Families Against Casino Threat (facts.com.sg)
- Thread starter dkw
- Start date
- Status
I signed the petition. A gambling culture is not good for the people of any country. We must not promote such activities.
Setting up a casino sent a very strong signature of the endorsement of a vice. This is not the Singapore I want to see. Neither do I want to leave such a legacy to the future generations of Singaporeans.
I take responsibility to what I leave behind for them. To call for a collective action to achieve this is also the act of a responsible citizen. I respect the people behind FACTS - whoever you are, I salute you.
Gambling is a compulsive habit to some people. It is a disastrous habit for them. It leads to many vices that ripple through the rest of the society. People in debt can be led easily to commit undesirable acts to save themselves. Theft, embezzlement, drug pushing, prostitution and swindling - just to name a few. It also lead to family breakup and loss of productivity as well.
I am against the settling up of a casino for tourists or for Singaporeans alike.
If it bring in tourist dollars, I will be ashame of this kind of easy money that is earned.
I have many friends who share the same views as me. We are alarmed by the action of our Government to build the casino for whatever reasons. We do not feel that we are the minority.
Lets continue to go the right way that we took since independence. This is our country and our land. We must conscientiously build it up. Installing a gambling culture that will eventually be paid by the population at large - meaning a higher crime rate and a people who cannot hold their head up proudly when the word 'casino' is mentioned.
Let not Singapore be mentioned in the same breath as Las Vegas or Macau. Many people visit Singapore because it is safe and relatively vice free. Let us attract these type of tourists instead.
Lets us take up the responsibility towards our country and to support our leaders to do the right thing.
Please sign the petition. It is the right thing to do. Keep a clean conscience.
May God continue to bless the righteous nations
Setting up a casino sent a very strong signature of the endorsement of a vice. This is not the Singapore I want to see. Neither do I want to leave such a legacy to the future generations of Singaporeans.
I take responsibility to what I leave behind for them. To call for a collective action to achieve this is also the act of a responsible citizen. I respect the people behind FACTS - whoever you are, I salute you.
Gambling is a compulsive habit to some people. It is a disastrous habit for them. It leads to many vices that ripple through the rest of the society. People in debt can be led easily to commit undesirable acts to save themselves. Theft, embezzlement, drug pushing, prostitution and swindling - just to name a few. It also lead to family breakup and loss of productivity as well.
I am against the settling up of a casino for tourists or for Singaporeans alike.
If it bring in tourist dollars, I will be ashame of this kind of easy money that is earned.
I have many friends who share the same views as me. We are alarmed by the action of our Government to build the casino for whatever reasons. We do not feel that we are the minority.
Lets continue to go the right way that we took since independence. This is our country and our land. We must conscientiously build it up. Installing a gambling culture that will eventually be paid by the population at large - meaning a higher crime rate and a people who cannot hold their head up proudly when the word 'casino' is mentioned.
Let not Singapore be mentioned in the same breath as Las Vegas or Macau. Many people visit Singapore because it is safe and relatively vice free. Let us attract these type of tourists instead.
Lets us take up the responsibility towards our country and to support our leaders to do the right thing.
Please sign the petition. It is the right thing to do. Keep a clean conscience.
May God continue to bless the righteous nations
Whether to have the Casino @ singapore is not an issue.
Those rich one, no Casino in Singapore... no problem , go Gold Goast, etc..
For those budget player, go genting .. cheap cheap. play in RM some more..
lost RM$200 .. it's nothing.. b'coz it only worth less then S$100
There is no way you can stop ppl gambling...
There is no way you can force a ppl to gamble...
Let them gamble provided they use their own money.. not the money from these ppl (company/wife/husband/children/parent etc..)
If they want to gamble their life away, that is their choice. They are adult, responible to their action.
Don't blame others or other thing.
Those rich one, no Casino in Singapore... no problem , go Gold Goast, etc..
For those budget player, go genting .. cheap cheap. play in RM some more..
lost RM$200 .. it's nothing.. b'coz it only worth less then S$100
There is no way you can stop ppl gambling...
There is no way you can force a ppl to gamble...
Let them gamble provided they use their own money.. not the money from these ppl (company/wife/husband/children/parent etc..)
