Casino & Social Impact

Sad Stories

I just had coffee with a friend and I was surprised that he started to talk about "Social Problems" to me.

He said that the impact of the Casinos is starting to set in and it is getting worse. I was surprised that he would talk about this because he was never a critic of the Casinos which PAP has built.

He told me that one of his friend who was the brightest kid in his kampung and attended RI in his younger days, has fallen to Problem Gambling after he went to the two Casinos to gamble. He was the Head of Department of a Secondary School but lost his job due to problem gambling and heavily indebted to loan sharks. He fell into depression while his wife threatens to divorce him.

He also know of other cases of Singaporeans fallen prey to problem gambling, like successful businessman who eventually accumulated huge debts due to Problem Gambling.

I told him that he is part of the problem and "has blood in his hands". When PAP decided to build the two Casinos back in 2005, masqueraded them as "Integrated Resorts", he didn't oppose it.

I have put up strong opponent and objections to the Casinos way back then but all these fell on deaf years. PAP still won decisively in GE 2006 and eventually the two casinos went ahead.

I told him that ever since the Casinos were built, numerous families were broken up due to Problem Gambling. It is not merely those gamblers who will face the onslaught but their family members around them would also face the negativity of it.

PAP didn't dare to publish suicide rates and do analysis on the reasons of suicides in the past few years. The truth is, many of victims took their own lives due to Problem Gambling.

Of course, majority of Singaporeans, even when they have heard of these cases of Problem Gambling, have chosen to ignore the problems by brushing it aside as some "other people's problems" until the problems creep up to their doorstep.

Singaporeans have to get rid of their selfish mindset and take a more altruistic social approach in viewing issues like Casinos, police having too much power, building of nuclear plant, TPP and such. They should be more concerned about issues or policies which will affect the Nation and their society.

Else, there will be irreversible consequences which will not only affect them but their future generations.

Goh Meng Seng

Casino levy to be RAISED after the elections?

Yesterday, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan released some startling statistics. According to media reports, more 1 million visits to the casino have been made by Singaporeans in the past 7 months.

Based on these numbers, it is obvious that the bulk of the record profits reported by the casinos are being earned from Singaporeans rather than foreigners.

As an immediate stop gap measure, the Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) has issued directives to stop the casino from engaging in activities that encourage Singaporeans to visit the casinos. These include free shuttle rides to the casinos and media releases that showcase big winnings by gamblers.

In the longer run, it is obvious that these stop gap measures will have only a limited impact . There are more than 1 million visits to the casino in the past 7 months are made by Singaporeans. It appears the exiting levy ($100 per 24 hours and $2000 per year) is NOT having the desired effect of deterring Singaporeans from visiting the casino.

WILL THE LEVY BE RAISED AFTER THE ELECTIONS ARE OVER?

If there are no plans to raise the levy, Minister Balakrishnan should state this clearly.

If the number of Singaporean gamblers continues to surge and we start seeing a large number of broken families due to problem gambling, we can then hold Minister Balakrishnan accountable for having failed to manage the social problems of the casinos.

I am also interested to know some of the unpublished figures to determine the extend of the impact of Casinos on Singaporeans:

1) What is the total number of visits by foreigners to the casinos within the same period of time? This figure is important for us to assess on whether these casinos are “successful” in attracting MORE foreigners than Singaporeans. The KPI for this success is for every local Singaporean patrons, the casinos should attract 4 foreign patrons (20-80 ratio).

2) I would like to know the number of Singaporean who have signed up the $2000 yearly membership. On top of that, I also want to know the breakdown of the number of visits by Singaporeans, including those holding the $2000 membership. Eg. How many visited the Casino only once in the 7 months. How many visited twice, three times, four times…. etc. This is to determine the social impact of the Casinos on Singaporeans.

I believe MCYS has all these data and it is time to do a review on the casinos.

There are still problems of Casinos providing rolling credits (Casino operators basically turn into money lenders!) and not stating clearly the odds of each different games. But I guess we will have to do it one at a time as it seems that Minister Balakrishnan may not be able to cope with too many things simultaneously.

Goh Meng Seng

Broken promises of Casino?

I have wanted to write about this issue earlier but couldn't get the appropriate "evidence" in time. But it seems that the PAP has taken a step faster than me this time round.

When PAP decided to build these two Casino Resorts (yes, I refuse to fool my readers on the true nature of these resorts by calling them "Integrated Resorts"), they have declared openly that these Casino Reports' primary targets are foreigners/tourists.

However, it seems that Casino operators do not agree with the government at all. This brochure from Resort World is distributed ALL ROUND ISLAND. It provides shuttle bus schedules which covers North South East West and Central.



If we take a good look inside this brochure, we will find a total of 19 pick up points all over Singapore being served by this FREE SHUTTLE BUS service. There are two full pages of DETAILED schedule:



Some may think that there is nothing wrong for Resort World to provide free shuttle service for Singaporeans who want to visit the Universal Studio. But wait, take a closer look at the time scheduled. On normal weekdays, the last bus leaving from most "terminal" bus stop is at 10pm while returning shuttle bus service also ends at about 10pm. However, during week days, the Universal Studio closes at 7pm!

During weekends or public holidays, the timing is even more absurd: last shuttle bus ends at 12am in some places while others ends after 2am! So who do these FREE SHUTTLE BUSES serve? Apparently, only the Casino operates 24 hours!



The above are all documented evidences I have gathered. Marina Sands also provides Free Shuttle Service but I do not have the details. But Sands has the advantage of situated right next to the MRT station.

It is obvious that the Free Shuttle Bus service is aimed at local Casino patrons. Resort World seems to take the fastest step to "rectify" the situation by declaring that all Free Shuttle Bus service to the heartlands will stop with immediate effect. Is this a sign of self confession even before MCYS completes its "investigation"?

Well, does the fault lies only on the Casino operator?

It is unimaginable that the authority didn't know about all these scheduled free shuttle bus services at all. First of all, license needs to be issued to these buses to ferry the public. To run such scheduled service round island at different intervals, it will need at least 10 buses for these 5 zones. Did LTA know about such service?

The Free Shuttle Bus service has been running for quite a few months. (I first heard about it in May.) Brochures have been distributed island wide. There is even signboard tied on lamp posts at the respective pick up point!
Photo from Channel News Asia Website

How could such an extensive operations escape the ears and eyes of this government? It actually takes months to react to it?

I am not too sure how the new law created specially for governing Casino operators say about those operators who breach rules on marketing the Casino to local patrons. But I think it is important for the PAP to keep up to its words that these two Casino Resorts are marketing aggressively to local population.

This Free Shuttle Bus service is just the tip of the iceberg. I was told that personalized letters to individuals have been sent to market the Casino. I was even told that credit card holders or some VIPs were given special privileges for visiting the Casino. Are they allowed to do all these local marketing?

Casino gambling is a vice, no matter what. While we ban advertising for things like cigarettes, why should such vice be allowed to be marketed to the people? Besides, PAP has reiterated that such Casino Resorts are meant for Foreigners and Tourists but it seems that this is not the case at all!

