TR EMERITUS

By Bernice Han from AFP Singapore opens the first of two casinos on Sunday as part of a campaign to attract millions of new tourists, but the rich city-state is not touting itself as a rival to glitzy Macau or Las Vegas. Resorts World Sentosa, owned by Malaysian gaming giant Genting, will also feature Southeast Asia's first Universal Studios movie theme park. The second casino complex, Marina Bay Sands, is currently being completed by US-based Las Vegas Sands and is expected to open in April. Officials hope the casinos will help Singapore achieve its target of 17 million visitors a year generating over 21 billion US dollars by 2015, boosting the services sector and reducing the role of manufacturing in the economy. Visitor arrivals fell to 9.7 million visitors in 2009, down 4.3 percent from 2008, but a surge in the final quarter of last year boosted the tourism industry's hopes that 2010 numbers will be better. The arrival numbers include tourists using the island city-state as a jumpoff point to other Asian destinations. Singapore hopes tourists will stay a little longer -- and spend a lot more -- as a result of the casino resorts. Resorts World Sentosa is aimed at families, while Marina Bay Sands, located next to the banking district, is designed to cater to the corporate and convention crowd. "Singapore's new casinos open up Southeast Asia as an entirely new market for multiple-billion dollar integrated entertainment," Jonathan Galaviz, an independent gaming industry analyst based in Las Vegas, told AFP. A marine life park, a maritime museum, a spa and two more hotels will be launched at Resorts World Sentosa after 2010. Singapore gave the green light for casino gambling in 2005, setting off a flurry of construction that went ahead despite the city-state slipping into recession in 2008 due to the impact of the global crisis. The two "integrated resorts" will cost a total of over 10 billion dollars to build. Unlike larger neighbours Malaysia and Indonesia, highly urbanised Singapore has no major natural destinations to offer and relies on man-made attractions such as shopping malls and wildlife parks to pull in tourists. Galaviz said the Singapore casino resorts are not expected to compete "substantially" with gambling-driven Macau because the resorts are pitched at visitors who prioritise entertainment over gambling. The success of Singapore's casino resorts will be measured by how the attractions outside of the gaming rooms perform, he added. "It's important for everybody to remember that more than 90 percent of (Singapore resorts' facilities) have nothing to do with casino gaming," he said. "The more important metric to gauge the ultimate success of the (resorts) will be the non-casino revenue such as hotel rooms, retail, and restaurants." Galaviz says Singapore's gaming market is expected to generate revenues of two billion dollars annually, which will be significantly lower than what Singapore residents already spend annually in legal gaming. Figures from Singapore Totalisator Board, the city-state's sole legal betting operator, showed 5.77 billion dollars were wagered on horse racing, football matches, among others, in the year to March 2009. - AFP  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent Embarrassed by its latest flip-flop in letting the three Singapore Polytechnic students off with only a caution for posting racist remarks on Facebook, the Singapore police now sends a veiled threat to anonymous netizens posting on the internet. In a brief statement released to the press yesterday, it said: "The three boys have since apologised for their actions and the offensive online page and forum removed. Police would like to remind the public that it takes a serious view of acts that can threaten the social harmony in Singapore. This includes those who do so hiding behind a shroud of anonymity afforded by the Internet." The three were arrested almost immediately following a police report lodged against them by a National Serviceman Mr Prhabagaran who has said that he did not want to see them jailed. In the aftermath of the arrests which sent shockwaves across cyberspace, the Commander of Bedok Police Division and Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Police Teo Chun Ching said: “Police take a very stern view of acts that could threaten the social harmony in Singapore. The Internet may be a convenient medium to express one’s views but members of the public should bear in mind that they are no less accountable for their actions online.” [Source: Straits Times, 4 February 2010] However, when police reports were lodged against Lighthouse Evangelism Senior Pastor Rony Tan for making disparaging remarks about Buddhism and Taoism a week later, the police did not arrest him as what they did to the three Chinese youths. Instead, he was hauled up for questioning by the ISD and let off with a slap on the wrist after he apologized to representatives from the Buddhist and Taoist faiths. With due respect to ACP Teo, the greatest threat to social harmony in Singapore does not come from anonymous netizens who have little credibility or influence, but from religious leaders like Pastor Tan who commands a loyal following. It is religious leaders who should bear in mind the fact that they are no less accountable for their actions though they are well-established leaders in their respective communities. In fact, they should be held on to a higher standard precisely because they