If they want to gamble their life away, that is their choice. They are adult, responible to their action.
Don't blame others or other thing.
the limitations of "freedom/rights" is that your rights end where mine begin. (mine as in general public or other people).
thus one cannot say you have the right to kill others (since others will surely object).
what you have is the right not to go to a casino, the right not to watch p*rn, the right not to go to a gay party, the right to choose whether or not to abort a foetus, the right to tell your "flock" not to do any of the above.
What you don't have the right to is the right to object someone else from building a casino, you don't have the right to tell others not to watch p*rn, you don't the right to tell others not to hold any party (that is ticketed), you don't have the right to make abortion illegal for others, or to prevent a casino from being built.
that fact that some of these stupid things are made illegal or barred because of the subjective morality of a minority group where it doesn't affect them personally (since they can tell their "flock" not to attend/go/do etc) is an outright erosion of the rights of others.
in otherwords, you fail to see the meddling in the house of others.
remember, you can choose not to go to a casino, you can advocate that no one goes to a casino, but you shouldn't have the right to say a casino cannot be built.
incidentally, I signed the petition against the casino though. why? because it is sheer government hypocrisy.
if you read the snowball issue in the straits times and the police press statement that it was rejected because the prevailing morality of singapore is "traditional and conservative". since a casino is also against the morality of the "traditional and conservative", its hypocritical for the government to ban a ticketed event which only gay people attend while allowing a casino to be built. so at the end of the day, its both or none.
Kho King
Senior Member
gambling is bad, but nowadays it has become part of the life for many. Just watch the Singapore Channel 8 series, buying 4D has become like part of the show and is nothing wrong! People have already used to the life with 4D.
From the statistic that I heard last year, the worse the economy, the more people gamble. 4D being the top in Singapore among others (football, horse race...)
banning casino? No comment, but I am sure with or without casino the habbit of gambling will still be there for those addicts. Having casino might get worse but without casino will definitely not help to get rid of the decease.
The government of couse will get lots of $$$ from that...and attracts tourist too (many malaysian will cross over, just imagine the amount of $$$ going into Singapore to boost the economy of Singapore...)
From the statistic that I heard last year, the worse the economy, the more people gamble. 4D being the top in Singapore among others (football, horse race...)
banning casino? No comment, but I am sure with or without casino the habbit of gambling will still be there for those addicts. Having casino might get worse but without casino will definitely not help to get rid of the decease.
The government of couse will get lots of $$$ from that...and attracts tourist too (many malaysian will cross over, just imagine the amount of $$$ going into Singapore to boost the economy of Singapore...)
I hope you can get off your moral soapbox long enough to realise that prostitution is legal in Singapore. I don't see you or this self-righteous bunch from FACT protesting Geylang.tOGGY said:
And I hate the way the people from FACT take pains to mention their children, just because they have a family suddenly makes them a moral authority or what?
Where's the petition to sign up for those who support building a casino in SG? I'll be the first one to sign it, ok, maybe 463574676478536865 people will run and sign up before me.
I don't gamble, neither will i spend a single cent in it for the rest of my life. I have already lost a couple of thousands few years back in gambling. Thinking back, gambling is stupid.
So why do I support the idea of building a casino here? Simple, if we don't build one here, singaporeans will just go to genting or some other place to gamble. Rather than letting other people earn our money, why not just build a casino here and let the citizen lose their money here. At least it will still be in Singapore.
Just look at Strike, prior to it's arrival, most people would be call up their bookie and place their bet. Gambling will take place no matter what, there's no way you can ever ban it.
~MooEy~
I don't gamble, neither will i spend a single cent in it for the rest of my life. I have already lost a couple of thousands few years back in gambling. Thinking back, gambling is stupid.
So why do I support the idea of building a casino here? Simple, if we don't build one here, singaporeans will just go to genting or some other place to gamble. Rather than letting other people earn our money, why not just build a casino here and let the citizen lose their money here. At least it will still be in Singapore.
Just look at Strike, prior to it's arrival, most people would be call up their bookie and place their bet. Gambling will take place no matter what, there's no way you can ever ban it.
~MooEy~
primal_discord
New Member
Im against Gambling.
The sole answer to this gambling debate would be these question.
