• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Singapore is winning big thanks to the new casinos

GoFlyKiteNow

Alfrescian
Loyal
Updated Sunday, August 29, 2010 9:35 pm TWN, By Seah Chiang Nee, The Star/Asia News Network

Singapore is winning big thanks to the new casinos

Singapore is winning big thanks to the new casinos in the city-state. But the high-rollers are also losing large amounts of money, causing consternation among the public. The gambling habit, it seems, has become deeply entrenched.

Six months ago, Singapore's history took a crucial turn when it opened the first of its two casino resorts that cost US$10 billion to build.

Today, both of them seem to be packing the crowd in, including high rollers who believe that they have to bet big to win big.

So far the winners are Marina Bay Sands (MBS) and Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) and, of course, the Singapore economy.

Like their peers elsewhere, the new industry here is beginning to accumulate something resembling its own Hall of Misfortunes.

On top of the list is local businessman Henry Quek, who lost SG$26.3 million after a few day's work at the baccarat table in the Malaysian-owned Sentosa casino.

According to Today newspaper, his misadventure began in March only a few weeks after its launch when he was granted a credit line of SG$500,000.

It was eventually raised higher and higher to SG$2 million, and his losses mounted.

At one stage, his girl companion cried for the casino to stop providing him any more credit.

In a single day, the managing director of a seafood-processing and trading company had lost SG$18million, playing at SG$400,000 a hand.

Quek, in his 50s, initially lost a larger amount, but managed to reduce it to SG$16.3 million, a close friend told a reporter.

He has since paid part of it, but still owes the operators SG$11 million.

The mustachioed Quek is also the president of the Seafood Industries Association Singapore. Normally loud-talking, he is now rather quiet, according to his high-roller friend.

There have been others. Two days later, Chinese newspapers reported that Taiwan pop star Jay Chou lost SG$2 million playing at Marina Bay.

An online source said 12 gamblers had chalked up unpaid losses of SG$5-11 million, and about 200 Malaysians and Chinese still had unpaid losses ranging from SG$500,000 to SG$2 million.

Blogger Merl Haggard reported he knew of another wealthy Singaporean who was worth “at least SG$300 million” also lost SG$26 million at Sentosa, but there has been no confirmation.

Despite disincentives, Singaporeans are believed to make up one third of the total casino gamblers.

The rest are foreigners who come from Malaysia, China and the region.

There have been winners, too, but unlike losers — the big ones are often publicized. The most common are winnings of SG$100,000 to SG$200,000 each.

Early this month, an ethnic Chinese from Indonesia won the biggest jackpot payout of SG$2.2 million.

In April, a French tourist struck a SG$1.66 million jackpot.

Today, the sentiment has changed dramatically compared to the gloomy projections just before the launch, when most analysts were predicting failure.

Some even labeled the investment a potential disaster. Today, the opposite is happening.

The two casinos are earning more than SG$16 million a day — or a prospective SG$6 billion a year.

Resort World Sentosa alone could hit a SG$1-billion profit jackpot in 2010.

Revenue-wise, the overall big winner is Singapore, which has attracted some four million new tourists.

It has become the second biggest casino market in Asia after Macau, and looks set to replace Las Vegas as the second biggest revenue earner after Macau in three years' time

Despite its size, Quek's story pales in comparison to the tragedy of Chia Teck Leng, nicknamed Singapore's “King of Gamblers.”

In 2005, Chia, 44, was sentenced to 42 years imprisonment for committing the largest commercial fraud in history.

The then finance executive of an MNC, he swindled four banks of SG$117 million to feed his gambling habit.

He gambled big and lost big in casinos in Australia, Britain, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Cambodia and the Philippines, which sometimes flew him there in private jets.

Chia's precise losses were not known, but it was not too far behind the world record held by US businessman, Terrence Watanable, who lost US$127 million over a year in Las Vegas.

The others included Zhenli Ye Gon, who blew US$125 million at The Strip and Australian billionaire, Kerry Packer, who reportedly lost up to US$40 million in 10 months.

The recent cases of mega-losses have stirred up more public derision than sympathy.

But the society's overriding concern remains the potential negative impact on society at large.

Before the casinos came, Singaporeans were already spending SG$6 billion a year on legal gambling, plus another SG$1.5 billion in cruises and offshore casinos.

Two years ago, a government survey found about 1.95 million Singaporean adults — or 54 percent — had indulged in some form of gambling in the previous year.

“Pathological gamblers” make up to 1.6 percent, or 56,000 people.

To minimize widespread casino gambling, the government has imposed a SG$100 entry fee per day, and allows families to apply to stop a habitual gambling member from going in.

Has it worked? It does not seem so.

Sadly, up to a million Singaporeans are predicted to want to try their luck this year.
 

longbow

Alfrescian
Loyal
Poorly written article. While Merl has excellent info, it is not right for Seah to quote Merl and use it as supporting fact in his article.

When he is mentioned as a blogger, I would assumed that bloggers are someone with a site where they expouse their POV. Often they are clearly identified or at the very least their blogs and links gives an indication of their political leanings. In this case, Merl just posts on the forum occasionally.

We know Merl has good inside info - but it is another to quote him as a new source.
 
Top