Music to the ears

Minister Tan Chuan Jin justified legalising online gambling, saying that it is a growing activity and anyway, cannot be stopped entirely. Thus it would make sense to bring a part of this dark activity into the light so that it provides people with a guilt-free and legal avenue to engage in this erstwhile illegal activity. This decriminalising of online gambling in Singapore, with certain controls and conditions, will wipe out a criminal activity in one fell swoop. That's the main argument anyway, not to mention that it will increase government revenue from this once illicit activity. Minister Tan went into quite pedantic detail in an interview regarding this matter with Channel NewsAsia. I will not repeat the points, for by Minister Tan, and against by the Worker's Party and the National Council of Churches.

I would just like to add that the government, by the same argument and logic, should legalise the consumption of marijuana (cannabis) in Singapore. It is underground right now, and attracts draconian penalties when caught. In spite of all efforts to eliminate the trafficking of this drug and its use (if no one uses it, no one will traffic it, right?) remains unabated - the same as online gambling. After all, some countries have decriminalise the possession of the drug, including Australia, Austria and the US (in some States) as have some countries online gambling. But I suspect that the Singapore government will not do so anytime soon (or ever), never mind that the logic behind the easing of restriction on online gambling is exactly the same for consumption of marijuana.

I would suggest that the logic and argument that has been brought to bear on justifying the legalisation of online gambling has been quite selective and convinces no one except those for which it is music to the ears.

Gaming from home

Its a sad day for Singapore, or is it a day of celebration? Well, depends on your inclinations. For those who gamble, albeit small timers, legalizing online gambling in Singapore spells convenience (Today, 30 September 2016, pages 1-2). No more need to line up at the supermarkets or neighbourhood shops to get that daily/weekly fix of hope.

For the rest of us, it just confirms that we are now in free-fall down that slippery slope when the Singapore government made gambling on 4-D and Toto a respectable pass time and blessed casino gambling. While 4-D and Toto are not as financially draining compared to gambling at the table in Marina Bay Sands and Resort World Sentosa, I believe that one feeds on the other, resulting in increased gambling activity. It would appear that, with the latest 'licence', the government has blessed the gambling lifestyle even more. And why not? It rakes in a lot of money for the government coffers from these legalized betting, and will be raking in even more with online gambling. I for one am not enthusiastic of using money gained from gambling to fund social causes.

Sure, people have been betting online for ages, but these have been the exception rather than the rule. With the latest initiative, online gambling will go mainstream in Singapore. Now there is a reason for everyone, including our senior citizens to learn to use the computer, or own a tablet, or what the heck, make better use of their handphone besides sms'ing, facebook'ing and whatsapp'ing. Yeah, there is still this hassle of registering for the use of the online platforms, but considering that people are willing to queue up to buy the draw tickets every week, this will just be a one-time hassle. Heck, it wouldn't be far-fetched for someone to set up a business helping gamblers to fill in the forms and other paperwork so that all the applicant has to do is show up in person to start the ball rolling.

In case the reader is not certain about my stand, I'll be clear. I do not agree with this latest government initiative (whose else can it be?) to permit online gaming. I have added my name to the petition to "Stop the Legalisation of Online Gambling in Singapore".

Please add your name to this petition if you feel the same way. It may not make a difference at the end of the day, but it wouldn't be on our conscience for ignoring the evil that this licence to gamble online really is.

Link:
https://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-the-legalisation-of-online-gambling-in-singapore.html

Almost Numero Uno

Wow, Singapore will overtake Las Vegas as the world's second largest gambling den in terms of gambling, err... gaming revenues this year? And we thought that Singapore has only just started. Resorts World Sentosa only opened in 14 January last year, and Marina Bay Sands a little later on 27 April 2010, all slightly more than a year ago, and we are already #2, worldwide?

Singapore are known for many first, and best's. Best airport in the world, best airline (SIA), busiest Port, best paid government (excluding under-the-table shenanigans of politicians in some countries), first F-1 night race... Add to these Singapore's record speed in reaching #2. At slightly over a year, it is early days yet to supplant Macau's number 1 spot right now.

But not everyone in Singapore are necessarily happy about this dubious position. Behind this spectacular result lies many broken hearts, homes and businesses. What else do you think those numbers mean? And this also goes to show the big fat 'lie' when proponents in government, of gambling, pitched it as an Integrated Resort. Unfortunately, time has a way of making us forget a lot of things. Well, Marina Bay is not known for its Conventions, Suntec City, and even the grand old Raffles City are bettered used. Hotels? Any tourist agency worth its salt will direct customers to more location friendly hotels in the city, except if you are a gambler. And how much would the just opened Science Art Theatre have contributed to the overall revenues? I am not sure if it is even making money. Dining? Who dines there except the gamblers? The only non-gaming place worth going to, in Marina Bay is the SkyPark, and Universal Studios Theme Park in RWS.