Do we personally endorse gambling as value itself?
How many of us will whole heartedly encourage those beside us to take up gambling as a past time? As a recreation. More oft then not, it is in quiet agreement that we gamble.
I believe that the answer is not about how much money we can make nor the economical benefits.
Consider this, if solely for commercial purposes, then i would suggest to the government that they open up and allow personal use of marijuana, as per se in countries like Holland and Switzerland where certain coffee houses sell marijuana legally. Why not legalise pornography, where the industry revenue is 6.2billion in the US and as seen often in the netherlands where brothels are dime a dozen. We could make Singapore a Recreational Haven for drugs and a pleasure hub for south east asia, GDP would definitely rise without fail. And as a counter-point to detractors of such, let us have more education and counselling for those addicted to such vices haplessly, throwing in active dissuation of engagement of such activities as an added clause in the contracts to appease the public.
Definitely, this is a slippery slope argument. If Toto, 4D and such are already sanctioned for by the government, why not a casino too? Yes, why not enlarge the problems we already have along by sanctioning more vices? The view point of having the "lost" gambling revenues to illegal bookies has been reiterated and hammered upon so many times, why not look from the angle of vice-related problems. Such problems will definitely rise proportionally to the number of vices available, Im sure this point is agreed upon, as there were no drop in the number of addicts reported. Much less of those addicts that were never reported
Also I have never seen a non-profit casino in my life where the winning are dedicated to better uses where building of schools, public projects are the main aim of the casinos. More likely than not, they are meant for personal profit at the expense of many others.
Many of us have definitely heard stories of how gambling, drinking and other vices have already broken up families and countless lives destroyed. Yes, no matter how small the majority is, is it still families that are broken up. Families are not statistics, not a number that we should treat with indifference.
Imagine, if it were us being these statistics, I doubt we would support this gambling drive.
All counter-points are welcomed.
The sole answer to this gambling debate would be these question.
Do we personally endorse gambling as value itself?
How many of us will whole heartedly encourage those beside us to take up gambling as a past time? As a recreation. More oft then not, it is in quiet agreement that we gamble.
I believe that the answer is not about how much money we can make nor the economical benefits.
Consider this, if solely for commercial purposes, then i would suggest to the government that they open up and allow personal use of marijuana, as per se in countries like Holland and Switzerland where certain coffee houses sell marijuana legally. Why not legalise pornography, where the industry revenue is 6.2billion in the US and as seen often in the netherlands where brothels are dime a dozen. We could make Singapore a Recreational Haven for drugs and a pleasure hub for south east asia, GDP would definitely rise without fail. And as a counter-point to detractors of such, let us have more education and counselling for those addicted to such vices haplessly, throwing in active dissuation of engagement of such activities as an added clause in the contracts to appease the public.
Definitely, this is a slippery slope argument. If Toto, 4D and such are already sanctioned for by the government, why not a casino too? Yes, why not enlarge the problems we already have along by sanctioning more vices? The view point of having the "lost" gambling revenues to illegal bookies has been reiterated and hammered upon so many times, why not look from the angle of vice-related problems. Such problems will definitely rise proportionally to the number of vices available, Im sure this point is agreed upon, as there were no drop in the number of addicts reported. Much less of those addicts that were never reported
Also I have never seen a non-profit casino in my life where the winning are dedicated to better uses where building of schools, public projects are the main aim of the casinos. More likely than not, they are meant for personal profit at the expense of many others.
Many of us have definitely heard stories of how gambling, drinking and other vices have already broken up families and countless lives destroyed. Yes, no matter how small the majority is, is it still families that are broken up. Families are not statistics, not a number that we should treat with indifference.
Imagine, if it were us being these statistics, I doubt we would support this gambling drive.
All counter-points are welcomed.
loupgarou said:
Hi Chris,
I was wondering when someone would use that argument
. I prefer a different analogy. If my neighbour wants to throw a party, I don't have a right to meddle in what food he orders or who he invites. If he throws a party till 2 in the morning and has booming music throughout, I think that is an invasion of my private space as well. If his guests park indiscrimately, and throw up over the common pavement, I think I have the right to complain. The fact is, in this small 25 by 40 km island country of ours, such a development cannot fail to cause a significant ripple. It is not matter of stopping people from gambling, heck, I do a little of it myself. You can always take a cruise, take a bus to Genting or fly to LV, and I wish you luck. I just don't want this in my backyard, whatever the economic benefits.
