WP seeks feedback on casino
-
Why they take so long to take action ? Members sleeping ?
WP seeks feedback on casino
THE Workers' Party is seeking feedback on the casino proposal as it intends to have the issue debated in Parliament, the party said in a statement yesterday.
The views will help the opposition party in 'formulating its policy position on the casino and gambling in general', said the statement by second assistant secretary-general James Gomez.
Describing it as a 'unique opportunity' for Singaporeans to be involved in policy formulation, it added: 'They will have an opportunity to air their viewpoints on the type of Singapore we and our children want to grow up in.'
The statement said various arguments have been put forward by Singaporeans on the casino proposal, from the economic benefits arising from tourism to the social fallout caused by gaming.
It also noted that the Government invited potential investors to submit concept plans by the end of this month for an integrated resort that could feature a casino - and that it was still undecided whether to proceed with the idea.
The Government has said that it wants to hear all views before making up its mind and that it will not rush into making a decision.
The Workers' Party statement said the March 5 public consultation exercise will be held at its headquarters at 216-G Syed Alwi Road, #02-03, from 2pm to 5pm.
The statement added that the public can also send views via e-mail to [email protected] or in writing to PO Box 15, Toa Payoh Central Post Office, Singapore 913101. -
Isnt too late to start petitioning ?
-
Shouldn't the public be educated, consulted and approve before inviting contractors to submit their design and concept plans?
Seems like in SG it works this way round:
1. Inform the public of Merits of Casino (jobs creation, etc)
2. Taking public feedback |at the same time| Inviting tenders / concept design
3. Using media to counter negative comments |at the same time| Improvements on design after evaluating the comments by public
4. Find ways to suppress concerns of moral issues by saying that control measures are in place
5. Finally Approval of Casino by saying concerns of public are overblown as Singaporeans can be trusted to think and make the right decision
Yeah, we can think and if I want to gamble, why the hell will I get myself restricted? I might as well go Genting or other regional casinos. Cheaper and better conversion for food and leisure. There are many Casinos around the region here. What kind of idiotic tourists come all the way to SG just to gamble? sheesh!
If we are trusted to be matured and responsible, then let us decide, just stop trying to alter our views, afterall, we are able to think, we know what is right and wrong. If they try to, then they are not trusting us, if they do not trust us, then it proves that we are not able to think and be responsible... then why the casino?
Funny that the SG Government (Ministers as well) is involved in this trying to convince the public and inviting tenders, I supposed Casinos in other countries are not managed so deeply by their own Govt as in SG.
Let Singapore be known as an important hub for air/sea travel as well as business and prospects... the land of opportunity. Not a gambling hub and a land of moral deficiency.
Lastly (forgive my ignorance if I am mis-informed) whose money will be used for this building and if it is the people's, then do we get a share as well? -
If their members are sleeping the other oppo parties SDP and SDA must be dead. LOL........Originally posted by sgsentinel:Why they take so long to take action ? Members sleeping ?
You moron. Really didn't know Chee Cheong Fan Club has a branch here also. So you are the branch chairman? LOL............
EmptyCage -
Hi,
From my knowledge, the Workers' Party:
1) had to ponder over the benefits and costs of the issue; and
2) did not wish to capitalise and politicise the issue.
Hence the timing.
Furthermore, it has never been the practice of Workers' Party to petition (pointless for an alternative party), but may release a statement on their stand.
It may be for, or against, the casino.
RegardsOriginally posted by crazy monkey:Isnt too late to start petitioning ? -
Hi,
I have the feeling once Workers' Party announced it will be addressing the casino issue, SDP supporters (not SDP) feared they will be grilled on their silence.
Hence, they try to distract people from this possible grilling by attacking with the aim of discrediting Workers' Party's efforts.
It is unfortunate that their supporters are so narrow-minded.
I wonder if SDP supporters have changed their world view that Workers' Party is their opposition, not the PAP.
