
The point I want to emphasize is who is behind the existing legalized gambling organizations. Can you help to trace it back and let us know who is behind Turf Club, 4D, TOTO, big sweep, clubs.
This will explain why there is no objection in the first place, and why they are well “controlled”, and why the “goods” that come out of it could be more than the “bads” because of the control imposed. And all the money is flowing within Singapore from one pocket to the other.
Casino is different.
If the government is to have any sort of “power” over the casino, she has to take majority share of the proposed casino, then the casino will be run by the government = Singaporean. Do we think the “BIG INVESTOR” will come and the casino will take of (in the style envisaged by the highest authority)?
If the government is to take minority share = no say in running the business, the door to the casino will be wide open for repeat visits by Singaporean eventually for it to be viable.
Anyway the government had already said that the proposed casino will cater to the tom, dick and harry (including Ah Pa and Ah Ma) who goes to the cruise ships, Indonesia islands, Genting Island to gamble, to collect the tax which otherwise will be lost to other operators / governments. To achieve the government aim, the government had already implied that the door to the casino will be wide open eventually for the repeat visit by singaporean. So what control are we talking about.
Can you see the difference between the door being wide open to casino as compared to door being wide open to Turf Club, 4D, TOTO, big sweep, clubs. In the later, the money goes round within Singapore. In casino case, it goes out to the “BIG INVESTOR”. -
breadtalk and other bakeries are the SAME KIND OF BUSINESS you moron. osim and otto are also in the SAME kind of business. and yes you DO NEED AN EDGE TO BE SUCCESSFUL. having an edge over their opponents is what made companies like creative stand out. and yes, for all of you who go on bitching about declining morals and stuff, go read today's straits times article about how GAMBLING HAS MADE MACAU THRIVE WITHOUT HURTING THE MORALITY OF THE MACAU PEOPLE, i cant believe a regime propaganda machine just said something that is actually true for once.Originally posted by sarek_home:Before replying to you, I am really interest to know if you agree that:
"Tat is right. Otherwise wat edge do they have ? Before breaktalk htere were already bakeries. Before osim tat is otto, before creative there r other sound card companies. Wat edge do they have ? They don't need an edge to be successful."
and whether Creative invented sound card. -
The point I want to emphasize is who is behind the existing legalized gambling organizations. Can you help to trace it back and let us know who is behind Turf Club, 4D, TOTO, big sweep, clubs.
I thought I said many times it was singapore gov ? It was not ?This will explain why there is no objection in the first place, and why they are well “controlled”, and why the “goods” that come out of it could be more than the “bads” because of the control imposed. And all the money is flowing within Singapore from one pocket to the other.
actually... wat control had they proposed when singapore gov is in control ? Before 4D is taken by singapore pool, everything remains the same.If the government is to have any sort of “power” over the casino, she has to take majority share of the proposed casino, then the casino will be run by the government = Singaporean. Do we think the “BIG INVESTOR” will come and the casino will take of (in the style envisaged by the highest authority)?
Ehhh... malaysia gov force investors to give malays a share of their business, yet there r still people investing in malaysia. I don't know wat share will singapore gov take but then again, it will be substantial. If I was an investor, I will let the local gov have a share of it. Why ? Because then the business will be stable and the prospect be high. If u want to invest some telecommunication in china, won't u be happier if the china gov propose to have a huge share of the business ? U can be sure tat the business will have a higher chance of success and lesser red tapes. If I want to open something controversial in a country, having shares by the gov is a good thing. Heck, it beats other companies since they can run away/bankrupt/do illegal acts while singapore gov can't.
If someone invest with me, the capital I had to cough out is lesser as well. It is still fair if they can earn money and they just need to invest lesser. U either earn lesser while invest lesser or don't invest at all or fail. Which will most side choose ? If I am not wrong, mst companies don't have the fund to build something big like a casino. They had to sell shares or borrow from a bank. Even if they have such funds, they will prefer to keep some liquid cash around to deal with cock up. Tat is why a lot of companies will choose to find another organisation to share the burden of the capital and strength of their organisation. Tis is called joint venture or partnership. Is partnership or joint venture undesirable in business ? I thought people go for these kind of things
Furthermore, singapore gov control the legislation. If they don't like casino in a big way, they can impose control through laws as well. They can impose laws such as age laws, tax, income, time of operation etc. They already do impose these forms of laws on bars or places serving alcohol isn't it ? These r local laws and no other nations can do anything about it. Tat is why casino operators will like singapore gov to have a share, so they will not be totally screwed up if gov suddenly go kuai lan or somethingAnyway the government had already said that the proposed casino will cater to the tom, dick and harry (including Ah Pa and Ah Ma) who goes to the cruise ships, Indonesia islands, Genting Island to gamble, to collect the tax which otherwise will be lost to other operators / governments. To achieve the government aim, the government had already implied that the door to the casino will be wide open eventually for the repeat visit by singaporean. So what control are we talking about.