Cheers,
while its true you cannot stop pple from gambling, I guess we shouldnt endorse it by plonking a casino right in tiny singapore.
Its like buying 'pawn' home for your kid becasue you cannot stop him from the pervasiveness of porn in this age.
ALthough something is prevalent, it doesnt naturally mean you should endorse it.
Let them continue gambling in genting or batam.
just my 2cents.
Its like buying 'pawn' home for your kid becasue you cannot stop him from the pervasiveness of porn in this age.
ALthough something is prevalent, it doesnt naturally mean you should endorse it.
Let them continue gambling in genting or batam.
just my 2cents.
oh come on , lighten up and let the goverment set up the casino here... its already written in stone man! yeah!! just think about all the jobs it will generate...the entertaintment scene will boom!!! and more jobs will be generated like policemen, councellors, pastors, gang-bangers, yeah
im all for making singapore a more colorful place, this place is already so god-damn sterile its pissing me off.....the grime of KL is far more interesting than here.....
im all for making singapore a more colorful place, this place is already so god-damn sterile its pissing me off.....the grime of KL is far more interesting than here.....
RSU said:
Prostitution is legal in Singapore. Many countries have attempted to stamp out prostitution and they have failed. The consequences is that it has helped spread STD and HIVs. I have talked to people who have contracted HIVs and STD. The emotional pain, fear and the stigma they are facing is not to be joked about. Loss of a good quality life and early demise are also their dark realities. I learned of their suffering through counselling some of these people. Some are only eighteen years old and are already HIV positive due to their promiscuity, naivity and unguided behavior.
I have also seen women forced to prostitute themselves to save themselves in the face of mounting debts and being hounded by loan sharks. This is also a reality and not a joke.
I have also a male friend who have been driven to commit suicide because of gambling debts - at the age of 33 ten years ago in the prime of his life.
I would like to humbly point out that l have not mislead anyone into thinking that prostitution is not legal in Singapore. Neither am I not aware. In my youth, I grew up in the dark surroundings of Desker Road where gambling is also a part of life.
If I have made you feel that I am standing on a moral soap box and offended you, I apologise.
I am not from FACT. However, I strongly support and endorse their acts. If you have associate me with this righeous group, I feel more than fine. I just hope that I meet up to their moral strength.
If I have strike you as a self righteous person, I sincerely apologise to you for having offended you. Sorry. It is not my intent. I am a sinner. Just that I am set free by my God who have chosen to be punished for my sins.
I have five children. I do not think having a child or family can make anyone a moral authority. On the contrary, I oftenfeel like a moral bankrupt when I failed to influence or teach them correctly.
We have a responsibility towards our children because we have chosen to give birth to them and be their parents. We have a greater responsibility towards our country because it has sheltered us and provided for us.
I am even more concern about not speaking up in the midst of a wrong turning that our country is about to make. It is wrong for luring tourists to Singapore to gamble, it is wrong luring Singapore residents as well. It is wrong for our children as well - in this order of priority. Period.
If the righteous people sign the petition, it will have no power because there are no such people. If unrighteous sign the petition - me inclusive - then nothing can stop the power that is going to be unleashed. The casino will not be build - may this be the heavens will.
Very interesting discussion. Let me preface my post by saying that I don't gamble, nor do I approve of most "vices" as the term is generally understood to mean.
Dkw makes several points in his initial post. One about the fact that there is a vulnerable minority at risk. Just the way he's phrased his response just rings democratic alarm bells. Democracy survives on a presumption that the majority decides on issues, although I entirely agree that the majority has a right and a responsibility to consider all angles, including that of the vulnerable minority. But if the majority want something (or if the government the majority of the population have voted into power want something - so think the next time before you vote), that's the premise on which democracy is founded.