I am a staunch Anti-Casino person. I have delivered a speech back in 5 March 2005 to reason why Casino is bad for Singapore. The PAP has claimed that the successful casino in the world has 80% foreign patrons with only 20% local gamblers. But in Singapore, we have seen that the gamblers in casino here consists of 60% of local gamblers! But yet, they are still marketing the casino to local population!

Apparently, the Casinos have broken their promise of focusing on foreign gamblers. They are not keeping to their own term of success, attracting 80% of foreigners but instead, concentrating on marketing to local population!

The other area of problem is the huge amount of credits that the casino operators could grant to its patrons. We just realize that one Singapore businessman has lost $26milloin to the Casino. This is mainly because the Casino is all willing to grant credit to this man, almost unlimited credit.

I was told that as long as you could put up a $50k deposits, you could possibly get credit terms from the Casino!

My question is this, do Casino operators have any finance license to grant such big loans to its patrons? Are the present laws adequate to cope with such extensive loans or credits given by the Casinos? If Casino is allowed to grant such huge amount of loans/credits to its patrons, then it is apparent that it will become a big money lender as well! Shouldn't it be made to abide to existing finance law?

Most importantly, will PAP do something about it?

Goh Meng Seng

Singaporeans have lowest priority in HDB's rental flat policy?

It is really frustrating to read the following news in bold below.

We keep reading about families, along with their kids sleeping off the streets just because of financial difficulties that forced them to give up their HDB flats. We have a government that told them to go and live with their relatives or friends or wait for at least 6 months before they could get a rental flat from HDB. Eventually some of them are living off the streets or even camp along beaches.

But here, we have another "FIRST CLASS TREATMENT" by our government to foreign workers working for the Casino resorts! After vacating Singaporeans from their flats in Toa Payoh for the excuse of redevelopment, HDB ended up renting the whole two blocks of flats to these foreign workers at cheap prices with full furnishing which include air-conditioners! Have we become second or even third class citizens in our very own land?

Why should the government through HDB, rented out flats which utilizes CHEAP lands acquired from Singaporeans via the Land Acquisition Act to Foreign Workers? Is the government more responsible towards Foreign Workers and their Foreign Employers than Singaporeans?

During this period, there is an acute shortage of new HDB flats which is caused by HDB ill-planning. And yet, this land which supposedly to be used for redevelopment into new flats for Singaporeans have been used to house foreigners?

I really wonder why the Casino Resorts are employing so many FOREIGNERS when PAP has asserted that the Casino Resorts will create more jobs for Singaporeans! If the Casino Resort operators are determined to employ so many foreigners (about 1500 to be housed in these two flats) to run their operation, isn't it their responsibility to find appropriate accommodation for their employees instead of encroaching into Singaporeans' HDB flats? The Casino Resort operators should build their own Hostels for their foreign employees instead!

The question is that even if their foreign employees want to rent any flats, they should do so from Singaporeans instead of direct from HDB! HDB's job is to take care of Singaporeans' housing interests and needs FIRST! This is why HDB are not selling any flats directly to any Foreigners. The irony is that if HDB is so STINGY and STRICT about renting any flats to Singaporeans, why should it be renting any flats to FOREIGNERS?

There are really a lot of questions the Minister in charge of National Development need to answer!

Goh Meng Seng

Dec 18, 2009
HDB flats for IR workers
By Tessa Wong

Two blocks of Housing Board flats in Toa Payoh have been converted into worker dorms for foreign employees of integrated resort Resorts World at Sentosa.



TWO blocks of Housing Board flats in Toa Payoh have been converted into worker dorms for foreign employees of integrated resort Resorts World at Sentosa.

Blocks 32 and 33 on Toa Payoh Lorong 6 were pending redevelopment until a few months ago, when Resorts World croupiers, hotel service staff and casino pit supervisors started moving in. It is estimated there are more than 300 units in the two blocks. Each flat houses four to six workers, who pay monthly rents ranging from $140 to $260 each.

On the lease tenure, the Housing Board would only say it is a private short-term arrangement between Resorts World and managing agent EM Services. Resorts World said it is providing accommodation for foreign employees 'to help reduce their stress and anxiety of relocating overseas' and to ensure they enjoy a similar lifestyle to their Singaporean staff.

When the Straits Times visited the blocks on Friday, the Toa Payoh flats looked clean with fresh coats of paint. Tenants said the flats come with basic furniture such as dining tables and beds, as well as appliances like washing machines and fridges. The bedrooms are also air-conditioned.

Many found the accommodation comfortable, and the central location convenient. They each pay about $100 per month for a daily return bus service that ferries them between home and Sentosa.

Most of the local residents interviewed said they did not mind the workers.

The Victory of Anti-Casino Movement in Taiwan

Taiwanese in Peng Hu has voted against the building of Casino Resorts on Saturday, 26 September 2009. It is a great victory for people around the world who are against Casino gambling.

This world has too much greed going around and greed has just created a big mess in the finance industry resulting a world wide economic slow down and recession. Greed may be part of the human tools in making the free market possible but uncontrolled greed will be devastating to the whole system and societies.


Photo from China Times


It is just too bad that Singaporeans have allowed PAP to monopolize power and do whatever they want without proper consultation from the people. We are walking into an era of unknown social impact brought by the Casino Resorts which will be due by 2010. I could foresee that the PAP government would most probably waive the $100 entry fee for Singaporeans in order to save these multi-billion projects if revenue does not meet their initial expectations.

The very same excuse used by governments all over the world in saving banks and financial institutions which were at the brink of their collapse would be invoked, "they are just too big to fail". We will be held hostage by the two casino resorts if they fail and we could even envisage that taxpayers money would be used to bail them out if necessary.

The Taiwanese Anti-Casino victory may send a strong signal to the world that ultra-capitalism may not have its way if proper democratic process is being installed. However, it would mean little to Singaporeans as we are after all a small country with power monopolized by a single ruling party. Singapore may just become the Sin City of Southeast Asia basically because we lack the democratic means to decide whether we would allow ultra-capitalism like building Casino Resorts to take us on.

Goh Meng Seng

The Contrast of Democracy and ill-Democracy

Taiwan is holding its first ever referendum in Peng Hu over the issue of building casino resort.

In contrast with Singapore's PAP government's handling of such controversial issue of building Casino resorts, the Taiwanese has shown much more respect of popular will in deciding such decisions.

The main reason given by PAP is that they have the "mandate" by the people who have given them overwhelming support in past elections. Thus, they do not see the need of seeking referendum over such controversial issue. But we have to remember the fact that more than half of PAP's seats are uncontested seats. i.e. these MPs and Ministers did not get a single votes to walk into parliament. Yes, this is partly due to the weakness of Singapore opposition parties but the fact still remains, they did not earn their votes and mandate to represent Singaporeans at large in deciding on such controversial issue.

My wish is to have ALL seats contested by opposition but it seems that this is hard to be fulfilled in the next elections. Nevertheless, I hope that Singaporeans that have the chance to cast their votes next elections have to think carefully about the impact of giving PAP overwhelming dominance in the parliament. They would have the power to do whatever they want in parliament. Such unchecked powers is dangerous for Singapore. It has proven in the past that such monopoly of power has resulted in a few controversial and wrong policies made, eg. Two is Enough policy, Asset Enhancement...etc.