So I am just one damned confused Singaporean what INTEGRATED really means.

Let the games begin

"The Chinese are inveterate gamblers", said MM Lee Kuan Yew, when the setting up of resort casinos for Singapore, along the lines and scope of those in Las Vegas and Genting, was approved. True to fashion, Singapore's first casino was opened to the public on the first day of the Lunar New Year, at the auspicious hour of 12:18pm. Auspicious for who, you wonder? For the operator, which in this case is Malaysia's Genting group, or for the punters, the gamblers? Even the God of Fortune will find it hard to give its fortune to both the Operator and the gambler at the same table at the same time.You either win the money or you lose it. There is no third way about it.

But of course, some gamblers will tell you that they take pleasure in the act of gambling, and therefore losing any or all of their money is no different from dining at an expensive restaurant. You get treated like a king. You get served (I heard that free food was offered to one and all), you can drink in the den's ambiance, savour the atmosphere which must be very different from queuing in the neighbourhood 4-D and Toto counters). If you want to gamble, do so in style and comfort, they say. So there was a reported bee-line for the entrance of Resort World Sentosa's (RWS) newly minted casino, never mind that you lose a S$100 to the Entrance Levy (tax) before you pass the door into the casino. But that money doesn't belong to the Casino Operators, it is money made by the Singapore Government in the name of gambling addiction*. It is probably a good idea to levy the fees to fund the programmes meant to correct the anticipated problem behaviour and chronic habits that gamblers would pick up as a result of accessing the gambling facilities blessed by the government. Sounds convoluted? Yeah, but gambling is straightforward - either you win or you lose. And for the Operators to be around, gamblers must lose more than they win. That's simple Mathematics, although the Math underlying the Game of Chance may not be understood by most people. 

This is indeed a milestone, as our Institute of Mental Health (IMH) prepares to admit its first patients in the new category of big time problem gamblers.

God help us, in more ways than one.

*p.s. If 75,000 people got into the casino on the first 2 days, the government itself would have raked in a cool $7.5M. Now that's what I call good business and easy money.

That Lie

Marina Bay Sands Singapore is supposed to have opened its doors for business this month. That was the original plan, but we all know that plans can change, and in the case of the Marina Bay Sands Singapore (aka Hotel and Casino Resort), the revised opening date is some time in April 2010 though some say that June 2010 is a more realistic date.

April, when April Fools' day falls, is probably not an ideal month to open a Casino, from the gamblers' perspective. But it'll probably be roaring business of a casino though because gamblers are by nature risk takers, fools or not. These revision in schedules show up the lie in the whole Integrated Resort (IR) message. When Singapore went ahead with setting up not one but two casinos, the government insisted that it wasn't casinos per se, but an integration of various entertainment and convention businesses (MICE) that were on the cards, that Singapore isn't transforming itself into a Las Vegas of the East. Casinos were just to be a small part of the whole development. But the latest developments (or probably non-developments) has given the lie to this claim.

When push comes to shove, and it is time for payback. the only most immediately profitable business that must be opened first is the casino. So come April or June next year, or whatever month it eventually opens, the casino business must precede all others. The business / conventions / meeting / entertainment events? Well, they are not Marina Bay Sands' priority, really. From recouping the money point of view (more than S$5 Billion), the casino business is the one and only bet on the table, never mind what the government says about having 50% of the other businesses in place as a condition for the casinos to start operations. But then, starting the casino first makes sense. Nobody would want to have a major meeting event there, or go shopping, and least of all, go there for a stroll when half of the place is still under construction. The dust and dirt will be an instant turnoff. Orchard Road will still be a cooler place to go to, in more ways than one. But gambling? Hey the dirt doesn't matter. When gambling can take place in a back alley as much as it can in a swanky hotel, it is the only sensible thing to do - take the money and run.

So if we want to call a spade a spade, we should just admit that Singapore is close to becoming the betting capital of this part of the world. The rest are just sideshows. The problem is, with the government's liberal policies on immigration, will it attract the 'right' people to this island in the long run? It would appear that climate change is the least of our worries.

Public Gambling

Mr Khaw Boon Wan comes across as an honest man. Really. Read what he says in interviews and listen to him in Parliament. You cannot fault the man for being drop-death honest with you. He doesn't fudge the issues. Instead, he tells it like it is. He speaks to the common folks, not at them, not over them, not from above. So you cannot but like the man for his forthrightness and ability to empathise with you.