Regarding the moral argument versus personal responsibility argument, I think there are several facets to consider. Firstly, personal responsibility is where the buck stops. Personal responsibility keeps you socially responsible. Personal responsibility stops you from gambling, visiting prostitutes, etc. Ultimately you'll end up a disciplinarian and authoritarian state if everything depends upon the state's control. People must be responsible for their own actions, whether they gamble, smoke, drink, whatever. Either that or the state bans gambling, smoking and drinking, possibly even sex outside of marriage between consenting adults. That system can never work, and ultimately you have to concede that people must be responsible for their own actions.
Quite interestingly, I was reading a fictional, mainstream trashy novel about smoking and the tobacco industry (Smoke Screen). It actually raises some pertinent issues for its genre. Can the government or the tobacco industry be held responsible for smoking related deaths, because they continue to tolerate cigarettes and not ban them? Either you accept that people must be responsible for their own actions, or the tobacco industry is murdering millions of people a year around the world. (Or whatever the true figure is.)
Dkw's response to the freedom of choice argument. Yes you are certainly free to choose not to have a casino, as is everyone else who feels that way. But the person next to you also has the right to choose to have one. And ultimately if the government decide that the majority of the public want one (or do not object to one) then they can allow one to be built. You might, or might not, have elected them to office. If you had, you are as much to blame as they are. Change your vote come the next election if you feel they are not making the right decisions in running the country. Don't sign online petitions and do nothing come the next election.
Certainly Hongsien makes good points about eduction. That old analogy about giving a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for life. Which leads back to personal responsibility.
I'm also not sure about Dkw's response to the majority is always right argument. And to be clear, I am not saying the majority are always right - but that it is the majority's decision to make. The world is not flat because the majority were wrong, it was flat because the majority of the time took the word of the minority of the time that the world was flat. What if today we took the word of the minority of the time that Singapore shouldn't have a casino and it proves to be the wrong decision?
Both Dkw and others like tOGGY have raised points about it being an endorsement of vice. And others have responded that it is no different from smoking and alcohol and gambling. What worries me at this point is that neither Dkw nor tOGGY have done anything to address this point. Why ban just gambling? Why single it out? Alcohol ruins families, reduces productivity at work, can be a widespread social nuisance. We already have legalised gambling on horses and football. Smoking kills. Let me emphasise just how grave that is. Smoking KILLS. Unfortunately it kills not just the smoker, but the people around him. And that bugs me. As far as I'm concerned you want to kill yourself you go right ahead, but when it means you are taking me out with you, I draw the line. As a result, I'm not against smoking per se - you want to smoke in your home that's fine. You ask me permission to smoke in my presence and I give it, that's fine. But to smoke in an enclosed space or within close proximity to others whom you have no sought permission to reduce their lifespan/well being... that infringes on my rights as an individual.
Yes gambling is a compulsive habit. So is gambling on horses, buying the lottery. We already have both. Smoking is addictive, we have that too. Alcohol is also potentially addictive, we have that as well. So using addictiveness as an excuse to ban casino gambling just doesn't wash.
By banning something you drive it underground. Where it is far more difficult to regulate, both in terms of who gets hooked, and the service providers. Look at what the government has done with prostitution. Legalise it, license it, keep STIs in check, help curb more dangerous illegal prostituion. You're never going to stop gambling from going underground; illegal bookies, just regular groups of friends meeting each other on a weekly basis, etc.
Another argument raised in that novel I read is, you ban something, and sometimes you make it so much more appealing. A big factor in teen smoking is simply because it is against regulations and therefore illegal and cool. Make it legal, it loses its appeal. I live in a country, that while not quite Las Vegas (although new legislation is threatening that), has casinos, etc. I've not once stepped in one. On the other hand when I was much younger and on a family holiday, I remember we tried to go into a casino just because we'd never seen one. I was too young to go in so I never did. So I've still never been to a casino nor do I care for it. But the point being that the lure was there simply because it was novel and prohibited - whereas these days I don't care about it because it's down the road.
Speaking of age limits. All those age arguments don't address the fact that casinos have age limits. On the other hand, gambling with cards can happen at any secondary or, dare I say it, primary school up and down the country.
With regards to Primal Discord's points that there can be no casinos that are not for personal gain on the operator's behalf, certainly that is generally true. But the national lottery system is a good example of what can be achieve, either in Sg or the UK. In the UK the scheme helps charities, funding for sports and arts development, and yes it is non-profit. Depending on how the government runs it, the single casino could well be used to generate profits for the country. But last I checked we were still running up a budget surplus rather than a deficit, so my recommendation is that the government spends more on us first before trying to make more money on top of what it already hasn't used.