Really ? I am pretty sure the age limit will be set.Can you see the difference between the door being wide open to casino as compared to door being wide open to Turf Club, 4D, TOTO, big sweep, clubs. In the later, the money goes round within Singapore. In casino case, it goes out to the “BIG INVESTOR”.
From the above explanation I had given, u don't know unless u know how big a share singapore gov will take. BTW, they too can collect tax before collecting their share, so the amount they will take will increase. Even if u don't operate casino, ALL the money just flow to cruise ship or genting. Is tat any better ? If u r scared of fund leaking, fund is leaking like crazy from singapore to other countries now. Openign a casino is a win win situation -
Since none of our voices are heard in the parliament, do you think we should do more than organize online petitions that have no effect on the government? Why do you think the government is being so hot headed about their decision without consulting us Singaporeans? It is because of our heck care attitude that is making the government think that since no opposition, they can just go ahead with the plan? I am greatly shocked when the Prime Minister is quoted as saying that there is a 'minority' who are against this idea. Are we really a minority? Or are we a silenced majority? I appeal to the general public to speak up and stand up for your rights. Would you want your future generation to be tattered with broken families? Girls, would you want your husband to gamble away in casinos in your backyard, coming home late and being neglected? Parents, would ya want your kids to grow up knowing gambling holds on risk? THink, what would ya future generation be with a casino in your backyard. THese are just moral issues. What about economic sense? How much more must the goverment spend to cure the social ills? Your tax money, everything, from COE, road tax, income tax, utilities tax, property all gone into nothingness? I would greatly encourage all Singaporeans, young and old, who object to the casino idea to stand up and object the plans of the government. It is only you Singaporeans who can do a part, not your MP, not ur NMP. Not any of those in parliament can help you because they will not help you. It is only you, yourself, your family members and friends who can stop this! Our voices are much powerful than MPs in parliament. Aunties, gossip if you can. Uncles object if you want. Teenagers and youth, spread this objection to all your friends , online and everywhere you can. Organize a protests!! Hold anti-casino rallies!! Do your part for the future of Singapore!!
-
Hi goh,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
I believe the casino notion was summed up by a disgruntled citizen who wrote into streats.
He mentioned (indirectly) that the hypocracy of the the gahmen knows no bounds. Vivan Balakhrisnan stated that Singaporeans should be mature enough to 'make up their own minds' over the setting up and patronage of a casino in Singapore. On the other hand, Khaw Boon Wan considered making HIV testing for pregnant women, a normally private decision between couples, compulsory.
Does that imply that we should be mature enough to make our own decisions when it comes to money but when it concerns health matters, we are incapable of making our own choices?
What happend to freedom of choice? -
No casino? We need more money. Singapore is going to be globalised. Let the money flow to Batam, Genting and Australia if we don't open casino. Even we have no casino, people will still go overseas for casino.
Of course, there are pros and cons. Some people will have heavy debts, family problems, and more. Everyone is matured enough to make their own decision, if he or she wanted to bet, and ended up owing heavy debt, he or she have to pay for it, because they choose to go to the casino and lose their control over gambling. We can't blame the govt. for opening casino, even if there are people who got addicted and got themselves in big trouble, they choose their own way. They should blame themselves for bringing themselves into such situation.
Another example, drugs, if govt. legalised drugs, and eventually some people ended up as drug addicts and paid a high price, they can't blame the govt., but only themselves to blame. They choose to take drugs, and they will have to face the consequences, they should be matured enough. As for casino, people should be matured enough to know what they are doing, and understand the consequences of overdoing it. -
The freedom of choice, is to visit or not to visit the casino. To go for HIV test or not to go for the HIV test.Originally posted by BillyBong:Hi goh,
I believe the casino notion was summed up by a disgruntled citizen who wrote into streats.
He mentioned (indirectly) that the hypocracy of the the gahmen knows no bounds. Vivan Balakhrisnan stated that Singaporeans should be mature enough to 'make up their own minds' over the setting up and patronage of a casino in Singapore. On the other hand, Khaw Boon Wan considered making HIV testing for pregnant women, a normally private decision between couples, compulsory.
Does that imply that we should be mature enough to make our own decisions when it comes to money but when it concerns health matters, we are incapable of making our own choices?
What happend to freedom of choice? -
Hmm.. I thought the issues or problems stated had been well discussed in the previous pages. I guess maybe there r people who just do not want to see. U keep saying tat there will be serious social problems because of the opening of the casino, yet u fail to realise tat singapore already had casino in the form of floating casinoes many years ago. If there were serious social problem tat come with casinoes, then we should have already seen it into effect now.
-
Earlier, stupidissmart said: "Frankly I never know a casino tat lose money".
The reality is that casinos do go bankrupt.
Now he said: "If there were serious social problem tat come with casinoes, then we should have already seen it into effect now."
Is it because he just doesn't know?
It is interesting to see that no one in the Parliament debate on the casino topic dismiss the social problems that come with casino, just "being very clear of the dangers" and address them.