Vote wisely because if all of us don't vote wisely, more controversial decisions would be bulldozed by PAP without taking citizens' voice into account.

Goh Meng Seng

Las Vegas Sands to detail plans next week

The following article by Associate Press has revealed an interesting point: It seems that Singapore government has agreed to allow Sands to increase the number of gaming tables from 600 to 1000!

This may be just a "SMALL" information to other people around the world but to me, THIS IS A BIG DEAL! PAP government has persuaded Singaporeans to accept the building of the two Casino resorts by assuring us that the presence of these two casino resorts will not have great social impact on Singapore. Two of the key points are the limitation of the size of the Casinos within the whole resort and the implementation of the $100 entrance fee for Singapore citizens.

Now it seems to me that PAP government has agreed to increase the size of the casino in Marina Sands after having that talk with LV Sands! I think it is only right for us to demand the PAP government to come clean with it: WHAT HAS THE PAP GOVERNMENT AGREED TO COMPROMISE TO SANDS in that talk just a couple of weeks ago? A whopping 66% increase in the number of gaming tables could not be possibly squeezed into the original size of the planned casino (fixed at 3% of the whole Casino project)! This must be accommodated by the increase in the size of the casino itself!

Besides, increasing the number of gaming tables isn't going to help if the global economic situation does not have the ability to provide the number of global visitors needed to fill up the casino in there. So what's next? To waive that $100 entrance fees by Singaporeans?

What is this all about? To get the Casino Resort built AT ALL COST? ALL COST that includes SOCIAL COST?

Goh Meng Seng

Person: Las Vegas Sands to detail plans next week

By RYAN NAKASHIMA
AP Business Writer
Advertisement

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Casino giant Las Vegas Sands Corp. will detail its plans to handle its debt crisis early next week, according to a person close to the company, a development that may ease bankruptcy worries and could include another capital infusion by billionaire founder Sheldon Adelson.

The person did not elaborate and requested anonymity because the plan had not been finalized.

The company told the Securities and Exchange Commission in a filing Thursday that it may violate promises it made to lenders and default on $3.8 billion in debt Dec. 31 if its operating earnings this calendar year don't equal at least 13 percent of net debt, which subtracts cash on hand. The debt at issue is a credit facility secured by the company's Palazzo and Venetian casinos in Las Vegas and an attached mall and convention building.

A default could set off the company's collapse.

Las Vegas Sands said it has four options: It could boost earnings in Las Vegas, which likely would require big cost cuts and might result in layoffs. Or the parent company could cut spending on development around the world, raise financing to reduce the debt of the Las Vegas operations or contribute up to $50 million in capital to the Vegas operations, or a combination of all four.

As of December 2007, the company had $9.21 billion in long-term debt.

The company has an ace in the hole in the form of deep-pocketed founder and chief executive Adelson, 75, who with his wife Miriam Adelson, controls 67 percent of the company's shares.

In March 2006, Adelson raised $2.18 billion in cash by selling 180.8 million shares at $49.14 each. The Adelsons personally loaned the company $475 million this fall to avoid a funding crunch, and it is unclear how much cash the couple has left.

In an October interview with The Associated Press, Adelson said Las Vegas Sands was looking to raise $2 billion in debt financing from Asian banks to finish work on some Macau expansion projects.

The company also said last month that the Adelsons intend to participate in a capital raising program, along with an unnamed investment bank, but didn't reveal details.

In related developments, Las Vegas Sands said Friday it hired a new chief financial officer, CB Richard Ellis Group Inc. CFO Kenneth Kay, to start Dec. 1.

It also said officials from the Singapore government and senior executives from the resort developer met to discuss the completion of the proposed $1.4 billion Marina Bay Sands resort in Singapore amid continued concern about tightness in the credit markets.

Las Vegas Sands said those discussions included construction and marketing efforts to bring more conventions and exhibitions to Singapore.

"In light of recent turmoil in the global markets, I felt the need to personally reaffirm our commitment to the success of Marina Bay Sands," Adelson said in a statement Friday.

The Singapore government's support of the project "remains strong," he said, and he noted the casino could expand the number of table games to up to 1,000, from the original 600 planned.

The chief executive of Southeast Asia's biggest bank, DBS, on Friday told Reuters that Las Vegas Sands Corp. hadn't given signs of financing problems at its project in Singapore.

"There's been no default, no indication of default. The project is still going along," CEO Richard Stanley said. "I do expect there will be an integrated resort in Marina Bay in Singapore in 2010."

Morgan Stanley analyst Celeste Brown said Las Vegas Sands had never been in danger of defaulting on its loans in Singapore but that the increase in tables could make it easier to raise finances with the promise of higher returns.

"In terms of the Singapore default, we were never concerned with the Singapore credit facility, Las Vegas Sands' covenant issues are associated with its U.S. loans," she wrote in a note.

Shares in Las Vegas Sands fell 82 cents, or 10.5 percent, to close at $7.03 on Friday. On Thursday, the stock fell $3.81, or 33 percent, to $7.85 - more than 93 percent below the top end of its 52-week range, $122.96, which it hit Dec. 10 last year.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

Las Vegas Sands: The Clock Is Ticking

I am really puzzled why the PAP government keeps reassuring us about the situation of LV Sands while all news and indicators have pointed to BAD conditions!

The only way to save LV Sands is to inject new fresh capital into it and this is unless SOMEONE BIG enough comes to the rescue! In times of this great financial turmoil, who in his sound mind would commit billions of dollars to bail LV Sands out? Singapore government's investment arm GIC or Temasek Holdings? Or could it be Singapore Government or its GLCs buying over the company Sands has which is tasked to develop the casino resort in Singapore?

Whichever way it is, IF, a very BIG IF (seems that it is quite possible actually!) LV Sands is to go down, would it be wise for PAP government to mobilize our country's GIC or any other GLCs to bail Sands Singapore out? It seems that it is inevitable that Sands will get into insolvency if no fresh capital or "WHITE KNIGHT" comes to rescue it.

Would it be foolish for a small nation like ours to increase our stake on this casino resort when the future is full of uncertainty? I do not see how we could get out of this mess right now unless the PAP government has more credible information to support their optimism in Sands completing the Marina casino resort ON ITS OWN!

Goh Meng Seng

Las Vegas Sands: The Clock Is Ticking

Sheldon Adelson’s baby, the Las Vegas Sands (LVS) (of which he’s a 64% owner) issued an 8K filing and auditor’s report in which it reminded us that if the company can’t obtain substantial capital by December 31, it would break several debt covenants. Should it break them, then we’d be in all-out equity destruction territory or whatever your definition of “raise a substantial doubt over the company’s ability to continue as a going concern,” is….