Dkw's argument, "If my neighbour wants to throw a party, I don't have a right to meddle in what food he orders or who he invites. If he throws a party till 2 in the morning and has booming music throughout, I think that is an invasion of my private space as well. If his guests park indiscrimately, and throw up over the common pavement, I think I have the right to complain." And I entirely agree with what he's saying. But that gets very dangerous as I said above. How does that affect smoking? Why is smoking legal? Operating a legal casino means the government could make an effort to control things - maximum bets, maximum loses, providing counciling through being able to keep track of people with problems, etc. I'm not saying they will do so, but they could, and they might. But what about the underground gambling? No regulation, no control.
Come to think of it, why in the world do we ban porn anyway? Since the topic has been brought up numerous times in this thread. Come on folks. Who while going through school in Singapore has never come across it? The fact that it is illegal just makes it all the more exciting. Over here you see things all the time, you get deadened to it - which is not necessarily a good thing. But the fact that there's no cloak and dagger routine makes it that much less exciting. What is the problem with porn - the actual images, or the perving over it? Well making it legal seriously starts to erode the perving value of images for starters.
And I don't know how online casinos operate but I would be surprised if they cannot be accessed from Singapore. Trying to ban a casino to protect the rights of the vulnerable minority, while laudable, is akin to banning useage of the Internet because of the presence of a minority of sites (although that might not quite be true!) that offer porn, gambling, etc. It comes back down to personal responsibility, and education.
Don't get me wrong. Like I said I don't gamble, I don't smoke, and while I have the occasional drink I don't drink to get drunk. Personally I don't care if the casino goes up or not, althought if pushed to give a definitive answer I'd not build one if there wasn't already one there. But what worries me is that the arguments for banning the casino do themselves a disservice, and do not in any way separate the arguments against a casino from the arguments against any of the other vices already legal in Singapore. And by not doing so, they lose their credibility for singling out something from a collective whole.
Dkw makes several points in his initial post. One about the fact that there is a vulnerable minority at risk. Just the way he's phrased his response just rings democratic alarm bells. Democracy survives on a presumption that the majority decides on issues, although I entirely agree that the majority has a right and a responsibility to consider all angles, including that of the vulnerable minority. But if the majority want something (or if the government the majority of the population have voted into power want something - so think the next time before you vote), that's the premise on which democracy is founded.
Regarding the moral argument versus personal responsibility argument, I think there are several facets to consider. Firstly, personal responsibility is where the buck stops. Personal responsibility keeps you socially responsible. Personal responsibility stops you from gambling, visiting prostitutes, etc. Ultimately you'll end up a disciplinarian and authoritarian state if everything depends upon the state's control. People must be responsible for their own actions, whether they gamble, smoke, drink, whatever. Either that or the state bans gambling, smoking and drinking, possibly even sex outside of marriage between consenting adults. That system can never work, and ultimately you have to concede that people must be responsible for their own actions.
Quite interestingly, I was reading a fictional, mainstream trashy novel about smoking and the tobacco industry (Smoke Screen). It actually raises some pertinent issues for its genre. Can the government or the tobacco industry be held responsible for smoking related deaths, because they continue to tolerate cigarettes and not ban them? Either you accept that people must be responsible for their own actions, or the tobacco industry is murdering millions of people a year around the world. (Or whatever the true figure is.)
Dkw's response to the freedom of choice argument. Yes you are certainly free to choose not to have a casino, as is everyone else who feels that way. But the person next to you also has the right to choose to have one. And ultimately if the government decide that the majority of the public want one (or do not object to one) then they can allow one to be built. You might, or might not, have elected them to office. If you had, you are as much to blame as they are. Change your vote come the next election if you feel they are not making the right decisions in running the country. Don't sign online petitions and do nothing come the next election.
Certainly Hongsien makes good points about eduction. That old analogy about giving a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for life. Which leads back to personal responsibility.