SDP stands for Singapore *Democratic* Party. If they have a liberal stand that support a casino, their supporters should advise the party to take a stand for the casino.
They may find themselves with pro-casino sympathisers.
There is nothing to be shy about it. Mr Chiam See Tong has also publicly reiterated his stand that he is for the casino.
RegardsOriginally posted by EmptyCage:If their members are sleeping the other oppo parties SDP and SDA must be dead. LOL........
You moron. Really didn't know Chee Cheong Fan Club has a branch here also. So you are the branch chairman? LOL............
EmptyCage -
so WP stand on casino is based on Dollar and Cents like govt ?Originally posted by SGLoyalist:Hi,
From my knowledge, the Workers' Party:
1) had to ponder over the benefits and costs of the issue; and
2) did not wish to capitalise and politicise the issue.
Hence the timing.
Furthermore, it has never been the practice of Workers' Party to petition (pointless for an alternative party), but may release a statement on their stand.
It may be for, or against, the casino.
Regards -
As posted to feedback unit:-
The pro- and anti-casino population at the moment is about half-half with a slight majority in favor of casino.
The anti-casino lot have given their views very strongly based on social and moral considerations.
The pro-casino lot have given their views in two ways:
(1) Gambling is already too deeply entrenched in Singaporeans so having a casino now does not necessarily mean souls will be sold to casino.
(2) Casino provides an opportunity to avoid the S$2.0 billion gambling losses to flow out of the country. There are new economic opportunities to develop based on our incomparable excellent location.
In view of Dr. Tony Tan's considered view that we should not rush into making a decision and Mr. George Yeo's caution, Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan will have to show that indeed: (a) economic pluses will be overwhelm all the social ills to convince the anti-casino lot to give it a try.
Words and rhetorics alone of Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan will not serve the purpose. To wait till the packaged proposals to be submitted by the operators too may not be that all convincing to the anti-casino people who are very passionate in their views.
Dr. Tony Tan is right. Until Dr. Balakrishnan is able to put forward a comprehensive economic plan to show how Singapore will benefit from having a casino in terms of how many jobs created and which industries will be correlated or integrated to draw on casino factor to stimulate growth, we really should not proceed with the decision of having a casino yet.
There is a need to approach the decision from an overall new economic plan, incorporating factors other countries or casinos have not considered as otherwise our future generations may blame on all of us if things go terribly wrong.
Our scholars do not as yet put up such a comprehensive plan to show how to prevent social problems and even overwhelm them with many many benefits through creative and entrepreneur governance which ministers lately have been promoting. -
Dear Crazy Monkey,
Whether we ultimately make a stand on the casino, there is no way we could avoid the Dollars and Cents perspective. We are not like any religious organizations that could just concentrate on moral issues and avoid the economic perspective. We are afterall, a political party that needs to make a careful balance in considering both sides of the picture.
Contrary to what many "Pro-Casino" people think, there are economic reasons that go against casino.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by crazy monkey:so WP stand on casino is based on Dollar and Cents like govt ? -
Dear sgentinel,
We don't really play populist politics. Even though we have not gone public over the casino issue, it doesn't mean that there isn't debates or discussion within the party over the issue. Like PAP itself, we do have people with very different views in our party.
The casino forum is aimed specifically at the issue with good timing. 5 March is just a week after the deadline of submission of proposals. One month before PAP govt make its stand. This is a strategical movement with great considerations on the timing. We don't just waste bullets shouting out everyday.
What I am telling you here is that we are no "MAD DOG Politicians". We are prepared to give two different perspectives during the forum and seek opinions from the public. If we finally come to the conclusion that we will support the casino, we will still take a public stand on it, unlike other alternative political parties.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by sgsentinel:Why they take so long to take action ? Members sleeping ? -
so its means that WP can take an immoral stand if the need arises ?Originally posted by goh meng seng:Dear Crazy Monkey,
Whether we ultimately make a stand on the casino, there is no way we could avoid the Dollars and Cents perspective. We are not like any religious organizations that could just concentrate on moral issues and avoid the economic perspective. We are afterall, a political party that needs to make a careful balance in considering both sides of the picture.