From Paliament debate:
===========
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, Sir, we run a free economy in which people's access to goods and services consumed are affected by their earning potential or the assets that they have. This is an immutable fact of a free economy. So, we are not doing this to set up class consciousness. We are doing this, as I said earlier, if at all we do decide to go ahead with this, to broaden our tourism appeal to a wider segment of people.
As far as tourists are concerned, I have also said that we are trying to attract a wide spectrum of tourists. We will build more 2- and 3-star hotels, because we recognise that, with the onset of low-cost carriers, it is quite likely, indeed we hope, that more tourists of perhaps a humbler background will also choose to come to Singapore. But we also have to recognise that there are other types of tourists who have, in a sense, money to burn or money to lose. And if they are going to lose that money, and lose it our way and in that way create jobs and help strengthen our own economy, then this is something which we should not, as a matter of reflex, ignore. If we do so, we do so at our loss. So, all I am saying is that there are strong arguments, both for and against. There are good reasons to be cautious, but let us go into this with our eyes wide open, being very clear of our objectives, being very clear of the dangers, and also being very clear that there are some practical measures which we have to take.
This is not a time to indulge in creating or highlighting class consciousness or looking for social dispartity or creating cleavages within our population. I think if we adopt this in our uniquely Singaporean manner of being pragmatic, realistic and sensible about it, we might be able to fashion a win-win solution, although that is not typical of gambling.
Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Sir, I find it hard to be persuaded that we can insulate Singaporeans if we have a casino for foreigners only. Since it also involves creating jobs, Singaporeans would have to go to casinos to work in jobs like croupiers, blackjack dealers, showgirls and what-nots. Therefore, there will be social implications, no matter how hard we try to insulate it. Hence, I would urge the Minister to kindly consider this very carefully and take into account the various studies all around the world that show that casinos do lead to higher family breakdowns, bankruptcies, gambling addicts and other social ills.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I will certainly take the Member's warnings on board. Thank you.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Hmm.. I thought the issues or problems stated had been well discussed in the previous pages. I guess maybe there r people who just do not want to see. U keep saying tat there will be serious social problems because of the opening of the casino, yet u fail to realise tat singapore already had casino in the form of floating casinoes many years ago. If there were serious social problem tat come with casinoes, then we should have already seen it into effect now. -
If casino does not bring social problems as SIS claim, why are we seeing the followings:
==========
http://app.feedback.gov.sg/asp/mis/mis15.asp#5
Q6: How do we minimize the potential social impact and criminal problems that may arise from the casino?
A:
We are studying the various social and security implications carefully. We have looked at the measures that have been put in place by other countries to minimise the social impact of casino developments. We have also consulted social experts who have done studies on the social implications of a casino.
Most jurisdictions specify a minimum age limit for entry to a casino. Some casinos ban their employees from gambling in the casino and provide training to casino staff on identifying problem gamblers. Others implement self-exclusion programmes, education programmes to increase the awareness of problem gambling, guidelines on proximity or availability of ATM machines, restrictions on credit facilities and advertising guidelines.
==========
Channel NewsAsia, 23 Nov 04
Bahamas' laws help contain social problems arising from gambling
By Wong Siew Ying
The Bahamas has hit the jackpot in terms of tax revenues with its casinos but only foreign tourists are allowed through their glitzy doors. Our reporter went to the sunshine paradise to see what lessons Singapore could learn to help alleviate grave social concerns.
The four casinos in the Bahamas contributed US$23 million to the government's coffers last year, its highest windfall from gaming taxes in over 30 years. And nearly all of that came from some of the 5 million tourists who visited the country.
Obediah H Wilchcombe, The Bahamas Tourism Minister, said: "It would have been sad to generate this economic activity for the Bahamians to earn money and they take what they earn and put it back into the casino and the family suffers. It's really a social legislation."Originally posted by stupidissmart:Hmm.. I thought the issues or problems stated had been well discussed in the previous pages. I guess maybe there r people who just do not want to see. U keep saying tat there will be serious social problems because of the opening of the casino, yet u fail to realise tat singapore already had casino in the form of floating casinoes many years ago. If there were serious social problem tat come with casinoes, then we should have already seen it into effect now. -
Earlier, stupidissmart said: "Frankly I never know a casino tat lose money".
I guess the saying "The pot calling the kettle black" is very appropriate here. Does serek_home knows any better ? He thought tat the first sound card is from creative and even dare to challenge other people using his faulty knowledge. He thought he had an "edge" here but too bad for him, his edge turn out to be an "edge" against him ! If tat is not embarrassment, I don't know wat is.
The reality is that casinos do go bankrupt.
Now he said: "If there were serious social problem tat come with casinoes, then we should have already seen it into effect now."
Is it because he just doesn't know?It is interesting to see that no one in the Parliament debate on the casino topic dismiss the social problems that come with casino, just "being very clear of the dangers" and address them.
Actually I don't know wat is your point. In the end u post a few questions from the parliament and so ? These questions r being looked into isn't it ? U can ask any reasonable question u want but tat doesn't signified anything. It just meant tat the gov is studying deep into the issue and see the possible problems tat may arises. Maybe other than cutting and pasting, it may be better for u to address the things u want to say yourself.