I'm also not sure about Dkw's response to the majority is always right argument. And to be clear, I am not saying the majority are always right - but that it is the majority's decision to make. The world is not flat because the majority were wrong, it was flat because the majority of the time took the word of the minority of the time that the world was flat. What if today we took the word of the minority of the time that Singapore shouldn't have a casino and it proves to be the wrong decision?
Both Dkw and others like tOGGY have raised points about it being an endorsement of vice. And others have responded that it is no different from smoking and alcohol and gambling. What worries me at this point is that neither Dkw nor tOGGY have done anything to address this point. Why ban just gambling? Why single it out? Alcohol ruins families, reduces productivity at work, can be a widespread social nuisance. We already have legalised gambling on horses and football. Smoking kills. Let me emphasise just how grave that is. Smoking KILLS. Unfortunately it kills not just the smoker, but the people around him. And that bugs me. As far as I'm concerned you want to kill yourself you go right ahead, but when it means you are taking me out with you, I draw the line. As a result, I'm not against smoking per se - you want to smoke in your home that's fine. You ask me permission to smoke in my presence and I give it, that's fine. But to smoke in an enclosed space or within close proximity to others whom you have no sought permission to reduce their lifespan/well being... that infringes on my rights as an individual.
Yes gambling is a compulsive habit. So is gambling on horses, buying the lottery. We already have both. Smoking is addictive, we have that too. Alcohol is also potentially addictive, we have that as well. So using addictiveness as an excuse to ban casino gambling just doesn't wash.
By banning something you drive it underground. Where it is far more difficult to regulate, both in terms of who gets hooked, and the service providers. Look at what the government has done with prostitution. Legalise it, license it, keep STIs in check, help curb more dangerous illegal prostituion. You're never going to stop gambling from going underground; illegal bookies, just regular groups of friends meeting each other on a weekly basis, etc.
Another argument raised in that novel I read is, you ban something, and sometimes you make it so much more appealing. A big factor in teen smoking is simply because it is against regulations and therefore illegal and cool. Make it legal, it loses its appeal. I live in a country, that while not quite Las Vegas (although new legislation is threatening that), has casinos, etc. I've not once stepped in one. On the other hand when I was much younger and on a family holiday, I remember we tried to go into a casino just because we'd never seen one. I was too young to go in so I never did. So I've still never been to a casino nor do I care for it. But the point being that the lure was there simply because it was novel and prohibited - whereas these days I don't care about it because it's down the road.
Speaking of age limits. All those age arguments don't address the fact that casinos have age limits. On the other hand, gambling with cards can happen at any secondary or, dare I say it, primary school up and down the country.
With regards to Primal Discord's points that there can be no casinos that are not for personal gain on the operator's behalf, certainly that is generally true. But the national lottery system is a good example of what can be achieve, either in Sg or the UK. In the UK the scheme helps charities, funding for sports and arts development, and yes it is non-profit. Depending on how the government runs it, the single casino could well be used to generate profits for the country. But last I checked we were still running up a budget surplus rather than a deficit, so my recommendation is that the government spends more on us first before trying to make more money on top of what it already hasn't used.
Dkw's argument, "If my neighbour wants to throw a party, I don't have a right to meddle in what food he orders or who he invites. If he throws a party till 2 in the morning and has booming music throughout, I think that is an invasion of my private space as well. If his guests park indiscrimately, and throw up over the common pavement, I think I have the right to complain." And I entirely agree with what he's saying. But that gets very dangerous as I said above. How does that affect smoking? Why is smoking legal? Operating a legal casino means the government could make an effort to control things - maximum bets, maximum loses, providing counciling through being able to keep track of people with problems, etc. I'm not saying they will do so, but they could, and they might. But what about the underground gambling? No regulation, no control.
Come to think of it, why in the world do we ban porn anyway? Since the topic has been brought up numerous times in this thread. Come on folks. Who while going through school in Singapore has never come across it? The fact that it is illegal just makes it all the more exciting. Over here you see things all the time, you get deadened to it - which is not necessarily a good thing. But the fact that there's no cloak and dagger routine makes it that much less exciting. What is the problem with porn - the actual images, or the perving over it? Well making it legal seriously starts to erode the perving value of images for starters.