He has come out to admit that the mis-investment of sinking funds should rightly be a concern to the man in the street, for after all, these mis-invested money are the people's money, they belong to the townsfolk. (See Straits Times, 19 Dec 2008). But he reasons that since these same investments made money in the past, and the current losses represents a small portion of these gains, it shows that these funds are, on balance, in good hands. He further makes the point that the statement of accounts of these town councils can be inspected any time, no questions asked. I think he is being level-headed and reasonable again. But the problem with this is that it isn't very useful examining the books 'after the fact', is it?

But surely the thing that saved the TC's bacon this time was past investment gains. Let us do a thought experiment, for the heck of it. If a TC had $10million in sinking funds, and invests 10% of it in risky structured deposits (i.e. $100,000) - the law says they can't go beyond 30%. Again, assuming that the annual yield of that investment is 10%. The investment will have yielded $100,000 x 10% = $10,000 in a year. Let's assume the good times lasted 3 years and assuming the same rate of return, the TC ends up with $30,000 profit (let's not do the compounding thing and we shall ignore inflation). Suppose in the 4th year, a financial tsunami hits, and the fund loses $29,000 in absolute terms. That still gives the fund a positive $1,000 over 4 years. Is that good management of funds or not? Of course, you'd have to consider the opportunity cost of the next best option, which is a Fixed Deposit. Over 4 years, the yield, at 2% per annum, will be $2,000 x 4 years, or $8,000. Clearly, in this scenario, it would have been better if the money had been invested in FDs. Of course, you will argue that this scenario is contrived to 'win' the argument, but so is the 'luck' that the TCs counted on over the past to accumulate enough surplus to still come out quite decent in its overall investment returns in spite of the $16million loss. Nevertheless, could my contrived scenario be possible?

If so, in both cases, the balance sheets still yield a positive bottom line, but you and I know that they have lost big time with the structured investment. Mr Khaw's argument begins to get into trouble with a scenario somewere in-between. Is he not then gambling with numbers, like all those queues we witness in front of 4-D booths almost everyday?

It is ok if the money belongs to you, or a private business, but if it is the people's money, which Mr Khaw very rightly admits to be the case, then this risk is not obviously acceptable.

The TCs were just lucky this time around. I know of people, and you will too, whose investments have almost been wiped out, or at least reduced so drastically that it would be a pain greater than going to hell, to liquidate now. And I am not referring only to the mini-bombs...er...bonds, I mean.

Image: morgueFile.com. Author: Lisa Solonynko

Shifting sands

"Sands said that it had also received word from the Casino Regulatory Authority of Singapore that it had approved the company's proposed casino floor plan for up to 1,000 gaming tables, instead of the originally planned 600 tables."
Straits Times, 8 November 2008

This news refers to the casino being built in Singapore on the Marina Bay. When it was first proposed, there was a huge outcry by many Singaporeans against it. Even the Government Cabinet was reportedly divided. But it was finally approved for the long term good of the economy. The stated intent was to grow the tourism and business meetings sector of the economy in the light of competition from places like Australia, Macau and possibly the Philippines. Something was needed to attract more people to the island. Citing the Chinese as "inverterate gamblers", the Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, who for decades said 'no' to a casino on the island, also relented. Why? Because this development was not about a casino, it was about an Integrated Resort (IR) and the casino was but one of the many facilities that international travellers, company executives and fun seekers could look forward to. That is why, up until now, the development is never referred to as the Marina Bay Casino (not a bad sounding name, actually), but (euphemistically) the Marina IR.

Now, a financially strapped LV Sands has asked for two things. The first is to increase the number of gaming tables from 600 to a whopping 1000, representing a 66% increase over the original. The second is to open the IR in phases, though it did not indicate which part of the IR it would want to open first. If I read their thoughts correctly, they would probably propose to the government to open their casino first. Why? Simply because that is potentially the single (if not only) most profitable attraction in the IR right now. With disappearing conventions, corporate meetings and the like (I was with some traveling industry executives yesterday, and they all told me that they are having to chase down leads and not wait for orders to roll in, as before).

There is a Chinese saying, "Hard times reveals true intentions". In this case, the true intent of the IR is no more about operating a casino. It is the only intent. The other resort facilities, the places for meetings and conventions? Well, they are really distractions, sideshows at best, aren't they? Some would even say they are the excuses, the smokescreen, to hide the real intent of setting up a gambling den - all prim and proper, blessed by the government. Ditto for the Universal Studio Theme Park in the Sentosa IR. They wouldn't make a cent in the current economic downturn. That is probably why the Casino Regulatory Authority of Singapore authorised the 400 more gaming tables. And don't bet against the casino opening second. It'll be the first. Now I wonder if the $100 fee for entry into the casino for locals will not be reduced, or even lifted altogether.

After all, desperate times demand true action.

Image: morgueFile.com. Author:Kevin Rosseel