Whazzzup!!!

Happy Monday morning, everyone. Hope everyone had a great weekend?

Still on the topic of birthday presents, I got a pair of black nike dri-fit wristbands. They look cool and all, but I'm not sure what to do with them. Do I use them to wipe the sweat off my forehead? Or wear my watch over it to keep my watch strap dry?

In other news, The Sunday Times carried this article yesterday: "Macau tycoon bets Singapore can keep casino ills at bay". DUH! And I am going to trust a the guy who made millions by lauching Macau's first casino?? Talk about having a stake in the issue! That is like the Pope making a comment about the business viability of having a casino in a 4 million population state! Keep to your own turf Mr. Casino Tycoon.

If we care to look to the example of New Zealand, we may find that we may be a little too optismistic in our abilities in "keeping the social ills at bay". New Zealand is like Singapore in population (4 million) and make-up (immigrants, a significant percentage Asian). A recent article in Journal of Gambling Issues by Peter Adams in December 2004 outlined the history of gambling in New Zealand.

• Before the 1980s, they had regulated horse racing and lotteries introduced by the British.
• In the mid-80s, a series of radical economic reforms ushered in an extended period of liberalisation of marketing and regulatory regimes, leading to a flourishing of gambling facilities and products.
• This quickly led to unprecedented increases in consumer spending on gambling products. In 1979, each adult spent roughly NZ$43. In 2003, this figure was NZ$500.
• This also led to an unprecedented hike in P&P gamblers. In 2002, the total number of clients seeking counselling for problem gambling was 177 per cent higher than 6 years earlier.
• Eventually, the Government recognised gambling as a public health issue.
• Adams wrote, "It was in the transition period of moving from a low-access to a high-access gambling environment that the framework of harm was established. Perhaps this has been a pattern in other nations. Successive governments were wooed by the revenue potential and were easily persuaded that negative impacts would be minor and easily contained. The previous controlled gambling environment with its low rates of problem gambling gave them little cause to think otherwise."

I don't mean to sound the death knell, but read the quote carefully. The argument that "Singaporeans will go to casinos overseas anyway" is too simplistic. Having a casino that is easily acessible increases the number of problem gamblers. Studies have found that the presence of a gambling facility within 80km roughly doubles the prevalence of P&P gamblers. Hence the argument "We already have gambling opportunities in Singapore anyway (4D, Toto, horse racing) and it hasn't been too much of a problem so far" doesn't work either.

Did you know that one in five pathological gamblers, more than any other addictive disorder, commit suicide? Or that two-thirds of Gambler Anonymous members had contemplated suicide, 47 percent had a definite plan to kill themselves, and 77 percent stated that they have wanted to die? Or that in the US, they have found that states with casinos have bankruptcy rates 18 percent higher than those without?

When it comes down to it though, you cannot depend on the state to be nanny. Individuals have to make responsible choices in their own lives. No one can stop an adult from taking that slim chance at fortune. What I detest is the exploitation of the poor by these multi-million gaming organizations. One of these casinos ran an ad in the US once which went like this: "You can 1. Study hard 2. Get a job 3. go to work everyday for the rest of your life; OR you could 1. Buy a lottery ticket" Or this ad with a picture of a lottery ticket with these enticing words, "Your ticket out" In my opinion, these ads exploit the poor and perpetuate a lie. The cards are stacked against you when you step into a casino. It is mathematically impossible that the casino will lose, or that you will win in the long run. Yet, these ads prey on the desperation of the poor and marginalised.

And, as a final note, concerning the opinion that there will be a positive spillover effect from having a casino in Singapore ("Casinos can create 10,000 jobs" ST April 17; "Hypothetically, if we have one at Marina Bay and one at Sentosa, then direct employment, I'll say up to 10,000. Indirect employment - shops, hotels elsewhere - I think several more thousands," Labour Chief Lim Boon Heng), listen to quote from Donald Trump himself, multi-millionaire and owner of the Taj Mahal Casino Resort in Atlantic City, “People will spend a tremendous amount of money in casinos, money that they would normally spend on buying a refrigerator or a new car. Local businesses will suffer because they’ll lose customer dollars to the casinos." There are two sides of the coin. Unless the casinos can attract more tourists than it can absorb, there will be a positive spillover, otherwise, we will all suffer.

read the facts!