espn said:It's so obvious it will be done regardless of what SGeans think... it's extra income for ... *ahem* get it?
They only have to do it once to say they do listen, remember Chek Jawa? After that, they've been quoting it as example they do listen, but it's just once... and they use it forever.jonlou said:well said espn. i dunnoe abt the extra income part lar, i also dun wan to make any assumptions with baseless ground, but coming back, since when did they did anything with regards to the thoughts and views that is being churned out by the many brain cells of singaporeans... :what:
espn said:They only have to do it once to say they do listen, remember Chek Jawa? After that, they've been quoting it as example they do listen, but it's just once... and they use it forever.
Just wait and see, it will be gone ahead...
fuzzy said:if the casino can decrease GST, income tax, this tax that tax, wadever taxes. then yes...
reachme2003 said:firstly, i want the monies paid by the developers to the govt to go towards the people of singapore, eg. funding an unemployment benefits scheme, fund an elderly health insurance scheme, among others.
theITguy said:Are you guys afraid? What you guys are afraid of? A casino? I am not afraid of moving to analog MF cameras instead of following the trend like many who wanna go digital.
Same thing here. If gambling is the trend, are you a follower or you go your own way? If you are not a gambler why bother whether it is built or not? If you are a gambler what difference does it make to build it? You will not gamble if you are not a gambler and you will still gamble if you are one even if it is built.
When I see the interview on this guy who collected 29K signatures online, I find that it is a BIG joke. How many of those 29K are really sincere in opposing the move to build one? 29K out of 3 million++ (1%?) is a BIG joke when you consider the 500K out of 6 millions++ (12%?) you see in HongKong physically in 2004.
End of the day, it will still be built as those who oppose gambling (the religious group mainly) will not gamble and we will get REAL attractions for inflow of money from our dear foreigners when HK have Disney, Japan have Disney and Universal Studio, Thailand have their history and culture, likewise for Laos, Burma, Cambodia and in particular China. Even Philippines has something else more than Singapore.
"Singapore, is it a part of China?" is the biggest joke I have heard for Singapore, an insult to my heart.
denniskee said:I voted yes for reasons below :
1) Our citizens are frequently going to the cruse & genting to gamble anyway, & how much do they spend per trip?
2) In a week, how many times & how much they spend on 4D, TOTO, Scratch, Horse Racing, Soccer betting?
3) Look @ the situation here, manufacturing are moving out, ie less jobs, worse have to compete with foriegn talents for the jobs, so Casino island can create alot more jobs, together with the hotels and amusement park.
4) Singapore is so small, most of our tourist attraction are more of a 1 time visit is enough. Having Casino helps.
5) If one can control how frequent & how much to spend on gabling as of now (1) & (2), they should be able to control their spending when visiting the Casino.
wiki said:I think this is a rather flimsy logic though use in many cases to justify the building of the casino. The fact is that gambling can be a form of addicition and the ill effects are something that can be quite intangible and hard to manage once it goes out of hand. If the above reason are how we justify the building of casino, i think we can use the same reason to justify having a bigger red light district, or how about legalise designer drugs? Ultimately i think the reason they will go ahead with the casino is all about $$$, if they are more capable with other means of making $$$, casion won't be considered at all. Just my thoughts.
ahbeng said:Why not, if the business is lucrative enough, events like orchard sex parade is possible. Well, Singaporeans are very forgetful people, after sometime they will forget about it and start voting for the government again.