Covenant Details

As I discussed in an earlier post, LVS must maintain at least a 20% ratio of either equity or rolling 12 months of operating income. The operating income side is providing break-even results at best, and all the anecdotal accounts from Las Vegas point to low traffic. Meanwhile, capital has been drained over the exhaustive (and utterly expensive) expansion of multiple resorts in the Cotai Strip in Macau, and the Marina Bay Resort in Singapore.

We got word last week that Singapore would work with Las Vegas Sands to get the funding needed to finish up the Marina Bay resort, but I estimate that between $2.5 and $3 billion is needed to both ensure consistent work on the construction in Macau and restore enough capital to meet 4th quarter covenants.

It’s not about whether Adelson can get a good rate on whatever capital is available out there. It’ll be a horrible rate with horrible terms, and he will likely have to give up more convertibles or dilutive equity rights. However, even when I throw in large margins of safety around cost of capital and operating earnings, I still see underlying property and asset values well above the current enterprise value of $12.3 billion.

Like Sands through the Hourglass…

The clock is definitely on, not just for the 4th quarter but also for all of 2009. Adelson absolutely must keep going full bore with construction on the Cotai Strip, or else he faces a possible loss of all land and in-process construction. It’s a script with all the drama of Vegas itself.

Disclosure: The author does not hold a position in LVS.

Translated from HK MingPao-US Les Vegas Sands in Financial Trouble

US Les Vegas Sands in Financial Trouble, Macao may be dragged
Debt at HK$70.2 Billion Development projects may be delayed.
7 Nov 2008

(Ming Pao) American listed Las Vegas Sands, the largest gaming and entertainment conglomerate in the world, has gotten into a financial crisis. According to a document submitted to US regulatory institution, its auditor has claimed that the company might have breached revenue-debt ratio limit set by the contracts' with its debtors. If the company is unable to get fresh capitals, it may trigger a chain of breaches on its debt obligations which may result in its debtors recalling back its loans. This raises substantial doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern. Sands has declared that it may have to put a few of its big development projects on hold, including those in Macao, for the time being. Sands stock price has dropped 22% to US$9.15 yesterday night. It has experienced a drop of 94% from its peak for the past one year.

Sands Macao business as usual

Sands Macao spokesman has made a statement late last night, indicating that it has not received any information of its parent company's financial woes and Sands Macao would continue business as usual. Macao Labor Union chief Mr. He Xin Guo has also indicated that they have not received any news about Sands' financial woes. However, there are already some rumors on Sands' financial woes in Macao's internet discussion forum but they did not provide any concrete evidence.

According to the document submitted by Sands to US regulatory body, by the end of 2007, Sands has accumulated up to US$9billion (about HK$70.2 billion). Some of Sands' debtors has set a limit on its revenue-debt ratio as a condition for their loans but its auditor has pointed out that Sands may not fulfill that requirement by the end of the fourth quarter of this year. This would result in Sands breaching the contracts and these debtors would have their legal rights in demanding early repayment of their loans. On the other hand, Sands may be forced to stop its development projects and this raises substantial doubts about the company's ability to continue as a going concern.

Looking into new capital injection

Sands has stated that it is working closely with its financial advisors to look into new capital injection plan. The company has also indicated that in the event that it fails to get new capital injection, it will seek to amend the loan contracts and appeal to its debtors to be temporarily exempted from that clause in the contracts.

Sands is the most aggressive gaming company in the world with numerous BIG developments of gaming projects in United States, Macao and Singapore. According to Bloomberg's estimates, the total investment in these developing projects amount to a total of HK$132.6 billions. According to sources, there is still a shortfall of HK$39billions in Macao's development. However, under the present circumstances of global liquidity crunch caused by the financial tsunami, Sands will definitely have difficulties in getting huge amount of loans from the banks. On the other hand, due to the tightening of travel permits for mainlanders to visit Macao's casinos by the central government, business in Macao's casinos has already been greatly affected.

Due to the difficulty in raising new capital, the biggest shareholder billionaire Sheldon Adelson has come up with HK$3.7 billions of new injection of capital into Sands last month. Other than this, there were reports of talks between Sands and Citigroup in seeking for HK$40.82 billion of fresh syndicate loans to finance loans repayment and the development of Macao's Sul Bright Way project. Moody's has downgraded Sands' long term loan by 3 grades while Standards and Poor has downgraded Sands by 1 grade to B+.

Earlier on, Sands has announced the sales of some of its properties, including part of Macao's Four Seasons Hotel ownership in a bid to solve its financial woes.

Sands in touble, 美金沙告急

The following article is from Hong Kong Mingpao News. LV Sands seems to hit rock recently when its auditor "raises substantial doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern".

I do not know whether this is being reported in Singapore as I am now currently in Hong Kong. But this is a very important news, not only to Macau, but also to Singapore.

The gist of this news is that the gearing of Sands is too high, so high that it has breaches the conditions set for some of its borrowings. This may trigger a domino recall of loans from various lenders.

Goh Meng Seng


美金沙告急 澳门受累
负债702亿 路琑发展项目恐暂缓
2008年11月7日

【明报专讯】全球最大的博彩及娱乐集团、美国上市公司拉斯维加斯金沙(金沙)陷入财困，该公司在提交给美国监管机构的文件中透露，核数师估计由于公司负债过高，以致违反了某些债务合约定下有关负债比率上限的规定，若未能成功集资，会触发该公司大量债务连环违约，可被债权人催缴还款，令人“怀疑公司能否持续经营”。金沙表示，可能要暂缓包括澳门在内的多项庞大发展项目。金沙昨晚在美国的股价一开市便急挫22％，跌至每股9.15美元，过去一年其股价已较最高峰暴跌了94％。

澳门金沙没收消息 照常营业

澳门金沙赌场发言人昨晚深夜表示，未收到任何涉及母公司财困的消息，澳门金沙赌场仍然照常营业。澳门职工联盟理事长何兴国亦表示，未收到金沙赌场出现财困的消息。不过，在澳门网上讨论区，已有一些网民流传对金沙财政表示忧虑的消息，但留言并无提供具体证据。

按照昨日金沙向美国证监机构提交的文件，截至2007年底，金沙的负债高达90亿美元(约702亿港元)。由于一些债项金沙与债权人定下了借贷条款，要求净负债对收入比率不能过高，但金沙核数师昨日指出，金沙预料到了今年第四季年结时，将无法符合有关规定，将导致公司违约，届时债权人有权要求公司提早还款。另外，公司亦可能被迫停止旗下的发展项目，以致令人“怀疑公司能否持续经营”(raises substantial doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern)。

研新融资计划

金沙表示，正与财务顾问研究，希望可以有新的融资计划，公司又表示，如果未能成功筹集资金，将寻求与债权人修订贷款条款，申请豁免暂缓遵守。

金沙是全球发展赌博业最进取的博彩公司，该公司在美国、澳门、新加坡都有庞大的新赌场在发展中。“彭博资讯”估计，发展中项目的总投资额约1326亿元。有资料显示，澳门方面的投资还要投下390亿元。然而，在金融海啸下，全球信贷收紧，金沙势难取得银行大额融资。此外，近月随覑中央收紧内地人到赌场旅游的规定，澳门赌场的生意早已一落千丈。

由于难以集资，金沙大股东艾德森上月要自己斥资37亿元，向金沙注资。另外，有报道指出，金沙正与花旗集团等银行洽商，以寻求409.2亿元银团贷款，用作偿还债务，以及作为澳门路琑金光大道项目的发展资金。评级机构穆迪投资上月曾把金沙的长期债务评级降低3级，标普则把其评级降低1级至B+。

为了解决财困，金沙早前曾公布会出售部分物业套现，包括考虑出售澳门四季酒店的部分业权。

A Nation in Gamble

The recent happenings have kept me thinking, are we a Nation in Gamble?