are in a position of authority to influence others. The racist remarks made by the three Chinese youths have little impact on the rest of Singapore compared to the outrage triggered by Pastor Tan's words: who is a greater threat to social harmony in Singapore? The Singapore police should not pick on "small fries" like anonymous netizens which will make them appear no better than bullies. They should target the real culprits who are generating social tension and conflicts in Singapore with their irresponsible, divisive and offensive remarks. The “release” of the three youths is nothing more than a political move to appease angry Singaporeans and doesn’t change the fact that Pastor Rony Tan was spared the punishment he deserved under the law because: “A well-established Christian leader being charged under the Sedition Act would send shockwaves through the Christian community and put the community under siege.” [Source: Straits Times, 12 February 2010]  Read More →

Dear Ms Chua Mui Hoong,   I refer to your Straits Times article dated 11 Feb 2010. (read article here)   You said that rising HDB resale prices is not an issue to the majority of 880,000 flat owners.  However, there are perhaps 2 million or more children living in those 880,00 flats who would one day grow up and become buyers of flats themselves.  Rising HDB prices will be an issue to them and by extension an issue to their parents who are the owners of the 880,00 flats today.   You provided figures to show that there are about 95,600 potential buyers in the resale market with only 37,205 actually making the purchase.  Perhaps the remainder 58,395 were forced out of the market by high prices which means there could be a lot of unsatisfied demand.   You said that old citizens should cheer PRs for boosting demand.  But when demand is boosted beyond what supply can meet, prices shoot up making life miserable for younger citizens.  Old citizens have reason for concern because someday, their younger relatives will end up paying for this price increase.   You declared your hope of selling your HDB flat at a price higher than what you paid for.  But have you spared a thought for your poor nephews and nieces who would one day end up paying a lot more for your gain?   You said that the HDB flat after five years is bought and sold like any commodity.  But the flat is not just another commodity, it is also a necessity much like rice is.  When the price of rice shot up by 30% in April 2008 due to the reduction in global supply, Singaporeans panicked.  Likewise when HDB price shoots up, Singaporeans have reason to panick.   You said that good rental yields speak well of the health of the resale market.  But it also reflects the imbalance between supply and demand for housing.   You said that rising prices is geniunely caused by high levels of immigration.  Therefore, PRs are not scapegoats but are part of the high levels of immigration that is the reason behind price increases.   You said that the spike is short term since the flow of foreigners should slow.  But the slowing of foreigner intake will be slow, as indicated by the authorities and the building of new flats to accomodate those already here does not seem too fast either.  Hence, it remains to be seen whether the spike will be short term.  Short or long term, how do we set right the damage caused by the gross and sudden increase over the last three years?   You said that spooking the HDB resale market will cause a fall in asset values that will affect the houshold's sense of wealth and retirement security.  First, we need to acknowledge the fact that HDB prices have shot up by 40% over three short years which can amount to a hefty price increase of a hundred to two hundred thousand dollars.  That's a hell lot more money to fork out that will wipe out years perhaps decades of savings.  Not only is this grossly unfair to the buyer, we are simply robbing Peter to pay Paul which adds absolutely nothing to the nation as a whole.  This runaway price situation is badly in need of a rein in and that hardly amounts to spooking.  Secondly, we need to also recognise that this sense of wealth and retirement security is only felt by the heads of the households because each and every child in those households will feel neither wealth nor retirement security.  Instead, they will feel impoverishment and a sense of hopelessness as prices climb ever so out of their reach, many years down the road.   We cannot think short term without looking at long term implications.  We cannot just think about our own selfish gains without considering the burden this places on others.  We should recognise that money doesn't drop from the sky and that wealth due to rising flat prices is not real wealth being created but merely wealth taken from the poor buyer forced to pay higher prices.  This is akin to gambling where money is merely transferred from one person to another, not created.  But while we can choose not to gamble, we can't chooose not to buy a flat when the time comes for us to set up a family.  Let us not make losers out of buyers just as we do not wish to become losers ourselves when we sell our flats.     Thank you     Ng Kok Lim   Other articles by Ng Kok Lim: >> A rebuttal to PAP supporter Dr Yik Keng Yeong >> Public housing: room for pragmatism? >> No issue with opposition's strategy >> Letter to MM Lee on daft Singaporeans casting protest votes against the PAP >> A rebuttal to Law Minister Shanmugam  Read More →