And I don't know how online casinos operate but I would be surprised if they cannot be accessed from Singapore. Trying to ban a casino to protect the rights of the vulnerable minority, while laudable, is akin to banning useage of the Internet because of the presence of a minority of sites (although that might not quite be true!) that offer porn, gambling, etc. It comes back down to personal responsibility, and education.
Don't get me wrong. Like I said I don't gamble, I don't smoke, and while I have the occasional drink I don't drink to get drunk. Personally I don't care if the casino goes up or not, althought if pushed to give a definitive answer I'd not build one if there wasn't already one there. But what worries me is that the arguments for banning the casino do themselves a disservice, and do not in any way separate the arguments against a casino from the arguments against any of the other vices already legal in Singapore. And by not doing so, they lose their credibility for singling out something from a collective whole.
Even though I'm not married and don't have kids, I've signed the petition. I wanted to raise 2 points in addition to the many points other people have brought up against it.
Firstly, I think having a casino here is a copycat move. The arguments for it are based along the lines of "since the neighbouring countries have it or are hopping on the casino bandwagon, we should also do so to stem the flow of outgoing money lost to gambling". This is such a 'kiasu' mentality and so typically Singaporean. It makes the government, which is actively trying to promote innovation, entreprenuership and self-dependence, look 2-faced.
Secondly, I'm quite sure that while more jobs will be created for Singaporeans as a whole, we are looking at it from an incomplete and short-term view. To the families that lose their breadwinner to gambling addiction, I don't think this is job creation but the direct opposite.
So we will keep the money in Singapore, but much of that money will be used to combat the social issues that are attendent with a gambling culture. In the end, to me it just looks silly. What's the point why we should bring in a casino (and all its related negatives) to keep the money in so that we can use that same money to tackle the related negatives?
Firstly, I think having a casino here is a copycat move. The arguments for it are based along the lines of "since the neighbouring countries have it or are hopping on the casino bandwagon, we should also do so to stem the flow of outgoing money lost to gambling". This is such a 'kiasu' mentality and so typically Singaporean. It makes the government, which is actively trying to promote innovation, entreprenuership and self-dependence, look 2-faced.
Secondly, I'm quite sure that while more jobs will be created for Singaporeans as a whole, we are looking at it from an incomplete and short-term view. To the families that lose their breadwinner to gambling addiction, I don't think this is job creation but the direct opposite.
So we will keep the money in Singapore, but much of that money will be used to combat the social issues that are attendent with a gambling culture. In the end, to me it just looks silly. What's the point why we should bring in a casino (and all its related negatives) to keep the money in so that we can use that same money to tackle the related negatives?
poohbear
Senior Member
no matter how we are dicussing this issue here , people still gamble , be it in singapore (4D , toto , horse racing ) or aboard ( Genting , Batam , blah blah blah .... this list can go on forever ) . So face it , it's either ban it and force it underground , or legalised it and regulate it . Sometimes , it just makes me wonder if the singaporeans are too protective over trival issue. If anyone worries about the social impact on their kids, so be it. But i rather have my kids be expose to this kind of 'issue' than to be protective over it. Learn to be more streetwise.
typical example... , parents are too protective about theirs kids when they are young and not letting them touch any insects , instilling an idea to them that they are some fearsome and dirty insects. When they grow up , (this is funny) they will 'siam' at the very sight of any cockroach, lizard and other unknown insect, not even dare to touch them. Can imagine that a grown up male doing that ...... this is so pathetic :cry: ..... Being too protective may sometimes backfire too .
My point of view regarding this issue , simple .... let the economy decide what's best. If it can bring in extra tourist and boost economy , why not.
It's up to individual to decide for themselves, and parents to educate their kids.
typical example... , parents are too protective about theirs kids when they are young and not letting them touch any insects , instilling an idea to them that they are some fearsome and dirty insects. When they grow up , (this is funny) they will 'siam' at the very sight of any cockroach, lizard and other unknown insect, not even dare to touch them. Can imagine that a grown up male doing that ...... this is so pathetic :cry: ..... Being too protective may sometimes backfire too .
My point of view regarding this issue , simple .... let the economy decide what's best. If it can bring in extra tourist and boost economy , why not.
It's up to individual to decide for themselves, and parents to educate their kids.
- Status
Similar threads