First, we have a million dollar man flip flop. One day claims that our financial system is very stable, we don't need 100% guarantee for bank deposits, but within 48 hours, a total U-turn and announce that MAS will provide 100% guarantee for all bank deposits after all. But wait, please notice the difference here. MAS is providing such guarantee not because it thinks that it has the obligations to local Singaporeans, but rather, it is because it is afraid that the exodus of foreign money will destabilize the whole financial system! Well, we have to settle for the fact that the PAP government will always take filthy rich foreigners' interests at first priority rather than local Singaporeans' interests. We will always be the last priority.

Some friends were making noise about this silly statements by MAS that it would not provide 100% guarantee to depositors because it believes that our financial system is very safe. Then it begs the question, if the system is so safe, it would be definitely "riskless" for MAS to give additional assurance to Singaporeans by providing that 100% guarantee, right?

And now, does it mean that since MAS finally did a total U-turn, would it imply that our financial system has suddenly become unstable? No, says MAS, its because we want to keep foreign money on our shores! Does it then mean that if all these foreign money vacate from Singapore, our financial system will become unstable?

This kind of attitude really reminds me of people gambling at the Black Jack table. They just could not think properly whether to take the card or not when they have 16 points at hand. I would expect that our people should get better judgment and performance from the million dollar ministers at such sensitive time. We are sitting right in the middle of the Crisis of Confidence (which I will write on it for my next post) and yet, they are giving out contradicting signals that may well shaken our confidence further.

This is especially true when we assess how MAS performs in this Minibonds issue. It would just push off responsibility and not act on it. It would be understandable for its "weak leadership" in such disputes because Singapore is dominated by Government Linked Companies. MAS, as a government agency, would not want to jeopardize its own money making machinery, would it? This is exactly the same problem I have mentioned in my previous post on Public Transport: how could we ever expect the government to regulate the companies that it owns? This is against human nature and totally absurd. Thus I could only advise Minibonds and other structured deposits holders to come together, stand in unity and go for class action lawsuit. They should not hold on the classic view that this PAP government will solve all these problems for them, especially so when it involves monies and interests of a stingy government. I know many of these people have not intended to gamble with their money when they first bought these Minibonds, but yet, I guess they are taking a big gamble if they think they could depend on MAS to help them out. Please remember, this government is more worried of foreigner's money than yours. It will only take less than 48hrs for them to make 180 degrees policy U turn when it involves foreign interests, but definitely not yours.

The fact that MAS actually allows Minibonds to be sold in Singapore, itself is a sign that we are fast becoming a Nation in Gamble. Minibonds is effectively a bet put on the reputation of some other bigger names. Minibonds holders effectively become the insurers of other bigger giant banks and financial institutions. It is absurd if you see it in its naked perspective but yet, these absurd instruments with many hidden risks are packaged as "medium-low risk investment" for our consumers. Even CPF allows such structured derivatives to be "invested" as "medium-low risk" instruments! And the fact that even some GLCs created their own version of structured products which is basically nothing but a financial bet, "invested" in CDS CDO with whatever names that are so complex to layman. Do all these relevant authorities, establishment and companies know exactly what they are doing? Are they pushing the whole Nation into Gambling?

Singaporeans are traditionally more conservative and risk adverse in their investment choice. How could they package such risky instruments (technically speaking, not even assets to speak of, but financial bets) to sell them to our citizens is something I could not really fully understand.

Well, talking about Gambling, no bigger and prominent Gambling is more obvious than our two Casino resorts, building in process. It seems that all hopes are pinned on these two gigantic projects that the whole Nation has taken up as their engine towards "Golden Period". But the recent news report worries me. Some foreign workers were protesting outside MOM against their employers who intend to cut their pay or even force them to be sent back to their country of origins. These foreign workers work for one of the big construction company which I believe is one of the main contractors of the Casino resort at Marina. And it was reported that when the matter has been settled, the workers return to their construction site, doing nothing more than AREA CLEANING! I mean, 100 people doing AREA CLEANING?

It worries me. I was thinking to myself, WHAT IF, a BIG BIG IF, any of these two Casino resorts failed to take off even before they are built, what will happen to us? Our schools and polytechnics has trained so many students ready to be employed for these casino resorts. Our banks have given out so much loans to finance these casino resorts construction (not only the owners, but constructors, subcontrustors...etc). What IF anyone of them or even Both of them fail? Are we staking our whole economy on these Casino resorts?

Well, maybe some may say I am really paranoid, how could these BIG casino companies go bust? This is especially so when our PAP government has claimed to conduct all due diligence in screening these casino companies.

It seems a little bit unbelievable but nowadays, when even the big 4 investment banks in USA could go bust, what else isn't possible? Anyway, with this little question in mind, I did a research. I have found that LV SANDS, the owner of Singapore Marina's Casino Resort, has filed for Chapter 11 (bankruptcy protection) in USA before! It was 1998 when Sands filed for bankruptcy, right after the 1997 financial crisis, though we all believe that USA is not affected by this financial crisis at all. Then there is another recent article I have found on the net. Its entitled "Is LV Sands headed for Bankruptcy?"

In this article, it claims that LV Sands' share price has dropped from a high of $148 to $14.05! It has lost a lawsuit without allocating the amount of money to pay for the damages. Its earnings has plunged dramatically, with Return on Equity (ROE) dropping from 67% to a mere 5.38%. All these are worrying signs, not only for LV Sands, but the whole Singapore!

I could hardly imagine what would happen to Singapore IF, a BIG IF, Sands goes under. The PAP government has put Singapore into a BIG GAMBLE that we may be ill afford to play.

On the other hand, we have the most direct impact on our pockets from absurd electricity tariff pricing. We were told that for this quarter, we will be paying our electricity bill based on future price of US$155 per barrel of oil when the oil price right now is US$71 per barrel! How absurd this could be? Well, should we feel "lucky" because there is someone who makes claim that the price of oil could well reach US$200 this year end? So is this future price of US$155 based the "discount" from US$200 per barrel? Is this another GAMBLE that went wrong and innocent Singaporeans have to paid for such losses?

These are the events that have more direct impact on our lives to be mentioned here. There are more gambles going on, taking up by GIC and Temasek Holdings all around the world. Our SWF has thrown billions of dollars into failing companies and later getting their shares diluted by injection of rescue funds by the various government agencies. My gut feeling is that our GIC and Temasek have taken up these gambles too early with too much money thrown in. We are a small country in the world with limited resources. We must be extremely prudent in investing whatever we have. Plunging ourselves at the start of this financial turmoil will definitely cost us dearly and force us to take up unnecessary risks. Could we really afford to take up all these gambles?

