| |
The
Straits Times, The Forum Page, 15 Dec 04
The
Casino Debate
Can S'pore tackle massive addiction?
A MAJOR argument for the establishment of a casino in Singapore is
that we already have several forms of gambling, so a casino will not
change anything. However, legalised gambling in a casino cannot be
compared to current forms of legalised gambling due to the difference
in the time-frame of gratification, from the placing of a bet to the
settling of the bet. In the case of a Singapore Sweep lottery ticket,
it takes from a few days to a few weeks from the buying of the ticket
to the release of the results - and gratification of the gambling.
Buying 4-D or Toto takes from a few hours to a few days to achieve
gratification. Would it be a surprise if I tell you that research
shows that the shorter the time to gratification, the higher the chance
of addiction? Hence, there are more people addicted to 4-D and Toto
than there are those addicted to Singapore Sweep. Now imagine the
time-frame shortened by an order of magnitude in a casino. From the
time a gambler places a bet to the time the bet is settled, gratification
occurs in mere seconds. Indeed, for jackpot machines, the timeframe
may even be in milliseconds. You can place more than one million bets
in a casino in the time taken to settle one Singapore Sweep lottery-ticket
bet. With that short a time-frame to gratification, a casino will
cause a massive increase in gambling addiction. Thus, gambling in
a casino is significantly different from current legalised gambling
in Singapore. If we ignore the moral and economic aspects of the casino
issue, it boils down to this: 'Is Singapore prepared for the massive
increase in gambling addiction that will come with the setting up
of a casino?'
Thomas Sim Wai Tat (Dr)
Bet on a world-class theme park instead
THE article, 'HK banking on Disney magic' (ST, Dec 6), reported that
the new Disney theme park in Hong Kong has already created 11,400
jobs during construction and will create a further 18,000 jobs in
subsequent phases. Up to 35,800 new jobs are expected to be created
over 20 years. In comparison, the opening of a casino in Singapore
will likely create only 4,000 jobs. Is this not an obvious enough
answer to the hotly debated casino issue? Why build a casino to create
only 4,000 jobs and breed all the attendant social ills when we should
be working towards having, say, a Universal Studios theme park in
Sentosa? While it may be true that we cannot use the Disney project
in Hong Kong to project the benefits for Singapore as there are differences
between the two places, we do not need a rocket scientist to figure
out that a theme park is just as good a tourist attraction as any
giant entertainment-cum-casino resort.
Yong Yoke Teck
CAO and the CAsinO
I WONDER if anyone sees a similarity between the recent debacle involving
China Aviation Oil (CAO) and the proposed CAsinO. For CAO to lose
US$550 million (S$913 million) from derivatives trading it must have
doubled its stake each time the result turned against it. When the
crude-oil price was US$35, it must have sold short. Then when the
price rose to US$40, it must have doubled its short contract until
the price rose to US$55 and it had to give up because it was unable
to sustain the losses. These transactions were all carried out by
mature people in CAO. Doesn't this sound familiar? A punter goes to
the roulette table and places $100 on the colour red. The result is
black. He doubles his stake to $200 on red. The result again is black.
Again, he doubles the stake and, like CAO, the table is against him
and red never appears in 20 or more spins, by which time he has already
exhausted all his money. CAO gambled on the oil price and lost, and
kept the loss to itself, causing a lot of unhappiness to poor Singapore
shareholders. The casino gambler does the same thing, and keeps the
loss from his family, which will eventually be totally ruined. Fortunately,
CAO is only one company and the loss is probably borne by those who
can bear it. In the case of a casino, many families will be involved
and most of them may not be able to bear the loss.
Ong Tiong Meng
|
|