Contrary to what many "Pro-Casino" people think, there are economic reasons that go against casino.
Goh Meng Seng -
Dear Crazy Monkey,
It is about being "amoral", not "immoral".
At the moment, I do not think WP will take any immoral stand. However, a political party is supposed to take care both the bread and butter concerns as well as social well being into its considerations. A businessman would only take profitability as his sole focus and responsibilities, a government or political party must take social well being and responsibilities into great considerations.
We must be ready to answer to those who are unemployed why we would reject a deal (casino) that might bring them jobs. We must convince them that this deal is not worthy at all. That is why we need to look into the economic perspective of the problem. We aren't like religious groups that could just concentrate on the moral side of the story. Religious groups don't have to answer to those unemployed citizens but as a responsible political party, we have to answer to all spectrum of the society.
IF the economic benefits of casino out weighed social cost, then what about turning Singapore into a SEX City? Sex sells, that's the golden rule of marketing. In fact, SEX won't create that much of a social-economic problem; there is little possibility for people to go to loan sharks to borrow and have sex. If we are to break into such paradoxes of having casino, where do we end? How to quantify social costs in both cases?
Personally, I am against Casino both on economic as well as moral grounds. I have to convince voters why it is no good to have casino even if they would lose jobs opportunities. This is basically the role of any political parties and we do not have a choice at all.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by crazy monkey:so its means that WP can take an immoral stand if the need arises ? -
Originally posted by goh meng seng:
Dear Crazy Monkey,
It is about being "amoral", not "immoral".
At the moment, I do not think WP will take any immoral stand. However, a political party is supposed to take care both the bread and butter concerns as well as social well being into its considerations. A businessman would only take profitability as his sole focus and responsibilities, a government or political party must take social well being and responsibilities into great considerations.
We must be ready to answer to those who are unemployed why we would reject a deal (casino) that might bring them jobs. We must convince them that this deal is not worthy at all. That is why we need to look into the economic perspective of the problem. We aren't like religious groups that could just concentrate on the moral side of the story. Religious groups don't have to answer to those unemployed citizens but as a responsible political party, we have to answer to all spectrum of the society.
Religious groups in Singapore has done a lot to help the poor and needy. What has the opposition party done beside toking ?
IF the economic benefits of casino out weighed social cost, then what about turning Singapore into a SEX City? Sex sells, that's the golden rule of marketing. In fact, SEX won't create that much of a social-economic problem; there is little possibility for people to go to loan sharks to borrow and have sex. If we are to break into such paradoxes of having casino, where do we end? How to quantify social costs in both cases?
Personally, I am against Casino both on economic as well as moral grounds. I have to convince voters why it is no good to have casino even if they would lose jobs opportunities. This is basically the role of any political parties and we do not have a choice at all.
Goh Meng Seng
so its better to turn Singapore into SEX city then to built a casino ? -
Originally posted by crazy monkey:
Sex city or sin city, there is no escape. If you lived in Vegas and the government wanted to build a casino, you can move to a different town where there is none of that. Same for Genting. It is easy to relocate if you don't like having a casino nearby. In Singapore's case, we can't run away. It is right at our doorstep, no matter where we go.
[b]
Religious groups in Singapore has done a lot to help the poor and needy. What has the opposition party done beside toking ?
IF the economic benefits of casino out weighed social cost, then what about turning Singapore into a SEX City? Sex sells, that's the golden rule of marketing. In fact, SEX won't create that much of a social-economic problem; there is little possibility for people to go to loan sharks to borrow and have sex. If we are to break into such paradoxes of having casino, where do we end? How to quantify social costs in both cases?
Personally, I am against Casino both on economic as well as moral grounds. I have to convince voters why it is no good to have casino even if they would lose jobs opportunities. This is basically the role of any political parties and we do not have a choice at all.