With the total melt down of the current financial markets, I really doubt that those investments done by GIC and Temasek would come up good. We thought we could save UBS but eventually Swiss Government has to step in to take over the bank. We thought we could save US banks, but it seems that the more merger and take overs occur, our shares in them would be totally diluted. How much more Gamble should we take as a Nation before we could shout STOP? I suspect one day, we would wake up as a Nation, just like all Minibonds holders, having a shock that we have actually lost so much in all these Gambles when in the first place, we are just a Nation of conservative and risk adverse citizens. That would be a day of reckoning, shock and devastation.

Goh Meng Seng

Looking for Punching Bags?

Recently, after the casino decision is made by PAP, we received letters, emails to urge us to stand for election in their constituencies so that they could exercise their votes against PAP.

This is a good sign yet a very depressing situation. This brings back memory of Today newspaper's interview with Mr. Low TK, in which he says, "We (opposition members) are all suckers, aren't we?"

It is a good sign in the sense that Singaporeans realize that it is the political front that will matter to PAP. It is a depressing situation because Singaporeans are merely treating opposition parties like "punching bags" that could provide them the avenue for them to vent their frustrations against PAP whenever they are angry at PAP.

For so many years, most Singaporeans are either apathetic or fearful about joining the fight to build up a good alternative political platform. They will only remember about opposition parties when they need one to vent their frustrations against PAP. They would neither contribute to the development of the alternative platform either by activism nor financial support. Sometimes, they would even degrade opposition politicians due to ignorance or propaganda effects of the media.

There are some improvement shown recently by some social activists in the sense that they are willing to help or be identified with opposition political parties or individuals. But this is still not enough. We need people to help us to provide a long term political educational process to the masses so that they would make a better balanced views of alternative politics.

Of course, we need people to work on the ground or even make themselves count in the electoral process by manning polling stations as polling agents or stand as candidates.

Singaporeans believe PAP's claims every elections that opposition members are only active on the ground when elections come. However they never realize that it is their total neglect of the alternative political process has in effect created such situation.

I sincerely hope Singaporeans could see what damage PAP has done to the political system of our Nation. The de-politicization of the Nation would have long term effects on our long term survival as a Nation. Imagine that a thirty something citizen came and complained that he has no chance to vote or participate in the electoral process for his whole life, what does that tell you? It means that he is being marginalized politically, de-politicized as a citizen and he would not have such a pride in being a citizen. He would lost his sense of citizenship in the process and eventually, no sense of belonging to this Nation, least sense of "ownership" of this Nation.

It is time to create this political awareness among our citizens that each actions carry a result. The apathy and neglect of our citizens would naturally result in the overall weakness of our political system.

Goh Meng Seng

I Cry For Singapore

These are two very emotional peom/rythm that UTongLoong and Jacys have written after PAP government has decided the fate of our future generations:

By UTongloong

I CRY FOR MY COUNTRY S'PORE
COS WITH THE CASINO MONEY POUR
COMES ALL THE VICES CRAWL
VIA THE OPEN WINDOWS OF S'PORE

KEEPING THE "BEES AND FLIES" OUT IS A CHORE
FOR TO INSTALL SAFEGUARDS MAKE LOCAL GAMBLERS SORE
BUT GAMBLE THEY MUST
KNOWING THAT IMH CAN TREAT THEIR LUST

S'PORE WILL BE ABUZZ WITH ITS NEW SHORE
BOASTING OF NOT ONE BUT TWO CASINOS IN STORE
OUT OF S'PORE WILL SPRING FORTH SPIN OFFS AND OPEN DOOR
TO PROVIDE THOUSANDS OF JOBS FOR THE JOBLESS PEASANTS


By Jacys

There storm clouds in the distance
The sun no longer shines
This downpour would last a lifetime
May cold and dampness be my groom and shelter.

Citizens' Activism

Citizens’ Activism

The casino debate has created an unusual situation for a normally, politically sterile Singapore. It has sparked some individuals to start a web site FACTS (www.facts.com.sg) to collect signatures to sign on petition against the Casino, to be submitted to our President. FACTS stands for “Family Against Casino Threats to Singapore”.

This is a rare demonstration of social activism initiated by a few individuals without any organization nor political network or connections. Some would view it as an “awakening” of social activism.

Although the message FACTS spreads is potentially political in nature, they have skillfully disassociated themselves from any political connections, especially those from the alternative platform. Thus, though FACTS has demonstrated a new form of citizens’ activism, it has also demonstrated the subtle “FEAR” that this society has in association with the alternative platform.

We used to have active participation from citizens in the form of civic societies like Think Centre, Socratic Circles, Round Table, Nature Society and the Tangent. However, some of these civic societies have died down or even de-registered themselves when many of their members became inactive or have “upgraded” themselves into partisan politics. The Socratic Circle and Round Table are those which have closed down due to such development. Think Centre also faces a serious “brain drain” when many of its past activists have stepped into partisan politics.

Are we having a “renaissance” in civic activism due to the casino debate? Workers’ Party did receive a lot of emails from individuals all over the world when it decides to organize a public forum to collect public feedback on the casino issue. The internet services have provided an easy and accessible way of communication as well as channel for social activism with regards to contribution of political views. It is changing the rules and structure of the game of social activism as well as political activism.

Political activism cannot sustain without the support of social activism. Internet services have encouraged more social participation in terms of contribution of social and political discourses. Blogger and internet forums have provided a very convenient platform for individuals to put up their views for all to read in the cyberspace.

However, for a political party like Workers’ Party to work towards alternative, we need more than opinion providers. We need people with more courage to take a step further to make contributions on various fronts. The apprehension of joining an opposition party is well understood. Individuals could help out as social or political activists without signing up the membership form at all. We do receive help from various individuals to do research which have proven to be very useful and effective for formulating our casino stand. But we need more people in research as well as in ground work. We basically need more people to walk the talk, to make his stand by contributing to the political process via a political platform.

If the casino debate only raise social awareness and social activism in a very narrow spectrum, then the day for the alternative to be formed would take a longer time to materialize.

Politics can never do without people behind it. The transformation of the Taiwan military rule into a democratic one needs the involvement of both politicians as well as many non-party activists. Academics have provided research and think tank services through the participation of various political meetings. Social and political activists helping out in elections and ground work. Eventually, the real Alternative was formed within a short span of ten years, which has proceeded to take over power later on.

Citizens’ activism must not shy away from the various political platforms. If everything we do, we always have this consideration of “de-politicizing” it, then we will never achieve an effective check and balance status on the ruling party.

The arrogance of the ruling party to disregard the massive citizens’ activism against the Casino but to decide on the issue basically on its own has demonstrated that such “de-politicized” activism has little effect in pressurizing the ruling party to take them seriously. It is only when Mr. Low Thia Khiang made the public statement on wanting to make the casino issue as an election issue that the ruling party has responded vigorously.

