Casino
-
Do you support the building of a casino in Singapore ? If a casino is built, what are the measures that can be taken to curb the social problems brought about by it ?
-
i would prefer a disneyland, or a dreamworld, or an ocean park........
-
i dun support it .... and at the same time i'm not against it either.
look at it this way. ppl will always find a way to gamble (can't help but stereotype here, but especially chinese)
if there is no legal way to gamble, ppl will just use an illegal way to achieve the same thing.
so, personally, a legal way is much better. at least the authorities can gauge how much ppl are really putting in the casino. not to mention the tax they can get out of it ..... -
was expecting a new hair saloon or a brand spanking new shopping complexOriginally posted by FireIce:i would prefer a disneyland, or a dreamworld, or an ocean park........ -
We already have a lot of shopping complexs in Singapore its not our strong point Hongkong can easily outdo us in that aspect. We need unique attractions to lure tourists and visitors to Singapore.Originally posted by eutjin:was expecting a new hair saloon or a brand spanking new shopping complex -
Look at it this way.. at lest it provides employment..
-
Thats a good idea. Better than building a casino.Originally posted by FireIce:i would prefer a disneyland, or a dreamworld, or an ocean park........
-
all the money can go into the gah-men pocket.. that's wat the gah-men is thinking about.
-
i think it's a good idea cuz it should draw in more tourists for S'pore.
As for the social probs... i think that if a gambler really wanna gamble, he find some place to do it, legalised casino or not -
heard the casino is for rich ppl only...dun think it will help much on the illegal gambling prob...
-
I wonder if they will still build it if the people oppose it strongly.
-
do you think the gabrament will care?Originally posted by paperchicken:I wonder if they will still build it if the people oppose it strongly.
-
GAH-MEN in singapore autocratic one lah
-
I dun think so. By bringing up the issue I think they are testing the ground. If the opposition is weak they will go ahead and built one.Originally posted by the Bear:do you think the gabrament will care? -
anyhooooo.... i'm against the idea....
it cuts deep to to the bone...
gambling is bad... unless the gabrament has a cut and can tax it...
this is what it's telling the people...
and in that, the people become even more jaded and cynical than they already are
-
Beware possible hollowing-out effect on rest of economy
I REFER to the letter, 'Say nay to a casino' (ST, Sept 10). Thus far, all the arguments against the development of a casino have focused on the detrimental societal and moral consequences of expanding the gambling industry in Singapore.
The central argument in favour of setting up a casino, that it is a boon to the economy, has gone unchallenged. Allow me to challenge that premise.
In the great casino debate, it has been assumed, almost without question, that a casino will benefit Singapore's economy by attracting tourists. Casinos hold out the promise of doing for Singapore what they did for Las Vegas. However, Las Vegas is in a unique category in terms of the sequence of its economic development. Its casinos were its first significant economic sector; its other economic elements came later, and sprang up to support and to feed off the casinos.
When other US cities with established economies tried to import the Las Vegas casino growth model, they discovered that, instead of adding to the economy, the casinos diverted spending from entertainment sectors like restaurants and cinemas.
Singapore, too, already has an indigenous entertainment and tourist industry, and should be wary lest a casino exerts a similar hollowing-out effect on the rest of the economy.
At the very least, there should be further research on the impact of having a casino, and it needs to be stripped of the rosy assumptions that pervade pro-casino arguments.
Even if the idea of a casino passes this preliminary stage, there would still be the question of balancing the economic benefits against the moral and social detriments. The casino debate is far from settled.
JOSEPH WONG KOK SEN
The above article is originally published in Straits Times on 15 Sept 2004 -
The race course has no restriction poor can gamble also.Originally posted by RaTtY81:heard the casino is for rich ppl only...dun think it will help much on the illegal gambling prob... -
S'poreans split evenly on casino
Survey finds 53% in favour of and 47% against having a casino, with those opposed fearing social costs of gambling
By Lydia Lim
THE ongoing debate over whether Singapore should have its own casino has the population split almost right down the middle.
A Straits Times (ST) survey carried out two weeks ago found that 53 per cent are in favour of having a casino here, while 47 per cent oppose it.
Those in favour believe it will help the country attract more tourists, generate revenue and create jobs.
Those opposed are concerned about the social costs. Nine in 10 of them believe a casino will lead to gambling addiction growing here and causing more family-related problems, while eight in 10 fear a casino will also result in more crime.