Goh Meng Seng
so its better to turn Singapore into SEX city then to built a casino ? [/b] -
We need to strike a balance.We have no hinterland and any fallout from the casino will affect each and every one of us.Will the casino make us the richest nation in Asia?No.So it's just a mere increment from our present status.Is the risk worth the "OT pay" ?I don't think so.People are trying to eradicate gambling yet we are trying to promote gambling, and one wonders about where our naked hypocrisy is produced.Feedback for the casino project is "welcomed" where normal exercise of free speech is not allowed during political rallies, that is if you can even organise one in the first place.Stop putting words in our mouths and think for us and you will survive,Make us your puppets and Singapore will not survive for the next 50 years.
Just shut up and be of service to the nation and not think you will ever be above us.You are not kings and even empires have collapsed.So what are you fellows?Peanuts.Genghis Khan would laugh at puny actions, so give up the power trip and serve the people. -
oppose for the sake of opposed
-
Dear CrazyMonkey,
Could the religious groups give you the chance to put pressure on the govt? Could the religious groups make the $$$ making machine chunt out NSS, ERS, HDB upgrading...etc for you? Could the religious groups make your MPs become one of the most hardworking lot among their peers? Could the religious groups put checks and balances to parliament?
And for your info, we do have social welfare activities though not as comprehensiive as others.
We have different functional roles and I think your comment is not fair at all. Not everybody could act as pastors, monks or priests, not everybody could act as alternative politicians as well. Due to our different functional roles, our appraoches towards problems like Casino would be very different.
Singapore used to have Gay shows in Bugis and it was very popular as tourist spot back then. Our brothels are legalized, so what? This is the same argument made by Pro-casino people that Convenient Gambling (4D Toto etc) has been legalized and existed. Sex trade is just sex trade, really no differentials like those between Casino and Convenient gambling.
Sex trade as a tourist attraction cannot work in Singapore because there are more competitive sex trades else where in this region. But for a totally amoral government, it is no harm trying to ask for proposals like what they do with casino!
Technically speaking, sex trade will have less impact on social cost apart from the morality point of view. BTW, sex trade could go both ways; gigaloos and prostitutes. We do not necessary need locals to be employed as such. So, now you feel that this is "too much" to go on? I think PAP govt is not totally "amoral" when it didn't probe into using Sex trade as tourist attractions. At least there are still some moral conscience in them.
In terms of social cost, casino will cost more than Sex trade. In terms of profitability, Casino will be more profitable as money roll quickly. In terms of morality, both are as bad. Technically speaking, Sex trade may not be "better" than Casino if you only use cost and benefit analysis to evaluate.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by crazy monkey:
[b]
Religious groups in Singapore has done a lot to help the poor and needy. What has the opposition party done beside toking ?
IF the economic benefits of casino out weighed social cost, then what about turning Singapore into a SEX City? Sex sells, that's the golden rule of marketing. In fact, SEX won't create that much of a social-economic problem; there is little possibility for people to go to loan sharks to borrow and have sex. If we are to break into such paradoxes of having casino, where do we end? How to quantify social costs in both cases?
Personally, I am against Casino both on economic as well as moral grounds. I have to convince voters why it is no good to have casino even if they would lose jobs opportunities. This is basically the role of any political parties and we do not have a choice at all.
Goh Meng Seng
so its better to turn Singapore into SEX city then to built a casino ? [/b] -
Dear Joshua,
You have not listen to my full story yet, how come you come to such conclusion that we "oppose for the sake of opposing"?
Come to our forum this Saturday at our HQ. I will give you a big overview on the casino issue and why I say it is neither economic viable nor the potential social cost is acceptable.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by Joshua1975:oppose for the sake of opposed -
Dear Lazerlordz,
Each must fulfill his functional role. How to "serve" Singapore when we don't voice out what we think is good for Singapore?