Social activists must realize that their route of “de-politicizing” may just not be effective enough. If it was effective, many members of the civic societies would not have gone into partisan politics. We must learn from those defunct civic societies about the reality of one party rule in Singapore.

Speech presented in 5 March Casino Forum

A very good afternoon to James, my fellow comrades and citizens who have gathered here today for this casino forum.

I am tasked to present the reasons and rationale behind the anti-casino movement. Before I go on, I would like to comment on the online petition initiative by FACTS. Their slogan screams through the net, “Do you want your children to grow up learning that it is OK to gamble?” I have my personal slogan, “If you don’t want your children to be a gambler, why would you support the casino that makes others’ children to become gamblers?” Many proponents of casino will cry foul at such slogans and term them as “Moralist garbage”. Nevertheless, this “Moralist garbage” does appeal to many Singaporeans. At least twenty-seven thousand Singaporeans have signed against Casino in Singapore via FACTS web site so far. Their social activism is really commendable.

Many people thought that putting up a case against casino is a very simple task. It is definitely not so. We have to tackle the issue from a multi-dimensional platform. Throwing slogans around is just not enough. As members of a socially responsible political party, we have to be answerable to everyone, including those who are unemployed and hopeful about the prospects that a casino in Singapore would bring to them.

There are two main objectives in wanting to build a casino.

1) To earn Tourist money with little Social Cost. The most successful casinos are those who attract more foreign patrons as compared to locals. 80% of the patrons to casinos in Nevada are foreigners or from other states. Only 20% are locals. Similar composition applies to casinos in Macau.
2) To curb outflow of local gambling money. It is said that Singaporeans have gambled away US$900million in casinos worldwide. It is thus the primary reason why we want our own casino to capture part of this gambling money.

I would like to present the three main perspectives (apart from the moralist stand) that we think that are appropriate to address the casino issue.

1) Social Cost & Economic Benefits Analysis (The one in Yellow boxes)
2) Economic Viability & Problems (The one in Blue Boxes)
3) Dynamic Analysis (The one in Red Boxes)



The most common argument arises from the first perspective: Social Cost & Economic Benefits Analysis. It is not an easy analysis to start with. Our well paid ministers and civil servants have chose to sidetrack away from this analysis simply because social costs and economic benefits are difficult to estimate. How do we actually quantify the cost to society when someone takes his own life due to debts derived from casino gambling?

We should not take our citizens as mere digits. They are our brothers and sisters sharing this same piece of land with us. But it is inevitable for us to use statistical findings to counter those proponents of casino as they only understand “facts and figures”, nothing else. I will refrain from presenting all those mind-boggling statistics but concentrate on the findings and conclusions.

The fundamental root of Social Cost is addiction to gambling. Professor Gary Loveman, CEO of Harrah’s Entertainment, one of the key players in the US gaming industry, said that, “If 100 Singaporean residents walk into a casino, they are not equally likely to become addicts. In fact, virtually none of them will ever become addicted, because psychiatrically, they’re just not predisposed to addictions.” (This is reported in Business Times 8th Jan 2005.) I beg to differ. I would like to demonstrate how addiction arises out of gambling. People gamble because of greed, no matter how little there is. When one gamble, you either win or lose. When you win, you would think that lady luck is with you and you will want to win more. More greed, more gamble. If you lose, you are annoyed and think that you could win back what you lose. So, you continue to gamble. When the frequency of engagement on the gaming table increases, the attachment on winning more or winning back increases. Thus, no matter you win or lose, you will develop intense attachment to gambling. It is true that there are people who are more resistant to addiction but most people would fall into gambling addiction with intensified enticing through the gambling process.




This addiction is one of the biggest sources of income for casinos. According to the “National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report” commissioned by the US government, more than 30% of casino revenues are generated from problem and pathological gamblers.



Gary Loveman also said that there is only about 1 to 2 per cent of the casino customers will become psychologically addicted to gambling. This is inaccurate as in the NGISC report, it is reported that there is about 1 to 2 percent of TOTAL ADULT POPULATION in US that are considered to be pathological gamblers. Pathological gamblers are individuals with very serious mental disorder in terms of psychological addictions. There is another category of problem gamblers whom may not suffer grave mental disorder but yet are potential source of social problem and cost. If we take this group into account, the potential size of problem and pathological gamblers is about 5% to 9% of TOTAL ADULT POPULATION. More importantly, NGISC felt that they might have underestimated the real situation when it is expected for respondents to hide their gambling problems.

There are more interesting findings from NGISC:

1) If there is a gambling facilities or casino within 50 miles of the community, the incidence of problem and pathological gamblers are doubled.

2) Seven of the nine communities investigated stated that the number of problem and pathological gamblers increased after the introduction of nearby casino gambling.

3) Male, young people and those with lower educational level are more prone to become problem or pathological gamblers.

The problem of gambling addiction manifests itself by affecting those surrounding the problem or pathological gamblers. The multiplier effect is believed to be 4 or 5. This means that more than 20% to 30% of the population would be affected.

There are studies that tried to quantify the social-economic cost into dollars and cents but most of them are deemed as understating the cost. There is one study done in 1998 which come to a conclusion that on average, the social cost is about S$20,000 per compulsive gamblers per annum. This is a very conservative estimate but when applied to Singapore, it may cost as much as S$0.7 billion to S$1 billion of social cost per annum. At this moment, I must say it is really inhuman to quantify human sufferings into dollars and cents but we have to do it for argument sake.

The PAP government has never refute the fact that casino may impose great significant social cost. It has instead tried to divert public focus to our own maturity. When that failed, they have chosen the path of moderation by coming up with a list of safeguards. It would be very unattractive to casino operator if we ban Singaporeans from Casino. There are casinos in Korea that banned local Koreans but they barely survive. Thus, to the government, the next second best solution is to impose safeguards.

Imposing safeguards may compromise our second objective of curbing the outflow of gambling money. Furthermore, the safeguards may not be effective at all. If one has to pay to get into the casino, it is natural for one to “optimize” his stay in the casino! That may result in more gambling and create more problem or pathological gamblers in the end. How to execute these safeguards in practice would be a challenge to both the authority as well as the casino operator. The safeguards are unlikely to be sustainable. Would the government promise not to relax the safeguards even when the whole casino-integrated resort start to lose money? Most likely, with government vested interests in the whole project via GLCs, it would be forced to relax such safeguards ultimately.

One school of thought argues that the casino-integrated resort will not be beneficial to us simply because it would cannibalize on our local economy and create problems. Monies that might have been spent on other stuffs would have end up in the casino. Tourists would have spent less on local retail outlets. Singaporeans have already spent one of the highest per capital amount on convenient gambling. The casino will aggravate the situation further.

If the casino-integrated resort provides free or subsidized hotel accommodations to its patrons, existing hotels and hospitality sector ‘s business would definitely be affected.

There are research done in US that put doubts on the economic contributions claimed to come from casino. It is not difficult for us to believe that the initial investment would make contributions to our economic growth. However, in the long run, this may not be the case when the casino-resort cannibalized on other sectors and cause loss of productivity by creating problem or pathological gamblers. Work ethics may be adversely affected.