Only two-thirds of those who oppose a casino do so because they believe gambling is immoral.
Public policy expert Ho Khai Leong said it is unusual for society to be so evenly split on an issue.
But the casino debate is unique as it pits economic arguments against deeply-felt moral convictions and social values, he said. Probably the only other issue in the past that was so polarising was the debate over legalising abortion, he added.
The ST survey is the first to gauge public sentiment since the casino idea was first broached by the Government in March as part of plans for a top-class resort on the Southern Islands, to draw the world's rich and famous.
Leaders of several religious groups have voiced their opposition to the idea.
But it had not been clear until now where the population at large stands on the issue. The survey by Singapore Press Holdings' research arm polled a representative sample of 376 Singaporeans and permanent residents aged 20 and above.
It found that race is a significant factor, with Chinese the most likely to want a casino here and Malays the least likely. Six in 10 Chinese want it as compared to only two in 10 Malays. Among Indians, 45 per cent are in favour.
Men are also more likely than women to support the idea, but other factors such as age, income and education do not seem significant.
If there is a casino here, most of those polled - 68 per cent - want entry for all adult Singaporeans.
They disagree with a government proposal to limit entry, possibly to tourists and higher-income Singaporeans, as they do not want discrimination between rich and poor. They also believe adult Singaporeans are mature enough to make their own decisions.
As for the 30 per cent who want entry restrictions, they believe the poor need to be protected against gambling losses.
The survey findings also suggest that there are Singaporeans who play with Lady Luck and yet oppose having a casino here.
This is apparent from comparing the number who say they have ever bought 4-D - 66 per cent - with the number who support the casino idea, which is 53 per cent.
Among current forms of legalised betting, 4-D is the most popular followed by Toto, soccer betting and horse-racing. As for visiting casinos, 34 per cent have never done so and 55 per cent have never gambled at one.
The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) yesterday said the findings were useful feedback for its ongoing study.
Within the next few months, it plans to invite proposals from potential investors keen to develop an integrated resort that includes a casino.
This is to test the market and allow the ministry to assess the merits of the proposals.
More details will be released later, it said, adding that the Government has not made a decision on whether or not to go ahead.
MTI also revealed that it had actively pursued ways to develop an integrated resort without the casino component, but 'the private sector has for various reasons decided not to develop such projects here'.
This reflects the intense competition for investments in the region, it said.
The Straits Times understands that one such project that fell through involved theme park developer Disney. -
Notice that the ST has been writing articles on casino very frequently on the pros of a casino (Notice that it covers more pro than cons). And the articles will also mention that the gahment is consultative n still considering. See some light now?
garment consults the ppl, and then try to convince why they are right. -
Personally I am against building a casino in Singapore.Originally posted by SnowFlag:Notice that the ST has been writing articles on casino very frequently on the pros of a casino (Notice that it covers more pro than cons). And the articles will also mention that the gahment is consultative n still considering. See some light now?
garment consults the ppl, and then try to convince why they are right.
I hope it will never be built.
I think the articles in ST are quite balanced so far carrying articles covering both sides of the arguement. -
it fails to cover the social ills properly, tending to say that the experts are divided over it.Originally posted by The Barracuda:Personally I am against building a casino in Singapore.
I hope it will never be built.
I think the articles in ST are quite balanced so far carrying articles covering both sides of the arguement. -
Maybe its the difficulty of studying the problem. Unlike alcoholism where the alcoholics end up in hospital because of health problems , the problem of gambling addicts tend to be less visible and hence more difficult to study.Originally posted by SnowFlag:it fails to cover the social ills properly, tending to say that the experts are divided over it.
When its less visible and more difficult to study, there is a danger that potential social problems and impact will be dismiss and the society have to bear the burden of a casino if it is built. -
I think the govt will open the casino.
-
I am right that the garment hd always wanted to open the casino. But it needed a way to carry out so that ppl will made less "noise". And hence through the "consultative" method. Probably only a few ppl here understand what i m trying to say.Originally posted by SnowFlag:Notice that the ST has been writing articles on casino very frequently on the pros of a casino (Notice that it covers more pro than cons). And the articles will also mention that the gahment is consultative n still considering. See some light now?
garment consults the ppl, and then try to convince why they are right. -
yes, they definitely will. as the standard civil service reply template says 'thank you for your feedback, we will take your feedback into consideration' <-- as if.Originally posted by paperchicken:I wonder if they will still build it if the people oppose it strongly.