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by LazerLordz:We need to strike a balance.We have no hinterland and any fallout from the casino will affect each and every one of us.Will the casino make us the richest nation in Asia?No.So it's just a mere increment from our present status.Is the risk worth the "OT pay" ?I don't think so.People are trying to eradicate gambling yet we are trying to promote gambling, and one wonders about where our naked hypocrisy is produced.Feedback for the casino project is "welcomed" where normal exercise of free speech is not allowed during political rallies, that is if you can even organise one in the first place.Stop putting words in our mouths and think for us and you will survive,Make us your puppets and Singapore will not survive for the next 50 years.
Just shut up and be of service to the nation and not think you will ever be above us.You are not kings and even empires have collapsed.So what are you fellows?Peanuts.Genghis Khan would laugh at puny actions, so give up the power trip and serve the people. -
Originally posted by goh meng seng:
The government pay a lot of attention to the concerns raised by religious groups because they represent the concerns of society.
Dear CrazyMonkey,
Could the religious groups give you the chance to put pressure on the govt? Could the religious groups make the $$$ making machine chunt out NSS, ERS, HDB upgrading...etc for you? Could the religious groups make your MPs become one of the most hardworking lot among their peers? Could the religious groups put checks and balances to parliament?
And for your info, we do have social welfare activities though not as comprehensiive as others.
We have different functional roles and I think your comment is not fair at all. Not everybody could act as pastors, monks or priests, not everybody could act as alternative politicians as well. Due to our different functional roles, our appraoches towards problems like Casino would be very different.Originally posted by goh meng seng:
Sex trade have less social cost are you sure abt that or speaking from personal pt of view ?
Singapore used to have Gay shows in Bugis and it was very popular as tourist spot back then. Our brothels are legalized, so what? This is the same argument made by Pro-casino people that Convenient Gambling (4D Toto etc) has been legalized and existed. Sex trade is just sex trade, really no differentials like those between Casino and Convenient gambling.
Sex trade as a tourist attraction cannot work in Singapore because there are more competitive sex trades else where in this region. But for a totally amoral government, it is no harm trying to ask for proposals like what they do with casino!
Technically speaking, sex trade will have less impact on social cost apart from the morality point of view. BTW, sex trade could go both ways; gigaloos and prostitutes. We do not necessary need locals to be employed as such. So, now you feel that this is "too much" to go on? I think PAP govt is not totally "amoral" when it didn't probe into using Sex trade as tourist attractions. At least there are still some moral conscience in them.
In terms of social cost, casino will cost more than Sex trade. In terms of profitability, Casino will be more profitable as money roll quickly. In terms of morality, both are as bad. Technically speaking, Sex trade may not be "better" than Casino if you only use cost and benefit analysis to evaluate.
Goh Meng Seng -
Dear Crazy Monkey,
If you think religious groups could possibly put up an effective lobby, then you are really misguided. PAP takes the stand of "Strong Government". It cannot project itself as "Weak" and "Soft". Thus, despite of an active lobby from religious groups, they still carry on asking for proposals.
As for sex trade vs gambling, it is not that difficult to make comparison studies, though I have not found any of such studies yet.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by crazy monkey:Sex trade have less social cost are you sure abt that or speaking from personal pt of view ? -
Best way to settle the issue is to have a referendum lah.
-
Actually, Nominated MP Loo Choon Yong did suggested that today @ Parliament.Originally posted by crazy monkey:Best way to settle the issue is to have a referendum lah.
IMO, in current S'pore context, the word referendum does not exist.
Consultative governance ?
This is one gamble that Singapore people is set to loose. -
Dear Crazy Monkey,
I have called for a referendum on the casino issue before. In this very forum.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by crazy monkey:Best way to settle the issue is to have a referendum lah. -
others have also. dun think you are the only one.Originally posted by goh meng seng:Dear Crazy Monkey,
I have called for a referendum on the casino issue before. In this very forum.
Goh Meng Seng