More importantly, casino will create some economic-financial problems to the economy. Money laundering will increase and the casino would become a great place for briberies to be channeled effectively. Loan sharks business will definitely enjoy a boom while bankruptcies will increase. These are the potential negative externalities of having a casino here.

The viability of the Casino-integrated resort will depend heavily on the projected regional economic development as well as how our neighboring countries react to our set up. There is basically no entry barrier for any countries to build similar Casino-integrated resorts. We will lose our niche if our neighbors so decide to build their own versions of Casino-integrated resorts in one of their renowned tourist spots. And if that happens, we will face a big problem as demonstrated in our dynamic analysis.



Our neighbors will be attracted by the very same reasons as we did, to go into casino business as they will not stand there and do nothing to stop all the gambling money coming to us. As we know, the Casino integrated resort is a high stake and high-risk project. The non-gambling attractions may not be economically viable without the cross-subsidies from the casino. We may end up losing money when our neighbors decide to compete with us. They have the inherent endowed advantages with many tourist spots available in their land. We may be forced to do away with all the safeguards so to make up for the lost revenues and thus the social cost burden on the society will increase tremendously. If not, our billion-dollar investment in this Casino-integrated resort will end up bleeding us to death. As shown in the slide, the Nash equilibrium will mean that we all end up as suckers. It is the casino operators who will gain all. This region is considered as a new territory for the gaming industry. Are we stupid enough to allow ourselves to be used by the gaming industry as the thin edge of the wedge to open up this region as their new market? I hope not.

I have just provided a summary of most of the points that has been brought up by the anti-casino camp. My conclusion for the above points is very simple.

If anyone talks about Freedom of choice, about how matured citizens on this land would deal with a casino, he has missed the point totally. Nobody is curbing anybody's rights to gamble in a casino. You could just take a boat trip to Batam or just get a ticket onto the cruise to nowhere. This is never an issue at all.

The argument against casino made here is not from a moral point of view. The moral perspective is merely a small part of the whole argument. The biggest issue is that after we have invested billions of dollars into this venture and eventually find out that our neighbours will outdo us, we will have no choice but to open up the casino for Singaporeans in order to get your investment sustainable in the long run! That's the problem. When that happens, casino will become the parasite industry of Singapore.

It is simply not possible for us to be "MORE ATTRACTIVE" to tourists with a casino in Singapore. People would rather go to HK's Disneyland then take a short boat trip to Macau. Even Bali in Indonesia would be a much better place to build casinos! There are just too many tourist attractions in Indonesia and Malaysia where they could build casinos to make them more attractive! We will lose out in the end and we will become suckers eventually. We will be stuck with a multi-billion dollar Casino-Trojan horse that would require us to sell our soul in order to save us from bleeding big. More families would be affected adversely, more people young and old would suffer in silence or agony.

Gambling will erode the moral fabric of our nation. Our people must be taught that wealth is accumulated through hard work, not via lady luck. If PAP government think that they could do a quick fix to their dismay economic performance in creating jobs by building this Casino-integrated resort, they would be making the biggest honest mistake ever. They are just simply putting the whole nation’s welfare as a stake on the gambling table.

Goh Meng Seng

Workers' Party Stand on Casino

Workers' Party Policy Statement on the PAP Government's Casino Proposal
7th April 2005, Singapore

The Executive Council of the Workers' Party, after reviewing opinions from a Public Consultation Exercise held on 5th March 2005, numerous feedback, its members, surveys of other countries and cities with Casinos and viewpoints by various groups and deliberating on the pros and cons of the proposal has decided to reject the government's plan to include a Casino in its call for an Integrated Resort. It rejects the proposal for the following reasons:
To date there is no clarity to what negative mid and long term impact the Casino will have on Singaporean society. The Workers' Party notes the adverse effects of gaming in our society with the current proliferation of gaming outlets in Singapore. There is no conclusive study done locally on the scale of impact that gaming has on family and society. However, based on feedback and news reports, there are obviously negative consequences. The Workers' Party believes that setting up of Casino will further aggravate the situation. The government should make a comprehensive study of the social ills caused by current gambling activities and present it to the public for a balanced judgment on whether a casino is desirable for the society.

While various measures to restrict Singaporeans from gambling at the proposed Casino have been mooted in an attempt to persuade Singaporeans that the social costs can be contained, even the Prime Minister himself, by announcing that social costs would be managed by setting up a centre to treat addiction, has implicitly acknowledged that addictive gambling will be a problem.

Moreover, any measures to curb social costs are subject to changes in the future with possible intense competition from the region. There is nothing to stop the government from making a decision to drop all safeguards in order to be more competitive, with a claim that the society is mature enough.

Due to the smallness of Singapore, the casino will remain physically accessible to Singaporeans. The compactness of Singapore with high density of population means the whole population is in the immediate ?catchments area? of the Casino. Unlike countries with bigger geographical area, there are no other ?cities? in which Singaporeans can choose to raise a family while staying clear of from the influence of a Casino. There is a risk that the attraction of ?integrated resort? sugar coated to be a family entertainment centre will attract both parents and children to the same venue known for its gaming culture.

The economic benefits cited as being linked to the Casino have not been convincing, as it is not clear how long having a Casino with integrated resort will put Singaporean in an advantageous position in tourism, nor the extent to which Singaporeans will benefit from job creation. It is also not known how having a Casino will affect Singapore's reputation as a country known as a good place to ensure family values and bring up children. The Workers' Party does not want the international community to identify Singapore as synonymous with Casinos and gaming.

That the Casino is not a life and death issue as the Casino should not be the only solution for the economy. PAP ministers who are paid world-renowned high salaries should be able to come up with a better solution for the economy.

Casinos would breed new opportunities for sophisticated crimes such as casino-related fraud and money laundering. The Workers' Party observes that the authorities such as the Monetary Authority of Singapore are still working on tightening anti-money laundering measures generally, and whether these would be adequate to prevent Singapore from being a centre for money-laundering when the casinos are operational is still not known.

The Workers' Party notes that a broad cross section of Singaporean society is concerned about the negative effects of having a Casino literally at their doorsteps. Yet the PAP Government has refused to allow Singaporeans to exercise their right to decide on having a Casino in Singapore through a referendum. The PAP government has also refused the challenge by the Workers' Party to make the proposed Casino an election issue. Even PAP MPs have not been allowed to vote according to their conscience in Parliament.

The Workers' Party reminds the PAP that receiving a mandate to form the government in general elections does not mean the PAP can do what it likes, especially on matters which would impact society in fundamental ways and when there are strong reservations about the Casino from many sectors of the community. In taking a path which many do not feel comfortable with, the government should allow Singaporeans to express their view by choice and not merely pay lip service to getting feedback by encouraging people to participate in discussions, only to decide on the issue by itself.

At present times the Workers' Party feels it is prudent to get a more thorough understanding of the negative effects of gaming already in Singapore instead of hastily deciding on proceeding with a Casino.

The Workers' Party repeats its call to let the people decide directly on the matter.

James Gomez
2nd Assistant Secretary-General
The Workers' Party